JOSEPH GELFER

The first issue of the new journal Religion and Gender is out and contains a review of my book Numen, Old Men: Contemporary Masculine Spiritualities and the Problem of Patriarchy. The carefully selected snippet from that review is, “Numen, Old Men is (mostly) a very readable book which presents a lot of sharp insights, creative thinking (never mind a few exaggerations), different perspectives and deserves a RECOMMENDED!”.

In my book Numen, Old Men I demonstrate how men’s ministries employ paramilitary themes in their efforts to attract men to Christ. This new flyer from Christian Men’s Network mobilizes 9/11 (overlaying the usual aesthetics of swords and shield). It occurs to me I haven’t come across 9/11 being used so explicitly in men’s ministry material before, which is quite surprising the more I think about it. Perhaps implicit in this appeal to 9/11 is a suggestion that the War on Terror/Islam has passed a threshold, beyond which it is acceptable to reference it within this context?

Gaia Charis’ article, Multiple Masculinities: The Postmodern Emperor’s New Clothes is now available on her website, which outlines her argument for the illusory nature of masculinity (and multiple masculinities, in particular). Gaia spends some time towards the end of the essay referring both to Numen, Old Men and The Masculinity Conspiracy, and how I allegedly perpetuate a number of problems about the lack of definition around masculinity in its academic study:

Gelfer’s answer to this question is both astonishing and depressing. He is standing here on the edge of the chasm that was once just a faultline in Connell’s definitional thinking. Over two decades that faultline has widened to the point that any given masculine multiplicity could both logically, theoretically and empirically embody ascribed ‘femininity’, as exemplified in Queer perspectives and specifically in the work of Judith Butler that Gelfer cites. The conclusionary void that Gelfer is staring into here is, in fact, the complete illusion of gender and particularly, as I will argue in the next section of this essay, the illusion of masculinity that is sustained by the quintessential defining of it as not-feminine. But it is a void that he chooses not to face and instead of naming what he sees he steps backwards into the false security of that illusion.

In a lot of ways, I agree with Gaia: gender is an illusion. But I would reject the claim that I step back “into the false security of that illusion”. Rather, I step back into the common perception of that illusion (which is basically the same as the “conspiracy”), as this is the site of power imbalance that requires challenging if we are to achieve transformation.

Certainly, defining what exists after the illusion of gender is revealed is important, but the vast majority of people are so embedded in the illusion that I believe they simply could not accommodate the meaning of such a revelation (were it ever successfully articulated). To achieve transformation, it is necessary to speak in the language (albeit stretching it) of those we seek to transform, thus the perpetuation of the language around masculinity, even if it is ultimately illusory.

Referring to the stretching of the meaning of multiple masculinities, Gaia concludes this first part of her essay with the claim that “the problem for the outside observer is that, from Connell all the way to Gelfer, we never found out what it was that was being stretched in the first place”. I’m not sure this is as mysterious as she suggests. What is being stretched (and in doing so, problematised) is the normative understanding of a singular masculinity that is commonly perceived to be biologically innate in and appropriate for men (sex role theory), and the power imbalances that have resulted through this in the form of patriarchy.

I find it rather ironic being lumped in with “the postmodern emperor’s new clothes” (despite the fact that relative to “genuine” academic theorising, my work is extremely light)—with all the lack of praxis that implies—when it is precisely a concern for engaging in the “real” (or at least commonly perceived) world that underpins my strategy. Would it not be the call to gender being devoid of meaning that is ultimately more postmodern, and therefore draped in the emperor’s new clothes?

[A most generous review of Numen, Old Men from the new issue of Reviews in Religion & Theology]

This volume stands within a series on gender, theology and spirituality edited by Lisa Isherwood and Marcella Althaus-Reid. It is the fruit of Gelfer’s doctoral research in New Zealand and explores the possibilities for what is conceptualized as ‘exciting theology’ (p. ix) as it attempts to listen to a range of different voices and perspectives, especially those marginalized by both church and society. The aspiration is for positive, masculine spirituality, a nonpatriarchal spirituality which still manage to retain being masculine.

There is a helpful overview of the framework of masculine spirituality which introduces the reader to some of the questions that shape Men’s Studies in Religion. The discussion of Wild(er)ness and Fatherlessness along with the analysis of the work of Sam Keen are particularly clear and insightful.

In subsequent chapters the Evangelical Men’s movement and the Catholic Men’s Movement are examined exploring the themes of networking, Violence, Sport, Sacraments and Adoration. Some of the most stimulating text opens up Gay Spirituality where we see a form of masculine spirituality that resists patriarchy, suggesting that the queering of spirituality could be useful for all men whatever their sexual orientation.

The overall result is a fascinating, insightful and constantly stimulating text that has embraced a number of key movements and influential literature in this area. There is an attractive and convincing appeal to neo-Jungian archetypes as an integral spirituality is articulated embracing both the masculine and the feminine.

The question of how far religion is able or willing to listen to marginal (and sometimes oppressed) voices remains problematic even in the liberal fragmented and individualized West. In what way these disputes about change, moral boundaries, patriarchy and diversity of identity and practice are resolved remains a threat to the relevance and truth of theology. Gelfer is a wise and informed guide – but I suspect not a hand that many will take to negotiate their way through the battles around sex in and between churches.

Gelfer is to be congratulated on providing such a rich inter-professional work which should appeal to a wide ranging number of disciplines and practitioners. It is a stimulating text.

James Woodward, College of St George, Windsor Castle.

In Numen, Old Men I write about the Radical Faeries as possibly the best example we have of a “spiritual men’s movement” that doesn’t reinforce oppressive masculine stereotypes. Describing themselves, the Radical Faeries say:

We’re decentralized, and nobody’s in charge—so every faerie who you ask will give a slightly different definition of ‘Radical Faerie.’ Generally, we tend to be gay men who look for a spiritual dimension to our sexuality; many of us are healers of one kind or another. Our shared values include feminism, respect for the Earth, and individual responsibility rather than hierarchy. Many of us are Pagan (nature-based religion).

So it was with some interest that I stumbled upon a piece about them in the latest issue of the high-end fashion and culture magazine Wonderland. The piece is called Hairy Faeries: Dressing Up with the Radical Faeries and Spreading their Message of Individuality (unfortunately it’s not online, but here’s a taken-in-store-phone-snap):

Under the headline is a quote from a Faerie, Huckelfery:

Stumbling across the Radical Faeries, for me, was a bit like discovering and joining the Circus, I always dreamed of running away with as a kid—except the Radical Faeries Circus/Tribe is freakier, lovelier, louder and more Technicolor than anything I might have daydreamed up.

There are then a few—suitably lovely—full page pictures of Faeries.

But here’s the problem: The above quote is the ONLY text accompanying the pictures. There is nothing about who the Radical Faeries are and what they stand for (check out Peter Hennen’s book Faeries, Bears, and Leathermen for a good answer). Instead, we have some nice photos with credits such as “Huckelfery’s bracelet by so and so; earrings by whoever.” What does having a “fashion assistance” credit say about the supposed “message of individuality”? And what would Harry Hay—main founder of the Radical Faeries who was very vocal about his Marxist worldview—have to say about them being used as message-free models to sell trinkets?

Certainly, it is great to get the potential of the Radical Faeries out to a wider audience, but at what cost? Would I appear in Wonderland if I could advertise The Masculinity Conspiracy? You bet I would, but I hope I’d manage the process sufficiently so I could—albeit briefly—communicate my point.

There’s an interesting headline on this week’s Integral Life newsletter that points to the story Taking Down the Cross. In it, we are told about Ian Lawton who has “been inspired by the work of Ken Wilber since 2005, as well as a student of Genpo Roshi.” Lawton and his ostensibly Christian C3 Exchange community have made the “controversial decision to remove the cross from their church, [with] the intent to create a more inclusive and inspirational Christianity.”

Sounds positive doesn’t it? The story offers a Fox News excerpt in which Lawton speaks about people of differing religions and values who find the cross alienating on their spiritual journey. The news excerpt also offers a critical alternative opinion from International Aid CEO David Wisen who agrees that taking down the cross is a good idea, as one cannot honestly claim to be Christian while suggesting there are others ways than Christ to God.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for progressive Christianity, and I have no desire to align myself with Wisen’s position about salvation only being found through Christ. However, there are often other things chugging away in the background with integrally-aligned strategies. As I point out in Numen, Old Men, “Leon Schlamm (2001) and George Adams (2002) argue that Wilber’s focus on a particular type of highest-consciousness non-dualism requires the distortion of what other people (the transcended and included) mean when talking about their own traditions; in a sense, their meaning is denied.”

In short, taking down the cross may be done in the spirit of inclusivity, but can have the effect of erasing the Christianity that it seeks to transcend and include. Just imagine the stink that would be caused if we started stripping away the symbols of Islam in order to make it “more inclusive” to non-Muslims.

References:

Adams, George. “A Theistic Perspective on Ken Wilber’s Transpersonal Psychology.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 17, no. 2 (2002): 165-79.

Schlamm, Leon. “Ken Wilber’s Spectrum Model: Identifying Alternative Soteriological Perspectives.” Religion 31, no. 1 (2001): 19-39.

Since the publication of Numen, Old Men—during which time I have been picking the scab of integral gender politics (see the “integral” tag)—I cannot help but notice there has been an increase in communications from the Integral Machine about this subject, and it has a very familiar flavor.

For example, on February 25 I wrote two posts (here and here) about the Integral Life newsletter entitled “The Need for Men’s Liberation”. This week’s newsletter contains very similar content.

There is great power in repetition. The more people hear something, the more they are inclined to believe it is true.

But let’s be clear, there has been no engagement from the Integral Machine with my critique, despite comments left on this blog from Robb Smith who said “Perhaps you’d like to air your grievances with the integral community, though it is a bit theoretical and there’s a large portion of the audience who may not understand what you’re talking about, it still might be worth a dialogue with Ken or others … Let me know about the desire to connect”.

They just keep saying the same thing. Funny/sad really: Wilber is fond of using the “sheep” analogy in regard to gender (claiming the reality of “patriarchy” suggests the “sheepification of women”), but the sheep are really the rank and file of the integral community.

But make no mistake: there are also plenty of smart people in the integral community who see this for what it is. My off-the-record communications reveal a significantly more critical stance than that aired publicly in articles and blog posts. What’s that about, do you think?

I’m certainly getting bored making these comments about integral gender: you’re probably getting bored reading them. I’m not done yet, but life’s too short to play a never-ending game of repetition with the Integral Machine. It’s simply one of a spectrum of problematic positions to me, but they are fully invested in it.

But don’t say you weren’t warned.

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.

A nod to Nathan Hitchcock who spotted the story Contemporary Catholics Retool Rosary in the Wall Street Journal. The article is about Real Men Pray the Rosary, a Catholic organization out to reclaim manliness in using the rosary.

In Numen, Old Men I noted that the rosary was a crucial theme in the then-unidentified Catholic men’s movement. The rosary, and devotion to Mary, was one of a number of themes surrounding Catholic masculinity that I suggested results in it being somewhat “softer” than evangelical masculinity, or even slightly queer (inasmuch as troubling assumptions about gender).

Real Men Pray the Rosary muddies the waters of this distinction. From the start, their logo (above) is not very soft. In the article, David Calvillo, the organization’s founder notes, “‘I’m a child of the ’70s,” said the mustachioed 49-year-old lawyer, alluding to the raised-fist salute of that era’s Black Power movement. “I thought that would convey the right message.”‘ An allusion to Black Power is not very soft.

Nor is it soft to refer to the rosary as “a weapon of spiritual warfare” and to be a member of the Prayer Warriors: this kind of combative rhetoric has historically been more the domain of the evangelical men’s movement. Even the rosary itself is manned-up: the article refers to “football-shaped beads to encourage boys reluctant to sit through a litany of prayers” and “a rosary fashioned out of ball bearings”.

No doubt Catholics are trying to engage some of the momentum the evangelical men’s movement has achieved by appealing to stereotypically masculine signifiers (this has been happening since 1996 when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sought to recreate the success of Promise Keepers in a Catholic context, resulting in the National Fellowship of Catholic Men).

However, there are still aspects to Catholic masculinity such as confession, devotion and various aesthetics that set it aside from evangelical masculinity, which leaves efforts such as Real Men Pray the Rosary with something of an identity crisis. This is demonstrated nicely in the article with the following quote: “Every Tuesday and Thursday, Mr. Lerma, a 46-year-old who drives a pickup truck and favors camouflage gear, goes to a different house with an oversized rosary made of rose petals encased in acrylic”.

There ‘aint no rose petals in evangelical men’s ministry.

As of now, the Real Men Pray the Rosary Facebook page has 6,782 fans: something to watch out for.

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)