In thinking about the effect of gender in, on, and around the body, how do we account for, understand, and potentially change the ways in which gender shapes health outcomes- specifically those pertinent to mental health? Through the lens of gender performativity and hegemonic masculinity, gender is understood as socially constructed, and furthermore as constructed through relational practices that maintain and perpetuate a hegemonic system invested in heteronormativity. If gender is not essentialized in the body (as in biological determinism), then the discourse and sociality of gender seem to be the sources that produce the material and tangible consequences of our gendered experiences. It is not fixed, nor natural, nor an ‘essential’ part of the human experience, according to this framework. Gender, including masculinity, is thus performed in ways restricted by the gender system it constitutes. 

In conversation with Star’s blog post about the relationship between the constructs of masculinity and identifying with sociopathy, I wanted to explore the idea of “reifying” men’s behavior “in a concept of masculinity that then, in a circular argument, becomes the explanation (and the excuse) for the behavior.” This argument for the cycle between discourse (hegemonic masculinity) and behavior, then, seems to undo the naturalization and normalization of masculinity as it takes shape in unhealthy behaviors such as suppressing emotion. Inviting us to think about the conditions that allow this to happen, Star poses the question “without the right instruction, how can one be expected to know how to perform it?” In other words, can we teach alternative ways of performing masculinity (or femininity) that could help men and boys address the problems they currently face?

In the context of the field of psychology, we can situate the topic of mental health more broadly and think about the possibility of transforming the way we teach boys and men how to understand themselves in relation to each other and in relation to girls and women. In this possibility lies the question of emotional intelligence among other aspects of mental health and undoing many of the harms of hegemonic masculinity. In fact, it seems like the theories and insights we’ve discussed in class have been catching up with the field and becoming incorporated through its institutions. A news article published on NBC from 2019 discusses the new “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” issued by the American Psychological Association (APA) in August of 2018, which is intended to help psychologists address what the report calls “traditional masculinity ideology” (which I interpreted as speaking on hegemonic masculinity) in psychological practice such as in clinical settings. 

“For instance, socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict , and negatively influence mental health and physical health.” 

The news article points to a separate article published in the APA’s Monitor on Psychology, which highlights the significance of this work towards incorporating and translating research on “traditional masculinity” into current psychological practice. The guidelines ground the importance of this step by calling attention to how boys and men are overrepresented in a variety of psychological and social problems. 

“For example, boys are disproportionately represented among schoolchildren with learning difficulties (e.g., lower standardized test scores) and behavior problems (e.g., bullying, school suspensions, aggression; Biederman et al., 2005; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Likewise, men are overrepresented in prisons, are more likely than women to commit violent crimes, and are at greatest risk of being a victim of violent crime (e.g., homicide, aggravated assault; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015).”

Importantly, the guidelines also acknowledge the question of privilege and power in how hegemonic masculinity operates. Specifically, they refer to sexism as a byproduct, reinforcer, and justification of male privilege. Under “Guideline 3” titled “Psychologists understand the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men and on their relationships with others” the authors explain how an integral part of traditional masculinity is the social power awarded to conformity to masculine norms, while gender nonconforming behavior is punished through gender policing. 

“Although privilege has not applied to all boys and men in equal measure, in the aggregate, males experience a greater degree of social and economic power than girls and women in a patriarchal society (Flood & Pease, 2005). However, men who benefit from their social power are also confined by system-level policies and practices as well as individual-level psychological resources necessary to maintain male privilege (Mankowski & Maton, 2010). Thus, male privilege often comes with a cost in the form of adherence to sexist ideologies designed to maintain male power that also restrict men’s ability to function adaptively (Liu, 2005)”

This privilege, referred to as a psychological double-edged sword, works to confer benefits to men while also trapping them in narrow roles. As an application and solution to this conundrum, the guidelines largely recommend developing self-awareness (including addressing the negative consequences of sexism) as a way of helping this issue at the individual level. Additionally, other guidelines include more systemic interventions such as guideline 10 titled “Psychologists understand and strive to change institutional, cultural, and systemic problems that affect boys and men through advocacy, prevention, and education.” Other guidelines also address what we might consider multiple masculinities, specifically “the multiple dimensions of identity including  age, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, spirituality, immigration status, and ability status, and each contributes to a boy’s basic sense of self and influences his behavior as he grows.” 

Overall, these guidelines seem to offer productive answers to the question of the “double-edged sword” and in my opinion they mark an important step in the right direction for addressing hegemonic masculinity. Perhaps we may be able to provide the “right instruction” for boys and men to grow in potentially transformative ways.