What is Psychopathy?
Psychopathy involves affective personality styles (Jurjako par. 1). It typically is seen as a mental disorder. People suffering from it -psychopaths- then to pose a multitude of societal conflicts (4). Psychopaths are more likely than any other group of people to be violent and commit crimes, moreover, they tend to have no empathy for others, and do not feel remorseful for the things that they have done (Jurjako par. 1; Pemment par. 10). According to Pemment Psychopaths tend to have a well-developed conscience and a sense of morality, though, what they consider as right or wrong is unlike the parent or host culture (par. 10). Over the years as research about psychopathy developed, a list of common psychopathic tendencies was created.
The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (HPC) was created to identify psychopathy, it is a 20-item rating scale of psychopathic (antisocial) personality disorder, since it was published over 35 years ago, it has been widely used in research and clinical settings. The HPC is commonly used to assess the risk of violent behavior(Pemment par. 1). Some of the traits that it consists of are: “criminal versatility, superficial charm, failure to accept responsibility for own action, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying and deception, conning or manipulative, and lack of remorse or guilt” (Berninger par.6). Carwin’s lack of remorse for harming others is a quality shared with many other psychopaths.
In literature like many other fields of research psychopathy is categorised as a mental illness and disorder. However, some researchers like Jurjako disagree with this classification. He argues that this distinction between mental illness is crucial as some judiciary systems may use it to determine social policy (par.2). In some instances as Jurjako highlights, psychopathy may be treated as an aggravating character. According to Aspinwall et al. there is a tendency to severely punish psychopathic criminals in contrast to non-psychopaths (par. 2).
Though, that is not always the case, as some jurisdictions may view the accused as being a victim of psychopathy, so instead of throwing them in jail, these criminals are sent to mental institutions. Arguably, going to a mental institution may be worse for the criminal’s mental health. This distinction is significant psychopathy is an aspect considered when jurisdictions want to know who to hold accountable for their crimes (par.2). This can be seen in Wieland as the court imprisons Wieland for killing his family, but does not attempt to arrest Carwin, though they knew that he was somehow connected to all the killings
For more information watch this video Sociopath vs Psycopath
What characteristics does Carwin in Wieland exhibit?
- Carwin repeatedly states that he realized the dangers of his powers, but at every inconvenience, he used them (149). This reveals that not only is he careless, but he only behaves in ways that benefit himself.
- Carwin uses his skill in ventriloquism to manipualte Wieland into killing his family. He seems to do so just because he can, thus feeding into his grandiose sense of self.
- He acts without thinking of the consequences. This can be seen when Carwin confesses to Clara about what he did to Pleyel and admits to enjoying it (155-158).
Reflection Questions
- By connecting some of Carwin’s behavior to that of a sociopath , does that change your opinion of him?
- What other similarities do you see between Carwin and sociopaths?
- In this case who do you think is to blame, Carwin or Wieland?
I agree with several things you stated about Carwin being a sociopath, such as the fact that he overstepped several, if not many, social and legal bounties (e.g trespassing). I also agree that he is highly deceptive and manipulative in a sense that he lied about multiple things and impersonated different people throughout the novel, all of which he did for selfish motivations. However, I feel like Carwin lacks many characteristics that identify him as a sociopath. First aspect that is lacking in his personality (assuming he is a sociopath) is the violence (i.e causing harm or fighting others) considering that he never actually demonstrated any acts of violence, or even had the tendency to. The second lacking aspect is the being emotionless, or being reluctant to show emotions whether of guilt or remorse, which Carwin has done (this can be up for debate, as to whether he is genuine or not, but he nevertheless confessed his emotions). I think Carwin demonstrates many sociopathic traits, but he is not a sociopath; instead, a person with a machiavellian personality. In psychology, Machiavellianism “refers to a personality trait which sees a person so focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals” (https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/machiavellianism-psychology.htm) I believe Carwin orients more towards this type of personality rather than a sociopathic personality.
These are great questions — and I like Shamma’s above complication of adding “machiavellian” to the mix. We could ask these of the other confidence men we encounter in the course.
Your last question – “In this case who do you think is to blame, Carwin or Wieland?” – is one I struggle with each time I read this novel. I suppose that I think that each of them (and all the characters) have some “blame” to take for the series of events and its violent culmination. Though I would lay the heaviest responsibility on Carwin, I think they each have their “frailties” that allow him the space for his manipulations. However, while I would say that the whole Wieland family (and Pleyel) are victims in the novel, I find it really difficult to think of Carwin as a victim.
I enjoyed hearing your different (and passionate!) thoughts on this in Monday’s class.
This is such an insightful post. I had a hard time deciding how I felt about Carwin’s character, which I think is one of the strongest elements of the novel. I like how you apply the antisocial personality disorder to Carwin which would explain why he did not necessarily need any motivation to do what he was doing. Deceiving others because he could (by using his different voices) was enough for him.
Yet I do not view Carwin as a sociopath per se, because even though he is portrayed as an evil character in the novel and is described as such many times by Clara herself, in the end I do not see any vile intentions and motivations behind his behavior.
He was definitely a stalker who wanted to exercise the power and abilities he had to deceive others for his amusement. Nevertheless, I believe that the driving force behind his actions is not to bring them to ruin, destroy them or make them kill for him (which is one of the traits of a sociopath, as you mentioned). Even if he wanted to mess with their lives because he hadn’t made much of his own, or because he saw them as intriguing figures and wanted to test their integrity, Carwin also wanted to fit in, to belong to such a close community as that of the “family” of Wielands and Pleyels.
I however understand why Carwin can be viewed as the source of all evil and a destructive force. I think the novel does a masterful job in creating a mysterious Carwin, about whom we can never know for sure, by surrounding him in a veil of ambiguity and uncertainty enabling many different and complex interpretations.
I enjoyed reading more about the characteristics of a sociopath and what categorizes someone as a sociopath. I see what makes you link Carwin’s personality traits with the characteristics of a sociopath, however, if you scrutinize Carwin deeply in the novel he doesn’t necessarily fit the criteria.
Yes, he includes some characteristics such as deceptiveness in terms of how he manipulated Clara, Weiland, and Pleyel in ways different whether it’s Weiland killing his wife and kids or Pleyel believing that Clara has committed an unfaithful action. on the other hand, I agree with Shamma he does lack several aspects of being a sociopath ( he shows emotion and guilt regarding what he’s committed as well as does not hurt or harm any of them).
personally, my opinion regarding who the villain is in the novel is Weiland and has not changed. if anything, I think Weiland is the one with a psychotic disorder considering he was relying on imaginary voices and religion “to make a sacrifice for god” and kill his whole family.