The Charlie Hebdo attacks, and the reactions to them, have brought the spotlight on to the place that free speech and religion have in society, and how people arrive at different points of view.
An excellent article by a learned Muslim recently pointed out how science and Islam at one time went hand-in-hand; what has changed is that the faith has been hijacked by - in effect - a multitude of tyrants over the centuries, who decided to use "Islam" as a way to control society, by peddling the temptation of forty virgins, for instance. I mean what educated person, of any faith, could take such things seriously?
While it has always been argued by atheists that religion has been a weapon to control society with, it was also true that, in the early years of Islam, Islamic countries were much more progressive and innovative in their relation to science compared to Christian nations of the time. The Islamic world invented astronomy, for example, at a time when Christian Europe was engulfed in the Dark Ages. What changed was not about the nature of the religion in itself, but in the situation on the ground, and how respective societies were run.
The "renaissance" was a breakthrough for the Christian West, but this happened around the same time that large parts of the Islamic world were overrun by the Mongol Empire. In the case of Baghdad, one of Islam's and the Middle East's key cities of learning, the city was destroyed and its population massacred. While no one event can be blamed, in the same way that the ideas of the "renaissance" occurred gradually over many decades, the same can be said of Islam's turning away from science and free-thinking. The evolution of the West into a free-thinking, democratic society was due to a series of events and factors; the same can be said of how the Islamic world became engulfed in scientific and innovative lethargy, which, sadly, exists to the present day. The question is:why?
If all else fails, rule by fear
To reiterate the point, it was not inevitable that Islamic countries would become more socially and economically backwards: it was the result of historical factors, and the decisions of those in power.
The Middle East, Islam's core heartland, has been fought over for centuries; that said, so has Europe (most recently in the first half of the 20th century). In the excellent book, "Why Nations Fail" (more on that here), one of the key factors the authors explain is responsible for poverty and lack of innovation in a society is the elite's fear of creative destruction. In a traditional tyranny (or a modern-day dictatorship), the elite rules by fear, and uses a system of corruption and amoral use of force to maintain their hold on power.
In short, if a clever innovator has an idea that might improve society, the elite would rather discredit and destroy the inventor than have the risk that the innovation might make life better for others, which could make other people rich, and thus, more powerful. It is a simple, if purely malicious, rationale. There are many examples of this throughout history, as well as today, explained in the book mentioned - including the Middle East.
The reason why the West is rich is because decisions were taken at different points in the past that led to a "virtuous" circle of events, whereby more and more freedom was given to society, which led to more opportunities for innovation and technological and scientific progress.
In this way, what has happened in the Islamic world since those bright, innovative early years is a type of "vicious circle". After the Mongol Empire overrun parts of the Middle East, it appears that science and innovation declined to insignificance, along with the various tyrants that ran the region as their own personal fiefdoms. This led to them being overrun by the Ottomans in the sixteenth century. But science and innovation didn't improve under the Ottomans either; for instance, while the West began printing books on a large scale by the start of the sixteenth century; the Ottomans only allowed this to happen in the nineteenth century. This was not because printing was "against Islam" ; it was because it appeared to be against the ruling elite's interests. It was surely for this reason that while levels of literacy in England in 1800 were at around half the population, in the Ottoman Empire - the most powerful Islamic state in the world - levels of literacy were at most 3 per cent.
Likewise, when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was established after the First World War, was not pre-ordained or instinctive that the country should be a theocratic, ultra-conservative state: it became like this due to the king seeking the support of the local imams, in order to give the king and his elite a solid support base, and a moral code to control society with. The British also went along with this, for their own, self-interested, reasons. The Arabs of "Saudi Arabia", and the other Arab monarchs, such as the Hashemites of Jordan, relied on tribal support, and prior to the First World War hadn't known anything like a properly-organised Arab polity (let alone innovation and free thinking) for around six hundred years. So the fact that they used their religion as a basis for building support and maintaining power is unsurprising.
"Not In Our Name"?
The resurgence in Islamic extremism historically ties in with this. I wrote previously about how Islamic extremism emerged on to the world stage thirty-five years ago, and how the Charlie Hebdo attacks are another indication of its mutation into a force against "Western decadence". While the number of moderate Muslims far outnumbers the extremists, it does appear that there are more extremists than there were previously, and certainly are far more "active" in displaying their views compared to any other contemporary world religion. It is not surprising that some in the West are content to play to the extremists' game by saying that there is a de facto "clash of civilsations".
The closer truth is that the moderates are losing the "war" against the extremists in their faith. While some say this is the fault of the religion itself, it might be better to say that, quite simply, the moderates are too scared to say anything publicly (though if this amounts to the same thing is another point).
You might think that in a normal situation, moderate Muslims would be so horrified and angered by the extremists' actions said in their name that they would be all on the street in their thousands angrily protesting against them (e.g. like the "Not In My Name" anti-war Iraq protests). There are a few, but they are few and far between. The moderates may well not do this because they are simply too scared of the possible consequences; in contrast, usually the only Muslims you see protesting are the very "extremists" calling for tyrannical actions against non-Muslims.
Likewise, there have been calls by the British government for the Muslim elders to get more involved in preventing the radicalisation of their youth. Unfortunately, for one, there may be a "generational gap" that is dividing younger from older Muslims in the West. Like the classic case of a teenager who complains that their parents "don't understand them", the same many be true of today's radicalised young Muslims. They are getting most of their information, and indoctrination, from the internet. This is how the "elders" are being cut out of the loop. So for all the British government's good intentions, it may well be aiming for the wrong target.
In other words, Islamic extremism is on the rise in the West because, for wont of a better word, it feels "cool" (read some of the lingo of the kids who go to Syria, and you'll get how close to the mark this really appears!) and thus appeals to insecure young people in need of a "cause"; extremism is strong in the Middle East because it is a useful weapon and diversionary tactic to control society (while blaming the West for Arab poverty).
But this use of power is as old as the hills.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Sunday, January 18, 2015
The 2015 General Election: confusion, hung parliaments, UKIP, and a war on many fronts
A recent poll clarified the depth of the confusion over what the likely outcome of this year's general election will look like.
I wrote this time last year that Labour would probably win the election, giving some of the reasons why. In the present circumstances, Labour look like they will either win outright, with a small majority (e.g. of less than twenty), or come out as the largest party in a hung parliament (e.g. with somewhere in the region of 280-320 seats). The latter scenario is still quite possible, though (more on why in a moment).
On the polling figures the Tories have had more-or-less consistently for the past year or more, they may well lose around fifty or so of their MPs; possibly more given their lack of appeal in the North of England, where UKIP looks likely to supplant them as the opposition to Labour in many areas.
The LibDems look like a spent force. Charitable estimates are that they will lose something like twenty of their MPs (currently on 57 in this parliament); more apocalyptic scenarios - which are still very feasible given their dire poll ratings - are that they could lose more than half their MPs, including some current ministers. In the event of a hung parliament, the LibDems are likely to have too few MPs remaining to make a viable "tandem" coalition with the biggest party (e.g. Labour); at best, if a coalition involving the LibDems were formed, it would have to involve a third party to make the numbers work in parliament.
A war on three fronts
While Labour look set to be the biggest party in parliament, barring some unforeseen circumstances, being a few points ahead of the Conservatives in the polls is no guarantee that they would still have enough MPs to govern alone.
The poll mentioned at the start of the article shows how strong the three "minor" parties are - UKIP on 20%, with the Greens biting at the heels of the LibDems for national share of the vote...and with the SNP on 5%.
The last figure is the most stunning, because the SNP are not a "national" party. They only have candidates standing in Scotland. In many ways, the "5%" figure is meaningless, if they only have candidates in on part of the UK. But if their support is 5% on average nationally, that tells you the level of support they have in Scotland must be many times higher than that; proportionally, the SNP are by far the most popular party in Scotland. Recent polls put their support on something twenty points ahead of Labour, the next biggest party, which is why analysts are estimating that, at a conservative estimate, the SNP could take at least twenty seats away from Labour.
Indeed, due the the FPTP system for Westminster, the SNP could take the majority of all of Scotland's seats to Westminster, leaving them with anything as high as forty or more MPs in parliament (most of those representing former Labour strongholds).
This scenario would be nothing less than an apocalypse for Scottish Labour. And, obviously, causes massive problems for Labour getting a majority in parliament.
The UKIP factor is a second front that Labour knows it cannot be complacent about. While most analysts think that UKIP would struggle to get into double figures in terms of winning seats in Westminster (having more than, say, six MPs in parliament, would be considered a phenomenal result for UKIP under the circumstances). That doesn't mean that they wouldn't cause problems in the election itself regardless.
Because UKIP's voter base is spread widely across the country, their demographic impacts on both the Tories as well as Labour.
As said earlier, UKIP look to have supplanted the Tories in large parts of the north as Labour's main opposition. This is may be a blessing in disguise for Labour as, although some Labour supporters may switch to UKIP, many "natural" Tory voters could well tactically vote purple as well. It's uncertain if this will seriously challenge Labour in its heartlands, but it would certainly do more damage to the Tories than to Labour.
The problem Labour has with UKIP is more in the south and the Midlands. While the Tories will shed support to UKIP, Labour could equally shed support to UKIP in the same way (and in some of the same constituencies, due to the demographics). Clacton-on-Sea, and Rochester and Strood are good examples of this: seats that have, at one time or another, swung either to Labour or the Tories (but historically more Tory than Labour). So we know that with UKIP polling 20%, this will damage Labour almost as much as it will the Tories. There are seats in the south that Labour would normally expect to win in order to become the biggest party, but where UKIP are strong due to the demographics. This will cause some problems, possibly resulting in failing to win those seats, and thus presenting further problems in what should, ordinarily, be "winnable" seats.
The question is in what way, and that is the problem that analysts are having: with UKIP being such a new political player, it is difficult to compute exactly how they will affect the results in many constituencies. We will only know the truth in May. And this is why Labour should not be complacent about thinking that having an outright majority is "in the bag" even if they are ahead of the Tories in the national vote. In Scotland, Labour are facing a potential nightmare; in England, the UKIP factor is the great unknown. And then there is the fast-growing threat of the Greens...
The Green Party now have more members than UKIP, according to recent figures, and their popularity has soared in the last twelve months. I talked about the threat of the "minor parties" a few months ago, but since then the Greens have gone from strength to strength. With their polling figures being almost comparable to the LibDems, and even the Prime Minister (as often seen, an amoral man of no principle) is using their popularity as a convenient excuse to get out of the TV debates.
But more seriously, the rise of the Greens is mostly at the expense of the LibDems; it's unclear how much of the "Green surge" is due to lost Labour voters. The Greens themselves are optimistic about increasing their number of MPs, by concentrating their efforts on constituencies with favourable demographics.
Although even the most optimistic Green campaigner wouldn't expect the Greens to win more than a few seats in Westminster, again, like UKIP, they may "split the vote" in some seats, eroding the support for Labour or the LibDems, possibly resulting in some surprising results (e.g. the Tories winning in a place they wouldn't expect).
So while the Conservatives have UKIP to worry about, Labour have a fight on three other fronts as well. A hung parliament is still more than possible, even if Labour finished ahead of the Tories in the polls in May. It all depends on how things play out with the so-called "minor parties".
But they may not be "minor" for long - the SNP, for instance, may well have a lot to say come May...
I wrote this time last year that Labour would probably win the election, giving some of the reasons why. In the present circumstances, Labour look like they will either win outright, with a small majority (e.g. of less than twenty), or come out as the largest party in a hung parliament (e.g. with somewhere in the region of 280-320 seats). The latter scenario is still quite possible, though (more on why in a moment).
On the polling figures the Tories have had more-or-less consistently for the past year or more, they may well lose around fifty or so of their MPs; possibly more given their lack of appeal in the North of England, where UKIP looks likely to supplant them as the opposition to Labour in many areas.
The LibDems look like a spent force. Charitable estimates are that they will lose something like twenty of their MPs (currently on 57 in this parliament); more apocalyptic scenarios - which are still very feasible given their dire poll ratings - are that they could lose more than half their MPs, including some current ministers. In the event of a hung parliament, the LibDems are likely to have too few MPs remaining to make a viable "tandem" coalition with the biggest party (e.g. Labour); at best, if a coalition involving the LibDems were formed, it would have to involve a third party to make the numbers work in parliament.
A war on three fronts
While Labour look set to be the biggest party in parliament, barring some unforeseen circumstances, being a few points ahead of the Conservatives in the polls is no guarantee that they would still have enough MPs to govern alone.
The poll mentioned at the start of the article shows how strong the three "minor" parties are - UKIP on 20%, with the Greens biting at the heels of the LibDems for national share of the vote...and with the SNP on 5%.
The last figure is the most stunning, because the SNP are not a "national" party. They only have candidates standing in Scotland. In many ways, the "5%" figure is meaningless, if they only have candidates in on part of the UK. But if their support is 5% on average nationally, that tells you the level of support they have in Scotland must be many times higher than that; proportionally, the SNP are by far the most popular party in Scotland. Recent polls put their support on something twenty points ahead of Labour, the next biggest party, which is why analysts are estimating that, at a conservative estimate, the SNP could take at least twenty seats away from Labour.
Indeed, due the the FPTP system for Westminster, the SNP could take the majority of all of Scotland's seats to Westminster, leaving them with anything as high as forty or more MPs in parliament (most of those representing former Labour strongholds).
This scenario would be nothing less than an apocalypse for Scottish Labour. And, obviously, causes massive problems for Labour getting a majority in parliament.
The UKIP factor is a second front that Labour knows it cannot be complacent about. While most analysts think that UKIP would struggle to get into double figures in terms of winning seats in Westminster (having more than, say, six MPs in parliament, would be considered a phenomenal result for UKIP under the circumstances). That doesn't mean that they wouldn't cause problems in the election itself regardless.
Because UKIP's voter base is spread widely across the country, their demographic impacts on both the Tories as well as Labour.
As said earlier, UKIP look to have supplanted the Tories in large parts of the north as Labour's main opposition. This is may be a blessing in disguise for Labour as, although some Labour supporters may switch to UKIP, many "natural" Tory voters could well tactically vote purple as well. It's uncertain if this will seriously challenge Labour in its heartlands, but it would certainly do more damage to the Tories than to Labour.
The problem Labour has with UKIP is more in the south and the Midlands. While the Tories will shed support to UKIP, Labour could equally shed support to UKIP in the same way (and in some of the same constituencies, due to the demographics). Clacton-on-Sea, and Rochester and Strood are good examples of this: seats that have, at one time or another, swung either to Labour or the Tories (but historically more Tory than Labour). So we know that with UKIP polling 20%, this will damage Labour almost as much as it will the Tories. There are seats in the south that Labour would normally expect to win in order to become the biggest party, but where UKIP are strong due to the demographics. This will cause some problems, possibly resulting in failing to win those seats, and thus presenting further problems in what should, ordinarily, be "winnable" seats.
The question is in what way, and that is the problem that analysts are having: with UKIP being such a new political player, it is difficult to compute exactly how they will affect the results in many constituencies. We will only know the truth in May. And this is why Labour should not be complacent about thinking that having an outright majority is "in the bag" even if they are ahead of the Tories in the national vote. In Scotland, Labour are facing a potential nightmare; in England, the UKIP factor is the great unknown. And then there is the fast-growing threat of the Greens...
The Green Party now have more members than UKIP, according to recent figures, and their popularity has soared in the last twelve months. I talked about the threat of the "minor parties" a few months ago, but since then the Greens have gone from strength to strength. With their polling figures being almost comparable to the LibDems, and even the Prime Minister (as often seen, an amoral man of no principle) is using their popularity as a convenient excuse to get out of the TV debates.
But more seriously, the rise of the Greens is mostly at the expense of the LibDems; it's unclear how much of the "Green surge" is due to lost Labour voters. The Greens themselves are optimistic about increasing their number of MPs, by concentrating their efforts on constituencies with favourable demographics.
Although even the most optimistic Green campaigner wouldn't expect the Greens to win more than a few seats in Westminster, again, like UKIP, they may "split the vote" in some seats, eroding the support for Labour or the LibDems, possibly resulting in some surprising results (e.g. the Tories winning in a place they wouldn't expect).
So while the Conservatives have UKIP to worry about, Labour have a fight on three other fronts as well. A hung parliament is still more than possible, even if Labour finished ahead of the Tories in the polls in May. It all depends on how things play out with the so-called "minor parties".
But they may not be "minor" for long - the SNP, for instance, may well have a lot to say come May...
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The Charlie Hebdo attack: Islam, extremism, and the elephant in the room
I wrote a few days ago about some of the possible reactions and consequences of the Charlie Hebdo attack. In the mainstream liberal media, there have been a number of articles (see here and here) by Muslims attempting to put the actions of these terrorists into context. More exactly, the two examples highlighted attempt to put distance between the authors' faith and the perpetrators' interpretation of it.
This is all good and well, but misses the larger (and more glaring) point that many others (in the comments sections) were happy to remind them of: that there are many acts of terror committed in the world today, and a large number of them are by Muslims. In this sense, Islam appears unique in the 21st century in its adherents' motivation to plot and carry out many acts of terror across the world on an almost daily basis (aimed at Muslims and non-Muslims alike), compared to any other religion (or ideology, for that matter).
The lunatics running the asylum?
One of the writers compared to the Charlie Hebdo attacks to the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh, saying that as Christians were not required to apologise for that individual's action, so therefore neither should all Muslims have to apologise for the actions of a few "lunatics". This thinking is wrong on two counts: first, McVeigh's hate was aimed at the government, and not fueled primarily by his religion; second, yes the Charlie Hebdo attackers may have been "lunatics", but there seem to be an awful lot of "lunatics" that are using Islam as an excuse to kill.
Those "lunatics" may be hijacking the religion, but that also begs the question: why is it so easy for so many "lunatics" to hijack Islam in the first place? Another article (although highly-satirical) talked about how Christians weren't all blamed for the actions of Anders Breivik, but again, this misses the point: the number of violent Christian extremists in society is very small indeed, while the number of Muslims who consider themselves to be "fundamentalists" is comparatively large. Besides, Christianity mostly dealt with these issues three hundred years ago. By comparison, it appears that Islamic extremism has been undergoing a "renaissance" in recent times. This tells us that there is a fundamental weakness somewhere in how the faith is interpreted, if it allows so many people to use it as an excuse to terrorise society. The extremists are winning the battle within Islam because the moderates seem to lack the intellectual or doctrinal weapons to neutralise (or successfully ostracise) the extremists in the faith.
More bluntly, when there are spectacular attacks like these, regardless of if they are aimed Muslims or non-Muslims. it is not enough to say "they're not true Muslims". The actions of ISIS, for example, are applauded by many in Saudi Arabia; likewise, the Taliban are supported by a significant number of Pakistanis. And in the West, from Bradford to Bordeaux, police uncover terror plots by home-grown extremists almost every week. While there was a great deal of terrorism in the seventies and eighties, by the likes of the IRA in Britain, such a level of continual terror activity by those professing to one faith alone, is unprecedented. This is what makes it unique. And if ordinary Muslims cannot (or refuse to) see that, they are deluding themselves.
The enemy of my enemy...
As said earlier, the number of people professing to be "fundamentalist" Muslims seems to have undergone a "renaissance" in recent decades. This also includes Western converts.
By a strange coincidence, it's worth considering the rise of modern-day Islamic fundamentalism in concert with the rise of economic neo-liberalism. Both of these "ideologies" emerged as a world force around thirty-five years ago: more exactly, the year 1979 was pivotal to both.
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became premier of the UK, and initiated the neo-liberal project, to be followed shortly afterwards by fellow neo-liberal disciple, Ronald Reagan in the USA. Since that time, this doctrine, also known as the "Anglo-Saxon model" has been responsible for the rise in the corrupt financial system: after markets became deregulated, banking abandoned economic logic and any remaining moral scruples, which led to the financial crisis of 2008. This disastrous doctrine is still the economic orthodoxy in the West.
In 1979, the Islamic revolution overthrew the rule of the Shah in Iran. Later that year, Islamic militants seized the grand mosque in Mecca. In Saudi Arabia, the social effect of the seizure, after taking it back, was to make the country even more fundamentalist than before, which has existed ever since. In Iran, the theocratic regime encouraged the spread of Islamic fundamentalism through entities such as Hezbollah. Further afield, Islam took a stricter course in Pakistan with its new military ruler, Zia ul-Haq in the same year, instigating a process of cementing stricter Islamic values, for instance, by making blasphemy a capital offence.
The Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, also in 1979, made ul-Haq a useful ally to the USA in its fight against Communism, and thus began the relationship between Islamic fundamentalism and the West, in the theatre of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda became one beneficiary of this. Thus the USA and the UK, the two arms of the "neo-liberal" model, became key financial and military allies of the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This has continued to the present day. It should also not be forgotten that Reagan did a deal with the Iranian leadership for the release of the US embassy hostages - after he became president in 1981. There was also the infamous "Iran-Contra" imbroglio.
At this point, conspiracy theorists may be having a field day. The relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens is well-established; others may well talk darkly of a convenient overlap between elites in the Middle East talking up their anti-Western rhetoric, and the "military-industrial complex" in the West talking up the threat of terrorism. That's for others to consider.
Many Muslims talk about extremists who carry out acts like the Charlie Hebdo being "bad apples"; coincidentally, this was the same excuse that was said of those at the banks who were responsible for the financial crisis. It doesn't wash. It was structural failures, and failures of the system itself, that brought about the financial crisis; likewise, it is problems with the structures and implementation of Islam that have brought about the "extremism" crisis in Islam today.
Swimming against the tide
The talk since the 1990s, and especially after 9/11, has been of a "clash of civilisations". More specifically, this is a dialectic played up by ideologues on the far-right in the West, as well as elements of the so-called "neo-cons"; similarly, it is the same rhetoric used by the radicalised edge of Islam, now fronted by the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. For both it is a convenient card to play for their own ends: since the first "intifada", the fall of Communism and the first Gulf War, events have been used by Muslim extremists to justify their actions against the "Great Satan"; likewise, since 9/11, "neo-cons" and other far-rightists (e.g. in Europe) have used terror events and "the enemy within" to play up the threat, playing into the hands of the extremists to play the "victim" card, and turn more recruits to their cause.
In a wider sense, the stance taken by extremist Muslims, such as those who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack, was a symptom of the inter-connected nature of today's world. Globalisation and the mass accessibility of the internet means that the cartoons designed to appeal to CH's narrow consumer base (itself a segment of French society) could be easily seen by fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East, the last people who would be expected to be readers of CH. The same point could be made of the infamous "Danish cartoons", which resulted in furious protests as far afield as Indonesia. Only in the 21st century could a cartoon drawn in Denmark result in violent protests on the other side of the world!
In this sense, what these extremists (European far-rightists, as well as Islamic fundamentalists) are doing is stubbornly and violently swimming against the tide: their anger and violence is a reaction to the powerlessness they feel against the opening-up of global society. They want to turn the clock back to a time when their religion and values were unchallenged, and are prepared to use violence to make it happen.
Ultimately, they will fail, as the Counter-Reformation failed. Terrorism is the counter-reaction to the opening-up of global society, and the way that technology and ideas are spreading to places where they didn't exist before. There is no easy answer to the threat of terrorism; it may be the price that society must pay until global society eventually turns the corner and wins the intellectual battle. This is the battle that Islam is also going through, an intellectual battle to find its place in the modern world.
We must all wait, patiently, until that ends.
This is all good and well, but misses the larger (and more glaring) point that many others (in the comments sections) were happy to remind them of: that there are many acts of terror committed in the world today, and a large number of them are by Muslims. In this sense, Islam appears unique in the 21st century in its adherents' motivation to plot and carry out many acts of terror across the world on an almost daily basis (aimed at Muslims and non-Muslims alike), compared to any other religion (or ideology, for that matter).
The lunatics running the asylum?
One of the writers compared to the Charlie Hebdo attacks to the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh, saying that as Christians were not required to apologise for that individual's action, so therefore neither should all Muslims have to apologise for the actions of a few "lunatics". This thinking is wrong on two counts: first, McVeigh's hate was aimed at the government, and not fueled primarily by his religion; second, yes the Charlie Hebdo attackers may have been "lunatics", but there seem to be an awful lot of "lunatics" that are using Islam as an excuse to kill.
Those "lunatics" may be hijacking the religion, but that also begs the question: why is it so easy for so many "lunatics" to hijack Islam in the first place? Another article (although highly-satirical) talked about how Christians weren't all blamed for the actions of Anders Breivik, but again, this misses the point: the number of violent Christian extremists in society is very small indeed, while the number of Muslims who consider themselves to be "fundamentalists" is comparatively large. Besides, Christianity mostly dealt with these issues three hundred years ago. By comparison, it appears that Islamic extremism has been undergoing a "renaissance" in recent times. This tells us that there is a fundamental weakness somewhere in how the faith is interpreted, if it allows so many people to use it as an excuse to terrorise society. The extremists are winning the battle within Islam because the moderates seem to lack the intellectual or doctrinal weapons to neutralise (or successfully ostracise) the extremists in the faith.
More bluntly, when there are spectacular attacks like these, regardless of if they are aimed Muslims or non-Muslims. it is not enough to say "they're not true Muslims". The actions of ISIS, for example, are applauded by many in Saudi Arabia; likewise, the Taliban are supported by a significant number of Pakistanis. And in the West, from Bradford to Bordeaux, police uncover terror plots by home-grown extremists almost every week. While there was a great deal of terrorism in the seventies and eighties, by the likes of the IRA in Britain, such a level of continual terror activity by those professing to one faith alone, is unprecedented. This is what makes it unique. And if ordinary Muslims cannot (or refuse to) see that, they are deluding themselves.
The enemy of my enemy...
As said earlier, the number of people professing to be "fundamentalist" Muslims seems to have undergone a "renaissance" in recent decades. This also includes Western converts.
By a strange coincidence, it's worth considering the rise of modern-day Islamic fundamentalism in concert with the rise of economic neo-liberalism. Both of these "ideologies" emerged as a world force around thirty-five years ago: more exactly, the year 1979 was pivotal to both.
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became premier of the UK, and initiated the neo-liberal project, to be followed shortly afterwards by fellow neo-liberal disciple, Ronald Reagan in the USA. Since that time, this doctrine, also known as the "Anglo-Saxon model" has been responsible for the rise in the corrupt financial system: after markets became deregulated, banking abandoned economic logic and any remaining moral scruples, which led to the financial crisis of 2008. This disastrous doctrine is still the economic orthodoxy in the West.
In 1979, the Islamic revolution overthrew the rule of the Shah in Iran. Later that year, Islamic militants seized the grand mosque in Mecca. In Saudi Arabia, the social effect of the seizure, after taking it back, was to make the country even more fundamentalist than before, which has existed ever since. In Iran, the theocratic regime encouraged the spread of Islamic fundamentalism through entities such as Hezbollah. Further afield, Islam took a stricter course in Pakistan with its new military ruler, Zia ul-Haq in the same year, instigating a process of cementing stricter Islamic values, for instance, by making blasphemy a capital offence.
The Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, also in 1979, made ul-Haq a useful ally to the USA in its fight against Communism, and thus began the relationship between Islamic fundamentalism and the West, in the theatre of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda became one beneficiary of this. Thus the USA and the UK, the two arms of the "neo-liberal" model, became key financial and military allies of the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This has continued to the present day. It should also not be forgotten that Reagan did a deal with the Iranian leadership for the release of the US embassy hostages - after he became president in 1981. There was also the infamous "Iran-Contra" imbroglio.
At this point, conspiracy theorists may be having a field day. The relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens is well-established; others may well talk darkly of a convenient overlap between elites in the Middle East talking up their anti-Western rhetoric, and the "military-industrial complex" in the West talking up the threat of terrorism. That's for others to consider.
Many Muslims talk about extremists who carry out acts like the Charlie Hebdo being "bad apples"; coincidentally, this was the same excuse that was said of those at the banks who were responsible for the financial crisis. It doesn't wash. It was structural failures, and failures of the system itself, that brought about the financial crisis; likewise, it is problems with the structures and implementation of Islam that have brought about the "extremism" crisis in Islam today.
Swimming against the tide
The talk since the 1990s, and especially after 9/11, has been of a "clash of civilisations". More specifically, this is a dialectic played up by ideologues on the far-right in the West, as well as elements of the so-called "neo-cons"; similarly, it is the same rhetoric used by the radicalised edge of Islam, now fronted by the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. For both it is a convenient card to play for their own ends: since the first "intifada", the fall of Communism and the first Gulf War, events have been used by Muslim extremists to justify their actions against the "Great Satan"; likewise, since 9/11, "neo-cons" and other far-rightists (e.g. in Europe) have used terror events and "the enemy within" to play up the threat, playing into the hands of the extremists to play the "victim" card, and turn more recruits to their cause.
In a wider sense, the stance taken by extremist Muslims, such as those who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack, was a symptom of the inter-connected nature of today's world. Globalisation and the mass accessibility of the internet means that the cartoons designed to appeal to CH's narrow consumer base (itself a segment of French society) could be easily seen by fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East, the last people who would be expected to be readers of CH. The same point could be made of the infamous "Danish cartoons", which resulted in furious protests as far afield as Indonesia. Only in the 21st century could a cartoon drawn in Denmark result in violent protests on the other side of the world!
In this sense, what these extremists (European far-rightists, as well as Islamic fundamentalists) are doing is stubbornly and violently swimming against the tide: their anger and violence is a reaction to the powerlessness they feel against the opening-up of global society. They want to turn the clock back to a time when their religion and values were unchallenged, and are prepared to use violence to make it happen.
Ultimately, they will fail, as the Counter-Reformation failed. Terrorism is the counter-reaction to the opening-up of global society, and the way that technology and ideas are spreading to places where they didn't exist before. There is no easy answer to the threat of terrorism; it may be the price that society must pay until global society eventually turns the corner and wins the intellectual battle. This is the battle that Islam is also going through, an intellectual battle to find its place in the modern world.
We must all wait, patiently, until that ends.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
The Charlie Hebdo attack: Al-Qaeda, terrorism and Islam
To paraphrase another author of an article about the Charlie Hebdo attack, the West doesn't have a Muslim problem; Islam has a terrorism problem.
The attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices was carried out by people claiming to work for Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Since the rise of ISIS in the news over the past year, Al-Qaeda has, comparatively-speaking, dropped off the media radar. The motivation for the attack (and the modus operandi; more on that later) was most obviously about making a simple, terrifying point: to punish those who has "offended" the Prophet, and to terrify others in the West into submission.
A "win-win" situation?
But it must also have been about far more than that as well: the more subtle point would have been to create a ideological fissure in Western society. By orchestrating such a high-profile, almost "surgical" attack at a Western media outlet, the terrorists seemed to have weighed-up the most probable social effects of the attack on Western society.
One, Western society can stand together against this kind of terror and continue life as normal (as powerfully-argued by Simon Jenkins here). Doing this (and by, for example re-publishing the "offensive" cartoons in response etc.) will result in further fuel being given to the extremists, by more clearly identifying the "dissolute" moral freedoms of the West ( i.e. a "win" for the extremists, in their eyes).
Two, Western society can be privately cowed into submission by the terror attacks, as many mainstream media outlets have been for the past ten years (they don't want to get killed, and value their life over their freedom of expression). After the initial anger, this subsides into a "self-censorship" setting that has been in place for some time already. This is precisely what the point of this act of terror was - to terrorise people into accepting the will of the terrorists.
Three, Western society could more carefully identify the issue of "home-grown" terrorism, and the fact that most of the extremists today develop due to flaws in the way that Muslim societies deal with the harsher and more intolerant aspects of their religion (more on why the extremists are winning here). As most of the attacks by Muslim extremists in the world are on fellow Muslims, this clearly a problem across the Muslim world in general, not just in the West.
By doing this in the West, it could cause a "culture war" with Muslim society in general (indeed, this may well already be true), pitting Muslims against each other, as is already happening in the Middle East. While this is an issue that Western governments really need to work in tandem with Muslim elders on, there seems to be little appetite for it at the moment. Again, the extremists may well easily spin this strategy back on the Muslim moderates, by calling them not "true Muslims", as they have been doing already for the last ten years. In short, things may well get bloodier before they better, if this strategy is to work long-term.
The problem here is a question of if Western society (and moderate Islam in general) is, frankly, prepared to pay the "blood price" for fighting against the tyranny of extremism. The people are Charlie Hebdo clearly were prepared to pay the price if need be, and, tragically, they did so.
Four: of course, there may well be an anti-Muslim backlash, as there was after the Lee Rigby killing in London. This is also exactly what the terrorists would wish for, too, for their own reasons.
France is one of Europe's most potentially-explosive social structures, due to the lack of integration between the Muslim community in France and "mainstream" French society. Issues of racism are not far under the surface, and with the recent rise of FN, France must appear an "easy" target for the likes of Al-Qaeda. While the UK can hardly afford to be complacent either about its relations to its large Muslim population (more on that problem here), the British police seem to be much more on the ball than there French counterparts, judging from the number of foiled terror plots compared to actual terror attacks.
With intolerance (i.e. anti Muslim sentiment) on the rise across Europe in general, the question is how to strike the right kind of balance between allowing freedom of religious expression, but preventing intolerance preached by extremists and worse. It looks like it may be a long time before we can square that particular circle.
Regardless of whatever the outcome is, if Western society is not prepared to die for their beliefs if need be, then the freedoms that people died for in Second World War were for nothing, and we have simply exchanged the extremism of the Nazis for the extremism of modern-day Islamofascism. In the modern world, the extremists don't need to invade the West to take over; they simply use the internet, and commit random acts of terror to achieve their aims.
Raising their game?
The attack on Charlie Hebdo, for all that it represented, also was a stark demonstration of the resilience and ingenuity of Al-Qaeda. As said earlier, the rise of ISIS has distracted much of the world's attention from Al-Qaeda. Doubtless, that must have hurt a little of their twisted sense of pride. But equally, the nature of this attack shows that they may well have been spending time to "raise the game".
As analysts and witnesses have stated, it bears the hallmarks of being a military-like operation: less a "terror act" than a "pinpoint strike" against a carefully-selected target. It was almost as though they had learned strategies from some of the anti-terror operations they have suffered in recent years from Western covert-ops. They knew exactly where, who and when to strike to achieve maximum effect. The fact that they timed their attack to coincide with a meeting when all the key staff would be there in one place shows a chillingly-efficient manner to their operation.
This attack is a game-changer in showing what the capabilities are of Al-Qaeda affiliates in 2015, and how they are an organisation that learns from its enemies. The question is: how to react? As explained in the scenarios above, none of the options provide an easy answer, and all possible strategies then may well provide some kind of succour to the extremists in one way or another, at least in the short-term.
The ball is in our court.
The attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices was carried out by people claiming to work for Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Since the rise of ISIS in the news over the past year, Al-Qaeda has, comparatively-speaking, dropped off the media radar. The motivation for the attack (and the modus operandi; more on that later) was most obviously about making a simple, terrifying point: to punish those who has "offended" the Prophet, and to terrify others in the West into submission.
A "win-win" situation?
But it must also have been about far more than that as well: the more subtle point would have been to create a ideological fissure in Western society. By orchestrating such a high-profile, almost "surgical" attack at a Western media outlet, the terrorists seemed to have weighed-up the most probable social effects of the attack on Western society.
One, Western society can stand together against this kind of terror and continue life as normal (as powerfully-argued by Simon Jenkins here). Doing this (and by, for example re-publishing the "offensive" cartoons in response etc.) will result in further fuel being given to the extremists, by more clearly identifying the "dissolute" moral freedoms of the West ( i.e. a "win" for the extremists, in their eyes).
Two, Western society can be privately cowed into submission by the terror attacks, as many mainstream media outlets have been for the past ten years (they don't want to get killed, and value their life over their freedom of expression). After the initial anger, this subsides into a "self-censorship" setting that has been in place for some time already. This is precisely what the point of this act of terror was - to terrorise people into accepting the will of the terrorists.
Three, Western society could more carefully identify the issue of "home-grown" terrorism, and the fact that most of the extremists today develop due to flaws in the way that Muslim societies deal with the harsher and more intolerant aspects of their religion (more on why the extremists are winning here). As most of the attacks by Muslim extremists in the world are on fellow Muslims, this clearly a problem across the Muslim world in general, not just in the West.
By doing this in the West, it could cause a "culture war" with Muslim society in general (indeed, this may well already be true), pitting Muslims against each other, as is already happening in the Middle East. While this is an issue that Western governments really need to work in tandem with Muslim elders on, there seems to be little appetite for it at the moment. Again, the extremists may well easily spin this strategy back on the Muslim moderates, by calling them not "true Muslims", as they have been doing already for the last ten years. In short, things may well get bloodier before they better, if this strategy is to work long-term.
The problem here is a question of if Western society (and moderate Islam in general) is, frankly, prepared to pay the "blood price" for fighting against the tyranny of extremism. The people are Charlie Hebdo clearly were prepared to pay the price if need be, and, tragically, they did so.
Four: of course, there may well be an anti-Muslim backlash, as there was after the Lee Rigby killing in London. This is also exactly what the terrorists would wish for, too, for their own reasons.
France is one of Europe's most potentially-explosive social structures, due to the lack of integration between the Muslim community in France and "mainstream" French society. Issues of racism are not far under the surface, and with the recent rise of FN, France must appear an "easy" target for the likes of Al-Qaeda. While the UK can hardly afford to be complacent either about its relations to its large Muslim population (more on that problem here), the British police seem to be much more on the ball than there French counterparts, judging from the number of foiled terror plots compared to actual terror attacks.
With intolerance (i.e. anti Muslim sentiment) on the rise across Europe in general, the question is how to strike the right kind of balance between allowing freedom of religious expression, but preventing intolerance preached by extremists and worse. It looks like it may be a long time before we can square that particular circle.
Regardless of whatever the outcome is, if Western society is not prepared to die for their beliefs if need be, then the freedoms that people died for in Second World War were for nothing, and we have simply exchanged the extremism of the Nazis for the extremism of modern-day Islamofascism. In the modern world, the extremists don't need to invade the West to take over; they simply use the internet, and commit random acts of terror to achieve their aims.
Raising their game?
The attack on Charlie Hebdo, for all that it represented, also was a stark demonstration of the resilience and ingenuity of Al-Qaeda. As said earlier, the rise of ISIS has distracted much of the world's attention from Al-Qaeda. Doubtless, that must have hurt a little of their twisted sense of pride. But equally, the nature of this attack shows that they may well have been spending time to "raise the game".
As analysts and witnesses have stated, it bears the hallmarks of being a military-like operation: less a "terror act" than a "pinpoint strike" against a carefully-selected target. It was almost as though they had learned strategies from some of the anti-terror operations they have suffered in recent years from Western covert-ops. They knew exactly where, who and when to strike to achieve maximum effect. The fact that they timed their attack to coincide with a meeting when all the key staff would be there in one place shows a chillingly-efficient manner to their operation.
This attack is a game-changer in showing what the capabilities are of Al-Qaeda affiliates in 2015, and how they are an organisation that learns from its enemies. The question is: how to react? As explained in the scenarios above, none of the options provide an easy answer, and all possible strategies then may well provide some kind of succour to the extremists in one way or another, at least in the short-term.
The ball is in our court.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Psychopathy and crime: from the boardroom to the sink estate. Linking crime, poverty, economics and government.
Psychopaths comprise a small percentile of the population at large (commonly estimated at 1%). These individuals differ from the rest of the population because, research has shown, their brains have a dysfunction.
A small part of the brain called the amygdala is generally-understood to be responsible for forming empathy with others: a person who lacks empathy lacks the emotional understanding of how others feel, and therefore lacks the knowledge of how to react to it properly. It is this "empathy circuit" that makes people behave in a caring and humane manner towards others: if that circuit is "broken" - as it is in psychopaths - then an individual has no compunction (or necessity) to act in a way sympathetic to other people. On the contrary, they will do whatever they need to do to achieve their goals, regardless of the consequences for others.
An individual crime wave?
Psychopathy is a collection of traits and behaviours that are a result of lack of empathy. Much of the research into psychopathy was originally carried out in prisons, mostly because this was the only place where it was possible to find a "stable" population of psychopaths. Research has shown that psychopaths make up a highly-disproportionate percentage of the prison population; this disparity increases even further when you look at violent offenders and serial sex offenders. In other words, psychopaths (who make up only 1% of the population) are responsible for a large part of violent and sexual offences. Furthermore, psychopaths, by the nature of their "disorder" are incapable of learning from their mistakes, and not surprisingly, make up a disproportionate percentage of those that are repeat offenders. So we can see that psychopaths bear a great responsibility for much of the crime that exists in society. And this doesn't even factor in other, more discreet - yet socially extremely-damaging - types of crime (more on that later).
However, most psychopaths are not even in prison. It can be said that only the "unsuccessful" psychopaths are the ones that we actually see in prison. Most serial killers are not psychopaths; however, a disproportionate number of serial killers are psychopaths. What makes the difference between a psychopath being a serial killer (which is in fact, very rare), a violent gang member, a rapist, a serial adulterer, a fraudster, or a boardroom CEO? Circumstance.
Choose your weapon
Robert Hare, the foremost expert on psychopathy, has said that psychopaths exist in all sections of society, and thus bad parenting or an abusive childhood cannot be said to be solely to blame, as some others have argued. Hare suggests that psychopathy is, at least partially, a biological (i.e. genetic) condition. The environment of a "psychopathic child" can play a part in aggravating the onset of the condition, but there are equally - as Hare claims - too many examples of psychopaths from well-adjusted families to say for sure that environment plays a decisive role. While environment is a factor, Hare's thinking suggests it is largely a biological condition.
Regardless of the origins of how a person becomes a psychopath, what is clear that apart from being a disproportionate part of the prison population, in the general population, we know that people ranking high on Hare's "psychopathy checklist" also tend to feature disproportionately in some fields of work.
Psychopaths have low anxiety levels and high risk-taking tendencies, amongst other behaviours, such as manipulation and superficial charm. This ruthlessness and ability to make quick decisions gives them a natural advantage in professions such as business, banking and law, but also other fields such as medicine and even the military and the police - and yes, politics, too. Psychopaths have been shown to have a heightened sense of alertness, and an ability to focus in on a person's strengths and weaknesses. Thus, they are "hard-wired" to be adaptive survivors, and - depending on their individual circumstances - know how to make the most of their "attributes".
This explains why there are a disproportionate numbers of violent and sexual offenders - but very few fraudsters - in prison.
Those psychopaths that have been born at the wrong end of society are most likely to be destined to become petty "career" criminals, gang members or father a string of illegitimate children. However, equally, a disproportionate number of these "low end" psychopaths may be able, through force of circumstances, be able to become highly-successful entrepreneurs: what is often called a "rags-to-riches" millionaire who has "the gift of the gab". These types of individuals were able to use their cunning and ruthlessness in more "pro-active" ways to make themselves financially well-off using legal means, whereas a psychopathic gang member was not.
And then we have what might be called "mid-level" psychopaths. These are usually "socially-adapted" psychopaths that have found some middling way to find an outlet for channeling their attributes: born into an "average" family, they may be successful salesmen or con men (more on these types of psychopaths, and the sales industry in general here). Equally, they may well go into the police force or even the military. In short, they have chosen professions that fit the glove of their personality, without making their lack of empathy seem too obvious or intrusive on their way of life. In some ways, these types of psychopaths are perhaps the most "socially-useful" to society, because they contribute something positive to society, in spite of their other negatives. This is not to say that these people are "well-adjusted" - they may still be capable of violence, ruthlessness, manipulation, and sometimes behave appallingly - but it may be well-concealed so to be less obviously-apparent.
Lastly (and most ominously) are the "high-end" psychopaths. Many of these are people either born into the higher end of society, or by their own high intelligence and cunning, are able to quickly work their way into it. While "low-level" psychopaths may be the ones most likely you'll encounter in prison and responsible for a large degree of "everyday" crime, the "high-end" psychopaths are the ones most likely to defraud businesses, bankrupt corporations, lay off entire workforces, cause environmental disasters, or worse. These are the people who have "the system" wrapped around their finger, so that any amoral acts they do are either ignored, excused, blamed on others (or underlings), or have been already made legal to neutralise the threat to their position. These people aren't in prison because they already have the political and legal system in their pockets.
The most infamous recent example is the financial crisis of 2008, where the elite of the banking system had devised a fraudulent banking model that caused the entire system to collapse. The banking cartel was then able to effectively blackmail governments into "bailing out" the banks without seriously forcing them to change their systems of operation, let alone sending many of them to prison for mass fraud on an epic scale. The modern economic system, which first came to into wide use thirty years ago, is effectively propping-up a system of economic extraction by an elite at the expense of the conditions of the regular workforce. These are conditions where the elite are leeching off the lower half of society in the same manner that psychopaths leech off their targeted victims. With the justification of Ayn Rand's philosophy, neo-liberalism sees social injustice as a "necessary evil"; even a good thing. This is precisely the same logic that psychopaths use to justify their acts. Is that a coincidence?
It is this reason why the gap between the highest and lowest earners has expanded by many times in the last thirty years. In this sense, it is difficult to separate the effects that psychopathy has on crime and on how our economy is governed overall: if the modern "Capitalist" system is ran on the principle of amoral exploitation, then how is it different, morally-speaking, from psychopathy?
When "high-end" psychopaths are in positions of authority the results are far more socially-devastating than a "low-end" psychopath. A low-end psychopath in a town can harm individuals and families through, for example, petty crime and casual violence. A high-end psychopath, by closing down a town's factory, can bring about the social conditions to breed more crime and social deprivation in the whole town.
This is what makes psychopathy a cause of so much of humanity's social problems, from poverty and inequality to crime. Psychopaths are nature's predators, amorally seeking to exploit others for their own advantage. When these individuals gain entry into the field of politics, the result can be truly devastating. History has seen many examples; and in the modern-day, we see many countries around the world that are ran as little more than modern-day feudal states. These nations are ruled by elites that see their populations as little more than resources to exploit, and are the main cause of poverty in the world today: by definition, these elites must lack empathy for those they rule in order to justify how they "govern", breeding further generations "little dictators" for their elites to continue their hereditary exploitation of their populations.
North Korea is a prime example of this, though there are many others.
A small part of the brain called the amygdala is generally-understood to be responsible for forming empathy with others: a person who lacks empathy lacks the emotional understanding of how others feel, and therefore lacks the knowledge of how to react to it properly. It is this "empathy circuit" that makes people behave in a caring and humane manner towards others: if that circuit is "broken" - as it is in psychopaths - then an individual has no compunction (or necessity) to act in a way sympathetic to other people. On the contrary, they will do whatever they need to do to achieve their goals, regardless of the consequences for others.
An individual crime wave?
Psychopathy is a collection of traits and behaviours that are a result of lack of empathy. Much of the research into psychopathy was originally carried out in prisons, mostly because this was the only place where it was possible to find a "stable" population of psychopaths. Research has shown that psychopaths make up a highly-disproportionate percentage of the prison population; this disparity increases even further when you look at violent offenders and serial sex offenders. In other words, psychopaths (who make up only 1% of the population) are responsible for a large part of violent and sexual offences. Furthermore, psychopaths, by the nature of their "disorder" are incapable of learning from their mistakes, and not surprisingly, make up a disproportionate percentage of those that are repeat offenders. So we can see that psychopaths bear a great responsibility for much of the crime that exists in society. And this doesn't even factor in other, more discreet - yet socially extremely-damaging - types of crime (more on that later).
However, most psychopaths are not even in prison. It can be said that only the "unsuccessful" psychopaths are the ones that we actually see in prison. Most serial killers are not psychopaths; however, a disproportionate number of serial killers are psychopaths. What makes the difference between a psychopath being a serial killer (which is in fact, very rare), a violent gang member, a rapist, a serial adulterer, a fraudster, or a boardroom CEO? Circumstance.
Choose your weapon
Robert Hare, the foremost expert on psychopathy, has said that psychopaths exist in all sections of society, and thus bad parenting or an abusive childhood cannot be said to be solely to blame, as some others have argued. Hare suggests that psychopathy is, at least partially, a biological (i.e. genetic) condition. The environment of a "psychopathic child" can play a part in aggravating the onset of the condition, but there are equally - as Hare claims - too many examples of psychopaths from well-adjusted families to say for sure that environment plays a decisive role. While environment is a factor, Hare's thinking suggests it is largely a biological condition.
Regardless of the origins of how a person becomes a psychopath, what is clear that apart from being a disproportionate part of the prison population, in the general population, we know that people ranking high on Hare's "psychopathy checklist" also tend to feature disproportionately in some fields of work.
Psychopaths have low anxiety levels and high risk-taking tendencies, amongst other behaviours, such as manipulation and superficial charm. This ruthlessness and ability to make quick decisions gives them a natural advantage in professions such as business, banking and law, but also other fields such as medicine and even the military and the police - and yes, politics, too. Psychopaths have been shown to have a heightened sense of alertness, and an ability to focus in on a person's strengths and weaknesses. Thus, they are "hard-wired" to be adaptive survivors, and - depending on their individual circumstances - know how to make the most of their "attributes".
This explains why there are a disproportionate numbers of violent and sexual offenders - but very few fraudsters - in prison.
Those psychopaths that have been born at the wrong end of society are most likely to be destined to become petty "career" criminals, gang members or father a string of illegitimate children. However, equally, a disproportionate number of these "low end" psychopaths may be able, through force of circumstances, be able to become highly-successful entrepreneurs: what is often called a "rags-to-riches" millionaire who has "the gift of the gab". These types of individuals were able to use their cunning and ruthlessness in more "pro-active" ways to make themselves financially well-off using legal means, whereas a psychopathic gang member was not.
And then we have what might be called "mid-level" psychopaths. These are usually "socially-adapted" psychopaths that have found some middling way to find an outlet for channeling their attributes: born into an "average" family, they may be successful salesmen or con men (more on these types of psychopaths, and the sales industry in general here). Equally, they may well go into the police force or even the military. In short, they have chosen professions that fit the glove of their personality, without making their lack of empathy seem too obvious or intrusive on their way of life. In some ways, these types of psychopaths are perhaps the most "socially-useful" to society, because they contribute something positive to society, in spite of their other negatives. This is not to say that these people are "well-adjusted" - they may still be capable of violence, ruthlessness, manipulation, and sometimes behave appallingly - but it may be well-concealed so to be less obviously-apparent.
Lastly (and most ominously) are the "high-end" psychopaths. Many of these are people either born into the higher end of society, or by their own high intelligence and cunning, are able to quickly work their way into it. While "low-level" psychopaths may be the ones most likely you'll encounter in prison and responsible for a large degree of "everyday" crime, the "high-end" psychopaths are the ones most likely to defraud businesses, bankrupt corporations, lay off entire workforces, cause environmental disasters, or worse. These are the people who have "the system" wrapped around their finger, so that any amoral acts they do are either ignored, excused, blamed on others (or underlings), or have been already made legal to neutralise the threat to their position. These people aren't in prison because they already have the political and legal system in their pockets.
The most infamous recent example is the financial crisis of 2008, where the elite of the banking system had devised a fraudulent banking model that caused the entire system to collapse. The banking cartel was then able to effectively blackmail governments into "bailing out" the banks without seriously forcing them to change their systems of operation, let alone sending many of them to prison for mass fraud on an epic scale. The modern economic system, which first came to into wide use thirty years ago, is effectively propping-up a system of economic extraction by an elite at the expense of the conditions of the regular workforce. These are conditions where the elite are leeching off the lower half of society in the same manner that psychopaths leech off their targeted victims. With the justification of Ayn Rand's philosophy, neo-liberalism sees social injustice as a "necessary evil"; even a good thing. This is precisely the same logic that psychopaths use to justify their acts. Is that a coincidence?
It is this reason why the gap between the highest and lowest earners has expanded by many times in the last thirty years. In this sense, it is difficult to separate the effects that psychopathy has on crime and on how our economy is governed overall: if the modern "Capitalist" system is ran on the principle of amoral exploitation, then how is it different, morally-speaking, from psychopathy?
When "high-end" psychopaths are in positions of authority the results are far more socially-devastating than a "low-end" psychopath. A low-end psychopath in a town can harm individuals and families through, for example, petty crime and casual violence. A high-end psychopath, by closing down a town's factory, can bring about the social conditions to breed more crime and social deprivation in the whole town.
This is what makes psychopathy a cause of so much of humanity's social problems, from poverty and inequality to crime. Psychopaths are nature's predators, amorally seeking to exploit others for their own advantage. When these individuals gain entry into the field of politics, the result can be truly devastating. History has seen many examples; and in the modern-day, we see many countries around the world that are ran as little more than modern-day feudal states. These nations are ruled by elites that see their populations as little more than resources to exploit, and are the main cause of poverty in the world today: by definition, these elites must lack empathy for those they rule in order to justify how they "govern", breeding further generations "little dictators" for their elites to continue their hereditary exploitation of their populations.
North Korea is a prime example of this, though there are many others.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
The best movie psychopath? The Joker in "The Dark Knight"
The psychopathic character endlessly fascinates the darker side of human nature. While psychopaths in real-life are best to be avoided for a whole host of reasons (more on how to spot a psychopath here), it is the fictional psychopaths, such as those that stand out in movies, that many of us can't get enough of.
Psychopathy is understood as a psychological syndrome, or a series of traits, that exist in a small fraction of the population. The stand-out feature of this collection of traits is a lack of empathy, or understanding of basic human emotions. After that, psychologists would identify the chaotic nature of a psychopathic individual (i.e. instinctive actions lacking in any planning, a lack of any concrete life "goal"), and the cunning and amoral use of manipulation to get what they want, without regard to the consequences for others. In essence, a psychopath has no moral (i.e. empathy) compass, and he will whatever is easiest and convenient to satisfy his needs at that time. There are many traits, but those mentioned are likely to be the most prominent.
An agent of chaos
A feature-length British documentary by Channel Four (called "Psychopath Night") used some experts in the field of crime and psychiatry to look in some depth at clarifying what a "psychopath" exactly is. One of the experts was Kevin Dutton, who described his "mixing-deck" approach to understanding how "psychopathy" may manifest itself throughout a section of human society.
At the same time, the documentary used the experts to analyse what they thought were the most convincing portrayals of the psychopathic character in film. Heath Ledger's playing of "The Joker" was considered best, as explained here (watch from 8.37).
As mentioned by the former FBI expert in the documentary, in the bank robbery scene at the start of the movie, The Joker shows callous duplicity and a complete lack of regard for his cohorts - having them kill each other one-by-one to apparently get more of the money, until there is only The Joker himself remaining. In the same scene, he displays grandiosity in the dramatic and terrifying nature of the bank heist, clearly wanting to make a statement of intent (and which is later demonstrated when he later crashes Bruce Wayne's party to get Harvey Dent). Lastly, in the conversation with the bank manager, he makes it clear how nihilistic is his world-view; he has no moral code, only a belief that what doesn't kill you "makes you...stranger".
Throughout the film, The Joker does whatever is necessary to achieve what he wants: though often this appears to be to cause chaos simply for the sheer hell of it. As he explain to Batman when interrogated, he is not a monster but simply "ahead of the curve". This is a purely amoral, psychopathic perspective of the world; an utterly cynical view of human nature, where he believes that people will turn on each other when the chips are down.
While he targets the main individuals working against the mafia - the judge of the mafia trial, the police commissioner, Harvey Dent, and the mayor - it is also clear that his wider purpose is to cause as much moral chaos in the city as possible. One the last scenes is where he creates his own kind of amoral, real-life social experiment: the ferry scene, where two ferries - one carrying civilians, the other with convicts and prison guards - are told to blow up the other before a deadline, or they would both be blown up.
He blows up a hospital, it seems simply for the sake of it, taking its patients as hostages, and after causing the explosion that disfigured Harvey Dent, in the final scene with Batman, The Joker declares it was his intention to see Harvey Dent, the city's "hero", come down to earth, in order to morally corrupt the city. In the later film, "The Dark Knight Rises", this prophecy finally comes true, when Bane reads out Gordon's speech (more on the psychological comparison between The Joker and Bane here). In the same way, he also brings about the collapse of the public's moral view of Batman himself, when Batman takes the blame for killing Dent and the corrupt police officers. This demonstrates that by the end of the film, although The Joker had "failed" in his main task (the story implies he is after complete criminal control of the city), he had succeeded in destroying Batman as a moral force for good in the public's eyes, and achieved his own kind of "moral" victory even though he would be behind bars.
As a psychological portrait, The Joker fits many of the traits consistent with a psychopath. It is in the hospital scene with Harvey Dent where the Joker makes his remark that he is "an agent of chaos", asking "do I look like the kind of guy with a plan?" This comment is further clarification of the chaotic and impulsive nature of his personality.
Master of Manipulation
As the film progresses, each scene with The Joker clarifies further that his character features strongly manipulative and cunning elements. He apparently seems to offer his services to the mafia - to kill Batman - while at the same time, destroying them as an organisation, one by one, culminating in burning half of their money.
He conspires events to have himself arrested in order to grab the mafia's accountant, Lau, by blowing up the main police station. While under interrogation with Batman in the station, he also tries to manipulate Batman towards his side, by insinuating that Batman is being used by the police, and will be blamed as a villain later (which is indeed what happens at the end of the film). He also succeeds in manipulating Harvey Dent - after causing the explosion that facially disfigured him - to go after the corrupt police who were working with the mafia boss Maroni, diverting the blame away from himself.
The Joker's real purpose, apart from causing as much mayhem as possible, is to ultimately take control of the city, as its chaotic criminal head. From gaining the attention of the mafia by robbing one of their banks, then offering them "his services" to kill Batman, he also succeeds in killing off his main mafia rivals, one by one. While he is supposedly working as an agent of the mafia in targeting the city's great and good, he also clearly has a plan of his own. First by killing Gambol who has already threatened to eliminate him, then, after burning half of the mafia's money, killing The Chechen. Lastly, as mentioned before, he manipulates Harvey Dent into killing the last remaining big mafia boss, Maroni.
In this sense, he Joker easily fulfills the portrait of psychopath as Machiavellian schemer, using the mafia's influence to target the "moral core" of Gotham City, while equally scheming to manipulate Harvey Dent and Batman to for his own ends. The Joker is a criminal mastermind lurking behind a dark facade of amoral nihilism.
In this respect, it is clear that if The Joker were a real human being, he would be a truly terrifying person to behold. While this character is an extreme (and fictitious) example, there exist real-life examples, too. Some of them are in prison (Ian Brady, for example), and others had their notoriety only fully revealed after their death (e.g. Jimmy Savile). However, you do not need to look very far.
In some respects, the personality of The Joker bears some similarity to that of Stalin: certainly, Stalin is a prime example of how a psychopath does what is necessary to get to the top, and what happens when a psychopath rules the largest country in the world.
When psychopaths are in charge, the result is chaos, and terrifying for everyone else: how do you think the financial crisis was possible?
Psychopathy is understood as a psychological syndrome, or a series of traits, that exist in a small fraction of the population. The stand-out feature of this collection of traits is a lack of empathy, or understanding of basic human emotions. After that, psychologists would identify the chaotic nature of a psychopathic individual (i.e. instinctive actions lacking in any planning, a lack of any concrete life "goal"), and the cunning and amoral use of manipulation to get what they want, without regard to the consequences for others. In essence, a psychopath has no moral (i.e. empathy) compass, and he will whatever is easiest and convenient to satisfy his needs at that time. There are many traits, but those mentioned are likely to be the most prominent.
An agent of chaos
A feature-length British documentary by Channel Four (called "Psychopath Night") used some experts in the field of crime and psychiatry to look in some depth at clarifying what a "psychopath" exactly is. One of the experts was Kevin Dutton, who described his "mixing-deck" approach to understanding how "psychopathy" may manifest itself throughout a section of human society.
At the same time, the documentary used the experts to analyse what they thought were the most convincing portrayals of the psychopathic character in film. Heath Ledger's playing of "The Joker" was considered best, as explained here (watch from 8.37).
As mentioned by the former FBI expert in the documentary, in the bank robbery scene at the start of the movie, The Joker shows callous duplicity and a complete lack of regard for his cohorts - having them kill each other one-by-one to apparently get more of the money, until there is only The Joker himself remaining. In the same scene, he displays grandiosity in the dramatic and terrifying nature of the bank heist, clearly wanting to make a statement of intent (and which is later demonstrated when he later crashes Bruce Wayne's party to get Harvey Dent). Lastly, in the conversation with the bank manager, he makes it clear how nihilistic is his world-view; he has no moral code, only a belief that what doesn't kill you "makes you...stranger".
Throughout the film, The Joker does whatever is necessary to achieve what he wants: though often this appears to be to cause chaos simply for the sheer hell of it. As he explain to Batman when interrogated, he is not a monster but simply "ahead of the curve". This is a purely amoral, psychopathic perspective of the world; an utterly cynical view of human nature, where he believes that people will turn on each other when the chips are down.
While he targets the main individuals working against the mafia - the judge of the mafia trial, the police commissioner, Harvey Dent, and the mayor - it is also clear that his wider purpose is to cause as much moral chaos in the city as possible. One the last scenes is where he creates his own kind of amoral, real-life social experiment: the ferry scene, where two ferries - one carrying civilians, the other with convicts and prison guards - are told to blow up the other before a deadline, or they would both be blown up.
He blows up a hospital, it seems simply for the sake of it, taking its patients as hostages, and after causing the explosion that disfigured Harvey Dent, in the final scene with Batman, The Joker declares it was his intention to see Harvey Dent, the city's "hero", come down to earth, in order to morally corrupt the city. In the later film, "The Dark Knight Rises", this prophecy finally comes true, when Bane reads out Gordon's speech (more on the psychological comparison between The Joker and Bane here). In the same way, he also brings about the collapse of the public's moral view of Batman himself, when Batman takes the blame for killing Dent and the corrupt police officers. This demonstrates that by the end of the film, although The Joker had "failed" in his main task (the story implies he is after complete criminal control of the city), he had succeeded in destroying Batman as a moral force for good in the public's eyes, and achieved his own kind of "moral" victory even though he would be behind bars.
As a psychological portrait, The Joker fits many of the traits consistent with a psychopath. It is in the hospital scene with Harvey Dent where the Joker makes his remark that he is "an agent of chaos", asking "do I look like the kind of guy with a plan?" This comment is further clarification of the chaotic and impulsive nature of his personality.
Master of Manipulation
As the film progresses, each scene with The Joker clarifies further that his character features strongly manipulative and cunning elements. He apparently seems to offer his services to the mafia - to kill Batman - while at the same time, destroying them as an organisation, one by one, culminating in burning half of their money.
He conspires events to have himself arrested in order to grab the mafia's accountant, Lau, by blowing up the main police station. While under interrogation with Batman in the station, he also tries to manipulate Batman towards his side, by insinuating that Batman is being used by the police, and will be blamed as a villain later (which is indeed what happens at the end of the film). He also succeeds in manipulating Harvey Dent - after causing the explosion that facially disfigured him - to go after the corrupt police who were working with the mafia boss Maroni, diverting the blame away from himself.
The Joker's real purpose, apart from causing as much mayhem as possible, is to ultimately take control of the city, as its chaotic criminal head. From gaining the attention of the mafia by robbing one of their banks, then offering them "his services" to kill Batman, he also succeeds in killing off his main mafia rivals, one by one. While he is supposedly working as an agent of the mafia in targeting the city's great and good, he also clearly has a plan of his own. First by killing Gambol who has already threatened to eliminate him, then, after burning half of the mafia's money, killing The Chechen. Lastly, as mentioned before, he manipulates Harvey Dent into killing the last remaining big mafia boss, Maroni.
In this sense, he Joker easily fulfills the portrait of psychopath as Machiavellian schemer, using the mafia's influence to target the "moral core" of Gotham City, while equally scheming to manipulate Harvey Dent and Batman to for his own ends. The Joker is a criminal mastermind lurking behind a dark facade of amoral nihilism.
In this respect, it is clear that if The Joker were a real human being, he would be a truly terrifying person to behold. While this character is an extreme (and fictitious) example, there exist real-life examples, too. Some of them are in prison (Ian Brady, for example), and others had their notoriety only fully revealed after their death (e.g. Jimmy Savile). However, you do not need to look very far.
In some respects, the personality of The Joker bears some similarity to that of Stalin: certainly, Stalin is a prime example of how a psychopath does what is necessary to get to the top, and what happens when a psychopath rules the largest country in the world.
When psychopaths are in charge, the result is chaos, and terrifying for everyone else: how do you think the financial crisis was possible?
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Psychopathy, economics and politics: joining the dots, and "Why Nations Fail"
The author recently read the brilliant book "Why Nations Fail", by Daron Acemoglu, and James A. Robinson. This book explains their theory about why some countries are rich and others are poor; and how historically, various countries became rich, became poor, have always been poor, and so on.
Using many historical and contemporary examples, they show how nation-states can be roughly divided into those that are "extractive" and those that are "inclusive". Essentially, an "extractive" society is one where a closed, ruling elite uses its population to "extract" wealth for its own benefit; an "inclusive" society is one where the population as a whole has easy access to institutions, an open legal system, and their human rights are secured. As you might imagine, "extractive" societies are always significantly poorer than "inclusive" ones, though the scale of "extraction" or "inclusion" depends on the specific circumstances of any one nation-state.
This explanation mirrors something I read years ago about why countries are poor: in a word, corruption. As economics (and politics) is about choices, countries are poor because the wealth and power of the country is concentrated in the hands of a closed elite. An elite could choose to invest in innovation and development, but this would come at a risk of creating other wealthy people, who would want to replace them, or at least ask for more say in how things are being run. If the institutions are corrupt, then this inevitably results in government becoming a closed shop. For this reason, nation-states run in this way would never develop economically beyond a certain level: corruption always holds these countries back. Africa is the poorest continent in the globe for this reason, but this form of "institutionalised" corruption has more-or-less existed in Africa for centuries, going back to before when the Portuguese explored the continent five hundred years ago. In the book "Why Nations Fail", it is also concisely explained why North and South America have such different standards of living: again, the question comes down to corruption and exploitation, of one form or another.
Joining the dots: towards a unified theory?
This got me thinking about some of the points I've made elsewhere about the effect human psychology has on economics and politics, and vice versa. This idea of "extractive" societies sounds similar in tone, at a collective level, to the premise that psychopaths are "leeches" on society at large.
Psychopaths make up roughly 1% of the human population, though with a sliding scale of "severity" of the personality disorder, "semi-psychopaths" may also comprise another few per cent. The glaring differential that marks them out from normal human beings is their lack of empathy (i.e. lack of understanding of human emotion, and how to respond appropriately to it). As described in the linked article earlier:
" ... there are people in human society who do not believe that taxes are "the price of civilisation", and do not believe that government should provide collective services. From a psychological point of view, these people appear to have a severe lack of empathy. "
So economic and political institutions may well also have cumulative effect on human psychology, in that a nation-state's institutions (or chronic lack of them) can erode a person's empathy towards society at large. It must also be said that, by definition, a disproportionate number of people in corrupt elites around the world - from North Korea's Kim Jong-Un to the richest man in the world, Mexico's Carlos Slim - would also have an empathy deficit, in order to justify what they do. This also explains why the rich (i.e. in the West) complain about paying taxes for public services they do not use; these people display a lack of empathy towards society, and an anti-social attitude towards their responsibilities. More on this later.
In an article last year, I talked about how the historic "hunter-gatherer" society and its contemporary Capitalist equivalent may well generate an environment that is beneficial towards psychopaths. Intriguingly. the authors of "Why Nations Fail" talk about how the hunter-gatherer society's evolution to a sedentary, farming civilisation can likely have only come about through an act of leadership, bringing about an institutional change. In their book, they talk about the example of the Natufian civilisation around 9000BC in the modern-day Holy Land, which was the first known society to make the change from hunting to an agrarian society.
As has been mentioned in earlier posts, psychopaths are also humanity's natural leaders, so much so that Kevin Dutton, who wrote the book "The Wisdom Of Psychopaths", believes that not all of psychopath's psychological attributes are always bad - sometimes, they are even beneficial. In this way, it can be argued that if the authors of "Why Nations Fail" suggest that it was decisive (and therefore, autocratic) decision of a Natufian leader to bring about the "revolution" to a settled farming, it would have taken a great deal of fearlessness (and ruthless enforcement) to bring about this change. And what better person to do this than a psychopath?
Kevin Dutton talks about psychopaths, for all the damage they can wreak on society, as also acting as the "doers" in society, the ones that are fearless at taking risks. Assuming this to be true, it can be surmised that a disproportionately-large number of individuals responsible for humanity's various advances throughout history were psychopaths. If you look at today's entrepreneurs, it's not hard to recognise in a significant number of them the same attributes - the risk-taking, the fearlessness, the occasional amoral ruthlessness - that we recognise in psychopaths. In this sense, they are society's "winners". But this was not always the case.
Different system, different outcome
Different kinds of societies produce different kinds of social environments. The theory of "extractive" and "inclusive" nation-states links to some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier article: that psychopaths thrive in hunter-gatherer/ Capitalist societies, but struggle to advance in stratified and closed societies. This matches, (with some caveats, which I'll explain shortly) to the "inclusive" and "extractive" societies mentioned in "Why Nations Fail".
In the modern world, the most "inclusive" (i.e. egalitarian and open) nation-states can be found in places like Scandinavia: these are societies where inequality levels are very low and standards of living are very high; this is a result of their high-functioning and well-organised institutions. At the opposite end, the most "extractive" nation-states (i.e. the most corrupt, with the most dysfunctional institutions) can be found in the Third World. Nation-states like the USA and the UK are still very high in terms of institutional organisation, but have significantly higher levels of inequality compared to places like Scandinavia.
Modern laissez-faire Capitalism (i.e. the neo-liberal philosophy created by Ayn Rand) engenders a social attitude similar to that found in hunter-gatherer societies, and is probably the best environment for a psychopath to thrive in: this also coincides with the greatest advances in human history. However, endemic to this neo-liberal system is the creation, over time, of a cartel-like structure that has effective control over large segments of economic transactions. This is a natural result of the way "the market" works, when not protected by effective institutions. The creation of this cartel is a fundamental weakness in the system, and also a fundamental problem of what happens when psychopaths rule the roost: they are very good at getting to the top and staying there, doing whatever thy can to preserve their position in society. The creation of these cartels, or "economic elites" are what prevents Capitalist societies from becoming fully inclusive, and explains why psychopaths tend to thrive in them: because fully-inclusive societies are anathema to a psychopath's understanding and interests.
For a psychopath, an "extractive" society of a closed elite creates a glass barrier he finds difficult to pass; conversely, a fully-inclusive society creates institutions and rights that prevent a psychopath from amorally securing his position at the top for perpetuity. He might get to the top for a while, but "the system" will quickly root out and cast down any amoral usurpers. In a Capitalist system, this is less likely to happen while also giving him more opportunities to amorally profit from others, and would thus be a psychopath's preferred social environment to advance in.
There are psychopaths in any society, "extractive" as well as "inclusive". When psychopaths rule the roost, the result is chaos, regardless of the social make-up of the system. The question is: how to make psychopaths "work", so that the system gets the best out of them, without breaking the system.
Using many historical and contemporary examples, they show how nation-states can be roughly divided into those that are "extractive" and those that are "inclusive". Essentially, an "extractive" society is one where a closed, ruling elite uses its population to "extract" wealth for its own benefit; an "inclusive" society is one where the population as a whole has easy access to institutions, an open legal system, and their human rights are secured. As you might imagine, "extractive" societies are always significantly poorer than "inclusive" ones, though the scale of "extraction" or "inclusion" depends on the specific circumstances of any one nation-state.
This explanation mirrors something I read years ago about why countries are poor: in a word, corruption. As economics (and politics) is about choices, countries are poor because the wealth and power of the country is concentrated in the hands of a closed elite. An elite could choose to invest in innovation and development, but this would come at a risk of creating other wealthy people, who would want to replace them, or at least ask for more say in how things are being run. If the institutions are corrupt, then this inevitably results in government becoming a closed shop. For this reason, nation-states run in this way would never develop economically beyond a certain level: corruption always holds these countries back. Africa is the poorest continent in the globe for this reason, but this form of "institutionalised" corruption has more-or-less existed in Africa for centuries, going back to before when the Portuguese explored the continent five hundred years ago. In the book "Why Nations Fail", it is also concisely explained why North and South America have such different standards of living: again, the question comes down to corruption and exploitation, of one form or another.
Joining the dots: towards a unified theory?
This got me thinking about some of the points I've made elsewhere about the effect human psychology has on economics and politics, and vice versa. This idea of "extractive" societies sounds similar in tone, at a collective level, to the premise that psychopaths are "leeches" on society at large.
Psychopaths make up roughly 1% of the human population, though with a sliding scale of "severity" of the personality disorder, "semi-psychopaths" may also comprise another few per cent. The glaring differential that marks them out from normal human beings is their lack of empathy (i.e. lack of understanding of human emotion, and how to respond appropriately to it). As described in the linked article earlier:
" ... there are people in human society who do not believe that taxes are "the price of civilisation", and do not believe that government should provide collective services. From a psychological point of view, these people appear to have a severe lack of empathy. "
So economic and political institutions may well also have cumulative effect on human psychology, in that a nation-state's institutions (or chronic lack of them) can erode a person's empathy towards society at large. It must also be said that, by definition, a disproportionate number of people in corrupt elites around the world - from North Korea's Kim Jong-Un to the richest man in the world, Mexico's Carlos Slim - would also have an empathy deficit, in order to justify what they do. This also explains why the rich (i.e. in the West) complain about paying taxes for public services they do not use; these people display a lack of empathy towards society, and an anti-social attitude towards their responsibilities. More on this later.
In an article last year, I talked about how the historic "hunter-gatherer" society and its contemporary Capitalist equivalent may well generate an environment that is beneficial towards psychopaths. Intriguingly. the authors of "Why Nations Fail" talk about how the hunter-gatherer society's evolution to a sedentary, farming civilisation can likely have only come about through an act of leadership, bringing about an institutional change. In their book, they talk about the example of the Natufian civilisation around 9000BC in the modern-day Holy Land, which was the first known society to make the change from hunting to an agrarian society.
As has been mentioned in earlier posts, psychopaths are also humanity's natural leaders, so much so that Kevin Dutton, who wrote the book "The Wisdom Of Psychopaths", believes that not all of psychopath's psychological attributes are always bad - sometimes, they are even beneficial. In this way, it can be argued that if the authors of "Why Nations Fail" suggest that it was decisive (and therefore, autocratic) decision of a Natufian leader to bring about the "revolution" to a settled farming, it would have taken a great deal of fearlessness (and ruthless enforcement) to bring about this change. And what better person to do this than a psychopath?
Kevin Dutton talks about psychopaths, for all the damage they can wreak on society, as also acting as the "doers" in society, the ones that are fearless at taking risks. Assuming this to be true, it can be surmised that a disproportionately-large number of individuals responsible for humanity's various advances throughout history were psychopaths. If you look at today's entrepreneurs, it's not hard to recognise in a significant number of them the same attributes - the risk-taking, the fearlessness, the occasional amoral ruthlessness - that we recognise in psychopaths. In this sense, they are society's "winners". But this was not always the case.
Different system, different outcome
Different kinds of societies produce different kinds of social environments. The theory of "extractive" and "inclusive" nation-states links to some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier article: that psychopaths thrive in hunter-gatherer/ Capitalist societies, but struggle to advance in stratified and closed societies. This matches, (with some caveats, which I'll explain shortly) to the "inclusive" and "extractive" societies mentioned in "Why Nations Fail".
In the modern world, the most "inclusive" (i.e. egalitarian and open) nation-states can be found in places like Scandinavia: these are societies where inequality levels are very low and standards of living are very high; this is a result of their high-functioning and well-organised institutions. At the opposite end, the most "extractive" nation-states (i.e. the most corrupt, with the most dysfunctional institutions) can be found in the Third World. Nation-states like the USA and the UK are still very high in terms of institutional organisation, but have significantly higher levels of inequality compared to places like Scandinavia.
Modern laissez-faire Capitalism (i.e. the neo-liberal philosophy created by Ayn Rand) engenders a social attitude similar to that found in hunter-gatherer societies, and is probably the best environment for a psychopath to thrive in: this also coincides with the greatest advances in human history. However, endemic to this neo-liberal system is the creation, over time, of a cartel-like structure that has effective control over large segments of economic transactions. This is a natural result of the way "the market" works, when not protected by effective institutions. The creation of this cartel is a fundamental weakness in the system, and also a fundamental problem of what happens when psychopaths rule the roost: they are very good at getting to the top and staying there, doing whatever thy can to preserve their position in society. The creation of these cartels, or "economic elites" are what prevents Capitalist societies from becoming fully inclusive, and explains why psychopaths tend to thrive in them: because fully-inclusive societies are anathema to a psychopath's understanding and interests.
For a psychopath, an "extractive" society of a closed elite creates a glass barrier he finds difficult to pass; conversely, a fully-inclusive society creates institutions and rights that prevent a psychopath from amorally securing his position at the top for perpetuity. He might get to the top for a while, but "the system" will quickly root out and cast down any amoral usurpers. In a Capitalist system, this is less likely to happen while also giving him more opportunities to amorally profit from others, and would thus be a psychopath's preferred social environment to advance in.
There are psychopaths in any society, "extractive" as well as "inclusive". When psychopaths rule the roost, the result is chaos, regardless of the social make-up of the system. The question is: how to make psychopaths "work", so that the system gets the best out of them, without breaking the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)