The
male ego is a social construct. No mystery there. But my feeling is
that we all have an investment in this society, in keeping the
dynamic of the male ego going. Whether you are an alpha male, a
feminist or sensitive new age guy, whatever you make claim to, the
fact is you define yourself against the male ego.
Now
the male ego as I understand it is a very specific, very tangible
historical entity. Having said that, the idea of manhood that
encapsulates it is itself deeply ambiguous, and that is part of its
cultural power.
It's
something I've touched on before. The idea of manhood is a pitch on which the goal posts are always shifting. No one ever says what a man
actually is, but we are all of us quick to point out what it is not.
It's not manly to be too feminine, it's not manly to show your
emotions (feeling emotions is fine these days, we've made that much
progress, just don't show them). It's not manly to depend on someone
else, to need love, to want to be mothered, to display helplessness
in the face of a challenge.
There
are any number of qualities that can exemplify the opposite of
masculinity. But just what a man is in this culture is never clearly
defined. Having said that, it is a notion that's appealed to with great
labour in the psychological development of a young boy.
I
remember a teacher of mine taking me into his office and reducing me
to tears over something I was supposed to have done wrong. I was
thirteen. It wasn't sightly to have a teenage boy cry so openly.
“C'mon,”
he said, “stop crying for God's sake. Be a man.”
Be
a man. Take it like a man. These are things you hear explicitly often
in your development. But it's never really clear what it means. It's
just a way of stopping you acting in a specific way. This
ideal of manhood is never really given a positive definition.
Masculinity
as a social ideal, is a negative concept. It has no positive values
associated with it. That's why so many smart-arses are able to argue
with me, trying to dismiss this blog without examining their own
prejudices. There just is no positive definition of what a man is,
and rather than be a point against me and the existence of this blog,
I feel that is the very basis for everything I write here.
I
am not trying to delineate a set of clear values around what defines
a man. I am trying to show that the very idea of masculinity is so
unclear, so vague and amorphous, that its effect on young men,
especially post-feminism is critically damaging.
I
do believe that there are physical boundaries related to gender
identity. But what I am concerned with here is the culture of masculinity.
The socially constructed ideals, or lack of them, more specifically.
So
what is this effect that I feel is so damaging? Well, it has to do
with the sense of identity. Identity, the sense that one has a clear
idea of who one is, and that the person we are has an intrinsic
value. It is a psychological necessity for a healthy human being.
I
believe that the very culture of masculinity in our society is a
conspiracy that prevents men from ever feeling that sense of
completeness and that sense natural value within themselves.\
The
radical Scottish psychologist RD Laing called this state, ontological
insecurity.
Without
a sense of intrinsic value in the self, the individual is always
grasping for self-esteem, always seeking a validation of their
realness. Without a sense of realness and solidity in the self, the
realness and solidity of others, and therefore the value of others,
is all but non-existent. Ethical action becomes at best a battle with
the self.
It
is my opinion that our culture assaults the sense of validity of the
self in young men. It leaves them grasping at externals for ways to
validate themselves. Hence, the phenomenon we call the male ego. That
is why it is so delicate, so easy to manipulate, and so prone to
pathological tendencies. It is a castle built on sand.
No comments:
Post a Comment