Evil - An Institution of the State

On the subjective level evil has its own charm, generates a emotional/affective atmosphere, it can be motivating and stimulating. Many times I have seen people attracted to evil, for no reason, just because (it is/it looks evil). On the subjective level it is difficult to find a place for evil in a normal society. Evil is understood as something irrational, against the norms of the society. But the truth is that there is nothing irrational about evil in such a objective scenario. It is a perfect viable situation in which a rational agent commits evil using his rationality, having a well defined perspective of evil. Actually I will try to point out that in a social scheme, using coercition evil is something well planned, rational and is quantified through its effectivness.
I will take a special case of evil – ”coercive power” [I am an anarchist therefore I cannot find any greater evil in a society]. I will take the example of two rational agents who try to reach an agreement.
Lets thake the following situation where there are no social institutions:
inputs
- An agent named A threatens another named B with X (beating);
- X (beating) is something that hurts B and therefore wants to avoid it;
- A wants Y (money) from B.
Outputs -----------------------------------------
- If B does Y, then A does not do X;
- For B, X is a greater loss than Y
So a basic logic would lead to the fact that B does Y and A is succesful.
But not everything that is logic is also correct, and in this sence the logic above is flawed, because it neglects the fact that B can resist.
So we will have the following output:
- B refuses to do Y;
- As A can not get Y from B and he will have to do X.
But Why would A do so? As B already refused to give X, beating him will only mean a waste of energy for A. So intrinsically there is no bennefit for A at all, moreover he puts himself at the risk of harm, as he can get injuries.
So, as long we have 2 rational agents that are looking to maximising their profit, then coercition will not work … unless they are scared, therefore irrational.
Next i will take a simmilar example but put it in the context of social institutions and point out that such threats become efficient only if different social institutions work. By social institutions one can understant both the formal level (the State) and the informal level (e.g. gangster organizations). My argument is a Hobbesian one which shows that in the State of Nature social power does not exist. Social power is a social construction. Moreover continuing Hobbes argument there is nothing evil or wrong in the State of Nature. In his opinion social institutions bring justice, and as a consequence evil as a failure of justice. So for Hobbes the situation I presented above can not be coercition, but only violence.
Lets now look at a situation in a institutional setting:
[I will not write again what was mentioned before, but only add what is new]
Now A is in a threat position as he is a institutional agent and threats with X, convincing B. What convinces B is not the agent, but the background of the institution he represents, so coercition emerges as a type of effective interactive strategy. A is a institutional agent with a norm to follow and A acts according to the preset pattern he is programed to follow. If A (as a institutional agent) does not do X and B does not do Y, then A will loose its reputations and his effectivness in coercing other subjects.
Institutional threats and coercition can be effective and efficient to the degree that they become invisible. Both agents know the rules of the game even before it begins and both can anticipate their opponents actions, so there is no need for an explicit threat. This way B becomes an institutional victim who may even fail to notice this fact.
Evil is then fully embodied in a effective and efficient action context which is strenghtened by relevant institutions. This is why so much of all the evil in the society is not visible. It is a part of the rational social plan of life and its embodiement. Threats become invisible and in a sense accepted. This is a standard case in a society where hard social power is well organized and established. Both the coercer and the subject of coercition understand what can be done and what cannot. The coercer knows that the victim is afraid of what he consideres a negative value, this is one of the reasons threats are based on violence.
Only in a institutionalized context can coercition work effectively and efficiently. This is a kind of anarchistic conclusion: institutions make evil possible in the praxiological sense. So, coercition is a perfect example of rational and logical evil which is not based on error, but requires knowledge. Coercition also creates an illusion of cooperation and choice, which tends to hide its true nature.

Theanti