Weekend blogger Hortense of Jezebel says
Each day, more information is filtering out regarding Philip Markoff, the 22-year-old medical student accused of being “the Craigslist killer.” Most of that information, good and bad, is coming from those who knew Markoff personally.
...
Naturally we begin to cast characters in such a story: here, we have a “clean cut” accused murderer and his “blonde bombshell” fiance, a perfect storm of Lifetime movie scandal, intrigue, and beauty: these educated, seemingly “normal” people, the public exclaims, aren’t supposed to be in a situation like this! How strange! How creepy! How do we make sense of such a thing?
...
Whether or not Philip Markoff is guilty, the fact remains that when a story like this breaks, everyone’s memories spill out in order to create a composite picture of the man in the handcuffs; we are constantly seeking the signs, the defense, the point at which we should have, could have, must have seen something. We are so hardwired to view people in a certain light that we’ll shift our thinking to suit whatever purpose makes us feel a little safer, a little more aware.
I can’t find the link but that last line echos something Audacia Ray said last week from an inside/sex-worker perspective. But Hortense’s larger point seems first that we use stereotypes as a framework when we’re trying to piece together insufficient information. And that’s actually great — stereotypes are really good for that. But what she also says
We live in an era where you can’t afford to hesitate: the court of public opinion is swifter and more damning than ever, thanks to our rapid methods of communication, and the accused often find themselves in a weird state of media hysterics, with both supporters and detractors rushing forward to tell their version of an as-yet unsolved story. With each detail released about “the Craigslist killer,” the media storm grows, as we are, for some reason, drawn to the darker sides of one another, desperate to know what happened, and how, and if there was anything that could have stopped such a tragedy.
When we’re faced with a) personal concern and b) tight, high-pressure media cycles we run the (very real) risk of mixing stereotype as temporary framework while we assemble facts… with stereotype as templates for which facts are gathered and placed depending on whether or not they fit our stereotypes. That, on the other hand, is not really great. Or, I should say, it’s great for opera, but it’s terrible for trying to understand ourselves and others and our places in the world. (Sometimes, by the way, I swear the cable news networks make up their little scrolling chirons, icons, and flash-backgrounds and then send reporters out to find quotes that match them. I obviously don’t accuse Fox in that accusation — I don’t believe they’ve ever seriously claimed they do journalism.)
Anyway, it’s a cool, cool post. Not least because we don’t just confuse opera and real life in major news events. When we’re not careful the same mechanisms lead us to cast similar roles inside our relationships with family, co-workers, and even partners.
Submitted by 2883 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-04-27 02:44.
Another networked featured the story last night. It pissed me off, investigating him, to find out why he might of done it. It is funny how he cant have agency, while many young persons of color must have.
[Yeah, funny how that works, Five. "Society made me do it" being so commonly rejected by conservatives when non-elites say it. Now a well-to-do white med student does it and suddenly it's all "ooh, how could he have fallen into this situation?" Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 2883 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-04-27 18:29.
There's a great book I read, called "The Gift of Fear" by some dude whose name I can't remember, that discusses this subject, i.e. that fact that when somebody goes nuts there's always an acquaintance around who says "he was quiet, kept to himself" or "he was clean-cut" or whatever. The author says that people who make these kinds of remarks might as well admit that they didn't know the criminal very well, and have nothing useful to say. There ARE warning signs of the kind of person who can murder someone in cold blood; how could there not be? Jeffrey Dahmer totally tortured animals & stuff when he was a kid; but after he was caught, there were neighbors & acquaintances saying how nice & likable he always seemed. (Book goes on to discuss coercive behaviors that rapists & other violent criminals use to get their victims alone & gain control over them.)
Anyway, I don't like this idea that a killer like this dude is SO polite and SO clean-cut, just like everyone else. It fosters the idea (among women, especially) that there's no way to protect yourself against violent crime, so you might as well just be scared all the time.
[Wow, I'd never considered the uncertainty angle but yeah, that would fit into a general pattern of controlling behavior. Because nothing says "stay here with the devil you know" like a nameless dread of hypothetical devils you don't. Hmm... Thanks, Emily. --fl]