LITERATURE REVIEW
2.5 Conclusion
53
the examination. On the whole history as a subject remains more popular for girls but only marginally so as can be gleaned from Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3 Total numbers of boys and girls who entered the I.E.B N.S.C history examinations 2008 to 2012 (I.E.B, 2012)
This seems to be an international trend. In a study conducted in the U.K at the G.C.S.E level it was found that the following subjects were likely to contain more boys than girls in the classes: information technology, physical sciences, mathematics, economics, physical education, music, business studies, political studies and technology. History was found to be one of the subjects that contained a fairly equal mix of boys and girls within its classes (Department for Education and Skills, 2007). This is borne out in the close to 50:50 split in the numbers of boys and girls that choose to write the I.E.B N.S.C examination in South Africa. It is within this context that the boys of this study are located.
54
schools and society. But at the same time feminism has done boys a great disservice by assuming that all boys and men are universally privileged and not going far enough to problematize the construction of masculinity. Boys are a lot more self-questioning and aware of the dynamics involved in the construction of masculinity than what researchers in the past have credited them with. There are very few studies that have focused on the rejection of patriarchal hegemonic versions of masculinities and the acceptance of other forms of masculinities by boys in the classroom in general and in the history classroom specifically. This study seeks to articulate this.
Who teaches boys about masculinity? Schools, more than any other instructors, shape boys’ construction of masculine identities as they provide a set of meanings through the reinforcement and regulation of gender norm behaviours and performances (Swain, 2003). Many all-boys’ schools construct their own particular kind of masculinity that is unique to the school. This may be the result of the needs of the particular clientele or may have been constructed over time or in the case of long-established schools it may even a by-product of a by-gone era. Thus the construction of masculinity is strategic.
Connell’s (1996) theory of masculinity describes four categories or groups that emerge in the analysis of different forms of masculinity: hegemonic masculinity; subordinate masculinity; complicit masculinity and the marginalized form of masculinity. Masculinity, however, is fluid. Men and boys can in any one lifetime subscribe to a number of different and varying masculinities. This is often where the confusion comes into play between the real me, the perceived me and the ideal me. This confusion is heightened by the pecking order or hierarchy of masculinities that a boy will face as he becomes a man who in turn navigates his way in the world of gender relations.
Masculinity has also found itself in a crisis of late. This crisis is reflected in boys’ poor academic achievement and behaviour problems. This crisis has in part come about because boys are much more interested in displaying and proving their manliness than performing academically. The school curriculum in any context is gendered and hegemonised (Roulston & Mills, 2000, p.225). Like masculinity, the curriculum too is
55
subject to gendering regimes and is constructed in a hierarchy with the very elite or most difficult subjects placed at the top and the easier subjects at the bottom (Roulston
& Mills, 2000). In Whitehead’s (1996) study she found that boys and girls in the U.K do indeed have a sex-stereotyped view of subjects. History – because it is about people - puts it into the feminine domain. Boys are conscious of their masculinity and this affects many of their choices. One aspect of the construction of masculinity is the avoidance of the feminine.
In the past adults came together to decide what historical facts all learners, which included boys, should know. They provided them with facts and then administered a test to find out whether the learners knew these facts or not. History education has evolved considerably since then. Wineburg (1991) has argued that historical literacy goes beyond the mere recall of historical facts. He contends that one has to be able to work with historical sources, as does a professional historian, in order to be described as historically literate. Wineburg (1991) introduced the concept of historical thinking to characterise the aims of a history education.
If history is everything that ever happened to anyone anywhere then that is a lot of history to try and study! The choice of what is worth studying or even remembering is considered to be significant. Decisions as to what is deemed historically significant involve both power and historical literacy. What is seen to be official history or legitimate knowledge can be found in textbooks and is the product of complex power relations in society involving race, class, gender and religion (Chipondo, 2011). According to Salisbury and Jackson (1996, p.250) history taught in classrooms is heavy with the exploits of warriors. Masculinity and the glorification of war are inextricably intertwined in the narratives of official school history. This is despite of, or because of, the content of the official South African N.C.S – History which was selected in order to understand our world today: “In understanding our world today and the legacies that shaped our present, the broad themes of power alignments, human rights, issues of civil society and globalization were used in suggesting areas of content” (DoE, 2003, p.30).
56
Wineburg (2001) contends that instead of focusing on what learners do not know about history, adults should in fact focus on what learners do know. More importantly history teachers should be interested in what sources beyond history lessons and history textbooks, contribute to students’ understanding of history. This is unofficial history – history learnt from unofficial sources. This alternate or unofficial history curriculum is more often than not disseminated through family, cultural and religious associations. At other times they are created through cultural means such as museums, magazines, film and television. However, in multicultural societies tensions can start to arise because of the possibility of the conflict between official school history curricula and unofficial histories (Stearns, Seixas & Wineburg, 2000, p.285). It was Wineburg who asked the question “how do students ‘navigate between the images of the past learned in the home and those encountered at school?” (Wineburg, 2001, p.4). Moreover, of vital importance to this study – how do boys in particular situate their own personal narratives within the context of the national and international history that they are exposed to in the history classroom? This is where there is a large gap in the literature.
Few, if any, literature exists to highlight what prior understanding of history boys bring to the history classroom.
57