News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
My high school biology teacher preferred the coinage “product of the
’90s” to describe any behaviors or beliefs that were popular among
students in spite of (or likely, because of) their hostility towards
the traditional values endorsed by the founders and faculty of our
all-male Christian boarding school. These included, but were not
limited to, long hair, agnosticism, and habitual tardiness (in order of
descending importance).
Such vices, we were told, would retard our growth into men—at
least the sort of men the school could be proud of having produced—and
make us allies to a decidedly unmanly culture of permissiveness and
moral relativism. If we ever hoped to be “men of substance,” instead of
mere products of our decade, we’d have to cut our hair, find Jesus, and
get to class on time.
“Manliness,” the new book by Kenan Professor of Government
Harvey C. Mansfield ’53, is a lot like one of my biology teacher’s
harangues, but with footnotes.
Drawing upon common sense and selected works from the Western
canon, Mansfield defends the old school notion of manliness against the
endless deconstruction of post-modern philosophy and the soulless
analysis of science.
On its face, Mansfield’s project seems awfully platitudinous:
how much elucidation does traditional manliness really require? Haven’t
we all seen enough John Wayne movies to know what its basic features
are?
But “Manliness” skirts irrelevance by positing itself as a
response to the current trend towards a gender-neutral society.
Mansfield convincingly argues that the gender-neutrality revolution
represents an unprecedented shift in human social organization: no
society before our own has so programmatically sought to eliminate
gender as a criterion for determining occupation and social role.
This makes the issue of manliness all the more salient
because the gender-neutral society tends to dismiss it as incompatible
with its ideals. Mansfield warns that male nature—the product of eons
of evolution—cannot be put aside in a single generation. Moreover, he
makes the case that manliness is worth keeping around for the good that
it produces.
Mansfield’s definition of manliness, “confidence in the face
of risk,” explains why men are disproportionately likely to be leaders,
pioneers, and heroes. The manly man does not hesitate to command
authority in times of crisis, venture into the unknown, or put his life
on the line in defense of a cause. In its most sublime form, manliness
becomes philosophical courage, or the willingness to challenge dogma
with new formulations of truth. Women are not incapable of manifesting
these traits—Mansfield cites Margaret Thatcher as an example of the
“manly woman”—but it is overwhelmingly “the attribute of one sex.”
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, Mansfield also
considers the dark side of manliness. He observes that both the Sept.
11 terrorists and New York’s first responders acted manfully on that
day. The hijackers exhibited manliness by forfeiting their lives in
defense of their belief system. But New York’s firemen, paramedics, and
police officers acted no less manfully as they undertook perilous, and
often fatal, rescue missions in defense of the people of New York.
This tragic episode causes Mansfield to wonder whether
manliness is, ultimately, only valuable as an antidote to the problems
that it creates. This is a philosophical conundrum for which Mansfield
does not seem to have a clear answer. He recommends that manliness be
given “employment” in productive human enterprise so that its
destructive impulses are curtailed, but he cannot imagine a solution to
the problem of excessive or misdirected manliness.
Ultimately, Mansfield does not endeavor to resolve the
paradox of manliness, only to defend its virtues to a generation that
he fears might otherwise consign it to the rubbish heap.
The problem is that the arguments he advances, though
trenchant, aren’t new. You’ve heard them all before, probably from one
of your fogeyish high school teachers. If you weren’t paying attention
then, there’s little chance you’ll tune in now.
—Reviewer Bernard L. Parham can be reached at parham@fas.harvard.edu.
Manliness
By Harvey C. Mansfield
Yale University Press
Out Now
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.