Evil

I’m guessing the title will self select who has the capacity for this topic and I’d understand if many of you don’t, see you some other day.

2026 is off to quite a start, and things are happening that are hard to take in even if not really surprising. I’m sure I won’t be the only person who’s had a big challenge processing the recent news of the US government stealing (Venezuela) and murdering (civilians, by “law enforcement”). Especially big, though, if the statements and emotions of people for whom you feel affection or love or some other connection come across as indifferent, or even sympathetic or supportive. It can be jarring to hear another person respond for example to the events in Minneapolis with “yeah well she was running her mouth” if you value freedom from tyranny.**

While I do think it can ease distress to hear or read someone reflect your values (see paragraph above) this topic was a bit of a conundrum for me as my head took me in different directions from my heart. I’m not a political reporter, and I also don’t think that the internet really needs more moral clarity. What I can do, I hope, is reflect the energy I find helpful. This blog is as much for me as it is for you. Regular readers know how I love that words can have several meanings, so, I’m writing today as a writer who needs practice, to tie this theme to a couple of concepts important in my practice. Big appreciation that this act helped me get to that realization (about the meaning “practice” has for me).

My art work doesn’t deal with the concept of evil- in fact, ;tldr I’m going to give a couple of reasons to just steer clear of that word. I do hold to the importance of recognizing contradiction- that two ideas can both be true. You can take and release a breathe if you’re worried that means I’m about to make a case that “both sides are right.” That has never been the reason contradiction is important to me. “Right,” like “evil,” is a facet of how we’ve gotten here.

One piece of non-fiction that I’ve been picking at for several months is High Conflict by Amanda Reilly. I haven’t finished it, yet, and I scrolled through it again this week looking- please? anyone? hello?- for some answers. Obviously “yes” I’d recommend despite not yet finishing it, and the reason for this mention? One concept that is covered therein; “conflict entrepreneur.” Pretty much what it sounds like, these are the actors and forces that gain power by trafficking in conflict. Note, they do not need to be politicians or lawyers, it could be your Aunt. As the concept relates to the impetus for this essay… the book was published in 2021 so even though DJT gets mentioned as a “fire starter” leader (a specific type of conflict entrepreneur) it is surreal to read, today, of his first term as though he was in the rear view mirror of history.

Part of the shape for my thinking on the word “evil” was also a fairly recent Ologies episode- # 475 on Ponerology, titled “What is Evil featuring Kenneth MacKendrick. I listened to it over the winter holidays. I did so somewhat begrudgingly because of timing really- it’s not a holiday-ish topic- but nevertheless because even a month ago it seemed to speak to me as part of the zeitgeist (yeah I feel like a calendar month is, like, 12 in late capitalism months, too). I re-listened to the pod this weekend (again- help me, please, anyone) as the idea for this essay took very rough shape, and of course I’d recommend the episode, as well as the pod itself.

To tie the book and pod together more clearly, folks are gaining power by feeding narratives about who is evil (I never claimed this would be a hot take).

What interests Dr MacKendrick, and what I found most resonant, was the notion that what you do once you define evil is what matters- how does your understanding of and identification with “evil” change your behavior. I agree, which is why I gave the specific example early on of recent events in Minneapolis. My thesis is that one can not murder a civilian if one does not think their values are “evil.” I also used the phrase “moral clarity” earlier so that I could circle back here and highlight that being really certain of what’s “right” doesn’t lead to a good outcome or even a smart choice.

Yes, I’m conflating “good” and “right” or more to the point right/wrong and good/evil, and saying a LOT of people are also doing. Yes, I’m hoping you realize that categorizing that… categorizing as “not right” illustrates how commonplace binary judgements are. Both of those things can be true, at the same time. That is the truth and value to me of recognizing contradiction- it allows one to move out of binaries and into complexity (one of the strategies Ms Reilly suggests later in her book, as I understand it at least).

I hope you don’t feel let down or betrayed that we aren’t arriving at the end of this essay to find me pointing y’all to a solution or way out of this situation, from the pod or the book or my own mind. It’s never been my motivation as a writer to present hypotheses, only perspectives. I don’t have a game plan for how we think or talk or work (or fight) our way out to the other side of conflicts.

This isn’t apathy or resignation. I’m also, definitely, not going to say any outcome is inevitable, or predicting that “we” can’t reach outcomes we desire for… whatever reason- because “the other side won’t do this work with us,” or “we aren’t willing to be violent in the way they are”. I’m sharing because I wanted folks to know I sought moral clarity and the universe reminded me that it is natural that we need such clarity, and, that clarity is neither an end all or a sufficient reason to deny another agency, property or life.

**BTW, one last note, or suggestion really, which is that we not assume someone who isn’t enflamed and engaging in conversation about these topics doesn’t feel the moral dilemma keenly.