Gradually, then suddenly. Hemingway’s famous dictum on ruin aptly captures how society has awakened to the growing crisis of modern masculinity. Though our realisation is at last earnest, the treatment still remains unsure. Whilst the Manosphere’s growing hegemony over young men is symptomatic of this vacancy, this failure is measured in lives. In the UK, men are over three times more likely to take their own lives than their female counterparts. This article explores the crucial role culture must play in masculinity’s recovery.
Masculinity is necessarily biological; it is the common denominator of the male experience. It is thus more personal, more meaningful, and deeper than some mere collection of socially prescribed male traits. It is not a suit of clothes. In the language of a physicist, masculinity is a vector – it contains both a magnitude and a direction. Its magnitude is the raw biological substrate in every man; drive, energy, and a desire for agency. It thus becomes the biologically male way of viewing, understanding, and experiencing the world. But, like any reality of nature, it is neither inherently good nor inherently bad; it simply is. Therefore, whilst this magnitude is fixed, its direction is malleable. Masculinity possesses the capacity for immense good or immense harm. It is the responsibility of culture to determine this direction.
“It is culture that can provide the necessary value system to nurture masculinity’s direction. Directionless masculinity does not dissipate; it searches, and the Manosphere awaits.”
Here we reach the first juncture: the much-misconstrued difference between masculinity and gender roles. The difference is vital: where masculinity is an essence, gender roles are merely an expression. Traditionally, roles like ‘the breadwinner’ were the conventionally expressed form of masculinity because they represented a path of least resistance for the fulfilment of masculine drives. They thus transmuted into a cultural shorthand for masculinity. Over time, society adopted these gender roles as a quantifying measure for ‘manhood’ itself, conflating a social construct with a biological reality. Conversely, gender roles are not what masculinity is, but merely where it often ends up. Masculinity is the vector; gender roles are just the vehicle.
It is culture that can provide the necessary value system to nurture masculinity’s direction. Directionless masculinity does not dissipate; it searches, and the Manosphere awaits. When our mainstream cultural lexicon is lacking, young men necessarily gravitate towards the rigid, hyper-masculine caricatures of the digital demagogue: domination, financial wantonness, performative misogyny. Corrosive, sure; but enviably clear cut. The influence thrives only because our broader culture has forfeited the initiative; by ignoring masculinity, it has left masculinity energy vulnerable to be harnessed by the highest bidder.
Paradoxically, whilst anaemic cultural influences are to blame for this fallout, they have taken the wrong lessons from it. Horrified by the ramifications of unhealthy masculinity, many institutions have sought a solution in the suppression of masculinity itself. But this only exacerbates the problem. Masculinity is a fact of existence; it cannot be erased. Neglecting masculinity does not diminish its magnitude; it only distorts its direction. In contrast, the Manosphere is energetic and intense in its pursuit of young men – they feel heard, understood, empowered. Positive male role models need to adopt this methodology, whilst rejecting its toxic elements. Culture cannot be passive in this battle for hearts and minds. This leaves society with a key principle: masculinity must be celebrated and nurtured, not denied. Cultures must stop trying to extinguish the fire and start building the fireplace.
What should this masonry look like? Our common experiences have translated into one key idea: that positive masculinity is the use of male biological drive in the service of others. This disarms the toxicity of unhealthy models whilst remaining a principle all young men can grasp and embrace. It even surpasses the restrictions of conventional gender roles – under this umbrella, the soldier and nurse are equally legitimate expressions of manhood, as both utilise their drive for the benefit of their communities. We do not need to strip away masculinity to achieve this parity; we need only to harness its fundamentals. By emphasising a culture of service amongst young men, institutions can hold the antidote to the Manosphere.
Ultimately, masculinity remains a dialogue between biology and lived experience. Its drive will always be filtered through the character, perception, and traits of each man. It is intensely individual. One young man’s expression of masculinity is not another’s, and the healthiest potential expression of his masculinity will be unique. In discovering this expression, experience and experimentation are epiphanic. The more varied the experiences society affords young men, the better chance we find the perfect medium for his masculinity. But this must be enabled, not forced. Each young man must find his own route to an optimal self-expression, without which it will not be his own masculinity. It is the essential duty of a healthy culture to facilitate this actualisation. Let each man be a man – but above all, let him be himself.
Authors: Will Mackenzie-Green, Senior Housemaster, and Johnny Moesel, Head of School
Categories: Blogs Sherborne School
