Comments on: 3 Archetypes of American Manliness- Part III: The Self-Made Man

By: Roger

Roger — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:52:31 +0000

I don’t believe the ‘self-made man’ is an American archetype at all. This sort of striving upwards from your own ingenuity was evident in Europe for centuries already and perceived as aspiring to the gentleman class, the minor aristocracy. Stories like ‘Hobson’s Choice’ and the success of the new entrepreneurial bourgeoisie in England in the 1840s/50s, where the new industrially-backed consumerism took off before anywhere else, are prime examples.
In America it is merely the idea that “everyone and anyone can be a self-made man”, since the perception (a false one) was that class society was not imported to America; which is arguably the rationale behind the ‘American Dream’.

By: jeff

jeff — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:59:05 +0000

Forget the works of fiction when describing the archetypical American, look at biographic history instead. The works of Horatio Alger, was as sophomoric as the yellow backed books of his time and given very often to the working poor as examples of what they could accomplish as long as they where first subservient to the status quo until by work, luck and providence they would claim social superiority and a faux equality, and still be subjugated too an even more elite i.e., Old money. Histories self made men were not as notable by their personal accomplishments as by their whole sell destruction of any and all challengers, usually with support of a very willing government bought and paid for, and a miss informed rabble that would do anything for a slight advantage, even if it meant killing their own kind for a few days wages. The final tally will show that what most men become is not to be envied but rather expunged before the working mind of mankind: which most of the time it is anyway. Much of what we talk about are the Robber Barons, that stole the wealth of this country while being claimed the salt of the earth, men like the men Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Edison (yes little Thomas A), Sears, J.P. Morgan, and dozens of others who at first light look like the manliest of men, only to find them as neurotic, vengeful, racist, mommies boys. You see them at the end of their lives trying to pay for a free passage into the next life by creating foundations that support the community only after they have had their fill and that of their family as well.

The American archetype is a myth. We are not of a character like someone that comes along as other before them; the true impact of American manhood comes from the true individualist that rejects out of hand the idea of a common path of success, who is usually humane, hopeful, pragmatic, flexible of thought, and mixing capability with willingness to delay gratification for his self for the betterment of his family, friends, and community. The material is secondary to the ideal, the strength a matter of personal well, and the result of personal success a series of respites from the mundane and tedious. The true American male is indefinable because he is different in each swinging dick out there. In the end he dies, and leaves maybe a few memories among family and friends, with no future memorial other than a weathered headstone that may only get the dates of his birth and death right. But that is ok because the true American man is happy to live a life where he can just live to where he can shave in the morning, whistle, and mean it.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 02:16:58 +0000

There is no such thing as a 100% self-made man (or woman). We are all the result of the kindness of others and the breaks they’ve either given us or helped us capitalize on.

By: xban

xban — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:03:28 +0000

Charles the Brewer mentioned it, but I think it’s worth re-iterating: the self made man notion should be interpreted to mean more than making it to the rarefied top occupied by the likes of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. I would see the self made man archetype as the man who reaches or exceeds his own goals, whatever they may be. To me it’s simply the idea of going through life relying mostly on yourself instead of expecting (or feeling entitled to) help from others. When you achieve something you are proud of, you know you are the main person responsible for that achievement. You may have been lucky – but it’s your luck. You may have been helped along the way – but it was you in the driver seat. In other words, you bear the main responsibility for what you do – good or bad. What an unusual notion these days…

By: The Counselor

The Counselor — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:11:59 +0000

Another great article, Brett. Of the three archetypes you’ve covered, I feel that I probably identify the most with the self-made man. I agree with Hondo’s point that you don’t have to be a captain of industry to have made it in life—simply improving your position relative to your past can be a significant achievement.

I’ve sometimes struggled with the darker side of this archetype (particularly when unemployed) and I know how frustrating it can be trying to live up to an ideal the world judges you by—even when your “failings” are simply the result of worldwide economic conditions. Also, not to demean the achievements of many 19th-century rags-to-riches industrialists who inspired the archetype, but much of what they did to succeed would get you thrown in prison if you tried it today. Carnegie and Vanderbilt in particular took significant advantage of non-public information to trade stocks in companies they wanted to acquire or otherwise manipulate. Again, this is not to take away from their long hours, hard work and legitimate achievements, but merely to point out that some of the things in their tool kits are unavailable to today’s would-be entrepreneurs. It was also easier to amass a vast fortune if you didn’t have to pay any type of income tax on it, but that’s a whole other topic by itself.

By: Allyssa

Allyssa — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 05:01:39 +0000

I also forgot to mention Rockefeller…capital giants from the past who with their wealth have done good things and have contributed to our American heritage!

By: Allyssa

Allyssa — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:59:01 +0000

Today, there are very few wealthy individuals such as Andrew Carnegie who contribute some of their wealth and blessings to philanthropy. I think his generosity is more manly than anything else a rich man could have!

By: Charles the Brewer

Charles the Brewer — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:00:37 +0000

ARP: I dig what you mean. The man consumed with “making himself” looks to support only himself. It’s an archetype I admire with reservation.

Nick: You make a grand point. To expand on the ship idea, ask a captain where his next port-of-call is and he’ll tell you in a heartbeat. He’s confident despite whatever distance and difficulties he knows must come first. Just the opposite, the man without a rudder drifts around completely subject to changing winds. With sometimes one harbor along hundreds of miles of coast, what are the odds that the man drifting will land where he wants to be? The self-made man chooses his destination and masters the wind. Landing where he chose was no chance.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 22:15:01 +0000

First and foremost the self-made man is such because of his hard work, determination, and other personal charateristics. You can’t ge to the top (and stay there) by sheer luck. However, in most cases (as others have discussed) what finally propels this hard worker to the top is help from others. Be it friends, collegues, even the government, there is something there for them. Like a sailor and his boat, no matter how large the sails he’s made, he will go no where without wind.

By: ARP

ARP — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:14:27 +0000

Hondo/Charles the Brewer

I guess my point was that we cling to the political philosphy that if some people can make it without help, nobody should be helped. Meaning, self-made men and government support are not contrary ideas, even though we’ve been trained to think they are. There will always be a debate about the proper role/involvement level of govement (more v. less, etc.), but to say that one must remove one to have the other is false choice in my view.