Why We Love Serial Killers (26 page)

Intelligent and cunning serial predators of the organized variety are not the only category of killer that may be undeterred by police regulation, however. In contrast to the meticulous and organized BTK, a mentally unstable, disorganized serial predator such as Jack the Ripper will also commit murder regardless of the presence or strength of regulatory forces, but for different reasons. Unlike a cold and calculating organized killer in the vein of BTK, a disorganized killer such as the Ripper will strike whenever the need to kill becomes insatiable simply because he cannot control himself. In fact, no level of regulation will deter him.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have used the functionalist theoretical tradition of sociology to examine the effects of serial murder on society. We have looked at the work of Emile Durkheim who demonstrated that some crime and deviance are inevitable and actually beneficial to society. The functionalist tradition of sociology and Durkheim’s concept of anomie help to explain both the presence and impact of serial homicide on the collective consciousness of society. The concept of anomie also helps to explain the actions of serial killers, particularly their insatiable blood lust and contempt for authority. Durkheim’s study of suicide provides insights into the dysfunctional integration of serial killers and society’s ineffective regulation of their behavior. As explained by Durkheim, people who commit terrible crimes such as serial murder are lacking an awareness of the collective consciousness that forms the basis of social control. Serial killers thus lack the moral bonds to society that inhibit others from engaging in such savage and brutal activity.

How society responds to the existence of serial killers is the subject of the next chapter. As stated from the beginning of this book, highly stylized and distorted news media depictions of real-life serial killers transform them into something akin to macabre celebrities in the popular culture. I believe that society constructs a grizzly public identity for the serial killer and presents him as a monster in an effort to make sense of the incomprehensible nature of his crimes. In the next chapter, I present another sociological theory that helps to explain how the concept of evil is socially defined and how certain influential parties such as the news media and law enforcement authorities contribute to the social construction of the serial killer identity.

CHAPTER 9
SUBJECTIVE REALITY, MORAL PANIC, AND ATROCITY TALES

In 1928, the American sociologist W. I. Thomas said, “If men define situations as real, then they are real in their consequences.” This quote by Thomas suggests that reality is subjective and that it also reflects a consensus in society. This perspective is known as the social construction of reality, which is an extension of symbolic interactionism theory introduced in the previous chapter. If we apply the social construction of reality to the subject matter of this book, it leads us to an interesting proposition. Specifically, if the dominant image of a serial killer depicted by the police and the media is that of a larger-than-life ghoul or super predator, then this will become the accepted reality in society. From this perspective, the constant reinforcement of a stereotype by law enforcement authorities and the news media transforms serial killers into one-dimensional boogey men on the public stage. I contend that such exaggerated and stylized depictions do society a disservice by desensitizing the public to the reality of serial killers and their victims.

In this chapter, I introduce a sociological theory called
social constructionism
and a related concept known as
moral panic
which together offer insights into how and why serial killers are transformed into macabre media celebrities in modern society. I identify and discuss the roles of certain social actors who contribute to the social construction of serial killers and their monstrous public identities. These social agents include the news media, state officials such as law enforcement authorities and politicians, and the general public. I conclude this chapter by introducing a concept known as
atrocity tales
and explaining how shocking and entertaining stories of murder and mayhem contribute to the social construction of serial killers as celebrity monsters. I offer the unbelievably shocking tale of Ed Kemper, the “Co-ed Killer,” to demonstrate the power of such stories.

Social Constructionism

The social constructionist perspective is rooted in philosophical idealism, particularly the writings of Immanuel Kant. As articulated by Kant, idealism is the view that physical matter does not exist in its own right. Kant’s doctrine maintains that the human experience of things consists of how they appear to us, implying a fundamentally subjective orientation, rather than comprehending things as they are in and of themselves or recording objective data in an accurate manner. Kant argued that matter is a product of the mind. Because all objects are constructed of matter, all objects are thus mental creations. According to philosophical idealism, the world is the sum of all objects. Therefore, reality itself is a mental construction and subject to interpretation.

Philosophical idealism is in direct opposition to philosophical realism, whose adherents believe in a reality that is completely independent of our conceptual abilities, linguistic practices, or beliefs. For example, the positivist science of Auguste Comte, one of the founders of sociology and a predecessor of Emile Durkheim, is a realist perspective because it assumes that the laws of the natural sciences can be applied to society and the human condition. Kant would disagree with Comte and argue that the human experience is too subjective to quantify using the laws of formal logic or the natural sciences.

Following in the idealist tradition, social constructionism has emerged over the past fifty years as a sociological theory of knowledge that considers how social phenomena develop in particular social contexts. According to social scientists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday life, is actually constructed and reinforced through social interaction.
¹⁰⁰
The social constructionist perspective envisions reality as a dynamic and constantly contested process—that is, reality is reproduced by people acting on their knowledge and their subjective interpretations of it.

As a logical extension, the social constructionist perspective maintains that social problems do not exist objectively like a mountain or a river. Rather, they are constructed by the human mind, socially created, or constituted by those defining the problem. Therefore, the objective existence of a harmful condition such as a disease or even the appearance of a serial killer in society does not, in and of itself, constitute a social problem. From the social constructionist perspective, an objective condition does not constitute a social problem unless it
is defined as such by the members of a society in a particular context. Moreover, an objective condition does not even have to exist in order to be defined as a problem. That is, if something is thought to exist and it elicits fear, then it is “real” despite the fact that it does not exist objectively. The witch hunts in colonial New England are an example of a non-objective, socially constructed crisis. From a constructionist perspective, what makes a condition a social problem is the degree of concern felt by society about that condition, regardless of whether it is objectively harmful or whether it even exists.

It should come as no surprise that serial killers are generally described as evil in the contemporary news and entertainment media. This is a simple but powerful observation because the concept of evil is a social construction and the word “evil” has a long linguistic history. The
Oxford English Dictionary
attributes the original derivation of the word “evil” to the Goths of the fourth century A.D. who defined it as “exceeding due measure” or “overstepping proper limits.”
Webster’s College Dictionary
defines evil as “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked; harmful or injurious; due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character; evil quality, intention or conduct.” Consistent with the tenets of social constructionism,
Webster’s
College Dictionary
states that the definition of evil is socially defined. Expressed differently, behaving evilly, producing evil, and being evil are radically social processes that are defined in a particular social context.

A troubling issue with the definition of evil is that it is tautological. In other words, the definition involves circular reasoning. More specifically, one may be labeled as evil because one does evil things. Using this same logic, if one does evil things, then one is evil. This tautology is problematic because a circular argument cannot be tested or falsified. As a result, the tautological definition of evil can be exploited by those who apply the evil label to others if and when it suits their agenda. How so? If the labelers’ arguments cannot be falsified, then their claims are not subject to meaningful debate or critique by skeptics. Moreover, if the labeler is in a position of power and authority, such as an elected official or law enforcement administrator, then his or her power contributes to the legitimacy or acceptance of the label by the public. Finally, the implications of applying the label of evil to others can be grave. Once an individual or group becomes defined as evil, those in power, including elected politicians and law enforcers, have the moral authority and even obligation to eliminate them.

This brings to mind two significant questions: 1) why do powerful and important groups such as law enforcement authorities, politicians, and the mass media apply the label of evil to certain individuals and groups, and 2) why do people generally accept the label of evil without debate when it is applied to an individual or group by law enforcement authorities, politicians, and the mass media? I believe that important insights and answers to these questions may be found in a concept known as
moral panic
.

Moral Panic

The sociological concept known as moral panic offers valuable insights into how and why powerful social agents such as the news media and the police deliberately create public concern or fear of an individual or group. Moral panic has been defined as a situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular individual or group who is or are claimed to be responsible for creating the threat in the first place. The moral panic concept was developed and popularized by South African criminologist Stanley Cohen when he explained the public reaction to disturbances by youths called “mods and rockers” at seaside resorts in Brighton, England, during the 1960s. Cohen’s work illustrated how those reactions influenced the formation and enforcement of social policy, law, and societal perceptions of threats posed by the youth groups.

As originally explained by Stanley Cohen, a moral panic has occurred when:

. . . a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values or interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians or other right-thinking people. . . . Sometimes the subject of the panic is quite novel and at other times it is something which has been in existence long enough, but suddenly appears in the limelight. Sometimes the panic passes over and is forgotten . . . at other times it has more serious and long lasting repercussion and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way society conceives itself.
¹⁰¹

Moreover, the threat is presented and characterized in a manner that typically far exceeds the objective or actual level of danger. Following
in the social constructionist tradition, the moral panic concept has been applied to a wide range of social problems including but not limited to youth gangs, school violence, child abuse, Satanism, wilding, flag burning, illegal immigration, and terrorism.

Central to the moral panic concept is an argument that public concern or fear over an alleged social problem is mutually beneficial to state officials—that is, politicians and law enforcement authorities—and the news media. The relationship between state officials and the media is symbiotic in that politicians and law enforcement need communication channels to distribute their rhetoric, and the media need tantalizing news content to attract a wide audience which, in turn, attracts advertisers. Thus, state officials and the news media have powerful operational and financial incentives to cooperate with one another.

Moral panics arise when distorted mass media campaigns are used to create fear, reinforce stereotypes, and exacerbate pre-existing divisions in the world, often based on race, ethnicity, and social class. Additionally, moral panics have three distinguishing characteristics. First, there is a focused attention on the behavior, whether real or imagined, of certain individuals or groups that are transformed into what Cohen referred to as “folk devils” by the mass media. This is accomplished when the media strip these folk devils of all favorable characteristics and apply exclusively negative ones. Second, there is a gap between the concern over a condition and the objective threat it poses. Typically, the objective threat is far less than popularly perceived due to how it is presented by authorities. Third, there is a great deal of fluctuation over time in the level of concern over a condition. The typical pattern begins with the discovery of the threat, followed by a rapid rise and then peak in public concern, which then subsequently, and often abruptly, subsides. Finally, public hysteria over a perceived problem often results in the passing of legislation that is highly punitive, unnecessary, and serves to justify the agendas of those in positions of power and authority. Sociologists Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda succinctly summarized that a moral panic “locates a ‘folk devil,’ is shared, is out of synch with the measurable seriousness of the condition that generates it, and varies in intensity over time.”
¹⁰²