National Public Radio published a story on November 11th about observations on Major Nidal Hasan, the U.S. Army doctor accused in the shooting incident at Fort Hood last week, made by officials at both Walter Reed Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. According to the NPR article by Daniel Zwerdling, in the spring of 2008 "key officials" gathered to discuss Hasan's mental health. Aside from concerns about extremist views, which we have now all heard about, Zwerdling describes other concerns expressed by medical experts and Hasan's colleagues. The issues in question are aligned with what we might expect from someone who is a key suspect in a major shooting: aloofness, paranoia, and belligerence. Although this may begin to help us make sense of the background behind Hasan's act of violence, there is more to learn here.
Since this story began, there's been considerable discussion about the necessity for all of us to pause and weigh the facts before making any decisive conclusions regarding Major Hasan's religious views. One thoughtful article on this topic was offered by psychoanalyst and PT blogger Prudence Gourguechon, M.D., written shortly after the tragedy. She points out the importance of waiting for information and tolerating ambiguity while the facts come to light. Since Gourguechon posted her commentary, we have much more information to consider as well as many more opinions--especially related to how the media has addressed (or avoided) the potentially political and volatile topic of Major Hasan's extremist religious views.
Cut to this week's column by David Brooks in the New York Times. Brooks sharply criticizes the media for not telling the whole story--that Hasan's extremist views had a role in the shootings at Fort Hood. Another PT blogger, Christopher Ryan takes up this argument, and points out again, that rushing into this kind of response limits our ability to think clearly and thoroughly about all of the issues involved in such a confusing and complex situation.
Although in my own view, an important aspect of Major Hasan's story is whether or not his colleagues and superiors ignored warning signs (as often happens with intelligent, but mentally unstable individuals), I can see how they may have been apprehensive of confronting Hasan about his behavior, for fear of appearing intolerant (as most of us worry about appearing biased). Yet, there is another, more pressing issue. As human beings we want immediate answers to the questions that compel us to think seriously. And though extremist views of any kind might partially explain violent behavior, it is often not the whole story in understanding actions that most of us can't comprehend.
The truth is that most of us don't tolerate ambiguity very well at all. And for those of us who, as part of our profession, express our views as writers, scholars or public officials, a conclusive answer is what everyone wants from us. This is even more pertinent for decision makers whose judgments affect the lives of others. Patience, ambiguity, and not knowing are what we all have to learn to tolerate in the reality of our daily lives. But that view is not popular in our society, especially in the media. It doesn't have the same attraction as sound bytes, political stances or declared opinions. However, when it comes to violent actions as complex as the Hasan incident, it does deserve our patience. Unfortunately, that means we have to be able to tolerate difficult and contradictory thoughts and feelings, only one of which is the state of not knowing.
And the reality is that there are medical and criminal experts closely examining the circumstances to uncover all the facts and ultimately, there will be decisions made regarding the fate of Major Hasan. However, we, the public, may never know all of the answers, including the true motives for this painful and terrifying crime. This too, is something we can, and must learn to live with.
