When Trinity said that, naturally he didn’t really know what he was talking about. He was a cold-blooded serial killer, completely devoid of humanity. Not all killers are cold-blooded by design. But for Trinity, the ritual of the kill and what it stands for to him completely consumed the original emotional impetus that drove the first killings. The habit of murder is what makes a killer a serial killer. And though suffering and emptiness, two humanistic experiences, may lay the foundation--it is the desensitization to remorse that peels back the moral binding that would usually constrict a citizen. To liken this to the animals, though… is that a speciesist sentiment?
There is still a school of thought, unfortunately a prevalent one, which casts doubt on animals’ ability to feel pain. (“Our Beliefs”**) If something as elementary to existence as the experience of pain is arguable to the experience of non-humans, then their emotions must be imaginary by comparison. In the past, we have explained the apparent expressions of sadness and discontent in animals as a mimicry of human emotions, without the, what I guess is, the soulful core that makes OUR experience real, and theirs artificial. This arrogance really bothers me, but then again, my membership is with humanity. Is there a healthy compromise, devoid of arrogance, where we can distinguish ourselves apart without making presumptions on the consciousness and, really, the sentience of other beings?
The television-show V explores these distinctions between humans and animals allegorically by the V’s “imitating” human emotional expressions because they don’t authentically “feel” them. To the V’s, the vast emotional realm humans experience is beyond weakness… it is an elaborate delusion, the origin of which eludes V’s, but as a science of paralanguage and semantics can be deliberately done for manipulative purposes. Does my pet dog manipulate me? And is that any different from the way/the how/the why my nephew does it?
Just by being around us, animals learn our ways. But like in the Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Andersen, do they gain a soul by doing so? Or do they remain automatons? Also, by being around one another, and existing within civilization, do we not get the same education that the animals and aliens get?
In the same way that pet animals and wild animals can be distinguished because of the way a pet animal responds to the human population, do we credit “domestication” as the reason alien beings (in V) sometimes switch allegiance to our side? Or how serial killers can defy their wild, murderous nature and appear to join society? Are serial killers “mimics”? Or do they benefit from the assumption that having a proclivity for “human emotions,” even if they choose to deny them, makes them more human than a pet cat ever could be? Can a serial killer be “domesticated”? Isn’t that what rehab institutions set out to do?
And is my emotionality a result of my domestication? We define the humanity of animals by how they show what they feel. But humans, in order to be sophisticated, must one-up the animals by discretion. We dehumanize “ghetto” people (so-called) who are hotheaded and outburst rudely. What’s the standard of humanity, and humanism, among our own kind?
Yet my emotions are as tenacious as the instincts of animals. They pounce, they hunt, they fall prey to external variables, and yet they emanate from my core as basic to me as hunger and need. My emotions are untamed, and anything I do to moderate their expression is simply my desire to not stick out too much. I may have total control over my actions, and I exercise that control with diplomacy and respect, and my body and persona may act by walking a middle ground. But my heart, no matter how little it may reveal of its true emotions, is wild. Am I faking my own humanity?
* "Road Kill." Dexter. Showtime. 15 November 2009.
** “Our Beliefs.” World Society for the Protection of Animals. www.wspca.org.uk
In the same way that pet animals and wild animals can be distinguished because of the way a pet animal responds to the human population, do we credit “domestication” as the reason alien beings (in V) sometimes switch allegiance to our side? Or how serial killers can defy their wild, murderous nature and appear to join society? Are serial killers “mimics”? Or do they benefit from the assumption that having a proclivity for “human emotions,” even if they choose to deny them, makes them more human than a pet cat ever could be? Can a serial killer be “domesticated”? Isn’t that what rehab institutions set out to do?
And is my emotionality a result of my domestication? We define the humanity of animals by how they show what they feel. But humans, in order to be sophisticated, must one-up the animals by discretion. We dehumanize “ghetto” people (so-called) who are hotheaded and outburst rudely. What’s the standard of humanity, and humanism, among our own kind?
Yet my emotions are as tenacious as the instincts of animals. They pounce, they hunt, they fall prey to external variables, and yet they emanate from my core as basic to me as hunger and need. My emotions are untamed, and anything I do to moderate their expression is simply my desire to not stick out too much. I may have total control over my actions, and I exercise that control with diplomacy and respect, and my body and persona may act by walking a middle ground. But my heart, no matter how little it may reveal of its true emotions, is wild. Am I faking my own humanity?
* "Road Kill." Dexter. Showtime. 15 November 2009.
** “Our Beliefs.” World Society for the Protection of Animals. www.wspca.org.uk
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSerial killers are really defined by their compulsion to kill, it's not necessarily a habit. A soldier expects that he may need to kill as part of his job and it might become a habit, but the compulsion is not there. It does not feel as necessary as a breath of air, like it does for many serial killers.
ReplyDeleteSome may kill once a year or on a fixed timeline, similar to Trinity in Dexter, but many do have consciences and try to fight the urge and only kill when the build up of stress is so present that it seems the only option for release. There is also the distinction between 'spree' killers and actual serial killers. In order to be accurately classified as a serial killer, there must be a defined amount of time between kills with what is referred to as a 'cooling off period' between kills. A spree killer is much more erratic, usually triggered by an event marked by an extreme loss of control, say a job loss or divorce - with his kills being concentrated in a much more finite timeline with no real cooling off period. Then there are mass murderers, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Dexter's Dark Passenger (not sure if you've read the books, but this compulsion is given a name in the books and it's onlu briefly referenced in the show) is his name for this compulsion. For someone like Dexter, the witnessing of his mother's murder and subsequent lack of psychological support were the precursors to his violent future. Animals constantly witness violence, but it is not out of the ordinary and I think that this is the true distinction. An animal is not going to be affected by witnessing another animal's death because that is the way that it is and the way that it will always be, animals need to often kill to survive and this instinct is innate, as is their "acceptance" of violence as a necessity. It is an expectation from birth that violence is very much a part of the life of an animal (whether they are prey or predators, it is a constant) Humans do not, so when that shift occurs, its effects can be profound. Humans that do commit violent crimes do so for a number of reasons, some are in fact born that way and can likely never be rehabilitated, some are traumatized that their development is skewed on a path to violence. Still, it is not NECESSARY nor is it routine, more a product of circumstance. Humans are not behaving like animals when they kill, they are behaving like humans who have had their psyche irrevocably damaged in some way, whether it is due to nature or nurture.
I was chatting with my stepmother about a conversation she had with a woman who believed that cats could not form memories in a significant way, but could respond to cues in a Pavlovian way. My stepmother, owner of many cats over the years, though this was a ridiculous notion. In domesticated animals it seems as though this might be true, simply because consistency and routine can cause days to blend into each other, but then you look at something like Christian the Lion, also a (big) cat. His "owners" let him go into the wild and then a year later went back to see him. They were warned that the lion might not recognize him, but he did. If a jungle cat can remember people from a year ago after being in the wild, animals can feel pain and can remember. His emotions were not altered by his time in the wild and he was still able to recognize his owners, giving them what you might call a very human hug while on two legs. Animals have to accept violence because they live in the wild, but they still have an 'inner voice' and can form meaningful connections.
Tom, I agree with you. I think that being in a society, however primal, is also about learning boundaries and law, therefore in order to secure a humane status and dignity in our society, we do have to LEARN how to be in it. As for your take on animals, while that is how I tend to feel, I also think that its kind of like arguing for life on Mars just because we are carbon-based creatures needing a delicate balance of factors to make life possible... in that we just can't know what out there has a mind and what its thoughts are. And we certainly can't take their behavior as an indicator, just because as a species our behaviors are so psychologically driven and reveal so much about us. I watched a meerkat for an hour standing on its hind legs looking into shadows in the trees. In my opinion, it was contemplating. And who knows, it may have been philosophy, or religion, or whatever topic a meerkat thinks about in its own framework. I don't think animals are just primal, but possess layers of identity and ego like we do.
ReplyDeleteAli, your expertise on criminal justice really shows! The different types of killers makes it so that giving a broad term is really sort of flippant to do. I also see how one type of killer can transition into another, and only retrospect can provide the overview to the true M.O.... Your anecdote about cats was so interesting, because I do spend long amounts of time away from Luna, and she remembers things. Also, Cordelia and I have "inside jokes." Her reactions may be Pavlovian, but her ability to draw upon a behavior after so much time has passed implies, to me, a something-more-ness that is not to be overlooked.