Men in Groups

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.