The Monster Inside Johan Liebert

it's long I'm sorry

In my previous essay, I argued that identity is a bundle of perceptions and experiences. In this essay, I will extend that lens to the psychoanalysis of Johan Liebert.

One might wonder what happens to a person if their formative years were molded by trauma and systematic manipulation. Johan Liebert is a notable example of this, having been a “success” in the Kinderheim 511 experiment in the anime “Monster.” Johan’s character is unique in the way that it incorporates the underbelly of human nature and how trauma shapes us.

Throughout the episodes, we see Johan navigate a society filled with violence and manipulation. In the flashbacks, we see how these traits have manifested into what is now his personality, including his ability to influence those around him and the way he “messes with the line of ants.” The question remains: Is Johan a true psychopath, or are his twisted views the result of the experiment?

Behaviorally, he acts like a primary psychopath, which is defined as the consequence of an idiopathic deficit [Karpman 112]. He is calm, strategic, emotionally detached, and conniving. All traits that align with *PCL-R Factor 1. But what matters is the origin of these actions. Unlike most primary psychopaths, Johan’s personality is shaped by extreme trauma and the Kinderheim experiment, as mentioned before. The experiment forced moral dilemmas, which in turn may have created secondary psychopathy patterns; the result of indirect factors [Karpman 112]. This is proven by his desire for recognition, such as in episode 10, where Dr. Tenma and Otto Heckel are investigating the house of a recently murdered couple. Dr. Tenma removes a painting from the wall, revealing a note that reads: ‘Look at me! Look at me! The monster inside me is getting bigger!’ [Episode 10, An Erased Past]. This need for attention points towards residual BAS(Behavioral Activation System)-like drive typical of secondary psychopathy, leading to the conclusion that Johan is not a secondary psychopath or a primary psychopath; rather, standing at the intersection of the two. His psychopathy is neither purely primary nor secondary. While environmental factors shaped his personality, the resulting behavioral patterns resemble primary psychopathy.

Yet, of course, this isn’t the only factor that influences Johan’s personality. As shown in episode 57, “That Night,” Nina (Anna) had been taken to the Red Rose Mansion as a young child as part of Franz Bonaparta’s eugenics project set up to create a superior Czechoslovakian race. She experiences isolation and the massacre orchestrated by Franz Bonaparta, developing dissociative identity fragmentation. But after Nina (Anna) comes back, Johan manifests the trauma she faced as his own. What’s important about this is that two components could explain why he internalizes her trauma. The first component is the protective drive. Johan repeatedly emphasizes his bond with Nina (Anna). E.g., [Episode 38, The Demon in My Eyes] “I was born in a town that was straight out of a fairy tale. Many people died there, and when I walked away, I held hands with my other self. To me, it seemed like we were the only two people in the world. Neither one of us possessed a real name.” From this quote, I ascertained that he seemed to want to shield her from the rest of the world or keep her “safe” in his mental narrative. One could argue that adopting her trauma onto himself is a way of absorbing the worst of reality. At the same time, his protection is controlling and isolating. Seen in episode 7, Mansion of Tragedy, Dr. Tenma and Nina find the Fortners, Nina’s adoptive parents, and Jacob Maurer, dead after Johan coordinated their murder. From this, we can see how Johan tries to shape her perception of reality to keep her dependent on him. This parallels his tendency to manipulate people, indicating that control and thrill are integral to his behavior. From this, we can infer that Johan’s actions toward Anna are a blend of altruism and narcissistic control.

While trauma and conditioning explain the origins of Johan’s personality, they do not account for the persistent nature of his actions. Johan mentions wanting to see the end of the world, to be the last one standing. But what drives his desire to commit “the perfect suicide”? I personally struggled with this question the most since there are no clear signs that Johan was depressed. And even if he were to be depressed, what did it stem from? To answer these questions, let’s go back to basics. One study showed that higher psychopathy scores on the PCL-R were inversely associated with depressive symptom scores [Willemsen et al. 280]. It suggests that psychopaths tend to feel depression differently from others. Neurologically, if we assume that Johan is a secondary psychopath masking as a primary psychopath, depression seems to overlap more often. Primary psychopaths are defined as having low anxiety, emotional detachment, reduced fear conditioning, and are often linked to amygdala hypoactivity. On the other hand, Secondary psychopathy is characterized by high anxiety, emotional volatility, trauma exposure, impulsivity, and greater emotional reactivity. Depression is often correlated with amygdala hyperactivity, especially to negative stimuli, which can be seen in secondary psychopathy as well. Both depression and secondary psychopathy also show irregularities in the ventromedial PFC (Prefrontal Cortex) and dorsolateral PFC, which are connected to moral reasoning, emotional integration, and executive control. Trauma-related psychopathy and depression include dysregulation of the HPA axis, abnormal cortisol patterns, and heightened stress response as well. While Johan’s personality aligns with primary psychopathy, some scenes point towards trauma-induced psychopathy. E.g., when Johan encounters the Nameless Monster book, he visibly destabilizes and collapses. That is not consistent with primary psychopathy. His reaction shows signs of trauma-triggered dissociation. This collapse could suggest that there is something emotionally charged beneath his cool composure, and the detachment that we see throughout the episodes is a constructed defense. Johan may not be depressed in the clinical sense. But his nihilism mimics depressive cognition in its focus on meaninglessness. And if identity is accumulated perception, Johan’s perfect suicide is an attempt to interrupt the accumulation permanently.

Nihilism seems to be the core of Johan’s actions. He repeatedly acts in ways that suggest that he believes life has no inherent meaning. One could even say that his perfect suicide and manipulation are a part of an existential experiment, a way for him to test morality and consequences. According to Viktor Frankl’s philosophy, humans strive for a sense of meaning. Viktor himself was put in a concentration camp for three years and was at the hands of the Capos. He suffered extreme trauma as Johan did. But he was able to find meaning in helping sick inmates in those concentration camps. So, if we assume that all humans strive for meaning, Johan may be attempting to create his own “meaning” by asserting control over life, death, and perception. This shows that trauma directed him to a self-authored and violent meaning instead of a healthy one. While Viktor worked hard for the greater outcome, Johan resorted to destruction. From this, we can gather that trauma manifests differently in people. As we can see from Viktor Frankl’s story, trauma doesn’t always result in psychopathy or nihilism. Many people who’ve experienced early trauma can develop resilience, empathy, and awareness. E.g., Nina (Anna) experienced trauma at the Red Rose Mansion; she doesn’t develop the same degree of psychopathy or manipulation as Johan did. In one scene, after realizing what had happened at the mansion, she questions whether she would’ve turned into a monster as well. That shows a degree of self-awareness. Genetic predispositions, environments, and personality traits, as you can see, shape trauma outcomes in this way. Two children could go through the same trauma, but one might become narcissistic and/or develop psychopathic traits, and the other might become hypervigilant, develop anxiety, and/or depression. As a result, I conjectured that Johan’s path is a combination of trauma, conditioning, identity absorption, and perhaps a predisposition for detachment. So, if the self is contingent on which perceptions dominate or get reinforced, Johan’s nihilism and overall personality are an extreme product of this.

Johan Liebert embodies the complex interchange between trauma, conditioning, and personality development. His behavior was shaped by the Kinderheim experiments and the identity absorption of Nina(Anna)’s trauma. Johan’s need for absolute control unveils a narcissistic drive stemming from existential nihilism, while his calm, strategic detachment lines up with the characteristics seen in primary psychopaths. By seeing Johan from the point of view of identity as a bundle of perceptions, I was able to hypothesize how trauma can construct this kind of personality in a person. Ultimately, Johan is not a monster in the sense that he’s a psychopath. In fact, he is a product of his circumstances, demonstrating how “self” can change when perception and experience warp it.

Works Cited:

Karpman, Benjamin. “On the Need of Separating Psychopathy into Two Distinct Clinical Types: The Symptomatic and the Idiopathic.” Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, vol. 3, 1941, pp. 112–137.

Willemsen, J., Vanheule, S., and Verhaeghe, P. “Psychopathy and Lifetime Experiences of Depression.” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, vol. 21, no. 4, 2011, pp. 279–294. doi:10.1002/cbm. 812.

Monster, directed by Masayuki Kojima, with performances by Kōichi Yamadera, Megumi Hayashibara, and Masako Ikeda, Nippon TV, 2004–2005.