M. Scott Peck’s book The People of the Lie is complex and deals with an entirely difficult situation – evil – while at the same time showing how evil can affect the most simplistic parts of life, and the everyday, average, human person. On page 44 Peck states the purpose of the book – “to encourage us to take our human life so seriously that we also take human evil far more seriously…to recognize evil for what it is.” In doing this Peck not only states his belief that evil is a part of life – however oppositional to it – and that in order to understand life, and possibly the meaning behind it, we must take the good with the evil, and not discount any one part. The title of the book comes from the fact that those who are evil tend to “hide their motives with lies” (p105) – that “those who are evil are masters of disguise” (p 104). The evilness is not always obvious, but instead inherent in a succession of lies or acts that lead to the growth of evil. Peck uses various cases of patients of psychotherapy, his own or that of his colleagues, to explain not only the ways in which evil may manifest itself, but also the manner in which his own learning of the concept of evil came about.
The manner of evil is not necessarily in committing the sin, but in refusing to acknowledge that a sin has been committed. It is in the failure to inwardly recognize wrongdoings or omissions of truth to oneself that evil occurs – found in the ‘spiritual fat cats…the self-righteous who think that they are without sin because they are unwilling to suffer the discomfort of significant self-examination’ (p 72). Peck is quick to differentiate between one who sins and one who is evil – the evilness does not exist in the sin itself, for one may be a sinner and recognize it quite strongly – but the evil occurs when the sin, or the wrongdoing, is not acknowledged as such, and the person feels to be absent of any sin whatsoever. It cannot be measured in degree or worth – one evil act may not be more evil than another simply because of its contents.
The successions of lies, or inability to recognize such evildoings as apparent are shown in many of the cases. It may be clear in a case such as Bobby’s, a blatant ignorance of the fact that the gift of a suicide weapon may not be the proper gift for a young boy – or it may be subtle, in the case of Roger, whose parents repeatedly fail to see that his problem is really their own, and twist the words of the psychiatrist so that it becomes the doctor’s fault. The second case, that of subtlety, is seen only when the facts are added together, and the whole picture is looked at, in order to designate the definition of evil. Many of the cases show in detail that the existence of evil not as necessarily in the patient himself, but in the actions and ways of his parents. In these cases, the ‘victims’ of evil have various phobias, depression, underachievements, or codependencies that are the initial cause for psychotherapy – and often, the case may be that these symptoms are thought to have originated in the patient himself, or as a result of an underlying genetic disorder. In many of the cases, the parents or other types of caretakers (such as the wife of a ‘passive’ man as explored in the case of Hartley and Sarah) are the key operators of the use of evil. They are unable to see their children as separate beings, but rather as an extension of themselves whom they can mold and create.
The first question that Peck puts light on is whether evil is a symptom of neurosis or a moral dilemma. He discusses the differences, historically and inherently, between the scientific world and the religious world. Up until recently, the scientific world, namely psychology, has been unable to deal with the concept of evil, as it entails a process of judgment that has characteristically been left up to the religious world, those who determine morals, to deal with. However, in order to truly understand evil, there must be a compromise made between the two disciplines – to understand the psychological AND the moral aspects of a person’s life. Rather than simply coexisting, Peck points out, science and religion must intertwine and work together on the topic of evil.
Peck also sheds light on the fact that it is not only the neurotic, or those who are gravely mentally ill, that experience evil – it happens “routinely, as we come in contact with human crises”. (p 86) He consistently mentions that ‘healthy’ people have a strong aversion to evil – even revulsion when encountering it in others, especially in the psychotherapeutic field. A young child points out to Peck that the word ‘evil’ is ‘live’ backwards – which leads Peck to mention that evil is the opposite of life – at least, a healthy life.
Religious ideas are touched upon throughout the book, particularly those of the Christian faith – which the author explains in the introduction is not necessarily biased, but only his relative context of understanding the situation of evil. His exploration of the existence of the devil, through possessions and exorcism, and through cases such as the first that is explored, about George, who is obsessed with thoughts of death and compulsions, and makes a pact with the devil that concerns not only his own life but his son’s, is short, but explicative. He refers to the devil as “the Father of Lies” – perhaps indicating a parallel between good and evil, as God is generally thought of as the Father of goodness.
Interestingly, in the case of Hartley and Sarah, Sarah is so adamant about her relationship with the Lord and the suffering that he has bestowed upon her. Not only does this case show an extremely codependent couple – but that evilness may be present even in those who seem to comply with the Lord, or other sort of moral, religious ideas. Sarah claims that she is suffering because of Hartley, the burden that he imposes on her – but does not realize, or even care to be shown, that her words and behavior are perhaps irrevocably harming her husband. She does not recognize her evil, though she claims to be so religious – which would indicate that she feels herself to be free of sin, or in the very least at a point where she repents consistently.
Peck briefly touches upon the concept of group evil, particularly as noted in his chapter on the MyLai massacre in Vietnam. He mentions facts of desensitization for soldiers, as they are seeing bloody corpses and directly experiencing horrible situations daily – which make it possible for the mindset of murdering helpless women and children to occur. He also mentions that stress is a great catalyst of evil – that only under great duress evil appears to exist, particularly group evil. Interestingly, in this part Peck only vaguely touches on the Nazi regime as experienced in WWII – possibly because of a lack of personal knowledge, or because the Vietnam War has more recent effects, or perhaps because the Nazi situation is so naturally determined as evil, and he wanted to shed light on another, less obvious scenario.
Peck claims that the only ‘cure’ for evil is to exert power over it, or the individual in question – not to treat it with gentle kindness or other therapeutic means. For example, the case with Bobby, whose parents gave him the gun with which his brother had committed suicide for Christmas – they consistently claimed that they did not know better because they were working people, and rejected many of Peck’s suggestions and questions based on the fact that he was an educated man, and therefore they were not of the same mind as him, that they had an excuse to not realize what they had done. Peck has the ability to exert power over them in the way of intellect, to convince them that the best cure for their son is for him to get out of their house – and this power is the only method that seems to work. Peck uses this case toward his later understanding of evil, for he states that at the time of working with Bobby’s parents, he did not recognize the innate evil of the situation, and did not fully understand his revulsion to working with them. He uses this to explain the previously mentioned revulsion that healthy people feel in the face of evil.
The feelings of guilt, as shown in the case with George, who is obsessed with thoughts of death and compulsions, and makes a pact with the devil that concerns not only his own life but his son’s, are feelings that lead one away from truly being ‘evil’ in Peck’s sense of the word. They are the feelings that let one recognize the sin in himself, whether or not they are directly allowing the true nature of the sin to come forth, or have a general guilt over the subject. The recognition of guilt, and the admission of it, is the first step towards overcoming the lies that cover up the evil, and that are incessantly a part of prolonged evildoings. To be guilty and admit it is to no longer lie.
I must say that in this very serious political time, this book has brought a new way of looking at things for me – especially since President Bush’s consistent definition of those who commit terrorist acts as ‘evil’. I no longer have a passive definition of the word – by all means, I have reached a place within myself that has great feeling when the concept of evil is entertained. Does Saddam Hussein really qualify as evil? His actions, whatever they really are, are not without a great deal of thought – and he gives no means to show that he is lying about anything. While there may be some sins of omission in dealing with specific political matters such as weapons inspection, there does not seem to be a point at which Hussein lies about his feelings toward the U.S., or anything of the sort. Bush may see Hussein’s view of America/the West as evil – because it is in disagreement with everything he stands for – but does that make it evil in Peck’s sense of the word? Can we really stand here and believe that Hussein is a cohort of the devil? His actions may be reprehensible, his standpoint extremely at odds with the rest of the world, but I believe that Bush is using the fear factor of the word evil to describe a man who is outside of his schema, who does not fit into his inner blueprint of the world.
On the other hand, Peck definitely stands by his belief that evil is inherent in the very people that surround us – our friends and neighbors – so who is to say that it doesn’t exist in such a powerful man? I feel that Hitler is definitely an evil man – but then, he failed to recognize that his sins against over 6 million human beings (and more, as those killed in the Holocaust were not the only ones affected by his doings) were actual sins, were a fact of moral consequence – and therefore, the lie to himself that covers the evil is apparent. But does Hussein invest in this lie? Peck’s description of the Johnson administration in the decisions of the Vietnam war are very close to the way Bush’s ideas and administrative techniques may be viewed in the years after this inevitable conflict with Iraq. Perhaps it is the Bush administration, or at the very least the United States government, that is a seat of evil rather than that which we deem to be the ‘enemy’.
papers and essays · home at last · life at depaul