The Moral Frameworks of Masculinity: Towards a More Integrative Self
Author
Troelsgaard, Niklas Rosenkilde
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2026
Submitted on
2026-05-29
Abstract
This project examines contemporary online discussions about masculinity, with a particular focus on the moral values and ideals they promote, and how these are justified using philosophical and psychological ideas. The starting point is the claim, made by several prominent figures in these debates, that masculinity is in crisis. Two central voices are Canadian clinical psychologist and author Jordan B. Peterson and author and blogger Rollo Tomassi, who both offer strong views on what it means to be a man in late modern society. The project uses several theoretical perspectives to create a more nuanced understanding of these discourses. It draws on Carl Jung’s analytical psychology, Friedrich Nietzsche’s moral philosophy, Charles Taylor’s theory of authenticity and moral horizons, and Hubert Hermans’ Dialogical Self Theory. These theories are applied through hermeneutic, interpretive analysis, where statements, narratives, and symbols are read in relation to the broader cultural and moral contexts in which they appear. The analysis shows that many current masculinity discourses emphasize aggression as a necessary and legitimate part of healthy masculinity, especially when aggression is subordinated to responsibility, order, discipline, and service to something larger than oneself. In Peterson’s discourse, an ideal emerges that the project describes as “the disciplined warrior” or “responsible monster.” This ideal represents a synthesis between aggression and moral responsibility, where violent or primal impulses are seen as acceptable if they are controlled through self-discipline and dedication to a higher purpose. This stands in contrast to the more radical parts of the so-called “manosphere,” represented by Tomassi and the “alpha male” ideal. Here, aggression and dominance are more loosely connected to explicit moral goals and are instead directed toward self-optimization, hierarchical competition, strategic emotional regulation, and increasing “sexual market value.” Relationships and authenticity are often treated as tools, while emotional restraint and control are presented as necessary to maintain status and dominance. The project argues that these values reflect what Charles Taylor calls “instrumental reason,” where the question “what is a good life?” is replaced by “how do I win?”. The discussion reframes the idea of a “masculinity crisis” and suggests that it is better understood as a gendered version of a deeper existential crisis. The transition from traditional forms of society to pluralistic and highly individualized late modern societies has made many people more vulnerable to feelings of identity fragmentation. This development is interpreted through Viktor Frankl’s concept of the “existential vacuum” – a sense of emptiness, meaninglessness, and lack of direction. The project proposes that contemporary masculinity discourses can be seen as attempts to respond to this existential vacuum and to restore stability, purpose, direction, and meaning, which helps explain why these frameworks appeal to many young men. At the same time, the project argues that these models of masculinity risk becoming psychologically one‑sided by overemphasizing aspects such as aggression while sidelining others, such as vulnerability. Finally, the project presents possible alternatives to the existential vacuum by suggesting a more integrative and dialogical understanding of masculinity. Drawing on Stoicism, Nietzsche’s distinction between Apollonian and Dionysian elements of existence, Jung’s archetypes of Anima and Animus, and Dialogical Self Theory, the project outlines an ideal of masculinity based on synthesis and ongoing dialogue between different – often opposing – parts of the self. The aim is not to elevate one set of traits over another, but to sustain an inner dialogue between strength and weakness, vulnerability and aggression, masculinity and femininity, without fragmenting the self or collapsing into rigid ideals where one “voice” continually dominates the others.
Dette projekt undersøger nutidige, online debatter om maskulinitet med særligt fokus på, hvilke moralske værdier og idealer der formidles, og hvordan de begrundes gennem filosofiske og psykologiske idéer. Udgangspunktet er antagelsen fra flere centrale stemmer i debatten om, at maskulinitet befinder sig i en krise. Blandt disse stemmer er den canadiske psykolog og forfatter Jordan B. Peterson og forfatteren og bloggeren Rollo Tomassi, som begge formulerer klare bud på, hvad det vil sige at være mand i senmoderniteten. Projektet anvender flere forskellige teoretiske perspektiver for at give et mere nuanceret billede af disse diskurser. Der trækkes på Carl Jungs analytiske psykologi, Friedrich Nietzsches moralfilosofi, Charles Taylors teori om autenticitet og moralske horisonter samt Hubert Hermans’ Dialogical Self Theory. Disse teorier bruges i en hermeneutisk, fortolkende analyse, hvor udsagn, fortællinger og symboler forstås i forhold til de bredere kulturelle og moralske sammenhænge, de indgår i. Analysen viser, at flere nutidige maskulinitetsdiskurser betoner aggression som en nødvendig og legitim del af en sund maskulinitet, især når aggressionen underordnes ansvar, orden, disciplin og tjeneste for noget større end én selv. Hos Peterson formuleres et ideal, som i projektet kaldes “den disciplinerede kriger” eller “det ansvarlige monster”. Dette ideal er en syntese mellem aggression og moralsk ansvar, hvor voldelige eller primitive impulser anses som acceptable, hvis de styres gennem selvkontrol og forpligtelse over for noget, der rækker ud over det individuelle. Dette står i kontrast til den mere radikale del af den såkaldte “manosphere”, repræsenteret ved Tomassi og “alpha male”-idealet. Her er aggression og dominans i højere grad løsrevet fra klare moralske mål og i stedet rettet mod selvoptimering, konkurrence, strategisk følelsesregulering og øget “seksuel markedsværdi”. Relationer og autenticitet bliver ofte reduceret til redskaber, hvor følelsesmæssig kontrol og distance fremstilles som nødvendige for at bevare status og dominans. Projektet argumenterer for, at disse værdier afspejler det, Charles Taylor kalder “instrumentel fornuft”, hvor spørgsmålet “hvad er et godt liv?” erstattes af “hvordan vinder jeg?”. Diskussionen nuancerer idéen om en “maskulinitetskrise” og foreslår, at den bedre kan forstås som en kønnet version af en dybere eksistentiel krise. Overgangen fra mere traditionelle samfundsformer til senmoderne, pluralistiske og individualiserede samfund har skabt øget risiko for identitetsmæssig fragmentering. Denne udvikling forstås gennem Viktor Frankls begreb om det “eksistentielle vakuum” – en oplevelse af tomhed, meningsløshed og mangel på retning. Projektet foreslår, at nutidige maskulinitetsdiskurser kan ses som forsøg på at udfylde dette eksistentielle tomrum og skabe stabilitet, formål, retning og mening, hvilket er med til at forklare deres tiltrækning på mange unge mænd. Samtidig peger projektet på, at disse forståelser af maskulinitet kan blive psykologisk ensidige ved at overbetone sider som aggression og marginalisere andre, som sårbarhed. Afslutningsvis præsenteres mulige alternativer til det eksistentielle vakuum gennem en mere integrativ og dialogisk forståelse af maskulinitet. Med udgangspunkt i stoicismen, Nietzsches skelnen mellem det Apollinske og det Dionysiske, Jungs arketyper Anima og Animus samt Dialogical Self Theory fremhæver projektet et maskulinitetsideal, der bygger på dialog og forhandling mellem forskellige – ofte modsatrettede – sider af selvet. Målet er ikke at ophøje én type egenskaber over en anden, men at holde liv i en indre samtale mellem styrke og svaghed, sårbarhed og aggression, maskulint og feminint, uden at identiteten splittes, stivner i snævre idealer, eller at én “stemme” permanent overdøver de andre.
[This abstract has been rewritten with the help of AI based on the project's original abstract]