Is sociopathy a perversion? If yes, a perversion of what? And if it is a perversion, does this compel us to revisit the sociopaths’ culpability for his transgressions? After all, perversions imply antisocial, irrepressible impulses. If an impulse is irrepressible, or unsuppressible, how culpable is its expresser?
I think a good case can be made that sociopathy is a perversion—a perversion of personality characterized by the unsuppressible tendency to exploit others.
It’s not so much a question of the sociopath’s sanity: most sociopaths, by criminal standards, are sane. Then again, so are most kleptomaniacs.
When I refer to the sociopath’s unsuppressible tendency to exploit, I mean unsuppressible in a characterological, more than compulsive, sense. The sociopath, that is, appears characterologically to be driven to perpetrate incursions against others’ space and security.
While I think that sociopaths, like most transgressors, can exercise, on a case by case basis, some selective choice in determining when next, and whom, to violate, I do not think that sociopaths, in the bigger picture, can control their exploitive tendencies any more than saints can control their beneficent tendencies.
I regard it as inevitable that the sociopath will violate others and, unless stopped, violate repeatedly.
In my view, many wrongly interpret the sociopath’s capacity for situational self-restraint as suggestive of what ought, therefore, to be the sociopath’s capacity to cease his exploitation more broadly.
But I stress—while it’s true that most sane individuals, including sociopaths, can exercise some suppressive control over the expression, timing and direction of their antisocial tendencies in the short-term, it does not follow that they can maintain their self-regulation in the long-term.
The sociopath’s peculiar and profound self-centeredness, along with his inability to genuinely care about the harm he inflicts on others, explain why his exploitive tendencies, in the long-term at least, will demand expression.
Yet one often hear variations on the theme, “You know, when he’s not being cruel, deceptive and self-centered, he’s really a good guy.”
Or, “When she’s not scamming seniors out of their life savings, she’s got really good instincts.”
Carrying this logic a step further, it’s like saying, “You know, when he’s not raping women, he can be a quite tender, trusting lover.”
I commonly work with clients who see the refractory period separating the antisocial displays of their partners as tantalizing evidence of the latters’ “real personality;” of their “true potential” as partners/parents/friends; of how they’d be “all the time if they could just work through their demons.”
This is “enabling” thinking, steeped in denial and fantasy. It reflects the desperation to want to believe in the underlying goodness of the antisocial mate. One insists that with just a little more time, a little more forgiveness, a little more patience, one’s partner will recognize, finally, what he or she has been jeopardizing, and will finally properly value his or her mate, family and blessings.
Sometimes religious/spiritual individuals, for whom faith and forgiveness are integral to their identity, are especially prone to this self-delusive thinking. Their endurance of countless lies, deceptions and betrayals feels less about self-compromise than the fulfillment of their higher values.
They may harbor the hope, and faith, that their travails, if endured uncomplainingly and for long enough, will result finally in vindication—for instance, this will be the time he really sees the light!
I call this “reform-aholoc” thinking—that is, believing with a kind of blind faith in the antisocial partner’s capacity for reformation.
(This article is copyrighted (c) 2009 by Steve Becker, LCSW.)
holywatersalt
To be a saint, is aheroic self-giving act. Saying it is otherwise negates sainthood and makes it…base.
Part of this entry makes sense- and it is correct that religious folks are the most forgiving and therefore easiest to dupe and therefore, in general, the most abused.
That said- I think you fail to understand and accept that FREE WILL exists. Saints suffer and die FREELY, not out of some biological urge, just as psychopaths act out because of evil desires. Saints and Sinners have free will, it’s really that simple. And that horrifying.I wish it was a virus.
greenfern
Is it a combination of multiple perversions that make the sociopath or is it just one big perversion on it’s own. Okay, maybe I am splitting hair here. I am just wondering because in my experience with the ex s, he had number of perversions (fetishes, is it the same???) going on. He had a thing for amputees and women who are androgynous and frail. He also had a thing for women made up to look like corpses and zombies.
holywatersalt
I lived with an extreme hoarder, my mother- she exhibited many narcissistic traits. Hoarding is about control in many instances. She also was never,ever wrong.
I tend to believe extereme hoarding is psychopathic. Not to sicken anyone, but some of these haorders,hoard excrement etc. Not my mother , thank God. But some do, imagine how controlling and hurtful that is. And yes, they’res ane.
holywatersalt
Matt,
There are different theories to why their brains change- one is that, like exercise, our brains change from bad behavior repeatedly chosen.
Inotherwords, they aren’t born that way- through repeated exercise (bad behavior) their brains change. And there’s science to back up this premis.
holywatersalt
I have from informal querying discovered many Ps are hoarders to some degree or another.
holywatersalt
I am confused.How do you know they do not have free will?
Are you claiming they are mentally ill? Is that what Steve is saying?
I am missing something, I think.
Ox Drover
I am closely acquainted with a kleptomaniac, and have had them as patients on my psych units in the past. MY take on the kleptomanic is sort of the same as those people who are compulsive hoarders (to an extreme). It has to do with their anxiety. They do what they do to allay their anxiety. Is it possible that the Psychopath has “anxiety” if s/he doesn’t exploit?
My kleptomaniac X-friend is very calculating on what and when she takes things so that she will NOT get caught red-handed. I eventually “proved” that she would and did take things from my home by “planting” things I thought she would take and then monitoring those things carefully. She had been such a “close” friend of our family for so long that my son D was totally devestated and in denial the FIRST time I knew for sure (but couldn’t prove) that she had taken something that ONLY she had had access to…..now, he knows the truth, and accepts the truth. Though we have limited contact with this woman and her husband now, she is NEVER allowed even on our farm if we are not home, and even if we ARE home, she is ONLY allowed to be here under 100% observation at ALL times. I still “care about” this woman, but no longer trust her at all. There was a time that I loved her like the sister I never had, and I do feel that she cared for me as well. However, it was NOT enough caring to over come her compulsion to take things to suppress her anxieties. She is also a “hoarder” of a huge amount of things that have little or no value except to some how allay her anxieties (for example, a truck-load of empty 2 L soda bottles). She knows what she is doing is wrong, yet she does it anyway. She knows that she doesn’t want to get “caught” doing it. She denies doing it, but at the same time, she knows I KNOW, and she RESENTS that I know. I have actually caught her coming here to the farm when she thought I wasn’t home.
The first time she exhibited this behavior (that I noticed at the time) I was devestated because I would never have EXPECTED this of her. Now that I realize what it is, why, etc. I realize that I can’t have the kind of “relationship” with her that I thought I had, but at the same time, I have grieved over the loss of that relationship, and moved on with my life. Keeping her at arm’s length. My son, also, has grieved over his prior perception of her being proven wrong and also keeps her at arm’s length.
It is, I think, Always painful when our perceptions of people we care about are proven wrong.
I wish I knew if a P could “refrain” from doing what they DO, and I do know that they CAN refrain short term from some of their behavior when it is “inconvenient” or they are “likely to get caught in the act.” Ted Bundy indeed was a “tender lover” to his GF, while at the same time murdering and raping other women and making efforts not to get caught. Was he unable to contain himself and NOT do these things—at least long term?
Since these people lack the ESSENTUAL ingredient in a fully functioning human psyche, a conscience, which, hopefully, keeps the rest of us from acting like them and exploiting others as a way of life, this is a good question? Are they responsible for what they do long term—they “know” it is wrong to kill (steal, etc), but they (without a conscience) can justify doing so, because it gets them whatever “reward” they are after. I know it is wrong to murder, and because I have a conscience, no matter how angry I am at another person, I would not kill (except in immediate self defense.) I know it is wrong to burn someone’s house, and noo matter how angry I was at them or how badly I wanted to hurt them, I would NOT go burn their house. My conscience won’t let me do those things no matter what my emotions would like me to do. The Psychopath does not have that BRAKE on their actions. Simply knowing something is “wrong” or “illegal” doesn’t stop them, it seems it “can’t” stop them….but our society has determined what is “legal insanity” (not knowing right from wrong) and since they do not fit the definition of “legal insanity” they are prosecuted when caught (well, some of the time anyway! LOL)
Also, it is much easier to determine when a person is “legally insane” than whether or not they have a conscience or not, since the psychopath can pretend to have a conscience, whereas it is more difficult for someone who is not in touch with reality to pretend s/he is, although some people have managed to pretend to NOT be in touch with reality…I remember some mafia don who pretended for years he was “nuts” by wearing his bathrobe out on the street, etc., to try to skirt prosecution.
For the benefit of society, if no other reason, I think the psychopaths should be incarcerated where their damage to individuals and society would be decreased. I am a strong component of the “3-strikes” laws where the third felony charge puts a criminal in prison for life without parole. It might not catch EVERY Psychopath, but it would sure catch a bunch of the more violent ones. If two trips to the Pen don’t “cure” you of felony crimes, the third one—for life—would at least protect society.
holywatersalt
I amnot sttaing all hoarders are Ps. Some are though, and it is very interesting in a clinical sort of way.
holywatersalt
And extreme hoarding is what I speaking of, few,few people have any idea what that means.
Fewer still have LIVED such an existence against their will. Living it makesone see the evilness of the behavior.
holywatersalt
I wonder why researchers don’t consider the fact that teh age reason is eight. Eight.
Choosing ones actions starts early on.