Print this article

Transcripción

Print this article

Volume 3, Number 2
Hipatia Press
www.hipatiapress.com
h
The Affront of the Aspiration Agenda: White Working-Class Male
Narratives of ‘Ordinariness’ in Neoliberal Times - Garth Stahl
………………………………………………………………………………………88
Typologies of Men’s Friendships: Constructing Masculinity through
Them-Todd A. Migliaccio………………..…………………….…………......119
Articles
We Teach Too: What are the Lived Experiences and Pedagogical
Practices of Gay Men of Color Teachers- Cleveland Hayes
……………………….…...……………………………………………………….148
When man falls provider. Masculinity, unemployment and
psychological distress in the family. A methodology for the search of
affective normalization - Juan Antonio Rodriguez del Pino
…………….………………….……………………………………………………173
Reviews
Performing American Masculinities: The 21st-Century Man in Popular
Culture – Sandra Girbés………………………………………………………191
Construcción de masculinidades igualitarias – Juan Carlos
Peña………………………………………………………………………………194
Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:
http://mcs.hipatiapress.com
The Affront of the Aspiration Agenda: White Working-Class
Male Narratives of ‘Ordinariness’ in Neoliberal Times
Garth Stahl 1
1) University of South Australia, Australia
st
Date of publication: June 21 , 2014
Edition period: June 2014-October 2014
To cite this article: Stahl, G (2014). The Affront of the Aspiration Agenda: White
Working-Class Male Narratives of ‘Ordinariness’ in Neoliberal Times. Masculinities
and Social Change, 3 (2), 88-118. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014. 46
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/MCS.2014. 46
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
The terms and conditions of use are related to the Open Journal System and
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY).
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 2 June 2014 pp.
88-118
The Affront of the Aspiration
Agenda: White Working-Class
Male Narratives of ‘Ordinariness’
in Neoliberal Times
Garth Stahl
University of South Australia, Australia
Abstract
This article draws on accounts of white working-class boys (age 14-16) from South
London in order to explore how they reconstitute their learner-identities within the
‘raising aspirations’ rhetoric. The current dominant neoliberal discourse in
education, which prioritises a view of aspiration that is competitive, qualificationfocused, and economic, shapes the subjectivities of these young males though there
exist nuanced strategies of resistance. In an era of high modernity where youth feel
increasing risk, the identities of young people are subject to tremendous change
where traditional class and gendered boundaries are being subverted, reimagined,
and reconstituted. Focusing on academic engagement as an identity negotiation, this
research critically considers where young men enact strategies to construct
themselves as ‘having value’ in spaces of devaluing where they reconcile competing
and contrasting conceptions of aspiration.
Keywords: aspiration, reconstitution, habitus, identity work, Bourdieu, social class
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.46
88-118
El Agravio de la Aspiración:
Narrativas de los Hombres Blancos de
Clase Obrera sobre “Lo Ordinario” en
Tiempos Neoliberales
Garth Stahl
University of South Australia, Australia
Resumen
Este artículo se basa en relatos de chicos blancos de clase obrera (14-16 años) del Sur de
Londres con el objetivo de explorar cómo se reconstituyen sus aprendizajes-identidades
dentro de la retórica 'elevando aspiraciones’. El actual discurso educativo neoliberal
dominante, que da prioridad a una visión de la aspiración que sea competitiva, centrada
en la cualificación y en la economía, da forma a las subjetividades de estos jóvenes
varones, aunque existen estrategias matizadas de resistencia. En la era de la alta
modernidad, donde los jóvenes sienten cada vez un mayor riesgo, las identidades de los
jóvenes están sujetas a un cambio tremendo que implica una subversión a los límites de
clase social y género, y a la vez se reimaginan y reconstituyen. Centrándonos en la
participación académica como la negociación de identidad, esta investigación considera
de forma crítica en qué espacios los jóvenes protagonizan estrategias para construirse a sí
mismos como "sujetos de valor" en los espacios de devaluación en los que concilian la
competencia con las diferentes concepciones sobre la aspiración.
Palabras clave: aspiración, reconstitución, habitus, identitidad laboral, Bourdieu, clase
social
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.46
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change, 3(2) 90
T
he study of the interconnectedness between masculinit(ies) and
aspiration has drawn on a range of theoretical frameworks and
constructs from hegemonic masculinity, intersectionality,
subjectivity, and pluralities to the socio-psychological. However, as
Howson (2014) notes, there exist many pitfalls when applying conventional
theories of aspiration to masculine identity construction. The research
serves as an attempt to move beyond narrow conceptions of aspiration (e.g.
motivation, expectations, goal-orientation) to a social analysis using the
tool of habitus which highlights the influence of social context, distinction,
and negotiation. Working-class masculinities and femininities are often
subject to the processes of inscription and classification which work in the
interests of those with power (Skeggs, 2004, p.4); however, these
inscriptions are not uni-directional and often involve constant negotiations.
As long as the discourse of aspiration relies on the proxies of education and
occupation, the young working-class boys in this study will always be
defined as having low or modest aspirations when my participants have
powerful identifications with a very specific concept of a ‘good life’ (cf.
Stahl, 2012; 2015).
First, the article explores the white working-class phenomenon in light
of the ‘raising aspiration agenda’ which embodies an intense neoliberal
ideology where ‘good qualifications are equated with a good job’. Second,
through the use of Bourdieu’s (2002) habitus, I investigate how the
aspiration agenda shapes (and re-shapes) the subjectivities of twenty-three
white working-class boys in South London (ages 14-16), specifically in
reference to a counter-habitus of egalitarianism evidenced in the boys’
attention to ‘loyalty to self’ as well as average-ness, ordinariness and
‘middling’ (never wanting to be the best or worst). Within the current
pervasive neoliberal discourse, which prioritises a view of aspirations that
is competitive, economic, and status-based, I argue the boys use strategies
to reaffirm and traditionalize certain modes of masculinity and masculine
identity.
The White Working-Class Phenomenon
It is widely documented that white working class boys continue to be the
lowest attaining groups in the United Kingdom exam system (Strand, 2008;
91 Stahl – Male Narratives of ‘Ordinariness’
2014). Comparatively, this ethnic group remains less socially mobile
compared to other ethnic minorities of similar class backgrounds (Platt,
2007; Demie & Lewis, 2010). Furthermore, policy makers have cited a
“deeply embedded culture of low aspiration” (DfEs, 2004) as the primary
cause of underachievement and of anti-social behaviour as witnessed in the
August 2011 riots in London, Manchester, and Birmingham (Gove, 2011).
Framed by extensive neoliberal policies and discourses, social mobility
continues to be a high priority in the Coalition government, where Michael
Gove aims to create schools that are “engines of social mobility providing
every child with the knowledge, skills, and aspirations they need to fulfil
their potential” (The Cabinet Office, 2011, p. 36). In fact, a recent White
Paper entitled The Importance of Teaching (2010) asserts, “Good teachers
instil an ethos where aspiration is the best reason for children to avoid
harmful behaviour” (p. 29), equating aspiration as a simple antidote to
complex problems. Within these policy documents, low achievement and
anti-social behaviour is often considered a natural link to what is widely
considered a lack of engagement with boys in schooling and also a ‘poverty
of aspirations’ amongst working-class males. However, policies and reports
focused on boys and schooling often ignore the complexities of
masculinity, instead legitimising and reinforcing “essentialist
understandings of gender…based on the presupposition that there are
natural and normal behaviours, dispositions, and attitudes that are either
male or female” (Mills, Martino, & Lingard, 2007, p. 15).
Strand and Winston (2008) focused their quantitative study of different
pupil groups’ educational aspirations and intended qualifications in the
United Kingdom, ultimately finding “white British boys and girls displayed
aspirations for less professional jobs” (p. 263). In this study, the white
British did not necessarily have a negative attitude toward schooling, but
instead tended to view education as insignificant for their vocational goals
(Strand and Winston, 2008, p. 264). My research seeks to develop a
nuanced view of white working-class male identity in order to understand
some of the barriers commonly associated with white working-class culture
in educational contexts, such as lack of aspiration, parental attitudes toward
school, insufficient work ethic, and poor attendance (Evans, 2006; Demie &
Lewis, 2010). Through my analysis, I explore how high levels of so-called
‘disaffection’ towards education in white working class communities
actually represent certain struggles to establish a ‘self of value’ within the
confines of limited repertoires of social and cultural resources. My interest
is in how white working-class boys make sense of the resounding aspiration
rhetoric in their school contexts and how it shapes their subjectivities
(Gillborn & Kirton, 2000; McLeod, 2000). Such identity negotiations
around aspiration have the potential for tremendous psychic costs as
working-class students contend with ‘finding’ or ‘losing’ their workingclass identities (Reay, 2001; 2005).
Current Neoliberal Ideology and Aspiration Rhetoric
In November 2010, Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove declared
that he wanted the United Kingdom to become an “aspiration nation”
(Richardson, 2010). Andy Burnham, Shadow Education Secretary at the
time, reflected this desire at the other end of the political spectrum by
addressing the Labour party conference with a plea for “aspiration,
aspiration, aspiration” (Vasagar, 2011). Despite a plethora of policy
rhetoric aimed at addressing inequality, the UK remains low in the
international rankings of social mobility when compared to other advanced
nations (Blanden and Machin 2007). The reasons for social stagnation are
primarily economic. While the second half of the twentieth century saw a
rise of middle-class employment culminating with a boom in the Thatcher
years, since then the growth in middle-class occupations has stalled
considerably. According to the TUC, in 2001 low-paid service sector work
made up 42% of labour-market occupations while ‘high skill’ white-collar
work made up less than 40%, and that percentage is set to fall in the wake
of severe austerity measures in the public-sector (Blanchflower, 2012). The
data from the Office for National Statistics (2012) shows there are limited
opportunities for all those who aspire to professional and managerial jobs,
so even if the boys in this study did pursue white collar employment, such
an aspiration is in many ways thwarted before it even begins. However, the
stagnant economic situation in the UK has not deterred politicians on both
sides of the political divide from espousing an aspiration mantra which, of
course, conceals the much larger issues at play.
In a time of robust neoliberalism influencing classroom discourses and how
students are constructed as having ‘value’, it is imperative that we consider
the entwined relationship between the aspiration agenda and how these
young men construct their identities as learners (Stahl, 2012). This article
intends to show how these ideologies, which have tremendous implications
for pedagogy, structure students’ sense of aspiration and learner identities.
The discourse of aspiration is a discourse of social change; the process of
‘aspiring’ (and performing aspirations) is a “relational, felt, embodied
process, replete with classed desires and fantasies, defences and aversions,
feelings of fear, shame and guilt, excitement and desire” (Allen, 2013b).
Neoliberal ideologies of competition which reflect the dominant culture are
pervasive within the discourse communities of schools where aspiration is
rendered an “unequivocal good” (Allen, 2013a).
In the United Kingdom, schools are increasingly expected to create a
neoliberal subject, the “entrepreneur of self” who espouses the values of
“self-reliance, autonomy and independence” in order to gain “self-respect,
self-esteem, self-worth and self-advancement” (Davies & Bansel, 2007, p.
252). The current policy discourse surrounding aspiration indicates pupils
are increasingly judged as having ‘bought in’ or ‘bought out’ depending on
whether or not they accept the ‘socially mobile’ rhetoric prevalent within
our current educational system. Ball and Olmedo (2012) argue:
The apparatuses of neoliberalism are seductive, enthralling and
overbearingly necessary. It is a ‘new’ moral system that subverts and reorients us to its truths and ends. It makes us responsible for our performance
and for the performance of others. We are burdened with the responsibility
to perform, and if we do not we are in danger of being seen as irresponsible.
(p. 88)
Existing within this new moral system, subjectivities are in a process of
interpellation where competing and contrasting definitions are resisted,
strategized, adopted, and subverted. Building on Foucault, the idea of
subjectivity as a processes of becoming focuses on “what we do rather than
on what we are, that is to say, the work of the care of the self” (Ball &
Olmedo, 2012, p. 87). Reay (2001; 2009) has shown that in attempting to
‘upskill’ through entering higher education (and entering into a rigorous
competition in order to do so), working class students face a struggle to
preserve their identity and make sense of feelings of inferiority and fear.
Within the constant policy-driven attention to upward mobility, researchers
have maintained a small but consistent spotlight on the ‘identity work’
surrounding the injuries of class (Reay, 2001; Wexler, 1992; Hattam &
Smyth, 2003), highlighting the very real challenges for disadvantaged
groups.
Furthermore, within policies governed by neoliberal ideology (Raco,
2009), the ‘aspiration problem’ has become increasingly individualized, as
aspiration itself is regarded as a personal character trait “where policy
documents often associate low aspiration with other personal qualities such
as inspiration, information, self-esteem and self-efficacy” (Spohrer, 2011,
p. 58). There is very little doubt, as Wilkins (2011) articulates, that low
attainment is “transposed or re-coded into a matter of personal sin (i.e. a
private psychological propensity or ‘attitude’ particular to the individual),
and, therefore attributes social disadvantage to a lack of principled self-help
and self-responsibility” (p.4). Clearly, this has consequences when
considering how masculine identities are formed in relation to education
and the expectation of social mobility (Burke, 2010; Phoenix, 2004;
Connell, 1998). According to the neoliberal perspective, “‘Underachieving’
boys appear to be unable—or worse, unwilling—to fit themselves into the
meritocratic educational system which produces the achievement vital for
the economic success of the individual concerned and of the nation”
(Francis, 2006, p. 193). De-socializing and de-contextualizing educational
achievement perpetuates the invisibility of larger structural inequalities.
Harvey (2005) argues that current iterations of neoliberalism function as
a political, economic and ideological system that gives considerable
credence to the market as the best, most efficient platform for distributing
public resources. This macro-level structural framework attributes greater
consideration of individual duty than government responsibility (Gillborn &
Youdell, 2000; Reay, David, & Ball, 2005). Within neoliberal discourses
the self is not fixed but is rather constantly made and re-made as people,
functioning as ‘entrepreneurs of the self’, must constantly construct
themselves as having ‘value’ against risk and uncertainty. Neoliberal
ideology privileges the reflexive modernisation thesis. Archer and Francis
(2007) write that in the neoliberal reading “there are no foundational
aspects of selfhood such as ‘race’ or gender that preclude an individual
from taking up the opportunities available to them – failure to do so simply
reflects an individual lack of enterprise” (p.19). Therefore, within an
education system governed by neoliberalism and the aspiration agenda,
subjects are quickly defined according to their level of adaptation.
In a time of high modernity, neoliberalism privileges both individual
attainment and individuality. If individualization is understood to be a
process of undoing traditional ways of life where networks and boundaries
of class (Beck, 1992) and gender are being reimagined (Adkins, 1999, p.
122), and identity is increasingly ‘hybridized’, ‘multiracialized’,
‘pluralized’, and ‘entangled’, this research considers the identity work
undertaken to reconstitute, reaffirm, and retraditionalize historically
embedded modes of masculinity and masculine identity through policing
acceptable boundaries (Stahl, 2015). As students are re-coded according to
the neoliberal prerogative, we must make sense of the negotiations
surrounding the acceptance and resistance of such codes. Within a risk
pervasive world, the expectation of change and adaptation is always present
where students enact practices and strategies when they confront this
discourse.
Habitus as a Tool to Explore Identity and Aspiration
Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1992) seminal work offered a set of ‘thinking
tools’ which have been used to untangle explanations of class, aspiration,
status, and power in pedagogic contexts. Bourdieu (1984) describes habitus
as “a structured body, a body which has incorporated the immanent
structures of a world or of a particular sector of that world—a field—and
which structures the perception of that world as well as action in that
world” (p. 81). Habitus, as socialized subjectivity, allows for structure and
agency as well as the individual and the collective, in which the
significance of habitus is in relation to how it is constituted by the field
(Grenfell, 2008, p.53-61). For Bourdieu, habitus also “contributes to
constituting the field as a meaningful world, a world endowed with sense
and value, in which it is worth investing one’s energy” (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992, p.127). Working-class students do not aspire highly
because, according to Bourdieu, they have internalized and reconciled
themselves to the “limited opportunities that exist for those without much
cultural capital” (Swartz, 1997, p. 197; cf. Connolly & Healy, 2004).
Young working-class males in my research often come to see the aspiration
toward academic success as a symbolically legitimated form which not only
falls largely beyond their grasp but also beyond their desire (Stahl, 2012;
2015). The process of internalization of possibilities, I argue, is a process of
resistance and acceptance, ever evolving.
Through the use of habitus, I seek to draw attention to the identity work
around detraditionalization and the reaffirmation of normative masculinity.
As a set of durable and transposable dispositions, the habitus is not ‘set’ but
evolving, as the field too is in constant flux. Being the product of history
and experience, habitus:
May be changed by history, that is by new experiences, education or
training (which implies that aspects of what remains unconscious in habitus
be made at least partially conscious and explicit). Dispositions are longlasting: they tend to perpetuate, to reproduce themselves, but they are not
eternal. (Bourdieu, 2002, p. 29)
Habitus is where one’s perceptions and conceptions are conditioned by the
structures of the environment in which they are engendered; yet the habitus
does not operate identically for all people and is deeply dependent on
capitals and field.1 Habitus shows the “embodied dispositions” (Nash,
1990) that are “inculcated by everyday experiences within the family, the
peer group, and the school” (Mills, 2008, p.80). Schools serve as a
“productive locus” which gives rise to “certain patterns of thought” (Nash,
1990, p. 435). To show how a logic of practice is created and maintained
for the white working-class boys in my study, the focus of the research is
not only where the prerogatives of the school influence the boys, but also
where the habitus of the boys serves as a counter-narrative to rebuff the
neoliberal rhetoric.
Having the capacity to unearth some of the underlying tensions between
identity and the dominant culture around aspiration, I employ Bourdieu’s
theoretical tool of habitus to allow for the interpretation of the specific and
cultural practices that may produce certain ‘ways of being’ in classroom
contexts to further my understanding of my participants’ conceptualisations
of aspiration. In understanding my participants’ learner and social
identities, the tool of habitus not only allows for agency and choice, but
also recognizes that choices are limited, restricted by socio-economic
positioning and wider societal structures, and that habitus predisposes
individuals towards certain ways of behaving. Bourdieu and Passeron
(1977) assert that through the habitus of students, “the level of aspiration of
individuals is essentially determined by the probability (judged intuitively
by means of previous successes or failures) of achieving the desired goal”
(p. 111).
My research problematises the current policy where dis-identification
with middle-class normative aspirations is largely interpreted as
‘disaffection’ and a deficient sense of social mobility. Through analysis of
the subjectivities of these working-class boys, we are able to see how the
neoliberal discourse shapes their learner identity and subsequently their
aspirations. We need to understand both how these working-class young
men articulate identities within a middle-class aspiration rhetoric
permeating the school culture and also the strategies they enact to reaffirm a
sense of value and police normative boundaries of acceptable modes of
masculinity. Masculinities are deeply contextualized, coming to the
forefront through social interaction where they are “actively produced,
using the resources and strategies available in a given milieu” (Connell,
1998, p. 5). Through narratives of (dis)identification with the prerogatives
of neoliberalism, these young men constitute themselves as having value in
contexts where they are often devalued; often times the responses can be
read as excluding themselves from what they are already excluded from (cf.
Bourdieu & Passeron, 1992).
Methodology
The South London school-based ethnography was conducted with twentythree white working-class boys (ages 14-16) who were preparing for their
GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Education which completes
compulsory education). In an effort to enforce discipline and motivate
students, each school site espoused the neoliberal rhetoric where the
attainment of good grades would lead to a successful middle-class job.
Within schooling, failure to attain five GCSEs was consistently depicted by
educators as a pathway to a lack of employment and ‘living on the dole’.
The study involved semi-structured questioning and focus groups, as well
as classroom and extracurricular observations, in three school sites in South
London over nine months. The questions were composed thematically
around broad themes: life history, schooling experience, masculinity
perceptions, social class experiences, power and aggression, and influences.
It should be noted that aspiration was not initially a theme of the project but
emerged as a key theme through discussions. The data discussed in this
article are drawn from the interviews, and it was essential to the research
that the meanings of aspiration were drawn from my participants, rather
than imposed by the researcher.
The use of semi-structured questioning ensured the same questions were
covered with each student while maintaining flexibility and the opportunity
for further probing. Through semi-structured interviews, I was able to
explore vague or inadequate responses to certain questions (Renold, 2001).
Identities and subjectivities do not simply reveal themselves in interviews;
they need to be developed reflexively, and interviewers need to consider
their positioning carefully in the interview process (McLeod, 2003). In their
work on masculine identity, Wetherall and Edley (1999) argue, “When
people speak, their talk reflects not only the local pragmatics of that
particular conversational context, but also much broader or more global
patterns in collective sense-making and understanding” (p. 338). Through
the interviews the words of the boys reflect an interplay between workingclass masculinity, the neoliberal rhetoric and egalitarianism.
Findings: An Egalitarian Counter-Habitus to Neoliberal Ideology
The neoliberal ideology inherently carries with it a class-based expectation,
as “to play their part in the neoliberal scenario, the newly responsibilized
citizens must be unequivocally middle class” (Davies & Bansel, 2007, p.
252). The middle-class self is primarily upwardly mobile, economically
comfortable, able to navigate different discourse communities through
adopting new selves, has a keen understanding of what counts within
certain fields, and, consequently, is able to marshal resources to position
themselves advantageously (The New London Group, 1996). In contrast, a
working-class masculinity typically values anti-pretentious humour,
solidarity, dignity, honour, loyalty and caring, and pride and commitment to
employment (cf. Winlow, 2001; Skeggs, 2004). The findings represent a
mediation between these to contradictory fields. Within the habitus, my
participants developed a narrative centred on egalitarianism as defined by
‘fitting in’, where everyone has an ‘equal say in the world’, and where ‘no
one is better than anyone else’ or ‘above their station’ (Lawler, 1999; Reay,
2001; Archer & Leathwood, 2003; MacDonald, Shildrick, Webster, &
Simpson, 2005). As a strategy of reconstitution, the data shows how white
working-class boys embody an egalitarian habitus, alternative to the
middle-class self, which has been mediated through their historic workingclass communal values (cf. Reay, 2003; 2009).
As a disposition in the working-class habitus, egalitarianism, I argue, is
a product of the creative and inventive capacity of the habitus, as habitus
also has a structuring force (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Egalitarianism, as
a strategy to address the tension between the competing fields of the
aspirational culture of the school and the working-class communal values of
the home, is how the boys create a sense of value and how they gain a sense
of where to invest their energies as they adjust “virtualities, potentialities,
eventualities” within their social space (Bourdieu & Passeron 1992, p. 135;
cf Connolly & Healy, 2004). As a foundational aspect of their social and
learner identities, egalitarianism contributes to the way in which they make
sense of their own positionality within school contexts.
Egalitarianism is, of course, a falsehood; it represents the boys’ efforts
to contest/ignore/subvert inequalities in recognition and distribution, and it
becomes a means of maximizing their capacity to negotiate potential
failure. Egalitarianism also allows for an analysis of positional suffering
where the affective dimensions of class (envy/deference, contempt/pity,
shame/pride) are constructed and reconstructed in a milieu where the
legitimization of an authentic working-class identity is either endangered or
non-existent. As Sayer (2002) suggests, the working classes are caught in a
bind that produces “acute inner turmoil as a result of the opposing pulls of
both wanting to refuse the perceived external judgements and their criteria
and wanting to measure up to them – both to reject respectability and to be
respectable” (p.415). For working-class students in education, of whom the
majority feel “powerlessness and educational worthlessness” (Reay, 2009,
p.25), embracing ‘success’ grounded in middle-class aspiration requires
challenging identity negotiations and re-appropriations, which means for
many working class boys the losses would be greater than the gains (Reay,
2002).
In comprehending the prevalence of egalitarianism within the data, it
should be noted that in the UK, inequalities (class, gender, and
‘race’/ethnicity) are not disappearing but instead becoming increasingly
obscured by a neoliberal and meritocratic rhetoric. As a result, young
people often come to “see themselves as individuals in a meritocratic
society, not as classed or gendered members of an unequal society” (Ball,
Maguire, & Macrae 2000, p.4) which influences the processes through
which they comprehend their sense of aspiration, their abilities, and their
own positionality. It was not that the boys openly identified as workingclass, in fact they resisted class labels for the most part2, but instead
egalitarianism functioned as a form of mediation. To be clear this process
of negotiation occurs within pejorative and complex discursive practices
surrounding blurred working-class/under-class representations and celebrity
in the United Kingdom, the ‘rough and rude’ ‘chav scum’ (cf. Skeggs,
2004; Tyler, 2008; Allen & Mendick, 2012). The next two sections show
how the egalitarianism functions and how the boys constitute themselves as
subjects of ‘value’. Through these two data sets, I explore how social
structures shape agents’ subjectivities and how the habitus of individuals
“resist and succumb to inertial pressure of structural forces” (MacLeod
2009, p.139).
Loyalty to Self: ‘I Don’t Try to Act like Something I’m not’
Integral to the identity formation of the working-class boys in this study
was the consistent references, both through interviews and focus groups, to
the participants’ discomfort in acting like something they were not.
‘Loyalty to self’, which was deeply engrained in the habitus, became a way
of expressing the egalitarian narrative. Furthermore, ‘loyalty to self’ had
strong inflections of authenticity as well as dignity, centred upon “high
ethical standards of honour, loyalty and caring” (Skeggs, 2004, p. 88). As
previously mentioned, these values are well-documented aspects of
working-class communities (Charlesworth, 2000), specifically with white
working-class women (Skeggs, 2004) and men (Winlow, 2001) in the north
of England, and especially with youth cultures experiencing the impact of
de-industrialization (Brann-Barrett, 2011). In my study, ‘being yourself’
was consistently valued; adopting what was perceived as a false identity
was consistently detested. In response to the question: ‘How do you want
people to see you?’ the boys responded:
Someone that can take a laugh, someone who’s not going to be annoying,
not someone who thinks I’m something that I’m not. (Tommy, Year 11)
Like how I am. I’m not like…how I act. I don’t try and copy anyone. Just be
yourself. (Terry, Year 11)
Just for what I am. I don’t try to act like something I’m not. (Tom, Year 11)
Obviously I want people to like respect me for who I am. That’s what I want
for people, that’s what I want from anyone. Respect me for who I am.
(Charlie, Year 11)
‘Loyalty to self’ influences how the boys construct their learner
identities. To perform an identity and embrace adaptation, which they
perceived as inauthentic, was an affront their egalitarian habitus. While
‘loyalty to self’ was strong in the data, this is not necessarily the case with
all working-class students. Identity shifts can be both manageable and
tenuous. The dexterity of identity shifting with working-class youth, as a
capital, has been noted in several studies regarding student engagement in
the classroom, such as Prudence Carter’s work (2006) with ‘cultural
straddlers’ and Wilkins’s (2011) small case study work on the codeswitching between learner identity and social identity among a group of
primary school boys. Reay, Crozier, and Clayton (2009) assert that the
high-achieving working-class students at an elite university “displayed the
ability to successfully move across two very different fields with what are
seen to be classically middle-class academic dispositions, a versatility that
most had begun to develop in early schooling” (p.1105). The ability (or
desire) for my participants to shift identity was not apparent in my
observations and interviews; instead my participants actively employed
strategies holding close to what they perceived to be an authentic self:
I don’t want them to see me as a certain person, I just want them to see me
as who I am. Just for who I am, innit. Like me trying to act like someone…
like a personality. I’m my own person. I don’t follow no one, innit, I’m just
by myself. (Alfie, Year 11)
I just want people to see me for like me. If you get what I’m saying…I
dunno like…I don’t want to be seen for something I’m not. (George, Year
10)
While the middle-class self may be adept at operationalizing capitals within
fields and navigating different discourse communities, the working-class
habitus observed in this study resists this fluidity and the adoption of
identities they perceive as ‘fake’ or inauthentic. ‘Loyalty to self’ as a salient
identity boundary also influences the ever-powerful peer groups where the
boys gauge whether other boys are genuine and do not exhibit any ‘twofaced’ or ‘snake’ behaviour. When I asked Terry how he saw the boys
whom he related to, he said, “People like me that ain’t showy and that.
People that don’t mind and that they’ll do anything” (Terry, Year 11). Terry
cites how he looks for individuals who “ain’t showy,” who he perceives as
authentic and who remain ‘loyal to self’. With boys, the peer group often
has a tremendous influence on their learner identity (Mac an Ghaill, 1994).
The difficulties that arise in operating at the boundary of different fields
suggest that, in order to be successful, my participants must continue to
reduce their affiliation to ‘loyalty to self’ and accept the aspiration rhetoric
of change embodied in an institutional habitus (Atkinson, 2011). The
dialectical relationship between the institutional habitus of the school and
the boys’ egalitarianism habitus is crucial to understanding how
egalitarianism is formed (and continually reformed), and also the degree of
dexterity working-class students are able to enact in order to maintain a
certain subjectivity. In her research on white working-class boys, Ingram
(2011) found the institutional habitus had the capacity to develop versatility
within her participants, but versatility did not always foster reflexivity or
the ability to shift effortlessly between fields (p. 300).
In considering social and learner identities, and how individuals act in
different fields, I asked Charlie and Ryan: “Do you want people outside of
school to see you in a different way than in school?” Holding true to their
perceived authentic self, the boys articulated:
Charlie: No, I want them to all be the same way. I’m not two-faced.
Me: Do you act different outside of school than you do inside of school?
Ryan: Yea.
Me: How so?
Ryan: In school I’m much better behaved.
Me: So you’d say you’re more yourself…
Ryan: Outside, yea. (Charlie, Year 11, Ryan, Year 10)
The neoliberal ideology inherently carries with it an expectation to be
middle class (Davies & Bansel, 2007, p. 252) with the ability to adopt new
selves, dependent on context, in order to position oneself advantageously.
The habitus, while generative, is also permeable to the neoliberal rhetoric,
and Ryan wants to represent himself as what Carter (2006) calls a cultural
straddler who is strategic, able to ‘play the game’, and embrace the cultural
codes of both school and home community. While Ryan recognizes the
need to be fluid and adopt better behaviour that is conducive to his learning,
this is very much a representation, as many members of staff would have
disagreed by citing how Ryan brings in laddish elements which are
counterproductive to his learning and the learning of others (Francis, 1999).
While the neoliberal ideology may contain an expectation to be middle
class, an alignment with the middle class self often requires middle-class
resources.
In contrast, Charlie upholds his egalitarian ‘loyalty to self’ and wants to
be seen as the ‘same way’ whatever the context. Even though it may not
influence Charlie as much as some of the other boys in the study, his
resistance to enacting a ‘good’ learner identity is usually relayed through
expressions of frustration. Charlie does want, at least, to meet a minimum
standard of educational success as he expressed in further interviews. For
my participants it is not a simple resistance to a middle-class identity; it is
both a resistance and anxiety around change, adaptation, and
performativity.
Average-ness, Ordinariness and ‘Middling’: ‘I Don’t Want to be the
Best…Just Normal.’
The current dominant neoliberal discourse, which prioritises a view of
aspirations that is competitive, economic, and status-based, shapes the
subjectivities of these young males. For the boys in this study,
egalitarianism in the habitus represents an internalization of objective
structures, but it is simultaneously shaped by the external forces/structures
of the school. Through the second data set which examines ‘averageness,
ordinariness, and middling’, I will attempt to show how egalitarianism is
also strengthened as a result of conflict and disjuncture between the school
and the family/community. Within my analysis, there are echoes here of the
relationship between ‘emotional work,’ aspiration, and communal values as
well as the guilt associated with moving beyond one’s place (Reay, 2003;
2009). While these working-class boys are clearly caught up in
contemporary processes of individualization, “such processes are both
ameliorated and framed by an overreaching sense of, and commitment to,
collectivity and ‘the common good’” where the pursuit of education is
framed by a strong sense of communitarian and a loyalty to one’s peer
group as opposed to individualistic, entrepreneurial self-motivations (Reay,
2003, pp. 305-306).
Power relationships are internalized in the habitus as categories of
perceptions, and these processes of categorizing become essential to how
the boys’ view themselves as learners. In the desire of working-class
individuals to ‘fit in’ rather than ‘stand out’ (Skeggs, 2002), the boys’
egalitarianism shapes their student identities with education, pushing them
to reaffirm their habitus and articulate a desire to be perceived as average
and ordinary (Stahl, 2012). Neoliberalism as an ideology gives priority to
the individual pursuing his/her self interests over considerations of the
collective or common good. In response to the question, “Could you tell me
about what type of student you consider yourself to be?” the boys rebuffed
the neoliberal ‘best of the best’ rhetoric:
Probably just an average student. Just fit in with the others. (Thomas, Year
11)
Average. (Frankie, Year 11)
I’m not bad. I’m not good. I’m not loud. I’m not quiet. [laughter] So it’s
hard I don’t know what to put myself in. (George, Year 10)
Charlie: Basically I just hang around with all the other average kids. We just
go play football together, go sit down behind the library outside…sit there
and talk.
Me: What irritates you?
Charlie: Like people like – they’ll be fine to your face but then they’ll go
around your back and start chatting a load of crap. (Charlie, Year 11)
…I just stay with average people, really. (Tom, Year 11)
Bourdieu’s theory of human action stresses that dispositions are
generated through not only the internalisation of structures, the institutions
and social spheres within society, such as family, school, and media, but
also that of human agency. The boys’ habitus generates ways of viewing
the world and how these can be shaped in reaction to new experiences of
and within the world. Ordinariness, or average-ness, reveals another
dimension of egalitarianism. As a counter-narrative to the neoliberal
rhetoric, ordinariness and average-ness are arguably forms of resistance and
‘sense-making’ to the neoliberal achievement ideology. While an antiaspirant egalitarianism is vibrant in the data, the boys also internalize
elements of the neoliberal achievement ideology espoused within the school
environment, through statements such as “I don’t aim to be the number one,
but I want to do my best” (Luke, Year 11). ‘Middling,’ never wanting to be
considering the best or worst, becomes a process of mediation between the
qualification-focused expectations of the school and the boys’ socioeconomic positioning. Influenced by neoliberalism, my participants engage
in a constant practice of sense-making surrounding the achievement
ideology to establish a tenuous a sense of value, “Just average really. Get
my head down and do what needs to be done and I get out as soon as I can”
(Tom, Year 11). As part of an internal process of making sense, my
participants centre their ‘identity work’ around egalitarianism within their
habitus and their desire to not be a part of the neoliberal rhetoric of ‘best’
and ‘worst’ but to instead achieve an ‘average’ level of education.
Average-ness, as a strategic process by which the boys balance their
working-class masculine identity with a prevailing neoliberal learner
identity, is primarily class-based. While I have argued egalitarianism is a
strategy to subvert neoliberal expectations of change in relation to
aspiration and working-class identities, average-ness also overlaps with
masculine identity construction and the hegemonic. Gender as a social
practice (ie. performance, ‘process,’ or project) toward understanding one’s
identity occurs individually and in relation to other’s identities (Connell,
2005; Renold, 2004). In Phoenix’s (2004) work on neoliberalism and
masculinity, she found boys pursue a “middle position for themselves in
which they could manage what they saw as the demands of masculinities,
while still getting some schoolwork done” (p. 234), which suggests that the
egalitarian discourse may not be exclusive to one’s class but also influenced
by gendered subjectivities.3 When asked “Do you want to be the best
student in your lesson?” the boys responded:
No, not really. (Thomas, Year 11)
I don’t mind. It would be nice but if everyone’s doing good answers then
it’s fine. (Tom, Year 11)
I just want to sit there and learn. I don’t want to be the best…the best. Just
normal. I just want to be the one who sits there and learns. And meets
the…And meets the standard… (Connor, Year 10)
I just try my best. (Alfie, Year 11)
Archer and Yamashita’s (2003a; 2003b) study of working-class
masculinities in higher education found men often internalized their
educational ‘failure’ in a process of knowing their own limits, and my
participants also had to contend with their own constraints. Most of my
participants saw their aspirations as adequately fulfilled by a drive towards
‘middling,’ and this aligns with the work of Savage, Bangall, and Longhurst
(2001) where, “What seemed to matter more for our respondents was being
ordinary” (p. 887). According to Savage (2005) ‘middling’ could be a
strategy to resist the dominance of cultural capital where by labelling
themselves as “ordinary, people claimed to be just themselves, and not
socially fixed people who are not ‘real’ individuals but rather social
ciphers” where they are “devoid of social distinction” (p.889, p.938). The
boys’ habitus, with a balance between individual agency and sensitivity to
societal restraints, shapes how my participants construct their learner
identity. In the words of the boys, we see how they negotiate a space for
their emerging subjectivities within the neoliberal discourse:
Yea, I do want to be someone that stands out but I don’t want to at the same
time…I want to be standing out so people see me as a smart person, but I
don’t want to be like someone who’s like…embarrassing… and that.
(George, Year 10)
Tom: Not necessarily the best, I just want to achieve. I just want to get as
good as I can. If someone else is better than me, I’ll just try as best as I can.
Me: So for you it’s more of like a personal thing?
Tom: Yea, I wouldn’t want people to know I’m doing the best. Like
teachers and that obviously. I wouldn’t want teachers to keep telling
everyone I’m the best and rubbing it in their face. Like I’d keep it personal.
(Tom, Year 11)
We must remember that practices are not simply the result of one’s habitus
but rather of the relations between one’s habitus and one’s current
circumstances and past circumstances (Grenfell, 2008, p.52). The
theoretical tool of habitus places emphasis on the structuring forces of life
experiences and conceptualizes dispositions as the internalisation of the
schemes that these experiences produce. The tension between habitus and
field is where identity is formed (Reay, 2010). The subjectivities of
‘ordinary’ or average shape the boys’ learner identities and, thus, the
aspirations of the boys (Stahl, 2012; 2015),
Me: Do you ever want to be the best student in your lessons?
Ben: No.
Me: That’s quite a firm ‘no’.
Ben: Nah, I want to be in the middle. I want to be the same – not in a bad
way and not in a good way. I don’t want to be the best student, I want to be
in the middle…If you want to be the best boy, the best boy, then everyone
would rely on you and stuff like that. And if you were the bottom boy no
one would want to rely on you or anyfink [sic]. So if you’re the middle boy
some people want to rely on you and some people won’t, so basically you’re
in the middle. (Ben, Year 10)
In gender theory, it has been argued that the “presence of a competitive
performance-oriented culture generates anxiety, especially among boys
whose gender identity needs to be based on achieving power, status and
superiority” (Arnot, 2004, p. 35). In considering the theoretical construct of
hegemonic masculinity, the boys do not orient themselves toward gaining
status and superiority in the classroom, as to do so would conflict with their
egalitarian habitus. Deeply contextual, the hegemonic is rendered through
actions, behaviors, and discourses and remains a prominent force within
identity construction as boys use the various strategies to preserve
hegemonic masculinity and secure status (Connell, 2005; Connell &
Messerschmidt, 2005; Howson, 2014). However, the hegemonic masculine
identity in this case study is one infused with traditional working-class
values of non-dominance, grounded in ‘averageness’, and does not need to
become empowered through education. My participants hegemonic is to
resist the hegemonic commonly found in masculinity studies. Within his
discussion of the peer group, Alfie holds to the disposition of
egalitarianism: “No one is dominant like… I think everyone is the same.
Everyone has got their own opinion about people and no one listens and
does what other people say” (Alfie, Year 10). While clearly some forms of
masculinity embrace competitive, status-based neoliberalism (Connell,
1998), the data supports the argument that a working-class masculinity has
the capacity to resist dispositions commonly ascribing to ‘everyone is the
same.’
Discussion
This research builds on a substantial body of work which argues that school
‘failure’ and ‘success’ is bound up with the process of students doing
‘identity work’ (Smyth, 2006; Wexler, 1992). In considering how neoliberal
discourses shape and reshape identities, we see how an egalitarian habitus is
enacted to navigate ‘ability’ and ‘authenticity’ when these identity markers
have been confounded within neoliberal constraints. Considering how white
working-class boys’ habitus is positioned within the field of the school and
how field influences their learner identities, the data allows us to gain
insights into the interworking of symbolic violence.4 The boys gradually
internalize structures and constraints mediated through their working-class
communal values; thus, in essence, reproducing their own subordination.
The internalization of new experiences and schemes of perception can
lead to the internalization of conflicting dispositions. The dialectical
confrontation between habitus and field (other than the field of origin)
results in a degree of accommodation where the habitus accepts the
legitimacy of the new field’s structure and is in turn structured by it, thus
enabling a modification in the habitus. The newly reconfigured habitus is
arguably made up of conflicting elements; as the data shows the boys want
to do well but they do not want to do too well. While the boys’ sense of
egalitarianism is primarily concerned with their positioning within
classroom contexts, it should be noted egalitarianism, where ‘no one is
better than anyone else’ or ‘above their station’, has limitations when
extended beyond a learner identity. Outside of school, these young men
engaged in hierarchical boundary maintenance in othering subordinate
males, ascribed to traditional gender roles, and were often homophobic.
The neoliberal governance of educational policy results in schooling
becoming entrenched in the ‘best of the best’ rhetoric of qualifications and
competition which suits a middle-class self adept at understanding what
counts while assembling and deploying resources in order to ensure one’s
own success. The learning of skills and gaining qualifications, grounded in
an aspirational discourse, is frequently equated with access to high status or
high income. Recent educational research in this area has focused on
neoliberal policies and how they have the potential to shape identity
(Davies & Bansel, 2007; Wilkins, 2011). Francis (2006), citing Beck
(1992), argues that, in post-industrial societies, our young males “can no
longer expect ‘a job for life’, but must rather expect to ‘upskill’ and remake
themselves for a succession of jobs in an insecure market-place” (p. 190).
There remains an entwined relationship between neoliberal educational
practices focused on the “four Cs – change, choice, chances and
competition” which shape gendered and classed subjectivities as well as
aspiration (Phoenix, 2004, p. 22). Essential to the formation of a specific
subjectivity, both strategies of ‘loyalty to self’ and ‘averageness’ work in
concert to reconstitute normative identity practices and reaffirm the
egalitarian habitus.
Conclusions
The boys’ sense of egalitarianism, which enables the social world to be read
and understood, remains a counter-habitus to the neoliberal performativity
and their perception of academic success/failure. Egalitarianism allows
them to construct themselves as ‘valuable’ within an educational
environment where they often lack the capitals to succeed. Bourdieu and
Wacquant (1992) argue people “know how to ‘read’ the future that fits
them, which is made for them and for which they are made (by opposition
to everything that the expression ‘this is not for the likes of us’ designates)”
(p. 130). I have attempted to highlight the nuances of white working-class
boys’ learner identities and so-called ‘underperformance’ where they are
judged upon how they make sense of conceptions of change around a
middle-class identity. As long as schooling continues to have a narrow view
of what constitutes success, white working-class boys will have to endure
“an intolerable burden of psychic reparative work if they are to avoid what
Bourdieu terms ‘the duality of the self’” (Reay, 2002, p. 222), where there
exists a challenge surrounding a reconciliation of the contradictory life
worlds.
I would like to thank Derron Wallace for his valuable feedback on an earlier version of this
article.
Notes
1
It is essential to remember habitus is creative, inventive, and generative, but only within the
limits of its structures; after all, the process is bounded and “the individual is always,
whether he likes it or not, trapped – save to the extent that he becomes aware of it”
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p.126).
2
The boys did not identify using class labels, yet it is difficult as a researcher not to make
definite assertions. There is complexity here as some of the boys were confused by
conventional labels such as ‘working class’ and ‘middle class’ yet, at the same time, were
aware of slang such as ‘posh’ and ‘chav’.
3
Coles (2009), in his analysis of the role of masculinity within the habitus, argues that
masculinity is an unconscious strategy where habitus enables masculinity to be transposable
and adaptable, while allowing for individual differences between how men perform it.
Phoenix (2004) has argued that masculinity is a process, or a strategy, that: “mitigates the
tenets of neoliberalism” (p. 244).
4
In their analysis of symbolic violence, Connolly and Healy (2004) state:
In essence it represents the ways in which people play a role in reproducing their own
subordination through the gradual internalisation and acceptance of those ideas and
structures that tend to subordinate them. It is an act of violence precisely because it leads
to the constraint and subordination of individuals, but it is also symbolic in the sense that
this is achieved indirectly and without overt and explicit acts of force or coercion. (p.15)
References
Adkins, L. (2000). Objects of innovation: Post-occupational refexivity and
re-traditionalisations of gender. In S. Ahmed, J. Kilb, C. Lury, M.
Mcneil, & B. Skeggs (Eds.), Transformations: Thinking through
feminism (pp.331). London: Routledge.
Allen, K. (2013a). ‘Blair’s children’: Young women as ‘aspirational
subjects’ in the psychic landscape of class. Sociological Review,
61(4), 1-20. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.12113
Allen, K. (2013b, April). Coalition policy and ‘aspiration raising’ in a
psychic landscape of class. Presented at Journal of Youth Studies
Conference, Glasgow University.
Allen, K., & Mendick, H. (2012). Young people's uses of celebrity: Class,
gender, and ‘improper’ celebrity. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 34 (1), 1-17. doi:
10.1080/01596306.2012.698865
Archer, L., & Francis, B. (2007). Understanding minority ethnic
achievement. Oxon: Routledge.
Archer, L., & Leathwood, C. (2003). New Times—Old Inequalities: diverse
Working-class femininities in education. Gender & Education, 15(3),
227-235. doi: 10.1080/09540250303861
Archer, L., & H. Yamashita (2003a). "Knowing their limits'? Identities,
inequalities and inner city school leavers' post-16 aspirations.
Journal of Educational Policy, 18(1), 53-69. doi:
10.1080/0268093032000042209
Archer, L., & Yamashita, H. (2003b). Theorising inner-city masculinities:
‘Race’, class, gender and education. Gender and Education, 15(2),
115–132. doi: 10.1080/09540250303856
Arnot, M. (2004). Male working-class identities and social justice: A
reconsideration of Paul Willis's Learning to Labor in Light of
contemporary research. In N. Dolby, G. Dimitriadis, & I. P. Willis
(Eds.), Learning to Labor in new times (pp. 231). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Atkinson, W. (2011). From sociological fictions to social fictions: Some
Bourdieusian reflections on the concepts of ‘institutional habitus’ and
‘family habitus’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(3),
331-347. doi:10.1080/01425692.2011.559337
Ball, S., Maguire, S., & Macrae, M. (2000) Choice, pathways and
transitions post-16. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ball, S., & Olmedo, A. (2012). Care of the self, resistance, and subjectivity
under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical Studies in Education,
54(1), 85-96. doi:10.1080/17508487.2013.740678
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: SAGE
Publications.
Blanchflower, D. (2012, 30 July). Let’s call up Vince to get us out of this
mess. The Independent, p. 45.
Blanden, J., & Machin, S. (2007). Recent changes in intergenerational
mobility in Britain. London: Centre for Economic Performance at
LSE.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social critique of the judgement of
taste. Oxon: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). Habitus. In J. Hillier, & E. Rooksby (Eds.), Habitus: A
Sense of Place (pp. 27-34). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.C. (1992). Reproduction in education, society,
and culture. London: SAGE Publications.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brann-Barrett, M. T. (2011). Same landscape, different lens: Variations in
young people’s socio-economic experiences and perceptions in their
disadvantaged working-class community. Journal of Youth Studies,
14(3), 261-278. doi:10.1080/13676261.2010.532328
Burke, P. J. (2010). Masculinity, subjectivity and neoliberalism in men's
accounts of migration and higher educational participation. Gender
and Education, 23(2), 169-184. doi:10.1080/09540251003674139
The Cabinet Office. (2011). Opening doors, breaking barriers: A strategy
for social mobility. London: The Cabinet Office, Her Majesty's
Government.
Carter, P. (2006). Straddling boundaries: Identity, culture, and school.
Sociology of Education, 78(3), 304-328. doi:
10.1177/003804070607900402
Charlesworth, S. J. (2000). The phenomenology of working class
experience. Cambridge: University Press.
Charlesworth, S. J. (2004). Reflections on working-class space, being, and
experience. Space and Culture, 7(3), 327-342. doi:
10.1177/1206331204266198
Coles, T. (2009). Negotiating the field of masculinity: The production and
reproduction of multiple dominant masculinities. Men and
Masculinities, 12(1), 30-44. doi: 10.1177/1097184X07309502
Connell, R. W. (1998). Masculinities and globalization. Men and
Masculinities, 1(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1177/1097184X98001001001
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity:
Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829-859. doi:
10.1177/0891243205278639
Connolly, P., & Healy, J. (2004). Symbolic violence, locality and social
class: the educational and career aspirations of 10-11 year olds boys
in Belfast. Pedagogy Culture and Society, 12, 1533.doi:10.1080/14681360400200187
Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247-256. doi:
10.1080/09518390701281751
Demie, F., & Lewis, K. (2010). White working class achievement: An
ethnographic study of barriers to learning in schools. Educational
Studies, 33(2), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2010.506341
Department for Education and Skills [DfES]. (2004). Five Year Strategy for
Children and Learners. London: Author.
Department of Education. (2010). White Paper: The Importance of
Teaching. Lonodon: Author.
Evans, G. (2006). Educational failure and working class white children in
Britain. Palgrave: MacMillan.
Francis, B. (1999). Lads, lasses, and (new) labour: 14-16-year-old students'
responses to the 'laddish behaviour and boys' underachievement'
debate. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(3), 355-371.
Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393252
Francis, B. (2006). Heroes or zeroes? The discursive positioning of
'underachieving boys' in English neo-liberal education policy.
Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 187-200. doi:
10.1080/02680930500500278
Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice,
reform and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gove, M. (2011). Speech to the Conservative Party Conference. Presented
at the Conservative Party Conference. Manchester, U.K.
Grenfell, M. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. Durham: Acumen.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hattam, R., & J. Smyth (2003). ‘Not everyone has a perfect life': Becoming
somebody without school. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 379398. doi: 10.1080/14681360300200180
Howson, R. (2014). Re-thinking aspiration and hegemonic masculinity in
transnational context. Masculinities and Social Change, 3(1), 18-25.
5. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.40
Ingram, N. (2011). Within school and beyond the gate: The complexities of
being educationally successful and working class. Sociology, 45(2),
287–302. doi: 10.1177/0038038510394017
Kenway, J., & Kelly, P. (2000). Local/global labour markets and the
restructuring of gender, schooling, and work. In N. Stromquist, & K.
Monkham (Eds.), Globalisation and education: Integration and
contestation across cultures (pp. 173-195). Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Lawler, S. (1999). ‘Getting out and getting away’: Women's narratives of
class mobility. Feminist Review, 63(3), 3-24. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1395585
Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational
research. Australian Educational Researchers, 38(4), 355-382. Doi:
10.1007/s13384-011-0041-9
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities
and schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press.
MacDonald, R., Shildrick, T.,Webster, C., & Simpson, D. (2005). Growing
up in poor neighbourhoods: The significance of class and place in the
extended transitions of ‘socially excluded’ young adults. Sociology,
39(5), 873-891. doi: 10.1177/0038038505058370
MacLeod, J. (2009). Ain't no makin' it. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
McLeod, J. (2000). Subjectivity and schooling in a longitudinal study of
secondary students. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(4),
501-521. doi: 10.1080/713655367
McLeod, J. (2003). Why we interview now: Reflexivity and perspective in
longitudinal studies. International Journal of Research Methodology,
6(3), 201-211. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000091806
Mills, C. (2008). Reproduction and transformation of inequalities in
schooling: The transformative potential of the theoretical constructs
of Bourdieu. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1), 79-89.
doi: 10.1080/01425690701737481
Mills, M., Martino, W., & Lingard, B. (2007). Getting boys’ education
‘right’: The Australian government’s Parliamentary Inquiry Report as
an exemplary instance of recuperative masculinity politics. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(1), 5-21. doi:
10.1080/01425690600995958
Nash, R. (1990). Bourdieu on education and social and cultural
reproduction. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(4), 431447. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1392877
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing
social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Retrieved
from: http://www.pwrfaculty.net/summer-seminar/files/2011/12/newlondon-multiliteracies.pdf
Office for National Statistics. (2012). Graduates in the labour market 2012.
London: Office for National Statistics.
Phoenix, A. (2004). Neoliberalism and masculinity: Racialization and the
contradictions of schooling for 11-to-14-year-olds. Youth Society,
36(2), 227-246. doi: 10.1177/0044118X04268377
Platt, L. (2007). Making education count: The effects of ethnicity and
qualifications on intergenerational social class mobility. The
Sociological Review, 55(3), 485-508. doi: 10.1111/j.1467954X.2007.00715.x
Raco, M. (2009). From expectations to aspirations: State modernisation,
urban policy, and the existential politics of welfare in the UK.
Political Geography, 28, 436-444. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.10.009
Reay, D. (2001). Finding or losing yourself? Working-class relationships to
education. Journal of Education Policy, 16(4), 333-346. doi:
10.1080/02680930110054335
Reay, D. (2002). Shaun's story: Troubling discourses on white workingclass masculinities. Gender and Education, 14(3), 221-234. doi:
10.1080/0954025022000010695
Reay, D. (2003). A risky business? Mature working-class women students
and access to higher education. Gender and Education, 15(3), 301317. doi: 10.1080/09540250303860
Reay, D. (2005). Beyond consciousness?: The psychic landscape of social
class. Sociology, 39(5), 911-928. doi: 10.1177/0038038505058372
Reay, D. (2009). Making sense of white working class educational
underachievement. In K. P. Sveinsson (Ed.), Who cares about the
white working class? (pp. 22-28). London: Runnymede Perspectives.
Reay, D. (2010). Identity-making in schools and classrooms. In M.
Wetherall, & C. Talpade Mohanty (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
identities (pp. 277-294). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in paradise’?
Working-class students in elite universities. Sociology, 43(6). doi:
10.1177/0038038509345700
Reay, D., David, M. E., & Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of choice: Social class,
race and gender in higher education. London, Institute of Education.
Renold, E. (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), 369-385. doi:
10.1080/01425690120067980
Renold, E. (2004). ‘Other’ boys: Negotiating non-hegemonic masculinities
in the primary school. Gender & Education, 16(2), 247-265. doi:
10.1080/09540250310001690609
Richardson, H. (2010, 24 November). Gove puts focus on traditional school
values. BBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-11822208
Savage, M. (2005). Working-class identities in the 1960s: Revisiting the
affluent worker study. Sociology, 39(5), 929-946. doi:
10.1177/0038038505058373
Savage, M., Bangall, G., & Longhurst, B. (2001). Ordinary, ambivalent,
and defensive: Class identities in the northwest of England.
Sociology, 35(4), 875-895. doi: 10.1177/0038038501035004005
Sayer, A. (2002). What are you worth?: Why class is an embarrassing
subject. Sociological Research Online, 7(3). Retrieved from
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/3/sayer.html
Skeggs, B. (2002). Formations of class & gender. Nottingham: SAGE
Publications.
Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.
Smyth, J. (2006). ‘When students have power’: Student engagement,
student voice, and the possibilities for school reform around
‘dropping out’ of school. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 9(4), 285-298. doi:10.1080/13603120600894232
Spohrer, K. (2011). Deconstructing ‘aspiration’: UK policy debates and
European policy trends. European Educational Research Journal,
10(1), 53-62. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2011.10.1.53
Stahl, G. (2012). Aspiration and a good life among white working-class
boys in London. Journal of Qualitative and Ethnographic Research,
7(8-9), 8-19. Retrieved from:
http://www.academia.edu/2084242/Aspiration_and_a_Good_Life_A
mong_White_Working-Class_Boys_in_London
Stahl, G., & Dale, P. (2013). Success on the decks: Working-class boys,
education, and turning the tables on perceptions of failure. Gender &
Education, 25(2), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2012.756856
Stahl, G. (2015). Aspiration, identity, and neoliberalism: Educating white
working-class boys. London: Routledge.
Strand, S., & Winston, J. (2008). Educational aspirations in inner city
schools. Educational Studies, 34(4), 249–267. doi:
10.1080/03055690802034021
Strand, S. (2014). School effects and ethnic, gender and socio-economic
gaps in educational achievement at age 11. Oxford Review of
Education, 40(2), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2014.891980
Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu.
Chicago: The Chicago Press.
Tyler, I. (2008). Chav mum chav scum. Feminist Media Studies, 8(1), 1734. doi: 10.1080/14680770701824779
Vasagar, J. (2011, 28 September). Andy Burnham calls for Ucas-style
applications system for apprenticeships. The Guardian. Retrieved
from http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/28/andyburnham-ucas-apprenticeships
Wetherall, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity:
Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism &
Psychology, 9(3), 335–356. doi: 10.1177/0959353599009003012
Wexler, P. (1992). Becoming somebody: Toward a social psychology of
school. London: The Falmer Press.
Wilkins, A. (2011). Push and pull in the classroom: Competition, gender,
and the neoliberal subject. Gender and Education, 24(7), 1-17. doi:
10.1080/09540253.2011.606207
Winlow, S. (2001). Badfellas: Crime, tradition and new masculinities.
Oxford: Berg.
Garth Stahl is a Lecturer in the School of Education at the University
of South Australia
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Garth Stahl, School of
Education, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes Campus,
G2-24, 2471 Adelaida, Australia, email: [email protected]
Typologies of Men’s Friendships: Constructing Masculinity
through Them
Todd A. Migliaccio1
1) Sacramento State University, United States
st
To cite this article: Migliaccio, T.A (2014). Typologies of Men’s Friendships:
Constructing Masculinity through Them. Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (2),119147. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.47
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/MCS.2014. 47
119-147
Typologies of Men’s Friendships:
Constructing Masculinity through
Them
Todd A. Migliaccio
Sacramento State University, United States
Abstract
Male friendships are often identified as being instrumental, avoiding expressive
intimacy within their friendships. Past research has focused too much on friendship
being an outcome of being male or having masculine attitudes, limiting analysis of
the social construction of friendships in relation to masculine performances.
Focusing on the individual production of friendship limits consideration of the
construction of different dyads within one social network. Open-ended interviews
with twelve men about each of their close friendships focused analysis on the dyad
and not the individual. From the study, it was found that men established four
different typologies of friendships (non-active, closed active, open active,
expressive). While each friendship dyad differed in form and intimacy, all were
influenced by the social construction of masculinity in these men’s lives.
Keywords: friendship, dyad, social network, masculine attitudes
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.47
119-147
Tipologías de Amistades
Masculinas: Construyendo la
Masculinidad a través de Ellas
Todd A. Migliaccio
Sacramento State University, Estados Unidos
Resumen
Las amistades masculinas a menudo se identifican como algo instrumental, y los
hombres evitan establecer una intimidad expresiva dentro de sus amistades.
Investigaciones anteriores se ha centrado demasiado en la amistad como un
resultado del hecho de ser hombre o de tener actitudes masculinas, limitando de esta
forma el análisis de la construcción social de las amistades en relación con la
construcción masculina. En este caso nos centramos en la producción individual de
los límites de la amistad considerando la construcción de diferentes parejas dentro
de una red social. Se han realizado doce entrevistas abiertas con hombres sobre sus
amigos íntimos centrando el análisis en las parejas y no en el individuo. A partir del
estudio, se encontró que los hombres establecen cuatro tipologías diferentes de
amistades: no activa, cerrada-activa, active-abierta, expresiva. Si bien cada parejaamistad diferie en la forma y en la intimidad que se establece, todas las tipologías
están influenciadas por la construcción social de la masculinidad en la vida de estos
hombres.
Palabras clave: amistad, parejas, red social, actitudes masculinas
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.47
121 Migliaccio – Typologies of Men’s Friendships
R
esearchers have consistently concluded that friendships are
different for men and women (Fehr, 1996; Messner, 1992; Swain
1989; Wheeler et al., 1989), with women developing more
expressive relationships through the process of self-disclosure. In contrast,
men’s same-sex friendships are found to be more instrumental, centering
around shared interests and activities (Messner, 1992; Swain 1989). While
focus in research has extended beyond discussions of male-female
differences, the emphasis remains on how an individual’s characteristics
lead to differences in intimacy with friends, such as how being more
masculine results in less expressive friendships (Morman et al., 2013).
While such research allows for the engagement of a more social dynamic of
friendship, the discussion sustains a static dialogue about gender and
resulting friendships. Focusing on the individual and how or why he
produces friendships is limiting, assuming that friendships are outcomes.
The focus should be on the social construction of friendship as a part of
gender performance (Felmlee et al., 2012). Research on the relationship
between gender and friendship should consider the interactions among
friends (Thurnell-Read, 2012), in particular close friends, as another
performance of masculinity and not a result of being a man (Migliaccio,
2009). Furthermore, focusing on friendship as an outcome limits the
analysis of the existence of a diversity of friendships within one person’s
network. This exploratory study analyzes the relationship between intimacy
and masculinity within close friendships, with a focus on the dyad in an
effort to better comprehend the social construction of masculinity through
friendships and the diversity of friendships that can exist among men.
Men’s Friendships
In general, it is believed that men and women differ in friendship form,
with women developing more expressive friendships and men more
instrumental. Studies, however, have identified that women are just as
likely to have instrumental relationships (Wright & Scanlon, 1993).
Furthermore, men have been shown to engage in discussions similar to
women (Wheeler et al., 1989), displaying expressive connections (ThurnellRead, 2012). While the general belief persists that males are not as intimate
with same-sex friends as women, “critics argue that women’s friendships
appear to be more intimate only because intimacy has been conceptualized
and measured in a female-biased way” (Fehr 1999, p.135) (Cancian 1986;
Sherrod, 1989; Swain, 1989). While defined from a feminine standpoint,
research has shown that men tend to idealize self-disclosure as one of the
most important components of intimacy (Monsour, 1992).
Masculinity and Intimacy
While men idealize more expressive intimacy, they do not establish it in
their friendships. Arguments have been made to link this directly to the
patriarchal system in which Western society is couched, which limits a
man’s ability to display feelings and emotions to others, including friends
(Kimmel & Kaufman, 1994). This is largely based on the expectation that
men are expected to avoid anything that is feminine (Fehr, 2004; Morman
et al., 2013). The avoidance of femininity is the focal point of men in
Western society (Doyle, 1995; Kimmel & Kaufman, 1994).
The
establishment of masculinity is not so much a performance to be accepted
as male, but a performance to convince others that he is not female nor
feminine, which would marginalize or emasculate him (Goffman 1967;
Migliaccio, 2009). As Michael Kaufman (1998) stated, “masculinity
requires a suppression of a whole range of human needs, aims, feelings and
forms of expression” (1998, p.37). Similar expectations arise among men
concerning the self-disclosure of intimate issues with male friends, for
intimacy and self-disclosure are defined as being feminine (Cancian, 1986).
This was confirmed in Felmlee’s study on cross-gender and same-sex
friendships. She found that men are less accepting than women of a friend
engaging in feminine behaviors when they interact (1999). A later study by
Felmlee, et al (2012) found that men consistently have lower expectations
of self-disclosure within their friendships. Furthermore, men are held to
lower standards of expressive intimacy than are women in their friendships,
even in cross-gender friendships.
With such a strong societal link between expressive intimacy and
femininity, a man would likely avoid such behaviors, such as selfdisclosure so as not to be emasculated in the eyes of others, regardless of
his personal needs. In a study of married and single men, Reid and Fine
(1992) found “men wanted to be more intimate with their male friends, but
feared a negative reaction if they attempted more intimate interaction” (in
Fehr, 1999, p.139). It is the fear of being labeled as effeminate, weak, or,
even worse, a woman that spurs a male to avoid intimacy, even though they
would benefit from engaging in more feminine styles of intimacy (Reisman,
1990; Sanderson et al., 2005).
This is not to assume that men do not share with other men. Men have
been found to experience more expressive intimacy with friends; however,
the sharing is shrouded in a more masculine context. Men engage in
activities that allows for self-disclosure to occur (Kiesling, 2005). As
Walker (2001) showed in her discussion of male phone conversations,
“Although most men reported calling friends for instrumental reasons,
many men reported that their telephone conversations were not limited to
the reason for the call” (2001, p.229). Similarly, Thurnell-Read (2012)
found that men can be emotive and expressive in a highly masculinized
activity, such as a stag party (bachelor party).
Beyond activities, men also utilized distinct methods of sharing intimate
issues (Walker, 2001) to masculine interactions, such as humor (George,
1994). “Joking relationships provide men with an implicit form of
expressing affection” (Swain 1989, p.83). Humor allows a man to discuss
sensitive issues that might initially characterize a man as feminine. While
useful to connect men, humor can also be utilized to mark boundaries for
acceptable behaviors with the intention of marginalizing men who
challenge the hegemonic standard (Collinson, 1992). These methods of
sharing do not completely open the channels of communication between
men; but, by situating men in comfortable, masculine contexts, the ability to
self-disclose becomes more acceptable. Even when alternative methods are
not employed, men will label emotive experiences as anything but intimate
or expressive to avoid being affiliated with femininity (Evers, 2010).
While research has moved beyond a notion that “being a male” impacts
friendships, there persists a focus on the role orientation of a person
influencing friendships, which maintains a notion of individual identity
driving friendship (Bank & Hansford, 2000). More recent research has
focused more on the socially determined expectations by analyzing
masculine expectations. They have found that more masculine individuals
are less inclined to engage in self-disclosure in friendships (Morman et al.,
2013). While more socially prescribed, these studies persist in focusing on
the individual and not the social relationship that is created when friends
interact. Focusing on the individual presents a static analysis of gender as a
causal factor as opposed to an interactive component that exists within
relationships and interactions. As Patrick and Beckenbach (2009) argue,
“social construction must be taken into account when examining
experiences of intimacy” (p. 55). In a sense, how men engage with their
friends can be considered an aspect of the performance of masculinity
(Felmlee et al., 2012). More important, “male friendship is an integral and
defining ingredient” (Thurnell-Read 2012, p.250) in the production of
masculinity. In a study of men in two gender designated occupations, it was
concluded that men “do gender” through the means in which they interact
with friends (Migliaccio, 2009). Still, even in this study, it focused on how
individuals construct a singular type of friendship, even if it is in relation to
other social factors, like occupation and masculinity, as opposed to
analyzing different friendships and how each dyad is constructed.
Interviewing men about their close friends focuses on the dyads, moving
beyond past studies that have emphasized singular ideas of the construction
of friendship (Thurnell-Read, 2012). Focus on the dyads allows for a
broader analysis of friendship as a flexible experience that is influenced by
the social construction of masculinity, but not driven by it. Through these
interviews a better understanding of how friendships relate to and reflect
the social construction of masculinity can be gained, as well as allow for the
existence of a diversity of friendships within the network of each man.
Simply, the construction of friendship as a reflection of masculinity can
result in multiple forms of relationships.
Methodology
This exploratory study of male intimacy used non-probability sampling to
locate a sample of twelve men. All of the men (see Table 1) were white,
heterosexual, professional males who had received Bachelor’s degrees, with
seven of the participants having received advanced degrees. While there
were a higher number of married individuals in the sample, the overall
experiences did not seem to reflect disparities between single and married
men. There was also an extensive range in the ages of interviewees, from
28-65 years old. While the explanations expressed by the younger men
tended to be shorter and less developed, the overall experiences and even
the number of close friends were generally similar, regardless of age. The
period of time each had lived in their present living situation was also
collected, assuming that it might impact the number of and closeness of
friendships. Of the respondents, only one had been in the area less than
eight years (Jack, 2 yrs). (There were three who had only recently moved
to their present residence, but had grown up in the area and had returned
often to visit) (Appendix A: years lived in area). Regardless, there did not
appear to be any differentiation between any of the respondent’s comments
(including Jack’s) about friendship in relation to their time having resided
in an area. The focus for the sample was to interview men who epitomize
the dominant standard within Western society, since that is the group from
which the hegemonic masculine standard is more explicitly meant to
reflect. This is not to assume that all of these men achieve or display it but
rather that they are most likely accustomed to these judgments that derive
from the hegemonic standard. Simply, to explore how this standard
influences friendship construction, it is important to evaluate those men
who most likely closely adhere to the standard.
Table 1
Demographics of Respondents
Name
Ben
Jerry
Laurel
Hardy
Larry
Mo
Curley
Butch
Sundance
Manny
Karl
Jack
Occupation
Insurance Salesman
Teacher
Multimedia Program Manager
Professor
Professor
Computer Technician
Entrepreneur
Retired Health Practitioner
Health Practitioner
Computer Programmer
Adjunct Professor
Professor
Age
28
35
38
55
58
56
48
65
60
58
45
32
Education
B.A.
M.A.
B.S.
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
B.S (two)
B.S.
Doctorate
Doctorate
B.S.
M.A.
Ph.D.
Years lived in area
1(28)
3 (19)
8
31
35
24
28
19
29
36
2 (19)
2
Marital Status
Married
Married
Single
Separated
Married
Married
Married
Married
Married
Single
Single
Single
Note: The number is the time having lived there most recently, while the one in
parantheses is linked to length of time having had roots here, meaning they were raised
in the place and have recently moved back.
Each interview lasted between one and two hours, and was conducted in
an open-ended format. Topics that were covered included general
definitions of friendship and intimacy, personal assumptions concerning
differences between male and female friendships, and how masculinity
relates to interactions among men. The primary focus of the interviews was
on a description of each of the close friends of each respondent in an
attempt to understand the distinct dyads and how masculinity was
constructed through the relationships. No definition for “close friendship”
was given to the respondents, asking them instead to identify who they saw
as close friends and discussing those friendships specifically. Each
interview followed the interests and ideas expressed by the interviewee,
identifying what they found important in relation to friendship. Still, all of
the major areas identified above were addressed in each interview as each
respondent discussed every one of his close friendships. Finally, it should
be noted that the analysis of the interviews is a study of the accounts of
experiences with friends by the respondents, and not an analysis of the
friendships themselves (Scott & Lyman, 1968; Weiss, 1994). The
statements by these men, however, do reflect their own beliefs about their
friendships, which impact their behaviors, both with their friends and
society in general, including their social construction of masculinity both in
the friendships, and even in their interactions with the interviewee as they
described their friendships.
Results
While the men were asked to discuss their close friendships, no definition
was given to them to determine this, nor were they asked to clarify what
makes a close friend, as the focus was on who they perceived as close
friends and the interactions among the friends. They were allowed to
introduce a definition if they desired. While none gave an explicit
definition, all of the men offered some notion of a definition to best
determine which of their friends they should discuss, relying on key
concepts, such as “trust,” “support” and “connection.” While most of the
respondents identified groups of friends with whom they spend time, most
were able to explicitly differentiate between those in the group who they
saw as “friends” or “acquaintances” and those who they considered “close”
friends. The distinction was that “close” friend connections extended
beyond the present activity, as they “would spend time with them outside of
the group” (Laurel) or who they “knew would be there for them if he
needed them” (Duncan & Owens, 2011). As Curley clarified, “I have a lot
of friends, but most of those guys are just guys I do things with. We have a
great time and I like them, but it is not the same. They are not the guys I
think of when I want to do something. They are just guys who are there.”
The distinction for these men between close friends and others was the
persistent relationship and connection beyond the immediate moment. In
their final determination of who their close friends are none of the men had
more than six friends who they designated as “close”, often times
perceiving of the friendship as one that would be “a lasting one” (Butch).
Sundance sums it up in his determination of those he spends time with and
those who are close friends:
Some of the guys are great. And I like them a lot. They are fun to be around,
but I don’t have the connection with them that I have with others, like Andy
and Bill. We just get along beyond the immediate activities. It is not a
conscious choice but when I think of doing something, those are the guys I
contact. And I think that is how they feel too.
Regardless, all of the guys seemed to have a sense of who their close
friends were but could not give an explicit definition as to why they felt
this.
Intimacy
While the focus of this study is on the development of close friendships
among men and how that relates to the social construction of masculinity,
to give context to the response and behaviors, it is important to first
understand how these men perceive intimacy, and in general how they react
to it. All twelve of the men relied upon a definition that was akin to a
feminine understanding of intimacy. Curley expressed that “intimacy is
when you want to be close to someone, share with them things that you
would not tell anyone else.” Similarly, Larry claimed, “intimacy is sharing
information with a person.” These examples display how these men equate
intimacy with self-disclosure, which is more akin to feminine style of
interaction (Cancian, 1986). Defining intimacy from a feminine standpoint
has been found in other studies about men’s friendships (Monsour, 1992;
Reid & Fine, 1992).
While the men generally defined intimacy in a more expressive context,
they generally avoided such forms of intimacy within their relationships.
The need to avoid expressive intimacy within friendships is summed up
best by Jack, who stated that he sanctions himself before sharing with his
friends. “Men are much more reserved about their personal lives. Men are
just not as intimate as women.” Again, relying upon a female definition of
intimacy, he explained that he avoids this for fear of having his friends see
him as different, more feminine. Jack further stated, “Sometimes it would
be nice to share fears and feelings. But I would not want to make them [his
friends] feel uncomfortable.” While all of the men shared a similar
perspective, only Karl reflected on the differences between male and female
intimacy in his explanation concerning the definition of intimacy. He did
not discuss them in terms of a hierarchical structure, but rather as two
different concepts. One was no more important than the other. As Karl
stated, “I am not sure you can compare the two. They are just different.
All of my friendships serve a purpose and are all important.” Still, he
acknowledged part of the reason he does not institute more expressive
intimacy with many of his friends as he does not want to make them feel
uncomfortable. What Karl was also able to articulate was that not all of his
friendships followed the same pattern, each offering him a different
experience, and as a result, were dynamically distinct. While not as clearly
stated as Karl, all of the men’s close friendships displayed a level of
diversity, even though they were all influenced by masculine expectations.
Simply, the men’s perceptions of masculinity influenced all of their
friendships but did not produce the same types of close friendships.
Friendship Typologies
Initially it was difficult to categorize friendships, focusing on the
individuals and how they formed their friends. The dyads of the
respondents, however, could be categorized distinctly into three typologies
(see Table 2 below). These findings do not assume that the men’s
friendships that are linked with a typology are all exactly the same. Instead,
they represent common characteristics that distinguish it from the other
types of friendships. The discussion below, however, presents the existence
of friendship dyads of these men and more important that their friendships
are not determinant of the specific individuals but rather an interaction
among factors, in particular, masculinity that aid in the social construction
of friendships.
The different types of friendship are as follows: non-active, active, and
expressive. Within the “active” category, there were two distinct friendship
dyads, which can be classified as “closed” and “open,” While each category
represents a dyadic relationship that has specific characteristics that
differentiates it from the other categories, all are influenced by expectations
and concerns surrounding masculinity and masculine performances.
Non-Active
These relationships can be identified by the limited contact the individual
may have with each friend. The existence of disconnected but close friends
has been noted in other studies (Thurnell-Read, 2012). As Table 2 displays,
these types of friendships were common for these men. In fact, of the
respondents, only one claimed to have only one friendship that might be
listed under this category (Ben, who stated he only has two close friends
overall), while all others had two to four friendships that fit within this
typology. Ben’s limited number may be a result of only having been away
from home on his own on one occasion, his Mormon mission, which is
where he met his “non-active” friend.
Table 2
Typology of Male Friendship Dyads
Names
Non-Active
Active
Expressive
Ben
1
1
0
Jerry
2
2
0
Laurel
2
3
0
Hardy
2
3
0
Larry
1
2
0
Mo
2
3
0
Curley
3
2
0
Butch
2
3
0
Sundance
3
3
0
Manny
2
2
1
Karl
2
3
1
Jack
1
3
0
Note: The ranking hierarchy stems is as follows: 0, 1, few, some, many
All of the other respondents claimed to have developed multiple “nonactive” friendships while involved in extended activities away from their
home of origin. While some linked it to college (both graduate and
undergraduate), others connected it to military service. Past studies have
noted a close, even empathetic relationship among men in the military
(Migliaccio, 2008; Morgan, 1994). Similar claims can be made about
college experience, as it is a time in the lives of men during which they
develop identities, which are supported by friendships (Weisz &Wood,
2005). Close friendships established during developmental periods bear
importance for these men. As Larry expressed, “It is great to have these
friendships. They are a part of who I am. Or at least where I came from.”
Most of the respondents referenced their history as a means for connection
with these friends, although that was not the sole defining characteristic of
these friendships.
All of the men identified that these friendships are distinct from other
friendships formed at the same time. Most of the men could not explicitly
articulate how they differed, but that they were different. As Jack
expressed, “we just got along when we first met. But it was more than that
because I got along with a lot of guys at school. But with Tom and Jim, it
was different. And later, we just always kept in touch, which was easy to
do.” The connection that persisted beyond the initial experience is what
differentiated these friendships from others during that period of time. As
Larry expressed, “While I had a lot of friends while at school, there were
just some that it seemed natural to stay in touch with as I got older. They
are just the ones I have always thought to call, not that we even talk all that
often. I guess I will always see them as my good friends no matter what
happens.” While none of the men could fully explain why the relationships
persisted, none of the men felt it was surprising to have such friendships,
and appreciated them.
It was also clear that all of the men shared a belief that these friendships
do not necessitate constant management to remain close, which was distinct
from the other close friends they had at the present time. Manny
summarizes the idea that contact and interaction does not impact these close
friendships, “Some friendships don’t need constant attention. Mine have
been solid since we first met. These friends will always be there for me and
I for them.” Similarly, Hardy stated, “some friends you rarely see or hear
from, and yet still feel intimate with them.” He went on to emphasize how
even after years of absence from his life, contact with these friends never
seemed strained or uncomfortable. “It is like you just saw them yesterday.”
While an individual who has a non-active friendship may maintain the
relationship through phone calls and/or e-mails, the majority of the men in
this study reflected on how there was no need to consistently maintain the
relationships. “They just are, without any work” (Sundance). Ben’s one
non-active friendship shared similar qualities. When questioned as to why
he still believes the relationship exists, he explained that it was a sort of
“unspoken bond.” He attributed much of this to shared interests,
specifically sports and church. While his explanation offers an example of
Swain’s (1989) “intimacy in the doing,” it also references this recurring
idea that the men relayed: the idea that the relationship does not necessitate
discussion or sharing, but that the closeness is simply understood. This is
what sets these friendships apart from more traditional, instrumental
friendships, as there is limited interaction, i.e. “doing,” and yet the
closeness endures.
While closeness persists among these friends, the men clarified that
these friendships are different from women’s friendships. Jerry, in his
assessment of his closest friend elaborated on why their relationship
survives. He stated twice during the interview that the distance and limited
contact (not spoken in over a year) does not affect the friendship. When
questioned as to why he continues to feel close to his friend, he concluded,
“I guess it has a lot to do with having a lot in common with one another.”
He further explained, “Men don’t need constant interaction to maintain
friendships.” While such a statement highlights a disparate intimacy for
men, it is more Jerry’s designation of his relationship as being different
from those of women’s that emphasizes his avoidance of linking his
friendships to women’s experiences. This was a common theme among the
men as they explained their continued connection sans regular interactions.
As Hardy expressed “Men don’t need to regularly talk to be close.” The
men consistently differentiated their “non-active” friendships from
women’s friendships. “Women tend to need or even demand contact to
maintain friendships. Men do not. We just have to know we can trust these
guys, regardless if we talk to them,” as Jack shared. In an example
comparing his wife’s experience, Laurel expressed:
My wife would get annoyed when she had not heard from her friends in
a while. I don’t think she could go for years as I have without talking to her
closest friends and not feel the friendship was affected. That is how we are
different from women’s friendships.
This description, while not explicitly about a performance of
masculinity it is a justification of the friendship through the differentiation
between men’s and women’s friendships. Simply, these men project their
friendships in a different form from women’s. Even more important, they
perceived of the difference as a gain as it solidified the relationships over
time.
Active
The active group appears to be the most common friendship model of the
three, as can be seen in Table 2 above. The dyads present in this group
tended to be a more direct representation of Swain’s “intimacy in the
doing.” These friendships emphasized activities as a primary focus in
friendships. However, within the active group, there could be perceived
differences between two types of friendships that can be classified as
“closed” and “open” (see Table 3). For the Closed group, activities were
the force that maintained the friendship, while within the Open group the
activities appeared to be more of an avenue through which the relationships
grew.
Table 3
Active Dyads
Names
Ben
Jerry
Laurel
Hardy
Larry
Mo
Curley
Butch
Sundance
Manny
Karl
Jack
Closed
X
X
X
Open
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Closed
Three men, who through their descriptions of their close friends, could be
identified as having “closed active” dyads. They expressed that there was
an emphasis upon the shared interests and activities with the friends. The
friendships were contingent on common pursuits, but did not extend into
connection through other means. For example, Ben relayed that his other
close friend (he only has two total) was a workout partner. He emphasized
that his connection to this friend is directly linked to the activity. This
example both displays the masculine form of intimacy, as well as highlights
the primary characteristic of the closed group, which is the emphasis upon
interests and activities in the maintenance of a friendship. As Ben stated
concerning his development of friendships in general, “I am always looking
for a friend who plays both soccer and basketball.” To him, without
commonalties, he assumed a friendship would cease. Ben consistently
shared in his comparison by gender and friendship that men’s friendships in
general survive through common interests and that “women share feelings.”
For Ben, there was no discussion of developing expressive intimacy
through the shared activities. The relationship appeared to be explicitly
instrumental, which is a key component of a “closed dyad.”
In another example, Jerry talked about a regular trip he and several of
his friends made to a baseball game. When asked if any of the four had ever
attempted to discuss an intimate issue, he stated, “We discussed ideas and
sports, not feelings. This was an extremely testosterone driven experience,”
meaning an avoidance of feminine ideas was expected. Pressed to
determine the possible reactions if an individual had attempted to share a
personal issue, he claimed a joke would probably be made concerning it,
and then nothing further would be stated. As discussed above, humor is a
common tool to masculinize interactions. In this instance, the joke is less a
signifier of sharing, and more an expression that inappropriate behavior will
not be tolerated. By making light of it, the others involved are informing
the individual that further transgressions would result in similar, if not
worse chastisements, which might affect the dynamics of the trip, as well as
the friendships. These close friendships, while important to Jerry, are
limited in disclosure.
All three of these men distinguished these close friends from other
friends and acquaintances based on connection and trust. For example, Jerry
identified only two friends that could be categorized as active friends, but
his group of friends who went to the baseball games comprised four to five
at any given time. When asked about how he distinguishes between them,
he shared that the two he sees as close friends are “guys he would look to in
a time of need.” He acknowledged the others are “great” guys, but does not
really see them in that way, or really feel comfortable “relying on them” for
important things.
While the three men whose close friendships were closed had other
types of friendships, these three respondents had the smallest number of
active friendships. Furthermore, of the three, only one had an open active
friendship (Hardy: one open and two closed). Even Hardy’s “open”
friendship appeared to be limited in self-disclosure, although it definitely
differed from Hardy’s other friendships, as he explained (discussed below).
Even with the existence of this friend, Hardy, along with the other two
expressed concerns about sharing with other men. As Jerry stated, “we
don’t ever discuss intimate topics.” He further shared that men don’t share
because that is what women do. In contrast, all three chose instead to rely
predominantly on their wives for self-disclosure. As Ben stated, “I would
first share with my wife, then maybe my family, but most likely not my
friends. I don’t really like to share with anyone. I would prefer to figure it
out by myself.” Ben’s impetus to “figure it out” reflects a common
masculine behavior of being self-reliant (Harris, 1995; Migliaccio, 2001).
But if a man is going to self-disclose, sharing with a spouse would be one
way to avoid being emasculated by those around him, as it is acceptable to
share with a female (Felmlee et al., 2012), and in particular, establish one’s
spouse as the primary relationship (Gilmartin, 2007). The choices of these
men to engage in predominantly instrumental friendships support the
masculine expectations of feminine avoidance by men and ultimately being
less expressive in their friendships (Felmlee et al., 2012). This discrepancy
between the men who have closed active friendships and the other men
does offer some credence to the focus of past studies that individuals, or the
characteristics of individuals impact the form of friendships. These men
tended to reflect on a more traditional notion of masculinity, explicitly
distancing themselves from femininity. Still, even with the perceived
differences between the men, the individuals and their friendships could not
be categorized concretely. For example, all of the men in both groups had
“non-active” friends that were similar in form and interaction style to all of
the other “non-active” dyads of the men in the study, which differed from
the “active” friendships. Furthermore, as with Hardy, he had both a closed
and an open active friendship, limiting the claim that an individual’s
characteristics alone construct friendships.
Open
The “open active” friendships, while related to shared activities, differed
from the “closed active” in that the intention and really the importance of
the friendships (and often the reason for interacting) is a feeling of comfort,
reliance and understanding of one another. The friendships were based
upon an idea that extended beyond activities and interests. As Hardy
explained in his distinction of his friends, “there are some, like the guys I
work with that we just enjoy one another’s company. Then there are others,
like Jeff, who we like to hang out together and do stuff but it is more than
that. It is hard to explain but I feel more comfortable being around him,
talking to him.” This, however, does not remove the use of activity from the
relationship. In fact, all of the men in this group, when explaining their
close relationships that were characterized as “open active” referred to
activities in which they engaged with friends. As Mo explained:
Every Sunday Aaron and I play golf. Sometimes we talk about our week,
but other times you just don’t want to go over all of the bad things that have
happened. And that we understand one another’s needs. When we want to
talk. When we don’t want to talk. And even when we don’t want to talk, but
need to.
This offers another example of “intimacy in the doing,” as was also seen in
the closed group; however, it is not the activity or similarities that are the
focus of the relationship, but rather the activity offers a comfortable
environment in which to engage with other men. This allows the men to
interact in masculine activities while still attaining intimacy with friends.
This can be noted when Sundance explained a weekly event in which he
and a group of his close friends engaged:
We would go to afternoon baseball games in San Francisco. Every week,
the four of us would drive down, all the while eating food we were not
supposed to eat, using language that was inappropriate in other situations.
Just doing things guys are not allowed to do. It was very important to all
four of us. Not just to get away, but because we could feel close to other
guys in a relaxed setting.
While the activity was similar to the one that Jerry experienced with his
friends, but the dynamics differed, as did the intention for hanging out. As
with Jerry, it was about doing “guy things,” while, through Sundance’s
explanation, it was about feeling closer to the other guys. The activity
becomes the avenue to experience that.
In another example, Laurel described an incident directly following his
break up with his girlfriend. He and a close friend had gone out to bars, but
never discussed the issue. He expressed the positive feeling he felt about
going out with a friend without having him “bug me by asking about it. He
knew all about it, and what was needed. So we went out and got drunk.”
Similarly, Butch, who had recently retired, and whose best friend was
several years younger than he, offered a description that conveyed what was
important in his friendship. His friend lived several hours away from him,
so he would drive down to have lunch with him during the day and often
play a round of golf. He relayed that while his friend appeared to enjoy
golf more than he did, he always looked forward to those days. As Butch
stated, “I can just relax around him.” All of these examples display how
activity and shared interests are important but not the driving force in the
relationship (unlike in “closed dyads”). Instead, it is the positive feeling that
exists between the individuals that forms the intimate connection. Messner
(1992) calls this “covert intimacy.” It is interesting to note that these men
did not discuss friendships that appeared more “closed” as being close
friends, except for Hardy, who, overall focused on avoiding more
expressive forms of intimacy with his friends but still developed it, to some
degree, within one of his friendships, or at least moved beyond the overemphasis on activity within the friendship. The potential is as Hardy further
develops this friendship, he may also alter his definition of what a close
friendship entails.
Regardless, the activity in an open active friendship is part of the
masculine performance as it is an acceptable (i.e. masculine) arena in which
to interact with same-sex male friends, which allots for the existence of
more feminine dynamics within the friendships (Migliaccio, 2009). Jack, in
his reflections concerning his close friendships, offered a comparative
explanation: “Males engage in activities, while women share thoughts. I
am not sure I would call it intimacy; but, it is a feeling of closeness.” Jack
was articulating that through the shared activities, the intimacy with his
friends differed from women’s intimacy. This denial of the term intimacy to
reflect the closeness men experience can be linked to the expectation that
intimacy is a feminine concept. And, as discussed above, males avoid any
idea or behavior that would equate them with being female. As Butch
stated, “men don’t like the term intimacy.”
While the intimacy may differ from more expressive forms, it was more
about the men’s perceptions that the intimacy they were experiencing was
distinct from the intimacy among female friends and not that it was
explicitly different. When Larry was divorcing his first wife, he explained
that he was able to share about this experience quite easily with one of his
closest friends. When questioned further about the manner in which he
shared this information, he responded, “We had gone out to lunch and I just
kind of mentioned it at some point.” He continued, explaining that he did
not specifically ask his friend out to share this with him. They just
happened to be out for lunch, to catch up, and so he revealed it at that time.
When asked why he had waited until this opportunity rather than share as
soon as he had realized it was occurring, he relayed that he just did not want
to create an awkward situation. As he stated, “We don’t need all of that
touchy feely crap.” In this situation, the same information was shared but
what made it, for Larry, more masculine was the context of the interaction.
They were out for lunch, an activity, and he “mentioned” it during the meal.
Men are allotted greater flexibility in their feminine behaviors if
masculinity has been previously established through different means, such
as an activity (Migliaccio, 2008; Thorne, 1993). For Larry, what changed it
from being “touchy-feely” was why they were interacting, not what was
specifically discussed.
The social context of the interaction determines the level of sharing,
which includes with whom the person is sharing the information. Karl
described a health scare. Karl was one of the men who has a friendship that
is labeled as an “expressive” friendship (discussed below), but he stated that
he avoided discussing it in any detail with many of his friends. Karl offered
an example of an instance when he did share his health concerns with one
of his close friends (not the “expressive” friend). He was carpooling with a
friend. They were talking about getting physicals when he decided that this
was an acceptable time to share his experience. He briefly stated that he
had recently been in for some medical tests, which had been negative. His
friend responded by stating “Well, that is good. At least it wasn’t anything
serious.” Karl expressed that he felt by his response, his friend did not want
any deeper discussion beyond this, so the discussion did not extend beyond
this. As he stated:
It is not that I don’t value our friendship. I like being with him and talking to
him. And I know he would always be there for me if I ever needed anything.
But, in a situation like that, I think any further discussion would have made him
feel uncomfortable.
In this context, the situation was not deemed suitable for in depth
disclosure. The context of the situation for Karl determined the level of
sharing (and/or potentially the person with whom he was sharing).
While context is extremely important, so is the form of the disclosure.
Mo explained that there had been a time in his life that he thought he had
heart disease. Only after going through tests and learning that it was not a
serious problem did he inform a friend about it. As he explained, “I kind of
made a joke out of it,” which then became a running joke between the two
of them. As long as the issue is couched in the context of humor, it is
acceptable to discuss the issue without fear of crossing the gender-boundary
(George, 1994). This is different from the other example of how humor is
utilized. For the “closed” dyad it was about limiting the disclosure, while in
this context, it was an avenue through which sharing could proceed without
challenging masculinity. Both individuals involved can engage the issue
without fear of being emasculated. Mo furthered explained that he did not
want to pursue it any deeper because he felt it had been addressed and he
was good with it. Overall, the “open active” friendships differed from
“closed active” in that the activities in which the friends interacted allowed
for more in depth sharing to occur. The masculine context, however, was
important in mitigating any potential negative reaction of over feminizing
the interaction through self-disclosure.
Expressive
The use of the term “expressive” identified relationships that two of the
men established with friends that are based, at least partially on sharing and
self-disclosure. In other words, the dyads that this group displays reflect
characteristics that might be defined as “feminine” intimacy. It appears less
connected to the activity-based intimacy the other groups displayed. This
includes the “non-active” friendships, which have the potential for being
more expressive, but their connection seems to persist through a lack of
contact, and none of the men identified self-disclosure as a part of the
friendships. As Table 2 above shows, only two individuals, Karl and
Manny, described such a friendship (each only had one). Manny described
his friendship with Jon: “We just like to get together and talk. Share what is
going on in our lives. I always look forward to our conversations.” As can
be noted, these friendships reflected different dynamics as those described
in the other typologies. As Karl stated, “With Dave I don’t feel judged. I
can express fears, feelings and concerns about specific incidences.”
While these men did have these relationships, which they found
fulfilling and important, the formation of them differed. For Manny, when
asked, he initially was not positive how it came to be, but he did relay that
the openness of his friend allowed for it. As Manny stated, “Jon is not a
typical guy. Yeah, he likes sports and is married to a beautiful woman, but
he is pretty open to most things. He is a stay-at-home dad and he is fine
with it. In fact, he enjoys it and would not have it any other way. But it is
not just about that. He just is open and accepting. I think that may have
allowed me to feel comfortable talking to him.” In this context, Manny was
“allowed” to develop the “expressive” friendship because Jon did not
appear as limited by social expectations, in particular, masculinity. Still,
even in Manny’s description of who Jon is, he seems to want to make sure
it is clear Jon still fits within the heteronormative definition of being a man
(e.g., “likes sports,” married to a beautiful woman”), as though to limit any
questions others (including the interviewer) may have about their
relationship.
Karl, however, talked about how Dave and he formed their relationship
at a time when he was really sick. Dave would drive up to hang out with
him for a couple of days, and to take care of him (Karl explained at least
one person had to be readily available in case he needed assistance). Karl
explained that at one point he told Dave he did not need to drive up here to
do this as much as he was, to which he said Dave replied, “’You are my
best friend. I love you. I will always be there for you, no matter what you
need.’” Since then, he and Dave have “been able to talk about most
anything, completely different from my other friendships,” although much
of the interactions and conversations continue to focus on shared activities
(e.g., they place fantasy football together). Their relationship seemed to be
formed less by the characteristics of the individuals, like in Manny’s
friendship with Jon (as Karl described, Dave is a very conservative and
traditional individual. Karl, while being more liberal politically, is also
fairly traditional about gender expectations) and more by the seriousness of
the health risk (Karl had cancer at the time). Regardless of the reason, both
Karl and Manny appear to have formed “expressive” friendships that they
find extremely fulfilling.
While able to openly express one self and share fears with these friends,
these men did identify that the self-disclosure is not to the same degree as
the sharing experienced between women. Karl explained, “the focus of the
relationship cannot always be on sharing feelings. I would not want to
make my friend feel awkward by doing that. And sometimes it is nice just
to do things and enjoy one another’s company, and not worry about sharing
all of the time.” As this statement shows, it is the awareness of the possible
impact this may have upon the relationship that limits the amount of
sharing. Regardless that Karl feels comfortable sharing with his friend,
norms must be maintained so as not to fully reflect female friendships.
Similarly, Manny shared that while conversations were intentional, he still
refrained from certain topics that might be awkward. “Right after a long
term relationship ended, I was thinking that I might not find someone and
end up alone. I got a little depressed. But I did not talk about it with anyone,
even Jon. There are some things a guy just doesn’t say to other guys.”
Manny did, however, say that while he never talked about his concerns with
Jon, during this period he did spend more time with his friend Jon because
“the discussions, regardless of the topics, always made me feel better.”
While both experienced interactions with this friend type that differed from
their other male friendships, they both distanced the experiences from
women’s friendships. Manny identified that it was “no where near the level
of female friendships.” Karl further explained that while the friendship was
steeped in conversations and sharing, “female friendships I think rely on the
sharing to exist. Mine is not that at all. It is just an added bonus. I think my
friendship with Dave would still exist even if we didn’t share our thoughts.
That just makes it better.” This is not to claim that their friendships are
distinctly different from female close friendships but rather that these two
men differentiated them in their descriptions, distancing themselves from a
more feminine identified experience.
Discussion and Conclusion
As these men described, male friendships are generally based on shared
interests and activities, as has been consistently found in past studies
(Messner, 1992; Swain, 1989). This does not mean that each friendship
dyad will be the same, even for the same person. The friendships of the men
in this exploratory study can be categorized into four distinct groupings:
Non-active, closed active, open active and expressive. While each reflects a
different dynamic for male friendships, each supports a preference of male
avoidance of feminine characteristics. Even within the two “expressive”
friendships, there was a limitation to the amount of sharing that would be
allowed, as well as how the friendship and sharing was characterized.
Furthermore, only two of the twelve respondents displayed this type of
friendship, relating the rarity with which men actively self-disclose with one
another, even though almost all of the men defined the ideal form of
intimacy in a more feminine style, and, at times, self-disclosed to some of
their close friends, such as those in “open active” friendships.
Still, the existence of expressive dyads among men who in other
friendships avoid disclosing information, characterizes the social
construction of friendships. It is not simply that a man creates a type of
friendship, or that he is more or less masculine than his counterparts, which
determines his friendship styles. Instead, it is more about the development of
the friendship based on various social factors. There may be contributing
factors that increase the likelihood of having an expressive relationship, such
as one (or both) of the men being less traditional in their displays of
masculinity. The existence of varied relationships raises questions about the
definitive outcome of friendships being a result of certain characteristics of
the individual. While individual characteristics, such as the acceptance of
more traditional masculine expectations can influence friendship
construction, the social construction of the dyad is influenced by a number
of factors that gets produced throughout the interaction. Further analysis
should examine what factors contribute to the development of different types
of friendships, focusing on analyses of the dyads and not on the individuals.
Regardless of the friendship types, all were influenced by masculine
expectations, as well as fears of being marginalized by their friends. In fact,
as many of the men expressed, their reticence with sharing was more about
how they felt friends might react, or how they did react (such as the men did
through the use of humor). The desire to have more expressive friendships
was limited by the unspoken expectations of performing masculinity, and in
particular, avoiding femininity. Even in their descriptions of their
friendships, the men distanced the dyads from more feminine forms, even
though they have identified this as the ideal form of intimacy. This is
regardless if whether or not they engage in self-disclosure or not. It is about
the appearance of the interaction, as determined by social context, i.e.
masculinity, social situations, the individuals involved, or even how the
thoughts are expressed (humor). The men socially constructed their
interactions with friends in a masculine context, both during and through
their descriptions later. They produced friendships as a reflection of
masculine performances. This, however, does not mean all of their
friendships were the same. The key seems to be the ability to differentiate
the friendship from feminine forms of intimacy, and not so much what the
dyad actually looks like. Fear of being equated with being female would
marginalize and emasculate a male, so these men drew a distinction between
their friendships and women’s friendships. As has been stated, the first
lesson of being male is that one must not appear female.
Even with the identification of different possible types of friendships,
this study offers a limited view of the experiences of white, educated men,
and not of men who are marginalized as a result of race, class or sexual
orientation, whose friendships may be different than that of the hegemonic
group. Furthermore, a more generalizable analysis should be conducted to
determine the viability of the typologies of friendships and how masculinity
impacts the construction of friendships among men, possibly interviewing
each man in the dyad. Along with this, an analysis of how different
typologies influence definitions of intimacy should be considered.
Regardless, this study offers a starting point for understanding the
importance of the dyad in the construction of friendships in relation to
masculine performances.
References
Bank, B., & Hansford, S. (2000). Gender and friendship: Why are men's
best same-sex friendships less intimate and supportive? Personal
Relationships, 7(1), 63-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00004.x
Cancian, F. (1986). Feminization of love. Signs, 11(4), 692-709.
Collinson, D. L. (1992). Engineering humour: Masculinity, joking, and
conflict in shop-floor relations. In M.S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner
(Eds.), Men's Lives, (pp. 232-246). New York: MacMillan.
Doyle, J. A. (1995). The male experience. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown.
Duncan, N., & Owens, L. (2011). Bullying, social power and
heteronormativity: Girls' constructions of popularity. Children &
Society, 25 (4), 306-316. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00378.x
Evers, C. (2010). Intimacy, sport and young refugee men. Emotion, Space
and Society, 3(1), 56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.2010.01.011
Fehr, B. (2004). Intimacy expectations in same-sex friendships: A prototype
interaction-pattern model. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 86(2), 265-284.
Fehr, B. A. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Felmlee, D. (1999). Social norms in same- and cross-gender friendships.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(1) 53-67.
Felmlee, D., Sweet, E., & Sinclair, H. (2012). Gender rules: Same- and
cross-gender friendships norms. Sex Roles, 66 (7-8), 518-529. doi:
10.1007/s11199-011-0109-z
George, M. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable
victims of marital violence.The Journal of Men's Studies, 3(2), 137159.
Gilmartin, S. (2007). Crafting heterosexual masculine identities on campus:
College men talk about romantic love. Men and Masculinities, 9(4),
530-539. doi: 10.1177/1097184X05284994
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual; essays in face-to-face behavior.
Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
Harris, I. M. (1995). Messages men hear: Constructing masculinities.
Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Kaufman, M. (1998). The construction of masculinity and the triad of men's
violence. In M.S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men's Lives, (pp.
4-17). New York: MacMillan.
Kiesling, S. (2005). Homosocial desire in men's talk: Balancing and recreating cultural discourses of masculinity. Language in Society, 34
(5), 695-726. doi: 10.1017/S0047404505050268
Kimmel, M., & Kaufman, M. (1994). Weekend warriors: The new men's
movement. In H. Brod and M. Kaufman (Eds.). Theorizing
masculinities, (pp. 259-288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Messner, M. (1992). Like family: Power, intimacy, and sexuality in male
athletes' friendships. In P. Nardi (Eds.), Men's Friendships, (pp. 215238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Migliaccio, T. (2001). Marginalizing the battered male. Journal of Men's
Studies, 9 (2), 205-226. doi:10.3149/jms.0902.205
Migliaccio, T. (2008). Addressing deceptive distinctions: A comparison of
the occupational requirements of military personnel and elementary
school teachers. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 36, 15-26.
Migliaccio, T. (2009). Men's friendships: Performances of masculinity.
Journal of Men's Studies, 17 (3), 226-241. doi:
10.3149/jms.1703.226
Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same-sex
friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9 (2), 277295. doi: 10.1177/0265407592092007
Morgan, D. (1994). Theater of war: Combat, the military and masculinities.
In H. Brod and M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing masculinities (pp.
165-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morman, M. T., Schrodt, P., & Tornes, M. (2013). Self-disclosure mediates
the effects of gender orientation and homophobia on the relationship
quality of male same-sex friendships. Journal of Social & Personal
Relationships, 30(5), 582-605.
Patrick, S., & Beckenbach, J. (2009). Male perceptions of intimacy. The
Journal of Men's Studies, 17(1), 47-56.
Reid, H. & Fine, G. (1992). Self-disclosure in men’s friendships: Variations
associated with intimate relations. In P. Nardi (Ed.), Men’s
Friendships (pp. 132-152). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Reisman, J. M. (1990). Intimacy in same-sex friendships. Sex Roles, 23 (12), 65-83.
Sanderson, C., Rahm, K., & Beigbeder, S. (2005). The link between the
pursuit of intimacy goals and satisfaction in close same-sex
friendships: An examination of the underlying processes. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 22 (1),75-98.
doi:10.1177/0265407512463991
Scott, M. B. & Stanford M. L. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological
Review, 33 (1), 46-62.
Sherrod, D. (1989). The influence of gender on same-sex friendships. In C.
Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 164-186). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage
Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in the same-sex friendships of
men. In B. Risman & P. Schwartz (Eds.), Belmont Gender in intimate
relations: A microstructural approach (pp. 71-86), Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Thurnell-Read, T. (2012). What happens on tour: The premarital stag tour,
homosocial bonding, and male friendship. Men and Masculinities ,15
(3), 249-270. doi: 10.1177/1097184X12448465
Walker, K. (2001). ’I’m not friends the way she’s friends’: Ideological and
behavioral constructions of masculinity in men’s friendships. In M.S.
Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men's Lives, (pp. 367-379). New
York: MacMillan
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.
Weisz, C., & Wood, L. (2005). Social identity support and friendship
outcomes: A longitudinal study predicting who will be friends and
best friends 4 years later. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships
22 (3), 416-432. doi: 10.1177/0265407505052444
Wheeler, L., Reis, H.T., & Bond. M. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in
everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (1), 79-86.
Wright, P., & Scanlon., M. (1993). Gender role orientations and
friendships: Some attenuation, but gender differences abound. Sex
Roles, 24 (9-10), 551-566.
Todd A. Migliaccio is Associate Professor in the Department of
Sociology at the Sacramento State University.
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Todd A. Migliaccio,
Department of Sociology, Sacramento State University, CSU,
Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6005, email:
[email protected]
We Teach Too: What are the Lived Experiences and
Pedagogical Practices of Gay Men of Color Teachers
Cleveland Hayes1
1) University of La Verne, United States
th
To cite this article: Hayes, C. (2014). We Teach Too: What are the Lived
Experiences and Pedagogical Practices of Gay Men of Color Teachers. Masculinities
and Social Change, 3 (2), 148-172. doi:10.447/MCS.2014.48
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.447/MCS.2014.48
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 2 February 2014
pp. 148-172
We Teach Too: What are the
Lived Experiences and
Pedagogical Practices of Gay
Men of Color Teachers
Cleveland Hayes
University of La Verne, United States
Abstract
This paper speaks to the lived experiences of gay male teachers working in K-12
settings of color as I as an individual researcher and as we as allies to begin to
address the pervasive and loud silences of our attenuated presence in education. This
study addresses the experiences of gay (one Black male and two Latinos) teachers of
color and will identify and analyze characteristics, how the intersections of race and
sexuality impact the principles and themes within the teaching strengths of three gay
teachers of color and examine how the successful teaching of gay teachers of color
can be used to inform social justice-oriented matters.
Keywords: critical race theory, counternarratives, gay teachers of color, teaching
and learning
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.48
MCS – Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 2 February 2014
pp. 148-172
Nosotros Enseñamos también:
Cuales son las Experiencias
Vividas y Prácticas Pedagógicas
de Profesores Hombres,
Homosexuales y de Color
Cleveland Hayes
University of La Verne,United States
Resumen
Este artículo habla de las experiencias que han vivido los maestros varones gays de
color que trabajan en el nivel K-12 desde mi perspectiva de investigador individual
y desde una perspectiva colectva, con el objetivo de empezar a abordar los silencios
penetrantes y fuertes de nuestra presencia en educación. Así este estudio aborda las
experiencias de maestros gays de color (un hombre negro y dos latinos) e
identificará y analizará las características, la intersección y el impacto de los
principios y los valores de la sexualidad en la enseñanza de tres profesores
homosexuales de color para poder examinar el éxito que esta enseñanza puede tener
de cara a informar en asuntos orientados a la justicia social.
Palabras clave: teoría crítica de la raza, corelatos, maestros gay de color, enseñar y
aprendizaje
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.48
O
ver the past decade, increased attention to the marginalization of
queers of color across educational context in North America has
forced urgent reevaluations of the legal, political, and pedagogical
implications of exclusionary politics (Brockenbrough, 2012, 2013;
McCready, 2013). The research done by Brockenbrough (2013) cites the
absences of queer of color perspectives in the educational literature and
more specifically for this research their perspectives on teaching and
learning. An experience that requires the participants to crossepistemological boundaries and examine their experiences within the
intersections of race and gender and in some instances class; which will
become evident in the narratives of Malcolm, Carlos and Victor. Following
the work of Brockenbrough (2013), McCready (2013) and others this article
centers the pedagogical practices of three gay men of color. It is my intent
with this line of research to bring to the forefront the lived and pedagogical
experiences of gay teachers of color.
We teach too! This research brings together gay teachers of color in
education and aligns with the work of Valdez and Elsbree (2005) in which
they use the term “queer border crossings.” This paper speaks to the lived
experiences of three gay male teachers of color who work or worked in K12 education and begin to address the pervasive and loud silences of their
(gay male teachers of color) attenuated presence in education (DeJean,
2010; Valdez & Elsbree, 2005). Similar to Anzaldua (1987), Valdez and
Elsbree (2005), and Tate (1997) crossing borders and epistemological
boundaries is accomplished by connecting with individuals within different
cultural contexts to develop allies and break their silences.
Already largely absent from the existing body of research is that of the
lived experiences and teaching practices of Black men and Latinos, but
what is even largely absent are the lived experiences and teaching practices
of gay teachers of color (Black men and Latinos in particular). Drawing
from the teaching strengths of gay teachers of color, and drawing on
Crenshaw’s (1995) research on intersectionality, this study will identify and
analyze the lived experiences of three gay teachers of color and how the
intersections of race and sexuality impact the principles and themes within
their teaching strengths and lived struggles (Brockenbrough, 2012; King,
2005; Knaus, 2007). The narratives of Malcolm, Carlos and Victor begin to
151 Hayes – We Teach Too
answer the unanswered questions about the participation of Black and
Latino queer/gay teachers.
Theoretical Framework
As theoretical framework in the field of law, Critical Race Theory, LatCrit
and QueerCrit theories have some basic assumptions. Briefly, LatCrit and
QueerCrit like other CRT related frameworks emerged partially as a result
of what some scholars felt was a CRT White/Black binary that did not
allow for the intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, language and
immigration. LatCrit and QueerCrit, how I use it and understand these two
frameworks, is usually viewed as compatible, supplementary and
complementary to CRT and not as something to replace CRT. Therefore, I
follow other CRT, LatCrit, and QueerCrit scholars and utilize all three to
form the theoretical framework.
Like Knaus (2009), I apply Critical Race Theory for the purpose of
developing the voices and narratives that challenge racism and the
structures of oppression. Tate (1997) asks the question, “Pivotal in
understanding CRT as a methodology, what role should experiential
knowledge of race, class and gender play in educational discourse?” (p.
235). Ladson-Billings (1998) states that CRT focuses on the role of “voice
in bringing additional power and experiential knowledge that people of
color speak regarding the fact that our society is deeply structured by
racism” (p. 13).
Solórzano and Yosso (2001) define CRT as “an attempt to understand
the oppressive aspects of society in order to generate societal and individual
transformation and are important for educators to understand that CRT is
different from any other theoretical framework because it centers race” (p.
471–472).
CRT scholars have developed the following tenets to guide CRT
research; all of these tenets are utilized within the design and analysis of
this study (Kohli, 2009):
1. Centrality of race and racism. All CRT research within education
must centralize race and racism, as well as acknowledge the intersection of
race with other forms of subordination and because of the marginalization
of Black and Latino queerness, little is known about the predicaments of
queer educators of color (Brockenbrough, 2012; Kohli, 2009; Sleeter &
Delgado Bernal, 2002).
During the interview almost in unison, all three of the guys talked about
the racism in the schools, assumptions of Black and Brown Inferiority as
well as the racism in the gay community. Through out the entire interview
process Malcolm hated the use of gay and community in the same sentence.
I feel that gay White men in particular could careless about what is going on
in the Black community and within the gay Black man community in
general. When some Black person makes a homophobic comment then all
hell breaks loose but in my mind where are these same folk when someone
makes a racist statement. The gay movement epitomizes Whiteness and the
privileging of Whiteness.
Malcolm also shared,” when I was teaching in a school district in a really
conservative state, I was often mistaken for the custodian. It is the reason
why I dress a certain way when I teach. I don’t want to leave any doubt.”
Carlos and Victor share stories of combating racism within the gay
community, they shared, “we have this group of people we know and they
happen to be teachers, and they ask us all of these racism questions, like
how many people have we slept with because aren’t all Hispanics
promiscuous? We are constantly dealing with these negative stereotypes
about Latinos. We are always asked why aren’t more Latinos like us.
Malcolm stated, “many of these folk are anti anything that isn’t White and
definitely do not like their privilege challenged and because of this I don’t
support their agendas.”
Victor shared this about his experiences with racism is the community in
which he teaches. He shared,
I think that when I did come out, it was nice to know that oh my god I’m
valued for being at least a man and someone can finally be attracted to me.
But then to learn that there was magnified racism in the gay community was
hard for me to handle for a little while.
I feel it at work; I feel it when I come to the University, when I moved into
town. Its there and sometimes I think that racism can eat a person alive
when you don't know how to manage it. It’s even tougher for those who are
actually upwardly mobile. It’s easy to avoid racism and stay in a
community that is homogenous, that looks exactly like you, stays at the
same level and you can forget all about the rest of the word. But I think it is
magnified tenfold for the people who want to do something.
2. Valuing experiential knowledge. Solórzano & Yosso (2001) argue that
CRT in educational research recognizes that the experiential knowledge of
students of color is legitimate, appropriate, and critical to understanding,
analyzing, and teaching about racial subordination in the field of education.
Life stories tend to be accurate according to the perceived realities of
subjects’ lives. They are used to elicit structured stories and detailed lives
of the individuals involved (Delgado, 1989; McCray, Sindelar, Kilgore, &
Neal, 2002).
At the heart of CRT is an appreciation for storytelling. Following hooks
(1992), the stories of these three men are important because they counter
the institutionalized ignorance of Black and Latino history, culture, and
their very existence. This article using CRT and Queer CRT presents a
critical analysis of these men lived experiences not only as teachers of color
but as gay teachers of color. How do their stories provide counter spaces to
the White dominated queer spaces (Brockenbrough, 2012; Ross, 2005)?
Lastly, these narratives also counter who is teaching and who can be a
successful teacher (Hayes, Juarez, & Cross, 2012). They are not all White
and female.
3. Challenging dominant perspective. CRT research works to challenge
dominant narratives, often referred to as majoritarian stories. CRT scholar
Harris (1995) describes the “valorization of Whiteness as treasured property
in a society structured on racial caste” (p. 277). Harris also argues that
Whiteness confers tangible and economically valuable benefits, and it is
jealously guarded as a valued possession. This thematic strand of Whiteness
as property in the United States is not confined to the nation’s early history
(Frankenberg, 1997; Ladson-Billings, 1998).
4. Commitment to social justice. Social justice must always be a
motivation behind CRT research. Part of this social justice commitment
must include a critique of liberalism, claims of neutrality, objectivity, color
blindness, and meritocracy as a camouflage for the self-interest of powerful
entities of society (Tate, 1997). Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to
change the way things are done will do much to ameliorate misery
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Tate, 1997).
5. Being Interdisciplinary. According to Tate (1997), CRT crosses
epistemological boundaries. It borrows from several traditions, including
liberalism, feminism, and Marxism to include a more complete analysis of
“raced” people.
Ladson-Billings (1998) has already put forth the argument that CRT has
a place within education. In this paper, I apply a CRT lens to help present
the narratives of Malcolm, Carlos and Victor. The richness, utility, and the
power of this framework is that the knowledge and experiences of the
participants in this study are deemed valid and both worth listening to and
learning from. I use CRT to recognize the experiential knowledge of these
three queer educators of color and apply this knowledge as a means to
unpack racial oppression both within schools and within the gay community
(Brockenbrough, 2012; Dixson & Rousseau, 2006).
Methods
In keeping with the tradition of the work by Ladson-Billings (1994), this
article is not written in the dominant scholarly traditions in which I was
trained. However, I marry those “scholarly” tools with my own cultural and
personal experiences, as gay Black male educator and because of my work
with the Black and Latino communities. Moving away from “traditional”
methods allows me to use storytelling and personal narratives to help
advance larger concerns (Ladson-Billings, 2013).
Drawing on in-depth interviews and applying notions of culturally
relevant teaching (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995) to guide
understandings of successful teaching and the selection of participants, in
this study I examine Victor and Carlos’s narratives. Malcolm’s counternarrative is a composite story. Malcolm’s counter-narrative is a composite
story made up of characters and events based on actual individuals and
situations cobbled together to represent a particular kind of experience
common to and recognized by many scholars of color within higher
education. In this article, I juxtapose his composite story with the
narratives of Carlos and Victor.
Following the CRT tradition of storytelling, it is my hope that these
narratives will begin to normalize the practices and experiences of gays of
color not just in teaching but also in general. If we are to end the
oppressive nature of American education, then as an education community
we need to expand and open up spaces for gay teachers of color to share
their experiences with oppression both in mainstream American as well as
gay America.
This study is qualitative in design and draws on “a methodology based
primarily on acquiring, analyzing, and interpreting narrative data” (Lynn &
Jennings, 2009, p. 181). I conducted five in-depth, semiformal interviews
with Carlos and Victor. Carlos and Victor are also part of a larger study
that I am doing on successful Latino teachers.
All interviews conducted for this study lasted between 60 and 180
minutes and were audiotaped and then transcribed to comprise
approximately 15 to 30 pages per interview. Victor and Carlos were
provided with transcripts of their interviews to review for accuracy; this
also provided an opportunity for further informal conversation and
feedback.
The Teachers: Teaching While Gay Black and Brown
Malcolm
Malcolm’s narrative looks at issues around identity, resistance, and what it
meant to grow up as a Black man in Mississippi. For him the gay piece is
an-add on and is not a very important part of his identity. He could not
stress that enough. Malcolm who is much older than Victor and Carlos was
not out when he taught K-12 education because of where he was teaching.
His narrative will share some of the challenges of being a Black man minus
the gay identity. He shares:
The internalization of Whiteness framed my philosophy when I first
started to teach. I first started teaching in Mississippi right after I graduated
from Mississippi State. Because of this Whiteness internalization, I felt that
in order for students of color to be successful, they are going to have to
learn how to play the game, which meant in my mind basically not acting
Black (Fordham, 1988, 1996; Foster 1995, 1997). I was looking at the
students in a deficit mode, that the reason why the students of color in my
classes were not successful was their fault: assumptions of inferiority based
on class and race (O’Connor, 2006). When I moved to Utah and started
teaching in Salt Lake City, I still went into my classroom with the deficit
mindset toward students. I still believe that students have to be the best that
they can be, and that the reason why they may or may not be is not
necessarily something they are doing or not doing. I still believe that too
many students of color are becoming victims of a school system that really
does not believe that students of color, especially those who live on the
wrong side of the street, can learn at a level comparable to that of White
students: assumptions of Black and Brown inferiority (Hayes, 2006; Hayes,
Juarez, & Cross, 2011; O’Connor, 2006). In addition, I had to include poor
Whites in my quest for change through education. In Salt Lake City, there
is clearly a division along class lines. Students who live on the east side of
Salt Lake are faring much better academically than their counterparts on the
west side of Salt Lake. This division required me to cross-epistemological
boundaries to look at class and race. My philosophy is still grounded in the
belief that students of color’s, regardless of classes, chances of success are
still less than a White student from a lower socio-economic class.
My approach changed after I enrolled in the master’s program at the
University of Utah. It was the professors in the department who provided
me with a framework where I began criticizing the system and how it was
problematic for me to be critical of the students. If I am going to truly be
an advocate for students, students of color in particular, I am going to have
to critique liberalism and recognize the experiences that my students bring
to classroom. It was through this framework where my pedagogy changed.
I began teaching students how to fight within the system (transformative
resistance) and be critical of their oppression, even if it is hidden behind
equality and universality. Recognizing the difficulty in the task, my belief
is grounding firmly in “if a person does not stand for something then the
person will fall for anything.”
My demand for excellence comes from my father. In a lot of ways, the
experiential knowledge he brought to the classroom can be seen in mine.
This is what Daddy had to say about what he expects in his classroom,
I just explain that, for example, when the second bell rings if your butt has
not come in contact with the seat, you’re tardy. I don’t care if you were
standing up talking about the Bible or the Koran. I don’t care what you’re
talking about, or who you’re talking about, if you’re not seated, you’re
tardy. And that’s it. And I punish. So I don’t have any problems.
I have always liked his no-nonsense approach to teaching. I believe
there are some things that are cut and dry. This is my biggest frustration
with the system. I think the system is giving students too many excuses as
to why they cannot succeed and all the reasons and tools to fail rather than
taking what was good from the past and using it as a frame to build the
future.
Carlos
At the onset of the interview Carlos talked about his coming out process,
which was completely different from Malcolm who wanted to focus more
on his teaching and how he working against assumptions of Black and
Brown inferiority, as an example, the school the prison pipeline and its
impact on Black and Brown kids in school. While these things were
important to both Carlos and Victor, they seem to embrace their gay
identities more at the forefront that Malcolm. In this next section Carlos
and Victor both share their narratives. I place their narratives together to
signify their union as a couple. They have been together 13 years and they
do everything together. They came to the interview together which I
thought was powerful because again it breaks those assumptions about who
is and who is not in relationships within the gay community. This does
deviate from the way I presented Malcolm’s narrative but the power of the
narrative is still present. Carlos shares,
I do believe that teaching is for me and teaching is very important. I
take a lot of pride in teaching. I believe that I'm a professional and in my
classroom I provide that. In the area of learning, I believe that all students
can learn. For me, it's a passion. I teach a literature class and I can't
believe I get paid to do this. I really enjoy that and my kids tell me, "Mr.
Reynoso, I can see you really like this subject. And they tell me, 'we didn't
like it, but we know you like this subject, so we decided to give it a shot."
Teaching for me is about developing a relationship. Understanding where
the kids come from. And even if I didn't have a story like theirs, I listen to
it. We all struggle one way or another. Relate to them. That's just the way
I see it. It has happened several times. Many teachers send me their kids,
because they can't control them in their classroom. They ask, "Can you
please talk to this kid?" "Sure. No problem." But once I talk to them, I
want to go into your classroom to see if we can talk about this kid, how is it
going, and they do. It comes down to our relationship. I believe personally
as a teacher that the relationships can develop with the kids I can reach
most of them. I try to make them feel like they can become something. The
something that an API score or a CST score does not measure. Yes, it’s
impossible to make sure that every single kid does well in class. You don’t
give up and when they are not doing my work, well it’s not okay for them
not to do it.
So, my philosophy of education is to reach all of the students through
relationships. It's so interesting, once they know that you care about them,
they go the extra mile for you: by keeping your classroom clean, by
making sure that if you forget to put your objective on the board then you
know the principal comes in and they point at it. And you're like, "oh
damn. They are looking out for me, from doing well on a test all the way
from the smallest thing to the highest. People think that developing a
relationship means, "Oh tell me how is your family?" It doesn’t necessarily
have to be that. When I come to work and you see a kid that comes
different -- their hairdo or something. Just say, "Oh your hairdo looks real
nice." That takes you miles with that kid. Or, "that shirt looks really good
on you." "Oh you look really good today." You know, little things like that
they create a big impact. So, my philosophy of education is that I reach
every single one of them in one way or another. I do believe that each
student, in different forms, they have the potential to do well in different
ways. Some of them are very artistic; you just have to find ways where you
mold your lesson in order for them to appreciate your lesson. They can go
to that artistic, to that kinesthetic, to that critical thinker.
Victor
For me at my school right now I have one on one conversations with young
Latino students and I encourage them and tell them this is our community,
you’re doing a great job right now, stand up, follow what I have done, I can
be your example. Look at what I did resent ... there is something about
them that drives them to me instantly. I do feel that advocacy is a big part
of who I am, because that’s where all of my work has been about from
working with migrant farmer families to interventionist specialist.
I think the school to prison pipeline...the charter school thing is another
way of feeding more kids through that pipeline, because the charter schools
now are; pulling in the best and the brightest, and the others get left at these
schools where there’s less support, less structure. That’s the only path left
they have to go. That’s how I feel about the school to prison pipeline.
The day I went to observe Victor teach I got to see first hand how he
interacts with students rather than sending them to the office. I describe
this experience because it shows his willingness to work with a young
student who happens to be Latino rather than sending him to the office and
the school to prison pipeline is started. Carlos describes the instance with
the young Latino Brother.
I went out there and I first asked him, so I noticed today is different. I
asked is there anything that you noticed that is different. He said, no. I
say... (And usually I had this conversation more with him today and that’s
where I got to the real meat of things because I knew that he was charged
off but maybe being embarrassed and being called out). So you understand
that I have to follow through with my consequences, right? He said, yeah I
get it.
When he came back today he asked my permission do I go back. So I
said no wait outside for me again. So, as I went out there I said lets pick up
where I left off yesterday. So what were you feeling when I asked you to
wait outside. He said, I was feeling a little mad and I was feeling
disappointed that you sent me outside, but I was having a really bad day.
My mom was yelling at me in the morning and I didn't have lot to eat. And
he said I was just having a bad day after that after school, the whole entire
day. And that’s when I said I know, I have you in my class everyday. I
know what your behavior and attitude is like. So I sensed it. So I said what
could we do when you feel that way...when you feel your day is off. He
said well maybe I can ask to take a break outside or maybe I can tell you
more about it. I said because you know that I’m here to support you. I like
having you in class and I want you to succeed. And I always throw in there
if it’s a Latino student I say, you know we have to work together on this
because were a community. I tell them this. I say I want to help you and
they always smile because they know when I say in that genuine way and I
make it short and brief; I don’t lecture them too long. They always come
back to talk or whatever or get advice.
I tell the students is that even if there is no push at home; I tell them that
they have to work hard regardless because I am asking them to work hard.
Because I tell them that once they're in my classroom, I have a certain
expectation and that expectation is very high. I have to fulfill it regardless
of what they feel their ability is. And there are students that I know that
don't have the ability to let's say get straight A's in every subject; but I don’t
try to create a double standard for every student. So, I aim high and I push
them towards that end and I'm satisfied as long as I see the effort towards
that goal. And I think a lot of students for the most part, they know that I
care and because they see that I care and I'm on them constantly they end
up realizing that even if their parents don't care they know when they come
to school that I'm still going to push them and in the end they have to push
themselves.
Carlos and Victor value what students bring to the classroom in terms of
their cultural backgrounds and experiences. The teaching philosophy of
“expand, expand, expand” presumes that what students begin with is of
positive value and has worth in the classroom—he has to help students
expand from something of value, and students bring with them into the
classroom that something of value to be expanded. Accordingly, like they
do not draw on assumptions of cultural or moral inferiority in their
teaching. Just like the long tradition of Black educators, for example,
(DuBois, 1924, 1935, 1973; Hilliard, 1997; Horsford, 2009), they accept
where their students are when they enter their classrooms, even if it is the
narrowest of attitudes, and helps them to build from that point toward their
goals. They sees their role as one of helping students resist that dominant,
business-as-usual expectation in public schools that they be pushed out of
classrooms.
Pointedly, they know they have to help their students to expand toward
fulfillment of their dreams and goals. They use teaching as a way to help
their students to take the appropriate steps between articulating a life dream
and making that life dream a reality. Positive relationships between them
and their students are a priority (Delpit, 1986, 1988, 1995, 2006; Horsford,
2009).
Carlos and Victor are teaching much more than the delivery of academic
facts in a content area. Recognizing and affirming the challenges that their
students, particularly Black males and Latinos students face in classrooms,
they attempt to break the cycle of Black and Brown youth being funneled
out of school and into the streets and into prisons by talking with them and
helping them to develop strategies for the disrespect he recognizes as
legitimate in the lives of these young students. As Hayes, Juarez and Cross
(2012) put it, they are not, Carlos and Victor, interested in not only
academic content and test scores but also in “the souls of kids.”
Discussion: What Can We Learn from Malcolm, Victor and Carlos
For the purposes of this paper, I draw upon the works of Paulo Freire
(1973), Gloria Ladson Billings (1994), Lisa Delpit (1996), Audre Lorde
(1984) and others to develop my working definition of transformative
pedagogy. Transformative pedagogy refers to an approach or philosophy of
teaching accompanied by practices that enable students to develop the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions to navigate within, provide sociopolitical critique of, and foster democratic change within conditions of
historical White supremacy. I follow Leonardo (2005) in defining White
supremacy as “a racialized social system that upholds, reifies, and
reinforces the superiority of Whites” (p. 127).
As I define it, transformative pedagogy has three major components.
First, there is equity. Equity is equal access to the most challenging and
nourishing educational experience. We can learn from these three guys
that, equity is more than equal representation or physical presence within an
educational program for example. Educational equity refers to full
participation as a recognized member of a community. The students at
these three respective schools had educational inequities; however, we can
learn that those inequities did not stop them from providing a rigorous
educational experience, one that was not necessarily banking in nature, to
their students (Delgado Bernal & Solorzano, 2001; Hayes, 2006; Hayes,
Juarez & Cross, 2012).
Second, there is activism. Activism is a part of transformative pedagogy
because it entails preparing students to actively reinsert themselves into
public spaces and dialogues to help them gain access to the valued
resources and opportunities they have been either excluded from or denied.
This activism demands that students have an understanding of the inequities
in society and the “how to,” in terms of beginning to fix those inequities if
necessary.
Lastly, transformative pedagogy as I define it is about social literacy.
Social literacy is preparing students to acquire the discourse or language
necessary to resist the fattening effects of materialism, consumerism, and
the power of the abiding evils of White supremacy-nourishing an awareness
of one’s identity (Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009; hooks, 1995; Quijada
Cercer et. al, 2010).
If we are to bridge the Black-White performance disparities in education
that plague our public schools, we must find a different way, a new path, an
alternative journey (Ross, Bondy, Gallingane, & Hambacher, 2008).
Theorizing our lessons and the experiences we draw from allows us to
begin imagining and creating a different path and approach to education not
grounded in assumptions of Black inferiority and White superiority. The
lessons from these three men thus provide the understandings that
policymakers need to make sense of why traditionally dominant ways of
teaching those students on the margins continue to fail (Knaus, 2009;
O’Connor, 2006; Ware, 2006).
There is no magical potion or recipe that pre-service teachers can take or
use that will tell them how to change failing schools. I use the term “warm
demanders” to describe the three of them. What we can learn from these
three teachers through their pedagogy is a no-nonsense approach to
education for those who are expected to fail in school.
Unfortunately, high expectations, no-nonsensical approaches, and
culturally familiar communication patterns to education have largely been
replaced with “at-risk,” “low performing,” and “poverty” and other deficitoriented adjectives used to describe African American learners. Teacher
education programs likewise turn to scripted programs, for example, Ruby
Payne framed in the apparently multicultural discourse of “if we could all
just get along approach” presented as solutions to the tenacious gap in
achievement and school performance evidenced between white students and
students of color (Bonner, 2010).
If there is one take-away from this section, according to Ware (2006),
culturally and politically responsive teachers teach with authority, a form of
teaching that includes teaching to the whole child as a member of a
particular social group situated within a particular context and history.
However, being a warm demander is more than coming into the classroom
and demanding a checklist of certain behaviors from students. Effective
teaching of African American students is not about implementing a
particular step-by-step remedy plan. Black and Latino kids, for example,
see White teachers arrive in their communities, stand up before them
attempting to teach them a curriculum that is already pre-determined and
defined in terms of what they need to know. Consequently, the students
can in turn answer questions on a standardized test that are likely to have
little to no bearing on their actual lived experiences and realities. The
teachers, in turn, do not have any connection to their students and neither
does the curriculum they are attempting to teach (Ross, Bondy, Gallingane,
& Hambacher, 2008).
Teachers cannot be warm demanders by doing drive-by teaching.
Teachers must be invested in, deeply familiar with, and able to find and
draw on the richness and beauty of the communities they teach in.
Teachers must not go into communities with the mentality to save the
students from themselves, their parents, their culture, or their history and
thus miss the resiliency, richness, and beauty of the ways groups and
individuals have learned to cope and thrive within a historical context of
near constant race-based hostility and forms of micro-aggressions,
sabotage, and assault perpetrated by dominant society.
Conclusion
Black and Latino Gay educators of color have been successfully educating
students and leaders for generations now! In today’s educational parlance,
we are always talking about these “hard to teach” kids as if it is so very
impossible. The education community needs to look to the source of
information—those who have accomplished this apparently impossible feat,
for wisdom and knowledge about how we too might do this thing that
previously seemed an impossible task and when I spend time with these
three men, I clearly see their dedication to improving the lived experiences
of their students. Malcolm states, “ while many gay folk are on this
marriage band-wagon, there are Black and Brown kids headed to prison, the
school to prison pipeline, teachers coming into schools not prepared to
educate “my kids,” the gay agenda is not my agenda.”
Lastly, I suggest that there is much more to be learned from the lived
experiences and teaching practices of these three gay men of color and the
intersections they navigate as they are committed to social justice both in
the classrooms they teach in as well as their “gay” lives. Malcolm shared “I
am glad that DOMA was repealed but I can not help by mourn the ruling on
the Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, and Policies on Immigration that
impact my community. I can get married by I can’t vote or the
undocumented student in my class cannot go to college.”
The three participants discussed in detail that racism is an endemic part
of American society and that they have to contend and combat assumptions
of Black and Brown inferiority not only in their teaching but also within the
gay community. A recurring conversation that emerged was the absences
of men of color in the teaching profession in general and gay men of color
in particular as well in the larger gay community (Dejean, 2010; Gillborn,
2005).
All three participants shared their frustrations with the assumptions that
we live in a meritocracy. Malcolm, Carlos and Victor share how they try to
get their students of color to understand that working hard is not enough
and Malcolm stated that he is in constant battle with colleagues who say
that it is. For example, students of color on a continuous basis are
systematically excluded from education and the opportunities it provides.
Merit operates under the burden of racism, which limits its applicability to
people of color (Bergerson, 2003).
The three men in the study, all described the importance of drawing on
their experiential knowledge and that of their students. They shared that it
was important for others in both the teaching profession and the gay
community to recognize their knowledge is legitimate, appropriate, and
critical to them as they navigate in a society grounded in racial
subordination and sexual subordination.
It is my hope that this research will assist educators, policy makers, and
vested others in comprehending the social justice-oriented teaching
approaches that these three teachers have historically employed to foster the
academic success of all students and to offer a vision of a more socially just
society and oh they happen to be gay. Until we, as an education community
begin viewing the world through a lens that is grounded in anti-racist
struggle, this includes the anti-racist struggle in the gay community and
does not affirm assumptions of Black inferiority and White superiority, to
include the gay community, not only will we continue to fail in our public
schools and the dream of an equal education for all students will remain yet
elusive (Blanchett, 2006; Cross, 2003; Delpit, 2006; Horsford, 2009).
References
Anzaldua, G. E. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San
Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
Ayers, W., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (2009). Handbook of social justice in
education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bergerson, A.A. (2003). Critical race theory and white racism: Is there
room for white scholars in fighting racism in education?
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16 (1), 5163. doi:10.1080/0951839032000033527
Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African
American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of
White privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X035006024
Bonner, F. A. (2010). Focusing on achievement: African American student
persistence in the academy. In Strayhorn, T. L. & Terrell, M. C.
(Eds.). The Evolving Challenges of Black College Students, (pp. 6684). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Brockenbrough, E. (2013). Introduction to the special issue: Queers of color
and anti-oppressive knowledge production. Curriculum Inquiry,
43(4), 426 – 440. doi: 10.1111/curi.12023
Brockenbrough, E. (2012). Agency and abjection in the closet: the voices
(and silences) of Black queer males teachers. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25 (6), 741 – 765. doi:
10.1080/09518398.2011.590157
Brown, A. L. (2009). Brothers gonna work it out:” Understanding the
pedagogic performance of African American male teachers working
with African American male students. Urban Review, 41, 416–435.
doi: 10.1007/s11256-009-0123-4
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and
mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cross, B. (2003). Learning or unlearning racism. Transferring Teacher
Education Curriculum to Classroom Practices, Theory into Practice,
42(3), 203-209.
DeJean, W. (2010). Courageous conversations: Reflections on a queer life
narrative model. The Teacher Educator, 45, 233 – 243. doi:
10.1080/08878730.2010.508262
Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for
narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. Retrieved from
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction.
New York, NY: University Press.
Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive Black
educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379–385. Retrieved
from http://her.hepg.org/content/674v5h1m125h3014/
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating
other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–
298. Retrieved from http://her.hepg.org/content/c43481778r528qw4/
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. Cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.
Delpit, L. (1996). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York: The New Press.
Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,
57(3), 220–230. doi: 10.1177/0022487105285966
Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2006). And we are still not saved:
Critical race theory in education ten years later. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 8(1), 7–27. doi:10.1080/1361332052000340971
DuBois, W. E. B. (1924). The Souls of Black Folk. Boston, MA: Stratford.
DuBois, W. E. B. (1935). Does the Negro need separate schools? Journal of
Negro Education, 4(3), 328–335. Retrieved from:
DuBois, W. E. B. (1973). The Education of Black People: Ten Critiques,
1906–1960. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant
teaching. In J. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks, (Eds.), Handbook of
research on multicultural education (pp. 570–581). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Foster, M. (1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York, NY: The New
Press.
Frankenberg, R. (1997). Displacing Whiteness. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Freire, P. (1973). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and
practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gillborn, D. (2005). Educational Policy as an act of White Supremacy:
whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of
Education Policy, 20 (4), 485-505. doi:
doi:10.1080/02680930500132346
Gomez, M.L., Rodriguez, T.L., & Agosto, V. (2008). Who are Latino
prospective teachers and what do they bring to US school? Race
Ethnicity and Education, 11(3), 267 – 283. doi:
10.1080/13613320802291165
Harris, C. (1995). Whiteness as property. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G.
Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.). Critical race theory: The key writings
that formed the movement (pp 276–291). New York, NY: The New
Press.
Hayes, C. (2006). Why we teach: Storying the lives of Black family of
Mississippi Educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Hayes, C. & Juarez, B.G. (2012). There is no culturally responsive
teaching spoken here: A Critical Race Perspective. Democracy and
Education, 20(1), article 1. Retrieved from
http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol20/iss1/1
Hayes, C., Juarez, B., & Cross, P.T. (2012). What can we learn from Big
Mama? Critical Education, 2(14), 1 - 22. Retrieved from
http://m1.cust.educ.ubc.ca/journal/index.php/criticaled/article/view/1
62.
Hilliard, A. G. III. (1997). Teacher education from an African American
perspective. In J. J. Irvine (Ed.), Critical Knowledge for Diverse
Teachers and Learners (pp. 125–148). Washington, DC: AACTE.
Hopkins, P. E. (2007). Positionalites and knowledge: Negotiating ethics in
practice. An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3),
386–394. Retrieved from http://www.acme-journal.org/vol6/
PEH.pdf
hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston, MA: South
End Press.
Horsford, S. D. (2009). From Negro student to Black superintendent:
Counternarratives on segregation and desegregation. Journal of
Negro Education, 78(2), 172–187. Retrived from:
Johnson, K. A. (2000). Uplifting the women and the race: The lives and
educational philosophies and social activism of Anna Julia Cooper
and Nannie Helen Burroughs. New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, T., Boyden, J. E., & Pittz, W. (Eds.). (2001). Racial Profiling and
Punishment in U.S. public schools: How zero tolerance policies and
high stakes testing subvert academic excellence and racial equity.
Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
King, S. H. (1993). The limited presence of African American teachers.
Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 115–149. doi:
10.3102/00346543063002115
King, J. (2005). Black education: A transformative research and action
agenda for the new century. New York, NY: Routledge.
Knaus, C.B. (2009). Shut up and listen: Applied critical race theory in the
classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 133 – 154. doi:
10.1080/13613320902995426
Knight, M., Norton, N., Bentley, C., & Dixon, I. (2004). The power of
Black and Latina/o counterstories: Urban families and college-going
processes. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99–120.
doi: 10.1525/aeq.2004.35.1.99
Kohli, R. (2009). Critical race reflections: Valuing the experiences of
teachers of color in teacher education. Race Ethnicity and Education,
12(2), 235–251. doi: 10.1080/13613320902995491
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dream keepers: Successful teachers of
African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant
pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
doi: 10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what is it
doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24. doi:
10.1080/095183998236863
Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory – What it is not! In M.
Lynn & A.D. Dixson (Eds.). Handbook of Critical Race Theory in
Education (pp. 34 – 47). New York, Routledge.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, Whiteness and education. New York:
Routledge.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider. Berkley, CA: The Crossing Press.
Lynn, M. (2002). Critical race theory and the perspectives of Black men
teachers in the Los Angeles public schools, Equity and Excellence in
Education, 35, 119–130. doi: 10.1080/713845287
Lynn, M. (2006a). Dancing between two worlds: a portrait of the life of a
Black male teacher in South Central LA. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(2), 221–242. doi:
10.1080/09518390600576111
Lynn, M. (2006b). Education for the community: Exploring the culturally
relevant practices of Black male teachers. Teachers College Record,
108(12), 2497–2522. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/
content.asp? contentid=12851
Lynn, M. (2004). Inserting the “race” into critical pedagogy: An analysis of
“race-based epistemologies.” Educational Philosophy and Theory,
36(2), 153–165. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2004.00058.x
Lynn, M., & Jennings, M. E. (2009). Power, politics, and critical race
theory: A critical race analysis of Black male teachers’ pedagogy,
Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 173–196. doi:
10.1080/13613320902995467
Lynn, M., Johnson, C., & Hassan, K. (1999). Raising the critical
consciousness of African American students in Baldwin Hills: A
portrait of an Exemplary African American Male Teacher. Journal of
Negro Education, 68(1), 42–53. doi: 10.2307/2668208
McCready, L.T. (2013). Conclusion to the special issue: Queer of color
analysis: Interruptions and pedagogic possibilities. Curriculum
Inquiry, 43(4), 512 – 522. doi: 10.1111/curi.12024
McCray, A., Sindelar, P., Kilgore, K., & Neal, L. (2002). African
American women’s decisions to become teachers: Sociocultural
perspectives. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(3), 269–290. doi:
10.1080/09518390210122845
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working
through dangers, seen, unseen and unforeseen. Educational
Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07309471
O’Connor, C. (2006). The premise of Black inferiority: An enduring
obstacle fifty years post Brown. In A Ball (Ed.), With more
deliberate speed: Achieving equity and excellence in education—
Realizing the full potential of Brown v. Board of Education (pp. 316–
336). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Quijada Cerecer, P. D., Gutiérrez Alvarez, L., & Rios, F. (2010). Critical
multiculturalism: Transformative educational principles and
practices. In T.K. Chapman & N. Hobbel (Eds.), Social justice
pedagogy across the curriculum: The practice of freedom (pp. 144–
163). New York, NY: Routledge.
Parsons, E. (2008). Positionality of African Americans and a theoretical
accommodation of it: Rethinking science education research. Science
Education, 92(6), 1127–1144. doi: 10.1002/sce.20273
Ross, D. D., Bondy, E., Gallingane, C. & Hambacher, E. (2008). Promoting
academic engagement through insistence: Being a warm demander.
Childhood Education, 84(3), 142–146. doi: 10.1080/00094056.2008.
10522992
Ross, M.B. (2005). Beyond the closet: A raceless paradigm. In E. P
Johnson and M.G Henderson (Eds). Black Queer Studies (pp. 161 –
189), Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Russ, T.L., Simonds, C.J., & Hunt, S.K. (2002). Coming out in the
classroom…An occupational hazard?: The influence of sexual
orientation on teacher credibility and perceived student learning.
Communication Education, 51(3), 311 – 324. doi:
10.1080/03634520216516
Sarmiento, L.E & Vasquez, S.A (2010). Abriendo Puertas (Opening Doors)
through writing. The Teacher Educator, 45, 273 – 286. doi:
10.1080/08878730.2010.508307
Siddle Walker, V. (1996). Their highest potential: An African American
school community in the segregated south. Chapel Hill, NC: The
University of North Carolina Press.
Siddle Walker, V. (2001). African American teaching in the South: 1940 –
1960. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 751–779. doi:
10.3102/00028312038004751
Sleeter, C., & Delgago Bernal, D. (2002). Critical pedagogy, critical race
theory, and antiracist education: Implications for multicultural
education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Multicultural Education, 2nd ed., San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Solórzano, D., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Examining transformative
resistance through a Critical Race and LatCrit framework: Chicana
and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban Education, 36(3),
308–342. doi: 10.1177/0042085901363002
Solórzano, D., & Yosso, T. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counterstorytelling as an analytical framework for education research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. doi: 10.1177/107780040200800103
Stovall, D. (2004). School leader as negotiator: Critical race theory, praxis,
and the creation of productive space. Multicultural Education, 12(2),
8–12. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ781916.pdf
Stovall, D., Lynn, M., Danley, L., & Martin, D. (2009). Critical race praxis
in education. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 12(2), 131–132. doi:
10.1080/13613320902995418
Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and
implications. Review of Research in Education, 22, 195–247. doi:
10.3102/0091732X022001195
Valdez, G. & Elsbree, A.R. (2005). Queer coyotes: Transforming education
to be more accepting, affirming and supportive of queer individuals.
Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(3), 171 – 192. doi:
10.1207/s1532771xjle0403_3
Ware, F. (2002). Black teachers’ perceptions of their professional roles and
practices. In J. J. Irvine (Ed.), In search of wholeness: African
American teachers and their culturally specific classroom practices
(pp. 33–46). New York, NY: Palgrave.
Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: Culturally responsive teaching
that supports a culture of achievement for African American
Students. Urban Education, 41(4), 427–456. doi:
10.1177/0042085906289710
Woodson, C. G. (1933/1998). The mis-education of the Negro. Trenton, NJ,
Africa World Press
Yamamoto, E. K. (1997). Critical race praxis: Race theory and political
lawyering practice in post civil rights America. Michigan Law
Review, 95(4), 821. Retrieved from:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mlr95
&div=36&id=&page=
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory
discussion on community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and
Education, 8(1), 69–91. doi: 10.1080/1361332052000341006
Yosso, T. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano
educational pipeline. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zarate, M. E., & Conchas, G. Q. (2010). Contemporary and critical
methodological shifts in research on Latino education. In E. G.
Murillo, Jr., S. A. Villenas, R. T Galván, J. S. Muñoz, C. Martínez, &
M. Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education:
Theory, research and practice (pp. 90–108). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Cleveland Hayes is an Associate Professor in the College of
Education and Organizational Leadership at University of La Verne.
Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Cleveland Hayes, College
of Education and Organizational Leadership, University of La Verne,
1950 Third Street La Verne, 91750, Canada, email:
[email protected]
When man falls provider. Masculinity, unemployment and
psychological distress in the family. A methodology for the
search of affective normalization.
Juan Antonio Rodriguez del Pino1
1) Universidad de Valencia, Spain
th
To cite this article: Rodriguez, J.A. (2014). When man falls provider. Masculinity,
unemployment and psychological distress in the family. A methodology for the search
of affective normalization. Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (2), 173-190. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2014. 49
173-190
When man Falls Provider.
Masculinity, Unemployment and
Psychological Distress in the
Family. A Methodology for the
Search of Affective normalization
Juan Antonio Rodriguez del Pino
Universidad de Valencia, Spain
Abstract
An item that has equipped the masculinity of its traditional hegemonic character has
been there presentation of man as immediate major supplier of their environment,
than it has historically legitimized in their role as pater familias with all that that en
tailed. But this may change in men, with the economic crisis, have lost their jobs
and, therefore, the system of domination believed immutable, shows some cracks.
This has involved in some countries certain relocation with respect to a changing
environment and fail to control sharpening the sense of "loss". Through a
methodology used in new ways, men are seen in perspective. Based on their ability
to connect with the subjectivity that had been severed, are rewritten from a new
model of relationship to themselves and their environments..
Keywords: masculinity, unemployment, unease; family; methodology
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.49
173-190
Cuando Cae el Hombre Proveedor.
Masculinidad, Desempleo y
Malestar Psicosocial en la Familia.
Una Metodología para la Búsqueda
de la Normalización Afectiva.
Juan Antonio Rodriguez del Pino
Universidad de Valencia, Spain
Resumen
Un elemento que ha dotado a la masculinidad de parte de su carácter hegemónico
tradicional, ha sido la representación del hombre como proveedor principal de su
entorno más inmediato, lo que históricamente le ha legitimado en su rol como pater
familias, con todo lo que ello conllevaba. Pero esta situación puede cambiar en
hombres que, con la crisis económica, han perdido sus empleos y, por tanto, el
sistema de dominación que se creía inmutable, muestra ciertas grietas. Esto ha
implicado en algunos de ellos cierta desubicación con respecto a un entorno
cambiante y que no logran controlar agudizando la sensación de “pérdida”. A través
de una metodología usada de manera novedosa, los hombres se observan en
perspectiva. Partiendo de su capacidad para conectar con la subjetividad que había
sido cercenada, se reescriben desde un nuevo modelo de relación para con sí mismos
y con sus entornos.
Palabras clave: masculinidad, desempleo, malestar, familia, metodología
2014 Hipatia Press
ISSN: 2014-3605
DOI: 10.4471/MCS.49
175 Rodríguez del Pino – Hombre proveedor
C
uando se habla de género o de la relación entre hombres y
mujeres, el concepto de patriarcado es una herramienta
imprescindible para entender y explicar la desigualdad instalada
en la historia de nuestra sociedad (Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011; Beneria en
Martín, 2006; Rodríguez, 2013).
El término patriarcado, es decir, poder o gobierno por parte del padre -y
por extensión, de todos los hombres-, está muy relacionado, a su vez, con el
término género. Así, para Molina, el género es una construcción de ese
patriarcado y una categoría que permite descubrir las relaciones de poder
existentes (Molina en Tubert, 2003, p.126). El patriarcado, por tanto, es el
poder que se observa al asignar los espacios sociales tanto a las mujeres
como a los hombres. Asigna espacios y otorga valor y posee autoridad para
nombrar y establecer las diferencias. El género, así entendido, por tanto,
expresa diferencias de poder pero también las produce a través del discurso
sobre las diferencias.
Para Molina, el patriarcado plantea una característica polifacética y
precisa para perpetuarse en el tiempo “el reconocimiento y la complicidad,
en cierto modo, de las mujeres” (Molina en Tubert, 2003, p.143) que
aceptan los modelos de lo femenino como inevitable e incluso necesario.
Las mujeres son alejadas del poder -es el conocido como techo de cristal-,
pero a cambio, a través del patriarcado se les asignan unos valores y roles
sociales propios. Mediante la mística de la maternidad se busca obtener un
doble objetivo, por un lado, asumir de manera consentida la sujeción y, por
otro lado, con la crianza, se convierten en salvaguarda y mantenedoras de
las tradiciones.
Lo indicado para la mujer, no es exclusivo de ella, sino de ambos. Así la
forma en la que se construye la subjetividad de una mujer o de un hombre,
su manera de ser, de qué disfruta, de qué padece, de qué habla y de qué
calla, es una construcción socio-histórica, que se escribe como guión con
discursos y con prácticas, sobre la realidad material de los cuerpos: “Estos
discursos y prácticas sociales se hacen carne en las personas concretas,
cómo se expresan en la vida cotidiana, cómo se expresan en una manera de
ser hombre y una manera de ser mujer que genera muchísimo malestar,
sufrimiento y dolor. Mecanismos que son afines al sostenimiento y
reproducción de las condiciones del sistema” (Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011,
p.3).
El Patriarcado como Instrumento del Capitalismo
Resulta obvio que el patriarcado no es un constructo del capitalismo pero sí
que ha mostrado una gran capacidad de desarrollo en este contexto. Esto es
debido a que el Estado en su concepción moderna surge tras la revolución
francesa y se va desarrollando a lo largo del siglo XIX a través de la
sociedad burguesa paulatinamente imperante. Pero este Estado Nación
decimonónico había excluido a las mujeres de la ciudadanía. El Código
Civil Napoleónico que sirvió de modelo a muchos países, relegó a las
mujeres al ámbito doméstico.
La igualdad, que era una meta política central de los sistemas
democráticos y liberales, hacía de la desigualdad de hecho de las mujeres
frente a la igualdad ante la ley una realidad que el Estado debía asumir
(Astelarra, 2005, p.59).
Desde esta perspectiva, resulta interesante observar como a partir ciertos
posicionamientos investigadores se plantea el binomio patriarcadocapitalismo y, desde aquí, entender cómo se “fabrica el hombre y la mujer
capitalista (…) para lo cual, será necesario identificar en la vida cotidiana
nuestros comportamientos para no luchar por la autonomía, a la vez que en
la cotidianidad de nuestras vidas reproducimos la propuesta del
individualismo que niega y mutila cualquier atisbo de autonomía,
articulando una socialidad que despliega relaciones de poder donde se pone
en juego la construcción misma del individuo social” (Cucco, 2013, p.5).
En este sentido desde la lógica del capital, que subsume las herencias del
patriarcado, se tejen con minuciosa obscenidad los destinos de la
subjetividad de hombres y mujeres. Se necesita de los sujetos ideológicos
buscados que reproduzcan y den continuidad a su orden. Se necesita
encadenar las subjetividades a los designios de la obtención de beneficios,
encadenamiento que queda invisibilizado detrás de una naturalización de
comportamientos disociados de sus causas; situación por otra parte, que
cuenta con la complicidad de gran parte de las miradas de las ciencias
psicológicas y sociales. Es desde estos parámetros como:
El capitalismo para ser necesita de hombres y mujeres enteramente
capitalistas, pero para lograr esto fue necesaria una profunda metamorfosis,
primero a sangre y fuego y luego disciplinando las subjetividades hacia la
aceptación pasiva, cuando no anhelada del horror civilizado. (Cucco, 2013,
p. 5)
En el modelo planteado patriarcal-capitalista, el reparto de funciones
entre hombres y mujeres está claramente estructurado, al igual que ocurre
con la distribución de espacios, público y privado, y así, “pasó tiempo hasta
que se planteó el trabajo asalariado y el trabajo invisible de las mujeres
articulando el rol de proveedor-ganador de pan y el de ama de casa, especie
de policía al interno del hogar para garantizar el cuidado del asalariado y de
los futuros asalaraditos” (Cucco, 2013, p.5).
Para Cucco, es necesario “levantar la mirada; esto ha de ser
comprendido en su génesis dentro de la devastadora acción del capitalismo
extendido, que es el contexto que se hace texto en la articulación del “ser
hombre hoy” (Cucco, 2013, p.2-3). Ello implica comprender la presencia de
una subsunción de todos los niveles de la vida humana a un orden
civilizatorio mercantil. García Linera (2010, p.22) cuando habla de las
acciones para la transformación social, dice al respect
(…) En segundo lugar, lo que se tiene que superar ya no sólo es el dominio
económico del capital, sino el orden civilizatorio del capital, la materia del
capital, la cultura, la organización del trabajo, el tiempo, la sexualidad, la
educación, el ocio, el conocimiento, la locura, la fuerza militar, la relación
política, la institucionalidad del Estado, las fuerzas productivas, la
conciencia del capital, la socialidad y humanidad del capital. De aquí
proviene, entonces, una conclusión decisiva: la magnitud de la obra en
extensión y profundidad es tal que sólo se la puede llevar como despliegue
autodeterminativo directo, en todos los terrenos posibles del cuerpo social,
de los miembros de la sociedad sobre sus relaciones de vida.
Por otro lado, María Jesús Izquierdo siguiendo a Marx afirma que:
Bajo el capitalismo, el trabajador ya no es un ser humano que trabaja, sino
mercancía – fuerza de trabajo, capacidad abstracta de trabajar. El “trabajo
necesario” de la “fuerza de trabajo” es aquel trabajo abstracto, socialmente
necesario, que le permite a “la fuerza de trabajo” existir como fuerza de
trabajo, no como ser humano. No cabe hablar de trabajadores, y mucho
menos de seres humanos que trabajan, sino de capacidad abstracta de
trabajar, haciendo abstracción del trabajador a quien pertenece y de las
condiciones familiares en que la misma se ha producido.
(Izquierdo, 1998, p. 231)
Esto genera una serie de cuestionamientos tales como: “¿No nos
encontramos hoy con la naturalización de “vivir para trabajar” articulando
cada vez más sarcásticamente desde la obscenidad neoliberal y
globalizadora, la inevitabilidad de la inestabilidad, de la entrega total de los
tiempos, de la brutal competitividad del sálvese quien pueda, de las
soledades embrutecidas del emprendimiento individualista cada vez más
enajenante?” (Cucco, 2013, p.8-9).
Ante lo cual afirma: “La necesidad de considerar el capitalismo
extendido en la urdimbre de la sociabilidad cotidiana y las relaciones de
poder que allí se expresan, no solo en las cuestiones de género sino también
en pautas de crianza y modos relacionales; ya que tras la apariencia de
intercambio pacífico se ocultan relaciones de poder y opresión” (Cucco,
2013, p.10-11); reforzando, a su vez, posicionamientos parecidos de otros
autores:
La sociabilidad del mercado impone un tipo de cooperación cuya sustancia
es la competencia. Para ello, debe arrancar primero a las personas de sus
lazos comunitarios enfrentándolas después, individualizadas y competitivas,
unas contra otras. Tras una ideologíade democracia, igualdad, tolerancia y
derechos humanos, esta sociabilidad antisocial, produce un orden basado en
la guerra de todos contra todos, la reproducción de la desigualdad y el poder
de unos sobre otros. (Morán, 2006 citado en Cucco, 2013, p.4.)
Un Modelo Retroalimentado Materno-Paterno-Filial
Este modelo así establecido, encarna aspectos nucleares funcionales a los
inicios y desarrollo de la lógica capitalista y la subsunción de los postulados
patriarcales. Así, Cucco afirma que:
El papel del hombre y de la mujer pueden ser representados simbólicamente
como aspas que se cruzan en un juego donde la mujer está arriba (aspa
izquierda) y el hombre abajo (aspa derecha). Ella hace de cuidadora de
hombre e hijos (“mi marido como otro niño más”). Luego el hombre está
arriba y la mujer abajo (aspa izquierda), él hace de jefe de familia, de
sostén y sustento, y ella queda aquí en situación de sumisión y
dependencia (“de la obediencia al padre a la obediencia al marido”).
Articulan un modelo que, tomando la metáfora de las “medias naranjas”,
implica la complementariedad de un juego de dependencias mutuas
(Cucco, 2010, p.13)
Desde este modelo de cosmovisión, el hombre dependerá de alguien que
le cuide para ser trabajador eficaz. Mientras que la mujer precisará de
alguien que la mantenga para poder cumplir su función doméstica y de
cuidados (trabajo invisible). El sistema necesita que se necesiten. Ellos
están dispuestos a pagar precios muy altos por el beneficio de “seguir
juntos”. Sostienen una sexualidad a oscuras, robada al tiempo y al pecado.
La mujer está centrada en los hijos, la casa, lo doméstico. El hombre en el
trabajo. Ella se queja, pero está muy instalada en su lugar. Él calla, aguanta
con una falsa conciencia de comodidad (Cucco, 2010, p.14).
Para compensar el grado de enajenación que supone ser hombre =
trabajador = mercancía, respondiendo a los fines capitalistas (con la
consiguiente subsunción de herencias patriarcales), se le otorgan privilegios
que lo colocan en una situación de poder respecto a las mujeres. Su
inserción en el mercado de trabajo con el rol asignado de sostén familiar le
acarrea un fuerte peso y deterioro. Frente a ello el hombre tiene vedada la
queja desde su rol asignado de su “ser fuerte” y desde la culpabilidad frente
a sus privilegios. Esto sentará las bases de una problemática silenciada
(Cucco, 2010, p.8).
Por esta razón, se parte de la consideración de que los consensos
instituidos no desaparecen fácilmente, y perduran en sus efectos a pesar de
los cambios en las condiciones sociales y materiales. Liberarse de los
aspectos instituidos que son parte constituyente de nosotros y nosotras
mismos/as implica, por tanto, dentro de la intervención social realizar
acciones específicas y de modo propositivo, ya que supone estar trabajando
sobre temas que nos atraviesan de parte a parte.
Pero como señala Mirtha Cucco, “Si los cambios político-sociales no
caminan junto a la liberación de la psiquis del individuo, si se apuesta por
lo social negando la subjetividad, toda construcción va a ser autoritaria”. Se
plantea desarrollar la capacidad reflexiva que implica la capacidad de
ponerse en cuestión “más allá de lo permitido por el orden establecido
hegemónico no saludable” (Cucco, 2010, p.15).
Los Hombres y la Problemática Silenciada
Lo interesante aquí es observar cómo, desde estos planteamientos, el orden
social impuesto desde el sistema capitalista en las relaciones mujereshombres afecta de manera diferente a ambos.
Si por un lado, para las mujeres, autoras como Di Nicola, entre otras,
denunciaban la situación que conllevaba la denominada mística de la
maternidad, donde se busca obtener un doble objetivo, por un lado, asumir
de manera consentida la sujeción y, por otro lado, con la crianza, se
convierten en salvaguarda y mantenedoras de las tradiciones (Di Nicola,
1991, p.25). Por otro, para los hombres, se reafirma la idea de que: “El
hombre, en la apariencia de no tener la carga de los niños y la casa, no tiene
peso visible, por tanto es un privilegiado, el hombre es “superior y
poderoso”, ser trabajador y estar fuera de casa es un privilegio, el hombre
no tiene carga. Por tanto si es un privilegiado, no puede denunciar sus
malestares, ya que de ese modo “atentaría” contra sus privilegios”
(Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011, p.8).
Siguiendo lo propuesto por Fernández (1993) la oposición entre lo
público y lo privado entró en la lista de polaridades, junto con razón –
sentimientos, inteligencia – intuición, palabra – emoción, poder – afecto,
producción – consumo, eficacia – donación. Todos los últimos términos de
esas polaridades se hallarían regidos por el principio constitutivo de la
moderna vida privada: la sujeción de la mujer a la familia, a través del
ingreso del hombre a la producción de lo público, sea por medio del trabajo,
del poder o del lenguaje. La mujer a cambio se hallará a cargo de la
producción del mundo privado y la racionalidad del espacio que es el de los
sentimientos (Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011, p.6).
Para estos autores, el hombre es un ser que implica un deber ser, que se
impone sin discusión: “ser hombre es equivalente a estar instalado de golpe
en una posición que implica poderes y privilegios, pero también deberes: el
privilegio masculino es también una trampa” (Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011,
p.8). Y por tanto, todas estas condiciones generan una problemática que no
se piensa y de la que por ende, no se habla. Es lo que vienen en denominar:
“Problemática silenciada del hombre”, la cual, genera altos grados de
sufrimiento tanto en hombres como en mujeres, haciendo indispensable su
visibilización y su trabajo. Así, para Alfredo Waisblat y Ana Sáenz,
La subjetividad del hombre queda encerrada en su cárcel de “trabajador
eficaz”, de proveedor de la familia, y desde allí, será mejor padre y hombre,
cuanto más y mejor sea lo que lleve a casa. Esa será su tarea fundamental, y
uno de los signos más preponderantes de su identidad. El trabajo asalariado
de hoy, es heredero de toda esta violencia, implica las expropiaciones del
hombre antes mencionadas, y la Invisibilización de las condiciones de
construcción de este “trabajador”. Pero de todos modos, como esto es
invisible, no puede oponerse a los supuestos privilegios que el hombre tiene
“por derecho”, no se puede quejar, no puede expresar su malestar ni sus
emociones (es requisito indispensable desafectivizarlo para que pueda
soportar todo este “horror civilizado”) ya que cualquier queja atentaría
contra su posición privilegiada, tal como se plantea en los Supuestos Falsos.
(Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011, p.8)
Se trata, por tanto, “de un hombre que fue construido desde las lógicas
de un ser omnipotente, activo, fuerte, y capacitado para enfrentarse con lo
público de un modo privilegiado, con los códigos adecuados para el
aprendizaje, competitivo, jerárquico y con lazos sociales precarios”
Desde este punto de vista, la construcción del “trabajador asalariado
eficaz” (ganador de pan) conlleva, además, otros atributos sociales
valorables tales como el hecho de tener que ser fuerte, rudo, sin
sentimientos, identidad construida desde el tomar, poseer, afirmarse usando
la fuerza si es preciso, alejándole al hombre del ámbito familiar y, por tanto,
de los hijos. El valor del padre tiene que ver con el dinero que puede
conseguir (posteriormente tendrá que ver con esto y con el éxito). “Con el
salario adquiere una posición objetiva de poder, pero enajenado” (Waisblat
& Sáenz, 2011, p.11).
Desde esta perspectiva, Alfredo Waisblat afirma que, “toda la
subjetividad del hombre queda transformada en fuerza de trabajo, la
expresión de la riqueza de lo humano, queda subsumida en categorías
económicas, y expresada en las mismas” (Waisblat, 2013, p.4).
La identidad del hombre queda encerrada en su cárcel de “trabajador
eficaz”, de proveedor de la familia, y desde allí, será mejor padre y hombre
cuanto más y mejor sea lo que lleve a casa. Esa será su tarea fundamental, y
uno de los signos más preponderantes de su identidad. El trabajo asalariado
de hoy, es heredero de toda esta violencia, implica grandes expropiaciones
en la subjetividad del hombre. Tal y como señala Waisblat,
No puede conectar con la paternidad y el afecto hacia su familia, no se lo
construye para cuidar y por ende, menos aún para cuidarse y no ponerse en
riesgos, no puede decir “no sé” (porque hasta el valor se le supone), la
articulación de la vida cotidiana ha caído del lado de la mujer y lo deja en un
lugar enorme de dependencia, no puede conectar con una sexualidad
saludable, al quedar ésta del lado del “rendimiento y dar la talla” y por
último, pero no menos importante, está muy deteriorada la capacidad de
conectar con sus emociones y más aún la expresión de las mismas.
(Waisblat, 2013, p.4)
Desde este planteamiento se observan diversos niveles de relación
claramente diferenciados. Por un lado, La sociabilidad con los otros
hombres se establece en términos de “producción de objetos” regalos,
dinero, etc. Esto genera una situación particular: pedir ayuda o dar ayuda,
queda restringido nuevamente al plano de “proveer”. Por otro lado la
asunción en la familia del rol de proveedor, produce el sentimiento de falla,
con la pérdida de autoestima que esto conlleva y la obligación de resolver
solo esa mácula en su masculinidad. “El hombre se siente mal pero no es
capaz de explicar lo que le pasa. Y si los sentimientos no se elaboran, pasan
factura y se expresan de otras maneras” (Waisblat, 2013, p.4).
El Desempleo o la Metáfora de la Bomba Emocional
Como ya hemos indicado en otros momentos, hay que destacar el hecho
según el cual, la masculinidad es, tal y como señala Jociles, “un concepto
que articula aspectos socio-estructurales y ocio-simbólicos, por lo cual
exige que se investigue tanto el acceso diferencial a los recursos (físicos,
económicos, políticos, etc.) como las concepciones del mundo, las
conductas, el proceso de individuación y la construcción de identidades”
(Jociles, 2001, p.11). Es por ello que un elemento que le da identidad y lo
define en su contexto desaparece, genera, como es el caso del desempleo,
trastoques indudables que pueden conllevar consecuencias más allá de las
supuestas previamente. El desempleo, por tanto, va más allá del mero hecho
de perder el empleo, genera distorsiones en la estructura misma de la
masculinidad tradicional puesto que resta al hombre, así entendido, de uno
de los elementos identitarios clave.
El desempleo, por tanto, se observaría como el fracaso de la función
taumatúrgica del hombre desde tiempos ancestrales, el aprovisionamiento
de los suyos. Todo ello, si lo relacionamos con la variable edad y lo
ponemos en relación con hombres desempleados en sus últimas etapas
productivas, lo que los expertos enmarcan en la franja entre 45 – 65 años
cobra un mayor elemento de dificultad que no resulta baladí.
Así, si recogemos lo indicado por Subirats y Castells, “competir es la
gran palabra de la masculinidad de nuestro tiempo, una palabra que ha
pasado del deporte a la economía y de ella a invadir el conjunto de la
sociedad. Competir, es la versión actual de pelear” (Castells & Subirats,
2007, p.98). Una vez, por tanto, que desaparece esa competición, esa
lucha,… ¿qué queda? De esta manera, en el momento en que el trabajo que
le daba identidad y un lugar valorado en la sociedad y entre otros hombres,
desaparece, “la posibilidad de sostener y expresar afectos también se ve
severamente afectada. El hombre se encierra y no saca fuera lo que le pasa”
(Waisblat, 2013, p.6).
En este sentido, la familia igualitaria (llamada también
significativamente por los especialistas, la “familia postpatriarcal”) puede
ser la nueva respuesta. Ya que, tal y como indica García de León: “En ella
se dan los ingredientes excelentes de cultura + dinero, los cuales son
capaces de generar una “economía interna” muy estimulante. Establecer un
nuevo pacto, por fin, entre personas que se respetan por igual” (García de
León, 2009, p.216). Esta es la realidad familiar idealizada, cuando ambos
miembros adultos proveen, aportan a la economía familiar. La cuestión que
se destaca es cuando no se produce esa situación, sino más bien su
contraria.
En este sentido, el desempleo, desempeña ese papel de espoleta, de
acicate, que impulsa al replanteamiento por parte de los hombres de su rol
dentro de la organización familiar, puesto que como indica Flaquer: “los
hombres tienen que dejar esta coraza que les seguimos fabricando y entrar
en una comprensión distinta de la vida y la realidad” (Flaquer, 1999, p.2).
Se demuestra como la aceptación de proveedor, de trabajador, conlleva
elementos positivos tales como la imagen de libertad que proyecta ante los
demás, su presencia en los espacios públicos, etc. Pero a su vez posee una
contraparte, la “casi obligatoriedad” de negarse la opción del afecto, de lo
emocional, de los sentimientos. Da la impresión que nos encontramos con
un binomio imposible si se es trabajador, esto conlleva un triunfo social,
que a su vez, implica la imposibilidad de mostrar flaqueza, y todo lo que
implica muestra afectiva. Es lo que desde la metodología ProCC se conoce
como problemática silenciada, que ya hemos mencionado más arriba.
Para romper con esta situación viciada, según el planteamiento ProCC,
“el hombre debe comenzar a cuestionar una identidad que brinda tantos
privilegios como dolores, debe ser consciente de que recuperar lo que se le
ha expropiado, le permitirá tomar distancia del imaginario social
hegemónico y transitar espacios que siempre le resultaron ajenos”
La Metodología de los Procesos Correctores Comunitarios ¿Una
Alternativa Viable?
La cuestión valorada aquí es observar cómo una vez que los hombres se
quedan en desempleo, esto afecta a estado anímico y cómo es posible
“reparar” ese malestar a través del análisis de la situación y la toma de
conciencia respecto al papel desempeñado hasta el momento en base al
criterio patriarcal-capitalista.
Para ello, como afirma Cucco, se parte de la situación de malestar que
sienten los hombres cuando no trabajan y eso les priva de un elemento
clave de identificación, el rol de proveedor. Por tanto, se inicia a partir de
un momento negativo que hace de “en la vida cotidiana normal está
presente la queja, queja que denuncia malestares” (Cucco, 2006, p.65).
Pero ese malestar no es reconocido a nivel médico o a través de temas
de salud. Ello ha implicado que desde la metodología ProCC (Procesos
Correctores Comunitarios) se halla acuñado un concepto que recoge esa
situación, la Normalidad Supuesta Salud (NSS) y que en palabras de Cucco
y Losada, recoge a nivel general “todos aquellos malestares que la
población sufre y que habitualmente no analiza, ni cuestiona porque los
considera normales, que no generan demanda explícita, sino que ocupan el
lugar de la queja, que no tiene interlocutor válido y que sin embargo se
cobran altos precios en Salud y Bienestar” (Cucco & Losada, 2002, p. 32).
A través del concepto de Normalidad Supuesta Salud, se identifica, de
alguna manera, una situación que hasta el momento no se había logrado
describir: “nombrarlos, darles entidad, permite su identificación y
caracterización” (Cucco, 2006, p.66). Situación, a su vez, que en la
actualidad podemos reconocer en los hombres desempleados.
Desde esta intervención se reconoce la influencia metodológica del
psicoanálisis, pero se destaca que la actuación que realizan no supone un
trabajo terapéutico, aunque sí de reflexión, a través del “espacio grupal en
tanto lugar de génesis y neogénesis de la subjetividad, y el espacio
institucional como instancia que precede y sitúa” (Cucco, 2006, p. 66).
Para que todo esto fuera posible tenía que articularse un tipo de
subjetividad, la que se puede entender cómo “autopercepción consciente de
los sujetos, y que supone una identidad inherente y unitaria que es fuente de
toda acción y de todo sentido” (Cucco, 2006, p.106). Atribuyendo, por
tanto, al sujeto unas características propias. Esto se hizo a través del
desarrollo del individualismo metodológico como creación de categoría
filosófica que luego se llevó a categoría psicológica y a otros ámbitos,
porque el capitalismo necesita un sujeto individualista. Nos referimos a un
conjunto de teorías que desarrollan una concepción del ser humano como
individuo “libre” de ataduras, alejado de la comunidad, produciéndose el
alzamiento del “individuo” sobre las ruinas del ser humano como ser social,
en palabras de Agustín Morán (2002). En este tipo de sociabilidad, la
sociabilidad capitalista, los vínculos son algo funcional, algo que ejercemos
pero que no vivimos como constituyentes, sino como algo amenazante.
Dentro de este escenario, sólo un vínculo nos promete la eternidad y la
completud del yo, sólo un tipo de vínculo ofrece la posibilidad de un yo
ideal inalterable y la promesa de una completa satisfacción: el vínculo con
el mercado. Como decía Marx, las relaciones entre las personas se
transforman en relaciones entre cosas, mientras que se antropomorfiza la
relación con las cosas. El mercado aparece como un ente vivo y proveedor
que a través del consumo, promete la posibilidad de lograr una satisfacción
completa. Un psiquismo construido de esta manera precaria, determina la
emergencia socio histórica de un sujeto ávido de imaginario social
(Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011,p.12-13).
Sin embargo, no habría ser humano individual, sin el hecho social, sin la
sociedad. Tampoco habría sociedad sin personas, sin individuos sociales,
que solo pueden individualizarse desde su dimensión social previa. El ser
humano es condición y consecuencia de lo social, y es falso que todos los
seres humanos sean iguales (obrero y empresario, por ejemplo). Sin la vida
social no hay racionalidad. El ser humano se desarrolla en “los espacios
grupal e institucional (…) pero estos espacios son espacios no neutrales,
portadores de ideología, expresión de la institución efectiva de la sociedad”
(Cucco, 2006, p.107).
Para Waisblat y Sáenz, se pone la mirada en la construcción de la
subjetividad, y desde ahí, se abordan algunas cuestiones en común de
hombres y mujeres (…) Las condiciones patriarcales de desigualdad e
inequidad, siguen existiendo hacia lo interno y deben ser trabajadas en
todas sus dimensiones. Pero hay un sistema opresor que determina con
violencia real y simbólica una subjetividad deshumanizada y enajenada en
la consecución de beneficios económicos. Esto es lo que se refleja en la
construcción de los Supuestos Falsos. Esta construcción permite la
elaboración de programas con mucha potencia de transformación ya que se
trabaja dialécticamente la relación entre lo constituido, la subjetividad
masculina y femenina y lo constituyente que son las formaciones sociales
hegemónicas a partir del imaginario social (Waisblat & Sáenz, 2011, p.1314). Así, la intervención, como insiste Cucco, “está dirigida a incidir sobre
las expresiones de la variable trasversal, o sea en las cristalizaciones
efectivas de lo imaginario, en los comportamientos (…) desocultando
aspectos invisibilizados en la Normalidad Supuesta Salud (…) conllevando
cambios en los comportamientos cotidianos” (Cucco, 2006, p.181).
Es necesario, por lo tanto, hablando de masculinidad, ocuparse, según
sus planteamientos, de la subjetividad maltratada, de las expropiaciones
desde donde se construye, de los dolores; de todo esto tantas veces
silenciado. Pero, a su vez, (Cucco, 2010, p.2) considera como muy
importante poder abordar el trabajo de los roles masculino y femenino
desde una concepción estructural, entendiendo la construcción de dichos
roles acorde con la formación económico-social que les da lugar. Esto nos
permite descifrar la alta ingeniería, que en la lógica del Capital, conllevan
los roles asignados-asumidos masculino y femenino, pudiendo tomar como
un ejemplo paradigmático lo que hemos llamado “el rol del hombre
trabajador” y el rol de la mujer de “ama de casa”.
Por lo indicado, entonces, la metodología ProCC implica partir de una
concepción socio-psico-bio en interrelación dialéctica, que permite,
tomando como objeto de estudio la vida cotidiana, dar cuenta de la relación
entre formación socio-económica y el devenir subjetivo (Cucco, 2006, p.
177). Como sus diseñadores explicitan; “Los programas ProCC, son
programas, por tanto, de intervención comunitaria específicos para la
atención de los malestares cotidianos que pretenden potenciar el desarrollo
del protagonismo personal/social para la búsqueda de soluciones, y el
planteamiento de alternativas de una problemática dada” (Cucco, 2006, p.
177). Para Cucco, no sólo se trata de un modo de producción económica,
sino de un modo de producción social (…). La institución familiar es un
ámbito privilegiado para realizar, paso a paso, este disciplinamiento de los
comportamientos(…). La sociedad busca entonces, instituir interpretaciones
dominantes que se arraiguen en las subjetividades, intentando clausurar
todo intento de interrogación, dado que esto entraña el riesgo de cuestionar
las certidumbres sobre las que se asienta su identidad. Esta institución de
las significaciones instaura las condiciones de lo factible, y mantiene unida
a una sociedad, en el plano de la subjetividad colectiva. Así toda formación
económico-social “sujeta” su orden (Cucco, 2010, p.3).
La Psicología Social, desde la perspectiva de Enrique Pichon Rivière, se
inscribe en la crítica de la vida cotidiana, ésta implica (Pampliega de
Quiroga & Racedo: 1993, p. 13) “el análisis del destino de las necesidades
de los hombres en una formación económico-social determinada”; lo que
evidentemente concierne al análisis realizado desde la metodología de los
Procesos Comunitarios Correctores. Dentro de esta metodología, cobra
nuevo valor cierto concepto que no es desconocido, así, Mirtha Cucco, para
desarrollar el proceso corrector, recoge la definición de rol de G. Mead,
adaptándolo y redefiniéndolo como “un modelo organizado de conducta
relativo a una cierta posición del individuo en una red de interacción ligado
a expectativas propias y de los otros”. Ese rol no sólo es expresión
individual, sino que es producto social y, por tanto, puede enriquecer el
nivel de lectura en la dinámica grupal donde, trascendiendo la dimensión
vertical/horizontal, se trabaja la expresión del imaginario social efectivo
(variable transversal) (Cucco, 2006, p.193).
Para lograrlo, se hace uso en el grupo formativo mediante la acción
grupal, lo que se denomina juego dramático, porque “trabajar con técnicas
dramáticas consiste en utilizar, en función de nuestros fines una forma de
expresión habitual de nuestro comportamiento: la dramática” (Martínez,
2005, p.85). El interés que posee esta técnica es debido a que “la
consideración de la escena, el juego en el espacio, lo gestual, los tonos, las
miradas agudizarán la lectura y permitirán aflorar niveles impensados del
imaginario grupal” (Cucco, 2006, p.209); es decir, el individuo, podrá
expresar de una manera dramatizada, ante el resto del grupo, lo que el peso
social que “arrastra” le impide expresar libremente.
En Conclusión
Cuando se trabaja la problemática del hombre, las mujeres suelen dar una
nueva vuelta a su problemática con un fuerte impacto. Así, al tomar
conciencia de la problemática silenciada del varón, definitivamente no
pueden seguir sosteniendo la esperanza de que su cambio dependa de que
“le ayude” aquel al que no le pasa nada, ya que “sí le pasa”. Entonces el
problema se focaliza de diferente modo, sin menospreciar lo que de
dominación entre ambos queda por trabajar, ya que el Supuesto Falso es
real como dijimos, en tanto objetivación de una realidad material de
control.
Por otra parte los hombres se sorprenden y emocionan con el desocultamiento de su problemática silenciada expresando, en muchas
ocasiones, que es la primera vez que han podido penetrar en algo que les
concierne tanto y que está sin embargo tan oculto (Cucco, 2010, p. 9). Esto
debe dar lugar a un nuevo modelo de relación donde los hombres miran a la
otra parte con otra mirada
Como concluye Sanfelix, “El cambio en los varones está siendo lento y
con dificultades, pero tal vez estemos ahora más cerca que nunca de la
consolidación de la ruptura con la norma hegemónica” (Sanfelix, 2011, p.
27) y, por tanto, aunque resulte ahora incipiente e incluso anecdótico, puede
ir consolidándose beneficiando en un futuro no muy lejano a ambas partes.
Referencias
Astelarra, J. (2005). Veinte años de políticas de igualdad. Valencia:
Ediciones Cátedra.
Castells, M. y Subirats, M. (2007). Mujeres y hombres ¿Un amor
imposible? Madrid: Alianza.
Cucco, M. (2013, Julio). ¿Engranajes que se desplazan, espacios que se
abren? Superando el rol de proveedor o nuevas versiones renovadas.
Ponencia presentada en la Jornadas sobre Cuestiones de género: Los
aportes ProCC. De la masculinidad hegemónica a las masculinidades.
La Habana. Accesible en http://jornadas-masculinidad.webnode.es
Cucco, M. (2010). “Hombres y mujeres ¿Sólo un problema de rosa y azul?
La formación del sujeto que somos. Capitalismo, relaciones sociales
y vida cotidiana.” Nuestra Ciencia. Revista del Colegio de
Psicólogos de la Provincia de Córdoba- Argentina, 14 (37-46).
Cucco, M. (2006).ProCC: Una propuesta de intervención sobre los
malestares de la vida cotidiana. Del desatino social a la precariedad
narcisista. Buenos Aires: Editorial ATUEL.
Cucco, M., & Losada, L. (2002). Metodología de los Procesos correctores
comunitarios. Rescoldos, 6, 31-36.
Di Nicola, G.P. (1991). Reciprocidad hombre/mujer. igualdad y diferencia.
Madrid: Narcea.
Fernández, A. (1993). La mujer de la ilusión: pactos y contratos entre
hombres y mujeres. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidós.
Flaquer, L. (1999). La estrella menguante del padre. Barcelona: Editorial
Ariel.
García, A. (2010). Forma valor y forma comunidad. Buenos Aires:
Prometeo Libros.
García de León, M.A. (2009). Cabeza moderna/corazón patriarcal (luces y
sombras de un gran cambio social en la identidad de género). Revista
Barataria. 10, 209-220.
Izquierdo, M.J. (1998). El malestar de la desigualdad. Valencia: Editorial
Cátedra.
Jociles, M.J. (2001). El estudio sobre las masculinidades. Panorámica
general. Gazeta de Antropología, 17, 1-15.
Martín, A. (2006). Antropología del género. Madrid: Editorial Cátedra.
Martínez, C. (2005). Fundamentos para una teoría del psicodrama. Buenos
Aires: Editorial siglo XXI.
Mestre, Y. (2013, Julio). El varón adulto medio desde la perspectiva de los
Procesos Correctores Comunitarios. Ponencia presentada en la
Jornadas sobre Cuestiones de género: Los aportes ProCC. De la
masculinidad hegemónica a las masculinidades. La Habana,
Accesible en http://jornadas-masculinidad.webnode.es/
Morán, A. (2006). Materiales para curso de capacitación organizado por
el Centro de Desarrollo de Salud Comunitaria. Madrid: Centro
Marie Langer.
Morán, A. (2002). El individualismo metodológico. Aportes para la
comprensión del sujeto roto actual. Madrid: Centro Marie Langer.
Pampliega de Quiroga, A. y Racedo, J, (1993). Crítica de la vida cotidiana.
Buenos Aires: Editorial cinco
Rodríguez, J. A. (2013). El hombre unidimensional desestructurado.
Barataria. Revista Castellano-Manchega de ciencias sociales, 16,
97-106
Sanfelix, J. (2011). Las nuevas masculinidades. Los hombres frente al
cambio en las mujeres. Prisma Social, número 7, 1-29.
Tubert, S. (Ed.) (2003). Del sexo al género. Los equívocos de un concepto.
Valencia: Editorial Cátedra-Universidad de Valencia.
Waisblat, A. (2013, Julio). El impacto del desempleo en la subjetividad
masculina. Una intervención comunitaria con hombres en situación
de desempleo. Ponencia presentada en la Jornadas sobre Cuestiones
de género: Los aportes ProCC. De la masculinidad hegemónica a las
masculinidades. La Habana. Accesible en http://jornadasmasculinidad.webnode.es/
Waisblat, A., & Sáenz, A. (2011, Enero). La construcción socio-histórica
de la existencia. Patriarcado, capitalismo y desigualdades
instaladas. Ponencia presentada en Jornadas sobre Roles masculino y
femenino a debate, Bilbao.
Juan Antonio Rodríguez del Pino es profesor en el Departamento de
Sociología y Antropología Social de la Universidad de Valencia.
Dirección de contacto: Correspondencia directa a Juan Antonio
Rodríguez del Pino, Universidad de Valencia, Departamento de
Sociología y Antropología Social, Av. Tarongers, 4b, 46021 Valencia,
email: [email protected]
Performing American Masculinities: The 21st-Century Man in
Popular Culture
Sandra Girbés1
1) Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
st
To cite this article: Girbés, S. (2014) Performing American Masculinities:
The 21st-Century Man in Popular Culture. Masculinities and Social Change,
3(2), 191-193. doi: 10.4471/MCS.2014.50
MSC– Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 2 June 2014 pp.
191-193
Reviews (I)
Watson, E. & Shaw, M. (Eds.) (2011). Performing American Masculinities:
The 21st-Century Man in Popular Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0253222701
El libro Performing American Masculinities aporta una serie de ensayos que
evidencian los cambios experimentados en las representaciones de la
masculinidad a través del análisis de programas televisivos, películas,
anuncios, obras teatrales, literatura, eventos políticos, música, fotografías o
contenidos de Internet producidos en el contexto norteamericano entre
mediados de 1990 y 2010. El conjunto de ensayo parte de la relación
existente entre los cambios sociales experimentados a nivel global durante
este período y los diversos modelos de masculinidad generados como
respuesta a las modificaciones identificadas en el espacio, el tiempo y en las
relaciones interpersonales. Partiendo de la premisa de que los
acontecimientos históricos modifican los procesos de construcción del
género y de las identidades individuales, se presta especial atención a dos
sucesos a los que se les ha atribuido un elevado valor real y simbólico en el
contexto norteamericano: la crisis financiera iniciada en 2008 y la elección
del presidente Barack Obama. Estos eventos conectan con las dos ideas
centrales que articulan el libro.
El primer capítulo, titulado Masculinities and the Market: Late
Capitalism and Corporate Influence on Gender Processes y formado por
cuatro ensayos, aborda la influencia que la coyuntura económica ejerce en la
formación y en la reconfiguración de la masculinidad. En esta parte de la
obra se aportan diversas perspectivas sobre las influencias ejercidas por el
sistema económico abordando temáticas como la intervención del mercado
de trabajo en la construcción del género, la regulación que el capitalismo
tardío ejerce sobre la sexualidad o aportando una perspectiva de género a la
agencia de los sujetos frente a los problemas financieros.
En el capítulo Masters of Their Domain: Seinfeld and the Discipline of
Mediated Men’s Sexual Economy, Wesley Buerkle parte del análisis de la
serie Seinfeld y del programa Queer Eye for the Straight Guy para analizar
192 Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (2)
la tensión surgida entre la masculinidad en la sociedad industrial, basada en
la sobriedad y en la productividad, y la emergencia de un nuevo modelo en
la era neoliberal que pone el énfasis en el consumo y en la
autocomplacencia.
Brenda Boudreau, en el capítulo Sexually Suspect: Masculine Anxiety in
the Films of Neil LaBute, identifica el surgimiento de una crisis de la
masculinidad entre finales del siglo XX y principios del siglo XXI. Como
resultado, muchos hombres deben enfrentarse a las inseguridades generadas
por la pérdida de una noción clara de masculinidad y a las expectativas
sociales en relación con su vida pública o sexual.
Por otro lado, las aportaciones de Margaret C. Ervin en el capítulo The
Might of the Metrosexual: How a Mere Marketing Tool Challenges
Hegemonic Masculinity se centran en el fenómeno de la metrosexualidad.
La autora argumenta que lo que comenzó como una estrategia de mercado de
las grandes empresas ha sido utilizado para generar nuevas formas de vivir la
masculinidad que se oponen a los modelos hegemónicos.
La segunda parte del libro, titulada Beyond Gender Alone: Defining
Multidimensional Masculinities y compuesta por cinco ensayos, se centra en
la masculinidad como resultado de la intersección de varios factores
incluyendo étnia, religión, diversidad funcional, sexualidad y transgénero.
Uno de los personajes públicos a los que se dirige la atención en esta parte
del libro es el presidente de los Estados Unidos Barck Obama. En el capítulo
Obama’s Masculinities: A Landscape of Essential Contradictions, Mac E.
Shaw y Elwood Watson abordan cómo la figura del presidente abre un
interesante debate sobre étnia, poder y género. El análisis de las
representaciones mediáticas de Barack Obama, personaje publico al que se
le atribuye una masculinidad ambigua e incluso feminizada, da paso a
profundizar sobre las creencias e imaginarios vinculados a la masculinidad
de los hombres afroamericanos.
La perspectiva étnica y cultural también es abordada en el capítulo
elaborado por John Kille, Popular Memory, Racial Construction, and the
Visual Illusion of Freedom: The Re-mediation of O.J. and Cinque. Partiendo
de la escena del juicio que inicia la película Amistad de Steven Spielberg, el
autor reflexiona en torno al papel de los medios de comunicación en la
transmisión de la desigualdad entre hombres blancos y negros a lo largo de
la historia norteamericana.
Girbés – Performing American Masculinities [Book Review] 193
Performing American Masculinities ofrece un amplio repertorio de
investigaciones sobre cultura popular norteamericana y estudios de género
en el contexto capitalista que nos permiten romper con concepciones
estáticas de la masculinidad. Además, este libro apunta hacia nuevos
escenarios y disciplinas, evidenciando la necesidad de seguir generando
diálogos e investigaciones multidisciplinares en torno a las masculinidades.
Sandra Girbés, Universitat de Barcelona
[email protected]
Construcción de masculinidades igualitarias
Juan Carlos Peña Axt1
1) Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Spain
st
To cite this article: Peña, JC. (2014). Construcción de masculinidades
igualitarias. Masculinities and Social Change, 3 (2), 194 - 195. doi:
10.4471/MCS.2014.51
to Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)
MSC– Masculinities and Social Change Vol. 3 No. 2 June 2014 pp.
194-195
Reviews (II)
Peña Axt, J. (2013). Constucción de masculinidades igualitarias. Tesis
original no publicada: Barcelona, Universidad de Barcelona.
En esta investigación se analizan los actos comunicativos en contextos
educativos de formación profesional (y grupos de iguales), familiares e
interacciones que se producen en las redes sociales (Facebook), para
identificar qué interacciones favorecen una masculinidad igualitaria. De esta
forma poner de manifiesto procesos en los que se socializan a los jóvenes en
modelos de masculinidad igualitaria, transformando las relaciones de género
que superan los procesos de reproducción social como la son las
desigualdades de género y la violencia contra las mujeres. En favor de
relaciones afectivo-sexual basadas en el diálogo e igualdad. El análisis de
actos comunicativos incluye el lenguaje verbal, tanto como el lenguaje no
verbal, el contexto social o situación de los hablantes en el contexto social) y
la consecuencia de la interacción con el objetivo de identificar interacciones
dialógicas y de poder presentes en una relación.
Este trabajo se fundamenta en el trabajo llevado a cabo por Jesús Gómez,
que como sociólogo y educador, trabajó como línea de investigación las
relaciones afectivo-sexuales. Este sociólogo demuestra que la atracción es
una cuestión social vinculada directamente al proceso de socialización que
viven los individuos. Desde este punto de partida, sostengo en la
investigación que hoy en día existen jóvenes que en su carácter igualitario
con las chicas, resultan atractivo para éstas. Y por otro lado, y en esta misma
línea, demostrar que para las chicas, los hombres que están más próximos a
una masculinidad hegemónica continúan teniendo éxito e las relaciones
románticas. Sin embargo, este modelo de hombres ya no es el único que
resulta atractivo para las chicas. Es decir, que en una sociedad como la
actual, existen muchos indicios para demostrar que estamos frente a
situaciones novedosas en el ámbito de las relaciones afectivo-sexuales de los
adolecentes, y porque no decirlo de los adultos.
La investigación está dividida en dos partes. En la primera parte consta
del marco teórico y del diseño metodológico. En el marco teórico está
planteado el estado de la cuestión donde se revisan los principales autores y
Peña – Construcción de masculinidades igualitariass 195
conceptos centrales en temas de actos comunicativos, masculinidad y
socialización. En el diseño metodológico expongo la metodología
comunicativa crítica, con la cual trabajó en esta investigación. Además está
la estrategia metodológica de trabajo de campo y análisis de la información.
En la segunda parte de esta tesis está el análisis de los resultados y las
conclusiones. El análisis de los resultados de este estudio estará dividido en
dos partes. En la primera parte se presentará el trabajo llevado a cado dentro
del centro de formación profesional en donde se hará hincapié en las
interacciones y actos comunicativos entre los jóvenes que permiten una
visibilización de una masculinidad igualitaria atractiva. En esta parte del
estudio se podrán identificar a aquellos chicos que promueven la
masculinidad igualitaria. Dentro de las principales conclusiones de esta
investigación, se destacan principalmente, que existen en las interacciones
dentro del espacio educativo actos comunicativos que reproducen el modelo
hegemónico de masculinidad. Sin embargo, existen actos comunicativos que
promueven nuevas masculinidades y que además les dotan de atractivo. Es
en este tipo de actos comunicativos donde hay que reforzar a los jóvenes
igualitarios puesto que el sólo hecho de potenciar sin atractivo reproduce la
doble moral, en donde las mujeres dicen querer relaciones con hombres
buenos, pero terminan relacionándose con hombres que les traen
consecuencias negativas. Dentro del espacio familiar las interacciones y la
socialización familiar está orientada principalmente a que las adolescentes
tengan relaciones con hombres que principio les conviene. Sin embargo en
las interacciones entre padres, madres e hijas existe solamente un lenguaje
de la ética y no un lenguaje del deseo
Juan Carlos Peña Axt, Universidad Autónoma de Chile
[email protected]

Print this article

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

as PDF - Panama Real Estate Properties

Forecast - Info