Verified by 
We hear a lot about good versus evil these days. This begs the question: Does evil really exist in an objective, quantifiable manner? As a criminologist trained in sociology, I contend that evil is a socially created concept and it only exists in a particular time and place; thus, it is contextually defined. Moreover, I argue that evil, although it does exist in place and time, is not a universal truth.
This perspective on evil, known as social constructionism, is rooted in the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant. According to Kant, matter does not exist in its own right. Instead, all matter is a product of the mind. Because all objects are constructed of matter, all objects are thus mental creations.
Social constructionism emerged over the past forty years as a sociological theory of knowledge that considers how social phenomena develop in particular social contexts. According to this perspective, all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday life, is actually constructed and reinforced through social interaction. Social constructionists see reality as a dynamic and constantly contested process—that is, reality is reproduced by people acting on their knowledge and their socially constructed interpretations of it.
As a logical extension, social constructionism contends that social problems do not exist objectively like a mountain or a river. Rather, they are constructed by the human mind, socially created or constituted by the definitional process. Therefore, the objective existence of a harmful condition such as a disease like cancer does not, in and of itself, constitute a social problem.
From the social constructionist perspective, an objective condition does not constitute a social problem unless it is defined as such by the members of a society in a particular context. Moreover, an objective condition does not even have to exist to be defined as a problem. That is, if something is thought to exist and it elicits fear, then it is real despite the fact that it does not exist objectively.
The witch hunts in seventeenth century, colonial New England are an excellent example of a non-objective, socially constructed crisis. From a constructionist perspective, what makes a condition a social problem is the degree of felt concern by a society about that condition, regardless of whether it actually exists or whether it is objectively harmful.
Significantly, an analysis of the social construction of evil provides an understanding of the processes and mechanisms by which those in power and authority in society can demonize a particular group and establish an evil identity for it in the public consciousness.
The word evil itself has a long linguistic history. The Oxford English Dictionary attributes the original derivation of the word evil to the Goths of the 4th century A.D. who defined it as “exceeding due measure” or “overstepping proper limits.” Webster’s College Dictionary defines evil as “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful or injurious; due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character; evil quality, intention or conduct.”
I contend that the definitions of evil are all socially constructed and socially defined in particular contexts. In other words, behaving evilly, producing evil and being evil are radically social processes which are defined in a given social context or time and place.
The definitions of evil are also tautological—that is, the definitions involve circular reasoning. One may be labeled as evil because one does evil things, and if one does evil things then one is evil. This tautology is problematic because a circular argument cannot be tested or falsified.
As a result, the tautological definition of evil can be exploited by those who apply the label of evil to an individual or group. How? If the labelers’ arguments cannot be falsified, then their claims are not subject to meaningful debate or critique by skeptics.
Once a disvalued individual or group is socially defined as evil, those in power have the moral authority and even obligation to eliminate the evildoer(s) regardless of whether or not there is an objective threat to society.
Therein lies the danger in the social construction of evil. It certainly didn’t matter that those who were convicted of witchcraft in colonial New England were not actually witches at all. They were sentenced to death and executed, nonetheless. It is important to remember this powerful historical lesson.
When we apply the label of evil to a disvalued individual or group without proper inquiry, the consequences can be dire. One need only to consider the Spanish Inquisition, The Holocaust, or the more contemporary, global Jihad and war on terror to see ample evidence of the tragic results of labeling the “other” as evil.
Dr. Scott Bonn is a criminologist, TV analyst and author of the book Mass Deception: Moral Panic and the U.S. War on Iraq. Follow him @DocBonn on Twitter and visit his website docbonn.com
