A Surface
When I look back at the work I did with men, I keep returning to a word that doesn’t appear anywhere in the literature on counselling or therapy or pastoral care. It doesn’t appear in the self-help vocabulary, or in the language of emotional intelligence, or in the long and growing glossary of terms we now reach for when we try to describe human connection. The word is architectural.
I keep returning to it because it is more accurate than any of the words the available literature would offer. But I want to say something more precise than architecture, and it is this: the thing I offered was not something I performed. It was something I declined to perform.
That distinction took me a long time to understand. I spent years thinking about the work in terms of what I brought to it—the attention, the presence, the particular quality of stillness I tried to maintain while a man spoke. Those things were real. But they were not, I came to think, the primary thing. The primary thing was the list of what I didn’t do. I didn’t interpret. I didn’t correct. I didn’t offer my own experience as a reference point. I didn’t advise. I didn’t compete—for the centre of the conversation, for the more interesting story, for the position of the person who understood better. I didn’t occupy. I didn’t take.
I noticed, again and again, that after several hours with a man I came away feeling I had scarcely exerted myself. At first I thought this meant I was doing the work wrong—that something more effortful was required, some more active engagement, some richer contribution to what had been said. Then I began to understand it differently. I wasn’t busy constructing responses. I was noticing. The ease, such as it was, came from not doing the things that make conversation effortful: the constant internal labour of managing your own reactions, shaping your contributions, positioning yourself in relation to what is being said. I had set most of that down. What remained was attention, which is not the same as effort, and noticing, which is not the same as thinking.
The man who sets something down can look at it from outside himself, which is the distance that thinking requires, and then pick it up again, or not, on his own terms. I noticed that what I offered most closely resembled this: not an active receiving, but a kind of structural availability. A place where something could be put. But a surface is a spatial image, and what I want to describe is a philosophy—something that governed not just how I held space but how I moved through the whole of the work, from the massage to the conversation to the end of the session and the moment the man walked out.
The philosophy is the refraining. I want to be specific about what refraining means, because it is easy to mistake it for passivity, which is not what it is. Passivity is absence. Refraining is a continuous active choice to hold back the responses that would come automatically if I released my attention for a moment. When someone speaks, those automatic responses are always there: the pull toward comparison, the rise of an interpretation, the advice that presents itself as obvious, the reassurance that wants to be offered, the identification that begins converting the speaker’s experience into your own. None of those is malicious. Most of them are generous in intention. But I noticed each time I allowed one of them that the quality of the space changed. Something had been taken from the man speaking, even when he didn’t notice the taking.
The refraining is rarer than any positive technique I could have brought to the work. A positive technique can be taught. You learn the steps, you practise the timing, you acquire the vocabulary and the posture and the facial expression that signals engagement. Refraining requires something different: a settled enough relationship with your own responses that you can feel them arrive and not act on them. I could feel the interpretations forming. I felt the advice preparing itself. I noticed the moment when something a man said touched something in my own experience and the reflex to say so rose up—because that kind of identification feels like connection, and often is, but also closes down the space around what the man said and replaces it with something about me. I felt all of it. And I set it aside.
I found, doing this over years, that one of the things I was most consistently refraining from was correction. When I say correction I don’t mean catching factual errors. I mean something more ordinary and more pervasive: the impulse, when a man offers an account of his experience that seems internally contradictory or partially mistaken or logically inconsistent, to point toward what seems more accurate. I noticed this impulse often. I also noticed that acting on it would have terminated something. The contradiction, the inconsistency, the partial account—these were not problems to be solved. They were the surface texture of a man thinking in real time about something he hadn’t thought through fully. The contradictions were where the interesting material lived. Resolving them prematurely, even gently, even correctly, would have closed the thing that most needed to stay open.
I think about the man who told me his parents had put him on a pedestal. He said it without preamble, as though it were a settled fact, the kind of thing a man knows about himself. Over the following hour, without any prompting from me, he described two people who sounded worried and fallible and perhaps loving in an anxious, effortful way—but who bore no resemblance to the parents who would have produced the child on a pedestal. I noticed the discrepancy. I noticed it early and I noticed it growing as he continued. I did nothing with it until it was fully developed, until both accounts sat in the room at the same size, each with equal presence. Only then did I say something—and what I said was not a correction. It was a reflection. Help me understand something. You said at the start that your parents put you on a pedestal. But everything you’ve described since seems to point somewhere rather different. I left it there. I offered no resolution. He could go toward it or away from it. The movement was his.
That is what refraining makes possible: the man’s own movement. When I fill the space—with my interpretations, my corrections, my advice, my stories, my positions—I occupy the territory in which his thinking would otherwise have room to develop. I noticed that the conversations which moved somewhere real were the ones in which I had said the least. The less I had contributed, in the conventional sense of contributing, the more had happened. This seemed counterintuitive at first, then obvious, then like one of the central observations of the work.
The massage was part of the same philosophy, and I want to say something about how it connected.
I noticed that men often relaxed physically before they relaxed conversationally. The touch I provided moved over a man’s body with full attention but without agenda, without needing the body to confirm anything, without assessing it against a standard. I noticed what was held, where the tissue resisted, what the breath did under different kinds of contact. I didn’t tell a man what I found, because that would have been an interpretation he now had to integrate. I simply attended to it. The body, under that kind of attention, tends to release things it has been holding—not because it is told to, but because the holding was a response to conditions that the attention temporarily altered. When I refrained from directing, a man’s thinking tended to move toward its own pressure points and begin, at its own pace, to release what had been held there.
Toward the end of the session, when a man stood up to leave, I noticed something I came to think of as the calibration moment. A man who has spent several hours saying what was actually on his mind, without having it corrected or interpreted or co-opted, tends to stand differently. It is not always dramatic. Sometimes it is almost imperceptible. But I found I could usually see it: a slight easing in the posture, a breath that sat lower, a quality of presence that suggested he had put something down and not yet picked it back up. What he did when he picked it back up—whether and how and when—was not my concern. He left. In most cases I never saw him again. The not-seeing-him-again was also part of the philosophy. It confirmed that I had no investment in the outcome, which was the condition that made the whole thing possible. I had not been building toward something across sessions. I had not been accumulating a picture of him that I would carry into our next meeting. I had offered a space, and I had held it without taking from it, and he had used it however he used it, and then the space closed.
The refraining is not a technique. It is not a method. It is not, I think, something that can be fully taught, though it can perhaps be pointed toward and practised in the way that a quality of perception can be practised. What I can say is that it rests on a prior question that each person has to settle for themselves: whether, when another man speaks, you can allow what he says to stay his. Not material for your response. Not a prompt for your own story. Not a position you need to arrive at. His. Where it was. Where it belongs.
I found, again and again, that very little was required once that question had been settled. The work then consisted largely of not doing the things that people instinctively do. That is a narrower, quieter, and more demanding practice than any technique I might have offered instead.
You are here: Manly Views