Outskirts online journal
Publication details
Volume 24, May 2011
Clare Bartholomaeus
Clare Bartholomaeus is a PhD student in the disciplines of Gender, Work & Social Inquiry (GWSI) and Politics at the University of Adelaide, Australia. Her thesis examines how gender (with a focus on masculinities) is understood and constructed at the beginning and end of primary school by boys, girls, teachers, and parents.
What it Means to be ‘Manly’: Gender, Sport, and Primary School Students
Introduction
The intersection of gender and age is both an important and interesting topic for feminist research. Work in scholarly feminist publications about children and young people tends to be dominated by text-based work. For example, special editions of Australian Feminist Studies dedicated to ‘The Child’ (2008) and Feminist Theory entitled ‘The child and childhood’ (2010) included solely text-based work, with no voices from young people or theorising of empirical research. Feminist empirical research about gender in ‘childhood’ tends to be viewed as related to education, and it is within these fields that it has been concentrated. One of the key journals here, Gender and Education, is listed by the ISI Web of Knowledge as pertaining to ‘education’ and it is not also considered to be a ‘women’s studies’ journal (Hart and Metcalfe 2010, 147). Writing about masculinities also tends to be relegated to its own field, and has been looked upon with caution by some feminists (see for example Canaan and Griffin 1990). I argue that research on masculinities is intimately bound with feminist studies, and that there is a need to study boys, men and masculinity in order to move feminism forward (see also Pease 2002, 7-8). However, there is currently little research about primary school boys and masculinities from a feminist perspective (Connolly 2006, 141). In this article, I bring these issues of ‘feminisms along the edge’ together, and examine young age and gender in the form of primary school masculinities. To do this I draw largely on the feminist work of Raewyn Connell, and her concepts about masculinities, which have been based on the theorising of men and gender relations in Australia (Beasley 2008, 99).
Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is almost omnipresent in masculinity studies (Beasley 2005, 192) and has had a significant influence in feminist, sexuality, and international studies (Beasley 2008, 88). One of the common arenas through which Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is constituted is via sport, although in some places she also notes the significance of corporate success (see for example Connell and Wood 2005). The former is available to primary school boys, the latter is not. My empirical research in two Australian primary schools suggests that sport is the central way in which boys, girls, teachers and parents construct masculinity. In this article I examine the multiple ways in which sport was drawn on to construct a normative masculinity, concluding with discussions about the linkages between sport, masculinity, age and the Australian context.
Theorising Masculinities
Connell’s theory of a hierarchical framework of masculinities, with hegemonic masculinity at the top, allows for the consideration of differences and relations between masculinities (Connell 2000, 10). According to Connell,
[h]egemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women (2005, 77).
Connell and Messerschmidt highlight that while hegemonic masculinity is not normal, and may only be applicable to a small number of men, it is normative (2005, 832). They write that hegemonic masculinity ‘embodied the currently most honored way of being a man, it required all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and it ideologically legitimated the global subordination of women to men’ (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, 832). Hegemonic masculinity is organised around something worthwhile – what Connell (2005, 2000) calls the patriarchal dividend. This is available not only to men who have access to hegemonic masculinity, but also to those who are complicit in the current gender order (Connell 2005, 79-80). Connell uses the concept of complicit masculinities to theorise the ‘large number of men [who] have some connection with the hegemonic project but do not embody hegemonic masculinity’ (2005, 79). Complicit masculinities ‘are not militant in defence of patriarchy’ (Connell 2000, 31) yet these men ‘can easily convince themselves that feminists must be bra-burning extremists’ (Connell 2005, 80). The concept of complicit masculinities as well as compliance or support from women (and girls?) is crucial to uphold hegemonic masculinity. According to Connell and Messerschmidt,
[m]en who received the benefits of patriarchy without enacting a strong version of masculine dominance could be regarded as showing a complicit masculinity. It was in relation to this group, and to compliance among heterosexual women, that the concept of hegemony was most powerful (2005, 832).
Connell also outlines the non-hegemonic masculinities of subordinate and marginalised. She links subordinate masculinities particularly to gay masculinities and other masculinities associated with femininity (Connell 2005, 78-79). Marginalisation refers to ‘[t]he interplay of gender with other structures such as class and race’ which are outside the gender order (Connell 2005, 80). What non-hegemonic masculinities involve is necessarily determined by what is hegemonic in the particular context.
Connell defines complicit masculinity in distinction from subordinated masculinity (2005, 78-80), yet the concept of being complicit with hegemonic masculinity can seemingly be applied to subordinated masculinities and all femininities. I argue that while subordinated masculinities and femininities may challenge or disrupt hegemony at some points they can also be complicit in the current gender order. This is similar to what Wetherell and Edley argue in terms of men being able to be both complicit and resistant (1999, 352, 353). The concepts of complicity and subordination and how they intersect need further theorising. For the purposes of this article, I draw on the theories as I have outlined them here.
In order to examine hegemonic masculinity and complicit masculinities within my empirical research, it is necessary to determine what hegemonic masculinity might actually entail. While Connell argues that ‘“[h]egemonic masculinity” is not a fixed character type, always and everywhere the same’ (2005, 76), conceptions of current Western hegemonic masculinity tend to mobilise around particular elements. These include heterosexuality (Beasley 2005, 229; Connell 1987, 186; Donaldson 1993, 645); homophobia 1 (Beasley 2005, 229; Connell 2000, 84; Donaldson 1993, 645); physicality – often expressed through sport (Connell 2000, 69-85); the subordination of women (Connell 2000, 84) and misogyny (Beasley 2005, 229); and particular mental aspects such as authority, rationality (Connell 2005, 90) and competitiveness (Connell 2000, 84; Donaldson 1993, 655). Additionally, as noted above, in some writing Connell links hegemonic masculinity with corporate success and ‘transnational business masculinity’ (Connell and Wood 2005).
Theoretically, the interweaving of hegemonic masculinity and age has been little considered. Even though the concept of hegemonic masculinity has been the subject of many theoretical critiques (see for example Beasley 2008; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Donaldson 1993; Wetherell and Edley 1999), within these critiques little attention has been paid to age or the ability of boys to perform hegemonic masculinity. In fact, there are few critiques of the applicability of hegemonic masculinity to primary school-aged boys (for exceptions see for example Eriksson 2007; Renold 2005). There is some empirical research with primary school boys, although there is significantly less than that with high school boys and young men (Connolly 2006, 141). As I have argued elsewhere (Bartholomaeus 2009) there are problems with fully applying the concept of hegemonic masculinity to primary school boys because of their age. I do not wish to focus on this again here, but I argue that boys have little access to a legitimating masculinity outside of their local context. Therefore, rather than using the term hegemonic, I use the term ‘normative’ to refer to a particular form of masculinity evident from my research that shapes masculinity for all boys and influences the behaviours of other students. The term normative masculinity may not entirely capture this process but at this stage seems more accurate to use than hegemonic masculinity, although theorising young masculinities is a work-in-progress. Theoretically then, I suggest that sport may be the beginnings or early signs of hegemonic masculinity for the boys in my research, which is also influenced by the Australian context. I draw on the concept of complicity to highlight how what might be termed a normative masculinity is supported by primary school students (as well as their teachers and parents).
Participants and Methods
In order to consider the views and voices of young people, this article draws on empirical research conducted in two South Australian co-educational primary schools. Socrates Primary is Greek Orthodox and St Catherine’s Primary is Catholic (the names of all schools, students, and teachers are pseudonyms). To enable a comparison of age, the research involved two classes of students at the beginning of primary school (aged 6 and 7) and two classes at the end of primary school (aged between 11 and 13): a Year 1 class and a Year 6 class at Socrates Primary, and a Year Reception/1 (R/1) and Year 6/7 class at St Catherine’s Primary. A total of 95 students participated in the research.
The students took part in numerous activities over five sessions, each of which provided different avenues for them to reflect on their ideas about being boys and girls. These involved the students writing, drawing and discussing their ideas in individual, small group, and whole class activities. In the final session I showed the students some of the findings from the research, from my initial analysis, and asked for their interpretations and explanations of them. The data in this article is largely drawn from two activities. One activity asked students in small groups to order eight famous faces from most to least ‘manly’, essentially creating their own hierarchy of masculinities. In the other activity students provided individual written responses to a number of questions about gender in their lives including what is (or what would be) good and bad about being a boy and girl.
I interviewed the teachers from all four classes, six mothers of the students in the classes, and an additional mother filled out an emailed questionnaire (no fathers elected to participate). The parent and teacher interviews focused on how the parents/teachers thought gender was understood by their children/students in their class. Three teachers were also available for second interviews where I asked for their interpretations and explanations of the initial findings from the research.
Research Findings Overview
In this article I discuss how sport was the key aspect of normative masculinity in my research in South Australian primary schools. Boys and girls frequently suggested that being a boy involved playing and/or being interested in sport. While there were a variety of masculinities displayed by the students, particularly in the older classes, sport was the most frequent descriptor of boys and masculinity.
Previous empirical research in primary schools has often found that sport and bodies are the key ways hegemonic masculinity or ‘dominant’ masculinity is constructed. This is particularly the case in the UK where much of the research about primary school masculinities has been conducted (see for example Clark and Paechter 2007; Renold 1997; Skelton 2000; Swain 2000, 2006). This previous feminist research about primary school masculinities has tended to involve students in small group interviews and/or observed the behaviours of students. My research differs in terms of methods, where students were involved in activities, thinking about, writing on, and discussing gender. These methods enabled a different perspective where the students were often directly asked about their understandings of gender using a variety of activities. This approach also showed that sport was a key way in which being a boy was described by the students, and worked to create a normative masculinity.
In my research the tying of sport and boys together, and what constituted a normative masculinity, worked in three key ways. First, sporting masculinities were the most privileged when considering different masculinities in relation to each other. This was particularly evident when discussing famous athletes. Second, sport was constructed as something that all boys participate in or should be interested in. And, third, sport was often viewed as being for boys and not for girls. I examine these three key points and then consider evidence of students recognising and potentially resisting normative discourses of sport equals boy. Finally, I consider the likely reasons for the strength of sport in constructing masculinity in Australian primary schools.
Privileging of Sporting Masculinities: Famous Male Athletes
When the students considered masculinity in relation to famous men, athletes were often privileged by boys and girls. This is in line with what Connell writes: ‘men, such as sporting heroes, are taken as exemplars of hegemonic masculinity’ (2000, 11). This was clear in an activity where students considered masculinity in relation to famous faces. In small groups, students were given cards with photographs of eight famous faces on them which they ranked from most to least ‘manly’, giving reasons for their choices (inspired by Horton 2007. See also Wetherell and Edley 1999). In line with Horton (2007, 173), I chose famous faces that most students would be familiar with so they would decide their rankings by drawing on what they knew about the men rather than solely their appearance in the photographs.2
Athletes were frequently viewed by the students as the most ‘manly’. To demonstrate an overall picture of this, I compiled the data by going through each student group’s ranking and using a score of eight for most ‘manly’, seven for second most ‘manly’ and so on through to one point for least ‘manly’. I then added the groups from within each class together. When combining this data for all classes, the top three famous faces are the three athletes: Andrew McLeod (AFL player)3, John Cena (professional wrestler), and David Beckham (soccer player). These are followed by the five non-athletes: Kevin Rudd (then Australian Prime Minister), Daniel Radcliffe (actor in the film series Harry Potter), Zac Efron (actor in the film series High School Musical), Chris Brown (singer), and Jeff (member of children’s singing group The Wiggles). Both age groups ranked athletes as the most ‘manly’ when considering masculine hierarchies (an exception was the Year R/1 class who tended to rank the lead actors from Harry Potter and High School Musical higher). The reasons given included:
‘a lot of men like footy’ (Year R/1 class, St Catherine’s Primary, group written activity, group of four girls, ranking Andrew McLeod most ‘manly’)
‘Wrestler, gets paid to beat people up, muscular’ (Year 6/7 class, St Catherine’s Primary, group written activity, group of four girls, ranking John Cena most ‘manly’)
Overall, the focus on male athletes as exemplars of masculinity constructs sport as normative masculinity in the eyes of primary school students. Both boys and girls tended to construct athletes as the most ‘manly’.
While athletes seemed to portray the most exemplary form of masculinity, there were also tensions and debates about this. For example, a group of Year 6/7 boys debated whether then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd or AFL footballer Andrew McLeod was more ‘manly’. The crux of their debate is as follows:
Boy: He’s [Kevin Rudd] taking- He’s taking care of Australia, that’s pretty manly
Boy: No it’s not, that’s not manly. Manly’s like in the AFL getting tackled.
(Year 6/7 class, St Catherine’s Primary, small group discussion recording, group of five boys, discussing which famous faces are ‘manly’ and eventually ranking Rudd above McLeod)
This debate over whether political or institutional power is more ‘manly’ than being a professional athlete in a physical sport is reflected in Connell’s own writing where there is slippage in what she means by hegemonic masculinity (Beasley 2008, 88). Sometimes she views ‘transnational business masculinity’ as hegemonic (Connell and Wood, 2005) and other times athletes (Connell 2000, 69-85).
Notably, sport was not privileged in the same way in a related activity ranking female faces from most to least ‘womanly’. Using the same ranking process as for the ‘manly’ activity, Stephanie Rice (Australian Olympic swimmer) was ranked fifth overall and Sharelle McMahon (Australian netball team captain) was ranked seventh, while the faces ranked most ‘womanly’ were actresses and/or singers. The older classes often deemed muscles and strong body builds as reasons for female athletes not being ‘womanly’:
Girl: It takes a lot of muscle to swim. To swim like a lot
Girl: Yeah, and it takes a lot of man to be a swimmer
(Year 6/7 class, St Catherine’s Primary, small group discussion recording, group of four girls, discussing swimmer Stephanie Rice)
It should be noted that there were also some (although fewer) positive comments linking femininity and sport. For example, there were views that female athletes are fit and healthy, and that netball is an appropriate sport for girls/women to play.