Gallam-conference Submission 2009

8/7/2019 Gallam-conference Submission 2009

1/21

Whos to Blame 1

Running head: WHOS TO BLAME

Whos to Blame for the Columbine Shootings?: The Rhetorical Function of the

Collectivism/Individualism Tension in Response to a Tragedy

Abstract

The 1999 high school shootings in Littleton, Colorado that took the lives of 14 people rattled the

nation. The shootings brought with them speculation on whom was to blame, focusing on shock

rock music and Marilyn Manson as well as gun owners and members of the National Rifle

Association. In this analysis, I evaluated an interview with Marilyn Manson by Michael Moore,

as featured in the documentaryBowling for Columbine, and a speech made by former NRA

president Charlton Heston in 1999. By applying the narrative paradigm, McGees concept of an

ideograph (1989), and the ideologies of collectivism and individualism, I argue that in Mansons

interview, the persons who represent individualism are marginalized by the values and beliefs of

the collective whole, however in Hestons speech, both individualism and collectivism function

collaboratively in the promotion of the hegemonic social order.


2/21

Whos to Blame 2

Whos to Blame for the Columbine Shootings?: The Rhetorical Function of the

Collectivism/Individualism Tension in Response to a Tragedy

On April 20, 1999, two Columbine high school seniors by the names of Dylan Klebod

and Eric Harris took an arsenal of guns and explosive devices to school and killed 12 of their

peers, a teacher, wounded 29 others, and then took their own lives shortly after on site in

Littleton, Colorado. (Strauss, 2007). The Columbine school tragedy, which until the recent

shootings at Virginia Tech, was the worst school shooting in the United States (Chyi &

McCombs, 2004). The shooting resulted in a media frenzy, which ranked the tragedy as the

number two news story in the nation for the year of 1999. (Plaisance & Deppa, 2006). What also

set the Columbine shootings apart from the other high school shootings that took place around

the same time [1998-1999] in Pearle, Mississippi, West Puducah, Kentucky and Jonesboro,

Arkansas was the extended time frame of the Columbine crisis, the live media coverage of the

event as it unfolded, as well as the carnage and visually violent aftermath of the images of the

victims being carried out of the school or being questioned. (Seeger et al., 2001). As the tragedy

was still unfolding, the people in America and the media had already begun their finger pointing

to place blame for the actions of Klebold and Harris because they were white, middle class, and

did not conform to the standardized representation of what a killer is todays society, and the

impoverished, people of color blame did not apply. (Strauss, 2007). The main points of blame

included the influence of the National Rifle Association [NRA], the parents of Harris and

Klebold, and the nations gun control policy.

In the following weeks after the tragedy, people quickly averted to blaming the media,

and singer/songwriter Marilyn Manson especially, whose lyrics and performances often

supplement violence and disorder. Manson has been placed into the stereotypical subculture of a


3/21

Whos to Blame 3

goth, characterizing the way he dresses and how he wears make-up as [someone whom revels]

in all things dark and deathly. (Gunn, 1999, p. 409). Mansons songs and lyrics had been under

scrutiny, and were a main focal point of protests given by the victims of Columbine. The fear of

goths is a response common to many groups, but especially religious communities, who are

bound tightly by an idealized, historical moral ethic. (Gunn, 1999). In an interview with Michael

Moore, which was featured in the documentaryBowling for Columbine, Manson refutes that he

is to blame for the shootings or for the violent thoughts of Klebold and Harris, and that the nation

only feared him because he is so different from the collective whole.

However, after the shooting, many Americans also pointed their blame towards the

nations policy on gun control, and the accessibility many people have to firearms in gun shows.

Many victims of Columbine and other advocates to stricter gun control began protesting the

coming of NRA to Denver for their annual convention in May of 1999, just a month after the

Columbine shootings. The main group which protested Hestons arrival and fought to correct

faults in the laws of gun control, including the gun show loop holes was sane alternatives to the

firearm epidemic [SAFE], with head lobbyist Tom Mauser, who is the father of slain Columbine

student Daniel Mauser (Soraghan, 2000). Former NRA president Charlton Heston gave a

keynote speech introducing the annual NRA national meeting, which stated NRA members were

not to blame and were just as shocked and horrified with what happened at Columbine and were

also mourning for the people of Littleton.

The Columbine shootings reignited the differences between two main dueling ideologies

in the study of culture, which are individualism and collectivism. These ideologies, which

represent ones self-reliance and independence and ones place in a larger whole, dominate the

structure of a cultures norms, values, and beliefs (Zhao, 2006). However, in the United States,


4/21

Whos to Blame 4

which is a predominantly individualistic society, collectivism still exists. In times of great

tragedy, like Columbine, feelings of togetherness and collectivism dominate and groups of

people tend to flock together for the greater whole, versus primarily focusing on their individual

needs. The importance of individualism becomes prevalent in the historical roots of this country,

including the Constitution, which allows any American citizen the right to bear arms as an

unquestioned right (Celinksa, 2007). After the Columbine shootings, the people of the country

who were driven by utilitarian individualism were the ones who advocated gun ownership and

frequently evoked the rhetoric of protection and individual rights, arguing that purchasing and

using guns helps them to achieve the goals of protecting themselves and their family, even if the

collective safety might suffer (Celinksa, 2007).

However, in the debate between whether or not Marilyn Manson and other entertainment

venues are to blame, the ideology of collectivism prevails, because the rational world demands a

citizenry that shares common language, shares common values and adheres to them, and a shared

understanding of the argumentative issues and the various forms of reasoning that constitute

daily life (Fisher, 1984). As an article written by Marilyn Mansons explicates, the general

assembly and the general public have a disdain for people who veer outside of this common

knowledge and common set of rules (Manson, 1999).

The purpose of this paper is to apply McGees concept of an ideograph (1989) and

Fishers theory of the narrative paradigm (1984) to analyze the interview given by Manson in the

documentaryBowling for Columbine and the keynote speech given by Heston in the 1999 NRA

convention in Denver, while utilizing the dueling ideologies of collectivism and individualism.I

then argue, through narrative and ideographical analysis of both Mansons interview and

Hestons speech, that narrative fidelity and coherence are achieved by utilizing the ideographs


5/21

Whos to Blame 5

of and , and I found that in Mansons interview, the persons

who represent individualism are marginalized by the values and beliefs of the collective whole,

while in Hestons speech, both individualism and collectivism function collaboratively in the

promotion of the hegemonic social order.

Individualism v. Collectivism: The Dueling Ideological Paradigm

According to Zhao (2006), individualism/collectivism is the major dimension of cultural

variability and is used to explain the cross-cultural differences in behavior. In many highly

capitalistic/ modern societies, individualistic characteristics and tendencies are more prevalent

than collectivist; however, scholars have argued that national cultures tend to combine elements

of both to integrate their society (Celinksa, 2007). A study done by McAuliffe (as cited in

Celinksi, 2007) found that ones behavior depends and is motivated by the groups norms.

Triandis documented (as cited in Zhao, 2006), that individualism and collectivism differ in four

different attributes. The first was focused on the self, which in terms of individualistic persons

means they focus on themselves and not others, while a collectivist persons concept of self

includes other people. The second attribute deals with the relationship between self and others,

and individualists encourage others to pursue personal goals while collectivists require the

subordination of individual goals to the goals of the collective. The third attribute is related to the

way self interacts in society, and an individualistic persons decline to become conformed, while

collectivists are inclined to conform. The last attribute then deals with interpersonal

relationships, where the individualistic person forms relationships to meet the need of self and

collectivists join relationships to feel apart of someone else (Zhao, 2006). As previously stated,

individualistic persons tend to be emotionally independent, somewhat detached from the

community, self-contained, autonomous and self-reliant (Celinksa, 2007). Collectivist persons


6/21

Whos to Blame 6

value group or community interests over self-interest, such as a willingness to share resources

with others outside of themselves, and are more likely to work together to achieve common goals

or conform to a common belief system (Celinksa, 2007). These constructs [individualism and

collectivism] are also further distinguished along vertical and horizontal axis, stating that

horizontal patterns assume that one self is more or less like every other self [collectivism] and

vertical patterns consist of hierarchies and one self is always different from another self

(Campbell, 2008). These differences between individualism and collectivism have been

associated with many different experiences, and have been highlighted within, and between,

society hegemony in the propensity to use certain feelings of assimilation or inclusion among the

population (Oyserman & Lee, 2008).

McGees Ideograph: A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology

The ideograph, which was constructed by Michael McGee, is a term to which is value

charged and controversial, and is apart of the ideological structures that are set to both control

the power and to influence an individuals vision of reality. (McGee, 1980). The purpose of an

ideographic analysis is to demonstrate how hegemony is present in the particular rhetorical

artifacts that are being presented. The hegemonic structure, which is seen in all aspects of

American society, describes a balance of inequality through the consensus of the marginalized

people(s) (OSullivan et al., 1994). Ideographs and hegemony collaborate to construct the

ideologies that guide our everyday lives and our views on the world around us. Ideologies make

the ideals of hegemony seem natural, and represent the social activity that we face daily as

legitimate and binding (OSullivan et.al, 1994). The ideographs which relate to the societal views

of individualism and collectivism in the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings are that of


7/21

Whos to Blame 7

, which are the rights to which every citizen of the United States are bestowed,

and , which is when people try to emulate one another to appear to be the same.

The Method of Storytelling: The Narrative Paradigm

On the larger scale of the Columbine shootings, Mansons interview and Hestons speech

are both narratives that contain a beginning, middle and an end, as well as contain very highly

valued end points. The method of story telling relates directly to the larger ideologies of

individualism and collectivism, because it [story telling] explores individuals understandings of

their experiences to the context of their own lives [individualism] while simultaneously looking

to the wider social/cultural resources to which other people draw to help make sense of their

lives [collectivism] (McCormack, 2004). Fisher incorporates the ideal of a rhetorical vision,

which explains that in a narrative view, each concept translates into dramatic stories, constituting

the fabric of social reality for those who compose them. (Fisher, 1984). The narrative paradigm

also incorporates narrative rationality, which must not be mistaken for traditional rationality.

Narrative rationality offers an account, an understanding, of any instance of human choice and

action, including science, while the rational world paradigm represents that humans are

essentially rational beings and human decision-making and communication is paradigmatic

(Fisher, 1984). Narrative rationality, however, must be proved through establishing if the

narrative contains fidelity and coherence. According to Roberts (2004), the reality of a narrative

can only be created by people who have freedom to move within and provide good reasons to tell

the story. Narrative coherence is assessed by establishing if the story and characters act in a

reliable and probably manner, and if the story is parallel to the paradigms of the

traditional/rational world and the means of persuasion and argument (Fisher, 1984). Narrative


8/21

Whos to Blame 8

fidelity relies heavily on the stories ability to relate to the audience that share the same

fundamental values (Fisher, 1984).

Mansons Take on Columbine: A Narrative Perspective

In an effort to make sense of our lives, we narratize life and then live the narratives that

result, they are not only told purposefully as stories to ourselves and our acquaintances, and also

are embedded in our conversations with others (Fireman & McVay, 2007). The narrative

paradigm, advanced by Fisher, deconstructs daily conversations and life experiences as series of

stories that are told to help make sense of experiences and where we fit into the greater culture.

In the interview with Michael Moore inBowling for Columbine, Marilyn Manson constructs the

narrative of why he was being blamed for the Columbine shootings, which lie with his departure

from the conformed whole of society. I represent what everyone is afraid ofI do and say

whatever I want, (Moore, 2002). Mansons choice to speak his mind freely and record any type

of music he desires is a clear representation of individualism, which is the cultural orientation in

which the individuals are unique and individual goals are emphasized over group goals (Zhao,

2006).

In this narrative construction, the narrator of the story is Michael Moore (the

interviewer), where Manson plays the role of the proclaimed villain. In Mansons statement,

where he says that he is what everyone is afraid of, he is articulating more clearly how the media

and the religious groups have portrayed him as evil, the villain who represents all that is wrong,

and instills fear on the citizens of the nation. This characterization of Manson as a villain is

constructed by certain segments of society, and his description of himself and how others see

him represents a plotline shift in the story. The plotlines in narrative are drawn from statements

made by the conflict participants and occasion representative summaries of those on the outside


9/21

Whos to Blame 9

(Collins & Clark, 1992). He begins the story by stating why he got into music, stating it was an

escape, a place where he was not judged by others because of the clothes I wore. (Moore,

2002). To himself and his followers, this portrayal of himself does not represent that of a villain,

but of a victim of bullying who is teased for his appearance, and this explanation of him

represents a side that depicts no fragment of evil. Manson, who also wrote an article in the June

24,1999 issue of Rolling Stone, titled Columbine, Whose Fault is it?, stated in the column that

his message is positive and the opposite of what his detractors claim. However, when Manson

explains [in the interview] how others see him, as the poster boy of fear, its addressing how

much of the collective whole see him as the destructive enemy, the villain who represents all that

is wrong in society.

Through the analysis of this interview, the valued end point of the story is that of

individualism, and this point is clearly represented as the downtrodden value of todays society,

and he [Manson] articulates how people who possess individualistic traits are bullied, feared or

judged. Music is an escape; it is the only thing that does not pass judgmentit wont yell at you

for dressing the way you do (Moore, 2002). This statement clearly depicts how the collective

society looks down on, and even reprimands individuals for expressing themselves in a different

manner than the collective whole. According to Zhao, (2006) collectivists prefer to follow norms

of the cultureand desire to conform to the values and beliefs of the social norms. The fear of

goths is a response common to many collectivist groups. Manson has positively differentiated

himself from the collective whole, through dress, music, and his own speech. Typically,

individualism is thought of as a manifestation of what happens when people detach or

psychologically withdraw from a group (Jetten et al, 2006). Like Manson and the subculture of

Goths, what defines the heavy metal music he does is its social position as a site of cultural


10/21

Whos to Blame 10

contestation, and although there are people who like that type of music, there are many more that

dislike it, and contest it as being apart of the social whole (Halnon, 2006). In the interview,

Manson states that he is what everyone is afraid of, and even his physical appearance in the

interview [dressed in all black, white face paint and black paint under his eyes, very pale skin

and an emaciated body] is so vastly different than that of what the normal, conformed American

men look like. Mansons challenge to collectivism and the conformed values, beliefs and social

norms of the country immediate call for him, and others who try to emulate his look and/or

persona to be dissimilated from society and judged, misunderstood and marginalized.

Utilizing the value is operative in establishing how probable the story

Manson is telling in the interview is to the reader. In the rational world perspective, conformity is

the standard of life. According to Fisher (1984), the real world paradigm demands a citizenry

that shares common language, shares common values and adheres to them, and a shared

understanding of the argumentative issues and the various forms of reasoning that constitute

daily life. As Manson explicates in the interview, the general assembly and the general public

have a disdain for people who veer outside of this common knowledge and common set of rules.

Understanding makes Mansons argument that people are the same everywhere

a probable argument in the rational world. When Manson states that its not hard to see why they

blame me, its easy to throw my face on the TV, because I am the poster boy of fear (Moore,

2002), his portrayal of the villain and the one to blame becomes highly probable to the viewer

based solely on his appearance and the fact that people correlate him with fear, death, evil and

wrongdoing (Gunn, 1999). Also, the young men [Harris and Klebold] were repeatedly described

as being goths who dressed in gothic-style clothing highlighted by long black coats, and their

faces were sometimes covered with white makeup and eyeliner (Burns, 1999). When the viewer


11/21

Whos to Blame 11

sees Manson in this interview, who is wearing white face-makeup, eyeliner, and a black trench

coat with long black hair, the comparison of Manson with the Columbine killers [Harris and

Klebold] become nearly identical. In the rational world paradigm, when a person who is dressed

just like a dark, often demonic music star, commits 12 murders, it is more logical, plausible and

probable to blame the violent rock star for what the killer did.

Mansons story being told to Moore, however, does not establish narrative fidelity with

the entirety of all who read it. Mansons words ring true to the individuals who, much like

himself, have formed an identity outside of the cultural and social norms of the country. As he

states in an article to Rolling Stone, I am one who dares to have an opinion and bothers to create

music and videos that challenge peoples ideas in a world that is watered down and hallow.

(Manson, 1999, para. 11). Manson also reiterates this point in the interview, stating I represent

all that everyone is afraid of because I do and say what I want (Moore, 2002) Mansons story

adheres to the value of individuality through his goth-like appearance, dress and strong

opposition to the middle American values. Yet, those who share the collective values of

Christianity and the societal norms, for example, do not find fidelity in his accusations against

those values.

In the interview, Manson makes the statement that the President is a larger influence on

society than he is, and therefore, the President should be the one who is being blamed for

Columbine. The President was shooting bombs overseas, yet Im a bad guy because I sing some

Rock and Roll songs, but whose a bigger influence, Id like to say Marilyn Manson, but I know

its the President (Moore, 2002). This statement appeals to the people of the country as a whole,

because in our society, the President is held responsible for what goes wrong in the nation, so the

collective whole finds the Presidents actions and statements to be a larger influence on them


12/21

Whos to Blame 12

than the words spoken by Manson. However, Manson continues this statement by saying its

ironic that nobody said well maybe the President had an influence on this violent behavior, but

no thats not the way the media takes it and spins it, and turns it into fear (Moore, 2002). This

statement articulates that fear, which is what is commonly associated with him and the goth

subculture, spins events and tragedies so that the scapegoat who is blamed is someone whom is

already loathed and marginalized in the society, which makes the blame on them not such a far

stretch. In the time of Columbine the President was Bill Clinton, who left the White House with

an approval rating of over 65 percent. The statement made by Manson, along with Clintons

approval rating, shows how the marginalized persons of a society [Manson, individualists] are

the first to blame just based on their place in the hegemonic order of society, despite the fact that

Clinton, who at the time of Columbine had dropped more bombs on Kosovo than any other time

(Moore, 2002), and was on the forefront of those committing violent acts and killing innocent

people, much like what Klebold and Harris did on April 12, 1999. Clinton, who appeals to

collectivism in the United States, because a Presidents duty is to unite a country into a whole,

functions as the superior power in the hegemonic power structure of our country, so in terms of

blaming Clinton or Manson for the actions of Columbine, the marginalized group [individualists,

Manson, goth subculture] will be the first to be questioned and blamed when a tragedy occurs.

Charlton Hestons Speech to the NRA: An Appeal to Collectivism and Individualism

The controversial topic of gun control introduces a tension between the dialectic of

protection of individuals rights and the need to fulfill the interests and safety of the larger

community. The idea of utilitarian individualism [reliance on self-interests] has been a value that

has been deeply rooted in American history, beginning with the second amendment right to bear

arms (Celinksa, 2007). However, collectivism [the focus on communitys safety], lies on the


13/21

Whos to Blame 13

opposite side of the continuum, and which after the Columbine school shootings, has been the

focal point of gun control advocates who vastly dispute the arguments reliant on second

amendment rights. (Celinksa, 2007).

Hestons speech to the NRAs national meeting in Denver was a highly controversial one

though, due to the fact it occurred just two months following the Columbine school shooting.

The speech was protested by thousands of people, including victims of the Columbine tragedy

like Tom Mauser, and they [victims] even traveled as far as the Capitol Steps prior to the speech

to fight against the NRA having a gun rally so close to the home of the tragedy. The mayor of

Denver even sent Charlton Heston a message saying not to come because of what had just

happened. Heston quoted in the speech, This is our country, As Americas, and were free to

travel where we want in our broad land. (Heston, 1999). This quotation in itself represents the

ideograph of , by mentioning that as Americans, we have the right to travel

about the country as we see fit, and also demonstrates the ideologies of freedom and the feelings

of patriotism felt by pro-gun enthusiasts. As quoted by Heston in the transcript of his

introductory speech, This community is our home; every community in America is our home.

We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful,

responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life. (Heston, 1999,

pp. 2). In this particular quotation, Heston is appealing to the millions of gun owners at first, but

largely, through his rhetoric of American life and the citizens rights that lie in that life, he is

appealing to people who advocate the rights of an American citizen. This appeal to the American

population as a whole is also especially present in another portion of his speech. As Americans,

we are free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. In this quote, he is not even

distinguishing members of the NRA, or gun owners from the general population, instead he is


14/21

Whos to Blame 14

addressing the country as a whole, relying heavily on to travel anywhere inside

the country without dispute. These fragments of Hestons speech appeal to collectivism, utilizing

the visceral value of to appeal to nearly everyone in the country, who believe

and value the rights they have been granted by being citizens of this country.

Hestons appeal to collectivism is also portrayed in his support of the NRA and refute

that they, or gun laws, are to blame for Columbine, stating that the millions of members of the

NRA were too mourning the tragedy, and were too shocked by what happened. In stating this, he

portrays the NRA as not an evil force, or a collection of gun toting individuals who brandish

arms on the street corner, but instead a collective force and one of the last bastions of protection

for (Congalton & Ganer, 2000). Hestons speech addresses the NRA as a

collective whole and appeals to the ideology of collectivism when he mentions how many NRA

members reside in Denver and have contributed and helped the Colorado economy NRA

members labor in Denver's factories, they populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations,

play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the Front Range, parent and teach and

coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches and proudly represent Denver in uniform on

the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment. (Heston, 1999). This is

representative of the first and second attributes of individualism/collectivism addressed by Zhao,

(2006), in which collectivists concept of self includes other people, like family, community

members and coworkers, as well as adhering and contributing to the goals of the collective

whole, which in this case, is the community well-being and economy of Denver.

To better construct Hestons speech as a narrative, it will be evaluated using the terms

narrator and character development. Each of these choices [character development and narrator]

helps to transform our understanding of the chronological events of story and the conflict


15/21

Whos to Blame 15

prevalent (Collins & Clark, 1992). In this narrative, Heston plays the role of the protagonist, or

the main character and good guy, and his authoritative voice sets the tone for how the story will

be heard and perceived. Heston gains credibility from the audience and his story achieves

narrative fidelity by addressing to the audience that he is a member of the same country as they

are, as well as the same organization, and has the same values and beliefs in the constitution as

they do. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our

differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity

(Heston, 1999). The operative word in this statement is we, because he is placing himself as one

of them, and not as their leader or someone above them, which brings the audience and Heston

together on a shared belief system.

Hestons speech also appeals to the ideology of individualism, and he addresses

in terms of the gun control debate as the individuals right to protecting one

self, and the individuals goal to personal safety and well-being. The construct of individualism

and values of gun ownership have been bound tightly together throughout American history

(Celinksa, 2007). Those strongly advocating gun ownership also frequently evoke the rhetoric of

protection and individual rights, arguing that purchasing guns helps them to achieve the goals of

protecting themselves, even if the collective safety might suffer (Celinksi, 2007). Hestons

speech as a whole also adheres to individualism because in the United States, gun ownership is

an advocate of an individuals right to protection and right to bear arms according to the

Constitution. Heston argues in his speech that the Second Amendment ethic of lawful,

responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable,

which addresses individualism in that advocates of gun ownership see gun control as an

infringement of their constitutional rights and ,and the amendment grants law-


16/21

Whos to Blame 16

abiding citizens the right to own firearms as a defense against the intrusive, collective

government (Celinksa, 2007).These gun control opponents seem to perceive any restrictions ongun ownership as invading their individual liberty (Celinksa, 2007), which is what Hestons

speech addresses. According to a study done by Celinksa (2007),opposition to gun control isrooted in Americas enduring tradition of individualism because the legal gun owners in this

country possess certain individualistic traits such as being white, male, Protestant, middle class

and Republican, and holding individualistic values increases the odds of opposing gun permits

by nearly six percent (Celinksa, 2007).

Hestons appeal to both collectivism and individualism garnered him much more respect

and credibility from the viewers of the speech than did viewers of Mansons interview, for

Manson only appealed to individualism and attacked collectivism. When phrased this way [one

versus the other] as an either-or choice, the dilemma becomes more or less irresolvable (Jetten et

al. 2006). As many scholars have found, including Jetten, McAuliffe, Hornsey & Hogg (2002),

the ideologies of individualism and collectivism are not combating, instead, collaboratively work

together. As quoted by Tajfel (as cited in Jetten et al. 2006), In order for large numbers of

individuals to be able to hate or dislike, or to discriminate against other individuals, they must

first have acquired a sense of belong to groups or other social categories. As this quote states, a

culture can not have one without the other, and what makes the well-being of a culture depends

on how individuals and groups are related to each other, and how each of them think and

function together (Oyserman, 2006). Many scholars have argued both that culture matters to the

extent that individuals living in different societies are likely to have differing experiences, more

ambitiously, that culture and social norms matter to these experiences and the cultural

perspective provides new insights into psychological processes (Oyserman & Lee, 2008).


17/21

Whos to Blame 17

Conclusion

Hestons speech and Mansons interview represent how human beings are essentially

story-tellers, and all have a side of a story to tell. As quoted by Fireman & McVay (2002), in

effort to make sense of our lives and our existence we narrative our lives and live the narratives

that result. Mansons interview, which appeals to individualism, tells a story of how the

collectivist nature of our country and the need for has in turn marginalized and

repressed those who step outside of the boundaries and challenge the existing order, while

Hestons speech addressed both individualism and collectivism, and makes the point that both

together are apart of our society, and neither group are marginalized. Many scholars have found

that a society can not function without having both individualism and collectivism, and the study

of these dueling ideologies not only measures the cultures, by the individuals as well. Zhao

(2006) argues that individuals could have tendencies of both ideologies. However, the groups

who represent extreme individualism, like Manson, who do not fit in the collective whole, are

often judged and feared for that very reason. Even though the United States is regarded as an

individualistic society, research, and such notability made by Manson and other marginalized

subcultures have provided, that this country can only somewhat be individualistic, and instead,

represents many aspects of a collectivist society.


18/21

Whos to Blame 18

References

Burns, G. (1999). Marilyn Manson and the apt pupils of Littleton [Electronic version].

Popular Music and Society, 3-8.

Campbell, S. (2008). Perceptions of mobile phone use in public: The roles of individualism,

Collectivism, and focus of the setting [Electronic version]. Communication Reports,

21(2), 70-81.

Celinksi, K. (2007). Individualism and collectivism in America: The case of gun ownership and

attitudes towards gun control [Electronic version]. Sociological Perspectives, 50(2), 229-

247.

Chyi, H. & McCombs, M. (2004). Media salience and the process of framing: Coverage of the

Columbine school shootings [Electronic version].Journalism and Mass Media Complete,

81(1), 22-35.

Clark, J. & Collins, C. (1992). A structural narrative analysis ofNightlines This Week in the

Holy Land [Electronic version]. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 9(1), 25-43.

Congalton, J. & Ganer, P. (2000). The Columbine shootings: The trajectory of argumentative

responses [Electronic version]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International

Communication Association, Annandale, VA.

Fireman, G.D. & McVay, T.E. (2002). Undermining and constructing coherence in traditional

narrative paradigms: Contemporary views [Electronic version]. Journal of Constructivist

Psychology, 15, 167-169.

Fisher, W. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral

argument. Communication Monographs, 51, 1-22.

Gunn, J. (1999). Marilyn Manson is not Goth: Memorial struggle and the rhetoric of sub cultural


19/21

Whos to Blame 19

identity [Electronic version].Journal of Communication Inquiry, 23(4), 408-431.

Halnon, K.B. (2006). Heavy metal carnival and dis-alienation: The politics of grotesque realism

[Electronic version]. Symbolic Interaction, 29(1), 33-48.

Heston, C. (1999). Speech to the NRA. CNS Information services. Retrieved September 27, 2008

from http://www.freedaily.com/articles/990504n1.html.

Jetten, J., McAuliffe, B., Hornsey, M., & Hogg, M. (2006). Differentiation between and within

groups: The influence of individualist and collectivist group norms [Electronic version].

European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 825-843.

Manson, M. (1999, June 24). Columbine: Whose fault is it?Rolling Stone Magazine. Retrieved

November 3, 2008 from

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923915

McGee, M. (1980). The ideograph: A link between rhetoric and ideology [Electronic version].

The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1), 1-16.

McCormack, C. (2004). Storying stories: A narrative approach to in-depth interview

conversations [Electronic version]. Social Research Methodology, 7(3), 219-236.

Moore, M. (2002, October 11). Interview with Marilyn Manson. Retrieved November 13, 2008

from http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.php

Osyerman, D. (2006). High power, low power, and equality: Culture beyond individualism

and collectivism [Electronic version].Journal of Consumer Psychology, 352-356.

Osyerman, D. & Lee, S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of

priming individualism and collectivism [Electronic version].Psychological Bulletin,

134(2), 311-342.
http://www.freedaily.com/articles/990504n1.htmlhttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923915http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.phphttp://www.freedaily.com/articles/990504n1.htmlhttp://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5923915http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.php


20/21

Whos to Blame 20

OSullivan, T., Hartley, J., Sauders, D., Montgomery, M., & Fiske, J. (1994). Key concepts in

communication and cultural studies (2nd ed.) New York: Routledge.

Plaisance, P. & Deppa, J. (2006). Causes of Columbine: How news framing marginalized school

size as a factor in the tragedy [Electronic version]. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the International Communication Association.

Roberts, K. (2004). Texturing the narrative paradigm: Folklore and communication [Electronic

version]. Communication Quarterly, 52(2), 129-142.

Seeger, M., Heyart, B., Barton, E., & Bultnyck, S. (2001). Crisis planning and crisis

communication in the public schools: Assessing post Columbine responses [Electronic

version]. Communication Research Reports, 18(4), 375-383.

Strauss, C. (2007). Blaming for Columbine: Conceptions of agency in the contemporary United

States [Electronic version]. Current Anthropology, 48(6), 807-832.

Soraghan, M. (2000). Colorado after Columbine: The gun debate [Electronic version]. State

Legislatures, 26(6), 1-17.

Young, R. (Producer), & Moore, M. (Director). (2002).Bowling for Columbine [Motion picture].

United States of America: MGM Distribution Center.

Zhao, Y. (2006).Individualism/collectivism and adjustment: A cultural fit approach [Electronic

version]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication

Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Germany.


21/21

Whos to Blame 21

Gallam-conference Submission 2009

Documents

Transcript of Gallam-conference Submission 2009