The Root of Evil (Part 2)

The belief in historical “progress’ participates in the same objectification and dehumanization that justify moral atrocities

In the previous post, following existentialist thinkers Simone de Beauvoir and Frantz Fanon, I suggested that evil does not necessarily, or even usually, begin with psychological derangement. Rather, from this existentialist point of view, the crimes against humanity that populate history are the result of a common human desire gone unchecked: the desire to control. You can find that article here: https://recontextualize.substack.com/p/the-root-of-evil-part-1. I recommend reading that first, but I will also give a brief summary in the first paragraph of this article.

Fanon and de Beauvoir suggest that an individual’s identity and the social privileges or lack of privileges associated with that identity crystallize out of a dynamic, ever-changing social network constituted by the activities, attitudes, and norms of the entire community. Since an individual is only one small contributor to this network, it is impossible to both allow others to participate in this communal network of meaning and have full control over our own identity and social position. This lack of control can often generate an attempt to freeze, fix, and reify this entire communal structure of identity relationships. For example, many European Enlightenment thinkers appealed to the unchanging essence of entire communities (which they classified as biologically distinct races) to justify and secure their own culture’s position of superiority in the global order. Philosophers such as Georg Friedrich Hegel, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant suggested that non-white, non-European races were biologically inferior to Europeans, implying that exploitation and enslavement of these people was justified because of their low level of intelligence, creativity, and virtue. From these European racialist ideologies to caste systems, to anti-Semitism, to acts of ethnic cleansing, groups and individuals have appealed to fixed social and racial hierarchies throughout history to secure a place of superiority and privilege for those on the top of the hierarchy.

Although most of you reading would likely disavow such an explicit claim to the essential inferiority of entire groups of human beings, both Fanon and de Beauvoir point out that these explicit hierarchies begin with a simple, even subtle, act of objectification or dehumanization. In other words, the cause of this evil might be closer to home than we would care to admit. In the next two posts, I will suggest that two widely held beliefs in our culture house this seed of objectification and dehumanization. Here, we will discuss the notion of historical “Progress.” The notion that modern Western society is at the cutting edge of historical “progress” is so built into our everyday ways of speaking and thinking that most would not consider it a controversial claim, let alone one rooted in the same way of thinking that has led to slavery, genocide, and racism. To give some examples: we refer to countries with more advanced technology and physical infrastructure as “first world” or “developed” as opposed to “third world” or “developing” countries. Many assume that a secular, capitalist, democratic state is an advanced form of civilization and that countries and communities with alternative political or economic structures are “backwards.” Similarly, in the realm of knowledge, many in our culture simply assume that modern science has finally uncovered the nature and structure of the cosmos, while past knowledge systems were rooted more in blind faith than evidence.

Most readers will probably recognize beliefs that they, at least at one point in life, thought of as “common sense” amongst these statements. Our culture instills a commitment to an unambiguous linear trajectory of historical Progress in its citizens, suggesting that capitalist, secular, democratic, and science/technology-driven cultures are the current torchbearers paving the way for humankind. Some readers may be thinking that this is not a philosophical belief but rather an empirical fact. After all, it is simply an empirical fact that the global poverty rate is lower than it has been at any other time in history, that material technology has become more advanced in the past 100 years than ever before, and that modern democracies bestow rights to each citizen to protect them against the abuse of power. I do not intend to deny that there are certain dimensions of progress in which modern Western civilization excels. However, these facts justify a much more humble claim: that there are particular dimensions of human progress that the modern West focuses on and excels in. These facts do not, in themselves, justify the more common claim that modern Western civilization is on the cutting edge of bettering human experience as a whole, that we carry the torch of a more general universal line of Historical Progress. To justify this more universal claim about progress, one must assume that the particular dimensions of progress that the modern West excels in are the only dimensions of progress that matter.

We could imagine a Buddhist community pointing out that they are on the “cutting edge” of progress in the dimension of teaching mindfulness and guiding individuals to experiences of spiritual awakening. We could imagine a Native American community suggesting that their practices of sustainability are significantly more advanced than those of the modern West. Lastly, if one does a quick internet search of countries with the worst mental health issues, one will find that the list is populated by almost entirely “first world” countries, suggesting that there could be some negative repercussions to the trajectories of progress encouraged in these developed countries in addition to the obvious benefits. To claim that the modern West is at the forefront of progress, one must also claim that these and many other vectors of progress are unimportant, or at least significantly less important than the ones the West focuses on. By holding onto this notion of unambiguous progress carried forward by modern Western civilization, we fix the values and cares of modern Western civilization as superior to those of non-Western and pre-modern civilizations; thus establishing a fixed hierarchy of cultures that can, and has, been used to justify domination, exploitation, and enslavement of cultures and communities that do not embody the “right” values and vectors of progress. Acts of dehumanization and objectification that have produced and justified acts as morally reprehensible as the enslavement of entire communities of human beings hide within seemingly innocent cultural commitments, such as this commitment to Progress.

After declaring the death of God, Nietzsche prophetically wrote, “God is dead, but given the way of men there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. —And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow too.” Christian missionaries justified colonization, missionary work, and the suppression of entire ways of life through appeal to Divine authority. These missionaries suggested their project was proper and ethical because these other communities must be “saved” through the light of Christ. Our modern “secular” commitment to universal Historical Progress embodies the same structure of justification: claiming it is proper and ethical to forcefully spread a capitalist, technology-focused, democratic, and secular way of life across the entire world because it “saves” other communities from their backward ways of thinking and living. When Nietzsche writes of “God” and his secular “shadow,” he implies an imposing, dominating form of monotheism; an exclusive Purpose that rejects, dominates, and suppresses all values and ways of life that do not line up with that Purpose (I have to add here that, from my perspective, there are much more charitable ways to read the monotheist religious traditions. However, I do think Nietzsche is apt to point out that this is often how these traditions are interpreted.) To be clear, I have no intention of denying the benefit that modern Western civilization has brought to humanity through many of the vectors of progress it has focused on, only to point to the ethical calamities that result with the additional claim that these particular vectors of progress are the only ones that truly matter. We must acknowledge and reckon with the fact that those of us in “developed” countries still reside within an ideological structure that appeals to an exclusivist, dominating belief in a universal Purpose and Progress. Those who act in line with this Purpose are at the top of the hierarchy of human value while communities with alternative values are seen as less valuable and sometimes even less human.

If you found this reflection valuable, please consider subscribing. All posts are free, but please consider paying to support the newsletter! (and an overworked, underpaid adjunct professor)

Please feel free to leave a comment if you have clarification questions, feedback, critiques, or anything to add. Philosophy is all about dialogue! I will do my best to respond to all questions and concerns.