Boys need more than warnings. They need a picture of the men they’re meant to become.
We are talking about men incorrectly. We frame discussions of men in terms of problems – the “crisis of boys and men” or “failure to launch” – rather than the destination we want men to arrive at. If we want a different outcome, we need to change the frame of our discussions about men to center on the new reality we want to create. We need a frame that naturally leads us to answer the key question: What kind of men do we want our boys to become?
Why Frames Matter
A frame is the mental picture surrounding an issue. It tells us how to interpret what we see, just as a picture frame determines what is inside the picture and what is left outside. Language works in much the same way.
This is why framing matters so much in public debate. Facts are important, but people never encounter facts in a vacuum. Facts arrive inside stories, assumptions, emotions, and words. If the facts do not fit the frame, people keep the frame and reject the facts. Frames rule.
Consider fatherlessness. A problem-centered approach asks: “How do we reduce fatherlessness?” Fair question. But what happens if we ask a different one: “What kind of community consistently forms men who become committed husbands and fathers?”
Now everything changes. We have to start thinking about boys long before they become fathers. Who are their coaches? Who are their teachers? Where are the older men? What are churches teaching about masculinity? What do their friends admire? What do movies and music tell them about sex? What expectations surround dating? What does the culture say marriage is for? Can a young man find meaningful work? Does anyone expect something noble from him?
Suddenly, fatherlessness is no longer only a problem for social workers. It becomes a question for families, schools, churches, businesses, coaches, neighborhoods, civic leaders, and friends.
This frame also shows what real solutions and interventions would look like, because it recognizes the key formation happens further upstream than people think. If we try to head off a man becoming an irresponsible adult at age 30 by intervening at age 20, that may help some. But the key formation happens when he is 15, 12, 8, or 3. It’s as much or more about forming a healthy man rather than reforming an unhealthy one.
Here is the basic principle: If you frame an issue by its problem, the problem will remain part of the issue. If you want to solve a problem, the solution needs to become part of the original frame.
Problems Have Gravity
Problem-centered framing creates another difficulty. Problems have gravity. If you organize around teen pregnancy, you create teen-pregnancy programs. If you organize around loneliness, homelessness or fatherlessness, you create a program for each one. There is nothing wrong with helping people in crisis. We need these programs. People who are hurting need help right now.
But something strange can happen. Money begins orbiting the problem. Experts study the problem. Nonprofits are created around the problem. Government programs measure the problem. Careers develop around managing the problem. Before long, an entire system can become very good at managing a social problem without becoming equally good at preventing it. And as many people have pointed out, institutions formed to solve a problem have a vested interest in the problem continuing because the problem has become their organizing principle.
We have to make an important distinction: Programs address problems. Ecologies cultivate conditions. We need both. But if we want lasting social change, we have to pay much more attention to the second.
Put the Destination in the Frame
This leads to a simple rule: Put the destination into the frame from the beginning.
If you want family flourishing, talk about family flourishing. If you want responsible fatherhood, talk about responsible fatherhood. If you want strong marriages, talk about marital formation.
This is not positive thinking. It is not pretending problems do not exist. It is about direction. A problem frame asks: What are we trying to get away from? A generative frame asks: What are we trying to create?
Generative framing defines a social problem in terms of the positive reality we hope to create. It sees the problem clearly. It does not minimize suffering or pretend everything is fine. But it refuses to allow the problem to control the imagination. A social problem cannot be transformed if the problem itself remains the organizing category of reform. Lasting change begins when the desired good becomes part of the original frame. Then our language, institutions, networks, and practices can begin organizing around the reality we want to create instead of only reacting to the problem we want to eliminate.
A Generative Frame for Male Flourishing
If we constantly describe men in the language of failure, toxicity, immaturity, dysfunction, and deficiency, we should not be surprised when young men have trouble imagining a compelling version of adulthood.
Men need more than criticism. Boys need more than warnings. They need somewhere to go. They need models worth following. They need ambitions worth validating. They need responsibilities worth accepting. They need adventures worth pursuing. They need people who expect something from them, and of whom they can have expectations. They need a picture of masculinity marked by courage, sacrifice, service, love, responsibility, and generativity.
The question is not simply how we keep boys from becoming bad men. It is what kind of men we are calling them to become. Put the destination in the frame. Then start building the road toward it.
0 Comments