Conservative Apocalypse: An Unintellectual Alpha Male
They [the intellectual] assert that the concept of “Individualism,” which is evocative of the idea of “I,” is immoral, because an individualist has the will to rape the interests of others for furthering his own self-interests.
“[Postmodernists believe that] science betrays its elitism, sexism, and destructiveness… by having chosen the phallic symbol ‘i’ to represent the square root of negative one—by asserting its desire to‚ “conquer” nature and‚ “penetrate” her secrets—and, having done so, by having its technology consummate the rape by building bigger and longer missiles to blow things up.”
~ This quote is from “Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault,” by Professor Stephen Hicks.
Many intellectuals want us to believe that “I” is a phallic symbol and a projection of barbaric strength. They assert that the concept of “Individualism,” which is evocative of the idea of “I,” is immoral, because an individualist has the will to rape the interests of others for furthering his own self-interests.
The intellectuals often see phallic symbolism in missiles. They say that the missiles (and even the bullets) have been designed by men in the typical “I” shape, not because of the laws of aerodynamics, but because the creators of these weapons want to awe people with a symbolic representation of the phallus. Some intellectuals have compared the mushroom cloud, which happens when the nuclear missile strikes its target, with orgasm.
The idea of a phallus being the symbol of political power and military strength is as old as civilization itself—it is a premodern idea, which continues to remain relevant, in the so-called postmodern world. However, this idea is not always directly related to “maleness,” a few female rulers in history have also been credited with possessing phallic power by historians and other commentators.
During the Enlightenment, when people began to recognize the power of reason, the idea of phallic symbolism for political power was on its way to becoming irrelevant. But the concept has been rescued and revitalized by postmodern intellectuals like Foucault, who were experts in pushing sexualized imagery for scoring political and cultural points.
In his book, Explaining Postmodernism, Stephen Hicks says that Postmodernism was able to defeat the Enlightenment by taking advantage of the weaknesses that are there in the Enlightenment’s account of reason. Here’s an excerpt:
“Postmodernism emerged as a social force among intellectuals because in the humanities the Counter-Enlightenment defeated the Enlightenment. The weakness of the Enlightenment account of reason was its fatal flaw. Postmodernism’s extreme skepticism, subjectivism, and relativism are the results of a two-centuries-long epistemological battle. That battle is the story of pro-reason intellectuals trying to defend realist accounts of perception, concepts, logic, but gradually giving ground and abandoning the field while the anti-reason intellectuals advanced in the sophistication of their arguments and developed increasingly non-rational alternatives. Postmodernism is the end result of the Counter-Enlightenment attack on reason.”
Due to the efforts of the postmodern intellectuals, the premodern idea of phallic power in politics has taken root in contemporary political movements. Now there is widespread belief in the idea that a strong ruler is necessary to preserve a better way of life. Some commentators are now openly making a case for an “alpha-male” political leader. The alpha male idea is characterized as someone who maintains superiority by surpassing all challengers in raw physical power—in brute strength.
Politicians across party lines, across nations, seem to believe in such ideas, and so do their supporters. For instance, Donald Trump, during a recent televised debate, said: “Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, he referred to my hands – ‘if they’re small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.”
Mr. Trump’s intention was definitely not to defend the size of his “thing,” he was only trying to tell his supporters that because he has a “big thing,” he also has the “will to exercise political power” for solving every problem that the citizens of USA face. His supporters, who are mostly conservative, actually believed this. They cheered him for saying these words and a few commentators proclaimed that he was the quintessential “alpha-male” that the USA needed.
Today’s conservatives are postmodern conservatives—they have accepted the postmodernist idea that you don’t need “ideas” to succeed in politics, you only need to project brute strength.
The “alpha-male,” of the conservatives, is not a man with “alpha-ideas” or “alpha-intellect,” he seems like a man whose forte lies solely in the exercise of sexual and political power.
I am not claiming that Mr. Trump does not have any ideas, or that he does not have an intellect—I am certainly not alleging that Mr. Trump has the desire to wield brute political power. I am only pointing out that his “alpha-male” characterization is getting maximum attention, as if this is the only quality that matters to his supporters and to some of the political commentators.
These conservatives believe that an “alpha-male,” with ultimate political power, is all that is needed to rescue their society from all kinds of complicated problems—threat of terror attacks, rampaging socialism, bad economic conditions, failing schools and hospitals, crumbling infrastructure, politically correct media, and much else.
Today’s conservatives are postmodern conservatives—they have accepted the postmodernist idea that you don’t need “ideas” to succeed in politics, you only need to project brute strength. They no longer believe in the power of “ideas.” They believe that the solution to all their political problems lies with an “alpha-male” kind of a figure, who will ruthlessly exercise political power to “make America great again.”
About the Author: Anoop Verma
« Using Your “Sixth Sense” to Change Your Life Book Review: Explaining Postmodernism, by Stephen Hicks »
