|
The answers of course are complex and will only reveal themselves over
time. They may not give us a complete explanation, but at least one we
can live with. Like all situations there are biological, psychological,
social and spiritual factors that combine to produce tragic outcomes.
Understanding these will help to provide ideas and strategies to reduce
the chances of future tragedies, and suggest how we can continue to
support those impacted.
Given this complexity, this Op Ed piece will focus on one aspect –
complicity, as a contributing factor to this and many other tragedies.
It ends with a statement as to what each of us can do to reduce
complicity.
As
the term is used here, complicity refers to being involved, an
accomplice in behaviour (often described as a crime, but not always) to
the extent that it carries some quantity and quality of responsibility.
It may not always involve a deliberate choice and in this respect can be
differentiated from conspiracy where there is direct intention.
With the news of the Virginnia tech tragedy, as with others such as
Columbine, many were concerned, not only with the impact it had, but
with the media coverage. Specifically the risk that the person or
persons who committed these acts would achieve celebrity status.
Something that media often denies with the usual statements that they
are merely reporting news, not helping to create it. The recent actions
and media response belies this claim.
Between the first and second shooting the perpetrator sent an 1800 word
statement plus videos and pictures of himself with weapons in a variety
of poses. While NBC stated initially that it will not air the video (it
did later on), the pictures
have been distributed and are splashed across almost every television
set and newspapers not to mention circulating on the internet. It is a
safe assumption that the video will somehow be leaked and available on
the internet. If you didn’t know the circumstances you could assume that
the pictures were of a young man emulating many characters in violent
video games, television shows or movies.
Regardless of this individual’s mental state at the time, it is clear
that one goal was to ensure his notoriety, something he knew the media
(and the rest of us) would be complicit with.
Kevin
Cameron, who has studied situations such as the Taber
shooting and others, discusses the lack of development these
individuals experience. But it is more than feeling insecure, it is a
profound state where they exist essentially as hollow shells, and
therefore are highly suggestible to whatever can be put into there. They
feel intensely inadequate in making their mark upon the world. Add the
increasing stress of an untreated and serious mental illness and the
bridge to understanding how this could happen isn't that long.
Now take a step back to look at the landscape. What gets rewarded,
reinforced, how does one achieve notoriety, particularly in the media?
Does it consist of an internal dialogue that I am so ineffective in the
world, but if I can do this, I will achieve notoriety, I will
posthumously become a celebrity, I will achieve my 15 minutes of fame,
this act will define me.
In
the perpetrators statement sent to NBC he lists his grievances, but also
describes the Colombine killers as “martyrs”. Sound familiar. In a
number of respects this isn’t much different than the notoriety
experienced by terrorist groups. A spokesperson earlier this week talked
about how it was important to continue with their terrorist campaign as
it has the west running scared. Their acts define who they are and there
are measurable results. While the Virginna Tech and Columbine shooters
are not operating on the belief that their rewards will come in the
afterlife, they are no less rewarded by the knowledge that they will
become celebrities in this life after their deaths. In a regressed state
they envision themselves looking down over the destruction they have
caused and feel vindicated by their decision. Or they fantasize that
this is what they will experience after their death
The media for their part are complicit in this. Everyone in the media?
No, there are those who act responsibly and are horrified at the stage
that their particular news organization provide. While news
organizations, talk shows, etc. do not come out and encourage this
behaviour, by their actions they ensure that it is rewarded. Need a
platform by which to become notorious, we will provide you with one. It
happens so often that one is left wondering if some secret part of them
wishes for tragedies such as these. At its most basic level, bad
behaviour is generously rewarded. In fact some media, notably the Globe
and Mail criticized the CBC for "not" airing the video, claiming that
the public had a right to see. By not showing the video the CBC was
denying the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps the Globe and Mail is
worried that they may be forced to take a look at their own
sensationalistic reporting. It is one thing to claim that you are
fulfilling some arbitrary self-defined condition as to what gets covered
in the news, it is another to take a news organization to task and call
them morally high handed if they refuse to participate in creating
celebrities out of the worse actions of human behavior.
Meanwhile the repetitive airing of pictures and sounds only serves to
re-victimize those left behind who are struggling with grief and torment
that is unimaginable. Those who share similar characteristics learn that
if they act in a similar way, or even a bigger way they will achieve
celebrity status.
But the complicity doesn’t end there. As consumers of these stories,
pictures and sounds we are also complicit. We are helping to provide a
stage on which these individuals can turn their fantasies into realities
and achieve notoriety and status that few ever do. Very simply, if no
one goes to the theatre, the play won’t last.
Will reducing complicity reduce the potential for these types of acts?
It is hard to assess. Only a prolonged period of time and action by many
could eventually answer the larger question regarding connections.
However it is something we can answer for ourselves, we can reduce our
level of complicity. .
You will have noticed that I have avoided using the name of the shooter
at Virginnia Tech, or the name of the individual who made the statements
about terrorism. It is part of a larger statement that goes like this.
“I am sorry that
your life has been full of pain and anguish and that you are
struggling with who you are and how you fit into the world. That you
find yourself isolated and disconnected from your fellow human
beings. However, I will not grant you that which you wish to achieve
– your notoriety and celebrity status through the destruction of
others. In my mind you will die as anonymously as you lived. What’s
more, I will not be part of a platform granted by others to provide
you with celebrity status. If they engage in this type of behaviour,
I will not read their newspaper, listen to their radio broadcast,
watch their television show or visit their internet site. They will
become just as anonymous as you are, lacking any measure of humanity
or credibility. If notoriety and celebrity status is to be granted,
it will be to those who survived this tragedy and to those who
helped.
If you wish for
me to know your name, work hard to find a cure for Cancer or Aids, or
any other disease, help those who are suffering, build a park,
contribute in a meaningful way to the less fortunate, your community, or
the larger community of people we are all part of. Work hard to overcome
the pain and challenges in your life, respect life including your own
and I will carry your name in my memory until I die. But I will no
longer be complicit, or support those who are complicit in your quest to
be a celebrity through the destruction of others.”
David
Masecar
|
