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.)
Matt
Steve:
I agree with your conclusions that socioaths are hard-wired to repeatedly violate others space and security by exploiting them while being able to exercise situational self restraint. I saw it first hand with S.
One thing I have always wondered about regarding the situational self-restraint is whether sociopaths can keep the non-exploitation of a particular person on-going indefinitely, or will the sociopath ultimately exploit the “non-victims”?
I think the frustration of so many people on this site stems from seeing how the “non-victims” are getting a “pass” from the sociopath. Since they aren’t getting targeted, they obviously aren’t going to believe anything we have to say regarding the exploitiveness of the sociopath.
akitameg
can someone please go read what I just posted under Letting Go?
I am not doing well.
greenfern
Perhaps the p or s refrains from showing his pathology in full bloom until he/she encounters resistance from the victim. Until the s gets what he wants from the victim, his anxieties are kept at bay. When he starts noticing that the victim is no longer tolerating his “grooming” he becomes aware of his failure.
Speaking of hoarding; I saw an excellent documentary called “My Mother’s Garden”. It can be seen online at http://www.mymothersgarden.msnbc.com
It a really well rounded documentation of a woman and her hoarding and how it affects her family. Caution, it’s pretty grimm.
I am interested in understanding hoarding because my mother is a hoarder. Also the ex s was a hoarder to a certain degree, but had a lot more focused and obsessed range of hoardable object.
Matt
greenfern:
Oprah also did a show on hoarding. About the only thing this couple hadn’t experienced was the untimely demise of the Collier Brothers. For those who don’t know who the Collier Brothers are, they were 2 NYC brothers who were extreme hoarders. One day the piles of crap caved in on them and they were both crushed/suffocated to death. It was so bad in their place the cops had to go in through the window.
Yet another shining example of not being remembered in life, bu sure being remembered in death.
pathwhisperer
I agree with almost all of your points. Particularly the distinction between between characterological and compulsive motivations. “Characterological unsuppressible tendency to exploit others” — absolutely. That hope “if only he could be that warm, loving person all the time,” just wipes me out.
I don’t understand your question of their culpability, however. They have to be held culpable — outside restraints are the only thing they respect. If they still can’t restrain their behavior then they should be hospitalized — since they can’t be cured, this means warehoused. There is no reason to let them run riot among the innocent.
I don’t know about saints, I’ve never met one. And I’m a ninth generation American Quaker (my forebear came over with William Penn, marrying one of his orphaned wards).
Holywater: There’s a big disagreement here. I believe Steve is saying, and I agree, that it is not a matter of free will — sociopaths don’t have that, imo. It’s a matter of character.
Greenfern: I think what’s going on here is sheer boredom — the overriding problem in life for sociopaths. Their emotional experience of sex is essentially the same that you and I would have with an inflatable doll. We might try many different dolls and types of dolls also, if that were our only choice. (Believe me, like the post before this says, it ain’t personal.)
OFF TOPIC: Anyone going to New Orleans, April 15 & 16? It’s the Psychopathy and the Law Symposium, http://www.psychopathysociety.org/forms/sssp_law.pdf. “Conference is open to all, registration is not necessary.” I strongly believe we shouldn’t leave science to the scientists. I still can’t get over Kent Kiehl’s (who will be there) statement that most researchers think they’ve never met a sociopath. There’s no fool like an educated fool. Need I go on? If anyone makes it, report please.
http://pathwhisperer.wordpress.com/
greenfern
I keep going back to what Steve Becker said
“I do not think that sociopaths, in the bigger picture, can control their exploitive tendencies any more than saints can control their beneficent tendencies.”
This helps me understand the futility of the wish I used to have; for the s to admit the damage he has done. He cannot.
greenfern
holywatersalt-
Ha! I would be more interested hearing more on the hoarding and the Ps connection 🙂
Ox Drover
“Hoarding” is one of those things that is very much a “degree-of” problem as I think we all hoard things to one extent or another, “thinking we might use it some day.” Those people I know, however, who hoard things to the point that you and they can hardly move in their living spaces, that there is no flat surface in their living space that is not stacked to the ceiling with “things” of dubious value (to us) but obviously of value to them.
The worst ones I ever knew were quite wealthy people and they had saved every newspaper they ever got and actually built buildings on their large property to house this “collection” and their home was a series of “paths”—-they had been raised in abject poverty though during the depression and were actually HUNGRY at times. My grandparents who also lived through the depression in poverty, but not hunger, did save things that they mostly did use, old clothing for quilts, etc.
“Hoarding” can be specific things though, like a documentary on hoarders interviewed a teenage girl who only hoarded gum wrappers, but her room was FULL of them. She said that getting rid of them made her anxious. The support group for the hoarders was interesting as well. You had to bring an item to each meeting to dispose of.
My P-son is not a hoarder at all, and in fact, kept very little “stuff” even when he was living at home. If he didn’t use it he got rid of it.
I don’t think the “hoarding” means someone is a P, or that all Ps hoard, or even most of them, but that the hoarding is EMOTIONAL rather than logical. I was told once that “hoarding” is a form of “greed” and in a way that makes sense.
My college “buddy” that I just severed relationship with is not a P, but he IS a hoarder “big time” and has a huge amount of things that he has bought with the “intention” of doing that project or using it, but is so “broke” all the time from the things he buys and “hoards” that it is impossible for him to complete any of the projects he has because he doesn’t have the money to do so. He bought a complete assembly for a metal house, years ago but doesn’t have the money for even the foundation (and isn’t likely to ever have it) and yet, he lives in his small, and could be very cute home, with it stuffed to the rafters with “stuff” he has no room for, yet keeps it because “when I get my house built I will need it or display it.” So too, it is a delusional or emotional thing, not based in reality. I don’t see that it is harmful to others though, except in the case of the kleptomania where they actually take things as a way to lower their stress.
As far as conscience or no conscience, while accepting that there is a BIG genetic component in the Ps, I do think that at SOME point in their development they have a “choice”—and that there is some environmental component, as well as genetic. Just as no one is born with diabetes, but may be born with the genetic TENDENCY to develop diabetes, there is something in the environment that triggers it. No one is born with alcoholism, but there is a big genetic component in alcoholism, and the environment determines whether the person is an alcoholic or not later in life. Just as an alcoholic CAN stop drinking, who knows if the psychopath can’t stop abusing as well. Many alcoholics are NOT motivated to quit and those that are not motivated don’t quit. I’ve never known a P that was motivated to quit being a P and develop a conscience, so possibly there comes a “point of no return” for the Ps that once they become a “full fledged P” there is no going back and developing a conscience.
Having done a “turn” at Rodgers Hall at the State Hospital in Little Rock during my schooling, where the dangerous and murderous inmates who are not deemed safe to return to society, but who don’t qualify and can’t qualify as “sane” are kept, I do think that psychopaths who are chronically violent and dangerous should be housed in SOME institutional situation where they will NEVER BE RELEASED for the protection of society. Even if they are NOT capable of controlling themselves, I think it is the responsibility of our law enforcement and judicial system to find SOME way to keep the rest of us safe from them,, just as they do with “insane” people who are dangerous.
pathwhisperer
I believe they are biologically programmed to be (quoting Robert Hare): “intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, sex and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse. . . . What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
Matt
holywatersalt:
One of the list of criteria on Robert Hare’s sociopathy checklist relates to childhood behavior. While I know little about S’s childhood, he revealed enough, and I observed enough in his family dynamic to know that his sociopathic behavior began early on. Hence, I am inclined to believe that there is some kind of genetic component at work.
That said, I think the way they are hardwired overrides any kind of censor that would prohibit their unconscionable behavior. I think they know what they are doing is wrong. They just don’t give a damn. They are going to do what they are going to do. Consequences be damned.
My S has already served one prison term. I met him 3 weeks after he was released (I didn’t know it at the time). If I had to hedge my bets, he will be back in the criminal justice system. Personally? Getting him off the street, at least for awhile, will be a gift to mankind.