By Mary Ann Glynn, LCSW, located in Bernardsville, New Jersey
Throughout graduate school for social work, when the professors were teaching us about how to establish a working therapeutic relationship with a client, they repeatedly drove into us to “have unconditional positive regard for the client.” Implied in that phrase is the stance that we cannot accurately help someone we have prejudged. We learned first and foremost to see the valuable human being behind the behavior, to have compassion, and understand the reasons that brought a person to their present circumstance, even if it is criminal behavior.
People in the helping profession are there in the first place because they are hopeful about making a difference through their work and tend to be optimistic about the processes that make that happen. Therapists believe that people can be honest with themselves and effect change in their lives. We see it happen before our eyes. We believe in the core goodness of human beings.
We see the good in others
Even if you’re not in a helping profession, you were probably raised with values that directed you to treat other people well and see the good in them. We are taught early on to be “nice” to others. If our sibling or friend hurt us, we were trained to make up with them. Most of us are taught that if a rift happens between us and someone else, we should take an honest look at ourselves and take responsibility for our part, not blame the other person. Many of us are raised with ideals, religious or otherwise, of forgiveness and non-judgment, which foster the idea that others should be valued and regarded with compassion and understanding. We should overlook a person’s faults as much as possible. We are taught to “listen to our conscience” to know when we’re doing something wrong. And, if we find we are doing something wrong, then we should change it to the better or right thing. It is expected to think that all humans have this same social concept of a conscience.
Bad behavior in movies
As Americans, we have all been influenced in our perceptions of criminals and bad behavior by movies and TV shows. Scripts are written to be layered, so they will usually show background psychology of why a person has gone wrong, always including some type of brutality or hardship from their past. If you have any heart at all, you have probably felt some compassion for this person. These portrayals encourage that same concept I ingested in graduate school, that people are inherently good. People start out good, and if they do bad things, it is because circumstances have molded them. So, wouldn’t it follow that with the right help or rehabilitation, they could resurrect that good person who got lost along the way?
We do tend to draw the line of redemption before the extreme savagery of, say, a serial killer, a “grudge collector” who opens fire at a crowd or schoolroom, or a terrorist — what the media may refer to as a “psychopath.” A show like “Criminal Minds” makes no bones in graphically portraying the savagery of the sadistic killer, making it hard to perceive that behavior as anything but evil. But, when the show traces his path from abused or neglected child to adult killer, in spite of ourselves, we can feel a twinge of pity for him. It is in the nature of people with consciences to feel empathy, if for no other reason that s/he is a human being like we are.
To make matters worse, we are raised on endless movies about the “bad boy,” or girl, turning around through the power of another’s love, romantic or otherwise. They inspire our faith in humanity. Some of these stories are even true. We cut our teeth on movies like “Beauty and the Beast” and “Aladdin,” driving home the “diamond in the rough” theme, that encourage us in the belief that people are inherently good and are capable of change. They affirm our belief in love.
Hard to accept evil
It’s easier for us to accept badness on a grand scale. There are a multitude of examples throughout recorded history of tyrants dehumanizing or annihilating people in their ruthless grasps for power, and on a lesser scale, cults. We have no problem calling this “evil.” We may understand people like that as having gotten too much power that has clearly corrupted their conscience. But, a regular individual in society must have that core of human goodness that can be turned around. Aren’t they the same as we are? So, they can change, too, right?
We don’t even like to judge people as bad or “evil.” That feels a little evil itself, doesn’t it, because of how we are taught to not judge and give a person the benefit of the doubt?! We don’t consider that everything in nature and psychology is on a spectrum, including the gradations of human evil. We certainly do not recognize evil in that disarming and charming person right before our eyes. Because we’ve been conditioned to believe in the inherent goodness of humanity, and that hope springs eternal, we don’t recognize danger behind those eyes of love. We don’t second-guess love.
This is why we are so we are so completely surprised at the devastation wreaked in our lives once those eyes target us.
skylar:
About that amazing presence…I have realized that kids take to me instantly. Does anyone have insight on that? I realize it’s because they probably feel that they can trust me, but it’s almost kind of weird the way they are drawn to me. I mean, don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing…it’s just something. I must give off an aura.
Louise,
I have the same experience. And have had it for many years. Kids will run up and hug me. I have no idea why. We must be projecting something that they can relate to. I did ask a girl, once she became a teen, why she did that when she was young and we had first met. All she said was, “I just really liked you.”
I have no idea.
skylar:
Maybe we project the innocence of a child? Who knows, but that’s interesting it happens to you also. I like it though! It makes me feel wanted and especially since I don’t have kids of my own, it makes me feel good. Hey, I just thought of something…you don’t have children either, do you? Maybe that is a connection somehow?
Louise,
I think there might be a connection. We don’t behave like moms. We are just us. I have been told that I project innocence.
Funny, I never felt innocent until I learned about spaths! In comparison, I really am innocent and so are you!
Only spaths are so guilty they reek guilt.
Kim Frederick, I did not intend to derail anything that you were conveying – there’s a host of sybolism in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” on film, but also in the book, which is far more intense than the movie could ever be.
The “blah, blah, blah” reference was intended as a general one to the tolerance and acceptance of our culture for all manners of indulging and, IMHO, promoting extreme narcissism. Perhaps, I should have made that reference a bit more clear.
I feel that you have many, many important insights that help me (and, others), and I would never shoot someoone down like that. Unfortunately, Online Life doesn’t allow for vocal inflections, facial expressions, or body language. WordPress doesn’t have any blog options that allow for italics, bold, or underlined texts, so it’s difficult to make emphasis without seeming like online yelling as per caps.
So, if you took offense at my response, I’m truly sorry – it was not my intent, on any level.
Brightest blessings
OxD, Jonathan Kellerman writes about some really disturbing things. And, the character studies are spot-on.
So, as a complete aside, where do these authors find the insight to describe “evil” in such a way that the reader “gets it?” If an author can convey the fact that someone is simply a “bad person” and that there is no possibility of redemption, WHY can’t the psychological/psychiatric community “get it?” Why is there this ongoing debate – literally, a debate – about what spath is and how it can be treated?
Further on that, why can’t Criminal and Family Courts address this epidemic? Someone gave me a call, last night – she’s a photojournalist in the area that I used to live, and she had to “cover” a sentencing hearing for a man who shot his ex-wife in front of their 4 and 9 year-old children at point-blank range with a shotgun while they were all sitting in a vehicle. She was describing the portion of the sentencing when friends and family members are “given the opportunity” to address the Court – NOT the killer, but the Court – about the impact of this woman’s murder. Throughout these statements, the convicted murderer demonstrated no remorse, whatsoever. And, that’s exactly what my friend said, “He didn’t show any remorse.” She was dumbfounded as to how this man could sit there and smirk and react with noises of dismissal while people were baring their pain and grief. The victim had been granted a restraining order against him, YET the murderer was also granted VISITATION with these children in spite of the fact that he had beaten the shit out of this woman in front of the children on numerous occasions. When is this going to change? How many more children have to lose their mother or father to a sociopath’s rage before the Legal System recognizes that BAD PARENTS don’t DESERVE “visitation” or “shared custody?!”
This murdering ex-victims and children because they CAN has got to stop, and the Legal System and psych communities aren’t doing any hard work to facilitate an end. This has become a farking epidemic, for crissakes! A day doesn’t go by when we don’t read or hear about someone murdering their estranged spouse, their ex, or their children because they’re pissed off and delivering the ultimate damage.
Ugh
skylar:
I like that…we don’t behave like moms (no offense to all the moms out there). But it’s probably true. I have the absolute most respect for a good mother. They are truly gems, but because they DO have that huge responsibility, they may not always be so free to act as I do so maybe the children are drawn to that…good observation.
Yes, WE are innocent and yes, the spaths REEK guilt. I could see it as plain as day…shame.
Kim,
I have Bram Stoker’s Dracula as a novel. I will reread it, but indeed the bare mythology of a vampire is a portrayal of a spath to me:
– live by night
– shun the light
– no reflection = no soul
– the taking of blood = taking of life, strength and soul
– the turning into a vampire = exchange of blood, first sucking out the soul, life and strength of a non-spath and then pouring their own evil blood in them
It will have to wait though, since I’m rereading Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles. Yes, in a way she’s the first to romanticize the vampire myth into something human. It’s near impossible not to like Louis, Lestat, Marius, etc… But while it starts with an atheist outlook the series becomes more religious over time, and whether there is ultimate goodness as well as ultimate evil. I just reread the “Body Thief”, one of the books I always thought was the least of them. And when I first started reading it this time I came across the philosophy of David Talbot: that God was imperfect and the Devil must be a learning entity and must grow to despise his role over the aeons, because it’s an insult to intellect to believe that evil could be static. And I was thinking to myself: Anne Rice is this is what you believe, you’re wrong. Sociopaths are static and while intelligent, they enjoy and willfully remain on their evil and destructive path. However, later in the book Lestat meets and interacts with the Body Thief, and she describes the behaviour and conversation of a sociopath PERFECTLY. The Body Thief honestly proclaims the fact he’s a thief and loves to steal. He accquires whole fortunes and squanders them in a silly way. He gets jobs and positions he wants but self-destructs with petty thievery over trinkets. He’s angry over the Talamasca putting him out instead of studying him, because he believes he has the most studyworthy abilities. He even proclaims himself to be God. Anne Rice describes his hypnotizing voice, his charm to trick Lestat into swapping bodies with him. She describes him pressuring Lestat into doing it ASAP. The way he cons Lestat and what he then does with his body is as spath as may be.
When I read that part, I thought… she ‘gets it’!!!
Thank you, Truthy. I feel a lot better, now. I’m a little too sensitive sometimes.
Darwinsmom, I think the thing that’s “attractive” or alluring about the whole vampire mythology is that it’s the darkest side, possible. As you pointed out, the symbolism is pretty intense, and once a person is transformed from human to vampire, they’re in for life. Same with spath entanglements.
It’s not as if victims of spaths understand (truly understand) that entertaining the “dark side” will result in personal devastation – I sure didn’t belive that it was possible. In fact, the second exspath didn’t seem to present a “dark side,” but there were subtle clues, absolutely. We’re in “for life” because our lives are irreversibly altered. Our core beliefs are dismantled, along with our own perceptions of Self. Same thing goes true with transformation from human to vampire. Everything is changed, and never to be “the same as it was, before.”
With the first exspath, I was under the mistaken belief that I could compel this person to reach his potential, learn to love the world, find beauty in the simple things, etc. Well, leopards don’t change their spots.
Today – since the romanticism of vampire mythology replaced the horror of legend, the simple act of romanticizing something that is, ultimately, evil incarnate has now become acceptable, excusable, and (in some situations) thoroughly desirable. Remain young, forever. The only catch is that one must feed off of organisms that they once were, themselves. The raw sexuality that was so pervasive in “Interview With The Vampire” was absolutely powerful – Anotnion Banderas? Oh, my…..
But, we’re now accepting evil as being something that has “potential” to be redeemed, and I disagree that this is always likely. Sure, “anything is possible,” but not everything is likely.