A shroud of political correctness settled over the conversation. Hasan was portrayed as a victim of society, a poor soul who was pushed over the edge by prejudice and unhappiness.
There was a national rush to therapy. Hasan was a loner who had trouble finding a wife and socializing with his neighbors.
This response was understandable. It’s important to tamp down vengeful hatreds in moments of passion. But it was also patronizing. Public commentators assumed the air of kindergarten teachers who had to protect their children from thinking certain impermissible and intolerant thoughts. If public commentary wasn’t carefully policed, the assumption seemed to be, then the great mass of unwashed yahoos in Middle America would go off on a racist rampage.
Worse, it absolved Hasan — before the real evidence was in — of his responsibility. He didn’t have the choice to be lonely or unhappy. But he did have a choice over what story to build out of those circumstances. And evidence is now mounting to suggest he chose the extremist War on Islam narrative that so often leads to murderous results.
The conversation in the first few days after the massacre was well intentioned, but it suggested a willful flight from reality. It ignored the fact that the war narrative of the struggle against Islam is the central feature of American foreign policy. It ignored the fact that this narrative can be embraced by a self-radicalizing individual in the U.S. as much as by groups in Tehran, Gaza or Kandahar.
It denied, before the evidence was in, the possibility of evil. It sought to reduce a heinous act to social maladjustment. It wasn’t the reaction of a morally or politically serious nation.
And I was unsettled and mulling over the specific, but unarticulated, contrary notion that David Brooks was, actually, very wrong. Luckily for me, I've got Jonathan Turley on the same page. While on The Rachel Maddow Show on November 12, Turley said this:
There are plenty of people who act out of rage. If you take away a few of the aspects of this case, you would have a typical disgruntled worker shooting. We have, with these shootings all over the country, where people are disturbed, disgruntled, and isolated, and they come in and they shoot people in their work place. Now, some of them are perfectly unhinged and they will latch onto religious views or political views, but what they're really acting out of is mental illness.
That doesn't deny any action of evil. What it does do is say, "Your war narrative may not be the most salient point. It is just the most convenient one, and the one that will let you sleep most soundly tonight." What it does say is, "Evil does not lurk only in the hearts of men we see as not like ourselves. It can be in any one of us, and so none of us are truly safe." What it does say is, "Religious convictions may not be the ignition of this deadly passion. It may just be the vehicle this particular person chose to take".
What bothers me about David Brooks' article is that assertion the politically and morally immature nation is the nation that stops before stomping in like gangbusters and making assertions and assumptions without gathering all of the facts. For my money, it is the nation that has matured in both its political and moral arenas that disallows the presumption of one metanarrative over the perhaps more on point micronarratives.
What also bothers me about Brooks' piece is how these discussions of how the metanarratives impact how violence is dispersed are only prevalent when the provocateur is someone other than a white, Christian man. When the perpetrator is a white, Christian man, the assumption is that this case is an isolated incident that has no greater baring on society. That this person is a sport, that his actions have nothing to do with our own metanarratives. We can still see those acts of violence as actions of evil just fine. And by seeing them as actions of evil, we manage to separate them from our person.
As the Historiann notes,
it’s only the occasional story in the print media or on the radio that will note how very much like other American mass-murderers Hasan truly is: a native-born American man, aged 13-60, who has difficult relationships with peers and co-workers, and especially with women. (Not coincidentally, a lot of these killers are strongly invested in traditional gender hierarchies and see themselves as at odds with modern American women, who think they can make their own decisions about whom they’ll date or spend time with.)
I'm all for examining how systemic beliefs parlay into actions, violent or otherwise. I'm all for examining how those systemic beliefs and images and messages influence how we as a people react to actions, violent or otherwise. I'm a big believer in systemic influences, both positive and negative. And yet, we can't lose sight of the individual either, and how the individual's own maladies (or lack thereof) influence how much that message takes hold, and how it is expelled upon the world.
The thing David Brooks seems to be missing is that the idea we should hold off on saying, "Islamic extremist!" in this case isn't simply (or even) to stop the swells of people in Middle America from going on murderous rampages of their own. It is an effort to better ourselves, to look beyond our minute fairy tale beliefs in good and evil and how that good and evil is displayed, and search for deeper and more concrete answers. It is an effort to elevate ourselves, both as individuals and as a society, beyond the prejudices that say "if someone has a funny name and dark skin and reads out of a different book than mine, that book must be the source of the problem". It is in an effort to become a more politically and morally mature nation, a nation that does not see every act of violence perpetrated by someone in the category of Other as stemming from reasons wholly separate from acts of violence perpetrated by someone not in that category. That we can work to reasonably suss out where the act of violence stems from, understand what could have been possible catalysts, recognize those catalysts, and still understand the actions as being evil and the actor of creating evil. Because an action borne out of social maladjustment can exist within the possibility of evil just as much as an action borne out of religious extremism can. To deny that, to deny the want to assess alternate possibilities under the cry of it being a denial of evil is, I think, in itself an act of an immature nation.
5 comments:
What bothers me about David Brooks' article is that assertion the politically and morally immature nation is the nation that stops before stomping in like gangbusters and making assertions and assumptions without gathering all of the facts. For my money, it is the nation that has matured in both its political and moral arenas that disallows the presumption of one metanarrative over the perhaps more on point micronarratives.
This is totally not what Brooks was saying. He is bothered by the fact that many news organizations a) immediately absolved this man of culpability by portraying him as a victim before any of the facts were in, and b) quickly dismissed the possibility that Hassan's actions could have been motivated by Islamic ideology as opposed to 'bullying' from his fellow soldiers.
Brooks is a classical conservative in temperament. His impulse is to reserve judgment before we know the truth. In his view, we should neither assert nor deny the possibility that the suspect's actions were motivated by Islamic extremist ideology . . . or simply by pure malevolence.
A mature nation would be able to look at this case objectively, without prejudging the circumstances.
The thing David Brooks seems to be missing is that the idea we should hold off on saying, "Islamic extremist!" in this case isn't simply (or even) to stop the swells of people in Middle America from going on murderous rampages of their own. It is an effort to better ourselves, to look beyond our minute fairy tale beliefs in good and evil and how that good and evil is displayed, and search for deeper and more concrete answers.
This is also distorting what Brooks wrote. He's not saying that we shouldn't "hold off on saying, 'Islamic extremist!'" He's saying that we should be able to consider all possibilities, but be careful not to prejudge the situation. He wants to search for deeper, more concrete answers. Sometimes those answers involve Islamic extremism.
What we shouldn't do is dismiss certain possibilities out of hand because we're afraid they'll provoke some sort of backlash.
"David Brook [sic] at his best"
Seriously? Come on, the 'sic' thing is so condescending. I would never and have never done that to you.
eriously? Come on, the 'sic' thing is so condescending. I would never and have never done that to you.
Removed.
It was a function of practicality (to fix the spelling, to leave it unfixed), and was more about spelling implications (which I am prone to make) than anything regarding you. I didn't intend to be condescending, nor for you to see it as such, and I'm sorry that it was.
This is totally not what Brooks was saying. He is bothered by the fact that many news organizations a) immediately absolved this man of culpability by portraying him as a victim before any of the facts were in
I'm bothered by the idea that one cannot be a victim and portrayed at times as a victim (of bullying, of mental illness, etc) and yet still be seen as a perpetrator of evil. In every news report I saw, the actions were never excused. The rumination over what practical implications bullying or mental illness may have caused were sought to explain why Hasan would seek to murder so many, not to make him into someone not seen as having committed an evil act. And my media does, actually, tend to have a liberal bias. So I'm disagreeing with Brooks' reading of the subject, and the formation of his conclusion.
He's saying that we should be able to consider all possibilities, but be careful not to prejudge the situation. He wants to search for deeper, more concrete answers. Sometimes those answers involve Islamic extremism.
Sure, sometimes they do. But I don't read the article in the same fashion you do.
I know who David Brooks is; I find him to be, mostly, an uncontroversial figure who if not correct in his assessments is at the very least measured and erudite in expressing them. He's not one to gesticulate wildly about and make outrageous claims.
But I also see someone who doesn't look outside the status quo and doesn't recognize the difference between criticizing people saying, "It is terrorism! It is Islamic Extremism come home to roost!" and saying, "The situation is probably a great deal more complicated than that". It also hurts his case that he speaks in broad generalizations, and so relies on his audience feeling the same pains of "Can't say that! Not PC!" as he seemed to. I didn't see much of this at all in the media, so a quick reference to a specific event would have also been helpful.
As it is, I'm more aligned with Turley's reading of the situation, and I do see Brooks as being more on the side of "It does come down to Islamic terrorism" in this case.
He's not saying that we shouldn't "hold off on saying, 'Islamic extremist!'" He's saying that we should be able to consider all possibilities, but be careful not to prejudge the situation.
Also on this point:
Your reading of his piece would have been more readily apparent (and I would have been more inclined to see it the way you do) if instead of only criticizing those who did not want to go to "Muslim! Of course!" and instead focused on other possibilities, he also criticized those who went in the opposite direction of "political correctness". If his piece had talked about jumping to the conclusion Hasan was a Muslim extremist as also being bad, then I would have nothing to critique. As it is, he didn't. And so I do.
I'm bothered by the idea that one cannot be a victim and portrayed at times as a victim (of bullying, of mental illness, etc) and yet still be seen as a perpetrator of evil. In every news report I saw, the actions were never excused. The rumination over what practical implications bullying or mental illness may have caused were sought to explain why Hasan would seek to murder so many, not to make him into someone not seen as having committed an evil act.
Turley said:
“We have, with these shootings all over the country, where people are disturbed, disgruntled, and isolated, and they come in and they shoot people in their work place. Now, some of them are perfectly unhinged and they will latch onto religious views or political views, but what they're really acting out of is mental illness.”
I think this perfectly illustrates Brooks’s point. Turley is not only presuming mental illness, but also causal direction (mental illness causes people to latch onto ideology, instead of the other way around). People can be both victims and perpetrators of violence, I agree. But it’s still not clear that Hassan was a victim of anything.
Turley’s explanation was based almost entirely on speculation, and was designed frame Hassan’s actions in a certain way. There’s no reason to believe that Hassan was mentally ill. Asserting this as an strong possibility without any factual basis absolves Hassan of responsibility for his actions for no reason.
I think it’s important to point out that Rachel Maddow (and her guests) made no effort to try to explain Scott Roeder’s actions as possible mental illness, or to portray Roeder as disturbed and disgruntled. She simply asserted that he was motivated by extremist “political ideology.” That he was “not a lone actor,” but part of “the abortion terrorist movement.”
I didn't see much of this at all in the media, so a quick reference to a specific event would have also been helpful.
I agree. He should’ve cited specific examples. And he should've critiqued people on the other side who rushed to judgment.
I think this perfectly illustrates Brooks’s point. Turley is not only presuming mental illness, but also causal direction (mental illness causes people to latch onto ideology, instead of the other way around).
I think what Turley was saying is that this case fits a number of different paradigms. I didn't see him as saying, "This person is clearly mentally ill", but rather saying, "This case, if we pretend the person in it is Christian rather than Muslim, fits what we would normally see as workplace violence". And he added that workplace violence oftentimes stems from mental illness; I don't know if that last bit is true or not. Frankly, I think mental illness is a crutch we use to separate those people who commit these types of crimes from us people who have never done so. I think it is another way of turning the person involved into the Other, unless there is proof to the contrary. But what I saw Turley doing is what you are saying Brooks' point was.
She simply asserted that he was motivated by extremist “political ideology.” That he was “not a lone actor,” but part of “the abortion terrorist movement.”
And Turley, farther along in the segment, talked about how we label things - like the shooting of abortion doctors - terrorism without it being the case.
Also, Maddow was one of the only people to say those things, which is where I got my "only prevalent" assertion rather than leaving it at "only happens when". Because it does happen other times, but the times it is mentioned, it is an outlier.
And there's the deal: we have it in our collective heads that Islam is violence, and so that becomes the prevailing narrative to the point where we have conservatives railing against Muslims in the military. The prevailing "wisdom" is that this assessment is of course the correct one.
And so there are two issues: there is the disparity between how we generally treat those who look like the societal default and how we treat those who don't. I think we need to be careful we don't automatically stereotype the actions of those who don't look like the societal default as obviously stemming from X, and we have to also further look into societal reasons for why those who do look like the default do take the deviant actions they take.
So, I think Rachel Maddow was not right to assert that Roeder was a part of a larger anti-choice terrorist movement; I think she was right to assert that Roeder was not one whack job who took the rhetoric too far but was a product of a specific movement, especially since so few other organizations were going that route.
And that's the differences between a Roeder and a Hasan. Hasan's motivations, his communications with a radical imam, are already skewed in our national consciousness toward "terrorist". Roeder, and his communications with anti-choice groups, is not.
As I said, I'm all for looking at how societal narratives shape individuals. I'm also all for recognizing how our own societal narratives shape our reactions to these types of tragedies and the players within them.
Post a Comment