The psychopath, media and social work.

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Background

We believe that the social worker that works for the communities, states, governments or other similar organizations are not free from influence or pressure from the society and the cultural norms within it. The social worker is in many ways also representative for the society which also is influenced by its population. We believe that there also exist cultural differences in the use or definition of a psychopath or psychopathy as a concept. For this reason it’s interesting to make a comparative research in this area. We are not using the client perspective in this thesis. To examine how the psychopath finds himself perceived by the general public isn’t our main focus. This is also a point of criticism we have, that one rarely ask the diagnosed psychopath himself/herself about their subjective opinion. It’s difficult to have a meaningful exchange with someone that is diagnosed as a narcissist and has a alter state of perceiving himself/herself. We will instead focus on the influence made by the media, which the social worker is exposed to in the quest to maintain a general knowledge of the current set of norms and values valid in society. The social workers perception is critical during the exercise of his or her duties during the practice of social work. To have a preconceived notion or prejudice is harmful both in the client-professional relationship as well as for the outcome of the actual social work.

The psychopath, media and social work

The first use of the term “psychopath” in the context in which we today apply it came from Vienna based doctor Ernst von Feuchtersleben in 1845, yet it would not gain recognition until 1888 when Julius Ludwig August Koch used it in his writing on “psychopatische Minderwertigkeiten (Lingh, 2011). Older recordings of what was called “moral insanity”, “insanity without delusion” and similar definitions can be seen as far back as to the old Greeks where Plato back in 380 B.C. analyzed the nature of a tyrant in his “The Republic, book II” and Aristotles depiction of a group of people displaying a “brutal nature” in his “Nicomachean Etics”(Lingh, 2011), but the first modern theorist to provide a clinical definition of psychopathy was American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley with his book “The mask of sanity”, first published in 1941 (Cleckley, 2011). He produces 16 common qualities of a psychopath in the form of a checklist (Cleckley, 2011) and these are the basis for most of the following experts on the subject, like Robert Hare whose “Psychopathy Checklist, Revised” is the most commonly used way of affirming psychopathy today (Hare, 2003).
The term was used early in Sweden, as early as 1849, in Carl Ulrik Sondéns writings on psychopathology and in 1917 it was adopted by the Swedish Psychiatric Association, which started a still ongoing debate on the use, misuse and social impact surrounding the definition (Lingh, 2011).
Even if psychopathy is a widely used term in the psychiatric field it has not been listed in the most common system of mental disorder; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) produced by the American Psychiatric Association and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) produced by the World Health Organization. The closest thing they have is DSM-IV’s Antisocial Personality Disorder and ICD-10’s Dissocial Personality Disorder, which share behavioral similarities with psychopathy but does not fully take into account the lack of empathy that the psychopath criteria holds. Robert D. Hare (2003) writes that the average clinician would not properly asses the complicated personality trait criteria required to diagnose psychopathy, but would rather make assumptions based on the acts perpetrated by the individual, since these are more easily identified in DSM-IV. Yet in DSM-IV there is mentioning of psychopathy in the text describing Antisocial Personality Disorder, which causes some confusion and has made DSM-IV to recommend that the diagnoses Antisocial Personality Disorder should be reviewed and be called Antisocial/Dissocial Personality Disorder instead, and have Antisocial/Psychopathic Type as a subgroup.
The psychopath has a personality that is characterized by their extreme egocentricity and the ability to successfully lie, manipulate and use the people around them for their own purposes (Hare, 2003). Emotionally they are shallow, superficial and show a severe lack of remorse, guilt and empathy, as well as reduced feelings of fear and stress (Hare, 2003 & Cleckley, 2011). Their behavior is very impulsive, irresponsible and with a great need for stimulation and with a parasitic and often criminal lifestyle (Hare, 2003 & Cleckley, 2011). They have weak impulse control and are drawn towards different forms of substance abuse, but not to find feelings of relief or dullness but to experience stimulation (Lingh, 2011). It is hard to fully understand the charm and confidence the psychopath is able to exhibit, sense he does it with a full certainty of his own ability and without any feelings of guilt or remorse (Hare, 2003). He does what he wants and do not care how it affects anyone around him, because to him other people are not living, thinking or feeling individuals (Cleckley, 2011).
The image of the psychopath is hard to conceive without drifting away towards perceptions given to us by movies, books and newspapers. The unconsidered use of the word “psycho” is in itself a term that just enhances this. Is the social worker immune to this? Is the social worker through good education and good intentions above this?
There are few references on how to handle a person with this diagnosis from Socialstyrelsen that are useful. There are recommendations on what indicates psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder (Socialstyrelsen, 2011), and where to send people for further evaluation (SOSFS 1996:14), but as for the actual face to face meeting and the handling of cases involving people with the diagnosis there is no help to be found. So what the social worker has got to use is his or her training and education.
The definition of social work is stated by The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) as:
“The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being. Utilizing theories of human behavior and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments. Principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work.”
Social work has a history of categorizing their clients, often with the best of intention, and therefore they are themselves part of creating “outsiders” (Swärd, 2008). Swärd claims that the process of creating norms for clients is a way to assess if they are worth helping or not. If they are not, they will have to make an effort, in what French philosopher Michel Foucault calls a self-discipline technique (1986, 1987). There are studies that have shown that when labelling clients, social workers tend to do so in a negative way (Gingerich, Kleczewski & Kirk, 1982).
As a client you have to adjust and fit the mold. However the clinical psychopath does not fit the mold, and is often not even able to, for more than short periods of time. They will lie, cheat and adjust to get what they need, but are often not able to do so more than momentarily (Hare, 1997). So what the social worker has to go after, and often the first thing the social workers reads in the case file, is the diagnosis: psychopath, a classic outsider and also unable to reform. It is hard not to get affected by this. Malcolm Payne (1999) says that social work should have a moral base and it is the social workers task to make moral judgment on behalf of society. Each individual carries their own moral foundation, and in social work it has to be put into a professional frame to find what is and is not “acceptable”. Therefore our morals need to be in tune with the climate we are working in (Payne, 1999). Being part of the society and sharing its values also means exposure to claims-makers who construct what we read about and what we care about; the media. A successful way of getting the media consumer to take in the point that is made is not just to make them think, but more importantly to feel, and a common procedure in executing this is by manufacture feelings connected with victims or villains (Loseke, 2008). In Losekes Thinking about social problems she argues that the villains are blamed with causing the suffering of the victims, and culturally the feeling of blame and responsibility should be accompanied by the emotions of hatred and condemnation, followed by a will to implement punishment. The media can add fuel to this by causing a “moral panic”, a reaction of social concern over a deviation of the established social norm (Cohen, 1972).

Introduction
Research questions.
Background.
The psychopath, media and social work.
Earlier research
Theory and concept
Method
methods
methods
Criteria and demarcation
Search words
Criteria and method regarding scientific literature
Data analysis
Extracts from articles
Ethical considerations
Results
Discussion
Result discussion
Method discussion
Validity and reliability
References
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Psychopaths in the media Criminals, madmen or hidden among us? Jonas Molin & Tony Abbass Nagim Dissertation, 15 credits, bachelor thesis Social Work Jönköping, January 2013