►See JP Marceaus article on the same subject: https://thesymbolicworld.com/articles…

►Read more about Maniphesto: https://maniphestocore.com/about/

►Download our free ebook “Working with Men”: https://maniphestocore.com/register/w…

►Join an online men’s group with Maniphesto Core: https://maniphestocore.com/core-member/

►Check out the Maniphesto European Men’s Gathering https://maniphestocore.com/emg-2022/

This is the Maniphesto Logo.

Students of history will recognise the design as the same as the Spartan Shield.

When we created it, we were aware of the association with Sparta, but we mainly chose the symbols because we intuitively thought they were the right ones.

Since then over the years, as we have delved deeper into men’s work, I have come to appreciate the intuition. From these very simple lines, we can derive a lot more about Men’s Work.

So breaking things down, in the below, I will describe how the symbolism of this logo informs our work, starting with the very basics: a circle, a boundary,  white space, a hierarchy, a left and a right side, two feet and a summit.

I also made a video discussing this topic, which you can see here:

A circle

The circle is fundamental to the Maniphesto way of working. It entails a flat and open communication field, where all are on an equal footing. It works best in situations where it is important to create depth and breadth, to harness the full wisdom of a group and to gain the deepest insight and truth possible. It also generally requires that there is ample time available. It is not suitable for situations where dynamic, agile and courageous decision making is required or where there is time pressure.

Much (but not all) of our groundwork with men is in circles. This is hence the fundamental organisational unit from the very top level of our European Men’s Leadership Summit to the individual weekly men’s network meetings.

Principle 5, “Conciliarity” in the 10 Principles of Maniphesto states that “Working as a council of peers brings Hierarchy and Do-ocracy together. We are co-creative by design, providing the platform for men to engage and contribute actively.”

The idea here is that we sit in a circle when we come together. “Conciliarity” is based on the format of the council – which is a meeting of peers, where no one member has an inherent higher authority than the others. Each individual man brings his own unique experiences, insights and perspective. Our value and the part each man has to play and contribute is dependent on the situation.

Of course it is important to note that, while we often sit in a circle, we are not relativists, and at any given point, each man can take the leadership of the circle – either to greater depth, or to less. Our society, and especially in Scandinavia where Maniphesto is born, then circles are far more popular than hierarchies. Tolerance and equality are held as the highest cardinal virtues, and hierarchy is regarded with scepticism if not seen as inherently oppressive in essence.

We take the positive aspects of flat, agile and trusting Scandinavian culture into our work, but we leave behind the “hierarchy phobia” which pervades many communities.

A boundary

The circle is also a boundary, which serves the function of delimiting an “inside” and an “outside”. At Maniphesto we have found that it is necessary to set up boundaries for our work and be completely explicit as to what needs to happen for you to be either inside or outside the organisation.

This process which entails excluding some and including others can be perceived as negative. Surely the men’s movement should be for “all men”? Who are we to decide which men should be included and who should be excluded? What about tolerance to those who are different from us?

Clear criteria, including certain people and excluding others, based on objective criteria is essential to create a sustainable organisation. With 8 billion people in the world, 4 of them men, providing the most specific, detailed  and exclusionary criteria is the best way to create a strong foundation for men’s work. Note how this goes against the current societal trend that everything should be as inclusive as possible.

The boundaries for Maniphesto’s work, ranked roughly by their level of exclusiveness are as follows:

1. You should be a man. You should also be certain of this and it should not require qualification. There are other groups and communities for transgender men as well as many other flavours. We support the creation of these. We are however an organisation for men’s work with men who are just “men”. If you need to seek approval of your specific definition of a man then you should not join.

In the beginning of our work, we engage some people in endless conversations on the exact definition of manhood. We have found that these conversations are not conducive to the type of work which moves us towards our vision of a new story about manhood, and have decided to keep them out.

1. You should be ready to take responsibility for yourself. Every member of a community is a contributor to creating a culture of either responsibility or victimhood. Taking responsibility for yourself entails knowing who you are,  what it is you want and where you want to go, and being proactive about moving your actual situation forward.

Taking responsibility entails accepting and even seeking input as to how we can improve. This is the most powerful way to learn and grow.

1. You should be able to take care of your own needs – The men’s movement aspires to provide role models and set an example for manhood and society in general. Thus we welcome well functioning, integrated and embodied men who are able to take care of their own needs and are looking to be of service to others.  It provides a catalyst for taking men from good to great. It is not a support group to rescue broken or lonely men. This is important work which we have a lot of respect for, but are not engaged with ourselves.

Men with serious mental illness, diagnoses or addiction issues should be sent to other relevant support groups.

1. You should be “in transition” – Being in transition entails being aware that you are currently moving from one state of being or identity into another. There can be many states and reasons for this, including getting married, getting divorced, becoming a father or moving up to a leadership role at work. It can also be for all kinds of personal reasons that there is a need for a re-orientation and reevaluation of fundamental assumptions about yourself, about men and even reality.

In general, any major change of role requires a transition to adapt to being in that new role. We have found that the best time for men to engage in men’s work is once they have experienced relative success in life, reached their goals, and are now looking for “what’s next?” These men are typically looking for more meaningful projects to engage in where they can work with the issues that are closest to their own heart and often also contribute to others’ well-being and success.

1. You should be looking for collaborators – We live in an individualistic society, where everything is about “me”. The work of the men’s movement needs to occur in a natural balance between the individual and the collective. For most of us, that entails engaging in joint action towards shared goals, committing to each other’s broader success in life and thus developing a life of meaning, purpose and bonds of friendship.

These are the boundaries of the men’s movement. The more that they are enforced, the stronger the community will become, the more inspiring we will grow, thus enabling ourselves to expand our impact and reach, inspiring an ever broader range of men with our vision.

The mechanism whereby these boundaries are upheld is threefold:

1. First, through the onboarding and initiation rituals which we use to bring people into our community which repel people who are not in alignment with our values.
2. Secondly, through the behaviour of the members of the leaders, which sets the tone and example for all other members to follow
3. Lastly, through the standards that we set to create a culture of every single interaction whereby every one of the members are aware of how they are contributing towards striving together towards a common vision.

White space

Most of the logo is simply the white space – the space between the lines and shapes. Often we ignore white space and focus on the actual forms and lines. It is not easy to speak about – it is the invisible stuff between then things that are done and said – actually by talking about it, we sometimes ruin it.

It is relevant however to note that the white space is incredibly important to the shape and symbol. The white space is the space whereby the symbol appears. Without it, the symbol would be illegible and impossible. This is an abstract point, but a vital one to keep in mind in mens work.

In many wisdom and mystery traditions, then the feminine principle is often equated to this white space. If the masculine is equated to making a mark, to doing and action, then the feminine is the space or frame wherein that action occurs.

As men, we are often focused on form, function, strategy and tactics. Bringing our awareness to the frame or the white space can help us to reflect on the hidden assumptions and prerequisites for our coming together, the creation of the space of possibility in which our action occurs.

A hierarchy

The central figure of the logo is a lambda symbol, which is also a universal symbol of a hierarchy as an upside down “V”. We recognise that hierarchies are inevitable and natural. The more that we are able to be intentional and explicit about how our hierarchy is organised in our organisation, the more that we can ensure that it is organised after deliberate principles which contribute to the well-being of all levels of the hierarchy.

There is an increasingly powerful narrative in the mainstream of our society which claims that hierarchy is bad. This has its roots in a postmodernism. The feminist version associates hierarchy with patriarchy, which is seen as inherently oppressive. These narratives have largely taken over the sensemaking function of large portions of society, particularly areas such as media, politics and academia. This results in functional, merit-based hierarchies being left defenseless against erodation and replacement by dysfunctional ones.

On the surface, these new hierarchies will often be based on simplistic assumptions from identity politics. Under closer investigation, they are generally based on victim narratives of the strong oppressing the weak. They also contain reverse sexist, racist and other discriminatory ideas, even though they ironically posit themselves as being “anti-discriminatory” and place “tolerance” as their central value.

Part of the reason why these new narratives have had relative success in establishing new hierarchies are because they offer an alternative to the previous dominant narrative, whereby hierarchies were based on access to resources, such as money, power and status.

Many men find themselves increasingly alienated from their work and life from following a career which puts career development and earnings above all else. The Maniphesto approach is to intentionally and deliberately consider and work with which values our hierarchies are built by. Our existence is orientated towards our mission, to “Create a new story about men” by issuing a call to adventure to men who are in transition, and creating a supportive fellowship to find clearer meaning and purpose. The key principles in reaching that mission are detailed in our 10 Principles. These lay out the core values which determine progression in the hierarchy inside Maniphesto.

Being absolutely clear on the inherent values of our hierarchy and how men can progress upwards is vital for creating a healthy and sustainable organisation. Personal intrigues, power games and dramas  occur everywhere that people come together. By being explicit about our values and also “practicing what we preach” through constantly listening to feedback, we are enabled to ensure that the surest and easiest way to progress up the hierarchy is as we intend it to be.

A left and a right and side

Dialectics is one of the fundamental principles of Maniphesto. There are always two sides to any situation and the dynamics of human interaction and meaning creation is dialectical. In our work, we find that the most interesting insights are found through the bringing together of differing perspectives – for example, those of the masculine and the feminine, politically conservative and progressive viewpoints, or eastern and western wisdom traditions.

All of us have natural biases in one direction or the other. An organisation which puts dialectics into its core principles ensures that hidden assumptions are challenged and that there is space for growth and development. An organisation which ignores the dialectical aspect of reality will generally be taken captive by an ideology, becoming an echo-chamber for people who agree with each other, and lose sight of the broader perspective.

This explains much as to why the political process in Western democracies is becoming increasingly meaningless for the broader population. Political parties are engaged in a power game, trying to solve problems using a simplistic and one-sided ideology which they apply to every situation. Thus we end up with two or more sides, half right and half wrong, and refusing to listen to each other – with dysfunctional government as the result.

Given the fact that men’s work is done exclusively with men, there is a greater need to nurture and strengthen feminine aspects, to avoid becoming overly structured, stiff and eventually tyrannical.

A dialectical approach is what can allow unity and multiplicity to exist at the same time in one organisation and thus enable members to move towards true individuality instead of just copying a leader. We have found it is important to respect the man and challenge the idea,  to admire each other’s gifts and to approach disagreement with curiosity and mutual respect. By engaging in dialectical discussion, we grow in discernment and insight.

Two feet

Change is happening faster than ever these days – philosophers and thinkers have speculated over how the information explosion and the dissolution of space through ubiquitous connectedness of modern society is causing time itself to be speeding up. Certainly this is the perception of most people, that the new media paradigm is causing a flood to wash over us, and the need for a firm foundation is greater than ever.

The principles of Maniphesto underline that the paradigm shift to an increasingly digital society requires visionary, strong and responsible men, grounded on a strong foundation, to step up in formulating new paradigmatic principles which foster lives of freedom, integration, meaning and well-being.

But what do we mean by a “strong foundation”, and how can we agree on a which traditions, ideas or processes are good enough? Science seems to be the most credible source for many people today, and yet science is explicit in that it is value free, and does not differentiate between the virtue of the atomic bomb or the solar panel. We need a foundation which can encompass questions of values, ethics and even morals.

There are no shortcuts to “standing on your own two feet – it entails building a strong foundation. In order to know where we are going, we need to know where we come from. In the field of men’s work, we find it appropriate to frame this as “knowing your father”. This entails having spent time getting to know, understand and appreciate the background of your biological father. And it also means getting to know the people, who are the originators or “fathers” of all of your communities, organisations, interests, ideologies, philosophies and religion if you have one. In short it is about being well versed in your own past and where you and all around you actually comes from – in an intimate and personal way – as opposed to an intellectual, academic way. See our blog post on “Finding your Ur-father” for more on this.

Maniphesto is a fairly unique organisation in that we have direct and honest conversations about philosophical perspectives and religions, their various strengths and weaknesses, and are certainly not relativists.  On the contrary, we believe that fostering a discussion around concepts such as truth, beauty love and joy, referring to religious and philosophical perspectives is a vital element of men’s work, in order to create a stronger foundation, so we can stand on both feet to face the oncoming flood.

A Summit

While Maniphesto is not relativist regarding religious and philosophical perspectives, then we refrain from defining a specific and personalised shared summit as the pinnacle of wisdom or truth which is applicable for all of us. While different teachers and facilitators in Maniphesto generally have their own personal “summit”, they will differ from being different figures, such as Christ, the Buddha, Zoarasater or Freud.

Obviously this diversity could result in a cacophony of differing and often conflicting perspectives. The way that we deal with this is to define the summit of our work as “silence”. In practical terms, this means that at the end of the day, the simple pleasure of being together with men that we respect, trust and appreciate, without words, is far stronger than all the philosophical discussions. We as men can be together,

From a more philosophical perspective, the “silence of the summit” can be referred to as the “apophatic approach” or the path of negation – defining the divine by saying what it is not. This understanding lies at the roots of all deep, contemplative wisdom traditions and is often described as “the divine darkness”. It reflects a respect of the indefinability of the transcendent and the failure of words to describe the mysteries of existence which are beyond our comprehension.

The fact that over 95% of the world’s philosophers are men is an indication that men have a greater tendency to dedicate themselves without compromise to reaching transcendent truths. When we experience a breakthrough, an insight or a revelati+on, then the summit of silence is generally the approach whereby we can most appreciate the love shared in a fellowship of men as brothers.

One hundred men stand solemnly in a perfect circle around the fire. All eyes are focused on the single man. He is about 40, a tall and athletic viking of a man. He is called forward, and is blessed and anointed by the elder. In this ritual, he is to share a commitment of purpose from his soul with the circle of men. He steps towards the blazing fire and falls to his knees…

Just a few hours ago, I was engaged in an academic discussion with this man about how online “woke” culture on social media seems to be replicating ancient pagan scapegoating mob rituals, as described by French philosopher Rene Girard. Now I can see a mob raging inside of him.

He looks up to the fire in front of him, and he takes a breath to speak….

“I am going to…….. NO! I F**KING HATE THIS RITUAL SH*T!! THIS IS TOTAL BULLSH*T”, the man screams, spittle frothing from his mouth and flailing with his arms.

The man rants. As he rants, it seems he relaxes. And he starts sharing from his heart. Some tears are shed. Then he finishes with a “Thank you” and steps back to the ring around the fire. Somehow he is able to fit in his place even better now and the entire circle feels more integrated at the same time.

The next man, shorter with grey hair and dark skin, steps forward….

This scene as well as many of the pictures in this essay are from the European Men’s Gathering 2020, which I experienced in the Danish countryside last summer. I have described it here as a taster to set the scene for the topic of this essay, a common theme on the Symbolic World blog: that of the confusion of masculine and feminine in our culture¹. In this essay, I will attempt to consider: How can symbolism provide a unifying perspective which can serve to unite conflicting perspectives and ideas of the contemporary men’s movement?

In the following, I identify three different and conflicting approaches in the men’s movement: the Pro-feminists, the Mythopoetics and Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs). I present a symbolic perspective on the tripartite nature of man in his role as mediator and microcosm as described by 7th century monk and philosopher, St. Maximus the Confessor. I follow St. Maximus in his use of Plato’s chariot allegory, with its charioteer representing reason, a dark horse representing desire and a light horse representing anger. I then propose a mapping of these three elements projected onto the three main branches of the men’s movement mentioned above. Specifically I illustrate this by using a case study of a leading feminist, Michael Kimmel and his experience at a mythopoetic men’s workshop.

My hope is that this article will be interesting not only to those who, like myself, are involved in working with men (check out my organization, Maniphesto), but also to people interested by male/female symbolism more generally.

Unity and Diversity

Male and female are basic categories which are central to human identity and meaning making. As described by Pageau², creating unification and harmony in a system requires a higher, overarching principle which can integrate diversity, while preserving the integrity of all the parts. A prerequisite to dealing with the current chaos and fracturing of the discussion on gender is thus to restore these fundamental categories on firm ground in a changing reality.

The differentiation between masculine and feminine is vital to our ability to discern, process and integrate opposing perspectives and sets of values. It is also related to the idea of hierarchy itself. Readers of this blog will likely be familiar with masculine/feminine symbolism and the correct integration of them, which Jonathan has spoken about regularly. In some cases masculine and feminine refers to opposing pairs at the same level of a hierarchy. In other cases, it refers to vertical relationships in a given hierarchy. In the following table, we have collected some pairs of words which are related to masculine and feminine categories:

These pairs operate at multiple levels of existence and are dependent on each other for their existence. It often makes no sense to talk about the one side of the pair, without the context of the other side. For example, a head cannot survive without a body, a father and mother only become possible in their union, and a provider makes no sense if there is no receiver.

In addition to existential dependency, we can also say that there is a functional dependency. In order to function correctly, they need to be in balance with each other. Indeed, many reasonable conflicts and oppositions can be understood when seen as an example of a masculine/feminine opposition. For example, at the intra-personal level I can be torn between a soft and empathetic response or firmness and setting boundaries. At an interpersonal level, husbands can think their children need more discipline while wives focus on care. At a societal level, politicians on the left prioritise equality for all, while right wingers focus on growth.

For symbolic thinkers, seeing a pattern replicated in fractals across multiple levels of existence comes as no surprise. Building the ability to recognise patterns at one level helps to create more integration at all other levels. Understanding the cosmic nature of these patterns connects reality at the highest and lowest levels and thus creates a pathway to achieving the goal of unity in diversity. Seen this way, confusion and division are natural consequences of a materialist approach, which regards repeating patterns as mere coincidence.

What is the higher principle which can mediate between the opposing perspectives of masculine and feminine? In the following, I will introduce St. Maximus’ idea of man as a “microcosm and mediator” and its relation to the male and female horses of Plato’s chariot allegory.

Microcosm and Mediator

The idea of Man as Microcosm is foreign to our modern scientific mindset, but fundamental to the symbolic perspective. Man as microcosm is the “little world”³ which reflects the macrocosm, or universe. The entire universe is mirrored and reflected in the individual man, and the man is reflected in the universe. The idea is ancient and may be found in many philosophical systems, such as in ancient Mesopotamia, Iran, or ancient Chinese philosophy. For us in the West, it has been present in Greek antiquity from pre-Socratic times⁴ and was brought into the Christian West by thinkers such as Philo and St. Maximus⁵.

According to St. Maximus, man as microcosm places him in a “middle position” on earth, or rather between heaven and earth, and gives him a specific task: that of mediation. By mediating between and connecting oppositions in himself as microcosm, the same thing is achieved in the macrocosm.

More specifically, St. Maximus defines the task of man as mediating between five fundamental oppositions of existence. And central to the purpose of this essay, the first of these five oppositions is between: male and female⁶. Through the use of his divine insight, man brings oppositions together in unity, without destroying diversity and integrity⁷.

St. Maximus takes the goal of this mediation as that defined by St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians: In Christ there is no male or female. For St. Maximus, this is not an abstract claim that in heaven there will be no males or females⁸. Rather, the task of mediation takes place on earth. The goal of men and women is to achieve a state of unity without destroying the differences between masculine and feminine, thus manifesting in the macrocosm what is attained in the microcosm.

In order to better understand and achieve this mediation between male and female, St. Maximus draws on Plato’s allegory of the Chariot. It is to this model, which is thoroughly embedded in Western philosophy and psychology⁹, to which we now turn.

The Tripartite Soul of Man

If you are unfamiliar with Plato’s chariot allegory, then I recommend reading a highly accessible article on the subject What Is a Man? The Allegory of the Chariots. Here I will provide only a brief overview.

In the Phaedrus Dialogue¹⁰, Plato describes the human soul as a chariot, pulled by two horses, one dark and one light. The dark horse represents the “concupiscible” element — the earthly appetites and the desire for material gain and pleasure. It is also seen as female and best represented as the desiring faculty. It is associated with earth, creation and cyclical renewal¹¹.

The light horse on the other hand is the “irascible” element. This is the spirit which strives towards glory and honour, loves victory and seeks achievement and recognition. It is seen as male and represented as the faculty of anger, orientated towards the heavenly and progression¹².

In the driver’s seat of the chariot is the charioteer. He represents reason and has the task of reigning in the two horses in order to guide the chariot heavenwards. If he neglects the horses, is unable to get them to work together, or mistreats them, then they all crash downwards to earth. If he is able to get the horses to pull together, unity is achieved through the contributions of the constituent parts, and thus the chariot ascends to the greatest heights.

Importantly, all of the constituent elements are necessary. The dark horse element of desire and the light horse element of anger cannot be denied. You can’t just cut off or ignore the horses. Doing so will leave a chariot with no method of propulsion. Nor can you just tell them what to do by your own logic and expect them to listen. Horses need to be understood, have their needs met, tamed, bridled and taught to work together under the direction of the charioteer.

According to St. Maximus, the unified progression of the chariot towards heaven is the expression of the natural will of man. A common hindrance can be the charioteer forgetting his heavenly destination and being distracted by lower goals. The two horses becoming docile is the cutting off of the necessary energies of desire and spirit. And the horses receiving too much free reign is seen as the distraction of the passions¹³. Neither desire nor anger are inherently “good” or “bad”. Rather they are simply constituent elements of a human.

It is relevant to recall here the parallel between the microcosm and the macrocosm. St. Maximus is saying that by mediating between and unifying the masculine and feminine forces inside himself, man is doing the same in the macrocosm. Symbolic thinkers will be familiar with the association of male with heaven and female with the earth from the work of Matthieu Pageau¹⁴. From one perspective, the male principle of reason (charioteer) integrates the two different branches or horses. From another perspective, the male white horse creates the structure and direction for the energy of the dark horse together with the charioteer.

Having now described this ancient framework for understanding man as microcosm, we are now ready to raise the level of analysis to a societal level, which we will do by looking specifically at the contemporary men’s movement.

The Tripartite Men’s Movement

While most people have heard of the women’s movement, the contemporary men’s movement is less well known. It refers collectively to groupings of men who have wrestled with the questions on the role of men, especially since the 1970’s and increasingly today. In his lecture on The History of the Men’s Movement, Orthodox Priest and men’s movement veteran Fr. Michael Butler gives a good overview.

One can identify three main strands in the men’s movement: the Mythopoetic movement, the Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) movement, and the Pro-feminist movement. These three strands stand in contrast to and often conflict with each other, not only disagreeing on methods of moving forward, but also fundamental definitions for manhood and even the nature of reality.

To generalise, the academic pro-feminist movement is a secular response taking its lead from the women’s movement. While suffering from a lack of popularity amongst “normal men”, it is very popular amongst academic elites, media and politicians. The basic thesis here is that classical masculinity is toxic, and in order to move forward, men should become less masculine¹⁵.

The Mythopoetic movement has its roots in Joseph Campbell and Robert Bly’s Iron John. Its goals include re-enchantment and myth making¹⁶ with a strong focus on the “Wild Man” archetype and reconnecting men to their primal nature. Storytelling, tribal archetypes and enactment of tribal rituals are used to create an experience of connecting to deeper meaning. Basically, mythopoetics see men as trapped by societal conditioning, and needing to embrace their primal roots.

Lastly, the MRAs are a secular, political response to what is seen as discrimination towards men and even the destruction of the role of men, in direct opposition to the Pro-feminist movement. MRAs see men as victims of injustice and mistreatment. They often focus on child custody issues and other government policies where gender equality policies result in pro-female legislation and budgets.

If these constitute three separate entities which should work together, they are currently failing at that task. One could say that the collective will of the men’s movement is fragmented, confused and corrupted. The chariot is not really going anywhere and in many cases, crashing down to hell.

An academic view on the men’s movement

In order to illustrate the pattern, I will start by relating one academic pro-feminist’s experience of the other two movements, before providing a proposal for a mapping of the various elements.

Michael Kimmel is perhaps the most well-known leader of the academic pro-feminist men’s movement. In his book, “The Politics of Manhood: Profeminist Men Respond to the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement (And the Mythopoetic Leaders Answer)”¹⁷, he describes his experience in attending his first mythopoetic men’s workshop. While the workshop leader guides the men through getting in touch with their inner wildman through a series of exercises, Kimmel makes no attempt to hide that the experience is deeply unsettling for him. Scenes are painted of men romping around on all fours, playing at being animals, smelling, bumping into each other. Kimmel continuously returns to commenting on the texture of the carpet or the style of the decorations in the room. He obviously despises the animal-like “billy goat” style of masculinity.

As a Pro-feminist, Kimmel is very honest about his feelings of rejection by normal men. He expresses his frustration at how good, normal, middle class, hard-working men, are all flocking to the mythopoetics and rejecting him, despite his best efforts. Kimmel refuses or even is unable to enter into the earthy and animalistic world of the mythopoetic men. He has dedicated much time and effort to understanding them, but is astonished when they begin to express compassion and connection at the workshop. He goes into an academic discourse about their situation and the philosophical underpinnings of their work but ends up posing an ultimatum to the mythopoetics:

“The men of the mythopoetic men’s movement also face a choice… connecting themselves to the women’s movement, the gay and lesbian movement….Or they can retreat, in defensive anger.”¹⁸

Assuming a meta position, Kimmel is stating: There is no middle ground, there is no other perspective than mine, and there is no value in your way of seeing the world. Either you must agree with me, or you are my enemy.

If Kimmel sees the mythopoetics as a difficult phenomenon to understand, then he has no such difficulty in his analysis of the MRAs. In his book “Angry White Men”¹⁹, he gives his analysis of what he sees as the last cramps of a dying breed of white supremacists and fascists – to be replaced by what he imagines as the new Pro-feminist man. For Kimmel, MRAs are fundamentally evil and need to be cut off.

A mapping of the men’s movement

Hopefully the story above has provided the first outline of the placement of the three movements, which we will now map more formally according to the chariot allegory.

When we consider the charioteer as the “Reasoning” faculty of man, then our society’s reasoning faculty has been designated to academia. It is the role of academia to study, understand, and ultimately harness the world. Academia today has fully embraced the Pro-feminist perspective, and we can therefore describe the charioteer as “possessed” by Pro-feminism.

When it comes to the “dark horse” faculty of earthy desire and sexuality, it seems to clearly correspond to the experiential approach of the mythopoetic movement. Reconnecting men to their inner wildman, providing inspiration and creative energy for engaging more fully with the sacredness of primal life in tribal rituals and sacred spaces, the mythopoetics have broad “sex appeal” but lack a vision for society, a political project and a broader mission, other than looking after the immediate interests of their own tribe.

Lastly, we come to the light horse of the “irascible faculty”. This fits in very well with the political MRAs. These men have plenty of “thumos”²⁰, as in spirit, determination, and honour. They see the relationship with the pro-feminists as a battle which needs to be fought. Thus, because they have a vision for society, they compete with the charioteer for control. With anger as the primary motivation of the light horse, they are susceptible to being labeled as “angry white men” by the Pro-feminists, as we have seen. Thus they are ultimately unable to gain broader societal support for their cause, generally losing the public relations battle for “hearts and minds”.

The table below lays out the three faculties of the allegory, the various aspects identified, and the corresponding elements of the men’s movement.

Certainly in the story above, we have a clear image of a fragmented and disintegrating men’s movement, each strand with its own agenda and will, and no clear coordination. All three elements proclaim to have the same goal, but lacking a shared framework and understanding of their specific role, they end up with only a part of the story, with each party either fighting for control or ignoring the other and its perspective.

Conclusion and Perspective

The scope of this essay was to lay out a symbolic framework for a better understanding of the contemporary men’s movement. I started by presenting the idea of male and female as basic categories which appear as potential oppositions, and thus require balance mediated by a higher principle which unites while preserving each category’s individual identity and integrity. The concept of man as microcosm and mediator provides the context for the manner in which the symbolic patterns of masculine and feminine are connected across different levels. The allegory of the chariot provided us with a model for understanding how masculine and feminine energy must be understood, accepted and harnessed by reason in order to “bring together heaven and earth”. And finally a case study of the contemporary men’s movement illustrated how the same dynamic plays out at a personal and societal level.

How should we use all of this? One strength of St. Maximus’ idea of man as microcosm and mediator and of the symbolic framework in general is that it is clear where responsibility for the uniting of oppositions and the resolution of conflict lies — with ourselves. As in the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, this tried and tested solution recognises that, “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart”²¹.

Particularly at a time when it seems that the ground is shifting under our feet and the very fabric of reality is changing its texture, it is reassuring to know that the best contribution that one can make is “to be the change you wish to see in the world”. In this case, this means orientating one’s own faculty of reason towards the highest possible good. It means accepting, understanding and channeling the energy of the dark and light horses of desire and spirit. And it means achieving harmony with all of the elements and oppositions, without denying the uniqueness and integrity of each of the parts.

These are timeless truths. I will close off the essay with some words of wisdom engraved on a tomb in the crypts of Westminster Abbey of an Anglo-Saxon Bishop from 1100 C.E:

“When I was young and free and my imagination had no limits, I dreamed of changing the world.

As I grew older and wiser, I discovered the world would not change, so I shortened my sights somewhat and decided to change only my country.

But it too seemed immovable.

As I grew into my twilight years, in one last desperate attempt, I settled for changing only my family, those closest to me, but alas, they would have none of it.

And now as I lie on my deathbed, I suddenly realize: If I had only changed myself first, then by example I would have changed my family.

From their inspiration and encouragement, I would have then been able to better my country and, who knows, I may have even changed the world.”

1. There are many examples of this on the Symbolic World website. See for example, https://thesymbolicworld.com/videos/the-inversion-of-masculine-and-feminine-in-popular-culture-furman-college-talk/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy6cQaGuJHM[]
2. Pageau, Matthieu. Language of Creation. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. May 2018[]
3. Mikros kosmos means “little world” in Greek.[]
4. Thunberg, Lars. Microcosm and Mediator. p. 133. Open Court Publishing Company, November 1995.[]
5. Ibid. p. 184[]
6. The five oppositions which St. Maximus defines are: male and female, paradise and universe, heaven and earth, intelligible and sensible, the created and uncreated. See: Saint Maximus the Confessor.  Ambiguum 41, also in Quaest. ad. Thal. 48, 63.[]
7. Thunberg. Microcosm and Mediator. p. 139[]
8. While this idea was first formulated in Christianity, it has become embedded in most cultures as a “universal truth” as a goal or end state for spiritual enlightenment. It can also be found in contemporary “woke” culture and some forms of feminism in a bastardised form.[]
9. Examples of the use of the allegory of the chariot and its three constituent elements can be found throughout Western thought, all the way up to and including Freud’s concepts of id, ego and superego.[]
10. Plato. The Phaedrus Dialogue.[]
11. It should be noted that the distinction between the two horses as male and female was not a part of Plato’s original allegory but was an innovation by Philo of Alexandria, and also used by St Maximus. See more on page 168 of Platonic and Stoic Passions in Philo of Alexandria[]
12. Pageau. Language of Creation. Pp. 234 – 238.[]
13. Thunberg. Microcosm and Mediator. p. 210[]
14. Pageau. Language of Creation. Pp. 60 – 62, 234 – 238.[]
15. This view is perhaps best illustrated by the APA Guidelines for Treatment of Men and Boys, which espouses the view that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful”. A response from Jordan Peterson calls it an “an all-out assault on masculinity… and men”.[]
16. Tolkien fans will recognise the concept of mythopoeia as modern myth making: Wikipedia. Mythopoeia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythopoeia.[]
17. Kimmel, Michael. The Politics of Manhood: Profeminist Men Respond to the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement (And the Mythopoetic Leaders Answer). Temple University Press. January 2009[]
18. Kimmel. The Politics of Manhood. p. 10[]
19. Kimmel, Michael. Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. Bold Type Books. April 2017[]
20. Again on the Art of Manliness, see an excellent article for this aspect of the chariot allegory: McKay, Brett & Kate. Got Thumos? Art of Manliness. https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/got-thumos/[]
21. Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag Archipelago. Vintage Uk. December 2002[]