The Psychological Power of the Devil

Pictured: Arthur contemplating metaphysical truths regarding religion and human behavior. And , Marilyn Monroe

In Act I of The Crucible, Arthur Miller writes:

"The concept of unity, in which positive and negative are attributes of the same force, in which good and evil are relative, ever-changing, and always joined to the same phenomenon--such a concept is still reserved to the physical sciences and to the few who have grasped the history of ideas."

In laymen's terms, humanity tends to gravitate towards a view of good and evil in which the former is embodied by God and the latter is the work of the Devil. To Miller, a man all too familiar with persecution, the Devil can be used as a tool to control and demonize one's enemies.

Miller phrases this idea succinctly: "A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence."

The Puritans needed the Devil; their world of faith and suffering would almost be too much to bear without him.

But do modern Americans still need him?

Today, we can view the Puritan concept of the Devil under the lense of psychology and a scientific understanding of the brain and human behavior.

This is an idea more fully explored in the following article posted on Scientific American: "The Psychological Power of Satan." The author argues against the traditional view of the Devil and evil. 

Your Assignment:

• Read the article and post a comment on this blog post.
• What does the article have to do with The Crucible? Does it help you make sense of the Miller quote at the beginning of this post?
• What do you make of the author's view of the Devil and evil? Is it a good or bad thing to abandon the concept of "evil" and replace it with a more psychologically sensitive view? Explain.

Your responses are due before class on Thursday, September 25th.

Last year, Slate Magazine posted a humorous and telling article concerning some of the most unsual and occasionally downright spiteful Puritan names of yesteryear: "A Boy Named Humiliation". If this article sparks your interest, feel free to check out Curiosities of Puritan Nomenclature, a comprehensive study of Puritan naming practices published in 1888.

But what about your name? What does it mean? What does it reveal about you and your relationship to your family?

Please research the meaning of your own name using the Behind the Name website. If your first name does not deliver any results, try your last name, or ask your family members what the name means to them.

In the comment section of this post, respond to the following:

1. Select what you feel is the most memorable Puritan name from the article from Slate Magazine and explain what the name reveals about the Puritan culture.
2. Finally, explain the significance of your own first or last name. Please include information you find from Behind the Name or from your own research.

Responses are due prior to class on Monday (9/22). 

My Response:

Regarding the Puritan names, one name in particular doesn't stand out. Rather, I am disgusted by the cruel, depressing names given to children.

Forsaken? Were these poor people robbed of all joy? Children were indoctrinated at birth: life is constant struggle and suffering.

Now, my name.

I am named after my mother's father, Edward Earle Allen.  Interestingly enough, my father picked the name.

Pictured: My mother, the little girl, my two uncles, my grandmother, and my grandfather, Earle (1953).

Admittedly, I am not crazy about the name Edward. However, I admire the man that I was named after.

Also, I don't think anyone regularly calls me Edward.
Ed, Eddie, Eduardo, Edsel--these are all more common.

Alright, your turn, people.