Masculinity in the Midst of Mindfulness: Exploring the Gendered Experiences of At-risk Adolescent Boys

Males in Crisis

Men and boys are often regarded as a source of concern in society, seen as troubled or deficient relative to their female counterparts. While many men and boys do prosper, males on the whole (i.e., as a statistical generalization) fare poorly in terms of health compared to females, with higher mortality rates, partly attributed to men being more likely to engage in health-risk behaviors such as alcohol abuse (Office for National Statistics [ONS] 2012a). Men have equally problematic outcomes in mental health, accounting for three-quarters of all suicide deaths (ONS 2012b), and 67 percent of those detained under the mental health act (The National Health Service Information Centre 2011). Men are much more likely to perpetrate violent or antisocial behavior, constituting 95 percent of the United Kingdom (UK) prison population (Ministry of Justice [MoJ] 2012a). Finally, in education, boys are outperformed by girls at all ages (Economic and Human Rights Commission [EHRC] 2011). Such is the prevalence and gravity of these issues that males are frequently asserted to be “in crisis,” with a “widespread popular and academic agreement that something is troubling men” (McDowell 2000, 201).

The reasons for these poorer outcomes for males are complex and multifaceted (Stoddard et al. 2011). However, recent theorizing has attributed at least some of the responsibility for such outcomes to masculinity, and the prevalence of masculinity norms that can have deleterious effects (Courtenay 2000). Encompassed in a framework of social learning theory, it is argued that males’ gendered behavior is shaped by societal expectations that are at least partly responsible for the poor outcomes above, as men demonstrate masculinity by engaging in behaviors that can be maladaptive, from health risk behaviors like drinking (de Visser and Smith 2007), to aggression (Mosher and Tomkins 1988). More complex causal links are also proposed. For example, norms around emotional toughness are linked to tendencies toward “restrictive emotionality” in men, that is, detachment or disconnection from emotions, to the extent that Levant (1998) refers to “normative male alexithymia.” This disconnection is seen as contributing to affect dysregulation, that is, difficulties managing one’s emotions (Addis 2008), meaning that males are more likely to “externalize” their distress in often destructive ways including anger, aggression, risk-taking, substance/alcohol use, overwork, and suicide (Pollack 1998)

At-risk Youth

Thus, masculinity is widely viewed in the literature as a “risk factor” for poor health and social outcomes (Gough 2006). Moreover, some males fare worse than others on these indices, as highlighted by the intersectionality paradigm (Hankivsky and Christoffersen 2008). Intersectionality refers to the way in which the multiple identity categories to which a person belongs—such as gender, ethnicity, and class—interact in complex ways. For instance, in terms of mental health, gender-related outcomes are complicated by socioeconomic status, whereby men in the poorest fifth of the UK population are almost three times more likely to suffer a common mental disorder than men in the richest fifth (EHRC 2011). So, while males generally are a concern, particular subsets are regarded as warranting especial attention. One such subset is “at-risk” youth, defined as “adolescents who face disadvantage or adversity narrowly or broadly defined” (Swahn and Bossarte 2009, 225), such as living in an area characterized by high crime and poverty. At-risk youth are a significant issue: on one metric—supervision by a youth offending team—there are over 85,000 in the UK alone, almost 80 percent of whom are male (MoJ 2012b). Almost by definition, at-risk youth have poorer health and social outcomes (Swahn and Bossarte 2009).

The reasons why at-risk youth are more liable to poorer outcomes are again complex and multifaceted. Some reasons are non-gender-specific: for example, compared to non-at-risk youth, those at risk (of both sexes) are more exposed to risk factors for behavioral and mental disorder, from peer delinquency to exposure to violence (Youngstrom, Weist, and Albus 2003). Some reasons are gender-specific, where it is argued that the “masculinity as risk factor” thesis is exacerbated by social factors such as socioeconomic status, since males from disadvantaged backgrounds are reportedly more likely to assert their masculinity through behaviors like aggression (Seale and Charteris-Black 2008). One explanation is that asserting power is a marker of masculine status. Men with structural power—for example, occupational influence—can draw on their social standing as a way of demonstrating agency and status (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). This option is relatively foreclosed to males with less standing, who may be compelled to resort to cruder means of assertion, like violence, referred to as compensatory “hypermasculine” behaviors (i.e., traditional masculine performances taken to extremes; Mosher and Tomkins 1988). At-risk male youth are especially liable to such “hypermasculinity,” leading to even worse health and social outcomes than for males generally (Varano, Huebner, and Bynum 2011).

Adolescence as a Critical Juncture

In considering the challenges faced by at-risk youth, of particular relevance is the idea that this age is a critical juncture in the inculcation and adoption of gender-based identities and behaviors (Barrett and White 2002, 451). Of course, gender socialization occurs throughout childhood, with boys subject to gendered messages that shape behavior in line with masculinity norms, perhaps best encapsulated in the exhortation that “boys don’t cry” (Mejía 2005, 32). These kind of “shaming” messages serve to curtail the emotional expressiveness of boys. For example, Chaplin, Cole, and Zahn-Waxler (2005) found that boys’ expressions of emotionality decreased 50 percent from pre- to early school, influenced mainly by parental discouragement of emotional expression. However, adolescence (e.g., from the age of eleven) is really the time when such gendered pressures (e.g., via shaming) really come to the fore in shaping behavior (Mejía 2005).

The significance of adolescence in this regard was shown by Lomas et al. (2013), who analyzed narratives of men who had taken up meditation. The analysis found that most interviewees reported suddenly crossing a “threshold” into adulthood around the age of twelve to thirteen, at which they experienced pressures to “be a man”—including being emotionally tough—that had not been present (or pressing) earlier in childhood. This pressure can be enforced in various ways such as bullying of behavior regarded as “feminine.” For example, homophobic bullying is related to increased risk of suicidal ideation and behavior, with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual (LGBT) boys between two and twelve times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual boys (Saewyc et al. 2008). It is particularly at this “threshold” in adolescence that boys are liable to adopt forms of masculine behavior that later may prove harmful, like emotional toughness. These behavioral changes range from “laddishness,” alcohol consumption, and disruptive behavior (Francis 1999, 357) to adopting a “cool pose” of bravado, concealing vulnerability by erecting an “impenetrable wall of toughness” (Pollack 2006, 191).

Moreover, this imperative to adopt masculine behaviors associated with adulthood might be particularly acutely felt by at-risk youth. Jones (2002) analyzed transitions into adulthood and observed a “slow track” and a “fast track.” The former describes a process of crossing and recrossing boundaries between childhood and adulthood in a series of partial transitions between dependence and independence. This “track” relies on parental support until the youth acquires social/cultural capital, mainly through educational attainments. In contrast, the fast track involves a sudden transition, characterized by negative physical and emotional experiences as the youth is thrust, somewhat unprepared, into adulthood. It is precisely at-risk youth who are more liable to this fast track, with all the adverse consequences that can ensue.

Critiquing the Crisis Narrative

However, despite the negative appraisal of males and masculinity depicted above—the “males in crisis” narrative—many gender theorists have begun to argue that such outcomes are neither necessary nor inevitable (Courtenay 2000). Such theorists have propounded a more nuanced, constructionist reading of gender, in which the potential for adaptive change is recognized—both for males themselves (e.g., males can learn to take on behaviors that are more conducive to well-being) and for masculinity (i.e., it is possible for societies to evolve more enlightened gender expectations). Indeed, in Lomas et al.’s (2013) aforementioned research with male meditators, they found that participants had been able to negotiate more adaptive forms of masculinity—characterized by features like emotional expressiveness and abstinence from alcohol—which were beneficial to their well-being (see Lomas et al. 2014a, 2015). Lomas (2013) summarized these findings under the rubric “critical positive masculinity”: positive in the sense of conducive to well-being, while critical in the sense that these men were challenging or circumventing traditional masculine norms.

Moreover, the research uncovered the complicated social dynamics that upheld these positive changes. For instance, most participants had been supported in their efforts to enact a more adaptive masculinity by a “Community of practice” (CoP; Lave and Wenger 1991), based around a meditation center. Using Connell’s (1995) notion of hegemonic masculinity, Lomas et al. (2015) suggested that these CoP offered an alternative system of hegemonic norms, which was relatively positive (i.e., beneficial to the health and well-being of most members, and to those they interact with). Yet, reflecting Gramsci’s (1971) recognition that hegemony inevitably involves power dynamics that leave some people marginalized, even these “positive” norms had the potential to cause harm to certain members. For instance, some participants reported forms of ostracism based on their unwillingness to accede to norms such as engagement in religious rituals. Nevertheless, the research did show the potential for men to negotiate more “adaptive” masculine ways of being, in their case through involvement with a meditation-based CoP.

Meditation with At-risk Adolescents

In light of Lomas et al.’s (2013, 2014a, 2015) findings—for example, the potential for meditation-based contexts to offer opportunities for alternative masculine performances—it would seem of interest to enquire into the possibilities for at-risk adolescent boys in this regard. Indeed, there has already been much research on the benefits of meditation for adolescents. Meditation can be defined broadly as a method of “training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control” (Walsh and Shapiro 2006, 228–29). More specifically, most research has been on mindfulness, defined as “the awareness that arises through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn 2003, 145). One can see, theoretically, how this type of attention training might be useful to young males, for example, helping them develop cognitive and emotional skills. Indeed, there is a burgeoning literature on the use of mindfulness with young people. For instance, a meta-analysis by Zenner, Herrnleben-Kurz, and Walach (2014) obtained twenty-four relevant studies (nineteen featuring a controlled design); significant between-group effect sizes were found for cognitive performance (Hedge’s g = .80), stress (g = .39), and resilience (g = .36). Similarly, in the context of youth more generally (up to the age of eighteen), a meta-analysis by Zoogman et al. (2014) identified twenty relevant studies and concluded that mindfulness had a significant beneficial effect on “psychological symptoms” (e.g., depression and anxiety).

However, as valuable as such analyses are, there have so far been no studies focusing on the implications of mindfulness practice for at-risk adolescent boys specifically, and particularly in terms of their gendered identity and behavior. That is, one might wonder, what types of masculinity are hindered or facilitated by engagement in mindfulness-related activities. We have already noted above the potential for critiquing the “males in crisis” narrative, highlighting the fact that males are capable of negotiating more constructive (e.g., beneficial to well-being) performances of masculinity. Indeed, Lomas et al. (2013, 2014a, 2014b, 2015) already demonstrated that meditation can be helpful in this regard, for adult men at least. As such, it is of interest to see whether meditation can be similarly useful for at-risk adolescent boys. To this end, this study reports on the exploratory piloting of a new mindfulness-based intervention created specifically for a cohort of at-risk adolescent boys. Our interest here is not whether this program was “effective” per se (e.g., in engendering emotional well-being), since the methodological approach is not such that effectiveness can genuinely be assessed. Rather, the research sought to explore the following questions:

How do at-risk adolescent boys enact masculinity in the context of a mindfulness-based activity?

Method

Results

One overarching master theme emerged from the data, which was “pressure control.” Under this were two interlinked meta-themes: pressure and self-control. These will be discussed in turn, with select quotes provided in italics for the confirmability of the themes (Drisko 1997). To preserve anonymity, participants are identified using the letters A–H.

Discussion

The results here offer a moving portrayal of the emotional lives of a group of at-risk adolescent boys. This is a population that, for multiple reasons—by virtue of being adolescent, and/or male, and/or at risk—are often portrayed as being emotionally disconnected or otherwise challenged (Levant 1998). Yet, the participants here revealed themselves to be capable of discussing their emotional dynamics, and personal lives more generally, with real insight and candor.

Before delving into the details of the findings, it is important to first reflect upon their nature, to articulate our epistemological position. Clearly, a range of positions are available, so other scholars might well interpret these findings in alternative ways. So, in the spirit of reflexivity, our preference is for a stance of “critical realism” (Layder 1993). This means that, while we are alert to the performative nature of qualitative data—that participants are constructing a narrative/position for the “benefit” of an audience—we do not treat it merely as a performance. After all, as Connell (1995) put it, treating interview data as “fiction” to be “read” for narrative devices risks “spurning the effort respondents themselves make to speak the truth” (p. 91). As such, we endeavored to approach the data in the spirit of Ricoeur’s (1981) ideal of a double hermeneutics (“willingness to suspect, willingness to listen”)—a hermeneutics of both faith (hence the realism) and suspicion (hence the critical).

As such, we remain open to the possibility that the intervention did have a positive effect in the ways reported by participants. Of course, this possibility was not tested empirically and can only be inferred from participants’ testimonies. And, although the hermeneutics of faith means we do not discount these testimonies, the hermeneutics of suspicion also renders these somewhat problematic, as discussed further below. Nevertheless, the notion that the intervention may have had a positive impact corroborates other work which has linked mindfulness to various beneficial outcomes for young people, such as improved concentration and attention (Hong and Cho 2012), calmness (Broderick and Metz 2009), social competence (Schonert-Reichl and Lawlor 2010), and emotional resiliency (Semple et al. 2010). Indeed, these themes were present in the testimonies of nearly all participants here (seven of the eight). Moreover, that these outcomes were reported by a group of at-risk adolescent males—a group which until now has not specifically been studied in relation to mindfulness—is especially striking.

Furthermore, the qualitative nature of the data offers a unique insight into the way these boys purportedly tried to use mindfulness skills in “real life,” such as defusing anger in social settings. Here, the findings augment the work of Singh et al. (2007) who found that mindfulness helped adolescents with conduct disorder to curtail their aggressive and/or disruptive behavior. The findings also echo Singh et al. (2003) in highlighting the benefit of mindfulness practices that focus on concrete, physical sensations. Whereas Singh et al. (2003) taught a patient with mental and behavioral problems to focus on the soles of his feet, our participants seemed to particularly appreciate a breathing exercise in which they used their index finger to trace the outline of their other hand. This physical activity seemed to anchor their attention, whereas a more cognitive activity (e.g., simply asking them to “watch” their breath) may have left them rather unmoored. Thus, the findings potentially offer revealing clues as to how newcomers to mindfulness—and adolescent boys specifically—might best respond to teachings, and try to utilize it in their lives.

That said, we acknowledge that readers who lean more toward a hermeneutics of suspicion may regard these positive testimonies (about the efficacy of the intervention) with a degree of scepticism. Indeed, as noted above, the mindfulness literature is fairly consistent in suggesting that four weeks of training is usually insufficient for developing proficiency (Segal, Williams, and Teasdale 2002). However, even if the interviews were entirely discounted as evidence in favor of the intervention—or of mindfulness generally—they would still be very revealing in many ways. For a start, they belie the notion that adolescent males are incapable of introspective insight, self-awareness, and emotional literacy. Participants here spoke movingly and revealingly about the challenges in their lives and about their hopes, fears, and joys. It possibly helped that the interviews were conducted 1:1 with an empathic female researcher. For instance, in conducting focus groups with young men, Allen (2005) found that participants often engaged in identity work by putting up a front of bravado in the presence of their coparticipants. However, Allen also noted that, beneath this bravado, emotional vulnerability and openness would sometimes emerge. Thus, the 1:1 interviews in the present study possibly helped the boys let down any such shield of bravado. Then again, one could easily make the alternative case that participants would seek to impress a female researcher by showing how tough and self-sufficient they were, which is a common masculine trope (Addis and Mahalik 2003). In any case, it would not be fair to position their openness simply as a function of the female interviewer: even in the intervention sessions, in front of other boys (and the two male researchers and male staff member), most boys were certainly willing and capable of offering emotional insights.

Moreover, beyond the sheer fact of these boys’ emotional openness, the data are revealing in terms of participants’ constructions of masculinity—at least within the context of the research. That is, performative theories of masculinity hold that gender is actively constructed within the dynamic parameters of specific social situations (Butler 1990; Connell 1995). As such, it is entirely possible—indeed, highly likely—that the boys here would negotiate alternative gendered performances away from this kind of research setting (e.g., when playing with their mates). Nevertheless, even within this limited research context—a mindfulness-based intervention and accompanying interviews—the boys offered an interesting picture of how masculinity is negotiated by this particular population (namely, adolescent boys deemed at risk of academic failure and/or exclusion). Specifically, for these participants, there appeared to be an overriding need, desire and intent to claim agency, and to exert self-control. Whatever psychological and social effects the intervention may have “actually” had, much of the interview data regarding the intervention can be read in terms of participants striving to articulate a position of agency and self-control.

Participants presented themselves as having to manage multiple pressures related to their life phase, that is, negotiating a difficult transition between childhood and adulthood, as noted above. As per Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2012), participants’ interview data revealed a tension between competing types of gendered performance. Looking back, boyhood tended to be associated with relatively carefree fun, and particularly activities such as playing sports and computer games (see, e.g., Cherney and London 2006). And yet, the boys also seemed preoccupied with the demands of impending adulthood, which was both suddenly very present (e.g., in their concern with forging a career) and yet frustratingly elusive (e.g., in being treated like a child by their parents, and thus being denied the freedom they coveted). Moreover, there was an ambiguous sense of anticipation about this impending manhood, seeming both feared (e.g., in terms of its burdens and responsibilities) and craved (e.g., in terms of its possibilities).

It was in this context, then, that the participants’ responses to mindfulness were so revealing. The intervention appeared to allow or encourage the boys to enact a masculinity based around (re)claiming agency and self-control (i.e., through mindfulness). However, although exerting self-control can often be regarded as a traditional hegemonic masculine norm (Mahalik et al. 2005), the boys here seemed to deploy it in ways that challenged traditional masculine performances. Specifically, participants presented their newfound agency and self-control as facilitating emotional awareness and engagement, which are qualities not conventionally associated with masculinity (Levant 1998). There are perhaps parallels here with studies on masculine performances in professions traditionally perceived as feminine, such as nursing. For instance, Pullen and Simpson (2009) found that although male nurses expanded their construction of masculinity to include attributes such as caring and compassion, they nevertheless reframed their discourses of care to priviledge traditional masculine qualities, for example describing their emotion work as “more rational.” Thus, such nurses appeared to be both enacting traditional hegemonic masculinity and adopting “feminine” qualities, with masculinity thus partly subverted and partly maintained.

It is possible that something similar was happening in the present study, whereby the boys were using discourses of control—provided by the context of a mindfulness-based intervention—to legitimize a nonconventional masculine performance involving emotional connection and agility. If so, this is in stark contrast with the kind of essentialist perspective that views males generally—and at-risk adolescents in particular—as inherently troubled and emotionally disconnected/illiterate. Rather, the results here align with recent constructionist theorizing that emphasizes the ability of males to refashion their way of “doing” masculinity in more adaptive ways, as highlighted in the “critical positive masculinity” paradigm (Lomas 2013). Moreover, the results are particularly noteworthy, given that the specific male population studied here (i.e., at-risk adolescent boys) is generally regarded as especially vulnerable and/or challenging.

There are, as always, limitations to the study, and thus with our results, interpretations, and conclusions. Perhaps the biggest limitation is the relative lack of contextual data on the participants or their engagement with the course. It was unfortunately beyond the scope of the study to collect anything more than the most cursory demographic or personal details about the participants, with these being limited to facts such as age, ethnicity, and their “diagnosis” of being at risk. In retrospect, it would have been helpful to have gathered more personal information about their background and current life circumstances—not only through more extensive interviews with the boys themselves but also with significant others in their lives (e.g., family members and teachers). Without such detail, it is much harder to draw conclusions about their gendered performance in the context of the research. For instance, our interest was of course piqued by the one participant who did not appear to find the intervention interesting and rewarding. However, other than being told by the school representative that he can often be somewhat disengaged in school generally, we did not have any real context for making sense of his reaction. Similarly, it would have been instructive to gather more detail on participants’ engagement with mindfulness during the course of the intervention (e.g., monitoring their home practice through diaries). This would have helped us to assess the extent to which participants really did attempt to practice mindfulness over the four weeks (as they reported doing). That said, mindfulness research has generally been poor at tracking participation outside of formal sessions (i.e., engagement with “homework” activities; Vettese et al. 2009), so our study is not unusual in that regard.

Thus, future work on this topic—that is, on the impact of mindfulness on the gendered performance of adolescent boys—would benefit from more extensive data collection. It would also be instructive to investigate this topic with different “categories” of at-risk boys. In the current study, having been asked to simply select a cohort of “at-risk” male pupils, the school chose those who were primarily at risk of failing academically and/or exclusion (although one could reasonably speculate that at least some of the group were at risk in other ways too). It later transpired that the school had selected this particular group out of a concern that other “types” of at-risk boys—for example, those with issues around aggression—might have proved too problematic for the intervention and/or the research team. However, mindfulness has been successfully used with youths with these kinds of behavioral difficulties (e.g., Singh et al. 2007). As such, future studies in this area might do well to consider more behaviorally challenging or vulnerable groups of at-risk boys in future. Nevertheless, the findings, limited as they are, still give an interesting insight into the potential for adolescent boys to construct alternative gendered ways of being—that is, in contrast to more conventional teenage performances (e.g., being “laddish”)—that may be more beneficial to themselves and others.