“…gangsta culture is the essence of patriarchal masculinity.”
Jack Donovan introduces his book, The Way of Men, with this quote from feminist author bell hooks, because it encapsulates two of Donovan’s arguments about masculinity. The first is that there is a difference between being a good man and being good at being a man, and that men admire the latter a great deal more than the former. The second is that when it comes to defining and evaluating masculinity, only the opinions of other men matter.
“Ultimately, defining masculinity is a logic problem which then presents a philosophical problem,” Donovan wrote in our email interview. “I had to determine which virtues would be most specific to a small group of men depending on each other for survival—because that’s the social organization that made us what we are today.”
As Donovan sees it, contemporary society offers a “masculinity of convenience” that belies our true desires. Where once, our daily lives tested men, the 21st century offers fewer real opportunities for men to prove themselves in mastery, courage, strength, and honor. The virtues of civilization—art, culture, justice—are in the realm of “the good man.”
His point about “gangsta culture” is that as much as we say we admire “good men,” and say things like, “it takes a real man to be a father,” we demonstrate who we really admire, and reveal what is lacking in our own lives, by who we watch: killers, men who take chances, work outside the system, and demand the respect of other men. Donovan rejects the service sector worker-citizen and family man as a model of modern masculinity; this masculinity is thwarted, impeded by every cog of civilization. Americans don’t believe in this kind of heroism: the everyman who takes public transit to a dense urban center packed with men and women of all ages, toils in anonymity, and serves his family. We import Japanese samurai movies, not the very popular (in Japan) salaryman genre. In the West, the masculine ideal is a loner, not a husband or a corporate drone, who drives down the highway alone, impeded by no custom or law.
Watching samurais and playing Grand Theft Auto are just a couple of those socially sanctioned outlets for our masculine drives: the ones we trade satisfaction of, for greater comfort and security. Sports, war, and violent video games remain, but outlets with real stakes are fewer: in business, politics, sports, or war, traditional proving grounds of masculinity. Are men in worse shape as a result, with consequences to all of civilization? Will we devolve to a point of no return, and is this even a cause for concern: that we are shutting off all possible futures but the one in which we are utterly dependent, ignorant, and weak?
The machines by which we form and prove our masculinity are outside our control, except in choosing which machine to enter. On one hand, Donovan admits that the soldier shipping off today doesn’t know much about what he’s heading into, and doesn’t have much control over what he’s asked to do. The media and military-industrial complex, politicians and the economy all conspire to make signing up look as honorable as it ever was. Donovan seems to admire soldiers for showing more character than the people who criticize them, while also admitting that, among the main reasons soldiers join is not a burning desire to serve mankind, but a desire to prove himself among other men, and a paucity of options for doing so.
Read an excerpt from The Way of Men, “On Being a Good Man” and an interview with book author Jack Donovan on The Good Life.
—Photo credit: newskin0/Flickr
Ah interesting as Justin writes his own summary of what Jack Donovan is saying. I always think that’s a great way to try and understand something – put it into your own words. I wrote a piece where I tried to do that in the other thread with the interview. The main difference I see is that I concluded a different idea about Jack’s view of the family. No doubt you are in a better position to know it because I’ve only read the two pieces of his writing that have been published here and neither mentions much about the… Read more »
It’s that very problem of women and children that led me, anyway, to put Jack’s ideal manly “gang” in a very early, very primitive stage, before anything we’d call civilization. In that stage, women and children would be pretty much property. Maybe even tribal property (I haven’t studied early humans much).
1. How can you be so certain of our position? Was life safer 1,000,000 years ago than it it now?
2.a. If one wants to explore the gender roles, identities, and patterns that DO exist today, I see no problem with tracing them back into antiquity.
2.b. I am unaware of the existence of any third gender in any species. What are you talking about?
4. If there is no reason to do something, then “something” is unlikely to occur. Shit happens for a reason.
1. Well humans weren’t around 1 million years ago…but never mind that. I didn’t say humans were safer in the past…I just said it wasn’t this constant struggle for survival pop-culture has made it out to be. As to how I know that? Well first there has been research done on modern-day prehistoric peoples, examining how much energy and time they expend to acquire food. Mind, as I pointed out, that sort of comparison only goes so far. There’s also been a great deal of research on the human remains of prehistoric people from the past, examining the common ailments… Read more »
Alright, for example, let’s take the concept that men are more lustful than women. That’s biology, right? They need to spread their seed or whatever…so modern western ideas about gender and sex are that men want sex more. I’ve even seen the argument made that because it’s biology, prehistoric people must have had the same ideas about men and sex. And so someone draws the long line through history saying that, obviously, throughout history men have always been viewed as more sexual. Well firstly, that’s something we don’t actually know about prehistoric people…whether they though men were more sexual than… Read more »
You’re making a mistake trying to argue the subtleties of cultures with people who want to believe in acting out some ancient biology-is-destiny scenario.
Note that Milo’s responses to you are always terse, and ignore most of what you write. He has chosen the ever-present possibility of violence as the fundamental condition of masculinity, if not humanity. Anything you say beyond or outside of that has little chance of convincing him.
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
Not everyone enjoys a filibuster.
Nor does everyone appreciate close examination of the issues. To some – especially those with a distaste for the ivory towers – history is a simple tale and facts are simple things. You use them like tools or weapons, and there can be no qualification, no debate.
I think that what Milo said is right. “ever-present possibility of violence as the fundamental condition of masculinity” It’s not a possibility, it’s a reality. A reality that many may not want to accept but it is real. GMP would very much like to soften masculinity but the truth is, masculinity isn’t a warm and fuzzy let’s all hold hands and talk about our feelings life. I get the feeling that there is an effort to redefine and force a change in masculinity. That’s not to say that in todays efforts in allowing men a deeper understanding of who they… Read more »
Society can be violent and I often see women pointing this out in terms of sexuAl assault and abuse, something men fall victim to as well. It seems to be ok or welcome here for men to say that yes they experience a world filled with potential danger some from men. Women too are aware of the dangers that may be posed though pointing out those fears here has gotten pushback. Should we relax into a world of danger, violence, and “on guard” men ready to fight And kill? Should women hide under male protection or should they also be… Read more »
It could be that sexual assault and abuse do not pose much concern to the Jack Donovans of our day. To them violence against women at a certain level (beyond what you as a woman would consider an inevitable minimum) is just another flavor of the essential violence that makes men. Something men ought to admit they instinctively admire and something women had better just deal with as individuals, without trying to force change in society, in attitudes, or most of all, in men.
Yes, that’s crossed my mind.
But nobody said that, pwlsax. I’m wondering how you can logically justify such a statement. You appear to be all too ready to vilify and mis-characterize both Mr Donovan and me, yet you have not yet made a single statement–beyond your comment about George Raft–explaining your position on the article above or Mr. Donovan’s work.
I don’t yet have a position, if you mean a logical framework that can handle a few whacks. But I do have a smell test, and as yet, Jack’s not passing it. Too much of a whiff of – how to say it – “menagoguery” in intellectual clothing.
I’ll reread him and check back in.
I’m back… 1. I guess we’re getting mixed up with vocabulary a bit. “Constant” might not be the best word to use. Maybe “persistent” works better. Either way, there was always something threatening human societies. Whether it was a daily threat, a seasonal threat, or an incidental threat, humans had to be prepared to handle it. Its not every day that some foreign group attacks our country, but we have processes in place to respond if they do. 2.a. I understand what you’re saying about jumping over things. But think that what Mr. Donovan has done is to focus on… Read more »
I see a troubling implication: if you live in an oppressive culture, going against oppression is essentially less masculine. Examples might be getting draft resistors out of the US in the 60s, saving Jews in WW2 Europe, or hell, critiquing masculine roles in the blogosphere in 2012.
You’ll pardon my jumping to the conclusion that all things being equal, moral conformity is always more manly than taking a principled stand. It kind of calls the whole issue of courage into question, implying that it’s braver to fight for your gang than your ethics.
The first problem with your statement is that oppression is not a fixed value. I personally don’t see anything oppressive about a culture that expects men to do the lion’s share of child-rearing. Nor do see anything oppressive about a draft, or selective service which is what we have today. I don’t see how you can throw critiquing masculine roles in the blogosphere into the same category as saving Jews in WWII. How are these critics oppressed? In general, going against the gang can be a masculine act, depending on the what and why. I don’t see anything particularly useful… Read more »
At Milo’s request, I have prepared a point-by-point critique of Jack’s thesis. (Excerpts taken from The Way of Men via this GMP page.) Warning: long! To be clear at the outset, I do not wish to qualify manliness at all here – quite the reverse, in fact. I am mostly concerned with the state of manliness Jack argues for, and whether it can rejuvenate civilized men. I am convinced it cannot, for two reasons: first, he has put it too far before civilization; second, he draws facile, even reductive, conclusions along the way. “There is a difference between being a… Read more »
Okay just want to add two things. First – I dig what you’re saying here pwlsax, however I’d like to add that actually, even “early bands” or “non-civilized” groups of people would have potentially valued and required intellectual strengths as highly as us modern day, “civilized” societies. Consider the Chalcolithic in Israel & Palestine (about 6500 years ago or so)…this is after farming but before writing. These people were not what is classically called “civilization.” We’re pretty sure it’s possible that the people in charge were actually religious leaders (read the article Slouching Toward Beersheva if you’re interested in more… Read more »
“We can go back even further…there’s evidence that Neanderthals may have had art. Viewing even early humans as somehow less concerned with knowledge and more concerned with physical survival is just plain wrong.” During my freshman year at Boston Conservatory, the professor of Art & Civilization made a suggestion that “cave-men” drew things on walls for reasons that were not at all decorative. One angle was that they drew things so that other tribes would know that the territory was inhabited, and belonged to someone…like graffiti. That would be useful if you wanted to let strangers know that they were… Read more »
Mate, “cave-men” is a misnomer…but never mind that. For the past 200,000 years (or so) modern homo sapiens have been around. Those homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago were just as capable of abstract thought as homo sapiens today. It’s an art history approach that suggests that early art was all instructional and literal. There is absolutely no proof that is the case. In fact, if you look at modern-day hunter-gatherer populations, you see that there is plenty of evidence for representational and abstract aspects to art. Even without written language, humans are more than capable of creating symbols..where a… Read more »
“It’s an art history approach that suggests that early art was all instructional and literal. There is absolutely no proof that is the case.” 1. Nobody said “all.” 2. Who can say that the drawings were never instructional, or literal? 3. As I pointed out, a mark on a cave wall, tree, boulder, etc. could simply be there to say, “we’re here,” or, “stay out.” I would qualify that as a form of abstraction. “Donovan’s article treats early humans as if they were somehow more primitive…as if their concerns were more survival-based or as if they didn’t have enough time… Read more »
You’re not quite getting the point. The point is not to save myself, and it is definitely not to save your civilization. The point is that what is broken here — broken by a combination of globalism, technology/industrialization, quasi-democracy, multiculturalism and feminism — can’t be fixed in a way that makes it worth fixing. There’s a bigger point in the book that the social contract is breaking down all around the world, and that in what some call “hollow” or “failed” states, gangs emerge to operate proto-states, just as they do now in places like Mexico. I can see how… Read more »
“The point is not to save myself, and it is definitely not to save your civilization.”
It’s our civilization, turn your back on it though you may. You say you would take anarchy and chaos over where you think we’re going. I don’t agree that we’re going there, or that we have to go there unless men embrace that anarchy and that chaos. Far better that we learn to see it coming and take action. So I have no more to say to you, except that you are a worthy adversary in the “waffling” and “equivocation” of open discourse.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. “I am mostly concerned with the state of manliness Jack argues for, and whether it can rejuvenate civilized men. I am convinced it cannot, for two reasons: first, he has put it too far before civilization; second, he draws facile, even reductive, conclusions along the way.” Mr. Donovan does indeed begin his description of men before civilization, but he clearly relates how masculinity contributed to the creation of civilization, and how the cornerstones of masculinity have perpetuated it. Even today, I think you would be hard-pressed to say that strength, courage, mastery,… Read more »
I hope, for the good of all of us, that society does get in the face of those preaching a selfconscious tribalism, nationalism, or any of the professed objectives of the “Alternative Right.” It’s been a very long time since intelligent, articulate people have gotten behind such atavistic, fear-and-rage-worshiping philosophies and tried to sell them as necessary steps to save humanity. The defenders of a more rational and humane civilization have probably gotten out of practice in debating such toxic ideas – perhaps mistakenly assuming that they no longer exist outside of backward, closed societies that we could drop bombs… Read more »
“I had to determine which virtues would be most specific to a small group of men depending on each other for survival—because that’s the social organization that made us what we are today.” I read the excerpt and there’s a lot I found wrong with it, but the above quote sort of exemplifies my biggest problem, which is it’s treatment of history. That quote, right there, is just not true Yes, early cultures were probably made up of small groups of people, that part is accurate. But the idea that the quest for survival somehow shaped human beings into what… Read more »
(Forgot something) 6. We don’t actually know a whole lot about gender roles and norms in the majority of human cultures. It’s difficult to study the gender dynamics of a past prehistoric culture; there is no one to talk to about it and there are no written records left behind. The state of preservation of archaeological sites as well as modern technology used in excavation and analysis of artifacts and human remains does quite limit our ability to understand past cultures, particularly when it comes to understanding social identities (such as gender). Add onto that the fact that it’s only… Read more »
OK. So let’s say that there is an inadequate historical record on gender roles. norms, behaviors, etc. I don’t think its wrong to look at the recorded history that we do have, and draw conclusions from it. It may not be complete, but it does exist.
Right well the rest of my above comment still stands (1-5), which points out why the conclusions Donovan drew are a problem. But here’s the other thing…the vast majority of cultures which have existed are cultures we have very little knowledge about. I am (was) an archaeologist; I agree you can draw conclusions about specific cultures using very limited ethnographic comparisons, otherwise I’d be out of a job. But you can’t draw wide conclusions about all (or even most) cultures, because we just don’t know enough about most cultures to make those sweeping conclusions.
1. Mr. Donovan does not say that primitive men were more “in touch” with their biological imperatives. What he says is that the biological imperatives were a higher priority back then. Men and women spent more of their time and energy on those biological imperatives than we do today. 2. Mr Donovan does not posit that prehistoric cultures (nor modern ones) were identical. What he does suggest s that there are/were some common elements within them with regards to gender roles. 3. You’re at least half-right, and at least half-wrong. As an African-American, I can point to elements of my… Read more »
1. Except that they didn’t spend more time or energy on their biological survival, not necessarily. Biological needs weren’t necessarily a higher priority. This goes along with #5 and your description of living in a project in Boston. You seem to be assuming that prehistoric people were all living in the untamed wilderness and what-not…that danger was around every corner. They weren’t, necessarily. Hunting, fishing and gathering in a fertile area generally means that you spend less time and energy acquiring food than an early agricultural society would. I can’t remember the exact numbers that have been estimated, but it… Read more »
Justin, not sure if you actually proof-read your article or simply ran it through spell-check, but as published here it reads : “…. feminist author bell hooks…” Bell Hooks is her proper name and so should be capitalized.
Something profoundly and sadly ironic about misspelling a feminist author’s name when her quote is used to create your introductory sentence.
Whoever’s responsibility — writer or GMP editor — pretty poor showing for a publication about consciousness.
Actually that may not be the case.
From wiki:
“Gloria Jean Watkins (born September 25, 1952), better known by her pen name bell hooks (intentionally uncapitalized),[1][2] ”
It’s not always some plot to hurt feminists….
Thank you, Danny. You are correct.
Zigy, I am familiar enough with the feminist author bell hooks to know that she never capitalizes her name. The real irony is how richly you call me out on the supposed error.
Danny, thank you for noting that bell hooks spells her name without capitalizing.
Justin, apologies to you for not doing my own fact-checking before posting, and thank you for pointing out that my post sounded more aggressive than i intended (and that’s my ONGOING work in the world…).
Z
It’s all good zigy.
…..sounded more aggressive than i intended (and that’s my ONGOING work in the world…).
Welcome to my world.
Pays not to disparage a thorough proof-reader nor intentionally try and kick-off warfare. There’s too much of that online.
My idea of gangster culture ended with George Raft. He wasn’t a made man, but he traveled with them. He could dress, he could dance, he could act – not an actor with a wide range, but what he did he did to perfection.
I hope this abstract isn’t representative of the book’s argument. There is too much contradictory evidence (sitcoms, commercials, best-sellers, love songs, etc.) to support this thesis about what Americans “believe.” Books like this, if this is what it’s really like, ought to start with a theory of generalities before pushing off with them and kicking like hell to their main argument. Masculinity now runs off in so many disparate directions that there probably is no point of convergence. Arguments like the one encapsulated above seem to express a wish that there were one, a stable place to start from—and return… Read more »
Donovan’s book doesn’t spend a lot of time looking at popular culture. He’s more concerned with classical definitions of masculinity, though he told me he read a very wide range in coming up with his definition of masculinity for his book, including feminist texts. The bit about what Americans import from Japan was my own take on Donovan’s take on Western culture. The “gangsta culture” is in keeping with his overall view on what makes a civilization: that it is based on small, survival bands—gangs—and his point that it is in this sort of setting that our most important attributes… Read more »
Mike, I hope you do not honestly believe that gangsta culture is limited to a musical genre. That would signify your lack of understanding of my people.
I would also say that there is little reason to begin a discussion of manliness with executives because they represent a rather small portion of the human population.