Problematising the “strengths-based approach” to masculinity
A “strengths-based approach” to masculinity is a tool for engaging men and boys for gender equality, but what is it, when is it useful and when is it not?I believe the strengths-based approach as it is frequently used in the sector has at least three problems:
1. It freezes discussions around masculinity around framing meant for reaching resistant men instead of being a tool that can be used sequentially taking men where they are and progressing to bigger things including contentious and critical discussions of men and patriarchy.
2. It is frequently used in gender essentialist ways, essentialising the idea of what it means to be a man leaning on masculine coded ideas such as perseverance, intelligence, and ironically strength itself to appeal to men’s already existing investment in masculinity and manhood.
3. The approach as most western psychology is, is inherently individualising, focusing on the strengths of individual men instead of seeking to take an expansive and collectivist view of wellbeing.
At the end of this blog I suggest an alternative approach.
What is a strengths based approach?
A strengths-based approach has been touted as a way out of the double bind where simultaneously hegemonic masculinity is socialising men into harmful patriarchal beliefs while society is generally failing to provide alternative narratives for men to see a role for themselves as men in society. It builds on positive and empowering messages instead of blame or deficiency.
The strengths-based approach in short is a discursive tool that seeks to pull away from the idea of a “toxic masculinity” and instead present masculinity as something that can be positive, healthy, or transformative.
In practice is looks like this:
“Instead of a man coming in and you going these are all of your problems, they come in and you go this is what we can build on, this is what you are coming with, these are your strengths and this is what we need to prop up because the more of these positive behaviours that we have the better it’s going to be for everyone.” (Bateman, 2019, p. 29)
Because traditional/patriarchal masculinities are associated with a higher likelihood to hurt yourself and others (Malonda-Vidal, Samper-García, Llorca-Mestre, Muñoz-Navarro, & Mestre-Escrivá, 2021), psychologists interested in men’s health have begun to consider what it means to bring a “positive masculinity” to men’s health and this approach is logical. So much research into masculinity is focused on the negative, indeed such a popular negative view of masculinity is also harmful and not serving the needs of men.
Hence the creation of a strengths-based approach.
On the one hand proponents have got the right idea, overtly critical language that demonises or shames men is not only ineffective in reaching (resistant) men, but it also generates significant backlash (Flood, 2018, p. 134), pushing men away from gender equality/feminism and into the manosphere.
So what are the problems with it?
Freezing frames
It is true, you need to use different frames and narratives to meet men at different stages of their journey with gender equality and feminism. Russel Funk’s continuum of male engagement is a useful tool for visualising how to think of men’s engagement.
The strengths-based approach can be a useful tool for lowering the resistances of overtly-hostile to uninterested men enough to begin conversations in good faith about gender equality and the harms of feminism.
However, this must be balanced with the need for programming to be gender-transformative. Gupta’s continuum of approaches to action on gender and health is another tool to think about how profound the messaging/interventions are in disrupting the patriarchal status quo.
For instance, “Real men do not hit women. They protect them, provide for them,” is not a gender transformative message. It is certainly one that will appeal to many resistant men because it appeals to existing norms of patriarchy. A gender transformative approach would instead be more likely to question “why are you so invested in being seen as manly?” or even “women don’t need protectors; they need co-conspirators to destroy the patriarchal order.”
While most likely not what is intended by proponents of a strengths-based approach, in practice what I have witnessed is that feminist-lite manfluencers, but who are not truly invested or accountable to feminism, use the strengths-based approach as cover to criticise more radical criticisms of men, masculinity, and patriarchy as being alienating or harmful.
Because the strengths-based approach holds such mainstream acceptance amongst respected voices for its situational usage, this endorsement unfortunately is used as carte blanche by some to speak of it as useful in all cases.
More broadly speaking however, while I recognise the approach’s pragmatism, I am perturbed by having to curb messages to appeal to men’s fragility. White supremacy is also a contentious term that creates significant backlash from white people, but we don’t see it as correct to ask BIPOC communities to use a “strengths-based approach” to appeal to white people do we?
Gender essentialism
Building on from the above issue, strength-based approaches frequently rely upon gender essentialist notions of men and boys by definition.
Because a strengths-based approach is meant for reaching men still invested to some degree in patriarchy, it appeals to some of the more prosocial or at least less harmful aspects of patriarchal masculinity. To be a protector, provider, honourable, or strong are not negative in a vacuum, they become harmful when plugged into a broader patriarchal system.
Skilled facilitators, activists, and academics will always be able to navigate this tension. I have no doubt that there are people using a strengths-based approach in ways that problematise such simple appeals to the patriarchal order. However again as with the freezing frames criticism, this is a tool that is situational, one that should not form the backbone of an engagement with men.
What is also needed in work with men is break the western gender binary and reveal the way in which society codes things as either masculine or feminine and undervaluing the “feminine”. It must build interest in men in the things that patriarchy says are “for women” and view the entire binary for the absurdity it is, we must have men disinvest from the gender binary and thus the need to be seen as masculine altogether.
A healthy relationship to masculinity is one where if questioned or called a woman, a man goes “So? What’s wrong with being a woman?”
A strengths-based approach can never reach this stage because if it is a tool for reaching resistant men then by definition it must appeal to the existing values and beliefs of resistant men.
Individualising the problem
Strength-based approaches may not always be individualising; however, I have witnessed how in discussions of men’s health from a psychological or public health perspective it sometimes is.
The Positive Psychology/Positive Masculinity Model (PPPM) (Kiselica & Englar-Carlson, 2010) is an example of the use of the strengths-based approach that exemplifies some of the above criticisms. It puts forward the idea that men need narratives and examples of a “positive masculinity” that can be used in opposition to the harmful expressions of traditional masculinity — cool.
In their own words the goal of the PPPM “is to help male clients distinguish and embrace healthy and adaptive aspects of their own masculinity” (Englar-Carlson & Kiselica, 2013). It “outlines 10 traditionally oriented strengths of men: male relational style, male ways of caring, self-reliance, generative fathering, fraternal organizations of service, worker-provider tradition, male courage, daring and risk taking, humour, and heroism”.
Importantly and to be charitable to Englar-Carlson and Kiselica, they follow up that none of these above traits are necessarily male-specific, that women too can display all, that they are not biologically based, and can be considered human strengths. They note it is for new male clients, saying “for new male clients, assessing and focusing on strengths may offer a familiar starting point for further discussion about difficulties”.
It should be obvious however that beyond being in no way gender-transformative, this is also an individualising approach. It is a tool for psychologists to use with men new to therapy or discussing their own masculinity, “any conversation about male strengths and positive masculinity would need to be conducted within a framework that embraces the context of one’s identity.” (2013, p. 402)
Why is individualising a problem? It is the hidden white supremacist bias in all of academia and the west that results in conversations about allyship in terms of “support” and “help” (and thus choice), instead of solidarity, interdependence and interconnected wellbeing (and thus necessity).
Hegemonic masculinity certainly lives within individuals, but it also exists as a societal construction with social pressures. Working on individual men’s own relationship to masculinity is important, but so is ensuring that there is a community of men and women who will embrace and celebrate new expressions of masculinity as well. Problematising the patriarchy for one man will mean nothing if his partner, colleagues, friends, and peers will put him down for it. Moreover, the approach does little to show how the work for alleviating the harm of patriarchy on men is the same as that of feminism altogether and must be linked to women’s empowerment.
Conclusion: what’s the alternative?
Strength-based approaches have their place, while not my cup of tea when working with men and boys, I respect and acknowledge that there are skilled facilitators and activists that know how to avoid these pitfalls and truly make impactful change, thank you for existing, I’ve learned a lot from you.
I instead prefer to work on a liberational basis, working to reject and disinvest from the patriarchy/masculinity, and to find collectivist rationales for working with and being accountable to feminism, queer communities and women.
How do I do this?
Instead of focusing on strengths and individuals, I ask men to explain and define feminist concepts such as patriarchy, the gender binary, and ask them how it feels to be expected to meet these expectations. We tell personal stories of when we learned different lessons about what it means to be a man, from caregivers, TV or videogames, and talk about whether those lessons still serve us. When are they helpful, when are they not?
This approach, instead of appealing to existing values men have asks men to reflect on their own feelings of discomfort with patriarchy. Instead of opening the door via a strengths-based approach, I open the door by asking men to be critical, exposing the way patriarchy does not serve men and the ways patriarchy holds them back from their goals.
From here we can build to bigger things such as disinvestment, calling out other men, and repair and reconciliation for the harm we ourselves have generated to others. Importantly however, I lean on decolonial scholar activists and philosophers such as Lilla Watson and Paulo Freire in suggesting that the wellbeing we as men are after are the same goals the movement for feminist and queer liberation have, that the call to be a traitor to patriarchy is also one to find community with other liberationist movements — to view their wellbeing as our wellbeing and recognise our link/complicity to their struggles. I will never be free of the harm of patriarchy and cisheteronormativity until women and queer communities are as well.
Instead of bending to the existing patriarchal resistance, tip toeing around men’s rejection, I ask men if they’re happy with what society expects of them and give them space to share the discomfort they feel with all the contradicting expectations placed on them by patriarchy.
In my experience, even the most sexist men love to complain about patriarchy.
Bibliography
Bateman, J. K. (2019). Leveraging concepts of masculinity for better mental health outcomes for men. Retrieved from https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/129097/1/BatemanJK_2019_Hons.pdf
Englar-Carlson, M., & Kiselica, M. S. (2013). Affirming the Strengths in Men: A Positive Masculinity Approach to Assisting Male Clients. Journal of counseling and development, 399–409.
Flood, M. (2018). Engaging Men and Boys in Violence Prevention. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kiselica, M. S., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2010). Identifying, affirming, and building upon male strengths: The Positive Psychology/Positive Masculinity model of psychotherapy with boys and men. Psychotherapy Theory Research Practice Training, 276–287.
Malonda-Vidal, E., Samper-García, P., Llorca-Mestre, A., Muñoz-Navarro, R., & Mestre-Escrivá, V. (2021). Traditional Masculinity and Aggression in Adolescence:. Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 1–12. doi:10.3390/ijerph18189802
