My friend Hal Movius (a psychologist, negotiations expert, author of a soon-to-be-published book on negotiating strategy, and one of my favorite polymaths) has suggested that we ought to find a sociological framework for this book. He argues that a book of stories about guys – as interesting as they may be – will have to compete with stories that are printed daily on-line, in magazines, and newspapers. To really make an impact with this book, Hal argues, we need to find a theme (or several) that can be captured in a catchy two word phrase (“The Man Muddle”, “Men on the Wire”?), and then let the various personal stories embody the theme(s). We might be wrong, he argues, but at least we would be taking a stand and offering the public something more compelling than a sampling of men’s lives in middle age.
To help prod my thinking, Hal offered the work of Dr. Roy Baumeister (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Baumeister), currently the Eppes Eminent Professor of Psychology and head of the social psychology graduate program at Florida State University, as an example of truly interesting work being done on the issue of manhood and male self-esteem. After a little checking I found a paper that Dr. Baumeister had given at a conference of the American Psychological Association in 2007 entitled (how aptly) “Is There Anything Good About Men?” Hal did not steer me wrong. It is a fascinating overview of how men have developed different cultural traits from women, largely thanks to the genetic fact that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men; ie 80% of women but only 40% of men have reproduced over the ages. We are just not as relevant as women and therefore need to compensate in different ways.
I will not spoil the answer to the question posed by the title of the paper – and would encourage you to read if for yourself at http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm - but I was particularly interested in the following passage in which Dr. Baumeister seems to touch on some of the driving forces behind the male pathos we have been trying to uncover through the stories we have collected so far.
Earning Manhood
The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive.
Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level.
Again, I’m not saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems and disadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures find men useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect by producing wealth and value that can support himself and others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge or requirement.
These demands also contribute to various male behavior patterns. The ambition, competition, and striving for greatness may well be linked to this requirement to fight for respect. All-male groups tend to be marked by putdowns and other practices that remind everybody that there is NOT enough respect to go around, because this awareness motivates each man to try harder to earn respect. This, incidentally, has probably been a major source of friction as women have moved into the workplace, and organizations have had to shift toward policies that everyone is entitled to respect. The men hadn’t originally built them to respect everybody.
One of the basic, most widely accepted gender differences is agency versus communion. Male agency may be partly an adaptation to this kind of social life based on larger groups, where people aren’t necessarily valued and one has to strive for respect. To succeed in the male social sphere of large groups, you need an active, agentic self to fight for your place, because it isn’t given to you and only a few will be successful. Even the male ego, with its concern with proving oneself and competing against others, seems likely to be designed to cope with systems where there is a shortage of respect and you have to work hard to get some — or else you’ll be exposed to humiliation.
We could not, and certainly have not, said it better ourselves. One of the original (untested and anecdotal) premises of this book was that guys our age (40-60) have been caught between the expectations of our father’s generation to be strong, successful providers and the emerging cultural imperatives and expectations that men should be nurturing, equal partners. For my money Dr. Baumeister hits the nail on the head…we have to fight hard to be successful or we risk being exposed to humiliation. And that is not a useful excuse for going out with the guys when it is your turn to wash dishes.
But as much as I respect my friend Hal and the framework presented by Dr. Baumeister (which is rooted in evolutionary theory, social psychology and demographic data) Tom and I are not psychologists or sociobiologists; we did not set out to reduce the stories to fit a theory. We are just two guys who have been through a few ups and downs, who have reflected a bit on our own responses and choices in reaction to the balancing act described above, and who do not have to think very hard about lots of other middle age guys who have dealt with other ups and downs. What was interesting to us from the start was the power of the shared humanity in the simple stories of guys dealing with death or addictions or divorce or social and familial expectations. Our hope and belief was that as long as they told a compelling story they would attract readers who might be able to recognize themselves in some way, or who might think about their own situations just a little differently.
And so the debate rages on. Hal is not the only one who has encouraged us to take a more expository approach, grounded in sociobiological research; and there are many people who have expressed concern that the title is not catchy enough or that we do not have enough of a hook to attract a broad readership. Any thoughts or opinions on that front would be welcome, of course.
(email me at: james@coburnhoughton.com).
Before you vote I leave you with a final offering from Dr. Baumeister, this time from his own blog at http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/200806/one-ideal-image-manliness. In “One Ideal Image Of Manliness” he sings the praises of Paul Rusesabagina, the real life hotel manager played by Don Cheadle in the movie “Hotel Rwanda” who risked his own life to save so many during the Rwandan genocide. As he describes this quiet hero Dr. Baumeister says, he “offers a great model of manliness. Slight of build, gentle, with soft high voice and almost servile manner, he bears no resemblance to the Schwarzenegger type of manhood. Yet the inner strength and resourcefulness that he exhibits throughout the story were remarkable.” He concludes his blog:
If you have a son, you might show him this film as a positive example of manhood. Over the years, if he watches films and television he will see plenty of exemplars of the violent, musclebound, arrogant type, but these are not helpful models toward which our young men should aspire. He will also see plenty of male film characters doing wicked, irresponsible things, and the effects of these on our youngsters are not likely to be positive. Seeing a quiet, gentle man thrown into a desperate situation and taking heroic responsibility to care for others might just inspire some of our boys to become better men.
Same author, same underlying thesis – just different language and a different story to get at the same question of what makes a good man, or a man good. So the only question I have is which would you rather curl up with at night? A socio-behavioural analysis of the origins of male culture? Or the story of a good man trying to do the right thing despite long odds?
JAMES HOUGHTON
