by Michael Shelton, M.S., C.A.C., C.E.T.
A December 2007 article in Time Magazine examined youth sports and occurrences
of concussions and stated that males are less likely than females to
report symptoms of these brain injuries. The article postulates that
the reason for this gender difference is, "culturally, we teach
boys that they have to be tough" and that they must "play
through the pain" (Gregory, 2007, p.70). Maybe it was wishful thinking
on my part, but I was under the impression that we as a society had recognized
the damage that comes from straight jacketing young men into outdated
and pernicious expectations of masculinity. My experiences over the past
several months, however, indicate the opposite: the belief is still widespread
and even unquestioned, even in camps.
During the summer of 2007, my camp worked with a twelve-year-old that
was severely homesick. All traditional remedies had been tried, and,
finally, the boy's parents were called for their input. The father
asked to speak to his son, and I left the office so as not to appear
to be scrutinizing their dialogue. Yet even from outside the door, I
could hear the bellowing roar of the father over the receiver. The boy
barely spoke two sentences before he replaced the receiver. As he left
my office attempting to obfuscate his tears with a bandanna, he told
me that his father would not even think of allowing him to come home.
In fact, one of the reasons he had been sent to camp in the first place
was to "become a man."
Months later, after presenting on
youth development at a school conference, a participant followed me outside
to the front of the building. During my session I had mentioned my long
experience with camps, and this woman had a question relevant to these
settings. She had sent her only child — an eight-year-old boy — to
residential camp for the first time. He became homesick, and in his letters
even expressed a willingness to run away from camp if she did not come
to pick him up. Their phone calls always ended in tears for both her
and her son. After twelve days, she told the camp director that she was
arranging transportation to retrieve the boy and bring him home. In her
account, the director — a male — told her in unequivocal
terms that this was an "egregious mistake." By remaining
at camp, the boy would work through his fear and be "a stronger
man" for his pain. She acquiesced to this remonstrance and allowed
her son to stay. And now, three months after camp had ended, she found "a
chill" in their relationship and was worried that her decision
to force him to remain at camp has damaged their relationship.
Finally,
one of my professional colleagues told me with obvious anger that his
son was not allowed to call home from camp in spite of his homesickness,
was criticized and made fun of by counselors for his tearfulness, and
was told that, in spite of his misery, he would be a "better man" for
living through the experience. Now this nine-yearold boy "never" wants
to return to camp and threatens to lock himself in the closet and never
come out if his parents even suggest another camp experience.
What is
going on here?
The Cult of Masculinity
Masculinity is the end result
of genetics and upbringing, and neither trumps the other in regards to
influence. Still, we should not underestimate the importance of the socialization
process on males. Decades of research find that masculinity is a social
construct that is inculcated upon males from their very birth. In particular,
boys learn early on what is expected of them as "men," and
research finds that families and society at large introduce several pernicious
and oftentraumatic interventions to foster such development.
- First,
parents discourage the expression of emotions of vulnerability in male
children. Fear and sadness in particular are unacceptable for males.
I have witnessed enough parents respond to their crying sons as they
pull away from the camp parking lot on the first day of camp by sternly
telling them to "stop being a baby."
- Second, males
are taught to undervalue emotions indicative of caring and affection;
females learn how to express warmth and affection, while males are
taught to look upon such displays with disdain. Males do not learn
how to connect to other people intimately and are even shunned for
such displays; empathy and perspective-taking skills are not taught
and are seen as unimportant for young boys.
- Third, there is limited subset of emotions condoned
for males, most notably anger, aggression, and instrumentality, defined
here as using other people to meet one's own needs. Males who do
not learn expertise with these emotions become the recipients of the
scorn of other males and, often, society as a whole.
- Finally,
and the most traumatic, is the expectation of an early and abrupt separation
from a mother. Girls, in contrast, are allowed a much slower separation
from their mothers. They can go off to explore the world around them
and return to a mother's succor when frightened, unsure, or simply
in need of comfort. Boys are expected to rupture this maternal connection
and mark themselves off as separate individuals early on in life; those
that remain strongly attached to their mothers are pejoratively labeled
as "sissies."
The end results of male socialization are distressing.
Sadly, when biology is imprinted with societal expectations concerning
the one acceptable code of masculinity, we create males with blunted
emotional ability, who are incapable of intimacy, disconnected from others,
and who live lives of quiet despair.
Masculinity and Homesickness in
Camps
In spite of the well-known untoward effects of male socialization
and even an increasing number of studies and best-selling texts on the
subject, the assumptions of what it means to be a male permeate all aspects
of our lives. Let's return to homesickness: when a male child begins
to exhibit signs of homesickness, he breaks many of the cardinal rules
of masculinity. He exhibits emotions of vulnerability, he does not display
expected toughness, and perhaps most damaging, he shows that he has not
achieved independence from his mother (and in my experience, homesick
males almost always miss their mothers over their fathers).
These displays
evoke responses from staff and parents. Camp staff, the majority of which
are young people themselves and who have not likely pondered the implications
of male socialization, may respond with interventions that only further
inculcate the cult of masculinity. Parents may respond negatively to
learning that a boy is not living up to the expected standard of manhood.
Finally, the homesick boy himself may experience shame since these emotions
supposedly indicate that he is truly not a man.
To broaden our perspective
on the topic of male homesickness, I interviewed two individuals familiar
with camps, male socialization, and homesickness. The first, Michael
Thompson, Ph.D., is the co-author of Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional
Life of Boys and keynote speaker at the 2008 ACA National Conference.
The second is Brent Satterly, Ph.D., director of the social work program
at Widener University, a vociferous supporter of youth development, and
a former camp director.
1. Do you believe that keeping a homesick boy
at camp after all reasonable interventions have been tried will help
him in the long run?
Michael Thompson: There is a line between encouraging,
even challenging, a child to work through his homesickness and "coercing"
a child to stay in camp. Adult encouragement supports a child's normal
aspirations for independence, the latter can traumatize him. A major
difference between summer camp and the Army is informed consent. When
a young man volunteers for the Army he has every reason to anticipate
what his drill sergeant is going to do to him and how he will react.
However, when a boy signs up for camp he hopes that it will be fun and
that he will make friends and have an adventure. Though he may be nervous
about the developmental leap that leaving home represents, he cannot
possibly anticipate how the experience will feel. The depth of his homesickness
is usually a pretty big, miserable surprise to a boy.
Because boys do
not, like soldiers, volunteer to be "made into men, " their
young counselors must not assume that that is their job. When counselors
try to turn boys into men, what is really going on, I think, is that
the young male counselors have been made to feel helpless and bad. They
get frustrated by their own inability to involve him or cheer him up;
and as a result of their own impotent feelings, they become coercive
and they rationalize it by saying they are acting on behalf of a boy's
development.
In sum, I don't believe in keeping a boy at camp after
all reasonable interventions have been tried. Why would you do that?
Do you want to ruin the idea of camp for him for life? Let him go, he'll
be grateful, and perhaps be willing to try again another summer.
Brent
Satterly: Keeping a homesick boy at camp after reasonable interventions
have been employed does not bolster his selfesteem and magically make
him swim in turbulent waters. In fact, I would pose that it communicates
that when boys express their pain, they DESERVE to be met with disdain
and even disgust in an effort to "make them into men." This
sexist approach forces boys into behaving like emotionally illiterate
men.
2. Are there any positive short-term and/or long-term
outcomes that can come from forcing a boy to remain at camp? What are
some of the negative outcomes?
Michael Thompson: I don't think a camp should give up
too early with your efforts to comfort, support, encourage, and even
challenge a boy to stay at camp. If he overcomes his fears, that will
give him confidence in life. And he may have a very good time once his
homesickness lifts. So, it is always worth trying to help a child meet
a challenge and surmount it. If, however, a child is coerced into staying
at camp, he doesn't feel that the achievement is his and therefore
cannot really benefit from it. He just feels forced, trapped, and resentful,
and his trust in adults is damaged.
Brent Satterly: I don't believe
there are positive outcomes. The negatives ones (some of which I mentioned
earlier) will last into adulthood. Not because of ONE incident, but in
a series of lifelong sexist messages that are communicated to boys about
how they should feel and behave. Camp can be a wonderful space for children
to learn new skills, make new friends, and stretch their emotional selves.
Forcing children to stay at a place they loathe will not do these things — it
will simply associate camp with negative outcomes.
3. What are your suggestions
to camp staff when they encounter such a dilemma? Do you know of any
training protocols that a camp director could use with his staff that
would increase awareness of stereotypical male gender expectations?
Michael
Thompson: Camp directors have a lot more experience in how to help a
child through homesickness than I do. I don't think I have much
to contribute to that. If they encounter coercive behavior in counselors,
they have to train them better. As an author of two books on boys, including
one which is all about the oppressive nature of male stereotypes, I have
to recommend Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional
Life of Boys, and
Speaking of Boys: Answers to the Most Asked Questions
About Raising Sons.
I also think that the PBS documentary, Raising Cain:
Exploring the Inner Lives of America's Boys would be helpful in training sessions.
I also recommend books by Michael Gurian, Bill Pollack, Leonard Saxe.
Brent Satterly: After all traditional interventions have been tried
without success, send the boy home. Camp directors should develop emotional
literacy in the staff to NOT confuse their own gendered expectations
of boys and girls by projecting them onto their campers. Let their kids
be whomever they are . . . while also aiding them in getting along with
others.
A Tumultuous Issue
My colleague and his wife did oh-socautiously
mention the topic of camp to their son. And as promised, the boy hid
inside the closet until both parents promised that he would not have
to attend camp in 2008. What a sad predicament that a child has been
turned off camp, likely for the rest of his life. We can also expect
that this boy, upon reaching adulthood, will not contemplate sending
his own children to camp. An ill-planned intervention for homesickness
can lead to damaged camp relations for generations.
As the research documents
and the interviewees for this article refrain, interventions for homesickness
may be just one further assault on boys and young men that eventually
coerce them to fit into pre-existing molds of manhood; sadly, our expectations
of masculinity are known, in the long term, to do more damage than good.
The American Camp Association has numerous training options available
for coping with homesickness effectively. Also consider the options listed
by Doctors Thompson and Satterly. My experiences with parents, children,
and camp staff since last summer prove that the topic of male homesickness
remains a tumultuous issue, one that is still open for exploration, innovation,
and improvement. We should all shudder at the thought of a boy preferring
the dark of a closet to the joys of camp.
References
Gregory,
S. (2007, December 10). Head games. Time, 69-70.
Levant, R., & Brooks,
G. (1997). Men and sex. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Originally published in the 2008 May/June
issue of Camping Magazine. |
