"Do Hard Times Create Strong Men?" An Analysis of Masculinity and Society

  Strong Men And Good Times

    Men should be strong, capable, and moral. Without good and strong men, western society cannot flourish and civilization as we know it degrades. This degradation of civilization can be seen and felt in real time. Just as Rome was not built in a day, Rome did not collapse in a day. Societies much like people become sick and slowly wither away. Continuing this analogy, sick societies have symptoms and signs which can be readily observed and felt. It is a sick society that overly medicates its boys under the guise of treating ADHD. It is a sick society that allows predatory gangs to incentivize and endorse the improper socialization of boys through a lifestyle that statistically ends them in an early grave. It is a sick society which teaches its boys that they are to be ashamed of their gender, labeling them as oppressors while simultaneously insisting that they can be the opposite gender if they so choose. It is a sick society that cannot define man, masculinity or manhood, but still labels all aspects of order or strength as toxic masculinity. It is a sick society that allows absentee fathers to go unpunished.

    I have seen the modern state of masculinity and have felt its repercussions. We live in a generation and society on the brink of collapse. Civilization is the exception and not the rule, and it must be maintained otherwise it risks slipping into chaos and darkness. Michael G Hopf said in his book Those Who Remain, that “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” Depending on one's operating definition of what strength means, this cyclical take on the human condition is either profoundly true or fundamentally flawed.

Strength 

    Strength in and of itself is not a virtue. The transcendentals are not truth, beauty, and strength for a reason. Strength has no moral limiting factor and is therefore a poor framework to build a lasting civilization, much less create a good one. The notion that "might is right" is the moral framework for fools and the proud. Yet, Hopf's quote still seems to strike a chord with most readers. Why is this? It is because deep in the human psyche there is always a need, and therefore a longing, for power. Power is necessary for people to orient themselves and their environment. Without power there is no point in striving or in suffering. Power, both physical and social, are the building blocks of the primordial dominance hierarchy. But for all the importance power has, it is no virtue, and cannot be a lasting substitute for the higher values to which all aware individuals naturally long. Power is a tool, like a hammer, and equally like a hammer, it has the capacity to build homes or tear them down. In the same way, strength, which is the physical and spiritual manifestations of power, is also a tool. It is through great physical strength that a man can save or maim another. With this in mind, the validity of Hopf's statement does not depend on strength alone, rather, it depends on the underlining virtue of men.

Strength and Danger

    Ask a boy what he wants to be when he is older and rarely does he say teacher, accountant or electrician. Instead it is usually something along the lines of: soldier, police officer, spy, or firefighter. No one tells these boys that teacher, accountant, or electrician are inconsequential jobs, quite the contrary, these jobs are of the utmost importance. And yet, boys do not readily claim those roles. This is because boys have a natural and fundamental longing to be strong, capable and dangerous; as a result of this desire, they choose roles in which they think they can, and should be, dangerous. It is for good reason that boys think this way; men should be dangerous. It has been the role of men to go out and order their environment since time immemorial. The formation of human order and civilization out of the wilderness and chaos is a dangerous task. For men to accomplish this task they must be equally if not more dangerous than the wilderness, or they will not survive, but not all dangerous men are built equal. Although strength naturally evolves into danger, the absence of strength is equally if not more dangerous than a man who is willing and able to inflict unjustified harm. A wise man once told me that there are 3 types of dangerous men: the strong and immoral, the strong and moral, and the weak. These 3 men are the progenitors of the creation and destruction of society. It is through understanding these men that the validity of Hopf's statement finds credibility or credulity.

Shepherds, Sheep, and Wolves.

    Weak men cannot build civilization. How can a man who cannot order his environment hope to order not only his situation but his peers as well? For that matter, how can a man who cannot even order himself, hope to order another. It is impossible. A weak man fails at the beginnings of masculinity. Men must order their environment; they must pull order out of chaos. Weakness much like strength comes in a physical and spiritual form, and contrary to secular belief the latter is less justifiable than the former. It is good for men to be physically strong; a man must know that he has the capacity to fulfill what his biological role would have been in a pre-industrialized society. Societies change rapidly but humans only evolve so fast. The role of men and the longing to fulfill such a role is still deeply imprinted upon the heart of every man. And just as the heart is a physical muscle necessary to the expenditure of physical strength, the spiritual heart is necessary for the expenditure of metaphysical strength. It is for this reason that being spiritually weak is of greater consequence than being physically weak. The physically weak man is a poor companion to have in a time of war, but if his spirit is strong and he is courageous and virtuous, then he is no less a useful advisor and friend. In contrast, the spiritually weak man, regardless of his physical strength, is a poor companion in a time of war, a useless advisor and only a situational friend. Where the former might die for his brothers, the latter would abandon them once his strength is overwhelmed. It is for this reason that weak men cannot build society. The physically weak man is unable to pull the order of civilization, out of the chaos of the wilderness, likewise, the spiritually weak man, is antisocial and self-centered at heart. This means that he, similarly, does not have the necessary order within himself to be a building block for society. He, in his weakness and self gratification, is an element of chaos rather than an agent of order. In his amoral state he is either a coward, unable to stand against the vicissitudes of wilderness, despite his power, or he is a monster, antisocial in being, and using his strength only to gain for himself. He is a man of strength without virtue.

    Many of us are already acquainted with strength without virtue, Strength without virtue is the predators and the villains who harm women and traffic children. Strength without virtue is the politicians who pedal promises they do not believe in and line their pockets in the process. Strength without virtue is found in the boys who hold the power of men but not the responsibilities of men. It is the god emperors of the corporate office and the fathers who abuse their children. Needless to say, it is not good to be strong but immoral. Men who are strong but immoral are wolves. They are predators who prey on the weak and the easy. They are the ignorant and the psychopaths who take more than they are willing to give. It is impossible for strong and immoral people to build a good and lasting civilization. Even Genghis Khan for all of his strength, terror, and cruelty, is just a man; and an empire built by one man is an empire of dust and detritus. There is a reason why the Mongolian Empire fell after 2 generations of sons.

    For that matter, it is equally not good to be strong but amoral. Good is not simply the lack of evil. Good is something built, strived, for and constantly maintained. If you are not evil but do not do anything good, you are nothing. You are a leaf in the wind, unbounded to the branches of morality which would have kept you strong. Where a strong and moral man is a brick, which is the building block of the home; a strong but amoral man is a blob of clay, unformed and unkindled. His substance is capable of being resilient but his being has not been firmed and his capacity for creation is limited. It is for this reason that the strong but amoral man cannot create a society. How can one order a civilization if one has no virtue or foundation to keep the society grounded after he passes? It is impossible. It is for this reason that John Addams and many of the founding fathers believe that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." and he is right. If men were angels there would be no need for a ruling government, peace would be the norm. If men were devils than any government would be too corrupt or too incompetent to adequately deal with the threat of the citizens against themselves. It is because people are both good and evil, chaos and order, that a government, and therefore, a society, can and must be established. So, where does this leave us? We are left with the true embodiment of human strength and the only individual who could fulfill the qualities that make Hopf's statement undeniably true: the strong and moral man.

The Strong and Moral

    A strong and moral man is an individual who is capable of exerting the physical strength necessary to shape his environment while also being able to exert the metaphysical strength in order to conduct himself and his peers in a way suitable to the upbringing of a prosocial civilization. Both the condition of physical strength and spiritual strength must be met for Hopf's statement to be correct. This is because, for "good times" to occur, a good civilization must be cultivated and maintained, and a good civilization is built upon one unit and one unit alone: the family.

 The Family, and The Strong Man

    One of the greatest lies ever told to this generation is that civilization is built by the individual. That is a falsehood that must be immediately corrected. Humans are social beings by design and by evolution, as a result, we do not define ourselves simply by our own internal framework, but rather through our reasoning and the comparative analysis of our usefulness in a group. The most primordial group where we find meaning and purpose is that of the family. Before democracies, oligarchies, and monarchies existed there were families. Re-centering the family as the building block of society means re-centering the necessary duty we have to others. It is the fundamental shift away from the Id and towards the Superego that makes societies function. An atomized individual is only responsible for himself; this lack of responsibility breeds not only isolation but selfishness and antisocial tendencies. It is why in our post-family, post-consequence society, the individuals are more attention seeking, more neurotic, less productive, and more depressed than ever recorded. It is easy for an atomized individual to choose what is fun and expedient rather than what is often meaningful and necessary. The want and desires of individuals can more easily be curbed and made productive through the order and socio-educational influence of the family, at the early developmental stages of life. The family plays a crucial role in the most desirable outcome of individuals because the family is the first social framework to which an individual is (and should be) bound. From the pre-cognitive, instinctive brain of the infant, the family sets the framework for trust vs mistrust. It is from the early stages of an individual's life where they learn: how adults should act, how to be socialized, and what to value. Although there are plenty of social groups that are necessary and useful, none are quite as impactful or as important as that of the nuclear family.

    It is for the sake of a good society and a good family that men must be strong and moral. The man is the head of the household for a reason, and the privilege of leading a family must come with the responsibilities of leading one. This means that for all of the strength and ability a man has, he cannot use it for selfish and antisocial means, because by right, he is bound to others and obligated to care for their welfare. It is not the job of the state or the government to care for his family, as is the case with the welfare state and the tragedy of welfare babies. It should be the role of the man to seek responsibility and accept it readily. It is also for this reason that absentee fathers should be criminalized, so that individuals who are antisocial and irresponsible can no longer go without the necessary consequences needed to re-socialize and facilitate more meaningful behavior.

    The strong man, bound and responsible to his family, willing and able to accept that responsibility which is endowed upon him, is the cornerstone on which the building block of society rests. All things rest upon his shoulders and he will find joy and brotherhood, when he seeks responsibility, accepts duty, and earns his power.

    The point of An Everyday Influence is to build a brotherhood of men, moral and upright, who are willing and able to grow in knowledge and ability, and shoulder the responsibility and the power of proper masculinity.