counselling with men

Most men, even male therapists, have a lot to learn before they can mix with women on a non-oppressive basis in psychotherapy and the wider world, says John Rowan

COUNSELLORS tend to be nice people, who hope to be counselling human beings, and who hope to be human beings themselves. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a human being.

There is a question about men. This is the basic feminist insight, which I think we have to take on board if we are to understand anything about the male psyche. Instead of taking men for granted, as representing the whole human race, we have to think of them as a minority group with particular characteristics. These characteristics are partly genetic, partly social and partly created within the psyche of each individual man. What are they? This is a way of looking at men that takes nothing for granted: we have to really look and see, listen and hear, reach out and get in touch. Men are not the norm against which everything else is to be measured. Nothing is certain, nothing is sure, nothing is to be assumed.

When we problematise men in this way, there seem to be several different reactions that are possible for men to take up. There are at least these six, which Kenneth Clatterbaugh has named:

1. The conservative perspective
Here, the reaction to the feminist insight is to say that certain
roles and attitudes are natural, hard-wired. According to moral conservatives, masculinity is created by society in order to override man's natural antisocial tendencies, and turn them
into fathers, protectors and providers. According to biological conservatives, virtually all social behaviour exhibits men's natural tendencies as selected through an evolutionary process. Feminism is wrong about men and we must defend ourselves against it.

2. The pro-feminist perspective
Here, the reaction is to agree with feminists and to read their literature. Radical pro-feminists follow the lead of radical feminism in holding that hegemonic masculinity is committed to misogyny and violence against women, and that patriarchy is the social and political order in which this exists. Liberal pro-feminists follow the lead of liberal feminism in maintaining that masculinity is a set of limitations that are imposed on men, much as femininity is a set of limitations that are imposed on women. This is a non-defensive perspective, which tries to learn from feminism rather than oppose it. It can sometimes lead men into adopting, or trying to adopt, certain feminine characteristics, but this is a mistake.

3. The men's rights perspective
Here, the reaction is to emphasise that men are victims, just as much as women, and perhaps more so. Men's rights advocates draw particular attention to the oppression of men in divorce cases, in child custody cases, in abortion cases, the way in which men are success objects and disposable objects and the way in which men's nurturance of women is denied and forgotten. This, they argue, is a new and largely unrecognised form of sexism. Recently there have been demonstrations by some men with this outlook. This is a highly defensive reaction to feminism, which includes quite a paranoid fringe: some men have actually redefined feminism as nothing more than 'male-bashing'.

4. The spiritual perspective
Here, the reaction is to say that masculinity derives from deep, unconscious patterns, best revealed in myths and rituals. Female power cannot really be understood without reference to pre-patriarchal forms of thought and organisation. Nor can the male depths be properly respected without reference to universal images and symbols. In short, men need
to reach down into the psyche and touch archetypal patterns from which they have been separated. They have to reach forward for the high archetypes that can draw them on and nourish their souls. In many cases there is something suspect about this, because there is no real need to change: we are deeply OK already.

5. The socialist perspective
Here, the reaction is to say that masculinity is a social reality, grounded in class. The male role is constructed to suit the ruling groups, who are mainly concerned with power and profit. Sex roles are constructed through and through: to detect them we have to understand the social context, which is patriarchal capitalism. Men have to organise together to dismantle the social system that is oppressive both to women and to men. This has been an important theme in the past, but since 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, socialism has less credibility and draws less support, though it will no doubt always be there.

6. The group-specific perspective
Here, the reaction is to say that we also have to question the assumption that it is white heterosexual men who are central. The gay experience is different, because gay men have experienced some of the same oppression that women have also had to contend with. Heterosexism is the oppression of gay people by heterosexual people, and feminists are no more immune from it than anyone else. The Black, Asian, Latino experience likewise has oppression to contend with. Radical questions come from this perspective. (See Clatterbaugh, 1986¹ for a much fuller discussion of all these positions.)

One of the points that has emerged from all this discussion is that masculinity as such is not a problem. Rather the problem is that it has been channelled into just one form by patriarchal pressures. Bob Connell (1987)² was the first to name this form as 'hegemonic masculinity'. This is a form of masculinity that emphasises the four rules first stated by Robert Brannon (1976):³

No sissy stuff Anything feminine must be avoided. It is important not to be seen as feminine in any way. To do otherwise is to run the risk of being ridiculed or devalued by other men.

The big wheel There is a need to be seen to be high in status, or to be connected directly to people or organisations with high status. It is important to be important.

The sturdy oak One must be independent and self-reliant, and be ready to support others.

This research was done in America but I believe that the same assumptions are found, with a few variations, throughout the Western world, and in a good deal of the East as well nowadays. The trouble with hegemonic masculinity is that it is largely unconscious, rather than out there in the open. And, of course, it is oppressive to women.

It is also oppressive to gay men, and also to effeminate men, whether gay or not. It is all-pervasive, and represents what has been called the culture of the canteen - the taken-for-granted assumptions of everyday life in male settings. What we need to do is to take on board the obvious observation that there are many masculinities (Connell, 1995)⁴ rather than just one. But many men find this hard to take, in spite of the manifold examples now available of males who have high reputations without conforming to the stereotype.

Nor are therapists any exception to this. There is now quite a lot of evidence that male therapists are subject to some of the same pressures as the rest of the population (Rowan, 2003)⁵ and are more prone to narcissism and defensiveness than female therapists.

The whole person
It is quite depressing to realise that the main problem of men in therapy is still their reluctance to get in touch with their feelings. We must not, of course, romanticise the importance of feelings - there are other things in life just as significant as feelings, and a one-sidedly feeling person would be just as narrow and inadequate as a one-sidedly intellectual person, or a one-sidedly body-oriented person. What we are aiming at in therapy, it seems to me, is a whole person.

So what do men have to do to be free? My own answer, which runs right through the therapy I do myself with men, is that they need to be initiated (Rowan, 1997).⁶ And, as with all initiations, this requires a certain humility, an agreement to be tested and go through the fire. I do not mean by this that men need to go the Robert Bly route, with naked drumming in the woods: although that is very pleasant and encouraging, it does not lead to any great transformation. What I do mean is that men need to commit themselves to serious therapy. Fred Hanna and his colleagues (1995)⁷ have researched the way in which transcendence is crucial in the big breakthroughs in therapy. There has to be a moment of going beyond the existing perceived limitations of the man involved. From a new perspective, the whole problem looks different. This then affects the person at every level, which is one of the key characteristics of initiation.

Aaron Kipnis (1991)⁸ has spelt out the characteristics of the initiated man, as distinguished from the traditional man (under the spell of hegemonic masculinity) on the one hand and the feminised man (trying to do just the opposite) on the other. The initiated man, it turns out, is the integrated man, able to relate to women in a way that women can understand and appreciate. This ability to relate in a genuine way to women is very characteristic of men who have been through deep therapy in a committed way.

The benefits of groupwork
It is important not to assume that this means only individual therapy: some of the most important gains, and the deepest insights, can only be obtained, in my opinion, through groupwork. This was certainly true for me. It is only in a group that men can experience the social situation in which they have to live. The group may be men only or it may be mixed. Some very good groups are men only, but to steer clear of the mixed group can be an avoidance of such a situation. Unfortunately, in a mixed group, the men tend to have a lot more to learn than the women, and the more aware women may sometimes feel (Long & Coghill, 1977)⁹ that they are there to raise the awareness of the men, rather than to work on themselves. Likewise, in a mixed group of gay and straight men, the gay men may feel that they have much to teach and very little to learn.

I see this as a realistic message rather than a depressing one. Most men do have a great deal to learn before they can mix with women on a non-oppressive basis. Even when they learn about feelings, it often turns out that they are more interested in their own feelings rather than in those of others. But those who can bear to think in terms of a radical initiation into a new state of consciousness have a great many exciting and positive discoveries to make. I know I did.

John Rowan will be speaking at the conference, Understanding Men, on 9 and 10 July.

References

1. Clatterbaugh, Kenneth. Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity. Boulder: Westview Press; 1986.
2. Connell, Robert W. Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1987.
3. Brannon, R. The Male Sex Role. Our Culture's Blueprint for Manhood - What it's Done for Us Lately, in D David & R Brannon (eds), The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1976.
4. Connell, Robert W. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1995.
5. Rowan, John. Therapist resistance and male
consciousness, BPS Psychotherapy Section Newsletter;
34, 40-50; 2003.
6. Rowan, John. Healing the Male Psyche: Therapy as
Initiation. London: Routledge; 1997.
7. Hanna, Fred J, Giordano, F, Dupuy, P and Puhakka,
K. Agency and transcendence: The experience of
therapeutic change. The Humanistic Psychologist, 23/2;
141-160; 1995.
8. Kipnis, Aaron (1991) Knights without Armour: A Practical Guide For Men in Quest of Masculine Soul. Los Angeles: Tarcher; 1991.
9. Long, P & Coghill, M. Is it Worthwhile Working in
a Mixed Group? London: Beyond Patriarchy Publications; 1977.