Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco

Source of book: I own this

My first choice for Umberto Eco was originally The Name of the Rose. However, my wife found this for next to nothing at a library sale (or maybe on the discard shelf?) So, it was a convenient choice. 

This book is rather on the long side - 641 pages in my edition. For me, that isn’t that long, as books by Anthony Trollope and Henry James tend to run at least 800. So I am used to reading long books. So believe me when I say:

This book is too damn long. 

I think it would have been a great book at one-third the length. So much of the book seems unnecessary and deadly boring, even if it relates to the plot and theme of the book. Let me explain. 

[Spoiler Warning]

Here is the basic plot. Three friends, Belbo, Diotellevi, and Casaubon (the narrator) work for a vanity press company. As part of their work, they screen books by self-funded authors relating to the constellation of conspiracy theories surrounding the Knights Templar. Casaubon wrote a thesis on the Templars back in college, while Diotellevi is a Cabalist. Between the three of them, they go rather down the rabbit hole of interlocking theories. Eventually, they decide to write the mother of all conspiracy theory books, by finding ludicrous connections and metaphors between all kinds of nonsense - literally from ancient history to Mickey Mouse. To assist them, they use Belbo’s computer (this was in the 1980s) to randomly re-assort phrases they feed into it. The result is a bunch of pseudo-profound and utterly ridiculous blither. 

But the problem is, people start believing it. Maybe even the three friends. And eventually, the belief that the three are in reality holding the great secret of the Templars for world domination turns deadly. 

I avoided spoiling all of the ending, but that is in fact most of the plot. The majority of the book is a mess of interconnected conspiracy theories. It starts out well enough, with a history of the Templars, and then the Rosicrucians, and then...well it really goes down the rabbit hole. Anthony Burgess said that the book contained so many esoteric references to alchemy, the kabbalah, and conspiracy theories, that it needed an index. 

To give a feel for the book, it starts with a teaser of the scene near the very end (Casaubon hiding in the Musée des Arts et Métiers, waiting for...something connected with the Foucault Pendulum.) Then we dive into Casaubon’s attempts (eventually successful) to get into the missing Belbo’s computer, then another 90 pages or so of Templar history and theories. It isn’t until a hundred pages in that we actually get to start the story itself and figure out what the heck is going on. And then, after a short bit of plot, where a mysterious Colonel Ardenti claims to have a document with the secret to the Templars, then disappears, suddenly we are in...Brazil, where Casaubon goes chasing a woman he falls in love with. A few years there, and they meet a nut-job, Aglie  who seems to believe he is the Count of St.-Germain (still living hundreds of years later), who leads Casaubon down another series of rabbit trails. Oh, and a weird Afro-Brazillian occult ceremony and more theories. And then, Casaubon breaks up with the woman and goes back to Italy. And now, we are past the halfway point of the book, having spent maybe 30 pages on plot and the rest on conspiracies. 

 The Foucault Pendulum at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles

This was the first one I ever saw, and I still remember it.

Once you get to about page 400, the plot finally starts to move somewhere. Over the final 240 pages, the ratio of plot to conspiracy theories is about 1:2, which is, believe it or not, a real improvement. The ending is pretty exciting, actually, and there are some great moments in that second half. So I am glad I stuck with it. But I really don’t think I remember all that much of the Templar stuff - and have no interest in trying to figure it out. 

Anyway, these quotes will give a bit of the flavor. First is Casaubon’s description of the Templars early in the book. 

“Hughes and the original eight others were probably idealists caught up in the mystique of the Crusade. But later recruits were most likely younger sons seeking adventure. Remember, the new kingdom of Jerusalem was sort of the California of the day, the place you went to make your fortune. Prospects at home were not great, and some of the knights may have been on the run for one reason or another. I think of it as a kind of Foreign Legion. What do you do if you’re in trouble? You join the Templars, see the world, have some fun, do some fighting. They feed you and clothe you, and in the end, as a bonus, you save your soul.”

This, of course, was before things got crazy. (Also, this is page 80, and we are still back on the actual history of the Templars.) I should also mention a deliciously snarky remark by Belbo. Casaubon has mentioned that things got uncomfortable after the Crusades, because soldiers do not easily return to civilian life - particularly as a priestly order. From sleeping with the plundered women to celibacy? Anyway:

“From prohibitions you can tell what people normally do,” Belbo said. “It’s a way of drawing a picture of daily life.” 

Another fascinating insight comes from, of all people, Aglie, describing the Brazilian fish market and the mashup of all these religious and occult symbols. 

“This,” Aglie said, “is the very image of what the ethnology textbooks call Brazilian syncretism. An ugly word, in the official view. But in its loftiest sense, syncretism is the acknowledgement that a single Tradition runs through and nurtures all religion, all learning, all philosophy. The wise man does not discriminate; he gathers together all the shreds of light, from wherever they may come…”

One of my epiphanies of the last few years is that ALL religion, past and present, is syncretistic. There is no such thing as “pure” revealed religion. It has always borrowed from the culture in which it exists, for good or ill. While it is an oversimplification to say that there is a single tradition, Aglie is to a certain degree correct. What runs through all religion, learning, and philosophy is humanity. We are all human, and thus have more in common than different. It is therefore unsurprising to find so much religious commonality. Unlike Aglie, I don’t think there is a single conspiracy involving the Templars, of course. 

One of the subplots of the book is the gradual revelation of Belbo’s childhood, growing up in a small village during World War Two, when his fellow residents were caught between the Fascists and the partisan rebels. How to stay alive and “normal” is a fine dance. There is an exchange between Belbo’s uncle, and Mongo, the rebel leader, which is revealing. 

Mongo said then, “You see, Cavalier, it’s this way, Major: we were informed that you collect taxes for the Fascist government that toadies to the invaders.” “You see, Commander,” Uncle Carlo said, “it’s this way: I have a family and receive a salary from the government, and the government is what it is; I didn’t choose it, and what would you have done in my place?” “My dear Major,” Mongo replied, “in your place, I’d have done what you did, but try at least to collect the taxes slowly; take your time.” “I’ll see what I can do,” Uncle Carlo said. “I have nothing against you men; you, too, are sons of Italy and valiant fighters.” They understood each other, because they both thought of Fatherland with a capital F. 

Eco too grew up under Fascism, and is one of the most perceptive writers about the subject. (See note at the end.) Fascism and Nazism are not synonymous. Nazism is Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. For Italy, it was more complicated. Mussolini wasn’t Hitler. While Italy was complicit, it did not invent the “final solution,” and was no more anti-Semitic than, say, England. 

Around this time, Aglie shows up in Italy, and kind of worms his way in with Belbo’s girlfriend, kind of like he did in Brazil to Casaubon’s girl. He gives her some kind of line about how she is Sophia, the female part of God, and…(I don’t really understand all of that)...but she has this fun line about it. 

“How nice! Does he give that line to all the girls?”

“No, stupid, just to me, because he understands me better than you do. He doesn’t try to create me in his image. He understands I have to be allowed to live my life in my own way. And that’s what Sophia did; she flung herself into making the world. She came up against primordial matter, which was disgusting, probably because it didn’t use a deodorant. And then, I think, she accidentally created the Demi -- how do you say it?”

“You mean the Demiurge?”

Lorenza is a minor character, and seems to exist mostly to be part of the love triangle. Casaubon’s girlfriend (and later baby-mama) Lia, on the other hand, is pretty much the only sane character in the book. She tries on several occasions to talk Casaubon back from the cliff, so to speak. The extended passage in chapter 63 is way too long to quote, but she gives Casaubon a brilliant lecture on how the supposed magic numbers of numerology derive naturally from the body, and from nature. 

Another tour-de-force is the section where Belbo, on a dare from Casaubon, creates a whole argument that the automobile powertrain is a metaphor for the Tree of Life. It’s impressive. And laugh-out-loud ludicrous. I mean, it makes exactly zero sense. But it makes sense within the context of the ridiculous stuff the three are coming up with. This is the strong part of the book: the way Eco taps into the real psychodynamics of conspiracy theories. 

But whatever the rhythm was, luck rewarded us, because, wanting connections, we found connections -- always, everywhere, and between everything. The world exploded into a whirling network of kinships, where everything pointed to everything else, everything explained everything else. . . .

One of the things that they start doing is finding things that have the initials “R. C.” - for Rosicrucians. For instance, Raymond Chandler and Rick of Casablanca. Hey, that reminds me of an R.E.M. song: 

[insert]

 Lenny Bruce is NOT afraid....

That this was unhealthy was something they knew, but refused to admit. 

When we traded the results of our fantasies, it seemed to us -- and rightly -- that we had proceeded by unwarranted associations, by shortcuts so extraordinary that, if anyone had accused us of really believing them, we would have been ashamed. We consoled ourselves with the realization -- unspoken, now, respecting the etiquette of irony -- that we were parodying the logic of our Diabolicals. But during the long intervals in which each of us collected evidence to produce at the plenary meetings, and with the clear conscience of those who accumulate material for a medley of burlesques, our brains grew accustomed to connecting, connecting, connecting everything with everything else, until we did it automatically, out of habit. I believe that you can reach the point where there is no longer any difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and developing the habit of believing. 

This has a way of happening with any ideology, whether that of Communism or Objectivism. The line between parody and true faith is beyond blurry. 

But all of us were losing that intellectual light that allows you always to tell the similar from the identical, the metaphorical from the real.

And that quote in particular struck me as descriptive of Evangelical theology, which has been so divorced from reality that it can no longer make those distinctions, particularly in its own scripture. 

Once the three bring the Jesuits into things, they have an issue: the Jesuits appear to have been the Templar’s biggest enemies. In coming up with a possible explanation, Casaubon stumbles upon a really interesting idea:

The Jesuits knew that if you want to confound your enemies, the best technique is to create clandestine sects, wait for dangerous enthusiasms to precipitate, then arrest them all. In other words, if you fear a plot, organize one yourself; that way, all those who join it come under your control.

The problem for the three is that they actually have managed to do this -- people are believing their hogwash. Lia finally tells Casaubon off, and she is right. 

Your plan isn’t poetic, it’s grotesque. People don’t get the idea of going back to burn Troy just because they read Homer. With Homer, the burning of Troy became something that it never was and never will be, and yet the Iliad endures, full of meaning, because it’s all clear, limpid. Your Rosicrucian manifestoes are neither clear nor limid; they’re mud, hot air, and promises. This is why so many people have tried to make them come true, each finding in them what he wants to find. In Homer, there’s no secret, but your plan is full of secrets, full of contradictions. For that reason you could find thousands of insecure people ready to identify with it. Throw the whole thing out. Homer wasn’t faking, but you three have been faking. Beware of faking: people will believe you. People believe those who sell lotions that make lost hair grow back. They sense instinctively that the salesman is putting together truths that don’t go together, that he’s not being logical, that he’s not speaking in good faith. But they’ve been told that God is mysterious, unfathomable, so to them incoherence is the closest thing to God. The farfetched is the closest thing to a miracle. You’ve invented hair oil. I don’t like it. It’s a nasty joke. 

It’s a nasty joke with consequences. In real life, this happens too. I am thinking particularly of “Pizzagate,” which came damn close to getting innocent people killed. Or the whole Trump presidency, built on racist and xenophobic conspiracy theories, which have gotten a whole lot of brown-skinned people killed. Think about just the last couple of weeks, with the claim that Covid-19 was somehow a Chinese/Democrat conspiracy to remove Trump from office. That would require the entire rest of the world lying, which is ludicrous. But once you already live in the psychological place where incoherence is proof of truth, that’s where you end up. This is one reason why I consider most of the clergy in this country guilty of gross spiritual malpractice, for feeding conspiratorial thinking, painting science as the enemy, and turning people who are different from them into enemies out to get them. It isn’t funny. And the consequences have been dire. 

Anyway, that’s my take on this book. When it is good, it is great. But it is way too long with too many rabbit trails - you really do need an index. I am glad I stuck with it, though. 

***

Umberto Eco and Fascism:

One of the best long articles I have ever read is Eco’s 1995 article for the New York Review of Books, “Ur-Fascism.” Because Fascism takes different forms around the world, it helpful to see what the Fascism of Hitler and Pinochet, Viktor Orban and Jair Bolsanaro, have in common. It is also a prescient predictor of the rise of Trump. And yes, Trump is a textbook Ur-Fascist. 

It was this article that, when I read it several years back, convinced me that white Evangelicalism in America is proto-Fascist in a number of disturbing ways, starting with their idolatry of a mythical past and their need to believe in dire enemies foreign and domestic. And also their obsession with doctrinal and sexual “purity.” The single greatest reason that Trump appealed so deeply to white Evangelicals is that he spoke the Ur-Fascist language that they already built into their doctrine and psyches. (If you don’t think that Trump uniquely appeals to them, look at the way they lined up to defend him during the impeachment proceedings - they could have had Pence, supposedly their sort of candidate: genuinely devout, conservative, and so on. But what Trump has that Pence will never have, is the ability to speak Ur-Fascism.) 

 In a sense, Foucault’s Pendulum is an extended riff on Fascism and its psychological roots. 

Culture and Gun Violence: White Conservative Gun Culture Needs to Look in the Mirror

Disclosure: I am a gun owner, and have been around guns since I was a child. I have had a concealed carry permit, and thus have taken the classes multiple times. I have also reloaded ammunition since I was a kid, and am thus pretty familiar with both guns and ammo. 

***

One of the common arguments made by gun advocates - particularly those opposed to any sort of regulation - is that America’s problem with gun violence isn’t about the guns, but about culture. 

While this is overly simplistic and ignores the role that the easy availability of guns plays in violence, it isn’t exactly untrue. Culture does indeed play a role. 

After all, the “mass shooting” phenomenon is a modern one. For purposes of this post, I will define a “mass shooting” as follows: A shooting aimed at killing strangers, not victims known to the shooter. This means that the number of victims isn’t the defining factor, like it is in many statistical analyses. Gang shootings don’t qualify. Domestic violence murders don’t qualify, even if there are multiple victims. These other examples of violence are concerning too, of course, but they are beyond the scope of this post. 

Mass shootings ARE a modern phenomenon, having become popular (if that is the right word) during my own lifetime. Thus, it is fair to say that they are the result (in part) of cultural factors. 

But the problem is, it isn’t enough to say “culture.” The question is, exactly which culture, and what elements of that culture contribute to violence. This is the question that the anti-gun-control sorts either ignore outright, or answer using convenient scapegoats that have nothing whatsoever to do with gun violence. 

Let’s unpack this one a bit. 

***

Cultural Scapegoats

The arguments about guns have become so very predictable (on both sides, but particularly on the Right) that you can use autotext after each shooting. The arguments get trotted out faithfully every time, regardless of whether they have any basis in fact. They are intended to be and are emotionally satisfying to those who have no wish to look in the mirror or take responsibility for their own contributions to a violent culture. 

Here are the most common:

“It’s the video games.”

This is one of those untruths that many people believe, because it somehow feels true. But, it turns out, it isn’t true at all. There is no statistically significant link between video games (including violent ones) and actual violence. This has been studied over and over, and the link turns out to not exist at all. Even conservative Supreme Court justice Scalia acknowledged this in his opinion striking down a California ban on violent games. 

Likewise, even though Japan has the highest video game use rate, it doesn’t have the problem with gun violence that the United States does - and actually have a far lower overall homicide rate, which would seem to be an indication that video games aren’t the cause. 

I think there are a number of reasons why games get blamed. One is that they are convenient. The gaming industry doesn’t have a huge lobbying machine like the NRA. Games are an “outside” influence to blame that deflects attention from, say, parenting. And, I must say, there is an element of a generation gap at work here. Whatever the young people do (cell phones, video games, music, etc.) is automatically suspicious. 

Bottom line, though, video games aren’t the problem. 

“Violent movies”

Again, this isn’t supported by evidence. Research does not show a meaningful link. At all. As Scalia pointed out in the opinion mentioned above, violent fantasies are hardly a new thing. Fairytales (before being Disneyized) are horrifically violent. As is much of classical literature. (Have you read Homer? Or the Bible?) There is an interesting discussion to be had about the human propensity for violence, and for glorifying violence. But the consumption of violent media doesn’t seem to be linked to actual violence. 

These two scapegoats are the most common - and they at least make some sort of logical nexus. That nexus turns out to not exist, but it feels like it could, so they aren’t crazy. 

The next category of scapegoats, though, is totally crazy - and dishonest. I want to look at these as a group, because they are similar.

“What do you expect when you take prayer out of school?”

I heard this way too much growing up. Let’s address this. First, by “prayer in school,” we mean government sponsored prayer to a Christian god. 

“It’s the fault of atheism”

Another common one. 

“It’s the fault of gay marriage”

Yes, this has actually been said. And she also blamed Obama, pot, Colin Kaepernick, and non-white immigrants. Because of course it’s always the fault of minorities.

“It’s the fault of Feminism”

I put this one in intentionally, because it represents the exact opposite of the actual cultural problem. 

So, let’s look at what these have in common. 

These scapegoats blame gun violence on people who are not committing the violent acts.

Guess what? There is no epidemic of atheists shooting up churches. (The shootings at places of worship have overwhelmingly been committed by white supremacists for racist reasons. Although there was the one in Texas which started as domestic violence.) 

There is no epidemic of Feminist women shooting up places where men hang out. In fact, female shooters are extremely rare. (More about this later.) For that matter, we feminist men don’t seem particularly prone to go on shooting sprees either. 

There is no epidemic of LGBTQ people going on shooting sprees - even against the Westboro Baptist Church. 

There is no epidemic of minorities shooting up white people. (Gun violence of other sorts exists across the color line, but mass shooters are overwhelmingly white.) This despite centuries of abuse, enslavement, segregation, and oppression. 

Nope, you can actually predict pretty well who shooters are going to be:

Male 

White

Middle class or higher

Grew up with guns (most school shooters get the guns from a parent)

Hmm. This suggests where the REAL cultural problem lies, doesn’t it? 

***

The cultural problem is with white, conservative gun culture.

These shooters aren’t coming from everywhere, they are coming from a specific sub-culture. A white subculture. A middle class subculture. And a subculture where guns are in the home. This doesn’t sound much like those scapegoats above, does it? It sounds like the gun owner subculture is giving rise to mass shooters. 

So what IS wrong with the culture? 

I mentioned above that the shooters are nearly exclusively male. (In fact, I can’t think of one incident with a solo female shooter, unless you want to count that one workplace shooter in the Bay Area, and the case was so shocking because it was so exceptional.) So the first thing to examine about the culture is what it says to and about males. The problem apparently doesn’t lead females to take violent and deadly action with guns. 

I believe Toxic Masculinity is the central problem

There are several facets to this, and I will deal with them in turn. The central factor, though, is in a warped view of manhood and masculinity which directs emotions into violence rather than more productive channels. From my own experiences growing up in an ultra-conservative subculture, I think I can see where the problems lie. Let’s look at some of them. 

Factor #1: Misogyny

If you were to pick one single trait that most mass shooters seem to share, it is misogyny. As in hatred of and contempt for women. (The other trait is access to guns - of course.) This is a common trait in mass shooting of strangers, but it is also (naturally) a factor in domestic violence killings. 

Where does misogyny come from? From specific beliefs. Namely, that women are congenitally inferior to men...and thus should be ruled/owned by men. And the first flows from the second. In order to maintain a gender hierarchy, one has to believe in inferiority. To ease the conscience. This is why Frederick Douglass noted that slavery led to racism, not the other way around. To justify slavery, slave owners and society had to believe that it was due to the natural superiority of whites to blacks. Ditto for female subordination. To justify a system where men rule over women, you have to believe at some level that women are inferior, and thus in need of male “leadership.” 

From there, it flows naturally to go one of two directions. (Or maybe both.) The first is to put women on a pedestal, Victorian style, where they are the “good” gender (unless they are bad girls), and should be protected from contact with the messy world out there - which they clearly can’t handle. Or, to despise women as inferior creatures and feel contempt. 

From there, it isn’t a far gap to justifying violence against women who fail to be submissive or cooperative enough. In the case of many shooters, the fact that beautiful women aren’t throwing themselves at the shooter makes them furious. (See Elliot Rodger.) This is why there is such a strong correlation between domestic violence (and other threats and violence against women) and mass shootings. 

So what is it about conservative gun culture that breeds misogyny? 

Well, as someone who grew up in an ultra-conservative subculture, I would say it stems from the reactionary response to Feminism. In previous eras, the gender hierarchy wasn’t really challenged. Women had limited job opportunities outside the home, they couldn’t get loans or credit cards by themselves, they were widely considered inferior. It was just how things were, so to speak, and so being “benignly” misogynist was easy. Once Feminism started making real gains, though, this was threatened. A woman with her own job, money, and home didn’t have to take shit from dickhead men. A married woman who earned a similar amount to her husband could insist on equal power in the relationship. Women who felt they had better options didn’t have to marry Earl anymore, and the Earls of the world weren’t thrilled with this development. 

With the “traditional” hierarchy challenged, conservative subcultures reacted in a, well, reactionary manner, and started doubling down on gender hierarchy, gender roles, and gender stereotypes. 

Factor #2: Exaggerated “masculinity”

Within conservative subcultures, there has long been panic about the “feminization” of society in general, and men in particular. This has been going on at least since the start of first wave Feminism 250 years ago, but it has gone through periods of revival ever since. One of those periods was (and is) the ongoing Culture Wars™ pushed by the Religious Right. The rise of that subculture is, in my opinion, a significant factor in our current problem with mass shootings. 

The problems in the subculture stem from this fear of “feminization.” To be a “real” man, therefore, one must be defined primarily in terms of being “not a woman.” (Yes, this is related to the misogyny above.) 

Thus, boys are taught to avoid traits viewed as “female” and cultivate traits viewed as “male.” Needless to say, this causes harm to both boys and girls. For example, certain emotions are viewed as “female,” and thus not acceptable to be expressed by boys. Sadness, fear, tenderness, grief. Instead, boys are limited to “masculine” emotions: anger, aggression, competitiveness, stoicism. Having been an emotional little boy myself, and having children of both sexes, I can attest that males feel the “female” emotions too - but it isn’t socially acceptable to express them. 

While this is a problem widespread throughout our culture, it is much more of a problem in conservative circles. It isn’t universal (there are some movements within Evangelicalism, for example, aiming to encourage men to acknowledge and express emotions), but there is also a LOT of pressure in the subculture itself to be “manly” and never “effeminate.” 

The problem in the gun violence context, though, is that males continue to experience “feminine” emotions - and emotions need to be expressed - that’s being human. So, these emotions - sadness, fear, worry - are redirected into more “acceptable” male expressions. Namely, anger. And eventually violence. 

 I admire the honesty: the military-style weapon as penis extender.
And yes, this is an actual ad by Bushmaster.

Factor #3: Violence as an acceptable masculine way of solving problems

Conservatives practically worship male violence. I know that is a strong statement, but I believe it is true. Here are some examples. In conservative circles, there are no greater heroes than soldiers and cops. Go to a conservative church around Veterans Day, and you will see the pastor invite former and current military to stand for recognition. A church here in Bakersfield literally flies the “blue lives matter” flag. (That’s a whole other post…) But you see it everywhere. 

Think about it, though. Both of these professions are inherently violent. Soldiers, no matter how you sugarcoat it, kill for a living. That in a fallen world, soldiers are perhaps necessary, doesn’t change that fact. Likewise, law enforcement uses force (aka violence) to remove dangerous people from society. And that is the idealized view. The less idealized view recognizes that the United States doesn’t have the world’s highest incarceration rate by accident: our laws and enforcement are an instrument of social control, particularly against the poor and minorities.

Now sure, one factor in this is that both soldiers and cops risk their lives. Which is why firefighters are respected (on both the right and left, though.) But there is also a glorification of the violence itself, I’m afraid. In the conservative subculture, the respect for soldiers and cops often veers into idolatry, where criticism is off limits, and any criticism is viewed as “hating cops” or “hating our troops.” 

And note that both of these are stereotypically male occupations. Sure, there are female soldiers and female police (I’m related to some.) But many conservatives are deeply uncomfortable with women in these professions. 

While I have no problem with recognizing the contributions of cops and soldiers to our society, it is badly unbalanced to honor them more than we do, to use a few examples, those who educate our children, who grow cook and sell our food, or who heal our wounds and diseases. But these are more “female” occupations, and thus are taken for granted. 

This in turn leads to some troubling results. The most respected members of society are those who use violence. And violence is seen as the solution to problems. Unrest overseas? Don’t examine the role of our foreign policy in causing that unrest. Send some guys with guns! Protests here at home? Send some guys with guns! 

This then bleeds over into other problems and perceived problems. Think someone might steal your stuff? Get a gun. And be prepared to light that MFer up! Worried about a man being violent to your daughter? (see above for how men get that way…) Or have sex with her? Clean your gun when he comes over. Let that boy know you will be violent if he doesn’t behave. Anxious about immigrants after watching Tucker Carlson? Better have an arsenal to defend yourself against those “rapists and drug dealers.” 

Or how about: not getting your way? Assert yourself and make that wife of yours submit. Kids aren’t behaving? Beat them a bit. Hey, that’s how men solve problems, right? 

That some troubled and angry men in this subculture see violence as a way to solve their problems shouldn’t be a surprise. Most will go for suicide, but some will want to go out with a bang. Anger and rage feel more masculine than despair…

Factor #4: Embrace of military-style weapons

Gun sales records are notoriously difficult to obtain. Manufacturers carefully guard their numbers, and the ban on federal research into gun violence has made it more difficult to study. 

However, I can kind of use a bit of anecdotal evidence from my own experience to at least show a shift that has occurred in my lifetime. 

When I was a kid, we used to go out and shoot at a public range in the Angeles National Forest. You would see other people out there shooting, and occasionally talk to them and ask what they had. Later, in my 20s, I did some legal work for a local private range, earning a lifetime membership. Although life has been too busy to get out and shoot much these days, I have seen some shifts in gun times over the years. 

As a kid, I remember wood stocks dominating. You would also see laminate stocks on hunting rifles. But overall, there were a lot of bolt action hunting rifles out at the range. And oh so many Ruger 10-22s. (For those who aren’t gun people, this is the popular .22 caliber rifle you get either for your kids to learn on, or to practice cheaply.) 

I’m not sure what the most popular non-22 rifle was, but I would guess that it was the Savage bolt action - not as expensive as the prettier Remingtons, but a serviceable rifle. 

There is no doubt now about what the most popular rifle is. It is the AR-15-style gun. (Technically, the AR-15 is made by Armalite, but the style - essentially a semi-automatic version of the M-16 - is made by a number of companies.) And it isn’t close. 

So, what drove the change? That’s an interesting question. Hunting is on the decline, so that is probably a factor. But I think there is another one at work. As gun-rights advocates love to remind us, guns are tools. But tools for what? What is that particular tool for? 

Let’s see. If you want to hunt, you need a gun in a caliber that fits your game. Bigger for elk, smaller for deer. 

If you want to kill varmints on your farm, you need something with a small, fast bullet. Can’t have that ground squirrel duck. 

For home defense, your best bet is a short barrel shotgun. (Think granny from The Beverly Hillbillies…) Although a revolver isn’t a bad choice for a smaller space. 

What is the use of a tool like an AR-15? The bullet is too light for anything except for varmints. But it does unload a lot of bullets quickly, and it is super easy to use. (That was the point: even a young, green soldier can figure it out.) And it is cheap and modular. (Another military consideration.) In any event, even though it isn’t particularly beloved in its M-16 form by the military, it was designed for one purpose: killing other humans quickly and efficiently. 

As my dad says, “If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” And if you have a weapon designed to kill humans, well…

That, ultimately, is why I think the AR-15-style rifle has exploded in popularity. It feeds a particular fantasy in conservative gun culture. I may expand on it in a future post, but here is the gist. Since conservatives with guns generally are pro-military and pro-law enforcement - and don’t truly expect to have to fight off cops and soldiers sent by the US government. 

But at least some really expect a war of a different kind. One with definite racial overtones. (I talked about this a bit in my review of Educated.) 

Again, this isn’t everyone, but it is in conservative gun culture. And with the popularity of military-style weapons and the imagined threats and conspiracy theories, it isn’t hard to see a belief that the AR-15-style weapons will be used for their intended purpose someday. 

I think this does contribute to the development of mass shooters. 

Factor #5: Conspiracy theory thinking

This is fomented by the NRA. “The liberals are out to get your guns.” And also by the Evangelical Culture War Industrial Complex. “Christians are under attack. Better have your guns!” And by the rising white supremacist wing of the GOP. “We are being invaded by immigrants.” And the gender panic above. “Manhood is under attack!” “The gays are taking over!” “Feminists!” 

This embrace of fear and conspiratorial thinking is not healthy in any culture, but it is particularly a bad combination with embrace of violence and access to weapons. All too soon, you start thinking that someday (maybe soon), you are going to have to murder other human beings to survive. 

This combines with the idea that the “real Americans” will have to defend themselves against the “others,” and that leads to…

Factor #6: Increasing racism

While our history with guns has always had racial overtones (the NRA supported gun control preventing minorities from having guns in the past), I think this has accelerated within gun culture during my lifetime. This shift can be seen in a few incidents lately. 

First, the Trayvon Martin murder. Zimmerman was a textbook case of irresponsible gun usage. He initiated contact with a person who was not bothering him. He escalated at every opportunity. And eventually, he murdered Martin. We learned about this stuff in our CCW class - don’t escalate. Seek to escape a situation rather than confront. Don’t start fights. And yet, silence from the NRA. Actually, worse than silence. They started a “stand and fight” campaign. Seriously? That’s basically “this sidewalk isn’t big enough for the two of us. (That’s why I left.) 

Second, the Philando Castille murder. (And yes, I call it murder.) An African American man with a valid carry permit, who does everything we are taught to do in an encounter with law enforcement, yet is shot dead. And silence from the NRA. I cannot imagine that had a white CCW holder been killed in similar circumstances, the NRA would have been silent. 

Third, the god-awful NRA ad in which African American protesters are called the enemy - and it is strongly implied that they will need to be murdered. Of course, “liberals” like me (“liberal” now apparently means anyone who isn’t on the white supremacist Trump Train) are also in the crosshairs. Any of us who call out racism are the enemy now. The NRA is sounding uncomfortably similar to neo-Nazi groups like the Proud Boys. 

So yes, this is an issue in gun culture. It was no surprise to see a white guy go murder Hispanics in El Paso. Because this is IN THE CULTURE now. 

***

Bottom line here: Yes, there is a culture problem that has lead to the rise of the mass shooting. However, it isn’t a culture problem on the left, it is not an atheist culture problem, it is not a feminism culture problem, it isn’t a minority culture problem.

It is a culture problem within white, male, conservative, gun culture itself.

And, as a gun owner myself, I give this warning: guys (and it is mostly guys), you need to fix this problem. Or it will eventually be fixed for you, and you won’t like the result. Gun ownership is on the decline, even as the number of guns increases. The NRA has lost a large number of members, and revenue is down more than 20% since the election of Trump. Younger people are less likely to support the NRA, and even younger NRA members are unhappy with the NRA’s political positions. Revenue for the NRA increasingly depends on a few big donors - and perhaps not coincidentally, it has spent big money supporting Trump. My kids’ generation is tired of being murdered by shooters, and would like to feel safe at school again. And they are less likely to vote Republican - and many loathe Trump. There is a demographic shift coming, and if white, conservative, male, gun culture doesn’t clean up its act, change is coming for it, whether they like it or not. 

***

Just a note on other gun violence:

Sixty percent of gun deaths are suicides. Suicides are, sadly, on the rise. But they are increasing most dramatically in rural (and white) communities. In other words, in Donald Trump country - and gun culture country. It isn’t a stretch to say the the cultural rot I discuss above is a significant factor in suicides as well. Males who define their masculinity in terms of wealth and violence...well, that doesn’t end well under times of financial stress. 

While I didn’t include them in my discussion, the other category of killings which are often included in “mass shootings” are domestic violence murders. When you discuss mass shootings with right wingers, you often get pushback against the “it’s a white male problem” with some statistics about race in mass shootings which shows more diversity. This is a bit of a dodge, but it also contains some truth. For domestic violence killings, race isn’t a determinant. There are men (it’s almost always men) who murder their families and often themselves afterward, and they cross racial lines. Fair enough. Ditto for workplace shooters – another mostly male phenomenon. But the mass murder of random strangers is overwhelmingly a white male thing. 

But let’s talk about the domestic violence problem too. Because it shares a lot of the same factors. Toxic masculinity, where masculinity is defined in terms of violence, power, and control of women. It is the same cultural problems (minus the racism and conspiracy theories, perhaps.) And also the same truth applies: it is gun culture that is the issue. These are gun owners too. 

And one more: a third category that gets lumped with “mass shootings” is gang-related violence. I need not say more than to note that right wingers LOVE to blame the culture for gang-related violence. Which, sure. And let’s note the prevalence of toxic masculinity in that culture as well. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If culture is the problem causing gang violence, it surely is a factor for white male domestic terrorists too, right? Look in the mirror.