I have found myself considering those developmental years of late adolescence and early adulthood when it was far from obvious that the world had a place for the kind of man I seemed to be. There's definitely still a charge around those memories. Unpacking the charge into the beliefs, ascribed meanings and fears generating emotional charges at the time and understanding the emotional residue in the present and the unresolved trauma which can be triggered is quite a complex business. Most gay men of my generation will say something along the lines of '...it was like trying to put together a jigsaw without the picture on the box lid'. And of course that's true to a greater or lesser extent for all young people. But there's a key difference for gay men of my generation, we had no public script. In my own case although I had arrived (as a result of an early normal fast tempo puberty) at my final height of 5'6" by 16, I remained slight and young looking right through my twenties. Throw in a non-sporty observant temperament, and (initially repressed) homosexuality and it seemed like I wasn't going to be able to fit the culturally limited image of manhood. Early responsibilities as a care giver had added to this and the result was a lack of social embeddedness. Nothing especially new here then, territory I explored back in the coming out days one way or another. But I came a cross what I find to be a useful term- incongruent masculinity. And in the days when one doesn't see a viable script, is not mirrored and has limited emotional support or buffering it is all too easy to add meaning to what might otherwise be neutral facts and misinterpret incongruence as insufficiency. And so incongruence, compartmentalisation, lack of social embeddedness and early responsibilities resulted in what psychologists call asynchronous development. Such development has its costs - mainly grief for the unlived life but also its benefits, awareness being one, or to put it figuratively - straight men (ie congruent men) they're like fish in the sea, they don't see the water. And another element in this is that for men of my generation part of the limited script which was available was a perverse denial that the script existed. So for example it was very clear that small youthful looking men were regarded as insufficient yet at the same time there was denial that this was being policed and an expectation that such a man should 'man up' about his insufficiency and bear the 'shame' in silence. And so this too was to be put in a compartment. Masculinity was tightly policed. Whilst homosexuality had, in the year of my birth been partly decriminalised it remained socially taboo and for most gay men required a tight compartment to ensure safety. In this regard coming out was a process as much about generating safety as it was about internal acceptance. Finding a script wasn't easy. The dominant scripts and hierarchies of hegemonic masculinity affect everyone and whilst the toxicity of this is now much better understood it still remains muddy water for many. Incongruence seems to me to be a useful way to see any deviation from the hegemonic norm, and it becomes clear that this extends beyond physicality, gender and sexuality. In the workplace it's observable in what DC and I have previously termed 'The family guy thing'. Basically overt and covert power systems operate to ostensibly (the overt power system) provide fairness and psychological safety whilst in practice real power is covert and restricted to the congruent, all too often this group aligns heavily with congruent masculinity. But it's important here to recognise that congruence is multi-dimensional (culture, gender, race, sexuality, disability, neurodivergence, etc.) and there are intersections. The ways in which the (ostensibly) incongruent adapt to this and and become congruent, depend I suppose, much on the extent and the nature of the mismatch between forms of congruence. Authenticity and the limits of one's ability to enact or modify those forms of congruence place one inside or outside the boundary of covert power.
I can expand this to consider the modern conflict averse workplace. Again overt and covert power systems and decision making play out both internally within the employer's business and in the external relationships with clients and subcontractors in my experience. The overt systems claim to aim for openness, collaboration, group and individual safety and seek to deescalate conflict. In practice this often delays decision making, 'takes things off-line' and feeds difficult problems and processes to a covert system. In this covert system power is held by the congruent and exercised over the incongruent who as a result have their safety reduced. In this way hegemonic power systems operate through covert systems.
Incongruency can generate better leadership and safety because it often creates conditions where awareness becomes essential, but the obstacles to manifesting such leadership are the added burden of managing the congruent and the displaced work in the covert system which should be handled in the overt system. Eventually in my experience as stated above, authenticity and the limits of one's ability to enact or modify forms of congruence place one inside or outside the boundary of covert power. Whilst the covet is still operational there is a limit on the leadership the incongruent can deliver. For me this becomes an inflection point for authenticity and ultimately defines how much I'm able to operate in any system. Competency in the field of required delivery is one of the the main antidotes to covert systems because they often form a hiding place for the incompetent, but to challenge the hegemony is not without risk and a constant balancing act is usually required. Competence is often a threat to those who benefit from the covert even if they try to deny it by withholding legitimacy, whilst still utilising it by appropriating the output of the incongruent. Further, because congruence generates ease, awareness can often be lacking (as the congruent seldom see the water). And so the congruent may not be fully aware of their subjugation of the incongruent, whereas, the incongruent often lack ease and have their awareness surreptitiously purloined.
Returning to the costs of (social) incongruency, often, hypervigilance, asynchronous development and associated non-normative experience (these two form an ongoing loop for some time), lack of social embeddedness, etc., it should be clear that the model is relevant not just to psychological development but career development too because what is at stake is access to power systems and psychological safety. Or put another way - in the presence of covert systems, legitimacy is granted by the congruent and usually to the congruent. This stifles cultural responsiveness and is why it can take so long for the incongruent to gain legitimacy.
At a personal level I would say that authenticity remains an ongoing work to integrate identity as an unfolding process within the constraints of available safety and awareness not just of (in)congruence but any frame of reference.
