>The term evil is uselful for theologians, moral philosophers,
>and metaphysicians but I fail to see its utility for social
>scientists, behavioral scientists or scientific historians.
>When people use it in historical analysis, the concept tends
>to act as an obstacle to further inquiry. Thus, as has already
>been pointed out when people label Stalin "evil" they tend
>not to pursue any sort of a deeper causal analysis into the
>phenomenon of Stalinism. Stalin killed lots of people because
>he was "evil", and "evil" people tend to do that sort of thing,
>no further analysis being required. This tends to support
>a "great man" view of historuy (or perhaps in this case
>an "evil man" view of history).
>
>
I've heard this argument before, and every time I hear it, it sounds
more and more ridiculous.
First of all, you're starting off by presuming that the audience is a bunch of know-nothing thimblebrains who react to the word "evil" with a complete and irrational shut-down. If that's your going assumption of the audience, then why would you even _bother_ to present them with the pearls of your painstaking analysis? You might as well read Voltaire to a cage of mountain gorillas. (Can't imagine what you make of Noam Chomsky, who presumes that average people are _very_ capable of subtle and informed analysis, and speaks to _that_ capability.)
Second, look at what you're asking. We're talking about a man responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent human beings, whose state apparatus imprisoned, tortured, and murdered thousand on the slightest of pretexts, and whose influence deformed the history of the human race for years after his death. And you say we cannot use the word "evil" to describe him, merely because some dumb people might not listen to a careful analysis about him. (And in this case, it's Chris's analysis arguing Stalin's perfect rationality and superior political skills.) If you can't call _that_ track record evil, then how could you present even a feeble opposition to _any_ kind of brutality?
Third, why the hell should any of us be hamstrung from using simple, direct language because there might be dumb people out there? Look, Jim, most of us on this list count ourselves among the American Left. Many us of have no trouble saying that the United States exports terrorism, has a track record of crushing democratic movements in other countries, and has caused a tremendous amount of misery. And there are dumb people who, upon hearing us say such things, will shut down their brains and denounce us as Commies or lunatics even if we don't use the word "evil." (Not a big problem, generally.) But does this prevent us from using plain, direct language, or making moral judgements? Obviously not.
So, why are we expected to suspend our language? I'd hate to think it was because the subject was Joseph Stalin, because it'd be genuinely dishonest for all the wrong reasons, and it'd give credence to creeps like David Horowitz and Ann Coulter. But I suspect there's a kind of elitism lurking in this argument as well: that the common folk, with their primitive notions, can't appreciate the sophisticated and hyperaestheticized insights of Our Crowd.