TheSociologyofSerialKilling:Class,GenderandContext

440340195
Since the influx of serialised forms of murder in the postwar period and the explosion of
portrayals of serial killers (serialists) in the mass media in the past decades, behavioral experts
have been eager to explain the reasoning behind, and the significance of, serial killing. The
overwhelming conclusion of this essay is that a psychological, pathological explanation of this
phenomenon alone is weak. Without exploring dimensions of serial killing which originate from
the broader societal context one is unable to account for the shifts which occur in this behavior
over time. Sociological interpretations of serial killing are a highly useful tool in exploring aspects
of this violence which are unseen by pathological views. These include class, gender, and the
extent to which serial killing is a product of its broader sociocultural context, in the modernity of
mass media and anonymity, or in the postmodern context of transnational capital. However, this
essay takes a critical approach to each thesis to determine its usefulness and validity, reaching
aconclusionaboutthestudyasawhole.
Firstly, sociological interpretation of serial killing at its most basic level begins with the study of
deviance. Any study of serial killing must begin with a definition of serial killing, which is not a
legal definition, but a socially constructed one. The conventional definition of someone who has
killed three or more people with a cooling off period between murders is generally accepted by
the legal establishment as well as the mass media. However Haggerty (2009: 169) notes that
this definition is surprisingly inclusive of soldiers, hired assassins and others not included in the
cultural image of the serial killer. This argues for a constructivist idea of deviance that is relative
for different cultures. Critics of cultural relativity use killing as an example of deviance which is
universally unacceptable, however BenYahuda (2006: 562) claims The injunction against killing
is supposed to be a universal, but, in fact, under certain circumstances, the killing of certain
parties is permitted, tolerated, or even encouraged. Thus, a case is easily made for the
sociological explanation of serial killing over a purely psychological one, since what we define as
serialkillingisinherentlysociological.
Building off this, mertonian theories of serial killings are those which explain serial killing as the
destructive outcome of dysfunctional sociocultural goals and how they are to be achieved
(Merton, 1938: 676). The classical analytical example given by Merton is that of the American
dream whereby the conflicting sociocultural goals of material prosperity and ambition results in a
crisis of Anomie producing a number of behaviors, including criminality, as a result. Mertonian
theories of serial killing, from the class and feminist perspectives, while sometimes not
referencingMertonhimself,suggestserialkillinghassimilaroriginsinsocioculturalconditions.
Leytons Mertonian analysis of class argues serial killing is thus a form of homicidal protest as
class conditions provide the basis for members of certain socioeconomic groups to murder
members of opposing or challenging groups within ones economic/historical context. Leytons
seminal work Hunting Humans: the rise of the modern multiple murderer outlines three broad
socioeconomic contexts from which multiple murderers can originate. The preindustrial context
emphasises the challenging of the aristocratic class by both peasants and mercantilists (Leyton,
1986: 270). Hence much documentation of multiple murder from this period, though there always
issues with evidence from this period seems to fit in the image of a challenged nobility.
Moreover, Leyton argues the industrial period new middle class functionaries fed on the lower
class as the heinous conclusion the unprecedented control demanded by the cashnexus of
industrial capitalism (Grover & Soothill, 1997: 6). Finally, serial killing in the postWorld War II
modern period reverses the power relationship between killers and victims, with most serialists
being from lower classes (Leyton, 1986: 287) and targeting upper class victims who frustrate
theireconomicambitions.
However, Leytons thesis is problematic. He adequately argues that that psychological
explanations of serial killing are not entirely sufficient in explaining phenomena and that a
sociological explanation is necessary, but his is not sufficient. Firstly, it does not account for the
dimensions of gender in its theoretical understanding, and secondly, it is not supported by
empirical evidence. In Grover and Soothills (1999: 9) analysis of British serialists from 1960 to
1997, victims were seen to be largely disenfranchised, lower class women, gay men, and
children, and the few exceptions to this do not make it clear that the middle and upper class
victims were chosen because of their status. Combining this with the issues with historical
evidence of industrial and preindustrial times, the empirical data supporting Leytons already
vaguedemarcatedperiodsseemspoor.
Moreover, what Grover and Soothills data does support is a feminist perspective on serial killing,
which Leytons literature largely omits. Female serialists are largely exceptions to the norm,
whereas females and children represent a large portion of victims of these crimes. Feminist
approaches to serial killing are essentially Mertonian in nature, arguing that this violence is rooted
in the cultural platform of society rather than in pathological causes (Cameron and Frazer, 1987:
118). More empirical evidence supporting the feminist dimensions to serial killing are seen in
Hickeys (1997: 153) data on male serialists displaying that male reasons for killing are almost
always sex and control, qualities typically identified as patriarchal. Females serialists, far
fewer in number, reported it was mostly money behind their ambitions. Cameron and Frazier
(1987: 112) argue serial killing is not particularly deviant behavior it lies on a foundation of
violence against women which is ignored and unaccounted for by society. They also subscribe
to the labelling theory of Becker and others that there is no crime unless it is labelled as such
(1873: 113). Hence, a large amount of sexualised crime is unseen by society as a large amount
of multiple murders go unsolved and serialists unprosecuted. Furthermore, although prosecuted
cases are widely reported on by the mass media, the true face of serial killing as a culturally
originating phenomena is obscured by the pathologisation of serialists by psychologists and
otherexperts.
However, what the feminist theory leaves out is the causes of serial killing which are contextual
to modernity. Other theories posit the influence of mass media in creating a feedback loop which
facilitates the media event of serial killing and catalyses it. This places the idea of serial killing
(rather than multiple killing as studied by Leyton) in a distinctly modern context. In the context of
an anonymous society (discussed in depth later) not only are celebrities some of the few
individuals people know in detail, but the image of the celebrity is the idealised figure to which
people should aspire. There are many notorious examples of serialists who communicate
directly with the media, and who are reportedly proud of their celebrity status, such as the Zodiac
killer, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy to name a few (Haggerty, 2009: 174). Not only are the
media addicted to images and reports on the happenings of serial killers, but this continued
attention has then gone on to influence the behavior of serialists themselves. While it is
reductionist to claim that serialists kill entirely due to media reporting, media is often an important
factor in shaping the nature and identity of those who kill (ibid). The structured, clearly
demarcated, highly specific image of the serial killer in television, films, the news, true crime
literature, video games and a number of other formats is a deviant image which can be adopted
by troubled individuals. Hence, before modernity, without this specific image, serial killing was
more diversified since the means of identity generation were entirely local. However, the media
generated thesis of serial killing can be criticised as a confirmation bias. Serialists who choose
highly visible, shocking, intentionally public means of murder are the ones which are notable to
us and hence our image of the serialist is selective. Those who kill inconspicuously and whose
victimsarestillunfoundorunidentifiedtodayareexcludedfromthisimage.
Haggerty also notes that the conception of anonymous society is almost an exclusively modern
social paradigm which is a major catalyst of serial killing. He notes that premodern lives saw a
small amount of social connections over a lifetime and almost no strangers. Modernity and thus
urbanisation brought a relatively quick end to this societal state. Such dense urban environments
characterised by routinized impersonal relationships are ideal territory for the activities of a
serialist. In an interview with a popular science magazine, (DNews, 2009) Haggerty argued about
aserialistwhoattackedprostitutesintheearlymodernperiod
prostitutes were much more integrated into a community. They were known, they
knew their clients. I would say it's probably inconceivable for [the serialist] to have
repeatedly preyed on these people in a very small geographic region and have gotten
awaywithitbackthen.
However, the empirical evidence again does not support these claims in entirety. Hickey (1997:
159) claims that roughly a third of the male serialists victims are known to him, whereas more
than half of a female serialists victims are known to her. This data rejects the notion that serial
killers could be catalysed by anonymous society entirely, but it does seem to be a factor in some
form.
Postmodern interpretations of serial killing focus on the commodified transgressions of serialists
inline with contextual socioeconomic changes in the postwar period. King (2006: 112) argues
that the stategenerated concept of the self is transgressed by the act of killing, overcoming the
hyperrationalised, anonymous, self imposed by modern society. In doing this the serialist
utilises and fuses with commodities, signifying a shift with the proliferation of multinational capital
into interpersonal relations. Seltzer (1998: 64) notes on the significance of serial in serial
killers
serial killing cannot be separated from the general forms of seriality, collection,
and counting conspicuous in consumer society, and the forms of fetishism the
collecting of things and representations, persons and personthings like bodies that
traverseit
King (2006: 116) draws numerous connections between the ecstatic intercouse which
serialists recieve from commodified transgressions and the commodities promoted by the
power of multinational capital which dominates the postwar context. The serial killer is thus an
embodiment of the postmodern self, independent of the state yet embedded in the act of
consumption. Thus the postmodern interpretations of serial killing are not entirely inclusive of
other perspectives mentioned earlier such as gender, class, and the uniqueness of modernity.
Since serial killing has become one of the most quintessential topics of contemporary pop
culture (Hickey, 2010: 4) their analysis draws more on serial killing as a conceptual idea and as it
isseenbysociety,ratherthanthedimensionsofserialkillingintherealworld.
Hence, sociological interpretations of serial killing present a highly useful and convincing
perspective on serialised murder over the past few centuries. This is especially true compared
with the pathologised psychological explanations which portray serialists as purely rogue
individuals devoid of any societal influence, causing the erasure of their victims who are
consistently disenfranchised from the historical record. However Mertonian analysis of this
behavior from the perspectives of class and gender are much more explanatory of the broader
societal influences of patriarchy and class domination. Moreover, factors such as celebrity
society and the increasing anonymity of local communities which are contextual to the modern
epoch are also emphasised. Finally, the advent of postmodernity provides an entirely different
perspective seeing consumer society and transnational capital as key to the understanding of
serial killing. One thing is clear: each theory has key issues associated with it especially when
empirical evidence is used to provisionally test these claims. However as a whole, sociological
explanations of serial killing have wide utility in both explaining the reasons behind it and the fluid
nature of it assuming a critical approach is taken to interpret each hypothesis for its usefulness
andvalidity.

References
Cameron,D.andFrazer,E.(1987).Thelusttokill.1sted.Cambridge:PolityPress.
DNews, (2009). Serial Killers Shaped by Society, Study Claims : DNews. [online] Available at:
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/serialkillersociety.htm [Accessed 13 Sep.
2014].
Grover,C.andSoothill,K.(1999).Britishserialkilling:towardsastructuralexplanation.
Haggerty,K.(2009).Modernserialkillers.Crime,Media,Culture,5(2),pp.168187.
Hickey, E. (1997). Serial murderers and their victims. 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole
Pub.Co.
Hickey, E. (2010). Serial murderers and their victims. 6th ed. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole
Pub.Co.
Hinch, R. and Hepburn, C. (1998). Researching serial murder: Methodological and definitional
problems.ElectronicJournalofSociology,3(2),pp.111.
King, A. (2006). Serial killing and the postmodern self. History of the Human Sciences, 19(3),
pp.109125.
Seltzer,M.(1998).Serialkillers.1sted.NewYork:Routledge.