Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
211]
On: 12 April 2014, At: 16:31
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this article: Chris Haywood & Mirtn Mac an Ghaill (2012) What's next for masculinity?
Reflexive directions for theory and research on masculinity and education, Gender and Education,
24:6, 577-592, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2012.685701
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2012.685701
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, Hagemann, 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 Leathwood 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
578
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 adequacy of masculinity. More specifically, they are modifying and rethinking how
masculinity is conceptualised, in order to achieve greater empirical and analytical purchase 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 modifications that may have a significant impact on the future use of masculinity in educational 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 masculinity 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 articles aim of identifying how masculinity is being conceptually 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 education. 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 conceptual 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 Mollers (2007, 269) suggestion that
gendered power should not be equated with or reduced solely to a logic of domination. 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
Butlers (2004, 43) suggestion that
579
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.
580
581
582
This also dovetails with Renolds (2009) ethnographic research with 1011-year olds
in two UK primary schools. She explores how some girls take up masculinised practices, embody hegemonic masculinity and in effect, negotiate the ascription of heterosexualised 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 themselves 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
583
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 masculinity. Her research on lesbian schoolgirls in Hong Kong highlights how their rejection 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 Paechters (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 arrangement. 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 consequence, using masculinity as the noun produces something socially and culturally contingent 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 ones identification as male or female, and ones recognition as such by a community 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
584
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 Paechters 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 Bakhtins work on dialogism and heteroglossia to explore the constitution of student experiences. Ryan and Johnson (2009)
suggest that
Bakhtins (1994) philosophies of dialogism and heteroglossia are useful to consider the
ways in which the individual and the social interact to constitute the diverse, multifaceted identities or subjectivities of individuals as they construct and express meaning.
These intersubjective understandings about how self is both socially constructed and individually experienced sees individuals drawing upon an intricate and continuous interplay
between self and the ideologies of society. (248)
It is argued that young peoples identities are implicated within a series of intersubjective moments, where dialogic relations are negotiated. Dialogic here refers to the multitude 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 Bakhtins notions of monoglossia and heteroglossia to explore
gender identities in educational contexts. For Francis, monoglossia appeals to the dominant 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 fluidity of the everyday experiences of gender. For example, Francis cites a number of incidents 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 monoglossia 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 structures 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 ubiquitous, 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
585
ways, Bakhtins concept of polyglossia suggests the potential for gender to be considered and understood outside of existing conceptual frames that are currently being
used. More work could be undertaken to explore the possibility of understanding masculinity 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.
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 masculinity. Working in the field of cultural studies, Noble (2004, xxxix) in her excellent
exploration of female masculinity differentiates her project from that of Judith Halberstam: 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 categorization 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 gendered 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 understand 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
586
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 restrictive, in that, they limit the possibilities of capturing cross-gender attitudes and behaviours. The danger of this approach is that understanding gender outside of
masculinity may lead to reducing gender to maleness. The argument from a post-masculinity 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 femininity 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 subjectivities 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 gendered meaning systems of boys aged 812 years in a UK state school were not located
within easily definable heterosexual and homosexual binaries. As a consequence, erotically charged behaviours between boys and between boys and girls were not collapsed
within a logic of (homo/hetero)sexuality. With the structures of normative heterosexuality 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 Talburts (2010) use of the subjunctive. Based on readings of the film, the History Boys, Talburt highlights how the theoretical framing of subjectivities through identity creates reified categories that demand a rigid indexicality of
being and doing. In the History Boys, Talburt outlines how knowledge, desire and identity are secured through the interpretive boundaries embedded in pedagogic and administrative 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
587
women in class, openly enact queer desires, and take turns on Hectors 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 Talburts position, and that of a post-masculinity position, is
that there is a marginalisation of the institutional context and that discontinuities circulating through sexual categories are facilitated by the unspoken continuities of institutionally driven privilege and status. It could be argued that the films 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 sufficiently address the issues concerning systems of social and cultural inequality. Furthermore, 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)
588
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-Caribbeans, who were perceived as of low ability, aggressive and anti-authority. (158)
As a consequence, racial/ethnic categories are immediately gendered, classed and sexualised with social relations of ethnicity, simultaneously speaking gender and sexuality. 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 simultaneously, 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 Youdells (2010) exploration of pedagogy 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 classifications 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 identity. 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 difficulties] 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 establish an adult identity, the boys who are at one moment in an educational system signified 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 Benjamins (1988, 17) observation 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 masculinity 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 masculinity 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
589
understanding male gender, we advocate a need for an inclusive approach to masculinity that encourages a range of ways of engaging with the subject field. However, it is
important to restate Butlers (2004) claim that a notion of gender that relies on masculinity and femininity (or even the shift to masculinities and femininities) can operate as
a regulatory process that can foreclose other theoretical and empirical possibilities. Furthermore, it brings into focus how conceptual frameworks may politically contribute to
the instantiation of hegemonic systems of thinking. The claim is that a theoretical distance between the normative categories or characteristics (masculinity/femininity, masculine/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 descriptions 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 mens 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 constituted 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 heterosexual 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 politics. 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 construction 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 domination. New York: Pantheon.
590
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: 317.
Butler, J. 1995. Subjection, resistance, resignification: Between Freud and Foucault. In The identity 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:
5378.
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 multiple 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 citizenship 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 achievement. 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 classroom? 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 contemporary 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: 115.
591
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 femininities 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 whats 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 collection 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 Rasmussens 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, youre 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 implications of recent. Men and Masculinities 6, no. 1: 54 69.
Poynting, S., and M. Donaldson. 2005. Snakes and leaders: Hegemonic masculinity in rulingclass boys boarding schools. Men and Masculinities 7, no. 4: 325 46.
592
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. WeaverHightower, 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 masculinity. 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.