I really cannot remember how this book's existence came to me but somewhere through the fields of text some writer cited a book called, "Serial Killers: Death and Life in America's Wound Culture." Mark Seltzer wrote it and it was published in 1998, so its over twenty years old. (Amazon Link).
His book basically attempts to explain the modern obsession and creation of serial killers and mass murderers. "Stranger killings." The common approaches to this topic failed to answer the undying curiosity that 1) we have a lot more of mass killers now; 2) and was "Jack The Ripper" the first serial killer? or is fame to blame for the rise in violence? Video games? Dungeons and Dragons? (I also read "Slaying the Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons" by Ben Riggs) All the fast answers that get dropped for another fast answer seem totally pointless and wasteful. These answer point to evil influences in childhood the turns a child into an evil senseless killer. But that common theory totally fails to explain two things, 1) the majority of horrible childhoods do not create serial killers and 2) some adequate childhoods create childhood killers. So?
I'm not totally throwing out childhood as an influence but are there some other thoughts laying around? I'm tired of the ones that we have already heard. So I broke down and paid for JSTOR subscription instead of trying to finagle free stuff, cheapness takes longer. That's when I found references to Mark Seltzer's book. But who is Mark Seltzer, I mean, who cares what he thinks about serial killers? Indeed. When I searched "Wiki Mark Seltzer" good old Google returned white claw adicles about White Claw, Hard Seltzer. Oh yeah. That is today's Colt 45 for anyone keeping score, "Works every time."
But Mark Seltzer "is Evan Frankel Professor of Literature and Distinguished Professor in the Department of English" at UCLA. He focuses on American literature, contemporary studies, systems theory, and media studies. "He has worked extensively on the problem of violence in modern society and modern art, and currently is writing on the practices and aesthetics of suspense today."
And there it is, "the problem of violence in modern society. . ." modern violence. Perhaps Mr. Seltzer's book will shed new questions and ideas on modern violence. Reading his book does not disappoint. It is thoroughly cited (and I have grabbed a few articles and book suggestions from his citations) and is quite articulate. His work treads in the zones that Slavoj Zizek, Graham Harman and Catherine Malabou (and more, this is to give a flavor of the wide range of thinkers cited) but on modern violence. He also reveals a great knowledge of actual serial and mass killers in history as a reward for reading his book. The best of both worlds appear here--real academic discussion on bloody maniacal mayhem. However, because this book is serious I find myself questioning whether I actually know what words mean. Not fancy words but do I really understand the ideas behind commonly used words like "identification?"
I'm early in the book and I am not trying to say I understand everything already, but there are passages where over-identification with generic people in typical spaces leads to extreme violence. I'm teaching myself here so please stay off my case if its not a perfect interpretation but that is what I am getting. This typicality or genericness with the average, normal "extras" in public spaces, like malls, commutes, trains, etc. triggers this violence. In fact, it can cause a stranger killer to overly identify with the "space" itself. This is when I say, crap, do I even understand what identification is? That's when I look it up. I look up identification to understand what over-identification is just so I can understand the Mr. Seltzer's theory and its implications.
"Identification" is an everyday word. It's in everything from what you bring with you to a club to a public relations moniker to criticize anti-discrimination causes, ". . .it's all identity politics. . ." . I felt like I understood it, I even felt like I had seen the definition multiple times. If I do not actually know what it means how can I understand that overdoing identification could lead to serial murder.
"Identification" is one of those powerful words whose power comes from its appearance as a common everyday word that actually covers up its meaning. Most people feel, "I use it, I read it, I don't need to look it up." This seems like where real propaganda and persuasion live. Words whose meanings are understood just enough that you do not look them up to see what is being done to us or our minds when using it. I had to look up "identification" to understand what might be meant by "overidentification" in Seltzer's book. I didn't do some etymological OED word forensics, I just wanted the common accepted definitions. Below I pulled the common definitions of identification and over-identification.
Identification has about three common definitions. (Merriam-Webster Definition). First identifying means, just seeing or figuring out the "identity" someone or something. I get this, like you figure out that the gal over there is Megan Thee Stallion. There's only one and you recognize her, so that's identifying. Sherlock Holmes identifies the killer through an exact finger print, etc. This is when you discovery the specific name of someone or something. Identification also applies to categories too. We identify an eight-legged, hard-shelled, web spinning animal as a spider or belonging to whatever the scientific label is. A species is identified as belonging to a category. That makes sense.
Identification labels animals with certain characteristics into a certain group. It also puts people into social groups with a common purpose or outlook. For instance, all humans who want to support the environment might be called "Environmentalists." Identifying with a group can be done by you on your own or forced onto you by someone else. You could see a group doing graffiti and you might feel inwardly that you share their values of art, rebellion and outlook. Thus, you would self-identify as a graffiti artist, you put yourself in that category.
But others can put into a group too? Your friend can tell you that you belong to the Emo group. Even if you deny it, your friend could list of your emo-like traits and decide whether or not you agree, you are definitely Emo. This is frustrating because even if you disagree you have no power over how they identify you. This can put pressure on you, or even cause you to question whether you know yourself at all. I have seen this in the "homosexual" outing of "heterosexual" men sometimes in jest or serious. It exists in other arenas. For instance, someone might make a compelling argument that Trump supporters are actually Juggalos, or vice versa. People often provocatively use this against us to show us how inaccurate our self-assessments are.
"Identifying" is also defined as making one thing identical to another. Identical carries the same "Ident" root in the word. Identification means that something is identical to the other. The act of belonging carries with it the concept of identity and identicalness. This may be an inherent conflict in identification. The example given is identifying "wealth" with "success." Having one means the other. You can make this aspect of identification work in reverse too. Success means you have a lot money. Having a lot of money means you are successful. Thus, theses separate things are identical to each other.
This is how definitions work. I suppose the power of the definition only works if it has a lot of people that agree with it. That would be the "causing" of the identicalness. If only one person on planet earth agrees that money equals success then perhaps it has not really been caused to be identical. No one else agrees to call having a lot money "success."
Now, back to the Serial Killers. If identification means making identical or belonging to a category through common characteristics, then what is "over-identification?"
Over-identification has two common definitions. A common online dictionary defines "Overidentifying" with two meanings. The first one is extreme or inappropriate "identification." (Merriam-Webster Definition) It gives the example of a therapist identifying with a client. I suppose a therapist identifying with a client is inappropriate because then the therapist loses "critical distance" and starts to work out the therapist's own personal issues through the patient. The excessive element would be to overidentify with animals because then you would falsely expect human behavior of them, and then get gored by a bison by trying to hug it. The excessive identification with an animal can cause you to think the animal has a human inner world. I wonder if it works in the reverse. If you over-identify with an animal, could that lead to you thinking you have an animal inner world? The last piece of over-identification leads to incorrect identities. The example given is the human minds tendency to "over-identify" faces in random shapes. Identify things that are not there.
Ok, so, my next task is to try to understand, what about over-identification triggers serial/mass killer violence. The tendency for the human mind to see faces in shapes or to think of oneself as identical to a stranger or a public space may account for this modern type of killing. I need to read more.
Comments