The Bromantic Theory of History
August 26, 2020 10:06 AM Subscribe
Years ago, I fact-checked two memoirs by powerful men. Their books wised me up to an invisible poltergeist in world events: the feverish infatuation of one straight man for another.
A year ago, Wexner, now well out of his swoon, still seemed confused by how irrational he’d been. “Being taken advantage of by someone who is ... so depraved is something I’m embarrassed I’m even close to,” Wexner told investors last September.
When I worked for them in the 1990s, Eisner and Korda were extremely good at calling attention to what might be called the Bromantic Theory of History. Neither of them was habitually on either side of these macabre duets, mostly because they knew how efficiently they could corrupt and bankrupt the unsuspecting. (Eisner had also known from real collaboration, as he had worked closely with the onetime president of Disney, Frank Wells; in Eisner’s account, theirs was the kind of Frodo-Samwise relationship of philia that comes along once in a lifetime.)
*an intercom crackles somewhere in the afterlife*
"Eve Kososfky Sedgwick to the courtesy phone. Professor Sedgwick to the courtesy phone in the lobby."
If Beatty was described as “the samurai of sex,” Korda’s famous urologist might be the samurai of penises. Korda called him “the guru and doyen of urology”; elsewhere he’s “a kind of a secular saint.” A rich CEO friend of Korda’s also gives the doc high marks: “[The CEO] knew greatness when he saw it, and when it came to [the doctor] he knew himself to be in the presence of a superior man.”
As Mark Simpson put it in Male Impersonators: Men Performing Masculinity:
“...every time men try to grasp something consolingly, sturdily, essentially masculine, it all too easily transforms into its opposite.”
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:34 AM on August 26, 2020 [7 favorites]
When I worked for them in the 1990s, Eisner and Korda were extremely good at calling attention to what might be called the Bromantic Theory of History. Neither of them was habitually on either side of these macabre duets, mostly because they knew how efficiently they could corrupt and bankrupt the unsuspecting. (Eisner had also known from real collaboration, as he had worked closely with the onetime president of Disney, Frank Wells; in Eisner’s account, theirs was the kind of Frodo-Samwise relationship of philia that comes along once in a lifetime.)
*an intercom crackles somewhere in the afterlife*
"Eve Kososfky Sedgwick to the courtesy phone. Professor Sedgwick to the courtesy phone in the lobby."
If Beatty was described as “the samurai of sex,” Korda’s famous urologist might be the samurai of penises. Korda called him “the guru and doyen of urology”; elsewhere he’s “a kind of a secular saint.” A rich CEO friend of Korda’s also gives the doc high marks: “[The CEO] knew greatness when he saw it, and when it came to [the doctor] he knew himself to be in the presence of a superior man.”
As Mark Simpson put it in Male Impersonators: Men Performing Masculinity:
“...every time men try to grasp something consolingly, sturdily, essentially masculine, it all too easily transforms into its opposite.”
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:34 AM on August 26, 2020 [7 favorites]
You can get a glimpse of this from Thomas Friedman's infamous column about MbS:
We met at night at his family’s ornate adobe-walled palace in Ouja, north of Riyadh. M.B.S. spoke in English, while his brother, Prince Khalid, the new Saudi ambassador to the U.S., and several senior ministers shared different lamb dishes and spiced the conversation. After nearly four hours together, I surrendered at 1:15 a.m. to M.B.S.’s youth, pointing out that I was exactly twice his age. It’s been a long, long time, though, since any Arab leader wore me out with a fire hose of new ideas about transforming his country.posted by BungaDunga at 10:42 AM on August 26, 2020 [10 favorites]
On a much smaller scale, this was really noticeable when I was a TA, and at least one of the two-three professors I talked to about it said they recognized the phenomenon. Not just the charismatic-and-sidekick dynamic, cases in which the charismatic kept hauling the sidekick into really dumb projects and insisting on poor execution. Fyre Festival guy, basically, when the option of just doing the actual problem set was right there.
We didn’t get a female version of this attachment to the dumbness of the project, just occasionally a sidekick doing way more than her share for a cool girl, something that blends into all group work.
Lots of academics here - does this seem familiar?
No lack of deluded people, especially undergraduates, of course, but this stuck out at the time. I hypothesized that the dumbness of the choices is a kind of dominance test - over the sidekick, and trying it on with the prof.
posted by clew at 10:53 AM on August 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
We didn’t get a female version of this attachment to the dumbness of the project, just occasionally a sidekick doing way more than her share for a cool girl, something that blends into all group work.
Lots of academics here - does this seem familiar?
No lack of deluded people, especially undergraduates, of course, but this stuck out at the time. I hypothesized that the dumbness of the choices is a kind of dominance test - over the sidekick, and trying it on with the prof.
posted by clew at 10:53 AM on August 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
In working on this piece, I came across one startling feature of these male romances that even Eisner and Korda didn’t tip me off to. In short: It’s ominous how often the same names recur in these stories of alpha males thunderstruck by other alpha males. Donald Barr is connected to Epstein; Barr’s son Bill is connected to Trump; Trump’s son-in-law Kushner is connected to Mohammed bin Salman; Mohammed bin Salman is connected to Masa Son; Son is connected to Adam Neumann; Adam Neumann worked on marketing Jared Kushner’s Middle East adventuring. And on and on.
This scares me, I don't like thinking of the world being the plaything of men like this. But here we are.
posted by chaz at 11:18 AM on August 26, 2020 [10 favorites]
This scares me, I don't like thinking of the world being the plaything of men like this. But here we are.
posted by chaz at 11:18 AM on August 26, 2020 [10 favorites]
After nearly four hours together, I surrendered at 1:15 a.m. to M.B.S.’s youth
Hachi machi
Anyway, I think this accounts for a lot of the history of leadership. The difference here is that this article puts it in romantic, emotional terms, showing how men firmly on the patriarchal side are nonetheless subject to the feelings they pretend belong entirely to women.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:24 AM on August 26, 2020 [16 favorites]
Hachi machi
Anyway, I think this accounts for a lot of the history of leadership. The difference here is that this article puts it in romantic, emotional terms, showing how men firmly on the patriarchal side are nonetheless subject to the feelings they pretend belong entirely to women.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:24 AM on August 26, 2020 [16 favorites]
like Nick and the green dock light.
posted by clavdivs at 12:17 PM on August 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 12:17 PM on August 26, 2020 [8 favorites]
I find the theory plausible enough in general, but while I think it perfectly explains Trumps feelings for Putin, I don't believe any of Trump's own cronies ever genuinely admired Trump. My theory is that it's rather the opposite effect - he's wannabe-puppetmaster-bait - such a ridiculous figure that they all think they can easily manipulate him and be the shadow behind the throne. And yes, maybe they count on _other_ men being silly enough to fall for the performance, because Trump's obviously trying so hard to hit all the notes, so it has to work on someone, no? I think it's a game of infinite recursion - half-clever men trying to sell each other on the most clay-footed of figureheads, each believing the other is stupid enough to genuinely fall for it, playing along to con each other, each in turn conned by the other playing along.
I'm currently reading Mantel's "The Mirror and the Light" and it's tempting to reconsider it in the light of this article. I could see Cromwell's feelings for Wolsey somewhat fitting into the pattern, although it's more filial, I think. Charles Brandon somewhat has this effect on Henry, but not entirely reliably; still it's clearly the reason why he gets away with stuff no other would. Cromwell's relationship to Henry though .... at some point Cromwell _did_choose him (choose your prince), but even at the start, when Henry hasn't completely gone to seed yet and strikes a nice figure as a Renaissance Man, Cromwell isn't exactly starry-eyed. But it's interesting to consider whether Cromwell, pragmatic, unsentimenal, calculating, self-serving Cromwell might not be somewhat in thrall anyway; he can't entirely admit to himself how much he does blame Henry for Wolsey's fate, how in order to complete his revenge he would have to go after Henry himself. But I think that's more sunk-cost-fallacy (Cromwell has invested too much in Henry to drop him) rather than Cromwell succumbing to the glamour of hypermasculinity.
posted by sohalt at 12:53 PM on August 26, 2020 [11 favorites]
I'm currently reading Mantel's "The Mirror and the Light" and it's tempting to reconsider it in the light of this article. I could see Cromwell's feelings for Wolsey somewhat fitting into the pattern, although it's more filial, I think. Charles Brandon somewhat has this effect on Henry, but not entirely reliably; still it's clearly the reason why he gets away with stuff no other would. Cromwell's relationship to Henry though .... at some point Cromwell _did_choose him (choose your prince), but even at the start, when Henry hasn't completely gone to seed yet and strikes a nice figure as a Renaissance Man, Cromwell isn't exactly starry-eyed. But it's interesting to consider whether Cromwell, pragmatic, unsentimenal, calculating, self-serving Cromwell might not be somewhat in thrall anyway; he can't entirely admit to himself how much he does blame Henry for Wolsey's fate, how in order to complete his revenge he would have to go after Henry himself. But I think that's more sunk-cost-fallacy (Cromwell has invested too much in Henry to drop him) rather than Cromwell succumbing to the glamour of hypermasculinity.
posted by sohalt at 12:53 PM on August 26, 2020 [11 favorites]
Dozens of politicians, billionaires and power brokers bankroll and hang out with a known serial child rapist and trafficker for decades and then everyone finds out.
"uuuh, he was tall and steely-eyed. When you think about it, we're the victims."
posted by Reyturner at 1:10 PM on August 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
"uuuh, he was tall and steely-eyed. When you think about it, we're the victims."
posted by Reyturner at 1:10 PM on August 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
that weird bromance stuff described reminds me a bit of Mailer's novel Harlot's Ghost.
(lemme tell ya, it's not a recommended Mefi-read (it's like a walking nebula of disturbed masculinity) but it's... something else.)
posted by ovvl at 3:20 PM on August 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
(lemme tell ya, it's not a recommended Mefi-read (it's like a walking nebula of disturbed masculinity) but it's... something else.)
posted by ovvl at 3:20 PM on August 26, 2020 [2 favorites]
After nearly four hours together, I surrendered at 1:15 a.m. to M.B.S.’s youth
I have seen this same phenomenon (obviously on a much smaller, less globally-threatening scale) at a few workplaces and it is nearly always an older man bedazzled by a younger one, who proceeds to "disrupt" well-functioning teams, cause reputational issues and generally sow havoc.
posted by andraste at 4:00 PM on August 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
I have seen this same phenomenon (obviously on a much smaller, less globally-threatening scale) at a few workplaces and it is nearly always an older man bedazzled by a younger one, who proceeds to "disrupt" well-functioning teams, cause reputational issues and generally sow havoc.
posted by andraste at 4:00 PM on August 26, 2020 [9 favorites]
This isn't weird stuff, is it? Isn't it just the well-known power of charisma? Something that many recent American presidents have had? (At least Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama?)
I'm in the middle of Montaillou: The Promised Land Of Error, a fascinating account of a village in what's now southern France. There were a lot of Cathars in the town, so it attracted a lot of attention from the Inquisition, and the Inquisitor - the future Pope Benedict XII - was especially skilled at getting people to tell him all the details of their lives.
There's more than one man in the book who seems to have this kind of power over other men. Some of the Cathar parfaits did. The village priest seemed to, at least when he was younger. (As he got older he relied more on threats of turning people over the the Inquisition to get his way, which was no doubt less charming.) Without modern filters on male expression of affection, other men were very willing to express their overflowing admiration; willing to share money and wives and daughters; distraught when the charismatic object of affection was taken by death or the Inquisition.
There was homosexuality, but what was written down of it by the Inquisitor was in different emotional and social contexts from these relationships.
That's just one little example from lots of them in history. I just happened to be in the middle of it now, so it came to mind.
posted by clawsoon at 4:00 PM on August 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm in the middle of Montaillou: The Promised Land Of Error, a fascinating account of a village in what's now southern France. There were a lot of Cathars in the town, so it attracted a lot of attention from the Inquisition, and the Inquisitor - the future Pope Benedict XII - was especially skilled at getting people to tell him all the details of their lives.
There's more than one man in the book who seems to have this kind of power over other men. Some of the Cathar parfaits did. The village priest seemed to, at least when he was younger. (As he got older he relied more on threats of turning people over the the Inquisition to get his way, which was no doubt less charming.) Without modern filters on male expression of affection, other men were very willing to express their overflowing admiration; willing to share money and wives and daughters; distraught when the charismatic object of affection was taken by death or the Inquisition.
There was homosexuality, but what was written down of it by the Inquisitor was in different emotional and social contexts from these relationships.
That's just one little example from lots of them in history. I just happened to be in the middle of it now, so it came to mind.
posted by clawsoon at 4:00 PM on August 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
This isn't weird stuff, is it? Isn't it just the well-known power of charisma? Something that many recent American presidents have had?
I think perhaps the weirdness of it is that the men who are captivated don't realise, in the moment, that they are being captivated by charisma rather than inspired by genuinely good and intelligent ideas. Perhaps men who've reached a certain level of success professionally and personally believe they are impervious to being bedazzled and therefore, if they find themselves agreeing with something, it must be an informed decision rather than an emotional one.
posted by andraste at 5:37 PM on August 26, 2020 [10 favorites]
I think perhaps the weirdness of it is that the men who are captivated don't realise, in the moment, that they are being captivated by charisma rather than inspired by genuinely good and intelligent ideas. Perhaps men who've reached a certain level of success professionally and personally believe they are impervious to being bedazzled and therefore, if they find themselves agreeing with something, it must be an informed decision rather than an emotional one.
posted by andraste at 5:37 PM on August 26, 2020 [10 favorites]
I have no doubt of the thesis but don't find many of the examples very convincing. Other than Beatty and the urologist, I think that for most of the men listed it's more about money and power, and in Putin v. Trump especially, probably blackmail as well. It's a very interesting topic and I would like to hear of more cases, just don't find most of the given ones very persuasive when the charisma seems a bit lacking and other motives are plentiful.
posted by blue shadows at 9:15 PM on August 26, 2020
posted by blue shadows at 9:15 PM on August 26, 2020
Elizabeth Holmes seemed to have this power over her male investors. Not, I think, sex appeal, but the same sort of charisma that makes people totally reconfigure their belief systems to align with whatever she's selling them on.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:41 PM on August 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 10:41 PM on August 26, 2020 [4 favorites]
Like I have no doubt that bromance played a role, but it seems kind of letting people who have done or abetted great evil off easy by blaming it on infatuation.
posted by blue shadows at 10:54 PM on August 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by blue shadows at 10:54 PM on August 26, 2020 [1 favorite]
Like I have no doubt that bromance played a role, but it seems kind of letting people who have done or abetted great evil off easy by blaming it on infatuation.
Yes, it lets off the enablers too easily. There are so many other, even less flattering reasons, why sidekicks/acolytes/toadies/henchmen might flock to the alpha-bullshitter. But people often do things for more than one reason, and I do think it can be sometimes illuminating to consider the infatuation-angle, because it captures the whole irrationality of it. Because sure, these people might have the most self-serving reasons to seek the promixity of that kind of power, but they tend to stay in these relationships long after it becomes obvious that the costs outweigh the benefits.
And yes, some of that might be sunk-cost fallacy, or shame about falling for the con/inability to cope with the cognitive disonance. Ultimately, these charismatic alpha guys are con artists and con artists have a way of exploiting people's worst tendencies (and also sometimes their best tendencies, that's the tragedy) and people can't face that they're conned, because it might mean facing something deeply disturbing about themselves.
So I get how it happens for followers of alpha guys who already have that power - there is something alluring about the promise they represent "Look at all the bullshit I'm getting away with - follow me, and you will get away with it too." And even if that promise is never fulfilled, they're stuck, because they can't afford too much introspection in this matter, they have to buy into their own pretextes.
But that dynamic doesn't quite explain how the charismatic con artists gets that power in the first place, they have to start by charming someone who is actually more powerful than them, who sees their "potential", who lets them get away with the bullshit the first time. Cozying up to Epstein because you're pedophile yourself and want to get invited to the parties is one thing, but people cozied up to Epstein before he was in position to host those parties. Why did Barr give him that first job?
posted by sohalt at 12:32 AM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
Yes, it lets off the enablers too easily. There are so many other, even less flattering reasons, why sidekicks/acolytes/toadies/henchmen might flock to the alpha-bullshitter. But people often do things for more than one reason, and I do think it can be sometimes illuminating to consider the infatuation-angle, because it captures the whole irrationality of it. Because sure, these people might have the most self-serving reasons to seek the promixity of that kind of power, but they tend to stay in these relationships long after it becomes obvious that the costs outweigh the benefits.
And yes, some of that might be sunk-cost fallacy, or shame about falling for the con/inability to cope with the cognitive disonance. Ultimately, these charismatic alpha guys are con artists and con artists have a way of exploiting people's worst tendencies (and also sometimes their best tendencies, that's the tragedy) and people can't face that they're conned, because it might mean facing something deeply disturbing about themselves.
So I get how it happens for followers of alpha guys who already have that power - there is something alluring about the promise they represent "Look at all the bullshit I'm getting away with - follow me, and you will get away with it too." And even if that promise is never fulfilled, they're stuck, because they can't afford too much introspection in this matter, they have to buy into their own pretextes.
But that dynamic doesn't quite explain how the charismatic con artists gets that power in the first place, they have to start by charming someone who is actually more powerful than them, who sees their "potential", who lets them get away with the bullshit the first time. Cozying up to Epstein because you're pedophile yourself and want to get invited to the parties is one thing, but people cozied up to Epstein before he was in position to host those parties. Why did Barr give him that first job?
posted by sohalt at 12:32 AM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]
calling it charisma doesn’t explain anything though
Isn’t that sort of the definition of charisma? The ineffable quality that lets a person get away with things like that?
posted by atoxyl at 9:10 AM on August 27, 2020
Isn’t that sort of the definition of charisma? The ineffable quality that lets a person get away with things like that?
posted by atoxyl at 9:10 AM on August 27, 2020
But it's interesting to consider whether Cromwell, pragmatic, unsentimenal, calculating, self-serving Cromwell might not be somewhat in thrall anyway
In thinking about Cromwell and Henry (or anyone and Henry), I'm wondering whether people thought princes were not really like other men, or at least not couldn't be substituted with a non-prince. Who could Cromwell put on the throne in Henry's place? I'm not sure there was any feasible Protestant option. And more Catholic than Henry would undoubtedly have been worse for Cromwell. Certainly Cromwell doesn't have the benefit of knowing that, for example, a woman could very successfully rule England.
posted by plonkee at 9:39 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
In thinking about Cromwell and Henry (or anyone and Henry), I'm wondering whether people thought princes were not really like other men, or at least not couldn't be substituted with a non-prince. Who could Cromwell put on the throne in Henry's place? I'm not sure there was any feasible Protestant option. And more Catholic than Henry would undoubtedly have been worse for Cromwell. Certainly Cromwell doesn't have the benefit of knowing that, for example, a woman could very successfully rule England.
posted by plonkee at 9:39 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
The company I work for is currently going through a 'bromance' type partnership. Years (literally) of development complaints about software, budgeting, etc makes no difference but a CEO of a neighboring industy company has an issue, tells it directly to our CEO, says his team can solve it, and now our internal group is on its way out and his is on its way in.
We've had issues in the past where ROI business homeruns still took months to process through the 'system' to get started, but this transition happens in just weeks. No way any real analysis was done. We're really just taking the guy at his word.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:55 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
We've had issues in the past where ROI business homeruns still took months to process through the 'system' to get started, but this transition happens in just weeks. No way any real analysis was done. We're really just taking the guy at his word.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:55 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
Who could Cromwell put on the throne in Henry's place? I'm not sure there was any feasible Protestant option. Fair enough, I didn't sufficiently consider his commitment to the cause. If it's about not going back to Rome, I like to imagine that Anne Boleyn might have accomplished that well enough, had she not been taken out of the game prematurely, but I can see why Cromwell wouldn't see her as a good bet-, she was too emmeshed with her shitty family (she might have thought she had her own power base and didn't need Cromwell), her baby was a girl, Henry was already lusting after another, and if Cromwell had not found the pretexte to get rid of her, someone else would have done Henry the favour. Probably. In my mind they should have been on the same team, but I can see why that only works in fan fiction.
posted by sohalt at 11:51 AM on August 27, 2020
posted by sohalt at 11:51 AM on August 27, 2020
Roy Cohn/David Schine used to share rooms.
posted by mikelieman at 3:01 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 3:01 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older One Iconic Look | Maria Mitchell, 1st Female Professional U.S.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clawsoon at 10:32 AM on August 26, 2020 [7 favorites]