Why do intellectuals sympathize with criminals?
Bernard Chapin at PJM has a terrific interview up with psychiatrist Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, author of Not With a Bang But a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline
and In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas.
This part of the interview caught my eye:
I noticed this sympathy with miscreants in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers: The Story of Success
in which he describes a "genius" whom he uses as an example of success. It seems that this "success" tried at one point to poison and kill his tutor over some trivial matter. This genius got probation. Rather than condemn this act, Gladwell discusses how this genius could talk his way out of anything and went on to be a success whereas Gladwell's example of a "non-successful" genius was a guy who never committed such a heinous act, but lacked the fortitude to talk his way out of anything. Perhaps I am naive, but I think the latter guy who has a moral compass is more of a success.
Update: TigerHawk weighs in.
and In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas. This part of the interview caught my eye: BC: Why do we as a society automatically extend empathy and compassion to criminals rather than the victims of their crimes? There’s a phrase that you use in this context: “a preference for barbarism.” Why do our intellectuals rally to the cause of miscreants rather than that of good, honest citizens?
Dr. Dalrymple: Intellectuals need to say things that are not immediately obvious or do not occur to the man in the street. The man in the street instinctively sympathizes with the victim of crime; therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see.
I noticed this sympathy with miscreants in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers: The Story of Success
in which he describes a "genius" whom he uses as an example of success. It seems that this "success" tried at one point to poison and kill his tutor over some trivial matter. This genius got probation. Rather than condemn this act, Gladwell discusses how this genius could talk his way out of anything and went on to be a success whereas Gladwell's example of a "non-successful" genius was a guy who never committed such a heinous act, but lacked the fortitude to talk his way out of anything. Perhaps I am naive, but I think the latter guy who has a moral compass is more of a success.Update: TigerHawk weighs in.
posted by Helen at 6:38 AM
47 Comments:
I've read a lot of the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes series by Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes would probably state something very similar to this, except he would ascribe that trait to the pseudo intellectual, not the true intellectual of Holmes caliber, or even that of his archenemy, the supervillain Professor Moriarity. No, it is the misguided intellectual who would sympathize with the criminal.
To them I say: Get a life. But I'm sure that these quasi intellectuals get plenty of government research funds to develop these kind of romantic-thinking theories.
Reminds me of a quote I once heard: "Some things are so ridiculous that only an intellectual can believe it."
I think hyper-intellectualism has actually increased the problems that it attempts to help.
javadoug,
I agree, most people who think of themselves as "intellectuals" are usually the ones who sympathize with wrongdoers, generally because they think it makes them seem "smart" and rather elitist. True intellectuals are generally modest and humble and use their time studying what they are interested in, rather than spending their time trying to make themselves look important.
Theological take: Tillich.
Summary: Justice without love is overly harsh, love without justice is excessive sentimentality.
Many of the intellectual elite inhabit the virtual worlds of Academia or Government, where money is in endless supply and actions are not always connected to consequences. In contrast there is the Real World inhabited by the productive class. Here failure results when expenses due exceed accounts received. The victims of criminal acts suffer, perpetrators are justly called to account. As Rand said, in the real world A equals A.
It's a perspective thing.
I agree with Javadoug and Dr. Dalrymple. Psuedo-intellectuals believe they are superior because they can see "deeper" into a problem than the average Joe. The problem is what they "see" often has no basis in reality and is maladaptive.
There is also the fact that many intellectuals feel alienated from society, and would like to be criminals - but they don't have the stones. Empathizing with their secret heroes is second best.
Crude analysis- maybe the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals side with criminals to feel better about their geekiness, their lack of success on the athletic or social fields? maybethey, side with the criminals just to prove that despite being geeks/dorks/nerds with PhD, they are "oh so much smarter" than the guys who were successful socially,and in athletic endevours in high school. Most professors I know seem to fall into that category.
Dorks trying to overcome the knowledge that they are dorks- so theyhave to say or write stuff that makes them look "intellectual" or "edgy" :):)
While the points you are making are all plausible, I would like to add another possibility. The liberal intellectuals that we are discussing generally hold a world view that ranges from humanity is good and only imperfect systems make him bad, to believing that all people can be redeemed by the right program of therapy and/or government intervention.
They believe that we can make ourselves perfect, or at least MUCH "better" than we are now. From that position, their belief that EVERY criminal is, deep in their heart, good, forces an empathy with criminal and perpetrators. It is consistent but wrong in that it is based on an incorrect foundation, that humanity is good. The same fallacy underlies Communism. Of course some of this crowd are pompus windbags on top of it.
These are the folks who use psychology to try to explain away a perpetrator's ream moral guilt by bringing up how the perpetrator was a victim as a child. Psychology is a powerful tool for understanding why perpetrators are who they are, but it is ill used when someone uses it to keep a perpetrator from getting justice for their choices.
Trey
"True intellectuals are generally modest and humble and use their time studying what they are interested in, rather than spending their time trying to make themselves look important."
------
... "which is coincidentally exactly like I am," she confidently thought, quietly beaming with the knowledge that she was an intellectual superior to the other intellectuals.
^ asshole
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think a large portion is their belief that it can't happen to them or maybe that it can't easily happen to them.
I'm more interested in people who, when facing exactly the same circumstances during development, did not succumb and become predators. Those who had nothing during childhood and then worked to achieve instead of robbed, who became upside down in their mortgage and buckled down to pay it off instead of torching the house. Those are more satisfying stories.
Then we have those who see someone whose occupation is, say, clinical psychology make a judgment call as to why some people sympathize with criminals, not at all trying to make themselves look important or superior to those being judged, then through misunderstanding, ignorance or misplaced 'wit', simply snark, obliquely projecting that they are amongst the sympathizers.
"BC: Why do we as a society automatically extend empathy and compassion to criminals rather than the victims of their crimes?"
"We" don't.
I am betting that except for the areas 200 miles in from the costs, and within 50 miles of a University elsewhere, you won't find 1% of the "we" that have such soft heads.
Could these be two possible explanations:
1. Their "misbehavior" is explained by disease and/or genetics. Thus they are not responsible for their actions - this is beyond their control.
2. Their socio-economic situation predisposes them to their activity. If only they had a sufficient income, had grown up in a better environment, in other words if only the government had done something (spend as much money as it takes) to make their lives better - they wouldn't be this way. So ultimately, in this case, its those who put constraints on the taxation policies of government who are responsible.
I honestly believe this is how a majority of intellectuals understand the criminal mind and think they are being compassionate by sympathizing with them and treating them as the real victims.
Dr. Helen - I'm a long-time reader of your blog and have enjoyed it greatly. However, my first comment ever on your blog is to correct something that I see as a gross mischaracterization of Malcolm Gladwell's new book "Outliers."
That success Mr. Gladwell described was none other than J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was of course the architect of the Manhattan Project during the Second World War. I agree that Dr. Openheimer wasn't an *ethical* success in his attempt to poison someone, but there is no doubting whatsoever that he was a scientific genius, and very successful in helping end WWII.
There is nothing that I can tell in Outliers that suggests anything like an undue sympathy towards "victims" whether real or imagined.
Well, there are some other possibilities. Perhaps, for example, many of the "intellectuals" have had to do things which are outside of moral and ethical bounds in order to find a place in that circle. As well, it may be that "intellectuals" hate the average person because that average person fits in with crowds, doesn't need to think a thing to death they just seem to "do", among other reasons, and so anything that hurts the average Jane or Joe is a good thing.
Considering that "intellectuals" are currently chosen by people of questionable morality and ethical base (other "intellectuals"), and those possibilities, among others, become much more supportable. Considering that intellectuals are chosen FOR reasons which are contrary to common and historic ethical and moral basics... leftist politics, being single, gay, a minority, an atheist, and a few other keynotes will propel a career, while the reverse will hurt it. And of course, then the criminal becomes a doer of the "intellectual's" will.
I quote the term intellectual because I think, for the most part, it is a farce. I think of it akin to calling the best gamer (PC, X Box, whatever), a professional or expert. It just doesn't work.
Hi Terry,
Thanks for writing. I don't doubt that Openheimer is a genius. Gladwell is talking about what makes a success. He talks about Chris Langan, a genius who left college because he lost a scholarship, later had to work and couldn't get some morning classes moved to afternoon and was incapable, in Gladwell's eyes, of talking his way out of this mess like Openheimer who he states has the "particular skill that allows you to talk your way out of a murder rap..." Langan lives in rural Missouri on a horse farm, he seems content and has a nice wife and books to read. Gladwell seems to deem him a failure. I deem him a moral success and the other guy a moral failure. I get the feeling from reading Gladwell's book that he would have deemed Langan a success if he also had beat a murder rap to get to the top. Otherwise he would not hold him up as an example of a failed genius.
Doom --
"... leftist politics, being single, gay, a minority, an atheist, and a few other keynotes will propel a career, while the reverse will hurt it."
Please. Intellectuals are all of the opposites as well. Your list reads like a set of personal biases.
Much like 99% of artists, "intellectuals" -- and I quote it as well -- are simply those who feel that their ideas are the only right ones and the bulk of society is simply too stupid or controlled to see how grand they are.
They come in all stripes.
Dr. Helen - I think the disagreement lies in the definition of success, certainly a multi-faceted concept. Gladwell's implied definition of success is characterized in the traditional way - fame, power, money. Other people he discusses as examples of success are Bill Gates, a fellow whose name escapes me but who founded the one of the largest M&A firms in the world.
Gladwell used Oppenheimer as an example simply because we've heard of him, but very few have heard of Chris Langan. Why is this? The answer is the crux of Gladwell's book.
Thanks again for discussing this with me. I've enjoyed your blog so much, especially your views on male bashing, that I feel a bit bad that the first communication is a disagreement.
Best,
Terry
My family was familiar with Openheimer, as my Uncle Emil Konopinski was also involved with the Manhattan Project (his dog was even named "Gadget" after the atomic weapon). My parents and my Uncle all considered Opie to be a "stuffed shirt" and a self agrandizer of almost comical dimentions. As for sympathizing with crooks, I guess I'm old school in thinking that a man is supposed to be Honor, Courage and Faith. I don't think modern people have a real firm grasp of what Honor is, or even that it exists, and that is the problem. It seems to be all about "me first" or "Devil take the hindmost" any more. Pitiful!
Fascinating.
Dr. Helen, I've encountered a few intellectuals (literary types all) who seemed to take this much farther and actually identified with criminals and criminality. Have you observed this, and if so what insights do you have?
Oligonicella,
Oh? That is not what I have heard in conversations with associate professors, professors (who do the choosing, hearing what they are looking for), and grad students working their way up the chain. As well, I was asked by a professor if I understood that my "sort" was not allowed in his school (Ivy League). And, yes, I did. We had covered all the basis for entrance. Everything, at the time, was fine. Until he found out about my politics. I had gone to check about entrance, but more to see if what he confirmed was indeed true. I know in some schools, it is not just staff and faculty which must be "liberal".
Of the Catholic professors I know, all indicate they know to keep religion completely out of discussions, their office, or anywhere public, on or off campus, except for their Church attendance. I see fear in their eyes when they discuss the issue.
Believe what you will.
Terry,
No worries. We can agree to disagree. Thanks for being so polite--it is sometimes a rarity in blog comments!
pst314,
Yes, I have encountered intellectuals who identify with criminals. I think that there is a part of them that thinks people are close to the edge and will do anything if mentally or emotionally unstable or if involved in a bad childhood etc. They think, "there for the grace of God go" or perhaps more accurately, that could be me or anyone. Perhaps they feel so on edge, they think everyone is. There is a secret wish sometimes, on their part, to be able to put one over on others, and perhaps they secretly or not so secretly admire people who have the guts to do so. Perhaps there is also less of a moral compass in some intellectuals--some studies show liberals do not get the moral values of conservatives etc--so perhaps they see punishing criminals as morally wrong, but overlook the damage they do. In addition, if they feel that a criminal is smart--look at the Norman Mailer fiasco where he lobbied for murderer Jack Abott's release --than the bad guy gets a pass. "Hey, they think, this guy is a lot like me!" I think some intellectuals also glamorize these criminals, if they are smart or if they have the right liberal ideas or are in a victim status group.
Helen- I think with a lot of academic types, the Walter Mitty Syndrome seems to be in effect. Both in male and female academics.
A lot of academics are dorks/nerds/geeks, who still are smarting over the fact that they were not the most popular, or good looking, or brave, or athletic, or socially successful during their formative years.
Some, therefore begin to hate human society,and hence idolise criminals, and identify with criminals. I bet if one were to do a survey, a lot of academics will be shown to be people who hate other humans,and who lack morals and ethics. Just look at the way they behave in academia, gossiping, scheming, back-stabbing each other.
We need to talk about exactly what we mean by "intellectual." A newspaper writer with a journalism degree may well have most of the political & social attitudes that we associate with intellectuals, but is unlikely to have either much depth of knowledge or breadth of intellectual interests.
Perhaps it is time to bring back the medieval usage of the word "clerks" to refer to those who earn their livings from writing & reading.
Thomas Sowell had a great quote in his wonderful book "Visions of The Anointed" that put it much the same way.
He wrote: "..the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else?"
Doom --
Politics only covers the leftist trait. I agree most colleges heavily lean left, but on the topic of intellectual, it's not just those in college, but over a broad spectrum of society and I don't think your list fits the general population of them.
It is clear to me now that I misunderstood the usage of the terms here.
I mistakenly thought "intellectual" referred to a person who routinely used their minds to ponder problems of interest.
Silly me.
Clearly an "unintellectual" as the term is being used here is one of the effete eastern university castrati who could not think a problem through without a acript if their lives depended upon it.
Seems to me that by definition, an intellectual lacks empathy. My suspicion isn't that intellectuals sympathize with the criminal per se, but find the criminal much more interesting. To be honest, with some notorious criminals they have a point; however most criminals really are just thugs. Same with despots, but intellectuals and liberals seem to see into them more than is really there as well. I wonder if they simply have no concept of evil.
(And hanging around empaths, for lack of a better word, is even more annoying than hanging around intellectuals, so let's not go to the other extreme.)
Tigerhawk has a good point: one of the most annoying aspects of both the far left and far right is the notion that society isn't a gestalt of the people within it, but the people are victims of the society--that society is an enemy.
Thus, for liberals poverty exists because the poor are being preyed on by the rich. For conservatives, pornography exists because evil doers are trying to pervert the good. Both sides refuse to acknowledge that we are largely self-determinate people. The perpetually poor may not have chosen that condition directly, but have chosen to do nothing about it. Likewise, pornography exists because people because people choose to view it. It just struck me that it's only a matter of time before the poverty pimps clue into the anti-porn pimps and invent "Poverty Addiction". Perhaps they already have.
Strange thread.
When did "conservative" have anything to do with pornography?
Depending on historical period, it has only to do with governance00currently small governments, in the past, entrenched governments (royalty).
What is "pornography" anyway? A royal governor auctioning off a Senate seat?
Oligonicella,
Ah, sure. I have been called that, if I do not accept the term, preferring to be considered more of a curious tinkerer, or trivia pursuit type, if I do tend to go into math and science. I lack any real academic qualities, for the most part. But more, there is nothing that sets the boundary for being an intellectual today. A classical liberal education is much more rare and professionally and culturally becoming a dinosaur (sadly), and even if it is found and taken, it is not the cornerstone it once was (and glue that gave intellectuals a common base to all come together and from whence they could draw on common thought, ideals, terms, etc.).
I suppose, because of a lack of any other means of describing an intellectual, I commonly link it directly with academics. My pardon. I was wrong. But, thanks for sticking it out. :p
Good discussion Dr. H.
I would add that it may be more than an "intellectual" simply feeling the need to enlighten the uneducated. I think that criminal typology plays a role in whether an "intellectual" defends the behaviors of an individual or not. For example, "intellectuals" are much more eager to defend the actions of a murderer by explaining possible motivations, as opposed to him/her offering support for the chemical plant engineer who illegal dumped waste into a river or a glue huffer who threw two stray dogs off of a bridge overpass--context of the crime is a factor.
When did "conservative" have anything to do with pornography?
You missed the broader point; both the far left and far right refuse to see society as the gestalt of those who live in it, but rather as some sort of beast independent of the group. The anti-pornography approach by the far right is an excellent example of this (as is the anti-drug stance.)
(Popular television may be an even better example; pick just about any popular TV program and there is some group that firmly believe this program is being forced on the viewers. My observation is that this group will generally have a strong left or right wing bias. Regardless, this view is the source of such nonsense as the V-chip since, I suppose, the on/off switch requires the individual take responsibility for themselves and to not blame everyone else.)
"the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see."
This makes perfect sense, and yet the question remains: Intellectuals didn't used to be like this. So what changed?
I think one important factor was economic:
For most of history intellectuals tended to be poor--aside from the idle rich who chose scholarly careers, they depended on wealthy patrons (the church, nobles, universities). But although poor, they were highly respected as literacy was far from universal, educational opportunities were very limited, and actual scholarship was rare.
The industrial revolution changed all that: Suddenly even ordinary working people had money. In 20th Century America a mere brick-layer could own a nice home, two cars, a summer cottage, and a boat. Worse, these yahoos were writing letters to the editor and even daring to run for office. (Note how our liberal "intellectuals" have treated Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.)
Intellectuals did not lose status in absolute terms, but they did in relative terms as the "lower" classes rose; and in matters of status everything is relative. So, something had to be done to correct this, hence the intellectuals' search for ways to distinguish themselves from the lowbrow and middlebrow masses. What better way than to embrace esoteric theories (the more incomprehensible the better) and perverse value systems?
Doom --
If you thought I was directing the quoted "intellectual" at you, I wasn't. If my writing was unclear, I apologize.
All my commentary has been targeted at those intellectuals who do seem to identify with say, Che Guevara and the like, ignoring the reality of the beasts they really were.
I don't get the emotional fascination. I never have and probably never will.
Academic != Intellectual. And neither equals "deep thinker." And maybe shallow is good sometimes!
What some have recognized is that there is a point of desperation that will turn the average moral man to criminal acts. "Society" sometimes does have a role to play in this. Most times, not.
Most times, in fact, society serves to assure that desperation does not become a factor. It is those who are in some way estranged from society that most often suffer that desperation.
So, while I do not blame "society" I am concerned with how we've organized it that overlooks certain peoples' needs and why.
I don't think that majority of criminals fall into the category I'm thinking of. I really do think most of them are merely thugs. I agree with TMink that humans are not innately good. Rather than blame "society" for the bad, I credit it with most of the good.
I think part of it has to do with taking a couple steps: the first, *from* the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, *to* extreme concern that particular alleged criminals' rights may be violated, and concern for the person him/her self: The political becomes personal. I think that's valid concern on it's face, because of the injustices of our justice system (like when an "alleged" rapist is assumed to be guilty).
But the problem is going to the *next* step - concern for the *actual* criminal, i.e. one already proven guilty. I'm not a psychologist so won't speculate about the exact process involved in going to that step. I think there are some valid concerns related to this, such as maltreatment of prisoners (for example, in California's prison system, an inmate dies every 7-8 days due to inadequate medical care alone.)
But somehow a few valid concerns become a some sort of "critical mass", or group psychology(?) takes over and you end up with a bunch of overly sensitive ninnies.
(I don't think *all* lefties fall into that category though - just the ones who are liberals.
Langan lives in rural Missouri on a horse farm, he seems content and has a nice wife and books to read. Gladwell seems to deem him a failure.
Just finished reading Outliers and I think you may have misunderstood what Gladwell is trying to explain with the Oppenheimer/Langan comparison.
The two underlying themes of the book are that no one achieves success alone and having a genius intellect by itself will not lead to success because one's environment and/or culture provides other necessary tools for success.
Langan's case is used to illustrate the latter point, that pure genius isn't enough. Langan tried and failed to graduate from college for reasons that seemed fairly trivial; while Oppenheimer not only finished his education but went on to lead the Manhattan Project, even though he tried to kill his academic advisor while a student.
The difference is that Oppenheimer had the necessary social/people skills to persuade other people to give him what he wanted or needed, skills Langan did not acquire while growing up because of the unstable environment and culture in which he was raised.
Langan is considered a failure in the book only because he failed to achieve the academic goals he himself had set. And this failure, Gladwell stated, has relegated one of the highest IQs in the country to a horse farm where he labors in obscurity on academic treatises that will never see the light of day because he doesn't have the proper educational background.
Langan didn't strike me as a particularly content individual, rather I got the sense he is very frustrated in his inability to explore his ideas with other academics possessing similar intellectual firepower.
Langan may be more content in his life today, but Gladwell's point still stands, Langan failed to achieve his intellectual and academic goals because a great intellect is not enough.
Robert said...
There is also the fact that many intellectuals feel alienated from society, and would like to be criminals - but they don't have the stones. Empathizing with their secret heroes is second best.
9:39 AM, December 10, 2008
I think this is the truth. FTW.
Notice how the media continues their coverup of the Channon Christian/Christopher Newsome murders. Black on white hate crimes of the most vicious, brutal kind. If it were the other way around, we'd have non-stop coverage for 2 years now. This is beyond outrageous.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out there exists causal forces when it comes to the subject of "criminals". When you care enough to see that the prison system is on the stock market and many many people are "grabbed" simply for money, many things may expressed in their defense. Also, considering the rampant stupidity of the average citizen, it doesn't take much to be an intellectual at all these days. I understand some of the backlash against "intellectuals" in our communities; but try living life without The Jeffersons, Einsteins, of our world. The average person doesn't really know that much about anything at all and perhaps should jsut shut and learn a thing or two.
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道a片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天sex383線上娛樂場sex888sex520免費影片sex999免費影片情色視訊sex85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費 a 片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片aaa片免費看短片aa免費看aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片5278論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
383視訊影音城視訊交友web365kiss168下載a視訊聊天室v6 0台灣成人網免費線上歐美av美女美女美女遊戲無碼a片美女寫真xxx383美女寫真日本美女寫真集玩美女人a片網aio交友愛情館tt1069同志交友網情色交友0401成人交友拓網交友pc交友小魔女免費影片sex383線上娛樂場xvediox
Post a Comment
<< Home