Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness 2008 Conference Programme Session 4

9th Global Conference
Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness

Monday 10th March - Thursday 13th March 2008
Salzburg, Austria

Further Details	Venue & Accommodation	Booking Form

Conference Programme, Abstracts and Papers

Session 4: Naming and Healing Atrocities
Chair: Richard Piatt

The Limits of the Language of Evil: Langer and Ricoeur on the Language Available for Victims and Perpetrators of Atrocity
Rachel Waterstradt
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, USA

Lawrence Langer’s thorough treatment of the failure of language to be adequate to the evil suffered in atrocity separates perpetrators of evil from victims of evil in atrocity. Langer clearly agrees with an understanding of the imputability of actions done by choice, arguing that this experience of freedom and responsibility is so fundamental to human experience that language itself is inherently choice-ridden. This has a four-fold impact on relating the experience of evil suffered in atrocity; first, those unfamiliar with the atrocity are not ready to hear the victims’ testimonies, second, victims are frustrated in their attempts to relate the experience, third, the written accounts, due to the choice-leaning language available tend toward the idea of some choice being present for the victims of evil suffered in atrocity which clearly is not available to them, and finally, this has an impact on the overall understanding of the evil done, an evil that goes beyond words. Even though the perpetrators are also in an extreme circumstance, the choice and the language of choice is still available to them. Paul Ricoeur also considers the limits of language and the experience of evil. His explorations of evil as defilement, sin and guilt illumine the experience of evil as a contaminant [suffered] vs. the evil one has committed via the ‘servile will’, a freedom that is known, yet known as unavailable to me. This allows for his consideration of the person committing evil as situated in circumstances that may present the opportunity and even encouragement, yet not necessity, for evil action. This inevitably ties up with his complete discussion of the imputability of one’s actions to only herself, as what she herself is accountable and responsible for, and makes the sharp distinction between the experience of evil committed and evil suffered. Thus, the issue concerning the capacity of language to communicate the experience of committing evil would be possible. This directs attention back to Langer and raises the issue for the impact of victims of atrocity not being able to fully relate the experience and add their testimony to the archive.
This leaves us with the following questions. First, does the unavailability of the full freedom experienced as ‘defilement’, interpreted as being born into a culture rife with propaganda messages encouraging violence and hate, result in anything remotely resembling the ineffability of the experience of evil suffered in atrocity? Second, does the unavailability of language for the evil suffered make it more likely for atrocity to repeat and repeat? Third, does the access to language make the perpetrators of evil more able to change the pretense of their actions to ameliorate their responsibilty, further doing violence to their victims? Lastly, is there anything that can be done to make the testimony of victims of atrocity more ‘hearable’ or can we become more able to hear through an understanding

Towards a Post-Global Community
Nancy Mardas Billias.
Department of Philosophy, Coordinator, Leadership Studies, Saint Joseph College, West Hartford, CT, USA

No abstract is presently available

Download Draft Conference Paper -

Shame as Source of Evil and Barrier to Healing
Erin Vallicelli
Department of Philosophy, University of Kentucky, Kentucky, USA

This paper explores the role of shame in the creation of evil, as well as the role it plays as people try to heal from evil acts. I understand that people are behind the creation of evil, as they commit evil acts, and look at the way shame encourages these sorts of actions. Shame is the absence of self-love. I argue that shame not only is one of the ways evil is created, but can act as an agent for perpetuating evil beyond individual evil acts. I first establish the role of shame in the creation of evil by appealing to psychological literature, with a heavy emphasis on the work done by James Gilligan, M.D. I next make a distinction between shame and guilt, and focus on the roles shame can play in victims healing processes, such as encouraging self-deception. I contend that shame is a barrier to the healing process, though does not necessarily render the victim hopeless for healing. I further argue that shame’s impact on the healing process should be viewed as an extension of the evil act, and should properly be understood as an extension of the agent who committed the evil. In this respect, the notion of evil under which I am operating, and the notion of evil in general, must be expanded to account for shame.