Blog Posts

Second Blog Post

This week we talked about chapters in the three books we read. What stood out for me the most the myth of pure evil, and that what is considered evil can depend on what culture you live in (the societal norms in that culture).

The myth of pure evil is the frame of reference we have developed that we use when we think about evil. That frame of reference includes picturing the devil when we think about an evil person. It also entails thinking about acts of evil as senseless harm done to victims who are innocent and done by a perpetrator who gets pleasure out of the inflicting this harm and is intending to do such harm. But that isn’t always the case with evil. Some people who commit evil acts take no pleasure in doing so and think they are doing the greater good. Others do not even think what they are doing is evil. And when it comes to victims, the victim isn’t always innocent. Finally, the harm done isn’t always senseless – that perfect perception of evil isn’t always present.

But why is that frame of reference used? Why do we have that perfect perception of what an evil act is? One day of looking at the different perspectives of an evil act and/or person – specifically the perspective of the perpetrator – shows an individual just how diverse and complicated evil acts are. They happen from all sorts of reasons; from a loss of self-control to feeling as though people of another race have done great harm to your own.

I found it interesting that living in different cultures can change what is perceived as evil. In one culture, there would be no reason to commit a certain evil act, but in another culture that act could be done based on the amount of poverty in that society and the fact that the perpetrator is poor themselves. An example from one of the books was that a violent act was done in a grocery store. Someone’s finger was cut off in order for the person to steal the ring. In a culture where poverty is virtually non-existent (or that society is able to ignore it, which is more often the case) that would bewilder people witnessing or hearing about it. In a culture where poverty is abundant one might look at the act and instantly think the violence is done out of self-preservation – stealing in order to feed, clothe themselves, etc.

As a white woman who hasn’t really experienced other cultures (yikes I know), this is a hard concept for me to wrap my head around. Until I experience other cultures, my mind may, despite my effort to view other perspectives, be stuck on the idea that certain types of violence, such as cutting off a finger in a grocery store, is just – for lack of better words – deranged violence. I may never know what it is like to live in a world of poverty, or other cultural aspects. It is hard to think of gruesome violence in a sensible manner (yeah, I know, my privilege is showing).

It is also important that a theme from the books was looking at the perspective of the perpetrator to understand why evil acts occur – to make sense of just what is evil anyways – and to get rid of our default myth of pure evil.

An article by the Mighty talks about a new character in the Netflix series You called Love, and how her motivation for murder is, most of the time, to protect people she cares about – keep them safe.

It is implied in the article that they are highlighting that this is different from the main character’s motivations.

These differences in motivations are pointing out that evil acts can be committed by perpetrators for different reasons they each possess. Some of which could be understood by society (possibly murders with the motivation to protect) and others not understood by society (Joe’s murder).

themighty.com/2020/01/netflix-renews-you-season-3/

The study done by Kumar and Yadav (2019) aimed to identify the things that lead to violence in youth, and to identify the differences between how youth and police see the youth violence. Youth and police officers in India participated in this study. A youth aggression and violence checklist was used. Police and youth differed in their views on why youth were violent specifically with youth viewing gender discrimination, no freedom of speech, and going through harsh punishment for discipline, as a reason for violence more than police did. Police also differed with youth females on the reasons listed as well as, global warming, human rights violation, and inadequate health care facilities, with the youth females seeing these things as a reason more than police did. There was also one difference between male youth and female youth, in that female youth saw human right violation as more of a reason for youth violence than males did. The study also identified six factors that showed why youth are being violent, other than what they perceive. Those factors are antisocial behaviour, information overload such as social media, unorganized resources, social evils, vulnerable disposition, and situational factors.

This study emphasized that differences in perspectives exist and looked at the perspectives of the perpetrator and police. The results showed that youth consider these reasons to be more present in their rationale for their violence than the police do.

While the Mighty article emphasizes more personal, social reasons for evil acts (protecting a love one), this academic article emphasizes political injustices as reasons for violence, as well as social media exposure, and the youths’ own personality (antisocial behaviour). This could imply that youth in India are acting out in violence in an attempt to fight for the greater good of their own health and safety.

Kumar, S., & Yadav, S. (2019). Youth violence: A discrepancy between police personnel and youth. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 14(1), 211-222.

In the Mighty article the actor for the main character says the violent stalker relationship is there to highlight how society acts towards the abuser and sometimes even takes the blame off the abuser. He also put it as how people on a cultural level will take big steps to love an evil white man. The show itself takes on the perspective of the perpetrator to see just how we perceive this evil white man, when presented with the man’s motivation behind his evil act. This all relates to the readings and discussions from class in how the perspective of the perpetrator needs to be looked at, and how cultural differences lead to differences in perspectives of evil acts.

The Mighty journal makes You stand out as reasons for evil in a more socially driven culture when compared to the academic article that seems to emphasize violence in a more politically driven culture. Showing an example of how different cultures look at acts differently and define evil differently.

Baumeister, R. (1997). Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence. New
York, NY: W.H. Freemand and Company.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New
York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.