Toxic Masculinity: Stoicism, part 2

More of my almost-inane drivel arguing against the post-modern narrative of "toxic" masculinity.

The first argument against Stoicism that I'll address is that it is a means of surrendering to "fate", that all things are pre-determined, and thus unavoidable. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, more commonly known simply as Seneca, provided many texts regarding Stoicism.

His approach is described as "passive", as accepting of fate and perceiving that the individual has no impact on events. I have to agree with Steven Gambardella, the author of that linked article, that being passively accepting of some predetermined fate is unhealthy. I absolutely do NOT like the idea that my life is preordained. I have no idea if my actions are of any significance, even marginal on the macro-scale, but I find it necessary to believe that I make my own decisions, even while recognizing socio-cultural influences on my viewpoint.

Perhaps my approach is a "cheat" to some extent, but I often take a stance similar to what Mr. Gambardella articulates as "taking the colloquial meaning of “stoic”, an attitude to life, to stand for “Stoicism”, a school of philosophy that attempts to explain life." I do this with many things. I like to look for fundamental principles which I perceive as being applicable in broader circumstances. I like to strip-away anything I view as superstitious in nature, because they induce significant variation from the functional base and are too easy to misinterpret and misuse, and find the underlying principles that are shared throughout all interpretations and applications.

I'm certainly not well-read on Stoicism. I can't (yet) quote Marcus Aurelius's Meditations; I've not read more than a brief review of Cicero's attack on Stoicism when defending Lucius Murena (referenced below). That said, I've not seen the passiveness Mr. Gambardella describes. Certainly our current circumstances are the result of past decisions and actions. Of course we can't always predict what effects our decisions will have. I don't see that as meaning that we have no influence on our "fate". I found myself here as a result of a multitude of factors, but I'm now in a position to influence the outcome of THIS situation. I want to make the best decision I can right now, taking into account past mistakes, successes, and consideration not only for my own welfare, but that of everyone and everything possible. I can't do that if I've acted impulsively from knee-jerk emotions, or if I deliberately maintain an excessively-emotional response which clouds my judgement. I have to recognize the pleasure or pain which initially motivated me, and integrate that with my intellectual capacity to find the most constructive outcome I'm able to create. 

Another argument against Stoicism, actually a set of arguments, was used in a political corruption trial. In 62 BCE, a trial against Lucius Licinius Murena saw Marcus Tullius Cicero, defense, facing off against Marcus Porcius Cato (Cato the Elder), as prosecution. Cicero's successful argument was not actually regarding Murena's actions or character, but rather he chose to simply attack the prosecutor's Stoic philosophy.

Cicero led the jury to see Cato as intellectualizing the case. Cicero appears to claim that Stoics are incapable of compassion; have a harsh view of punishing indiscretions; and are "absolutist", not lending legitimacy to relative values, disregarding opposing viewpoints.

When stoics refer to being "indifferent" to others, that is not intended to imply that they strive to not care about anything at all, to achieve some disconnection from our universe, seeing it all as unworthy of consideration. The intended meaning is that the external influence could be good, could be bad, or could be neither good nor bad. As explained by Diogenes "The Stoics say that some things that exist are good, some are bad, and some are neither good nor bad. The good things, then, include the virtues...The bad things include their opposites...neither good nor bad are all those things which neither benefit nor harm" (Tad Brennan, The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate, Oxford: Clarendon, 2006, p, 119). A stoic is, therefore, not lacking in compassion, but rather sees that many experiences, many influences, most actions, are not necessarily bad or good, but simply are. Nothing more.

While this might not be a directly-successful argument in favor of Stoic compassion, it should illustrate that Stoics are not unsympathetic. A lack of sympathy would have Stoics disregarding many human characteristics, many people, as unworthy of existing. If you can't be good, you must be bad, therefore you are not worth regard. That extreme is a foundation for the actual nihilism we find in the writings of the Columbine shooters, and those kids were most definitely NOT stoic in any sense. (as part of a project for work, I've found a website containing the writings of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. I almost linked them here, but though better of it. Those kids most certainly fell in the furthest standard deviation of some of the worst behavioral characteristics humanity is capable of, and I firmly believe they were simply a symptom of post-modernism and its innate, selfish disregard for the value of others, and its celebration of impulsivity and the empowerment of excess emotionality, but that's another discussion entirely). Contrary to Cicero's argument, Stoics recognize that few humans have the capacity to achieve the ideal position of Sage, similar to a Buddha. As such, our imperfections must be accounted for. Cicero attempts to claim that Stoics view "All sins are equal, so that every misdemeanor is a serious crime..." This is a disingenuous argument, which is easily countered with the Stoic acknowledgement that every individual is capable of making progress towards a higher state, what Buddhists would call Enlightenment. Stoic philosophy does see somewhat of a binary solution set in that they believe that all sins originate from a singular, fundamental aspect of humanity, "a vicious state of soul". However, this does not mean all destructive actions are equal in a practical sense. Proper Stoics recognize a scale of application, do perceive the use of deadly force against an existential criminal threat as different from murder. Shoplifting bubblegum is not the same as a Ponzi scheme.

I understand how a "telephone game" version, a misinterpretation, of Stoicism would develop over time, leading to a "toxic" version of it. Men HAVE been exposed to the idea that they shouldn't ever express any emotion, which is unreasonable and unhealthy. Taking a Vulcan approach of "pure logic" is impossible and undermines the health of our limbic system, which would introduce some severe dissonance. I also believe that this view of Masculinity and Soicism have developed over time, slowly warping the original intent, creating a distorted view that certainly has had a destructive effect on society. However, I believe that this distortion is NOT the reality of the original, moderate, intent.

I fully admit that I take a slightly more Zen-style approach. I'm not Buddhist, but the Buddhist approach, as I described in part 1, simply resonates well with me. I see many similarities between Stoicism and Buddhism, and I'm not the only one to view them as analogous. I think the description here in Daily Stoic is outstanding: They both advocate seeking happiness from an internal source, so that the ups and downs of life will not be your masters. As philosopher and author Nassim Taleb once wrote on the similarities between the two: “A Stoic is a Buddhist with attitude.”

I perceive one of the most important aspects of both philosophies is the essentially INTERNAL basis of emotional health. Looking to an outside party to provide for your happiness will only lead to disappointment. We must be secure within ourselves, with who we are, in order to be capable of happiness. We must recognize and manage our emotional state on our own. That doesn't mean you don't experience good emotions as a result of being around certain people, from engaging in certain activities, but rather that those provide pleasure, not happiness itself. The Dali Lama is quoted as saying:

          Now sometimes people confuse happiness with pleasure. For example, not long ago I was speaking to an Indian audience at Rajpur. I mentioned that the purpose of life was happiness, so one member of the audience said that Rajneesh teaches that our happiest moment comes during sexual activity, so through sex one can become the happiest. He wanted to know what I thought of that idea. I answered that from my point of view, the highest happiness is when one reaches the stage of Liberation, at which there is no more suffering. That’s genuine, lasting happiness. True happiness relates more to the mind and heart. Happiness that depends mainly on physical pleasure is unstable; one day it’s there, the next day it may not be.

This doesn't mean that we should disregard pleasing experiences, but rather that we shouldn't expect them to be the foundation of our happiness. Instead, finding some form of enlightenment, striving for the Stoic ideal of the wise Sage, cleansing our Karma (our conscience, the Jungian perception of Karma as a subconscious force rather than a religious concept) provides for happiness. This, in-turn, allows for a more substantial appreciation of pleasures, and helps avoid pursuing them in an unhealthy manner.

Back to the claim that a stoic approach is unhealthy: I was never taught that emotional expressions are utterly inappropriate for men. What I learned was that emotions are a critical aspect of our humanity, but that there are times when it is in everyone's best interest that we censor outward expressions. As previously provided, impulse management is a vital skill for adults to engage in. Just because we feel something in the moment doesn't mean we should express it outwardly. Feel it. Recognize that you are feeling it. Allow yourself to feel it. Determine if the situation is appropriate for expressing it. No, expressing emotional clouds (good, bad, indifferent) passing over the moon of your being is NOT always constructive. Despite the juvenile desire to be "spontaneous", to not have to make the effort of self-awareness, avoiding the effort of introspective analysis, letting "the words fall out" can sometimes be destructive, and adults make allowance for that in their personal development. It isn't hiding, it isn't being disingenuous, it is not "two-faced". It is being respectful.

A man will experience the same spectrum of emotions as a woman (or non-binary, if you believe in that). Each individual will experience their emotions with slight variations in comparison to others. However, an adult Man (capital M) will teach himself, through Buddhist mindfulness, Stoicism, or some other approach, to allow the emotions to pass while determining if expression is going to be constructive, neutral, or destructive. Often Men are placed in occupational or social situations which require they wait to express themselves. Perhaps the physical task at-hand is arduous and emotion must be disregarded for the moment in order to achieve a vital goal. That doesn't mean the man isn't feeling the emotions, he is just waiting until an appropriate time to allow them to bubble to the surface. I do not believe this is unhealthy. I do, however, believe that it can easily be taken to unhealthy extremes. As can ANY human behavior.

Intellectualization can be enacted as a defense mechanism by someone who was never taught how to deal with their own emotions. This is common, as the entire concept of self-awareness is antithetical to most people's perceptions of happiness. I've even been told that the approach is selfish, that expecting other people to make you happy is reasonable and to look within yourself is a rejection of our membership in the human collective. No. No. No. Looking within yourself makes you responsible for yourself in ways that allow for a deeper freedom and more substantial relationships. In not expecting someone else to make me happy, I'm able to see them for who they are, not who my insecurities need them to be.

Introspection is difficult, and can be painful. Certainly, it takes practice, and our delusions will get in the way. Many people want to believe that self-awareness is not objectively achievable, that individuals are incapable of truly knowing themselves. I will agree that we have barriers to true, deep self-awareness, but I will disagree that it is impossible. Maintain some skepticism, even with your own self-perception. Recognize how you might lie to yourself about motivations, and be willing to look at your own painful weaknesses. To do otherwise is to live in a delusion that leads to extensive cognitive dissonance, insecurity, and soiling one's karma in ways that deprives us of wonderful opportunities.

Summing this up (to some marginal extent): Stoic qualities taken to an extreme will be unhealthy, but the fundamental approach is exceptionally healthy. Somewhere along the line, over the last couple of generations, Americans (perhaps all Westerners) came to believe the extremes rather than a healthy middle-ground. That is, in itself, a human trait. In recognizing that, and accounting for it, we can move forward in a more productive manner.

Maybe.

Someday.

In conclusion, to summarize, getting on with it, finally:

As with ANY behavioral trait, when applied CORRECTLY, with a well-balanced, mindful approach, Stoicism is NOT toxic. Rather, it is a phenomenally healthy means of boys learning to grow-up. It helps teach them respect for others, a consideration of consequences, impulse-management, and provides an exceptional tool for following "happy thoughts" more than the sad ones, leading to greater happiness. How do I know? It's what I did in my mid teens. I deliberately chose to not engage in the angsty behavior I saw in my peers. I CHOSE to be happy and pursue a positive outlook. Am I perfect at it? H#ck no! I'm no Sage or Buddha. My enlightenment is marginal, at best, and even that slight improvement requires constant practice. I recognize many (hopefully most?) of my downfalls, but I also recognize the constructive long-term benefits of an approach similar to Stoicism, or Zen Buddhist Mindfulness.

When applied properly, a stoic approach gives Men (proper, grown-up, mature, adults) a harness for our innate physicality, providing us with a tool that permits the achievement of goals otherwise unreachable. Rather than destructive impulsivity, lashing out when angry or confused, deviating from or quitting a challenging task in frustration or boredom, or undeservedly taking by force what is instinctively desired, that physicality can be aimed, focused, honed to allow a Man (yes, "or woman", but y'all aren't the focus of this) to disregard physical discomfort in a cramped space capsule, to concentrate on the difficult machining of small parts necessary for lifesaving functions rather than becoming frustrated with how long it takes to file a small gear that a machine doesn't yet exist to create, to push-through the lactate burn of an endurance race, or to push-aside the pain of a gunshot wound to keep a criminal threat isolated until backup can arrive, saving innocent lives.

Just as a small puppy has to be trained to submit to a leash, so do our atavistic impulses have to be trained to submit to our recognition of consequence and responsibility, directed towards the challenge of worthwhile goals. Use emotional reactions as the impetus, the kindling, to spark motivation, but temper that fire with stoic, Zen-like mindfulness, or that emotional blaze becomes destructive. This is achieved through self-discipline. Disciplining oneself, being properly in control of one's actions and reactions, allows for immense freedom.

Similarly, ANY behavior, ANY philosophy, can be "toxic" when taken to extremes. A little bit of red wine (yuck) is good for you, a little bit of beer (double-yuck!!) can be beneficial. Are humans prone to moderation? H#ck no! We, as a collective entity, tend to see binary solution sets (It's THIS or THAT, and THAT is BAD, so I'm going with THIS!) rather than spectra of potentialities (Hmmm, some of this is good, too much or too little is bad. And, to complicate things, the amount that's right for ME is different than the amount which is right for someone else. Damn, being human isn't easy!).

Perhaps, one day, when we aren't a culture of spoiled children trying desperately to hold onto a juvenile utopia, we, as a collective, will again recognize the benefits of properly-balanced Stoicism, mindfulness, in our boys. We will recognize that boys aren't girls, and so they need a different mix, different proportions of psychological nutrients in order to transition into manhood. For that matter, we might recognize the benefits of being adults again (don't go there now, Rick, you're supposed to be wrapping this up!). Until then, we will continue to experience criminal violence from those who could have been more constructive members of society. We will continue to see increasing depression and suicides among our male population as a result of confusion regarding their place and value in The Universe. For a few generations now, we have seen increasingly-vocal recognition of the value of women's contributions. Unfortunately that has been at the expense of men. Humanity, at least as currently existing, doesn't seem to be able to rid itself of the false binary of "It's US or THEM, there can be only one!". Maybe we will move beyond that some day, though it doesn't seem likely soon. Until then, all we can do is our individual best.  We can ALL learn to focus on what is within our actual sphere of influence, and revel in our accomplishments instead of trying to create false feelings of empowerment at the expense of others.

Someday. 

I had wanted to go further with this, but I realized that the two parts total over 6500 words. I'm not trying to challenge Atlas Shrugged for length, and most people stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs anyway.  Not many know this blog exists, and few actually read it (and I'm ok with it. It's more a mechanism for me to work on ideas than it is a means of expressing myself publicly), and few of those will make it more than a few paragraphs.

So I realized I needed to stop. Perhaps the rest will come up someday, but this will need to be all for now.

Bon nuit, mes amis.