CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION
7.1. Revisiting aims and objectives
CHAPTER SEVEN
(b) Individual positioning towards dominant norms for masculine performance Dialogical tension was evident in most of narratives examined. In most examples there were identifiable contradictions among multiple speaking positions and in relation to hegemonic standards. Unconscious blind spots around these contradictions within the respondents' narratives suggested that individual positioning occurred at multiple levels and were influenced by unconscious processes. This was also true of positions that were left as 'in-between' or that were invisibilised through spatiotemporal or diegetic
positioning. Individual orientations were influenced by opposing developmental and social imperatives, for example, an imperative to take on responsibility against the social pressure to be having fun 'with the crowd'.
In terms of the four positions in relation to hegemony (Connell, 1995), it is suggested that the findings of this study indicate that subjectively individuals may occupy any number of these positions simultaneously, and that identifying such positions in relation to hegemonic standards depends on context-dependent norms of acceptable masculinity that the subject draws upon, and from which perspective, both of self and other. For example, Mark's biographical narratives of homophobia slide among (a) complicity, in the sense of normalising the experience as a 'stage'; (b) subordination, when speaking analeptically as the individual subject of homophobic harassment'; (c) marginalisation, when
commenting extradeigetically; and (d) hegemonic, when advocating his 'secure' masculine identity. Another example might be Jason's description of the 'hierarchies' within the school where the narrator's ambiguous stance of 'in-betweeness' allows a layering of all four positions within the narrative. It may also be contended that a stance of ambiguous 'in-betweeness' is a position in its own right, one that falls outside of the Connell 'big four'. From the perspective of queer theory, this undecidability may define it in exciting new ways as a 'non-position' or 'constitutive outside' (Pascoe, 2005). Such a 'non-position' may open alternative or subversive spaces that are not defined in relation to hegemonic norms, that lead away from masculinities defined in relation to hegemony, or maybe even away from 'masculinity'. This may be related to what Maclnnes (1998, cited in Beynon, 2002) calls the 'end of masculinity', the argument that the notion of
masculinity is becoming increasingly untenable in a world of post-identity politics.
'Undecidability' is a characteristic of queer theory, which aims to defamiliarise texts, representations and identities normatively assumed to have fixed meaning and endorse heterosexual normality (Beynon, 2002).
(c) Challenges of positioning according to dominant norms
The findings suggested that conformity to expected norms of acceptability was a source of tension and difficulty for many boys, particularly in relation to the male-peer group's power to exclude and include through processes of othering. These processes occurred at the deep level of abjection, projection and projective identification and as such were associated with strongly affective and at times, visceral responses of distress, anxiety, confusion and disempowerment. One of the challenges facing the boys in the study included pressure to performatively prove masculinity through compulsory
heterosexual ity or sporting involvement and contestation. Academic success, alternative sub-cultural style or rebellious negative identities were some of the tactics boys used to maintain a distance from this imperative to perform. A further challenge was managing the conflicting demands and imperatives within the microcultures and sociocultural contexts. For some boys it was assuming a critical stance, setting up alternative sets of standards within marginalised affiliations. In coping with pressure to conform to group norms some boys set up envisaged futures of academic and vocational success as a means to resist these pressures. Sport was sometimes set up, particularly among boys whose contexts were more threatened by relative deprivation and social threat, as a means to prevent anti-social or irresponsible behaviour. As discussed, particular risk for habits of alcohol use and smoking among boys this age may be linked to microcultural processes, as these practices serve as immediate signifiers of the constitutive cultural elements of acceptability, such as toughness (being able to 'handle' it) and displays of risk-taking.
Definitions of the self by the group was a challenge to the boys' sense of themselves and their self-esteem, particularly when the group defined acceptability by 'criticisms' of appearance, interests or apparent sexual preference. One way of managing this problem
was to re-think the categories, practice a kind of 'visibility management' (Lasser &
Thoringer, 2003) or manage an undecidability about oneself. An alternative set of masculine standards that better matched the person's authentic sense of self could be located in cultural and religious contexts, which perhaps offer a sociocultural context in which boys can experience an alternative way of being in the world.
(d) Managing distances for alternative or subordinate masculinities
Cross-over identities, negative identities and sub-cultural affiliations were some of the contexts in which were managed alternative sets of standards to those within school and peer microcultures. Religious practices, particularly those in which there were rites of passage, were also located as areas in which distance could be established from standards embedded in toughness, non-relational sexuality, contestation and displayed risk-taking.
(e) The multivoiced performance of masculinity across sociocultural contexts
Suggested evidence to support the notion of multivocal performances include (a) the wide range of settings and themes used by participants to represent photographically their experiences as young men; (b) the more 'hegemonic' presentation of the boys in the focus group in contrast with the individual interviews; (c) the shifting of diegetic positions within situated embedded narratives; (d) ambiguous identity positions both from shifting diegetic perspectives and within the spatiotemporal frame of the embedded narrative.