"Shooter is Textbook Case"

We’re all familiar with the Virginia Tech shooting that happened in these past few weeks as well as the numerous speculations as to why this atrocity happened. In a recent article it was pointed out that the shooter fit the textbook description of a school shooter; “a painfully awkward, picked-on young man who lashed out with methodical fury at a world he believed was out to get him” (Cohen). One of the main contributing factors attributed to Cho Seung-Hui’s anger was his economic status. His family immigrated to the United States in 1992 and his parents began to work at a local dry cleaner in a suburb of Washington D.C. This was perceived by him to by Cho to be an area of, “rich ‘brats’ with Mercedeses, gold necklaces, cognac and trust funds” (Cohen). The article also points out several other factors, such as being made fun of in elementary through high school, that also contributed to Seung-Hui’s actions, it was also speculated that he had psychological problems that culminated over the years, however no one will ever know because he was never tested for any disorders while he was still alive.

When an event like this occurs everyone begins looking for an explanation as to why something so horrible takes place. People typically take sides or lean towards one explanation more than another. In this case there was the ‘he had been wronged argument’, claiming that it was because he was economically deprived and that was accentuated even more by him living in a wealthy community that often made fun of him for his shortcomings. Then there was the other argument that said it was psychological problems and couldn’t have been avoided. So which is it the individual or the structure that was the cause of this tragedy? I think that in some cases it isn’t possible to just choose one argument but to pull concepts from both. Though there are cases out there where something is definitely affected by either individualist or structural behavior, I just don’t think this incident is one of them. Garfinkel also points out that, “Behind any would-be individualism, there are structural presuppositions at work” (Garfinkel, p.75). So which came first the individual or the structure? We’re not sure whether or not Seung-Hui had a psychological disorder or not, but if we assume he did which seems fairly possible according to doctor’s interviews via the media, it is safe to say that he didn’t view the world or society in the same way that others do. So was it his personal outlook on the world that drove him to these ends or was it how society responded to someone who was seemingly different? I believe that in this case the individual problems came first though structural problems were interweaved and still prominent throughout his life. His individual problems were that he was psychologically ill there for it was in his capacity to misinterpret things or feel like the world was out to get him. Even though he may have had issues that made him ‘un-normal’ to others he was also most likely to, like Garfinkel says, be affected by the structural issues as well because they were unavoidable due to the fact that they surrounded him everyday. When you put a child with individual problems in an environment or structure, such as elementary school or any school for that matter, where the students expect ‘normal’ there is bound to be conflict and that child is going to feel like he doesn’t fit in due to his individual differences. While it isn’t right that a certain structure may harbor certain ideas as to what is normal, it doesn’t mean that those ideas are right or that they are incapable of causing damage to the individual.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20070420_Shooter_is_called_a_textbook_case.html