Inauthentic Man

Published on Saturday July 9th, 2011

The puzzle of Mad Men is why many liberal-minded men and women are so fascinated by the character of Don Draper when he appears to be an avatar of patriarchal privilege that left politics traditionally opposes. Does this signal some kind of regression? Or a sign of vestiges of undiscovered elements of sexist ideology hidden in our unconscious liberal minds?

But the problem with interpreting Mad Men in this way is that it should mean that the conservative right, who are often even overtly sexist, should be even more enthusiastic than liberals, as they are for the show 24. Why is this not the case?

Asking “Why do we take Don Draper, a problematic character, to be the apogee of masculinity?” is missing the point, the real question is “Why are we nostalgic for a time when there still was a apogee of masculinity?” The social standards that dictated how a “true” man looked, talked and moved was discarded as conformist, limiting and oppressive. What is or isn’t a true man is up to each individual to decide for himself, not a cultural standard that discriminates against those who are different. Realizing one’s authentic self is the ultimate liberation.

I claim that Don Draper is appealing because he embodies the opposite of this, a liberation from the liberation. Not just because he’s a fake and his real name is Dick Whitman. The whole point is that not only is he kind of a bad guy & not really the ideal man, he’s even more radically a fraud as Dick Whitman. Yet despite that, he still manages to be successful at being Don Draper, even in the eyes of the audience who know the truth.

This is because an ideal is impossible, it can never be achieved. An impossible ideal seems oppressive, you are being held to a standard that you cannot hope to achieve. But on the other hand, because every attempt to realize the ideal is conditioned by failure, it’s understood that no-one ever achieves it. It’s like a Platonic ideal that doesn’t exist in reality - it’s understood that we only ever approximate it, never truly embody it, and that’s OK.

In contrast, the cult of authenticity, which seems to not demand anything or judge us, only asking us to be ourselves, is paradoxically must more oppressive because it claims to represent an achievable goal. Just be who you are. But we can never be unmediated, unselfconscious individuals spontaneously expressing just who we are free of all external influences, it’s also an impossible ideal. Except not being able to achieve it is decidedly not OK. Authenticity can’t be approximated, it must be embodied here and now or it means nothing, otherwise you are just a fraud.

The demand to “be who you are” is much more oppressive. Wanting to be Don Draper is really wanting to live in a more forgiving world, where our failure to live up to a standard still carries with it a certain nobility.


Readers of this post have also read

July 18th, 2011

Reading Network Culture

I've started a small online discussion group with some friends from Twitter. Over the next few weeks, will be reading and discussing Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age by Italian Marxist theorist Tiziana Terranova. In an age of email lists and discussion groups, e-zines and weblogs, bringing together users, consumers, workers and activists from around the globe, what kinds of…

Read more →
July 11th, 2011

The Reflection Without The Vampire

An excerpt from Zizek's essay From objet a to Subtraction: Is objet a, insofar as it lacks its mirror image, the vampiric object (vampires, as we know, do not generate their image in a mirror)? It may seem so: are vampires not versions of undead partial objects? However, perhaps, the exact opposite is more appropriate as an image of objet a:…

Read more →
June 30th, 2011

Upper Class Chavs

In period dramas like Downton Abbey and Gosford Park, it's the servants, not the wealthy aristocrats who embody aristocratic "snobbish" virtues like social grace, good manners and wit most authentically. According to one common critique, these ideals have no intrinsic value, they are arbitrary markers of class. It's a coded language that the wealthy learn at home and at their private…

Read more →

Recent Popular Posts

February 13th, 2014

Left Activism Goes Corporate

One of the most tedious features of the Silicon Valley Hype Machine is its endless repetition of progressive sounding marketing slogans about democracy and freedom, all while promoting a pro-business agenda. But it's too easy to read this as a sinister corporate ploy to co-opt the language of activists and twisting…

Read more →
December 20th, 2013

Civility: A Distance That
Brings Us Together

Just in time for the holidays, Apple's marketing department released Misunderstood, an ad about a surly teenager absorbed in his iPhone in the midst of scenes of his family's idyllic Christmas togetherness. But he surprises everyone when he reveals that the whole time he was making a touching video for everyone to document their familial bliss, moving them to tears. A…

Read more →
January 26th, 2014

Ten Parenting Lessons
I Learned from Franz Kafka

Here's an adage which I think is true: every theory of parenting is implicitly a theory of society. It follows that even if you aren't a parent now, nor ever intend to be one, if you're interested in society and culture, you ought to be interested in the topic because the problems that we parents face (or believe we face) is…

Read more →