top of page
Search

Stalking Culture - Old and New

I write this piece during the season of Halloween. It’s a darkly creative time of year for me for many reasons and I do my best not to allow my personal preferences for enjoying scary stories and many of the various tongue-in-cheek customs intrude into my self-protection writings. I have other outlets to indulge and express many of the fantastical elements associated with this particular festival. However, here and there certain things do cross over. One year, for example, I wrote about self-protection in relation to trick or treating. This time, however, thoughts of the types of movie many people will be using to scare themselves led me to consider a recent new law and the society that has given birth to that law. As it turns out 1978’s “Halloween”, directed by John Carpenter, is possibly the godfather and prototype of the “stalk ‘n slash” subgenre of horror movie. The concepts of the film are arguably predated by 1974’s Canadian horror, “Black Christmas”, Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 adaptation of Robert Bloch’s suspense novel, “Psycho”, and even Rene Clair’s 1945 adaptation of Agatha Christie’s story “And Then There Were None”. However, Carpenter’s film clearly has the most influence over all the slasher imitations that followed. The film shows the murderous rampage of what we might categorize as an example of either a resentful or predatory stalker. The stalker is an irredeemable icon of evil, but as we will see stalkers are not always presented as the bag guys in the media…

Up until 2012 the term “stalking” was not a recognizable offence in England and Wales. It only came under harassment laws if it could be proven that the person stalking “caused a fear of violence”. With the proliferation of multi-media and particularly social media, greater attention has been drawn to the crime of stalking. In November 2012 two new specific criminal offences were introduced to target stalking. The Crown Prosecution Service states: “Whilst there is no strict legal definition of 'stalking', section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking. For example, following a person, watching or spying on them or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including social media. “The effect of such behaviour is to curtail a victim's freedom, leaving them feeling that they constantly have to be careful. In many cases, the conduct might appear innocent ( if it were to be taken in isolation), but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim.” In September 2014 the BBC reported that “Stalking and harassment prosecutions between April 2013 and March 2014 rose to 10,535, up 20% on the previous year”. The largest factor in self-protection training is personal security. Understanding how to prevent a criminal act of violence from occurring should form around 90% of a student’s self-protection education. An appreciation of the dangers of stalking, a crime that might have strong connections with our current culture, is an important part of this “soft skills” education.   Before I continue my discussion along this road, I feel it is important to point out that the dramatic rise in prosecutions against stalkers does not automatically imply that stalking is on the increase. It is probably more of an indication that there is a general better awareness of the crime, both by members of the public and the various legal and law enforcement bodies. Nevertheless, this provides us with an idea of how many people have suffered from stalking. There is nothing controversial in my stance on focusing on better crime prevention measures. It has become very trite to push education on improving stopping crime before it occurs than paying for more physical security. I don’t know if a week goes by that some politician or representative of one of organization or another tells the press that certain dramatic cultural changes need to be made. However, just because a topic is a truism it doesn’t mean that should cease to be important. Awareness of stalking and how it occurs forms part of my long-term self-protection education. We live in a time where voyeurism is actively and shamelessly promoted. An entire hi-tech industry has sprung-up, supplying a range of hardware and software to enable individuals to invade the private lives of others in many different ways. The proliferation of these practices led to the speedy introduction of “Cyberstalking” and “Cyberbullying” laws. As technology brings more and more of us together in a positive way, we are witnessing a progressive erosion of our sense of privacy. Many speak of today’s generation being afflicted with a “sense of entitlement”. Interestingly, psychologists have found that many confirmed stalkers justify their actions with a perceived sense of entitlement. Furthermore, studies have revealed that not all stalkers are psychotic. In fact, the number of stalkers that do not have a pre-existing psychotic condition is so large that they warrant a separate category.  This is might lend some weight to what I am about to say next. I cannot help but wonder whether our current culture of social media and reality television isn’t encouraging a culture of stalking. Humans are highly social animals and we have an innate curiosity. No matter how much of an individualist or a misanthropist we might want to be, our ability to talk, our language and accent are all evidence of how interdependent we are as a species. We are influenced by others all the time. Social media has created a pseudo-world of pseudo-relationships where the individuals seem to regress to a time where the distinction between reality and personal fantasy are blurred.

In the world of social media individuals tend to project a profile of what they want others to see. Every day is a highlight reel or, if not, a cry out for sympathetic attention. It becomes an intoxicating drug.  Individuals are encouraged to share their thoughts, photographs, videos and anything else that can put up on the social media of their choice. We are now in a time where many think nothing of taking photographs of their meals and virtually every activity they do and sharing it with their growing number of “friends” on the internet. Because of the era of reality television and video sharing sites, a type of celebrity consciousness pervades the culture of social media consumers. They are encouraged to see themselves as iconic. It can be uplifting for some in the same way as “Princess for the Day” experiences are thrilling for some little girls. Every day an individual can escape a world where they might feel insignificant and appear on their own channel, their own page, their own profile as if they were part of a “Hello” magazine spread. The social media sites cater for this too. Facebook created mini “movies” out of the items individuals have displayed on their profiles and set up personalized comic strips. Unfortunately fame has another side. Once you put yourself out in front of an audience, you are sharing something and that something is more than the sum of pictures and comments you have put up. I noticed a long time ago that just as people on social media sites were feeling an obligation to put up statuses, photographs and videos of mundane activities - even to the extent where they were jeopardizing their personal security by reporting their regular jogging routes and times they would be leaving their house –so others were feeling a sense of entitlement. If someone had a child, there was a demand for photographs of the newborn as soon as possible. Suddenly a social media user’s life became a matter of his public’s interest. Interestingly, as this social acceptance grew for invading other’s privacy the language amongst social media users became very telling. On Twitter you don’t even have “friends”. You have followers. Meanwhile, as people “poked” each other on Facebook, the term “stalking” lost a lot of its sinister definition. People would freely admit to “stalking” one another and expect the object of their interest to feel flattered. Even the term “frape”, being a portmanteau of Facebook and rape, to mean using another person’s Facebook account is very telling about attitudes in this unreal world. It is small wonder that obsessive behaviour cultivated on these sites occasionally spills out into real life.

A common myth in self-protection is that a potential predator is likely to be a stranger. However, it is much more likely that you will know your attacker. The same rings true with stalkers. Again, like the image of the shadowy faceless menace that jumps from nowhere, the idea that a stalker won’t be someone who has had some level of interaction with their victim is a rare reality. Although it can happen that even people who aren’t particularly famous can attract the attentions of a complete stranger who decides to stalk them, stalkers tend behave a bit like invited vampires in folklore. Having crossed some sort of social boundary, even as small as having had a singular conversation with the victim, they believe they have some sort of entitlement to be a continued part of the person’s life. However, what is more common still is that the stalker has had some form of relationship with the stalker. The greater social boundary already crossed the more continued entitlement the stalker feels, even if that entitlement is to be malicious threat to the victim’s life and those close to them.

In 1993 Professor Paul Mullen – Professor Emeritus at Monash University, Melbourne and referenced expert on the psychiatric and psychological science behind stalkers – and his colleagues categorized five types of stalker. These were resentful stalkers, rejected stalkers, intimacy seekers, incompetent suitors and predatory stalkers. Of course, there are no absolutes in science, especially the so-called soft sciences, but these categories have remained a fairly accurate tool for understanding and predicting stalking patterns and behaviour. Resentful stalkers can be motivated by various traits that they dislike in a victim and are often stalking in retaliation for a real or perceived wrong the victim has committed against them. This is a type of vengeful obsession. By comparison rejected stalkers, intimacy seekers and incompetent suitors all tend to be motivated by desire to be in some form of partnership with the victim. Rejected stalkers are more commonly ex-partners of some description. Their motivations are to either get back/reconcile themselves with their ex-partner victim or avenge themselves (like the resentful stalker) or sometimes a perverse combination of the two. Intimacy seekers are often delusional and are usually either strangers or brief acquaintances of the victim. They often seek a relationship or believe they are already in a relationship with the victim. Incompetent suitors are different from intimacy seekers in that they are usually seeking a brief relationship or a sexual encounter. Stalking is usually very short, but when they do persist usually show complete indifference to the stress they are causing their victim. Predatory stalkers are defined by the way they spy on a victim in order to plan their assault. Determining whether or not a stalker will be violent is not straightforward. All stalking activities should be taken seriously. Most people who threaten violent action are not likely to carry it out unless they have a shown history of violence. Having said this, many stalking cases that resulted in physical action were prefaced by threats. Several academic studies referred to and analysed by David V. James and Frank R. Farnham, collated fairly inconclusive data to predict whether or not a stalker would become violent. Substance abuse and previous intimacy with the stalker’s victim are fairly consistent factors and should be considered potential predictors for violence. Some, such as the author and security specialist Gavin De Becker, have argued that our popular culture often presents a distorted and confused view over what is acceptable courtship behaviour and what constitutes stalking. In “The Gift of Fear” De Becker describes the actions of the hero and the dubious moral message it might imply: “…Dustin Hoffman dates a girl and then asks her to marry him. She says no, but he doesn't hear it. He waits outside her classes at school and asks again, and then again. Eventually she writes him a letter saying she's thought it over carefully and decided not to marry him. In fact, she is leaving town and marrying another man. That would seem a pretty clear message -- but not in the movies. “Hoffman uses stalking techniques to find her. He pretends to be a friend of the groom, then a family member, then a priest. Ultimately he finds the church and breaks into it just seconds after Katharine Ross is pronounced the wife of another man. He then beats up the bride's father, hits some other people, and wields a large wooden cross against the wedding guests who try to help the family. “And what happens? He gets the girl. She runs off with Dustin Hoffman, leaving her family and new husband behind. Also left behind is the notion that a woman should be heard, the notion that no means no, and the notion that a woman has a right to decide who will be in her life.” Art often reflects the morals and ideals of the time, but it is also often self-indulgent, opinionated, expressive and intentionally morally ambiguous. Many artists intend to shock and disturb for a variety of reasons. I am not going to make an argument for censorship here, as a deconstruction of many great movies, plays and works of literature could bring up numerous examples of ideals that are at odds with moderate mainstream opinion. My view is that we should look at certain works, especially if there are plenty of similar examples, as a guide to what society says is acceptable. “The Graduate” is just one example of the familiar romantic plot, where one person’s persistence to win over another uninterested party pays off.

Just as the modern culture of social media encourages and cultivates a permissive attitude towards stalking it might be put that rejected stalkers, intimacy seekers and incompetent suitors are behaving in accordance to ideas formed in a more primitive time. These primitive customs and attitudes might also have a bearing on the way an already anxious victim might respond. Much of today’s civilization and culture is derived from a patriarchal system, where women, based purely on their general size, have been subjugated by men. Many cultures can trace back their lineage to a time where women were the property of fathers, which were then used as property to build alliances with other clans or tribes via marriage. This property issue immediately brings up the concept of value. The perceived value of an item can be increased in a person’s mind when it appears hard to obtain. Of course, seeing women or anyone as an item of property is an obscene notion in most of the developed world. Therefore, “playing hard to get” is an archaic notion that has little basis in scientific research to be an effective way to find a suitable partner or any partner for that matter. Attracted parties tend to give up early if they cannot connect with the object of their attraction. Besides, there are far more honest ways to for two people to decide whether or not they might be suitable as romantic partners. This isn’t to say that a person needs to completely lay all their cards on the table to someone who they are attracted to and shown interest in them. Rather that communication is far more attractive than miscommunication. However, this isn’t an article about relationships. Stalking someone has about as much in common with courting as rape has to do with making love. I don’t think that is a harsh judgement. A good number of rapes occur within relationships, go unreported and are not the dramatic violent scenes that we see depicted on film. Likewise, many forms of stalking occur when an individual crosses a boundary, becoming an obsessive behaviour unwanted by the target of the stalking. As a self-protection lesson, the unambiguous status of “No” has to be appreciated. Once that is in place, one has to decide whether one is dealing with a stalker or not. The usual procedure for dealing with stalkers is to do your best to ignore them. If there is any information you need to tell them for whatever reason it should be kept stripped down to a complete minimum and delivered in an emotionless fashion. This can be particularly difficult if you feel sympathy for the stalker, but you have to keep your mind on the end objective. Once you have decided you don’t want someone in your life and there is no justifiable reason for them to be there your message has to be clear. You are likely to feel anger towards your stalker, but any act of vengeance can just escalate the situation. The target of the stalking should be like Teflon. Affect a demeanour where everything slips off you and there is no way for a stalker to get a purchase. Set your boundaries and ensure they don’t move. This applies to just about anyone who is trying to get into your life that you don’t want to be there. Don’t stand for threats or blackmail. Don’t allow guilt to allow them more of your time when you have no intentions of continuing the relationship beyond the guilt-bartered time slot. Do your best to ensure that your friends cannot be used as a proverbial backdoor to your life. Stalkers often use other people, no matter how tenuous the link, in order to access their victim. As the “playing hard to get myth” has shown most people will eventually give up when you ignore them.  If “No” is firm enough, the majority of people will get the message and back away.  We have technology available is block messages, calls and emails from persistent nuisances. Use them or find out how to use them. I have also sorts of absurd sounding excuses victims of stalking have put forward for not putting this simple procedures in place. If the stalker still persists and certainly if they show signs of escalating their methods, it is time to put a complaint into your local police station. Do not delay. Telling an individual that you will contact the police if they persist can be fair enough tactic. The average reasonable person will come to their senses and it will over-run any primitive ideas they have about “playing hard to get”.  It’s your judgement call if you want to give the person the opportunity to desist. However, if they call your bluff you must follow through. Get it reported and logged as an official police complaint. The person has broken at least one existing law designed to protect you. Keep all messages the individual has sent you, as it might be needed later if the incident goes to court. Just as in any form of self-protection individuals need to set their boundaries firmly. These need to be boundaries that we first must believe in if they are going to work as effective method for dealing with a potential threat. This means that we when we say “No” to someone we must mean it and there must be no ambiguity. There are no absolutes. After all, stalkers are often people you may have enjoyed the company of at one time and, depending on the individual, there is a certain degree of grace you might want to give someone to get the message that they are behaving like a stalker. Therefore, where and when you call that “No” line is a personal judgement call, but learn to recognize stalking behaviour.  Do not let celebrity culture, social media and outmoded ideas about winning someone over influence your personal judgement call. There is nothing flattering about someone who feels they are entitled to intrude into your life.

Although the film is based on Christie’s novel it clearly takes its cue and, most adaptations have done, from Christie’s own 1943 adaptation of her play, where the ending is altered to be more upbeat.

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:432–9, 2003, David V. James, MA, MB, BS, and Frank R. Farnham, MB, BS http://www.theseusllp.com/downloads/Research%20Stalking%20and%20Serious%20Violence.pdf

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page