By (O)CT(O)PUS
Years ago, I was researching delusional thoughts for a paper on psychotic disorders. Where do delusional thoughts come from? Are there patterns or archetypes? Should all killing rampages be considered copycat crimes? Or something else?
We find examples of delusional thinking across a range of psychological disorders - dissociative, bipolar, personality, and psychotic disorders, as examples. Delusions are often expressions of inner conflicts, drives, memories, and feelings. For lack of a better expression, I call these “cultural artifacts” because they rise to the surface from the Spirtius Mundi of culture and infuse the mind. Delusional thoughts take many forms: Astral entities, historical events or persons, personifications of painful emotions or traumatic memories, revenge personae, or voices in the head – all born of our culture and made manifest in shocking crimes.
Every massacre demands an explanation. Law enforcement will gather evidence and assign motives to explain the unexplainable; the public wants answers; and parents seek reassurance. Every night on cable news, talking-head gasbags will assault our senses as competing stakeholders weave false hypotheses and self-serving narratives. Perpetrators rarely live to disclose their delusions in detail; they take their secrets to the grave.
If you accept this concept of delusions as cultural artifacts, then perhaps you might approach from a different perspective the murderous rampages that continue to confound and mystify us.
Perhaps there are other artifacts less visible to us. How does social stress correlate with violent crime? How do we quantify and measure alienation and depersonalization - the kinds of torments that find a path of least resistance in the delusional mind? Recently, one of our readers named democommie commented:
Poverty does not cause crime; it breeds despair. Mental illness does not cause crime; it removes inhibitions and the ability to control dark impulses. Guns do not cause crime; they enable people who despair … to attain, if only for a moment, a feeling of control, of superiority over others. That the feelings of control and superiority often result in the taking of other's property, dignity, safety and, far too often, their lives is not the result that they dreamed of. It is the stuff of nightmares.The incidence of mental illness is constant across various population groups – as constant as background radiation in the Universe. The rate of violent crime in the mentally ill population equals the rate of violent crime in the general population. Yet, America has a far higher prevalence rate of violent crime across all population groups compared with other nations. Why? Gun merchants offer easier access to arms. Simulated violence in games and entertainment provide scripts for delusional reenactment. Desperation drives motive. These are cultural artifacts.
Let there be no doubt. Easy access to arms correlates with higher incidence rates of violent crime, and America leads the world. The U.S. has 50% of all guns in circulation worldwide and 30 times the murder rate compared with other industrialized nations. Undeniably, gun culture is the vestigial relic of a frontier mentality deeply imbedded in the American mythos. Cowboys and guns are cultural artifacts.
Reductio ad absurdum. After a weeklong silence following the Sandy Hook massacre, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA responded with this prescription: Fight fire with more firepower; place armed guards in every school; arm the good guys to neutralize the bad guys. More guns! Turn America into an armed fortress with self-appointed militias and vigilantes in every city and town.
LaPierre offers not an imaginary dystopia but a real one – like a bad Mad Max movie – creeping into our lives. Is the ubiquity of guns an acceptable vision for our children and future generations? If you understand the pervasive impact of “cultural artifacts” on people, then LaPierre’s prescription for fighting fire with firepower is akin to pouring gasoline on a raging inferno.
During my parenthood years, I tried to teach my children the relationship between responsibility and freedom. Responsibility earns trust and confidence; the penalty for misconduct is more parental supervision and less independence. A reasonable proposition for raising children, I thought. Yet, ours is a society that fails to understand this relationship. Every public controversy, every perceived loss of freedom (whether imagined or real) represents a failure of responsibility.
Which is worse: A crazed gunman who kills 20 children at a clip? Or junk food merchants who consign children to lives of obesity and diabetes? Or designers of video games who market violence to children and call it entertainment? Or arms dealers selling automatic weapons that appeal, not to legitimate sports enthusiasts, but to adult children reared on action toys - who project their self-image of manhood through the barrel of a gun? Or reckless speculators who game investment markets and leave millions of lives in financial ruin? Or a corporate CEO who orders massive layoffs - casting entire families into panic and debt - then rewards himself with a million dollar bonus. Crimes of violence against people committed in the name of easy money, fast money, and free enterprise - these have become cultural artifacts.
How often have we heard people in the news disclaim or dismiss a public controversy with: “No laws were broken.” And how often have we thought: The word ‘legal’ is not necessarily synonymous with the word 'ethical.' Legal acts, all too often considered irresponsible and reprehensible, have become cultural artifacts.
What preoccupies our thoughts in this forum? We write about chicanery and corruption, inequality and injustice, abuse of our public institutions, the lies and deceptions of persons who aspire to positions of power and authority over us; of town hall hooligans, legislative gridlock and deadlock, and a public held hostage by political hacks and henchmen. How often have we felt bullied and abused! These too are cultural artifacts.
We may talk about the dangers of easy access to automatic weapons; about loopholes in our system of background checks and bullet holes in our mental health establishment; about the subliminal influence of violence as entertainment; about competing ideas of gun ownership versus public safety. These controversies, grave as they are, overlook other urgent questions:
How will more guns or less guns serve us when “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold?” Have we fostered a culture of remorseless and ruthless sociopathy? Are incidents of gun violence signs and symptoms of a culture in crisis?
We equate freedom with excess and excess with freedom. We enable overindulgence without self-restraint. We practice brinksmanship but not citizenship. With each passing year, we drive all standards of civility, community and accountability further into the wilderness. National conversations turn fractious and fragmented; not even the high ideals of secular democracy bind us together. We covet freedom but spurn responsibility. Perhaps the worst monsters of society mirror the accelerated grimace of a culture grown monstrous.
Let’s talk about the cultural artifacts that crash in the mind. Perhaps we should start this debate at the beginning by reaffirming those values of a democratic republic whose mission and purpose is to secure “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The price of civilization is never cheap. We demand the rights and privileges of full membership, but refuse to pay our dues.
No, Civilization is quite expensive and as with everything, some can and will pay more than others. The price we pay for safety rises steeply as we near the asymptote of absolute security from avoidable perils. Whether that peril be 'natural' or the result of criminal or accidental or other occurrences that flesh is heir to.
ReplyDeleteOther generations of Americans have put a higher value on what they defined as liberty relative to safety. Witness Franklin's "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Of course we are cheating if we cite him as many gun rights advocates do to justify a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The words 'essential' and 'temporary' need to be stressed. We need of course to recognize that what is essential and what is highly desirable in one place is not so in another. We need, in fact, to steer away from absolutes and from stereotypes and from invented scenarios when we seek to predict the future with or without the changes we propose.
We need also to recognize that no matter how much we feel correct in our passions, it seems that a majority may oppose us and the Constitution may restrain us. If it's indeed true that any substantial portion of our citizens long for Deadwood in the late 1870's, I'm guessing that those folks who join the Single Action Shooting Society are well served with venues to accommodate their smokey activities and I've yet to hear of any crimes perpetrated with such antique firearms.
What I'm trying to say is that guns were brought here to Plymouth and Jamestown and were essential tools for survival long before Hollywood invented the Cowboy and some parts of America are just as wild as they ever were.
Yes, I'm quite sure that many of us fantasize about Zombie apocalypses and a post apocalyptic world where it's essential to be armed. Witness the huge glut of 'walking dead' films that now fill the niche formerly occupied by the nuclear apocalypse, Soviet invasion genre. Fantasy never dies and the male fantasy of defending home and family prospers.
ReplyDeleteDoes that account for the actions of the few who will and always will run amok from medical conditions? I think not and I think that the huge number of citizens who belong to gun clubs, who hunt and shoot competitively in informal or professional events are statistically not only a majority, but compose nearly 100% of the gun owning public. Those of a more urban background are simply unaware of how unafraid most Americans are of firearms, how much a part of ordinary life and recreation they are and I'm still taken aback after 68 years at how my New York relatives cringe at the notion that I own a dozen guns because after all "guns are for killing people." Nearly everyone I know and their wives own guns here and you'll meet the same kind of crowd at the ranges in Fellsmere and Okeechobbee as you will at a Church picnic.
Membership in the NRA has risen sharply in recent weeks and gun sales have followed with the prices of military looking civilian weapons. Polls show that for the most part the increase in demand for unspecified gun control actions has not been great and is coasting back to what it was a year ago, that support for more of the same things we've tried is not there and that confidence in the same old sources of advice is missing, perhaps in recognition that gun violence tracks other factors than what we've been calling with a degree of naivete and innocence "gun control."
So again, I agree that guns aren't essential for most of us in the lower 49, but they are for some. We are however, even given the growing degree of nostalgia for early 20th century shooting ephemera (old posters for ammunition and hunting sell for thousands) we're still a hunting, fishing, shooting, camping, canoeing country of outdoorsmen even if not all of those really like Country music or Cowboys all that much.
The question remains how we keep guns out of the hands of people who tend toward illegal activities and far away from the mentally unbalanced. I'm not like the extremists in Florida who have made it illegal for one's psychiatrists to ask if you own a gun.
ReplyDeleteI want to make it a requirement. I'd like to require councilors of all types to ask and to report such things. Perhaps we should, like Illinois does, require a gun owners registration card to buy guns or ammunition, not that it's had any salutary effect in that state nor has Chicago's ban on handguns or the statewide prohibition of concealed weapons which includes knives. There must be things that will help, but nothing will ever guarantee that mass murder will not happen. We must listen to people who know about guns instead of stereotyping and labeling and ignoring because the real face of gun owning America is a mirror. It looks like all of us.
A general comment: I'm all for an improved mental health system and yes, we should be willing to help people who are ill (mentally or physically), but my first take on this concentration on mental illness as the only or main cause of our violence problem smacks of demonization and witch-hunting.
ReplyDeleteIt's just too easy, and if you peruse the comments sections for newspaper and journal articles about the New York law just passed and other efforts in the pipe, you might just encounter a sickening willingness to dehumanize the mentally ill and strip them of the most fundamental rights in pursuit of an elusive goal: absolute safety. I see it as a dodge: just point the finger at everybody who's ever had anything more serious than so-called garden-variety depression, report them so "the authorities" can input their names into some Orwellian database, and presto! problem solved.
We should be careful what we authorize in the name of safety, however laudable the goal. Freud shrewdly observed long ago that even as people band together in wider coalitions of the like-minded and "sympathetic" to one another's plight, they need to identify an ENEMY amongst those excluded from the widening circle of "shiny happy people holding hands," to borrow an REM song line.
Foucault wrote aptly about the modern state and institutional imperative not so much to maintain authority by cracking people over the head with billy clubs as by calling them out, identifying them, cataloging and tagging them as a particular kind of person. The concept of "identity" authorizes a multitude of offenses against humanity. I see the drive to catalog the mentally ill in the name of safety as just such a potentially authoritarian instance. Yes, I think there's something of a profile for these mass murderers of children in school and people in shopping malls and yes we should try to identify and help such people before they harm others, but at the same time, I don't want to sweep up everybody who's ever had a tough time of it mentally and label them "dangerous." That's a recipe for 1984, American-style. (End Part 1 of 2)
(Part 2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteI saw a documentary a while back that chronicles the "going postal" phenomenon (I believe it had that phrase in the title) – I mean the rash of mass murders committed by enraged postal employees a few decades back -- as perhaps being ground zero for today's terrible events, providing "copycat" fodder for frustrated, disturbed people. There may be some truth to it. I remember a relative's intense frustration with the Post Office even decades ago – he worked for them all his adult life and had great affection for his job (it's a cool thing to be – a "letter carrier," I mean), yet I believe he felt that when he became physically ill, some management types in the organization treated him like a lying piece of trash, at least with regard to the injury that took him off his active rounds as a mailman. You can thank any number of stupid, vicious, cruel Republican politicians for that kind of treatment – they have long since targeted the Post Office as the prime example of a government service that people like because it WORKS, so it must be destroyed by any means necessary. Yes, let's demand that the P.O. "make money" (even though that was never its intended function and it's an idiotic demand to make of such a service) and let's deploy a parody of ultra-ruthless corporate management style on postal employees: treat them like garbage and still require superhuman productivity, and see what that nets us. Think that sort of attitude on the part of the movers and shakers – and in a circle much broader than just the Post Office -- might have something to do with at least some of this violence? To me, it goes right to OCTO's point about the cultural dimension of our current violence problem. Our entire model of life shows that we have much more regard for anything and everything but human dignity. But what the hell – let's just put all the depressed people into a "database" and then promptly forget the whole affair. That'll fix it.
All the above, by the way, should be seen as qualified agreement and not as a refutation or argument.
ReplyDeleteI see two things in the NY legislation that I don't like. One is the attempt to blame gun violence on the "crazy people". The other is that the currently public record of who has a handgun permit will be "tweaked" to offer the permit applicants/holders confidentiality.
ReplyDeleteFuck both of those ideas.
People that are "crazy* are not ALWAYS going to act "crazy" and people that are NOT "crazy" sometimes act as if they are. Any solution that involves making the lives of those who already struggle with mental illness/personality disorders is NOT a solution.
Making the personal information of handgun permittees off limits strikes me as being a case of allowing someone who's complaining about their right to have any and all gunz that they want the ability to truncate someone else's right to know what their neighbors are doing in the area of gunz possession.
Then again, it's now law, so we'll just have to live with it until it's changed.
* "Crazy" being a very imprecise term.
DC,
ReplyDeleteI'm as disturbed by the idea of public property lists of any kind as I am by the publishing of people's medical and mental health records. Some seem to think that legally owning a rifle or shotgun or the like is a bizarre oddity making the owner a suspicious person to be shunned and feared. That would be a strange notion where I live. I got a haircut yesterday and Bob's Barber Shop which is festooned with vintage hunting and ammunition posters, memorabilia and old guns. The eponymous proprietor told a customer in his chair "wait a minute, you'll want to see this" and brought a handgun out of the back room to show him just as another customer walked in. He didn't bat an eye at the sight of the barber standing there with the Kel Tec in his hand. It's the rural South and Bob deals in firearms as a sideline.
People with carry permits are the least likely to commit crimes and if a small handful out of 150 million become unbalanced and climb a tower with a rifle it doesn't call for stigmatizing my doctor, my lawyer, my Chiropractor and three quarters of the people I know as some special public enemies.
If we're not to single out certain people or categorize people for special handling by reason of their medical status, why do so for the one in a hundred million chance that voices tell them to shoot children. I'm quite happy with Florida's laws which forbid such lists being made available to the public. The FBI and Florida law enforcement already know I have a carry permit and they have my photo and fingerprints. The local burglars don't need to know what I own worth stealing, nor my neighbors and I'm no more of a threat to them or their offspring than the Sheriff's deputies we have -- or the guy around the corner who's already killed someone with his car.
Dino,
" But what the hell – let's just put all the depressed people into a "database" and then promptly forget the whole affair. That'll fix it."
God no, and Godwin be damned, the first thing that makes me think of is the Nazis.
I'm not in any fashion in favor of exposing people in counseling or under medical care for mental problems, but those judged by such licensed professionals to be dangerous might be well served and the public as well if there were a system in place to curtail their right to own firearms even though of course enforcement would be quite difficult and the effects would be minimal. If you tell your priest or psychiatrist there's a dog called Sam telling you to shoot people, I think there's a rule requiring that authorities be notified and that would cause the person to fail the required background checks.
That's not to say we need to keep lists. That horrifies me and most people suffer from some depression in their lives, very few become suicide bombers or suicidal mass murderers. Lists of HIV carriers, recovering addicts, lists of skeet shooters -- sorry, I can hear the goosestepping.
We do that with convicted felons, with minors and with non-citizens. I don't call that making their lives more difficult.
A very wise Cephalopod suggested to me that we privatize gun control by requiring proof of liability insurance of gun owners. That allows insurance companies to infringe our rights in a manner that government cannot and as they already have a right to delve into our medical records and private lives -- and interview our neighbors and employers, nothing would have to change and the right wing "privatize everything" people would have to shut up.
When you buy a gun from a licensed dealer, you have to sign forms which include, amongst other affidavits, the statement that you're not a felon, mentally impaired or under psychiatric care. I'm suggesting that if one subsequently is diagnosed with schizophrenia, for instance, there should be some mechanism by which those no longer eligible to own firearms be required to give them up.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.