The killing of the American political activist and provocateur is analyzed through a cultural sociology lens, specifically the paradigm of cultural trauma and the model of social drama. According to cultural trauma theory, political violence of this type catalyzes a “meaning struggle” in its aftermath, where questions concerning what happened, who is responsible, and what is now to be done, are publicly debated. The discursive combat surrounding the meaning of Kirk’s death has produced two competing narrative frames, one calling Kirk’s killing an “assassination” that was aimed at the core of the American nation, and the other a political murder, carried out by a lone gunman without coherent political motivation. The difference is not trivial. Assassination implies an ideological motive, with the distinct possibility of coconspirators, while a murder may well have political consequences, but need not have a clear ideological basis or coconspirators. Framing the killing as an assassination multiplies the emotional impact and the significance of an incident, while calling it a murder can diffuse it. An assassination is more likely than a murder to trigger the “trauma drama” that is at the core of cultural trauma. In the case of the killing of Charlie Kirk, there was a clear attempt made to direct and promote the discourse around its meaning toward that end, to turn an incident of political violence into a matter of polarizing collective identification. At the same time, there was the attempt from the opposite side, to diffuse it, as yet another incident of the senseless violence that has a long history in American society.
Ron Eyerman (Mon,) studied this question.