Depoliticising Utøya: Breivik as "madman"

[pchallinor]

Three months ago, when far-Right activist Anders Breivik killed more than 70 people in Norway, the world was treated to a bizarre series of turnabouts and reversals as the media struggled to interpret and frame the events.

Famously, before Breivik's identity was known, numerous right-wing commentators leapt to the conclusion that it was a violent Islamist attack. For almost exactly 10 years, the response to such events conformed to a well-trodden path - of making a hard political case against Islamism, and usually Islam more generally. Even when the actions of terrorists were classified as 'mad' or understandable only with reference to the twisted individual psychologies of the perpetrators, this mental disturbance was the result of hate-filled, anti-Enlightenment doctrines learned in Madrassas, where contempt for Western values and rabid fundamentalist explications of the Koran whipped them into a frenzied, murderous state.

Then it became clear that Breivik was Norwegian, white, and had perpetrated the atrocity as a way of 'waking' Europe from its sleepwalk into thorough Islamisation by 'cultural Marxists'. There was a brief moment when Anders Breivik could be understood as a product of the rise of the Islamophobic Right in Europe. Yet almost as quickly the optic shifted to one of Breivik as a lone madman, because a deranged, self-obsessed and isolated individual was, of course, the only kind of person capable of such cruel and barbaric acts. Unless he had been an Islamist, that is. The media line was bolstered when Breivik's lawyer declared that to have acted the way he had the killer must be insane, and told reporters he had demanded that Breivik undergo psychological testing. Explaining his reasoning, the social democratic lawyer said that the terrorist had 'a view on reality that is very, very difficult to explain'.

Much of this shift in emphasis was the product of the same right-wing commetators who'd been eager to cry 'jihad' the moment the events had hit the news wires. Yet they would not have been able to succeed in turning the discussion if there was not a great deal of general confusion about the whole notion of madness, and a cultural tendency to use it as a grab bag to explain any form of extreme or violent behaviour - particularly in an era when political movements and violence other than Islamism have become close to invisible. Discussion of Breivik and his crimes demonstrated how confused the public sphere was about the nature of politics, sanity and evil - and the uses to which such confusion could be put.

Thus pundits and commentators from a wide range of political viewpoints came to bury Breivik's act in the realm of psychopathology, to see only the monstrous form and deny rationality (however unpalatable) to its content. In the Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher, sought to dismiss conflation of 'the incident with the rise of far-right parties in Europe'.

Andrew Bolt, after initially blaming the attack on Islamists, then protested at alleged 'gloating attempts to blame the horrific murder of 93 Norwegians [on] any interest group or cause that murderer Anders Behring Breivik touched,' including his Christianity. Instead he blamed Breivik's relationship with his father.

Nor was it merely journalists and pundits who rushed in to declare Breivik's psychopathology. With the victims' bodies still being recovered, self-proclaimed psychological experts were analysing the killer's motivations with barely a shred of substantiation to work from.

Full article

[smash]

Hmmm, not sure about most of this. Like alot of stuff there appears to be an over-emphasis on the importance of ideology rather than emotion(which as far as i have been able to figure out is free of all ideology) as the determining factor for the atrocities commited by Breivik. Its like the piece has been written within the context of a psychological model where emotional capacity & ideological belief (of the external world) are one and the same, partly true perhaps but this can be no model for understanding human behaviour - you would have a whole inpenetrable myriad of causations and no internal reality. In the closing paragraph the piece seems to wish to create an undertanding of human behaviour free of all internal causations - a utopia based on the premise of everyone thinking and behaving correctly to an unwritten code. This would of course casue a problem for the author claiming to be a psychologist as it would mean that there is no moral-narcissistic process where willfulness contextually points in the opposing direction of emotional and mental freedom, so that the individual may develop a reality more in tune with his desires. If the author had bothered to read Freudian theoretical psychology he would know this, but many have and still dont get it.

People are emotional creatures, ideology is meaningless to the human mind.

[pchallinor]

Well, it depends what you mean by ideology. Of course in the narrow political-factional sense (Judean People's Front vs People's Front of Judea, so to speak) most of us couldn't give a toss, but I don't think that's what the article is talking about. Any political ideology is the result of a particular point of view about how society ought to be run, and since human beings are social animals, presumably such points of view have at least some impact on/interaction with our emotions.

In the closing paragraph the piece seems to wish to create an undertanding of human behaviour free of all internal causations

I think you have misinterpreted the author's intentions here. When he says that "the old threats from outside are re-emphasised because our internal problems are mere aberrations and outliers, of no greater meaning", he's talking about right-wing commentators blaming domestic problems entirely on outside threats and their dismissal of Breivik with a few easy bits of medical jargon or playground psychiatry. When he says that "we have to go beyond individual psychology", I don't think he means we should throw out individual psychology altogether, only that we can't hope to understand people like Breivik without reference to the wider social and political context.

[smash]

I think the piece is deliberately blurring the lines between internal/external personal/political. The author actually describes the "rationality" of Breviks actions as if the extreme delusion the man was/is suffering from could actually be the norm, a very cynical view of humanity.

[pchallinor]

Self-confessed mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is unlikely to be sent to jail after psychiatrists declared him to have been insane and suffering from paranoid schizophrenia when he killed 77 people in Norway this summer.

Prosecutors said Breivik, a self-declared anti-immigration militant, believed he had staged what he called "the executions" out of his love for his people. "The conclusion ... is that he is insane," prosecutor Svein Holden told a news conference on Breivik's psychiatric evaluation. "He lives in his own delusional universe and his thoughts and acts are governed by this universe."

If the court accepts the psychiatrists' conclusions, Breivik would be held in a psychiatric institution rather than in a prison. Norwegian courts can challenge psychiatric evaluations or order new tests but rarely reject them. Breivik could be held as long as he poses a threat to society, but may be released if found to be healthy.

It is a controversial prospect in a country still struggling to come to terms with the events of 22 July, when Breivik killed 77 people by bombing central Oslo and then gunning down dozens of people, mostly teenagers, at a summer camp of the ruling Labour party's youth wing. "The most important thing for me is not to punish Breivik," 20-year-old Bjørn Ihler, a survivor of the shootings on Utøya island, told Reuters. "What matters to me is that he no longer poses a threat to society."

Others were less understanding. "I'm so angry I could weep," wrote one woman on the Facebook site of daily newspaper Aftenposten. "A man who can plan his misdeed in such detail and carry it out in cold blood is answerable for what he has done. If this is allowed to stand it will disgrace the name of Norwegian justice and be an insult to the names of his victims."

Breivik had developed paranoid schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of the attacks, Holden said, adding that his condition was persisting. In their report the psychiatrists described many different forms of "bizarre delusions".

"They especially describe what they call Breivik's delusions where he sees himself as chosen to decide who shall live and who shall die, and that he is chosen to save what he calls his people," said Holden.

"Breivik has stated that he committed the murders, or executions as he calls them, because of his love for his people."

In a manifesto posted on the internet shortly before his killing spree, Breivik declared he wanted to protect Norway from what he said was the threat of Muslim immigration.

Breivik could legally be freed if declared healthy. "If he is not psychotic and does not pose a danger to society, then his sentence cannot be upheld," prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh told the news conference.

If the court accepts the psychiatric evaluation, Breivik would still be put on trial but could not be jailed. He could face court hearings every three years to determine if he needs to remain committed to a psychiatric institution, and could be held for life if he remained a threat.

Norway's penal system is based, perhaps more than in other countries, on the principal of rehabilitation rather than punishment. It does not have the death penalty and the maximum criminal sentence is 21 years.

During his 13 conversations with two mental health experts, which lasted about 36 hours, Breivik called himself the "most perfect knight" to live after the second world war.

Breivik also claimed that his organisation, which he calls the Knights Templar after the medieval religious order, will take over power in Europe and put himself forward as the future regent of Norway and the continent. "The experts also describe Breivik's intentions to conduct breeding projects with Norwegians and organise them in reserves," said Holden.

Breivik, who is currently being held in isolation in prison, was not aware of the conclusion of his psychiatric evaluation, prosecutors said.

Already the evaluation is being questioned in some quarters. Quoted on Norwegian state broadcaster NRK, Erling Johannes Husabo, a professor in criminal law, said the evaluation was highly unusual. "Their conclusion that he is insane is commonly reserved for persons with a more disturbed grasp of reality resulting in, for example, hallucinations," he said. "It must be a very peculiar type of psychosis he is suffering from, when he can execute his plans so diligently."

Guardian

[smash]

Like i said - he's psychotic. Whats going on with someone like Breivik is that his narcissistic process has been interupted and/or co-opted, where internal and external have been infintessimally confused. Note that he claims a "love" for "his people", the emotional capacity inseperable from his own self love, externalised to the outside world creating an internal economy fantastically beyond his means, hence more internal conflict, the emotional demand, a deadly toxic mix.

Bringing this understanding to the original article in this thread "depoliticising Utoya...." we might re-phase to something like "politicising human emotion" or "politicising the subconcious"
All quite ridiculous of course thats what muddling internal and external is - ridiculous, and in the case of Breivik deadly.

[pchallinor]

Prison psychiatrists monitoring Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik say he is not psychotic and he has not been put on medication, a prosecutor has said.

The claims made in a court document have added fuel to calls to reassess whether he is legally insane.

The original finding by two court-appointed psychiatrists has been fiercely debated by mental health experts. Several lawyers representing the victims of the massacre that rocked Norway over the summer have demanded the Oslo District Court order a second evaluation.

But on Wednesday prosecutor Svein Holden said in a letter to the court that despite the new information he would not seek another evaluation. Breivik has recently been given access to media in prison and could try to manipulate new experts in ways that would be favourable to him, he said.

Prosecutors say they would rather let experts testify at the forthcoming trial.

Breivik, 32, has confessed to setting off a bomb that ripped through Oslo's government district on July 22, killing eight people, then opening fire at the summer camp of the governing Labour Party's youth wing, killing another 69.

The November 29 finding by two psychiatrists said Breivik was insane during the bomb-and-shooting rampage. In that report, the psychiatrists, who spent 36 hours talking to Breivik, described him as a man living in a "delusional universe" - a paranoid schizophrenic who had lost touch with reality.

However, in his letter to the court, Mr Holden says four psychiatrists at Ila prison in Oslo, where Breivik is held in pre-trial detention, informed him they have not observed any signs that he is psychotic. The prison has not started medication of Breivik or seen any need to move him to another facility, Mr Holden added.

The deadline for parties to file their demands is on Friday and the court will decide some time next week whether a new evaluation should be made, said court spokesman Geir Engebretsen. The trial is set to begin on April 16.

If declared mentally fit and convicted of terrorism, Breivik would face up to 21 years in prison or an alternative custody arrangement that could keep him behind bars indefinitely. If the courts declare him insane, he would be given three-year terms of psychiatric care that can be extended for as long as necessary.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2012, All Rights Reserved.

Source