RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
5.7. Evolved Cavemen
144
male family figures such as fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers. History is associated with positive male role models and is therefore a legitimate masculine pursuit. Furthermore, in their retelling of the impact made by male family figures in these history boys’ acquisition of historical knowledge the fathers and grandfathers too are given hero status and become to some extent warriors. There was an association with some grandfathers and fathers with war which further entrenched the warrior image.
The history boys themselves have clear warrior associations. In their quest for historical truth, and to some extent social justice, they saw themselves as battling against adversity. This adversity was either in the form of those who were historically ignorant or those who subscribed to the traditional hegemonic form of masculinity. The historical thinking that only those who studied history acquired was described in a positive light as being almost tantamount to a superhero’s unique power. Therefore the skills, attitude and knowledge that these boys acquired through the studying of history give the boys themselves warrior-like abilities.
145
The further the boys went back in time, the more traditional or hegemonic they saw the role of men in official history: strong, aggressive, the hunter; the fighter and the dominator. Man dominated way back in history through his use of force and violence alone. However, over time, and according to the understanding the independent school history boys achieved through studying official history, man came to realize that violence and force alone would not achieve his need to dominate others. This was articulated by Ryan: “I think it changes in time, like in different periods of history. I think like, in sort of, ancient history it’s more of a physical sense than anything else, and slowly it’s moved, like as we progressed, and it’s become, and technology has developed, it’s become more of an intellectual thing as well, I think, than just physical.”
At the same time it must be remembered that the lessons that these boys gained through unofficial history such as their relationships with fathers and grandfathers also readily threw up the association of men and war.
Although their study of official school history sensitized the boys to power relations at play as well as the dominance of hegemonic masculinity over women, at the same time through their study of official and unofficial history, these boys came to learn that with physical strength and violence a man can still dominate other men. Why is this? One possible explanation lies in the fact that 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 as suggested by Lacan’s (1949) Mirror Stage model. 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. Schools become the site for the
“production, negotiation and policing of particular forms of masculinity” (Martino, 2000, p.106). Masculine hierarchies, therefore, are constructed by families, institutions, teachers, subjects such as history and boys themselves.
For many of the history boys, their understanding of history legitimized their thinking that men have a need to dominate not only women but also other men including the
146
domination of white men of black men. This continues to affirm the hegemonic form of masculinity. Dominance is, however, not achieved through violence (the big stick) alone but also intellectually and sometimes using both. As Jeffrey stated: “Like all the Apartheid figures and stuff, like Afrikaner okes, like in my mind, all the Afrikaans like leaders, and people who pioneered Apartheid, like in my mind, they were like run by masculinity, and thinking that men were better. And not only better, and their race was better, and that links to masculinity.” This is evidence of Jeffrey using his understanding of masculinity to influence his understanding of this period in South Africa’s history.
Apartheid law enforcement relied on an out-dated or traditional hegemonic form of masculinity – the big stick – but dominance cannot be achieved through the use of force alone. Apartheid ended because it was based on an out-dated notion of masculinity.
The Apartheid government failed to evolve and therefore had to fall. This was echoed by Jaryd: “Well our study of Apartheid and South African history is obviously an example. You can only rule through oppression and the big stick for so long, until people say “you can’t treat us like that”, and “that we are people too and that your time has come, and that’s shown us that you can’t be a cave man.”
Besides, an evolved man is someone who is able to assess a situation and makes a courageous decision to change direction. The traditional hegemonic form of masculinity would have involved the use of violence or force alone to maintain the status quo.
Official school history taught these boys that force can only maintain an ideology for so long. It takes an evolved man to abandon force and seek a new way. This new way, however, does not negate men’s need to dominate. Men just need to find new ways of dominating – more often than not this means abandoning violence in favour of intellectual dominance – knowing more than other men and using this knowledge to dominate other men. Men do not always need to use violence to achieve domination.
Thus the history boys’ understanding of official school history taught some of these boys that you do not have to use violence to achieve your aims. But you do have to be confrontational. You do have to face your adversaries. Confrontation therefore is a form of aggression. Official history once again reaffirmed their traditional notion of what it means to be a man as learnt through unofficial sources. Official school history therefore
147
formed a mirror image of an “ideal me” toward which the boys in this study strive to achieve. The image of the evolved caveman is an image that creates a permanent sense of being imperfect but looking forward to perfection (Lacan, 1949).