This article was written by Angus Harker a student at the University of Warwick. This article is part of his column 'The Other Side'.
What’s the value of a human life? In institutions such as the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the second article, the right to life, is absolute. It cannot be qualified by circumstances arising – no scenario can render that right null and void outside of the legal system. The seventh article, no punishment without law, is equally absolute. These conventions were enshrined in the UK in 1998, and although that right to life may not exist so clearly elsewhere, the right to a fair trial, and thus punishment as mandated by law, still exists – particularly in the USA.
In recent memory, events have occurred that have questioned the application of such basic truths. The alleged murder of Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione is a popular example. The latter has been revered as either a folklore hero by many, as one of the downtrodden, or as a chronically online Reddit frequenter. Judging by the response to Brian Thompson’s death, the prevailing wind appears to blow in the hero direction, martyring someone who is seen as a put-upon bright spark in US civil society.
But the point appears to have been missed by most: why has public opinion given him a mandate to murder extralegally? Why is it tolerated? And what does this say about the state of the world?
Spirit of Vengeance
It’s a fair assumption that most CEOs are not seen as popular personalities. A poll in 2022 in the UK suggested that nearly three quarters of those surveyed felt that the gap between the workers and the highest paid executives was too wide. Although extrapolation is rarely recommended in statistical analysis, applying this to most parts of the world with high income inequality would not seem a step too far, especially when considering the work done that has exemplified the correlation between income inequality and violent crime; simply put, the greater the one, the greater the other. Income inequality, especially when compared relatively to people doing better in the same society, appears to produce a frustration at one’s own circumstances, and in extreme conditions, make murder more justifiable.
However, that correlation might not be so straightforward. In the case of Luigi Mangione, who praised Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, suggesting that he merely hated the rich would be to miss the point. Not only do his personal circumstances count – being ailed by pain and lashing out at the figurehead of the health insurance company that denied him – but the necessary lack of humanizing your fellow man helps bridge the gap between frustration and self-proclaimed vigilantism.
CEO’s might get the wrong end of the stick due to their public image, largely being drawn on as a by-product of corporatism, which has survived in popular culture as shadowy, bureaucratic, and filled with nepotism – and in some cases, psychopathy. The worlds of American Psychopath, Fight Club, and Office Space, perpetuate this idea of an almost Kafkaesque conspiracy, a swirling web of flow charts and HR buzzwords that serve to obfuscate rather than elucidate the human condition. To anyone who hasn’t read The Trial, the atmosphere that Kafka produces in his book is one in which massive institutions that operate outside human comprehension dehumanise and disempower the individual – not just the ones who fall into those institutions’ capricious hands, but also those who operate the fingers. The figureheads manning these nebulous forces, then, unwittingly present themselves as maypoles of malice.
The Return of (Media) Empire
Public image, then, is exactly the counter to this. With people like Elon Musk making themselves appear personable, by embodying the fears and humours of the electorate and electorate soon-to-be, they avoid the character assassinating (and thus, literal assassinating) that the frustrated vigilante focuses their sights on. I’ve already written extensively on political authenticity in the age of the Internet; such authenticity need not just extend to politicians.
Some have denounced Musk’s antics as the outbursts of a toddler, that are unbecoming of his usual demeanour. Some have gone further, suggesting that his relationship with his trans child has exacerbated his diatribe of the “woke mind virus”. Perhaps another simpler reason applies; Musk has understood that the press will always be a tool for which to cultivate a persona to the public. In his case, by buying Twitter, he has produced his own media machine, with direct correspondence to the public under the guise of restoring free speech. Whilst others would use more traditional forms of media, such as Bezos did with the Wall Street Journal, Musk has understood the viral element of social media, and its algorithmic capability of prioritising extremism. Perhaps that is why he has surprisingly denounced Farage recently, as he refuses to endorse Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's overtly extremist views. By getting closer to Trump, he realises that he can influence elections, and manoeuvre himself to political positions that help consolidate his own personal power. Whilst the relationship to his trans child might exacerbate these moves, it need not be necessary to psychoanalyse an example of Occam’s Razor: a man who thrives on money, who defines himself and his chief status as the richest man in the world, will only want more money to validate his status.
When a man crashed into the crowds in New Orleans on New Years Day, the focus was on his links with Islamic State, and it’s interesting to note that ISIS still haven’t taken the credit; very little was said about his ex-military status. When a man blew himself up in front of Trump Tower in a Tesla Cybertruck, links were drawn between the two, and once again, his personal life blended into the background whilst symbolism took the stage. The acts themselves have taken a greater presence instead of the people behind them, and the motives that spurred their actions. So far, no links have been established between the two, but that hasn’t stopped Musk from speculating. In sharp contrast to Mangione, the personal lives of these people don’t appear to have been explored adequately; they are in the media for the acts that they have done, not what caused them to commit the crime. Mangione’s story was permitted because he swam sufficiently with the current that Musk creates, and enough against it that he was seen as one of the people.
Such work by Musk to try to draw links between the attack in New Orleans and the incident in Las Vegas cements his belief of a conspiracy against him and Trump, and against Americans as a whole. As he controls this media outlet, he controls the narrative being spun; that of an America under attack, physically and in culture, by other cultures. Such narrative will doubtless control policy in the US administration. As Trump ponders on economic colonisation of Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, the narrative thus appears to be taking effect; to secure the borders at whatever cost.
Some Are More Equal Than Others
What is the value of a human life? On the same day as the New Orleans attack, Israel launched strikes on a designated humanitarian zone in Gaza, killing 12 people – mostly women and children. At the same time, a sixth infant died of hypothermia. I was intrigued to find that my go-to outlets for news had no mention of this event at all on the day; the main pages of the BBC were quiet, as were the Financial Times and the Economist. The Guardian commented on it – Al Jazeera was the most vocal. Less need be said about US media. In the world today, media – and those who control it – seem to be interested in people more than ever before, so long as they’re the right people. Between those two horrors committed, the West’s focus is clearly drawn on the one side as to the other. In the mad competition for the narrative, it appears that priority is given to those whose actions agree with the status quo, so long as their actions sufficiently obscure that ultimate end goal. The value of a human life today seems less aligned to the rule of law, and less aligned to values established after the tremendous atrocities following the Second World War. They seem to be aligned more with what is expedient, as opposed to what is fair. Such a hierarchy of humanity chimes a morbid tone to 2025.
The views and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Warwick Economics Summit.
References:
Warwick Economics Summit-
Associated Press-
Financial Times-
BBC News
Al Jazeera-
Equality Trust-
SagePub-
The Independent-
YouTube-
Comments