Taming the Drunken Monkey

Two fascinating articles in the Fall 2002 newsletter of the Society for the Study of Men and Masculinity (Division 51 of the American Psychological Association).

The first, “Mindfulness as a Useful Adjunct in Therapeutic Work with Men,” by C. Peter Bankart, concerns using Buddhist mindfulness training not only to reduce stress but also to help men become more empathetic, less defensive and less reactive. Bankart’s description of why many men need mindfulness training focuses on our social construction of a stereotyped masculinity beginning in childhood:

Psychologists who spend significant time concerned with the
emotional well-being of men will recognize that escape and
avoidance lie at the heart of much human suffering. Gratuitous
violence, substance abuse, impulsive behavior, extreme risk
taking, compulsive sexuality, relational clinging, and unreflective
narcissism are all culturally sanctioned mechanisms by which
men often learn to evade the flood of sensations, feelings, and
memories that are the raw stuff of human experience.

The developmental origins of this avoidance system lie at least
in part in masculine preoccupation with a one-dimensional
masculinity that has its roots in the comprehensive set of self-imposed rules, proscriptions, and strict social conventions that are vigorously enforced by men on each other, especially during the transition from boyhood to manhood. In various guises this masculine code has been recognized in the literature of social science for more than 50 years. One of its earliest chroniclers was the writer Virginia Satir who summed up its essence in three edicts: Don’t cry, Don’t feel, and Don’t talk about it. American young men are taught from preschool to externalize their feelings, to not dwell on their emotions, and to look down on other men or boys who are too self-expressive or self-aware.

Bankart describes how exhausting it can be to vigilantly maintain this facade, even as it seems completely natural. Mindfulness training focuses on slow and rhythmic breathing to become more fully and calmly aware of oneself and the world in the moment, without judgment.

At the January Adventure conference on St. Simons Island this year, guest speaker Father Richard Rohr described a school that teaches just type of mindfulness training to children. Small children may sit and breathe for just a minute or two, developing an understanding of the practice. Older children may grow into a daily practice of 10-15 minutes of mindful breathing. Can you imagine a world where we taught all our children this practice? Could we start today?


This entry was posted in Action, Masculinity, The boy box and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Taming the Drunken Monkey

  1. caygin says:

    In his fascinating, well documented book, “War and Gender”, Joshua S. Goldstein, Professor of International Relations at American University, DC, puts forward the theory that parents and society, unconsciously and unintentionally, train boys to be ready, when they are men, to fight in war. We train boys to be able to kill. Goldstein’s research finds that all men are groomed to kill even though most men will never be needed for war and will never actually kill.
    Preparation has to start as young as possible. Here Goldstein is not talking about army or weapons training, but about the conditioning necessary to overcome a man’s natural reluctance to kill another person. To be effective, this psychological preparation has to start early – in fact, soon after birth.
    Influence comes from his peers, the media, the clubs he belongs to, the sport he plays, the culture surrounding him.
    We don’t take too much time – or any time at all – to question whether the characteristics suitable to be able to fight in wars are also the most positive ones for a man living a daily life of work, social interaction, partnerships, relationships, family and children.
    We pretend that there are characteristics that ‘real’ men don’t have and things that ‘real’ men don’t do. And then, if the boy doesn’t behave in the ‘proper’ way, we accuse him of weakness, of being like a girl.
    All this indicates that boys have to undergo training to be men. A boy has to endure emotional and physical ordeals to simply ‘become a man’. Either he must rid himself of the non-acceptable male characteristics – or learn to hide them.
    A useful tool to suck both parents and boys into accepting this sacrifice would be to symbolically link the concept of masculinity to the idea of violence and war. And society has done just this.
    From childhood, boys are ‘taught’ that ‘real’ men and war are linked – a link far stronger and more romantic than any link to an everyday life of work and family.
    Men, especially young men, react with aggression and violence when they feel insecure about their masculinity, when they feel rejected, weakened, challenged, or criticised. Men, especially young men, choose activities like drinking, drugging, risky behaviour, stealing, or killing to show the world they are ‘real’ men.

    • Thanks! I don’t know that this training is always unconscious — there’s a good argument to be made that the military industrial complex is pretty intentional about grooming boys to be warriors. See today’s post for a follow-up on your last sentence — the connection between social masculinity construction and alcohol and drug addictions and risky behavior.

  2. Pingback: The “boy box” and drug abuse | Pink Is for Boys

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s