Masculinity Theory

‘What’s next for masculinity?’ Reflexive directions for theory and research on masculinity and education

Chris Haywooda∗ and Máirtı́n Mac an Ghaillb

aMedia and Cultural Studies, School of Arts and Cultures, Newcastle University, Armstrong Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK; bDepartment of Education, Newman University College, Genners Lane, Bartley Green, Birmingham, B32 3NT, UK

(Received 16 November 2010; final version received 23 January 2012)

Research on masculinity has become an important area of gender and education that includes a wide range of empirical concerns and theoretical approaches. This article identifies a number of studies that are asking questions about the conceptual usefulness of masculinity within educational contexts. The first section explores how educational researchers are beginning to suggest alternative ways that hegemonic masculinity may be configured. The second section draws upon work that interrogates the disconnection of gender from sex. Such work considers the importance of understanding schooling worlds through an untethering of gender categories from physical bodies. The third section suggests the possibility of a post-masculinity position by exploring research that questions the viability of masculinity as a conceptual frame to understand gender. In conclusion, the paper argues that such developments can be used heuristically to inform the critical reflexiveness of future research in the area.

Keywords: gender; masculinity studies; queer theory; post-masculinity

Introduction

Over the last decade, across western societies masculinity has emerged as a key analytical and political concept in making sense of gender relations (Dudink, Hage- mann, and Clark 2008; Hearn and Pringle 2009). Of particular significance has been the projection of education institutions as both the cause and the solution to the suggested ‘problem with boys’ (Epstein et al. 1999; Skelton 2001). In response, educational researchers have been vigorously identifying, describing and explaining how masculinity can help empirically and conceptually to understand what is going on. In effect, the concept ‘masculinity’ has been used to explain male behaviours across diverse areas of the educational sector that includes primary schools (Frosh et al. 2002; Paechter 2007; Woods 2009), secondary schools (Mac an Ghaill 1994a; Jackson 2006), further education and training institutions (Archer and Leath- wood 2003; Parker 2006) and higher education (Simpson and Cohen 2004; Dempster 2009). Furthermore, masculinity has been applied within educational contexts in a range of international and non-formal educational contexts (see e.g. Light 2008; Bhana 2009). Such work has been useful in identifying how boys’ attitudes and

ISSN 0954-0253 print/ISSN 1360-0516 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2012.685701 http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Gender and Education Vol. 24, No. 6, October 2012, 577–592

behaviours systematically harm girls’ schooling experiences (Reay 2001; Arnot 2002; Kehily 2004; Ringrose 2008). At the same time, it has been vital to the development of an expansive understanding of male power by arguing that boys also physically and emotionally harm other boys (Epstein 2001; Stoudt 2006; Dalley-Trim 2007). However, despite the immense analytical purchase of masculinity, educational researchers are beginning to ask questions about the conceptual and empirical ade- quacy of ‘masculinity’. More specifically, they are modifying and rethinking how masculinity is conceptualised, in order to achieve greater empirical and analytical pur- chase in their focus of study.

This article reports on recent educational research that is revising what masculinity means and in so doing, it aims to document important conceptual shifts and modifi- cations that may have a significant impact on the future use of masculinity in edu- cational research. Rather than see a focus on the study of masculinity excluding work on femininity, we recognise that ‘particular forms of femininity are produced in relation to and through particular, and highly valued, forms of masculinity’ (Blaise 2009, 453). Therefore, the current theoretical revisioning of masculinity, with its inherent relationality, has implications for how power, difference and desire is mapped out, not only in terms of gender, but other social and cultural identifications, such as ethnicity, sexuality and class. Importantly, the following discussion is not simply a focus on boys and young men, but on educational research that is developing ideas about masculinity in educational contexts. Although in their own work the authors use the tension between materialist and post-structuralist approaches to think through masculinity (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill 2003; Mac an Ghaill and Haywood 2007), we aim to be inclusive and highlight approaches to the study of mas- culinity in education from diverse theoretical backgrounds. The selection of studies is not meant to be random or representative; there may be other studies in the field of gender and education exploring similar themes. Therefore, the case studies selected here are used to underpin the article’s aim of identifying how masculinity is being con- ceptually reconfigured (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, and Collins 2011). Furthermore, the cases may stimulate readers to consider the similarities and differences of studies across each of the sections, as well as those within the broader field of gender and edu- cation. Thus, evaluative judgements can be made on whether such work presents the ‘same old story’ or we are able to (or perhaps should be able to) represent the concep- tual dynamics of gender and masculinity in alternative ways. In light of this, the first section explores how educational researchers are identifying alternative configurations of masculinity that are not dependent upon the cultural resources of homophobia or misogyny. Furthermore, such work challenges theoretical assumptions that imbricate masculinity with patriarchy and dovetails with Moller’s (2007, 269) suggestion that gendered power ‘should not be equated with or reduced solely to a logic of domina- tion’. As such, research is suggesting that there may be discourses outside of traditional patriarchal masculinity, where boys and young men can make their identities ‘male’. The second section explores how recent educational research is borrowing from queer theory to explore the disconnection of sex from gender. In other words, by cutting masculinity loose from its ontological premise within physiology, it is possible to envisage a more fluid embodiment of masculinities and femininities. This section suggests that a recent discussion on tomboys and female masculinities have much to offer the study of masculinity in educational contexts. The third section outlines a radical departure for the use of masculinity in educational research. It explores Butler’s (2004, 43) suggestion that

578 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

a restrictive discourse on gender that insists on the binary of man and woman as the exclusive way to understand the gender field performs a regulatory operation of power that naturalizes the hegemonic instance and forecloses that thinkability of its disruption.

It is thus guided by the question of whether it is possible to explain gender identities without empirically documenting or analysing behaviours through the concept of mas- culinity. It explores this idea in two ways. First, it draws upon research that suggests that some boys’ genders may not be cohered or made intelligible by masculinity, and second, it examines the possibility of understanding gendered behaviour through other social categories such as class, ‘race’/ethnicity, and sexuality. For this post-mas- culinity position, ‘The question more precisely becomes how to operate within the established terms of sexual difference, examining where those lines of difference have been drawn, while at the same time upsetting the terms and redrawing the lines’ (Elam 1994, 56).

Modifying hegemonic masculinities

One of the early approaches to accommodating differences between men has been to pluralise masculinity to masculinities (Connell 1987; Mac an Ghaill 1994a). The concept of multiple masculinities has enabled an understanding of male identities that are both historically led and locally determined through the control and regulation of contextually normative meanings (Martino 1999). Studies in education have tended to position multiple masculinities within Connell’s (1995) concept of hegemonic mas- culinity and its attendant relations of marginalisation, complicity and subordination with other men. Descriptions of hegemonic masculinities tend to involve a number of the following traits that include physicality and muscularity, aggression and vio- lence, misogyny, homophobia and heterosexuality (Martino and Pallotta-Chiarolli 2003; Poynting and Donaldson 2005; Kimmel 2007; Pascoe 2007). As a consequence, ‘hegemony results in those dominant and dominating forms of masculinity which claim the highest status and exercise the greatest influence and authority’ (Kenway and Fitz- clarence 1997, 119). However, more recently educational researchers are beginning to identify a more complex relationship between hegemonic masculinities and other mas- culinities.1 The implication is that there is a reconfiguration of power relations where dominance is more fragmented and unpredictable. For example, Bender’s (2001) eth- nographic study in a US high school explores young men who are marginalised from dominant hegemonic masculine subject positions. According to Bender, young men articulate masculine identities that were sometimes in opposition to dominant mas- culinities. In effect, they defined their male identities through a range of alternative symbolic resources (dress, music affiliation and leisure practices). Although they were positioned as marginalised within the broader school hegemony, they continued to use practices characteristic of hegemonic masculinities, such as the objectification of women and violence to other men, to stabilise their claims to authentic maleness. As Christensen and Larsen (2008, 56) note ‘What in some contexts appear as marginalized masculinities may in other contexts be hegemonic’.

In contrast, it has also been found that occupying a position of hegemonic mascu- linity does not necessarily lead to an undiluted expression of oppression. Stoudt (2006) argues that it is possible to find the spaces where those who take up hegemonic mascu- linities can, in turn, question and restrict the articulation of power. He maintains that

Gender and Education 579

schooling is an institution that reproduces social inequalities and, using Bourdieu (2001), suggests that such inequalities are maintained through the application of both physical and symbolic violence. Interestingly, through interviews with students in a single-sex US school, Stoudt details how being subject to violence potentially creates closeness, friendship and enhancement of social status. Furthermore, he dis- cusses the experiences of Matt, a 14-year-old boy, who while affirming hegemonic masculinity, restricts the policing of masculine borders through the intervention of a case of bullying. Matt’s institutionally located sense of justice and fairness and his own experiences of bullying suggest the fragility of hegemonic masculinity (see also Redman 1996). Although Stoudt suggests that hegemonic masculinity is difficult to contest, he argues that there are spaces of resistance where this can take place and these ‘are moments in need of further understanding if we are to create feasible alterna- tives to restrictive masculinities’ (2006, 285).

The apparent autonomy of masculinity identities from those deemed hegemonic has also been identified in research by Redman et al. (2002) in their nuanced account of the relationship between two primary school boys, Ben and Karl. Although the relationship between the two boys is described as a close and intimate friendship, Redman et al. resist understanding the relationship as structured by hegemonic masculinity. Further- more, even though the boys use heterosexual discourses, it is not self-evident what meanings are being ascribed to those discourses; the researchers resist transposing adult definitions of such discourses onto the cultural worlds of children. At the same time, rather than sexualise the relationship through a sexuality identity framework (i.e. gay, bisexual and heterosexual) they attempt to capture the feelings shared between the two boys without recourse to normative (adult) ascriptions. The impor- tance of such analysis is that they suggest the possibility of ‘versions of masculinity that might be capable of tolerating difference, ambivalence and complexity around gender and sexuality’ (2002, 190). This is of major significance as it points to a means of understanding masculinity that is not dependent on a patriarchal dividend.

Swain’s (2006) work also explores this gendered space outside of hegemonic mas- culinity. In his research on three co-educational junior schools in the UK, he argues that alongside hegemonic, complicit and subordinated masculinities, we should begin con- sidering a mode of masculinity called ‘personalised masculinities’. For Swain, schools operate as a location for action and agency and as an ‘institutional agent’ that generates hegemonic regimes of masculinity. He develops the idea of a space outside of hegemo- nic masculinities where alternative ways of ‘doing boy’ could be identified. Focusing on 10–11-year-old boys, he argues that there are boys who do not wish to subordinate others. For example, recognising the hegemonic model of masculinity embodied in the ‘sporty boy’, Swain argues that many of the boys did not wish to align themselves with this ‘idealised masculinity’. He asserts that these boys see themselves as different rather than subordinated. Swain (2006, 343) suggests that ‘Although masculinity is con- structed against femininity, a question that needs to be asked is whether the hegemonic form always needs to produce subordinate forms of masculinity to maintain itself’. The implication is that the conceptual framework of hegemonic masculinities may not be comprehensive enough to incorporate the range of relationships that boys have with hegemonic masculinity. In response, Swain argues that ‘personalised masculinities’ may be one way to address this.

It appears that studies of masculinity in education are reconsidering how masculi- nity is being constituted. Anderson (2005) drawing upon interviews and participant observation with 68 self-identified straight male collegiate American football

580 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

cheerleaders reveals that heterosexual masculinity is not necessarily dependent upon the objectification of homosexuality. His work is theoretically located in identifying and linking a broader cultural positioning of masculinity within American society and identifying how this is negotiated within particular education contexts. He argues that a shift in broader cultural perceptions of homosexuality is leading to a reca- libration of masculinities that is based upon inclusivity. One of the main ways of under- standing this is by recognising the ebb and flow of ‘homohysteria’. The constitution of masculinity is influenced by homohysteria and this is measured by the persistence of homosexuality as a static sexual category, cultural perceptions of homosexuality and its attendant feminine styles and levels of public disavowal of homosexuality (see also Tagg 2008). Anderson uses the example of the male cheerleading community to explore how the cultural perception of gay identities at the local level impacts upon masculine subjectivities by identifying two forms of masculinity. The first is an ortho- dox masculinity achieved through the objectification of women and gay men. The second is identified as inclusive masculinity – a style of performance that does not value or wish to achieve an orthodox masculinity. Therefore, because this group ‘had a positive association with homosexuality, homophobia ceased to be a tool of mas- culine marginalization’ (Anderson 2005, 351). Furthermore, this modified masculinity questioned the efficacy of the masculine/feminine binary, thus challenging the notions that masculinity is equivalent to heterosexuality and homophobia (see also Leib and Bulman 2007). This notion of inclusiveness is also taken up by McCormack (2010), whose work on three school six forms indicates that young men are able to form their masculinities without the fear of being ‘homosexualised’. He cites one college as having a ‘near-total absence of homophobic discourse’ (McCormack 2010, 15). Interestingly, one of the reasons that these young men take up anti-homophobic pos- itions is that homophobia is indicative of immaturity. As McCormack goes on to suggest (2010, 16) that ‘. . .the near total absence of discursive marginalization and physical domination means that the social mechanisms that produce a hegemonic form of masculinity are not present’ (cf. Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). The impli- cation is that the hegemonic structures that have been used to explain relationships within schools need to be reconsidered as the resources through which masculinities are made are subject to social and cultural changes.

Although the work of Anderson and McCormack offer a promising way forward in terms of identifying different ways of constituting masculinity, they nevertheless require a concept of ‘masculinity’ to explain the social and cultural formation of men’s identities. It appears, for example, in Anderson’s work that orthodox and non- orthodox masculinities remain intrinsically connected to sexuality/gender identity fra- meworks. In other words, central to Anderson’s theorising and the identity formation of his participants is a dimorphic notion of sex/gender. This means that gender becomes defined, even in theoretical and practical strategies of refusal, by a sexuality dyadism; heterosexuality/homosexuality remain the central cultural resource through which gender identities become remade, contested, authorised and controlled. The relation- ship of masculinity to sexuality is explored further in the final section; however, of sig- nificance is that although traditional masculinities based upon heterosexuality, homophobia and misogyny are becoming destabilised, a different masculinity emerges that is still dependent on dyadic sexualities, albeit in a more complex and more sophisticated manner. In contrast, an alternative approach to the exploration of masculinity is to disconnect gender, sex and sexuality and in the process, question the underlying linkages between masculinity and maleness.

Gender and Education 581

Fe(male) masculinities/(fe)male femininities

According to Peterson (2003), scholars on masculinity need to question the epistemo- logical foundations of masculinity/masculinities by refusing to insist on the primacy of masculinity or masculinities as analytical categories. The intention is to problematise the implicit reductionism of masculinity as a social, cultural and physical adjunct of a male body. Peterson forecloses the relationship between men and masculinity by destabilising the presumption of pre-existing binaries of sex/gender and nature/ culture oppositions. In short, Peterson argues that such a dualistic logic is historically produced and that in order to achieve a more expansive understanding of men/mascu- linity, the underlying premises need to be destabilised. Educational researchers have been engaged in such destabilisations and have drawn upon queer and transgendered theorists to disconnect the relationship between men and masculinity. This echoes Sedgwick’s (1995, 12) reflection on the ‘Presupposition that everything pertaining to men can be classified as masculinity, and everything pertaining to masculinity pertains in the first place to men’. Flood (2002) reinforces this by arguing that if we suggest that male and masculinity have to go together, this may be in contradiction to social con- structivist approaches in the field of inquiry. However, he also suggests that: ‘if we sever the assumed link between masculinity and male, do we render meaningless the concept of masculinity?’ (Flood 2002, 211).

The disconnection of masculinity from physiology has been undertaken by edu- cational researchers who have drawn primarily upon Halberstam’s (1998) concept of female masculinities. Research using the concept of female masculinity brings into focus the relationship between gender and sexuality (the formation of masculinities through heterosexuality), and how such gender formations are imbricated in inclusion- ary and exclusionary structures of power (and the possibilities of empowerment). Such themes are explored by Bhana (2008, 412) whose feminist research in South African schools aims to challenge static representations of African schoolgirls. She suggests that

The possibility of a conjunction between female and masculinity that challenges the path- ology associated with transgressive women and applied to young girls in this study makes it possible to argue that African women are not waiting to be victims – that female mas- culinity can be empowering and suggests the multiple forms of power and domination – not the exclusive preserve of boys and men.

This also dovetails with Renold’s (2009) ethnographic research with 10–11-year olds in two UK primary schools. She explores how some girls take up masculinised prac- tices, embody hegemonic masculinity and in effect, negotiate the ascription of ‘hetero- sexualised femininities’. Of key importance for Renold is that girls ‘queer’ and contest the implicit relationship between masculinity and heterosexuality through the adoption of a tomboy positionality. One feature of the masculinity practiced by the girls was the rejection of that deemed feminine, including associating with their peers. One of the consequences of this subject position is that

‘being a tomboy’ is perhaps one of the few remaining legitimate subjects of girlhood that can directly deflect the male heterosexual gaze and subvert or queer (heterosexualised) girlie culture. Erica (year 6) and Sadie (year 5), for example, exclusively positioned them- selves and were positioned by others as ‘tomboys’ (as ‘one of the boys’, as ‘honorary boys’). Their longitudinal performative ‘masculinity’ and queering of gender and sexual norms (e. g. tomboy as drag) seemed to shield them from a number of

582 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

heterosexualizing processes within their local power culture, from sexual harassment and innuendo to coercive romantic positioning within an increasingly compulsory boyfriend/ girlfriend culture. (Renold 2009, 236)

In this research, the space for the rejection of hegemonic masculine forms through the adoption of masculinity by girls leads to the possibility of a transgressive space. This offers an extremely useful understanding of how masculinity may emerge. At the same time, it appears that the disconnection of sex and gender does not always lead to transgressiveness. Tong (2008) draws out the complexity of taking up a female mas- culinity. Her research on lesbian schoolgirls in Hong Kong highlights how their rejec- tion of feminine cultural forms gave them a cultural space to take up a range of masculine practices. This, however, was a more complex identification as the girls took up a more ‘conventional’ approach to effeminate gay men, perceiving them as ‘disgusting’. The implication is that with these particular girls in this specific context, they maintained masculine as dominant and to be celebrated and feminine as subordinate and unvalued.

This conceptualisation of gender enables a more complex understanding of the dynamics of masculinity. Such complexity can also be found in Paechter’s (2006, 254) useful critical discussion on how we might grasp the interplay between gendered structures of power and lived experience. An insightful contribution to the area of female masculinities and male femininities is undertaken by Paechter, who explores how the ways that we use the terminology around gender produces the parameters of how it is thought about. While she identifies the political and analytical limitations of female masculinity, she also explores the implications of its grammatical arrange- ment. Paechter argues that earlier approaches to masculinity and femininity used male/female as stable concepts, with masculinity and femininity as much more variable qualifiers. According to Paechter, Halberstam inverts this relationship with the female becoming the qualifier and masculinity becoming more stable or ‘solid’. As a conse- quence, using masculinity as the noun produces something socially and culturally con- tingent as stable. By reverting to a notion of female masculinities, she suggests that we may lose empirical and conceptual purchase on the everyday structures underpinning ways of being masculine and feminine. One of the points to emerge from this particular work and other contributions to this theoretical approach is the importance of lived experience – not simply how gender is embodied, but what that embodiment means within specific communities of practice.

In effect, Paechter argues for the inclusion of a range of attributes within the identity categories, both acknowledging the social structural formation of masculinity and the local individual subjectivities that create the possibility for other forms of identification. She (2009, 452) writes

By taking one’s identification as male or female, and one’s recognition as such by a com- munity of masculinity or femininity practice, as the basic position from which a variety of masculinities and femininities can be constructed, differing according to time, place, and context, I am trying to at least reduce the power of the masculine/feminine dualism, while recognising the ways in which it can be used to mobilise power.

This work offers a productive way forward to consider how we make sense of gender in school-based contexts (see also Mendick 2006; Renold 2008; Francis 2010).

However, she has been criticised by Rasmussen (2009), whose particular reading of Paechter suggests that there is a reification of individual agency, a positing of gender

Gender and Education 583

within a rigid gender dualism and that the reversal of female masculinity does not necessarily lead to more flexibility in how to explain gender relations. Although the specific applicability of these criticisms to Paechter’s position remains questionable (2009), it provides a useful critical reminder of the difficulties faced by those attempting to think through gender categories.

The work on female masculinities offers those exploring gender in schooling a different emphasis than those who focus on a modification of hegemonic masculinities. The tension between the ascribed meanings of masculinity at a structural level and local identifications has produced other ways of engaging with the sex/gender relation. For example, one way to do this is to draw upon Bakhtin’s work on dialogism and hetero- glossia to explore the constitution of student experiences. Ryan and Johnson (2009) suggest that

Bakhtin’s (1994) philosophies of dialogism and heteroglossia are useful to consider the ways in which the individual and the social interact to constitute the diverse, multi- faceted identities or subjectivities of individuals as they construct and express meaning. These intersubjective understandings about how self is both socially constructed and indi- vidually experienced sees individuals drawing upon an intricate and continuous interplay between self and the ideologies of society. (248)

It is argued that young people’s identities are implicated within a series of intersubjec- tive moments, where dialogic relations are negotiated. Dialogic here refers to the mul- titude of voices providing the resources through which identities may be spoken. This provides more fluidity in terms of the range of ways gender identities are constituted. Francis (2010) also uses Bakhtin’s notions of monoglossia and heteroglossia to explore gender identities in educational contexts. For Francis, monoglossia appeals to the domi- nant definitions of gender – stereotypical notions of masculinity, while heteroglossia refers to micro-level interactions. She argues that binary notions of masculinity and femininity and their interdependency with sexed bodies limit how we capture the fluid- ity of the everyday experiences of gender. For example, Francis cites a number of inci- dents where boys and girls take on masculine/feminine behaviours. In effect, their behaviours and practices appear to be ‘transgressive’ of normative gender behaviours. Importantly, the pupils do not take up counter-identities in terms of male femininities – as studies on transgender self-identification indicate – rather there is a complex arrangement of monoglossic and heteroglossic events. Importantly, Francis argues that there needs to be a more subtle method of explaining the diversity of behaviour without the reduction to identity categories. This conceptual division between mono- glossia and heteroglossia enables her to locate gender practices that do not fit easily with notions of masculinity and femininity. As a consequence, the broader social struc- tures of gender remain enduring, while the local practice of gender identities allows for a range of gendered configurations, such as male femininities and female masculinities.

Although the use of Bakhtin is popular across a range of disciplines, in educational research on masculinity, it is in its infancy and is beginning to provide a productive analytical framework. As a result, there is scope to develop the framework further. For example, monoglossia and heteroglossia exist unequally where power remains ‘top down’; as Bakhtin suggests monoglossia is ‘clearly more powerful and ubiqui- tous’, and in contrast heteroglossia is, ‘less powerful and have complex ontological status’ (1984, xix). Further research might explore another space identified by Bakhtin as polyglossia. Polyglossia is a space that ‘fully frees consciousness from the tyranny of its own language and its own myth of language’ (1984, 61). In many

584 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

ways, Bakhtin’s concept of polyglossia suggests the potential for gender to be con- sidered and understood outside of existing conceptual frames that are currently being used. More work could be undertaken to explore the possibility of understanding mas- culinity outside the language through which it is constituted. Although not in the scope of this article, there is potential for a conceptually transgressive approach that would not only question the viability of masculinity as a concept to understand notions of gender.

Post-masculinity: towards a reflexive refusal

The emphasis in this section is not on the relationship between gender and sex, but on the relationship between gender and masculinity. This means that gender identities, subjectivities and identifications may be understood without reducing them to a notion of masculinity. Butler (2004) provides a useful discussion on the apparatus that underpins the notion of gender as being read through binaries such as male/ female and masculine/feminine. She suggests that ‘Gender is the mechanism by which notions of masculine and feminine are produced and naturalized, but gender might very well be the apparatus by which such terms are deconstructed and denatur- alized’ (Butler 2004, 42). The strategy, therefore, is to theoretically distance gender from masculinity (and femininity) to enable gender to be constituted through alternative social and cultural forms. In other words, the use of masculinity as a conceptual tool to explore educational space may be instantiating a regulatory system of gender that is dependent upon sex/gender binaries. By undermining the regulatory system that config- ures gender, we can, in turn, begin to ‘undo gender’. This refusal of the binary cat- egories is illustrative in Frank, Davison, and Lovell’s (2003, 129) suggestion that

Quite simply, then what we are advocating is the need to think differently about how we think (Flax 1987) about boys and men, about masculinity and sexuality, and more broadly, how we have come to ‘know’ the world through the more general artificial polarities which modern investigation and theorising has invented as ‘real’.

Therefore, one way to disengage the ‘artificial polarities’ that regulate gender is to explore how particular attitudes, behaviours and practices are being rearticulated or reassembled in ways that are not intelligible through the identity category of masculi- nity. Working in the field of cultural studies, Noble (2004, xxxix) in her excellent exploration of female masculinity differentiates her project from that of Judith Halber- stam: ‘What I argue is that the subjects under discussion not only refuse categorization as a teleology but that they also rearticulate, or reassemble, the intelligibility of categ- orization itself’. So, whereas the first section of this article explored how the conceptual integrity of masculinity is maintained through notions of hegemonic masculinities, or as Butler (2004, 43) suggests the ‘multiplication of genders’, the second section loosens or unfastens an interpretive schema that ‘naturalises’ of masculinity and femininity as gen- dered norms. In this final section, a post-masculinity approach severs masculinity as the primary interpretive frame through which to explain gendered subjectivities.

In the introduction, we identified how masculinity has been used unproblematically as a concept to explain male behaviours in diverse educational contexts that range from 3-year-old boys (pre-school) through to 21-year-old boys (higher education). In these instances, it appears that masculinity and being have theoretical proximity; to under- stand ‘maleness’ we can use the concept of masculinity. One strategy to undo gender might be to let go of gender and consider how ‘maleness’ is constituted through

Gender and Education 585

particular cultural discourses. This is something evident in the research of Hills and Croston (2011). They argue that the category of masculinity and femininity are restric- tive, in that, they limit the possibilities of capturing cross-gender attitudes and beha- viours. The danger of this approach is that understanding gender outside of masculinity may lead to reducing gender to ‘maleness’. The argument from a post-mas- culinity position might suggest that we have a different social and cultural construction of gender that is not premised upon masculinity and femininity. Thus, one area that Butler (2004) identifies as creating theoretical distance between gender and masculinity is by highlighting the ‘. . .possibilities for gender that are not predetermined by forms of hegemonic heterosexuality’ (54). Such a position is developed by Miller (2006, 19) who argues that ‘Gendered and sexualized bodies are only rendered visible if they align within the bounds of the heterosexual matrix. . .’. Therefore, in order to explore gendered identifications and experiences outside masculinity, we may need to explore gendered forms that are not dependent upon heterosexuality. For example, in the context of River High School, Cheri Jo Pascoe argues that ‘masculinity and femi- ninity are forged through a “heterosexual matrix” (Butler 1995) that involves the public ordering of masculinity and femininity through the meanings and practices of sexuality’ (2007, 27).

However, if there is little recognition or identification with the heterosexual matrix, the cultural forms of masculinity and femininity may be more ambiguous. In short, the intelligibility of gender that is premised upon heterosexuality may be ruptured through identifications that are unable to be cohered through masculinity. This was something found in the early work by Thorne (1993). She identifies how younger children ‘cross genders’ particularly in the absence of a developed heterosexual meaning system and suggests the importance of recalibrating the relationship between gendered subjectiv- ities and (hetero)sexual structures. For example, there is often a tendency to use adult-led (heterosexual) masculinities to explain boys’ schooling experiences. Davies (1989, 2006) also explores the dynamics of category maintenance by children who transgress masculine- and feminine-orientated discourses and practices. She suggests the possibility of opening up a third category of gender that results in ‘breaking up the gender binary’ (2006, 88). Research by Haywood (2008) reports on how the gen- dered meaning systems of boys aged 8–12 years in a UK state school were not located within easily definable heterosexual and homosexual binaries. As a consequence, ero- tically charged behaviours between boys and between boys and girls were not collapsed within a logic of (homo/hetero)sexuality. With the structures of normative heterosexu- ality that underpin the articulation of masculinity (and femininity) being less salient, a masculinity identity that ‘Othered’ femininity, employed homophobia and celebrated heterosexuality was not taken up by these boys (see also Leck 2000).

The theoretical distance between gender and masculinity is also methodologically and analytically challenged by Talburt’s (2010) use of the ‘subjunctive’. Based on read- ings of the film, the History Boys, Talburt highlights how the theoretical framing of sub- jectivities through identity creates reified categories that demand a rigid indexicality of being and doing. In the History Boys, Talburt outlines how knowledge, desire and iden- tity are secured through the interpretive boundaries embedded in pedagogic and admin- istrative structures of schooling. However, she identifies particular incidents in the film where such boundaries are transgressed. For example, she suggests that the students articulate a queering that is uncoupled from identity categories and circulates across and beyond heteronormative circuits of desire. ‘The boys do not express the sexual and gender phobias “expected” of males of their age: they comfortably “act” like

586 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

women in class, openly enact queer desires, and take turns on Hector’s motorbike’ (Talburt 2010, 61). [Hector is a Humanities teacher, who routinely ‘gropes’ each of the boys when he gives them a lift]. Thus, Talburt suggests that educational research should endeavour to capture ‘subjunctive validity’ that among a range of aspects, ‘is concerned with undecidables, limits, paradoxes, discontinuities, complexities’ (Lather 2007, 128, cited in Talburt 2010, 62). From this perspective, queer experiences are disconnected from identity categories and can be used to suggest alternative ways of conceptualising gender.

One of the critiques of Talburt’s position, and that of a post-masculinity position, is that there is a marginalisation of the institutional context and that discontinuities circu- lating through sexual categories are facilitated by the unspoken continuities of institu- tionally driven privilege and status. It could be argued that the film’s narrative and the subjunctive potential appear to underpin a masculinity that is achieved through the pursuit of an intellectual muscularity (Redman and Mac an Ghaill 1996).2 Furthermore, work by Skelton et al. (2009) suggests that children use discourses of masculinity and femininity to structure relationships between themselves and their peers. There is also a broader criticism of a ‘post-masculinity’ position in that it does not appear to suffi- ciently address the issues concerning systems of social and cultural inequality. Further- more, suggesting that masculinity can be understood beyond categorical identities may result in a politics of cultural difference that

. . .works in the service of maintaining a compulsory ignorance, and where the break between the past and the present keeps us from being able to see the trace of the past as it re-emerges in the very contours of an imagined future. (Butler 1999, 18)

In other words, by thinking about masculinity being reconfigured differently, there is a risk that we lose the analytical purchase on the structuring processes that support inequalities. The consequence is that gender identities become reduced to an individu- alism that is socially and culturally relative. Thus, there is a risk that there is a return to earlier criticisms made of Halberstam and how local identifications and broader social structures are held together. In response, Noble usefully suggests that by exploring how identity categories are reassembled, ‘the effect is to resignify what that gender looks like and, indeed, how it dys-“articulates” them as subjects similar, but ultimately not reducible, to it’ (152). Therefore, although power continues to be distributed via axes of inequality, the challenge for the educational researcher is to identify and docu- ment how subjectification takes place outside of a patriarchal dividend, homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality and in turn, imagine how structures of power and inequalities can be mapped out differently.

Finally, another strategy to dislocate masculinity as the interpretive frame of gender can also be found in the early work of Mac an Ghaill (1994b, 156), who attempts to understand the complex interplay between ‘schooling, masculine cultural formations and sexual/racial identities’. In his consideration of black gay students in English schools, Mac an Ghaill identifies how racial identities are spoken through sexual and gender codes that are also embedded by generation. This case study reveals the racial/ethnic hierarchies that were ascribed by teachers in their administration and pedagogy.

So for example, in working class schools where there was a majority Asian student popu- lation with a mainly white minority, the dominant representations of Asian youth tended

Gender and Education 587

to be negative with caricatures of them as sly and ‘not real men’. However, in working class schools which included significant numbers of African-Caribbeans, the students felt that the Asians were caricatured in a more positive way in relation to the African-Car- ibbeans, who were perceived as of ‘low ability’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘anti-authority’. (158)

As a consequence, racial/ethnic categories are immediately gendered, classed and sex- ualised with social relations of ethnicity, simultaneously ‘speaking’ gender and sexu- ality. The result is a process of subjectification, where masculinity becomes an articulation of multiple differences, and power and powerlessness exist in simultaneous positions, or as Butler (1997, 116) has argued, ‘submission and mastery take place sim- ultaneously, and it is this paradoxical simultaneity that constitutes the ambivalence of subjection’. Therefore, the argument is not to reify ‘masculinity’ and deselect other social categories, but to return to sites of gendered experience and theorise out of them, as ‘situated knowledge’ (Stoetzler and Yuval-Davis 2002). This post-structural emphasis on simultaneity can be identified in Youdell’s (2010) exploration of peda- gogy and boys with ‘social, emotional and behavioural difficulties’. Rather than deploy social and cultural categories as intersecting, the use of simultaneity facilitates a conceptual liminality. This liminality is a position that is ‘necessarily ambiguous, since this condition and these persons elude or slip through the network of classifi- cations that normally locate states and positions in cultural space’ (Turner 1969, 95). In the minutiae of the classroom space, Youdell identifies the fluidity in the ascription of identities to boys, who have been educationally disenfranchised from a learner iden- tity. She suggests that

There is no either/or here – the binary machines of subjectivation seem not to operate. Boys are not either student and learner or SEDB [social, emotional and behavioural dif- ficulties] boys or cool boys. Rather there is a simultaneity and fluidity to these positions. (Youdell 2010, 320)

Consequently, alongside the lack of discourses that are taken up by the teacher to estab- lish an adult identity, the boys who are at one moment in an educational system signi- fied as abject, are simultaneously located as ‘becoming-student, becoming-learner, becoming-boy’ (Youdell 2010, 322). One of the features of studies that use masculinity is to cohere difference and similarity. This tends to reflect Benjamin’s (1988, 17) obser- vation that ‘. . .difference is defensively incorporated into rigid representations rather than recognised in tension with commonality’ and we should begin to make visible the boundaries that ‘enclose the identical’. So rather than interpreting social and cultural processes as ‘feminisation’ or ‘re-masculinisation’, a post-masculinity position might draw upon other categories such as age or ‘race’/ethnicity to designate gender. The overall direction of the post-masculinity position is to destabilise and disconnect mas- culinity from gender; there is a conscious intention to avoid trying to make gendered subjectivities fit theoretical and empirical representations of masculinity.

Conclusion

This article has offered a particular mapping of the field, to track the different ways that masculinity has been conceptualised. It does not attempt to capture all of the literature and cover the range of intricacies that theories have developed. Research on masculi- nity in education continues to be a source of theoretical and conceptual excitement. Although the authors are keen to explore further a post-masculinity approach to

588 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

understanding male gender, we advocate a need for an inclusive approach to masculi- nity that encourages a range of ways of engaging with the subject field. However, it is important to restate Butler’s (2004) claim that a notion of gender that relies on mascu- linity and femininity (or even the shift to masculinities and femininities) can operate as a regulatory process that can foreclose other theoretical and empirical possibilities. Fur- thermore, it brings into focus how conceptual frameworks may politically contribute to the instantiation of hegemonic systems of thinking. The claim is that a theoretical dis- tance between the normative categories or characteristics (masculinity/femininity, mas- culine/feminine) and gender may produce alternative ways of thinking. It could be argued that the approaches discussed in this article provide different moments of such theoretical distance.

To summarise, we have suggested that researchers could begin to explore how the cultural resources that are used to constitute masculinities may be disconnected from their traditional location within a patriarchal dividend. We have also highlighted how masculinity theorists might begin to think through the disconnection of gender from culturally ascribed notions of physiology. The emergence of empirically led descrip- tions of how gender is being transgressed offer an important theoretical reflexivity to studies that simply align masculinity with men. Such work urges us to question the implicit conceptual linkages that underpin theoretical building blocks. The linkages embedded in current academic usage of concepts, such as misogyny, homophobia and heterosexual fantasies, demand that boys’ and young men’s practices are already configured through power relations. The final section focuses specifically on how we might begin to think through the possibility of understanding gender that is not con- stituted by masculinity. This is perhaps the most conceptually and methodologically challenging approach. Asking the question of what is next for research on masculinity in education requires more than an engagement with approaches that conceptualise masculinities, it requires us to focus on ‘not the ontological claims of identity, but the conceptualization made possible precisely because of what is unthought’ (Britzman 1997, 36).

Notes 1. Connell has maintained a critical engagement with her original concept of hegemony and the

way it has been taken up by others (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). 2. Special thanks to second reviewer for pointing this out.

References Anderson, E. 2005. Orthodox & inclusive masculinity: Competing masculinities among hetero-

sexual men in a feminized terrain. Sociological Perspectives 48, no. 3: 337–55. Archer, L., and C. Leathwood. 2003. Identities, inequalities and higher education. In Higher

education and social class, ed. L. Archer, M. Hutchings and A. Ross, 176–91. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Arnot, M. 2002. Reproducing gender? Critical essays on educational theory and feminist poli- tics. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bakhtin, M. 1984. Rabelais and his world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bender, G. 2001. Resisting dominance? The study of a marginalized masculinity and its con-

struction within high school walls. In Preventing violence in schools: A challenge to American democracy, ed. J.N. Burstyn, 61–78. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Benjamin, J. 1988. The bonds of love: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and the problem of domina- tion. New York: Pantheon.

Gender and Education 589

Bhana, D. 2008. ‘Girls hit!’ Constructing and negotiating violent African femininities in a working-class primary school. Discourse 29, no. 3: 401–15.

Bhana, D. 2009. Boys will be boys: What do early childhood teachers have to do with it? Educational Review 61, no. 3: 327–39.

Blaise, M. 2009. What a girl wants, what a girl needs: Responding to sex, gender, and sexuality in the early childhood classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 23, no. 4: 450–60.

Bourdieu, P. 2001. Masculine domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Britzman, D.P. 1997. The tangles of implication. Qualitative Studies in Education 10, no. 1: 31–7. Butler, J. 1995. Subjection, resistance, resignification: Between Freud and Foucault. In The iden-

tity in question, ed. J. Rajchman, 229–49. London: Routledge. Butler, J. 1997. The psychic life of power. Theories in subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press. Butler, J. 1999. Revisiting bodies and pleasures. Theory, Culture & Society 16, no. 2: 11–20. Butler, J. 2004. Undoing gender. Oxfordshire: Routledge. Christensen, A., and J.E. Larsen. 2008. Gender, class, and family: Men and gender equality in a

Danish context. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 15, no. 1: 53–78.

Connell, R. 1987. Gender and power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Connell, R. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press. Connell, R.W., and J.W. Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the

concept. Gender and Society 19, no. 6: 829–59. Dalley-Trim, L. 2007. ‘The boys’ present . . . Hegemonic masculinity: A performance of mul-

tiple act. Gender and Education 19, no. 2: 199–217. Davies, B. 1989. Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender. Sydney:

Allen & Unwin. Davies, B. 2006. Identity, abjection and otherness: Creating the self, creating difference. In The

Routledge Falmer Reader in gender and education, ed. M. Arnot and M. Mac an Ghaill, 72–90. London: Routledge.

Dempster, S. 2009. Having the balls, having it all? Sport and constructions of undergraduate laddishness. Gender and Education 2, no. 5: 481–500.

Dudink, S.P., K. Hagemann, and A. Clark. eds. 2008. Representing masculinity: Male citizen- ship in modern western culture. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Elam, D. 1994. Feminism and deconstruction: Ms. en Abyme. New York: Routledge. Epstein, D. 2001. Boyz’ own stories: Masculinities and sexualities in schools. In What about the

boys? Issues of masculinity in schools, ed. W. Martino and B. Meyenn, 96–110. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Epstein, D., J. Elwood, V. Hey, and J. Maw. 1999. Failing boys? Issues in gender and achieve- ment. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Flax, J. 1987. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs 12, no. 4: 621–43. Flood, M. 2002. Between men and masculinity: An assessment of the term ‘masculinity’ in

recent scholarship on men. In Manning the next millennium: Studies in masculinities, ed. S. Pearce and V. Muller, 203–13. Bentley, WA: Black Swan.

Francis, B. 2010. Re/theorising gender: Female masculinity and male femininity in the class- room? Gender and Education 10, no. 5: 477–90.

Frank, B., K. Davison, and T. Lovell. 2003. Tangle of trouble: Boys, masculinity and schooling, future directions. Educational Review 55, no. 2: 119–33.

Frosh, S., A. Phoenix, and R Pattman. 2002. Young masculinities: Understanding boys in con- temporary Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Halberstam, J. 1998. Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Haywood, C. 2008. Genders and sexualities: Exploring the conceptual limits of contemporary

educational research. International Studies in Sociology of Education 18 1: 1–14. Haywood, C., and M. Mac an Ghaill. 2003. Men and masculinity: Theory research and social

practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hearn, J., and K. Pringle. eds. 2009. European perspectives on men and masculinities: National

and transnational approaches. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Hills, L.A., and A. Croston. 2011. ‘It should be better all together’: Exploring strategies for ‘undoing’

gender in coeducational physical education. Sport, Education and Society 16, no. 3: 1–15.

590 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

Jackson, C. 2006. Lads and ladettes in school. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Kehily, M.J. 2004. All about the girl: Culture, power and identity. In Gender and sexuality:

Continuities and change for girls in school, ed. A. Harris, 205–18. New York: Routledge. Kenway, J., and L. Fitzclarence. 1997. Masculinity, violence and football. Gender and

Education 9, no. 1: 117–33. Kimmel, M.S. 2007. Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of

gender identity. In Gender relations in global perspective: Essential readings, ed. N. Cook, 73–82. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.

Lather, P. 2007. Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Leck, G. 2000. Sexual identities in urban schools heterosexual or homosexual? Reconsidering binary narratives on sexual identities in urban schools. Education and Urban Society 32, no. 3: 324–48.

Leib, A.Y., and R.C. Bulman. 2007. The choreography of gender: Masculinity, femininity, and the complex dance of identity in the ballroom. Men and Masculinity 11, no. 5: 1–20.

Light, R. 2008. Boys, the body, sport and schooling. Sport, Education and Society 13, no. 2: 127–30.

Mac an Ghaill, M. 1994a. The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Mac an Ghaill, M. 1994b. (In)visibility: sexuality, masculinity and ‘race’ in the school context. In Challenging lesbian and gay inequalities in education, ed. D. Epstein, 152–77. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Mac an Ghaill, M., and C. Haywood. 2007. Gender, culture and society: Contemporary femi- ninities and masculinities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martino, W. 1999. ‘Cool boys’, ‘party animals’, ‘squids’ and ‘poofters’: Interrogating the dynamics and politics of adolescent masculinities in school. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20, no. 2: 239–63.

Martino, W., and M. Pallotta-Chiarolli. 2003. So what’s a boy? Addressing issues of masculinity and schooling. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

McCormack, M. 2010. The declining significance of homohysteria for male students in three sixth forms in the south of England. British Educational Research Journal 37, no. 2: 337–53.

Mendick, H. 2006. Masculinities in mathematics. Buckingham: Open University Press. Miller, A. 2006. Doing bisexuality: This is what a bisexual looks like? Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 10, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal.

Moller, M. 2007. Exploiting patterns: A critique of hegemonic masculinity. Journal of Gender Studies 16, no. 3: 263–76.

Noble, J.B. 2004. Masculinities without men? Female masculinity in twentieth-century fictions. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., N.L. Leech, and K.M.T. Collins. 2011. Innovative qualitative data collec- tion techniques for conducting literature reviews. In The Sage handbook of innovation in social research methods, ed. M. Williams and W.P. Vogt, 182–204. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paechter, C. 2006. Masculine femininities/feminine masculinities: Power identities and gender. Gender and Education 18, no. 3: 121–35.

Paechter, C. 2007. Being boys, being girls: Learning masculinities and femininities. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Paechter, C. 2009. Response to Mary Lou Rasmussen’s ‘beyond gender identity’. Gender and Education 21, no. 4: 449–53.

Parker, A. 2006. Lifelong learning to labour: Apprenticeship, masculinity and communities of practice. British Educational Research Journal 32, no. 5: 687–701.

Pascoe, C.J. 2007. Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Peterson, A. 2003. Theory for future work. Research on men and masculinities: Some impli- cations of recent. Men and Masculinities 6, no. 1: 54–69.

Poynting, S., and M. Donaldson. 2005. Snakes and leaders: Hegemonic masculinity in ruling- class boys’ boarding schools. Men and Masculinities 7, no. 4: 325–46.

Gender and Education 591

Rasmussen, M.I. 2009. Beyond gender identity. Gender and Education 21, no. 4: 431–47. Reay, D. 2001. Spice girls, ‘nice girls’, ‘girlies’ and tomboys: Gender discourses, girls’ cultures

and femininities in the primary classroom. Gender and Education 13, no. 2: 153–66. Redman, P. 1996. ‘Empowering men to disempower themselves’: Heterosexual masculinities,

HIV and the contradictions of anti-oppressive education. In Understanding masculinities: Social relations and cultural arenas, ed. M. Mac an Ghaill, 168–79. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Redman, P., D. Epstein, M.J. Kehily, and M. Mac an Ghaill. 2002. Boys bonding: Same-sex friendship, the unconscious and heterosexual masculinities. Discourse 23, no. 2: 179–91.

Redman, P., and M. Mac an Ghaill. 1996. Schooling, sexualities: Masculinities, schooling and the unconscious. Discourse 17, no. 2: 243–56.

Renold, E. 2008. Queering masculinity: Re-theorising contemporary Tomboyism in the Schizoid space of innocent/heterosexualized young femininities. Girlhood Studies 1, no. 2: 129–51.

Renold, E. 2009. Tomboys and ‘female masculinity’: (Dis)embodying hegemonic masculinity, queering gender identities and relations. In The problem with boys: Beyond recuperative masculinity politics in boys’ education, ed. W. Martino, M. Kehler and M. Weaver- Hightower, 224–42. New York: Routledge.

Ringrose, J. 2008. ‘Just be friends’: Exposing the limits of educational bully discourses for understanding teen girls heterosexualized friendships and conflicts. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29, no. 5: 509–22.

Ryan, M., and G. Johnson. 2009. Negotiating multiple identities between school and the outside world: A critical discourse analysis. Critical Studies in Education 50, no. 3: 247–60.

Sedgwick, E.K. 1995. Gosh, Boy George, you must be awfully secure in your masculinity. In Constructing masculinity, ed. M. Berger, B. Wallis and S. Watson, 16–20. New York: Routledge.

Simpson, R., and C. Cohen. 2004. Dangerous work: The gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher education. Gender, Work & Organization 11, no. 2: 163–86.

Skelton, C. 2001. Schooling the boys: Masculinities and primary education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Skelton, C., B. Carrington, B. Francis, M. Hutchings, B. Read, and I. Hall. 2009. Gender ‘matters’ in the primary classroom: Pupils’ and teachers’ perspectives. British Educational Research Journal 35, no. 2: 187–204.

Stoetzler, M., and N. Yuval-Davis. 2002. Standpoint theory, situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Feminist Theory 3, no. 3: 315–34.

Stoudt, B.G. 2006. School violence, peer discipline, and the (re)production of hegemonic mas- culinity. Men and Masculinities 8, no. 3: 273–87.

Swain, J. 2006. Reflections on patterns of masculinity in school settings. Men and Masculinities 8, no. 3: 331–49.

Tagg, B. 2008. ‘Imagine, a man playing netball!’: Masculinities and sport in New Zealand. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 43, no. 4: 409–30.

Talburt, S. 2010. ‘After-queer’: Subjunctive pedagogies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 23, no. 1: 49–64.

Thorne, B. 1993. Gender play: Girls and boys in school. Buckingham: Open University Press. Tong, C.K.M. 2008. Being a young tomboy in Hong Kong: The life and identity construction

of lesbian schoolgirls. In AsiaPacifiQueer: Rethinking genders and sexualities, ed. P.A. Jackson, M. McLelland and A. Yue, 117–31. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Turner, B. 1969. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Woods, R. 2009. The use of aggression in primary school boys’ decisions about inclusion in and

exclusion from playground football games. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79, no. 2: 223–38.

Youdell, D. 2010. Pedagogies of becoming in an end-of-the-line ‘special’ school. Critical Studies in Education 51, no. 3: 313–24.

592 C. Haywood and M. Mac an Ghaill

Copyright of Gender & Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.