The West Memphis Three are three men (then teenagers) who are tried and convicted of murdering three boys in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1994. Believed by the general population that they were performing satanic deeds, the three were each sentenced to severe punishments: Damien Echols sentenced to death, and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. and Jason Baldwin sentenced to life imprisonment. However recently, after much gained media attention such as movie adaptation of the event called
Paradise Lost and fund raisers by celebrities, the issue of the West Memphis Three trial was readdressed again and the three arranged a plea bargain arrangement which eventually released them from the jail. The main issue developed in this podcast argument between Brooke Gladstone and Mara Leveritt is the classification of “characteristics of those who perform in satanic rituals” as well as how the media has played a role in helping the West Memphis Three arrange a plea bargain.
From the
conversation between Brooke Gladstone and Mara Leveritt, an issue of language and ethics should be evaluated. During the podcast, Leveritt, author of a book titled
The Devil’s Knot, has labeled those who perform in satanic rituals as portraying the characteristics of “listening to rock music, abrupt emotional changes, changes in school habits, rejection of parental values, and use of new vocabulary.” If those really were the characteristics of those believe in satanic rituals, should not the majority of teens going through adolescent be condemned of performing “satanic acts”? The fundamental problem with how she characterized people who perform satanic rituals is clearly flawed. Are all people who listen to rock music and are constantly emotional necessarily Satan worshippers? And how can she, based on the features of the West Memphis Three, assume that all the people with those qualities are Satan worshippers? Her reasoning in even defining what a Satan worshipper is clearly flawed. Then in the podcast, Leveritt then goes on about how Damien Echols, one of the West Memphis Three, wore all black which is considered satanic. The ambiguity of her description clearly shows her lack of understanding on what a true satanic worshipper is. Ethics also play a big role tying to language in this conversation. While many claims were made that maybe the West Memphis Three were not Satan worshippers after all, Leveritt ignores the claims and continue the discussion of the characteristics of Satan worshippers. It is obvious that she believes the acts of West Memphis Three as clearly wrong just because they are, as she claims to be, Satan worshippers. While authors do have the rights to have certain opinion about an event, I believe she has laid the “right and wrong” way too easily when the actual crime clearly presents ambiguity in what is right and what is wrong. While the two are clearly arguing about what are the characteristics of those performing in satanic rituals, I believe Leveritt is clearly wrong in assuming that people who listen to rock music are inherently evil.
The issue really shows the problem with modern society labeling people with certain word just because they portray a specific type of characteristic. Just because somebody is wearing a rock band t-shirt and dresses up like an Emo does not mean that person is satanic. Nor is a person homosexual if he wears tight pants. The society labels people with specific stereotypes just because labeling them as so would make it more comfortable for the society and it is easier to define people. However there is clearly a flaw in such way of thinking because in many cases (most notably gay students being bullied) people are abused because how they wear or how they behave falls in specific stereotype. A girl who dresses up like a guy and hangs out with guys should not be directly seen as being a tom boy. Clearly, our society is so fixated on labeling people and categorizing people simply because it is an easy thing to do and it makes the society run smoother. But is labeling a necessity? And is it safe or dangerous for people to be labeled?
I really like how you give examples of why labels should not be used in the last paragraph as I believe the same. In addition to your point however, I would like to mention that although stereotyping and labeling is not the right thing to do as things are often not what they seem to be, it is the way that society functions. A man and a woman holding the same position would get paid different wages; the man would make more money per hour than the woman simply because he is a man. Does him being a man make him an intrinsically better worker? Also, the black and white labor gap is a debated issue in America. Studies have shown that black people, in comparison to white people by gender and age, have had higher unemployment since the Great Recession during 2007-2009. When the economy is in trouble, Americans tend to keep white employees while firing black employees even though there are no differences in their performances. This treatment is unfair and is an example of labeling causing trouble for a group of people because of labeling. In my opinion, labeling is definitely wrong, but society places much emphasis on it anyway, which tells us that humans have a tendency to be subjective. I know that while I myself try to give everyone an equal chance, I often do have predetermined bias about people because of something that they had been labeled as. We as a society have to work on ameliorating this issue as it has become quite widespread and often goes by unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteThis is an article that poses issues relating to stereotypes and labeling and can be applied to many real life situations, which I'm sure every student in this school have experienced whether being the person who labels or the victim of labeling. It is inevitable that people are subject to other people's appearance, actions, and speech and may easily make false judgments on the spot. People have a habit of labeling because we are unconsciously being fed with distorted information deeply rooted in our minds that causes us to stereotypically label people based on our previous experiences and knowledge of certain things such as skin color, gender, and age. These snap judgments however, may not always be right. For example, in the film 12 Angry Men, one of the jurors believes the accused child to most likely be guilty because he is born and raised in a slum. However, the line between born and raised in slum and becoming a criminal cannot be drawn because one born and raised in a slum can be innocent and one not born and raised in a slum can still commit such crimes. Snap judgments like this often cause misunderstanding and mistreatment such as gender and racial discrimination. In the case proposed in this blog, the line between the characteristics of Goth getup and rebellious behavior and being a Satan worshipper cannot be drawn because possessing one of the characteristics doesn’t guarantee the other.
ReplyDeleteHI TIFF! I think the main issue that your article touches upon is the idea of human limitation. For instance, our inability to fully comprehend the reality we inhabit. This manifests as Mara Leveritt's ambiguous descriptions of Satanists, which - as you pointed out - demonstrates her ignorance on the subject. At the same time, it also shows the limitations of the human language, which cannot accurately encapsulate reality. Even if Leveritt had been a scholar in Satanism, it would be impossible for her to provide an absolute, exclusive description of Satanists, in the same way it would be impossible to provide an absolute, exclusive description of any group of human beings, whether by race, gender, occupation, age or more. There exists too much variation in the world be categorized by words, and the change to that variation is constant and unpredictable . At the same time, I don’t think we can denounce "labels" or "stereotypes" entirely, because they enable us to make sense of the world. The whole concept of recognition is based on "labels" or finding "patterns" in the world. If we see someone, we give them a name, if we see someone that looks like them, same hairstyle, same facial features, same height, we would induce that it is the same person. If we discarded all labels and our tendency to categorize, we would never retain any information, and society would cease to be structured. For example, if we see someone wearing a police uniform, we assume that he's a policeman and take care to obey his commands. To NOT stereotype policemen and people who wear police uniforms, is to risk committing a crime, and allowing the entire law enforcement system to collapse. Generalizations are necessary to organize reality.
ReplyDeleteThis article displays the idea that stereotyping may have an effect on how one views people.This knowledge is important in many aspect of the world. For instance, in history, it was often a practice to dehumanize or give another group of people a negative stereotype in order to wipe off or "pacify" another race. For instance, when the Japanese colonized China, Taiwan, and Korea, they often dehumanized Korean women by calling labeling them as "second class citizens", or lazy people who were only important to serve the Japanese emperor. This stigmatization is a justification for one to commit atrocities to another group. Furthermore, stereotype also creates a false image in different groups. For instance, Chinese people often had the stereotype for being smart, good at math, and in various cases it may not apply to everyone. Furthermore, stereotype may also create real life issues such as bullying. In this article (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1277892.ece), a kid committed suicide due to being bullied because he was stereotypically "emo". Thus, stereotypes are harmful because it allows people the justification of committing atrocious acts.
ReplyDeleteChoster,
ReplyDeleteRegrettably, I think you've misunderstood the nature of this podcast. The journalist was simply recounting the case, not stating her position but rather the position of public sentiment in 1993 when the West Memphis Three were originally put on trial. You mistakenly criticize her for the prejudices of the community that arrested and tried the three. There is a lot of great TOK embedded in the West Memphis Three case, but this short podcast doesn't really offer enough of a perspective on the case for you to pull out the real TOK issues involved.
On your next post, make sure you find an issue that has a really controversial debate occurring with two sides equally represented.