Your idea that men need to feel useful is spot on. The fact that so many men feel superfluous in areas that deindustrialization hit hardest probably explains many of the social pathologies in those areas on a deeper level.
William James (the father of American psychology) essay "The Moral Equivalent of War", with its call for national service, was inspired by James agreement with your belief that it is important that society create constructive ways for young men to become heroes:
The Hero With A Thousand Faces is a “more cowbell” by Campbell celebration even as calling someone two-faced is an indictment…seems like too little schizo to succeed vs too much schizo to fail … which is all codependent fail, obviously; heroes & hero worshipers, “leaders” & followers.
(Throw a TARP - “troubled asset relief program” - over the whole collateralized lot & give that blanket partied too little to succeed bunch the $700 billion dollar installment/bill, too.)
Extroversions of reality are a botch.
Jeremiah Johnson types (hermits, monks, soloists) take on the heroic & so are heroic.
Concede of rule proving exception rarities who do the solo even whilst surrounded by “audiences” they are heedless to, disregard.
LARP’s on the stage that Shakespeare indicted (whether that was his intention, or not) are appearance-seeking for what they are not.
Vicariousness. Social “proof.” Well, “social” proof.
> That idea of having children — as the thing you do, like this couple, without thinking about because it is clearly towards the good — has been the default mode in most cultures for almost all of our history.
This was just not just some "default mode in most cultures". This is the requirement of Life itself.
Our era hasn't merely found a "new archetype". Our era has lost is will to live and vitality.
Insightful piece. This idea about constructing situations (and identities) for people to be a hero is one I'd ascribe to, after 20+ years of studying video games & game culture. Of the ways that our society is broken is that we don't give people enough opportunities, and nothing seems to matter, with globalization. The gamer identity itself may be one of these tics (a concept I like).
A friend of mine described it in a wedding card as "A secret to a good marriage is to think like a game designer: Give your spouse opportunities to be a hero." (as opposed to nagging).
In their 1981 book Genes, Mind, and Culture, biologists Charles Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson write that “genetic natural selection operates in such a way as to keep culture on a leash.” In their view, variation among human cultures is subject to boundary conditions imposed by our underlying biology.
One comment used the phrase “glorification of victimhood”. I think of it more as the very pervasive idea out in the world that victims are righteous. The idea is widespread but not true in my opinion because in a nutshell every victim, all over the world, is only 15 minutes or less away from becoming a victimizer themselves. It’s just freaking human nature. So that though you might say a victim is glorified compared to their victimizer, later on when said victim is rotten or uncaring to someone else, their glorification or righteousness kinda sorta takes a bit of a hit. This is when the work of taking oneself down a few pegs comes in handy.
Men keenly feel a loss of respect in their worlds. Lots of the loss lies in not having work that they or others truly respect. Part of it though has come about because marginalized minorities (women and all the rest) have stood up and demanded to be seen and accepted. This is good, but they have triumphed while seemingly forgetting that the overwhelming majority of the majority also feel marginalized. The majority also wants some of that sweet, sweet sympathy and respect. And they can get it, if we all can start to remember that we are all just folks. I just hope we have enough time.
Thank you for publishing this piece. I began following way back when your photos first got attention (I was still using rss readers!) and I like when you share these broad insights.
Btw, have you read The Man With No Talents? If not, grab it before your next trip to Japan.
My cheeky question is: So, would you say DNA is the Structure and culture is the Superstructure? ;-)
My actual question is where you think Hippies fit into this? Having been raised just afterwards, it had perhaps been a little deneutered into “be nice” (I guess the smiley face pissed the true believers off for that reason)? But I’d like to think that the ‘60s mostly resulted in new archetypes that were incredibly beneficial.
I’ve also been reading a lot of feminist parenting perspectives, and there’s a lot of anger at men not being on the ball with logistics and planning (which hits close to home for me, I’ll admit). There’s also a sneering tone at fathers basking in compliments for doing one thing right. But this post clarifies: We crave those compliments. In that sense, perhaps we men are like dogs who crave attention and praise.
I really enjoyed your article and agree with most of your observations. I enjoyed the part where you announce your future appearances at McDonalds and Helena’s. If I were to be in the area, I would most definitely attend. Sadly I can’t make it. What an opportunity it would be!
Your point about the universal need for men to feel useful hit hard, not just on a societal level, but on a personal level. I think it's driven a lot of good, but also many mistakes I've made.
This article also made me think of how cultural psychologists like Geert Hofstede identified how cultural values (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity) influence societal definitions of "usefulness" or "heroic qualities." Yet, I would argue that while cultures provide roles for men and women, these roles are not immutable. Historical examples, such as the Industrial Revolution or feminist movements, illustrate how the scripts for gendered roles can be rewritten, albeit with varying success across societies. While men may gravitate toward roles emphasizing strength and protection, I don't think these tendencies are wholly fixed nor universally expressed. The variability across cultures—the nurturing masculinity seen in Scandinavian societies, for example—highlights the transformative power of culture to shape what "comes naturally."
I still have lots to think about here. Thanks, Chris!
Re: archetypes, don’t forget Carl Jung!
Your idea that men need to feel useful is spot on. The fact that so many men feel superfluous in areas that deindustrialization hit hardest probably explains many of the social pathologies in those areas on a deeper level.
William James (the father of American psychology) essay "The Moral Equivalent of War", with its call for national service, was inspired by James agreement with your belief that it is important that society create constructive ways for young men to become heroes:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_77/October_1910/The_Moral_Equivalent_of_War
The Hero With A Thousand Faces is a “more cowbell” by Campbell celebration even as calling someone two-faced is an indictment…seems like too little schizo to succeed vs too much schizo to fail … which is all codependent fail, obviously; heroes & hero worshipers, “leaders” & followers.
(Throw a TARP - “troubled asset relief program” - over the whole collateralized lot & give that blanket partied too little to succeed bunch the $700 billion dollar installment/bill, too.)
Extroversions of reality are a botch.
Jeremiah Johnson types (hermits, monks, soloists) take on the heroic & so are heroic.
Concede of rule proving exception rarities who do the solo even whilst surrounded by “audiences” they are heedless to, disregard.
LARP’s on the stage that Shakespeare indicted (whether that was his intention, or not) are appearance-seeking for what they are not.
Vicariousness. Social “proof.” Well, “social” proof.
Much viciousness ensues.
> That idea of having children — as the thing you do, like this couple, without thinking about because it is clearly towards the good — has been the default mode in most cultures for almost all of our history.
This was just not just some "default mode in most cultures". This is the requirement of Life itself.
Our era hasn't merely found a "new archetype". Our era has lost is will to live and vitality.
Insightful piece. This idea about constructing situations (and identities) for people to be a hero is one I'd ascribe to, after 20+ years of studying video games & game culture. Of the ways that our society is broken is that we don't give people enough opportunities, and nothing seems to matter, with globalization. The gamer identity itself may be one of these tics (a concept I like).
A friend of mine described it in a wedding card as "A secret to a good marriage is to think like a game designer: Give your spouse opportunities to be a hero." (as opposed to nagging).
In their 1981 book Genes, Mind, and Culture, biologists Charles Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson write that “genetic natural selection operates in such a way as to keep culture on a leash.” In their view, variation among human cultures is subject to boundary conditions imposed by our underlying biology.
Darn, sure wish I could join you in Arlington.
One comment used the phrase “glorification of victimhood”. I think of it more as the very pervasive idea out in the world that victims are righteous. The idea is widespread but not true in my opinion because in a nutshell every victim, all over the world, is only 15 minutes or less away from becoming a victimizer themselves. It’s just freaking human nature. So that though you might say a victim is glorified compared to their victimizer, later on when said victim is rotten or uncaring to someone else, their glorification or righteousness kinda sorta takes a bit of a hit. This is when the work of taking oneself down a few pegs comes in handy.
Men keenly feel a loss of respect in their worlds. Lots of the loss lies in not having work that they or others truly respect. Part of it though has come about because marginalized minorities (women and all the rest) have stood up and demanded to be seen and accepted. This is good, but they have triumphed while seemingly forgetting that the overwhelming majority of the majority also feel marginalized. The majority also wants some of that sweet, sweet sympathy and respect. And they can get it, if we all can start to remember that we are all just folks. I just hope we have enough time.
Thank you for publishing this piece. I began following way back when your photos first got attention (I was still using rss readers!) and I like when you share these broad insights.
Btw, have you read The Man With No Talents? If not, grab it before your next trip to Japan.
Very insightful piece.
I'll be at the talk (part of the org hosting it). Looking forward to it, and safe travels to you in the meantime.
Great, great piece.
One of your better ones.
God, this is good.
My cheeky question is: So, would you say DNA is the Structure and culture is the Superstructure? ;-)
My actual question is where you think Hippies fit into this? Having been raised just afterwards, it had perhaps been a little deneutered into “be nice” (I guess the smiley face pissed the true believers off for that reason)? But I’d like to think that the ‘60s mostly resulted in new archetypes that were incredibly beneficial.
I’ve also been reading a lot of feminist parenting perspectives, and there’s a lot of anger at men not being on the ball with logistics and planning (which hits close to home for me, I’ll admit). There’s also a sneering tone at fathers basking in compliments for doing one thing right. But this post clarifies: We crave those compliments. In that sense, perhaps we men are like dogs who crave attention and praise.
I really enjoyed your article and agree with most of your observations. I enjoyed the part where you announce your future appearances at McDonalds and Helena’s. If I were to be in the area, I would most definitely attend. Sadly I can’t make it. What an opportunity it would be!
Your point about the universal need for men to feel useful hit hard, not just on a societal level, but on a personal level. I think it's driven a lot of good, but also many mistakes I've made.
This article also made me think of how cultural psychologists like Geert Hofstede identified how cultural values (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity) influence societal definitions of "usefulness" or "heroic qualities." Yet, I would argue that while cultures provide roles for men and women, these roles are not immutable. Historical examples, such as the Industrial Revolution or feminist movements, illustrate how the scripts for gendered roles can be rewritten, albeit with varying success across societies. While men may gravitate toward roles emphasizing strength and protection, I don't think these tendencies are wholly fixed nor universally expressed. The variability across cultures—the nurturing masculinity seen in Scandinavian societies, for example—highlights the transformative power of culture to shape what "comes naturally."
I still have lots to think about here. Thanks, Chris!