by Brad Hornick
Much of the contemporary advice directed at men focuses on personal success. Youth are urged to be disciplined, financially independent, professionally competent and resilient in the face of adversity. The mentorship literature often frames maturity as the ability to compete effectively within the framework of modern economic life.
A recent example is the work of Scott Galloway who provides direct guidance to young people on navigating education, careers, relationships and financial life. At the center of his framework is a simplistic formulation of masculine responsibility. A man, he suggests, should strive to be three things: a protector, a provider and a begetter. In his telling, stability, discipline and economic competence form the basis of these roles. The advice is practical, often compelling, and based on the youth’s desire to find purpose and direction in a confusing social landscape.
These qualities of discipline, effort, perseverance and responsibility are not without value. But the framework in which they are presented is often deeply narrow. It assumes that a man’s central task is to optimize his own life course: to secure income, status and personal stability within the competitive framework of the market.
What is missing from this conversation is the social and environmental context that makes any individual life possible.
No one succeeds alone. Every human life is sustained by systems that exist beyond the individual: families, communities, institutions, landscapes, water bodies, soils, forests, oceans, and a stable climate. These are not peripheral conditions. They are the basis of all prosperity and all survival.
Yet the dominant cultural narrative of success rarely acknowledges this interdependence. Responsibility is usually framed as self-discipline: working harder, competing more effectively, building personal wealth rather than stewardship of shared conditions.
At the root of this narrowness lies the logic of the economic system in which modern life unfolds.
Capitalist economies reward expansion, savings and growth. They encourage individuals and organizations alike to seek profit, scale production and secure advantage over competitors. Innovation and productivity are harnessed towards the continued growth of markets and consumption.
This dynamic has created tremendous material wealth. But they also create a structural contradiction that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
Natural systems that sustain human life: climate stability, fertile soils, forests, freshwater systems and biodiversity are limited and fragile. Yet the economic system within which success is measured operates under the imperative of continuous growth. When growth becomes the primary measure of achievement, the commons on which that growth depends are considered readily expendable.
The results are now visible across the planet: destabilized climate systems, collapsing fisheries, degraded soils, disappearing forests, and widening inequalities in access to basic resources. These results are not merely accidental by products of personal preference. They are symptoms of a system whose internal logic encourages extraction faster than regeneration.
But the contradictions of capitalism are not limited to environmental damage. They are also social.
The capitalist system organizes society through hierarchies of ownership and labor. Wealth is unevenly accumulated, concentrated in the hands of those who control capital, while the majority must sell their labor to survive. This structural division is what critics of capitalism describe as exploitation, the extraction of value from labor that is not returned to producers.
At the same time, many people experience what is described as isolation. Work becomes disconnected from meaningful participation in social life or stewardship of the natural world. Labor is organized around productivity and profit rather than human betterment. Individuals often experience themselves not as participants in a shared social project but as isolated competitors within an economic system.
These dynamics create further consequences on a larger scale. The pursuit of growth and resource extraction extends beyond national boundaries. Strong economies seek access to land, minerals, energy and labor in other parts of the world. This process has historically taken the form of colonial expansion and, more recently, economic systems that allow rich states and corporations to extract resources from poor regions.
The result is an unequal global system in which some societies accumulate wealth while others experience displacement, poverty and environmental degradation. The entire region became the extraction site. Communities are uprooted by mining, deforestation, agricultural expansion or industrial development. Immigration and social unrest followed.
These realities are rarely part of the cultural conversation about masculinity and success. Yet they are inseparable from the economic system within which that success is defined.
When the mentorship literature encourages young men to compete more effectively only within the existing order, it risks overlooking the larger social and environmental consequences of that order. The question is not simply how an individual can succeed within the system. The question is whether the system itself is consistent with the responsibilities that masculinity claims to embody.
The conflict becomes particularly interesting when viewed through Galloway’s own construction of masculine responsibility. If a man has to be a provider, what exactly will he give if the means of sustaining life are eroded or if prosperity depends on the exploitation of labor and resources elsewhere? If he wants to be a protector, what does protection mean in a world where communities and ecosystems are destabilized by the economic processes that create wealth? And if she is to be a progenitor, what responsibility is there to bring new life into a world marked by environmental stress, deep inequality and geopolitical instability?
These questions do not invalidate the motivation behind Galloway’s advice. On the contrary, they reveal the deeper ethical terrain that dialogue must eventually confront.
Historically, masculinity has often been associated with protection and parenting. In many societies men were expected to protect their communities, protect shared resources and ensure the survival of the material foundations of life. These responsibilities were collective before they became personal.
Modern market culture has gradually displaced this perception. The competitive market has become the primary arena in which male identity is validated. Success is measured by accumulation and progress, while common air, water, soil, climate and shared social institutions fade into the background.
But the environmental and social realities of the present moment force a rethink.
Climate disruption, biodiversity decline, freshwater loss, rising inequality and continued global instability reveal that the systems that support civilization are under increasing pressure. This crisis is not a distant concern. They shape food systems, migration patterns, economic stability and political conflict. They define the world that future generations will inherit.
Masculinity in such situations cannot be defined solely by individual success within the marketplace. A deeper measure of responsibility is the desire to protect and restore the commons on which all life depends and to confront social systems that undermine human dignity and collective welfare.
Strength in this context is not merely personal resilience. Courage to challenge forms of economic and social organization that undermine the conditions of life. Provision means more than income. It means ensuring that fertile soil, clean water, functioning ecosystems, and equitable social institutions remain available to those who come after us. Security extends beyond individual security to include the protection of communities and societies from exploitation, displacement and domination.
“Mature man”, in this sense, is not simply a competitor within the economic system. He is a steward, or potentially a revolutionary.
Steward recognizes that prosperity built on the degradation of the living world or the exploitation of other people is ultimately a form of failure. He understands that responsibility requires confronting the conflict between individual advancement and collective survival. And he recognizes that true maturity lies not just in navigating existing systems, but in helping to reshape them so that human life can flourish.
The challenge before us is therefore greater than “teaching men how to succeed”.
It’s teaching them how to succeed without destroying the world that makes success meaningful and, when necessary, how to transform systems that put those goals in conflict.
To be a revolutionary rather than a mere “conqueror”.
It recognizes that the measure of responsibility is not only what a man achieves for himself, but what he helps preserve for future generations.
–
Previously published Reprinted on and with resilience permission
Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.
All premium members Watch the Good Men Project without any ads.
–
Image: splash
