Children of Cain: A Question of Corruption
In the midst of tragedy, it is not unreasonable to want answers. The nature of said
catastrophe becomes far more pressing over time, whether it is out of prevention or morbid
curiosity. Yet, in the pursuit of truth, fingers will inevitably be pointed, and scapegoats will be
established. The reasons are as varied as the ones being blamed; bad parenting, violent media,
communal disinterest, or nihilistic tendencies have all fallen under examination, and the debate
ultimately remains unsettled.
One particular media figure has received more scrutiny than others; Marilyn Manson,
front man of the rock band of the same name. Repeatedly vilified, Manson’s music career is no
doubt a point of deep contention for some. But, is this rancor justified? Does he take his stage
persona too far, or is all artistic expression acceptable?
Born Brian Hugh Warner, Manson lived as between two grossly differing lifestyles.
While he attended church regularly with his mother, his grandfather made apparent numerous
violent fetishes. Crosses and prayer frequently ran parallel to bestiality and sadomasochism, and
this staunch contradiction surely must have been influential, as Manson’s music often alludes to
blatant sexuality alongside religious allegory.
In fact, Manson seems to blatantly disregard the social limitations of free speech in
general. Almost all of his songs speak of violence, drug use, carnal content, and victimization, all
laced with a healthy dose of profanity. This is well evidenced by his 1996 album Antichrist
Superstar, allegedly meant to be an indirect parody to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Jesus Christ
Superstar (although it could certainly be argued that it is quite direct). In “The Beautiful People”,
lyrics include that beauty is “…all relative to the size of your steeple” and that one can’t
1
“…smell your own shit on your knees”. Antichrist Superstar is unquestionably offensive by
nature, and Manson clearly has, at best, mixed feelings about general theology. At worst, it
appears to be pure shock value, and he certainly succeeds on that front.
It follows that such obscenity will immediately bring the topic of free speech into debate.
After all, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression in majority of
circumstances. U.S. Citizens are given the ability to speak their minds free of the fear of being
forcibly silenced, and Marilyn Manson also has this inherent right. There is no lack of doubt that
his mere existence has become a point of contention, and has made himself famous if only for
how offensive his music is. Stage persona or not, it would likely be difficult to find an individual
without an opinion on Manson’s chosen artistic medium.
However, this creates a new problem. What if the language is potentially harmful, and
could cause others to be harmed? Words indeed have power, and this is certainly a fear when it
comes to sudden tragedy. The Columbine Shooting in 1999 is a classic example of this, and
Manson’s work came under fire for nearly everything he stood for. It was alleged that the
perpetrators of the shooting were avid fans of Marilyn Manson’s work, and some would argue
that they were influenced (or inspired) by his music. Thus came an important question; can
violent media/entertainment dictate behavior? Could Manson’s work produce a killer?
Numerous studies took place, and results were generally mixed. In 2006, Eliana
Tropeano of Western Connecticut State University directly relevant to the previous question
(albeit seven years later), and surveyed thirty three individuals, assigning them to three groups.
Each contained eleven members, with group one viewing a violent music video, group two a
nonviolent music video, and group three as a control. Each group took a survey at the end of the
2
video (or immediately if no video was viewed) involving several emotionally volatile fictional
scenarios, such as discovering a cheating spouse or failing an important test.
The results were quite conclusive. As stated by Tropeano, “When the angry, violent,
aggressive, vulgar videos were shown, participants portrayed a massive amount of hostility; their
moods were changing as the video continued as did their behavior” (Tropeano 33). Though no
produces a universal truth, there is indeed evidence that questionable material produces
questionable thoughts. However, none of these individuals could be proven to act on these
desires, and the scenarios were merely hypothetical in nature. Still, it seems the concerns against
Manson’s music were not completely without merit.
Ultimately, Manson remains a point of contention. Though he has a right to his freedom
of speech and there may yet be a level of art to obscenity (if that is indeed possible), there is
research to suggest that caution should be advised. His work should certainly be labeled with
mature content warnings, and must never be taken literally. An already disturbed individual may
not know the difference between the physical and the fictional, and though Manson is not
directly responsible for the actions of others, it is worth noting that he can influence them. Still,
Manson has left his mark on the media. Only time will tell if it was a scar.
3
Works Cited
Marilyn Manson. “The Beautiful People”. Antichrist Superstar. Interscope Records, 2005. CD.
Tropeano, Eliana. “Does Rap or Rock Music Provoke Violent Behavior?”Journal of
Undergraduate Psychological Research. Volume 1. (2006): 31-34. Print.
4