Recreational Malice

There is a theme, present as an undercurrent in a number of my previous posts, which I think needs more direct emphasis at this point.

I'm talking, as the title of this post makes clear, about recreational malice, and its place at the center of abusive interactions.

First, let's define malice. A nice, clean definition is presented in the Free Online Dictionary:

"A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite."

Now, let's define recreation. From the same online source, I've chosen the second definition offered:

"An activity done for pleasure or relaxation."

Moving right along, recreational malice can be defined as:

Desiring or pursuing the harming of others, or their suffering, as a source of pleasure; indulging ill will or spite as a form of relaxation.

In the most recent post I've linked to above, Aranna [whose entirely fictitious name is taken from the Spanish word for spider] spun a web of spite and defamation around a man she claimed to care for, speaking ill of him to an audience of friends who were so mesmerized by her pretense of caring that they did not see the actual content of the words, or their use to manipulate. This is a common tactic of abusers; poisoning the well in advance, discrediting a target who is not present to defend himself or herself to people who have never even met the person being 'slimed'.

It only works where malice is an accepted form of recreation.

In the second of the three posts I've linked to above, Pica [whose entirely fictitious name is an acronym for Person I Consider Abusive] engaged in very similar tactics. Pica's tactics were directed against an un-named member of her own group, someone she considered a threat to her domination of that group, a possibly present, unidentified target as opposed to an absent, unknown target. Her behavior is at least as reprehensible as Aranna's. Again, if you read through the post and see the elements of groupthink being exploited in the situation, it will hopefully be clear that Pica's skillful and adept 'enemy creation'...

only worked because the group was accustomed to malice as an accepted form of recreation.

The third linked post doesn't include a case history, but makes the point that "if we respond to abusers by abusing them in return, we indeed become, to some extent, the thing we abhor. Trapped in Karpman dynamics, we merely persecute our persecutor."

This is the ultimate result of recreational malice when it is not actively identified and actively resisted during the process of recovery.

Having said this, let me be very clear about what I am NOT saying.

I am not saying that we who have been abused have no right to describe the abuse to supportive third parties. On the contrary; this is the process by which all wrongs are brought to light, and, in the extreme, the process by which criminality is exposed.

I am not saying that we who have been abused have no right to identify our abusers in conversations with supportive third parties. Again, on the contrary: this is the process by which wrongdoers are brought to light, and, in the extreme, the process by which criminals are identified for prosecution.

I am also not saying that we who have been abused have no right to tell our stories more than once. In fact, the ability to repeat the story to supportive listeners is a first step towards drawing the poison of abuse out of our lives. It is also the only way we have to teach and warn others. Theory alone won't do it; we have to use specific, concrete illustrations to demonstrate the abusive behavior and tactics, and ways of resistance and escape.

What I am saying is this: there is a danger here, one we must be aware of and defend ourselves against. C.S. Lewis, in Chapter 17 of "Mere Christianity", described it well (emphasis mine):

The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, `Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

Lewis' words are strong stuff, but the danger he describes is real. In our process of recovery from abuse, we must be aware of malice, especially because so much of it was modeled for us by our abusers, who used it relentlessly against us.

We must be very aware of the dangers associated with malice as a source of pleasure. We must learn to recognize not only the open malice practiced against us by our abusers, but also malice disguised as concern, disguised as honesty, disguised as righteousness; the malice - wherever, against whomever, it is directed - that may come, unaware or otherwise, from our best friend, our closest co-worker, our most admired superior, or ultimately, our own hearts.

Such malice-for-pleasure is a trap into which any one of us may fall, at any time; we who have been wronged must guard fiercely against it, because the unchecked indulgence of recreational malice ultimately transforms those who were abused into those who abuse.