Dr. Peck believes that evil is a form of mental illness. He defines evil "as the use of power to destroy the spiritual growth of others for purpose of defending and preserving the integrity of our own sick selves. In short, it is scapegoating." He also believes that narcissism and laziness are the roots of all evil. In an evil personality type the main defect is the ability to recognize sin in themselves and they lie to themselves to keep from seeing it. They also tend to judge others as evil. Decent people are naturally revolted by evil. Adults who become involved in a relationship with someone who is evil do so because of their own evil. The way to overcome evil is by love.
Dr Peck rejects the Augustinian notion of evil as the absence of goodness and I think this is where Dr Peck goes wrong. He seems to reject this notion because of his belief in a literal form of demonic possession.

"People of the lie" are what Peck calls evil people -- those who refuse to acknowledge their own sin, who scapegoat other people instead, not just occasionally but routinely. Peck believes evil people are both common and ordinary-looking, more likely to be a church deacon than a psychopath, because they create a respectable veneer that belies their callous, independent hearts. They often deceive others, but primarily they deceive themselves and avoid facing reality because they are so scared of it. Other people pay the price for their failure to love, repent etc.

Peck gives lots of case studies from his own psychiatric practice to support and illustrate his thesis. He also talks about exorcism and "group evil" (illustrated by the My Lai incident in Vietnam).

I think it's probably more accurate to say that there is a continuum of evilness -- that we all to some extent have narcissism, denial, etc. -- than to set apart some as "evil." Peck acknowledges the continuum, but I think he focuses on the truly evil because he wants the psychiatric/psychological community to acknowledge and study evilness. His goal is not so much to help evil people, who he has found in his practice to not want help, but primarily to help their victims -- including their children.

I don't agree with all of Peck's theology here -- he says he's a Christian and I can't say he's not, but he's a little skewed in places -- but I think this is a fascinating, insightful and helpful book. It's helped me to understand some members of my family and to have more peace about not pursuing closer relationships with them.

I only gave it 3 stars for theological reasons but there's some wise nuggets here that I've never seen elsewhere, so I recommend this book.

There are some people who have great difficulty dealing with evil in their life. Some people even prefer to deny that there is such a thing as evil. M. Scott Peck states clearly that: “... we are all in combat against evil.” This book has helped me an awful lot to deal with evil. When faced with evil I used to become very angry. I used to have great difficulty dealing with anger. This book deals with many aspects of evil in ways that I find very helpful and practical. M. Scott Peck utilizes several actual case studies to illustrate his points. He also deals with such subjects as: Possession and exorcism. An examination of group evil. As well as the dangers presented by evil, in its many form. He makes me feel that there may be real hope to overcome evil in our lives.

Mon opinion varie largement selon les sections de ce livre. Je dois dire qu'en étant moi-même agnostique, les parties parlant beaucoup de la bible et du Christ m'ont moins rejoint. Ceci étant dit, la section sur les cas rencontrés par M. Peck est très intéressante et de grande valeur, de même que celle sur le massacre de Mỹ Lai. L'ouvrage me semble toutefois un peu décousu.

M.Peck fait aussi un parallèle entre un rituel d'exorcisme chrétien et de la psychothérapie. Bien que j'ai pu comprendre certains de ses points, j'avoue ne pas être convaincue autant que lui de l'existence réelle du diable et du besoin d'exorciser Satan de certaines personnes. Cette partie m'engagea moins.

Bref, je ne crois pas qu'il faut se fermer automatiquement à un ouvrage étant très empreint du point de vue religieux de l'auteur, mais c'est à prendre et à laisser. Il faut aussi garder l'esprit ouvert.

Ah, et petite note sur la traduction: elle contient plusieurs erreurs grammaticales flagrantes comme le maléfique "si j'aurais" et certaines des références bibliographies ne sont pas bien étiquetées.

Malgré tout c'est une lecture très intéressante pour quiconque s'intéressant à la psychologie et au Mal avec un m majuscule.

Okay, Abby. . .

This book is fantastic. It is depressing--it's about evil people. Remember "The Road Less Travelled"? It's the opposite. I didn't love it because it's happy, but because it offers insight into absolutely evil people. Now, "evil" is tricky--most people don't believe in evil anymore. And even trickier--evil people make you feel crazy. If you challenge them, try to stand in reality with them around--YOU feel crazy. Because what makes them evil is not that they kill people, or hate people, or do anything that we would easily identify them as evil. It is that they are so rigidly attached to their world view, they will do ANYTHING to preserve it.

It's called "People of the Lie" because, in order to see the world as they want to, they engage in self-deception to an unimaginable degree. It's not that they are lying TO YOU, they are lying TO THEMSELVES, and secondly to you. But it feels true because they really believe it.

This book is great if you like psychology, like analyzing people, and are unfortunate enough to be forced to deal with these rigid, self-deceptive people.

But, reader, certainly YOU don't know any such people. Certainly YOU could not be such a person!

Seriously, I don't blame anyone for not reading this. It's sort of a niche book.

Peck has written another deeply thought-out study of evil in the human race. Blending psychiatry and religion, Peck cites several case studies to show how evil in a family can destroy children, how group evil can lead to inhuman actions. Serious, frightening, and at times depressing, it's a book for any serious student of the human condition, any writer looking to get deeper into the differences of good and evil. I couldn't put it down. In fact, a writer friends loaned it to me. In twenty pages, I had ordered my own copy. It's solidly in my reference library.

I can't give any higher than 1 star to a book I could not force myself to finish. I disagreed with his basic premise, and yet, I still kept reading. I sat through his case studies of "evil" people who seemed more like people lacking basic functioning and parenting skills and less like any sort of "evil." I read it solidly, continuing on because I kept thinking there was a pay off sooner or later. For two weeks, I forced myself to read it just 20 minutes before bed, and then just 10, every other day. I just realized this morning that it's been over a week since I've even looked at it, and I've simply given up.

I think that his arguments were illogically posited, and, although no specific examples spring to mind, I kept thinking that his if/then statements were in continuous breakdown.

Ugh. I'll gladly be handing this one back unfinished.

I am finding this book a fascinating read (which totally surprised my daughter, since I'm not much given to reading psychology books!) But in light of experiences in my life over the past year, it has helped me to wrap my mind around how people you loved and thought you knew can change in ways you never imagined. It even covers how groups of people can come to accept and tolerate evil in their midst. I don't agree with all the author says (of course!) and have some additional ideas as well, but I would highly recommend this book to anyone whose life has been affected by people who lie....to themselves and others.

This book was given to me by a friend, many years ago. I couldn't read it, as I refused to believe in the concept of "human evil." Many years later, I found it again at a very different time in my life. Suffice it to say, I read the book, recognized so much, and will never forget how much I learned. It's a hard book to read, or it was for me, but it brought something to the fore that many wish to deny: human evil does exist, in various forms, and to recognize it is to begin one's own healing.

"Evil can be conquered only by love." "To somehow be tolerant and intolerant." "An almost Godlike compassion is required."

--------

"Okay George, I'm going to say a few things to you and I want you to listen to them well. Because they are very important. Nothing is more important."

"You have a defect--a weakness--in your character, George. It is a very basic weakness, and it it the cause of all the difficulties we've been talking about. It's the major cause of your bad marriage. It's the cause of your symptoms, your obsessions and compulsions."

"Basically George, you are a kind of coward. Whenever the going gets a little bit rough, you sell out. When you're faced with the realization that your're going to die one of these days, you run away from it. You don't think about it, because it's 'morbid.' When you're faced with the painful realization that your marriage is lousy, you run away from that too. Instead of facing it and doing something about it, you don't think about that either. And then because your've run away from these things that are really inescapable, they come to haunt you in these form of your symptoms, your obsessions, and compulsions These symptoms could be your salvation, You could say, "These symptoms mean that I'm haunted. I better find out what these ghosts are, and clean them out of my house.' But you don't say that, because that would mean really facing some things that are painful.. So you try to run away from your symptoms, too. Instead of facing them and what they mean, you try to get rid of them. And when they're not so easy to get rid of, you go running to anything that will give you relief no matter how wicked or evil or destructive.

You plead you shouldn't be accountable... because it was [done] under duress. Of course it was [done] under duress. Why else would one do that, except to rid oneself of some kind of suffering?... The question is not duress. The question is how people deal with duress. Some withstand it and overcome it, ennobled. Some break and sell out. You sell out, and I must say, you do it rather easily.

Easily. Easy. That's a key word for you, George. You like to think of yourself as easygoing. Joe Cool. And I suppose you are easygoing, but I don't know where you're going easy, except into hell. You're always looking for the easy way out, George. Not the right way. The easy way. Where you're faced with a choice between the right way and the easy way, you'll take the easy way every time. The painless way. In fact, you'll do anything to find the easy way out, even it if means selling your soul.

As I said, I'm glad you're feeling guilty. If you didn't feel bad about taking the easy way out, no matter what, then I wouldn't be able to help you... If you're willing to face the painful realities of your life--your terrorful childhood, your miserable marriage, your mortality, your own cowardice--I can be of some assistance. And I am sure that we will succeed. But if all you want is the easiest possible relief form pain, then I expect you are the devil's man, and I don't see any way to help you. "


--------
"The feeling that a healthy person often experiences in a relationship with an evil one is revulsion. The feeling of revulsion may be almost instant if the evil encountered is blatant. If the evil is more subtle, the revulsion may develop only gradually as the relationship with the evil one slowly deepens. The feeling of revulsion can be extremely useful to the therapist. It can be a diagnostic tool par excellence. It can signify more truly and rapidly than anything else that the therapist is in the presence of an evil human being."

"Revulsion is a powerful emotion that causes us to immediately want to avoid, to escape, the revolting presence, And that is exactly the most appropriate thing for a healthy person to do under ordinary circumstances when confronted with an evil presence: to get away from it. Evil is revolting because it is dangerous. It will contaminate or otherwise destroy a person who remains too long in its presence. Unless you know very well what you are doing, the best thing you can do when faced with evil is to run the other way. The revulsion counter-transference is an instinctive or if you will, a God-given and saving early-warning radar system." p65

"There is another reaction that the evil frequently engender in us: confusion. Describing an encounter with an evil person, one woman wrote, it was "as if I'd suddenly lost my ability to think." Once again, this reaction is quite appropriate. Lies confuse. The evil are "people of the lie" deceiving others as they also build layer upon layer of self-deception. "

"While evil people are to be feared, they are also to be pitied."

"It is a thesis of this book that evil can be defined as a specific form of mental illness..."

"It is not their sins per se that characterize evil people, rather is is the subtlety and persistence and consistency of their sins. This is because the central defect of the evil is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it."

"The words "image," "appearance," and "outwardly" are crucial to understanding the morality of evil. While they seem to lack any motivation to BE good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their "goodness" is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are, the "people of the lie."

"Actually, the lie is designed not so much to deceive others as to deceive themselves. They cannot or will not tolerate the pain of self-reproach...Because they are such experts at disguise, it is seldom possible to pinpoint the maliciousness of the evil. The disguise is usually impenetrable. "

"It is my experience that evil seems to run in families." (80)

"There is, I suspect, something basically incomprehensible about evil. But if not incomprehensible, it is characteristically inscrutable. The evil always hide their motives with lies."

"If one wants to seek out evil people, the simplest way to do so is to trace them from their victims. The best place to look, then, is among the parents of emotionally disturbed children or adolescents. I do not mean to imply that all emotionally disturbed children are victims of evil or that all such parents are malignant persons. The configuration of evil is present only in a minority of these cases. It is, however, a substantial minority."

"Evil was defined as the use of power to destroy the spiritual growth of others for the purpose of defending and preserving the integrity of our own sick selves."(199)

It may be that the parents described were not themselves suffering, but their families were. And the symptoms of family disorder--depression, suicide, failing grades, --were attributed to the leadership. The suffering of the children was a symptom of the sickness of the parents."

"The relationship between evil and schizophrenia is not only a matter for fascinating speculation but also very serious research. Many (but certainly not all) of the parents of schizophrenic children seem to be ambulatory schizophrenics or evil or both."

"Wherever there is evil, there is a lie around." (135)

"Theirs is a brand of narcissism so total that they seem to lack, in whole or party, this capacity for empathy."

---------

I had heard of M. Scott Peck when I was working in the book industry back in the 90's; mostly because "The Road Less Traveled" was famous for being on the paperback best seller list for so long, but I had never actually read anything by him. I found this book enormously appealing and just a bit disturbing. A caveat before I start: I read the 1983 first edition and don't know if there are newer, revised editions or not. This is important because Peck's Christianity, by his own acknowledgment, was quite new at the time and still evolving. That said, his approach to therapy and human evil is quite appealing, drawing mostly from the writings of Martin Buber and the Berragon Brothers. I do find, however, the chapters on exorcism to be a bit disturbing and anachronistic. A fascinating read with a few eye-popping moments of disbelief thrown in.

The premise of this book, which is an attempt by Scott Peck to bridge the gap between psychology and theology, but the results are seriously mixed.

The early chapters on defining and identifying evil were very good, and they really made me reflect on and rethink the way I conceive of virtue and character.
I had always thought that only actions were good or evil, that people were neither. But having read People of the Lie, I see now that that’s an incomplete world view. I still believe that people are neither inherently good nor inherently evil, but now I’ve realised that over the course of lives, we become one or the other through our choices.

Peck’s characterisation of evil as – to paraphrase – everything that opposes life, both of the body and of the spirit, was also very helpful, although more in terms of self-examination than diagnosing others. And strangely the part of the book that I was most wary of – the use of exorcisms as a cure for psychological evil – was probably the most even-handed section. He doesn’t prescribe exorcisms as a cure all, and he even refrains from making definite statements about the success of the two exorcisms he witnessed: both patients improved afterwards, but gradually. In actual fact, the attempts initially seemed to have failed. Non-believers who had taken part in the rituals reported no spiritual or supernatural experiences – there is room for the incredulous here.

However, I do think that it’s a book that needs to be taken with a double helping of salt. For one thing, Peck is a Freudian. I didn’t know that anyone apart from irritating literary theorists took Freud seriously these days, but this book casually throws out Freudian theories of psychosexual development as though they were valid and applicable. It was pretty left of field.

However, I think most people can spot Freudian BS without being taken in by it, because it’s just so ludicrous. The more concerning part is Peck’s lax attitude towards theology – he presents theories about heaven and hell and good and evil without any reference to Scripture, tradition or the writings of the Church’s many fathers and doctors. He makes enormous sweeping statements, apparently on his own authority. It’s just impossible to trust that kind of approach.

He also plainly misrepresented some historical events, especially as regards the historical process of the academic separation of theology and science. In one offhand paragraph, he dismissed an enormously complex ideological shift that took place over hundreds of years, attributing the schism instead to the Church’s mishandling of Galileo, an incident which has itself been misrepresented in popular historical accounts. I was Fuming.

So, while frequently thought-provoking, this book is just too unreliable to be recommendable. It certainly hasn’t done anything to reduce my wariness of pop psychology in general.