My Masculinity, and Pragmatism in Identity Formation

I frequently reject social constructions of what it means to "be a man." I simply don't like the idea that being a man means going to the gym so you can look like Paul Giamati... I mean Brad Pitt, sorry; displaying as much emotion as Keanu Reeves; and walking around with a sense of self-importance the size of Donald Trump's (it's actually been estimated that his sense of self-worth tops the Empire State Building for tallest facade in New York City). Regardless, I just don't like these generalizations very much.

Yet there is one area in which I consider myself like "most men." This is in my love of sports. I don't love all sports, and I tend to love different ones from the stereotypical men in this country, but I love them nonetheless. Football is clearly at the top, but I also enjoy watching/following cycling, tennis, the olympics, and auto racing - primarily open-wheel (IRL and Formula 1). I also thoroughly enjoy playing competitive sports.

Many psychologists find that men use competition, especially in sports, to attempt to prove how masculine they are, and I must admit that in observing my actions of the past weekend, I, too, have fallen into this category. In our first indoor co-ed intramural football game, we played very well (better than our opponents), but due to some injustices (their last goal went through the side netting) and missed chances (especially on my part), we lost 6-5. I was livid - absolutely livid. Our opponents treated us like shit (trash-talking, and some refusing to shake some of our hands at the end), but I also succumbed to the pettiness of trying to my profusion of testicular fortitude (to put a totally ineloquent concept eloquently - I hope).

I am usually able to keep a pretty good lid on things, but whether due to the inadequacy of my own performance on the field (I did, however, manage a bicycle kick on target) or the great sense of injustice in losing unjustly to classless bastards, I was totally out of control. What I said is irrelevent, although not particularly vulgur for male college standards, but the fact that I descended to this level is significant.

So far, this has probably sounded like an apology of sorts. And while I am sorry for the fact that other people had to put up with my acrimony, I can't call this an apology, for I don't regret my actions. (I see regret as a necessary part of an apology. An apology means, "I regret my actions. I wish I had done 'x.' And I promise to try not to do 'x' again in the future.") So I don't offer an apology in the formal sense of the term. Part of the reason is that there was something strangely liberating about going off on people who deserve it.

Since I have been at Dickinson, I have tried not to offend people. I have tried to build an image. I think I have succeeded in being perceived as an intelligent, caring, respectful person. I promise that this conduct will not enter other aspects of my life, but I think (for now at least) that I will continue to let my passions fly on the competitive sports field. After all, this is the one area afforded men to be emotional in our society. If I reject the notion that men should be afforded exclusively the sports realm for emotional release, but rather should be allowed emotional expressivity in other aspects of life, this should not preclude me from allowing myself to be emotional about sports.

So why have I chosen to share this particular anecdote from my life? Well, in part, it has been on mind a lot because it something so out of the ordinary for me, but additionally, I believe it illuminates something about identity formation in general.

I believe that frequently, when we think about who we are and who we want to be, we find it necessary that there be some congruence between who we are in the various aspects of our life. We say, "I want to be a nice person," and in expressing this desire, "always" is implied, for a nice person isn't nice sometimes, but always. We have the idea that if I am mean today, I cannot be a nice person. I believe this notion not only naive, but also totally unworkable.

William James, one of the foremost scholars of Pragmatism (in the philosophical movement sense of the term), identifies that the pragmatist is willing to take the best of both worlds in order to form a more perfect conception of what is true. When he refers to both worlds, he is referring to the Empiricist and the Rational world. Insofar as the result of believing this or that to be true produces a positive result and is not contradictory to others of our beliefs, any belief is acceptable. (As a note of clarification, this does not allow for an outright rejection of evidence because it does not fit what we believe.)

I see identity formation drawing on the best of a variety of worlds. What can be a positive character trait in one circumstance in one situation can be a negative trait in another situation. Living by some rules-based system of who you should be simply makes no sense, for you cannot possibly account for all the possible scenarios in which it might be beneficial for your identity to be slightly different. Furthermore, the idea that we have some static identity is totally ludicrous. I have taken that as an assumed point of agreement. This way of looking at identity allows me to be shy in some circumstances , outgoing in others, caring in some, emotionally detached in others, embracing of society's norms for men in some, rejecting of society's norms for men in others, etc., etc., etc. And all of these have their benefits.

Our general system of rules which tells us that we must always be nice, or that we must always express similar character traits for fear of betraying ourselves is absurd. We have aphorisms like the golden rule because they provide a general guideline for how it is best to behave in most situations. Rules based systems are generally absurd. Take for example one of the ten commandments, "thou shalt not kill." Now imagine the famous thought experiment in which there is a train car going down a hill and it is headed towards a group of five people who can't get out of the way. You, however, have the opportunity to throw a switch to get the car to go down a different path where there is only one person. You are incapable of throwing the switch because you operate in a rules based system in which saving five people requires the killing of one.

So finally, let me conclude this hulk of a blogpost. I acted irrationally and rudely on Sunday at a sporting competition. This was the result of my embrace of emotion in the sports realm - something that is traditionally valued by society. At the same time, I am rejecting the notion that I have to follow all of society's rules about how men should behave. I have no issues crying at a good movie (I suggest Planet Earth [that was a joke - sorry if you cried during that, mom]). As I explained, the pragmatic approach teaches us that we may accept what is good from some systems while rejecting what we don't like, so long as our acceptances and rejections do not contradict others of our established beliefs. This may seem totological, but it is too often overlooked in modern society.