The “Killer Eyes” and the Eyes of a Killer.

I watched the cover of the Daily News and the New York Post today. Also the NY Times and TV coverage of the Tucson, AZ shooting; and I felt an urge to regurgitate what they were feeding me. I detest the way the portrait of that shooter is being used to stereotype mental illness. The fact is – and I’m here repeating the words of a forensic psychiatric I heard today in CNN- the vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. The effort of stereotyping by the media is not helping the mentally ill but quite the opposite.

I have friends who suffer a wide spectrum of mental illnesses, from the mild manic-depressive manifestations to the more excruciating schizophrenic experiences of delusion. I have known them for decades and none of them have ever committed a meaningful act of violence but quite the opposite, the ones that I know who suffer severe schizophrenia have spent most of their lifetime in isolation, afraid of society, and if they have exerted violence it has been often directed toward themselves.

Usually what defines a schizophrenic is withdrawal, an unwillingness to deal with people or to engage in social relations. This is because they feel in danger while in groups or in crowded spaces, having fantasies of persecution and afraid of being hurt, which is a symptom commonly associated with paranoid schizophrenia. Other symptoms I have witnessed are delusions of grandeur, but usually they go in a positive direction since the ones who have them fantasize about having the power to save the ones around or to bring great wealth and the like.

It is a distortion of reality to see the severe mentally ill as synonymous with danger. To look at them in that way further depletes the lack of resources this people have and which they so badly need in order to engage in social relations. The more society and mass media try to exclude them using arguments of un-reasonable fear the worst becomes the situation.

Some years ago I was taking a series of pictures of homeless people in the streets of NYC. I would approach them walking down the street. Some of them were involved in a soliloquy which I interrupted as soon I started a conversation asking to pose for the camera. I realized that as soon as I engaged them in conversation these people were capable of snapping out of their fantasies, talk and think like any other human being with a sense of reality. I’m aware that communication is not enough to save somebody from mental illness but it helps, at least helps much more, both the patient and society, than isolation.

The obvious thing that strikes more about Jared picture is his eyes and smile. This picture has been footed with slogans such as “Face of Evil” and “Mad Eyes of a Killer” by the printed media. With one of NYC prominent newspapers featuring an article with the title ”Psycho with a “Killer Smile”. What we see in this picture is an expression of euphoria. Now, there are different ways to come to feelings of euphoria. Erich Fromm said somewhere that each human being has the option of choosing evil or good in life. An echo of what Freud termed the Eros and Thanatos impulses. I have seen many people with the same expression of euphoria in their eyes after accomplishing a difficult task or reaching a wonderful goal. The guy in the newspaper today chose the path of death and thus reached a negative sensation of euphoria by his destructive accomplishment. But we need to be careful to think that expressions of euphoria always come from people in the path of destruction. Quite the opposite, they usually come from people who are bent on bringing good, beautiful things to the world and society. The sensation of euphoria comes from the chemical activity in the brain of the one who feel enormous satisfaction and pleasure by the result of his activity. Anyone who has worked intensively for hours doing meaningful work could feel the same sensation, like I have felt many times after finishing a laborious piece of work. It is not the same the euphoria that comes from someone’s “killer eyes” than the one that comes from the eyes of a killer. It is thus counter productive to build and succumb to stereotypes of mental illness and guns and the like. Just put the phrase “ Cancer survivor beats death” next to the euphoric expression in the picture and you will see how its meaning change.

Another thing is the relation between political discourse and violence. The question “Does political speech lead to acts of political violence?” was posted in the Room for Debate section of the NYTimes, online edition. It is quite difficult if not impossible to prove a connection between inflammatory rhetoric and acts of violence; unless rhetoric is consciously directed at creating acts of violence such as it was by the radio during Rwanda’s genocide. In this case we cannot talk of rhetoric but of propaganda, a premeditated campaign to give the form of organized crime to crystallized hate. But if there is no connection between inflammatory speech and acts of violence in a direct way, we can see that certain speeches can provide the context for an act of violence to occur. This mean that while some speeches does not call directly for execution of violence they provide a platform from which would be murderers can rationalize that the heinous act will be approved by acolytes. The logical conclusion is that some kind of social responsibility needs to be exerted by media people.