Conformity and the Myth of Dissidence

We all know the type – the swaggered, slightly-rugged, liberal and outspoken contender to all things establishment. We know them by their typical self-identified labels – rebels, nonconformists, Bohemians, those who claim to be original, fresh, real, those who fight the establishment, those who think they are fighting the establishment, and so on.

It isn’t a new idea, but it seems to bear repeating particularly at college campuses. How many people do you know that claim to be against the establishment, to be nonconformists, and silently leading some plight against the oppressive government (that so happens to partially fund the university as well as offer low-interest loans to such noble freedom fighters)? How many of you have friends who have college-aged kids that profess their love for the Earth and they would give up their lives to defend the freedom of a single wronged individual halfway across the world? I would imagine some of you reading this right now believe you oppose the man or whatever else you convinced yourself of – and of which all your similarly minded friends agree.

The truth is, and I stress I know this is not a new idea, that there is no such thing as a nonconformist by definition. Likewise, there are almost no, if any at all, nonconformists by “practical interpretation.”

The idea of a nonconformist is someone who opposes the norm, goes against the grain, or marches to the beat of a different cliche or whatever. The point in all of these, is that they define themselves by conformity. If you go against the norm, you are still self-defined by the norm. If you go against the grain you still go in a direction dictated by where the grain goes. I know this is a technicality, but it applies to real life too.

I know of a young man who believes studying humanities or politics to be wrong because those who do are merely cogs in the system that oppresses them. To become a government employee is fit for mindless and brainwashed sheep. Unsurprisingly, he is a student also, but believes his field of study – related to numbers and math – is neutral and the weapon of those who fight the system. Regardless of whether or not math is trendy or rebellious or whatever, he still is a piece of this machinery he calls the university. I find it endlessly ironic that he studies humanities on the side, but as a way of “enhancing” his outlook and enjoyment. Although unfit for a superior beatnik mind like his own to study in depth as a means to make a living down the road, he studies them for his own personal enjoyment of the finer things in life.

Like it or not, being part of the counter-system that thinks it opposes the system, is still part of the system. You are still defined by the masses even if you actively fight such labels. Living “off the grid” a la Terminator 3 doesn’t make you any less part of the grid. While I would like to be able to say I am completely original, true to myself, and unique, I am merely another cog writing a blog. I am a “blogger” despite the fact I hate the word “blog” and abhor the “blogosphere.” My voice against the popular voice is just part of the soundscape. My voice in support of the popular voice is just another sliver of the masses.

VT Shootings: The Nation . . . Reacts

I’m assuming everyone who has found this blog has probably heard about the incident at Virginia Tech on Monday, 16 April, 2007. I am not writing about the incident, but that isn’t to say that I am trivializing it. It was a terrible day, but nothing I could say about it could possibly have any meaning to those who have been affected by it. However, I would like to talk about the reaction I have noticed from most of the people I have encountered.

I do believe many people who are talking about the incident are, in fact, trivializing it. Those who were affected by it have very little to say about it. It is personal, it is meaningful, and those affected don’t need to rush out to proclaim loudly that they were affected in some way. It is everyone else who have suddenly become psychology experts that have the most and the least to say.

The first thing I saw on the news when the story broke was a girl describing the killer as emotionless. Since then, I have heard countless people say that the killer must have been some cold-blooded sociopath who felt nothing and lost his humanity long ago. I also hear the same people talking about how his writing was so disturbing and graphic, and only a complete psycho could have written such things. I believe anyone who can write something that can invoke such an instant visceral reaction from readers cannot possibly be emotionless. How can someone who wrote something with such passion as to scare people out of the gourd ALSO be a cold-blooded, unfeeling, inhuman monster?

That isn’t to say he wasn’t a monster, but to draw such conclusions from a witness describing him as such is premature.

I read in a book about war that when people are made to kill, they turn their victims into objects, in order to rationalize and accept the destruction in their minds. If their victims are objects, it is okay to destroy them. I read that that is why you read in German WW2 accounts that the Nazis non-chalantly performed sick and inhumane acts, even laughed while engaged in the genocide. Perhaps their minds had long ago made the switch and turned their targets from humans to objects. This certainly doesn’t make it any less wrong, terrible, or horrifying, but it sheds light on how people can possibly do the things they do.

To touch on the writing for a moment: it is cliché to say that hindsight is 20-20, but its true. Many news stations are having a field day with the killer’s writings – as he was an English major and all. He wrote about violent and hurtful topics: abuse, murder plots, and hatred, among others. People are now saying that we should have caught him earlier, and known that he would do something unspeakable from how telling his writing was about his psyche.

Much more seriously graphic and violent stories are written all the time across the country. It is nothing new for college students, or even high school students to write about violent topics. Violent stories are absolutely nothing new, or else horror movies and slashers would never be produced – who would write the screen plays?

It is easy to say that the writings were telling after the fact, but the truth is that violent stories are nothing new, and I’m positive that English teachers encounter questionable topics in their student’s writings all the time and think little of it. Except now, people will think something of it. I worry about the kind of response this will have in the academic world in the coming months. What kind of censorship is going to take place? How many students will unjustly find themselves forced to sit down with counseling services because they wrote about an abusive stepfather or sketched a crime scene?

I recently spoke with a family member of a friend who told me flat out that the killer should have been locked up long ago. They (he/she) told me the English teacher knew long ago about the extremely violent tendencies of this student, and clearly something had to be done. It is now being reported that somewhere along the line, a psychiatrist claimed the student was a danger to himself and others. This has only fueled the 20-20 hindsight fire further. I would like to see the last time a university sent one of their own tuition-paying, nearly-graduating students to an involuntary psychiatric ward. I would like someone to explain to me how such a thing could possibly have gone down.

Lets say a good school somewhere in the southern US kicked out a student who received good enough grades, was nearing graduation, and had a clean criminal record with no history of violent actions. Lets say the university went further and recommended to police that the student be detained and locked away in a mental institution for being a suspected psychotic, sociopathic potential killer. How would such a course of events been seen as justified or even close to acceptable?

Again, it is a cliché for a reason, but hindsight is 20/20. There is no way anyone could have known or predicted this unless he or she was willing to speculate there are killers all over the country in high schools and colleges based on the same reasons for suspicion as applicable to Seung-hui Cho.

Going a step beyond people pointing fingers, why ARE people in such a hurry to make excuses and excise themselves of responsibility? I don’t think people need to feel responsible; it was indeed his own actions, choices, and motives. However, people shouldn’t be so quick to make excuses. It is not the time to pass the blame or hold your hands up and plead ignorance.

It isn’t the time to rationalize this off into absurdity or compartmentalize it into something so isolated from reality. This was terrible, but it is reality. It is what happens, and it is what can happen again. This isn’t something we can push aside because we don’t think we can deal with it, and it isn’t something we can pass the buck and say it is someone else’s problem. There is mourning, sure, but there can also be inspiration and a newfound understanding of the fragility of life. There are things to be learned, individual lessons that people can take from this.

On another note, something I have noticed is the lack of meaningful respect paid to the victims. I have seen many elaborate banners and images created by students at other schools to pay homage to Virginia Tech. I see the VT letters filled with the flag of another school, and set atop school seals, or flags, or ribbons, which are also set atop seals or flags. I wonder what people who spend their time creating these images hope to achieve. How bad off do you have to be to seek attention by creating the most elaborate VT homage banner?