The Psychopath Factory: How Capitalism Organises Empathy

by Tristam Vivian Adams

Psychopaths seem to be everywhere. They are on the news and at the movies. People who lack empathy, be they ruthless entrepreneurs or crazed spree killers are frequently labeled psychopathic; the charming socialiser is just as suspect as the awkward anti-social loner. The conception of what defines a psychopath seems to be a morass of contradictions, the only consistency being the supposition of a lack of empathy. The Psychopath Factory: How Capitalism Organises Empathy examines how the requirements, stimuli, affects and environments of work condition our empathy. In some cases, work calls for no empathy characters who don t blink or flinch in the face of danger nor crack under pressure. In other cases, capitalism requires empathy in spades charming, friendly, sensitive and listening managers, customer service agents and careers. When workers are required to either ignore their empathy to-do a job, or dial it up to increase productivity, they are entering a psychopathic modality. The affective blitz of work, flickering screens, emotive content, vibrating alerts and sounding alarms erode our sensitivities whilst we are modulated with attention stimulants, social lubricants and so called anti-anxiety drugs. This is amidst a virulent and exacerbating climate of competition and frenzied quantification. Capitalism pressures us to feign empathy and leverage social relationships on one hand, whilst being cold and pragmatic on the other. We are passionate and enthusiastic whilst keeping a professional distance. Sympathy, care, compassion and altruism are important; The Psychopath Factory: How Capitalism Organises Empathy argues that it is a mistake to presuppose that empathy can achieve these. Rather than being subject to the late capitalist organisation of our empathy, psychopathy could be a means of escape.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Politics

129 pages, Kindle Edition

Published December 15, 2016

Reviews

[Caroline · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Berger reminded me that everything modern comes back to capitalism, which in turn led me here. I liked, especially, the chapter on light.

[Stephie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hmm, some interesting ideas in here, but I quite disagree with the conclusion.

After explaining how capitalism both exploits and "organises" empathy, the author arrives at the conclusion that empathy is inefficient and should avoided in order to break free from capitalism. He argues that we do not need empathy as a basis for moral behaviour, which sounds very much like a lot of religious arguments to me. In fact, he seems to argue that empathy doesn't even actually exist under capitalism, only the appearance of empathy, therefore it is useless. He concludes that psychopathy is the best trait we can possess to change the world for the better, but this, to me, sounds like he is presenting another argument for capitalism. I think instead we should be working to restore the empathetic traits that have been abused by capitalism.

The conclusion came across as very muddled and unsound to me. It didn't seem to follow on logically from his previous arguments. I also couldn't avoid the feeling that there was a layer of sexism at play too -- at least in the sense that the author never touched on the patriarchal and racist structures of capitalism and how it is designed to benefit white people, especially white men, only. His argument for less empathy and more psychopathy sounds like all the other sexist arguments men have made over time -- that any sort of emotion or caring about others is useless and detrimental to our goals as a society.

Ultimately, I feel like this author is just a capitalist in sheep's clothing, even if he doesn't realise it.

[Sidney · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this at Chop Suey (local independent store) and picked it up almost entirely based on the title and cover. I found the argument somewhat tortured though some ideas were interesting. We are presented with the idea that empathy is central to psychopathy - not a new idea and not without controversy. Psychopaths are posited to be of two types - criminal and super-social. The latter follow the law and feign empathy. They are very successful - they make good leaders. We cannot identify them. The author presents various fictional accounts as evidence and tools to expand on this distinction. We are introduced to a fictional manufacturer of dangerous products which frequently cause harm. One employee cares deeply and is a failure. Another pretends to care and is very efficient. The bosses develop a training program for the first based on the second and he becomes less empathic and more successful. Capitalism, we are told, seeks to organize empathy. This leads to psychopathy (the feigning of empathy). By the end of the short book we are told that empathy is to be avoided so that we may break free of capitalism. We cannot trust empathy as the foundation of moral behavior (that many do not is briefly and unsatisfactorily addressed). Psychopathy will apparently set us free. Ok. This argument doesn't track for me.

[redrover · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing, pacing, and references are all over the place in a bad way. However, I learned a lot from reading this book and discussing it with others. It made me think critically about empathy and my relationship with work.

[Dave Pier · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short, provocative book, clearly and engagingly written in the beginning and the middle. Patchy and too compressed at the end.
Argues that psychopathy--defined as inability to empathize, or shielding against empathy--is endemic in late capitalism. Contemporary capitalism depends on performances of empathy--in, for example, customer service call centers. But if we were all actually to empathize all the time, we would be emotionally crippled so that we couldn't perform our jobs. So capitalism has normalized various means of shielding ourselves from emotional shocks (psycho-pharmaceuticals, mental distancing habits). We are each of us inhabiting a technologically amped up emotionally stimulating environment, but protected by a "scar tissue" of psychopathy. That doesn't make us criminal--on the contrary, psychopathy is normal.
Then argues that psychopathy itself could be a way of overcoming capitalism, because contemporary capitalism depends so much on empathy. Rather than trying to restore empathy, we should embrace our psychopathic shielding against it! This sounded worrisomely like fascism to me. But then Adams distinguishes "sympathy" (which he supports) from "empathy." Sympathy, if I understand correctly, means a rational, distanced understanding of another's feelings, as distinguished from empathy, which is about inhabiting someone else's feelings. This later part of the argument was way too compressed and sketchy, and I would have liked more explanation and more examples.

[Tanner · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting read and I recommend it! I ended up disagreeing with the conclusion that a lack of empathy can successfully combat a capitalist organization of the economy that relies on empathy. I would agree that capitalism relies on a broad array of human experiences such as empathy and a lack of empathy and modulates these to exploit them. However, what Adams seems to fail at is providing a method to overcome capitalism as organizations such as workers Unions also rely on (perhaps more genuine) empathy. The idea that psychopathic inscription is a means to combating capitalism is not a dangerous one (Adams definition of psychopathy does not include serial killers and popular depictions of violent psychopaths but rather psychopathy is defined specifically as a lack of empathy). The ideas in this book are not dangerous because they would remove a crucial tool in the fight against systemic oppression; (the true poison and cure that escapes Adam) our ability to recognize the suffering of others not just ourselves. Adams attempts a magic act in which the poison (psychopathy) becomes the cure, but his analysis lacks (he admits this out of the gates) real world impetus and his conclusion promotes the exact opposite of what real world evidence suggests, namely that empathy (genuine or not) is important to mobilizing the public against capitalism. In short, this was a fun albeit silly thought exercise.

[Z.S · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend this book, although a caveat is in order. First, it's heavily influenced by postmodern theorists, thus very dense and tortured in places. It makes some interesting points worth retaining, namely that non-criminal psychopathy is a mode we all enter in more or less occasionally.

[Kevin Gomis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whilst I might not agree with conclusion, the premise is very interesting and provides a unique viewpoint. Worth reading to challenge your assumptions and welcome the intellectual challenge of thinking through the concepts and how it might or might not apply / be in accord with my own understanding. References felt somewhat limited and a degree of confirmation bias / circularity seemed evident.

[Cameron Mckelvie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great title, meh book

[Paul · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'd rather deal with psychopaths than self-righteous windbags with nothing to say.

[Frank Karioris · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and agreeable thesis - that capitalism manipulates and organizes empathy in particular fashions and uses them for this for the perpetuation of itself. That said, the last chapter really weakens the book significantly unfortunately. Particularly the bringing up of the concept of 'sympathy', which really weakens things and muddies the waters in ways that is not helpful/useful.