The old white man is dead, long live the young man. But what is he supposed to do? And what makes him special? Author Julian Witzel addresses these questions in his book and in an interview. He reveals why “Love Actually” triggers nausea in him.
It is still raging, toxic masculinity, rebelling and lashing out. Sometimes in the truest and most embarrassing sense of the word, as in the case of Will Smith and his slap in the face against colleague Chris Rock on Oscar night 2022. But sometimes also metaphorically and much more destructively, as in the case of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who, in addition to many points of criticism, also accused of toxic masculinity by some. The image of the “old white man” does not only exist in Germany: He is the head of relationships, of families, of companies, of politics. Society is shaped according to his wishes and ideas – whether it likes it or not.
Not only feminist movements have declared war on this image, on patriarchy itself. More and more men are questioning the role of men in society. What made him special, what makes him special – and what should make him special in the future. One of them is author Julian Witzel, who in his book “Young white men – What I have to say as a man about the new masculinity. Gender stories of a millennial hetero man in troubled times”, which will be published on May 17, 2022, reflects on what makes a modern man – and must make.
Brigitte: Mr. Witzel, can masculinity still be saved? Should that even be the goal?
Julian Witzel: Of course it must be possible to save it, there is absolutely no alternative! But the question is what kind of masculinity do we want to save and whether we can even talk about “saving” at all. Because I’m convinced that masculinity will change, for example, that several masculinities will develop, which can then be named and practiced under the umbrella of “masculinity”. That’s also the focus of my book, I’m looking at the “young white man”, if you can call him that, and aligning my book with the core question: How will the young white man fare after the old white man is up was “straddled” in a certain way? What chance does the young white man have?
And does he have a chance?
The answer is very clear: Of course he has a chance, but he has to do something. He must! I have to contribute myself to ensuring that parts of masculinity that I consider right and worth preserving continue to exist and at the same time adopt parts of a different understanding of masculinity.
There are some things I don’t want to give up that might be considered toxic today.
What does “manhood” mean to you specifically?
For a long time the answer to the question was relatively simple, “manhood” being fairly well defined. That has changed – and that is a good process. However, it is also one that is still running. And to pursue an answer to the question during this time, that was my idea for the book. Indeed, what does masculinity actually mean? How did I understand my masculinity even then as a child, as a teenager and just a few years ago? In the book, I go far back in order to reflect on the understanding of masculinity I actually grew up with, what shaped me and how it has changed over the years, experience and my goals.
Without anticipating too much, I can say that my personal understanding of masculinity can be understood as a kind of mixed calculation, because I’ve found that I don’t want to give up some things that today you might also call toxic. Simply because, after studying them in detail, I am of the opinion that they are actually socially acceptable.
Do you have an example of socially acceptable toxic masculinity?
I drove a very nice car for a while, a vintage car. This is a real anti-family car, there isn’t a single airbag in it and only two people can sit in it – totally unsuitable for a family of three. I have now sold it, so to speak, in the service of my family. But I’m convinced that as a man I can enjoy a nice car and I believe that in 20 years, when my children are out of the house, I’ll buy one of these again.
So don’t count vintage cars as part of toxic masculinity. But then how do you define old masculinity and what makes it so toxic in your eyes?
There are, for example, very many and very good reasons to drastically overhaul the basic view of the female gender. A very good example of this is the film “Love Actually”. I saw it again recently and couldn’t believe my eyes. This is a film that many people say is their favorite Christmas film, I recently met a friend who confirmed this again. But what happens in this film is downright creepy when you look at the roles of the women who appear in this film: they are in most cases employees of men who fall in love with their boss. And really not in a sovereign way, but in such a way that the audience is almost humbled.
Films like “Love Actually” are no longer allowed to be told and even a modern man has to realize that one shouldn’t talk about women like that and certainly not behave like that towards a woman.
These powerful men – that’s a writer, a prime minister, the boss of a company – actually bow down to their playmates. It actually made me feel kind of sick, I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Films like this shouldn’t be told like that anymore. And on the other hand – and this is my actual plea in the book – a modern man must also recognize that one should not talk about women in this way and certainly not behave in this way towards a woman.
In the current context, how do you assess the “rebellion of angry men” on a large and catastrophic scale like Vladimir Putin’s and on a small rather ridiculous scale like Will Smith’s?
First of all about Will Smith: I have a clear stance on the subject of violence and I am dismayed at an action such as that carried out by Will Smith. However, I am just as appalled by the reactions, some of them from women, who apparently haven’t progressed far enough in coming to terms with role models. For me, what is presented is a role understanding from the century before last and is hard to judge. Jada Pinkett Smith herself should have reacted in this situation, that would have been the only correct reaction.
In fact, I tell a similar story in the book, but that was 15 years ago. My girlfriend at the time was grabbed on the bottom in a bar and I didn’t even notice. She was terribly upset and urged me to do something and I was completely overwhelmed and went to the man. This was a big, brutal looking guy and I talked to him, which luckily didn’t end well. He then apologized to me – mind you, to me, not to the woman. That shows how people sometimes dealt with a situation like this 15 years ago. And Will Smith, unfortunately, follows suit seamlessly.
Putin comes across as an evil old animal baring its teeth for the last time.
In the case of Putin, I’m amazed that so many people can read anything like “masculinity” from his demeanor. If you want to look at this political case from a social point of view, then Putin is about to show how pathetic he actually is in his masculinity. This is more like the man’s final battle. One last toxic behavior that no longer works in the political arena these days. Putin is coming off as an evil old beast baring its teeth for the last time — and he’s not going to get away with it. He may be an example of the old white man, but then one who is on his last legs.
And what should the new masculinity do differently, what exactly does that look like?
In a way, this is an open question. As I said, we are in a process that is not yet complete. There are two conflicting groups when it comes to this question: on the one hand, there is the man himself, who cannot always complain that other things are suddenly being asked of him. In many areas – as far as education, social behavior and hobbies are concerned, for example – he shouldn’t just complain, but become active. The important thing is that he engages in a process of reflection and understanding of how he defines manhood for himself. And to be honest, that just doesn’t happen, you can easily find that out by doing a self-test: Ask the men around you how they would describe themselves as a man. I bet you’ll often hear, “I dunno, I’ve never thought about that.” But that’s not how it works. We have this large group of young, white, willing men who understand that there is a shift happening here, but it won’t work without your participation.
The fact is: Change is an existential principle and we need it.
On the other hand, these same men must also be involved. Those who drive this discourse forward must extend an invitation to the young white man, because setting things up over his head, designing a new social model, that cannot work at all, statistically not at all, if this huge group of men are not consulted will. And for this, too, I advocate in my book that this dialogue be conducted in a completely different way than is currently the case. The fact is: we need change, of course we need it, because it is an existential principle. In evolutionary terms, it has always brought us further, we are all always trying to improve something for the better. This doesn’t always work, of course, and changes often bring bad things with them. But it is – in my opinion – essential to accept these changes. We’ve built better computers that do the work for us. Why shouldn’t we work on a better man too?