- The Washington Times - Saturday, March 25, 2006


Harvey C. Mansfield

Yale University Press, $27.50, 304 pages


Manliness has been out of fashion for at least three decades. Where once the world viewed the likes of Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart and Robert Mitchum as the celluloid embodiments of an ideal of manhood, their persona have long since faded from the popular memory. These were men whose self confidence in the face of war, conflict and risk was breathtaking.

Beginning in the Seventies a new kind of male personality, represented by the likes of Alan Alda, Dustin Hoffman and Donald Sutherland made their way across the screen. The sensitive, caring and sharing pacifist vegetarian was the ideal put forth by Hollywood, admired by enlightened women and held up as a model for boys and men.

The backlash against the Vietnam War together with the movement for the liberation of women and homosexuals in the Seventies all contributed to the decline of traditional manliness. “Be a man” was no longer the ultimate expression of contempt for weakness. Finally social scientists and other academics began talking about “masculinity” as a social construction which could be changed and twisted into whatever shape societal elites wanted.

But with September 11 and its aftermath, the manly virtues of courage, sacrifice and risk-taking have taken on a new aspect. We know that these virtues are being shown everyday in far off places and all commentators, whether they be in favor of or opposed to the Iraq War, have made a point of expressing their respect for the armed forces of the United States.

Harvey C. Mansfield Jr., the distinguished professor of government at Harvard and well known author of a number of books in political philosophy has been thinking about this phenomena for many years. His new book entitled simply “Manliness” amounts to a spirited defense of the male psychology which lies at the foundation of manliness and its accompanying virtues.

Mr. Mansfield begins by warning us that American society has embarked on a radical new project of the gender neutral society without ever having seriously asked the question of whether on the road to this new goal we can or should proceed to deny the aspirations and ambitions of the male ego.

Common sense and everyday observation tell us that there are important differences between men and women, the most striking of which is that men are more aggressive than women. This may be a stereotype but according to Mr. Mansfield the findings of psychology and evolutionary biology largely support it.

Yet these same sciences do not know what to do with this inherent aggressiveness. Scientists never truly ask why men are aggressive or what they are aggressive about. At bottom they ignore the political and philosophical aspects of manliness. The manly man’s aggression takes the form of an assertion of importance of himself and of the issues he raises.

Manly men are driven willy-nilly to put forth reasons for their self assertion. This is the “existential demand” of manliness: to give reasons to justify how he lives or wants to live.

In order to illustrate what he is getting at in his analysis of manly assertiveness, Mr. Mansfield turns to some of the greatest names in literature from Homer to Hemingway.

Homer’s Achilles is the classic paradigm of the way manly assertiveness can turn into a positive good. Achilles expands his complaint against Agamemnon from stealing his girlfriend to a claim that the King had failed to pay him due honor as the very best man among the Greeks.

Achilles’ taking umbrage at his being undervalued by the “authorities” necessarily contains the suggestion that rulers should always honor the best members of the community. This claim transforms a private or “personal” wrong into a claim that the state is not being well governed under its current executive leadership. The “personal” is the political for Homer and at some level for Mr. Mansfield.

From here the author turns to the intellectual foundations of feminism in the form of Simone de Beauvoir’s classic “The Second Sex.” De Beauvoir had been influenced by Nietzsche, no doubt via the medium of Jean-Paul Sartre, and as a result she seized upon the notion of “transcendence” as the key concept in feminist thought.

In de Beauvoir’s usage this term meant that women can do what men have always done, which is to say they can define themselves as standing against natural limits or restraints which at first blush appear to be “natural” or “given,” but which turn out to be arbitrary and irrelevant after sufficient resistance or “pushing.” Mr. Mansfield and de Beauvoir stand opposed on the issue of “essentialism,” or whether “nature” can ever be a term of distinction.

Next up in Mansfield’s discussion is a brisk survey of modern political philosophy from Hobbes to John Stuart Mill. Mr. Mansfield shows that hostility to manliness was present in the earliest origins of modern political thought, however “rough and ready” such thought may appear to us today in our time of ultimate refinement and precision in the fields of ethics and moral philosophy.

As one would expect from the author of seminal studies of Machiavelli, Bolingbroke, Burke and the American Presidency, Mr. Mansfield is at his best here tracing the development of ideas about human nature and the masculine soul in the history of modern philosophical speculation. Mr. Mansfield shows how Hobbes, Locke, and Spinoza sought to eliminate “the quarrelsome and contentious” from their reconstructed political orders and therefore of necessity had to devalue manliness as the deepest root of political factionalism and “civil broils.”

Finally Mr. Mansfield turns to the classic or traditional view of human nature as is to be seen in Plato and Aristotle. Those who study assertiveness today fail to relate it to the much older concept of spiritedness or thymos, which was very much at the core of the Greek philosophers’ reflections on the human things. Spiritedness induces manly men to risk their “mere” lives for the sake of their “quality” lives. For the classics spiritedness came to sight as indispensable to the political community given the rapacious nature of international politics and the need for vigorous citizenship in the public square of free republics. In consequence they made it the foundation stone of paideia or the education of youth as well as of their system of gentlemanly ethics.

Mr. Mansfield’s book moves from that with which we are most familiar, which is to say the contemporary stereotypes of manliness as an offensive expression of a “macho” mentality often associated with a “redneck” attitude to women and minorities, to that less familiar perspective which we need now more than ever, which is to say the wisdom of the great tradition of Western civilization.

In the course of moving us from our familiar surroundings to the classical world, Mr. Mansfield shows us that manliness is a “house with many mansions.” It can extend from the simple physicality to be seen in the violent confrontations of the “Ultimate Fighting Challenge” on cable television, to the philosophical courage needed to follow a rational argument through to the bitter end no matter what the cost to one in terms of cherished presuppositions and personal values.

Joseph R. Phelan teaches at the Graduate School of Management at the University of Maryland University Park and in the School of Philosophy at Catholic University.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide