Just about finished reading M. Scott Peck's "People of the Lie". A few notes:
a) the word "evil" is used a lot, but apart from seeing this as having aspects of narcissism, there is very little detailed and comprehensive explanation of what how it is defined. John Maquarrie, in his "Christian Theology", for instance, looks at evil in terms of different models - existence that is disordered, unbalanced, fallen (as a myth), etc, but Peck's theology is severely dualist, and his chapter on exorcism goes over the top, more like gnosticism than Christianity. His notions about the devil seem more at home in Dante! N.T. Wright's "Evil and the Justice of God" is far better on the theology.
b) it is not clear how his use of the word "evil" actually helps in the case studies he presents, it seems more like an "add on", and suffers from over use. If you start to label all kinds of behaviour as "evil", there is a flattening out process, and the different spectrum of behaviour seems to be painted just one colour, black.
c) he sails very close to the wind regarding professional ethics on occasion. I'm not too keen on his Freudian ideas, and the notion that the therapist must take the role of parent, the patient as child. I think Freud probably had control issues, and I wonder if Peck has. Has he not come across other types of therapy? His is presented as "the way".
d) his use of the word "autistic" is bizarre, as he just uses it for any lack of empathy or consideration in relationships, Wasn't he aware of the body of literator on developmental disorders? Hadn't he even taken the trouble to read Kanner?
e) His chapter on group evil is probably one of the best, but it suffers from too much generalisation from one event, which obviously made an impression on him, and has also been done better by a recent New Scientist (with only one mention of the word "evil" in the article.
It was not a book I came away with feeling I had really learned much.
Posts
5 comments:
I am reading this book right now, and must admit to feeling a bit confused. His premise starts out rather dualistic that evil is the opposite of good, but he never really defines what evil is and how you know something is evil vs. misguided or whatever. For example, he states as a premise that Hitler was evil, but in basic psychology terms, Hitler was just very misguided and had a horrible upbringing. How then, is this distinguished from anyone else who is misguided and had a horrible upbringing?
I guess I'm just confused. I'm in Chapter 3 and i will continue to read this and see if I can get more enlightened further on.
I also notice that this is written from a very Christian perspective which already has the concept of evil. So if that is the premise starting off, I am not sure what this book has really proven. It's like proving something he already believes in. Seems a bit circular.
Just finished the book today.
Really hard to pin down exactly what his definition of clinical evil really is. He quotes some fairly bland cases (apart from the My Lai massacre). To agree with his ideas you have to be a committed Christian and Freudian.
I am very much a victim of the 'people of the lie' I was wondering if you would like my opinion?
I read this book a couple of years ago - and yes, did walk away with a bit of confusion and mostly perceived the book, in its entirety, as fragmented at best, if not overly presumptive. However, at that time, I did take away one subtle thread that Peck weaves through his recounting of evil. That is the sense of confusion that surrounds and invades those impacted to even the slightest degree by "the people of the lie". Interesting - or not - that the comments here reflect confusion on the part of reader? It may be more than a coincidence.
I have just finished - a few years later - reading again this book. I believe, since my first read, I have encounter what Peck describes as "evil". Because of that encounter, much of what Peck refers to in defining "evil" now makes perfect sense to me. He is dead on in at least describing the "person of the lie" that I encountered. It is strangely peculiar, as if what I once read as highly fragmented, now is fully fluid and completely fascinating in the context of the details of my recent experience. (FYI - I use the word "evil" in quotes, as I am not convinced this is the right term for this very minute subset of Personality Disorders).
To encounter Peck's definition of evil seems to be a highly uncommon occurrence. Therefore, I would theorize that to understand "the people of the lie", one must encounter one to a significant extent, in order to see through the confusion which is too thick for pure study. I believe Peck's definition of evil is identifiable to those whom which it was, at one time or another, tangible.
Makes me wonder, really, what Jane Humphreys would have said. Maybe I would have understood?
Excellent review and comments.
However, I did not view his use of the word "autistic" as based on the modern clinical definition, as traced back to Kanner, but more based on the core meaning of the word as used by Bleuler (the man who made up the word many years before Kanner borrowed the word) to describe the self absorbed state of adult schizophrenia patients.
Maybe I gave Peck too much credit, but it worked for me.
Post a Comment