Post Virginia Tech Analysis

/media/news/21077/1.jpg

Has enough time passed since the shootings at Virginia Tech for a little reasoned discussion of the problem of violence?

About a week ago, there was a rather good article on the psychology of violence in the London Times. It got a lot of blog coverage, mostly because of Camille Paglia's (predictably) asinine remarks about women failing to understand male aggression and "young women" whose sexual freedom is "confusing" and "humiliating" to boys--as if sexually active single women aren't constantly told that they're sluts who are somehow asking to be raped, and aren't therefore (if anything) hyper-aware of the possibility of male violence. But okay, Paglia's got a bug up her ass about violence and feminism and everyone knows it; it's not surprising that when asked she's going to invoke the old double standard in that backlashy kind of way she does.

The article as a whole, though, is quite interesting and makes some really good points. The gist of it is a genuinely thoughtful exploration of the centrality of violence to American masculinity. It's a truism by now that these mass shooters are usually young white men (though Cho, of course, was a Korean immigrant), and that they usually feel socially isolated, picked on and marginalilzed, and want to somehow punish or get even with "society" for their sense of alienation.

The responses to this kind of thing are truisms, too: identify people who seem "weird," (over)react to stories or fantasies that involve violence (although again, in Cho's case the reactions of Nikki Giovanni and other professors and students to his writing seem, in retrospect, highly accurate), argue about security and gun control, blame video games, worry (excessively) about whether or not the mentally ill are dangerous. (Check that last link for an example of the kind of overreaction to whatever the most prominent feature of the latest killer's story seems to be.)

But all of those reactions are essentially reactionary--that is, they're after-the-fact responses to the unexamined problem of why violence is so endemic and attractive, especially to young men. Undoubtedly part of it is simple biology: men are probably more aggressive than women, especially during adolesence and early adulthood. But most guys don't shoot up schools or gangbang or get in bar fights or beat up their girlfriends or even join the military. A lot of them channel their aggression into playing WoW, or internet flamewars, or angsty rebellion, or sports, or fairly harmless occasional rowdiness. So aggression, in and of itself, is hardly an adequate explanation.

Which leads us back to Sarah Baxter's article in the Times. She interviews scientists from psychology to poli sci about the problem of (male) violence and comes up with some pretty interesting explanations, most of which amount to a combination of young male energy + a sense of social grievance + psychological isolation.


Dr James Gilligan, a former prison psychiatrist who teaches at New York University, believes that misogyny and homophobia are a central component of the make-up of violent criminals, who often fear they have homosexual tendencies.

“An underlying factor that is virtually always present is a feeling that one has to prove one’s manhood and the way to do that, to gain respect, is to commit a violent act,” he says. “It is tremendously tempting to use violence as a means of trying to shore up one’s sense of masculine self-esteem.”

It is not simply an American phenomenon. In Cho’s video manifesto, there are unmistakable echoes of the home-made martyrdom videos of the young male jihadists circulating on the internet.
....
Political scientist Francis Fukuyama believes the common denominator between the terrorist suicide bomber and the suicidal mass murderer is their sexual frustration and gender. “It really is young men between 15 and 30 who are responsible the vast majority of crimes, although it is politically incorrect to say this too loudly,” he says.

Suicide bombers and the Virginia Tech killer, Fukuyama suggests, “fall into the same demographic of young males, a lot of whom are unemployed, without a clear place in the social hierarchy. These guys have the most to gain and the least to lose by martyrdom”. And often, he adds, they are upset about girls “whose attention they can’t get”.

I really don't see why it would be "politically incorrect" to argue that at a time in life when they're going through (1) a lot of energy and (2) an attempt to figure out their role in society, young men who find that the roles offered to them aren't available for one reason or another would be angry and aggrieved. Hell, most of the arguments people have about culture and social problems revolve, one way or another, around what young men "need": jobs, military service, fathers, freedom, marriage, respect.

Change happens, though. And guys are gonna have to adjust when the world they live in evolves. What would really do them--and us--the most good is being able to talk about the social, physical, and emotional stresses they're under and start to recognize that there's more than one way to be a good man.

Bitch_PhD got her son an Easy-Bake oven yesterday, because his particular version of little boyness involves making stuff, feeling helpful and productive, fueling his energy with lots of carbs, and liking things that plug into the wall.

web address: http://suicidegirls.com/news/all/21077/Post-Virginia-Tech-Analysis/