If China were a person, would it be a psychopath?

Time was when multinational corporations had such a bad rap — books early this century emphasized the alleged exploitive nature of companies, the apparent lack of accountability, or that they had become (allegedly) more powerful than nation states. But one interesting point made was that corporations have the nature of sociopaths or psychotics.

Thus, Psychology Today, for example, noted that “if corporations are indeed ‘persons,’ their mental condition can accurately be described as pathological. Corporations have no innate moral impulses, and in fact they exist solely for the purpose of making money. As such, these ‘persons’ are systemically driven to do whatever is necessary to increase revenues and profits, with no regard for ethical issues that might nag real people.” (“Why Corporations Are Psychotic,” March 2011)

What exactly is a psychopath? Again, Psychology Today: “The sociopathic and/or psychopathic pathology is often intertwined with other traits, including and not limited to bullying, narcissism, gaslighting, bigotry, and misogyny,” with such traits normally being:

1. Pathological Lying and Manipulation

2. Lack of Morality and Rule Breaking

3. Lack of Empathy and Cold-Heartedness

4. Narcissism and False Superiority Complex

5. Gaslighting and Psychological Bullying

6. Lack of Contrition and Self-Serving Victimhood

7. The “Situational” Sociopath or Psychopath

As to lack of empathy, such compels “the sociopath or psychopath to commit trespasses with little or no moral conflict. Knowing the suffering of their victims does not bring about ethical pause. Just the opposite — it may encourage the sociopath or psychopath to do more harm (for they feel like they’re ‘winning’).” Furthermore, “sociopaths and psychopaths often blame their victims for causing their own victimization.”

As to “false superiority complex,” in the “mindset of many sociopaths and psychopaths, being ‘better’ than others provides them with twisted justification to exploit and mistreat people at will. Those who are ‘inferior’ deserve their downtrodden fate, and should only be regarded with contempt” (“7 Characteristics of the Modern Psychopath,” Psychology Today, October 2018).

Enter Paul Midler, who has lived in East Asia for 20 years while working as a consultant to companies doing business in the region. His first book, Poorly Made in China, was widely acclaimed. But it is his second book, What’s Wrong with China, that is of interest to us here:

“The most controversial of Midler’s theories,” according to Anders Corr in a review of the book in the Journal of Political Risk*, “is in his suggestion that China is home to a higher percentage of sociopaths. ‘Checklists for sociopathy — referred to also as antisocial personality disorder — read like a description of every factory boss I ever met,’ he writes.”

Corr contacted Midler and asked “if there is indeed a higher sociopathic strain in China, why that feature is not also present in Chinese cultures such as Taiwan or Hong Kong? He answered that Hong Kong, Taiwan, and even Shanghai were all to a great extent driven by foreign investment and influenced by foreign culture. ‘Mainland China is culturally distinct from Hong Kong and Taiwan,’ he wrote in an e-mail. ‘Hong Kong was of course formerly a colony, built up by the British. The foreign influence there remains significant, despite the handover to Beijing.’” He goes on to point out that Taiwan and Shanghai also had considerable outside influences.

What’s Wrong with China reveals the profound problems besetting Chinese society and points out that the nation’s most intrinsic problem is social rather than governmental. As pointed out here previously (“Pro-China ‘independent foreign policy’ and other fallacies,” BusinessWorld, May 2024): That “China’s economic progress is proving to be ultimately unsustainable is rooted in the fact that it is anchored on a wholly unsuitable metaphysic.”

Midler himself writes in his book: “Whatever its actual rate of sociopathy, China is widely understood to be a more difficult place in which to do business, and my own experience in the country suggests this is due to a higher-than-average concentration of a certain bad element, but who knows? In any case, we do not need mountains of quantitative data to ask a potentially interesting qualitative question: Would we not see signs of societal strain in a population that has a higher concentration of sociopaths?”

Incidentally, “sociopath is an unofficial term to describe a person who has antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), whereas psychopathy describes a set of personality traits. However, ASPD and psychopathy can overlap” and people do tend to “use the terms sociopathy and psychopathy interchangeably, but they have different meanings. ASPD and psychopathy share some similar traits, including aggression and a lack of remorse. Additionally, both can occur due to genetic and environmental factors” (“What is the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy?,” Medical News Today, July 2021)

And indeed, China’s rates of personality disorder, depression, and suicide has been increasing (the latter particularly for those aged 5-14 and recently 15-24 years) or at least at disconcerting levels.

Bottom line is that, considering China’s insistent behavior of lying to the world about the West Philippine Sea, followed by constant gaslighting of everyone, its remorseless aggressive behavior towards our fishermen and Coast Guard, its obvious contempt for democracy and the rule of law, there may be a need to recalibrate our foreign policy from openness with a modus vivendi to outright containment of an amoral foreign player.

* “China’s Sociopathy, and its Cowardly Watchers,” Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 6, No. 2, February 2018

The views expressed here are his own and not necessarily those of the institutions to which he belongs.

Jemy Gatdula is the dean of the Institute of Law of the University of Asia and the Pacific and is a Philippine Judicial Academy lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence. He read international law at the University of Cambridge.