People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil [Hardcover]

Why belief in evil spirits discredits him in the mental health community is obvious. This sort of superstition, which is not open to objective verification or experimental falsification, cannot be taken seriously by people committed (however fecklessly) to an ideal of scientific knowledge.

Confining evil to narcissism is problematic in a different way: It makes evil a sign of sickness, and historically one is not held responsible for what one does as a result of illness. Within the mental health community, pathological narcissism, which is acknowledged to be extremely destructive, is regarded as something to be cured, something for which one is no more morally culpable than one would be for blindness.

One need not be clinically narcissistic to objectify and use others. Perfectly healthy people can be evil. Failures of empathy, envy, and exploitation do not confine themselves to the psychiatrically challenged. Egoism, a moral failing, is not the same thing as narcissism, a pathlogical condition. By conflating the two, Peck made sure that the mental health community would fail to recognize the reality and horror of the former--and its role in fostering it--and also dismiss his contention that narcissism is a moral problem.

The book is about power, manipulation, boundaries, lies and evil as they exist within ourselves and the people around us. They don't require that we believe in them to exist, but if we're able to recognize them for what they are it helps. Recognizing it doesn't make it easy, but it makes it possible.

Peck's premises mightn't be entirely correct, as some suggest. But whether it's 'evil' or merely something not evil that could get a job being evil if there was such an occupation, Peck's approach works.

I recommend this book for anyone who knows, loves, cares about and lives with the agonies of the phenomenon Peck calls 'evil'.

I'm assuming that this book was published before the widespread acceptance of biological causes of mental illness, since Peck's "case studies" that appear to be primarily cases of obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depression, borderline personality disorder or some form of psychosis, all of which are now treatable with drugs. (I'm betting that Haldol, Seroquel and Prozac, as well as behavioral therapy, all have better treatment rates than exorcism). But even in the late 80's, these theories were gaining credence and psychiatrists were willing to experiment with treatment options other than the "talking cure." I find Peck's willingness to ascribe his patients' difficulties to "evil" or demonic possession not only ludicrous, but irresponsible. I hope he didn't write that on their charts.

The case studies he cites certainly illustrate that people are capable of evil--no secret to anyone who watches Court TV. But Peck seems curiously limited in his view. For example, there's Sarah, a woman who abuses her milquetoast husband. Sarah is evil, Peck maintains, but he's not really interested in how or why. If he's explored the dynamics of the relationship, he doesn't share it with us. Treatment appears to be the furthest thing from his mind. He insists that one can't "treat" evil. All right, but how did Sarah get to be this way? Original sin? Youthful experimentation with a Ouija board? Playing Dungeons & Dragons? It's more likely that she (and her spoouse) were abused or otherwise had traumatic events that caused them to accept their miserable existence as the norm and their due. But Peck doesn't deal with this possibility at all.

"Charlene," the patient who attempts to seduce Peck and (horror of horrors!) takes him away from his martinis, is clearly a messed-up young lady. Given her deteriorated (at times, seemingly delusional) condition, would it not have been more responsible for Peck to refer her to some kind of inpatient care? Or at least, since he had such difficulty dealing with her, find her another shrink?

Most of his other examples appear to be garden-variety abusive/dysfunctional families. Yes, I am aware that it is an uphill battle to get such adults or their children into treatment. But their illness is probably the result of childhood abuse or other factors, not evil. It's possible to use mental illness to explain too much. Some people probably are "just plain evil" but they are, thank God, relatively few in number.

As another reviewer stated, this book is dangerous--more because it is the modern version of burning epileptics at the stake as witches. Mental illness is biological, not moral. I hope his patients eventually got the treatment they so desperately needed.