What does it mean to be a man? This is a constant question,
not just for college men still forming who they are at their core, but also for
researchers, parents, and college administrators. Is there one answer, one definition
of masculinity, or is a person’s gender identity and expression one that is
fluid, defined by that person, a post-modern “what you believe is right”
answer? It would appear that the latter is becoming the more accepted answer on
campus, but what consequences does this have for men on campus and in life?
And, if the former is accepted, what culture provides the model for
masculinity, in a society made up of many cultures?
Let us begin by unpacking the idea that there is one
cultural definition of masculinity. This is to say that each group of people,
each tribe if you will, has set up an expectation of masculinity and male
behavior and traits; this will differ from tribe to tribe. While primitive
cultures are highly gender-segregated in rights, roles, and privileges, studies
of them have shown that they have some success in initiating boys into
masculinity and teaching them the cultural expectations of men.
David Gilmore paints scenes of this initiation in his book
“Manhood in the Making”, offering descriptions of rites of initiation that
include boys being taken from their mothers, taught the expectations of men in
the society, and being returned triumphantly to their tribe once their
initiation is complete. After this initiation, these men are now held to the
standard of masculinity of the tribe. Of course there is often gender
discrepancy and inequality in these tribes, but it appears that men and women
generally respect and care for each other, with less of the abuses and
struggles that one might expect.
Is this possible in a melting pot society like America? Given
that such a society is one nation, it would seem that providing a similar
tribal initiation and male definition would be easy. However, encompassed in
that one nation are many different tribes, coordinated and defined by
nationality, religion, and other factors. Each of these tribes will have their
own definition of masculinity, some close in similarity to others but many
quite distinct. With many definitions of masculinity come many ways to teach
and initiate young males into manhood, thus making it hard to provide a
meaningful initiation. What happens if another culture does not recognize your
masculinity, your initiation? Are you less a man?
Obviously there is some difficulty in allowing for culture
to define masculinity. Even though it may work in primitive cultures, the
divergent beliefs and representations about masculinity in a melting pot
society may cause men to always have their manhood in question unless they
always remain in their own “cultural bubble”.
One solution to the difficulty of culturally defined
masculinity is individually-defined masculinity, the post-modern approach. This
allows males to say “This is what I believe being a man is, this is how I will
behave, and I am secure in this belief.” No one is forced into a box with this,
at least not openly. One could argue, however, that if a person believes a man
is X, then they will judge people who do not conform and try to put them into “their
box”.
The problem with this approach is that we must consider what
the purpose of defining masculinity is. Is the purpose individual or societal?
An argument can be made that it is both. Individual definitions, then, may not
meet the societal purpose. Additionally, Michael Kimmel in “Guyland” speaks to
the innate need of males to be initiated, to have their masculinity affirmed
and confirmed. If they do not receive it from elders, they seek it out from
their peers. Thus, their definition of masculinity may never be solely theirs
but rather is sculpted and verified by those around them. Finally, this need
for initiation and affirmation of masculinity, if not met, may have harmful
consequences down the road, as middle-aged men begin to have a crisis of gender
and confidence.
An option that is less talked about in answering this
question of what makes a man is a combination of these two. Michael Kimmel, in
“The Gendered Society”, argues that the differences between men and women are
small, but the differences between men and other men can be quite large. It is
not about differentiating men from women, then, but men from boys, the mature
from the immature.
Imagine a definition of masculinity that did not include
what a man does, but rather focuses on how he does something. In this
definition, masculinity and the quest for manhood becomes about character and
maturity. The opposite of manhood stops being womanhood and starts being
boyhood. It requires effort and maturity to be a man, not fitting a certain
role. In our melting pot, this seems to makes sense. Granted we are trading
defining one attribute (masculinity) for another (maturity), but it seems that
maturity and the characteristics that come along with it are much less disputed
and more applicable to a wide range of gender behaviors. In this approach, we
allow for expressions of masculinity to be defined by an individual, but also
allow society to express expectations of maturity (which exist for all
genders).
There are pros and cons to every approach to a definition of
masculinity. I think Norman Mailer said it best: "Masculinity is not
something given to you, something you're born with, but something you gain. ...
And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." Perhaps
allowing masculinity to be won with honor, with character, will make it a more
developmental and meaningful process. And perhaps this will decrease the
questioning and challenging around manhood, allowing our men to embrace
masculinity as they want, but as mature males.
Matthew Deeg works as Assistant Director of
Fraternity/Sorority and Residence Life at Hanover College. In his daily work,
he advises fraternity men to reach their potential as leaders and as men. You
can reach him via email at deeg (at) hanover.edu, on Twitter @mattdeeg, and
find his blog at navigatingthewild.org.
Resources:
Gilmore, D. (1990). Manhood
in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Kimmel, M. (2008). The
gendered society (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kimmel, M. (2009). Guyland:
The perilous world where boys become men. New York: Harper Perennial.
No comments:
Post a Comment