Articles

A bracing slap of tradition would do guys a world of good: Young men have been rendered incapable of recognizing and submitting to authority.

By Rod Dreher
Dallas Morning News
Jan. 30, 2008 (posted by Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Some years ago, a young painter about to complete art school complained bitterly to me about his education.

"They told us all that we were geniuses the first day we showed up," he said. "They never taught us the basics. Whatever we wanted to do, our teachers thought was brilliant. Now I'm about to graduate, and I don't know much more about being an artist now than when I started."

The young artist's point was actually more profound than I realized then and helps explain the pathetic phenomenon of child-men —- those woebegone males who seem stuck in perpetual adolescence.

This unhappy student rightly recognized that the preceding generation —- the baby boomers —- had failed in its responsibility to pass on to him a tradition. Had his art teachers only drilled him in tradition, they likely would have bludgeoned his creativity with mannerism. Instead, they declared tradition irrelevant and made each student's individual desire the only necessary standard. Without a tradition against which to measure oneself as an artist, there is nothing to learn, no impetus to learn it and no penalty for not learning it.

The student asked a question —- What is an artist? —- for which his culture no longer provided an authoritative answer. But if you ask a far more important question —- What is a man? —- the culture comes up equally short, and for the same reason.

To be sure, the definition of manhood is culture-bound and has been talked about since time immemorial.

Today's child-men have been formed by a culture that has lost —- or, rather, thrown away —- a relatively fixed standard of manhood. It used to be that virtue was the measure of a man. Was a man just? Was he brave (and not necessarily in terms of physical courage)? Was he honorable in his dealings with those weaker than he? Did he respect women? Did he believe in something higher than himself? Did he submit to the concepts of duty and respect?

It's not that all men, or even most, lived by this general code. It's that they recognized that they would be judged by it, and judged themselves by it.

That's mostly gone, replaced by a therapeutic model in which the autonomous self is its own judge, and personal satisfaction is the measure of a life well lived.

The culture warriors of the previous generation were not wrong to question conformity, but they went too far. They have deprived their sons of authoritative tradition, both in word and example, and with it the ability to transcend the adolescent state. Much in our dominant culture conspires to keep young men in a permanent state of adolescence: conscious only of their desires and the impulse to fulfill them. This dependency is tailor-made for a consumerist economy built on creating and exploiting wants. Making the world safe for big business, no doubt, wasn't what the '60s generation had in mind, but it's a little late for do-overs.

The fathers of today's child-men gave to their sons the freedom to choose their own paths through life. But how to choose and what to choose? On that, the gray ponytails must remain silent. All they have is the hope that —- having turned their sons loose in the world without a map, habituated to the idea that their maps are useless —- the young men find their way out of the wilderness.

Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His column appears occasionally.

Source: http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion
/stories/2008/01/30/drehered0130.html

Copyright 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

To make a comment on the Faith And The City weblog, click here.

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information, visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.