Is it possible that the brutal attributes we deplore in men define them as “good” in a way that being kind and compassionate cannot?
—
“It would be both foolish and cumbersome to continue our everyday existences in bliss without first denying to ourselves, for the sake of excusing our own repugnance, the inherent cruelty from which modern civilization was conceived…And there can be no other path by which a fiercely competitive, yet social species, as humanity, can afford its members the level of safety, prosperity and stability—such that we enjoy now— without its initial pangs of cannibalism, brutality, dominance and cruelty to forge the foundations, very much like the lava which formed the ground upon which we now stand. Lava still erupts from the core. Brutality, Dominance, and Cruelty similarly erupt from ours; and they are no less prevalent now than in early human history.” ~ Ashim Shanker, Only the Deplorable (Migrations, Volume II)
Earlier this month I was reading an article on the “10 Qualities of a Desirable Man” when Ashim Shanker’s words sprung to mind. The article is comprised of a socially palatable list of attributes the author suggests are vital to becoming a man who will attract the woman that he wants to be with. As such, not surprisingly, we find the list awash with traits like ambition, being well-spoken, being kind and compassionate, as well as having a strong identity and being comfortable in all situations.
As a former soldier I unreservedly agree with Shanker’s view that the modern civilization we now enjoy was founded on brutality, dominance and cruelty.
|
It’s a good list, a ‘nice’ list, but to my view it only scrapes the surface of what it is to be a truly good man. Why? Because irrespective of who you speak to or what you read these days, you’ll only come across EXTERNAL theories of what a good man is (celebrating form over content: grooming, style, being well-spoken) or INTERNAL theories (venerating inner qualities: honesty, ambition, integrity). Yes, all of these are admirable qualities, but the problem with both of these views is what we are seeing under these two models of ‘goodness’ is simply the shining surface of a man.
As men, you know, and I know, that there’s much more to us not so far below this shiny surface.
◊♦◊
As a former soldier I unreservedly agree with Shanker’s view that the modern civilization we now enjoy was founded on brutality, dominance and cruelty. As a contemporary Australian I’m well aware my legacy involves British fleets arriving on our shores 227yrs ago only to declare Terra nullius (derived from a Roman law meaning “land belonging to no one”) for no other reason than to justify their self-declared sovereignty of this new state (N.B. the Aboriginal inhabitants still beg to differ).
But as harsh as a land grab of this magnitude may seem through prevailing eyes (akin in modern times to the ongoing Israel vs. Palestine conflict), it was only through brutal acts of dominance such as this that my country was made possible, that the West was won, and that civilization by and large continues to evolve with every passing epoch. So whilst our forebears were inarguably heavy-handed by today’s standards, there’s a very real lesson to be learned from the way they lived.
… in 2012, 437,000 people lost their lives as a result of intentional homicide and violence.
|
My point is that despite 150,000 years of shared civilization and social evolution, we remain at our core the half of the species with a fiercely competitive streak accompanied by an animalistic capacity for doing what needs to be done when the chips are down. That’s why Shanker hits the mark when he argues “Brutality, Dominance, and Cruelty are no less prevalent now than in early human history.”
Shanker’s quote is validated with data in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Global Data on Homicide & Intentional Violence which reveals that in 2012, 437,000 people lost their lives as a result of intentional homicide and violence. That’s around 1% of all deaths globally, 95% of which were perpetrated by men. This data offers us an alternate perspective on what a good man is.
A percentage of those who intentionally kill each year are trained soldiers. Men who volunteer to risk life and limb to fight and defend their country, or to render aid to those who need their help. Are these not good men? If we judge them by Psalm 144:1-2, “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle; he is my steadfast love and my fortress, my stronghold and my deliverer, my shield and he in whom I take refuge, who subdues peoples under me,” then the answer would be yes.
◊♦◊
Then we have the fathers and brothers who kill when forced to do so, protecting their partners, progeny and even perfect strangers. From a morality standpoint they’ve just breached the most fundamental tenet, Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder,” so what of their goodness? A young father in Texas kills a man with his bare hands whilst protecting his daughter from being sexually assaulted, yet the matter escapes court because the State regards this as a matter of self-defense. Some praise him for his actions, others call him a hero, but is he a good man?
… I’ve researched the many reasons why such an evolved species, at the most educated and enlightened stage of its existence, still intentionally kills around half a million of its ranks every year.
|
Similarly, though to intentionally confuse the matter somewhat, could not the US soldier look at the man on the other end of his gun and see beyond the fundamentalist fighter (read: “terrorist,” whose cohort claim around 20,000 lives a year) to the man behind this label? Isn’t this man also fighting in line with his beliefs and religion? Does this not also make him a good man? To stretch the matter even further, what of the fathers and brothers who murder their daughters and sisters in the Middle East over matters of honor? They act in line with their beliefs, are they not good men?
Over the past five years I’ve researched the many reasons why such an evolved species, at the most educated and enlightened stage of its existence, still intentionally kills around half a million of its ranks every year.
My question is this; is this something we only do when we have to, or because we need to? The former soldier in me can reconcile the tragic fact that some who choose to wear a uniform will take lives in the line of duty, whilst others won’t make it home, because we believe in the mission. And the brother and uncle in me likes to believe I’d do whatever it takes to protect my family and friends if they found themselves in harm’s way, but even if I’m never forced to find out, does contemplating this make me a bad man, or because my intentions are honorable am I good?
◊♦◊
A paradox exists in western society where we publicly celebrate the nice guy, the charming guy, the man with ambition; whilst at the very same time decrying the cultural relevance of the man who sought to exercise this ambition in uniform. Similarly, we applaud the young father for his bravery in saving his daughter, yet vilify the man who serves the State by executing a guilty man. Simply put, it’s quite clear we’re a species who will tolerate the killer inside a man, but only on ‘socially palatable’ terms.
All men are capable of doing the worst thing for the best reasons, that’s why there are no easy answers here.
|
The net result of 250+ interviews with people who have taken another life is that, much as we may all hate to admit it, we all have a good reason to kill. For some it’s family. For others it’s duty and country. Irrespective of the instigating motivation, when a man acts in line with his rational beliefs and a life is lost, is he still a good man?
All men are capable of doing the worst thing for the best reasons, that’s why there are no easy answers here. Yet I believe it’s important that we consider these points and continue to evolve the conversation about what it means to be a “Good Man in the 21st Century.” Much like the way men have begun to adopt traditionally female attributes like kindness and compassion, we also need to come to terms with our brutality, for it’s too often needed in service of our community and country.
We need to keep moving the discussion forward to a point where we accept that some of our less attractive qualities define us as good men just as much the shiny ones that draw a smile from across the room. And while this may sound counterintuitive, I believe the true cornerstones of a good man are in equal terms his darkness as his light. It’s these brutal attributes that are locked away safely within us that actually round us out, a brutality that, when dragged from its depths during desperate moments, defines us as good men in a way that being well-spoken, kind and compassionate cannot.
The role of men is changing in the 21st century. Want to keep up? Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.
—
Photo: Flickr/Official U.S. Navy Page
One’s willingness to make such a decision is not a measure of that individual’s morality. The circumstance such a decision is based upon tells much of the story. One’s response to having taken such action perhaps is most telling.
I think that an important part of masculine energy is the desire to provide & protect. So a good man can kill another person. It’s easy to make judgments but we never know what drives another person to take another person’s life. I don’t think that men who serve in the military or police force or who take someone’s life protecting their family do it lightly. I choose to honour them for serving the rest of us.
The big difference with the story of the father was that there was immediate direct danger that can be defined as defense and justifiable by society. War is a different story as soldiers are following orders. there isn’t always an immediate and direct danger. a soldier in a plane or comand center isn’t in direct danger – it’s more theoretical – so the act of them pushing a button resulting in blowing up a building that happened to have a coupel 5 year old kids in it – Well – They killed two 5 year olds. Were those 5 year… Read more »
Also an aussie. I struggle with the idea that our soldiers killing others is always justified. It is not the soldiers it is the government in power, in a sense all soldiers are also victims. Directly defending ones country can be justified the rest is mainly contract killing by war mongers. We seem to have developed the knack of glorifying all our soldiers regardless, and as such it is glorifying war. Each nation has a monument to its war dead, but never a monument to those that it has killed. Eg Vietnam, 50000 US war dead, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos up… Read more »
Nice article, thank you for sharing. There’s a strong argument to be made that we only get to write articles about all the ‘nice’ things we want in a modern man because of the brutality exercised in the name of developing our current civilization. But this aspect of our history is hidden, shunned, ignored like some drunk uncle from last year’s Christmas party. But often that brutality is required to pay for the party the rest of us enjoy. I truly hope for and aspire to a world without violent conflict, I wish for a society in which we can… Read more »
Wes, you raise an interesting point, where does the buck ultimately stop?
Spencer, the good & evil debate came up almost every single time I interviewed someone for my book. It’s both enlightening to think that people still consider the ethics of their actions, but what was also concerning is how many people justified evil actions because they were in line with their morality.
Excellent article. An inconvenient truth- men do most of the killing-for “good” or “evil” and it is definitely a part of the discussion.
What about the men who give the orders and send others out to kill?