Abstract
In Young Working-class Men in Transition, Steven Roberts successfully applies multiple middle-range sociological theories to come to intersectional, substantial, and novel conclusions about not only the modern state of working-class masculinities in the United Kingdom, but about gender scholarship’s shortcomings in integrating a rigorous, empirically justified account of young men’s lives free of pathologising discourse. Young Working-class Men in Transition describes a seven-year longitudinal qualitative study of working-class men from Kent, a county in South-East England. Roberts refers to them as ‘the missing middle’: young men whose position – as neither on a traditionally prestigious academic or professional route, nor as the most marginalised (they are often engaged on some level in school or work) – leaves them under-studied and misunderstood. The primary subject of inquiry is the way these men navigate their masculinities, and how those masculinities inform their transition into adulthood vis-à-vis schooling, labour participation, engagement with the domestic sphere and emotional expression. The longitudinal aspect of the study is crucial in bolstering the empirical strength of conclusions regarding changes and continuities in these working-class men’s transitions into adulthood.
While biographical interviews are the primary source of the broad, rich data-set, much of the data was further collected through Skype, Facebook, Messenger and WhatsApp communications, and through ‘Facebook ethnography’. Like traditional ethnography, Facebook ethnography describes data co-created and collected from organic observations, conversations and interactions between the researcher and subjects; however, in Facebook ethnography, these data are not collected via personal interactions but through Facebook messaging, comments, profile posts and other virtual relations. These diverse qualitative approaches are appropriate and comprehensive in discerning the themes that outline the men’s past experiences, present situations, and future ambitions in the realm of work, home and leisure.
In chapter 2, Roberts contextualises his research within existing masculinities scholarship, arguing that previous scholars, while problematising the ‘crisis of masculinity’ discourse (p. 32), deterministically paint working-class men’s masculinities as immutable, and mitigate their agency by emphasising structural constraints which embed them in ‘masculine heritage’ (p. 33).
Roberts advocates for a sociological ‘tool-box’ approach to his inquiry: he freely utilises frameworks as resources for ‘contemplating and interpreting the data, rather than “testing” theories’ (p. 42). In chapter 3, he somewhat chronologically describes the theoretical frameworks and empirical research that inform his study, first discussing Raewyn Connell’s influential notion of hegemonic masculinity theory (HMT). Ironically, Connell’s rightful criticisms about the of sex role theory are, in a sense, what keep HMT from being a useful theoretical tool in modernity; Roberts notes that it cannot account for change in which hegemony is subverted without redefining hegemony in every new iteration of power dynamics. Roberts uses a Bourdieusian approach to understanding ‘change and continuity’, in contrast to seeking to understand only social reproduction. Throughout the text, Roberts makes efficient use of Bourdieu’s notions of field, capital and habitus to answer the question of how men utilise or fail to utilise economic social and cultural resources. Next, Roberts describes how Eric Anderson’s Inclusive Masculinity Theory (IMT) assists in fulfilling the theoretical task of describing the historically situated change among the ‘missing middle’. Through successfully synthesising thinking on HMT, IMT, Bourdieusian conceptual apparatuses and the work of others, Roberts refreshingly utilises a comprehensive theoretical approach long overdue in the critical study of masculinities.
Chapters 5 through 8 explore rich qualitative data, dealing successively with educational histories and aspirations, work and labour (especially in the service sector), men’s engagement in the domestic sphere, and intimacy and emotions. These data, chapter by chapter, methodically serve to build the argument that working-class men’s lives are nuanced, dynamic and increasingly positive, even if those changes maintain some orthodox gender dynamics or do not necessarily help the young men out of their working-class situation.
In chapter 5, Roberts focuses on the young men’s own responses to argue that they take a middle ground, as opposed to instrumental approach, based on rational choice and common sense, or doxa (truths). While this section is admittedly muted in describing the true relationship between seemingly complicit masculinities and educational attainment, Roberts finds it significant that the discourse around schooling is one of compliance and individual responsibility.
Highlighting the way gender dynamics are embedded in economic changes, chapter 6 illustrates the normalisation and uptake of previously feminised professions, especially retail jobs. Roberts finds that most men have positive experiences with these types of jobs. Thus, the driver of masculine pursuits is theorised to have less to do with stereotypical conceptualisations of masculinity, and more with class-based status, low wages and uncertainty. Despite these changes, Roberts acknowledges the reification of gendered spheres is often still present in the labour market, but emphasises the propensity for separate spheres across the class spectrum.
Finally, chapters 7 and 8 delineate men’s increasing participation in the domestic sphere and higher capacity for emotional intimacy. It is perhaps his most significant empirical finding that – contrary to previous literature around working-class men’s relationship with the home – men are deeply involved in domestic work and child care, even if values or discourse around separate gendered spheres are present. Again, Roberts emphasises that this separation of spheres persists regardless of class; masculinity is simply being reconstructed to allow for ‘leaning in’ or full participation in the domestic sphere. Mostly through Facebook ethnography, Roberts provides further context for how a less homohysteric culture facilitates a habitus that is more emotive and – significantly – bound to identity, not only gendered acts of resistance. Roberts could elaborate more on how new forms of masculinity blossom ‘more freely’, but these chapters are a microcosm for one of the book’s implicit goals: to understand that masculine domination, or simply the reinforcement of masculinity, can be reified in more ways than simply not engaging in previously feminised activities, such as housework.
In conclusion, while stretched a little thin with its multiplicity of ideas, this book has the potential to change the way we look at masculinities for generations, particularly how masculinities scholars engage with theory to engender a more flexible, class-centred and intersectional analysis of change and continuity in masculinities. Roberts successfully problematises the way the current literature pathologises working-class men, and provides a path forward. Above all, Roberts’ text is utilitarian and practical; he engages with changes and continuities in working-class men’s experiences, and exposes their diversity and complexity, all while recognising their potential for inequality and equality alike. This is the text’s greatest virtue; it is intersectional without being excusatory.