Iron John Rusts

IRON JOHN RUSTS

L. Stuart Norman, Jr.

I first read poet Robert Bly's popular book, "Iron John", over ten years ago and thought he had many correct observations about the dilemma of men in modern society, but something bothered me, a gay male perspective was missing, he didn't get it, he dismissed gay men as having little distinction from hetero men, and that is a serious mistake. I've just done a thorough critical rereading and reevaluation. Still, Bly has many things right, but the book and his insights are critically flawed. He presents only part of the picture puzzle. His analysis seems too traditional and his proposed solutions are incomplete. He is a better diagnostician than therapist and problem solver. Although Bly still is a major and active figure in the Men's Movement, where is it today? Did "Iron John" really make that much of a difference? None that I can see.

Bly derives his observations and solutions from stories of mythological archetypes and Jungian psychology that he thinks have relevance to modern men's dilemma. That he is primarily a poet and creative thinker gives him some insights that psychologists might not perceive. We have lost mythological thinking - archetypes of the deep psyche and spirit. It's not fact, science or religion, nor opposed to them. In this perspective I think he is right. It's just that he hasn't gone far enough. Bly is a very competent poet and perhaps mythopoeist , but as a psychologist he fails.

Bly hasn't offered a new role and ways for men to behave, to become relevant. His workshops have offered some therapeutics to deal with the grief of losing the traditional roles and reconciliation of their situations, perhaps ways to seek new roles. Unfortunately, It appears to me that Bly is far too accepting of patriarchal beliefs and Christian doctrines of masculine roles and offers little critique of them. The Iron John myth is patriarchal. This is troubling if he wants to make a deep mythopoeic analysis and apply it to liberate men.

Bly hardly takes any ideas from feminism or other modern liberation theories, but from an older and deeper mythological perspective. If he thinks that feminism doesn't have answers for today's men, why doesn't he offer a critique of it? It's as if it doesn't exist or isn't relevant to him. How can he ignore it when it has been such an important influence on our society?

It should be noted that feminism has been strongly influenced by lesbians; there's a significant influence by gay men in the Men's Movement (Why don't we call it "Masculinism"?), but it hasn't had a broad acceptance among men in general as has feminism among women. Many men, still seeing themselves as part of the dominant class, simply reject a need for a men's movement, therefore rejecting any need for self-examination and change, so they're stuck in a dysfunctional, dying tradition. The Men's Movement is on the fringe. Feminism is more mainstream.

Bly states that he doesn't see a significant difference between gay men and hetero men, but because of the self-examination gays have had to go through to understand and accept self and come out, his analysis demonstrates an ignorance of an important difference. Most hetero men just accept social programing without question, there's no challenge, but that program has been degrading rapidly since WWII. Even the new, nicer, feminist friendly "soft men" that Bly denigrates apparently haven't gone through any deep self-reevaluation. Bly's soft man has lost some energy. This is why manhood and male identity is still floundering, one of Bly's major assertions.

In my estimation, the biggest problem is that Bly has no idea of subject-subject consciousness, that insight of Harry Hay that defines how gay men or women relate to each other. Heteros operate on a subject-object consciousness, seeking a union or balance between opposites. Homosexuals operate on the recognition of a sameness in each other and seek a greater union of identity. These are distinctively different modes of relating. These modes of consciousness are not an exclusive prerogative of each gender; they can be perceived and learned by all genders. However, homosexuals usually understand subject-object consciousness because is is a social norm that all of us are taught from birth, but most heteros don't have a clue that this alternative consciousness exists.

Does Bly realize that most gay men have a better sense of and acceptance of the internal feminine and so understand women better than straight men? Most hetero men don't understand women and gay men. It's hard for them to see any relevance in gay life for the larger society. This is an area where gay men, who understand both hetero men and women, can help their hetero brothers. Gays are the social balancers.

Although Bly mentions the shaman role only briefly, why didn't he recognize and value the gender variant nature of such traditional tribal roles? He hasn't drawn on any of the many important gender-variant myths of the ancient world. It would seem that he has a block against gender variance and its importance. Gay men and women appear to be another two genders, just as different from each other as are hetero men from women. That makes at least four essential genders. However, Bly doesn't touch on gender issues, but at least recognizes and values the feminine side in men. In Jungian terms, that would be the anima.

Bly barely mentions the hermaphrodite - the ancient Greek myth about the union of Hermes (Mercury) and Aphrodite, a human having both male and female sexual organs, as an icon, but again he doesn't go very far. What is the significance of this dual sexuality? Is it balanced or androgynous - a true union of opposites? We tend to think that the rare, real hermaphrodite is an aberration, defective, requiring a cure, rather than a divine creation. Are gay males and lesbians considered by our society as something like hermaphrodites? Then, is gayness perceived as a wound in our society? It should be a gift to the community, as many tribal societies viewed it. Gay men have emotional scars because of this misunderstanding and rejection. It has caused some gay men to remove themselves from cultural and essential masculinity and the deep physical by rejecting what traditional roles are expected of them. Many gay men fear rejection by the father more than the mother, and more fathers are likely to reject gay sons than mothers. That's a different but also similar problem between hetero and homo men. We are all wounded men.

Where Bly scores an important point is the observation that our society is keeping men in perpetual adolescence - boys. Gay men have also been accused of being puer aeternus - the eternal boy, never wanting to grow up, call it the Peter Pan syndrome. That is according to a definition of a traditional male image belief, that gay men have abrogated responsibility to society because they will not play the traditional family role, but live selfish, hedonistic lives. However, a large number of people of all genders in our society are in an addictive state, being victims and co-dependent. That is an adolescent emotional response that can't perceive any solution, therefore stuck, unable to grow. It would then seem that all men have become Peter Pan.

It has been a very long time since matriarchal or gender balanced societies existed. Most of these were tribal or not far removed from tribal organization. Patriarchy arose when societies settled down into agricultural production, population grew and the state developed into a more complex bureaucracy and politics became institutionalized and less personal. Concepts of ownership arose. Hunter-gatherer roles were deprecated. Although these ancient societies were pagan and recognized earth-mother and sky-father, the father figure became dominant. The earth-mother goddess was on the way out. Women lost power and were relegated to second-class status. But a suppressed femininity has a darkness engendering fear - there is a formidable power that we cannot overcome. Even before the dominion of patriarchy, most early societies recognized dark sides to the Great Mother - devouring, but Great Father - absent. The ancient Egyptians had also a Sky Mother and Earth Father to balance the Earth Mother, Sky Father; but this concept was lost to the later ancient Greeks and Romans. The rise of ego-consciousness appears to coincide with these changes. It may have been a necessary change in the evolution of human consciousness, but it isn't in balance. Thus we have a split in the human psyche and a polarization. This patriarchal dominion has been the persistent problem of the human race, causing the exploitation of Nature and ourselves. Now, consciousness must be reintegrated on a higher level if we are to grow beyond this divide.

Men are still afraid of the feminine, of women, but they can't openly admit it because that would expose their weakness. Men are so very afraid of being perceived as weak that they can't allow that perception. Because of this it has taken a long time for men to accept and perform some culturally-defined feminine roles. Nurturing, non-competitive, soft roles are still a sign of weakness. This is only cultural, traditional baggage. Men need the courage to say no to tradition, to be soft, receptive, as many gay men have done, but also to retain an essential masculine strength.

There is a long tradition of the emasculated male in American comic strips, movies and sitcoms, but the "He-man" is just as much a caricature. Neither is a productive and positive role for men. Why do these disparaging images exist? They must be a reflection of a deeply sensed problem within us. They're often offered up for comic relief, or alternatively for iconic heroism, but what's funny or heroic in them? What is a proper role for men in current society? We don't know, but we need to find it.

Traditional patriarchy ended with the Industrial Revolution. That may have been a good thing. However, men have been losing power in our society, not necessarily to women, but to the unregulated growing power of the impersonal state and technological-social change. Corporate man is emasculated, alienated. His work is no longer near home or involved with identity and family. It's an old observation from the 1950s book "The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit". Patriarchal beliefs and attitudes still persist, however. Many men are feeling a sense of shame because they have lost the traditional role in our modern society; they feel emasculated, weakened, unable to perform a significant social function. They have lost control of their lives and the self, therefore ashamed, sad, angry. Shame comes from disrespect of boundaries. Or there's private guilt. But we live in a largely guilt based society that has lost a sense of public shame. Thus modern society betrays men. So, men suffer in quiet despair.

Does Bly really define the instinctive male world? His view is incomplete. Just what is a man, masculine, maleness? What is a woman, feminine, femaleness? What is essential and inherent masculinity and femininity, what is culturally constructed? These are often confused. The essential usually lies beneath the cultural constructs. Those arbitrary social constructs are often accepted as the personal identity and fixed social roles, but they could be drag personnas, to be put on and taken off just as easily as we do clothes.

We know that men and women have some different perceptions and consciousness, as well as shared modes. However, I'm no longer sure that male and female are polar opposites. There's only about 3% difference in DNA because women have two X chromosomes, men have X-y, but that's much more than between humans and chimpanzees. True opposites negate, obviously that doesn't happen in heterosexual relationships; opposites attract.

In many self-defined gay people homosexuality appears to be an essential condition that they are born with. It is not a choice created or learned in life. But the modern gay/lesbian genders and lifestyles and gay politics are socially constructed, just an accommodation of homosexuals to the demands of life in our society. These modern, created identities often mask the essential being, preventing us from knowing who we are.

In American and many other societies men like to be with men more than they like being with women. In fact, many men are very uncomfortable in situations where women are in the majority. Similarly, a minority of women among men is often uncomfortable, but for entirely different reasons, mostly concerning potential violations, such as rape. There's constant social assertions that men and women don't understand each other. Yet, they need each other. Men want mommies. Women want daddies. Both want sex. There's a disconnect and internal conflict here. When and how can these be reconciled?

Hetero women want masculine, assertive, supportive men, but not male dominance. Hetero men want receptive, nurturing, supportive women, but do they really want them to be submissive? Men too often confuse receptiveness and nurturing with weakness, but it is a powerful strength. Assertive masculine swaggering and hardness - a desire to dominate - usually masks insecurity, which will be expressed in dysfunctional behaviors. Abusive behavior by men is caused by this imbalance and insecurity. There is no center. They are out of control, not responsible for self. When men can learn to be receptive without it being perceived as weakness, they will have recovered strength. Then, men might not fear the feminine and learn to respect feminine strength. Women have been learning the opposite behaviors, which scares men. The expected roles are changing and men are being left behind and resisting the change.

It appears that a homosocial force is at work that creates a need for male or female bonding, whether essential or constructed, that joins men in groups excluding women and the feminine, or women together excluding men. The members of same sex associations understand each other better and are more comfortable than with the other sex. It's amazing that men and women can form autonomous families, which requires a maturity beyond most people's capabilities. So what happens when men must be with men? They must adjust acculturated expectations for relationships. If hetero, they become friends, brothers, comrades, buddies, often close and loving, but not sexual. If homo, they may be friends, fuck-buddies or lovers. Both are homosexual-homosocial relationships. The gay male clone phenomenon of the 1970s - 80s was a way of being traditionally masculine adapted to homosexual relationships. It became a stereotype, but it worked. Women have created similar lifestyles that operated to their advantage. Would it be better to strengthen and enlarge these groups in hopes of creating a better understanding of the needs of men and women? Such groups could revive the male and female mysteries that give insights into what roles men and women need to achieve and perhaps restore a balance between them. A possibility exists for far-reaching social reform.

Our society has no male or female initiation rituals into adulthood, an important point that Bly realizes. The need for initiation appears to be hardwired in us. The formation of juvenile gangs or irresponsible teenage drinking, drug use, sex and other risky behaviors are attempts to achieve initiation, but often fail because there is no guidance from adults. In the gay community many of the older potential mentors who could have passed on knowledge have died from AIDS, leaving young gays adrift to find their own way, often a difficult and divisive journey. Positive male energy is needed.

Male youths need nurturing by men, but men in our society have lost that nurturing role because they weren't nurtured. The role of fatherhood has been reduced by the way we must live today. That may still be felt as a painful loss that can't quite be articulated. There is little outlet for this need, but it may come out in dysfunctional ways. Male nurturing has an aggressiveness, sometimes a tough-love hardness and roughness about it, but isn't brutal, punitive or uncaring. It is necessary to become a mature adult. Too many men have had to find ways to nurture themselves by trial and error into adulthood; many have failed.

Initiations should be significant events, powerful experiences that markedly change the initiate and grant understandings of his place in society. It should get us in touch with our deep psyches and the archetypes that reside therein - Warrior, Wild Man, King and many others. It offers us a way to real courage, not bravado. Mentors and initiators help us through the dark nights of the soul that happens as we experience life and grow. The ritual initiation wound gets us in touch with our inner wounds. It is healing by wounding and examining the wound. Then, life can go forward.

One important archetypal concept that Bly promotes is of the warrior, predating patriarchy, it is a state of being that modern men have largely lost, and he encourages men to develop this internal warrior. A warrior must serve a king and fight honorable fights as he grows. This reminds me of Casteneda's concept of impeccability that a shaman must have. We have recourse only to a few honorable fights in our society. Most life struggles don't have much significance to us. Bly also wants men to achieve King consciousness and energy - representing a balance of intellect, spirit, maturity, nobility. There is a need to achieve personhood, personna, individuation. Then, do we first become warriors and afterwards kings? That fits the myths. However, we should have problems with these dominating hierarchical and patriarchal concepts.

Few men appear to be aware of this internal warrior. If we accept the existence of this archetypal warrior, how do we find it, what do we do with it? It appears that many gay and hetero men's internal warriors are sleeping or dead, in others, out of control. When the former, the personality is incomplete and weakened, when out of control, it is the savage whose insatiable hunger devours everything, rapes and pillages, if only psychologically. Gay men need to develop the Lover-warrior, a strong bond between the warrior selves that allows them a greater power to influence others and act beneficially for society.

The other archetype that men should be aware of is the Wild Man. According to Bly, the Wild Man is not an out of control savage, but a man who has examined his wound and has become something like a shaman. He is also the mythical Green Man of the forest, that represents elemental, powerful nature, another aspect of the Earth-Mother. In that way he is also feminine, a point that Bly misses. Men need to be in contact with the Wild Man, but they can't become him; attempting that will lead to disaster. Unfortunately, these myths have been christianized, but that doesn't take away all of their power because they are archetypal and can't be eliminated from the human psyche. But does the Wild Man concept and Iron John story need to be reinterpreted?

Among gay men it is the Radical Faeries who come closest to achieving an integrated manhood. Faeries know about acting out myths, practicing magick, being passionate and fierce, i.e., connecting with the Wild Man, dancing ecstatically with wild Pan and other gods, exploring alternatives to traditional gender roles, examining self and relationships with others. Or playfully frivolous and fun-loving with a purpose - the trickster role that forces perceptual changes. The gender-fuck drag idea and behavior - playing with gender roles - are an important part of being Faerie - different, alternative, being agents of change. They are pagan, modern and free.

What eludes Bly is our need to unravel patriarchal beliefs and thinking, to undo the exclusionary, oppositional either/or thinking, to see both connected by a continuum, achieving wholeness. The solution lies in achieving an equal, but different sensibility; learning to appreciate and respect differences when they do no harm. Humanity has difficulty with seeing significant differences as equal. Judgments are made rating differences as superior or inferior according to cultural beliefs, but these have no essential truth in them. How we learn not to fear differences is a problem we all face. Psychology offers some answers, spiritual insights offer others, even science and philosophy can help. It is the process of growth, personal development, achieving a secure, mature personhood, becoming fully human. It isn't a political or group process, although like-minded groups can facilitate change, but ultimately it must be done individually. The greatest work we have to do is on ourselves.