This article was downloaded by: [187.156.37.

211]
On: 12 April 2014, At: 17:20
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Gender Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgs20

It's no laughing matter Boys humour

and the performance of defensive
masculinities in the classroom
Cliona Barnes

University of Limerick , Limerick , Ireland

Published online: 30 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Cliona Barnes (2012) It's no laughing matter Boys humour and the
performance of defensive masculinities in the classroom, Journal of Gender Studies, 21:3, 239-251,
DOI: 10.1080/09589236.2012.691648
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.691648

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Gender Studies

Vol. 21, No. 3, September 2012, 239251

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Its no laughing matter . . . Boys humour and the performance
of defensive masculinities in the classroom
Cliona Barnes*
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

(Received 23 June 2009; final version received 20 December 2011)

This article explores the centrality of humour in the performance and maintenance of a
defensive masculine identity among a group of white, Irish, working-class boys in school.
A series of extracts from the field demonstrate how that humour is deployed in versatile
and creative ways in order to refuse and subvert a direct questioning of traditional,
hegemonic masculinity in the classroom. In the specific context discussed here the boys
are responding to a recent Irish educational initiative known as the Exploring
Masculinities programme. This programme, through its presentation of alternative
masculine identities, offered an overt challenge to long-established and deeply felt
understandings of what constitutes a real man. Analysis of the responses of the boys to
the programme materials suggests not only the importance of humour as a defensive and
supportive tool in the continuance of traditional hierarchies of maleness, but also the
repressive nature of the boys compulsory hard-man masculinity. Replete with
misogynistic and homophobic references, this humour and its deployment shows a rigidly
structured masculine identity, rooted in the past and heavily entrenched in their present.
Keywords: young masculinities; humour; subversion; performance; ethnography;
school

Introduction: hegemonic masculinity in the classroom

This article seeks to build on and contribute to the long history of theorising the role of
schoolboy humour as part of the construction and maintenance of inequalities of status and
power among young men and boys at school. Drawing from a larger, field-based study
conducted as part of doctoral research,1 it offers a new perspective, focusing on the
strategic use of humour to resist and block challenges to the dominant discourse of
masculinity in operation among a group of white working-class Irish boys at school.2 Four
purposeful, targeted, and situation-specific uses of humour in the classroom are identified
here, including the use of humour to police and to maintain the boundaries of acceptable
masculinity; to gain and to keep status within the group; to defuse tension in the classroom;
and, finally, to exclude those who transgress or who cannot conform to the norms of the
dominant discourse of masculinity in operation. Reflecting the findings of key studies of
school-based masculinities (Woods 1976, Willis 1977, Dubberley 1993, Mac an Ghaill
1994, Connell 1995, Kehily and Nayak 1997, Connolly 1998, Epstein and Johnson 1998,
Martino 1999, Phoenix and Frosh 2001, Frosh et al. 2002, Reay 2002, Swain 2003, 2006,

*Email: cliona.barnes@ul.ie; cliona.barnes@gmail.com

ISSN 0958-9236 print/ISSN 1465-3869 online
q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2012.691648
http://www.tandfonline.com

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

240

C. Barnes

Francis and Skelton 2005, Jackson 2006, Dalley-Trim 2007, Nayak and Kehily 2008),
the dominant discourse of masculinity evident here can be seen to constitute what Connell
has termed hegemonic masculinity, occupying as it does a culturally exalted position
among this group of boys (Connell 1995, p. 77).
The usefulness of hegemonic masculinity as a concept has been questioned and
challenged, primarily in relation to understandings of it as a stable and fixed category.
Such understandings fail to take into account the multiplicity of coexisting forms of
dominant masculinities across different contexts (Phoenix and Frosh 2001, pp. 27 8).
However, when hegemonic masculinity is critically contextualised as part of a contested
field of power, it retains its theoretical validity and remains useful where it is understood to
refer to the dominant or most desirable form of masculinity in a given cultural and social
setting. In her work on laddishness and defensive masculinities and femininities in
school, Jackson notes that hegemonic masculinity has long been positioned as one of the
key analytical concepts through which school-based masculinities have been theorised
(2006, p. 10). In this article, hegemonic masculinity is retained as an analytical concept
and is understood to be locally situated and constructed within the particular framework of
the daily lives and cultural references of the boys at Hillside school, Ireland.3
Hegemonic masculinity in this context, therefore, refers to the locally inflected,
dominant discourse of masculinity practised at Hillside. This discourse is, however, also
shown to be reflective of widely documented experiences of young masculinities across
place and across time. Extracts from the field-work show how little the jokes and targets
among boys have changed. The continuity is evident across the almost interchangeable
nature of the humour reported by Willis (1977) in his influential study of the Hammertown
lads in 1970s England, to that experienced in the Hillside classroom almost 30 years later.
Reflecting this continuity, the Hillside boys position themselves in relation to what is a
familiar form of masculinity. This form privileges a core grouping of attributes, described
by Francis and Skelton as:.
. . . characteristics such as humour, daring, resistance, competition, physical strength and
prowess, assertive heterosexuality and active sexuality, homophobia, aggression and derision.
(Francis and Skelton 2005, p. 28)

This construction of masculinity is powerful and pervasive (Phoenix and Frosh 2001,
p. 33), continuing to act as a regulatory force on the speech and behaviour of boys in the
classroom. It positions popularity and social power as the preserve of heterosexual boys,
prioritising the strong and sporting physical body alongside macho values such as
toughness or hardness, attractiveness, and aggression. Hegemonic masculinity exists, as
Connell outlines, only in a relational framework of power, dominance, and subordination
which is played out between different groups of boys and men at work, in school, and in
wider social life (1995, pp. 76 81). This framework acknowledges the plurality of
masculinities (Brod and Kaufman 1994) and the competition which exists between them.
It also acknowledges the fact that although many men and boys may strive towards
idealised hegemonic status, it is attainable only for a few (Jackson 2006, p. 10).
Hegemonic masculinity is, thus, constitutive of an on-going performance, wherein,
depending on the context and the setting, masculinity is performed, and related to, in
different ways (Phoenix and Frosh 2001, p. 28). That said, the characteristics listed by
Francis and Skelton continue to emerge and to re-emerge in the majority of studies of
young masculinities at school. They also emerge here, as the Hillside boys position strong,
macho masculinity as superior to non-athletic or academic forms of masculinity. These
non-hegemonic boys are, as Connell notes in relation to her suburban, working-class

Journal of Gender Studies

241

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Australian subjects, symbolically assimilated to femininity (2000, p. 31) where they are
subject to ridicule by their properly masculine peers (Phoenix and Frosh 2001, p. 27).
Boys high levels of anxiety about being called gay or effeminate means that they are
cautious about being too different or about moving too far away from the hegemonic ideal
(Phoenix and Frosh 2001, p. 34). These high levels of anxiety are indicative of a wider
conflation of sex with gender whereby masculinity is understood as fixed on the male
body and femininity as fixed on the female body (Nayak and Kehily 2008, p. 4). Within
this understanding, gender identity is not regarded as a socially constructed, performative
process, on-going throughout the life course, but is positioned as akin to fixed, biological
sex. This suggests that only girls can embody or perform femininity, while only boys can
embody or perform a singular, agreed-on masculinity. This division marks those boys
and girls who fall, or who step, outside of widely shared and culturally dominant
understandings of masculinity and femininity as failed or anomalous gendered subjects
(Nayak and Kehily 2008, p. 4).
Popular masculinity, harassment, and the middle way
The powerful and pervasive nature of this discourse of masculinity sees young people,
when asked to describe what popular boys are like, consistently point to the same traits of
hegemonic masculinity (Epstein and Johnson 1998, Frosh et al. 2002, Jackson 2006). This
understanding is deeply ingrained, not just in local peer group cultures, but in the ordering
and running of the school (Connell 2000, Nayak and Kehily 2008, p. 110). Mac an Ghaill
(1994) explores how schools and teachers normalise heterosexuality and machismo,
ensuring through high levels of authoritarianism, an emphasis on competitive sports, and
gendered subject selection that a homogeneous and hyper-masculine identity is at the base
of life in boys single-sex schools (1994, pp. 9 12). He traces this process through an
analysis of boys interaction with both the formal and informal school curricula, or what he
refers to as the social scaffolding of the school and the pupil culture alike (1994, pp. 4 5).
This formal or official school culture is echoed in the informal group culture through which
young people learn how to be proper boys and girls (Nayak and Kehily 2008, p. 110).
The high levels of intolerance and hostility directed at those who fall outside the narrow
and conformist (Phoenix and Frosh 2001, p. 34) definition of acceptable masculinity do
not, however, mean that the dominant discourse always goes unchallenged. Hegemonic
masculinity is contestable, and there are many examples in the literature of boys and young
men who challenge and resist this dominant discourse. These challenges, if they are
successful, are often partial. By successful I refer to challenges which do not result in
exclusion, verbal or physical abuse, or becoming a target for harassment (Martino 1999,
p. 246). Epstein and Johnson (1998) offer the example of schoolboy rugby players, Simon
and Peter, who, although gay, manage to remain popular and central in school life.
However, their challenge remains partial as it is their physical size and strength (the threat
of beating up deters mockery) and their sporting prowess all coded as heterosexual, and
all key markers of hegemonic masculinity which protect them from the emotional and
social cost of marginalisation and open harassment experienced by other young men who
identify as, or who are positioned as, gay (Epstein and Johnson 1998, pp. 166 8).
Seeking to avoid the personal cost involved in openly challenging the dominant
discourse, many young men and boys in school occupy what has been described as a
middle way (Frosh et al. 2002, p. 201). This middle way acknowledges the unattainable
nature of hegemonic masculinity for all but a minority of boys and young men, while also
acknowledging the importance of being, if not popular, then at least, avoiding being

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

242

C. Barnes

unpopular (Jackson 2006, p. 1). Boys who occupy this complicit (Connell 1995, p. 79)
position can benefit from the dominant discourse of masculinity by not challenging or
resisting it and by explicitly performing heterosexuality, misogyny, and homophobia in
their everyday speech and behaviour. However, open or obvious resistance or noncompliance, as noted, will most likely result in social marginalisation, bullying, and putdowns (Martino 1999, pp. 245 7, Francis and Skelton 2005, p. 121).
Such bullying and put-downs often take place through the joking which goes on in
the majority of classrooms. This form of schoolboy humour is the key focus of this article,
where getting and having a laff (Willis 1977), often at the expense of subordinated gay or
effeminate masculinities, is shown to be central in the process of reinforcing and
reproducing the dominant discourse of masculinity. It is clear that having that laff in the
classroom cannot be fun for everyone, as humour is an integral part of the maintenance of
a hierarchical structure of relational masculinities. The unhappy experiences of Kevin,
who is identified as the class suck4 or swot in the study of Hillside, are familiar from
those of the other swots, earoles, and wimps across a broad sweep of studies of
school-going masculinities. These experiences will be discussed in the final extract
entitled Humour to exclude.
Background to the study
The larger research from which this article draws was conducted over two years in Hillside
School, a boys secondary with rapidly declining pupil numbers in a disadvantaged innercity community. The ethnographic study involved participant observation in the classroom
where 40-minute sessions were recorded via tape and in field-notes. Two groups of 12
young men aged between 15 and 16 years participated in the research. This field-work was
conducted as part of a doctoral research project (Barnes 2007, unpublished) which focused
on the interrelationship between social class and understandings of masculinities as seen
through the prism of an Irish educational initiative known as the Exploring Masculinities
programme. Hillside school was visited weekly and participant observation, over time, of
the classroom interactions allowed for an understanding of the self-imposed and selfpoliced hierarchies and differentiations which existed between the boys in each group. This
allowed for the relationships between the boys to be roughly classified following Connells
key concept of the gender order which outlines the hierarchies existent within the broad
categories of masculinities and femininities in global, local, and institutional instances
(Connell, 1995). This article draws on field-work conducted with one group which
includes Kevin, the class suck and an example of subordinated masculinity; Brendan the
comedian and Sean the group-leader, both examples of higher-status, hegemonic
masculinities; and nine henchmen who embody Connells complicit masculinity. The
complicit henchmen (Connell 1995, p. 79) rarely initiate class disruption themselves;
however, they take part enthusiastically, prolonging and building on any joke made by
Brendan or Sean. Occasionally one of the henchmen will attempt to take the lead;
however, in general, they are happy to benefit from being included in the group, without
having to risk getting into trouble with the teacher as Brendan and Sean do, or indeed risk
getting into trouble with their peers, as Kevin regularly does.
Kevin embodies an unacceptable or failed masculinity (Nayak and Kehily 2008, p. 4).
He is overweight, quiet, shy, and un-athletic, and as such he is permanently excluded from
the group. Because he is also diligent, hard-working, and co-operative, all characteristics
positioned as feminine (Francis and Skelton 2005, p. 8), he is regularly referred to as
Girlie or She-male. His masculinity is not considered to be legitimate in the context of

Journal of Gender Studies

243

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

the peer group, and he is relegated to the position of the despised, feminised other. Kevin
remains fixed in place by the classroom humour, set up to be, as Jackson has described, the
kind of boy who is used to prove and to assert other boys superior masculinity (2006, p. 10).
The Exploring Masculinities programme
The humour used at Hillside was found, in the broader research study, to be an assertive
performance of an oppressive masculine identity, replete with misogynistic and
homophobic references. It tallies with the findings of Lynch and Lodge (1999) which
showed young Irish masculinities, in school settings, to be closely defined and contained
within out-dated and strictly delineated bounds of sexuality, social class and ethnic identity,
physicality and power. However, while the hard-man masculinity is familiar, as are the
targets of the boys jokes, the context in which it emerges here differs from other theorised
accounts of male humour in the classroom. The key difference identified is the context in
which the interactions take place in this classroom the boys are responding to a direct and
overt challenge to their understanding of what constitutes a valid masculine identity.
This challenge is laid down by the recent Irish educational initiative the Exploring
Masculinities programme5 (hereafter EM), which was a central element in the larger study
from which this article draws. In brief, the programme was designed for voluntary use
in single-sex boys secondary schools and describes itself as an intervention (Department
of Education and Science 2000, V) setting out to contest traditionally dominant
understandings of masculinity. In terms of theoretical foundation, EM emerges from the
core tenet of the second wave of Mens Studies which understands that there are multiple
masculinities, mediated by class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, or disability (Brod and
Kaufman 1994, p. 4). Topics addressed in the programme were thus selected to contest the
understanding that hegemonic masculinity can only be a singular, fixed identity, built up
around the body and prioritising physical strength, toughness, and active heterosexuality.
Programme materials sought to invert traditional understandings of masculinity with
case-study examples of men living out alternative male identities as house-husbands, as
carers, or as nurses. The boys charged responses to these case-study sections document
their strategic use of humour to refuse and to subvert the programmes attempts to define
and to legitimise masculinities beyond the dominant form in operation here.
Their amplified response to EMs materials is reminiscent of Measor et al.s
description of boys aggressively masculine behaviour in a sex education class (1996,
pp. 277 81). There, as here, the boys feel compelled to display their macho credentials in
the face of a threatening or challenging classroom discussion. The responses of the teacher
at Hillside, Paul, as he seeks to address the boys machismo while keeping the group
onside, are critically important here in light of the discussions in Connell (2000), Mac an
Ghaill (1994) and Nayak and Kehily (2008) of the role of the school, the teacher, and the
formal and informal curricula in producing and reproducing traditionally gendered
subjects. Like Simon and Peters challenge to the dominant discourse (Epstein and
Johnson 1998), Pauls challenge is partial; his mentioning of homosexuality or rebukes to
overt sexism are kept unthreatening by his appearance and gendered performance as an
authoritarian, physically powerful, middle-aged white heterosexual male.
The role of the teacher
Paul is a highly experienced and autonomous member of staff who has been with the
school for many years. Although he is genuinely supportive of the concerns raised in the

244

C. Barnes

EM programme around homophobia, sexism, and machismo, he, himself, embodies and
performs as a deeply traditional masculine role model.6 In line with Epstein and Johnsons
discussion of the relationship between male teachers and their male students, Paul uses a
degree of laddishness (Epstein and Johnson 1998, p. 125) in his speech, talking to the
boys in a light-hearted manner, making reference to their (coded-as heterosexual
and masculine) interests in sport, drinking alcohol, and girlfriends. He makes jokes, laughs
at their jokes, and uses their slang on occasion. He also teases the more outspoken boys in a
good-natured way, but one which lends legitimacy to the ways in which they interact
with each other. This sharing of language and interaction is used, Epstein and Johnson
argue,

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

. . . between boys/young men and [male] teachers to establish their relationships as men, to
get the boys on the teachers side . . . (Epstein and Johnson 1998, p. 125)

It is undoubtedly important to Paul that the boys are on his side in the EM classroom.
Indeed this is in line with the entire ethos of the programme which sought to be led by
teacher/student co-operation in informal discussion and debate, relaxing and sometimes
inverting the familiar rules of the classroom such as sitting still at a desk or raising a hand
before speaking. Many class methodologies from the programme required boys to be out
of their seats, to take part in role-plays, and to have informal, self-directed conversations
with each other. Occasionally these methodologies worked as planned. However, this was
almost entirely dependent on the boys willingness to go along with Paul, a willingness he
actively, and necessarily, encouraged, perhaps limiting his ability to disrupt and dislodge
their negative attitudes. In the field-site extracts which follow, Pauls partial challenges to
the boys attitudes and behaviour can be seen to arise as both responses to, and triggers for,
the boys classroom humour.

Humour in the EM classroom: gaining and keeping status

In the EM classroom defensive humour does not take the form of verbal cussing or
blowing competitions as described by Kehily and Nayak (1997, p. 72) and Nayak and
Kehily (2008, pp. 117 8). Nor is it the physical clowning described by McLaren (1999,
pp. 160 4), although a series of gestures and fidgeting provide a continuous backdrop to
events in the classroom. When the boys are supposed to be working in silence, one or two
will be miming masturbation, rolling about in his desk, making faces, or doing what is
referred to as the gay-hand a limp-wristed gesture accompanied by pursed lips and an
exaggerated simper. These are reminiscent of the physically disruptive techniques
identified by McLaren such as rocking on chairs, performing tasks in slow motion, lolling
in desks, or knocking into each other (1999, pp. 149 50). These, as well as noisy outbursts
of pen-clicking and ear-flicking, are more frequently performed by the henchmen. While
physical clowning gets attention, it does not accrue as much status for the clown and is
more likely to draw a reprimand from Paul. Verbal humour is more carefully targeted
and involves a different set of skills. The ability to respond quickly and make jokes or
funny comments which can momentarily outwit or embarrass the teacher or another
student is the chief manner of gaining status among the group. This battle to maintain
status is continuous and on-going, implicit throughout all examples of humour discussed
in the following sections, wherein Brendan and Sean maintain their positions at the top of
the hierarchy, while the henchmen must jostle for runner-up spots amongst
themselves. The fraught nature of this jockeying for position is reflective of the
amount of cultural work young men and women do to position themselves with

Journal of Gender Studies

245

(and occasionally against) the dominant gender discourses in operation at school (Epstein
and Johnson 1998, p. 152).7

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Humour in the EM classroom: defusing tension

This continuous jockeying for position sees arguments and verbal stand-offs arise regularly
in the EM classroom. Tension arises most strongly, however, in relation to programme
materials about relationships and gender roles. This is due to the central and defining
importance of the heterosexual relationship in the construction of young, hegemonic
masculinity. The atmosphere in the classroom can become quite strained at such
moments, shifting into either heated debate or sullen silence in which the boys refuse to
engage with, or answer, Paul. As this occurred relatively frequently, the use of humour
to defuse tension was one of the more common forms to emerge in the classroom. It was
regularly deployed by Brendan in his role as comedian, usually at critical moments in the
class.
Although EM was a controversial programme, Paul worked hard to conduct it in
a relaxed manner. However, as noted, particular sections of the programme did anger the
group, jolting them out of their customarily laid-back attitude.8 The first example of this
comes in response to an EM case-study of a possessive boyfriend who seeks to control his
partner (Department of Education and Science 2000, p. 119). In this discussion a strong
sense of ownership had emerged in relation to girlfriends. Paul has re-posed the problem
of a sense of male ownership over women in the context of inequality, asking:
Paul:
Sean:
Liam:
Alex:
Paul:
Class:
Paul:
Class:

Where does fear come into a good relationship?

[In a mocking-undertone] Fear that it would end some day.
[Pretending to cry] Stop youre making me cry.
She should fear you a little bit, sir. So there is no messing you about . . .
[Talking over the loud agreement that has erupted] Is control part of a
relationship so?
[Emphatically] Yes.
[Shaking his head] What about trust, communication, problem too . . .
[silence]

As Paul gets frustrated with the boys silence, telling them that this is no laughing
matter Brendan steps in to break the rising tension. Parodying a good student he puts his
hand up in an exaggeratedly prim manner and announces loudly, Sir. I am afraid of Holy
Statues.9
This interaction is reflective of the fact that the only time the boys show embarrassment,
either individually or as a group, is when they feel that they have taken something too
seriously, or have been seen to try too hard (Jackson 2006). In situations where they have
engaged with the topic, answered honestly, and debated amongst themselves in a genuine
manner there arises an urgent need to reassert their subversiveness. Brendans intervention
above is a classic example of an attempt to recover ground and to defuse friction in the
classroom. By making a joke out of a tense conversation he sets the tone for the rest of the
class, where other students now fear being buried alive, having no dinner, missing
Coronation St, and being castrated. The quickness with which the other boys contributed
silly fears is evidence of the sense of relief at the change of direction in this discussion.
Brendan, showing the sharpness which characterises most of his interjections, has defused
the situation and allows Paul, after a brief digression to retain control, to have the last word
asking the boys to think seriously about their responsibilities in relationships.

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

246

C. Barnes

Humour in the EM classroom: policing the conversation

In this way Sean and Brendan effectively set the mood and tone for most of the classes,
materially changing the other boys responses and behaviour. Their efforts to provoke
laughter or disruption often come at critical moments in a class and are a clear attempt by
them to take charge of the material by re-situating it in a context they can understand and
relate to on their own terms. The intrusion of informal language and behaviour into the
formal classroom context is discussed by Measor et al. (1996) as an effort by boys at
school to take control and to get the upper hand in the classroom (p. 279). This is
certainly evident here, as when the programme makes the boys uncomfortable they use
humour to bring it back under their control. In this way they can transform the reality of
the classroom (Woods 1976, p. 179) making it interesting or fun for themselves. This
transformation is seen further in the following extract outlining the difference in
atmosphere and discussion before and after such interjections.
This EM discussion topic uses templates from the programmes second theme entitled
Men Working (Department of Education and Science 2000, p. 51). Even though their local
community is characterised by long-term male unemployment, the notion of mans work
is of key importance to the Hillside boys as a site of traditional male power. This is strongly
associated, for them, with the status that comes from earning a wage and having a skill
learned through apprenticeship.10 McDowell (2003, pp. 2 3), in her study of young, white,
male, working-class school-leavers, discusses the impact of the demise of that all-male
world of skilled manual labour alongside the rise of the service industry which privileges
characteristics associated with femininity such as neatness, docility, and deference. This is
in direct contrast to the kind of masculinity performed by the Hillside boys. Further to this,
their continued reference to very traditional gendered roles is reflective of McDowells
research participants who, problematically, also display very little awareness of how the
employment opportunities available to them have changed (McDowell 2003, p. 23).
This short extract emerges from programme materials exploring the role of men and
women, both in the home and in the work-place. It seeks to introduce the boys to the
possibility of reversing the traditional roles to which they adhere so strongly. Again
invoking the assumed normalness of heterosexuality and its expression in marriage and
procreative sex, Paul asks the boys to think about themselves in 10 years time, to imagine
themselves married, or with a (female) partner, and with a family (see Nayak and Kehily
2008, pp. 110 2 for more on the regulation of gender in pedagogic discourse). Choosing
the case-study example of a house-husband, Paul then asks Would you be at home and she
at work? to which there is a chorus of unambiguous Nos and a number of forcefully
expressed answers which make reference to the idealised, all-male work environment, the
ability of men alone to do hard work, and the centrality of having a wage:
Gavin:
Ian:
Brian:
Sean:

No. Its totally fucking abnormal for men to be home. Its depressing for them,
no friends, no laugh like, nothing all day.
Youd have to clean the house. Thats for women, theyre better at it.
Women shouldnt be working . . . well not hard jobs anyway . . .
I wouldnt be a fucking house-husband. I wasnt raised in a situation like that.
Youd have to be asking her for money and all . . .

The boys are angered by Pauls query, viewing the suggestion that they would be at
home while their wife worked outside as a direct challenge to their masculinity. They are
very definite about the importance of real work to a man and respond much more
seriously than usual. As the conversation continues with Brian and Gavin, two henchmen,

Journal of Gender Studies

247

becoming quite heated, Brendan suddenly decides that the class is becoming too earnestly
engaged and trying too hard (Jackson 2006). Interrupting the developing discussion, and
shouting over Gavin and Brian, he announces:
Brendan: I would [stay home] and I would sit down and watch the telly all day.
Paul:
And who would do the washing and the cleaning and the dinner and change the
baby?
Brendan: [Laughing]. She could when she got home, sir
Following this intervention the discussion continues in a different atmosphere and in a
very different tone. Ian, laughing, eagerly reiterates Brendans comments:

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Ian:
Paul:
Ian:
Brendan:

The women should work, sir.

Why?
So we can watch telly and stay in bed all day long.
Yeah, youd be wanking all day knowing you.11

The remainder of this class then continues in a similar vein, with the boys (excluding
Kevin, who is effectively silenced throughout one of his rare forays into the classroom
conversation is discussed in the final example, Humour to exclude) contributing more
reasons why they would stay home. Any chance for a conversation about changes and
shifts in the employment market, a topic of particular importance to young, working-class
men in a de-industrialised area characterised by long-term male unemployment has been
lost (McDowell 2003, Nayak 2003). The seriousness of the discussion as it developed
strayed from the text of what constitutes acceptable participation in this class. As such, it
was shut down in a manner that makes it impossible for any boy to reopen without setting
himself up as a target for ridicule.
No laughing matter . . .
In conversation after a session, Paul spoke about his conflicting feelings about the jokes and
teasing in these classes. He is frustrated by the continuous policing which means boys are not
allowed to engage as seriously as they may wish. Yet he also acknowledges and values the
ability of Brendan, in particular, to keep the class in a good mood and coming back
regularly, even if it is only for a laff (Willis 1977). Again invoking Epstein and Johnsons
(1998) concerns about the laddish speech and manner that is often shared between male
teachers and their male students, Paul and Brendan can be seen to almost work together at
times. Although his jokes and interjections do disrupt what are potentially important
discussions, Brendan helps, through joking back and forth with Paul, to keep the group onside.
This makes the EM class an enjoyable, if not necessarily successful, curriculum intervention.
It is of course, not enjoyable for everyone all of the time. Paul further outlines his
concerns about the boys behaviour, making reference to the treatment of Kevin by the
group. If having a laff cannot be fun for everyone; in this case it is Kevin, a quiet, hardworking boy, who suffers for not being properly masculine (Phoenix and Frosh 2001, p. 27).
In their discussion of embodiment and performing gender, Nayak and Kehily state that:
A failure to comply with the severe bodily regime of valorized masculinity could soon lead to
homophobic comments and the creation of a disparaged or failed masculinity. (Nayak and
Kehily 2008, p. 176)

Kevin, as previously discussed, embodies this disparaged or failed masculinity by

being overweight, un-athletic, and by having a soft voice. Because he is already on the
margins of the group, Kevin rarely joins in the boisterous and fast-moving class

248

C. Barnes

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

discussions. When he does join in, it is in response to a direct question from Paul, rather
than an interjection of his own, and his responses compound his distance from the rest of
the group. The extract which follows here details the use of humour to mark and to
maintain his position on the margins of the group.
Humour in the EM classroom: humour to exclude
The nature of classroom interaction, whereby every word spoken is subject to the scrutiny of
the group, means comments are carefully chosen to fall precisely within the peer group
boundaries of what constitutes acceptable masculinity in relation to the dominant
discourse in operation. The boys actively police each others speech and engagement in the
classroom, and previous examples have shown Brendan and Sean interjecting to regain
control of a discussion, using humour to reassert their dominant discourse of masculinity. In
these instances they have used humour primarily to undermine the programme materials.
However, in this short extract, the target shifts as Kevin transgresses the group boundaries
through his engagement with the programme materials. Here we see both the narrowness of
the boundaries of what constitutes proper masculinity (Nayak and Kehily 2008, p. 176)
and what happens when a boy steps outside of them.
The discussion topic here comes from the module on Violence and the class is
focused around the key topic: feeling fear. To start, Paul asks the group where they think
different kinds of people may experience fear. The boys are reluctant to discuss this issue
(to admit to fear is to admit to an un-masculine weakness), and discussion is initially stilted
until Paul calls on Kevin by name:
Paul:
Class:
Paul:
Class:
Paul:
Kevin:
Sean:
Gavin:
Paul:

Where might someone feel fear? Where might they be afraid for themselves for
whatever reason . . . ?
[silence]
What about a small child who cant find his or her mother in a busy
supermarket? That would be one. Tell me another?
[silence]
Cmon, tell me another [pauses]. Kevin?
Well you might be a bit scared sometimes at night walking home on your own
from the pub or somewhere . . . [trails off as laughter starts]
He [Kevin] wouldnt even get into a pub! [laughter]
Not a hope Girlie! [laughter and jeering]
Lads. What did we say at the start? No laughing at each other when talking.
[laughter continues]

Even with the addition of the pub as a legitimate and manly location, Kevins answer
produces a variety of derisive responses. These range from an instant physical shifting
away from Kevin by the boys sitting closest to him, to outright laughter, exaggerated
mincing, and sneering. At this point, over the general racket, Paul has to step in to remind
the boys of one of the programme ground rules. This is an undertaking to not laugh at
anyone else in the class when they are speaking (Department of Education and Science
2000, p. 2); however, the boys are bound by a far more powerful set of ground rules than
those of the programme. This powerful and pervasive (Phoenix and Frosh 2001, p. 33)
construction of masculinity, based around characteristics such as daring, physical strength,
and derision (Francis and Skelton 2005, p. 28), means that Kevins words cannot go
un-remarked. To do so would infer that the whole group are such incomplete and
inadequate men that they are afraid to walk home alone at night.

Journal of Gender Studies

249

Following on from Kevins comment the boys are on the defensive and are eager to
emphasise his perceived weakness through asserting their own incontestably heterosexual
masculinity. This positions the group in opposition to what they see as failed or aberrant
masculinity. Trying to get the class back on track, Paul asks the question again and now
receives a very different type of response from the earlier sullen silence:

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Paul:
Sean:
Gavin:
Brian:
Paul:

Cmon now . . . where would . . . say . . . a young man feel fear?

In a gay club!
In prison. [Mimes washing his arms with a bar of soap]
Yeah, especially in the showers!
[Ignoring the raucous laughter.] Where else would someone be afraid? What
would some young fellas be afraid of . . . ?
Brendan: Fat fellas would be afraid of the gym, sir. [He mimes a fat person by puffing out
his cheeks and jiggling imaginary rolls of fat around.]
Paul:
Well, some people would fear exposure or that people would be laughing at
them or commenting at them . . .
Liam:
Fat fellas would be afraid to go on a swing.
Tadgh:
Black fellas would be afraid of the KKK.
Sean:
Gay lads would be scared in a normal bar coz theyre afraid of women
As Brendan continues to mime an overweight person, jiggling imaginary rolls of fat,
the rest of the group laugh and jeer at Kevin, who sits quietly looking down at his desk. Paul
steps in again, speaking sharply and positioning himself beside Brendans desk as a visible,
restraining presence. Kevin is clearly very embarrassed, and the fact that Paul has come to
his aid reinforces his marginality, positioning him as a traitor. As Paul defends Kevin, the
laddish camaraderie (Epstein and Johnson 1998) between Paul and Brendan and the group
as a whole breaks down, and Kevin is seen by the boys as getting them in trouble with
Paul. This further compounds the naturalness of his exclusion from the group. In their
eyes, he has brought it upon himself, making him, like EM, a legitimate target for ridicule.
Conclusion: EM, humour and defensive masculinities
The boys understand EM as a direct challenge to their established and valued
understandings and expectations about masculinity, and, unsurprisingly perhaps, they
respond defensively by using humour as the key part of their overall strategy of resistance
to it. This understanding has major implications for EM (and for any other, similar,
programmes). Perceived as a threat from the outset, it faced an almost insurmountable task
in seeking to dislodge this influential construction of masculinity. The programme failed
to achieve any serious disruption to the boys deeply entrenched understandings of
masculinities. It was stymied by the public nature of classroom interaction, which keeps
the majority of boys aligned to the dominant discourse in operation. EM was also hindered
by its institutional context as the structures and practices of schools continue to reproduce
and reinforce versions of hegemonic masculinity based around the characteristics
identified and discussed throughout (Mac an Ghaill 1994, Connell 2000, Phoenix and
Frosh 2001, Nayak and Kehily 2008). The laddish interaction and language shared
between male teachers and male students discussed by Epstein and Johnson (1998) also
presented a number of problems for the programme, as can be seen here through Pauls
partial challenge to the boys responses.
These responses are reflective of the dominant discourse of masculinity at Hillside
which, as is seen throughout, is strongly resistant to the introduction of new or different

250

C. Barnes

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

expressions of masculinity, whether at work, in the home, or in relationships. The boys are
also strongly resistant to the expression of difference within the group, and Brendan
and Seans use of humour in the classroom is designed to ensure the continuance of, and
conformity to, one way of doing masculinity. This article has sought to reflect critically on
that one way of doing masculinity but also on the complex and multi-faceted role that
humour plays in the classroom context. Humour has thus been the focus of discussion here,
not least because of its continuous expression in the classroom, but also because of its deeply
ingrained connection with constructions of young masculinities, both in the literature and in
the daily lives of young men. The jokes and comments made by the Hillside boys here,
however silly, puerile, or chaotic they may appear, are in fact targeted, serious expressions
of deeply held beliefs and understandings about masculinity, femininity, and gendered roles
in the broader social world. The seriousness with which the boys approach their humour, and
the obvious impact it has on marginalised young men such as Kevin, means it cannot be
discounted as mere messing about but is, in Pauls words, no laughing matter.
Notes
1. This research was conducted and funded as part of doctoral field-work at the School of Media,
Dublin Institute of Technology.
2. It is important to note that the prevalence of laddish masculinities is not a problem solely for
disadvantaged schools, or for disadvantaged working-class boys. Phoenix and Frosh (2001) and
Frosh et al. (2002) critically discuss the relationship between popularity and the performance of
laddish masculinities across social class, while Jackson discusses laddishness amongst both
young men and young women in a school setting (2006, pp. 12 23).
3. Hillside School is a pseudonym, as are all proper names used throughout.
4. In the Hillside boys vernacular the derogatory suck means swot. It is derived from the phrase
to suck-up and signifies a boy who openly studies hard, behaves too well, and obeys the teacher
too readily.
5. For a full discussion of the programme materials and for an overview of the negative and
influential media controversy surrounding the programme see Gleeson 2000, Mac an Ghaill et al.
2002, Gleeson et al. 2003, Barnes 2007.
6. Paul contributed to the programme materials and has been a staunch supporter of the need for
curricular interventions for boys in Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE).
7. See Frosh et al. (2002) for their discussion of the work young men do to maintain their desired
status in relation to the hierarchical structuring of masculinities.
8. See Jackson (2006, pp. 8 11) for her critical discussion of the importance appearing laid-back
and of not being seen to try too hard. Effortlessness in school work, social success, and
sporting success is key to being naturally cool as opposed to being perceived as inauthentic.
9. Hillside is a typical Irish Catholic boys school run by the teaching order of the Christian Brothers.
Reflecting this, each classroom at Hillside features a large Holy Statue as they are known.
10. The importance of mans work meaning skilled manual labour was the key component of
Williss (1977) lads masculinity. That it still remains central over 30 years later is discussed
critically with relation to class, gender, and race by both McDowell (2003) and Nayak (2003).
11. Wanking means masturbation in the boys slang.

Notes on contributor
Cliona Barnes lectures in the Department of Sociology at the University of Limerick. She is currently
conducting research focused on the lived experience of young Irish masculinities in the context of
social inclusion and community integration.

References
Barnes, C., 2007. Boy cultures and the performance of teenage masculinities, Thesis (PhD). Dublin
Institute of Technology.

Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 17:20 12 April 2014

Journal of Gender Studies

251

Brod, H. and Kaufman, M., 1994. Introduction. In: H. Brod and M. Kaufman, eds. Theorizing
masculinities. London: Sage, 1 10.
Connell, R.W., 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connell, R.W., 2000. The men and the boys. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connolly, P., 1998. Racism, gender identities and young children. Social relations in a multi-ethic,
inner-city primary school. London: Routledge.
Dalley-Trim, L., 2007. The boys present . . . Hegemonic masculinity: a performance of multiple
acts. Gender and Education, 19 (2), 199 217.
Department of Education and Science, 2000. Exploring masculinities: a programme in personal and
social development for transition year boys and young men. Dublin: Department of Education
and Science.
Dubberley, W.S., 1993. Humour as resistance. In: P. Woods and M. Hammersley, eds. Gender and
ethnicity in schools: ethnographic accounts. London: Routledge, 75 94.
Epstein, D. and Johnson, R., 1998. Schooling sexualities. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Francis, B. and Skelton, C., 2005. Reassessing gender and achievement. Questioning contemporary
key debates. London: Routledge.
Frosh, S., Phoenix, A. and Pattman, R., 2002. Young masculinities. Understanding boys in
contemporary society. London: Palgrave.
Gleeson, J., 2000. Exploring masculinities external evaluation: executive summary. Limerick:
Department of Education and Professional Studies, University of Limerick.
Gleeson, J., Conboy, P. and Walsh, A., 2003. The piloting of exploring masculinities (1997 1998):
context, implementation and issues arising. Report of external evaluation. Limerick:
Department of Education and Professional Studies, University of Limerick.
Jackson, C., 2006. Lads and ladettes in school. Gender and a fear of failure. Maidenhead, Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Kehily, M.J. and Nayak, A., 1997. Lads and laughter: humour and the production of heterosexual
hierarchies. Gender and Education, 9 (1), 69 87.
Lynch, K. and Lodge, A., 1999. Essays on school. In: K. Lynch, ed. Equality in education. Dublin:
Gill and MacMillan.
Mac an Ghaill, M., 1994. The making of men. Masculinities, sexualities and schooling. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Mac an Ghaill, M., Hanafin, J. and Conway, P., 2002. Teachers, media and materials: a study of
exploring masculinities in an international context. Review of exploring masculinities: final
report. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA).
Martino, W., 1999. Cool boys, party animals, squids and poofters: interrogating the dynamics
and politics of adolescent masculinities in school. British Journal of Sociology, 20 (2), 239263.
McDowell, L., 2003. Redundant masculinities. Employment change and white working-class youth.
London: Blackwell.
McLaren, P., 1999. Schooling as a ritual performance. Toward a political economy of educational
symbols and gestures. 3rd ed. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
Measor, L., Tiffin, C. and Fry, K., 1996. Gender and sex education: a study of adolescent responses.
Gender and Education, 8 (3), 275 288.
Nayak, A., 2003. Ivory lives: economic restructuring and the making of whiteness in a post
industrial youth community. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 6 (3), 305 325.
Nayak, A. and Kehily, M.J., 2008. Gender, youth and culture. Young masculinities and femininities.
Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Phoenix, A. and Frosh, S., 2001. Positioned by hegemonic masculinities: a study of London boys
narratives of identity. Australian Psychologist, 36 (1), 27 35.
Reay, D., 2002. Shauns story: troubling discourses of white working-class masculinities. Gender
and Education, 14 (4), 221 234.
Swain, J., 2003. Needing to be in the know: strategies of subordination used by 10 11-year-old
schoolboys. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7 (4), 305 324.
Swain, J., 2006. Reflections in patterns of masculinity in school settings. Men and Masculinities,
8 (3), 331 349.
Willis, P., 1977. Learning to labour. Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower Publishing.
Woods, P., 1976. Having a laugh: an antidote to schooling. In: M. Hammersley and P. Woods, eds.
The process of schooling. London: Routledge, 178 187.