JOSEPH GELFER

Yesterday I posted about the story “Women Prefer Meat Eaters” in Australian Men’s Fitness, and finished with a reference to a 2008 article in Sydney Anglicans about Australian men’s ministries and their use of meat-eating and butchery to appeal to men. I recently wrote about this in a new research article I have under review called “That’s Not How We Do Things Here: American Men’s Ministries in an Australasian Context.”

Clearly the universe is sending me some kind of meaty message, as there is another story along these lines this very morning in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled “Parishioners in for their chop, chapter and verse,” with the following lovely picture:

The article states:

The men watched as half a cow was cut up and were given the chance to put their barbecuing skills to the test and to sample some of the several different cuts of meat. After a hearty three courses, including steaks, pork ribs and lamb leg, Mr Taylor said the only thing left over was salad.

In the past year, Men and Meat evenings have become increasingly popular events at churches around Sydney. Mr Moore said he has held similar events at a number of venues and has another few in the pipeline. The turnout at All Saints in North Epping was 168, he said.

I originally started writing about Australian men’s ministries because theologians and clergy alike had been complaining about my representation of American ministries as if they were typical of those in Australia. Their argument is twofold: First, I present a caricature of evangelicalism that does not bear witness to its diversity; second, I do not acknowledge that evangelicalism (and therefore evangelical men’s ministries) looks different in Australia compared to America. Australian ministries, these critics claim, are more subtle: less prone to soft patriarchy, less prone to appealing to sport and military images to entice men, and consequently less prone to the problematic masculinities they promote.

My general argument is that Australian ministries do little but repeat the many problematic aspects of American ministries. However, I have never seen American ministries appeal to meat and butchery in quite this way, which suggests Australian ministries have their own unique way of asserting normative masculinity alongside the imports from America.

Richard over at Men and the Goddess has posted some very engaging (and challenging) comments in regard to the mythopoetic chapter of Numen, Old Men. I post them below, followed by my reply.

Richard writes:

I’m closely and carefully reading Joseph Gelfer’s book on “Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy” because he offers a clear review of what has been going on with men and spirituality over the last couple of decades and maybe some hope for where we can go as men looking for progress rather than a regress to our baser and lower motivations and instincts. This will be a multi-part comment because there is a lot of material to cover.

As I reported at length yesterday I was directly involved to some degree in the “Mythopoetic Movement.” Dr. Gelfer’s second chapter (after an introductory chapter) is titled: “The Mythopoetic Movement: Getting it Wrong from the Start.”  You can imagine how this caught my attention!

The chapter covers much of my life in the 90s. He reviews the movement, the luminaries and their work. It is a good and fairly detailed review which covers much of the material, yes, some of the shortcomings, but I also think there is something which got lost in the research. I have a hunch that Dr. Gelfer’s research was based to a large extent on the primary and secondary sources with no real experience with either the movement or its leaders. Since I had some reasonable and positive experience of both my view is different. Here I’ll go into Dr. Gelfer’s review, findings, conclusions and then amplify these with my own thoughts.

Dr. Gelfer characterizes the movement using four major themes he culls from the literature: archetypes as identified by Jung and extensively researched and adapted by Robert Moore (a Jungian psychoanalyst) and Douglas Gillette (mythologist); wilderness (also called wildness) sometimes characterized by the Green Man and certainly by Iron John, probably the most notorious character in the movement and main character of the book by Robert Bly of the same title; fatherlessness as an explanation of why we are in this mess in the first place and why we need a movement; and initiation as a key missing component to the raising of American, possibly all of western, men.

He also claims that there is little if any spirituality in this movement. He defines spirituality across two pages in his book and finds one offered by Robert Forman “perfectly acceptable” as do I (Forman in Grassroots Spirituality: What It Is, Why It Is Here, Where It Is Going, 2004): “Grassroots Spirituality involves a vaguely pantheistic ultimate that is indwelling, sometimes bodily, as the deepest self and accessed through not-strictly-rational means of self transformation and group process that becomes the holistic organization for all life.”

With that definition and these themes in mind I’ll briefly summarize Dr. Gelfer’s critiques, offer my own thoughts and conclude with an overall impression of both the book, so far, and the movement, so far.

Archetypes: Dr. Gelfer focuses on the work of Moore and Gillette. I was fortunate enough to take a weekend workshop with Robert Moore before their four archetypal books were even publish. The first one, King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine which summarized their model had just been published in 1990. Dr Gelfer spends most of his time examining the King and Warrior archetypes and claims that these represent a call for return to the patriarchy and also claims that these two are the chief focal points for the movement. And here I disagree based on my experience with Moore, the use of the archetypes with Bly and others and my own sense of the operation of these archetypes in my life. Moore and Gillette don’t focus on these two archetypes to the exclusion of the Magician and the Lover. And they don’t call for a return to these archetypes to define the Mature Masculine. Rather they call for a balance and a development. And they clearly point out the shadow side of each of the four archetypes and how they can operate destructively in men’s lives. They also use this archetypal model in a developmental sense claiming we are born as divine children in the King quadrant, move through adolescence and early manhood into the warrior quadrant, move on in our prime to our magician quadrant, as we mature and grow in wisdom we move on to our Lover quadrant, and then as senior men (maybe even grandfathers) we finally move back into the King quadrant where we are generative in our maturity. Obviously this is a simplistic model both of the masculine and the developmental stages we go through. It is meant to be instructive rather than conclusive. There is much more detail (five books worth!) that I can’t go into here, but I will conclude that the model has been very useful in my life as a guide to who I am, how I got here and where I am going. And while Moore & Gillette claim these archetypes are “hardwired” into our psyches I may not go quite that far. I believe we can rise above our development and the archetypes which instruct us but don’t necessarily limit us. And here I go back to the definition of spirituality as a means of self transformation, yes, even beyond archetypes.

Wilderness: Yes, Iron John was a wild man. Dr. Gelfer seems to believe this too is a call to return to strong patriarchy. There is certainly a lot about the mythopoetic movement that calls for a return to nature, a respect for nature and the natural. Clearly there is power in this. But there is also love. Rather than King and Warrior in the Wild Man I see Magician and Lover. When Robert Bly refers to the “soft male” he is referring, in my mind, to absent males who have abdicated, not their patriarchal role as King and Warrior, but their male role in the world as  leader and protector. And there is clearly, in my mind, a reverence here and a “vaguely pantheistic ultimate” at the core of this Wildness. I experienced the “Other” the “Ultimate” in my time within the movement, especially at the “Men’s Conferences” I attended. These were spiritual, transcendent experiences that are not easily found in the literature; but how do you write about the transcendent? Through poetry (of the Lover); through “not-strictly-rational” experiences (of the Magician). I agree with Dr. Gelfer that the Spiritual can be difficult to separate out within the movement’s literature; but it is there to be experienced.

Fatherlessness: This is an important theme in much of Robert Bly’s thought on our current predicament in the post-modern world. He believes absent fathers (boys no longer working side-by-side with their fathers) has meant we have been raised by our mothers to too great an extent and to our detriment. We have been raised without good male role-models; our fathers represent the closest we have to strong, if not positive, models. Here I can agree with some of Dr. Gelfer’s criticism. This theme almost sounds like a blame game; looking for excuses. I personally struggled with this thought and finally abandoned it; I grew up with a wonderful father and worked by his side on the family farm. Yes, this was then, and certainly is now, a rarity. And as I explored this concept of the absent father I reached too far thinking because my father was quiet and we didn’t have deep conversations this meant he was somehow “absent.” But now that I’m well into my own fatherhood and grandfatherhood I realize how important my father’s modeling was in my life. OK, so if I had a “present father” what about the men who did not? I think we find our models as we grow up. And these are choices we make as part of our developmental process. Which leads me to the next and final theme:

Initiation: Bly’s second major book (other than his works of poetry): The Sibling Society focuses especially on the situation in which we are a society of uninitiated adolescents. There are good arguments in this book that we adults (including governing officials) act as children too often. And this can be very scary! (I don’t want to get political here, but I believe we invaded Iraq in a childish and grandiose way resulting in a  country forever changed!).  As we grow up in western culture we do not have tests for maturity; we can test for academic achievement; we can test for attained levels of skill; but emotional and spiritual maturity are difficult to measure. It is precisely this emotional and spiritual attainment which Initiation seeks. It is much more than a rite of passage; it is a process of development for young people to move through. Dr. Gelfer seems to equate this call for Initiation with a return to primitive societies where boys are initiated into the tribe of men to take their rightful places as heads of families, patriarchal leaders. Again, this was not my experience. And I don’t think that is the point of identifying Initiation as a missing component in our society. In my mind we have no process for becoming emotionally mature, spiritual leaders. We need them. We need everyone to be emotionally mature and on a spiritual path of some kind, to access “through not-strictly-rational means of self transformation and group process”  the “holistic organization for all life.” How else will we ever advance Consciousness?

Dr. Gelfer has done a great job in outlining the mythopoetic men’s movement and pointing out some of its weaknesses. I don’t believe it was ever meant to be an end point, but rather a stepping stone, as it’s been for me. It doesn’t really have much life in it any longer, sad to say for young men wondering how to “grow themselves up.” But its leaders have been heroes for me: good models, good thinkers, good Warriors, Magicians, Lovers, Kings. And while I have moved on from some of the more simplistic elements of the movement I sense that I stand on a stronger base for having been part of it.

And, don’t get me wrong; I have very much enjoyed Joseph Gelfer’s book and continue to do so as I read through his critique of the various approaches to masculine spiritualities. And I very much look forward to his recommendations (stay tuned).

My reply:

Thanks for these thoughtful comments: the closest reading yet of this part of the book.

You say that the book is based to a large extent on the primary and secondary sources with no real experience with either the movement or its leaders. Certainly, this study is a textual analysis of the movement, which is a perfectly valid method. It’s interesting that the two most sympathetic studies of the movement (by which I mean academic) are those involved in participant observation (Schwalbe’s “Unlocking the Iron Cage: The Men’s Movement, Gender Politics, and American Culture” and Magnuson’s “Changing Men, Transforming Culture: Inside the Men’s Movement”). These studies see plenty of men with “good intentions” that do not match the quite reasonable and critical readings of the movement leaders’ writing. However, as I mention in the book, good intentions often do not equate with good effects. I believe participant observation gives too much weight to good intentions at the expense of critiquing their negative effects. I have found this tension to operate elsewhere in my own work, which is why I opt for textual analysis, as it seems in many ways less compromised. And, of course, the “men on the ground” generally mobilize the writings of the movement leaders, which again makes them central.

You are correct that Moore refers to all four archetypes, and not just the king and warrior. The big “however” is that far more attention is given to these two archetypes across the movement than the magician and lover, which is why I make them central. You mention Moore’s reference to the shadow, but this does not stand up to examination: it is a cursory awareness that breaks down when read closely (see pp. 24-5 and my reading of the King David story). You hit the nail on the head when you say, “It is meant to be instructive rather than conclusive”: this is back in the realm of good intentions. It might have been meant as instructive, but there are two problems here: first, I don’t think Moore et al have the competence to pull it off (that’s mean, I know, but I stand by it); second, even if they did pull it off, it certainly was read as conclusive by too many people. Either way, the net effect is poor.

The Wild Man: Here I think it is important to unpack the difference between “wildness” as it may stand on its own, and then in respect to Bly’s context of the wild man. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with wildness in and of itself: to suggest otherwise would be a claim against nature (and I use “nature” in the ecological sense of the word, not what is “natural” about being a man). Bly’s Wild Man is clearly a combative metaphor, as demonstrated by my reference to folklorist Jack Zipes’ critique. The “vaguely pantheistic ultimate” can be at the core of Wildness, but it is not necessarily (for example, an atheist appreciate of awe in nature): given that it is never explicitly spelled out, it remains, at best, ambiguous.

Initiation: references to primitive initiation rights abound in the movement’s literature. There may have been some “intention” (that old chestnut!) to mean something beyond this primitive context, but I don’t see it. One reads a fair bit along the lines of “we need something that fulfills the functions of primitive initiation in contemporary life”, but no substantial offerings: in the void left by no such offerings, folks on the ground take what they can get (i.e. the primitive). As I also mention in the book, initiation serves well to erase individual identity by co-opting youth into the values of society, rather than the ”intention” of bestowing “mature” identity upon them. Note also, the mantra-like references to “mature” speak to age-based power structures within the movement: a gerontocracy–if ever there was one–which I find most amusing coming from those who not many years previously rejected exactly such a system in and around the Summer of Love!

I honor your reading and experience of the movement, but feel it is colored by your desire to see it in a good light. That said, you are spot on to say the movement should be seen as a stepping stone: The problem is that too many (mostly younger) men are now just going through the same old thing, rather than moving onto the new.

UPDATED 19 April

Richard replies:

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply, Joseph. I appreciate the time you have taken to engage in a discussion on this subject, first through your well researched book and second through your willingness to respond to my review of it.

I certainly don’t want to get into a point by point debate on the issues we each are raising about the “movement.” Clearly you are coming at the subject with academic study as a primary motivation. As such I do understand that you have necessarily restricted your review to the literature. For me, while I understand the sociological benefit of such a study, I find it limited to an examination of only one dimension of the movement, maybe two given the secondary literature, critiques of the primary literature, and the reporting on the movement.

You consider the actual experience of the movement, mine included, as “well intentioned” thereby tainted by the intention. But this argues to throw out all experience as suspect because of preconditioned expectations. Are we all to live in “ivory towers” and study the “plebes” as they go through attempts at growth with all the “good intentions” but expected failures which follow experimentation? I can not discard my experiences; they are what make me today!

I suppose my experiences have also been tainted (I would prefer to say “influenced”) by an identification with the “gerontocracy” you mention. But humans, maybe especially men, must go through developmental stages through their whole lives. It is my hope that men will continue to develop, rather than stagnate into a comfort zone of one archetype or another! I certainly hope that the majority don’t get stuck in the warrior stage (although many have, judging by the rise again of the “militia movements” in this country!). Transitioning through developmental stages (however you wish to label them) is what I call initiation. For me, and I think for the movement in general, initiation involves a transcendence of self from one developmental stage to another. Some of these initiations can be formalized but often they are not.

And what is wrong with “many (mostly younger) men are now just going through the same old thing”? Yes, by definition they need to; this is initiation. And for us “old men” of the gerontocracy of the movement, we too need to move on and grow and offer the next steps, the next levels of development.

Joseph, you have said little about the Magician and Lover quadrants of development which Moore and Gillette (however incompetently) have explored, believing through your research that it is only the Warrior and King archetypes which are emphasized by the “movement.” This is where my experience disagrees substantially with your research. And this is not about good intention but about the magic and singing and praising and grieving and honoring and, yes, transcending our lower selves to reach for Higher Self which I experienced in Minnesota with Robert Bly, et al and a group of a hundred or so men gathered to do just that. We didn’t talk about war expect to grieve it and its consequences. We didn’t talk about kingliness except to explore it and our grandiosity, as identified by Heinz Kohut, and to understand both the positive and negative aspects of that grandiosity in the human psyche. We did sing, a lot, and read and write poetry, a lot, and listen to and tell beautiful stories. We did praise, a lot, each other, gods and goddesses, our wives and daughters, our sons and grandchildren.

You won’t find much of this in the literature. It’s not easy to write about in any coherent and believable way. But it is real. It is transformative. It is what the movement is all about. If humanity is to survive and continue to evolve we must transcend our current stage of development. I look to the future with tremendous hope because people like Robert Bly have created a rock to step out on, and people like you, Joseph, are looking for something more, the next rock to step up on!

My reply:

I certainly don’t seek to throw out personal experience: the issue on the table is an awareness of the forces shaping that experience. This requires self insight that a lot of people just don’t have. By sticking to the literature, this task is simplified to some degree. Certainly, though, it is possible (and desirable) to include personal experience, but the complications of this must be fully appreciated by all the stakeholders involved. In a world of sound bites, bullet points and instant insights, this is difficult, to say the least.

If you want to see initiation as the same as development, that’s fine. But it’s important to remember that the way the movement literature refers to initiation (i.e. boys being initiated into the “tribal” values of “mature” men, often through a dangerous ritual) speaks to issues of power, identity control and physical extremism that are not necessarily present in common understandings of development. Your developmental interpretation is certainly valid, but it would be questionable to suggest that is the context in which initiation functions within the movement.

The problem with “many (mostly younger) men are now just going through the same old thing” is that we never learn from mistakes. The (broken) wheel is continually reinvented. If we have any hope, each generation must build on the experiences of the previous, not repeat them. Think about slavery as an analogy: do we all have to work through the fact that it is wrong? Development is not simply a personal issue, but a collective and historic issue.

I certainly have no desire to deny your experience with the movement on the ground, and am pleased to hear of the issues you speak of with Bly et al. It’s just a shame that these seemingly better aspects remain obscured by the way the movement leaders presented themselves to the outside world, the simplistic models of masculinity this presentation encouraged, and the fact that this partial picture is the one perpetuated by so many men who speak to these issues.

You know, I actually hold experience in pretty high regard. I hope that before it’s too late I get to look Bly and Moore in the eye and FEEL what they were trying to do. The project they tried to achieve on the page failed, and I strongly believe this needs to be acknowledged before regular men can move on. However, I’m open to the possibility that they have something less tangible to offer: sometimes when we have these pre- or post-linguistic gifts we need to recognize them for what they are, and not try and force a square peg into a round hole. While the constructive aspect of this story may be hard to articulate, the deconstructive aspect is relatively easy, and it is this aspect that is crucial if genuine eyes-open development is to happen.

Contrary to popular belief, I remain ultimately optimistic about these issues: figuring out how to navigate them is the tricky bit

Richard replies:

Thanks, again, Joseph. It’s getting late here and I do want to get on with more of your book, so I have something intelligent to say tomorrow. But I did want to respond to a couple of words that grabbed my attention in your latest comment:

“Broken” – I just don’t see the “wheel” as “broken” as you do. I do think it can be improved, built upon, evolved – no question here. But the wheel that was built by this movement did have some spin to it. It got some things started that were and are desperately needed. So, rather than throw out this wheel as broken I seek to build on it. And I hope we are dealing here with a spiral rather than a wheel. I’d rather see some elevation happening rather than just going ’round in circles with a fancier wheel!

“Failed” – “the project they tried to achieve on the page failed”! But this is my whole point here; it’s not about what’s printed on the page. Yes, for your academic study that’s all you can rely on. But things don’t fail on the page. They fail (or succeed) in the actuation of what’s on that page. Grand designs often fail; but they get tweaked during implementation and then succeed. And even if they do fail, there is so much to learn in failure. Martín Prechtel would say there is great beauty in failure. As long as we are feeding the gods and goddesses (what he calls the holy), even in our failures, there is magnificence!

And one area I think we heartily agree: “figuring out how to navigate [these issues]is the tricky bit.” And the task is worth it!

____

An excellent discussion: thanks Richard. JG.

In Numen, Old Men I have a good poke at those forms of men’s movement that claim to draw inspiration from Jung. These movements are called by numerous critics “neo-Jungian”: the “neo” suggesting they flirt with some Jungian themes rather than pursuing any Jungian orthodoxy (for example, Jungian scholar David Tacey charged the movement with “conservative and simplistic appropriation of Jungian theory”). Furthermore, I don’t much like Jungian orthodoxy.

About six months ago we saw the publication for the first time of Jung’s Red Book. Jung spent 16 years on this book, but for a variety of reasons never published it. The Red Book is basically an illuminated manuscript charting the topography of Jung’s interiority. It contains numerous visionary dreams and experiences which were later distilled in a more scholarly fashion in his published writing. The book’s editor, Sonu Shamdasani, claims The Red Book is “nothing less than the central book in his [Jung’s] oeuvre”, and that his other work cannot really be understood without reading this in tandem.

Following the way Jung is mobilised in the men’s movement we would expect to see plenty of material in The Red Book about masculine archetypes, and how these are unavoidable in the male psyche. We would also expect to read of complementarity: of both natural gender roles, and of the gendered aspects of the soul (anima and animus). We certainly read plenty about complementarity, but almost nothing about archetypes. There are only two relatively short passages which speak to these issues: one in “Liber Secundus”, the other in “Scrutinies”.

Specifically, quite early in the section “Liber Secundus”, Jung refers to “completeness” in both men and women: men, for example, must seek the feminine more in themselves rather than in women. This would resonate quite clearly with men’s movement literature. Gender wholism is also referenced when Jung states, “humankind is masculine and feminine, not just man or woman. You can hardly say of your soul what sex it is”. Indeed, Jung aspires to be free from gender: “This is the most difficult thing-to be beyond the gendered and yet remain within the human”.

However, Jung goes on to outline some problems in masculine performances, claiming men tend not to engage the task of identifying with the feminine within: “It pleases you, however, to play at manliness, because it travels on a well-worn track”. This suggests a critique of normative masculinity, as does his comment of “man despises you [woman] because he despises his femininity”, which speaks to both an awareness of misogyny and homophobia. Jung speaks either to the limitations of normative masculinity, or his own problematic issues about femininity when he claims, “It is bitter for the most masculine man to accept his femininity; since it appears ridiculous to him, powerless and tawdry”. Again, is Jung asserting a queer challenge to masculine normativity or his misogyny when he states, “It is good for you once to put on women’s clothes: people will laugh at you, but through becoming a woman you attain freedom from women and their tyranny”? The jury remains out.

Later, in the section “Scrutinies”, Jung speaks to issues of sexuality and spirituality, which is framed by various forms of binary thinking, of sexuality/spirituality and men/women: “Spirituality conceives and embraces. It is womanlike and therefore we call it MATER COELESTIS, the celestial mother. Sexuality engenders and creates. It is manlike, and therefore we call it PHALLOS, the earthly father. The sexuality of man is more earthly, that of woman is more spiritual”. This, and other comments in this section, reinforce tired false distinctions: the separation of sex and spirit, the assigning of particular roles to men and women (although it complicates the common assumption that the feminine is earthly and the masculine transcendent). This strategy has a long history of confining men and women to the roles they are given rather than those they choose. Indeed, Jung is very explicit about maintaining such distinctions: “Man and woman become devils to each other if they do not separate their spiritual ways, for the essence of creation is differentiation”. Furthermore, should anyone question the construction of such boundaries, Jung states, “no man has a spirituality unto himself or a sexuality unto himself. Instead, he stands under the law of spirituality and of sexuality”, and that in the end all we can do is be subject to these spiritual-sexual “daimons”. Doesn’t sound very empowering, does it?

In short, the themes of sex and gender in Jung’s Red Book offer significantly more nuance than anything found in men’s movement literature, but they are still bound up in a worldview which seeks to impose a structure upon spirituality and sexuality which is neither natural nor necessary.

Source Text

It flirts somewhat with the boundaries of fair use, but I include the source text below, as The Red Book is too expensive for the regular reader to access.

Jung, Carl. (2009). The Red Book (Sonu Shamdasani, ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.

From “Liber Secundus”:

What about masculinity? Do you know how much femininity man lacks for completeness? Do you know how much masculinity woman lacks for completeness? You seek the feminine in women and the masculine in men. And thus there are always only men and women. But where are people? You, man, should not seek the feminine in women, but seek and recognize it in yourself as you possess it from the beginning. It pleases you, however, to play at manliness, because it travels on a well-worn track. You, woman, should not seek the masculine in men, but assume the masculine in yourself since you possess it from the beginning. But it amuses you and is easy to play at femininity; consequently man despises you because he despises his femininity. But humankind is masculine and feminine, not just man or woman. You can hardly say of your soul what sex it is. But if you pay close attention, you will see that the most masculine man has a feminine soul, and the most feminine woman has a masculine soul. The more manly you are, the more remote from you is what woman really is, since the feminine in yourself is alien and contemptuous.

If you take a piece of joy from the devil and set off on adventures with it, you accept your pleasure. But pleasure immediately attracts everything you desire, and then you must decide whether your pleasure spoils or enhances you. If you are of the devil, you will grope in blind desire after the manifold, and it will lead you astray. But if you remain with yourself as a man who is himself and not of the devil, then you will remember your humanity. You will not behave toward women per se as a man, but as a human being, that is to say; as if you were of the same sex as her. You will recall your femininity. It may seem to you then as if you were unmanly; stupid, and feminine so to speak. But you must accept the ridiculous, otherwise you will suffer distress, and there will come a time, when you are least observant, when it will suddenly round on you and make you ridiculous. It is bitter for the most masculine man to accept his femininity; since it appears ridiculous to him, powerless and tawdry.

Yes, it seems as if you have lost all virtue, as if you have fallen into debasement. It seems the same way to the woman who accepts her masculinity. Yes, it seems to you like enslavement. You are a slave of what you need in your soul. The most masculine man needs women, and he is consequently their slave. Become a woman yourself and you will be saved from slavery to woman. You are abandoned without mercy to woman so long as you cannot fend off mockery with all your masculinity. It is good for you once to put on women’s clothes: people will laugh at you, but through becoming a woman you attain freedom from women and their tyranny. The acceptance of femininity leads to completion. The same is valid for the woman who accepts her masculinity.

The feminine in men is bound up with evil. I find it on the way of desire. The masculine in the woman is bound up with evil. Therefore people hate to accept their own other. But if you accept it, that which is connected with the perfection of men comes to pass: namely; that when you become the one who is mocked, the white bird of the soul comes flying. It was far away; but your humiliation attracted it. The mystery draws near to you, and things happen around you like miracles. (pp. 263-4)

…

Therefore, because I rise above gendered masculinity and yet do not exceed the human, the feminine that is contemptible to me transforms itself into a meaningful being. This is the most difficult thing-to be beyond the gendered and yet remain within the human. (p. 264)

From “Scrutinies”:

But ΦΙΛΗΜΩΝ stepped before them, and began to speak: (and this is the fifth sermon to the dead):

“The world of the Gods is made manifest in spirituality and in sexuality. The celestial ones appear in spirituality, the earthly in sexuality.

“Spirituality conceives and embraces. It is womanlike and therefore we call it MATER COELESTIS, the celestial mother. Sexuality engenders and creates. It is manlike, and therefore we call it PHALLOS, the earthly father. The sexuality of man is more earthly, that of woman is more spiritual. The spirituality of man is more heavenly, it moves toward the greater.

“The spirituality of woman is more earthly, it moves toward the smaller.

“Mendacious and devilish is the spirituality of man, and it moves toward the smaller.

“Mendacious and devilish is the spirituality of woman, and it moves toward the greater.

“Each shall go to its own place.

“Man and woman become devils to each other if they do not separate their spiritual ways, for the essence of creation is differentiation.

“The sexuality of man goes toward the earthly, the sexuality of woman goes toward the spiritual. Man and woman become devils to each other if they do not distinguish their sexuality.

“Man shall know the smaller, woman the greater.

“Man shall differentiate himself both from spirituality and sexuality. He shall call spirituality mother, and set her between Heaven and earth. He shall call sexuality Phallos, and set him between himself and earth. For the mother and the Phallos are superhuman daimons that reveal the world of the Gods. They affect us more than the Gods since they are closely akin to our essence. If you do not differentiate yourselves from sexuality and from spirituality, and do not regard them as an essence both above and beyond you, you are delivered over to them as qualities of the Pleroma. Spirituality and sexuality are not your qualities, not things you possess and encompass. Rather, they possess and encompass you, since they are powerful daimons, manifestations of the Gods, and hence reach beyond you, existing in themselves. No man has a spirituality unto himself or a sexuality unto himself. Instead, he stands under the law of spirituality and of sexuality. Therefore no one escapes these daimons. You shall look upon them as daimons, and as a common task and danger, a common burden that life has laid upon you. (p. 352)

I’m not one for reposting articles about masculinity, largely because it’s rare to find one worth reposting. However, a recent article in the Daily Mail (!) by Tom Mitchelson is an exception, My (very) weird weekend with the naked woodland warriors who travel to remote England to ‘reclaim their masculinity’. Mitchelson goes undercover at the Mankind Project, on one of their Warrior Training Weekends, the like of which I’ve critiqued in the past. Now you could be forgiven for not taking an article seriously by a young author photographed like this:

However, some of the highlights from the article include the following quotes:

• It’s all rather bizarre, as they begin a strange game where I am asked to walk up to a man who stares at me, with black camouflage paint on his face. The process is repeated again, and again.
• They seem to have a paranoid fear of anything getting out. This, I suppose, should have set even more alarm bells ringing.
• I seem to have wondered into a Marx Brothers film, but without the laughs.
• He tells us how to be a man. It’s hard to take from a man wearing face paint, carrying a feathered stick.
• We are asked to describe how we fail to stand up to women. ‘They’re always getting at you to put the seat down on the loo,’ one of the staff men explains by way of example.
• Some of the staff are very skilled at reading visual signs of hidden emotion. At times, three inquisitors demand the answers to questions that eventually leave a man weeping and apparently broken.
• If these staff men have any professional training, I am unaware of it.
• They talk of regressing me. I don’t know if these amateur psychiatrists could achieve that or not, but they opt for getting me to wrench the guilt from my stomach by wrestling a rope up through my legs being held by four men.
• The cult-like intensity with which some of my fellow warriors converted to the brotherhood astonished me.
• This was an organisation that aimed to tell me how to be a man. Yet not once during that weird and frightening weekend did I ever hear it acknowledged that we men share a world. With women.

Mitchelson’s tragicomic tone in this article is an insightful reflection of this type of men’s movement.

Rarely a month goes by without the Wilberian Integral Machine pumping forth new evidence of its alignment with the men’s movement, as outlined in various blog posts here.

This week’s Integral Life Newsletter is entitled “The Need for Men’s Liberation” and directs readers to a conversation between Ken Wilber and Warren Farrell where they will be offered “Instant Insights” such as:

• “Power” is not defined by the amount of control someone has over others, but the amount of control one has over his or her own life
• In terms of recognizing and developing their power, men are in a similar position today as women were in the late 1950′s, at the dawn of the feminist movement

Here’s the problem: Wilber and Farrell sound quite reasonable when they speak to issues such as “the urgent need for men to begin redefining their roles for today’s world”. However, when you scratch the surface, they begin to assert some rather more problematic positions. If you read my book you will find evidence for the following “Instant Insights”:

• Wilber distorts the work of feminist scholars such as Carol Gilligan, and claims they support his view, when they do not.
• Wilber and Farrell deny the historical reality of patriarchy, suggesting instead it was there to suit everyone.
• Wilber and Farrell’s consistent reframing of “feminism” and what it “really” means is an overt act of depoliticization and masculine power.
• Far from “redefining their roles for today’s world”, Wilber imprisons men and women into “types” on the AQAL matrix, falling foul of his own elegantly-formulated pre-trans fallacy.
• Wilber relegates “feminine” spiritual values to the pre-rational, stating “more men make it into the universal, postconventional moral stages than do women”.
• Wilber states that even in noospheric realms there can be no ultimate gender parity “given the unavoidable aspects of childbearing”.

How’s that for gender equality?

I know it’s getting rather boring with me making these comments about the integral men’s movement, but it seems that over the past year the Wilberian Integral Machine has gone on something of an offensive on this issue, which should be a worry for us all.

Just yesterday I mentioned how a variety of countercultural themes can become commodified. How about this combination of masculinity, spirituality and commerce: the Be Present Men’s Movement Pant :

According to the retailer Asana Activewear: ‘Be Present’s lightweight “Breathe Weave” Fabric, great for yoga or hot summer days!’. The rather queer ‘men’s bottoms department’ continues the masculine spirituality vibe with Yogabela Men’s Gaucho Yoga Pant and Prana Men’s Sutra Yoga Pant.

What next, the Spiritual Warrior Thermal Vest? LOHAS venture capitalists should email me to discuss the value of my endorsement for such a clothing range.

I’ve been charting the connection between integral spirituality and the mythopoetic men’s movement for a while now. In short, integral spirituality, for all its desire to transcend and include, does little more than include the men’s movement, with all its problems.

Another recent example of this is Joe Perez’s article, ILP and Men’s Shadow Work: A Powerful Combination, in which he puts the integral framework in dialogue with Robert Bly, Robert Moore, Douglas Gillette, The ManKind Project, and their use of myth and archetypes. I don’t know why integral types continue along this path, as it is a clear example of Wilber’s own elegantly-formulated pre/trans fallacy. Even if one buys into the whole notion of the integral, there is nothing integral here: even Wilber states, “Jungian archetypes…are for the most part … magico-mythic motifs”; i.e. pre-rational. To talk about “men’s work” in these terms is to fall foul of elevationism in the pre/trans fallacy. I talk about this at some length in Numen, Old Men, for those interested in finding out more.

As time goes by I believe it is becoming clear that large areas of integral thought fall foul of the pre/trans fallacy. Aside from gender, which I have written about, I would also include the integral presentation of politics and economics: I write about this in a new article, Lohas and the Indigo Dollar: Growing the Spiritual Economy, forthcoming in New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to discover there were other areas of integral thought which are far from trans-rational in disciplines in which I have no experience.

Such blind spots in integral thought make its viability increasingly problematic. The Integral Emperor has been wearing no clothes for some time now: I feel for his followers as this becomes evident to all.

Fans of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica will be familiar with the concept of eternal return, in which the universe repeats itself with similar concerns. The show’s prophetic mantra is, “All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.”

This was very much the feeling generated when reading through the very interesting archives of Big Flame, “a Revolutionary Socialist Feminist organisation with a working class orientation in England. Founded in Liverpool in 1970, the group initially grew rapidly in the then prevailing climate on the left with branches appearing in a number of cities.”

The section on “men’s politics,” which canvasses articles from 1979-1983, feels spookily like pro-feminist debates at the beginning of 2010. All this has happened before, and all this will happen again? I don’t buy the fatalistic nature of it, even if the evidence suggests otherwise.

November 19 is International Men’s Day, which has the following objectives:

• Celebrate manhood and the wonderful positive and valuable contributions our men, young men, and boys make to our communities and to our societies
• Promote and Support gender equality, encouraging men to address responsibly and positively the challenges facing them in society
• Demonstrate strength of character and courage in meeting the challenges that men face in society and in contributing to building stronger and better communities, where people can be safe and grow to reach their full potential.
• Highlighting positive male role models, not just movie stars and sports men but everyday, working class men who are living decent, honest lives.

This is a classic example of a men’s initiative that appears on first glance to be quite reasonable, but on further inspection is shown to be less so. I was about to spell out why this is the case, until I followed the link on their site to Michael Flood’s critique, which does the job just fine.

This flyer from Christian Men’s Network this morning, promoting a “new wave of men’s movement”. The usual stuff: authentic manhood, manhood and Christlikeness are synonymous. But what strikes me about this is that it has a rather Soviet look to it: that guy on the left with the tie could almost be Lenin.