there are multiple masculinities; there are hierarchies of masculinities; masculinity is a
precarious and ongoing performance; and it is generally a collective social enterprise.
Within the hierarchies of masculinity, each setting (such as a school) will generally have
its own dominant, or hegemonic, form which utilises the main resources available.
Although these may differ in each school, the hegemonic form gains ascendancy over and
above others, becomes ‘culturally exalted’ (Connell, 1995, p. 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 has the capacity to portray itself as the natural order of things, and
many boys find that they have to fit into, and conform to, its demands. Thus, essentially,
hegemony works by consent. Recent research (see, for example, Pattman et al., 1998;
Swain, 2001; Frosh et al., 2002) has begun to suggest that there may be a number of
‘softer’ or more ‘personalised’ types of masculinities which do not aspire to emulate the
leading form, but there will always be other patterns that will be marginalised, or
victimised and subordinated.
Masculinity refers to the body, and as boys’ identities are defined and generally described
in terms of what they do with/to their bodies, I have embraced the concept of
embodiment (Turner, 2000). Although there are a number of ways of defining
embodiment, it needs to be understood as a social process (Elias, 1978). Although bodies
are located in particular social, historical structures and spaces, the boys in this paper are
viewed as embodied social agents, for they do not merely have a passive body which is
inscribed and acted upon (Crossley, 1996; Connell, 2000), but they are actively involved
in the development of their bodies, using it as a resource throughout their school life (and
indeed for their entire life-span). Drawing on work by Bourdieu (1986), Shilling (1991,
1993) argues that it is possible to view the body as having a ‘physical capital’, the
production of which refers to the ways bodies are recognised as possessing value in
various social settings. They may have power, status and/or an array of distinctive
symbolic forms which are used as resources of agency and influence. The part played by
the body in the formation of masculine identity is beginning to be recognised in
sociological literature (Kehily, 2001; Swain, 2001), although there remains a conspicuous