Inclusive Masculinities in a Working-Class Sixth Form in Northeast England

TLDR: The authors examined the construction of masculinity among a group of working-class boys aged sixteen to nineteen in the northeast of England and found that only a small minority of these boys embodied the orthodox archetype of masculinity that has traditionally been associated with working class youth, while the great majority of participants adopted attitudes and behaviors that can be categorized as a set of inclusive masculinities: they espoused positive attitudes toward homosexuality, engaged in physical tactility and emotional intimacy, and used homosexually themed language without the intent to wound or marginalize other boys.

Abstract: This research examines the construction of masculinity among a group of working-class boys aged sixteen to nineteen in the northeast of England. Drawing on data collected from a six-week ethnography with boys in a religious (Christian) sixth form college, this study documents how only a small minority of these boys embodied the orthodox archetype of masculinity that has traditionally been associated with working-class youth. Instead, the great majority of participants adopted attitudes and behaviors that can be categorized as a set of inclusive masculinities: They espoused positive attitudes toward homosexuality, engaged in physical tactility and emotional intimacy, and used homosexually themed language without the intent to wound or marginalize other boys. These findings pose a considerable challenge to dominant narratives on working-class masculinities; narratives that must now be reconfigured to account for the proliferation of inclusive masculinities among working-class youth.

Full text

Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO:
07 September 2015
Version of attached le:
Accepted Version
Peer-review status of attached le:
Peer-reviewed
Citation for published item:
Blanchard, C. and McCormack, M. and Peterson, G. (2017) 'Inclusive masculinities in a working-class sixth
form in Northeast England.', Journal of contemporary ethnography., 46 (3). pp. 310-333.
Further information on publisher's website:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241615610381
Publisher's copyright statement:
Blanchard, C. and McCormack, M. and Peterson, G. (2017) 'Inclusive masculinities in a working-class sixth form in
Northeast England.', Journal of contemporary ethnography., 46 (3). pp. 310-333. Copyright
c

2015 The Author(s).
Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.
Additional information:
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for
personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
•
a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
•
a link is made to the metadata record in DRO
•
the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom
Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971
https://dro.dur.ac.uk

Inclusive Masculinities in a Working-Class Sixth Form in North East England
Abstract
This research examines the construction of masculinity amongst a group of working-class
boys aged 16-19 in the North East of England. Drawing on data collected from a six week
ethnography with boys in a religious (Christian) sixth form college, this study documents
how only a small minority of these boys embodied the orthodox archetype of masculinity
which has traditionally been associated with working-class youth. Instead, the great majority
of participants adopted attitudes and behaviors which can be categorized as a set of inclusive
masculinities: They espoused positive attitudes towards homosexuality, engaged in physical
tactility and emotional intimacy, and used homosexually-themed language without the intent
to wound or marginalize other boys. These findings pose a considerable challenge to
dominant narratives on working-class masculinities; narratives which must now be
reconfigured to account for the proliferation of inclusive masculinities amongst working-class
youth.
Keywords: class; education; homophobia; inclusivity; men.

2
Introduction
Research on working-class masculinities in the North East of England has documented how
young men esteem an orthodox archetype of masculinity (Nayak and Kehily 1996),
connecting this with the processes of deindustrialization that had a profound effect in the
region (see Nayak 2006). This contributed to a body of research on working-class
masculinities in schools that showed young men’s behaviors were predicated upon
homophobia, misogyny, and the avoidance of femininity (Francis 1999; Mac an Ghaill 1994;
Epstein 1997). The dominant mode of masculinity amongst working-class British youth has
consistently been shown to regulate and restrict acceptable masculine behaviors and
marginalize those who operate outside of it.
However, a growing body of contemporary literature has challenged this dominant
narrative of working-class masculinity, evidencing the proliferation of inclusive masculinities
amongst British teenagers (e.g. Anderson 2009; Mac an Ghaill and Haywood 2012; Magrath
2015; Roberts 2013). Documenting how a decline in cultural homophobia has resulted in a
change in the attitudes and behaviors of teenage boys, McCormack’s (2014) study extended
these findings to working-class youth; showing how the attitudes and behaviors of working-
class boys were changing in positive ways.
In this ethnographic study, we examine the social dynamics of masculinities in a sixth
form college
1
in a small town in the North East of England. We document that the majority of
the working-class boys adopted attitudes and behaviors which can be categorized as a set of
inclusive masculinities. Although evidence of residual orthodox masculinity was found in this
setting, inclusive masculinities were both numerically and socially dominant, contrasting with
earlier literature in this area (e.g. Mac an Ghaill 1994; Nayak and Kehily 1996). Considering
these findings alongside other research on working-class youth (e.g. Magrath 2015;
McCormack 2014; Roberts 2013), we contend that dominant narratives which provide static

3
notions of working-class masculinity need to be reconfigured in order to account for the
decline in cultural homophobia and the impact this has had on the social organization of
masculinities among working-class youth.
The policing of working-class masculinity in schools
Research has documented that working-class boys in British school settings must adopt
certain intellectual and behavioral characteristics to avoid social marginalization (e.g. Nayak
2006; McDowell 2003; Wight 1994). Savage (2003) describes how a range of middle-class
practices have become “regarded as universally ‘normal,’ ‘good’ and ‘appropriate’” in the
UK, and working-class male youth exaggerate other culturally esteemed components of
gender and sexuality in order to contest this positioning (see Froyum 2007; Pyke 1996).
Early British research that examined working-class male youth at school showed how
social and institutional processes of class marginalized young working-class men in school
(Willis 1977). With a more substantive focus on gender, Mac an Ghaill’s (1994) ethnographic
study explicated how a group of working-class boys – the “macho lads” – were able to
maintain a heterosexual identity and thus avoid homophobic abuse by displaying an
exaggerated hyper-masculinity. Specifically, these macho lads avoided activities and
behaviors socially coded as feminine and gay, with their interests and behaviors limited to
“three F’s” – football, fucking and fighting. Implicit in this framing was that homophobia was
directed towards any boy who did not conform to this orthodox form of masculinity.
Same-sex desire and gay identity were regularly discussed in derogatory ways by
working-class boys in the 1980s and 1990s (Mac an Ghaill 1994; Vicars 2006), and
contesting anti-gay statements could result in being the subject of homophobic abuse (Nayak
and Kehily 1996). Such findings were corroborated in school settings in Australia, where
boys who supported gay students and gay rights were also labelled gay (Plummer 1999).

4
Indeed, the stigmatization of gay identities has been shown to be a routine feature of school
life, and sexual minority students have reported negative school experiences including high
levels of bullying, verbal harassment and social exclusion (Epstein and Johnson 1998; Rivers
2001).
The use of homophobia to police both sexual minority and heterosexual students led
to a particularly narrow set of behaviors that were acceptable for working-class male youth.
Francis (1999) described these as including “having a laugh,’ alcohol consumption,
disruptive behavior, objectifying women, and an interest in pastimes and subjects constructed
as masculine” (1999: 357). Engagement with school work was seen to damage a boy’s
standing with his peers (Jackson 2006)—an approach to education that Lyng (2009) calls
“antischoolishness,” and one that negatively impacts upon working-class boys’ career
aspirations (Reay 2002, 2006). Walker (2013) highlights that this rejection of work does not
always take “laddish” forms, and that marginalized working-class men disengage from work
for a number of gendered reasons. Indeed, while these findings undoubtedly hide complex
personal identifications and experiences of being a man (McDowell 2001), they nonetheless
speak to the broader issue that masculinity has proven damaging for many working-class
boys and men (Way 2011).
The literature documents that boys frequently resorted to physical violence as a way
of asserting their masculinities in this context, often using homophobic language alongside
violent acts (Plummer 1999; Vicars 2006). Indeed, physicality has also been central to
conforming to esteemed working-class masculinities (Nayak 2006), with Nayak (2003)
discussing the strategic use of football fandom as a “curriculum of the body” that enables
working-class boys to maintain a sense of affinity with industrialized masculinities. Bodily
displays of homophobia and disgust have also been used to convey a “natural” heterosexual
masculine identity in school (Nayak and Kehily 1996). Here, disgust was performed through

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in "Inclusive masculinities in a working-class sixth form in north east england abstract this research examines the construction of masculinity amongst a group of working-class boys aged 16-19 in the north east of england. drawing on data collected from a six week ethnography with boys in a religious (christian)" ?

This research examines the construction of masculinity amongst a group of working-class boys aged 16-19 in the North East of England. Drawing on data collected from a six week ethnography with boys in a religious ( Christian ) sixth form college, this study documents how only a small minority of these boys embodied the orthodox archetype of masculinity which has traditionally been associated with working-class youth. 

Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Inclusive masculinities in a working-class sixth form in north east england abstract this research examines the construction of masculinity amongst a group of working-class boys aged 16-19 in the north east of england. drawing on data collected from a six week ethnography with boys in a religious (christian)" ?

Recognizing diversity in their participants ’ attitudes, behaviors and masculinities, future problematic gendered expressions among working-class young men. 

Q3. What were the key areas the authors considered in determining categorizing?

The key areas the authors considered in determining categorization were: 1) attitudes toward homosexuality; 2) level of physical tactility; 3) level of emotional intimacy between friends; 4) level of violence or ‘hard’ physicality (e.g. playfights etc); 5) level of homophobic language. 

Q4. What was the effect of the use of such words on the boys?

The use of such words had a negative social effect, resulting in the regulation and restriction of acceptable masculine behaviors amongst these boys. 

Q5. What are the three factors that are necessary in the production of homohysteria?

Defined as men’s fear of being perceived as gay by other people, three factors are necessary in the production of homohysteria within a given culture: the awareness that homosexuality exists as a sexual identity, the conflation of gender and sexuality and a cultural zeitgeist of homophobia (McCormack and Anderson 2014). 

Q6. What did they use to post information about their lives?

Many hadFacebook and Twitter accounts, on which they posted information about their lives that conformed to their behaviors in-person. 

Q7. What was the intimate display of tactility between the boys?

hugging between these boys occurred in the common room on an almost hourly basis, and one of the most intimate displays of tactility was observed on the birthday of one boy, Simon. 

Q8. Why did these boys distance themselves from sexual minority students?

in order to sustain their heteromasculine identity, this group of boys distanced themselves from sexual minority students. 

Q9. What was the main reason for the boys to distance themselves from the common room?

the efforts of these boys to distance themselves from the common room was indicative of their attempts to dissociate themselves from the wider, more inclusive culture of the college; an inclusive culture which did not esteem their orthodox masculine attitudes and behaviors. 

Q10. What is the meaning of inclusive masculinities?

Central to this understanding is that “inclusive” and “orthodox” serve as umbrella categories for a far broader set of masculinities, but that the terms maintain heuristic utility in understanding the social dynamics of gender related to social stratifications of masculinities between men (Anderson 2009). 

Q11. What evidence did the authors have for the dominance of inclusive masculinities within the college?

The dominance of inclusive masculinities within this setting was also evidenced bythe fact that the expression of homophobic values was heavily stigmatized within the wider culture of the college. 

Q12. What factors are attributable to the change in social attitudes?

This change in social attitudes is attributable to a range of factors, including the success of the gay rights movement, improving media coverage of LGB issues and the expansion of the internet that enhances gay visibility and facilitates online connections that were not possible prior to the internet (Anderson 2014). 

Q13. What was the informal approach used to interact with participants?

This informal approach entailed making efforts to minimize the social distance between researcher and participants, whilst maximizing the social distance between figures of authority. 

Q14. Why did the two staff members have little authority over the boys?

The two staff members – a cleaner and a cafeteria worker – were selected because they maintained little authority over the boys but were regularly in the common room. 

Q15. How many of the boys who embodied orthodox masculinity rarely visited the common room?

ten of the boys who embodied orthodox masculinity rarely visited the common room, spending almost all of their free-time and lunch breaks in a classroom situated at the opposite end of the school. 

Q16. How long does it take to uncover the key dynamics of a research context?

While there is a tendency for ethnographic research to last for several months (see LeCompte and Goetz 1982), other research supports the contention that six weeks is sufficient time to uncover the key dynamics of a research context (see Anderson 2011; Woods 1986). 

Q17. What was the focus of the research made known to students?

Although the Headteacher was aware of the full extent of the research, the focus upon masculinity and homophobia was not made known to students. 

Q18. What is the recent survey of adults on samesex relationships?

Asking different questions in 2012, the most recent survey found that only 29% of adults think samesex relationships are wrong—a number that is even lower among youth, given the presence of a generational cohort effect in the data (Clements and Field 2014). 

Q19. What is the main difference between the attitudes of these boys and the ones of the other students?

The attitudes of these boys illustrate how homophobia and misogyny intersect in the construction of their orthodox masculinities, with much of their disdain for homosexuality premised upon the idea that gay men are similar to women (Schwartz and Rutter 1998).