I.
Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything.
This line, often attributed to Alexander Hamilton - one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the protagonist of Lin-Manuel Miranda's smash hit musical [1] - is precisely the sort of simplistic cliché posited as an undeniably wise truth that I despise.
Not only does it discourage critical thinking and debate, but it equates those who lack conviction and, like me, prefer to remain transpositional, with being credulous and gullible.
II.
The kind of men [2] who take a stand, are often the same kind of men who have a point to prove and a case to rest.
And they are often the same kind of men who like to stand to attention (feet together, arms by side, spine straight, shoulders back, chin up, eyes front), which is certainly one way to discipline the body, but not my way [3].
For the kind of men who are willing to discipline the body in this manner and who insist on standing for something are also the same kind of men willing to march and to die and to kill for their ideological principles, moral values, core beliefs, etc.
For in taking a stand, they find themselves with a position to defend; and in finding themselves with a position to defend they all too quickly declare it legitimate to do so by any means necessary [4].
Personally, I don't like such men: men who stand for something. I prefer men who, like rebellious angels, have the courage to fall - in love, for example (or into sin) - even at the risk of seeming foolish, or weak and indecisive, or lacking manly virtue.
Notes
[1] Hamilton: An American Musical (2015) is a biographical musical with music, lyrics, and a book by Lin-Manuel Miranda (based on the 2004 biography of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow). From its (off-Broadway) opening, Hamilton received near-universal acclaim and it has since won multiple awards and continued to be box office gold.
A West End production opened at the Victoria Palace Theatre in London on 21 December, 2017, and picked up seven Olivier Awards in 2018, including Best New Musical.
I have not seen it: and do not want to see it. I suspect, if someone were to drag me along, I would either leave at the interval (and, when getting home, immediately have to watch Heat on DVD), or I'd fall asleep quicker than Larry David in the season 9 episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm entitled 'The Shucker' (dir. Jeff Schaffer, 2017): click here.
[2] I find it necessary to genderise the discussion at this point, for, as will become clear, it seems to me that this issue of taking a stand etc. is one tied to a certain model of masculinity (one seen as as virtuous and virile in the Victoran era, but which is now viewed as toxic).
[3] Being upright and able to stand to attention was a core component of the Victorian ideal of (heterosexual) masculinity. Symbolising strength and self-control, an erect posture was a physical manifestation of a man's character and moral standing. Men who slouched were weaklings unlikely to succeed in society; those who were prone to lying around and being idle or licentious were viewed as unmanly degenerates (homosexuals, drug addicts, dandies, or bohemian artists).
[4] This supposedly radical phrase is thought to be an English translation either of a line written by Sartre in his 1948 play Les mains sales - en usant de tous les moyens - or of phrase spoken by Frantz Fanon in his 1960 address to the Positive Action Conference in Accra, Ghana; par n'importe quel moyen.
It is most famously assocated with Malcolm X, however, who used it repeatedly during a rally in NYC, in June 1964 (i.e., a few months before his assassination in February 1965): We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary. The argument of course, is twofold: firstly, that you you have to fight fire with fire (and meet violence with violence); secondly, that the ends justify the means.
This post grew out of remarks made by and to Simon Solomon following a post dated 21 November 2025: click here.
The point about 'rebellious angels', of which I consider myself one, is that they both stand and fall for something and NOT nothing/anything. In the Christian myth, what this stand (and fall) means is nothing short of revolt against God, the weight of which has commanded the imagination of poets of the standing of Blake and Milton. Such a fall is inseparable from the stand taken, the consequences of which shade off into metaphysics.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I suggest, it's the fantasy/idealism of an attachment to 'standing for nothing' (whether or not that implies a falling for anything) that stands in need of critical thinking - rather than, I suggest, crudely and uncritically asserting its refusal to be tantamount to some kind of (body) fascism! As I have reminded readers of TTA, one of its presiding presences, Nietzsche (who precisely stood, diagnostically and ethically, against nihilism and decadentism), wrote repeatedly in regard to the project of 'Umwertrung' about the recreation of values. We are value-makers, and everything we do and touch speaks of and to it. There is no one on earth who does not stand for something - the very act of (under)standing at all presupposes it. No baby, unless deformed, languishes in its cot. From its first days, it tries to stand as a prelude to learning to walk on its own feet.
The idea of literally 'standing for nothing', i.e. representing (and potentially defending) the void, is, however, deeply fascinating. In Shakespeare, the mad Lear declares that 'nothing will come from nothing', voicing his prejudice that the void cannot be fecund. Here, Lear hearkens back to the classical principle, attributed to Parmenides, that 'ex nihili nihil fit' (from nothing nothing comes) - an idea that was actually reversed by Christian theology. His post-Aristotelian 'horror vacui' exposes the terror of emptiness as a void that must be filled (by speech, power, the symbolic order) in order to make (regal) sanity possible. The riddles of the Fool, the eruption of the storm, and the culminating monstrosity of Lear's 'unaccommodated man' speech complete the sabotage of the king's paranoiac power trip. Bare life ('O, O, O, O') is the phonetic vacuum that lays everything bare and is, depending on what one stands for, purgative, transformative, or a drama of desolation.
Very interesting: and point taken about rebellious angels; they both stand and fall and only fall having first dared to take a stand.
ReplyDeleteHowever, whether that stand and fall is (actively) for something is debatable; the primary motivation of any rebellion is surely (by definition) to stand against (to resist and reject) authority (in this case God's will).
I also agree with you that the idea of literally standing for Nothing, i.e., representing (and potentially defending) the Void, is perhaps the most fascinating question of all - and, as a nihilist, that's very much what I'm attempting to do, as recent posts - as well as many older posts - have indicated (again, the clue is in the name; torpedo the ark is an affirmation of chaotic waters rather than an acceptance of God's judgement).
Where we differ, is in our reading of Nietzsche, who, according to you, 'precisely stood, diagnostically and ethically, against nihilism and decadentism'. I don't think his position was quite so clear cut; he describes himself as the first perfect nihilist (i.e., the one who has come to consummate nihilism) and he also admits in 'Ecce Homo', for example, to being a décadent (always using the French term) - whilst also the reverse of such (i.e., one who is strong enough to overcome his own décadence).
One of Nietzsche's key insights (born of his dual nature) is that whilst strength preserves, it is only sickness that advances man as a culture and species.
Anyway, hope these remarks might interest you as much as yours fascinated me.