Schooling, masculinity and class analysis: towards an aesthetic of subjectivities

“I Mean, We’re Guys”

“…These young men’s words demonstrated that, according to the gender ideologies they held, becoming a man and embodying manhood were related to self-reliance and productivity. This emphasis on self-reliance and productivity echoed the ways in which White working-class masculinity has been historically valorized in Western cultural consciousness (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2011). These gender constructions may, therefore, be a means of earning and asserting pride and power within a broader context in which these young men may lack access to other forms of social and economic validation.…”

“…These responses reflected the idea that masculinity, and/or being viewed as “masculine,” involves constant effort to maintain (Oransky & Fisher, 2009). The theme of “working hard and being independent” also reflected masculinity ideologies related to stoicism and toughness (Oransky & Fisher, 2009) as well as the valorization of White working-class masculinity through characteristics such as individuality, independence, and autonomy (Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2011). In other words, these ideologies displayed by young men entering their first year at an all-male trade school may be constructed not only through gender but also through class, education, and occupation.…”

“…Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2011) argued that the socially constructed images of White working-class men have shifted, with shifts in the economic and political landscape, from cultural valorization (through characteristics such as individuality, independence, and autonomy) to cultural pathologization (through being characterized as abject, recidivist, and reactionary). McCormack (2014) found that working-class young men in late adolescence and the transition to adulthood displayed both evidence of inclusive masculinity and indicators of certain ways in which the power and status of orthodox masculinity persisted.…”

“…The operation of gender thus reflects social structures of power and privilege that take on specific forms within specific contexts, as individuals adhere to and resist different constructions of gender. Furthermore, both the broader social structures and local constructions of gender are formed with and through sexuality and relationships (Tolman, 2006) and in relation to other aspects of individual development within particular contexts, such as social class, education, and occupation (e.g., Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 2011; Roberts, 2013).…”

From Aberfan to the ‘Canvey Factor’: schools, children and industrial disasters

“…The sociology of education has rarely considered In terms of race and class, popular representations of people in these areas are driven by liminality rather than a necessary identification with urbanity or rurality. Indeed, the industrial working class of these areas are frequently written out of mainstream accounts of class formation (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2011). Industrial regions are considered to be 'dark' or 'black' (even if many of the inhabitants are white) in the same way that cities or areas of cities may have that identification (Bonett, 2000).…”