Masculinity, Meditation and Mental Health

T. Lomas

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137345271
• eBook ISBN: 9781137345288
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Medical Theory, Practice & Reference
• Index: Psychology

It is said that men are 'in crisis', blighted by the adverse effects of corrosive masculine norms ranging from emotional disconnection to aggression. This book follows one group of men seeking to overcome their masculine inheritance and ultimately reach a sense of wellbeing by taking up meditation.

1

Masculinity and Wellbeing

Blokes are terrible . . . Women are better about talking about feelings . . . maybe that’s why women aren’t on the whole so frustrated and angry about things. Men have got this big thing, ‘No, we don’t talk about that, get a beer, play some football, watch the football, buy a car, clean the car, anything but be with myself.’ (Dean)

Setting the scene

This book will take you on a journey. We are going to trace the narratives of a group of men who appear to have found ways to positively engage with their wellbeing through meditation. Their stories will be used to illuminate a number of important ideas around masculinity and wellbeing. We will begin with stories from childhood and adolescence, showing how these men were influenced by masculine norms which encouraged them to be emotionally tough. We will see then how this toughness led them into difficulties, as they had a hard time coping with life, and with the negative emotions they suffered. We then move into more ‘hopeful’ territory, since these men were able to find better ways of engaging with their wellbeing by taking up meditation. Along the way, we will use these narratives to talk about key ideas and empirical findings that have emerged in the literature in recent years. By the end, I hope to have provided you with a detailed understanding of the complex connections between masculinity and wellbeing, and hopefully to also have offered a more optimistic prognosis for men.

Before embarking on this journey however, it is worth gathering some useful conceptual tools that will ease our subsequent passage. So, before introducing the men whose stories we shall be following, this first chapter introduces key theoretical ideas that will feature prominently in subsequent chapters. These ideas fall into two broad areas. First, I shall introduce concepts pertaining to gender. I will mention some more ‘conventional’ approaches to understanding gender, like gender stereotypes. I will then articulate a more dynamic social constructionist approach, which suggests gender is constantly being (re)created in the continual flux of social interaction. Second, I will articulate a multidimensional model for understanding wellbeing, featuring biological (e.g., physical health), psychological (e.g., mental health) and social dimensions (e.g., relational support). Subsequent chapters will then trace the intricate links between these two broad areas, i.e., the intersection between masculinity and wellbeing. Finally, the chapter ends by saying a little about the research that forms the basis of this book.

Gender

In trying to summarise the idea of gender, and masculinity in particular, one is assailed by a bewildering array of perspectives. Consequently, any book about masculinity, still less any chapter hoping to provide an introductory précis, cannot hope to be exhaustive. The best that can be hoped for is a sketch encompassing a number of key ideas, sufficient for articulating a coherent position on the topic. This, then, is the aim of this first section.

We begin by looking at the more conventional ways in which gender has been understood by academics – especially psychologists and sociologists – over recent decades. For instance, a large body of work on ‘sex-differences’ has articulated the notion that men and women act in different ways on account of their biologically-inherited predispositions. In contrast, other work on gender roles and stereotypes explores the influence of social learning, and the ways norms around masculinity help shape how men are raised and encouraged to behave. I then consider more recent social constructionist theorising which critiques the essentialism inherent in the more conventional approaches. Here, gender is viewed more as a performance constructed dynamically within social encounters. This view encourages the idea of gender as complex and fluid, capable of multiple forms of expression, and open to change. It is this more recent conceptualisation of gender which underpins the ‘hopeful’ message of this book.

Conventional approaches to gender

Among conventional approaches to gender, there are three main perspectives: biological, socio-cultural and psychological. We shall look at these in turn.

The biological perspective is the most straightforward. In essence, this conflates gender and sex: masculinity is simply how men are on account of their biological ‘maleness’. This perspective is the one whose roots stretch back the farthest. It is here that we can locate the etymological origin of the term ‘masculinity’. The Oxford English Dictionary [OED] (1971) suggests the word ‘masculine’ first came into use in the 14th century, via the Old French masculin (from the Latin masculinus, which itself was a diminutive of mās, meaning male). The term was initially used in a grammatical sense to denote the ‘gender’ of objects. However, by the 17th century it began to take on inflections suggesting qualities ‘belonging’ to males – the OED notes the use of masculine in 1629 to mean ‘having the appropriate excellencies of the male sex: manly, virile, vigorous, powerful’ (Masten, 1994). Such qualities had long been associated with men and manliness, featuring in some of the earliest works of literature, like the Iliad and the Odyssey from the 8th century BC (Van Nortwick, 2008). With the emergence of the term ‘masculine’ though, we find the beginnings of a subtle differentiation between men (sex), and qualities a culture expects them to possess (gender).

However, from the biological perspective, there is no meaningful separation between sex and gender. Gender is seen as the behavioural expression of biological attributes. Although this type of thinking has been strongly critiqued and found wanting – as explored below – it still finds voice in contemporary fields of academia, and society at large. This perspective often draws on ideas from evolutionary psychology to construct ‘origin stories’ about the historical emergence of particular gendered qualities (Eagly & Wood, 1999). For example, writers such as Geary (1998) argue that male promiscuity and aggression towards ‘rivals’ are behaviours that were ‘selected for’ in the evolutionary history of our species, as males exhibiting these qualities were more likely to propagate and pass on their genes. Academic research in this area is known as the ‘sex-differences’ paradigm (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), which analyses psychological and social outcomes on the basis of biological differences between the sexes.

Much of the sex-differences research on males concentrates on testosterone, an androgen produced mainly in the testes, associated with ‘secondary male sex characteristics’ such as facial hair (Wilhelm & Koopman, 2006). Numerous studies have linked testosterone levels to a range of behaviours viewed as typically male, including aggression (Book et al., 2001), risk-taking (Apicella et al., 2008), antisocial behaviour (Coren, 1998), competitiveness (Edwards et al., 2006) and even cognitive functions such as spatial abilities (O’Connor et al., 2001). In contrast, research on women often alights on the peptide hormone oxytocin, which is thought to underpin attachment behaviours (Neumann, 2008). As oxytocin is regulated by oestrogen, it is used to account for women’s supposed nurturing tendencies (Campbell, 2008). This view of gender has considerable currency in society. For example, an emergent genre of discourse – labelled as ‘neurosexism’ by Fine (2008) – has latched selectively onto neuroscience research to portray men’s and women’s brains as ‘hardwired’ differently.

The biological determinism of the sex-differences approach has been roundly challenged by socio-cultural perspectives which suggest that gender is socially acquired. Conventional approaches here have focused on gender stereotypes and roles (sometimes referred to using the prefix ‘sex’ rather than gender). Gender stereotypes are ‘beliefs about what it means to be male or female in terms of physical appearance, attitudes, interests, psychological traits, social relationships and occupations’ (Granié, 2010, p. 727). Gender roles refer to the way particular behaviours and activities are not only encouraged as gender-appropriate on the basis of these stereotypes, but become institutionalised in the ‘structural arrangements of a society’ (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 128). It is argued that gendered behaviour emerges as stereotypes and roles are impressed upon children as they develop, with awareness of these emerging as early as 18 months old (Eichstedt et al., 2002). There are strong and weak versions of this argument. The weak version contends that biological predispositions linked to each sex are simply shaped by these socio-cultural forces. The strong version sees the child as a ‘blank slate’, with gender entirely the product of cultural conditioning.

While the strong version of this argument may be unpalatable to all but the most committed social constructionist, few people would deny that culture plays some role in fashioning our development as gendered beings. Various models have been articulated to understand this process of culturally influenced gender development. One prominent model is social learning theory (Mischel, 1975). This suggests that children observe and learn from the actions of significant others around them; these others also actively reinforce or discourage particular behaviours and qualities by rewarding or punishing them. Parents perhaps have the strongest influence in the earlier years; their beliefs about gender play a key role in shaping children’s behaviour. For example, Morrongiello and Dawber (2000) examined how parental responses to the risk-taking behaviour of children differed according to sex, with parents more likely to intervene to prevent ‘risky’ play in girls, while tolerating or even encouraging it in boys. With age, other influences assume prominence, particularly peers (Hay et al., 1998), and prominent figures in the media (Witt, 2000). One driver of social learning is that self-esteem is linked to acceptance by others, which can be contingent on acquiescence to gendered norms (Smith & Leaper, 2006).

So, turning to masculine stereotypes in particular, what are some of the key ones that have been identified in contemporary ‘Western’ culture? Brannon (1976) identified four central stereotypes, which contemporary research has found are still influential. First is ‘The big wheel’, a concern with success and status. This is reflected in recent studies showing that people associate masculinity with dominance (de Pillis & de Pillis, 2008) or achievement (Jackson & Dempster, 2009). Second is ‘Give ’em hell’, where masculinity is identified with risk-taking behaviours, like alcohol use (de Visser et al., 2009), unsafe sex (Campbell, 1995) or dangerous driving (Schmid Mast et al., 2008), and with antisocial behaviour, from ‘laddishness’ (Francis, 1999) to violence (Moore & Stuart, 2005). Third is ‘No sissy stuff’, where qualities seen as ‘feminine’, like emotional expressiveness, are stigmatised and censured (Mejía, 2005). Lastly, ‘The sturdy oak’ valorises strength and toughness, with masculinity seen as epitomised by characteristics such as independence and self-reliance (Smith et al., 2007). A crucial aspect of the latter two stereotypes is emotional toughness – suppression, avoidance and reluctance or inability to express emotion (Cramer et al., 2005) – which plays a key role in later chapters.

While stereotypes refer to beliefs, roles reflect the way these beliefs create expectations that promote activities as gender-appropriate. For example, as noted above, endorsement of risk-taking stereotypes means parents are less likely to intervene to prevent risky play by boys (Morrongiello & Dawber, 2000). In this way, diverse spheres of activity – from sport (Tagg, 2008) to food consumption (Gough, 2007) – are regulated according to stereotypes which encourage/discourage participation on the basis of gender. Moreover, behaviours are not only encouraged, but institutionalised in societal structures, from implicit biases to explicit rules. Such institutionalisation is operative early in life. For instance, Anderson (2009, p. 4) argues that competitive sports are ‘compulsory’ for boys, reflecting sport’s role as a potent vehicle for inculcating societies’ ‘gendered values, myths and prejudices’. In adulthood, gender roles are evident in gender-biases in employment, where the culture of certain jobs can be heavily gendered. For example, Thurnell-Read and Parker (2008, p. 127) describe the ‘organisational structures, workplace practices and daily routines’ of firefighting as ‘steeped in maleness’. While the gendered composition of work is changing as women challenge prohibitive cultural and structural barriers (Kilminster et al., 2007), roles may still be reinforced through social pressure. This might include harassment of those who challenge convention, as witnessed recently with the first female beefeater (BBC, 2009).

Finally, some conventional theories understand gender from a psychological perspective. Here, the focus is on ‘gender-identity’, which refers to ‘one’s subjective sense of maleness/femaleness’ (Kulis et al., 2008, p. 260). Theories here are often conceptualised using the stereotypes identified above; thus, gender-identity refers to the extent to which a person feels they adhere to these conventional stereotypes. For example, a popular assessment tool rates someone as having a masculine gender-identity if they identify themselves as being assertive (Bem, 1974). Interestingly, this perspective moves away from a strict male/female dichotomy. Masculinity and femininity are separate concepts rather than poles on a continuum, and people may feel they embody both masculine and feminine norms. This way of thinking has its roots in psychoanalytic theory. Freud (1918) wrote extensively about the complex internal structures of personality, for example. Through his intricate case studies, he was, as Connell (1995) acknowledges, a pioneer in the idea that ‘masculine and feminine currents co-existed in everyone’ (p. 9). Likewise, Jung (1951) argued that the psyche contained both a masculine (animus) and a feminine aspect (anima).

Some theories of gender-identity also focus on the extent to which people feel they should adhere to conventional stereotypes. For example, Pleck (1995) proposed the idea of gender role strain. Pleck argued that gender ideals can be hard to attain; e.g., men might struggle to be tough in the way that is expected. However, the psychological consequences of ‘violating’ gender expectations can be problematic. The theory has three components: (1) gender role discrepancy – differences between one’s ideal and actual self can lower self-esteem; (2) gender role trauma – the socialisation processes through which fulfilment is encouraged can be traumatic, e.g., bullying; (3) gender role dysfunction – even if expectations are successfully met, this success may have negative consequences, since the desired behaviours can have a deleterious impact on wellbeing. This last item is a key theme of this book. For example, being tough may mean that men have difficulties managing their emotions. This last point is also reflected in O’Neil and colleagues’ (1995) idea of ‘gender role conflict’; this holds that people may be harmed by attempts to conform to gender norms, resulting in ‘devaluation or violation of others or self’ (p. 167).

Constructionist approaches to gender

Although many people still approach gender from these conventional perspectives, scholars working from a social constructionist standpoint have begun to articulate a more dynamic and nuanced reading of gender. Before exploring this in detail, it is worth saying something about social constructionism in general. Providing a concise summary of social constructionism is difficult since it is a ‘broad church’, incorporating diverse ideas and perspectives (Lock & Strong, 2010). Nevertheless, in this diversity, theorists recognise commonalities. Burr (1995) argues that various approaches share ‘family resemblances’, including preferences for anti-essentialism and anti-realism, recognition of the centrality of language in the production of knowledge, and awareness that our understanding of the world is historically and culturally situated. Constructionism is part of a broader current of thought known as poststructuralism. As Brickell (2005) explains, the former is a form of sociology, while the latter is a type of social theory, which has a much wider remit, encompassing ‘all the disciplines concerned with the behaviour of human beings’ (Giddens & Dallmayr, 1982, p. 5). Although poststructuralism is also hard to define, it can be understood by considering its predecessor, structuralism, from which it emerged as a critique (Marshall, 2010).

Structuralism originated in linguistics with de Saussure (1916). It proposed that phenomena derive meaning from their position within a network of other linguistic signs (Jenning, 1999). The concept of ‘man’, for example, only makes sense in relation to signifiers like ‘woman’. However, while structuralism viewed language structures as largely fixed, poststructuralism recognised the shifting, dynamic nature of these structures (Marshall, 2010). Theorists such as Derrida (1982) argued that meaning is not unitary or fixed, but ‘slippery and elusive’ (Rail, 1998, p. xii), with multiple interpretations possible. Objects and categories of knowledge are not ‘given by the world around us, but are instead produced by the symbolizing systems we learn’ (Tyner, 2008, p. 4). As such, poststructuralism seeks to challenge terms ‘that are assumed to be natural and unchanging’, and to ‘disrupt meaning, labels, and categories’ (Tyner, 2008, p. 9). In this way, as a form of poststructuralism, social constructionism argues that concepts used to represent the world are socio-cultural products, reflecting ‘historical and cultural understandings’, rather than being ‘universal and immutable categories of human experience’ (Bohan, 1996, p. xvi).

The point about social constructionism is that it disrupts how we look at the world, showing that features or categories that we take to be ‘natural’ are created by social convention. For example, common sense suggests that sex categories – classifying people as male or female – are a fundamental distinction given by nature. However, constructionists argue that even these foundational distinctions are socially constructed. As the recent controversy around the South African runner Caster Semanya has shown – in a way that has been very challenging for the athlete herself – there is no empirical biological test to categorically assign a person to one sex or the other (Curley, 2012). As such, we classify people as male or female on the basis of socially agreed criteria, such as genitalia. However, this classification is arbitrary, and fails to account for those who do not fall neatly into either category (Lorber, 1996). Once this classificatory schema is operative though, it has a powerful normative force, structuring lives in ‘profound ways’, as most people are compelled to categorise themselves as either belonging to one sex or the other (Brickell, 2006, p. 100).

Compared to the sex categories of male and female, it is easier to see the gender categories of masculine and feminine as socially constructed. However, constructionist theorists still argue that the conventional approaches detailed above are guilty of essentialism, invoking ‘singular categories of male and female’ and presenting them as fixed ‘containers’ of stable attributes (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2012, p. 483). This is reflected in the homogenising tendency towards making categorical generalisations about men or women as monolithic groups, e.g., ascribing definitive characteristics to the masculine personality. To take an example relevant to this book, it is often asserted that females are nearly twice as likely as men to experience depression. Although this book will critique this assertion – men may experience and express depression in ways not reflected in traditional diagnostic criteria (Kilmartin, 2005) – it is ‘one of the most widely documented findings in psychiatric epidemiology’ (Kessler, 2003, p. 6). In explaining this, Nolen-Hoeksema’s (1987) influential ‘sex-differences’ theory suggested that these higher rates were due to women’s different emotional responses: ‘women’s ruminative response styles amplify and prolong their depressive episodes . . . [whereas] men’s active response styles dampen their depressive episodes’ (p. 276).

It is not only biological approaches to gender that are subject to essentialism. Even theories that recognise the influence of culture, like social learning theories, are usually essentialist, viewing gender as ‘fixed, unvarying and static – much like sex’ (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 126). For example, over time, Nolen-Hoeksema’s theory has evolved from ‘Sex differences in unipolar depression’ (1987) to ‘Gender differences in depression’ (2001). However, the latter still made categorical generalisations, such as ‘gender differences in rumination at least partly account for the gender differences in depression’ (p. 175). Thus, although the discourse had shifted to socially-produced gender patterns, the tendency to essentialise the differences between men and women remained. However, in contrast to these conventional approaches, emergent constructionist theories of gender emphasise agentic construction. Here, people are not regarded as ‘passive victims of a socially prescribed role’, nor ‘simply conditioned or socialised by their cultures’, but as ‘active agents’, continually engaged in constructing gender in their interactions (Courtenay, 2000, pp. 1387–1388).

Viewing people as actively engaged in an on-going project of gender construction introduces two key ideas: the concept of ‘doing’ gender (West & Zimmerman, 1987), and the diversity of gender constructions (Connell, 1995). First, in terms of ‘doing’ gender, constructionist theories of identity move away from the essentialist idea of gender as a static psychological property or trait – even if learned throug...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Masculinity and Wellbeing
• 2. Becoming a Man
• 3. Seeking Wellbeing
• 4. Turning Inwards through Meditation
• 5. Meditation and Wellbeing
• 6. Conclusions and Recommendations
• References
• Index