Customer Reviews

Men in Groups

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Length:: 6:09 Mins

This work is a sensational read that will appeal to anybody who does not think the words "male" and "men" are insults. It reads better a second time than the first.

I just finished reading a first edition hardcover of this book, which is believed to be responsible for popularizing the phrase "male bonding" which is widely in use to this day. A book with that sort of lasting influence could hardly be "obsolete," as another reader suggested.

Actually, some of Tiger's suggestions seem fresh and relevant, especially in light of recent trends that take another look at long buried, "dangerous" ideas like "Human Universals." (Notably referenced in Steven Pinker's excellent The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature)

Current thinking on chimpanzee social structure is irrelevant to the ideas presented in this book.

The key idea is here is that men seem to gain some sort of sense of well-being from male-male bonding and that male bonding seems to center around aggression (which Tiger defines broadly, not only in terms of violence but of seeking mastery of something--where violence is but one possible outcome of aggression). That aggression can be real or simulated. So this idea, in an age where cooperative online gaming (a new but highly male interest), ESPN, UFC and the movie 300 are all such popular points of reference for young , straight men, it actually seems that Tiger was actually more correct than he wished to be. Male bonding, and aggression, ARE part of human nature, and they can't necessarily be suppressed or rendered impotent despite the best intentions of "positivists."

He was correct that male bonding needs to be accommodated in our plans for our species, and I would add, in a productive and positive way. Because young men will seek out manly identity and bonding from those who offer it--be they Boy Scouts or gangs. Old school feminists can continue to put their hands over their ears and wish human nature away, but it ain't going anywhere. Not completely.

Highly recommended.

The condensed edition of this book: "Men function well, in teams, and women do not." You might go on to add that men "naturally" do this.

I suspect that there must be something biological, or genetic, in this obvious truth. Who knows? But I have heard curses from men who are coaching teams of women (soccer, basketball, etc.): "They just don't GET IT!"

The reviewer who claims that the book is "obsolete," in my opinion, has a highly-inflated idea of human flexibility.

Nevertheless, although this is a "ground-breaking" book, I find that it has aged, and it has not aged well. I don't know whether Lionel Tiger was simply too lazy to attempt a revision of this book, or whether his mind has gone to sleep over the last fifty years. Whatever: there are false notes struck on almost every page, and they are mostly political false notes. An example would be Lionel Tiger smugly asserting that racial segregation in America was due to whites not wanting to live with blacks. It does not even seem to occur to him that there is another side of the coin: that blacks do not want to live with whites. Even more incredible (for Tiger) is the concept that this might be a pretty good way to arrange life: whites and blacks do not necessarily live cheek-by-jowl, but perhaps in adjoining suburbs, where they have softball games on the weekends. OK, the whites probably lose the softball games most of the time, but why is this sort of living pattern assumed to be unthinkable?

Another example is Tiger's feminism: he actively wants more women participating in politics. ("Why?" does not seem to occur to him.) He confesses that the political strength of men in groups is going to make realizing that goal very difficult, and therefore *profound political changes might be necessary to achieve this goal.* Making "profound political changes" to achieve some (perhaps imaginary) goal is actually an extremely dangerous idea, and I suspect that its time is very nearly over.

A lot of important data is gathered here. I don't think it's well organized, but it is at least *gathered.*

But I don't think any of this changes the fact that men naturally tend to form self-selected teams. If you have a social unit with fifteen guys in it, perhaps seven or eight will form themselves into a team. They will probably do it (in Western society) by trading insults (in person or over the Internet). Very often, a guy's "mates" are among the most important things in his life. An entrepreneur in New Zealand; a college boy in Chiang Mai; a Burmese refugee who has a pack of at least twenty friends --- find me a woman who operates like these guys. :-)

Why do we Western folks need an entire book to document the obvious? Search me!

I have re-read my 1984 edition of 'Men in Groups' and find it strange that this book has been published again in 2004 considering its errors and antiquated tone. I cannot imagine how the new introduction to the 2004 edition can get round these problems - for the author to take into consideration the new knowledge about primates and human evolution and the actual changes in women's 'nature' in recent decades automatically renders the book obsolete.

Certainly, male bonding is a fact of human societies that needed to be recognized but we are now well past the false glorification of 'man-the-hunter' which pervades this book.

Tiger says his intention was that of abetting the feminist position by illustrating the depth and pervasiveness of the male conspiracy against women so it is somewhat amusing to find in his more recent wrtings that he is not as thrilled by the changes women have accomplished as we would expect.

The author could be forgiven in 1969 for ignorance regarding primates and human evolution. This ignorance led to his attempts to find the roots of human male bonding in hunting as he supposed that our ancestors were matrilocal, as most mammals are. Now we know our direct connection to chimpanzees we can see that they are patrilocal male kin groups with the females transfering to breed. Females are the outsiders - entering one group of male kin from another group of male kin that are their competitors and enemies. This is how it is, or has been, for human societies too. The odds were stacked in favor of male bonding and male self-interest and against that of females well before humans came along.

Tiger recognizes (at least he did in 1969) how male homosociality is detrimental to females and to humankind in general but he also feels compelled to sing its praises as if it has some magical quality beyond self-interest. He has the problem of wanting to find ways to feed and sustain the primitive and needy male homosociality while changing the outcome to something more civilized than we actually have. It is lke trying to cure an illness but refusing to accept the cause. There is a lot of male narcissism here along with a condescending attitude towards women that is hard to believe was so natural for men only 38 years ago.

If you must read this book then at least read some actual field studies of primates to see how amusingly inaccurate Tiger's beliefs about baboons and other primates turned out to be. Let yourself also find out about, for example, the baboon males who, trying to enter a group, ingratiate themselves with a female, babysitting her offspring and so becoming accepted in the group. And possibly at some time the female may take this male's genes into the future for him. Then, perhaps, think about the human males who are not 'men's men' and the alternative reproductive strategies of which human males are capable.

Yes, male-bondng for aggression and violence leading to increased reproductive success is the loudest story in human history but it is not the only one. And if we are going to use nature and biology to support a theory then it cannot be false biology. Once the 'scientific' foundation of a theory is shown to be incorrect it would obviously be better to start again - especially when the accompanying language is of the condescending kind that would be more readily dropped if it had been applied to, say, homosexuals or blacks.

Basically, so much of this book has turned out to be either blinkered or simply wrong that it is necessarily obsolete.