Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
Men, Masculinity, and Person-Centred Therapy
Ewan Gillon
One of the abiding memories I have of my initial person-centered training was of some (kindly given)
feedback suggesting my offerings of empathy were like someone squeezing a near empty tube of
toothpaste for the tiniest smear of paste. This was the central component of the person -centered way of
relating that I was supposed to be acquiring, and hearing this rather stark view of my working came
somewhat as a shock. However, over time I began to see this observation as a fairly accurate reflection of
how things were for me at that early stage of my person-centered practice. Empathic relating was a
dreadful struggle, infused as it was with the challenges of intimacy, connectedness and emotionality.
In trying to make sense of why I found it so difficult to engage with others in an empathic, emotionally
intimate way, I began to see this as a reflection of the challenge I often found in relating to me as an
emotional, embodied being. This realization came with a series of questions about my identity, history and
personhood. Many of these remained unanswered until I began to piece together, in my own therapeutic
work, that what I was actually grappling with were the challenges of being a man, and a man at th at time
struggling to develop and maintain truly intimate, empathic relationships in the context of an approach
viewing these as a central ingredient in therapeutic working (Rogers, 1959). At the time it seemed as if I
was caught between two very different worlds. The first of these was the world of masculinity, and the
relational distance, objectification, rationality and unemotionally that it seemed to offer to me. The second
was the world of person-centered therapy with its emphasis on relating in a deep, empathic, nonjudgmental
and mutual way with others. For me, the conflict between these worlds has never been fully resolved and
raises some important questions about the relationship between person-centered therapy and masculinity.
THE NEED FOR A MALE-SENSITIVE APPROACH
Such questions are not particular to me (e.g., Bazzano, 2007), nor indeed to the person centered approach.
Many concerns have been raised over recent years in relation to the ways '° which men attend to their
physical and emotional well-being (Fischer &_ Good, 1997) and the implications of these for the
psychotherapeutic context (Shay, 1996). As a result, much work has been done exploring the often
feminized understandings (Branney & White, 20Q7) underpinning the physical and mental heal th fields
(Wilkins, 2007), and the provision that is currently on offer within these. This has highlighted the particular
ways in which men access and engage with counseling and psychotherapy (Millar, 2003), and has provided
the basis for the development of a range of male-sensitive therapeutic approaches, such as those within the
cognitive-behavioral (Mooney, 19)8), psychodynamic (Frosh, 1997), and transpersonal (Rowan, 1)97)
traditions.
The person-centered tradition has not been entirely neglected in this regard, with the Work of Ron Levant
(Levant, 1997) representing an integrative blending of person-centered relational principles with
psychodynamic concepts and psycho-educational exercises into a differentiated method of working with
male clients, and male distress. Other writers such as Schmid (2004) have also tackled men and masculinity
from a person-centered perspective, albeit in a manner focusing more on the philosophical standpoint of
the approach rather than its therapeutic theory and procedures. Added to this has been the important
exploration of person-centered therapy from a feminist perspective (Waterhouse, 1993; Proctor & Napier,
20n4). This has attended to the terms of masculinity implicitly in highlighting the ways in which traditionally
masculine concepts and values such as rationality, objectivity and control (Medley & Ethereal, 1995) are
rejected by the person-centered approach in its prioritizing of relatedness, intersubjectiviry and mutuality
(Natiello, 2001).
While all such work has been of tremendous value in exploring the relationship between men, masculinity
and the principles and philosophy of the person-centered approach, what remains lacking is a
comprehensive exploration of how person-centered therapy relates to men and masculinity, and the
implications of this for our working as person-centered practitioners. such an exploration is essential in
order to deepen our understanding of the relationship between masculinity and person -centered therapy,
and to provide a practical understanding of' the possible challenges and opportunities faced in applying
person-centered therapeutic principles to working with male clients.
The starting point for such an exploration is the mapping of key issues relevant to the interaction between
person-centered therapy and, in particular, the normative masculinity (Gill, Henwood, & McLean 2005) that
predominates in many settings. I intend to locate this exploration culturally, by focusing on the primary
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008
Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
terms of masculinity in the English-speaking Western world. Elaboration of my analysis to other cultural
settings within the West and elsewhere, whilst vital, is beyond the scope of this article. I will also focus my
attention on masculinity, rather than men. Gender is a social, rather than biological, constr uct and thus
dominant modes of masculinity may be deployed by both men and women in a range of settings. Hence my
analysis, although attending primarily to men and masculinity, must also be viewed as of potential relevance
to person-centered therapy with women in circumstances where masculine terms and assumptions are
invoked.
Following a consideration of the terms and assumptions of masculinity, I will turn my attention to the
implications of this for person-centered therapy, focusing on the challenges and opportunities presented to
working with men with Rogers' six necessary and sufficient conditions (Rogers, 1957). Although there is
disagreement within the person-centered approach (Lietaer, 2002) on the extent to which these conditions
may be seen as entirely sufficient to maximize change, their continued status as necessary in all person centered interactions remains generally, but not exclusively (Purton, 2002), accepted. Hence, they remain a
pivotal element of the person-centered therapeutic stance and thus central to the aim of this article. Finally,
I intend to briefly outline possible areas for further elaboration and exploration, in terms of person centered therapy and its relationship to men and masculinity.
DEFINING MASCULINITY
Gender role approaches
There are a range of competing explanations pertaining to the nature and basis of masculinity (male gender
identity) in the Western world. These range from biological standpoints emphasizing underlying sex
differences between men and women (Bernard, 1976) to those deriving from psychodynamic (Chodorow,
1992), social relations (Seidler, 1984), and feminist (Gill, 2003) positions. To be added to this list is perhaps
the most well-known approach to gender identify, that of sex or gender role theory (Mahalik, Good, &
Englar-Carlson, 2003).
Gender role theory highlights the processes of male socialization into a culturally defined and historically
located structure of gendered beliefs and practices which are seen as proffering a range of normative
constructs to which men are expected to adhere (Levant, 1996). This normative malegender role (Pollack &
Levant, 1998) is seen to have many negative consequences for the mental and physical well -being of men,
such as encouraging an acting-out mode of being (Kilmartin, 2005) through which emotional distress is
manifested through destructive behavior (violence, risk-taking, alcohol abuse) rather than experienced
internally, say as depression. As a result of these negative consequences - commonly conceptualized as
gender role conflicts (Mahalik, 2000; Wisch, Mahalik, Hayes, & Nutt, 1995) - masculinity is well as in men's
lower levels of participation in structures such as counseling and psychotherapy (Wheeler, 2003)
Although a gender role approach perspective affords considerable flexibility in understanding the
assumptions promoted by a single, normative male gender role (or masculinity) adhered to in different ways
different degrees by men, one area of concern that arises from such a construct is the extent to which it
fails to address within-subject differences in the rnasculinity inhabited by the same men at different times.
Work in a number of arenas has demonstrated that Identity is variable and contextual (Gergen, 19)9), which
calls into question the idea of a single gender role that is acquired to a greater or lesser degree by any
individual. Hence, as Acidis and Mahalik (2003), suggest:
The masculine role socialization paradigm is less prepared to explore the possibility that, depending on the
context, individual men can engage in different behaviors associated with different ideologies ... thus men
who endorse traditional masculine ideologies may cry, men who endorse non-traditional ideologies may
make homophobic remarks, and men who subscribe to masculinity norms of self-reliance may ask for help
under certain circumstances. (p. 8)
Social constructionist approaches
The starting point for such an exploration is the mapping of key issues relevant to the interaction between
person-centered therapy and, in particular, the normative masculinity (Gill, Henwood, & Mchean 2005) that
predominates in many settings. I intend to locate this exploration culturally, by focusing on the primary
terms of masculinity in the English-speaking Western world. Elaboration of my analysis to other cultural
settings within the West and elsewhere, whilst vital, is beyond the scope of this article. I will also focus my
attention on masculinity, rather than men. Gender is a social, rather than biological, construct and thus
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008
Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
dominant modes of masculinity may be deployed by both men and women in a range of settings. Hence my
analysis, although attending primarily to men and masculinity, must also be viewed as of potential relevance
to person-centered therapy with women in circumstances where masculine terms and assumptions are
invoked.
Following a consideration of the terms and assumptions of masculinity, I will turn my attention to the
implications of this for person-centered therapy, focusing on the challenges and opportunities presented to
working with men with Rogers' six necessary and sufficient conditions (Rogers, 1957). Although there is
disagreement within the person-centered approach (Lietaer, 2002) on the extent to which these conditions
may be seen as entirely sufficient to maximize change, their continued status as necessary in all personcentered interactions remains generally, but not exclusively (Purton, 2002), accepted. Hence, they remain a
pivotal element of the person-centered therapeutic stance and thus central to the aim of this article. Finally
I intend to briefly outline possible areas for further elaboration and exploration, in terms of person centered therapy and its relationship to men and masculinity.
DEFINING MASCULINITY
Gender role approaches
There are a range of competing explanations pertaining to the nature and basis of masculinity (male gender
identity) in the Western world. These range from biological standpoints emphasizing underlying sex
differences between men and women (Bernard, 1976) to those deriving from psychodynamic (Chodorow,
1992), social relations (Seidler, 1984), and feminist (Gill, 2003) positions. To be added to this list is perhaps
the most well-known approach to gender identity, that of sex or gender role theory (Mahalik, Good, &
Englar-Carlson, 2003).
Gender role theory highlights the processes of male socialization into a culturally defined and historically
located structure of gendered beliefs and practices which are seen as proffering a range of normative
constructs to which men are expected to adhere (Levant, 1996). This normative male gender role (Pollack &
Levant, 1998) is seen to have many negative consequences for the mental and physical well -being of men,
such as encouraging an acting-out mode of being (Kilmartin, 2005) through which emotional distress is
manifested through destructive behavior (violence, risk-taking, alcohol abuse) rather than experienced
internally, say as depression. As a result of these negative consequences - commonly conceptualized as
gender role conflicts (Mahalik, 2000; Wisch, Mahalik, Hayes, & Nutt, 1995) – masculinity is implicated in many
physical and mental health difficulties (Byrant Jeffries, 2005) as well as in men’s lower levels of
participation in structures such as counseling and psychotherapy(Wheeler, 2003).
Although a gender role approach perspective affords considerable flexibility in understanding the
assumptions promoted by a single, normative male gender role (or masculinity) adhered to in different
ways and to different degrees by men, one area of concern that arises from such a construct is the
extent to which it falls to address within-subject differences in the masculinity inhabited by the same
men at different times. Work in a number of arenas has demonstrated that identity is variable and
contextual (Gergen, 19)9), which calls into question the idea of a single gender role that is acquired to
a greater or lesser degree by any individual. Hence, as Addis and Mahalik (2003), suggest:
The masculine role socialization paradigm is less prepared to explore the possibility that, depending on
the context, individual men can engage in different behaviors associated with different ideologies ...
thus men who endorse traditional masculine ideologies may cry, men who endorse non-traditional
ideologies may make homophobic remarks, and men who subscribe to masculinity norms of self reliance ma), ask for help under certain circumstances. (p. 8)
Social constructionist approaches
An alternative framework for understanding masculinity, which accounts more readily fo r such
variation derives from a social constructionist perspective, and views men as actively constructing the
meanings of their masculinity on a moment-by-moment basis (Edley & Wetherell, 1997), rather than as
a fixed product of learned ideologies of gender. Hence masculinity is seen, at any moment, as an
accomplishment (Sampson, 1989) rather than a reflection of an internalized relationship to a normative
gender role acquired through socialization.
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008
Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
The implication of this view is a shift in focus from ind ividual masculine identifications to the Cultural
domain, and hence the kinds of socially defined meanings and concepts, often termed discourses
(Potter & Wetherell, 1987), that are deployed by men (and potentially women) in negotiating and
renegotiating their identity. These resources are not fixed, and thus offer a range of masculinities at
any given moment. Despite the emphasis on variability one of the challenges of highlighting multiple
masculinities is that this potentially glosses over the ways in wh ich some constructions are more
powerful than others. One theorist whose work is of help here is Bob Connell, whose concept of
hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 19)5) stresses the continued dominance within many Western cultural
settings of a traditional mode of Masculinity over others (which are subordinated) on the basis of its
patriarchal function. Hegemonic masculinity is "the most honored way of being a man" (Connell &
Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832), and as such becomes the dominant construction of masculi nity in
relation to which other forms of masculinity are differentiated and that defined.
This concept has much in common with the normative male gender role previously discussed and may
be seen to encompass four main facets (Garde, 20i)3). The first of these is power, and refers to the
ongoing demand for men to enact, maintain and strive for power over others, a process often manifest
in coercive, oppressive and indeed violent (physical and emotional) methods. 'This demand Instills
within it a toughened, aggressive orientation to self and others, and hence the idealization of strength
and invulnerability (Rutherford, 1992).
The second facet of hegenomic masculinity (Garde, 2003) is an ongoing ambivalence toward femininity.
Men, in such terms, are defined as not feminine and as such hegemonic masculinity may be seen to be
an ongoing reaction to, and rejection of, the qualities and attributes associated with female and
feminine ways of being (e.g. nurturing, caring, and communalism). Hence hegemonic masculinity
presupposes an ongoing diminishment of women through patriarchal presumptions and practices, as
well as any feminine attributes in other men (for example, "you sissy["), in favor of independent, ultra male ways of being. Allied to this is the relationship to women asked of men by this form of
masculinity, which affords a need for nurturance, care and feminine contact but tolerates the
ambivalence this raises through the sexualization and objectification of women and femininity.
The third facet identified by Garde (2003) is domination and objectification. These are enmeshed with
presumptions of materialism and thus promote rationality and reason over emotionality and
embodiment. Hence real men are seen to use logic and rationality to manage and control the mselves
and the world around them, a process echoed in the practices of empirical science, and its
objectification of the subject (Parker, 1989).
Finally, and intertwined with the above, hegemonic masculinity's fourth facet is the avoidance of
emotion. Feelings are bodily experiences that are diminished in favor of reason and rationality (Seidler,
1994) and hence to be controlled and avoided. In such masculine terms, emotions serve little purpose
in the acquisition of power and the manifestation of strength, and are to be denigrated or denied
wherever possible.
HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY AND PERSON-CENTERED THERAPY
Although hegemonic masculinity may be seen as a series of complex meanings and practices locke d in
an ongoing struggle for dominance with alternative masculinities, which offer different constructions
of male hood, its ongoing power means it is inevitably implicated within much therapeutic work with
men. This is not necessarily a simple or direct process, for the multiplicity of masculinities available to
men invokes an ongoing rhetorical dialogue (Edwards, 1997). There is thus a potential array of
different meanings and practices linked to being a man that may be employed in different ways and at
different times. Masculinity, as an identity, is thus a complex process and hegemonic masculinity must
be viewed in this light. It should not be oversimplified nor over generalized as something relevant to all
men at all times in similar form.
In the following discussion I will consider the implications of hegemonic masculinity for the
establishment and maintenance of a person-centered therapeutic relationship meeting the six
conditions outlined by Rogers (1957). In doing so I will primarily focus on the cor e conditions of
empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence within a person -centered therapeutic
relationship. It is the communication theses core condition that is most strongly influenced by the
practitioner and thus they offer the greatest opportunity for reflection and development. However,
prior to this, I will undertake a brief consideration of the issues of contact (condition 1) and client
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008
Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
incongruence (condition 2). This will allow me to briefly elaborate some of the issues pertaining t o
men’s engagement with the person-centered therapeutic stance, its theory and assumptions.
Contact and client incongruence
Hegemonic masculinity raises some issues for the relational conditions of conta ct (condition 1) and
client incongruence (condition 2). One of the clear challenges arises from the ways in which hegemonic
masculinity formulates seeking help as indicative of weakness and thus to be avoided if at a11 possible.
Hence men may be less likely to attend for therapy and therefore would be prev ented front
establishing psychological contact at all. Allied to this is the challenge associated with engaging within
a therapeutic approach that emphasizes experiencing and relationship over thinking and doing
(Barrett-Lennard, 2002). Thus the formulation of the approach, as one emphasizing mutuality, personal
experiencing and intimate relating, may work against supporting men to engage with it. Put simply, its
terms more readily mesh with femininized identities emphasizing rationality and emotional
expressiveness rather than those of hegemonic masculinity.
A related issue here is that of incongruence and the requirement for a client to be vulnerable or
anxious (condition 2). This condition both implies that the client experiences a need for change and
also that they are aware or acknowledge that difficulties are being encountered (Singh & Tudor, 1997).
For Embleton, Tudor Keemar, Tudor, Valentine, and Worrall (2004), this may best be considered as a
self -Identified sense of something being wrong, which motivates a decision to seek help. Yet this
notion of willingness to engage in a process of help may not always be the case, for many men may
attend therapy on the basis of a requirement to do so by a female partner or indeed other significant
figure, such as an employer, rather than as a result of self-identified need or desire (Wilkins 2007).
Although this raises some important ethical questions if a client has no acknowledged need for
assistance, it is important to tread carefully with any presumption that condition 2 may not be met.
Stating that something is wrong is often a difficult shameful process (Warnes 1986) in the context of
hegemonic masculinity and thus some clients may indeed require another to do the initial help seeking for them, to provide a legitimate pretext for entering a therapy that at some level may be
acknowledged as necessary.
Empathy
The requirement to experience and communicate empathy to a client is central to the person centered
therapeutic endeavor, and for some it is the element which is curative (Warner, 1996). Empathy
requires a focus on understanding a client's "perceptions, reactions and feelings" (13rodley, 2001, p.
18), although it is the emotional realm that is most commonly highlighted, due to its status as the
domain most closely aligned to an organismic experiencing (McMillan, 2004) and psychological processing
and change (Greenberg, Rice, & Elliott, 1993).
This focus, while primary within the approach, presents a significant challenge to the terms of hegemonic
masculinity, which encourages men to think and do, rather than feel. Hence, the empathic venture, in a
context of hegemonic masculinity, may present a core tension for the person-centered practitioner between
an empathic focus on inner experiencing at the emotional level, and the more externalized (task
orientated), cognitive terms of the hegemonic masculinity through which male clients may make sense of
themselves, their experiences and the nature of their relationships with others.
What I am, in essence, highlighting here is that hegemonic masculinity potentially affords men a different
way of being and communicating (Good, Thomson, & Braithwaite, 2005) that can diminish the kind of
emotional discourse commonly associated with attending to inner experiencing and feeling. This may
present a range of challenges to both practitioner and client, who may be working at cross purposes - the
practitioner attending primarily to emotional experiencing and the client hearing within this a failure to
think or do, and consequently a potential lack of empathic understanding of his needs and desires.
Working with emotional distress may be an alienating and stigmatizing experience in the context of
hegemonic masculinity. Hence a focus on understanding (and facilitating) emotio nal experiencing through
empathy may make it more difficult for a client to experience the therapist's understanding rather than less,
because the acknowledgement of a need for help (and disclosure of distress) may result in feelings of
shame. Indeed, such shame may be further compounded by an inability to engage on an emotional level
within the therapeutic process itself. Hence, a client may feel shameful not simply for seeking help, but also
for being unable to engage fully with it when offered. This latter possibility is greater with men who present
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008
Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
in a manner that Taylor, Bagby, and Parker (1997) term as alexithymic - unable to connect to and express
feelings with words or images. In person-centered terms, men presenting in such a way could potentially be
viewed as functioning at stages one or two on Rogers' Process Scale (1961) and thus seen as unlikely to be
able to make good use of the therapeutic endeavor.
Bearing these issues in mind, one of the key questions arising from the relationship between pe rsoncentered therapy and the terms of hegemonic masculinity is the very role and nature of empathic
experiencing and communication. Can empathy with clients caught up within hegemonic constructions still
involve, for example, a primary focus on the client's frame of reference and a responsive tracking within
that frame of reference, even if there is little or no affective component to it? If so, how can this be
conceptualized as a process promoting congruence between self and organism through deepened
experiencing? Similarly, should experiential responses, empathic guesses as Bozarth (1984) terms them, or
indeed emotional questions (for example, "how do you feel about it?") be employed to introduce emotional
experiencing into the encounter if such a process may invoke a level of shame that undermines the client's
experience of the therapist's unconditional positive regard? Indeed, such a circumstance may be seen to
represent a failure to empathize with a client's actual experience. To be truly or deeply (Mearns & Thorne,
2007) empathic requires a significant awareness of, and sensitivity to, the implications of hegemonic
masculinity, and hence may necessitate a response that moves away from, rather than toward,
emotional experiencing, at a particular moment. This raises a dilemma for a person-centered therapy,
for it introduces a stance which may be seen to contradict the postulated focus on emotional contact
and the facilitating of emotional experiencing to support change.
Unconditional positive regard
While empathy is seen by some as the foremost element of the person -centered therapeutic system,
for others (Bozarth,1998; Wilkins, 2000), it is unconditional positive regard that is the primary factor in
facilitating change within a client. This is due to its role in effectively creating a climate of safety
through a warm, valuing and unconditionally accepting relationship which allows previously denied and
distorted experiencing to be contacted and integrated. Clearly the implication of such a relationship i s
one of considerable depth and intimacy, with a therapist striving to experience and communicate
within it what Brazier (1993) has likened to a form of no nonpossessive love for a client. One of the
challenges for person-centered therapy is that the therapist's actively warm valuing and acceptance of
a client may not be received as such in a context of hegemonic masculinity. Instead it may be
experienced as a process infused with sexuality and desire.
In terms of hegemonic masculinity, intimate and loving relationships are sexualized ones infused with
struggles over power and dominance. "Therapeutic relationships, which offer "love" but at the same
time have no such sexual component may not be understood as such, and may thus be responded to as
if a sexual element was central to them. The kinds of responses made clearly depend on the sexualities
present in any given encounter, but may include indirect or direct attempts at seduction and the
experiencing of rejection or emasculation.
Added to this is the challenge presented to intimacy by the emphasis placed within hegemonic
masculinity on distance and emotional detachment. Intimacy is formulated as something to fear,
representing a syrmbiotic merging that denotes a loss of control and hence power (Gillon, 200 7).
Therefore the role and nature of a therapeutic condition proposing a warm, intimately valuing
relationship is called into question. When working with hegemonic masculinity should therapy still be
viewed as an actively warm, positively regarding interaction, or something different instead, such as a
more formal but respectful encounter in which the client is valued in their own, perhaps more distant,
terms?
Congruence
Congruence, like the other previously discussed therapist conditions, is vital to the therapeutic
endeavor, and was regarded by Rogers, later in his life (Rogers & Sanford > 1934), as the most
fundamental of the core conditions due to its underpinning of a therapist's capacity to effectively offer
the others (empathy and unconditional positive regard). In general terms, congruence is seen to have
two aspects; namely the therapist's capacity to remain integrated- to maintain an easy awareness of their
experiencing within the relationship, and the preparedness to voice that awareness where nec essary, and
thus make known such experiencing to a client when persistent feelings are encountered (Rogers, 1959).
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008
Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
Clearly, what the latter asks of a person centered practitioner is a method of relating that runs contrary to
the emphasis within hegemonic masculinity on independence and invulnerability, for it demands an honesty
and openness -a real involved presence (Sclimid, 2001) - that is very different to the professional distance
and expert stance commonly deployed in the psychological domain.
Although the disclosure of congruent experiencing by the therapist may potentially be of great value to
male clients in modeling and normalizing such common and important aspects of therapeutic work, it must
also be considered in the context of power, for hegemonic masculinity implies an ongoing move toward
dominance and thus potentially orients men toward power and control within the therapeutic domain.
From such a perspective, congruent forms of relating may serve as a means of supporting the diminishment
of the therapist for failing to adhere to the detached, invulnerable, and expert stance (Diamond, 2004)
valued within the terms of hegemonic masculinity. An acknowledgement of feeling may be seen to denote
weakness, and thus indicate a failure to manage self in a professional domain. This raises the question as to
the role of congruent disclosure in the context of hegemonic masculinity. Are persistent personal feelings
still to be disclosed if this may lead to a loss of trust and subsequent diminishment of the the rapist? If not,
how does congruence manifest itself in such encounters instead, without colluding with the dehumanizing
effects of hegemonic masculinity?
FURTHER QUESTIONS?
So far I have identified a number of questions for person-centered therapy presented by the terms of
hegemonic masculinity. This list is not exhaustive, nor exclusive, and further areas of person -centered
theory and practice will need to be reviewed as work in this area unfolds. A particular example, mentioned
earlier, is Rogers' Process Model, with the stages of change described, in overall terms, by Rogers as a move
from "fixity to changing ness ... from stasis to process" (1961, p. 131). How does this relate to the terms of a
hegemonic masculinity, which prioritizes rationality over emotion and doing over being? The hegemonic
preference for a lack of emotional openness and a focus on controlling the external and internal
environment may easily be associated with the lower stages of the process continuum outlined by Rogers
(1961). Is this an accurate depiction of many men's process, or is the theory (and its potential application)
formulated in terms that may be male-insensitive and thus require some reworking? Similar questions may
be raised in relation to other aspects of the approach, such as in the development of a person-centered
theory of gender development and identity.
AWAY AHEAD
Bearing in mind the challenges identified thus far, it is fair to question the extent to which person -centered
therapy is appropriate to many men's psychological needs, when situated within a context of hegemonic
masculinity. For some (Mahalik, 199)) the challenges presented by hegemonic masculinity mean that men
may be better served by working in a therapeutic model that accords more readily with an emphasis on
rational thinking processes and which is oriented explicitly toward doing (task completion and behavior
modification) or skills-building (McKelly & Rochlen, 2007).
Although such a standpoint may seem logical in the context of hegemonic masculinity, it does imply a
somewhat rigid view that presents person-centered therapy as unable either to work with cognitive
interventions, or to support a client to acquire new competences or to learn more about themselves and
their experiences. Indeed, third generation cognitive models, for example, mindfulness-based therapy
(Kabbatt-Zinn, 2004) are now embracing the more accepting stance highlighted within the person-centered
framework, which would again suggest that defining person-centered therapy as inappropriate for work
with hegemonic masculinity is not a productive stance to assume.
Despite this, there is no doubting that the precepts of hegemonic masculinity present a challenge to the
primary stance of person-centered therapy and its many practitioners who reject cultural demands for the
"quick fix," and abhor the distance and objectification now cornmonplace in managing human distress
(Nlearns ``I"horne, 2007). There maybe a parallel here between the stance of principled opposition to
medicalized approaches (Sanders, 2005) and person-centered working within the context of hegemonic
masculinity. Hence it might be the case that retaining a person-centered stance, as presently conceived, is
of utmost importance in providing a normalized, enabling space for male clients that may otherwise be
unavailable. In this respect, person-centered therapy may be regarded as a political act, a mechanism for
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008
Persona Diploma in Person Centred Counselling: Recommended Reading
creating new masculinities with men suffering from the oppressive effects of a damaging, yet powerful,
formulation of masculinity.
If such an intention is shared, there remains little doubt that new ways of articulating (Mearns, 2003) with
the terms of hegemonic masculinity are required, both to enable men to see person -centered therapy as
relevant to their needs and to ensure that it occupies a stance that is sufficiently male-sensitive to ensure
therapeutic engagement, and success. Such a stance may include a variety of processes, such as the use of
structuring (Patterson, 2000) processes at the outset of therapy to describe and prepare for the therapy
task; the use of empathic sensitivity in attending to men's potential difficulties in contacting and articulating
emotional experiencing; the use of traditional male language of unconditional positive regard, particularly
in the extent to which a client is actively prized in the initial stages of therapy. It may also be possible to
develop experiential methods to facilitate male engagement and processing within the therapeutic domain
without introducing masculinity as an explicit factor, or indeed to use reflexive (Rerlnie, 1998) strategies in
similar vein.
Methods such as these do have significant implications for the training of person -centered therapists, which
could also evolve to address the lack of exploration of gender and masculinity in many training programs at
present (Gillon, 2002). Such work would certainly be helped by theoretical advances focusing on the
development of male-sensitive perspectives within the person-centered framework. In addition to a
broader consideration of person-centered therapy theory and the implications of hegemonic masculinity for
the intersubjective perspective (Schmid, 2001) within the approach, these may include, (a) the further
development of a person-centered view of male gender identity (for example, masculine conditions of
worth), and (b) the reworking of the process-conception to be more inclusive of the context of hegemonic
masculinity. Yet perhaps most pressing for readers of this article is the simple recognition, as practition ers,
and as men and women, of the potential impact of hegemonic masculinity upon us and our work with
others.
It is in relation to this that I return to my own experiences, and wonder how it remains possible that I am
still here, actively engaged within person-centered therapy yet, at the same time, continuing to define
myself as a man heavily shaped by hegemonic terms and assumptions. Certainly it has been a long journey
for me, but one which has highlighted the limitations of applying the same kind of way s of being to all,
regardless of gender. If, when training, I had felt enabled to use a range of ways of being in building
relationships, being congruent and offering empathy, I suspect colleagues and clients would have
experienced the more honestly masculine me that I now feel is so vital to my therapeutic presence. Hence,
rather than fail to redefine myself to fit what I understood person-centered therapy to be, I have learned
that to be truly person-centered means embracing and valuing (though not necessarily accepting)
hegemonic masculinity in myself, and in others, and to adapt and work with it in creative, sustainable ways.
It is to the further elaboration of these ways that I feel the person-centered approach must dedicate itself if
it’s potential, as a therapy for all, is to be realized.
Source: © Journal Of The World Association Of Person-Centrered Experiential Psychotherapy And Counselling. Volume 7 No 2 2008