Long before there was tabloid journalism, the lives of celebrities were open completely to gossip and were subject (a bit later) to being photographed and written about (without their permission). Everyone could go into hiding except the celebrities—with everyone living vicariously off the exploits, affairs, mistakes, marriages, divorces, illnesses and even childbirths of their favorite celebrities.
I would suggest that there was one other class of citizens who were declared public rather than private beginning in the 18th Century. These were the citizens identified as “crazy” or (to use a more restrained and socially acceptable term) “abnormal.” Their life was subject to public inspection in large part because their “abnormal” behaviors did not conform to societally-excepted standards of conduct—they were not declared “normal” given their violation of the social norms of their society. Often displaying their aberrant behavior on city streets (begging for food or money) or in “asylums” (which became sources of entertainment for paying, “normal” visitors), these men and women were portrayed as untamed beasts and, as a result, were often subject to physical abuse as a “taming” device. While these “abnormal” men, women (and even children) might not be considered possessed (by the Devil) or evildoers (punished by God), they were considered in some sense “out of their minds” for daring to live outside the confines of polite society.
Societal Enmeshment
Let’s step back a bit from this social analysis of deviance, to reflect on the nature of the societies in which these “abnormal” people lived. Put much too simply, some societies at specific points in their history tend to be highly enmeshed. As I noted in the first essay, high levels of enmeshment are to be found in societies where residents are interdependent and the behavior of any one individual in this society can be easily predicted by the behavior observed among other residents of this society. This means that the degree of enmeshment (collectivism) in any society helps to determine the strength of social norms in that society.
The greater the degree of enmeshment in a society the less tolerance there is for social deviance. Those who deviate are punished or cast off (placed in a prison or asylum). Enmeshment is most commonly found in societies where tradition is highly valued, where there are major power differences, and where people live in close proximity to one another (such as in many Asian societies). However, as I noted in my first essay, enmeshment is also likely to be intensified in societies that are undergoing major transitions. We are back to the dynamics involved in the societal management of anxiety.
Richard Sennett has suggested that there was the fall of public man in 18th Century Europe. What was the cause for this fall? Sennett and many other social analysts have suggested that shifts in economic power and the rise of industrialism (and accompanying worker alienation) were major sources of anxiety—and may have helped to accelerate the fall of public man. I would suggest that these changes also helped to increase the intolerance of deviant behavior and led to the creation of a third assumptive world about psychopathy: an equation of social deviance (in many forms) with psychopathy. As I will note shortly, the forces of alienation in an industrialized society also may have helped create the conditions that produce or intensify psychopathy.
