An intersectional perspective on relational-cultural theory: Commentary on Di Bianca and Mahalik (2022).

Abstract

This brief commentary to “A Relational-Cultural Framework for Promoting Health Masculinities” by Michael Di Bianca and James R. Mahalik (2022) provides an intersectional lens by which to view and apply their proposed framework. This commentary is offered as a way to deepen thinking of the diversity of men’s experiences and how emotions, relationships, and masculinities may operate within the context of racism and cultural values.

Expanding the work of developing healthy masculinities: Reply to Griffith (2022), Liang (2022), and Rogers (2022).

“…With this in mind, we centered vulnerability, connection, and compassion as broadly beneficial, but would clarify that our understanding of healthy masculinities includes the flexibility that allows for men's experiences and intersectional identities to be expressed authentically and integrated into their sense of self. In our view, fostering what is authentic in boys and men reflects the idea of mosaic masculinities described by Griffith (2022), promoting interdependence emphasized in more collectivist cultural values is consistent with what is advocated by Liang (2022), and using power in more just ways to change unjust systems promotes Rogers's (2022) call for transforming unjust systems.…”

“…We appreciate the opportunity for our article to be discussed in this Topics in Focus feature and are grateful for the thoughtful and critical analysis in each of the responses. We believe Rogers (2022), Liang (2022), and Griffith (2022) highlight important issues that provide an opportunity for a discussion of ideas, and which we view as evidence for the potential of this framework to stimulate further inquiry, theoretical work, and empirical examination, particularly addressing the three themes below that emerged for us from their responses.…”

“…Consistent with the feminist epistemology that systems of oppression must be dismantled to effect change, Rogers (2022) reminds the reader that "efforts to promote healthy masculinities must coincide with (re)structuring society to center the margins and dismantle the cultural ideologies that engineer inequality" (p. 338). Liang (2022) takes up the same point, writing "a focus on individual level change without attention to how systems of oppression need to be altered is antithetical to intersectionality theory" (p. 337). These concerns raise the issue of advocating only for individual change when the problem at hand requires systemic change.…”

“…The third theme in the responses addresses the need for an intersectional understanding of boys’ and men’s lives. Liang (2022) amplifies this point, writing that “the deepening of the conversation first begins with problematizing the practice of using the term ‘men’ as a proxy for White men” (p. 336) and critiquing “the main assumptions of the universality of this application of RCT ” (p. 336). Likewise, Griffith (2022) points out that “many men do not view hegemonic masculinity as an aspirational ideal.…”

“…Our response to the essays from Griffith (2022), Liang (2022), and Rogers (2022) addresses three themes we identified in the articles. First, feminist epistemology continues to play a critical role in the development of the study of men and masculinities.…”