“And societies are always at stake just because men enjoy killing one another. And you’re a pessimist because reason seems helpless against the irrationality rooted in men’s instinctual aggression.”
“Located in what Freud calls the id, which brings up another important consideration. The id, the instincts, and masculine aggression are part of humanity’s DNA. That means the irrational is inherent to humanity. However, reason isn’t. Reason is an intellectual skill that emerged with language, which enabled humans to think about ideas that are embedded in language. Early humans probably had a rudimentary language that enabled social interaction but not complex ratiocination.”
“So we're basically animals that learned to think.”
“Yes. Did you ever watch the movie Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?”
“I did. I even read the story. So I see what you mean. The primitive man Hyde is the beast inherent in masculine DNA, whereas the rational man Jekyll is the product of civilization. So the story is telling us that the civilized man can revert back to his primitive self because its exists in his DNA, whereas reason is a superficial acquisition.”
“Very good. I believe that’s the heart of the problem. The beast is inherent in men. Reason lacks the ability defeat irrationality, at best it’s barely able to control it, which is demonstrated in the movie. However, not all forms of irrationality are undesirable. Love can be reckless, but without it life wouldn’t be worth living. Besides, transforming humans into robots—which ideologies do—destroys their humanity. A balance is needed but difficult to achieve.”
“In a French lit course I read Emile Zola’s novel La Bête humaine. Our discussion brings the story to mind. Jacques Lantier the protagonist often desires to murder women. His desire to murder is considered an inherited form of madness. The novel ends with Lantier driving a train carrying troops towards the front to fight in a war. The ending would indicate that the desire to kill is not a family trait but gender trait in men. What you call masculine aggression.”
“That’s a terrific analysis. I read the book in English, of course. Zola is considered the father of literary naturalism which examines humanity’s darker side, greatly influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
“Which proved that human are animals, not divine beings.”
“Exactly. Though murders occur in the story, most are crimes of passion, Lantier controls his desire to kill. I believe that is an important insight given reason and passion are within him in constant conflict. I’m not sure why he refrains from killing. Kant may be able to help us here. Perhaps Lantier believes it’s his rational duty not to kill in spite of his impulses. That it would be irrational to do so. It would be like driving a train off its tracks, a train, interestingly enough that he loves. So in him we see reason controlling masculine aggression. He calls the train he drives La Lison, and perhaps he respects the rational order of the machine. I don’t know. You probably recall the snow storm the train gets caught in. Clearly storm represent the forces of nature including human passion. Lantier controls the train and will not with the help of the train allow the storm to defeat him. Perhaps that’s the best we can hope for from men.”
“At the end of the story the woman Philomène is beaten by her brother and Lantier wants to go to her aid. But his fireman, Pecqueux, holds him back, saying ‘Ah! the slut! if he could only beat her to death! So there’s lots of masculine aggression—especially toward women. And on a train filled with soldiers heading for war, Lantier and Pecqueux fight one another like beasts, both falling off the train to be decapitated by its wheels, resulting in the train no longer having a driver.”
“I remember the ending perfectly,” said the old seaman. “The soldiers sang patriotic songs as the train disappeared and ‘rolled on and on in the obscure night, going none knew where—yonder. What mattered the victims the engine crushed on the road! Was it not advancing towards the future in spite of all, heedless of the blood that might be spilt?’”
“And the soldiers would die in a train crash or in the war. From what you have told me, the runaway train expresses masculine aggression unrestrained heading into the future where it would create two world wars and endless others. I understand much better the reason for your pessimism.”
“It seems that masculine aggression is as durable and natural as gravity. Thus, as with gravity we have to learn to live with it by avoiding its negative influences and utilizing its benefits, of which gravity has many.”
“I don’t see the benefits of masculine aggression.”
“Freud would say that masculine aggression needs to be channeled into useful and acceptable activities. In his ingenious light experiment Isaac Newton directed white light into a prism that divided it into a beautiful rainbow of colored light. He proved that white light is made up of a variety of colored light. Now think of masculine aggression, better yet, masculine energy that Freud called libido as being similar to white light in that he can be expressed in various actions or ways of behaving. Freud called the process sublimation.”
“I learned about Newton’s experiment with light in high school science. The experiment shows that other forms of light are contained in white light, but both are light. But sublimation doesn’t produce different forms of masculine energy but different actions. That’s not the same thing.”
“No, it isn’t. I’m using Newton’s experiment as a metaphor in the sense that sublimation, like a prism, channels masculine energy into different socially acceptable behavior. Perhaps aggression is only one expression of masculine energy, but a dominate one because the instinct that directs it is primordially powerful.”
“You mean it was the original expression of masculine energy. That makes sense if early humans living in a hostile world had to rely primarily on male aggression to survive.”
“I think that’s it. Though we’re just speculating.”
“Still, the colored light is inherent in white light and is revealed when white light passes through a prism like sunlight passing through drops of rain to produce a rainbow. How does sublimation transform masculine energy into acceptable forms of behavior? What’s the prism?”
“My guess is the prism is very complex. It includes our perceptions of the world, our emotions and ideas, society and culture. In a sense, these influences determine how men and women channel their energy. In humanity’s primordial past, options must have been few. But as you pointed out with the Lascaux wall paintings, about seventeen thousand years ago, some men chose to channel their energy into artistic creation. Men can be aggressive in ways that are creative rather than destructive. As such masculine aggression is expressed as ambition, enterprise, determination, enthusiasm, commitment, dedication and so on. As society evolved socially, materially, and culturally more options became available for men to channel their energy. Such as art, philosophy, science, athletics, religion, politics, and other forms of work, actually they became endless, and of course there were always the primordial roles within the family. All served as potentialities for self-realization—guided by the intellect and emotions.”
“You know that it’s believed that women artists along with men contributed to the Lascaux paintings. I think that’s really cool, men and women working together in that way.”
“It is. And that’s not surprising. Among the ancient Native Americans I believe the majority of artists were women. They crafted blankets, baskets, jewelry and pottery. Women even made and maintained tipis. In the modern era women are often considered the weaker sex, pretty delicate creatures that should be kept at home, but historically that was never their role.”
“Because the modern economy separated men from women. Husbands worked in factories or offices and wives remained at the home with the children, getting out only to go shopping.”
“You’re right. Farming and hunting-gathering kept the family together. Both men and women worked together as equals. And the idea of shopping is interesting. In those early societies people couldn’t buy what they needed. They had to make what they needed.”
“Let’s return to the topic of masculine energy since to me it represents the biggest threat to humanity as the primary source of aggression and violence. With so many marvelous ways for directing masculine energy, why does masculine aggression continue to appeal to so many men?”
“I suppose it’s because masculine aggression is primordial, existing in the very DNA of men. Many of the other options for self-realization are adopted or chosen from society and culture. And in that sense they are artificial.”
“The beast in men is organic.”
“I’m afraid so.”
“So all of them can be overruled by aggression like when the medical doctor Jekyll is taken over by the beast man that dwells within him. So what is he answer?”
“Obviously, humanity hasn’t found an answer. Religion, ethics, and psychology have offered many options for dealing with the problem of masculine aggression but have not yet found a successful solution. Buddha principle of living in a way that avoids causing unnecessary suffering and Kant’s principle of autonomy are simple, profound, and workable solutions, but they are the product of the intellect, which is no match against the instincts of the beast, as we have already discussed.”
“Maybe the problem is that masculine aggression is simply there, inherent. All the other possibilities of self-realization require some effort such as requiring using the intellect and acquiring the skills that make them possible. No skill or intellect is needed to be a brute. I saw that much in the fight at Denny’s. And in the story Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. A lot of energy has to be directed in the hard work needed to become a doctor. No work is required to be a beast man. Men by the thousands joyfully follow to the their deaths and the deaths of others dictators who love war and its destruction. It seems so automatic like lemmings running off a cliff.”
“Primordial is perhaps the key word. As I said before, masculine aggression seems as durable and natural as gravity.”
“It’s weird that men refuse to do what could be easily done to end aggression and wars that could destroy humanity.”
“Not to men who enjoy behaving like lemmings. Fortunately, most men don’t enjoy behaving like lemmings, automatic like as you call it.”
“What is the difference between those two groups of men?”
“Masculine aggression’s greatest threat to humanity is war, and there will be no solution as long as cultures glorify war, and most do.”
“Cultures make war acceptable?”
“Most do. Like the belief in God, the glorification of war is embedded in the culture, and the most aggressive cultures are the product of myths, religions, and ideologies created by men.”
“And men project their aggression into those belief systems.”
“Yes.”
“And what about the other group of men, the good men?”
“I find good men more mysterious than evil men.”
“Because evil is simple, easily understood, but goodness is more mysterious, harder to explain.”
“Very much so. I will give you an example. I would say that the aggressive masculinity of good men is infused with love. They use it to protect rather than to harm. They choose to be heroes rather than villains.”
“Yeah, that’s pretty mysterious. You’re a romantic, Mr. Rieneau.”
“I suppose I am. It reminds me to find the good in life and to appreciate it, especially when masculine malevolence seems inescapable.”
“Is that your philosophy.”
“It’s the philosophy of many thinkers. One of my favorites is Kohelet the unknown author of the book Ecclesiastes written about twenty-five hundred years ago. Like today, evil and injustice were ever present and seemingly insurmountable. Kohelet doesn’t understand why God, whom he believes in, doesn’t confront evil. Still, Kohelet will not allow the evil to discourage him from enjoying and appreciating the many good things that life has to offer. He says, ‘Eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart,’ which he most likely took from the philosophy of the Epicureans.”
“He sounds like my sister, though she would not be disappointed in God because she doesn’t believe in him. She would simply say that we are animals and like all animals we must accept that suffering comes with life. Of course, she would add that unlike humans other animals don’t whine and complain and enjoy life as much as they can without causing other creatures unnecessary suffering.”
“I think that is a very sensible attitude to take toward life. In a sense, predation is an inherent part of reality that all creatures must live with. Whereas Kohelet doesn’t understand why God doesn’t bring an end to evil, for you and I the problem is why men don’t when they easily could by being better behaved. But the important lesson from Kohelet is not to allow despair to cast a shadow over what is good in life such as you and I sharing this moment together.”
