On one end I don't know if I disagree with the Marxist psychology of Fred
Newman that leads to all mental illness is social in nature. Jerome Bruner
on more than one occasion hints that some mental illness is a result of the
enlightenment idea of self. While such an argument could be made, my
argument was more on the lines of pathology as a form of govermentality.
While those children on one level can be seen as pathological, the question
then becomes who does that pathologizing benefit. In other words, in an
emphasis on pathology what is not emphasized. All of the cases thus far in
schools seem to point to a disturbing action in which at least on one level
it calls into question the social organization of schools. My main concern
is pathologizing the individuals is too easy of a scape goat to not
addressing institutional issues.
Like, Kathy mentioned on one level its fear of our loss of control. But,
on another level patholigizing it also an attempt to differentiate and
create this other of which we are not, or at least not responsible for.
That is what I see the danger in, what is it we are creating and probally
recreating in making such an event attractive for some children. It then
becomes a question of rather than simply these children are in neo-nazi
groups, to why are hate groups, gangs or whatever seen as places of
belonging to a greater extent than schools themselves. As Kathy hints at,
our obsession with wanting some sort of control actually make schools less
of a place of belonging and push children toward other sources of
belonging.
As you mention patholigizing is an attempt to make "meaning" out such an
horrid event. I am more or less questioning how we, and that is including
myself, make meaning of such an event. There are multiple ways to make
meaning of such an event, but pathologizing seems to keeps us in this
circular path of "destruction".
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: <MChavez100 who-is-at aol.com>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Krupskaya
> Nate and Diana,
> Whether we believe that it is pathological or sociological it is a
terrible
> horrible nauseous reality and great minds such as yours and others on
this
> list should be open to exploring the complexities, allowing for the many
> different ways meaning is constructed especially when trying to
understand
> such an incomprehensible action. This event is not conducive to debate,
> discussion and sharing would be much more valuable. Possibly even
productive.
>
> I agree that we need to examine school/society that make such actions
> possible but I cannot negate the pathology. Killing others is sick.
Maybe
> society didn't recognize their illness but are you saying that society
caused
> their illness? Please help me here. From reading your many comments over
the
> past months on this list I truly am interested in where you are going
with
> this. My intention is to learn not to take sides. I agree with Diana
that
> racism as a part of this tragedy that cannot be passed over lightly but I
> also have to tell you that the news and media sources I have available
have
> not mentioned the racism, they have reported that the victims were
"jocks."
> I will make a greater attempt to seek out national news.~~Margaret
>