War Is Hell: Vietnam, Social Turmoil & the Serial Killer
Jul 28, 2014 17:00:26 GMT
geko and albion like this
Post by pendleton on Jul 28, 2014 17:00:26 GMT
There has been a lot of talk on the board lately about war and the military's possible roll in the psychological conditioning of serial killers. Much of this talk seems to stem from the short article I wrote on social anthropology and the serial killer.
earonsgsk.proboards.com/thread/1116/social-anthropology-serial-killer
I'd like to share my own thoughts on the subject and how it relates to my original theory. .
In my first article above I touched on the social despondency multiple murderers grapple with and how I believe that by devoting their life to killing, they're seeking much more than perverse, personal pleasure. Many serial killers have described their killings as if they were a mission to be completed.They choose to put their own life in jeopardy for their cause. In essence they see themselves as soldiers. And in many ways, they are.
We're all familiar with the term, "War is hell." A statement I'm sure we'd all agree with. War is hell because people die. War is hell because social structures that took lifetimes to build can be eradicated in a heartbeat. War is hell because it makes beasts of men. War is the very definition of social turmoil. Social turmoil, is what I believe drives the serial killer.
What causes a man to be a beast in war? All men that go to war know they're there to fight and to kill but what causes the overkill? What causes things like rape, the killing of innocents, the so called 'fog of war'? It's the erosion of that same social value, "Thou shall not kill." In order for a soldier to gain the ability to kill with ease and efficiency that social value must be suppressed or even eradicated. Over 16 million Americans served in WWII and less than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam. Yet the number of atrocities committed by American soldiers (even at the highest level) in Vietnam is astounding. What caused this seemingly rapid devolution of the American military that was, in the eyes of the world, such a short time ago a true hero of the 'last great war'? Much like the serial killer, I think, it was a heady mixture of social and psychological conditioning.
After the dust had settled from WWII the American military had time to assess the battle and ponder their strengths and weakness. One glaring weakness was found in their soldiers' willingness to kill. Statistically only 15-20% of American soldiers were willing to fire at a living target. That means only 1 in 5 soldiers fired on a Nazi when he saw one. Similar statistics appeared in the air with about 1% of America's fighter pilots responsible for about 40% of enemy planes brought down. In these statistics we see the human animal acting much as he should. Animals rarely kill their own species. Even when they fight, it's rarely to the death. But the human animal is a social animal and that pull of social responsibility can be manipulated by those at the top of the human social hierarchy. A soldier is a soldier. A soldier that can not kill is a useless soldier. Those statistics had to change. And they did. By the time the Korean war ended that 15-20% had risen to 55% and by Vietnam, it was a staggering 90-95%. How was this achieved?
It was achieved through social conditioning. That conditioning began with breaking down the soldier. Anyone that's familiar with 'bootcamp' type training knows that it is based on fear. Fear is the best tool for manipulating the human animal. Fear that you're not good enough, fear that you're not strong enough, fear that if you can't take the pain you'll experience more pain than you can bare, fear that you will loose the respect of your fellow soldiers, fear that you will be shunned from your new social class. Its interesting but not surprising how similar new recruits and captured enemy are treated by the military. Once the sense of self has been suppressed, then the social conditioning can begin. The man is no longer a man. He's a Marine. He has a purpose. That purpose is to kill. He has a legacy. That legacy is that he's a soldier.
In Vietnam the conscription age was lower than in WWII (19 instead of 21). Many young men essentially came of age as soldiers in Vietnam. Anyone that's been in the military can tell you that two of the main themes that dominate the daily social structure of being a soldier are sex and violence. They're used as a tool by military instructors and by soldiers as a means to repress their own fears in a hyper-masculin, hyper-violent society (we see the same social structure in prisons, again eluding to the similarities between the new recruit and the captured enemy).
Vietnam also marked the first war where the average soldier really didn't know what he was fighting for. Most talked about stopping the spread of communism (not the manufacture and exportation of latex). Or who the enemy really was. The American military viewed the Vietnamese as almost sub-human. Most soldiers that fought in Vietnam never even saw the enemy, yet their highest priority was to kill them. American soldiers were rewarded for their kills. And those that had confirmed kills were revered. The US Military wanted numbers. The more dead meant they were winning that (unwinnable) war. This lead to an astounding amount of unauthorized killings, civilian killings, over killings and eventually atrocities like My Lai. All to be rewarded at the end of the day with a case of beer and a John Wayne flick.
Back in the US there was outrage. And rightfully so. The American people were not under the 'fog of war' and had not been subjected to the same type of social and psychological conditioning that the young men in Vietnam had been exposed to. Yet at the same time, they couldn't understand it. They didn't feel threatened like they did during WWII. If anything, they were more worried about the effect this pointless brutal war was having on their society. The Vietnam war marks the first time America entered into war for profit. War as a commodity. And America has been doing it ever since. That change in dynamics, I believe, is equal to the industrial revolution in many ways. Man's ability to kill without empathy has become a commodity. The living target that was so hard to shoot back in WWII is now simply a 'target', civilians are 'collateral' damage and the soldier is as expandable as ammunition. There are now more homeless Vietnam veterans then there were US soldiers killed in Vietnam. And the veterans of our modern wars seem to be heading in a similar direction. That speaks more about war and our society then anything I can say.
But what does all this mean when it comes to serial killers? It's hard to say. Many of you have pointed out that few named serial killers were Vietnam war vets. That's true. Yet, as I said, they often see themselves as soldiers. They often seek out positions of authority. Be it the military, the police, the post office, even dog catchers. They seem to have a deep routed sense of civic responsibility. Yet they seem plagued by social turmoil. And turmoil is turmoil. A constant back and forth. I don't think any of us can put our finger precisely on the role that war and the military has in the creation of the serial killer but I think we can all agree it's in there somewhere. In study, when something comes up over and over, it's rarely coincidence. Social upheaval, the erosion of social values, killing, sex violence, fear and the human animal. All these things come to mind when we talk about war. All these things come to mind when we talk about serial killers. What it all means is still uncertain. But like a disease, the closer we get to truly understanding it the closer we get to eradicating it. Sadly, I think, in many ways we're heading in the opposite direction.
earonsgsk.proboards.com/thread/1116/social-anthropology-serial-killer
I'd like to share my own thoughts on the subject and how it relates to my original theory. .
In my first article above I touched on the social despondency multiple murderers grapple with and how I believe that by devoting their life to killing, they're seeking much more than perverse, personal pleasure. Many serial killers have described their killings as if they were a mission to be completed.They choose to put their own life in jeopardy for their cause. In essence they see themselves as soldiers. And in many ways, they are.
We're all familiar with the term, "War is hell." A statement I'm sure we'd all agree with. War is hell because people die. War is hell because social structures that took lifetimes to build can be eradicated in a heartbeat. War is hell because it makes beasts of men. War is the very definition of social turmoil. Social turmoil, is what I believe drives the serial killer.
What causes a man to be a beast in war? All men that go to war know they're there to fight and to kill but what causes the overkill? What causes things like rape, the killing of innocents, the so called 'fog of war'? It's the erosion of that same social value, "Thou shall not kill." In order for a soldier to gain the ability to kill with ease and efficiency that social value must be suppressed or even eradicated. Over 16 million Americans served in WWII and less than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam. Yet the number of atrocities committed by American soldiers (even at the highest level) in Vietnam is astounding. What caused this seemingly rapid devolution of the American military that was, in the eyes of the world, such a short time ago a true hero of the 'last great war'? Much like the serial killer, I think, it was a heady mixture of social and psychological conditioning.
After the dust had settled from WWII the American military had time to assess the battle and ponder their strengths and weakness. One glaring weakness was found in their soldiers' willingness to kill. Statistically only 15-20% of American soldiers were willing to fire at a living target. That means only 1 in 5 soldiers fired on a Nazi when he saw one. Similar statistics appeared in the air with about 1% of America's fighter pilots responsible for about 40% of enemy planes brought down. In these statistics we see the human animal acting much as he should. Animals rarely kill their own species. Even when they fight, it's rarely to the death. But the human animal is a social animal and that pull of social responsibility can be manipulated by those at the top of the human social hierarchy. A soldier is a soldier. A soldier that can not kill is a useless soldier. Those statistics had to change. And they did. By the time the Korean war ended that 15-20% had risen to 55% and by Vietnam, it was a staggering 90-95%. How was this achieved?
It was achieved through social conditioning. That conditioning began with breaking down the soldier. Anyone that's familiar with 'bootcamp' type training knows that it is based on fear. Fear is the best tool for manipulating the human animal. Fear that you're not good enough, fear that you're not strong enough, fear that if you can't take the pain you'll experience more pain than you can bare, fear that you will loose the respect of your fellow soldiers, fear that you will be shunned from your new social class. Its interesting but not surprising how similar new recruits and captured enemy are treated by the military. Once the sense of self has been suppressed, then the social conditioning can begin. The man is no longer a man. He's a Marine. He has a purpose. That purpose is to kill. He has a legacy. That legacy is that he's a soldier.
In Vietnam the conscription age was lower than in WWII (19 instead of 21). Many young men essentially came of age as soldiers in Vietnam. Anyone that's been in the military can tell you that two of the main themes that dominate the daily social structure of being a soldier are sex and violence. They're used as a tool by military instructors and by soldiers as a means to repress their own fears in a hyper-masculin, hyper-violent society (we see the same social structure in prisons, again eluding to the similarities between the new recruit and the captured enemy).
Vietnam also marked the first war where the average soldier really didn't know what he was fighting for. Most talked about stopping the spread of communism (not the manufacture and exportation of latex). Or who the enemy really was. The American military viewed the Vietnamese as almost sub-human. Most soldiers that fought in Vietnam never even saw the enemy, yet their highest priority was to kill them. American soldiers were rewarded for their kills. And those that had confirmed kills were revered. The US Military wanted numbers. The more dead meant they were winning that (unwinnable) war. This lead to an astounding amount of unauthorized killings, civilian killings, over killings and eventually atrocities like My Lai. All to be rewarded at the end of the day with a case of beer and a John Wayne flick.
Back in the US there was outrage. And rightfully so. The American people were not under the 'fog of war' and had not been subjected to the same type of social and psychological conditioning that the young men in Vietnam had been exposed to. Yet at the same time, they couldn't understand it. They didn't feel threatened like they did during WWII. If anything, they were more worried about the effect this pointless brutal war was having on their society. The Vietnam war marks the first time America entered into war for profit. War as a commodity. And America has been doing it ever since. That change in dynamics, I believe, is equal to the industrial revolution in many ways. Man's ability to kill without empathy has become a commodity. The living target that was so hard to shoot back in WWII is now simply a 'target', civilians are 'collateral' damage and the soldier is as expandable as ammunition. There are now more homeless Vietnam veterans then there were US soldiers killed in Vietnam. And the veterans of our modern wars seem to be heading in a similar direction. That speaks more about war and our society then anything I can say.
But what does all this mean when it comes to serial killers? It's hard to say. Many of you have pointed out that few named serial killers were Vietnam war vets. That's true. Yet, as I said, they often see themselves as soldiers. They often seek out positions of authority. Be it the military, the police, the post office, even dog catchers. They seem to have a deep routed sense of civic responsibility. Yet they seem plagued by social turmoil. And turmoil is turmoil. A constant back and forth. I don't think any of us can put our finger precisely on the role that war and the military has in the creation of the serial killer but I think we can all agree it's in there somewhere. In study, when something comes up over and over, it's rarely coincidence. Social upheaval, the erosion of social values, killing, sex violence, fear and the human animal. All these things come to mind when we talk about war. All these things come to mind when we talk about serial killers. What it all means is still uncertain. But like a disease, the closer we get to truly understanding it the closer we get to eradicating it. Sadly, I think, in many ways we're heading in the opposite direction.
