caveats. One is the danger of the dialectic presented from the bipolar lines. Yet to account for the necessity of bipolarity to map the current mythopoetic branch, all those enlisting themselves in the collective effort to envision the future of the mythopoetic branch might ask themselves the following question: What is the relation between science and the humanities, and how is it important for advances in our understanding of what it means to be man?
Like all other profound questions, this query may be broken up into smaller questions. One more specific question is this: How may the various strains of the mythopoetic branch be integrated so as to account for what is best about both the artistic endeavor (the expression of the human condition by mood and feeling) and the scientific tradition (the explication of logic and order)? Clearly, there is a need not simply for loose integration, but rather, systematic synthesis.
Will the mythopoetic branch take advantage of the collaborative opportunities the sprouting third culture affords? Will various strains of the contemporary men's movement join and even synthesize into multidisciplinary examinations of masculinity? On which side the majority falls may prove to be one of the most decisive events for the history of the men's movement. The contemporary men's movement may be enhanced through a collective strength or weakened by divisiveness, as has already happened in the profeminist and men's rights/ father's rights branches.
Regardless, no doubt may be cast on the fact that as our culture evolves, social movements that integrate the humanities and the sciences will most powerfully wake up the human race from what will be looked back on as its twentieth-century, fragmented worldview. This time of consilience may indeed prove to be another Renaissance. The question is how well the mythopoetic branch will celebrate and participate in its growing spirit.
Bellah R. ( 1980). Varieties of civil religion. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Bly R. ( 1990). Iron John. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Brunner T. M. ( 1995, June 10). Tape-recorded interview with Robert Moore.
Edinger Edward ( 1972). Ego and archetype: Individuation and the religious function of the psyche. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
Estes C. P. ( 1992). Women who run with wolves. New York: Random House.
Goode E., & Wagner B. ( 1993, May 24). Does psychotherapy work? U.S. News and World Report, pp. 57-65.
Hilgard E. R. ( 1987). Psychology in America. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hillman J. ( 1991). A blue fire. New York: Harper Perennial.
Jung C. G. ( 1951). Aion ( R. F.C. Hull, Trans.) Princeton: Princeton University Press (Original work published in 1951).
Moore R., & Gillette D. ( 1990). King, warrior, magician, lover. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
Moore R. ( 1993a). The king within. New York: Avon Books.
Moore R. ( 1993b). The warrior within. New York: Avon Books.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Mythopoetic Perspectives of Men's Healing Work:An Anthology for Therapists and Others. Contributors: Edward Read Barton - Editor. Publisher: Bergin & Garvey. Place of publication: Westport, CT. Publication year: 2000. Page number: 85.