Against The Idea That The Media Should Fawningly Report On Those Who Set Themselves On Fire

It really shouldn't

CW: Discussion of suicide.

Recently, one Aaron Bushnell set himself on fire, in what has been praised by many as an act of heroic protest. Immediately prior to his immolation, he shouted “I will no longer be complicit in genocide,” and “Free Palestine.” Bushnell has been praised as an “American Hero,” demonstrative, according to presidential candidate and public intellectual Cornell West of “extraordinary courage and commitment.” Millions of people have Tweeted about Bushnell, most praising his extraordinary courage and significance.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m quite sure Bushnell had conviction. Those who are willing to sacrifice themselves are always quite firmly committed to their cause. Many bad things can be said about the 9/11 hijackers, but it can’t be denied that they were committed to their cause. But the notion that we should praise or celebrate Bushnell’s bravery strikes me as one that is quite mistaken.

Suppose that you want to produce more of behavior X and behavior like behavior X. One good way of doing that is to extensively praise people who engage in behavior X. If we spent all of our time praising the bravery of those who scratch their nose, we’d get a lot more nose-scratching. Therefore, praising those who act like Bushnell is a good way to cause more people to self-immolate in the name of their political positions.

More people setting themselves on fire for their political convictions is not a good thing. It is bad when people burn in to death in fire, screaming in agony. Death by fire is unimaginably horrifying, and we should be quite opposed to any action to encourage it. Furthermore, it’s not clear that celebrating self-immolation will actually change the political landscape in any way. If every side begins to have some people set themselves ablaze—both zionists and anti-zionists—then it’s not clear it will push politics in a less zionist direction.

It’s not even obvious whether setting oneself ablaze is an effective protest method. It might cause people to regard one’s position as crazy or extreme or to be disturbed by it. Thus, even if one is firmly committed to stopping the Israeli bombing of Gaza, it’s not remotely obvious that acts of protest like Bushnell’s will be effective.

When the show 13 Reasons Why came out, there was a substantial uptick in suicide. This was because the show depicted suicide in exactly the way one would expect to make there be more of it: a hopeless and brave act of desperation, where the people who wronged you will come to regret it, when in death everyone will sit around, teary eyed about the ways that they wronged you, especially those you most hate. It portrayed suicide as the ultimate form of revenge, as a way to get back at those who one has wronged. And it made suicide enter the public consciousness, causing more people to seriously consider it. When one depicts suicide in this way, depressed, lonely, desperate people become more likely to commit suicide.

But depicting suicide as a brave act of political heroism is also a good way to encourage more suicide. And strangely, left-wing people most quick to endorse content warnings on anything mentioning suicide for fear of the deleterious effects of talking about it seem the quickest to praise Bushnell for his courage. The people who are the quickest to condemn Jonathan Haidt for his belief that we should talk frankly about such issues without content warnings, for fear that doing so would lead to more suicidality, are perfectly happy to praise a quite dramatic and painful act of suicide.

The contagious nature of suicide has been well-established. Talk of suicide, especially praise of it, makes others more likely to seriously consider it. When many people are struggling with mental ailments, praising it as heroic and brave is about the worst thing one can do.

Many who are politically left-wing have been talking extensively about the importance of talking about Bushnell’s death, saying that he will “not be forgotten,” that “We will never forget your sacrifice, Aaron Bushnell” and that his action is a brave “attempt to break the US media silence about the genocide,” indicative of kindness in an insane world.

Yet we generally are opposed to harmful protests. If a person protested the Israeli war in Gaza by shooting up a preschool, we would not tell the shooter to rest in power or claim that we’d never forget his sacrifice. The reason for our response would be that we don’t want others to follow in his footsteps. But we shouldn’t want others to emulate Bushnell—thinking that dying in the most horrifying and painful way is brave and heroic. This is especially so in a world where so many are suicidal—praising suicide, when suicide contagion is well-evidenced, is about the most reckless and near-sighted thing one can do in pursuit of their political aims. Bushnell’s death is a tragedy, and Bushnell was no doubt personally brave, but his form of protest is not one that others should praise, discuss endlessly, or seek to copy.