Psychopathy and Sociopathy: a broader look at the darkness.

During my recent study for the independent project component of my final-year degree, I've been coming across a topic that has been of interest to me, on and off, for quite a few years: psychopathy and sociopathy. Now, I know that 'sociopathy' is no longer a medically-described term and that there are always ongoing debates about the meanings of these terms and their causes. However, without wading too far into the mire of semantics, I'd like to share a few things that have got me thinking, yet again, upon the subject of these mental states.

They're found in literature...

These traits turn up, not only in online blogs and magazines, but also, surprisingly regularly, in fiction. One of my influences for my project happens to be a book, by Jacqueline Carey, containing a woman who can only be described as either psychopathic or sociopathic (based on later plot evidence, I'd suggest the latter). She, beautiful and admired, stakes her whole country in a bargain that would gain her a queenship. She is described, unfailingly, as both beautiful and merciless, and with a talent for manipulating those she would have do her will. Another example would be Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent. In this novel, a man with a chameleon-like tendency to show different personalities in different situations, who, even when his life depends on it, fails to truly understand the affection of a human being for another (where it is not based on their usefulness), is killed, effectively, because of this limitation.

...and also on the Internet. 

The descriptions of psychopathy and sociopathy vary wildly from source to source, and the Internet is filled with stories of people who have been conned or otherwise hurt by people who are attributed with 'sociopathic tendencies'. The general idea is that psychopaths and sociopaths lack empathy, conscience (to a certain extent) and are often ruthless and selfish.

This, however, seems to skirt around any sort of understanding of the mindset that accompanies these traits. The reason being, as aptly described in this article, that although 'people are fascinated by a mental framework that doesn't fit within their own heads, they are unable to create a [mental] model of their own which allows them to understand the psychopath'. So, in unpacking these commonly accepted 'truths', we can come to a better understanding of these mental states.

So why don't we understand them?

One of the main issues that I find people have in conceptualising these states of mind is based upon emotion. A significant proportion of the population (I apologise for the US-only stats) is predisposed towards making decisions based upon feelings - and those that don't still take them into account in their everyday lives. Feelings, leading to empathy and sympathy, are our inner moral compass. We use them to work out what is right and wrong, what we should do, how we should act. It is intrinsic to the natures of a wide section of the population.

The thought, to many people, of operating without this moral compass is understandably difficult to conceptualise. Thus, the invariable assumption (supported in part by the media) is that these people must do bad things by nature. The difficulty with this is that, since the media is generally fuelled by the reporting of negative events, and since psychopaths and sociopaths are (unsurprisingly) unwilling to identify themselves as such, our perceptions of them are invariably linked to criminality. Even this enlightened article falls into the interminable trap; the only psychopaths or sociopaths we become aware of as a society are those who have committed crimes.

Is there logic to criminality?

So, one of the most common accusations levelled at these personality types is that they are selfish, that 'they'll do anything to get ahead'. On the surface, we can see this as simply a bad characteristic - especially when it is contrasted to the empathetic, caring, giving personality that many of us would like to see more of. However, 'doing anything to get ahead' is actually a very good way of ensuring that one does not become a criminal (except where criminality is part of one's goal).

The ethical issues aside, where one is charismatic, charming and highly capable (as many of these personality types are), why would there be a need to turn to criminal behaviour? In the logical long-view, prison is not a desirable goal; business is. There is much less risk in engaging in legitimate business than there is in criminality. As this very interesting study reveals, there is a greater proportion of people who fall into the 'psychopathic spectrum' in Britain than many people might suspect. Far from being a cause for fear, Kevin Dutton's article reveals, many of the professionals we rely on in society actually present traits that are significantly psychopathic. This doesn't mean that we are surrounded by cold-blooded killers, as media bias would have one believe. Actually, it means that your barrister, politician, or doctor's psychopathic traits are what have made him or her successful and skilled enough to work on your behalf, for their own gain. 

So what should we do about it?

As this article intelligently points out, society's automatic 'judicial perspective' prevents a thorough examination of these people, from an objective standpoint. This is because society presupposes 'blame', making psychopaths and sociopaths 'bad people' as opposed to simply 'different'. It is often more productive, as the article states, to take a, counter-intuitive, analytical approach.

Take the examples above: Conrad's novel showed a sociopath of sorts, generally benign, whose main difficulty was being pushed into a tight corner. Conversely, Carey's character is forced into a state of penitence after her child is kidnapped. The main point here is that, in fiction and elsewhere, just as it is with 'normal' people, a psychopath or sociopath's actions are largely governed by circumstance. It is simply that a sociopath or psychopath will make their decisions using a process that we cannot effectively conceptualise. It is not true that all of the people who conform to these types are actively exploitative or criminal; just as it is not true that all 'normal' people are benevolent and generous. As with average people, there are those who act responsibly, and those that don't.

The mistake would be, as with any section of society, to assume that they are all the same.