Fragile masculinity: social inequalities in the narrative frame and discursive construction of a mass shooter’s autobiography/manifesto
Chrystie Myketiak
Mass shootings, where four or more people are injured or killed, are widely constructed as a contemporary American social problem. This article uses critical discourse analysis guided by thematic analysis to examine the text written and distributed by a mass shooter in California in 2014. Analysis of the narrative frame and discursive construction shows that the author is motivated by a precarious or ‘fragile’ relationship to masculinity that involves positioning himself against both women and other minority ethnic men in a way that underscores multiple social inequalities. This work contributes to the social science of narrative by building on the connections between positioning theory and framing, which are applied to a text that contributes to debates in feminist linguistics and broader discussions of mass shootings. The findings contribute to feminist linguistics by demonstrating how a mass shooter uses language to rationalise his actions through a frame of hegemonic masculinity based on social inequalities, namely gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality and social class. Finally, this work contributes to broader discussions of mass shooters by demonstrating how this mass shooter does not construct or position himself in a way that is exceptional or extraordinary but rather hinges on a fragile form of contemporary masculinity that uses violence as a way to prove self-worth, dominance and superiority.
Introduction
On 23 May 2014, in Isla Vista, California, a young man stabbed three men to death in his apartment, shot three women at a sorority house (killing two), shot and killed one man in a deli, and then drove through the city’s streets shooting and injuring several pedestrians while striking others with his car. Police found the perpetrator, Elliot Rodger, in his car, dead from a self-inflicted gunshot. In the autobiography or manifesto called My twisted world: The story of Elliot Rodger that he circulated on the day of the murders he alternates between referring to himself as a weak, invisible, good guy and a magnificent, superior god who posits that a beautiful, blonde girlfriend will provide him with recognition from others. As the text progresses, he gives up on the idea of a girlfriend, believing that women have persecuted him, and plans a ‘Day of Retribution’ to be enacted primarily towards women, whom he blames for rejecting him, and secondarily towards the men he believes that women prefer.
This article uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) grounded by thematic analysis to investigate framing and positioning within the text. While the shooter may have had mental health issues, as some newspaper articles have underscored (e.g. Nagourney, Cieply, Feuer, & Lovett, 2014; Parker, 2014), he does not emphasise his mental health in the text.1 The research question in this data-driven analysis is how this mass shooter discursively constructs his narrative frame with respect to women and minority ethnic men, given that he refers to himself as ‘half white’ (Rodger, 2014, p. 17, 84), ‘half-Asian’ (Rodger, 2014, p. 17, 121) and ‘Eurasian’ (Rodger, 2014, p. 121). This question is addressed because women/sexuality are a key theme in the text, and how this theme intersects with race/ethnicity contributes to the understanding of social inequalities and cultural codes, particularly as they concern mass shootings and masculinity.
Mass shootings
Mass shootings are a serious social issue in the United States, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports that the number of active shootings doubled between 2000–2006 and 2007–2013 (FBI, 2013).2 Statistics on the number of mass shootings vary greatly: from a low of 64 between 2000 and 2013 (FBI, 2013) and a high of approximately 1000 occurring between November 2012 and October 2015, as calculated by the website www.shootingtracker.com, which crowd-sourced information before joining the non-profit organisation Gun Violence Archive in 2016. While the statistics from a crowd-sourced website/non-profit organisation may appear to lack legitimacy, they are worth mentioning because broadsheet news organisations have repeatedly used them, making the statistics appear both prominent and credible to the general public, while mass shootings are constructed as newsworthy.3
The variation in the data can be attributed to different definitions of ‘mass shooting’. The statistics on the lower end reflect the FBI’s precise definition, which is currently defined as ‘three or more killings in a single incident’ (FBI, 2013, p. 9), and excludes shootings that can be attributed to gang- or drug-related violence (FBI, 2013, p. 5). The federal explanation of a ‘single incident’ is dependent upon the event occurring within a ‘confined and populated area’ (FBI, 2013, p. 5). ‘Confined’ operates as a linguistic marker that requires the caveat that incidents occurring outside, albeit in a confined space, are included (FBI, 2013). The Gun Violence Archive uses the more flexible criteria of an incident in which at least four people are injured or killed, which includes the intent to kill, and the possibility that the actions are carried out over a general space. The mass shooting discussed in this article fits within the more open definition: three individuals were shot, with two killed, in one location; another was shot and killed shortly after; then more individuals were shot and injured as the perpetrator drove through the city’s streets.4 In addition to the gun violence, three people were stabbed to death and others were struck by the offender’s automobile.5
While there is disparity in mass shooting definitions, demographics about shooters are consistent. Men commit the vast majority of these crimes, and findings show minimal variation: 95.8% from 1976 to 2011 (Fox & DeLateur, 2014), 96.2% from 2000 to 2013 (FBI, 2013) and 97.7% from 1966 to 2015 (Bridges & Tober, 2016). Although women are extremely unlikely to perpetrate mass shootings, they represent 43.4% of mass shooting victims but only 23.4% of all murder victims (Fox & Levin, 2015). As well as the over-representation men as perpetrators and of women as victims in this murder subtype, there is an obstinate association of whiteness with both mass murderers and mass shooters (Lankford, 2016); however, approximately 62% of American mass shooters are considered white (Fox & DeLateur, 2014), while 2010 Census data indicates that 74.8% of the American population identifies as white (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011).6
Masculinity discourses
Studies of masculinity have stressed that masculinity is a social and cultural construct that is variable across space, time and practice (e.g. Bridges, 2014; Connell, 1995; Coston & Kimmel, 2012), although not all versions are valued equally (Connell, 1995). Hegemonic masculinity derives meaning from its relationship to both femininities and non-hegemonic masculinities, and serves an orienting function, which ‘require[s] all other men to position themselves in relation to it’ (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). With these two elements working in tandem, hegemonic masculinity supports the dominance of men and the subordination of others, particularly women.
Although hegemonic masculinity is related to issues of privilege and oppression, it is not a binary in which people are either privileged or marginalised. Individuals have multiple identities, some of which may accord them with privilege (e.g. masculinity and whiteness) and others that may not (e.g. queerness and poverty), and not all those who benefit from inequality may feel privileged (Kimmel, 2013). One reason why this may be the case is that gender can be considered ‘done’ (West & Zimmerman, 1987) or constituted in everyday life. If we consider hegemonic masculinity as comprised in practices, it can be gained or lost. This means that it is possible to reconceptualise ‘attributes’, which tend to be seen as fixed or inherent, as values that are demonstrated. If thought this way, masculinity is associated with: bravery, strength, dependability, emotional stability, rationality and economic security (Coston & Kimmel, 2012, p. 98). People can exhibit various aspects of masculinity in one interaction, or even in a conversational turn, as sociolinguists have shown (e.g. Coates, 2003; Kiesling, 2007). Masculinity can also be demonstrated through symbols as Stroud’s (2012) work shows, which investigates the reasons that men carry concealed handguns, finding that they often do so out of fantasies of violence. For these men, the gun symbolises bravery, strength and the ability to protect others – grounding the wearer’s ideas (and ideals) of hegemonic masculinity. As well as the physical gun, Mechling (2014) discusses how ‘marksmanship’ was constructed by American rifle organisations as an activity for developing characteristics associated with masculinity, such as mental alertness, competitiveness and physical fitness. The argument here is that masculinity can be understood as practices enacted into being that realise and constitute gender, individually and socio-culturally.
Related to hegemonic masculinity is the notion that there are a number of ways in which its ‘fragility’ or contestability can be exhibited in everyday life. This is heightened by what Kimmel (2013, p. xiii) describes as ‘the end of the era of men’s entitlement, the era in which a young man could assume, without question, it was not only “a man’s world”, but a straight man’s world’. Examples where this can be seen include: symbols (e.g. carrying a concealed handgun to demonstrate bravery on demand, because the value [i.e. bravery] requires a prop); consumer products (e.g. tissues marketed as ‘mansize’ or satchels as ‘manbags’, implying that gender-neutral products are insufficiently masculine); communicative practices (e.g. saying ‘no homo’ after demonstrating affection or complimenting another man in order to stress heterosexuality, implying that compliments and affection are not hetero-masculine practices).
In other words, the fragility of masculinity is the sticky space of enacting masculinity within narrow confines, and the fear of being caught failing at demonstrating dominance and superiority, given that hegemonic masculinity is privileged and rewarded (Kimmel, 2013). Because of the relationship between the practice and its acceptance, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) assert that hegemonic masculinity is proved, which is echoed by Coston and Kimmel (2012, p. 99) who state, ‘masculinity often includes a preoccupation with proving gender to others’. Critical to the notion of proving masculinity is the idea that individuals’ actions (e.g. the interactional level) are understood and interpreted as symbolic performances (e.g. placed within social and cultural contexts).
Theorising masculinity in a way that takes its delicacy into consideration links to ‘positioning’ (cf. Harré & van Lagenhove, 1999), which serves as an alternative view to the more traditional and fixed ‘role’ (Harré, Moghaddam, Cairnie, Rothbart, & Sabat, 2009). Positioning works as a metaphor on multiple levels when used to understand social and linguistic dynamics. Starting from the spatial metaphor that people occupy positions, and that these change (e.g. sitting/standing; professor/partner), at the socio-interactional level people communicate ideas about themselves (self-positioning) and attempt to place others. To understand masculinity within positioning theory emphasises how masculinity is constructed, flexible and dependent upon the axes of time and space.
‘Hegemonic masculinity’ is not a fixed character type, always and everywhere the same. It is, rather, the masculinity that occupies the hegemonic position in a given pattern of gender relations, a position that is always contestable … It is the successful claim to authority, more than direct violence, that is the mark of hegemony. (Connell, 1995, p. 77)
Here Connell (1995) posits that hegemonic masculinity rest...
