48 Laws of Power vs. Traditional Masculinity

[Jeffst1980]

Most of us here are familiar with Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power...it may as well be required reading on this board. Regardless on whether or not you choose to implement these laws in your own life, it is a fascinating and entertaining read. It also raises a few questions about the way we define "masculinity." The ironies abound here...

"Court Attention at All Costs"

"Make Other People Come to You--Use Bait if Necessary"

"Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm Your Victims"

"Think As You Like But Behave Like Others"

"Use the Surrender Tactic: Transform Weakness into Power"

--Whoa..I think I've dated girls that have read this book!
And that's but a few of the laws, all of which seem to be aimed at modern day courtiers and courtesans...namely, PUA's and AW's.

Indeed, much of the book seems to be at odds with traditional ideas of masculinity. The emphasis is not placed on strength, courage, honor, or any of the typically male elements of power, but is instead placed on subterfuge, manipulation, and covert communication. The ancient Greeks termed these elements "dolos" and saw them as feminine traits, in clear contrast to the traits personified by Homeric warriors.

There are, of course, a few chapters that detail behavior that we could consider to be "alpha." However, a greater importance is placed on the superficial appearance of such acts, rather than a true embodiment of alpha-ness. It's less Natural Game and more Mystery Method, in PUA-speak.

My question is: How does this change our definition of modern masculinity, if it all? We lament the rise of the modern feminized male--but is implementing 48 laws of power into our lives really akin to a return to traditional masculinity? Or is it just a necessary case of fighting fire with fire?

Let's see where this goes.

 

[ketostix]

My question is: How does this change our definition of modern masculinity, if it all? We lament the rise of the modern feminized male--but is implementing 48 laws of power into our lives really akin to a return to traditional masculinity? Or is it just a necessary case of fighting fire with fire?

I think it's just a case of fighting fire with fire. It's a vicious cycle that begets more of the same. Traditional masculinity refused to play "females' games" and instead required females to play by traditional men's rules.

 

[Jitterbug]

The ancient Greeks termed these elements "dolos" and saw them as feminine traits, in clear contrast to the traits personified by Homeric warriors.

Yet they celebrated Odysseus, who used deception to win the war for them. The ancient Greeks were good at calling other people who didn't conform to their standards "cowards", and blew their own horns at the same time to increase the morale of their soldiers, so that those poor bastards could go fight to death for some fat king back home, who got to fvck all the hot chicks. When other people used ruses, they were "cowards". When the Greek warriors used the same sh!t, they were "resourceful" or "cunning" or -some-other-positive-adjectives. It's all word play.

Whom does traditional masculinity really benefit? Somehow I don't think it was the men who adhered to its principles.

The ideas of the 48 Laws of Power aren't exactly modern. Similar things were written millenia ago. Take a look at this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Strategies

 

[Jeffst1980]

That's kind of what I was getting at, Jitterbug--specifically with the Odysseus thing. I believe that Odysseus was the first mythological hero to really embrace cunning over brute force, if I'm not mistaken, and it was a significant break from tradition.

It's all semantics of course, but interesting considering the way we typically view masculinity. I would tend to agree that a lot of traditionally masculine traits can be easily trumped by cunning and deceit. So...does that mean that masculinity is not equated with power?

 

[Jitterbug]

I would tend to agree that a lot of traditionally masculine traits can be easily trumped by cunning and deceit. So...does that mean that masculinity is not equated with power?

Power for who, over who?

Is it the power of kings, to rule over all men?

Is it the power of becoming a legend, a warrior who fought valiantly in battles and died a honourable death (so that some fat bastard could become king)?

Is it the power over oneself, to conquer one's demons?

Is it possible that traditional masculinity is a part of "cunning & deceit", that some dude came up with to brainwash other men and make them do the dirty work for him?

 

[STR8UP]

I have posted several times touching on this subject. It is usually met with resistance, if not outright hostility.

The reason you are having a hard time reconciling the difference here is because you are not accounting for the fact that term "alpha" implies qualities that are "natural", whereas the 48 Law addresses the very important (and often misunderstood) component of the human "food chain" which is the societal aspect.

Lets put it this way. If you are dealing with one other person and you are big and strong, you can FORCE your will on that other person. But when you are one man amongst millions and millions of others, you can't just flex your muscles and expect to gain status (and thus control) of all of those other people.

That is where all of this "subterfuge, manipulation, and covert communication" comes in. If you wish to climb the ladder of power, your natural "alpha" qualities will only get you so far. You HAVE to play the game. You HAVE to be a politician. You HAVE to work your way through the ranks.

The fact is, some of the "traditional ideas of masculinity" that you hold might be beneficial to the warrior, but not to the king or the elite.

For example, "strength" in the physical sense is more valuable to the worker or the soldier than to the boss or the general. Strength in the psychological sense is a trait that can be utilized for ones own benefit or harnessed by someone else for their benefit.

"Courage" can also go both ways. It is certainly seen as an admirable trait that can gain you respect from others, but at the same time it can get you killed. The king knows that there is a time to be a hero and a time to save your own ass.

"Honor" is another one of those traits that can help you out and can also get you into trouble. Your "honor" is valuable when it gains you the favor of allies that are willing to reciprocate, but it can also be the kiss of death when you choose to be "honorable" to someone who is out to control you or someone who might take advantage of your bond.

Basically, the traits you mentioned might be used to help you attain power, but at the same time they can be used against you with exactly the opposite effect. The methods outlined in the 48 Laws are the tactics used by those who wish to use those "masculine" traits to obtain power, as opposed to those who serve those in power.

 

[ketostix]

Let me play devil's advocate an answer some of your questions.

Power for who, over who?

Well for one men would have power over women. And men would be under an agreed upon code of conduct and laws.

Is it the power of kings, to rule over all men?

Someone has to be the leader. You can't have all chiefs and no Indians. A king would normally be charged with enforcing a code of conduct and he should also be held to certain conduct. If he's a bad king then he'd be deposed.

Is it the power of becoming a legend, a warrior who fought valiantly in battles and died a honourable death (so that some fat bastard could become king)?

Well the warriors fought so their people could be free and no be enslaved by rivals.



Is it possible that traditional masculinity is a part of "cunning & deceit", that some dude came up with to brainwash other men and make them do the dirty work for him?

It depends on what traditional masculinity you are talking about. Whether a tradition is good depends on its own merits of fairness. Sometimes in the past rulers lead their men in battle against invaders. It also makes sense to protect your leaders so the tribe doesn't fall into chaos. The main point is if you adopt "feminine tactics" and eschew traditional masculine ones isn't possible you'll lose order, fall into chaos and be conquered by some rival?

 

[MoveYourAss...]

I think your motivation is key to the equation.

Power is addictive. The question is: Are you addicted to power? Of course you can use strategies to gain power and pet your ego. There are "successfull" examples in history, hell you can see it basically anywhere.

In that case, it will never be enough.

And I believe that it will not make you happy (just like any addiction), but harm a lot of others on the way.

I think it is wise, though, to be educated in this stuff, so that you can identify the use of these strategies, and use them if necessary.

It's like the power you get by martial arts. Some use it to "solve problems", others use it only to solve real problems.

When skilled and trained, you can use it for any purpose. But should you?

Check you motivations.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

You're cherry picking 5 Laws out of 48.

48 Laws of Power Synopsis

I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with the other 43 before you make a judgement call like this.

That said, the 48 Laws are about the fundaments of Power, not masculinity. There are very powerful men and women who practice many different Laws in combination. That doesn't make them masculine or feminine, it makes them powerful - power is gender neutral. Also, don't make the mistake of perceiving that all Laws are noble in their intent; more than a few are not, but this doesn't invalidate them in principle. For instance, I personally wouldn't practice Law 7: Get other to do the work, but take all the credit - which is essentially plagiarism. However, especially in my line of work, I've had this Law used against me so often that I've learned to protect against it. The Law is valid; whether you choose to use it, or how you choose to apply it is your call.

 

[Interceptor]

I think the main difference is where your Heart is in exectuing these strategies


Being tactical,and strategical, and using politics IS part of Traditional Masculinity.
Using covert tactics, manipulations, and strategizing against your enemies IS acceptable masculine behavior.


But the difference is WHO or WHAT are you doing it for.

If you have no honor, then you dont care, you are only interested in self gain, worship or power.
It's all Ego feeding. The gluttony of feeding the narcisissm these types of people have.

They will preach to others "Hey , I get what I want and I have no morals! Why are you so stupid to have integrity with your values and morals?"

But again, your answer is Where is your HEART in this?


You can use subterfuge, politicking , diplomacy, brute force,and intimidation to protect, feed, clothe, house, provide, and secure people that you love, because they NEED your protection in that manner.

But you must also think on a deeper, spiritual plane....


Why ARE you in a position where you must use so much strategizing, which can often just be demeaning, abusive, lack respect for other human beings, and use them for your own gain?

You need to also look at your choices.
Why are you in that position with those types of people?
The types of people who ARE back stabbers?
You have a choice. You always do.

If you believe you are a moral, just, fair, and righteous man, and truly have integrity in your beleif and values, then let NO ONE veer you off your course.
If you truly have that INTERNAL ALIGNMENT , then no one should really have such an effect on you about Temporary EXTERNAL conditions.

You are to remain constant and consistent, out of intelligence, compassion, and shrewdness.

And if you HAVE that internal alignment, then no one can have such an effect preaching to you on these temporary external environments.

And if subterfuge, back stabbing, maneuvering etc, is after all an admission of a LACK of Power, as Str8up mentioned, then is this truly your IDEAL?

DO you really you want to be, knowing as a grown man, that men of equal status and values, honor and courage WILL follow you IF you are that kind of man...do you really want to be the man that other men WILL NOT FOLLOW?
A man who MUST use subterfuge and underhanded tactics in order to get compliance??
Will you sometimes find yourself in situations unexpectedly, yes?
In which you realize, 'Damn, I think Im going to have to maneuver this sh*t into a better situation for me."
But I honestly believe that at most basic levels people can recognize the courage, honesty, and love in one's heart, and trust that person enough to follow them.
And if they dont, then you must decide what action to take which is for the highest good.
And if you dont care about 'good', then I can see why most wont follow you , unless you bring some form of gain to them as well.
And even then, since they are NOT your allies, since they have no alliegiance or LOYALTY to you, once you've outlived your usefulness, they will use their backstabbing skills on you, for their personal gain.

There is no honor among thieves. Add loyalty to that as well....



Arent these the tactics of the Beta male in getting back into the societal hierarchy?? After having been excluded???

Is this what we're after??

After all our years here on Earth...we look back and can say 'Well , I fvcked over a LOT of guys! I took their sh*t, and made a fortune off their asses. Well done!" and you die.

Again, politics, and diplomacy, strategizing, and havig specific tactics to deal with adversaries , and obstacles are necessary.
But where is the purpose? Wherein in does it lie?
In your heart???

You're the one who has to lie their in your bed at night and find some way to sleep peacefully.
You DO have a choice on how you live your life.
And while sometimes we will have to make certain difficult decisions, the underlying character is the only thing that will carry you through...and that is High Character.

 

[Colossus]

I dont think this book affects our definition of masculinity at all. There are techniques that anyone can use--man or woman--to have power over another. However, not all of these laws will apply to all people, as I think he touched on at some point in the book. There are certain conditions that must be present for you to use many of these laws to your 'benefit'; whatever that may be. This book makes the assumption that your quarry or target individuals are weak-minded to begin with. That is, you arent going to have much success trying to manipulate someone of equal or greater intelligence and confidence. The whole premise of this book, IMO, is learning to exploit people's natural weaknesses and craft perceptions.

And, as Rollo said, an insidious intent doesnt invalidate the laws. You can use knowledge of the principles Greene outlined to avoid other people who seek to manipulate you--which is a form of power in itself.

On a related note, I personally think that "natural" game will always trump "seduction" game. The reason why is that natural game--innate game--is adaptive and fluid. It's not a suit of armor, like the Mystery method; it comes from within. And it can be developed, to a certain extent; much like muscle. There is the thinking in behavioral psych that genetics act as a leash--an elastic leash--on many (most?) behaviors. I think it's the same way with game. Your personality and heredetary inclinations do limit you in this regard. I know not everyone agrees with that, but it is unreasonable to think we have limitless social potential in one area and not others.

For example, if you have basically sucked with women your whole life, you arent going to develop into a smooth-talking casanova at 35 years of age...or ever, for that matter. There is a reason you have never done well with women, probably your looks or personality. I know that sounds cold, and that's not to say if you are this guy you cant improve, but it's going to be relative to where you're starting from. If you've had mixed success, like most of us, then your chances of being successful with women are pretty good, as long as you take a proactive, centered approach to it. And of course how you are defining your success.

 

[Jeffst1980]

Wow, that was a brilliant post...gonna rep Interceptor for that. That probably should be the last word on the matter, but I'll add what I think:

I think relying on those laws in the context of a relationship is a case of fighting fire with fire. The dynamics of gender relations have shifted, and many women today are very much opposed to the idea that they should defer to their partners. In turn, many men are willing to let their women control the power in their relationship, mistakenly believing that letting her "get her way" will ensure that the relationship continues without a hitch. The problem is, of course, that when a woman is in control of a relationship, it is doomed to fail. Subconsciously, women really want to be taken care of, and a guy that defers all authority to his wife/girlfriend fails to satisfy this need. We all know this.

As both Interceptor and Str8up stated, most of the laws in 48 Laws of Power are designed for someone that wants to ATTAIN power, not for someone that already holds all the cards. If used in a relationship (which is, in some respect, a very small microcosm of society), they work very quickly to elevate one to a position of power. In dealing with so-called "modern" women, they become somewhat necessary to ensure that the power shifts in your favor. But, at what cost?

It's been my experience that using these power grabbing devices more than sparingly really undermines the necessary level of trust that must be present for a relationship to survive. And, if you don't trust your wife/girlfriend, then you shouldn't be with her. In essence, when you fight fire with fire, everyone loses.

On a larger scale, if everyone adopted a reliance on these tactics, there would be chaos, as ketostix pointed out. The same holds true for a sexual relationship.

In some ways this is a lose/lose, so far as "modern" women are concerned: You can go AFC on them and lose them, or try to "tame" them and wind up in an unhealthy power struggle for the rest of your life.

The way to AVOID all this, IMHO, is to avoid so-called "modern" women and instead opt for ones that have traditional beliefs about marriage, etc. A woman that believes that she should defer to her man will not engage you in power struggles. She won't "s#it test" you, because she knows that's outright disrespect. And, if you ever find yourself in a compromising position such as financial distress, she'll go against her "instinctual" desire to leave you, because loyalty is a value that she holds dear.

This is why I am always emphasizing qualifying women. There are LOTS of women that hold traditional beliefs on gender roles out there, and not all them are bible-thumping arch-conservatives, either. These women mostly just tend to come from good families, where they had a similar gender model to follow.

Make no mistake, I'm not for or against implementing 48 Laws of Power to some degree in any area of your life. I use it a lot in business. As far as relationships go, however, you should use this stuff with the utmost discretion. Ideally, you shouldn't have to use it at ALL, because your girlfriend/wife sees you unequivocally as the authority.

 

[STR8UP]

in other words: your strength can just as well be your weakness.

Absolutely. Just depends on who your actions serve....YOU, or someone/something else.

As both Interceptor and Str8up stated, most of the laws in 48 Laws of Power are designed for someone that wants to ATTAIN power, not for someone that already holds all the cards. If used in a relationship (which is, in some respect, a very small microcosm of society), they work very quickly to elevate one to a position of power. In dealing with so-called "modern" women, they become somewhat necessary to ensure that the power shifts in your favor. But, at what cost?

The 48 Laws wasn't really written as a male/female relationship guide. It deals more with gaining power and influence amongst other men. Doesn't mean some of the laws don't apply to dealing with women, but that wasn't the general intent of the book.

If you have to employ too much underhandedness and such you are with the wrong woman. It will be a fight to the death. Modern society no doubt influences women in an unnatural manner, but it should actually be pretty easy to guide a woman into natural compliance. If it isn't, it's time to look for another.

On a related note, I personally think that "natural" game will always trump "seduction" game. The reason why is that natural game--innate game--is adaptive and fluid. It's not a suit of armor, like the Mystery method; it comes from within.

Yes, but "seduction game" or any other form of self-help a man practices has the potential to develop into "natural" game so long as he understands that it is a PIECE of the pie, and proceeds to pursue the betterment of his person as a whole using the positive feedback to transform himself.