Putin is a Villain, Not a Sociopath
As we condemn Putin and his allies, let’s take take care not to conflate sociopathy with villainy, because labeling Putin a sociopath elevates him to a status that he’s unworthy of.
Putin is a villain. He reminds me of a kid named Mike that lived across the street from me during High School. For four years Mike had to watch me come back home from school bigger, stronger, smarter, and wiser than the day before. Near the end of High School, he made the mistake of engaging in a last-ditch effort to flip the script, so he intercepted me on my way home from the bus. He asked if I wanted to fight, I said no, and he punched me in the face, breaking my glasses. I shrugged, walked inside, and ate a sandwich. Later, the police were called. A few years later he was in jail for check fraud. A few years later he was dead from drugs. Today I wear the best pair of glasses I’ve ever owned and look forward to one day visiting the most beautiful, prosperous, and populous Kiev the world has ever seen.
But Mike wasn’t a sociopath. Sociopathy is a personality, villainy isn’t. Personalities are hardwired and genetic. They’re not roles that we play, that we switch or decline. Villainy, on the other hand, IS simply a role.
At that same time in High School, I had another friend, Bob, who WAS a sociopath. Since we were children his ideas of fun always involved lighting things on fire, blowing things up, putting ourselves at high risk of injury, killing animals, torturing animals, feeding them to larger animals, skipping school, shooting guns, prank calling people, and stealing things. He too spent his entire adult life incarcerated, and died in prison. I met a ton of sociopaths when I worked as a psychiatrist at Rikers Island for a few years. They aren’t THAT bad. Will they kill you in a heartbeat if you interact with them wrong? Yes, but so what? In that way they’re no different than anything dangerous in this world, like bears, explosives, cars, or cliffs.
Villains are also dangerous, but not because they’re wired that way. Psychologically they’re not that different than anybody else. All that sets them apart, if anything, is that they’re more troubled by heroes than the average human being. Mike and Putin, troubled in the way, CHOSE to play the role of the villain to cope with the uncomfortable feeling they experienced in the vicinity of greatness. Villains are dangerous because they’re trying to be.
All members of team villain, including Mike and Putin, signed up in exchange for solace from disillusionment. The quote, “Religion is the opiate of the masses,” is always misinterpreted. The author meant that religion is great, which it is, not that it is addictive or numbing, which it is not. It’s villainy that is addictive and numbing. Villainy weakens, religion empowers. Unfortunately, church leaders are only human, so they’re prone to dish out a side of villainy along with their religion. Giving up villainy means facing the disillusionment that was never dealt with and allowed to fester.
Also, unlike sociopathy, villainy is cringey and gross. If you think the villain in Silence of the Lambs is Hannibal Lector you’re wrong. Yes, he’s a sociopath, but he’s the hero. Clarice is his sidekick. Buffalo Bill is a rando creep. The villain is the PSYCHIATRIST. Villains are always lame like that, so they’re easily overlooked. The damage they do isn’t flashy, it’s unoriginal. Mike didn’t come at me with nunchucks. He punched me in the face. Putin didn’t skin or eat anybody. He initiated a conventional war in Eastern Europe. Hannah Arendt had a point. Villainy isn’t impressive. At best it merely appalling.
Mike, Putin, the rest… they WISH they were sociopaths. If it had been Bob that picked a fight with me that day, I’d be dead. Trying to be a sociopath when you’re not is like trying to be 7 foot tall when you’re not. Sociopathy is special and hard to emulate if you’re not a natural. Villainy on the other hand is common and easy. Replace Putin with Mike and he’d behave the same way, talk the same way. Replace Putin with Bob and he’d quickly get bored. He’d fire an ICBM straight up for a laugh, and then have it intercepted on the way down just before it killed anybody. Would Putin do that? Could Putin do that? No. He’s not special like that.
The notion that villains are creative, that their schemes are novel or surprising or interesting, is a myth, and part of the role of the villain is to propagate that myth. Some villains are shrewd, perhaps, but even then whatever value might be found in it is grossly exaggerated and misrepresented by others on their team.
Also, unlike sociopaths, villains lack insight. The last time I saw Bob he was out on parole. We were having lunch and he COMPLAINED about how easy it was for him to snatch a purse without considering for a second that it didn’t belong to him. He APPRECIATED it’s negative consequences and DREAMED out loud that he might change. I had many similar conversations working at Rikers Island. Sociopaths know what they are, what they do, and who they do it to. They might not tell you that because they have no qualms lying, but they’re not in denial.
Villains on the other hand lack the insight that sociopaths are capable of. When sociopaths look in the mirror, they see a sociopath. When villains look in the mirror, they see anything but. There’s no villainy there for them to become interested in changing, no villainy in themselves to blame for the doom that haunts them and the havoc they wreak. Someone famous once said, “Forgive them, they know not what they do.” He was right.
He was right not only about the second part but the first part too. Meekness is the villain’s kryptonite. Eye for an eye justice would entail a counter incursion into Russia by the West. Instead, Zelenskyy calls for the defense of Ukraine and the withdrawal of Russia. This is the opposite of villainy. This is courage. This is righteousness. This is patience. Anything that a villain breaks which is in the orbit of this triumvirate rematerializes like clockwork, be it glasses, Ukraine, whatever.
The opposite of sociopathy on the other hand isn’t heroism or goodness. It’s anxiety. It’s averseness to the slightest risk. It’s abiding by rules that nobody is dictating. A healthy dose of anxiety is good for a sociopath, and if they survive long enough, they usually acquire a bit, as Bob was starting to the last time we met. It helps to spell out the consequences of their behavior. But that doesn’t work on villains. They shrug it off like Putin shrugged off sanctions.
These are differences. But villainy and sociopathy are easy to confuse. They’re both dangerous patterns of behavior that are stable across a person’s lifetime. Yet despite their similarity, it’s important to appreciate their difference. Labeling villains like Putin sociopaths elevates them to a status that they’re unworthy of. It’s an insult to sociopaths.
