One of the most important features of the school setting is the informal life of the pupil
peer group. It has a fundamental influence on the construction of masculine identities,
and there are constant pressures on individuals to perform and behave to the expected
group norms (see, for example, Pollard 1985, Woods 1990, Mac an Ghaill 1994, Kenway
et al. 1997, Adler and Adler 1998, Connolly 1998, Gilbert and Gilbert 1998, Harris 1998,
Walker 1998, Connell 2000). Each peer group has its own cultural identity which can be
said to refer to a ‘way of life’ (Dubbs and Whitney 1980: 27) with shared values and
interests, providing boys with a series of collective meanings of what it is to be a boy.
Harris (1998) argues that the peer group actually has more influence on children than
their parents in the formation of their identity, of who they are now, and who they will
become, and is the main conduit by which cultures are passed from one generation to
another. Thus the construction of masculinity is, primarily, a collective enterprise, and it
is the peer group, rather than individual boys, which are the main bearers of gender
definitions (Connell 2000, Lesko, 2000).
For many pupils, the safest position to aim for in the formal school culture [2] is to be
‘average’, while in the informal pupil culture it is to be the ‘same as the others’ for this
provides a certain protection from teasing and perhaps even subordination (Gordon et al.
2000). In fact, it is a paradox that while pupils attempt to construct their own ‘individual’
identity, no-one aspires to be, or can afford to be, too different, and they are conscious
that they need to be ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ within the codes set by their own peer group.
One of the most urgent dimensions of school life for boys is the need to gain popularity
and, in particular, status (see, Weber 1971, Corsaro 1979, Adler and Adler 1998): indeed,
the search to achieve status is also the search to achieve an acceptable form of
masculinity. The boys’ notion of status comes from having a certain position within the
peer group hierarchy which becomes relevant when it is seen in relation to others. It is
not something that is given, but is often the outcome of intricate and intense
manoeuvring, and has to be earned through negotiation and sustained through
performance, sometimes on an almost daily basis. Ultimately, the boys’ position in the
peer group is determined by the array of social, cultural, physical, intellectual and