Andrew DeMarco
University Honors in Communications, Legal Institutions, Economics, and Government
Capstone Advisor: Professor Andrea Tschemplik, CAS: Philosophy
Standing Alone: Understanding the Emerging Danger of the Stand Alone Complex
Japanese director and screenwriter, Kenji Kamiyama, has written works on the implications of the acceleration of technology, but it is in his most famous work, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, that he renders his most insightful and ominous theory about the changing nature of human society. Kamiyama proposes that in an increasingly interconnected society, the potential for individuals to act independently of one another, yet toward what may appear to others to be the same goal increases as well. Standalone individuals may be deceived into emulating the actions of an original actor for a perceived end when neither of these existbecoming “copycats without originals.” Kamiyama’s theory of the Stand Alone Complex is a valid one, and the danger it heralds needs to be addressed before the brunt of its effects are felt by those unable obtain remedy. What little literature exists on the theory is primarily concerned with medialogy, but the examination herein addresses the theoretical and philosophical grounding on which the theory stands. This study finds sufficient grounding for the theory through theoretical and philosophical discourse and historical case study. The practical and moral implications of the Stand Alone Complex are addressed through related frameworks, as Kant’s moral system provides a different perspective that informs legal discussions of intent. The implications for national governments are found highly dangerous, and further discourse on the theory is recommended, despite its “juvenile” origins.
Standing Alone: Understanding the Emerging Danger of the Stand Alone Complex
With a flick of his wrist, the filmdirector uploaded the trailer of his movie. He sits back, and unbeknownst to him, the world begins to burn around him.
There is little doubt that the advent of the internet has facilitated the communication of ideas and the interconnectivity of the planet. History teaches that technological revolutions, such as the invention of the printing press and the harnessing of steam power, fuel further change in unexpected areasthe
Protestant Reformation, and the birth of Communism. Japanese thinker, director and screenwriter,
Kenji Kamiyama, has written many works on the implications of the ongoing, rapid acceleration of technology, but it is in his perhaps most famous work, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, that he renders his most insightful and ominous theory about the changing nature of human society.
Kamiyama’s theory of the Stand Alone Complex is a valid one, and the danger it heralds needs to be addressed before the brunt of its effects are borne by those without the capacity to obtain remedy.
What little literature exists on the theory is primarily concerned with medialogy, but the examination herein seeks address the theoretical and philosophical grounding on which the theory stands. When sufficient grounding for the theory be found through theoretical, historical, and philosophical analysis, the
Stand Alone Complex’s implications will be examined, and potential solutions for the practical and moral problems that it gives rise to will be presented and evaluated.
Kamiyama’s Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex continues his tradition of exploring themes of transhumanism, mindsoul dichotomy, and free will in dramatic form. In this work,
Kamiyama particularly explores the possibility that the rapid technological breakthroughs in communication—via the internet, primarily—have fundamentally undermined the way in which human beings share ideas and information to the point where this act of communication itself is suspect.
Kamiyama’s musings on his theoretical Stand Alone Complex are often regarded as confusing and rooted too far in fiction to be of any serious academic consideration. While it is true that
Kamiyama’s exploration of this topic may have been somewhat hindered in its clarity by his particularly confounding and unforgiving style, it is not so unclear as to be impenetrable. Kamiyama’s choice of medium—namely, that of an animated series—does not endear itself to Academia because of a perceived immaturity, but Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex yielded anything but fiction.
Aspects of the Stand Alone Complex have played significant roles throughout history, and psychological and medialogy studies provide empirical evidence supporting the claim that such a theory may be valid.
The Stand Alone Complex as Illustrated
The Stand Alone Complex, as Kamiyama presents it, is the result of the evolution of a global society, and thus is best understood in the context in which Kamiyama sets it in Ghost in the Shell:
Stand Alone Complex.
Set in the nearfuture, the world of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is one similar to our own, yet alltoo foreign—cars still line the streets, and people enjoy familiar goods, services and pastimes, but technology has advanced to the point where those who require prosthetics—even entire prosthetic bodies—can acquire fully functional cybernetic models at a price that prevents only the very poorest from receiving them1.
1 Kenji Kamiyama, 2002. Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Production I.G. As a result of this technological boom, individuals have become more and more reliant upon and connected to the “net,” a futuristic equivalent of the modern day internet that relies on virtual reality as well as the more familiar 2D format that exists today. Cranial implants—owned nearly universally—allow individuals to access the net instantly, overlaying a browser over the individual’s vision and creating a literal “Heads Up Display2.”
In such a connected world, increasing numbers of individuals have access to the same information and stimuli—in this case, through the net. To be clear—this system is not that of a “hive mind,” as Kamiyama writes at the very opening of his series:
“It is a time when, even if nets were to guide all consciousness…toward coalescing, standalone individuals have not yet been converted into data to the extent that they can form unique components of a larger complex.3”
This provision is the grounding for Kamiyama’s theory. In this connected world, Kamiyama reasons, individuals can independently come to the same conclusion in a matter, and act independently in such a way that it may appear, to onlookers, that a coordinated goal is being worked toward.
To demonstrate, in this first season of the Ghost in the Shell series, Kamiyama provides the case of the Laughing Man. A prominent, influential capitalist is abducted and reported missing for several days. This capitalist then appears, suddenly, on a local weather report, as his kidnapper publically threatens him, at gunpoint, to confess to “the crimes he has committed”. The capitalist claims not to know what the abductor is talking about, and when the camera zooms on the abductor’s
2 Ibid. 3 Production I.G. 2014. “Interview: Kenji Kamiyama.” Accessed May 5. http://www.productionig.com/contents/works_sp/02_/s08_/index.html. obscured face, a logo of a laughing face ringed by the words “I thought what I’d do was I’d pretend I was one of those deaf mutes,” appears and masks his identity. Suddenly confronted with the necessity of having to commit violence, and unsure of what to do, the abductor panics and runs. While escaping, the abductor performs a herculean feat in order to ensure his getaway: he hacks the cybernetic eyes of all witnesses so that they display that same logo over his face4.
The video of the attempted gunpointconfession spreads like wildfire, and the hacking ability, bravery, and logo of the mysterious “Laughing Man” fascinate individuals of all ages. It is revealed, later in the storyline, that the abductor’s true intention was to inspire a demand for truth in a society full of
“phonies”. The abducted capitalist had abused his influence and bribed government officials to prevent the patenting of a medicine that could have saved the lives of thousands, so that he could push his inferior one on the public—and his lies were accepted at face value by the unquestioning masses.
However, the abductor’s message of truthseeking is lost and perverted5.
Using the Laughing Man logo as a screen, corporate competitors of the abducted capitalist begin to stage acts of corporate terrorism against his companyand eventually against each otherin the name of the Laughing Man. These acts received major media coverage, and morph the “Laughing
Man’s” significance in the public eye. Due to his surprisingly reserved nature, disappointment with his society, and need to avoid authorities, the abductor and master hacker does not correct this perversion.
Selfproclaimed “imitators” soon emerge, performing anticapitalist and antiauthoritarian acts of terrorism in or under the name or logo of the Laughing Man. Kamiyama describes these imitators as
“copycats without originals,” for they attempt to emulate acts that the original actor never undertook
4 Kenji Kamiyama, 2002. 5 Ibid. and act in accordance with an idea for which the original actor did not advocate. These imitators acted independently of one another, yet each in the same or similar way toward the same or similar end.
Kamiyama and the characters he creates name this effect the Stand Alone Complex, as each individual forms a standalone unit that works to a seemingly coordinated goal6.
The Stand Alone Complex Analyzed
Kamiyama has never explicitly given an overview of the entirety of his theory of the Stand Alone
Complex, but his texts, his series, and the research dedicated to the theory suggests that there are two main aspects of the Stand Alone Complex: the first concerning “Copycats,” and the second concerning the ease of symbolic perversion, degradation and loss of meaning. While seemingly unrelated, both aspects of the Stand Alone Complex arise from an overreliance on “new communications infrastructure7
.”
The first aspect of the Stand Alone Complex is the more easily defined and recognizable one, as it is integral to the plot of “Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex8.” Because individuals are exposed to increasingly similar information and stimuli via the “net”, they begin to have increasingly similar grounds upon which to make decisions. This increasingly similar basis for decisionmaking renders the possibility that two total strangers may come to the same conclusion on how to act in a given circumstance. What can occur, according to Kamiyama, is that previously unrelated individuals can act completely independently from one another, yet appear to be striving toward a coordinated goal.
6 Kenji Kamiyama. 2002. 7 “Standalone Complex.” 2014. Accessed May 5. http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/60351886/StandaloneComplex.pdf. 8 Kenji Kamiyama. 2002. This “coordinated goal” is what makes the Stand Alone Complex potentially dangerous.
Kamiyama claims that when a catalytic event occurs, individuals may latch on to a concept or person and act independently of one another in such a manner as to affect the goals of that concept or person9.
In the example of the Laughing Man, the inciting incident is the kidnapping and livebroadcast. The perceived goal of the original actor was altered by the rival corporations, whose acts of corporate terrorism in the name of this actor framed the original action in terms of anticapitalism and antiauthoritarianism. The subsequent emulated actions by standalone individuals wrought effects that appeared as coordinated actions promoting these conceptsacting in the name of the Laughing Man, though the “original” never truly existed10.
Kamiyama’s theory is supported by scientific evidence. Psychological phenomena which feed off of actionemulation, such as the “Werther Effect” theory of emulated suicide, criminal copycat behavior—or even mass hysteria—have the potential to occur with increased frequency and severity when communications and media presence are saturated11.
For the purposes of this examination, this aspect of the Stand Alone Complex shall be referred to as the Standalone Aspect—as it concerns the actions of standalone individuals, or “emulators”.
The second aspect of the Stand Alone Complex is somewhat more difficult to define and flesh out, as this portion of the theory is rarely explicitly discussed in “Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone
Complex” and is mostly implied12. Throughout the work, it appears that Kamiyama argues that although
9 Ibid 10 Ibid 11 Coleman, Loren. 2004. The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow’s Headlines (Google eBook). Simon and Schuster, 120. 12 Kenji Kamiyama. 2002. individuals may be exposed to increasingly similar information, they are still capable of inferring somewhat different messages from that information. In the case of the Laughing Man, though the incident was intended and presented as a call for the public to demand and seek truth, much of society became divided—many claiming that it was an act anticapitalism, others protest against authority, and still more claiming that it was a calltoarms for countless other potential causes13.
In an interview with his production company, Kamiyama likened this aspect of the Stand Alone
Complex to exchanging text messages. “When you’re only exchanging text messages,” Kamiyama argues, “you tend to include all sorts of presumptions and imagined notions,” and these presumptions and notions can create a hazardous state of “parallel information,” in which one can attempt to communicate an idea or message to another, yet because of the nature of the communication, the other perceives a completely different idea or message than the one intended14. Kamiyama argues that these cases of communicating parallel information are more prevalent in “virtual reality” communication—or those which present video and audio as experience and fact15.
Additional grounding for this aspect of the Stand Alone Complex can be found in Jean
Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation, and Precession of the Simulacra. In the latter of these works, Baudrillard recalls the fable of The Map and the Territory, in which the cartographer’s guilds of an unnamed empire desire their work to be so precise, their maps span cities and provincespacked with excruciating detail. Continually striving for greater accuracy and precision, these guilds labor until
13 Ibid 14 Production I.G. 2014 15 Ibid they finally achieve that end. The resulting map physically covers the entirety of the empire, and has such remarkable detail as to match “point for point” with the landscape16.
Baudrillard argues that when this imperial map covers the territory, it effectively “becomes” the reality (the landscape) it destroys17. This replacement fundamentally undermines the “reality principle”a
Freudian term referring to the ability to distinguish the real from the unreal, as well as the ability to act in accordance with that information18.
Baudrillard formalizes the process through which the map replaces the territory by establishing what he refers to as the Precession of the Simulacra. Simulacra of the First Order, he claims, are those which have a clear referent and are obviously distinguishable from that referent19. These simulacra may even be the faithful representations they are professed to be. But, according to Baudrillard, in the event that the simulacra are perceived to be unfaithfula perversion of realitythen the stage becomes set for the development of the Second Order. Simulacra of the Second Order are objects without referencecopies without originals20. Despite the fact that the images and words being presented bare no relation to one another and are the result of a perversion of reality, the simulacra are presented as a fair copy. Simulacra of the Third Order are ones of simulation: each refers to other copies and signs, while none of these have a real referent21. Models of this type, Baudrillard writes:
16 Borges, Jorge Luis. 2014. “On Exactitude in Science.” Collected Fiction. Accessed May 6. http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/borges.pdf. 17 Baudrillard, Jean. 1991. “Two Essays (‘Simulacra and Science Fiction’ and ‘Ballard’s Crash’).” Science Fiction Studies 18 (55). http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/55/baudrillard55art.htm. 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 Ibid “...no longer constitute an imaginary domain with reference to the real; they are, themselves, an apprehension of the real, and thus leave no room for any fictional extrapolation—they are immanent, and therefore leave no room for any kind of transcendentalism. The stage is now set for simulation, in the cybernetic sense of the word—that is to say, for all kinds of manipulation of these models (hypothetical scenarios, the creation of simulated situations, etc.), but now nothing distinguishes this managementmanipulation from the real itself: there is no more fiction22.”
Baudrillard’s account of the perversion that leads to the creation of Second Order simulacra provides a clear theoretical explanation of this aspect of the Stand Alone Complex. Consider the actions or language as simulacra of the intent or message behind either; in such a scenario, an action or communication may be viewed as either signifying the intended message, or an alternative. Second
Order simulacra form when the relationship between the referent and signs is arbitraryno real relation exists between them. Faced with such a situation, the individual examining the action or communication cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood: they are given two unrelated signs and falsely infer a connection.
With actions and communications multiplying in formvideo, twitter, text, phone call, livechat,
Virtual Realityas well as number of potential recipients and cognizers of these actions and communications, the potential for perversion and increases. Insofar as this perversion leads to Second
Order simulacracopies without originalsthen Kamiyama’s Stand Alone Complex has philosophical grounding.
22 Ibid For the purposes of our examination, this aspect of the Stand Alone Complex will be referred to as the Perversion Aspect—as it concerns the perversion of message from sender to receiver.
It must be remembered that the Standalone Aspect and the Perversion Aspect rarely operate independently—it is usually the case that the one may influence the other. Stand Alone Complexes, like the psychological phenomena mentioned earlier, are started by intense community scrutiny—typically engaged by the media, but the triggering event typically involves an actor or communicator. In the case of the Laughing Man, the abductor hoped to spark a public response, and indeed, his actions gave rise to the Standalone Aspect of the Complex23. But it is possible, due to the Perversion Aspect, that in cases such as that of the Laughing Man, the original purpose behind the action may be lost and the
“movement” may spiral out of control of the individual who sought to begin the Complex.
Historical Examples of the Stand Alone Complex
The Stand Alone Complex is more than mere sciencefiction postulation. In recent history, incidents of Stand Alone Complexes have appeared among controversial and significant events.
Understanding that—as well as how—the Stand Alone Complex functions in reality is critical to fully grasping its potential practical and moral implications.
Innocence of Muslims
On July 1st, 2012, Egyptianborn filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula uploaded a 14 minute trailer to his film, Innocence of Muslims, to Youtube24. The film paints a humiliating picture of the
23 Kenji Kamiyama. 2002. 24 “Timeline: Protests over AntiIslam Video.” 2012. Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291720158465768.html. prophet Muhammad as a “womanizer, child molester, and killer25.” Within a few months of this video being freely available on the internet, it was featured in Egyptian Coptic Christian newspapers, and an
Arabic translation was dubbed. Within days, of the video’s screening on September 8th, violent protests had broken out in Egypt and Libya26. From September 11th to September 21st, the film had sparked at least 55 separate and independent riots across at least 30 countries27.
The boundarydefying reactions to the Innocence of Muslims video are the result of a Stand
Alone Complex. Believing that the video was, at least in some manner, sanctioned by the United States, previously unrelated Muslim individuals around the globe began violent acts of protest against the United
States. While sharing the same perceived inciting incident, these acts against the United States were fundamentally unrelated—they arose as independent protests, and despite similarities in the form and content of these protests, individuals from the over 55 incidents cite no instructing or coordinating power. The Stand Alone aspect of the complex is clearly present, especially when one considers that the perceived inciting event—the sanctioning of the video by the United States—never occurred.
One might argue that the video was at least implicitly sanctioned by the United States, insomuch as the video was hosted on the website (Youtube) of an American company, and that the video was made possible by American systems that did not quash the project. But even when the U.S government condemning the video and stating that it was not sanctioned by the American government, the riots persisted28. This fact suggests that the Perversion Aspect of the complex is present as well—as
25 Nellas, Demetris. 2012. “Prophet Film Protesters Clash with Greek Police.” http://news.yahoo.com/prophetfilmprotestersclashgreekpolice172712749.html.
26 “Timeline: Protests over AntiIslam Video.” 2012. 27 Ibid. 28 “Timeline: Protests over AntiIslam Video.” 2012. the framing of the violent acts would have to change to avoid outright contradiction. The inciting incident was fueled by America’s perceived sanction of the event, but riots that emerge after the condemnation cite strictly antiAmerican sentiment, and disregard the film entirely.
Anonymous’ Attack on Scientology
The fall of 2012 showcased the sheer power of the Stand Alone Complex, as the world watched seemingly countless riots spread across the world from the sharing of a single video. While perhaps not as aweinspiring, the winter four years prior, showed the world something far more sinister—the birth of internet movement, and perhaps the longestlived Stand Alone Complex to date:
Anonymous.
In January, 2008, a video surfaced on Youtube of actor Tom Cruise passionately advocating for Scientology29. According to one member of Anonymous, the Church of Scientology filed a copyright claim to remove the video from the “public videosharing site,” and the “abuse” of copyright law angered many who had been previously suspicious of the Church of Scientology30. This inciting incident brought “antiScientologists” into a fervor, and once secret documents of the Church of
Scientology—including “the original Tom Cruise promotional piece that sparked the whole war”—were leaked, the Standalone aspect of the Complex came into being31.
Individual men and women began launching online “attacks” against the Church of
Scientology—even creating ominous videos warning of the dangers of Scientology. Solitary “hacktivists”
29 Weyes, Cyde. 2008. “A Real Life Stand Alone Complex Emerges Against Scientology.” http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientologysac/. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. undertook malicious operations alone—launching denial of service attacks against Church of
Scientology websites to crash them, as well as “sending black faxes,” which refers to the hacking of computer networks that results in printers being forced to print entirely black pages until they run out of ink. These men and women acted independently of one another, yet, there appeared to be coordinated end in mind32.
Over the course of this conflict with the Church of Scientology, this group of individuals assumed the name of Anonymous. Over the years, Anonymous has suffered schisms that are indicative the Perversion Aspect of the Stand Alone Complex. The complex’s emulated action is the “hacktivism” which began as a result of the inciting event—the pulling of the Tom Cruise video. The complex’s original message was one of free speech, and “hacktivist” action was emulated to achieve this goal until the LulzSec schism.
As Anonymous continued its hacktivism over the years, its “members” would let other individuals know what they were doing. As time passed, members of Anonymous would read these posts as either a report on a hacktivist activity, or a hilarious prank—often made more satisfying because of the twisted form of justice wrought. This divide cleaved Anonymous into two groups—those who sought to continue the leaderless, individualistic hacktivism begun by the war on the Church of
Scientology retained the name Anonymous, while those who sought to continue what they saw as a legacy of righteous pranking adopted the name LulzSec, or Lulz Security (“Lulz” being internet lingo for
“laughs,” the name “Lulz Security” indicates a scoffing at inept cybersecurity, as well as the comedy found in exploiting it).
32 Ibid. To this day, Anonymous touts its individualistic nature, and even goes so far as to recognize itself as a Stand Alone Complex:
“We are thus dealing with a true Stand Alone Complex, probably the first substantive one the net has ever seen. There was no original person who launched and organized this battle, but at the same time, it’s not accurate to call everyone who is participating in it mere copycats, because they are the entirety of it…I’ll be watching, perhaps even participating in a way that I alone decide is apt. And how could I not? We are Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive.
We do not forget. Expect us33.”
The GlicoMorinaga Case
While increased interconnectivity among individuals—particularly due to faster speed and the accessibility of communication technologies—increases the likelihood and severity of both aspects of the
Stand Alone Complex, possible historical incidents of the complex can be found in the 20th century, before the widespread use of the internet.
In fact, Kamiyama himself points to the infamous GlicoMorinaga case as his inspiration for the theory of the Stand Alone Complex34. In 1984, two armed men burst into the home of Katsuhisa Ezaki, president of the Japanese confectionary giant, Ezaki Glico. These two men tied up Ezaki’s mother, wife, and daughter, and then proceeded to cut the telephone lines. Trapped in his own home, Ezaki hid in a bathroom with two of his children, until the two armed men broke down the door and took Ezaki to a storage facility. The two men sent demands for one billion yen and onehundred kilograms of gold
33 Cyde Weyes. 2008. 34 Production I.G. 2014. bullion to Glico’s company, but in the intervening time between demand and capitulation, Ezaki managed to escape35.
Soon thereafter, the executives of Glico found that multiple arsonists had set cars ablaze in one of the corporation’s buildings. Six days after this arson, police found a jug of hydrochloric acid with a note attached to it, threatening the corporation. One month after the arson, Glico received a note from
“The Monster with 21 Faces,” which claimed that Glico products had been poisoned and distributed to stores, which forced Glico to order a massrecall of their products from stores36.
The Monster with 21 Faces—whose name comes from the villain of a fictional detective series—also tormented the Morinaga candy company after releasing a publicized note saying “We
Forgive Glico!” Morinaga candies were poisoned in a similar manner as the Glico ones, and despite the panic that ensued, nobody died, as the twentyone poisoned products the police found bore the label
“Warning, Contains Toxins37.”
Police attempted to lure out the Monster with 21 Faces with promises of extortion payment, but all attempts to physically apprehend the “Monster” failed, leaving authorities with shifting descriptions of the man involved with each encounter. The only shared feature was that the suspect was male and had
“eyes like those of a fox.” Strangely, while the Monster with 21 Faces set up the terms of the payment, every encounter played like a game of catandmouse, not a criminal payment—the foxeyed man was reported to have left bags of money in favor of leading police on chases38.
35 Newton, Michael. 2009. The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes. Infobase Publishing. http://books.google.com/books?id=gijG7fSwvjAC&pgis=1. 1367 36 Michael Newton. 2009. 1367 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. After a year with no leads, the police superintendent of Japan’s Shiga prefecture committed suicide by selfimmolation. Five days afterward, the Monster with 21 Faces sent its final message to the people of Japan:
“Yamamoto of Shiga Prefecture Police died. How stupid of him! We've got no friends or secret hiding place in Shiga. It's Yoshino or Shikata who should have died. What have they been doing for as long as one year and five months? Don't let bad guys like us get away with it. There are many more fools who want to copy us. Nocareer Yamamoto died like a man. So we decided to give our condolence. We decided to forget about torturing foodmaking companies. If anyone blackmails any of the foodmaking companies, it's not us but someone copying us. We are bad guys. That means we've got more to do other than bullying companies. It's fun to lead a bad man's life. Monster with 21 Faces39.”
Because the GlicoMorinaga case was never solved, it is difficult to know precisely whether or not a Stand Alone Complex existed, but the evidence clearly supports the claim40. The two men involved in the inciting incident—the brazen abduction of Glico’s Katsuhisa Ezaki—wore nothing to obscure their appearance but baseball caps41. The subsequent acts of what would eventually become known as the Monster with 21 Faces did not feature these two men—or if they did, no witness was able to identify them as such42. Additionally, neither the arsonists, a baseballcapped man caught on film placing supposedly poisoned Glico chocolate on a store shelf, nor the foxeyed man were identified as being the same or even similar in appearance—suggesting that at least 6 individuals were involved in the
39 Ibid. 40 National Police Agency, Japan. 1985. “The White Paper On Police: Investigation and Activities Chapter 2: Crime Situation.” http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/s60/s600200.html. 41 Michael Newton. 2009. 1367 42 National Police Agency, Japan. 1985. Monster with 21 Faces43. Finally, the last message from the Monster with 21 Faces specifically calls attention to the idea that someone may be “copying us.”
It follows that either the Monster with 21 Faces was either a premeditated group of at least 6 people, or that the persona evolved as standalone individuals began perpetrating brazen acts of crime—emulating the inciting incident. Further support for the latter argument comes in the existence and nature of the persona itself. The Monster with 21 Faces does not appear until one month after the arson, and over a month after the abduction. The Monster with 21 Faces appears to delight in tormenting the police and people of Japan:
"Dear dumb police officers. Don't tell a lie. All crimes begin with a lie as we say in Japan.
Don't you know that[?]…You seem to be at a loss. So why not let us help you? We'll give you a clue. We entered the factory by the front gate. The typewriter we used is Panwriter. The plastic container used was a piece of street garbage. Monster with 21 Faces44”
Yet this pivotal characteristic is missing from the men involved in the inciting incident. Ezaki’s abductors, while brutal and uncaring, do not toy with the police: they make their demands for substantial sums of money, and they wait.
Additionally, the nature of the crime before and after the inciting incident changes significantly.
The abduction is a crime of extortion, but the subsequent crimes offer no foreseeable benefit to the criminals apart from the satisfaction of a “crime well done”—indeed, the Monster with 21 Faces appears to enjoy nothing more than “leading a bad man’s life.” It seems fairly clear that the second
43 National Police Agency, Japan. 1985. 44 Michael Newton. 2009. 1367 aspect of the Stand Alone Complex is at play here: the inciting incident inspires standalone individuals to commit crimes for what they perceive as the goal of “leading a bad man’s life,” which may in fact be completely separate from the original purpose of the original abductors.
Practical Problems Raised by the Stand Alone Complex
History demonstrates that the Stand Alone Complex has the potential to be highly dangerous to individuals as well as nationstates. The 21st century has remarkable progress and breakthroughs in the field of communication technologies, but it is these very breakthroughs that make it possible for single videos to spark violent, seemingly coordinated acts of protest across the world. According to
Kamiyama’s theory, all it takes is a particularly shocking or inspiring event—even a fabricated one—to incite potentially hundreds of violent acts from unrelated individuals with remarkably similar, but not common, interest.
The Stand Alone Complex raises unique practical problems for governments who would thwart its effects—how does one stop the “collective” action of a group of unrelated individuals? Who can be held accountable for the actions of a Stand Alone Complex?
How Does One Terminate a Stand Alone Complex?
Exactly when and how a Stand Alone Complex ends is unclear. Kamiyama seems to argue that once the person or idea which sustains the complex dies or becomes defunct, individuals become disillusioned and will cease their efforts45. The Innocence of Muslims video provides evidence against this point, however, as even when the protester's original motivating idea was contradicted, because the
45 Kenji Kamiyama. 2002. Perversion Aspect of the complex had already begun, the riots continued under a different sustaining idea—hatred for America, in this case.
Attacking the standalone individuals, or emulators, is a valid course of action when these individuals break the law. But as seen in the arrest various Anonymous hacktivists, the act of eliminating individual actors reinvigorate the complex.
But what of the originators of the Stand Alone Complex? If, a single individual can be pinpointed as the intentional inciter of a Stand Alone Complex, then surely they can be held responsible for the crimes of their copycats?
Unfortunately, the way that the Stand Alone Complex works, this is not likelyat least, not within the United States. Stand Alone Complexes are intentionally incited by events that are ultimately caused by the speech or action of the individual who wishes to establish the complex. In the event of establishment through action, if the inciting incident is illegalfor example, the individual who wishes to trigger the Stand Alone Complex robbed every bank in the D.C area within twentyfour hoursthen the originator can obviously be arrested for the inciting crime. Should the inciting incident involve speech, however, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the 1st amendment protects the kind of speech, short of an incitement to “imminent lawless action” that would trigger a complex46. So long as the hypothetical individual inspires, rather than conspires, then no direct legal link can be made to him or her.
Furthermore, criminal action against someone who triggered a Stand Alone Complex would require proof of the individual’s intent to bring about such a complex, as well as the ability to
46 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) “reasonably foresee” the effects of their actions. This would be a difficult legal burden to bear, particularly in criminal court, in which the prosecution bears the burden of proving their charges beyond a reasonable doubt—as proving intent is notoriously difficult, and the nature of the Stand Alone
Complex is inherently unpredictable. In order to be able to fully predict the next potential outcome that results from the Stand Alone Complex, one must either be able to read the minds of the individuals who independently contribute to what appears to be a coordinated cause, or one must wait until after the
Complex has collapsed.
Moral Problems
The Stand Alone Complex poses significant, real dangers, and these in turn spawn moral questions whose answers are no less difficult to find than those to their practical counterparts. Who can be considered a moral actor in a Stand Alone Complex? Are the individuals involved in the Standalone
Aspect any more or less morally reprehensible than the one who begins the process?
These are not simple questions, but the framework of Kant’s moral system will provide a powerful lens through which a thorough examination may be had, as its focus on intent may prove invaluable here.
When examining any moral issue, one must determine the moral agent, and ask whether the agent in question is free to act. In a Stand Alone Complex, there are two possible moral agents: the originator, and the emulator.
Should a Stand Alone Complex be triggered by an originating actor, this actor is able to shape the Complex in some manner. In the cases of the Laughing Man and the Glico Morinaga cases, the originators were able to determine the target of the complex, while in the case of Anonymous crusade against scientology, not only was the target designated, but so too were the means of combat. But these cases concern originators who sought the creation of a Stand Alone Complex—even though they may not have been familiar with the term. In cases such as the Innocence of Muslims video, the individuals responsible for the triggering event clearly did not intend for those actions to be taken or even for action to be taken.
Only the former of these potential originators—the ones who intentionally created a Stand
Alone Complex—are truly free, for the purposes of moral discussion here, as the unintentional originators were not given the conscious choice to start a Stand Alone Complex, let alone how to shape it.
The question of the moral capacity of Stand Alone Complex emulators hinges on whether or not the emulators can be considered as exercising their autonomy. These individuals subjugate themselves to a person, idea or symbol which has become the catalyst of the Stand Alone Complex—projecting their own concepts onto it. They are not necessarily “emulating” an individual or group, but they are abiding by the Stand Alone Complex, as they perceive it.
This is a particularly tricky subject. Because of the psychological nature of Stand Alone
Complex, those with psychological ailments or weaknesses often convince themselves that they are in fact the thing or person that they emulate47. Excluding these individuals, Stand Alone Complex emulators are fully aware that they are lone actors. Even though these lone emulators may form a group, they maintain a standalone awareness—they are not subsumed in the grouping.
47 Kenji Kamiyama. 2002. According to Kant, one cannot simply give up one’s rationality, as it is inherent to being human.
These emulators may choose to subscribe to an ideology or philosophy, but it does not follow that by doing so, they abdicate their capacity to think or act in a manner contrary to this ideology or philosophy
48. Insofar as the emulators of a Stand Alone Complex have the capacity to act contrary to the dictates of that which they “emulate,” they are free actors.
It appears that nearly all actors in the process have the capacity to be moral ones, which yields some interesting questions.
Is it Ever Moral to Purposefully Initiate a Stand Alone Complex?
As shown above, Stand Alone Complexes are remarkably dangerous and tend to spiral out of the control of those who attempt to initiate and shape them, but is it possible that a “perfect” Stand
Alone Complex could yield a moral result?
In Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he lays out the Categorical Imperative in its many formulations, the most famous being “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law49.” On its face, the question about the moral use of a purposefully initiated Stand Alone Complex seems fairly simple: if one can find a single maxim which could be willed universally to include the purposeful use a Stand Alone Complex, then the possibility exists. However, if one considers the Means and Ends formulation of the Categorical
Imperative, one need not attempt to endlessly plug maxims into the first formulation, as it is clear that the
48 Kant, Immanuel. 1996. “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” In Practical Philosophy, 41–108. doi:10.1515/9783110204551. 51 49 Kant, Immanuel. 1996. “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” 37 Stand Alone Complex violates the Categorical Imperative50. The purposeful use of the Stand Alone
Complex requires that one set up a triggering event, and rely on standalone individuals to affect change—effectively treating these standalone individuals as mere means, and not ends in themselves.
For example, the 2000 movie, Pay It Forward, a young boy suggests that individuals “repay” acts of kindness by committing further acts of kindness unto others. This movie and its associated book spawned a movement and a foundation sharing its name, despite the movie being a work of fiction, and standalone individuals sought to “pay it forward,” without regard for the actions the others51. While the
Standalone Aspect is evident, the Perversion aspect is not, this apparently moral Stand Alone Complex does not qualify as such. The “Pay It Forward” Stand Alone Complex requires that the actions of individuals be motivated by a sense of indebtedness, not respect for the moral lawand ultimately requires the treatment of others as “kindness” receptacles for the shifting of debt. Even this apparently moral Stand Alone Complex fails.
Because of the Potentially Manipulative Nature of the Stand Alone Complex, Are the Standalone
Individuals, or Emulators, Morally Responsible For Their Actions?
This question was mostly addressed above, when considering whether or not these individuals were capable of free choice and will. Because the standalone individuals have not lost their capacity to reason, they are still free to act in accordance with, and out of respect for, the moral law, and thus are moral actors.
Is it Possible For Emulators to Act Morally, Within the Stand Alone Complex?
50 Kant, Immanuel. 1996. “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” 467 51 Pay It Forward Foundation. 2014. “About The Book.” Accessed May 5. http://payitforwardfoundation.org/buythebook/. It is highly unlikely that standalone individuals within a complex will ever be acting out of respect for the moral law. Because of the nature of the Stand Alone Complex, these individuals will always be acting out of respect for the concept or idea that sustains the complex. For example, the individuals of
Anonymous did not launch their strikes against the Church of Scientology out of respect for the moral law—they did so because they believed that the Church of Scientology was trampling upon the first amendment with abusive use of copyright law. While perhaps Anonymous’ actions may have been in accord with the moral law, Kant is quite clear that such an arrangement does not make the action moral.
Barring a Stand Alone Complex whose inciting incident inspires standalone individuals to act in accordance and out of respect for the moral law, it is very unlikely, if not impossible, that any emulator can act morally in a Stand Alone Complex.
Conclusions
According to the online database “Know Your Meme,” there are over 1868 different
“humorous memes52.” From cat videos to the classic format of puns, jokes and odd phrasings overlaid on pictures, these memes begin as jokes, but spread like wildfire across national boundaries. Standalone individuals from around the world upload these files to the internetemulating the release of the original visual jokeand their independent actions create what appears to be a concerted effort to build an archive.
This form of Stand Alone Complex seemand perhaps, in fact, beharmless, but its existence is not recognized by academics or the very structures that need to be aware of it. In order to discuss solutions to the practical issues and dangers that the Stand Alone Complex posesas well as the moral
52 “Confirmed Entries.” 2014. Know Your Meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes. questions that inform that discussionKamiyama’s theory must be academically represented and given its due.
Works Cited and Consulted
Baudrillard, Jean. 1991. “Two Essays (‘Simulacra and Science Fiction’ and ‘Ballard’s Crash’).”
Science Fiction Studies 18 (55). http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/55/baudrillard55art.htm.
Borges, Jorge Luis. 2014. “On Exactitude in Science.” Collected Fiction. Accessed May 6.
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/bblonder/phys120/docs/borges.pdf.
CNN. 2012. “Death, Destruction in Pakistan amid Protests Tied to AntiIslam Film”, September 21.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/antiislamfilmprotests.
Coleman, Loren. 2004. The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the
Mayhem in Tomorrow’s Headlines (Google eBook). Simon and Schuster.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3B4lTTZE58oC&pgis=1.
“Confirmed Entries.” 2014. Know Your Meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes.
Kamiyama, Kenji. 2002. Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Production I.G.
Kant, Immanuel. 1996. “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” In Practical Philosophy,
41–108. doi:10.1515/9783110204551. National Police Agency, Japan. 1985. “The White Paper On Police: Investigation and Activities
Chapter 2: Crime Situation.” http://www.npa.go.jp/hakusyo/s60/s600200.html.
Nellas, Demetris. 2012. “Prophet Film Protesters Clash with Greek Police.”
http://news.yahoo.com/prophetfilmprotestersclashgreekpolice172712749.html.
Newton, Michael. 2009. The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes. Infobase Publishing.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gijG7fSwvjAC&pgis=1.
Pay It Forward Foundation. 2014. “About The Book.” Accessed May 5.
http://payitforwardfoundation.org/buythebook/.
Production I.G. 2014. “Interview: Kenji Kamiyama.” Accessed May 5.
http://www.productionig.com/contents/works_sp/02_/s08_/index.html.
“Standalone Complex.” 2014. Accessed May 5.
http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/60351886/StandaloneComplex.pdf.
“Timeline: Protests over AntiIslam Video.” 2012. Al Jazeera.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291720158465768.html.
Walsh, Stephen. 2005. “Toppamono Interview.” http://www.kotan.org/books/toppamono_04.html.
Weyes, Cyde. 2008. “A Real Life Stand Alone Complex Emerges Against Scientology.”
http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientologysac/.