![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
swan_towerI know some of you have started to read A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry, either via my rec or elsewhere, so you'll have already seen Devereaux's sequence of posts about the idea of the "universal warrior." (If not, then tl;dr -- he thinks the notion is absolute bollocks.)
But I want to particularly highlight the last post in the series, about the "Cult of the Badass." I'd picked up this general vibe before, of course: the idealization and idolization of a certain kind of tough masculinity that we see all the time in books and movies, in TV and video games, and in real life (at least aspirationally). And it isn't hard to miss flaws like the toxicity of that concept, or the sexism baked pretty much into its core.
What's new to me is the extent to which the Cult of the Badass maps to the values of fascism.
I'm not going to recap Devereaux's points in that essay; you can go read them for yourself (the part about fascism is under the header "Echoes of Eco"). The reason I reference his argument -- apart from the fact that it's a good one -- is because recently I also read an essay by Ada Palmer that . . . okay, has vanished from her blog in the time since I read it, and I'm not sure why. I guess this is what I get for not posting about this until now? Anyway, it was her transcribed remarks from (I think) a convention she was a guest of honor at, talking about how we commonly teach the Renaissance as being about these few visionary guys who knew what the future could look like and tried to bring that vision into reality, which -- surprise! -- is a massive misrepresentation. They were trying to change the world, sure, but not to look like the world we have now. And much of what we have now is the product, not of a few visionary guys, but of huge quantities of people having their own little conversations all over the place. The essay had a great example of this, in the form of how the unknown individuals who wrote the printer's forewords to various editions of a particular Greek philosopher (I can't remember which one, dammit) led to this philosopher being taught all over the place, in ways that very much influenced the change in culture.
Anyway, here's my point, somewhat undermined by not having Palmer's piece available for linking. When she talked about lots and lots of people having their conversations about things and the power of that to change society, I found myself thinking about Devereaux and the Cult of the Badass and fascism. Because the more we tell and consume stories about how awesome it is to be a warrior at heart, the more we repeat and reify the notion of a particular kind of strength (and implicitly, screw all the people without that strength) . . . the more we nudge society in that direction. But by telling other kinds of stories, by reading different books and watching different movies and recommending them to our friends, we dilute that trend.
I got tired of those stories a long time ago. But now I'm more than tired of them: I reject them. I don't want to give them my time, my money, or a place in my skull. War is not the metaphor around which we should be organizing our lives. There are better ways, and I'm going to try to have the conversations that lead to them.
(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/iZ3TiM)
But I want to particularly highlight the last post in the series, about the "Cult of the Badass." I'd picked up this general vibe before, of course: the idealization and idolization of a certain kind of tough masculinity that we see all the time in books and movies, in TV and video games, and in real life (at least aspirationally). And it isn't hard to miss flaws like the toxicity of that concept, or the sexism baked pretty much into its core.
What's new to me is the extent to which the Cult of the Badass maps to the values of fascism.
I'm not going to recap Devereaux's points in that essay; you can go read them for yourself (the part about fascism is under the header "Echoes of Eco"). The reason I reference his argument -- apart from the fact that it's a good one -- is because recently I also read an essay by Ada Palmer that . . . okay, has vanished from her blog in the time since I read it, and I'm not sure why. I guess this is what I get for not posting about this until now? Anyway, it was her transcribed remarks from (I think) a convention she was a guest of honor at, talking about how we commonly teach the Renaissance as being about these few visionary guys who knew what the future could look like and tried to bring that vision into reality, which -- surprise! -- is a massive misrepresentation. They were trying to change the world, sure, but not to look like the world we have now. And much of what we have now is the product, not of a few visionary guys, but of huge quantities of people having their own little conversations all over the place. The essay had a great example of this, in the form of how the unknown individuals who wrote the printer's forewords to various editions of a particular Greek philosopher (I can't remember which one, dammit) led to this philosopher being taught all over the place, in ways that very much influenced the change in culture.
Anyway, here's my point, somewhat undermined by not having Palmer's piece available for linking. When she talked about lots and lots of people having their conversations about things and the power of that to change society, I found myself thinking about Devereaux and the Cult of the Badass and fascism. Because the more we tell and consume stories about how awesome it is to be a warrior at heart, the more we repeat and reify the notion of a particular kind of strength (and implicitly, screw all the people without that strength) . . . the more we nudge society in that direction. But by telling other kinds of stories, by reading different books and watching different movies and recommending them to our friends, we dilute that trend.
I got tired of those stories a long time ago. But now I'm more than tired of them: I reject them. I don't want to give them my time, my money, or a place in my skull. War is not the metaphor around which we should be organizing our lives. There are better ways, and I'm going to try to have the conversations that lead to them.
(originally posted at Swan Tower: https://is.gd/iZ3TiM)
no subject
Date: 2021-03-15 05:57 pm (UTC)the more we tell and consume stories about how awesome it is to be a warrior at heart, the more we repeat and reify the notion of a particular kind of strength (and implicitly, screw all the people without that strength) . . . the more we nudge society in that direction.
Ouch.
I mean, I've known that for a while, but I didn't draw the conclusion that it's my job (all of our jobs) to nudge society back.
no subject
Date: 2021-03-17 02:04 am (UTC)"We are become Middle Men, of the Twilight, but with memory of other things. For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts."
Eowyn's renunciation is problematic but also harks back:
"I will be a shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying."
no subject
Date: 2021-03-17 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-03-17 07:00 pm (UTC)I mean, I've known that for a while, but I didn't draw the conclusion that it's my job (all of our jobs) to nudge society back.
Neither did I. But now that my growing dissatisfaction with that type of story has been linked in my head not only to its role in promoting toxic masculinity, but to the fascist trend in our society, I suddenly find myself feeling more than dissatisfied with it.
no subject
Date: 2021-03-16 05:49 am (UTC)And argh, I can't recall which philosopher it was either. Was it Epictetus?
Oh! I can access the text of the post (with images even) in Feedly. It was Epictetus. At the top there's this:
...which doesn't seem to explain why it's not on the site now though.
no subject
Date: 2021-03-17 07:04 pm (UTC)And yeah, re: the philosopher, I was stuck on Epicurius but I knew that wasn't right . . . after posting, I wondered if it was Epictetus. Thank you for confirming!
no subject
Date: 2021-03-17 07:09 pm (UTC)