“The wisest man would be the one richest in contradictions” - Will to Power, Nietzsche
After all the examples discussed in previous essays, it becomes clear that the concept of ‘power’ is intrinsically bound to the concept of traditional masculinity. All aspects of traditional masculinity lead to, or are born out of, the domination of, or power over, something. Whether that is an instrument, a car, or a woman, this form of masculinity demands complete control over it. Anything less than that makes you weak, unmanly or changes your gender entirely to be a woman.
We have explored the reason why this is the case in previous essays but what is troubling about this desire for domination from so many men, even in smaller, non-misogynistic ways, is that it is believed that this desire for power is somehow innate in men, that this is just our nature from birth. This isn’t true and is a result of confusion over ‘need’ and ‘want’.
There are many things humans need, expertly presented in Maslow’s famous ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ table. This says that the most basic human needs are air, water, food, shelter, sleep, clothing, etc. things, without which, we would likely die. This then progresses to needs for safety, like maintenance of health, access to provisions etc, then needs of belonging like, relationships, love, etc and so on. Having ownership over any of these needs means you have power over people, including yourself. The problem is, in contemporary society, a very small number of people actually have power over all those basic needs and these people tend to hoard those resources and deny people access to the rest (hence the feeling of powerlessness amongst the majority of people today). Unfortunately, masculinity stands in contradiction to that. It says that, as a man, you and only you, can have control over those things. Consequently, when we discover we do not have control over those basic needs and that this directly impacts all our other needs, the dissonance is painful. The fallout of this is where we see a lot of the tragic consequences affecting men today.
Men who are told they are the only provider for themselves or their family, who then discover they are incapable of fulfilling that role, are justifiably angry and/or distressed. Men who are told they must be the ultimate warrior but are physically unable due to disability or injury, are allowed to be angry and/upset. Men who are told they must dominate women and sleep with as many as possible to find fulfilment, who then discover this attitude is repulsive to women, are correct in their anger and disappointment at being lied to. These systemic demands on men (that are completely impractical, unachievable and often pointless) point to the system itself as proof this kind of masculinity works, deliberately ignoring the part where success in these areas has nothing to do with masculinity and everything to do with wealth and class.
Like most things today, masculinity is a class issue. Being the powerful, individualist, heroic man is an incredibly simple AND easy goal to achieve if you have a lot of money and social capital. Being a white male automatically puts you high up in the masculinity hierarchy, but once you introduce wealthy parents, good education, access to exceptional resources, time to spend working on your gym body, etc, suddenly all of the things men are supposed to be are already yours. The fracture in recent years has occurred as more middle class white men (and to a lesser extent, working class men of colour) have lost a lot of their economic and social capital, due to pandemics, lack of government investment, the rise of gender equality, and so on. This means the power certain groups of men once had by default has diminished. This, understandably (but not forgivably, to be clear), results in angry disappointment and a “what the hell?!” attitude. The problem is that, because of this and without clear explanation of why they feel this way, these men have fallen prey to a group I like to call ‘The Grifters’.
The Grifters are the guys we all know, who I won’t name because they get enough publicity from their bad faith, self-aggrandising as it is, but they’re the ripped guys with podcasts, they’re the pseudo-intellectuals with podcasts, they’re the sportsmen… interviewed on podcasts, who all get clipped and their messages disseminated online. These messages are usually the ones we’ve been talking about:
“I can beat any man in a fight”
“I wake up every day to hustle and get rich”
“The purpose of a woman is to cook me dinner”
“There’s only two genders”
You know the type or you wouldn’t be reading this. The problem with all of these traditional masculinity enthusiast is that, as stated before, they are, instead of questioning and debating what a patriarchal society has turned them into, are arguing that we should stay that way. Why? Because they still retain the power that was given to them, either through their genes, their inheritance or simply just the time and place they were born.
This conservative mindset (both literally and politically) is appealing to other men with less social and economic capital, who feel they have lost something in the recent seismic social changes, because it indulges the anger and makes it righteous. You are right to be mad, they say, and there is some truth to this. The anger is understandable but not justifiable, and that’s where The Grifters go wrong. They argue that their anger is justifiable because the way things were done was perfect before. They were not.
In this desperate scramble to clutch what is left of traditional patriarchal power, the Grifters and meninists of the manosphere online, try to appear credible by citing either historical precedence (“men have always been in charge”), scientific data (“lobsters have hierarchies”) and academic theory (all that Stoicism guff). It’s a compelling argument, but conveniently leaves out a lot, like, say, any woman’s opinion throughout history (women weren’t even allowed to vote until 1919), scientific papers that outright disprove previous data (L. David Mech and the alpha wolf) and the metric tonne of contemporary theory that challenges most of the nearly-all-wealthy-white-male field of philosophy. This does not mean that there should not be men advocating for improving the lot of men (why else do you think I am writing this) or that all aspects of traditional masculinity are irrelevant or damaging to men today, but what should be clear by now is that the conservative demand for a return to ‘traditional values’ and the search for ‘real men’, is not the way to go about it.
Nietzsche famously coined the phrase “Wille zur Macht” or “Will to Power” in his famous text Thus Spoke Zarathustra. This phrase—if not the actual theories he discussed—is often talked about or around by The Grifters online, as proof positive that men have always had the need to dominate and it is innate to our DNA. Unfortunately for these men, that is not what Nietzsche was talking about.
Much like the transformation of Nihilism from an extreme philosophical skepticism of systems, structures and beliefs, into phrases like ‘Life is Meaningless’ and Joker memes, the Will to Power has been adopted and mishandled by the wrong group. Nietzsche’s original headings of “1001 Goals” have become “12 Rules for Life”, for instance. But, much like the Nazis adopting a lot of Friedrich’s work as gospel, this is not the original intent behind the concepts he discussed.
The Will to Power is a complex, and borderline mystical, set of precepts, perspectives and arguments, that was never fully defined by Nietzsche. The practical advice it did argue for was that of the process of self-determination, or rather, self-overcoming. This presents as a form of self-actualisation over one’s inner thoughts and feelings and one’s surroundings. It is Nietszche’s conception of having mastery over the world and ourselves that is most needed to unseat the conception of ‘Men’s Power’ today. But it is difficult to wrest his thinking from the hands of the Grifters and their ilk when Nietzsche says things like: “The higher man is distinguished from the lower by his fearlessness and his readiness to challenge misfortune.” You can see how it might be misconstrued. He did, however, also say the words of the epigram to this essay:
“The wisest man would be the one richest in contradictions, who has, as it were, antennae for all types of men---as well as his great moments of grand harmony---a rare accident even in us! A sort of planetary motion.”
And:
“The misunderstanding of passion and reason, as if the latter were an independent entity and not rather a system of relations between various passions and desires; and as if every passion did not possess its quantum of reason.”
Both of which are core understandings at the heart of people, not just men (though Nietzsche, like many other philosophers of his era only ever addresses men). Nietzsche’s Will to Power is one of self-confrontation, one of coming to a true understanding of one’s self, not just what is expected of you. This is not power, but mastery.
The name of ‘The Master’ is often used in Chinese and Japanese philosophy. Confucius, most notably, refers to a character called the Master throughout the Five Classics. This is, again, an aspect of traditional masculinity, referring to the ‘Head of the House’, or the ‘Leader’ of a district, or the philosophical ‘Master’ (much like Stoicism’s ‘Sage’), but this is less of a title and more of a mode. We ‘master’ lots of things. We master basic functions in our first few years of life, like walking, holding things, and talking. To ‘master’ is a verb. Nietzsche offers a route to mastery rather than power, and the total domination that comes with it.
Think of it like this: To have mastery over the ball is a skill, to have power over the ball is dictating when it’s used. Marcus Rashford has mastery over the ball during a football match, your mate Craig from school had power over the ball because he could take it and go home, he therefore had power over you and your ability to play—and therefore get better at—football. Having mastery over the ball means everyone can play and you can get better at it. It also still means, crucially, you know when to pass the ball. The best football players are only as good as their team. It is the team that has power, the player has mastery. And it is this concept of mastery that we, as men, should be switching out for power.
The most transformative thing about thinking of masculinity as mastery instead of power is that anyone can achieve mastery, whereas not everyone can achieve power, no matter how hard they try. Mastery is not class dependent (hence why most of the great footballers come from humble beginnings). Anyone can become a master it just takes time and effort, and, crucially, doesn’t require domination over others. It also isn’t individualistic. We we need others to help us master anything, be that football, our finances, or our feelings. Mastering our feelings doesn’t mean not feeling them, it means knowing when they are coming and finding the appropriate outlet for them, just like a footballer sees a ball coming and can guess the physics, the speed, the trajectory, all in an instant and redirect it so as to not lose possession or, even, take damage. Mastery also has far more latitude in who and what it applies to. Women master just as many things as men do, making it not an intrinsically masculine trait. The Master, then, is whoever puts in the work and works with those around him.
The internet is awash today with rules, advice and guides to make you feel powerful. They are usually aggressive quotes, shouty film clips or video of wolves with rumbling bass, all exuding raw, masculine power. They are also all bollocks. It is a childish, isolating, violent and paper thin conception of what a human being is. As men, we must transcend this conservative, backward-looking idea of The Man as power fantasy, and adopt the idea of men as masters of their own destinies. People who do not need a system of strict rules to abide by, but to find our own way, and make of it what we will, without needing to do it alone.
Be your own master, and help others be theirs.