Last week my husband and I went to the opera to see Carmen. We saw the opera at the beautiful Academy of Music in Philadelphia. Before the performance, an opera expert gave the background of the story and the characters.
Carmen was written by Georges Bizet, and premiered in Paris in 1875. Here’s the basic story, as described by Wikipedia:
The story is set in Seville, Spain, around 1820, and concerns the eponymous Carmen, a beautiful gypsy with a fiery temper. Free with her love, she woos the corporal Don José, an inexperienced soldier. Their relationship leads to his rejection of his former love, mutiny against his superior, and joining a gang of smugglers. His jealousy when she turns from him to the bullfighter Escamillo leads him to murder Carmen.
In his presentation, the opera expert explained that Carmen was a complex character, apparently based on one of Bizet’s lovers. She was seductive, headstrong, flirtatious, demanding, temperamental, argumentative, quickly became bored of her lovers and wasn’t terribly concerned about predictions that she would die.
“Gee,” I said to my husband. “She sounds like a sociopath.”
After watching the entire opera, it sure seems to me that this character is, in fact, a sociopath. Here’s the famous aria from the first act, called The Habanera. To set the scene, Carmen flirts with all the men in the village, and they all want to be her lover. She has everyone captivated, everyone except the soldier Don José. He, then, becomes a challenge.
Habanera from Carmen, performed in Covent Garden in 2006.
As the story progresses, Carmen gets in trouble and is sentenced to prison. Don José is supposed to guard her, but she seduces him. Don José forsakes his sweet village girlfriend, falls in love with Carmen and lets her escape, ending up in trouble himself. Then he throws his entire military career away and joins Carmen’s band of gypsies. Carmen, however, gets bored of Don José; she falls in love with a bullfighter and flaunts it. Don José tries everything to get Carmen to return, from pleading to threats. Carmen knows the former soldier is on edge, but throwing caution to the wind, she taunts him with her love of the bullfighter. Don José flies into a rage and kills her.
The story was right out of the sociopath playbook: Over the top love bombing, followed by devalue and discard. Don José tries desperately to recapture the original euphoria, but failing, he becomes somewhat sociopathic himself—like some abused partners do—and lashes out.
Othello
A few months ago, I saw another classic drama with a sociopathic theme—Shakespeare’s Othello. This is a tragedy of love, deception and death, written in 1603. Othello is a Moorish general in the Venetian army, married to Desdemona. Iago, Othello’s trusted ensign, is angry because the general has promoted a younger lieutenant above him, and he hatches a plot to play people off each other so he can get what he wants. Here’s an explanation from Wikipedia:
Although eponymously titled, suggesting that the tragedy belongs primarily to Othello, Iago plays an important role in the plot he reflects the archetypal villain, and has the biggest share of the dialogue. In Othello, it is Iago who manipulates all other characters at will, controlling their movements and trapping them in an intricate net of lies. He achieves this by getting close to all characters and playing on their weaknesses while they refer to him as “honest” Iago, thus furthering his control over the characters.
The Shakespearean dialog is admittedly a bit difficult for our modern ears to understand, but with good acting we can see what is going on. Iago actually talks directly to the audience and reveals his intentions. You can see it here:
Iago’s monologue in the 1995 film Othello.
As a result of Iago’s plot, many of the characters in Othello end up dead.
Don Giovanni
Another opera that I saw (my husband likes opera) was Don Giovanni. This opera was written by Mozart and premiered in 1787. However, it is based on the legend of Don Juan. Yes, that Don Juan—the guy who went around seducing women for the fun of it.
The original legend dates back a play published in Spain around 1630. Here’s how Don Juan is explained in Wikipedia:
Don Juan is a rogue and a libertine who takes great pleasure in seducing women (mainly virgins) and enjoys fighting their men. Later, in a graveyard, Don Juan encounters a statue of Don Gonzalo, the dead father of a girl he has seduced, Doña Ana de Ulloa, and impiously invites the father to dine with him; the statue gladly accepts.
In the first act of Mozart’s version, Don Giovanni first tries to seduce a woman, Donna Anna. Her father shows up and Don Giovanni kills him, then escapes with his servant, Leporello. They come across another woman, Donna Elvira, who is upset because her lover has abandoned her and she wants revenge. And who was the cad? Don Giovanni. He makes a quick exit, and tells Leporello to tell Donna Elvira the truth about his character.
Leporello does, in a famous aria called Madamina, il catalogo e questo. He tells Donna Elvira about all the women Don Giovanni has loved—640 in Italy, 231 in Germany, 100 in France, 91 in Turkey, but in Spain, 1,003. Watch how Donna Elvira reacts to the news—it will seem familiar to many of us who were involved with cheating sociopaths.
Moral of the story
So why am I writing about opera and Shakespeare? To point out that sociopaths have been with us forever. I’m sure the playwrights, librettists and composers who created these characters were drawing from people they knew in real life. Watching these characters, we can all see reflections of what we experienced. The characters may have seemed unbelievable and outlandish to many audiences, but we know that the behaviors are real.
The only problem I saw with these particular stories was that in each one of them, justice was served. Carmen was killed, Iago was arrested and Don Giovanni was turned into stone. In the real world, as we know, that doesn’t always happen.
And here’s an excerpt, in case anyone is interested (some interesting observations, I think)
“Scarlett O’Hara, in my opinion, is a very convincing figure and really shows some of the emotional impoverishment described here in the patients presented as partial
psychopaths. Her incapacity for a true commitment in love is apparently unmodifiable; her egocentricity is basic. She seems to be without means of understanding the strong
emotions in those about her or of having adequate awareness of what makes them act when they act in accordance with principles they value. Unlike the complete
psychopath, she successfully pursues ends that lead to her material well-being and she avoids putting herself in positions of obvious folly and shame. In her, however, we
sense an inward hollowness and a serious lack of insight.”
“An interesting feature of Gone With the Wind and one that illuminates an important distinguishing characteristic of the psychopath can be found in a comparison between Scarlett O’Hara and Captain Rhett Butler. Although the captain’s conduct is often at variance with most ethical standards, although he evades joining wholeheartedly
in the war effort and even seeks to gain personal profi through complications of the war, he can hardly fail to give readers the impression of a man warmly and deeply
human. If his objective misdemeanors and other bits of wrongdoing are added up and balanced against Scarlett’s actions in the book, it is possible that his score would be
technically worse and that he would be more liable to legal action and social censure. Scarlett, as a matter of fact, is kind in the shallower ranges of feeling, rather consistently considerate about all matters except the most vital. The real contrast becomes clear when fundamental personal issues are at stake. Here Captain Butler’s nuclear integrity and his valid reactions of love and compassion are communicated not
so much by narration and exposition or by what he directly says as in small reflections of his essential personality that cumulatively reveal him. It might be argued that of the two, Scarlett, as depicted in the novel, is on the whole a more conforming person, one who can better avoid conduct which will bring about social retaliation. Without attempting a judgment based on ethical absolutes, which is not the province of this book, a significant contrast can be shown between what appears to be the inmost core of each. As indicated already, the fictional Scarlett
O’Hara would be a poor representative of the clinical psychopath, but limitations in her
personality so effectively brought out in the novel seem closely related in quality to the
more disabling deficit that I believe is fundamental in the enigmatic disorder.”
Also – for what it’s worth – notice how in the first paragraph Cleckley makes the distinction between a “full” and a “partial” psychopath based on “successfully pursuing one’s material well-being and not putting oneself into positions of obvious shame and folly.” We have discussed this at length already, so I won’t go into it here. Just to say that our distinction of “high functioning” verses “low functioning” seems to me a much better way of putting it than, “full” verses “partial.”
Constantine,
I think your division of “high” vs. “low” functioning is better than Cleckley’s “full” and “partial” as well. Just as Dr. Baron-Cohen points out, even Empathy is on the Bell Curve with most people being in the “middle” and only a few at either of the ends…but whether they are “high” or “low” functioning doesn’t I think necessarily mean that they are or are not “criminal.” Look at that Canadian guy who was the top officer at their Airforce base—and he was breaking into people’s houses and stealing underwear at first, then progressed to rape and murder. He was “high functioning,” but at the SAME TIME he was also CRIMINAL and VIOLENT. I think how “highly functional” they are is an independent variable from VIOLENT or CRIMINAL….look at Bernie Madoff as an example. He was criminal, but not violent, and he was highly functioning but totally selfish and narcissistic and very low on empathy for his victims.
Oxy,
Yes, and as most of us know, the greatest betrayals often have nothing to do with technical “law breaking.”
I’m probably biased from my own experience, but I think I prefer the “old school” psychopaths who can’t hold down jobs, drink themselves into a maudlin stopor, beat their wives, rage at their loved ones – and then end up falling asleep (right after wetting their pants!) in a field somewhere. Because at least those F-ups have the decency not to try and hide it! But the Scarlett Oharas, Bill Clintons, and Bernie Madoffs of the world just think they’re so superior! – because while they have the identical soul as the guy sleeping in the field, they hide it beneath the “Slick Willie” facade, or behind the charming mask of “poor Ms. Scarlett.”
Well, Constantine, at least the drunken bums are generally more identifiable than the “Slick willies” of this world who pose in a high dollar suit of clothes and donate to the opera. Like Bernie Madoff who was donating STOLEN money. LOL
My egg donor would not score very high on the PCL-R so would not qualify as A psychopath on Hare’s list…but she is very much like “M’s Scarlett” in that she manipulates and hides behind the mask of the socially acceptable. Manipulative, controlling, passive-aggressive, etc. TOXIC to the max. Her brother was finally outed in the community and known for the wife-beating nasty drunk that he was…but the egg donor still pulls the wool over people’s eyes and hides behind her mask. Doesn’t change the TRUTH, but is frustrating at times.
Constantine,
the guys sleeping in the field, wouldn’t qualify as a psychopath in my book. There can be all kinds of reasons why they behave that way. Rage issues, entitlement issues, narcissism, ignorance are all possibilities. The book, “Why does he do that? Inside the minds of angry men”, goes into it a bit. Some of them are manipulitive and can go from sweet to sour. Maybe the term anti-social or sociopath could fit.
I reserve the term psychopath for those who wear an impeccable mask while deep down having no soul. These are the ones whom nobody would suspect of being anything less than saintly, a really good person, the best friend you could ever have, and of course MY SOULMATE.
Skylar
Why are you shoveling gravel???
Yes, I’m with you about parents being jealous of their children.
It took me forever – a good 20 years – to realize that’s why my mother treated me so badly.
I picked her up from the airport in my city one day. She had some man with her. She introduced me, saying, with sarcasm, “this is my SUCCESSFUL daughter who EARNS THE BIG BUCKS”. If you just read the language, it sounds like a compliment, but it was delivered with a sneer.
I was shocked, but that day brought clarity to me.
Athena,
I scored 3 yards for $20 on craigslist and it’s going into my concrete slab in the shop. Actually I realized a lot of it needs to go UNDER the slab because there isn’t enough gravel in there so my slab is 5 inches thick and costing me too much. By putting more gravel down first, my slab can be 4 inches and somewhat easier and cheaper to pour.
Your mother sounds extremely shallow. Who the hell introduces her daughter by her income? WTF? She is equating who you are with how much you earn. Boy you better never stop earning or you’ll cease to exist in her eyes!
Sick.
Skylar
Good for you! A score!
My mother is insanely shallow, but I never recognized it until after I got educated here. My grandmother recently died. My mom showed no remorse. She didn’t cry. Instead, she used the opportunity to deliver a well rehearsed speech and command everybody’s attention at the service. She waited for applause.
It is engrained to me to surround myself with N’s and Ps.
Wolves.
My current boss is a N and triggers me every day.
Either I am going to get healthy pushing back every day living in an inherently unealthy work environment , or I gotta get a new job.
Athena
Athena,
it’s a very personal decision whether you decide to find a different environment to earn a living. For me, I don’t mind being supply if I’m getting PAID to be supply. It would probably be healthier though to work somewhere that values each employee as a fellow human being rather than as an asset or resource.
My BF can’t stand the words “Human Resources”, he finds them offensive and perhaps, dehumanizing.