Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am Psychol. 2022 Apr;77(3):333–335. doi: 10.1037/amp0000974

“Healthy masculinities are mosaics”: Comment on Di Bianca and Mahalik (2022)

Derek M Griffith 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC9351610  NIHMSID: NIHMS1824112  PMID: 35587399

Abstract

In this commentary on A Relational-Cultural Framework for Promoting Healthy Masculinities, I suggest that healthy masculinities may benefit from considering other factors in addition to countering hegemonic masculinity. Using the concept of mosaic masculinities, I argue that many men do not view hegemonic masculinity as an aspirational ideal and they seek to create other ideals for themselves. By using elements of hegemonic masculinity that they value and that they can attain, they create mosaics of ideals that they use as north stars to guide who they would like to be and how they would like others to view them. I then use the concept of intersectionality to discuss why and how this approach to promoting healthy masculinities may be advantageous. Finally, I argue that integrating the concept of manhood would also add important texture to the ideals that men have. I use research on African American men’s notions of manhood to make these points. This alternative perspective also is relationally constructed and it centers a more heterogeneous array of cultural factors that give masculinities meaning and that shape their implications for health and well-being.

Keywords: masculinities, manhood, African American manhood, mosaic masculinities, health, men’s health, men’s health equity, well-being

A Relational-Cultural Framework for Promoting Healthy Masculinities offers a conceptual framework to serve as the foundation of interventions to help boys and men achieve healthy masculinities. The authors note that one of the key strategies for achieving this aim is to help males navigate hegemonic masculinity and the socialization from the dominant U.S. cultural ideals that root gendered ideals for males in restrictive images, ideals, and aspirations such as what “real men” should be. But, all men do not benefit equally from the social, economic and political benefits of being a man, nor do they always aspire to define themselves in relation to hegemonic masculine norms (Coles, 2009; Creighton & Oliffe, 2010; Griffith et al., 2015; Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Hammond & Mattis, 2005).

While hegemonic masculinity presumes that there is a singular gender ideal, Coles (2008) coined the term mosaic masculinities to note that there are not one but several dominant masculinities. Many men acknowledge that a cultural ideal exists, but they actually reject hegemonic masculinity and do not consider it to be superior to the ideals they construct for themselves (Coles, 2008; Ellis, et al., 2015; Griffith, et al., 2015; Griffith & Cornish, 2018). Mosaic masculinities is the notion that men take elements of the hegemonic ideal to create aspirational ideals that are congruent with their abilities (Coles, 2008; Griffith, et al., 2017); men who take this approach to navigating and performing masculinities may view their ideals as superior to the cultural ideal. Thus, it may be advantageous to build a program to promote healthy masculinities on a foundation that helps men to create the mosaic of masculinities that they aspire to with a more diverse set of media than what hegemonic masculinity provides. This theoretical foundation may augment or refine Relational-Cultural Theory by utilizing an intersectional framework and incorporating notions of manhood in ways that bring other contexts, social structures, assets, and resources from the margins to the center of healthy masculinities.

Hegemonic masculinity prioritizes gender as the lens through which to understand the relevance of other structures that affect men’s lives and health (Connell, 2012; Gough, 2014; Gough et al., 2016). While it is important to address the limitations of hegemonic masculinity, the development, maintenance, and ability to adapt to the dynamic contexts of our lives are also parts of healthy masculinities. While there is a tendency to separate hegemonic masculinity from other factors (e.g., racism, class), Cole (2009) and others (Bowleg, 2017a; Crenshaw, 1995) have argued that gender depends on other social structures or social factors for meaning. Intersectionality can help identify the contexts and conditions under which boys and men adopt, perform, or promote certain ideals, and the contexts in which they seek to counter, resist, and undo harmful ones (Bowleg, 2017a, 2017b; Griffith, 2012; Griffith et al., 2015; Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Griffith et al., 2013; Griffith, Holliday, et al., 2021). An intersectional framework can help explore how individual boys and men construct mosaic masculinities, and how macrostructures create the social and economic fabric that gives masculinities meaning at the individual level (Creighton & Oliffe, 2010; Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Griffith, Holliday, et al., 2021; Robertson et al., 2016).

For example, the reason that men may seek to construct their mosaic masculinities in particular ways may have to do with the challenges that come from racism and other structures. African American men may seek to embody characteristics that reflect good character because they see these attributes as fundamental to how they see themselves and how they want others to view them (Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Griffith et al., 2013); however, African American men also may seek to embody these traits to counter negative cultural and political narratives, media representations, and social experiences (Jackson & Harvey Wingfield, 2013; Pieterse & Carter, 2007; Young, 2017).

In addition to identifying hegemonic masculinity and other cultural structures that shape what are labeled as healthy masculinities, it is critical to consider manhood. Manhood refers to a social status and aspirational identity that perpetually needs to be proven (Vandello & Bosson, 2013; Vandello et al., 2019). Reflecting the embodiment of virtuous characteristics and traits, manhood is relationally constructed and maintained through the performance of certain social roles and the fulfillment of gendered expectations associated with being an adult male (Griffith, 2015; Hunter & Davis, 1992, 1994). Manhood is a relational construct that is defined and exists in comparison to other notions (i.e., boyhood and womanhood) (Griffith, 2015; Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Manhood serves as a lens through which men view themselves, aspire to demonstrate their values and ideals to others, and are recognized by others as men (Griffith, 2015; Griffith et al., 2015; Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Hammond & Mattis, 2005).

For example, through both qualitative and quantitative approaches, my colleagues and I have found that African American men define manhood as fulfilling roles and responsibilities through engaging in behaviors that demonstrate spirituality or faith in God, and that benefit children, partners, spouses, other family, and future generations (Griffith & Cornish, 2018; Griffith, Pennings, & Jaeger, 2021). African American men’s ideals of manhood were rooted in their spiritual and religious beliefs, not the other way around (Griffith & Cornish, 2018). In our analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey of 300 African American men 35–73 years old, we found that the Religion and Spirituality factor was the component of African American Manhood most strongly assocaited with good/excellent self-rated health (Griffith, Pennings, & Jaeger, 2021). African American men in our studies have indicated that some of them use their faith to reshape and redefine gendered roles (e.g., being a father); some men have found greater meaning and motivation to be better men through the integration of spirituality and manhood though this has not been true of all of our participants (Griffith et al., 2015; Griffith & Cornish, 2018). Thus, for some men, healthy masculinities may find stronger roots in spirituality than hegemonic masculinity.

In sum, efforts to promote healthy masculinities and men’s health should recognize the diverse ways that men may construct gender ideals. Despite being aware of hegemonic masculine ideals, many men do not agree with or aspire to embody these ideals. In fact, it appears that there are many pro-social ideals that men value and aspire to that may be more engaging and motivating fodder for health promotion interventions (Griffith & Jaeger, 2020; Griffith, et al., 2021). By anchoring efforts to promote healthy ideals and outcomes in an approach that is based on a more nuanced set of ideals, there may be a greater chance that we can improve the health and well-being of boys and men. We also may help boys and men play more effective roles in community health promotion and efforts to achieve health equity and social justice.

Acknowledgments

This paper has been supported in part by the American Cancer Society (RSG-15-223-01-CPPB), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (75532), and NIIMHD (5U54MD010722-02).

References

  1. Bowleg L (2017a). Intersectionality: an underutilized but essential theoretical framework for social psychology. In Gough B (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Social Psychology (pp. 507–529). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowleg L (2017b). Towards a critical health equity research stance: why epistemology and methodology matter more than qualitative methods. Health Education & Behavior, 44(5), 677–684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cole ER (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. 10.1037/a0014564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Coles T (2008). Finding space in the field of masculinity. J Sociol, 44(3), 233–248. 10.1177/1440783308092882 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Coles T (2009). Negotiating the Field of Masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 12(1), 30–44. 10.1177/1097184x07309502 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Crenshaw KW (1995). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In Crenshaw KW, Gotanda N, Peller G, & Thomas K (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 359–383). [Google Scholar]
  7. Connell R (2012). Gender, health and theory: Conceptualizing the issue, in local and world perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1675–1683. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Creighton G, & Oliffe JL (2010). Theorising masculinities and men’s health: a brief history with a view to practice. Health Sociology Review, 19(4), 409–418. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gough B (2014). Masculinity. Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, 1149–1151. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gough B, Robertson S, & Robinson M (2016). 8. Men,’masculinity’and mental health: critical reflections. Handbook on Gender and Health, 134. [Google Scholar]
  11. Griffith DM (2012). An intersectional approach to men’s health. Journal of Men’s Health, 9(2), 106–112. 10.1016/j.jomh.2012.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Griffith DM (2015). “I AM a Man”: Manhood, minority men’s health and health equity. Ethnicity & disease, 25(3), 287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Griffith DM (2018). “Centering the Margins”: Moving Equity to the Center of Men’s Health Research. American Journal of Men’s Health, 1557988318773973. 10.1177/1557988318773973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Griffith DM, Brinkley-Rubinstein L, Thorpe RJ Jr, Bruce MA, & Metzl JM (2015). The interdependence of African American men’s definitions of manhood and health. Family & Community Health, 38(4), 284–296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Griffith DM, Cornish EK, Bergner EM, Bruce MA, & Beech BM (2017). “Health is the Ability to Manage Yourself Without Help”: How Older African American Men Define Health and Successful Aging. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Griffith DM, & Cornish EK (2018). “What Defines a Man?”: Perspectives of African American Men on the Components and Consequences of Manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 19(1), 78–88. 10.1037/men0000083 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Griffith DM, & Jaeger EC (2020). Chapter Nine - Mighty men: A faith-based weight loss intervention to reduce cancer risk in African American men. In Ford ME, Esnaola NF, & Salley JD (Eds.), Advances in Cancer Research (Vol. 146, pp. 189–217). Academic Press. 10.1016/bs.acr.2020.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Griffith DM, Ellis KR, & Allen JO (2013). Intersectional approach to stress and coping among African American men: Men’s and women’s perspectives. American Journal of Men’s Health, 7(4S), 16–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffith DM, Holliday CS, Enyia OK, Ellison JM, & Jaeger EC (2021). Using syndemics and intersectionality to explain the disproportionate covid-19 mortality among Black men. Public Health Reports, 136(5), 523–531. 10.1177/00333549211026799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Griffith DM, Jaeger EC, Semlow AR, Ellison JM, Bergner EM, & Stewart EC (2021). Individually tailoring messages to promote African American men’s health. Health Communication, 1–10. 10.1080/10410236.2021.1913837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Griffith DM, Pennings JS, & Jaeger EC (2021). African American manhood and self-rated health: What demographic characteristics, health conditions, and aspects of manhood matter? Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(2), 250. 10.1037/men0000343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hammond WP, & Mattis JS (2005). Being a man about it: manhood meaning among African American men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 6(2), 114–126. 10.1037/1524-9220.6.2.114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hunter AG, & Davis JE (1992). Constructing Gender: An Exploration of Afro-American Men’s Conceptualization of Manhood. Gender and Society, 6(3), 464–479. http://www.jstor.org/stable/189997 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hunter AG, & Davis JE (1994). Hidden Voices of Black Men: The Meaning, Structure, and Complexity of Manhood. Journal of Black Studies, 25(1), 20–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2784412 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jackson BA, & Harvey Wingfield A (2013). Getting angry to get ahead: Black college men, emotional performance, and encouraging respectable masculinity. Symbolic Interaction, 36(3), 275–292. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kimmel MS (2006). Manhood in America: A cultural history. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pieterse AL, & Carter RT (2007). An examination of the relationship between general life stress, racism-related stress, and psychological health among Black men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 101–109. 10.1037/0022-0167.54.1.101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ravenell JE, Johnson WE, & Whitaker EE (2006). African American men’s perceptions of health: a focus group study. Journal of the National Medical Association, 98, 544–550. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2569257 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Robertson S, Williams B, & Oliffe J (2016). The case for retaining a focus on “masculinities” in men’s health research. International Journal of Men’s Health, 15(1), 52–67. [Google Scholar]
  30. Vandello JA, & Bosson JK (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. 10.1037/a0029826 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Vandello JA, Bosson JK, & Lawler JR (2019). Precarious manhood and men’s health disparities. In Griffith DM, Bruce MA, & Thorpe RJ Jr. (Eds.), Men’s Health Equity: A Handbook (pp. 27–41). Routledge/ Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  32. Young AA Jr (2017). The character assassination of Black males: Some consequences for research in public health. In National Academies of Sciences (Eds.), Communities in action: Pathways to health equity (pp. 41–56). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES