Why one and not another?

Published by Tom

May 25, 2007

Link: Missing girl’s body ‘put into kebab’ | Britain Today | Global | Telegraph.

The press coverage of the abduction of Madeleine McCann makes me uneasy. Since Blair first trembled his lip at the loss of Diana, Princess of Wales, we seem prone as a nation to impotent outbursts of un-English sentiment. I thought Blair was faking it at the time, but now I am not so sure. Has something really changed?

Blair didn’t know Diana personally. We all had our "how sad" moment at the news of her death, but there are many such tragedies daily. I neither see how we can become emotionally involved in all of them, nor why the fate of one stranger should move us more than that of another. Coping with the tragedies in our own circle is surely as much as most of us can handle?
Do we need to seek out more grief?

People I like and respect seem sincerely moved by Madeleine’s fate. Nor do they see any inconsistency in being emotionally involved with her, but not with all those who have gone missing before or since. Ellee Seymour is currently kindly and sincerely engaged in a struggle to respond to my comments on this subject at her blog by writing about a missing child every day. I feel quite guilty about it.

Compare all this human warmth with the cold tone of the Telegraph article to which I have linked. Why is little Madeleine’s fate so touching, while poor Charlene’s is clearly not? It is alleged that Charlene was used sexually by one or more men who then killed her. There is no hint of any feeling for her in the published account. The story is about the alleged killers, not the alleged victim. Whatever happened to Charlene, she is – like Madeleine – missing without trace. Why does her fate excite no similar emotion?

Is it because Madeleine is the middle-class daughter of two doctors, while Charlene was working class? Is it because Madeleine is an innocent, while 14-years old Charlene was somehow not? Is it that "Charlene" is a "common" name, while "Madeleine" is tasteful? Is it that Charlene was dark-haired and plain, while Madeleine was blonde and cute? Is it that Charlene seems to have met her end in a seedy Northern back alley, while Madeleine was abducted from a sunny Continental resort?

These are no doubt distasteful questions, but I think they should be asked.

Please don’t misunderstand me. Charlene’s fate is sad but is only a tragedy for her and her family. It is nothing to do with any of us who would never have heard of her but for this cold, sad tale. I expect no reader to emote on her behalf. I am simply baffled why people can remain aloof from her fate and that of thousands of others, while apparently feeling so much for one particular family.

Something is not right here. Maybe it’s me.

7 responses to “Why one and not another?”

Ellee

May 25, 2007

Tom, what a truly horrid story about Charlene. I can’t answer your question because I don’t feel that way, I don’t understand it either, which is why I am writing my daily posts about other missing children throughout the world. I had a call from a journalist at Radio 5 Live who was interested in them and they have been picked up by other other influential bloggers. I have been in contact with one of the families from Australia and I have had some interesting comments posted. We have to keep the memories alive of these missing people and share their families hope that one day they will be reunited. I realise now how important it is to keep that hope alive.

LikeLike

Reply
Dave Petterson

May 26, 2007

Personally I blame the media. They looked at this cute kid and seen this tragedy as something they could use to sell papers.
But this case seems strange. The parents seem too collected about it. If it was mine I would be in a rage especially if I thought that my actions may have made it possible.
Every kid that goes missing is a tragedy. A wasted life. Sometimes the bad guys win, sometime fate wins and they go in an accident. The big issue in these cases is not knowing. With a car accident they can grieve and get on with their lives, or not, depending on their personalities. Cases like this are nightmares, losing a kid is bad enough but not knowing must be tearing you apart.
Luckily in the scheme of things these are rare. At the same time we must look at the rest of the world where people are injuring their kids so they can make better beggars and even selling them off. Perhaps we will get to the time when this sort of action does not happen. But I doubt it.
We as a species are screwed up when we can treat others, especially defenseless children, in this way.

LikeLike

Reply
dearieme

May 26, 2007

I’d have thought that the parents’ being “collected” was the saving grace in this sad tale.

LikeLike

Reply
Welshcakes Limoncello

May 27, 2007

Tom, you are expressing what many of us feel. I am touched by the Madeleine story and of course want her found well and alive, like everyone else. But so many die or disappear every day in wars or situations that our country has a hand in and little is said. Perhaps it is as Camus said, that we cannot deal with tragedy on such a large scale because we cannot imagine it. But every parent – and also people who are not parents, like me – can imagine a little of what the McCanns are going through. Of course it helps that M is such a photogenic, beautiful little girl and people feel for her. Even here, the few people who do know about it [and the number is about to increase phenomenally with today’s news] say that she is what they imagine a typical English child to be like. Like you, I am not in Britain at the moment but I imagine the mood there to be much as it was just after Diana’s death – that you risked getting lynched in the street if you were not in tears about it. I think all this has a lot to do with the fact that, for the first time, a generation has grown up which has, largely, not known loss – and so they are, in a way, fascinated by it. We all hope for Madeleine but we must not forget others.

LikeLike

Reply
jameshigham

May 28, 2007

As usual, Tom, you’ve hit the nail on the head. the little one really did look so innocent that it incited horror. But as you say, others in different situations and not so completely angelic in appearance get short shrift. It really is rank hypocrisy. I didn’t run Madeleine. I didn’t see what I could achieve for her by doing so.

LikeLike

Reply
Courtney Hamilton

May 29, 2007

“Coping with the tragedies in our own circle is surely as much as most of us can handle? Do we need to seek out more grief?”
I agree with some of your sentiments – the outpouring of public emotionalism for someone else’s tragedy is not a very healthy response for our society. Indeed, this sad story seems to be capturing the public imagination in ways that politics has never done – we are now all appearently united behind one single cause.
For example, you mentioned Ellee’s newfound campaign, as you and I know, Ellee’s new campaign for missing children may very well have the best intentions at heart, but underneath the surface what you find tends to resemble a rather morbid symptom of a country that’s missing more than just a few children. It’s all very well having a minute silence to ‘raise consciousness’, or finding new angles to keep the story in the British headlines, but the relentless calls for more/any/whatever info is more than likely to end in one long wild goose chase.
Nor can we just simply blame the media who would argue they are only giving the public what they want, indeed, the media has not forced millions of people to view the Madeleine website have they? The media only really holds up a mirror on our society – they reflect and reinforce wider trends – and the trend we seem to be witnessing today is a social type of Mourning sickness.
Mourning sickness is a powerful new trend, it’s the ugly side of emotionalism – as Welshcakes quite rightly observes, it is a strong intolerance towards anyone from the Queen downwards who has the termerity to not show the required amount of grief – this Mourning sickness is very different from real genuine grief.
It comes at a time when British society is fragmented and atomised. When princess Diana was killed, those who went out searching for a sense of belonging and a sense of collectivity could find a belonging in this new found shared pain and loss. Millions of Britons have a deep desire to belong or to feel a part of a tragic event. From the murder of Sarah Payne to ‘our Maddie’ have all prompted a Diana-like response.
As you quite rightly argue Tom, there is something rather unhealthy and even dangerous about all this. It is indeed a morbid symptom of a Britain that searches for tragic stories in order to give the impression that they belong to some kind of ‘community’. Such an atomised, mistrustful, inward-looking ‘community’ has one single potential – to be a lynch mob.

LikeLike

Reply
OnyxStone

June 5, 2007

I well appreciated you post, and also those who have commented here with thoughtfulness and insight.
I think that this shift in society is a misdirected grab for “meaning” – the lack of which our grandparents did not feel as they contributed in their churches and took responsibility for their own families.

LikeLike

Reply