Unmasking Masculinity

And The Brothers Karamazov

The Brothers Karamazov

A hundred and fifty years after being published The Brothers Karamazov feels as relevant as ever. It’s an incredible mirror held up to the human soul that captures our incredible capacity for conflict, suffering, and love. Dostoevsky is so good at being patient; slowly layering scenes in such a way that the characters and story feels as true as reality itself. The classics seem to be so because they hold great insight into humanity that persists across time and space. The Brothers Karamazov grapples with multiple truths - clearly the capstone output of an extremely difficult life. Reading it today I was struck by how it puts its finger, perhaps incidentally, on the question of masculinity; namely what masculinity is and what role it plays in the modern world.

One of the ideas that Dostoevsky investigates is the duality of self: the “base” and “higher” selves. All three of the brothers have some awareness of their own baseness as “sensualists” inherited from their father. In the book it’s self-labeled the Karamazov depravity. Indeed, the novel in a way is an investigation of the different ways that this baseness manifests and conflicts with higher selves. Dmitri is perhaps the most directly in struggle with his base desires of sensuality, conflict, and sadism. Ivan represents the intellect, struggling with how the philosophy of the higher self can reconcile the suffering of the world. Alyosha, as the hero, represents faith and is able to sit with the contradiction between the two selves and still move forward with love.

“And all of us Karamazovs are like that, and in you, an angel, the same insect lives and stirs up storms in your blood. Storms, because sensuality is a storm, more than a storm! Beauty is a fearful and terrible thing!”

-Dmitri to Alyosha, The Brothers Karamazov

The Duality of Self

I think this explicit categorization of the two selves is a valuable framework for grappling with what it means to be a man. What does it mean to be a man, versus a boy, or a woman, in the absence of socialized gender norms? One simple way to slice it is: being a man means integrating the various drives fueled by testosterone and the base self congruently with the higher self. Of course there is a bell curve to any population - but I think it’s clear that a base self of testosterone fuels aggression, competition, desire, and pride. The most cursory of glances through history shows men’s capacity for violence and depravity, and also for great bravery and action. This current runs through all of us.¹

Furthermore, integration means recognizing that these attributes are not inherently bad -that despite pushback in the recent years, aggression, competition, desire, and pride can be extremely valuable- and that the danger is when these attributes dominate over the higher self. And importantly, it is recognizing that suppressing these natural inclinations results in repression, internalized guilt, derealization, disempowerment, and a relegation of desire and power to kink (see: Existential Kink by Dr. Carolyn Elliott, Jungs concept of The Shadow, etc). The goal is integration. In other words, neither fall slave to your base self and become an animal, nor suppress it and become a stiff (or in Gen Z speak, a soyboy beta cuck).

Instead recognize and value these attributes as real, and channel them in conversation with the higher self. I think that all too often what we hold up as an ideal tends to swing in one direction or the other, particularly online.²

Present Day

This duality of self is not a new concept. Two examples that come to mind are Steinbeck’s investigation through Caleb in East of Eden, or Harry Haller’s initial self-conception in Steppenwolfe.³ Or think of Freud’s concept of the id, ego and superego.⁴ Why does this framework seem to be deemphasized today?

Masculinity growing up was an uncomfortable topic, something alternatively labeled as either a fake social construct or as a doomed condemnation of depravity. Note that these map neatly into the duality of self, representing the extremes of the non-integrated higher and base selves. My sense was that people were afraid of having the wrong opinion and being canceled. In the noble effort to build a more gender-equal society it only takes small mental slip to conflate patriarchal power structure with the male gender itself. And movements often rally around a shared enemy.

Importantly, I don’t think concepts like gender fluidity, transgenderness, or queerness are incompatible at all with the perspective on masculinity I’m putting forth here. In fact, they reinforce it. Being transgender is an affirmation of someone seeking something conceptually male, delineated between the sexes. And anyone with enough gay and lesbian friends will tell you there is a clear divergence in patterns around sex and relationships between gay men and lesbian women that is too significant to be explained away by socialization.

It can be generally uncomfortable to discuss and reconcile the duality of self. It requires holding a lens up to the inner animal in all of us, admitting out loud that we are not all enlightened higher selves. It can feel conceptually distant to folks that are on the low end of the testosterone-driven bell curve.⁵ It can also feel like a callback to socialized toxic masculinity of the past where being a man meant you HAD to be silent, aggressive, strong, etc. But nothing in the duality of self is prescriptive to the individual, nor should it be. It is simply a tool that is particularly helpful to this population.

Repercussions of a Vacuum

If we don’t discuss masculinity and the pull of the dual self with our youth, or worse alternate between condemnation and denial of its existence, we leave a vacuum that is filled at best by a lukewarm movies and locker room talk and at worst, unfortunately seemingly more commonly, by redpilled rightwingers and reactionaries on online forums, videos, and streams. See the broad popularity of figures like Andrew Tate (extreme misogynist + sex trafficker) and Clavicular (looksmaxxing vlogger with a severe narcissistic disorder). If you tell people the base side of themselves don’t exist, or worse that having it means they are evil, you break with their known reality. They will seek out the messages and conversations that align with their reality, and unfortunately the people willing to break with the intellectual norm here often have pretty unhealthy takes.

Denying a major component of someone’s lived experience not only leaves them more susceptible to external indoctrination… but also undermines their capacity for self-understanding and self-regulation.

- Mina Caraccio (my housemate :))

The response is often a rightward drift, which has compounding repercussions. It took two Trump administrations for the left to (beleagueredly) start to wake up to the damage this vacuum has caused. Joe Rogan went from being a Bernie supporter to god knows what now, surely influencing his 56 million listeners along the way. Jordan Peterson was a somewhat academic figure trying to get men to clean their room, be capable, and read classical literature. I’m not sure what he’s doing now frankly but it clearly took a hard turn to the right as well.⁶

At risk of moving deep into substack gender slop territory, I have a hypothesis that the damage of this vacuum extends to courtship dynamics as well and explains the rise of incels. Again this falls on a bell curve; but I think it’s safe to say that things like being confident, chivalrous, initiating, embodied within your masculinity, etc are generally attractive traits to embody. This is only a small lead-in part of the complex and beautiful process of loving another person. But to deny that it exists out of misplaced idealism is misleading. Tell a shy teenage guy to just be themselves (which could be interpreted as not striving for something greater than the base self) and they will interpret their lack of success as a personal failing. When they stumble upon a pickup artist reddit forum they will think they have found the “real truth” that supersedes the other messy beautiful and deep aspects of human connection, and the be result is someone that leans into the most nihilistic interpretations of love, romance and connection.

If Dmitri Karamazov was your son, how would you raise him? What would you teach him, given his inclinations and awareness of his base self?

“Because I’m a Karamazov. Because when I fall into the abyss, I go straight into it, head down and heels up, and I’m even pleased that I’m falling in just such a humiliating position, and for me I find it beautiful.”

-Dmitri to Alyosha, The Brothers Karamazov

The Way Out is Through

I think step one would be to acknowledge the dual self, not castigate it. Recognize that it is part of being a man. Recognize that it often has to be reconciled in conversation with values of the higher self and society; you shouldn’t fight everyone you see on the street, there is a time and place where desire is appropriate and inappropriate, etcetera. Recognize that in many ways, can embrace and become empowered from this self. Aggressive tendencies can be channeled and utilized in sport. Competitiveness can be an incredible way to bond with others, and a motivating force for becoming a more capable and skillful person. Desire when treated with the appropriate caution and respect can be the spark for some of the most beautiful connections and experiences a human is privileged enough to experience on this Earth. Treating both men and women with respect and a sense of equality, while also seeing and valuing what tends to make them different.

And to reiterate, the goal is not to top-down enforce any specific traits. The quiet kid doesn’t need to become a loudmouthed extrovert, and the thoughtful bookworm doesn’t need to become a wrestler (or vice versa). The goal is to provide an awareness of these selves and to provide tools for how to reconcile.

To use a personal example, growing up I was a competitive kid, with a strong admiration and desire for physicality. As a young man there was always a desire to prove myself, and an undercurrent of tamped aggression that was a response to the dominance imposed by society on our lives. The martial arts ended up being an incredible outlet; they provided an avenue for growth, a safe outlet for frustration, anger, and aggression, a philosophy of self-determinism, and the physicality and competitiveness that I was seeking. They embraced these aspects of the base self as a transformative force to be harnessed, not something solely suppressed and fought against.

And rather than alienate, these experiences created some of the closest friendship and community that I’ve ever experienced. Whether these attributes create social alienation or close connection is more about the environment than the attributes themselves. Today in Jiu Jitsu we try to display that healthy balance on the mats, especially when training and talking with young men. Here is a place where you can work on being strong, and also be kind. Here is a place where with the right training partner you can fight, compete, dominate, and then afterwards hug and settle into a deeper friendship. Here is a place where we’re all tough, working on being tougher, and can still be emotionally vulnerable and support each other.⁷

Forms of Communication

For better or worse, online discourse is here to stay and it plays a huge role in education for the younger generation. However, a lot of these lessons are best learned in person, through observation, imitation, and mentorship. On a recent poll during a large group backpacking trip, most guys cited their fathers as their primary basis for understanding what it meant to grow up as a man.

It seems to me that when discussing virtue, one has to earn the right to be listened to. Among some men (probably the ones that most need it) there is a disinclination for communication, an expectation of silent strength.⁸ In A River Runs Through It, rough-and-tumble logger/fireman/fisherman Norman Maclean describes an elaborate form of communication in which he and his brother go through an arc of a disagreement, fight, apology, and reconfirmation of love solely through nonverbal fly fishing actions.

All this to say that typical top-down methods of communication may not be the salve they are often positioned to be. Part of the solution is promoting more dialogue and destigmatizing communication and emotional vulnerability. But part of it is meeting these inclinations halfway; I think our kids need more role models, online and otherwise, that embody traditional forms of masculinity, earn the respect and street cred, and then communicate about these other issues (George St. Pierre is a great example!).

Where This Goes From Here

The duality framework is like a pilot hole for a drill bit. It’s a starting point for exploring how to become an adult which can later be expanded, destroyed, or neglected altogether as the actual process of growth begins. Its greatest use is simply to put a label on the messy aspects of manhood and masculinity, to pin the tail on the donkey so to speak. I think our American youth would be better off for it.

Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.

- Elder Zosima to Fyodor, The Brothers Karamazov

1. There is certainly value to other higher virtues that are traditionally considered masculine: courage, self-sacrifice, trustworthiness, duty. Some of these come from classical ideals, or have been held through history. I’m not going to discuss the socialized vs inherent aspects of these higher virtues, or what engenders the higher self, as it’s a whole new can of worms that can appeal to so many fields: the classics, evolutionary behavioral biology, social constructionism, etc.

2. There’s an incentive for online groups to create this radicalization, as a shift to either self can be politically weaponized

3. All models are wrong but some are useful - one of the main points of Steppenwolfe is rebuking Harry’s dual self-perspective as reductionist to the human spirit. See the conclusion of this essay for more.

4. See the tripartite soul in Plato’s Republic, or his allegory of Phaedrus’s chariot as another example

5. One of the reasons why I wanted to write this article is because at nearly 28 it feels less relevant than it used to. I remember the importance these questions of identity, desire, and maturity held for me as I was a teenager and in my early twenties. Having thought through and grappled with these questions I’ve since moved on, and want to record my thoughts here before they cease to feel meaningful at all.

6. Jordan Peterson’s original claim to fame was basically owning some liberal reporters that were frankly doing bad journalism. I will say that his decision to use lobsters to emphasize hierarchy in human behavior in 12 Rules for Life rather than, say, our much closer ape relatives was a bit absurd. In the Channel 4 interview (the most famous one) they kind of try to touch on this but in a gotcha kind of way that severely backfired. Robert Sapolsky has conducted much better research on this and surprise! has come away with much more nuanced findings.

7. Ok frankly a lot of Jiu Jitsu people are not that tough… but the ideal still stands.

8. I wonder if part of this is that men don’t face the same societal forces that make such conversation a necessity for a maturing woman. The repercussions of suddenly being able to carry a child, or to have to be concerned for your safety when walking alone at night, carry a huge weight. There’s a reckoning with the very serious and ugly realities of the world. There is no equivalent moment in our society where mentor and young man have to sit down and pass on these lessons. I wonder if this is why rituals of manhood are so prevalent across cultures.