RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS
4.8 Conclusion – Boys Will Be Boys
At the beginning of the chapter the boys articulated their notion of masculinity as being men’s need to dominate. Their study of history both sensitized the boys to hegemonic masculine identity and its accompanying power relations but also reinforced the boys’
belief in the hegemonic notion of what it means to be a real man that they had learnt through unofficial history sources such as their family relationships, associations with friends and the school as a masculinity regulating institution. This chapter highlighted the dual forces of official history and unofficial history that exist in shaping the boys of this study’s understanding of both history as well as masculinity.
In conclusion what do boys understand about history and masculinity and how does masculinity influence boys’ understanding of history? This chapter has served to answer the first two research questions in the following ways:
4.8.1. What do boys understand about history and masculinity?
Official primary school history seemed to imitate the warrior games played out by young boys in the playground and reflected a one dimensional – or hegemonic – version of masculinity. The focus was on conflict. The warrior with the greatest strength won. The physically stronger man dominated those weaker than himself. The boys did not question the history that they were studying just as they did not question their masculinity or that of the boys with whom they played. Masculinity, like the official school history, was taken at face value. However, by secondary school most of these history boys had come to be aware of their own masculinity in relation to those around them. This awareness was transferred to their understanding of the official school history which had also changed from what they had understood of history at primary school.
129
When asked for other attributes associated with masculinity courage was mentioned – the courage to stand up when there is injustice. This was what Martin Luther King, Gandhi and Mandela did. Masculinity therefore featured strongly in the official history curriculum – men dominate and more specifically white men dominate mostly black men. This in turn informed the history boys’ opinions of masculinity. However, the opposite interpretation is probably truer – that these boys’ notion of masculinity acquired through unofficial history actually informed their understanding of official history.
Still carrying their own notions of what it means to be a man acquired through unofficial history some of these history boys came to an understanding that to survive in the 20th and 21st centuries men cannot just be a caveman with a stick. However, some of the history boys continued to legitimize the form of masculinity involving the need for men to dominate despite, or because of, their studying of official history. Going back to the history boys’ original commonly held belief that men dominate women and other men, this view was evident in their upholding historically powerful men who did just that:
Hitler, De Klerk and Gorbachev. Once again, according to the history boys, men are powerful because they are physically stronger. White men in particular possessed individual skills and ability that enabled them to change history. Women, like black men, were unable to do anything significant on their own – they needed the support of a lot of people to achieve their aims. These beliefs were formed from the official school history yet fed into the history boys’ preconceived notions of what it meant to be a man – to be able to dominate others- constructed by unofficial history. This domination is achieved through physical strength or by possessing superior knowledge. For these history boys the official history curriculum served to validate this belief and reinforced the hegemonic masculine identity that they subscribed to.
4.8.2. How does masculinity influence boys’ understanding of history?
The personal too can be historical. Historical literacy or historical imagination does not need a history classroom to grow. It can happen in the exploration of buildings or
130
reading books and watching the History Channel. However, by far the most impactful and greatest lessons of history are learnt through personal relationships. The same is true for masculinity. For many of these boys, the acquisition of historical knowledge was intricately woven into each of these boys’ personal narratives – in many cases through the relationships of male family figures: specifically fathers and grandfathers. These influential figures taught the boys not only history lessons but also lessons of how to be a man. Put another way: these history boys ultimately interpreted the official history through the lens of masculinity acquired at home and regulated at school. Unofficial history overshadows the lessons learnt in the history classroom. The boys’
understanding of what it means to be man is therefore ambiguous – on the one hand official school history has taught that physical strength alone doesn’t last. On the other hand unofficial history learnt through their interactions with family members, the school and their friends has taught these boys that to be considered a real man you have to dominate other men.
These history boys, through their knowledge gained of both history and masculinity through official school history and unofficial history then began to construct their own form of hegemonic masculinity. Going back to Lacan’s (1949) work there are three images that are reflected by the mirror into which the history boys look: there is the image of themselves as emerging men; there is the image of men constructed by the study of history and finally there is the history boy: the emerging man who through his acquisition of historically significant knowledge and skills is empowered to dominate other boys who do not have such knowledge or skills. The profile of what it is to be a history boy will be explored in depth in the next chapter.
131