Wednesday, July 5, 2017

Reflections: Manliness

Manliness by Harvey C. Mansfield
Reading a book called Manliness in public is a little awkward.  At first glance it may look like a self-help book to help the unmanly become manly.  Although Harvey C. Mansfield has a few things to say about that, Manliness is far more philosophical and academically esoteric than some would expect.  In fact, who thinks about "manliness" from an intellectual perspective at all?  Mansfield's book is fascinating and important but also a bit laborious.

Manliness attempts to define and re-enshrine manliness in what Mansfield calls a "gender-neutral" society.  Is there a place in such a society for manliness, which the author defines in part as not "mere aggression; it is aggression that develops an assertion, a cause it espouses."  One of the most interesting sections of the book is its exploration of feminism and its precarious relationship with manliness; it both seeks to eradicate it but also embrace it.  Should men be less manly but women more so?  Furthermore, is manliness a social construction or an outward expression of natural impulses?  And even more fundamentally, are women and men truly different?  Mansfield brings his cerebral prowess to bear on these questions and showcases a great deal more thoughtfulness on these questions than is sometimes exhibited.

Although it may seem odd, I am very interested in manliness as a subject of consideration and debate.  From a personal standpoint, I feel attributes of manliness have been disparaged or shunned simply because we don't know how to comfortably fit manly behavior into a gender-neutral society.  Reading a book like Gates of Fire or even canonical texts reminds one that manliness is not only a real thing but even desired.  Of course not all manly behavior, just like not all compromise or all compassion, is inherently good nor should be accepted as beneficial without additional scrutiny.  However, a great deal of manliness as a concept is rejected because it appears exclusionary.  (And on some levels it is).  I think this is a mistake, and I appreciate Mansfield's contribution to a topic I am personally interested in.  I also realize I'm probably a part of a very small audience.

Where Mansfield stumbles is in his insistence on providing far more textual interpretation than is necessary.  Mansfield has plenty to share and opine about without providing pages and pages of commentary on existing texts.  I completely understand the value of establishing concepts and ideas and by doing so with ancient or modern texts.  However, at a certain point the author should realize I'm reading his book for his original ideas and writings, not Aristotle's.  As someone who loves to write and certainly loves to quote other more capable writers, I absolutely see the value in spring boarding from existing knowledge and precedence, but eventually your interpretation of another author's writing becomes much, much less interesting than your own perspectives and outlooks.

Manliness is a challenging book to read. It assumes (or maybe not) familiarity with a variety of authors that many readers may never have read beforemyself included.  I liked the book, and I love the contribution it makes to a topic I care about.  The book's influence might be limited, but I learned a lot about the virtues and dangers of manliness and where it fits in our gender-neutral society.

Other Topics of Interest:
Reflections: Gates of Fire
Reflections: Lone Survivor
Reflections: Manning Up: How the Rise of Women has Turned Men into Boys

No comments:

Post a Comment