Humanist Covenant Director Robbert Bodegraven set up de Volkskrant (15 May) that the manosphere is deeply caused by a crisis of meaning, due to the slow erosion of philosophical ties. He calls individualization, liberalisation and secularisation as elements of a far-reaching .ideological conversion that makes it (young) men difficult to find their place in the world. What remains is a world where competition, struggle and individual merit must give meaning to life. But is this all said? How can we organize society so that people meet in a way that makes moral and social education possible? Ward Huetink and Cor van Beuningen wrote the article below in response to the website of newWe.
The manosphere comes from a sense crisis that we created ourselves
Call to re-centralise .
The analysis of Bodegraven is so important because she digs deeper than the usual reflexes around the manosphere. He sees that the appeal of figures like Andrew Tate cannot simply be explained by misogyny, conservatism or resistance to emancipation. Behind that attraction lies a deep uncertainty: a search for meaning, direction, recognition and connection. Therefore, Bodegraven rightly concludes: "No boy who is inspired by Tate can be persuaded by a history lesson about women's empathy. (...) He feels insecure and forgotten in a world fearful of him in which he does not find his place."
But that's where his solution stands: If we put the values of connection and solidarity back at the centre, everything will be fine. It's like the problem is that young men have gotten the wrong ideas. As if the lack of moral direction is a matter of the world's not understanding properly. In doing so, he remains trapped in the same abstract vocabulary that today tries to explain almost every social problem through "values," "consciousness" and "narratives."
However, the deeper development is that we do not lack ideas, but social practices that are necessary to form responsible, empathic, inclusive and open citizens. The motives for human encounter, cooperation and mutual dependence have been taken over by market, state and bureaucratic systems. Now it appears that this is not just a cultural loss, but a profound social and organisational disruption.
"The motives for human encounter, cooperation and mutual dependence have been taken over by the market and the state."
The Article of Luc Person Where's the community? in the Volkskrant one day later (16 May) hits the nail upside down. People used to be formed not primarily by abstract values or moral messages, but by participation in shared practices. In neighborhoods, associations, churches, unions, workshops, families and local communities people had to organize things together. They depended on each other. There they learned to deal with responsibility, conflict, dependence, loyalty, authority, care and reciprocity. It was precisely in that concrete meeting that qualities such as empathy, confidence, generosity and solidarity emerged. Not because an agency organised a campaign about it, but because people really needed each other.
Precisely those rehearsal spaces have been systematically eroded over the past decades. Care was professionalised, social security established, education psychologized, production globalized and democracy increasingly bureaucratic organised. Even friendship and love have shifted significantly to digital platforms and algorithmic systems. Fewer and fewer social functions still require real human involvement.
The rise of the manosphere shows that the result of these processes is not simply "more freedom," but a society in which people are becoming less and less social and moral. That is the real background to the individualization and sense crisis Bodegraven is talking about. Modern society has liberated individuals from traditional contexts, but barely rebuilt new forms of common action. As a result, formally autonomous people are created who become practically socially devoid and morally alienated.
From that perspective, the manosphere is not a random derailment, but a symptom of social dissolution. Boys are still looking for recognition, direction, discipline, hierarchy, camaraderie and a form of adulthood. The manosphere offers a distorted and destructive version, but it does fill a void that society itself has produced.
"People learn empathy not through campaigns, but through concrete relationships. They learn responsibility because others really depend on them."
Therefore, Bodegraven's call to re-focus values is not helpful. Values do not arise in a liberal society primarily by communicating them from above. People learn empathy not through campaigns, but through concrete relationships. They learn responsibility because others really depend on them. They learn solidarity by carrying something together. Moral formation is not discursive but a social process.
Bodegraven is absolutely right to say: "If we want to counter the growing desire for traditional manhood, attention must also be paid to philosophical erosion." But the fundamental sense is not what values to teach young people, but how to organise things so that people still meet in a way that makes moral and social education possible.
There lies the real alternative to the manosphere. Not in more moralising about masculinity, but in reorganising social structures in which people actually live and work together.
If you have any questions or want to respond to the article, please contact Ward Huetink and/or Cor van Beuningen.
