Sunday, 5 February 2012

Journal Entry #3

Last week's journal entry went a bit off topic from the class discussions, but really, I don't want to write about Milgram's experiment for the dozenth time.  The article we read tangentially mentioned Adolf Eichmann, and, you know what, if you bother reading the journal, it explains it:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                I found it difficult to get excited about writing on Milgram or Zimbardo; the topics aren’t exactly new to me.  That’s not to say that I don’t think they’re important to talk about, I just couldn’t muster the ability to write on these from an angle that was new to me.
                Reading through Milgram’s article though, one line jumped out at me: “You can call yourself Eichmann”.  What a terrible thing for a spouse to say to his or her partner; it sounds like an outright condemnation.  Not only that, but I can’t imagine that anyone would be remotely pleased about this comparison.  What I mean by this is that for every person to commit terrible dictatorial acts (Hitler, Bin Laden, George W. Bush etc.), there is a fringe minority that secretly (or in some cases, publicly) wishes to draw comparisons between themselves and their perverse deity.  But I can’t fathom that any Anti-Semites would want to embody Eichmann.  He was too bureaucratic in his evil; hiding behind the “I was only following orders” bullshit that allows ‘The Banality of Evil’ – as writer Hannah Arendt describes it – to exist.  When I think about Eichmann, the only question I can ask is “Why?”  Following orders is an insufficient response, and it leaves me wondering “why?”  This is the most intriguing, important, and ultimately frustrating question in tragic situations.
                I’m no expert on Eichmann, and I won’t pretend to be for the purpose of this paper.  Rather, I’m going to examine another incident that leaves me asking “Why?” on a daily basis.
                I enjoy watching professional wrestling.  I don’t tell many people this; not because I find it something to be ashamed of, but because the moment one is told this, one invariably passes some sort of judgement.  As I said, I don’t feel the need to defend this pleasure; certainly no more so than someone who watches Survivor needs to defend that.  I mention that I enjoy watching pro wrestling only because it explains why I was watching it on June 25th, 2007, and why I was impacted by the news I learned that day.
                When I turned the TV on to watch wrestling on June 25th, the arena was empty and the owner of the company was in the middle of the ring.  This was striking for several reasons which I won’t outline here, but it broke established storyline.  What was announced next genuinely tore my heart apart: “Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy, and their son Daniel have been found dead in their home.  It appears that they were murdered last night.”
                My horror fueled interest as I sought out all the details.  A few days later, it was determined that Chris had murdered his wife and son, before killing himself.  Yes, Benoit, a man whom I admired for his wrestling abilities and for whom I had cried tears of grief just days before, had smothered his 7 year old son; had literally felt his son’s life leave his body, leaving me asking only “Why?”
                The common consensus now, years later, is that Benoit had sustained severe brain damage over the course of a career that saw him take regular bumps to the skull.  An analysis of his brain showed levels of dementia congruent with an 80 year old Alzheimer’s victim.  Benoit was 40 years old at the time.  Prior to this explanation, it was believed that he was suffering roid-rage, leading to the tragedy.  For no extended period of time was the notion that Chris was psychotic or intrinsically evil sustained.  Make no mistake, there is no debate as to whether he committed an evil act – he killed his family for Christ’s sake! - , but no one has tried to explain away his actions by labelling him evil.  To hear his peers talk about their memories of Chris, to listen to the way in which they cherish his memory (except the last one) and the difficulty they have comprehending his actions, it becomes clear that the act of labelling someone evil is merely an act of avoidance.  Like Eichmann, like the Abu Grahib situation, like Benoit, tagging a person as evil is just our way of ignoring the most difficult question: Why?
                Even the fact that Chris had severe brain damage doesn’t touch on the Why.  It makes a stab at the question “How could he have justified this?”, but does little to address why.  Seeing as Chris killed himself too before anyone discovered the bodies, the question cannot ever be answered.  What could have compelled a man who so many people loved like a brother, to murder his wife and son?  It’s such a troubling issue because it cannot be known.  There is a perverse, somewhat cynical conclusion as to the question of why, that I think can be applied to situations like Eichmann’s as well:  There is no answer to the question “why?” which means that it isn’t outside the realm of possibility to occur again. 
                June 25th, 2007 was the day the seeds of cynicism were planted in my head.  But although this anecdote seems bleak, know that those seeds remain just that.  All around us are indications that these instances –Benoit and Eichmann – are the exceptions, not the rule.  Look at the disgust that these acts were met with.  And then, ask of that disgust “Why?”  I think you’ll find an incredibly tangible answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As always, if you leave feedback, I'll let you pick three topics which I will figure out a way to interconnect into a (hopefully) coherent post.  Enjoy the Superbowl, if that's your thing.  If it isn't enjoy drinking and snacking while pretending to watch football.

No comments:

Post a Comment