Talk:George E. Partridge

[Untitled]
"... A suggestion arises at this point which may have some coustructive value and give us the clue for the identiﬁcation and segregation of one important group of the types of so-called psychopathic personality. If we consider the whole class in terms of socialized behavior, we do ﬁnd a conspicuous number who, in our opinion, may justly be termed “ sociopathic.” If we may use the term “ sociopathy” to mean anything deviated or pathological in social relations, whether of individuals with one another,or within or towards groups, and also in the relations of groups to one another, we have a fairly communicable meaning, and a term which we may apply descriptively to a great number of persons. Of course there would be no full agreement as to what, in every detail, would be called sociopathic, any more than there would be in the consideration of the line between the normal and the abnormal in the individual in his subjective aspects, but we can at least recognize distinct degrees of sociopathic behavior, and even some patterns of it. We can identify criminality, vagabondage, or habitual idleness, antagonism, asocial behavior based upon suspicion and the like, inability to socialize on account of fear, attitudes of dependence, inability to perform normally in the social life because of any illness, whether mental or physical. Strictly speaking, all individuals who, at any moment, are displaying behavipr or which is futile or antagonistic from the standpoint of the group may logically be regarded as sociopathic. Of course in many cases this would be difficult to determine, because results as well as superﬁcial aspects and motives must be taken into consideration, but we have no difficulty over a wide area in identifying sociopathic behavior.

Presumably all people mentally ill are in some way affected for the worse in their social adjustments and their behavior is to be regarded as in some degree sociopathic. None the less, we may, usefully, both for clinical purposes, and with reference to the logical needs of the present stage of psychopathology, group together a number of persons who are to be regarded as essentially and uniquely sociopathic. These persons display, ﬁrst of all, persistent and chronic sociopathic behavior. This chronic behavior, to be regarded as essentially sociopathic, is to be understandably related in some way to their motivations with respect to their major interests and urges. They display long-continued maladjustments, and their behavior is not readily corrected and brought into the normal social pattern by any ordinary methods of education or punitive technique; nor does it right itself by any of the usual processes of resolution based upon self-understanding and self-discipline. These persons are pre-eminently sociopathic; they are very numerous; there are recognizable patterns of behavior which they adopt.

Doubts arise, of course, when we try to assign borderline cases to any rubric. There cannot be any logically perfect principle of segregation of essential sociopaths, nor one any more secure than in other ﬁelds of human characteristic of similar scope. Hesitations interpose at several points, and especially the great numbers of persons who are customarily regarded as “inadequate personalities” are confusing. Tentatively, however, we may exclude from the class of essential sociopaths those whose inadequacy is primarily related to physical weakness, fear, hypersensitiveness, shyness and self-blame. These states may eventuate into essential sociopathic behavior patterns, but they are not in themselves that.

Theoretically, as a logical concept, the idea of the essential sociopath is too inclusive, since there are states recognized, for example, as psychotic or psychoneurotic, in which there is long-continued anti—social behavior related to mal-adjustrnents. We may think of the chronic hypomanic, the paranoid, and of some psychoneurotics as showing distinctly sociopathic behavior. But in general, in these conditions, we do not ﬁnd persistent and consistent anti-social behavior in which motivation is distinctly in the anti-social direction, nor do we ﬁnd the anti-social behavior occupying so central a place in the subjective setting.

To identify usefully sociopathic types of disorder, therefore, we ﬁnd among sociopathic reactions the deﬁnite patterns of chronic sociopathic behavior, and select within this group those who show long continued mal-adjustments in direct relation to the behavior patterns; or, conversely, we ﬁnd within our group of persons showing chronic mal-adjustments, of any kind, those in whom the behavior is persistently and consistently sociopathic and in direct relation to anti-social motivation. These persons we may call essential sociopaths, or sociopaths, and we assume and conclude that this class as a whole deserves a place among the classes of major mental deviation. Not all sociopathic behavior is the production of persons essentially sociopathic, we repeat, and not all personality deviation or chronic mal-adjustment is sociopathic in its manifestations and direction, although we may recognize the sociopathic features in any mal-adjustment, it is likely, and in every sociopathic act, some degree of mal-adjustrnent. It is the distinct and chronic sociopathic behavior pattern, related to determinable mal-adjustments in a causal union, that we must identify and deﬁne. There is no way, it appears, to be complete and to avoid some degree of confusion in such a program. In psychopathology we are always dealing with extremes of a series, and can only arbitrarily assign a line of cleavage between the normal and the abnormal. Practically this is usually of no consequence.

The question arises, next, of the usefulness of our present widely adopted term “ psychopathic personality.” So far as it is applied to the large group we have called sociopaths, it seems to have none. As applied to the remainder of the customarily regarded psychopathic deviations, whether these include the stable non-psychosis-producing deviations, or the pre-psychotic mal-adjustments, or the slight psychoses it is doubtful whether the term has much proper application. As applied to both groups: the essentially sociopathic and the whole class of mal-adjusted persons the doubt of its inappropriateness arises to a certainty. In such a usage, as is common, the sociopath appears, evidently on two counts, and in two diﬁerent senses: in his own right as anti-social personality, and as a member of a great class of personality-wise deviated persons, the anti-social being regarded as it were the psychopath par excellence. To the extent that psychopathic personality means the group we have called sociopathic, it has, we repeat, no especial application, except by courtesy, since these persons are no more nor no less psychopathic than a host of others, and it could hardly be more badly chosen for its purpose. Used otherwise, it tends to let in, by the back door so to speak, everything. Moreover, since in its current usage the term “ personality” implies the psychological “ panel" essentially, the combination “ psychopathic personality” is redundant. If, however, we regard personality as the sum of signiﬁcant tendencies and adjustments, both physiological and psychological, the term psychopathic as applied to the classes to which it is applied, is too restrictive. The physiological adaptations are equally important, and indeed often enter into the picture: cardio-vascular instability, e. g., endocrine imbalances, asthenic habitus, and the like. But this raises the whole question of the uses of varied terminology relating to personality, make-up, temperament, constitution, character and so forth, and is not to be followed out here.

There may be some possible terminology which would be more descriptive of the sociopathic reactions coordinately with the other major groups: or, conversely some way of deﬁning or naming the other major reactions in terms more consistent with those used in the case of the sociopath, but at present this does not seem feasible or likely to occur. But certainly our terms manic-depressive, schizophrenic, psychoneurotic are anything but satisfactory, since they denote neither the subjective nor the objective phases of mental disorders in any consistent way. A terminology which would emphasize, in the sociopath, the excess of demand, in the schizophrenic the detachment, in the manic-depressive the phase of emotional excess, in the psychoneurotic, perhaps the repres- sion—as phenomena within the sphere of social relations might be useful: or one which would identity, from the subjective stand-point, the traits most prevalent: the hate of the sociopath, guilt of the schizophrenic, fear (?) of the psychoneurotic, instability of the manic-depressive; or ﬁnally terms which should identify basic states or factors, as might be the ideal of a psychoanalytic psychiatry. Pathological personality ” would be a more appropriate term if we wish to designate the whole class of deviations in personality, and wish at the same time to distinguish, in degree or comprehensiveness, or centrality, these within the whole class of mal-adjustments or of deviations of any kind. Precisely what, among all these deviations should be included in the class of pathological personalities must remain, it seems, a matter of preference or arbitrary selection. No person, presumably, is mal-adjusted in all his relations, and perhaps everyone is in some. To speak of a personality as such as pathological is probably not very rigorous use of language. We might equally well speak of a pathological body in referring to any disease. What we mean by “psychopathic personality” in the more inclusive sense appears to be deep and chronic mal-adjustment. The term "pathological personality ” has some justification, but is not at all indispensable for work in a ﬁeld in which the two main classes of facts to be considered are a great number of mainly unclassiﬁed mal-adjustments, and on the other hand a group of persons distinguished by anomaly in the social sphere primarily.

....

CONCLUSIONS.

Altogether these views of psychopathic personality show wide disparity, not to say some degree of confusion, about the proper constituency of the classes of psychopathic persons variously described and named. In the widest sense “ psychopathic personality" is used apparently to include all personality deviations of whatever kind. Among these, some are regarded as incipient or mild psychoses, or psychoneuroses, some as self-subsisting personality types, and of these some as especially displaying behavior disorders, and some as more subjectively signiﬁcant.

Closely related to the idea of the constitutional inferior, there has emerged a conception of foms of deviation which have as their essential trait deep and persistent sets in some direction which produces persistent anti-social or socially futile behavior. These are recognized as profoundly rooted warps in the personality, and there has been a strong tendency to regard them as though constitutional. Since, as characteristic of those states, there are markedly immature interests and actions: since persons so affected are apt to have emotional excesses and instability, are generally unstable, have dificulty in acquiring permanent moods or sentiments in the social relations, are egocentric, and show, whether because of these traits, or for other reasons, decided lack of good sense and judgment, have the child's impractical attitude towards values, and behave like children in their fascinations for play-like activities, and have the child's irresponsibility and attitudes toward authority, it is not surprising that they have been regarded as in some way constitutionally inferior and at the worst as morally imbecile. These persons do seem to have such a strong family resemblance one to another that it is tempting to think of them as displaying a deﬁciency in regard to some unit character. But advancement in the genetic interpretations of mental development continually givesus more light on the production of similar complex behavior patterns on the basis of simple recurrent early patterns, in which we can detect the formative factors.

These reactions show both identity of features and also widely variant traits and manifestations. Various individuals in this class which we think is best called “ sociopathic ” resemble or approximate other types of personality and the psychotic groups as well.

The closest resemblance is probably to the paranoidal syndromes, since these sociopathic persons tend strongly to believe that the world is against them ( but rightly to some extent since their conduct is unacceptable to society). They display also qualities which are closely related to the obsessional states, since they are always dominated by some fascination which takes an obsessional or compulsive form. In many of them their excess of drive and the insta- bility of concrete objectives brings them close to the hypomanic picture as does their readiness to enter into states of excitement; while their quick reaction to failure often gives them the mien of frank depression. Some, deeply affected, maintain persistently the sociopathic types of behavior, such as running away, but as regards their conﬂicts are closely related to the schizophrenic.

But it is not allowable, on such grounds as these, to regard these conditions as merely undeveloped psychoses, or undifferentiated psychoses of mild form, nor to merge them forthwith into some expanded psychotic group. At the present stage their claim to self-identity is precisely the consistent appearance of patterns which do not occur in the other conditions. On the other hand to regard the psychopathic, or preferably the sociopathic reactions as differ- ent in kind from the other mental deviations is equally misleading. Probably our division of mental disorders into psychotic and non- psychotic is mischievous. What we should say of them is that the sociopathic developments constitute a type of mal-adjustment which does not usually show developments and episodes like those which appear as adjustment phases in the other conditions. These sociopaths adjust in a way that is characteristic of the class. None the less they are to be regarded as victims of mental disorder or disease. It is especially misleading to think of these sociopathic conditions as different on the ground that they are only disorders of the personality, and that what they show is merely something which is “normal” for the individual. Every one of ‘the functional mental disorders may be regarded, from one point of view, as personality disorder—when considered longitudinally—and to regard the sociopathic types of reactions as uniquely personality disorders is not warranted. The condition, as behavior pattern, may be chronic in the sociopath, and that is about all we need to say of it in this connection. One reason why there has arisen confusion about the so-called psychopaths is that, in these cases, the personality deviations become apparent at an early age in a distinct form. It would be better not to regard the fact that we seem to see a chronic process developing early, as a distinguishing mark of the psychopathic developments, the main difference between these and the other mental disorders, in this respect, being that the sociopathic forms are more objective, merely, in their manifestations or ad-justment patterns—at least more fully revealed.

Our conclusion is that in the type of “ psychopathic personality” called sociopathic, we have a reaction or adjustment pattern which is best regarded as ranking coordinately with the “functional" mental disorders in general, and that to regard these as particularly personality diseases or disorders, and even to make sharp separation of all these as non-psychotic is not very wise, and presupposes knowledge which we do not possess—and also ignores some that we have. The application of the term “ sociopathic ” to them is a matter of convenience, as expressing the most distinctive and unifying trait of the class segregated from what seems a signiﬁcant point of view, in our present state of knowledge. We name them according to an identifying quality, precisely as the manic-depressive group and the schizophrenic are so called. Further work might conceivably allow the application of a different term, more explanatory, or more descriptive of some universal basic trait; or, on the other hand, deeper exploration might lead to the redistribution of this class into newly discovered or even existent classes. However that may be, at the present time variants of the sociopathic picture seem to offer an attractive and important ﬁeld of investigation, with at least a tentative conception of them as sufficiently uniform in some of their basic characteristics, as they manifestly are in their sociological aspects, to allow work on the class as such, systematically and with some forevision of the locus of fruitful problems of interest from consideration of the general psychopathology of these types."