Recent months have seen a huge moral panic whipped up about lone parenthood. The state of fatherhood is both more and less than the level of that huge and passionate debate implies. Scanning the situation with a psychologist's eye, it occurs to me that we are witnessing a damaging and misleading idealization of fathers and the roles which men play in families.

Andrew Samuels, Jungian Analyst (Society of Analytical Psychology, London)

First published in Encounter
Copyright 1994 Andrew Samuels. All rights reserved.

Recent months have seen a huge moral panic whipped up about lone parenthood. The state of fatherhood is both more and less than the level of that huge and passionate debate implies. Scanning the situation with a psychologist's eye, it occurs to me that we are witnessing a damaging and misleading idealization of fathers and the roles which men play in families. It would be folly to base policy on such idealization.

The continuing stigmatization of women who parent alone is driven by our total failure to come to terms with the imminent collapse of the mechanisms which once supported the male domination of society. This failure leaves many men unsure of their roles, having the power, but lacking identity. The suicide figures for the past decade show that the situation unsettles men so much that they can't live with it. Male suicide has almost doubled whilst female suicide declined. It can't simply be a result of unemployment: we've had recessions before.

The government, some academics and sections of the media yearn for the return of the father. They see him as a source of stability, discipline and order in the family and by some kind of alchemy, in society as well. In this yearning, the father is presented as a sort of public school fag master, the older boy who is given younger boys as servants and in return supposedly helps their character formation. A first leader in The Times newspaper on November 19th, 1993, demonstrates this very well, bemoaning the absence of fathers as a "moral presence" in the family. When faced with such thinking, there is, in progressive circles, a vacuum where new ideas should exist.

Equating the notion of fatherhood with "moral presence" is to deny the possibility of other styles and models of fathering. in my view, if we worked out the detail of these fresh approaches, we would end up with a set of visions and values which would support lone parents. These new ideas about good-enough fatherhood would stress the father's active, direct emotional involvement with his children from the earliest age. The new models of fatherhood would uphold an egalitarian, co-operative, non-hierarchical family. They would not simply seek a pointless restoration of father and his authority as a (flawed) source of rules and regulations, not to mention his role as the source of sexual and physical abuse of women and children.

Two crucial implications arise from two new approaches to fathering. Firstly, we might perhaps learn to talk about the father-of-whatever-sex. In finding out what fathers do actually do, or can do that is life-affirming and life-related beyond the "moral presence," we would gain pool of information for women who bring up children alone or with other women. Redefining the father would undermine everything that our society assigns or wishes to assign to men. Anatomy would cease to determine destiny.

The order of events is crucial here: we must rind out more about fathers, then re-invent the father in a way which is not hyper masculine and then speak to women. To women, we ask the question: Can you do these things that fathers can do? The invitation is for women to assert their capacity to be fathers of whatever sex; to be good-enough fathers rather than phoney-ideal fathers.

To those who have a negative gut reaction to the idea that women can be good-enough fathers and play the father's role, I say: "Men, too play the father's role. Fathering doesn't come naturally to men, along with penises and stubble—it has to be learned and every new father finds there are rules in our society about how to do it." Women who father as fathers-of-whatever-sex may teach a thing or two to men who father—who knows? I remember my daughter setting up a game with me by saying, "You be the daddy, Daddy"—and at some point in our family play, announcing, "Now I'll be the daddy, Daddy." Fatherhood is a male masquerade.

The second implication of what I've been saying about the good-enough-father-of-whatever-sex concerns fatherhood and men. The role of the male parent must be made more interesting and meaningful for our younger men. They have started to reject the dictatorial style of fathering—even if female partners are prepared to accept it. The refusal of male dominance by women coupled with men's search for inspiring ideas about manhood and fatherhood, are crucial social and psychological changes on which the debate about fathers should focus. Nearly all social critics have explored what would happen if fathers were more active parents of very small children.

This article works on two levels: as a resource for women who parent alone and as an agenda for contemporary men looking for new styles of fatherhood. There is an ordinary physical warmth which fathers can communicate to their daughters and sons. This unassuming topic is my starting point for an exploration of the good-enough-father-of-whatever-sex.

So what is it that fathers do, or can do, which goes beyond discipline, order, morality and so on? Firstly, in all the concern about child sexual abuse, we have forgotten about the positive aspects of a father's physical warmth. Fatherly warmth leads to a recognition of a man's daughter as a female in her own right, not simply as a little mother. She is not solely a creature tied to the role of mother. This sensitive and empathic break-up of the equation, women = mother, has enormous personal and socio-political implications.

Many feminist writers have shown convincingly that the process called "reproduction of motherhood" is extremely limiting. A woman is tied to the role of responding to the needs of others and putting herself last. She does not dare to risk dis- favour by asserting her demands. I believe that fatherly recognition of the daughter as other than a mother can be a key way for women to break out of the cycle of the reproduction of motherhood. There are other pathways: a spiritual path; a work path; a path which integrates a woman's ability to assert her- self; a path of sexual expression (not necessarily heterosexual) and maybe a path of celibacy. Crucially, there also have to be pathways which are not man-orientated, that involve movement away from the father—for example, a path of solidarity with other women.

Women raising children alone can, by imagination and sharing of experiences, send similar messages to their daughters. They can do this by understanding their daughter's evolving sexual potential—everyone has a sexual potential from the earliest age - as the most easily recognizable in a series of moves taking her away from a mix-up and overlap with the mother. To function as a father-of-whatever-sex in this way may mean that a mother who parents alone would seek out and accentuate the dynamic of competition between a parent and child of the same sex. Such a mother can communicate to her daughter that they are potential rivals, adding that this is no bad thing. This provides the kind of differentiation from the mother that the father's recognition, fueled by a mutual physical warmth with his daughter, can provide.

Our culture should address its habit of splitting the male body into something either quite horrible or meekly pretty, nice and hairless. Male bodies have the potential for good as well as harm. We must start a discussion about both these possibilities which go beyond the use of men's bodies in advertising. For sons, a good- enough physical connection to the father helps to lead to the growth of what I want to call "homosociality." The implications of this are immense. I would argue that a certain kind of father-son relating, fueled by positive and frankly expressed physical warmth, inspires the new kinds of social organization now urgently needed by Western societies.

This mode of relationship stresses community and non- hierarchical Organization, which women find more congenial, rather than aping all the worst features of the male drive for success. In these new social organizations, men would learn from and love other men. Homosociality is illustrated best by the ways the gay community has responded to AIDS, particularly at a time when the disease was thought to be solely a homosexual problem. In this kind of father-son relating, we have a practical and Inspiring model: love between men, as father and son, and even as brothers, as political practice. Notice the paradox: the men regarded by our society as the least "manly" have become, in my refraining, the pioneers, forging a way through a huge and hostile territory. In thinking about the good-enough father, I have come to see that a tremendous fear that the ordinary, devoted good-enough father will somehow be effeminate, which is code for "homosexual," is perhaps the most difficult obstacle to overcome.

Homosociality is a territory in which the father-of-what-ever-sex comes into her own and can function as a resource for her male co-fathers. Women know more about non-hierarchical organization from the inside. Women who parent alone will probably be considering how to make co-operation more attractive to their sons, rather than seeing it as bland, or worst of all, non-manly. I've seen examples of this process in many one-parent families. The mother—I mean, of course, the father-of-whatever-sex—using her undeniable power to reinforce an absence of hierarchy and unbendable rules, even challenging her son to use his imagination as much as his biceps. And the sons respond to the challenge. They know that being an old-style, oppositional, Jurassic man, testing and testing the limits of authority, is only one way to be male. And it's pretty boring. Boundary-exploring behavior of that sort is not going to vanish overnight. It also has some positive aspects in that rules should be challenged and gathering new knowledge does involve breaking rules. But the father-of-whatever-sex knows a lot already about working co-operatively. Remember, she's a woman.

With society's current obsession about violence, aggression becomes a more problematic theme. Some might say that only men can handle their son's aggression, I would say that it all depends what we mean by "handling aggression." If we mean its complete eradication, either by a magical discipline or by stoicism in the face of frustration and adversity, then these might well be unachievable goals. For me, the question is not how to handle, manage, discipline or do away with aggression. Aggression will always be part of life and it isn't all bad. Rather, the task is to see how aggression might be kept moving and pre- vented from degenerating into the destructiveness which appears when aggression gets stuck. Aggression is part of the process of communicating. It is also a good and valid way of getting attention. The trouble is: who is to judge which example of aggression is horribly destructive or constructively self- assertive?

Using the human body as an index, I've cooked up a way to address this question of aggression getting stuck and turning into destructiveness. Head aggression might take the form of a verbal onslaught, whilst chest aggression would be exemplified by the ambivalence of the bear hug. Genital aggression would be pornography, Don Juanism or the materialistic sexual thrills of the tycoon. Arm aggression suggests a whole range of images and acts—from striking a blow to strangulation . Leg aggression is often practiced by fathers—leg aggression means walking away, ducking confrontation. Anal aggression, coming out of the bottom, means enviously smearing the achievements of others—what we used to call in encounter groups "coming out sideways."

The relationship between the child and the father-of-whatever-sex is the place in which movement between these various styles of aggression can be developed. The main aim is to avoid a predominance of keep aggression moving so as to any one style. When one style starts to take over, creative aggression moves towards pure destructiveness.

Another point should be made here. There is more to the communication of aggression between father and child than keeping several styles of aggression going at once. There's also the possibility that at a social and familial level, fathering could transform antisocial, sadistic, unrelated aggression into socially committed, self-assertive, related aggression.

I'm particularly interested in how fathers work on these questions of aggression without knowing it. For their sons, the goal seems to be to allow aggression its place in an open and emotionally mobile relationship. For their daughters, the goal should be to validate and reinforce her capacity to challenge men. I think that a woman's capacity to confront patriarchy stems to a certain extent from how her father mirrored her aggressive responses for her.

For women who parent alone, the main concern is to resist the temptation to retreat into a spurious all-female, nicey-nicey, sisterly alliance. In talking to lone parents, I have come to understand how tempting a prospect this seems for those who are lonely and fear rejection. Equally, many women who are lone parents have had to come to terms with aggression in the family already. Surprisingly, this point has not surfaced in the mainstream media. Perhaps it might be possible to communicate to lone fathers of whatever sex that aggression between themselves and their daughters may be beneficial. If we are to speak of the need for aggression between lone mothers and their daughters, the basis of the debate would be changed and would pose a few questions for the "traditional family." For example, I think it is essential that challenge to male authority is approved and not dismissed as disloyalty on the part of a mother.

As far as the father of whatever sex and her son are concerned, I think that my remarks about the need to avoid aggression getting stuck are important. Tension and frustration will always be present, carrying with it the possibility of aggression. This can be reframed within the family in a positive way rather than as a form of expression which has to be eliminated. In terms of parenting behavior, I think that women who parent alone should be reassured of what many already know: that it cannot be wrong to engage in rough and tumble play with boys and that such play is bound to become a bit too mal from time to time. It isn't always a bad thing when events get out of control—just look at the psychological damage done to people who grew up. in emotionally over-controlled families. What kind of training in "handling" aggression did those people get?

The days when male aggression was accepted in a simple way are over. That doesn't mean that the frequency of male violence, only that cultural attitudes have become more intricate. The father of whatever sex derives some of her strength from these changes in cultural values—and maybe it is her contribution which will ensure even greater change.

{/viewonly}