The Psychopath in Society

Given the prominence of the diagnosis of psychopathy and the legal and moral questions it raises, the literature on the psychopath is relatively sparse. Prominent analysts of the caliber of Alexander and Karpman, along with Sheldon Glueck, have written on the subject, but the author states that Cleckley is the most charming to read as well as the most quoted authority. Cleckley views the psychopath ‘ ‘as basically insane, a sad creature who in spite offrequently superior endowment inevitably comes a cropper because of his failed moral development, dragging those who have trusted him down into the abyss ofhis own inevitable denouement. ” Research on the subject has been confounded by casual labeling and the fact that the psychopath defies traditional mental health categories. The author notes that recognition of psychopathy as a specific disorder is typically dated to Pinel in 1801. In 1888 Koch introduced the idea of “psychopathic inferiority’ ‘ in Germany and attributed it to hereditary weakness. Bleuler viewed psychopathic behavior as an emotional and moral deviation based on constitutional factors. Psychoanalysts are generally unsuccessful in treating psychopathic individuals because the analytic aim of loosening an overly strict superego is inconsistent with the fact that it is the psychopath’s lack of inhibition that highlights his or her behavior. In his second chapter, ‘ ‘The Charm and Winning Ways of the Psychopath,” Smith notes that the psychopath’s ‘ ‘most disarming aspect is a display of thoroughly beguiling charm. ‘ ‘ Sometimes aggression gets the upper hand, but even then there are flashes ofcharm that seem honest. Were he not a charmer, ‘ ‘ he would be in no position to manipulate others, whether it is only to win a confidence or to use the other as perhaps a sexual or financial object. ‘ ‘ It is an innocent, even angelic, display that gives the observer a feeling that the psychopath is a person capable of full devotion and loyalty. The search for a constitutional explanation for psychopathy, the subject of chapter three, has turned up very little if anything in the way of causation. In chapter four the author examines the social role and the learning theory formulations of psychopathy. In sharp contrast to those who seek an abnormality in bodily states stand those who view the individual as a product ofhis specific experiences oflife. Something in the basic training of the sociopath is missing-the full steps of socialization have not been traversed. According to learning theory, the qualities ofthe sociopath come from imitation of a cold and distant parent, but Smith also discusses the paradox of how a psychopath manages to be so finely tuned to the needs of others that he can manipulate them. In chapter five the author discusses ‘ ‘ Cleckley and the Psychopath,’ ‘ noting that Cleckley is the recognized expert in the Anglo-American literature. it is not necessary to repeat Cleckley’s concepts here; suffice it to recall the basic characteristics for his diagnosis: 1) superficial charm and good intelligence, 2) lack of remorse or shame, 3) untruthfulness and insincerity, and 4) pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love. As an example of psychopathy Smith describes Demara, who successfully posed as a politician, a naval officer, a psychologist, and a naval surgeon. The model thus posed for American psychopaths is, ‘ ‘Think big enough and the world can be yours. ” In chapters titled ‘ ‘ Psychopathy: Qualitative or Quantitative Entity? ’ ‘ ‘ ‘The Philosophy of the Marketplace and Psychopathy,’ ‘ ‘ ‘ Psychopathy in Varied Cultures,’ ‘ and ‘ ‘ Psychopathy and the Future’ ‘ the author examines this condition, which is responsible for so much heartache and which plagued military psychiatrists throughout World War II. Smith cites Harrington’s book titled Psychopaths (1), published in 1972, stating that Harrington took the fearsome view that the psychopath is the man ofthe future. Apparently, Harrington had written an article in Playboy as well, and Cleckley’s withering comment on that article was, ‘ ‘ Perhaps in this general and heedless effort to reverse the basic values anything traditionally regarded as undesirable or despicable might be stamped with the sign of approval. ” The author discusses the views of other writers and of the counterculture. Little is said, however, about treatment. It was the opinion of Navy psychiatrists in wartime that the condition burns itself out when men get into their SOs. By that time parents have died and there is no one left to keep psychopathic individuals out of jail. As to the present volume, I can recommend it for its cornplete survey of psychopathy. As I see the situation, it is pretty much the same as when the first edition of Cleckley’s first book, Mask ofSanitv (2), was published in 1941.