Hello, I recently found this blog so I'm not sure if you already answered this. But I wanted to ask about what would it be like if the torturer was mainly only hurting the victim for fun/just because? Would the victims reactions be similar as torture victims of say torture for questioning, or would it be different? If the torturer was already psychopathic enough to already be torturing a person for fun, would giving torture affect them psychologically as it does for "regular" torturers?
Welcome. :) And don’t worry about whether a question has already been asked. I don’t mind going over things again.
Central to this question is the legal definition of torture.
Legally torture is distinct from abuse, not because of what’s done or who it’s done to but because of who carries it out. According to international law (with some variation between countries) torture is when a government official or a member of a group powerful enough to control territory causes their victim pain for one of the following reasons:
Punishment, of the victim or others
Intimidation, of the victim or others
I tend to summarise this to a scenario where a police officer beats someone in two different places: if they do it at work it’s torture, if they do it off duty it’s assault.
But the motivation is important to the legal definition and the understanding of what ‘counts’ as torture.
What you’re talking about is not legally torture.
Obviously I cover a lot of stuff on the blog that wouldn’t meet that strict legal definition. But I think it is important going in to your question to understand the difference. Because I answer these questions based on what I’ve read about legally defined torture; if the scenario is sufficiently different then you should be aware of the differences and that the evidence I’m drawing on might not be the best fit for what you’re writing.
So torture isn’t for ‘fun’. You do get torturers who- I’m not quite sure what the correct psychological terminology would be. They sometimes put a lot of their self worth and identity into the fact they cause other people pain. They characterise themselves as ‘strong’ individuals and reinforce this by hurting and humiliating their victims proving the victim’s ‘weakness’.
This is part of what Rejali calls the ‘hypermasculine subculture’ torturers tend to develop.
But they don’t report finding this ‘fun’ exactly. (I’m basing this on what torturers say and that’s not always trustworthy, but I think we have to consider them the most reliable sources for what the hell they were thinking.)
And they say that this is stressful. Because torture is- competitive. By that I mean that torturers don’t function alone. They work in groups and they treat each other as direct competition. They egg each other on. They feel that they ‘have’ to keep being more and more brutal or they’ll be showing weakness to the group.
They do also, sometimes, report a sense of satisfaction. But this seems to be outweighed by the incredible stress they’re under from their own side and the inevitable mental health problems they develop.
It’s also worth stressing that the organisations torturers are usually part of actively try to screen out people with mental health problems and anyone who shows enjoyment in violence. They consider these people harder to control.
I really can’t stress this bit enough: the evidence strongly suggests that torturers are mentally healthy before they start torturing. Their mental illnesses are the result of being exposed to violent, traumatic events repeatedly.
The structure of their brain does not care one whit whether the violence they’re witnessing is inflicted by them or someone else. It responds the same way and leads to the same symptoms of trauma.
The second question is easier.
Nothing I’ve seen has suggested that the torturer’s motivations effect victims in the slightest. Victim’s don’t care if the torturer is shouting questions, laughing or doing a jig.
It’s the traumatic nature of violence that effects victims. Not the torturers’ beliefs or drives.
A lot of torturers claim that they personally make a big difference or that they can control victims and change them in a predictable way. But the evidence says they’re lying or deluding themselves.
Which leaves the last question.
I’ve been asked this before and there isn’t any evidence.
I don’t mean there isn’t any evidence for/against, I mean I literally can’t find a single case that matches this popular fictional portrayal.
I’m personally dubious about the term ‘psychopathic’. I’m not convinced it’s a consistent description of a real condition.
But for the sake of the argument, let’s assume it is and that it lines up with the popular understanding of the term.
These are exactly the kinds of people organisations work hard to screen out. They’re the people who are not allowed to be in a position to torture.
If they were somehow to slip through- Torturers create a really toxic working environment. Organisations that harbour them end up with a work culture that encourages bullying, competition rather than teamwork and discourages hard work.
They tend to target people perceived as different for abuse, as well as people who disagree with them. And I think neurodivergence definitely counts as the kind of difference that would have other torturers turning on the character.
And the assumption that neurodivergence and mental illness is the ‘reason’ for a character to be abusive- well that assumption that people who are different are also dangerous feeds a lot of violence and discrimination against the mentally ill.
But even discounting all of that- the responses we have to trauma and to other people’s pain are wired deep.
I’m not an expert in pain or the human nervous system so I can’t tell you how deep. But the impression I get is that these mechanisms have old evolutionary roots. They have been part of the biology of vertebrates for a very long time.
I sometimes get asked questions about sci fi aliens or non-human intelligent beings in fantasy stories and how they would respond to torture (witnessing it, doing it or enduring it). I think the answer I tend to give there is relevant here:
Does the character behave in a way that is basically understandable as human? If the answer is ‘yes’, then I think you should write them responding to torture like a human being.
If the answer is ‘no’ then I’d ask you to consider whether they’re actually acting sufficiently differently to sound like a different species rather then a human with a health condition or a human from another culture.
What I’m driving at here is- Does the character read like a Siamese Fighting Fish with the capacity for speech? Do they have behaviours that are just not typical of mammals and underline a lot of their basic personality and approach to things?
For me to accept that a character might respond to torture in a way that’s different to the human norm they need to be convincingly non-human. Not like Tolkien elves or orcs. Not like alien species in Trek or Stargate.
A character in a magical story who genuinely can’t comprehend how you might need your major organs to survive and might be in pain without them- I’d say ‘OK that’s sufficiently different that I can’t predict it based on the evidence. Fill your boots.’
But a character who is just a jerk? Who just ‘likes’ being mean? That’s still a human being.
Treating them differently doesn’t do the real human beings who’ve been through similar things any favours.
And yes the real human beings who torture people are scumbags. But suggesting they’re unaffected by torture just feeds in to the problem. It feeds this myth that torturers are ‘strong’ and ‘tough’ and superhumanly resilient to the effects of what they do. It feeds the lie that they’re super human.
Help me out here. Cut them down to size.