Men in relationships: a new look from a life course perspective

Men in Relationships SPRINGER SERIES: FOCUS ON MEN Jordan I. Kosberg, PhD, Series Editor James H. Hennessy, PhD, Foun...

Author: Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford | Barbara F. Turner

16 downloads 753 Views 9MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Men in Relationships

SPRINGER SERIES: FOCUS ON MEN Jordan I. Kosberg, PhD, Series Editor James H. Hennessy, PhD, Founding Editor 2006: Men in Relationships: A New Look From a Life Course Perspective Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford, PhD, and Barbara Formaniak Turner, PhD 2002: Men as Caregivers: Theory, Research, and Service Implications Betty J. Kramer, PhD, and Edward H. Thompson, Jr., PhD 2001: Resilience in Old Age: Widowers Speak for Themselves Alinde J. Moore, PhD, and Dorothy C. Stratton, MSW, ACSW 2001: Fathering at Risk: Helping Nonresidential Fathers James R. Dudley, PhD, and Glenn Stone, PhD 1998: Family Violence and Men of Color: Healing the Wounded Male Spirit Ricardo Carrillo, PhD, and Jerry Tello, PhD 1997: Elderly Men: Special Problems and Professional Challenges Jordan I. Kosberg, PhD, and Lenard W. Kaye, DSW 1996: Becoming a Father: Contemporary Social, Developmental, and Clinical Perspectives Jerrold Lee Shapiro, PhD; Michael J. Diamond, PhD; and Martin Greenberg, MD 1995: Men Healing Shame: An Anthology Roy U. Schenk, PhD, and John Everingham, PhD 1991: Fatherhood and Families in Cultural Context Frederick W. Bozett, RN, DNS, and Shirley M. H. Hanson, RN, PMHNP, PhD, FAAN 1989: Treating Men Who Batter: Theory, Practice, and Programs P. Lynn Caesar, PhD, and L. Kevin Hamberger, PhD 1985: The Male Batterer: A Treatment Approach Daniel Jay Sonkin, PhD, Del Martin, and Lenore E. Walker, EdD

Men in Relationships A New Look From a Life Course Perspective

Edited by Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford, PhD Barbara Formaniak Turner, PhD

NEW YORK

Copyright © 2006 by Springer Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Springer Publishing Company, Inc. Springer Publishing Company, Inc. 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036 Acquisitions Editor: Sheri W. Sussman Managing Editor: Mary Ann McLaughlin Production Editor: Kate Mannix Cover design: Joanne E. Honigman Typeset by Graphic World Inc. 06 07 08 09 10 / 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 0-8261-3605-2

Printed in the United States of America by Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Group.

About the Editors

Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford, PhD, Rutgers University, Life Span Developmental Psychology, is a professor of psychology at the University of Indianapolis. Research interests include family gerontology and family caregiving. She recently completed a 20-year longitudinal study on adult siblings. Her research appears in the International Journal of Aging and Human Development, Journal of Gerontology, American Behavioral Scientist, Family Issues, Family Relations, Generations, and The Encyclopedia of Aging. A fellow of the Gerontological Society of America and the American Psychological Association, she has contributed numerous chapters to edited volumes, edited two special issues of journals, and co-edited the Handbook on Aging and the Family with Rosemary Blieszner. Barbara Formaniak Turner, PhD, University of Chicago, Committee on Human Development, Adult Development and Aging, is Professor Emerita in Gerontology, University of Massachusetts, Boston. A fellow of the American Psychological Association and the Gerontological Society of America, her research interests and publications focus on the intersection of gender and aging, especially in personality. Publications include Women Growing Older: Psychological Perspectives (1994), co-edited with Lillian E. Troll. A major current research focus is her Boston Gender Study of 237 men and 249 women diverse in age, race, class, and family status.

v

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Contributors

xi

Preface, by Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford and Barbara Formaniak Turner

xiii

Foreword, by Richard A. Settersten, Jr.

xvii

Introduction: The Study of Men’s Relationships in the Context of Time and Place, by Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford and Barbara Formaniak Turner xxv

PART I MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS Chapter 1

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

3

Bertram J. Cohler and Gabriel D. Smith Culture and Gender Cultural Perspectives on Masculine Insecurity in Relation to Women Comparative Perspectives on American Masculinity: Observations of the Lost Boys The Study Group Contrasting Sudanese and American Cultural Scripts of Masculinity Looking Toward Middle and Later Life Reconsidering Traditional American Masculine Gender Scripts Conclusion

vii

4 8 10 12 14 19 21 23

viii

Contents

Chapter 2

Men and Their Wives: Why Are Some Married Men Vulnerable at Midlife?

27

Margaret Hellie Huyck and David Leo Gutmann Positive Responses to Gender Shifts Questions for These Analyses Method Analyses and Results Conclusions and Implications Therapeutic Implications Acknowledgments

Chapter 3

Images of Masculinity as Predictors of Men’s Romantic and Sexual Relationships

29 31 31 37 44 46 48

51

Vera Sonja Maass What Image of Masculinity to Live by? Initiation Rituals and Rites of Masculinity Male Bonding as a Way to Heal the Wounds Looking Back: How Did We Get to Where We Are? Men’s Homosexual Relationships Men’s Heterosexual Relationships Considerations for Change

51 56 58 60 63 68 75

PART II MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS Chapter 4

“Shooting the Bull”: Cohort Comparisons of Fraternal Intimacy in Midlife and Old Age

81

Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford and Paula Smith Avioli Fraternal Bond Background Intimacy between Brothers Male Intimacy The Current Study Study 1 Methods Results of Study 1 Summary of Findings of Qualitative Analysis, Wave 1 to Wave 5 Study 2 Hypothesis 1: Cohort Difference in Ideologies of Masculinities Hypothesis 2: Developmental Inﬂuences on Close Relationships

82 84 84 85 86 86 86 89 90 91 92 93

Contents Hypothesis 3: Covert Intimacy Differences between Cohorts Conclusions Caveats Recommendations

Chapter 5

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

ix

95 97 98 99

103

Rebecca G. Adams and Koji Ueno Interactive Motifs Internal Structure Size Density Homogeneity Hierarchy Interactive Processes Behavioral Processes Affective Processes Cognitive Processes Conclusions

105 108 108 109 110 112 113 113 115 116 117

PART III FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN Chapter 6

Portraits of Paternity: Middle-Aged and Elderly Fathers’ Involvement With Adult Children 127 Brent A. Taylor, Roseann Giarrusso, Du Feng, and Vern Leo Bengtson The Life Course Perspective Solidarity-Conﬂict Model Role Theory Methods Conclusion

Chapter 7

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

129 131 133 134 141

147

Kory Floyd and Jonathan M. Bowman The Father-Son Relationship: How Does It Matter, and Why? Closeness and Affection in the Father-Son Relationship In Summary: On the Nature of Father-Son Relationships

148 150 158

x

Contents

PART IV INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS Chapter 8

In the Company of Men: Collective Interdependence in Self-Construals of Masculinity

167

Barbara Formaniak Turner Gender Differences in Collective Interdependence in the Life Span Theories of the Basis for Men’s Focus on the Groups to Which They Belong The Boston Gender Study and the Gender Style Measures Overarching Conceptual Models for the Study Men’s Gender Identity Styles Results Conclusions

Chapter 9

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges: Frequency, Reactions, and Impact

168 170 172 173 174 182 189

197

Kristin P. Beals and Karen S. Rook Gender Differences in the Emphasis Placed on Social Relationships Exposure to Negative Interactions Reactions to Negative Social Interactions Conclusion

199 203 206 211

PART V CONCLUSION Chapter 10

Men’s Relationships in Middle and Older Age

221

Barbara Formaniak Turner and Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford What Has Been Learned New Research Directions: What We Need to Learn About Midlife and Older Men’s Relationships Implications for Therapy Conclusion

Index

221 225 227 229

231

Contributors

Rebecca G. Adams, PhD Professor of Sociology University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, NC

Jonathan M. Bowman, PhD Assistant Professor of Communication Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA

Paula Smith Avioli, PhD Professor of Psychology Kean University Union, NJ

Bertram J. Cohler William Rainey Harper Professor of Social Sciences The University of Chicago Chicago, IL

Kristin P. Beals, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychology California State University Fullerton, CA

Du Feng, PhD Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX

Vern Leo Bengtson, PhD AARP/University Chair in Gerontology Professor of Sociology University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA

Kory Floyd, PhD Associate Professor of Human Communication Arizona State University Tempe, AZ

xi

xii

Contributors

Roseann Giarrusso, PhD Assistant Professor of Sociology California State University, Los Angeles, CA David Leo Gutmann, PhD Professor Emeritus Northwestern University Medical School Chicago, IL Margaret Hellie Huyck, PhD Professor of Psychology Institute of Psychology Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL Vera Sonja Maass, PhD Private Practice Living Skills Institute Indianapolis, IN Karen S. Rook, PhD Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior University of California Irvine, CA

Richard A. Settersten, Jr., PhD Professor of Sociology Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH Gabriel D. Smith, PhD(c) Doctoral Student Department of Comparative Human Development The University of Chicago Chicago, IL Brent A. Taylor, PhD Assistant Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy San Diego State University San Diego, CA Koji Ueno, PhD Assistant Professor of Sociology Florida State University Tallahassee, FL

Preface

The subject of this volume is men’s relationships during the adult years, with an emphasis on middle and old age. Its orientation is men’s experiences in a variety of interpersonal relationships as viewed from the dynamic perspectives of historical, social, and personal change over time. We asked authors, therefore, to develop or apply life course or life-span concepts and models to empirical data, typically from their own research and/or clinical experience. Of the various precepts of the life span and life course orientations, we asked each author to speak to at least one, but preferably to several, of the following—life transitions, sociohistorical context, and temporal change. Despite the period of life targeted (middle and old age), in the spirit of life course precepts, we encouraged authors to consider earlier phases of human development that may contribute to the later phases. We also suggested to authors that they attempt to state any practical implications of their research that would be useful when applied by professional groups, such as social workers, marriage and family therapists, and clinical and counseling psychologists. There has been little interpenetration between the psychology of men and masculinities and other literatures that focus on men’s relationships, such as the social psychology of personal relationships, communication, gender studies, and clinical psychology. This is not to say that other attempts of interpenetration have not occurred. An important example is Thompson’s (1994a) edited volume on elderly men’s lives, which was designed to integrate gerontological perspectives with men’s studies and gender studies (Thompson, 1994b). More recently, clinical psychologists have blended the socialization and social construction of masculinity perspectives on why men do not seek psychological services (e.g., Addis & Mahalik, 2003). For the most part, however, scholars in xiii

xiv

Preface

these several ﬁelds continue to read different literatures and publish in different journals. Our book addresses this gap. This volume further integrates these ﬁelds with a concentrated focus on men’s relationships using the framework of the adult life course. Our goal in editing the chapters was that each one should be accessible to readers at the level of advanced undergraduates without compromising the rigor of the scholarship conveyed. We hope, therefore, that although the readers ﬁnd it easy to read, the information conveyed is well-documented. As such, it should be valuable to a wide range of readers, from college-level to seasoned researchers and practitioners. We tried to achieve this goal by giving authors free reign to present their research interests in as much detail as page limits allowed, but always accompanied by guidance to their readers on their use of terminology and the methods they employed. We did not avoid jargon when new concepts were conveyed, but made sure that such professional jargon was explained clearly. This book owes its inception to a 2002 symposium that was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. The symposium, also titled “Men in Relationships,” was greeted with enthusiasm when it was ﬁrst submitted in abstract form for presentation at the meeting. Michael Marsiske, division 20 program chair at the time, hand-wrote across the top of the acceptance form, “Your symposium is fascinating! . . . Should be fun . . . you’ll have a very male audience.” Besides being fascinating, Marsiske’s prediction was correct; there was a preponderance of males, but there was also a very large crowd. Both these features are unusual for symposia featuring personal relationship research. One enthusiast in the audience was Sheri W. Sussman, Senior Vice-President, Editorial of Springer Publishing Company. It was Sheri who encouraged us to develop the symposium into a book, and it was her encouragement and patience that has kept us on task. The enthusiastic reception to the topic of men’s relationships over the adult years has been a motivating force in shaping this volume. Although men have been the default gender of studies of human beings for a long time, the gendered man (man as male rather than any human being) and his relationships are topics that people are clearly hungry to learn more about. Of course, we could not have achieved these goals without the help of a “village” of supporters. No one deserves more credit and appreciation than the authors of the chapters of this volume, who gave their time, energy, insights, originality, and talent to this book. They have put enormous efforts into satisfying our requests and suggestions, which we feel has contributed to the high quality of content and style of this volume.

Preface

xv

This was, indeed, a communal effort, in which everyone played an extremely important part. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the research participants who have fueled the literature to which this volume is indebted. At a more personal level, we speak for the other authors in this volume as well as ourselves in our expression of gratitude toward our research participants who have allowed us to learn about their relationships as reported in this volume. Victoria wishes to pay special tribute to the 18 men who let her into their lives for the past 20 years to follow their fraternal bond. Barbara offers special thanks to the 237 men who talked at length about their experiences of masculinity and gender. But all of these participants have generously shared their time and stories, often without any remuneration. It is they who have made these studies possible. As for our sponsoring institutions, Victoria wishes to thank the University of Indianapolis, especially the School of Psychological Sciences and its dean, Dr. John McIlvried, for granting a sabbatical leave, which provided a hiatus from a heavy teaching schedule to bring this book to fruition in a relatively short time. We also wish to thank Barbara’s colleagues in the doctoral program in social policy and aging at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, for their interest in and support of the book. This project would not have been conceived without the trailblazing of our academic foremothers, Lillian E. Troll and the late Bernice Neugarten. They taught us to appreciate the importance of studying the full network of personal relationships in adulthood, not simply those traditionally targeted, and to boldly seek answers in whichever disciplines have something to offer, not just our own. They, like us, relished the life course framework that we adopted for this enterprise. Next we turn to the scholars in the ﬁelds of men and masculinities, personal relationships, social gerontology, and family gerontology, who are working toward a greater understanding of gender in general and men in particular. We have cited them throughout our chapters, but want to make special mention of their importance to the scholarship presented in these chapters. Finally, we wish to thank the men in our private lives who have inspired us to think about men’s issues. These are the family members and friends who, as men, confront us with men’s relationship issues daily and support our pursuit of trying to understand these issues that are too often ignored, avoided, trivialized, or repressed. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Aaron and Alex, Victoria’s father and uncle, respectively, who have been providing an in vivo sample of the quintessential fraternal relationship (89 years in length so far) throughout her life. Barbara’s life

xvi

Preface

has been linked with Cass Turner’s for 45 years, through their graduate studies, academic appointments and promotions, joint research and publications on the intersection of racism and sexism, co-parenthood, abiding friendship and, lately, long conversations about men’s relationships.

REFERENCES Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58, 5–14. Thompson, E. H., Jr. (Ed.) (1994a). Older men’s lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1994b). Older men as invisible men in contemporary society. In E. H. Thompson, Jr. (Ed.), Older men’s lives (pp. 1–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Foreword Richard A. Settersten, Jr., Ph.D.

Men’s relationships are often the light-hearted source of jokes and sarcasm that tap the sentiment that “men” and “relationships” simply do not belong in the same sentence. As with most jokes and sarcasm, one cannot help wondering whether these comments are laced with at least some bit of truth. Yet men’s relationships are also often not for the fainthearted. They are the root of some of the world’s most serious problems, including the physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of women and children, and the limited or absent involvement as fathers, husbands, or partners. The dark side of men’s relationships has deservedly received much attention in research, policy, and practice. What is understudied and seemingly misunderstood are the healthier sides of men’s relationships and how relationships look and feel for men. Men in Relationships turns our attention to this important topic. It is aimed at understanding men’s relationships in middle age and beyond, as well as different types of relationships—especially with wives, brothers, sons, and friends. It emphasizes American men’s relationships and the perspectives of men. It considers how men’s relationships are conditioned (and largely constrained) by notions of masculinity and manhood, and speculates about how these notions may have changed and how they may vary across social settings. And more than anything, this book evokes many questions for future theories and research. The dialogue it begins leaves us keenly aware of how much we have to learn about the nature, meaning, and experience of men’s relationships over time—both xvii

xviii

Foreword

how they have changed historically and how they change within men and the others to whom they are attached. It convinces us that the task of understanding men’s relationships is important not only for men’s development but for everyone involved in relationships with men. Perhaps most importantly, this book gets us to think about why strengthening men’s relationships is a pressing matter for the larger social good.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF A LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE A life course perspective on men’s relationships is dynamic, contextual, and points to the need to understand: • How men’s relationships at one point in time are shaped by the prior experiences of the man and by the interdependent experiences he has or has had with others in his relationships. The emphasis on “interdependence” serves as a reminder that relationships are not experienced uniformly but are instead experienced differently from the vantage points of each participant. So often the view of relationships in research is one-sided. In emphasizing the joint history of the individual and the others in the relationship, a life course perspective points to the need to examine experiences both near and far away that affect the relationship, as well as the processes and mechanisms that drive these connections. • How relationships stem from and are shaped by characteristics and processes in a wide range of often-interconnected social settings. These settings include those of everyday life (such as families, peer and friendship groups, schools, neighborhoods, or work organizations) and more distal ones (such as the state and its policies, historical events and changes, demographic parameters, the economy, and culture). Distal settings are important not only in their own right but also in how they affect lower-order settings and, in turn, relationships in them. • The changing conﬁguration of needs, desires, abilities, and resources of men and those with whom they are in a relationship, and how these things can or cannot be expressed. • Differences in the structure and content of relationships across a wide range of relationship types and social groups. Because a life course perspective emphasizes variability, it would caution us against endorsing a one-size-ﬁts-all version of masculinity or manhood that is to be absorbed and executed by all men. Instead, it would point to multiple forms of masculinity and manhood.

Foreword

xix

We tailor-make versions of masculinity and manhood that can be inhabited to the comfort or liking of ourselves and others around us. These expressions are also ﬂuid—changing even as we move among settings in our daily lives, changing within us as we grow older, and changing in the world around us as time unfolds. In the following sections, I brieﬂy reﬂect on how changes in the social spaces of men’s lives might affect their relationships now and in the future.

MEN’S FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AMIDST DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE Demographers have noted that decreasing mortality, fertility, and morbidity have dramatically altered the structure of contemporary families. Decreases in mortality and fertility have created narrower and more vertical extended family structures in which more generations are alive at once, fewer members exist within each generation, and the age gap between generations is larger. These changes suggest the possibility that family relationships all around may become more signiﬁcant and more positive because there are fewer relationships in which to invest, they are of longer duration, and they exist across many generations. Children now come to know grandparents, great-grandparents, and even great-great-grandparents; and spouses, parents and children, and siblings survive many decades together. The new mix of family and family-like ties, given the diversity and complexity of family forms today, may also bring opportunities for men’s relationships, especially during the second half of life. For example, middle age is already a time when men feel free (or freer) to express traits that are considered more “feminine,” such as nurturing, caring, and sensitivity, and to make greater investments in family relationships. Similarly, old age offers novel powers and possibilities for men’s relationships. Older men seem to lose interest in or care less about the judgments of other men, and it is the acceptance of other men, not women, that is most important in shaping deﬁnitions of masculinity and manhood. In being secure in one’s own masculinity and liberated from the approval of others, old age may provide greater freedom and more time to explore relationships and express oneself in new ways. Only time will tell if these and other potentials will be realized. In fact, one could also argue the reverse: that demographic and other social change may leave family relationships less, not more, signiﬁcant. For example, joint survival over many decades may lead individuals to disinvest in family

xx

Foreword

relationships at certain times under the assumption that they are always available and can be activated as needed. In this scenario, family ties become more vulnerable as time together becomes more sporadic and fragmented. As Bengtson and his colleagues once wryly noted, longer joint survival can also create “long-term lousy relationships” and problems that would not be encountered under other demographic conditions. Family relationships may now be more fragile than ever, given the challenges posed by divorce(s) and remarriage(s), the time binds of parents, the intrusion of work into family life, geographic dispersion, the uncertainty of employment, and the like. These factors may only serve to exacerbate existing vulnerabilities for men, especially early in the life course, leaving shaky foundations from which to build relationships. For example, growing numbers of economically and educationally disadvantaged young people today have limited prospects in the major arenas of adulthood. Signiﬁcant proportions of young people are also attached to the mental health, foster care, juvenile justice, or criminal justice systems; homeless or runaways; in special education; or chronically ill or physically disabled. Absent or fragile family relationships are central forces underneath many of these problems. Relationships formed against such difﬁcult circumstances are at great risk in both the short and long term. Good or bad, family relationships are at the core of a life course perspective because families are the primary setting in which individuals of many ages are assembled together and have relationships that span decades. The life chances and options of individuals are intimately tied to family members, especially one’s family of origin, and the experiences of family members may have effects that ripple throughout the extended family matrix. As individuals grow older, they move up the family structure, change generational positions, and assume new identities, roles, and responsibilities. These dynamics nicely illustrate the importance of the “interdependence of lives,” a core proposition of the life course perspective, which emphasizes the fact that individual lives are intimately bound to and shaped by ties to others. Members up and down generations of the extended family matrix may constrain or enable men’s development, just as men may constrain or enable the development of others in the family.

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS AMIDST HISTORICAL EVENTS AND SOCIAL CHANGE Besides bringing dramatic demographic change, the 20th century brought dramatic changes to all spheres of life. In the wake of these shifts, human lives have become more variable and complex. When a society experiences

Foreword

xxi

rapid change, strain is placed on existing social systems, including relationships. How do individuals create, maintain, revise, or terminate relationships against the uncertainty of their social environments? Men and women alike may ﬁnd themselves incompletely or inappropriately prepared to meet the circumstances they face. Roles and relationships may become unclear or only vaguely deﬁned, and individuals must be prepared to rethink and re-create relationships through the whole of adult life. During times of change, traditional life scripts may loosen, leaving individuals unsure of what to expect of themselves and others, and unsure of what others expect of them. For example, recent research on the transition to adulthood has shown that traditional markers of adult status— leaving home, ﬁnishing school, ﬁnding full-time work, getting married, and having children—can no longer be packaged or attained at the same pace or with the same assuredness they once were. The spheres of education, work, and family have changed drastically in recent decades, and men may no longer be able to meet outdated expectations that are inherited from the past and do not reﬂect the realities of the present. The protracted or even incomplete attainment of traditional markers of adulthood—indeed, traditional markers of masculinity—surely has important effects on how young men think about themselves as men and on how they experience their relationships. Members of different generations in the family come from different cohorts, which have been exposed to different economic, political, and social conditions. The family therefore becomes the immediate context in which “generation gaps” in attitudes, values, and behaviors are personally felt and played out, and through which the effects of macro-level changes on individuals are mediated or moderated. For example, large proportions of men born early in the century were called to arms during wartime, and their relationships with spouses, children, and friends carry the imprint of early wartime service. Even after ﬁve decades, spouses and children may know or talk little about the wartime experiences of their husbands and fathers. The physical and psychological damage to veterans as a result of wartime service may also be exacerbated or emerge for the ﬁrst time in late life, intimately affecting family functioning in the process. We have much to learn about the legacies of cohort differences such as these on family relationships and dynamics. Historical events and periods of social change may also create critical moments to forge innovative pathways through life and craft new kinds of relationships. The pioneering actions of a few individuals can bring new options for their contemporaries and subsequent generations. Larger cohorts may en masse redeﬁne or even reject the things asked of them and actively attempt to rewrite life scripts. Norms around masculinity

xxii

Foreword

seem to be loosening among members of younger cohorts, and there is growing evidence of a shift away from fathers as breadwinners and disciplinarians toward fathers as engaged and nurturing. These shifts may ease some of the restrictions that men feel in expressing closeness and affection.

OTHER SOCIAL SPACES AND RHYTHMS OF MEN’S LIVES We now have more and healthier years of life, and age and gender are becoming less important in determining social roles and life experiences. As a result, relationships might be reconﬁgured and better coordinated with roles and responsibilities in other spheres, especially in balancing work and family demands. Changes such as these may increase ﬂexibility in the life course, lead men to invest more in family and other relationships, and result in more egalitarian relations between women and men in both the public and private spheres. But these possibilities, if they are to be realized, will require men to take greater responsibility for the care of their children and to make different kinds of commitments to their relationships. Again, there are signs that younger cohorts of men are starting to set new priorities and expectations for themselves and others on these fronts. An important question is not only how men themselves might value greater investments in relationships, but also how others might support them in making these investments. Many women may feel that men “have it all” and be resentful of having to compromise their work lives in the name of the family. Yet many men similarly resent the work commitments expected of them and the opportunities they lose with their families and in their personal lives as a result. Many men surely desire more ﬂexibility in their work patterns, which would provide the opportunity to spend additional time with their families, maintain relationships with others, return to school, or engage in more leisure activity. But men may also feel that their responsibilities to provide for their families, the organization of work, and the actions and reactions of others often do not permit them to do so. Social scripts of manhood—culturally bound scripts that shape how we think and live—may be helpful in lending a sense of predictability and guiding our development, but they may also be harmful in suppressing healthy emotions, behaviors, and choices and even in causing destruction to ourselves and others. Gender-based social scripts clearly create and reinforce much of the inﬂexibility that both men and women experience. Similarly, feminist scholarship has often contemplated the “costs” that women bear in providing care to family members, especially during

Foreword

xxiii

prime earning years when children are young. But seldom acknowledged is the fact that women’s more intimate relationships, often cultivated over a lifetime, may be extremely protective in old age, for it is women who are more likely to be widowed and to spend their ﬁnal years (often many) without a spouse. In the same vein, the ﬁnancial beneﬁts that come to men because of their greater investments in work early in life may pale in comparison to the sizable toll these investments have taken on men’s relationships, especially with their children, by the time work careers subside or ﬁnish. These forces may leave men’s well-being tenuous in late life, especially for men who outlive their wives. These examples highlight the fact that the costs and beneﬁts of relationships are manifested in different ways at different times for different people. There is growing evidence that the education-work-retirement lockstep is starting to dissolve, and for a range of reasons related to both individual choices and social and economic circumstances (particularly the conditions and requirements of the labor market). These changes carry the potential to alter the structure and content of men’s relationships in ways both good and bad. For example, as suggested earlier, the erosion of this “lock-step” may offer new chances to invest in family relationships, as suggested earlier, and in leisure activities, which for men have always been a key outlet for developing friendships and expressing emotions. The changing nature of work itself—limited job security and beneﬁts, impersonal modes of communication, greater competition and mobility, blurred boundaries between work and home, longer work days, less personal time, overscheduling and multitasking—may leave men’s work and family relationships weaker now than in the past, especially for economically and educationally disadvantaged men. With the need to more regularly update work skills or shift careers, adult education programs, especially in community colleges, will become increasingly important sources of men’s relationships in the future. Men’s relationships in their communities may also become more tenuous, with higher rates of residential turnover, lower levels of social cohesion and control, and the disappearance of parks, neighborhood centers, and sidewalks. And now more than ever, men are in need of mentors to help them navigate life. Health and illness statuses also have signiﬁcant implications for relationships, as giving and receiving care affect experiences and strain its members. Signiﬁcant periods of joint survival with family members and friends are made possible precisely because disease, disability, and death are now generally conﬁned to the ﬁnal decades of life. Death is no longer the great disruptor of relationships that it once was; it has been replaced by divorce and other culprits. The pressing need to provide and receive care at the end of life, and often for extended periods, will become important personal and

xxiv

Foreword

political matters in the decades to come, with solutions driven by a mix of public and private factors. Family and family-like relationships are sure to shoulder much of this burden, and men might begin to play bigger roles in providing care to others at both the beginning and end of life. One ﬁnal context that is critically important in shaping men’s relationships is the state and its policies. Many policies seriously constrain the options and experiences of men’s relationships. For example, workrelated policies often provide limited or no family, paternity, or adoption leave; personal or vacation time; ﬂextime; health insurance; pension; assistance with childcare; part-time parity in wages; and limits on mandatory overtime. Family-related policies—especially those related to divorce, custody, visitation, and grandparent’s rights—are also very important because they set parameters on men’s involvement with their spouses (or ex-spouses), children, and grandchildren. As family relationships have become more variable and complex, social and legal deﬁnitions of “family” have become increasingly contested. For example, recent years have brought heated religious and social debates around the world about whether gay and lesbian unions and families are “legitimate” in societies and worthy of the support and protection of the state. Particularly in America, these debates have resulted in signiﬁcant (and successful) political efforts to deﬁne “family” in restrictive, traditional terms. These decisions set signiﬁcant parameters on the kinds of relationships that members of a society are encouraged or allowed to choose or nurture, and they come with real and serious consequences for individuals and families who do not match these criteria. Men in Relationships begins to dispel some of the myths surrounding men and their relationships. It shows that men’s relationships do matter, and it suggests that the expectations, meanings, and experiences of men are different from those of women and need to be measured and judged on different terms. But strength can be found in men’s relationships— strength that is sometimes overt and sometimes subtle; sometimes engaged, depleted, or held in reserve. Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford, Barbara Formaniak Turner, and their contributors are boldly asking fresh questions and beginning to paint a more comprehensive, textured, and much-needed portrait of men’s relationships. They urge us to have a difﬁcult, but long overdue, dialogue about both the promises and problems of men’s relationships, the factors that prompt strengths and vulnerabilities within their relationships, and the consequences that these relationships carry for men, their families, and the societies in which they live. Talking is the ﬁrst giant step. Doing comes next. And in the end, one thing is certain: Facilitating men’s relationships will go a long way toward creating more caring and humane societies.

INTRODUCTION

The Study of Men’s Relationships in the Context of Time and Place Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford and Barbara Formaniak Turner

Why do men and women look disbelieving when we tell them the title of the book we are editing? What is it about the juxtaposition of “men” and “relationships” that elicits an expression of bewilderment and such comments (from men as often as women) as “isn’t that an oxymoron?” But the other side of surprise and confusion is fascination followed by a ﬂood of stories, the same motivation that launched us into delving into this topic in the ﬁrst place. In this brief introduction, we will address the dissonance that ensues from the expression “men and relationships” and the life course perspective in which we chose to frame the topic. Finally, we will say a few words about the chapters themselves.

THE DISSONANCE ISSUE Such reactions to the title of the book may lie in assumptions about the deﬁnition of what constitutes men’s relationships, assumptions that not only differ from those of the chapter authors but also reﬂect a controversy in the ﬁeld of men and masculinities. It seems the layperson’s deﬁnition, the one implicit in reactions to the book title, is that relationships xxv

xxvi

The Study of Men’s Relationships

refer to men’s intimate, romantic relationships with women. The reaction of amusement coupled with disbelief over the topic of men in relationships may be the result of the view often depicted in the media (e.g., New Yorker magazine cartoons; Dave Barry’s humor column) that men are inept in the realm of such relationships. However, the clinical literature has also challenged men’s relationship capacities, addressing men’s relationships with male friends as well as with women (e.g., Farrell, 1986; Strikwerda & May, 1992). This relationship ineptitude view (see Chapter 4) appears to be perpetuated as much by men as by women. Men sometimes take pride in this position, as though it entitles them to avoid dealing with the thorny issues of relationships, perhaps because as “guys” they may escape from women to spend leisure time consumed by sports, computer games, and action movies. Or they have “more serious or important matters” to attend to, such as employment and the military, ignoring women’s participation in these same endeavors. Together these positions imply that relationships lack status; relationships tend to be degraded as “women’s work.” Clearly, these positions have not considered the toll that this neglect of relationships by men takes on their psychological well-being (e.g., see Levant, 1996 and 2001, on the psychological costs of traditional masculine ideologies). The other side of the response to the topic of men in relationships, fascination, may tap an opposing reality from that conveyed by the ineptitude hypothesis: Many men take their relationships very seriously and are extremely interested in learning about them, discussing them, and sharing what they know. This discovery became evident while the ﬁrst editor of this volume was conducting a longitudinal study on the sibling relationships of adults. By the time this 20-year study reached its 16th year, the men were clearly more loyal participants than the women. Many of the men seemed to relish the opportunity to spend several hours talking about one relationship (fraternal) as well as placing it within the context of other relationships. This unexpected occurrence led to questions about whether their assumed alienation from relationships barred them in their daily lives from a topic that appeared to be every bit as interesting to them as to women. The women in the study may have been somewhat less dedicated to the study because they had ample outlets for chewing on relationship issues in their daily lives. Men’s relationship prowess is not limited to dyadic relationships such as in-depth interviews, psychotherapy, or romantic and marital bonds. Men excel in other relationship contexts, such as when functioning as comrades in the military (Strikwerda & May, 1992), in team sports (Swain, 1989), and in the workplace (e.g., Bedford, 1990). It is clear that the term relationship has many manifestations. Given the range of relationship topics covered in this volume, it is useful to

The Study of Men’s Relationships

xxvii

make explicit what the term covers. According to Robert Hinde (1979), a relationship implies “some sort of intermittent interaction between two people, involving interchanges over an extended period of time,” such that there is some degree of mutuality in these interchanges, in that “the behavior of each takes some account of the behavior of the other” (p. 14). Relationships can be personal or role/formal relationships, although there is some overlap between the two. The interactions in personal relationships “depend primarily on the knowledge of one another as individuals.” In contrast, interactions in role/formal relationships, such as teacher and student, husband and wife, and baseball teammates, “depend primarily on membership in particular groups or occupancy of particular positions in society” (p. 38). In most relationships, both constraints operate, but to different degrees.

THE LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE In this volume, we are committed to placing the study of men and their relationships in a life course perspective. Although our academic backgrounds (see author notes) certainly play a role in this choice, our commitment to the life course is a deliberate choice in hopes of advancing the study of men’s relationships. In gerontology and, more broadly, adult development and aging, life course perspectives currently are a dominant conceptual paradigm. Indeed, most authors of chapters in this volume completed doctoral studies in human development and were early imbued with this perspective, or they studied with mentors who graduated from such programs. Some ﬁelds that study relationships, however, make relatively little use of life course perspectives. It should be noted that the use of the term life course here, which evolved within the ﬁeld of sociology, is in no way a choice against the “life span” concept, which grew out of the ﬁeld of psychology. Rather, to avoid the cumbersome term life span/life course, we adopt Settersten’s (2003) inclusive use of the term life course. Speciﬁcally, his view “equates life course scholarship with ‘developmental science’; . . . a synthesis of central concepts, propositions, and methods pertaining to human development that cuts across disciplines and life periods” (p. 16). We now brieﬂy review a few of these life course principles that are particularly germane to relationships, followed by a preview of the chapters. By placing relationships in a life course perspective, we did not intend to focus on life course issues but rather to apply this perspective in the study of men’s relationships. In using this perspective, we hope to avoid biases that universalize context-speciﬁc ﬁndings. The life course

xxviii

The Study of Men’s Relationships

perspective compels a consciousness of how men’s relationships are situated in time and place. Time and place cover a wide range of phenomena and there are many ways to describe them. For instance, Taylor, Giarrusso, Feng, and Bengtson (Chapter 6) apply Elder, Johnson, and Crosnoe’s (2003) ﬁve principles of the life course perspective. We have chosen to subsume all ﬁve principles under the concepts of time and place. Accordingly, an accessible heuristic (i.e., learning aid) for understanding the life course perspective is to visualize the person moving through time while in continual interaction with place, whereby place varies on a continuum from distal, such as historical events, to proximal, such as direct interactions in immediate situations (e.g., see Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Runyan, 1984). These interactions include relationships with others as they also move through time while in interaction with place. More proximal places are found in such life spheres as work, family, and leisure (Settersten, 2003). More distal places are social structures, such as social class and ethnic membership. The boundary between time and place can be tenuous, especially when considering interactions that occur in cognitive space, such as with memories of life past and anticipations of the future (Settersten, 2003) while the person continues to move through biographical and historical time. It would not be possible for book chapters to contain the full complexity of the life course. All of the authors, however, consider some aspect of it in their approach to men’s relationships. We will brieﬂy review each chapter and some of the ways the authors used one or more features of the life course in their discussion of men’s relationships. We note, as well, the variety of methods of data collection represented in the chapters. Many chapters draw on multiple methods of data collection. The variety includes standardized scales and survey items as well as laboratory research, qualitative analyses of narrative responses in individual interviews or focus groups, projective test responses, and analyses of authors’ clinical experience with men in therapy. In most chapters the authors are unable to tease apart developmental and cohort-related effects in interpretations of relationship patterns because of limitations in the research design of much of the literature and/or a dearth of information. Life patterns over time are pieced together from data on discrete life periods, cross-sectional ﬁndings, retrospective reports, and anticipations of future patterns. Two chapters, however, are able to make some headway in teasing apart these interpretations because they have access to prospective, longitudinal studies. One chapter focuses on three cohorts of fraternal relationships over a 20-year span, and the other one focuses on fathers’ relationships with their adult children that span several historical cohorts.

The Study of Men’s Relationships

xxix

THE CHAPTERS Chapters are presented in four sections. Part I, “Men’s Relationships With Partners,” addresses relationships with wives and lovers, regardless of sexual orientation. Cohler and Smith’s chapter leads because it offers a good introduction to this section with a focus on a distal context for men’s relationships— culture. Furthermore, it gradually leads the reader to an understanding of the process by which culture shapes men’s relationships by means of scripts for masculine roles. Speciﬁcally, we learn about two such scripts, the “boy code” of the American script and the family responsibility script of the southern Sudanese. Cohler and Smith explain the microprocesses through which men transform cultural role scripts in enacting face-to-face relationships. The Lost Boys of the Sudan learned one set of masculine role prescriptions in their early life (in the southern Sudan) and a very different set in the land in which they reached maturity, middle-class America. As they begin to anticipate choosing a wife and starting a family, they are confronted with the blatant differences between the two cultural scripts. Using focus group and ﬁeld interviews, Cohler and Smith relate the Lost Boys’ prospective marital anxieties that the American boy code engenders among these Sudanese immigrants to the United States (as well as among American men) and the alternative rewards of the Sudanese masculinity code. It is doubtful, however, that the latter can be realized by the Lost Boys, as even their native society is undergoing transformations. Finally, we learn how the Lost Boys envision their still-distant middle and later years as they anticipate launching their children into adulthood and reﬂect on how they hope, one day, to be cared for by them. Huyck and Gutmann, in the next chapter, draw on psychodynamic and social cognitive theories of men’s experiences of gender in response to marital transitions. They zero in on late middle and young-old age, after the nest has emptied and wives can reclaim the assertive, agentic personality characteristics that they had suppressed in service of the emotional needs of the family during the child-rearing years of the family career. Although Cohler and Smith presented the internal experience of dealing with two very different cultural scripts for men in family relationships, Huyck and Gutmann present a developmental challenge that husbands face at this time. How do they cope with their wife’s developmental change, one that may infringe upon their own sense of masculinity, even as they are experiencing biological changes that may leave them somewhat vulnerable in terms of their sense of masculinity? Although the midlife experience described may be universal (based on cross-cultural studies),

xxx

The Study of Men’s Relationships

Huyck and Gutmann’s chapter demonstrates intragroup variability—the wide variability of men’s experiences of gender and, therefore, the variable responses to this life transition. The study reported in the chapter used an array of methods, including analyses of standardized trait scales of masculinity and femininity, projective test responses, narratives in response to open-ended questions, and clinical experience with troubled older men. Maass’ chapter is grounded in clinical psychology and her experience as a sex therapist, and she draws heavily on such ﬁelds as men and masculinities but also on developmental science and sociology. At the societal level, Maass provides a history of the transformation of manhood and traditional ideologies of masculinity, as shown in images of masculinity in war, sports, religion, and other social activities. At the individual level, Maass provides a developmental history by which boys are inculcated with the rules of masculinities. She shows how these images, as well as some of men’s solutions to them, result in alienation from women and handicap men in their ability to be emotionally close to their lovers, male and female. Maass then uses her clinical experience as a sex psychologist to provide examples that illustrate how homosexual and heterosexual men interpret traditional masculinity and the consequences of their interpretations to their romantic relationship health throughout adulthood. Finally, she provides insights into how the maladaptive outcomes could have been avoided, as well as general techniques for dealing with internalized masculinity rules by drawing on principles of emotional intelligence. Part II, “Men’s Relationships With Brothers and Friends,” consists of two chapters that examine nonromantic relationships that are typically peer relationships. Bedford and Avioli use life course perspectives to examine whether traditional masculinity ideologies militate against intimacy between men in middle and late life with their age-near brothers. Using data from a 20-year longitudinal study of brothers that spans three historical periods, they investigated whether cohort differences found in fraternal intimacy could be explained as normative developmental changes, or, indeed, were cohort related. Furthermore, they explored what aspects of cohort differences could account for the ﬁndings. One such aspect explored was adherence to traditional masculinity rules, given the dramatic social changes in gender roles that occurred during the period in which the different cohorts were coming of age and establishing their adult identities. Another aspect of cohort differences explored was the degree to which rules of traditional masculinities constrain merely the men’s overt expressions of intimacy to their brothers. The study uses qualitative analyses of

The Study of Men’s Relationships

xxxi

stories about siblings in response to ﬁgures from the Sibling Thematic Apperception Test. In their chapter, Adams and Ueno address one set of friendship processes located within the Adams-Blieszner-Ueno Integrative Framework for Friendship Research. The framework, grounded in the life course, considers many dimensions of variability in friendship patterns, including characteristics of the individuals, dyads, and networks and their inﬂuences on each other over time. The chapter updates Adams’s earlier writings on older men’s friendships and adds a review of the literature on men’s midlife friendship patterns. The authors demonstrate that the stereotypical gender differences in friendship reported in the literature do not account for the enormous variability within and between genders. Their complex model is able to chart gender differences in friendship and how gender differences change over individual time as well as cross-culturally. In Part III, “Fathers and Their Adult Children,” we turn to intergenerational relationships. First encountered when the Lost Boys were anticipating starting families in Part I (Cohler and Smith), the paternal–adult child relationship is the focus of this section. Taylor, Giarrusso, Feng, and Bengtson take a broad perspective on middle-aged and older men’s relationships with their adult children. They analyze data from the long-running Longitudinal Study of Generations to achieve three goals. The ﬁrst goal was to investigate sociohistorical inﬂuences on fathering at later periods of life. The second was to trace longitudinal trends in fathers’ functional solidarity (i.e., help and support) with their children during these years. The third goal was to examine some predictors of the quality of fathering in late life on one cohort of men. They considered the inﬂuence of role salience of fatherhood (noting how the role salience of fatherhood has changed over historical time), as well as differential effects of sociodemographic characteristic and subjective evaluations of role performance on the different solidarity dimensions. These three goals were met using research designs that are rarely available because of the long-term time and ﬁnancial commitments involved. The results, therefore, provide a convincing picture of the importance of fathering to men throughout life. Floyd and Bowman focus only on two qualities of paternal relationships, closeness (feelings) and affection (expression of feelings), and only in the father-son dyad. With these limitations in place, they are able to plunge the depths of this topic, both in the literature and in their recent empirical research on communication patterns. Floyd and Bowman counter the popular negative conception of the father-son tie by situating it within the life course perspective. First, however, they compare the

xxxii

The Study of Men’s Relationships

father-son relationship with other important male-male relationships, those between brothers and between friends. The authors also review the literature on how rules of masculinity affect the development and expression of close feelings between men (see the chapters by Cohler and Smith, Maas, and Bedford and Avioli on this topic as well). They then trace how closeness in father-son relationships evolves through the life course and shifts over historical time as men have been relinquishing the exclusive breadwinner role in the family and become more involved with their children. They also address the forms in which closeness is expressed between fathers and sons. Furthermore, the authors discuss whether the biological status of the father-son relationship affects closeness and affection by comparing adopted and step-relationships. Finally, they address intergenerational transmission of father-son affection and closeness. In Part IV, “Interpersonal Processes in Men’s Relationships,” men’s relationship processes are addressed independent of any particular role type. Although other chapters refer to men’s greater involvement than women in groups, Turner devotes her chapter to this topic. She explores how men’s diverse construals of masculinities and gender are related to their attention to their place among men in the groups to which they belong (collective interdependence). Evidence for this attention to collective interdependence came from qualitative responses of 237 men diverse in age (19–87 years), social class, and race in the cross-sectional Boston Gender Study. The chapter then explores how the social contexts of age, class, and race relate to men’s interdependence with other men. Turner draws on several theoretical models subsumed within the overarching life course framework, including social construction and power models as well as social cognition. She notes a convergence between current conceptions of self-construals among cognitive psychologists and researchers in the ﬁeld of men and masculinities. Beals and Rook examine another relationship process, the experience of negative interactions with others. In doing so, they make gender comparisons in the experience and in its well-being outcomes. As such, this chapter is oriented toward health psychology, social networks, and, more generally, social psychology. It is refreshing to ﬁnd that when gender differences turn up, men are advantaged. This ﬁnding contrasts with the constraints that masculinity ideologies tend to place on men’s relationships and the interpersonal losses they sometimes suffer from these constraints (see, for instance, Chapter 3). The authors explore the process of experiencing negative interactions independent of social roles, using examples from group experiences, couples, the workplace, and other relationship types. The concept of negative social exchange is described in terms of how many negative exchanges are experienced (exposure)

The Study of Men’s Relationships

xxxiii

and how intensely one reacts to them (sensitivity). A wide variety of methods are used to compare men and women, methods that target behavioral, emotional, and physiological reactions to these negative exchanges. The authors also provide a developmental history of the social construction of gender differences that may explain why men are able to remain relatively undisturbed by these negative exchanges, whereas women appear to suffer considerable distress from them. There remain some interesting incongruities in these ﬁndings, however, when considering gender differences in mortality, and the authors lay out a research agenda to resolve them. These summaries demonstrate that the authors have approached the topic of men in relationships with sensitivity to the complexity of the issues involved in their study. Underlying the common response to the title of this book may be common wisdom, untested assumptions, and prevailing views of men’s ineptness in relationships. In these chapters the authors expose errors, provide background information, and give clarity to some of these notions by considering them in more complex ways. We have organized the issues under the life course rubric, which situates the relationships in time and place. We encourage you to journey onward through this volume to see for yourself what the life course perspective has to contribute to understanding men’s relationships. REFERENCES Bedford, V. H. (1990). Violated expectations: Collaboration among mathematicians. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 334–335. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Farrell, M. P. (1986). Friendship between men. In R. A. Lewis & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Men’s changing roles in the family (pp. 163–197). New York: Haworth. Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. London: Academic Press. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 27, 259–265. Levant, R. F. (2001). Desperately seeking language: Understanding, assessing, and treating normative male alexithymia. In G. R. Brooks & G. E. Good (Eds.),

xxxiv

The Study of Men’s Relationships

The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men (pp. 424–443). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Runyan, W. M. (1984). Life histories and psychobiography: Explorations in theory and method. New York: Oxford University Press. Settersten, R. A., Jr. (2003). Invitation to the life course: The promise. In R. A. Settersten (Ed.), Invitation to the life course: Understandings of later life (pp. 1–12). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Strikwerda, R. A., & May, L. (1992). Male friendship and intimacy. In L. May & R. A. Strikwerda (Eds.), Rethinking masculinity: Philosophical explorations in light of feminism (pp. 95–110). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men’s friendships. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships (pp. 71–85). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

PA RT I

Men’s Relationships With Partners

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture Bertram J. Cohler and Gabriel D. Smith

There has been burgeoning interest in the study of personality development and socialization among men during the past several decades. Some reports have focused on the masculine role in contemporary society, particularly the realization of the role of father. More recently, inspired by study of the socialization of girls into an interdependent and contextual understanding of self and interpersonal ties, study of the socialization of boys has suggested that school, home, and community collude in fostering an impassive, autonomous view of self and social ties among boys, who then grow up as men who are detached from their feelings and afraid of intimacy (Pollack, 1999). This focus on socialization and personality among men and women in American society has led to increased latitude for both men and women to depart from stereotyped expectations of sex roles but has also fostered tension as men and women struggle with changing understandings of self and relationships. The signiﬁcance of these changes is highlighted through comparative study of men raised in traditional cultures and the American masculinity cultural script. Over the past three decades, the literature has described this script regarding masculine socialization in middle-class American communities. Comparative study of the masculinity cultural scripts between immigrant and American-born men is particularly timely because of the new immigration of African and East Asian men and women over the past two decades. Immigrant groups are expected to adopt an American cultural script for relations between men 3

4

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

and women, one that is often discordant from what they had learned growing up in traditional societies. This chapter considers the course of socialization and personality development of young men born into and raised through childhood in Nilotic-speaking East African societies, now living in bourgeois American society. During middle childhood these men ﬂed from the ethnic conﬂict that has torn their societies apart, and now continue their adult lives in communities both in America and in the other Western democracies. This group of refugees has been given the name “Lost Boys,” which refers to the arduous and dangerous trek these men undertook as children, without families and for most of their journey without adults, escaping from war-ravaged Sudan eventually to Kenya. These men were born in southern Sudan in traditionally patrilineal and polygamous societies like those ﬁrst described in detail by Evans-Pritchard (1940), including primarily the Nuer and the Dinka. During their childhood, early in the 1980’s, a hostile northern Sudanese government began to raid southern Sudanese villages as a part of a continuing civil war in which captured young men were either killed or compelled to ﬁght in government forces. The young boys’ ﬂight was sudden, forced by threats to their life. The adverse conditions of this long march forced these refugee boys to cooperate for the sake of common survival, and from their reports, it is clear that strong bonds were forged among them. More than 40% of these children (almost all boys) making the journey from southern Sudan to Kenya failed to survive. Of the group of about 10,000 youngsters arriving at the refugee camp in Kenya, over half have been resettled in the Western democracies, including about 4,000 boys relocated to America, where they have come to young adulthood. Interviews and focus groups with some of these men provide an important perspective for understanding the course of personal and social development among men in American society, including the way men understand and manage intimate ties with women and other men. We begin with a discussion of culture and gender and consider the expected course of socialization and personal development among boys growing to manhood in American society. Next, we contrast this assumed story of development of boys and men with that of boys becoming men in East Africa but who immigrated to the United States in young adulthood.

CULTURE AND GENDER There has been much discussion about gender socialization in cultures worldwide. Although all cultures recognize a distinction between man and woman, the meaning of this distinction and the presumed norms for

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

5

being a man or a woman differ across cultures. The deﬁnition of what it means to be a man in society, including expected relations with women, as a householder and parent, and means for socializing the next generation, show variation (Mead, 1949/2001). Within particular cultures, such factors as social status and social change have an impact on understanding gender roles and their performance. In this section we present a perspective for understanding masculine gender roles and the impact of social change, such as relocation from a pastoral society to urban America.

The Concept of Gender Script in the Study of Masculinity Studying sexuality in the context of late 20th-century American society, sociologists John Gagnon and William Simon (1973) developed a unique perspective known as social scripting. Simon (1996) suggests that collective life furnishes cultural scenarios that guide us in understanding and enacting speciﬁc roles, such as that of man and woman. This understanding is further elaborated according to such factors as region of the country and social position. Modernity has fostered ever greater social variation and enhanced emphasis upon individual understanding of these roles as a consequence of particular life circumstances. Simon suggests that we create interpersonal scripts based on our own understanding of cultural scenarios, such as that regarding gender. As a result, we deﬁne ourselves as men or women in particular ways at particular historical periods. Finally, we construct subjective scripts based on the interplay of life experiences and circumstances and interpersonal scripts: Intrapsychic scripting thus becomes a historical necessity as a private world of wishes and desires, experienced as originating in the deepest recesses of the self, must be bound to social life: the linking of individual desires to social meanings. (Simon, 1996, p. 43)

Rather than viewing gender as a directive for realization of particular roles, outside of personal circumstances and such conditions as social change, the concept of gender script links person and social context. Gender scripts reﬂect the interplay of cultural scenarios and make use of these cultural guides to action within particular situations. Gagnon observes that this personal understanding of culturally deﬁned roles becomes particularly important in the context of social change, such as when relocating from one culture to another. For example, being uprooted from a traditional African society and relocating in a suburban American community creates a sense of uncertainty (Wallace, 2003) and demands the construction of a new understanding or interpersonal script regarding such roles as gender and accompanying redeﬁnition of oneself as a man.

6

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

The Cultural Script of American Masculinity Margaret Mead (1949) contrasted her analysis of gender from her ethnographic studies with the gender script characteristic of American society across the interwar years. From these accounts, it is possible to characterize the cultural scenario for masculinity in American society as reﬂecting rational control of feelings, concern with maintaining autonomy, and a heightened sense of self-protection when with women. Writing on the basis of a comparative study of relations between men and women in a number of different cultures, Mead (1949) portrayed the cultural script for a man in American society: A man in American society should be, ﬁrst of all, a success in his business; he should advance, make money, go up fast, and if possible he should also be likable, attractive, and well groomed, a good mixer, well informed, good at leisure-time activities of his class, should provide well for his home, keep his car in good condition, be attentive enough to his wife so that he doesn’t give other women an opportunity to catch his interest. (p. 283)

Mead observes that American mothers train their boys to be men, to stand up for themselves and not be “sissies.” Boys are also taught by older brothers (theirs and their peers’) what it means to be a man. Success in realizing this scenario brings love and approval from the boy’s parents, the light in his mother’s eyes, a sigh of relief from his father. Failure, Mead wrote, reﬂects a temporary setback of little consequence and acts as a stimulus to try even harder to attain success. Komarovsky’s (1976) survey of middle-class men at an Ivy League college further supports Mead’s viewpoint. Written on the cusp of the women’s movement in the United States, Komarovsky’s survey reports that most of the urban college seniors in her study worried about their ability to perform sexually with women, to succeed in their work, and to achieve independence from their parents. These men were particularly concerned about their unsatisfying, emotionally distant relationship with their own father (see Floyd and Smith in this volume for an extended discussion of this topic). These men noted the ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the roles of men and women in American culture, including how to get along with women and to know what women expect in an intimate relationship. The realm of feelings was particularly difﬁcult for these men; self-disclosure to either men or women threatened the loss of admiration from others and loss of status within their circle of friends. Many of these men felt there was a standard for masculinity that they were unable to attain. American culture expects superior assertiveness and prowess, particularly regarding (sexual) relations with women,

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

7

while no longer necessarily providing the privileges and advantages men believed to be essential for this success, such as restraints on women’s sexual experience. These men coveted the role of women who could be passive in courtship. They worried that they would not be able to live up to expectations regarding the intellectual, emotional, and sexual aspects of their relationships with women. One senior posed this dilemma of men in contemporary American culture most succinctly when he observed that “the ideal of the ‘strong silent type’ robbed him of the emotional reassurance he desired and could have received from his woman friend” (Komarovsky, 1976, p. 232). These men looked forward to a life characterized by role strain, conﬂict, and overload as they tried to balance obligations of family and career. These men envied the greater freedom they felt was accorded to women in contemporary society and the lack of rewards for realizing this ideal of masculine role performance. Komarovsky observes that, like the women in her earlier studies of women in the postwar epoch, the men in her study doubted their ability to realize their expected role. These men doubted that the power and prestige they might realize could make up for the strain and stress they expected in their adult life. At the same time these men were worried that they would have to yield to their wives and that they might have to rely on their wives for strength and support. Komarovsky (1976) speculated that social change leading to increased equality in the roles of men and women over the preceding decade was responsible for the concern men expressed regarding their ability to perform the expected masculine role. Study of gender development in American boys suggests that, in many American families, socialization of boys by parents and the community interferes with realization of comfortable intimacy with women. Pollack (1999) and Kindlon and Thompson (1999) have studied how boys are raised in contemporary American society. Written in the aftermath of the feminist movement, which had pointed to American men’s fear of intimacy and exaggerated concern with autonomy (Chodorow, 1978, 1999; Gilligan, 1982), ﬁndings from this study point to the need to change the way boys are taught to become men. Pollack (1999) describes what he terms the “boy code,” which emphasizes the importance of stoicism, autonomy, and maintenance of a facade of invulnerability and toughness in the manner of actor John Wayne. Pollack’s account emphasizes the extent to which family and school conspire to foster among boys a disconnect from feelings. This boyhood experience contrasts with the experience of girls, who are encouraged to express their feelings and to enjoy close ties with peers, parents, and teachers (Chodorow, 1999). Parents and teachers expect boys to be competitive and tough. Nowhere is this more evident than in

8

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

the realm of sexuality, where the cultural script of masculine assertiveness conﬂicts with personal concern about the ability to perform sexually. Boys believe that girls will shun boys who lack sexual bravado. Kindlon and Thompson (1999) maintain that boys often disconnect sexual feelings and actions because they believe that sexual arousal is something that happens to them and becomes objectiﬁed apart from feelings. Kindlon and Thompson further suggest that this sexual performance anxiety among men arises from their lifelong experience that showing vulnerability and feelings leads to social opprobrium and is regarded as not masculine.

CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON MASCULINE INSECURITY IN RELATION TO WOMEN Bettelheim (1954), Gregor (1985), and Komarovsky (1976) have suggested that men both in American society and in other cultures feel envy and insecurity in relations with women. Writing about relations between men and women in a rural Spanish community in Andalusia, Brandes (1981) comments: The curious paradox is that, even though women in San Blas are restrained and restricted by their society, men nevertheless feel severely threatened by them, or at least are encouraged by the ideology to feel so. The male ideological posture accords women considerable superiority. . . . Women are portrayed as dangerous and potent, while men suffer the consequences of female whims and passions. (p. 218)

San Blas and the highlands New Guinea community known as the Sambia (Herdt, 1981/1994, 1999) share a preoccupation with semen depletion. Semen is regarded as the source of men’s strength but is available in only a limited supply; because intercourse means the danger of semen loss, abstention is necessary for men to maintain vigor. Women are regarded as dangerous because they serve as a temptation for semen loss. Keeping women separate from men and regarding them as socially invisible ensures that men will not be tempted into a sexual liaison; however, women are believed to be deceitful and to attempt to trick men into sexual encounters, threatening additional loss of semen and strength. Gregor (1985) has reported similar observations regarding the fear of women in his study of the Mehinaku, an Amazonian Basin people. Once again, women are regarded as dangerous; sexual intercourse risks the threat of genital mutilation or even castration. This concern is evident in myth and dreams, in theories regarding the origins of disease, and in

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

9

particular sexual practices and prohibitions (Gregor, 1985). Men are particularly concerned with their sexual performance and worry about the possibility that they could be impotent. Men view coitus as dangerous and polluting and are cautioned to observe restraint. Boys who begin sexual relations too soon after puberty risk the possibility that their strength will be seriously compromised. Menstruation is a particular threat, and, as in many cultures, women must live apart from the community while they are menstruating. Whiting’s (1960) status-envy hypothesis, most thoroughly tested among American and Scandinavian families, offers yet another way to understand the basis for men’s feelings of insecurity in relation to women. According to this hypothesis, from early childhood, boys envy the person believed to control access to valued resources, including both rewards and punishments. The little boy attempts through fantasy and action to take on the role of the envied other, over time identifying with that caretaker. Later in childhood and adolescence boys are expected to change from an identiﬁcation with their mother to one with their father and men as they move beyond the family and enter the social world of men. These patrilineal societies with close mother-infant bonds may foster a cross-sex identity conﬂict in boys (Munroe, Munroe, & Whiting, 1981), in which sons, upon reaching late childhood or adolescence, must deny the primary identiﬁcation with the mother and the mother’s role, form a secondary identiﬁcation with the father, who usually takes an active (and sometimes aggressive) role in removing the son from the mother, and take on the men’s script. Following from the cross-cultural data, such a pattern creates an identity conﬂict (between primary and secondary identiﬁcations), which must be resolved via institutional means, including male initiation rites (Herdt, 1981/1994; Munroe et al., 1981; Parsons, 1969). Study of masculinity both within and across cultures too often assumes that men’s belief in their vulnerability is based on implicit comparisons with women. Such comparisons, it is thought, result in coveting the woman’s role and a feeling that the masculine role is an ideal that must be sought but that can never be realized. Rather than focusing on the way men manage the strain associated with particular cultural scripts regarding gender roles, Pleck (1995) has urged that we consider instead the American concept of masculine ideology or what in the present discussion is portrayed as the American cultural script of masculinity, which is but one instance of a gender script and the one the men in this study encounter upon their immigration to the United States. In this chapter we report on the experience of confronting the dilemma of masculinity in contemporary American society in which efforts to fulﬁll the American cultural script of masculinity as rational

10

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

autonomy and status attainment paradoxically is accompanied by feelings of lower morale and self-esteem (Pleck, 1995; Pollack, 1999). Because the young men in the study grew up as young children in traditional East African cultures and as teenagers and young adults immigrated to American communities, comparative study highlights the incongruities of American masculine gender scripts. The Lost Boys’ encounter with this American cultural script, as contrasted with that traditionally expected in their East African culture, provides an opportunity to understand the way men come to terms with masculine dilemmas as they are socialized into the cultural script of American masculinity.

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICAN MASCULINITY: OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOST BOYS The men in this study were born primarily into two African societies— the Dinka and the Nuer—traditionally engaged in conﬂict but believed at some past time to comprise a single group of somewhat less than a half-million residents of an African savannah that stretches for hundreds of miles around three rivers. These young men from two neighboring groups in the Sudan share a similar social structure, historical traditions, and a mode of subsistence based on raising cattle (Evans-Pritchard, 1940, 1951).

Social Ties in Traditional East African Culture The southern Sudan savannah is marked by two seasons—a dry season devoted to agriculture and cattle grazing and a monsoon season in which it is difﬁcult to raise crops or graze cattle. Clans live together during the monsoon season and spread out in smaller family groups during the dry season, ﬁshing or living off of grain stores to supplement their diet. Family groups move often, and villages are temporary, in the manner of many hunting-gathering groups. Labor is divided among the sexes, with older boys and men tending cattle in the camps and the girls and women tending the home and the younger children and milking the cows. Women in both societies traditionally remain outside of the political arena and are subject to the men, daughters to fathers and wives to husbands (Evans-Pritchard, 1940, p. 178). The political organization of these societies was traditionally acephalous—that is, without a formal leader or centralized governing body—and ﬂuid, whereby allegiances could change depending on the changing pressures of other clans or neighboring tribes. The political systems of the Dinka or Nuer might best be understood as ordered anarchy

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

11

organized around an age-grade system marked by initiation ceremonies. Prestige has been based on personal attributes rather than birth or wealth. The people within these groups believed ﬁercely in equality and demanded respect, in return for which they were loyal friends and kinsmen who were expected to share their resources during hard times. Men were expected to be free and independent and to resist the bullying and avarice of neighbors, remaining ever vigilant and willing to ﬁght for their rights and the protection of their cattle. Warfare based on competing cattle claims was common and answered to little administrative structure to adjudicate competing claims. Just as among other societies in which an exclusive mother-son bond is emphasized through early childhood with an abrupt shift during youth to the larger world of men (Gregor, 1985; Herdt, 1981/1994), both Dinka and Nuer societies emphasize close mother-infant bonds and also regiment initiation for boys in middle childhood and adolescence. Initiation is a multistep process for boys beginning around age 6 that marks their transition from the world of women and household to the larger community as adult men. In the ﬁrst step of this initiation, front teeth are removed from the lower jaw (and sometimes the upper jaw as well). After that time, boys are expected to move away from their close ties with their mothers and to shun cooperative relations with girls. The boys spend their time with other boys and men and learn the heritage of their family and clan group and to practice self-defense and assume family cattle-care responsibilities. Boys are gradually given ever greater responsibilities for solo tending of cattle and are expected to take responsibility for locating any cattle straying from the family herd. A second step in their initiation into manhood takes place when boys are in mid-adolescence, usually around age 15. At that time, following endorsement by the boy’s father to proceed with this second-stage initiation, an elder who is skilled in the ceremony cuts several lines into the boy’s forehead, which then marks him as an initiated man. Just as with their ﬁrst initiation, these young men are expected to endure the pain of the knife by demonstrating emotional restraint and not showing signs of pain. Initiated men are then expected to take part in the defense of their family’s wealth and the village’s political cohesion, as well as to court, marry, and have children, eventually becoming group elders.

From Boyhood to Manhood and the Impact of the Southern Trek Many of the Lost Boys have an incomplete, tenuous relationship with the traditional rites and roles for men in their natal society. Fleeing their village as children or adolescents, most had taken part in the ﬁrst initiation

12

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

stage, but smaller numbers had been formally initiated as men via the second-stage ritual. Most boys had missed these second-stage rites because of the timing of their ﬂight. However, as documented by anthropologist Sharon Hutchinson (1996), who studied the Nuer intensively during the 1980’s and 1990’s, these men were growing up in a time of social change within southern Sudanese societies in which the signiﬁcance of scariﬁcation rites had come into question. Based on assumptions about the impact of the colonial history of Sudan, it was presumed that these practices were questioned following the inﬂuence of Christian missionaries or educated (“Westernized”) Africans who questioned participation in these “pagan” initiation ceremonies. However, Hutchinson (1996) suggests that the move away from this multistage initiation ritual may have resulted from the waning pressure for marks showing group afﬁliation among a group of younger men within the western Nuer and then began to spread throughout the group as a whole. It should be noted that the Sudanese masculinity script of the Lost Boys was not strictly traditional, both because of their early departure and because of cultural modernization. Although it appears from interviews with these boys that most would have experienced full traditional initiation rites leading to scariﬁcation if they had not been forced to ﬂee their homeland, the importance of these rites was already being questioned throughout the young men’s groups of origin. Whether because of changes in local initiation practices or exemption from continued traditional initiations, these young men expressed mixed feelings about changes in the expected path to manhood and loss of a visible mark of group identity. Only a small number of these young men bore the marks of their clans, and many have replaced teeth removed years ago during initiation rites prior to their ﬂight from their native land. On the one hand, the scars are considered an unnecessary relic from a past time, while on the other hand, they may still be regarded as a sign of manhood by a prospective bride in East Africa and for this reason retain their traditional signiﬁcance.

THE STUDY GROUP The Lost Boys relocated to large cities in the American Southwest and Midwest between the ages of 19 and 22. At the time of the focus groups conducted for this study, they had lived in the United States for almost three years. One of us (Smith) has worked for several years with Lost Boys in these two communities. Selected from the group living in the southwestern United States who are less geographically dispersed than Lost Boys living in other communities, young men were invited to take

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

13

part in several ﬁeld interviews and two focus groups devoted to a discussion of masculinity in East Africa and the United States. These men were asked about contrasting cultural scripts of masculinity in their homeland and in American society, and how they were reconciling these two cultural accounts of masculinity. The focus-group method has been somewhat neglected as a method for obtaining evidence in social science study (Greenbaum, 1998; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1993, 1996). Generally, a target group of participants is identiﬁed, often through self-nomination, and invited to spend about an hour and a half discussing one or more topics deﬁned by the moderator. The audiotape of the discussion is then transcribed and its content analyzed using the qualitative analysis method. The advantages of the focus-group method include the opportunity for elaboration of particular topics as group members discuss this topic among themselves or react to each other’s opinions. As they discuss the topic, the subtleties involved in the topic become apparent. As these men discussed their childhood and resettlement, they often corrected each other, noting points of agreement and disagreement, sifting the evidence in order to arrive at an account corresponding in more respects with their experiences growing up in southern Sudan. Overall, it is less important that the group arrive at agreement than it is that we understand the factors that might account for divergence in opinion. These explanatory factors may become further apparent when considered in light of subsequent life story interviewing with the respondents and the observations provided by ethnographic study. In the present study, transcriptions of the audio recordings were coded following the guidelines provided by Lieblich, Truval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998), whereby a holistic content analysis focused on themes of masculinity and relations between men and women in the southern Sudan and the United States. Transcriptions were also coded using Stewart and Shamdasani’s (1990) method, whereby they were reviewed for themes salient to the questions posed for this paper. These three questions were: (1) How did focus-group participants understand the cultural script for masculinity and American culture? (2) How did the men compare the American masculine script with that in the Sudan? (3) What were participants’ concerns about the relationships between men and women in contemporary urban American society and relations between men and women in the Sudan? The themes related to these questions were reviewed in the context of participants’ age at the time of leaving the Sudan and stage in the initiation process prior to departure. Older boys would have had greater opportunity to assume family responsibilities so important in the Sudanese family as evidence for initiation into manhood.

14

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

CONTRASTING SUDANESE AND AMERICAN CULTURAL SCRIPTS OF MASCULINITY The focus groups and interviews provided a fascinating comparative view of men’s roles in relationships in Nilotic and American societies. Emerging from the young men’s reports were real and important mismatches between the customs of their new society and their preexisting scripts for key relationships, including both sexual/dating/courting relationships and also the father-son relationship. Following from social scripting theory (Gagnon & Simon, 1973), gender scripts among these men reﬂect their uncertainty about new ways of marking manhood in both East African and American societies. As a consequence of changing contexts, the experiences of the young men we talked to reveal considerable confusion about interpersonal relationships in America and ambivalence for developing new scripts on the basis of experiences that do not match the script ideals they had learned in childhood before their ﬂight from their homeland.

The Southern Sudanese Ethic of Masculine Responsibility and Feminine Deference Like the college seniors interviewed by Komarovsky (1976), these young men ﬁnd themselves coming of age during the continued emergence of American women into the workforce and the rippling effects of this change on the roles and relations of the sexes. These changes afford women “too much freedom” for some of these young men, whose traditional gender script for women does not include work outside of the house or ﬁnancial/ material independence. The new roles for American women conﬂict with the young men’s cultural scripts for relating to women. According to the gender scripting in which they were socialized, women should be deferent to men, responsible for the children and home, and above all faithful to their marriages and children. Men, on the other hand, were expected to protect their wealth and family through force or reasoned argument, and, by exercising their responsibility as elder leaders, voice their opinion in the affairs of the village and clan. Above all, however, a man should take responsibility for providing for his family, whatever is needed. As a husband, in the words of one Dinka man: You don’t care about yourself much. You care about your family’s life. If I have my t-shirt and my son doesn’t have it, I can give my son my t-shirt. Then I will ﬁnd another one somewhere. That’s how it is, you don’t take care of yourself. Your wife will take of you, and you take care of your family. That is what they say.

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

15

The men participating in this study believed that a good man should dedicate himself to his family, even to the point of selﬂessness. This is how he earns the respect of his extended family and his village, the devotion of his children, the faithfulness of his wife in love, and her faith in his ability to direct family affairs. Women were expected to defer to husbands, fathers, uncles, and other elders in Nuer and Dinka culture. It was through this deference that women earn respect in the family and in society. The young men in the study did indeed note times when a man must defer to his wife. According to one young man, when a man makes a mistake, his wife may call him on it. He must listen, see his fault, and assure her he will not repeat the mistake. This theme of men’s accountability to their wives is congruent with a Dinka origin myth, as relayed by a Dinka woman and scholar at a recent conference on the Lost Boys (Duany, 2004). According to the myth, the creator informs the Dinka man of the limits of his authority and his wife’s role: “You will do all and make all of the decisions. But when you make a mistake, she will be the ﬁrst to criticize you.” Women may not be on the “front lines” (of family affairs or the current Sudanese political scene) but that does not mean southern Sudanese women are not knowledgeable and active observers. When a man makes a mistake (assumed to be inevitable), women are standing right behind him ready to hold him accountable. The correspondence of the notions of deference and respect is important because the young men in this study experience a discomforting lack of female deference for men in the American cultural script and as a consequence feel confused about whether American women warrant their respect. However, judging from their reports, the young men do not seem overly threatened by women possessing and expressing power in relation to them. (As we have seen with the creation myth, there are appropriate times for men and women to express power in relationships.) Rather, the young men here expressed discomfort in women’s freedom from responsibility to their families, faithfulness to their husbands, and their perceived lack of respect for the husbands’ role in the family, that of provider. For these young men, the cultural scripts for women and men meet in marriage and family affairs, and the picture of southern Sudanese masculinity that emerged from the current study is a masculinity of responsibility—to family and society. Boys initially learn this concept of masculine responsibility as they begin to undertake the role of herder for the family’s cattle. From that time on, they will have to demonstrate to their fathers and uncles that they are responsible by showing that they can carry out their duties at the camp, retrieve lost cattle, train their younger brothers in the ways of the camp, at times run the camp without their father’s guidance, and settle disputes that arise in camp. In this way, young men have to convince their father and uncles that they are ready

16

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

for initiation into manhood, and, once they have courted prospective wives, they must convince their fathers that they are ready to live independently and are deserving of their fathers’ economic support to do so. Throughout these steps, sons express their manhood via responsibility to family, and because family ties are extensive in the village, they have practiced responsibility to village and to society. If young men continue to gain respect beyond the family, they may one day be responsible for the village or possibly beyond as a headman of a clan. When marriage is proposed in these societies, it is a marriage of two families. Uncles and aunts busily look into the background of the prospective family-in-law, garnering a family history and assessing the family’s reputation among their neighbors. Divorce is rare in these societies, and its possibility should emerge during the background check. A woman’s family looks into the wealth of the man’s family, but just as important they look into the father’s history of responsibility and, as much as possible, that of the son as well. How this man will provide for his family remains a central question throughout their research. If a family decides that their daughter should marry the man, they will have assured themselves that the man and his family can and will provide for their daughter and her children. The unwritten marriage pact will promise his provision in exchange for her management of the house and attendance to his and their children’s needs. The different picture the young men encounter following their resettlement in America is perplexing for them. Young American men leave the house without proving to their family that they are men. “Eighteen and out (of the household)” seems like a poor substitute to the Lost Boys. These men wonder how it can be that men can be prepared to leave their family at such a young age without the ﬁnancial support of their fathers. In traditional southern Sudanese culture, when a young man prepares to marry and begin a family, his father gives him a signiﬁcant portion of his own herd as the basis for the young man’s realization of his full manhood as a householder. Furthermore, American men seem to enter relationships before demonstrating their ability to be responsible to the family. Above all, women seem to enter and leave relationships foolhardily, and the ease with which they appear to leave relationships, compared with their Sudanese counterparts, is at best ridiculous and at worst threatening to these young men.

Masculinity Misunderstood: Relations Between Sudanese Men and American Women Ultimately, the perspective of the young Sudanese man on intimate relations with women in America may be characterized by a sense of

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

17

decreased security in such relationships and increased anxiety about performance in and maintenance of relationships with women. One young Dinka man spoke nervously about the potential for women in America to cheat on their partners: Here in America the ladies have the power and they can do whatever they want. When you go to work, a lady can call the man she wants, and then she can bring him to her house. And, when you come without calling the house, then you will be in trouble. She can tell you, “why do you not call me ﬁrst?”

For these young men, dating outside of courtship, breaking up, and cheating may be more than a bruise to their self-esteem; rather, it seems to challenge their script for relations between men and women and the pact southern Sudanese women and men make in marriage. In the minds of these young men, what most American women offer fails to match their own offer of devotion to the support of the family. “[I]n Africa, love is not a joke. To say I love you and then to break up—that one is not there.” Southern Sudanese manhood is measured to a great extent by a man’s responsibility to family. In this way, the young southern Sudanese men in this study hold a unique perspective on the roles of men and the measure of manhood characterized by the development of responsibility to wives, family, and society. The men in this study know they are men because they have developed this ethic of and capacity for responsibility. The development of this masculine script of responsibility is an essential element in the course of life among southern Sudanese men. This cultural gender script facilitates a shift from the predominantly male social world to intimate relations with women. Although this return to intimacy with women might otherwise result in a return of ambivalent feelings toward women—resulting from a separation from their mothers and the correlative loss of their primary identiﬁcation with women (Whiting, 1960)—the script of responsibility mediates between feelings of vulnerability toward women and the man’s performance of his role as husband and father. Thus, the development of this script catalyzes intimate relationships with women that will last throughout the man’s life. Like San Blas (Brandes, 1981) and Sambian men (Herdt, 1981, 1999), southern Sudanese men view sexual relations as potentially dangerous for men. According to reports provided by our focus group participants, a young adolescent or an overly sexual man runs the risk of stunted growth, becoming addicted to sex, and the sapping of his energy. We were told that even an initiated man of 15 or 16 years old

18

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

might not be completely grown and might be vulnerable to suffering from sexual relations with women. Physically, he would be able to have sex, but it would at least “be advisable not to have too much.” A 21-year-old, on the other hand, has become a “gentleman” and, now with the “skills to be a good husband” and good standing in the community, is eligible to get married, even “shop around” for a wife and “chase a lot of girls.” When a man is grown, like this hypothetical man, he is mature physically and psychologically. His mood and thinking change; sex with his wife may be a challenge to his energy if he has too much, but with discipline he can deal with it. These southern Sudanese men believe that a man’s wife too can help keep him strong. “She will feed him properly and keep him strong.” Upon her marriage, her aunts will tell her how to take care of her husband based on secrets unknown to the men, (including the men participating in this study), and then their husbands will “stand tall.” They will stand in contrast to those husbands who look bad because they have sex and lose energy that goes unreplaced by their wives’ feeding and care. The portrait of relations between men and women provided by these men is one of vulnerability during youth to sexual relationships with women, to be followed by subsiding vulnerability and increased strength of body and mind with age, as well as increased competence and social recognition by one’s local group and neighboring groups. Compared to the vulnerable youth, the “gentleman” has developed the masculine script of responsibility and can enter relationships with women without the insecurity he experienced at a younger age. As the Lost Boys are approaching marrying age, they have shown increasing frustration that American women do not understand their scripts for relations between men and women. In attempts to ﬁnd women to marry who share their ideas about sex relations, several young men have either returned to East Africa or begun to communicate by phone with friends and family in order to arrange marriage to a Sudanese woman from an appropriate family. Although another possibility for some is marriage to Sudanese girls living in the United States, at least two factors have made this an unlikely scenario. First of all, the SudaneseAmerican community counts only 89 “Lost Girls” in the United States to date, compared to the approximately 3,800 Lost Boys in America. A second factor reducing the chances for a marriage between resettled young Sudanese men and women is the perception some of the young men have of their young women counterparts. Many of the Lost Boys believe that these Sudanese women have changed their dress and lost their Sudanese ways as they adopt the American cultural script of femininity.

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

19

LOOKING TOWARD MIDDLE AND LATER LIFE As these men navigate the course to later life, they will be challenged to measure their achievements in relation to both southern Sudanese and contemporary American models for the appropriate or ideal course of a man’s life, which these men will encounter and appropriate. We expect that throughout middle life these young men will have to contend with the frustrations resulting from being (in their perceptions) late, or off time developmentally (Neugarten, 1979). Although in some exceptional cases, these young men have received postsecondary degrees, it will be several years before most ﬁnish their education, initiate careers, and are thus able to marry and provide for a family. We expect these men may come to sense that they are late and off time in reaching these goals and that this sense may cause them to feel particular frustration and urgency. These feelings may bear on their later midlife decisions about education, employment, marriage, and relocation, and otherwise play a key role in these men’s evaluation and direction of their lives, potentially casting a negative shadow on these men’s self-evaluation and esteem.

Marriage in America Because the script of responsibility plays a mediating role for these men between their mixed feelings toward women and their performance as husbands, their marriages may depend on ﬁnding women who can underwrite their script of masculine responsibility. Although it may be possible for many of these men to make modest compromises regarding differences in roles, we do not expect their example to be adopted by urbanAmerican groups, who possess different scripts for masculinity. Now that they live in the United States, their ideals for gender relations will be interpreted by others in light of ideals for gender equity that have entered into much of mainstream American society. What for the Lost Boys is a logical division of roles in the family may be seen by women (and other men) they encounter in America to be unfair and antiquated, indeed “backward,” notions about gender relations and especially the role of women in the family and society. To the educated elite in America, Sudanese attitudes about gender differences and relations are interpreted as both benevolent and hostile forms of sexism, whereby respect given to women who demonstrate deference to husbands, along with explicit subordination of women, only reinforces their subordinate role in the family. However, to other American subgroups, including other immigrant and minority groups, the southern Sudanese script of masculine responsibility is consistent with their gender ideals. Indeed, these men’s masculine script is reminiscent of American subtypes of masculinity, in which the good

20

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

husband and father is viewed in his family and the wider community as a good man, what Nock (1998) has called the “good provider” and, similarly, Huyck’s (1994) “family man,” whose identity is based on his family’s prosperity. The script these men have for relations with women results from socialization in societies that value fertility and divided labor in the family and conceive of gender differences as natural and rationally justiﬁable. We believe gender scripts are also hard to unlearn even for those men who may have relatively high assimilation ideals, and these scripts are, as we have argued, crucial to their understanding of themselves in relation to women and other men. For this reason, we expect the Lost Boys to marry women who can interpret their enactments of the role of provider in a way consistent with the Lost Boys’ intention to enact what we have labeled a masculinity of responsibility. We expect that marriage outside of the realm of shared meaning about manhood and the husband’s role would result in uncertainty for the man about his masculine identity and undesirable feelings of ambivalence toward women. However, because of the difﬁculties presented by relations with the majority of American women, marriage to southern Sudanese women living in East African countries (e.g., Sudan, Kenya, and Uganda) has been a prevailing choice among marrying Lost Boys up to this point in their resettlement. These marriages are available to resettled men who have current ties to family in these East African countries but also depend on the ability of the young man (in collaboration with these family members) to provide the appropriate bridewealth (in cattle or cash equivalent) to the prospective in-laws. An additional constraint is the man’s ability to arrange for his wife to stay with relatives in Africa (per the norms of patrilocality) or come with him to the United States. (We know of no cases in which men have returned to East Africa and relinquished refugee status to live with wives.) Bringing wives to the United States will be facilitated as these men begin to attain citizenship status in the next 2 to 3 years. The longer they live and work in the United States, the more their ability to pay bridewealth to make a traditional marriage will increase. But so will their acculturation to American marital patterns and exposure to American groups whose scripts for manhood overlap to varying degrees with their own. Over time, the role of timing of resettlement in the life course relative to the ideal time for marriage will become increasingly apparent as a factor refracting the experience of marriage.

Parenthood in America As the Lost Boys look forward to middle and later life in American bourgeois society, they are challenged with further negotiation of the contrasting

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

21

cultural scripts for manhood and for relations with others. As these young men increasingly become fathers, we expect that they will have to negotiate the father-son and father-daughter relationship in a way that remains meaningful for them as Sudanese Americans and for their children as second-generation Americans. In the Sudan, fathers show their love by permitting their sons to pass through the rites of manhood and by giving them a portion of cattle sufﬁcient to enable sons’ independence. These new American fathers must ﬁnd new ways of enabling manhood for their sons by passing on social resources (such as education), while at the same retaining the meaning of fatherly love—at least akin to the meaning they learned as boys. Furthermore, in later life, these new American fathers may retain strong expectations for support from their children, most especially their sons, who reciprocate fatherly love (and inheritance) with care in the later years of passive mastery (Gutmann, 1987). The southern Sudanese men in this study view this intergenerational equity as the primary beneﬁt of having children. Similarly, the meaning of coming of age for a daughter will have to be renegotiated among these ﬁrst-generation American fathers. Because of patrilocality and rules of bridewealth among the southern Sudanese, the daughter’s marriage is a strongly punctuated, ceremonially celebrated, and ﬁnancially signiﬁcant rite for not only the woman but also the family. The family is formally repaid for the long-term economic support and moral guidance they provided for their daughter. How these fathers maintain the signiﬁcance of the father-daughter relationship, understanding the ceremonialism of the giving of a daughter and maintaining the role of supporter and moral mentor of their daughters, will be signiﬁcant for their sense of accomplishment as parents. Because of the importance of the family for society in southern Sudan, we expect that how they negotiate their roles as parents may have implications for their evaluation of their citizenship in the larger community. We believe these differences will challenge the understanding these men have of aging, family relations, and major adult roles and obligations, all of which have important implications for how these men will understand and experience themselves and essential others in their lives.

RECONSIDERING TRADITIONAL AMERICAN MASCULINE GENDER SCRIPTS Social change in American society over the past several decades has led to signiﬁcant alteration of the traditional American masculine gender script, which had emphasized individual autonomy and achievement together with the use of means-ends rationality and avoidance of feelings. This gender

22

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

script founded on autonomy has been challenged by one emanating from the women’s movement, which stresses interdependence. Founded both on scholarly critiques such as those of Gilligan (1982) and popular accounts by such feminist critics as Friedan (1974) and Steinem (1995), as well as those of men who seek a change in American traditional masculine gender scripts such as Pleck (1981, 1995), a revised gender script for men has emerged that emphasizes the importance of relationships for personal fulﬁllment. This alternative perspective on masculine gender scripts also suggests a new approach to the socialization of boys and young men that encourages the expression of feelings and acknowledges a sense of vulnerability. This perspective stems from what Pollack (1999) has termed the “boy code,” which fosters a masculine gender script emphasizing toughness, autonomy, stoicism, and rigid self-control, including avoidance of feelings. This change in the traditional masculine gender script has created a renewed sense of uncertainty and vulnerability among men in American society about relations with women and expectations within the family and workplace. This uncertainty is well reﬂected in Komarovsky’s (1976) account of men in an elite college who found themselves in a dilemma regarding their relations with women. This dilemma is further highlighted in comparative study of men such as those in Komarovsky’s (1976) study and men resettled from a traditional culture such as that of the Sudan. Recent feminist critiques have led masculinity research to question the view of masculinity as autonomy and replaced this notion with the possibility of a masculinity deﬁned by interdependence (Chodorow, 1999; Gilligan, 1982). The feminist movement in the social sciences and humanities has had a signiﬁcant impact on revising the cultural script of both masculinity and femininity in American society. However, feminist perspectives may have polarized discussion of the place of men and women in society and also may have overlooked changes taking place in both men and women across the years of middle and later life (Coltrane, 1994; Hearn & Collinson, 1994). Gutmann (1987) has shown that as men enter later life they often become more nurturant and less concerned with success, work, and career. However, as women enter midlife, for mothers most often reﬂecting the end of active parenting, they become somewhat less concerned with issues of caregiving and relationships and focus more on success at work and on the “executive” rather than “affective” role in family and community. Much of the scholarly discussion of gender scripts in American culture overlooks this adult developmental perspective. The view of masculinity that has emerged from this study of southern Sudanese men resettled in the United States complicates Western scholarly perspectives on masculinity (Pleck, 1995). These men offer a

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

23

third alternative to the cultural scripts of autonomy or interdependence characteristic of American society, that of the “ethic of responsibility,” which incorporates elements both of masculine authority and also concern with family and interdependence in relationships with both men (especially fathers and uncles) and women (especially wives). These men are explicit about the dilemma of living in a culture that pays little heed to concepts of masculine responsibility and feminine deference characteristic of their family and culture. While recognizing that the American cultural script regarding the roles of men and women stresses the independence of women, the ethic of responsibility endorsed by these men emphasizes the importance for both men and women of their commitment to family and community. These men believe that personal choice may be less important in realizing a satisfying life than concern for the welfare of their kin group. Southern Sudanese men embed this ethic of responsibility within the context not only of interpersonal relations but also of the patrilineal family as well. Fathers determine when their sons are ready for the second-stage initiation that precedes selection of a wife and creation of a new family. Sons are expected to be responsible to their fathers and their families from the time they begin as young children to look after the cattle and to account each evening for each member of the herd. Sons earn their fathers’ respect by showing responsibility, which then earns them the right to attain second-stage initiation and assumption of the role of adult man. Men are expected to take care of their wives; failure to provide for this new family earns the wife the right to appeal to her husband’s father for such support. In these circumstances the wife’s kinsmen can demand return of the dowry, which would be humiliating for both families.

CONCLUSION This comparative study of masculine cultural scripts in American and Sudanese societies supports Komarovsky’s (1976) report regarding the dilemma expressed by men in her study, who were trying to accommodate to a changing script of masculinity. Furthermore, it is consistent with many aspects of the critiques of students of masculinity such as Kimmel (1987), Pleck (1995), Pollack (1999), and Kindlon and Thompson (1999), who have documented how boys learned this traditional masculine gender script and also the cost in terms of lowered morale and role strain and stress resulting from adopting the American gender script. Cultural scripts such as those regarding masculinity cannot easily be generalized beyond a traditional historical and geographic setting.

24

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

However, critiques such as the one posed by the Lost Boys offer an important additional means for understanding the changing American gender script, which, as these young men perceive it, is characterized by American men’s lack of responsibility in relations with women and contributions to the family. Furthermore, these young men emphasize the significance of the man’s own family in fostering a masculine gender script, based on a concept of responsibility, in effect suggesting a means for reconciling conﬂicting theoretical perspectives on masculine gender scripts based either on an ethic of autonomy or one of interdependence. REFERENCES Bettelheim, B. (1954). Symbolic wounds. New York: Free Press/Macmillan. Brandes, S. (1981). Like wounded stags: Male sexual ideology in an Andalusian town. In S. B. Ortner & H. Whitehead (Eds.), Sexual meanings: The cultural construction of gender and sexuality (pp. 166–191, 216–239). New York: Cambridge University Press. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Chodorow, N. (1999). The power of feelings: Personal meaning in psychoanalysis, gender and culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Coltrane, S. (1994). Theorizing masculinity in contemporary social science. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 36–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Duany, J. A. (August, 2004). “The Lost Girls Discussion. The Lost Boys and Girls National Conference and Reunion,” Phoenix, AZ. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer: A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. New York: Oxford University Press. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951). Kinship and marriage among the Nuer. New York: Oxford University Press. Friedan, B. (1974). The feminine mystique. (10th Anniversary Edition). New York: W. W. Norton. Gagnon, J., & Simon, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Greenbaum, T. L. (1998). The handbook for focus group research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gregor, T. (1985). Anxious pleasures: The sexual life of an Amazonian people. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gutmann, D. (1987). Reclaimed powers: Toward a new psychology of men and women in later life. New York: Basic Books.

The Dilemma of Masculinity and Culture

25

Hearn, J., & Collinson, D. L. (1994). Theorizing unities and differences between men and between masculinities. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp. 97–118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Herdt, G. (1981/1994). Guardians of the ﬂutes. (Volume 1: Idioms of masculinity.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herdt, G. (1999). Sambia sexual culture: Essays from the ﬁeld. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hutchinson, S. (1996). Nuer dilemmas: Coping with money, war, and the state. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Huyck, M. H. (1995). “Marriage and Close Relationships of the Marital Kind.” In R. Blieszner & V. H. Bedford (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the family (pp. 181–200). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Kimmel, M. S. (1987). Rethinking “masculinity”: New directions in research. In M. S. Kimmel (Ed.). Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (1999). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York: Ballentine Books. Komarovsky, M. (1976). Dilemmas of masculinity: A study of college youth. New York: W.W. Norton. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lieblich, A., Truval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative analysis: Reading, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mead, M. (1949/2001). Male and female. New York: Perennial/HarperCollins. Morgan, D. L. (1993). (Ed.). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129–152. Munroe, R. L., Munroe, R. H.,& Whiting, J. W. M. (1981). Male sex role resolution. In R. L. Munroe, R. H. Munroe & B. B. Whiting (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural human development (pp. 611–632). New York: Garland Press. Neugarten, B. L. (1979). Time, age and the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 887–894. Nock, S. (1998). Marriage in men’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press. Parsons, A. (1969). Belief, magic and anomie: Essays in psychosocial anthropology. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe and Macmillan. Pleck, J.H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm. In R. F. Levant and W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–33). New York: Perseus Books Group. Pollack, W. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing American sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Henry Holt/Owl Books. Simon, W. (1996). Postmodern sexualities. New York: Routledge. Steinem, G. (1995). Outrageous acts and everyday rebellions (2nd ed.). New York: Henry Holt.

26

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 20). Wallace, A. F. C. (2003). Revitalizations and mazeways: Essays on culture change. (Ed. R. S. Grumet) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Whiting, J. W. M. (1960). Resource mediation and learning by identiﬁcation. In I. Iscoe & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Personality and development in children (pp. 112–126). Austin: University of Texas Press.

CHAPTER 2

Men and Their Wives: Why Are Some Married Men Vulnerable at Midlife? Margaret Hellie Huyck and David Leo Gutmann

Being married is associated with better health and longevity for men and women (Earle, Smith, Harris, & Longino, 1997; Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Comparing large groups of individuals, the patterns of marital advantage seem clear. However, some married men are vulnerable to normal changes in the marriage relationship during the middle years. The general shifts in work and family roles are well documented, and sometimes these can pose problems. However, some of the problematic issues are related to gender—how marriage partners deﬁne and experience themselves as masculine and feminine, and how concepts of masculinity and femininity shift over the adult life course. We will report on research in “Parkville” designed to explore the relationships between experiences of marriage and gender, emotional well-being, and sociodemographic characteristics. The analyses are designed to build a model of understanding the adaptive strengths and vulnerabilities of married Euro-American midlife and “third age” men in America. “Midlife” in our model is likely to extend from the 40’s through the mid- or late 50’s. Middle-aged men in our society are presumably at the peak of career achievement and concerns. Fathers are often involved in launching children into adulthood (although some men may be parenting a second batch of younger children). As men thinking of retirement move into less intense career/work involvement and step back from 27

28

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

parental responsibilities, they enter into what has been termed the third (or young/old) age of adulthood (Neugarten, 1974). Our focus here is not on the work transitions, although they may certainly affect wellbeing. The focus here is on transformations in parental and marital dispositions, particularly as they affect gendered personality styles. Gender refers to all the social and psychological sequelae of sexual differentiation. The development of gender schemas is addressed well by contemporary cognitive theories. These explain how the general cognitive processes operate to use sex as one of the earliest categorizing variables. Once persons are sorted into a category of male or female, all other processing about characteristics is done within existing frameworks of understanding about that category (Cross & Markus, 1993). These basic cognitive orientations lead persons not only to stereotype on the basis of minimal cues but also to act in ways that evoke the expected behaviors (Geis, 1993). Although cognitive schemas do change as a result of repeated instances of poor ﬁt between expectations and reality, change is difﬁcult because new experiences are selectively perceived and interpreted from the perspective of the initial frameworks. Cognitive theory is useful in describing the process by which gender schemas are formed and changed, but it does not offer much insight about the content of gender schemas, nor about their meaning for the developing individual. Sociocultural and psychodynamic theorists have offered perspectives about the content of gender schemas. Many of the experiences available to the child and adult are shaped by culture. Culture includes all the shared beliefs about what is natural, desirable, and permissible for males and females; the social structures developed to implement those beliefs; and the various symbols used to convey the beliefs. The cultural beliefs may change over time. For example, Michael Kimmel (1996), in his cultural history of manhood in America, points out that the “self-made man” was the unquestioned masculine ideal of American culture from 1776 to about 1865, but that a clear and shared standard of masculinity has been lost in recent decades. Also, Kimmel argues that men continue to deﬁne themselves as masculine, and thereby acceptable, in reference to other men. The approval of women is important but largely as a by-product; the acceptability by other men is more central in shaping deﬁnitions of masculinity. However, another perspective is offered by David Gutmann (1987/1994, 1998), who takes an evolutionary and psychodynamic perspective on the trajectories of gender across the life course. He argues that, across the human range, men and women in all cultures experience a profound psychic reorganization in early adulthood and again in later life. Carl Jung (1933) ﬁrst identiﬁed these transitions on the basis of clinical evidence; Gutmann was the ﬁrst to study them empirically in the

Men and Their Wives

29

United States and other cultures. Across traditional and modernizing societies, the qualities that are considered to reﬂect “core masculinity” are more evident among younger men (roughly under 55) and less so among older men, who shift toward more “feminine” orientations. Gutmann linked the observed shifts to universal demands imposed by “the parental emergency,” a normative crisis that drives the development of the gender-speciﬁc qualities required by parental roles. Thus, urged by the “parental imperative” (Gutmann, 1987), both parents repress those aspects of themselves that would interfere with their ability to nurture dependent, vulnerable children. Men typically repress the “softness” that would compromise their responsibility for physical security; mothers, who provide emotional security, repress the aggression that could put their children at psychological risk and drive away the provident husband. But as the children mature and take over the responsibility for their own physical and emotional security, parents can “reclaim” those aspects of themselves they had repressed in response to the parental imperative. For men, this change typically involves acknowledging their own reliance on a loving relationship, usually with their wives, and being more willing to compromise to preserve the conjugal tie. For many men, it also involves becoming more openly emotional and nurturing; for some it may mean becoming more passive and dependent, as when they were young boys. For women, the shift typically involves becoming more assertive and less guilty about it. Gutmann describes this change as a shift toward androgyny or unisex at midlife. This ﬁnding, conﬁrmed by a number of independent investigators, tells us that the senior person may transcend the limitations of his or her assigned gender (Jung, 1933; Gutmann, 1987/1994). However, transcending one’s assigned gender may be difﬁcult because of unconscious meanings attached to “other gender” qualities and/or because others continue to expect or even insist on a more genderstereotyped view (Huyck, 1994, 1995). The evidence from cognitiveschema research means that a person is rarely, if ever, perceived simply as a person, gender unspeciﬁed. Even if a man experiences himself consciously without reference to a particular sex or gender, others persist in interpreting his behavior in terms of his sexual category and responding in terms of that perception.

POSITIVE RESPONSES TO GENDER SHIFTS A substantial self-help literature promises women (particularly) and men (less convincingly) that transcending gender restrictions and incorporating qualities they associate with the “other” gender has many rewards.

30

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

The consequences of such shifts are often described in very positive terms as a shift toward wholeness. However, the outcomes are not always positive.

Gender-Linked Change Perceived as Threat Gutmann and his colleagues and students at Northwestern Medical School carefully studied late-onset clinical psychopathologies over a period of some 20 years (Gutmann, Grunes, & Grifﬁn 1982; Gutmann 1990). The patients usually had dealt with earlier threats and pressures that seem objectively much worse than the challenges they described when hospitalized. However, they became depressed by changes in themselves, or their spouses, that attacked their sense of being unambiguously “masculine” (for the men) or “feminine” (for the women). As Gutmann et al. studied these patients in depth, it became clear that the stress was subjectively determined, having to do with the private meanings of midlife changes, and their current vulnerability arose from earlier developmental derailments. The patterns identiﬁed for women are not as relevant for this chapter as those for the men. The researchers identiﬁed two major patterns among men who are predisposed to have difﬁculty with midlife gender transitions: dystonic dependent men and syntonic dependent men. The dystonic dependent older men typically recalled weak or psychologically absent fathers and powerful, sometimes destructively aggressive mothers. They blamed the overpowering mother for gutting the father. In reaction, swearing that they would never suffer their father’s shameful fate, these men typically married kindly, biddable, even adoring women—the perceived opposites of their intimidating mothers. Often they describe a history of preserving their tenuous sense of masculinity by taking risks and demonstrating that they were not like their cowardly fathers, and that their wives were clearly the women in their households. But as the gender shifts of the postparental years render them milder and toughen their wives, these men become disturbed: Their father’s traumatic fate at the hands of a powerful, “demasculinizing” wife is being repeated. Among the men who showed up in the psychiatric clinic, they often showed shame-avoiding paranoid sensitivities (“people say I’m gay”) and suicidal attempts to kill off the weak, corrupted, “female” part of themselves. The syntonic dependent older men among the hospitalized patients were typically the youngest sons of aging parents, and they reported early memories of a blissful, almost symbiotic union with a mother who was omnipresent and indulging. The fathers were recalled as relatively unimportant and emotionally unavailable. They did not show the usual struggle to disengage from being the “mother’s child” in a larger “father’s” world. Instead, as adults they maintained the maternal bond through dependent liaisons with mothering persons. Usually, these were their nurturing yet

Men and Their Wives

31

managerial wives. As they moved into their postparental years, they expected to occupy the ﬁlial niche that their launching children had left empty. However, many of their wives changed to become more autonomous and self-assertive; most were no longer interested in being motherly—especially toward a husband. The husband’s response was often a sense of abandonment, often expressed in depression and psychosomatic symptoms, which they attributed to changes in the wife as the children departed the home.

QUESTIONS FOR THESE ANALYSES The research summarized brieﬂy above prompted the analysis of a special data set to see what patterns would emerge in an American community (rather than clinical) sample. More speciﬁcally, we asked: 1a. How do men and women experience gender? 1b. What characteristics are associated with different experiences of gender? 2. How do men and women experience long-term marriage? 3. What husbands are most vulnerable to marital stress in later-life marriages? Some of these questions have been partially analyzed and reported on previously; others have not. We are drawing on an intensive study of middle-aged couples in midwestern Parkville.

METHOD Participants The primary respondents for this study included 107 European-American men, aged 43–76; all were in marriages of substantial duration (mean 32 years), with relatively large families (mean 4.4 children). The data for this report were drawn from a larger study of 150 young-adult children and their middle-aged parents, all recruited from a random selection of graduates of a public high school in Parkville. Parkville is a middle-class community outside a major midwestern metropolitan city. The sample for the original study was deliberately selected to include the most geographically and psychologically stable families. A random sample of graduates of three high school classes was drawn, and a letter describing the project was sent to the parents. A telephone interview followed to elicit information about the family. Families were invited to participate if (a) the son

32

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

or daughter selected was living within 2 hours of the parental home, and (b) if it seemed likely that the father, mother, and young-adult child would agree to participate. Even after this initial screening, a few families were dropped because one of the family members showed evidence of serious mental illness. Overall, 65% of the eligible families agreed to participate. This analysis is based primarily on responses from the 107 men who agreed to face-to-face interviews about their own lifeways, and secondarily on information from their wives, who comprised the female sample. Demographic characteristics of the men are shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Characteristics of Men in Study (n = 107). Variable

No.

%

Age 44–54 55–64 65–76

39 55 13

36.5 51.5 12.0

Education Post-college College graduate Some college or less

29 29 49

27.7 27.7 44.6

Present (or past if retired) Occupation Executives Managers Administrators Clerical, skilled, unskilled, unemployed

26 23 33 25

24.3 21.5 30.8 23.2

Employment Status Full-time employment Retired Part-time work/school/unemployed

90 11 4

85.7 10.5 3.9

Duration of Current Marriage 22–29 years 30–39 years 40–47 years

35 61 11

32.7 57.0 10.3

Number of Children 1 2–3 4–6 7–11

1 45 48 11

1.0 42.8 45.7 10.6

Current Religion Catholic Protestant Jewish None, other

50 42 3 11

47.2 39.6 2.8 10.4

Men and Their Wives

33

Data-Collection Procedures Data about participants were obtained during four (or ﬁve) data-collection sessions. Initial sociodemographic information about the family members was collected during the ﬁrst telephone interview. If the family met the sampling criteria (e.g., both parents were still alive and married to each other, and the child selected lived within 2 hours of the parental home), they were invited to join the study. When a family agreed to participate, the parents were invited to a group session where the study was explained by the primary investigator (Huyck) and a packet of self-report measures was completed; these measures included standardized tests of psychosomatic symptoms, alcohol and drug use, ego development, age norm expectations, and personality. The personality test incorporated measures of masculinity and femininity. Questionnaires were counterbalanced (presented in varying orders) to control for possible order effects. Parents also participated in two separate semi-structured personal, faceto-face interviews: the Transitions Interview explored their relationship with the study child, and the Life Structure Interview (LSI) explored their own life. Two Thematic Apperception (TAT) cards were administered at each interview. The LSI was typically administered in two sessions, each lasting 2 to 4 hours. The interview covered the domains of (in order discussed) personal health, spouse’s health, work, marriage, parenting in general, ﬁlial relationships, early history, religion, leisure, and gender. Questions within each domain focused on the kinds of gratiﬁcations and strains experienced, strategies for dealing with strains, and perceived changes. At the end of each interview section, respondents were asked to complete two scales about that domain; one assessed feelings of satisfaction, and the other assessed psychological investment in the domain. The analyses reported here draw on both the standardized measures and less structured data collected as part of the LSI, and on the four TAT card responses (two from the Transitions Interview and two from the LSI). To maximize independence of the data, different interviewers were utilized for each person in the family and for each interview; no interviewer talked to both husband and wife of the same conjugal pair. LSI interviewing was done by the principal investigator (Huyck) and by trained (and mature) clinical psychology students. (Huyck interviewed 70 of the 283 midlife respondents.) Most of the data were collected between 1982 and 1985.

Measures A summary of the measures included in this chapter appears in Table 2.2.

34

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

Table 2.2 Measures for Parkville Respondents. Variable

Measure Used

Data Generated

Gender SelfAttributions

PRF-Andro

Total masculinity score (0–27), 3 factor scores Total femininity score (0–27), 3 factor scores

Ego Mastery Style

Ratings of 4 Thematic Apperception Test cards

Active mastery; bimodal toward active; bimodal toward passive; passive/accommodative mastery; magical mastery

Self-Esteem

Rosenberg SE Scale (10 items)

Self-esteem score (10–40)

Sense of Mastery

Pearlin & Schooler Mastery Scale (7 items)

Mastery score (7–28)

Psychosomatic Distress

Derogatis Symptom Check List-90, General Symptom Index

SCL total symptom score (0–360)

Marital Satisfaction

Marital feelings scale (12 items)

Marital satisfaction score (12–48)

Marital Politics

Ratings of LSI marriage interview data

5 styles for wives 9 styles for husbands

Family Age

Ages of children living in the parental home

17 and under; 18–23; 24+ Number of children at home

Social Status

Hollingshead & Redlich Index: Education, Occup.

5-class system identiﬁed from highest to lowest social status for husband

Memorialized Parent Imagery

Ratings of LSI interview data about memories of parents

Generalized regard for mother/father (idealized, realistic positive, ambivalent, negative); Relationship with mother/father (involved positive, involved negative, uninvolved rationalized, uninvolved negative); discipline style of each parent (strict positive, strict negative, lenient positive, lenient negative); parent marital roles (same sex dominant, opposite sex parent dominant, similar roles); parent marital quality (hostile, ambivalent, positive distant, positive involved)

Men and Their Wives

35

Gender-Linked Self-Attributions The packet of measures included a standardized self-report measure, which has been used to measure general dimensions of Masculinity and Femininity, the PRF-Andro Scales (Berzins, Welling, & Wetter, 1978). This measure includes 29 items assessing masculinity and 27 items assessing femininity; these items were embedded in a larger questionnaire including measures for self-esteem and mastery. Total masculinity and total femininity scores were derived from the PRF-Andro measure.

Ego-Mastery Style In the course of his cross-cultural and clinical research, Gutmann developed a scoring system for Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) stories that measures one’s sense of self in relationship. In this coding scheme active mastery is coded when the central character in the story is viewed as directing his own actions and being responsible for either positive or troubling outcomes. Passive/accommodative mastery is coded when the central character is viewed as giving in to the wishes of a more powerful person. Bimodal mastery indicates stories with some evidence of both styles. Magical mastery was coded when there was evidence of disordered thinking. Gutmann has demonstrated, in both cross-sectional and longitudinal data, a general shift in men from active to bimodal and passive mastery during midlife (Gutmann, 1987/1994). In this study, four TAT pictures were used: three from the standard Murray series (boy and violin, drawing on themes of achievement; rope climber, drawing on themes of mastery and accomplishment; and heterosexual conﬂict, drawing on themes of male-female conﬂict and separation). The fourth card was one drawn especially for the Kansas City Studies of Adult Life (Neugarten, 1964), showing an older man and woman and a younger man and woman, usually eliciting themes of intergenerational relations. The coding scheme allowed classiﬁcation of each story in terms of active mastery, bimodal toward active, bimodal toward passive, passive/accommodative mastery, or magical mastery. In these analyses a summary score for all four cards was used, providing a potential range of 4 (for consistent active mastery) to 20 (for consistent magical mastery).

Emotional Well-Being Three standardized self-report measures were collected during the group sessions. Self-esteem was measured with the Rosenberg 10-item SelfEsteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965); sense of mastery was measured by the 7-item mastery scale developed by Pearlin and Schooler (1978); and psychosomatic distress was measured with the General Symptom Index of the Symptom Check List-90 (Derogatis, Rickels, & Rock, 1976).

36

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

Marriage Relationship Two measures of the relationship were used. One was a self-report satisfaction scale consisting of 12 feelings associated with the marriage, answered on a 4-point Likert scale. Total scores have a potential range of 12 (indicating the most negative feelings) to 48 (indicating the most positive feelings). The scale was modiﬁed from scales used by Pearlin and Schooler (1978). Alpha internal reliability was 0.95 for wives and 0.92 for husbands. The second measure was ratings of the Life Structure Interview section dealing with the marriage. Huyck and Gutmann (1992) developed a coding scheme for “marital politics” reﬂecting the perceptions of each partner as to who prevails and by what rationale, particularly when potential for conﬂict exists in the relationship. Data-grounded classiﬁcations were developed separately for men and women by intensive reading of interview protocols. The process of identifying the classiﬁcation schemes presented followed the process McCracken (1988) outlined in his description of qualitative data analysis of interview data. A subset of cases was used to identify themes and styles of responding to marital dilemmas; initial descriptions were modiﬁed as additional cases were considered. Using these processes, ﬁve patterns of marital politics were identiﬁed for women, nine for men. Although each of these patterns reﬂects a particular management of common underlying issues, they are not easily comparable; they are, rather, ﬁrmly rooted in the gender-speciﬁc experiences of the respondents. Five styles were identiﬁed for the wives: (1) patriarchal, conceding authority to the husband; (2) passive management of covert anger; (3) ambivalent overt assertion; (4) unambivalent overt assertion; and (5) matriarchal nurturance. For the husbands, nine different styles were identiﬁed: (1) patriarchal; (2) under pressure; (3) crisis; (4) separate peace; (5) equalitarian; (6) conceding dominance to wife generally; (7) conceding to domineering wife; (8) conceding to wife because of his illness; and (9) seamless union. Both Huyck and Gutmann coded all cases, with differences in initial coding resolved by discussion.

Family Age This variable was indexed by ages of children living in the parental home and was determined in each case by noting the ages and residence of each child in the family. Because of the exploratory nature of these analyses, and because there was no compelling rationale for making ﬁner distinctions, bimodal measures registered whether one or more children or no children in a particular age group were still living at home. Age groups used were 17 and under, 18–23, and 24+.

Men and Their Wives

37

Social Status Indices used in these analyses include measures of employment involvement, occupational status, and level of formal education. Occupation and education were ranked according to the classic Hollingshead and Redlich (1957) system for assessing social status. This measure was included because external status is often found to inﬂuence power relationships within marriage.

Memorialized Parent Imagery Respondents were asked in the LSI interview to reﬂect on what their mother and father were like when the respondent was growing up, and to describe how they got along. These responses were coded for themes of general regard for each parent (idealized, realistic and positive, ambivalent, negative); relationship with each parent (involved and positive, involved and negative, uninvolved and rationalized, uninvolved and negative); discipline style (strict positive, strict negative, lenient positive, lenient negative); parental marital roles (same-sex parent dominant, opposite-sex parent dominant, similar roles); and quality of parental marital relationship (positive involved, positive distant, ambivalent, hostile).

ANALYSES AND RESULTS Gender Self-Attributions and Mental Health The PRF-Andro scales, which provide gender-linked self-attributions, were factor-analyzed, using the total sample, for the masculinity and femininity scales separately. The resulting factor scores were then related to three measures of well-being: self-esteem, sense of mastery, and psychosomatic symptom distress (Huyck, 1991). Not surprisingly, the major factor in masculinity (M.1) reﬂects dominance, with eight statements reﬂecting the willingness and ability to control others, to seek out positions of authority, and to be seen as a forceful leader. The second factor (M.2) includes four statements that indicate a rather rigid autonomy, with the insistence on making decisions and solving problems without consulting others. The third factor (M.3) includes seven items that describe ways in which the individual confronts potential inner fears by embracing opportunities for adventure and even risk. The theme seems to be self-control, particularly over one’s timidity, rather than the interpersonal control expressed in them. Because of the emphasis on overcoming inner inhibitions, this factor seems to represent counterphobic adventure seeking.

38

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

The ﬁrst femininity factor, again not surprisingly, describes the kind of outreaching, nurturing, and caring ministrations stereotypically associated with positive femininity. Because of the strong emphasis on outreach (asking to be of assistance, being the ﬁrst to offer help, etc.) we termed this F.1 factor active nurturing. The second femininity factor, F.2, is quite different. Three items describe the wish to be protected, and more speciﬁcally to have a marriage partner who is more mature and less dependent. This then reﬂects one version of passivity, externalized security, for the recognition that the sources of security are outside the self and that one can openly admit to desiring protection. The third femininity factor, F.3, includes three ways of disavowing what might be considered selﬁsh or petty ill-temper: by protecting a disliked person from ridicule, by tolerating the distress of others, and by going the extra mile to make others happy. These three items load in the positive direction, indicating that the “feminine response,” compassion toward others, is a component of the factor. However, the negative loading of the two additional items of concern for reputation and the opinion of others suggests that persons high on this factor presumably have compassion out of pure goodwill rather than hoping for the esteem or praise of others. The overall sense of F.3 is denial of self-indulgent anger, or of a very strong superego structure that sets high and punitive moral standards against even private violations of its code. Thorough analyses of the Parkville data have been reported elsewhere (Huyck, 1991), but for the purposes of this chapter the ways that this gender measure relates to male mental health should be noted. The self-evaluations reﬂected in measures of self-esteem and mastery are not related systematically to sex, occupational status, or age group. However, well-being measures are linked to gender-linked self-attributions; results are shown in Table 2.3. Self-esteem was positively correlated with total masculinity for men, as were the dominance and counterphobic adventure-seeking factors. The sense of mastery was related to total masculinity and the dominance factor. Total femininity was negatively correlated with sense of mastery for men, reﬂecting the very negative correlations of externalized security and denial of selfindulgence. Symptom distress was positively related to femininity for men, largely reﬂecting the importance of externalized security and denial of self-indulgence (not active nurturing). Symptom distress was negatively related to masculinity. The salience of gender self-attributions for mental health was assessed by using regression analyses to indicate which of the genderfactor scores were signiﬁcant independent predictors of the various mental health scores. Older (over 55) upper-occupational-status men were

Men and Their Wives

39

Table 2.3 Gender-Linked Self-Attributions and Mental Health (correlations).

MASC Dominance Autonomy Adventure FEM Nurturance Security Superego

Men

Women

Self-esteem Mastery

Symptoms Self-esteem Mastery

.42*** .32*** .06 .35** −.19 .21† −.50*** −.23**

.33*** .28** .03 .28 −.23* .10 −.46*** −.20**

−.30*** −.23† −.09 −.23 .25* −.01 .47*** .22**

.38*** .39*** .26** .24* .04 .10 .42** .42*** −.13 −.05 .85** .15 −.26 −.26 −.13 −.06

Symptoms −.25*** −.18 −.18† −.23 .11 −.12† .26* .13

*** p < .001 ** p < .01 * p < .05 † p < .10

the most affected by their gender attributions, and older upper-status women were the least affected. In 6 of the 18 analyses (6 gender-factor scores by 3 mental health measures) gender was a signiﬁcant predictor of mental health for these men; we can describe them as gender sensitive. They seem to be confronted with the particular challenge of avoiding a passive “feminine” stance, because admitting to the desire to be “mothered” is associated with negative self-evaluations. Men can protect their self-evaluations by managing or controlling others (as in the M.1 dominance factor) or by managing their own fears (the M.3 counterphobic factor).

Experiences of Marriage Because the focus of this chapter is to understand why some married men are vulnerable in the context of the marriage relationship at midlife, it is crucial to understand as much as possible about the marriage relationship. We believe that we must recognize both “his” marriage and “her” marriage; the clinician can then begin to assess “their” marriage. Thus, we will present evidence about how the husbands and wives each experienced their marriage, particularly in terms of the dimensions of relative power and inﬂuence. Five patterns of marital politics were identiﬁed for the 131 wives in the sample. These patterns, or styles, were designed to reﬂect the ways in

40

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

which the wife dealt with potential or actual conﬂict in the allocation of time, energy, attention, and so forth within the marital dyad. The focus is on the underlying feelings and their justiﬁcation as much as on overt responses, and with management of anger. The percentages are based upon the full sample of 131 wives. Patriarchal, Conceding the Husband: 22.1 percent (N = 29). These wives described a relationship with division of labor along fairly traditional lines; they deferred to the husband without much questioning of his authority or evident strain. Passive Management of Covert Anger: 22.1 percent (N = 29). These wives expressed some anger and/or unhappiness about some aspects of the marriage relationship, but they did little to confront the situation directly. While remaining deferential to the husband, they may have complained to others and behaved in ways that both expressed and disguised the manifestation of anger. Ambivalent Overt Assertiveness: 30.5 percent (N = 40). These wives described instances where they confronted their husband directly with their wishes or anger, but they also expressed ambivalence about the wisdom of doing so. They seemed torn between the desire to “keep the peace” and to assert themselves more forcefully. Unambivalent Overt Assertiveness: 14.5 percent (N = 19). These wives expressed wishes and complaints directly to their husbands. They were unambivalent and felt justiﬁed, even when they were openly hostile and even when they recognized that the husband would be uncomfortable. For some women, their assertion took the form of creating distance between themselves and the husband: They forged a “separate peace” or found an important extramarital domain in which to assert themselves. Matriarchal Nurturance: 10.7 percent (N = 14). These women saw themselves as in charge, but in a benign way. They recognized the husband’s vulnerability and tried to protect him—as a mother might protect a child—rather than challenge, demean, or ridicule him. Using chi square statistics, the marital politics of wives was not related to their own educational or occupational status, nor to the educational level of their husbands. However, this measure is signiﬁcantly related, by chi square, to the husband’s occupational status (p < .01). Husbands who have (or had) higher-status positions (executives, managers, or professionals) were more likely to have wives who conceded to their authority (e.g., are patriarchal or ambivalently assertive); men in administrative- (middlemanagement) level positions were more likely to have wives who were either openly confrontational or already felt clearly “in charge.”

Men and Their Wives

41

Wives’ perceptions of their marital relationships were related significantly to the ages of their children still residing in the parental home. Chi square analyses for politics style by presence/absence of any children of various age ranges revealed that marital politics was related modestly to having children 17 or younger at home (p < .07), more clearly to having college-age children (18–23) at home (p < .01), and not to the presence of children 24 or older. Marital politics style was strongly related to number of children living at home (p < .001). Overall, as these women experienced lessening responsibilities for children at home, they were more likely to assert themselves in the marriage. Women were also more likely to be assertive if the only children at home were over 24. The wife’s marital politics style was clearly related to spousal ratings of satisfaction with the marriage. There was relatively high marital satisfaction for both partners in relationships either where wives describe the husband as the family leader (patriarchal) or where they saw themselves as in charge (matriarchal). Marital satisfaction was lowest for both husbands and wives when wives were unambivalently assertive. Nine different patterns were identiﬁed for the 107 husbands in the sample. As with the ratings for the wives, the focus was on the underlying feelings and justiﬁcations as much as on overt declarations. The patterns describe the ways that Parkville men dealt with issues of potential conﬂict and competing demands for resources in the marriage. Patriarchal: 6.5 percent (n = 7). These husbands described the relationship in terms of gender roles along traditional lines, and portrayed themselves as the provider and protector in the family system. Their major investments were in work outside the home. Patriarchal but Under pressure: 11.2 percent (n = 12). These husbands described a relationship where they were trying to hold on to a more traditional division of familial labor but were feeling pressure to change; they resisted efforts to change prior arrangements. Crisis: 9.3 percent (n = 10). These husbands reported active pressures from the wife to make them change the traditional patterns of relating, and they were not sure what to do. They were upset by the prospects of change. Egalitarian: 16.8 percent (n = 18). These husbands reported separate marital roles but balanced spousal powers; they did not feel either internal or external pressure to change. Separate Peace: 4.7 percent (n = 5). These husbands indicated that they had resolved power struggles by setting up separate domains, where each partner could feel ascendant without provoking marital conﬂict. They had closed out potential power struggles. However, the price of peace could be more isolation than they bargained for.

42

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

Conceding Dominance Generally: 19.6 percent (n = 21). These husbands described themselves as giving in, often more than they would like, though with no speciﬁc rationale; their submission was not responsive to outside force, nor to the wife’s dominance. Conceding Dominance Because of His Ill Health: 4.7 percent (n = 5). These husbands indicated that they had turned over important issues of marital life to the wife in order to protect themselves from stress, or because of signiﬁcant health problems, chronic or recent, which she managed. Conceding to a Domineering Wife: 12.1 percent (n = 13). These men described themselves as giving in, reluctantly, because of pressures from a wife who was seen as overbearing, relentless, and so on. Post-Transitional Union: 15.0 percent (n = 16). These men described a relationship where “wifey and I are one”; they minimized differentiation in roles, interests, or activities. Conﬂict was denied, minimized, or externalized into extrafamilial threats. These men had become extensions of the wife/mother. To compute chi square statistics on the relationship between marital politics styles and other personal and contextual characteristics, the nine styles were grouped into four: early transition (combining patriarch and under pressure), protesting (crisis and generally conceding); autonomous (separate peace and egalitarian); and conceding (because of illness, to domineering wife, and union). The groupings were done on the basis of Gutmann’s model of a male transition away from a patriarchal stance as the paternal responsibilities fade. The marital politics styles of husbands were not related to either their own or their wives’ educational or occupational level. These ﬁndings suggest that these measures do not simply reﬂect larger social-status issues. Mean ages differed for the nine marital politics styles, largely in the direction predicted, with the average of husbands under 56 in the earlier styles and over 58 for the later styles. On the basis of chi square tests, husbands’ marital politics styles are also linked somewhat with the presence of children in the home. The relationship was not signiﬁcant for having younger children (under 18) versus none at home, or for having older children (24 and over) at home. However, the relationship was signiﬁcant for having college-aged children at home (chi square p < .02), and for the analysis comparing men who had any children under 24 at home versus those who did not (chi square p < .001). In addition, the number of children living at home is signiﬁcantly related to the father’s marital politics for the four-style grouping (p < .02). These ﬁndings suggest that fathers are not highly sensitive to the presence of one remaining child (probably the youngest, or a grandchild)

Men and Their Wives

43

or an older employed child “boarding” at home; however, the presence of the “launching age” child, or several children, seems to “hold” the father in the earlier modes of marital relating. Not surprisingly, men’s satisfaction with the marital relationship varies with their own marital politics styles. The least satisﬁed husbands describe themselves as giving in to a wife they perceive as domineering, or as distancing themselves from the troubled relationship and establishing a separate peace. Relatively high satisfaction is reported by men who have turned over the marital power to their wives but feel justiﬁed because of their own ill health, by men who experience nonconﬂictual union, by men who resist the pressure to change, or by men who describe a differentiated but egalitarian relationship. Whether the husband is dominant, detached, or submissive, his marital satisfaction depends on the lack of conﬂict with the spouse.

Identifying Potentially Vulnerable Men in Parkville To understand more fully how men were dealing with the shifts in gender styles, we identiﬁed men with low masculinity scores and high femininity scores on the PRF-Andro Scale, as well as TAT stories tilted toward passive mastery. The sample of 55 midlife men who met these criteria was subdivided into two subgroups. The ﬁrst consisted of vulnerable and challenged men (n = 21). They either evidenced psychosomatic symptom distress on the SCL-90 of more than one standard deviation above the mean for the entire male sample, or their TAT protocols revealed two or more magical mastery (e.g., disordered thinking) indications. The vulnerable but unchallenged group (n = 34) included all those clearly passive (i.e., passive mastery), potentially vulnerable men whose SCL-90 scores were at or below the mean for the male sample as a whole. As predicted, these two groups of men differed in terms of marital politics (chi square = 8.04, df = 1, p < .005). The vulnerable men who show relatively high degrees of psychological and psychosomatic distress tend to have wives who, while they may be ambivalent and guilty about their aggression, nevertheless vent it bluntly in the form of directives, criticism, or nagging. Despite their rancor, these wives stay true to their marriage vows, but they are less likely to idealize the husband, to withhold their criticism, or to serve his career by giving up their own. By comparison, equally passive midlife and older men whose wives remain tenderly disposed seem to be particularly advantaged in later life. These are the men who sink blissfully into the condition of marital symbiosis that we have called “Wifey and I are one.” For these men, two physically distinct individuals seem to have fused into a single psychological organism.

44

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

It is the vulnerable and challenged men whose wives have refused the symbiosis. In an earlier analysis of the wives, we found that 42% of the total sample of wives expressed signiﬁcant disappointment in the marriage relationship (Huyck & Gutmann, 1999). Although the most common disappointment expressed is that the husband’s illness has curtailed their plans for this phase of life, the second strongest theme is the passivity and vulnerability of their husbands. They spoke often of husbands who will not leave home to explore the wider world, of husbands who retreat from golf when the wife takes up the sport, of husbands who become sullen or peevish if the same dinner is not on the table at the same time, of fathers who refuse to set limits on a slovenly grown son cluttering up the house. Although only one-third of the disappointed women were openly assertive about changing the relationship and criticizing behaviors they do not like, they typically reported that most of the men retreated, or alternately attacked and retreated. We explored the impact of early developmental memories by examining the reports of the Parkville men about their relationships with maternal and paternal persons (Gutmann & Huyck, 1994). The hypothesized relationship, drawn from Gutmann’s clinical work, between memorialized parent imagery and current problems was supported. Thus, 78% of the vulnerable and challenged men gave memorialized parental reports that described a weak or absent father coupled with a strong, unrelinquished tie to the mother. Similarly, two-thirds of the vulnerable but unchallenged men also grouped under the ﬁrst type. However, none of the reports from the men who are both low-vulnerable and asymptomatic fell into this father-absent, omnipresent mother category. The nonvulnerable men recalled a pattern of relationships with and between parents that was strikingly different from that reported by their vulnerable peers: Secure in their special strengths, their parents were affectionate to each other and— each in their own way—to their children; but they were at the same time emotionally self-sufﬁcient, and not entangled with each other.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS We asked four major questions from these analyses; now it is time for some answers. 1a. How do mature men and women experience gender? Although one can create, or report on, global indices of masculinity (M) or femininity (F), these indices are probably misleading. Factor analyses of a standardized measure of M and F reveal important components of gender.

Men and Their Wives

45

1b. What characteristics are associated with different experiences of gender among men? Self-esteem and sense of mastery were not related to occupational status or age group, indicating that these indices of emotional well-being are not merely reﬂecting social status. Selfesteem and mastery were linked to the dominance and counterphobic adventure-seeking dimensions of masculinity. Men who scored higher on masculinity expressed lower psychosomatic symptom distress; men who expressed the desire for externalized security and discomfort with caring for themselves showed more psychosomatic symptoms and lower sense of mastery. Interestingly, the core stereotypic attribute of femininity, active nurturing, was not related to either positive or negative qualities among the men. Although self-esteem and mastery were not related to SES and age, they were related to gender-linked self-attributions. Speciﬁcally, older (over 55) upper-occupational-status men were the most affected by their gender attributions; we can describe them as gender sensitive. (Older upper-status women were the least affected; we can describe them as gender transcendent.) 2. How do men and women experience their long-term marriages? It is most useful to differentiate between “his” and “her” marriages, because their descriptions do not necessarily agree. In this analysis, the couples were coded on how they perceived the balance of power in their relationship, which we termed “marital politics.” We identiﬁed patterns of marital politics reﬂecting the perceptions of each partner as to who prevails and by what rationale. We found nine different styles for the men, and ﬁve for their wives. Overall, as the Parkville women experienced lessening responsibilities for children at home, they were more likely to assert themselves in the marriage. The men were less inﬂuenced by the number or ages of children still at home, but they were very sensitive to how openly the wives expressed conﬂict. The least satisﬁed husbands described themselves as giving in to a wife they perceived as domineering, or as distancing themselves from the troubled relationship and establishing a separate peace. Relatively high satisfaction was reported by men who had turned over the marital power to their wives but felt justiﬁed because of their own ill health, by men who experienced nonconﬂictual union, by men who resisted the pressure to change, or by men who described a differentiated but egalitarian relationship. Whether the husband was dominant, detached or submissive, his marital satisfaction depended on the lack of conﬂict with the spouse.

46

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

3. What husbands are most vulnerable to marital stress in later life marriages? Approximately half (55) of the Parkville men showed the expected shift toward a more androgynous gender style, or increased evidence of a more passive stance toward life. They were regarded as vulnerable because they revealed a nontraditional gender style. However, only some of those men—38% (21)—were, in fact, challenged by psychological and psychosomatic distress. These troubled men showed distinctive patterns of relationships with their wives—and recalled distinctive patterns of relationships with their parents when they were young. These results indicate that men who do not separate in the psychological sense from their mothers during the formative years are particularly at risk in later years. Their own well-being is chronically hostage to their wife’s shifting moods. This ﬁnding supports Gottman’s research on long-term studies of marriage showing that spousal contempt is one of the most stressful and damaging sentiments in a relationship (Gottman, 1994). Only if the wife is willing (and able) to accept her husband as “another child” and herself as the matriarch are dependent men secure. However, the surest route to good outcomes devolves to those who had strong relationships with both parents and thus are not terriﬁed by moving toward either masculinity or femininity. They are the ones who are most comfortable with evolving an interdependent, egalitarian marriage—even though these men also recall being initially troubled when they ﬁrst became aware that their wives were becoming increasingly autonomous and self-directing.

THERAPEUTIC IMPLICATIONS The therapeutic implications are that we must acknowledge the implicit assumptions about gender and self that are carried, often unconsciously, forward into midlife and later. We have discussed elsewhere (Huyck & Gutmann, 1999) possible therapeutic strategies for these men. Male therapists working with ego-dystonic dependent men can serve as a “male ally,” afﬁrming the man’s masculinity while gradually helping him understand that his wife is not his mother and he is not really suffering his father’s fate. The challenge is to help him accept the mellowing with age without shame and enjoy his wife’s assertiveness without feeling emasculated. Female therapists can serve as a model of a woman who is both nurturing and self-directing, and as a resource in reframing the wife’s actions. With ego-syntonic dependent men the therapeutic challenge is to help them stop somaticizing and confront their own underlying depression

Men and Their Wives

47

and hunger. Most men do not want to see themselves as babies, and the realization that this is how they are responding may mean they can become less ruled by their own childish self. It is possible that younger cohorts of men will present patterns of vulnerability and comfort with gender-linked aspects of the self that differ from these described for men who came of age during World War II. The crux of our line of analysis is that personal meanings, conscious and unconscious, are crucial. To the extent that the meanings shift substantially over social and historical time, we may ﬁnd varying consequences. The evidence from the World War II generation suggests that the men who are most comfortable in middle and later life are those who recall strong, caring parents, differentiated but both valued. These men show much more ﬂexibility in incorporating “feminine” characteristics without feeling shame, and they are more appreciative of the “masculine” strengths displayed by their wives. We believe there is limited evidence that gender has become less important in the past few decades than it was when the Parkville parents were coming of age. For example, Huyck, Zucker, and Angelaccio (2000) compared the gender styles of Parkville parents and their young adult children. Although the younger women, under 25, were higher on masculinity (as measured with the PRF-Andro Scale) than their mothers, those over 25 (or who were married or mothers) were no different from their own mothers; this ﬁnding does not suggest major social changes in gender. The generations did not differ in total femininity. The young-adult sons were higher in masculinity than their own fathers, and no different in femininity than their own fathers. Other analyses, done with the Parkville sample (Huyck, 1995) and with a Boston sample (Corazzini, 1998), show substantial similarity between the generations in the ways they deﬁne and experience gender—although the young adults are much less likely to describe activity androgyny. Activity androgyny includes descriptions of men feeling “less masculine” because of something they do; the middleaged father described a wide array of activities such as planting ﬂowers, enjoying ballet, and cleaning house; their sons were less likely to describe this kind of “androgyny.” However, both generations described feeling “less masculine” when they gave in to a wife’s or girlfriend’s directives; this ﬁnding supports the basic model described in this chapter. (A brief visit to the clothing or toy sections of any contemporary store makes clear our cultural preoccupation with gender-coding almost everything from birth on; this is another indication that gender remains important in shaping lives from very early on.) We argue that maintaining a sense of adequate gender-congruence remains important for mental health. The clinician’s challenge is to identify how each individual deﬁnes gender, and what experiences threaten the

48

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

sense of gender adequacy. The therapist can then help “detoxify” or perhaps “de-gender” the activities, feelings, or desires that are experienced as unacceptable aspects of the self. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The intergenerational research project “Aging Parents, Young Adult Children and Mental Health” was funded by a U.S. Public Health Services grant from the Center on Aging, National Institute of Mental Health, Grant Number ROI MH36264, to the Illinois Institute of Technology from 1982 to 1986, M. Huyck and S. Frank, Co-Principal Investigators. We especially appreciate the guidance of Dr. Nancy Miller and Dr. Barry Lebowitz from NIMH in establishing the project. We would like to thank all the respondents who participated and shared their lives with us; Susan Frank for her contributions in establishing the data set; Amy Shapiro for her work as project coordinator; and the students who helped collect the data and prepare it for analysis. Interviewers included Cathy Butler Avery, Scott Andrews, Jeffrey Angevine, Larry Antoz, Mike Bloomquist, Yael Buchsbaum, Paul Carney, Lidia Cardone, Rita Decker, Jim Duchon, Helen Dredze, Susan Frank, Gail Grossman, Dee Heinrich, Jeri Hosick, Margaret Huyck, Mark Laman, Hunter Leggitt, Bill Pace, Kate Philben, Timothy Pedigo, Martha Scott, and Mary Jane Thiel. REFERENCES Berzins, J., Welling, M. & Wetter, R. (1978). A new measure of psychological androgyny based on the Personality Research Form. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 46, 126–138. Corazzini, K. N. (1998, November). Contextual characteristics of styles of masculinity through the years. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Philadelphia. Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1993). Gender in thought, belief and action: A cognitive approach. In A. Beall & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 55–98). New York: Guilford. Derogatis, L., Rickels, K., & Rock, A. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in the validation of a new self-report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 280–289. Earle, J., Smith, J., Harris, C., & Longino, C. (1997). Women, marital status, and symptoms of depression in a midlife national sample. Journal of Women and Aging, 10 (1), 41–45. Geis, F. L. (1993). Self-fulﬁlling prophecies: A social-psychological view of gender. In A. Beall & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 9–54). New York: Guilford.

Men and Their Wives

49

Gottman, J., with N. Silver (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon & Schuster. Gutmann, D. L. (1987/1994). Reclaimed powers: Toward a new psychology of men and women in later life (rev. ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Gutmann, D. L. (1990). Psychological development and pathology in later adulthood. In R. A. Nemiroff & C. A. Colarusso (Eds.), New dimensions in adult development (pp. 170–185). New York: Basic Books. Gutmann, D. L. (1998). The psychoimmune system in later life: The problem of the late-onset disorders. In J. Lomranz (Ed.), Handbook of aging and mental health: An integrative approach (pp. 170–185). New York: Plenum Press. Gutmann, D. L., Grunes, J., & Grifﬁn, B. (1982). Developmental contributions to the late-onset disorders. In P. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior. (vol. 4, pp. 244–263). New York: Academic Press. Gutmann, D. L., & Huyck, M. H. (1994). Development and pathology in postparental men: A community study. In E. Thompson, Jr. (Ed.), Older men’s lives (pp. 65–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, A. (1957). The two factor index of social position. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University. Huyck, M. H. (1989). Midlife parental imperatives. In R. Kalish (Ed.), Midlife loss. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Huyck, M. H. (1991). Gender-linked self-attributions and mental health among middle-aged parents. Journal of Aging Studies, 5 (1), 111–123. Huyck, M. H. (1994). The relevance of psychodynamic theories for understanding gender among older women. In B. Turner & L. Troll (Eds.), Women growing older: Theoretical directions in the psychology of aging (pp. 202–238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Huyck, M. H. (1995). Marriage and marital-like relationships. In R. Blieszner & V. H. Bedford (Eds.), Handbook on aging and the family (pp. 181–200). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Huyck, M. H., & Gutmann, D. L. (1992). Thirtysomething years of marriage: Understanding husbands and wives in enduring relationships. Family Perspective, 26 (2), 249–265. Huyck, M. H., & Gutmann, D. L. (1999). Developmental issues in psychotherapy with older men. In M. Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with older adults (pp. 77–90). New York: Wiley. Huyck, M. H., Zucker, P., & Angelaccio, C. (2000). Gender across generations. In E. Markson & L. Hollis-Sawyer (Eds.), Intersections of aging: Readings in social gerontology (pp. 87–103). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Jung, C. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: Free Press. McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview: Analyzing qualitative data. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Neugarten, B. (1964). Personality in middle and later life: Empirical studies. Oxford, England: Atherton.

50

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

Neugarten, B. (1974). The future and the young-old. Gerontologist, 15 (1, Pt. 2) 4–9. Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21. Polston, B. L., & Golant, S. K. (1999). Loving midlife marriage. New York: Wiley. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Turner, B. F. (November, 1998). Multidimensional gender identity styles and wellbeing in two diverse adult samples. In B. F. Turner, Chair, Gender styles and well-being in two studies of men and women diverse in age, race, class, and family status. Symposium presented at the 51st Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Philadelphia. Waite, L., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off ﬁnancially. New York: Random House. Wallerstein, J., & Blakeslee, S. (1995). The good marriage: How and why love lasts. New York: Houghton Mifﬂin.

CHAPTER 3

Images of Masculinity as Predictors of Men’s Romantic and Sexual Relationships Vera Sonja Maass

The focus of this chapter will be on the various thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that are characteristic of masculinity and their effects on romantic and sexual relationships at different times in the lifespan. Emphasis will be on a few general trends in male attitudes rather than on the great variety of men’s characteristics that exist. Case histories from the author’s practice will serve to illustrate the dynamics that deﬁne some of these men’s relationships. Their names and circumstances have been disguised for reasons of conﬁdentiality. As men’s different strategies for maintaining power and control can be observed, inferences as to their goals and targets can be made, which leads to predictions of the impact on the dynamics of intimacy building. At the end, will there be loneliness or intimacy?

WHAT IMAGE OF MASCULINITY TO LIVE BY? Throughout recorded history across most cultures, men have been assigned unique positions as primary carriers of power. The notion of masculinity is infused with images and demands of power. The male 51

52

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

gender identity revolves around the ideology of masculinity with the essential characteristics of fearlessness, toughness, and denial of vulnerability (Mejia, 2005), despite the fact that males start out as the more vulnerable of the two sexes. Although 120 to 150 male embryos to every 100 female ones are conceived, more of the male embryos are spontaneously aborted, resulting in about 105 boys being born for every 100 girls. Additionally, boys have a higher likelihood of birth defects. Despite this initial biological vulnerability, men have acquired mastery in many techniques that ensure and protect their position in the world (Tanner, 1990).

Work, Sports, and Independence On the inside cover of his book Manhood in America, Michael Kimmel (1996) made the comment that “by the 1890s, manhood changed to masculinity, something that had to be constantly proven through the new explosion of sports, fraternities, and fashion.” It was believed that masculinity could be rediscovered through strenuous activities in the freshness of the outdoors. The salvation for the ﬂagging manhood of modern civilized men was promised in exerting the body and resting the mind in the rugged environment. Sports activities were another means for turning boys into men. In the late 19th century, America saw a dramatic increase in various sports such as tennis, golf, weight lifting, boxing, football, racing, basketball, and baseball. Sports were pronounced to be characterbuilding activities. Instilling moral as well as physical virtues was seen as one of the major functions of sports. Sports continue to be seen as important vehicles for building manhood. However, over time, sports have been reﬁned to include a classiﬁcation of what is most approved of as a “manly” sport and what may be dangerous to one’s reputation. The emerging factors for sporting status include ﬁrst that one participates in a sport. A particular sports activity with a reputation for being “tough” serves to elevate the standing of the participant. A team sport adds additional prestige, and the highest status one can achieve is to participate in a tough team sport (Plummer, 1999). When the Great Depression came, men were emasculated both at work and at home. With the loss of their jobs, men’s economic power was eliminated, eroding their status as head of the household. Their sense of manhood was shaken. In a society that had promoted the ideological connections between adult masculinity and independence, the economic crisis had an enormous impact on the adult male psyche and the developing self-concept of adolescent and young adult males. Among boys and young males between the ages of 15 and 24 in 1932, 25% were completely

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

53

unemployed and an additional 29% had to settle for low-paying parttime work (Suzik, 2001). President Franklin D. Roosevelt, as part of the New Deal relief program, signed a bill for the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which recruited young unmarried and unemployed men between the ages of 18 and 25 from the relief rolls and placed them in wooded camps to live and work, planting trees, building bridges, and ﬁghting forest ﬁres. The publicity for the program emphasized the “man-building” aspects of the connections between work, the development of basic technical skills, and masculinity. From the strong emphasis on the value of manual labor for developing pride in one’s manhood (and as a response to the perceived need for wartime preparedness as early as 1938), it was only a small step to the building of soldiers of peace as Congress mandated noncombatant military training for the CCC enrollees in June 1940. “Society’s deﬁnition of a ‘real man’ no longer was limited almost entirely to economic self-sufﬁciency and physical hardiness. Boys needed military training and military drill” (Suzik, 2001, p. 131). It was time to reawaken the “warrior” archetype that—according to Moore and Gillette (1992)—is hard-wired into the male brain structure, and that, in developing a sense of masculinity, today’s men are claiming as their birthright.

Personality Characteristics Kimmel (1996) points to the ﬁeld of psychology as assisting in redeﬁning masculinity in terms that were not dependent on achievements in the public arena of work but that could be understood as the expressions of a certain inner sense of oneself. Masculinity could be manifested in speciﬁc traits, attitudes, and behaviors. “If men expressed these attitudes, traits, and behaviors, they could be certain that they were ‘real’ men, regardless of their performance in the workplace. If a man failed to express these attitudes, traits, and behaviors, he was in danger of becoming a homosexual” (p. 206). The measurement of gendered attitudes, traits, and behaviors was made possible by the Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman, best known for the development of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, and his associate Catherine Cox Miles when they developed an “M-F” scale, recodifying masculinity and femininity. This instrument has been widely used to assess successful acquisition of gender identity and has formed the basis for studies of gender-role acquisition ever since. Questions tapped boys’ and girls’ attitudes as the test developers conceived of masculine and feminine attributes. For example, boys were not expected to know whether food items prepared with water or with oil constituted frying, boiling, toasting, or broiling. If a boy marked the correct answer, his score would be (−) for not masculine.

54

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

But he should know which U.S. states produced coal to receive a (+) score. Dislike for taking a bath was scored with (+) for boys, whereas admitting to being careful about dressing received a (−) score. A question about what to drink tea from had a score of (+) for the answers “saucer” and “spoon,” but “cup” received a (−) score. This scoring system appeared to have a prescriptive function in addition to what it proposed to do. “If holding a job to support a family could no longer be counted on to deﬁne manhood, a masculinity-femininity test could” (Pleck, 1981, p. 139).

Reason-Emotion Dichotomy Characterizations of masculine aspects of behaviors from the 19th century as based on reason and logic and the equation of feminine behavior with emotion have been rejuvenated in modern considerations of the reason-emotion dichotomy. It is frequently mentioned that men lack emotional expressions, but this does not mean that men do not experience them; rather, it can be interpreted to mean that men are capable of controlling their strong emotions in order to preserve an atmosphere of logic and reason. Women’s expression of emotion, on the other hand, may be seen as just ineffective emotionality. It does not take much of a mental jump to judge the male-oriented emotion as superior and the female-oriented emotionality as an inferior mode of feeling and expressing feelings (Shields, 2005). This characterization points to the existence of different styles of emotion that are gender linked. Men and women experience both styles, but in unequal proportions. Thus, strong emotions become a part of manliness, while emotionality is seen as a feminine characteristic. Openly displayed emotion such as nurturing behavior and expressions of intimacy is associated with female behaviors and could be called extravagant expressiveness. Manly emotion, the second emotional style, can best be described as a “subtle expression of intense emotion under control” (Shields, 2005, p. 9). The two styles are thought to communicate different aspects of emotion. The extravagant expressiveness of females seems to be centered on the interpersonal relationship in which the emotional encounter occurs. In contrast, the manly emotion makes a statement about the individual’s relationship to his emotion. As they are generally linked to self-control and rationality, our culture places greater value on manly emotional standards than on feminine standards of extravagant expressiveness. This cultural “sanctioning” of the manly emotional standard exerts great inﬂuence on the way male-female interactions occur and leads to the frequently sad outcomes of such interactions.

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

55

Benevolent Sexism Another type of cultural “sanctioning” seems to apply in the case of “benevolent sexism” (Glick & Fiske, 2001). As a subjectively favorable form of male chivalrous ideology, benevolent sexism expresses affection and protection to women who embrace conventional female roles. By characterizing women in favorable terms, such as being “adorable creatures,” and promising beneﬁts to those who align themselves with a highstatus male protector, benevolent sexism reduces women’s resistance to patriarchy. By comparison, hostile sexism holds an adversarial view of gender relations in which women are perceived as seeking control over men through sexuality or feminist ideology. Polarizing women’s images into distinct female subtypes, benevolent and hostile sexism incorporate reward and punishment systems and may function in complementary ways to maintain male power. “Polarization by splitting women into two subtypes also effectively leads to isolation among females, rendering them weaker than they could be united” (Maass, 2002, p. 200).

Power versus Fear Experts in the ﬁeld of gender identity, exploring how gender organizes action and thought, question how masculinity is connected to power in contemporary society and wonder whether the role of power will ever be settled. Relative to women, men organize power and beneﬁt from their positions of power. As men assume power, they assume control over the lives and welfare of others, particularly of women. But many men do not feel powerful and do not perceive themselves as holding power over women. They may be searching for ways to regain the lost power (Kuypers, 1999). In its connection to masculinity, power organizes men’s passions and actions into a concept of the male gender. The problem with power and thus with the idea of masculinity is that it distorts values and propels men to attempt the impossible, “to be what one cannot be: both loving and controlling, both powerful over other people and loved by them . . . men, as a gender, are addicted to power and do not know that they are” (Kuypers, 1999, p. 30). Others question whether it is an addiction or fear that connects power to masculinity. Rather than a drive for domination, manhood is tied to the fear that others will dominate the man and have power to control him. Kimmel (1996) quoted an Army general, who said that every soldier fears “losing the one thing he is likely to value more highly than life—his reputation as a man among other men” (p. 7). Thus the secret fear of being perceived as weak and timid by the watchful and judging eyes of other men may result in overcompensation through behaviors

56

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

that give the appearance of being strong, invulnerable, and devoid of emotions, except perhaps for anger and smoldering rage.

The Christian Life as a Manly Life Images of masculinity have made their way into the church and religion. Programs to bring men back to the church have been proposed along with the suggestion that ministers adopt more masculine behaviors, such as practicing ﬁrmer handshakes and educating themselves about hunting and car repair (Kimmel, 1996). Ministers should turn their churches into a home turf for men, a man’s sacred place. Other suggestions include describing the Christian life as a manly lifestyle and “a heroic quest for spiritual manhood. After all, religion is a man’s vision, . . . and going forth to battle against evil, to bear witness and convert nonbelievers, to make the world whole—this is a man’s job” (Kimmel, 1996, p. 313). Apparently, the ultimate meaning of masculinity can be found in sacred violence. Muscular Christianity has become the basis for a second career. An example is bodybuilder John Jacobs, who founded “the Power Team,” a group of muscular men who preach at tent revival meetings and inform their audience that Jesus was not a skinny little man but a man’s man. Spiritual power thus becomes linked to physical power by equating it with masculinity.

INITIATION RITUALS AND RITES OF MASCULINITY Rituals are powerful vehicles for keeping history and society’s ideologies alive. They ensure that institutionalized values and beliefs, often based on myths, maintain their power from one generation to the next. Primitive man’s attempts to explain the universe resulted in myths, and rituals expressed those myths. Rituals also functioned to preserve certain social groups and as a basic source for communal action (Perry, 1966). Our ancestors used the transmission of myths to explain experiences that did not yet have logical explanations. By giving meaning and purpose to different aspects of daily life, mythological stories acquired the status of truth. Myths also functioned to prescribe behaviors in various life situations. In conjunction with myths, magical rituals evolved to assert the importance of myths in people’s minds (Maass & Neely, 2000).

Initiation into Manhood by Older Men In some societies manhood is bestowed upon a boy through the intervention of older men who initiate him into the mythologized ancient, instinctive male world. For example, Robert Bly (2004) tells how among the Kikuyu

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

57

in Africa, boys at the age of initiation are removed from their homes each year and brought to a special place some distance from the village, where initiation rituals take place, followed by the teaching of myths, stories, and songs that convey traditional male values and beliefs. Bly asserts that “the boys in our culture have a continuing need for initiation into male spirit, but old men in general don’t offer it. The priest sometimes tries, but he is too much a part of the corporate village these days” (p. 14). Bly also explains that “the fault is that the old men outside the nuclear family no longer offer an effective way for the son to break his link with his parents without doing harm to himself.” The “ancient societies believed that a boy becomes a man only through ritual and effort— only through the ‘active intervention of the older men.’ . . . The active intervention of the older men means that older men welcome the younger man into the ancient, mythologized, instinctive male world” (p. 15).

Hunting and Fishing As a source of masculine identity, hunting has been popular for a long time. Throughout the 20th century and especially around the world wars, connections between hunting and military preparedness were common. As a primarily seasonal activity, hunting lends itself well to the purposes of rites and rituals. In states such as Michigan, where deer-hunting season is a sacred time among autoworkers, people have compassion for absenteeism at factories, and tourists should make sure their cars are in good condition before vacationing in the state, because mechanics are hard to ﬁnd in gas stations during deer-hunting season. Hunting saw the single largest increase soon after World War II, and in the late 1940s and 1950s hunting was proposed as a remedy for weariness from domesticity and factory work. In addition to being a masculine rite associated with manly characteristics, hunting was also a right requiring negotiation to become a condition of employment for workers in Michigan. In addition, it provided opportunities for fathers and sons to spend leisure time together and to escape wives and daughters, dispense with daily hygiene regiments, play cards, and drink. “The values associated with hunting ranged from the sacred to the profane, all masculine and having enormous appeal for all men” (Fine, 2001, p. 260). Fishing shares some of the man-building aspects of hunting, although it lacks the powerful ritualistic quality inherent in the seasonal engagement of hunting. In many parts of the world, ﬁshing assumes a more or less regulated pattern over three seasons per year. Therefore, its impact on shaping ideas of masculinity may be somewhat diluted. However, it functions well in taking the man away, at least temporarily, from the stresses of work and family. Even sons have to be a certain age before they can accompany their

58

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

fathers in this enterprise. The noise and idle chatter of young children are thought to chase the ﬁsh away. Furthermore, the quiet ﬁsherman, while devoting his attention to what is happening around the ﬁshing rod, may also use this time of solitude to educate himself about world events by reading his newspaper. He could not be burdened with the responsibility of monitoring the unpredictable activities of a young child. For those who take out boats and ﬁsh in the company of other ﬁshermen, duties on the boat for the common good, such as making sure there is an adequate supply of food and beer, consume their energies. Young boys have to come of age and gradually earn their entry into apprenticeship in this arena of masculinity.

Team Activities For some, sports may represent a form of initiation ritual, especially those that are played in teams and depend on and advocate a group spirit. A more recent development of team activity that seems to have characteristics of rites may be seen in the formation of peer-delinquent prostitutes. Young males between the ages of 14 and 17 years old work in small groups, using homosexual prostitution as a means for assault and robbery. One or several of them will solicit a customer on whom to perform fellatio in exchange for money. Their ﬁnal act is to physically assault and rob the customer. On the surface, these young male delinquents explain their contacts with customers as a demonstration of their masculinity and heterosexuality to their peers. It is assumed, however, that beneath this façade many of these young delinquents have strong homosexual feelings (Allen, 1980). The gang activities can be seen to fulﬁll several functions simultaneously: While obtaining money by robbing their customers, the physical assault can be used to prove the manhood of the assailants. With the proper explanations, gang activities can be translated into rituals for manhood initiation.

MALE BONDING AS A WAY TO HEAL THE WOUNDS Some authors propose a type of male bonding as a healing process for the emotional isolation many men may feel (Bly, 2004). Bonding processes may be rituals assigned and performed for the sole purpose of belonging to a group (fraternities).

Journey into the Wilderness Other types of bonding may occur when several men together undertake a journey into the wilderness and survive the experience of ﬁshing, hunting,

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

59

and cooking over an open ﬁre, eating and talking while the ﬁre is still glimmering; or they may be attracted to spending a long weekend or two on a dude ranch—all in the company of other men. In his comments on the Wild Man retreats and New Warrior training programs that have come on the scene as a result of Robert Bly’s ideas, Levant and Kopecky (1995) question the need for “beating the drums in the woods,” the weekend gatherings that are designed for men to “reconnect with the wild man or warrior within by engaging in ritualistic practices such as beating drums and sitting in sweat lodges” (p. 5). Those rituals served a function in premodern societies, but the current male crisis is a problem that cannot be solved by the assumption of animal names and by nude dancing in the woods. Levant and Kopecky admit that writers such as Bly are communicating metaphorical instructions for attaining manhood, but they point out that metaphorical messages are problematic insofar as people can interpret them as they wish. Some men may interpret these messages to give them an excuse to blame women and the feminist movement for creating the current crisis of men’s emotional isolation. Such an excuse may justify men in maintaining their emotional distance from their female partners. Rather than building up higher walls between males and females, these walls should be taken down. If they do not also bond with the signiﬁcant females in their life, men who bond with other men—as gratifying as that may be—very likely ﬁnd themselves just as emotionally isolated as before when they wake up in the house they provided for and share with their wives and children.

Insidious Humor According to Peter Murphy (2001), male bonding is empowered through insidious humor, as men bond around the sexual disparagement of women. By distracting people from the underlying purpose of the verbal exchange, humor disarms people and facilitates a subtle control over interpersonal relationships, both in same-sex interchanges and oppositesex interactions. It is “in the domain of humor [that] men’s control over and sexual domination of women is exceptionally stark and unrestricted” (Mulkay, 1988, p. 141). Humor increases the effectiveness of male bonding by articulating agreement and consent among group members while undermining the morale of those who become the target of the humor. Laughter expresses a shared sentiment that “evokes a sense of solidarity between group members and against the butt of humour” (Wilson, 1979, p. 214). Men’s bonding usually occurs around certain unfavorable assumptions about women. By verbalizing these assumptions, men attempt to gain the approval of other men.

60

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

It is a commonly held belief that the use of humor includes the permission to talk about otherwise socially unacceptable experiences. With the frequently heard response “it’s only a joke,” the inequality of the sexes in Western culture becomes reinforced. The male response “it’s only a joke” blames those who dare voice criticism for lacking a sense of humor. But humor is never neutral and jokes are not just stories. Jokes, in particular, provide “a theater of domination in everyday life, and the success or failure of a joke marks the boundary within which power and aggression may be used in a relationship” (Lyman, 1987, p. 150). Sexist jokes against women serve to maintain the gender domination prevalent in all areas of men’s lives, work as well as home. Lyman points to another function of men’s use of sexist jokes. Sexist jokes in a way ridicule men who might want to form intimate emotional bonds with women and who might withdraw from the group of men. Using humor, the men separate intimacy from sexuality and create an “instrumental sexuality” directed at women, which is meant to keep men in control. Humor can be used as a powerful tool to manipulate the outcomes of verbal interchanges among men and between men and women. Individual men may use humor as a weapon against a lover or wife; in that case it is not “just a joke” because it becomes a threat that victimizes women. When male humor is based in shame and degradation, it intentionally inﬂicts pain. It is not out of innocence that “dirty jokes depict the relationship between men and women in terms of a radical form of sexual, social, and linguistic domination of women by men. The very words used to refer to women endorse and exemplify this domination. . . . The domain of humour is a world where the male voice constantly triumphs over that of the female and where women are made to exist and act only as appendages to men’s most basic sexual inclinations” (Mulkay, 1988, p. 137).

LOOKING BACK: HOW DID WE GET TO WHERE WE ARE? For a very brief period of time following birth, men and women are born as equals. But with the baby’s ﬁrst utterances, traditional gender training begins its long and heavy inﬂuence. For a few months after birth, male infants appear to express emotions more so than female infants. But by the time the male child reaches the age of 5 or 6 years, expressions of emotion or distress are less likely to be observed, whereas little girls’ emotional demonstrations are expected and attended to (Hooks, 2004; Pollack, 1998).

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

61

Gender Training During the gender-training experience, boys’ demonstrations of hurt, weakness, or discomfort are met with responses that induce shame. In schools, playgrounds, and at sporting events, ridicule by peers, coaches, teachers, and parents follow a boy’s display of vulnerability. Ridicule and shame drive boys to incorporate within themselves society’s ideology of masculinity. Boys learn early to wear a mask to hide basic feelings that do not conform to the behavioral standards accepted by their culture. By not being allowed to express their core feelings, boys are required to give up part of their true self to gain the acceptance of their patriarchal culture (Hooks, 2004). From their parents’ interactions, children learn about gender roles. When one parent is missing in the family constellation, the child may adopt an incomplete background for his or her gender-role socialization. For a single parent with a child of the opposite sex it is difﬁcult—but not impossible—to know what the child’s gender–identity-related behaviors and characteristics might appropriately include.

Homophobic Peers Boys also learn at an early age to recognize and fear the expressions of their homophobic peers. Homophobia exerts strong pressures on men, but it starts in boyhood, and these pressures shape the behaviors of boys in signiﬁcant ways. The school environment can be a cruel gender-role training ground. Boys cannot afford to be too different from their peers, whether in clothing, behaviors, looks, or emotional expressions. Variations from the norm of stereotyped masculinity easily result in rejection and ridicule of the boy who dares to be different. As adolescents, boys learn that their peers function as what Kimmel (1999) called “gender police,” threatening to reveal boys as feminine or sissies. Being seen as a sissy places unbearable shame upon a boy. Sissies cry and act emotionally. It is something to be avoided at all cost because it is only a small step from being “emotional” and unmasculine to being homosexual (Plummer, 1999). Thus, the best way to avoid being a social outcast, such as possibly being a homosexual, is by acting in tough and aggressive ways. The fear of male homosexuality is so strong that the most often displayed expression of it is violence against anything that deviates from stereotypical masculine appearance and behavior. To ward off homophobic criticism of themselves, some boys may accuse others in their group of not being masculine, an attempt to prove their own masculinity through ritualistic defamations of others.

62

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

“Going Steady” to Achieve Masculine Recognition As boys progress through the later years of high school, another behavioral evidence for masculinity becomes available: “going steady” with a girl. To achieve masculine recognition, the girl has to be attractive and not too bright; in other words, pretty but not a threat. The girl’s purpose is to conﬁrm and deﬁne the boy’s masculinity and his standing in the social order of his peer group. The actual relationship is between the boy and his peers rather than between the boy and his girlfriend. The girl is proof to his peers that the boy is not a faggot. “Fear of being a faggot has nothing to do with being afraid of homosexuality. It’s got a whole lot more to do with the much simpler fear of being a woman” (Rushkoff, 2004, p. 57). In this way homophobia becomes the fear not just of not being a manly man, but of being a woman. “Staying actively apart from women [mentally and emotionally], according to the logic of machismo, conﬁrms male status more than melting into one.” The man’s key relationships with women are “played for the guys in the bleacher seats—to earn social currency with other men” (p. 60). At this stage men experience women as reﬂections on themselves. Although in common American usage, the word “faggot” refers to a homosexual male, in its earlier use it was a synonym for a woman (Murphy, 2001). An unattractive or disreputable woman in 17th-century Britain was described as such (Thorne, 1990). Similarly, The Oxford English Dictionary (1971) deﬁnes the word “faggot” as “a term of abuse or contempt applied to a woman” (p. 20). “Faggot” is more than just a word; it is a word with a hostile history, ﬁrst when applied to women and even more so when used to deﬁne a type of man, such as a gay man. This history of the word reveals the confusion felt by men around the parameters of masculinity and of being a real man, as contrasted with the less acceptable gay man.

Masculine Impersonators Men’s fears of not being able to match their image of masculinity, if this image is based on any stereotypical ideology of masculinity, may prevent them from achieving a true sense of their manhood because they are so busy acting out scripts from the society they live in. Pittman (1993) explains his notion of “masculine impersonators” in terms of masculopathy, a pathologically overdeveloped masculinity that may result in boys when the father is not available or not sure enough of his own masculinity to advise the boy. As examples, Pittman describes three different types of masculine impersonators. The philanderer is a boy who may have overlearned the art of seduction and who reassures himself of his manhood by “escaping the woman at home and seducing the women

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

63

away from home” (p. 34). In doing so, he sees himself as winning over the opposite sex every time. The contender competes compulsively. For him, life is a constant contest with other males; a “real” man is the one who wins the most contests. Pittman’s third type of masculine impersonator is the controller, who assumes it is his mission in life to keep those around him under his control at all times. In their strivings to be man enough, their anxiety will not allow them to relax but to keep pushing and overdoing their maladaptive behaviors. When we turn from the general to the speciﬁc, individual man, we ﬁnd wide variations in beliefs and attitudes as expressed in men’s behaviors, but also many similarities. It is comforting to see that as human beings we have more in common than we may have realized. Case studies involving homosexual and heterosexual men demonstrate this point because some of their experiences could apply in both situations.

MEN’S HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS In Western society, teenage homosexual preferences are usually not openly expressed; instead, homosexual teenagers are a minority who face strong prejudice and stereotyping. Facing rejection and shame from verbal attacks and ridicule to physical assaults from their peers, these young gay men are at risk for a variety of problems, such as depression, fear, and low self-esteem.

Ritualized Homosexuality Anthropologist Bruce Knauft (2003) cites Gilbert Herdt’s 1984 book Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia as the impetus for his study of sexual change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea. Knauft lived with the Gebusi for two years and observed many of their practices, among them elaborate climactic rites of male initiation and male sexual practices in which “mid- or late-teenage initiands manipulated the penises and orally consumed the semen of other males” (p. 138). Knauft points out that rather than being secretive about “male sex with males” Gebusi men expressed their sexual arousal for each other openly and—at times—even exaggerated it.

Similarities in Homosexual and Heterosexual Relationships Considering Gebusi men’s attitudes about homosexuality, young homosexual men in Western society have signiﬁcant struggles to overcome in the process of establishing their sexual orientation. In fact, one might

64

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

think that homosexual relationships would be easier to maintain because it is more likely that two men with similar experiences have more in common than heterosexual partners who developed their sexual identity within the social mainstream. And two men’s attitudes might be more alike than the attitudes of heterosexual partners. Turning from this type of simplistic thinking to the reality of situations therapists encounter in their practices, we ﬁnd that homosexual relationships can vary as widely as heterosexual relationships. There is not much difference between the older man in his 60s whose male partner has just died after more than 25 years of shared life and the widower who has buried his wife after 25 or 30 years of marriage. Both surviving men liked living with their partner and both want to ﬁnd another person for a committed relationship. Both men’s partners died after suffering an illness for some time, which basically rendered life sexless. Both men share the same anxiety: How to go about ﬁnding another partner or live-in companion? Will they be able to function sexually after a prolonged period of abstinence? Will they be able to adjust to another person’s wishes, needs, attitudes, and behaviors? These are concerns that we ﬁnd in both homosexual and heterosexual men whether they are seeking therapy or are trying to resolve these issues by themselves. Both homosexual and heterosexual men bring these concerns to their therapy sessions. In many couples, one partner does not like to take on domestic duties, such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, or doing laundry. If this happens to be the man in a heterosexual relationship, not much attention is paid to it because we expect this type of gender-role behavior and accept it as “normal.” However, in a homosexual relationship, this dislike of domestic duties can generate problems if neither one of the two men sees himself as the domestic person. Or one who is willing to perform the household tasks may have perfectionist attitudes just as much as a female may have. In both relationships, a tendency to perfectionism can lead to stress and tension between the two partners. The play and long-running television program “The Odd Couple” serve as an illustration. Men are believed to think and fantasize more about sex than women do. For men, sex has intrinsic value; they regard sex for its own sake and do not require physical or emotional closeness after sex. Because of a discomfort with closeness, which is thought to be one of the results of male gender-role socialization, men tend to separate sex from feelings (Levant & Kopecky, 1995). Men are also often interested in a variety of sexual partners, just for the different experiences. These preferences can lead to problems in heterosexual relationships because the female partner usually expects sexual exclusivity as a basis for the emotional intimacy she desires with her partner. However, there are also accounts about men in

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

65

homosexual living arrangements who long for emotional intimacy and prefer being committed to one partner. In our culture some men may make fun of women’s obsession with their age, looks, and weight. Yet most men would choose a young, slim, attractive female over one who is not so young, not so slim, and less attractive, thereby justifying women’s concerns. Many gay men share the concerns of those females about their age and attractiveness. Some gay men are just as likely as females to report to their therapists that they have developed a debilitating anxiety about exposing their less-than-perfect bodies to what they assume are the critical eyes of their lovers. Considering men’s need to be in control and to appear invulnerable, it is not surprising that many men are reluctant to admit the existence of sexual problems. Often after years of denying sexual difﬁculties, in the privacy of their physician’s ofﬁce or in therapy session some men admit that in brief sexual encounters with women they have led the woman to believe that their impaired sexual performance had never occurred before. Women’s tendency to assume the blame for the failure by reasoning that they must not be attractive or sexy enough facilitates the continuation of men’s denial. In longer term relationships, women can still be expected to blame themselves. Perhaps because women have been socialized to be submissive and accommodating, it would seem easier for men to refute suspicion of their inadequate sexual functioning in heterosexual relationships than in relationships with other males. However, in general, women’s submissiveness has been declining over the years, and just as many gay men may demonstrate accommodating behaviors in their relationships as those who engage in controlling and competing behaviors. Ending relationships would seem easier for those involved in homosexual than in heterosexual relationships mainly because many heterosexual couples have children and most parents do not want to abandon their offspring. Indeed, gay couples seem to form briefer unions than either lesbian or heterosexual couples, although the recent attempts to legalize their unions with same-sex partners seems to indicate that they value commitment and stability as much as their heterosexual counterparts. In the following part of this chapter case studies of homosexual and heterosexual partnerships illustrate how individually held attitudes about masculinity determine the path of their relationships. Pittman’s characterization of masculine impersonators can be recognized in some of the individual case histories.

Tim and Ralph—a Committed Relationship Tim, a friendly middle-aged man, currently shares a committed relationship with Ralph. As a boy and adolescent, Tim had gone through the

66

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

internal struggle involving his sexual orientation. He grew up in an emotionally close family. His father was supportive of Tim and his younger sister, but expected that they take on certain responsibilities. Self-discipline was a trait his father wanted to instill in his children. Nothing in Tim’s looks or behavior indicated any feminine traits or difﬁculties about his gender identity. He did reasonably well in school, performed adequately in sports, and watched and listened to his male classmates and friends. Through listening he learned that it would not be good for him to disclose his doubts about his own orientation to his peers or even his parents. At the age of 17 he started dating some girls, and although it did not feel right to him, he continued. Like many young men in his situation, Tim was not troubled by his gender identity, but his sexual orientation was the area of doubt for him. He tried to convince himself that he just had not found the right girl yet, the one who would make it feel natural for him to be heterosexual. Tim had just turned 22 when he met Cindy. They got married and within a year became the proud parents of a baby boy. For a while the newness of having a family subdued Tim’s nagging doubts about himself, but after a few years of marriage he could not ignore his discomfort. Cindy felt something was missing from their marriage. She and Tim got along well; they seemed like best friends, but there was a lack of passion. On a business trip Tim met a young man he felt immediately attracted to. The power of this attraction scared him to the point of avoiding interactions with this man as much as possible without appearing rude. He returned home but remained troubled. Cindy and Tim decided to seek marriage counseling. After their initial conjoint session, the therapist scheduled individual sessions for both Tim and Cindy. For the ﬁrst time Tim talked about his gender identity difﬁculties. Although he had never allowed himself to act on his desire to be sexually involved with another man, he was quite sure now that he was gay. His feelings at meeting the other man convinced him. The therapist understood that Tim needed to accept that part of himself and make decisions about his future life based on that acceptance. After their divorce, Tim remained actively involved with his son, even after Cindy’s remarriage and subsequent birth of another son. Cindy’s new husband was reluctant at ﬁrst to have Tim come to the house to pick up his son, especially after his own son was born. Tim made an unusual suggestion: He invited the husband to participate in a counseling session with him. In the session the new husband was encouraged to communicate his concerns freely, and, with the counselor present, the two men came to an improved understanding about each other’s positions. Eventually, Tim found a loving male companion with whom he moved in. Tim’s son Peter and Tim’s companion, Ralph, got along well

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

67

on the son’s weekend visits. Cindy and Tim remained friends and handled the raising of their son in a mature parenting manner. Tim was on the threshold of middle adulthood. He was about to enter Erikson’s stage of generativity versus stagnation and thought about making meaningful contributions to society not only in mentoring his own son but also by preparing for a different career. Becoming a nurse would be more meaningful to him than his current employment. While continuing in his job, Tim enrolled in college on a part-time basis. When Peter was about 15, Ralph received a job offer that was too advantageous to resist, although it would require a move to another town about 200 miles away. They decided that Ralph would make the move and look for suitable living arrangements in the new town while Tim would stay behind for another year and then join Ralph. During the year they would visit on weekends. With Cindy’s approval, Tim took Peter along for some of the visits to the new town because he wanted Peter to have a chance to become acquainted with the environment before Tim made the ﬁnal move. Shortly after Peter’s 16th birthday Tim joined Ralph and they continued in their committed relationship. However, Tim remains just as committed to his relationship with Peter, his son. In the meantime Peter has applied to colleges in his hometown as well as the town his father lives in now.

Pat—Continuous Competition Unlike Tim, who did not display characteristics either in manner of dress or behavior that would indicate his homosexual orientation, Pat ﬂamboyantly asserts his gay lifestyle. With his spiked, dyed-black hair, earrings, and clothing intended to identify him as a poet, he could be the poster boy for a certain type of male homosexuality. Pat attends college and thinks of himself a writer and a rebel. He uses his intellect in sarcastic ways as if to ward off hostility from his male peers, a hostility that he inspires in them with his taunting behaviors and that he seems to thrive on. A thinly veiled anger smolders under the surface of his sophisticated verbalizations. He sadly expresses his unfulﬁlled wishes for a companion who is gentle, intelligent, and appreciative of the ﬁner things in life. At the same time he manages to be critical about females and their superﬁciality as well as about males and their competitiveness and lack of sensitivity. Yet Pat is the ultimate contender in the competitive struggle about who is more intellectually gifted, who is verbally more expressive and reﬁned, and who is more ﬂamboyant in outward appearance and expression. Pat’s sexual orientation excludes women as partners in long-term relationships (which is what he asserts he is looking for), and gay men, he

68

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

feels, have taken advantage of his gentleness and caring attitude. Pat’s complaints about the shortcomings of the people around him, in his mind, justify his biting sarcasm. If asked, Pat would explain his sarcasm as a defense and coping mechanism, meant as protection against the pain inﬂicted on him by his environment. Even in experiencing and expressing pain, Pat is competitive; nobody suffers deeper wounds than he. The notion that sarcasm can be a form of competition as he compares his level of intellectual functioning favorably with that of others would meet with Pat’s vehement denial. It is interesting that Pat entertained the idea of counseling to help him cope with loneliness and rejection. However, when asking for a referral, he made it quite clear that the therapist or counselor would have to be his equal intellectually to be able to fully comprehend Pat’s situation. At the stage of young adulthood, Pat has managed to become estranged from most of his peers, except for brief relationships. Constant competition, where only one can win, turns any relationship—homosexual or heterosexual—into a battleﬁeld. To achieve emotional closeness, a partnership needs to be based on a cooperative foundation. As Pat moves through middle and late adulthood, his social connectedness, which is a part of successful aging, is not likely to increase unless he modiﬁes the image of masculinity that he has chosen for himself. The stories of Tim and Pat constitute only a small sample of the great variety of men’s attitudes and resulting lifestyles among those with homosexual interests. We can expect similarly varied accounts from men in heterosexual relationships.

MEN’S HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS Men are expected to hide their vulnerabilities behind the façade of male heterosexual language, a language that translates their fear of being viewed as weak into anger and even violence against women and gay men (Murphy, 2001). Young males learn early to transform these into aggression and anger. Physically expressed affection may give rise to suspicions of being homosexual or—at the least—of being weak. Suppression of their softer feelings becomes a prerequisite for achieving and maintaining the type of power men associate with masculinity. Men “are supposed to conquer, be on top of things and call the shots.” They “have to tough it out, provide and achieve” (Kaufman, 1999, p. 82). Power, wealth, status, and sexy women—the markers of manhood— are paraded around for the approval of other men and to be accepted into manhood (Kimmel, 1999). But many men in heterosexual relationships

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

69

also derive pride from the ability to provide well ﬁnancially for their families; however, because of economic constraints, the “good provider” role may conﬂict with the more meaningful career aspirations these men originally may have had (Carr, 2005). The resulting emotional struggle between what one wants to do and what one thinks one ought to do is something many men carry on silently within themselves, not allowing themselves to express sadness or disappointment. Letting the sadness turn into anger would enable men to express this struggle more readily. However, unexpressed and inappropriately expressed emotions erect barriers in intimate relationships.

Men’s Silence and Emotional Closeness Their reluctance or inability to express emotions does not appear problematic to men; if women did not insist that men articulate their feelings, everything would be ﬁne (Levant & Kopecky, 1995). Based on observations of those around him, psychiatrist Frank Pittman (1993) explained that men are silent “because the talk between them is not required. Men, unlike women, don’t feel loved because somebody talks to them. In a way, silence implies a higher level of acceptance. Love between men means never having to say anything”(p. 204). Men’s silence is the sanctuary to which they can escape when the anxious world of emotions and females’ insistence on sensitivity to people’s feelings and relationships becomes uncomfortable. Considering silence to reﬂect an elevated level of acceptance justiﬁes men’s silence in any kind of relationship. In general, men’s traditional sexual style has allowed them the freedom to feel entitled to their sexual desires without having to communicate much about their feelings. For women, sex means emotional closeness that can be communicated through talk, but for men sex means sex. Although neither attitude may be wrong, destructive, or pathological, it makes for some difﬁculties when men and women decide to take up with one another. There is a gap to bridge. Much has been written about man’s secret desire for emotional closeness and simultaneous fear of having to sacriﬁce his masculine identity. Because of gender-role socialization, men experience discomfort with emotional closeness and thus have been encouraged to separate emotion from sexual activities (Levant & Kopecky, 1995). As sex is an opportunity for two people to become truly emotionally and physically intimate, traditional men apparently have opted out of true intimacy. As in the previous section on men’s homosexual relationships, individual case studies illustrate how some men’s ideas of masculinity determined their lives.

70

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

Daniel—Philandering The separation of emotions and sexual activities partly facilitates the coping mechanism for one of Pittman’s (1993) masculine impersonator types, the philanderer. Daniel, a happily married man, built a large part of his life on the separation of emotions and sex. In his early adulthood his selection of a wife went according to what sociologists call assortative mating or homogamy, the tendency to mate with someone who has traits similar to one’s own (Murstein, 1986). Daniel had met his wife Melissa through Curt, his business partner and Melissa’s brother. Curt and Daniel had developed a small but successful business. Curt was several years older than Daniel and quite set in his ways. He was in charge of the company’s ﬁnances, whereas it was Daniel’s domain to work with their customers in various towns. Daniel was excellently suited for the job. He was handsome, intelligent—and above all—very charming. Everybody liked Daniel and his friendliness and helpfulness. As he traveled for the company, he had ample opportunities to meet attractive females and formed a network of sexual partners in the towns he visited repeatedly. He usually did not keep his marriage a secret from his lovers, but that did not seem to diminish his charm and attraction. Some of the women he engaged in affairs with were married but also enjoyed their relationship with Daniel. As Pittman (1993) described, perhaps as part of the attachment style model he had formed in early childhood, Daniel escaped the woman at home and seduced those away from home. Daniel loved his wife and was always happy to come home to her and their two daughters. In his mind, the affairs did not distract from his love for his wife; they were entertaining adventures included in his business life. He looked forward to meeting new women and learning to know them sexually. The fact that he did not keep his marriage a secret was evidence for him that he was devoted to his wife and family. Yet his notion of masculinity included options for a varied sexual life. Melissa discovered his affairs and threatened divorce, the last thing Daniel wanted. In addition, Curt, his brother-in-law, demonstrated a lack of understanding for Daniel’s escapades when he accused him of using their business connections to cheat on his sister. Daniel had assumed that every man had similar sexual desires and would act as he did in similar circumstances. Under pressure, he promised to discontinue the affairs, and apparently he did say good-bye to the ladies. Melissa, supported by her brother, however, insisted on a legal transfer of half their ﬁnancial resources and income from the business to her personal account to protect herself and their daughters. For a while, all seemed well. Melissa appeared to trust him again. Curt planned an early retirement for himself, which required Daniel’s

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

71

presence in the company. A younger man was hired and trained to take over Daniel’s work with customers. The thought of the future restriction of his travels became depressing. He would miss the variety of his involvement with the customers. To elevate his spirits he embarked on what he promised himself would be a brief affair with the pretty receptionist at a customer’s ofﬁce. Soon he added another one in a different town. This time, after Melissa found out about the new affairs, she communicated with Daniel through her lawyer, who advised him to leave the house. Daniel’s own attorney suggested that Daniel seek professional treatment for his “sexual addiction.” The outcome of this case was that Melissa did not dispute the condition of sexual addiction but refused to engage in sexual activities with him. As he admitted, with the traveling part of his business coming to an end, he did not look forward to a sexless life in the late adult and older stages of his life. Financially, divorce was not feasible for him because of the ﬁnancial settlement he had grudgingly agreed to as result of his earlier inﬁdelities. His daughters, who had lived at home during their college years, would soon be married and leaving the house. What he had to look forward to is a civilized companionship with his wife, devoid of emotional and sexual closeness. Had he challenged his image of masculinity earlier in his marriage, the later part of his life could have been much more satisfying. During the time of middle adulthood, marital stability and satisfaction often increase because of reduced conﬂicts over childrearing and as a result of middle-aged adults’ increased sense of control (Lachman & Weaver, 1998). However, what could be seen as a kind of marital self-efﬁcacy at this stage of their lives did not materialize for Daniel and his wife. Now in his early 40s, the role transitions in Daniel’s life impacted him in many ways. His role in the business changed, as his partner’s upcoming retirement required Daniel to spend more time in the main ofﬁce. In a way, he had the opportunity to phase into a mentoring role with the young trainee, but he could not enjoy that part because he was still mourning the loss of it for himself. His role as father would require less intense involvement, and as his relationship with his wife had changed, this role was also signiﬁcantly reduced. As young adults, Daniel and Melissa acquired a circle of friends largely from their own age group, but because of the sex difference in relationship styles, men’s friendships are not based on emotional closeness but rather on activities that men can engage in together. Women’s friendships with other women are much more intimate and offer exchange of emotional support. In addition, women often occupy the role of kin-keeper and assume the responsibility for maintaining family and friendship relationships (Moen, 1996). Although women’s acceptance of the kin-keeper

72

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

role works well for most couples, in Daniel’s case it emphasized his emotional isolation. Projecting into the future to late adulthood, when individuals enter Erikson’s stage of ego integrity versus despair and reminisce about past experiences, how will Daniel come to terms with how he has lived his life? According to Rowe and Kahn (1998), the components of successful aging include an individual’s good physical health, retention of cognitive abilities, and engagement in social and productive activities. For many older people, some level of social involvement appears to contribute to higher morale and lower levels of depression. Theorists adhering to activity theory believe that even for elders who suffer from some physical impairments, social involvement is linked to overall better outcomes (Zimmer, Hickey, & Searle, 1995). But some older adults lead socially isolated lives without being discontented. An alternative theory, disengagement theory, ﬁrst proposed by Cumming and Henry (1961), views it as normal for some older adults to scale down their social lives. A general shrinkage of life space results in fewer interactions with others and fewer roles to ﬁll. More time is available to turn inward. This process might indicate a change in personality rather than just a decline in involvement. Sociologists believe that the roles older adults retain have less content and fewer duties or expectations (Rosow, 1985). With the earlier onset of Daniel’s reduction in his role as father and in his role in the business, with fewer interactions with customers and their female secretaries, how will he react and accept these changes? Will it be a normal process of turning inward or will it be an unhealthy adjustment?

Paul—Controlling The common image of men driven by strong sexual desires and quick to display anger and hostility is one that may take time and hard work to overcome, according to Larry May (1998), professor of philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis. As May points out, it is an image of someone not in control of his life and is therefore incongruent “with the traditional image of men as being in control of their emotions” (p. 21). Anger, a powerful force, is often regarded as a motivating force. People usually experience anger when things do not happen the way they want them to. We feel angry “when we perceive a violation of our rights and when we feel helpless in obtaining what is rightly ours or in preventing hurt and damage inﬂicted upon us by others. The degree or intensity of the anger is often correlated with the degree of helplessness experienced in the situation” (Maass, 2002, p. 137). Ironically, those who insist on controlling everybody and every situation often use expressions of anger as one of their maladaptive behaviors.

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

73

When Paul and Nancy met, Nancy believed that Paul was a born leader because he seemed to know everything. He had solutions for every situation. Nancy considered herself lucky to ﬁnd such a husband. Paul was in absolute agreement with Nancy’s opinion of him; in fact, he did a lot to instill it in her. Paul’s image of masculinity included aspects of benevolent sexism, as described earlier. At ﬁrst Nancy sought Paul’s advice on almost every activity and decision, and he was glad to give it. Early in the second year of their marriage, Nancy found out what the consequence was if she did not follow his directions. On the way home from work she stopped at the supermarket for some items instead of heading straight home, which Paul had told her always to do. “Come home ﬁrst to get some chores, such as the laundry, started before you do other errands” was his suggestion. Arriving home after her stop, she was faced with questions as to where she had been. He had been worried about her when she did not appear at the regular time. Nancy tried to defend herself by explaining that she thought it was less time-consuming to stop at the supermarket on the way home than to make another trip out later. Paul yelled at her, accusing her of being selfish and thinking only about her convenience when he was worried about her safety. With that he stormed out of the house, slamming the door behind him. Hours went by, and Nancy wondered if Paul had left her and the marriage. She went to bed but could not sleep. Around midnight he returned. He had been drinking and was a bit unsteady on his feet. Nancy helped him into bed, where he passed out. The next morning, still angry, he told her again how inconsiderate she had been. As he was backing out of the garage the previous evening, he hit their second car with the back of the car he was driving. Of course, it was all Nancy’s fault, and now they had to give up their vacation plans to pay for the damage on the two cars. Following this episode, Nancy was on her best behavior, trying to get back into Paul’s good graces. However, she observed that his “suggestions” took on the character of demands and commands. This is a common occurrence with controlobsessed people; if they detect the slightest reduction of the power they hold over those around them, they intensify their controlling efforts. As Paul was in charge of their combined ﬁnances, he began to request accurate and detailed accounting of any sums of money Nancy spent. Paul gradually succeeded in reducing Nancy’s circle of friends. He frowned on her meeting with friends after work. It was not safe for her to be out in the evening. On those occasions that she allowed herself to enjoy her friends’ company, she paid for it after her return home. Paul either accused her of neglecting him and her duties around the house or he would not talk to her for hours. If she started a conversation, he looked at her and frowned as if she had not made any sense, without

74

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

responding to her statements. A few minutes later he would leave the room. Tired after a long day of work, the excitement from the time she had spent with her friends, and the tense atmosphere at home, Nancy would go to bed. Paul often grabbed her and insisted on having sexual intercourse. On those occasions when Paul was displeased with her, his sexual advances expressed a level of aggression and hostility that Nancy had not experienced earlier in their relationship. Nancy stopped meeting with her friends, which was what the controller in Paul wanted. The less support and contact his wife had with others, the more dependent she was on him and the more he could dominate her. His manhood required absolute obedience from those in his home. That included Nancy and the twin daughters she gave birth to two years into the marriage. It was Paul’s decision that Nancy quit her job and be at home with the twins. Nancy found it more and more difﬁcult to engage in sex with Paul. He became increasingly demanding, and the tender moments she had experienced at the beginning of their relationship had vanished. Her sexual desire had disappeared, and the lack of any arousal on her part made intercourse painful. However, she was in no position to refuse. She had no job, no ﬁnancial resources, and two babies to take care of. What would be the predictions for Nancy and Paul’s relationship as they pass through middle and late adulthood? Nancy’s role transition from wife and employee to full-time mother and wife gives her an opportunity to devote herself to her daughters and form strong bonds with them. The girls’ attachment to their mother combined with Paul’s authoritarian parenting style may emotionally isolate Paul from the family. The increased marital stability often seen during middle adulthood when children leave the home most likely would not occur in Paul’s marriage to Nancy. For Nancy, the “empty nest” syndrome may lead to depression. On the other hand, she may ﬁnd ways to leave the marriage. As research has shown, middle-aged women demonstrate more resilience than younger women in managing transitions such as divorce (Marks & Lamberg, 1998). Although respondents in a study believed that their personality was changing with age (Fleeson & Heckhausen, 1997), longitudinal research has shown that negative emotional traits in adolescence strongly predicted poor mental health in middle adulthood (Offer, Kaiz, Howard, & Bennett, 1998). Paul could change some of his personality traits, but he may persist in his controlling attitudes and behaviors. If Paul and Nancy remain married, one could expect a relationship of two partners who have little compassion for each other. In case of a divorce, Paul may marry again and acquire a second family, which, in turn, would signiﬁcantly postpone his ability to retire. If indeed he remarries, he will ﬁnd

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

75

out again that controlling behaviors may work for a short time to keep those around him in his power, but in the end they will distance themselves from his inﬂuence. He may even learn that those who stay with him out of fear can become dangerous and turn against him.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHANGE Whether emotionally close or distant, people interact with others in their environment on a daily basis. Some of our interactions proceed in an amicable, pleasant manner, but others may leave us with feelings of sadness, disappointment, or even anger. Many of our interactions are not just one-time occurrences but form an important part of the relationships we have with others. As ingredients of relationships, interactions take on meanings in themselves. They become the messengers of the feelings, goals, hopes, wishes, and expectations we hold for a particular relationship. Through their recurring nature, individual interactions combine over time to form a person’s relationship style. If we are to believe that men are unable or reluctant to entertain and express warm and tender emotions, we expect the messengers of these feelings to be mute. Efforts to deﬁne human intelligence have led to considerations of various types of intelligence, and the concept of emotional intelligence has become popular in psychology. According to Goleman (1995), emotional intelligence consists of a set of capabilities that are necessary for success in life—success in intimate personal relations as well as in workrelated and social interactions. These capabilities are based on selfknowledge, including an awareness of one’s emotions, and an ability and motivation to manage those emotions appropriately. The important aspect about awareness of one’s feelings is that we are attentive to them at the time they occur. At the moment we recognize our emotions in a certain situation, we need to increase our awareness to include our own thoughts about those feelings. Only after acknowledging our moods and examining our thoughts and beliefs around them are we able to respond appropriately and in our own best interest. Using the path of self-awareness, we create opportunities for behavioral alternatives to reach predetermined goals and goals that may arise out of a current situation. For those who are dissatisﬁed with their relationships, it is tempting to look at the other party for reasons. It may also be tempting to respond impulsively in a given interaction. However, looking at themselves and their own behaviors in these relationships would be a more promising enterprise. “What were my feelings in the interaction, what was the goal

76

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

or purpose of my actions, and was the goal achieved?” are important questions to answer. By resisting the urge to engage in impulsive behavior, we vote against the unexamined life in favor of examining and understanding our own emotions and motivations and those of the people around us.

REFERENCES Allen, D. (1980). Young male prostitutes: A psychosocial study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 9, 399–426. Bly, R. (2004). Iron John. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Carr, D. (2005). The psychological consequences of midlife men’s social comparisons with their young adult sons. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 240–250. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English dictionary. (1971). 2 vols. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press. Cumming, E., & Henry, W. E. (1961). Growing old. New York: Basic Books. Fine, L. (2001). Rights of men, rites of passage. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Boys and their toys?: Masculinity, class, and technology in America (pp. 251–271). New York: Routledge. Fleeson, W., & Heckhausen, J. (1997). More or less “me” in past, present, and future: Perceived lifetime personality during adulthood. Psychology & Aging, 12, 125–136. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justiﬁcations for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Hooks, B., (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. New York: Atria Books. Kaufman, M. (1999). Men, feminism and men’s contradictory experiences of power. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Men and power (pp. 75–103). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America. New York: The Free Press. Kimmel, M. S. (1999). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence in the construction of gender identity. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Men and power (pp. 105–128). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Knauft, B. M. (2003). What ever happened to ritualized homosexuality? Modern sexual subjects in Melanesia and elsewhere. Annual Review of Sex Research, 14, 137–159. Kuypers, J. A. (1999). The paradox of men’s power. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Men and power (pp. 17–33). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Lachman, M., & Weaver, S. (1998). Sociodemographic variations in the sense of control by domain: Findings of the MacArthur studies of midlife. Psychology & Aging, 13, 553–562.

Images of Masculinity as Predictors

77

Levant, R. F., & Kopecky, G. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed: Changing the rules of manhood—at work, in relationships, and in family life. New York: Dutton. Lyman, P. (1987). The fraternal bond as a joking relationship: A case study of sexist jokes in male group bonding. In M. S. Kimmel (Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 148–163). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Maass, V. S. (2002). Women’s group therapy: Creative challenges and options. New York: Springer Publishing. Maass, V. S., & Neely, M. A. (2000). Counseling single parents: A cognitivebehavioral approach. New York: Springer Publishing. Marks, N., & Lamberg, J. (1998). Marital status continuity and change among young and midlife adults. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 652–686. May, L. (1998). Masculinity & morality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mejia, X. E. (2005). Gender matters: Working with adult male survivors of trauma. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 29–40. Moen, P. (1996). Gender, age, and the life course. In R. H. Binstock & L. K. George (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (4th ed.) (pp. 171–187). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Moore, R., & Gillette, D. (1992) The warrior within: Accessing the knight in the male psyche. New York: William Morrow. Mulkay, M. (1988). On humour: Its nature and its place in modern society. London: Polity. Murphy, P. F. (2001). Studs, tools and the family jewels: Metaphors men live by. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Murstein, B. I. (1986). Paths to marriage. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Offer, D., Kaiz, M., Howard, K., & Bennett, E. (1998). Emotional variables in adolescence and their stability and contribution to the mental health of adult men: Implications for early intervention strategies. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 27, 675–690. Perry, J. W. (1966). The lord of the four quarters. New York: George Braziller. Pittmann, F. S., III (1993). Man enough: Fathers, sons, and the search for masculinity. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Pleck, J. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Plummer, D. (1999). One of the boys: Masculinity, homophobia, and modern manhood. New York: Harrington Park Press. Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Random House. Rosow, I. (1985). Status and role change through the life cycle. In R. H. Binstock & E. Shanas (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (2nd ed.) (pp. 62–93). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Rowe, J., & Kahn, R. (1998). Successful aging. New York: Pantheon. Rushkoff, D. (2004). Picture perfect. In R. Walker (Ed.), What makes a man: 22 writers imagine the future. (pp. 54–66). New York: Riverhead Books. Shields, S. A. (2005). The politics of emotion in everyday life: “Appropriate” emotion and claims on identity. Review of General Psychology, 9, 3–15.

78

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARTNERS

Suzik, J. R. (2001). Building better men. In R. Horowitz (Ed.), Boys and their toys?: Masculinity, class, and technology in America. (pp. 111–138). New York: Routledge. Tanner, J. M. (1990). Fetus into man: Physical growth from conception to maturity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thorne, T. (1990). The dictionary of contemporary slang: with more than 5,000 racy and rafﬁsh colloquial expressions—from America, Great Britain, Australia, the Caribbean, and other English-speaking places. New York: Pantheon. Wilson, C. (1979). Jokes: Form, content, use, and function. New York: Academic Press. Zimmer, Z., Hickey, T., & Searle, M. S. (1995). Activity participation and wellbeing among older people with arthritis. The Gerontologist, 35, 463–471.

PA RT I I

Men’s Relationships With Brothers and Friends

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 4

“Shooting the Bull”: Cohort Comparisons of Fraternal Intimacy in Midlife and Old Age1 Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford and Paula Smith Avioli

Researchers maintain that, potentially, the sibling relationship is a powerful and very intimate connection (Gold, Woodbury, & George, 1990; Kahn, 1988). Yet, brothers are typically depicted as the least close of sibling relationships in later life (Gold, 1989). For instance, Gold found that 85% of the male dyads in her middle-class—aged 65+—brother pairs were “either overtly inimical, blatantly indifferent, or loyal in the sense of providing social support only during a crisis” (p. 16). Matthews (1994) has countered this representation of brothers’ relationships by showing that brothers tend to express their affection differently compared to sisters. Men tend to express affection in terms of “accepted responsibilities, respect for one another, and gratiﬁcation with the attachments” (p. 181). These ﬁndings of Matthews and Gold concerning brothers’ relationships echo a debate within the ﬁeld of men and masculinities. One position posits that rules of traditional masculinities preclude the opportunity for men to become truly close because of the primacy of homophobia 1

The authors would like to thank Ciara B. Lewis, a doctoral student at the University of Indianapolis, for her thoughtful contribution to the data analysis in Study 2.

81

82

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

in these ideologies and the need to always maintain a competitive edge. As a result, men would be loath to reveal their vulnerabilities, thereby depriving themselves of the affection, support, and closeness they may need and desire from male friends and family members (Farrell, 1986). Alternatively, to protect their sense of masculinity, men express intimacy, particularly to another man (Sherrod, 1987), in a less overt mode than women express intimacy or men express intimacy to women (Matthews, 1994). This more covert intimacy is a private, context-speciﬁc form of communication that men use to express their feelings of closeness and intimacy with other men (Swain, 1989). In this chapter, we investigate whether the fraternal relationship is likely to constitute a close relationship in men’s lives, keeping in mind that closeness may be expressed and felt overtly or covertly. We also ask whether the answer to this question varies by cohort in men ranging from middle to old age. Speciﬁcally, do men who came of age during World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War differ in the likelihood that they have a close relationship with their brothers?

FRATERNAL BOND Not only are relationships between brothers often represented as inferior to relationships that include at least one sister (e.g., Connidis & Campbell, 1995), they are also rarely studied. There are good reasons to believe, however, that this neglect and the negative representation of the fraternal tie are misguided. In this section, we will delineate why brothers may be an important relational resource in later years and, thus, warrant further investigation. The fraternal bond may have special signiﬁcance as men grow older. From a personal network perspective, men’s other close relationships may be dwindling (with respect to friends, see Adams and Ueno in this volume). As with women, relational losses may result from death, divorce, and geographic mobility. Men, however, often have only one intimate, their spouse (Sherrod, 1987). When she is unavailable because of illness or preoccupation with demanding life cycle events such as parent care (Stephens & Franks, 1999), or satisfying some of her agentic needs in midlife (see Huyck and Gutmann in this volume), men’s intimate network may be depleted. Because close relationships are integral to physical and psychological well-being (Sarason, Sarason, & Gurung, 1997), the consequences of such losses to men are particularly serious, unless they have other close social resources to which they may turn. In this study, we examine whether the fraternal bond constitutes an intimate-in-reserve for middle-aged and late life men.

Shooting the Bull

83

The paucity of research on the fraternal bond is rather surprising considering that most people have at least one brother well into very old age. Few social surveys include data on kinship ties, which may, in part, be the result of biased family deﬁnitions that are restricted to households (see Bedford & Blieszner, 2000, for an in-depth discussion of this topic). One exception to this oversight is the General Social Survey, a survey that uses random sampling methods. However, 1986 was the only wave in which the General Social Survey included questions pertaining to sibling prevalence. As Table 4.1 shows, from age 40 to age 85, 64% to 73% of adults have at least one living brother. Notably, even after age 84, more than one-third (37%) of men have at least one living brother. Brothers are also signiﬁcant because the fraternal bond is both ascribed and lifelong. In other words, relationships with brothers, like age-near sibling relationships in general, begin early in life and, independent of choice, last throughout life. Thus, the fraternal bond is enduring until the death of a brother. Of interest is the recent ﬁnding that the lay public does not agree with the low priority researchers place on sibling relationships. Fingerman and Hayes (2002), for example, examined relationship studies published in peer-reviewed journals from 1994 to 1999 and found that only 4.1% of them studied siblings. This number is in stark contrast to the value the general public places on the sibling relationship. On a scale from 1 to 10, the values of brothers and sisters were both rated between 7 and 8. Unlike sisters, however, brothers become increasingly more signiﬁcant with age. Finally, the enduring quality of the fraternal bond may explain why even those men who do not feel particularly close to their brothers still value the bond. Matthews, Delaney, and Adamek (1989), for instance, found that in brother pairs that were the least close

Table 4.1 Percent of Middle-Aged and Older Americans with Siblings in Later Life. Age 40–49 (n = 232) 55–64 (n = 171) 65–74 (n = 95) 75–84 (n = 136) 85+ (n = 51)

One or More Living Sister

One or More Living Brother

Any Living Sibling

70.7

73.3

67.8

69.0

77.9

65.3

58.3

64.0

52.9

37.3

99.6 (n = 235) 91.2 (n = 182) 80.3 (n = 117) 83.8 (n = 99) 78.9 (n = 38)

Note. Source: The 1986 Data of the General Social Survey Cumulative File.

84

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

(termed the disparate and disafﬁliated), the men still assumed that their brothers would rally to the mutual goal of parent care and could count on one another in a crisis. More than the constancy of a relationship, its quality has important beneﬁts to its partners—and not only at times of crises. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that having intimate relationships is essential to psychological and physical health (Sarason et al, 1997), whether the consequence is the result of the intimate interactions themselves or to the social support they engender (Reis & Franks, 1994). For this reason, intimacy between brothers is an important focus of research and is the focus of this chapter. What exactly is meant by intimacy, however, is not clear. Globally, at least, we can be sure that intimacy includes high positive regard, closeness, and affection toward the other. Further, there is deep understanding of the other, which implies that the cognitive and emotional life of the other has been communicated to the relationship partner in some way. Verbal personal disclosure that is evaluative is typically assumed to be the route through which intimate partners know one another, but it is possible that nonverbal and more descriptive forms of disclosure, more common to men, are equally effective in creating intimacy between partners (Wagner-Raphael, Seal, & Ehrhardt, 2001). In this study, we adopt a broad view of intimacy so as not to inadvertently ﬁlter out relationships that create intimacy in unanticipated ways. Further, we will not attempt to differentiate between intimacy and related terms, such as closeness (for an attempt at differentiating intimacy from closeness in the fraternal relationships of young men, see Parks & Floyd, 1996). Intimacy between brothers will be explored in this chapter by ﬁrst reviewing the brief literature and then by describing two studies undertaken by the authors. In Study 1, we identify the primary themes that men use to describe their fraternal relationships and compare them among the three cohorts—World War II, Korean War, and the Vietnam War/boomers. In Study 2, we impose a formal deﬁnition of intimacy in examining men’s depiction of their fraternal relationship, again comparing the three cohorts. Finally, we draw inferences from our results and make recommendations for future research and for interventions that foster close relationships between brothers.

BACKGROUND Intimacy between Brothers Research focusing on ﬁlial intimacy has found that most men report feeling affection for their brother. In their study of middle-aged brothers, Matthews et al. (1989) found that one-fourth of the brothers reported

Shooting the Bull

85

feeling very close or extremely close to their brother and an additional 29% felt close to their brother. Floyd’s (1996) investigation of young men suggests ﬁve themes that characterize this affection: shared conversation, solidarity, companionship, shared perceptions and memories, and surviving shared adversity. However, despite the men’s position that it is more appropriate to express affection verbally and nonverbally to their brothers than to nonrelated men (Floyd, 1996; Floyd & Mormon, 1997), men’s intimate expressions toward brothers may seem limited. If intimacy involves deep affection, knowledge, and understanding of another, Matthews et al.’s ﬁndings on fraternal intimacy may not satisfy these criteria, for, as described above, intimacy between brothers is expressed by sharing responsibilities, respecting each other, and appreciating one another (Matthews, 1994). This controversy will be discussed shortly.

Male Intimacy Collectively, the literature in communication, men and masculinities, and developmental psychology suggests three positions on shared intimacy among men. For lack of better terms, we propose to call them the lack of intimacy position, the inferred intimacy position, and the comradeship or false intimacy position. The lack of intimacy position, as explained earlier, posits that rules of traditional masculinities prevent men from becoming truly close to other men because of the primacy of homophobia in these ideologies and the need to always maintain a competitive edge. As a result, men avoid all behaviors that reveal their vulnerabilities, such as needs for affection, support, and closeness (Farrell, 1986; Levant, 1996). The inferred intimacy position is an alternative position that stipulates that men are able to establish and maintain intimate relationships but have to do so while protecting their sense of being masculine. Thus, intimacy must be expressed covertly as described above and elaborated later in this chapter. Often intimacy between men is reserved for the special closeness among comrades or buddies. A third position is that covert forms of intimacy, such as comradeship, are not truly intimate. This position contends that inferred or covert intimacy does not exist. Rather, the relationships in which they are professed to exist, among buddies and comrades, are not intimate in that the relationships are specific to the situation and not to the identity of the partners (Hopkins, 1992; Strikwerda & May, 1992). Alternatively, men believe their relationships are intimate based on covert forms of intimacy, but they ﬁnd that when a crisis demands more of these relationships, they cannot rely on their “intimates” after all (Sherrod, 1987). One resolution of these positions, which we adopt here,

86

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

is that covert intimacy represents one of many ways that people can be close to others (Inman, 1996).

The Current Study The studies reported here are based on data collected on three cohorts of men over the past 20 years for the purpose of tracing the quality of their relationship with their brother and how it evolves from early middle through late adulthood. Although nearly an equal number of women were included, the sister data will not be discussed in this chapter. Triangulation (multiple methods of data elicitation) was used to sample how men respond both to traditional investigator-driven concepts of relationship quality and to stimuli that elicit their own words to describe their brother relationship. This chapter will focus exclusively on the latter. In Study 1 of this chapter, we describe themes derived from men’s descriptions of their relationships with brothers rather than those derived from the literature or from researchers. In Study 2, we use a more theorydriven approach by identifying themes according to a standard deﬁnition of intimacy.

STUDY 1 The purpose of the initial studies of fraternal relationships was threefold: to discover the kinds of themes that emerged from participant-driven data using an open coding system of data analysis, to trace how these themes evolved over the course of 16 years, and to analyze whether they differed for the middle-aged and old men. These initial studies used the ﬁrst ﬁve waves of a six-wave, 20-year longitudinal project that was terminated in 2004 (see Bedford, 1989a, for a detailed accounting of the project).

Methods Procedure Data were obtained every 4 years using semi-structured personal interviews that typically lasted from 90 to 150 minutes. The principal investigator (PI) conducted nearly all interviews, which took place in the participant’s home, the PI’s ofﬁce, and, occasionally, the participant’s ofﬁce, depending on the preference and convenience of the participant. After Wave 1, some participants were no longer geographically accessible, so their interviews were conducted by telephone or by U.S. mail, again depending upon their preference. In both cases, a packet of materials was usually sent to them in advance.

Shooting the Bull

87

Participants For the ﬁrst wave of data collection in 1984, 66 respondents were randomly selected from an eligible pool of 95 middle-class, midwestern homeowners. The pool was constructed through telephone interviews of designated geographic areas. More men than women were selected, with the expectation that they were more likely to drop out of the study. This fear was unwarranted in that the men proved to be more loyal to the study than the women. Eligible respondents had to be married, to be parents, and to have a same-sex, living sibling within three years of their age. Although this sibling was only occasionally interviewed, he or she was the study sibling toward whom the interview was targeted. Same-sex, age-near siblings were originally targeted to assure that the siblings had high access to each other early in life (Bedford, 1989a). Most of the respondents were upper middle class, extremely well educated, Caucasian, and Protestant. Ages ranged from 29 to 64 at Wave 1. They will be described in more detail in Study 2. The men belonged to one of three birth cohorts. Birth cohorts, according to one formulation (described by Settersten, 1999), are created by the experience of deﬁning historical events that occurred when the members were coming of age, between the ages of 19 and 21. Therefore, the three birth cohorts were designated as World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War/boomers. Historically, a constellation of events shaped each cohort. Table 4.2 schematizes the different historical events experienced by each cohort when they were coming of age.

Instruments In Wave 1, sibling stories were solicited using stimulus cards from the Sibling Thematic Apperception Test (S-TAT) developed by Bedford (1989a) as an Table 4.2 Historical Characteristics of WWII, Korean, and Vietnam Eras. Cohort

Came of Age

Characteristics

1

1935–1945

Partial recovery from Great Depression, economic slump, wartime mobilization, WWII, born to large families.

2

1946–1959

Postwar economic growth, Korean War, McCarthy Era, onset of civil rights movement, new family patterns of the 1950s, low fertility rates of parents.

3

1960–1973

Mobilization of civil rights, civil strife, Vietnam War, changing patterns of labor force participation for women, high fertility rate of parents.

Note. Based on Settersten (1999).

88

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

adaptation of Morgan and Murray’s TAT (Morgan & Murray, 1935). Five TAT ﬁgures were modiﬁed by the artist Barbara Ida so that they could be identiﬁed as siblings of like gender and close in age. A sixth original stimulus card was added. Respondents were told explicitly that the ﬁgures represented siblings close in age, just like the respondent and his brother, and they were instructed to tell a story about them. The instrument was readministered at each wave of data collection. We used the stories rather than rating scales or some of the open-ended questions in the data set in order to elicit spontaneous narratives, uncensored by social norms. In fact, comparisons between S-TAT theme scores and rating-scale values demonstrated this result empirically (Bedford, 1989b). Further, it was assumed the stories were representative of respondents’ brother scripts if not their actual relationships. In support of this assumption, many participants actually prefaced their stories with introductions, such as “this is about [brother’s name] and me,” and often used their actual names in the stories.

Coding of the S-TAT The contents of the sibling stories were analyzed ideographically by trained coders using a recursive method. The procedure began with open coding in which coders ﬁrst identiﬁed explicit or implicit references to the sibling relationship (Berg, 1998). These “relationship units” were eventually categorized into three relationship domains and 12 subdomains. The domains were identiﬁed by coding and recoding relationship units until the coders reached a consensus. These coding units were then reduced in number by subjecting them to a series of coding frames. As seen in Table 4.3, there were three overarching domains of the relationship units: (1) separation/differences; (2) social support; and Table 4.3 Relationship Domains That Emerged from Brother Stories. Domains

Subdomains

Examples

Separation/differences

Positive Negative

Acceptance Problematic

Social Support

Emotional-positive Emotional-negative

Ease Discomfort

Practical-positive Practical-negative

Collaborative Dictatorial

Serious-positive Serious-negative

Open-minded Contentious

Mundane-positive Mundane-negative

Enjoy Belittle

Communication

Shooting the Bull

89

(3) communication. Each was subdivided into positive and negative manifestations. Thus, separation/differences between the brothers were regarded either positively, such as through acceptance, or negatively, as problematic to the brother. Social support was subdivided as either emotional or practical. Emotional support was positive when the helping brother was at ease with emotional issues and negative when there was discomfort with the emotional content displayed. Practical support was positive when it was collaborative and negative when it was dictatorial. So, too, communication was subdivided into sensitive and mundane topics. For sensitive topics, when it was positive, the brothers were openminded; but, when it was negative, they were contentious. For mundane topics, when the interchange was positive, the brothers expressed enjoyment; when it was negative, they trivialized or belittled it.

Results of Study 1 Separation/Differences Card A tended to elicit themes in the domain of separation/differences. Typically, one brother was taking off, leaving the family farm for new horizons. The separating brother was often torn, guilt-ridden, and worried. The brother who was left on the farm usually conveyed an attitude toward the departing brother, sometimes hurt, often resentful if not angry, occasionally supportive and hopeful for an eventual reunion. Results indicated that separation was universally problematic for the three cohorts; boomers also expressed acceptance, but the others rarely did. Speciﬁcally, it was expressed once by Cohort 1, twice by Cohort 2, and 7 times by Cohort 3. Despite the discrepancy in the number of participants per cohort, a higher percentage of boomers still expressed acceptance.

Social Support Card B tended to elicit themes of social support in particularly dramatic terms. Typically, one brother was deeply troubled, usually about something external to the relationship, and the other brother was trying to help him out before he did something foolish and got into trouble. The nature of the advice was often emotional, trying to calm down the brother. This card tended to reveal a lot about the ability of the more troubled brother to accept advice. Card D tended to elicit other sorts of social support, in that one brother was often soliciting advice from the apparently kindly looking older brother. The nature of this advice was often practical. This card tended to reveal a lot about the skill with which the older brother proffered advice, whether in a bossy, dictatorial way or a more sensitive, collaborative manner.

90

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

Collectively, the results showed that the boomers were more consistently at ease with emotional support than the older men, although some of the older men in both cohorts showed a similar tendency. In the practical realm, however, men in all three cohorts displayed a dictatorial style of giving social support.

Communication With regard to communication of mundane topics, most of the men took exceptional pleasure at hanging out with their brother, reminiscing, “shooting the bull,” going ﬁshing, or making plans for such leisurely activities. This response was unanimous except among the boomers; one did not mention this kind of enjoyment, and another sometimes belittled such meaningless activity as “chit chat.” In contrast, the men in all three cohorts manifested both open and closed minds when conversing on sensitive topics. More of them, however, demonstrated open minds than closed. There was also a longitudinal component, which suggested some interesting cohort differences. Cohort 1 and, especially Cohort 2, grew into this ability with regard to sensitive topics, whereas boomers were generally open-minded from the start.

Summary of Findings of Qualitative Analysis, Wave 1 to Wave 5 In sum, boomers had somewhat of an edge in their relationship skills with their brother. They were more likely to be understanding of differences and at ease in the realm of emotional support, whether as receiver or provider. However, they were no better at communication than the older men, and in the case of mundane topics, sometimes belittling. It should be noted, however, that all three cohorts usually manifested a full range of responses, from positive to negative, with the few exceptions noted above. The themes that emerged from this analysis reﬂect components of intimacy. For instance, in the case of reciprocity,2 our analyses indicated that most men found reciprocity with brothers to be difﬁcult when the brother differed from them, such as in life goals. Intimacy as reciprocity also affected their ability both to give and to receive social support, in that they tended to be dictatorial rather than collaborative in the process. Finally, a similar pattern was found in interaction styles more

2

The ability of partners “to accurately process information about their partner’s cognitive, affective, and physical” experiences (Moss & Schwebel, 1993, p. 33).

Shooting the Bull

91

generally, whereby they could be close-minded to input from their brother. When it came to mundane topics, however, brothers tended to enjoy “shooting the bull” together and just “hanging out.” In general, the differences between the cohorts favored the boomers in that they seemed to be better at forming close relationships with their brothers than were Cohorts 1 and 2. This result led us to ask what may have accounted for these differences and whether they were real or apparent, which ultimately led us to Study 2.

STUDY 2 The purpose of Study 2 was to try to understand why the boomer men seemed to be closer to their brothers than men of the Korean or WWII cohorts. To these ends, three hypotheses were investigated. 1. Do changes in masculinity ideologies throughout historical time account for the cohort differences? 2. Could the differences be accounted for developmentally, such that the brother relationship undergoes some normative transformation in response to biological and normative life events and turning points? 3. Were the cohort differences illusory, created by the use of female standards of intimacy? We attempted to shed some light on these possibilities by reinterviewing the men (Wave 6, year 20) and reanalyzing the earlier Wave 1 through Wave 5 S-TAT data together with Wave 6 data. In order to be selected for these analyses, participants had to have been interviewed in one of the last two waves of data collection, either wave 5 or 6. Eighteen men satisﬁed this criterion. Participation was quite steady in all cohorts, especially Cohort 2. Next, we turn to the demographic composition of participants at the time of their last wave of participation (Wave 5 or 6). If we compare demographics by birth cohort, some patterns emerged. Of course, age differs, with means of 80, 73, and 57, respectively (many of the WWII cohort participants had died). In terms of marital status, only boomers were all still married to their original spouse. Incomes were somewhat higher for younger men (perhaps reﬂecting retirement of the older men). Boomers alone were consistently in the highest income category. Subjective health was nearly consistently high, but as documented in other studies, health ratings were highly subjective. For instance, one man who rated his health as very good described it as follows, “I’ve had

92

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

two bladder biopsies, negative, and one serious operation on the cervical area of my neck, two bone grafts, and a titanium plate to hold vertebrae together.”

Hypothesis 1: Cohort Difference in Ideologies of Masculinities The ﬁrst research question was whether apparent cohort differences could be explained as differences in understandings of traditional masculinity ideologies. As explained earlier, traditional masculinity ideology militates against close relationships in general. According to Hopkins (1992), adherence to the rules of traditional masculinity makes it difﬁcult to express intimacy; breaking the rules threatens one’s identity, as gender is central to one’s identity, to one’s very being. The rules of traditional masculine ideologies have been described along various dimensions, such as “the requirement to avoid all things feminine, the injunction to restrict one’s emotional life, the emphasis on toughness and aggression, the injunction to be self-reliant, the emphasis on achieving status above all else, nonrelational, objectifying attitudes toward sexuality, and fear and hatred of homosexuals” (Levant, 1996, p. 261). The literature is contradictory regarding generational shifts in masculinity ideologies. When changes are reported, they tend to be found in younger cohorts. Nonetheless, when the boomers were coming of age, they experienced dramatic shifts in women’s rights through the women’s movement and the dramatic increase of women in the workforce. These changes are likely to have affected them—and to have affected them differently compared to older cohorts, because they were forming their identities at this time (Duncan & Agronick, 1995). To test the possibility that boomers subscribed to a more relaxed masculinity ideology, in the sixth wave of interviews (2004), we measured the participants’ awareness of these rules directly and compared responses across cohorts. Thus, we added to the original interview an informal measure derived from Levant’s (1996) dimensions in the previous paragraph. The measure assessed the extent to which the men view 12 statements as representing what society considers to be masculine. Response categories constituted a Likert-like scale anchored at 1 (not at all masculine) to 5 (extremely masculine).

Results on Masculinity Norms Scale Scores were essentially the same across cohorts. However, the range of scores varied more widely for the boomers than for other cohorts. It is also notable that the means were very high, reaching nearly four out of a

Shooting the Bull

93

possible ﬁve points. All cohorts displayed an exquisite awareness of traditional masculinity ideologies. Of course, the reserve noted in male relationships that appears to be inﬂuenced by these norms may be tempered in relationships with family members, at least in more recent cohorts of young men (Floyd, 1996). In an effort to shed some light on whether masculinity norms had less inﬂuence in relation to male family members, in Study 2, these middle aged and older men were asked whether the rule that it is inappropriate to display affection toward a man differs for relatives compared to nonrelatives.

Results on Question about Affectionate Displays Directed toward Men Notably, 11 of 15 participants who answered this question endorsed the masculinity rule at least somewhat, and also believed that the rule was less restrictive toward relatives. Moreover, there were no cohort differences. Only one participant did not differentiate between kin and nonkin and said he displayed affection toward both. In sum, results of the Masculinity Scale suggest that (1) on average, the participants were well aware of traditional masculinity rules; (2) boomers perceived both the highest and lowest endorsements of these traditional norms compared to Cohorts 1 and 2, which may account for the greater comfort of some boomers with intimacy with their brothers; but (3) the cohorts were alike in allowing that in the realm of affection, men could be more demonstrative with their brothers than with male nonkin.

Hypothesis 2: Developmental Inﬂuences on Close Relationships A second explanation for the greater tendency of boomer men toward having intimate relationships with brothers as compared with those in Cohorts 1 and 2 is that systematic developmental changes support greater intimacy between brothers in middle age than in young-old and old-old years. Perhaps changes related to role sequences, the family career, or personality shifts account for this pattern. One theory is that men may undergo developmental changes in midlife and beyond that predispose them to closer relationships. Speciﬁcally, men’s personalities may undergo a “crossover” (James & Lewkowicz, 1997), whereby they suppress their power needs and “reclaim” those feminine aspects of their personality that were earlier suppressed in service of the demands of occupational success (Gutmann, 1987). In fact, feminine traits are related to many positive aspects of relationships, such as partner acceptance, social support, and reduced conﬂict (Steiner-Pappalardo & Gurung, 2002). Although the

94

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

crossover effect has not been fully documented, men do appear to increase their afﬁliative needs over the life span and across cohorts studied (James & Lewkowicz, 1997). How this crossover plays out in late life is not clear. However, older men may tend to engage more in magical thinking, and older adults in general have been reported to be more “interior” in their orientation. Both tendencies suggest that resolving intimacy issues with brothers may not be as high on the agenda of older compared to middle-aged men. To determine whether the differences in fraternal relationships were developmental, we extracted S-TAT responses from corresponding age intervals from the longitudinal data for each cohort and compared them. In this way, we could measure the brother relationships within an age category in more than one cohort, in time-lag design fashion, and determine whether differences disappeared, in which case they could be developmental rather than cohort-driven.

Analysis and Results Because 20 years of longitudinal data were available, intimacy domain scores (see Table 4.3) could be subjected to a time-lag analysis of the same age groups across three cohorts. These comparisons were possible for three age groups: 53–55, 57–59, and 61–63. For each age group, similarities and differences in their domain scores were calculated. Then, cohorts within the same age group were compared. When no more than one member of an age group differed in a subdomain (such as “accept differences”), they were classiﬁed as consistent across cohorts for that subdomain. When two or more members of the age group scored differently in a subdomain, they were classiﬁed as inconsistent across cohorts. Using the aforementioned analysis, only two subdomains showed consistent results, acceptance of separation and enjoyment of mundane conversation. Acceptance of separation was not prevalent for any age group across cohorts, but enjoyment of “shooting the bull” was almost universal for brothers in the sample. All other subdomains (eight in total) showed inconsistency between the cohorts within an age group. However, despite the small sample, a highly robust ﬁnding was that in seven of the eight cases of inconsistency, it was younger cohort members who showed more fraternal intimacy. This ﬁnding thus lends support for a cohort rather than developmental explanation for the earlier ﬁndings in Study 1. In the one exception, positive problem solving appeared more frequently among the WWII cohort men in the 57–59 group. Speciﬁcally, the oldest cohort at this age interval (57–59) was more likely to co-engage in practical tasks, indicating that they were more collaborative in this respect than the boomers.

Shooting the Bull

95

Conclusions about the Developmental Hypothesis These two results suggest that (1) the younger cohorts are better at most of the manifestations of intimacy than the older ones, and (2) the older cohorts are as good or better at collaborative problem solving. In order to be certain that these ﬁndings do not reﬂect a bias toward feminine forms of intimacy, we performed one last analysis.

Hypothesis 3: Covert Intimacy Differences between Cohorts Finally, we asked, “Could the results be explained by ignoring a male form of intimacy?” Speciﬁcally, does the female intimacy lens discount or erroneously code uniquely male “inferred” or covert intimacy behaviors? If so, it may be that WWII and Korean cohorts are no less intimate with their brothers than boomers, but they express it in more covert ways. To test this possibility, we developed a scheme to code covert intimacy, recoded the data accordingly for all six waves of data, and compared these covert expressions of intimacy across the three cohorts. The coding scheme was theory-driven, using codes derived from the principles of covert intimacy described earlier as well as some empirically derived codes.

Analysis First, generic intimacy domains were developed based on the multidimensional deﬁnition of Moss and Schwebel (1993). Accordingly, intimacy is found in enduring relationships and requires “a deep level of commitment” and the experience of “positive affective, cognitive, and physical closeness” with the partner “in a reciprocal (although not necessarily symmetrical) relationship” (p. 33). Commitment in this context refers to being there for one another, as in providing social support (instrumental and expressive). Affective closeness refers to the positive valence of mutual feelings toward the other, such as love and likeability, and a deep sense of mutual caring. Physical closeness refers to mutual comfort with close physical proximity. Cognitive closeness refers to the ability to develop deep mutual understandings of each other’s thoughts and to sharing personal information, including strengths and weaknesses (see Bedford & Avioli, 2001, for a review of the sibling literature using Moss and Schwebel’s deﬁnition). Once a domain was identiﬁed, it was coded as overt intimacy when the expression and manifestation of the domain was explicit. The domain was coded as covert intimacy based mostly on Swain’s (1989) explanations and examples. Accordingly, intimacy is inferred from expressions of its opposite, such as insults, criticisms, laughter, jokes; intimacy is inferred from silence, the nonverbal assumption that the partners hold each other

96

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

in high regard and are committed to one another; and, ﬁnally, intimacy is inferred from its expression through activities, such as action-based empowering, correcting, and improving the other by instructing, challenging, and even not helping. Thus, intimacy domains were the same for overt and covert intimacy, but the way in which intimacy was expressed was direct for overt intimacy and indirect or inferred for covert intimacy. Although the hypothesis addressed covert intimacy alone, overt intimacy was also coded as we wondered whether a theoretical focus on intimacy would yield different results from the original study. We were also curious if we might uncover a cohort-related pattern of behavior that was decisively counterproductive to establishing intimate relationships and coded dimensions that were antithetical to both covert and overt intimacy.

Results Beginning with the hypothesis that addressed covert intimacy, there were some differences between cohorts in the proportion of intimacy scores that were covert. Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 had approximately 1/3, 1/10, and 1/5 of all coded responses, respectively, classiﬁed as instances of covert intimacy. The differences are not great, but they suggest that the WWII cohort may be more prone to covert expressions of intimacy than the other cohorts. These ﬁndings are in partial support of the hypothesis that cohort differences favoring boomers could be explained by the use of female standards of intimacy. On the other hand, overt expressions of intimacy are clearly more prevalent than covert ones for all cohorts, and the cohorts are very similar in the prevalence of overt intimacy. When adding up all intimacy codes (covert and overt) and discounting outliers, there really is no meaningful difference among them, contrary to the ﬁndings of Study 1. Thus, it appears that overt intimacy between brothers, as deﬁned theoretically, does not differ by cohort, and covert intimacy may be somewhat favored by the oldest cohort. Notably, contrary to the stereotype that men refrain from expressing intimacy, overt intimacy was nearly two times as frequently expressed as covert intimacy. It is possible that this high proportion of intimate exchanges was facilitated by using sibling stories rather than direct questions. Further, it extends similar ﬁndings for young men (Floyd, 1996) and may support the notion that relationships among male family members are less constrained than those among nonrelated men.

Barring Intimacy Next, and ﬁnally, we examine cohort differences in behaviors counter to intimacy. Perhaps despite similar demonstrations of overt intimacy, the original results (boomers are more intimate than older cohorts) can be

Shooting the Bull

97

somewhat explained if the older cohorts act contrary to intimate behaviors more often than the younger cohort. Results showed a trend suggesting that baby boomers may be less likely to behave in ways that violate establishing intimacy than at least Cohort 2 (one-ﬁfth of responses compared to two-ﬁfths). This ﬁnding lends some support to the initial ﬁndings that boomers’ seemingly have greater fraternal closeness; that is, they seem to engage in fewer behaviors and thoughts that stave off intimacy compared to older cohorts.

Summary of Findings of Study 2 In summary, in response to our research question of whether changes in masculinity ideologies over the decades account for the cohort differences, the answer is no; we did not ﬁnd evidence for this possibility. Could the differences be accounted for developmentally, such that the brother relationship undergoes some normative transformation in response to biological and normative life events and turning points? Here again, the answer is no. In no domains were cohort differences absent, and in nearly every case of cohort differences within any age group, the boomers showed the most fraternal intimacy. Some evidence suggests that the differences were illusions created by female standards of intimacy. First, using a theoretical standard for intimacy based on the personal relationship literature, the differences disappeared. However, boomers were somewhat less likely to act in intimacy-alienating ways, especially compared to the WWII cohort. Also, this WWII cohort showed more instances of covert intimacy than the others. Whether covert intimacy is actually true intimacy, however, continues to be debated in the ﬁeld of men and masculinities. The question remains as to what the Study 1 results represented. They alone were based entirely on participant-generated relationship domains derived from story narratives. Study 2 ﬁndings suggest that the boomers’ relationship skills with men may be better honed than those of the older men but that these skills may not constitute intimacy per se. Thus, intimacy may not be as great a problem for men as indicated in earlier studies. Perhaps this is good news.

CONCLUSIONS At least in the case of this sample we can draw the following conclusions. Homophobia does not apply to brothers. Intimacy with brothers is not tied to any one developmental phase of adulthood. Nor is intimacy with brothers limited to the domain of modern (e.g., boomer) men.

98

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

The fact that these men remained in the study for 20 years to document the meaning of brothers to them is testimony to the importance of this relationship. It is now up to researchers to afford such kinship relationships the attention they deserve. Family-of-origin issues tend to bring even disparate brothers together in midlife, beginning with the decline of their aging parents. All siblings are implicated in this decline. Typically, each perceives the need to come together to arrange for care or give care to their parents, bury them, and divide up their effects. As brothers age, they also have to deal with one another’s decline. Throughout these events, they (and their sisters) remain the repository of family memories. The stories told in this study give testimony to the value of these experiences. Until men can free themselves of traditional masculinity ideologies, their brothers may be their best male friends.

CAVEATS Several caveats should be mentioned. The small sample size does not permit statistical analyses. However, some interesting trends were detected and should be followed up in a larger sample. Also, the inferences made from S-TAT stories are only inferences, but, as noted, the stories at the very least reﬂect the men’s understanding of fraternal relationships and reveal the content of their brother schemas. For women to be studying male intimacy has raised a few eyebrows. How can we understand the inner workings of the male mind? Similar accusations were made of men who studied women’s relationship in the early days of feminism. The authors have attempted to absorb the mostly male-authored literature from the men and masculinities literature and, in turn, to apply these concepts in Study 2 by adopting the male forms of intimacy as well as critiques of them. Hopefully, this attempt will stimulate dialogue on the topic and further the study. Given the small sample and the depth of interpretation, this study is one that raises more questions than it answers. The study has allowed us to consider the role played by masculine ideologies and historical circumstances in the relationship between brothers. In our highly educated, rather afﬂuent sample, there were not robust inﬂuences. The ﬁndings here suggest that fraternal relationships may be less vulnerable to traditional masculinity ideologies than the male friendship bond. Future studies should investigate whether the few cohort differences and lack of developmental inﬂuences on fraternal bonds hold true across social class and ethnic groups. Such a comparison would serve both theoretical and practical purposes.

Shooting the Bull

99

RECOMMENDATIONS These studies were primarily exploratory, designed more to discover features of fraternal relationships than to arrive at generalizations. Some of the methods used were developed ad hoc on the basis of face validity. In the case of masculinity ideals, however, there exist normed scales (e.g., Levant & Fischer, 1998), which should be used in a larger, controlled study. In terms of interventions and practical applications of these ﬁndings, it is important that clinicians refrain from pathologizing men’s relationship patterns before they have sufﬁcient information on how men experience their interactions. What may appear to be defective relationship behavior from a theoretical or female-centric perspective may mean something quite different to the men. Having said that, it is not clear whether the male version of intimacy (covert intimacy) is actually intimacy, but, rather, falsely assumed intimacy. It is also possible that what goes under the name of covert intimacy includes multiple dimensions of intimacy, including personal intimacy, comradeship, and other as-yet unidentiﬁed forms. Perhaps as men increasingly beneﬁt from relaxed masculinity norms in younger cohorts, we will witness a renaissance in which there will be fewer restrictions on males’ expression of warmth and deep understandings in their relationships with men.

REFERENCES Bedford, V. H. (1989a). A comparison of thematic apperceptions of sibling afﬁliation, conﬂict, and separation at two periods of adulthood. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 28, 53–65. Bedford, V. H. (1989b). Sibling ambivalence in adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 211–224. Bedford, V. H., & Avioli, P. S. (2001). Variations on sibling intimacy in old age. Generations, 25, 34–40. Bedford, V. H., & Blieszner, R. (2000). Older adults and their families. In D. H. Demo, K. R. Allen, & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp. 216–231). New York: Oxford University Press. Berg, B. L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Connidis, I. A., & Campbell, L. D. (1995). Closeness, conﬁding, and contact among siblings in middle and late adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 722–745. Duncan, L. E., & Agronick, G. S. (1995). The intersection of life stage and social events: Personality and life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 558–568. Farrell, M. P. (1986). Friendship between men. In R. A. Lewis & M. B. Sussman (Eds.), Men’s changing roles in the family (pp. 163–197). New York: Haworth.

100

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

Fingerman, K. L., & Hayes, E. L. (2002). Searching under the streetlight: Age biases in the personal and family relationships literature. Personal Relationships, 9, 415–433. Floyd, K. (1996). Brotherly love I: The experience of closeness in the fraternal dyad. Personal Relationships, 3, 369–385. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1997). Affectionate communication in nonromantic relationships: Inﬂuences of communicator, relational and contextual factors. Western Journal of Communication, 61 (3), 279–298. General Social Survey Cumulative Dataﬁle [electronic data tape], (1986). Available at http://sda.berkeley.edu. Gold, D. T. (1989, November). Men and their siblings: The dynamics of male sibling perceptions and interactions in late life. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Minneapolis. Gold, D. T., Woodbury, M. A., & George, L. K. (1990). Late-life sibling relationships: Does race affect typological distribution? Journal of Gerontology, 45 (2), S443–S451. Gutmann, D. (1987). Reclaimed powers. New York: Basic Books. Hopkins, P. D. (1992). Gender treachery: Homophobia, masculinity, and threatened identities. In L. May & R. A. Strikwerda (Eds.), Rethinking masculinity: Philosophical explorations in light of feminism (pp. 111–131). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Inman, C. (1996). Friendships among men: Closeness in the doing. In J. T. Wood (Ed.), Gendered relationships. Mountain View, CA: Mayﬁeld. James, J. B., & Lewkowicz, C. J. (1997). Themes of power and afﬁliation across time. In M. E. Lachman & J. B. James (Eds.), Multiple paths of midlife development (pp. 109–143). Chicago: University of Chicago. Kahn, M. D. (1988). Intense sibling relationships: A self-psychological view. In M. D. Kahn & K. G. Lewis (Eds.), Siblings in therapy: Life span and clinical issues (pp. 3–24). New York: W.W. Norton. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 27, 259–265. Levant, R. F., & Fischer, J. (1998). The male role norms inventory. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 469–472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Matthews, S. (1994). Men’s ties to siblings in old age: Contributing factors to availability and quality. In E. H. Thompson (Ed.), Older men’s lives (pp. 178–196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Matthews, S. H., Delaney, P. J., & Adamek, M. E. (1989). Male kinship ties: Bonds between adult brothers. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 58–69. Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies: The Thematic Apperception Test. Archives in Neurology and Psychiatry, 34, 289–306. Moss, B. F., & Schwebel, A. I. (1993). Deﬁning intimacy in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 42, 31–37.

Shooting the Bull

101

Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 85–107. Reis, H. T., & Franks, P. (1994). The role of intimacy and social support in health outcomes: Two processes or one? Personal Relationships, 1(2), 185–197. Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (1997). Close personal relationships and health outcomes: A key to the role of social support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (2nd ed.), West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. Settersten, Jr., R. A. (1999). Lives in time and place: The problems and promises of developmental science. Amityville, NY: Baywood. Sherrod, D. (1987). The bonds of men: Problems and possibilities in close male relationships. In H. Brod (Ed.), The making of masculinities: The new men’s studies (pp. 213–239). Boston: Allen & Unwin. Steiner-Pappalardo, N. L., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2002). The femininity effect: Relationship quality, sex, gender, attachment, and signiﬁcant-other concepts. Personal Relationships, 9, 313–325. Stephens, M. A. P., & Franks, M. M. (1999). Intergenerational relationships in later-life families: Adult daughters and sons as caregivers to aging patents. In J. C. Cavanaugh & S. K. Whitbourne (Eds.), Gerontology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 329–354). New York: Oxford University Press. Strikwerda, R. A., & May, L. (1992). Male friendship and intimacy. In L. May & R. A. Strikwerda (Eds.), Rethinking masculinity: Philosophical explorations in light of feminism (pp. 95–110). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men’s friendships. In B. J. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships (pp. 71–85) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Wagner-Raphael, L. I., Seal, D. W., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2001). Close emotional relationships with women versus men: A qualitative study of 56 heterosexual men living in an inner-city neighborhood. Journal of Men’s Studies, 9, 243–256.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 5

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships1 Rebecca G. Adams and Koji Ueno

Researchers have now studied women’s friendships quite extensively, but they have not focused very much attention at all on men’s friendships. Although there are several rather famous ethnographic studies of men’s friendships (e.g., Duneier, 1992; Liebow, 1967; Whyte, 1943), collections of case studies of men’s friendships in various historical and cultural contexts (e.g., Nardi, 1992a), and some articles reporting variations in friendship within samples of men, most of what we know about men’s friendships comes from studies of populations including both genders in which men’s and women’s friendships are compared and contrasted. The most robust and well-known ﬁnding from these studies of general populations is that men’s friendships tend to be activity based, whereas women’s tend to be based on self-disclosure. To use Wright’s (1982) familiar terminology, men’s friendships tend to be side-by-side, whereas women’s tend to be face-to-face. This is only one of the ﬁndings regarding the similarities and differences between men’s and women’s friendships reported in this general population literature, however. Although we agree with Nardi (1992a) that studies of variations among men’s friendships are needed, we also think that it is important to summarize

1

The authors would like to thank Lindsay Docherty, formerly an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and now a graduate student in the sociology department at North Carolina State University, for her assistance with library research.

103

104

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

and highlight the ﬁndings about men’s friendships derived from years of studies in which they were contrasted to women’s. Thus, in this chapter we report and synthesize the ﬁndings from both of these types of studies, presenting a detailed and complex description of men’s friendships that goes beyond the most common and almost clichéd distinction generally cited in the literature. As an organizational framework for this review and synthesis, we will use the Adams-Blieszner-Ueno Integrative Framework for Friendship Research (Adams, Ueno, & Blieszner, 2005; see Figure 5.1). Like its predecessor, the Adams-Blieszner Framework (1994), it is useful to help organize a report of robust ﬁndings on friendship, to indicate areas where ﬁndings have not been replicated and therefore remain unveriﬁed, and to identify gaps in the literature that need to be ﬁlled in order for friendship to be understood more fully. Also like its predecessor, the AdamsBlieszner-Ueno Framework depicts friendship patterns as dynamic and contextualized. Individual characteristics, consisting of social structural positions and psychological dispositions, which affect each other through

Structural, Cultural, Temporal, and Spatial Context

Individual Characteristics

Friendship Patterns Networks

Social Structural Position

Facilitates Constrains

Psychological Disposition

Modify Sustain

Interactive Processes

Facilitates Constrains

Interactive Processes

Internal Structure

Dyads Internal Structure

Internalization

Interpretation

Interactive Motifs

Modify Sustain

Figure 5.1 The Adams-Blieszner-Ueno Integrative Conceptual Framework for Friendship Research

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

105

interpretation and internalization, lead to the development of behavioral, affective, and cognitive interactive motifs, which in turn affect friendship patterns. For example, gender and age are examples of individual characteristics that are correlated with what people think, feel, and do and thus affect their friendship patterns. At both the dyadic and network levels, the internal structure of friendships facilitates and constrains their interactive processes, which reciprocally modify and sustain friendship structure. Friendships thereby form, are sustained, and dissolve over time. All the elements of the framework are shaped by the structural, cultural, temporal, and spatial context in which they are embedded and, in turn, friendships affect their contexts; in both directions these effects are both direct and indirect. Adams (1994) used an earlier version of this framework to report and synthesize the research conducted on older men’s friendships up through the early 1990s. In this chapter, we build on her work, updating her review of the older men’s friendship literature but also describing what we know about men’s friendships during midlife as well. In so doing, and by describing how gender differences in friendship change or remain the same with age (generally used as a proxy for stage of life course or level of maturity), we lay the foundation for dynamic research on adult men’s friendships using a developmental and life course perspective. Thus, though we will not report research on every path included in the framework, we will report on the effects of gender on each element of friendship structure and process and describe men’s friendship patterns across the adult life course in as much detail as the literature allows. In this chapter, we discuss how the interactive motifs that shape men’s friendships change as they age, and we summarize the ﬁndings on the friendships of midlife men, the friendships of older men, and the ways age and gender interact to inﬂuence each aspect of friendship patterns. In the conclusion, we summarize how these literatures contrasting adult men’s and women’s friendships and describing the intricacies of men’s friendships shed light on the complexity and dynamics of men’s friendship across the adult life span. We also discuss what additional research needs to be conducted if we are to understand them more fully.

INTERACTIVE MOTIFS Interactive motifs are shaped by an individual’s characteristics (i.e., social structural position and psychological disposition), and affect friendship patterns. Interactive motifs are behavioral, cognitive, and affective orientations toward people and relationships in general that

106

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

shape friendship networks and speciﬁc friendship dyads within them. As described below, interactive motifs often differ for adult men and women and change as people age. A behavioral motif is a constellation of both the routine and unpredictable aspects of a person’s daily activities and the individual’s responses to them (Blieszner & Adams, 1992). The concept of behavioral motif addresses what people do as part of their everyday lives that brings them in contact with others and provides them with opportunities to form and sustain friendships. Duneier (1992) provided a good illustration of a behavioral motif in his book, Slim’s Table, in which he described friendships forming among older men because they ate in the same neighborhood restaurant at the same time each day. An example from the quantitative literature concerns contact with friends. Although during midlife, men have more contact with friends than women do, this gender difference reverses in later life (Albert & Moss, 1990; Fischer & Oliker, 1983; Tesch, Whitbourne, & Nehrke, 1981). Fischer and Oliker (1983) explain this reversal in terms of the decreasing opportunity and motivation for men to make work-based friendships and the decreasing domestic demands on women. In other words, as adult men and women age, their behavioral motifs change, bringing men into less contact with potential friends and women into more contact with them. Affective motif addresses individual and group differences in feelings about people and relationships. For example, Gilligan (1982) argues that during their early socialization experiences, men, unlike women, do not develop strong interests and concerns for their relationships with others. Assuming this gender difference persists into adulthood, this lack of focus on relationships could affect friendship patterns. Another example of an affective motif is the tendency of both men and women to develop friendships with others who share their individual characteristics and sociodemographic backgrounds. Although the homogeneity of friendship networks results in part from routine activities that provide an opportunity to meet similar others (i.e., from people’s behavioral motifs), friendship choice also results from interpersonal attraction (Quillian & Campbell, 2003). This gender similarity seems to persist across the adult life course. Social-structural locations and predispositions not only shape what individuals do and feel but also what they think about people and relationships in general; in other words, they inﬂuence their cognitive motif. Cognitions speciﬁcally about friendships and groups of individuals who constitute a pool of potential friends may vary systematically depending on individual characteristics, and they are likely to be important determinants of friendship patterns.

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

107

Scholars have neglected the topic of gender differences in the cognitive motifs of midlife adults, but evidence suggests that midlife men and women have different perceptions about how friendships function. Fehr (2004) reported that men are less likely than women to see self-disclosure as a contributing factor for intimacy in friendships. There is no evidence about whether this gender difference is stable across the life course, but it may explain why men disclose personal information to their friends less frequently compared with women (Wright, 1982). In contrast to the scant literature on midlife cognitive motifs, several studies point out gender differences in cognitive motif during old age. For example, older men are more likely than older women to consider friends as companions rather than as sources of social support (Albert & Moss, 1990). They are also less likely than older women to distinguish between a close friend and a casual friend and, when they do, they are less likely to make the distinction in terms of degree of intimacy (Roberto & Kimboko, 1989). For example, at least during old age, men may not perceive friendships to be as important as women do. Focusing on older adults in the process of making transitions to a new continuing-care retirement community, Moen, Erickson, and Dempster-McClain (2000) described how these individuals identiﬁed themselves and what predicted their selfidentities. The researchers found that all respondents had at least one friend, but only 60% chose “friend” as an important self-identity. Furthermore, men were signiﬁcantly less likely than women to report being a friend as an important identity. It is not clear that this motif is stable over the adult life course, or develops as men age. Some researchers (Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985; Roberto & Kimboko, 1989) have reported that as men age, they have a deepening awareness of the meaning of friendship and consider it more important. Others (Field & Minkler, 1988) have reported that the importance of friendship to men declines as they age. This apparent discrepancy may reﬂect the diversity of the aging experience and a difference in compositions of samples; Maas and Kuypers (1974) reported that for family-centered men, friendship becomes more meaningful with age, but that for unwell disengaged men, it becomes less so. Adult men and women emphasize different characteristics of friendship when deﬁning it. For example, older men are more likely to stress similarity, and older women are more likely to mention reciprocity (Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975). It is not clear whether this gender difference develops in old age or persists throughout adulthood. Other researchers reported that midlife adults value friends who have similar backgrounds and values to their own (e.g., Johnson, 1989), but not whether men and women differ in the extent to which they value similar backgrounds in friends.

108

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

In a comparative study of American and Canadian older adults, Adams, Blieszner, and de Vries (2000) investigated how older adults deﬁne friendships. Older adults of both genders in both countries tended to emphasize behavioral processes (e.g., self-disclosure, sociability, assistance, shared activities) and cognitive processes (e.g., loyalty/commitment, trust, shared interests/values) equally. Men, however, were less likely than women to mention affective processes (e.g., compatibility, care).

INTERNAL STRUCTURE The internal structure of friendship dyads and networks is the form that friendships take. Characteristics of the internal structure of friendship patterns include size (number of friends), density (proportion of all possible links among members of a friendship network that are actualized), homogeneity (similarity of the friends in terms of social positions external to the friendship), and hierarchy (degree of difference in status and power among friends).

Size Network size is the most frequently studied characteristic of friendship network structure. In two studies of midlife adults, Marsden’s (1987) analysis of General Social Survey data and Fischer’s (1982) analysis of the Northern California Community Study, the researchers reported no gender difference in the number of conﬁdants and support providers. Wellman (1992), however, reported that adult men had smaller personal networks than women in Toronto. Wellman attributed men’s smaller network size to their fewer numbers of relatives and neighbors compared to women. Consistent with this argument, in his analysis of Canadian General Social Survey, de Vries (1991) reported that, compared with women, men have a greater number of close friends but fewer kin members in their personal networks. Connidis and Davies (1990) reported the same ﬁnding. In sum, midlife adult men may have smaller personal networks overall than women, but more friends. Not many studies with rigorous designs have compared the sizes of men’s and women’s friendship networks during old age, and the existing ﬁndings vary across studies. Some studies report that men maintain larger friendship networks than women during later life stages. For example, analyzing data of retired men and women in the United States, Hatch and Bulcroft (1992) found larger friendship networks among older men than among older women. Some previous studies (e.g., Pihlblad & Adams, 1972; Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975) also reported that older men had more

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

109

friends than older women. In contrast, using the Northern California Community Study mentioned above, Fischer and Oliker (1983) found that among people 65 years and older, men have fewer friends than women, and Field and Minkler (1988) reported that this gap continues to widen as people progress from their 60s to their 80s. Very few studies compare the numbers of close friends that men and women have across stages of the life course. De Vries’ (1991) Canadian study is an exception. According to his analysis, friendship network size seems to decline gradually as adults go through early family career stages (i.e., being single to being married to being a parent). This decline was true for men as well as for women, as is also documented in some qualitative studies (e.g., Cohen, 1992). De Vries noted some gender differences during the empty-nest stage. Women’s friendship networks start to increase when children leave home and continue to increase gradually throughout the later part of the life course. In contrast, men experience an increase right after launching children but then a decrease throughout the remaining stages of the life course (de Vries, 1991). Field (1999), in her study of older adults, reported a similar gender difference in changes in network size. Over a course of 14 years, friendship network size was very stable, but eventually older men, but not older women, experienced a decline in the rate at which they acquired new friends. As mentioned above, Fischer and Oliker (1983) argue that men lose opportunities to make friends at work in old age, whereas women experience a reduction in household obligations, which provides them with more opportunities to develop and maintain friendships. This shrinkage in friendship network size in men’s later life stages may be explained by another ﬁnding from Field’s (1999) study, however—men’s desire to have close friends and engage in social activities fades over time. On the other hand, it is possible that it is more convenient for women to establish new friendships in old age because they tend to develop them with neighbors, whereas men’s new friendships tend to be formed through club afﬁliations and organizational memberships, which they may drop as they get older (Johnson & Troll, 1994).

Density Density refers to the percentage of all possible links among friends in a network that does in fact exist. Very few studies report the density of men and women’s friendship networks, perhaps because of the cost of data collection; to compute network density, researchers must ask respondents to report on the interconnections among all of the friends in their networks. An exception is Haines and Hurlbert’s (1992) analysis of the

110

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

Northern California Community Study data; they reported virtually no gender difference in the density of personal networks. In an earlier study, Laumann (1973) found that the three closest friends of 27% of the Detroit area men knew one another (i.e., their networks were 100% dense). About a third of the respondents had networks in which none of their three closest friends knew one another (i.e., their networks were 0% dense), and the rest had networks in which some but not all of their friends knew each other. The one study of older adult friendship network density that includes reports of whether gender differences were found reports on gender differences across the life course. Fox, Gibbs, and Auerbach (1985) reported that middle-aged and older men and young and middle-aged women had friendship networks lower in density than those of young men and older women. Young men and older women tended to have friends who all knew one another and were friends with one another; young women and older men knew their friends better than their friends knew each other. It is not clear what caused this interaction.

Homogeneity Friendships generally develop among people who share similar sociodemographic characteristics, including age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. Homogeneity may occur because demographically similar people have greater opportunities to become friends or because people prefer to establish friendships with people who are like them (Blieszner & Adams, 1992). The determinants of friendship homogeneity and experiences in homogeneous and heterogeneous friendships seem to be different for men and women. Focusing on sex composition of friendship dyads and networks (same-sex versus opposite-sex friendships), we brieﬂy discuss these gender differences below. In a Dutch study by Kalmijin (2002), a majority of midlife men and women’s close friends were same-sex individuals, which is consistent with previous studies. Opposite-sex friends were not uncommon, however; over a ﬁfth of men’s friends and almost a ﬁfth of women’s friends were opposite sex. An important ﬁnding in Kalmijin’s study is that different sets of factors contributed to the likelihood of men and women having opposite-sex friendships. Speciﬁcally, women tended to have more opposite-sex friends when they belonged to local organizations that included many male members (e.g., schools, work places, and associations). For men, however, being married (especially with children), egalitarian sex roles, and high levels of loneliness predicted a greater composition of female friends. Thus, although the sex composition of women’s friendship networks seems to be inﬂuenced by opportunities to

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

111

meet potential male friends, men’s network composition is more inﬂuenced by family career stage and psychological disposition. Many researchers have argued that both men and women experience difﬁculties in maintaining opposite-sex friendships because of negative reactions from others, lack of clear expectations between friends, and uncertainty about sexual attraction (e.g., Baumgarte, 2002; Werking, 1997). This literature on cross-sex friendships is important because these studies can address problems that result from men and women’s different approaches to friendship or from the stereotypes men and women have about each other’s friendship styles. For example, McWilliams and Howard (1993) argue that men’s behaviors in friendships are likely to be interpreted as creating or asserting hierarchy because of male stereotypes, whereas women’s are assumed to provide mutual beneﬁts because of female stereotypes. In cross-sex friendships, these stereotypes may lead people to assume that male and female friends are pulling the friendships in opposite directions. Given these difﬁculties in cross-sex friendships, it makes sense that same-sex friendships are more satisfying than cross-sex friendships, as reported by Wright and Scanlon (1991). Authors also point out that despite these difﬁculties, cross-sex friendships have some unique beneﬁts for both men and women. For example, in her qualitative study, Werking (1997) argued that cross-sex friendships can complement marital or dating relationships. Similarly, using data obtained from in-depth interviews, Swain (1992) concluded that cross-sex friendships provide men with opportunities for individual growth (e.g., expanding the limit of masculinity, exploring emotionality and dependency). The two most frequently studied types of friendship network homogeneity among older adults are sex and age homogeneity (see Usui, 1984, for discussions of other types of homogeneity). Older men’s networks are less sex-homogeneous than women’s (Akiyama, Elliott, & Antonucci, 1996; Dykstra, 1990; Litwak, 1989; Powers & Bultena, 1976; Usui, 1984). In Field’s (1999) study, when asked to name a closest friend, both older men and women were more likely to report same-sex individuals than opposite-sex ones, but men were somewhat less likely to report a same-sex closest friend. In older age, the differential survival rates between men and women may additionally contribute to the lower sex homogeneity of men’s friendship networks; there are fewer older men than older women because of men’s shorter life spans. In other words, older men have fewer same-sex, same-age people available with whom to form and maintain friendships than older women do. A few studies reported how sex homogeneity in men’s and women’s friendships changes over the life course. In his Dutch study already mentioned, Kalmijin (2002) reported that the rate of same-sex friends

112

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

increased with age during young adulthood (26–34 years old) and that men experienced greater changes in sex composition in friendship networks than women. Consistent with this ﬁnding in young adulthood, Akiyama, Elliott, and Antonucci’s (1996) study of older adults showed that as men become widowed, the heterogeneity in men’s friendship networks increased (i.e., the proportion of female friends increased), whereas women maintained the high level of sex homogeneity during the transition. Similarly, Field (1999) reported that over a course of 14 years, older men become more likely to name a female closest friend, particularly when their spouses passed away during the period. As these researchers pointed out, this increasing sex heterogeneity in older men’s friendship networks may result from older men’s greater need for support, particularly from female friends, and from the previously mentioned differential survival rates. Two studies suggest that older men and older women are equally likely to have age-homogeneous friendship networks (Usui, 1984; Weiss & Lowenthal, 1975). In their study of men at six stages of life (including old fathers and fathers between the ages of 50 and 64 years with no children living at home), Steuve and Gerson (1977) found that beyond the age of 29 years, age-similar friendships steadily declined. If women’s friendships do not do the same, it is possible that in midlife men’s friendship networks are less age homogeneous than women’s.

Hierarchy In general, friendship researchers have paid little attention to hierarchy, and this statement also applies speciﬁcally to researchers who investigate gender differences in friendship. Hierarchy can be measured by asking respondents who has more power in making decisions about shared activities and who is respected more. Although there are some friendship studies that examine hierarchy, they tend to use college student data and do not examine gender differences on this dimension of friendship (see Felmlee, 1999, for an exception). This omission is unfortunate because it is quite possible that men’s friendships are more hierarchical than women’s. Competitiveness, a central concept in masculinity literature, relates to hierarchy as it reﬂects men’s attempts to gain or exercise power over each other (or women). For example, integrating the two literatures on friendship and masculinity, Messner (1992) described the ways in which male athletes compete with each other in friendships. Competitiveness with friends, however, seems to apply to men in general (McWilliams & Howard, 1993), which may explain the lower level of self-disclosure among men, as we will discuss later.

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

113

INTERACTIVE PROCESSES Interactive processes are the action components of friendships. They include exchanges that are behavioral, affective, and cognitive (i.e., what people do with their friends, how they feel about them, and what they think about them, respectively) (Blieszner & Adams, 1992).

Behavioral Processes Frequency of Contact Most studies have found that during midlife men have more frequent contact with their friends than women do (see Kalmijn, 2003, for an exception). For example, in his analysis of the 1985 Canadian General Social Survey, de Vries (1991) documented that men participate in faceto-face interactions more frequently than women. Nonetheless, men still reported a lower frequency of telephoning and writing to friends. In his study in Toronto, Wellman (1992) noted men’s friendship activities tend to take place in dyads or small groups. Married men share friends with their wives while maintaining some degree of independence. Contrasting his data to the ﬁndings on men’s friendships reported before his, Wellman argued that the context of men’s friendships has moved from public places to private homes, and married men’s friendships are now managed by their wives. When they are older adults, men have less frequent contact with friends than women do. According to Hatch and Bulcroft’s (1992) study of retired persons, men overall have less frequent contact with friends than women. A similar pattern was reported in Taylor, Keith, and Tucker’s (1993) analysis of data from the National Survey of Black Americans. As mentioned above, in her longitudinal study of older adults, Field (1999) found that men’s friendship contact declined over the course of 14 years, whereas women maintained their contact with friends. This decline may be the result of diminishing network size and less desire for social interaction among older men, as discussed earlier. Older men also have a more instrumental approach to friendship than younger men, suggesting that the gender difference in what people do with their friends (i.e., participating in activities versus conﬁding) is greater during the later years (Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985). This gender difference in activity possibly explains why men are in less contact with their friends during old age than women are; it may be easier for women to continue conﬁding than it is for men to continue participating in activities.

114

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

Talking Talking is probably the most frequently studied friendship activity. In particular, researchers repeatedly report that during midlife, adult men selfdisclose less to friends compared with women. Women discuss relational and personal matters with friends, but men focus mainly on topics such as sports, business, and politics (Aries & Johnson, 1983; Davidson & Duberman, 1982; Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985). Consistent with the small emphasis on private conversation in men’s friendships, Keith, Hill, Goudy, and Powers (1984) reported that in their sample of older, Caucasian, married male workers, only 39% had a conﬁdant outside of their family. This pattern seems to continue throughout adulthood (DicksonMarkham, 1986), or even to become more pronounced. As younger men, older men are less likely to conﬁde in their friends compared with older women (Connidis & Davies, 1990; Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985) and are more likely to rely emotionally on their spouses (McDaniel & McKinnon, 1993). Many men conﬁde in their co-workers when they are in the workforce, but this part of men’s friendship networks starts to diminish as they retire (Bossé, Aldwin, Levenson, Workman-Daniels, & Ekerdt, 1990). Using qualitative data, Reid and Fine (1992) provide some explanations for this seemingly stable gender difference. For example, the competitiveness in men’s friendships discourages them from disclosing personal information, so they can maintain their power in the relationships. Men also tend to think that their friends would not respond positively to or reciprocate self-disclosure. Instead, men rely on women, especially their wives, for intimate conversations, as pointed out earlier. In a qualitative study, Walker (1995) provides an interesting interpretation of the lack of self-disclosure in men’s friendships. She argues that men do disclose their personal information to their friends and share feelings with them, but they tend to underestimate this feminine aspect of their friendships. Walker explains that men try to maintain an image of friendship that is consistent with gender expectations. Supporting this argument, Walker (1995) showed that men emphasize sharing activities as an important aspect of their friendships when describing their friendships in general, but in contrast they reported they shared feelings when describing speciﬁc friendships. Consistent with Walker’s argument, other evidence exists that many men do conﬁde in friends (Keith, Hill, Goudy, & Powers, 1984; Tesch, Whitbourne, & Nehrke, 1981), ﬁnd friends a consistent source of emotional support (Matt & Dean, 1993), and trust their friends (Davidson & Duberman, 1982).

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

115

Social Support Social support is another behavioral process that has received a great deal of attention from researchers. Using the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, Liebler and Sandefur (2002) identiﬁed four latent classes of social support exchanges. They found that during midlife men were signiﬁcantly more likely than women to give and receive little social support. They were also much less likely than women to give all types of support as well as less likely to receive only emotional support in exchange. The other two categories of patterns of support were high exchange and emotional support exchange. During midlife, men are signiﬁcantly more likely to be classiﬁed as low exchangers and much less likely to give all types of support and receive only emotional support than women. Similarly, Eckert (1980) reported that men were less likely to give and receive support than women, and Roberto and Scott (1986b) reported that compared with older women, older men had less involvement in instrumental and expressive exchanges with friends. This pattern is consistent with a frequently reported ﬁnding that men perceive that less social support is available from friends than women do (e.g., Turner & Marino, 1994). Related to the issue of hierarchy, gender inﬂuences the way resources ﬂow in friendships. For example, in the Toronto study mentioned above, Wellman (1992) found that men receive emotional support from both male and female friends, whereas women receive emotional support mainly from their female friends. Expressing this ﬁnding differently, women provide emotional support to both men and women, whereas men give support only to men. Although this study did not report on the quantities of support exchanged, this imbalance may indicate that men provide an overall smaller amount of emotional support to friends than women do. In Western societies, men are not expected to be as nurturing to others as women are (Gove 1978), and these gendered social expectations may contribute to the imbalance in support exchange in cross-sex friendships.

Affective Processes Midlife adult men and women feel differently about their friends. Some studies have found that friendships among men are less emotionally intimate than friendships among women (Voss, Markiewicz, & Doyle 1999; Wright & Scanlon, 1991). In this line of research, some studies have examined the validity of the above-mentioned assumption that men’s friendships are less emotionally expressive but more instrumental than women’s. Empirical support has been found for emotional expressiveness in women’s friendships, but their friendships also seem more instrumental than men’s (Voss et al., 1999; Wright & Scanlon, 1991).

116

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

Interestingly, weaker emotions in men’s friendships seem consistent even across sexual orientations. In Nardi and Sherrod’s (1994) study, gay men were emotionally less affected by conﬂicts with their friends, compared to lesbians (see an extended discussion of this topic in Beals and Rook in this volume). Although no study directly tests the stability of this gender difference across the life course, weaker emotions in men’s friendships seem to persist in late adulthood. The differences in affective processes between men’s and women’s friendships should not be overemphasized, however. In a study by Jones and Vaughan (1990), men and women reported similar levels of satisfaction, enjoyment, and negativity in the relationships with their best friends.

Cognitive Processes Research suggests that adult men and women evaluate their friendships somewhat differently. For example, Voss, Markiewicz, and Doyle (1999) asked married parents to rate the quality of their relationships with their spouses and same-sex friends in various dimensions. Although both men and women tended to rate their same-sex friends lower than their spouses in terms of relationship quality, women’s ratings of the two types of relationships did not differ on certain dimensions, including general selfafﬁrmation and ego support. In other words, men made a clearer distinction between the quality of the relationship with their same-sex friends and spouses. The majority of older people perceive exchanges with their friends to be just. In the above-mentioned study by Jones and Vaughan (1990), older men and women tended to report that their friendships were equitable in terms of self-disclosure, emotional support, tangible assistance, and socializing initiatives. Other researchers report that older men are less likely than older women to be satisﬁed with their friendships and to perceive their friendships as fair. Antonucci and Akiyama (1987) reported that among married people with at least one child, older men were less satisﬁed with their friendships than were older women. Older men are also less likely than older women to describe themselves as receiving less help from their friends than they give them (Roberto & Scott, 1986a). For both older men and women, they are least satisﬁed when they receive more help from their friends than they give them in return. Older men, however, report a greater level of satisfaction than older women under these circumstances (Roberto & Scott, 1986b). Older men’s overall lower levels of satisfaction do not necessarily suggest that they experience more problems in friendships. In fact, in Adams and Blieszner’s (1998) study, older men tended to be less critical of their

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

117

friends and less willing to acknowledge and work on relationship problems. Although it is clear that men and women evaluate their friendships differently at various stages of the adult life course, no studies directly examine gender differences in how cognitive processes change as people age.

CONCLUSIONS Although researchers need to do much more research on men’s friendships before it is possible to describe them fully, men’s friendships are clearly different from women’s friendships and change over the life course. Although men appear to have less contact with friends than women do, recent research continues to conﬁrm Wright’s (1982) observation that adult men’s friendships tend to be activity based whereas women’s friendships are more likely to involve self-disclosure, reciprocity, social support, affect, and strong emotions. Given these ﬁndings, it is not surprising that, compared with women, men tend to put more emphasis on having friends who are similar to themselves and are therefore more likely to engage in the same activities, and to view friendship as less important as a result of less intense involvement. The research on how men’s friendships change over the life course and the interactions between gender, age, and friendship patterns is even less conclusive, as it was a decade ago (Adams, 1994). Researchers have conducted very few studies comparing men’s and women’s friendships across the life course, and studies comparing men’s and women’s friendships during various stages of adulthood tend to focus on different aspects of friendship patterns and thus do not necessarily contribute to the understanding of the gender-age interaction. It does appear, however, that as men age, they have less contact with their friends than they did when they were younger and less contact with their friends than women do. The latter ﬁnding represents a reversal of a midlife gender difference in friendship. The ﬁndings on how the size of men’s friendship networks change over time is less clear. During midlife, men have more friends than women, but evidence suggesting that this difference also reverses in the later years is not conclusive. The gender diversity of men’s friendship networks increases with age, and their age homogeneity decreases. In combination with men’s emphasis on similarity and shared activities, these age shifts may explain why some researchers have reported that friendship becomes less meaningful to men as they age or at least as their health declines and constrains their types of involvement. Despite the apparent consistency of ﬁndings, however, it is not clear whether this depiction of men’s friendships and how they change as men

118

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

age is accurate. Walker (1995) makes an important point. It is very possible that men themselves provide an inaccurate description of their friendships, providing a contrast with what they perceive to be characteristics of women’s friendships in order to project an image that is in keeping with gender norms. We are therefore possibly left with an incomplete and perhaps inaccurate image of men’s friendships. Furthermore, it is possible that researchers, rather than the men themselves, are responsible for providing an inaccurate impression of men’s friendships. Perhaps, like the literature on romantic relationships (Cancian, 1986), the friendship literature has been “feminized.” Adams, Berggren, Docherty, Rufﬁn, and Wright (2006) found that, in general, women authors who study friendship are more likely to use communal methods than male friendship authors, who are more likely to use agentic methods. It is possible that agentic operations such as separating, ordering, quantifying, manipulating, and controlling may be better suited to capturing important aspects of men’s friendships when compared to communal ones such as “naturalistic observation, sensitivity to intrinsic structure and qualitative participation of the investigator” (Carlson, 1971, p. 20). The use of communal methods has increased over time, partially because an increasing number of women are writing about friendship and partially because male authors have begun using communal methods more extensively, albeit not as much as women. Finally, it is also possible that researchers tend to test gender differences in aspects of friendships that are more common among women (e.g., satisfaction, intimacy). To extend the literature, researchers may need to make sure that they use agentic methods in addition to communal ones and that they ask their respondents questions that have not routinely been posed to them in the past. Many of the questions that address friendship issues important to women were derived from qualitative studies of their social interaction (e.g., Hochschild, 1973; Rubin, 1985). Researchers may ﬁrst need to observe men’s interactions and to pose open-ended questions to them to discover what closedended questions would help researchers gain a clearer perspective on men’s friendships. The literature examining the effects of gender on friendship patterns is in itself deﬁcient in several ways. For example, we probably know far more about the differences between men’s and women’s friendships than about the similarities between them, because studies showing no effects are less likely to be published. Also, a surprising number of articles we reviewed were based on data including both males and females, but they only included analyses in which men and women are combined. Furthermore, when researchers do study gender differences,

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

119

they generally do not develop a theoretical explanation for why gender might have an effect (Blieszner & Adams, 1992). In addition, as Nardi (1992a) points out, because researchers tend to focus on gender differences, they have failed to address variations within men’s friendships. Exceptions describe friendship patterns among African American men (Franklin, 1992), working- and middle-class men (Walker, 1995), and gay men (Nardi, 1992b). The shortcomings of the literature on changes in friendship over the adult life course may also contribute to an inaccurate portrayal of men’s friendships. Studies of friendships during the college years are sometimes used as a basis for possibly faulty generalizations about the friendships of men during midlife and late life. Furthermore, the rate of publication of articles focused on friendship has decreased in recent years (Adams et al., 2005), which means that in this synthesis of the literature on men’s friendships we had to rely more than we would have liked on older studies. It is possible that the ﬁndings are different across cohorts and that we have therefore provided an inaccurate depiction of contemporary men’s friendships. We have used the Adams-Blieszner-Ueno Integrative Framework (Adams, Ueno, & Blieszner, 2005) to help us organize the ﬁndings on adult men’s friendship, to indicate areas where ﬁndings are not conclusive, and to identify gaps in the literature that need to be ﬁlled. Using this framework to guide our synthesis of the literature also focused our attention on the ways behavioral, cognitive, and affective motifs might shape men’s friendship patterns. In contrast, when the old version of this framework (Adams & Blieszner, 1994) was used in the past to organize literature syntheses, these ﬁndings were grouped together with discussions of internal processes. Note that this framework also allows us to conclude that, with the possible exception of homogeneity, the structure of men’s friendship remains a neglected topic. Another relatively neglected topic is negative processes (see Floyd & Voloudakis, 1999, for an exception). Although strictly speaking this framework underscores the importance of examining how context shapes the structure, process, and dynamics of friendship, researchers have not designed studies in which friendship patterns can be compared across contexts. Neither, for that matter, have they replicated studies in more than one context so that comparisons of ﬁndings across studies can inform conclusions about how context matters. In this review, we have provided the basis for a developmental and life course perspective on men’s friendships and a framework to use for the study of their friendships across the adult life span. It remains for researchers to design studies to address some of the inconclusive ﬁndings in the literature and to ﬁll the gaps we have identiﬁed.

120

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

REFERENCES Adams, R. G. (1994). Older men’s friendship patterns. In E. H. Thompson, Jr. (Ed.), Older men’s lives (pp. 159–177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Adams, R. G., Berggren, J. M., Docherty, L., Rufﬁn, K., & Wright, C. P. (2006). The inﬂuence of women scholars on older adult friendship research. Unpublished manuscript. Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1998). Structural predictors of problematic friendships in later life. Personal Relationships, 5, 439–437. Adams, R. G., & Blieszner, R. (1994). An integrative conceptual framework for friendship research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 163–184. Adams, R. G., Blieszner, R., & de Vries, B. (2000). Deﬁnitions of friendship in the third age: Age, gender, and study location effects. Journal of Aging Studies, 14, 117–133. Adams, R. G., Ueno, K., & Blieszner, R. (2005). The Adams-Blieszner-Ueno integrative conceptual framework for friendship research. Unpublished manuscript. Akiyama, H., Elliott, K., & Antonucci, T. C. (1996). Same-sex and cross-sex relationships. Journals of Gerontology, Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51B, 374–382. Albert, S. M., & Moss, M. (1990). Consensus and the domain of personal relations among older adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 353–369. Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). An examination of sex differences in social support among older men and older women. Sex Roles, 17, 737–749. Aries, E. J., & Johnson, F. L. (1983). Close friendship in adulthood: Conversational content between same-sex friends. Sex Roles, 9, 1183–1196. Baumgarte, R. (2002). Cross-gender friendship: The troublesome relationship. In R. Goodwin & D. Cramer (Eds.), Inappropriate relationships: The unconventional, the disapproved, and the forbidden (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bossé, R., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R., Workman-Daniels, K., & Ekerdt, D. J. (1990). Differences in social support among retirees and workers. Psychology and Aging, 5, 41–47. Cancian, F. M. (1986). The feminization of love. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11, 692–709. Carlson, R. (1971). Sex differences in ego functioning: Exploratory studies of agency and communion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 267–277. Cohen, T. F. (1992). Men’s families, men’s friends: A structural analysis of constraints on men’s social ties. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 115–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Connidis, I. A., & Davies, L. (1990). Conﬁdants and companions in later life. Journals of Gerontology, 45, S141–S149.

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

121

Davidson, L. R., & Duberman, L. (1982). Friendship: Communication and interactional patterns in same-sex dyads. Sex Roles, 8, 809–822. de Vries, B. (1991). Friendship and kinship patterns over the life course: A family stage perspective. Caring Communities Proceedings of the Symposium on Social Supports, Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 89-514, 1991, 99–107. Dickson-Markham, F. (1986). Self-disclosure with friends across the life cycles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 259–264. Duneier, M. (1992). Slim’s table. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dykstra, P. A. (1990). Next of (non)kin. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Eckert, J. K. (1980). The unseen elderly: A study of marginally subsistent hotel dwellers. San Diego, CA: The Campanile Press. Fehr, B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: A prototype interaction-pattern model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 265–284. Felmlee, D. H. (1999). Social norms in same- and cross-gender friendships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 53–67. Field, D. (1999). Continuity and change in friendships in advanced old age: Findings from the Berkeley Older Generation Study. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 48, 325–346. Field, D., & Minkler, M. (1988). Continuity and change in social support between young-old and old-old or very-old age. Journal of Gerontology, 43, 100–106. Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fischer, C. S., & Oliker, S. J. (1983). A research note on friendship, gender, and the life cycle. Social Forces, 62, 124–133. Floyd, K., & Voloudakis, M. (1999). Attributions for expectancy violating changes in affectionate behavior in platonic friendships. Journal of Psychology, 133, 32–48. Fox, M., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985). Age and gender dimensions of friendship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 489–501. Franklin, C. W. (1992). “Hey, home—yo, bro”: Friendship among black men. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 201–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gove, W. R. (1978). Sex differences in mental illness among adult men and women: An evaluation of four questions raised regarding the evidence on the higher rates of women. Social Science & Medicine, 12, 187–198. Haines, V. A., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1992). Network range and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 254–266. Hatch, L. R., & Bulcroft, K. (1992). Contact with friends in later life: Disentangling the effects of gender and marital status. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 222–232. Hochschild, A. R. (1973). The unexpected community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Johnson, C. L., & Troll, L.E. (1994). Constraints and facilitators to friendships in late life. The Gerontologist, 34, 79–87.

122

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

Johnson, M. A. (1989). Variables associated with friendship in an adult population. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 379–90. Jones, D. C., & Vaughan, K. (1990). Close friendships among senior adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 451–457. Kalmijn, M. (2002). Sex segregation of friendship networks: Individual and structural determinants of having cross-sex friends. European Sociological Review, 18, 101–117. Kalmijn, M. (2003). Shared friendship networks and the life course: An analysis of survey data on married and cohabiting couples. Social Networks, 25, 231–249. Keith, P. M., Hill, K., Goudy, W. J., & Powers, E. A. (1984). Conﬁdants and wellbeing: A note on male friendship in old age. The Gerontologist, 39, 18–20. Laumann, E. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism. New York: John Wiley. Liebler, C. A., & Sandefur, G. D. (2002). Gender differences in the exchange of social support with friends, neighbors, and co-workers at midlife. Social Science Research, 31 (3), 364–391. Liebow, E. (1967). Tally’s corner. Boston: Little, Brown. Litwak, E. (1989). Forms of friendships among older people in an industrial society. In R. G. Adams & R. Blieszner (Eds.), Older adult friendship (pp. 65–88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Maas, H.S., & Kuypers, J.A. (1974). From thirty to seventy: A forty-year longitudinal study of adult life styles and personality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion network of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52, 122–131. Matt, G. E., & Dean, A. (1993). Social support from friends and psychological distress among elderly persons: Moderator effects of age. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 187–200. McDaniel, S. A., & McKinnon, A. L. (1993). Gender differences in informal support and coping among elders: Findings from Canada’s 1985 and 1990 General Social Surveys. Journal of Women and Aging, 5, 79–98. McWilliams, S., & Howard, J. A. (1993). Solidarity and hierarchy in cross-sex friendships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 191–202. Messner, M. A. (1992). Like family: Power, intimacy, and sexuality in male athletes’ friendships. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 215–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moen, P., Erickson, M. A., & Dempster-McClain, D. (2000). Social role identities among older adults in a continuing care retirement community. Research on Aging, 22, 559–579. Nardi, P. M. (1992a). “Seamless souls”: An introduction to men’s friendships. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 1–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nardi, P. M. (1992b). Sex, friendships, and gender roles amongst gay men. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 173–185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nardi, P. M., & Sherrod, D. (1994). Friendship in the lives of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 185–199.

Middle-Aged and Older Adult Men’s Friendships

123

Pihlblad, C.T., & Adams, D. L. (1972). Widowhood, social participation, and life satisfaction. Aging and Human Development, 3, 323–330. Powers, E. A., & Bultena, G. L. (1976). Sex differences in intimate friendships of old age. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 739–747. Quillian, L., & Campbell, M. E. (2003). Beyond black and white: The present and future of multiracial friendship segregation. American Sociological Review, 64, 540–566. Reid, H. M., & Fine, G. A. (1992). Self-disclosure in men’s friendships: Variations associated with intimate relations. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 132–152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Roberto, K., & Kimboko, P. (1989). Friendships in later life: Deﬁnitions and maintenance patterns. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 28, 9–19. Roberto, K.A., & Scott, J. P. (1986a). Equity considerations in the friendships of older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 241–247. Roberto, K. A., & Scott, J. P. (1986b). Friendships of older men and women: Exchange patterns and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 1, 103–109. Rubin, L. (1985). Just friends. New York: Harper & Row. Steuve, C. A., & Gerson, K. (1977). Personal relations across the life-cycle. In C. S. Fischer, R. M. Jackson, C. A. Steuve, K. Gerson, & L. M. Jones, with M. Baldassare, Networks and places (pp. 79–98). New York: The Free Press. Swain, S. O. (1992). Men’s friendships with women: Intimacy, sexual boundaries, and the informant role. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 153–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Taylor, R. J., Keith, V. M., & Tucker, M. B. (1993). Gender, marital, familial, and friendship roles. In J. S. Jackson & L. M. Chatters (Eds.), Aging in black America (pp. 49–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tesch, S., Whitbourne, S. K., & Nehrke, M. F. (1981). Friendship, social interaction, and subjective well-being of older men in an institutional setting. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 13, 317–327. Turner, R. J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 193–212. Usui, W. M. (1984). Homogeneity of friendship networks of elderly blacks and whites. Journal of Gerontology, 39, 350–356. Voss, K., Markiewicz, D., & Doyle, A. B. (1999). Friendship, marriage and selfesteem. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 103–122. Walker, K. (1995). “Always there for me”: Friendship patterns and expectations among middle- and working-class men and women. Sociological Forum, 10, 273–296. Weiss, L., & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life-course perspectives on friendship. In M. E. Lowenthal, M. Thurnher, D. Chiriboga, & Associates (Eds.), Four stages of life (pp. 48–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wellman, B. (1992). Men in networks: Private communities, domestic friendships. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s friendships (pp. 74–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

124

MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH BROTHERS AND FRIENDS

Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic relationships. New York: Guilford Press. Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wright, P. H. (1982). Men’s friendships, women’s friendships, and the alleged inferiority of the latter. Sex Roles, 8, 1–20. Wright, P. H., & Scanlon, M. B. (1991). Gender role orientations and friendship: Some attenuation, but gender differences abound. Sex Roles, 24, 551–566.

PA RT I I I

Fathers and Their Adult Children

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 6

Portraits of Paternity: Middle-Aged and Elderly Fathers’ Involvement With Adult Children Brent A. Taylor, Roseann Giarrusso, Du Feng, and Vern Leo Bengtson

Fathering is a multifaceted series of exchanges with children that cumulatively create what we call parenting. Yet the literature examining the parenting process in the United States has often been truncated by conceptualizing parenting as the raising of children to young adulthood. This is epitomized by the current debate between those social scientists (Blankenhorn, 1995; Popenoe, 1996) who propose that the roots of a wide range of social problems (e.g., teenage pregnancy, child poverty, urban decay, societal violence) stem from the absence of fathers in the lives of their children, and those who state that fathers are not necessary to nurture and raise healthy children (Silverstein & Auerbach, 1999). What is overlooked is an examination of the impact of fathers on children across the entire life course and a failure to investigate how middleaged and elderly men father adult children. In contrast, this chapter extends the usual conception of fatherhood by examining paternal involvement in the later stages of the life course for fathers and their children. Scholars debate the extent to which paternal involvement has increased over the past 20 years (Pleck, 1997). Some studies indicate that 127

128

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

fathers spend more time with older children, whereas others ﬁnd that a child’s age has no signiﬁcant effects on paternal involvement (Aldous, Mulligan, & Bjarnason, 1998). Recent research indicates that as children grow older, both parents spend less time with them but that fathers’ involvement declines less (Pleck, 1997). However, the lack of longitudinal designs makes it difﬁcult to make any assertions about changes in fathering over the past few decades. The purpose of this chapter is to paint a portrait of paternity for middle-aged and elderly fathers in the last quarter of the 20th century, a time of dramatic social and historical change. In doing so, we examine the contribution of three theoretical perspectives—the life course perspective, the solidarity-conﬂict model, and role theory. Based on the life course perspective, we argue that fatherhood must be placed in a historical context to assess changes in paternal involvement. Guided by the solidarity-conﬂict model of intergenerational relations, we contend that multiple dimensions of paternal involvement must be examined in order to get an accurate picture of fathering. Taking role theory into account, we assert that the concepts of parental satisfaction, salience, and performance help to explain how older men enact the fathering role with adult children. To investigate these theoretical perspectives, we empirically examine paternal involvement with biological/adoptive adult children using data from the Longitudinal Study of Generations (Bengtson, 1975, 1996), based at the University of Southern California. This unique data set allows us to employ three design strategies to investigate fathering: (1) generation-sequential, (2) longitudinal, and (3) crosssectional. The generation-sequential design allows us to control for age effects by comparing fathers who are at the same stage of life during different historical periods; that is, we compare middle-aged fathers in 1971 to middle-aged fathers in 1997, and elderly fathers in 1971 to elderly fathers in 1997. The longitudinal design enables us to follow one cohort of fathers over 26 years, from the time they are middleaged (mean age 45) in 1971 to the time they are elderly (mean age 70) in 1997. Finally, the cross-sectional design allows us to investigate contemporaneous predictors of elderly fathers’ (mean age 70) involvement with middle-aged adult children (mean age 46). Thus, we examine fathering for middle-aged and elderly fathers across sociohistorical time, middle-aged fathers across biographical time, and elderly fathers at a single point in time. We begin this chapter with a brief discussion of the three theoretical perspectives, tracing the research questions stemming from each. Next, we describe the data set and the subsamples used for each research design and present the results of our statistical analyses. Finally, we discuss the

Portraits of Paternity

129

implications of our ﬁndings for these three theoretical perspectives as well as for the future of scholarship on fathering; we also present directions for future research.

THE LIFE COURSE PERSPECTIVE The ﬁve basic principles of the life-course perspective (Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003) are: (1) time and place, (2) life-span development, (3) linked lives, (4) agency, and (5) timing. For the purposes of this chapter, we focus on the ﬁrst three principles because the data-set we use captures these principles. According to the principle of time and place, the sociohistorical context gives meaning to events that are experienced. Applying this principle to fathering, it is important to take social change into account when considering changing styles of fathering. For example, Pleck (1987) has identiﬁed four historical types of fathers. The “moral father” extended from Puritan times through the colonial period. The “breadwinner father” originated around the time of industrialization, transforming the conception of the role of father from moral teacher to economic provider. “Good fathers” were those who were able to provide for their families. After the Great Depression another new conceptualization of fatherhood arose. The father’s function became not only to be the breadwinner but also to be a gender role model, especially for sons. Pleck’s fourth variety of fatherhood, the new “nurturant father,” appeared in the mid-1970s with the widespread identiﬁcation of fathers as active and nurturant parents. It is this fourth type of fatherhood that we seek to investigate in this chapter by using a generation-sequential design. Currently only limited data are available concerning the impact of social trends on intergenerational families and their members. A primary limitation is the lack of long-term longitudinal data to chart the dynamics of family life and individual development across generations and historical periods. With generation sequential data we can address hypotheses concerning effects of macrosocial changes on family relationships and aging over several decades. In the context of population aging and joint survivorship across generations, we can assess whether father-child relationships have been inﬂuenced by such social trends as changes in family structure because of divorce rates, increasing individualism and weakening norms of familism, macroeconomic cycles of recession and recovery, and increases in the longevity and health of older fathers. According to the principle of life-span development, development is ongoing. However, there are few longitudinal studies of fathering over time.

130

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

One important exception is Snarey’s (1993) work that explores father involvement over four decades using Erikson’s (1963) life stage model to show how generativity inﬂuences paternal practices over time and how it impacts their own identities. As opposed to Snarey’s work, most research explores cohort differences in paternal involvement with young children. For example, Pleck (1997) found that heterosexual, married, biological fathers are signiﬁcantly more involved now than they were 20 years ago. However, other studies have found evidence to the contrary (Press & Townsley, 1998; Sanchez & Thomson, 1997). Results should be interpreted cautiously because of the demographic changes that may be inﬂuencing paternity. For example, it is difﬁcult to assess how the dramatic increase in cohabitation over this time might be inﬂuencing fathering behaviors and attitudes. In addition, during the 1970s, the divorce rate grew rapidly and peaked in 1980, then decreased slightly. Over the past two decades divorce rates have remained relatively stable, hovering slightly above more than half of all marriages ending in divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000, Table 77). Thus, a man’s style of fathering can change across the life course, especially with life transitions, such as launching children, becoming divorced and/or remarried, retiring, and reaching midlife or old age. In a classic study, Levinson (1978) found that men at midlife may reevaluate and modify their goals and identities; however, later studies show this may only be applicable to working-class men (Lachman, 2004). As men retire, they may have more free time to spend with children and grandchildren. By conducting a longitudinal analysis of one generation of fathers, we examine such trends in fathering by life stage. That is, we assess whether patterns of paternal involvement change as fathers move from the middle to the late stage of life and as their children transition from young adult to middle-age status. We recognize that many factors that inﬂuence paternity may confound the analyses; we chose to examine those variables that have been found signiﬁcant in inﬂuencing father involvement in prior literature. The inﬂuence of fathers’ characteristics on paternal involvement has to be balanced against the inﬂuence of adult children’s characteristics. According to the principle of linked-lives, each generation in a family is inﬂuenced by the attributes and actions of other generations: intergenerational families are interdependent systems (Allen, Blieszner, & Roberto, 2000; Troll, 1983). Applying the principle of linked-lives to styles of fathering, adult children’s stage of life and psychosocial development should both have an inﬂuence. That is, the fathering of young adult children would necessarily be different from the fathering of middle-aged children. Young adults are at a stage of life where they are trying to break

Portraits of Paternity

131

away from the family; on the other hand, they are not ﬁnancially independent. Middle-aged children are not only ﬁnancially independent; they usually, in the cohorts studied here, have established intergenerational families of their own. Styles of fathering should reﬂect these life stage differences in adult children over time. The principle of linked-lives suggests that other characteristics of adult children such as gender may also inﬂuence portraits of paternity. Although typically women are more likely than men to be family kinkeepers and caregivers, father-son dyads may be closer than fatherdaughter dyads because they share the same gender. However, the child’s gender may interact with fathers’ stage of life in inﬂuencing styles of fathering. For example, middle-aged fathers may be more involved with sons, whereas elderly fathers may be more involved with daughters. In summary, the life course perspective suggests that fathering is inﬂuenced by the sociohistorical context, the life stage of the father, and the life stage and personal characteristics of the adult children. We are interested in how these life course factors inﬂuence various dimensions of fathering as suggested by the intergenerational solidarity-conﬂict model.

SOLIDARITY-CONFLICT MODEL The solidarity-conﬂict model, formerly known as the solidarity model (Bengtson, Giarrusso, Mabry, & Silverstein, 2002), has guided a large body of the research on intergenerational family relations over the last three decades (Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997). This model provides a framework for canvassing the quality of intergenerational relations (Bengtson, 1975) by outlining seven dimensions along which intergenerational relationships should be evaluated: (1) affectual solidarity, (2) consensual solidarity, (3) associational solidarity, (4) functional solidarity, (5) structural solidarity, (6) normative solidarity, and (7) conﬂict. For the purposes of this paper, we focus on six dimensions of the model: affectual, consensual, associational, functional, and structural solidarity, and conﬂict. Affectual solidarity refers to the nature and extent of positive sentiment family members feel. Although there is little literature on fathers’ affection for adult children (for the exception, see Floyd and Bowman, this volume), there is much more literature on parents’ affection for adult children and for adult children’s affection for parents (White, 1999). Thus, we expect that affection of fathers will be high across the life course. Consensual solidarity taps the extent to which fathers feel their adult children have attitudes and values similar to their own. The status

132

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

inheritance model (Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham, 1986) of intergenerational transmission suggests that fathers will perceive their children to be increasingly more similar to them in attitudes as children age and take on many of the same statuses as their father, such as parental, occupational, educational, and marital statuses. This “inheritance” of statuses from fathers to children should lead to greater actual and perceived consensus between fathers and adult children over time. Associational solidarity represents the form and frequency of interaction between family members. This dimension of solidarity includes the frequency of in-person contact, telephone conversations, and mail correspondence. We expect that association will drop off after children reach adulthood but fathers will continue to associate with their adult children. Functional solidarity refers to help and support, of which there are two types: (1) instrumental and (2) emotional. Instrumental support is tangible help, such as providing transportation or helping with chores, whereas emotional support is intangible forms of help, such as listening and giving information. With longitudinal data only on instrumental solidarity, we predict that this type of functional solidarity will decrease as fathers age. Structural solidarity refers to the opportunity structure for interaction and includes such personal characteristics of fathers and children as health, income, education, gender, and marital status, and environment characteristics, such as residential propinquity. These factors can inﬂuence parents’ involvement with children independently or in conjunction with one another. For example, if biological parents divorce, the opportunity structure for father-child interaction is inﬂuenced by both the father’s marital status and gender because custody arrangements are generally matrilineal. The opportunity for fathers to interact with biological children is usually higher for those who do not divorce the child’s mother compared to those who do (Riggio, 2004). Thus, we expect that the various types of structural solidarity will be associated with patterns of paternal involvement with adult children. Conﬂict refers to tensions and disagreements between the generations. Research on conﬂict has generally been limited to that resulting from caregiver burden (Pillemer & Suitor, 1992). However, more recently conﬂict has been acknowledged as being part of most normal interactions (Luescher & Pillemer, 1998). We expect that certain aspects of structural solidarity, such as a divorced marital status (Bulcroft & Bulcroft, 1991; Cooney & Uhlenberg, 1990; Umberson, 1989) and poor health of fathers (Umberson, 1992), will be associated with higher levels of father-adult child conﬂict.

Portraits of Paternity

133

ROLE THEORY From a sociological perspective, roles are more important than chronological age in shaping individuals’ behaviors and attitudes. Identity theory, one brand of role theory, extends this idea by stating that individuals rank-order their roles based on the salience of that role to individuals’ self-concept: Roles high in the salience hierarchy are the most central to individuals’ sense of who they are (Stryker & Serpe, 1994; Thoits, 1992); this ranking, in turn, inﬂuences how well individuals perform that role. For example, researchers have found that the salience of the mother role predicted whether ﬁrst-time mothers were willing to make personal sacriﬁces for their child (Nuttbrock & Freudiger, 1991). We predict that the salience of the father role and the quality with which fathers perform their role will both inﬂuence paternal involvement. Based on identity theory, we expect that fathers’ role salience and role performance will also be positively associated with fathers’ satisfaction with the parental role. However, in examining role concepts, the father role must be placed in sociohistorical context. A meta-analysis of the literature on parental satisfaction revealed that the value of the role has changed over time in response to social, economic, and political developments, such as a shift in norms from pronatalist to antinatalist (Goetting, 1986).

Summary We are interested in the extent to which paternal involvement with adult children, as deﬁned by affectual, consensual, associational, and functional solidarity, as well as paternal satisfaction, changes or remains the same across historical and/or biographical time. We are also curious about whether various aspects of structural solidarity, role salience, and role performance serve as predictors of paternal involvement in the late stages of fathers’ lives. We address the following research questions:

Research Questions 1. How does the principle of time and place, that is, sociohistorical context, illuminate the ways middle-aged and elderly men father their biological/adoptive children? 2. How do the principles of life-span development and linked lives shed light on trends in fathering from middle age to later life? 3. How do the concepts of role salience and role performance, as well as structural solidarity, help us to understand how elderly men father adult children in later life?

134

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

METHODS Sample Data for this chapter come from the University of Southern California Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG), a panel study of over 300 multigenerational families. The ﬁrst wave of data was collected in 1971 from families randomly selected from a large southern California HMO. Screening questions were mailed to a random sample of older male subscribers from a population of 840,000 members of the health maintenance organization (for detailed sample information, see Bengtson, 1975, 1996). For inclusion in the sampling frame, the participant had to have at least one grandchild between the ages of 16 and 26. When appropriate families were identiﬁed, the survey was sent to the grandchildren (G3), parents (G2), and grandparents (G1). The original sample consisted of 2,044 respondents; however, in 1991, great-grandchildren (G4) who were at least 16 years of age were added to the sample. In addition, the sample has been augmented by the inclusion of new spouses of single, divorced, and widowed study participants. Since 1985, data have been collected on these same individuals at three- to four-year increments (1971, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2004). Demographically, the sample was representative of working- and middle-class families residing in southern California in 1971. The sample consists mainly of economically stable Anglo-Americans. Geographically, the sample has become more diverse over time because the younger generations have been quite mobile. Key measures of the quality of intergenerational relationships measured in this study have been found to be comparable to data on a nationally representative sample (Bengtson & Harootyan, 1995). For the purpose of this chapter, analyses are based on a total of 971 fathers from three generations (264 G1s, 322 G2s, and 385 G3s) who answered questions about a biological/adoptive “study” child at Time 1 (1971) and/or Time 6 (1997). Table 6.1 presents the mean and standard deviation on age for each generation at each time point. For the generation sequential analyses, we compare two sets of fathers at two different Table 6.1 Mean and SD of Fathers’ Age in 1971 and 1997. 1971

1997

Generation

Mean

SD

n

Mean

SD

n

G1 G2 G3

67.97 45.41 19.38

6.15 5.33 3.70

264 322 385

87.80 70.10 46.61

2.04 4.98 4.59

10 171 150

Portraits of Paternity

135

times in history: (a) a set of elderly fathers (264 G1s in 1971 and 171 G2s in 1997) and (b) a set of middle-aged fathers (322 G2s in 1971 and 150 G3s in 1997). Such comparisons allow us to control for age effects. For the longitudinal analyses, we follow fathers (171 G2s) who were middleaged in 1971 over 26 years (average age of 70 years in 1997). Finally, for the cross-sectional analyses, we examine contemporaneous predictors of different types of involvement of elderly fathers (171 G2s, average age of 70 years) in the lives of middle-aged adult children in 1997.

Measures Affectual solidarity was measured with ﬁve items—how well fathers understood their adult children, how well adult children understood fathers, how well fathers and adult children communicated, the emotional closeness between fathers and adult children, and how well fathers and adult children got along. Consensual solidarity was measured with one item on fathers’ perceptions of similarity to adult children on attitudes and values. Associational solidarity was measured in terms of the frequency of in-person, phone, and mail contact between fathers and adult children. (For the cross-sectional analyses, in-person and phone contact were added together to form a scale; mail contact was excluded because it was negatively correlated with the other two items.) Conﬂict was measured as a scale, with three items tapping the amount of conﬂict, tension, and disagreement between fathers and adult children; the extent to which fathers felt adult children were critical of them; and the frequency with which fathers argued with adult children. Each of these constructs was measured on a 6-point response scale; a high score indicated a high level of solidarity/conﬂict. Functional solidarity was measured in terms of fathers’ provision of two types of instrumental help and support to adult children—ﬁnancial assistance and/or help with household chores (0 = no, 1 = yes). Structural solidarity was measured in terms of adult children’s gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and fathers’ characteristics (age, education, household income, marital status, and self-reported health). Marital status was coded 0 = not married and 1 = married. Another form of structural solidarity, geographic distance between fathers and adult children (1 = less than 5 miles, 6 = more than 500 miles), was included as a control variable. For all constructs except self-reported health, a higher score indicates a higher level. Parental satisfaction was measured with one item, “All in all, how satisﬁed are you with being a parent these days?” answered on a 3-point scale from 1 (not at all satisﬁed) to 3 (very satisﬁed). Role salience was measured with one item asking fathers how important the parent role was to their “sense of self,” answered on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all

136

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

important) to 7 (extremely important). Role performance was measured with one item asking fathers how well they performed the parent role, answered on a scale from 1 (poor) to 4 (very good).

Results First, we present the results of the generation sequential analyses to show the effect of sociohistorical trends and life stage on dimensions of the solidarity-conﬂict model and on parental satisfaction. Next, we present the longitudinal analyses to indicate areas of stability and change in paternal involvement with adult children over a span of 26 years, as fathers go from middle age to elderly. Finally we look at cross-sectional predictors of elderly fathers’ involvement with adult children.

Generation Sequential Design The generation sequential analyses involve a series of comparisons between elderly fathers in 1971 and 1997, and between middle-aged fathers in 1971 and 1997 (see Tables 6.2 and 6.3), using paired t-tests and chi-square statistics. Table 6.2 reveals signiﬁcant differences between middle-aged fathers in 1971 and middle-aged fathers in 1997 on the three measures

Table 6.2 Generation Sequential Design: Middle-Aged and Elderly Fathers’ Affectual, Consensual, and Associational Solidarity, and Parental Satisfaction by Historical Period. Middle-Aged

Affectual Solidarity Consensual Solidarity In-Person Contact Phone Contact Mail Contact Parental Satisfaction **p < .01

G2 in G3 in t 1971 1997 (n = 322) (n = 150) Mean Mean (SD) (SD) 4.28 4.21 0.68 (0.96) (1.07) 3.64 3.84 −1.72 (1.17) (1.16) 3.96 4.79 −6.29** (0.92) (1.48) 2.62 4.59 −12.96** (1.46) (1.45) 1.51 2.07 −4.07** (1.03) (1.41) 2.37 2.60 −4.14** (0.62) (0.53)

Elderly G1 in G2 in 1971 1997 (n = 266) (n = 173) Mean Mean (SD) (SD) 4.75 4.44 (0.90) (1.00) 4.05 3.83 (1.24) (1.23) 3.17 3.79 (1.14) (1.52) 3.39 4.42 (1.07) (1.19) 2.04 2.27 (1.27) (1.20) 2.47 2.58 (0.63) (0.58)

t

3.29** 1.81 −4.53** −9.06** −1.86 −1.85

Portraits of Paternity

137

Table 6.3 Generation Sequential Design: Middle-Aged and Elderly Fathers’ Functional Solidarity for Adult Child by Historical Period. Middle-Aged

Financial Assistance Household Chores

G2 in 1971 (n = 322) freq (%) 268 (84%) 246 (78%)

G3 in 1997 (n = 150) freq (%) 100 (71%) 51 (36%)

Elderly z

3.040** 8.616**

G1 in 1971 (n = 264) freq (%) 66 (25%) 99 (44%)

G2 in 1997 (n = 171) freq (%) 34 (22%) 6 (4%)

z

0.856 8.656**

**p < .01

of associational solidarity and on parental satisfaction. It also shows that elderly fathers in 1997 reported signiﬁcantly lower levels of affection and signiﬁcantly higher levels of parental satisfaction, in-person contact, and phone contact with adult children than elderly fathers in 1971. Table 6.3 shows a signiﬁcantly higher percentage of middle-aged fathers demonstrating functional solidarity for adult children in 1971 than in 1997 by providing two forms of instrumental help and support— ﬁnancial assistance and help with household chores. Speciﬁcally, 84% of middle-aged fathers in 1971 gave their adult children ﬁnancial assistance compared with 71% of middle-aged fathers in 1997. Further, middleaged fathers in 1971 were twice as likely as their counterparts in 1997 to help their children with household chores. Turning to elderly fathers, the table shows no signiﬁcant difference in the percentage of elderly fathers providing ﬁnancial assistance to their adult children in 1971 and 1997, but a signiﬁcant difference in the percentage of elderly fathers who helped their adult children with household chores. Elderly fathers in 1971 were 10 times more likely than their counterparts in 1997 to provide this form of instrumental assistance to their adult children.

Longitudinal Design Table 6.4 presents the results of paired t-tests demonstrating stability and change in dimensions of solidarity and parental satisfaction for G2 fathers as they went from middle age in 1971 to old age in 1997. The results reveal that fathers’ affectual solidarity for adult children does not change as fathers go from an average age of 45 to 70 years of age. Fathers continue to report high levels of affection for, and moderate levels of consensus with, their adult children across 26 years. In contrast, when fathers move from middle age to old age, they report a signiﬁcant increase in their perceptions of consensual solidarity and parental satisfaction. As would be expected, fathers report a signiﬁcant decline of

138

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

Table 6.4 Longitudinal Design: G2 Fathers’ Affectual, Consensual, and Associational Solidarity, and Parental Satisfaction Across 26 Years.

Affectual Solidarity Consensual Solidarity In-Person Contact Phone Contact Mail Contact Parental Satisfaction

1971 (Middle-Aged) Mean (SD)

1997 (Elderly) Mean (SD)

4.25 (0.96) 3.64 (1.17) 3.97 (0.95) 2.74 (1.42) 1.52 (1.03) 2.35 (0.60)

4.42 (0.99) 3.77 (1.23) 3.83 (1.52) 4.39 (1.23) 2.28 (1.21) 2.56 (0.60)

t

n

−1.95 −1.35 1.16 −10.60** −5.45** −3.73**

149 147 146 131 135 146

** p < .01

in-person contact over the years, but this decline is offset by a signiﬁcant increase in both phone and mail contact.

Cross-sectional Design Table 6.5 reports a series of regressions in which various aspects of structural solidarity, as well as role salience and performance, are used to predict Table 6.5 Cross-sectional Design: Predictors of Elderly G2 Fathers’ Affectional, Consensual, and Associational Solidarity, Conﬂict, and Parental Satisfaction with Their Adult Child in 1997 (Unstandardized OLS Regression Coefﬁcients). Affectual Consensual Associational Parental Solidarity Solidarity Solidarity Conﬂict Satisfaction (n = 158) (n = 157) (n = 158) (n = 158) (n = 155) Structural Solidarity Distance (control) Child’s Gender Father’s Age Father’s Education Father’s Income F’s Marital Status Father’s Health Role Concepts Father’s Role Salience Father’s Role Performance Adjusted R2 F * p < .05 ** p < .01

–.03 .09 .00 .04 –.02 –.09 .05

–.03 .11 –.00 .07 –.03 –.06 .07

–.39** .05 –.01 .06 .01 –.12 .05

.08 .59**

.07 .67**

.06 .24*

.15 4.15**

.12 3.46**

.36 10.98**

–.02 .02 –.01 .05 .01 –.18 .03 –.00 –.26** .04 1.69

.01 –.03 –.00 .13* –.02 –.18 .08 .10 .44** .09 2.72**

Portraits of Paternity

139

the solidarity-conﬂict model and parental satisfaction. Among elderly fathers, role performance is the only factor signiﬁcantly related to affectual, consensual, and associational solidarity; elderly fathers in 1997 who feel they perform their parental role well also tend to report higher levels of affectual, consensual, and associational solidarity. None of the forms of structural solidarity were signiﬁcantly associated with these other forms of solidarity, except geographic proximity, which, as expected, was signiﬁcantly associated with associational solidarity. There were no signiﬁcant predictors of conﬂict between elderly fathers and adult children. Finally, a high level of parental role performance, as well as a higher level of father’s education, was associated with a high level of parental satisfaction among elderly fathers.

Discussion The purpose of this chapter was to examine how principles of the lifecourse perspective (time and place, life-span development, and linked lives), dimensions of the solidarity-conﬂict model, and concepts from role theory help us paint a portrait of paternity for middle-aged and elderly fathers in the last quarter of the 20th century, a time of dramatic social and historical change. Based on the life course perspective, we argued for the necessity of placing fatherhood in historical perspective. Using the solidarity-conﬂict model, we suggested that paternal involvement be examined along multiple dimensions. Guided by role theory, we proposed that role salience and role performance would be associated with the way elderly men father middle-aged children. To assess the usefulness of these theoretical perspectives to the study of paternal involvement with biological/adoptive adult children, three research designs were employed: (1) a generation sequential design that allowed an examination of how much middle-aged and elderly fathers were involved with their adult children across sociohistorical time; (2) a longitudinal design that provided the opportunity to assess middle-age fathers’ involvement with their adult children across 26 years of biographical time; and, (3) a cross-sectional design that tested whether structural solidarity or role concepts could predict elderly fathers’ involvement with middle-aged children. As predicted by the life-course perspective’s principle of time and place, the results from the generation sequential design revealed a number of cohort differences in fathering for middle-aged fathers. Although middle-aged fathers in 1997 did not report a signiﬁcantly higher level of affectual solidarity for their adult children than middle-aged fathers in 1971, they did report signiﬁcantly higher levels of associational solidarity and parental satisfaction. Conversely, middle-aged fathers in 1997 were signiﬁcantly less likely than their 1971 counterparts to provide adult

140

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

children with functional solidarity as indicated by their level of ﬁnancial assistance or help with household chores. The cohort difference in ﬁnancial assistance is likely the result of sociohistorical differences in economic context. During a time of corporate downsizing, middle-aged fathers in 1997 faced greater economic uncertainty than middle-aged fathers in 1971, and consequently, they had less discretionary funds to share with adult children. Nevertheless, at both time points, the majority (71% or higher) of middle-age fathers provided this type of instrumental support to adult children. The cohort differences in household chores may also reﬂect sociohistorical changes. The reason middle-aged fathers in 1997 were a third less likely than their 1971 counterparts to provide adult children with help on household chores may be because of the reduction that has taken place in coresidence between parents and adult children (Crimmins, Saito, & Ingegneri, 1997). If fathers and children do not coreside, fathers have less of an opportunity to assist children in this way. Another possible explanation for the difference is the change in the amount of work adults do around the home. Because of busier lives, adult children in the 1990s may have been more likely than those in the 1970s to outsource household chores to gardeners, cleaning crews, and repair shops, resulting in less need for help by fathers. Turning to elderly fathers, results from the generation sequential design revealed no signiﬁcant change in elderly fathers’ ﬁnancial support of adult children between the two time periods: Corporate downsizing did not affect elderly fathers because they were already retired. However, elderly fathers in 1997 reported signiﬁcantly lower levels of affectual solidarity and less help with household chores than elderly fathers in 1971. Although the lower levels of affectual solidarity are difﬁcult to understand, it is likely that the reasons for lower levels of help with household chores are the same as for middle-aged fathers. On the other hand, elderly fathers in 1997 reported a greater amount of in-person and phone contact with adult children than their 1971 counterparts. These ﬁndings suggest another type of sociohistorical difference: Elderly fathers in 1997 enjoyed better health than elderly fathers in 1971 (Crimmins, Saito, & Ingegneri, 1997), providing them with greater mobility and conversational ability. Increased associational solidarity among fathers in both age groups suggests that the fatherhood movement may be having a positive inﬂuence on men’s parenting styles. Another possible sociohistorical explanation of the cohort differences between fathers in 1971 and 1997 is changing technology. The transformation of the airline industry between these two time periods was dramatic and could have easily contributed to greater in-person contact between middle-aged and elderly fathers and their adult children.

Portraits of Paternity

141

Similarly, the advent of the cell phone could also be responsible for cohort differences in phone contact. E-mail has also transformed how people communicate; however, we could not measure this change because e-mail was not available when the study began. These ﬁndings point to the contribution of the life-course perspective by showing that fathering is contextually constructed. The sociohistorical context in which fathering takes place inﬂuences the types and levels of involvement middle-aged and older fathers have with adult children. No other study has been in a position to provide this kind of comparison. Only with a generation sequential design is it possible to examine sociohistorical inﬂuences indicating the relevance of the principle of time and place to the study of fatherhood. The results of the long-term longitudinal design revealed stability in father’s affectual and consensual solidarity for adult children over time: Fathers continue to report high levels of affectual solidarity and moderate levels of consensual solidarity and in-person contact as they go from middle age to old age and their adult children go from young adult to middle age. Moreover, fathers report a signiﬁcant increase from 1971 to 1997 in the amount of phone and mail contact, and in parental satisfaction. Thus, paternal involvement remains strong across the life course of both fathers and children, and actually increases on some dimensions, supporting the principles of life-span development and linked lives. Neither role concepts nor forms of structural solidarity were signiﬁcantly related to fathers’ levels of conﬂict with adult children. Although the ﬁnding regarding marital status is inconsistent with research showing a negative inﬂuence of parental divorce on parent-adult child relationships (Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998), this difference is likely to be attributable to the dichotomy of the marital status variable in this study into married and not married: Many fathers in the not-married category may have been widowed rather than divorced.

CONCLUSION The study reported in this chapter analyzed numerous dimensions of involvement of middle-aged and elderly fathers with adult children, leading to three major ﬁndings. The ﬁrst major ﬁnding is that sociohistorical context and life stage inﬂuence patterns of paternal involvement. Using a generation-sequential design, we compared fathers at the same stage of life but during different historical periods and found that middle-aged fathers in 1997 were signiﬁcantly different from middle-aged fathers in 1971 in six out of eight comparisons, while elderly fathers in 1997 were signiﬁcantly different from elderly fathers in 1971 in three out of

142

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

eight comparisons. The difference in paternal involvement at the two points in time for fathers in both age groups suggests a cultural lag in the acceptance of what Pleck (1987) called the nurturant style of fathering. That is, middle-aged and elderly fathers who were exposed to this new conceptualization of fathering in the 1970s (G1s and G2s in 1971) were less likely to embrace this fathering style than middle-aged and elderly fathers who had been exposed to it over a period of 26 years (G2s and G3s in 1997). Moreover, the greater number of cohort differences for middle-aged than elderly fathers suggests that the stage of life during which fathers are exposed to this new conceptualization of fathering also affects how much they incorporate these ideas into their style of fathering: Middle-aged fathers seem to have accepted the concept of nurturant fathering more readily than elderly fathers. A second major ﬁnding is that fathers continue to be involved in their children’s lives throughout adulthood and even increase their paternal involvement in some dimensions over time. Results from the longitudinal design indicated that fathers have strong ties with their children even in late life, supporting the notion that fathers are important not only to young children but to adult children as well. A last major ﬁnding, based on the cross-sectional analysis of elderly fathers, revealed that role concepts are better contemporaneous predictors of paternal involvement than structural solidarity. Thus, this chapter reveals the importance of applying the life course perspective, the solidarity-conﬂict model, and role theory to the study of fathering across historical and biographical time. It also shows that scholarship on fathering (Marsiglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000) cannot be advanced without considering middle-aged and elderly fathers’ parenting of adult children. These ﬁndings refute the argument that the family is in decline and contribute to the scholarly debate about fatherhood by suggesting that paternal involvement has increased over time on some dimensions. This suggestion must be interpreted cautiously because of other factors, such as technology, that inﬂuence parent-child interaction. Future research should examine patterns of paternal involvement from the adult child’s perspective. This perspective would allow researchers to examine the similarities and disparities between older fathers’ and adult children’s reports of paternal involvement. Also important for future research is an examination of the inﬂuence of fathers’ paternal involvement on psychological well-being; paternal involvement is likely to positively inﬂuence the psychological well-being of both fathers and adult children. Future research should also examine the extent to which different dimensions of paternal involvement are transmitted from fathers to sons (e.g., Floyd & Morman, 2000), and if and how this transmission process may be interrupted by changes in the

Portraits of Paternity

143

sociohistorical context. Finally, because our study consists of primarily middle-class Anglo-American fathers, it is imperative that future studies explore the dimensions of fatherhood across various social locations, examining the impact of ethnicity and social class on paternal involvement. Anglo-American fathers are more likely to be inﬂuenced by sociohistorical changes than fathers in other ethnic groups and social classes in multigenerational living arrangements, outsourcing of household chores, corporate downsizing, increased technology, and improved health. REFERENCES Aldous, J., Mulligan, G., & Bjarnason, T. (1998). Fathering over time: What makes the difference? Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 809–820. Allen, K. R., Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K. A. (2000). Families in the middle and later years: A review and critique of research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (4), 911–927. Bengtson, V. L. (1975). Generation and family effects in value socialization. American Sociological Review, 40, 358–371. Bengtson, V. L. (Ed.) (1996). Adulthood and aging: research on continuities and discontinuities. New York: Springer. Bengtson, V. L., Giarrusso, R., Mabry, J. B., & Silverstein, M. (2002). Solidarity, conﬂict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 (3), 568–576. Bengtson, V. L., & Harootyan, R. A. (1995). Intergenerational linkages: Hidden connections in American society. New York: Springer. Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America. New York: Basic Books. Bulcroft, K. A., & Bulcroft, R. A. (1991). The timing of divorce: Effects on parent-child relationships in later life. Research on Aging, 13, 226–243. Cooney, T. M., & Uhlenburg, P. (1990). The role of divorce in men’s relations with their adult children after mid-life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 677–688. Crimmins, E. M., Saito, Y., & Ingegneri, D. (1997). Trends in disability—free life expectancy in the United States, 1970–90. Population and Development Review, 23, 555–572. Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer, J. T. & Shanahan, M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.) New York: Norton. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2000). Affection received from fathers as a predictor of men’s affection with their own sons: Tests of the modeling and compensation hypotheses. Communication Monographs, 67, 347–361. Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L., & Dunham, C. C. (1986). Attitude similarity in threegeneration families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal inﬂuence? American Sociological Review, 51, 685–698.

144

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

Goetting, A. (1986). The developmental tasks of siblingship over the life cycle. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 703–714. Kaufman, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (1998). Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (4), 924–938. Lachman, M.E. (2004). Development in midlife. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 305–331. Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Ballantine Books. Luescher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (2), 413–425. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62 (4), 1173–1192. Nuttbrock, L., & Freudiger, P. (1991). Identity salience and motherhood: A test of Stryker’s theory. Social Psychological Quarterly, 54 (2), 146–157. Pillemer, K., & Suitor, J. J. (1992). Violence and violent feelings: What causes them among family caregivers? Journal of Gerontology, 47 (4), 165–172. Pleck, J. H. (1987). American fathering in historical perspective. In M. Kimmel (Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 83–97). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the fathers in child development (pp. 222–271). New York: Wiley. Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York: Pressler Press. Press, J. E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives’ and husbands’ housework reporting: Gender, class, and social desirability. Gender and Society, 12, 188–218. Riggio, H. R. (2004). Parental marital conﬂict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11, 99–114. Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender and Society, II, 747–772. Silverstein, L., & Auerbach, C. (1999). Deconstructing the essential father. American Psychologist, 54 (6), 397–450. Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (2), 429–460. Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 16–35. Thoits, P. A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well being: Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 236–256. Troll, L. E. (1983). Grandparents: The family watchdogs. In T H. Brubaker (Ed.), Family relationships in later life (pp. 63–74). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Portraits of Paternity

145

Umberson, D. (1989). Parenting and well-being: The importance of context. Journal of Family Issues, 10 (4), 427–439. Umberson, D. (1992). Gender, marital status, and the social control of health Behavior. Social Science and Medicine, 34 (8), 907–917. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofﬁce. White, L. (1999). Contagion in family affection: Mothers, fathers, and young adult children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 (2), 284–295.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 7

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships Kory Floyd and Jonathan M. Bowman

The bond between father and son is shrouded in paradox. Few male-male relationships affect either man as signiﬁcantly, yet many father-son pairs seem fraught with indifference. As a parent-child union, father and son may long to share their love and affection for each other, yet as a malemale relationship, they may be dissuaded by masculine-role proscriptions against displaying overt affection. Fathers may aim to model appropriate masculine behavior for the developmental beneﬁt of their sons, yet by so doing, they may inadvertently keep their sons at arm’s length, inhibiting the development of emotionally meaningful bonds. Despite its paradoxical nature—or perhaps, in part, because of it— the father-son relationship may be among the most socially signiﬁcant male-male relationships in the life course. In this chapter, we discuss the importance of the father-son bond by situating it within the larger community of male-male relationships and noting its substantial similarities with, and important differences from, brother-brother dyads and malemale friendships. We then note that the prevailing scholarly and popular views of father-son relationships are strikingly negative—and although we acknowledge the myriad challenges that fathers and sons face over the life course, we advocate a parallel focus on how fathers and sons achieve closeness in their relationships and how they express their feelings of affection for each other. In service of this approach, we review ﬁndings on the nature of closeness and affection in father-son relationships at various points in the life course. Our review also takes account of various 147

148

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

conﬁgurations of the father-son relationship, including those involving stepfathers and adoptive fathers. We conclude that, despite its many challenges, the father-son relationship can be extremely inﬂuential in the developmental processes of fathers as well as sons.

THE FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP: HOW DOES IT MATTER, AND WHY? A sizable literature attests to the numerous and substantial ways in which fathers—and fathering—affect sons and their development into adulthood. For instance, fathers who are emotionally distant and/or physically absent tend to have sons who are more prone to violent behavior (Mackey & Mackey, 2003) and who have poor relationships with their mothers (Borduin & Henggeler, 1987). Positive emotional identiﬁcation between father and son, by contrast, is associated with sons’ emotional adjustment (Barber & Delfabbro, 2000; Jones, Kramer, Armitage, & Williams, 2003), attitudes about sexuality (Fisher, 1987), and healthy masculine role identiﬁcation (see, for example, Kagel & Schilling, 1985, who measured masculine role identiﬁcation with the Bem Sex Role Inventory, and Shill, 1981, who measured masculine identity using a thematic apperception test). Several studies have also shown that the quality of the father-son relationship in early life is predictive of the sons’ communication behaviors (Buerkel-Rothfuss & Yerby, 1981; Fink, 1993) and romantic relationship success (Beatty & Dobos, 1993; Møeller & Stattin, 2001) in middle age. The father-son relationship is not consequential only for sons, however. Recent work by Palkovitz (2002) attests to its importance for fathers’ adult development as well. In an in-depth qualitative study of 40 adult fathers, Palkovitz acknowledged that men do not cease their own development when they become fathers. He found that men’s experiences with fathering (with both sons and daughters) are related not only to changes in their personalities (e.g., they become less self-centered, more responsible) but also to changes in their work lives, their marriages, and their relationships with other family members (particularly their own fathers). One way to appreciate why the father-son relationship can be so consequential is to acknowledge that it is not necessarily a discrete relational category, but that, over the life course, it shares some important characteristics with other signiﬁcant male-male relationships, such as those between brothers or male friends. Besides the father-son relationship, these are among the most inﬂuential same-sex relationships in men’s lives (Feeney, Noller, & Roberts, 2000; Fehr, 2004; Slomkowski, Rende, Conger, Simons, & Conger, 2001). In this section, we draw relational comparisons between

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

149

paternal, fraternal, and friendship relationships on four important issues— the familial structure, power differences, emotional closeness, and knowledge of other that occurs within each type of relationship. Perhaps the most apparent similarity between paternal and fraternal relationships is their familial nature, which is consequential in at least two ways: First, the union is permanent, and second, it is primarily involuntary. The permanence of familial ties is important because it often allows them to withstand changes in communication patterns that may shake the heartiest of friendships. Indeed, as Palkovitz (2002) noted, fathers and their adult children may go for long stretches of time without communicating and may report very low levels of relationship satisfaction at points during their life course; although friendships or other less permanent relationships might falter under such circumstances, familial relationships are more likely to endure. Similarly, one can choose one’s friends but not one’s father or brothers. Referring to fraternal relationships, Floyd (1996a) opined that their involuntary nature imbued them with a wider range of expected emotion than would characterize friendships (which are expected, by their voluntary nature, to be primarily positive). Others have made the same point about sibling relationships in general (e.g., Dunn, 1988; Patterson, 1986; for review of the literature, see Bedford & Volling, 2004). The same could be said of fathers and their sons. Compared to friendships and fraternal relationships, however, the father-son pair is likely to undergo more dramatic evolution over the life span because of the developmental changes of the son. During the son’s childhood, most father-son pairs exhibit close emotional relationships and early identiﬁcation of the son with the father (Yablonsky, 1990). Adolescent desires for individuation and separation heighten conﬂict, as the father is seen as possessing greater power and status (Beyers, Goossens, Vansant, & Moors, 2003; Yablonsky, 1990). During the son’s adolescence, relational interaction between father and son is often inhibited (Bergman, 1995), and physical affection initiated by the father tends to decrease (Ogletree, Jones, & Coyl, 2002). As the son ages, however, the power difference is often attenuated or even eliminated, leading to a peerlike relationship; indeed, fathers and sons often become close friends after the son reaches adulthood (Yablonsky, 1990). In extreme cases, the son may experience role reversal by assuming more power than the father at an unhealthily early age, perhaps because of the son’s upward mobility or illness or catastrophe in his father’s life (see Alexander, 2003, for a review). Although power balances within sibling relationships are expected to more closely approximate those in friendships, older siblings often assume greater status than younger children (Munsun-Miller, 1993; Stocker, Lanthier, & Furman, 1997). This difference may lead fraternal pairs to mildly mirror the father-son relationship in early years, transitioning to a peer relationship as

150

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

that differential wanes. Regardless, across the life span the father-son relationship is likely to undergo changes unparalleled by fraternal relationships or friendships. One need only peruse either the scholarly or popular literatures on father-son relationships to discover that most treatments of the topic focus on its negative aspects. This is perhaps most true in the popular press associated with the men’s movement, in which writers such as Keen (1991) and Bly (1990) have advanced images of the father-son relationship as chronically dysfunctional and emotionally bankrupt. Certainly, there can be little argument that many father-son relationships are enormously challenging and that a focus on their challenges may well be warranted. However, an exclusive focus on the challenging aspects of the relationship can suggest implicitly that most men have emotionally distant relationships with their sons. Dubbed the role-inadequacy perspective by Hawkins and Dollahite (1997), this orientation focuses on men’s shortcomings as fathers and sons and appears to permeate research on men and fatherhood (Doherty, 1991; Levant, 1992). The problem is that such a perspective can obscure the more positive aspects of the relationship. One such aspect, which has received growing academic attention of late, is the development (at a sociocultural level) of emotional closeness and affection between fathers and sons (see Pleck, 1997). Although, as we noted above, male-male affection is largely proscribed in North American cultures, the paternal relationship, because of its familial nature, is somewhat immune from such proscriptions (e.g., Morman & Floyd, 1998). As such, it provides many men with what may be one of their only same-sex relationships in which closeness and affection can be openly engaged (another example is found in the case of brothers; see Bedford and Avioli in this volume). In the next section, we discuss the nature of emotional closeness and affectionate communication in father-son relationships. First, we address these issues within the contexts of family role and masculine role expectations, and second, we discuss the development and sharing of closeness and affection in family relationships through the life course. On the latter point, we pay particular attention to nonbiological father-son relationships, such as those involving stepfathers or adoptive fathers.

CLOSENESS AND AFFECTION IN THE FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP Despite their propensity for conﬂict and disengagement, many father-son relationships are also characterized by a pronounced degree of emotional closeness and affectionate behavior. (As we refer to these characteristics,

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

151

we will intend closeness to signify an emotional bond of familiarity and friendship and affection to reference those behaviors that express feelings of love and intimacy.) However, as we noted above, many father-son pairs change substantially over the life course, and these developmental shifts are often accompanied by signiﬁcant changes in the level of closeness and affection that fathers and sons share. As Yablonsky (1990) explained, the traditional developmental trajectory of the father-son relationship is curvilinear, with the greatest closeness and affection between fathers and sons observed during the son’s childhood and adulthood, and the least observed during his adolescence and young adulthood. As a consequence, it makes sense to examine closeness and affection in paternal dyads only within the understanding that the relationship evolves substantially over the normal life course. Neither has the model for father-son relationships stayed constant throughout history. For the better part of the last three centuries, in fact, the father-son relationship has not been characterized by a great deal of emotional closeness or intimacy (Griswold, 1997). As fathers have attended to their duties as breadwinners and disciplinarians—roles largely prescribed by traditional masculine gender expectations—they may have found it difﬁcult, or even unnecessary, to attend to the emotional tenor of their relationships with their sons (see Backett, 1987). There is reason to believe, however, that this social construction of fatherhood is currently in the midst of a shift away from the “father as breadwinner” model to one in which fathers take a more involved role in nurturing their children (see Daly, 1995; LaRossa, 1988; Morman & Floyd, 2002). If true, then one consequence of this shift is that father-son relationships should be characterized by more closeness and affection now than in preceding generations. Even if fathers and sons become closer and more affectionate with each other over time and through history, such characteristics can be difﬁcult for many fathers and sons to negotiate and maintain. We begin this section by discussing what is perhaps the primary barrier to the development of father-son closeness, the masculine gender role and its associated expectations. Next, we discuss the moderating role played by familial expectations and their ability to attenuate the masculine role proscription against father-son intimacy. Finally, we survey research ﬁndings on closeness and affection throughout the life course of fathers’ relationships with their biological, step-, and adoptive sons.

Masculinity and Father-Son Relationships Like the relationships of brothers or male friends, the father-son relationship is a male-male pair and is thus subject to expectations associated

152

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

with the masculine gender role. As we have argued elsewhere (see Morman & Floyd, 1998), traditional masculinity proscribes the overt communication of affectionate feelings—if not the development of the feelings themselves—in most male-male pairs (Letich, 1991; O’Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995). It should be little surprise, then, that male same-sex relationships are routinely less affectionate than female-female or cross-sex pairs (for review, see Floyd, in press). At least two theoretical perspectives can account for this difference. The ﬁrst is that men avoid acknowledging or expressing closeness or intimacy with each other out of a fear of appearing feminine. Empirical studies have reported that affection is considered to be less appropriate in male-male relationships than in relationships involving at least one female (see Floyd, 1997a). The second perspective suggests that men avoid acknowledging or expressing closeness out of a fear of inviting questions about their sexuality. In a study of interpersonal touch, for instance, Derlega, Lewis, Harrison, Winstead, and Constanza (1989) noted that touch is more likely to be interpreted by observers as sexual in nature when it occurs between men than between women. Likewise, Roese, Olson, Borenstein, Martin, and Shores (1992) found that one’s level of homophobia is inversely related to the frequency of same-sex touch and that this is especially true for men (see also Bowman, 2004a, 2004b). To the extent that masculine role prescriptions emphasize the avoidance of appearing feminine or homosexual (or both), it is easy to understand why men may elect not to convey feelings of closeness to each other, at least overtly (Derlega, Catanzaro, & Lewis, 2001; Fehr, 2004; Rawlins, 1992; Reis, 1998; Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver, 1996). This proscription is attenuated in at least two important ways, however. First, as we explain in greater detail below, it appears not to inhibit father-son affection as much when the sons are children as when they are adults (see Parke, 1981; Yogman, 1981). Second, it appears to be attenuated in familial relationships, as opposed to friendships or other nonfamilial bonds. Research comparing adult siblings and friends has conﬁrmed that even though people consider affectionate behavior to be more appropriate in female-female or cross-sex friendships than in malemale friendships, this sex difference is strongly attenuated when considering sibling relationships, such that there is little difference among the three sex compositions with respect to how appropriate affection is judged to be. As Floyd and Morman (1997) found, men tend to feel more comfortable expressing affection to their brothers than to their male friends, even if they feel substantially closer to their friends than their brothers. Indeed, this attenuated sex difference has been consistently identiﬁed whether people report on their own relationships (Floyd & Morman, 1997, 1998) or on relationships in general (Floyd, 1997b), and

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

153

there is little reason to believe that it does not generalize from fraternal to paternal relationships. Instead of being doomed by fears of femininity or homosexuality to superﬁcial, unsatisfying relationships, however, fathers and sons may use less overt ways to convey their positive feelings for each other. According to a perspective alternately labeled the “gendered closeness perspective” (Floyd, 1996b) and the “covert intimacy perspective” (Swain, 1989), men in same-sex relationships have adapted to the restrictions of traditional masculinity by developing ways of expressing affection for each other that are more “covert” than hugging, kissing, or saying “I love you.” Speciﬁcally, this perspective offers that male-male affection is exchanged more often through the sharing of activities and instrumental support than through more overt means. Swain (1989) referred to these forms of communication as “covert” because observers may fail to interpret them as affectionate expressions, thereby shielding men from questions about their masculinity or sexuality that more direct expressions might invite (see Bedford & Avioli in this volume on covert intimacy between brothers). Considered in concert, these various perspectives warrant at least four hypotheses about closeness and affection over the life course of father-son relationships. First, following Yablonsky’s (1990) developmental model, both closeness (as an emotional experience) and affection (as an expressive behavior) should vary over the life course of the son, becoming less intense during the transition to adolescence and young adulthood and more intense during the transition to later adulthood. Second, if the conception of fatherhood is in the midst of a shift toward a more nurturant model, then fathers today should experience more closeness and affection with their sons than they experienced with their own fathers. Third, men should report sharing more affection—but not necessarily more closeness—with their fathers or sons than with their friends or other nonfamilial male relations. Fourth, both fathers and sons should express affection toward each other more through the use of supportive instrumental behaviors than through direct verbal (“I love you”) or nonverbal (kissing, hugging) means, at least once the sons reach adolescence. How well do these hypotheses stand up to empirical tests? We address this issue subsequently, and also discuss the effects of the biological status of the relationship (whether biological, step, or adoptive).

Affection, Closeness, and the Life Course In this section, we discuss recent empirical work on closeness and affection in the life course of father-son relationships. Our discussion will be

154

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

guided by the four hypotheses mentioned earlier, the ﬁrst of which addresses the extent to which father-son closeness and affection may change over the son’s life course. Although few studies have measured closeness in father-son relationships, evidence suggests that affection— behaviors that actively convey feelings of love and closeness from one person to another—changes over the life course of many father-son relationships, irrespective of how the amount of love and closeness that fathers and sons feel for each other may change. In particular, sons’ development from childhood to adulthood appears to be characterized by changes in both the amount of affectionate communication they share with their fathers (addressing the ﬁrst hypothesis) and also in its means of expression (addressing the fourth). We take up both topics in this section. Many men are affectionate with infants and young children, particularly during play, discriminating little in the amount and types of affection expressed to daughters and sons (see Parke, 1981). As their children move from childhood to preadolescence, however, fathers tend to curtail their affectionate behaviors with their sons. In a study of affectionate father-son touch, Salt (1991) demonstrated not only that fathers engaged in less affectionate touch with preadolescent sons than with infant or preschool-aged sons (and also reported that they did) but also that both fathers and sons rated affectionate father-son touch to be less appropriate with preadolescent than younger sons. Salt theorized that as sons move from childhood into preadolescence and adolescence, their cognitive development and increased interaction with peers make increasingly salient, for the sons as well as for their fathers, culturally sanctioned norms of appropriateness for father-son (and indeed, male-male) touch. Consequently, he contended, father-son affectionate touch decreases as masculine-role proscriptions against male-male affection become inﬂuential (e.g., Swain, 1989; Williams, 1985; Wood & Inman, 1993). Morman and Floyd (1999) extended Salt’s research, both by expanding the operational deﬁnition of affectionate communication to include verbal expressions and nonverbal behaviors in addition to touch, and by examining fathers’ relationships with adolescent and young-adult sons (aged 16 to 32). They reported that verbal expressions of affection (e.g., saying “I love you”) and direct nonverbal gestures of affection (e.g., hugging or kissing) were relatively uncommon in men’s relationships with adolescent/young adult sons but were signiﬁcantly associated with fathers’ and sons’ feelings of relational closeness and communication satisfaction. By contrast, the most common mode, by far, that fathers and sons used to convey their affection for each other was through supportive behaviors, such as helping each other with problems or giving each other compliments. A later study by Floyd and Morman (2000) replicated this pattern. In predicting this outcome, Morman and Floyd echoed

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

155

Wood and Inman’s (1993) contention that men (at least, in adulthood) may mask their expressions of affection for each other in supportive behavior in order to circumvent social proscriptions against male-male affection and avoid eliciting social disapproval (see also Swain, 1989). Interestingly, the amount of affection that men convey to their sons appears to be related to the amount of affection their own fathers expressed to them. That parenting behaviors are often transmitted intergenerationally is certainly not news, of course; research has long demonstrated that fathers model a variety of behaviors that their children replicate in adulthood (e.g., Cowan & Cowan, 1987; Mussen, 1969). In applying a modeling hypothesis to father-son affectionate communication, however, Floyd and Morman (2000) predicted a curvilinear association wherein men are the most affectionate with their sons if they received either a great deal of affection or very little affection from their own fathers. Floyd and Morman proposed that, in the former case, men would model the affectionate communication they received from their own fathers, but in the latter case, men would compensate for the lack of affection received from their fathers by being highly affectionate with their own sons. As predicted, Floyd and Morman identiﬁed a signiﬁcant U-shaped quadratic relationship between the amount of affection men received from their fathers and the amount of affection they convey to their own adolescent and adult sons. Importantly, however, despite the association between affection received from a father and affection given to a son, research suggests that father-son relationships may be closer and more affectionate today than in previous generations, as our second hypothesis offered. In a study of historical shifts in cultural views of fathering and its effect on paternal behavior, Morman and Floyd (2002) compared the perceived closeness, relational satisfaction, and affectionate communication of 139 father-son pairs. In their study, fathers (aged 30–74) and their oldest sons (aged 12–46) completed questionnaires assessing the dyad’s closeness, relational satisfaction, and affection, which included supportive affectionate activities (e.g., doing favors for another) and both verbal and nonverbal affectionate communication (e.g., saying “I love you” or hugging, respectively). Sons in the study responded to the questions with respect to their relationship with their father. Fathers in the study, however, answered the questions both with respect to their relationship with their son and also with respect to the relationship they had with their own father (the son’s grandfather), if still living. In line with the idea that cultural concepts of fatherhood are shifting toward a more nurturant model, Morman and Floyd found that the fathers in their study reported more closeness, relational satisfaction, and affection with their sons than with their own fathers. Sons likewise

156

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

reported more closeness, satisfaction, and affection with their fathers than their fathers reported with the sons’ grandfathers. This study was cross-sectional rather than longitudinal; as such, it cannot conﬁrm that these relational characteristics are changing over time in father-son relationships. Neither can it address the alternative hypothesis that the group difference is the result of intrapsychic developmental change. Despite these limitations (which call for appropriately designed replications), the results are in line with speculation that fathers and sons are closer and more affectionate with each other today than in previous generations, consistent with a theorized shift in the cultural construction of the fatherhood role. The third hypothesis we proposed above was that men should be more affectionate with their fathers and sons than with their male friends, even if they actually feel closer to their friends than to their fathers or sons. Previous research has demonstrated this pattern with respect to brothers and male friends (see Floyd & Morman, 1997; Morman & Floyd, 1998), and given its similarities with the fraternal relationship (which we discuss above), the father-son relationship should theoretically follow suit. Although Palkovitz (2002) discussed the negotiation of male friendships relative to father-son relationships, no empirical work of which we are aware has yet compared levels of closeness and affection in father-son pairs and male-male friendships. Although the research on fraternal relationships is illustrative, this hypothesis awaits empirical veriﬁcation. In sum, the extant data provide support for three of the four hypotheses about closeness and affection in father-son relationships. Speciﬁcally, affection in father-son relationships appears to be associated with the age of the son in a U-shaped curvilinear pattern, whereby affection is high during the son’s childhood, wanes during the son’s adolescence and young adulthood, and increases again during the son’s middle and late adulthood. In addition, there is evidence that father-son relationships are closer and more affectionate today than in previous generations, although longitudinal research is needed to document this pattern of change. Finally, both fathers and sons are substantially more likely to convey affection for each other through social and instrumental support behaviors than through direct verbal or nonverbal expressions. The hypothesis that men are more affectionate in their paternal relationships than in their friendships awaits investigation. Importantly, however, variations in the biological status of fatherson pairs may also affect their relational characteristics. Recent work has compared the relationships of biological, step-, and adoptive fathers and sons in terms of closeness and the expression of affection. Drawing on affection exchange theory (Floyd, 2002, in press; Floyd & Morr, 2003)

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

157

and the principle of discriminative parental solicitude (Daly & Wilson, 1980, 1995), Floyd and Morman (2003) predicted that men feel closer to, and communicate more affection to, their adult biological and adopted sons than to their adult stepsons. The reasoning behind the predictions was Darwinian in nature: The three relationships differ from each other primarily because of differences in the level of genetic relatedness between father and son. In a biological relationship, father and son share approximately 50% of the proportion of genes that vary from person to person (provided that the father was not genetically related to the son’s mother). In step and adoptive relationships, the percentage of genetic overlap is typically zero unless the father and son were genetically related prior to the son’s adoption (as may be the case in intrafamilial adoptions; see Brodzinsky, Smith, & Brodzinsky, 1998). According to this perspective, men have an evolved motivation to invest their resources (including their emotional resources) in their biological sons more than in their stepsons as a means of furthering their long-term genetic viability. That the same motivation would apply with adopted sons (who, it was predicted, would receive from their fathers amounts of affection similar to biological sons) is thought to reﬂect the relative newness of adoption to the human experience (Daly & Wilson, 1995), which may have prevented the same level of discrimination in resource allocation from yet evolving. As a result, parents may orient psychologically toward adopted children in the same way they orient toward biological children. The adoptive relationship may also differ from the step relationship in the likelihood that the biological father is involved in the son’s life. That is, adoption requires legal abdication of the biological father’s rights, making it more likely that the adoptive father will play the sole paternal role in his adopted son’s life; by contrast, stepfathers may have no legal obligations to their stepsons but may, instead, “compete” with their sons’ biological fathers for attention, respect, and love. These differences may also cause adoptive relationships to parallel biological ones. Both predictions regarding affectionate communication were supported in two studies of biological, step, and adoptive father-son relationships involving sons who ranged in age from 12 to nearly 60 years of age (Floyd & Morman, 2003). Importantly, the difference in affection between the three relationship types held even when the levels of closeness were held constant, ruling out the closeness difference as an alternative hypothesis. Parental divorce can further complicate the complex nature of the relationship between a father and his son. Indeed, divorce has been shown to have many effects on the paternal relationship, lowering both the amount and quality of interaction (Aquilino, 1994; Riggio, 2004). After a divorce, nonresident fathers are prone to withdraw from contact

158

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

with their children (Leite & McKenry, 2002). As such, divorce has been shown to erode the emotional bond that exists between fathers and their children (Amato & Sobolewski, 2001); this emotional disconnect only increases throughout the life span (Guttmann & Rosenberg, 2003) to the point where adult children of divorced parents often don’t even consider the father-son bond as a salient aspect of life satisfaction (Amato, 1994). Indeed, the lack of a positive relationship between a nonresident father and his son has a broad range of developmental implications that may impact other relational experiences. Incidence of father absence may lead to disruptions in the important separationindividuation processes that adolescents require for healthy father-son relationships (Jones et al., 2003). By attenuating contact with one’s father, a divorce can negatively impact the future experience of other same-sex relationships for that individual (Richardson & McCabe, 2001). Alternatively, if the father is able to actively foster a sense of intimacy with his child despite nonresidence, the psychosocial adjustment of that child will not be negatively affected (Richardson & McCabe, 2001). In fact, simply increasing the amount of contact between a nonresident father and his child may be likely to increase the psychological well-being of the child (Spruijt, De Goede, & Vandervalk, 2004). Even though a divorce is likely to negatively impact the relationship between a father and his son, if that father actively champions a positive relationship he may likely succeed.

IN SUMMARY: ON THE NATURE OF FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIPS Although the father-son relationship is enormously inﬂuential in men’s lives, both academic and popular depictions of the relationship have tended to emphasize its tribulations and negative aspects. There can be little question that many father-son pairs continually confront aggressiveness, conﬂict, or indifference, and that these are important challenges to study and understand. Studies of these topics reveal only a part of the story, however. Despite their challenges, many fathers and sons are able to achieve important levels of closeness and affection in their relationships that make the father-son pair among the most intimate of male-male bonds in the life course. Although these characteristics change over time in father-son relationships and are often conveyed in ways that are more covert than overt, they are nonetheless important attributes of positive, satisfying bonds between fathers and their sons.

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

159

REFERENCES Alexander, P. C. (2003). Parent-child role reversal: Development of a measure and test of an attachment theory model. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 22, 31–44. Amato, P. R. (1994). Father-child relations, mother-child relations, and offspring psychological well-being in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 1031–1042. Amato, P. R., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord on adult children’s psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66, 900–921. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Later life parental divorce and widowhood: Impact on young adults’ assessment of parent-child relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 908–922. Backett, K. (1987). The negotiation of fatherhood. In C. Lewis & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Reassessing fatherhood: New observations on fathers and the modern family (pp. 74–90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Barber, J. G., & Delfabbro, P. (2000). Predictors of adolescent adjustment: Parent-peer relationships and parent-child conﬂict. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17, 275–288. Beatty, M. J., & Dobos, J. A. (1993). Adult males’ perceptions of conﬁrmation and relational partner communication apprehension: Indirect effects of fathers on sons’ partners. Communication Quarterly, 41, 66–76. Bedford, V. H., & Volling, B. (2004). A dynamic ecological systems perspective on emotion regulation development within the sibling relationship context. In F. Lang & K. Fingerman (Eds.), Growing together: Personal relationships across the lifespan (pp. 76–101). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bergman, S. J. (1995). Men’s psychological development: A relational perspective. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 68–90). New York: Basic Books. Beyers, W., Goossens, L., Vansant, I., & Moors, E. (2003). A structural model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence: connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(5), 351–365. Bly, R. (1990). Iron John: A book about men. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Borduin, C. M., & Henggeler, S. W. (1987). Post-divorce mother-son relations of delinquent and well-adjusted adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 273–288. Bowman, J. M. (2004a, July). Sex differences in the perception and evaluation of factors related to heterosexual male friendship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association of Relationship Research, Madison, WI. Bowman, J. M. (2004b, May). The inﬂuence of context normativeness and homophobic beliefs on perceived appropriateness of self-disclosure in male heterosexual friendships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans.

160

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

Brodzinsky, D. M., Smith, D. W., & Brodzinsky, A. B. (1998). Children’s adjustment to adoption: Developmental clinical psychology and psychiatry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Yerby, J. (1981, October). Two studies in member perceptions of family communication: Part I: Perceived similarity in intergenerational communication style. Part II: A factor analytic study of family communication patterns. Paper presented to National Council on Family Relations, Milwaukee, WI. Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (1987). Men’s involvement in parenthood: Identifying the antecedents and understanding the barriers. In P. W. Berman & F. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Men’s transitions to parenthood: Longitudinal studies of early family experience (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daly, K. (1995). Reshaping fatherhood: Finding the models. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.), Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social policy (pp. 21–40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1980). Discriminative parental solicitude: A biological perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 277–288. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1995). Discriminative parental solicitude and the relevance of evolutionary models to the analysis of motivational systems. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1269–1286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Derlega, V. J., Catanzaro, D., & Lewis, R. J. (2001). Perceptions about tactile intimacy in same-sex and opposite-sex pairs based on research participant’s sexual orientation. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 124–132. Derlega, V. J., Lewis, R. J., Harrison, S., Winstead, B. A., & Costanza, R. (1989). Gender differences in the initiation and attribution of tactile intimacy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 83–96. Doherty, W. J. (1991). Beyond reactivity and the deﬁcit model of manhood: A commentary on articles by Napier, Pittman, and Gottman. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 29–32. Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (2000). Attachment and close relationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 185–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fehr, B. (2004). A prototype model of intimacy interactions in same-sex friendships. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 9–26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fink, D. S. (1993). Father-son relationships: Relational closeness and fathers’ parenting style as predictors of sons’ expected parenting style and communicator style similarity. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Speech Communication and Dramatic Arts, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI. Fisher, T. D. (1987). Child sexual attitude similarity as a function of communication about sex and proximity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284 080).

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

161

Floyd, K. (1996a). Brotherly love I: The experience of closeness in the fraternal dyad. Personal Relationships, 3, 369–385. Floyd, K. (1996b). Communicating closeness among siblings: An application of the gendered closeness perspective. Communication Research Reports, 13, 27–34. Floyd, K. (1997a). Communicating affection in dyadic relationships: An assessment of behavior and expectancies. Communication Quarterly, 45, 68–80. Floyd, K. (1997b). Knowing when to say “I love you”: An expectancy approach to affectionate communication. Communication Research Reports, 14, 68–80. Floyd, K. (2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–154. Floyd, K. (in press). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1997). Affectionate communication in nonromantic relationships: Inﬂuences of communicator, relational, and contextual factors. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 279–298. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1998). The measurement of affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly, 46, 144–162. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2000). Affection received from fathers as a predictor of men’s affection with their own sons: Tests of the modeling and compensation hypotheses. Communication Monographs, 67, 347–361. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2003). Human affection exchange: II. Effects of role and biological status on affection in father-son relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 599–612. Floyd, K., & Morr, M. C. (2003). Human affection exchange: VII. Affectionate communication in the sibling/spouse/sibling-in-law triad. Communication Quarterly, 51, 247–261. Griswold, R. L. (1997). Generative fathering: A historical perspective. In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deﬁcit perspectives (pp. 71–86). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Guttmann, J., & Rosenberg, M. (2003). Emotional intimacy and children’s adjustment: A comparison between single-parent divorced and intact families. Educational Psychology, 23, 457–472. Hawkins, A. J., & Dollahite, D. C. (1997). Generative fathering: Beyond deﬁcit perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jones, K. A., Kramer, T. L., Armitage, T., & Williams, K. (2003). The impact of father absence on adolescent individuation-separation. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129, 73–95. Kagel, S. A., & Schilling, K. M. (1985). Sexual identiﬁcation and gender identity among father-absent males. Sex Roles, 13, 357–370. Keen, S. (1991). Fire in the belly: On being a man. New York: Bantam. LaRossa, R. (1988). Fatherhood and social change. Family Relations, 37, 451–457. Leite, R. W. & McKenry, P. C. (2002). Aspects of father status and postdivorce father involvement with children. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 601–623.

162

FATHERS AND THEIR ADULT CHILDREN

Letich, L. (1991). “Do you know who your friends are?” Reprinted in J. Petrikin’s (1995). Male/female roles: opposing viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 379–402. Mackey, W. C., & Mackey, B. (2003). The presence of fathers in attenuating young male violence: Dad as a social palliative. Marriage and Family Review, 35, 63–75. Møeller, K., & Stattin, H. (2001). Are close relationships in adolescence linked with partner relationships in midlife? A longitudinal, prospective study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 69–77. Morman, M. T., & Floyd, K. (1998). “I love you, man”: Overt expressions of affection in male-male interaction. Sex Roles, 38, 871–881. Morman, M. T., & Floyd, K. (1999). Affectionate communication between fathers and young adult sons: Individual- and relational-level correlates. Communication Studies, 50, 294–309. Morman, M. T., & Floyd, K. (2002). A “changing culture of fatherhood”: Effects on affectionate communication, closeness, and satisfaction in men’s relationships with their fathers and their sons. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 395–411. Munsun-Miller, L. (1993). Sibling status effects: Parents’ perceptions of their own children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 189–198. Mussen, P. H. (1969). Early sex-role development. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 707–731). New York: Rand McNally. O’Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on men’s gender role conﬂict: New paradigms for empirical research. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 68–90). New York: Basic Books. Ogletree, M. D., Jones, R. M., & Coyl, D. D. (2002). Fathers and their adolescent sons: Pubertal development and paternal involvement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 418–424. Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and men’s adult development: Provisional balances. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Parke, R. (1981). Fathers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Patterson, G. R. (1986). The contribution of siblings to training for ﬁghting: A microsocial analysis. In D. Olweus, J. Block & R. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior (pp. 235–261). New York: Academic Press. Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed., pp. 104–120). New York: Wiley. Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Reis, H. T. (1998). Gender differences in intimacy and related behaviors: Context and process. In D. J. Canary & Dindia, K. (Eds.) Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 203–231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships

163

Richardson, S., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Parental divorce during adolescence and adjustment in early adulthood. Adolescence, 36, 467–489. Riggio, H. R. (2004). Parental marital conﬂict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11, 99–114. Roese, N. J., Olson, J. M., Borenstein, M. N., Martin, A., & Shores, A. L. (1992). Same-sex touching behavior: The moderating role of homophobic attitudes. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 249–259. Salt, R. E. (1991). Affectionate touch between fathers and preadolescent sons. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 545–554. Shill, M. (1981). TAT measures of gender identity (castration anxiety) in fatherabsent males. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 136–146. Slomkowski, C., Rende, R., Conger, K. J., Simons, R., & Conger, R. D. (2001). Sisters, brothers, and delinquency: Evaluating social inﬂuence during early and middle adolescence. Child Development, 72, 271–283. Spruijt, E., De Goede, M., & Vandervalk, I. (2004). Frequency of contact with nonresident fathers and adolescent well-being: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 40, 77–90. Stocker, C. M., Lanthier, R. P., & Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 210–221. Swain, S. O. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men’s friendships. In B. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructural approach (pp. 71–86). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Tidwell, M., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and daily social interactions: A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 729–745. Williams, D. G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity and emotional intimacy in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 12, 587–600. Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. C. (1993). In a different mode: Masculine styles of communicating closeness. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 279–295. Yablonsky, L. (1990). Fathers and sons: The most challenging of all family relationships. New York: Gardner Press. Yogman, M. (1981). Games fathers and mothers play with their infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 2, 241–248.

This page intentionally left blank

PA RT I V

Interpersonal Processes in Men’s Relationships

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 8

In the Company of Men: Collective Interdependence in Self-Construals of Masculinity1 Barbara Formaniak Turner

Major theorists of masculinities, such as Connell (1995) and Kimmel (1996), propose that men’s social construction of personal masculinity is highly relational. They argue in particular that men deﬁne their masculinity mostly in relation to other men. In Weiss’ (1990) study of midlife men aged 35–55, what counts most to men is the opinions of other men. Huyck and Gutmann, elsewhere in this volume, discuss midlife to thirdage husbands’ vulnerability to messages “received” from wives about their adequacy as men and the roots of these vulnerabilities in early-life parental relationships. This chapter acknowledges the crucial importance of these dyadic relationships with signiﬁcant others for self-construals, but focuses on how men’s self-deﬁnitions of masculinity depend still more importantly on the reﬂected evaluations of other men. The approval of other men that men need to secure their masculinity requires avoiding

1

The author wishes to thank former students in the doctoral program in Social Policy and Aging at the University of Massachusetts-Boston for their contributions, since 1996, to analyses of Boston Study men's gender styles: Kirsten N. Corazzini, Donna McGary, Dena Schulman-Green, and Donna Sullivan.

167

168

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

humiliation in front of or domination by other men (Kimmel, 1996)— especially in front of collectivities of men. These observations are consistent with evidence from a different area of social psychological research that shows that American men’s self-construals or self-descriptions are more attuned to collective interdependence and less attuned to relational interdependence than American women’s (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999). Interdependence is broadly deﬁned as an awareness of and concern with one’s connection to others (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999). Collective interdependence is based on group memberships and afﬁliations; in contrast, relational interdependence is based on close relationships with speciﬁc others (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). The former construct originated in the crosscultural literature on collectivism and individualism, which in turn emerged in the social-cognitive literature on self and identity. The latter ﬁeld asks how people think about the self and how their self-deﬁnitions are formed. This chapter examines evidence for collective interdependence in self-construals of gender in the qualitative responses of 237 men diverse in age (19 to 87 years), race, social class, and marital and parental status. By self-construals of gender, I mean the ways that the men think they do and do not exemplify their own deﬁnitions of personally acceptable masculinity. Men in the study are expected to vary in collective interdependence. In this chapter, I investigate how men’s self-construals of masculinity and gender are related to men’s collective interdependence as well as how age and other social contexts are related to collective interdependence. This chapter is organized into several main sections: (1) a review of research on sex differences in collective interdependence in the life span; (2) a brief discussion of theoretical interpretations of men’s focus on the groups to which they belong; (3) a description of the cross-sectional Boston Gender Study dataset of 237 men and its coding of 10 multidimensional gender styles; (4) a description of the two measures of collective interdependence developed in this study and their basis in the literatures on men and masculinities as well as on self and identity; (5) a brief discussion of theoretical interpretations of how age, race, and social class might relate to collective interdependence; (6) the results of the study; and (7) conclusions.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COLLECTIVE INTERDEPENDENCE IN THE LIFE SPAN Plenty of evidence shows that boys exceed girls in collective aspects of interdependence. Boys describe themselves more than girls in terms of group membership (McGuire & McGuire, 1982), have larger social networks,

In the Company of Men

169

more coordinated group activities, and more often congregate in larger groups, such as sports teams (e.g., Maccoby, 1990; cf. review by Gabriel & Gardner, 1999). Boys’ interactions more often feature displays of dominance and competitiveness, and boys place higher value on traits related to competitiveness and social dominance. Indeed gender role socialization in childhood and adolescence emphasizes larger group interactions for boys more than for girls. These sex differences are apparent in adulthood as well. Cross and Madson (1997) argued that men’s status- and dominance-oriented behaviors reﬂect their chronically accessible independent and individualistic focus. In keeping with new perspectives on gender, I argue that these behaviors instead reﬂect an orientation toward collective interdependence, a model most fully developed by Gabriel and Gardner (1999). Because larger groups are more likely to contain status differences, successful membership in collectives requires awareness of such differences and a desire to get and maintain status (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997). Consistent with these notions, across ﬁve studies of residential college students Gabriel and Gardner (1999) found no male-female differences in emphasis on independence or individualism—how one is unique and separate from others—but did ﬁnd sex differences in collective and relational interdependence. Women, as expected, exceeded men on measures of relational (dyadic) interdependence. Men more than women, however, described themselves in more collective terms on the Twenty Sentences Test, scored higher on a standardized measure of collective self-construal, reported more emotional experiences connected to groups, appeared more attuned to information on others’ group memberships, and were more motivated to behave in ways that supported their groups. Gardner and Gabriel (2004) conclude that men are not more independent of other people than women are. Rather, men and women tend to express interdependence with others differently. Therefore, men and women are equally interdependent with others overall in forming self-descriptions and personal identity. They also are equal in the overall “impact of interdependent self-construals on social cognition and behavior” (p. 171). In this chapter, then, I assume that men’s social construction of personal masculinity importantly reﬂects a chronically accessible collective interdependence. In summary, both sociologists and social psychologists in the area of self and identity now agree that self-construals of gender are created in interpersonal interactions—that is, that gender is relational. But the scope of “relational” is ambiguous. Creating a clear conceptual distinction between collective or group interdependence and relational or dyadic interdependence (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999) does much to clarify how interdependence with others inﬂuences self-construals and behavior.

170

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

As noted, however, almost all studies that have assessed (rather than assumed or speculated about) men’s collective interdependence have used young-adult samples. This chapter draws upon principles of life-course and life-span perspectives to explore age/cohort differences in men’s focus on hierarchical relationships within groups in the crosssectional Boston Gender Study. A cardinal feature of life-course/span perspectives is its capacity to accommodate a multitude of theoretical models.

THEORIES OF THE BASIS FOR MEN’S FOCUS ON THE GROUPS TO WHICH THEY BELONG Both social role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly, Wood, & JohannesenSchmidt, 2004) and evolutionary theory (e.g., Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Buss, 1995; Kenrick, Trost, & Sundie, 2004) offer interpretations of men’s greater orientation toward the groups to which they belong. Social role theory attends to several types of interconnected causes, both proximate and distal. The most central is the differential distribution of women and men into social roles in any given society (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). Men’s traditional roles, such as military service, ﬁreﬁghting, and many other jobs, emphasize groups or collectives. A distal cause of such sex differences in roles is the average adult sex difference in physical size, strength, and speed that make some tasks more efﬁcient for one sex than the other, in conjunction with local societal and ecological conditions (Wood & Eagly, 2002). Sex-typed social roles generally produce a gender hierarchy in which men have greater power and status than women, as well as sex differences in social behavior. A key proposition of role theory is that gender roles and gender stereotypes arise from observations of the typical social roles of the sexes because people assume that other people’s social behaviors usually correspond to their inner dispositions (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Hoffman & Hurst, 1990). Gender stereotypes and roles then affect behavior in part because people know others will penalize them for gender role deviations and reward them for gender-role-congruent behaviors. Many studies have conﬁrmed others’ negative reactions to role-deviant behaviors and rewards for role-congruent ones (see review by Eagly et al., 2004; see also a discussion of the role of shame in males’ gender-role development by Krugman, 1995). Gender roles also affect people’s self-concepts. Eagly et al. (2004) point out that men’s self-conceptions “in terms of competition for power and status in larger collectives is compatible with the social theory principle that the male gender role follows in part from

In the Company of Men

171

men’s greater access to status and power” (p. 279). Of course individual differences in gender-related self-construals are very large, and many people do not conform to sex-typed standards (e.g., Pleck, 1981, 1995; Wood, Christensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997). Gender also interacts with the other major stratiﬁcation and “primitive,” automatically activated social categorization variables of age, race, and social class (Turner, 1994). Men in the Boston Gender Study, therefore, are expected to vary greatly in collective interdependence. A basic principle of evolutionary theory is that members of a species must compete with each other for resources to survive, and the sine qua non of survival is reproduction. Although most offspring now survive to adulthood and birth control is generally available, evolutionary models assume that our brains remain suited to long-past environments and mate-selection strategies (Kenrick et al., 2004). Men with higher status in their society gain more access to women and other resources, and dominance competitions between men to secure status are common. In evolutionary theory, men with a higher collective orientation would be best able to acquire status in their society, which would give them greater access to social rewards (e.g., Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Buss, 1995). A less well-known perspective, socioanalytic theory (Hogan, 1996), also is pertinent. Socioanalytic theory combines principles of evolutionary models with psychoanalysis and role theory to argue that people’s elemental motivations, largely unconscious, are to acquire the basic social rewards of status and social acceptance. How much status and acceptance a person acquires is determined by his or her identity, deﬁned as self-presentational style or personality. In this model, people cannot simply maximize their social rewards by adopting self-presentational styles that “match” what works best in each public encounter they have with others. This is because people differ in (a) conscious awareness of the identity that guides their behavior—much is unconscious, (b) early-life socialization in cultural or social-structural niches that foster and reward particular self-presentational styles, (c) degree of concern about others’ reactions to them, (d) social skills, (e) extraversionintroversion, and (f) occupations that require special attention to interpersonal processes. Hogan (1996) comments, for example, that success in American corporate hierarchies requires a self-presentational style that features “hypocrisy and ﬂattery (sometimes called diplomacy) and the ability to ‘go with the ﬂow’.” (p. 169). In hierarchies, then, strategic self-presentations, beyond everyday etiquette rules for face-to-face interactions (Glenn, 1999), are adaptive for maximizing status, but people vary considerably in ability and willingness to adopt and employ them.

172

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

THE BOSTON GENDER STUDY AND THE GENDER STYLE MEASURES The multidimensional gender identity styles used in this chapter as measures of men’s self-construals of gender were developed by Huyck, Zucker, and Angellaccio (2000) in the Parkville Study and applied and expanded in the Boston Gender Study (Corazzini & Turner, 1996; Silva, Corazzini, & Turner, 1997). The styles were derived from qualitative coding of open-ended responses in which men described how they personally deﬁned masculinity and femininity and how they did and did not exemplify their own gender deﬁnitions. Respondents included physical characteristics, interests, role behaviors, occupational roles and status levels, recreational activities, attitudes, and more in addition to the personality traits psychologists studied in earlier conceptions of gender (Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Turner, 1994). Of importance, the styles were developed on samples that include a broad age range of adults. Hence, these qualitative styles maximize domain coverage and life-span applicability. The two studies are both cross-sectional, thereby confounding aging and cohort effects. Both studies used the interview questions, format, and gender-style coding system developed in the Parkville study; they differ most in interpretive perspectives. Speciﬁcally, the Boston Study included the Parkville interview questions on gender and on preadult relationships with parents, as well as the same standardized measures of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) and sense of mastery (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Only the Boston Study male sample is described here. Parkville interviews took place in the early 1980s; Boston Area interviews between 1989 and 1992.

Informants Turner initiated the Boston Study in part to assess the applicability of Huyck’s gender styles to a sample of men (and women; Turner & Silva, 2000) much more diverse in age, race or ethnicity, social class, and marital and parental status. Interviewers were graduate students in counseling psychology; interviews typically took two or more hours. The convenience sample of 237 men aged 19 to 87 years (M = 42.1, SD = 14.8) includes men in their 30s and early 40s as well as over 70 years old. Ten percent are African American and 4% to 5% Latino or Asian; the rest are European American. (Analyses of collective interdependence in this chapter exclude the handful of Latino and Asian men.) Half (52%) of the men are currently married, 6% cohabit, 8% are divorced, a few widowed, and one-third are never-married, including some over age 40. Half of the men are fathers. About 60% have four or more years of higher

In the Company of Men

173

education, and 65% had managerial or professional (mostly semiprofessional) occupations. Only a few respondents are gay (too few to justify separate analysis in this chapter), and none identiﬁed as bisexual or transgendered. Some men are foreign-born but all anticipated long-term United States residence. The proportion of African Americans in the sample is reasonably similar to their proportion nationally. College graduates and higher-status occupations, however, are overrepresented, as they also are in the Boston Metropolitan area from which respondents were drawn (Glaeser, 2005). Men aged 26 to 44 in the sample are baby boomers (born 1946–1964); those 65 and over were born in 1925 or earlier, and may be World War II veterans as well as fathers of baby boomers. Gender styles were developed and coded from a set of free-response questions. Men were asked about the characteristics they associated with masculinity and femininity; how they thought men and women differ psychologically (descriptive norms); whether they thought of themselves as masculine and, if so, in what ways; how that self-assessment inﬂuenced the things they did or did not do; and whether there were any ways in which they were not so masculine. Gender styles were developed mainly from responses to the questions on the ways that men thought of themselves as masculine and the ways in which they were not so masculine. From qualitative coding of the Parkville men’s responses, Huyck and her research team (Huyck et al., 2000) developed eight global identity styles for men. To do so, they drew in part on clinical (Gutmann, Grunes, & Grifﬁn, 1982) and social-psychological literature (e.g., Myers & Gonda, 1982; Veroff, Douvan, & Kulka, 1981), including that on the concept of androgyny (Bem, 1974; Berzins, Welling, & Wetter, 1978). All eight of Huyck et al.’s (2000) gender styles for Parkville men were readily coded for Boston men (Corazzini & Turner, 1996). As Turner also expected, given the demographic diversity of the latter compared to the former sample, two new styles also appeared in the Boston sample. Analysis of the scores by three different coders demonstrated that all 10 gender styles were reliably coded in the Boston sample. They will be described in the section on gender styles below.

OVERARCHING CONCEPTUAL MODELS FOR THE STUDY Huyck’s conceptual model of the development and content of the gender styles and behaviors in the Parkville Study appears in Huyck and Gutmann’s chapter. Brieﬂy, the model includes body (sex-linked genetic differentiation), mind (individual responses to experiences as in cognitive,

174

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

psychodynamic, and social learning theories of gender), and culture (descriptive and prescriptive beliefs about masculinities and femininities, which show historical change) (Huyck, 1994; Huyck et al., 2000). In this chapter on men, Turner draws on these models, and also on models derived from feminist models of gender identity (Beall, 1993; Ferree, 1990; Ferree, Lorber, & Hess, 1999; Turner, 1994), which are now dominant in men’s studies (cf. Thompson, 2004). It is well to recognize that theorists and researchers are as open to the contextual inﬂuences of their era as the topics and people we study (Cheal, 1991; Riger, 1992; Turner, 1994, pp. 12–13). One such inﬂuence on researchers of gender and sex are the currently dominant theories of gender. In these models, gender is a process, something we do, not something we have (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Gender identity is socially constructed in sets of gendered social practices in different arenas of social life. Furthermore, relations between men and women, and also between different groups of men, like race and class relations, are power relations (Connell, 1995). Each of the three dimensions of social stratiﬁcation is a set of practices constructed around unequal access to social, economic, and political resources (Acker, 1999; Glenn, 1999); all three interact simultaneously and also interact with the social institution of age (Kimmel & Messner, 2003; Thompson, 1994, 2004; Turner, 1994). All four operate at three levels (Glenn, 1999)—symbols, micro-interaction (etiquette rules for face-to-face interactions), and in the unequal distribution of power and resources. In power models, context (social, historical, and political) is a crucial determinant of intragender differences. The focus on context is consistent with long-standing principles of lifespan/course perspectives in gerontology that prompt attention to change in gender identities. In this study, then, change may be mapped within a society over time (cohort effects), over the course of any individual man’s life (developmental effects), and between and among different groups of men depending, at a minimum, on class, race, and other contextual factors. In gerontology, developmental or aging-related effects encompass biological and normative life events and turning points.

MEN’S GENDER IDENTITY STYLES Why use qualitatively coded measures of men’s personally experienced gender? Admittedly, the data collection and coding processes are difﬁcult and time-consuming compared to the ease and economy of standardized scales widely used in research on men and masculinities (see Thompson & Pleck, 1995). Scales are readily administered to large representative samples, and the use of summary scores allows comparability with the

In the Company of Men

175

bulk of studies that use scale summary scores. One argument is that qualitative measures better capture the contradictions and inconsistencies in men’s self-conceptions of gender, especially as experienced online in ﬂuid social interactions. The straightforward phrasing of scale items may not accurately represent some men’s personal experience. Above all, qualitative responses permit a ﬁne-grained analysis of individual differences in men’s personally experienced gender. In the gender style coding system used here, each style is coded categorically as present or absent (the styles are not rating scales), and respondents might be coded as expressing one or more gender styles. The Parkville Study men’s gender styles fell into three categories—gender-congruent, gender-expanded, and gender-compromised (see Table 8.1). The gendercongruent styles represent three culturally stereotypical schemas of masculinity described in social cognitive and social-psychological research on masculinities and gender as well as in psychodynamic theory and research. These schemas or styles of masculinities represent different ways of dealing with potentials for aggression (Huyck et al., 2000); Huyck labeled them family man, leader, and macho. In providing for and protecting his family, the family man channels aggressive potential into a protective role. Some unmarried men who protected a girlfriend or ﬁancée also were coded here. The key to the style is the deﬁnition of masculinity in a positive interpersonal relationship (Huyck et al., 2000; Nock, 1998; Pleck, 1995). In the Boston sample, younger family men’s self-descriptions reﬂect the historical trends toward “new father” and “co-provider” gender positioning (Connell, 2000; McMahon, 1999). The leader competes in the world of men at work and strives to contribute to society at large (Gutmann, 1975). The macho man focuses on his physical strength and heterosexual virility, denying weaknesses within himself (Gutmann et al., 1982). Of importance, the macho style is not restricted to the more extreme forms of physical aggression and nonrelational sexuality often associated with it but may also be expressed in much more modulated forms. There is considerable personal leeway that is culturally permitted in the expression of each of these styles or schemas, and their multidimensionality also generates large individual differences. In addition, in keeping with psychodynamic, social cognitive, and power (e.g., Jackman, 1994) models that posit complexity and inconsistencies in personal schemas, a man may experience and deﬁne his masculinity in more than one of these culturally stereotypical masculine styles. Huyck et al. (2000) classiﬁed another three styles, labeled inner androgyny, activity androgyny, and denial of gender incongruence, as gender-expanded. Men coded for the ﬁrst two styles comfortably claimed either personality traits or activities, respectively, that they deﬁned as feminine. Those coded for the third style asserted that there

176

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

Table 8.1 Men’s Gender Identity Styles: Deﬁnitions and Distributions in the Boston Gender Study (n = 237). Gender Identity Style Gender-Congruent Styles Macho

Leader

Family man Gender-Expanded Styles Activity androgyny Inner androgyny Denial of incongruence Degendering*

Autonomous responsibility*

Gender Compromised Styles Diminished stereotypical masculinity Façade

Description

n (%)

The macho man deﬁnes his masculinity 113 (48%) in terms of physical strength, virility, and aggression, projecting any inner weakness onto women. The leader deﬁnes his masculinity in terms 58 (25%) of work, channeling aggression into the competitive work world. The family man feels his role is to protect 59 (25%) and provide for his family. The man accepts tasks and activities he deﬁnes as traditionally feminine. This man accepts feelings and emotions he deﬁnes as traditionally feminine. Men who deny incongruence feel that they do not have any feminine qualities. Men who degender feel that any differences between men and women are solely due to physical or anatomical differences. This man may have traditional views of masculinity and femininity but does feminine tasks because they enhance self-sufﬁciency and independence.

The diminished man feels that he is either not as masculine as he should be, or less masculine than he used to be. This man feels that he has maintained a strained pretense of masculinity.

51 (22%) 90 (39%) 42 (18%) 17 (7%)

13 (6%)

65 (27%)

12 (5%)

Eight styles are adapted from Huyck et al. (2000). The two asterisked styles were devised in the Boston Gender Study.

was nothing feminine about them, that they were solely masculine, eschewing gender expansion. Turner classiﬁed both of the two new styles that appeared in the Boston Gender Study, degendering and autonomous responsibility, as gender-expanded. Men coded for degendering attributed male-female differences aside from physical ones to (bogus) social norms and pressures to conform. Those coded for autonomous responsibility

In the Company of Men

177

might have more traditional views of masculinity and femininity but performed tasks such as cooking because doing them enhanced masculine independence and self-sufﬁciency. Huyck classiﬁed the remaining two styles, labeled façade and diminished stereotypical masculinity, as gender-compromised. Respondents experienced masculinity as a phony pretense, or felt in some way less masculine than they themselves thought they should be or used to be. Deﬁnitions of all 10 styles and the percentages of Boston Gender Study men coded for each style appear in Table 8.1. As shown, substantial proportions, 25% to 48%, espoused ﬁve of the styles, including each of the three culturally stereotypical (gender-congruent) masculine schemas (family man, leader, and macho). As seen, inner androgyny was espoused by 39%. Diminished stereotypical masculinity (DSM) was described by 27%. Conceptually, the DSM style is similar to the formulation and measures of masculine gender role strain in recent literature on men and masculinities (Pleck, 1981; Thompson & Pleck, 1995; O’Neil, Good, & Holmes, 1995). Notably, the single most common gender style was macho masculinity, described by nearly half of the sample (48%). Fewer than 8% expressed three of the styles—degendering, autonomous responsibility, and façade. Not apparent in Table 8.1 is that only 78% of the 237 men were coded for one or more of the three gender-congruent or masculine styles (59% of the total sample expressed only one of the three styles). Notably, 22% of the total sample identiﬁed with none of the masculine styles. This does not mean that all 22% thought that they were not masculine. Because men who do not feel masculine may feel at a disadvantage in status competitions with men in groups (e.g., Kimmel, 1996), Turner examined the ﬁrst one to four words respondents uttered following the question, do you think of yourself as masculine? Of the men who did not subscribe to any of the three culturally conventional masculine styles and whose transcripts were complete (46 men), one quarter (26%) said no, they were not masculine, and 11% said they had a balance of masculine and feminine characteristics. The majority said yes (41%), or a qualiﬁed yes (yes, I guess so, 22%), they thought of themselves as masculine in some way (the diversity among the 46 men is described in Turner, 2003). The 46 men also were heterogeneous in the seven gender-expanded and gender-compromised styles they described.

The Measures of Collective Interdependence For these analyses, Turner created two measures of collective interdependence in men’s construction of personal masculinity—masculine efﬁgies and men in groups. The two measures were devised to tap collective interdependence on collectivities of men that were speciﬁc to men’s construction of personal masculinity that emerged in men’s responses to the

178

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

gender questions. These measures are not assessments of global collective interdependence, conceptualized in literature (cf. Gabriel & Gardner, 1999) as chronic attention to one’s own and others’ group memberships of all kinds. No such measure was included in the Boston Gender Study; nor did the study include explicit questions on attention to men in groups in constructions of personal gender.

Masculine Efﬁgies Masculine efﬁgies assesses respondents’ negative representations of groups of men through the use of symbols and images in the interview material (Glenn, 1999). Turner was struck by the number and vividness of negative prototypes of masculinity that appeared spontaneously in men’s remarks. They were notable in part because no question asked explicitly for negative prototypes of masculinities; respondents volunteered them. In Connell’s (1995) study, several men whose masculinities revolved around technical knowledge also described other men or masculinities—the types of men— they rejected or distanced themselves from. Connell termed these “negative examples” (or exemplars) that illustrated the relational character of selfdeﬁned masculinities. The negative examples also appeared to have been constructed collectively by insiders in ethnic or occupational groups. From the vantage point of discursive social psychology (Korobov, 2004), however, masculine efﬁgies in interview material and in group interactions index respondents’ complicity as well as noncomplicity with the rejected images. The rejected image reﬂects the discursive strategy of “doing differentiation, or claiming to be different from others who embody attitudes or behaviors that deﬁne membership in a nondesired group” (Korobov, 2004, p. 183). Efﬁgies thus reﬂect respondents’ private masculine stances or partially rejected masculine types embedded in ﬂuid processes of social interaction. In the Boston Gender Study, efﬁgies often appeared to represent images of collectivities, sometimes quite vivid; for instance, “I’m not very macho, not anti-female, not like some men. I’m sure not a cigar-chomping, beer-swilling redneck!” (Derogation of working-class masculinities also is apparent.) The rejected types were sometimes less vividly described (for example, “Masculine yes, macho, no!”) but were still sufﬁciently dramatically stated to view them as “efﬁgies” of masculinities. Excluded from this code were men who explicitly stated that the rejected masculine style derived from a childhood relationship with a brutal, abusive father. In such cases rejection appeared to reﬂect relational (dyadic) interdependence. Also, homosexual images were not scored as efﬁgies of masculinity in this sample because heterosexual men generally assimilate homosexuality to femininity (Connell, 2000).

In the Company of Men

179

Efﬁgy Measures Of importance, there was not much overlap between the interview responses used to assess masculine efﬁgies and those used to assess the 10 gender styles. That is, the data sources (albeit all qualitative) are reasonably independent. Efﬁgies often appeared in responses to the question on the characteristics that respondents associated with masculinity (descriptive norms). Men described a masculine norm, then immediately distanced themselves from it. Efﬁgies also appeared in responses to the ways that men felt masculine; they described themselves (gender style), and then described what they were not (the efﬁgy). Masculine efﬁgies were counted as present or absent for each respondent; this a conservative measure that, as just noted, likely underestimates the prevalence of masculine efﬁgies in men’s social construction of self-construed gender. Next, each efﬁgy was classiﬁed globally into one of three types: macho, leader, or family man (Huyck et al., 2000). Then, speciﬁc masculine characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors that men rejected were further classiﬁed, drawing deductively (King, 2004) on gender norm descriptions and scales in the men and masculinities literature (Brannon, 1976; Levant et al.,1992; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Themes included rejection of the word “macho,” excessive aggression or overbearingness, exploiting or demeaning women, muscle-building and related activities, male bonding venues (e.g. bars, barbecues), and emotional inexpressiveness .

Men in Groups Measures The men in groups measure counts spontaneous references to the inﬂuence of males in groups of three or more on respondents’ subjectively experienced gender, excluding global references to “society.” Group references usually appeared in responses to questions on how men’s selfassessments as masculine inﬂuenced the things they did and did not do, how their feelings about masculinity and femininity had changed over adulthood, and where their feelings about masculinity and femininity came from. Again, the data sources for men in groups appeared reasonably independent of those used for efﬁgies and gender styles. Men in groups references were counted as present or absent for each respondent. Consistent with previous literature, collectivities of males counted include peer groups; school or neighborhood sports teams or pick-up games; boys’ and men’s clubs and other organized groups; Alcoholics Anonymous and other recovery groups; military, ﬁre, or police force experience; men at work; sets of buddies, friends, or acquaintances in “male bonding venues” such as bars, barbecues, or hunting or camping trips; or “the guys,” guys on the streets. Strictly dyadic interactions (relational interdependence) were excluded.

180

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

Then, themes of group inﬂuence, both past and present, were derived inductively. Themes included needs for proofs of masculinity, self-consciousness about others’ negative evaluations, homophobia, dominance competitions, lists of group inﬂuences, and positive group inﬂuences. For the two primary codes of collective interdependence, masculine efﬁgies and men in groups, intercoder reliability values (kappa) for two coders on 65 cases were 0.86 and 0.71, respectively. The two primary codes tap somewhat different levels of operation, symbols and microinteraction, respectively, and therefore were analyzed separately. The correlation between them was very low (r = .07). Thirty-one percent of men with available transcripts (n = 220) instanced efﬁgies of masculinities (Efﬁgies = present), and 25% reported the inﬂuence of males in groups on their self-construals of masculinities (MGP = present). Overall, 46% of the 220 men were coded for either or both measures of collective interdependence in self-construals of gender.

Perspectives on How Collective Interdependence Relates to Age and Dimensions of Social Stratiﬁcation In this chapter the primary focus is on the two measures of collective interdependence. Space limitations mandate limited attention to how age and other social contexts are related to gender styles. Brieﬂy, in analyses not shown here, statistically significant age-related differences, controlling for several contextual measures, appeared in only one of the 10 global gender identity styles. Older men more often described themselves as solely masculine (denial of androgyny), even when social class, race, and marital and parental status were controlled. This age difference may represent a cohort difference, inasmuch as developmental perspectives lean toward more, not less, incorporation of feminine characteristics in men’s self-construals at older ages.

Age and Collective Interdependence There are no compelling theoretical reasons to expect age-related differences in the presence or absence of masculine efﬁgies. Both social role and developmental models, however, suggest that younger men have more exposure than older men to the company of males in groups. Internal and external pressures to conform to rules of masculinity are intense in high school, as teenage males approach the transition to adulthood (e.g., Settersten, 1999). As marriage age has risen across race and

In the Company of Men

181

class groups, men under 30 in recent cohorts are likely to have spent more nonwork time in the company of men. This likelihood is only partly offset by increased cohabitation rates in recent decades. In the work world, men lose the company of male workmates upon retirement. But blue-collar men or alcoholic men may exit work via disability much younger, in midlife (e.g., Connell, 1995). Corporate managers approaching retirement may ﬁnd themselves excluded from training sessions and meetings (Weiss, 2005) and, in response, withdraw further from workplace groups. In old age, men may drop organizational memberships and clubs where men congregate (Johnson & Troll, 1994) because of increasing disability or loss of interest in activities away from home (see Huyck & Gutmann in this volume).

Social Class and Collective Interdependence Literature on efﬁgies, or negative examples of types of masculinity (Connell, 1995), is sparse. There are reasons, however, to expect that men with better jobs and more education will instance more efﬁgies. Connell emphasized men’s use of efﬁgies in a chapter on ambitious men in technical-knowledge career tracks. In the Boston Study as well, some men who were too scrawny or uncoordinated as teens to play team sports instead concentrated on reading and coursework, which facilitated upward mobility in adulthood. Such men may well reject macho attributes of physical and team sports prowess that they could not or did not achieve. Also, these characteristics are conﬂated with social class (and race) divisions that permeate society. As DeMott (2005) noted, academics often disdain jocks. Further, by 1990 both popular culture and clinical practice with men had accepted Pleck’s (1981) proposition that some characteristics and behaviors prescribed by masculine role norms are psychologically, and also socially, dysfunctional (Pleck, 1995). Most such behaviors (Brooks & Silverstein, 1995) pertain to macho masculinity. Therefore, most efﬁgies in the Boston sample may entail macho, and working-class, characteristics. In general, then, effigies should be described more by men with gender styles that are more common among higher-status men in the Boston Study. Reasons to expect an association between social class and reports of men in groups are less clear.

Race and Collective Interdependence There are no particular reasons to expect race differences in the presence or absence of efﬁgies. A race difference is possible, however, in speciﬁc characteristics that men reject. More than European Americans,

182

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

African American men may emphasize fulﬁlling men’s responsibilities and may distance themselves from less responsible types of men. In studies of African American men, Hunter and Davis (1992) and Hammond and Mattis (2005) found that accountability and responsibility were central features in their construction of manhood. In Hammond and Mattis’s study, responsibility-accountability was endorsed by half of the men in the sample, far more than endorsed any other characteristic. No race differences in presence or absence of men in groups are predicted.

Plan of Analysis Following a summary of signiﬁcant intercorrelations among measures, the ﬁrst step in analysis separately relates the presence or absence of efﬁgies and men in groups, respectively, to each of the seven gender styles coded for 15% or more of the sample, as well as to a variable for the 46 men who espoused none of the three culturally conventional or “major” masculine styles. For brevity, hereafter the latter group of men will be called no-major men. Readers will recall that only one-quarter of these men explicitly stated that they did not think of themselves as masculine. The term no-major men avoids misinterpretation of how this heterogeneous group subjectively experiences gender. Signiﬁcant relationships between gender style and collective interdependence measures are followed by controls for associated social context variables. Then, themes of efﬁgy characteristics and inﬂuences of men in groups are examined to further explore how men’s self-construals of masculinity and gender are related to men’s collective interdependence as well as how social contexts are related to collective interdependence. To sharpen focus, only men with one masculinity style and no-major men were included in the analysis of themes. Derivation of themes excluded the 19% of Boston men who espoused more than one of the three masculinity styles.

RESULTS Intercorrelations of the measures used in the analyses are shown in Table 8.2. Correlations of the collective interdependence measures with the contextual and gender measures show that men who described efﬁgies had higher-status jobs. Efﬁgy presence was unrelated to age, race, and education. In addition, men who described efﬁgies more often claimed feminine personality traits, less often claimed macho masculinity,

Table 8.2 Correlations of Collective Interdependence, Gender Style, Social Structural, and Well-Being Variables. Variables

183

1 MEfﬁgy 2 MeninGrp 3 Macho 4 Leader 5 Family 6 Inner An 7 Activity An 8 Denial 9 DSM 10 NoMjrMen 11 Age 12 RaceBlWh 13 OccuHiLo 14 EducHiLo 15 SE 16 Mastery

1

2

— .07 — –.16* .10 .04 .05 .05 –.11 .22*** .03 –.08 –.06 –.16* –.02 .06 .12 .06 .02 –.11 –.07 –.00 .04 –.18** .02 –.11 –.04 –.05 –.04 –.06 –.01

3

4

5

6

— –.18** –.11 .06 –.01 .15* –.08 –.50*** –.00 .07 .11 .20** .05 .03

— –.10 .12 –.06 –.06 .02 –.30*** –.02 –.00 –.09 –.16* .06 .12

— .09 .12 –.11 –.07 –.30*** .01 –.06 –.04 –.04 .11 –.02

— .18** –.35*** –.39*** –.13* –.08 .08 –.11 –.06 .13* .04

7

8

9

— –.06 — –.24*** –.29*** — .00 –.14* .05 .00 .26*** –.14* .03 –.00 –.09 –.06 .12 –.02 –.08 .18** –.02 .04 .11 –.31*** –.07 .10 –.24***

10

— –.09 –.00 –.04 –.14* –.14* –.03

11

12

13

14

15

— –.13* — –.01 .13 — .11 .06 .58*** — .00 .03 –.02 –.06 — –.10 .09 –.03 –.01 .57***

n = 220. MEfﬁgy = Masculine Efﬁgy (absent = 0, present = 1); MeninGrp = Men in Groups (absent = 0, present = 1); Family = Family Man style; Inner An = Inner Androgyny style; Activity An = Activity Androgyny style; Denial = Denial of Incongruence style; DSM = Diminished Stereotypical Masculinity style; NoMjrMen = No-Major Men group; RaceBlWh(Black = 0, White = 1); OccuHiLo = Professional/Managerial = 0; Others=1; EducHiLo = BA+ = 0, less than that = 1; SE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; Mastery = Pearlin-Schooler Sense of Mastery Scale. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

16

—

184

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

and less often asserted that there was nothing feminine about them. The use of efﬁgies was unrelated to the other gender styles and the no-major men variable. Neither contextual (age, race, occupation, education) nor most gender style measures showed relationships to descriptions of the inﬂuence of males in groups on respondents’ constructions of gender. Men who fell short of their own internalized standard of acceptable masculinity (i.e., diminished stereotypical masculinity, or DSM) tended to describe such inﬂuences more often (p ≤ .10). Family men, focused more than macho and leader men on the domestic arena, described fewer inﬂuences of men in groups (p ≤ .10). The global well-being measures (self-esteem and mastery or personal control) were independent of both collective interdependence measures. Age/cohort was related to two gender styles. Older men were more likely to see themselves as solely masculine (denial of androgyny) and less likely to feel that they fell short of their own standard of appropriate masculinity (DSM). No race differences appeared in any of the 10 gender styles. Education, but not occupational status, was related to several gender styles. Compared to men with less education, men with college degrees or more education were less likely to describe macho masculinity and denial of androgyny, and more likely to embrace leader masculinity and be in the no-major men group.

Masculine Efﬁgies Using chi-square tests, men who described macho masculinity (n = 111) were signiﬁcantly less likely to instance efﬁgies of masculinity than men without this gender style (23% and 38%, respectively; p = .013). This pattern still held, moreover, when the two measures of socioeconomic status, occupational status and education, were controlled. To explore this ﬁnding, we examined efﬁgy types and characteristics. Macho efﬁgies were by far the most common efﬁgy type (85%). It is not surprising that men who embraced macho schemas were less likely than other men in the subsample to pointedly reject aspects of macho styles. The macho men who did produce efﬁgies, however, all described macho characteristics. Like other men in the subsample with only one, or none, of the conventional masculine styles, substantial proportions of macho men explicitly rejected the very word “macho” (44%), underscoring the term’s symbolic toxicity. “I don’t want to be characterized as macho” (African American, age 23). Like other men in the subsample, they also distanced from excessive aggression or overbearingness (44%) as well as from exploiting or demeaning women (38%). These men claimed more modulated versions of macho

In the Company of Men

185

characteristics with evidence, however, of complicity as well as noncomplicity with the rejected behaviors. One-quarter stated explicitly that earlier in life they fully exempliﬁed the behaviors and attitudes they now tried to distance themselves from. Some of these men recounted conversion experiences, including recovery groups, psychotherapy, consciousness-raising groups, and interpersonal confrontations. A self-identiﬁed alcoholic with recovery-group experience, now 45, said “Today I don’t hurt people. There was a time I was so full of uncontrolled rage that I just went up to someone on the street or in a bar and punched them. The beast would come out.” Other men had changed the “chauvinistic” attitudes toward women as inferiors that they held as young adults. Similarly, men who felt solely masculine (denial of incongruence, n = 40) also instanced signiﬁcantly fewer efﬁgies (15%) than men without this gender style (34%, p = .011). Too few men with high socioeconomic status felt solely masculine to justify controlling for social status. Denial of incongruence was also more common among older men (r = .26). Controls for age groups were uninformative. Examination of transcripts of older men with this gender style suggests certainty about their masculinity that, perhaps, precludes distancing from other possible masculinities. Men with inner androgyny (n = 89) were nearly twice as likely as men without this gender style (43% and 22%, respectively) to instance efﬁgies of masculinity (p = .001). This relationship was modiﬁed by occupational status: Among high-status men, those who claimed feminine personality traits were even more likely than men without them to instance efﬁgies (55% and 23%, respectively, p = .001). This pattern did not hold among lower-status men. To explore this ﬁnding, the ﬁrst step examines inner androgyny’s correlates. Not surprisingly, men who comfortably claim feminine personality traits also claim feminine activities (r = .18) and do not say they are solely masculine (r = −.35). Their global self-esteem is higher (r = .13) even when socioeconomic status is controlled. Importantly, inner androgyny was not structured by social class, race, or age divisions in society. Inner androgyny was about equally common among men in both races, occupation and education levels, and across age groups. Men who claim feminine personality traits do feel masculine; they generally espouse one or more of the three culturally conventional masculinities (with no-major men, r = .13). Men with inner androgyny are about equally likely to claim macho or Family Man masculinity and show a tendency toward leader masculinity (p ≤ .10). In particular, they do not feel they fall short of their own personal standard of appropriate masculinity (with DSM, r = −.39). Again, macho efﬁgies were by far the most common type. Like other men in the sample, inner androgynous men rejected the very word macho

186

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

and the objectiﬁcation of women, as well as excessive aggression. What stands out among these men is the number and range of the characteristics and behaviors they rejected, as well as more frequent explicit dislike of emotional inexpressiveness and its costs. Like family men, they also rejected bodybuilding and its analogues, including violent sports. Next, we examined the commonly mentioned feminine personality traits that Boston men espoused. Fully half (53%) of men with the inner androgyny style thought they were more sensitive than most men, or the “average man,” to other people’s feelings. Next most common was being able to talk about or express feelings (29%), followed by ability to cry, to be gentle or tender, and loving or understanding (18% each). None of these traits showed developmental age-related or cohort trends. Most of these traits bespeak positively valued active nurturance. But traditional masculine ideologies (e.g., Levant, 1996; see Bedford & Avioli in this volume for a description) prohibit their display in the company of men. Crying, which most clearly signals vulnerability, thereby inviting humiliation by other men, was restricted to concealed or domestic settings such as movies or really intense family interactions. Men deployed their feminine traits selectively. The conviction that one was more sensitive or empathic than other men was safely revealed in an interview and could be relished subjectively or with one’s closest male friend. In the settings in which men with inner androgyny deployed their self-deﬁned feminine traits, the men viewed their effects as beneﬁcial. This was especially true at home and in other private-domain interactions with women, who usually prized and reinforced their display. It also was true for professionals and managers in education and human services, which explained why leaders more often expressed inner androgyny. In these workplaces, both professional ideology and the feminized professional workforce and clientele, as well as clients’ needs, promoted the adaptiveness of empathy and democratic practice. None of the other gender styles (leader, family man, the variable no-major men, activity androgyny, diminished stereotypical masculinity) differentiated men who described masculinities they rejected from men who did not. Two African American men rejected macho men who did not meet their responsibilities. But some European Americans, too, emphasized responsibility.

Summary of Findings Findings clarify the role of efﬁgies in the complex dynamic of masculine identity formation and change. Men who struggled to change macho behaviors destructive to themselves and others were buttressed by the negative image of the rejected behaviors created with similar men in

In the Company of Men

187

self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Social class did not differentiate men who added feminine personality traits to a masculine style from those who did not. But among the former, it was mostly highly educated men who used efﬁgies. Sensitivity and nurturance to others were adaptive at work for both African American and European American men in feminized human service and education careers.

The Inﬂuence of Interactions with Men in Groups Again using chi-square tests, macho men and men who fell short of their own standard of appropriate masculinity (diminished stereotypical masculinity, or DSM) expressed more sensitivity to interactions with and inﬂuence of boys or men in groups than men without these styles, respectively, and family men described fewer instances. In all three comparisons, however, group differences were small. Among men with macho masculinity, 29% described inﬂuences of other men on them, compared to 20% of men without the macho style (p = .091). Examination of themes clariﬁed the nature of these interactions with three or more males. Forty percent of the macho men described feeling forced to prove their masculinity, citing both peer and internal pressures. Age trends were clearly apparent. These pressures were most acute in high school and residential college, a period when teens and men willingly, or miserably, endured tests of masculinity. Men in the other masculinity style groups were almost as likely to need to prove macho masculinity in high school. Smoking, getting drunk, and chasing girls in status competitions with male peers were the common coin. Many men (but not all) thought the need to prove their masculinity abated as they grew older, which they attributed not to release from rigidly age-segregated schools but to internal developmental change (increased maturity): “You know, when you’re in high school you try to prove yourself all the time. I don’t do that now; I’m more sure of myself in being a man” (age 34). “In college, I drank with all the guys and was tough and showed off. But by senior year, the perception of other people mattered less to me and I behaved truer to my own feelings” (age 46). But subjective needs for proof did not always abate with age: “I’m always trying to prove masculinity to myself and others; I will out-drink you, outplay you at sports. In a bar I purposely choose to sit with a crowd of very tough men” (age 58). Though needs for proof often diminish with age, shame avoidance and generalized sensitivity to what other men think may not. “If I said to my male friends that I wish my mother had loved me, they would laugh. I never say that kind of thing to my friends” (age 28). “Men will do things because they’re thinking about what their colleagues will say—their natural instincts would be based on what other men would think in that situation” (age 46).

188

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

Thirty-ﬁve percent simply listed collective inﬂuences on their feelings about masculinity or described their inﬂuence as role models. These included schoolyard peers, baseball team members, guys in school and college, Boy Scouts, military service, and older male relatives. In general, older men’s descriptions were more neutral, dispassionate, and matter-of-fact than those of younger men. Finally, 20% thought that participation in certain all-male groups had changed them for the better. A World War II veteran commented, “Military service gave conﬁdence to a sense of inferiority” (see Elder & Bailey, 1988). Two men cited the positive effects of Alcoholics Anonymous. AA meetings made one feel more masculine than he ever had before; in meetings, the other man’s “feelings came out for the ﬁrst time.” Men’s awareness meetings led another man’s attitudes toward women to become “less sexist.” Among men who did not meet their own standard of masculinity (DSM; n = 57), 33% cited the inﬂuence of men in groups, compared to 22% of men without this gender style (p = .061). The more men felt inadequately masculine, the lower their global self-esteem and the more exquisitely sensitive they were to other men’s negative evaluations. Unfortunately, these data did not permit analysis of direction of inﬂuence. The characteristics that men rued varied (Turner & McGary, 2000). Consistent with power models that emphasize status competitions among men, sheer height and size as well as insufﬁcient aggressiveness, competitiveness, and dominance (e.g., O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightman, 1986) were major issues. At all ages, men’s self-esteem depended especially on their assessment of their rank order in the hierarchical power structure of men. Younger men, however, were more concerned than most older men, whose rank was long established. Notably, among men who espoused only one conventionally masculine style, only one family man cited explicit awareness of other men’s opinions. His example was lighthearted, but also alluded to homophobia: “I’d prefer to carry a pocketbook rather than a briefcase, but I don’t because that’d be criticized and ridiculed as being effeminate.” More than men with other masculine styles, family men tended to reject male bonding venues (not “one of the guys”; don’t ﬁsh, hunt, camp; don’t like to drink in groups at bars) and muscle building. They oriented more than either macho or leader men to the domestic arena.

Summary of Findings In this cross-sectional study, age differences for proofs of masculinity were apparent. Except for some of the oldest men, however, men at all ages remained sensitive to other men’s assessments of them, especially in the company of three or more men.

In the Company of Men

189

CONCLUSIONS The ﬁrst major conclusion drawn from these ﬁndings is the theoretical fruitfulness of framing men’s deﬁnitions of their masculinity mostly in relation to other men as a special instance of men’s collective interdependence. Men’s gender styles are meaningfully related to differences among men in collective interdependence as measured in this study. But relationships with gender styles were clearer at the level of symbols (efﬁgies) than at the level of micro-interaction (men in groups). Second, the ﬁndings of this study, in combination with theorists’ arguments that what counts most to men is the opinions of other men (e.g., Connell, 1995; Kimmel, 1996; Weiss, 1990) suggest two modiﬁcations of Gabriel and Gardner’s (1999) deﬁnition of collective interdependence. First, membership in all-male, or predominantly male, groups may have more impact in forming men’s self-descriptions and personal identity than membership in mixed male-female groups. Of course, the status of women in mixed-sex groups may be viewed as so low that men routinely attend to those in the group with more economic and social power, men (e.g., Kimmel, 1996). Second, the importance of efﬁgies in this study suggests that collective interdependence involves chronic attention to out-groups as well as in-groups. These hypotheses and their ramiﬁcations merit exploration in further research on collective interdependence. The overall pattern of ﬁndings is consistent with social role and evolutionary theories that relate men’s orientation to groups of other men to competition for status. As suggested in Hogan’s (1996) socioanalytic theory, highly strategic self-presentations (coded as façade) were effective at work for professional men who did them skillfully, based on professional socialization and decades of practice. They were less effective, however, for men trying to change masculinities that had proven destructive. At least in this sample, no clear age-related differences appeared in the sheer number of negative symbols of masculinity or reports of inﬂuence on respondents of micro-interactions with collectivities of men. Older men, those over 60, were less emotionally invested in these reports, however. Explanations include normative social role transitions and a possible increase in interiority or introversion over the adult years (e.g., Costa, McCrae, Zonderman, Barbano, Lebowitz, & Larson, 1986). Other explanations also are possible. Not surprisingly, needs for proofs of masculinity appeared to decline after adult identity formation was largely achieved, after age 30 or so. Race differences in collective interdependence did not appear in these data; only 25 African-American men were in the sample.

190

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

Of the social structural variables, social-class divisions were most prominent, explained in great part by the primacy of macho efﬁgies and their association with stereotypes of lower-status men’s behaviors. The few leader and family man efﬁgies described middle-class men’s behaviors. For example, one man who embraced the leader gender style derided co-workers who settled for mediocre performance. A young family man criticized men who spent too much time at work and too little with the children. Among men who comfortably claimed feminine personality traits, it was the well educated who rejected a panoply of negative images of masculinities.

Study Limitations The study is cross-sectional, thereby confounding age-related and cohort explanations, and the sample is neither random nor representative. Most important, the measures of collective interdependence derive from a secondary analysis of questions that were not designed to tap collective interdependence in men’s social construction of personal masculinity. Although the two measures, efﬁgies and men in groups, were theoretically derived and are reasonably reliable, their low correlation with each other casts some doubt on whether they tap the same underlying construct. One question is whether the two operational deﬁnitions of collective interdependence are consistent with the conceptual deﬁnition, that is, collective interdependence is based on group, including team, memberships and afﬁliations. The operational-conceptual correspondence is closer for the men in groups measure; many group inﬂuences that Boston men described clearly ﬁt Gabriel and Gardner’s (1999) conceptual deﬁnition. The efﬁgy measure, in addition, underrepresents the frequency of negative examples of masculinity in the sample. In particular, men’s speciﬁc rejection of their fathers’ masculinity was interpreted as relational interdependence and excluded from the collective interdependence codes. Most sons who rejected their fathers’ masculinity described such fathers as brutal and abusive. These sons usually identiﬁed with none of the three culturally conventional masculinities, or with macho masculinity. In short, efﬁgies and men in groups are preliminary measures. Much more reﬁnement of construct and measures is needed. Use of a standardized measure of collective self-construal (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999) as well as qualitative measures is desirable.

Final Comments Current conceptions of the self in psychology now emphasize the more ﬂuid interaction of the individual, relational, and collective aspects of social

In the Company of Men

191

constructions of self for both men and women (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Gardner, Gabriel, & Hochschild, 2002). Other chapters in this volume conﬁrm men’s involvement in close personal relationships, the “relational” aspect of self in these conceptions. Men in the Boston Study appeared to include both close relationships and in-groups as well as out-groups (collectivities of men) in their self-construals of gender. But men attend more than women to the collectivities to which they belong (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999)—or, in this study, do not belong. The ﬁndings of this study support the usefulness of further research on men’s collective interdependence in self-construals of masculinity and gender. Such research shows great promise in clarifying the mechanisms that contribute to a variety of personally and socially constructive and destructive behaviors. REFERENCES Acker, J. (1999). Rewriting class, race, and gender: Problems in feminist rethinking. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 44–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 38–44. Beall, A. E. (1993). A social constructionist view of gender. In A. E. Beall & R. J. Sternberg, The psychology of gender (pp. 127–147). New York: Guilford Press. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. Berzins, J., Welling, M., & Wetter, R. (1978). A new measure of psychological androgyny based on the Personality Research Form. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 126–138. Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for manhood, what it’s done for us lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1–49). Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. L. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. Brooks, G. R., & Silverstein, L. B. (1995). Understanding the dark side of masculinity: An interactive systems model. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 280–333). New York: Basic Books. Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30. Cheal, D. (1991). Family and the state of theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

192

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

Connell, R. W. (2000). The men and the boys. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Corazzini, K. N., & Turner, B. F. (1996, November). Older men’s gender identity styles and mental health. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Washington, DC. Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Barbano, H. E., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. M. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: 2. Stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Psychology of Aging, 1, 144–149. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37. DeMott, B. (2005). Jocks and the academy. [Review of the book Reclaiming the game: College sports and educational values]. The New York Review of Books, 52, 29–32. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the partner preferences of women and men. In A.H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 269–295). New York: Guilford Press. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Elder, G. H., & Bailey, S. L. (1988). The timing of military service in men’s lives. In D. M. Klein & J. Aldous (Eds.), Social stress and family development (pp. 157–174). New York: Guilford Press. Ferree, M. M., Lorber, J., & Hess, B. B. (1999). Introduction. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. xv–xxvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866–884. Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” aspects of interdependence? Gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642–655. Gardner, W. L., & Gabriel, S. (2004). Gender differences in relational and collective interdependence: Implications for self-views, social behavior, and subjective well-being. In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 169–191). New York: Guilford Press.

In the Company of Men

193

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are “we,” you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239–251. Glaeser, E. L. (2005). U.S. Government & Rappaport Institute brief. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government. Glenn, E. N. (1999). The social construction and institutionalization of gender and race: An integrative framework. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 44–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gutmann, D. L. (1975). Parenthood: a key to the comparative study of the life cycle? In N. Datan & R. Levine (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Normative life crises (pp. 167–184). New York: Academic Press. Gutmann, D., Grunes, J., & Grifﬁn, B. (1982). Developmental contributions to the late-onset disorders. In O. Brim & P. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 244–263). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hammond, W. P., & Mattis, J. S. (2005). Being a man about it: Manhood meaning among African American men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 114–126. Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208. Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the Five-Factor Model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163–179). New York: Guilford Press. Hunter, A. G., & Davis, J. E. (1992). Constructing gender: An exploration of African American men’s conceptualization of manhood. Gender and Society, 6, 464–479. Huyck, M. H. (1994). The relevance of psychodynamic theories for understanding gender among older women. In B. F. Turner & L. E. Troll (Eds.), Women growing older: Psychological perspectives (pp. 202–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Huyck, M. H., Zucker, P., & Angellaccio, C. (2000). Gender across generations. In E. W. Markson & L. A. Hollis-Sawyer, Intersections of aging: Readings in social gerontology (pp. 87–102). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conﬂict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press. Johnson, C. L., & Troll, L. E. (1994). Constraints and facilitators to friendships in late life. The Gerontologist, 34, 79–87. Kenrick, D. T., Trost, M. R., & Sundie, J. M. (2004). Sex roles as adaptations: An evolutionary perspective on gender difference and similarities. In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 65–91). New York: Guilford Press. Kimmel, M. (1996). Manhood in America: A cultural history. New York: The Free Press. Kimmel, M., & Messner, M. (2003). Men’s lives (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. King, L. A. (2004). Measures and meanings: The use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In C. Sansone, C. C. Morf, & A. T. Panter

194

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

(Eds.), Handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 173–194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Korobov, N. (2004). Inoculating against prejudice: A discursive approach to homophobia and sexism in adolescent male talk. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5, 178–189. Krugman, S. (1995). Male development and the transformation of shame. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 91–126). New York: Basic Books. Levant, R. F., Hirsch, L., Celentano, E., Cozza, T., Hill, S., MacEachern, M., et al. (1992). The male role: An investigation of contemporary norms. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 325–337. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 27, 259–265. Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1982). Signiﬁcant others in self space: Sex differences and developmental trends in social self. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (vol. 1, pp. 71–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McMahon, A. (1999). Taking care of men: Sexual politics in the public mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers, A. M., & Gonda, G. (1982). Utility of the masculinity-femininity construction and comparison of traditional and androgyny approaches. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 514–522. Nock, S. L. (1998). Marriage in men’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press. O’Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on men’s gender role conﬂict: New paradigms for empirical research. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 164–206). New York: Basic Books. O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightman, L. S. (1986). Gender-Role Conﬂict Scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335–350. Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: Basic Books. Riger, S. (1992). Epistemological debates, feminist voices: Science, social values, and the study of women. American Psychologist, 47, 730–740. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Settersten, R. A. (1999). Lives in time and place: The problems and promises of developmental science. Amityville, NY: Baywood. Silva, P., Corazzini, K., & Turner, B. F. (1997, November). Gender identity styles in women and men of different ages. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Cincinnati, OH.

In the Company of Men

195

Thompson, E. H. (1994). Older men’s lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Thompson, E. H. (2004). Expressions of manhood: Reconciling sexualities, masculinities, and aging. The Gerontologist, 44, 714–718. Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1995). Masculinity ideologies: A review of research instrumentation on men and masculinity. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 280–335). New York: Basic Books. Turner, B. F. (1994). Introduction. In B. F. Turner & L. E. Troll (Eds.), Women growing older: Psychological perspectives (pp. 1–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Turner, B. F., & McGary, D. (2000). When men feel inadequately masculine: Themes and age variations. Paper presented at the 53rd Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Washington, DC. Turner, B. F., & Silva, P. (2000). Deﬁnitions of femininity: Youth to old age. In E. W. Markson & L. A. Hollis-Sawyer, Intersections of aging: Readings in social gerontology (pp. 103–112). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Turner, B. F. (2003, November). When men don’t feel conventionally masculine: Themes and reported age differences. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Scientiﬁc Meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, San Diego, CA. Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, C. (1981). The inner American. New York: Basic Books. Weiss, R. S. (1990). Staying the course: The emotional and social lives of men who do well at work. New York: The Free Press. Weiss, R. S. (2005). The experience of retirement. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 523–535. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 9

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges: Frequency, Reactions, and Impact Kristin P. Beals and Karen S. Rook

Most people have a strong desire to develop and maintain social connections and ties (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). These social connections provide us with companionship, support during times of need, and afﬁrmation of our social identities throughout our lives. Evidence amassed over a period of several decades has demonstrated convincingly that close relationships make important contributions to physical and psychological health (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996). Social relationships, on balance, more often serve as a source of positive interactions than negative interactions. Yet social relationships can be a source of noxious interactions and experiences, with detrimental implications for well-being. In fact, some evidence suggests that the adverse effects of negative social interactions may be stronger than the beneﬁcial effects of positive social interactions (Gottman, 1994; Rook, 1998). Evidence of the potent effects of negative social exchanges has emerged in well-controlled prospective studies and in cross-sectional research. This evidence has survived controls for age, ethnicity, and other factors that might be considered to represent alternative explanations for the effects of negative exchanges. As researchers have come to accept the conclusion that negative social exchanges play a 197

198

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

causal role, and one of some consequence, in detracting from health and well-being, interest has begun to shift to questions about who is most vulnerable to negative social exchanges (Rook, 2003; Sorkin & Rook, 2004). This interest mirrors the search that developed in the literature on social support for answers to questions about those factors that inﬂuence the kind of support people have and the effects it has on their well-being. Gender has received considerable attention in the search for answers to those questions (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2005; Shumaker & Hill, 1991). By extension, gender is likely to warrant attention in the investigation of factors that inﬂuence people’s vulnerability to negative social exchanges. The purpose of this chapter is to examine existing theory and research that have a bearing on the question of whether women or men, especially in middle and later life, are more vulnerable to noxious exchanges in their relationships with other people. Our exploration of this question leads us to begin the chapter by focusing brieﬂy on socialization experiences early in life that might lay a foundation for men’s and women’s differential investment in close relationships and, as a result, for potential differences in their sensitivity to tensions and disagreements in relationships. We then discuss research that has examined differences in the frequency with which men and women experience negative interactions in their social network relationships. The frequency of such interactions corresponds to the concept of “exposure” that has been identiﬁed in the literature on life stress (Kessler, 1979) in that it captures the likelihood of experiencing particular kinds of disruptive events. This concept is distinct from the concept of “reactivity” (or sensitivity) to disruptive events. Considered together, exposure and reactivity deﬁne related, but conceptually distinct, aspects of men’s and women’s overall vulnerability to negative social exchanges. In the third section of the chapter, we accordingly examine possible gender differences in reactions to negative social exchanges. We consider behavioral, emotional, and physiological reactions. This work will demonstrate that men often exhibit weaker adverse reactions to negative social exchanges than do women. In view of such evidence, we conclude the chapter by considering whether differences in the importance women assign to close relationships and in their exposure and reactivity to problems in these relationships might help to explain the well-documented ﬁnding that women experience more depression than do men (Hurst & Genest, 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1995), at least until later adulthood when the gender difference decreases (Gatz & Fiske, 2003). This is one way, albeit not the only way, of gauging the importance of the gender differences we examine in this chapter. Because of the limited scope of this paper, we do not consider many important sociodemographic characteristics that may qualify our

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

199

conclusions about gender. It is crucial for future research to examine variables that may interact with gender to alter the ﬁndings, such as age, marital status, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Most of the research reviewed in this chapter has relied on North American samples that are disproportionately white and middle class. When samples diverge from this pattern in the research discussed, we will note the speciﬁc characteristics of the participants.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE EMPHASIS PLACED ON SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS Researchers have argued that women are more focused than men on social relationships and that men are more self-focused (Cate, Koval, Lloyd, & Wilson, 1995; Dion & Dion, 1993; Taylor, Klein, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung, & Updegraff, 2000). Although there is great variation within gender, women have been socialized to see themselves in relation to other people, as daughters, mothers, caregivers, and friends; men, in contrast, are more often encouraged to see themselves independently. Women are more likely to evaluate themselves according to their relationship successes. Men, on the other hand, are more focused on being agentic, which facilitates status mobility within groups. Research on adolescents has shown that the self-esteem of girls, more so than boys, is dependent upon relationships (Bush & Simmons, 1987). These gender differences may help us understand how negative social interactions may be particularly damaging to the well-being of women as a result of greater exposure and reactivity. Several lines of research that support this basic assumption that men are less relationship oriented than women are discussed below. However, it should be noted that research by Gabriel and Gardner (1999) argues that men are equally as “interdependent” as women, but that they are connected to groups as opposed to individuals. This chapter focuses almost entirely on dyadic relationships and interactions, with little attention to interactions in groups and group-oriented behaviors and feelings (see Turner in this volume on men’s collective interdependence).

Childhood Socialization An extensive body of research has examined childhood socialization and gender. Without oversimplifying the scope and complexity of this research, we believe it points to a basic conclusion that is relevant to the focus of our chapter: In general, girls are socialized to be more relationship oriented and boys are socialized to be more agentic. Girls and boys

200

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

are socialized in a manner consistent with their own gender. Both boys and girls tend to be socialized in sex-segregated settings where stereotypes about gender are practiced and reinforced (Maltz & Borker, 1983). Thus, compared with boys, girls are socialized to be more communal or relationship focused when interacting with other girls. Compared with girls, boys are socialized to be more agentic or self-focused while interacting with other boys. The patterns learned in these play groups may carry over to cross-sex groups and later experiences (Maccoby, 1990). Eagly (1987) made a similar argument that the behaviors of girls and boys are products of their social roles and social expectations. In this society, women assume greater responsibilities for caretaking and support giving, and girls accordingly are raised to ﬁll those social roles. Men, in contrast, are more often expected to be responsible for the ﬁnancial stability and protection of the family, and, accordingly, they adopt less relationship-oriented behaviors. Behaviors such as these that are learned in childhood may contribute to the kinds of relationships and social interactions people have in adulthood, including their likelihood of experiencing negative social interactions and sensitivity to such interactions.

Provision of Social Support If men are less oriented toward social relationships and caregiving than women, it would follow that men also may provide less social support (particularly emotional support) to others than women. Providing social support to family and friends is a key component of close relationships. Research has shown that men and women differ in the type and quality of social support they give (Kunkel & Burleson, 1999; MacGeorge, Gillihan, Samter, & Clark, 2003). The bulk of the research has focused on emotional support provision and has consistently found that men provide less emotional support than do women (Kunkel & Burleson, 1998, 1999; MacGeorge et al., 2003; Whiting & Whiting, 1975). The explanation for this consistent gender difference is a skill-deﬁcit account. It is argued that men, on average, are less empathic and attuned to others’ internal states (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983) and thus less capable of providing responsive emotional support. Further, men may be less equipped to provide this support compared with women because they tend to be less focused on and embedded in social relationships. Veroff, Douvan, and Kulka (1981) studied how often men and women provided social support to members in their social network. They found that women were 30% more likely than men to provide support to network members. The support was given in response to stressors in the network members’ lives, including health problems, relationship difﬁculties, and work stress. Such gender differences emerge not only for emotional

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

201

support but also, in some studies, for tangible forms of support. For example, Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, Wethington, Eckenrode, and Gore (1990) reported that wives, but not husbands, increased their own household workload on days their spouse had a particularly stressful day at work. In other words, wives were more likely to support their husbands on stressful days than vice versa in this study. A recent study of newly married couples found that both husbands and wives were capable of providing support, but that wives tended to be better than husbands at providing support on days on which their spouses reported the most stress (Neff & Karney, 2005).

Elicitation of Social Support Research consistently has suggested that women may be better than men at eliciting support (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987). Men may be reluctant to seek support because doing so is perceived to communicate weakness. This reluctance may be especially true for older men who may be experiencing other changes that signal a diminution of masculinity. For example, a study by Krause and Shaw (2002) found that older men who received welfare assistance reported more dissatisfaction with assistance and more negative interactions than women who received welfare support. Research has shown that in times of stress, men are less likely than women to seek and use social support (Taylor et al., 2000). Taylor and colleagues termed this tendency “tend-and-befriend,” as opposed to “ﬁght-or-ﬂight,” and they presented biological as well as behavioral evidence to support the gender difference in responses to stress. They wrote, “Across the entire life cycle, females are more likely to mobilize social support, especially from other females, in time of stress” (p. 418). In other words, when under stress, men are less likely than women to elicit support from others. Men may be more likely to turn to other coping mechanisms such as problem solving or the use of drugs instead of relying on social networks.

Nurturing Social Relationships Across the lifespan, men generally place lesser emphasis on nurturing and seeking to preserve harmonious relationships with others. Men tend to be less involved in maintaining social relationships (Kessler, McLeod, & Wethington, 1985; Taylor et al., 2000). In a study by Cancian and Gordon (1988), women reported that they believed it was their responsibility to foster and maintain the marriage. It was up to the women to keep the relationship running smoothly. Other researchers have also

202

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

reported that women tend to be the nurturers of relationships (Sacher & Fine, 1996; Sprecher, 1994).

Involvement in Social Relationships Evidence for men’s lesser involvement in social relationships was found in a large study of community adults conducted by Schuster, Kessler, and Aseltine (1990). They reported that women experienced a greater number of both positive and negative social interactions. Schuster et al. observed, “Women share the joys and sorrows of their loved ones more vividly than men” (p. 435). Another study reported that men felt less close to their samesex friends than did women (Suh, Moskowitz, Fournier, & Zuroff, 2004). Considered together, these lines of research suggest that men deﬁne themselves less in terms of their dyadic social relationships and are less likely to provide support, seek support, and strive to maintain harmony in their social relationships. These characteristics result in men having smaller social networks and less social involvement with members of those networks. As a result, men may have less opportunity to experience noxious social interactions. For example, by virtue of having less social involvement with others, men may experience fewer occasions in which their goals or expectations clash with those of others, leading to misunderstandings and disagreements. In fact, research suggests that larger social networks may be a risk factor for experiencing more negative social exchanges with others (e.g., Sorkin & Rook, 2004). Further, because men tend to have smaller and less close-knit social networks, they are less likely than women to be aware of the stressors of closeness with others and to experience some of the psychological distress associated with those stressors. Compared to women’s focus on close relationships, men more often deﬁne themselves by the work they do and how esteemed they are by work colleagues (Weiss, 1990). This line of reasoning is not meant to imply that men have few conﬂicts or upsetting social exchanges in the workplace, but rather that such conﬂicts are less likely to bleed into their personal lives. One study of middle-aged married couples found that when men had particularly stressful days at work, they were less likely to have conﬂict that evening with their wives. The opposite pattern was true for women (Schulz, Cowan, Cowan, & Brennan, 2004). Additionally, if men are less concerned about maintaining existing relationships, they may show less distress when they lack close relationships or when strains develop in their relationships. In one study of British adults (Miller & Ingham, 1976), for example, the absence of a conﬁdant or friends was related to psychological and physical distress among women but not among men. Gore and Colten (1991) wrote that

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

203

for women “the most potent stressors involve losses, disruptions, or conﬂicts with signiﬁcant others because these interpersonal breaches threaten the ties that are the primary basis for women’s judgments of their own adequacy . . .” (p. 150). Life stage may qualify these conclusions about gender differences in response to the lack of close relationships, however. Rates of loneliness are high in adolescence and young adulthood (Peplau, Bikson, Rook, & Goodchilds, 1982), and clues in the literature suggest that males in this age group may be lonelier than females (Lau & Gruen, 1992). When loneliness is assessed with measures that do not use the terms “loneliness” or “lonely,” thus making it possible to report feelings of loneliness without explicitly labeling oneself as lonely, young men report signiﬁcantly greater loneliness than do young women. An opposite pattern emerges when loneliness is assessed with measures that include explicit references to being “lonely” (Borys & Perlman, 1985). Experimental research suggests a basis for this gender difference in that hypothetical stimulus ﬁgures who report feeling lonely tend to be judged very harshly when they are portrayed as males and less harshly when they are portrayed as females (Borys & Perlman, 1985; Lau & Gruen, 1992). Such research suggests that men experience substantial emotional pain when they lack close friends or intimate partners, but disclosing such pain entails the risk of rejection by others and goes against societal norms (learned early in life) that discourage displays of emotional vulnerability by men. Our primary focus in this chapter is on gender differences not in the impact of lacking or losing personal relationships but rather in the experience of negative interactions in personal relationships. The work just discussed serves as a cautionary reminder, however, that research designs and measurement strategies inﬂuence conclusions that are derived about gender differences. This theme is echoed in the next section, which examines gender differences in experiences with negative social interactions and reactions to those social interactions.

EXPOSURE TO NEGATIVE INTERACTIONS Exposure to noxious interactions has been shown to be associated with decreased daily mood (Zautra, Burleson, Matt, & Roth, 1994) and to have a greater, and longer lasting, impact than nonsocial stressful events (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989). An important and often neglected question is whether men or women experience more upsetting social interactions. We consider this question in terms of three major types of negative social events. First, we examine negative social interactions that occur relatively frequently with friends, family members,

204

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

and acquaintances. These interactions include arguments or conﬂicts, receiving unwanted advice, experiences of feeling excluded or rejected, and other relatively commonplace sources of friction and disappointment in social relationships. Next, we examine gender differences in exposure to more severe forms of negative interactions, namely physical violence. Finally, we examine stress that relationships may engender not through misunderstandings or malevolent actions, but rather through indirect exposure to others’ stressful life events. As we will illustrate, women may be more likely to learn of stressors that befall their social network members and more likely to offer support and resources to such network members. These tendencies have been referred to as the “costs of caring” and have been found to fall disproportionately on the shoulders of women (Kessler et al., 1985).

Exposure to Everyday Negative Interactions Some research suggests that, compared with men, women tend to experience both more positive and negative interactions with members of their social networks (e.g., Antonucci, Akiyama, & Lansford, 1998; Lefﬂer, Krannich, & Gillespie, 1986; Schuster et al., 1990). Other studies ﬁnd that men and women experience roughly the same number of negative social exchanges (Rook, 1990). The negative interactions assessed in this research involve demands from others, conﬂicts and disagreements, being ignored or rejected by others, and being let down by others in times of need.

Exposure to Physical and Psychological Violence In some instances, noxious social interactions can include physical or psychological violence. This sort of negative social interaction is disturbingly common. Research has found that men are more likely to be the aggressor than women (Chilton & Jarvis, 1999). In a recent study, Graham and Wells (2001) interviewed a random sample of 1,753 adults aged 18–60 in Ontario, Canada. They found that more men than women were involved in a violent interaction in the previous 12 months. Further, men were 25 times more likely than women to report that their opponent in an aggressive encounter was a man. Women were 13.6 times more likely than men to report that their most recent involvement with physical aggression was with an intimate partner. Focusing on violence between romantic partners, recent research has distinguished between two types of violence: common couple violence and intimate terrorism (Johnson, 1995). Common couple violence refers to pushing and hitting that occur in response to an argument or ﬁght. Intimate terrorism (also call patriarchal terrorism) is a form of control

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

205

“that involves the systematic use of not only violence, but also economic subordination, threats, isolation and other control tactics” (p. 284). Research has indicated that both men and women experience common couple violence at similar rates. However, research has consistently shown that women are usually the victims of intimate terrorism. This is a more chronic form of violence that is meant to control the partner and is more likely to result in serious injury or even death. Researchers also have investigated the phenomenon of relational victimization, which does not involve physical violence per se but rather an attempt to harm another person by manipulating or threatening to damage the person’s social relationships. For example, if a young boy is angry at another boy, instead of picking a physical ﬁght, he may spread rumors in order to disrupt the other boy’s social relationships. Some of this work has focused on gender differences, and it suggests that girls (particularly young girls) may be more likely than boys to experience relational victimization by peers (Crick, Casas, & Nelson, 2002). Coupled with evidence (discussed in a later section) that females are more distressed by negative social exchanges than are males, this higher rate of relational victimization among females is cause for concern.

Exposure to Stress Experienced by Signiﬁcant Others In addition to functioning as a direct source of conﬂict or disappointment, social relationships can function as an indirect source of stress by exposing us to disruptive events in the lives of signiﬁcant others. We may experience stress indirectly when loved ones or close friends are experiencing their own stress. For example, knowing a close friend who has lost a job or suffered a serious injury or illness can be a source of stress in our own lives. This “signiﬁcant-other stress,” referring to stressors experienced by members of a person’s social network, may have ripple effects that have negative consequences for other people. Rook, Dooley, and Catalano (1991) suggested a number of reasons why signiﬁcant-other stress may have detrimental consequences for other individuals. At a pragmatic level, signiﬁcant others may be unable to provide or reciprocate support when they are contending with serious life stress of their own. In fact, it is more likely that signiﬁcant others who are experiencing serious difﬁculties may need sustained emotional or instrumental support, and this need has the potential to drain the support provider’s resources. At a more psychological level, people may feel great empathy for signiﬁcant others who are experiencing life stress, and share their emotional distress to some extent. For example, if a grown child is going through a divorce, a mother may ﬁnd herself feeling the child’s pain. Additionally, if would-be support providers are unable to meet

206

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

the distressed person’s needs, they may feel as though they are letting the person down. For example, if a woman’s close friend is dealing with the loss of a job, the woman may feel inadequate if she cannot help her friend ﬁnd a new job or buoy her friend’s emotional state. Kessler and colleagues (1985) labeled many of these adverse effects of life stress experienced by signiﬁcant others as the “costs of caring.” In a study of a large representative sample of adults that investigated the psychological toll of caring, Rook et al. (1991) examined the impact on wives of their husbands’ job-related stress. The researchers found that husbands’ job stress was associated with signiﬁcantly increased distress in the wives, and they concluded that this distress was the result of the wives’ burden of care. The wives reported heightened levels of worry and concern. Burden of care was associated with more symptoms of psychological distress for these wives. Relatively few parallel studies have examined the effects of wives’ stress on husbands’ distress. Research has found that, compared to men, women tend to be more aware of stress occurring in network members’ lives and, thus, more burdened by the costs of caring (Kessler et al., 1985). In their reanalysis of data from ﬁve large studies, Kessler and colleagues found that women consistently reported more stressful events for others than did men. Men may be less aware of signiﬁcant others’ stress because they are less likely to be solicited for support or because they are less involved than women in social relationships (for a review see Baltes, Freund, & Horgas, 1999). In in-progress research of our own (Beals & Rook, 2004), we have found that older men are less aware of the life stress experienced by signiﬁcant others than are older women. Notably, the older men and women did not differ in their reports of personally experienced life stress; rather, they differed only in their reports of signiﬁcant-other stress. These ﬁndings thus converge with those of Kessler et al. (1985). In summary, both men and women are exposed to negative interactions in their personal relationships. Although some research suggests that women may experience more such interactions than do men, the empirical evidence is relatively sparse and inconsistent on this point. Researchers have found that men are exposed to more violence overall, but women are exposed to more intimate terrorism. Finally, women are exposed to, or aware of, more signiﬁcant-other stress.

REACTIONS TO NEGATIVE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS The question of whether men or women are more likely to experience negative interactions is conceptually distinct from the question of whether they have different reactions to them. Two people who experience

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

207

exactly the same number and kinds of negative exchanges with others might nonetheless react very differently to the exchanges. Moreover, reactions to negative social exchanges can occur on any of several different levels. The next section reviews research on behavioral, emotional, and physiological responses to negative social interactions. Men and women appear to exhibit different responses in each of these categories.

Behavioral Responses to Negative Social Interactions Behavioral reactions to negative social interactions that have been examined in the literature include the willingness to engage in versus withdraw from conﬂicts, as well as speciﬁc communication patterns that unfold when people do engage in conﬂicts. For example, research by Christensen and Heavey (1990) found that men and women demonstrate different patterns in response to marital conﬂicts. Typically, men withdraw from conﬂictual interactions with their marital partners more often than do women. In in-depth interviews with middle-aged men, Weiss (1990) found that men often used passive or withdrawing strategies when conﬂicts arose with their wives. Typifying this pattern, one husband in Weiss’s study who felt that his wife kept the house too cool responded by wearing multiple layers of clothing and by purchasing a small space heater for his study rather than by discussing his needs with his wife. Women, on the other hand, more often than men make demands on their partners in response to conﬂict. Researchers have concluded that it is not gender, per se, that drives this pattern but rather gender-related differences in the likelihood of desiring change in a marital partner’s behavior; people who desire change (generally women) are likely to make a demand, whereas people who do not desire change (generally men) are likely to withdraw. Messman and Canary (1998) suggest that because men beneﬁt more from marriage than women, they are less likely to want change and thus be more likely to be the ones withdrawing rather than demanding. (See Huyck & Guttman in this volume and Weiss, 1990.) Researchers who have examined specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors that occur during conﬂicts have found that couples who are less satisfied with their relationships compared with those who are more satisﬁed tend to respond to negative behaviors with further negative behaviors (Messman & Canary, 1998). Even very satisﬁed couples tend to reciprocate negative behaviors, however. For example, Gottman (1979) and Kiecolt-Glaser, Malarkey, Chee, Newton, Cacioppo, Mao, et al. (1993) found that both men and women in satisfying relationships tend to reciprocate negativity in their interactions with their spouses.

208

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

Emotional Responses to Negative Social Interactions Some research has suggested that men react less strongly to negative social interactions than women (Leadbetter, Blatt, & Quinlan, 1995; Walen & Lachman, 2000). For example, in a recent study, Sanford and Rowatt (2004) found that men have less intense emotions following common forms of negative partner behavior compared with women. Speciﬁcally, in three studies, these researchers asked participants to rate how much they would feel certain emotions following negative partner behavior such as “your partner criticizes something you say” or “your partner begins to spend less time with you.” Two of the studies surveyed both wives and husbands in married couples, and the third study examined behaviors among college roommates. All three studies found that men reported experiencing less sadness and hurt than did women. In addition, in the two studies with married couples, husbands reported less anger than their wives. In an experimental study conducted by Bell and Forde (1999) of college students, the researchers found a trend toward men being less upset across different conﬂict scenarios. The researchers examined the degree of upset in response to four types of conﬂict—school related, street crime, confrontation in a leisure setting, and public domestic abuse. Unfortunately, the researchers did not report if there was an interaction between conﬂict type and gender. These studies suggest that men are less bothered by negative interactions with a partner or roommate, although it is possible that men and women differ in their willingness to report distress or in the manner in which they calibrate distress on the response options presented in researchers’ measures. In terms of more severe forms of negative social interactions, and particularly violence, men also have weaker emotional reactions than do women. Graham and Wells (2001) found that men were less emotionally impacted than women by recently experienced violent incidents. This sex difference was most pronounced when men had violent exchanges with women. In a study of college students from seven different states, Makepeace (1986) found that men were less emotionally injured than were women following courtship violence. Of course, this difference in the emotional impact of violence may be attributable to the fact that women have a greater risk of injury than do men. It is noteworthy that Makepeace found that women were as likely as men to initiate, commit, and sustain the violence. Women also reported more often being violent for reasons of self-defense and were more often physically injured during the incident than were male participants. Ample evidence, as cited above, suggests that a lack of harmony in social relationships affects men and women differently. Perhaps this gender difference occurs because men learn the value of being tough and

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

209

see conﬂict and violence as instrumental, whereas women see relational upheaval as a failure of their efforts to maintain and nurture social relationships. Whether such gender differences persist across the life course and into later adulthood is unclear, underscoring the need for research that examines not only gender but also age differences and age-by-gender interactions in these interpersonal processes and outcomes.

Physiological Responses to Negative Social Interactions Research on physiological responses to negative social interactions has not yielded entirely consistent evidence regarding possible gender differences. Seeman, Singer, Ryff, Love, and Levy-Storms (2002) concluded from their assessment of the literature that “women may have greater physiological reactivity to negative aspects of social relationships” than men (p. 403). Consistent with this statement, laboratory studies of men and women engaged in or recalling social interaction indicate that, compared to women, men exhibit less cardiovascular reactivity to negative behaviors (Bloor, Uchino, Hicks, & Smith, 2004; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). Other research that has focused speciﬁcally on physiological reactivity in men revealed that men’s heart rate and tonic skin conductance became elevated after reading vignettes about conﬂicts with an intimate partner (Moore & Stuart, 2004). Moore and Stuart hypothesized in a study of young adults that men high in masculinity-related stress would show stronger physiological reactivity to conﬂict scenarios in which the conﬂict could be interpreted as a threat to masculinity; however, this was not the case. Reactivity was not greater among men who reported greater masculine gender role stress. In another line of research, evidence is building to suggest that wives have a more pronounced physiological response to negative marital interactions, compared with husbands (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; Newton & Sanford, 2003). Wives may experience greater physiological arousal because they tend to stay focused on the conﬂict topic for longer durations than do husbands and thus are less inclined than husbands to withdraw from the interaction (Levenson, Carstensen, & Gottman, 1994). Also, women may be more bothered by conﬂict in interpersonal domains as a result of being more “communal” than men (Smith, Gallo, Goble, Ngu, & Stark, 1998). Women may ﬁnd negative social interactions with close others (e.g., their husband) more damaging to their roles and expectations as women (Cross & Madson, 1997). Interestingly, in their laboratory study of young to middle-aged married couples, Newton and Sanford (2003) found that during a conﬂict discussion, the person who was requesting change demonstrated a jump in blood pressure, but the person responding to the request did not show

210

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

the same cardiovascular response, regardless of gender. They argue that men are less responsive to conﬂict in marriage relationships not because they are men but because men are less often the ones requesting change from the spouse in marital relationships. Research does support the claim that women are more likely to want change, which often leads to conﬂict in marital relationships (Margolin, Talovic, & Weinstein, 1983). In a study that examined levels of stress hormones in newlyweds, wives and husbands who had less power in the relationship than their spouses (deﬁned as having a higher emotional investment in the relationship relative to their spouse) exhibited marked increases in the release of stress hormones following a discussion of a marital conﬂict (Loving, Heffner, Kiecolt-Glaser, Glaser, & Malarkey, 2004). Wives with equal power or more power relative to their husbands showed a beneﬁcial stress response to conﬂict. Husbands, however, only showed a beneﬁcial response when they had greater power than their wives. The authors concluded that “for wives, relatively greater levels of emotional involvement [i.e., less power] might lead to more negative health outcomes in the long term” (p. 607). A caveat regarding this conclusion must be borne in mind, however, in view of compelling evidence indicating that women live longer, on average, than do men (Verbrugge, 2001). This gender difference in mortality is believed to be attributable to both inherited and acquired risk factors (Hazzard, 1990; Verbrugge, 2001). Thus, it is possible that any disadvantages women may experience, relative to men, in terms of the adverse health effects of negative exchanges are offset by hormonal advantages that reduce women’s vulnerability to a leading cause of death, cardiovascular disease (Hazzard, 1990). More generally, research has not yet examined the implications of negative social exchanges for mortality per se, although a substantial literature has documented links between social integration and mortality (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000). Extending this literature to consider whether exposure or reactivity to negative social exchanges predict mortality and whether gender differences emerge in any of the associations observed will provide another way to gauge the health-related signiﬁcance of negative social exchanges for men and women. This brief review indicates that researchers have gauged men’s and women’s response to negative social interactions with several different outcomes. Although the research is not always consistent, there is a trend for men to be less responsive to negative interactions in terms of behavior, emotions, and physiology compared with women. The most reliable differences appear in research on emotional reactions to negative social exchanges. In experimental as well as survey studies, women appear to experience stronger emotions than do men following negative social interactions.

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

211

CONCLUSION Social relationships can be a source of some of life’s greatest pleasures as well as a source of invaluable aid and support during difﬁcult life transitions. Yet social relationships also can cause frustrations, disappointments, and sorrows. At their worst, social relationships can result in not only emotional harm but also physical harm. A small but growing body of research has documented that the adverse effects of negative exchanges in close relationships often outweigh the beneﬁcial effects of positive exchanges in these same relationships. Attention has begun to turn recently to the question of what inﬂuences individuals’ vulnerability to negative interactions with others. We approached that question in this chapter by examining gender differences in the frequency with which negative social exchanges are experienced and in behavioral, emotional, and physiological reactions to negative social exchanges. The evidence we reviewed suggests that although men may not experience fewer everyday negative social exchanges than do women, men do tend to experience less intimate terrorism in their close relationships and are less likely to be aware of and distressed by stressful life events that befall members of their social networks. Coupled with women’s greater tendency to provide social support to others, their greater knowledge of stressful life events experienced by signiﬁcant others puts them at risk for the “costs of caring.” Men appear to be less adversely affected than women by negative interactions with others, as reﬂected in reports of less emotional distress, in indications of less physiological arousal, and in a lower likelihood of experiencing physical harm in the context of couple violence. These differences, too, suggest that men may be somewhat less vulnerable than women to the adverse effects of negative social interactions. This conclusion should be regarded as tentative, however, because the literature on gender differences in vulnerability to negative social exchanges is still relatively small. In addition, research that examines these issues in a life course context is relatively scarce, and more work is needed that examines age-by-gender interactions in the interpersonal processes and outcomes we have discussed. More research is needed to understand if, and how, these differences may contribute to gender differences in mental health or physical health. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, consistent evidence indicates that women are more likely to experience major depression than men through the life course until later adulthood, when the gender gap narrows. A variety of researchers have examined physiological as well as sociocultural explanations for this gender difference in rates of depression. Although this well-documented gender difference may have multiple

212

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

causes, Kirsh and Kuiper (2002) recently argued that it may be partly attributable to gender differences in relatedness and individualism. Based on the literature we reviewed in this chapter, we would argue that gender differences in experiences of and reactions to negative social interactions also might contribute to the greater rates of depression among women. Speciﬁcally, women may be at a greater risk for depression than men both because they are exposed to more frequent interpersonal stressors and because they exhibit greater sensitivity to such stressors. Similarly, the physical health implications of negative social exchanges may differ for men and women. As noted earlier, clues exist in the literature that women may experience greater and longer-lasting physiological arousal in response to conﬂicts and tensions in their primary relationships than men. Persistent or recurring interpersonal conﬂicts, therefore, could contribute to cardiovascular disease and other health problems over time (Ewart, Taylor, Kraemer, & Agras, 1991). Future research is needed to examine if and how exposure and reactivity to different kinds of negative social interactions may differentially affect the health and well-being of men and women. Integrating such research with existing knowledge of gender differences in the nature and effects of positive social interactions will provide a more complete account of the health-sustaining and health-eroding effects of involvement in close relationships. REFERENCES Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). Social networks in adult life and a preliminary examination of the convoy model. Journal of Gerontology, 42, 519–527. Antonucci, T. C., Akiyama, H., & Lansford, J. E. (1998). The negative effects of close social relations among older adults. Family Relations, 47, 379–384. Baltes, M. M., Freund, A. M., & Horgas, A. L. (1999). Men and women in the Berlin aging study. In P. B. Baltes & K. U. Mayer (Eds.), The Berlin Aging Study: Aging from 70 to 100 (pp. 259–281). New York: Cambridge University Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Beals, K. P., & Rook, K. S. (2004, July). Does gender matter? How the stress of close others and negative social exchanges impact negative affect. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Relationship Researchers, Madison, WI. Bell, M. R., & Forde, D. R. (1999). A factorial survey of interpersonal conﬂict resolution. Journal of Social Psychology, 139 (3), 369–377.

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

213

Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millenium. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 843–857. Bloor, L. E., Uchino, B. N., Hicks, A., & Smith, T. W. (2004). Social relationships and physiological function: The effects of recalling social relationships on cardiovascular reactivity. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 28, 29–38. Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808–818. Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., Wethington, E., Eckenrode, J., & Gore, S. (1990). The microstructure of daily role-related stress in married couples. In J. Eckenrode & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp. 95–115). New York: Plenum Press. Borys, S., & Perlman, D. (1985). Gender differences in loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 63–74. Bush, D. M., & Simmons, R. G. (1987). Gender and coping with the entry into early adolescence. In R. C. Barnett & L. Biener (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 185–217). New York: Free Press. Cancian, F. M., & Gordon, S. L. (1988). Changing emotion norms in marriage: Love and anger in U.S. women’s magazines since 1900. Gender and Society, 2, 308–342. Cate, R. M., Koval, J., Lloyd, S. A., & Wilson, G. (1995). Assessment of relationship thinking in dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 2, 77–95. Chilton, R., & Jarvis, J. (1999). Victims and offenders in two crime statistics programs: A comparison of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15 (2), 207–224. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdrawal pattern of marital conﬂict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81. Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of peer maltreatment: Studies of relational victimization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 98–101. Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122 (1), 5–37. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (3), 53–69. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131. Ewart, C. K., Taylor, C. B., Kraemer, H. C., & Agras, W. S. (1991). High blood pressure and marital discord: Not being nasty matters more than being nice. Health Psychology, 10, 155–163. Gabriel, S., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Are there “his” and “hers” types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational

214

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 642–655. Gatz, M., & Fiske, A. (2003). Aging women and depression. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 3–9. Gore, S., & Colten, M. E. (1991). Gender, stress, and distress: Social-relational inﬂuences. In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping: The Plenum series on stress and coping (pp. 139–163). New York: Plenum Press. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction. New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J. M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Simon & Schuster. Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2001). The two worlds of aggression for men and women. Sex Roles, 45 (9–10), 595–622. Hazzard, W. R. (1990). The sex differential in longevity. In W. R. Hazzard, R. Andres, E. L. Bierman, & J. P. Blass (Eds.), Principles of geriatric medicine and gerontology (2nd ed., pp. 37–47). New York: McGraw-Hill. House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545. Hurst, S. A., & Genest, M. (1995). Cognitive-behavioral therapy with a feminist orientation: A perspective for therapy with depressed women. Canadian Psychology, 36, 236–257. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 (2), 283–294. Kessler, R. C. (1979). A strategy for studying differential vulnerabilities to the psychological consequences of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20, 100–108. Kessler, R. C., McLeod, J. D., & Wethington, E. (1985). The costs of caring: A perspective on the relationship between sex and psychological distress. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research and applications (pp. 491–506). The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Malarkey, W. B., Chee, M., Newton, T., Cacioppo, J. T., Mao, H.-Y., et al. (1993). Negative behavior during marital conﬂict is associated with immunological down-regulation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 395–409. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472–503. Kirsch, G. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (2002). Individualism and relatedness themes in the context of depression, gender, and a self-schema model of emotion. Canadian Psychology, 43, 76–90. Krause, N., & Shaw, B. A. (2002). Welfare participation and social support in late life. Psychology and Aging, 17, 260–270. Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1998). Social support and the emotional lives of men and women: An assessment of the different cultures perspective. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 101–125). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kunkel, A. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1999). Assessing explanations for sex differences in emotional support: A test of the different cultures and skill specialization accounts. Human Communication Research, 25 (3), 307–340.

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

215

Lau, S., & Gruen, G. E. (1992). The social stigma of loneliness: Effect of target person’s and perceiver’s sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 182–189. Leadbetter, B. J., Blatt, S. J., & Quinlan, D. M. (1995). Gender-linked vulnerabilities to depressive symptoms, stress, and problem behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 5, 1–29. Lefﬂer, A., Krannich, R. S., & Gillespie, D. L. (1986). Contact, support, and friction: Three faces of networks in community life. Sociological Perspectives, 29 (3), 337–355. Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1994). Inﬂuence of age and gender on affect, physiology, and their interrelations: A study of longterm marriages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (1), 56–68. Loving, T. J., Heffner, K. L., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (2004). Stress hormone changes and marital conﬂict: Spouses’ relative power makes a difference. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 595–612. Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. MacGeorge, E. L., Gillihan, S. J., Samter, W., & Clark, R. A. (2003). Skill deﬁcit or differential motivation? Testing alternative explanations for gender differences in the provision of emotional support. Communication Research, 30 (3), 272–303. Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1983). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. A. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 195–216). New York: Cambridge University Press. Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies, 35 (3), 383–388. Margolin, G., Talovic, S., & Weinstein, C. D. (1983). Areas of Change Questionnaire: A practical approach to marital assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 (6), 944–955. Messman, S. J., & Canary, D. J. (1998). Patterns of conﬂict in personal relationships. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 121–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Miller, P. M., & Ingham, J. G. (1976). Friends, conﬁdants and symptoms. Social Psychiatry, 11 (2), 51–58. Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2004). Effects of masculine gender role stress on men’s cognitive, affective, physiological, and aggressive responses to intimate conﬂict situations. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5 (2), 132–142. Neff, L., & Karney, B. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (1), 79–90. Newton, T. L., & Sanford, J. M. (2003). Conﬂict structure moderates associations between cardiovascular reactivity and negative marital interaction. Health Psychology, 22 (3), 270–278. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1995). Epidemiology and theories of gender differences in unipolar depression. In. M. Seeman (Ed.), Gender and psychopathology (pp. 63–87). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

216

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES IN MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS

Peplau, L. A., Bikson, T. K., Rook, K. S., & Goodchilds, J. (1982). Being old and living alone. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 327–347). New York: Wiley. Rook, K. S. (1990). Stressful aspects of older adults’ social relationships: An overview of current theory and research. In M. A. P. Stephens, J. H. Crowther, S. E. Hobfoll, & D. L. Tennenbaum (Eds.), Stress and coping in later life families (pp. 173–192). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Rook, K. S. (1998). Investigating the positive and negative sides of personal relationships: Through a glass darkly? In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 369–393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rook, K. S. (2003). Exposure and reactivity to negative social exchanges: A preliminary investigation using daily diary data. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58, P100–P111. Rook, K. S., Dooley, D., & Catalano, R. (1991). Stress transmission: The effects of husbands’ job stressors on the emotional health of their wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 165–177. Sacher, J. A., & Fine, M. A. (1996). Predicting relationship status and satisfaction after six months among dating couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 21–32. Sanford, K., & Rowatt, W. C. (2004). When is negative emotion positive for relationships? An investigation of married couples and roommates. Personal Relationships, 11 (3), 329–354. Schulz, M. S., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Brennan, R. T. (2004). Coming home upset: Gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experiences into couple interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 18 (1), 250–263. Shumaker, S. A., & Hill, D. R. (1991). Gender differences in social support and physical health. Health Psychology, 10, 86–93. Schuster, T. L., Kessler, R. C., & Aseltine, R. H., Jr. (1990). Supportive interactions, negative interactions, and depressed mood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 423–438. Seeman, T. E., Singer, B. H., Ryff, C. D., Love, G. D., & Levy-Storms, L. (2002). Social relationships, gender, and allostatic load across two age cohorts. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 395–406. Smith, T. W., Gallo, L. C., Goble, L., Ngu, L. Q., & Stark, K. A. (1998). Agency, communion, and cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Health Psychology, 17, 537–545. Sorkin, D. H., & Rook, K. S. (2004). Interpersonal control strivings and vulnerability to negative social exchanges in later life. Psychology and Aging, 19, 555–564. Sprecher, S. (1994). Two sides to the breakup of dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 199–222. Suh, E. J., Moskowitz, D. S., Fournier, M. A., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Gender and relationships: Inﬂuences on agentic and communal behaviors. Personal Relationships, 11, 41–59.

Gender Differences in Negative Social Exchanges

217

Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tendand-befriend, not ﬁght-or-ﬂight. Psychological Review, 107, 411–429. Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488–531. Verbrugge, L. M. (2001). Sex differences in health. In G. L. Maddox, R. C. Atchley, J. G. Evans, C. E. Finch, R. A. Kane, M. D. Mezey, et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of aging: A comprehensive multidisciplinary resource in gerontology and geriatrics (3rd ed., pp. 850–854). New York: Springer. Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R. A. (1981). The inner American: A self-portrait from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic. Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and beneﬁts for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 5–30. Weiss, R. S. (1990). Staying the course: The emotional and social lives of men who do well at work. New York: The Free Press. Whiting, J. W., & Whiting, B. B. (1975). Aloofness and intimacy of husband and wives: A cross-cultural study. Ethos, 3 (2), 183–207 Zautra, A. J., Burleson, M. H., Matt, K. S., & Roth, S. (1994). Interpersonal stress, depression, and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis patients. Health Psychology, 13, 139–148.

This page intentionally left blank

PA RT V

Conclusion

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 10

Men’s Relationships in Middle and Older Age Barbara Formaniak Turner and Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford

This chapter has three goals. The ﬁrst is to summarize and comment on what we have learned about midlife and older men’s relationships from the contributors to this volume. The second is to describe future directions for research on men’s relationships in the second half of life. These directions emerged in our review of the chapters as a whole as well as those our expert authors recommended. Our third goal is to draw out implications from the chapters for clinical practice.

WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED The chapters are full of information on how men experience relationships and why men’s relationships matter so much. Several chapters look at men’s relationships with other males, including sons (Floyd and Bowman; Taylor, Giarrusso, Feng, and Bengtson), brothers (Bedford and Avioli), friends (Adams and Ueno), men in groups (Turner), and romantic partners (Maass). Three chapters focus on men’s marital-like relationships (Huyck and Gutmann; Cohler and Smith; Maass), and one on male-female differences in negative social exchanges across a variety of relationship types (Beals and Rook). Here, we think, are some of the most noteworthy observations and ﬁndings. Cohler and Smith show how social scripts for men’s marital and family relationships differ among cultures and change over historical 221

222

CONCLUSION

time within cultures. They describe young men’s distress when rapid cultural change makes it very hard to carry out the social scripts of manhood they learned when growing up. The new scripts for marital and father-son relationships seem to them much less rewarding than the old ones. The hazards these young men experience subjectively are projected into middle and late life and are especially jarring for new immigrants from Africa and Asia but also are felt by native-born American men in our era of rapid social change. An ethic of responsibility to wife and children, extended family, and community over the adult years among these ﬁrst-generation immigrants has many desirable elements and resembles the American archetype for the good family man. Few American-born boys, however, live in cultural niches in which boys’ socialization centers on increments in responsibility for the success of family enterprises, capped by property transfers by fathers that enable young men to marry, follow their fathers’ line of work, and provide for wife and children as sole breadwinners. In Gutmann’s parental imperative theory, parents stiﬂe the parts of themselves that might interfere with ensuring their growing children’s well-being. Fathers provide more material support, mothers more emotional support. But when the children are grown, men can reclaim some “feminine” traits, women some “masculine” traits. About half of the older husbands and fathers in Huyck and Gutmann’s cross-sectional study were deemed to have reclaimed some feminine traits. Men whose feminine traits encompassed socially valued nurturance and sensitivity and who recalled good parental relationships in their childhoods usually felt ﬁne about themselves and pleased with their marriages. For these men, the reactivation of “feminine” traits was a positive development for themselves and their relationships. On the other hand, the effects on personal and marital well-being among men whose feminine traits entailed socially devalued passivity and dependency depended on wives’ responses in the arena of the marital relationship as well as men’s perceptions of their own parents’ relationship. When wives accepted and did not belittle husbands’ increased passivity, all was well. Many wives, however, had experienced their own developmental shift and become more assertive in their marriage as the children departed. These wives openly criticized their husbands’ passivity. The marital conﬂict these men experienced, in conjunction with the disordered early-life parental relationships they recalled, led to considerable psychosomatic and psychological distress. Maass, a practicing therapist, uses case studies of homosexual and heterosexual partnerships to show how men’s internalized masculinity scripts channel the paths of their relationships over time. In therapy she treats men whose scripts for philandering or for total control of partners have led to personal and relationship distress. Maass’s recommendations

Men’s Relationships in Middle and Older Age

223

for clinical practice with troubled men are discussed in more detail in the later section on implications for therapy. Bedford and Avioli intensively studied emotional intimacy longitudinally over a 20-year period of adulthood in the fraternal relationships of 18 men. Regardless of cohort, virtually all enjoyed “shooting the bull” with their brothers and felt they could count on them in a crisis. Brothers were important potential sources of support and intimacy at older ages as friendships and other relationships dwindled. The brother bond is lifelong, and homophobia is less of a bar to intimacy between brothers than between friends. Adams and Ueno supplied an extraordinary, rich description of the research base on men’s friendships as well as an elegant model analyzing men’s relationships by linking theory, process, and outcomes. Studies Adams and Ueno described ﬁnd that men’s friendships with men are more activity-based, with less self-disclosure, than women’s friendships with women. In midlife, men have more friends than women. At older ages, however, men have fewer friends than women, whether because of retirement from the workplace; men’s younger age at death, which reduces the pool of male friends; or health problems that limit the activities men share. The authors stress that new research is badly needed on men’s friendships. Taylor, Giarrusso, Feng, and Bengtson describe paternity among middle-aged and elderly Anglo-American fathers followed longitudinally over 26 years, from 1971 to 1997. In 1997, middle-aged fathers’ paternal styles compared with elderly fathers’ styles showed more adherence to “nurturant father” norms current since the 1970s. This pattern of cohort change is probably because the younger fathers had been more exposed to the cultural contexts for these norms since their children’s birth. Following fathers from middle age in 1971 to age 70 in 1997 showed that men’s involvement with their adult children remained strong across the life course. Consistent with time and place principles of the life-course perspective, however, the types and levels of involvement middle-aged and older fathers had with adult children were inﬂuenced by the sociohistorical context of the father-adult child relationship. Many of the men who talked with us about this book were especially fascinated and eager to learn more about how men deal with feelings in relationships. Floyd and Bowman focus explicitly on feelings of closeness and expression of affection in “good-enough” father-son relationships, and on shifts in closeness and affection over the life course as well as over historical time. They trace a U-shaped curve in father-son closeness and affection over the life course. Both closeness and affection are high in sons’ infancy and childhood, much lower in adolescence and young adulthood, and higher again in later stages of adulthood. Provisional (cross-sectional)

224

CONCLUSION

evidence supports increased closeness and affection among fathers and sons in recent decades of historical time. Because research shows clearly that the quality of father-son relationships is consequential for the longterm well-being of both parties, increasing the involvement of goodenough noncustodial fathers with their sons is a priority. Several theorists of masculinities have noted that men deﬁne their masculinity mostly with reference to the opinions of other men. Turner explains this tendency as a special instance of men’s collective interdependence—a chronic awareness of their position in the groups to which they do and do not belong. As expected, men in the cross-sectional Boston Gender Study varied in collective interdependence and personal styles of masculinity. Connections between men’s collective interdependence and their masculinity styles were more vivid in men’s symbolic relationships with other men (i.e., in their imagined relationships) than in their actual relationships with men in groups. Men over 60, however, appeared less invested in other men’s judgments of them than younger men. Research shows that positive interactions in social relationships improve the likelihood of important outcomes such as well-being, physical and emotional health, and adaptation, whereas noxious social interactions diminish good outcomes. Beals and Rook report that compared to women, midlife and older men may experience fewer negative social interactions, but when they do so, they appear to be less reactive to the emotional distress that they experience both directly and indirectly. Together, these ﬁndings from the chapters can be synthesized into ﬁve themes: 1. The important consequences of men’s relationships for the longterm development and well-being of themselves and their relationship partners. 2. The central role of ideologies and rules of manhood and masculinity in channeling and limiting men’s relationships, for good and for ill. 3. The tension between men’s wish to express and receive loving and nurturance with men and the need to do so guardedly or covertly versus openly. Obstacles to openness include fear of humiliation for being or seeming gay, for seeming too feminine, and of losing in dominance competitions. 4. Is there a shift toward more expressiveness in men’s relationships over lifetimes or over historical time or both? Chapter authors take different stands on these issues. For some authors, the evidence is equivocal in light of the primarily cross-sectional research base. Such shifts in men’s expressiveness may be most apparent in ideologies of relationships and perhaps

Men’s Relationships in Middle and Older Age

225

also in relationship behaviors, as in “nurturant father” trends described by Taylor et al., Floyd and Bowman, and Turner. Baby boomer men seemed more comfortable with receiving emotional support from their brothers than men in older cohorts at comparable ages, as seen in Bedford and Avioli’s ﬁndings using time lag analyses, but it is unclear whether this difference merely reﬂects better interpersonal skills or actual intimacy. Accordingly, historical shifts in men’s expressiveness, however, do not appear in young men’s expressiveness as measured by total femininity scores on standardized tests from 1974 to 1994 (Twenge, 1997). Huyck and Gutmann’s stance is that historical shifts toward more expressiveness are unlikely, whereas shifts in marital relationships over lifetimes do take place. In Turner’s cross-sectional study, there were no age/cohort differences in the percentage of men who comfortably claimed “feminine” personality traits such as sensitivity to other people’s feelings. More longitudinal and, especially, longitudinal sequential designs are needed to resolve these issues. 5. In which contexts can men “safely” express intimacy or nurturance? Men appear to feel safe to express intimacy to relationship partners in approximately the following rank order—to women, including wives, cohabiters, girlfriends; to male romantic partners; to brothers; to fathers; to sons, except for the need for fathers to socialize sons in self-protection by inexpressiveness; to closest friend; and, in Turner’s chapter, for men in human service and education jobs in which nurturance and empathy are adaptive at work.

NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS: WHAT WE NEED TO LEARN ABOUT MIDLIFE AND OLDER MEN’S RELATIONSHIPS The life course perspective’s emphasis on “linked lives” and the interdependence of relationship participants means that participants experience the relationship differently. For example, a father may think he is sending his son a message of understanding, but the son may or may not think that is the message he is receiving. We need more research that compares the experiences of pairs of relationship participants; the statistics to do that are now available. Yet most research on relationships is one-sided, which is true even in most research reported in this volume. Huyck and Gutmann’s research is an exception. In earlier analyses (Huyck & Gutmann, 1992) of husbands’ and wives’ marital politics

226

CONCLUSION

styles, they found some correspondence between a husband’s reports of how critical his wife was and how much criticism of him his wife reported. But the correspondence was far from perfect. We need to ﬂesh out the conclusion that there are two (if not more) relationships in every bond between two participants. We need more qualitative research on men’s relationships, as well as more multimethod research that includes narrative responses. In their reviews of research on men’s relationships, many authors in this volume praised the insights provided by qualitative studies on their topic. The chapters based mainly on authors’ original research typically included narrative responses and other qualitative measures. To be sure, largesample studies using ﬁxed-choice survey questions can provide the numerical power to generate useful and valid information about men’s relationships. But longer conversations with individuals about their relationships allow people to backtrack, qualify their views, cite contrary instances in the overall picture, interpret their experiences as they talk, and describe experiences unexpected by the investigator (Ekerdt, 2005). Current research on men’s relationships, as shown in this volume, makes strong and often elegant efforts to connect theory to research by formulating links between individual characteristics, the processes or mechanisms by which these characteristics unfold over time in men’s personal relationships, and important outcomes for relationship participants. For example, particular styles of masculinity or speciﬁc masculine gender-role conﬂicts are predicted to lead to behaviors in relationships that generate positive or negative outcomes for one or both partners. Assessments of masculinities generally rely on standardized self-report scale assessments of “typical” behavior. But there may be limited correspondence between individuals’ retrospective or generalized self-reports and how they actually behave in daily encounters, as has been found in theory and research on stress, coping, and psychological adaptation (Tennen, Afﬂeck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000). In social constructionism, gender is created in interpersonal interactions, so behaviors may shift across situations as well as over time. Appropriate research strategies are needed to capture these processes, such as diary studies and interactional or observational studies. Finally, and importantly, diversity in race, ethnicity, and social class must be addressed more fully in future studies. One example is the importance of social-class differences in men’s relationships, especially in light of its status as a master determinant of life outcomes in health and longevity. Unfortunately, the emphasis on gender comparisons sometimes risks inattention to variations among men. Sociological studies of income quintiles from 1967 to1987 show that the top and bottom 20% became increasingly disparate and that economic insecurity in the lower quintiles became

Men’s Relationships in Middle and Older Age

227

prevalent (e.g., Bernhardt, Morris, & Handcock, 1995). Studies show steadily that unemployment leads to family violence and conﬂict, underlining that job insecurity over the last decades has serious consequences for family relationships. Many ﬁndings demonstrate this link. For instance, emerging adulthood as a life phase (18–25) has extended to age 30, during which men “hang out.” Past research on occupational careers, however, shows clearly that most promotions occur by age 40, so early starts in education and career lines (shown more by young women in recent years) are advantageous. After age 40, age discrimination at work, which affects both men and women, may add to general economic insecurity. Further, there appears to be a historical trend whereby a smaller proportion of men are achieving a college education, which is likely to affect their workforce participation. According to the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW), comparing men and women employees over and under age 50 (in 2002), for employees age 50 and over, 28% of women and 38% of men have college degrees or more, but for those under age 50, 32% of women but only 23% of men have college degrees or more (Bond, Galinsky, Pitt-Catsouphes, & Smyer, 2005).

IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY Practitioners and therapists are well aware that men’s relationships matter for the individuals involved and for the larger social good. Even when men’s presenting problem initially looks like an individual problem, such as substance abuse or lack of motivation at work, they quickly introduce problems in interpersonal relationships (e.g., Wiseman & Barber, 2004). Much of what is recounted across the wide range of therapeutic or recovery group encounters is stories or narratives about significant relationships. Life stories and relationships are central across many forms of therapy, from psychoanalytic and psychodynamic to cognitivebehavioral. Part of therapists’ or group leaders’ task involves the coconstruction with clients of more adaptive narratives, less destructive to themselves and others (Lieblich, McAdams, & Josselson, 2004). The life course perspective adopted in this volume draws attention to the multilevel social contexts of individuals. Consistent with this perspective, models of psychotherapy in recent years have increasingly focused less on clients’ inward self and more on how clients engage with the multiple contexts of the social world in which they are embedded (McLeod, 2004). There is less focus on internal conﬂict and more, for example, on interpersonal conﬂict in central relationships in clients’ past and present (e.g., Wiseman & Barber, 2004). Clients’ difﬁculties are increasingly understood to reﬂect their relationship with their sociocultural contexts.

228

CONCLUSION

These growing trends in models of therapy are reﬂected in recent articles, chapters, and edited volumes that offer theoretically based but practical advice to therapists on incorporating clients’ culturally conditioned masculinity scripts in treatment as well as dealing with other problems common to men (e.g., Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Brooks & Good, 2001; Cochran & Rabinowitz, 2003; Good & Brooks, 2005; Mahalik, Good, & Englar-Carlson, 2003). Other published work advises how to elicit and understand clients’ subjective social class (Liu, 2002) or culturally diverse experiences (Hays, 2001) and integrate them into treatment. Another common topic is how to incorporate material on clients’ sociocultural contexts into practitioners’ training programs. Contributors who drew on analyses of troubled men in therapy (Huyck and Gutmann, Maass) were the most explicit about treatment recommendations. Huyck and Gutmann (1999) fully describe their recommended treatment strategies for the two quite different groups of troubled dependent men in the Parkville Study. For ego dystonic dependent men, the therapeutic goal addresses shame management; for ego syntonic dependent men, the goal is to help them confront their depression and neediness. For use with men in therapy who are dissatisﬁed with their romantic or marital-like relationships, Maass’s initial step is to identify the client’s masculinity script. Next, the therapist helps the client to identify his feelings in speciﬁc interactions with his partner, to understand the goal of his own behaviors in the interaction, and to ask whether the client’s behaviors achieved his goal. Through this process, male clients can come to understand what changes they need to make. The Lost Boys in Cohler and Smith’s study believed that the cultural discrepancies in masculinity scripts they experienced were not major problems for them in young adulthood. Later in life, however, a few who experience acute difﬁculties in negotiating the discrepant scripts for manhood and for relations with others may become depressed. Sue (2001), among others, discusses treatment strategies involved in level of acculturation among depressed ﬁrst-generation immigrant men. Several chapters draw attention to the critical importance of the father-son (and father-daughter) relationship for one or both participants (Floyd and Bowman; Taylor et al.; Turner). Continuing involvement of good-enough fathers with their children following breakups of marital and cohabiting relationships deserve priority in intervention plans (Floyd and Bowman) and social policy. Unfortunately, some fathers, stepfathers, and mothers’ cohabiters abuse or neglect the children with whom they co-reside, with long-term negative consequences for the children (see Turner’s chapter). Scott and Crooks (2004) offer critical principles to guide intervention plans for the treatment of maltreating fathers. These principles include a primary focus on these fathers’ overly controlling

Men’s Relationships in Middle and Older Age

229

behavior, sense of entitlement, and self-centered attitudes; initial unreadiness to make changes in their parenting; adherence to masculinity scripts; attention to men’s relationship with the mother of their children; and special attention to the needs of the children.

CONCLUSION The good news is that men’s relationships are beginning to receive attention, as the publication of this volume demonstrates. Granted, people continue to show surprise at the juxtaposition of the words “men” and “relationship,” but by pulling together various literatures in this volume, we hope to expose more disciplines as well as the lay public to the importance of widely disseminating well-researched information on this topic. Not only do the contributors to this volume impress upon us the maladaptive consequences to relationships of traditional masculinities, they also show the many positive and hopeful developments and resources that men provide to their relationship partners within and across the generations. This volume is only the beginning of what we perceive as an urgent need to broaden public conversations on men’s relationships, to widely disseminate what is currently known, and to generate new research.

REFERENCES Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help-seeking. American Psychologist, 58, 5–14. Bernhardt, A., Morris, M., & Handcock, M. S. (1995). Women’s gains or men’s losses? A closer look at the shrinking gender gap in earnings. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 302–328. Bond, J. T., & Galinsky, E. M., with Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Smyer, M. A. (2005). The diverse employment experiences of older men and women in the workforce. Research Highlight No. 2, Chestnut Hill, MA: Center on Aging & Work/Workplace Flexibility. Brooks, G. R., & Good, G. E. (Eds.). (2001). The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to settings, problems, and treatment approaches (vols. 1–2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cochran, S. V., & Rabinowitz, F. E. (2003). Gender-sensitive recommendations for assessment and treatment of depression in men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 132–140. Ekerdt, D. J. (2005). Foreword. In R. S. Weiss, The experience of retirement (pp. ix–xii). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Good, G. E., & Brooks, G. R. (Eds.). (2005). The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to settings, problems,

230

CONCLUSION

and treatment approaches (rev. and abridged ed., 1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hays, P. A. (2001). Addressing cultural complexities in practice: A framework for clinicians and counselors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Huyck, M. H., & Gutmann, D. L. (1992). Thirtysomething years of marriage: Understanding husbands and wives in enduring relationships. Family Perspective, 26 (2), 249–265. Huyck, M. H., & Gutmann, D. L. (1999). Developmental issues in psychotherapy with older men. In M. Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with older men (pp. 77–90). New York: Wiley. Lieblich, A., McAdams, D. P., & Josselson, R. (2004). Introduction. In A. Lieblich, D. P. McAdams, & R. Josselson (Eds.), Healing plots: The narrative basis of psychotherapy (pp. 3–9). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Liu, W. M. (2002). The social class-related experiences of men: Integrating theory and practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 355–360. Mahalik, J. R., Good, G. E., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2003). Masculinity scripts, presenting concerns, and help seeking: Implications for practice and training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 123–131. McLeod, J. (2004). The signiﬁcance of narrative and storytelling in postpsychological counseling and psychotherapy. In A. Lieblich, D. P. McAdams, & R. Josselson (Eds.), Healing plots: The narrative basis of psychotherapy (pp. 11–27). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Scott, K. L., & Crooks, C. V. (2004). Effecting change in maltreating fathers: Critical principles for intervention planning. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 95–111. Sue, D. (2001). Asian American masculinity and therapy. In G. Brooks & G. Good (Eds.), The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men (pp. 780–795). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tennen, H., Afﬂeck, G., Armeli, S., & Carney, M. A. (2000). A daily process approach to coping: Linking theory, research, and practice. American Psychologist, 55, 626–636. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325. Wiseman, H., & Barber, J. P. (2004). The core conﬂictual relationship theme approach to relational narratives: Interpersonal themes in the context of intergenerational communication of trauma. In A. Lieblich, D. P. McAdams, & R. Josselson (Eds.), Healing plots: The narrative basis of psychotherapy (pp. 151–170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Index

A

B

Activity theory, 72 Adams-Blieszner-Ueno Integrative Framework for Friendships, 104–105, 119 Adoption, 157 Adult children, fathers’ involvement with increases in, 127–128 life course model, 129–131 LSOG study, 134–141 role theory, 133 solidarity-conﬂict model, 131–132 Affection appropriateness of, 152 biological status and, 156–157 deﬁned, 151 in father-son relationships, 150–151 hypotheses about, 153 with infants, 154 intergenerational transmission, 155 life course, 153–158 with male friends, 156 with young children, 154 Affective motif, 106 Affectual solidarity, 131–141 Age. See also Elders; Midlife collective interdependence and, 180–181, 184 emotional intimacy and, 223 group inﬂuences and, 187 social support and, 201 Alcoholics Anonymous, 188 Andalusia community, 8 Assimilation, 3–4 Associational solidarity, 132, 140 Attributions, gender-linked, 35

Behavior motif, 106 in negative social interactions, 207 processes, 113–114 stereotypes and, 170–171 Benevolent sexism, 55 Bly, Robert, 56–57, 59 Bonding fraternal, 82–84 insidious humor and, 59–60 paradoxes, 147–148 wilderness journeys, 58–59 Boston gender styles study analysis, 182 classiﬁcations, 175–177 coding, 175 collective interdependence, 177–182 conceptual models, 173–174 conclusions, 189–191 deﬁnitions, 176, 177 informants, 172–173 measures, 172 results, 182–189 scales, 174–175 Boy code, 7 Breadwinner father, 129 Brothers. See Fraternal relationships

C Canadian General Social Survey, 108–109, 113 CCC. See Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)

231

232

INDEX

Children. See also Adult children; Father-son relationships affection with, 154 socialization, 199–200 Christianity, 56 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 53 Closeness barriers to, 151, 152 changes over time, 154 deﬁned, 151 hypotheses about, 153 Cognitive motifs, 106–107 processes, 116–117 schemas, 28 theory, 28 Collective interdependence, 167–191 age and, 180–181, 184 basis of, 168 Boston gender styles study and, 177–182 gender differences, 168–170 group interactions and, 187–188 masculine efﬁgies, 178–179 Parkville study, 172 race and, 181–182 social class and, 181, 184 Common couple violence, 204 Competitiveness, 112 Conﬂicts cross-sex identity, 9 generational, 132 in gay relationships, 116 marital, 207, 209 Consensual solidarity, 131–132, 141 Contacts, frequency of, 113 Contenders, 63 Controllers, 63 Controlling, case study, 72–75 Costs of caring, 204, 211 Covert intimacy perspective, 153 Cross-sex friendships, 111 Cross-sex identity conﬂict, 9 Cultural scripts American, 16–18 generalization of, 23–24 masculinity and, 6–8 Sudanese, 14–18

Culture deﬁned, 28 emotional expression and, 54 gender and, 4–8 male insecurity and, 8–10

D Dating, 62 Density, friendships, 109–110 Development, gender, 7 Diminished stereotypical masculinity (DSM), 177 Dinka societies, 10–12, 14–15 Disengagement theory, 72 Division of labor, 10–11 Divorce, 16, 157–158 DSM. See Diminished stereotypical masculinity (DSM) Dystonic dependency, 30

E East Africa. See Sudan Efﬁgies, masculine, 178–179 Ego-mastery style, 35 Elders dystonic dependent, 30 initiation roles, 56–57 relationships, research directions, 225–227 syntonic dependent, 30–31 Emotional closeness, 69 Emotional intelligences, 75 Emotions expressions of, 60 in friendships, 115–116 male bonding and, 58–60 in negative social interactions, 208–209 reason dichotomy, 54 Evolutionary theory, 171 Extravagant expressiveness, 54

F Face-to-face friendships, 103 Faggot, etymology of, 62 Fantasies, sexual, 64–65

Index Father-son relationships affection in, 150–151, 153–158 biological status and, 156–157 closeness of, 150–151, 153–158 divorce and, 157–158 evolutionary aspects, 149 fraternal relationships vs., 149–150 importance of, 148 literature on, 150 masculinity and, 151–153 paradox of, 147–148 role-inadequacy perspective, 150 Fathers, historical types, 129 Fear, 55–56, 61 Femininity measures, 35 Fishing, 57–58 Focus-group method, 13 Fraternal relationships baby boomers, 91–97 bonding in, 82–84 caveats, 98 closeness in, 81–82, 152 father-son relationships vs., 149–150 intimacy research literature, 84–86 power balances in, 149 Friendships affective processes, 115–116 behavioral processes, 113–115 changes in, 117 cognitive processes, 116–117 competitiveness in, 112 density, 109–110 frequency of contact, 113 hierarchy, 112 homogeneity, 110–112 interactive motifs, 105–108 interactive processes, 113–115 internal structures, 108–112 opposite-sex, 110–111 research literature, 118–119 social support, 115 talking, 114

G Gagnon, John, 5 Gays and lesbians. See Homosexuality Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, 63

233

Gender. See also Masculinity culture and, 4–8 linked self-attributions, 35 schemas, 28 self-attributions, 37–39 shifts, 29–31 socialization, 4–5 stereotypes, 170–171 training, 61 Gender closeness perspective, 153 Gender differences childhood socialization, 199–200 in collective interdependence, 168–170 friendships, 107–119 involvement factors, 202–203 negative interactions, 203–206, 203–211 nurturing aspects, 201–202 research conclusions, 211–212 social support, 200–201 Gender scripts American, 21–23 changes in, 221–222 concept of, 5 General Social Survey, 83 Great Depression, 52–53, 129 Group focus theories, 170–171 Group interactions, 187–188 Gutmann, David, 28–29

H Heterosexual relationships controlling, case study, 72–75 emotional closeness, 69 façades in, 68 male silence, 69 philandering, case study, 70–72 Hierarchy, friendships, 112 Homogeneity, friendship, 110–112 Homosexual relationships change considerations, 75–76 cognitive processes in, 116 committed, 64–66 competitive, 67–68 domestic arrangements, 64–65 establishing, 63–64

234

INDEX

Homosexuality fear of, 61 prostitution and, 58 ritualized, 63 Hunting, 57

I Identity theory, 133 Immigrants, 3–4 Impersonators, masculine, 62–63 Initiation rituals, 11–12, 56–57 Insidious humor, 59–60 Instrumental sexuality, 60 Intelligence, emotional, 75 Interactive motifs, 105–108 Interdependence, collective, 167–191 Internal structures characteristics, 108 density, 109–110 network size, 108–109 Intimacy baby boomers, 91–97 caveats, 98 literature, 84–86 psychological positions on, 85–86 20-year longitudinal study, 86–91

J Jacobs, John, 56 Job insecurity, 227 Jokes, 59–60 Jung, Carl, 28–29

K Kenya, Sudanese refugees in, 4 Kikuyu society, 56–57 Kimmel, Michael, 28, 52 Knauft, Bruce, 63

L Language, heterosexual, 68 Life course perspective

implications for, 227–229 in father-son relationships, 153–158 principles of, 129–131 Life Structure Interview, 36 Life-span development principle, 129–130 Linked-lives principle, 130–131 Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG) conclusion, 141–143 discussion, 139–141 generation sequential design, 136–137 longitudinal design, 137–138 measures, 135–136 methods, 134–135 results, 136–141 Lost Boys description, 4 marriage and, 18, 19–20 parenthood and, 20–21 traditional rites, loss of, 11–13

M Manhood. See Masculinity Manhood in America (Kimmel), 52 Manly emotions, 54 Marriage Lost Boys, 18–20 Parkville study, 39–43 perceived advantages of, 27 reactions to conﬂicts in, 207, 209 relationship measures, 36 Masculine efﬁgies, 178–179, 184–187 Masculine impersonators, 62–63 Masculinity benevolent sexism, 55 bonding rituals and, 58–59 Christianity and, 56 comparative perspectives, 10–12 core, 29 cultural scripts, 6–8 dating and, 62 deﬁnitions of, 224 father-son relationships and, 151–153 fear and, 55–56

Index gender script in, 5 gender training and, 61 homophobia and, 61 markers of, 68–69 matching image of, 62–63 measures, 35 middle-class standards, 6–8 personality characteristics, 53–54 power and, 55 rites of, 56–58 self-deﬁnitions of, 167–168 May, Larry, 72 Mead, Margaret, 6 Mental health, 37–39 Middle-class standards, 6–8 Midlife deﬁned, 27 fathers-adult children relationships, 127–143 friendships, 109–119 parenting, 223 relationships, research directions, 225–227 Miles, Catherine Cox, 53 Muscular Christianity, 56 Myths, function of, 56

N Negative interactions behavioral responses, 207 emotional responses, 208–209 everyday, 204 gender differences, 203–206 physical violence, 204–205 physiological responses, 209–210 psychological violence, 204–205 signiﬁcant-other stress, 205–206 New Warriors, 59 Northern California Community Study, 108–110 Nuer societies, 10–12, 14–15 Nurturant father, 129 Nurturing, 201–202

O Opposite-sex friendships, 110–111 Organizational framework, 104–105

235

P Parental imperative theory, 222 Parenting changes in, 127–128 identity theory, 133 life course perspective, 129–131 Lost Boys and, 20–21 midlife, 223 multifaceted aspects, 127 role theory, 133 solidarity-conﬂict model, 131–132 Parkville study conclusions, 44–46 data-collection, 33 function of, 27 gender self-attributions, 37–39 gender styles, 172 implications, 44–46 male vulnerability, 43–44 marital politics patterns, 39–43 measures, 35–37 mental health, 37–39 participants, 31–32 therapeutic implications, 46–48 Peer-delinquent prostitutes, 58 Peers, homophobic, 61 Philandering, 62–63, 70–72 Physical violence, 204–205 Physiological responses, 209–210 Political systems, East African, 10–11 Power balances, sibling, 149 Power Team, 56 Power, masculinity and, 55 Prostitution, homosexual, 58 Psychological violence, 204–205

R Race, 181–182 Reason-emotion dichotomy, 54 Relational victimization, 205 Ritualized Homosexuality in Melanesia (Herdt), 63 Role theory, 133 Role-inadequacy perspective, 150 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 53

236

INDEX

S Sambia community, 8 Scripts. See Cultural scripts; Gender scripts Self-construals, 168 Self-descriptions. See Self-construals Self-disclosure, 114 Semen depletion, 8 Sexism, benevolent, 55 Sexism, humor and, 60 Sexual fantasies, 64–65 Sexuality, assertiveness and, 8 Sexuality, instrumental, 60 Siblings. See Fraternal relationships Side-by-side friendships, 103 Signiﬁcant-other stress, 205–206 Simon, William, 5 Slim’s Table (Duneier), 106 Social class, 181, 184 Social relationships chapter ﬁndings, 224–225 gender differences, 197–203 negative interactions, 203, 206–211 new research directions, 225–227 therapy implications, 227–229 Social role theory, 170–171 Social scripting, 5 Social support, 200–201 Socialization children, 199–200 focus on, 3 gender, 4–5, 61 Socioanalytic theory, 171 Solidarity, 131–132, 140–141 Solidarity-conﬂict model, 131–132 Southern trek, 11–12 Spirituality. See Christianity Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, 53 Status-envy hypothesis, 9 Stepsons, 157 Stereotypes, 170–171 Sudan divorce in, 16 male-female cultural scripts, 14–18 manhood measures, 17 refugees from, 4 social ties in, 10–11

Sudanese Americans intimacy issues, 16–18 marital issues, 19–20 parenthood and, 20–21 Syntonic dependency, 30–31

T Talking, friendship and, 114 TAT. See Thematic apperception test (TAT) Terman, Lewis, 53 Thematic apperception test (TAT), 35 Therapy female, 46–48 implications, 227–229 masculine, 46–48 Time and place principle, 129

U United States, 16–23

V Victimization, relational, 205 Violence, 204–205, 208 Vulnerability, 43–44

W Wayne, John, 7 Wild Man retreats, 59 Wilderness journeys, 58–59 Women. See also Gender differences American, fear of, 17–18 cultural scripts, 14–18 emotions and, 54 insecurity towards, 8–10 linguistic domination of, 60 marital politics, 39–43 physical appearance, 65 therapists for, 46–47 World War II generation, 47