Unveiling the Male Corset

Abstract

Contemporary sociological research indicates rural men face increasing pressure to comply with hegemonic masculine gender norms. Adopting Butler’s poststructural theory of gender performativity, this study presents findings from qualitative interviews with twenty-five self-identified male Goths living in rural Australia, revealing how participants enacted masculinity and how rurality shaped gender performance. Despite participants’ believing their Goth identity transcended geographic location, Goth self-expression of counternormative masculinity was met with societal pressure. Rural Australian communities were presented as strongly upholding normative, traditional gender expectations as most participants experienced adverse responses, namely, homophobic hostility, employment discrimination, bullying, and/or physical assault, which necessitated modification of gender performance for individual safety and well-being. Participants largely attributed negative reactions to rural communities’ “closed-mindedness” in contrast with the “open-mindedness” they experienced in urban communities. Overall, participants believed urban communities in Australia and beyond displayed greater acceptance of diverse gender performances than rural Australia.

Keywords

gender performativity subculture Goth rural masculinity deviance

Introduction

Goth is an internationally recognized subculture in Western countries that tends to exhibit greater visibility in urban areas due to the importance of “scene” participation for Goths which, at least until the Internet’s widespread growth, historically attracted Goths to metropolises (Muggleton 2000; Wilkins 2008). It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that academic attention has focused almost exclusively on Goths living in cities, despite the subculture existing worldwide, with most studies examining Goth expression in European countries, particularly the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, and Germany (Brill 2008; Eckart 2005; Goulding and Saren 2009; Haenfler 2010; Hodkinson 2002; Jasper 2004), and the United States (Goodlad 2007; Issitt 2011; Siegel 2005; Wilkins 2009). Although limited from participating in urban Goth scenes, rural Goths are increasingly gaining access to the global Goth subculture through the “virtual scene participation” social media and other communication technologies provide. With technological innovations changing the nature and frequency of social interactions more broadly, it is timely to explore what role, if any, one’s physical environment, or “place,” plays in the enactment of subculture. In the present research, we question if and how rurality affects the gender performance of twenty-five male Goths living in rural Australia. Insights from this in-depth exploration contribute to the broader bodies of interdisciplinary research and theory on social culture, social identity, “other-ization,” communication technologies, rurality, and gender we next review, as well as advance sociohistorical knowledge about Goths.

“Othering” and Australian Rural Goths—A Forgotten Sociocultural Minority Group?

Otherization is a sociological concept commonly adopted in rural studies, particularly in the UK, to investigate the social exclusion of the so-called “deviant” identities (Agyeman and Neal 2009; Chakraborti and Garland 2006; Neal 2009). Agyeman and Neal (2009), for instance, note during the late twentieth century, European rural settlements were portrayed in popular culture as, “picturesque, unchanging sites of social order and deference” structures based on “sameness and familiarity” (Agyeman and Neal 2009, 278). The role othering processes play in influencing social identity is socially and geographically relative. As Chakraborti and Garland’s (2006, 383) research highlights, the tendency to describe rural areas as romanticized “idyllic, problem-free environments” masks the presence of other-ization processes that typify many rural areas. Stereotypes of “country hospitality” and “rural bliss” often coexist with displays of social homogeneity defense of the “sameness” and “familiarity” Agyeman and Neal describe, with those displaying cultural diversity not only overlooked and marginalized in zones of sameness but also, socially outcasted.

Conceptualizing rurality as a “discursive tool of social reassurance” (Neal 2009, 20) has been accompanied by arguments that such liminal spaces are built on national anxieties, tensions, and conflicts between the mutually informing “insiders” (the normative majority) and “outsiders” (the divergent minority) who fight for prominence and recognition. As homogenous cultures are faced with individuals and ideas that counter hegemonic norms, resistance often ensues. At times this may increase social plurality and cultural diversity, yet it also may shatter the quasi-convivial fabric portrayed by a rural idyll as the tendencies of rural communities to uphold sameness and tradition are compared with seemingly “better” urban dynamics (Neal 2009), which colloquially is manifested as “open-mindedness.” Chakraborti and Garland’s (2006, 391) findings of rural minority groups’ experiences in the UK, whereby participants sought to relocate to urban areas to avoid ongoing negative commentary and confrontation as well as believed larger cities were more accepting of counterculture than rural places, who only accepted and protected “their own” are instructive for the present Australian study.

Rural Australia, mirroring the UK countryside, is often considered a site of social disjuncture, with little tolerance for alternative social groups (Agyeman and Neal 2009; Chakraborti and Garland 2006; Neal 2009). Studies of rural Australian communities emphasize its remoteness and the pressure placed on residents to comply with hegemonic ideals, particularly related to gender stereotypes which are central to public and private identity, self-conceptualization, and sense of worth (Alston and Kent 2008; Bourke 2003; Wilkinson and Gunnell 2000). Given Goths’ reverence for darkness, fascination with macabre aspects of human existence and willingness to embrace alternative ideologies and practices originates from the eighties post-punk Gothic rock music genre, it is perhaps unsurprising that such affinities and passions, combined with a rebellious attitude, often collide with the traditionally conservative rural Australian cultural norms. Hence, we prioritize investigating how one aspect of Goth culture, male Goths’ gender expression, is personally experienced within the social and physical environment historically portrayed as “Australian rurality.”

In prioritizing location and “geospatial” aspects of identity politics, we undertake this research acknowledging insights poststructuralists and other theorists impart in seeking to transcend the confines social structure may impose. Indeed, by conceptualizing and researching the “urban/rural divide,” much research, as Neal (2009) alludes, risks perpetuating the urban–rural binary which may be ineffective for rural minorities where comparisons heighten the “crisis” of rural identities. Although some argue transcending the urban–rural divide is essential for (re)shaping rural communities and removing social boundaries, particularly so the voices of suppressed subcultures get heard (Agyeman and Neal 2009; Chakraborti and Garland 2006; Neal 2009), we posit place might be difficult to transcend without prior research about Goths’ experiences of rural places, specifically in Australia. Informed by lessons from studies of rural communities in the UK and taking on board Agyeman and Neal’s (2009) suggestion that such findings may extend to the Australian socioenvironment, we argue the juxtaposition of subculture and physical environment is a critical and crucial “first step” required to acquire foundational knowledge for understanding of rural–urban tensions for Australian Goths.

The present study begins to fill this void by prioritizing location, specifically rurality, so future research may continue the task of asking if, how, and why location may affect masculine gender performance of Goths and other alternative social groups. While explaining the dearth of Australian Goth research is beyond our project’s scope, we suggest Australia’s sizable Goth population and scene, despite its comparatively small population size and geophysical seclusion from Europe and the United States, might influence how Australians “do” Goth. Our study draws upon an interdisciplinary body of research not only since little national or international literature has focused on Australian Goths (Scharf 2011; Hodkinson 2002) yet moreover to highlight the strengths communication technology, geography, and social identity research may bring to enhancing the understanding of gender performance.

Communication Technologies, Geography, and Social Identity

Technology continues to alter the dynamics of social interactions and shapes social identity formation. Social identity develops through community and peer group interactions and reflects individualistic interpretation of relationships and experiences through self-conceptualization (Deaux 2001). Individualistic and geographic forces are the contextual building blocks for communal identification (Kulshrestha et al. 2012). Technological advancements, particularly the Internet, continue to introduce new realms of identity negotiation as communication avenues expand and shift. New media open communication channels that permit geographically isolated individuals, such as rural residents, to interact with users interstate or overseas (T. Tyler 2002). Internet chat rooms also provide socially isolated individuals, such as most Goths, a chance to extend their peer groups, thereby offering temporary escape from the social pressure or ostracism typically experienced in geophysical communities (Agyeman and Neal 2009; Chakraborti and Garland 2006; Neal 2009).

Despite how technological changes alter virtual social interactions, physical location continues to play an important role in social identity formation (Deaux 2001; Herdagdelen et al. 2013). Social identity is significantly influenced by off-line relationships, with findings that “strongly linked social groups were primarily geographic” (Herdagdelen et al. 2013, 11), offering evidence to counter concerns that social media’s radical transformation of communication threatens real-life interactions and networks. The relevance of off-line social interactions is underscored by Kulshrestha et al. (2012, 1) who assert, “offline geography still holds considerable influence over online social interactions” and moreover argue real-life relationships and physical location are so powerful that they dictate online persona. Hence, the geophysical environment where most face-to-face interactions occur remains crucial. Identity construction is multifaceted and dynamic, with expression often guided by one of the most fundamental social identities: gender.

Gender Identity and Performance

Gender identity may be best understood as an intersection where multiple social identities encompassing the emotional (human psyche) and the behavioral (practice) converge. Traditionally understood in terms of fixed “masculine” and “feminine” representations of male and female (Colling 1992; Fiske, Hodge, and Turner 1987), gender and its associated norms now surpass this binary and acknowledge counternormative gender expressions (Connell 2000; Holliday 2011; Udry 2000). Much social psychological research examines how environment and “different cultures influence the definition and choice of social identity,” including gender (Deaux 2001, 9). One approach thoroughly explored in Goth literature is Butler’s (1990) poststructural theory of gender performativity. Butler’s theory not only permits reconceptualization of gender identity and (non)conformity but importantly offers a significant foundation for leading contemporary work in feminist and queer theory (Abelove 2012; Halberstam 1998; Scherer 2009; Warner 1999; Wilchins 2004).

Butler’s theory of gender performativity rejects femininity and masculinity as cultural articulations of biological sex and rejects gender conceptualizations as precultural or predetermined (Butler 1990; Jagger 2008). Gender identity is understood as formed and displayed through socially constructed “stylized repetition of acts” (Butler 1990, 179) that embody a process of “doing,” rather than “being.” According to Butler, “acts,” or rituals, and their personal interpretation mutually inform “inner gender,” or gendered “subjectivity.” This, in turn, impacts the “outer representation,” or facade, of gender substance. Theorizing gender in this manner offers a paradigmatic shift from past theories seeking to align gender identity with biological sex. By rejecting the fixed social structures that assign sex with “appropriate” gender stereotypes, Butler proposes, “a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders” (1990, 6).

Butler’s theory of gender performativity is well suited to advancing understanding of rural Goth masculinity performance as it not only permits fluidity of gender enactment and social negotiation but also asks us to question the inevitability of a biologically determined, fixed gendered social order. Arguing that sex is the “apparatus of cultural construction designated by gender” (Butler 1990, 7) further allows for investigation of how gender informs sexuality (Couch 2007; Reynolds 2002; Warner 1999). It is the interconnectivity between sexuality and gender, identity, and social expression, which demands prioritization of examining Goth gender as a fluid, dynamic performance. Removal of hegemonic boundaries theorized to permit fluid and discursive gender performance, however, may be insufficient if structural realities impede such performance, for instance, through the perpetration of physical violence. Hence, the degree to which gender remains influenced by social conditioning, community interaction, and geographic positioning is critical to understand. To further explore how Goth masculinity is socially constructed and performed in rural Australia, we next consider what constitutes Australian masculinity more broadly.

Gender Performance and Rural Goth Masculinity in Australia

Australian masculinity performance continues to remain relatively static and consistent over time, with many dominant socially prescribed notions of acceptable gender expression for men reflecting traditional western ideology. Masculinity studies observe both urban and rural Australian men stereotypically meet the hypermasculine ideal (Bank 1995; Beasley 2013). Literature exploring Australian hegemonic gender defines the hypermasculine male as “practical rather than theoretical,” earthy and laid-back, yet “intolerant of affection and cultural pretension” (Murrie 1998, 68). Other generalizations include reproducing or portraying the appearance of strength, stoicism, and aggression as the societal “norm” (Butera 2008; Coldwell 2007). These interpretations of dichotomized gender, specifically hegemonic masculinity, provide a valuable framework for examining gender expression in Australian communities.

Rural men experience heightened pressure to comply with hegemonic masculinity globally (Brandth and Haugen 2005; Bye 2009). For example, Bye’s (2009) Norwegian study portrays rural men as victims of remoteness and hegemonic gender stagnation, believing young men can either “reproduce, negotiate [or] transform local discourses of rural masculinity” (Bye 2009, 278). Focusing on Swedish masculinity and rural spatiality, Stenbacka (2011) also depicts rural men as backward, lonely, and marginalized. In Australia, rural hegemonic masculinity is influenced by agricultural and farming processes and is particularly fixed, which Alston and Kent describe as “inherently unhealthy” (2008, 134). Consequently, Australian rural youth wishing to counter rigid gender conventionalities and stereotypes must seek out alternative means for achieving a positive sense of self (Galilee 2002). Goth subculture, with its acceptance of counternormative gender performance, offers one such alternative outlet for Australian rural youth.

Butler (1990) discusses the notion of examining a “gender practice” rather than “results” or “outcomes” of gender identity and its performance. In our study, we assume masculine gender performance is a culturally produced construct and begin to explore the interplay of individuals acting within geophysical locations to present how research participants perceive their beliefs and behaviors affect their own lived experiences. This approach is consistent with calls throughout Goth literature for research conceptualizing a fluid, unrestricted, and flexible gender performance which Butler’s theory permits (Brill 2008; Goodlad and Bibby 2007; Hodkinson 2002; Muggleton 2000; Wilkins 2008). Nevertheless, limitations of this theory, as with any theory, exist and must be acknowledged. Key limitations include the complexity of language employed in Butler’s theory as well as its restrictiveness and suitability for general audiences (Boucher 2006), heightened focus on individualism (Lloyd 1999), and minimal consideration of the need for geographical adaptation/contextualization (Elden 2005; M. Tyler and Cohen 2010). Thus, while our research remains informed by Butler’s theory of gender performativity, we are not “theory testing” and adopt its insights largely as a conceptual framework to understand gender as “constituted in time in an exterior space” (Butler 1990, 179). In contrast, we approach gender performance as occurring within a regulatory “scene of constraint” (Butler, 2004, 2) and apply M. Tyler and Cohen’s (2010) further insight that organizational spaces matter by prioritizing “spatial performativity.” As Deaux (2001) and Kulshrestha et al. (2012) show, geophysical locations are vital to gender identity because, unlike virtual domains, they embody the gendered self (Butler 1990). In sum, this review of subculture, rurality, technology, social identity, and gender research briefly highlights the value and need to prioritize geophysical location, specifically rurality, to examine if and how male Goth gender identity is perceived and performed in rural Australia.

Research Method

Qualitative research methods were chosen for their suitability to the topic, aims, and capacity to serve as a data collection method for exploratory research seeking to examine self-perceptions conveyed by members of a hard-to-reach subculture that constitutes a small proportion of the national population (Ragusa 2012). Given more than 85 percent of Australia’s population lives in a handful of major cities, we adopted a recruitment strategy that took into account the vast geographic distribution of male Goths living in rural Australia. “Rural” was defined as a geographical area with, “an aggregate population exceeding 1,000 persons” that was “not contained in an urban center,” thereby reflecting the Statistical Areas Level 1 urban character criterion used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). This approach also permitted us to distinguish between highly remote and urban Australia since we sought to explore experiences of those living in rural communities rather than in highly geographically isolated or dense, metropolitan communities. Further, rurality was understood as a complex web of socioeconomic indicators, norms, and beliefs about geography that affects social “identity” and “lifestyle” (Ragusa and Crowther 2014). The nonrandom convenience sample was comprised of the first twenty-five men who met the research participation criteria provided on the information sheet and submitted an expression of interest to participate in the online, in-depth, one-on-one, semistructured interviews. This interview type was chosen for its capacity to elicit data about individuals’ meaning construction and emotions related to “lived experiences” (Seidman 1998).

The recruitment process commenced with calls for research participants being placed on two popular social networking websites, the Australian Gothic Society Facebook group and the Australian forum Vampirefreaks. Social media was chosen as the most suitable medium to collect a sample of rural, geographically dispersed male Goths because it “liberates the individual from the body and allows the separate existence of multiple aspects of self” (Wynn and Katz 1997, 297). Facebook chat was selected as the online interview environment because of its simple and convenient user interface, easily filtered privacy settings, security and password-protection options, all of which provided both researchers and participants a private discussion forum without third-party interference. Moreover, Facebook chat offered a near synchronous online environment that allowed participants time to respond without feeling the social pressure interview participants may experience in face-to-face settings (Ragusa and Groves 2010). Pre-arranged interview times were negotiated between the researchers and participants and once both were online, or “active,” the interviewer opened a new conversation. Interview questions were constructed in light of the research topic, aims, and existing literature which permitted further investigation of the primary research question: How do male Goths perform gender in rural Australia and does geographic location affect such performance?

Although online interviews are renowned for their ability to connect with hard-to-reach populations, there remain limitations to the insights web-based platforms can offer. For instance, only those with the resources and skills required to access and use communication technology were able to express interest and/or participate in this study. Second, although prior research (Hodkinson 2002; Scharf 2011) identified Goths generally contact each other through social media sites, and thus most would have the necessary technical capabilities required to participate in this study, participation was restricted by the project’s small size and limited scope. Third, while Facebook offered a familiar and appropriate interview setting for male Goths living in rural Australia, additional limitations imposed by the research design include lack of visual cues permitted during online interviews, such as facial expression and body language, and their potential to limit the depth of responses generated. Despite these potential research limitations, our study generated much rich, in-depth interview data.

Interviews commenced in January 2013 after the Human Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained. Each interview ran for approximately forty-five min which commenced after they acknowledged they had received the information sheet describing the project and they gave their informed consent, or permission, to be interviewed. Each interview began with a short introduction to the research, continued with each participant being asked the same interview questions and concluded with a short debriefing to ensure no participants experienced distress as a consequence of research participation. Each interview included sixteen demographic and topical questions to permit self-expression of the behaviors and perceptions each participant believed best expressed their experience of Goth gender performance in rural Australia. No ill consequences or conflicts of interest arose during or after this research was conducted.

All interviews were transferred into individual data files and transcribed by the second author. Transcripts were reviewed three times to generate preliminary trends that were guided by the research questions and aims. The analytical tool of “memo-ing” was employed to note ideas and patterns in the raw data and was used to create an in-depth coding frame (Davies 2007). Initial data codes were generated deductively and inductively from theory, the literature review, and the interview transcripts. Next, a preliminary coding frame was piloted and refined to ensure emerging themes could be consistently identified by both researchers and any discrepancies resolved. An excel spreadsheet was then created to review each theme’s frequency and depth of expression across all interviews. Through this iterative data reviewing process it was possible to note similarities and differences that emerged across participants and highlight important relationships between key themes. After six weeks, themes were reassessed and transcripts were read another three times each until it was agreed by the research team the thematic categories accurately represented participants’ ideas and experiences. Finally, a data report was developed to display the major qualitative research findings and a brief quantitative demographic profile of the research sample, the latter was created using Excel software, version 14.5.5.

Findings

This section commences with a demographic description of the sample followed by a detailed presentation of key findings arising from the qualitative thematic analysis. The qualitative analysis purposively prioritizes retaining participants’ own words to give agency to this marginalized social group and presents participants’ perceptions using the two subheadings, “male Goth gender performance in rural Australia” and “community response to male Goth gender performance in rural Australia.”

Sample Demographics

Demographics were collected for participants’ place of birth, age, place of birth and residency, educational level, gender identity, and sexuality. Twenty-two participants were born in Australia (88 percent) and three were born overseas (12 percent). Of those born overseas, two were born in the United States (8 percent) and one in the UK (4 percent). All participants (N = 25) lived in rural Australia at the time the interview was conducted and generally described their location by state in relation to their closest major city, such as Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, or Brisbane. Table 1 shows participants’ locations were broadly distributed across Australia.

Table 1.

Participant State/Territory Residency.

Australian State/Territory	n	Percentage
New South Wales	11	44
Queensland	7	28
South Australia	3	12
Western Australia	3	12
Northern Territory	1	4

Participants’ mean age was thirty, with the youngest being seventeen and the oldest forty-eight. The majority of participants were young to middle aged: 21–30 (n = 8), 31–40 (n = 6), 41–50 (n = 6), and under 20 (n = 2). Demographics related to education, perceived gender identity, and sexuality next appear in Table 2. Next, in-depth qualitative analysis of participant perceptions’ related to male Goth gender performance and community response in rural Australia are presented.

Table 2.

Participant Highest Level of Education, Gender Identity, and Sexuality.

Highest Education	n	Percentage
Higher school certificate/equivalent	9	36
Bachelor’s degree	9	36
Postgraduate degree	5	20
Grade 10 certificate	2	8
Gender identity
Male	16	64
Female	5	20
Androgynous	3	12
Agendered	1	4
Sexuality
Heterosexual	14	56
Bisexual	5	20
Pansexual	3	12
Homosexual	2	8
Asexual	1	4

Qualitative Thematic Analysis

Theme 1: Male Goth gender performance in rural Australia

Male Goth gender performance in rural Australia bellied adherence to normative masculine/feminine expression. Indeed, most sought to transcend restrictive gender norms. A forty-eight-year-old Adelaide-born participant living in rural South Australia reflected, “I see many masculine traits as being restrictive or … very narrow and shallow” (N8). Although sixteen participants (64 percent) reported performing a masculine gender, what qualified as masculine varied and rejection of traditional gender norms was prioritized. “Clashing feminine dresses with masculine combat boots” (ID3), adopting “feminine materials such as lace and velvet … guys wear[ing] dresses” (ID5) or proclaiming, “I wear high heels!” (ID11) while noting, “my fashion style would be more masculine … but I do wear the makeup” (ID9). A forty-six-year-old Melbourne-born participant, relocated to rural New South Wales (NSW), stated, “I believe most male Goths, like myself are masculine … I think overall, Goth men don’t aspire to be feminine, they are just playing with their masculinity. This sometimes means wearing a dress” (ID21). Indeed, much importance was placed on the use of aesthetics, particularly fashion, for cultural expression of “gender play” to affiliate with the broader Goth movement.

Thematic analysis revealed 40 percent (n = 10) wore traditionally feminine clothing, specifically dresses, skirts, stockings, and corsets. “Half my wardrobe is made of female clothing, while my male clothing fits more in with the garish and colorful nature most would expect of femininity, and so I cross dress openly and wear my hair in a female style” (N8). Similarly, a twenty-year-old who “love[s] to wear makeup most days and … dresses, skirts, corsets, fishnet stockings and nail polish, believed, a large majority of Goth men are feminine. I believe Goth is very feminine as a subculture” (ID15). While most participants adopted feminine attire as part of their masculine gender performance, “high femme” tended to be rejected. Comments such as, “I do not believe that the highly feminine expression characterizes most male Goths” (ID16), and “I’ve yet to meet a male Goth who is highly feminine,” evidenced this perception, even as descriptions that “many male Goths wear eyeliner and lipstick, nail polish, things more traditionally associated with femininity, and there are the stockings, mesh shirts, bondage apparel, and leather” (ID9) were described as common among male Goth gender performances.

Rural Australian male Goths’ adoption of a feminine aesthetic, however, was frequently met with confusion or confrontation in rural societies more accustomed to display of traditional gender norms rather than fluidity between one’s biological sex and display of masculinity/femininity. “I think most male Goths struggle with gender, even though they wouldn’t admit it” (ID13). Although beliefs such as, “I think my Goth clothing assists in my display of gender, through different patterns and fabrics which are largely feminine inspired” (ID8) were common among the male Goths, and “although they may be considered female domain by normal society … I wear makeup, paint my nails, keep them long and generally groom and dress myself in a way that may be seem feminine” (ID18), such gender performances often resulted in participants being assumed to be homosexual. In all instances, accusations of homosexuality were accompanied by community members’ use of derogatory labels, such as a “raging poofta” (ID5).

Thematic analysis revealed gender identity to be a complex issue confounded by society’s normative assumptions about sexuality. Nearly all rural male Goths believed their feminine gender expression transcended their sexuality and both homosexual- and heterosexual-identifying participants described their gender identity as “female”; “the entire subculture is built around the feminine” (ID6). This gender identity, outwardly displayed through performance of a “feminine masculinity” irrespective of sexuality, underscored a commitment to rejecting traditional masculine gender norms.

Many Goth males have an effeminate overtone in what they display …. I think feminine male Goth are just saying “fuck u” to society by contradicting the normal male stereotype. A guy should also look or behave the way that they feel right, and not to be dictated by external influences. (ID5)

“Goth is a very feminine subculture [,] from the clothes to the way we walk … the men enjoy being that way within Goth” (ID23). By adopting feminine male gender performances that countered stereotypical social expectations of gender and sexuality, in contemporary rural Australia, gender performance historically construed masculine was frequently considered feminine and “out of place” (ID7), with many heterosexual Goths perceived homosexual. “Many aspects of [feminine] fashion were worn by men in history, but social trends dictate what we can and cannot wear” (ID6). A rural nurse commented, “many people look at the way I dress as more homosexual” (ID22) and a forty-seven-year-old recalled friends thought “I was just some gay emo kid” (ID24). A rural-born Goth exclaimed, “I have 6 very feminine male Goth friends and they are all heterosexual. All male Goths are categorized as homo just because we relate to women” (ID23). In every instance, the homosexual label implied negative consequences for participants. Rural conservatism was frequently identified as responsible for the perpetuation of “discomfort” experience by traditional rural Australians. “Because it’s a rural area not many people are comfortable seeing things that go against the stereotyped acceptable gender and social behavior of what is heterosexual male and female, masculine and feminine” (ID1).

All (n = 16) masculine-identifying participants noted the historical-, cultural-, and location-specific relativity of fashion and corresponding societal (dis)approval of gender performance. “Ancient Egyptians wore skirts and dramatic eye makeup. Back then that sort of presentation was appropriate for men” (ID24). Similarly, the relativity of gender-associated fashion norms was highlighted by recalling renaissance fashion. “Men wore corsetry for show alongside their women in France in the Renaissance, yet it has become socially unconventional in this day and age. Why?” (ID6). Goth, “in this day … define[s] lifestyles and appearances which originally wouldn’t have been deemed Goth in the traditional sense” (ID11). Societal backlash to feminine male Goth gender performance at times was assuaged by participants’ sense of connection with the broader Goth movement, as a “lifestyle choice” connecting individuals with an international subculture transcending location. As one from a small rural mountain town noted, “Goth is a lifestyle choice … a holistic subculture that embraces all that is dark and macabre and makes it a beautiful thing.” (ID3). It was widely believed, “where you live should play no role in how you present yourself” (ID4) since “Goth is about being yourself and being strong. Location should not change that” (ID16). The inconsequentiality of location to Goth identity was strongly conveyed. “I think there’s something that comes from the heart that ultimately makes you realize whether you are Goth or not. Location is merely a circumstance of living” (ID9). This perception transcended generational differences as both a Sydney-born teenager relocated to rural Queensland described, “Goth identity and gender identity are two different things … I don’t think I would change my identity if I changed my location” (ID4) and an older Sydney-born Goth noted, “I don’t see location … as relative” (ID12).

While Goth identity was largely informed by the broader movement, individual interpretation still varied. For example, although a thirty-three-year-old, born in a rural town ∼500 km from major Australian metropolises, clearly summarized Goth as, “someone who identifies with … aspects of a culture, that include[s] particular tastes in music, literature, fashion, body modification and sex and sexuality” (ID2), a twenty-nine-year-old from an inland rural city struggled “to find who I was without access to a larger cultural/subcultural view” (ID7). Hence, while rurality was perceived unimportant to the adoption of Goth identity and female dress facilitated male Goth masculinity performance, it was not without consequence in rural Australia, as the second theme explores in detail.

Theme 2: Community response to male Goth gender performance in rural Australia

All participants reported adverse rural community responses to feminized male Goth gender performance, explaining community members showed disapproval by “inappropriately staring” (ID10), making “offensive comments” (ID6) and “publicly shunning” (ID2). Response varied by location. In some rural locations, it was “generally acceptable to wear whatever I choose” (ID11). In other locations, participants described, “frequently be[ing] threatened and scrutinized for my appearance, which caused me to “tone it down” or to be exact, not dress quite so Goth” (ID11). Community response was thought to be affected by mass media’s negative portrayal of Goths and the role media played in perpetuating stereotypes was raised by 68 percent of participants. Quotes in Table 3 reveal how participants felt about Goth stereotypes.

Table 3.

Male Goths’ Perceptions of Goth Stereotypes and Their Impact.

I blame newspapers, magazines, and television for molding public attitudes against Goths. Without the media distorting the truth, people would think and feel very differently about alternative folk. The general public sees difference as a bad thing and something that should be snuffed out (ID10)

Goths … somehow always get the blame and negative press whenever something abysmal happens in a social context. People assume we are depressed, we are satanists, we are psychopaths, we always dress in black, we are social deviates, we don’t contribute to society, we’re all homosexual, and we listen to nothing but mental to name just a few of the stereotypes (ID3)

… commonly we are generalized as pretentious, depressed, withdrawn, outcasted homosexuals. They can affect someone mentally, particularly … men in a macho dominated culture, if you are viewed as the opposite to what you what your culture tells you that you should be, it can make you feel down about yourself, and make you doubt your lifestyle choice (ID11)

… how a male Goth should behave, yes it’s an expectation that you’ll be a Satanist, mentally ill, self-harming, gay, a try-hard and image conscious. The stereotypes are difficult because they are the opposite of who I am …. I get called gay a lot just because I’m a bit more feminine than the expected norm. I feel very masculine but others clearly don’t take my fashion and behavior that way (ID13)

I believe stereotypes exist, mainly due to how society is shaped by the media and corporations. The American school shootings is a prime example of how the media feeds off stereotypes, labeling the gunman as a Goth loner (ID7)

Mostly thanks to the media. Goth stereotypes are that we wear nothing but black, we have sex with other men, we have piercings, tattoos, smoke weed, are criminals, disturbing children who vandalize and get in trouble with the authorities (ID15)

Where I come from, people treat you as a serial killer and a freak, mostly because the media portrays us in an unfavorable light. The Columbine massacre and the recent school shootings in America has seen me get bashed and belittled more than once (ID6)

Despite geographic location being peripheral to Goth identity, rural Australian Goths felt negative stereotypes impacted their ability to confidently perform gender. Safe gender performance was thought to vary with physique. Generally, self-described “large” Goth men expressed feeling empowered to counter traditional gender norms, in contrast with less “manly” men and women who were more likely to be “picked on.” The following quotes demonstrate how “manliness” was associated with vulnerability and those wishing to portray a feminine persona were perceived better off if they were sizeable.

I am over 6 ft 2 and over 100 kg. I don’t really have security issues, so if I wanted to get Gothed up, wear makeup and a dress, or a corset I’d just do it. No matter where I am, urban or rural, I will always have that attitude. (ID5)

Likewise, another reflected,

I don’t mind lace frills and brocade. I have worn my eyeliner for 15 years … I’m not very manly at all, but due to weakness being seen as prey, I made sure I was of a size to not be challenged. (ID10)

In contrast, a Queenslander “born and raised” in a small country town divulged, “I have always being teased for not being manly enough …. I have even seen women get picked on for wearing gothic makeup, mostly because of the implications associated with women who dress like that.” (ID6)

With urbanism commonly associated with greater open-mindedness, participants expressed less inhibition to display unconventional gender characteristics in urban Australia. For instance, a thirty-two-year-old Goth identifying with a female gender described:

Location effects the display of gender … in a rural location, being male, one dresses more masculine as a subconscious thought. Whereas a city would be more accepting and thus more comfortable to dress in an effeminate manner. (ID3)

In part, this was thought due to rural Australian communities’ “closed-mindedness” or homophobia. As a forty-five-year-old, self-described heterosexual from rural Queensland detailed:

I wear makeup, paint my nails, keep them long and generally groom and dress myself in a way that may seem feminine and I have no problem with it … even if the rest of the world does … Some … think I’m a girl or I’m a gay man … People wanted me to stop … dressing how I was dressing …. We … get stereotyped as feminine and the gay label goes along with that too. (ID10)

Inaccurate societal labeling of one’s sexuality, whereby heterosexual male Goths were labeled homosexual, was often perceived as rural “ignorance” and evidence of closed-mindedness. “I do, however, get some negative comments about my kilt, or ‘skirt.’ Wearing a kilt or skirt automatically makes me a homosexual to them, but that’s just ignorance on their part” (ID7).

The conservatism of Australian rural communities clashed with the frequent characterization of Goth as open-minded, particularly to homosexuality and counternormative gender performance. Statements such as, “a Goth is an open-minded person” (ID12); “open-minded … makes me more comfortable to display my femininity” (ID11); “We are a very open-minded and gentle folk” (ID15); and “Goths are unusual in that we are more open to people from homosexual culture” (ID9) reflect the pervasiveness of such notions. Hence, the mental rigidity of rural Australia was described as prohibitive to Goth’s open-mindedness and flexible gender performance. “Goth allows its members to explore femininity, masculinity, androgyny, etc. My location restricts how I can display Goth and gender. People can be discouraging (to say the least),” described a thirty-year-old from the UK of his rural Australian community (ID25).

The extent Australian rurality impeded feminized male Goth gender performance was reflected in the many examples offered. Some participants were able to make minor alterations to physical appearance by “toning down” their Goth expression, “I had long hair and wore a lot of makeup when I was living in the UK, but now, I’ve cut it off and toned down the makeup” (ID12), whereas others felt compelled to entirely hide their gender and sexuality when leaving home due to harassment, “My location really limits me … I won’t go out expressing my gender without being harassed, so I keep my gender and sexual preferences hidden when I do venture out of the house” (ID15). Some avoided specific social interactions and public places entirely. “Rural areas are much more closed-minded which in turn makes it difficult to fully express yourself, making you steer clear of social areas or going out in public” (ID7). Additional exemplars provided in Table 4 demonstrate the depth of impact rural Australian closed-mindedness had on participants.

Table 4.

Male Goths’ Perceptions of Rural Australian “Closed-Mindedness.”

[TownX] is a conservative liberal hotspot in a Christian rural area, very stagnant! There are many factors involved in how one outwardly expresses their lifestyle choice in comparison with, say our city cousins … [TownX] will never see me fully Gothed up …. Closed-minded immature people with little intelligence seem to always want to try and cause drama and conflict because there is something different, something classy, and something they don’t understand so they strike out because it has impeded on their little bubble of safety in conforming. Fear and ignorance (ID3)

Given that I live in a rural community, it is sometimes very difficult to openly display any deviation from the norm when it comes even to fashion, where other members of the populace may feel uninhibited in screaming out insults from their car windows. It’s either rude comments … or I get publicly shunned. This does not even begin to cover the repressive attitudes toward … to alternative lifestyles … because it’s a conservative town (ID2)

Where I live … is a very small and narrow-minded community and it can be very isolating for a Goth to live in that sort of environment … I have been to Sydney and Melbourne a few times and from a young age I was influenced by the Goths I have met in each city … I wouldn’t have known about Goth if I hadn’t witnessed the subculture in my travels. I only really dress up as my true Goth self at home as I’m mostly too frightened to go out and be mocked for who I am by the bogans in [TownY] (ID15)

Location effects the way I display ‘Goth’ severely. I myself and many others trapped in the tropical climate of far north Queensland will attest to this …. The isolation and size of the cities up here mean that gothic clothing stores, clubs, and indeed other Gothic people are almost completely absent. As such, anyone identifying with Goth here has to tone it down to almost unnoticeable levels. I have received a great amount of retaliation from my local community and though it doesn’t mean I stop or tone down my presentation, it means on most occasions I have to be careful. I look over my shoulder and I’m always wary of others, they make me uncomfortable (ID18)

Rural Australia’s perceived conservatism, as displayed in Table 4, transcended nationality. Participants born in the United States, UK, and Australia held similar beliefs, as an American Goth from Connecticut who described his rural Australian town as close-minded, conservative, and very sensitive noted, resulting in his retreat to cyberspace to escape rural reality. “I’m online everyday because I feel isolated and disconnected from Goth … I’ve found accepting people elsewhere, on social media” (ID1). Nevertheless, rural closed-mindedness unfortunately impacted many Goths in the workplace. The conservatism of rural employers, outside the creative industries, was perceived costly, toxic, and prejudicial, as the examples in Table 5 demonstrate.

Table 5.

Rural Australian Employment Experiences and Male Goth Gender Performance.

Most companies in my town will not hire you if you look Goth (ID17)

Many Goths … are prejudiced against by employers who are still very conservative … I am forbidden to wear makeup, as it is considered inappropriate, and your average pair of Goth boots would be frowned upon in the workplace (ID9)

I find it [the rural workforce] can be a very toxic environment … So I myself tend to be very quiet about what and who I am … I dress plain and wear very little makeup. I have made the mistake of being myself before and it has cost me my job (ID10)

Because people in rural areas are less open to things that are different … their own prejudices and biases effect where and who will give you employment. They say that employers cannot discriminate against potential employees, but that is not true. In order to gain work, I have had to tone down the look considerably, and even then there is still a large amount of prejudice just over my long hair and piercings. If you want work as a Goth in a rural area, you basically have to know the employers. In cities it’s okay … up here however it is far more difficult … you will have to ‘impersonate’ someone normal everyday just to go to work because people are not as accepting of differences (ID18)

I have long hair, I commonly wear makeup, fishnet shirts, knee high boots, corsets, and many other typically more feminine items of clothing …. In my former career as a tradesperson, I was commonly working with typical male stereotypes who would criticize me for my choice of lifestyle, many times, I did consider conforming to what they wanted, just to avoid scrutiny … the only real place I’ve experienced serious discrimination is in the workforce. When I dress as myself, I can tell others don’t approve of me. They seem to snarl at me. I try so very hard to fit in because, well, I need to be there to make a wage, but it’s so hard to pretend to be something you’re not, you know? (ID11)

Experience of “conservative” workplaces affected male Goths similarly, irrespective of whether they were born in the country or city. For instance, a rural-born, rural-living thirty-seven-year-old who self-described as an “elder Goth” speculated, “I’m guessing I’d get … a lot less ‘gay’ or ‘fag’ comments in an urban area” (ID9) when reflecting on rural Australian conservatism. Many born in Australian cities, regardless of whether Adelaide, Sydney, or Melbourne, also found moving to rural Australia affected their feminine male Goth gender performance.

Moving to a small place was tough because everyone suddenly knew me and started talking. A month after we moved, I cut my hair and took out my piercings. It was like I felt I needed to alter myself to fit the system. (ID8)

Although his chosen employment sector permitted flexible gender performance, he believed that had he chosen “medicine but still lived in this same location,” his Goth self-expression “would be quite different” (ID8). Another participant, relocated to a rural Northern Territory community yet born in Sydney, confided, “I can understand why some rural Goths have trouble, because rural areas are commonly known as ‘fixed’ places with conservative populations” (ID13). He, too, found a feminized gender performance difficult and resulting in overt homophobia. His experiences clearly conveyed the pressure exerted by some rural Australian communities to compel feminine male Goths to curtail and/or significantly modify their gender performance.

I get called a poof a lot, and I struggle to be myself and express myself where I live now … [I’m] wearing biker gear, trying to look and feel more masculine. I used to look more feminine in the city. Here, I feel I can’t do that; it’s too old fashioned … Moving and living in a rural community has pushed me out of that image a lot. (ID13)

Repeatedly, rural communities’ discomfort with diversity yielded maladaptive responses, particularly ridicule and homophobia. A heterosexual Sydney-born forty-six-year-old agricultural student reflected:

People can be very cruel and I hope my children don’t suffer because of my choices. I do change my appearance … to avoid ridicule …. I do hang around a lot of rural males. But I’m very artistic, so I’m instantly considered some sought of weirdo or queer. (ID21)

Male Goths who reported the highest feminine male Goth gender performance tended to experience the most violent reactions in rural communities. Participants attributed violent reactions to some rural community members’ attempts to maintain a normative social order, impress peers, and/or relieve boredom. Although the most common response by Goths was a demoralized retreat, resulting in an altered self-expression as the recent examples revealed, in other instances, feeling socially obligated to change gender expression had more debilitating consequences.

Many examples of the consequences social ridicule, discrimination, and ostracism produced were offered. A forty-eight-year-old, city-born Goth experienced clinical depression. To combat the adverse social responses to his gender performance, he chose social conformity. “When visiting the southern states of the United States two years ago, I dressed as plainly as possible under the assumption I might have been shot otherwise” (ID8). Likewise, a thirty-two-year-old Sydney-born Goth:

had to change my appearance a lot … People where I live also affect how Goth I am … I was severely bullied … Now, if people are rude about how I look and abuse me for it, I’m less likely to go out Goth. (ID12)

A city-born forty-seven-year-old master’s student felt empowered to defend himself, mentally and physically, in rural Australia. “If people say stuff or they stare, that’s their problem … It becomes my problem when they engage physically … I’ll defend myself and break a nose if I have to” (ID47). This self-defense strategy, however, was an isolating experience in a location where rural facilities were “pathetic and unhelpful, especially for men and mental health” (ID47). Rural community response negatively affected the mental health of many Goths, contributing to social isolation.

I personally have felt isolated … many mainstream community members, especially in a rural community … treat [Goths] as outsiders and either avoid association and/or lash out, whether verbal or physical aggression … I have found … urban environments are a lot more accepting … rural communities are more enclosed and less accepting as opposed to urban communities. (ID22)

Accounts of bullying and discrimination were frequent. Sixteen participants (64 percent) experienced bullying in response to their counternormative lifestyles, particularly during adolescence, with group travel believed to be the most effective way to evade harassment. “Boys in my class pushed me, punched me, and called me a fag. I tried to stick close to the few friends I had. Bullies would only target me when I walked home alone” (ID6). Most participants felt socially pressured to comply with masculine gender norms and used coping mechanisms, such as trying to “ignore those likely to cause conflict” (ID1), “escape through music” (ID13), and “focus on positive thoughts” (ID15). Bullying also continued into adulthood. A forty-two-year-old Melbourne-born Goth found those in rural NSW “try to intimidate you. They get in your face and make you uncomfortable” (ID20). In rural Queensland, participants had to “dress down to avoid bullying to, which makes me ashamed” (ID17) and faced physical attack and felt like an outcast:

Although I’m heterosexual, I often dress in ways that people may consider androgynous or even in drag. I have received a great amount of retaliation from my local community … on most occasions I have to be careful. Because rural communities are closed-minded … the danger of physical attacks has always been a looming possibility, which I have narrowly avoided for quite some time … People, especially people in rural areas where I have always lived, have very strong ideas on what a man is. When you don’t conform, or you differ from this image, you are outcast. There have been a number of times where some aspect of gender roles has effected me, being physically assaulted for the way I dressed. (ID18)

Once again, responses reflect perception of substantial pressure to meet traditional gender norms in rural Australia and accentuate the aggressive reactions to difference experienced by male Goths in these communities. Repeatedly, rural Australia was considered more violent in its response than urban Australia, with two comparative examples highlighting the differences. In the first example, a participant in full Goth “clothing and makeup in both rural and urban environments” found “there is a marked difference in people’s attitudes” (ID6). He attributed the lack of rebuke in the city due to “high population density [which] seems to promote independence and rebellious attitudes, so people are used to contact with alternatives” (ID6). In contrast, the same gender performance yielded great negative community response in rural areas. “People in rural areas are overly conservative and always making offensive comments … For Goth men who wear make up and female clothing, violence is quiet common” (ID6). He believed this transcended gender, as both Goth men and women were more likely to be abused in rural Australia due to stereotyping. “Goth girls find themselves regularly accosted as well. They are considered ‘sluts’ or ‘tarts’ for their ultra feminine attire …. There are people who don’t mind how we are, just not many in rural society” (ID6). Likewise, the second example highlights the contrast in social attitudes and experiences between urban and rural Australia for those part of the Goth subculture. Similar with others who relocated from a major city to a rural Australian town, he found it not really Goth friendly and subsequently altered his gender performance, stopped wearing the makeup, Goth clothes, and tried to fit in with cargo pants and Hawaiian shirts. Much like the others in this research, however, despite outward fashion display, he still deeply identified with a Goth identity, feeling intrinsically Goth and will never change. Ultimately he moved to Melbourne and also promoted the relevance of location to physical safety and social acceptance for both men and women. “Location is important to the Goth, as there are many pressures of safety involved, for both male and females … Urban is more accepting of Goths” (ID5).

In total, 92 percent of participants felt their gender performance was negatively judged in rural communities. Positively interpreted experiences, such as a UK-born Goth who proclaimed, “Old ladies smile at me and ask me how I do my makeup—it’s very cute!” were countered by situations where they had to “tone it down” due to feeling “threatened” (ID25). All four participants who expressed positive feelings about their rural communities also recalled being victimized, bullied, or categorized as gay. Seven participants (28 percent) were optimistic that rural Australian communities would become more heterogeneous and considerate of alternate lifestyles and many believed rural attitudes were transforming slowly.

Life is beginning to get easier for Goths. I used to get harassed when I went shopping. Kids would come up to me and ask ‘are you a boy or a girl?’ That doesn’t happen so much anymore. Either people have got over it or attitudes in these parts are finally changing. (ID14)

Similar sentiments were expressed by six participants who thought negative conceptions of Goth and alternate gender expression were starting to “ease up” (ID1) or become “less noticeable” (ID11) in rural areas. Twelve participants (48 percent) were less optimistic, believing rural communities would remain intolerant because they were “stagnant” (ID3), “socially stratified” (ID22), and “fixed” (ID13) spaces. “I don’t see country towns changing anytime soon. They will remain the same like they always have. We need social divisions to survive, it’s part of life” (ID6). Some believed rural communities might even feel threatened by difference. “Members of my community feel the need to discriminate, as they don’t understand or don’t feel comfortable seeing things that are different” (ID2). Fortunately, this participant offered some hope. “I believe education is the answer to changing these repressive attitudes” (ID2). Envisioning the possibility of social change that emphasizes rural acceptance of alternative identities and gender performances beyond normative expectations is, as Butler’s (1990) theory suggests, vital. As the next section discusses, to commence changing entrenched, negative social attitudes and stereotypes requires the social environment in which they exist, in this case rural communities, be given priority of consideration.

Discussion and Conclusions

Given the general absence of studies examining rurality and Goth subculture, this research prioritized the geophysical location of rural Australian communities to explore if and how location affects male Goth gender performance. The research commenced in light of a vast body of rural studies demonstrating rurality impacts social interactions and well-being, ultimately deducing location “matters” (Deaux 2001; Kulshrestha et al. 2012). While some researchers have advocated transcending the urban–rural binary (Agyeman and Neal 2009; Chakraborti and Garland 2006; Neal 2009), others have argued excluding geography poses limitations, particularly for Butler’s theory (Elden 2005; M. Tyler and Cohen 2010), as much work continues to advocate trans-regionalism and/or reflects urban-centric viewpoints.

Hegemonic masculinity performance has been described as tough and stoic (Alston and Kent 2008), competitive (Brandth and Haugen 2005), emotionally reserved, hardy, and aggressive (Wade 1998). Despite most participants (64 percent) describing their gender performance as masculine, contemporary rural Australian male Goth masculinity was typically enacted through stereotypically feminine fashion, perceived more fluid and flexible than hegemonic gender definitions imply and often “done” in ways that transcended the social norms associated with biologically assigned sex, as Butler’s (1990) theory suggests. Fashion proved central to gender performance, with most male Goths adopting stereotypically feminine fashion while simultaneously identifying as masculine. Although commonly perceived a by-product of consumer society, fashion was construed as central to participants’ individual gender performance as an outer representation of gender substance (Butler 1990). This finding challenges research positing that consumer goods hinder the uniqueness of Goth gender performance (Brill 2008; Goulding and Saren 2009).

Most male Goths reported being labeled homosexual, despite their heterosexuality or other sexual identity, and subsequently endured homophobic social behavior. This key finding reveals the complexity of rural gender and sexuality norms. Generally, participants attributed the perpetuation of such attitudes and behaviors to the stereotypical expectations of gender performance held by most members of rural communities. All participants experienced some type of adverse rural community response to their Goth gender performance that countered normative masculine assumptions. Severity varied from inappropriate staring and verbal comments to bullying and physical assault. Although the media was perceived largely responsible for perpetuating negative stereotypes about the Goth subculture, it was the closed-mindedness of rural communities most believed accounted for “country” discomfort with gender nonconformity.

Overall, participant experiences demonstrated a widespread effort to regulate atypical, or, deviant gender behavior (Scott 1971). Rural community sanctioning of individuals’ clothing choice, for example, revealed how “normalizing” processes contributed to be stereotyped as other (Huo 2007; Luxmoore 2011; Staszak 2008). Other-izing was reflected through community discomfort, ostracism, and outcasting not unlike minorities’ experiences in rural areas of the UK (Agyeman and Neal 2009; Chakraborti and Garland 2006; Neal 2009) and was consistent with descriptions about rural community response and victimization (Foucault 1977; Hall 2012). Other-ing further reflected how normative gender performance expectations put forth in mass culture, particularly media, offer hegemonic models for sex, gender, and (sub)culture that influence social construction and impact social interactions (Cohen 1985; Lamont 2005; Tait 1999).

Participants self-identified geographic location to be crucial and frequently disclosed how rural Australia demanded tempering of their feminized male Goth gender performance. Rurality necessitated behavior modification and conformity to non-Goths’ expectations, especially for employment and career purposes as well as physical safety. The severity of physical violence experienced was thought to coincide with the expression of feminine gender performance by male Goths and location was perceived to matter greatly. The most violent and intimidating responses participants experienced occurred in rural communities, which were described in contrast with Australia’s open-minded cities, and such findings are consistent with other counternormative gender discrimination and victimization research (Rutledge, Rimer, and Scott 2008; Wright 2000; Sweeting et al. 2006). Further, the coping strategies employed may be understood as rituals assisting Goth identity construction and gender performance and are consistent with prior research about Goth culture (Ensor 2013; Muggleton 2000; Spooner 2006) as well as studies about what mechanisms rural Australian males use to avoid and survive physical and verbal conflict (Alston and Kent 2008; Gilchrist, Howarth, and Sullivan 2007).

Nevertheless, it is important to note these findings stem from a specific subgroup within a diverse Goth population. Future research exploring the violence Goths experience in rural Australian communities may benefit from Butler’s (1990) insights about how violence can be used to keep those adopting alternative identities “in place” and may wish to further explore if and how diversity within the Goth subculture impacts experience. Questioning who are most policed—individuals performing Goth gender or perpetrators of violence—may advance insight into the construction of contemporary “deviance” and encourage critical examination of discourses shaping rural conceptions of counternormative gender performance and identity (Foucault 1977; Garland 2010; Hodkinson 2002). Given findings suggest rural communities exerted considerable influence over participants’ perception of “acceptable” gender norms and strongly sanctioned alternative gender performances (Butler 1990; Foucault 1977), it may be worthwhile to investigate why some rural male Goths persist with a counternormative gender performance in hostile environments, thereby deepening the understanding of Goth identity construction.

Finally, participants reflected about the capacity for social attitudes about cultural diversity to change in rural Australian communities. Butler (1990) acknowledged cultural variation, and its influence on gender performance, and stated it is possible to improve conditions for counternormative gender performance by exposing why negative reactions occur. Along with highlighting damaging consequences resulting from “closed-minded” individuals in rural communities who upheld a traditional gender binary through social disapproval and/or violence, many participants failed to foresee a future where rural communities embraced cultural diversity. This common attitude reflects disempowerment and expectations of increased alienation and other-ization as the parameters of knowledge and power/authority were predicted to remain fixed (Foucault 1977).

Limited understanding of the Goth subculture and alternative genders were key reasons why rural communities were thought to respond unsympathetically to expressions of different lifestyles. Congruent with Butler’s (1990) assertion that education about alternative gender performance is necessary to surpass binary gender construction, which, as the gender literature reveals, continues to be strongly sanctioned when breached (Brandth and Haugen 2005; Coldwell 2007; Segal 1990), we recommend public education that commences with balanced and less sensationalized media coverage of Goth subculture is a useful “first” step forward. Subsequent steps to foster social change may include the broad recognition of how and why place, both virtual and “physical” matters, with a thorough investigation of how both geophysical and virtual environments impact cultural identity, isolation, mental health, and a range of other sociopsychological factors crucial for the promotion of individual and community well-being. It is unsurprising social media became an outlet for gender identity expression among the rural male Goths interviewed in light of the negative social responses received in rural communities. Such a finding is also consistent with past research confirming social media to be a popular platform for those with alternative social identities (Herdagdelen et al. 2013; Kulshrestha et al. 2012). Given our sample derived from social media sites, however, it would be most worthwhile for future research to explore how widespread and important online communities are for alternative gender performance in Goth and/or other subcultures, as both an alternative place and a tool for identity construction and expression as well as its safety and levels of perceived satisfaction.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abelove

2012. The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Agyeman

Neal

. 2009. “Rural Identity and Otherness.” In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol. 5, edited by Kitchin

Thrift

, 277–81. Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Alston

Margaret

Kent

Jenny

. 2008. “The Big Dry: The Link between Rural Masculinities and Poor Health Outcomes for Farming Men.” Journal of Sociology 44:133–47.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 2011. “Australian Statistical Geography Standard.” Volume 4: Significant Urban Areas, Urban Centres and Localities, Section of State, cat.no.1270.0.55.004. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Bank

Barbara J.

1995. “Friends in Australia and the United States: From Feminization to a More Heroic Image.” Gender & Society 9:79–98.

Beasley

Chris

. 2013. “Mind the Gap? Masculinity Studies and Contemporary Gender/Sexuality Thinking.” Australian Feminist Studies 28:108–24.

Boucher

Geoffrey

. 2006. “The Politics of Performativity: A Critique of Judith Butler.” Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy 1:112–41.

Bourke

2003. “Toward Understanding Youth Suicide in an Australian Rural Community.” Social Science & Medicine 57:2355–65.

Brandth

Berit

Haugen

Marit S.

. 2005. “Doing Rural Masculinity—From Logging to Outfield Tourism.” Journal of Gender Studies 14:13–22.

10.

Brill

Dunja

. 2008. Goth Culture: Gender, Sexuality and Style. Oxford, England: Berg.

11.

Butera

2008. “Neo-mateship in the Twenty-first Century: Changes in the Performance of Australian Masculinity.” Journal of Sociology 44:265–81.

12.

Butler

Judith

. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

13.

Butler

Judith

. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.

14.

Bye

Linda

. 2009. “‘How To Be a Rural Man’: Young Men’s Performances and Negotiations of Rural Masculinities.” Journal of Rural Studies 25:278–88.

15.

Chakraborti

Neil

Garland

Jon

. 2006. “England’s Green and Pleasant Land? Examining Racist Prejudice in a Rural Context”. Patterns of Prejudice 38:383–98.

16.

Cohen

1985. Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment and Classification. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

17.

Coldwell

Ian

. 2007. “Young Farmers, Masculinities and the Embodiment of Farming Practices in an Australian Setting.” Rural Society 17:19–33.

18.

Colling

Terry

. 1992. Beyond Mateship: Understanding Australian Men. East Roseville, New South Wales: Simon & Schuster Australia.

19.

Connell

R. W.

2000. The Men and the Boys. St. Leonards, New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.

20.

Couch

2007. Tranznation: A Report on the Health and Wellbeing of Transgender People in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society, LaTrobe University.

21.

Davies

Martin

. 2007. Doing a Successful Research Project: Using Qualitative or Quantitative Methods. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

22.

Deaux

Kate

. 2001. “Social Identity.” In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by Higgins

E. T.

Kruglenski

A. W.

, 1–6. New York: The Guildford Press.

23.

Eckart

Gabriele

. 2005. “The German Gothic Subculture.” German Studies Review 28:547.

24.

Elden

2005. “The Place of The Polis: Political Blindness in Judith Butler’s Antigone’s Claim.” Theory & Event 8, 1–49.

25.

Ensor

2013. “Mother of ‘Goth Victim’ Welcomes Hate Crime Law Change.” The Telegraph, April, 04 2013. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9971003/Mother-of-goth-victim-welcomes-hate-crime-law-change.html.

26.

Fiske

John

Hodge

Bob

Turner

Graeme

1987. Myths of Oz: Reading Australian Popular Culture. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.

27.

Foucault

1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books.

28.

Galilee

John

. 2002. “Class Consumption: Understanding Middle-class Young Men and Their Fashion Choices.” Men and Masculinities 5:32–52.

29.

Garland

2010. “‘It’s a Mosher Just Been Banged for No Reason’: Assessing Targeted Violence against Goths and the Parameters of Hate Crime.” International Review of Victimology 17:159–77.

30.

Gilchrist

Howarth

Sullivan

2007. “The Cultural Context of Youth Suicide in Australia: Unemployment, Identity and Gender.” Social Policy & Society 6:151–63.

31.

Goodlad

Lauren M. E.

2007. “Looking for Something Forever Gone: Gothic Masculinity, Androgyny, and Ethics at the Turn of the Millennium.” Cultural Critique 66:104–26.

32.

Goodlad

Lauren M. E.

Bibby

Michael

. 2007. Goth: Undead Subculture. Durham, England: Duke University Press.

33.

Goulding

Christina

Saren

Michael

. 2009. “Performing Identity: An Analysis of Gender Expressions at the Whitby Goth Festival.” Consumption Markets & Culture 12:27–46.

34.

Haenfler

Ross

. 2010. Goths, Gamers, and Grrrls: Deviance and Youth Subcultures. New York: Oxford University Press.

35.

Halberstam

1998. Female Masculinity. Durham, England: Duke University Press.

36.

Hall

2012. Theorizing Crime & Deviance: A New Perspective. London, England: Sage.

37.

Herdagdelen

Amac

Zuo

Wenyun

Gard-Murray

Alexander

Bar-Yam

Yaneer

2013. “An Exploration of Social Identity: The Geography and Politics of News-sharing Communities in Twitter.” Wiley Periodical 19:10–20.

38.

Hodkinson

Paul

. 2002. Goth: Identity, Style, and Subculture. Oxford, England: Berg.

39.

Holliday

H. E.

2011. Reconnecting, Redirecting and Redefining 21st Century Males. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

40.

Huo

2007. Beyond Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture. London, England: Routledge.

41.

Issitt

Micah L.

2011. Goths a Guide to an American Subculture. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.

42.

Jagger

Gill

. 2008. Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the Performative. London, England: Routledge.

43.

Jasper

Agnes

. 2004. “‘I Am Not a Goth!’ The Unspoken Morale of Authenticity within the Dutch Gothic Subculture.” Etnofoor 17:90–115.

44.

Kulshrestha

Juhi

Kooti

Farshad

Nikravesh

Ashkan

Gummadi

2012. Geographic Dissection of the Twitter Network. Kaiserslautern, Germany: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (MPI-SWS).

45.

Lamont

2005. “Young and Troubled—Two Lives Destroyed in a Gothic Tragedy.” Sydney Morning Herald, October 26, 2005. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/young-and-troubled--two-lives-destroyed-in-a-gothic-tragedy/2005/10/25/1130239521790.html.

46.

Lloyd

1999. “Performativity, Parody, Politics.” Theory, Culture and Society 16:195–213.

47.

Luxmoore

2011. Young People and the Curse of Ordinariness. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

48.

Muggleton

David

. 2000. Inside Subculture the Postmodern Meaning of Style. Oxford, England: Berg.

49.

Murrie

1998. “The Australia Legend: Writing Australian Masculinity/Writing ‘Australian’ Masculine.” The Journal of Australian Studies 22:67–77.

50.

Neal

Sarah

. 2009. Rural Identities: Ethnicity and Community in the Contemporary English Countryside. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

51.

Ragusa

Angela T.

2012. Writing for the Social Sciences. Frenchs Forest, New South Wales: Pearson Australia.

52.

Ragusa

Angela T.

Crowther

Andrew

. 2014. “Mental Health Nurses: The Challenge of Working in Rural and Remote Australian Communities.” In Rural Lifestyles, Community Well-being and Social Change: Lessons from Country Australia for Global Citizens, edited by Ragusa

A. T.

, 258–99. Emirate of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: Bentham Science.

53.

Ragusa

Angela T.

Groves

Philip

. 2010. “E-Mail Interviews with Senior Legal Professional Women in Australia: Examining Computer-mediated Communication.” In Interaction in Communication Technologies and Virtual Learning Environments: Human Factors, edited by Ragusa

, 38–56. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

54.

Reynolds

2002. From Camp to Queer: Re-making the Australian Homosexual. Carlton South, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

55.

Rutledge

Rimer

Scott

2008. “Vulnerable Goth Teens: The Role of Schools in this Psychosocial High-risk Culture.” Journal of School Health 78:459–64.

56.

Scharf

Natasha

. 2011. Worldwide Gothic: A Chronicle of a Tribe. Church Stretton, Shropshire: Independent Music Press.

57.

Scherer

2009. Queering Paradigm. New York: P.Lang.

58.

Scott

1971. Internalization of Norms: A Sociological Theory of Moral Commitment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

59.

Segal

1990. Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

60.

Seidman

Irving

. 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

61.

Siegel

2005. Goth’s Dark Empire. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

62.

Spooner

2006. Contemporary Gothic. London, England: Reaktion.

63.

Staszak

2008. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford, England: Elsevier Publie dans.

64.

Stenbacka

Susanne

. 2011. “Othering the Rural: About the Construction of Rural Masculinities and the Unspoken Urban Hegemonic Ideal in Swedish Media.” Journal of Rural Studies 27:235–44.

65.

Sweeting

Young

West

Der

2006. “Peer Victimization and Depression in Early-mid Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 76:577–94.

66.

Tait

1999. “Rethinking Youth Cultures: The Case of the Gothics.” Social Alternatives 18:1–2.

67.

Tyler

Melissa

Cohen

Laurie

. 2010. “Spaces that Matter: Gender Performativity and Organizational Space.” Organization Studies 31:175–98.

68.

Tyler

Tom

. 2002. “Is the Internet Changing Social Life? It Seems the More Things Change, the More they Stay the Same.” Journal of Social Issues 58:195–205.

69.

Udry

J. R.

2000. “Biological Limits of Gender Construction.” American Sociological Review 65:443–57.

70.

Wade

J. C.

1998. “Male Reference Group Identity Dependence: A Theory of Male Identity.” The Counseling Psychologist 26:349–82.

71.

Warner

1999. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. New York: Free press.

72.

Wilchins

R. A.

2004. Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer. Los Angeles, CA: Alyson Books.

73.

Wilkins

Amy C.

2008. Wannabes, Goths, and Christians: The Boundaries of Sex, Style, and Status. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

74.

Wilkins

Amy C.

2009. “Masculinity Dilemmas: Sexuality and Intimacy Talk among Christians and Goths.” Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34:343–68.

75.

Wilkinson

David

Gunnell

David

. 2000. “Comparison of Trends in Method-specific Suicide Rates in Australia and England & Wales, 1968-97.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 24:153–57.

76.

Wright

2000. “‘I’d Sell You Suicide’: Pop Music and Moral Panic in the Age of Marilyn Manson.” Popular Music 19:365–85.

77.

Wynn

Eleanor

Katz

James

. 1997. “Hyperbole over Cyberspace: Self-presentation and Social Boundaries in Internet Home Pages and Discourse.” The Information Society 13:297–327.