Men as Creators and Subjects Across Disciplines and Cultures

Share / Compartir

Shares

Admittedly, since history has favored, or at the very least highlighted, male participation in nearly every culture and discipline, i.e., 1) the systematic inclusion of all sorts of works by men in the “canons,” as well as 2) amplified information about the historical efforts by men in the arts & life in general, in addition to 3) how men have been characterized in socio-cultural & artistic fields, this volume may seem unnecessary and/or repetitive. However, this emphasis on males changed fairly dramatically by the mid-Twentieth Century when womyns’ works and attention to same began to be included systematically pretty much across-the-board, if slowly and very selectively.[1] Yet, the nearly total absence and/or misrepresentation of those three aspects, inclusion in the canons, in history, in socio-cultural & artistic fields, and associated details for centuries, emphasizes the need for continued focus and cross-foci on both genders, especially on the comparative, though generally focused on the masculine perspective[2] in this particular volume.

Men as Creators and Subjects Across Disciplines and Cultures crosses and compares multiple world cultures, time, disciplines, and genres as the chapters of this second volume in the series highlight men as both creators (by) and as subjects (about). A unique aspect of this particular volume is how gender issues[3] are “crossed” and “re-crossed,” addressed and framed by contributors, e.g., an essay on masculine psychology examined by a feminine researcher; a masculine protagonist in a short story by a feminine writer; opinions and views of feminine inclusion in a major religion’s practice by a masculine “authority,”[4]as explicated by a feminine researcher; and an examination of said authority’s view of humankind by a masculine political scientist; a history-based study of indigenous masculine roles and interactions; the effects of (a lack of) attention to gender in science and social institutions (in this case, energy production); critiques of masculine roles in literary works by masculine authors, addressed by both feminine and masculine critics; the influence of feminine “muses” on the art of a famously misogynist studio artist by a masculine critic, and more.

The wide diversity of the contributors/collaborators, their personal and professional perspectives and insights as a result, allows for an amazing breadth of information about so many aspects of the theme of the volume. Both of the volumes so far, Women as Creators and Subjects Across Disciplines and Cultures and Men as Creators and Subjects Across Disciplines and Cultures, in this series, Across Disciplines and Cultures, like the eight volumes of the previous series, Amerindian,  Spanish, Latin American & Latino Worlds, feature a majority of repeat  contributors/collaborators with the loss of a few and the addition of several in each volume.

While I personally know all of the invited contributors/collaborators to each volume[5] and some of them already know each other personally or professionally, some have met post-participation, and some have never met in person, almost none have ever read the chapters submitted by their co-contributors/collaborators before the publication of a volume. However, as editor, I provide a unifying theme of each volume to be interpreted by each contributor/collaborator according to specialty and interest. It then remains to me to tie those chapters together and segue from one to the other in the organization of the volume in parts and sub-parts, as well as via introductions to each of same. To a person, according to post-publication inter-communications, we agree that we have always accessed new–and interesting, if not directly applicable to our own specialities–information, perspectives, and insights from each volume.

This particular volume is organized in two broad categories of men as creators and men as subjects. Ordinarily, because the title, mirroring the format of the first volume’s title, names creators first, the chapters dealing with them would appear first, followed by subjects, as in the first volume with womyn as creators and subjects. However, with the additional perspectives of cross and re-cross-gender, of whomsoever is examining the creator or subject role of men in this volume, I felt it more appropriate to introduce the content of the volume with the latter, men as subjects, in Part I.In the case of the specialties of psychology, literature, religion, and anthropology, four feminine writers elucidate Part I A) the psyche of men in general in terms of their anima (Jung’s term for gender behaviour associated with the feminine) by a feminine counsellor; B) a  masculine character created by a feminine writer; C1) the ramifications of a masculine real-life religious power figure’s views on womyn by a feminine religious scholar; and D) the stereotypical interactions, bonding behaviors, among historical indigenous men as the traditional warriors, by a feminine anthropologist. Still within Part I, the chapters by the two masculine examiners in the sections of social institutions, religion and economics/energy production, C2)first examine that same religious power figure’s views as in the previous chapter–but about both sexes; and E) the eco-economist details the ramifications of (a lack of) gender consciousness in socio-economic institutions like energy production.

Part II moves to chapters featuring three masculine creators of literature: one dramatic work and two novels, the first two chapters by feminine critics and the third by a masculine one. The first chapter deals with the gendered behavior of the masculine character in the underdog role in drama, still a stereotypically active, masculine role, if not the usual masculine power position. The second chapter details the gendered behavior of masculine characters in traditionally masculine power roles, leaders, such as detective and soldier, and the third chapter highlights so-called failed or broken masculinity by not conforming to the traditionally-dictated (macho?) role behavior for husband.

Both chapters of Part III also focus on the examination by a masculine examiner, in this case, addressing a single masculine creator, a stereotypically macho-type, whose works not only depict feminine subjects, who may (or may not) be depictions of the womyn in his real life–but whose production is very frequently very affected in other ways by the artist’s real-life cyclical relationships with numerous womyn.

So, how does the gender of the masculine creator or the examiner of the masculine subject, the psychologist or the writer or the critic, play into her/his  examination of the masculine psyche, the masculine character, the masculine writer of policy or of literature, the masculine studio artist? Why do I as editor place such emphasis on the cross and re-cross gender issues of the chapter authors themselves and/or those of the masculine creator and subject and/or those addressing the content of the chapters? This idea of why cross or re-cross gender may give insights and/or perspectives is NOT related to diverse-gender or transgender issues or gender identity in any way, all of which are more biological and/or chemical, if admittedly affecting behaviors which may or may not be traditionally associated with, or dictated to, one sex or the other. To explain why I so emphasize, I cite an article in the journal, Gender Studies, which defines cross-sex friendships in a much closer definition to that of the cross or re-cross gender authorship or critique or examination or interaction to which I refer:

Cross-sex friendships, or friendships between people of different genders, have long been a subject of interest in both psychological research and social discourse. While friendship is a universal human experience, the dynamics between male and female friends can be complex and layered with societal expectations, gender norms, and individual desires. In this post, we will explore what cross-sex friendships are, the challenges that arise from them, and how gender differences impact these relationships. By understanding these key aspects, we can better navigate the nuances of cross-sex friendships and recognize both the benefits and potential hurdles they present.[6]

By substituting those aforementioned cross or re-cross gender role terms of authorship, critique, examination, or interaction for “friendship” or friend(s), while not necessarily as recognized or formalized an area of research as that of friendship/friends(s), a general feel for how useful awareness and consideration of cross or re-cross-gender authorship, critique, or interaction may be formally elucidated. The same challenges as for cross-sex friendship/friend(s) hold for these cross or re-cross gender authors, critics, and participants: potential (mis)interpretation, potentially exacerbated by societal expectations and stereotypes, their own socialization, communication styles, etc.[7]

While these same “friendship” factors naturally, even unconsciously, affect how individual contributors deal with “subject” content, as I edit this volume featuring cross and re-cross gender concerns, I am reminded of numerous works about gender interactions, i.e.,  competition (more traditionally associated with masculine interactions) vs. cooperation (more traditionally associated with feminine interactions). Thomas Hobbes wrote specifically about men and competition and the ramifications in the 16^th century—but (admittedly centuries later) Nicolas Choquette-Levy, in Masculine Identity and the Double-Edged Sword of Competition, not only asked “In what ways does competition shape the expression (italics mine) of our identities, particularly for men-identified folks?”[8] He also notably commented on the role of competition in  cross-gender interactions post-a summer research program in which he participated, which inspired the aforementioned article. I quote from the article extensively, as I am convinced that his observations are central to this book treating men as creators, as well as to the effect of how the gender of the writer or critic or examiner affects the treatment of men as subjects. Choquette-Levy observes that

[When] supervisors announced there would be a prize for the best student paper to come out of the cohort . . . [across gender lines] we still remained friendly, but there was something unmistakably different about the tenor of our interactions. People started gossiping about who would win the award, and gradually many of our interactions changed from a frame of appreciative inquiry–the feeling that we were all on a journey, learning from each other–to one of judging and critiquing each other’s work. This subtle shift also had gender implications: the people who were rumored to be favorites for the award were almost all men, even though the female students had clearly done equally impressive work, and the male students tended to take up more conversation space whenever discussions turned toward the award . . . I couldn’t shake the feeling that we lost a little bit of what made the experience special the day we heard about the award, and I was especially curious to explore the gender implications of competition. We know from psychological research that competition is often associated with “agentic” or “masculine” identities, whereas “feminine” or “communal” identities are often associated with cooperation . . . How does competition contribute to our identities as men, and in what ways might it suppress expression of our full, holistic selves? . . . I also found that I subconsciously presented a competitive “front” to my male colleagues–emphasizing that I was confident about my work and knew what I was doing–while often relying on female colleagues to express my doubts and cultivate non-competitive relationships. Again, what consequences might these behavioral patterns have for the ability of others to express their complex identities, whether it be other men who were also looking for non-competitive friendships, or women who want to be perceived as fierce competitors?

Conversely and prior, ever so many feminists, not always womyn,[9] too many to detail here–this book is not about competition vs. cooperation specifically but only about how those styles of interaction affect creators and subjects and examiners of those concepts according to gender as a secondary interest–have recognized and written about feminine and masculine interactive styles, though usually with an overlay of comparison in order to highlight the  arguably neglected feminine psyche and productions, especially given the time period and “raised consciousness”[10]of the late 20^th Century, rather than to examine the male psyche and the effect of interactive style on both genders, as does Choquette-Levy. The aforementioned “feminists,” if you will, were, in my experience, the first to emphasize the effects of a  (masculine) competitive style vs. a (feminine) cooperating style. An interesting question to consider in more detail across disciplines and cultures specifically is how and how much have those interactive styles been factors in gender/power relationships and male-dominated history?

In any case, read on for examinations of Men as Creators and Subjects Across Disciplines and Cultures!

*This fragment belongs to the title Men as Creators and Subjects Across Disciplines and Cultures and you can find it here 

Notes

[1] In a personal opinion/concern footnote by the editor, I have read (and am horrified by) a New York Times/The Upshot report on a spring 2025 study, It’s Not Just a Feeling: Data Shows Boys and Young Men Are Falling Behind, which states that “In the United States, researchers say several economic and social changes have combined to change boys’ and men’s trajectories. School has changed in ways that favor girls, and work has changed in ways that favor women . . . boys have always lagged girls in certain areas, yet there has been little focus on their issues, perhaps because men have dominated in so many spheres” more than implying that gains for womyn mean losses for men, which leads to my concern in the footnote immediately after this one. In Part I A, Loris talks of related issues on the part of the post-womyn’s liberation, seemingly reactive, the contemporary “highly controversial men’s movement.” The MAVRIC Project at Princeton University, which published an article from which I will quote later in this Preface, may be an example, if in a more inclusive rather than exclusive sense.

[2] In a second, related-to-the-first personal opinion/concern footnote by the editor, I observe, to my chagrin and horror, the seeming reversal of progress for womyn world-wide in the socio-political sphere. (See reference in the prior volume in this series to the Chinese campaign in the earliest years of the 2020s for “traditional” roles for womyn and calls for population growth via encouraged/expanded society-wide child-birthing.) I also note that the results of the 2024 election have birthed a current U.S. political power environment calling for same. The New York Times has christened this throwback phenomenon in numerous articles, as pronatalism.

[3] As the editor, I actively made the decisions in the majority of cases to  usually use references to feminine and/or womyn vis-a-vis masculine and/or men, rather than the derivative (wo)men and/or (fe)male, as well as to gender (actions and behaviors) rather than to sex (physical biology).

[4] Sadly, Pope Francis has passed away just as this volume comes to press (April 2025).

[5] I have found many contributors/collaborators to various volumes via hearing their appropriate-to-the-theme  presentations at scholarly conferences, then contacting them for discussion about an upcoming theme and publication plan, and inviting them to participate.

[6] “Cross-sex Friendship: Understanding the Challenges and Benefits,” Gender Studies. Apr. 20, 2024. Cross-sex Friendship: Understanding the Challenges and Benefits » Gender Studies.

[7] In the initial paragraph of Introduction to Part I A and to Part I B of this volume, I note three books which outline the challenges during cross-sex communications, followed by an episode of cross-sex or gender controversy.

[8]MAVRIC (Men’s Allied Voices for a Respectful and Inclusive Community) Project, Feb. 19, 2020. Masculinity and the Double-Edged Sword of Competition by Nicolas Choquette-Levy |  Masculinity and the Double-Edged Sword of Competition by Nicolas Choquette-Levy | Men’s Allied Voices for a Respectful & Inclusive Community (MAVRIC) Project.

[9] List of feminist literature – Wikipedia. Some of my personal favorites are In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan and the three-volume series by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, not to mention those by the “big names” of feminist theory and practice in the second half of the 20^thcentury.

[10] Used in this case as the term used by feminists of the women’s liberation movement of the second half of the 20^th century to call attention to the recognition of gender differences and inclusion.

*Foto de Charlota Blunarova en Unsplash

©Literal Publishing. Queda prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de esta publicación. Toda forma de utilización no autorizada será perseguida con lo establecido en la ley federal del derecho de autor.

Las opiniones expresadas por nuestros colaboradores y columnistas son responsabilidad de sus autores y no reflejan necesariamente los puntos de vista de esta revista ni de sus editores, aunque sí refrendamos y respaldamos su derecho a expresarlas en toda su pluralidad. / Our contributors and columnists are solely responsible for the opinions expressed here, which do not necessarily reflect the point of view of this magazine or its editors. However, we do reaffirm and support their right to voice said opinions with full plurality.

Posted: December 10, 2025 at 10:43 pm