Villain or victim...?

He is no monster. He is a man.

When the crimes of Joseph Fritzl were revealed, the world understandably reacted with a noxious and uncomfortable blend of shock, revulsion and a collective ‘Oh, dear.’ He had imprisoned and enslaved his daughter, Elisabeth, for 24 years and in that time raped and fathered with her seven children, one of whom, Michael, died at birth from respiratory problems.
Being the moral compass of the nation that it is, the television network ‘Sky’ produced a predatory, pseudo-documentary sensitively named, ‘Joseph Fritzl: Story of a Monster’, whose noble intention was to ‘uncover what drove Fritzl to commit such terrible crimes’. Vox popping mindless plebeians, however, who have arrogantly assumed unearned grief and indignation, uncovers only one thing: how startlingly self-destructive our society’s self-righteous attitudes really are.

Undoubtedly, Fritzl’s crimes are indefensible but can the same certainty be applied to his motives? In the storm of stupefacient rhetoric, characterised by an abrupt Sturm und Drang renaissance, where is the voice, regardless of how quiet, that asks: why?

Would the rest of the world even want to listen?

If we dehumanise our ‘enemies’, if we style them as monsters, does this make it easier to detach ourselves from attacking a fellow human being? Indeed, it is easy to apply such a theory to Fritzl, given he raped his daughter reportedly over 3000 times and internally damaged her from the alleged ‘instruments’ he used. But are we, perhaps, merely trying to protect ourselves from the corrupting fallout and intense reality of diminishing the existence of another?

The forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Fritzl, Dr Heidi Kastner, says, “Evil is a fascination for us. It helps focus all the evil outside on a specific person. That’s the one that’s bad; we’re the good ones…This is probably why executions were – and in some cases still are – public.”

We are too readily prepared to assume our children are born ‘normal’ – to assume they will be a conventionally healthy, heterosexual, mentally-organised collection of hormones, emotions and altruistic thoughts that will grow and develop into a positively-contributing human being and that should they do wrong, they were nipple-twisted by Satan into doing so.

The infinite quandary is that being ‘normal’ is the most inhuman outcome possible.

During the whole affair, Austria itself was criticised for being too clandestine and for its inhabitants too unwilling to casually enquire into one another’s lives, a relic perhaps of being a nation once straddled by the iron curtain. This apparent unwillingness to tap your neighbour on the shoulder, sit down over a cup of herbal tea and discuss your ‘issues’, however, is not limited to Austria but in fact permeates the majority of human societies. In essence, we’re content to ignore our neighbour’s burning house but as soon as the flames spread to ours, only then do we decide it would be prudent to contact the emergency services.

During his trial, when asked if he fantasised about his mother, Fritzl replied, “Yes, probably, but I was strong, almost as strong as my mother, and I have therefore managed to suppress my urges.”

Even in today’s western, liberalised, Keith Chegwin-tolerating society, to express a romantic and/or sexual interest in one’s mother would likely result in a prompt fist to the face swiftly followed by endless ridicule and condemnation. Were Fritzl’s crimes the result of this unhealthy suppression and the sudden collapse of his will to endure it?

Kastner said, “He told me that for someone who was ‘born to rape’, he controlled himself for a long time. He said he could have done worse.”

Arguably, Joseph Fritzl’s suppressed urges did not have to manifest themselves in such an explicit and unfortunate outcome. Had society developed a more open attitude to such ‘taboos’ where people could freely discuss their feelings, could this tragedy have been averted? Had Fritzl been given a lifeline to express and explore these deep sexual and psychosomatic desires through rhetoric in a safe, controlled environment, the reality is probably. Can it then be said that Joseph Fritzl was the victim, or at least an unwitting martyr, of a closed society?

The strongest indicator of this is society’s reaction to paedophilia.

One thing humans cannot help – until the inevitable rise of eugenics – is the way in which we are born, be it our cerebral or physical development. Regardless from which angle you analyse, it’s inexcusable and rightfully criminal to force sex on a child. But is it fair that sanctimonious, feral mothers, assuming their child will be abducted at any given moment by an anorak-clad, toffee-wielding grinch, be allowed access to data regarding the whereabouts of people convicted of paedophilia? The results of what could be state-sponsored vigilantism are depressingly predictable given a man was lately terrorised for being a known ‘paediatrician’.

Surely a preferable, more constructive, alternative would be to offer these fellow human beings psychological aid to identify these urges and instil in them the necessary discipline to ignore and control them? Or at least express them in an alternative avenue? In fairness, that is perhaps easier said than done.

When interviewed by the BBC, Kastner provided firm evidence for the idea of help before hostility, “He is not mad…he is as sane as you and I…There’s a big difference between being mad and being disturbed.”

The Fritzl case had shoved a mirror before society and demanded it take a long, hard look at itself. Alas, that’s an unlikely outcome. In the communal mindset of our culture, we’ll forget Fritzl and when history repeats itself, we’ll whip ourselves up into the same senseless frenzy, we’ll point the collective finger of judgment before brushing the whole, sorry affair under an already bulging carpet.

Were society to one day even glance at its reflection in that mirror, one must wonder what it would see: a man? Or a monster?