humanity

The Angry White Man: A Warped Culture Laid Bare

2394 views

I wrote this in the days following the Las Vegas Massacre. I did not publish it then because it was too raw. I had friends there. I also did not publish it after the Sutherland Church massacre or the other school shootings that have happened since. Now, we have yet another massacre and I cannot hold this back any longer. While not all mass shootings are carried out by white men, the vast majority are. I would argue that no matter the race, the ethos remains the same, that of an aggrieved man. This is not an article I would normally publish on this site. It is angry and it is political but I cannot help but speak out. These shootings will not stop until we look honestly at ourselves and our culture. 

Another day, another massacre. Like so many other American tragedies, this one was neither for political cause nor for religious or ideological reasons. No, not really, though try as we might to disguise it as such. It was just another disaffected, angry white man, searching for his truth through the barrel of gun. Another angry white man who believed that his existence, his happiness, his ‘reason’ whatever that might be, was an end unto itself. Another angry white man imbued with the false moral imperative of his own incontrovertible heroism. Another angry white man possessing certitude of his reasoning paired with inculcate selfishness. It was not mental illness. It was not even gun access. Those are mere symptoms of a much broader problem. It was an angry white man. One among many.

We have bred a generation of angry white men here in America. Men, who despite being in power, despite controlling all aspects of civic life, feel aggrieved by the otherness of everyone else. Whether those others are women, of different races, religions, of simply of different geographic regions, makes no matter. He is right. We are wrong. His rightness is morally justified, and thus, so too are his actions.

It is a common theme across history, that of angry and aggrieved men lashing out. Unlike miscreants of yesteryear however, today’s angry man, particularly the angry white man, is completely unbounded by the constraints of social, cultural or political mores. The right to ugliness and violence, the right to believe untruths, indeed, to construct one’s own, independent truth detached from reality or meaning, is sanctioned, politically, economically, culturally. For the decades since Ayn Rand put pen to paper every teenage boy’s dream, to be rightfully master of his own universe, an ordained narcissism of sorts, has been the core principle of American life.

And we sanctioned it. Perhaps not overtly, but tacitly and gradually we commandeered the moral authority to pursue comfort above all else. What permits these massacres is not a matter of a warped mind per se, but of a warped culture laid bare. A culture where no heed is paid to the destruction of environment by corporate entities, so long as profits are derived. A culture where no heed is paid to the deaths of children and young adults by pharmaceuticals, where no heed is paid to the deaths of thousands in the 17 years of war, our state sponsored violence against other countries, or to police brutality on African American men, or to domestic violence or rape; where no heed is paid so long as ‘my’ profits, happiness, or goals remain unimpeded by the consequences of my actions. The bubble of my self-serving justifications must remain intact. And it can, but only in a culture that prizes ‘my’ happiness over all else.

In a culture of laundered, indeed, bleached hate, against the otherness of others, we can be free of fear and discomfort, so long as the ever-increasing, bifurcating and dissonant justifications of our own supremacy over all that is other or foreign holds fast. “It’s okay to dump toxic chemicals into the rivers and oceans, because it doesn’t affect me directly,” we think to ourselves. “It’s okay to ignore poverty and suffering of those people, because they are not ___” (fill in the blank). “It’s okay to turn our backs on refugees, my safety might be imperiled.” It’s okay to ignore, vilify, and therefore, discriminate against all that is other. With our boundless dominion, we neatly, eagerly, and completely place all that is uncomfortable or inconvenient into boxes of otherness; boxes devoid of humanity, and thus, unburdened by ethics or even reason. Like Russian nesting dolls, our worldview becomes smaller and smaller, until we are left with a dominion over no one and nothing. For the long simmering angry white male, the only truth that remains is his truth, meted through a barrel of a gun. It is his last bastion of control, the last barrier between him and the realization that he is utterly impotent. Bang.

Image credit: Necker; Goodfon.com

The Death of Humanity and Other Unpleasant Thoughts

3475 views

While politicians have never been accused of saying what they mean or meaning what they say, we seemed to have reached a new level of prevarication. Political, and indeed, public discourse seems to have spiraled into what can only be considered a hubris-fueled shit storm of self-indulgent, ethically absent, equivocation. Up is now defined as down, scandals have no bearing, and humanity is all but absent from any intent. Statements like ‘trust what’s in his heart’, not what he says justify obvious untruths and few bat an eye. How did we come to the point where public discourse has been so dissembled from reality that the only consistency of meaning can be found in its opposite, in the absence of meaning?

The late Michel Foucault argued variously that the autonomy of language, that the very rules of discourse could neither be reduced to vagaries of the speaking subject nor the whims of the political, economic or social forces, but also, that there was an inextricable connection between power and knowledge. The configuration of knowledge, of what could be known, was determined by fundamental assumptions, by ideologies, visible and invisible, which then determine the very questions that can be asked within any given society. In one sense there is a presupposition of the inherent power and construct of discourse itself, one that is indissoluble from reality – e.g. that language and discourse mean something and have a fundamental grammar. On the other hand, there is a recognition that ‘power’ or perhaps in lay terms, events, circumstances and the general milieu, determine the rules of what can be known, of what can be asked and, to some degree, of meaning itself.

The argument was that even with the necessary tension and flux in the meaning of things, there is, or at least was, a presupposition that discourse has rules. It has a grammar and an ethic tying it to a meaning, whatever that meaning might be. The grammar and ethic of discourse are a priori assumptions, ones that did not require conscious recognition. I am not sure this still holds true. The word salad that currently constitutes public discourse and the seemingly post-scandal, post-truth nature of political reality suggests that perhaps the autonomy of discourse, its very grammar and ethic, have been shattered; that there are no longer rules that ground the language to any shared reality, and thus, there is no accountability inherent to its structure. Meaning is not only fluid, but it is no longer relevant, at all. It appears that we have embraced fully Stephen Colbert’s concept of truthiness – a notion that defies truth, redefines it rather, to mean whatever one wants it to mean.

Although many are quick to point out the authoritarian nature of the current trends in political discourse, there may be something even more sinister at play. In some sense, we are seeing the dissolution of humanity from the shared reality that forms the rules of discourse. Court cases (Citizen’s United) and legislation (personhood) over the last decade obliterated accepted definitions of being human and blurred the line between action and intention. These decisions effectively unmoored discourse from its humanity and grammar and, for all intents and purposes, any ethical obligations. What we are seeing now, is a result of those events. When humanness can be considered everything from a few cells to an artificial legal construct such as a corporation and when one’s thoughts and intentions carry equal weight with actual actions, then there can be no shared reality because anything or nothing can simultaneously be considered human and the reality of actions has no prominence over an interpretation or supposition of intentions.

Within this framework, the lies and dissimulation represent not just a political strategy to gain power and disabuse the country of its perceived rights and privileges, but in some fundamental way, it represents the death of humanity as a conditional factor in language, and by association, its ethics. With no consistent definition of humanness and no distinction between thoughts and actions, neither language nor behavior have accountability to humanity, because it no longer exists, and no obligation to truth or facts, because intentions are malleable and open for interpretation. When the rules of discourse become unmoored from humanity and the grammar of actions, everything else is unmoored too. The meaning of things, e.g. facts and truths, are irrelevant. The very construct of ethics and ethical behavior dissolves. Up can be down, or not, depending upon ‘what’s in our hearts’. Within this construct, no lie, no act, no scandal can be too egregious as to merit sufficient outrage for action, particularly among those who benefit, because the ethical anchor of language itself, humanity, and the rules discourse, the grammar that demands some connection to a material and mutually agreed upon reality, have been severed.

On the flip side, there is nothing preventing corporations or organizations or even individuals from doing whatever the heck they want in the pursuit of profits or ideologies. There is no need for regulation if there is no humanity to protect. Similarly unhinged and thus unnecessary is the concept of human rights. And since intentions carry as much weight as actual actions, when or if culpability for egregious behavior can be sought, money and power afford the ability to control the discourse and outcomes favorably, perhaps more so than they do already. The dissolution of the autonomy of language portends not a simple authoritarian power grab per se, but rather, the total disintegration of the power structures that keep corporations and other corrupting entities in check. What we have now is a power vacuum, one that emerged not from a violent overthrow of a government, but from subtle and not so subtle changes in the definition of things.

This is a very dangerous path, one I am not sure how we circumvent.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.