Hyper-Masculinity and Militarism
Shakespeare's Coriolanus in Process Perspective
He sees himself as autonomous, brave, and self-made. If people admire him, it’s for his strength —his power to dominate others. This is what he values in himself. He refuses to show vulnerability, especially to those he deems inferior, hiding his wounds and revealing only his power. Simple human affections—care, sympathy, laughter, tenderness, warmth—are foreign to him.
He is known and admired for his ferocity and valor, embodying a warrior mentality. Honor in combat —avoiding embarrassment and shame—is among his highest values. He has a violent temper but finds something beautiful, something glorious, in violence. Raised with Roman values, the Christian idea of "turning the other cheek" is alien to him. People who are soft are "weak" and "losers." He can be vicious toward his critics but has a strange affinity for others with a warrior-like mentality, especially if they are powerful leaders. He makes peace with his enemies not from compassion but because of their strength.
Coriolanus
I am referring, of course, to Coriolanus in Shakespeare's play of the same name, whose unyielding pride and disdain for the common people ultimately lead to his downfall. His inability to embrace vulnerability or connect with others isolates him, turning potential allies into enemies.
Coriolanus defines himself almost entirely by his abilities as a soldier. His identity is rooted in war and conflict, making him incapable of functioning in other contexts, particularly in the nuanced world of politics. He respects only strength, viewing vulnerability as weakness and dismissing anyone who doesn't conform to his martial ideals.
He projects this image—his "superject," to use Whitehead’s term—through various forms of self-presentation. He refuses to show weakness even after being wounded, wearing his scars as symbols of honor. His interactions with others are filled with disdain, asserting his superiority without compromise. In public speeches, he exudes rigidity and detachment from the common people, reinforcing his image as above ordinary citizens. His body language, fiery tone, and rejection of affection all present him as the hardened, invincible warrior, aiming to dominate rather than connect.
From a Whiteheadian perspective, his downfall stems from his inflexibility. Coriolanus is unable to adapt to circumstances—whether in war, politics, or personal relationships. His rigidity and lack of empathy make him seem cold and unyielding.
His relationship with his mother, Volumnia, adds another dimension. He is deeply influenced by her, especially in his career and ambitions. Her values shape his obsession with honor and martial valor. Their dynamic reveals a complex relationality: they are interdependent, with him appearing more as an extension of her will than an autonomous figure. She is arguably the most compelling character in the play.
A Crack in the Armor?
There is some suggestion, toward the end, that Coriolanus undergoes a transformation into something more human. This occurs when he listens to his mother and agrees to spare Rome from destruction. In that moment, he is moved by familial love and a sense of duty beyond personal pride—something alien to his warrior ethos.
This brief transformation reveals a crack in his otherwise impenetrable armor. He is, for a moment, touched by a relational sensibility, transcending his rigid self-definition as a warrior. In Whiteheadian terms, this is a "creative advance" where Coriolanus steps into a new possibility for being—one involving genuine responsiveness to others and self-transcendence.
Yet this shift leads directly to his demise. In sparing Rome, he betrays his allies, who see his actions as a failure of strength. His decision to show vulnerability and mercy elevates him momentarily but also costs him his life. Thus, his tragic end underscores the tension between the identity he rigidly maintained and the fleeting possibility of transformation that he ultimately could not sustain.
Coriolanus’s story powerfully explores the limitations of hyper-masculine self-presentation. His downfall illustrates the inherent dangers of refusing to adapt, resisting relationality, and rejecting vulnerability. His inability to integrate these qualities—essential to a fully lived human experience—isolates him and seals his fate. His tragedy, therefore, is not just the failure of a soldier but the failure to embrace the very aspects of humanity that could have saved him.
Hyper-Masculinity and Militarism in a Contemporary Context
In today's world, hyper-masculinity and militarism remain deeply entrenched in many cultural, political, and social structures. Hyper-masculinity glorifies aggressive behavior, emotional suppression, and the use of power to dominate others, while militarism fosters a belief in the necessity and nobility of military strength and readiness for conflict. Together, they contribute to a worldview that prioritizes domination over dialogue, strength over vulnerability, and warfare over peace.
These attitudes are often reflected in contemporary popular culture, politics, and even education. In media, hyper-masculine characters are idealized as heroes, reinforcing stereotypes about what it means to "be a man." In politics, militaristic language and metaphors are used to frame policy discussions, making aggression and force seem like the only viable options in international relations. Schools and sports environments sometimes perpetuate hyper-masculine ideals, valuing toughness over empathy and fostering a culture where competition overrides collaboration.
The consequences of this hyper-masculinity and militarism are felt not only in the geopolitical sphere—where conflicts are escalated rather than resolved through peaceful means—but also in interpersonal relationships, where emotional disconnection can lead to violence, discrimination, and mental health struggles. Addressing these issues requires reimagining what it means to be strong, shifting from the notion of power as dominance to power as the capacity to nurture, heal, and cooperate. A move towards valuing vulnerability, empathy, and peace over aggression can challenge hyper-masculinity and create a more equitable and compassionate society.
He is known and admired for his ferocity and valor, embodying a warrior mentality. Honor in combat —avoiding embarrassment and shame—is among his highest values. He has a violent temper but finds something beautiful, something glorious, in violence. Raised with Roman values, the Christian idea of "turning the other cheek" is alien to him. People who are soft are "weak" and "losers." He can be vicious toward his critics but has a strange affinity for others with a warrior-like mentality, especially if they are powerful leaders. He makes peace with his enemies not from compassion but because of their strength.
Coriolanus
I am referring, of course, to Coriolanus in Shakespeare's play of the same name, whose unyielding pride and disdain for the common people ultimately lead to his downfall. His inability to embrace vulnerability or connect with others isolates him, turning potential allies into enemies.
Coriolanus defines himself almost entirely by his abilities as a soldier. His identity is rooted in war and conflict, making him incapable of functioning in other contexts, particularly in the nuanced world of politics. He respects only strength, viewing vulnerability as weakness and dismissing anyone who doesn't conform to his martial ideals.
He projects this image—his "superject," to use Whitehead’s term—through various forms of self-presentation. He refuses to show weakness even after being wounded, wearing his scars as symbols of honor. His interactions with others are filled with disdain, asserting his superiority without compromise. In public speeches, he exudes rigidity and detachment from the common people, reinforcing his image as above ordinary citizens. His body language, fiery tone, and rejection of affection all present him as the hardened, invincible warrior, aiming to dominate rather than connect.
From a Whiteheadian perspective, his downfall stems from his inflexibility. Coriolanus is unable to adapt to circumstances—whether in war, politics, or personal relationships. His rigidity and lack of empathy make him seem cold and unyielding.
His relationship with his mother, Volumnia, adds another dimension. He is deeply influenced by her, especially in his career and ambitions. Her values shape his obsession with honor and martial valor. Their dynamic reveals a complex relationality: they are interdependent, with him appearing more as an extension of her will than an autonomous figure. She is arguably the most compelling character in the play.
A Crack in the Armor?
There is some suggestion, toward the end, that Coriolanus undergoes a transformation into something more human. This occurs when he listens to his mother and agrees to spare Rome from destruction. In that moment, he is moved by familial love and a sense of duty beyond personal pride—something alien to his warrior ethos.
This brief transformation reveals a crack in his otherwise impenetrable armor. He is, for a moment, touched by a relational sensibility, transcending his rigid self-definition as a warrior. In Whiteheadian terms, this is a "creative advance" where Coriolanus steps into a new possibility for being—one involving genuine responsiveness to others and self-transcendence.
Yet this shift leads directly to his demise. In sparing Rome, he betrays his allies, who see his actions as a failure of strength. His decision to show vulnerability and mercy elevates him momentarily but also costs him his life. Thus, his tragic end underscores the tension between the identity he rigidly maintained and the fleeting possibility of transformation that he ultimately could not sustain.
Coriolanus’s story powerfully explores the limitations of hyper-masculine self-presentation. His downfall illustrates the inherent dangers of refusing to adapt, resisting relationality, and rejecting vulnerability. His inability to integrate these qualities—essential to a fully lived human experience—isolates him and seals his fate. His tragedy, therefore, is not just the failure of a soldier but the failure to embrace the very aspects of humanity that could have saved him.
Hyper-Masculinity and Militarism in a Contemporary Context
In today's world, hyper-masculinity and militarism remain deeply entrenched in many cultural, political, and social structures. Hyper-masculinity glorifies aggressive behavior, emotional suppression, and the use of power to dominate others, while militarism fosters a belief in the necessity and nobility of military strength and readiness for conflict. Together, they contribute to a worldview that prioritizes domination over dialogue, strength over vulnerability, and warfare over peace.
These attitudes are often reflected in contemporary popular culture, politics, and even education. In media, hyper-masculine characters are idealized as heroes, reinforcing stereotypes about what it means to "be a man." In politics, militaristic language and metaphors are used to frame policy discussions, making aggression and force seem like the only viable options in international relations. Schools and sports environments sometimes perpetuate hyper-masculine ideals, valuing toughness over empathy and fostering a culture where competition overrides collaboration.
The consequences of this hyper-masculinity and militarism are felt not only in the geopolitical sphere—where conflicts are escalated rather than resolved through peaceful means—but also in interpersonal relationships, where emotional disconnection can lead to violence, discrimination, and mental health struggles. Addressing these issues requires reimagining what it means to be strong, shifting from the notion of power as dominance to power as the capacity to nurture, heal, and cooperate. A move towards valuing vulnerability, empathy, and peace over aggression can challenge hyper-masculinity and create a more equitable and compassionate society.
Video Adaptations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plot Summary
Coriolanus is a tragedy by William Shakespeare that follows the rise and fall of a Roman general named Caius Martius, later known as Coriolanus. The play explores themes of pride, politics, and the relationship between the individual and society.
Plot Summary:
- Victory and Pride: The play begins with Caius Martius leading the Roman army to victory against the Volscians, particularly in the city of Corioles. His valor earns him the name "Coriolanus." However, his pride and disdain for the common people of Rome make him a controversial figure.
- Political Ambitions: After his victory, Coriolanus is persuaded by his mother, Volumnia, to run for consul. Despite his military prowess, he struggles with the political machinations of Rome, as he holds the commoners in contempt. His inability to flatter the plebeians leads to public outrage.
- Exile: Following a series of events, including a confrontation with the tribunes who represent the common people, Coriolanus is exiled from Rome. Feeling betrayed by the city he defended, he vows revenge against Rome.
- Alliance with the Enemy: Coriolanus allies himself with the Volscian general, Aufidius, and plots to attack Rome. He struggles with his identity as a Roman and his desire for vengeance.
- Conflict and Tragedy: As the Volscians advance on Rome, Coriolanus's mother, Volumnia, along with his wife and child, plead with him to spare the city. Torn between his duty to his country and his loyalty to his family, Coriolanus ultimately decides to spare Rome, returning to peace.
- Downfall: Coriolanus's change of heart angers Aufidius and the Volscians, leading to a betrayal. He is ultimately killed by Aufidius's forces, marking the tragic end of a noble yet flawed hero who could not reconcile his personal beliefs with the complexities of politics and society.