By Wolven
"‘Why are you doing this?! Why?!’ he screamed, throwing the video rack at me.
"‘Well, Father, that’s the exact question I’ve been asking myself. It’s something I was hoping you could help me figure out.’ He didn’t resist, much, as I held two fingers down his throat."
This is an excerpt from my dream, a few nights ago. The themes explored, therein, were of motivation, murder, and tragedy. Unfortunately, these themes have been common, not only in midnight imaginings, but in the waking hours of the past few years. In recent memory, I am sure we can all pull up the crimson-wrapped treats of incidents, such as Columbine H.S. and the debacle in Conyers, GA, shortly thereafter. Most recently, Charles Andrew Williams’ merry jaunt through the halls of Santee H.S., before second period classes has etched itself into the collective sensibility. Throughout all of these tragedies, the eternal, ever-replicating question remains; as the priest asked his attacker, last night, "Why?"
Variations on the argument of school-yard derision and bullying have been espoused, for ages, but the question becomes why, then, do these boys lash out so, when the other children seem to handle it just fine? And what of these boys who are "just fine?" How many of them go on to become the perpetrators of the very venomous acts that hounded them, in earlier years? One vents his aggression, crudely, exquisitely, finally, through an act of violence. Another sits quietly, prolonging the pain over years, behind procedure and preference; venting recycled, stinking sewage from the hole in its face, and its hard, bunched fists. Neither is truly preferable to the other, in my opinion, but, perhaps, the survivors of the school shootings will take a lesson away from the carnage.
The mode of transport, through the years, of venom from the "Big Shot Mr Popular" to the "Skinny Fag," or the "Wuss," or any number (a large number) of other epithets has remained, primarily, unchanged. To modify a phrase, "if he’s not crying, why push him?" Epithets, derision, and other low-grade bullyings have long been the tools of the school yard predator. They create a skewed mental state in their prey; a mode of ineffectual anger, fear, and resentment. The bullies, the deriders, continue in their pursuits, more so, it seems, when the victim expresses the want, merely, to be left alone. The target of the assault pleads, asks, cajoles, and bribes his attackers, in order to try to go on their way. Rather than violent confrontation, they may express an interest in opening a dialogue with their tormentors. This brings more violence upon them.
The predator refuses to engage his prey, intellectually, for fear of appearing stupid-- the very problem which, in all likelihood, was a deciding factor in the attacker choosing his target. The idea of looking intellectually inferior ("you made me look stupid, geek!") and the anticipation of appearing physically superior ("So weak! Look how he makes me seem tougher!") are apparently all the motivation one needs to justify the mental subversion and psychological torture of school yard teasing and bullying. But, in the end, that is all those amount to: appearances and looks.
Through elementary-aged socialisation, children become heavily attached to the concept of "appearances first." Everyone clings to the "First Impression" like a well-worn security blanket, imbuing it with talismanic power. "What they see of me is what matters. What other people think I am is what’s important, so I’ll put up a facade of ________." In the effort to appear tough, or cool, or better, or all three, many of their weaker contemporaries, who are also dealing with an out of proportion, superficial value system, become the stepping stones on which the bullies build their careers. Their care about looking stupid, or looking uncool is a stylistic question. It should be remembered that, while style is all well and good, it is nothing without substance.
If one is going to build up appearances, the least one could do is build them up around something substantial.
On Tuesday, March 13, there was an editorial in the Atlanta Constitution regarding these very topics. Michael Honohan wrote a very concise and heart-felt piece about the nature of bullies, and the "Whys" behind the school shootings. At the end of it all, he gave a startling revalation: He was almost a perpetrator of a shooting, himself. Perhaps you want to ask, "Then why did you want to be redundant? Why couldn’t we have looked at that editorial?" The answer is this: I am an 18 year-old college student. I live in a world where, every day, people rise in defence of the victims of large-scale violence, and I say to myself, "What about the other victims? What about the shooters? Why isn’t anyone asking them ‘why’?" I felt that I should say something, if not in their defence, then, at least, in explanation.
At the beginning of this, we were all confused, bewildered, asking "Why". If any of you are still confused, I say, go to your local school. Look for the bullies. Look at the hurt in the eyes of their victims. Now look at Columbine, Conyers, Santee. As was said in the comic "Johnny the Homicidal Maniac," by Jhonen Vasquez: "Here is your product! You have the rest of your lives to think of this. And I suggest you think quickly, for a long life is never a guarantee."