I had made considerable progress on this writing when my editor jolted me with an editor-like question. Most often this is not good. Of course, in the long run editors do what they do in service of any "masterpiece" we mistakenly think we are creating. But in the short-run, I dread my editor's intruding observations and questions.
This was particularly bothersome when her question had to do with the title! That's right, the title! And so, when I "innocently" asked, "And what is your problem with my title?" she wasted no time getting to the point. "Two words," she said. I, in turn, wanting very much to carry on with my train of thought—such as it was, and as ill-conceived as it may have appeared in her mind. So it was that while she talked, I continued with my assumed naïveté. "And what two words bother you," I asked, while in my mind I knew very well my title consisted of only two words she could conceivably be picking on—"evil" and "madness."
Thus, I began to build my case for using "evil" and "madness," even though I recognized the words did carry a certain vulnerability. Already, I had researched the use of "madness" and felt disappointed that the PDR Medical Dictionary condemned "madness" as "an imprecise and outmoded word best avoided in medical speech and writing."
And so it was I concluded saving "madness" would be a scramble, but what about the word "evil"? Just how vulnerable might "evil" be in the PDR? But with great relief I discovered that the PDR had somehow overlooked "evil" in its list of culprits for writers. However, I knew that while my PDR might be so careless, my editor would not. What would she say about that word, which after all, served to anchor this writing.
With that in mind, I thought it best to investigate how "evil" is defined and fares in the world of politics, psychology, and journalism today. And what did I discover, you may be thinking. Let me put it like this: "Evil" dwells in the same neighborhood as does "madness" within the cautionary world of editors. In other words, a writer must carefully tip-toe in corridors of acceptable usage regarding "evil." Granted, the word does not receive the warning label as does "madness" in my PDR. In fact, the PDR does not mention evil, but that is part of the problem. Evil appears in our society today, with obfuscation and general uncertainty.
For example, "evil" wears three hats in some quarters where it may be defined as a "mood," as "natural," or "metaphysical." Of course, in any of those usages, "evil" is understood as the worst of all bads. But to seek a definition that fully describes "evil" is fruitless. No wonder that in one TV series, three characters are needed to investigate the church's fictional portrayal of unexplained mysteries, miracles, and demon possessions.
In this fictional world of television, "evil" eludes a skeptical psychologist, a Catholic priest-in-training, and a scientist. The drama of that TV series portrays a fictional search for our understanding of "evil."
However, even this reference to the search for understanding evil did not escape my editor's point concerning the fallibility of my title. Still, I persevered! "Of course," I began in my rebuttal to the well-intended editor, "of course," I said, "the title lacks for precision and respectability. However, that is just my point. I am attempting to describe something that in itself is as messy, indescribable, defenseless, unbelievable, and in general as problematic as my title."
"And what is this you are trying to describe?" my editor asked. My knowing she would not let the matter rest with an evasive unclear response, I moved directly to say what was on my mind when I chose "the banality of evil" and "our descent into madness." I want, in this writing, to name:
"There are no acceptable words," I concluded, "and the questionable reference to 'evil' and 'madness' may be the only ones I know to name this awful suffering we now must endure. This is one of the ways I can resist; else, I will myself be overcome by the evil and madness." "Then we go with it," she said, as she added, "your title obviously is indebted to the work of Hannah Arendt who gave us the description of evil as banal when she observed the trial of Adolf Eichmann."
And, of course, she was correct in referencing the work of Arendt who observed the 1963 trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem. I am indeed indebted to Arendt who forever left the world with her reference to the banality of evil at the hands of a bureaucrat who implemented the details that resulted in the Holocaust and killed millions of individuals. (See Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.)
Of course, Arendt did not mean in any way to dismiss the evil done by Eichmann. He did, indeed, implement the details that resulted in the Holocaust and killed millions of individuals. However, such evil as Eichmann committed can not be fully understood as banal. But, Arendt's point of view is important for our understanding of this present in which we are living. She made the keen observation that Eichmann appeared as the neighbor next door who was "doing his job," his "duty," "obeying orders," "obeying the law." In using the word "banal," Arendt reminded us that evil is a madness often not observed. Rather, the madness of evil may begin with the simple acts of daily life when decisions are made, supposedly in the service of efficiency and profit-making, where suffering is out of sight beyond the horizon of consciousness and conscience.
Banal evil occurs. Arendt named it. And my writing here is one attempt to question what madness holds us out of sight of the evil until it no longer is banal.
This was particularly bothersome when her question had to do with the title! That's right, the title! And so, when I "innocently" asked, "And what is your problem with my title?" she wasted no time getting to the point. "Two words," she said. I, in turn, wanting very much to carry on with my train of thought—such as it was, and as ill-conceived as it may have appeared in her mind. So it was that while she talked, I continued with my assumed naïveté. "And what two words bother you," I asked, while in my mind I knew very well my title consisted of only two words she could conceivably be picking on—"evil" and "madness."
Thus, I began to build my case for using "evil" and "madness," even though I recognized the words did carry a certain vulnerability. Already, I had researched the use of "madness" and felt disappointed that the PDR Medical Dictionary condemned "madness" as "an imprecise and outmoded word best avoided in medical speech and writing."
And so it was I concluded saving "madness" would be a scramble, but what about the word "evil"? Just how vulnerable might "evil" be in the PDR? But with great relief I discovered that the PDR had somehow overlooked "evil" in its list of culprits for writers. However, I knew that while my PDR might be so careless, my editor would not. What would she say about that word, which after all, served to anchor this writing.
With that in mind, I thought it best to investigate how "evil" is defined and fares in the world of politics, psychology, and journalism today. And what did I discover, you may be thinking. Let me put it like this: "Evil" dwells in the same neighborhood as does "madness" within the cautionary world of editors. In other words, a writer must carefully tip-toe in corridors of acceptable usage regarding "evil." Granted, the word does not receive the warning label as does "madness" in my PDR. In fact, the PDR does not mention evil, but that is part of the problem. Evil appears in our society today, with obfuscation and general uncertainty.
For example, "evil" wears three hats in some quarters where it may be defined as a "mood," as "natural," or "metaphysical." Of course, in any of those usages, "evil" is understood as the worst of all bads. But to seek a definition that fully describes "evil" is fruitless. No wonder that in one TV series, three characters are needed to investigate the church's fictional portrayal of unexplained mysteries, miracles, and demon possessions.
In this fictional world of television, "evil" eludes a skeptical psychologist, a Catholic priest-in-training, and a scientist. The drama of that TV series portrays a fictional search for our understanding of "evil."
However, even this reference to the search for understanding evil did not escape my editor's point concerning the fallibility of my title. Still, I persevered! "Of course," I began in my rebuttal to the well-intended editor, "of course," I said, "the title lacks for precision and respectability. However, that is just my point. I am attempting to describe something that in itself is as messy, indescribable, defenseless, unbelievable, and in general as problematic as my title."
"And what is this you are trying to describe?" my editor asked. My knowing she would not let the matter rest with an evasive unclear response, I moved directly to say what was on my mind when I chose "the banality of evil" and "our descent into madness." I want, in this writing, to name:
- the destruction of our democracy,
- the rape and pillage of our planet,
- the dehumanizing suffering of human beings and animals whose habitats are being destroyed,
- the betrayal of our international allies,
- the disruption of democratic institutions that have served us for decades if not centuries, the deportation of individuals who have no homes to go to,
- and the dismantling of institutions such as Social Security,
- the invasion of our universities with police-state-like tactics,
- the spread of misinformation and terror,
- the US becoming a totalitarian police state,
- and the eruption of psychological mistrust and animosity invading families and other social groups.
"There are no acceptable words," I concluded, "and the questionable reference to 'evil' and 'madness' may be the only ones I know to name this awful suffering we now must endure. This is one of the ways I can resist; else, I will myself be overcome by the evil and madness." "Then we go with it," she said, as she added, "your title obviously is indebted to the work of Hannah Arendt who gave us the description of evil as banal when she observed the trial of Adolf Eichmann."
And, of course, she was correct in referencing the work of Arendt who observed the 1963 trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem. I am indeed indebted to Arendt who forever left the world with her reference to the banality of evil at the hands of a bureaucrat who implemented the details that resulted in the Holocaust and killed millions of individuals. (See Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.)
Of course, Arendt did not mean in any way to dismiss the evil done by Eichmann. He did, indeed, implement the details that resulted in the Holocaust and killed millions of individuals. However, such evil as Eichmann committed can not be fully understood as banal. But, Arendt's point of view is important for our understanding of this present in which we are living. She made the keen observation that Eichmann appeared as the neighbor next door who was "doing his job," his "duty," "obeying orders," "obeying the law." In using the word "banal," Arendt reminded us that evil is a madness often not observed. Rather, the madness of evil may begin with the simple acts of daily life when decisions are made, supposedly in the service of efficiency and profit-making, where suffering is out of sight beyond the horizon of consciousness and conscience.
Banal evil occurs. Arendt named it. And my writing here is one attempt to question what madness holds us out of sight of the evil until it no longer is banal.
RSS Feed