Binder, Amy: Constructing racial rhetoric: Media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap; American Sociological Review; Dec 1993; 58, 6; ABI/INFORM Global; pg. 753
This article refers to the depictions of Heavy Metal and Rap in the Media, framed in terms of cultural beliefs.
In other words, the portrayal of both music genres by the media is negative, and much of the moral panic surrounding the music has been generated by groups such as the PMRC (Parents' Music Resource Centre) and Moral Majority in the USA.
For those of you old enough to remember, the whole fiasco began in the mid-1980's when a group of politician's wives, who called themselves the PMRC, attended the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Their objective was to reveal the 'sexually explicit' content in many rock lyrics, and most of these were Heavy Metal lyrics. Their position was that
Both these two cases, both being about allegedly harmful lyrics and occurring withing five years of each other, could be easily compared with each other and examined how the mass media could be used as an 'ideological vehicle' (according to Ms Binder).
While Ms Binder found similarities in both these cases, whereby they alleged that these were 'harmful' to young people, she also found several differences. As the focus of controversy shifted from heavy metal to rap, so did the emphasis on whom the music was 'harming' - from the individual listener to society as a whole.
Ms Binder then examined the factors behind the 'differences' in how the two genres were examined. The first factor was the actual lyrical content - with controversial Rap lyrics being more 'graphic' than Heavy Metal ones.
But the second factor was the cultural context, with Heavy Metal being a 'white' music genre, and Rap being a 'black' one, and in particular, she believed that the perception of both genres was not just simply a 'reflection' of 'what's out there', but what the 'opinion writer's' perceptions of the populations represented by the two genres.
She then posited that Heavy Metal lyrics were framed as 'harmful' to the individual (mostly White, middle- or working-class youths), while Rap lyrics were regarded as 'harmful' to society (by mostly 'urban', Black males and their 'angry' audiences onto the rest of the populace).
Her methology was to examine articles written in several publications including the New York Times and Time (both of which had the 'wealthiest and most educated' readership and were 'liberal' in their outlook), Newsweek and US News and World Report (which consisted of readers of a more intermediate education and income), and Readers Digest (which had more working class readers, and a more conservative outlook). She also compared these articles to those written in publications like Jet and Ebony, both of whom had a predominantly African American readership. The idea was to compare how many articles depicted each genre and what was written about them.
Furthermore, she examined the articles in terms of a 'corruption frame' whereby Heavy Metal was considered to have a 'corrupting effect' on the attitudes of their 'young' listeners; and that parents needed to 'shield' their listeners from the lyrics effects (which supposedly lead listeners to engage in self-destructive behaviours). She compared the examination of Heavy Metal lyrics (from a 'corruption frame') to that of Rap lyrics from what was known as a 'Danger to Society' frame: the idea that exposure to 'violent lyrics' might lead the listener to commit violent acts on innocent citizens.
While the latter 'danger to society' frame is applied to Heavy Metal (whereby young people allegedly seek power over others through the 'power of evil' will commit violent acts against authority figures and sometimes women), it was more likely applied to Rap, where:
In her article, Binder speaks of other 'frames' including the 'Freedom of Speech' frame and the 'Threat to Authority' frame (both of whom were equally used to analyse Rap and Heavy Metal lyrics), the Generation Gap frame and Not Harmful frame (that the misunderstanding and dislike of the lyrics is because the older generation dislikes such lyrics and doesn't want their own children listening to them - this argument is used to defend against parental assaults on modern music); and the Important message/Art frame (also used to defend against assaults on music by stating that lyrics have important messages in them).
She then shows more details comparing the 'corruption frame' and 'threat to socieity' frame, by examining how many songs (of each genre) have more of a particular theme (eg, sexual, rebellion against authority) or type of word or reference (eg hard swear words, indirect sexual innuendoes). She found that controversial heavy metal songs had more of the following: rebellion against teachers and parents, indirect sexual references, grisly murder and violence, group sex, incest and suicide; while controversial rap songs had more hard swear words, graphic sex, murder and violence against the police, and degradation and violence towards women. Both groups had equal numbers of prejudicial slurs (eg racism, homophobia). Hence, there could be a plausible explanation as to why the two genres are framed differently, in terms of 'our kids' versus 'those kids'.
Her conclusion (to these arguments) was that both the 'corruption' and 'danger to society' frames' simply portrayed a relationship between the explicit lyrics of a particular music genre, and teenage behaviours like sex, violence, drug use and suicide as simply consequences of these lyrics. And she posited that such explanatory frames made no reference to teenagers feeling 'helpless' or 'hopeless' when faced with personal problems, or their material concerns regarding diminishing economic prospects (like finding employment or decent housing).
Having read the article several times over, I agree mostly with what she says.
Yes, there is widespread employment, and it has become increasingly salient and obvious that teenagers have experienced many personal problems over the years. Not only unemployment and poverty, but also personal issues like depression (and other mental health concerns), bullying, peer pressure and the like. Heavy metal and rap are two examples of genres which 'speak' to their respective audiences, and attract certain kinds of teenagers.
There is a grain of truth to both the 'corruption' and 'danger to society' frames, in terms of the lyrical content. Having done my own lyrical analysis comparing themes and references in both Heavy Metal and Rap, my results were not unlike those of Ms Binder's (and I used more recent songs from the late nineties and early 'noughties' in addition to those of the 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's), and these lend support to the idea that there is a plausible explanation to why such lyrics warrant so much controversy and these explanations.
This article refers to the depictions of Heavy Metal and Rap in the Media, framed in terms of cultural beliefs.
In other words, the portrayal of both music genres by the media is negative, and much of the moral panic surrounding the music has been generated by groups such as the PMRC (Parents' Music Resource Centre) and Moral Majority in the USA.
For those of you old enough to remember, the whole fiasco began in the mid-1980's when a group of politician's wives, who called themselves the PMRC, attended the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Their objective was to reveal the 'sexually explicit' content in many rock lyrics, and most of these were Heavy Metal lyrics. Their position was that
such music filled young peoples' ears with violence and pornography, and glorified such behaviours as drug use, occultism, suicide and anti-patriotic behaviour.Then, during the early 1990's, the focus of 'concern' was over Rap lyrics, particularly the ones written by 2 Live Crew, especially in their album 'As Nasty as They Wanna Be'. The album was judged as 'obscene' in three counties under the jurisdiction of the US District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. And even though the band performed songs from that album at an 'adults only' show (where no 'children' could listen), they were still arrested. In addition, store owners were arrested for continuuing to stock (and sell) that album in their stores.
Both these two cases, both being about allegedly harmful lyrics and occurring withing five years of each other, could be easily compared with each other and examined how the mass media could be used as an 'ideological vehicle' (according to Ms Binder).
While Ms Binder found similarities in both these cases, whereby they alleged that these were 'harmful' to young people, she also found several differences. As the focus of controversy shifted from heavy metal to rap, so did the emphasis on whom the music was 'harming' - from the individual listener to society as a whole.
Ms Binder then examined the factors behind the 'differences' in how the two genres were examined. The first factor was the actual lyrical content - with controversial Rap lyrics being more 'graphic' than Heavy Metal ones.
But the second factor was the cultural context, with Heavy Metal being a 'white' music genre, and Rap being a 'black' one, and in particular, she believed that the perception of both genres was not just simply a 'reflection' of 'what's out there', but what the 'opinion writer's' perceptions of the populations represented by the two genres.
She then posited that Heavy Metal lyrics were framed as 'harmful' to the individual (mostly White, middle- or working-class youths), while Rap lyrics were regarded as 'harmful' to society (by mostly 'urban', Black males and their 'angry' audiences onto the rest of the populace).
Her methology was to examine articles written in several publications including the New York Times and Time (both of which had the 'wealthiest and most educated' readership and were 'liberal' in their outlook), Newsweek and US News and World Report (which consisted of readers of a more intermediate education and income), and Readers Digest (which had more working class readers, and a more conservative outlook). She also compared these articles to those written in publications like Jet and Ebony, both of whom had a predominantly African American readership. The idea was to compare how many articles depicted each genre and what was written about them.
Furthermore, she examined the articles in terms of a 'corruption frame' whereby Heavy Metal was considered to have a 'corrupting effect' on the attitudes of their 'young' listeners; and that parents needed to 'shield' their listeners from the lyrics effects (which supposedly lead listeners to engage in self-destructive behaviours). She compared the examination of Heavy Metal lyrics (from a 'corruption frame') to that of Rap lyrics from what was known as a 'Danger to Society' frame: the idea that exposure to 'violent lyrics' might lead the listener to commit violent acts on innocent citizens.
While the latter 'danger to society' frame is applied to Heavy Metal (whereby young people allegedly seek power over others through the 'power of evil' will commit violent acts against authority figures and sometimes women), it was more likely applied to Rap, where:
Legions of mysogynistic listeners who posed a danger to women, particularly because rap music depicted rape and other brutality,following the rape of a 28-year-old female investment banker in New York's central park; even though there were many lyrics with anti-drug messages and performers who were 'postive role models' for young black teenagers everywhere.
In her article, Binder speaks of other 'frames' including the 'Freedom of Speech' frame and the 'Threat to Authority' frame (both of whom were equally used to analyse Rap and Heavy Metal lyrics), the Generation Gap frame and Not Harmful frame (that the misunderstanding and dislike of the lyrics is because the older generation dislikes such lyrics and doesn't want their own children listening to them - this argument is used to defend against parental assaults on modern music); and the Important message/Art frame (also used to defend against assaults on music by stating that lyrics have important messages in them).
She then shows more details comparing the 'corruption frame' and 'threat to socieity' frame, by examining how many songs (of each genre) have more of a particular theme (eg, sexual, rebellion against authority) or type of word or reference (eg hard swear words, indirect sexual innuendoes). She found that controversial heavy metal songs had more of the following: rebellion against teachers and parents, indirect sexual references, grisly murder and violence, group sex, incest and suicide; while controversial rap songs had more hard swear words, graphic sex, murder and violence against the police, and degradation and violence towards women. Both groups had equal numbers of prejudicial slurs (eg racism, homophobia). Hence, there could be a plausible explanation as to why the two genres are framed differently, in terms of 'our kids' versus 'those kids'.
Her conclusion (to these arguments) was that both the 'corruption' and 'danger to society' frames' simply portrayed a relationship between the explicit lyrics of a particular music genre, and teenage behaviours like sex, violence, drug use and suicide as simply consequences of these lyrics. And she posited that such explanatory frames made no reference to teenagers feeling 'helpless' or 'hopeless' when faced with personal problems, or their material concerns regarding diminishing economic prospects (like finding employment or decent housing).
Having read the article several times over, I agree mostly with what she says.
Yes, there is widespread employment, and it has become increasingly salient and obvious that teenagers have experienced many personal problems over the years. Not only unemployment and poverty, but also personal issues like depression (and other mental health concerns), bullying, peer pressure and the like. Heavy metal and rap are two examples of genres which 'speak' to their respective audiences, and attract certain kinds of teenagers.
There is a grain of truth to both the 'corruption' and 'danger to society' frames, in terms of the lyrical content. Having done my own lyrical analysis comparing themes and references in both Heavy Metal and Rap, my results were not unlike those of Ms Binder's (and I used more recent songs from the late nineties and early 'noughties' in addition to those of the 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's), and these lend support to the idea that there is a plausible explanation to why such lyrics warrant so much controversy and these explanations.
In addition, we also read newspaper and magazine articles, as well as Internet postings on discussion forums and online articles, watch TV and listen to the radio, and we are reminded of our own particular experiences with people from particular cultural, economic and sub-cultural backgrounds. People write in (whether to agree or disagree) to a particular media outlet, and in turn, the media tells them 'what they want to hear', hence lending support to the idea that the media is either a reflection of society, or a cultural referent.
Hencer, when we have certain experiences with particular groups, and we then hear or read about what happens to other people in the media (regarding that particular group), such 'moral panics' are not without their bases. My own (mostly negative) experiences with 'gangstas' (of any nationality, and not just people of colour) is supported by what is portrayed in the media. Hence, I don't 'just don't like them' because I know that they haven't always 'endeared' themselves to everyone.
but having said that, I have also witnessed (for myself) people who who misbehave in public even though their is not evidence to suggest they listen to either the Heavy Metal or Rap music; and if I was to study this phenomenon (after hearing about it or reading about it in the paper) and compare their behaviour to that of either Heavy Metal or Rap fans (or at least people who make it obvious they listen to either genre), I wonder what the arguement would be here. Would it be simply that the music they listen to 'corrupt their young minds' or will it be that same music be a 'danger to the rest of society'? Or is there some other factor at play, like substance abuse or simply that that particular group has problems of their own? Who knows?
Comments
Post a Comment
What is your own take on this situation? How do you rise above the rot?