Sports code identification
5.2. Narrative analysis findings
5.2.5. Homophobia in the school-based peer culture
The tactics of controlling racial boundaries through negative labelling and a reactive racialised identity pose, represented here as a 'gangster' masculinity, was also found elsewhere in the data. Aaron's qualifier 'more like me' (line 32) created a dialogical tension between the dichotomous social narrative that allowed only 'two types of Indian people in this school' and Aaron's subjective experience that he did not quite conform to either, although to a large extent he identified more with one position than with the other.
This dialogical tension was found elsewhere in the data. Nkosinathi spoke about the pressure to remain visibly identified with Zulu culture in a monoracial group through the speaking of his home language, and not wanting to appear to be violating the rules for acceptability.
Nkosinathi comes naturally (.) we speak it at home (.) it's easier (.) to put out your points in Zulu than in English (.) some words don't come out as easy (.) ja and (.) ja (.) it's mostly Zulu (.5) and because of the fact (.) because you are perhaps viewed as a coconut when you speak English in front of your black friends The data from School B shed very little light on the complexities of racialised sport.
This may have been because of the visibly monoracial context or the invisibilsation of the white farming community in the photographs, this was not clear. Jabulani's cameo narrative about watching white people playing rugby was a glimpse of an alternative narrative that matched Thulani's stance towards soccer and rugby. For Jabulani, living in a free South Africa, allowed the appealing possibility of being a black rugby player.
naming operated to disempower threatening ambivalences through projections of shame and powerlessness. These findings are illustrated with reference to the focus group discussion, interview narratives with Mark (N23, N24 , N25, N27) and Dane (N26), and interview narratives with Vusimuzi (N27) and Bhekani (N28).
Although the researchers did not introduce the topic of homophobia, many of the boys interviewed individually mentioned the negative associations of being labelled 'gay', as well as 'sissy girl', 'spaff or other verbal put downs. There was more serious discussion of homophobia in the individual interviews than in the focus group context, where
discussion of being gay or homophobic was humorous. In the focus group, the boys teased one another about physical attractiveness, dating ugly girls or hidden homosexual tendencies. In response to an interviewer's question about perceived differences between themselves and girls, for example, the boys responded with jesting and teasing.
Mark ((laughter)) I don't know about me but ( )
Jason prettier than you (.) you're like pretty (.) (but not) that much Mark ((laughter))
Nathan what is he do:ing ? (.) he's like having a nervous breakdown or something ((laughter))
Dane gi:rls (.) say hello
Mark I'm having a breakdown (.) Jason's doing his little gay thing he does
Marks's laughter evoked the collective attention of the group. Mark responded by
parodying and then diverting attention from himself onto the 'gayness' of Jason's remark.
The trope, 'what is he doing?' or 'what are you doing?' occurred in other narratives and was linked with the collective attention or 'male gaze' of the group upon individuals acting outside the parameters of the group norm. Dane's response was to comment ironically that they were beginning to act like girls themselves while simultaneously implying that the very mention of girls should evoke some kind of compulsory response
from them all. This brief group interaction showed clearly how fluctuating distances towards 'otherness' occurred in unconsciously in the male peer group context.
In complete contrast with their light-hearted focus group presentation, Dane and Mark voiced serious lived experiences of homophobic harassment in the individual interviews.
The orientation of Mark's narrative (N23) normalised or naturalised homophobia (this 'whole gay thing') to the high school context, comparing the homophobic labels to 'badges'. Mark's noted that 'slightly resembling it' elicited homophobia, suggesting perhaps that the peer group maintained an embodied standard of 'acceptable' that repudiated any deviations from expected gender behaviour. Though distancing himself from his peers' judgments, Mark also acknowledged that there existed a reified 'it', implying a notion of a 'real and 'other' form of sexuality, thus linking him with a shared canonical narrative about gayness. Further on (N24), Mark compared his own position as 'knowing his status' with those who were 'insecure' about their masculinity and thus needed to display toughness and emphasise their interest in girls. Mark distanced himself from those who compensated for being 'insecure' with an emphasised masculinity, yet he was careful to state that he wouldn't like to be recognised as feminine by appealing to an inner subjectively 'real' masculinity. This implicit link between gender performance and homophobia confirmed the view that homophobia is intertwined with misogyny, with the effect that a young man who presents with 'soft' or 'feminine' characteristics is
immediately labelled homosexual.
Speaking from an ambiguous and fluctuating speaking position, Mark's third narrative (N25) suggested that it was visible appearance and performance that educed homophobic responses. This blatant homophobia contained a perspectival gap between self-concept and the concept a pronominalised 'they' constructed around the individual. Mark's narrative suggested that homophobic labels were used in the peer group context to isolate those who did not conform sufficiently to an illusory accepted standard. The isolated individual then received a group projection of disavowed femininity and otherness which he was then compelled to respond while being scrutinised in the collective (male) gaze of the group. This suggested not only processes of splitting and projection at the individual
level but also a group process of projective identification. Here, a projective identification was imposed upon the othered person who was made to feel helpless, ashamed and unacceptable. The individual's response then culminated in group members feeling 'good' and more securely positioned as acceptably masculine.
Dane's narrative (N26) shifted from an extradiegetic detached 'observer' position to 'insider' perspectives of the group and the individual. Like Mark, Dane linked
homophobic performances with hierarchies of contestation and a chained dichotomous 'them' versus 'me' process of isolating or disempowering individuals to maintain group identity. The abstract of the narrative signified that this was experienced as an empathic failure ('they don't feel other people's feelings'). The imagery of 'facades', or 'walls' suggested the ambiguity of the process. Through the process of isolating others, the individual was himself isolated within the group by being unable to express vulnerability or empathy. The defensive 'benefit' was a protective wall against appearing vulnerable or unacceptable in the face of a group standard that was unattainable and illusory. The trope 'they have to' suggested a compulsive pattern of behaviour, a repeated 'vicious circle'.
Mark's biographical narrative (N27) also suggested that the experience of homophobic abuse was intensely distressing and confusing. Positions alternated between finding the experience distressful and finding it absurd. Further on in the narrative these alternating positions moved to anger at the unfairness and invalidation of the experience. The trope 'suddenly' signified confusing and inexplicable feelings of shame, unacceptability and powerlessness stirred up by the experience.
Accounts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexual ity were also present in the School B context, although less visibly foregrounded. Vusimuzi (N27) presented a biographical narrative around the pressure to conform to his male peer group's expectation of
compulsory and displayed heteromasculinity. Responsible attempts to defer involvements with girls in favour of future plans were countered by a group pressure to not be 'serious' and to go 'looking for girls'. As a resolution to this tension, Vusimuzi drew on a
canonical narrative of young people who leave school because of risk-taking, in this case, having heterosexual relations while young. Even if this meant being Mike a girl',
Vusimuzi and other unnamed 'responsible' boys, were willing to delay their involvements with girls in order to reach goals of education and professional employment.
As with several other boys in the School B sample, Bhekani disclosed that his chores at home included cooking and housework (N28). Asked about how peers might respond to this knowledge, he speculated that the reaction might be to say he was 'uyalahla' (gay).
Bhekani's imagined response was to say he was a 'strong' cook and that he was orientated to his future plans rather than relationships with girls at this time of his life.
This appealed to a narrative of masculine toughness combined with responsibility and independence. As with Vusimuzi, the risk of his girlfriend falling pregnant was posed as a threat to attaining his goals in the future.