HuffamegThu, Apr 3, 2008 This is a quite interesting approach to the problem of domination, and the question of evil can and should be a central aspect of this debate. The structures of evil is closely linked with that of the establishment of domination. In this perspective, your posting contributes to this increasingly interesting discussion.
I do not, however, understand what is to be meant by psychopathy in a social sense. To judge any power holding instance psychopathic would not in any way be helpful, and I do not think that it is this you want. It seems to me rather that you argument should be understood as a construction of psychopathy as a link between power and the evil of domination, or as an attempt to clarify the question on the possibility of resistance in domination.
What, then, is to be understood with psychopathy? Is this concept limited to a psychological profile of persons in positions of power or can it be developed to include a debate on structures?
This is a quite interesting approach to the problem of domination, and the question of evil can and should be a central aspect of this debate. The structures of evil is closely linked with that of the establishment of domination. In this perspective, your posting contributes to this increasingly interesting discussion.
I do not, however, understand what is to be meant by psychopathy in a social sense. To judge any power holding instance psychopathic would not in any way be helpful, and I do not think that it is this you want. It seems to me rather that you argument should be understood as a construction of psychopathy as a link between power and the evil of domination, or as an attempt to clarify the question on the possibility of resistance in domination.
What, then, is to be understood with psychopathy? Is this concept limited to a psychological profile of persons in positions of power or can it be developed to include a debate on structures?