We aren’t asking the right question about “toxic-masculinity”.
Two things are interesting about Toxic-masculinity: 1. Whether as an idea it is any more credible than “toxic-femininity!”, 2. That political campaigners manage to create new coinage, in particular that which fuses an identity group with a specific attribute, which then infect the public consciousness, such as “toxic-masculinity” and “white-privilege”.
Now it isn’t as if these things don’t exist that matters, what matters is this new coinage and the frequency at which we encounter it highlights these phenomena but more importantly it injects them into the thought-process, whereas before there may have been no such thoughts. There is a certain determinism in the bringing to bear and liberal use of a language which points at these things. The idea of them is raised to highlight and brought to prominence though the construction and use of catchphrases which become a popular signage.
The subterfuge is powerful because one cannot discuss such things without pointing at them irrespective of ones own political position. It becomes an intentionally constructed linguistic analogy with “don’t think of a koala bear eating eucalyptus”. One must think of the thing being discussed in order to be able to discuss it.
When Dawkins popularised memetics, the notion of idea which travel and live and die like organisms and which are subject to evolutionary laws as they grow and become more sophisticated of wither and die he didn’t predict people who might take an engineering approach to the topic. If ideas can be compared to living psychological organisms then one can perhaps apply thoughts of genetics to them and then to those who deliberately apply genetic methods to them as the genetic engineers of ideas. The creators of a memetic germ warfare.
Something which is perhaps taken into account too little when considering the political battles invoked by these ideas it’s that very often one side or the other do not only have differing political ideas they also have different functional abilities. Those entering the political territory from the left often enter into it from a more highly trained intellectual facility. Journalists and academics. People for whom there is a credible advantage in the war of words.
The new coinage tends to emerge from within the political left and those who are in a position to ensure what are at their hearts very-long-term political and social engineering campaigns are then liberally dispersed within the mass media both in newsprint and on television. The discussion of these newly forged political phrases pressed them into the mind and therefore into the public consciousness.
Familiarity in many cases rather than breeding contempt actually brings about a cognitive easing. Whereas there may have been a reaction to the idea of white-privilege at first, after long exposure resistance relaxes and changes, it can become just another common phrase and as that occurs it leads more easily to acceptance as it becomes the new familiar. White privilege began as a horrific idea to some and in response explanations were published putting cognitive flesh to the bones. What about the white homeless person? They will experience reduced resistance against trying to regain an advantage. Such is the explanation. We understand better now and understanding, alongside familiarity, is a tool of acceptance. Comprehension is a crucial step towards acceptance and ideas made easier to understand are naturally more apt to obtain acceptance than ideas which are hard to understand. Ideas comprehended tend to become sensible to the mind.
The ideas then become accepted, even without there having to be any convincing investigation, into whether or not they are valid. Without there being any real enquiry into whether or not they are important or the most important thing for us to think about.
