Rampage
Shooting
In
Rampage: The Social Roots of School
Shootings, Katherine S. Newman asks how “low-crime, family-centered, white
communities” have produced rampage killers? This question is a result of a rash
of school shooting sprees that begin in 1997 and do not plateau until after the
terrorist attacks of “9/11”. The author argues
that the answer lies in two places: “the psychological troubles that were
brewing on the inside and the sociological bruises that were collecting as the
boys engaged with peer groups, schools, and neighborhoods”. She believes that
the natural storm-and-stress state of adolescence combined with the
psychological disorders of the shooters led to them blowing social dilemmas out
of proportion and lashing out with rampage violence. Before elaborating her
argument, the author offers a literature review of the competing theories of
school shootings in which she highlights their strengths as well as their
flaws.
The
author begins by recounting the stories of two separate school shootings that
took place in similar suburban towns that were shocked by the senseless and
grotesque killings. One was perpetrated by a socially awkward fourteen year old
boy named Michael, and the other by a duo made up of an eleven year old named
Andrew and a thirteen year old named Mitchell. In both cases there were
multiple victims and they seemed to have been random targets. Furthermore, I
feel Katherine Newman is drawing on the Rejection Sensitivity Model when she
offers her analysis on the killers. For example, the author notes that Michael
had been a “victim of one very public incident of teasing” in which it was
alleged that he had a homosexual relationship with another student, and that
Mitchell and Andrew had built up a sense of rejection by girls and peers.
According to RSM theory adolescents are likely to respond to rejection with
aggression because of biological upheaval and uncertainty. Additionally,
Rejection Sensitivity leads individuals to exaggerate threats and responses
that can lead to lethal violence, and according to Newman, all three shooters
displayed these characteristics. Moreover, the author debunks the notion that
the shootings are spontaneous, random acts, and instead claims that they are
premeditated assaults.
In
the subsequent sections of the book, the author elaborates on competing
theories that attempt to figure out what drove these teens and others like them
to murder their classmates. The explanations range from bullying to a culture
of violence, from mental illness to a lack of discipline, and from violent
media to the availability of guns. The Violent
Media theory is of interest to me because it is a debate that played out in
U.S. courts. For example, in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
(2011) the Supreme Court struck down a California law that banned the sale of
violent video games to minors under the premise that the media effects research
presented could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that violent video games
caused aggression and violent behavior. Like the court, Newman acknowledges the
correlation between exposure to violent media and violent behavior and
desensitization, but she rejects it on the basis that it does not actually prove
causality and she states that “it is difficult to sort out whether exposure
leads to violence or kids who are already prone to violent behavior select this
kind of media material”. This claim essentially highlights a problem about
reverse causality.
Overall
I felt the author did a great job of engaging the reader with her recounting of
the shootings and her in-depth analysis of the killers. Additionally, I believe
her literature review of the competing theories really legitimated her argument
because she was able to deconstruct each argument and find its weakness.
However, I feel that much of her research is affected by her biases and she
goes out of her way to try and humanize the killers and justify their actions.
For example, when describing the White, church-going communities the killers
descended from she claims “these were not the kind of people who produce
killers”. What is she implying? Who are the types of people that produce
killers? I feel she continually made insinuations like this one throughout the
reading. It felt almost like if she refused to believe that these White
suburban teens were capable of such atrocities and she was reluctantly writing
this piece.
---Jonathan
In his essay, Jonathan does a good job at analyzing Newman’s work regarding rampage shootings as well as providing questions to further explore her claims. I agree that the aggressive adolescents involved in the rampage shootings can be identified using the Rejection Sensitivity Model, because the peers who surround the students have a strong influence on them and these influences can catalyze feelings of violence if they are negative. Also, I think that the comparison between the rampage shootings and media effects research is rather important. Both rampage shootings and media effects research prove to be problems that cannot be easily solved; it is not easy to prove that the rejection sensitivity model and video games are the sole origins of aggression since there are many students who undergo rejection and play video games but do not take out their aggression violently. When Newman says that White, church-going communities are not representative of communities that produce killers, I think she is really stating a personal belief that church-goers typically do not promote violence. However, this cannot really be proven just like the media effects research cannot completely blame video games for promoting violence. While church-goers tend to be peaceful people, in my experience, this does not mean that they are incapable of committing crimes, but are rather an unlikely source for murderers.
ReplyDelete-Marlow McCurdy
It would seem that the rejection sensitivity model, when applied to rampage shootings, does pose an explanation for why an individual that fears not meeting the requirements for acceptance and this stigma is unfair and irrevocable, may exaggerate social situations and lead to lethal violence. Although this approach's hypothesis does seem to pose an explanation, it does not account for the significant mass of individuals who are in similar situations and do not surmount to aggression or lethal violence. This leads me to believe that this model along with other factors may be needed to account for these tragedies. It also seems that the complexity of this issue increases the difficulty of creating an effective model that can determine risk factors or identify and prevent such rare occurrences of violence. Most social science research would argue to attempt to fix the underpinning causes of this violence; however, the identity of these factors are not always known or easily fixed and counter measures may make things worse for others.
ReplyDeleteJonathan did a great job in highlighting some of the main ideas of this article. While I do find the amount of attention given to suburban violence and the reaction of shock it evokes deserves scrutiny; I do not agree with Jonathan’s analysis that the author “...goes out of her way to try and humanize the killers and justify their actions”. On the contrary, I feel there is a fine line between trying to justifying one’s action and attempting to put a face on the perpetrator. This being said I find her account of the perpetrators no different from Hardings account of urban youth. Further, I contest the idea put forward that Newman is attempting to justify the actions of the shooter. In fact I argue the fact she seeks to debunk the notion these crimes were spontaneous is evidence she is not trying to justify the killers.
ReplyDeleteJonathan does a good job of correlating the author's explanation for these rampage shootings to the rejection sensitivity model and summarizing the article. He mentions, multiple times, that the author uses a theoretical foundation and uses her literature review as a basis for the two school shootings that she is discussing. However, if he would have mentioned more specifically which arguments she supported and which she found flawed, I think this would have been a stronger paper. Regardless, he ends this essay in a very provocative way by asking what Newman's purpose behind writing this was and the biases that she implies. A very good way to engage the reader and to respond to his questions, I also felt that Newman was writing as if to excuse or legitimize these situations, especially because she does not portray any other type of school violence than suburban, school violence.
ReplyDeleteJonathan does a very good job at highlighting Newman’s points and connecting it to the rejection sensitivity model. While Newman’s concerns about rampage shootings are valid, I still find it difficult to actually put a face to these rampage shooters and to be able to predict when such a shooting would happen. The fact that these shootings are rare makes it difficult to find the cause for these acts of violence. Also, the rejection sensitivity model can lead to false positives where an individual who is socially awkward with a history of being bullied might unfairly be thought of as a potential shooter. I agree with Jonathan’s point that Newman, along with the rest of the media, seems overly concerned with these suburban communities committing violence, it speaks to the point that we discussed in class, about how some communities are valued above others.
ReplyDeleteThis is essay provides an excellent explanation of the Newman reading and its suggested theories, particularly by incorporating the Rejection Sensitivity Model and Media Effects Studies. While it's true that there isn't a definitive causal link between exposure to violent media and acts of rampage violence, I do think it's important to acknowledge that there still appears to be a strong correlation. It is entirely possible that, as Newman states, this kind of media is simply sought out by youth with existing violent ideation, but it remains an identifiable risk factor nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI found the final paragraph of the essay to be very interesting, especially in light of today's lecture. In the United States there has been a large degree of social conditioning to expect violence in urban neighborhoods, particularly from low-income communities of color; violence in these areas is made out to be par for the course and just the way things are. As was mentioned in lecture, when a young black man in Oakland is killed it's generally treated like an average news story and given little attention, if any. The flip-side to this is that predominately white, upper-middle-class suburban neighborhoods are assumed to be perfectly safe, and thus when acts of rampage violence occur they illicit far more of a response from the media and general public because these neighborhoods aren't where violence is "supposed to happen." As Newman states, “these were not the kind of people who produce killers.” Sentiments like these imply that there are places where violence "should" be happening, and that there are certain kinds of people that "should" produce killers. Such responses to rampage violence speak to the existing prejudices and stereotypes surrounding urban youth violence.
This essay did a great job of summarizing the reading, but what I found most fascinating was the last paragraph where you talked about how the author did not envision the white suburban kids as killers. I totally agree that there was definitely a little bias, but the bias is not just from the author. If you watch the news only certain types of killings make the news, and thus make it seem like it is a very important issue. Whenever there is a school shooting at a white school, it gets months of media attention and they try to find the reason these kids did it. Whenever there is a shooting involving black kids, the media attention stays for maybe a day and moves on, almost like it was a normal thing. The only time a black shooting is really pushed by the media, is if there is some sort of race debate like with the Trayvon Martin case. It seems to me that the media as a whole thinks that shootings in black neighborhoods are normal yet shootings in white neighborhoods are something that came out of nowhere and must have an underlying cause.
ReplyDeleteJonathan, wrote a great summary of Newton’s book, and also offers insightful criticism about the way Newton decided to write her book. For instance, I agree with Jonathan that Newton’s bias suggest her disbelieve that suburban neighborhoods have actually produced rampage shooters. Furthermore, I don’t think using the rejection sensitivity model is enough to determine whether someone might be prone to harming others especially because rejection is something many people deal with, but not everyone engages in these acts. As a result I don’t think we can determine who is more prone to become involve especially because rampage shootings are rare accounts. On the contrary we should be focusing on making guns not easily available, and focusing on making mental health more accessible and reducing the stigma that comes with accepting these services. Moreover, just like Will brought up in class, I definitely think that this emphasis by the media and our government in rampage shootings demonstrates what lives we value more. For example according to an MSNBC article, “In Newton’s Shadow, Chicago’s Bleak Gun Toll Goes On” in the last three years there has been over 270 school aged children killed in Chicago as a result of gun violence, but these children did not receive the same attention that the kids in sandy hook did. In sum, if we are to prevent future violence whether it is from youth or adults there needs to be stronger regulation on guns.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Johnathon does a good job of explaining Newman's book. He clearly outlines the way she goes about representing these mass shootings. The way he then presents the different types of rationale and why some of these reasonings also do not necessarily work for the rampage shootings. He also goes beyond just explaining what Newman is arguing and points out what he views as a flaw in her writing about how she seemed reluctant to believe that these shooters emerge from the white communities. Overall, I think he does a good job of analyzing the reading and tying it into with what we've learned in lecture, such as giving the Rejection Sensitivity Model as a possible cause of the shootings.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good analysis of Newman's work. Just as with causally relating violent media to violent action, relating such violent actions to the rejection sensitivity approach and to mental illness is inconclusive. No matter how many commonalities are examined between such incidents and the perpetrators of those incidents, it seems nearly impossible to make a conclusive connection/explanation. Mental illness is somewhat common, exposure to violent media is common, and relative to the rarity of such incidents suburban white males are common. Almost any feature or commonality that is noticed of/between such occurrences will be inconclusive because all such things will be common in so many people that do not do such things that it will be nearly impossible to make a solid connection.
ReplyDeleteWhat is required to prevent mass shootings in schools or in any other place for the matter is to instill discipline. Discipline does not need to be coerced it can taught through skills and culture. According to the Rejection Sensitivity model individuals exaggerate threats and responses that can lead to lethal violence.Newman said that all three shooters displayed these characteristics and that the shootings were premeditated assaults. If so we can never know which or identify individuals that are compatible with the rejection sensitivity model. If skills to deal with problems are taught in schools early on and emphasized as youth grow older future societies would not need to worry about mass shootings because trust along with the skills are established. If worse comes to worse school staff can be trained in gun use to prevent an attack. For example, if a person decides to cause havoc in an establishment and everyone in that place is armed and trained, that person will think twice before an attempt backfires.
ReplyDeleteVery well information of the psychological troubles Jonathan. I have to agree of the author arguments about the storm-and-stress state of adolescence. Great explanation of the Rejection Sensitivity Model you bring a good point about the combination with the RSM theory. For example, due to “teasing” or any act of public incident it shows how the aggression of youth grows and reaches into violence. It’s really interesting how the media portrays differently with youth video games to youth violence. Jonathan brings a great point about Newman argument of violence that it correlates with the media point of view. Overall, Newman analysis has bias perspective. I also see throughout the reading that Newman has a personal opinion in her writing and by implying on whites “not the kind of people that produce killers” it shows her personal opinion in the reading. Lastly, good job in constructing the essay.
ReplyDeleteJonathan did an excellent job in pointing out the link between the psychological symptoms of the perpetrators and the RSM theory!
ReplyDeleteMy feeling while reading through this articles is that a person is clearly a product of the society. I believe that everyone is born pure and it is the surroundings that define/affect the individual. Obviously I am not defending the deathly acts committed by the perpetrators but as I read, I cannot help myself from thinking had the adults paid closer attention to the behaviors and unusual expression or had the society in general and each individual learned to accept one another without the barriers of social norms and standards, the tragedies might have been less likely to happen.