Category: Term Reflections

The two essays, ¨The Moral Equivalent of War¨ by William James and the discussion about whether ¨real men¨ can thrive in a peaceful society, explore how masculinity, war, and society are connected. Both ask an important question: can the energy and toughness that come from war be redirected toward something positive in a world without violence?

In his essay, James talks about how war has shaped human nature and society. He explains that people have inherited a love of fighting, glory, and discipline from their ancestors, who survived through struggle. War, he argues has brought out qualities like bravery, teamwork, and endurance. However, James wants to find a way to keep these ¨manly virtues¨ without the destruction of war. He suggests creating a ¨moral equivalent of war¨, where young people are required to do tough jobs like mining, construction, all this in harsh conditions. These tasks would teach them discipline, hard work, and a sense of pride, just like the military does, but without the violence. James believes this could preserve the positive aspects of war while helping society move toward lasting peace.

The second essay focuses on how masculinity changed during the Industrial Revolution, when the middle/high class (The ¨Bourgeois¨) became more important. Men’s roles became less physical and more about office work and family life. This created a new kind of man who was seen as soft and less exciting compared to the rugged, brave men of the past. At the same time this shift brought safety and comfort, it also led to dissatisfaction. The essay points out that some people still admire hyper-masculine traits, like physical strength and boldness, but warns that unchecked masculinity can lead to problems like violence, gangs, and authoritarianism. It asks whether men can channel their natural aggression in healthy ways or if war and conflict will always be part of human life.

Both essays agree that masculinity often thrives in conflict and challenge. James offers a hopeful solution by suggesting hard civilian work as a substitute for war, while the second essay highlights the risk of ignoring or suppressing masculine energy. The essay also mentions how sports, like boxing have been used as an outlet for aggression, but it questions whether these can fully replace the excitement of war.

In the end, both essays remind us that masculinity is a complex part of human nature. Instead of trying to eliminate the traits that come from war, they suggest we should find ways to canalize them into activities that build society. James and the second essay agree: toughness and strength can exist without violence, but it will take creativity and effort to achieve this balance. The challenge is finding a path where men can grow, stay true to themselves, and contribute to a peaceful world.

The first essay I would like to focus on is “The Moral Equivalent of War”, by William James. James argues that despite wars brutality, it still creates positive qualities in the soldiers, such as discipline and courage. His idea is that even though war is destructive and ugly, its qualities such as comradie can be used for good deeds. He is of the opinion that the aggressiveness that can be found in every person, that it was left there for us by our ancestors, essentially making it a part of the human nature that cannot be removed (L.16-18). He says that, without war, life would be “insipid”; that it would be boring. But is war really what makes life worth living, what makes it interesting? This is what James seems to say: “War is, in short, a permanent human obligation” (L. 42-43). Nevertheless, he acknowledges war´s savagery, and mentions that peace cannot be achieved without “preserving some of the old elements of army-discipline” (L.58), saying that discipline and order is men need.

In “Can real men live in a peaceful society?” by Eric MacKnight, he argues about how much war is really needed to let out “hyper-masculanity”, as he calls it. He uses that term to describe a “strong, handsome warrior that loves the battlefield even more than he loves women.” The same can be said for hyper-femininity: “beautiful, sexy, and unfaithful.” (p.3). He describes the idea of a new “bad boy” as a result of the 20th century, saying that he combined the “traditional masculine virtues with a dedication to home and family” (p.2). As James did in his essay, he also mentions his idea of a mandatory conscription for all young men, to maintain the discipline of the war and let out this hyper-masculine side of them in a beneficial way. Men were once raised with the idea of chivalry, which was originally invented to “tame the violence of the men”, since only prison or castration seemed to work to appease mens violent nature. But this idea seems to fade, which leads to the question – will war and violence remain with us as long as we are human?