Redefining Masculinity
I was listening to a podcast earlier this year and it made me think about a paper I wrote for a communications class that dealt with the complexities of living as a man in this time in history.
Be A Man: Western Masculinity and Emotional Communication
Be A Man: Western Masculinity and Emotional Communication
Communication Senior Seminar Paper
Lance Wunderink
Professor Veenstra
Be a man, a phrase most often heard by young boys just entering puberty who are overly emotional to get them to quit showing their emotions. In my experience in middle school, this phrase and other similar phrases were directed toward me. It was to the extent that one of the male teachers noticed I was being bullied and yelled at me to suck it up, defend myself, and not show emotions so that I look more tough than I felt like I was. The damaging effects of these phrases can lead to a disconnect within men from their emotions. Throughout the years, western culture has had a distorted view on masculinity in relation to emotional communication. This has lead to acute normative alexithymia, which is a medical term referred to people who have an inability to verbally express their emotions to others.
In order to understand how this lack of emotional communication has shown up in western society, it is important to understand the history of what made up a man since the discovery of the new world. Benjamin Franklin played a major role in understanding what manhood truly is defined by. Benjamin Franklin frequently visited Whitefield's sermons to criticize them and to understand them. As he was observing, he noticed that “the “strange fits of passion” that his preaching elicited “as an opportunity as well as an imperative to externalize the self, to become self-evident,” as an opportunity that for him entails the alienation of emotion.” (Carton, 2002; Shamir, Travis, 2002). He began to criticize the emotion and passion in the church and wanted to separate himself from emotions.This took a very damaging role in western societies understanding of how men deal with emotion. It restricts and contains their emotions in a way that causes them to have the potential of exploding or imploding emotionally. This separation also lead to his independent and individualistic beliefs. He did not want to be supported by anyone nor did he want to be dependent on someone else to keep him going. If he was able to control his emotions, he would not have to rely on others to support him.
Franklin began to exhibit an unnatural amount of control over his emotions to the point that when he did show emotions, it was only when he wanted it to. This is examined in more detail when he writes in his journal about fish. He describes how he purposely planned on giving up his vegetarian diet to eat the fried fish. This was an emotion that he had control over and yet he had the choice to give in to it or not. He does have a point in his understanding of how to interact with emotions. It shows that he is not swayed by every emotion he experiences but is instead able to stop think and act upon said emotion. The problem arises however when he decides to take it to an extreme where he decides to “rationaliz[e], and voluntariz[e] any and all susceptibilities or expenditures of feeling.” (Robinson, 2002; Shamir, Travis, 2002) He voluntarily brings up emotions and does not allow for spontaneity in the human emotional reaction. This lack of looseness leads to an autonomous, almost robotic feel in terms of emotional expression. There is a point where we have to let go of control and freely express emotions within the context of love towards the other. While it is important to have a certain amount of control over emotions, an excessive amount of control can be just as damaging as a lack of control.
The independent, and individualistic beliefs of Benjamin Franklin has moved the country forward economically and thus caused an emphasis on economic stability in the definition of masculinity. Millette Shamir in her article The Manliest Relations to Men believed that the lack of emotional expression has a direct correlation with the middleclass individualistic society which views emotional expressiveness as an invasion of privacy. In this understanding of masculinity, men are defined as more masculine if they have success in their economic position. This can be very detrimental to the development of men because it is very much a performance based system where true manhood is achieved when the amount of success supersedes the amount of loss. This allows for the fear of failure and a lot of stressful and emotional disorders. Failure is inherent in the human condition, and the fear of it causes an unnecessary amount of uncertainty and concern. Whereas, biblically we are asked to not worry about the future or failure for that matter. Jesus said to his disciples, “Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.28 But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith!” Luke 12:27-28 The fear of failure fits into this passage quite well in that God does not want his children to be anxious or fearful because He has everything in control. Our task is to submit to him and embrace the moments of failure in our life with dignity and learn from the mistakes we make. True manhood is more defined by our ability to embrace failure and press on, using the failure as a point of learning for the next step in life. This is where wisdom takes over and a discernment to know how to continue.
There has been a change in the understanding of masculinity in the time right before the world wars in america and the time after the wars. During this time masculinity shifted to an avoidance of masculine emotions as a result of the violence and posttraumatic stress disorder. There has been a suppression of emotions to a “more distant, ritualized and rigidly hierarchical relations of the place of business, the club, or the political party.” (Shamir, Travis, 2002) In essence this restricted men to only express emotions in said situations. Thus it caused a limitation to the kinds of emotions expressed. In a business, the club or the political party there is generally little more effeminate emotions in place such as empathy and nurturing. This can cause a big downfall in the understanding of masculinity because it limits men to expressing more macho, power hungry, and angry emotions due to the stresses of the environment. Men should have the ability to express these emotions outside of these limiting social situations.
Henry David Thoreau became a very influential writer in antebellum America who wrote often about manhood and how he viewed it. He pushed back from emotions because of his experiences in the past. He wrote a series of essays in a book called Reform and Reformers where he examined the people who wanted to bring reform. He, not wanting to be swayed by such reformists, decided to live a secluded and modest life where he was independent from others influence. He noticed that some reformers would abuse male to male relationships into an invasion of privacy and labeling it an intimate bonding. As a result of this invasion of privacy, he went to another extreme of isolating himself and his emotions. In many of his books about manhood, Thoreau exclaims that the overexposure of male intimacy is a breech in personal privacy and thus erodes the individual qualities of the man. He admonishes an emotional detachment to male relationships as a means of self defense from the emotions men around him experienced. While this causes the reader to understand why he defines male emotional expression in such a way, the problem results when a society does not understand the background and thus masculinity is defined by his response. He does yearn for emotional intimacy with other men but he is afraid to be vulnerable because of how it has gone in his past.
With the end of the wars a new push came up that defined how men were viewed. Feminism had a significant impact in how men are understood and how masculinity is inadvertently formed. With the rise of feminist activists, the definition of masculinity has been severely mistreated. Extremes have come up to the table that picture men as powerful oppressors of women who only want dominance and sex. This misunderstanding of manhood has lead to a suppression of any kind of emotion because of the believe that “masculinity [is] dangerously expressive of violent emotions and sexuality” (Shamir, Travis, 2002) and the idea that “this masculine arrogance leads to the extinction of species, the depletion of natural resources, war, and the destruction of ecosystems necessary for human Survival.” (Gardiner, 2005; Kimmel, Hearn, Connell, 2005). This outlook on male emotions is very negative and leaves no room for expression, only suppression. If it were true that men's emotions only lead to said dangers the logical solution would be to force a suppression. This distorted outlook on emotions however is not how men truly are capable of. This limits men to a shallow and perverted life. If women believed that this was the only truth about the emotions in men, men would be brought up to believe this to be true and our society would be even more oppressive, it would become a self fulfilling prophesy.
With this history of western masculinity it is important to know how it is defined currently and what factors are in play. There is a large fight against anything effeminate in a western understanding of masculinity. Michael S Kimmel defined manhood as a “lifelong project to demonstrate that he possesses none of his mother's traits. Masculine identity is born in the renunciation of the feminine, not in the direct affirmation of the masculine, which leaves masculine gender identity tenuous and fragile.”(Kimmel 1994; Rothenberg, 2004) This pushback from anything related to feminine traits has a significantly detrimental effect on a young boys development. Bullying is a big result of this push because men are encouraged to show aggression, competitiveness, power, and control. It can also lead to a significant lack of affection, empathy, and love. These three qualities are held in lesser regard. Thus going against what Christ commanded us as Christians to do. Not only that, but it also leaves masculine identity in a “fragile” state. If that is the only way men are viewed, it is limiting their ability to mature as a whole person. If there are only negatives, what do young men have to model their life after? This is a serious problem in our society today, there is not much of a push for mentorship.
Christian mentorship is very important in the development of any male or female. It is greatly lacking in the current culture of the United States. I have had the privilege of having a mentor. I met him about a year ago at a conference, and since then I have regularly called him to share my concerns, complaints, excitements, and questions about anything. I have greatly learned from this experience and have found it extremely beneficial in my understanding of who I am as a man and as a son in Christ’s kingdom. If we look at Jesus for example, we notice how he took on twelve disciples who were much younger than him. He mentored them and showed them the truth. If we truly are to follow what Jesus has commanded us to do we should consider mentoring other young people. This way they can learn from our experiences and at the same time it helps them understand their own masculinity or femininity. I have also had the privilege to mentor a good friend of mine who currently is a freshman in highschool. I love him dearly, and I have learned so much from him as well as taught him. He has come to me with questions about anything in his life and I have had the privilege to listen to it all. I believe this is truly necessary in the development of any human being.
This mentorship mentality however is very much against a western understanding of masculinity because there is an inherent need to prove masculinity. In this belief, masculinity is “a form of homosocial enactment” meaning men define their masculinity by proving to other men their own masculinity. This need to prove masculinity is extremely important and at the same time detrimental to the health and development of the man. If men are approved to be masculine it is only by their strength over the other in any instance. This definition of masculinity is more of an identity crisis than an accurate definition. The need to prove masculinity should point to an underlying issue that is not being discussed. Men are unsure of their place in society and thus try to prove their worth by oppressing the “weak” or those who show more “effeminate” emotions. If only men would begin to find their identity in Christ “27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.” Galatians 3:27-29. Understanding one's identity as a child of God frees up this problem of constantly having to prove masculinity and thus opens it up to a more holistic understanding of masculinity while at the same time allowing one to express emotions in the way God created them to.
One key example in scripture that demonstrates this deeper understanding is found in David and Jonathan’s relationship. In this relationship there is a strong and profound connection that unites them together. When they first met “as soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” I Samuel 18:1. David and Jonathan was profound, it gave a taste of what relationships between men should look like. In this relationship they had the freedom to be painfully vulnerable and open to the point where they even wept with each other. This relationship resembles the intimacy of a marriage relationship. The level of intimacy they experienced together was immensely profound and truly heavenly. I have had the great privilege to experience such relationships with a number of friends in my life. The young man I mentor is one of them. We have shared with each other our deepest fears, secrets, concerns, and emotions. It is fascinating how God brought us together because I was able to heal in my relationships with men by interacting with him. I lacked a relationship in a crucial time of my development into manhood. I met him when he was in middle school, the age I had little connection with. He was able to take me into a time of healing where I was able to get back in touch with my emotions.
This is not always the case however, many young men have experienced the damaging effects of the “be a man” syndrome. I say syndrome because it is a damaging as a disease or a mental illness. According to Joe Ehrmann American society is essentially teaching young men that “in order to be a man, separate [their] hearts from their heads” (Be A Man: Joe Ehrmann 2013). The dichotomy that exists as a result of this understanding of masculinity can have severe effects by causing a lack of empathy and creating robotic like behavior. Men are equally, if not more, emotional and passionate as women, however when suppressed, emotions still emerge and most are extremely toxic to society. Mainly aggression, hatred, and greed, are emotions that spring out of an emotionally repressed man. This is a direct result of the understanding of masculinity. The lack of love and compassion is very apparent. When examined, Ehrmann discovers that, “we have this massive repression of the very thing that makes us human” (Be A Man: Joe Ehrmann 2013). It is true that emotions are vital in a human’s normal development. Emotions have the power to push people beyond what they feel comfortable to do in order to satisfy said emotion or pursuit. Emotions are so vital in a biblical understanding of humankind. Without emotions it is very difficult to understand the love of Christ or the love of others. Not only is it difficult to understand, it is also difficult to accept the love of others.
In a Ted talk explaining the damaging effects of the phrase “be a man”, Joe Ehrmann discovered three main lies in the definition of manhood. “The ballfield [which includes;] athletic ability, size, strength, ability to win; the bedroom: [a pursuit of] Sexual conquest [and an emphasis on] economic success.” These three areas are deep lies that have had a major impact on the western understanding of manhood. The first lie is strong in the school setting with an emphasis on sports and athletic talent. This emphasis is so strong that those who do not have those abilities are left out and deemed less masculine. It is very asinine to have this understanding of masculinity because it severely limits how men are perceived in our society. The sexual conquest lie is another factor that plays a major role in modern society. This most likely is a cause of the feminist movement but it's not limited to that. It does however paint men in a very sinister and domineering light causing a pushback to suppress male emotions entirely. Finally the emphasis on emotional success is limiting male emotions in many aspects. As mentioned previously it only allows certain emotions to take place.
All of these lies has lead to a condition called normative male alexithymia NMA which is the inability to translate emotions into words. It is difficult for men to process, understand or even comprehend their own emotions when society around them push them to suppress them with the end goal of suppressing them entirely. In western culture, “research on traditional Masculinity ideology has repeatedly found that the requirement to restrict emotional expression is a central aspect of traditional masculine ideology” (Levant, Good, Cook, O'Neil, Smalley, Owen, & Richmond, 2006) as a result, men in western cultures have a much higher aggression rate and at the same time a higher frustration in certain stressful situations where emotions arise. Because men are told at a young age to suppress emotions and contain them, it leaves them with no room to truly understand what they are feeling. At the same time they are ill equiped with a vocabulary to understand their emotions. It is especially difficult for men who have been given a much greater and more flamboyant way of expressing their emotions. It is a lot harder to suppress and once suppressed can lead to suicide or mania. Another reason why this is such a damaging ideology, research has been done to identify NMA and have found that “boys are infact, socialised to restrict the expression of emotions. He noted that although boys start life with greater emotional reactivity and expressiveness than girls, they become less verbally expressive than girls at about the age of two years” (Levant, Good, Cook, O'Neil, Smalley, Owen, & Richmond, 2006). Men naturally develop a lesser amount of verbal expression because of the way they develop as well as in the way they are brought up, how society defines them.
Men have a very important role to play in this world and the suppression of emotions only limits their potential. There are many factors that contribute to this lack of emotion but generally it is a result of the way society has perceived men and their role. It is important however to express and communicate emotions for men because the suppression can lead to physical, mental, and developmental problems that can damage the person and those around him. That being said it is also important to show an amount of discernment in the process of understanding emotions. This discernment is both healthy and beneficial. Many people swing on both extremes of a pendulum emotional expression and rationalization. It is important for Christians to find themselves in the middle of this pendulum. Works Cited
Carton, Evan (2002). What Feels an American?: Evident Selves and Alienable Emotions in The New Mans World. In Shamir, M., & Travis, J. (2002). Boys Don't Cry? : Rethinking Narratives of Masculinity and Emotion in the U.S. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gardiner, Judith K (2005) Men Masculinities and the Feminist Theory. In Kimmel Michael S Hearn, Jeff, Connell, Robert.(2005) Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (2001) Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles
Kimmel, Michael S (1994) Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, And Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity. In Rothenberg, Paula S. (2004) Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. New York: Worth Publishers.
Levant, R. F., Good, G. E., Cook, S. W., O'Neil, J. M., Smalley, K. B., Owen, K., & Richmond, K. (2006). The normative Male Alexithymia Scale: Measurement of a gender-linked syndrome. Psychology Of Men & Masculinity, Vol 7(4), Oct 2006, 212-224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.7.4.212
Robinson, Sally (2002) Men's Liberation, Mens Wounds:Emotion, Sexuality, and the Reconstruction of Masculinity in the 1970’s. In Shamir, M., & Travis, J. (2002). Boys Don't Cry? : Rethinking Narratives of Masculinity and Emotion in the U.S. New York: Columbia University Press.
Shamir, Milete (2002) The Manliest Relations to men: Thoreau on Privacy, Intimacy, and Writing. In Shamir, M., & Travis, J. (2002). Boys Don't Cry? : Rethinking Narratives of Masculinity and Emotion in the U.S. New York: Columbia University Press.
Tedx Talks (2013) Be A Man: Joe Ehrmann at TEDxBaltimore 2013 [Youtube]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVI1Xutc_Ws
