I think this gets at why there's such a resurgence in interest in "older" morals and thinking: the present is all chaos and confusion, surely the past will know what to do! While there are modes of thought to challenge ourselves with in Plato, etc, the idea that you can just subscribe to being a stoic or a traditionalist Catholic or a Burkean conservative or even an Enlightenment skeptic avoids looking the present in the face
One of the old fashioned views surrounding patriarchy that seems to have completely evaporated is the idea that "a real man" is a man whose time, pursuits, and energy is primarily engaged in service to others - service to family, community, women, children, etc. This sounds like a nice barometer for masculinity because in a way it is, but what made it patriarchal was the paternalizing undertone to a lot of it - via this "service", men also had influence. Because we did once rely on this generosity or philanthropy or simple assistance of some kind from men, we were also dependent on men. Because we aren't as dependent on them as we used to be, this notion of masculinity as defined by service just doesn't really seem to exist anymore. And in fact the entire reaction to this definition has been replaced with this hostile, misogynistic backlash to feminism that takes a really personal tone - "well, fine, since you bitches think you have it all figured out I ain't doing shit anymore! Change your own tires!" etc.
The hustle thing in particular seems totally antithetical to that more traditional concept - instead of "be in service and available to the world", its "fuck the world and get yours, its there to be screwed". I have a hard time with the arguments about how this is solely an articulation of current capitalist logic because the previous definition of masculinity was also fundamental during the emergenc of capitalism - and was frankly common until very recently. I usually do think most really anti-social attitudes have something to do with capitalist logic, but it simply doesn't explain the current prevalence of this by itself.
yeah, I think in some ways this is tied into the sense that loyalty to something bigger than yourself is a trap. and that’s related to changes in the financial system, in this era of disillusionment in politics (Vietnam/Watergate), and seeing the whole system get set up to benefit the sociopaths. loyalty is for fools! so that kind of knocks out stewardship, devotion, etc.
How do you explain my father though? Arguably, he hit all the right benchmarks of patriarchal behavior and reward, he's still very drawn into Trump. Maybe he was always an extremist, but how we identify extremists has changed. You're right about men who have grown up in speculative masculinity.
But my father and the men like him have always been homophobic, sexist, misogynists, racist, bigots. They did the flapping, they got the rewards. But they still do the flapping and get the rewards. Feminist haven't actually taken over their place, despite their fears that it will.
a lot of people who are well off, older, or established who fall into populist movements often do so because of either are or fear that they are moving downward in status or resources. they are afraid of losing what they have -- material or privilege -- and people who play on those fears often get their attention. which is why there's all this paranoia about socialism or communism on the right. they worry their place in the world is slipping, that what they cling to is disappearing, and someone asks them to share what they have? must be communism! etc etc.
Do you think it could be mimesis though? There didn't use to be this notion of 'owning the libs'. People weren't as extreme in their expressions of violence against their political opponents. Men like my dad, for example, might have said it was wrong to blow up an abortion clinic or what McVeigh did was terrible. These days it seems like people like him might be totally okay with it.
politics helps us organize our emotions, and then instruct us on reasonable outlets for those emotions. so when Eric Rudolph is blowing up abortion clinics and the political and media environment is saying, this is grotesque, this is unacceptable, then that helps people think, well, this is beyond the line of acceptability. but when you're listening to people screaming, this is the holocaust of the unborn, then it creates an environment where violence becomes more acceptable.
if you're interested, I really liked Eva Illouz's book The Emotional Life of Populism. she gets into some of this, using the violent rhetoric common in Israel as an example.
I was just writing last night about this exact problem, in the context of artmaking. That bit about how its impossible to tell whether you are doing the right thing, or even heading in the right direction, in the total absence of mentorship, specifically as a dude who was promised rewards (or at least intellectual enrichment, in a "enrichment for my zoo enclosure" kind of way) in exchange for developing his talents-- extremely felt, totally miserable to live with. I'm so excited for this book, you have no idea. I'll have to read Protean Man at some point too-- its maddening that a book that came out the year I was born was so clear and correct about What Is up, and still we have the same problems, but at least it makes some sense of things.
I found that a lot of the most useful reading for the book was not recent material, and a lot of it was out of print. The Protean Self was out of print when I came across it a few years ago, and I think maybe it still is? But also Susan Strange's Casino Capitalism, Mark Simpson's Male Impersonators, Richard Sennett's entire body of work... Other than Thomas Piketty, there was little from the last decade that felt like it was addressing the source rather than the symptom.
I think this gets at why there's such a resurgence in interest in "older" morals and thinking: the present is all chaos and confusion, surely the past will know what to do! While there are modes of thought to challenge ourselves with in Plato, etc, the idea that you can just subscribe to being a stoic or a traditionalist Catholic or a Burkean conservative or even an Enlightenment skeptic avoids looking the present in the face
Everything can be a costume
One of the old fashioned views surrounding patriarchy that seems to have completely evaporated is the idea that "a real man" is a man whose time, pursuits, and energy is primarily engaged in service to others - service to family, community, women, children, etc. This sounds like a nice barometer for masculinity because in a way it is, but what made it patriarchal was the paternalizing undertone to a lot of it - via this "service", men also had influence. Because we did once rely on this generosity or philanthropy or simple assistance of some kind from men, we were also dependent on men. Because we aren't as dependent on them as we used to be, this notion of masculinity as defined by service just doesn't really seem to exist anymore. And in fact the entire reaction to this definition has been replaced with this hostile, misogynistic backlash to feminism that takes a really personal tone - "well, fine, since you bitches think you have it all figured out I ain't doing shit anymore! Change your own tires!" etc.
The hustle thing in particular seems totally antithetical to that more traditional concept - instead of "be in service and available to the world", its "fuck the world and get yours, its there to be screwed". I have a hard time with the arguments about how this is solely an articulation of current capitalist logic because the previous definition of masculinity was also fundamental during the emergenc of capitalism - and was frankly common until very recently. I usually do think most really anti-social attitudes have something to do with capitalist logic, but it simply doesn't explain the current prevalence of this by itself.
yeah, I think in some ways this is tied into the sense that loyalty to something bigger than yourself is a trap. and that’s related to changes in the financial system, in this era of disillusionment in politics (Vietnam/Watergate), and seeing the whole system get set up to benefit the sociopaths. loyalty is for fools! so that kind of knocks out stewardship, devotion, etc.
This is really great, and I have your book pre-ordered. And, as I sit at around p. 300 in the Stendahl, I can see why you had it in mind.
How do you explain my father though? Arguably, he hit all the right benchmarks of patriarchal behavior and reward, he's still very drawn into Trump. Maybe he was always an extremist, but how we identify extremists has changed. You're right about men who have grown up in speculative masculinity.
But my father and the men like him have always been homophobic, sexist, misogynists, racist, bigots. They did the flapping, they got the rewards. But they still do the flapping and get the rewards. Feminist haven't actually taken over their place, despite their fears that it will.
a lot of people who are well off, older, or established who fall into populist movements often do so because of either are or fear that they are moving downward in status or resources. they are afraid of losing what they have -- material or privilege -- and people who play on those fears often get their attention. which is why there's all this paranoia about socialism or communism on the right. they worry their place in the world is slipping, that what they cling to is disappearing, and someone asks them to share what they have? must be communism! etc etc.
Do you think it could be mimesis though? There didn't use to be this notion of 'owning the libs'. People weren't as extreme in their expressions of violence against their political opponents. Men like my dad, for example, might have said it was wrong to blow up an abortion clinic or what McVeigh did was terrible. These days it seems like people like him might be totally okay with it.
politics helps us organize our emotions, and then instruct us on reasonable outlets for those emotions. so when Eric Rudolph is blowing up abortion clinics and the political and media environment is saying, this is grotesque, this is unacceptable, then that helps people think, well, this is beyond the line of acceptability. but when you're listening to people screaming, this is the holocaust of the unborn, then it creates an environment where violence becomes more acceptable.
if you're interested, I really liked Eva Illouz's book The Emotional Life of Populism. she gets into some of this, using the violent rhetoric common in Israel as an example.
I was just writing last night about this exact problem, in the context of artmaking. That bit about how its impossible to tell whether you are doing the right thing, or even heading in the right direction, in the total absence of mentorship, specifically as a dude who was promised rewards (or at least intellectual enrichment, in a "enrichment for my zoo enclosure" kind of way) in exchange for developing his talents-- extremely felt, totally miserable to live with. I'm so excited for this book, you have no idea. I'll have to read Protean Man at some point too-- its maddening that a book that came out the year I was born was so clear and correct about What Is up, and still we have the same problems, but at least it makes some sense of things.
I found that a lot of the most useful reading for the book was not recent material, and a lot of it was out of print. The Protean Self was out of print when I came across it a few years ago, and I think maybe it still is? But also Susan Strange's Casino Capitalism, Mark Simpson's Male Impersonators, Richard Sennett's entire body of work... Other than Thomas Piketty, there was little from the last decade that felt like it was addressing the source rather than the symptom.
"Pre-ordered" the ebook!
Pre-ordered! :)