Cho and the moral imagination

At least one of his teachers tried to get him help, according to the Washington Post. The problem was he had not made a direct threat against a specific person so the authorities could not act.

This is what you get too from a society that tolerates all manner of lurid, explicit violence in its visual art,... Thought you were describing Catholic religious art there, until you wandered into the realm of forbidden fruits.

It seems likely, though this is not yet crystal clear, that Mr. Cho was mentally ill. It is all very well to say that a "sane society" would have recognized the potential for violence here, and would have removed Mr. Cho from society until he could be examined psychiatrically, but such a statement reveals almost total ignorance of how our legal and medical systems work. For good reasons, the State does not have, and I would argue that the State should not have, the power to identify some kid who writes violent plays as "a potential menace" and then to lock him up indefinitely. I doubt that the State's inability to act in this situation can be blamed on "the nihilistic and violent in our art."
Perhaps we have too much concern for individual liberty; perhaps not. We could debate that.

Suppose the state had locked up Paul Simon after he wrote "I Am a Rock". (I mean, read the lyrics. They're downright creepy.) And he didn't turn out like Charles Manson. I seem to recall him having been kind of scared after writing those lyrics. He had gotten in touch with a dark side of himself he had never seen before. I think we all have it to a degree.

The longer he's out of office, the older and staler that line will become. That's why we need another Democrat in office for a few years. It doesn't matter who, just a Democrat. That way when he or she leaves office, we can start that all over again when the Republican President that follows messes everything up.

How does normative reasoning tell us to act toward people who believe in fairy tales, e.g., an invisible bearded man who rules the universe, an unstable narcissist who claimed he was Beard, Jr., and a virgin birth? How about people who think the Beard cares about things like beads, candles, gilt, robes, etc.? Why, if such a person showed up in my classroom, I'd call campus security!
-ml

'Why, if such a person showed up in my classroom, I'd call campus security!' Seeing that you'd be on campus, I suppose we can only take comfort in the fact that they'd lock you up as insane and we'd be spared any further effluvia.

JohnT Taratino is funny.

Do I really have to explain that I don't think Goya or Shakespeare are the same thing as Nine Inch Nails or the collected works of Cho Seung-Hui -- even though they all depict violence in their work? It's like having to explain that Boy George is not the same thing as Gen. Patton, even though they both have tallywackers. The idea that some can't discern the difference between, say, "Saving Private Ryan" and "Saw" because both feature explicit violence only serves to make Kirk's point about the loss of moral imagination.

That's a matter of opinion. (The "funny", that is, not the "n". ;-) )

Totally off topic: 'tallywackers'?! Must be a Brit expression. Not long ago I saw this headline in London: "Scarlett Johansson has a cracking set of bazzers"
How do they come up with this stuff?

Eric - Your "what do you want to do about it?" question is crucial. But I don't think anyone here is talking about banning anything.
Our country has serious trouble with accurate problem definition:
"What...is...the...problem?"
Your response is indicative of how far we've come in erroneously looking to governments for "solutions" to spiritual, moral, and cultural problems.
The problem was in Cho's soul, which is a problem no government can address.

But the combination of compassionate and prudential (using the heart and mind God gave us) issues in life is the point here, not holding Rod's feet to the fire to resolve "policy" issues. Moral imagination might include one's own options pursued concurrently and seriatim, what can I do? what should the institution be told? etc. Moral imagination involves IMO picturing possible outcomes with oneself in the picture, human agency being invoked in concern for a person and the society. I think the ironic, anti-"square," passive miasma in academia and elsewhere (including this discussion) kept people from going there even mentally, much less taking a risk when it might have helped. And don't get me started on the litigious and pathologically confidential yet spread-it-in-the-media set-up we have socially constructed.

wildwest, I seem to recall him having been kind of scared after writing those lyrics. He had gotten in touch with a dark side of himself he had never seen before. I think we all have it to a degree. Yep; been there. I occasionally transcribe poems that appear in my mind (I don't really "write poetry" in the sense of having a plan), and one day I wound up with a pretty dark exploration of the motivations of a wife beater. Bothered me for weeks.

Rod - what's wrong with Nine Inch Nails? Did Trent Reznor shoot up a classroom that we didn't hear about?

I'm thinking that the people in that class ought to have realized that material like Cho's ought to have set off alarms in classmates who hadn't had their moral imagination gelded by tolerance uber alles. As actual information (as opposed to completely unfounded speculation) rolls in, we find out that these "gelded" classmates and faculty did worry about Cho. He had been red-flagged by two professors; he was a well-known weirdo by fellow classmates. He had been warned by the courts about his stalking behavior and remanded to a psychiatric facility. It sounds like pretty much everyone who came into contact with Cho had had their alarms set off. Everyone except the people who sold him his weapons. Perhaps the background checks are "gelded by tolerance uber alles" as well, seeing as how a known stalker was able to purchase a gun just like that. Perhaps this is a more substantial problem than getting into subjective arguments over the violence in Saw versus Saving Private Ryan.

The smiley was unintentional by the way; part of the url getting caught up in the parenthesis. this was the target of the link.

While I can and will find fault with Rod's logic, his conclusion is inescapable, and the consequences are right now: we live in a society that has no consistent moral compass. I reject the notion that we should set that compass from any one tradition, be it religious, rationalist or other. We should make the supreme effort and attempt what the founders clearly had in mind for us (clearly, IMO, of course). We should build a consensus. We look for absolutes at every turn. We need absolutes to feel safe and secure. A mature society that is not also stagnant finds absolutes useful, but allows them to be flexible (and, hence, not so absolute). Please note: I neither intend nor imply "extreme" when I use "absolute". Cho reacted to our society's absolutes (such as they are) by becoming extreme. He built up to his violence, as my currently limited understanding of his expressions lead me to expect will be found. So, in the end, it's not that we lack absolutes, it's that we lack consensus. I submit that it is very difficult to reach out to an ailing person when our societal values preclude it. That is something generations in the making. Our superficial trappings of art and media have little or no influence on such a process, except to participate in the mechanics of it.

It's like having to explain that Boy George is not the same thing as Gen. Patton, even though they both have tallywackers. The most vivid illustration of liberal blindness I've seen. Dude, I can't stop using this line! You're getting as good at the one-liner as Steyn.

M_David, I wouldn't follow anything called Evansism. I'd have too many questions about the fellow. :) I don't disagree with you... but I'm left to wonder if you mean what I mean when we use "consensus". A good part of that is that I did not offer you a context in which to choose the nuances. In conflict resolution, a consensus is that which makes the least number of people unhappy. Notice it doesn't actually promise that anyone will be happy. It's sole purpose is to facilitate the ending of the conflict (in a manner that doesn't cause anyone harm). That could be relevant, since pluralism is (almost by definition) a series of conflicts that must be resolved. However, I prefer to look at it from a different angle: the final compromise concerning physical and emotional space, where those who prefer their cuisines straight can have them, and those who wish to partake of two or more can travel amongst them (and, if it suits them, to bring them home and use the blender). I would also ask for a somewhat broader interpretation of your capitalism metaphor: niche markets seem to coexist well enough; why not with cultures as well? Does it have to be all of one and none of any others?

As I posted below on the earlier thread, http://www.haloscan.com/comments/crunchycon/3044037630525483015/#93145 I think Mr Cho has an effective disorder, not a passing mental illness, but a permanent disability. Indeed recent research has shown brain damage can do grave harm to our moral compass: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21431130-2703,00.html In our increasingly liberal world, what vocabulary does one use to diagnose moral infirmity? The West must direct more academic resources to study of the natural law, developed by the Hellenes and "baptized" by Thomas Aquinas, and promoted today by the likes of Germaine Grisez.
Only when we can confidently describe true human flourishing will we be able to diagnose the threats that imperil it, and develop the institutional and political tools necessary to defend liberty globally. See Prof. Alasdair MacIntyre predicting some years ago how future historians may come to call our times the Age of Massacres (for liberalism's profound impotence in the face of evil a la Rwanda, Dafur et al): "A Culture of Choices and Compartmentilization" University of Notre Dame streaming video (1 hr) mms://streaming.nd.edu/cec/2000conference/MacIntyreOct132000.wmv For the sake of the departed who's lives of promise where so abruptly cut short, let us commit to putting our thoughts into action.

Instead of focussing on stimulating negative reactions to death/violence culture, focus on producing and promoting life-affirming culture. That'll have much more impact in the long run.

'They both suffered from divine guidance syndrome.' Funny thing is I would say the exact opposite. His whole being seemed to be essentially nihilistic at the end. Just because he invoked the name of Christ doesn't mean Cho was one of His followers. In the end, after having watched the video, and read the note(s), I simply have to conclude that Rod is right. Unless Americans can come to some common meeting place in terms of moral values we are doomed to relive this kind of incident more and more. Forget the literati and the 'artsy' community. Look at popular culture: violence is constant, glamorized, and often without consequence. And it's everywhere, in every type of media, especially those that target the young. We engage in promoting pop music and TV shows with dehumanizing themes that seem to take nothing seriously except feelings and sexual gratification.
It's very discouraging to think that the only taboo in our society is thing that there are taboos.

The attempt to turn this into another front in the Culture Wars is nauseating. This has nothing to do with Tarantino movies, or Marilyn Manson records, or Grand Theft Auto, any more than Charles Whitman's rampage did 40 years earlier. There's a lot of crazy people walking around out there. There's also a lot of guns. It shouldn't take a genius to recognize that every so often, crazy people + easy access guns = lots of dead people. I'm actually suprised these things aren't more of a daily occurance.

I teach at a four-year college that graduates lots of elementary and secondary teachers. Some years ago I overheard one of my students, a jovial fat fellow, talking with amusement about watching a video(I think, that he owned) about executions. Does anyone think it would have done any good for me to approach faculty of the Education Department or the student's advisor to mention this?
I'm not saying there was a clear danger that Student X would ever commit horrendous carnage, at least unless we get a Nazi-style government; which he might, like many Germans, have found kind of appealing. But my point is that even raising the question also raises the point that schools of education basically take the stance that they have no jurisdiction, can't get involved, in matters of the moral character of their students, except for issues of racismsexismhomophobia. Or so it appears to me. Oh well, cheer up, it could always be worse.

Mr. Dreher, you often post great quotes (like this one from Russell Kirk) that I'd like to look up for further reading, but since you rarely offer the name of the book or the date of publication I can't. Would it be possible for you to tell me which book this quote came from so that I can find it for myself?

Does it have to be all of one and none of any others? I think (like cusine) it must be unique in order to taste good. One of the reasons the American experiment works so well is that we don't usually melt into the broader culture when we disagree with it. Rather, we fight, bare-knuckle, until we either fade away or win. Slavery was a good example of this, and abortion is another one. What would make the American experiment fail, IMO, would be a melting of ideas into one group; it would be like public schools today, sort of a lukewarm middle ground where we can't even talk about the meaning of life, or read the most important cultural book, for fear of offending someone. Or like network TVs big three - so bland you wanna puke. But I still like Evanism. Would love to hear the Creed!

M_David, All three of my children attended K-8 in a school that was roughly one-third each caucasian, black and asian. End-of-year school activities, and the culminating evening performance program, was like video clips from TLC and the History Channel, with a bit of a travelogue thrown in. At no point was it ever even implied that the culture represented needed to be superior to any other culture. The strong implication was that we could make room for the cultures even while we joined in a larger community with clearly defined markers, such as language (everyone in the school was, without fanfare, required to master -- not just learn -- English). So, if Evanism (no penultimate 's'?) is to have any weight, it's gotta be inclusive and avoid being oppressive, at the same time. That school showed one way to accomplish that. Whaddya think? Shall we start working on the manifesto? ;)

This blog might be enlightening about the subtleties of the link between actual and virtual violence. We should note that the lack of statistically significant correlation does not preclude individual instances in which a certain individual might be prompted to commit crime after coming under the influence of a violent game or movie. These instance may not be too many to look statistically significant. But statistics don't tell the whole story.
http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2007/04/the_war_of_cogn.html

Several people did take what action they could, however there wasn't much they could do. Teachers reported his worrisome behavior to police and to the dean of students, his harrassment/stalking of two girls was also reported to police. He was compelled to undergo psychological evaluation, but because he didn't pose an "imminent" danger to himself or others he couldn't be commited against his will. He saw a counselor, he was on some sort of medication to treat a psychological disorder. He couldn't be expelled from school based on his apparent mental illness without breaking antidiscrimination laws. Maybe the law should be change, but it would require a debate about rights. In the meantime I don't blame the faculty and students for not doing anything. They tried, but their hands were tied.

On a usually insightful blog, blaming any of this on "liberalism" is one of the dumbest tacks I've seen. Cho was mentally ill. Students complained to their teachers, quit coming to class, and refused to read his plays. Teachers tried to force him into counseling. Everyone was told they could do nothing. Blame the legal system if you want. That's another debate. But what did you want them to do? Form some sort of a vigilante task force? Your thesis might be correct if the students failed to recognize the evil here. They didn't.

Let's get this straight. Your musings here about the numbing of our collective moral imagination were occasioned by something that occurred to you while you were reading Larry Auster's blog?
Some people might say reading Auster without disapprobation is itself a sign of impoverished moral imagination.

James Wolcott has it right about Rod and his buddies passing judgement: "Of course the advantage to judging the dead is that the dead can't answer back in their own defense, which makes them the perfect dummies for the ideological likes of Ledeen, Derbyshire, and this granola bar (links to you Rod)." http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott Yes its a terrible culture we live in where childern are taught to respect civil rights, human rights, and love one another. Not like the good old days huh Rod? Jim Crow, no rights for women, and white males ruled.

Yes its a terrible culture we live in where childern are taught to respect civil rights, human rights, and love one another. Not like the good old days huh Rod? Jim Crow, no rights for women, and white males ruled. It is helpful, I think, to be reminded that there are a lot of flighty emotivists in this world who really do think like Dallas Christian. Anybody on the right who disagrees with them is ipso facto a racist and a sexist. I don't know whether to laugh or to feel pity, but I do know that in no case is this childish viewpoint worth taking seriously, except as a sociological curiosity.

Two questions Rod: #1) So Rod do you agree with your NRO pal Auster when he wrote: Has anyone ever added up the number of white Americans killed by non-white immigrants over the years ? He added that barely a week passes in which a white American is not killed by a non-white immigrant or illegal alien. ? (Yeah no racism there.) If you agree with his statement have you shared this idea with you coworkers at The Dallas Morning News about this terrible white holocaust that s sweeping the America? #2) When you wrote: "This is what you get too from a society that tolerates all manner of lurid, explicit violence in its visual art, and forbids nothing except the impulse to forbid." Were you referring to Mel Gibson's last two movies, 24, Fox Entertainment, ABC, Disney, the Left Behind Series (were Jesus kills millions) or just stuff from mean old liberals. Oh, wait, don't you get a pay check from a corporation that owns how many televesion stations? Told Belo Senior Management your view of their programming? Oops, went from preaching to meddling.