The Current Crisis of Masculinity

So, Jordan, obviously this new series, Dragons, Monsters, Men, the first one that we're doing together, this series is focused in on how men can be men. Why do you think there is such a crisis of masculinity in the first place, and why are there so many people out there who are angry at you for even talking to men?

Well, I think you could think about it as a consequence, in some sense, of the lack of a concept of original sin, oddly enough. I mean, people bear an existential burden; you know, it's an intrinsic part of life to, I suppose, to feel guilty in relationship to nature and to feel guilty in relationship to culture. It's difficult for us to live in harmony with the natural world and for the natural world to live in harmony with us, by the way, and none of us are all we could be on the social front.

One of the consequences is that we have that sense intrinsically, you know, that there's a lack in us that needs to be redressed. Unfortunately, that can be weaponized and has been. What I see happening to young men, in particular, boys as well, not just young men, and maybe even starting at the age of toddlers, is that we have this sense in the world that human beings live in antagonism to nature and that we're actually a malevolent force.

Our social structures, which are clearly capable of the commission of atrocity, are fundamentally oppressive, patriarchal in their nature. So then, if you're a male in a society with that ethos, the motive force that drives you into the world to live is associated with rapaciousness and despoliation on the natural front and then oppression and atrocity on the social front. It's like, well then, if you're the least bit conscientious—because this sort of accusation hurts conscientious young men the most—then the best you can do is, well, let's say castrate yourself. How would that be?

That would be real comical, except that it's also happening. So I guess that's why I think there's a crisis, and there's something serious at the root of it, right? Because we do have to take the fact of the potential damage we can do to the natural world and the social world seriously. But the proper consequence of taking that seriously is not to commit harakiri, let's say, in a fit of moral anxiety and take yourself completely out of the game. But that's the insistence now, and it's really—and I see that psychoanalytically, you know—I see that as a manifestation, at a symbolic level, of something like, well, symbolically that's associated with the devouring mother.

It's an overweening and destructive false compassion that has this devouring quality, and yeah, and that's basically where we're at. So, you know, it's one of the things that's striking about the sort of hatred that you've gotten from so many is that you've literally been asked why you're even bothering to speak to men. I mean, there is this crisis of masculinity, right? There is this notion that every form of masculinity is toxic, and you spent your life trying to talk to men and say, "No, no, you can channel that masculinity in not only a good way, but a necessary and productive and useful way."

People have gotten angry at you for this. Where do you think that's coming from? Why—if that's obviously a good thing that you're doing—are so many people upset with you for?

Well, and the thing is, I never really set out to talk to men specifically. I did set out, at least in part, to make a case for the utility of both the feminine and the masculine spirit. It turned out that making the case for the masculine spirit was something that was more demanded by the culture, let's say. The anger—that's a complicated issue. We touched on some of it in relationship to the despoiling of nature and the idea of the oppressive and atrocity-committing patriarchy.

But then there's another issue too, which I think is germane. Because of family fragmentation, there's a very large number of women who have—just like there's a very large number of men—never had a real word of encouragement in their whole life. It's a really sad thing to see. It's really, really sad to see that deeply and to have seen that reflected in so many thousands of people. But there are many women who've never had a positive relationship with any male in their life.

So one of the consequences of that, we know, for example, that younger women are more likely to be attracted to men who show dark triad traits: narcissistic, malevolent, and psychopathic. People who have those traits are characterized by the mimicry of competence. So what women want in men, more than anything else, is competent generosity, and the data on that are very clear. But you can mimic that if you're narcissistic, and if you're a young woman, you can be deluded by that.

It's partly because it points to the problem of dissociating competent confidence from the expression of power per se. So we could call power—I'll define that as the willingness and ability to use compulsion to attain your aims. Now if you are someone who has a proclivity to manifest power, then that looks like the manifestation of both ambition and will. If you haven't had a positive relationship with anyone masculine in your life—and maybe not even with your own internal masculinity—you can't discriminate between power and the ambition that serves competence.

Because that's terrifying, because the power—if you have only negative relationships with men—their capability to use power becomes such a threat that it has to be opposed at all costs. Even if it manifests itself within, say, the developmental pathway of your own son. So some of that's familial breakdown, and then you have a multigenerational pattern of that that makes it even worse.

And so that's definitely part of it, you know. There's an ideological drum that's being beaten constantly, both on the sociological constructivist front, right? That's the oppressive patriarchy—and then on the environmental front. And then you add to that the fact that, well, on the leftist, especially the radical types, their whole damn doctrine—it's the most pathological doctrine you could invent if you set out to invent a pathological doctrine.

And I mean that. I'm not making a joke; I really mean that in the deepest possible sense. The notion that the fundamental human motivation is the willingness and ability to use compulsion, power—it's all about power. And every time I hear that now from someone, I think that is not a sociological observation; that is a confession on your part. And it's also just complete bloody nonsense.

I mean, you all know this; you have friends because they're compelled to be your friends? That's definitely not how you have friends. You might have bully henchmen that way, but you don't have friends. Power is an extraordinarily unstable basis to establish a marriage on. Plus, it just doesn't work, because it turns out that women, who are so annoying, are very difficult to oppress. You know, so you can try, but it's not that easy, and I don't think that we've been all that historically successful in doing so.

But it's also a preposterous proposition because the expression of power within an intimate relationship does not produce intimacy or a relationship. The best it can produce is like a combination of tyranny and slavery, and that does not characterize the institution of marriage per se. So there is this insistence among the radicals that power is the fundamental motivation. And then you think too, okay, you're only motivated by power; that means that we can only get along if our interests align.

Because if you're motivated by power and I'm motivated by power, and our interests don't align, and there's nothing else but power, then the only option I have is to turn you into an enemy and try to destroy you. Because we can't engage in dialogue—that's dialogos. And the reason we can't engage in dialogue is because there's no logos; there's just power. So there's no such—this is why it's a good thing for conservatives to understand.

You have to understand that the debate about free speech on campus, in the deepest sense, is not a debate about who should be allowed to speak freely. That's nothing; that's a trivial debate. You can even understand it in some sense. If I don't agree with you, maybe I don't want you to talk. But the debate is about something much deeper, which is whether or not the idea of free speech itself is just a mask developed, essentially by Europeans, to justify the oppressive patriarchy in the most devious possible way.

And the answer the radicals have to that question is yes, that's exactly what it is. And so there's no free speech whatsoever; that's an illusion promulgated by people who are only trying to justify their claim to power. That's what the bloody argument is about. And so, I just think all of that's—it's wrong in every way. It's wrong theologically; it's wrong psychologically; it's wrong scientifically. Even chimpanzees, who have a patriarchal social structure, if their social structures are based on power, on compulsion, they're unstable.

The alpha chimps who use power are very likely to meet an extraordinarily brutal and premature end. So, Frans de Waal, the Dutch primatologist, has detailed out this wonderfully. He’s shown that even among our closest biological relatives, it's the ability to make peace and to engage in reciprocal interactions that constitutes the basis for a stable polity, even among chimps.

And it's obviously the case that that's the proper basis for social relations, especially among free people. I've been trying to puzzle out, especially in my lecture to it recently, what the antithesis to power is—or to the will to power, let's say—in terms of arbitrary compulsion, and it's something like the spirit of free and voluntary play. And that's a wonderful thing to know; it's so optimistic.

You guys were talking about optimism earlier. You know, if you structure your relations optimally, and I mean optimally with yourself, with your intimate partner, with your family, with your community, the highest level of attainment of that structuring is the manifestation of the spirit of voluntary play. And that's so lovely because there's nothing better than playing fundamentally.

Human beings and other mammals as well also have a biological circuit that mediates play. That was discovered by a man, Yak Panksepp, and he showed that play is unbelievably important to the development of children for a variety of complicated reasons. Partly because they're practicing to be competent adults, but also that it can be suppressed by almost any other emotion or motivation.

So your kids can't really play if they're hungry or tired or wet or upset. The same would apply within your relationship. If there's stresses and tensions, the play disappears. But if you optimize the relationship and the circumstance, then the spirit of play can manifest itself. I would also say that's also the fundamental purpose of fathers, in some sense, is to imagine that paradise—that's a walled garden; that's what paradise means.

So it's walls, structure, and then the garden inside is nature, and a nature that's tended. The masculine role in child-rearing is something like the erection of the walls so that play can manifest itself within the walls. That's a real good combination of security because that's what the walls are for, but then the kind of freedom that allows for untrammeled development to occur in the most positive possible sense.

So I would say that those of us who are standing against the radicals who insist that the only human motivation is power can oppose that in part by putting forward the observation that the proper antithesis to that is the spirit of voluntary play. And that's what I hope we're going to do with the Daily Wire.