I like the tension between the call for action and its abdication in herd morality. I resound that the movement from the single moral agent (as in the “exceptional” moral agent–e.g. the hero of a western) to a moral agency (e.g. the non-exceptional conduct of a being which is reverently other-regarding) is not a simple matter.
That said, this is as much as I could glean: Starting the discussion of morality on the question of embodiment–on the moral subject as embodied–will lead inevitably to either masculinist immorality (erected against its moral context) or herd mentality (the hard dictum of objective morality). Rather, I see this article as advocating a moral conduct flowing in love from a void toward its constituent outside–toward regard in care for the shared world.
I still have something to learn–a critical remainder: the final paragraph claims that “masculine subjectivity is tested individually, and most men fail to measure up, making it an impossible position to attain, how can a man properly know himself, especially when manhood is defined as a constant self-fashioning, as being self-sufficient, and leads to a problematic relationship to being with others…”
Cannot this definition help to identify a man? The moral masculine subject here has at least two options; to already acknowledge his castration in his moral activity (e.g. humility), or to provide a flaccid shadow of the real thing to-be-cut-short (e.g. faltering toward perpetual duty). Either way, it represents a disavowal of phallic origin without abdicating responsibility. It for a moral being with others? To know his lack–to partake in labor always needing to be done–to slack when weary–to celebrate together in times of ease–cannot these be the short-coming acts of a moral man? Herein, the illusion of the phallus still stands–but AS illusion and nothing more. An illusion to be criticized and cut down. If I am wrong, I need to be shown as wrong.
I really chewed on this piece. And, as I am a narcissist, my main concern was in reading this through my most recent piece on “frozen”.
I do not want to advocate for “Mindlessly lumping the wisdom of the ages into the only true moral code…” In my lack, I will rather beg an answer to a question: Can the moral being proposed in “Manhood on the run: Masculine Morality” reveal to men their own hearts still in the grip of the phallic illusion?
“Knavery’s plain face is never seen till used.” Othello 2.2
Shakespeare realized that social life is a performance. Othello is a play about how easily misled a gullible person can be if fooled by a good performance that frames reality in a certain way. Iago states, “I am not what I am,” and he understands that no one else is either, taking advantage of misinterpretations and misunderstandings to enact his desires (Othello 1.1). Human existence is a theater, the place we are drawn to look, the space of drama. The word “theory” is derived from a word that means “spectacle” which comes from the Greek theastai (to see, to behold). Othello is also about beholding the spectacle of fragile masculinity, and this post will discuss the theory of morality.
Masculinity, as a technology of agency, treats the body as prosthesis for the will rather than envisioning embodiment as
View original post 1,684 more words