Flannery O'Connell's classic short story doesn't actually explore the concept of a 'Good Man' except in the warped and convoluted mind of the joint-protagonist in the story (the grandmother). Naturally, she portrays him as everything that fits her own selfish desires. It made me wonder whether we all do the same.

I also wondered, whether, in spite of the obvious misjudgment of the grandmother, that statement still holds true? Is it easy to find a good man?

When I hear that term, I summon up images of people, writings, even abstract concepts. Men that unquestionably consider good come to mind (Mendella, Ghandi for example). Rudyard Kipling's 'If' springs to mind as an apt and poetic description of what constitutes a good man.

All these examples point out certain qualities without which, we hesitate to call a dude a 'good man'. This brings us to the inevitable question of what defines one.

It's hard to bring up 'value' definition without the familiar sinking feeling of knowing that no conclusion arrived at will be definite. Subjectivity, perspectives and relativism invariably gets in the way. It almost seems 'not good' to even suggest defining such a concept. I have, however, no interest in being a cynic about something I genuinely believe in. I will simply state that if certain qualities and characteristics are better than others, then it is simply obvious that it is 'good' to have them. I will also say that the purpose of defining a good man more concretely is not to illustrate the 'perfect man'; it is simply to show what makes a man better.

Whichever way, I'll hold this 'assumption' to be self-evident: certain qualities are better than others. Honesty is better than deceit, loyalty better than betrayal, diligence better than laziness, humility better than arrogance, wisdom better than imprudence, courage better than cowardice. And so on…

It therefore follows that such 'better' qualities simply make a man better, regardless of where that lands him in this infinite land of life. Questioning the essence of what makes a good man has become very common in a world where such qualities, more often than not, lead you to materialistic 'failure' in life. In its place, we have seen the advent of new concepts for the man to wear and try out. For large swaths of people these have become acceptable, even desirable, personalities to assume. Are they worthy of taking the mantle of the 'good man'? Let's examine them:

(Disclaimer: I must stress here that I only refer -in the entirety of this post- to notions such as 'the alpha male' and 'the nice guy' and others in their most stereotypically widely-accepted format, I do not intend to redefine them according to what they 'should' be or what the linguistic definition of their constituent words mean. Of course, there will be elements of my personal opinion and perception to these terms but I tried to approximate it as much as possible to how I perceive the general notion is.)

1- The Alpha Male The Alpha Male is perhaps one of the most dominant, pervasive notions of what a man should be. An alpha male is typically described as dominant, confident, competitive, tough, loud, with a huge presence and swagger. He is also not particularly 'friendly, a winner, a risk-taker, and -most importantly- 'always gets the girl'. Needless to say such characteristics are loosely derived from the alpha male typically seen in the animal kingdom. It is a type of personality that many young men aspire to in the modern day.

The example being chalked up by advocates of the alpha male drives home one of the main points of what this guy is about many times: bedding women. I guess it is consistent with its namesake amongst animals. This is, of course, not to say that the alpha male is devoid of any 'good' characteristics; quite the contrary! This personality possesses many excellent qualities, but it becomes pretty clear when examined, that the emphasis is more on winning and beating off competition (other males) than simply 'being good'. The selection of characteristics are all catered to achieve the 'raison d'etre' of the alpha male (winning), thus resulting in a mixed dish with good and bad elements.

All in all, I find it a not-so-ideal substitute for the 'good man' but certainly isn't a bad one overall.

2- The Nice Guy The Nice Guy isn't so much an aspiration for young guys as much as it is a default setting for many personalities with associated characteristics. A Nice Guy is a particular type of personality with defined characteristics, rather than just some guy who also happens to be nice.

The nice guy has often been ridiculed and dismissed as loser in popular culture. These accusation are often hurled from the alpha male supporting camp. Advocates of the alpha male consider the very essence of a nice guy (his overwhelmingly 'nice' demeanor) his main downfall. It is hard to fault any personality for being nice, yet detractors point to that trait as the single source of perceived failings in life encountered by Mr. Nice Guy (once again, a particular point is made about the inability to be successful with the fairer sex).

At his best, a nice guy is gentle, kind, courteous and caring. At his worst, he is needy, dishonest, passive and a coward. He is often the 'victim'. Very rarely does this type of personality gets portrayed as the 'to be' one. Its tacit condemnation is encapsulated perfectly in the street quote: "Nice guys finish last". It is clear that a nice guy isn't all bad, in fact he doesn't seem bad at all. He isn't all good either, and is still some way from the ideal image of the good man. This is because, even if we disregard all of his supposedly bad traits as 'harsh judgment', his relatively spineless presence and less-than-ideal determination leaves something to be desired.

3- The Douchebag (/ Asshole / Jerk) The Douchebag is interesting because whichever way I spin it, it merely seems to be a spin-off of the alpha male, but one that lacks the authenticity of some of his traits. The douchebag attempts to copy all of the 'hawkish' features of the alpha male without having the inherence security to back it up. The result is an overcompensated toughness to cover the deep-running insecurity so evident to the trained eye. As such, it gets really tricky to outline the good characteristics of such a personality. Douchebags don't, generally speaking, do 'good' though, it is almost part of what defines them.

I think it's safe to assume that it is a long, long way from the 'good man'.

The prevalence of these stereotype personalities amongst young men do in fact lead me to believe that there is a distinct lack of a discernible form or character for what a good man should be. In my humble opinion, he is a lot more than just a good cross between an alpha male and a nice guy, even if a 'best of both' personality hybrid definitely provides a good start. A good man is alpha but isn't blinded winning and does not consider material achievement a true measure of success. He is also gentle, kind and courteous but is simultaneously tough and mean when it matters.

I sometimes wonder whether promoting a clearly defined image of the good man will do any good in the cause of helping young men aspire to be one. I am certain, though, that the absence of a clearly defined character for such a personality makes a 'good man' that much more valuable.

What do people think? Is a good man hard to find?