Questions about boys and their constructions of masculinity continue to stimulate interest, debate and controversy in academic circles, the media and society. Although figures like Andrew Tate promote particularly toxic versions of masculinity, replete with misogyny and homophobia, the findings from my own recent research with young boys tells a very different tale. This blog post introduces a new, nonhegemonic and positive, form of masculinity, which is a story full of good news (Swain, 2023).

There hasn’t been much research in the UK about masculinities in recent years, particularly with this age group. The main research question set out to explore how young boys construct their masculinities in two London schools – one state school, the other a fee-paying preparatory school. Data comes from group interviews with 41 10–11-year-old boys in 2022.

I am calling this new form of masculinity a ‘blended’ masculinity, and it was the most common type in both schools. Although its features differed a little in each setting, this blended formulation broadly consisted of conventional qualities of masculinity (such as athleticism, assertiveness, confidence, independence), combined with feminine-associated traits (such as kindness, caring, sociability, emotional literacy). This blended form is different from previous conceptualisations of hybrid masculinity in the gender literature (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014), and is more akin to recent conceptions of hybrid femininity (Messerschmidt, 2018), which also merges feminine and masculine attributes.

This form of blended masculinity had a particularly inclusive and egalitarian quality and was performed by the majority of the boys in both schools. They were comfortable in their own skin and regarded, not only those among their own friends but other boys across the year group, as being equal. There were no forms of dominant masculinity with hierarchical connotations of superiority, and no gender hegemony that legitimated unequal relations, with obvious subordination of other masculinities or femininities (Messerschmidt, 2018). Boys and girls generally got on well with each other and many mixed freely without being teased or bullied. There was no homophobia that I could discover and very little evidence of misogyny, and this trend has also been confirmed by scholars such as Anderson and McCormack, (2018). This is also in contrast to the findings from research with this age group from myself (2004) and Renold (2005) around the time of the millennium.

‘This form of blended masculinity demonstrated no forms of dominant masculinity with hierarchical connotations of superiority, and no gender hegemony that legitimated unequal relations.’

Research about masculinities shows that peer group status is connected to, and built on, a range of resources that a boy can mobilise. These include physicality and athleticism (for instance exhibiting sporting prowess, which is often the one most highly prized by young boys), interpersonal or linguistic skills (for example knowing and using the latest verbal expressions, showing a person is ‘modern’, and so on), social resources (such as being sociable and able to form networks of friends); and cultural resources (for example knowing about the latest computer games, being witty and using humour).

There were no leading or dominant boys, who others looked up to, set the agenda, and who made most of the decisions. However, certain individuals stood out from the rest of the group, which meant they were particularly popular and enjoyed a higher social prestige among their peers. They had a portfolio of skills and characteristics – they were not just good at sports, such as football or cricket, but were good at lots of things. Although most of the coolest boys in each school were good at sport, such as football and cricket, the resource of physicality/athleticism was not essential to gain prestige, and some of the popular boys didn’t play sport very much. The most cherished qualities were being kind and sociable and having good interpersonal skills.

One caveat of this research was that the two schools were middle-class, and this influenced the options available, and the possible ways masculinities could be constructed. More research is needed with a variety of cohorts of boys in different settings to show that positive formations of masculinity also exist in other schools.

This blog post is based on the article ‘Popular boys, the ideal schoolboy, and blended patterns of masculinity for 10- to 11-year-olds in two London schools’ by Jon Swain, published in the British Educational Research Journal.

References

Anderson, E., & McCormack, M. (2018). Inclusive masculinity theory: Overview, reflection and refinement. Journal of Gender Studies, 27(5), 547–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1245605

Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of men and masculinities. Sociology Compass, 8(3), 246–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12134 

Messerschmidt, J. W. (2018). Hegemonic masculinity: Formulation, reformulation and amplification. Rowman & Littlefield.

Renold, E. J. (2005). Girls, boys and junior sexualities: Exploring children’s gender and sexual relations in the primary school. Routledge-Falmer.

Swain, j. (2004). The resources and strategies that 10-11-year-old boys use to construct masculinities in the school setting. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 167–185. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1502208

Swain, J. (2023). Popular boys, the ideal schoolboy, and blended patterns of masculinity for 10- to 11-year-olds in two London schools. British Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3936