Did fantasy blur reality – the Virginia college shootings.
He broke up with his girlfriend. She was seeing an older man. So he shot 32 people on a Virginia college campus.
Illogical?
Somehow not to him. But how?
Are some people so detached from fellow human beings, so insular in their relationship with one human being, so invested in that objectified human being being a reflection on their social worth (as opposed to being worth something in one’s own right) that being cast off for someone else is so much the end of the world that it justifies ending the worlds of so many others.
I don’t know much about the life of Cho Seung-Hui but he apparently seemed almost indistinguishable from a lot of young college students. As a screenwriter, what intrigues me is that writing was where he, too, spent his time.
Today millions of people spend their lives in online games strengthening their detachment from the real physical community, reinforcing that their First Lives, their real lives, are somehow throwaway, boring, worth escaping? In a sense many of us are becoming writers, creators, making our own movies, being the journalist, playing out alternative lives as avatars in online games.
What does this mean for how we may come to feel about the lives of others? Does being engulfed by other worlds mean we lose touch with the physicality and lack of control we have in real lives and all the management skills that go with that?
Aren’t our views of the ‘normality’ of others largely based on the limitations of what we perceive to be our own ‘normality’? Most will never be one of the Cho Seung-Hui types of this world, but will addictive immersion into characters and virtual worlds make people like him that little bit closer to acting upon their irrationality? After all, rationality and resolution is about balances, about realism, about social skills, emotional skills, diplomacy skills. Cho Seung-Hui failed probably felt he was resolving his dramas, perhaps even felt he was rational. What do we do with such conflicting definitions and is society somehow generating them, making them more common?
If we feel our lives are petty, boring, drudgery, and prefer to be a character or an avatar than our real self, with young children striving for their 30 seconds of fame over and over on You Tube, then what are our parents, children, girlfriends, friends? As empathy becomes a lost skill, do others become means to an end, important tools in envisioning our own status not in society but in our minds, poured out in some online showcase among the avatars or characterizations of others? I’m a screenwriter. Perhaps I should double check my sanity in the mirror each morning (actually, in my own way, I do).
For those who spend most of their spare time in virtual realities instead of the real world, what of the real people behind characters? In time when novelty gives way to the conscious realization of addiction, will others become mere fodder, are they expendable, are they seen as just ‘ants in the human race’? Will we be seeing more alienated youth killing en mass in schools and universities, bars and cafes, because it ‘might as well all be a game’? Or perhaps I’m just a writer letting my sociology-informed fears run amok. I hope so.
We raced ahead of our infantile, primitive selves, arming ourselves with killing machines before we knew how to smile at strangers. Now we’re racing ahead again. We test drugs before mass release on the market but we are all psychological guinea pigs in the real multi zillion dollar industry of marketting and it not only wants us comfortably addicted and paying for our fixes but just like the pharmaceutical companies, its not going to encourage us to question when it would rather we just went ba-aa-aa. But Cho Seung-Hui was an English student who like many in the affluent world, are on antidepressants for depression. He was writing plays and stories, gory ones, very gory, full of chainsaws and hammers and killing and went armed with guns, ammunition, knives purchased almost as easily as they appear to players in a video game. Sounds like the majority of online games these days or the type of violent DVDs those blunted to subtler emotions have to settle for to feel anything. And when they can’t even feel for those? What’s next? If the fine line, the last thread of humanness in the lives of these deadified and alienated ‘normal’ people is the girlfriend who just moved on… what next? We should check our fellow human beings. Borg may be closer than we think.
Maybe it’s time to smile at strangers and connect so the ‘passing normal’ like this killer might humanise us rather than shoot us.
My heartfelt condolences to the families of those real humans killed in the Virginia tragedy and those harmed in it. The lives taken were lives of potential which now live on in the nostalgic worlds of those who knew and loved them. They deserved whole lives, their own destinies. They deserved to be more than pawns in the played out resentment fantasy of one disturbed individual.
There has been mention that Cho Seung-Hui may have had an autism-spectrum diagnosis. Well, many non-autistic people have been mass-murderer’s throughout history too, some with personality disorders or undiagnosed conditions other than AS, some without.
Like the general population, people on the autistic spectrum may have co-morbid conditions such as bipolar, depression, schizophrenia, personalities disorders (including sadistic and narcissistic personality disorders), intermittent explosive disorder or even psychopathy but that doesn’t mean any significant percentage of people with these conditions kill or harm anyone. In fact, with the exception of those with psychopathy and some personality disorders, those with these conditions and they are more likely to be harmed than harm.
Cho Seung-Hui may have displayed the stereotypical hallmarks of an ASD- impaired social interaction, impaired communication skills, obsessive interests and behaviours – but the same could be said of some with combinations that included things like Selective Mutism, psychopathy (yes, child psychopaths – which involves an incapacity for empathy- have existed), obsessive compulsive personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder (many of whom have been misdiagnosed as autistic or have both), or anhedonia as part of childhood depression (and infants as young as 18 months can have childhood depression).
Furthermore, the number of non-English speaking Asian migrant children who are misdiagnosed as new arrivals in English speaking countries is astounding. Relying on the anecdotes of family members back in Korea about Cho as an 8 year old who they hadn’t seen for over a decade conveniently fails to question that such a family may desperately need to cling to reasons why Cho was somehow inherently ‘damaged’ goods and therefore no direct reflection on their families.
There are many more good role models on the autistic spectrum who also have a range of co-morbid disorders (managed or not) who clearly demonstrate that it does not in any way necessarily connect that having these things makes one dangerous.
When things like this happen, we look for scapegoats be it individuals or conditions. This won’t bring back the dead and will only conveniently distract from the reality that such acts have been, throughout history, perpetrated by all kinds of people, all kinds of people.
Its also essential to remember that although the news makes these things immediate to most of us, that in our personal daily lives, most of us will never encounter nor be victims or even personally know victims of such crimes or their perpetrators.
… Donna Williams
author of The Jumbled Jigsaw
I think the media should have not shown his videos. This is what he wanted, and he won in this sense. Also, it’s an example to OTHERS who might like what he did — this shows that if they send a video to the media and do what he did, their faces and names will be seen world wide — this is what MOTIVATES them to do things like this — they want to be famous in this sense — it’s better than living to them.
If the first school killing spree was never publicized, I tend to think there would have never been any additional ones in the future in various places in the country, and none of the threats of this.
I meant “high school killing” … not the recent one.
I don’t think that the internet most forms has anything to do with it, or necessarily has a “distancing” effect from reality… It’s too much like the same scapegoating that we’re seeing against people with mental illness — or that has been seen towards every major new form of interaction.
Given the sheer numbers of people online, I think that if we could point to the Internet as being a problem, we’d be seeing far more *new* problems. So far, the main change is that now the public is starting to acknowledge the incredible problems with bullying that many of us have pointed to all along. (What I’ve seen online, actually, has been an increase in empathy as people become friends with others they never would have gotten to know in-person. I’ve also seen a lot of cases of “online friends” going to incredible lengths to help one another or various pets out in the “real world”.)
Aside from weapons being way too easy to acquire, the big things standing out about the shooters in my country so far is that they were all subject to severe abuse from their peers, and they were all allowed to suffer (or even tormented) by the teachers that were supposed to protect them. They also all made clear references to the problem in their final communications. (There’s a great article on it here: How To Create A School Shooter)
Most kids that are bullied don’t snap like that, but most also have one thing or another helping them cope. In my case, I had a lot of little things that were enough for the two years I was being abused at school… Even with the short length and coping ability, though, I was still full enough with hatred towards almost everyone there that it seems reasonable to figure I would have snapped if things had gone on long enough, or if I didn’t have what I needed to cope.
Hi Moggy,
in New Scientist Magazine issue 21st April 2007, there’s an article called In Denial.
It cites that the average US school child leaves elementary school having witnessed more than 8000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on TV. If the child has access to computer games or films this figure will be far far higher.
It goes on to explain that studies have found an even higher correlation between viewing violence and committing it than the already accepted proven links between passive smoking and cancer risk, condom use and HIV minimisation, and three times the strength of findings that calcium increases bone strength.
It explores why in spite of all this the public refuses to take the link seriously simply because ALL kids exposed in this way will not become violent (and all people passively inhaling tobacco won’t get lung cancer either).
Anyway, may be worth having a look. It’s an awesome article. My husband reads the magazine and we explore some of the issues in it.
🙂 Donna *)