THE COMMODUS COMPLEX Debate by diagnosis has become a modern regularity
THE COMMODUS COMPLEX
Debate by diagnosis has become a modern regularity
Instead of simply saying that our opponents are misinformed, dead wrong or thoroughly evil, somewhere along the line we took a cue from the advocates of the talking cure. Now, someone who disagrees with us is suffering from a psychological illness or working through some adolescent trauma.
"So and so has daddy issues."
"Mommy didn't hug her enough."
"The media made me do it."
Debate by diagnosis bypasses meaningful debate. Often, what is determined to be "sick" or "sane" merely reveals a difference of opinion about human nature or what is best in life. On the other hand, there are some pretty common psychological phenomena that -- if they don't invalidate a man's every argument -- do seem to describe his motivations for taking a particular position.
If you're a farmer, it makes sense to take a position that protects small farms. If you're a woman trying to get ahead, it makes sense to take the position that women are "sisters in struggle." If you're a man who wants to cheat on his wife, it makes sense to say that monogamy doesn't work. People rationalize the things that they believe to be in their best interest and the things they want to do anyway. People find reasons to hate the people who never liked them.
The catch-all "phobia" has proved a runaway hit, mainly for the political Left. Framing things in terms of fear and insecurity allows the Left to emasculate and invalidate opponents. The Left claims to represent "progress," so if you voice an objection, you must be afraid of "progress." Now, if you think their idea of "progress" is going to turn your neighborly, sun-dappled hometown of Mayberry into a lawless Third World shithole, and the evidence seems to support that conclusion, it's actually pretty rational to be afraid of "progress." But you're not really afraid of "progress" in the way that people with arachnophobia are afraid of spiders. A phobia is technically defined as an "irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people." The key word here is irrational. Fear and concern can be completely rational, but when someone diagnoses you as "whatever – phobic," the burden of proving that your concerns are in fact rational somehow falls on you. The phobia bit works so well that it's gotten completely out of hand. What started out as "homophobia" gave way to "transphobia." Then came "Islamophobia." The other day, someone accused me of both "Obamaphobia" and "Oprahphobia." The phobia has long since jumped the shark.
Why should the Left have all the fun? Debate by diagnosis is easy. Sometimes it's right on the money. And let's be honest, most people only reject the ad hominem attack when they disagree with the person making it.
Not too many people have read or seen Oedipus Rex these days. A lot of people have seen the film Gladiator (2000), so it's a good common point of reference.
This completely fictionalized exchange between Marcus Aurelius and Commodus takes place after Marcus Aurelius has told his son that Commodus will not succeed him as Emperor, and that Maximus, a better man by any standard, will be entrusted with the Roman Republic. It may be sword and sandal melodrama, but it reveals much about many.
Commodus: Maximus?
Marcus Aurelius: Yes. My decision disappoints you?
Commodus: You wrote to me once, listing the four chief virtues: Wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance. As I read the list, I knew I had none of them. But I have other virtues, father. Ambition. That can be a virtue when it drives us to excel. Resourcefulness, courage, perhaps not on the battlefield, but... there are many forms of courage. Devotion, to my family and to you. But none of my virtues were on your list. Even then it was as if you didn't want me for your son. Marcus Aurelius: Oh, Commodus. You go too far.
Commodus: I search the faces of the gods... for ways to please you, to make you proud. One kind word, one full hug... where you pressed me to your chest and held me tight…would have been like the sun on my heart for a thousand years. What is it in me that you hate so much? Marcus Aurelius: Shh, Commodus.
Commodus: All I've ever wanted was to live up to you, Caesar. Father.
Marcus Aurelius: [Marcus Aurelius gets down on his knees] Commodus. Your faults as a son are my failures as a father. Come [Gives Commodus a hug]
Commodus: [Commodus hugs Marcus and cries] Father. I would butcher the whole world... if you would only love me!
If you've seen the film, you know that Commodus then smothers his own elderly father, claims his father's title, attempts to kill Maximus and slaughters the better man's family out of pure spite. But in the scene above, we see Commodus' spiritual weakness, the kernel of his patricidal rage. Instead of working to embody his father's Classical virtues, Commodus finds himself at what he perceives to be a natural disadvantage, and he begins a process of ressentiment. He rationalizes his own vices and portrays them as virtues.
You can see the Commodus Complex in women when they promote concepts like "emotional intelligence." Obese overeaters who see themselves as "big and beautiful" or "normal" have Commodus Complexes, and they pass them on to their children. The minimum wage bicycling barista who can't afford a car becomes a Commodus when he dons his "ONE LESS CAR" t-shirt and cranks on about "wars for oil" and the unholy wickedness of SUVs. It's uncomfortably obvious when effeminate intellectuals like Michael Kimmel pen bitchy screeds cataloguing the villainy of athletic frat boys. You can see it plainly in the homosexuals who rant about the evils of heteronormativity, and in the tantrums of trannies who refer to people who like their own naughty bits and the roles that come with them as "cisgendered" or "overgendered." The lactose intolerant vegan who lectures people about the unhealthfulness of dairy products is a personal favorite.
The Commodus Complex describes a certain constitutional laziness and lends righteousness to weakness. The aspirational ideal -- the idea that it is through self-discipline and hard work that we improve ourselves -- is completely lost on a Commodus. It's easier to slide downward than it is to climb upward, especially when you realize that you probably don't have what it takes to make it to the top. Instead of doing the best you can with what you've got and accepting a supporting role in the world, it is easier to craft a worldview where everyone else is wrong, and you're the one who's got the right stuff. A Commodus must "butcher the world" and remake it in his or her own image.
Thanks to Jack Donovan for this excellent article!
http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2010_debate.shtml
Debate by diagnosis has become a modern regularity
Instead of simply saying that our opponents are misinformed, dead wrong or thoroughly evil, somewhere along the line we took a cue from the advocates of the talking cure. Now, someone who disagrees with us is suffering from a psychological illness or working through some adolescent trauma.
"So and so has daddy issues."
"Mommy didn't hug her enough."
"The media made me do it."
Debate by diagnosis bypasses meaningful debate. Often, what is determined to be "sick" or "sane" merely reveals a difference of opinion about human nature or what is best in life. On the other hand, there are some pretty common psychological phenomena that -- if they don't invalidate a man's every argument -- do seem to describe his motivations for taking a particular position.
If you're a farmer, it makes sense to take a position that protects small farms. If you're a woman trying to get ahead, it makes sense to take the position that women are "sisters in struggle." If you're a man who wants to cheat on his wife, it makes sense to say that monogamy doesn't work. People rationalize the things that they believe to be in their best interest and the things they want to do anyway. People find reasons to hate the people who never liked them.
The catch-all "phobia" has proved a runaway hit, mainly for the political Left. Framing things in terms of fear and insecurity allows the Left to emasculate and invalidate opponents. The Left claims to represent "progress," so if you voice an objection, you must be afraid of "progress." Now, if you think their idea of "progress" is going to turn your neighborly, sun-dappled hometown of Mayberry into a lawless Third World shithole, and the evidence seems to support that conclusion, it's actually pretty rational to be afraid of "progress." But you're not really afraid of "progress" in the way that people with arachnophobia are afraid of spiders. A phobia is technically defined as an "irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people." The key word here is irrational. Fear and concern can be completely rational, but when someone diagnoses you as "whatever – phobic," the burden of proving that your concerns are in fact rational somehow falls on you. The phobia bit works so well that it's gotten completely out of hand. What started out as "homophobia" gave way to "transphobia." Then came "Islamophobia." The other day, someone accused me of both "Obamaphobia" and "Oprahphobia." The phobia has long since jumped the shark.
Why should the Left have all the fun? Debate by diagnosis is easy. Sometimes it's right on the money. And let's be honest, most people only reject the ad hominem attack when they disagree with the person making it.
Not too many people have read or seen Oedipus Rex these days. A lot of people have seen the film Gladiator (2000), so it's a good common point of reference.
This completely fictionalized exchange between Marcus Aurelius and Commodus takes place after Marcus Aurelius has told his son that Commodus will not succeed him as Emperor, and that Maximus, a better man by any standard, will be entrusted with the Roman Republic. It may be sword and sandal melodrama, but it reveals much about many.
Commodus: Maximus?
Marcus Aurelius: Yes. My decision disappoints you?
Commodus: You wrote to me once, listing the four chief virtues: Wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance. As I read the list, I knew I had none of them. But I have other virtues, father. Ambition. That can be a virtue when it drives us to excel. Resourcefulness, courage, perhaps not on the battlefield, but... there are many forms of courage. Devotion, to my family and to you. But none of my virtues were on your list. Even then it was as if you didn't want me for your son. Marcus Aurelius: Oh, Commodus. You go too far.
Commodus: I search the faces of the gods... for ways to please you, to make you proud. One kind word, one full hug... where you pressed me to your chest and held me tight…would have been like the sun on my heart for a thousand years. What is it in me that you hate so much? Marcus Aurelius: Shh, Commodus.
Commodus: All I've ever wanted was to live up to you, Caesar. Father.
Marcus Aurelius: [Marcus Aurelius gets down on his knees] Commodus. Your faults as a son are my failures as a father. Come [Gives Commodus a hug]
Commodus: [Commodus hugs Marcus and cries] Father. I would butcher the whole world... if you would only love me!
If you've seen the film, you know that Commodus then smothers his own elderly father, claims his father's title, attempts to kill Maximus and slaughters the better man's family out of pure spite. But in the scene above, we see Commodus' spiritual weakness, the kernel of his patricidal rage. Instead of working to embody his father's Classical virtues, Commodus finds himself at what he perceives to be a natural disadvantage, and he begins a process of ressentiment. He rationalizes his own vices and portrays them as virtues.
You can see the Commodus Complex in women when they promote concepts like "emotional intelligence." Obese overeaters who see themselves as "big and beautiful" or "normal" have Commodus Complexes, and they pass them on to their children. The minimum wage bicycling barista who can't afford a car becomes a Commodus when he dons his "ONE LESS CAR" t-shirt and cranks on about "wars for oil" and the unholy wickedness of SUVs. It's uncomfortably obvious when effeminate intellectuals like Michael Kimmel pen bitchy screeds cataloguing the villainy of athletic frat boys. You can see it plainly in the homosexuals who rant about the evils of heteronormativity, and in the tantrums of trannies who refer to people who like their own naughty bits and the roles that come with them as "cisgendered" or "overgendered." The lactose intolerant vegan who lectures people about the unhealthfulness of dairy products is a personal favorite.
The Commodus Complex describes a certain constitutional laziness and lends righteousness to weakness. The aspirational ideal -- the idea that it is through self-discipline and hard work that we improve ourselves -- is completely lost on a Commodus. It's easier to slide downward than it is to climb upward, especially when you realize that you probably don't have what it takes to make it to the top. Instead of doing the best you can with what you've got and accepting a supporting role in the world, it is easier to craft a worldview where everyone else is wrong, and you're the one who's got the right stuff. A Commodus must "butcher the world" and remake it in his or her own image.
Thanks to Jack Donovan for this excellent article!
http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2010_debate.shtml
