Rhetorical Analysis

Barbara Lerner wrote her essay “The Killer Narcissists” after widely covered public school shootings in the late 1990’s. A free-lance writer and a psychologist, Lerner argues that the existing psychological explanations regarding the mental and emotional make-up of students who organize and carry-out these violent acts is outdated and ill-effective. She states that a pre-1960’s psychological diagnosis would characterize these students as rejected, abused, and with low self-confidence, using such violently brazen acts as an unconscious “plea” for help. Lerner refutes such ideas, arguing that these students embody narcissism, needing strong social relationships and moral conditioning in such volatile adolescent years. Although mounting valid arguments of definition, evaluation, and proposal, Lerner misses the mark with regards to her essay’s soundness.

Although noted as a psychologist, the precise level of her education in the field remains unknown. In light of the fact that her claim relies heavily on psychological premises and assumptions, the ambiguity of her expertise makes critical readers question her reliability, or her extrinsic ethos. Her article appeared in 1999, in the May issue of the National Review, one month after the infamous school shooting at a high-school in Columbine, Colorado. It’s noteworthy to wonder why an essay examining psychological profiling would not appear in a journal of psychology or education, rather a political publication with leaning conservative tendencies (this point will appear later). The lack of Lerner’s expertise on the matter, coupled with her essay appearing in a political magazine, creates skepticism as to underlying motivation. Namely, would such an article attempt to influence policy towards a specific political outcome? Although no concrete evidence either affirms or denies this concern, it does bring Lerner’s extrinsic ethos into further volatility.

Despite this, the logical fluidity of Lerner’s argument is valid. Her first warrant is both justifiably and emotionally relevant after such shocking and horrific violence in this nation’s schools: society must become more adept at discovering and ameliorating students prone to violence. Concluding that the increased number of school shootings is a result of an increased number of narcissistic children in American society, and not previously-held explanations, Lerner cites logical reasons to justify her claim. Below is a diagram of Lerner’s argument.

Barbra Lerner Argument from “The Killer Narcissists”:

Warrant/Assumption: Ameliorating student’s susceptibility to violence is important
Warrant/Assumption: Morality is a foundation to proper development

Premise/Reason: Past evaluation of violent school children is inaccurate and outdated
Premise/Reason: Students who committed such acts do not fit into pre-established diagnoses

Claim: Increased school shootings come from an increase in narcissistic children, and not previously held beliefs.

As previously mentioned, the emotional investment much of the country felt after the tragic events in Columbine, CO gives Lerner a strong appeal towards pathos. After the April 1999 shootings, much of the country felt several emotions: sadness, fear, anger, perhaps even a tinge of hopelessness based on the severity of events. This gives Lerner’s argument tremendous emotional appeal, which provides her essay with strong relevance and significance.

Lerner’s first premise relies on evaluating past thinking towards violent, anti-social behavior. This is where Lerner creates her first fallacy. She states that “sensate” Americans have heard of the old psychological explanations before. These explanations come from experts, teachers, preachers, politicians, and journalists. She concludes that these social forces have engrained into the collective social conscious of America that violent acts are a hidden cry for help.

It is important to identify two aspects of the premise. One, where is evidence to support her reason? Why did she not include data that examined the basic psychological understanding of the American public? Whey did she not include a primary source from one of the many “social forces” she lists that permeate such archaic psychological explanations? Second, it is a very broad assumption to state that the propagation of misinformation on American society can be organized from these numerous social forces. Lerner makes it appear as if it is a coordinated movement. This is a fallacy of hasty generalization.

The second of Lerner’s premises is that students who commit these violent acts in school do not follow the old psychological model of evaluation. Lerner states that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who jointly killed thirteen students and one teacher in the Columbine shooting, had been reared in loving homes, were thought of as “normal” by neighbors, and had received psychological counseling that included anger management. They completed their counseling two months prior to the shooting.

On this point, Lerner offers the reader a logical premise (that Harris and Klebold do not fit into a traditional psychological explanation). However, how reliable is this evidence? Lerner does not provide any source(s) for her information. How are readers to know that this information is credible? Why didn’t Lerner interview, or find an existing interview, with one, or both, of the boy’s counselors affirming their completion of their counseling program? Where Lerner provides a valid premise to her claim, she lacks reliable and credible evidence to support her premise. This further undermines her argument’s soundness.

She goes on to discuss Kip Kinkel, a fifteen-year old Oregon high-school student who murdered his parents, and afterwards murdered two of his classmates, in addition to wounding twenty-five others. Lerner states that Kinkel posed a problem to conventional psychological understanding in explaining his motivation. Kinkel, she states, was raised in a loving family environment, making the reader assume that Kinkel had no severe emotional trauma while growing up. Again, Lerner fails to accompany this premise by including evidence to support it. Lerner forces the reader to take her assumptions as truth. She very well could be accurate, but without corroborating evidence (from, say, a psychiatrist who examined the boy) to support her, the reader must remain skeptical.

Finally, Lerner reaches the zenith of her argument by asserting her claim that there are more “wanton schoolboy killers” because of their narcissism. She defines a narcissist as one who did not grow out of their infancy’s self-love, and who develops inauthentic personal and social relationships. To the narcissist, individuals can become expendable after serving their “purpose,” which can include a violent demise, especially in the emotionally-volatile adolescent years. Lerner warns that the narcissists will favor the exercise of rage, especially through dramatic means. Even if one were to take away guns from their possession, narcissists will choose explosives and other melodramatic examples to express their rage. Lerner mentions Ted Kaczynski and the Japanese subway saboteurs from 1995 as examples of extreme narcissistic behavior.

The banality of this claim comes from a few inadequate rhetorical methods. First, Lerner fails to provide the reader with any evidence, either data or expert opinions. Once again, Lerner forces the reader into blindly accepting her assumptions. The absence of evidence bemoans a sound argument.

Second, there is a problem in Lerner’s definition of narcissism. While articulating the possible repercussions of a severely narcissistic individual, she uses the term as a broad “catch-all” of violent, anti-social individuals (Kaczynski, persons involve in the Sarin gas released in the Japanese subway, and adolescent gun violence in school). It is unlikely that all narcissistic individuals possess such violent possibilities, yet Lerner describes the problem in a similar vein when she correlates school shootings with an increase in narcissistic children. This is another example of the author committing a fallacy of hasty generalization. In addition, her definition of narcissism may come close to many individuals idea of self-centeredness and/or arrogance. It would be wise for Lerner to provide an illustrative example to clarify the psychological distinction. Without providing supportive evidence linking a rise in school shootings to an increase in narcissistic children, this portion of her premise borders closely to a fallacy of false cause.

Lerner’s final analysis ultimately leads to a proposal. She feels that children need to experience morality in the lives of their parents to deflect narcissistic development. In her opinion, anger management will not solve adolescent narcissism, only moral conditioning. She utilizes the importance society places on morality as her second warrant in the argument. Although, morality is a strong undercurrent of contemporary American society, without providing specific recommendations and evidence to support her proposal, the reader may infer a stance of moral superiority with this proposal. This, coupled with the conservative-leanings of the National Review, can make readers wary as to the author’s underlying intent.

Barbra Lerner writes a very emotionally significant article with the intent to shed light on the reasons behind such shocking and traumatic events in the nation’s public schools. Her premises align amicably with her conclusion, but the lack of evidence, in addition to argumentative fallacies, undermine the soundness of her claim. Her psychological diagnosis, or some form of it, may prove to be true (if not already). However, without sufficient, quality evidence void of rhetorical deceptiveness, readers cannot analyze her essay’s arguments of definition, analysis, and proposal without retaining healthy skepticism.