Promoting healthy masculinities
Di Bianca & Mahalik (2022) published “A Relational-Cultural Framework for Promoting Healthy Masculinities” in American Psychologist. I have written before about traditional masculinity ideology and resistance to psychotherapy. This work supports and extends that study. Here’s the abstract:
We present a conceptual framework for relational interventions focused on helping boys and men navigate harmful socialization occurring in U.S. dominant culture, one which upholds a restrictive image of manhood that gives rise to health problems and social injustice. Drawing from relational-cultural theory, we frame the crises linked to hegemonic masculine socialization as shaped by interpersonal and sociocultural disconnections that keep boys and men in rigid confines of what is expected of "real men," which are detrimental to their well-being and operate to maintain oppression and violence. To work against the relational and societal ways that hegemonic masculinity is taught and reinforced, we view boys' and men's experiences in connection with others and in community as the central context in which healthy masculinities develop. Experiences in growth-fostering relationships of empathy, mutuality, and empowerment can help boys and men reject hegemonic relational dynamics and promote human capacities for vulnerability, connection, and compassion into healthy and flexible ways of being men in the world. We view these relational experiences as critical to prevention, health promotion, and social change efforts at the social, community, and systems levels. To that end, we offer recommendations for interventions to engage boys and men in collectively dismantling hegemonic masculinity and developing healthy masculinities.
They begin by citing research that, “many boys are taught what it means to be a man in ways that pressure them toward hegemonic masculinity, a set of beliefs and behaviors that emphasize power over others in life and society. . . . In the process, many of them internalize messages that shame the expression of emotions, discourage desires for intimate connection, and encourage aggression rather than compassion” (p. 321). In a section titled “Developing Healthy Masculinities in Connection,” they note that:
Transforming masculinity begins with boys and men developing and reclaiming their own fundamental human capacities that hegemonic socialization stifles. With this in mind, we define healthy masculinities as flexible ways of being men that allow for the expression of vulnerability, connection, and compassion. More specifically, healthy masculinities allow boys and men to value, feel, and express the full range of their emotions; meet their needs for personal growth, connection, and belonging through interdependence with others; and exercise their agency and power with compassion, treating others with humanity and dignity. . . . Some may view our focus on vulnerability, connection, and empathy as advocating for emotional weakness, dependency, and powerlessness. On the contrary, we see healthy masculinities expressed by emotional regulation, authentic autonomy, and compassionate agency, standing in contrast to alexithymia, isolation, and cruelty, respectively. (pp. 325-326)
They proceed to argue that interventions on an individual basis are unlikely to work due to social pressure, with efforts at social and community levels more likely to work, incorporating parents, friends, teachers, coaches, and other role models. This is an important area for practitioners to explore, both hoping that systemic change is ultimately necessary while recognizing that there will be resistance to such change.