Joker's Wild

The online buzz about the new Joker movie is at a level I have never seen before. It seems that it is in the crossfire of the culture wars. Leftist commentators hate it, so much that some are, being leftist, actually censoring the name in print. Supposedly this is because it might inspire violence. From the right. Violence from the left, of course, is not a problem. Rightist commentators praise it. Critics hate it. Fans love it.

I have not seen the film, and am not likely to see it in the near future.

However, from what I hear, I am unhappy about some of the messages the movie seems to convey:

1. that there is naturally a class conflict between the rich and the poor, that might ignite at any moment.

2. that poverty and abuse cause violence; violence is the expression of pent-up rage from the oppressed.

3. that the mentally ill are violent.

Number one above is a Marxist premise. This is the Marxist theory of class war. But it is at least as reasonable to see the natural interests of rich and poor as almost entirely the same. It is not helpful to stir up a fear of the poor among the rich on this basis; or, conversely, a hatred of the rich among the poor. It is no healthier than stirring up hatred against the Jews among the Aryans, by suggesting that open conflict might erupt at any moment. Do this, and it will inevitably be the weaker party that will suffer. 

Number two is twofold. The poor may be more likely to use violence, because they have less to lose by it, and fewer alternate means. But that is a secondary consideration; it is not the cause, and distracts from the real cause. Poverty does not lead to rage or violence against those who are better off; ask a Franciscan. Envy does. The rich are probably more prone to envy others: they probably became rich because they were more invested in accumulating things.

Most poor people are strictly non-violent and honest. Poverty cannot be the critical factor leading to crime.

The thought that experiencing violence makes one violent is worse. It is a way of blaming the victim. In fact, those who have themselves experienced violence or abuse are less likely to be violent towards others. Survivors of the Nazi death camps did not become serial killers.

And being told you are garbage does not make you feel more entitled. It is more likely to make you think you are garbage.

Murderous psychopaths emerge among those who have been pampered and spoiled, not the abused. Both serial killers and Nazis tend to be middle class.

Number three is worst. The mentally ill face enough utterly unjust stigma, on top of their unspeakable suffering. It is like blaming crime on the lepers. It has been demonstrated repeatedly, as this article reminds us, that the mentally ill are no more violent than the general population.

In fact, the genuinely mentally ill are dramatically less likely to be violent than the general population. This is obscured by the arbitrary act of defining “personality disorders” as forms of mental illness. A “personality disorder” is simply a conscious choice to do evil. Accept it as a “mental illness,” and there is no room left for human choice: nobody ever chooses to do wrong. And if you define “doing bad things” as a mental illness, you are of course going to find that the mentally ill do bad things. You are simply saying the same thing twice.

But this is most cruelly unfair to the genuinely mentally ill. It is like blaming Gandhi and the Jews for the Second World War.