My attention has been captured by the media conversation regarding the Fort Hood incident. Much of it has focused on two erroneous themes.
First there is the idea that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan committed a “terrorist” act.
The second is the idea that, through proper diagnostic methods, it should have been possible for this psychiatrist among psychiatrists, to have been recognized as a risk before the fact and thereby, prevented from embarking on his killing spree.
Of course, all of this talk is complete nonsense.
Nidal Malik Hasan
Hasan was no altruistic Jihadi terrorist, no Manchurian Candidate, long ensconced in the Armed Forces with the intention to systematically further some evil agency’s political or military ends by instilling fear in an enemy. His performance was simply a suicidal act, based in personal beliefs, values, and experience, in which he decided to take with him, as many of his real or imagined tormentors as possible.
So can such a suicidal act be predicted and thereby prevented? More nonsense.
The idea that people’s thoughts can be policed and their future actions predicted, is ridiculous. In the absence of a time machine, (watch the movie “Minority Report”) we can only use Monday night quarterbacking to speculate as to the omens that we believe presaged some terrible act.
Have you ever had a dark thought? Should we or could we, through careful surveillance of every human being, surmise a suicidal tendency in some individuals and subject them to imprisonment or “treatment” as a preventative measure? Where might we draw such a diagnostic line? How many people would we end up “adjusting” based on such diagnoses?
The predictors of suicide are not to be found in the thoughts, behaviors, or brain chemistry of individuals. They are to be found in the socio-economic system that produces the conditions in which people become increasingly unable to cope with the challenges that life places in their paths.
In all likelihood, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan took the military path as a practical means realize his aspirations but found along that path, insurmountable obstacles among which were the considerable demands of military conformance and mission (watch “A Few Good Men“). At some point, he was no longer able to reconcile the contradictions and took what he came to believe, was his only way out.
Emile Durkheim
We may not sympathize with his particular plight and certainly not with his chosen methods, but his was nonetheless, that same ultimate act of hopelessness that overcomes too many among us. If we want to prevent these ultimate acts, we must turn our attention to the conditions in our society that produce such hopelessness.
The seminal work on this subject was authored by Emile Durkheim, in his book “Suicide“, first published in 1897. He offers a path to understanding that is much needed to clear up the endemic befuddlement that infects the current conversation.
I don’t know that we know what Major Hassan was up to. Clearly we don’t know what was in his mind, so all speculation as to his motivation and purpose are conjecture.
If he was an isolated individual acting out of some kind of feeling of desperation, then the ideas of Durkheim and perhaps Erving Goffman (Stigma) apply. If his act was an act of war I think they don’t apply so much.
Not every act of war is a terrorist act. Terror is deliberately invoked to create panic or irrational fear. It is not inconceivable that America could become a terrorist battleground by activated so-called sleeper agents who are directed to enact local acts designed to destroy and/or terrorize. In fact, it would seem likely that at some point these kinds of acts will occur.
Was this act a precursor to that scenario or simply the desperate act of a somewhat deranged man.
At this point I doubt anyone knows. It may be that given all the political spinning that’s going on, we may never find out.
Actually, Durkheim wrote at length regarding “altruistic suicide”, suicidal acts in war being a prime example.
Somehow the ‘suicide bomber’ phenomenon has different quality than the “jump on the grenade” type of altruistic suicide. One is essentially protective of others and the other is destructive of others. Accepting a ‘suicide mission’ seems somehow different to me than accepting suicide as way to wreak destruction.
Maybe I’m being too picky.
Examples of altruistic suicide: Honorific Seppuku and Hari Kari, Kamikazi pilots, Christian and Islamic martyrs, self immolation by Buddhist monks, Jonestown cult members, Jews at Massada.
In other words, an intentional act in defense or support of valued others, real or imagined, or based in a real or implied communal code of conduct, in which the death of the actor is believed by that actor to be a certain outcome.
Regarding Durkheim’s systems view of suicide, the SHAMI Website says:
Durkheim’s discussion of altruistic suicide aptly illustrates some of the most characteristic arguments of the work as a whole — his rejection of any definition of suicide which appeals to subjective mental states (motives purposes, etc.), his suggestion that self-inflicted deaths reflect the most general moral sentiments of the societies within which they occur, and the view that such suicides are thus merely exaggerated expressions of behavior which, in more moderated form, would be labeled “virtuous.
http://suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/AultSui.html
Does this explanation of suicide imply that all acts of suicide are ultimately altruistic? Interesting interpretation.