Dan Schreiber arrived in C-U in 1990, allegedly only to stay until his wife finished graduate school. He is still here, quite willingly, having worked at Spyglass and SourceGear. He has recently left the software industry to parent his three children and flaunt his ability to press a submit button on his blog. He worries that he is not making adequate progress in his attempts to convince people that war is bad and violence is wrong.
One of the most disturbing things about the Northern Illinois University shootings last week (aside from the actual carnage, of course) was the lack of any warning signs. Steve Kazmierczak, the shooter, did not seem troubled and he wasn’t described by acquaintances as many mass murderers are: quiet, keeps to himself, kind of creepy. His colleagues and advisors at the University of Illinois School of Social Work, where he’d been pursuing a graduate degree since spring 2007, described him as personable, engaging and motivated — and no one, not even his girlfriend, had any idea he would be capable of such a thing. He also did not leave behind any hint as to why he did this, even going so far as to remove his phone’s SIM chip and the hard drive from his laptop. He apparently intended to take his mysteries to the grave with him.
What makes the seeming randomness of it so unnerving is that we can’t explain it. Humans are wired to connect cause with effect. What we can’t explain is scary, because it reveals that we don’t have complete control over our lives. And if we think we understand something, we believe we can prevent it from happening again. It is a primal thing — the same reason ancient people created weather gods to provide meaning and reason behind completely unpredictable and uncontrollable phenomena.
Even more baffling, Kazmierczak was rooted in the field of social work, where the primary goal is to understand and help others. Ironically, social workers are trained in ways that are supposed to make them effective in precisely the kinds of situations that Kazmierczak caused.
The most interesting theory I have heard is from Katherine Newman, professor of sociology at Princeton and author of Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. In an interview with Celeste Quinn on WILL’s Afternoon Magazine the day after the shootings, Newman explained, “In the US, in general, these rampage shootings…mostly take place in smaller, isolated towns, and their isolation is part of what produces the pattern of a rampage shooting, because the marginality the shooter feels is so hard to erase through contact with people who are different from himself…. [I]f you are in an isolated place, and doing well socially, you are fine, you feel comfortable and happy and know everyone around you, it’s a wonderful environment. But if you are socially marginal, it feels like a permanent life sentence to being excluded and feeling unloved by others.”
So without access to people who are different from the norm in the same kinds of ways they are, and without reason to believe things will ever change, individuals are apt to suffer severe instability, and eventually someone (odds are, a white male) will take that instability to the extreme: He’ll go nuts and starting shooting people. Or, to put it in a simplistic and inflammatory way, homogeny causes mass murder, and diversity prevents it.
Of course, in the interest of fairness, lack of diversity isn’t a great explanation in this particular case. Kazmierczak lived in Champaign and attended the University of Illinois, and while we aren’t San Francisco, we aren’t Mayberry either. I would hope we have enough diversity to stave off mass murder as a natural response to living here.
Diversity, of course, is a concept as mental as it is physical or cultural. And with all the angst in the air and all the psychological processing that needs to be done after an incident like this, it might be illuminating to compare what happened here with what’s going on overseas, in Iraq, where a lack of “diverse thinking” has resulted in some disturbing resonances. Virtually every family in Iraq by now has had someone they know killed by random (or not-so-random) violence, and often in much more gruesome ways than we saw in DeKalb. Imagine the NIU shooting happening multiple times every day in cities across the country, and the emotional trauma that would result. Due to our actions — due to the rippling causes and effects that we control — many Iraqis feel a sense of hopelessness, instability, uncertainty. In perhaps a much more persistent way, they feel as many of us felt after learning of the events at NIU. And when they look at their occupiers, do they see diversity of thought that points to a brighter future? A day without occupation? If not, can we really expect the violence to just go away?
This line of thought has its limits, of course. After all, Iraq does not generally suffer a lack of diversity. The violence there is more likely due to intolerance for diversity by those trying to enforce homogeny, as well as those trying to resist it (which includes just about everyone). Nonetheless, it is an interesting thought experiment. One thing is certain: Humans will always crave diversity, and we would do well to figure out ways to live with it, rather than to fight it.
Comments (3)
Monday, February 25, 2008 3:25 PM
um. this kind of baffles me. what diversity did this white man need? what diversity do you claim exists in iraq that still (now against your argument) is not helping the situation? what does the shooting have to do with diversity or iraq? how does diversity prevent mass murder?
preventing mass murder would be cool, so it'd be awesome if you could give some indication of what you mean by "diversity," and of how it is related. because it kind of sounds like you think diversity is the same thing as the presence of arab muslims in the middle east or crazy white men in illinois, which does not make any sense to me, so more specific examples or suggestions would be helpful.
Monday, February 25, 2008 3:56 PM
Newman's argument is that rampage shootings tend to happen in "homogenous" environments, where most people think and act similarly. Diversity here just means the existence of groups of people who differ from the "norm" in a given area. If you feel isolated from the norm, then access to people who are more like you diffuse one's feelings of isolation and resentment. So, the more diverse a population, the less chance there will be for a mass murder, because the more you will be able to have a group to identify with.
As I mentioned in the article, this doesn't actually help much in this case, because CU is pretty diverse. I put it forward because I thought it was an interesting hypothesis, and I want to believe that diversity is socially useful.
The link to Iraq is admittedly a stretch, but I hope an interesting one. If people feel oppressed, and that things are not going to change, they get violent. This has the same flavor as the diversity argument, but, as I said, there are limits to how far it applies to Iraq.
Monday, February 25, 2008 8:08 PM
As someone that grew up in a smaller, isolated, completely white town I can say that Newman's theory strikes a bit of a chord with me. I was definitely part of the "socially marginalized" crowd, refered to at the time as "band geeks", and the hopelessness of feeling trapped in that situation, the "permanent life sentence to being excluded and feeling unloved by others" is definitely a feeling that was present in that crowd.