Are you sick of talking about Jussie Smollett yet? We are too. But we’re going to discuss him just a little bit more. Not because our motto here at Conjectures is “too much is not enough.” But because too much of the salient parts have not been attended to whatsoever.
We don’t care about the questions preambled with what – what exactly did he do, what did he pay the brothers, or what will or ought to be the ramifications for him? These are distractions.
We care about why. Why’d Jussie do it? Why’d he fabricate his own attack, conjuring up a pair of assailants that he described to police as possessing all of the complexity and subtlety of a Scooby Doo villain: a pair of white guys carrying a noose and bleach, screaming “THIS IS MAGA COUNTRY!” in the middle of downtown Chicago. Because that seems plausible. This was manifestly stupid. No hindsight required.
So why did he do it? And more importantly – much more importantly – why have so many others done the same? “So many others?” you may ask.
So many others:
Episcopal Church in Indiana Vandalized: “Heil Trump,” Swastika, and Gay Slur.
Gay Organ Player Did It.
Anti-Semitic Graffiti Found in Brooklyn Synagogue; Trump Supporters Blamed.
Gay Black Man Did It.
Black Church in Mississippi Burnt, “Vote Trump” Scrawled on Church.
Congregation Member Did It.
Woman Admits Lying.
Trump Supporters Blamed for Anti-Semitic Graffiti: “KKK” and Swastikas.
Muslim Man Did It.
Muslim Woman Claims Attack by Three Men, Yelled “Donald Trump!”
Woman Admits Lying.
Woman Admits Lying.
Anti-Black Notes Found on St. Olaf Campus.
Notes Fabricated by Black Student.
Philadelphia Neighborhood Victim Graffiti “Trump Rules Black Bitch!”
Black Man Did It.
Black Kansas State Man: Car Vandalized with Racist Message.
Man Admits Fabrication.
Racist Note on Kansas State Apartment: “Beware N!ggers Live Here!!! Knock at Your Own Risk.”
Occupant Admits Fabrication.
University of Michigan Woman: Trump Supporter Attacked Me.
Woman Admits Lying.
University of Michigan Muslim Woman: Trump Supporter Attacked Me, Threatened to Burn Hijab.
Woman Admits Lying.
Bowling Green Woman: Trump Supporters Threw Rocks, Yelled Slurs.
Woman Admits Lying.
North Park University Woman Claims Note Taped to Door: “Go back to hell. [REDACTED.] #Trump.”
Woman Admits Lying.
Elon University Vandalized: “Bye Bye Latinos, Hasta La Vista.”
Latino Student Did It.
Whether you are an inveterate racist watching these non-stories break on the non-news and thinking, “I Knew it!” Or whether you’re a fellow traveler who supports the general political aims of these hoaxsters, you must be asking yourself: why do so many do it? Who can think it’s a winning strategy to stage the kind of event that is guaranteed to invite scrutiny and blow your cover?
The answer can be found in the field of developmental psychology. As children develop in the age range of 7-10 years old, they experience a particular stage of egocentrism. When a child in this age range forms a subjective conclusion from object data, “he assumes that [his subjective conclusion] is imposed by the data rather than derived from his own mental activity.” Elkind, D 1967, “Egocentrism in Adolescence”, Child Development, vol. 38, no. 4, p. 1028.
This requires explanation. Children at this stage of development do not distinguish between a subjective impression to objective data and direct experience of the objective data. For example: a subjective impression (“The teacher seems mean”) arising from objective information (the teacher scolded another student) is placed on even footing with a direct experience (pain) of objective data (needle poking the child). In both cases, the child believes that the objective data imposes the response upon the child. There is no choice in whether or not to feel the pain of the needle. And similarly, there is no choice but to perceive the teacher as mean. The child sees these responses as literally imposed upon him.
So a child believes that his subjective perceptions are determined by reality. They literally reflect reality in the same way a mirror faithfully reflects one’s face. One may either look at the mirror or directly at the face it reflects. No difference. The child cannot fathom that he ought to subordinate his subjective perceptions to objective data. And he cannot fathom that his subjective responses are not direct reflections of reality and are not universal.
That last point deserves expansion. If a subjective response is imposed – not a product of idiosyncratic personal mental processes – but absolutely imposed, then it must be the case that every other member of humanity shares the subjective response. A child believes his subjective perceptions are universal.
Let’s play along with the seven-year-old. Let’s assume that subjective impressions are in fact absolutely imposed upon the mind by exposure to objective data – to experience of events. What then? Immediately our supposition will be challenged: we will see others who do not in fact share one or more of our subject impressions. But we are determined to play on, so we reflect: How can this be? I have no part in the formation of my subjective impressions! For they are imposed upon me by exposure to events. And I am not alone in this. No one plays such a part. Subjective impressions are perceived – not formed.
Then an idea strikes us. Ah-ha! It must be the case that those who do not share our subjective impression of matters simply have not been exposed to the same events as us. If they had, they would share our subjective impressions, for it would be inevitable. We shall invite them into the real reality – the one we subjectively perceive! And we shall do that by synthetic means. We shall stage events to impel upon “disagreeable” minds our subjective impressions!
Folks, this is the thought pattern of a child, save whatever precision in articulation I have managed. This is not merely my opinion. It is the finding of Piaget and Elkind and virtually every modern-era child psychologist.
In the Jussie Smollett affair and in all of the other fabricated hate crimes of its ilk, we are seeing a consequence that comes about when a portion of our twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings are infantilized. They literally function as virtual children.
So, people, what is the proper response here? What ought we do? We ought root out the forces that systematically infantilize our youth. We will write more about this later. But for now, please know: large segments of our citizenry have been infantilized, and consequently function, reason and conduct themselves as children. That’s the truth. And if we at Conjectures are here for anything, it’s the truth. If you’ve already noticed, then take comfort – it’s not just you. It’s true.