The Mind of a Dictator

So far I have discussed, blogged and presented the driving forces behind the creation of Kim as a political force. I spoke of his past, providing insight into his prior life and involvement in guerilla warfare. I attempted to show his inadequacies as a leader and how the influence of Soviet networks would mask these shortcomings.   Finally, I spoke of how these shortcomings would later resurface in the form of poor economic policy and how this would contribute to the eventual collapse of the North Korean economy. The goal throughout the duration of my studies has been to create the best possible analysis of Kim; to know who he was, who he would become and what this would do to the country led by a cult of personality.

What remains in my work, is to show how each of these different elements (guerilla warfare, puppet government etc.) pay tribute to the personality himself. That is, to undergo a psychological analysis of Kim by evaluating the impact of key events throughout his life.

This becomes important when answering questions like: “What led him to form this judgment?” or “Why did he disregard this?” or “How could he be so callous?”

Historically, we know that Kim: 1) experienced a traumatic childhood, 2) sought to escape his troubles by joining reactionary groups, 3) developed a violent nature as part of a guerilla unit, and 4) underwent immense change and pressure as a candidate for puppet dictatorship. The task is to piece this all together into one cohesive psycho-analytical picture.

I recently came across a piece done by Dr. James Fallon, a professor of neurobiology at the Irvine School of Medicine. Fallon was asked to perform a comprehensive psychological analysis of dictators throughout history. In order to do this, Fallon did a comparative study of primary works from a number of dictators, including those of Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Kim Jong-Il.

Fallon discovered some commonalities between them. Nearly all of them experienced some form of childhood trauma; be it the loss of a parent etc. They were often charming and charismatic, and, in addition to this, he found them to be pathological liars, believing their own lies to a great extent, and possessing a grandiose sense of self. All of these traits, he said, were accompanied by an overarching narcissistic attitude.

He made the distinction that we shouldn’t always perceive these qualities as bad, because in certain situations (surgery, politics etc.) we wouldn’t want the professional to be compassionate, as it might hinder their better judgment. He also stated that perhaps a greater percentage of the population may possess this disposition than realized (1% of women and 3% of men) and, that during times of turmoil, women would tend to bond with men that possess these characteristics, which he called the “warrior genes,” because they felt safe.

It is therefore possible that Kim possessed these attributes to an extent as well. If we examine the context of the situation, we know that Kim’s father was a staunch revolutionary during a time when Korean citizens were under Japanese oppression, lending to the possibility that Kim’s mother chose his father because of his “warrior genes.” Kim also experienced a traumatic childhood, with his father going in and out of jail, and eventually dying to exposure (at age 13). We also know that Kim exhibited callousness during his time as a guerilla warrior, when he would regularly steal from Korean elite and peasants alike. Furthermore, we know he had a great amount of confidence and held a passionate cause, which is why Stalin selected him in the first place. All of these contribute to the possibility that Kim could match the stereotype given by Fallon.

Link to the discussion.