Prof Richard Feynman, the acclaimed theoretical physicist and Nobel prize winner who worked on the Manhattan Project, is widely hailed as a genius. That may be true, but I think the great man got it wrong when he said in a 1981 interview that “Social science is an example of a science which is not a science. They follow the forms… but they don’t get any laws. They haven’t found out anything.”  

Contrary to his claims, the social sciences had already for decades produced several verifiable laws (e.g. Thorndike’s Law of Effect in operant conditioning, and the Yerkes-Dodson law). Nonetheless what Feynman said struck a chord with many, and if I am honest, his suggestion that “they haven’t found out anything” touches a nerve. To explain what I mean I will take examples from research into masculinity and mental health.

Paradigm fixation

Thomas Khun proposed that science typically goes through long periods of normal scientific activities (discovery, research, application etc) interrupted by occasional paradigm shifts i.e. major rethinking of a topic. Before the 1980s, masculinity was described in the social sciences in fairly benign terms (e.g. competitive, aggressive, decisive), but from the 1980s, the definition suddenly became increasingly negative (e.g. homophobic, dominating women, a playboy). Subsequent research depicted masculinity negatively, sometimes referred to as the ‘deficit model’ of masculinity. By the 1990s, questions were being asked about this new direction, and three recurring flaws were identified:

• Relying on negative stereotypes of men, and not considering positive aspects of masculinity
• Generalising findings from student samples to all men, as if even mature men have the same opinions as teenagers
• Correlational studies were discussed as if they proved causation e.g. a finding that masculinity (with definitions including misogyny and homophobia etc.) is correlated with poor mental could reasonably be interpreted as meaning poor mental health makes men view more inclined to misogyny and homophobia etc.

Studies that were reliably fixated on this narrow paradigm, unsurprisingly found fairly reliable results. However this ‘paradigm fixation’  it has dug itself – without anyone seeming to have noticed - into a huge validity crisis, where the studies not actually measuring what they claimed to be measuring, nor finding what they claim to be finding. In other words this paradigm fixation on the deficit model means we know less now about men and masculinity than we did before the 1980s, and I am guessing Feynman would claim this as evidence that social scientists has really found out anything. To be fair, if the deficit model had helped, we would probably see more men willingly go to therapy, stay in therapy, and have good long term outcomes from therapy, but instead since the 1980s we have seen increases in depression and anxiety in men in the US and UK, and many other countries.

Shifting up a gear

To escape from this mindset, first we must start to recognise that despite a huge amount of work, research based on the deficit model of masculinity has been a scientific dead end. Second, we need a fresh start based on some of the interesting findings that run counter to the deficit model e.g. findings showing that masculinity is correlated with better mental health.

In my recent article I make a few basic suggestions in this direction. These include using the principles of Rogers’ person-centred therapy e.g. being non-judgemental will help people to get away from the presumption that masculinity is a problem. In their chapter ‘Well-Being by Design: Social Science for Healthier Lives’ in the book Why the Social Sciences Matter, Quick et al. advocate a positive psychology approach to physical and mental health. I agree, especially in the field of men’s mental health, where negativity psychology has become the norm.

We need also to recognise that science is not just a factory production line for data that confirms a particular view, but a method that highly values counter-instances as opportunities to improve a theory. Unfortunately, in some places it has become verboten to question ideas such as patriarchy theory, or to acknowledge that some aspects of sex differences are due to nature. As human beings we are inclined to many biases and errors in our thinking, and it’s important that people in the social sciences realise how common bias against men is too.

Thomas Kuhn described how paradigms in science shift, and I believe that if social science is any kind of genuine science, then masculinity research is due a shift. In the present state of fixation, we are missing huge opportunities to improve men’s mental health. Depressed and suicidal men don’t make for a happier world, and it makes sense that happier men will benefit the wellbeing of society as a whole.

At present, those who enter the social sciences wanting to help men are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but standing in a cul-de-sac staring at a wobbly brick wall festooned with faded revolutionary slogans of the past. We at the Centre for Male Psychology are doing everything we can to move knowledge forward, but paradigms are slow to shift, and new pathways can feel scary for people to take, at least at first. Lots of people have been trained to believe the solution to men’s mental health problems lie in smashing the patriarchy and reforming masculinity, so it can understandably be difficult for them to imagine that those negative views of masculinity might actually be contributing to the problems they are trying to solve.

I feel very hopeful for the future of the social sciences. Richard Feynman got a lot right, but not everything, and I believe that field of masculinity research can one day prove that his withering assessment of the social sciences was ultimately wrong.