Good versus evil: Our cultural myth
One of the prominent themes in our cultural mythos is good versus evil. This theme reverberates in stories from antiquity through the present: God versus Satan or the Devil; Beowulf versus Grendel; the American colonies versus the evil monarchy of King George III; rich versus poor; established, dominant versus other ethnic groups; democracy versus fascism or communism. Considering I’m publishing this on September 11, I should mention the entire narrative about the World Trade Center attacks. Currently, these political -isms are creating a good-versus-evil paradigm between Democrats and Republicans.
Throughout history, this theme has been a tool for the winning group to consolidate power. Roman emperors defined their predecessor as mad or bloodthirsty. The Treaty of Versailles identified the Germans and Austro-Hungarians of WWI as evil, creating an unfair peace that proved to be kindling for the rise of fascism.
In America, every step of the colonial story used good versus evil as a pretext for seizing power. Colonizers saw indigenous groups as “heathens.” They used this to justify taking their land and forcing the “civilization” of European systems on them. Manifest destiny, where settler land-grabs, broken treaties, and outright violence became justified as a win for good. And the continued use of a wide variety of rules and systems, designed by and for Europeans and their descendants, as “objective” ideas that are just for all. This very subjective view of objectivity implies that following these rules is therefore good, while resisting is bad.
Good vs. Evil in Literature: Dav Pilkey
These stories permeate our literature. I most worry about it in our children’s literature. My kid is devouring Dav Pilkey stories (Captain Underpants, Dog Man, etc.) right now; these stories are the initial inspiration for this post. Pilkey’s stories are rife with good vs. evil. For the most part, this theme goes unexamined, particularly in Captain Underpants. George and Harold are the heroes; Captain Underpants is a Jekyll-and-Hyde hero-villain split; and then all the other villains, are, well, villains. (Even the etymology of the word villain itself reflects class-based demonization.) George and Harold are frequently mean and destructive, and the narrative brushes this aside. After all, they are the heroes. Their opponents are stick-figure villains that have one evil goal and go at it relentlessly.
Dog Man generally follows the same themes, but at times is slightly more aware. “Bad guys” like Petey have arcs of their own that, at times, humanize them.
But… so what, right? The stories are all in fun. There are some positive themes as well, like thinking for yourself and appreciation of human difference. Does it matter that this sharp division is made between good and evil?
Impact on our culture
The superficial…
When I was a child, I remember prominent discussions in politics and society about the violence and profanity in video games and rap music. Psychologists stepped forward to provide evidence on these questions, and the researchers of the time came through with many studies. As often happens, though, these superficial questions missed the point. Mortal Kombat did not make me start fights in the street; Tupac’s music did not make me try to buy a gun. More important was the morality being expressed through the art’s themes. Tupac’s music expressed that Black people are not safe in America, and that we need to do something about this as a community (generally, a positive moral message by giving voice to something that is unquestionably uncomfortable, but there nevertheless). Mortal Kombat expressed that violence is fun (not the most positive moral message).
The more complex…
I wonder, what impact does Pilkey’s good versus evil messages have on my kid? If people who are seen as “good” do harmful things without consequence, does that mean that when my kid makes a mistake and has to face a consequence, that there’s an implication that he is bad? Or that it is okay to do bad, so long as you are seen as good? Do we excuse the harms done by people we align with?
When characters who are seen as “bad” get provided with no voice other than “I want to do bad things”, does this then make it easier to see real people who do similar bad things as simply “bad,” without looking for other context? When story villains are punished in cruel ways, and this too is unquestioningly accepted because they are “bad,” again without giving them any voice, does this then create a sense that people who do bad things don’t suffer?
If these messages are broadly countered in our popular culture, I may not be so worried. The essays of “A History of Evil in Popular Culture“, edited by Packer and Pennington, gives us examples where they are. These are important, complex topics, and plenty of cultural media intentionally question assumptions of good and evil. However…
[More in part II]