 |
 |
||||
|
 |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
The New Psychology of Men
By Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D.
Nova Southeastern University
- Dr. Levant is the co-founder and first President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity, Division 51 of APA. He is the co-author of Masculinity Reconstructed (Plume, 1996) and the co-editor of A New Psychology of Men (Basic Books, 1995) and of Men and Sex: New Psychological Perspectives (John Wiley & Sons, 1997). This article is adapted from an article that appeared in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
Why Study the Psychology of Men?
Those not familiar with this new work sometimes ask: " Why do we need a psychology of men? Isn't all psychology the psychology of men?" The answer is: Yes, males have been the focal point of most psychological research, but in studies which viewed males as representative of humanity as a whole. Feminist scholars challenged this traditional viewpoint by arguing for a gender-specific approach, and in the past quarter century, have rewritten the canon on the psychology of women. In the same spirit, men's studies scholars over the past fifteen years have begun to examine masculinity not as a normative referent, but rather as a complex and problematic construct. In so doing, they have provided a framework for a psychological approach to men and masculinity that questions traditional norms of the male role, such as the emphasis on competition, status, toughness, and emotional stoicism, and views certain male problems (such as aggression and violence, devaluation of women, fear and hatred of homosexuals, detached fathering, and neglect of health needs) as unfortunate but predictable results of the male role socialization process. They have also provided a framework for creating positive new definitions of masculinity that support the optimal development of men, women, and children.
This new psychology of men is both overdue and urgently needed. Men are disproportionately represented among many problem populations -- substance abusers, the homeless, perpetrators of family and interpersonal violence, parents estranged from their children, sex addicts and sex offenders, victims of homicide, suicide, and fatal automobile accidents, and victims of life-style and stress-related fatal illnesses. A new psychology of men might contribute to the understanding and solution of some of these male problems which have long impacted women, men, children, and society in negative ways.
Moreover, due to long delays in dealing with many of these problems, we are currently experiencing a "crisis of connection" between men and women (Levant, 1996). As a result, the pressures on men to behave in ways that conflict with various aspects of traditional masculinity ideology have never been greater. These new pressures -- pressures to commit to relationships, to communicate one's innermost feelings, to nurture children, to share in housework, to integrate sexuality with love, and to curb aggression and violence -- have shaken traditional masculinity ideology to such an extent there is now a "masculinity crisis" in which many feel bewildered and confused, and the pride associated with being a man is lower than at any time in the recent past (Levant, 1997). Many such men are gravitating to organizations such as the Promise Keepers (Promise Keepers, 1994) and the Fatherhood Initiative (Blankenhorn, 1995), which propose to return the male to his "rightful place" as the "leader of his family" by rolling back the gains of the women's movement. A new psychology of men might help men find solutions to the masculinity crisis and the crisis of connection that enhance rather than inflame gender relations, and provide them with tools for the reconstruction of the traditional male code (Levant & Kopecky, 1996).
The purpose of this article is to introduce this new field. We will cover the gender role strain paradigm, masculinity ideology, and the three varieties of male gender role strain-- discrepancy strain, dysfunction strain, and trauma strain.
The Gender Role Strain Paradigm
The new psychology of men views gender roles not as biological or even social "givens", but rather as psychologically and socially constructed entities that bring certain advantages and disadvantages, and, most importantly, can change. This perspective acknowledges the biological differences between men and women, but argues that it is not the biological differences of sex that make for "masculinity" and "femininity". These notions are socially constructed from bits and pieces of biological, psychological, and social experience to serve particular purposes. Traditional constructions of gender serve patriarchal purposes; non-traditional constructions, such as Gilmore (1990) described among the Tahitians and the Semai, serve more equalitarian purposes.
The Gender Role Strain paradigm, originally formulated by Joseph Pleck in The Myth of Masculinity (1981), is the forerunner, in the new psychology of men, of social constructionism, and of modern critical thinking about masculinity, having been formulated before social constructionism emerged as a new perspective on masculinity (Pleck, 1995). It spawned a number of major research programs that have produced important data which have deepened our understanding of the strain men experience when they attempt to live up the impossibility of the male role.
Pleck demonstrated that the paradigm which had dominated the research on masculinity for fifty years (1930-1980) -- the Gender Role Identity Paradigm -- not only poorly accounts for the observed data, but also promotes the patriarchal bifurcation of society on the basis of stereotyped gender roles. In its place, Pleck proposed the Gender Role Strain Paradigm.
The older Gender Role Identity Paradigm assumed that people have an inner psychological need to have a gender role identity, and that optimal personality development hinged on its formation. The extent to which this "inherent" need is met is determined by how completely a person embraces their traditional gender role. From such a perspective, the development of appropriate gender role identity is viewed as a failure-prone process; and, failure for men to achieve a masculine gender role identity is thought to result in homosexuality, negative attitudes towards women, or defensive hypermasculinity. This paradigm springs from the same philosophical roots as the "essentialist" or "nativist" view of sex roles--the notion that (in the case of men) there is a clear masculine "essence" that is historically invariant.
In contrast, the Gender Role Strain Paradigm proposes that contemporary gender roles are contradictory and inconsistent; that the proportion of persons who violate gender roles is high; that violation of gender roles leads to condemnation and negative psychological consequences; that actual or imagined violation of gender roles leads people to overconform to them; that violating gender roles have more severe consequences for males than for females; and that certain prescribed gender role traits (such as male aggression) are often dysfunctional. In this paradigm, appropriate gender roles are determined by the prevailing gender ideology (which is operationally defined by gender role stereotypes and norms), and are imposed on the developing child by parents, teachers, and peers -- the cultural transmitters who subscribe to the prevailing gender ideology. As noted above, this paradigm springs from the same philosophical roots as social constructionism -- the perspective that notions of "masculinity" and femininity" are relational, socially constructed, and subject to change.
Masculinity Ideology
Thompson and Pleck (1995) proposed the term "masculinity ideology" to characterize the core construct in the corpus of research assessing attitudes toward men and male roles. Masculinity, or gender, ideology is a very different construct from the older notion of gender orientation. Gender orientation arises out of the Identity Paradigm, and "presumes that masculinity is rooted in actual differences between men and women" (Thompson & Pleck, 1995, p. 130). This approach has attempted to assess the personality traits more often associated with men than women. In contrast, studies of masculinity ideology take a normative approach, in which masculinity is viewed as a socially constructed gender ideal for men. Whereas the masculine male in the orientation/trait approach is one who possesses particular personality traits, the traditional male in the ideology/normative approach "is one who endorses the ideology that men should have sex-specific characteristics (and women should not)" (Thompson & Pleck, 1995, p. 131). Thompson and Pleck (1995) adduced evidence to supports the notion that gender orientation and gender ideologies are independent and have different correlates.
Masculinity ideologies. The Strain Paradigm asserts that there is no single standard for masculinity nor is there an unvarying masculinity ideology. Rather, since masculinity is a social construction, ideals of manhood may differ for men of different social classes, races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, life stages, and historical eras. Following Brod (1987) we therefore prefer to speak of masculinity ideologies. To illustrate, consider these brief descriptions of varying male codes among four ethnic-minority groups in the contemporary United States:
- African-American males have adopted distinctive actions and attitudes known as cool pose ... Emphasizing honor, virility, and physical strength, the Latino male adheres to a code of machismo... The American-Indian male struggles to maintain contact with a way of life and the traditions of elders while faced with economic castration and political trauma...Asian-American men resolve uncertainty privately in order to save face and surrender personal autonomy to family obligations and needs. (Lazur & Majors, 1995, p. 338).
Traditional masculinity ideology. Despite the diversity in masculinity ideology in the contemporary U.S., Pleck (1995, p. 20) points out that "there is a particular constellation of standards and expectations that individually and jointly have various kinds of negative concommitants." It is common to refer to this as "traditional" masculinity ideology, since it was the dominant view prior to the deconstruction of gender that took place beginning in the 1970's.
Traditional masculinity ideology is thought to be a multidimensional construct. Brannon (David & Brannon, 1976) identified four components of traditional masculinity ideology: That men should not be feminine (labeled by Brannon "no sissy stuff"); that men should strive to be respected for successful achievement ("the big wheel"); that men should never show weakness ("the sturdy oak")' and that men should seek adventure and risk, even accepting violence if necessary ("give 'em hell"). More recently, Levant, Hirsch, Celentano, Cozza, Hill, MacEachern, Marty, & Schnedeker (1992) defined traditional masculinity ideology in terms of seven dimensions: The requirement to avoid all things feminine; the injunction to restrict one's emotional life; the emphasis on toughness and aggression; the injunction to be self-reliant; the emphasis on achieving status above all else; non-relational, objectifying attitudes toward sexuality; and fear and hatred of homosexuals.
Types of Male Gender Role Strain
Pleck (1995), in an update on the Gender Role Strain Paradigm, pointed out that his original formulation of the paradigm stimulated research on three varieties of male gender role strain, which he termed "discrepancy-strain", "dysfunction strain", and "trauma-strain". Discrepancy strain results when one fails to live up to one's internalized manhood ideal, which, among contemporary adult males, is often a close approximation of the traditional code. Dysfunction strain results even when one fulfills the requirements of the male code, because many of the characteristics viewed as desirable in men can have negative side effects on the men themselves and on those close to them. Trauma strain results from the ordeal of the male role socialization process, which is now recognized as inherently traumatic.
Discrepancy Strain
One approach to investigating discrepancy strain used a version of the time-honored self/ideal-self research paradigm, in which participants were first asked, using adjectival rating scales, to describe the "ideal man," and then asked to describe themselves. The discrepancy between the two ratings was used as index of discrepancy strain, which was then studied in terms of its correlations with other variables such as self-esteem. This line of research has not been particularly productive.
Another approach has been more fruitful. This approach does not ask participants whether discrepancy strain exists for them, but rather inquires as to whether they would experience particular gender discrepancies as conflictual or stressful if they did exist. Two major research programs have used this approach: O'Neil's (O'Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995) work on male gender role conflict, and Eisler and Skidmore's (1995) work on masculine gender role stress.
Dysfunction Strain
The second type of gender role strain is dysfunction strain. The notion behind dysfunction strain is that the fulfillment of the requirements of the male code can be dysfunctional because many of the characteristics viewed as desirable in men can have negative side effects on the men themselves and on those close to them. Pleck (1995) reviewed some of the research that documents the existence of dysfunction strain, which includes studies that find negative outcomes associated with masculine gender-related personality traits on the one hand, and lack of involvement in family roles on the other hand.
Brooks and Silverstein (1995) in a far-reaching discussion of the "dark side" of masculinity, provide a taxonomy of the problems that result from dysfunction strain. These are significant social and public health problems that Brooks and Silverstein (1995) argue result, through one pathway or another, from adherence to traditional masculinity ideology. These problems include: (1) violence, including male violence against women in the family, rape and sexual assault, and sexual harassment; (2) sexual excess, including promiscuity, involvement with pornography, and sexual addiction; (3) socially irresponsible behaviors, including chemical dependence, risk-seeking behavior, physically self-abuse, absent fathering, and homelessness/vagrancy; and, (4) relationship dysfunctions, including inadequate emotional partnering, non-nurturing fathering, and non-participative household partnering.
Trauma Strain
The concept of trauma-strain has been applied to certain groups of men whose experiences with gender role strain are thought to be particularly harsh. This includes professional athletes (Messner, 1992), war veterans (Brooks, 1990), and survivors of child abuse, including sexual abuse (Lisak, 1995). It is also being recognized that gay and bisexual men are traumatized by male gender role strain by virtue of growing up in a heterosexist society (Harrison, 1995). But above and beyond the recognition that certain classes of men may experience trauma strain, a perspective on the male role socialization process has emerged which views socialization under traditional masculinity ideology as inherently traumatic (Levant & Kopecky, 1996; Levant & Pollack, 1995).
Conclusion
This article introduced the new psychology of men, reviewing the gender role strain paradigm, masculinity ideology, and the three varieties of male gender role strain. It is the author's hope that this new work will open up new areas for assessment, intervention, and applied research, in order to provide improved psychological services to men that might contribute to the solution of both the contemporary masculinity crisis and the crisis of connection between men and women.
References
Available upon request to Psychology Teacher Network
Note: This article was adapted from Levant, R.F.(1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 3, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 259-265.
The above article was originally published in the Nov/Dec 1997 issue of The Psychology Teacher Network. The article is reprinted here with the permission of the Education Directorate of the APA. Further publication of the article is not permitted without the express written consent of the Education Directorate.
For information on subscribing to The Psychology Teacher Network, write to:
- Psychology Teacher Network
Education Directorate
APA
750 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20002-4242
