Pathocracy, or how psychopathy takes over a society
March 15, 2022 11:04 AM Subscribe
Pathocracy, identified by the Polish psychologist Andrzej Lobaczewski, is the condition where government of a society is dominated by those with psychopathological disorders. It begins when one such disordered individual emerges as a leader figure; soon, their personality amplifies it, filtering out those appalled by their brutality and irresponsibility but attracting others who see it as charisma and decisiveness. Soon, others with psychopathic traits attach themselves to the power hierarchy, while responsible and moral people leave or are ejected, and before long, the entire government is filled with people with a pathological lack of empathy and conscience. This psychopathy soon spreads beyond the government, through the population, through propaganda and polarising ideology.
Lobaczewski based his theory on two regimes he observed in his life: the Nazi occupation of Poland, and the subsequent Soviet-backed Communist regime. In return, he was imprisoned and tortured by the Communists, only managing to publish his theories after escaping to the US in the 1980s. While his observations were based on the moral rot in 20th-century totalitarian societies, the phenomenon is transferrable to other contexts; it is suggested that post-Reagan/Thatcher capitalist-individualist societies particularly select for psychopathic and narcissistic traits.
The good news is that, according to Lobaczewski, pathocracy is not stable, eventually falling apart as its brutality alienates the population.
Lobaczewski based his theory on two regimes he observed in his life: the Nazi occupation of Poland, and the subsequent Soviet-backed Communist regime. In return, he was imprisoned and tortured by the Communists, only managing to publish his theories after escaping to the US in the 1980s. While his observations were based on the moral rot in 20th-century totalitarian societies, the phenomenon is transferrable to other contexts; it is suggested that post-Reagan/Thatcher capitalist-individualist societies particularly select for psychopathic and narcissistic traits.
The good news is that, according to Lobaczewski, pathocracy is not stable, eventually falling apart as its brutality alienates the population.
From the article: “Once they possess power, pathocrats usually devote themselves to entrenching, increasing and protecting their power, with scant regard for the welfare of others. However, Lobaczewski also noted that pathocracies never become permanent. At some point, they are destined to fail, because their brutality and lack of moral principles are not shared by the majority of the population, who possess empathy and conscience”
The examples given are Nazi Germany and the communist regime of Poland, so unfortunately, a lot of people are hurt in the process. In that sense, it's good news when compared to Hitler's Thousand-Year Reich or something, not necessarily for the ordinary person living through it at the time.
posted by acb at 11:37 AM on March 15, 2022
The examples given are Nazi Germany and the communist regime of Poland, so unfortunately, a lot of people are hurt in the process. In that sense, it's good news when compared to Hitler's Thousand-Year Reich or something, not necessarily for the ordinary person living through it at the time.
posted by acb at 11:37 AM on March 15, 2022
The author admits that his idea of psych screening for potential candidates is a bit fanciful. The psychologists themselves might be politically biased or corrupted by their new-found power as gatekeepers or kingmakers.
Instead I suggest dogs. Potential candidates for office must spend a week in charge of a rescue or shelter, and at the end of that time take the pups out in the yard, on camera. If the dogs try to avoid them, so should we. Only partly kidding...
posted by TreeRooster at 11:39 AM on March 15, 2022 [22 favorites]
Instead I suggest dogs. Potential candidates for office must spend a week in charge of a rescue or shelter, and at the end of that time take the pups out in the yard, on camera. If the dogs try to avoid them, so should we. Only partly kidding...
posted by TreeRooster at 11:39 AM on March 15, 2022 [22 favorites]
... pathocracies never become permanent.Is North Korea a pathocracy?
posted by Schmucko at 11:45 AM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
Would cats suffice, or is preferring cats to dogs itself a red flag?
posted by acb at 11:46 AM on March 15, 2022
posted by acb at 11:46 AM on March 15, 2022
Instead I suggest dogs.
Hitler was famously a dog person, so you may want to rethink that.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:49 AM on March 15, 2022 [8 favorites]
Hitler was famously a dog person, so you may want to rethink that.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:49 AM on March 15, 2022 [8 favorites]
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which . . . the end learns to justify the means. "
- Baron Acton the First, letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:07 PM on March 15, 2022 [14 favorites]
- Baron Acton the First, letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:07 PM on March 15, 2022 [14 favorites]
"...This is why, as Hughes also points out, authoritarian leaders with psychopathic or narcissistic traits distrust democracy. Once in power, they do their utmost to dismantle and discredit democratic institutions, including the independence of institutions and the freedom and legitimacy of the press. Moreover, such leaders are unable to comprehend the principles of democracy, since they regard themselves as superior, and see life as a competitive struggle in which the most ruthless deserve to dominate others."
It's ironic that the article says that this applies to the UK, when recent news makes it even more appropriate for a certain other country.
posted by storybored at 12:18 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
It's ironic that the article says that this applies to the UK, when recent news makes it even more appropriate for a certain other country.
posted by storybored at 12:18 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
What a fascinating link, snuffleupagus. Not only the original letter but the author - I was guessing "new title, Catholic, 1880s, probably all self-made and modern for the time " BUT NO.
posted by clew at 12:40 PM on March 15, 2022
posted by clew at 12:40 PM on March 15, 2022
This is something I've been thinking about for a long time, so thanks for the in-depth link! I've had the vague idea that there's some kind of tipping point between what I've thought of as mafia/cult political societies and free/equal societies. By pulling the right levers in the right order, a small number of assholes can come to dominate an entire society, and it's not entirely clear to me what the conditions are for their success or failure.
I'd suggest that "inevitable" failure can take quite a long time, though. There were parts of Europe which were dominated by an ever-crueller asshole aristocracy from at least 1550 to 1850.
On a more optimistic note, I'm reminded of Robert Sapolsky's story about baboons where he witnessed the opposite happening when all the asshole baboons died from tainted food and the culture of the troop completely changed.
posted by clawsoon at 2:20 PM on March 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
I'd suggest that "inevitable" failure can take quite a long time, though. There were parts of Europe which were dominated by an ever-crueller asshole aristocracy from at least 1550 to 1850.
On a more optimistic note, I'm reminded of Robert Sapolsky's story about baboons where he witnessed the opposite happening when all the asshole baboons died from tainted food and the culture of the troop completely changed.
posted by clawsoon at 2:20 PM on March 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
storybored: Once in power, they do their utmost to dismantle and discredit democratic institutions, including the independence of institutions and the freedom and legitimacy of the press.
I'm reminded of what the CIA did in Guatemala (previously), and how it convinced Castro to subvert democracy before the CIA could do it for him.
posted by clawsoon at 2:24 PM on March 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm reminded of what the CIA did in Guatemala (previously), and how it convinced Castro to subvert democracy before the CIA could do it for him.
posted by clawsoon at 2:24 PM on March 15, 2022 [2 favorites]
As to the suggestions in the article, I have a half-baked theory of my own: Organizations gain prestige and respect because they have come up with some way to weed out assholes, psychopaths, and other abusers; their prestige and respect then makes them a prime target for assholes, psychopaths, and abusers, who recognize that the organization's reputation is the perfect cover.
There seems to be an organizational life cycle where the invasion is fended off over years or decades or centuries until psychopaths are able to take over the mechanisms meant to keep them out, and then they gradually take over. Once they've taken over they do reputation mining based on what the organization used to be - charitable, or democratic, or just and fair, or producers of high-quality product at a reasonable price. Preserving the defenses against psychopaths is always a long-running battle, and never one that an organization can assume is over. Any organization with a sterling reputation is a very juicy target.
As the author recognizes, his proposal for psychological screening of political candidates would immediately make it a target.
posted by clawsoon at 3:01 PM on March 15, 2022 [12 favorites]
There seems to be an organizational life cycle where the invasion is fended off over years or decades or centuries until psychopaths are able to take over the mechanisms meant to keep them out, and then they gradually take over. Once they've taken over they do reputation mining based on what the organization used to be - charitable, or democratic, or just and fair, or producers of high-quality product at a reasonable price. Preserving the defenses against psychopaths is always a long-running battle, and never one that an organization can assume is over. Any organization with a sterling reputation is a very juicy target.
As the author recognizes, his proposal for psychological screening of political candidates would immediately make it a target.
posted by clawsoon at 3:01 PM on March 15, 2022 [12 favorites]
This is really scary to me, mainly because it makes perfectly good sense. I may have even had an inkling about it, but rejected it out of horror, rather than logic.
posted by Goofyy at 3:13 PM on March 15, 2022
posted by Goofyy at 3:13 PM on March 15, 2022
I literally thought this the other day, and then presumed a psych test would then be turned corrupt / manipulated / gamed because, people.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 3:38 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by St. Peepsburg at 3:38 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
Would cats suffice, or is preferring cats to dogs itself a red flag?
The cliche is that authoritarian types are ailurophobes. Who can say? Consider the data: here are some White House cats from both parties. Of course, the presidents one doesn't like were just pretending to like the animals.
For those with a taste for British parliamentary politics, I refer you to Auberon Waugh and Dog Lovers' Party. (Details for curious available here.)
posted by BWA at 4:39 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
The cliche is that authoritarian types are ailurophobes. Who can say? Consider the data: here are some White House cats from both parties. Of course, the presidents one doesn't like were just pretending to like the animals.
For those with a taste for British parliamentary politics, I refer you to Auberon Waugh and Dog Lovers' Party. (Details for curious available here.)
posted by BWA at 4:39 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
a psych test would then be turned corrupt / manipulated / gamed
'Why aren't you helping the turtle, Leon?'
I kid, but there's a connection in the way that politicians and corporate figureheads are described as 'fake' and lacking authenticity (and the related complaint that you can't be in contemporary politics and be a 'real person' with a 'real life').
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:24 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
'Why aren't you helping the turtle, Leon?'
I kid, but there's a connection in the way that politicians and corporate figureheads are described as 'fake' and lacking authenticity (and the related complaint that you can't be in contemporary politics and be a 'real person' with a 'real life').
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:24 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
"In communist countries..." is where I stopped reading but I do think that "pathocracy" is an excellent term and I will commence deploying it forthwith.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:50 PM on March 15, 2022
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:50 PM on March 15, 2022
"In communist countries..." is where I stopped reading
I'm more familiar with the careers of Mao and Stalin than other communist leaders, so I can't make a universal comment, but there did seem to be something about the way that power was structured within those two communist parties which allowed two absolute psychopaths to rise to the top. When the Communist Party of China started out on the Long March, for example, the leaders wanted to leave Mao behind because he was a disruptive asshole; by the end of the march he was in control; by the time of independence he had whipped himself up such a cult of personality that even when the other leaders took away his decision-making power after the disaster of the Great Leap Forward they were afraid to challenge his public image, which later allowed him to purge most of them and regain real power.
I probably need to read more deeply into the careers of "anti-communist" leaders like Pinochet and Mobutu to get a broader sense of how psychopaths take over in different systems.
posted by clawsoon at 8:19 PM on March 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
I'm more familiar with the careers of Mao and Stalin than other communist leaders, so I can't make a universal comment, but there did seem to be something about the way that power was structured within those two communist parties which allowed two absolute psychopaths to rise to the top. When the Communist Party of China started out on the Long March, for example, the leaders wanted to leave Mao behind because he was a disruptive asshole; by the end of the march he was in control; by the time of independence he had whipped himself up such a cult of personality that even when the other leaders took away his decision-making power after the disaster of the Great Leap Forward they were afraid to challenge his public image, which later allowed him to purge most of them and regain real power.
I probably need to read more deeply into the careers of "anti-communist" leaders like Pinochet and Mobutu to get a broader sense of how psychopaths take over in different systems.
posted by clawsoon at 8:19 PM on March 15, 2022 [5 favorites]
A complication: For nation-state leaders, every day tends to present ever more new and horrible 'trolley problems', so I don't feel comfortable demanding that they be constrained by the same morality as the rest of us. Leaders with too much empathy will crumple under the guilt of their choices and emotional weight of the job. I admire the late, beloved Leo Buscaglia, but I cringe at the thought of him as POTUS. So I'm reluctantly ok with some detachment and dispassionate thinking in my leaders.
At what point can one tell that their leader's detachment has become pathological? I don't know. I desperately want one of Douglas Adams' Empathy Guns, though.
posted by zaixfeep at 11:10 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
At what point can one tell that their leader's detachment has become pathological? I don't know. I desperately want one of Douglas Adams' Empathy Guns, though.
posted by zaixfeep at 11:10 PM on March 15, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think this concept is kind of half-baked. To paraphrase George Carlin - "everyone on the highway that drives slower than me is an idiot and everyone that drives faster is a maniac".
So the continuum is there, but the abstract actions of politicians is always one of self-interest, the party really doesn't matter. The number of politicians who don't act in bare and blatant self-interest is vanishingly small. I'd filter it down even lower though far below elected power, as evidenced through the NIMBY movement (though it's my personal bugaboo - if you like I'll discuss this through others too. Musical gatekeeping, 'coolness', income, hobbies, educational attainment --> all the same.)
So basically NIMBY states that a tiny percentage of people, just by the action of purchasing a home, get to control the future growth of their neighborhoods and cities. Doesn't really seem to matter the party - Robert Reich (Democrat), SF socialists, DCC members, Republicans -all offer the same NIMBY arguments. They may be 'high empathy' in plenty of other situations, but when money & change is on the line, that all drops away. If the 'leadership trap' exists, then it filters far below positions of actual leadership. I personally find this odd, because a position of 'leadership' is actually a smaller club than 'homeowner' (or rich person, or fancy college graduate!). There must be a 'leadership trap' squared that actual leaders fall in to!
In that case, Donald Trump really isn't that special. He can hate on Mexicans and build a physical wall, but Los Angeles Democrats can do the same, with financial and legal shenanigans hurting their own closer neighbors.
In that sense, 'regulating power' as is suggested in the article wouldn't work, as "everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, everyone faster is a maniac". Even if the regulators were as altruistic and checked how many friends and pets a candidate had as a child, the very fact that they are chosen changes things, and empathy is issue-specific.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:37 AM on March 16, 2022
So the continuum is there, but the abstract actions of politicians is always one of self-interest, the party really doesn't matter. The number of politicians who don't act in bare and blatant self-interest is vanishingly small. I'd filter it down even lower though far below elected power, as evidenced through the NIMBY movement (though it's my personal bugaboo - if you like I'll discuss this through others too. Musical gatekeeping, 'coolness', income, hobbies, educational attainment --> all the same.)
So basically NIMBY states that a tiny percentage of people, just by the action of purchasing a home, get to control the future growth of their neighborhoods and cities. Doesn't really seem to matter the party - Robert Reich (Democrat), SF socialists, DCC members, Republicans -all offer the same NIMBY arguments. They may be 'high empathy' in plenty of other situations, but when money & change is on the line, that all drops away. If the 'leadership trap' exists, then it filters far below positions of actual leadership. I personally find this odd, because a position of 'leadership' is actually a smaller club than 'homeowner' (or rich person, or fancy college graduate!). There must be a 'leadership trap' squared that actual leaders fall in to!
In that case, Donald Trump really isn't that special. He can hate on Mexicans and build a physical wall, but Los Angeles Democrats can do the same, with financial and legal shenanigans hurting their own closer neighbors.
In that sense, 'regulating power' as is suggested in the article wouldn't work, as "everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, everyone faster is a maniac". Even if the regulators were as altruistic and checked how many friends and pets a candidate had as a child, the very fact that they are chosen changes things, and empathy is issue-specific.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:37 AM on March 16, 2022
Power is a form of corruption, defined as undue influence, and that influence naturally extends to media control, brainwashing and personality cults, whether political, religious or privately royal. A FRONTLINE special on Putin once observed that he didn't see democracy as failing, but as succeeding in producing authoritarianism. It was observed in a recent op-ed that blowhard Tucker Carlson wasn't especially a traitor by defending Russia, but simply wanted the exact same dictatorship for the US. The people who usher power are as corrupt as those they support, expecting a special favor for it and hoping their self-image is elevated. There is no good power or righteous power, because it doesn't stem from any published ideology at that point. It just is the secret ideology of the person in charge, letting those under him believe what they want, having already been suckered into putting him in charge.
posted by Brian B. at 9:57 AM on March 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 9:57 AM on March 16, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older It's not really the brown girls from Jersey City... | Daylight Saving Time for everrrrrr Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Can we get some clarification on the definition of "alienating the population" (i.e., whether people are hurt in the process) and the approximate duration of "eventually"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:32 AM on March 15, 2022 [17 favorites]