The Role of the other in Mass Murder

The fact that homicides have thus far been conceptualized as an “event” indicates the existence of variables both intrinsic (motive) and extrinsic (luck/chance) to the chain of incidents leading to its “culmination.” Consequently, when both variables interact, the identities of the participants become unclear, since homicide may be an accidental effect of “sibling offense” rather than the fruition of substantial homicidal intention. To illustrate the nebulousness of categorical identities in homicide contexts, I used parricide as an example of homicide that subverts the meaning of signifiers such as “victim,” “hero,” and “father” (see Shon, “Desire”).

But there is another simple reason, in addition to making classificatory distinctions using psychoanalytic concepts, why parricide cases do not pose a problem for homicide researchers. A significant portion of parricides are one-on-one, meaning that one offender (usually a teenage male) kills the victim (father/mother) during the course of an argument, robbery, or other largely unknown (that is, unknown to the police at the time of filing of the report) events (Shon & Targonski). Hence, although the psychoanalytic dimensions of the motive themselves are still complex, the exclusive character and range of victims preclude other dynamics that may operate in the crime: certain assumptions about the nature of homicides are taken for granted.

In this paper I look at homicide cases that do not have a clear and distinct one-on-one victim/offender relationship: mass murder. Using the Columbine High School incident as a case example, I argue for the need to make distinctions within homicide events; and once victims, both intended and actualized, are examined psychoanalytically, the simplistic assumptions of one-on-one homicides become evident. Looking at cases of mass murder, victimology (and other situational characteristics of the crime), informed by Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, may reveal several dynamics concurrently opera