VT Massacre: Evil as Existential Sickness

The Virginia Tech Massacre: Evil as Existential Sickness
by Stephen Morris M.Div


I. ON THE ESSENCE OF EVIL



The more incomprehensible the killing, the closer it is to the essence of evil.

Manslaughter for instance is the most benign type of killing because we understand it as accidental, "I didn't mean to kill him—he was drunk and driving on the wrong side of the road and I couldn't avoid him…" We think OK, tragic but definitely not evil.

And if killing occurs in self-defense we might say to ourselves, "She didn't want to kill him, but the rapist had a knife at her throat." This we can understand. Evil? Not likely.

In crimes of passion we at least comprehend to some degree, "Well I understand how things got out of hand when he caught his wife in bed with another man…" But though we may understand, we are moving closer to pure evil because here murder could have clearly been avoided.

Even suicide bombers in crowded Baghdad markets are understood through the murky prism of religious fundamentalism (though what is incomprehensible about this evil is how religion could be twisted into justifying the mass murder of innocents).

But I want to suggest that the Virginia Tech killings shook us so deeply because they touch the very core of evil, utterly devoid of a framework for comprehension. Seung-Hui Cho had no motive. He didn't know his victims. He had no politics or ideology. Not even a 'religion.' The motive stated in the 'Multimedia Manifesto' is vapid, a red herring. A German or Engineering classroom is hardly a bastion of debauchery, wealth or 'deceitful charlatanism'. There isn't the feeblest thread of logic connecting the victims to the so-called crime.

There's just no explanation.

And yet the Virginia Tech massacre was obviously excruciatingly methodical. This wasn't a spontaneous 'boiling over' of homicidal impulses.

So why did this massacre touch on the core of evil?

Because in its essence, evil stands in stark opposition to God's loving, creative activity. Incomprehension is its hallmark because evil defies logic; evil is inherently illogical because it makes no sense to destroy what is good, and creation is good. But ironically, that is precisely what gives evil its logic, its cohesion. And that is the inner connection between all such unspeakable acts.

The VT massacre was perfectly evil because it was a perfectly orchestrated destruction of innocents. It was a raw affront to the value and goodness of creation, and for no other purpose.




II. NON-BEING AND RESENTMENT

It is tempting to argue that not evil, but mental illness is the key to unlocking the Virginia Tech massacre. Mental illness of course problematizes culpability and therefore the notion of evil; Yet of the many, many insane people in this world, why are so few drawn to unspeakable acts of violence? Is that just the nature of insanity?

Allow me to suggest that we temper this discussion with a closer look at the facts, because I believe we can discern the logic of the illogical at work, a demonic logic at best.

Let's start with a profile of the killer, Seung-Hui Cho. Relatives say that his behavior in early life was marked by non-responsiveness; they thought he might even be autistic (a diagnosis which received no medical validation). He was extremely quiet, did not respond to greetings and declined affection. When he fought with his older sister, relatives were shocked by the fury of his violence. Cho was also said to have an unusual voice, which caused him to shy away from speaking.

Not surprisingly, the overall developmental arc of Seung-Hui Cho is one of deepening withdrawal. The Washington Post described him as, “angry, menacing, disturbed and so depressed that he seemed near tears. He often spoke in a whisper, if at all, refused to open up to teachers and classmates, and kept himself locked behind a facade of a hat, sunglasses and silence." On the first day of his British Literature class he identified himself as "?" on the sign-up sheet. He became known as "The Question Mark Kid" (he would also use the “?” for his name on his Facebook account). Cho's roommate told reporters: "I didn't know how to pronounce his name until I heard it on TV because he never told us his name."

When Prof Lucinda Roy noticed that other students were failing to attend her class because they were afraid of Cho, she made a bold decision to pull him out and give him a private course. She spent hours with him alone, trying to coax him out of his shell by working on poems together. One of her insights about his inner state was astonishing; ``I tried to keep him focused on things that were outside the self a little bit because he seemed to be running inside circles in a maze when he was talking about himself.'' Prof Roy also stated: “I really felt very strongly that he was suicidal, that he was so depressed that he had a negativity about him, like it was like talking to a hole sometimes, that the person wasn't really there.”

Emerging is a portrait of a young man at the threshold of non-being. A question mark lost within an internal labyrinth.

But let's be careful to qualify this state. We are not talking about the enlightened non-being we find in Buddhism, a withdrawal from the realm of ego and desire into pure bliss. This is the polar opposite; Cho's non-being was tortured, fueled by resentment towards life and towards being itself.

This is what gave Cho's state of non-being its hateful character. In class he started taking pictures of female students under their desks, and read very violent writings to the group, prompting some students to stay away from the classroom. Prof Nikki Giovanni remarked; ``I know that there's a tendency to think that everybody can get counseling or can have a bowl of tomato soup and everything is going to be all right, but I think that evil exists, and I think that he was a mean person.''

Garrett Evans confirms Giovanni's insight. Evans was a student wounded in the classroom where the greatest loss of life took place, and told CNN: "He walked to the door real fast, didn't say anything. All he did was bang, bang, shot a girl here, shot a girl there. An evil spirit was going through that boy, that shooter. I know it."

As Cho's non-being was driven not by choice but by resentment, it ultimately did not accept its own status. It refused to go quietly into that night, literally raging against being itself with unmitigated violence, which is why he addresses his 'multimedia manifesto' to an ambiguous YOU: "YOU had a million chances and ways to have avoided today, but you decided to spill my blood. YOU forced me into a corner and only gave me one option. The decision was YOURS. Now YOU have blood on your hands that will never wash off […] YOU have vandalized by heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience…"

'You' is the undifferentiated other, no one and everyone. In other words, being itself. From the perspective of non-being, being is the archenemy because its very existence affirms its non-being. And sadly, reaching out to someone in this condition can backfire; Lucinda Roy's private course may have only fed Cho's resentment by affirming his status as someone beyond the realm.




III REBIRTH THOUGH VIOLENCE


Up to now we have focused on the destructive dimensions of the massacre, but now let us turn to the superficially 'creative' element. Allow me to suggest that Cho's motive was not only to
wage war on being, but to enter the realm of being in the most insidious way.

We cannot underestimate the significance of the of his 'Multimedia Manifesto'--so intrinsic to this homicidal act that Cho literally stops killing in order to post his parcel before resuming the murders. This parcel contained 27 QuickTIme video files of him reading text to the camera, 43 photos of him brandishing weapons in menacing poses, and thousands of words of text, much of which has not been published by NBC.

This is vital to understanding the events of that day because if Cho is suffering from the existential sickness of non-being, the Multimedia Manifesto functions as a deranged antidote to his problem. It is in this package that Cho attempts to trade his old identity of isolated loner for a new one. Overnight this voiceless misfit has gained the world's attention--the Question Mark Kid is now a household name.

And with the world watching Cho gives the performance of a lifetime, nailing the role of persecuted martyr who was tragically forced into becoming the exterminating angel - a part he claims he had to play with the greatest reluctance.

But as Dr. Michael Wellner remarked (Wellner reviewed the original materials Cho mailed to NBC), "These videos do not help us understand him. They distort him. He was meek. He was quiet. This is a PR tape of him trying to turn himself into a Quentin Tarantino character." Cho's attempted rebirth was of course a lie, a slick marketing campaign. But it was what it was; a desperate and pathetic attempt at being from the ultimate state of non-being—from beyond the grave.




IV JESUS IN REVERSE


One of the most disturbing aspects of the Manifesto was the degree to which Cho identifies with Jesus; “…You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people. […] Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon on a cross? And left to bleed to death for your amusement?”

Just as evil is a mockery of good (i.e. the Black Mass as a parody of the Mass), Cho turns the story of Jesus inside-out. The basic movement of Jesus' death and resurrection is the story of
one who surrenders himself in self-giving love and is raised to eternal life by God the Father. Cho's story is of one who kills in hatred, only to be raised from death as a ghostly image flickering across TV screens the world over.

And instead of inspiring disciples to spread the message of love, Cho believes his act will ''inspire generations of weak and defenseless people'. We can only surmise what he means my this, but it is not hard to imagine copycat killers taking up the call to arms.




V. GOOD IN CONTEMPLATING EVIL?


Unfortunately understanding evil provides little comfort, nor does it explain why God allows its existence. So we may be asking, what benefit can we possibly draw from these insights into the sad, tormented life of Seung-Hui Cho?

Perhaps only that Cho is an exemplary counter-model to what Jesus promises when he says; “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (Jn 10:10) If this abundance is the fruit of love, mutuality and forgiveness, in Cho we have seen how evil can deprive us of this as hatred and resentment took him into the realm of non-being, culminating in his act of radical destruction.

And finally, if we truly contemplate our instinctive repulsion to evil—how our sensibilities recoil in horror at its senselessness—it should affirm the profound truth that life is utterly precious and good. And though that revelation may arrive shrouded in darkness, we might still be surprised to find ourselves trembling before God’s mysterious presence.