by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
U.N. Visitor’s Plaza, New York, New York
A gift from Luxembourg.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last forty-eight hours, you have no doubt seen the coverage concerning the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. If you possess even a minimal level of empathy for your fellow human beings, twelve dead and fifty-eight wounded when their only crime was wanting to see a movie can only be properly described as tragic. Among the dead accounted for up to this point are a man who had been celebrating his twenty-seventh birthday (Alex Sullivan), a member of our Navy (Petty Officer Third Class John Larimer), a twenty-four year old aspiring sports journalist (Jessica Ghawi), and a six year-old girl. Some less responsible outlets are reporting this little girl’s name (Huffington Post, looking your direction), but other more responsible outlets are not. I will not post her name for the same reason others have declined: the little girl remains unidentified because her mother, also a victim of this horrific crime with gunshot wounds to the neck and abdomen, remains paralyzed in hospital and has not yet been told of her daughter’s death. Even in reporting on events, sometimes a little discretion goes a long way and does not impair the “public’s right to know” in any substantive manner.
Over the next few days, you will see many attempts by people with various political agendas trying to monopolize on this shooting to promote their pet causes. In fact, it has already started and in a most heinous manner. During a radio interview on The Heritage Foundation’s “Istook Live!” show, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings were a result of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs” . . . and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter. Gohmert in one fell swoop illustrated that not only is he a base political opportunist, but that he apparently doesn’t understand the 1st or 2nd Amendments very well – a common affliction among Texas pols. Others pols are already using this as a way to promote their anti-gun agendas, their pro-gun agendas and the Twitter-verse is filling with statements from “our leaders” about this tragic event and all of them in some way self-serving.
I urge you to ignore these opportunists for a moment and to think about something else related to the Aurora shooting.
Multiple outlets are reporting that the accused gunman, James Holmes, had dyed his hair red and told the police he “was the Joker”.
There is the fantasy of violence. There is the reality of violence. They could not be more different in outcome. This presents the issue of instances like this where the line between fantasy and reality have clearly been crossed in some meaningful manner. Does this problem exist in the individual or in society itself? I submit the answer might be “a little of both”.
Consider this: one of the elements of drama is that the hero (or something or someone the hero holds dear) must be in peril. It creates tension, it moves the story. You cannot have drama without an element of danger or risk and very often that danger or risk is portrayed in the form of physical violence. As a species, we are wired to find this entertaining. There is nothing wrong with a bit of wish fulfilment in seeing the hero overcome adversity as entertaining.
The reality is starkly different. Witness real heroes like Jon Blunk who was killed defending his girlfriend Jansen Young during this rampage. Witness Jarell Brooks, a 19-year-old from Aurora, who put himself at risk to help Patricia Legarreta and her two young children escape, but not before he and Legarreta were wounded. Witness Eric Hunter, a 23-year-old from Aurora, who found two wounded girls and dragged them to safety in an adjoining theater before blocking the door to Theater 8 and preventing the alleged gunman from spreading his gunfire in to a new room of innocent theater goers.
All three possible outcomes. Death, wounding, escape from physical harm. All three equally heroic in that other lives were saved, some of them strangers with nothing in common but a love of the same kind of cinema and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s a funny thing about heroism though. As F. Scott Fitzgerald famously quipped, “Show me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy.” In real life, the tragedies and the heroics are real and have real consequences. The hero does not always win the day as they are prone to do in fiction.
Does our propensity for dramatic entertainment, let alone dramas involving violence, feed a propensity for violence? This is a question as old as drama itself. On one side of the argument is the catharsis argument put forth by Aristotle in Poetics; that in viewing tragic events, the audience’s negative feelings like fear and pity are purged. This line of reasoning was later supported by psychologists and psychiatrists such as Sigmund Freud and A.A. Brill. On the other side are modern researchers who have found correlations between watching violence and the rate of violence in society, but causal connections between the two in the general population have been difficult to pin down. What is clear is that “exposure to media violence does not produce violent criminals out of all viewers, just as cigarette smoking does not produce lung cancer victims out of all smokers. This lack of perfect correspondence between heavy media violence exposure and violent behavior simply means that media violence exposure is not a necessary and sufficient cause of violence.” (“Media Violence and the American Public” by Brad J. Bushman and Craig A. Anderson, Iowa State University, American Psychologist, June/July issue, p. 482, 2001.) That a small segment of society seems particularly susceptible to being prodded in to violence through the consumption of media violence though seems undeniable. To me, this seems to comport with the rate in society of people with mental problems revolving around empathy like sociopaths and psychopaths. People who lack empathy would naturally not connect the actuality of violence with the fantasy of violence as they don’t care about the impact of their actions on others to begin with. Correlation is not causation and the root causes of violence are more complex than just a person’s entertainment choices. There are also environmental, social, economic, and personal history to consider. Some people in certain situations are simply going to be more prone to violence. While causation in the general population has been found in desensitization toward violence and violent entertainment, causation of real life violence with fictional violence has been more elusive although desensitization in itself has been can “[increase] aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal and aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors.”
As a society, do we have a duty to mitigate all factors that can induce violent behavior in individuals? Even if that susceptible segment of society is a very small percentage of society? With complex compound causation, this is a practically impossible task, and even if “perfect mitigation” of contributing factors was had there are a certain percentage of society that are going to be violent psychopaths no matter what their environment is like. Where to do we draw the line a social inputs that can encourage violence and personal responsibility for individual action? Consider this as well: do we have the same duty to mitigate when the violence perpetrated by sociopaths and psychopaths is economic (as in the banking industry shenanigans that birthed the OWS movement), is purely psychological (as seen in pathologically verbally abusive spouses) or is purely political (as in the religious far right attempting to trample history and the Constitution to institute theocratic laws if not outright theocracy)?
Perfection is not possible. Evil cannot be eliminated in the world for without it we have no definition of good. The perfect removal of error from complex systems is a mathematical impossibility. Does that mean we should not try?
What do you think?
Source(s): ABCNews.go.com (1, 2), NBCNews.com (1, 2), Huffington Post (1, 2, 3)
~ submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
UPDATE: The names of all the victims have been officially released by the Arapahoe County coroner’s office. These are the names it is important to remember. Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6, Jessica Ghawi, 24, Alex Sullivan, 27, Jonathan Blunk, 26, John Larimer, 27, Matt McQuinn, 27, Micayla Medek, 23, Jesse Childress, 29, Alexander Jonathan (AJ) Boik, 18, Alex Teves, 24, Rebecca Ann Wingo, 32, and Gordon W. Cowden, 51.
A Personal Note to the Aurora Victims and Their Families and Friends:
My sincerest condolences. May your loved ones lost live on in your memories and may your memories be long, robust and full of happiness. May the wounded heal and take every advantage of their good fortune at surviving this senseless act of violence. May this harm done to you and yours not keep you in the depths of lament, but transform to a celebration of life – both theirs and yours. Peace, love and long life.
Gene H.
NOTE: For those of you waiting for the next Propaganda installment, I’ll either publish it tomorrow or publish next weekend depending upon time constraints. I thank you for your patience in the face of breaking news.
OS and Bloise,
I wonder where you both get your facts about Appalachia.
“The worst kept secret in the world is the fact there are still illegal moonshine stills, meth labs and “agricultural projects” in the mountains of Appalachia.” OS
“As to your comments about “backwoods of Appalachia” … yep, it’s a whole ‘nother culture back in the mountains.” Blouise.
Personal studies there? Internet searchs?
Since Appalachia stretchs from Georgia to western Pennsylvania, then conclusions emcompassing the whole area can be questioned as to on what basis they are made.
I have spent some time there. They walk on two legs, had one head only. And believe, although have no facts, that they do less mass killiings than in equally populated areas.
But that may be only a surmise. I don’t follow the news so closely. It as OS said, enough to be scared of George. He was obviously deranged and I am obviouly professionally capable to make the diagosis.
Here we give, with good reason I feel, the people of Aurora a clean bill of health.
But the people of Appalachia are worth distrust, it could be said that you are supporting.
I have offered no defense, just calling into question your accusations. Can you defend them?
this has nothing to do with society or guns. it is the result of a brain which malfunctioned, nothing more. Had guns not been available he would have used soda bottles filled with gas or some other weapon.
shano,
No one is immune from the “crazy” gene mutation. In law enforcement we hope to weed out the so inclined through pre-hire testing and stringent training however we continue to fail miserably and even promote some of the sickest ones to command positions. I am not preaching “hopelessness” for I agree with Tony C when he writes …
“Most sociopaths are deterred by the likelihood of punishment (in fact, nothing else works).
But I think that is as far as we should go, no level of consequences will deter the insane that cannot process consequences.”
Cops who shoot at toddlers in strollers and the commanders who order them to do so along with those in adjacent positions of responsibility who “justify” such actions as necessary are all in a special classification of sociopathy. The knowledge that certain and swift punishment will be applied for such inhumane actions no matter what the justification, might be a deterrent. We should try it.
That should be “rifle” not “rife”! 🙂
Dredd,
Society wants people to have 6,000 rounds of ammunition and high capacity rounds? It is corporations and the NRA who want them to have those weapons and ammo. Corporations are not part of society. They are entities trying to sell to and control society. There is a difference. Unless of course you agree with Citizens United.
People want to hunt and target shoot, but how many actually use a semi-automatice rife to hunt? Unless of course they are hunting people.
Gene H. 1, July 22, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Dredd,
Please do continue to prove my point that you are incapable of processing what is inappropriate and wrong with your comments on this tread.
I don’t stop opponents in the midst of making a mistake.
=============================================
I am an opponent because I quote more competent people than you, who disagree with you because you are wrong, and you can’t handle it because it dampens your self-promotion.
There is no need for that, you are becoming irrational.
I try to stop those who see learning as an opponent, and urge them to get rid of the old brown textbooks and join today’s science.
You should join me, not oppose me, because …
rafflaw 1, July 22, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Dredd,
it is not that simple. It isn’t society that is infecting the masses, it is corporations and organizations that have as their goal, to sell and promote as many guns as possible.
—————————————-
Those are functions of society … allowing that to happen is not an individual behavior, it is the behavior of the society around … government is a function of society.
—————————————-
They even claim in their PR campaigns that Obama is trying to steal their guns, with absolutely no evidence to back up their hysterical claims, all in an effort to sell more guns. The last statistic I saw was that there was over 250 million guns in private hands in this country. Isn’t that enough?
==========================================
I do not think guns are the problem, except “a little”, the problem is the ideology of our society.
It is a bully with violent proclivities that it is acting out around the world and at home.
Dredd,
Please do continue to prove my point that you are incapable of processing what is inappropriate and wrong with your comments on this tread.
I don’t stop opponents in the midst of making a mistake.
Dredd,
it is not that simple. It isn’t society that is infecting the masses, it is corporations and organizations that have as their goal, to sell and promote as many guns as possible. They even claim in their PR campaigns that Obama is trying to steal their guns, with absolutely no evidence to back up their hysterical claims, all in an effort to sell more guns. The last statistic I saw was that there was over 250 million guns in private hands in this country. Isn’t that enough?
Gene H. 1, July 22, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Not touchy at all, Dredd. That you don’t understand what you’re talking about let alone reading vis a vis biology is well established at this point. No, I’m more like revolted that you’d make a straw man and shift contexts (both logical fallacies and forms of lies) to inappropriately take this particular opportunity to promote yourself, your ridiculous blog and your own scientifically ignorant agenda.
My knickers are just fine.
You mistake disgust on my part with some other emotion.
Your posting shows all the empathy and appropriate socialized emotional response one would expect from a narcissist and/or a sociopath. You’ve once again taken a situation that has nothing to do with your personally and tried to make it all about you and your pet theory.
I do, however, think that you’re as big an opportunistic self-promoting jackass as Rep. Gohmert though.
Good show.
==================================
If you are so competent, why not drop the ad hominem and comment on what the scientists, who are fully competent, said to show you are wrong?
Your “guess” that our society is “a little” to blame for the massive violence within it is shown by them to be a wrong guess.
Our society is substantially to blame.
Oh, and who are you promoting with your blog posts (if posting is ipso factor self promotion as you errantly conclude)?
Talk about straw men.
Your 18th century logic is failing you again.
rafflaw,
….
The next question is , When will this madness end?
==========================================
When society overcomes the madness it infects young individuals with.
Not touchy at all, Dredd. That you don’t understand what you’re talking about let alone reading vis a vis biology is well established at this point. No, I’m more like revolted that you’d make a straw man and shift contexts (both logical fallacies and forms of lies) to inappropriately take this particular opportunity to promote yourself, your ridiculous blog and your own scientifically ignorant agenda.
My knickers are just fine.
You mistake disgust on my part with some other emotion.
Your posting shows all the empathy and appropriate socialized emotional response one would expect from a narcissist and/or a sociopath. You’ve once again taken a situation that has nothing to do with you personally and tried to make it all about you and your pet theory.
I do, however, think that you’re as big an opportunistic self-promoting jackass as Rep. Gohmert though.
Good show.
Great article Gene on a very sobering topic. I have waited to respond to your post because of my past gun control articles and comments, but I could not wait any longer.
One problem that I have when people in the NRA and others have when the term “gun control” is uttered is that they tend to scream that we are taking away their guns. I don’t know if it is a language problem, but gun control is not about abolishing all guns. It is about common sense restrictions to prevent people like this alleged shooter from being able to obtain guns and weapons that go above and beyond what a normal person exercising his/her 2nd Amendment rights would normally own. Why is our society so different from other Western democracies that our murder rate by guns is in some case 2 and 3 times as great?
My answer is the out of control NRA and the greed of gun makers continues to push for the situations like Colorado’s lax gun control laws so that they can sell more guns. What sense is there that the state has no permit law at all? I would guess you have to have a permit or license to own a dog in Colorado, but guns are exempt from reasonableness?
The young Navy man that was killed in this horrific shooting was from Crystal Lake, Illinois and as a young boy, he went to the middle school where my wife still teaches so this tragedy goes far beyond just the Aurora, Colorado community. I join Gene’s comment to the families directly impacted by this tragedy by honoring the service and life of Petty Officer John Larimer who was killed in this senseless massacre. The next question is , When will this madness end?
Police shot little kids, shot at strollers, etc. Trying to buy the video people shot. Tell me the difference between this and a psycho opening fire in a theatre. The only difference is the rubber bullets. And they had a dog attack peaceful people.
Cops shoot into crowd of women and children and set attack dogs on crowd. If this ammo was real, there would be multiple dead bodies. Funny, the crowd was protesting an eariler police shooting that was unjustified. Babies in strollers no longer stop the police from shooting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MST4RhWdlMQ&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dshocking%2Bcalifornia%2Bcops%2Bopen%2Bfire%26oq%3Dshocking%2Bcalifornia%2Bcops%2Bopen%2Bfire%26gs_l%3Dyoutube.3…637.5397.0.6063.28.25.0.0.0.0.276.3185.7j12j3.22.0…0.0…1ac.b2Yy6qrZTFg&ytsession=EyEIlXlfDx4s9Lha2B7uNbNDhKQchyAEgAo0OjsJEvG0yak1etSEoBOjl_UcEx5Lys6ajxZ0FUR4m8AP1OXNC5Z5SbeBBRLnov4vqDjmjuJC6p1dCLc0uqGKGcpBxDxYpQzqfPhkOVPZ4MIzVR1GLQkEulm8DKSAp9igTjfYZZGRRuf8N77RiwTEkmjvYUFKNXZUSMBQt8-tMM22EjPjjkMBu9mlReZqHJmmIvglUiOYKs_KiOt-fbLXtW0otUi9p1rnrncFOOF_7razcbMx_qofEZx3cQ1trX2rQVZztZc&has_verified=1&has_verified=1
Tony C,
….
Gene’s quote has nothing to do with an evil core of humanity, people ARE wired to be entertained by heroic stories, and heroes require villains.
====================================
Actually, Gene is the one who raised the question I answered:
The professors, physicians, geneticists, and the like I quoted point out that Gene H is wrong.
I did not want to go there, but you did, so I respond to your going there.
The fact is that society is greatly responsible for the problem, and the individual is less responsible.
We are not taught in our educational system how to counteract what has been done to us before we “become of age.”
We are grabbed by societal institutions such as the military before we can sort things out, and are ruined.
There are more suicides and rapes in the military by far than in the population at large, yet we have a religion with its dogma about the military.
Which has violence at its core.
Society is where your irrational anger, as well as Gene H’s, comes from.
You should shake it before it shakes you.
A bit touchy Gene? Why does scientific realty insult, repel, and bother you?
Society is the source of social influence, individuals are the recipients of that influence.
In a Wartocracy, one should expect violence.
No need to soil your knickers over reality.
@Dredd: Apparently you either misunderstand the quote or it is the closest thing you can find to (once again) engage in your self-promotion.
Gene’s quote has nothing to do with an evil core of humanity, people ARE wired to be entertained by heroic stories, and heroes require villains. The greater the villain, the greater the hero that stops them, and in modern fiction we have had some degree of “villain inflation.” It is probably a fad that has to reach a level of ridiculousness before it collapses, but our heroes (and villains) have in recent decades been getting ever more magically endowed with super powers.
Even on staid, non-SciFi shows; on many shows the computer hacking and forensic analysis long ago strayed out of the realm of scientific plausibility and into the realm of pure magic behind a veil of nonsensical jargon.
Nevertheless, witchcraft and magic are not verboten for the purposes of story telling, and Gene’s reference to hard wiring is real; our minds are built to tell stories and understand stories, I think there is a good argument to be made that consciousness itself and the understanding of other minds is really about formulating a plausible narrative of one’s own actions and the actions of others.
Tony C.,
Great post and I have no substantive disagreement with any of those observations.
__________
To Woosty of the Persistent Felines, Blouise, Elaine, et al.
Thank you for the kind words. I’ve gotten good feedback on FB as well. Apparently there is an itch to discuss this matter without the political grandstanding and opportunism that this article is scratching for some. If I have aided? I am honored. As the persistently green one used to say, “one lives to be of service.”
“That sentence is (“As a species, we are wired to find this entertaining“) which seems to be controversial.”
There is nothing controversial about that statement at all unless you are making the assumption (again and wrongly I might add) that it comes from a strict genetic determinism standpoint. Wired by genetics, wired by environment, wired by a combination of factors (which is the reality of the situation)? Wired is wired. There is absolutely no controversy that humans find dramatic arts entertaining. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. However, that’s a nice straw man you’ve got there and a fine example of context shifting.
But thanks for taking this opportunity to pimp out your own scientifically ill-informed pet theory instead of addressing the issue as framed, Dredd. Really. How utterly . . . predictable.
Seriously.
Get a new act.