Crime and the Media: Headlines vs. Reality Book

Forgive the rough sketch as I outline it here but "I blame society." Charles Manson said as much. Perhaps serial killers are fascinating because they are a nexus point of structural couplings in modern society between differentiated subsystems such as law, politics, art/entertainment and of course academia. The social systems theorist Niklas Luhmann said as much, even if he never discussed serial murder directly. Instead of "structural couplings", Prof. Schmid uses the term "multiaccentuality" to describe the social contingency of serial murder. Schmid borrows the term from Marxist theory where it has been used to convey how a "linguistic sign 'becomes an arena of the class struggle[.]'" (p. 6, fn 5) Here we have some foreshadowing of the direction Schmid is going with this. Like the Marxists, Schmid has a few bones to pick with society it seems. Such anti-social activity as serial murder, even if it is also "social" in an academic or sociological sense, of course shares this quality of contingency, especially on the level of meaning, with terrorism, as Prof. Schmid points out in a later chapter. Like terrorists and other adherents of avant-garde philosophy, his "critique" tends towards "interrogation", as he apparently has a problem with audiences (the bourgeoisie!) getting too comfortable. No one would argue we should become comfortable with violence, except perhaps terrorists or revolutionaries, but again we are talking about cinematic or "true crime" violence, which if you haven't ever seen or experienced real violence, is quite different. This seems to be a problem typical of academics and artists at times too, who are usually well removed from real violence and may tend to almost subconsciously and quite vehemently confuse the imaginary violence onscreen or in print with the actuality of real violence. If Schmid had his way all serial killer movies would be as bleak and pessimistic as Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer or Man Bites Dog. Yes, great films and I've seen them both. They are disturbing for the audience, yes, and that is the point of those films too. Still the flipside of art is entertainment, and Schmid perhaps should take a break and watch Caro Diario, a film that offers its own critique of Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer, or particularly criticism of the fawning reviews of Henry by bombastic film critics, when writer/director Nanni Moretti asks concerning the celebratory film reviewer, "I wonder if whoever wrote this, before falling asleep, has a moment of remorse?" Do critics of film, or society even, ever have moments of remorse? Or are they off the hook completely? (Yes, here I'm thinking about the famous scene from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, where the meat hook is mostly in the mind of the audience.) Or do critics always get to blame society for its troubles? To paraphrase Anthony Swofford in his famous memoir Jarhead, 'there is no such thing as an anti-war war movie.' Perhaps there is no such thing as an 'anti-serial killer' serial killer movie, or book. If this is Schmid's point then it is fairly trivial (as in simple or the opposite of complex) even if it undercuts his thesis, that society is to blame, but then social critics often pretend that society is a trivial machine, easily manipulated, so long as it supports their point of view or cause even one might say. When others make similar points about right or wrong, good or evil, Schmid falls back on enchantment cloaked in the verbiage of sociology or "complex social dynamics". Schmid wants to accuse us (the audience) of complicity with serial murder. Take Twin Peaks for example which Schmid discusses (criticizes) at length. By situating a type of evil that is supernatural or "outside" society, Schmid suggests the creator David Lynch, in situating evil as related to "the supernatural", is avoiding the difficult conversation about such "complex social dynamics" as homophobia or misogyny that reflect the narrative of serial killers and the surrounding celebrity culture. I would offer merely the counterpoint that when looking at a star in the night sky it is sometimes necessary to look just to one side of the celestial object for a better view. Lynch's narrative technique here ultimately allows us to look more directly at the problem, which like the famous meat hook from the aforementioned Texas Chainsaw Massacre takes place almost entirely in the human mind. By situating this evil force outside of society, Lynch makes a point similar to the aforementioned sociologist and social systems theorist Niklas Luhmann, that human consciousness (or the "psychic system" as Luhmann calls it) is a mystery and ultimately located in the environment of society or, as one might say, *outside* of the social system itself. This view of humanity and society is both more complex and offers empathy for murderers as well as victims, though without conflating the two, as theorists such as Schmid or the more famous and violent critic of society, Charles Manson, would have us do. In this context I would only mention in passing the rational case made by C. S. Lewis that human consciousness itself is supernatural. "No sense makes sense," indeed. More to the point, in Schmid's text (I can't speak for his mind) apparently everyone is a monster except for serial killers, who after all just need to be heard. It's a cry for help, a scream against the monstrous society full of people desperate to be perceived as "normal". Yes, that's sarcasm. I will admit that this book has a lot of useful background material and information so I can't totally fail it but the guy gets a two star rating merely for his attitude of general avant-garde decrepitude. Take for example, Schmid's feud with the FBI. I will admit I'm not a total fan of that institution, nor of any human institution entirely, merely by virtue of being myself a human caught up in this system, nor given recent history would I consent to an FBI interview without my attorney present. Nonetheless I do see that FBI agents too are human beings. The agency itself, as Schmid should know, is not a human being and doesn't have motives, only social operations. However, Schmid ascribes all sorts of motives to the FBI, nearly every kind of motive, except for the most obvious one of its human agents, that they might want to catch murderers of women and children. In Schmid's deluded and overly academic mind, gangsters and serial killers are just invented as monsters for the social or group cohesion and I guess it must not really be monstrous to murder women and children. Yes serial killers are human beings and they have a need to connect socially as we all do, they just do it in monstrous ways. For Schmid there is no sliding scale between normal and monster, and the FBI, they are the real monsters. We could reverse this clever trick of saturnalia like this - academics don't have any real motive to learn and increase the knowledge and understanding of humankind but rather wish only for self-aggrandizement and research grants. Similarly regarding society, again an entity that has no motives itself, Schmid always assumes the most sinister selection. For example, he cites Foucault to show how the delineation of a type is somehow monstrous, yet fails to consider that as the idea of "the homosexual" as type is developing, so too the idea of "the individual" develops as well. Naturally this is some sinister social plot to single out homosexuals and other so-called "deviants" or "monsters" and not just the evolution of society without telos from a hierarchical social system (where there are no "individuals" and roles are assigned from birth) to a non-hierarchical or "modern" (differentiated) society where "individuals" must define themselves ... apparently violently at times which yes is rather unfortunate. Identity is always violence or so claims one of Schmid's sources, so perhaps we can forgive the serial killers but more importantly the FBI and, let us not forget, the academics and the critics of society, for they know not what they do. I'm not sure what would happen to serial killers in Schmid's ideal society. Would they vanish in a puff of administrative smoke, merely a figment of our social imagination? My guess is we'll never know, unless perhaps we take a look at Soviet Russia under Stalin, or Cambodia under Pol Pot, both of whom managed to rack up quite a body count the last I checked. Still I'm sure they were only trying to subvert "multiaccentuality" and make sure none of their victims were ever (EVER!) comfortable in a movie theater.