Masculinity: Critiquing pop-psychology and writing from a pastor: pt. 1

Some of those in the generation before mine (and of mine) like to hark on “emerging” adults. Just listen to this post from NPR a few years ago. Let’s take a look at the first podcast and the idea of compartmentalizing different stages of life.

There is talk of adulthood as being something that is “entered” into, like it’s a door that is simply walked through or the sum of responsibilities that are had. Do this, this and that and you will be an adult.

These activities, of course are arbitrary, at best, and juvenile at worst as ways to define adulthood. 

Economic independence, owning personal property, starting a family and having a steady job are standards created by a 20^th century western culture. It’s hard to say that these are definite standards of adulthood. Therefore, my critique is not of the posting on NPR’s website, but the foundational thinking behind it, that there is a definite standard that can be governed by outward activities that define adulthood and that this standard is absolute.

Perhaps you have read the alpha male article, “The world is filled with boys who can shave” by Pastor Mark Driscoll. He starts out by saying this: “Historically, a guy would go through two life phases: boy, then man.” This is very problematic to me because if this is the basis of historical accuracy and interpretation of religious documents, it is quite incorrect.

Even more troubling is the definition of what it then means to grow into adulthood:

1. “Leave your parents' home (Gen. 2:24);

2. Finish your education or vocational training;

3. Start a career-track job, not a dead-end-Joe job;

4. Meet a woman, love her, honor her, court her, and marry her;

5. Have children with her.”

This is not historical. This is 20^th century Western idealism (particularly of America). Many peoples and people groups (Christian and otherwise) don’t typically follow this model. If this is the actual model of adulthood, then most of the human race is then counted out. Those who work under the father, those who become monks, those who stay single and travel-write, those who become ambassadors, explorers, missionaries, those who can’t have children, those who don’t want children (at the very least not as a step-by-step process in adulthood), etc.

Next, is the idea that we are childish consumers? My issue is not whether this is true or not. My issue is the exclusivity in the language presented here. We are born in a consumerist culture. Our economy is consumer based. Mr. Driscoll goes on the attack as if separate from it. No one is, unless one would claim to be a perfect man. And I’ve watched him preach. The guy dresses quite nicely. He has a nice, big, modern, mega-church. This, I don’t say, with negative connotation, but simply as a way to show that we can’t possibly stand against something we are ourselves are doing, regardless of how we would try to justify it. I could understand this coming from a monk, but a not trendy (not using that as a pejorative) pastor.

Next: Cowards and complainers.

This section is attacking the stereotype of a slacker. But what it actually ends up doing is damning those who participate in any of those activities. Video games, guitars, clothes, cars and whatnot are bad because they are only presented in this article as things that are bad It’s silly and poorly rounded writing.

What bothers me most about exclusive criticism is that it is hypocritical. It fails to acknowledge that whatever standard we have of manhood is one that we ourselves fail to keep.

Admission to regular failure is an essential part of true humanity. You fail as a worker, spouse, significant other, parent, religious member, etc. You are not perfect. Therefore you should not be teaching. You should be communicating what you believe to be true, not from your own experience (because no one truly cares about your experience because it is not their experience), but what you have learned through it.

What do I think of true masculinity? Stay tuned for part 2.