I’m a member of an invite only facebook group for graduates of the Masters in Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) program. Last week, a fellow alum posted about something that I have been spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about but not putting to paper. So today I’m going to attempt to get that started.
The concept that I’m going to cover today is Positive Masculinity. As my colleague pointed out, it’s actually a quite timely issue to be discussing. One of the brilliant things I find about Positive Psychology is the way it frames certain social constructs. In a world where lack of empathy and understanding is supercharged, it is necessary for us to create intentionally positive frames for discussing things. Otherwise, we risk everything being viewed through a very pessimistic lense.
The need for Positive Masculinity got a supercharge with the most recent American election. Anyone who reads this or listens to my podcast has probably heard about where my political views line up. Yet, I hope that Positive Masculinity is the type of idea that can cut straight across political divides.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. I haven’t told you a thing for what I actually think Positive Masculinity, hereafter called PM, is. So let me first define what it means to have a “Positive” anything, then get more specific into what I see as the basic contours of PM.
Positive Positvity
In the world of Positive Psychology, the construction “Positive” followed by a noun is frequently used in naming concepts. The idea is to offer a new definition of an existing topic with the fresh sheen of Positive Psychology.
Masculinity is in dire need of a rebrand, as right now there are two dominant narratives, both of which I don’t think are particularly helpful. One, often called “toxic” masculinity by its opponents, describes masculinity as a Darwinist, survival of the fittest, animalistic virtue. The idea is that basically the world is violent and dangerous and that men were designed to fight and win at all costs. Put another way, you’re either winning or your losing, and you’re probably losing.
A counter-narrative seeks to deconstruct the first, and also the term masculinity overall. Again, using the terminology of its opponents, this might be called “woke” masculinity. The idea here is more or less that “traditional” masculinity is a problem, and that only by somehow purging our identity as males may we atone for our sins. If you think the religious language is overwrought, I’ll argue with you on that point. The left wing of the United States has more culture derived from puritanical religious ideology than it will ever properly acknowledge.
So let me put my biases on the table. The “toxic” crew are not my people. Andrew Tate can absolutely go fuck himself, as well as the hundreds of copy cats that spew misogyny, homophobia and, if we’re being quite honest, quite a bit of hate back towards your every day man.
But if I’m being honest, “my people” are directing their fair share of negativity towards men. It’s not uncommon, even within my own household, that “middle-aged white guy” will be used more or less as a slur. I have to remind my wife that she is, in fact, married to a “middle-aged white guy”.
To that she will respond “well I’m not talking about you” and here is where we have an opportunity for reframing. As long as we have a negative framing of masculinity (without positivity), there are only two options available to men:
Bad
or
Not bad (one of the good ones)
That duality does not give men a lot to aspire to. Which brings me back to PM. One of the foundational concepts of Positive Psychology was the creation of the VIA (Values in Action) Strengths. The idea was to come up with a counterpart to the DSM, the manual used to describe every variation of mental illness. Because if all you have for a frame is “sick” or “not sick”, then everything becomes focused on sickness.
Right now, the conversation around masculinity is almost entirely focused on what is wrong with masculinity. Let’s change that.
Basics of Positive masculinity
So here’s what I envision for a start on PM. This is by no means a fully fleshed out concept. That said, I have been spending some time about how to take a VIA like approach to the topic of masculinity. What I aim to do is take some of the values that the toxic crowd espouses and give them a positive orientation. In so doing, I hope to inspire men who identify with those values to be a force for good in the world.
Aggression- Aggression is praised by the toxic crowd and booed by their opponents. I think it’s time to take aggression back as a positive trait that men can identify with. For a start, a PM definition of aggression should emphasize the bravery of moving assertively for what is right. Let me give you an example within my middle-aged white guy marriage.
The duality above means that a lot of “toxic” guys may feel justified in treating their spouse poorly. Whereas the “woke” crowd has a genuine interest in redressing inequality, but approach it passively. I run into a lot of guys that stop short of taking on the domestic load within their family because they fear criticism from their wife.
I used to be one of them, but a few years ago I realized that if I actually leaned into my “masculine” aggression, I could be true to who I was and be a better, more equitable man. I used my aggression to take on more responsibility, and when I was faced with critiques, I didn’t flag. I stayed aggressive.
I believe that men should be out aggressively fighting for a more equitable world.
Stoicism- Perhaps no trait of masculinity gets more twisted than stoicism. Somehow, it has come to mean emotional constipation for a lot of people.
So it’s time to take stoicism back. Go back to the classical definition. Was the point of Marcus Aurelius’ meditation that he never cried? No, it was actually that he kept a diary and externalized his thoughts in order to make better decisions. He modeled emotional regulation by regularly acknowledging how he was feeling and how that influenced his feelings.
Competitiveness- As a certified sports guy, this is perhaps my favorite one to redefine. Again, competitiveness has been twisted to a narrow, Darwinian definition of win at all costs. But is that really true competitiveness?
The men I know who are positively competitive actually want everyone to do their best. They want not just to succeed, but to raise the floor of performance all around them. Because they know a simple truth- raising the level of competition will always result in better performance for you as an individual.
So let’s not let competitiveness be so selfish. Let’s redefine competitiveness as the cooperative and pro-social ideal it always has been.
Dominance- Of the four characteristics I will list here, this is perhaps the trickiest tight rope to walk. How can we say dominance is a positive trait, when it implies so many bad outcomes for the dominated.
Dominance does not have to be defined by exploitation. At it’s core, domination is about leadership. I also think that consent is a part of domination. In my domestic life, I consent to have my wife dominate certain domains of our shared responsibilities and she does the same to me.
A vision of positive dominance is about achieving competence such that people trust you enough to defer some of their autonomy. In my field, coaching, I think dominance looks like having people trust my judgment enough that they are willing to do what I ask them to do in order to get better.
PM For the Future
As I said, this is a start. I’ve hesitated up to this point because I think in order to justify the existence of PM you have to be a bit provocative and risk pissing EVERYONE off.
This post was also somewhat in response to this article summarizing the first guidance for practice with men and boys. While I agree with a lot of the conclusions that the APA has come up with, I can’t necessarily get on board with the way they are framing the situation. They lean into stigmatizing the four traits I have listed above, branding them as such:
“The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors.”
Perhaps it is true that these traits in their current broad definition are harmful, but the APA seems to suggest throwing them out as the solution. I can’t see this being effective, especially when so many men have them bound up in their identity. I think it’s worth telling people that who they are and how they identify is valid, and dare I say it, good. To that end, we’ve perhaps never faced a moment where it is more necessary promote a positive vision of masculinity.