Masculinity & Technology
A figure meanders through the world, stumbling from one occupation to the next, always on the search for something new, something meaningful, but he can never quite seem to find it. Surrounding him is a mixture of beauty and ugliness, joy and despair, truth and lies, delusion and reality– this is the sort of state that many young men in the modern world face and find themselves thrown into. What does man mean to you? What value can you place on the concept and existence of masculinity? What value has it lost since the human race began deviating from the destiny Nature laid out for it? The questions go on and on, but one question remains where the other may expire with our interest. One question follows us around like no other. One question posed to the people of the world, the young men of the West and the thinkers of our day is– what is the relationship between masculinity and technology, and more importantly, how might it affect the future?
MASCULINITY AS A CONCEPT & HUMAN INSTINCT
One time when I was in high school, I picked up a book at the library that, a few years later, I found just as intriguing and scary as I did the first time I turned its cover. The book was a collection of essays written by John Stoltenberg called Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice[1]. This book was a mind-bender, that’s for sure. It was interesting, although I don’t know if I would call it a positive mind-bender, because a lot of the concepts discussed in this book pointed out to me a very fundamental flaw in our approach to modern masculinity, and the conclusions that the book draws are very telling of the state of masculinity in the modern era– how our conception of it is all wrong, and how many are at a loss as to a way forward. The book’s thesis is based on the assumption that masculinity (or as he puts it, ‘male sexual identity’) is not intrinsically real– rather, it is a construct that is built upon a legacy of ‘privilege’. He argues that the very nature of male sexuality– one of dominance, strength, and prowess– is based entirely on injustice and the idea that men are superior to women. He views normal male sexual behavior as inherently oppressive and aggressive, associating it with sexual assault, violence, and misogyny. Obviously, this is an incredibly toxic and myopic way of viewing normal male behavior, and this is concerning when you consider how popular Stotlenberg’s writings have become. His work is championed within the communities that propagate LGBTQ+ theory and gender studies. He is a widely recognized ‘social justice thinker’ and in a general sense he is well received by the left-wing in many Western circles. Why is it that Stoltenberg, who essentially focused his life’s work on the defacing of male identity, touted as a hero in our society, or least among the left-wing bloc of it? It is not because he was a visionary critical of ‘toxic masculinity’ or because he stood up for women’s rights– it is because he recognized a trend. Although he politicized his writings, Stoltenberg recognized a critical and fatal trend, at least in part. He recognized that masculinity, faced with the dynamics of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, was a lie.
The intellectual concept of masculinity is based on the idea of male power[2]. Men, when their environment permits it, are strong, competitive, chivalrous and industrious. A healthy male strives to protect his tribe, preserve his culture, create new life and forge meaningful connections with others. The healthy male knows when force is necessary and when it is superfluous. The healthy male understands that balance is needed in the world. He recognizes the relationship between masculinity and femininity just as he realizes the balance between night and day, hot and cold. In a broader sense, when a person thinks of masculinity and its characteristics, one often thinks of words like strength, power, fierceness, warrior-like, stoic, strategic, et cetera. We all have an idea of what the concept of masculinity constitutes. We all can conceive of what a masculine person might be like in the same way we can conceive of what a feminine person might be like. Whether it is purely a construct, as Stoltenberg suggests, is very debatable. I would argue there is a biological basis for inclination to masculinity– our primary and secondary sexual characteristics as men affirm this– but that this ‘reality’ is flexible in the face of systemic, civilizational adversity.
Beyond a concept, masculinity is a natural human instinct. A man born into this world is at first infused with a masculine energy. Even as boys, men-to-be radiate a certain unfeminine energy, something that permeates their being, confirming to the world that they are what they are. Above all else, there are three primary male instincts that drive a man forward, defining and refining his masculinity more and more as he progresses through life– the instinct to win, the instinct to protect, and the instinct of stoicism[3]. These instincts are critical to a man’s life, and the way they affect his psychology cannot be understated. But we live in a society where many men cannot win, have nothing to protect (or have no way of protecting what they value), and are emotionally all over the place. What do we do in this scenario?
Men cannot win in our society. Most people, but especially men, are vulnerable to financial difficulty. Most university degrees are going to women, with only 40% of bachelor’s degrees going to men[4]. Men have nothing to protect– hell, only 40% of men in their 20s are romantically/sexually active[5]. Men, considering the previous ailments I’ve just described, are struggling to remain stoic. They are struggling with their mental health in a way we’ve never seen before[6]. What does this do to a young man’s masculine instinct?
So we see a clash– young men are tasked with living up to the intellectual concept of masculinity while our society, for reasons numerous and sometimes hard to explain, prevents them from fulfilling their drive for instinctual masculinity.
If instinctual masculinity is put into decline, the only solution, the only vestige of manhood that a young person may have left, is the intellectual concept of masculinity. If a man cannot act like a man, he must present himself as having an image of masculinity such that he can feel like a man. I think this is what John Stoltenberg was really getting at– masculinity has been reduced to an aesthetic.
AESTHETICS & HUMANISTIC TECHNIQUE
As our technologies evolve, so do our sociological mechanisms. In his masterwork, The Technological Society, Jacques Ellul goes into exhaustive detail on how technique forces humans to adapt to it, and even though The Technological Society was penned in the 50s, the theories that Ellul laid with regards to humanistic technique still ring true to this day. Ellul points out that in modern society, humans have to be adapted to the functioning of machines. He asserts that technological autonomy[7] is a driving force behind our various sociological mechanisms. He uncovers the fact that humans from a young age must be modified to fit into their respective societies, and that their natural inclinations must not interfere with the progression of the technological system, which by the nature of technological autonomy has the ultimate say[8].
The way that relates to masculinity is simple– instinctual masculinity is maladaptive to the technological system. Instinctual masculinity is chaotic and centered around the maintenance of natural social groups, whereas technology requires that order prevails and natural human communities break down for the sake of efficiency. Instinctual masculinity means projecting power and self-governance, whereas the system requires every man to simply follow orders from other people and put money in someone else’s pocket. Instinctual masculinity is, in a sense, antithetical to modern life, and this puts men in a very precarious position. In many areas of life men are falling behind because they are crippled by their own nature. In school, male students are almost always outperformed by female students, despite the fact that male IQ scores are on average a little higher than women’s[9]. This is because of the nature of instinctual masculinity– men are meant to be moving and interacting with the world around them, not cooped up in a classroom being lectured on such superfluous matters as chemistry or mathematics. Women, however, perform very well in school, as do male students who are more effeminate (think of the ‘nerd’ archetype). This points to the fact that humanistic technique seems to favor femininity– compared to behaviors falling under the umbrella of masculinity, behaviors falling under the umbrella of femininity yield more lasting and positive results for the individual in academic and career-oriented settings. Do you want to succeed and be rewarded by modern society? Act like a girl.
If humanistic technique seeks to curb instinctual masculinity, it must also bolster the cultivation of intellectual masculinity, or simply put, the masculine aesthetic. Leftists will bash what they call ‘toxic masculinity’ (which in fact is just instinctual masculinity, but our society renders it maladaptive), instead proposing that men adopt sterile behavior and simply a masculine ‘self-image’. The goal here is to give men the sense that they are in fact still men beyond the biological reality whilst also dealing with the issue of instinctual masculinity as unsuitable for the modern era. By offering young men the ‘masculine aesthetic’, humanistic technique gives them something about their biological, hormonal reality to hold onto, but it is empty.
What young men are left with is an archetype that survives as an image. Young men are not permitted to be the adventurous, slightly aggressive, ambitious people they really are, but they are given the compromise of the ‘masculine aesthetic’. They cannot be men in the truest sense of the word, but they can pretend to be one. They can dress like men, they can watch sports like men, they can consume content that appeals to men– but by all means, they must never act on their instinctual masculinity.
EMASCULATION & THE TECHNOLOGICAL MATRIARCHY
If a man cannot truly be a man, but only look and consume content like one, is he really a man at all beyond the biological reality? Masculine instinct is the substratum from which the societally permitted intellectual masculine aesthetic emerges, but removed from its roots, does the ‘masculine aesthetic’ have any meaning?
Biological organisms like humans always act, to some extent, out of instinct. One can be swayed by the constructs of human nature in many ways, but it is always to serve certain biological and instinctual functions. If men find themselves isolated from their instincts by technological necessity, then they must inevitably mimic those instincts which are permitted to survive– feminine instincts. Within this context, ‘feminine instincts’ refer to inclinations towards agreeableness, passivity, personal advocacy, and a fixation on emotions, feelings, and positive sensual experiences. These inclinations are allowed to survive because they do not come in conflict with the technological system (for now). The feminine individual is peaceful, empathetic, emotional and focused on the attainment of comfortable, pleasurable experiences. The feminine individual is self-critical, humbled and compliant. Above all else, they want to go about their lives without much struggle. These are all impulses of the feminine energy, and the technological system can work hand-in-hand with these impulses. The system can bring relative peace and stability to the life of the feminine individual. The system can afford to provide the feminine individual with fulfillment through pleasure-seeking (sex, food, stimuli like iPhones, TV, etc). In short, the system needs and accommodates the feminine individual where it wages war on the masculine individual. If femininity is rewarded and masculinity is punished or reduced to a non-primal aesthetic, then inevitably biological males will be pushed to begin taking on characteristics typical of femininity. It is agreed upon by many, anti-tech or not, that modern men are as effeminate as ever, and considering that femininity is championed in our society, is it really hard to see why?
We are reaching a point in history in which a sort of technological matriarchy seems inevitable. Femininity is championed in our society, and as masculinity is crushed by ever-increasing technologization, men will inevitably begin seeking, unconsciously or not, to embody the feminine essence. We are seeking this ‘feminization’ of men beginning right now. Testosterone levels are at an all-time low, and stopping this hormonal collapse has so far been futile. Fewer and fewer men are in positions of control and power within their own lives, encouraging submission to more dominant and powerful forces on largely an intellectual and economic level. The function of submission is one of multiplicity– a man must submit to his boss, submit to the government, submit to humanistic technique, etc just to survive in the modern world. What does the constant cycle of ‘need-submission-repeat’ do to the psychology of a young man who has been exposed to this sort of thing his whole life? More and more young men are taking on the personalities and sexualities of a feminine character, which although adaptive to the system, is terrible for a young man’s wellbeing without a doubt.
CONCLUSION
What is a young man supposed to do for himself in the 21st century? He is stripped of his right to instinctual masculinity and actively encouraged by schooling, career happenings, etc to act more like a woman. He is alienated from his real impulses and left with the choice of either embracing the ‘masculine aesthetic’ or essentially morphing into a surrogate female. His instincts are betrayed, his vices used to render him effeminate, and his culture beyond his protection. For years, statisticians have observed the climbing rate of male suicide with shock and confusion. They ask, ‘How could this happen?’, and to them it makes no sense. But when the machine rips away from a man everything masculine except the biological reality, is it unreasonable for a vulnerable and scared young man to simply wish for a way out?
________________
[1] The PDF of this book can be found here for reference.
[2] A semi-partisan encyclopedia article. It explores a few different ideas.
[3] A Psychology Today article regarding “the first three instincts of masculinity”.
[4] The American Institute for Boys and Men cites this statistic.
[5] An article from The Hill confirms this.
[6] An interesting piece to expand upon this.
[7] Excerpts from Jacques Ellul
[8] See The Technological Society, Chapter 5 (pages 319-427).
[9] “Recent studies conclude that men on average have higher intelligence than women by 3-5 IQ points.”