existential, humanistic, and transpersonal perspectives on evil

Existential, Humanistic, and Transpersonal Perspectives on Evil

Louis Hoffman, PhD

Overview• Introduction

• Historical & Religious Perspectives

• Psychological Perspectives

• Social Psychological Perspectives

• Existential, Humanistic, and Transpersonal Perspectives

• An Existential-Humanistic-Integrative Perspective

• Use in Politics

• Ethics and Awareness

~ Rollo May (1982, p. 20)

“I am not predicting doom. But I am stating that if we ignore evil, we will move closer to doom, and the growth and triumph of evil may well result.”

Introduction

~ Richard Bernstein (2005, p. 15-16)

We must be wary and extremely skeptical about any form of religious reification or essentialism. When we examine the world religions, we find that there are competing conceptions of good and evil that are internal to these traditions. We should be critical of those who appeal to their religious beliefs as if they provided unambiguous and univocal justification for their moral certainties.

Historical & Religious Perspectives

• Religious origins of evil

• Contemporary Western conceptions of evil still largely connected to the Judeo-Christian religions.

• Internal variations on view of evil

• In Western thought, the concept of evil is heavily influenced by dualism

• Theodicy: How can an all-powerful, good God allow for evil

• Types of evil:

• Natural evil: Floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters

• Moral evil: Evil emerging from human beings


• Judaism

• Evil is connected to human action and/or natural evil

• With human action, restoration is emphasized

• With natural evil, there is the struggle with theodicy

• Common view: People who suffer in this life, rewarded in the next

• Kushner (1981) also connects to God’s limitations


• Christianity - Most common and influential views

• Evil rooted in “original sin” (Internal)

• People can choose evil, but cannot take responsibility for good.

• Sin connected to free will

• Human nature corrupt; spiritual good

• Evil and the devil and demons (External)


• Four Alternate Christian Views:

• Evil is beyond human understanding; part of the mystery of God

• Good not possible or cannot be understood without evil; they are interdependent.

• God’s limitations (similar to Kushner, 1981; see particularly process theology)

• Considered as heretical by most of Christianity

• Humans created morally immature because it is intrinsically better when morality is earned through struggle (Hick, 1981)


• Eastern Religious Views

• Evil is not as likely to be understood in dualistic terms: good versus evil.

• Some would argue Eastern religious do not really have a concept of evil comparable to what there is in Western thought.

• Something is lost in translation when Eastern ideas forced into Western language of evil.

• Evil not as likely to be an external force

• Evil is part of the lifecycle or of life

• What gets termed evil is a natural part of life.

• Different from Western natural evil; more akin to suffering


• Islam

• Though in Judeo-Christian tradition, rejects idea of original sin

• Evil connected with free will; people are accountable to Allah


• Theology

• Much of theology is an apologetic to explain why God is not responsible for sin or evil.

Psychological Perspectives• Relevant Psychological Ideas

• Freud not very interested in language of evil

• Freud’s negative view of human nature

• Psychological explanations (such as needs repression) connected to behavior that could be labeled “evil”

• Evil becomes more complex than what “free will” can account for

• Evil projected upon demons or devils

Psychological Perspectives• Jung

• Less negative view of human nature

• Closer to a concept of evil

• Shadow

• Shadow itself not evil, but may influence what is labeled or viewed as evil

• Through what is disavowed in self; projecting one’s own evil impulses or ideas onto others or other groups

• Compare Freud — project on devils and demons

• Through influence on behavior

Psychological Perspectives• Behavioral/Cognitive-Behavioral

• Behavioral influences, rewards/punishments

• Beck (1999) focused more on hate than evil, but there are parallels

• Rooted in cognitive distortions

• Example: Dichotomous thinking, exaggeration connected to violence

• Distorted thinking of others as aggressors, immoral, etc

• Dehumanization of others and groups

Psychological Perspective

• Evil, biology, and diagnosis

• Biological determinism or biological flaw

• Diagnoses

• Antisocial Personality Disorder

• Cultural issues

• Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Themes Thus Far…

• Category of “evil” in Western thought

• Person

• Cause (i.e., external forces such as demons, devils, or forces in nature)

~ Donald Moss (2003b, p. xix)

…whenwehate-racistly,homophobically,misogynistically-wedonothateasisolatedindividuals.Rather,wehateaspartofagroup,notinthe<irstpersonsingular,butinthe<irstpersonplural.

Social Psychological Perspectives

• Zimbardo states, ““Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize, or destroy innocent others-or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf” (Zimbardo, 2004, p. 5).

• Note the shift to labeling behavior, not people

• Not completely new, but important

Social Psychology of Evil

• Dispositional versus situational causes of evil:

• Dispositional: Internal factors within the person

• Situational: Social, systemic, and contextual influences

• Individual versus collective responsibility

Social Psychology of Evil• Need Frustration—Social Context

• Freud’s needs frustration versus social psychology’s need frustration

• Relational and community needs (Staub, 2004)

• Terror Management Theory

• Community and self-esteem as protective factors; disconnections bring vulnerability

• Influence of mortality salience

Social Psychology of Evil• Baumeister (1997) four roots of evil:

• Instrumentality - justified as a means to an end

• Threatened Egoism (self-esteem; compare TMT)

• Idealism - “high-minded ideals”

• Compare Schneider’s polarization

• Sadism - enjoyment of hurting others (less social psychological)

~ Paul Tillich (1957, p. 58)

The citizens of a city are not guilty of the crimes committed in their city; but they are guilty as participants in the destiny of man as a whole and in the destiny of their city in particular; for their acts in which freedom was united with destiny have contributed to the destiny in which they participate. They are guilty, not of committing the crimes of which their group is accused, but of contributing to the destiny in which these crimes happened.

~ Tom Greening, (as cited in Claypool, 2010)

I finally went to a concentration camp for the first time in my life last August. Just to be in one was—I wanted to do that, and am glad I did—a very powerful experience. It sort of felt like paying one’s existential dues. There’s a new concept for you: That if you are going to be alive in the 20th century or 21st century, if you are going to claim to be alive and had lived in that time, then what should you be aware of, or in touch with? Certainly, that you are living in a body, that’s important, friends, relatives, and stuff like that, and that your taxes are going to kill people. There’s a whole bunch of existential facts of life that one ought to really deepen, embrace, or acknowledge, even feel existential guilt about.

Existential, Humanistic, and Transpersonal Perspectives

• Humanistic perspectives often have resisted or avoid the concept of evil

• Maslow — questioned the concept of evil or would refer to “Behavior our culture calls evil…” (Maslow, 1999, p. 216)


• Rogers also tended to avoid the topic, but when pushed located evil in culture (Rogers, 1981, 1982)

• Dialogue with Rollo May

• Rogers resisted a public discussion or deeper dialogue


• Transpersonal psychology as similarly avoided the concept of evil

• Daniels (2005), in his attempt at a transpersonal perspective, began with criticizing transpersonal psychology for avoiding the topic

• Integrates humanistic, existential, Jungian, and social constructivist idea


• “‘Evil’ simply describes certain things, whether these are actions, events, persons, values, beliefs, processes or other phenomena.” (Daniels, 2005, p. 95)

• Evil as a label for behavior, not people; critical of idea of a metaphysical reality of evil

• Rogers Conditions of Worth & environment/history

• Projection of unaccepted aspects of self (drawing from Jung and Staub)

An Existential-Humanistic-Integrative Perspective

• Existential perspectives add new ideas and also provide a foundation for integrating various perspectives


• Definition: “evil is any violence, hatred, or destruction aimed at individual people, society, or nature, including processes intended to lead to these activities” (Hoffman, Warner, Gregory, & Fehl, p. 5).

• Would not be more explicit about adding “groups of people” to the definition

• Focused on behavior, not labeling people

• There is some ambiguity here, and limitations with the definition (as there is with any attempt to define evil)


• Becker (1975): evil as inability to accept one’s finiteness

• Finiteness can be interpreted literally (i.e., death) or symbolically (i.e., human limitation)

• Important to be honest about and face these limitations.

• Becker (1973): “What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself” (p. 204).


• The Daimonic — May (1969) and Diamond (1993)

• Similar to Jung’s shadow in many ways.

• Not good or bad in itself

• May (1969) defined as, “any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person” (p. 65)

• Sex

• Power/Influence

• Meaning

• Anger

• When repressed, suppressed, or denied may find expression as “evil”

• Can be used creatively and channeled for positive


• Polarization (Schneider, 2013)

• Though Schneider is generally not explicit in connecting polarization to evil, it is relevant

• Schneider defines polarization as the adherence to one perspective with the utter disregard of any alternative perspectives

• Distinguished from extremism, which can be healthy

• Extremism also be passionate, creative, and even empathetic to differences.


• Existential-Humanistic-Integrative:

• Need frustration

• Terror Management Theory (TMT)

• Cultural group buffer & facing death (Becker)

• Might question self-esteem, especially in cross-cultural perspective. Yet, has some utility.

• Existential givens as connected with needs



• Important to integrate some of Zimbardo’s views on situational influences

• Not situational versus dispositional perspectives, but rather being inclusive of situational and dispositional factors.

• Personal responsibility

• Collective responsibility



• Situational versus dispositional should be considered in context, too (meta-situational)

• Important to consider issues of privilege and power

• Privilege and power give more dispositional responsibly


• Historically, existential perspectives have, at times, focused excessively on the individual; the existential-humanistic-integrative perspective provides a greater balance between the individual and the social/collective.

• A consideration of “evil,” which is more of a socially constructed label, must consider both individual and collective responsibility


• We should not label anything else as evil until we have come to grips with our own potential and impulses toward evil.


• We should not judge anything as evil until we are able to empathize with—not understand, but empathize with—the actions.

• Once this is done, often judgment fades away while retaining recognition of the need for taking/accepting responsibility.


• Response to evil

• Creative use of the daimonic

• Self-awareness

• Contextual and systemic awareness

• Healthy and sustainable meaning

Use in Politics

• Rhetoric of evil

• From the “Axis of Evil” to Isalmophobia

• “Evil” and othering

• Psychologists need to be engaged with the dialogues about what evil is to help prevent harm from the misuses of evil

• According to Hoffman, Warner, Gregory, and Fehl (2011), “it is precisely because ‘evil’ has been so misused that we believe it is essential to talk about the psychology of evil” (p. 265)

Ethics & Awareness

• Rilker (1997) maintains that we have not adequately updated our ethics system since the discovery of the unconscious.

• We have not adequately considered how that which is out of our awareness influences behavior

• In a sense, this suggests an ethical mandate for depth therapy

Ethics & Awareness

• Our legal and ethical systems also focus excessively on individual responsibility while inadequately considering or ignoring collective responsibility

Applications

• Existential shattering after experiencing “evil”

Applications

• Police violence

Applications

• Clients experiencing oppression and discrimination

Applications

• Clients who are perpetrators of aggression and violence

References & Resources

Baumeister,R.F.(1997).Evil:Insidehumanviolenceandcruelty.NewYork:A.W.H.Freeman/OwlBook.Baumeister,R.F.&Vohs,K.D.(2004).Fourrootsofevil.InA.G.Miller(Ed.),Thesocialpsychologyofgoodandevil(pp.85-101).NewYork:GuilfordPress.Bernstein,R.J.(2005).The

abuseofevil:Thecorruptionofpoliticsandreligionsince9/11.Malden,MA:PolityPress.Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press. Becker, E. (1975). Escape from evil. New York: Free Press. Bohart,A.C.,Held,B.S.,Mendelowitz,E.,&Schneider,K.J.(Eds.).(2012).Humanity’sdarkside:Evil,destructiveexperience,andpsychotherapy.Washington,DC:American

PsychologicalAssociation.Claypool,T.(2010).Onbecominganexistentialpsychologist:Thejourneysofcontemporaryleaders.DoctoralDissertation(UniversityoftheRockies).Diamond,S.A.(1996).Anger,Madness,andtheDaimonic:ThePsychologicalGenesisofViolence,Evil,andCreativity.NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Ellens,J.H.(Eds.).(2011).Explainingevil(Vol.1-3).SantaBarbara,CA:Praeger.Hick,J.(1966).EvilandtheGodoflove.NewYork:Harper&Row.Hick,J.(1981).AnIreneantheodicy.InS.T.Davis(Ed.),Encounteringevil:Liveoptionsintheodicy(pp.40-52).Atlanta,GA:JohnKnoxPress.Hoffman,L.,Patz-Clark,D.,Looney,D.,&Knight,S.K.(2007,August).Historicalperspectivesandcontemporaryneedsinthepsychologyofevil:Psychologicalandinterdisciplinary

perspectives.Presentedatthe115thAnnualConventionoftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation,SanFrancisco,CA.(Availableathttps://www.academia.edu/1707083/Historical_perspectives_and_contemporary_needs_in_the_psychology_of_evil_Psychological_and_interdisciplinary_perspectives)

Hoffman,L.,Warner,H.J.,Buck,C.,&Fehl,S.(2007,August).Existential-integrativeperspectivesonthepsychologyofevil:Clinicalimplications.Presentedatthe1stAnnualSocietyforHumanisticPsychologyConference,SanFrancisco,CA.(Availableathttps://www.academia.edu/1707086/Existential-integrative_perspectives_on_the_psychology_of_evil_Clinical_implications)

Hoffman,L.,Warner,H.J.,Gregory,C.,&Fehl,S.(2011).Existential-integrativeperspectivesonthepsychologyofevil.InJ.H.Ellens(Ed.),Explainingevil(Vol.3:Approaches,responses,solutions;pp.263-286).SantaBarbara,CA:Praeger.

Keen,S.(1991).Theenemymaker.InC.Zweig&J.Abrams(Eds.),Meetingtheshadow:Thehiddenpowerofthedarksideofhumannature(pp.197-202).NewYork:Tarcher/Putnam.Maslow,A.H.(1999).Towardapsychologyofbeing(3rded.).NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.(Originalworkpublished1968)May,R.(1969).Loveandwill.NewYork,NY:Delta.May,R.(1982).Theproblemofevil:AnopenlettertoCarlRogers.JournalofHumanisticPsychology,22,10-21.Rilker, J. H. (1997). Ethics and the discovery of the unconscious. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rogers,C.R.(1981).NotesonRolloMay.Perspectives,2,1.Rogers,C.R.(1982).ReplytoRolloMay’slettertoCarlRogers.JournalofHumanisticPsychology,22,85-89.Schneider,K.J.(2013).Thepolarizedmind:Whyit’skillingusandwhatwecandoaboutit.ColoradoSprings,CO:UniversityProfessorsPress.Solomon,S.,Greenberg,J.,&Pyszczynski,T.(2004).Theculturalanimal:Twentyyearsofterrormanagementtheoryandresearch.InGreenberg,J.,Koole,S.L.,&Pyszczynski,T.

(Eds.),Handbookofexperimentalexistentialpsychology(pp.13-34).NewYork:GuilfordPress.Staub,E.(2004).Basichumanneeds,altruism,andaggression.InA.G.Miller(Ed.),Thesocialpsychologyofgoodandevil(pp.51-84).NewYork:Guilford.Tillich,P.(1957a).Systematictheology(Vol.2).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Zimbardo,P.(2004).Asituationistperspectiveonthepsychologyofevil:Understandinghowgoodpeoplearetransformedintoperpetrators.InA.G.Miller(Ed.),Thesocial

psychologyofgoodandevil(pp.21-50).NewYork:GuilfordPress.Zimbardo,P.(2007).TheLucifereffect:Understandinghowgoodpeopleturnevil.NewYork:RandomHouse.

Discussion

existential, humanistic, and transpersonal perspectives on evil

Documents