Evil, according to Professor Richard Bernstein, is making a comeback—but that isn’t the bad news. In a Monday lecture held at Russell House, Bernstein, the Vera List Professor of Philosophy at New School University, NYC, explained that current conceptualizations of evil are so absolute that they inhibit criticism or meaningful dialogue.
“What do we mean when we use evil as a noun,” Bernstein asked. “We feel that there is no ambiguity, that there can be no compromise with it, that we must fight it to the end.”
Bernstein attributed this tendency to prominent figures both in Iraq and America.
“Today our nation saw evil,” he said, quoting President Bush’s address to the nation after Sept. 11. He compared the quote to a statement from Iraq saying that America had shown its evil intentions and that Iraq would not accept it.
Bernstein stressed that the absolutism that characterizes current thinking about evil is dangerous, addressing the issue in the areas of religion and politics.
According to Bernstein, historically, theologians and philosophers have struggled with the idea of evil, and how to reconcile the appearance of evil with the existence of a god. He argued that even Dostoevsky and Shakespeare have long grappled with understanding evil.
Bernstein claimed that Sept. 11 discourse has had a corrupting influence on religion, and the religious notions of evil because it has posed a static rather than fluid definition of the term.
“Living religions are not monolithic, [and] anybody who speaks in that way is ignorant about their religion,” he said, expanding upon the point that a vibrant religion is one in which there is an ongoing tradition of debate.
He reminded the audience that although the Bible’s Book of Job was often quoted as the authority on good and evil, it is Job who questions who is ultimately blessed.
“I think his belief that religion does not require an absolute stance is very insightful and allows for a plurality of ideas that will lead to a better discussion of evil post 9/ll” said Eugene Dayanghirang, ’07, who is reading Bernstein’s book, “The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics And Religion Since 9/11” for Professor Elise Springer’s PHIL 303 class.
The kind of stasis Bernstein intimated has had political ramifications as well. According to Bernstein, after Sept. 11 the mass media and political vernacular became inundated with images and evocations of evil. Bernstein considered the emergent phenomenon dangerous because nobody questioned it.
“[It is] tremendously comforting to label and categorize [something like evil]” Bernstein said, citing how the new dichotomy between what was clearly evil and what was not was being used to stifle thinking. He felt that the talk of absolute evil corrupted politics and religion and that current discourses lack nuance because nuance is seen as a sign of wavering strength, something that no party wants to demonstrate.
Bernstein said that there was no place for absolutes, rigid dichotomies and certainties in politics, adding that it was only the most fanatic who is always immediately sure of any topic.
“The absolute spells doom for everyone, when it is introduced into the political realm,” said Bernstein, quoting philosopher Hannah Arendt.
Faced with the idea that terrorists will get hold of weapons of mass destruction, Bernstein said that policymakers feel pressured to take action and speak decisively. However, he felt that passionate commitment and sincere conviction ought not to be confused with rightness and that debate itself is sometimes the most useful form of action to take.
Bernstein’s lecture was followed by a question-and-answer session during which he touched on the point that no term in itself is neutral, asking the audience whether they knew of a term that had a kind of antiseptic quality to it that was totally free from any value judgment.
Leave a Reply