The Meaning of American Psycho

I recently finished reading Bret Easton Ellis’s 1991 novel American Psycho, better known to most of the current generation as a cult film released in 2000, starring Christian Bale as the depraved serial killer and investment banker, Patrick Bateman. The novel serves as a superb expose of American bourgeois culture. Having endured page after page of his blood-soaked, racist, misogynistic narrative, it is hard to recall any literary character as utterly repellent and seemingly irredeemable in one’s eyes as Patrick Bateman. However, it is the real psychopaths stalking the financial sector, personified by the fictional character of Bateman, for whom our contempt and anger should be reserved.

Wikipedia defines psychopathy as ‘a personality disorder characterized primarily by a lack of empathy and remorse, shallow emotions, egocentricity, and deception’. One is hard pressed to find a more appropriate description of the behaviour of the financial sector! It is unnecessary to re-summarise the details of the sub-prime mortgage crisis here and how the amoral, opportunistic, cynical actions of financial traders contributed to economic meltdown. I will however spare a mention for the self-styled market trader Alessio Rastani, who hit the headlines in 2011 as the result of a BBC interview in which he declared that ‘Governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world’ and ‘I’ve been dreaming of another recession’. After the initial media furore, it transpired that Rastani’s credentials as a ‘financial expert' are questionable; he is in fact an independent trader who, given his lack of insider experience in the financial sector, hardly qualifies as a spokesman for the likes of Goldman Sachs. This, however, should not detract from the accuracy of the statements he made in his interview. We should have been spared the reactions of shock and horror to Rastani’s candour, because he was merely stating facts which have long been apparent to the critics of global capitalism. A ruthless, selfish culture has starved empathy of oxygen and produced mercenary individuals, for whom profit overrides any human considerations, inflicting pain and misery upon millions of people worldwide.

There is an interesting parallel between the initial reaction to American Psycho’s publication and an earlier work of art that provoked similar controversy in its time and continues to do so today: Pier Paolo Pasolini’s 1975 film Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom. The film, based upon the Marquis de Sade’s book The 120 Days of Sodom, is set in the Republic of Salo in the final years of Mussolini’s regime, and depicts the brutal torture of eighteen teenage boys and girls at the hands of a group of Italian fascists. The film’s stomach-churning scenes of violence and depravity were too much for many a censor, and the film was subsequently banned in a number of countries (It was only released uncut in the UK in 2000). In Italy itself, one cannot rule out the possibility of politically motivated censorship. Almost all of Pasolini’s films had been banned at some point in his native country because of their critical attitudes towards authority. The fact that he was also gay, an atheist and a Marxist, cemented his position as a hate-figure for the Italian Right. American Psycho too faced the wrath of critics and censors worldwide, and Ellis received hate mail and even death threats after its publication. In Australia, it is still only available in bookstores to those aged 18 or over, shrink-wrapped and behind counters.

Like American Psycho, Salo, despite its graphic nature, does not glorify or glamorise violence; indeed it does quite the opposite. It is impossible to watch the film and be titillated; one can only feel emotions of disgust and horror, just as Pasolini intended. The film is rich with symbolism and meaning, right down to the notorious scenes of coprophagia, which Pasolini regarded as a metaphor for rampant consumerism. The irony is that the ‘shit’ we have been force-fed by the commercialised mainstream film industry is seen as less harmful, from the thinly veiled racism of American Westerns to the shameless jingoism of modern action films, genres which have historically glorified machismo culture and warfare, at the expense of dissenting voices. Likewise, the trail of havoc wreaked by Patrick Bateman, selecting as his victims homeless black men, prostitutes and a young child among others, is emblematic of the devastation inflicted on the most underprivileged and vulnerable segments of society by a financial elite, buoyed by callous indifference to those whose lives it impacts on.

American Psycho conveys through words what Salo conveys through celluloid: A pure undiluted hatred of hegemony and abuse of power. It may be that those in the ranks of financial professionals will reject this and regard any comparison to a man who rapes, tortures and murders his way through life preposterous and offensive. Then again, wouldn’t those who only saw the exterior of Patrick Bateman – handsome, charming and intelligent – have had similar thoughts if confronted with that image? Works of dissenting art like American Psycho and Salo are brilliant because through their raw, uncompromising nature they force us to confront the ugliness of reality. It is certainly not a pleasant experience, but it is probably necessary.

Christopher Hitchens and the Wisdom of the Head

The untimely death of Christopher Hitchens has precipitated words of praise and expressions of regret from both sides of the political divide, from the Daily Telegraph’s Toby Young to SWP ideologue Alex Callinicos. The latter’s acknowledgement of Hitchens’ achievements must however be seen in the light of his personal acquaintance with the late author and journalist. Others on the Left have had few, if any, kind words to say in the wake of his passing. Hitchens’ widely perceived ‘move to the Right’ in the latter part of his career was seen as an act of betrayal and dismayed many of his former admirers. Alternatively, some on the Left maintain that they were suspicious of his radical credentials from the start and regarded him as a committed supporter of the Establishment.

Both of these characterisations represent over-simplified views of Hitchens, who had, by the end of his life, come to reject the traditional ‘left-right continuum’. He preferred to define his career by a consistent opposition to all forms of totalitarianism and a desire to expose and scrutinise centres of power. To this end, and for the most part, he displayed greater fidelity than many of his critics on the Left. From the 1970s onwards, he made numerous interventions in support of progressive causes, which included speaking out against the Vietnam War, highlighting US complicity in human rights violations in Latin America, and criticising Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. 

However, these achievements were overshadowed by his inexplicable dalliance with Empire during the Iraq war in 2003. It also proved the final straw for many of his critics on the Left. Hitchens was an outspoken supporter of the American invasion, claiming that it was justified in order to bring about the downfall of a tyrannical and oppressive regime. However, in doing so he found himself sitting squarely in the same camp as the most powerful country in the world; an odd place for a man who had dedicated his career to monitoring centres of power and exposing their crimes. He did nothing to discredit the spurious theories, used to further justify the invasion, which claimed a link between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, he claimed that the Iraq war was unlikely to make the ‘Al Qaeda problem’ worse, and was proved tragically wrong by the bloody insurgency which followed the toppling of Saddam. Despite the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq over the next eight years, Hitchens continued to stand by his support for the decision to invade, severely damaging his reputation as a voice of moral strength. His subsequent criticisms of American conduct during the war, such as with regards to the human rights abuses perpetrated at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, were made to look hollow in the light of this.

It is surprising that a man of Hitchens’ intelligence could have been drawn to such a simplistic paradigm whereby failure to support the American invasion of Iraq made you an apologist for Saddam. Conversely, the anti-imperialist Left regarded the failure to defend Saddam's regime as the equivalent of kowtowing to Empire. Hitchens justifiably detested the hypocrisy of these elements of the Left for turning a blind eye to the excesses of anti-Western dictators. However, in this case he made the fatal mistake of succumbing to the strength of his emotions. Instead of adopting a principled stance of condemning both the Baathist regime and Western neo-imperialism, he ended up mirroring the myopia of those for whom he had nothing but contempt.

It is fair to say that, other than alcohol and cigarettes, allowing his heart to get the better of his head was perhaps Hitchens’ greatest weakness, even when he was motivated by the best of intentions. His instinctive and strident opposition to Islamic fundamentalism was well-founded, but he erred by coming to regard it as a unique and grave threat to civilisation. As has been pointed out by Noam Chomsky, the crimes committed by fanatics in the name of Islam, while undoubtedly wicked and depraved, pale in comparison to the scale of the crimes committed during our lifetime by the forces of Western imperialism in the name of democracy and human rights. A careful examination of political and socio-economic conditions in the Middle East would provide compelling evidence for why it is the latter that sets the context for understanding the former. Instead, Hitchens took the easy way out by placing excessive weight upon the irrationality of faith as a means of explaining the phenomenon of ‘Jihadism’, thus avoiding the kind of robust enquiry that was most needed at this time.

It was this kind of approach to issues which left Hitchens open to accusations of failing to apply the analytical rigour one would have expected from him. He was not helped by being partial to the use of highly colourful language, viewed by some of his critics as shameless attention seeking. I for one sincerely doubt that this was actually his intention. I believe that essentially he was just being Hitch; remaining true to his own particular style of expression. At times however, this penchant for rhetorical flourish only helped to fuel doubts over his commitment to serious analysis. His description of Mother Theresa as a ‘lying, thieving Albanian dwarf’ was crass, unnecessary, and probably detracted audiences from the important and well-founded criticisms to be made of her. His gleeful comments on cluster bombs eviscerating his enemies were downright ludicrous.

In the final analysis, Christopher Hitchens was undoubtedly a deeply cultured man blessed with a phenomenal memory and remarkably expansive knowledge. He took numerous principled stances in support of freedom and in opposition to tyranny, making a considerable contribution to intellectual life over a period of four decades. He can be forgiven for his fondness for the wisdom of his heart; he was only human after all and, more often than not, he was possessed of correct instincts and laudable intentions. It is however a tragedy that, at such a critical juncture in our recent history, he failed to follow the wisdom of his head and ended up being so profoundly wrong.

American Foreign Policy and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Enduring Madness

The US ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, has come under fire for comments made at a conference on anti-Semitism in Brussels, which included the following:

"It is the area where every new settlement announced in Israel, every rocket shot over a border or suicide bomber on a bus, and every retaliatory military strike exacerbates the problem and provides a setback here in Europe for those fighting hatred and bigotry,"

"Were a lasting peace in the Middle East to be reached, were joint and co-operative Israeli-Arab attentions turned to focus instead on such serious, common threats such as Iran, this second type of ethnic tension and bigotry (referring to anti-Semitism) here in Europe - which is clearly growing today - would clearly abate."

Gutman’s suggestion that failure to reach a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians has contributed to a growth in anti-Semitism in Europe was instantly latched on to by prominent Republicans, including presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, as an example of the Obama administration’s hostility to Israel. Consequently, calls for retraction of his statement, an apology and even his resignation have abounded.

Gutman was not defending, excusing or even trying to downplay anti-Semitism; he was simply offering an explanation of why it exists. While racism in all its odious forms is always unjustified, history has taught us that it is more than anything the child of circumstance. Are senior Republicans trying to imply that anti-Semitism just happens to be a naturally occurring phenomenon within the warped minds of Europeans?

It is also important to bear in mind that those who equate Judaism and Jewishness with the unjust practices and policies of the state of Israel represent a minority; the overwhelming majority of critics of Israel, who include many Jews, make a clear distinction between the two. That anti-Semitism should have reared its ugly head again in Europe is tragic and deplorable, but no less so than any other form of racism or religious hatred. Take Islamophobia for example; also on the rise in Europe at an alarming rate. To regard anti-Semitism as a unique contemporary form of hatred is therefore to fly in the face of reality. It is however a convenient tool for those extolling the virtues of unconditional American support for Israel, the slightest deviation from which leaves one open to admonishment. This was Howard Gutman’s crime. By suggesting that certain actions of Israel had not been helpful to the ‘peace process’ and had helped to fuel anti-Semitic sentiment, he was guilty of sacrilege at the altar of American foreign policy. Yet remarkably, Howard Gutman is in fact Jewish and the son of a Holocaust survivor. In other words, he is the last person you could expect to downplay anti-Semitism.

There is a striking parallel between the Republican reaction to this case and the general Republican reaction to Palestinian violence that encapsulates the American paradigm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In both cases, there is condemnation without any attempt to understand. Anti-Semitism and Palestinian violence are seen as equally inexplicable. The notion that Palestinians have genuine grievances and feelings which need to be understood and dealt with is simply too much for Republicans to take, for it is the first step to acknowledging that Israeli occupation and oppression precipitates Palestinian resistance. Instead, they prefer the comforting familiarity of an enduring Orientalist mentality which frames Palestinians, along with other Arabs and Muslims, as inherently irrational, uncivilised and addicted to violence. Effectively, there is no 'reasonable' Palestinian voice to be understood; they might as well not exist as a people.

The Howard Gutman controversy is not merely an example of how low Republicans will stoop to generate political mileage in the run-up to the 2012 US presidential election. It is symptomatic of the madness of American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama’s Democrat administration, as demonstrated by its recent decision to cut funding from UNESCO in reaction to the UN agency’s admission of Palestine as a full member, has shown itself to be no friend of the Palestinian people. What the latest controversy does demonstrate is that it still has a way to go before it catches up with Republicans in the lunacy stakes.