Within a few hours of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, the film critic Roger Ebert made a provocative observation in a New York Times essay:
I don’t know if James Holmes cared deeply about Batman. I suspect he cared deeply about seeing himself on the news…
…Like many whose misery is reflected in violence, he may simply have been drawn to a highly publicized event with a big crowd. In cynical terms, he was seeking a publicity tie-in.
I don’t want to dismiss the extreme nature of Holmes’ obvious mental illness. Like psychiatrists say about Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle, Holmes might suffer from schizotypal personality disorder. Certainly he suffers from serious disturbances.
I do, though, want to make two additional points: 1) Recognition through violence is a common theme in American culture; 2) In the age of Facebook, Twitter and reality television, everyone seems to have access to a significant audience, but the recognition it brings is, usually, an illusion. When everyone’s a star, no one is a star.
Thinking a little about these things might open some avenues for understanding the epidemic of mass killings and other violent episodes in our recent history.
First, what do I mean by recognition? Isaiah Berlin said it best in his essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty”:
What I may seek to avoid is simply being ignored, or patronized, or despised, or being taken too much for granted – in short, not being treated as an individual, having my uniqueness insufficiently recognized, being classed as a member of some featureless amalgam, a statistical unit without identifiable, specifically human features and purposed of my own. This is the degradation that I am fighting against – I am not seeking equality of legal rights, nor liberty to do as I wish (although I may want these too), but a condition in which I can feel that I am, because I am taken to be, a responsible agent, whose will is taken into consideration because I am entitled to it, even if I am attacked and persecuted for being what I am or choosing as I do.
All humans want such recognition. But two things combine in our culture to make it problematic: the celebration of individualism and a mass culture which renders the individual invisible.
The viability of violence as a road to recognition may be uniquely exaggerated in America. Cultural historian Richard Slotkin wrote of “regeneration” rather than “recognition,” but the centrality of violence to the pursuit is the same:
…the myth of regeneration through violence became the structuring metaphor of the American experience.
Consider this: we are so accustomed to the possibilities of recognition through violence that we place many cultural heroes in disguise to erase suspicions of self-promotion and to guarantee their nobility and devotion to others. Virtually every cartoon superhero has a secret identity. Then there’s the Lone Ranger (“Who was that masked man?”). Or Clint Eastwood’s “Man With No Name.” John Wayne’s Tom Doniphon in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance shoots the outlaw from a hiding place and gives mild-mannered Rance Stoddard (James Stewart) the credit.
The second point, that the recognition conjured by YouTube, Facebook, reality television, etc., is usually an illusion, seems self-evident and is certainly not original. It was 1968 Andy Warhol said, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” The line is ironic. What it really means is that when everyone is famous, no one is famous.
The drive for recognition is too deep in us to take Warhol very seriously, of course. And it’s certainly true that some gain more recognition than others, at least for a little while. (Quick, name five people who have appeared in one reality show or another over the last decade).
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the frustrations caused by our relative invisibility and the drive for recognition lead to all kinds of aberrant behaviors, like the quasi-violent or abusive rhetoric of some blog commenters (masked as they are by a lone ranger anonymity).
Then there are the ever more extreme claims of a Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Obama’s fake, coded birth certificate!) or a Rep. Michelle Bachmann (Muslim terrorists in the State Department!) or Rep. Louis Gohmert (the Aurora shootings are the result of a war on Christianity!). The drive for recognition leads to an arms race of insanity.
Oh, it’s hard to get a little recognition. Still, Arpaio, Bachmann and Gohmert received massive media coverage. I am not saying these three are nascent James Holmes. But it needs to be pointed out that Holmes has received his media coverage, too.
It used to be enough for a journalist to simply to report the news. Few even knew what any given newspaper reporter looked like. Respect came from one’s peers or a small circle within one’s community. Now, however, reporters must be seen by millions. Celebrity and cable news appearances are a critical part of the job.
I don’t know what the answers are. A little restraint from the media would be good, a little less attention to extreme recognition addicts. Maybe some serious self-reflection by all of us. After all, the world might be a circus, but is our desire for recognition so irresistible that we are happy to become clowns – or worse?



80 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Everybody wants their 15 minutes – one way or the other.
Re: The extreme claims…I do think it’s a bit scary that people with a public role/voice say such outrageous things. Raises the “have you no decency?” question. The really looney stuff should not get so much attention.
Plus, I think there is so much frustration in the run of daily life…Recently I had a week of crazy insurance blips, being over-charged (alot) at a check out, etc etc….so little tasks take alot of extra effort. It seems as though we are in a world where almost nothing goes smoothly. And yes, those things also make us
“crazy.”
Is it possible that a perfectly healthy human desire for recognition as a person is being warped by a contemporary hyper-media “sphere of recognition” that works to de-individualize or even dehumanize those it recognizes?
Let me put it in a personal political context. I was on Chris Matthews once debating G.W. Bush’s poor military record with a congressman. I was on the set, the congressman was remote. While he was talking and Matthews and I were invisible to viewers, Matthews was waving his arms at me and telling me to shout and interrupt — in other words, entertain. I desire recognition for who I am as much as the next person, but what if “who you are” makes it impossible given the rules of the celebrity recognition game?
As for myself, I’m not above playing this game, really, especially when much is at stake beyond my ego or vanity. But many people aren’t. And I don’t blame them.
The violent pursuit of recognition — like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver — puts all this in very high (and ugly, tragic) relief. If Ebert is right, and I think he is, James Holmes reveals a cultural pathology that needs attention.
Everybody today thinks fiction in books and the movies are real and we are the characters. Frank Gaffney and Michelle Bachman are crusaders of the Inquisition, the humanists think when the planet gets too hot they will just get on spaceship Enterprise and move, everyday libertarians think Ayn Rand’s fiction writing is reality and they are characters in her books and movies. Why be surprised at someone thinking Batman comics are real and he is The Joker?
Well, we may not be surprised, but such a dangerous cultural dysfunction should be talked about, analyzed. It, uh, deserves recognition! :)
Glenn, you’re right on the money.
This has been on my mind a lot. I’m thinking of doing a post or two about it.
Charlie Brooker of the U.K.’s Screenwipe covers it brilliantly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4
Listen to what the forensic psychologist at 1:40 says about it. The media coverage may actually be CREATING these monsters.
It comes from the top down, doesn’t it. Militarism, that is. As the country goes, so go its people, some of them. Even the bright ones.
http://www.comdsd.org/militarism.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-movie-shooting-james-holmes/story?id=16829552#.UAwzKpFMuSo
Thanks so much for the link. Charlie Brooker is right, and I wish more were saying it and more were listening to it.
I am reminded of a C-SPAN interview of Arthur Schlesinger interview. He was asked some open ended question about the culture and responded succinctly that the culture is in the last days of profound decay and he didn’t have any idea what to do about it.
I do know these so called neurosciences of today are mostly crazy talk that dehumanizes us though reduction to chemical reactions.
I do know that logical debate with the deluded doesn’t work. When my mother flipped what seemed to work best was just telling her I wouldn’t listen to her when she talked crazy. Maybe we need to work toward affirming reason and reality and avoiding acceptance of equivalency with what is patently irrational.
I blame in part the media’s style of giving equal time and respect of serious consideration to any crazy notion that comes around. I don’t favor censorship but I think they have a moral responsibility to make serious efforts to elucidate the truth through good non-biased investigative reporting these wild conspiracy allegations can have tragic consequences.
All that said, Glenn I think your focus on the cause and motivation is where the healing can lie; The fact that each of us is an “I” and thirst for some kind of recognition, so organic and so human.
Could you say the coverage unveils an intent?
This is a test.
We’re no longer an audience participating in a healthy ritual that is revealing and cathartic, say, like the ritual of Greek drama. Instead, we’re asked to become Orestes or Agamemnon. Nothing new about this thought, really, but that doesn’t make it any less alarming.
James Holmes is performing for you but you’d be shamed to notice.
That is a core cultural depravity.
I think we have reached some insane crossroad when our serial killer president is flying in to console the victims of another mass murderer.
We should not be assigning motive. It is way too soon to know anything about Holmes’s motivation.
Read “Columbine” (Dave Cullen) to see how incredibly wrong we all were, and still are, about those killers.
” a person is being warped by a contemporary hyper-media “sphere of recognition”
Reading through this that was my first thought too. Or, really my second, because yesterday I jumped on the it’s-Rush’s-fault bandwagon, which I regret.
The polar opposite of the ‘hyper-media space of recognition’ is what, just going through your life as an pre-media simulacrum everyman (sic), trying to get by and doing the best you can?
If ‘now’ is really a time when a rotten distortion of the personality has triumphed, and the fear of non-recgonition, that illusion of personal emptiness, has become a real psychological construct, due to the warped nature of TV talking heads and celebrity, then violence must become as ubiquitous as the talking heads. Is this true? I don’t think so and I really hope not. Sure, there is lots of violence, people dying all around, and much of it is state-sponsored violence (which is condoned and promoted by media.) But, there is something else going on here too, as a cultural meme, like a martyrdom complex or suicide-by-cop implosion. Alienation, the Camus model or the Scorsese, implies some connection/disconnection to humanity. We also have to make room for the opposite of that, the narcissistic killer and the religious terrorist: Both want a future in which they are the center, alone and brilliant, the recipient of all that is good, even if it is only gilded. Culturally, we seem to be moving towards that, as your politician examples amply showcase whenever thy get a chance. It is confusing trying to peg down the roots of modern violence and atrocity. From Hiroshima to serial killers, and now this. Is it a sickness, or a moral character flaw, a preconstructed political reality, or a religious necessity?
Of course, he is insane, and if not he will quickly become insane. But I just hope, in this time of media swarm and reality TV, of entrenched poverty and emergent proto-fascism, that it doesn’t go viral.
That’s pretty crazy making.
You don’t think James Holmes is saying something?
A terrific old movie is Boats Away. It starred Jeff Chandler. It was about a landing craft flotilla home ship with the focus on team building. I will never forget one sailor character Chandler as Captain talks to. This sailor was full of good cheerful self-esteem in pride in his work. He was the guy who “ground up the chicken guts” and other garbage to make it unlikely Japanese U Boats could track them. We need a culture that celebrates the chicken gut grinders as much as the captains.
I don’t know that I’d go as far as intent.
It certainly shows, in brutal starkness, the conventional media wisdom that if it bleeds, it leads.
But I actually think something can be done about it. Nobody in the media ever reports battle plans or troop movements in combat situations. That’s also conventional media wisdom. This is an area where there can be an actual positive effect on the MSM – with the right approach – i.e. changing the convention wisdom.
Are “the roots of modern violence and atrocity” “a sickness, or a moral character flaw, a preconstructed political reality, or a religious necessity?”
“I just hope, [...] it doesn’t go viral.”
Too late.
I’m planning a trip to Rwanda and a friend said to me “Gee, but that place is really dangerous!” I replied “You’re kidding, right?”
Apparently, the conventional media wisdom refuses to adjust. Shouldn’t it be demanded that some intent causes that?
Amen.
I think the hyper-media claim is very important. Look at all the Kim Kard’n attention…for what? Holmes went to a whole lot of trouble to do his drama….Maybe he was looking for death-by-cop. Obviously there are seriously deranged individuals, but something about “what gets attention” adds to the mix. Funny, I think this thread is quite disturbing in its recognition of how far it seems we have gone astray. Does that make sense?
I am disturbed but also reassured, which is why I appreciate FDL, that there are some of us who do a better job of reality testing than what is publicly celebrated.
It would be difficult to overestimate that ethos here at FDL!
;) A very reassuring point of view…The minority report, I think it’s called.
Clearly, there is a fundamental non-responsibility in this culture.
Read that Berlin quote again while thinking of how we stereotype young people, how their attempts to express their individuality is dismissed as ‘adolescence ‘ or ‘immaturity’. Is it coincidence that a lot of the violence for publicity sake is perpetrated during teens and early twenties?
LOL. You know you are sane when you start feeling crazy.
I must be very sound….I think so much is created by what is described above, that is, a huge need for excitement. Ive grown to really welcome calm….(Goes along with the teen connection, also)
” We need a culture that celebrates the chicken gut grinders as much as the captains.”
What if any is the difference between recognition and celebration?
Somebody above offered a challenge to name five “stars‘ of reality programming. I run dry after Snooki. I wouldn’t recognize her but I do know her name as a sort of poster child for reality programming run amuck.
Reality programming rewards people for ordinariness of accomplishment and unfortunately, behavior that we should not hold in high esteem. We are left with a sort of lottery system that rewards mediocrity more reliably or at least more visibly than age old American values such as hard work, dedication and loyalty. Values that at one time insured a decent life, if not an extraordinary one, simply don’t work reliably any more.
My disabled daughter was a big fan of “Extreme Home Makeover”. There is no doubt that the show helped a lot of people. But I could not get past the idea that for every family they helped there were 10 or 50 or a 100 equally deserving families who received no help at all. Furthermore, the amount of money lavished on a single family could have helped 3 or 5 or 10 in truly meaningful ways. All this at a time when the powers of darkness are doing their damnedness to eviscerate the already minimal social safety net.
Our culture, or at least our media culture, is moving toward a system of reward that celebrates and rewards mediocrity at best and dis-function at worst in what is essentially a lottery. It is no wonder that people are willing to debase themselves to be noticed.
Hmmmm. Gone astray from what? Are you implying that the current moral center (whatever it is) is a completely false construction? Is there another one, that disappeared or something?
Glenn, I love the Berlin quote. Everyone wants to be treated in accordance with their internal sense of their importance in a specific setting. Berlin sets a sort of floor on that, based strictly on our mere existence. On top of that is the sense that if I am a good basketball player on my team, I get some recognition from the people I care about and my own circle. It’s silly to think that someone else not interested in my team would have a clue who I am or care. Not everyone gets that point.
And don’t forget the cruelty component of reality tv, encouraging the viewer to root for mayhem and failure.
Commodities don’t love.
I am speaking of the capacity to discern reality as opposed to fiction. “Reality programming” on T.V. is not reality. In the service of entertainment, it is intended to make the normal appear perverse. Instead it makes the perverse appear normal. But I do think its popularity may represent our thirst for ordinary contentment.
I do not think we have always needed such an overload of excitement, attention, violence…extreme exhibitionism. I may be very wrong. A very simple observation.
Of course the reaction to the killing of 12 and the wounding of 58 has appalled the nation. When it comes to the US/NATO/Israel/Saudi Arabia supported “revolt” in Syria that results in mass deaths of the Syrian people, the people of the US cheer our involvement in fomenting violence.
The US is the No.1 bellicose nation on Earth, but as long as it doesn’t happen here, it’s considered acceptable.
How many people did/do we murder on a daily basis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, etc., etc., etc.?
When our leaders refuse to take responsibility or accountability for their actions, they set the tone for the citizenry.
Clearly, the organized address of this problem will be done capitalistically.
Any problems with that?
No, it’s deeper than that.
Trophies for everyone and everyone’s a hero. Wouldn’t want to damage anyone’s self-esteem confronting them with reality.
Your sarcasm is truly unwarranted….
Please explain.
For example the likely response is the commercial use of AI surveillance and “calmatives”.
Is that likely to suppress a humane response?
That is a profound question. And I have it also. In doing my family history and reading all the old letters, even my own remembrance, it seems what occupied interest was more rooted in the personal experience of making money, getting educated, hanging out the laundry vs mechanical dryers etc. Though we in my family were all great readers of fiction and other cultures, it seems the process of reading vs visuals and sounds, was more grounded. So it would seem the problem is not simply too much vicarious pleasure and imagination with not enough personal experience but how we get our stimulation and “entertainment.”
This kid was a PhD candidate, right? Neuroscience I believe. And with accessible guns all around. What a strange combination. Maybe he should have read some Celine, or WS Burroughs.
See my comment at #9
Had to run out for a while, so I don’t know if this thread is exhausted or not.
What I meant was this – “Don’t ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.” Or said another way – what intent do you think reporters and assignment editors have? To intentionally create more mass-murderers?
I don’t think that’s it. They aren’t that malicious, but they are stupid enough not to understand how they themselves are contributing to the problem.
They have certainly do have intent – to boost ratings and readership as high as they can. It takes something pretty damn compelling to get them not to do that. That’s hard but not impossible – that’s what the example of not reporting troop movements was for. They can be swayed if you can change the conventional wisdom. Not an easy job – but possible.
I think, like so many callings, the journalism profession has become so degraded that it is nothing more than what you describe. It’s degradation and corruption is simply a reflection of the culture it reports to.
“calmatives” — so as to create the zombies that popular culture has taught us to kill
Clearly that’s the wrong diagnosis. They are hiding their culpability behind the capitalist god. And so are you.
How else do you explain the non-recognition of Dr. Dietz’s advice, who spells it out for them?
I think you’re right, but I also think the driving force isn’t so much cultural or social (some of it is).
I think the driving force is economic. When you’re understaffed and under intense deadline pressure, professional standards start to look like an unaffordable luxury. Also, under those kinds of conditions, people who are have as their first priority holding on to their jobs no matter what tend to prevail.
It’s a kind of Darwinian natural selection process that rewards those who are less ethical.
Well, not the use of calmatives I was referring to. The Russians used Fentanyl with that Moscow theater hostage-taking, for example.
But yes, there is a profound contempt for “us”.
“… to boost ratings and readership as high as they can.”
That certainly is their job but that does not mean we have to go along with it. Ratings are driven by us (in the broadest possible sense) and we all have the power of the channel selector and the off button.
“…neurosciences … are mostly crazy talk that dehumanizes us through reduction to chemical reactions.”
Not sure this statement has any more merit than Rick Warren’s “Teach them they are animals and they will act like it” comment.
Look you can believe in media devils if that’s a satisfying thing for you. In fact, I wouldn’t ordinarily continue the discussion since this seems to be something that you don’t like brooking any disagreement on.
Except for one thing.
I actually see this as something that is possible to have an effect on, to actually change. So I’ll risk your ire and say that these reporters are actual human people – with all the attendant good and bad. And while there are psychopaths in this world that actively enjoy causing harm and suffering – most people don’t try to make things bad. Most people are just trying to get by.
And while it’s hard get someone to see a truth when their livelihood depends on them not understanding that truth it can be done – unless you throw up your hands and decide that it’s impossible.
“That certainly is their job but that does not mean we have to go along with it”
Right on!
My intent was not to excuse the MSM, but rather to explain them as I see it. I very much believe that the only way to fix a problem is to accurately understand it first.
In response to RFShunt @ 53
You’re failing the test.
“Most people are just trying to get by.” And yet they know they are being lied to.
That requires a different mode of being.
Yes, and is it possible that the culture is somehow devaluing the more local, team, community recognition? Unless we are on TV or YouTube with a million hits, the very human desire for recognition is unfulfilled? It’s an odd thing. I know many truly “famous” people, most never fulfill their desire. It’s unquenchable.
“How else do you explain the non-recognition of Dr. Dietz’s advice, who spells it out for them?”
I’d explain it a couple of ways. One, I doubt most of them have ever heard of Dr. Dietz. Two, if they had, they are likely to think “yeah, that’s one psychologist – I bet you can find another ten who say the opposite.”
Just to be absolutely clear – I think Dr Dietz is RIGHT. O.K.?
The question is, how do you get the people who do the news to come around to Dr. Dietz’s point of view? I have some thoughts. How about you?
Capitalist culture must.
“You’re failing the test.”
I didn’t even know there was a quiz scheduled for today? Was it on the syllabus? :)
I know you agree with Dietz.
However, your explanation is also used as an excuse. Aren’t you disturbed by that?
I have prescriptions, but our diagnoses differ. I am still working on my diagnosis, comrade.
See comment #10.
“However, your explanation is also used as an excuse. Aren’t you disturbed by that?”
Of course I am.
I’m interested in having a conversation with people in the media.
On sure, proven way to stop conversation dead in it’s tracks is to tell someone – “You’re just making excuses and that makes you evil.”
Consider this, I could ridicule you for categorically dismissing another person’s diagnosis when you are still only working on your own. Tell me, how likely would it be for you to listen to anything I have to say after that?
I’m not doing that, I see you have strong opinions. I have strong ones of my own. Please don’t tell me I’m failing some test because our opinions differ. Tell my your opinion instead, if you would.
I am speaking as a scientist. There is little scientific about their ways of doing what they call research and less merit in their conclusions.
Dietz. Now that’s a showman.
I’m sorry, I don’t get what you mean. Please elaborate.
You are not talking to them. You can say they are using excuses to me. Also, politesse and efficacy are two very different things. You’re not required to use politesse with me when we are discussing their culpability. In fact, you shouldn’t.
My opinion on their culpability? Clearly, they have allowed something monstrous to develop by expediency. One must recognize, though, that this is a cultural theme.
Book Salon up with Richard D. Wolff’s Occupy The Economy: Challenging Capitalism hosted by SouthernDragon
You can say they are using excuses to me.
Ludwig – they are using excuses. However, they might not be the first humans ever to do this.
politesse and efficacy are two very different things.
Politesse means courteous formality – you mistake what I say. And we differ on what’s efficacious. And apparently we differ on how we prefer to have conversations. O.K.
One must recognize, though, that this is a cultural theme. Cultural stuff is part of it. But I think there’s economics and whole slew of other things in there as well.
You are not talking to them. – Don’t bet on it. (I know you meant right here, right now – still, don’t bet on it)
“There is little scientific about their ways of doing what they call research and less merit in their conclusions.”
…………………………………..A diary in the making.
If it is reality, is it really sarcasm? The US propaganda machine even manufactures “heroes” where none exist to further and legitimize it’s policies. US children rank No.1 in self esteem even though they don’t even rank in the top ten in education. My comment was appropriate, your reaction was not.
So glad you like your POV….(Yep, that’s sarcasm)
Apparently facts disrupt your view of reality. Rest assured that I won’t confront you with the truth in the future, since you find it so disturbing.
No no no. This is not your conflict with the Rev. There is a certain propriety you have violated given the circumstances. The Rev apparently wishes not to explain it to you.
Ah, progress. But I am not naive to ask you to call them out. You should call them out.
Re politesse and efficacy – I think the failure to convey that caution is called for, or that there is a negligence represented by dismissing Dietz, or that you hunger to know the real conflict is a symptom of a vanishing liberal culture. One which could forgo the hard questions … and looking at the hard consequences.
Economics is not cultural?
Comrade, they know I’m not talking to them. Are you that scared?
You nailed it!