[Tonight (4.18.07) I amend this post with this preface because I see that a lot of people are seeking, searching, looking. Some of you, like me, may even be groping: How do I make sense of a ruthless massacre like the one that happened at the seemingly peaceful, bucolic Virginia Tech? I have spent much of my time since Monday morning wondering - with much fear - whether it is possible that there is no answer to the question. What if there is no reason at all?
I wonder, though, if we can permit ourselves to accept that the reason might be utterly simple, and singular in scope: Cho Seung-Hui created this all entirely on his own. This tragedy is not God's fault, nor is it the fault of college administrators, overly-cautious psychologists, timid law enforcement officials, or obtuse neighbors. This is something crafted by one person: A man willed something, and it came to pass.
Since I cannot promise any sort of answer here, I can at least direct you toward my own struggles with the problem of evil (see here). Though my struggle is admittedly one fought on Christian terms, I nonetheless believe my struggle can serve as a guide to those who find themselves doing battle in terms that are not one bit religious. My approach is actually more philosophical than theological, though both disciplines, I believe, have more to say about evil than any natural or social science which by definition precludes even the notion of evil.
But whatever you do or wherever you go, I bid you peace, comfort, and solace as you seek to find meaning in a world that shouts meaninglessness at us everyday. My belief is that what the world so often shouts is not at all true.]
You might have come here for comfort, for some understanding or trenchant analysis. I am sorry to disappoint. There is nothing this heart can really give.
_______________
The media, like the rest of us, chafe at the bit of real time. We want answers to simple questions, and we want them right now. We want to know why vision is always 20/20 when viewed in the Slow-motion Afterwards; and we want to know everything. We crave omniscience so we can explain; we crave explanations so we can console ourselves with pithy little phrases, like "isolated incident," "mental illness," "random violence," and "it can't happen to me."
While waiting for hard facts detailing the shootings at Virginia Tech, we are also tempted to ramble on about causes and solutions: We do not know the disease, but perhaps we can all chatter on about prevention. We do not know the problems, but let us posit some answers. This is our wont in the media, and in our consumption of media. And it is all so very entertaining: Let there be no dead air between breathy, vapid sound-bites for fear of losing viewers and listeners.
Of course, the big speculation -- THE BIG PROBLEM -- that filled much of the TV dead air between facts and figures delivered all too-slowly in the Virginia Tech shootings, is that the campus police and administrators are somehow to blame: The school should have been in lock-down immediately. You know what is being said -- we need a terrorist threat-level alarm system every time something bad happens (anywhere). That I have heard nary a word how a lock-down would not have helped is hardly surprising: we need answers, and we need to blame something.
(Think of the preposterousness of it all: VT should have locked down a 2600-acre campus -- over 4 square miles -- wherein 26,000 to 28,0o0 people work, live, study and stroll. Imagine the size of such an enterprise: taking a 2 mile by 2 mile urbanized area and containing it all within a protective blanket. Keene, NH, considered a city by New England standards, has 25,000 residents. Alas, we are hearing commentary suggesting that when Keene has a shooting within its borders, the entire city should be locked down. Instantly.
And then think of a methodical murderer with a plan: He will hide inside a building, wait for lock-down to be announced [he reads it on his own cellphone, perhaps]; he waits a few minutes to ensure that classes are underway and pedestrian flow into the building is low; he chains closed various exits; and then he begins his terror. Such a scenario gives one an immediate sense of how a lock-down actually creates a false sense of security; and how such false security lowers one's suspicions. Besides, the lock-down merely means that the shooter is now locked down with everyone else. He IS a VT student after all, and would be whisked toward protection like any other student.)
But we are all about finding something, ANY thing, to blame. The shooter himself apparently blamed "rich kids" and "debauchery" for his rage (and anyone paying attention to the zeitgeist over the last 30 years knows that rich kids are stereotyped by every sector of American culture). Some will blame video games. Some will blame guns. Others will blame race, or the isolation that too often comes of it.
The fact is that we all might be to blame. I replied to an email last night regarding the VT shootings that Americans -- and westerners in general -- no longer love their neighbors. Alas, we don't even know them. I will not enlarge upon that at this moment, but I will note this: An MSNBC reporter TODAY stood outside the Centreville, VA home of the 23-year-old shooter, and said that the neighborhood was clearly "middle class" (in contrast to a rich kid's neighborhood) and that, though neighbors had seen the shooter's family, none of the neighbors seemed to know a thing about the family (which had been living there for at least a dozen years). In fact, the reporter -- surprised, at least in tone -- shared that none of the neighbors seemed to know any of the others at all. And this in a middle class neighborhood where the very walls of each home were shared one house to the other.
In other words, the VT murderer was raised (mostly) in a tight-knit community of complete strangers.
Sounds like America. Sounds like the world.
There must be a simple explanation.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
14 comments:
Dear Bill--
The odds of one's next-door neighbor becoming one's best pal are relatively low, aren't they?
I've never been a fan of "love thy neighbor". I'm not going to love someone just for living next door. I love my friends; I leave my neighbors alone. I believe that I am obligated to avoid, whenever possible, making my neighbor's lives miserable, but I certainly don't think that I am obligated to attempt to enrich their lives; in fact, I suspect that most of them would be irritated if I took any interest in them.
I have become friends with a few actual neighbors; one even allowed me to read her diary. But that didn't happen because she merely lived next door (because she merely existed, in other words): it happened because she was an intriguing person, and I spotted her.
I observe my neighbors. I overhear them, and I want nothing to do with most of them. I don't want to know them better.
In other words, I don't think that the problem was that this guy's neighbors didn't get to know him, or care about him. (I'm not sure what the problem is.) Many of my neighbors have been downright rude to me, but I have not killed anybody.
The idea of a friendly neighborhood in which everyone shows up on the doorstep with steaming hot apple pie to welcome the new arrival actually sickens me: it would be impossible for me to enjoy the company of that many people. And if the shooter's neighbors had ever greeted him that enthusiastically, he may have gone on a rampage much earlier.
Perhaps the only thing that could have calmed his raging heart would have been the intervention of a truly wise, perceptive and engaging person. Such people are in short supply always and everywhere, and I don't think that a greater emphasis on neighbor-love will make them spring up all over the place anytime soon. In other words: there was probably no preventing this guy's hatred and violence, but even if there had been an opportunity to prevent it, that opportunity probably would have passed by unnoticed. There simply are not enough intelligent, deep people around to deal with this stuff regularly, on any level, and even if there were, they would likely be powerless, since penetrating insight can do little with shallowness; and many killers are very shallow people. There is no cure, and even the dubious remedies are in short supply.
Luke
Dear Luke,
As is my habit, I fumble with words. I can't carry a thing to the end-zone without losing the meaning I try to carry.
I am not advocating -- though I see no reason why I shouldn't -- some sort of idyllic neighborliness. I am speaking much more pragmatically: I am suggesting that love sees warning signs, and takes action. True love notices the neighbor building the gallows in his backyard, or in his heart.Of course, true love, sadly, is not omniscient, prescient or clairvoyant: It can't see what someone else does not want it to see. But love is outward, love seeks to understand. It notices people, it cares to visit them with gestures and acts born of kindness.
You may be right, you have terrible neighbors. I would ask you what love requires of those of us who care what love requires of us: What are we to do with the people who are our neighbors, especially when everyone is our neighbor? How do we attend to each other; what questions do we ask of one another? What sort of pastoral care are we willing to show, and what sort of risks are we willing to take?
The man adjacent to your bed may be planning on running a bullet threw his head tonight. What part do you play in his story? Any? If so, what might you do to derail him from sorrow, from death? What might you notice in his eyes that could save him? And what might you say that could save you, for the bullet that passes through his head may pierce your walls and penetrate your own skull, or is that too improbable?
I don't mind that you find apple-pie plopping neighborliness revolting, particularly since the image you've created is stereo-typical and absurd. Love is not how you've caricatured here; love is more than obscene and obsequious prying. It is not cloying and clingy and affected; it is not nosy and sentimental and shallow. It is rife with wisdom, sensitivity, courage and patience. It is on-edge with attentiveness, and jittery with concern. Love doesn't do any of the things you've suggested.
I am all for being deterministic here. I have no problem entertaining the idea that Mr. Cho was doomed to be overlooked, or doomed to be obsessed with the jealous meditations of his heart. Perhaps no smile, no simple laugh, no trilling birdsong or gorgeous babe or morning glory could have stopped him. In fact, it appears that many of his neighbors at VT did seek to know him, did seek to carry his burden and lighten his load. Seemingly to a person his schoolmates have admitted that they were not surprised that he was the shooter yesterday. In more ways than one, perhaps Mr. Cho was indeed determined to act the way he did. And maybe nothing could be done about it.
But determinism cannot stop me from my determined belief that we must sprinkle grace and good news on all the folks we know, for determinism may be wrong: Perhaps we can knock one another off the desperately dark track. But if we cannot, then we are doomed. Life, in my opinion, is thus rendered meaningless. And if not life, surely hope is meaningless if change and transformation are illusory.
Peace to you,
BG
Bill--
I only disagree with 2 things that you've just said. One is your accusation that I am "caricaturing" love. I did nothing of the sort. I even pointed out that deep, intelligent care is possible, just rare. And since it is rare, most people's attempts at love are every bit as vapid as the pie offering I just cartoonized.
And I have also found that most people feel antagonized by profundity, by depth of feeling, by superior intelligence, even when that intelligence is not being overly obtrusive. Since you seem to identify strongly with 'Atlas Shrugged', I assume you're aware of this. Real love is often the most abrasive and threatening thing one can offer a suffering, resentful person, especially since most people are so dumb. This isn't misanthropy, merely a simple truth of which you yourself are quite aware, as we can all see whenever we read your blog: if all of humanity is worth saving, why do so many of them read the New York Times?
Oh, and this:
"As is my habit, I fumble with words. I can't carry a thing to the end-zone without losing the meaning I try to carry."
Please. Drop the false humility. It's grating. You are far from a fumbler, when it comes to words. You are a gifted man: stop using up so much of those gifts on the art of self-deprecation. The ABILITY to be self-deprecating is a treasure, but one CAN over-use it.
"The man adjacent to your bed may be planning on running a bullet through his head tonight."
That is a very real possibility. My neighbor has actually threatened me through the wall; I think he may be batshit insane. Whenever the boiler breaks down, he thinks it is my fault, though I have (politely) made it very clear to him that this is not the case. And I also think that the world might very well be better off if he did shoot himself. Some might even argue that the world would also be better off if his bullet went through my head, as well. And they might be right, but I don't think so: obviously I don't think so, or I'd be blowing my head off right now, instead of writing to you.
Luke
Luke,
There are actually 3 things with which you disagree. The third thing is that you disagree with my sense of humility: you see it as false.
Curiously, I see it as neither false nor true. I don't even see it as humility. I see it as satire, as even sarcasm.
And I hope that you would disagree with my dreadful sentence that your neighbor may run a bullet "threw" his head. I think that it much more likely that he will throw his head "through" a window. Thanks for correcting my embarrassing typo.
Your first question on this post reveals that you meant far more than I was saying: You are the one who implied that I was calling all men to be best pals with their neighbors. You added that you were not a big fan of "love thy neighbor."
But you seemed to have missed my point, at least half of it (the left half): everyone is my neighbor. You took me far more literally than I intended. And thus you took neighborly to mean something other than I ever described: you took a very local view of it, when I meant something far broader. Yes, of course, I meant it locally, in part, but that is not the end of neighborliness. But it is a good start toward the end I have in mind.
I beg you: never let anyone put a bullet through your head. I love you.
Gnade
"I believe that I am obligated to avoid, whenever possible, making my neighbor's lives miserable, but I certainly don't think that I am obligated to attempt to enrich their lives;"
This is an insulated approach to humanity. It is passive. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. No risk. Safety.
Adding the next line:
"in fact, I suspect that most of them would be irritated if I took any interest in them."
Luke, you are wrong on that last count. I have found that people, in general, love it when another takes an interest in them (assuming it is a friendly interest). It is the exception when one does not. Perhaps this is false humility? Or, I suspect, more searching for safety.
A little more:
"There simply are not enough intelligent, deep people around to deal with this stuff regularly, on any level, and even if there were, they would likely be powerless, since penetrating insight can do little with shallowness"
I gather from this and the rest of your conversations here, that you are equating a special power of intelligence with an ability to love at a certain level. Hmm. I'm not so sure. One need not be able to phsychoanalyse a human being to be his friend, and even to head off destructive actions or large nor small consequence.
Love is many things, but at it's heart, it takes joy in another while seeking what is best for that other.
I would gain great pleasure to know, for example, that to the level that people can be friends through posting on a blog, that I could improve your day rather than ruin it. That's an expression of love.
And so, God bless you Luke. And you too, Bill.
And, if either of you are ever in the neighborhood, drop by with an apple pie and I'll have the coffee ready (my wife's coffee always rocks).
Good to see Luke and Bill back together again.
We should be friendlier. We're not and I fear we've justified it with all sorts of excuses to hide the guilt. I would like to extend that welcome. I make a mean espresso.
Bill--
"...my sense of humility: you see it as false.
Curiously, I see it as neither false nor true. I don't even see it as humility. I see it as satire, as even sarcasm."
Okay then: I sometimes find that particular technique of satire on your part tiresome; I do think you over-use it. I concede that I may have mis-characterized it: that is quite plausible. Perhaps I am the only person on this planet who is even slightly annoyed by it: and even I am only annoyed by it occasionally. It certainly doesn't make me want to through a bullet threw your head.
I don't think I missed your point, though I can understand how I may have created that impression. I was simply riffing away on a point of my own. As I said, I agree with much of what you said, but I am trying to explore the issue from another angle.
Perhaps part of the reason for the (mild) discord in this debate is this: the three of you (I gather) live in houses of your own, while I live in a tiny thin-walled apartment surrounded by other tiny thin-walled apartments. In other words, the three of you have better fences, which, as Mr. Frost taught us all in gradeschool, make for better neighbors. In the years since the three of you have married, the world has gotten more crowded, and more and more people, even in the countryside, are living right on top of one another.
Luke
Dear Mike--
I thought I'd tackle your ideas separately. I appreciate them as something of a counterpoint to my own musings, but I do think we're closer to agreement than you think. Here goes:
Mike: "Love is many things, but at it's heart, it takes joy in another while seeking what is best for that other."
Isn't that exactly what I'm doing here:
"I suspect that most of them would be irritated if I took any interest in them.
I have become friends with a few actual neighbors; one even allowed me to read her diary. But that didn't happen because she merely lived next door (because she merely existed, in other words): it happened because she was an intriguing person, and I spotted her.
I observe my neighbors. I overhear them, and I want nothing to do with most of them. I don't want to know them better."
See? Of course, my observations are flawed, like all observations. But I don't think that what I've written here is evidence of an overly passive mentality, which is exactly what you accuse me of for saying "I believe that I am obligated to avoid, whenever possible, making my neighbor's lives miserable, but I certainly don't think that I am obligated to attempt to enrich their lives".
One thing that love can never be is a mere obligation. Agreed?
Mike: "This is an insulated approach to humanity. It is passive. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. No risk. Safety. "
No, it's a sensible approach. Didn't I also say, above, that I have taken interest in my neighbors, to the point that one of them allowed me access to her diaries? I am paying attention: I am keeping my distance from those who seem to desire distance, and venturing into intimacy with those who seem desirous of intimacy. And keeping THIS always in mind: not all personalities mesh well enough to interact with one another on a pleasurable/meaningful level.
Luke: "in fact, I suspect that most of them would be irritated if I took any interest in them."
Mike: "Luke, you are wrong on that last count. I have found that people, in general, love it when another takes an interest in them (assuming it is a friendly interest). It is the exception when one does not. Perhaps this is false humility? Or, I suspect, more searching for safety."
I am wrong? Look at what I actually said in my posts:
"I have found that most people feel antagonized by profundity, by depth of feeling, by superior intelligence, even when that intelligence is not being overly obtrusive."
No, I don't think I am wrong at all. You and I are different people, and people react to us differently. Again, the girl who let me read her diary seemed to appreciate my "intelligent" interest in her. I'm not venting aimless misanthropy here, just being honest. I am a bit of an oddball: many people are rubbed the wrong way by me, even when I am at my most meek & inoffensive.
Luke: "There simply are not enough intelligent, deep people around to deal with this stuff regularly, on any level, and even if there were, they would likely be powerless, since penetrating insight can do little with shallowness"
Mike: "I gather from this and the rest of your conversations here, that you are equating a special power of intelligence with an ability to love at a certain level. Hmm. I'm not so sure. One need not be able to phsychoanalyse a human being to be his friend, and even to head off destructive actions or large nor small consequence."
I agree with the last part, but surely we all agree that friendship has many levels of intimacy, and that our friendships with intelligent people are the most edifying, the most challenging, the most worthwhile? I certainly hope so.
And I do think that the kind of love that Bill and I are striving for, in our very different ways, DOES rest on a very rare kind of intelligence & depth-perception. Perhaps this is a highly personal judgement on my part: the only kind of love I crave, or am even able to recognize, is the love of those who are smart enough to understand my smartness. Anything else does not feel like love to me at all; a dim person, however seemingly good-natured, sometimes cannot help but feel bewildered by me, if I communicate with them honestly--and when one cannot communicate honestly without causing bewilderment, alienation is the inevitable result. When I think of love, I do not think of a blank look. And I'll go out on a very short limb with this guess: neither do you.
Luke
PS--Thanks for the invitation to pie & coffee. I love a good pie. I don't like coffee, but I'll drink it anyway if someone offers it to me--why not? It's just coffee, not arsenic.
My dear friends, all!
I know for a fact that Luke Buckham makes a mean quesadilla. If we can just get him on the griddle, get Mike to grab an apple pie and The Commentator to trundle out his keg of espresso, I think I can find a place for all of us to meet this side of heaven. No doubt our menu will be an eclectic mélange, which will perfectly reflect our little klatsch.
What shall I contribute? I'll bring the sorbet -- to cleanse our palates -- and the pineapple and onion pizza. I may not know how to cook, but I know how to order.
Peace and bliss!
Gnade
Luke,
Please permit me some room to be facetious, flippant, satirical, sarcastic; please let me play the fool. I am certain you are not the only one to find my writing, in total or in part, rather annoying. And though I wish it were not my habit to tire out some readers on a regular basis, I also wish you would not focus on my having given you the occasional nods. For that is a rather serious dead-end.
If, as you said to Mike, all observations are flawed, I urge you to be more circumspect, as I might pursue you to the very edges of earth merely to harass you till you cough up the flaws in your own observations about my satirical bent. Besides, let us not open the door about what makes us fatigue one another, as such pursuits might keep us up all night.
I do not know, either, why you should be mentioning anything about discord. We are each working toward something: we are trying to love and understand our neighbors. That is good, interesting, decent, fun, and perfectly fine. I am grateful. And, even if there is serious discord, I am fine with that, too. I enthusiastically embrace it, for in it I discover the sort of burgeoning neighborliness I believe necessary for any life to be real, true and grand.
But I know you do not mind the discord either, which is precisely why you and I remain friends: there is something that transcends both discord and perfect agreement.
Also, in lieu of the espresso and coffee the others might bring to our little party, I will grab a jug of a particular Thai iced coffee for which you have shown some weakness. Unfortunately my sweet tooth is more tooth than sweet, so I will have to resignedly blitzkrieg my blood veins with The Commentators' high-octane espresso.
You can bring the ice cream for the pie, fair?
Love!
Gnade
Bill----
"Please permit me some room to be facetious, flippant, satirical, sarcastic; please let me play the fool. I am certain you are not the only one to find my writing, in total or in part, rather annoying."
I hope I already "permit" you that, though you don't need a permit. It was very specific element in your style that I was attacking; I was sniping, not blitzkrieging.
And I would like to thank you for this:
"Cho Seung-Hui created this all entirely on his own. This tragedy is not God's fault, nor is it the fault of college administrators, overly-cautious psychologists, timid law enforcement officials, or obtuse neighbors. This is something crafted by one person: A man willed something, and it came to pass."
That is the voice of sanity, in my view, and I wish more people were saying that.
Luke
PS--I also make a pretty great stir-fry. Somebody bring a wok. What a great word: wok. Wok Wok Wok Wok Wok Wok.
Bill: I didn't read all of yours & Luke's comment exchange, but some of your points in the article are outstanding, particularly the one (which I haven't heard anyone else say and which I hadn't thought of) that a so-called "lock down" would not only be impractical, but would give a false sense of security. Good essay.
Dear Milton,
Greetings!
Sometimes I wonder if my being the only one to make a point proves that I am not nearly as sane as the man in the mirror appears.
The practice of a lockdown has its benefits -- in a prison. But even there all hell may break loose, even in lockdown. In the case of VT, it strikes me as self-evident that a lockdown would have worked to Mr. Cho's advantage: he was a student who -- I believe -- belonged in Norris Hall at the time the shootings occurred. Hence, had a lockdown been initiated, he would have been secured within the very target zone he intended to hit.
There seem to be very many questions that have not yet been answered in this whole sad story.
Peace.
BG
Post a Comment