‘I’m not allowed wrestling stuff’: Hegemonic masculinity and primary school boys

Abstract

Hegemonic masculinity is Connell’s key concept in a hierarchical framework of masculinities which has had a significant influence on thinking about gender. This article draws on Connell’s theories, previous research and my empirical research to argue that there are limitations to using the concept of hegemonic masculinity, and even hegemonic masculinities, when examining boys and masculinity. Boys are rarely mentioned in definitions and theoretical writing about hegemonic masculinity, yet much research examining primary school boys and masculinity uncritically draws on the concept. My research in Australia with 6- and 7-year-old children found that boys had limited access to hegemonic masculinity. As a possible explanation for its usage by researchers with primary school boys, I explore the potential usefulness of multiple and local hegemonic masculinities.

Keywords

age groups children education feminism gender hegemonic masculinity masculinities primary education

Nathan:

¹ That’d be just stupid, a boy wants a– is it a boy or a girl I can’t tell the difference?

Sophie:

It’s a boy

Nathan:

Why would a boy want a doll? That’s just freaky. Why would a boy want a doll?

CB:

Why?

Nathan:

If it was [a] boy doll I’d be happy

[…]

Matthew:

If it was a wrestling doll I’d be happy

Nathan:

Yeah Lachlan has a few wrestling dolls

Matthew:

I’m not allowed wrestling stuff

Hegemonic masculinity is a key concept in Connell’s² hierarchical framework of masculinities. The concept is omnipresent in masculinity studies (Beasley, 2005: 192) and has had significant influence in feminist, sexuality and international studies (Beasley, 2008: 88). The focus of this article is on Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity not only because of its widespread usage in studying masculinities but also because of its usefulness for examining patterns of power and the process of gender hierarchies. However, boys are rarely mentioned in theoretical writing about hegemonic masculinity. This suggests that boys may have a precarious relationship to hegemonic masculinity such that they may even occupy the comparative outsider status of marginalized or subordinated masculinities. The question of boys’ relationship to complicity and solidarity with hegemonic masculinity is thus also open to question. Nevertheless, much empirical research analysing primary school boys and masculinity uses the theoretical concept of hegemonic masculinity as if it were unproblematic. Indeed, ‘[s]ince the late 1980s “hegemonic masculinity” has become one of the key analytic concepts through which masculinities in school-based research have been theorised’ (Renold, 2005: 66). Thus, it is important to address the absence of any substantial critical analysis of the degree of ‘fit’ between hegemonic masculinity and primary school boys (Renold, 2007: 276).

The exchange at the beginning of this article, in response to the children’s book William’s Doll (Zolotow and Pène du Bois, 1972), highlights questions about hegemonic masculinity that arise within my research findings. First, in my research with predominantly white, middle-class 6- and 7-year-olds in South Australian primary schools, boys did show some support for (hegemonic) masculinity: it is ‘stupid’ and ‘freaky’ if a boy wants a doll but wrestling dolls on the other hand are acceptable. Second, these young boys showed some signs of flexible attitudes: playing with ‘boy dolls’ is okay. Third, and the point I focus upon in this article, the exchange indicates that age impacts on gender. In the exchange, Matthew has restricted access to wrestling things, restrictions presumably put in place by his parents. This suggests that there are barriers to certain forms of masculinities for young boys within an Australian setting, which is a context which lends itself to a critical questioning of Connell’s conceptual terminology.

This article offers a critique of hegemonic masculinity and age, in particular considering how the concept of hegemonic masculinity relates to constructions of young masculinities in primary school. I first provide a brief overview of hegemonic masculinity, including examining how boys are located in terms of this concept. I attend particularly to Connell’s approach because of her unsurpassed contribution to theorizing masculinities. I also examine how hegemonic masculinity has been used in previous empirical research with primary school students. While my research was conducted with junior primary school children, I include in my analysis previous research with students from all year levels at primary school in order to demonstrate the widespread usage of the term. I then turn to my own research. This research suggests that the concept of hegemonic masculinity does not adequately explain the gender performances of 6- and 7-year-old boys. In so arguing, I examine the possibilities for boys to have access to a hegemonic masculinity if the term is reconsidered in the light of theories of multiple and local hegemonic masculinities.

Hegemonic Masculinity in Theory

Connell devised the concept of hegemonic masculinity drawing on Gramsci’s understanding of hegemony about class relations in Italy (see for example Connell, 1987: 184).¹ Hegemonic masculinity, at the top of a hierarchy of masculinities, enables theorizing of both men’s dominance over women as well as the dominance of particular men over others (Beasley, 2008: 88). According to Connell:

[h]egemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women. (2005c: 77, emphasis added)

What is important for hegemonic masculinity, or at least seems to ensure its continuance, is that it is organized around something worthwhile – what Connell (2002: 143) calls the patriarchal dividend. Such benefits are available not only to men who have access to hegemonic masculinity, but also to those who are complicit in the current gender order. The notion of complicit masculinities as well as compliance or support from women is crucial in upholding hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005: 832). Along with complicit masculinities, hegemonic masculinity is most often used in relation to the non-hegemonic masculinities labelled as subordinate, and marginalized (Connell, 2005c: 78–81).

While Connell (2005c: 76) argues that ‘“[h]egemonic masculinity” is not a fixed character type, always and everywhere the same’, conceptions of current Western hegemonic masculinity tend to mobilize around particular elements. These include heterosexuality, homophobia, physicality (including sport), the subordination of women, and particular mental aspects such as authority, rationality and competitiveness (Connell, 1987: 186, 2000: 69–85, 2005c: 90).

The term ‘hegemonic masculinity’ has been critiqued extensively and a reworking of the concept has been called for (see for example Beasley, 2008; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Demetriou, 2001; Flood, 2002). Key criticisms address the different meanings of hegemonic masculinity (Beasley, 2008: 88); the difficulty in applying the concept to actual men (Flood, 2002: 209); the difficulty of working out which version of masculinity might be hegemonic in practice (Beasley, 2008: 93);⁴ and that hegemonic masculinity has been taken up in some work to mean certain fixed character types (Connell, 2000: 23). Other criticisms of hegemonic masculinity relate to Connell’s interpretation of Gramsci (Howson, 2006). Stronger critiques reject the concept of hegemonic masculinity altogether. For example, McInnes (2008), drawing on Butler, argues that typologies of masculinities of any sort are problematic because they suggest fixity as well as a binary division of hegemonic and non-hegemonic.⁵ Critiques such as these have some merit, although Connell’s theorizing of masculinities is not as fixed or totalizing as some of these accounts suggest. Such critiques may be related to the association of hegemony with Gramsci and the Marxist tradition. Furthermore, a division between the use of Connell’s work and post-structuralist perspectives is not always as clear-cut as McInnes suggests.

What is notably absent from these previous critiques is a consideration of age. This article considers the interweaving of (young) age and masculinity, which is an issue that is not adequately addressed either in critiques reworking hegemonic masculinity or in those rejecting hegemonic masculinity. The dominance of Connell’s theorizing of hegemonic masculinity, including within academic research studying masculinities in educational contexts, make it an appropriate concept to focus on in this article. A consideration of age is important not only for theorizing young masculinities, but also for understanding how these masculinities later influence masculinities in adulthood. In doing so, it is necessary to engage with the broader arguments and problems surrounding hegemonic masculinity. Although I focus on age, to ignore the broader debates would essentially theorize children as a separate category from adults which is not my intention.

Boys and Hegemonic Masculinity in Connell’s Theorizing

Connell et al. (2005: 9) note, ‘the development of masculinities in the course of growing up’ is important but ‘undeveloped’. Indeed, Connell’s consideration of boys generally appears to be as ‘embryonic men’ rather than attending to the changing performances of gender in the course of growing up. While the term ‘boys’ is used in writing about masculinity, it often actually means high school boys without that being made clear (see for example Connell, 2000: ch. 9; Martino, 2007). Particularly noticeable here is Connell’s lack of attention to pre-teenage boys, even in her book titled The Men and the Boys (2000). In Masculinities Connell refers to the ‘moment of engagement’ with hegemonic masculinity among men in her life histories research who later resisted hegemonic masculinity (2005c: in particular 121–4, 145–7). It is unclear, however, when this ‘moment of engagement’ occurred.

Several contradictory understandings of the relation between boys and hegemonic masculinity can be identified in Connell’s writings. Men and boys (of an unspecified age) are presented as having the same relationship to hegemonic masculinity: ‘hegemonic masculinity need not be the commonest pattern in the everyday lives of boys and men’ (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005: 846, emphasis added). There is also a suggested connection between high school boys and hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2000, 2005b), although this is notably dropped in broader discussions of hegemonic masculinity in favour of reference to just men (Connell, 2005c). Moreover, it appears from Connell’s analysis that hegemonic masculinity is not available as an honoured form of manhood which provides the means to group complicity and solidarity until after adolescence:

it is not achieved in early childhood, nor in the oedipal period, nor even by the end of schooling, but over a span, usually, of twenty years or more. (1983: 30–1, emphasis added; see also Connell, 2005c: 135).

Furthermore, for Connell, boys and young men are subordinated by hegemonic masculinity: ‘others – among them young and effeminate as well as homosexual men – are subordinated’ (Carrigan et al., 1985: 587, emphasis added). Connell does not appear to provide a consistent understanding of how the concept of hegemonic masculinity works in relation to boys. It works at some points in the writing in the same way for all males (females disappear), but more often it works in different ways where it is unavailable to young boys. While in the literature it appears that hegemonic masculinity is usually related to adult men (and sometimes adolescent boys), and not younger boys, the reason for my focus on the concept is because of the tendency of empirical research with younger boys to use hegemonic masculinity.

Hegemonic Masculinity in Previous Research With Primary School Students

In much empirical research with primary school students the term ‘hegemonic masculinity’ is used uncritically. While there are a few examples of research using the term ‘dominant masculinity’ rather than ‘hegemonic masculinity’, age is not given as a reason for this.² Of those researchers using hegemonic masculinity, even though some note that there are problems with the concept, surprisingly they do not relate these problems to age (see for example Skelton, 1997: 351; Swain, 2006: 332, 336–7; Warren, 2003: 4–5). This is a gap which I address in this article.

Such a lack of critical engagement with hegemonic masculinity is mirrored in a common inclination to use the term itself in varied and often rather loose ways. The definitions of hegemonic masculinity given in research about boys tend to highlight its meaning as the ‘culturally exalted’ form of masculinity (Renold, 2005: 66; Skelton, 1997: 351; Swain, 2006: 336). However, some also draw on ideas of domination (Renold, 2005: 66; Warren, 1997), physical prowess (Hasbrook and Harris, 1999: 303) or high status and authority (Bhana, 2008: 6). Other research studies do not provide clear definitions of what is meant by hegemonic masculinity (Clark and Paechter, 2007; McGuffey and Rich, 1999; Newman et al., 2006).

In terms of behaviours, hegemonic masculinity is often viewed as being attempted through the physical body, particularly in the form of sport (especially soccer or football) (Bhana, 2008; Clark and Paechter, 2007; Newman et al., 2006; Renold, 2005; Skelton, 2000; Swain, 2006; Warren, 1997). Research also suggests that physical aggression, violence and hardness are aspects of hegemonic masculinity among primary school boys (Bhana, 2008; Hasbrook and Harris, 1999; Keddie, 2006; Newman et al., 2006; Nordberg et al., 2006; Renold, 2005; Skelton, 1997).

Sexuality has also been argued as being important to hegemonic masculinity in primary school (Renold, 2005; Skelton, 1997). This can involve sexual harassment of girls and female teachers (Skelton, 1997), and the sexual objectification of females (McGuffey and Rich, 1999). However, a fine line for boys between heterosexuality and the appearance of being too close to girls has been documented. For example, Haywood and Mac an Ghaill found that, rather than being interested in heterosexual relationships, the boys in their research thought that ‘expressing an interest in girls was itself a sign of femininity’ (2003: 72; see also Renold, 2005). Other aspects of hegemonic masculinity for boys may be the attempted denigration of, or oppositional positioning to, femininity and homosexuality, although it is noted that boys may not fully understand the latter of these terms and to an extent remain locked into an unthinking heteronormativity (Hasbrook and Harris, 1999: 314; McGuffey and Rich, 1999: 619; Nordberg et al., 2006; Renold, 2005).

From this previous research it is evident that the concept of hegemonic masculinity is used with boys mainly in terms of sport, bodies and sexuality. While boys are often limited in their association with these aspects of hegemonic masculinity due to age, such limitations tend not to be acknowledged by the researchers.⁷ These limitations can include things like modified rules of sports (making them less physically violent, reducing required level of skills), playing mixed-gender sports, the limited differences between boys’ and girls’ bodies in childhood (which, for example, negates claims about boys having muscles and being stronger than girls), and little, if any, involvement in sexual relationships. However, it is important to acknowledge that while boys may have practical limitations such as these, they can still draw on broader discourses of sport, bodies and sexuality to present their masculinity in particular ways. For example, several researchers have noted that boys draw on adult professional sport to exclude girls from playing sport and to position them as unskilled at sport (Davies, 2003b: 75; Warren, 2003: 13). Additionally, Skattebol (2006) notes in an early childhood setting that children often talk about themselves in terms of ‘becoming’, as well as attempting behaviours associated with those older than them, therefore drawing on discourses not necessarily related to childhood. Similarly, young children can draw on adult concepts and ways of doing gender in play (such as married/family life and jobs) (see for example Taylor, 2008). Walkerdine (1999) has also noted that childhood innocence is challenged, for example, when young girls draw on ‘adult’ sexuality. These examples suggest that boys can draw on resources perceived as ‘adult’ which challenge the adult/child binary and police the gender order.

Few writers have questioned the application of ‘adult’ masculinities to boys. An exception is Eriksson (2007), who argues that writing on men and masculinities does not draw adequately on childhood studies, nor does it look at the interweaving of age and gender. In particular she draws attention to Connell’s The Men and the Boys:

[h]ere, a theoretical perspective previously developed to understand the position of men (gendered adults) and multiple forms of masculinities (gendered adulthoods) is used to talk about boys and young men as well, without any further discussion about the implications of meanings of age or of age-related power. (Eriksson, 2007: 62)

Certainly it is evident within Connell’s work that she rarely specifies that she is talking about ‘adult’ masculinities (for an exception see 2000: 31).

Oddly enough, these oversights are rarely acknowledged even in empirical research about boys and masculinities. An exception arises in relation to Renold’s research in England where she suggests some of the 10- and 11-year-old boys attempted hegemonic masculinity but ultimately failed because it is both ‘adult-centric’ and ‘elusive’ (Renold, 2005: 67).⁸ Particularly pertinent here is Renold’s argument that:

‘fighting’ and other forms of physical violence as signifiers of hegemonic masculinity were more easily assimilated and accessed by boys of all ages [in primary school] and thus transcended social-generational boundaries in ways that the embodiment of sexuality and other signifiers of adult masculinities (e.g. man as ‘big and strong’ or as ‘provider’) do not. (2005: 72, emphasis added)

There have been other critiques about the fit of masculinities with boys which do not name hegemonic masculinity explicitly, using instead ‘adult male’ (Thorne, 1993: 172), ‘adult masculinity’ (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 2003: 72) or ‘mature masculinity’ (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2007: 104–5). A key barrier to boys achieving ‘adult masculinity’ is their lack of access to the benefits of the patriarchal dividend available to men as a group (Connell, 2002: 142). Thorne argues that boys lack the resources of ‘adult male privilege’ and boys’ status as children is more significant than their position as male (1993: 172; see also Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 2003: 72). Furthermore, it is suggested in Haywood’s research that ‘boyhood identifications were made through cultural resources that appealed to childhood rather than adult codes of mature masculinity’ (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2007: 104).

Hegemonic Masculinity and Junior Primary School Students

In this section I draw on findings from my research with junior primary school students (boys and girls) in South Australia. In this research I found that the young boys had limited access to hegemonic masculinity. While a few of the boys attempted to identify with hegemonic masculinity they had few resources to do this. There were instances where hegemonic masculinity was supported by boys and girls, as well as examples where behaviour privileged by the children differed from what is often termed hegemonic masculinity. I also discuss some unstable hierarchies of masculinities that existed among the boys.

Methods and Participants

The findings I present in this article come from research with 6- and 7-year-old children in South Australia in 2007. The research aimed to explore whether or not children near the beginning of primary school reiterated restrictive and hegemonic gender identities. Participants came from a co-educational, middle-class, Reception to Year 7 public primary school with an enrolment of approximately 270 students. The participating composite Year 1/2 class was made up of 10 girls and 11 boys, who were predominately white and middle class. I established a rapport with the children through volunteering, particularly with reading activities, for approximately 30 hours in the months prior to the research.

The primary source of data collection was book reading sessions with mixed gender groups of five to six children (four groups in total). In these sessions I read the children ‘feminist’ picture books that challenge the gender order and the privilege of hegemonic masculinity: William’s Doll (Zolotow and Pène du Bois, 1972), Cinder Edna (Jackson and O’Malley, 1994), Piggybook (Browne, 1996), and A Fire Engine for Ruthie (Newman and Moore, 2004). Stories enable discussions of gender with children that would be otherwise difficult to obtain (Davies, 2003a: 34) and ‘feminist’ books allow for positive and productive discussions of gender, and have been found to be useful in previous research with children (Davies, 2003a; Wing, 1997; Yeoman, 1999). Each book reading session ran for 25–40 minutes, during which I read one of the books and asked questions to encourage discussion and reflection of the ideas presented. Each group was read all four books over four weeks.

Focus groups were chosen in order to view the interactions between children and their negotiations of gender in a ‘peer’ setting. As Connell (2000: 162) states, ‘[t]he peer groups, not individuals, are the bearers of gender definitions’. Children were divided by the teacher into four focus groups according to their reading and comprehension levels, with the view that this would allow all children the opportunity to talk, without being dominated by those with higher comprehension abilities.⁹

Identification and Support of Hegemonic Masculinity and the Gender Order

While all of the children were aware of a gender order in which many toys and behaviours can be assigned as ‘boys’ things’ or ‘girls’ things’, they were not all equally aware and also recognized that they did not necessarily adhere to this order (see also Davies, 2003a: 132). Furthermore, they found it difficult to name what was actually in the categories of ‘boys’ things’ and ‘girls’ things’. One of the few binaries set up was between dolls for boys (wrestling dolls, superhero dolls and ‘Transformers’) and ‘other’ dolls for girls. Boys found it difficult to drawn on and associate themselves with resources relating to hegemonic masculinity. One way this was done was by denigrating femininity, particularly the sense that anything not masculine or ‘appropriate’ for boys was deemed as ‘appropriate’ for girls. A few boys feared being associated with femininity so much that they refused to discuss girls or what was ‘appropriate’ for girls. As Davies (2003b: 94) notes, it is the ‘undesirability of behaving in feminine ways that is visible’ not ‘the desirability of behaving in masculine ways’.

Some of the boys attempted to identify with characters in the picture books displaying some form of hegemonic masculinity. Most of the students could distinguish between the hegemonic and non-hegemonic characters. This seemed to influence who they identified with because some boys identified with hegemonic characters but they could not articulate why. Indeed, their claims for this mainly related to physical appearance such as hair colour. However, they were clear when they refused to identify with non-hegemonic characters (see also Davies, 2003a). For example, many of the boys refused to identify with William (a boy who wants a doll) because they could see his behaviour was stigmatized.

Rather than identifying with non-hegemonic boys or men, sometimes boys preferred to identify with females in the books. This highlights the boys’ resistance to being aligned with non-hegemonic behaviours. For example, Elliot, identified with Nana in A Fire Engine for Ruthie and the grandmother in William’s Doll (as well as William), both of whom provided nurturing roles to their grandchildren as well as supporting them to have toys not traditionally associated with their gender. Elliot said he liked the same toys/activities as Nana (tea parties with dolls, dressing-up and painting flowers) which were labelled by the children in the research as ‘girls’ toys’. Some boys identified with Cinder Edna (Jackson and O’Malley, 1994) and/or Ruthie (Newman and Moore, 2004), both of whom showed resistance to traditional gender stereotypes (for discussions of boys identifying with non-stereotypical girl characters see Davies, 2003a). However, the boys found it difficult to say why they identified with Cinder Edna. Some boys related to Ruthie and her toys in a non-gendered way – suggesting they got bored with their toys like Ruthie.

In order for hegemonic masculinity to be sustained, policing and complicity with the gender order needs to occur. While teasing was generally disliked by the children, this was occasionally overridden by the need for boys to reject ‘girls’ toys’, with some of the boys saying that boys should be punished for playing with ‘inappropriate’ toys:

CB:

So would you call a girl a sissy if she liked playing with dolls?

Nathan:

Oh no

CB:

Why not Nathan?

Nathan:

Because boys are the one[s] you have to tease all the time like– like saying ‘sissy, sissy, sissy’ [quoting William’s Doll (Zolotow and Pène du Bois, 1972: 11)]

CB:

Why do you have to tease them?

Nathan:

Because they’re sissies

(Boys laugh)

It was clear from the discussions that teasing played an influential role in choosing which toys children play with as well as gender ‘appropriate’ behaviour more generally (see also Lodge, 2005: 182). Interestingly the teasing often referred to by the children was done to siblings rather than classmates. What is also clear here is that the concept of ‘sissy’ is associated with boys and not girls, both in William’s Doll and by these boys in my research (for a discussion relating ‘sissy’ to girls see Davies, 2008).

Girls also policed boys’ behaviour. Danielle offers a particularly explicit example of this. When speaking theoretically about gender she often supported gender flexibility, however, this support did not always transfer to ‘real life’ situations as seen in the following excerpt. Here Georgia is speaking about a boy who used to be in her dancing class who has the same name as Danielle’s brother. Danielle thinks that Georgia is talking about her brother and she indignantly denies that her brother acts the way Georgia is suggesting:

Georgia:

I have a friend that’s a boy– I have two friends that are boys, and they like girls’ stuff.

CB:

What kind of ‘girls’ stuff’?

Georgia:

Well, one lives near my house, he used to go to dancing with me. His name is Zac and he likes dressing-up/

Danielle:

(gasps) My brother didn’t!

Others:

Ssh

Georgia:

and he likes dressing-up in like, well/

Danielle:

My brother did not do [inaudible]!

[indignantly]

Georgia:

he likes dressing-up/

CB:

Yeah

Emily:

He’s not your brother

[to Danielle]

Georgia:

and he likes pretty dresses.

Here Danielle maintains gender boundaries by ‘defending’ her brother’s masculinity. The policing of boys by girls is an important part of upholding the gender order which previous research has often neglected (for an exception see for example Nordberg et al., 2006).

Lack of Support for, and Distance from, Hegemonic Masculinity

While there were some examples of boys attempting to identify with hegemonic masculinity, and instances of defending a gender binary, there were also numerous ways in which children did not support it. Many children were flexible in their belief that people could cross or combine gendered behaviours.

While some non-hegemonic behaviours were derided or rejected by the children, many were practised and supported positively. When discussing the books, the children frequently reiterated the idea that boys can play with ‘girls’ toys’ and girls can play with ‘boys’ toys’ which was only occasionally denied by a minority of children. Some boys aligned themselves with ‘alternative masculinities’, for example by identifying with male characters displaying non-hegemonic masculinity. Three of the boys identified with William, a boy who wanted a doll to care for. However, two of these boys said they were like William only in terms of also having blonde hair. The remaining boy, Elliot, identified with William even though he referred to him as ‘the gay kid’. Another boy identified with Rupert, the non-hegemonic counterpart to the hegemonic character of Randolph in Cinder Edna. Rupert wore glasses, told jokes, was ‘nice’ and ran a recycling plant and a home for orphaned kittens. One of the boys initially said Randolph was like him but could not give a reason why. He then decided that ‘I wanna be the nice guy’ and reluctantly agreed that he was like Rupert.

Other evidence of boys aligning themselves with ‘alternative’ masculinities was apparent when identifying with female characters (as discussed above); liking stereotypically ‘girls’ toys’; and supporting shared housework. Fairness, freedom of choice and the right of individuals to choose were the main motivators for such comments rather than gender equality. The children largely viewed boys doing ‘girls’ things’ as exceptional individuals crossing over fixed gender categories. While behaviours might be flexible, the gender categories were not (see also Davies, 2003a). This suggests that young boys can ‘do’ an ‘alternative masculinity’ but this is unlikely to be a deliberately resistant masculinity which challenges the gender order.

Obedience, at least in this school setting with a strict class teacher, was highly valued by most children. For example, Riley, who was looked up to by other boys, frequently asked me ‘Have I been bad yet?’, worrying that he would displease me and/or be sent back to class. This highlights that even the boys in my research who were closest to ‘doing’ a hegemonic masculinity were still concerned with being viewed as well-behaved by adults. Furthermore, children closely monitored one another for obedience, which at its extreme resulted in their requests for certain boys to be sent back to class for being ‘naughty’ (i.e. disrupting the sessions). This evidence of obedience can also be linked to middle-class values. For example, Connolly notes in his research that the middle-class 5- and 6-year-old boys had learnt to control themselves and their behaviours, conforming to rules and practices at school (and home) (2004: 137–42). He notes that the working-class boys in his research found it more difficult to learn these behaviours (Connolly, 2004: 199).

A dislike of teasing by all but a couple of boys who appeared to support hegemonic masculinity through their proud claims to teasing (such as Nathan above) also meant that many boys supported the non-hegemonic characters and disliked hegemonic characters. In responding to William’s Doll, some children were unsure if a boy should play with dolls but their dislike of teasing and belief in individual choice usually led to their support for William.

Boys also have experiences of being subordinated by adult (hegemonic) masculinities and therefore may not support it when it manifests as aggression and other forms of dominant behaviour (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill, 2003: 72; Renold, 2005: 78). Indeed, some of the male characters displaying hegemonic masculinity in the children’s books were not liked. In particular, the authority of adult men was disliked and the children did not identify with the fathers in the books. William’s father in William’s Doll was particularly disliked because he did not let William have a doll. In Cinder Edna, Randolph (the example of hegemonic masculinity) was disliked by a few of the children (particularly one girl) who said he was ‘stupid’ and ‘he always thinks he’s the best’.

The difficulty for the boys to engage in hegemonic masculinity was clearly seen when utilizing Howson’s (2006) breakdown of hegemonic masculinity into heterosexuality, breadwinning and aggression. While these three components simplify the concept, they are useful as a broad framework to identify the key difficulties with applying hegemonic masculinity to primary school boys. As I noted above, real life aggression was disliked.¹⁰ Heterosexuality was something that was discussed occasionally by some of the girls but seldom by the boys. Indeed some children considered a picture of a man and woman kissing in the book Cinder Edna to be ‘gross’ and one boy referred to it as ‘doing something rude’ ‘which I don’t like seeing’ (this differs from Renold’s, 2005, research with students at the end of primary school where she found discussions about heterosexuality were frequent and often enjoyed). Breadwinning was similarly not discussed or contemplated by the children during the research.

While there were instances where the boys and girls showed support of hegemonic masculinity and the gender order, there were also instances where hegemonic masculinity was not supported. I argue that the students often had a problem with hegemonic masculinity and did not feel bound to uphold it, more so than lacking competence in their understandings. However, it should also be acknowledged that a potential reason for their rejection of particular aspects of hegemonic masculinity (for example being authoritative) may also be because they are limited in their access to these aspects. As Coles (2008) suggests in relation to adults, men may value the aspects of masculinity which they themselves can live up to.

Evidence of Hierarchies of Masculinities

The children were also largely unconcerned (or not knowledgeable) about a hierarchy of masculinities with the privileging of certain behaviours over others. Thus, while the categories of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ were fairly clear in the minds of these children, Connell’s (2005c) framework of a hierarchy of masculinities was not something they could articulate. There was evidence of some form of hierarchies among the boys in two of the four book reading groups but these were only partially effective in influencing the behaviour of others.

Hierarchies were evident with some boys consistently looking to a ‘leader’ boy in their group before answering my questions. However, within these groups, depending on the situation, different boys were looked to in answering questions. In the lowest comprehension ability group, Nathan showed off and attempted to make the others (particularly the boys) laugh at what he was doing or saying. However, while Nathan was regularly looked up to by the other boys, sometimes children wanted him to be sent back to class because of his ‘naughty’ (disruptive) behaviour. On one occasion when Nathan went back to class, the boy who usually followed him closely began to support a boy who often put forward more flexible ideas of gender. Therefore, group pressure was applied to support both hegemonic and non-hegemonic behaviours. In another group, Riley appeared to be the ‘leader’ although he did not attempt to win this position as much as Nathan. Furthermore, Riley often looked to another boy in the group who was perceived as ‘smart’ to give the ‘right’ answers, suggesting that intelligence is admired by young boys.

Consequently, I argue that hegemonic masculinity may be fleetingly ‘tried on’ but it is evident from the young boys in my research in South Australian schools that they struggled to combine behaviours associated with both masculinity and childhood. Moreover, the shared experience of being children (along with girls) is often more significant than the shared experience of being male (with adult men) especially in a classroom setting. Even though these boys’ access to hegemonic masculinity may be limited, it still had a large influence on these children’s lives: ‘[c]hildren as well as adults are all members of a society which celebrates hegemonic (dominant, powerful) masculinity’ (Davies, 2003a: 14). However, by drawing on ideas of multiple hegemonic masculinities, the theory of hegemonic masculinity may be used with the actual gender performances of young boys.

Multiple and Local: How Hegemonic Masculinity/Ies Might Work With Primary School Boys

In this section I consider how hegemonic masculinity may be used to theorize young masculinities if the concept is pluralized. An understanding of multiple hegemonic masculinities may explain why the concept has been used in empirical research with primary school boys. Furthermore, a pluralizing of hegemonic masculinity may highlight a fluidity of the concept, decreasing the divide between Connell’s work and post-structuralist accounts.

Connell and Messerschmidt (2005: 849) propose that in empirical research three levels of hegemonic masculinity appear: local, regional and global. A local hegemonic masculinity ‘constructed in the arenas of face-to-face interaction of families, organizations, and immediate communities’ (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005: 849) may be applicable to school-aged boys. Furthermore, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005: 847) write that ‘[s]tructured relations among masculinities exist in all local settings, motivation toward a specific hegemonic version varies by local context, and such local versions inevitably differ somewhat from each other’. Beasley (2008: 98) more explicitly suggests there can be multiple hegemonic masculinities: ‘[h]egemonic masculinity, even at the local level, may be seen as hierarchical and plural’.¹¹ However, it is evident elsewhere within Connell and Messerschmidt’s (2005: 845) article that they argue there cannot be multiple hegemonic masculinities: ‘[w]hatever the empirical diversity of masculinities, the contestation for hegemony implies that gender hierarchy does not have multiple niches at the top’.

In my research, what might be conceptualized as a local hegemonic masculinity included knowledge of what constitutes ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ behaviours (although it was less important for them to follow this behaviour). It also places value on physicality (Nathan and Riley – the ‘leader’ boys as described earlier – were two of the bigger boys in the class); intelligence; sociability (including not being too quiet); and obedience. There was also a complex relationship between teasing and wanting to be ‘nice’. While teasing works to uphold the gender order, and some of the boys claimed to do it, most of them preferred to be ‘nice’ and liked by their classmates. Overall, boys were not admired if their behaviour was too extreme in relation to: an interest in ‘girls’ things’, aggression or physicality, being loud, being quiet, teasing others, or getting into trouble with teachers.

These findings contrast with other research with junior primary school children and hegemonic masculinity that have found that desired aspects of masculinity involve violence and hardness (Hasbrook and Harris, 1999; Skelton, 1997) and, less often, heterosexuality (Skelton, 1997). These different findings highlight that context and setting are crucial in how young boys ‘do’ and support certain masculinities, and, indeed, the middle-class setting for my research, and group of mostly white children was likely important in what influenced what was a desirable masculinity.¹² Furthermore, a focus solely on the activities and attitudes of boys in schools fails to account for how the patterns of masculinities may be different outside the school (although the teasing of siblings offers some fleeting evidence).

Conceptually, there is a lack of clarity about the notion of multiple hegemonic masculinities which are so far under-theorized. These problems are not unique to age. For example, it is difficult to see what the relationship between the three levels of hegemonic masculinities might be.¹³ Within previous research with primary school boys, different levels of what appear to be local hegemonic masculinities have been used: similar in all primary schools (Swain, 2006: 338), different in different schools (Skelton, 1997: 359–60), different according to social class in the same school (Warren, 1997), and different according to ‘peer’ group (or school) (Renold, 2004: 264, n13).

I argue that the usage of local hegemonic masculinities to explain gender patterns in primary schools is more convincing than the usage of a monolithic hegemonic masculinity where boys lack access to some of the resources needed to establish a hegemonic masculinity. However, the usage of multiple hegemonic masculinities raises the question of the breadth of variation in local hegemonic masculinities. How local can a local hegemonic masculinity be to still be hegemonic? While there is some merit in suggesting that there are dominant or honoured forms of masculinity in particular settings such as individual classrooms, it is questionable whether these are hegemonic. Indeed, they are small-scale locally admired masculinities which would more than likely be subordinated by adult masculinities (and adult femininities) on the basis of age. It is clear that further research and theoretical thinking is needed about the use of multiple hegemonic masculinities and whether local hegemonic masculinity can be used with boys. Whether this may be most usefully done by a return to Gramsci (or a reinterpretation of Gramsci), a consideration of post-structuralist accounts, or a combination of these approaches remains to be seen.

Some Concluding Thoughts

In this article I have argued that the uncritical usage of Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity with primary school boys, even in empirical research about boys, hides the fact that the concept does not account for the interactions between age and masculinity. Although hegemonic masculinity is relevant to the lives of primary school students, as I have shown, many of the resources necessary to ‘do’ hegemonic masculinity are not available to primary school boys due to age. My research findings with predominantly white, middle-class boys and girls in South Australian primary schools suggest that, while gender is important to the students and these students support hegemonic masculinity to a certain extent, patterns and constructions of masculinity among the boys in my study were not the same as those among adults. The dislike of particular manifestations of authority, ‘naughtiness’ and teasing, as well as the favouring of obedience and being ‘nice’, seem particularly at odds with adult-oriented theories of hegemonic masculinity. Because of this limited access to hegemonic masculinity, and associated lack of complicity and solidarity, it is possible that early schooling may be a time when dominant readings of masculinity can be deconstructed with students. While I have focused on my own research as an example, I have attempted to demonstrate the difficulties boys have in performing a hegemonic masculinity by also drawing on previous research and theoretical writing.

Theoretically, forgoing the concept of hegemonic masculinity altogether makes it difficult to see the patterns of gender and power among primary school students. The concept of hegemonic masculinity is useful to theorize how particular behaviours for boys are honoured or admired, and how this results in the privileging of particular boys over other boys and girls. This is perhaps one of the reasons, along with lack of attention to boys in masculinity theory, why the concept has been drawn on so often in previous research. However, even using the theoretical conceptualization of multiple and local hegemonic masculinities does not expose the role of age in limiting boys’ access to hegemonic masculinity, and their lack of the resources needed to perform a legitimating and mobilizing masculinity that upholds the gender order. Therefore I argue that the concept of hegemonic masculinity or multiple and local hegemonic masculinities are only partially useful in understanding young masculinities.

Further research and consideration about children and masculinity, and what look to be adult theories of masculinities are clearly required. This will be enhanced by further research in a range of cultural/national settings and with a range of age groupings, as well as further critical thinking about ways of theorizing young masculinities. Doing this will not only expand knowledge about children and masculinities but will also contribute more broadly to improving theoretical frameworks in order to provide a more nuanced understanding of gender.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

An earlier and substantially different version of this article was presented at the GEXcel Conference Theme 2, ‘Men and Masculinities, Moving On! Embodiments, Virtualities, Transnationalisations’, Tema Institute, Linköping University, Sweden (27–9 April 2009) and appears in the GEXcel Work in Progress Report, vol. VI.

I would like to acknowledge the assistance and support of Associate Professor Chris Beasley and Emerita Professor Chilla Bulbeck, and others who have provided comments on the ideas presented in this article, in particular the anonymous reviewers. I would also like to thank the students, teacher and school involved in my empirical research.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Biographical note

Clare Bartholomaeus is a PhD student in Gender, Work & Social Inquiry and Politics at the University of Adelaide, South Australia. Her PhD examines how gender (with a focus on masculinities) is understood and constructed at the beginning and end of primary school by boys, girls, teachers, and parents. Address: Level 5 Ligertwood Building, North Terrace Campus, University of Adelaide, Australia 5005. [email: clare.bartholomaeus@adelaide.edu.au]

References

Beasley

(2005) Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. London: Sage.

Beasley

(2008) ‘Rethinking Hegemonic Masculinity in a Globalizing World’, Men and Masculinities 11(1): 86–103.

Bhana

(2008) ‘“Six Packs and Big Muscles, and Stuff Like That”: Primary School-aged South African Boys, Black and White, on Sport’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(1): 3–14.

Browne

(1996) Piggybook (reprint). London: Walker Books.

Carrigan

Connell

Lee

(1985) ‘Toward a New Sociology of Masculinity’, Theory and Society 14(5): 551–602.

Clark

Paechter

(2007) ‘“Why Can’t Girls Play Football?” Gender Dynamics and the Playground’, Sport, Education and Society 12(3): 261–76.

Coles

(2008) ‘Finding Space in the Field of Masculinity: Lived Experiences of Men’s Masculinities’, Journal of Sociology 44(3): 233–48.

Connell

R.W.

(1983) Which Way Is Up? Essays on Sex, Class and Culture. North Sydney, NSW: George Allen and Unwin.

Connell

R.W.

(1987) Gender and Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

10.

Connell

R.W.

(2000) The Men and the Boys. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

11.

Connell

R.W.

(2002) Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

12.

Connell

R.W.

(2005a) ‘Change among the Gatekeepers: Men, Masculinities, and Gender Equality in the Global Arena’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1801–25.

13.

Connell

R.W.

(2005b) ‘Growing Up Masculine: Rethinking the Significance of Adolescence in the Making of Masculinities’, Irish Journal of Sociology 14(2): 11–28.

14.

Connell

R.W.

(2005c) Masculinities, 2nd edn. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

15.

Connell

R.W.

Messerschmidt

J.W.

(2005) ‘Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept’, Gender & Society 19(6): 829–59.

16.

Connell

R.W.

Wood

(2005) ‘Globalization and Business Masculinities’, Men and Masculinities 7(4): 347–64.

17.

Connell

R.W.

Hearn

Kimmel

M.S.

(2005) ‘Introduction’, pp. 1–12 in Kimmel

M.S.

Hearn

Connell

R.W.

(eds) Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Connolly

(2004) Boys and Schooling in the Early Years. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

19.

Davies

(2003a) Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales: Preschool Children and Gender, revised edn. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

20.

Davies

(2003b) Shards of Glass: Children Reading and Writing beyond Gendered Identities, revised edn. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

21.

Davies

(2008) ‘Becoming Sissy: A Response to David McInnes’, pp. 117–33 in Davies

(ed.) Judith Butler in Conversation: Analyzing the Texts and Talk of Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.

22.

Demetriou

D.Z.

(2001) ‘Connell’s Concept of Hegemonic Masculinity: A Critique’, Theory and Society 30(3): 337–61.

23.

Eriksson

(2007) ‘Childhood Studies’, pp. 60–3 in Flood

Gardiner

J.K.

Pease

Pringle

(eds) International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

24.

Flood

(2002) ‘Between Men and Masculinity: An Assessment of the Term “Masculinity” in Recent Scholarship on Men’, pp. 203–11 in Pearce

Muller

(eds) Manning the Next Millennium: Studies in Masculinities. Bentley, WA: Black Swan Press.

25.

Frosh

Phoenix

Pattman

(2002) Young Masculinities: Understanding Boys in Contemporary Society. Houndmills: Palgrave.

26.

Hasbrook

C.A.

Harris

(1999) ‘Wrestling with Gender: Physicality and Masculinities among Inner-city First and Second Graders’, Men and Masculinities 1(3): 302–18.

27.

Haywood

Mac an Ghaill

(2003) Men and Masculinities: Theory, Research and Social Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

28.

Howson

(2006) Challenging Hegemonic Masculinity. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

29.

Jackson

O’Malley

(1994) Cinder Edna. New York: Lothrop, Lee and Shepard Books.

30.

Keddie

(2001) ‘Little Boys: The Potency of Peer Culture in Shaping Masculinities’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.

31.

Keddie

(2006) ‘Fighting, Anger, Frustration and Tears: Matthew’s Story of Hegemonic Masculinity’, Oxford Review of Education 32(4): 521–34.

32.

Lodge

(2005) ‘Gender and Children’s Social World: Esteemed and Marginalised Masculinities in the Primary School Playground’, Irish Journal of Sociology 14(2): 177–92.

33.

Mac an Ghaill

Haywood

(2007) Gender, Culture and Society: Contemporary Femininities and Masculinities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Martino

(2007) ‘Boys and Boyhood’, pp. 46–50 in Flood

Gardiner

J.K.

Pease

Pringle

(eds) International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

35.

McGuffey

C.S.

Rich

B.L.

(1999) ‘Playing in the Gender Transgression Zone: Race, Class, and Hegemonic Masculinity in Middle Childhood’, Gender & Society 13(5): 608–27.

36.

McInnes

(2008) ‘Sissy-boy Melancholy and the Educational Possibilities of Incoherence’, pp. 95–116 in Davies

(ed.) Judith Butler in Conversation: Analyzing the Texts and Talk of Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.

37.

Newman

Moore

(2004) A Fire Engine for Ruthie. New York: Clarion Books.

38.

Newman

Woodcock

Dunham

(2006) ‘“Playtime in the Borderlands”: Children’s Representations of School, Gender and Bullying through Photographs and Interviews’, Children’s Geographies 4(3): 289–302.

39.

Nordberg

Saar

Hellman

(2006) ‘Deconstructing the Normative Boy in Pre-school and School and in Masculinity Research’, trans. by the authors. Paper presented at ‘Hetero Factory – Challenging Normativity in School and Working Life’, Linköping University, Sweden, 13–15 June.

40.

Renold

(2004) ‘“Other” Boys: Negotiating Non-hegemonic Masculinities in the Primary School’, Gender and Education 16(2): 247–65.

41.

Renold

(2005) Girls, Boys and Junior Sexualities: Exploring Children’s Gender and Sexual Relations in the Primary School. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

42.

Renold

(2007) ‘Primary School “Studs”: (De)constructing Young Boys’ Heterosexual Masculinities’, Men and Masculinities 9(3): 275–97.

43.

Robinson

Davies

(2010) ‘Tomboys and Sissy Girls: Exploring Girls’ Power, Agency and Female Relationships in Childhood through the Memories of Women’, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood 35(1): 24–31.

44.

Skattebol

(2006) ‘Playing Boys: The Body, Identity and Belonging in the Early Years’, Gender and Education 18(5): 507–22.

45.

Skelton

(1997) ‘Primary Boys and Hegemonic Masculinities’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 18(3): 349–69.

46.

Skelton

(2000) ‘“A Passion for Football”: Dominant Masculinities and Primary Schooling’, Sport, Education and Society 5(1): 5–18.

47.

Swain

(2006) ‘Reflections on Patterns of Masculinity in School Settings’, Men and Masculinities 8(3): 331–49.

48.

Taylor

(2008) ‘Taking Account of Childhood Excess: “Bringing the Elsewhere Home”’, pp. 195–216 in Davies

(ed.) Judith Butler in Conversation: Analyzing the Texts and Talk of Everyday Life. New York: Routledge.

49.

Thorne

(1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Buckingham: Open University Press.

50.

Walkerdine

(1999) ‘Violent Boys and Precocious Girls: Regulating Childhood at the End of the Millennium’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 1(1): 3–23.

51.

Warren

(1997) ‘Who Do These Boys Think They Are? An Investigation into the construction of Masculinities in a Primary Classroom’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 1(2): 207–22.

52.

Warren

(2003) ‘Is That an Action Man in There? Masculinity as an Imaginative Act of Self-creation’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 24(1): 3–18.

53.

Wing

(1997) ‘How Can Children Be Taught to Read Differently? Bill’s New Frock and the “Hidden Curriculum”’, Gender and Education 9(4): 491–504.

54.

Yeoman

(1999) ‘“How Does It Get into my Imagination?”: Elementary School Children’s Intertextual Knowledge and Gendered Storylines’, Gender and Education 11(4): 427–40.

55.

Zolotow

Pène du Bois

(1972) William’s Doll. New York: Harper and Row.