absence of empirical studies about the bodies of children. This paper argues that the
hegemonic form of masculinity is inextricably linked to, and organised around, the body
and to the resource of physicality and athleticism; consequently, subordinate types of
masculinity will often be represented by boys who are not only different from the norm,
but who are also deficient in, or lack, a number of key resources linked and/or associated
with the body.
The school setting
In order to understand the range of processes and practices which are involved in the
ways that boys are able to construct their masculine identities, some researchers such as
Connell et al. (1982), Pollard (1985), and Gordon et al. (2000) have identified and
differentiated between the official/formal and the unofficial/informal cultures of
schooling, although they define them in slightly different ways. Broadly speaking
though, the formal culture refers to the teaching and learning, policy/organisational and
administrative structures, and the informal culture to the relations and interactions
between the pupils, and between pupils and teachers outside of the instructional
relationship.
Schools are inevitably hierarchical and create and sustain relations of domination and
subordination; each orders certain practices in terms of power and prestige as it defines
its own gender regime (Kessler et al., 1985). They are also located in, and shaped by,
specific socio-cultural, politico-economic and historical conditions. However, a main
argument in this paper is that individual personnel, reproduced rules, routines and
expectations, and the school’s own utilisation of resources and space, will all have a
profound impact, and can make a substantive difference, to the way young boys (and
girls) experience their lives at school. This means that there are different options and
opportunities to perform different types of masculinity is each school; in other words
there are different alternatives, or possibilities, of doing boy which are contingent to each
school setting using the meanings and practices available, although some are more
obvious and conspicuous than others. Between them, Connell (1996) and Gilbert &