Scoundrels, cads, bounders, and scumbags; a funny editorial about Madoff

[Julia]

Scoundrels, Sociopaths, and Scumbags

Geoff Nunberg
"Fresh Air" Commentary, 4/14/09

After it came out that Elie Weisel had lost his life savings and most of the assets of his Foundation for Humanity to Bernard Madoff, someone asked him if he thought Madoff was a psychopath. "Psychopath is too nice a word for him," Weisel answered. "'Sociopath,' ‘psychopath,’ it means there is a sickness, a pathology. This man knew what he was doing. I would simply call him thief, scoundrel, criminal."

Scoundrel is a word you might expect to hear from Weisel, whom people tend to look on as an emissary from a more absolute old-world moral order. The word has a Dickensian ring -- in fact it's the very word Dickens used to describe a character who eerily foreshadowed Madoff, right down to his name. Mr. Merdle is the unscrupulous banker in Little Dorrit, probably the darkest of Dickens's novels, which by pure serendipity has been running on PBS in a BBC adaptation. Despite his obscure origins and awkward manner, Merdle is lionized by people of fashion who jostle to invest with him, until his suicide reveals that he was a swindler who left everyone who trusted in him destitute. As Dickens described it:

    Numbers of men in every profession and trade would be blighted by his insolvency; old people who had been in easy circumstances all their lives would have no place of repentance for their trust in him but the workhouse; legions of women and children would have their whole future desolated by the hand of this mighty scoundrel.

Scoundrel and its kin don't have that Dickensian rumble anymore, not just because we've rejected Victorian morality but because we've rejected the class system it rested on. Scoundrel, wretch, knave, rogue, bounder, rascal, cad -- just about every label in the Victorian moral menagerie originated as a name for the lowborn, a vagabond, a menial, or a bumpkin, and each of them implied one or another deficiency of breeding. When someone asks Merdle's Jeeves-like chief butler why he wasn't surprised to learn of his master's suicide, he answers, "Sir, Mr. Merdle never was the gentleman, and no ungentlemanly act on Mr. Merdle's part would surprise me."

True, scoundrel hasn't quite gone the way of cad and bounder. People still use the word when they want to suggest high-collared Victorian rectitude -- presumably what Lillian Hellman was reaching for when she used Scoundrel Time as the tile of her 1976 memoir of the McCarthy years. But unless you're Elie Weisel, it's hard to use scoundrel in earnest without coming off as starchy or superior. It isn't the word most of us would use to warn someone off a shady suitor or a dubious investment scheme; if we use it at all, it's in a jocular way. You think of the movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, with Steve Martin and Michael Caine playing rival con-men. You knew from the title alone that it was a comedy.

We’d probably have a different take on the movie if it had been called Dirty Rotten Sociopaths. That’s not a word we ever use affectionately. It's reserved for unsympathetic malefactors, particularly the ones who operate at a Madoffian or Ted Bundyan scale; we tend not to waste the term on small-bore grifters and muggers. But sociopath isn't the kind of clinical language that Weisel was alluding to, which exonerates badness by reframing it as illness that can be dealt with compassionately. The label has nothing to do the phenomenon that sociologists call "the medicalization of deviance" and that Steven Sondheim described crisply in "Gee, Officer Krupke": “I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived.”

People who call Madoff a sociopath have no intention of exonerating him or extenuating his actions, and most have no interest in the armchair diagnoses of the talk-show psychologists -- sociopath? narcissist? manic disorder?[1] Nowadays sociopath is just a loose term of abuse for anybody you want to claim is unfettered by the pangs of conscience. No major political figure has escaped the label, from Obama and both Clintons to George W. Bush and Newt Gingrich. You even see people calling Dick Cheney a sociopath. (I say "even" because most of the lists of diagnostic criteria for the label start with "superficially charming.")

When it comes to the crunch, sociopath doesn't really add anything to what the Victorians expressed as "heartless wretch.” Except that now the moral judgment comes draped in a white coat, as the kind of objective scientific classification that confers the authority to police and punish in the modern world. You can't suspend a kid from school nowadays just for being unruly or obstreperous; you need a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder. And you can’t put someone away just for being a scoundrel.

Of course we still have plenty of words that describe these derelictions in purely moral terms, but most of them are the colloquialisms and vulgarisms of familiar conversation. The New York Post had its writers calling Madoff "Bernie the Bum,” evoking the front stoop language of guys from the old neighborhood who don't know from narcissism or sociopathy. Donald Trump called him a sleazebag, and others compared him to a heaping quantity of ordure. And quite a few people called him a scumbag; Mad magazine even ran a spoof poster for a movie about Madoff called "Scumbag Billionaire."

As it happens, that’s the same word Bill Clinton used during the campaign last year to describe the author of an unflattering article about him in Vanity Fair. The next day he had a spokesman apologize for his language as "inappropriate." But its inappropriateness is exactly what makes this language effective: it proves that your anger is so genuine and strong that it bursts through the normal restraints.

I certainly wouldn't wax elegiac about words like scoundrel or wretch, not with the class baggage they carried. But it’s odd that we have to step outside of the language of public life when we want to express authentic indignation or forcefully reprehend someone simply for being bad. Which while I’m at it is another word that Dickens took a lot more seriously than we do.

1. Actually, it has been a while since sociopathy was a recognized psychiatric diagnosis; in DSM-IV it has been replaced by a cluster of antisocial personality disorders. Return

[Julia]

I am not one to say that Nism and Sociopathy are useless medicalized words for terms that have longer history and  useage in the vernacular i.e 'scoundrel or heartless wretch'. It is heartening though to recognize that these people have been recognized throughout history. The fact that people are calling Madoff a scumbag is actually refreshing. It IS the peoples way of severely ostracizing him and expressing outrage. I would not mind having a quote by a psychologist adding that these terms actually coincide quite well with N or sociopath, but overall I think people have understood Madoff very well without those terms.

Julia

[Cornfield]

Julie, in the "old days" a person was often known by the sum total of the family he lived in, but in my day I was taught to look at people individually as having possibilities and opportunities to learn to think and do well.  So I never noticed that my husband reflected the attitudes of his family because I thought his grandmother's world was a very moral one, and besides, since he "left" that family to live with me, it wouldn't matter after we bonded as a family.

I eventually learned that a person is who he chooses to become, and he may not choose to reveal this.  I was horrified when I noticed husband packing hotel towels in the top of his suitcase, as a matter of habit.  I immediately told him that if he took the towels home I would mail them back to the hotel with an apology.  He took them out.  I think he never gave it a thought that he was stealing from the hotel.  His response was that his family always did that and that the hotel planned the cost in their bill.

Now I have seen notes in nice hotels that encourage you to take the toiletries because they are for your use.  But not the towels, for goodness sake! 

Husband was accustomed to receiving free ball cap styled hats from businesses for advertising purposes.  That is totally different, as it is a promotion of their name.  But he usually took more than his share if he could get away with it.  Cheating proceeds on incremental steps, and can easily becoming very addictive, I think.  Husband thought there was no harm done in lying because everyone understood what the liar was doing.   Humph!

I think there is more than one black hole we can slide into in cunning ways, and not acknowledge the desperation we are observing at the moment.   

We enter this world with nothing and we leave this world with nothing.  Might as well accept the fact.

Cornfield 

[CZBZ]

What a great article, Julia! I'm glad it was so hot outside today that I parked myself in front of my computer. There are so many good points in what the author had to say about "the medicalization of deviance" because I have noticed something:


While it is useful to have a name for a disorder that prevents a healthy relationship from developing naturally, it also tends to make people feel sorry for the scoundrels. Poor little folks, they can't help it if they stole their families good health and psychological security!!!

See the problem? I started noticing this online when people used the medical diagnosis as another means for absolving the scoundrel from responsibility. We cannot take that stance because if we do, no one would be held responsible for their crimes since, as the author also wrote, even loser teenagers are given a diagnosis if they rebel against society. A diagnosis is ONLY there to help psychologists pinpoint a client's problems so they can create a more useful treatment. A diagnosis helps the rest of us identify and 'understand' why and how the relationship was so destructive and unhealthy. What a diagnosis does NOT do is alleviate anyone from responsibility. I mean, some people commit crimes because they're psychotic or delusional in which case, they are clearly NOT in reality. (like the X's schizophrenic brother). But pathological narcissism and sociopathy are not 'delusional' mental illnesses. They are characterological disorders and like Cornfield, I tend to believe they have progressed malignantly one choice at a time.

Great article...I hope people take time to read it. Especially on WoN where we do not restrain our adjectives and nicknames for narcissists...those dirty, rotten rat bazturds, may great swarms of locusts feast on their icy eyes!

Hugs
CZ

[KarenF]

I firmly believe that we all have embedded within us the basics of morals and the knowledge of good and bad.  They are developed and defined as we grow and they are nurtured and become characteristic traits as our parents teach us life. Of course, I'm assuming that the parents have a good set of these too, but even that is not an excuse as I've witnessed people who came out of horribly abusive families with strong morals and convictions.

Unless you are retarded or mentally handicapped in some way, there are NO excuses for the actions and behaviors of narcissists or any other of the names in that category.  I'm a firm believer in those tendencies being more prevalent at certain times in our lives, but when they become a way of life, that to me is pure choice.  Even someone raised with wolves may have poor social skills, but they still know right from wrong.

Society has flippantly thrown those names around and as this has been done, they have lost the profound significance they were meant to have.  Knowing what I know now, if someone shouted "NARCISSIST"  in a room full of people, I'd be the first one out the door.

[Cornfield]

I will admit to allowing husband to get by without using all the morals and principles he was taught.  When he skipped over principles or conned people, I allowed it to pass.  There were a number of occasions where Husband wouldn't have succeeded if the rest of the family had stopped him.   It was Daughter who stopped him from writing checks against another checking account, and slipping the checks back and forth. 

It was Son who stopped him from letting shoddy construction work get by.   When I finally confronted him and said the word "no" he slowed down his bad deeds on the job, but that made him angry at me for stopping him.  Narcissists will uphold strong morals and convictions when it suits their purposes.  Husband made very strong and wise decisions as a school board member, and I was often very proud of him for taking a stand.   He was a tough board member and followed the rules close to the line.   He voted to fire two superintendants during his career, which is tough to do.
But he wouldn't fire an employee at our business.   Son had to do that job for him. 

Yes, he did know right from wrong.  But he stole hotel towels anyway, as a matter of course.  I stopped that!  But he was never going to admit he did wrong, nor apologize for anything at all. 

Cornfield

[LDW]

Normally it are the narcs who tell us 'right from wrong', if I didn't pay for my tram ticket he would look at me as if I had just cursed out loud in the church... At the same time he would get himself arrested for public drunkenness and giving the false name "John Smith" to the police officer...

[Flower]

'Sociopath,' ‘psychopath,’ it means there is a sickness, a pathology. This man knew what he was doing. I would simply call him thief, scoundrel, criminal."

This is where I cringe! Yes, sociopathy or psychopathy is a pathology; however, those who have this diagnosed pathology KNOW what they are doing. There is a specific chemical disorder of an area of the brain, which results in an extreme indifference or lack of conscience.  In other words, "they do NOT care what becomes of their victims." What they care about is only themselves.

Someone can be "a thief, scoundrel or criminal" and have a conscience, and NOT be a sociopath or psychopath. A sociopath is aware of intentional choices and not insane; and therefore, they are responsible for their actions. Psychopaths are held accountable for their actions and the prisions are full of them because these psychopaths are so full of themselves, they believed they would not be caught in criminal acts.

Whether Madoff is a psycho or not, he still did the criminal deeds and held accountable.

[LDW]

The psychopath and the malignant narcissist do NOT have a chemical disorder in their brain!!! People with psychotic disorders or bipolar disorder (manic depression) do! Either the balance in chemicals or the communication between synapses is disturbed. When manic or psychotic people do horrible things during a psychotic or manic episode, they feel awful once they're back in reality. They are ashamed and verry sorry for what they have done.

NOT so with the narc or the psycho, theirs is a PERSONALITY disorder, and yes they KNOW what they're doing but they DON'T care. Therefore these people will always be held 'accountable' by the justice system. It is still a disorder though, their inability to feel or develop a conscience (whether this disorder was developed as a defense mechanism or something they were born with) makes them extremely dangerous people who CANNOT be helped with medication, therapy etc.

So as long as a judge is aware of that, I hope he/she will make sure that, whatever the sentence, they will never get out of prison once they're IN. This seems to be the case with Madoff, I'm happy he's finally in... but look at what he's been able to do... 

Good read: Snakes in suits / Without conscience by Bob Hare.

[Flower]

LDW, I should have been more specific, as when I typed, "chemistry," I was referring to the biological matter of a psychopath's brain.
Here's an article:

http://www.crimetimes.org/02a/w02ap2.htm

I feel stupid,   , as I should have been more careful, because I have worked in a social services setting dealing with mental health and social issues for 15 years.

We are on the same page, as you noted that they don't care, and I typed, "they do not care......"

I have read one of Dr. Hare's books, "Without a Conscience."  Excellent!

Snakes in Suits? Ha! I could tell stories of upper management in various social service organizations while I was employed in the field.

[LDW]

Flower, don't worry! What you wrote was exactly right, except for the chemical thing. I just wanted to point out that psychopaths and narcissists never lose touch with reality as in: they are not psychotic. They could become somewhat manic (and therefore high-achievers) to keep pushing away any feelings of inferiority but in the extreme cases their defense mechanisms to protect their ego are so well developed that they never 'decompensate' (= failure of defense mechanisms resulting in progressive personality disintegration).

The article describes how their brain is wired differently and the anatomy / brain structure is different, yes.

Narcs and psychopaths are everywhere: social service, psychiatry, teaching, management, you name it.

[Flower]

LDW,
Thanks! And I agree also about psychopaths not being psychotic.

Also, you noted about "progressive personality disintegration." Could you please explain that? I haven't heard that terminology.
I have read that as psychopaths ages, they become recluses and barely able to function.  The ones I have known, I do not have any contact to know whether this is true or not.

Thank you, Flower

[CZBZ]

I still struggle to define the difference between Narcissists and Sociopaths. The cross-over is confusing. What I have noted because of my familiarity with bi-polar disorder is that narcissists are highly focused on maintaining an Image, defending themselves from the truth. It appears to me that sociopaths lack this need to maintain image (good feelings about themselves) which makes them far more callous and indifferent to manipulating other people.

With bipolar disorder, periods of mania create a 'grandiosity' that is immune to external restraints. Once the mania has passed, someone with bipolar suffers from low self-worth for having behaved in ways that are not ego-syntonic with their values, principles and perceptions of 'self'. Instead of blaming others, they spiral downwards in self-blame and helplessness over a biological disorder that is chemically unstable. Does my understanding/experience align with what we know about chemical brain disorders??

Someone with NPD may also be bipolar which makes it even more difficult for the average person to manage the relationship. Narcissists certainly DO have mood extremes that are more likely based on self-esteem fluctuations in reaction to negative or positive experiences. for the bipolar person, their moods are not tied to events in their lives such as job loss, divorce, criticism, etc. The mood takes over without external causes. Because narcissists are also defined by 'mood changes', it's important to notice whether or not the narcissist recently suffered a Hit to the Ego that might lead to depression or compensatory grandiosity. It isn't chemical, in other words---it's situational.

Because I live with someone who has bipolar disorder and behaves in extremely narcissistic ways during a mania (or even severe depression), I'd like to have a better understanding of the two disorders (NPD and Bipolar).

Hugs,
CZ

[CZBZ]

I can chime in on 'Progressive Personality Disintegration' a little bit but welcome further information clarifying what this means.

In my personal experience, during a time of extreme stress, the narcissist appeared to be having a psychotic break. Sam Vaknin suggests narcissists may have brief psychotic episodes if their narcissistic defenses are severely challenged by reality. When the narcissist cannot avoid contradictory evidence to his illusions of perfection and grandeur, his defensive structure may not be able to defend him or her from overwhelming fears, awareness of despair and a lack of 'self'. Narcissistic defenses do their job to protect the narcissist from self-awareness.

It has seemed to me that sociopaths are not intent on maintaining an IMAGE of perfection, self-sufficiency, grandiosity for themselves. Their image is more about 'fooling or manipulating' other people rather than creating a pseudo self to fool themselves. ??? The lack of conscience and inability to feel 'guilt' is a significant indication of sociopathy/psychopathy.

Hugs,
CZ

[SydneyFireworks]

In my personal experience, during a time of extreme stress, the narcissist appeared to be having a psychotic break. Sam Vaknin suggests narcissists may have brief psychotic episodes if their narcissistic defenses are severely challenged by reality. When the narcissist cannot avoid contradictory evidence to his illusions of perfection and grandeur, his defensive structure may not be able to defend him or her from overwhelming fears, awareness of despair and a lack of 'self'. Narcissistic defenses do their job to protect the narcissist from self-awareness.

~CZ

Tosser used to have what looked to me like total psychotic breaks whenever I 'caught him out' (eg in a lie), and when he couldn't immediately worm his way out of trouble.  His face would go purple, his fists would be rigidly clenched by his side, his eyes went even more staring and cold than they usually were and his rage spewed out of his mouth.

However, these 'breaks' were very brief - usually lasting anything from a few minutes to a few seconds.  And then he was completely back to normal (his normal  ) and it was like the event had never happened.

He was aged 41 when I first met him.  He's coming up for 50 now, and I haven't seen him in nearly four years.  It would be interesting to know if those 'psychotic breaks' are becoming more frequent and/or lasting for longer.  I'd hazard the guess that they are, but won't be finding out for myself!   

Hugs
Syd

[LDW]

We all sometimes experience the feeling (and fear) of 'falling apart' or... disintegration, well I know I do anyway. I think it's about how much reserves you have (or lack) to get or to not 'get crazy'. Biological, social and psychological factors and stressors can contribute to a decompensation in the form of a depression, a manic state or a psychosis.

The fear of disintegration or becoming psychotic or being unable to face reality is something the narc may experience. When the house of mirrors is falling apart and they have to face their emptiness, their way of dealing with it, imo, is to rage, become abusive and grandiose or callous and indifferent. It's what they've learned to do as a small child; just ward off any feelings that might surface.

Psychopaths are of a different kind; they think it's rather funny to have such a (side-)effect on people and society etc, they like playing playing games but at the end of the day all they really care about is themselves and what they want. They don't have any feelings and no conscience so there's no need to protect a fragile ego. They have always been like that. There's just the need to get what this ego wants. But they're not primarely after the narcissistic supply to compensate for something... unless of course someone is a narcissistic psychopath ;-)

I just realised that that's what you've described CZ, only in other words. Hope it helped.

Sometimes when I work too much (just to occupy my mind with something else) or when I work night-shifts, I get a bit manic myself: I get even busier and I like that feeling, it's like a runners' high. Do you know what I mean? So once your brain is activating all sorts of chemicals to keep you going, that can in some cases (when there's a predisposition) develop into a manic state. At that point I know that I have to stop, but some people simply cannot stop it and then it becomes a mania and they lose touch with reality.