Something The Cat Dragged In Sparknotes

Patricia Highsmith’s short story, “Something the Cat Dragged In,” provides various examples of human nature when influenced by evil as it occurs by ordinary people. These situations can be analyzed through Philip Zimbardo’s video, “Psychology of Evil,” and Wendell Bell’s article, “Who is Really Evil?” Their theories further relate to Patrik Jonsson’s article “Rich Kid Gets Probation for Drunk-Driving Deaths. His Defense? ‘Affluenza’.” Wendell Bell defines evil as “Human actions or inactions that harm other people” (Bell 55 C1-2). Bell expresses two categories of evil behavior: idealistic evil and instrumental evil. Idealistic evil is criminal actions that are committed because the perpetrator believes they are right, thus, religious extremism

and genocide are both considered idealistic evil. Instrumental evil is actions that are committed in the best interest of the perpetrator, so, lying and stealing are considered instrumental evil. Philip Zimbardo also defines evil: “Evil is the exercise of power; to hurt others physically or psychologically” (Zimbardo). This means that evil comes from power, control, and sometimes self-interest. Philip Zimbardo explains that the “7 Social Processes that Grease the Slippery Slope of Evil” are mindlessly taking the first step, dehumanization of others, making oneself anonymous, diffusion of personal responsibility, blind obedience to authority, uncritical conformity to group norms, and passive tolerance to evil through inaction or indifference (Zimbardo). With these differing theories on evil, in Patricia Highsmith’s story the characters can give an in-depth view on the many situations and categories of evil behavior. In the case of Ethan Couch, “Rich Kid Gets Probation for Drunk-Driving Deaths, His Defense? ‘Affluenza,”” Couch’s evil actions are considered idealistic evil and as diffusion of personal responsibility.
Patricia Highmith’s, “Something the Cat Dragged In,” starts off on an ordinary afternoon with Michael and his wife, Gladys Herbert; their neighbor, Colonel Edward Phelps and his niece, Phyllis, and lastly, Uncle Eddie, all playing a game of Scrabble.

The group is surprised as the Herbert’s cat, Portland Bill, carries in a severed hand that appears dirty, and has a golden wedding ring on one of its fingers. The crew mulls over their choice of what to do with this hand for several days, they contemplate whether to turn it into the police, or simply let it blow over and go on with their lives. Michael plays detective as he dismembers the fingers in order to read engravings on the wedding ring, in pursuit of discovering who the hand belongs to. As the story unfolds, Michael learns that the hand belongs to Bill Reeves, a promiscuous farmworker, who enjoys flirting with various men’s wives. Bill Reeves works for Tom Dickenson, a respected and wealthy farm owner in their small rural village in England. Tom Dickenson kills Bill Reeves in cold blood, alongside a trusted family friend, Peter. Once Michael discovers Tom Dickenson is responsible for Bill Reeves’ untimely death, him and his entourage decide not to contact the police, for the reason that they do not wish to tarnish Tom Dickenson’s

reputation.
The evil action committed by Tom Dickenson, can be analyzed through the categories of evil provided in Wendell Bell’s, “Who is Really Evil?” Wendell Bell describes instrumental evil as detrimental actions that support the assailant’s goals. Tom Dickenson murders his farmworker, Reeves, because he has witnessed him flirting with and pursuing his wife on multiple occasions. This angers Dickenson, so his action of murdering Reeves was in his own self-interest: “I didn’t turn my back on Reeves, and my anger was somehow rising. He had a smirk on his face, and he swung his hatchet as if to catch me in the thigh though he wasn’t near enough to me. Then he turned his back on me – arrogantly – and I hit him in the head with the big hammer. I hit him a second time as he was falling, but that landed on his back” (Highsmith 388). Dickenson did not think twice about swinging the hammer to Dickenson’s head because the murder was committed in Dickenson’s best interest to keep Reeves away from his wife. Therefore, Dickson commits instrumental evil because the murder is in support of his person goals.
Highsmith’s “Something the Cat Dragged In” can be analyzed through Philip Zimbardo’s “7 Social Processes that Grease the Slippery Slope to Evil.” Zimbardo’s argument, ‘blind obedience to authority,’ occurs in Highsmith’s story as the Herberts, Phyllis, and the Colonel discover that Tom Dickenson is responsible for the death of Bill Reeves, they decide that Dickenson is too important, respected, and wealthy, to be tried for the murder he is responsible for. However, since Reeves is just a farmworker, they find reasons not to: “Reeves had been swine – even to his own wife – unprincipled, and should a young man like Dickenson ruin his own life, or the best part of it, over a man like Reeves?” (Highsmith 389). Michael continues: “You’re one against three, Glad. Do you seriously want to ruin a young man’s life for a thing like this?” (Highsmith 391). Michael is the ringleader of the group, he has the power to sway the group’s view of what is right and wrong in this situation. Gladys, Phyllis, and the Colonel blindly follow his authority, so therefore, are guilty of evil.
Patrik Jonsson’s article, “Rich Kid Gets Probation for Drunk-Driving Deaths. His Defense? ‘Affluenza;’” published in Christian Science Monitor in December of 2013, relates to Zimbardo and Bell’s theories on the categories and processes of evil. Ethan Couch, a wealthy young man from Dallas, Texas, commits evil when he decides to drive under the influence of alcohol. The consequences of his actions result in the deaths of four, and injuries of nine people. Judge Jean Boyd gives Couch a pardoning sentence: a stay at a $1,200 a day drug treatment facility in California. Couch’s lax sentence angers the public because they believe justice has not been served. Couch’s evil actions are defined by Wendell Bell as idealistic evil; evil that is committed because the perpetrator believes they are right in their actions. As Couch pleads innocent by the defense, ‘affluenza,’ he states that because he has not been taught that it actions are wrong, he does not recognize the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, all evil actions committed by Couch are done so because he is certain that he is right in his actions. Couch’s case is also clear as one of Philip Zimbardo’s “7 Social Processes that Grease the Slippery Slope to Evil:” diffusion of personal responsibility. When consuming alcohol above the legal limit for driving, there is an obligation of the drinker, to either wait to drive until they are sober, or call a taxi to get to their next destination. When Ethan Couch decides to ignore his sobriety, he puts lives in danger, disregarding his personal responsibility to the people of Dallas, Texas; therefore, Ethan Couch does not take ownership for his evil actions.
The evil that occurs throughout “Something the Cat Dragged In,” and Ethan Couch’s situation, are performed by ordinary people, who chose to do the wrong thing, rather than the right thing. Evil actions can by analyzed in many ways, however, various situations have a tendency to bring the evil out in people. Couch, Dickenson, the Herberts, and their friends, could have avoided their evil actions; however, they all chose to be a part of it. The Herberts, Phyllis, the Colonel, and Uncle Eddie all commit evil as they refute their responsibility to inform the police that a murder has been committed, they blindly follow orders from Michael as a justification for committing this evil action. Wendell Bell’s two categories of evil, idealistic and instrumental, are committed by Tom Dickenson and Ethan Couch. Tom Dickenson commits instrumental evil, because murdering his farmworker, for flirting with his wife, is in his own best-interest. Ethan Couch commits idealistic evil, because he does not recognize that his actions are in fact, evil. Ethan Couch is also guilty of Zimbardo’s diffusion of personal responsibility, because he chooses to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, which results in the deaths of four people.