Jerks: Cases of Arrested Development
In the new millennium, the Americans acting badly are spoiled children who have never learned what it would mean to grow up. 100 years ago, this type was already developing, and Booth Tarkington describes some of these characters in his fiction—the Penrod stories, Little Orvie, and, most effectively, the character of Georgie Minafer in the Magnificent Ambersons. Georgie was a spoiled rich kid, who despised his social inferiors as riff-raff, but hard times eventually taught him how to be a man.
Georgie had been spoiled by a doting mother and aunt, but most boys had to undergo the harsher judgment of their fathers and the even more severe criticisms of their peers. I thought I was clever, as a boy, and used my clever tongue a bit too freely. One time, when I had got myself beaten up, I complained a bit to my father. "Well, you used your best weapon—words—and your inarticulate friend used his best weapon, his fists. You really cannot complain." No, I couldn't.
In time boys growing up chastised by older boys, would develop a code, or at least pretend they had: Games have rules that must be observed, and it is bad form to cheat. They may even understand that if "what's mine is mine" then what's yours must be yours. But this is a development imposed on the boy's naturally bestial desire to possess everything he wants. By 10 or 12, boys used to know how to play by the rules, but that was in the bad old days before child psychologists revealed the natural goodness of children.
These days many boys grow up believing they are rulers of the world or at least the heir apparent to the throne. In studying the lives of some of the more colorful Roman emperors—say, Nero or Caligula or Commodus (the villain of The Gladiator)—I have often thought how much they resembled the typical American teenage boy. Instant gratification of every whim is all they wanted. Is that too much to ask from an unfeeling world? The only thing that prevents all the little Justins and Jeremies and Tylers from acting out their imperial fantasies—apart from the juvenile justice system--is the ugly fact that every little Brad and Bret and Jason is on the same mission to despoil the universe.
Popular psychologists have described a certain kind of American male as suffering from the Peter Pan syndrome: They never want to grow up. But their inability to make attachments is a comparatively minor problem that only affects us if Peter Pan happens to be our son-in-law.
The Jerk, however, is omnipresent. We cannot leave our house, get in a car, travel by plane, or pick up the telephone without the risk some Jerk ruining our day. Admittedly, there are degrees of Jerkitude, and there are many species with the genus. We can easily recognize the egoist who has to have things his own way, the Egotist who spoils parties with his endless accounts of personal triumphs, Don Juan the Jerk who is God's gift to womankind, the pushy Jerk who has to be at the head of every line, the self-righteous Jerk who goes through life correcting everyone else of bad driving and uncouth behavior without ever stopping to consider what others might be saying of him, but underneath all the apparent distinctions varieties there is the spoiled child who never learned to play by any rules except the ones he makes up as he goes along. Life for them is a never-ending game of "Calvinball," which may never be played the same way twice.
Entries(RSS)
The only thing that prevents all the little Justins and Jeremies and Tylers from acting out their imperial fantasies—apart from the juvenile justice system
Actually, the rates of juvenile recidivism suggest that the juvenile "justice" system not only does not restrain them but also is one of the chief enablers of my peers' Napoleonic orgies.
Life for them is a never-ending game of “Calvinball,” which may never be played the same way twice.
I'll bump a Calvin and Hobbes reference any day. Cheers!
Dr. Fleming, I had not considered this before until this piece since it began with a discussion of boys and seems to end with a discussion of men. Does "jerk" refer primarily to (American) men and male vices or flaws? If so, what would be the appropriate name for the flawed or vicious American woman?
I have a couple of ideas, M. Chan, but I'll keep them to myself and let Dr. Fleming take the lead... use your imagination.
Here's a couple of subtypes of the archetypical vicious modern female, otherwise known as a _____:
1. The Material Girl. This female never becomes a woman at all. Her father spoiled her and was emotionally abusive (absent too often); her notion of a man is therefore as a means to material ends. Obsessed only with style and appearance, she'll do anything to look good and she will pick an unfortunate male victim who will indulge her usually in exchange for her sexual favors. She wants a good-looking man, a good-looking car, a good-looking house, and a good-looking photo album. That is why she is obsessed with finding a man to take her to France and Italy on holiday, not because she admires French and Italian culture, but because she wants the souvenir photos in front of the Eiffel Tower and the Colosseum: in American prestige folklore, after all, it "looks good" to have traveled to France and to Italy.
2. The Psychopathic Prostitute. This type is a predator, a savage. This is the sort of woman who's a ruthless businesswoman. This woman is determined to have her way and will let no one stop her. This is the sort of woman who fires her brother because he bills her for her dressing room. She will parade her body and everything else in public if it will help her achieve her goals.
3. The Fly-By-Nighter. This type has certain notions of romance and beauty that go beyond those of the Material Girl, but rather than seek out the larger significance she stays stuck on the superficial romantic trappings. If she enters into a marriage, her motivation is probably not simply to "look good" to others, but once the internal luster has worn off she will start looking elsewhere for romantic satisfaction. She will pursue this romantic satisfaction even at the expense of her children, if she has any. She will not be above abandoning her husband and even kids for good for another "hot new model."
Actually, poor fathers are a common thread in most of the specimens of each of these types, but that's another story.
Forgot to add. These three subtypes can all be identified as well by the respective types of men they seek:
The Material Girl seeks a trophy husband, a highly attractive rich man and rarely anything more. But if she is clever, she will seek out a rich man who is just effeminate enough not to care if he has no heirs (who would share his fortune with her when they die). She often ends up with a man just as materialistic and good-looking as herself, and so it's anyone's guess as to which one will initiate the divorce first.
The Psychotic Prostitute cares little about marriage unless it will advance her career or other interests. Men for her are little more than props for her perverse pleasures, be they monetary, sexual or otherwise. If she be physically attractive, her options are of course much wider--and her list of victims much longer. The jerk as Dr. Fleming describes is a good match for her, since he seeks out "instant gratification" and will turn off what remains of his brain to walk into her sadomasochistic trap.
The Fly-By-Nighter may actually end up with a decent, respect-worthy man. This is because she seeks qualities that good people tend to admire and try to cultivate, even though she does not understand the deeper goodness of character and intellect that animates those qualities. The decent man may easily fall victim if he has grown up in a wholesome, tight-knit community of family and friends where he was not the one who had to watch out for the kind of company he and his siblings were keeping; as such, he may neglect to fully observe and apprehend the superficiality of his charmed and sentimental woman until it is too late.
"Psychotic Prostitute" should be "PSYCHOPATHIC Prostitute." Not at all the same thing.
My friend Nicholas has gone a bit far. Young men today are fond of blaming young women for the miseries of modern social life, but in my experience it is bad men who make bad women: feeble fathers, cheating boyfriends, effeminate ministers. It is up to men to take charge, and I am not suggesting even a hint of physical violence, just the quiet assertion of authority that we used to suppose came natural to men. Naturally, many if not most modern women will be put off, and they will fuss and fume and wave their arms and bob their heads, denouncing your male chauvinist behavior. Who cares? The minority who do respond are what you have to concentrate on.
Mr. Chan is as perceptive as his fictional namesake. It is not just that Jerks are predominantly male but that jerkitude is a quintessentially male quality that grows out of our nature, when that nature fails to ripen into manhood. Many "great men" are jerks--conquerors like Napoleon, statesmen like Churchill, novelists like Hemingway, self-important surgeons and scientists. Women by contrast, even stunted women, are born to care about other people, because they are designed to be wives and mothers. One of the teenage girl's most annoying qualities is their affection for melodrama, but they do not simply make themselves the stars of their ongoing soap opera; they let others share the limelight. The way they carry on over a sick friend or a girlfriend who has been jilted! And Lord help us if someone they met once somewhere has died in a car accident. I was talking with a friend of mine not long ago about the awful tragedy songs of the 50's and 60's--"Teen Angel," "Tell Laura I Love Her, "Honey," "Patches," "Last Kiss." My stomach is curdling as I write the titles. Most of you are too young to remember these--but you can get them off Youtube--but the one thing my friend and I distinctly recalled is that no guy could ever stand them. ("The Leader of the Pack" was unintentionally amusing, though.) And we loved the parody, "I want my baby back."
What is the feminine equivalent of the Jerk? I think we all know the answer and it rhymes with witch. But while the Jerk is an otherwise normal male who has not grown up enough to acknowledge other people's existence--at least not consistently--the b--ch is a terrible deformation of the female character. The act is part domineering mother but, and this is significant, partly an imitation of what women perceive to be male behavior. It is a common complaint in offices that when women do what men do routinely, they get known as b--ches. This is only partly true, because this sort of woman goes way over the top in her aggressive and exploitative behavior, but the element of truth doesn't make them any more tolerable. The sassy, self-assertive, scheming female--Scarlet O'Horror as Jones calls his boss in A Confederacy of Dunces--does things a man would get punched out for. I don't want to dwell on this, because it is too easy for men, who are responsible for the way the world is, to point the finger at their victims.
I read recently that jerks in New York are targeting elderly men on the subways to rob and pillage. I can't wait for Taki's return to the BIG APPLE for an evening ride.
My friend Nicholas has gone a bit far. Young men today are fond of blaming young women for the miseries of modern social life, but in my experience it is bad men who make bad women: feeble fathers, cheating boyfriends, effeminate ministers. It is up to men to take charge, and I am not suggesting even a hint of physical violence, just the quiet assertion of authority that we used to suppose came natural to men. Naturally, many if not most modern women will be put off, and they will fuss and fume and wave their arms and bob their heads, denouncing your male chauvinist behavior. Who cares? The minority who do respond are what you have to concentrate on... I don’t want to dwell on this, because it is too easy for men, who are responsible for the way the world is, to point the finger at their victims.
Qualification: I wrote my piece with the mindset that in nearly all of these nasty cases can be traced to poor fathering and lack of a suitable father figure.
I have known girls who had decent fathers yet who rebelled or, as you put it, "fuss and fume and wave their arms and bob their heads, denouncing your male chauvinist behavior," but you know what? They always end up preferring the alpha-male type, even if they call themselves feminists. Those girls do not fit into the _____ role; they just like to think they do. Deep down they're too well-bred for that and if they find a man they admire and who's steadfast in his right beliefs they'll settle down.
And while I agree that we men must take responsibility and should not dwell too much on the femme fatale, I do believe the three subtypes I mentioned, the genuine _____es, are definitely worth spelling out. Good guys need to know whom to avoid. Setting a good example is one thing, but a decent man should not fall into the trap of thinking himself capable of "saving" a borderline or a sociopath just because this particular one has two X chromosomes and happens to be attracted to him. If she had a terrible upbringing, her chances of coming around are fairly slim.
Our last three Presidents fit the Jerk stereotype - two raised by single mom's and absent fathers (Clinton and Obama) and the third Bush Jr., the spoiled elder son of a corrupt dynasty. All three grew up with a sense of entitlement, no humility and huge egos. All have committed great wrongs both personal and professional with nary a thought of inner reflection or public contrition. In many ways our leaders reflect their respective eras.
@pjmulvey: excellent point. Up until very recently in history bastardry was seen as a badge of shame, and this despite the fact that bastards in pre-modern times (and even up until the 1950's) stood a much better chance than contemporary bastards of having at least a few solid male authority figures in their upbringings/educations. If the head of the state is also head of the people, then the last three presidents fit the roles very well indeed.
(Especially Obama, who also serves as a synecdoche for the sub-summation of the United States into the Third World.)
Thank you for your responses, Dr. Fleming and Mr. Moses. (I am not sure if that is your last name, though I do remember the initials that you used previously?)
Dr. Fleming, is the rejection of rules and rule-following in American society due primarily to the influence of Kant (through disciples such as Kohlberg), or are there more proximate causes? Recently I have been pondering whether the use of games as an analogy for understanding political life would be useful in explicating the notion of men's duties and responsibilities to one another and to the group at large, and if this might provide the beginnings of a defense for the protection of men's vocational sphere from "intrusion" by women.
Bad men make bad women, but also cold mothers that lack the ability to show warmth and nurture the child as they grow. Let's not forget the playing field has changed, and the catalyst for the problem even has a cute name for it, Feminism. Since they try to be the feminine equivalent of the jerk, why leave them out.
A jerk I find particularly nettlesome is the Christian who races to be the first one to accuse his brethren of being an antisemite when there is no just cause for it. And there is also the jerk who is quite fulsome in his defense of perversion;; "I see nothing wrong with homosexuality; homosexuals are the most discriminated against minority;" blah, blah, damnable blah.
At another website someone claimed that mob violence was nothing new. Still, perhaps recent instances of (flash) mob violence are a manifestation of contemporary jerkitude?
"Women by contrast, even stunted women, are born to care about other people, because they are designed to be wives and mothers."
Maybe. But many years ago I accepted a temporary job that I thought would be interesting and found myself working for a woman who I can describe only as a female Darth Vader. She had the same demeanor and even wore floor-length skirts that swirled like Vader’s cloak when she walked into the room. The Darth Vader theme from Star Wars would play in my head. She terrorized her entire staff. Fortunately this was a short-lived experience. I may be treated to a repeat of this unpleasant experience sometime soon though due to reorganization where I work. However, it too will be short, as I am close to retirement.