Ever since social anthropology began to emerge as an academic discipline in the 19th century there has been a debate about the natural and cultural qualities that have influenced human behaviour; the 'nature versus nurture" argument. Inevitably, this argument has got caught up in politics, as ideologies urging equality across races and social classes began to fashion modern society. Of course, in reality, the 'nature-nurture' argument concerning the factors that influence behaviour goes back to our earliest understanding of human history but anthropology has brought the science of biology, genetics, ethnography, sociology, psychology and history (yes, I know the last is often thought of an art because of the influence of 'interpretation' but there is in the study of history the analysis of data and evidence, crucial to any science).
There is a relevance in the nature-nurture debate to an area I have been recently looking at. As some of you will be aware I have a background in Byzantine history and, though not a theologian, I have engaged in those early Christian debates about the nature of God, the broader question of humanity's place in the cosmos and the elements of our species' behaviour: for example, the issues of original sin, free will and the nature of evil (see my blog on this site: https://timboatswain.wixsite.com/website/post/the-nature-of-evil-talk-on-zoom)
Stimulated by an article by Jonathan R Goodman, I have been thinking about the evolutionary context of psychopathology and the key question, given the premise of evolution that maladaptive genetic traits will decrease through time, how has this destructive disorder survived? Now there are some assumptions here that can be questioned: first, do such mental dysfunctions which characterise psychopaths such as:
Immorality and ruthlessness,
Lack of empathy and remorse, (or as my psychiatrist friend would say lack of 'caring', about another's feelings),
Manipulative and false behaviour,
Impulsive behaviour,
Antisocial behaviour,
Criminal behaviour,
Cruelty and sadism,
Deceptiveness and dishonesty,
Lack of fear and uncertainty,
Narcissim and grandiosity,
and need for stimulation,
have, like many diseases, a genetic component that can be traced?
It could be that such traits might be the products of cultural factors, like callous parenting and traumatic childhoods. There are certainly those who think so and it does seem entirely reasonable to believe unloved children will develop survival mechanisms that subjugate and, or, deny any emotional attachment to fellow human beings. However, without going into the data there is also good evidence now that there are genetic components of psychopathy.
Goodman quotes recent research that, although among the general population, there is little as 1% who would be classified as psychopaths, amongst business leaders and persons of power the figure is as much as 20%. This is perhaps not surprising as many of the traits of psychopathy can be perceived in past world leaders like the obvious examples of Hilter and Stalin. Of course, they are labelled psychopaths in a general derogatory sense and not through a contemporary clinical diagnosis.
However, in evolutionary terms, the higher figure of psychopathy amongst those who gain access to power and decision-making suggests that those tendencies we would instinctively deplore have some benefits to humanity that explain the survival of such a genetic maladaptation.
Goodman argues that the 'career successes' of those carrying psychopathic tendencies lie in their ability to fake desirable qualities. If that desirability, say of trustworthiness and reliability, is then linked to fundamental ruthlessness, deception and dishonesty, you can see how the psychopath can wield power. I won't be so crude as to point at some modern-day politicians who fit the bill but I am sure you will be able to make your own choices.
There is an important point to make here which is that having psychopathic traits does not mean that someone will end up as a serial killer. We are used to the notoriety of vicious murderers being labelled psychopaths like Ted Bundy, an American serial killer, who murdered at least 30 women in the 1970s. One of his characteristics was his charming but fake personality which enabled him to seduce his victims. Another notorious, ruthless and sadistic serial killer was Peter Sutcliffe, known as the "Yorkshire Ripper" because of the way he mutilated his victims. He was convicted of murdering 13 women and attempting to murder seven others between 1975 and 1980. In 2005 he was interviewed by the Daily Mirror and actually expressed some remorse but such is the ability of psychopaths to dissemble he was never believed, as the number and cruelty of his killings told another story.
If we put the stereotypical psychopathy of the serial killer to one side we can see the advantages of those antisocial qualities that are the symptoms of psychopathy. For example, for anyone climbing up the greasy pole of politics, ruthlessness, lack of conscience, and no remorse when stepping over, and possibly misusing, others might be seen, he says cynically, as essentIal qualities in getting to the top. Another example could be the general who has to sacrifice lives to win a battle: too much emotional attachment to the troops could cloud a rational, if ruthless, judgement at a key moment.
The benefits that such psychopathic behaviour can bring to homo sapiens' insecure and volatile society could be seen as a criterion for evolutionary success. This would explain why the maladaptation of psychopathy continues generation after generation. However, it has to be admitted there is still much we do not know about the complex relationship between genetics, culture and the environment that have contributed to the condition we refer to as psychopathology, so the evolutionary question has to remain open.
I hope you have enjoyed this blog, which is only a taster, and if you would like to hear more I am hoping to give a radio interview on the subject of psychopathy soon. I will keep you posted.