The Enemy Within

It's about guns. No, it's about mental health. No, guns! No, mental health! And so on – the endless, swirling whirlpool of blame and accusation, insuring – as always – that rational discourse has been left behind and that any “solutions” will be both wrong-headed and ineffective. (But what counts – as the Obama administration taught us – is rhetoric, not actual results.) 

I'm not going to attempt to propose a solution to the school shooting plague, but will simply offer a few points for consideration.

#1, is the phenomenon new? Not brand new, in that incidents of this sort do appear in the historical record going back quite far. But yes, new in frequency and magnitude. And is this, in turn, a product of our fast-forward, media- and Internet-based society (and the hybrid of these, namely social media), which has, at long last, achieved the “global village” of Marshall McLuhan's dreams (or nightmares?). Because in that global village, information spreads as rapidly as it did between busybodies and gossips in the traditional village – except out in plain sight, and amplified. As such, it partakes of many of the qualities of mass hysteria, and in that sense naturally feeds on itself, grows, reproduces, morphs, and stimulates stable and unstable minds alike. And that, in turn, leads to not only “copycat” incidents, but copycat thinking, which is expressed, more often than not, in the social media, which offer the appearance of anonymity but which are, in fact, the digital equivalent of posting a sign in one's front yard. Combine this with the promise of instant fame (which has ever appealed to losers) and you have multiple accidents waiting to happen. 

So we have not only the copycat phenomenon, but also the gradually growing social acceptance of this form of “acting out”. Social acceptance? Surely not, in view of the universal condemnation of such acts. But I'm not talking about normal society here; I'm referring to a subculture made up of countless moody, isolated “weirdos” -- a fellowship of the bullied, rejected, and generally shat-upon – and we know it exists because we've seen ample evidence. And the operating base for that subculture is, again, the social media. In those circles, school shootings are seen as a form of justice – of getting even, of standing up to authority (both adult and that of the “in crowd” -- the popular kids – the cliques), of asserting oneself against an unjust and cruel world. Witness, even, the frequency with which the shooters (the ones who survive, or the ones who leave their thoughts behind in some form) say that their victims are better off dead – presumably because no one should have to put up with the offenses that the world dishes out on a regular basis. So they were doing their victims a favor by taking them out of this world. Deranged thinking? Certainly – but, seemingly, becoming more common. Combine that with delusions of grandeur – of a “superiority complex”, if you will, and again, it's just a matter of time. 

To this we might add – paradoxically, perhaps -- a more general phenomenon or trend, namely the erosion of individual self-esteem. And this seems wrong on its face, since if the public schools represent anything in lieu of academic standards, which have long since been left by the wayside, it's the unremitting obsession with, and provision for, self-esteem, “inclusiveness”, and all the other ways of describing the morphing of the public education system into a gigantic sociological octopus. The problem is that, clearly, these programs don't work – at least not for the real outliers, the truly marginalized. They work for the ones who are already in the system in some way – not necessarily whole heartedly but enough to be amenable to persuasion and manipulation by “agents of change” (teachers and school administrators in this case). But for the true rebel – the true outsider – these efforts will invariably come to naught, because those in question have already, on some level (consciously or otherwise), declared themselves to be non-players, bad citizens, and rebels – and if you survey the writings of many of the school shooting “perps” you will find this attitude in abundance. 

Another way of putting it is that these people do have self-esteem – but of a markedly different, pathological, and dangerous type. It goes beyond simple sociopathy, which is about being a rebel and a “badass”, and extends into hatred, resentment, and a desire for revenge – for “getting even”. (Please note that most of these shooters don't seem to have any other notable accomplishments – nothing that would merit being listed in a yearbook, say. Oftentimes the sort of hostile energy that motivates shooters is the same kind of energy that can, in some cases, be channeled into something more constructive and/or creative – but that would require some sort of talent, which these shooter types seem to lack.) 

Then there is that old stand-by, morals and morality – both of which have been expunged from public education because they are insufficiently inclusive... and, after all, “it's a matter of opinion”, as the cultural relativists never tire of saying. And heaven forbid anyone should start talking about morality in a public education setting; who knows, it might constitute a “trigger”; it would certainly be readily identifiable as some sort of “hate”. Not to mention which, how many public school teachers in our time would even be comfortable teaching morals, or even ethics, when it's much easier and less threatening (to their own self-esteem) to stick with “niceness” and “consideration for others”? 

But again, the rebel – the badass – is only going to sit in the back row of the classroom and laugh at such foolishness. He knows these people are all hypocrites! And his sense of superiority dictates that he devalue them not just to the point of not caring whether they live or die, but being willing to help matters along. 

But – one might say – isn't the home where morals are, or should be, taught? Certainly. And that should be reinforced – or at least not directly contradicted – by the educational system. And yet too often we find the opposite, and I'm trying to think about at what point the public schools, and their “agents of change”, came into direct opposition with the values of families and the home. I suspect it was at about the time when the “60's” types got their teaching degrees and spread out across the land like a plague, determined to subvert American culture in all of its forms, because, after all, American culture had treated them shabbily and it had to go – and any totalitarian worth their salt will tell you that the program has to begin with the young, and the younger the better. “Anyone over 30” is a lost cause... and if you're going to be a rabble rouser, the most amenable rabble to rouse are people of high school and college age. 

But this argument assumes that the home and family remain a redoubt of proper training, ethics, and morality – but that would be a mistake as well. Lest we forget, the same “60's types” who signed up as agents of change are also the ones who raised the next generation – and are, in fact, the grandparents of the current generation of high school- and college-aged individuals. So we have, basically, a generation, or the second generation, raised up in a moral vacuum and then sent off to the public schools, colleges, and universities where that moral vacuum is even more complete, permeating, and insidious. And then we wonder where school shooters come from. They are, basically, externalizing their inner demons, which in earlier times might have been suppressed either totally or sufficiently by the collective influence of family, school, and community. But there are no such inhibitors now – it's as if we have a landscape of human nuclear reactor cores with missing control rods; there is nothing preventing the occasional meltdown. 

So yes, it's not about guns. Guns have always been with us, although it could be argued that “assault weapons” and the like have not, but those are an aggravating factor rather than a cause. And I'll even venture a guess that more American households 100 years ago – or 200 – had at least one gun on hand than is now the case, percentage-wise. There was certainly at least one gun on every farm... and at least one in the home of every hunter... and that included a goodly proportion of the citizenry back before mass industrialization and migration to the cities. And where are guns considered a problem, by the way? In rural areas, or the suburbs? No, in the cities, of course, where, allegedly, no one “needs” to have a gun but so many do. 

Is it, then, “mental health”? Well, yes – if you include under that heading being something other than a moral imbecile. And if you take into account a collective pathology which is more obvious than ever in society, namely the acceptance and depersonalization of violence. Acceptance? Yes – in fantasy mode, via video games and the Internet, where one can plow through platoons of enemies with weaponry that the U.S. military can only dream of. But wait, that's just “fantasy”, right? And everyone knows the difference between fantasy and reality, right? The problem is, a growing number of our citizens, particularly of the young type, don't. Their fantasy worlds constitute so much of their reality that when they're confronted with real reality, their fantastic thinking doesn't turn realistic, but remains in charge. 

Think about it. Is the human brain, especially the youthful human brain, really able to make this sudden, violent, many-times-a-day transition between fantasy and reality? Look at the screen... then at the world... then back at the screen... then back at the world... and so on, many scores, or even hundreds, of times per day. Isn't that expecting a bit too much of our perceptual and cognitive abilities? What “works” in one world (uninhibited violence without consequences) ought to work in the other as well, shouldn't it? Does anyone ever point out, to young people, the flaw in that thinking?

I recall a phenomenon that was pointed out by military psychologists back during the Vietnam era. It was sometimes referred to as the “cartoonization” of not only the enemy but also of non-combatants. And this was way before the advent of “realistic” video games or the Internet; all we had was TV and Pong, basically. And yet even back then, there was a tendency for young men in uniform armed with powerful weapons to see others (pretty much anyone not in an American uniform) as non-human... as no more than scuttling little creatures who could be picked off at will in a sort of grotesque form of target practice. While not claiming that this was a typical attitude, or even terribly common, we cannot ignore events like My Lai as examples. (And as someone said in the recent PBS series on Vietnam, there were “hundreds” of My Lais.) 

Now of course, the notion of the enemy as “the other” is pretty much universal in warfare, and has been reinforced by military and civilian leaders from time immemorial. But along with that there has been a tradition – not always honored but persistent – that civilians, i.e. non-combatants, were off limits. You don't have to hand out Hershey bars, just don't kill 'em. So when did this basic, and I would say honorable, premise, start to erode? We can point to the concept of total war, which is, again, not all that new – but which reached a kind of peak in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was one point at which “Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out” could have been declared the unofficial motto of our foreign policy. And of course there are always justifications – and they may even have some validity. But justifications don't change facts. And they don't change the demoralizing effects of war – not just on the direct participants but on the civilians back home. (We always fancy ourselves as being so smart by confining our wars to overseas actions, ignoring the long-term impact on veterans and on our society in general, not to mention the corrosive effects on politics and economics.) 

But what does this have to do with school shooters? Well, let's not assume that they're stupid; in fact, many of them appear to be quite intelligent – mad scientists minus the science, if you will. And believe it or not, they might actually have done some reading and know a bit about history – with or without help from their official government teachers. So in a mush-brained kind of way, don't they have a right to reason that if something is OK for the government to do, then maybe it's OK for them to do as well? Think about the Waco massacre, and other causes that agitate the so-called “far right” -- who has more moral sense, the people who perpetrate these things or the people who protest? 

But wait! There's more! What about abortion? It's one thing to look upon “collateral damages” which is another way of describing the deaths of thousands of civilians (perhaps not all innocent, but certainly innocent until proven guilty) in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria – but death in the womb (or barely outside of it) in neat, orderly, sterile hospitals? And consider that, as has been pointed out, everyone born in the U.S. since Roe vs. Wade is a survivor of a massacre which is still going on. Now, once again, don't assume that these young people are stupid; on some level they realize this. They know it, and while they ought to be grateful to their parents for not turning them over to the mercies of abortionists, they also have to feel that “There, but for the grace of God...” Or if of a non-religious bent, they were just plain lucky. So they survey the landscape and see that everyone else of their age – or approximately so – is also a survivor. Are those others more or less deserving? Maybe some of them should have been aborted. Maybe I can step in and fix things where the abortion industry failed. 

Fantastic thinking? Delusion? Grandiosity? Certainly. All too common? Certainly. But we have paved the way through a thousand decisions, many of which seemed minor or inconsequential at the time – or not even like decisions, just casual choices. “Practical” or “sensible” choices. But to quote a great Greek playwright, “The boys throw stones at the frogs in play, but the frogs die in earnest.” Our “stones” are what is called social experimentation, and the “frogs” who die psychologically are youth, i.e. the victims of said social experimentation. We are so shocked when a young person “acts out” in a violent way, when in some sense he is merely doing the next thing in a perfectly logical chain of reasoning (or anti-reasoning). Our social, supposedly benign, sub-clinical pathology has become his malevolent clinical pathology, with dire consequences. So yes, “the enemy is us”, but until we realize and admit that, and do what is required to remedy the situation, we can't expect the Era of School Shootings to come to an end, no matter how many march and protest and petition those in charge.