Automatism (pronounced aw-tom-uh-tiz-um)
(1) A
condition in which one is consciously or unconsciously, but involuntarily,
compelled to the performance of certain acts; also called telergy.
(2) In
philosophy, the doctrine that all activities of animals (or of humans and
animals), are entirely controlled by physical or physiological causes in which
consciousness takes no part; the doctrine that animals are automata, operating
according to mechanical laws.
(3) In
certain common-law jurisdictions, a defense available to the accused in
certain, limited circumstances (the threshold is high because it can be an absolute defense).
(4) In
clinical physiology. the involuntary functioning of an organic process,
especially muscular, without apparent neural stimulation.
(5) In
psychology, the performance of an act or actions without the performer's
awareness or conscious volition.
(6) In
early-mid twentieth-century art, a method of producing pictorial art, as
paintings and collages, associated chiefly with the dadaists and surrealists,
in which the artist strives to allow the impulses of the unconscious to guide
the hand in matters of line, color and structure without the interference of
conscious choice.
1803: From the Ancient Greek automatismós (a happening of itself), the construct being automat(on) + -ism. Automaton (αὐτόματον) (autómaton) as the neuter form of αὐτόματος (autómatos) (self moving, self willed). The –ism suffix is ultimately either from the Ancient Greek -ισμός (-ismós), a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine; from stem of verbs in -ίζειν (-ízein) (whence the English -ize), or from the related suffix Ancient Greek -ισμα (-isma), which more specifically expressed a finished act or thing done. The preferred plural form is automatisms. The use in 1803 referenced "the doctrine that animals below man are devoid of consciousness; it was extended in 1856 to to humans in the sense of "automatic or involuntary action". In psychology, automaticism (an action performed subconsciously, without any apparent direction from the mind) is synonymous with the legal construction of automatism. Automatism, automatist & automaton are nouns and automatistic is an adjective; the noun plural is automatisms (automatons sometimes used in courts).
At law
Sane automatism is an infrequently used defense in law, rare because the standard of proof required is so high. If successful, it’s an absolute defense for almost any crime, including murder, even in circumstances where both sides accept a defendant is proved beyond any doubt to have done the deed. Best thought of as the sleepwalker’s defense, the sane automaton escapes liability because (1) they were sane at the time of the offence and therefore can’t be committed to incarceration by reason of insanity and (2) were wholly unaware of the acts committed in the commission of the offence and can’t be convicted because the law demands, for a criminal prosecution to succeed, the mind must be as guilty as the hand. This is based on the Roman legal doctrine actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty). In English common law, the rule meant there must be actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind). While in modern courts, mens rea is now called "fault elements" or "mental elements" and actus reus is now called "physical elements" or "external elements", the meaning is the same, the welcome changes being made to replace obscure Latin words with plain English.
Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.
Acceptance by courts of the existence of automatism is relatively common but not its acceptance as a defense of the sane and, on technical grounds, prior fault generally excludes automatism, as does intoxication, even when involuntary. Automatism is thus more associated with a plea of insanity under the M'Naghten Rules (M'Naghten's Case 1843 10 C & F 200). Under English law, internal causes of automatism are generally judged to be insane automatism and so result in the verdict not guilty by reason of insanity rather than acquittal. While the sane automatism defense is available in matters such as murder, there are offences of absolute liability where it’s not allowed, even if evidence proved it could be sustained such as receiving parking ticket after neglecting to feed meter.
Automatist Art
The Garden, (1964), by Hannah Hoch (1889-1978)
Surrealist automatism was first described during the 1920s as a technique in which an artist allows their unconscious mind to prevail over their consciousness; unsurprisingly, the process was sometimes drug-assisted. Sceptical (ie conservative or traditionalist) critics, at the time pondering the work of the early surrealists and Dadaists made the point it wasn’t immediately (and often not subsequently) obvious whether a piece could be thought the product of an artist’s conscious or unconscious mind but such critiques seem to have made little impact on the movement. At the technical level, the process of automatism involved an artist “allowing” their hand to create imagery with a randomness, chance (some critics preferred “accidents”) as much an element in composition as whatever remained of rational intent. As art, a viewer could make of the works what they would but the claim there was some reflection of the artist’s “repressed subconscious” attracted the psychoanalysts, some of who made such “blind drawing” part of their clinical practice although as a purely artistic approach it had earlier been discussed by the English artist Austin Osman Spare (1886–1956) who in The Book of Pleasure (1913) included a chapter titled Automatic Drawing as a Means to Art. Although he never emerged from the periphery of the art world during his lifetime, Osman worked and exhibited almost to the day he died and in recent years has become a minor cult figure, something accounted for as much as him being a noted occultist as for his paintings and drawings.
