RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
5.6. Warriors
The regulation and shaping of masculinity involves power and is shaped by both the official school history curriculum as well as unofficial history. In order to ascertain historical significance, the boys in the focus group setting were asked what their immediate association was with the word history. These responses were both similar and yet different and was based on their understanding of history derived by both the official and unofficial versions.
Official school history was the history studied at both primary and secondary school.
Most of the boys’ initial responses revealed an association of history with some sort of conflict – more specifically, war, spies and weapons – which was based on their impression of official primary school history. Historical figures when they were mentioned specifically were in the main white military male figures – Churchill, Louis Botha and Hitler. Otherwise they were strong individuals who seemingly singlehandedly changed the course of history like Mandela, De Klerk and Gorbachev. These boys ascribed the values of the warrior to these historical figures. Why did they do this?
According to Salisbury and Jackson (1996) history taught in classrooms is heavy with the exploits of warriors. The warrior is “the most extreme example of virile manhood – the ultimate in power and ruthlessness” (Salisbury & Jackson, 1996, p.250). He is a man without feelings – strong, powerful, and decisive with the power to determine who
142
lives and who dies. In other words he is the man in power. The image of the warrior featured in both the official and unofficial history to which these boys were exposed.
When asked to reflect on the official history that they had studied in primary school half of the boys mentioned war. Warfare involves the military which encourages conformity, discipline, control and camaraderie. Giving substance to the notion that, “the warrior pattern is at the heart of patriarchy” (Salisbury & Jackson,1996, p.250). It has been played out generation after generation – the deployment of war as a justifiable means for the greater good, “with world wars and mass conscription, the tighter the net of aggressive masculinity draws” (Salisbury & Jackson, 1996, p.250). Warfare involves the military which encourages conformity, discipline, control and camaraderie. The historical narratives of such warriors have served to “guard the sense of masculine heroic toughness, softer, gentler feelings and emotional complexities are cut off and signed to women and lesser men” (Salisbury & Jackson, 1996, p.253). Masculinity and the glorification of war are inextricably intertwined in the narratives of primary school history.
The absence of direct confrontation or violence sticks out in most boys’ memories when they described the history learnt in their last year of secondary school. Confrontation when it did occur was on an ideological level and the clash of opposite values.
Particular reference was made to the clash in ideologies involved in the Cold War and the role of protest in bringing about a peace at a time of great conflict. This is not surprising as human rights, diversity and good citizenship dominate the N.C.S - History as it requires learners to have “an understanding of our diverse past and a mutual grasp of how that informs our present reality” and “enables people to examine with greater insight and understanding the prejudices involving race, class, gender, ethnicity and xenophobia still existing in society and which must be challenged and addressed” (DoE, 2003, p.9). All this serves to support the fundamental knowledge focus of the curriculum which is “to build a new identity in South Africa” (DoE, 2003, p.4). However, it seems that when recalling what was studied at primary school the history learnt there seems to be about war and violence without resolution or context but not so in secondary school.
Although not necessarily advocating the use of violence, prominent historical figures in the official secondary school history curriculum were still seen by these boys as being
143
warriors as they were thought to be courageous, resolute and strong individuals who changed the course of history. This historical understanding is achieved at the same time that the boys in this study are forging their masculinity. It can be surmised that as these boys come to an understanding that there are multiple layers involved in interrogating historical events from many perspectives they also came to the understanding that there are many ways to be a man. In the official secondary school curriculum change was perceived to have been achieved not just with the use of violence. Despite this perception, the boys of this study elevated the male historical figures who might not have readily been associated with war to that of the image of the warrior thereby placing them within the realm of the hegemonic masculinity. Why did they do this? One reason may be that, knowingly or unknowingly, the boys themselves revere the position of hegemonic masculinity and by giving male historical characters such as Mandela and De Klerk hegemonic status is a form of glorification. Using Lacan’s (1949) mirror to explain this helps - the mirror image is established as an “ideal me” toward which the child will forever strive to achieve throughout his life. This imago creates a permanent sense of being imperfect but looking forward to perfection.
Therefore, by assigning warrior status to such male historical figures these boys are in a sense hero worshipping them by giving them hegemonic status. As masculinity is defined in contrast to femininity, those masculinities that are more closely aligned to feminist attributes (soft, emotional, sensitive) will be positioned at the bottom of the masculine hierarchy and those associated with traditional characteristics of hegemonic masculinity (toughness, strong and courageous) will be placed at the top (Gilbert &
Gilbert, 1998) thus giving men such as Mandela and De Klerk hero status.
The image of the warrior also featured in the boys’ lessons learnt through unofficial history. Influential male family figures were readily associated with war such as grandfathers fighting in the Second World War and another of the boy’s reference to his father’s involvement in the Border War having served as a ““rattle [ratel] tank mechanic.”
Other boys made reference to male military figures that had featured in their family’s history such as General Louis Botha. When it came to unofficial history most of the boys within this study mentioned the association of historical events or personalities with
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.