Skip to main content

The Wolf Pack: How Terministic Screens Can Perpetuate Mass Violence

What is a terministic screen? 

The terministic screen is a concept created by American literary critic Kenneth Burke to describe the way the language or images we use to communicate  can promote one way of seeing a topic over other ways of seeing that same topic. Terministic screens are used everywhere: in newspaper and magazine articles, in television news show headlines, in textbooks, in essays, in all of the information that we consume on a daily basis.  

The goal of a terministic screen is to convince the reader to see a certain topic a certain way. You can think of a terministic screen like a lens. The lens reflects the information that the author wants us to see, while deflecting the information that the author wishes us to ignore. This is done with a specific endpoint in mind- to foster continuity or discontinuity between the reader and the subject being discussed. In simpler terms, the author either wants to form a connection between the reader and the subject matter, or do the opposite, creating a sense of disconnect between the reader and the subject matter. These concepts may seem abstract or even insignificant now, but in reality, they shape the way we consume and understand information every single day.

An important phrase to keep in mind when discussing this topic is “One way of seeing is another way of not seeing,” meaning that when you see information presented in a certain way, it is important to note that this is not the only way of viewing this topic, and by picking one specific stance, you are actually ignoring the other ways in which you can understand this topic. 

How is this concept relevant today?

There are many examples one could use to illustrate the importance of terministic screens, especially in today’s political climate of “alternative facts." However, the example I will be using is how terministic screens are used to classify white male mass shooters as "lone wolves," or "isolated incidents." The media gives us details about their personal lives to paint the picture that they are individuals who committed these acts alone, rather than part of a much larger problem. By referring to them in this way, we are ignoring the fact that "non-Hispanic whites make up 63%" of mass shooters and that "the vast majority" of shootings are committed by men. This is not a lone wolf problem. This is a white male problem. 

Please note, all articles I discuss are linked below. If you click on each name listed, the article I discuss in the paragraph will come up for you to look at. 


Stephen Paddock: Paddock murdered 58 people and injured almost 500 in the deadliest mass shooting to date in Las Vegas at a country music concert. However, just because he carried out the most fatal shooting in our country's history doesn't mean the media portrays him any differently than the many other white male shooters that have come before him. In this CNN article, Paddock is given the all too familiar "lone wolf" treatment. His brother mentions he had "no apparent political or religious affiliation," as far as he knew. By including this quote, the idea that Paddock could be part of some sort of radical organization or group is snuffed out, portraying him rather as a man who acted alone, on his own terms. Details of Paddock's life are also provided: he enjoyed gambling and cruises, he had a girlfriend, he was a "real estate speculator," he even sent "cookies to his mother." There is even a large photo of him on the website, clearly putting a specific face to the name. These details distinguish him from other mass shooters, giving readers reason to believe that this is an isolated incident, the act of one specific man, rather than being part of a much larger problem. Terministic screens are used in this case foster discontinuity between Americans and the mass shooter epidemic we have here in the United States.

Adam Lanza: Lanza was the perpetrator of the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.  This article is much more subtle in its use of terministic screens to define Lanza as a lone wolf. In fact, it even discusses the fact that Lanza had an apparent obsession with researching mass shooters, and had a specific interest in school shooters. In this moment, we are hopeful that the article will address the fact that Lanza is part of a larger problem, influenced by past perpetrators. However, the article doesn't delve much deeper on this topic, and then go on to include details of Lanza's life. It is mentioned that Lanza "viewed successful people as 'selfish, cruel, and controlling,'" and was also a "vegan because people were 'needlessly cruel' to animals." A photo is included of his face as well. These intimate details on Lanza not only seem to contradict the horrors he committed, but also once again set him apart from other male shooters. He is presented here as a specific, mentally ill individual, rather then being addressed as a product of mass violence perpetrated mainly by white males. It is clear again int his case that terministic screens are being used to foster discontinuity between the reader and the fact that mass shootings are product of a white, male issue. 


George Hennard: In October of 1991, Hennard crashed is car into a Luby's Cafeteria in Texas and shot 22 people. We mainly see the "lone wolf" idea perpetuated in this article through the arguably excessive humanization of Hennard. Though there certainly are references to his aggressive and unappealing personality, which were perhaps indicators of violence to come, there is an extensive section detailing his life leading up to the shooting included in the article. They take time to describe Hennard's childhood of moving from place to place because of his father's job in the army as well as their nice home when they settled down in Texas. A neighbor said Hennard never seemed "'out of line or out of the ordinary,'" though others certainly has less favorable impressions of him. The postman for the Hennards described him as a "'workaholic.'" Something I found particularly odd was the the article mentions several times that Hennard was attractive. The fact that the author of this article found the need to mention that he was "darkly handsome" or include a quote about his muscles, I found extremely unnecessary. Why else would those descriptions be included other than to humanize him and set him apart from other white male shooters, who he somewhat resembles in the ways that he functions socially. Again we can clearly see terministic screens at work, fostering discontinuity. 

James Holmes: Holmes is classified on Wikipedia as a mass murderer, after shooting people at the midnight showing of a Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado. Interestingly, not only is Holmes portrayed as a "lone wolf" by the media, but he also seemed to think of himself this way. Holmes had previously written that he decided against a shooting at an airport because it would be considered an act of terrorism. He wrote "'Terrorism isn't the message. The message is, there is no message.'" The fact that this is included in the article, of course, is once again pushing the reader to see this as an act of a lone wolf, with no association to any radical group. But this lens, I think, is a false one. The fact that he specifically wanted to distance himself from terrorist associations means that he was following a different path, the path of the "lone wolf," that many others had followed and willow follow again. Once so many men follow this path, they are no longer singular lone wolves, but a wolf pack. These are not singular actions of singular men, but products of a much larger problem in America. 

The Wolf Pack

Strangely enough, it seems to be isolation that somehow unites each of these horrific cases. Each man is somehow described as being removed from society in some way. Perhaps he is not seen often by his neighbors, perhaps he was quiet in school or doesn't have a lot of friends. Paddock was described as someone who "sought privacy and kept a low profile." Similarly, Adam Lanza "had no friends," "spent a lot of time at home," and "lived an isolated existence." George Hennard also showed seemed to be isolated socially, with people who knew him describing him as "a loner" who "never talked." Though James Holmes excelled academically, he was described by co-workers as "uncommunicative and socially inept" as well as "antisocial." 

Despite their "lone wolf" representation in the media, these men are all connected through their crimes, through subtle personality traits, and through the larger problem of white male violence. I'm not sure if anyone can say where this phenomenon comes from. Societal isolation, toxic masculinity, mental health issues, racism, sexism, and easy access to weapons all seem to be factors in some way, but we cannot definitely pin down a cause just yet. What we do know is that these are not isolated incidents. When people of color commit terrible acts, the media does not hesitate to group them into categories like "extremist," "terrorist," "gang member," "criminal." Why then, does our country insist on isolating these white men, who have committed unspeakable acts? Why do we push against the fact that there is a deeper problem here, a problem that cannot be solved until it is recognized? 

Of course, I am not insinuating that the media should give us no information about the men who commit these atrocities. Rather, I think the media needs to be more responsible in what they release to the public about these men. Instead of adding in trivial details of the mens' lives (like if they were vegan or good looking) simply for shock value, the media needs to be thoroughly investigating the lives of these men for predictors of future violence. If we do this, we can get better at recognizing these warning signs in those around us and try to prevent people like these men from obtaining such dangerous weapons. Though we cannot stop every attack, we can do better in preventing them. 

Some Tips to Take with You

I would like to make clear that terministic screens are not an inherently "bad" thing. They can be used to effectively communicate to your audience your points and to better convince them of your ideas. Terministic screens are present everywhere, however, so here are some questions you can ask yourself to help you better analyze what a terministic screen is actually trying to convince you of. 

1. What way of seeing is being promoted by the author through the use of a terministic screen?
2. What other ways of seeing are there besides the one that the author presents?
3. What ideologies is this screen attempting to endorse?
4. Is the use of this screen an attempt to foster continuity or discontinuity?


Comments