Men and Masculinities

http://jmm.sagepub.com/

''You're Either In or You're Out'' : School Violence, Peer Discipline, and the (Re)Production of Hegemonic
Masculinity
Brett G. Stoudt
Men and Masculinities 2006 8: 273
DOI: 10.1177/1097184X05282070

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/8/3/273

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Men and Masculinities can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jmm.sagepub.com/content/8/3/273.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 30, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

MEN AND
10.1177/1097184X05282070
Stoudt / HEGEMONIC
MASCULINITIES
MASCULINITY
/ January 2006

“You’re Either In or You’re Out”

School Violence, Peer Discipline, and
the (Re)Production of Hegemonic Masculinity

BRETT G. STOUDT
City University of New York

School violence has not been studied widely across schools and communities. This article
examines hegemonic masculinity and its relationship to violence through the peer disci-
plining (hazing, teasing, bullying) that occurs among students who attend an elite subur-
ban boys’school. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, the anal-
ysis suggests that violence is embedded in the social fabric of the school and implicated in
power relations between both peers and their institution. Emotionally ambiguous,
“you’re either in or you’re out” distinctions made by peer disciplining can produce
shame, fear, and hurt alongside friendship, intimacy, and bonding. The normalcy with
which hegemonic values are practiced makes it difficult, though not impossible, to con-
test. If we are to find viable alternatives to dominant masculinities, which are restrictive
for most, it will be important to ask which boys and under what conditions are they able to
resist its mandates.

Key words: men; masculinities; hegemonic masculinity; boys; school violence; emo-
tion; privilege; teasing; bullying; hazing; schools; independent schools;
peer disciplining

“There was a kid who got kicked out for like a threat that he made to kids,
like that he was going to shoot up the school . . . ” (Brian, tenth grader).
School violence among boys has come under increased scrutiny since con-
cerns about random shootings have heightened among teachers, students, par-
ents, and the media (Kimmel and Mahler 2003). Sensationalized instances of

Author’s Note: This research was funded, in part, by The Spencer Discipline-Based Studies in
Education Fellowship as well as The Center for the Study of Boys’Lives. I would like to give spe-
cial thanks to Janet Heed and her faculty team of researchers for their help with conducting and
interpreting this research. I would like to express appreciation to Suzanne Ouellette for her very
helpful suggestions on previous drafts of this manuscript. I would also like to acknowledge
Michelle Fine and Peter Kuriloff for their invaluable editorial feedback and support throughout
the writing process. And finally, thanks to the “Masculinity Group” for their perspectives on my
paper and their enthusiasm for this area of research. Please address correspondence to: Brett G.
th
Stoudt, City University of New York, Graduate Center, Social Personality Psychology, 6 Floor,
th
365 5 Avenue, New York, NY 10016; (212) 260-3075; [email protected].
Men and Masculinities, Vol. 8 No. 3, January 2006 273-287
DOI: 10.1177/1097184X05282070
© 2006 Sage Publications
273

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

274 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

male violence in schools such as Columbine are often quickly disconnected

from “normal” gendered relations, focusing on the boys who commit these
acts without considering the educational contexts or social interactions in
which such acts are cultivated. Yet such violence might be considered more
suitably the most visible and infrequent end of a continuum that also includes
the normalized forms of male violence occurring inside schools every day
(Garbarino and deLara 2002), forms of violence that are embedded in and
mediated through hegemonic masculine values and restrictive to the way
boys are “allowed” to perform masculinity.1
Although school violence has stereotypically been associated with black
boys from urban communities (see Yasser Payne’s article on street-oriented
black masculinity, in this volume), a high frequency of violence and fear of
violence has been documented among students within mostly white subur-
ban schools (Garbarino and deLara 2002). And, most powerful, almost every
random school shooting incidence that has occurred since 1982 has been at
the hands of white, middle-class, suburban boys from conservative regions
who have been teased or bullied by high-status classmates (Kimmel and
Mahler 2003). White masculinities deserve critical examination (see Lois
Weis’s article on white working-class masculinity, in this volume). This arti-
cle’s contribution examines male violence by white boys in an educationally
privileged school named Rockport. 2
Rockport is an elite, mostly white, independent boys’ school located in an
upper-middle to upper-class suburban region of the northeast. We3 distrib-
uted a survey to 148 of its students (64 percent of the tenth-, eleventh-, and
twelfth-grade population) and conducted fourteen semistructured, open-
ended interviews along with four similarly constructed focus groups to better
understand the boys’ experiences at Rockport and the social dynamics of
race, class, sexuality, and gender within their privileged setting.4 Survey
questions were broadly constructed to capture the students’ social represen-
tations (e.g., “Rockport is an academically competitive environment”), while
interview and focus-group questions were designed to elicit specific experi-
ences (e.g., “Tell me a story about something you witnessed at Rockport that
made you feel upset”) (Walker 2001). I use collective survey responses juxta-
posed with individual interview responses throughout the text as method-
ological strategies to demonstrate the way some boys contend with institu-
tional and gendered representations (Moscovici 2001) as well as how
institutions promote and shame particular performances of gender and emo-
tion. I begin by discussing Rockport’s masculine-oriented environment and
then outline students’experiences with school violence (e.g., teasing, hazing,
bullying). This article documents the subtle, normalizing, and relational
aspects of violence in the boys’ educational experiences and the relationship
that violence has to hegemonic masculine values.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

 Stoudt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 275

INSTITUTIONAL PRODUCTION AND

REPRODUCTION OF HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY

Rockport is a place that fosters high expectations for its students, where
intelligence is held at a premium and “being smart” does not preclude “being
masculine” (Kuriloff and Reichert 2003). It is a place that cultivates student-
teacher relationships. If students have an “emotional issue while in school”
they are just as likely to feel that faculty (e.g., teachers, guidance counselors)
would “be there for them” (68 percent) as their own peers (69 percent).5
Rockport is known and sought after for its college preparatory success and
reproduction of privilege (Cookson and Persell 1985). As one student
described, “I think there’s general consensus that it will benefit you in the
future and you do what you can and you know what’s at stake, . . . college and
stuff . . . the harder [you] work here . . . it will lead into helping [you] further
along.” Alongside the meritocratic belief that hard work will guarantee (and
justify) success there is also a conscious understanding for these boys and
their parents that Rockport’s curriculum can sustain or improve economic
and social capital beyond that produced by “mere” hard work.
Schools are but one, albeit primary, institution within a larger culture that
systematically perpetuates the unbalanced stratification of race, class, and
gender (Bowles and Gintis 1977). Like all schools, Rockport is not a neutral
space. It is a site that implicitly and explicitly teaches and reinforces hege-
monic values and in doing so helps reproduce the cultural advantages given
to economically privileged white males, the majority of students who attend
Rockport. Bourdieu considers the subtle institutional replication of group or
class injustice, as well as its mistaken perception of legitimacy and normalcy,
systems of symbolic violence (Jenkins 2002). I will use David’s experiences
with his environment to begin explicating the messages received and the rep-
resentations shaped by Rockport’s hegemonic masculine curriculum and his
embodiment of these dynamics.
David is a white, 17-year-old senior who has attended Rockport for seven
years. Before coming to Rockport he had attended a school to help him with
“some problems with reading and that sort of thing” but has developed into a
very successful student awaiting, hopefully, an acceptance letter to Harvard.
David’s experiences with Rockport have led him to believe that “It’s a very
masculine school.” He notes that “In a coed school, if you’re dating the lead
cheerleader, obviously [you’re] . . . the coolest guy ever, but . . . as there’s no
girls that’s just one less way for guys to . . . prove themselves, so they have to
find other ways. . . .” The majority of the students (54 percent) perceived
Rockport as a place that can be very cruel to those who are different from the
acceptable standards, leaving ways to prove oneself limited to, for many
boys, “acceptably” masculine options such as David suggests, “football and
being tough.”

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

276 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

Less than a quarter of the students (22 percent) felt that Rockport was
“generally a caring and nurturing environment.” David illustrates his first
experiences with Rockport’s masculine environment when he arrived in sixth
grade. “Middle schools . . . can be pretty cold places, pretty rough places.
But . . . an all-boys middle school was just pretty . . . nasty . . . most people
think that girls are bad with cliques . . . but it’s ten times worse with guys.” As
part of the masculine environment, he describes how the school facilitates a
competitive context. “It is a school where the primary focus is to get into col-
lege. . . . So grades matter and people definitely care and so those two ingre-
dients combine to make it a very competitive place.” Nearly every student felt
that Rockport was an “academically competitive” place (96 percent) and
most thought it was “socially competitive” (57 percent).
David has not, however, always found a masculine environment to be
restrictive. Indeed, one of David’s biggest surprises was how supportive
many (not all) in the community were to his very close friend who decided to
tell people he was gay. David perceives Rockport as allowing him the free-
dom to be who he wants. “I do a lot of singing and I act in the occasional musi-
cal . . . and there are a lot of places guys can’t really do that without being ridi-
culed.” He attributes his freedom to an absence of girls. “The ability to be
yourself, I guess that’s an outcome of not having girls, because you’re not try-
ing to impress them and other guys aren’t trying to put you down to get some
standing. . . . ” He sees Rockport as a safe space away from girls. “[If my girl-
friend and I] had a fight last night, or whatever, it’s just like o.k., this is my
place and you can’t touch me here.”
David understands a single-sex classroom without the presence of girls as
one that gives the teacher freedom as well. They “don’t really need to cater to
political correctness . . . I have one teacher who . . . can have a certain sort of
fun with teaching and I think a certain sort of fun he probably couldn’t do if
there were girls in the school. . . . ” One of David’s classmates illustrated the
potential dangers of “chauvinism . . . in joking with teachers.” This student
explained that “We have some teachers who . . . make fun of men and will be
like, ‘why are you in the kitchen,’ stuff like that, which is in good fun, but
there are definitely undercurrents. . . . ” Another student suggested that an
absence of girls in the classroom may have an effect on “The Rockport curric-
ulum.” “We read Shakespeare and we read Emerson and Thoreau . . . dead
white guys” but “I’ve always felt that we should read ‘The Feminine Mys-
tique’ and talk about . . . how . . . that makes us feel as men and why.”
David seems to enjoy the playful classroom that can emerge with his
teachers but is aware of what messages interactions like these may send. At
Rockport David says he was “forced into this mentality that guys are for work
and guys are for being serious and guys are for sitting down and actually
doing what needs to be done and girls are for free time.” His views were rein-
forced when he sought girls for better relationships during the isolation of his
middle-school years. “It was pretty cold . . . I felt like I was ready for some

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

 Stoudt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 277

better relationships and that’s when I turned to girls in terms of people outside
of Rockport.” In these relationships he received messages that girls are not
only for free time but they are for care and nurturing as well. He learned that
“guys can be o.k. friends, but when it comes down to it you really want some-
one who can sit down and listen, if you really want someone to be there for
you it’s going to be a girl.” Many of David’s classmates learned a similar les-
son; nearly half the students who took our survey (45 percent) felt that “it was
easier to talk about problems with their close girl friends than their close guy
friends” (26 percent disagreed and 30 percent neither agreed nor disagreed).
Single-sex schools inherently make distinctions between girls and boys.
The presence of girls in school is seen by David as a disadvantage, inhibiting
the display of his “true self” in the culturally privileged public space. On the
other hand, David sees the presence of girls outside of school as invaluable
for his emotional balance, facilitating the display of his “true self” in the cul-
turally underprivileged private space. Guys are for “doing what needs to
be done and girls are for free time” is a dichotomous notion of women as pri-
vate and men as public that implies emotion as private, subjective, and irratio-
nal, as something to be kept out of a public, objective, rational classroom.
Brian, with whom we will become better acquainted below, summarizes the
male/female, public/private, emotion/emotionless binary by affirming that
he has no aspirations to “sit home and bake cookies and look after the infant
while my wife goes out and works. . . . That’s just how everybody was
brought up . . . I don’t think any guys want to stay home and be . . . the ‘mom’
role as a man.” Brian places women inside the private, emotional, nurturing
“mom role” while at the same time devaluing it and separating himself from
it. And yet, by placing women in a culturally less powerful “mom role” he
also places them in a very powerful interpersonal role. Brian perceives girls,
as keepers of morality and emotional equilibrium, as having the power to
reign in boys. “When you’re around girls and somebody is drinking and one
of the girls doesn’t like it . . . it . . . keeps you out of it, cause they’re both like a
mother and a friend.” (See Kirsten Firminger’s article on girls’ magazines
and their representations of boys, in this volume).

David and Brian reveal how schools can help educate hegemonic mascu-
linity. While many argue that hegemonic masculine values are unbeneficial
to most (Connell 1995), they are likely most beneficial to the privileged boys
who attend elite schools like Rockport. Hegemonic gender values can be
simultaneously unfavorable and advantageous (New 2001). Designating
girls as the keeper of morality, care, and emotion can give girls interpersonal
power over men at the same time that it creates an emotional space (ghetto)
for men that positions girls in a culturally subordinated role, helping to per-
petuate hegemonic masculine power (Lutz 2000). Even though in David and
Brian’s daily lives they may often perceive women as holding a great deal of

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

278 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

power (Faludi 1999), they will likely continue to benefit from masculine-
dominated Western notions that collectively privilege men.
Certainly not challenged, the masculine values David and others at
Rockport hold may be cultivated, reinforced, and reproduced at times by
teachers’sexist jokes (Skelton 2001), the school’s masculine-oriented curric-
ulum (Kuzmic 2000), a culture of competition (Garbarino and deLara 2002),
and the gender differences implicitly conveyed by single-sex educational
contexts, to name just a few. However, representations of masculinity and
performances of masculinity are not fixed units but active and ongoing rela-
tionships with the world (Colebrook 2002). David’s belief in Rockport’s
masculine environment lay at the intersection of his subjective representa-
tions of the school culture and his concrete experiences with it (Moscovici
2001). His representation of Rockport was one that not only misinformed
him about women, but also was (re)informed continually by relationships
with teachers and peers. In this way, representations of the school culture are
both a lens through which to interpret the experiences in school and a stand-
point informed by boys’ actual experiences within it. How do peer relation-
ships inform and how are they informed by the hegemonic masculine
environment of Rockport and the larger culture?

DISCIPLINE, VIOLENCE, AND

HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY

Exclusion and censorship are the most effective methods of symbolic vio-
lence and can serve to sustain the borders of hegemonic masculinity (Bourdieu
2001). The exclusion and censorship of “unacceptable” masculine displays
are conveyed not only through Rockport’s hidden curriculum but through
peer disciplining as well. Foucault cautions interpretation of institutional or
cultural power over individuals as “top down” without seeing how power is
dispersed among social interactions, constantly negotiated between and
within individuals (Mills 2003). The values encouraged by the institution or
culture, in this case Rockport, come to be individually internalized or per-
formed, socially regulated and self-regulated through various strategies of
power such as informal peer disciplining. Emotions such as shame, humilia-
tion, and desire for inclusion are fundamental sites for discipline and control
because their apparent emergence from within makes them seem “natural,”
untouched by social or political forces (Boler 1999). In this section, I use the
experiences of Mark, Brian, and Matt6 to describe three ways that violence
and disciplining permeate and sustain Rockport7.

Mark and Teasing Mark is a white, 17-year-old senior who has attended
Rockport since kindergarten. He considers his parents “upper middle class”
and he considers himself “more of an insider than an outsider at school.” Al-

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

 Stoudt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 279

though Mark is Jewish he does not think his religious affiliation has affected
him, because “ . . . there’s a good amount of Jewish kids” in his grade. When
asked to describe peer teasing, joking, or ridiculing, Mark depicted a situa-
tion where he was hypothetically afraid of riding the roller coaster at an
amusement park. “They would say something like stop being a pussy . . . stop
whining about it. . . . ” Most of the students (73 percent) felt that when friends
“joke around, tease, taunt, and ridicule each other” it “can become hurtful.”
Furthermore, the majority of the students (66 percent) felt that “joking, teas-
ing, taunting, or ridiculing” had at times “prevented them from talking about
their feelings, behaving sensitively and caring, or showing their true selves in
front of their friends.”
When asked if these types of interactions with his friends could be hurtful,
Mark gave a more complex answer: “it depends on who’s saying it and how
close you are to that person . . . if you trust them and if you know he’s joking
or not.” If there is “a hint of seriousness, then it can be hurtful,” while other
times Mark saw teasing and joking as “just purely in good fun” and even
potentially beneficial. “I can learn from it more than get hurt by it. . . . These
are guys you can trust . . . if someone says something to me that would indi-
cate that something I did he considered to be wrong . . . I’m going to try and
correct it.” Mark suggests here that disciplining masculine boundaries grows
to be a shared practice among peers, rather than a violation forced on all by
one “bully.” Brian explains the give and take of these types of interactions.
“We’re just going to make fun of you . . . and you’re going to make fun of
me too.” Mark, Brian, and their friends use each other to test the limits of
masculine boundaries while learning (and teaching how) to still remain
“acceptable.”
If hegemonic masculine performances are natural or normal for all boys,
why then must the boundaries be constantly disciplined? Masculinity is not
an actual thing that one innately has or develops to become, something that
one can do (Colebrook 2002) or is assigned as. Peer disciplining between
boys is a type of masculine performance that artificially imposes rigid bound-
aries on a largely ambiguous and socially constructed identity developing in
a culture of privilege, misogyny, and homophobia. These boys use represen-
tations of masculinity to discipline their peers’ performances of masculinity.
Variation in masculine performances is far greater than variations in mascu-
line representations, so boys are then bound to either fit or fail in any given
situation, which serves to perpetuate dichotomous, stable notions of mascu-
linity (you’re either masculine or not). The most striking evidence of this is
that the disciplining of masculine boundaries among the boys seems more
consistent than their actual performances of hegemonic masculinity. Living
within its boundaries may be more difficult than indirectly asserting mascu-
linity through disciplining.
It is not always easy to see teasing, ridiculing, or joking as potentially vio-
lent (Garbarino and deLara 2002). While much of it takes on subtle

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

280 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

antifeminine or antigay tones, it becomes so embedded in the daily school

experience that many students no longer make the connection between call-
ing someone a “pussy” or “homo” and insulting a particular group of people.
“Gay in our school doesn’t mean homosexual, it means stupid.” Yet, Mark
was able to make a deeper connection between these insults and their power
among guys. “Whether it’s joking or not, I’m sure there’s some kind of sub-
conscious thing that you don’t want to be called that again. . . . It’s like against
the norm, and I think it’s kind of looked down upon if you are gay.” The ease
with which misogynistic or homophobic insults produce shame and avoid-
ance makes these threats an effective strategy for control. “If you want to get a
point across you’re not going to be like stop being straight, because it really
wouldn’t do any good, what does that mean? But everyone knows when you
call someone ‘gay’ what you’re implying. . . . ”
Strategies of shaming are often used by peers to signal their own confor-
mity and reign in difference (Garbarino and deLara 2002). Mark intuitively
understands that certain masculinities are hierarchically privileged over oth-
ers (Connell 1995). The desire to conform to a white, upper-middle-class,
heterosexual version of masculinity at this kind of school (Kuriloff and
Reichert 2003) often makes it necessary to publicly avoid things that are con-
sidered “feminine.” The majority of the boys (65 percent) who took our sur-
vey told us that they did not feel it was “generally acceptable to act feminine
at Rockport” (22.8 percent neither agreed nor disagreed and 12.4 percent dis-
agreed). The boys in this culture locate male femininity in homosexuality and
then use it to discipline masculinity. A boy who calls someone a “faggot” or a
“pussy,” even in fun, is implying that he himself is not, thus asserting his own
privileged masculinity by subordinating and marginalizing the masculinity
of another (both the person called the name and the larger gay or female pop-
ulation). A version of this was described by Brian in the way he marginalized
the “mom role.” The “either in or out” boundaries constructed through
gendered disciplining serves to differentiate and normalize the privileged
masculinities of those who are in from those who are out while keeping the
focus off the self.
The intimate connections that “doing gender” has with “doing self” makes
the performance of hegemonic versions of masculinity seem incontestable
and even natural because it “feels” right (Shields 2002), while the internal-
ized nature of disciplining makes it difficult for boys to resist the mandates of
hegemonic masculinity. Mark imagined an audience of peers that would not
allow him to show fear at riding a roller coaster. Another student explained
that, “Once my mom bought me this real purple shirt and I wouldn’t wear it
because people would think . . . (laughs) . . . they’d be like, ‘You can’t be
wearing that!’” The anticipatory fear of ridicule and shame can lead boys to
self-discipline without the help of actual peer disciplining. And the apparent
“rightness” of the “appropriate” boundaries can produce a sense among the
boys that students are not disciplined by peers unless they deserve it. As one

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

 Stoudt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 281

student suggested, “I guess there are some incidences, and you hate to say the
kids bring it upon themselves, but you’d have to almost go that far. . . . ”

Brian and Hazing Brian is a white tenth grader who has been attending
Rockport since kindergarten. He lives with his dad, who “is loaded,” but for
the most part Brian does not consider wealth to be a defining factor with the
kids at school. When asked about the amount of hazing, he answered, “I don’t
think there’s enough.” Brian felt good about his officially optional although
socially mandatory freshman “head shaving” experience on the crew team. “I
looked like an idiot but I showed the guys that I’m not a pussy. I’m willing to
make a sacrifice to become one of the team.” While Brian admitted that activ-
ities like hazing can become hurtful he also felt like it “shapes you as a per-
son” and created an opportunity to build intimate relationships with his team-
mates. “I know them a lot better and they know me, they know who I am. It’s
now like a family—the crew family.” He felt his experiences with hazing
were so positive that “a freshman Friday where all the freshmen have to do
whatever [the upperclassmen] want, like carry their books or whatever”
could be used as a strategy to build closeness among the entire student body.
And even though they may “get a detention or two from being late to class” he
proposes it would “make them feel a lot more accepted in the long run.”
Brian, like Mark, explicates the deeply ambivalent structures of feeling in
peer disciplining. Conforming to the team’s power structure is rewarding,
insofar as it lays the foundations for intimacy, friendship, bonding, and inclu-
sion. Both Brian and Mark found peer disciplining to be an experience that
“shapes you as a person.” They understood some forms of peer disciplining
such as teasing and joking as the marking of close, trustworthy friendships.
And both expected and even valued peer disciplining as an opportunity to
learn “what social traits you can bring to the outside world. . . . ” The “accept-
able” closeness and intimacy they receive with other guys through peer disci-
plining may at times overshadow its negative aspects and may be a key reason
why activities such as hazing are difficult to interrupt in schools (see Whitney
Missildine’s article on sexuality and emotional intimacy, in this volume).
The benefits of hazing as described by Brian are dependent upon full par-
ticipation, as he explained: “you’re either in or you’re out,” which includes
accepting positions as the hazed, the hazer, and the quiet witness who does
not rock the boat. And if you do not participate, like some of the freshman
polo players who refused to “carry the balls,” then, “It’s like fine, we’re not
going to kick your ass for it, but you’re a homo.” Not participating is seen as
resistance to the group. “You’re just trying to challenge the system, and this is
the system.” And by resisting you forfeit your rights and sacrifice your accep-
tance as a social member of the group. “[They’re] not going to be able to be
dominant towards the freshmen next year . . . [they’re] not going to be
accepted as one of the guys . . . they’re not like the stronger guys, the guys
who you are going to want to be friends with.”

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

282 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

At Rockport, peer disciplining involves continuous attempts at shifting

and sustaining power by using nonshifting representations of hegemonic
masculinity (Eder, Evans, and Parker 2001), as demonstrated through homo-
phobic and misogynistic insults. Brian’s experience with hazing clearly illus-
trates the distribution of power as well. Conforming to hazing rituals is a way
to enhance social status by limiting true expressions of authentic selves. His
choice to participate in the hazing rituals is an investment that leaves him
powerless but it is with the social understanding that once he proves himself
worthy he will then be given power to haze in the future, whereas those who
did not participate will forfeit that power.
Brian explains that “popularity is more like originality at Rockport” and
considers himself and his friends to be popular because they’ve “learned to be
an individual . . . do things that kids are going to find funny and . . . get along
with everyone.” But what does Brian’s version of individuality and popular-
ity mean alongside his understanding of hazing and conformity? One student
felt that, “With everyone at Rockport trying to be different, they all blend
together.” He remembers that “there was a huge epidemic during my fresh-
man year when everyone kept their collar up . . . to be different” because the
handbook disallowed it. “A little protest, but as soon as [they] saw the . . .
teacher coming . . . they put their collar down.” What frustrated this student is
that “ . . . things [at Rockport] are done so consciously to make statements, but
while that sounds noble . . . it’s always the stupid petty things that aren’t bat-
tles that are worth fighting or warrant fighting.”
The acts of resistance as an expression of originality alluded to by Brian’s
version of popularity and described by this student actually seem like acts of
conformity or at least mandated forms of individual expression of little con-
sequence to the institutional or peer power structure. This is especially clear
since true expressions of originality and resistance, such as those by the boys
who refuse participation in hazing, are seen as weak despite the incredible
amount of strength, courage, and individuality they take. If popularity equals
originality, then it is likely that Brian is describing a type of “safe” originality,
an expression of individuality that is able to stretch the “acceptable” bound-
aries only as far as he is able to “still get along with everybody” and avoid any
significant struggles with systems of power. Do “safe” originality and social
conformity benefit their privileged status by not rocking the boat? As Brecht
wrote, “He who lives in comfort . . . lives comfortably” (found in Bronner,
2004, p. 4).
The majority of the students at Rockport have (and will have) a dispropor-
tionate amount of access to privilege and power. These boys are the white,
upper-middle to upper-class, Protestant-oriented, mostly heterosexual males
who are often seen as the benefactors of privilege, patriarchy, and Western
hegemonic masculinity. For this reason, learning how to discipline and be
disciplined while not challenging the system may be a very important strat-
egy to learn for many of these boys so they can sustain or obtain a privileged

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

 Stoudt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 283

social position (Cookson and Persell 1985). Brian fully anticipates a need to
endure peer disciplining, especially hazing, beyond high school to get ahead
in life. “It’s going to be like that in the outside world . . . [so] you’re going to
have to know how to make your way around.” Research suggests that Brian is
likely to experience similar forms of violence “in the outside world,” and vol-
untarily conforming to power without resisting the system may indeed be a
viable strategy for his personal advantage (Kenway, Fitzclarence, and
Hasluck 2000). However, entering into this social contract while holding an
unbalanced amount of cultural privilege may also (re)produce versions of the
“good ol’ boys club” by creating an “either in or out” social framework that
excludes, marginalizes, and subordinates others with less cultural power
such as men who do not conform, women, homosexuals, working-class
people, and people of color.

Matt and Bullying Matt is a white, 14-year-old tenth grader who has been
attending Rockport for a year. He had previously attended a Catholic school
and has found the transition hard because “there’s a lot of money in this
school and I’m not coming from any money.” When asked about instances of
bullying at school he replied, “Definitely in sports. . . . There’s definitely a
huge rank in seniority in the form of prominent upperclassman. . . . Me per-
sonally, I [used to] get told to quit every day [by sophomores as a ninth
grader].” Matt was bullied because he did not physically fit the dominant
masculine ideal. “I play offensive line, I don’t look like an offensive lineman,
so people who do look like offensive linemen told me that if you’re a skinny
lineman you should quit.” Although Matt rejected the bullies he did not reject
the message. “I’m getting bigger this year.”
Matt confirms that some players continue to get bullied, although he no
longer is a target. “The other day in the locker room I saw someone getting
beat up by someone obviously stronger, smarter, and older.” The unbalanced
and unwarranted nature of the fight troubled Matt. “It actually kind of upset
me and it upset a lot of other people too, because it was totally unfair, totally
uncalled for.” He reported that there were a lot of players who watched but no
one interfered with the fight until after many shoves and four punches to the
face. “Basically it ended when me and someone else just kind of like told the
junior to stop and then we just told the sophomore just walk away, just get out
of here.” When asked why he is generally reluctant to interfere in the locker-
room bullying Matt replied, “Because I don’t want them to start on me again.
I know that sounds kind of selfish, but. . . . ” And when asked why he or any-
one did not report the junior to someone with authority like a coach, teacher,
parent or administrator, he replied, “I wouldn’t want to like get the junior in
trouble.”
Matt describes school violence in its most traditional sense. A hierarchical
status of power is developed between the older athletes where the more senior
students discipline the younger students. As “men,” physical violence is an

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

284 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

acceptable means of confrontation and an unambiguous establishment of

masculine power as well as masculine preservation, since to lose a fight
respectably is often less a mark on masculinity than to not fight at all
(Furgusen 2001). Athletes often have a unique status in many schools in that
they are given the power to embody, maintain, and control the dominant val-
ues of the institution (Garbarino and deLara 2002). Although coaches and
adults often do not condone violence as appropriate behavior outside of ath-
letic contexts, Eder, Evans, and Parker (2001) found that the traditional hege-
monic notions of masculinity seemingly taught and praised in the sporting
context of a public school also informed many the social interactions (and
social successes) between the boys outside of that context. Thus the “mascu-
line athletic culture” often becomes a normal part of the everyday school cul-
ture that the entire student body must contend with regardless of their
participation in sports.
Rockport’s independent school status allows it to formally accept and
reject students with more freedom than public schools. Rockport is able to
exercise their version of an “either in or out” policy when students step too far
out of their academic and social expectations. Physical violence among peers
in overtly public spaces such as the hallway or cafeteria might bring with it
severe consequences, so public displays of such violence rarely occur at
Rockport. However, locker rooms are spaces removed from school surveil-
lance where adult presence (e.g., coaches) often makes it covertly under-
stood, if not overtly rewarded, that forms of hierarchy and violence are
acceptable, even expected (Garbarino and deLara 2002). Matt’s description
of locker-room bullying highlights the importance of geography in schools
like Rockport—looking beyond the public spaces to ask which spaces, “out
of site,” are most prone to various forms of peer discipline and violence.
Matt admitted that he and his teammates are generally reluctant to inter-
fere with locker-room fights. In those moments when Matt and his peers
decide to remain silent they quietly facilitate the violence. However, the
source of his (and others’) usual silence is likely complex. It may come from
the seeming appropriateness of disciplining others who “deserve it” (as was
seen earlier), the masculine understanding that each boy is independent and
responsible for himself (Eder, Evans, and Parker 2001), the wish not to get
anyone in trouble (e.g., as a “narc”), the desire to fit in, and the very real fear
of being further bullied. Even with all the possible reasons to remain silent,
on this occasion Matt and another boy eventually did break up the fight.
Who are the boys that contest hegemonic masculinity and under what con-
ditions will it most likely occur? Matt gives us clues to answering this ques-
tion. He reported that many in the group who witnessed the fight thought it
was unbalanced because the junior was “obviously stronger, smarter, and
older” and therefore unwarranted. Pollack (1998) has suggested that many of
the interactions among boys, especially play, are based on a sense of fairness.
Matt’s choice to resist revealed his sense of justice. His sense of justice might

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

 Stoudt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 285

have been strengthened by his former experiences with bullying, making him
empathetically aware of what his teammate was going through. And Matt did
not feel alone in his attempt to resist. The false consensus that everyone else
approves the violence is one of the ways that it can persist without interfer-
ence. On this occasion he and a peer were able to resist together, allowing
them both the advantage of moral support and also physical protection.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Interpreted with a critical eye at the intersection of race, class, and gender,
the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was helpful in devel-
oping the breath of the students’ experiences with masculine hegemony:
what they gain (and lose) from it and what is at stake through it (see Nhan
Truong’s article on the splitting of multiple identities of two Chinese-Ameri-
can men, in this volume). Violence is not reserved for urban boys attending
public schools. Normalized, subtle, hidden, and sometimes overt forms of
male violence occur at Rockport every day. The teaching and reinforcing
of hegemonic masculine values are part of Rockport’s (not so) hidden curric-
ulum, a form of symbolic violence that helps to perpetuate patriarchal
dominance.
As both recipients and representatives of their institution and their culture,
the boys at Rockport reproduced hegemonic masculine values by disciplin-
ing its boundaries in “acceptably” masculine ways, often using emotional or
physical violence. The boys described disciplining masculine boundaries as
a shared practice among peers, rather than one bully enforcing boundaries on
the rest. Despite variation in the boys’ masculine performances, they used
rigid notions of masculinity to discipline peers, which imposed an either in or
out, us and them, me and you distinction. The emotionally ambiguous dis-
tinctions made through peer disciplining produced shame, fear, and hurt
alongside friendship, intimacy, and bonding. And while Rockport’s mascu-
line culture helped cultivate hegemonic masculine values, certain spaces
within Rockport were more conducive to types of peer disciplining.
Hegemonic masculinity, though terribly limiting on boys’ sense of gen-
dered selves and on how those selves are performed, can also be culturally
advantageous to the boys of Rockport due to their privileged status or the
privileged status they may be seeking. The normalcy with which hegemonic
masculinity is perceived, its intimate relationship with emotion and a sense of
self, as well as its multilayered characteristics make it difficult to contest.
However, the boys do describe moments of resistance. Rockport too has had
institutional moments of resistance through assemblies and programs
designed to oppose the cultural mandate to “teach” hegemonic masculinity.
These are moments in need of further understanding if we are to create
feasible alternatives to restrictive masculinities.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

286 MEN AND MASCULINITIES / January 2006

Masculinity is a political battleground in the United States. The neocon-

servative agenda appears “primarily concerned . . . with the erosion of Amer-
ica as a white, male, straight society” (Bronner 2004, p. 7). More visible and
acceptable is political discourse drenched in masculine hyperbole that insults
“girly men,” attacks gay rights, and (re)invades women’s bodies. The perva-
siveness of a cultural dichotomy between masculine (read: strong) and
“other” (read: weak) is troubling for schools and educators who wish to help
students broaden their notions of what it means to be a man. Deleuze would
have us look not at what masculinity is, but what it could become, imagining
our gendered boundaries to their furthest limits (Colebrook 2002). Helping
boys interrogate the multidimensional complexity of their own gendered (as
well as raced and classed) practices, partnering with them in counter-
hegemonic experiences by finding potential ways to contest restrictive forms
of masculinity, and working with institutions to increasingly create spaces
committed to interrupting their hidden masculine curriculum are some strate-
gies that might reduce the embedded practices of male violence and facilitate
the stretching of our masculine boundaries.

NOTES
1. Throughout this manuscript I will use Connell’s (1995) version of “hegemonic masculin-
ity” to signify both a cultural authority over other forms of masculinity as well as a collective
privilege over women. I do not necessarily mean to signify “compulsory heterosexuality.”
2. Rockport is a pseudonym to protect the actual school’s identity.
3. Myself and a team of faculty members.
4. All surveys were numerically placed into a database and statistically analyzed using
SPSS, while all conversations were transcribed and then thematically coded using Atlas.ti.
5. I place quotations around the exact words that were used on the questionnaire.
6. All of the names are pseudonyms to protect the students’ identities.
7. Although as individuals their experiences are in many ways unique, the boys were specif-
ically chosen because their stories are representative of the themes that emerged from our larger
sample.

REFERENCES
Boler, M. 1999. Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. 2001. Masculine Domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bowles, S., and H. Gintis. 1977. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bronner, S. E. 2004. Constructing New-Conservatism. Logos 3(2): 1–16.
Colebrook, C. 2002. Gilles Deleuze. New York: Routledge.
Connell, R. W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cookson, P. W., and C. H. Persell. 1985. Preparing for Power: America’s Elite Boarding
Schools. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Eder, D., C. Evans, and S. Parker. 2001. School Talk: Gender and Adolescent Culture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Faludi, S. 1999. Stiffed: The Betrayal of American Men. New York: William Morrow and Com-
pany, Inc.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011

 Stoudt / HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY 287

Furgusen, A. A. 2001. Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Garbarino, J. and E. deLara. 2002. And Words Can Hurt Forever. New York: Free Press.
Jenkins, J. 2002. Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge.
Kenway, J., L. Fitzclarence, and L. Hasluck. 2000. Toxic shock: Understanding violence against
young males in the workplace. The Journal of Men’s Studies 8(2): 131–152.
Kimmel, M. S., and M. Mahler. 2003. Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence: Ran-
dom school shootings, 1982–2001. American Behavioral Scientist 46(10): 1439–1458.
Kuriloff, P., and M. C. Reichert. 2003. Psychological meanings of social class in context of edu-
cation. Journal of Social Issues 59(4): 1–11.
Kuzmic, J. J. 2000. Textbooks, knowledge, and masculinity: Examining patriarchy from within.
In Masculinities at school, edited by N. Lesko. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lutz, C. A. 2000. Engendered emotion: Gender, power, and the rhetoric of emotional control in
American discourse. In The emotions: Social cultural and biological dimensions, edited by
R. Harre and W. G. Parrott. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mills, S. 2003. Michel Foucault. New York: Routledge.
Moscovici, S. 2001. The phenomenon of social representations. In Social representations: Es-
says in social psychology, edited by S. Moscovici and G. Duveen. New York: New York Uni-
versity Press.
New, C. 2001. Oppressed and oppressors? The systematic mistreatment of men. Sociology 35(3):
729–248.
Pollack, W. 1999. Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myth of boyhood. New York: Henry
Holt and Company.
Shields, S. A. 2002. Speaking from the heart: Gender and the social meaning of emotion. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Skelton, C. 2001. Schooling the boys: Masculinities and primary education. Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
Walker, K. 2001. Men, women, and friendship: What they say, what they do. In Men and mascu-
linity: A text reader, edited by T. F. Cohen. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.

Brett G. Stoudt is pursuing his doctorate in social/personality psychology at the Gradu-

ate Center of the City University of New York. His current research interests include un-
derstanding the phenomenological experiences of people with disabilities, especially
people who stutter, as well as examining gender in education, especially in regard to mas-
culinities.

Downloaded from jmm.sagepub.com by Lelya Troncoso on October 7, 2011