Last week, a student from Rockville High School was killed by an Army recruiter, who then killed himself. I never had her in class, but taught many of her classmates and friends. I knew her only from a friendly distance, but the grief of her friends and my students is my grief too.
The middle of grief may not be the best place to attempt clear thought.
The country is in the middle of an angry fight about marriage. Part of the fight is about who defines this ancient word. Once again, it seems to me, some partisans are convinced that the separation of church and state means the separation of church from reality; nothing of substance can be left in the hands of the insubstantial spiritual church of wiftiness. So marriage, which has had layers and layers of meaning for centuries, is now so degraded that if two levels of meaning – just two, emotional attraction and sexual arousal – come together, we are supposed to rejoice. The many other layers of meaning and life are optional – up for grabs, or out for disposal. Children: optional, and anyway if we decide to get one I want a factory model with a five-year warranty on parts. Prayer: optional, and anyway let’s define that word too. Teleology: what’s that? The yin and the yang: what’s wrong with the yin and the yin? Scripture: it’s all in your interpretation – or, better, mine. Trinity: that’s your religion. Eschatology: long since replaced by a simpler-ology – scatology! Pledge my troth: can’t you hear how olden-timey fairy-story those words are? Troth, what’s troth? An oath of fidelity: what for? You and you only: how narrow! Integrity, putting it all together: society disintegrated during World War I, or earlier, and Humpty-Dumpty doesn’t trust your in vitro gene-splice specialists.
But some truths are stubborn, including the simple assertion that sex is confusing. Nothing else in human experience leads to more self-deception than sexuality – nothing else, ever. The idea that we can define it in a new way would be funny if it weren’t so destructive. People re-define it every time they want to fornicate, and that’s a lot of re-definition.
So this beautiful student had a sexual relationship with her recruiter, current or pending. She thought it meant something deep or lasting or exclusive or permanent; but he married some other pretty recruit a year ago; didn’t she know that? Of course he loved her, so much that his entire attention was focused on her in powerful excitement, for an earth-shakingly long earth-shaking time, and probably right through repeated earthquakes. But just because he “loved” her didn’t mean she was supposed to think he “loved” her. Right? Obviously.
Why did he shoot her? Only two people ever knew the details, and both got shot. But the general picture: dear Lord, we do know that. She thought X. He clarified Y. But she couldn’t understand it; what about Z? They couldn’t put all the pieces together in a way that made sense. Bang. A little more clarity, then bang again to make egg-shells dance.
Why did she think his emotions and hers were in the same place, just because their bodies were? They both wanted, with fiery passion, and the same time. Doesn’t that mean they wanted the same thing?
Can we talk it through?
Can we re-define it?
If we are smart enough about a new definition, can she live again?