Just a quick thought on this. I've seen various comments in the last few weeks to the effect that Russian President Vladimir Putin has veered away from sanity. Those observations seem to pertain to his personal mental health; the idea seems to be that, whereas before he was coldly rational, something has changed in him, and this explains his decision to invade Ukraine and the escalation of military tactics.
Many examples of this amateur diagnosis could be cited. Here is one that I saw today. This is from Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) in the wake of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's speech to the US Congress yesterday. Blumenauer told reporters, "[Putin]’s completely unhinged, untethered to reality, and we’re all playing with fire here."
I am not a mental health expert. But in my opinion, these sorts of comments constitute a category error. I think what people are really discerning is not mental illness, but rather shocking immorality. These comments express our sense that Putin's action in undertaking a European invasion is far outside our moral norms. When behavior deviates beyond what we consider the acceptable boundaries, we instinctively attribute it to illness rather than evil.
Our moral imaginations may be a little flabby. Most of us don't deal with people as calculating and ruthless as Vladimir Putin. Bombing an apartment building full of innocent civilians is so far outside of anything we'd ever consider that we can't imagine anyone else would do it.
This article by clinical psychologist Barbara Held suggests that Putin isn't insane. I suspect she's right.
I think you and Barbara Held are correct that Putin isn't insane by the legal definition. His actions are evil, and the work of a wicked person. "By their fruits shall you know them." Of course one can be both mad and bad. But his actions are not mad, in the sense that they are directed towards a well-defined purpose.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubts that he would not hesitate to go nuclear if if it were the only way to advance his objectives.
Does the Politburo still exist? Other Russian premiers have been forced into retirement when their objectives didn't align with those of the oligarchy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOnly the first few paragraphs were visible from the link, so forgive me if this point was made in the article. But I'm pretty sure Putin is part of a whole segment of Russian society that thinks the invasion is a good idea and can find all kinds of ways to justify it. Just like large swaths of our society embraced and justified the evils of slavery at one time.
ReplyDeleteI think we have to stop thinking that one person is responsible for large-scale atrocities like this. If that were so, drop a bomb on Putin's head and problem solved.
Big evil requires collusion of a big group. That way, if a few members start having second thoughts, there are plenty of others to talk him back into the group or recruit others to take his place.
No, the Politburo no longer exists. It was replaced by the Duma. And it is pretty much dominated by Putin supporters. Out of 450 members, just three have criticized the invasion.
"Big evil requires collusion of a big group." Good point. I'm sure plenty of Russians approve of the invasion. Also, Putin governs in a large part by fear.
DeleteI've also seen news stories reporting that the invasion is quite popular in Russia.
DeleteThere may be something "imperial" in the Russian people's conception of their nationhood: that it's humiliating to be demoted to the second rank of world powers. I speculate this because I think there is something at least somewhat similar in the soul of many Americans: the "bomb the sh*t out of 'em" mentality that many of us turn to as a first recourse whenever anyone affronts us (as with the Iranian hostage crisis).
While I am in agreement that Putin's behavior isn't caused by being mentally ill, I think being obstinately wicked over time would have a deleterious effect on one's mental health. He isn't bad because he's crazy, but in the end one can go crazy because one is bad.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Katherine. It makes some intuitive sense. I think there is some connection, such that mental illness can mitigate moral culpability.
DeleteIn a way, attributing Putin's decision to mental illness is to excuse his evil. Perhaps that's justified in this instance: maybe he really is mentally ill in some way such that, if the malady could be properly managed, he'd be more likely to do what the world wants him to do. Or perhaps not; maybe he's just a really bad guy.
DeleteIn my view, one of our contemporary tendencies is to leap too quickly to a health explanation which doesn't gives morality its due.
Rather than assessing Putin's mental stability, it might be more useful to look at what Russia hopes to gain from invading Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteThe running narrative is that Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire, and he sees Ukraine as a hard boundary that NATO will not cross. See for ex, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2022-02-24/explainer-why-did-russia-invade-ukraine
But that focuses too narrowly on Putin and ignores what those with the most power and influence in Russia, the ruling cabal of oligarchs and their minions, hope to get out of supporting Putin.
Ukraine has always been necessary to the Russian and Soviet empires, for its agriculture, its ports on the Black Sea, and its resources. It is also the second largest county by land size in Europe, second only to Russia. Ukraine has decent infrastructure and a well-educated population. Russian is widely spoken. All of this makes Ukraine an attractive addition to a new Russian Empire.
Russia has suffered from sanctions by the West, and lifting those sanctions means that human rights abuses and changes in the way the current ruling class maintains its wealth and power would have to change.
So rather than submit to Western demands, Russia seems to have chosen to tighten the ties to its former Soviet territories to gain enough territory and resources to make the West irrelevant to its purposes.
As I see it, Ukraine is not about the insanity or megalomania of one man, but about what happens when the power and wealth of the influential class is threatened.
You see the same factors in Trump's popularity, I think. He is not a national moment of insanity. Fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, agri-business, etc. are all making making tons of $$ and paying lobbyists $$ to keep lawmakers in line. Trump won in 2016 because he asked the rich and powerful what it would cost to get their support. And he showed he could control the masses by promising them guns, walls at the border to keep out non-Europeans, and "America First" disengagement from "socialist" countries that want to exploit us.
Good analysis, Jean. Maybe we're working too hard trying to get inside Putin's head, or his soul. Ukraine has stuff Russia wants. That's pretty much the motivation for most muggings, home invasions, and armed robberies. The Ukraine invasion is that, on steroids. And Russia is spinning it that they are just reclaiming what is rightfully theirs.
DeleteIt seems to me that one can be deluded without being mentally ill if one wants to be deluded. The fossil fuel companies spent millions deluding the American public about climate change. And most of the American public wanted to be deluded. I can't blame them. I never argued with people on the topic because I wanted to believe in it. I just knew it was scientifically coherent. But I want to drive around in a big fat SUV just as much as anybody else. The 60's and 70's, although a time when we became more earth aware, was also a time of pushing and justifying hedonism. Hedonism does not give you the mental infrastructure to sacrifice, for the earth, other people, civilization or anybody. And hippies loved vans. And vans aren't very fuel efficient.
ReplyDeleteI think we should not categorize Putin as mentally ill out of respect for the mentally ill. To do so perpetuates the idea that many mentally ill are likely to kill someone in a bizarre manner, which is not true. Most people who are struggling with a long-term illness like schizophrenia or chronic depression are not going to see that they have anything in common with Putin. What are people calling him that, and what does it tell me about them and their attitudes toward mental illness?
ReplyDeleteThis is like using a racial (N-word) or homophobic epithet (F-word) to describe him. It says more about the user than about Putin.
If Russia is like the US, the lifetime prevalence of having an episode of mental illness is about 20%. There are many varieties of mental illness that include brief or situational anxiety attacks or depressions. Maybe Putin has or has had some episodic or long-term mental illness problems. They likely have little or no relationship to his political views or decision making.
My fellow social psychologists have long presented evidence that behavior is determined more by situational factors than by personality factors. That is situations rather than personality make people anxious, or depressed. There may be some situations, e.g., text anxiety, where some people, mostly because of learned experiences, may be more likely to be anxious than others.
Well said, Jack. Saying Putin's actions derive from mental illness insults the mentally ill. My father suffered from OCD and anxiety but his views on race were very forward thinking for the time. And just because one does not suffer from mental illness does not mean they are thinking straight.
Delete