Caspar Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> remarked:
> Michael Spencer recently noted (on the futurework listserv) the
> sociopathic nature of the publicly-held corporation. The correct word
> is sociopath ("a person who lacks social or moral responsibility
> because of a mental illness"- World Book Dictionary), not psychopath,
> which merely means a person with a severe mental illness (of any kind).
The correct term is "antisocial personality disorder".
The essential feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder is a
pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights
of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and
continues into adulthood.
This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy,
or dyssocial personality disorder. Because deceit and
manipulation are central features of Antisocial Personality
Disorder....
-- Diagnostic and Satistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th
ed. (aka DSM-IV), American Psychiatric Association, 1994,
Section 301.7.
I prefer the "psychopath" variant because it has a greater
conversational impact. The APA does not, of course, envision
juridicial corporate entities as candidates for a diagnosis so the
metaphor is inexact. But if you read the entire section, it only
fails of an accurate characterization of the observable and publically
embraced behavior of corporations where the diagnostic criteria allude
explicitly to age, gender, socioeconomic status, childhood antecedents
and the like natural-person details.
> The legal system forces publicly held corporations to act like
> sociopaths even if they would rather not.
Well, I think it's ok to say that corporations "act" in certain ways.
But they don't "would rather", that is, they don't have opinions or
preferences. The employees, including the senior executives, are
people with preferences or even conscience and they *might* "rather"
not be the agents of psychopathic behavior. If Derber is right,
though, and the power players within the corporate world are the
equivalant of hit men, not only morally but in underlying personality,
then they simply don't *care* about the moral dimension or the
consequences of deceit and manipulation.
The head of -- I forget -- the company responsible for the Bhopal
disaster announced that he would devote the rest of his life to making
it right insofar as it was possible. A year or so later he and the
company were back to business as usual and stonewalling support or
compensation. Was his penitence authentic but evanescent, regretably
evaporating in the putative rationality of the executive suite? Or
was it pure public opinion manipulation, calculated crisis management,
epistemological engineering? I dunno, but common sense says there's a
limit to how much cognitive dissonance one can support before one's
beliefs and personality absorb the values implicit in one's daily
actions.
> It is surely time to do something about such a system.
It certainly is. What's the first step? Umm...Ok, ok. I guess I
need to read the Derber book. Or go see him in Boston. Or somthing.
But I've read a lot of books and remain unenlightened about effective
steps.
Good review. Thanks for posting it.
Regards,
- Mike
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/mspencer/home.html
---
