‘Perfection is not given to any man. But an aspiration to perfection – to the highest possible standards in every aspect of life – is possible.’
Brad Miner
At this time in history, there is a distinct ambivalence toward masculinity and male identity that has not been seen within recorded history. While some still view masculinity as a good to be cultivated, a significant number view it as toxic and oppressive. Nowhere is ambivalence more visible than when we consider the greatest expression of masculine identity: the chivalric tradition. At best, it is in danger of being forgotten as a quaint cultural artefact of the Middle Ages. At worst, it is seen as an expression of male domination over society. Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft have long been critical of the tradition (Cohen, 2005:329). Moreover, cynics may respond that tradition is a cover for self-interest. Whatever virtues it may claim to pursue does not truly attempt to pursue the good. Rather, it aims at gaining some kind of advantage, be it praise, honour, power, or mere pleasure. The nihilist, similarly, might be suspicious of the tradition, for they reject all traditions and systems of value as mere illusions, a cultural product with no real authority. To accept the tradition is to lie to oneself. It is a false comfort. In both cases, the accusation of nostalgia may be levelled at the tradition. It is an artefact of a bygone era and anyone who attempts to follow it would mark themselves as a modern Don Quixote looking for giants but finding only windmills.
There have been two consequences of this view. The pursuit of virtue, which the chivalric tradition is built upon, has seemingly lost its authority. Real virtue does not exist, either because of the rising cynicism or the nihilistic scepticism of values. The attempted replacements in utilitarian and deontological ethics do not fulfil the same role as the old natural law tradition, because neither system accepts the notion of human nature that undergirds the old ethic. Consequently, they are even more vulnerable to the combined attack from the cynic and nihilist.
Fortunately, the old natural law tradition is still viable, through the system described by Aristotle and carried forward by Thomas Aquinas and the Roman Catholic church. In the modern era, thinkers like Étienne Gilson, Peter Kreeft, J. Budziszewski, Alasdair MacIntyre, and others carry the torch of virtue through their work. It is a tradition that pursues happiness as the basis for human purpose. It is reached through the inculcation of virtuous habits that form a virtuous character.
Happiness here refers to the Aristotelian idea of eudaimonia, or a life well lived. It goes beyond the
modern idea of happiness as pleasure or merely pleasant feelings. However, it would be a mistake to say that pleasure or pleasant feelings is absent from eudaimonia. The experience of happiness forms part of happiness but does not form its whole. To the virtue ethicist, it refers to a life well lived – a full life. This can only be achieved through habits, for habits are the only thing that a human can reasonably control. The circumstances of his birth, his biology or constitution is out of his hands. Only his actions are his and his alone. Actions that are performed repeatedly, form habits, the collection of habits form character, and it is through character that the quality of one’s life is determined.
That is not to say that character is the only factor to be considered. Virtue ethicists readily admit that external factors contribute to a person’s quality of life. Aristotle (2009:1100b25-35) writes that fortune makes a happy life happier while great misfortune can and does diminish any happiness a life may have. Even so, he insists that a noble soul will shine through any misfortune. This nobility of soul is not merely an inborn condition but rather one that has been formed by habit and character.
In this way, virtue may enhance the effects of fortune as well as mitigate the effects of misfortune.
However, this only applies to virtue insofar it relates to human beings in general. Men are male in addition to being human: this means that they have a uniquely male purpose in addition to their human purpose of happiness. This purpose is that of fatherhood, whether in the literal sense of having children, or in the spiritual sense of mentorship. This purpose flows from their biology and psychology. Snider (1998:24) writes that the traditionally masculine roles of protector and provider (both of which fall under the overarching role of father) have been central to male identity throughout history and across cultures. She notes that there is ‘no reason to believe they are epiphenomena, mere social constructions that can be wiped out by laws or political tinkering’49. Thus, the modern attempt to rewrite masculinity is doomed to end in failure.
Thus, there is some merit in the accusations of male violence made by the feminist movement. It is clear from history that there is some propensity for violence and domination among men in general.
If men cannot be changed, then how should this problem be dealt with? Unrestrained violent behaviour is undesirable, but therein also lies the solution. Because it is unrestrained violence that is the problem, masculine aggression must be restrained and redirected. This requires a model of masculinity that restrains masculine violence and redirects its energy towards the proper male purposes, virtue and fatherhood.
49 The existence of cross-historical and cross-cultural values undermines the nihilist’s view that values are merely cultural artifice.
Fortunately, history provides this kind of model. The chivalric tradition is built around the training and shaping of men. Like a father raising a child, the knight is to pass on the precepts of knighthood to his squire through instruction and example. He prepares his squire for knighthood as a father prepares his son for adulthood. In addition, a knight is instructed to oppose injustice – in the modern era, this often means verbal opposition to injustice. Yet, there are times where injustice must be opposed physically, because some people who commit injustice are beyond reason. This means that violence must be committed against those who are committing injustice. However, this violence is defensive in nature. If a man acts as an aggressor, he is guilty of violating the principles of chivalry.
This is especially true for those men who enact violence upon women, since the core of the chivalric ideal lies in service to women. Hume (as cited by Dowling, 1982:112) points out that a mistress is as essential to a knight as God is to a saint. It is misguided to believe that the chivalric ideal opposes or undermines women in general.
Furthermore, it seems that there is no real alternative to knighthood. Without knighthood to combine virtue and the aggressive masculine tendency, the world left divided between those who can act aggressively and those who cannot. C.S. Lewis (1986:16) posits that chivalry ‘offers the only escape from a world divided between wolves who do not understand, and sheep who cannot defend, the things that make life desirable’. Without a correctly formed masculine identity, men will find themselves unable to defend the things that are worth defending. Therefore, we must take steps to defend the things that worth defending: we must train those who can defend against the wolves that kill and steal and destroy the things that a make life worthwhile.