Customer Reviews

Metalheads: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Alienation

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Arnetts point in his book "metalheads" is that he sees metalfans as the vanguard of adolescent alienation, emotional isolation and hyperindividualism in western society. Even if he writes in an entertaining and eloquent way, and obviously is an expert on adolescence, he doesn't support his claims in a scientific way, even if he states that he does so. He compares the behaviour and views on life of "metalheads" and "non-metalheads", overlooking the fact that there is no homogenous social group called "non-metalheads". That group could include adolescents within jehovahs witnesses, hip-hopppers, among many others. Furthermore the group of "non-metalheads" is exclusively highschool and collegestudents only, excluding unemployed or working-class adolescents. These errors of course lead him to make several doubtfull conclusions. Another crucial error is his misjudgement of the music in heavy-metal, as his analysis is based on a primitve and completely outdated and unscientific german musictheory from the 17.century - the so called "Affekt-theorie", which is nearly as ridiculous as a theory that claims that the Earth is flat. However, his points about adolescent alienation in western society, and the potential dangers for the socialization of future societies, seem both enlightning and interesting. He just misses the fact that this is a general trend in Western society, and not specifically linked with heavy-metal.

I admit that I don't have much respect for the so-called "science" of sociology. I seriously doubt human behaviour can be so neatly quantified and explained with a couple of studies--especially as such studies tend to contradict each other. I've argued this many times with a friend of mine who aspired to graduate studies in sociology.

Even so, Arnett is a poor representative of this discipline. His study is based on personal interviews with less than 150 "metalheads" from two urban communities in the U.S., the definition of metalhead being someone who agreed to be interviewed in exchange for a free record album. They are compared with "non-metalheads" who are not interviewed, but asked to fill out anonymous questionnaires. From these sketchy data gathered through poorly-controlled methods, Arnett draws conclusions about all of American society.

Now, I was a heavy metal fan in my adolescence, and still listen to several metal bands, and I won't deny some of Arnett's discussion of metal as a means to escape isolation applied to me. But he doesn't acknowledge that isolated teens may seek other sub-cultures--goth, punk, electronica, video games, role-playing, comics, poetry, foreign film. Nor does he explain why some "normal" teenagers also like metal, or why some people continue to like metal well into their 50s. In addition, his definition of "normalcy" is disturbingly anachronistic: long-term heterosexual marriage with children.

I even found his anthropological analysis of "sensation-seeking behaviour" to be of interest, but not entirely satisfying. If the situation he describes is common among American teenagers, why aren't there more metal fans instead of the small minority Arnett claims?

I'd read this book for the interesting profiles of some of the survey subjects. But as a work of social research, "Metalheads" is a joke.

The study in this book came about with a set of assumptions and prejudices that the author was determined to prove. The study group was taken from high school and a few of his college students, as these "are the typical metalheads in age group." I am 40, female and professional, quite outside the supposed standard metalhead description. The people I personally know who are into heavy metal music are near my age, both male and female, and all are professionals. Seems that blows the stereotype that this study is based on. Ill-informed and judgmental, this is a book that could have been written without bothering doing any case profiles, without listening to the music and without attending any concerts. Could be considered utterly worthless except for the laugh gotten from how wrong the book is. If it was possible to do so, I would give this book "zero" stars.

If sociology is ever going to become a respectable science works such as this will need to be burned. Arnett writes well- lucid, avoids POMO jargon- but the book fails as a serious explanation of so-called adolescent alienation. Other reviewers have pointed out Arnetts myriad methodological problems.. so I shan't dwell on that; rather I will adress general theoretical issues.
First) Arnett assumes, based on little statistical evidence, that there is a youth crisis in the United States. This is problematic for many reasons. For one thing, Stats show that youth and adult behavior are almost completely correlated. This means, ipso facto, that there is an adult crisis in America as well. More problematically, youth 'crisis' are recorded through out history, from Greece, to early France, to the Post-Industrial Societies of today. If the problematics of adolescent behavior (lacking meaning, angst, depression, etc.) are historically invariant, it does no good to explain them with socially changing variables. You cannot explain a constant with a variable, nor a variable with a constant.
Second) Arnett does not seriously consider a biological approach to human behavior. This is very limiting. Instead of analyzing humans as you would any organic entity, Arnett assumes we are malleable balls of clay. This is a very dubious assumption, belied by evidence. Humans, like all animals, are products of millions of years of natural selection. The fact that humans everywhere have adolescent angst (vide supra), may tell us something about human evolution. Indeed, chimps seem to suffer similar problems when they hit the 'adolescent' stage. Remember, the point of natural selection is the maximize inclusive fitness. In order to do this, males need to compete, gain status, and show their ability to procure resources. Those who did not, are not our ancestors. Males who are just hitting puberty have low status (as all societies are, too some extent, gerontocracies). They also have alot to lose by not competing. These facts alone suggest a parsimonious solution to adolescent angst. Males start to desire status. They do not have it, adults do. They rebel against adults, act idiotic, and feel worthless (in general). This is just what an evolutionary psychologist would predict. And, by the way, this same explanation works to explain the age-crime curve in males. In fact, it can be generalized to explain why young males produce almost all 'costly signals' in society: from music, to sports prowess.
third) Arnett does not focus on the peer-group structure of school at all. Those who are most 'alienated' are usually on the lower rung of the high-school hierarchy(again low status). Is it preps and jocks that are shooting up schools?
fourth) Arnett does not even mention inequality or the incredibly high rate of youth poverty in the United States. Once we factor out inequality and poverty, almost all youth stats in the U.S. match those of Europe and Scandinavia.
fifth) Arnett thinks "hyperindividualism" is the ultimate explanation of alienation, yet does not provide the needed evidence or empirical analysis. This is like saying Capitalism causes recession, or the weather causes it to snow. Well, maybe, but the real question is why. The concept is so vague and ambiguous that its hard to fathom just what it denotes. Is it a real social phenomena or a reified concept?? If "hyperindividualism" is real, how would one go about operationalizing it? What indicators could we use? Arnett attempts to use a few indicators, but they are methodologically weak. This is too bad. It would be interesting to see if the massive changes of modernity have exacerbated adolescent strife. Even if it is empirically true that they have, we would still need to ask why. What is it about humnas that makes these changes detrimental. This assumes an innate nature. Squirrels obviously have not felt the strife of modernization, nor have dogs. What is it about the evolved motivational complex of humans that makes certain changes affect them psychologically? Arnett will not give you an answer to this question.

All in all, a fun read, but not a serious contribution to scientific sociology (is this an oxymoron?). I read it as a work of sociological philosophy.. kind of like Marx, Fromm, or Sartre. Interesting, but too abstract and metaphysical to be of much use for the more positivistic amongst us. I would suggest reading a novel if you want to learn the stuff Arnett tells you. The novel will have two advantages: 1) higher quality writing, 2) no pretense to science.

Wow! What a revelation to hear so many ideas that I thought were mine alone repeated over and over by the participants of Mr. Arnett's study. I must admit that I'm only a lowly marketing researcher, but I don't see any glaring errors in his methodology. He never said metalheads were a unique group or the only adolescents with problems OR that there weren't outliers in the real world.

I enjoyed the book immensely, especially the profiles. As I was reading it I just kept saying, "Hey that's exactly what I used to say!" I am/was a metalhead, I played in countless bands in my teens and early 20s and now I'm 34 and just received my Iron Maiden Powerslave enhanced CD in the mail a week ago. I lived for music, Heavy Metal and Punk. I slamdanced all the time, went to endless concerts, played endless concerts, had hair down to my arse, owned a collection of concert t-shirts and ripped jeans, and even wore spandex at some point. But unlike most of the people in the study, I was straight edge, got good grades and had many friends (including girl friends). To clash with another of Arnett's theories, my household was the model for hyper individualism but my parents added to that a spark of integrity that made all the difference. I did whatever I wanted to, but always kept in mind the effect it would have on others.

This book covered all the major points I would have made if I had written it when I was 15.

1) Hair bands and bands that write about sex and partying are not Heavy Metal.
2) Many heavy metal musicians are extremely talented.
3) The world sucks and everyone has their heads up their bums.
4) Listening to loud music and slamdancing are great ways to burn off steam.

Thanks Mr. Arnett, I wish I would have found this book when it first came out.

Though I'm finding the book an entertaining read, it has major flaws:

1. Instead of arguing a point via using a theoretical framework or considering alternatives, Arnett falls into this "some might say" rhetoric that more or less allows him to inject his own opinion into what he's seeing without completing the argument. Heavy metal lyrics include themes of alienation, "some might say" that listeners take these lyrics literally.

2. As another reviewer pointed out, studying "metalheads" is problematic. Arnett does differentiate heavy metal from hard rock by lyrical themes, musical progressions, but he doesn't discuss the difference between "metalheads" and "heavy metal fans." This difference is crucial. A lot of people might listen to Metallica, Megadeth, or Slayer for fun, they might play heavy metal songs on Rock Band, they might find the lyrics transgressive, funny, weird, whatever. This does NOT make them socially alienated individuals-- it makes them fans of music and popular culture. The "metalheads" that Arnett interviews and his selection methodology for interviewing them pretty much sets up the fact that he's going to be looking at the very tail end of the curve as far as obsessions with heavy metal music goes. I would suggest that the psychological alienation of the "metalheads" in the book have much less to do with anything inherent in the music and a lot more to do with obsessive behaviors.

If sociology is ever going to become a respectable science such works as this will need to be burned. Arnett writes well- lucid, avoiding POMO jargon etc- but the book fails as a serious explanation of so called adolescent alienation. Other reviewers have pointed out some of the methodological problems.. so I shan't dwell on that; rather I will adress some more general issues.
First) Arnett assumes based on little statistical evidence that there is a youth crisis. This is problematic for many reasons. Stats show that youth and adult behavior are almost completely correlated. This means ipso facto that there is an adult crisis in America as well.
Second) Arnett does not seriously consider a biological approach to human behavior. This is very limiting, because instead of analyzing humans as organic evolved creatures he assumes we are malleable balls of clay. This is a very dubious assumption
third) Arnett does not focus on the peer-group structure of school at all. Those who are alienated are usually on the lower rung of the high-school hierarchy. Is it preps and jocks that are shooting up schools?
fourth) Arnett does not even mention inequality or the incredibly high rate of youth poverty int he United States. Once we factor out inequality and poverty, almost all youth stats in the U.S. match those of Europe and Scandinavia.
fifth) Arnett thinks "hyperindividualism" is the ultimate explanation of alienation, yet does not provide the needed evidence or empirical analysis. This is like saying Capitalism causes recession, or the weather causes it to snow. Well, maybe, but the real question is why. Plus the concept is so vague and ambiguous that its hard to fathom just what it denotes. Is it a real social phenomena or a reified concept??

All in All a good, fun read, but not a serious contribution to scientific sociology (is this an oxymoron?). I read it more as a work of sociological philosophy.. kind of like Marx or Sartre. Interesting but to abstract and metaphysical to be of much use for the more positivistic amongst us.

This is an extremely well-written book on fans of heavy metal music. Jeffrey Arnett provides an in-depth and fascinating account of the psychology of the fans of the music and their culture. As a psychologist, I found his description of the metal heads to support what I already knew as well as to provide me with new and very helpful insights. The book told me something about the fans in general and it also provided a good sense of how each fan is unique. There were no easy overgeneralizations. I would very highly recommend this book to other psychologists and to parents or anyone else who would like to learn more about both the positives and negatives of what it means to be a metalhead.

This book is great! I'm a social worker who has done a lot of work with adolescents, and I found the author's analysis to be dead-on target.

The book made for fascinating reading from beginning to end. I was especially intrigued by the author's cross-cultural comparison of the socialization (or lack thereof) of adolescents into their adult community.

I highly recommend this book for anyone who cares about adolescents, especially those adolescents who feel most alienated from society.