I have tried to think of an appropriate topic for my column this week–however it seems irresponsible to avoid the obvious. The tragedy at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is on everyone’s mind. Details are on the front pages of daily newspapers across the world. Radio stations are blaring reports of what did or might have or could have occurred. The Internet is chock full of facts, fiction and conjectures. I don’t think our nation has been as bombarded with media information or as overcome with grief since Sept. 11, the Katrina disaster or the Amish school shooting. Not even our troops in Iraq are garnering such attention (that indeed is another topic for an article I may or may not write).
In an attempt to comfort myself over the last two days I have been pouring over my old psychology textbooks and my newer conflict resolution textbooks in search of an answer to my internal question–why did this happen? I have a bit of an understanding when it comes to the psychological explanations–words like paranoia, schizophrenia, psychosis, depression–make sense.
However, I seem to find more solace in words and phrases found through my study of conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Author Louis Kriesberg said, “There are many reasons for people to fight with each other. Thus, antagonisms often arise from internal forces.” His writings may never have seemed as relevant as they do today, April 19, 2007, three days after the university massacre. It is easy to see outward signs of distress, anger and frustration in an individual, yet when the person is quiet and holds emotions and feelings inside it is difficult for others to read. Quiet ways and keeping to oneself can be interpreted as shyness or “stuck up” when in reality the person may be at war internally with him- or herself.
At this writing, the media’s information is limited and the various agencies have speculated as to Cho’s motives for killing more than 32 persons as well as himself. Only Cho knew the reason(s) why he committed such deliberate actions. Kriesberg continued his train of thought when he said, “There are innumerable individual and collective identities and unlimited opportunities for groups to see themselves as an ‘us’ being oppressed or threatened by a ‘them.'”
Once again, Kriesberg words offer explanation for Cho’s seemingly senseless acts. The shooter may have seen other students and even instructors as part of “them” while thinking of himself as an outsider. I believe “we versus they” is a recipe for conflicts that in some cases are destined to be intractable.
That was certainly the case for Cho; unfortunately his victims were part of a conflict they were not aware of and therefore could not protect themselves. May they all rest in peace.
