Metalheads: Heavy Metal Music And Adolescent Alienation

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.

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.

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.