The Obsolescence of Chivalry

Modern dating has fallen on hard times, and just about everyone has an opinion on why that is. Some say women narrowly pursue the top percentile of men; some say men are withdrawn; some say women are full of themselves; some say men are infantile; generally, people claim there is some univariate reason (that is often biased against or towards one gender or the other). I have my own opinions that more or less agree with most every reason people come up with, because it’s probably been true for them. I’d also unpopularly posit there are other reasons that are self-inflicted. A particular reason I’d like to consider is more fundamental, or at least more expansive, than the topic of dating: it’s the relationship dynamics between men and women.

With such a broad topic, it’s questionable whether a measly blog post can offer anything comprehensive. I’ll set the record straight early on and confirm that this will not at all be comprehensive. It will, however, offer something of substance (hopefully).

I admire the genre of fantasy for many reasons; one of those reasons is its unashamed exploration of ideals. It provides ideals of heroism, justice, courage, and love among other things. Chivalry is one such thing that, unfortunately, has fallen out of fashion relatively recently. In stories, you see knights kissing the hands of fair maidens, soldiers leaving their families to take up a fight that will protect them, and men putting themselves between dangers and women and children. Tales like The Odyssey, Beowulf, and even The Princess Bride showcase values of chivalry. The manner of honorable conduct men display or aspire to is something now really only gotten in stories—and arguably not even modern stories, but stories of past centuries. Why did chivalry become unfashionable and, dare I say, antiquated?

To start off, chivalry is a code of honor. In the historical sense it was a knightly system that involved similar ideals as aforementioned including justice and courage. It also included courteousness, which is what chivalry is more often reduced to recently—particularly the courtesy men offer to women. Though it may be stating the obvious, knights aren’t really a thing anymore, which naturally means there isn’t a knightly system for which men have to abide by or aspire to. A big reason knights ceased to exist is due to the investment it took to be one. It took time, money, and commitment: equipment was costly, and training skills like swordplay and horseback riding took time. With such effort, the status of a knight was socially recognized, accommodated for, and maintained for its merits. Societies developed where such accommodations were inefficient, and were thus phased out. Military strategy advanced and technology advanced; gunpowder overtook medieval weaponry, and straightforwardly marching to face opponents in a melee or shootout did not always prove advantageous over guerrilla tactics, subterfuge, spycraft, and whatnot. With such developments, the natural question was: why be honorable and courageous if it meant needlessly dying? Though knighthood faded, chivalry can be considered to have filtered into common society outside of knighthood and indeed was for some time the way men conducted themselves. So, if chivalry wasn’t necessarily dependent on knighthood, why is it unfashionable now?

I’ll repeat some key points: chivalry is a code of honor. As such, it was societally recognized, accommodated, and maintained. What would happen if society did not recognize or maintain it? Well, it would fall out of use like a fad. But how could chivalry be a fad? Treating people nicely, particularly women and children, should be socially advantageous, right? In some ways, yes: prosocial behaviors promote harmony in societies and can strengthen bonds and overall security for survival. Yet, that’s not really a formal code of honor like chivalry which comes with merits and status and weighted conduct. That’s more along the lines of common courtesy and social etiquette—following the golden rule of doing unto others as you would like done unto you. There is no discriminatory feature that favors women in such behavior—it treats everyone equally. And here, we come to the unsatisfying crux of it: chivalry is incompatible with equality.

Equality is where developed societies are at currently. And equality means no one is granted special status or merits. There may be different social classes alike times of yore, like lower and upper classes or civilians and officials, yet socially we treat people of each class the same. If you go to a restaurant as a farmer, you’ll be treated (roughly) the same as if you were a governor (as long as you have the money to pay). Chivalry, which denotes women as a special class of sorts as well as the men who conduct themselves with chivalry, would go against equality. Without merits or status, chivalry dies.

Now, can a developed society reconcile chivalry with modern practices and values? In a sense, yes, however it would be tricky. A significant obstacle I’ve been remiss in addressing up to this point is more than just a society that lets chivalry fall out of fashion—it’s a society that condemns chivalry. Feminism is a contemporary ideology focused on the equal treatment of women and that has undergone several movements and seen through a variety of civil rights issues. Like any ideological movement, it has seen its fair share of unsavory practices, values, and characters. Chivalry is simply incompatible with equality, however chivalry is the antithesis of feminism. Feminism views chivalry ultimately as misogynistic—it could be seen as infantilizing women, harassing women, or even abusing women. So, not only does chivalry earn no merits, it risks punishment. A code of honor that receives no honor and is vilified is hardly tenable.

Speaking more on that aforementioned sense chivalry could be reconciled with modern society, both equality and feminist-type ideologies would have to make exceptions or be let go of to some degree. That would require chivalry to be seen as socially beneficial again. How any of this would work would be a potential activist venture I lack either the patience or creativity to strategize, though the outlined factors constituting chivalry would be a good place to start—and without cutting corners. Given chivalry is a code of honor, it cannot be mistaken for a code of altruism. It does not function as a system of giving freely, because no system works that way (not even charities). That means it needs something in return to function—what that something is I doubt would be like traditional knighthood, but there could be something sustainable even for a watered down version of chivalry. Something pretty simple, actually… Something that would paradoxically embody both ideals of chivalry and equality… Some sort of tradeoff like reciprocity that may not exactly be 1:1 but would nonetheless be valued equally… Something like complementarity.

There was a counterpart to chivalry of ye olde days I briefly mentioned that I should expand a bit on. It never received a formal system or label like chivalry did, but it was vitally important for how the code of honor functioned. For what greater honor is there than to do good deeds for affection, particularly the affection of a woman? Describing women this way as a sort of commodity is pretty taboo, again for the reason modern equality and feminism frown upon it, but it’s what was true. Just as there were ideals men conducted themselves with and strived for, women had their own ideals—grace, beauty, loyalty, modesty, restraint, innocence, and tenderness. The closest label that complements and is the counterpart to chivalrous behavior is ladylike behavior, so I’ll be referring to such feminine ideals and conduct as ‘ladylike’ behavior from here on. Indeed, I previously mentioned a scenario of the chivalry involving knights kissing the hands of fair maidens. That scenario calls to mind a sense of honor and devotion—and it was ladylike behavior that such knights were devoted to. And it was chivalrous behavior that such fair maidens were likewise devoted to. Mutual devotion due to both being inspired by the other, and through these behaviors based around ideals such devotion was strengthened and further inspiring. A complementary relationship.

So, I’ve done a half-baked rundown of how chivalry fell out of fashion, but wherefore is the ladylike behavior? Again, a taboo topic but this time strictly with consideration to a feminist perspective—women don’t owe men anything! Alas, complementarity requires a tradeoff of some kind, and, as I said earlier, no system works freely. For either chivalrous or ladylike behavior to work, relationships and wider society has to either include both or neither. If men treat women specially, so, too, must women treat men. Complementarity. It’s a similar concept to yin and yang. How would that work in modern times? Again, I wouldn’t know exactly. I’m more of a problem-finder than a problem-solver. But reviewing the ideals is a good place to start.

I’ve talked a lot about antiquated things like knighthood and ladylike behaviors, and it may make one question whether I’ve romanticized these notions. Yeah, I probably have (while writing this I had the lyrics of Storybook Love repeating in my head). There are other reasons these things became antiquated, such as male abuses of power that spurred aforementioned women’s movements that gained them civil rights. Such actual misogynistic behavior likely helped kill chivalry—so much so that feminist overreach vilified chivalry (and arguably men in general (i.e., misandry)). It can be seen in modern stories, where feminist messages empower women and ridicule men. Resentment between genders is a wedge that I think, ironically, is complementary. That there is differential treatment between men and women, or at least differential views, gives some hope for my complementarity theory (even if the modern tradeoff involves negativity). I believe it’s worthwhile to recognize chivalrous behavior as not being equivalent to misogynist behavior, and likewise ladylike behavior as not being equivalent to misandrist behavior (or internalized misogyny)—the ideals are positive and respectful as opposed to negative and resentful. I think such ideals in relationships are not only desirable but achievable. That romance is the highest-grossing fiction genre in the world has to mean something. So, I’d argue I’ve largely not romanticized chivalry. I think the true romanticization of chivalry views it as unconditional servility. And that, in my opinion, is the reason it’s obsolete… for now.