For Sunday December 28, 2008
Sociopaths
There\’s no regular column today. For a variety of technical reasons, I had to tell the newspaper that I could not meet their deadline this week. However, a few extra days gave me time to put together some year-end musings.
Musing One: Sociopaths
Two articles piqued my interest during December. The first discussed sociopaths.
Sociopath was a new word for me. Initially, I thought of psychopaths – stereotypically a serial killer or mass murderer.
But sociopaths may never do anything specifically criminal. They may simply harm a lot of people, strewing emotional chaos in their wake.
The psychiatric profession is not very helpful in distinguishing the two. Indeed, the DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, the Bible of the psychiatric profession — lumps sociopaths and psychopaths together under the general heading of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Its list of symptoms equates sociopathy with criminality,probably because some 90 per cent of the U.S. prison population suffers from AsPD.
AsPD is characterized, according to the DSM, by “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others…” compounded by “an inability to learn from past mistakes.”
The article by Gene Messick — I don\’t know his credentials –was more helpful. Psychopaths, he suggested, don\’t know the difference between right and wrong. They respond only to the instant gratification of selfish impulse.
Sociopaths, on the other hand, do know the difference between right and wrong. They just don\’t care. It doesn\’t matter to them that their actions may have hurt someone else. They have no conscience.
I knew someone like that in my younger days. He was witty, charming, with a lively and inquiring mind. He got high marks, especially in courses involving ethics or philosophy. He could be exceptionally generous, even thoughtful, when he chose to.
But he had no moral scruples.
Back then, car radios were relatively rare things. My car had a rather primitive car radio; his didn\’t. He borrowed my radio to impress a Saturday night date. After the weekend, I asked for my radio back.
“Oh, that,” he said. “I traded it to Fred Smith for his guitar.”
“Then gimme the guitar.”
“I smashed it.”
End of the story.
Making him feel guilty didn\’t work. He had no conscience.
Musing Two: Society
The second article asked the provocative question, “Is there such a thing as society?”
The author, an Indian writer named Aseem Shrivastava who focuses on economic issues, quoted former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher: “There is no such thing as society… There are individual men and women and there are families. That\’s all.”
“Social welfare, on this view,” Shrivastava editorialized, “is no more than the sum total of the welfare of each.”
Thatcher\’s definition identifies a market economy. When the only measurement is economic, only individual economic transactions count.
But experience suggests that\’s only partially true.
A society does not necessarily mirror its individual members. Most environment associations are rigorously secular, though the majority of their members may have strong religious motivations. Corporate entities (such as Air Canada, my favorite scapegoat) are seen as callous and impersonal, although individual staff may be uniformly friendly and cooperative one-to-one.
I have found Americans overseas to be generally gregarious, hospitable, and extroverted. But most of the world sees America collectively as paranoid, self-obsessed, and domineering.
A society of corporate CEOs, Hollywood stars, and Mafia godfathers — cynically speaking, it might be hard to tell which was which — could have the world\’s highest per capita income and standard of living. But their levels of personal trust, fidelity, and altruism could be abyssmal.
A social system based on exploiting the weaknesses of others is hardly likely to lead to collective benefit.
As Shrivastava noted that in a social context “The majority of transactions and relationships are with people we do not know, or even do not see.” Therefore, he reasoned, “A society can be judged by the quality of its anonymous relationships. If there is good faith and trust, society lives well. If they are absent…”
Musing Three: Sociopathic Societies To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to jimt@quixotic.ca. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing.
If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website.
For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton\’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton\’s Site, or by sending a note directly to ralphmilton@woodlake.com.
It\’s also worth pursuing Charlene Fairchild\’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating\’s \”SeemslikeGod\” page.
Which leads to my third musing. If both individuals and societies can have personalities, can a society be sociopathic?
It sounds like an oxymoron. A society — anything from a tribe to a nation — is a social unit. Can a social unit be antisocial to itself?
Messick\’s distinction between psycho- and sociopaths makes some sense to me here. Social units clearly do have a sense of right and wrong. They understand moral codes. They acknowledge international laws such as the Geneva Convention.
But those same societies establish extra-legal detention centres. Guantanamo Bay is perhaps the most egregious example, but the U.S. is certainly not the only nation operating such facilities.
They give lip service to idealistic statements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and then sanction the stoning of women for adultery, the genocide of a supposedly inferior people, or the massacre of devotees of a different religion.
Could it be said that such regimes lack a conscience? That they know the difference between right and wrong, and just don\’t care?
Gene Messick considers George W. Bush\’s administration to be sociopathic. “”Not one of them has ever expressed guilt or remorse for their actions. Sociopaths cannot. A sociopath can look you right in the eye and tell you lies without blinking.
But they\’re not the only ones. Messick asks: “Why does Governor Blagojevich say he has no intention of resigning? Why are CEOs on Wall Street, who financially wrecked their corporations, allowed to remain as CEOs and expect bonuses despite the chaos they caused?”
I hold no personal sympathy for Bush and Co. But they were elected by people who do individually have a conscience.
So can a whole society be sociopathic?
=====================================
Copyright © 2008 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=====================================
PROMOTION PLUGS