Content warning: This article discusses allegations of sexual assault.
Billionaire Elon Musk appears to have made a Nazi salute at Trump’s inauguration on January 20. The following day, rock musician Marilyn Manson announced his first headline tour in the United States since he was accused of sexual assault by multiple women.
Manson rose to fame in the 1990s. His albums have sold millions of copies worldwide, with two topping the Billboard 200 album chart that ranks popular music across genres by sales.
The timing is certainly coincidental, and Manson and Musk seemingly have little at all in common, other than perhaps their shared penchant for fascism. Manson in his utilization of fascist imagery and Musk’s support of neo-fascist political parties. While this is likely where the similarities between the two end, our recently published study concerning how fans responded to the allegations against Manson may help offer some insight into the definitional confusion concerning Musk’s salute.
The internet is abuzz with speculation, condemnation, and celebration by self-proclaimed neo-Nazis concerning Musk’s stiff arm extended gesture. For his part, Musk isn’t exactly denying it was a Nazi salute either. Was it a Nazi salute, a Roman salute? Don’t know the difference? Well, a Guardian article delved into the question noting that while historians say Musk clearly made a Nazi salute, others have suggested the gesture was a Roman salute, given as a sign of respect.
So, which was it, or is it neither? And what exactly does Marilyn Manson’s comeback have to do Musk’s salute? Our research paper published earlier this month “Are We Watching the Same Video?”: On the Definition of the Situation and Audience Sense-Making on Social Media about the Sexual Abuse Allegations Against Marilyn Manson” offers us some clues.
Actor Evan Rachel Wood who appeared in Manson’s 2007 “Heart Shaped Glasses” music video revealed in a 2022 documentary that Manson had “essentially raped” her in the video. Wood had agreed to a simulated sex scene in the video but has since alleged that she was non-consensually penetrated (sexually assaulted). Manson was immediately dropped by his record label and his longtime manager. Manson denied wrongdoing and filed a defamation lawsuit against Wood.
In November 2024, Manson dropped his defamation lawsuit against Wood and agreed to pay her legal fees. In dropping the suit, Wood’s attorney said his “claims were meritless.”
Does the “Heart Shaped Glasses” music video depict a consensual simulated sex scene or is it documentation of a criminal sexual assault? How did viewers make sense of what they saw in the video considering Wood’s allegation?
To find out, we analyzed over 5,000 comments made to YouTube in response to the video over a period of 16 months following Wood’s allegation. The findings reveal that the music video itself, including the footage of the sex scene, as evidence of a sexual assault, was usually less relevant to how most viewers interpreted the music video.
We also discovered that there was no shared definitional consensus; people simply saw what they wanted to see. For instance, one user wrote in response to the video: “Looks consensual to me!” But others viewed the video differently: “I really don’t like how she doesn’t seem to be in control over her body.”
Perhaps what surprised us is that we discovered that only a relatively small number of YouTube commentators drew explicitly on their viewing of the “Heart-Shaped Glasses” video to inform their opinion. The key findings of our study then illustrate the importance of pre-existing beliefs rather than the content of the video as evidence that it did or did not document a crime.
An important finding is that the narratives presented about what we can see or don’t see in video, whether it was Manson’s denial or Wood’s allegation, and the users’ orientations to the problem of sexual violence appear to be more influential than the video footage itself in determining how commenters defined the video—whether as footage of a sexual assault or as just a music video.
The findings of our research then might be used to consider circumstances in which individuals are being asked to interpret and define a social situation that is contested, such as Musk’s salute. Musk’s arm gesture, whether it was a Nazi salute, a sort of benign Roman salute, or just flailing, will be interpreted in light of the viewer’s existing political opinions or beliefs.
Lenz Jacobsen wrote “the gesture speaks for itself” in a Die Zeit article with the headline “A Hitler salute is a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute.”
While I certainly agree that Musk was giving a Nazi salute, video itself is never some sort of objective arbiter of “truth” that many, including those in the legal profession, would claim it to be. And importantly, video documentation as “evidence” does not necessarily challenge individuals’ existing understanding of a situation when an alternative interpretation is presented for consideration.
As our research found, people mostly interpret what they see as it best corresponds to their worldview. And alternative views are unlikely to sway them. You can watch a short video of our research findings here and read our paper here.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
