See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285118198

Masculinities in education

Article · January 2005

DOI: 10.4135/9781452233833.n13

CITATIONS READS

69 3,519

1 author:

Jon Swain
University College London
50 PUBLICATIONS   1,404 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jon Swain on 11 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Men and Masculinities
http://jmm.sagepub.com/

Reflections on Patterns of Masculinity in School Settings

Jon Swain
Men and Masculinities 2006 8: 331
DOI: 10.1177/1097184X05282203

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/8/3/331

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Men and Masculinities can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/8/3/331.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 30, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

MEN AND
10.1177/1097184X05282203
Swain / MASCULINITY
MASCULINITIES
IN SCHOOL
/ JanuarySETTINGS
2006

Reflections on Patterns of
Masculinity in School Settings
JON SWAIN
University of London

This article is based on an ethnographic exploration into the construction of masculini-

ties among ten- and eleven-year-old boys in three schools in the United Kingdom
between 1998 and 1999. The research found that there were different patterns of mascu-
linity both between and within each setting that drew on the resources and storylines
available. The author discusses the way the research was theorized, particularly in rela-
tion to the concept of hegemonic masculinity and its link with the body. He interrogates
the use of typologies and outlines the reasons why he found them unsatisfactory.
Although the terms “hegemonic,” “complicit,” and “subordinate” masculinity are bor-
rowed from Connell, the author found it necessary to propose another form of masculin-
ity, which he calls “personalized.” This was made up from boys who appeared content to
pursue their own types of identity, and did not aspire to, or imitate, the leading form.
Finally, the author briefly discusses the implications of this research for schools.

Key words: masculinities; hegemony; the body; boys; schooling

Although boys learn to negotiate and perform masculine identities in a

range of social situations, this article concentrates on the school setting,
which has been recognized as one of the principal sites where masculinities
are fashioned. Although for Bob Connell (1989, 301), the “childhood family,
the adult workplace or sexual relationships (including marriage)” are more
important influences, Skelton (2001) persuasively points out that these last
two areas have far less immediate relevance for young junior (elementary)
school boys aged seven to eleven, so it is possible to conclude that for them,
schooling plays a more prominent role in the construction of their identity.
Although many of the debates around masculinity have concerned boys in
secondary schooling,1 there have been an increasing number of studies and
reviews set in the junior school (see, e.g., Adler and Adler 1998; Benjamin
1998; Connell 1996; Epstein 1998; Epstein et al. 2001; Francis 1998, 2000;
Gilbert and Gilbert 1998; Renold 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001; Skelton 1996,
1997, 2000, 2001; Swain 2000, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Thorne 1993; Warren
1997). These texts show how masculinities suffuse school regimes and have
established that there is diversity not just between settings but also within set-
tings, where different masculinities are produced through performances that

Men and Masculinities, Vol. 8 No. 3, January 2006 331-349

DOI: 10.1177/1097184X05282203
© 2006 Sage Publications
331

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

332 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

Table 1:
School Type, Size, and the Social Characteristics of Their Intake

Number Social Characteristics

Name of School Type of School on Roll of Intake

Highwoods
Independent Private, fee paying 350 Upper-middle class
Petersfield Junior LEA 425 Middle class
Westmoor
Abbey Junior LEA 300 Working class
NOTE: LEA = Local Educational Authority.

draw on the different cultural resources that are available in each setting
(Connell 2000; Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman 2002; Swain 2001).
The interpretation and analysis in this article is based on my doctoral
research (Swain 2001), which explores the construction of masculinity in
three junior schools. While I have written other articles (Swain 2000, 2002a,
2002b) that report my empirical findings, this article discusses the process of
how my research was theorized. Although Connell (2000) points out that the-
ories of masculinity have a prehistory that dates back as far as Freud, contem-
porary understandings are comparatively new and can be inconsistent.
Indeed, many researchers argue that there is a need to improve the theoretical
frameworks that we already have, particularly those that draw on, and even
rely on, the notion of hegemonic masculinity (see, e.g., Donaldson 1993;
Kerfoot and Whitehead 1998; MacInnes 1998; Skelton 2001; Whitehead
1999). Although my thesis draws on the theories of Connell (1995, 1996,
2000) and incorporates his terms of hegemonic, complicit, and subordinated
masculinity into my interpretations, I also found myself needing to propose a
further mode of masculinity, one that I have called “personalized.” In doing
so, my intention is not to produce a new, totalizing theory of masculinity (par-
ticularly within the field of masculinity and education2) but to build on and
add to existing frameworks and understandings in this domain.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

This research was an ethnographic, empirical study set in three coedu-

cational junior schools (taking pupils between seven and eleven) that were
differentiated on the basis of the social characteristics of their intake (see
Table 1).3 Petersfield and Westmoor Abbey were Local Education Authority,
or state, schools, and Highwoods was an independent or fee-paying school.
All three were situated in or around Greater London, and the research took
place between September 1998 and July 1999.
I concentrated on boys in year six (ten- and eleven-year-olds), which is the
last year before they transfer to secondary school. My descriptions and inter-

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 333

pretations were based on two major sources of data: first, my semiparticipant

observations of the boys and girls during lessons and around the school site,
and second, on a series of 104 loosely structured interviews (sixty-two of
which involved only boys) based on nominated friendship groups of between
two and three pupils.
The ethos varied at each school. Highwoods marketed itself on academic
achievement and high-quality sporting facilities; there was a highly competi-
tive atmosphere and the pupils were tightly regulated and controlled. Peters-
field also espoused high academic achievement (as measured by the SAT4
results) and had rigorous control and regulation, although there was also a
policy of noncompetitiveness that was firmly enforced by the head teacher. In
contrast, the main focus for Westmoor Abbey consisted of dealing with and
trying to contain pupil (mis)behavior, and the promotion of high academic
standards was of secondary importance. This was a survivalist type of school
(Hargreaves 1995), where the ethos was less stable and social relations were
generally poorer.

THE SCHOOL AS A SETTING AND

THE POWER OF THE PEER GROUP

To understand the range of processes and practices that are involved in

the ways that boys are able to construct their masculine identities, some
researchers, such as Connell et al. (1982), Gordon, Holland, and Lahelma
(2000), and Pollard (1985) have identified and differentiated between the
official/formal and the unofficial/informal cultures of schooling, although
they demarcate them in slightly different ways. Generally, though, the formal
culture refers to the teaching and learning, policy/organizational and admin-
istrative structures, and the informal culture to the relations and interactions
between pupils and between pupils and teachers outside of the instructional
relationship.
Schools are located in and shaped by specific sociocultural, politico-eco-
nomic, and historical conditions: individual personnel, rules, routines and
expectations, and the use of resources and space will all have a profound
impact on the way young boys (and girls) experience their lives at school.
Indeed, each school can be said to have its own gender regime (Kessler et al.
1985) that creates different options and opportunities to perform different
types of masculinity in each school. In other words, there are different alter-
natives, or possibilities, of “doing boy” that are contingent on each setting
using the meanings and practices available, although some will be more obvi-
ous and conspicuous than others. Between them, Connell (1996) and Gilbert
and Gilbert (1998) site four key areas of “masculinizing practices”: manage-
ment and policy/organizational practices (including discipline), teacher and
pupil relations, the curriculum, and sport/games. Thus, we can see that a

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

334 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

school’s role in the formation of masculinity needs to be understood in two

ways, for as well as providing the setting and physical space in which the
embodied actions and agencies of pupils and adults take place, its own struc-
tures and practices are also involved as an institutional agent that produces
these “masculinizing practices.”
To this list of practices we should add pupil-to-pupil relations, for pupils
are also agents of masculinity, and the closed cultural circle of the peer group
has become increasingly recognized as a key area of influence in masculinity
making (see, e.g., Adler and Adler 1998; Connell 2000; Connolly 1998;
Gilbert and Gilbert 1998; Harris 1998; Kenway 1997; Mac an Ghaill 1994;
Pollard 1985; Woods 1990). This is the place where boys get their informa-
tion about how they are supposed to be and how they are supposed to act as a
boy (and future man), and there are constant pressures on individuals to per-
form and behave to expected group norms. Thus, although the construction
of an appropriate form of masculine identity is a personal accomplishment,
masculinities have an existence beyond the individual and are, primarily, a
collective enterprise (Connell 2000; Lesko 2000; Pattman, Frosh, and
Phoenix 1998).
A boy’s position in the peer group is ultimately determined by the array of
social, cultural, physical, intellectual, and economic resources that he is able
to draw on and accumulate, resources that he uses to gain popularity and, par-
ticularly, status (see Adler and Adler 1998; Corsaro 1979; Weber [1947]
1970). Indeed, the search to achieve status is inextricably linked to the search
to achieve an acceptable form of masculinity. Status, though, is not some-
thing that is given but is often the outcome of intricate and intense maneuver-
ing and has to be earned through negotiation and sustained through perfor-
mance, sometimes on an almost daily basis.

THE DIFFICULTIES OF USING TYPOLOGIES

A common strategy in ethnographic studies of boys’ school cultures is to

identify typologies of cultural groups, and a number of educational research-
ers have used typologies to demonstrate the way in which boys construct
masculinities in very different ways within the same cultural site (Gilbert and
Gilbert 1998; Kenway and Willis 1998). Willis (1977), for example, counter-
posed the oppositional “lads” and the academic, conformist “ear’oles,” and
since then, others, such as Kessler et al. (1985), have identified the “bloods”
and the “Cyrils”; Walker (1988) the “footballers,” the “competitors,” the
“Greeks,” the “three friends,” and the “handballers”; Connell (1989) the
“cool guys,” “swots,” and “wimps”; Mac an Ghaill (1994) the “macho lads,”
the “academic achievers,” the “new enterprisers,” and the “real Englishmen”;
Parker (1996) the “hard boys,” “conformists,” and “victims”; Sewell (1997)
the “conformists,” “innovators,” “retreatists,” and “rebels”; Warren (1997)

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 335

the “princes of the park” and the “working-class kings”; Renold (1999) the
“tough-guys/footballers” and the “geeks”; and Martino (1999) the “cool
boys,” “party animals,” “squids,” and “poofters.”
Some writers, such as Francis (2000) and Kerfoot and Whitehead (1998),
have questioned the use of these typologies, maintaining that although they
may demonstrate (correctly) that boys are able to construct masculinity in
very different ways, they also seem to reify gender as being too fixed to create
discrete boxes that do not seem to allow much movement between them.
“Sporty-boy,” for example, defines the content of the category, but its label is
too static and denies the possibility for change. Although this argument may
have some validity, Mac an Ghaill (1994, 54), who has used the idea himself,
recognizes the “real limitations in using typologies,” stressing that he has
used them as a heuristic device to show the range of masculinities at one
school and emphasizing that they “are not fixed unitary categories.” What-
ever the intentions, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that there can be
at least some movement between them, and we should not forget that it is pos-
sible to be in more than one group at different times and in different places.
Although I am sympathetic to the use of typologies and accept they have
the advantage of showing the different forms of masculinity, I chose to resist
using them to describe and portray the characteristics of the pupil peer groups
and types of masculinities that I found in my own schools. Ultimately, I found
typologies to be too simplistic, limiting, and restrictive and unable ade-
quately to illustrate the real-life complexities of pupil identities that were
often multiple, fluid, and contradictory. I have to be honest and say that I was
unable to make typologies work for me. How I longed to be able to identify a
number of distinct and straightforward categories exemplified by the friend-
ship groupings such as a conformist (supportive) and counter (protest) cul-
ture, or an academic (mental) and nonacademic (manual) culture, or, per-
haps, a sporty (active) and academic (passive) culture, but I was unable to
find any unique distinguishing feature of sui generis that made a group stand
out on its own. Some researchers, such as Martino (1999), have used the
pupils’ own descriptive categories to inform the typologies and structure
their findings. However, the pupils in my schools were unable to suggest
many names apart from the “sporty” group (Highwoods), the “sad” group
(Petersfield), the “boff” group, or the “dimmy” group (Westmoor Abbey),
and I found these to be either inadequate, inappropriate, too simplistic, or
simply inaccurate.
After finding that I was unable to make pupil typologies work with any
satisfaction, I looked at different friendship groups again and then started to
disentangle these classifications and consider them from a different perspec-
tive. This was achieved by breaking up the friendship groupings and recate-
gorizing and retheorizing the different masculinities in each setting on the
basis of their relationship with each other. Although, like Mac an Ghaill, I am
aware that such classifications are heuristic devices and have the same

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

336 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

limitations as the friendship groups, they nevertheless demonstrate the range

of masculinities that I found at each school and allowed me to see masculinity
as a way in which the boys’ interpersonal practices were organized and to
examine the relations between them.

THE POSITION OF HEGEMONY

IN CURRENT THEORIES OF MASCULINITY

From an early stage in my theorizations, I was drawn to the concept of

hegemony. The term “hegemonic masculinity” was first introduced into the
feminist and profeminist debate by Carrigan, Connell, and Lee (1985) and
has been subsequently developed by Bob Connell (1987, 1995, 1996, 2000).
By transferring Gramsci’s concept of hegemony (which he originally used in
the context of class relations) into the area of gender relations, Connell con-
tributes a valuable insight of how to incorporate power into an analysis of
masculinity. In every setting, such as a school, there will be a hierarchy of
masculinities, and each will generally have its own dominant form of mascu-
linity, one that gains ascendancy over and above others. Connell defines the
leading pattern of masculinity as being “hegemonic” that which is “culturally
exalted” or “idealised” (Connell 1990, 83), while Kenway and Fitzclarence
(1997, 119–120) call it the “standard-bearer of what it means to be a ‘real’
man or boy.”
Within the last decade or so, many academic papers and empirical studies
have come to use the concept of hegemonic masculinity, and it has emerged as
a central reference point for understanding masculinity and male dominance
(see, e.g., Benjamin 1998, 2001; Brown 1999; Connell 1990; Connolly 1998;
Fitzclarence and Hickey 2001; Gilbert and Gilbert 1998; Kenway and
Fitzclarence 1997; Lee 2000; Light and Kirk 2000; Mac an Ghaill 1994;
Martino 1999; Parker 1996; Renold 1997, 1999, 2001; Skelton 1997; Swain
2000). Indeed, Kerfoot and Whitehead (1998) argue that the concept has
gained such ascendancy in academic writings that it has come to represent its
own hegemony. However, theories evolve and develop, and Kerfoot and
Whitehead (1998) point out that Carrigan, Connell, and Lee (1985) may have
been surprised to find these two words still being so widely used near to the
beginning of the twenty-first century in such an unproblematical, uncritical
manner. The inherent weaknesses and limitations of the notion of hegemonic
masculinity have been raised by a number of writers (see, e.g., Donaldson
1993; Edley and Wetherell 1995; Haywood and Mac an Ghaill 1996; Kerfoot
and Whitehead 1998; MacInnes 1998; Morrell 2001; Skelton 2001; White-
head 1999), who suggest that there may be a need to critically examine the
concept of hegemonic masculinity as an analytic tool. Whitehead (1999)
argues that hegemonic masculinity can explain only so much, that its own
legitimacy becomes weakened once the multiplicity of masculinities and

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 337

identities are stressed, and that it is unable to reveal “the complex patterns of
inculcation and resistance which constitute everyday social action” (White-
head 1999, 58). However, Skelton (2001) also points out that much of the
criticism leveled against hegemony is caused by writers’ lack of
understanding and haphazard application of the concept.
Nevertheless, and despite Connell’s (1996) recontextualization of hege-
mony from macro class relations into the micro interpersonal relations in the
school, I still find many of his arguments on hegemonic masculinity highly
persuasive and regard it as a major analytical device to conceptualize mascu-
line hierarchies. The hegemonic masculine form is not necessarily the most
common type on view and may be contested, but although it is often under-
written by the threat of violence, it generally exerts its influence by being able
to define what is the norm, and many boys find that they have to fit into, and
conform to, its demands. In many ways, the localized, hegemonic mode of
masculinity serves as an idealized form of behavior that boys are able to mea-
sure themselves against to discover the extent of their “boyness” or manliness
(Mills 2001). From my own readings, one of the most significant points that
Gramsci makes (see, e.g., Bocock 1986; Williams 1977) is that hegemony
prefers to work by implicit consent, for after all, the easiest way to exercise
power, and to gain advantage over others, is for the dominated to be unaware
of and therefore be complicit in their subordination. In many ways, less resis-
tance leads to more effective hegemony. The hegemonic form may differ in
each school, and depending on the features of the formal culture and the
resources available to draw on, it may be either more stable/unstable, more
visible/invisible, more passive/violent, and more conformist or resistant to
the formal school authority; and while some forms may be created by the
school practices, others will be invented by the boys themselves. However,
despite not being a “fixed character type,” the hegemonic form generally
mobilizes around a number of sociocultural constructs, such as physical/ath-
letic skill, strength, fitness, control, competitiveness, culturally acclaimed
knowledge, discipline, courage, self-reliance, and adventurousness. Indeed,
in many settings, the features of the hegemonic form are actually quite nar-
row, and this can be a problem for boys wishing to construct alternative
forms. In fact, the dominant patterns of masculinity are often linked to and
organized around the physical capital of the body, and for many boys, the
physical performative aspect of masculinity is seen as the most acceptable
and desirable way of being male (Gilbert and Gilbert 1998).

THE LINK OF MASCULINITY TO THE BODY

Masculinity does not exist as an ontological given but comes into being as
people act (Connell 2000). Another way of saying this is that masculinity is
brought into existence through performance. The main proponent of a

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

338 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

“performative” account of gender is Judith Butler (1990), who argues that

identities are brought into existence through action in “a re-enactment and a
re-experiencing of a set of meanings already socially established” (1990,
140). Gilbert and Gilbert (1998) also point out that seeing masculinity as a
performance is an important check on the tendency to ascribe to men some
fundamental internal essence that is the source and cause of masculine
behavior. The social and material practices through which and by which the
boys’ masculine identities are defined are generally described in terms of
what they do with/to their bodies (see Turner 2000), and they are aware of its
significance, both as a personal (but unfinished) resource and as a social sym-
bol that communicates signs and messages about their self-identity.
This article argues that the hegemonic form of masculinity was inextrica-
bly linked to the body and that physicality and athleticism was the most cher-
ished and extensively used resource across all three schools.

Other Forms of Masculinity

Of course, there will also be other patterns of masculinity that are actually
produced at the same time as the dominant/hegemonic form, and in theoriz-
ing the different masculinities in each setting on the basis of their relation-
ship with each other, I used Connell’s (1995) terms of “complicit” and
“subordinate.”

Complicit Masculinities

Although in my schools, the number of boys actually able to practice the

hegemonic pattern in its purest form was actually quite small,5 there was a
larger number of boys who joined in and were closely connected to the boys
in the top group; they embodied many of the qualities and traits of the “ideal-
ized” form without ever quite being one of “the frontline troops” (Connell
1995, 79). In essence, it was an aspirant form of masculinity that lacked a suf-
ficient number of resources to be accepted into the hegemonic form. For
instance, at Highwoods, although these boys were generally also good at
sport and had any number of desirable sporting qualities such as persever-
ance, self-control, tactical awareness, and so on, they did not have enough of
the other requisite qualities to make them exceptional from the accepted
norms. They were good, but not good enough. Although it was still possible
to be friendly with the sporty boys, they found it almost impossible to be a
close friend without actually being a top player. From their own accounts
(and unlike the boys exhibiting personalized forms of masculinity), they
would have liked to have been included in the dominant group, but despite
their attempted ingratiations, they found themselves tolerated instead of
being really accepted and were pushed toward the periphery. Indeed, the boys

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 339

who I have classified exhibiting this form could often be seen hanging around
the edges of the dominant group, watching the action: in the term used by
Adler and Adler (1998) they were “wannabes.”
At Westmoor Abbey, there were also a number of boys who followed and
imitated the characteristics of the hegemonic form but without exerting its
power and influence. Whether this was because they lacked the desire or the
personal resources is hard to say, but although they exhibited and performed
the vast majority of the features of the hegemonic form, they were less pre-
pared to use violence to enforce their style of masculinity unless directly con-
tested. Moreover, although they often competed alongside the boys in the
dominant group, they had little interest to be a class leader or to directly chal-
lenge any of them in a fight. They were full participants in the playground
games and other practices, but they rarely made many of the decisions on
which games to play or on who was allowed to be “in” or “out.” Moreover,
they followed the trends (such as styles of clothes and trainers or new phrases
of speech) rather than initiating them.
These boys did not seek to be leaders, but they were content to benefit
from many of the advantages, or in Connell’s (1995, 79) term, its “patriarchal
dividend.” This included being a part of the dominant hierarchy, often enjoy-
ing its protection, and also meant that they joined in with the subordination of
both femininity and others types of masculinity.

Subordinate Masculinities

In direct contrast to hegemonic masculinity are subordinate modes of

masculinity that are positioned outside the legitimate forms of maleness as
represented in the hegemonic form and that are controlled, oppressed, and
subjugated. Some writers, such as Skelton (2001), argue that the hegemonic
form constructs itself in direct relation to subordinated masculinities and has
an essential need to create subordinate forms to maintain itself. As all mascu-
linities are constructed in contrast to being feminine, those that are positioned
at the bottom of the masculine hierarchy will be symbolically assimilated to
femininity and will tend to have much in common with feminine forms
(Gilbert and Gilbert 1998). The various strategies of subordination used in
schools are generally constructed under the two generic headings of “differ-
ence” and/or “deficit” (or deficient). Being different from the majority is
often an unenviable position for boys (and girls) to be in, and the powerful
pressures to conformity that characterized the peer group cultures means that
a boy has only to look and be slightly different from the norm to be accorded
inferior status. Under the rubric of “difference” in my study, boys could be
subordinated for associating too closely with the formal school regime (such
as by working too hard, being too compliant or overpolite, by speaking too
formally or correctly, or being “too posh”) or by looking different, and

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

340 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

aberrant physical appearances and differences in body language were keenly

scrutinized and commented on.
Under the heading of “deficit,” subordination came through perceived
exhibitions of immature and babyish behavior (doing “silly” things, playing
infantile games, or associating too closely with younger children); display-
ing a deficit or deficiency of toughness (such as crying, showing fear, not
sticking up for yourself, and/or acting “soft”); being too passive and gener-
ally not active enough during both school sports and informal playground
games; and showing a deficit, or lack, of effort, which is usually connected to
a sporting context. Boys were also subordinated for the perception that they
were deficient in certain culturally acclaimed traits, particularly those con-
nected with embodied forms of physicality and athleticism (such as skill,
strength, fitness, speed, etc.) and in areas of locally defined class norms of
academic achievement (which may include pupils on the school’s register for
special educational needs). Subordination could also accrue from deficiency
in locally celebrated knowledge: for example, in the latest culturally hot top-
ics like a TV program, in the technical language of football, or unfamiliarity
with the latest computer games or videogames (such as PlayStation), and this
could render a boy silent and be used as a marker of difference.
Although these relations of masculinity were based around the friendship
networks, they did not always correspond exactly. Moreover, these descrip-
tions are not meant to be discrete, for my intention is not to create new boxes
and give the illusion that the boys conformed to a fixed, particular type of
masculinity all the time. Masculinity is not only diverse; it is also dynamic,
and the possibility always exists for change. For instance, a boy from the
dominant group could be challenged and lose his position of authority. All
these forms of masculinity were also time-space specific; for example, a boy
who was dominant in the playground at 11:10 a.m. could be placed in a sub-
ordinate position by a teacher at 11:15 a.m. (although he would still be
dominant within his own peer group).

A New Pattern of Masculinity

Although the majority of the categories of masculinity that I used were

appropriated from Connell (1995, 2000)—that is hegemonic, complicit, and
subordinated—I also found some of his theorizing on masculinity insuffi-
cient to describe the complexities in each setting, and the data that I uncov-
ered persuaded me that I needed to propose another form, one that I have
called personalized.

Personalized masculinities. Just because there is a culturally authoritative

form of masculinity within each setting, it does not automatically follow that
all boys (or men) will attempt to engage with, aspire to, or want to challenge it
(either consciously or unconsciously): some, of course, are simply unable to

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 341

do so. However, this also does not necessarily mean that these boys (or men)
are inevitably subordinated or that they have any desire to subordinate others.
Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman (2002) and Pattman, Frosh, and Phoenix (1998)
have also tentatively suggested that there can be other masculinities that do
not necessarily have to be subordinate to or be complicit with the dominant
forms. They describe these masculine identities as being “softer” and more
“transgressive” than the hegemonic forms, although I find that these are
rather nebulous terms. Research by Pattman (1991) and Wright (1994) found
that boys who inhabit these “softer” masculinities tended to be less miso-
gynistic than the boys who exhibited hegemonic forms. I have classified one
form of masculinity that I found at Highwoods and Westmoor Abbey as “per-
sonalized,” and although the term is not an ideal one, I am, for the moment at
least, unable to improve on it. I began with the term “alternative” masculini-
ties, which characterized a different set of individualized forms of “doing”
boy, but I felt that this had too many connotations with “alternative life-
styles,” and so I abandoned it.
Although the idealized form of masculinity at Highwoods manifested
itself in the top sporty boy, the majority of boys in the year got on with their
lives without allowing the storylines of competitive sport to dominate them.
Once again, though, the body played its part. These boys had no desperate
urge to become captain of the football A team because the simple fact was
that even if they wanted to, they had a deficit of the physical attributes and
resources (in terms of body coordination, shape, strength, force, speed, and
so on) to succeed at the highest school level in the top-status sports of football
(soccer) and rugby. The majority of boys at this age have already come to
realize whether they are proficient at sport or not, and on the basis of the inter-
views and observations, it seemed to me that the majority of the boys in the
year group had realized their physical limitations. And although many of
them enjoyed the school sports and games, many had already negotiated and
renegotiated a number of alternative ways of “doing” boy, which I have
termed “personalized” masculinities. This large group was fairly amorphous
and comprised a series of small, well-established friendship networks with
boys who had similar interests; they were popular within their own peer
cliques, and they were generally nonexclusive and egalitarian, without any
clearly defined leader. At break time, most kept away from the hard courts
where the boys played their football and found alternative interests. Some
played other games such as “it,” some went on the adventure playground,
some played in the woods (except for the winter months), some went to the
computer room or to one of the many lunchtime clubs that were available,
some just liked to “hang around” and talk. Although they may have been
pathologized by a few of the top sporty boys—and even, at least implicitly, by
the formal school culture—they posed no threat to the hegemonic regime and
so were generally accepted and not picked on by any of their peers. In many
ways, they coexisted alongside the hegemonic form; I found no evidence that

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

342 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

they had any feelings of envy toward the sporty boys, and they appeared to
have no desire to challenge them. In fact, their nonopposition can be seen as
an expression of consent to the hegemonic form, and as the hegemony was so
effective, it was the accepted situation. However, in many ways, these per-
sonalized groups seemed to have a high degree of social security and
regarded themselves as different rather than inferior. Although as boys, they
were undoubtedly beneficiaries of existing gendered relationships, they did
not appear to feel an imperative to subordinate anyone else—girls and/or
other boys.6
These boys still understood that sports and games played a big part in the
life of the school (they could hardly fail not to understand it), and in fact, the
physical attributes of these boys meant that many of them were able to play
sports or games at a reasonable level of competency. Some of these boys even
excelled at some sports or games such as tennis and swimming, but these
were not among the high-status sports. Certainly, the majority enjoyed most
of the sports and games; however, they appreciated that you had to be quite
good and put in a lot of effort and were fully aware that a boy risked subordi-
nation or harassment (and therefore implicit violence) if they were judged to
be totally useless. However, for many of them, having a “good personality”
took precedent over sporting prowess, and by “good,” they meant kind and
helpful but also lively and exciting and sharing a common interest. If top
sporty boy equated with “real” boy, these boys seemed to feel no less “real”
for not being able to demonstrate sporting excellence.
There was also another group of six boys in one of the classes at Westmoor
Abbey whom I have also classified as exhibiting this type of personalized
masculinity. They also seemed to be formed around a number of common
interests: they were all academically orientated and told me that they worked
hard for instrumental reasons because they wanted to succeed. There was
nothing clandestine or surreptitious about this, and although they were
pathologized and subordinated by the dominant boys, there appeared to be a
sufficient number of them in the class so as to allow them to be confident and
secure enough to accept the ridicule. They had no wish to be like the domi-
nant boys—indeed, they looked down on them and regarded them as “wast-
ers”—but nor did they feel the need to derogate other groups. When it came
to the playground football games, they chose to hold their own game adjacent
to the main game (organized by the dominant boys), and they usually played
against a team composed of a mixture of boys and girls.

CONCLUSIONS

The different varieties of masculinity are organized within the overall

structure of gender relations as a whole and are essentially patterns of gender
practice. Theorizing these patterns takes hard work, and to make sense of

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 343

things, we try to classifying them by putting them into categories. Some writ-
ers have used the strategy of typologies, but the main problem with typol-
ogies is that they are too simplistic to do the job and to show that masculinity
is fluid and dynamic. Typologies, for example, such as “sporty boy” or “con-
forming boy,” define the content of the category, but its label is too fixed and
denies the possibility for change, either temporal or contextual. On the other
hand, a category such as “hegemonic” does not define itself by its content but
in its relations with other categories.
The table below (Table 2) provides a summary of the different forms and
relations of masculinity that I found at each school, with an outline of their
main features and characteristics.
As we can see in Table 2, there are hierarchies of masculinity, and each of
these different forms is context specific. There are similarities and differ-
ences between them, and these are the result of the different meanings and
practices at each school that in turn give rise to the series of different options
and opportunities of learning the meanings of being a boy at each school.
Although each hegemonic pattern has its own distinctive features in each
school setting, the overriding characteristic that the hegemonic forms have in
common is that they inevitably establish themselves around the physical
prowess of the body “that major bearer of masculine value and symbolism”
(Morrell 2001, 8). Although it is possible that there may be different, compet-
ing models of hegemonic masculinity within the same setting, I did not find
that this was the case at these three schools. Although masculinity is con-
structed against femininity, a question that needs to be asked is whether the
hegemonic form always needs to produce subordinate forms of masculinity
to maintain itself. Although the answer seems to be yes, my research suggests
that some hegemonic forms have a greater need and urgency to do this than
others and that this is more likely to happen when it is openly challenged or
threatened. At Highwoods, the dominant form was so stable and secure that
there was less imperative to create and subordinate other forms, and I would
argue that this shows how effectively hegemony was working. I have catego-
rized alternative forms of masculinity that I have termed “personalized” mas-
culinities, although perhaps they were only successful and accommodated or
tolerated because they did not directly challenge or resist the hegemonic
prescriptions.
As far as I am aware, the personalized forms of masculinity that I have out-
lined are new labels or epithets in the theories of masculinity or are new ways
of describing conduct. Personalized forms of masculinity are not different
forms of hegemonic masculinity, because they do not set the cultural agenda
to which (some) other boys attempt to subscribe. However, they are active,
and for much of the time and in many ways, they are more secure than the
dominant forms, for they are more self-contained and neither wish nor need
to challenge or subordinate other forms.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Table 2:

344
The Different Forms of Masculinity and Their Main Features at Each School

Forms/Types of Masculinity Highwoods Petersfield Westmoor Abbey

Hegemonic: The leading • Top sportsman, based on • Being fast, skillful, strong, based on the • Top sportsman, based on the resource of
form on show the resource of physicality resource of physicality and athleticism; physicality and athleticism; being tough
and athleticism verbal dexterity (cussing) and strong; being cheeky to teachers;
• Stable/constant • Unstable/fluid wearing clothes/trainers
• Visible • Invisible • Stable/constant
• Conforms to school • Neutral to school • Visible
• Created and sanctioned • Created by the boys • Resists school
by the school • Underwritten by occasional violence • Created by the boys
• Nonviolent • Underwritten by violence
Complicit: Followers/ Follow and imitate the idealized Follow and imitate the idealized form; Follow and imitate the idealized form;
imitators but without form; join in with same activities join in with same activities of the join in with same activities of the
any real power or of the dominant group but do not dominant group but do not have dominant group but do not have
influence have sufficient resources to be sufficient resources to be included; do sufficient resources to be included;
included; do not aspire to copy not aspire to copy leaders but benefit do not aspire to copy leaders but benefit
leaders but benefit from “patriarchal from “patriarchal dividend” and from “patriarchal dividend” and
dividend” and pursue subordinated pursue subordinated forms pursue subordinated forms
forms
Personalized/ Takes many different forms—for — Mainly in another, parallel class: hard
alternative: example, academics and computer working, academic, enjoy sports and games
Nondominant knowledge; based around similar but do not excel; do not mix with dominant
but active interests; most enjoy sport, some are group; have separate games of football; do

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

competent, but sport is not that not fight; based on similar interests; do not
important to them; do not aspire to aspire to copy dominant form; do not
copy dominant form; do not subordinate others
subordinate others
 Subordinated, • Deficit: nonathletic, nonmodern, • Deficit: nonathletic, nonmodern, poor • Deficit: nonathletic, nonmodern, poor
victimized, poor cultural knowledge cultural knowledge cultural knowledge
and pursued • Different (e.g., they do not try; • Different (e.g., they play different • Different (e.g., not tough)
they have a posh voice; play games) • Babyish/immature
different games) • Babyish/immature • SEN
• Babyish/immature
NOTE: Phrases in bold denote themes found across all three schools. Phrases underlined denote themes found in two schools. Phrases in plain text denote themes unique to one school. SEN = Spe-
cial education needs.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

345
346 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

Connell (pers. comm.) has stressed that he always intended for his catego-
rizations of masculinity to be a starting point rather than a fixed framework
and that it would be appropriate to modify them whenever the data require it.
Thus, my intention in this article is to build on and add to existing understand-
ings in this comparatively nascent but burgeoning field.

NOTES
1. Secondary schools in the United Kingdom are for pupils aged eleven to sixteen and some-
times up to eighteen. They are equivalent to junior high and high schools in the United States.
2. Some writers may argue that “masculinity and education” (like “gender and education”) is
actually a topic within the field of gender studies.
3. To protect anonymity, all names of places and people have been changed, and to further dis-
guise the school’s identity, the number of pupils on roll have been rounded to the nearest twenty-
five.
4. SATs are standard assessment tasks (tests) that pupils take at the ages of seven, eleven, and
fourteen in English, mathematics, and science.
5. It is common that the number of boys and men who are able to practice the hegemonic form
will be small.
6. This is not to say that it did not happen, but I was not aware of it and did not observe it.

REFERENCES
Adler, A., and P. Adler. 1998. Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. London: Rutgers
University Press.
Benjamin, S. 1998. Fantasy football league: Boys learning to “do boy” in a special (SEN) school
classroom. In Children learning in context, edited by G. Walford. London: Falmer.
———. 2001. Challenging masculinities: Disability and achievement in testing times. Gender
and Education 3:39-55.
Bocock, R. 1986. Hegemony. London: Tavistock.
Brown, D. H. 1999. Complicity and reproduction in teaching physical education. Sport, Educa-
tion and Society 4:143–59.
Butler, J. 1990 Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.
Carrigan, T., R. W. Connell, and J. Lee. 1985. Towards a new sociology of masculinity. Theory
and Society 5:551–602.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge,
UK: Polity.
———. 1989. “Cool guys, swots and wimps”: The interplay of masculinity and education. Ox-
ford Review of Education 15:291–303.
———. 1990. An iron man: The body and some contradictions of hegemonic masculinity. In
Sport, men and the gender order: Critical feminist perspectives, edited by M. A. Messner and
D. F. Sabo. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
———. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
———. 1996. “Teaching the boys”: New research on masculinity and gender strategies for
schools. Teachers College Record 98:206–35.
———. 2000. The Men and the boys. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Connell, R. W., D. J. Ashenden, S. Kessler, and D. W. Dowsett. 1982. Making the difference:
Schools, families and social division. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Connolly, P. 1998. Racism, gender identities and young children: Social relations in a multi-eth-
nic, inner-city primary school. London: Routledge.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 347

Corsaro, W. A. 1979. Young children’s conceptions of status and role. Sociology of Education
52:46–59.
Donaldson, M. 1993. What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society 22:643–57.
Edley, N., and M. Wetherell. 1995. Men in perspective: Practice, power and identity. London:
Prentice Hall.
Epstein, D. 1998. “Stranger in the Mirror”: Gender, sexuality, ethnicity and nation in education.
Address to the Conference on Multiple Marginalities: Gender, Citizenship and Nationality in
Education, Helsinki, Finland.
Epstein, D., M. Kehily, M. Mac an Ghaill, and P, Redman. 2001. Boys and girls come out to play:
Making masculinities and femininities in school playgrounds. Men and Masculinities 4 (2):
158–72.
Fitzclarence, L., and C. Hickey. 2001. Real footballers don’t eat quiche: Old narratives in new
times. Men and Masculinities 4 (2): 118–39.
Francis, B. 1998 Power plays. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
———. 2000. Boys, girls and achievement: Addressing the classroom issues. London:
Routledge.
Frosh, S., A. Phoenix, and R. Pattman. 2002. Young masculinities: Understanding boys in con-
temporary society. London: Palgrave.
Gilbert, R., and P. Gilbert. 1998. Masculinity goes to school. London: Routledge.
Gordon, T., J. Holland, and E. Lahelma. 2000. Making spaces: Citizenship and differences in
schools. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Hargreaves, D. H. 1995. School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement 6:23–46.
Harris, J. R. 1998. The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. London:
Bloomsbury.
Haywood, C., and M. Mac an Ghaill. 1996. Schooling masculinities. In Understanding mascu-
linities, edited by M. Mac an Ghaill. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Kenway, J. 1997. Boys’ education, masculinity and gender reform: Some introductory remarks.
In: Will boys be boys? Boys’education in the context of gender reform, edited by J. Kenway.
Deakin, Australia: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Kenway, J., and L. Fitzclarence. 1997. Masculinity, violence and schooling: Challenging poison-
ous pedagogies. Gender and Education 9:117–33.
Kenway, J., and S. Willis. 1998. Answering back: Girls, boys and feminism in schools. London:
Routledge.
Kerfoot, D., and S. Whitehead. 1998. W(h)ither hegemonic masculinity. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Gendering the Millennium, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Kessler, S., D. J. Ashenden, R. W. Connell, and G. W. Dowsett. 1985. Gender relations in second-
ary schooling. Sociology of Education 58:34–48.
Lee, D. 2000. Hegemonic masculinity and male feminisation: The sexual harassment of men at
work. Journal of Gender Studies 9 (2): 141–55.
Lesko, N., ed. 2000. Masculinities at school. London: Sage.
Light, R., and D. Kirk. 2000. High school rugby: The body and the reproduction of “hegemonic”
masculinity. Sport, Education and Society 5 (2): 163–76.
Mac an Ghaill, M. 1994. The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
MacInnes, J. 1998. The end of masculinity? Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Martino, W. 1999. “Cool boys,” “party animals,” “squids” and “poofters”: Interrogating the dy-
namics and politics of adolescent masculinities in school. British Journal of Sociology of Ed-
ucation 20:239–63.
Mills, M. 2001. Challenging violence in schools: An issue of masculinities. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

348 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

Morrell R., ed. 2001 Changing men in Southern Africa. Scottsville, South Africa: University of
Natal Press.
Parker, A. 1996. The construction of masculinity within boys’ physical education. Gender and
Education 8:141–57.
Pattman, E. 1991. Sex education and the liberal paradigm. PhD diss., University of Birmingham,
United Kingdom.
Pattman R., S. Frosh, and A. Phoenix. 1998. Lads, machos and others: Developing “boy-centred”
research. Journal of Youth Studies 1 (2): 125–42.
Pollard, A. 1985. The social world of the primary school. London: Cassell.
Renold, E. 1997. “All they’ve got on their brains is football”: Sport, masculinity and the gendered
practices of playground relations. Sport, Education and Society 2:5–23.
———. 1999 “Presumed innocence”: An ethnographic exploration into the construction of gen-
der and sexual identities in the primary school. PhD diss., University of Cardiff, United
Kingdom.
———. 2000. “Coming out”: Gender, (hetero)sexuality and the primary school. Gender and Ed-
ucation 12:309–26.
———. 2001. Learning the “hard” way: Boys, hegemonic masculinity and the negotiation of
learner identities in the primary school. British Journal of Sociology of Education 22 (3):
369–85.
Sewell, T. 1997. Black masculinities and schooling: How black boys survive modern schooling.
Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham.
Skelton, C. 1996. Learning to be “tough”: The fostering of maleness in one primary school. Gen-
der and Education 8:185–97.
———. 1997. Primary boys and hegemonic masculinities. British Journal of Sociology of Edu-
cation 18:349–69.
———. 2000. “A passion for football”: Dominant masculinities and primary schooling. Sport,
Education and Society 5 (1): 5–18.
———. 2001. Schooling the boys: Masculinities and primary education. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
Swain, J. 2000. “The money’s good, the fame’s good, the girls are good”: The role of playground
football in the construction of young boys’ masculinity in a junior school. British Journal of
Sociology of Education 21:95–109.
———. 2001. An ethnographic study into the construction of masculinity of 10-11 year old boys
in three junior schools. PhD diss., University of London.
———. 2002a. The right stuff: Fashioning an identity through clothing in a junior school. Gen-
der and Education 14 (1): 53–69.
———. 2002b. The resources and strategies boys use to establish status in a junior school with-
out competitive sport. Discourse 23 (1): 91–107.
Thorne, B. 1993. Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Turner, B. S. 2000. An outline of a general sociology of the body. In The Blackwell companion to
social theory, 2nd ed., edited by B. S. Turner. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Walker, J. 1988. Louts and legends. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
Warren, S. 1997. Who do these boys think they are? An investigation into the construction of
masculinities in a primary classroom. International Journal of Inclusive Education 1 (2):
207–22.
Weber, M. [1947] 1970. Class, status, party. In From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, edited by
H. Gerth and C. Wright. London: Lowe & Brydone.
Whitehead, S. 1999. Hegemonic masculinity revisited (review article). Gender, Work and Orga-
nization 6 (1): 58–62.
Williams, R. 1977. Marxism and literature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

 Swain / MASCULINITY IN SCHOOL SETTINGS 349

Willis, P. 1977. Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs.
Farnborough, UK: Saxon House.
Wright, D. 1994. Boys’thoughts and talk about sex in a working class locality of Glasgow. Socio-
logical Review 42 (4): 703–37.
Woods, P. 1990. The happiest days? London: Falmer.

Jon Swain is an ethnographic researcher with interests in masculinities, pedagogy, and

school processes. He has spent the majority of his working life as a primary school
teacher in the United Kingdom and is currently working as a research officer at the Insti-
tute of Education, University of London.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com at Institute of Education University of London on October 9, 2012

View publication stats