Remarks on Adam Lanza and the Sandy Hook School shooting Nymphomania (Volume 1) -- Film Review Particle Fever -- Film Review San Francisco Ballet -- Performance 3 -- Firebird -- Review
Remarks on Adam Lanza and the Sandy
Hook School shooting
The
Reckoning: The father of the Sandy Hook
killer searches for answers. By
Andrew Solomon. The New Yorker, March 17, 2014, pp. 36-45.
This article, in the March 17, 2014 issue of The New Yorker, is the outcome of six
interviews Andrew Solomon conducted with Peter Lanza, the father of Adam Lanza,
last fall, some lasting as long as seven hours.
It is Peter Lanza's first public statement since the killings at Sandy
Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.
The Sandy Hook massacre has been portrayed in the media and by law
enforcement as "incomprehensible,"
however, I think this summary of Solomon's interviews with Peter provides
a basis for some insight and interpretation that has not heretofore been
considered.
Solomon describes Peter's state of mind regarding the
incident as one of "sustained incomprehension." Peter tells us, "I want people to be
afraid of the fact that this could happen to them." (p. 37) Solomon himself accepts this admonition and
says so explicitly in his NPR interview with Terry Gross.1 However, this warning reflects Peter's lack
of insight and understanding of his own family. It is not an uncommon position for an
American father to find himself in, but we need not fear that this can happen
to just anyone, that any kid can become a mass murderer. It can certainly happen again, and probably
will, given conditions within American society.
The New York Daily News
(December 12, 2014) recently reported a total of 44 school shootings that have
occurred since Sandy Hook.2 But
these are not random events. They are
not lightning strikes. They reflect
widespread conditions of psychological and social disintegration in American
society. We will see what those conditions are in the
case of Adam Lanza. At the same time, it
would have been difficult for anyone to have foreseen what was coming in
Newtown -- except, perhaps, for Nancy, Adam's mother and first victim.
Solomon's article is spare in what I would most like to know
about, namely, Adam's earliest years and a close examination of his
relationship with his mother, Nancy. Apparently
there is a treasure trove of e-mails between Adam and Nancy in the last years
before the event that are under seal with the Connecticut State Police, and
which Solomon did not have access to. He
tells us of this in his NPR Fresh Air
interview. If those e-mails could be
examined it might shed a great light on the final trajectory of this tragedy
and on the plausibility or implausibility of the interpretation being offered
here.
Solomon tells us in the article that
he [Adam] didn't speak until he
was three, and he always understood many more words that he could muster. He showed such hypersensitivity to physical
touch that tags had to be removed from his clothing. In preschool and at Sandy Hook, where he was
a pupil till the beginning of sixth grade, he sometimes smelled things that
weren't there and washed his hands excessively." A doctor diagnosed sensory integration
disorder, and Adam underwent speech therapy and occupational therapy in
kindergarten and first grade. Teachers
were told to watch for seizures. (p. 37)
This might have been an early indicator of the autism that
was later diagnosed. Autism is a vast
concept that encompasses a broad array of behavioral anomalies, learning
disabilities, and social difficulties. A
recent article in the New England Journal
of Medicine linked it to prenatal abnormalities in cerebral cortex
development.3 The cerebral
cortex has many disparate areas and governs many aspects of sensory processing,
motor skills, and language skills.
Depending on the area and extent of developmental abnormalities, the
resulting manifestations, what is called "autism," could differ
markedly. From what I could glean from
Solomon's article, Adam did show indicators of autism, in respect to the
hypersensitivity to sounds and touch.
Sensory overload affected his
ability to concentrate; his mother xeroxed his textbooks in black and white,
because he found color graphics unbearable.
He quit playing the saxophone, stopped climbing trees, avoided eye
contact, and developed a stiff, lumbering gait.
He said that he hated birthdays and holidays, which he had previously
loved; special occasions unsettled his increasingly sclerotic orderliness. He had "episodes," panic attacks
that necessitated his mother coming to school . . . (p. 38)
All of the above enumerated behaviors have to do with
mitigating stimuli that can evoke emotional response: color, music, eye contact, birthdays,
holidays, and the panic attacks were probably situations where his anxiety got
out of control.
My personal experience with autism is limited to one person,
whom I knew rather closely. My
observation of this woman was that her emotions appeared to be hooked up to an
amplifier with the volume turned up too loud.
She reacted with great intensity, particularly to anything negative, often
going to the extreme. Her reactions were
not inappropriate, as in schizophrenia, but disproportionate. She didn't seem to have any ability to
modulate her feelings. She took
everything to the ultimate. She was a woman
of extremes. Once she started careening
out of control, it was very hard to rein
her in. She could be violent. She could be explosive. Whenever she came to visit, I always made
sure that any knives, scissors, pencils, letter openers, or anything with a
blade or a sharp point were put away inside drawers and cabinets rather than
lying around on tables, desks, and countertops, where they could be grabbed
quickly. And I certainly wouldn't have
taught her how to use a gun.
This intensity of emotional response in autism is echoed in
an account by Tara Kaberry.4
Kaberry's observations of her son are very similar to what I saw in the
woman I knew. Kaberry also described a tendency
of her son's to shut down in response to overstimulation. The autistic person, having limited or no
ability to regulate emotional intensity, shuts down emotionally in order to
avoid getting out of control. It is a
defensive move.
Adam's showed many similar behaviors and his ability to
regulate his own emotions seemed to deteriorate as he got older. Was this a progression of the autism, or was
it a response to changes in his human relations and social environment filtered through the autism? It is hard for me to say. There was a lot of emotional hardship going
on in the family throughout Adam's years growing up. His parents separated in 2001, when he was 9,
and no doubt their relationship had been strained for some time before
that. They divorced in 2009 when he was
in his teens. His father remarried
within a year or two. This affected his
mother, may have intensified her loneliness and depression, and she seemed to
distance herself from his father after that.
This negative progressive development in his parents' relationship could
represent quite an intense overload for a boy who couldn't bear color in his
textbooks. It could explain his
progressive shutting down and withdrawal from human contact. Suicide would represent the ultimate withdrawal
and shutting down. But this should not
be seen as a natural progression of autism.
It is a response to changes in the human environment, albeit to an
extreme. It seems that the human
environment can be an exacerbating or mitigating factor in the type and degree
of the manifestations of autism.
It is also true that some autistic people can be aggressive
and violent, especially as they approach young adulthood. However, when autistic children are violent
it tends to have a history and a pattern of circumstances that triggers it.5 But apparently Adam had no history of violent
or troubling behavior (p. 40) -- unless Nancy was not revealing all that she
knew. Because the Newtown rampage was such a
singular outburst that was focused on well chosen targets, that took careful
planning and good functionality to execute, I discount autism as a determining
factor, although it may have played a role in laying the foundation as an
emotional intensifier. The causes of
Adam Lanza's debacle were primarily interpersonal, social, and psychological,
as I see it. There is some evidence that
suicide ideation is significantly higher in autistic children than in the rest
of the population, except for depressed children.6 But the suicidal tendencies seem to be
related to social factors more than to the autism itself, i.e., to the brain abnormalities. This agrees with my assessment of the Sandy
Hook case. If there is anything that
Adam Lanza's case teaches us, it is that autism should never be mixed with
guns.
The presence of autism complicates any attempt at
psychological analysis. It is difficult
to separate the impact of autism, that is, the abnormalities in the structure
of the brain, and the resultant distortions in the processing of emotional
stimuli, from the environmental impacts of the human and social relations on
both personality structure and emotional responses to particular situations.
Solomon presents a rather disconnected, confused discussion
of empathy in relation to Adam. (p. 40-41)
On the one hand he seems to want to say that Adam lacked empathy, which
he sees as a manifestation of autism, but on the other he enumerates plenty of
evidence that Adam had excellent empathy.
Adam understood the people around him well enough to know exactly how to
hurt them with the most brutal effect.
Kaberry also points out how the emotional shut down which autistic
people use as a defense against overstimulation and a lack of emotional control
is often misread as a lack of empathy.
Empathy is the ability to read another person's mental
state: to grasp what they are thinking and feeling, to anticipate their
subjective, internal responses. Empathy is strictly informative; it is not
prescriptive. Some people confuse
empathy with sympathy, but they are not the same. Empathy is neutral in the way that vision and
hearing are neutral. It gives you
information, but it does not tell you what to do with it.
An autistic person's hypersensitivity to
emotional stimuli may interfere with his ability to empathize, but it also may
be selective in the quality of feelings that are impeded. In other words, autism may create empathic
blind spots -- which could be situational -- rather than a general degradation
in the ability to empathize. The
defensive shutting down (refusing to make eye contact, to shake hands, speaking
in a flat monotone, etc.) does not necessarily imply a lack of understanding of
the feelings and intentions of another person.
It implies rather a refusal to allow a response, and an unwillingness to
engage in the unpredictable give and take of a human interaction. Adam's atrocity was informed by the most
astute empathy for its impact on the whole society. In respect to his crime, Adam was not
unempathic, he was evil.
From his earliest years Adam's experience of school was
interventionist and "therapeutic."
But apparently his relationship with Nancy was not examined in any depth
nor was his relationship with his parents connected in any way to the symptoms
he presented. It was a very inauspicious
omission. This was the point where an
appropriate intervention might have made a meaningful difference. Doing the wrong thing and evincing
gross misunderstanding of the young boy was probably the kindling point
of what later became the blazing rage that was turned on the school.
Another important lacuna in Solomon's account is Nancy's preoccupation with guns and her frequent trips with Adam to the shooting range to see that he was well trained in the use of firearms. Peter also participated in these shooting range trips, but apparently less often. It was a very important part of Adam's relationship with his parents, particularly with his mother, right up to the very end, and Solomon barely mentions it. Solomon emphasizes psychiatrists and schools. His article becomes so sanitized it is almost disingenuous. In contrast, The New York Times reported that
Inside the rambling,
pale-yellow Colonial-style home in a Connecticut suburb, Adam Lanza lived amid
a stockpile of disparate weaponry and macabre keepsakes: several firearms, more than 1,600 rounds of
ammunition, 11 knives, a starter pistol, a bayonet, 3 samurai swords. He saved photographs of what appeared to be a
corpse smeared in blood and covered in plastic, as well as a newspaper clipping
that chronicled a vicious shooting at Northern Illinois University.7
This house was ready for serious combat. But the real enemy was within. Nancy complained that she couldn't get Adam
to go to a tutor, but she never mentions having trouble getting him to go to
the shooting range.
When Adam was thirteen he was taken to Paul J. Fox, a
psychiatrist who first gave Adam the Asberger's syndrome diagnosis and
recommended that Nancy homeschool Adam, arguing that isolating him from his
peers would be better than the many difficulties Adam was having in
school. (p. 39) When I saw that I thought, "Oh,
no!" Isolating this troubled boy
with his overinvolved mother in an emotional hothouse. Wrong move.
This was an unfortunate, and I think, fateful turning point. Fox also prescribed a psychotropic drug
called Lexapro, which caused immediate, severe side effects and was promptly
discontinued -- by Adam himself, not the adults.
Robert King, the psychiatrist at Yale's Child Study Center,
who examined Adam, "was concerned that Adam's parents seemed to worry
primarily about his schooling, and said that it was more urgent to address 'how
to accommodate Adam's severe social disabilities in a way that would permit him
to be around peers.' King saw,
'significant risks to Adam in creating, even with the best of intentions, a
prosthetic environment which spares him having to encounter other students or
to work to overcome his social difficulties.'" (p. 39-40) In my opinion, this doctor got it right. But they don't seem to have followed his
advice.
I am deeply mistrustful of psychiatric diagnoses. Their purpose is to develop a uniform
approach for treating all with the same label, but when dealing with people and
their inner lives a customized individual approach is what is necessary. In our time psychiatric diagnoses are being
used to market a host of drugs designed to modify and control behavior, so
there is a vast and powerful industry invested in them. This case calls into question with the utmost
poignancy the faith we place in these diagnostic concepts.
Once you have one of these labels pinned on you, it affects
the way you are regarded and treated in school.
It affects the way your peers perceive you. It affects expectations others have of
you. It might affect opportunities that
are available to you. Everything you do
becomes interpreted in terms of your diagnostic category. Your diagnosis becomes your identity as a
person. And these labels are extremely
persistent. Once they get stuck on you,
it is very hard to peel them off.
In his interview with Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air program (March 13, 2014),
Solomon remarked at how the dispensation of a psychiatric diagnosis can be a
profound relief to parents of a troubled child or to an individual who is
suffering. At last, one has a definition
of the problem. One is not alone in ones
troubles, but becomes part of a community of those similarly afflicted. The case of Adam Lanza illustrates how
perilous such comfort and relief can be, how misleading conceptualizations and
misguided treatments can easily result.
One must treat each case as an individual, look closely at the peculiarities
of each situation and understand what is going on in the human relationships of
that person before presuming to make active interventions, particularly in
altering the chemistry of the brain in order to manipulate behavior or numb
emotions that are a natural response to the human and social environment.
Adam rejected with some vehemence the diagnoses that were
made of him (Asberger's syndrome, autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc.),
and insisted that the problems were external, i.e., between him and his
parents, especially his mother. But no
one listened. In fact, from the sound of
Solomon's interview and the article, they completely failed to examine the relationship between Nancy and Adam as
having any bearing on Adam's problems.
The problem was always with Adam.
There was something wrong with him,
we have to find out what it is. We have
to treat Adam. This can be understandably enraging to a
young boy, when he knew very well that the basic problem was his mom, and that
rage, being reinforced and intensified in countless small interactions day by
day, can build up over time to a feverish intensity. The basic problem in understanding this case,
as I see it, is the lack of attention that has been paid to Nancy and her relationship with Adam as
a determinative factor in the outcome.
The Connecticut State Attorney's report8 also
fails to examine Adam's relationship with his mother in any great detail,
offering only a few conflicting generalities.
In fact, it ignores Adam as a human being altogether, referring to him
throughout as 'the shooter.' The State
Attorney can't even bear to use his name.
They were not interested in Adam Lanza as a person, but only as 'the
shooter.' It is not surprising that this
police report sheds no light on Adam's motivation for the rampage.
Solomon tells us that Peter "maintains a nearly
fanatical insistence on facts, and nothing annoyed him more in our
conversations that speculation -- by me, the media, or anyone else." (p.
37) However, Peter indulges in numerous speculations
himself throughout the article that I very much question. For example, "With hindsight, I know
Adam would have killed me in a heartbeat, if he'd had the chance. I don't question that for a minute." (p.
43) I question it very much. Peter's relationship with Adam seems to have
been the most positive, constructive, nurturing one that Adam had in his
life. Throughout his life up to the very
end, Peter reached out to Adam in very positive, supportive, helpful ways, playing
with Lego blocks, taking him on hikes, shopping for Christmas presents to
donate to needy children (at Adam's initiative), buying him a car, teaching him
to drive, offering to buy him a new computer.
There is a very touching picture in the Connecticut Attorney General's
report of a birthday card Peter sent to Adam in the last year of his life inviting
him to send an e-mail if he would like to go hiking or shooting. The best times of Adam's life appear to be
the times he spent with his dad. If Peter
had been around to act as a buffer between Adam and Nancy, Adam might not have
killed anybody. That is my counter
speculation.
"I was doing everything I
could, " Peter said. "She was doing way more. I just feel sad for her." Peter is convinced that Nancy had no idea how
dangerous their son had become.
"She never confided to her sister or best friend about being afraid
of him. She slept with her bedroom door
unlocked, and she kept guns in the house, which she would not have done if she
were frightened." (p. 43)
Of course she wasn't frightened. But for reasons that Peter had no capability
to fathom. I have a very different
conception of Nancy and her role in this tragedy. I see her as the driving force that impelled
Adam toward a violent consummation. In
my view Peter was a man of limited insight into emotional issues and woefully
incapable of perceiving the emotional needs of his family, first of all of his
wife, and more pertinently of his son.
But it is certainly true as well that Nancy was not up to being an
effective wife and mother, and this resulted in Peter turning away from the
family fairly early on and divesting himself to a large extent of this tangled
emotional morass of Adam and Nancy, leaving them to more or less fend for themselves. "I took a back seat," he tells us.
(p. 39) By his own admission he wasn't
around that much, even when he was married to Nancy and living with the
family. "I'd work ridiculous hours
during the week and Nancy would take care of the kids. Then, on weekends, she'd do errands and I'd
spend time with the kids." (p. 38)
It doesn't appear that they spent a lot of time together with their children, so Peter would not have observed much
of the day to day interactions between Nancy and Adam. He was a man who did not know what was going
on in his own house, and he seems to have had a limited emotional connection to
his wife.
Nancy, quite naturally, being socially isolated and
profoundly insecure, turned to Adam with her tremendous neediness, monumental anxieties,
loneliness, sense of futility, and tendency to control and manipulate. Adam, being a child and having the
limitations of his autism, was not equipped to deal with this overwhelming
onslaught, and began to withdraw in various ways, incorporating many of Nancy's
anxieties, showing various asocial symptoms, while at the same time steadily
building up a volcanic rage that he could not express directly. But he was given explicit encouragement in
the use of guns and implicit permission for an interest in violence and
murder. So his anger became channeled in
this direction and coalesced around the condensation points of mass shootings,
and, especially, shootings at schools, since schools were the places he could
best relate to, and which were the bane of his life and the perpetual measuring
stick against which he was always coming up short.
It was after Peter's marriage to Shelly Cudiner that things
seem to careen toward their final demise.
Nancy wanted to take him to a
tutor, but, she wrote, 'Even ten minutes before we should leave he was getting
ready to go, but then had a meltdown and began to cry and couldn't go. He said things like it's pointless, and he
doesn't even know what he doesn't know.'
In early 2010, when Nancy told Peter that Adam had been crying
hysterically on the bathroom floor, Peter responded with uncharacteristic
vehemence: 'Adam needs to communicate
the source of his sorrow. We have less
than three months to help him before he is eighteen. I am convinced that when he is eighteen he
will either try to enlist or just leave the house to become homeless.' (p. 42)
My feeling is at this point Adam should have been
hospitalized. Clearly the situation was
getting worse and worse and Nancy was not managing it. This is where an intervention that would have
altered this downward spiraling dyad of Nancy and Adam should have been
imposed. Peter was completely blind to
the problem and its seriousness. He was
only looking at Adam and not at the
relationship between Adam and Nancy.
It was a fateful and fatal misperception.
Shelley Cudiner had apparently been living in the Sandy Hook
community for at least ten years, and had been previously married. I was not able to find out the date of her
marriage to Peter, but it had to have been in late 2010 or 2011, nor was I able
to find out the history of their relationship, and if it played any role in
Peter's divorce from Nancy in 2009. It
is pretty clear that the divorce of his parents had a negative effect on Adam,
contrary to Peter's assessment. (p. 38) It
took Peter even further out of the life of the family than he already was, and
left Adam indelibly fixed in the orbit of his mother. The marriage of Peter to Shelley some time in
late 2010 or 2011 was probably what set things on their final course. Adam decided (perhaps in error) that his
father was of no further use, and began to withdraw from him. Nancy also distanced herself from Peter and
began to impede his access to Adam while maintaining a pretense as a helpful
intermediary, offering misleading signals that Adam's condition might be
improving. At some point after his
father's remarriage Adam made up his mind that he would have to deal with this
himself in his own way, and his mother was giving him plenty of clues as to how
to go about it.
A word document called
'Selfish,' which was found on Adam's computer, gives an explanation of why
females are inherently selfish, written while one of them was accommodating him
in every possible way. (p. 43)
This comment illustrates how effective Nancy's dissimulation
was in misleading Peter, Solomon, the community, and the media. But she didn't fool Adam. Adam was closer to her than anyone else and
knew her best.
The portrayal of Nancy as the hapless, longsuffering victim
of a monster child increasingly out of control due to mysterious internal
forces is not credible. What follows is a speculative reconstruction, with
no apologies, Peter -- and I don't regard you as the most authoritative
commentator. I do welcome concrete
evidence that would refute or confirm it.
I believe such evidence exists and that it is possible to definitively
understand what happened in this tragedy.
But it requires a close examination of Nancy, who she was, and her
impact on Adam's psychological development.
As I see it, at some point Nancy must have decided that death
was an increasingly appealing alternative to the deteriorating life she had. There is simply not enough information to
determine at what point this occurred.
Whether it was after her separation from Peter in 2001, after her
divorce in 2009, or after Peter's remarriage in 2010 or 11, or perhaps even way
before at some time during her marriage when Peter was nominally living with
her. But Nancy seems to have become
increasingly depressed and very likely suicidal. She did not have the inner resolve to kill
herself, so she chose Adam for the role of her executioner, and she made sure
he had the means at his disposal, and gave him plenty of training for the task. Some people commit suicide by provoking
others to kill them. Nancy was using
Adam as her instrument. There was an
implicit understanding between them.
Adam may well have realized where his mother was driving them both, and
it could explain his attempts to wall himself off from her and isolate himself
in the last months before the killings.
Just before the shootings, Nancy wrote Adam a Christmas check for the
purpose of buying a CZ 83 semiautomatic pistol. (CT State Attorney's Report, p.
26) It may have been Nancy's Christmas
wish for herself to Adam. And Adam got
the message. Of course Nancy wasn't
frightened. She had a pretty good idea
what was coming and was resigned to it, even encouraging of it. In committing a murder-suicide Adam may have
been carrying out his mother's final wishes.
Anyone who does not accept this or some similar
reconstruction of Nancy must account for one overpowering fact that transcends
all diagnosis: Adam Lanza killed his
mother. If there was nothing terribly
wrong in the relationship between Adam and Nancy, and she was just a well
meaning parent doing everything she could for her troubled child, then you have
no choice but to see Adam as an inexplicable demon who randomly snapped and lashed
out blindly at anyone who happened to be around. It is an untenable view that goes against
common sense and everything we know about psychology.
What Nancy probably did not count on was the conflagration
at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That
was most likely Adam's own twist on the matter.
Nancy was probably visualizing her own murder, or perhaps murder-suicide
-- and was quite prepared for it. Adam,
through his study of mass shootings, particularly the one at Columbine High
School in Colorado, visualized a more dramatic exit. He did not want to just die a mediocre death
of a murder-suicide that would be swept under the rug and quickly
forgotten. He wanted lasting infamy. It also served as a final assertion of
independence from his mother. Blasting
the school away was a final comment on his parents' values and
expectations. It was Adam's verdict on
everything that they tried to impose on him throughout his entire life. It makes perfect sense.
The massacre of young children at Sandy Hook was a further
stab in the eye of society and of life itself.
It is one thing to say, "My life is not worth living. Therefore I will kill myself and end it. You may see things differently, so you will
choose to continue to live. Very well,
but I will say good-bye." That is
the simple suicide. Murder-suicide is
suicide coupled with the murder of one (or perhaps others) with whom one feels
inextricably bound and who is the partner in a consummating sense of despair
and rage. When the suicide is
accompanied with murders of strangers who are not chosen at random, but share
some characteristics, such as children at a school, then the act represents an
attack on the society, and reflects a perception on the part of the killer that
society is in some way to blame for his demise and for the destructive
retribution that he is meting out. The
school killings at Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, and
many others around the world are acts of
vengeance. They are retribution on
the part of the shooter for perceived injuries and insults that have intolerably
afflicted his life. The perceptions may
be accurate or inaccurate, justified or delusional, but the killer is lashing
out at specific targets that represent an inchoate enemy. Children represent the hopes and dreams of a
society. They represent the future, its
continuation and growth. Killing
children is the most vicious, categorical attack on any society, because it
aims at the destruction of that society's future. Adam's attack on the Sandy Hook Elementary
School represents his complete alienation, not only from his own family, but
from his community and his entire society.
He wanted to destroy not only himself and his mother, but everything.
This is what people find so difficult to comprehend. How is such complete, thoroughgoing
alienation possible? It occurs when all
the roads forward seem blocked or unappealing to the point of being
unacceptable. This has a great deal to
do with schooling, because school is where one comes into contact with society
and its values, and where one begins to formulate a vision for one's personal
future in that society. One meets peers
in one's age group and begins to form friendships and associations. Patterns become established in how one
interacts with other people and one's expectations of oneself and for the
future. This is sometimes called
"socialization." When this
process doesn't work out, alienation is the result, and manifests itself many
ways, the most common in American society are drug and alcohol abuse, which are
passive and withdrawing, and criminality, which is assertive and defiant. American schools are virtual factories of
alienation. The medical establishment is
another. Adam Lanza experienced both to
an inordinate degree from early in his life.
When he reached the point of unleashing a terrible vengeance, he chose
the most appropriate target.
I divide this case into two parts: I see the murder of his mother together with
Adam's suicide as an outgrowth of the pathology in the relationship between
Nancy and Adam superimposed on the autism.
The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary had less to do with autism and
more to do with Adam's personal psychopathology. It consisted of his essentially depleted,
empty inner self, his estrangement from his father, which was related to his
parents' divorce and his father's remarriage, the compensatory identification
he made with the mass murderers who had attacked schools, which was made
possible by his negative experiences with schools throughout his life, and the
excessive value his parents placed on school achievement and the iatrogenic
effect this had on their relationship with Adam. Adam also had encouragement and training in
violence and the use of weapons.
Violence and the use of guns was egosyntonic in the atmosphere of his
home. Furthermore, Adam desired
significance. He wanted greatness and a
lasting legacy, and he found plenty of role models in the examples of previous
mass shooters at schools.
Peter told Solomon that he wished Adam had never been
born. But to wish Adam had never been
born is to wish Peter's entire adult life had never happened: his marriage to
Nancy, the many good times spent with Adam, his divorce and remarriage. It is an indication that he is not dealing
with the matter well. He wants to
distance himself and obliterate it rather than look at it closely and
understand exactly what happened and why.
It is once again his characteristic unwillingness to look at human
problems in any depth.
The media and the police portray Adam as a monster. But he was only a monster on the last day of
his life. If we subtract the last day of
his life, Adam Lanza was a rather inconsequential person, except to his
immediate family. If he had just killed
himself, or even just himself and Nancy, it would have been tragic, but it is
unlikely that he would be demonized to the degree that he has been. It was the murder of the children at Sandy
Hook that transformed the mediocre Adam Lanza into a larger than life immortal monster.
This murder of the children, I must stress, should not be
seen as a manifestation of hatred or rage toward the children themselves. There has been some suggestion that Adam was
bullied during his school days, and that this contributed to his motivation for
the rampage at the school. I discount
that. If there was any bullying, it was
not a major factor. There is lots of
bullying among kids, but few mass murderers.
What bullying he might have experienced at school paled in comparison to
what he faced at home with his mother.
And the children he killed were not the children who had bullied
him. They were much younger and
strangers to him. So the idea that this
was vengeance for bullying that had taken place years ago is facile to the
point of being farfetched. Adam's
outburst was rage against the school as an institutional force in children's
lives, and in his in particular, against the society that places inordinate
emphasis on school achievement, against his parents who placed such importance
school and children's performance therein, and against the medical community
that misdiagnosed him and therefore failed to understand him and provide
appropriate interventions. It was also
an immature desire for infamy through massive destruction. Grandiosity run amok.
There were several psychological factors that propelled Adam
toward the conflagration at Sandy Hook Elementary. First of all and most fundamentally was his
inner sense of emptiness, isolation, and a lack of self definition. Adam had no firm sense of who he was, or what
his values were, or his purpose and significance in life. This is all related to inadequacies in his
relationship with his mother, the details of which are unavailable, and a
turning away from his father as a viable role model, probably in response to
his father's remarriage. He also had his
rage and his alienation from school and from society. He also had permission and even encouragement
from his parents to use guns. Into this
psychological void and hunger for self definition and significance stepped
Dylan Clebold and Eric Harris, Steven Kazmierczak, Seung-Hui Cho, Anders
Brevik, and other mass shooters he had studied in some detail, who used the
school as a stage for macabre theatrics.
Adam saw in these mass killers a kinship. Identification with them solved a
psychological problem in how he should define himself as a person, and it
incorporated the important raw materials he had available, namely, the weapons,
the rage, the hatred of school, and his contempt for society. When you look at it closely, it is almost
overdetermined.
Of course Nancy bears a lot of the responsibility for the
outcome, as does Peter. Parents
matter. But their responsibility is not
total. Nancy set the course toward
murder-suicide certainly within the last few years of their lives, and possibly
long before. But ultimately Adam made a
choice and took an action that defined himself independent of his parents. It may have been the first time in his life
that he was able to take such a self defining step. Being a mother is a weighty responsibility
that goes unrecognized in American society.
It is even despised by many women and men. But when it is handled badly, the cost can be
great, both for the children and the family, and also for society. The important lessons from the Sandy Hook
massacre are the value of motherhood, the social significance of alienation,
and the perils of the ready availability of guns. These three factors, built on a substrate of
autism, caused this event. It is not at
all incomprehensible. It is very clear,
and these conditions are not uncommon in American society. More such atrocities are likely brewing. Not every situation that could develop toward
this outcome does. Many, many factors
can derail, divert, or mitigate such an person from carrying forward to the
most extreme outcome. Thankfully, it
should be a rarity, but the prevalence of the right soil conditions is bound to
produce some malignant fruit.
The realization of this whole episode and many others like
it of lesser import are made possible by the ready availability of guns in
American society. There are lots of
troubled people; there are lots of crazy people; there are lots of people with
evil hearts who desire to destroy themselves and others. Giving them effective means to carry out
their worst intentions and encouraging their use is the worst possible thing a
society can do. Yet this is what America
does. So we as a society also bear a
large part of the responsibility for the demise of Adam Lanza and the calamity
at Sandy Hook Elementary. Adam may have
been supremely evil on the last day of his life, but Nancy was evil and
malevolent for a very long time, molding and shaping Adam into the explosive
time bomb he became, and America is sinister and evil in providing the
conditions that enable and promote the most extreme outcomes of psychopathology
and emotional disintegration.
Depending on whom you ask,
there were twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight victims in Newtown. It's twenty-six if you count only those who
were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School, twenty-seven if you include
Nancy Lanza; twenty-eight if you judge Adam's suicide as a loss. There are twenty-six stars on the local
firehouse roof. On the anniversary of
the shootings, President Obama referred to 'six dedicated school workers and
twenty beautiful children' who had been killed, and the governor of Connecticut
asked churches to ring their bells twenty-six times. Some churches in Newtown had previously
commemorated the victims by ringing twenty-eight times . . . (p. 37)
Society wishes to exclude Adam and Nancy in death as they
had been in life: ignoring them, misunderstanding them, wishing, like Peter,
that they had never existed. We are not
learning the lessons that their lives and deaths should teach us.
Notes
1. Fresh Air with Terry Gross. National Public Radio broadcast. March 13,
2014.
2. New York Daily News,
February 12, 2014
3.
New England Journal of Medicine
4. Kaberry, Tara. Can Emotional Overload Look Like a Lack of
Empathy? Yes. Autism
and Empathy. October 28, 2011. http://www.autismandempathy.com/?p=713
5. Washington Post,
March 13, 2011. Also
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/10/lost-afraid-where-to-turn-when-autism-turns-violent.html
6.
Mayes, Susan Dickerson; Gorman, Angela A.; Hillwig-Garcia, Jolene; Syed
Ehsan (2013) Suicide ideation and
attempts in children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, Vol.
7, No. 1, pp. 109-119.
7. New York Times March 28, 2013.
8.
Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial
District of Danbury on the
Shootings at Sandy Hook
Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street,
Newtown, Connecticut on
December 14, 2012. OFFICE OF THE STATE’S ATTORNEY JUDICIAL
DISTRICT OF DANBURY, Stephen J. Sedensky III, State’s Attorney. November 25, 2013
Nymphomania (Volume 1)
Directed
by Lars von Trier
This movie goes on my all time Ten Worst List. It is one of the most awful movies I have
ever seen. I went with a friend and I
tried to get him to leave after half an hour, but he insisted on sitting it out
to the bitter end. I think in part he
was punishing me because it was my idea to go see this.
The title is an outright lie. This is not about nymphomania. The girl portrayed in this film is depressed,
detached, and probably suicidal. If she
can be labeled as anything she is probably what they call a 'borderline'
personality. But she is definitely not a nymphomaniac. Furthermore, the character of the girl is not
at all convincing or realistic. She comes across as some man's fantasy of a
woman, rather than a real woman. It is, furthermore,
a hostile, derogatory fantasy. It is a
negative conceptualization of female sexuality by a man who seems to know very
little about women or sex.
'Nymphomania' is not a formal psychiatric category. It is not in the DSM-V. It is an informal term
that refers to an unusually strong sex drive in a woman. I dislike this term and never use it. It has a clinical ring to it and a derogatory
cast. More generally, the practice of
categorizing people according to their sexual behavior is completely
wrongheaded and leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, distortions, and
bigotry. This film is a very good
illustration of that.
The friend that I attended this film with is a joyously
married man of many years. He was
skeptical that such a thing as a 'nymphomaniac' even existed. He thought it was something like Bigfoot,
where you only see the footprints, but never encounter the beast itself. He asked me if I have ever encountered such a
woman. I have encountered at least five women
that I can think of, and have heard tell of others, who could qualify for this
label. They are a rarity in American
society, and our culture does everything possible to discourage this outcome of
female sexual development. I think there
would be many more such women if the culture fostered them. I don't call them 'nymphomaniacs,' I call
them 'volcanoes,' or 'furnaces.' It is
less abstract and more evocative of the awe and wonder that such women
inspire.
This filmmaker confuses promiscuity with 'nymphomania.' Promiscuity can be motivated by many things,
and the kind of promiscuity portrayed here is driven by depression, emptiness,
low self esteem, anxiety, and loneliness -- and possibly, at an unconscious
level, rage. 'Nymphomania,' as I
understand it, is an unusually strong sexual appetite coupled with a ready and
strong responsiveness to sexual stimulation.
It is anything but disengaged and detached, as represented here. It is not necessarily promiscuous, in fact,
such women tend to create stable relationships with one or more partners of
both sexes. Having multiple, ongoing
sexual relationships is also not the same as promiscuity. Promiscuity is shallow and anxious. Nymphomania tends not to be. So the filmmaker has chosen an inappropriate
title for his film, because he doesn't understand the woman he is trying to
portray and clearly does not know anything about women with exceptionally
strong sexual capabilities.
You can tell right away that this film was not made in
America or by Americans. A man goes out
after dark to buy something at a convenience store in his neighborhood and on
his way home notices a woman lying on the sidewalk bruised and bleeding. He helps her to her feet, takes her to his
apartment and proceeds to nurse her. This
is something that would never happen in an American city. An urban American man would never pick up a
bruised, bleeding, semiconscious woman off the sidewalk and take her to his
apartment. It is unthinkable. So right away the story takes on a fantastic
quality to an American audience.
It is never explained how she came to be battered and
bleeding and semiconscious on the sidewalk.
She sits there through the entire movie with her face all beaten up
relating the story of her life and carrying on a wide ranging philosophical
discussion with this stranger she just met, when her entire life, as she
retells, it is a series of encounters with an endless parade of men of the
utmost superficiality and minimal emotional connection. Why she would suddenly open up and begin to
philosophically muse over her life with this stranger under these extraordinary
circumstances is hard to fathom. The
movie consists of long philosophical discussions punctuated by simulated sex
scenes. The sex is not very good and
neither is the philosophy. If you want
to see pornography, don't go to this.
There is nothing erotic about this film at all. It is actually a downer.
The film amounts to an attack on this woman's character and
behavior led by the woman herself. I
think this is the reason she is allowed to sit there on camera with her face all
beaten up through the whole movie. The
filmmaker wants to make sure she is made as unattractive and unappealing as
possible. He hates this woman. He wants to drive it home that this beaten
up, uglified face is the well deserved outcome of her character and behavior. This film is a very conservative affirmation
of marriage and monogamy.
Things get increasingly ridiculous as we go along. There is a long highly improbable scene of a
ditched wife coming to Jo's apartment with her three kids and bitterly berating
Jo at length in the presence of her husband, who has just left her, for
destroying her life and wrecking her marriage.
By the time she went away bawling I couldn't blame her husband for
leaving her. There is a discussion of
the differences in polyphony between Palestrina and J.S. Bach. There is a sequence of a chorus doing a
Palestrina chorale. There is an
explanation of the Fibonacci sequence and its relationship to the Pythagorean
theorem. We see a jaguar with a young
fawn in its mouth. Sex scenes are accompanied
by chorale preludes from Bach's Little
Organ Book. All of this is supposed
to have something to do with nymphomania.
It's totally crazy.
If you fail to listen to me and make the mistake of going to
see this, keep in mind that what you are seeing is not nymphomania.
'Nymphomania' is a lurid title to draw you in, but this ambiguous term
does not describe the character of the woman portrayed. Jo is, in fact, at the other end of the
spectrum.
I couldn't see any redeeming qualities in this film. There is nothing good I can say about it. Stacy Martin's nude body is good. You can hardly go wrong with a good looking
naked girl, but that is not enough to sustain a full length movie in this day
and age. It is not that hard to see a
naked girl any more. And the movie is
rather long, or at least it seems to be.
Sorry, but this one is a total loss.
Particle Fever
Directed
by Mark Levinson
This is a documentation of science as a media circus. It is a public relations infomercial for
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research that operates the Large
Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland.
I was disappointed in it to the point of loathing. I was expecting something akin to the old
NOVA programs on PBS, where they seriously examine the scientific issues and
provide in depth biographical portraits of the scientists involved. It wasn't anything like that at all. This was superficial and childish. It was a cross between the Oscars and a cheerleading
section at a basketball game. But this
is a game that no one understands or knows how to play. So it is hard to understand why anyone is
cheering or what they are cheering for.
They
showed a graphic with an H in the center of it and told us that's the Higgs
Boson; that's what we're looking for.
It's the key to the universe.
It's the long sought Holy Grail of particle physics. Well, . . . OK. But no attempt was made to explain what it is and why it is so
important, or why you need this gargantuan apparatus to find it. Maybe they decided that we are all just too
dumb to get it, so they would try to create some phony drama that would hop us
up and entertain us. But it didn't work
on me. I have too much curiosity --
which was the main justification they gave for building this behemoth in the
first place. The film should have
pandered to that curiosity that is driving the scientists. The scientific issues should be engaging and
interesting enough in their own right to hold the interest of the
audience. But the filmmakers simply
didn't believe in it. They opted to make
something like late night television.
I'm getting more annoyed the more I think about it.
A hundred years ago a lone, eccentric scientist, driven by
little more than his own peculiar interests, could build an apparatus in his
basement that was capable of making important discoveries. That is no longer the case. It costs a lot of money to build and operate a
mother bear like the Large Hadron Collider, and for that they need a lot of support
from political leaders and the public, since it admittedly does not produce
anything of immediate economic value.
Perhaps the debacle in the United States of the Superconducting Super
Collider struck fear in their hearts, when the U.S. Congress, in 1993, canceled
the project to build the world's largest and most energetic particle
accelerator after it was well under way.
Perhaps the thinking is that the way to garner public support is through
propaganda, public relations gimmicks, and advertising, rather than trying to
educate people about the subtleties of particle physics and the deep structure
of the universe. I disagree, but I am
certainly no expert on public relations.
My opinion is that this attitude is mistaken and this film is misguided
in its fundamental approach to the subject.
It is an unfortunate missed opportunity both to educate the public about
recent developments in particle physics and to broaden the base of public
support for large scale scientific enterprises of the type done in the Large
Hadron Collider. I don't think this film
is going to be popular, and I don't think is serves the scientists well who
participated in it and who care about pushing back the frontiers of human
knowledge and understanding the origins and structure of the universe. Even if you are suckered by the light
entertainment this film offers, you won't know very much more about the Higgs
boson when you leave than you did when you went in.
Program 3 -- Firebird
-- San Francisco Ballet Performance
February
28, 2014
Three ballets make up Program 3: The
Kingdom of the Shades, which comes from Act II of a ballet called La Bayadére, by Ludwig Minkus and Natalia
Makarova; Ghosts, by Kip Winger and
Christopher Wheeldon; and Firebird,
by Igor Stravinsky and Yuri Possokhov. They
all have to do with male idealizations and conflicts about women. They are psychological in that they deal with
the internal, psychic representations of women in the male imagination rather
than with stories, events, or women who might be real. Firebird
is by far and away the superior of the three.
The Kingdom of the
Shades is a sublime display of dance technique at the highest level and
great visual beauty. According to the
program notes, "The scene is the opium-induced hallucination of Solor, who
grieves for his love, the murdered temple dancere (bayadére)
Nikiya." However, you would never
guess this upon watching the ballet.
There is no suggestion of opium influencing Solor (Denis Matvienko), who
presents several impressive solos that show him perfectly sharp and at the top
of his game. There is also no suggestion
that Nikiya (Maria Kochetkova) has been murdered, or that she is even
dead. What you get is the sense that
Solor is dealing with an illusion about a woman, not any woman in particular,
but an abstraction of woman, a phantasm.
Nikiya is not a woman who actually exists or ever did exist except in
Solor's imagination. It is a naive,
idealized conception of a woman by someone who doesn't really know women very
well. The music starts out somber,
nostalgic and conflicted, but morphs into a series of waltzes that grow
progressively cheesier as they go along.
What saves the ballet is the technical brilliance of the dancers, which
we have become spoiled into taking for granted at the San Francisco Ballet, and
the visual beauty of the staging and choreography. Once again the San Francisco Ballet has taken
something that is short on substance and turned it into a pleasing visual
spectacle.
Ghosts is a
more interesting performance in my eyes and ears. The music is more interesting and the
choreography and staging have a greater sense of freedom and imagination. The ballet is abstract. The theme is Ghosts. Well, what is
that? What you see are pairs of
male-female couples, that stay pretty much in those pairs throughout the
performance. There are a couple of
triangles with two men and a woman, but there is a strong sense of the
male-female couple throughout this ballet.
And the couples are strongly interactive. They look at each other and touch each other
and are quite involved with one another physically and emotionally all the way
through.
My understanding of a ghost is that it has to do with the
past and with the imagination. A ghost
haunts one by intruding into ones consciousness unbidden and unsolicited. An experience or person of some significance,
but long past, continues to disrupt and influence ones present emotional
balance and cannot be easily dismissed. One
does not get that sense from this ballet.
There is no sense of the past that I could discern. And these ghosts were benign, whereas I think
a ghost suggests something ominous. A
ghost is an unwelcome presence in my
understanding. This ballet has no such
overtones. One does not get a strong emotional fix on
this ballet, but it is visually interesting and danced with a high degree of
skill.
The highlight of the evening was Firebird, with music by Igor Stravinsky and choreography by Yuri
Possokhov. This ballet has an
interesting concept and is beautifully staged and danced to high quality
music. The dance and the music
complement one another very effectively, which is something I especially like
to see in a dance performance. This is
one I would like to see again, because I don't feel like I got it all on the
first viewing. It is a complex,
ambiguous story that allows for a wide range of interpretation. I might have to study this one some before I
come to a clearer conception.
The Firebird is a mythical figure (female) who seems to fall
in love with a prince. They part on good
terms for reasons that are not clear and the prince then takes up with a princess. The relationship between the Firebird and the
Princess is not clear, and I am wondering if they are the same in some
sense? A devil-like character, Kaschei,
appears and brings discord to the romantic couple. The nature of the discord is not clear, but
the Firebird reappears to dispel Kaschei and restore the couple's harmony and equilibrium. The story ends with an apparent wedding and a
happily ever after sequel. According to
the program notes it is supposed to represent the ultimate triumph of good over
evil, something I am finding it increasingly hard to believe in the older I
get, but the story is very positive and uplifting and danced and staged at a
superb level of skill and taste.
What I can say now is that this story, like the previous two
ballets, has to do with male psychology, with male conflicts and idealizations
of women, and it represents them in much more depth and interest than the
previous two ballets. The Firebird seems
to represent the sensual, sexualized woman of the male imagination. It is she who rescues the beleaguered young
couple beset by turmoil sown by Kaschei, the disruptive, dissatisfied, restless
aspect of the young male. It is the
Princess's ability to tap the sexual energy of the Firebird, the hidden
Firebird within herself, that enables her tame Kaschei, to hold the male's
interest, and create a lasting, stable bond.
It is not exactly a triumph of good over evil, but rather a triumph of
human connection through sexual bonding over disappointment and
dissolution. This is one you should go
see, if you have a chance. It is both
mentally challenging and aesthetically satisfying.