“Man is either a god or a brute.”
— Aristotle (384-322 BC)
Information on Putin in image above from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26433122?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents
NOTE: Aristotle was known for his prejudice toward women, misogyny, interestingly enough, perhaps “Man” in the above quote is gender specific, and did not apply to women.
It seems that the “brute” is coming out in many in 21st Century America, the need to show masculinity always, the big noisy and smokey pickup truck, the aggressive bullying speech, etc. We see the misogyny within the MAGA movement, or I should say the “non-male” may see it clearly. If one goes to Twitter for a search including the words “misogyny” and “MAGA,” countless posts will appear from women who equate these two words. For example this tweet from a woman named Michelle in December of 2022:
“Never forget that the REASON people voted for Trump and other MAGA Republicans is that they LIKED the racism, misogyny, nationalism, and bigotry they were spewing. Don't EVER fall for the bullsh** that they "didn't know." EVERYONE KNEW.”
The bar graph from a University of Washington survey below shows the results of a survey of MAGA supporters and opinions on women. The results are unsurprisingly what one might expect.
Yesterday on Twitter I came across more artwork of Donald Trump in a younger and more muscular body. We have seen such for several years now, it is mostly only a source of amusement to most of us, including myself, but one should perhaps look at it in a larger context. Misogyny is an almost universal sign of authoritarian leaders and governments. Ruth Ben-Ghiat in her book Strongmen describes the bravado almost all authoritarians display, and this persona is important for them acquiring and maintaining their supreme power.
In the composite photo above are examples of artwork and staged photography for a number of authoritarians over time. The similarities seem quite striking to me personally. Perhaps other cult of personality figures such as John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt or Theodore Roosevelt may have indeed had similar artwork done by admirers as well, but in many cases as in the picture above the image was created as a form of propaganda for the citizens of their respective countries. Below is what I could find to be the most “propagandist” portrait of FDR which I could come across. A fireside chat promotion seems rather statesmen-like, even if it has a popularism’s flavor, compared to what is above.
Below are quotes by three well known authoritarians of the 20th Century. All seem to state a great deal of bravado. Stalin was of course a communist in the USSR while the others were from fascist governments, and the Stalin portrait on the land may have been designed with communism in mind, however the manliness of it is not lost on the viewer.
“A nation of spaghetti eaters cannot restore Roman civilization!”
― Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)
“Take some exercise, try to recover the look of a human being.”
― Josef Stalin (1878-1953)
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature…”
— Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
It seems that most of the artwork shown in this writing, including that of Donald Trump, is the “employment of artifice” in the following quote.
“The ordinary employment of artifice* is the mark of a petty mind; and it almost always happens that he who uses it to cover himself in one place, uncovers himself in another.”
— Rochefoucauld (1630-1680)
*noun - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others. From Latin artificium, based on ars, art- ‘art’ + facere ‘make’.
One might think that a level of sophistication of thought might negate the attempts of visual propaganda to further the cause of an authoritarian leader and their associates, but apparently not. It still must be somewhat effective on 21st Century Americans, as resources would not go toward it if not. The artifice is alive and well.
From a controlled study of male dominance the following on theoretical assumptions of a controlled study using a computer gaming test:
From an evolutionary perspective, intrasexual competition is common and is one of the strongest forces shaping sex differences. This is also true in humans and the fact that direct conflicts were largely fought by men can help explain sex differences in body structure. In a similar manner, these biological sex differences also shaped sex-specific competitive strategies. As a man’s access to resources and mates (i.e. fitness) is determined by his position in a hierarchy, it is important for men to understand and navigate dominance hierarchies enforced through overt signals of dominance. In contrast, there is no evidence that a woman’s fitness is determined by her position in a hierarchy, making overt hierarchical navigation less important. In addition, because direct conflicts are relatively more costly for women, women generally use more subtle competitive strategies that reduce the social status of rivals and minimize retaliation. The sexes thus differ in how social hierarchies are navigated, and the correlation between the placement within a hierarchy and fitness.
In contrast, evolutionary theory suggests that sexist behaviour is in response to a threat to a male’s position in the hierarchy, which if reduced, limits his access to potential mates. Evolutionary theory thus predicts that a male’s behaviour should be moderated by status and performance, such that only lower-status males that have the most to lose with a hierarchical reorganization by the introduction of a female competitor will be hostile towards female players. It also predicts that higher-status males should decrease the frequency of negative comments and increase their frequency of positive comments as female-voiced players represent a potential mate. Evolutionary theory also makes a secondary prediction regarding male-male interactions: the frequency of positive and negative comments should follow a typical hierarchical response such that poorer performance and lower status should evoke submissive behaviour (more positive and fewer negative statements).
Results of this study:
Our results support an evolutionary argument for why low-status, low-performing males are hostile towards female competitors. Dominance is tightly linked to fitness in men as studies from hunter-gatherer societies demonstrate that dominance rank increases fitness through offspring number and resource availability. Even in modern day society, dominance and not attractiveness is associated with college male mating success. Low-status and low-performing males have the most to lose as a consequence of the hierarchical reconfiguration due to the entry of a competitive woman. As men often rely on aggression to maintain their dominant social status, the increase in hostility towards a woman by lower-status males may be an attempt to disregard a female’s performance and suppress her disturbance on the hierarchy to retain their social rank. This idea is reinforced by the fact that higher-skilled males that should not feel threatened by a female increased their number of positive comments.
It might seem that the most susceptible to feelings of misogyny might be the low-status, low-performing males of the workplace, and perhaps generally in society. It might be inferred that to be perceived to be in this status might make one anxious and wish not to remain within it. And women must be seen as a definite threat among many in this group. How this relates to authoritarian movements in general is an interesting question I have? Are these authoritarian wannabes suffering from feelings of inadequacy, are they anxious of their rightful place?
The big noisy trucks, these seem associated with the MAGA movement, as were boat parades in the past. The photo above clearly indicates the importance of one’s mode of transportation. Research in the following study looked at this in more depth, in terms of perceptions of masculinity.
In contemporary contexts, the need to depersonalize or objectify women may be related to changes in social structures, and in particular the loss of male dominance. For example, in the United States, large pickup trucks or SUVs may be considered last frontiers of maleness, functioning as a defense line with regard to anything that is perceived as a threat to lifestyles or personal identities involving specific male-female role models. Car cultures referring to traditional role models are thus also manifestations of control, as they provide evidence of social and cultural stability, constancy, and the immutability of things. Society is, however, in constant change, characterized by “decomposing social forms”, where forms (structures, institutions, norms) no longer persist over longer periods of time.
I was quite curious about society prior to the automobile. According to the following research paper the horse of medieval Europe seemed to have a similar importance. This paper was focused on the horse as a status symbol, perhaps associated with economic class. But the need for displaying male dominance certainly can be seen as a factor. This diversion from the modern time period I find rather interesting. I grew up in a ranching community, in a rural setting where horses were of much importance. Unsurprisingly to me, it seems that horses and big trucks may be similar to the masculinity question. At least in the Middle Ages of Europe.
Le Morte D’Arthur contains coursers and palfreys in addition to the great horses. Coursers are used by ranked characters only outside of fighting, such as for hunts or transport, but lesser warriors may be mounted on coursers for combat. Ranked characters, such as Arthur, his Kingly allies and enemies, and his named knights, ride “great” horses. Palfreys, by this period smooth gaited fine riding horses, are reserved for ladies. Ladies are always specified to ride a (usually “fair”) palfrey, not just any horse. There is only one man who rides a palfrey, and as punishment for dishonorable conduct. Arthur declares that Sir Damas will be given a palfrey to ride day-to-day because “that will become [him] better to ride on than upon a courser.” The horse he rides, even for simple transport, denotes his fallen status, and is assigned to him based upon his deeds and not his wealth. Similarly, Arthur meets an unknown man “riding upon a lean mare,” who is unsurprisingly later shown to be a poor cowherd.
His lack of wealth is denoted by his horse’s lean condition, but his
status is shown by his horse’s gender. A knight would not ride a mare, even for transportation. All great horses were stallions. The need for separate equine symbols for wealth and for status shows that the highest class animals could not be purchased for simple money. All these different types of horses are of course in contrast to the tenth century Waltharius, in which one horse is war horse, transport, pack horse, and lady’s mount at different times in the text. In the earliest Arthurian “histories” horses are not even present (or at least, not mentioned). Chretien uses only three classes of horse (warhorses, palfreys, and workhorses), but Malory uses many, reflecting the more complex social structure of his day. While rank in society has gotten more complex between the time of Chretien and of Malory, the horse’s ability to signify that rank has become solidified. Each of these types of horse represent a different social position. Breeding records from the twelfth century on show this diversifying of type, showing that these new types were not merely a matter of training.
And before I leave this general issue, what are the connections between misogyny, bravado, supposedly, manliness and firearms. It was an obvious question I had, but I found no answers with an internet search. It would seem that this might have been fully explored with the number of gun related deaths each year in America. But it appears this might not be so.
Noting that firearm injury is among the least researched and worst funded of the leading causes of death in the United States, they outline strategies to meet the need for evidence. These include a comprehensive data collection effort, effectively evaluating interventions, taking a cross-disciplinary approach, and building research institutions.
“Given the prevalence of firearm injury and death in the United States, it is astounding that scientific understanding of the problem is so poor and that the research infrastructure and workforce are so underdeveloped. As further funding emerges, it is crucial to build a field that honors the magnitude of the problem and builds up the collaborations and innovations necessary to save lives and create a more equitable society.”
A commentator from MSNBC did comment this afternoon that he was taken back by the number of t-shirt wearers with reference to firearms and the Second Amendment at the Trump rally last Saturday at Waco, Texas. And indeed in the tragedy there thirty years ago, the Branch Davidians were raided due to their alteration of semiautomatic weapons into fully automatic which was ongoing. So we know that gun culture is tied closely to masculinity insecurity. The Nashville mass shooter today was uncharacteristically a woman, so there are exceptions to what has become normal for profiles of mass murderers. I grew up with guns, but I’m very disheartened over today's gun culture, which I think is near pathological for many men, perhaps for some woman as well.
“An individual man is a fruit which it cost all the foregoing ages to form and ripen; he is strong, not to do, but to live; not in his arms, but in his heart; not as an agent, but as a fact.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
I will end on Emerson’s idea of what a true man may actually be. For it is a much more enlightened view than what we must witness among a large number of our fellow Americans today. One would think this view might resonate above the more brutish idea of masculinity, which may be easier to achieve, but our society is not there in agreement as of now. Only those who can realize the difference can try to steer our ship in the right direction. And following the brute in his or her authoritarian quest seems not what one might prefer to do, but a segment of Americans apparently might disagree.
31st posting, March 27, 2023