Dahmer and Society: A Comparison of Sociological Approaches

Abstract

This paper explores the various sociological explanations of crime in general and applies them to Jeffrey Dahmer in particular. The theories in question are social control theory and social conflict theory, which have applications in criminology, hence the inclusion of Dahmer as a primary subject of the paper. Social control theory takes an individualistic approach to the problem and tries to explain criminal behavior as a lack of social constraint. Social conflict theory states that the societal power structure is ultimately responsible for all forms of deviance. Control theory’s perspective is supported in Dahmer’s case by a diagnosis of autism and a history of poor familiar relationships, while conflict theory is supported by the existence of a popular cultural role for the serial killer and an implicit rejection of Dahmer on the part of society due to his homosexuality.

Dahmer and Society: A Comparison of Sociological Approaches

The criminal activities of Jeffrey Dahmer are part of a subset of crime explicitly referred to as serial murder, a rather unique phenomenon that represents an extreme form of social deviance. Understanding serial murder means understanding the social forces that prompted it, or understanding the deranged mentality from which it derives. To sociologists, studying serial murder promises to illuminate less severe forms of social deviation. Several forms of explanation have been offered for delinquency generally in criminology and sociology, and successfully explaining the behavior of a psychopath such as Jeffrey Dahmer with one of these explanations would vindicate that theory to some extent. The purpose of this paper is to compare two sociological theories, social control theory and social conflict theory, and argue for how each theory’s premises might account for Dahmer’s criminal behavior.

Sociological Theories

Social control theory is a somewhat misleading term in that its tenets do not hold society itself responsible for the behavior of the individual. The role of society is mediating, but ultimately the control wielded over the individual is a form of self-control to which socializing forces contribute. An article in the American Sociological Review by Wiatrowski & Griswald (1981) should help clarify: “Since delinquency is intrinsic to human nature, it is conformity that must be explained. Conformity is achieved through socialization, the formation of a bond between individual and society” (p. 525). There are two major consequences of such a view. The first is that all individuals are assumed to possess, to some degree or another, a capacity for misbehavior and deviance. The second is that the individual restrains their antisocial behavior by forming close bonds with other people, including groups and institutions, and internalizing their values. A close bond to one’s mother, for example, can lead to a respect for the mother’s moral beliefs. A supportive friendship would, presumably, be too valuable a commodity to risk by hurting one’s friend. A key component of being emotionally invested in social bonds is the desire to preserve that connection. Since deviant behavior by definition falls outside of prescribed social rules or norms a deviant puts their connection to the rest of society, and hence the support and esteem of valued persons, at risk. Conflict theory, by contrast, approaches the problem of deviance by looking at how social power is wielded.

Conflict theory contends that social forces are wielded against the individual, both mandating proper behavior and constructing the socioeconomic environment that spurs deviance. Accordingly, the makeup of society is a motivational factor, offering all the incentives and opportunities. Even individual deviance, which is ostensibly what any society discourages, can be traced back to the socially constructed framework within which that individual was constrained. Society, in Henslin’s (1995) view, is not a mere accidental conglomeration of group pressures, but is instead a conservative structure in which “…each society is dominated by a group of elite, powerful people, and that the basic purpose of social control is to maintain the current power arrangement” (p. 197). Initial circumstances brought about conflicts as groups competed for their various needs, but when the dust settles the society that is left is one where the winner is on top of the pile and dictates its group’s values to the groups lower in the hierarchy. However, since there are always elements within that society with goals which do not conform to the upper echelon’s, those elements will inevitably come back into conflict with the greater society. Other instances of deviance can occur when the society’s values are conformed to, but the mode of enacting them is outside the provided scope. Violence, for instance, can be condoned by a society for specified purposes, and those capable of effective violence are then glorified. But that esteem is not available to those who are not soldiers or police, so those who seek that esteem outside of those roles would be deemed criminals.

Comparisons

Clearly social control theory and conflict theories operate on different scales when it comes to criminology. Control theory concentrates on the individual, treating them as a blank slate onto which normative behaviors are written via the process of socialization. Conflict theory, on the other hand, assumes that society itself defines what constitutes deviance, and conformity stems from the success of society to instill normative values. Deviance, similarly, stems from deviant values which society either inadvertently instills within the individual, or from failing to provide sufficient opportunities for the individual to fulfill socially sanctioned roles or values. The two theories approach the problem of deviance from different directions, one from the individual up to society, the other from society down to the individual. Each of these theories, when applied to the crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer, requires separate facts to support their respective explanations. For control theory it is necessary to argue that Jeffrey Dahmer lacked sufficient ties to the people around him, and make a case that Jeffrey Dahmer naturally possessed certain characteristics which predisposed him to sexual violence. The task conflict theory has when it comes to explaining Dahmer’s crimes is to establish that society either positively sanctioned his monstrous inclinations in some sense, or that society placed demands upon its population which a certain segment could not legitimately meet, resulting inevitably in the appearance of serial killers, with Dahmer’s murders being a solitary phenomenon within a larger class. First, this paper will explore control theory’s applicability to Dahmer’s case, and conflict theory will be given its chance afterward.

Considerations in Control Theory

It is important when considering whether control theory provides a compelling picture of how Jeffrey Dahmer came to be a serial murderer that care is taken not to immediately attribute mental aberration to him. Control theory contends, after all, that any particular person might commit acts of deviance if that person lacks sufficiently meaningful relationships with others. At best, any predilection toward violence and sexual depravity Dahmer may have had should take a secondary explicative role. According to Wootton (1959) it is pointed out that “The psychopath is…the model of the circular process by which mental abnormality is inferred from anti-social behavior while anti-social behavior is explained by mental abnormality” (p. 250). If an overpoweringly debauched mental state is assumed on Dahmer’s part on the basis of his deviance then it is equally valid to assume a similarly deranged mental state belongs to all deviants. By the standards of control theory this would be an incomplete story. It is also contradicted by the existence of people who deviate now and again from the norms without possessing any kind of demonstrable derangement, as well as by deranged individuals who are not themselves deviants. Dahmer’s mental debility, if any, must be integrated with a lack of social bonding.

Contributing Mental Condition

Jeffrey Dahmer did in all probability suffer from a condition which might have exacerbated his psychopathy or provided the impetus for his particular breed of violence. However, as outlined above, social control theory stipulates that the condition itself is not a sufficient explanation on its own. In an article entitled “The Case of Jeffrey Dahmer: Sexual Serial Homicide from a Neuropsychiatric Developmental Perspective” the authors contend that Dahmer suffered from a permutation of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and thus that there was an aspect of biological abnormality in his psychological makeup which they believe was responsible for his sordid history (Silva, Michelle, Gregory, 2002). Autistic individuals are not enough of a minority to conclude directly that autism leads to psychopathy, of course. The particular malady is suggestive, though, in that it supplies a reason for a lack of social bonding. Further within the aforementioned article, Jeffrey Dahmer is described as “…known to lack reciprocal social behavior, a situation that was closely linked to his inability to make close friendships with his peers. His social disability also was illustrated by his inability to participate in the interests of others” (Silva et al., 2002, p. 3). This evidence that Dahmer’s autism interfered with his ability to make or maintain relationship falls squarely within the parameters established by control theory. The mental condition is not presumed to have compelled Dahmer’s deviance directly, but rather to have been an influence which exacerbated poor social bonding. It can be argued that this evidence, however, still creates an ambiguity in which Dahmer’s autism can be construed as the primary motivator for his murders, a stance which needs addressing.

Clarifying the Contributions of Autism

The ambiguity introduced in regard to Dahmer’s motivation is a causal one; it can be clarified by determining the cause of Dahmer’s violence. More evidence of a breakdown in Dahmer’s social environment is needed to show a bond-related cause, rather than one based directly on his probable autism. Dahmer’s family history shows just such evidence: “…his psychopathology likely worsened during late adolescence when his parent’s marriage became further destabilized, culminating in divorce” (Arturo et al., 2002, p. 10). Whereas autism does not always promote violence in those afflicted, it can interfere with social bonding, and Dahmer’s bonds with his family were also severed. The notion that Dahmer’s psychopathy was a distinct condition is incompatible with social control theory, but psychopathy can be viewed consistently with the theory if one argues, as Hirschi (1969) does, that “…all of the characteristics attributed to the psychopath follow from, are effects of, his lack of attachment to others….In this view, lack of attachment to others is not merely a symptom of psychopathy, it is psychopathy” (p. 17-18). A lack of social bonding is, thus, psychopathy itself, when it comes to control theory. In this sense Jeffrey Dahmer’s serial murder can be viewed in light of the absence of any restraining relationships, and hence, as psychopathy.

Conflict Theory Perspective

In conflict theory the concern is not in how the psychopath relates to the society around them but in how society forms the psychopath. Unequal distribution of resources can create competition between individuals, and this goes for nonmaterial resources as well. If there are no viable routes to acclaim, esteem, whatever it is which society has determined for its members to be the thing to seek after, then there will be those who try to obtain it through means not condoned by that society. If Jeffrey Dahmer is such an individual then “Instead of interrogating Dahmer’s past (and especially his childhood) in our search for, say, the “key” to his motivation, perhaps we need to examine the relation of dreams of violence, of racial and sexual purity, of closure, of death, to our dominant culture and its dreams” (Tithecott, 1997, p. 7). Thus, since Dahmer’s crimes were sexually charged and violent, then we should look at society’s attitudes toward sex and violence and see how these relate to Dahmer himself, if indeed they do.

The Role of the Serial Killer in Myth

According to conflict theory, the roles of individuals within society, even deviant ones, are invariably those which the society itself has prescribed. Logically, then, the role of serial killer must have been provided to Dahmer before he began to act to fulfill it. If this is true then we ought to see evidence of a fascination with serial killing within the culture Dahmer belonged to, or some cultural purpose for the idea. Joseph Grixti (1995) proposes that such a fascination does in fact exist, writing that

Criminals, psychopaths, and murderers have consistently attracted the attention of writers and readers of all levels of fiction, but it is in popular literature that bloodthirsty murders have been most frequently contemplated. Murderers have here tended to be depicted in terms that frighten and disturb, and they have frequently (consciously or unconsciously) been made to serve ideologically weighted functions. Such functions include providing challenging reminders about the need for constant vigilance, or offering reassurance about the ultimate rightness of law-enforcement structures as guardians and embodiments of the social and moral order. (p. 87)

The role provided by society for the serial killer is the role of the antagonist, but it is also the only normative role which society allows those who fail to live within the categories given to them. Public fascination with serial killers lends credence to the idea that it has mythological cachet, that it fulfills a psychological need in answer to society’s strictures. But it is not enough to show that serial killers are found interesting. What needs to be shown is that the serial killer is a vital, maybe an indispensable role to the Western power structure.

The role of the serial killer is protected by the mythology surrounding it, rendering it a persistent truth in the Western minds. It is a protected role because it is presumed to be inescapable, which is to say natural. Such an idea is inherently ideological, serving as a justification for the presence of protective elements in society. Authority that wields violence needs a justification so that it does not make subordinate members of society uneasy, and the existence of serial killers offers that justification. In other words, an opposite is needed against which the social forces can array themselves so that the social order appears necessary and correct (Tithecott, 1997, p. 7). The fact that the serial killer is thought to be produced by nature, a madman or somebody whose natural drives are too strong, is a preservative thought that distances conforming members of society from the fact of violence while ensuring that the serial kill mythology is not subject to question.

Attempts to eliminate the phenomenon of serial killing by changing the social order is inherently counterproductive to maintaining the power structure, according to conflict theory, and hence it is to be expected that “…this partnership of nature and crime has been, in effect, a partnership in crime, that there is a connection between the naturalization of the criminal and the expectancy and the reality of victimhood” (Tithecott, 1997, p. 8). Exactly as would be expected in conflict theory, a role has been provided for by the society for those elements which are rejected by it. This only applies to Jeffrey Dahmer, of course, if he was in fact rejected by society.

Rejection by Society

As a homosexual, Jeffrey Dahmer had no acceptable way to express his sexual identity. In Western societies much of the prevailing morality stems from Judeo-Christian beliefs, including the place of sexual roles. According to Davies (1982), in ancient Jewish tradition categorizations were founded as ways to preserve the identity of a landless people (p. 1036). As these categories were tied into Jewish identity they had a moral component on top of their pragmatic functioning (Davies, 1982, p. 1035). Threatening the boundaries between categories was seen as intolerable, and thus homosexuality was intolerable because it threatened the boundary between male and female sexuality (Davies, 1982, p. 1035). Contemporary popular arguments which claim that marriage is the sole province of men and women is a clear callback to such societal tradition. Dhamer would doubtless have been aware of the pervasive disapproval of society toward his sexual identity.

Having no outlet for his sexuality that was legitimate, Dahmer thus enacted the role of antagonist. The masculinity he was supposed to have upheld was sublimated into violence, while his sexual proclivities became surreptitious eroticism with his victims. The antagonistic role is vital to the functioning of Western society, and as a sexual deviant it was one of the few roles open to him. An article from Davis (1941) in the American Sociological Review reviewed the “…fundamental importance in America of age, sex, and class instigations and goals in the socialization of the human organism”, concluding that “…so-called “biological drives” reach their psychological threshold only in socially determined form” (p. 345). Furthermore, a study of sexual permissiveness by McConahay & McConahay (1977) revealed that “…sex-role rigidity was highly correlated with violence” (p. 134). The results seem to indicate that Dahmer’s violence stemmed from frustration having to do with societal rejection brought about by a cultural tradition of especially strict sexual categorization. His violence fell well within the established role of threat to civilization because it not only justified authoritarian violence, but it also appeared to be natural due to his innate homosexuality.

Conclusion

In conclusion it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient evidence to suggest viable explanations for Jeffrey Dahmer’s serial murder spree in both the social control and social conflict paradigms. For social control, the likelihood that Dahmer was an autistic, combined with the dissolution of his family unit, makes plausible a lack of the socialization needed to prevent him from expressing deviance. For conflict theory, the popularity of serial killers in entertainment media suggests the existence of a mythology which psychologically validates martial prowess in present Western society. A correlation between violence and rigid sex roles, and a history of rigid sex roles in Western culture combined with the fact that Dahmer was a homosexual, provides a framework for interpretation. His social rejection and consequent adoption of a cultural role which is both rejected and psychologically essential to the prevailing culture is totally compatible with conflict theory. As each theory operates on different social scales, however, either could be the proper one. Indeed, since control theory adequately supplies a picture of Dahmer’s progression into deviance on the individual level, and since his individual case fit within the general rules laid out by conflict theory, one can surmise that each is true.

Annotated Bibliography

Davies, C. (1982). Sexual Taboos and Social Boundaries. American Journal of Sociology, 87(5), 1032-1063. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2778417?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103116443103

Davies writes an illuminating article that manages not only to connect Western sexual taboos, especially those pertaining to homosexuality, but also to explain some of the more esoteric proscriptions found in the book of Leviticus. He submits that the Jewish rules of sacredness are largely an attempt to preserve the identity of the itinerant Jewish people of antiquity by enforcing strict categorizations that include binary definitions of masculinity and femininity. Any sort of intermediate practice, or ambiguous formation, which could be found was forbidden. The mixture of any two distinctly categorized entities was likewise forbidden.

This text was very useful for laying out a structural moral underpinning for a cultural bias against homosexuality which could have contributed to Jeffrey Dahmer’s deviant behavior under the social conflict theory. Examples given from the book of Leviticus manage to present a coherent argument for strict categorization in sacred Judaic tradition. A concise explication of the linkage between homosexual rejection and these categories is given as well. The writing style is simple to digest yet not lacking in reputable evidence.

Davis, A. (1941). American Status Systems and the Socialization of the Child. American Sociological Review, 6(3), 345-356. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2086191?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103116443103

This article presents the view that while biological responses are not perfectly understood their enactment always follows the nature of how they were socialized. This kind of theory was vital in developing this paper because it lends credence to the conflict theory by suggesting that the specific forms of deviant behaviors are culturally formed. It also avoids giving a biological explanation for deviant behavior which would have fit in more appropriately in the context of social control theory. Since the conflict theory perspective presented in this paper was that Dahmer’s serial killing was a deviance-phenomenon which was presented to him by ubiquitous societal influence, the opinion given in the article was vital.

Grixti, J. (1995). Consuming Cannibals: Psychopathic Killers as Archetypes and CulturalIcons. Journal of American Culture, 18(1), 87-96. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1995.1801_87.x/abstract

The first page of Grixti’s article provided a viewpoint sufficient for the purposes of this paper. The crux of the paper dealt with the portrayal of serial killers as protagonists or anti-heroes of sorts in American popular culture. An explicit reference to Jeffrey Dahmer made the subject relevant to the conflict theory portions of this paper, in that it established that Dahmer had successfully filled a role which was in demand by society. This represents a consummation of the deviance promulgated by the status quo.

Silva, J A., Ferrari M. M., & Leong G. B. (2002). The Case of Jeffrey Dahmer: Sexual Serial Homicide from a Neuropsychiatric Developmental Perspective. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47(6), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.murderpedia.org/male.D/images/dahmer-jeffrey/docs/jeffrey-dahmer-silva-et-al.pdf

Silva et al. reflected in their article on the perspective of Tithecott toward Jeffrey Dahmer’s case and expressed a concern that the biopsychosocial explanation they offer would not be popularly received, laying outside the mystique surrounding the case. The authors proceed to examine the history of medical and anecdotal data relating to Dahmer’s childhood and late life. Using this as a launching point, they contend that Dahmer suffered from Asperger’s syndrome, and they utilize the remainder of the paper exploring this notion. Data charts are given to support their theory, and multiple aspects of Asperger’s syndrome as it relates to psychopathic behavior are examined, along with the neurobiological basis for presuming that Dahmer suffered from such. They end with suggestions for further research avenues.

Henslin, J. M. (1995). Sociology: A Down-To-Earth Approach. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

This textbook by Henslin presents a wide overview of sociological concepts for the beginning student. It offers a full index along with citations, and a glossary of terms. A multitude of examples and references to notable sociological publications are included amidst the text, which is concise and written in a simplistic style with a minimum of jargon.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

The text’s musings on control theory and its relevance regarding psychopathy were contributory to the sections on control theory present in this paper. Its contention that lack of attachment constituted psychopathy meshed with Silva’s theory, in that Asperger’s syndrome was, in Silva’s paper, attributed as the cause of Dahmer’s lack of social attachment. Hirschi’s book provided the basis for taking Silva’s data and using it to argue for an explanation of Dahmer’s serial murders under control theory. It was also largely responsible for presenting a potential misunderstanding of control theory in which mental deformity is thought to be a causal agent of deviance, when in fact control theory dictates that the operative factor is a lack of constraining socialization. This was a key consideration in laying out this paper’s treatment of control theory regarding Dahmer, and the decision to use that section in part to disambiguate that issue.

McConahay, S. A., McConahay J. B. (1977). Sexual Permissiveness, Sex-Role Rigidity, and Violence Across Cultures. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 134–143. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb02009.x/abstract

The abstract for this article was the primary reference of this paper. It presented a summary of experimental results which showed a connection between sex role rigidity and violence, helping to support a role-based theory of deviance. The usefulness of this to the conflict theory portion of this paper was primarily in the violent nature of the studied deviance.

Tithecott, R. (1997). Of Men and Monsters: Jeffrey Dahmer and the Construction of the Serial Killer. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

This book was the most compelling source in support of conflict theory. Pointing out that serial killing is almost exclusively an American phenomenon was enough to direct research toward Western social conventions, as well as questions of role fulfillment. The book is itself interesting on its own merits, but the aid it provided for this paper was invaluable, supplying several research leads.

Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswald, D. B., & Roberts M. K. (1981). Social Control Theory and Delinquency. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 525-541. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2094936?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103116443103

Wiatrowski et al.’s article was important in providing a quote that explicates the relationship between conformity, deviance, and social control theory. This paper on Dahmer required a concise interpretation of control theory that would suit the disambiguation given under that section of the text. The article in question specified that conformity was what control theory focused on, not deviance, which was a key statement.

Wootton, B. (1959). Social Science and Social Pathology. New York: Macmillan.

A brief summary of the ambiguity problem for control theory, the wherein mental abnormality can be erroneously assumed to be the motivational factor for violent deviance, was necessary to introduce the concept to its readers. The quote given from Wootton’s text served the purpose admirably.