I love your style of writing and I see the effort in which you took to write. I hope to convey a similar level of care in my writing to you.
If we work with the framework that Jungian Archetypes are not and cannot be casually deterministic, then it is not in opposition to modern feminism. If all archetypes are a function of our experiences and accessible to each person regardless of our X/Y genetics or genitalia, then it doesn't just thread the needle, it lands squarely within the concepts of feminism. That's not to say that it IS feminism, just that it aligns with the concepts of feminism. I think this framework also means that modern concepts of masculinity both mean nothing and at the same time can mean everything.
Similar to the Torso of Apollo, masculinity is both a headless, penis-less, deteriorated statue and at the same time a mirror of our own lived ideals of masculinity. Neither of your observations of the Torso of Apollo are at odds with each other. Like any piece of art, it can be at the same time both worthless and invaluable. And what is gender but a lived performance of ourselves?
Masculinity is and can be a social construct that's a threat to human wholeness, it can cause us to question our own failings to live to this ideal. It will cause men to shame themselves to the gym. Masculinity can also be an expression of who we are and how we live that transcends the image of an old headless statue at the bottom of the stairs.
The concept of masculinity as a function of maturity presents the idea that masculinity is also simply a social construct used as a point of comparison. That boys do not have masculinity and that men do. To be able to obtain maturity, to be able to obtain masculinity, is to recognize that there are boys without it. The hierarchal structure is inherent when one group is the haves and the other the have-nots based on a pre-determined set of maturistic ideals.
What this leaves us with is the abolition of gender. Not that man or women no longer exist, but that being a man or masculinity as a term no longer has to mean anything about you or I. That being a woman no longer has to mean anything about you or I. It means that the only concept of masculinity left is how each of us lives it our lives as a man. It means that the archetypes that coach our expressions can still exist and are not casually deterministic based on the genitalia we have (or don’t have in the case of Apollo).
The abolition of gender allows us the space to think of masculinity as we do the Torso of Apollo. That without a head, without a prescriptive concept of what masculinity should be, we can see the brilliance inside each of us.
Thanks for this thoughtful and thought-provoking response, Grey. I'm grateful to have readers like yourself who are engaging at such depth with my work.
I appreciate the subtlety of the point you're laying out. In fact, if I were to have gone into that level of nuance — i.e., exploring the demolished image of Apollo's torso not only as a metaphor for the concept of masculinity, but also as a metaphor for the relationship between gender and biological sex — then the essay would have become unwieldy. Perhaps I'll do that in a future piece of writing. So this thread, admittedly, falls outside the scope of my essay. I hope that my piece is not read as making a point about biological determinism, nor as a direct commentary on feminist philosophy.
I agree that Jung's notion of archetypes is not necessarily opposed to modern feminist approaches to gender. But I'm also not sure it lands squarely within its domain. Even if archetypes are not causally (or biologically) deterministic, that doesn't mean they don't have an ancient and universal gravity to them. So if masculinity is, in some sense, an archetypal reality, that certainly doesn't translate simply to biological essentialism (for women and people of other genders, too, have access to those psychological potentials); but it also doesn't mean that masculinity, as you put it, "no longer has to mean anything about you or I." This is why I said, in that footnote, that I think the notion of archetype "threads a needle": because even though archetypes are not causally deterministic, that doesn't mean that masculinity is not a psychic reality. It has a center of gravity.
What you're pointing to is a deep mystery, and one I've been pondering lately. What is the deference between what it means to be me or you and what it means to be a man? How much overlap do those meanings hold? Surely our identity is not reducible to our gender; but at the same time, can you say that your gender identity has nothing to do with who you are? I'm not convinced by that. In fact, I'd say that this conclusion is quite contrary to modern feminist philosophy — which insists that gender has a lot more to do with our identity than we're aware of.
Lastly, I want to clarify that in the case of boyhood versus manhood, I'm not trying to say that boys have to "obtain masculinity." Only that manhood is psychologically distinct from boyhood, and therefore that when I ask the question "What does it mean to be a man?" I'm not just asking a question about gender, but also about becoming an adult. And, similarly to the question of gender, I think adulthood (i.e. manhood) is simultaneously socially constructed AND psychologically real. It's not just about getting older, in the same way that being a man is not just about having a penis. It means something, but it's very hard to say what that meaning is. And perhaps that's a blessing we can live into.
Thank you for writing back. And in case it isn't so implied in my writing, I also appreciate your thought provoking words and ideas.
I noted that you were very careful to create a distinction in your writing to mean that you weren't making a point about biological determinism, or as a direct commentary on feminist philosophy. I interpreted your words as kindly as I could. I only addressed that distinction because I tried to acknowledge your foot notes and the effort that went into providing that.
I do agree that masculinity has a center of gravity. It does for me at least. There is something real to it. And I wouldn't want to convince you that being a man is unimportant our identities. I consider my views to be of a gender abolitionist, but I still do identify as a man and will continue to do so. It's still important to me.
So when I say that masculinity "no longer has to mean anything about you or I." I mean that each man is no longer forced to adopt a meaning for their own masculinity. I can't put italics on the word "has", but I'm trying to say that masculinity currently MEANS something about every man whether they want that or not. Whether they agree with the ideals of masculinity or not, it is applied to them. It's applied to them by merely seeing the Torso of Apollo.
It shouldn't be this way. I take your ideas as an expression that you also think we should not be beholden to these arbitrary ideals of masculinity. That Apollo shouldn't shame us into trying to achieve abs or feel shame in failing to do so.
If you're masculine or if you present as masculine, we start forming ideas about what that says about you(and me). And I am masculine looking, can you picture the cascade of my shoulders? And I have masculine hobbies, can we also picture what those are?
I don't think my shoulders or my hobbies has anything meaningful to say about my identity as a man or my masculinity. But it also does, right? (this is where I think gender abolition and feminism combats the framework of masculinity)
I try to live my life as a man, it means something to me. It is very hard to say what that meaning is. It is one aspect of my identity. I am a caring father and spouse. I am a progressive man. I'm mexican. I'm the world ok'est dungeon master. And all of those things, I love about me.
And I agree that I have the ability to see this as a blessing. I also understand that it's my blessing to explore.
Thanks for the article and your words (please feel free to write back but I mean no pressure to do so)
Thanks for sharing more about how these ideas land in your life. I agree: it is very hard to say what that meaning is. But perhaps that's the beauty of it, too. There's a risk in over-intellectualizing meaning. You and I are living it, and that's what matters most.
It's a lovely article and I really enjoyed it. Unfortunately by word count alone this article would be in accessible to most American young men. Needing to be familiar with Jungian archetypes and poetry appreciation would exclude most others. I have a masters in psychology and an MFA and with those peers this is a work of art. I don't feel like this is an article I would share with my son or my student workers as something they would connect with. Which is a lot of the problem I have with a lot of discussions around masculinity on the left. The conversation doesn't meet the target population where they are.
I certainly agree with you that this post might not be accessible, or even salient, to a lot of people. But then, what would our culture look like if everything we produced was accessible to everyone? I'd argue that artists and thinkers should not be measured, at least primarily, by the accessibility and salience of their work. To do so would would leave us culturally stranded in the shallows. And worse, if artists and thinkers were to internalize this measurement, we'd be compelled to placate aspects of the culture that ought to be challenged. For instance, in an attention economy, where corporations are racing to the bottom of our brain stems, trying to create content that gives us quick dopamine jolts and leaves us un-nourished and scattered, should we be creating content that meets people where they are? If so, I shouldn't be writing at all, because the kids these days aren't reading.
Another thought that occurs to me: sometimes the world surprises you. Isn't it peculiar that the most popular thinker in modern history among young men is indeed an academic strongly influenced by Jungian psychology who speaks about esoteric texts, symbology and archetypes? Of course, Peterson's writing isn't a poetic gesture. He's going for a "target population," perhaps unlike me. But I think my point still stands: young men don't just want to be met where they are; they want to be challenged.
It wasn't a statement that we shouldn't do work at all levels or a criticism of your piece. I was responding to the person who said that he hoped all young men could read it and pointing out that it would be unlikely to have the same effect on most of them as it did for him and why.
If we want these discussions to be a counter balance to people like Peterson it has to be accessible to the same audience. I wasn't saying that was your goal with this piece. Again I was replying to the other reader. However my broader comment was much of the work on these topics on the left are at this much more exclusive level and not challenging the narrative at the broader level.
Thanks for clarifying, and I broadly agree. I'd be curious to know what you think a leftist challenge to these narratives would look like. What is an alternative that would still scratch the itch that draws young men to people like Peterson in the first place?
I think they are looking for answers not nuance. At least in the U.S. we have moved away from critical thinking both culturally and instructionally in part thanks to no child left behind. So what a lot of the right is doing is providing their ideas in a step by step recipe to success. It is a con and a lie but it is in the language and format that young men are receptive to.
The left needs to provide a step by step recipe to an alternative that also introduces and develops critical thinking and nuance. So then young men can move away from asking for someone to tell them who they should be to being able to ask themselves what they want to be and being comfortable working to become that vision. I comment about this in other forums encouraging young men to find internal validation rather than seeking external validation which is ephemeral.
This ties back specifically to what is masculinity when many proposed alternatives to what is being presented as traditional masculinity isn't a 1-1 replacement template but rather confusing array of options and possibilities. Ironically the modern toxic/conservative masculinity is a pretty modern invention much like conservative religion.
I wonder what's going on psychologically with that desire for answers, as opposed to nuance. I suspect it has something to do with authority — a yearning for a father figure or an elder to guide them. Again, I think of Peterson. And the left tends to be rather allergic to authority, especially when it's being held by men.
Your point about the difference between "who they should be" versus "what they want to be" strikes me as very important. And I suppose it's a mystery that, at least in my experience, I need help from other men, and their modelling of something I don't have, for me to access my authentic desire.
Part of it is a skill gap. We don't teach critical thinking in general very effectively any more. We also particularly don't emphasize personal growth and insight with boys like we tend to with girls.
It is pretty easy to go through a checklist and check off items. It is much harder to develop a list from a vast array of sometimes mutually exclusive options. This is particularly hard when you aren't sure who will be evaluating your work and the criteria.
Ideally who they should be and who they want to be should be the same. That takes a lot of insight and courage. Many are trying to find someone to tell them who they should be because they don't know how to know who they want to be. If that makes sense.
At lot of times they equate what they want to have as who they want to be. They don't really understand that who you are isn't what you have. A lot of those things come as a byproduct of something else. To have a good relationship you have to be a person who someone can have a good relationship with. You don't become a person who is good to have a relationship with by getting a relationship.
"But then, suddenly, everything dilated. As if someone had turned off the lights to my mind. There were no more questions, and yet nothing to cling to. Apollo’s beauty was no longer an idea. We stood there for an eternal moment, breathing slowly. He smiled." Yes. Love it.
I love your style of writing and I see the effort in which you took to write. I hope to convey a similar level of care in my writing to you.
If we work with the framework that Jungian Archetypes are not and cannot be casually deterministic, then it is not in opposition to modern feminism. If all archetypes are a function of our experiences and accessible to each person regardless of our X/Y genetics or genitalia, then it doesn't just thread the needle, it lands squarely within the concepts of feminism. That's not to say that it IS feminism, just that it aligns with the concepts of feminism. I think this framework also means that modern concepts of masculinity both mean nothing and at the same time can mean everything.
Similar to the Torso of Apollo, masculinity is both a headless, penis-less, deteriorated statue and at the same time a mirror of our own lived ideals of masculinity. Neither of your observations of the Torso of Apollo are at odds with each other. Like any piece of art, it can be at the same time both worthless and invaluable. And what is gender but a lived performance of ourselves?
Masculinity is and can be a social construct that's a threat to human wholeness, it can cause us to question our own failings to live to this ideal. It will cause men to shame themselves to the gym. Masculinity can also be an expression of who we are and how we live that transcends the image of an old headless statue at the bottom of the stairs.
The concept of masculinity as a function of maturity presents the idea that masculinity is also simply a social construct used as a point of comparison. That boys do not have masculinity and that men do. To be able to obtain maturity, to be able to obtain masculinity, is to recognize that there are boys without it. The hierarchal structure is inherent when one group is the haves and the other the have-nots based on a pre-determined set of maturistic ideals.
What this leaves us with is the abolition of gender. Not that man or women no longer exist, but that being a man or masculinity as a term no longer has to mean anything about you or I. That being a woman no longer has to mean anything about you or I. It means that the only concept of masculinity left is how each of us lives it our lives as a man. It means that the archetypes that coach our expressions can still exist and are not casually deterministic based on the genitalia we have (or don’t have in the case of Apollo).
The abolition of gender allows us the space to think of masculinity as we do the Torso of Apollo. That without a head, without a prescriptive concept of what masculinity should be, we can see the brilliance inside each of us.
And I agree with Rilke, we must change our lives.
Thanks for this thoughtful and thought-provoking response, Grey. I'm grateful to have readers like yourself who are engaging at such depth with my work.
I appreciate the subtlety of the point you're laying out. In fact, if I were to have gone into that level of nuance — i.e., exploring the demolished image of Apollo's torso not only as a metaphor for the concept of masculinity, but also as a metaphor for the relationship between gender and biological sex — then the essay would have become unwieldy. Perhaps I'll do that in a future piece of writing. So this thread, admittedly, falls outside the scope of my essay. I hope that my piece is not read as making a point about biological determinism, nor as a direct commentary on feminist philosophy.
I agree that Jung's notion of archetypes is not necessarily opposed to modern feminist approaches to gender. But I'm also not sure it lands squarely within its domain. Even if archetypes are not causally (or biologically) deterministic, that doesn't mean they don't have an ancient and universal gravity to them. So if masculinity is, in some sense, an archetypal reality, that certainly doesn't translate simply to biological essentialism (for women and people of other genders, too, have access to those psychological potentials); but it also doesn't mean that masculinity, as you put it, "no longer has to mean anything about you or I." This is why I said, in that footnote, that I think the notion of archetype "threads a needle": because even though archetypes are not causally deterministic, that doesn't mean that masculinity is not a psychic reality. It has a center of gravity.
What you're pointing to is a deep mystery, and one I've been pondering lately. What is the deference between what it means to be me or you and what it means to be a man? How much overlap do those meanings hold? Surely our identity is not reducible to our gender; but at the same time, can you say that your gender identity has nothing to do with who you are? I'm not convinced by that. In fact, I'd say that this conclusion is quite contrary to modern feminist philosophy — which insists that gender has a lot more to do with our identity than we're aware of.
Lastly, I want to clarify that in the case of boyhood versus manhood, I'm not trying to say that boys have to "obtain masculinity." Only that manhood is psychologically distinct from boyhood, and therefore that when I ask the question "What does it mean to be a man?" I'm not just asking a question about gender, but also about becoming an adult. And, similarly to the question of gender, I think adulthood (i.e. manhood) is simultaneously socially constructed AND psychologically real. It's not just about getting older, in the same way that being a man is not just about having a penis. It means something, but it's very hard to say what that meaning is. And perhaps that's a blessing we can live into.
Thank you for writing back. And in case it isn't so implied in my writing, I also appreciate your thought provoking words and ideas.
I noted that you were very careful to create a distinction in your writing to mean that you weren't making a point about biological determinism, or as a direct commentary on feminist philosophy. I interpreted your words as kindly as I could. I only addressed that distinction because I tried to acknowledge your foot notes and the effort that went into providing that.
I do agree that masculinity has a center of gravity. It does for me at least. There is something real to it. And I wouldn't want to convince you that being a man is unimportant our identities. I consider my views to be of a gender abolitionist, but I still do identify as a man and will continue to do so. It's still important to me.
So when I say that masculinity "no longer has to mean anything about you or I." I mean that each man is no longer forced to adopt a meaning for their own masculinity. I can't put italics on the word "has", but I'm trying to say that masculinity currently MEANS something about every man whether they want that or not. Whether they agree with the ideals of masculinity or not, it is applied to them. It's applied to them by merely seeing the Torso of Apollo.
It shouldn't be this way. I take your ideas as an expression that you also think we should not be beholden to these arbitrary ideals of masculinity. That Apollo shouldn't shame us into trying to achieve abs or feel shame in failing to do so.
If you're masculine or if you present as masculine, we start forming ideas about what that says about you(and me). And I am masculine looking, can you picture the cascade of my shoulders? And I have masculine hobbies, can we also picture what those are?
I don't think my shoulders or my hobbies has anything meaningful to say about my identity as a man or my masculinity. But it also does, right? (this is where I think gender abolition and feminism combats the framework of masculinity)
I try to live my life as a man, it means something to me. It is very hard to say what that meaning is. It is one aspect of my identity. I am a caring father and spouse. I am a progressive man. I'm mexican. I'm the world ok'est dungeon master. And all of those things, I love about me.
And I agree that I have the ability to see this as a blessing. I also understand that it's my blessing to explore.
Thanks for the article and your words (please feel free to write back but I mean no pressure to do so)
Thanks for sharing more about how these ideas land in your life. I agree: it is very hard to say what that meaning is. But perhaps that's the beauty of it, too. There's a risk in over-intellectualizing meaning. You and I are living it, and that's what matters most.
It's a lovely article and I really enjoyed it. Unfortunately by word count alone this article would be in accessible to most American young men. Needing to be familiar with Jungian archetypes and poetry appreciation would exclude most others. I have a masters in psychology and an MFA and with those peers this is a work of art. I don't feel like this is an article I would share with my son or my student workers as something they would connect with. Which is a lot of the problem I have with a lot of discussions around masculinity on the left. The conversation doesn't meet the target population where they are.
I certainly agree with you that this post might not be accessible, or even salient, to a lot of people. But then, what would our culture look like if everything we produced was accessible to everyone? I'd argue that artists and thinkers should not be measured, at least primarily, by the accessibility and salience of their work. To do so would would leave us culturally stranded in the shallows. And worse, if artists and thinkers were to internalize this measurement, we'd be compelled to placate aspects of the culture that ought to be challenged. For instance, in an attention economy, where corporations are racing to the bottom of our brain stems, trying to create content that gives us quick dopamine jolts and leaves us un-nourished and scattered, should we be creating content that meets people where they are? If so, I shouldn't be writing at all, because the kids these days aren't reading.
Another thought that occurs to me: sometimes the world surprises you. Isn't it peculiar that the most popular thinker in modern history among young men is indeed an academic strongly influenced by Jungian psychology who speaks about esoteric texts, symbology and archetypes? Of course, Peterson's writing isn't a poetic gesture. He's going for a "target population," perhaps unlike me. But I think my point still stands: young men don't just want to be met where they are; they want to be challenged.
It wasn't a statement that we shouldn't do work at all levels or a criticism of your piece. I was responding to the person who said that he hoped all young men could read it and pointing out that it would be unlikely to have the same effect on most of them as it did for him and why.
If we want these discussions to be a counter balance to people like Peterson it has to be accessible to the same audience. I wasn't saying that was your goal with this piece. Again I was replying to the other reader. However my broader comment was much of the work on these topics on the left are at this much more exclusive level and not challenging the narrative at the broader level.
Thanks for clarifying, and I broadly agree. I'd be curious to know what you think a leftist challenge to these narratives would look like. What is an alternative that would still scratch the itch that draws young men to people like Peterson in the first place?
I think they are looking for answers not nuance. At least in the U.S. we have moved away from critical thinking both culturally and instructionally in part thanks to no child left behind. So what a lot of the right is doing is providing their ideas in a step by step recipe to success. It is a con and a lie but it is in the language and format that young men are receptive to.
The left needs to provide a step by step recipe to an alternative that also introduces and develops critical thinking and nuance. So then young men can move away from asking for someone to tell them who they should be to being able to ask themselves what they want to be and being comfortable working to become that vision. I comment about this in other forums encouraging young men to find internal validation rather than seeking external validation which is ephemeral.
This ties back specifically to what is masculinity when many proposed alternatives to what is being presented as traditional masculinity isn't a 1-1 replacement template but rather confusing array of options and possibilities. Ironically the modern toxic/conservative masculinity is a pretty modern invention much like conservative religion.
I wonder what's going on psychologically with that desire for answers, as opposed to nuance. I suspect it has something to do with authority — a yearning for a father figure or an elder to guide them. Again, I think of Peterson. And the left tends to be rather allergic to authority, especially when it's being held by men.
Your point about the difference between "who they should be" versus "what they want to be" strikes me as very important. And I suppose it's a mystery that, at least in my experience, I need help from other men, and their modelling of something I don't have, for me to access my authentic desire.
Part of it is a skill gap. We don't teach critical thinking in general very effectively any more. We also particularly don't emphasize personal growth and insight with boys like we tend to with girls.
It is pretty easy to go through a checklist and check off items. It is much harder to develop a list from a vast array of sometimes mutually exclusive options. This is particularly hard when you aren't sure who will be evaluating your work and the criteria.
Ideally who they should be and who they want to be should be the same. That takes a lot of insight and courage. Many are trying to find someone to tell them who they should be because they don't know how to know who they want to be. If that makes sense.
At lot of times they equate what they want to have as who they want to be. They don't really understand that who you are isn't what you have. A lot of those things come as a byproduct of something else. To have a good relationship you have to be a person who someone can have a good relationship with. You don't become a person who is good to have a relationship with by getting a relationship.
"But then, suddenly, everything dilated. As if someone had turned off the lights to my mind. There were no more questions, and yet nothing to cling to. Apollo’s beauty was no longer an idea. We stood there for an eternal moment, breathing slowly. He smiled." Yes. Love it.
I appreciate this essay. And, I feel that this bit of writing will not be your last on the topic.
An absolutely brilliant read! Thank you for writing this essay. I hope every young man has a chance to read it.
Thanks, Jen! It was a pleasure to write. So much of this essay was swirling in my mind when we saw each other in Paris.