How do political scientists define 'evil' in the context of public figures?
Executive summary
Political scientists do not offer a single, settled definition of “evil” for public figures; instead they treat such language as a mix of moral philosophy, social attribution, and political framing that scholars measure indirectly through concepts like incivility, scandal, dehumanization, and organizational anthropomorphism [1] [2] [3]. Normative accounts of “evil” appear mainly in cross-disciplinary and philosophical treatments (e.g., political ponerology and ethics literature) rather than as a standardized empirical category in mainstream political science [4] [5] [6].
1. Scholars avoid a single technical definition — they operationalize instead
Political science rarely defines “evil” as a formal variable researchers can plug into models; instead scholars operationalize related phenomena (incivility, scandal, toxicity, dehumanization) and study their political consequences. Work on political incivility examines how citizens assign moral traits to actors and institutions — including labels like “evil” — as part of broader processes of organizational anthropomorphism and moral attribution [1]. Cambridge-style research on scandal treats public labeling (media and elite framing) as the core indicator that someone’s behavior is widely judged to contravene moral or procedural norms, rather than invoking a metaphysical category called “evil” [2].
2. Two clusters of inquiry: empirical measurement and moral theory
One stream of work is empirical: measuring rhetoric, media construction, public perception, and behavioral consequences. Studies document how incivility and toxic behavior polarize publics and lower compliance with norms [1], and how media recognition can create or signal scandal even when evidence is contested [2]. A second stream is philosophical and interdisciplinary: treatments like political ponerology and ethics interrogate the concept of evil, its genealogy, and how a secular political understanding might be constructed — these are not dominant paradigms in mainstream empirical political science but inform normative critiques [4] [5] [6].
3. “Evil” as social attribution that predicts political harm
Research shows that when citizens see opponents as not merely wrong but “evil” or subhuman, political consequences follow: increased readiness for violence, erosion of democratic norms, and greater tolerance for extralegal action [3]. Journalistic and academic labels such as “toxic” operate similarly: they capture sustained polarization and behaviors that repeatedly antagonize public opinion, even while supporters persist [7]. Political scientists therefore treat “evil” language as a meaningful social signal correlated with polarization and risk, not as a neutral analytic term [7] [3].
4. Media and elites create the “evil” narrative through scandal dynamics
Scholars argue media coverage and elite commentary play an outsized role in converting allegations or behaviors into a collective judgment — the social construction of scandal. Whether someone is treated as morally monstrous often depends on news context, elite framing, and information congestion, not solely on the intrinsic nature of the act [2]. That means accusations of “evil” can reflect politically driven processes: strategic labeling, news incentives, and partisan contests over moral boundaries [2].
5. Normative debates persist: secular conceptions of evil versus political utility
Philosophical treatments collected under “political ponerology” and ethics journals explore whether a secular, political science–useful concept of evil is possible and what that would mean for policy and scholarship; these works push political scientists to grapple with moral language while recognizing methodological limits [4] [5] [6]. Mainstream empirical political science, however, prioritizes measurable constructs (dehumanization scales, incivility indices, scandal onset) and traces downstream effects rather than endorsing moral metaphysics [1] [2].
6. Practical takeaway for researchers and citizens
When political actors or commentators call public figures “evil,” scholars advise treating that as a cue to measure concrete phenomena: dehumanizing rhetoric, patterns of incivility, media scandal dynamics, and indicators of increased risk (e.g., willingness to endorse violence) rather than as a settled analytic category [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not present a single operational definition of “evil” used across political science; they instead document how related constructs are measured and debated in both empirical and normative literature [1] [5] [6].
Limitations and source note: This analysis synthesizes empirical studies on incivility and scandal, journalism and advocacy pieces on toxicity, and interdisciplinary work on political conceptions of evil provided in the search results; the sources collectively show contested usage rather than a single disciplinary definition [1] [4] [5] [2] [3].