emmanuel reynaud holy virility the social construction of masculinity

Relations between men in patriarchy are based on the
fundamental principle of integration into and identification with
a hierarchy. It is a principle whose basic corollary is that each
fragment of power acquired ―whether it be the general or
sergeant-major, chief of police or gang leader, little boss or big
boss, head of anybody or anything whatsoever, and even as a
last resort, head of the household― enables man to offer
himself identification at less personal cost through a substitute:
the son.
Victory has its joys, but fighting has its dangers, so, as soon as
he has the opportunity, man sends somebody else to fetch the
laurels that he would like to wear himself. Indeed, in the logic of
identification with a hierarchy, it is of little importance whether
or not he actually takes part in the combat, provided that, when
the battle is over, the spectator can identify with their triumph. A
good example of this process is the football supporter who, at
the end of the match, chants 'we won' or cries 'we lost'. This is a
feature of all organised competitive relations: rather than give of
himself man generally seeks through the acquisition of a
fragment of power ―a place on the terraces can be quite
sufficient― to leave it up to the others to build up the image of
his glory and the arms of his might. This general attitude,
reproduced at all levels and in different forms, always hinges on
the same basic principle: the father instils all the powers of
virility in the son so that the son will then go out and get himself
killed in his father's name and stead. That is how man creates
stadium heroes who all go out on the pitch for the prestige of
the nation, work heroes who sweat their guts out for the good of
the party, and children who are massacred for the honour of
their fathers.
As man climbs up the hierarchical ladder, his share of the glory
increases, and the risks to which he exposes himself diminish;
yet, even when he is almost at the summit, and his influence
appears greatest, his power is never total and the risks he runs
are never eliminated. He remains in permanent conflict as he
tries to defend and increase his share of power. Look at the
antics of today's statesmen in their attempts to ensure their reelection;
on the other hand, all the 'great men' who clutter up
history only truly become so after their deaths. We have seen,
for example, how Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon came to
rather ridiculous ends; as for the great men whose hours of
glory are still fresh in our minds ―Hitler, Stalin and Mao, to
name but three― their power obviously rested on such a fragile
base, that they had to reinforce it with secret police and
ideological terror. Those who were not defeated by their rivals,
fell from grace a very short time after being buried.
[Between men / 105]