Metal, Empathy, and Collective Suffering

Metalcore Discourse

If you listen to metalcore you’re gay and a poser

During my early teen years, before I had yet developed a ‘personality’, I revolved my identity around listening to metal. That something as silly as what music you like can be the foundation from which someone derives such excessive meaning and identity itself is worthy of explanation. But as part of such an identity I would frequent discussions of ‘metal culture’ on forums; and what was striking is how energetically people engaged in the most petty and nonsensical discourses. Most prominently that of whether ‘metalcore’ (a fusion of metal and hardcore punk) should be considered ‘metal’ or not, typically centering around whether a band uses ‘metal riffs’ whatever the fuck that means. Details of the debate are irrelevant, just that they were dumb and absurd. Hence a specific question continued to press me years after the fact: why the fuck did anyone care?

The answer revealed itself upon considering the condemnation of ‘metalcore culture’, specifically that feminine aesthetics and lyrics were accepted. A bloody weird amount of comments were made regarding emo fringes, eyeliner, and skinny jeans. ‘Look at how they dress! Metal is about manly men being badass, they are just girly fags who whine about their girlfriend leaving them’. Evidently a leaf was taken out of the ‘toxic masculinity’ discourse, but this also points towards a general differentiation of culture. Metalcore bands looked different from the general metal aesthetic, and in a manner which was perceived as being alien from metal culture, not merely developments from it. But why care so much about the introduction of these aliens? Why was this taken so personally?

Because, like myself, they had invested so much of themselves within ‘being a person who listens to metal’. What does this mean? It means that not only is being a ‘metal fan’ part of who they are, but they have a deep affinity with metal culture as a whole. The excessive denunciation of metalcore was due to it being a threat to what constituted that culture, and hence denunciation became a form of ‘self defence’. Because if the ‘collective identity changes’: not only does this represent a change of what a person who invests themselves into that identity represents, but there is a ‘diminishing in the wellbeing’ of the culture one cares for. The distance between the collective and the individual are very minimal, they are at once inseparably part of the collective, and detached from it. ‘Metal elitists’ were defined within the collective metal through their zealous opposition to metalcore; but the more one defines themselves in opposition to aspects of the collective, the more they distance themselves. Yet this means distancing themselves from the thing that they love, distancing themselves from what they’ve chosen to identify themselves with.

Empathy: Jordan Peterson and Foucault

One of Peterson’s insights is the inversion of empathy away from the cuddly-hippy cultural connotations it has. It’s often thought that violence between groups is motivated by malice and contempt; a hardened heart which disregards any empathy for those we enact ‘retribution’ upon. Love is all you need, if we merely saw one another as our brothers and sisters we would have world peace! Now certainly Peterson wouldn’t necessarily deny this; any rudimentary knowledge of psychology will point to dehumanisation as a vital foundation of committing evil upon other beings. But he would raise the counter-point: the fact that people are willing to die for their country itself is a result of humans' hyper-empathetic capabilities. They are capable of understanding an abstract sense of ‘Britishness’ to feel personally attacked by Hitler to the extent that they would run up Omaha Beach to be ripped up by roaring machine guns.

Which captures the essence of Foucault’s description of the introduction of biopower as the dominant political paradigm; that the logic of power forces now works within a concept of the ‘human collective’ as having a certain ‘health’, and that individual beings then are regulated in regards to ensure the health of the former. This establishes a macro-discourse which manifests in a variety of areas, hyper-empathy for concepts is then a result of this connection. It should be noted this is a very peculiar form of ‘empathy’ in the sense it is ‘imaginary’: concepts obviously do not have feelings, so the pattern of empathy we feel itself will be a set of constructed interpretations of how certain things affect collective ‘health’.

But I don’t believe any of this should be surprising. The essence of empathy is to feel what others feel: to be joyous in their blessings, and to be sorrowful in their suffering. This intertwinement of the self with others isn’t anything new - nothing revolutionary. And we should understand that intertwinement as a very literal unison within our psyche. Taking Freud’s structuring of the psyche, the superego is formed (to a major degree) in response to social norms. That means societal rules literally are constructive of our own psyche - they are emotionally embedded into ourselves. And yet we don’t need to engage with any specific individual for the ‘psyche of the collective’ to be acculturated into our own minds. When we are at a concert and ‘feel the energy’, we are quite literally having a form of collective empathy which relates to no specific person. For better or worse - we care.

The Old Testament

One of the major troubles I had in understanding the Old Testament is the frequent uses of collective-punishments. That God allowed Satan to slaughter all of Job’s children and that humanity is to suffer until Judgement Day due to the original sin of Adam and Eve. Such stories are alien to modern sensibilities: in what sense is it right to incur punishment for something I haven’t done? Subsequent to such condemnations is a turn to analyse the collective ideas which arose from, that society was deemed more significant than the individual. What number of oppressions can emerge from such a subordination of the individual! What an insidious and unjust social structure! These impulses are so intuitive, that to suggest the contrary would appear strange and abominable.

Yet this becomes clearer if we understand these narratives as descriptive rather than normative, such a lens can expose how inextricably connected to each other we are. It seems hideous that our children must suffer for our sins, but that’s life. Have you not been damaged by the errors and vices of your own parents? Are children not oppressed by the same genetic deficiencies passed down? If there’s anything the increasing awareness of intergenerational trauma showcases: if that original sin really is passed down from generation to generation.

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.   

They may not mean to, but they do.   

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.

And what about every person we influence with our presence? How many people have started binge drinking at university because it’s what their friends got into? Are we to explain British drinking culture as merely a series of individual decisions which just so happen to be able to form something akin to a ‘national drinking culture’? Of course not! Whilst the actual causality of ‘who’s fault is it?’ is too complex to address (if causation even is a sensible language here); your Sunday hangover is at least in part formed by your relations in society.

But is this not merely the implication of belonging to a society and within a collective? Isn’t empathy inherently unjust and unfair? If I am connected to your wellbeing, is this not by definition to be impacted by forces and emotions of which I have no responsibility for or connection to? Are we to condemn empathy and human relations for their oppressive implications?

Individualism

The impulse is to detach ourselves from the punishments other people incur. ‘It’s your fault that you are facing the consequences of your actions, I’m not going to suffer because you’re an idiot!’ - which is inherently an impulse to justice. But I believe within this very same impulse to (rightfully) avoid taking responsibility for someone else, you must distance ourselves from that person. Like the metal elitist who defines themselves against trends occurring within metal culture: they do so at the cost of moving out-of-sync with the collective. Within this impulse for justice, we find a very historically-contingent individualism. An individualism which never wishes to conform, and wants to forge its own identity. An individualism which is granted the loneliness that is inevitable when one defines themselves as an isolated individual. 

If we discover the individualism which is so iconoclastic of community and belonging, we should at least investigate whether our specific impulse to justice should be reassessed. For as the more we incorporate ‘judicial justice’ into our emotionalities, the more we will form a righteousness which divides us from others. It is the willingness to take the place and punishment for the actions of a friend which fosters a unity and connection. Note this isn’t a choice as the fact of a relationship guarantees it, hence a collective sense is needed to navigate friendships responsibly. I suspect part of the appeal of individual justice is an impulse for self-destruction, and the protection individualism grants it. If you take seriously that self-harm affects those around you: it becomes immoral. Hence ‘oppressive of your right to do as you will’; such then needs to be neutralised.

But there is a certain courage in being willing to accept the consequences of others. Something Christly in being willing to endure their suffering so as to be able to develop and maintain a loving connection. If the choice is the inevitability of receiving unjust and undeserved suffering, or to endure the loneliness and isolation of keeping your distance - the better poison is clear.