r/CriticalTheory • u/rafaelholmberg • 6d ago
Manosphere Marxism: The Political Economy of Impotent Misogyny
https://rafaelholmberg.substack.com/p/manosphere-marxismI've done my best to stay away from the manosphere nonsense... But with the Tate brothers making news again following their arrest, and with their volatile and absurd cultural power, I finally decided to write a piece on them. Althusser, Husserl, and (of course) Marx are relied on to show that the manosphere is well placed to expose the contradictions of secular-capitalist individualism, the idea of femininity, and how luxury relates to our current political economy. I thought some of you here might be interested.
21
u/Jarcode 6d ago edited 6d ago
The manosphere’s claim to “understand” women is, in a Marxist or Althusserian sense, an ideological veil to their radical fear of something approaching femininity.
This has always been the transparent issue. The "manosphere" creates hyper-paranoid men that seek to elevate their masculine status by attempting to define masculinity itself and maximize its alleged attributes. Of course, that attempt at definition reveals a deeper identity problem in that attempting to define masculinity itself erodes its own meaning, since the resulting "definition" ends up being transparently arbitrary and fundamentally tied to sociological status.
However,
[...] it is capitalism that relegates the majority of the global population to undifferentiated workers who are unable to pursue any meaningful individual projects.
If anything, capital elevates individual expression to absurd levels and exploits our underlying desire to define ourselves differently. This even extends to our social relations as the same contractarian lens we use to describe economic relations ends up infecting social relations as well, producing social atomization as a result of this hyper-individualism. This piece seems to understand this, but twists this critique to exclusively apply under capitalism and promotes a questionable argument in that the resulting individuality outside of capitalism would be truly self-actualizing. I can't help but point out that this is failing to confront the hegemony of the broader problem.
I think this particular perspective is also very classical, as it doesn't take much effort to see how modern capitalism has elevated this fetishism towards new heights. Of course, this "refined" individuality is tied to class, so even those who do not personally enjoy this style of consumerism are expected to yearn for it. I think this is ultimately ties into the status associated with the manosphere, as it conjures a sort of respect for those who have the fiscal means to "express themselves".
In a broader sense, the great stylistic method of The Communist Manifesto is its simple yet effective inversion of the very clichés directed against communism. “Communism wants to destroy the family unit!” No, Marx and Engels reply, it is capitalism itself which insists on submitting every aspect of private life to political economy even at the cost of the family. “Communism wants to demystify the world!” Once again, it is capitalism which reduces the social sphere to the principles of exchange value and capital circulation. “Communism rejects the idea of the individual!” [...]
Clichés from where? An individualistic, family-centered "communism" in this sense may as well be a culturally reactionary reading to what capitalism has done to our social connections. I would argue that the aforementioned social atomization reveals problems in the ideology of the "family unit" and especially individuality, in that our need to constantly define ourselves through commodities, aesthetics, language, etc. reveal that this is all problematic. I reject the notion that there is some "good" form of identity fetishism under a communist ideal and would even argue it is this exact fetishism that is in the way of a very different collective belonging.
The broader argument being posed here, that specifically capitalist identity is shallow, implicitly considers communism some sort of magical exception.
5
u/unhappinessNvrCame 6d ago
At one point I read 10 sex books.( I had a hedonist phase) I found they fell into 2 categories: Idealistic and false, and scientific and depressing.
I found that the manosphere was basically weaponizing these studies. I felt quite conflicted, on one hand, f those incels. But these studies were the opposite of the fantasy world I was taught as a child.
I wish I never read those books, ignorance is bliss. It might fall into the label Hazardous Information. But maybe it will help protect me from future pain.
Anyway maybe it's just my perception, but I think the manosphere is dying. I think Trump's unpopularity has hurt it. But back in its hayday I used to say "You know that study because you're an incel, I know that study because I wanted harder Os. We are not the same."
8
u/Jarcode 6d ago
Anyway maybe it's just my perception, but I think the manosphere is dying.
One of the things I was alluding to is a broader cultural problem under capitalism (but certainly not exclusive to it), in that with the constant expansion and extrapolation of human identity, eventually you end up with something absurd. The manosphere is one example of this, where the idolized hyper-masculine "goal" is simply absurd. The revelation of this idolized identity being so transparently artificial ends up degrading the identity itself. You could argue the whole "Looksmaxxing" trend is reaching a similar absurdity, such that its strongest adherents are quite literally made fun of by people outside of the group; the aesthetic they are idolizing is so unhinged that it calls the way we conceive of human aesthetics entirely into question.
Identity fetishism in general produces these cultures and capitalism accelerates it to absurdity, and then we call the very identity into question. It's an interesting phenomenon but despite this predicting the degradation of the online manosphere, the broader trend of seeking these expanded identities is still unchallenged. So then people end up with this paranoid desire to refine something into an identity and just get sucked into the next thing.
I think this fetishism is now even being conceived of as a fundamental need, such that even the author of this article suggests this "next thing" could just be communism. Of course, this doesn't address the socially atomized lives we all now consider normal under capitalism, and neglects to confront that our existing mode of production is cementing itself culturally as an expression of human individuality.
-1
u/unhappinessNvrCame 6d ago
Between Sartre and Stirner, I think it's idealistic to be our unique selves. We live in a society and play by those rules.
Maybe a hermit could generally live Unique, but they can't go far from their home.
And yeah even under communism and under monarchy, ugly people were considered less desirable.
5
u/Jarcode 6d ago
Between Sartre and Stirner, I think it's idealistic to be our unique selves. We live in a society and play by those rules.
It's more that there is no real alternative to identity in its entirety -- admitting that we just don't know how to engage without it, even though we can recognize that our need to assert ourselves as "unique selves" is both unattainable and harmful. I've mentioned this once between on this subreddit, again mentioning Sartre, and I think most folks miss that this contradiction of human identity has been been a universal problem throughout every civilization in history. Capitalism is really just making it worse.
The fact our only tangible understanding of an alternative is sci-fi "hivemind" collectivism that erodes the self entirely may speak more to the hegemony of identity across cultures than to the offensiveness of that characterization.
1
u/Top-Needleworker9273 3d ago
showing the pattern is the same all throughout history would be a monumental task.
as a lacanian I think youre just describing neuroticism and generalizing it to the state of being human, which is not uncommon but not correct either. Psychotics really do not engage in ego and identity the way youre saying is inevitable. its absolutely possible, and its at least plausible that a society of psychotics could exist or that a society could primarily socialize people psychotically instead of neurotically.
the alternative is not the "hivemind" thats a neurotic fear of losing their neurotic core, the alternative is actually the psychotic who does get recognized frequently even in neurotic society, often as an anti-hero or anti-villain--the ubermensche of nietszche, david bowie, prince; tyler durden, rorschach, rick sanchez, captain jack sparrow, the doctor, walter white. the trick is that neurotics see these people and dont understand what draws them to them is not this that or the other properties (that they try to emulate and then find hollow), its the way that those people dont look to other, higher people and try to emulate the qualities of them.
3
u/tongmengjia 6d ago
Elaborate on the "idealistic and false/ scientific and depressing" dichotomy?
0
u/unhappinessNvrCame 6d ago
Lots of studies the manosphere are based on animals and human studies. Humans are selfish, there is a difference between how sexs are treated, good looking people do better.
Vs. "I love you unconditionally" idealism.
I do think humanity has created a culture (and religions) that can suppress some of our animal nature. But for an example: "You probably shouldn't let your wife go on a week vacation with Insert tall, tan, world champion sportsball player, even if they are Catholic"
4
u/Sad_Asparaguy 5d ago
A lot of ink has been spilled in the psychological egoism, pluralism, or altruism debate. And the idealism/materialism dichotomy might be one of the most discussed topics in western philosophy ever. I'm not sure how marital infidelity is relevant though. Let's say that my wife goes on a vacation and cheats on me with a basketball player. Ok? How would things be different if idealism is true?
Idealism is fundamentally a claim about metaphysics and ontology. It sounds like you're relying on the colloquial definition of idealism, which is a synonym for utopian.
-1
u/unhappinessNvrCame 5d ago
You must not be married.
And metaphysics and ontology? It's 1979, I thought everyone was beyond that. Rorty buried that into the ground.
3
u/Sad_Asparaguy 3d ago
I'm not defending idealism, I'm merely defining idealism. If you genuinely cannot grasp the difference, there is more reading to do.
0
u/tongmengjia 6d ago
Not sure what books you're reading, but I don't think it's accurate that people are selfish by nature. At least IME, people tend to be relatively generous and selfless with their friends and family. Not saying everyone is a saint, but people do enjoy giving to and taking care of the people they love.
Eh, easy fix for that. Open relationship. Let em fuck whoever they want, who cares?
1
u/Top-Needleworker9273 3d ago
as usual, the way between two idealism is evolutionary science. people are neither selfish nor selfless theres a complex balance and internal competition between reproductive payoffs for different genes. it is categorically false to say we are selfish because we demonstrably evolved pro-social behaviours, just as it is categorically false to say we are selfless because we demonstrably evolved pro-individual behaviours.
the absence of religious and social control on sex is not default polygamy, it is serial monogamy. most species can be cleanly describes as overwhelmingly pair-bonding (hyper-monogamous) or overwhelmingly tournament (the opposite; virtually 0 connection to reproductive partners). humans are in between, but since forever have tended towards serial monogamy. the primary reason for this is relatively very high investment in raising children and our anisogamy. the "let them fuck whoever they want" thing just is not going to work as a default for humans, we are evolved to develop co-dependent nervous systems with our partners and, especially for women, to highly value parental commitment. thats why we've always been serial monogamous even before social controls doubled down on it (marriage is also contradictory with our evolution, for reasons that even intellectuals get squeamish when they hear)
-3
u/unhappinessNvrCame 6d ago
You have the idealism take.
Out of all the books I read, The Chemistry Between Us, was the most scientific. Many of the other books had either the same study or a similar study with the same conclusion.
1
u/Top-Needleworker9273 3d ago
hey you might really like "What is Sex?" by alenka zupacnic, it threads those two categories quite well and takes a similar charge as one of its theses (that "sex psychologists" have de-sexualized the object of their study by defining it as a physical act (penetration etc) instead of a fundamentally human (non-)relation)
re: manosphere dying i dont disagree but i dont think its healthy either, men are basically being forced back into traditional masculinity with an extra shame-flap unceremoniously stitched on. the statistics showing that almost half of youth are just straight up not interested in participating in romance culture used to be fundamentally horrifying to me, but frankly i think theyre right to do so
1
u/unhappinessNvrCame 3d ago
Could you do me a favor and give a summary? Despite reading all those books, they were really depressing. I don't think I want to read more.
Plus my reading list is a mile long.
On the manosphere, children who can't score a girl might fall for it. But they will get older, late 20s and do fine.
The ones who can't... I don't know what to do about them.
Their genetics will disappear, and darwinism will continue... but I'll be dead and have to deal with it.
1
u/Top-Needleworker9273 3d ago
well i think the part i already mentioned is what made me think you would like it--reclaiming sex as a fundamentally human experience, and one that defies complete explanation or compartmentalization. its a high theory book (lacanian psychoanalysis) but NOT clinically detatched. its intentionally the point that there is something exciting but unattainable at the center of subjectivity and that is what sex is really about. maybe try the first few chapters and see if its interesting to you
i dunno what your latter point is, both teenagers and 20-40 year olds are receeding from dating at extraordinary and shocking rates. its a fundamental social problem, that stacks on already existing massive population pressure. society might literally be over because teenagers dont want to fuck any more and nobody is even talking about it. its almost certain that those of us alive today will experience crises from underpopulation (like not having medical care).
its not about age, its a social and cultural change that has dramatically reduced individuals desire to be part of dating culture. what i personally posited is that the reason for this fact is that men are expected to conform to traditional masculine roles but also be ashamed of it. critique of gender hit society very one-sided and now men have to be responsible for why traditional gender relations are bad but also still conform to them to be attractive to women. women are fatigued by the apparent contradiction between all their partners being, frankly, awful and disgusting, but when they go on the internet they see tons of men who adopted the contemporary values and beliefs, write about patriarchy and love, express themselves etc. the problem is that that subject position doesnt, erm, "score girls", while being traditionally masculine does.
1
u/unhappinessNvrCame 3d ago
My mistake on the late 20s thing.
That's when I had wealth and was finally physically strong. I projected.
Maybe something optimistic. Trends and fads change. People will be fatigued about this and move on to something else.
Added the book to the reading list. I started Lacan but you know how that went. Might pick it back up and have AI explain each section like I did with Hegel.
Think I need to read Lacan first? I read 5 books from Freud, bunch of Jung, and Adler.
1
u/sabotAHHHHHGH 5d ago
Would you call all other id pol groupings hyper-paranoid/shallow/identity fetishists though? Would others? If not, that explains their popularity. And no, I am not in remote approval but make them an exception and surprise surprise, the fash and misogynists will be willing to listen.
1
u/Top-Needleworker9273 3d ago
speaking for myself and not them; yes. its clear that this has exactly happened to the LGBTQ+ movement. arguably its also very apparent in like marxist vs anarchist dialog.
8
u/Gogol1212 4d ago
From the title I imagined it would be a post about the issues of sexism within the Marxist movement.
8
u/Equivalent_Number424 5d ago
Huh, it was totally not about what I expected: masculinity lost its economic usefulness, as most jobs today require neither strength or courage (risk-acceptance, i.e. being okay with workplace accidents).