Why Metal Will Most Likely Rule The World

Caleb Busch
Apr 8, 2015
4 min read

A commentary on the anti-establishment movement

When speaking about something as broad and charged as "anti-establishment," clarity is needed. The best way to do this is to say what I will NOT be talking about. For starters, the anti-establishment movement in music is not so much rooted in providing economic equality and guaranteeing true, natural-born freedom. So, ideologies such as anarchism and social libertarianism are not what I mean. Also, a call for anti-establishment is not to be construed with a call to obliterate all morals and do whatever you want. To say this would be to miss the whole "point" of saying you disagree with the establishment, and therefore diminish the actual unrest behind it.

(Protesters. Napping.)

The anti-establishment movement I'm speaking about and which is most prevalent in the music industry is a form of social protest. And this shouldn't surprise us, really. People have been mad at governments and institutions for quite a while, and the urge to express this through art is expected. You've probably seen several exhibitions of protest visual art in your lifetime (think political cartoons) in so much that pointing it out might seem redundant.

This naturally carries into music. Protest is so deeply imbedded in rock and roll that it can be hard to distinguish whether it itself began as a protest or is just another popular medium to do so. Much of the rock and roll lifestyle is shaped in a mentality of "sticking it to the man" and not conforming to social norms that it's gotten a bad stigma among conservatives who fear their ideas are too radical.

(The Presidential Cabinet. AKA "The powers to be")

So, the anti-establishment movement was directly bred from previous desires to break social conventions. To be more specific as to the culture of this movement, the kind of person you'd find shouting for "an end to the establishment" are also likely the kind of people who would enjoy rock concerts and open-ended artistic expression. But this brings us back to the underlying question: why? Why is that so many people are unhappy with the current systems that we live under that they are willing to fly under a banner of an anti-establishment movement? Like we stated early, an "establishment" is quite broad and, in fact, can mean a lot of things. A claim to be against them is actually a very bold and incredible thing to support, which is why I have developed some possible explanations. Below I have three theories to explain why rock 'n roll anti-establishment-ers would defend such a statement, moving from the most superficial to the most philosophic. Of course, life is complex and can't be boiled down to just a couple of reasons, though here’s my shot at understanding.

Theory one: the “followers” are uneducated

What the majority conservative party opinion believes is that most of these people don’t really know what their asking for. When I asked my grandfather (the majority conservative party opinion) about anti-establishment thought, he shook his head.

“There are a lot of people out there,” he said. “Who just want to find something better and have no real tools to do so. We have to help these people.”

He went on to elaborate about how the current “establishments” are doing the best they can and they (the government haters) need to petition civilly and try to gain legislators. A call to “bring down the man,” according to this theory, is simply immature and impatient.

Theory two: It's a form of venting

A valid reasoning behind protest is that it alleviates pent up frustration. While this might be a condescending thing to say to say to a person who held a picket sign for nine hours (in the rain), perhaps there is some hidden truth. Whether or not “venting” is actually a beneficial way to handle anger is irrelevant. People, regardless, will continue to curse, scream, hit things, and riot whether we think it’s useful or not. The call for anti-establishment, though, could just be a way of funneling our worries (car payments, unaccepting legislation) into just one “idea” that is easily believed. According to this theory, the root of our problems is just one thing: an unfair world perpetuated by an unfair system. A call for anti-establishment is a response to this fact in hopes we can change the world we live in.

Theory three: the destruction of social boundaries is needed for happiness

This is a large concession. To entertain the motives behind anti-establishment, perhaps we need to lessen the “restrictions on society” in order to realize peace. This might seem too crunchy granola for some people, but a maxim I attempt to live by is there is some truth in everything. So, to try and dissect this thought, let’s go ahead and make a specific example.

A social cause commonly brought up in anti-establishment fervor is the peace movement. The rationality is that "the establishment," in this case the US, has become evil and bent on world destruction. The government in this view has too much power and little ability to be checked by the common man. This power struggle, being dehumanizing and immoral, has then subvertly diminished the natural social order.

With this in mind, hopefully we can see there is at least little truth in these accusations. The US government, more specifically the executive branch, has considerable control over the military. Not only that, but the ability and/or the willingness to hold plebiscites is very shaky when it comes to war, so naturally people feel left out. The solution to the problem, which is to somehow upthrow or change the system, is where it gets uncomfortable. Many anti-establishment protestors don’t have an idea of how “the establishment” should actually change. Neither do they always fully understand government. The idea that their problems (aka “social order”) is what has to pay for government powers is also very debatable.