The Construction of the "Other"
Throughout history, societies have used the concept of evil not as an objective moral category, but as a rhetorical tool to separate "us" from "them." When we label another culture, belief system, or people as evil, we remove the need to understand them. We replace curiosity with condemnation, and dialogue with hostility.
Anthropologists and historians have long observed that what one culture calls evil, another may call sacred, ordinary, or simply different. The label says more about the society wielding it than the one receiving it.
"The concept of barbarism has no place in the social sciences. There is nothing inherently barbaric about any people." Claude Lévi-Strauss, Race and History (1952)
A Tool of Power, Not Truth
Empires and nation-states have consistently framed foreign cultures as evil to justify conquest, colonization, and war. From the Roman characterization of "barbarians" to colonial narratives about "savage" peoples, the pattern repeats: first dehumanize, then dominate.
This framing serves those in power. It simplifies complex geopolitical conflicts into morality tales and rallies public support for actions that might otherwise face scrutiny. When an enemy is evil, questioning the response becomes difficult, even dangerous.
"The true evil of our societies is not the explicit racism or sexism, but the way universality itself is used as a mask for particular interests, declaring our way of life as the only civilized one, and dismissing others as barbaric." Slavoj Žižek, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections (2008)
Neocolonialism and the Modern "Evil"
The pattern of labeling others as evil did not end with formal colonialism. In the modern era, neocolonial dynamics continue to use moral framing to maintain economic and political control over the Global South.
During the Cold War, democratically elected leaders like Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran (1953) and Patrice Lumumba in Congo (1961) were cast as dangerous threats, proxies for evil ideologies, to justify foreign-backed coups that installed regimes friendlier to Western economic interests. The moral framing obscured what were fundamentally resource-driven interventions.
International institutions like the IMF and World Bank have imposed structural adjustment programs on developing nations under the guise of "good governance," while the cultural and economic models they enforce reflect the interests of wealthy nations. Countries that resist are often framed as rogue states or failed states, modern equivalents of the old "barbaric" label.
The "War on Terror" offers perhaps the clearest recent example. The language of evil was applied broadly to entire regions, justifying invasions, drone programs, and mass surveillance. Millions of civilians bore the consequences of a moral framework that reduced complex societies to a single threatening label.
Even today, Western media routinely frames African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American political movements through a lens of disorder and threat, while similar upheavals at home are described as democratic processes. The vocabulary shifts depending on who is being described, and who is doing the describing.
Binary Thinking Erases Nuance
The good-versus-evil framework forces everything into two categories, leaving no room for the complexity of real human societies. Every culture contains contradictions: acts of generosity alongside injustice, tradition alongside progress. Reducing any group to a single moral verdict erases this reality.
When we move past the binary, we can engage with difficult questions honestly: Why do societies develop different norms? What historical circumstances shaped their values? How do our own blind spots influence our judgments?
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster." Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
Toward Understanding
None of this means that harm, cruelty, or injustice should be tolerated. Rather, it argues that we should critique specific actions and systems, not brand entire peoples or cultures with an absolute moral label. The difference matters: one approach opens the door to accountability and change; the other slams it shut.
By recognizing that "evil" is often a political construction rather than a description of reality, we take the first step toward a more honest and less weaponized understanding of human difference.