A man can’t go out the way he came in…a
man has got to add up to something! In our previous series on Carl Jung and the
Man-Child, we looked at why the phenomenon of the “man-child” is so prevalent in
our times. We argued that due to the demise of the traditional
family and an absence of rites of initiation, many boys lack male role models to show them
the way to manhood, and so they are emerging into adulthood stuck in what the authors Robert
Moore and Douglas Gillette called “boy psychology”. In this series, we are going to provide a
guide for how to outgrow boy psychology and attain manhood. To do this, we are going to look away from
contemporary Western culture, which is overwhelmed by ideas which view masculinity as toxic,
and approach the topic of manhood from an anthropological point of view. Drawing from David Gilmore’s classic book
Manhood in the Making, we will examine what differing cultures across the world have thought
regarding the question “what does it mean to be a man?”. The purpose of this examination will be to
isolate the traits, virtues and attitudes essential to manhood, thereby creating a “map
of manhood” we can use to outgrow our boy psychology and achieve the benefits which,
cross-culturally, are the prerogative of the potent man. “In the present crisis of masculinity we
do not need, as some feminists are saying, less masculine power. We need more. But we need more of the mature masculine. We need more Man psychology. We need to develop a sense of calmness about
masculine power so we don’t have to act out dominating, disempowering behavior toward
others.” To begin we must differentiate between biological
maleness and manhood. Practically all cultures across the world
acknowledge that a man is a biological male by virtue of being born with male reproductive
organs. Manhood, on the other hand, is not defined
by the presence of physical characteristics alone; it must be achieved. The aboriginal Fox tribe of Iowa call the
attainment of manhood “the Big Impossible”, which only the masterful few can attain. Unlike biological sex, manhood is not a given
but a prize to be won. As the 20th century American author Norman
Mailer wrote: Nobody was born a man; you earned manhood
provided you were good enough, bold enough. Or as David Gilmore explains: “…there is a constantly recurring notion
that real manhood is different from anatomical maleness, that it is not a natural condition
that comes about spontaneously through biological maturation but rather is a precarious or artificial
state that boys must win against powerful odds. This recurrent notion that manhood is problematic,
is found among the simplest hunters and fishermen, among peasants and sophisticated urban people;
it is found in all continents and environments.” To understand why it is almost universally
accepted that real men are made, not born, we must investigate what cross-culturally
is considered the greatest threat to manhood: psychological regression. In contrast to other animals who emerge into
this world with a certain degree of autonomy, the first year of a human’s life is spent
in a prolonged state of dependence on the mother. Just as a fetus is contained physically in
the mother prior to birth, in the first year of life the infant can be said to be contained
psychologically “in” the mother. From the perspective of the infant, the mother
appears symbolically as the Great Mother – she is the child’s world and the provider of
love, security, warmth, protection, and the all-nourishing breast. After the first year of life the child enters
the stage which Margaret Mahler called “separation-individuation”. The infant’s growing awareness of itself
as separate from the mother coupled with an increase in physical mobility marks the stage
at which the child is expected to develop its autonomy and self-identity. While both girls and boys experience the growing
pains associated with this stage of development, it is a stage which can prove especially difficult
for boys. For while the girl’s prior psychological
immersion in the mother serves to promote her feminine identity, the boy, to achieve
a masculine identity, must rescind his identification with the mother and the feminine world in
order to enter the world of men. “The special problem the boy faces at this
point is in overcoming the previous sense of unity with the mother in order to achieve
an independent identity defined by his culture as masculine…The girl does not experience
this problem as acutely, according to this theory, because her femininity is reinforced
by her original symbiotic unity with her mother, by the identification with her that precedes
self-identity and that culminates with her own motherhood. In most societies, the little boy’s sense
of self as independent must include a sense of self as different from his mother, as separate
from her both in ego-identity and in social role. Thus for the boy the task of separation and
individuation carries an added burden and peril.” Throughout history rites of initiation have
assisted boys in the process of separation-individuation. Through trials and tests overseen by male
elders the boy “dies” and is “reborn” a man. “Femininity unfolds naturally, whereas masculinity
must be achieved; and here is where the male ritual cult steps in.” But in the modern West adequate male role
models capable of initiating a boy into manhood are few and far between. Many men are emerging into adulthood without
having left the psychological womb of the mother. As a result of not being taught how to embrace
struggle, become self-reliant and engage in the ceaseless enterprise which cross-culturally
is expected of the potent man, many men are consumed by lethargy, the desire to evade
reality and escape danger by seeking solace at the mother’s side. They are succumbing to what Thomas Gregor
in his study of the Mehinaku tribe of Brazil referred to as the desire to “…take the path back to fusion with the
mother and the pleasures of infancy.” Or in other words, they are consumed by what
Carl Jung called “…the spirit of regression, who threatens
us with bondage to the mother and with dissolution and extinction in the unconscious.” In succumbing to the spirit of regression
we adopt lifestyles antithetical to manhood. One such lifestyle which Jung repeatedly warned
of is what in mythological terms is referred to as the incestuous marriage to the mother,
whereby one remains in the psychological womb of the mother well into old age. “If this situation is dramatized…then
there appears before you on the psychological stage a man living regressively, seeking his
childhood and his mother, fleeing from a cold cruel world which denies him understanding. Often a mother appears beside him who apparently
shows not the slightest concern that her little son should become a man, but who, with tireless
and self-immolating effort, neglects nothing that might hinder him from growing up and
marrying. You behold the secret conspiracy between mother
and son, and how each helps the other to betray life.” Others consumed by the spirit of regression
may break free from the psychological womb of the mother only to adopt the lifestyle
of Peer Gynt, which the psychologist Rollo May called “the myth of males in the 20th
century.” “Peer Gynt is the myth, that is, the life
pattern, of a man characterized by two desires…One desire is to be admired by women, and the
other desire is to be taken care of by the same women. The first desire leads to machismo behavior:
a braggart, he swaggers and is grandiose. But all of this apparent power is in the service
of pleasing the woman, the figurative Queen, in order that the second desire be satisfied…these
two desires are contradictory. The woman is the one who holds the final judgment
and, correspondingly, the power over him. No matter how much he appears to be the swaggering
master with his various women, he is in reality a slave serving the Queen. His self-esteem and his self-image depend
upon her smile, her approval.” The spirit of regression can also lead to
the adoption of harmful lifestyles not centered around psychological dependence on a woman. As Erich Neumann argues in his book The Fear
of the Feminine, world-weariness, neurotic sickness, or the placid acceptance of the
commonplace in the attempt to avoid struggle, can all signify that the spirit of regression
is active in our mind. “Regressions of this sort…give rise not
only to typical anxiety neuroses and phobias but also, and especially, to addictions and,
if the ego is extensively destroyed, to psychoses.” To break free from the spirit of regression
and move towards manhood we need to cultivate a heroic attitude. This attitude has been expressed in countless
myths, one of the most notable being the Germanic tale of Tannhauser and Venus. In this myth the knight Tannhauser is approached
by the beautiful Goddess Venus who asks him to join her on the mountain Venusberg where
she promises his every desire will be satisfied by her and her attendants, the Naiads and
Sirens. Tannhauser accepts her offer and remains in
this paradisal feminine world for a year, but soon he grows weary and is overcome by
an intense moral conflict. Should he remain on Venusberg where his every
wish and desire for pleasure is fulfilled? Or should he renounce this passive and dependent
life and once again embrace meaningful struggle in the world? After agonizing deliberation, Tannhauser decides
to leave Venusberg. “I must return to the world of men. I stand prepared for battle, even for death
and nothingness.” Commenting on this myth, David Gilmore writes: “The knight has mastered the most primitive
of the demands of the pleasure principle – the temptation to drown in the arms of an omnipotent
woman, to withdraw into a puerile cocoon of pleasure and safety.” In the next video in this series we are going
to examine in more detail what the heroic attitude entails and how we can cultivate
it to escape psychological regression. By exploring how cultures across the world
conceive manhood, we will construct a “map of heroic manhood” we can use in our quest
to mature beyond the limiting confines of boy psychology. As we do, we will also learn why the claim
that masculinity is toxic is not only misguided, but dangerous. Manhood is not a tool of oppression. It is a cultural construct intended to promote
the psychological development of boys into men capable of supporting the security and
prosperity of a society. When the ideals of manhood are lost or distorted,
a society becomes prone to dissolution at the hands of internal and external threats. As the often quoted saying by Michael Hopf
puts it: “Weak men create hard times.” Or as David Gilmore summarizes: “”Real” men are expected to tame nature
in order to recreate and bolster the basic kinship units of their society; that is, to
reinvent and perpetuate the social order by will, to create something of value from nothing. Manhood is a kind of male procreation; its
heroic quality lies in its self-direction and discipline, its absolute self-reliance-in
a word, its agential autonomy.”
I love academy of ideas, its the channel that first got me interested in Jung.
To elaborate on the last idea of a part of manhood being overcoming nature:
At this point in time we're at a first where we fear of destroying our own basis of nature. What once was a clear cut neccessity now has become questionable. And with this manhood itself has become questionable. To simply reinforce an age old psychological struggle is a bit short-term.
There is an open question to how to alter manhood. To the outside nature now has appeared an inside nature which can not be overcome but also can't not be overcome.
To reduce the struggle of modern manhood to feminism is just reinforcing dependency of feminine.
In the 70s and 80s its true, there was a big problem with infantile men. That hasn't gone away. But compounded onto the issue are new problems, such as completely infantile women. Modern adult women are largely children in every conceivable way. They may "play" at being a mother, but the rarely actually do it. And instead of men just being infantile, they are now scorned, demonized and treated as toxic. Men went from being dopey and useless (like Dagwood, Homer Simpson, every dad in a TV commercial) to being actively demonic. A cancer on society.
And this is the last generation where it will even be legal to speak about the differences between men and women. So there is no solution in sight. Male rights of passage? Doesn't that fall under the umbrella of "conversion therapy" and is thus entirely illegal already?
I like 7:46... I had some weird daydreams and this in part fits. It took me 2 years to understand, that no matter how hard I would try to make as many women subservient to me as I can, I would always kneel in front of the eternal image of the feminine.
I think the video misunderstands the notion of toxic masculinity. It's not that masculinity itself is toxic. It's that a certain type or types of masculinity are toxic. I'd argue these masculinities are actually the result of men trapped in "boy psychology" and attempting to dominate others in an attempt to become men. The lack of male rites of passage lead to this, in part, because boys don't learn how to become men.
Comparing male rites of passage to conversion therapy, as done elsewhere in this thread is frankly bizarre.