Martial Virtue

Read first:

BlackFive's Martial Virtue and Masculinity.

Just as a point of cultural reference, the "daywalker" term might be more familiar to readers as the character played by Wesley Snipes in the "Blade" movies that were based on the graphic novels.

It is true that no society can survive without martial virtue. However, the other elements, justice, mercy, those things I would group under the banner of chivalry, are also an absolute requirement. Societies that try to utterly suppress them are ultimately not successful, they soon war themselves into extinction. Sparta was eventually a failure, cast into the dustbin of history.

It reminds me of Bill Whittle's post a few years ago called Tribes.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html

He says that in very general terms society can be divided up into two groups, sheep and sheepdogs, with those of the martial virtues being the sheepdogs of course. And sheepdogs are always necessary to protect the flock from wolves.

Where his post, as well as this one, falls short is that civilizations face other threats than wolves. For example, I do not believe that terrorists are wolves. They are in truth rabid sheepdogs gone mad. Martial virtues run rampant without check are far more destructive to the societies they presume to protect than any outside enemy could ever be. Osama Bin Laden and martial Islamists have killed far more Muslims than any infidel has ever done, at least in modern times. They are the worst danger to very people that they claim to protect.

Sheepdogs are not more virtuous than sheep. In fact you can make a strong case for the opposite. As Bill Whittle once again points out, sheep choose to be peaceful, to get along with one another. Disputes most of the time are not settled withs swords but with words. Sheepdogs on the other hand, with their innate capacity for violence may not be quite so righteous as they may think of themselves - or wish themselves to be.

The answer is to not get so caught up in what are often illusionary divisions.

"Here's the problem: those "traditional lines" aren't there by accident. Regardless of a hundred years' argument to the contrary, the fact is that our conceptions of virtue aren't mere 'social constructs' that can be played with and reformed at will, or without consequence."

This is more or less correct. However reality is more complex a picture. For the simple reason that people are not either sheep or sheepdogs. They are each a mixture of both, to varying degrees. Every sheep can be a sheepdog under the right circumstances. For example, - Flight 93. But every sheepdog also should strive, when not actually engaged in combat, to practice the chivalrous values. It is the only way you can do your job and still retain your soul.

What is needed in every leaders is a mixture of the martial and chivalrous values. They should be marked by not just the willingness to exercise violence to protect their community, but also by their ability to restrain from doing so. To those that are skeptical of this approach, I will cite as example the triumph of the U.S. over Soviet Russia. Its a war we won without ever have to invade the actual country. It was an approach embraced by Ronald Reagan. Was he sheep or sheepdog? He was both.

As a footnote and aside.

Don't get too hung up on equating genders with this discussion. Martial does not mean exclusively male, compassion and kindness are not exclusively female qualities either. Once again, reality is more complex than the analogy. Human beings are physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, a mixture of both things. Guys don't believe me? Go look in the mirror and try and figure out why you have breasts. And no warrior in his right mind would willing cross a mother protecting her young. And no woman in her right mind would ever willingly marry a man unable to express kindness, if only to her children.

I find it amusing that it was the Democrats who gave the most blatantly homophobic reasoning not to support Obama. "Metro-sexual" could be applied to a great number of our best Presidents. Especially the ones fond of wearing wigs and garters, like Washington and Jefferson. And if "slender" is a handicap, that removes Abraham Lincoln from the running. Sheesh.

Comments

[Grim]

Sir:

Your points are reasonable, but allow me to comment on a couple of things.

1) The focus on masculinity is Klein's; he titled his post, "The Politics of Masculinity." These are his terms. You're right, of course, that women can be protective and valorous. I had occasion to know several brave and efficient female soldiers in Iraq.

2) If you read the review linked in the article, you'll find that I wholly endorse the concept that what you are calling "sheep" can be valuable and worthy members of society. I think we benefit from having a society that makes room for them.

My point is not that defenders are necessarily better. It is only that they are necessary: that there are some roles that must be filled by them in order to protect the broader society from other humans. The Presidency is one such role, the chief such in our society. At least some soldiers and Marines must also be; and at least some policemen.

Probably it is true that at least some authors, artists, filmmakers, and other creative citizens should be of this class as well. We need them to make the epics that enshrine and explain the value of the marshal class -- if only so that gentle, peaceful people who have long been protected continue to understand.

you gotta wait about a week for your grav to change. i don’ t know...