Archive for the ‘Psychology’ Category

h1

Getting Intimate with Karl Barth

16 August 2011

It is impossible to force Karl Barth, the eminent Reformed theologian of the 20th century, into any box, doctrinal or psychological. But I found this comment from Hans Frei the most perceptive I’ve read when it comes to psychoanalyzing the man.

[H]is relations with others, including many long and loyal friendships with other theologians and pastors, seem to have been forged through a sense of common vocation and common moral tasks, rather than through the art of mutual personal cultivation or direct in-depth “encounter.” His intimate relation with his long-time assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum, was in its way perhaps the most striking instance of the first type of relationship in his life; his sad misrelation to his wife was his paradigmatic failure in the other kind. . . . To what extent did a sense of shared vocation govern even his intimately personal, sexual life? [Hans W. Frei, Review Article: Eberhard Busch's Biography of Karl Barth, Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 51:1 (Mar 1982): 111].

h1

The Ultimate Men’s Summit, June 10-19

6 June 2011

Later this month we’ll witness the most ambitious attempt so far to recapture the glory years of the mythopoetic men’s movement.  The Ultimate Men’s Summit, happening online from the 10th to the 19th, will showcase over 75 presenters and field questions via telecom.  The line-up is a veritable who’s who in men’s work: Sam Keen, Warren Farrell, Bert Hoff, Bill Kauth, Herb Goldberg and (“Leader of the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement”) Robert Bly.   I encourage you to sign up for the conference HERE.  Registration is free.

I’m looking forward to the event, though the limitations are quite apparent in my mind.  The cast is dominated by psychologists and self-help gurus.  While a couple of men’s rights people should shake things up, the therapeutic feel of the conference won’t invite too many critical questions.  The conference is being pulled together by Shift Network, an organization devoted to an “evolution of consciousness” that includes “open exchange,” “restorative cycles,” and “global spiritual pluralism.”  Therefore I can all but assure attendees that the New Age ethic of the organizers will make room for a wide array of perspectives, sexualities and social groups, though they will leave prowling on the perimeter the usual suspects: liberal feminists, conservative pundits and orthodox Christians.

h1

Men, Travel and Sexism

13 September 2010

Ben Brazil’s recent article “Eat, Pray, Trash: What the Critics Don’t See” makes a provocative statement, that travel (and with it, spiritual liberation and the genre of travel stories) has been reserved for men.

Whether or not you find authenticity culture narcissistic, it’s not hard to see how the idea of travel works to support it. American literature and film celebrate few concepts as thoroughly as the open road. In Walt Whitman’s “Song of the Open Road,” Jack Kerouac’s On the Road, and Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild (to name just a few), travel becomes a means to free the sacred self from the mundane and to experience the joys of a world that suddenly seems to sparkle with divinity.

Of course, this has typically been understood as a male freedom. Gilbert flips the gender assumptions—she’s the one who leaves a spouse because she needs freedom—and some find the reaction against Eat Pray Love to be rooted in that sexist legacy.

I’m not sure Eat Pray Love is quite so dramatic as, say, Thelma and Louise, but Brazil’s article makes an interesting point. 

For me at least, it gets me wondering about the importance of travel for men.  Why is it that Campbell’s monomyth is described in terms of the hero’s journey?   Why has that language caught on in men’s groups?  And why, despite the unholy nature of plane travel these days, do so many men claim it as their lifestyle?

h1

TMNT: King, Warrior, Magician Lover

18 March 2010

Revelation!  The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are the mythopoetic king, warrior, magician, lover! 

Consider this summary from (today’s version of) Wikipedia:

Leonardo — The courageous leader and devoted student of martial arts, Leonardo wears a blue mask and wields two katana. He is the eldest of the four and the most skilled fighter of the turtles. “Leo” was named after the Italian polymath, scientist, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, Leonardo Da Vinci.

Raphael — The team’s bad boy, Raphael wears a red mask and wields a pair of sai. He has an aggressive nature and seldom hesitates to throw the first punch. He is an intense fighter. His personality can be alternately fierce and sarcastic, and often times delivers deadpan humor. Still, he is intensely loyal to his brothers and sensei. He is named after the Italian painter and architect of the High Renaissance, Raphael Sanzio.

Donatello — The brilliant scientist, inventor, engineer, and technological genius, Donatello wears a purple mask and wields the bō staff. “Don” is perhaps the least violent Turtle, preferring to use his intellect to solve conflicts. He is named after the sculptor Donatello.

Michelangelo — Easy-going free-spirited, Michelangelo wears an orange mask and wields nunchaku. “Mikey” provides much of the comic relief. While he loves to relax, party, and eat pizza; this Turtle also has an adventurous and creative side. He is the youngest of the four. He is named after Michelangelo Buonarroti.

I mean, c’mon.  Leader, fighter, genius, comedian?  Four colors?  These are the masculine archetypes to a tee.  I should receive an honorary doctorate for this insight alone.

h1

Reid: “Women Aren’t Abusive, Most of the Time”

24 February 2010

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, brought up yet one more reason to end the recession: escalating domestic violence rates.  That in itself is nothing surprising, as sociologists have consistently found correlation between unemployment and physical abuse.  What is more unsettling is how Reid chose to lay the problem entirely at the feet of men: ”Why [are these rates of violence going up]?  Men don’t have jobs.”

Even though women face higher than normal unemployment rates, Reid explained, “women aren’t abusive, most of the time.  Men, when they’re out of work, tend to become abusive.”  To be clear, Reid’s generalization involves three claims, two explicit and one implicit: 1) unemployed women do not tend to abuse their men, 2) unemployed men do tend to abuse their women, and 3) employed women do not tend to abuse their unemployed men.

The first claim is on shaky ground.  While I am unaware of any major studies that have dealt directly with increased levels of violence in unemployed women, this claim has been made (e.g. Ness, 2004).  However, another study suggests that age is only variable for change in women’s violence patterns (Anderson, 2002).

The second claim should be granted, since it has been established in various studies over the years (e.g. Straus and Gelles, 1990).  Unemployed men, especially in highly patriarchal relationships, are more prone to turn to alcohol and violence to compensate for their economic shortcomings (Melzer, 2002; Macmillan and Gartner, 1999).   

The third claim is unsubstantiated.  Studies have consistently found that women abuse men physically with equal if not greater frequency (e.g. Straus and Kantor, 1994; Cook, 1997; Anderson, 2002).  While men generally have greater physical strength and are therefore more imposing, women are increasingly more likely to use “severe force” through weapons (Kelly, 2003).   On a commonsense level, women hit if they feel justified in hitting, a feeling they are more likely to have if they conclude that a man is not “living up to his side of the bargain” financially.  Moreover, since most domestic violence is mutual (Anderson, 2002), physical violence perpetrated by unemployed men will usually be reciprocated by the wife or girlfriend, regardless of her employment situation.   But I’m curious – does anyone out there know of a study that has been done on this matter?

In any case, Reid’s comments are an unfortunately propagation of stereotypes about intimate violence.  Such assertions are better left to daytime talk shows.

h1

Pheasant Hunting and Fatherhood

9 November 2009

It was interesting to see my son’s reaction to a pheasant I had shot.  There it was: a fully-feathered, colorful bird, wrapped in an orange Hy-Vee plastic bag.  My son, who has seen animals only in the context of dog parks and zoos, literally took several steps back.  He wasn’t recoiling in horror so much as discomfort with something totally alien.  After I made a joke and started laughing, he reluctantly took a feather offered to him.

Admittedly, I’m not sure how to teach my son about hunting.  I believe it is a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment.  I also believe that hunting, if not taught properly, can promote a cult of violence.  How, in a world where hunting isn’t necessary for survival, does a father teach his son to enjoy the sport without justifying it through bloodlust?

h1

The Masculine Journey according to Corduroy

2 August 2009

Having reached the age of two, my son has discovered the pleasure of obsessing on forms of entertainment, in this case the Scholastic Video rendition of Don Freeman’s children’s book, Corduroy. It seems proper for me as his father to guard him from the world’s messages, especially when those messages are actually mythic sets of values disguised as obsequious feel-good plots. As it turns out, Corduroy is in fact a pornucopia of Freudian themes.corduroybook

The story starts out in a department store, where a charming young girl bolts from her mother and scampers into the toy section. Lisa quickly spots a teddy bear wearing corduroy overalls with only one button, and asks the lady clerk to see it. To her mother’s exasperation, her daughter latches onto the deficient specimen, begging to “have” it as her plaything. She doesn’t care if he’s missing a button.

Missing a button is a serious thing in the real world. The girl may not care at first, but lacking buttons cannot be tolerated. Buttons connote dignity. Buttons keep clothes on – and so govern one’s ability to take them off. Why do modern men and women continue to wear buttons even in the age of the zipper? Because buttons show intelligence, even erotic intelligence, power, self-will over one’s body. “Lisa,” the girl’s mother says at last, “we’re late.” The girl refuses to listen to all her mother’s cajoling until the real reason for her anxiety comes out: “Your father is waiting for us.”

No more need be said. They leave together. For all their disappointment, the basic reality of their world is that the father has laid claim to their lives. He has ordered the world so; they as women must respond to him. They know this. And now Corduroy knows this.

This is how it begins for all boys, cradled in the maternal nest, safe among the playthings. But boys come to understand, consciously or unconsciously, that their claim to the happiness of the womb is only temporary and provisional. Only the male figure with his god-like powers can command the female affections. How can a young lad obtain such power over women that he might dictate those who oversee the realm of pleasure? Certainly not by sitting on a shelf without a button.

So Corduroy leaves the toy store late that night, intent on asserting himself as a man, that is, manning himself through assertion. The initial foray (according to the film, which is far more instructive than the book by the way) is to climb through a dark tunnel. There he discovers a control board, for a toy train, though he doesn’t know this at the time. He manipulates the dials for a while, then dares to press the button – a different type of button, granted, but still a thing concerning control. Corduroy quickly finds out that he is not in control, however, when the locomotive screams through the tunnel towards him, picking him up and carrying him about in an endless loop.

Too many young lads find themselves ill-equipped for the task of self-control. Either because they have felt no initiative or because others have restrained them so well, they have no awareness of their own powers and what they are able to emit. In this anal phase the boy learns the boundaries of his own output, and what is acceptable and what is not. In this case Corduroy loses rein on the process. But there in the tunnel or cave (which has marginal, inchoate sexual significance) a boy finds out how his powers, even if used destructively, are real powers. Some boys continue to ride that train, pulling others into the dizzying ride, living out of their chaos. Corduroy cuts his losses and acknowledges his lack of control, latching onto a lifesaver and falling into a soft, maternal pile of beach balls. This forfeiture of power is in its own way a claim to it. Repression must harness intention.

But a disturbance rarely goes unnoticed. The department store’s security guard hears the sound and begins the investigation. The father has been roused. Corduroy hides. It is no surprise that Corduroy is ashamed by all this, Eric Erickson might comment, since initiative and guilt are the operative poles in western culture and religion. A man is responsible for his actions, for penetration into the world and cultivation therein. But the inherent failures built into this course of action lead one into a long stream of groveling, repenting, hiding. One reaps the harvest always with a look back over one’s shoulder to the flashing swords guarding Eden. There stands the “security guard,” goading and tempting and belittling and shaming the boy all at once. The authority figure calls for action, but smites the child in the child’s action. The security guard, the Lord Protector, preserves the ordered, masculine realm. This is not done cruelly: the father is kind in all his dealing. But kindness does not mean forgiveness. The father can never be contested directly by the son, and will never regard him as a peer so long as the boy is in his house. The son cannot supplant the father, or kill him in order to steal the affections of the mother.  So the boy minimizes himself, hiding.

Once the security guard has passed, Corduroy steps onto the elevator for a new adventure. This time he finds himself in a more adult-like and manly arena, the sporting and camping section. Here he discovers a self-inflating raft. Choosing to ignore the “CAUTION” written next to it, he presses yet another button. How many buttons must a boy press in his search for the button? Again, Corduroy’s proactivity results in mayhem as the raft is erected to many times its size.

By the time the security guard arrives to investigate the ruckus, the raft blends in with the rest of the scene. There are manly products everywhere: hunting equipment, tents, basketballs, and everything else pertaining to the recreational world of men. The guard does not even detect the raft which Corduroy has inflated, just as a father will miss the many little crossovers the boy makes into the world of men. Is Corduroy a builder or a scheister? A champion or a trickster? He is, at the very least, a poser. He hides there, wearing a fisherman’s hat and holding a fishing rod, never moving a muscle. He can only tinker with responsibility, not enter into it genuinely. Again the father passes him by.

The final foray into wish-fulfilment occurs when Corduroy sees a sign announcing the sale of beds on the fourth floor. He notices with glee: bed mattresses come with buttons on them! Not only out of curiosity and conquest but out his concern for self-repair, Corduroy takes the escalator up. He climbs atop a mattress, and sure enough, there are buttons aplenty.

The bedroom holds a sense of mystery for children from the very beginning. They are not usually welcome there. Mother and father go there and close the door – and such noises! For young men sexual encounters come like an epiphany, and afterwards become an obsession, in large part because there adolescents can prove themselves as whole. They realize that their missing button was there all the time, and that a girl possessed it. Of course! Needless to say, he must get it from her. He must win her or subdue her or both, then what she has will be his again. The combination of proving himself – getting the notch on his belt – and satisfying his desire is almost too much to resist.

But getting the button does not come without a struggle. Corduroy pulls and tugs, thrusts and flails in an attempt to remove the button. The excitement is replaced by frustration, and then, with a final effort, the button flies off the bed – and Corduroy with it. Victory! Release! – and with it, all loss of control. He careens into a lamp, which slams to the ground, and the button rolls far out of reach.

The security guard stomps in, and the young bear pulls himself beneath the bed. But this time it is too late. The father-figure finds him and drags him out. But, as if the man knows the whole necessary drama, he chides him softly. “You shouldn’t be up here, now?” the guard asks, adding with a smirk, “You wouldn’t know anything about this, would you? No, I guess not.” Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Men are acquainted with the dance of desire and loss, pursuit and shame, and they must acknowledge this in other men, especially young men. With all its pride and embarrassment it is the shared male secret. The security guard undoubtedly has his missing button too, does he not? And so he returns Corduroy to the toy store with paternal, even fraternal, kindness.

The next morning the store owner (a man, of course) unlocks the door to the department store. In bursts Lisa, the girl who loved Corduroy so much the day before, now with the money to purchase him. She is disappointed when the lady clerk is unable to find the bear. Corduroy has moved, of course, and ultimately been placed in a different location. The clerk offers to order a new one, but Lisa replies, “But I wanted that bear.” What? Real acceptance? A buttonless bear the object of desire? As the girl mopes out of the toy store, Corduroy takes a timely initiative, kicking a box of crayons onto the ground to get her attention. It works. She takes him, buys him, and brings him upstairs into her bedroom.

In the final scene Corduroy has a second button sewn onto his overalls. (Lisa: “That [missing button] doesn’t matter – I can take care of that.”) Corduroy’s assertions have been met with reception. He looks smugly into the camera as the film ends. But one wonders how long this will last. After all, has he really merited this conclusion? Is it really his button he wears? Does Lisa belong to him, or he to her? Will she resent him the next day for the deficiencies she has to mend? And will he really be content to sit on her shelf or sleep in her bed this evening?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.