bodies, using it as a resource throughout their school life (and indeed for their entire life-
span). The boys experience themselves simultaneously in and as their bodies (Lyon and
Barbalet 1994:54) and in this respect they are bodies (Turner 2000). The body is thus an
integral part of identity and of their biographies, for the process of making and becoming
a body also involves the project of making their self (Shilling 1993, Synott1993).
Within the hierarchies of masculinity, each setting (such as a school) will generally have
its own dominant, or hegemonic, form. Although this may differ in each school, it gains
ascendancy over and above others, becomes ‘culturally exalted’ (Connell 1995: 77), and
exemplifies what it means to be a real boy. The hegemonic masculine form is not
necessarily the most common type on view and may be contested. Although it is often
underwritten by the threat of violence, it generally exerts its influence by being able to
define what is the norm and many boys find that they have to fit into, and conform to, its
demands. While there may be other types of masculinity which do not aspire to emulate
the leading form, other forms will be marginalised and subordinated. This paper looks
specifically at these subordinate modes of masculinity which are positioned outside the
legitimate forms of maleness, as represented in the hegemonic form, and which are
controlled, oppressed and subjugated. Said (1995) argues that patterns of subordination
are actually inevitable as each historical age and society requires the existence of another
and competing alter ego, and so will create and recreate ‘others’. Within any given
society (including the micro cultural milieu of the peer group) the construction of identity
is bound up with the disposition of power which is embodied in the norm, and powerless
which is embodied in the different. As all masculinities are constructed in contrast to
being feminine those which are positioned at the bottom of the masculine hierarchy will
be symbolically assimilated to femininity and tend to have much in common with
feminine forms (Kenway et al. 1997, Gilbert and Gilbert 1998, Connell 2000, Skelton
2001). As with the other forms of masculinity at the schools in this study, there were
similarities and differences between the subordinated types which were contingent to
each school. However I wish to argue that the strategies of subordination across all three
schools were constructed under the generic heading of ‘difference’.