Serial
Killers
Has
a Cultural Artifact
Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs |
We have seen in the last two generations
the rise of the serial killer as a cultural artifact. In the past serial
killers were fairly rare although it should be noted that crime statistics are
historically very unreliable. Now it appears that compared to the past serial
killers are no longer rare but “common”. Just why this is so is subject to
dispute. What is not in dispute is that serial killers have become part of the
very fabric of our society and culture just why that is so and what effects it
has on our culture are matters worth exploring.1
First a few definitions. By serial
killer I do not mean any mass killer of human beings. After all if sheer number
of killings was the criteria than we would people the ranks of serial killers
with bureaucrats, politicians, CEO’s of corporations, assorted generals and
soldiers who in the course of carrying out their duties commit acts of
atrocity.2
Nor does the term serial killer refer to
individuals who are not the mass killers mentioned above who kill in a frenzy of
blood lust.
No the serial killer is someone who
usually one at a time kills, usually by careful planning and calculation. The
victims are carefully selected and usually killed in a ritualized fashion. The killer
is usually at least in relation to the killing highly “rational” and
intelligent. These killings can take place over days, months or years. The
serial killer can wait years between killings his, (Serial killers are almost
always men.), next victim.
It is the cold calculation and the
carefully orchestrated helplessness of the victims that terrifies people in
regards to the serial killer. Along with the fact of killing frequently
combined with gruesome atrocities inflicted on the victim.
Just why someone becomes a serial killer
is not known. Certainly genetic or biological reasons seem to be a most
inadequate reason / explanation. Certainly also attributing it to environmental factors, such
as a brutal upbringing etc., doesn’t explain a lot. The reason is that although
in individual cases it may “explain” the motives and “rationality” of the
serial killer it does not explain the phenomena has a whole. Most importantly
it does not explain why the number of serial killings and killers has gone up
in the last c. 80 years. No explanation of psychological factors or genetics
can adequately explain the rise in numbers of such killers.
It should be mentioned that this
phenomena is in many respects an American one, although the increase in numbers
of deaths and killers crosses national boundaries. But it should be made clear that the
genetic and psychological factors that help to produce sick, demented and
twisted individuals existed in the past without generating the numbers of
serial killers we have right now. So what has changed?3
It could be argued that the only thing
that has changed is the amount of information we have and that in the past the
ability to detect serial killers was a good deal less and that the appearance of a
rise in numbers is an illusion brought on by increased data.
This seems to be in error. Although the
statistics for crimes other than murder are pretty unreliable everywhere in the
world until the 1940’s at the earliest; it does appear that has indicated above
the statistics for murder are fairly reliable.
What the statistics for murder show is that
in the Western world there was for centuries, with a few blips, a definite
downward trend in the murder rate. The fact that populations massively
increased may have served to disguise the decline in the murder rate. For it is
likely that the number of murders went up although the rate was going down.
Thus by the 1930’s the murder rate in
much of the western world was fairly low. In England it was at c. .5 per
100,000 which is stunningly low. This low rate seems to have had little to do
with increasingly effective police methods or coercive prisons etc. It seems to
have largely been the effect of socialization against resorting to violent
solutions to personal problems and affronts and the tendency of society to
condemn and not celebrate violent solutions to problems.
In other words it was the establishment
of guilt norms. That people should feel internalized guilt if committing
violent acts. This was against a shame ethic in which all acts including
violence were excused as a response to being publicly or otherwise shamed.4
In the late 1950’s the crime rate began
to go up for reasons that are obscure in
most of the Western world. We not sure why. It is thought it may
something to do with the fact that the post-World War II baby boom created a
bumper crop of young people and a horde of young men who tend to be more criminal
than any other group. The idea was that has this group of “Boomers” aged the
crime rate would go down. It is certainly
true that beginning in the mid 1970’s murder rates stopped
rising in virtually all western countries. The big exception was the USA in
which the murder rate continued to stay very high until the mid 1990’s it has
subsequently experienced a drastic decline.5
It is in this atmosphere of crime rising
that the modern serial killer emerged.
Of course serial killers had existed in
the past but the past two generations or so have seen a massive increase in
their numbers far above the increase in the population. So just why?
Well in my opinion it boils down to two
things. In the first instance the serial killer seems to be someone who is for
whatever reason frustrated and angry and that frustration and anger finds its
outlet in calculated murder. Now the frustration could have its origin in abuse
has a child or some other trauma but in the past such people who were predisposed
to carry out the serial killer “solution” to their frustrations and anger did
not do so. Further whatever level of frustration that they felt as adults that
keyed into or pushed childhood created buttons of anger and frustration did not
result in murder as the "solution". After all the majority of people who experience childhood frustrations,
abuse etc., do not appear to “solve” their frustrations by going around killing
people in horrific ways.6
This being the case then what is the
additional factor(s) that cause people to go to the serial killing “solution”
to their problems? I suspect that at least one of the facilitators to that “solution”
is media and media does it in two ways.
One aspect of the media is that it sanctifies
violence as an acceptable solution to the problem of frustration and being thwarted
and is thus made the “correct” and “acceptable” solution to the problem of
being frustrated in your wants and desires and as a solution to being oppressed
and being taken advantage of.
Thus we get Hollywood movies where
violent solutions to problems are glorified and the deaths of those that oppose
you and frustrate you justified. Violence is not shown has the last refugee “solution”
but has the first and “best” solution. And those that exercise righteous violence are
excused and justified indeed glorified.7
Thus we get the Hollywood revenge movie.
One thinks for example of movies like A
Time to Kill, in which the action and plot are deliberately set up for the
viewer to approve of a man going to a court house and gunning down two
defendants. Instead of being a last resort measure it is a first resort measure
and everything about the movie is designed to force the viewer to approve of
the killer's righteous vengeance.
And of course the various Rambo movies celebrate the need for
vengeance and punishment and dwell with exquisite relish on maiming, violence
and death. That is just one of many movie series that carry on the tradition of
justifying violence has a solution and relish in the deaths of malefactors.
Another series to heroize the righteous avenger of frustration and wrong is the
notorious Death Wish franchise, in
which has per usual everything in the movie is set up to excuse, justify and
rejoice in the protagonist righteously taking out his frustrations by gunning
people down. It is a powerful statement about the need of a “little man”
frustrated by how things are going to exercise his righteous wrath and gun down
the sub-humans who created his frustrations. Everything in the movie is
constructed to justify his murderous activities and the “system” is shown as
weak and clueless and our hero despite gunning down people almost always armed
at best with only knives shown as a hero. In fact the joy and pleasure our hero
takes in gunning down “scum” is palatable and of course the movie is set up so
we cheer him on.
The Dirty
Harry movies are another franchise created filled like the above with Mary Sues
so the writers and audience can vicariously enjoy inflicting mass death. Once again our hero is frustrated
by the system and the “rules” don’t allow him to operate like the unaccountable
member of the police he wishes he could operate as. Supposedly for a “good”
cause he, beats, abuses and threatens and yes he kills “scum”. And like the
other movies described above the movies are set up so we applaud him for it. And
of course the hero / murderer is in a constant state of frustration due to the
system which keeps his righteous violence in check. And that is to be deplored
according to the movie’s gestalt.8
In literature we get, an early
indication of the rise of the serial killer, in the works of Mickey Spillane.
Spillane’s “hero” Mick Hammer, aside from being a Mary Sue character is a
psychopath and an extreme one at that. He revels in fights, mayhem and dealing
death. And it is a very special death, often a sexualized, perverse death in
which our “hero” revels in it and enjoys it, to use an expression, “to the bone”. It is clear that in many respects Mike Hammer’s gun is a penis and every time he
shoots he metaphorically ejaculates. Thus we get the extraordinary scene in I the Jury in which Mike confronts
Charlotte. He has figured out that she has killed his partner along with some
other people and Mike knows that if it ever went to trial it would fail so righteously
he says:
“No Charlotte, I’m
the jury now, and the judge, and I have a promise to keep. Beautiful as you
are, as much as I almost loved you. I sentence you to death.”9
Then we get the sex linking it
inexorably to the violence.
Her thumbs
hooked in the fragile silk of the panties and pulled them down. She stepped out
of them as delicately as one coming from a bathtub. She was completely naked
now. A suntanned goddess giving herself to her lover.10
Our righteous hero who doesn’t trust the
judicial system and so of course is justified in gunning down an unarmed naked
woman shoots her in the belly. And again we read about how it was justified.
Mr. Spillane writes that there was a gun behind Mike and she would have killed
him if he hadn’t shot her. Of course given that he just told her he would kill
her. Who could have blamed her? But the final moment of sheer sadistic
relishing in the righteous infliction of death now follows:
“How c-could
you?” she gasped.
I only had a
moment before talking to a corpse, but I got it in.
“It was easy,” I
said.11
Thus does Mike Hammer relish and enjoy
the cold blooded killing of an unarmed woman. And of course everything is set up
to excuse and justify his behavior. Subsequently Mike Hammer has a literary
character would kill and kill again, and beat, maim and torture suspects. He
would relish and enjoy inflicting death with a sexualized joy and pleasure. In
virtually all respects Mike Hammer would remain a psychopathic killer who
enjoyed killing and Mickey Spillane would continue to write him in such a way
has to justify his killings. Mike Hammer would kill the deviants, the strange and
the “unnatural”, the “scum” that needed to be killed.
If the media especially in the USA have
set up the idea of violence has an acceptable solution to problems, especially those
of personal “injustice” and frustration it has also done so by big media
coverage of criminal cases.
It has done this through the coverage it
gives of serial killers. It has made every effort to make such people famous
and thus important. Thus we get saturation coverage of serial killers and
killing. The reason for this is of course obvious. Such cases provide “news” at
little or no cost and guaranteed viewers who will watch it because it is
sensational; encouraged to do so by a news media that finds covering such
stories easy and cheap. After all covering real news is too hard and expensive.
Murder is just so much easier and thus sells more advertising and boosts
profits.12
Thus we get the absurd coverage of the
Simpson case which reached levels of sheer idiocy few news stories have ever
reached. Especially unimportant ones like that. Thus serial killers get lots of
coverage in TV and news media, i.e., magazines, newspapers and now the
Internet. We get cases like the Bernardo case in Canada in which for years and
years various newspapers, and TV relentlessly flogged the story and at the drop
of a hat put pictures of Karla or Bernardo on the front page.13
And of course we see the vast profusion
of true crime books, that function has violence porn to titillate their
readership with bated breath depictions of murder, torture and mayhem.
Thus we get a media that gives to frustrated,
angry people the attention they crave and feel they so richly deserve.
In fictional term we have the way the
serial killer is portrayed. For example we have TV series like Criminal Minds that dwell lovingly on
the serial killer and dwell over every salacious sick bit. The audience can
thereby enjoy vicariously the sexualized violence and depravity.14
If the true crime genre is violence porn
there is the serial killer in film. Thus we get the movie Silence of the Lambs, in it we meet Dr. Lector who is a serial
killer who kills his victims and then eats parts of them. He is portrayed as diabolically
evil, almost infinitely clever and resourceful; a demonic figure. In other words
he is a “hero”. Ordinary people are helpless against his evil, demonic
cleverness and so he plays with people and kills them at will. One expects that
fire and brimstone will exude from his pores. He is of the demonic and not of
this world. The fact is of course that serial killers are nothing even
approaching that but the figure of the serial killer as demonic evil is alluring
to some. And by giving a fictional serial killer such a demonic aspect perhaps
it encourages others to see in becoming a serial killer a way to capture and be
that frightening great figure?
If Hannibal Lector is the serial killer
as demon than Bill in the movie is the serial killer has freak. He kills women
has a way of constructing a “body suit” so he can be a “real” woman, but again
the image of the serial killer as demonic and infinitely clever and most
importantly not one of us is made central and obvious.15
But the most obvious implication of the
above is that the way the media portrays and in fact glorifies serial killers
implants the notion in some fragile and vulnerable minds that the serial
killing is a good “solution” to their problems and frustrations.
Specifically what it gives to the serial
killer is the attention that he, (Almost always a he.), feels is unjustly
withheld from him. The fact that the media concentrates attention on such
crimes makes him feel and know that at last he will get the attention he
deserves. Further much of the media justifies and excuses the use of violence
has a solution to frustration and legitimizes killing as righteous retribution
by a hero.
Thus in many respects the serial killer
is told that violence is a just solution to his frustrations and problems and
further that such a solution gives him the attention he richly deserves. Of
course the fact that so much of the media focuses with such obsessive interest
on the acts etc., of the serial killer insures that the serial killer is not in
the slightest wrong that killing people en mass will give him the attention he “deserves”.
This being the case it is likely that
cultural factors have played a powerful role in the rise of the modern serial
killer. Both in terms of setting up the idea that murder is an acceptable
solution to frustrations and personal injury, in fact in culturally sanctifying
revenge or killing, and further by giving frustrated individuals the sure
knowledge that their murderous doings will get them lots of attention.
In other words serial killers do it in
part for the publicity it generates. I suspect if there was little publicity there
would be fewer serial killers or killings. They would find other less
destructive “solutions” to their frustrations and injuries to self.16
Thus in a culture saturated with images
of the righteous killer, in which insults to one’s personal honor are thought
to justify mindless violence in retaliation and further that such acts of vicious
mayhem generate a lot of media attention we should not be surprised by the
growth of the serial killer. I suppose we should be grateful there are not
more.
In the end it appears that freedom has
its price and in our case one of the prices is how the culture plays into the
warped psyches of some people and helps to produce the lethal “solution” of
serial killing.
It
appears that we will have to redouble our efforts to inculcate in people that
the solution of violence in our cultural artifacts belong in our cultural artifacts
and do not spill over into real life.
1. Leyton, Elliott, Hunting Humans, McClelland-Bantam Inc., Toronto, 1987, pp. 1-22.
2. For an overview of the modern
political Tyrant see Chirot, Daniel, Modern
Tyrants, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1994.
3. Footnote 1.
4. Leyton, Elliott, Men of Blood, McClelland
& Stewart, Toronto, 1996, pp. 99-114. See also posting I did, Here.
5. IBID, Leyton, 1996, pp. xiv, 114-116,
See United States Crime Rates Here.
6. Leyton, 1987, pp. 297-326.
7. See Leyton, 1996, pp. 81-86.
8. A Time to Kill, Wikipedia Here, Death
Wish, Wikipedia Here, Rambo, Wikipedia Here,
Dirty Harry, Wikipedia Here.
9. Spillane, Mickey, I, The Jury in Mickey Spillane: Five Complete Mike Hammer Novels, Avenel Books,
New York, 1987, pp. 1-136, at p. 135.
(I, The Jury was originally published in 1947.)
10. IBID.
11. IBID, p. 136.
12. Leyton, 1987, pp. 312-326.
13. In Toronto the Toronto Star and the Toronto
Sun was especially diligent in finding any excuse to put Karla and Bernardo
on the front page.
14. See previous posting Here.
15. See Silence of the Lambs, Wikipedia
Here.
16. See Leyton, 1987 for many examples.
Pierre Cloutier
No comments:
Post a Comment