The Manichean Paranoia Patch

In the course of poking around the Internet, looking for blog title inspiration, I stumbled across something interesting. Many people are familiar with the phrase “Manichean Paranoia.” The first time I heard it was during a recent interview with Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose name, incidentally, is worth 57 points in Scrabble). Manichean Paranoia refers to someone who believes the world is broken down into a sharp Good vs. Evil divide and that because they are morally superior, they are excused to commit immoral acts. Recently, the word Manichean has been popularized following its use in the 2002 Washington Post that, not surprisingly, was reacting to President Bush’s well-known “Axis of Evil” speech. This is a useful term, but what are its origins?

Intrigued, I looked up Manichean and was redirected to Manichaeism, which was an ancient Persian religion that died out in the 16th century, but saw revival movements from within the Christian faith. The most interesting of those Christian reinterpretations was the teachings of Marcion, who taught that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were not only distinct but actually in opposition of each other. To refocus, Manichaeism originated in Babylonia sometime during the 3rd century but spread both westward and eastward. According to Wikipedia, the Prophet “Mani postulated two natures that existed from the beginning: light and darkness. The realm of light lived in peace, while the realm of darkness was in constant conflict with itself. The universe is the temporary result of an attack from the realm of darkness on the realm of light, and was created by the Living Spirit, an emanation of the light realm, out of the mixture of light and darkness.”

Although Manichaeism died out, it’s easy to see the profound effect it had on other religions in the area, particularly Christianity. After all, if you read the Bible, you’ll notice that it’s strangely devoid of active battles between God and Satan. In fact, there don’t seem to be very many specific references to the latter figure at all, much less as an arch villain actively trying to seduce men’s souls. In addition, many of the references to Satan are actually not Satan at all, but rather rival deities such as Baal that were worshipped in neighboring areas. (Interestingly Baal’s name was followed by “zebul” by ancient Israelis, meaning dung. Thus, today Beelzebul is just another word for demon and is frequently equated with Satan.) My point is, that it’s not a far stretch to see how Manichaeism had might have effected the development of the Christian church, emphasizing the battle between the absolutes of Good and Evil as embodied by God and Satan. Mani himself described himself as a “disciple of Jesus Christ,” although he was rejected by the early Christian church as a heretic, and made every effort to include various religious traditions in his faith.

Beyond just etymological and historic interest, the main reason that I dug up all this information was an article I stumbled across written by a Professor Skinner who has a PhD in Political Theory and teaches at the City University of New York. Dr. Skinner asserts that the popularization of the word “Manichean” to describe a bipolar world-view is both a distortion of that belief system and an insult to its complexity. To quote his article “as orthodox dualists, (Manicheans) believed that the forces of Good and Evil were not engaged in some continuous and messianic struggle, but rather that their contrasting presence was the very basis of the spiritual order. For the Manicheans, this dualism constituted the structure of the spiritual world that framed each individual’s relationship with reality. Everyone, they believed, would benefit from identifying the presence of Evil within themselves and should endeavor a personal journey to allow Good to dominate. Evil could never be eradicated; it simply wouldn’t make existential sense to think it could be.”

Dr. Skinner continues to assert that early Christian theologians such as St. Augustine and Aquinas also rejected “Evil” as a concrete entity because “to admit that would be to admit that God creates Evil.” Now although I am quite familiar with their names, I have never personally read Augustine or Aquinas, so I am forced to take Dr. Skinner at his word. However, from what I know about the evolution of Christianity as a belief system, this makes total sense. Skinner goes on to assert that President Bush’s worldview, if it ought to be compared to any ancient religious belief system, ought to be tied to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism, considered by many to be the first true monotheist religion (don’t tell the Jews!), divided the world into the two contrasting spheres of Good and Evil, however it also included the millennial belief that eventually evil would be eradicated. It’s important to note that this paradise would not occur through violence but rather through the removal of spiritual weakness.

Skinner makes a few more interesting points, but rather than simply reiterate them here, I encourage you to take a look at his article. The next time someone drops the word Manichean around you to inflate their argument with some impressive terminology, you should correct them and explain why Zoroastrian Paranoia would be more appropriate. I can guarantee you will leave them intellectual and spiritually deflated. As for me, I’m still not sure if I want to use “The Manichean Paranoia Patch” as my blog title because the phrase “Manichean Paranoia” is probably a misnomer. Still, the alliteration is tasty so I may change my mind. I doubt anyone but Dr. Skinner would call me out on it.