 |
| A Hideous Strength: No matter where a man is positioned in the social hierarchy, there is one psychically empowering privilege which he shares with all who embrace the rules of masculinity – a lifetime exemption from the socially-constructed inferiority and insecurity inflicted upon the feminine. Artwork: “Colossus” by Francisco Goya 1815. |
SIGMUND FREUD attributed the many maladies of human existence to traumatic sexual experiences in early life. Alfred Adler (1870-1937) attributed them to a different cause. According to Adler’s concept of “the will to power”, individuals – especially males – are driven by a determination to achieve superiority and domination over other human-beings. Assailed by feelings of insecurity and inferiority, emotional states which men are encouraged to associate with femininity, they embark on an unending quest for mastery. Of course, the will to power is not confined to men alone. Women’s all-too-real subordination in patriarchal society cannot fail to generate feelings of insecurity and inferiority – exciting the will to power in their own psyches.
Adlerian psychology, not much esteemed, it must be said, in the Twenty-First Century, nevertheless offers a useful way into the fraught world of Identity Politics. The practice of those promoting the politics of identity is driven by (some would say is utterly obsessed by) questions of power and privilege – who has it, who doesn’t, and what must happen if those without it are to get it. The answer would appear to involve an upward surge of resistance on the part of those for whom chronic insecurity and imputations of inferiority are a way of life, directed at those best positioned to claim superiority and exercise domination. In short, the question, repeated endlessly by identity politicians, is: “Who’s got the power?”
Obviously, the group with the most ground to gain from the quest for power through identity is the most powerless. Unfortunately, determining exactly who has the least power in society is an extremely contentious exercise. People of Colour may find themselves arguing with the disabled community about which of them is discriminated against most viciously. LGBTQ+ people may find themselves at odds with women over whose lives are the more insecure. It’s tricky. Fortunately, near unanimity prevails over who wields the most power and enjoys the most privileges: White, Heterosexual, Males (WHMs).
In practical terms, identity politics has only one clear goal: to depose the dominant identity group – i.e. WHMs – and strip them of their power and privilege. But, even allowing such a revolutionary goal to be feasible, it cannot avoid raising some hugely divisive political questions. To whom should the WHMs’ power be passed? With the formerly all-powerful WHMs no longer in control, which identity group is best placed to achieve superiority and domination over the human-beings below them? People of Colour? Women? LGBTQ+? The Disabled? And won’t whoever ultimately wins that struggle suddenly find every group below them striving to replace them? Won’t the winners instantly become the next target?
And what about those people who belong in more than one identity group. A WHM with a severe disability, for example? Or a Person of Colour who is also a member of the LGBTQ+ community? Or a White Lesbian? What happens when an individual’s advantages and disadvantages cannot be stacked in neat and tidy piles? Whose Will to Power should prevail in those circumstances?
Because there’s no point in arguing that as soon as WHMs are hurled from their privileged perches the struggle for superiority and domination will cease, and the will to power will miraculously fade from in the human psyche. Consciousness of privilege is well-nigh impossible to eliminate. Like the determination to defend one’s position in the social hierarchy, it is one of those human predispositions that are pretty much ineradicable. Awareness of those below cannot help but cultivate a sense of superiority. Just as knowing that the lower orders want what the powerful possess cannot help encouraging the ruling elites to keep them in check. And vice-versa. The Will to Power is as much about clawing-up as it is about kicking-down.
Patriarchy, the power structure that prevails across the planet, is no anthropological accident. The prehistoric overthrow of the daughters of the Earth Mother by the sons of the Sky Father made certain that human society was vertical rather than horizontal in its orientation. And the beauty of a vertical social structure, from the point of view of males, is that it makes it possible for all men to define themselves as essentially not-women. No matter where a man is positioned in the social hierarchy, there is one psychically empowering privilege which he shares with all who embrace the rules of masculinity – a lifetime exemption from the socially-constructed inferiority and insecurity inflicted upon the feminine.
The identity politicians’ obsession with power and privilege is understandable but, ultimately, futile. Even if the WHMs were cast to the bottom of the social hierarchy, how long would it be before they became the most vociferous challengers of the privileges enjoyed by all the identity groups above them? How long would it be before the cry – “Who’s got the power?” – became “We got the power!” “We” being all men: gay and straight, black and white, abled and disabled, rich and poor.
It’s hard to deny that old Alfred Adler was on to something with his Will to Power: repudiation of the feminine has always been the inexhaustible power-source of patriarchy.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Wednesday, 1 March 2023.
"Fortunately, near unanimity prevails over who wields the most power and enjoys the most privileges: White, Heterosexual, Males (WHMs)."
ReplyDeleteI wonder what evidence there is to support this assertion, even though we constantly hear it said. Just claiming that something is the case doesn't make it so. In fact, the weight of evidence points to the reality that WHMs are the least powerful group in society, and increasingly so. You may not agree with this and think it sounds absurd, given that there are still so many successful, wealthy and seemingly "privileged" WHMs. But this status and "privilege" is all vestigial and, unless there is a sharp change of course, something that is going to change in due course. These WHMs have these attributes (or markers of "privilege") DESPITE the open hostility to them and the ongoing ideological campaign to cut them down to size. Apart from outlying cases, WHMs won’t have their status for long, and their descendants certainly won’t have any.
The open hostility that is casually and routinely expressed toward "WHMs" in media, academic output and popular culture; the scapegoating of WHMs for all of society’s problems, on the ground of their dominance (while never giving them credit for any of the positives); "diversity, equity and inclusion" policies that are simply code for "No more WHMs"; and the general diminution of WHM influence in their traditional lands by way of importation of any and everyone who has none of the WHM characteristics, all point to the fact that WHMs have no institutional privilege at all, are the most reviled group and seemingly have little power to resist any of this. Compare the bending over backwards for POC and other minorities, the overt favouritism they receive based on “diversity” quotas, or the eggshells the WHM have to negotiate when talking about minorities.
Imagine if a WHM poet wrote the lines “We’re gonna F… you up” with regard to Maori, Pasifika or Indian immigrants, for instance. A White male poet would be crucified, but when a non-WHM does so, there is some mild tut-tutting and we all move on. Any actual WHM “privilege” and “power” would never allow such an insult to WHMs. But because such anti-White sentiment is allowed (and even encouraged), this is further evidence of how marginalised WHMs are in reality, as opposed their having dominance in theory.
If, as is claimed, WHM had any real power (or all of it), don't you think they'd be able to immediately act to halt these anti-WHM developments, and even better, to strangle them all in the cradle before they ever took root? Of course they would do so. However, the fact of the open hostility towards, and repudiation of, WHMs demonstrates that the claims of WHMs power, privilege and dominion over everyone else is a complete fabrication.
The general rule is that if you can openly demean, ridicule, criticise and scapegoat a group, then that group has no power or privilege. You can claim that the opposite is true, but it is an empty claim contradicted by all the evidence.
"In fact, the weight of evidence points to the reality that WHMs are the least powerful group in society, and increasingly so."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't going to post here, because I'm damned if I understood much of what was said in the OP. But I can't let you get away with this. You say this, and yet you provide absolutely no evidence at all. Chris says that we are obsessed by who has power almost as if it's not a valid question. Yes it is, and the evidence that white heterosexual males have most of the power is obvious – when you see white heterosexual males in most of the positions of power. CEOs of companies, MPs in most countries, heads of government departments in most countries, police and armed forces. The fact that they are often criticised is neither here nor there. It's just part of that manufactured right-wing outrage that you people are taken in by the whole time.
"but when a non-WHM does so, there is some mild tut-tutting "
Among whom? There's certainly no mild tut-tutting in the conservative media. In fact they whip you people up to a frenzy about it. Fox News for instance used doctored photographs to suggest that BLM marchers were violent when in fact they weren't.
There seems to be a tendency these days for right-wing white people to claim victimhood and constantly whine about it. You're not victims, you still hold most of the power, for Christ's sake shut up about it.
Guerilla Surgeon
ReplyDeleteYou obviously neglected to read my comment, but here's the key piece that you failed to read or failed to understand. Quote:
"You may not agree with this and think it sounds absurd, given that there are still so many successful, wealthy and seemingly "privileged" WHMs. But this status and "privilege" is all vestigial and, unless there is a sharp change of course, something that is going to change in due course. These WHMs have these attributes (or markers of "privilege") DESPITE the open hostility to them and the ongoing ideological campaign to cut them down to size."
In other words, WHMs may still have these positions today, but their status has already been diminished on as a consequence of an ideological program under the guise of "equality" and it will diminish further. You'd have to be completely oblivious and insensitive to current trends to see that WHMs are going to lose their remaining status in due course (or have it "redistributed" away from them).
My comment was completely coherent and contained several examples to illustrate and support my contentions, so I'm not going to unpack it for anyone who doesn't have the ability or the will to do so for themselves.
Thanks.
"WHMs may still have these positions today, but their status has already been diminished on as a consequence of an ideological program under the guise of "equality" and it will diminish further."
ReplyDelete"guise" of equality? If WHMs are losing power, and marginally they may be, they are fighting back with all sorts of unethical methods, particularly in the US. Such as voter suppression of 'others'. I was going to say minorities but they are often not.
If they are losing power it's because they ARE a minority and always have been, even though they have dominated politics and the economy forever. Society is moving towards equality of a sort - between genders and ethnic groups.
"The open hostility that is casually and routinely expressed toward "WHMs" in media, academic output and popular culture; the scapegoating of WHMs for all of society’s problems, on the ground of their dominance (while never giving them credit for any of the positives); "diversity, equity and inclusion" policies that are simply code for "No more WHMs"; and the general diminution of WHM influence in their traditional lands by way of importation of any and everyone who has none of the WHM characteristics, all point to the fact that WHMs have no institutional privilege at all, are the most reviled group and seemingly have little power to resist any of this. Compare the bending over backwards for POC and other minorities, the overt favouritism they receive based on “diversity” quotas, or the eggshells the WHM have to negotiate when talking about minorities."
THAT is not evidence of a change in the power balance, it's just more manufactured outrage and whining. What's so bad about WHMs losing some of their power anyway ... you say it as if it's a bad thing.