Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO:
11 July 2013
Version of attached le:
Accepted Version
Peer-review status of attached le:
Peer-reviewed
Citation for published item:
McCormack, M. and Anderson, E. (2010) It's just not acceptable any more' : The erosion of homophobia and
the softening of masculinity at an English sixth form.', Sociology., 44 (5). pp. 843-859.
Further information on publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038510375734
Publisher's copyright statement:
The nal denitive version of this article has been published in the journal Sociology 44/5, 2010 Copyright
c
The
Author(s) 2010 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Sociology page: http://soc.sagepub.com/ on SAGE Journals Online:
http://online.sagepub.com/
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-prot 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
1
‘It’s just not acceptable anymore’: The Erosion of Homophobia and the
Softening of Masculinity at an English Sixth Form
This ethnographic research interrogates the relationship between sexuality, gender and
homophobia and how they impact on 16-18 year old boys in a co-educational sixth
form in the south of England. Framing our research with inclusive masculinity theory,
we find that, unlike the elevated rates of homophobia typically described in academic
literature, the boys at ‘Standard High’ espouse pro-gay attitudes and eliminate
homophobic language. This inclusivity simultaneously permits an expansion of
heteromasculine boundaries, so that boys are able to express physical tactility and
emotional intimacy without being homosexualised by their behaviours. However, we
add to inclusive masculinity theory by showing the ways in which boys continue to
privilege and regulate heterosexuality in absence of homophobia: we find that
heterosexual boundary maintenance continues, heterosexual identities are further
consolidated, and the presumption of heterosexuality remains. Accordingly, we argue
that even in inclusive cultures, it is necessary to examine for the processes of
heteronormativity.
Keywords: masculinity; heterosexuality; homophobia; schooling; gay; bullying.
2
Introduction
In 2008, the United Kingdom’s Department of Children, Schools and Families
published best practice guidelines for school administrators to follow in combating
homophobic bullying in schools. The directive recommends schools teach LGBT
history and even introduce their pupils to gay and lesbian role models. This policy
highlights a radical institutional shift in thinking about homosexuality in the British
school system. Until 2003, legislation prohibited the ‘promotion of homosexuality’ in
schools; something which even led to the banning of books with ‘pro-gay’ themes.
Inspired by this recent directive, we explored the current levels of homophobia, and
the contemporary construction of masculinity, in a standard British sixth form—one
that we call ‘Standard High’.
This article contributes to the scholarship about gender, sexualities and schools
through empirically grounded, social-constructionist research. We are interested in
how the modes of power (concerning gender and sexuality) impact upon these
students’ lives; the ways in which students contest or conform to orthodox sexual and
gender norms; and how theories of sexuality and gender account for our findings.
Both authors collected data in the field, discussing our independent interpretations of
events, meaning that the validity of our analysis is strengthened through the mutual
experience and coding of data.
Whereas previous research shows that boys maintain masculinity through
vociferously deploying homophobic pejoratives, we show that this is not the case at
Standard High. Instead, boys position themselves against homophobia, even
stigmatising the use of homophobic discourse. We find that heterosexual boys at
Standard High are physically tactile and emotionally intimate with other boys, and
that they discuss once-feminised topics without threat to their socially-perceived
3
heterosexual identities. However, we find that even in this inclusive setting,
heterosexual boundary policing continues, and heteronormativity exists through the
presumption of heterosexuality.
Heteronormativity and Homophobia in State Schools
Considerable research links the operations of homophobia, heteronormativity and
sexuality in the production and maintenance of gendered identities in Western cultures
(cf. Plummer 1999). For boys and men, the intersection of heterosexuality and
masculinity is so intense that Pronger (1990) argues the term heteromasculinity is
required to more accurately capture its imbrications. Yet research often underplays the
complex, multi-dimensional, interaction of sexuality and gender. As Jackson (2006, p.
106) writes, ‘Sexuality, gender and heterosexuality intersect in variable ways within
and between different dimensions of the social’.
At an institutional level, schools produce their own sexual and gendered
oppression (Allen 2007; Atkinson and DePalma 2009; Pascoe 2007). Curricula,
policies, and officially sanctioned discussion about sexuality have been shown to
privilege heterosexuality while simultaneously dismissing all other sexual identities
(cf. Epstein and Johnson 1998). In Australia, for example, Ferfolja (2007)
demonstrates that heterosexuality is privileged through the institutional silencing and
omission of gay identities, arguing that this reproduces homophobic prejudice. In the
US and UK, Pascoe (2007) and Epstein et al. (2003) show that institutionally-
sanctioned cultures of homophobia severely diminish the social freedoms and learning
environment of sexual minorities, so that gay students remain highly stigmatised in
school systems.
4
However, students’ sexual identities and gendered behaviours have also been
shown to be strictly regulated through social interaction (Mac an Ghaill 1994; Epstein
et al. 2003; Frosh et al. 2002). Research has documented that only a limited range of
gendered behaviours are available to boys in schools, showing that, to obtain a
culturally validated form of masculinity, boys must socially distance themselves from
gay students and that they are often required to intellectualise homophobic attitudes
(Frosh et al 2002; Plummer 1999). Furthermore, in order to avoid homosexual
suspicion, boys are found to disengage from homosocial tactility and emotional
intimacy (Nayak and Kehily 1996). Traditionally, exceptions have only existed for
boys with high masculine capital, who (ironically) maintain permission to break some
of these gendered boundaries (Anderson 2005a; Pascoe 2003).
The stigma attached to homosexuality also means that boys are shown to use
an array of heterosexual boundary maintenance techniques to publicly defend their
heterosexual identities (Kehily 2002). The primary method for this has been the
deployment of homophobic discourse.
1
This serves two purposes. First, homophobic
epithets help boys distance themselves from anything perceived as feminine and/or
gay (Epstein 1997; Plummer 1999). Second, the discursive policing of orthodox
sexual and gender norms promotes one’s own heteromasculine capital (Epstein 1993;
Mac an Ghaill 1994; Frosh et al. 2002). Accordingly, homophobic bullying has been
described as inevitable for most boys who transgress heteromasculine boundaries,
regardless of their actual or perceived sexual orientation (Martino and Pallotta-
Chiarolli 2003). Researchers have also shown how homophobia impacts differently
upon students according to their race and class (Froyum 2007; Pascoe 2007; Taylor
2007).