There is much work being done about the nature of masculinities; in fact, the research is starting to shape not a mere trickle of a stream, but the full flow of a substantial river.
Here are some notes from one of the essays in a new book entitled, Brothers Keepers, New Perspectives on Jewish Masculinities. The writers of the essay, Michael C. Reichert and Sharon M. Ravitch are conducting a review of the literature.
Methods and perspectives developed within men's studies--what Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) characterize as "ethnographic realism"--offered helpful tools and perspectives with which to explore boys' actual experience of boyhood. To grasp the actual nature of boys' lives and the day-to-day nature of their opportunities and pressures, researchers now understood that the masculine dimension of their experiences had to be discerned:the peer pressure and incitements, institutional norms, rewards and recognitional systems, family and school tacit man-making curricula, and structured world of opportunity as it is typically offered to boys. For too long, gendered developmental paths for boys had been imperceptible.
These tools and perspectives encouraged "voice centered" methodologies in work with boys, which have helped researchers to hear boys' stories about the costs of the masculine identity process. In particular, a worrisome picture of the restrictive force of the dominant form of masculinity has emerged: "It is exclusive, anxiety-provoking, internal and hierarchically differentiated, brutal and violent." (Donaldson, 1985, p.646) Our own and a great deal of other research on boys' lives has established that boys' encounters with this dominant form of masculinity are unavoidable and often painful (Connell, n1989; Martino, 1999,2008; Reichert, 2001; Reichert and Kuriloff, 2003: Reichert, Stoudy & Kuriloff, 2006, Stoudt, 2006).This dominant form of masculinity and its ideals are promoted through valorization and institutionalized endorsement--accompanied by potent reward and recognitional systems--and are enforced by violence, bullying, and even ongoing threat. For a boy not to make some accommodation or show at least public complicity with the privileged identity invites substantial reaction, usually in the form of admonishment, exclusion and peer policing. Ultimately, most boys and men square themselves with society's central ideas about manhood as much to realize their benefits, especially in terms of recognition and reward--the patriarchal dividend--as to avoid the punishments meted out to dissenters (Connell, 1995, p.79)
In many key developmental areas boys' accommodation to this masculine ideal reveals its distorting effect. For example, in terms of basic health outcomes, Waldron (1976),the U.S. Preventive Services Task Froce (1996), and Courtnay (2003) all found that boys' choices and lifestyle practices imperil them at far greater rates than those of females. Broks and Silverstein (1995), Pleck, Sonenstein, and Ku (1994) and Pleck (1995) determined that the greater the boy's conformity to narrow ideas about masculinity, the more likely he is to take risks related to alcohol use, drunk driving, and drug abuse. Similarly, in relation to mental health outcomes, O'Neil, Good and Holmes (1995) compiled stunning testimony over many years to the detrimental effects--in terms of self-esteem, depression, anxiety violence, and relationship success--of restrictive masculine norms. These damaging contrainsts take effect quite early in boys' lives, according to the work of Chu (2000), who studied elementary-age boys and found them to be sensitive to the cultural demands of masculinity, making deliberate compromises in personal authenticity to avoid going against the grain of masculine norms. The author felt that compromises were forced on her research subjects by the tacit and ever-present masculine pressures of school and community life, resulting in a loss of both voice and opportunity. Finally, and perhaps most problematic for societies, a strong relationship exists between these same male norms and uncivil behavior. Boys far more commonly than girls engage in behaviors that increase the risk of disease, injury, and death to themselves and others; they carry weapons more often, engage in pohysiucal fights more often, wear their seat belts less often, drive drunk more frequently, have more sexual partners as we as more unprotected sex, and use alcohol or drugs more often before sex (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006).(p.19-20)
Programs in schools and religious institutions that attempt to teach and inculcate healthy and positive traits in males, whether based on values or on skills come up against the acculturation of these young men.
Schools have struggled with their historic, embedded, "hidden" masculinity curricula, discovering that boys are learning from their experience of near-Darwinian school cultures much more effectively than they learn from any didactic programs (Berkowitz, 2002; Conell, 1996; Reichert, 2001; Reichert & Hawley, 2006; Swain, 2005). Poor school achievement, disciplinary problems, overdiagnosis and over -referral to special educational services, athletic over-injury, bullying, peer harassment, and school violence are some of the issues that raise concerns about the effectiveness of schooling for boys. Religions and cultures across society struggle with boys. Put simply, male adolescents in every religion included in a recent large study showed up less often and dropped out more dramatically (Smith & Denton, 2005)
No comments:
Post a Comment