The American Psycho Still Walks Among Us

“The city is at war./Playtime for the young and rich!/Ignore me if you see me,/’cause I just don’t give a shit./The city is at war./Bless the young and rich/with designer drugs and designer friends.”–Cobra Starship, “The City is at War”

I just finished reading Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho for a class, and I found myself shocked at how timely it seemed, despite its being so firmly situated in the late 1980s. Give Pat Bateman an iPhone and he’d fit right in today on Wall Street.

The plot of the book (SPOILERS!) follows the life of Patrick Bateman, an executive on Wall Street who makes millions of dollars, despite the fact that he doesn’t actually do anything at the office besides reading Sports Illustrated. His friends often remark that his family has enough money that he doesn’t even really need to work. Much of his life revolves around going to expensive nightclubs, scoring cocaine, and torturing and murdering women whom he takes back to his apartment. He also gruesomely kills the occasional dog or rat for good measure. Another of his targets are co-workers whom he envies and the homeless. Anyone not lucky enough to be white, male, and rich, really.

While the book has been denounced by many as nothing more than meaningless violence and shock value, I think there is a point buried under all the guts and gore. At the end of the novel, after the reader has witnessed the horrendous acts Bateman has committed, he still has not been found guilty or even suspected of any of the murders he’s committed. How, any reader with even a shred of conscience asks, could this happen? As Bateman jokes with his friends, such as they are, at a New Year’s Eve party, the news on TV discusses the Iran-Contra Affair, and someone wonders how Reagan ever got away with it.

How did Reagan get away with the Iran-Contra Affair? How did Bateman get away with his murders? They were white, rich men. Their money, power, and connections ensure that they will not have to face the consequences of their actions. Such people are privileged in our society. So privileged, in fact, that they can get away with murder.

There’s a broad field of sociology called Conflict Theory, which seems to be applicable to American Psycho. The gist of it is this: In every society, there are those who Have and those who Have Not. Usually, what the Haves actually possess is material resources, and this gives them power over those who Have Not. (Think about it. Does Bateman want for anything? He has a sumptuous apartment, more food than he could ever eat and often doesn’t. Meanwhile, the homeless that he passes on the street regularly have nothing and are grateful for even a few cents.) Those who Have resources, by virtue of their having, control the power in society. So, they set up the society in such a way that they can retain their power and easy access to resources at the expense of the Have Nots. While we might not think of it in such blunt terms, according to Conflict Theory, in order for Bateman and those like him to have all of their luxuries, someone else has to go without, perhaps even die, from lack of resources. While Ellis’s portrayal of a spoiled rich man literally killing (and sometimes eating) the poor or those who just happen to be less privileged in some way (women, animals, children, etc.) might seem like an extreme metaphor, in terms of Conflict Theory, it’s quite apt.

Now let’s look at today. What, exactly, has changed since Pat Bateman’s time? Not much. The music and other pop culture references might be different, but the story is essentially the same. To the super-rich and super-powerful, the rest of us are interchangeable and we don’t matter so much. A small percent of the people hold the majority of the resources and the power, leaving the rest of the people to muddle through without employment, healthcare, or the heaps of money it takes to influence governmental policy.

If any of my descriptions sound familiar, it’s because I’m referencing the language used by the Occupy Wall Street movement. While the media has, generally, been confused by Occupy Wall Street (OWS), I think the movement makes a pretty bold statement about what the state of the U.S. is today. People don’t have jobs but they still have debt. We’re in a recession with no hope of getting out of it. The middle class is shrinking. People are feeling disheartened, hopeless, and confused. Where is that American dream that we were promised?

This confusion cuts across race, ethnicity, gender, age (to some extent) and party lines. There are people at Occupy Wall Street of all political persuasions. But they all want one thing–they want a voice in their government that doesn’t depend on millions of dollars and lobbyists. They want a chance at getting a job again. Is this so much to ask? While I don’t know if their actions will accomplish these goals, I think that the point of this protest isn’t so much to reach an end goal as it is to sustain an idea–the idea that the majority of people in this country need to be recognized even though we aren’t lucky enough to be Wall Street billionaires.

The ’80s have come and gone, but Pat Bateman, it seems, is still roaming around the country while wrapped in the protection that his privilege gives him. Occupy Wall Street, as far as I can tell, is a movement that is attempting to call attention to his presence  and give the average American a way to combat unchecked corporate power. As far as I’m concerned, the Pat Batemans of the U.S. have been getting away with their actions for far too long. The 99% needs to be heard.