By Minna Nikunen
I chose to research news on murder-suicide for three reasons. First, the phenomenon of murder-suicide is a good example of gendered violence because these homicides often take place in families and between men and women. When these acts are explained, gender and gendered meanings are used explicitly. Secondly, these acts have sometimes been named “extended suicides”; as if those who are killed would be parts of perpetrators identity. Furthermore, theories of extended suicide seem to hint that it is the wife and children that are parts of men’s identities, and children are part of mother’s identities. According to the literature other kinds of murder-suicides do not fit in to the category of extended suicides. Thirdly, newspaper texts reveal how acts of lethal violence are under stood in our culture.
Social and moral orders
How are the categories of fatherhood and motherhood related to violence in Finnish newspaper articles? Using a gender perspective, I am interested in the ways people make sense of events of social life. I focus on categorisations in order to find out the social orders that are created and moral orders that are mobilised. In the analysis I use “Membership Categorization Analysis”. In short, the idea is that people are categorised as representatives of certain groups (by gender, age, occupation etc.) and to be a member of the group means that you have certain rights, obligations and competences. The analysis in this article is focused on family categorizations and moral orders of parent–child relationships; how fatherhood, motherhood and violence are connected in newspaper narration.
Lethal violence and fatherhood
In one typical example, about a case when a man had killed his three children, a neighbour’s interview is presented to the readers. The extract tells about the perpetrator and focuses on his fatherhood:
A neighbour to the family of five, Matti Fors, pondered upon the same thing [why the man killed not only himself but also his children] as he was looking at the house from twenty metres distance. The police had isolated the house with yellow tape. He found it difficult to understand the act committed by his male neighbour. In contrast, the father of the family had seemed to care about his children a great deal.
– Last summer the eldest son wanted abow and real arrows. The father refused to make them, because that would have been dangerous. The father had also found some cartridges for a small-bore rifle, that he gave to me so that the boy could not blast them against the rocks; Fors recalls using a low tone of voice.
– It felt like he was protecting his children. (IS 24.1.2001)
Front page headline from Iltalehti about the same case: Why did a father kill his three children and himself? ”HE WAS ORDINARY AND NICE” (IL 24.1.2001.)
Aamulehti had interviewed the neighbours about the same case:
The neighbours of the family are in shock and quite confused because of the events that frightened everyone. From the outside they had not detected anything special, so the killings seemed mysterious. (..) Only that same evening the whole family was sledging and playing ice hockey at their Tuiskula’s school. Four years ago the family had bought and done up a beautiful detached house that was situated at the edge of the forest, two hundred metres from the childhood home of the mother. The mother is a waitress. (…) (AL 24.1.2001)
In addition to the portrayal of the father as ordinary (or even as exemplary), family life is presented as an idyll. Though some problems are hinted at – the man was said to have some problems with alcohol and that “there had been some jealousy” – the things that contradict the act are emphasised in the newspaper texts and things that would explain it are presented as rumours. Generally, when “fathers” have (also) killed their children, ordinariness and unexpectedness are the material for the headlines. Problems – if mentioned – are either connected to the heterosexual relationship (the couple has had a quarrel) or manhood in general; they are not connected to the father-child relationship, nor to the “family” as a whole.
The rhetoric of idyll is on the one hand used to emphasise the news value: everyone is surprised, because the family was so “good”. On the other hand, this rhetoric creates the impression that the family is like any other family – and problems between spouses seem normal.
Murderous mothers
It is striking how idealised the image of fathers is – especially as regards their fatherhood: as men or as spouses they may have had some shortcomings. When mothers commit the same kind of murder-suicides, their motherhood is not praised, though their deed is sometimes interpreted against the backdrop of everyday knowledge of the closeness of mother–child relationships.
The next example is interesting because it is a very rare case. A woman killed not only her two children but also her spouse. Furthermore, the narration is exceptional because at first it was assumed that it was the father who was the perpetrator. The case was one of the biggest crime news cases of the summer of 2004. At the point when the media did not know who the killer actually was, the family idyll and the decency of the father was emphasised. An in-law of the man who was killed stated that ”The man was friendly, open and loved” (HS 16.6.2004). ”The neighbours were shocked because of the four deaths: THEY WERE A HAPPY FAMILY” (IS 16.6.2004 front page). The next day (IS 17.6.2004) the headlines continued: ”The family idyll was quite unbreakable” and the lead article stated: ”A workmate of the father has difficulties to find a reason for the tragedy”. The feature suggested that fathers are usually perpetrators of “family killings” (HS 16.6.2004). At this point, no one said anything about the mother as a person, either good or bad.
After it was discovered that the mother was the killer, the tone changed. The idyll was now said to be only a façade; things were looking good only outside (IS 19.6.2004). The mother was now characterised as follows: she had once been “a happy schoolgirl” but was now “an uncommunicative 36 year old mother”. Neighbours did not have a good word to say about her. In addition, even though the “happy schoolgirl” on one hand emphasizes change – perhaps mental problems – the category was not quite innocent: “happiness” meant that she liked boys and was popular among them.
“Killer mom”
[She] practised shooting the day before
MOTHER KNEW GUNS
Mother who killed her family mastered the guns. “A pump shotgun is a killing tool for everyone”
CO-WORKER: FEELS BAD
– It feels bad, says chimney sweep Juhani Nykänen who knew the killed father of the family because of his profession. He commented on the latest news about the family-killing at Porvoo and the lethal gun-shots fired by the mother. (..) The fact that the victims were anesthetised does not comfort him.
– Anyway, these were murders. (IS 23.6.2004)
Though the deed was partly portrayed as understandable, because the woman had brought her family into debt and the financial future was bleak, it was not understood as “extended suicide” or a “dead end” (i.e. the only solution). This was partly because it was not her own business that brought them down (she was only helping her husband). She was not seen as a nice and normal woman in a difficult situation – at a dead end – but as an odd and confused woman who had kept the financial difficulties hidden from her spouse. Moreover, she was the “killer mom” (IS 22.6.2004), and Helsingin Sanomat (16.6.2004) headlined the interviews with the neighbours: ”How can a mother do this to her children?”. In addition, the reason she might have had – financial problems – was not very motherly or feminine.
Pathological mothers and ordinary men
When a woman kills her family the texts focus on the killing of children, even when she has killed her spouse as well. In contrast, a man is said to have killed his family, even when he has only killed his children. Men’s violence is connected to the family and its cause is hatred towards the wife, or external circumstances, such as culture or societal pressures. Violent men are constructed as representatives of the male species or spouses. Women’s violence is seen as motherly or feminine violence, or as pure transgression. Mothering is portrayed as vulnerable to mental damage. Mothers are pathological – men are influenced by society. Men’s agency is also presented as weak while women’s agency is made clearer, even though mental problems may mitigate the acts. Men are presented as finding themselves at a dead end, having no other choice, and as acting because they are coerced by circumstances. Women are portrayed as motivated by their own delusional thoughts - contrary to common sense.
Furthermore, everyday reasoning seems to go as follows: a normal and nice man can kill his children and himself, when the external conditions force him to do so. It is even more likely in Finland, since culture affects men in this way – at least if they have used alcohol. The violence of men is thus normalised and violence towards children is not connected with fatherhood but with (Finnish) manhood.
When women kill their children, violence becomes abnormal since they are categorised as ‘women’. When they are categorised as ‘mothers’ the newspapers either ask “How can a mother do a thing like that” – anti-motherly – or see it as maternal pathology. Mothers may become too attached to their children. If they are mentally unstable they may perceive their children as parts of themselves. Either way, the reason for action is portrayed as internal: it is the woman who kills, not culture, alcohol or social pressures.
Violent fathers?
Recent studies have shown that it is culturally difficult to connect fatherhood with violence. This has become especially clear in studies of family professionals (Eriksson 2002, Keskinen 2005). The discourse of “new fatherhood”, and a powerful discourse of developmental psychology emphasizing the importance of two complementary parents, have influenced those who work with women and children who have suffered from a partner’s/father’s violence, directly or indirectly.
The newspapers also reveal uneasiness and difficulty in addressing the question of violent fatherhood. Mothers who kill may be “killer-moms” – a kind of monster – or altruistic moms who express their motherhood, albeit in a very pathological way. Explanations of maternal violence are thus available. I argue that violence by fathers towards children should not be a blank spot in our society, a silenced topic. We need to handle these issues for the sake of the safety of children in risk situations, such as divorce.
Cultural narratives
Cultural knowledge directs our interpretations and narration. Explanations for the exceptional are based on our everyday knowledge about the ordinary. We make sense of events by making social orders: relationships between different people are perceived as ordered in certain ways. The family consists of a man, his wife and their children. Hidden in that sentence is a moral order: a man has a wife and children; he is entitled to ownership. Moral order means that human beings ordered in different ways have different rights, responsibilities and competences. They are expected to behave in certain ways and to have certain characteristics. In this article I focus on social and moral orders of motherhood and fatherhood in relation to violence to children. In short: a father has the right and competence to make decisions on behalf of other family members; a mother’s right is more restricted and extends only to her children. Men are male before they are fathers, and as males they react to circumstances. Women are mothers before women, and they can be pathological or transgressive in their motherhood. Fatherhood may be left untouched by the violence a ‘man’ has committed, while motherhood is stained by violent acts. Women are seen as more able to control their actions than are men – thus they are held more responsible for their actions.
Notes:
Eriksson, Maria 2002: Men’s Violence, men’s parenting and gender politics in Sweden. NORA 10:1.
Keskinen, Suvi 2005: Commitments and Contradictions. Linking Violence, Parenthood and Professionalism. In Maria Eriksson,
Marianne Hester, Suvi Keskinen and Keith Pringle (eds.):Tackling Men’s Violence in Families. Nordic issues and dilemmas. Bristol:
Policy Press.
