HOME | DD
BookLyrm — A Study In Sherlockian Sociopathy
by-nc-nd
Published: 2011-12-24 20:27:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 1580; Favourites: 7; Downloads: 7
Redirect to original
Description
A Study in Sherlock: The Psychology of a High-Functioning SociopathLast year, the British Broadcasting Company aired Sherlock, a modern-day take on Sherlock Holmes. Although many of the show's details remain true to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories—the deductions, the outlandish experiments, the cabs all over London, even John Watson's service in Afghanistan—the show's writers built in an extra conflict around the main character. Like the titular character of House (who, incidentally, was inspired by Holmes), BBC's Sherlock has a bundle of questionable morals, personality traits, and habits that blur the line between good and bad, if not outright evil. His enthusiasm for his work manifests itself not just in his dedication to his cases, but in the delight he takes while inspecting crime scenes and in his overt excitement when a serial killer is on the loose. The interesting wrinkle, however, is that the series addresses this conduct head-on: rather than dismissing his behavior as excentricity, several acquainances insist that Sherlock is a psychopath. However, there is substantial evidence from Sherlock's actions that he is not as cold and unfeeling as he makes himself seem, and that the attitudes of those around him amplify the less savory parts of his character.
In order to redefine a gentlmanly—if not always polite—Victorian character as a possible psychopath, writer Steven Moffat devotes much of the first episode, "A Study in Pink," to establishing Sherlock's social character. Blunt and arrogant, he enjoys exposing details about the lives and activities of people around him, providing an unfiltered stream of often very personal information to anyone in the area before mocking and ridiculing those who cannot keep up with his observations. Mysterious deaths make him giddy ("Brilliant! Four serial suicides and now a note! It's Christmas!"), serial killers are a special treat ("I love those, there's always something to look forward to"), and life without an archenemy "sounds a bit dull." A few members of the police team that Sherlock works with have him pegged as a psychopath, insisting that "one day we'll be standing around a body and Sherlock Holmes'll be the one what put it there" just because he got bored. Sherlock, aware of the agents' opinions of him, has an opinion of his own: "I'm not a psychopath … I'm a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research." If anyone doubts this diagnosis—and quite honestly, the famous friendship between Holmes and Watson doesn't seem workable with a genuine sociopath—one scene at the end of the first episode reveals a genuinely disturbing side of his personality. When a serial killer, lying at his feet with a fatal bullet wound, withholds information, Sherlock doesn't just threaten that "there's still time to hurt" the criminal. He steps on the wound, essentially torturing a dying man to get information that is of interest only to Sherlock: the name of his mysterious "fan," Moriarty.
Sherlock does appear to fit many of the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, the more formal name for psychopathy. Generally defined as "a syndrome in which people show a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others," the detailed symptoms of antisocial personality disorder match up with several of Sherlock's behaviors (Oakley 50-51). He often "fails to conform to sosical norms with respect to lawful behavior" by withholding evidence (1:1), breaking into private residences (1:2, 3), and posing as a police officer (1:1, 3), all of which would normally be "grounds for arrest." Sherlock displays a "lack of remorse" for any annoyance, inconvenience, or anger his actions may cause others. The criteria that Sherlock meets most consistently and spectacularly are "impulsivity" and "reckless disregard for the safety of self" (Oakley 50): in 270 minutes he steps in front of two cars (1:1), breaks into buildings when no doors are open (1:2, 3), willingly meets with two serial killers in empty, out-of-the-way locations (1:1, 3), sneaks into places frequented by violent gangs (1:2), chases gunmen as they are firing on him (1:2) and hit men determined to kill him (1:3), and scratches the back of his head with a loaded gun (1:3).
As Barbara Oakley explains in her book, Evil Genes, "if those with antisocial personality disorder were thought of as being at the bottom of the hole of the human race, psychopaths would form the subgroup that took out the shovel and kept digging" (51). The second half of this description is key; while Sherlock is abrasive and rude, and meets several of the criteria for psychopathy, he rarely is or does so to an extent that others find completely unacceptable. His methods of obtaining evidence are sometimes dubiously legal, but they never directly cause innocent people harm. He lies and adopts personas, but always for the good of a case—never just because he feels like it and never longer than necessary to get the information he needs (1:2, 3). Although he sometimes seems to lack empathy, especially when it could distract him from a case (1:1, 3), Sherlock never tries to "rationaliz[e] having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another," and his "lack of remorse" is difficult to gauge because his actions and comments, however outlandish, rarely cause another even subtle harm (Oakley 51). (I'll deal with the previously mentioned serial killer later.) Finally, although he is not concerned with his own safety and disregards others' psychological well-being if it is irrelevant to a case ("She doesn't matter, she's just a hostage—no lead there" [1:3]), Sherlock is anything but reckless with the physical safety of others. He encourages those in danger to hide (1:2), runs into gunfire to protect potential victims (1:2), and refuses to rest until he has met a hostage-holder's requirements for the release of the captive (1:3).
A closer look at the series reveals that Sherlock's regular interpersonal behavior is not even that out of the ordinary. For now it is impossible to know the back story behind Sherlock's arrangement with the police, but in all the available episodes the detective never initiates a tense exchange with an officer. Instead, his nastiness is purely retaliatory: Only after someone has called him a freak, psychopath, or "arrogant sod," after someone has questioned or dismissed his methods and conclusions, does he start ridiculing intelligence (1:1, 2, 3) or announcing the signs that a married officer is having an affair (1:1). Sherlock is generally polite to witnesses or when gathering information; impatience and annoyance he reserves for uncooperative suspects and criminals. Those on his bad side scoff at the idea that he has friends (1:1), but everywhere he goes Sherlock knows just as many people who either don't mind him or who outright admire him for his quick thinking and enthusiasm for any interesting case, regardless of whether the case is high-profile or potentially profitable. Taken as a whole, Sherlock's behavior in non-threatening situations is usually fair and understandable, if not pleasant and friendly. That said, Sherlock does operate on the assumption that any means to a solved case is acceptable. As previously mentioned, he has no qualms about housebreaking, pretending to be someone else—including a police officer (1:1), a new neighbor (1:2), and a security guard (1:3)—or investigating a crime scene before calling the police. Essentially, Sherlock behaves as though meetings his wants and needs is ultimately in everyone's best interest, not just his own.
This final point is closely related to Oakley's definition of a Machiavellian, "a person whose narcissism combines with subtle cognitive or emotional disturbances in such a fashion as to make him believe that achieving his own desires, and his alone, is a genuinely beneficial—even altruistic—activity" (281). Sherlock certainly views his job as essential and his skills invaluable, and prioritizes his need for evidence and answers above common courtesy and respect. In fact, Sherlock fits Oakley's Machiavellian traits even better than he fits the criteria of antisocial personality disorder (42). Cases are like games of chess, with suspects, evidence, and motives little more than pawns to be played and won. Any "tactics for achieving possible ends" and coming closer to an answer are necessary if not socially acceptable (Oakley 42). Only a few people who know Sherlock consider him psychopathic—most who don't like him consider him smug, arrogant, and rude, but the vast majority of those he interacts with seem to notice nothing more than occasional oddness. Sherlock even appears to have a genetic predisposition toward Machiavellian behavior, if his older brother, Mycroft, is anything to go on. Mycroft "is the British government," Sherlock tells his flatmate, John Watson, "when he's not busy being the secret service or the CIA on a freelance basis" (1:1). Mycroft has no qualms about kidnapping John to get a sense of his character, trying to bribe him to spy on Sherlock (1:1), or meddling with elections in foreign countries (1:3). He's a man who has made it to the upper tiers of world power without drawing attention of any sort to himself—making him even more "successfully sinister" (Oakley) than his London-based, hard-to-miss, troublemaking younger brother.
In her book, The Heart of Altruism, Kristen Monroe describes altruistic behavior in individuals as existing on a continuum, and she would probably describe Sherlock as an extreme entrepreneur, someone who uses his unique talents for personal gain, if not in the monetary form (16). He is an extremely rational actor, able to set aside "normal" emotional responses in order to focus in the primary object of his attention: the case. Every crime solved proves his superior intelligence and stokes his ego, which ultimately makes his interest in solving crimes a form of self-interest. Much of his overtly polite or kind behavior is deliberately calculated strategic altrusim, performed specifically so that the person on the receiving end will help him later (Monroe 163). A few compliments to a besotted forensic pathologist gets him access to bodies in the morgue (1:2) and an occasional £50 note encourages a network of homeless people to keep an eye out for elusive suspects (1:3). However, Sherlock takes his self-interest to extremes that most find difficult to comprehend, laying bare the secrets of even those close to him and using objective details to dissect private emotional states just because he feels like it. Coupled with his unabashed enthusiasm for gruesome crimes, it is easy to see why people would assume that Sherlock's behavior is in part due to some psychological problem.
However, it is quite likely that, rather than being any sort of psychopath, Sherlock is simply Machiavellian enough to understand that "seemingly irrational behavior can work as a completely rational strategy for getting your way" (Oakley 260). Those who have seen his ability to manipulate others to expose their motives are more likely to cooperate with him than risk having their lives and emotions picked apart. Anyone who knows his willingness to break into a crime scene to have a look around would generally prefer to supervise him while he works than let him muck around with evidence. The myriad eccentric little demands he makes of John, such as sending a text that Sherlock could type quicker or fetching Sherlock's phone from the pocket of the jacket Sherlock is actually wearing, are foot-in-the door requests that start a process of escalating commitments (Waller 232). After being tricked into driving across London just to send a text (1:1), visiting Scotland Yard by request is comparatively reasonable, and entering the home of a suspected murderer through an open window doesn't seem much worse than withholding evidence when the latter did not bring about any serious negative consequences (1:2, 1). Whether he adopted the label himself or was diagnosed professionally, Sherlock may use sociopathy to excuse or at least explain his excepionally self-interested behaviors. The very choice of terms is calculated: a true psychopath with a genetic predisposition for mental disturbance would never be trusted at crime scenes; claiming to be a "high-functioning sociopath" (1:1) shifts the cause of his behavior outward, to the people or situations that shaped him, and being conscious of a diagnosis implies enough self-awareness and responsibility to have realized that his behavior was not "normal" and to have considered why.
Blaming the environment for his current behavior may not be as far off the mark as the suggestion that Sherlock chose to call himself a sociopath implies. Psychologist James Waller stresses the power of the situation on individual behavior in his book, Becoming Evil. If Sherlock's behavior is genetic, then applying a label could be a form of consequential rationalization to help make sense of why he differs from the norm (Waller 49). However, regardless of how he behaved before, acting like a sociopath simplifies the way Sherlock interacts with the world. It provides him with a set of line-crossing behaviors that he can get away with by citing the condition. Add to this the fact that Sherlock has surrounded himself with exceptionally tollerant people, and he has almost free reign to say and do whatever he pleases. John may tell Sherlock off for being unkind, but won't press the issue if they're on a case (1:3); police inspectors may harass him about absconding with evidencene or breaking into private homes, but never even threaten to arrest Sherlock for doing either (1:1, 2). The result is a social environment that rarely, if ever, denies Sherlock what he wants.
With no one holding him accountable for his actions, Sherlock may well be a textbook case of role absorption, in which a person "define[s] oneself in terms of a single role, label, or reference group…that provides a sense of identity" (Oakley 156). As he acted the part of the sociopath over time, the lack of negative consequences probably encouraged him to push the limits of his acquaintances' patience. Role absorption also accounts for Sherlock's shocking treatment of a dying man—even if the man was a serial killer. After at least five years not being held accountable for a variety of illegal actions (1:1), when Sherlock finds himself without witnesses there is nothing to stop him from doing, once again, whatever he feels necessary to get the information that he wants.
This incident happens at the end of the first episode, and the morality of Sherlock's actions never degenerates so badly again. Though it is never said outright, it is implied that John's presence is a positive influence on Sherlock. Although no shining figure of sanity or sainthood himself, John at least makes his flat mate aware of when he has said or done something "not good" rather than brushing it off as just part of his personality (1:1). But old habits die hard, and when an innocent woman dies in the course of a "game" engineered by Moriarty, John confronts Sherlock about whether or not he cares about the lives of those at risk. Sherlock's response is cool: "Will caring about them help save them? … Then I'll continue not to make that mistake" (1:3). Close attention to the scene, however, reveals signs of discomfort: Sherlock talks to himself quietly and bitterly instead of being loudly indignant as is his norm, sits tense and still rather than moving erratically around the room as he usually does, and fails to meet John's eyes until their pseudo-conversation turns into a confrontation. Yes, he enjoys the twisted "game" that his "fan" has pulled him into, but he is genuinely agitated when three of the hostages get too close to real danger (1:3). In all likelihood, his disinterested comments say more about his dedication to the sociopathic image he has constructed than his actual feelings about the situations, which show through his actions and body language.
Ultimately, in order to get a sense of Sherlock's character, it is important to separate words from actions. Although there is a fair bit of verbal evidence to support the theory that Sherlock is psycho- or sociopathic, very little of it actually matches up with the behavior seen on screen over the course of the existing episodes. Perhaps Sherlock's less socially acceptable words and actions have created an accentuation effect, in which those who already dislike him focus only on his less acceptable conduct and exaggerate the extent of his abnormality (Waller 175). While it is true that Sherlock does not stick to the usual standards of behavior as a law-enforcement official or an old college acquaintance would define them, it is important to remember that, in the bigger picture, his most basic decision proves that he understands the line between good and bad: Sherlock works for the police. No matter how bored he gets (1:3), he waits for unusual crimes to happen, even though he certainly has the cunning to get away with entertaining himself with illegal activities. His ability to disguise himself convincingly shows that he could be as successfully sinister as his brother if he wanted to, but instead he is open and dramatic, calling attention to himself in a way that would make genuinely harmful behavior all but impossible to get away with. Oakley says that "psychopaths know right from wrong—they just don't act that way" (51). Clearly, Sherlock does know the difference, as he has chosen to orient himself towards the right rather than indulging in the wrong. Unlike his archrival Moriarty, Sherlock does not take out the shovel and keep digging (Oakley 51).
Although he does exhibit many traits of antisocial personality disorder, Sherlock's actions contradict more than they conform to the diagnosis criteria. Behaving like a sociopath, no matter how high-functioning, for at least several years has probably led him to associate with the role enough to unconsciously take on some of the more extreme behaviors—which explains his darkest moment in the series so far. However, Sherlock behaves normally enough around those who are not hostile to him to make the possibility that he would drop the "high functioning" qualifier unlikely, and living with a friend will only bring out the non-sociopathic behavior more often. Sherlock may think of himself as a sociopath, but his dramatically selfish behaviors simply tend to overshadow the many smaller but more frequent unselfish ones. His decision to be and stay on the right side of the law speaks to the moral foundation on which even his questionable actions in the course of a case ultimately stand.
Addendum: Final Thoughts
Sherlock, the titular character of BBC's 2010 modernization of the Sherlock Holmes stories, stands out from most other incarnations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous character because his oddity is addressed head-on. One of the police officers he works with is convinced that Sherlock will one day snap and commit murder "because he's a psychopath [and] psychopaths get bored" (1:1). In my analysis paper, I argued that while Sherlock did exhibit some of the symptoms of psychopathy (or rather, sociopathy (1:1)), his behavior in the show did not support this diagnosis. Not all of his actions are self-interested, he does care what others think of him, and he rarely endangers others even if his narrow focus has a tendency to endanger himself. I found it more likely that Sherlock had adopted the sociopath label to explain or excuse his outlandish and unusual behavior and then had played the part for so long that he acted more and more like a real sociopath.
The easiest way that Sherlock might have ended up toeing the negative side of the line between good and evil would be if he actually was, genetically, a psychopath. If he was a sociopath, then much of his behavior would have been the result of his environment, but as a psychopath, he would genuinely have little control over his behavior, as it would have been largely a result of his genes (Oakley 51). In the first episode, Sherlock left his flat mate, John Watson, at a crime scene as he ran off in search of evidence, but later that same night he led John on a chase and paused to make sure that the other kept up even though it meant losing valuable time (1:1). A genuine psychopath would have pushed on to reach his goal without bothering to make sure that someone they had barely met was keeping up. Even if he was a true sociopath, Sherlock would be a different, more dangerous man. It is likely that, instead of giving only a smug verbal response when called a "freak," he would express the "irritability and aggressiveness" typical of antisocial personality disorder, which could in turn lead to violent behavior that the police would not be willing to ignore (Oakley 50). When he was bored, he would probably make use of his ability to adopt personas and lie convincingly to get into all sorts of trouble rather than waiting for another mystery, and he would feel no remorse for any consequences as long as he was amused (Oakley 51).
In some ways, Sherlock is similar to Perry Smith as described Truman Capote's In Cold Blood. Perry was unusual from an early age (Capote 296-297). In the most recent portion of his lifetime, Perry had a definite pattern of developing a dependency on someone else. First it was Willie-Jay, his friend and the prison chaplain's clerk (Capote 42), and later it was Dick. Whoever he trusted, he trusted completely. Perry valued Willie-Jay's opinion of him highly and hung on to a letter he had written breaking down Perry's personality (Capote 43-44). It is quite likely that Willie-Jay was a moderating influence on Perry's behavior, and that if Perry's original plan to meet him in Kansas City had worked out (Capote 45), Perry would probably not be remembered as one of the most heartless killers in the 20th Century United States.
Similarly, John Watson acts as a moderating influence on Sherlock, making him aware of when his statements are "not good" or "not kind" (1:1, 3), refusing to give Sherlock the attention he's after when he's bored and sulking (1:3), explaining why not caring about the victims of a crime is more than a little off (1:3), and providing positive feedback when appropriate to balance all the negative comments that Sherlock receives from people he has annoyed (1:1, 2, 3). While Sherlock seems significantly more independent than Perry, both are heavily influenced by the person to whom they attach themselves. Perry, unfortunately, attached himself to a man who wanted to use him in a murder plot; Sherlock managed attach himself to John just before his "fan," Jim Moriarty, started kidnapping people and blowing up buildings to gain the consulting detective's attention (1:3).
Waller, with his interest in social influence on individual behavior, would probably find Sherlock fascinating. As a member of the "other," Sherlock is subject to a variety of socially alienating actions from those who know him. The police officers who most object to his behavior refuse to call him by name, preferring "freak" and "psychopath" (1:1, 3)—a common move among persecuting groups to dehumanize their victims (Waller 208). Sherlock is also subject to unlawful search. While he is out for dinner, a police team searches his apartment without a warrant under the pretense that they are conducting a drugs bust (1:1). In all fairness, the relatively mild law bending does seem like fair treatment considering the many minor laws that Sherlock gets away with breaking. However, the fake drugs bust is still an example of an officially sanctioned authority breaking the law to infringe on a private citizen's rights—a sign of Sherlock's "excommunication from the legitimate social or moral community" (Waller 197).
Of course, while Waller is interested in social influence on mass killing and genocide, Sherlock is subject to ostracism on a small scale. Why? As Waller notes, "often it becomes easier to blame the victim when we are frustrated and the cause of our frustration is too intimidating or vague to confront directly" (Waller 218). Although the series never directly says so, it is quite possible that this behavior it is a combination of intimidation, jealousy, and confused feelings about the secrets that Sherlock exposes in revenge for being insulted (1:1). Again, without a moderating influence or the self-restraint to limit his responses to verbal jabs, this sort of social censure could easily drive a developing sociopath into deep-end sociopathic behavior.
Between his genetic predisposition, his social isolation and ill-treatment, and his lack of positive influence, Sherlock as the show began would not have required much of a push to expand his genuinely evil actions from torturing a dying serial killer (1:1) to doing anything he thought necessary to get information…or entertainment.
Works Cited
- "Blind Banker, The." Sherlock, Episode 2. Written by Mark Gatiss; Dir. Euros Lyn; Perfs. Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman. British Broadcasting Company, London. 1 August 2010.
- Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. New York: Random House. 1965.
- "Great Game, The." Sherlock, Episode 3. Written by Steve Thompson; Dir. Paul McGuian; Perfs. Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman. British Broadcasting Company, London. 8 August 2010.
- Monroe, Kristen Renwick. The Heart of Altruism: Perceptions of a Common Humanity. Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1996
- "Study in Pink, A." Sherlock, Episode 1. Written by Steven Moffat; Dir. Paul McGuian; Perfs. Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman. British Broadcasting Company, London. 25 July 2010.
- Oakley, Barbara. Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend. New York: Prometheus, 2008.
- Waller, James. Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2007.
Related content
Comments: 8
Hi can I use this in my newsletter? The first issue is available in my gallery if you want to see what it's about. Thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks so much for asking! Before I agree, I'd like to know a bit more about what you plan to do with this essay.
Are you planning to copy it in its entirety?
Are you going to comment on it?
If so, what are you planning to say about it/in response to it?
What will the theme of the newsletter that this appears in be?
What kind of readership do you have? I only ask because you seem to have quite a range of interests in your newsletter and on your blog, so I'm not quite sure what position you see my piece having in your newsletter.
Please be aware that I am in publishing, so permissions are very important to me. It's why I appreciate the fact that you're asking, but it's also the reason why I'd like to be clear on the potential use to which you might put my work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just want to feature it on my blog; that can either be a link to the piece or the whole thing - but I would credit you. It's up to you which it is. It just might be interesting (I like to feature anything interesting) since there's a new series coming out
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure of the readership - but the stats on the Facebook page say it's mainly 13 - 17 year olds (since I invited my friends lol) not sure about the blog though.
I won't really say much about it; only that it may be interesting to fans of Sherlock / those interested in aspects of his psychology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In that case, I'll ask for standard fair usage: one or two sentence at a time in an article is fair game all the way, and up to 250 words in a block as long as you're commenting on/analyzing it more than superficially. Please do not reproduce the entire entire essay, and please include a link back to it.
Again, I really appreciate the fact that you asked first. There are nowhere near enough people on the internet being as responsible as you are about using others' work.
I look forward to seeing your opinion my essay and the sociopath-or-not debate! (-8
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is just fantastic and brilliant.....
Please let this in
And please join the group.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is an awesome paper. I love writing on ridiculous subjects for academic credit.
I agree: Lisbeth rocks my socks too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ha ha, well, I don't often get the chance! The fact that it was a fun topic was the only thing that kept me going at times.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0