Political leadership and psychopathology

[Renaissance]

I found this paper 'Political leadership and psychopathology' in a search, but can't access it. It would be interesting to see what the author has concluded and how similar or different it is to Ponerology. Can anyone access it?

Here's the info:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1440-1665.2003.00580.x

Political leadership and psychopathology

* Johan A. Schioldann Adelaide, South Australia

*
Adelaide, South Australia

Australasian Psychiatry

Volume 11 Issue 3 Page 344-345, September 2003

 

[Peto]

Hi Shane,

The article is below

Political leadership and psychopathology
Author: Johan A. Schioldann

Published in: journal Australasian Psychiatry, Volume 11, Issue 3 September 2003 , pages 344 - 345

DEAR SIR

I read with great interest Kaplan's sketch of Radovan Karadzic.1 It is timely and important. However, it is an untenable position when in referring to the American Psychiatric Association's The Principles of Medical Ethics2 Kaplan sees fit to state that 'the perils of retrospectively pinning convenient labels on leaders who are not available to be examined are well known, and should be avoided at all costs'. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association advises that 'it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he/she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement'.

Kaplan expresses reservation about considering 'diagnoses such as manic depression or paranoia'. Likewise, with reference to Redlich's work Hitler: Diagnosis of a Psychopathic Prophet,3 he emphasizes that the term psychopath is 'unsuitable, and ultimately untenable, for describing political leaders'. However, it is heartening that, although apparently cautious about endorsing the discipline of pathography, in his equally important paper on Hitler and his physician, Dr Morell, Kaplan expressed the view that 'pathography - the study of disease [!] in the famous - has its critics, but the advantages cannot be ignored'.4

History is replete with examples of leaders for whom personality or illness, physical or mental, has impaired their decision-making and judgement, at times with far-reaching consequences for nations.5-8 Kaplan talks about 'the effect of illness [!] on the famous and infamous, the consequences of which resonate through history'.4 Thus, historians are particularly eager to know whether the genesis of a leader's incomprehensible or aberrant behaviour is likely to have been the product of individual and/ or non-individual factors.9 Paraphrasing P. Bagge, an eminent Danish historian, one cannot escape the fact that man as a volitional being everywhere constitutes the dominant link in historical causality, thereby rendering the historical phenomena so complex that in order to understand and disentangle them historians must always search for the individual factors.10

Pathography, which is applicable to any personality, sick or sound, provided that sufficient biographical material is available, is a valid retrospective method for historians in their quest(s).11 The pathographical result is a facet, of course, but often an indispensable one.

The primary aim of leadership pathography is not to retrospectively pin convenient labels on leaders who are not available to be examined - be it subjects with possible manic-depressive disorder, paranoia or psychopathy - but first and foremost to examine whether or not the person's decision-making and judgement were impaired and, if possible, by what factors.5, 6 Second, sober pathography can add new and, at times, rich dimensions to psychopathology per se. As Jaspers advised, psychiatrists should read good pathographies.12

The ethical issues surrounding the publication of medical reports and/ or expert opinions about leaders are eminently illustrated by the case of Winston Churchill.8 His doctor, Lord Moran, was widely condemned, virtually ostracized, for his writing publicly about the medical and psychological condition of his famous patient, just 1 year after his death in 1965.13 It had been impressed upon him that it was '[his] duty to make ["some facts about Winston which were not known to others"] available to posterity' because 'it is inevitable that everything about this man will be known in time. Let us have the truth'. Eventually Moran himself, who initially did not believe that Churchill's place in history needed 'a footnote by his doctor', 'came to see that it is not possible to follow the last 25 years of Winston's life without a knowledge of his medical background'.13 Among the many critical voices,14 in an 'annotation' in The Lancet in 1966 it was argued that although 'historians can rightly claim that Lord Moran's contribution may throw useful light on the events which Churchill helped shapehellip [he] would have done better to avoid clinical details'.15 Thus, the annotation concluded that Moran, 'by writing publicly about the medical condition of an identified patient, is creating a modern precedent. It is a bad precedent which none should follow'.

Almost 40 years later no one would or could question that Lord Moran's diaries on Churchill are invaluable, indispensable documents towards a pathographical and historical evaluation of this great statesman. The only mistake Moran made, if any, was the premature timing of the publication.8

Historians' research into leadership without access to medical documents and expert opinion would often remain incomplete. Finally, it can be argued that the general public has a right to know about the leaders who helped shape or, for that matter, at times, ruin their destinies. Juvenal saw it clearly all those years ago when asking the forever essential question: sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? [But who guards over the guardians (i.e. our leaders) themselves?]
REFERENCES


* 1. Kaplan, RM. (2003) Dr Radovan Karadzic: psychiatrist, poet, soccer coach and genocidal leader. Australasian Psychiatry 11 , pp. 74-78. [informaworld]
* 2. American Psychiatric Association (2001) The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry American Psychiatric Association , Washington, DC
* 3. Redlich, F. (2000) Hitler: Diagnosis of a Psychopathic Prophet Oxford University Press , New York
* 4. Kaplan, RM. (2000) Doctor to the Dictator: the career of Theodor Morell, personal physician to Adolf Hitler. Australasian Psychiatry 10 , pp. 389-392. [crossref]
* 5. Schioldann, JA. (1988) The Life of D. G. Monrad (1811-1887): Manic-Depressive Disorder and Political Leadership 4 , Odense University Press , Odense - Odense University Studies in Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, [Abbreviated English edition of the author's doctoral thesis, 1983.]
* 6. Schioldann, JA and Minister, DG. Prime (1996) Monrad: manic-depressive disorder and political leadership. History of Psychiatry 7 , pp. 63-90. [pubmed] [crossref]
* 7. Lawrence, J. (1988) The psychiatry of leadership and the psychiatrist as leader. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 22 , pp. 245-256.
* 8. Schioldann, JA. (1988) The psychiatry of leadership. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 22 , pp. 344-346.
* 9. Schioldann, JA. (1983) Den patografiske tradition og metode. Dansk Medicinsk Aarbog (Copenhagen) pp. 91-104.
* 10. Bagge, P. (1939-41) Om Historieforskningens videnskabelige Karakter. Nogle Bemaerkninger i Anledning af Kr. Erslevs Skrift 'Historieskrivning'. Historisk Tidsskrift (Copenhagen) 10 , pp. 355-384.
* 11. Schioldann, JA. (2003) What is pathography?. Medical Journal of Australia 178 , p. 303.
* 12. Jaspers, K. (1965) Allgemeine Psychopathologie Springer , Berlin
* 13. Lord, Moran (1966) Winston Churchill. The Struggle for Survival 1940-1965. Taken from the diaries of Lord Moran Constable , London
* 14. Schioldann, JA. (1986) Famous and Very Important Persons. Medical, Psychological, Psychiatric Bibliography 1960-1984 3 , Odense University Press , Odense - Odense University Studies in Psychiatry and Medical Psychology
* 15. (1966) A question of confidence. The Lancet 1 , p. 920. - Anonymous

 

[Approaching Infinity]

What Lobaczewski had to say on the subject of psychograpy:

Mention should also be made of some historical figures,
people whose pathological characteristics contributed to the
process of the genesis of evil on a large social scale, imprinting
their mark upon the fate of nations. It is not an easy task to
establish diagnosis for people whose psychological anomalies
and diseases died together with them. The results of such clini-
cal analyses are open to question even by persons lacking
knowledge or experience in this area, only because recognizing
such a state of mind does not correspond to their historical or
literary way of thought. While this is done on the basis of the
legacy of natural and often moralizing language, I can only
assert that I always based my findings on comparisons of data
acquired through numerous observations I made by studying
many similar patients with the help of the objective methods of
contemporary clinical psychology. I took the critical approach
herein as far as possible. The opinions of specialists elaborated
in a similar way nevertheless remain valuable.

It seems to me a no brainer that this type of work MUST be done. To ignore the psyche of our leaders would be to give tacit permission for them to do what they do best.

 

[CarpeDiem]

Prof. Johan Andreas Scioldann is the Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA.

Johan Schioldann is the author of two-volume
Famous and Very Important Persons Medical, Psychological and Psychiatric Bibliography
Vol 1 1960-1984 1986 (Almqvist & Wiksell and Odense University Press) ISBN: 87-7492-577-6 186 p.
Vol 2 1985-1999, 2005 (Adelaide Academic Press)

Schioldann J., 2003
What is pathography? Medical Journal of Australia, 303
Letters
What is pathography?
Johan A Schioldann MJA 2003 178 (6): 303
TO THE EDITOR: I read with great interest about your search in dictionaries for the word "pathography".
Pathography originates from reflections on genius and its possible association with insanity, a question that has occupied experts in many fields since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The first psychiatric scientific treatise concerning this question was contributed by Moreau de Tours in 1859. Inspired by him, Cesare Lombroso, in 1863, coined the famous expression genio et follia, and contributed many, albeit somewhat uncritical, pathographies.
The term pathography was first used about 1899 by the German psychiatrist Paul Julius Möbius, who contributed with several seminal pathographies, including Rousseau, Goethe, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
Among other famous pathographers should be mentioned Freud, W Lange, Jaspers, Birnbaum and Kretschmer.
Pathography can be defined as

. . . historical biography from a medical, psychological and psychiatric viewpoint. It analyses a single individual's biological heredity, development, personality, life history, and mental and physical pathology, within the socio-cultural context of his/her time, in order to evaluate the impact of these factors upon his/her decision-making, performance and achievements. No preconceived format can be assumed as the method depends on the nature of the various available materials and on the specific inquiry. A prerequisite for plausible pathographical results is a thorough knowledge and understanding of psychopathology, and of the borderland between normal and abnormal mental life, combined with a capacity for [sober] historical judgement. . . . The pathographical method is applicable to any personality, sick or sound, provided that sufficient biographical sources are available. The pathographical result is a facet but often an indispensable one.

Subjects of pathography have traditionally been famous people in all areas of human achievement. Pathography is also indispensable in assisting historians, political scientists and other groups in their quest for a better understanding of events where leaders or other "very important persons" have played a significant role, and where personality or illness, physical or mental, has been decisive, at times with far-reaching consequences for nations. History is replete with such examples.

1. van der Weyden MB. Extinguishing empathy [From the Editor's desk]. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 401.
2. Schioldann J. Den patografiske tradition og metode. Dansk Medicinsk Årbog (Copenhagen) 1983; 91-104.
3. Moreau (de Tours) J. La psychologie morbide dans ses rapport avec la philosophie de l'histoire ou l'influence des névropathies sur le dynamisme intellectual. Paris: Masson, 1859.
4. Schioldann J. The Life of D. G. Monrad, 1811–1887. Manic-depressive disorder and political leadership. Odense: Odense University Press, 1988.
5. Lawrence J. The psychiatry of leadership and the psychiatrist as leader. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1988; 22: 245-256.
6. Schioldann J. The psychiatry of leadership. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1988; 22: 344-346.

 

[name]

It is not an easy task to establish diagnosis for people whose psychological anomalies and diseases died together with them.

I understand that means we should look at the living specimens and not attempt to construct theories based on what the dead ones did.

... Likewise, with reference to Redlich's work Hitler: Diagnosis of a Psychopathic Prophet,3 he emphasizes that the term psychopath is 'unsuitable, and ultimately untenable, for describing political leaders'.

Why is it untenable ?

It seems to me a no brainer that this type of work MUST be done.

Definitely.

Now, how CAN it be done ? Answer: in small steps

I propose the following as a very general HOW-TO for anybody interested in such things.

a) Go to your local political organization and participate in their activities and interact with the people. What do you FEEL ?

b) Check the WWW and find out about your favourite leaders. I've made it a pastime of mine to look at the websites of the EU and of many EU countries (hint: the PP cover is US-centric). Note the interesting pictures of many of these personalities. You may also want to watch TV and find videos featuring your favourite leaders. Analyse their gestic, mimic, and body language in general. If you are lucky enough to have access, meet them in RL. What do you FEEL ?

c) Go to your local courthouses either civil or criminal, it doesn't matter and sit in on proceedings. This is in many cases allowed. Try also to interact with the other people working in courts. Observe attentively. What do you FEEL ?

d) Attend sessions of parliament or your regional or city council. Don't judge, FEEL.

e) Use every opportunity available to you to interact with some of some of the following demographic groups: lawyers, salesmen, doctors, public servants, rich people, homeless people, managers, journalists, persons involved in institutional religious groups (priests, preachers, ...). Attend professional conferences and gatherings of some of these groups. If you can, check up on societal fringe groups like prostitutes, junkies, military... (caveat: these last groups can be DANGEROUS to specifically seek out). Extend your favorite list of demographic groups at will. What is important to you may be different from what is important to others.

f) search contact and interact with "crazy" people - those (diagnosed or not) with obvious mental problems of any kind, like schizophrenia, mental retardation, Down syndrome, people taking prescribed psychopharmaca for whatever reasons ... Again: what do you FEEL ? And of this group, look attentively at their physical features, at their bodies, faces, gestic, mimic, body language, ... and COMPARE with the other initial groups.

g) OBSERVE 'normal' people (the average man and woman on the street) attentively. It is interesting what one can see when sitting in the metro or public transportation or in public places when one turns the attention to others instead of reading or disconnecting. What do you FEEL ? Does anything in special call your attention ?

1) For all groups, observe their bodies, extremities, body language, facial expression and features, particular ways of moving (body language) and displacing (gait - walking), ticks, posture, composture, speech, compare their right and left body sides ... What called your attention ? Which are the small and seemingly unimportant details which stay after having forgotten the rest ? What did you FEEL when you were there ? Where there any instances where everything seemed mushy and you felt compelled to turn your attention away ?

2) For all groups, look for commonalities and differences at every level of detail while still remembering in which 'bin' (group) they were initially. Would you put any of these people in another 'bin' ?

Now, try to articulate what you've observed. You have read (at least) the PP book ? It also helps to have some basic understanding of body language. Sammy Molcho is a name which comes to mind. Awareness of sub-modalities can help understanding (classifying) and describing what one sees. Having read an intro to sociology (or newfangled 'systems theory') can also help. The WWW is full with reading material. Use a spreadsheet as a tool to organize your observations.

I've done some of above as opportunities have come. It is interesting to say the least, and it guzzles time.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

It is not an easy task to establish diagnosis for people whose psychological anomalies and diseases died together with them.

I understand that means we should look at the living specimens and not attempt to construct theories based on what the dead ones did.

Lobaczewski says it is "not easy", not that we should not diagnose dead people. In fact, he did diagnose dead people. His point was that he may not be correct, but based on his extensive contact with people with the disorders described in his book, he is confidant that based on the biographical information available for dead leaders, his diagnoses are correct.

... Likewise, with reference to Redlich's work Hitler: Diagnosis of a Psychopathic Prophet,3 he emphasizes that the term psychopath is 'unsuitable, and ultimately untenable, for describing political leaders'.

Why is it untenable ?

It is not. In fact, it is ridiculous to say so. If a historical figure demonstrates all the characteristics of a psychopath, then we can say with some degree of accuracy that he or she was a psychopath. There's always a chance the person in question is not, but to say it is "untenable" is absurd.

It seems to me a no brainer that this type of work MUST be done.

Definitely.

Now, how CAN it be done ? Answer: in small steps

I propose the following as a very general HOW-TO for anybody interested in such things.

a) Go to your local political organization and participate in their activities and interact with the people. What do you FEEL ?

If a psychopath sees you as useful to his goals, he will make you feel good. So this isn't necessarily a good strategy.

b) Check the WWW and find out about your favourite leaders. I've made it a pastime of mine to look at the websites of the EU and of many EU countries (hint: the PP cover is US-centric). Note the interesting pictures of many of these personalities. You may also want to watch TV and find videos featuring your favourite leaders. Analyse their gestic, mimic, and body language in general. If you are lucky enough to have access, meet them in RL. What do you FEEL ?

c) Go to your local courthouses either civil or criminal, it doesn't matter and sit in on proceedings. This is in many cases allowed. Try also to interact with the other people working in courts. Observe attentively. What do you FEEL ?

d) Attend sessions of parliament or your regional or city council. Don't judge, FEEL.

e) Use every opportunity available to you to interact with some of some of the following demographic groups: lawyers, salesmen, doctors, public servants, rich people, homeless people, managers, journalists, persons involved in institutional religious groups (priests, preachers, ...). Attend professional conferences and gatherings of some of these groups. If you can, check up on societal fringe groups like prostitutes, junkies, military... (caveat: these last groups can be DANGEROUS to specifically seek out). Extend your favorite list of demographic groups at will. What is important to you may be different from what is important to others.

f) search contact and interact with "crazy" people - those (diagnosed or not) with obvious mental problems of any kind, like schizophrenia, mental retardation, Down syndrome, people taking prescribed psychopharmaca for whatever reasons ... Again: what do you FEEL ? And of this group, look attentively at their physical features, at their bodies, faces, gestic, mimic, body language, ... and COMPARE with the other initial groups.

g) OBSERVE 'normal' people (the average man and woman on the street) attentively. It is interesting what one can see when sitting in the metro or public transportation or in public places when one turns the attention to others instead of reading or disconnecting. What do you FEEL ? Does anything in special call your attention ?

1) For all groups, observe their bodies, extremities, body language, facial expression and features, particular ways of moving (body language) and displacing (gait - walking), ticks, posture, composture, speech, compare their right and left body sides ... What called your attention ? Which are the small and seemingly unimportant details which stay after having forgotten the rest ? What did you FEEL when you were there ? Where there any instances where everything seemed mushy and you felt compelled to turn your attention away ?

2) For all groups, look for commonalities and differences at every level of detail while still remembering in which 'bin' (group) they were initially. Would you put any of these people in another 'bin' ?

Now, try to articulate what you've observed. You have read (at least) the PP book ? It also helps to have some basic understanding of body language. Sammy Molcho is a name which comes to mind. Awareness of sub-modalities can help understanding (classifying) and describing what one sees. Having read an intro to sociology (or newfangled 'systems theory') can also help. The WWW is full with reading material. Use a spreadsheet as a tool to organize your observations.

I've done some of above as opportunities have come. It is interesting to say the least, and it guzzles time.

I think this may work for some people, however this reliance on "feeling" over evidence is probably unreliable. Usually the only people who are able to get a good intuitive sense of the psychological reality of other people are those who have spent years researching the subject in question. And even then, in the case of psychopaths, even the world's foremost authorities are easily duped by a good psychopath.

What is needed is FACTUAL information based on known behavior and the observations of 'friends' and family. Politicians are trained to lie. This does not make them psychopaths. I'd recommend reading "Snakes in Suits" to get a better grasp on how to recognize psychopaths and how good they are at convincing people like you and me that they are normal.

 

[Cyre2067]

In fact, the American Psychiatric Association advises that 'it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he/she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement'.

In my opinion this demonstrates the co-option of the APA. First, it's impossible if you have a psychopath in power. Therefore, the APA is in the business of protecting pathocracies, not exposing them.

Further - if a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst notices pathological traits in our leaders it is their DUTY as trained physicians to at least share their observations and open them up to discussion. That way if enough evidence can be demonstrated (and at this point i think it can) that the party in question is psychologically deviant then impeach proceedings can begin. This is an area where having a psychopathy test would help. At this point i think brainscan's are really the only objective criteria.

Thus, historians are particularly eager to know whether the genesis of a leader's incomprehensible or aberrant behaviour is likely to have been the product of individual and/ or non-individual factors.9 Paraphrasing P. Bagge, an eminent Danish historian, one cannot escape the fact that man as a volitional being everywhere constitutes the dominant link in historical causality, thereby rendering the historical phenomena so complex that in order to understand and disentangle them historians must always search for the individual factors.

Some 'men' are less capable of volition then others. Indeed, if one lacks a conscience one cannot even be defined as a 'man' in the contemporary sense. Thus searching for the individual factors, esp the ponerogenic ones is a must. Identifying them in the present becomes a duty of every nation which claims to be a 'peaceful democracy'.

 

[name]

Thanks for putting those necessary caveats to what I said, HKoehli. After reading your response, I think that I need to qualify what I said lest people get themselves into ugly situations.

Re untenable - of course you are right. That was a rhetoric question.

Most importantly, re my insistence about FEELING. A bit of background is in order. I've been doing things as those I describe for 15 years or so. It started out IIRC in the early 1990's when I started paying more attention to other people in the public transportation, in places where I went, in gatherings, ... When I started looking at the people around me I knew exactly nothing, it was just curiosity. It took many years until I even started finding patterns, and only in the last years, with input from this website (THANKS BTW) have I developed the 'antenna' for people or situations who stick out like a sore thumb. So let me qualify: Use your feelings about a person or situation as a compass, but also pay attention to the terrain and watch your step.

Re psychos or those who I have suspected of being one - and this with the input from PP and this forum - I wouldn't recognize one IRL if they hit me in the face. There are very subtle cues in the behaviour of a person, which one can only recognize IF one is paying attention, or afterwards when one analyzes the the interaction with these people. And this is the problem: most of times most of us are not paying attention to the person before us.

Re manipulation, yes, psychos (and many others, it is pervasive) manipulate people who they think can be useful to them. IF one pays attention to what people say it is often possible to uncover attempts at manipulation. The problem is that most of us normally trust other people, and many of us don't stop trusting even after having been screwed over and over. This is the entrance path. And here comes, again, the part about feeling. A reasonable way to find out if one is being manipulated is, again, to listen to ones feelings: a good indicator for one being subject to manipulation is when one suddenly and without discernible grounds develops 'positive attitudes' towards a person who until then one either did not know or did not like.

Re where to start with ones deliberate observations of others, I don't really know. I think it is probably easiest with strangers and in a neutral setting - public venues where anonymity is a given and enough distance can be kept and one can get out of unwanted situations fast - paraphrasing Machiavelli, make yourself available. I think that to start with ones immediate group - family, friends, work ... there might be much 'baggage' obstructing clear vision. One can always, when one has more practice in observing people, use the experience gathered to check out ones immediate group.

I can only speak from experience. What I did was to start looking at complete strangers, then I started looking at those nearer for similarities. I had jobs where I interacted with public servants (govt agencies were our clients) and what called my attention back then without knowing how to express it, were the many, many people who seemed so different and unpredictable in their reactions - we had to literally pussy-foot around some of them and watch our every word. I also worked for some years in the corporate world and had insight into how decisions are taken and on what basis people develop 'credibility' for a higher position - "Dogbert’s Top Secret Management Handbook" describes it, PP explains it. I became involved in partisan politics and saw even more, and I was manipulated and "fell out of favour" when they realized that I had my own mind and questioned the way how things were done. I've gone to church to listen at their sermons, I've seen violence, I've travelled ... and there still are many many persons and situations in my life I have to look at, without even going out to look for new ones.

If there is anything to say on how to go about this, I'd say that one should let things come naturally, not force oneself on others, and, very important, never force oneself to do things or meet people when one is not prepared. To do so is dangerous and leads to situations getting out of hand - this is the terrain where people who manipulate others for a living are waiting.

It is important to read and gather knowledge, but books can't replace experience and not all knowledge is gathered in them. The psychos, schizoids, narcissists, ponerocrats ... are not between the covers of PP but 'out there' - PP (and other books) and this forum are an indispensable guide, but they can't replace meeting these people face to face. If you think of Dr. Lobaczewski, he wrote his book because he was there and met these people and drew his conclusions, compared notes with others, ...