Psychopathy – new spirit of the age
December 28, 2009 @ 11:54 am by NobleThe following excerpt is from “The Mask of Sanity” by Harvey Cleckley. It cites an article in Playboy magazine and subsequent book extolling the virtues of the psychopathic personality type and calling it the “new spirit of the age”. It isn’t so new anymore, but it’s well worth a read.
Psychopathy is a biological tragedy, but societies can be arranged in such a way to encourage psychopathic behavior from its participants. Just as psychopaths attempt to mimic the forms of “normal,” so-called normal people can be trained to mimic the psychopathic form. What would a psychopathic society look like? This point is highlighted very well by the documentary film, “The Corporation.”
Credit goes to Polly once again, for introducing me to this book.
Since the last edition of this book was published in 1964 discussion of the psychopath has continued and further attempts have been made to evaluate his status. A remarkable, and curiously misleading, presentation of the subject was offered only a few years ago by a lay writer, Alan Harrington, first in the popular magazine Playboy and later in Psychopaths, a book amplifying his theme.
A serious and regrettable confusion, I believe, is likely to come from opinions quoted by this author that seem very plainly to advocate that the psychopath be admired, chosen as a leader, or at least as a model for other men. Referring to one of these opinions, the author says, “The menacing psychopath is embraced. Incredibly … it seems at first shock … we are urged to turn into an ‘antithetical’ version of the outlaw and find our way to his radical vision of the universe.”
Some of the people quoted or cited by the author of the Playboy article (and the subsequent book) seem to be spokesmen for, or prominent figures in, the recent movement of rebellion often referred to as the counterculture. In this movement we find zealots who embrace hallucinatory confusion under the influence of potentially brain-damaging psychedelic drugs and aggressively proclaim it as religious experience. Here, too, we find the antihero, often a figure flaunting treason and dishonor along with his unkempt beard, barefootedness, and defiantly frayed blue jeans. In this so-called counterculture the antihero was not only welcomed but by some virtually enshrined. It has been fashionable also in this movement to degrade the high passion and glory of sexual love to a significance not far from that of a belch. Perhaps, in this general and heedless effort to reverse the basic values, almost anything traditionally regarded as undesirable, or despicable, might be automatically stamped with the sign of approval.
After many quotations from people who may be reflecting elements of this movement, the author, himself, encourages us to ask, “if the psychopath’s time has come, if there may be a world-wide need for him.” He goes on to say, “Could the coming of the psychopath be a natural and inevitable result of our drastically deteriorating environment (which helps fling him up) as well as one answer to it and, who knows, a potential remedy for such deterioration?”
Other opinions expressed by the author include these: “Although originally founded upon an anti-social condition, it [psychopathy] offers exciting new alternatives to the way we have lived until now … the distinction blurs hopelessly between present day psychopathic patterns as observed in prisons, institutions and clinics, and equivalent behavior, which may often be put to use in good causes outside of these places. “Would it be best,” he asks, “to teach our children the psychopathic style in order that they may survive?” He speaks of “Brilliant individuals among us that are basing their own lives on the psychopathic model” and, referring to them, he cites the opinion that, “What was formerly diagnosed mental illness has turned into the new spirit of the age.” He seems quite serious in repeatedly asking if we should imitate the psychopath, if we should “yield to insanity accepted as normal? Cultivate one’s own latent psychopathy, perhaps trying to adapt it to good ends?” He also says, “Conceivably the times are railing for an idealized version of the psychopath as savior.”
Other quotations are given from writers who claim that psychopaths should be considered as having found the great answers to life. In response to such opinions, the author asks, “Have we come to the hour of the psychopath, the advent of psychopathic man … when what was once presumed to be a state of illness is abruptly declared to be a state of health, … can it be true that, with the dramatic appearance of the psychopathic ideal, a new man has come upon us, that in order to survive the turbulent years ahead, far from seeking to treat the psychopath in clinics, we should rather emulate him, learn how to become him?”
Such opinions as these, and many others quoted or expressed directly by the author, give rise to a number of thoughts. First, let me say that the question of whether or not it is desirable to be a psychopath seems not so much a real question as a pretext for sophistry. For a sophistry that is not only obvious but monumentally frivolous. It strongly suggests to me the sort of argument that might arise about whether or not a physician should use treatment in behalf of the patient or in behalf of the microorganisms which are in the process of killing him.
It is true that the psychopath is extremely difficult to understand or to explain. Confusion has often arisen about just what is indicated by the term. Any reasonable sane person who feels or says that we should emulate the psychopath must, one might presume, have a poor understanding of what the term indicates and must, surely, be talking about something else. Textbooks over the years, as we know, have often listed widely differing disorders under this term. A sincere choice of the real psychopath as model or leader by anyone familiar with the Subject would be beyond absurdity.
Related
8 Comments »
All comments are the sole opinion and property of the commenter.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
on 
on 
on 
Comment by Paul
— December 28, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
I’ve seen it written many times, and I tend to agree, that the will to power and wealth and control is a form of psychopathy.
Comment by Justin Russell
— December 28, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
Interesting article. There are some very good PDFs here that I made from a psychopathology textbook that both give very good pointers toward identifying psychopathic traits and individuals if taken on the whole.
Ten Subtypes of Psychopathy – Theodore Millon & Roger D. Davis
Psychopathy & the Five-Factor Model of Personality – Thomas a. Widiger & Donald R. Lynam
Psychopathy does seem to so much about identifying with animal predators for those who are affected, that it’s perhaps not so much that they are predators in the regressed, occupation of the reptilian brain, as they seek to become the predatory animal they subconsciously identify with, a process of becoming and imitation. Kind of like the psychopaths portrayed in Silence of the Lambs, or more especially the killer portrayed in Manhunter and Red Dragon, who aspired to the dragon from the William Blake painting. But of course however good those portrayals are they are still stuck in the “psycho-killer” stereotype that Hollywood so often portrays.
Comment by Noble
— December 28, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Thanks so much for the input, gentlemen. I so appreciate all of my regular commenters, the insight they add, and the fact y’all are still here even though I disappeared for a while. I’ll be sure to check out the links.
To both of you, one of the most interesting books I’ve read on psychopaths is “Snakes in Suits.” The successful psychopath is a lot more dangerous to society at large than the disorganized, petty thugs.
“A lot of white-collar criminals are psychopaths,” says Bob Hare. “But they flourish because the characteristics that define the disorder are actually valued. When they get caught, what happens? A slap on the wrist, a six-month ban from trading, and don’t give us the $100 million back. I’ve always looked at white-collar crime as being as bad or worse than some of the physically violent crimes that are committed.”
- Robert Hare interview
Comment by Justin Russell
— December 30, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
No probs. Good to see you’re still plugging away here. By the way, check your Library Thing page as I’ve sent you a friend request, as Extant_Taxon. I’ve made a thread on The Human Condition forum, where I mention some of the interesting libraries people have and try to encourage people to join up, put their libraries online (even if they’re just virtual) and “find the others.” I’ve made mention of yours and Cryptogon’s library here: ‘http://thcforum.ning.com/xn/detail/3081354:Comment:25866′. Maybe this could work toward a network of people linking up, discovering new texts, discussing them and finding there are many others who seek to look for the man behind the curtain. ;-)
Comment by moviedad
— January 2, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Reading about psychological conditions is a lot like reading a medical dictionary. It’s like: “Hey, I have that!” If you want to have some fun. Take out the DSM V and deconstruct your friends or your adversaries. White folks sure like naming things. As long as we name it, we think we have power over it.
Comment by Noble
— January 2, 2010 @ 12:38 am
Moviedad,
If the word “psychopath” doesn’t have a ring to it, feel free to substitute “amoral, sensation-seeking, self-centered people with no compassion or empathy.” I am not a shrink and I speak to this topic from a lay perspective, but I have seen the damage these types of individuals cause to those around them (and often themselves) firsthand.
Psychopathy is not listed or defined in the DSM-IV. I’m not sure whether or not it is in the DSM-V. The closest thing in the DSM-IV I’m aware of is Antisocial Personality Disorder with some traits of NPD. Maybe it isn’t listed because it fits too closely with our society’s short-sighted definition of success.
I don’t think anybody is under the illusion that we can control psychopathy. One of the problems with psychopathic individuals is that we have absolutely no power over it, short of highly coercive and destructive methods I can’t really endorse. No treatment works very effectively.
I know what you mean though. One of my favorite bits about psychiatry in a novel is Chuck Palahniuk’s “Survivor,” where the main character (a cult survivor) reads through the DSM-IV and presents to his therapist with a new disorder every week.
Comment by Paul M. Peterson
— January 24, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
“If you label me, you negate me.” Keirkegaard (?)
Great Post.
Harvey Cleckley, in my opinion, is a man who suffered from a precipitous naivete about the psychedelic experience and the sixties counterculture. His assertion that psychonauts embrace “hallucinatory confusion” and therefore seek to catagorically invert each of western civilizations cherished values is simply wrong. He seems to imagine that the psychedelic experience is not all that different from huffing paint thinner.
Secondly, his definition of psychopathy seems artificially limited to the kind of narcissistic behavior which conveniently bolsters his misinformed critique of sixties counterculture. Truly antisocial people are social parasites. They “ape” social norms as a kind of adaptive mechanism. They are not necessarily charming or charismatic (although they can be). They are probably more likely to be found around extroverted and conformist personality types for precisely this reason.
Anyway, that is just my opinion.
Comment by Noble
— February 15, 2010 @ 8:41 am
Paul,
I wanted to finally respond to this before I mothball the site again. I don’t know much about Cleckley the person (your description sounds about right), but there is much in his book that I consider dated, or just plain stupid. His prejudices against “illicit” drugs, hallucinogens or otherwise, is ham-fisted and stupid.
I agree with your sentiment too about people “aping” social norms, on the other hand, how many people have to ape a norm before it’s no longer a norm but an illusion? Also, I need the tools to evaluate the social norms themselves, not just compare and contrast people to them. Sometimes, often, its the norms that are the problem.
Your comments have been thought-provoking, and your opinion always worth sharing. Thanks Paul.