What do you think?
Rate this book
At Stake: Monsters and the Rhetoric of Fear in Public Culture
Anyone who reads the papers or watches the evening news is all too familiar with how variations of the word monster are used to describe unthinkable acts of violence. Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, and O. J. Simpson were all monsters if we are to believe the mass media. Even Bill Clinton was depicted with the term during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But why is so much energy devoted in our culture to the making of monsters? Why are Americans so transfixed by transgression? What is at stake when the exclamatory gestures of horror films pass for descriptive arguments in courtrooms, ethical speech in political commentary, or the bedrock of mainstream journalism?
In a study that is at once an analysis of popular culture, a polemic on religious and secular rhetoric, and an ethics of representation, Edward Ingebretsen searches for answers. At Stake explores the social construction of monstrousness in public discourse-tabloids, television, magazines, sermons, and popular fiction. Ingebretsen argues that the monster serves a moralizing function in our culture, demonstrating how not to be in order to enforce prevailing standards of behavior and personal conduct. The boys who shot up Columbine High School, for instance, personify teen rebellion taken perilously too far. Susan Smith, the South Carolinian who murdered her two children, embodies the hazards of maternal neglect. Andrew Cunanan, who killed Gianni Versace, among others, characterizes the menace of predatory sexuality. In a biblical sense, monsters are not unlike omens from the gods. The dreadful consequences of their actions inspire fear in our hearts, and warn us by example.
In a study that is at once an analysis of popular culture, a polemic on religious and secular rhetoric, and an ethics of representation, Edward Ingebretsen searches for answers. At Stake explores the social construction of monstrousness in public discourse-tabloids, television, magazines, sermons, and popular fiction. Ingebretsen argues that the monster serves a moralizing function in our culture, demonstrating how not to be in order to enforce prevailing standards of behavior and personal conduct. The boys who shot up Columbine High School, for instance, personify teen rebellion taken perilously too far. Susan Smith, the South Carolinian who murdered her two children, embodies the hazards of maternal neglect. Andrew Cunanan, who killed Gianni Versace, among others, characterizes the menace of predatory sexuality. In a biblical sense, monsters are not unlike omens from the gods. The dreadful consequences of their actions inspire fear in our hearts, and warn us by example.
355 pages, Hardcover
First published November 14, 2001
1 person is currently reading
41 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 29, 2020
"guns don't kill people, monsters do"
The Hermeneutics of the President's Body
There some interesting points made throughout this text, but I will focus on one paragraph, available to 'avid readers' on page 134.
"Interpretation of the monstrous body was not restricted to the augurs entrusted with that task in ancient Rome." The author establishes the fact that so-called 'crime scene investigations' are nothing new, but quite ancient...in our Republic, it was the work of the legal system to provide a critical space, a place where the President's monstrous body might be examined exegetically, the way scholars of the Torah perform their services. And it was in fact deemed appropriate to examine the President's body.
A choice was made: are we looking at Clinton's body or the President's body? Turns out that Clinton as an individual could be examined in ways one might not be able to examine a President's body. Clinton's body was 'inserted' into the Paula Jones case. If the President in the public, acknowledged phallus at work, then Clinton's penis would come under a different provision. So says the Supreme Court, moving forward on May 27, 1997. But when it came time for the impeachment, it was the Presidential phallus/not the Clinton penis that became the object of attention. Why? Because it wasn't about sexual behavior but about words spoken under oath. The President was guilty of lying about a course of conduct, but Clinton's penis performed the 'dirty work.'
It all boils down to a question of lips, rather than sex. Or as Ingebretsen writes, "It's the lips stupid, not the sex."
The Hermeneutics of the President's Body
There some interesting points made throughout this text, but I will focus on one paragraph, available to 'avid readers' on page 134.
"Interpretation of the monstrous body was not restricted to the augurs entrusted with that task in ancient Rome." The author establishes the fact that so-called 'crime scene investigations' are nothing new, but quite ancient...in our Republic, it was the work of the legal system to provide a critical space, a place where the President's monstrous body might be examined exegetically, the way scholars of the Torah perform their services. And it was in fact deemed appropriate to examine the President's body.
A choice was made: are we looking at Clinton's body or the President's body? Turns out that Clinton as an individual could be examined in ways one might not be able to examine a President's body. Clinton's body was 'inserted' into the Paula Jones case. If the President in the public, acknowledged phallus at work, then Clinton's penis would come under a different provision. So says the Supreme Court, moving forward on May 27, 1997. But when it came time for the impeachment, it was the Presidential phallus/not the Clinton penis that became the object of attention. Why? Because it wasn't about sexual behavior but about words spoken under oath. The President was guilty of lying about a course of conduct, but Clinton's penis performed the 'dirty work.'
It all boils down to a question of lips, rather than sex. Or as Ingebretsen writes, "It's the lips stupid, not the sex."
February 18, 2017
Anything by Edward Ingebretsen is worth reading. His analysis of monsters is difficult to read because of the poignancy of the subject. It's never as far from reality as we might have hoped, as I note on my blog: Sects and Violence in the Ancient World. There are real world serial killers and there are those who are murdered for their sexual orientation or their sex appeal. Ingebretsen points out that the monsters aren't always who we think they are.
One of the compelling bits of this work is the way that it interweaves horror from fiction with that of real life. Ingebretsen is one of the most astute readers of Stephen King out there. Never apologizing for his fascination with horror, he shows how society's conflicted views of sexuality—particularly homosexuality—lead to frightful misidentifications of monsters. We take serial killers as monsters without stopping to look at the larger context. This isn't a Clarence Darrow approach to evil, but it is a serious attempt to come to grips with why a society hates. It's not an easy book to read, but it is well worth the effort put into it. If only society itself were so insightful.
One of the compelling bits of this work is the way that it interweaves horror from fiction with that of real life. Ingebretsen is one of the most astute readers of Stephen King out there. Never apologizing for his fascination with horror, he shows how society's conflicted views of sexuality—particularly homosexuality—lead to frightful misidentifications of monsters. We take serial killers as monsters without stopping to look at the larger context. This isn't a Clarence Darrow approach to evil, but it is a serious attempt to come to grips with why a society hates. It's not an easy book to read, but it is well worth the effort put into it. If only society itself were so insightful.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews