other person by egging interviewees on, and by openly agreeing with (and thus
condoning) views and stories which are potentially damaging and malicious.
Subordinated groups and the ‘ideal’ boy at each school
The four classes that I studied were called 6J and 6B at Highwoods, 6H at Petersfield,
and 6M at Westmoor Abbey. As the period of research progressed, a number of patterns
of masculinity began to emerge based around friendship groups which came from my
own observations, and from the boys themselves during interview sessions. Although
each interview group had slightly different perceptions of how the boys’ friendship
groupings were constituted the names of the boys who were positioned at the bottom of
the peer group hierarchy were generally consistent. Of course the boys’ classifications of
their peers also revealed much about themselves, for as Bourdieu states, ‘nothing
classifies somebody more than the way he or she classifies’ (Bourdieu 1990:132).
TABLE 2 GOES ABOUT HERE
In all three schools the idealised boy who exemplified the dominant/hegemonic form of
masculinity was connected with activity. At Highwoods it was the sporty boy, probably
the captain of the football [5] A team which was the most prestigious sport amongst the
boys. At Petersfield, it was less clear but was still connected to physical/athletic ability
with the additional attribute of being a good cusser (a form of scathing wit). At
Westmoor Abbey, it was again the sporty boy, although in this school you also had to be
tough, visibly contest teacher authority, be able to generate a laugh, and wear the right
kinds of clothes/trainers.