Image via Wikipedia
When considering what it means to be a man one approach is to consider what is meant when someone says “be a man.” This is usually presented as either a criticism (in response to non-manly behavior) or to provide inspiration and guidance (in the hopes that the person will man up).
This sort of command is a normative imperative. That is, it tells a person what he should do and contains an element of value judgment. Presumably being a man is good while not being a man is bad (at least for those who would be men). This part is easy enough. The challenge lies in figuring out how to obey such an imperative-that is, how to be a man.
Since this is a normative imperative it seems reasonable to consider that there might be a moral aspect to being a man. Aristotle, for example, rather explicitly links being a man and being good. As he sees it, a man is a rational animal and to properly be a man is to develop excellence as a rational being. This, of course, assumes that there is a human nature and that what people should do is to achieve excellence in accord with this nature.
The idea that there is a natural foundation to being a man does have considerable appeal-after all, being a male is a matter of objective biology and it is very tempting indeed to link being a man and being a male. However, there are a few problems here. First, being a male is simply a matter of biology and seems to have no normative aspects to it. After all, to be a male simply involve having the right parts (be these macro parts or micro parts like genes). Second, there is the old Humean injunction against deriving an “ought” from an “is” (although Hume never really gives an argument for this). From ‘I am a male” it seems problematic to infer what I should do. Third, it seems to be at least possible that a person could be a man without actually being male. For example, a soul could perhaps be a man but would lack the biology to be a male. Despite these problems considering the nature of maleness might be an avenue worth exploring. In fact, Male Studies has gained some slight traction as an academic discipline in the United States (and is distinct from Men’s Studies).
However, if a foundation for being a man cannot be found in biology, perhaps it can be found in ethics. That is, perhaps being a man is a matter of being good. This idea does make sense. After all, when an intuitive list is assembled of what it is to be a man it will tend to include the classic virtues: honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, strength, loyalty, and so on. Obviously enough, women an children (and genderless beings) could also share this traits, thus indicating that they are not unique to men. This is hardly surprising since being a good person and being a good man would seem to overlap a great deal.
But, it might be asked, are there virtues specific to men (the manly virtues) that cannot be possessed by non-men? An easy (and easily refuted) manly virtue might be that of being a father. However, this can be refuted by arguing that this would fall under being a parent and also that a woman (or even an intelligent machine) could have the qualities of being a father. We already distinguish between being the biological father of a child and being a father (for example, in cases of adoption). As such, it would seem that a non-man could be a father and fulfill the functions of that role.
It seems possible that all the manly virtues could be possessed by people who would not, on the usual view of things, men. After all, there are women who seem to be better men than most men. For example, I know many female athletes who are physically and mentally tougher than the majority of men. They also exhibit the classic virtues of integrity, character, and so on.
Of course, these female athletes are still regarded as women and perhaps this indicates that there are some virtues that are unique to men. Then again, it might be that they are regarded as women not because they lack certain manly virtues but because they are still biologically female. As Locke noted in his discussion of personal identity, people can mean many things by terms like “man” (and presumably “woman”). As such, part of the problem might be that “man” and “woman” are used to refer to normative roles (ethical, legal, and gender) but also to biology. As Locke suggests, clearing up our terminology can go a long way in clarifying matters. I will not, however, endeavor to do this here.
One plausible approach is that being virtuous is largely neutral when it comes to men and non-men. So, for example, being a good man and being a good person would be the same thing. However, there still seems to be a residue of manliness left to account for. This is, to be honest, mainly just a feeling that there is still something to being a man that is distinct from being good in the general sense. That is, if a person were perfectly good there would still be some qualities that would be needed to truly be a man.
However, I must confess that suspect this feeling is primarily the product of my social conditioning. I have, as has everyone, been trained and conditioned to accept that certain roles and behavior are fitting for men and others for non-men. As such, perhaps the residue I mention is merely the results of these smudges on the lens of reason.
That said, this interests me enough to ask this question: what virtues and qualities could be unique to men? Naturally, I am not asking what is unique to males-this is a different question.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=28017886-790e-44f0-a87a-a4fcb930e0fa)
Thank you for your article. This has been interesting to read.
I do have one comment: I take problem with your paragraph discussing whether being a “father” is a virtue that only men can fulfill. You say that a woman or an intelligent machine could fulfill this role.
This is not in fact true. It is conceivable that the role of the father could be taken up by someone else, but that does not mean it is the case.
It is becoming more and more clear that the place of the biological father cannot be replaced. Children, especially women, develop deep wounds from not having their fathers in their lives. I cite two books discussing the issue:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1558745491/
http://www.amazon.com/Fatherless-Women-Change-After-Lose/dp/0471228958/ref=pd_sim_b_3
David,
That’s quite a contrast to my personal fascination with the mother-daughter relationship. (Thank, for the links.) The idea that daughters would have a distinct need for a father figure certainly seems outside of the usual discussions (and very interesting).
Still, I have to wonder about the biological tie; which in contrast to other cultures our culture seems to over emphasize. That is, I often wonder if the efforts and funds spent on fertility wouldn’t be better spent on doing more for orphans. Along with this, I think that the emphasis we place on blood ties has a significant influence on the way that children perceive the completeness of their lives.
This cultural emphasis on biological ties also seems to affect the choices we make about raising and nurturing children. For instance, parents go to so much trouble to have their biological offspring and then send them off to school to be raised by strangers.
So, I should wonder if a daughter raised by a stay-at-home, adopted father might be better off then a never-home, workaholic, biological one. Maybe the need for a biological father is really a need for a father that is there throughout the child’s life.
David,
I’m not convinced that the biological father cannot be replaced. After all, consider cases of adoption. Provided that an adopted child has not been subject to other sorts of trauma (such as the mother drinking or using drugs during the pregnancy), adopted children seem to turn out the same as everyone else.
I do admit that if someone knows that she does not have her biological father in her life, then this can bother her a great deal. However, this does not prove that the role of father cannot be taken by someone else. Obviously, the role of biological father cannot and you are right to raise concerns about the special importance of the biological connection.
Let me see if I can cut through some of this vis-a-vis the women and children issue.
Being a man is:
1) Taking on the responsibility of knowing that should the time come to lay down your life to save that of most women and all children, you fully expect to do so.
2) Knowing full well that should such a (for most of us, unlikely) situation arise, you will not be able to live with yourself afterward should you fail to do so.
This responsibility is by no means a singularity. It bleeds into other more pedestrian, less critical issues on a subconscious level.
Surely, the ability to take responsibility to risk ones life should it be needed cannot be a unique male attribute.
I have to ask: is it possible to talk about what it means to be a man without talking about gendered oppression? The social rules about how to be masculine are partly about showing that one has higher status than feminine people. And forget individual male virtues: a lot of people still associate maleness with virtue full stop. Sure, there are supposed virtues that get fobbed off onto women–women are supposed to be inherently “nurturing” and “in touch with their emotions”–but those mostly sound like backhanded compliments to me.
Ray,
I would think so, at least in theory. Of course, discussing what it is to be a man would generally involve considering the historical and social context of being a man, and that would tend to bring in that subject. As you point out, being a man has often been taken to be superior to being a woman. This is partially shown in our expressions such as “be a man”, “you hit like a girl”, or “you’re such a woman” (when said to a man).
My above comment should have read “you *ARE* fully expect to do so”. Not sure it makes much difference to some commenters, but it does to me. And it does play into the issue of *perceived* status.
I would disagree with some of those examples, Mike, and for reasons that do play into our perceptions. We say “you hit like a girl” not because of status but for the simple fact that men are on average physically stronger than women. It is a way of saying “you are weak”, not “you lack status”. And saying “you’re such a man” to a woman supposed to grant her higher status? Well, you try it in your office and let me know how it turns out.
This could of course go on and on, but consider this…when have you ever heard a woman being described as a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal…and yet Neanderthals were not asexual.
duh…”you ARE fully expectED to do so”
Um,… I just have to add…
I have a problem with what can become the taunting of alpha-male bullies (or, for that matter, alpha-female bullies). The examples given in the previous comments are surly among those that are used to brainwash young males and keep them inline.
For whatever social awareness may be behind the creation of such phrases, they are surely not proven to be worthy of a well examined ethical philosophy. Indeed, those that aspire to a deeper ethic will reject such mental manipulations, though we know that such courage is rarely among the majority.
And, I must point out that the usage of such phrases *DOES* affect status–for once they are uttered, the target must conform or risk being marginalized. Either that, or you must have the strength to buck the system and still survive, as being marginalized can leave you without the protection and sustenance of the collective social structure. After all, isn’t this why it takes so very long to overcome stereotypes and prejudice?
Nothing any huMAN does is unMANly because as soon as a that person does it it then becomes somthing that has been done by a human
after saying that i must also say this every human has the capability to do the absolute worst that is humanly possible and WE ALL have the capability to the absolute best each huMAN has to make the decision for themselves what is or isnt manly and or right and wrong
thank you for letting me post this out here so late but i have a bee in my bonnet. i think the difference between men and women is they are expected to play by different rules. yes it is a social difference. this despite having the same qualities, roughly speaking. i am facing professional including sexist not sexual harassment at work, the last part for life’s first time since august (4 mths). i brought it up, being asked to look for another job. i am sole bread earner of my family and our professional world is a village. seems i must suck it up but feel it is not manly/womanly in true sense. i am a woman though i behave like a man despite what i first said. ours is a deeply sexist society, no i am not western or white nor do i live here. my principles/politics and success (in fully being who i am, well, at least fundamentally, i hope) makes me stick out as target for such behaviour. i am 38. advice, anyone?