From Atmospheric Evil to Evil in Children

In our last module, among other things, I gestured the following hypothesis:

…that while evil is “apparently” inherited on a micro level between family members– as in the case of Frankenstein, in which some evil in the maker (the doctor) becomes the evil in who he makes (the creature) — this evil which is apparently inherited is in actuality, according to Shelley’s telling, what we called in our last module a macro “universal human condition” — it passes from society / culture to all individuals, if only potentially.

And I also gestured to the hypothesis:

.. that by traditional “free-will” philosophy, evil can only have sway and influence in a human’s life if one voluntarily grants evil permission to have sway and influence in his / her life; and by contrast, without a “free-will” philosophy — with what we called the philosophy of “scientific determinism” — we don’t exactly have the freedom to refuse permitting evil to have sway and influence over our lives; rather we are “determined” (or pre-determined), as it were, to be evil.

In any case, universal humanity, in Shelley’s depiction, had arrived at a phase in history in which it had become universally sub-human. Something having to do with the onset of the age of science, rationalism, mechanism , empiricism had, in turn, to do with the very species of being human that Victor — and likewise Victor’s parents and his parents’ parents — embodies, symbolizes.

Shelley imaginatively recognizes that our doctor — “Victor” — was himself the recipient of a species of lovelessness in his early years, or at least he was the recipient of a kind of cold mechanistic humanity in his early years, and which was a cold mechanism that in turn preconditioned the doctor’s professional practices (as a doctor / inventor) and his personal practices (as an everyday human).

Indeed, Shelley’s novel constitutes a sensitive but robust critique of what is now known as modern (versus ancient) science. Shelley, in other words, conveys that modern science and her modern scientist is “Promethean” in destructive ways, for we must pause to note that the subtitle of her novel carries the word designating the ancient Greek god “Prometheus” and his myth.

Specifically, we learn that the doctor’s powers of compassion and unconditional love for his creation are greatly limited, greatly conditional, greatly impoverished; and consequently it is on virtue of the monster’s early-life experiences with his own creator’s cold-mechanistic (and finally his loveless) humanity towards his creation, that the creature more and more becomes himself monstrous.

In other words, according to Shelley’s account, some failed universal humanity that naturally (and almost unconsciously) precipitates evil begins in culture / society as what we called atmospheric evil; and what begins in the total atmosphere of culture / society on a macro level, manifests itself — or it even institutionalizes itself — on a micro level in all local families, local communities, local institutions, etc.

Inherited Evil / Parent-to-Child Evil in Tom Riddle, a.k.a. Voldermort–

Villain-Supreme Amid the FIctional Worlds of Harry Potter

In the fictional worlds of Harry Potter, the villain Voldemort (a.k.a., the maturer version of Tom Riddle) assumes one of Tom Riddle’s biggest obsessions: the so-called “purity” of wizards.

Riddle / Voldermort disparage the “mudbloods” — wizards who do not come from magical parents; and “half-bloods” — those wizards who had one magical parent and one non-magical parent. Who these villains enthrone are “full-bloods.”

But now we know from the author of Harry Potter that Tom / Volgermort are not “full-bloods” but are actually pretending to be “full-bloods.”

Tom Riddle’s mother (being Merope Gaunt) was a wizard who died very shortly after giving birth to Tom, while his father was a Muggle who had been under the spell of Merope’s love potion. T & V are of “mixed-heritage” — they’re not fully “purely” wizards; and Tom becomes angry upon finding out about his mixed heritage, and as Voldemort, he would basically deny it altogether.

Later in life, he would present himself as a pure-blooded descendant of Salazar Slytherin and publicly railed against those without pure wizarding blood in their veins. All of this is darkly funny considering how many people would eventually flock to the “pure blood” banner being held high by Tom Riddle, a half-blood.

Despite the questionable genetics of his family line, Tom Riddle ended up being tall and handsome, with dark hair and captivating dark eyes. These good looks are one of the ways that he both recruits people into what would become the Death Eaters and also pulled the wool over most of his teachers’ eyes. .

But, keeping our free-will and our scientific determinism philosophies in mind…

..what exactly compels, compulses Tom (a.k.a. Voldermort) to even affirm, say “yes” to, the identity of an evil villain? And what compels, compulses Tom (a.k.a. Voldermort) to deny, to say “no” to, the sway and influence of evil over his life and over the life of all others around him? And does he, by free-will, freely choose to be what he is? Or is he, by determinism, determined to be what he is?

This above question will be our “part 1” discussion question for module 4– and your guess about it is as good as mine; and our “part 2” discussion question will be another question in which, again, your guess is as good as mine:

…what exactly compels, compulses Regan (in the film Exorcist) to even affirm, say “yes” to, the identity of evil ? And what compels, compulses Regan to deny, to say “no” to, the sway and influence of evil over her life and over the life of all others around her?

Regan: The Evil Child of the film “Exorcist”

When exactly did Regan become possessed by the demon in the narrative of The Exorcist? What event triggered the possession, and what was the demon’s motivation for possessing her– a child?

In our consideration of such questions, I’d like us consider whether the child-Regan is “free” or “determined” to be evil?

And in our consideration of such questions, I’d also like us to consider the implication that evil is “atmospheric,” ubiquitous, omni-present, yes; and it is indeed — according to numberless mythical, religious, and literary accounts — represented as having a unique relationship with “children,” with the early stages of human life.

How? On what grounds is evil “atmospheric” in The Exorcist?

Daemon (as Wiki rightly tells us) is the Latin word for the Ancient Greek daimon (δαίμων: “god”, “godlike”, “power”, “fate”), which originally referred to a lesser deity or guiding spirit such as the daemons of ancient Greek religion and mythology and of later Hellenistic religion and philosophy.

This gets the film into the category of “religion” and “myth” on virtue that in the film the languages of “possession” — “being possessed” — are absolutely central.

In other words — to bring us back again to our last module’s lecture — we are called to emphasize something that might be comprehended essentially (and traditionally) as a theological (and/or biblical) point of view.. a point of view about the eternality, the universality, the timelessness of “the conflict of good and evil.” Implied in evil understood as an “eternality” is the axiom that evil is never not there, and never not understood, experienced and known as being in competition with an oppositional force, namely “goodness” and/or “redemption,” at least in the account of pre-modern and indeed theological thought. And I also in our last module highlighted that numberless thinkers, philosophers, poets, priests, prophets, artists, composers, et. al, have taken up “the conflict between good and evil” as an eternal theme.

And in our last module I aimed to imply the following contrast:

1. that when “evil in the world” is represented purely in and of itself, unsullied, un-challenged by an oppositional “good in the world” — in this case, the system of evil is “closed.” In this case, evil is “determined.”

VERSUS

2. in an “open system” of evil in which evil is represented as existing (whether implicitly or explicitly) in conflict, in competition, in opposition with an opposite “good” or “redemption” in the world. In this case, evil is not determined; or in other words, in this case, the door remains open to the possibility of winning the opposite of evil — self-possession versus being possessed.

Evil as an External Inheritance Versus Evil as an Internal Drama

In sum, for this module we are not so much asked to see evil as inheritance, as something inherited by the child as form of upbringing or as troubled heritage; but rather I’d like us to focus on evil as a certain kind of drama — a spiritual warfare — unfolding in the child in the context of his / her relationship with a ubiquitous atmospheric evil in the world.

Learning Goals:

1. To uniquely consider “childhood,” “the child,” “the early stages of life,” in connection with our discussions on (1) free-will versus determinism, and (2) evil comprehended as “atmospheric.”

2. We will again consider evil as “atmospheric” in two ways — (1) either as an open system (an eternal conflict between good and evil) or as a closed system — an eternal conflict in which somehow some way the door, the passageway onto a life without evil remains closed, or at least barely open.

3. We will be giving a kind of X-Ray focus on the agency of the child — and/or the lack of agency of the child — living amid the atmosphere of an eternal conflict that is either closed or open.

Study Materials:

(students acquire the materials on their own)

1. The Exorcist (film)

2. Harry Potter (series, films / books)