- IMPUESTOS, GRAVÁMENES Y TASAS

Unlike the aforementioned approaches, socialisation theories focus on the social world, assuming that masculinity is shaped solely by environmental influences. From this perspective, the common patterns of men’s behaviour are simply habits that have been learned (Maccoby, 2000). De Beauvoir (1997 [1953]) was one of the first authors referring to men and women being ‘gendered’ as opposites owing (in full) to social and cultural processes. Socialisation theories became prominent in the late sixties with the rise of second wave feminism (Pilcher & Whelehan, 2004). This section will look at direct and indirect forms of socialisation and how these are suggested to masculinise men and femininise women.

Findings of studies by Tallandini (2004) and Giles and Heyman (2005) suggest that males and females, as distinguished by their genitalia, lack freedom to develop social identities that are purely their own. Instead, their choices are documented as being constrained by a socially pre-established gender binary (Tallandini, 2004; Giles & Heyman, 2005). This refers to two distinct catalogues of behaviour that have been socially constructed around the biologically determined bodies of men and women (Carlo et al., 1999; Giles & Heyman, 2005; Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006).

According authors, such as to Phillips (2005), discourse takes a dominant role in the production and normalising of gender; with individuals adopting as their own the gender identities that are discursively assigned to them from birth. So, although these gendered attributes are not innate, the ‘artificiality’ of them is obscured from their vantage points by the ideological preferences of their society and the way its agents continuously represent and reproduce them (Georgiou & Carspecken, 2002; Madison, 2005; Stewart & Usher, 2007). As such, these seemingly natural gendered identities are argued to impinge

on all of the individual’s vocational and leisure choices (Wetherell & Edley, 1999; Smiler, 2004).

Maccoby (2000) distinguished between direct and indirect forms of gender socialisation. Direct socialisation refers to gendered behaviours that are actively shaped by socialisation pressures, whereas indirect socialisation refers to vicariously learned behaviours deriving from observations of male and female-typical behaviours (Maccoby, 2000). The family is an institution viewed to play a strong role in the direct socialisation process (Grieshaber, 1998; Carlo et al., 1999; McHale et al., 2001; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001; Errante, 2003; McHale et al., 2003). It has been documented that, from early infancy, parents socialise boys and girls with contrasting gender norms, such as encouraging girls to be passive and boys to be aggressive (Grieshaber, 1998; Carlo et al., 1999; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2001; McHale et al., 2001; Errante, 2003; McHale et al., 2003). Studies suggest that children as young as two years of age have a socialised understanding of what constitutes appropriate masculine and feminine social practice (Jordan, 1995; Tallandini, 2004; Giles & Heyman, 2005). Moreover, having an understanding of these norms, young children are likely to behave in ways consistent with them (Carlo et al., 1999; Giles & Heyman, 2005; Coulomb-Cabagno & Rascle, 2006).

Parents’ treatments of their sons and daughters are not suggested to differ all of the time and neither are they assumed to constantly revolve around gender expectations (Messner, 2000). Nevertheless, authors, such as McHale et al. (2003) and Kane (2006), have identified general parental tendencies to enforce some gender boundaries. This is a trend that has been found to occur regardless of a parent’s ethnicity, social class, or sexual orientation (Kane, 2006). In particular, heterosexual fathers have reported parenting their children, especially their sons, in line with their normative expectations of gendered behaviour (McHale et al., 2003; Kane, 2006). Furthermore, in addition to heterosexual fathers, the Kane (2006) study found that gay fathers and heterosexual and lesbian mothers felt an accountability to indoctrinate their sons with the masculine norm predominant within their culture.

Numerous strategies through which parents masculinise their sons have been documented. These include strategies of positive reinforcement when gendered norms are met, and negative reinforcement when gender boundaries are crossed (Maccoby, 2000). For example, when a boy cries a parent may offer him less sympathy than he has observed being offered to his sister for the same behaviour. Also, in contrast to the comforting words offered to her, he may instead be called a baby, or told to ‘toughen up’ (Maccoby, 2000). In many cases, parents are likely to be unaware of the ways they go about influencing their children’s gendered identities (Messner, 2000).

A number of authors have documented that the learning and moderating of appropriate masculine behaviour is most observable during school (Forrest, 2000; Swain, 2002; Moita-Lopes, 2003; Houtte, 2004; Phillips, 2005; Hatchell, 2006). In particular, boys and girls have been found to police the gendered behaviours of their same-sexed peers (Kehily & Nayak, 1997; Light & Kirk, 2000; Maccoby, 2000; Maccoby, 2003 [1998]; Houtte, 2004; Kane, 2006; Pascoe, 2011). According to Reay (2002), male hierarchies are formed, being determined by how close boys’ behaviours approximate the dominant representation of masculinity. Those perceived to demonstrate successful gravitations to this stereotype tend to achieve status among their male peers (Forrest, 2000; Houtte, 2004). In contrast, poor gravitations can result in ostracism and intimidation (Reay, 2002; Phillips, 2005 & 2007). Phillips (2005) argued that this intimidation is performed by boys as a strategy of promoting their own masculinity. In this sense, then, boys (and girls) do not passively adopt the codes of conduct that are influenced by adults, such as teachers and parents, but actively perform their own codes of conduct in order to regulate relationships with their peers (Kane, 2006). This is what Maccoby (2000) refers to as ‘indirect socialisation’.

Benjamin (2001) provided evidence of the pressure boys experience in trying to achieve status among their peers. In this study of boys attending a special educational needs school, Benjamin (2001) found that the boys’ desires to maintain micro-cultural status within an all-male hierarchy overpowered any aspirations of academic achievement (Benjamin, 2001). The boys’ identities as pupils were reported to be inseparable from

their demonstrations of masculinity within this all-male group. Benjamin (2001) argued that, because of this, appearing keen to comply with formal curriculum work would serve to devalue their masculine status. Similarly, Forrest (2000) suggested that the often disruptive behaviour of boys during sex education classes derived from their fears of having their masculine inadequacies exposed. Again, this vulnerability was linked to an underlying fear the boys had of losing masculine status among their male peers rather than among girls (Forrest, 2000).

In contrast to essentialist theories of masculinity, socialisation theories provide an explanation regarding the relatively swift occurring changes to social notions of successful masculinity over relatively short periods of time (McHale et al., 1999). For instance, studies suggest that socialisation pressures change in consistence with the broader changing norms of a society (McHale et al., 1999 & 2003). So, contrasting the notion that masculinity is innate and therefore relatively unchangeable (Crompton & Lyonette, 2005; Gaunt, 2006; Taylor et al., 2009), socialisation theories suggest that patterns of social behaviour simply reflect transitive social realities (Blackledge, 2001; Holmes & Smyth, 2005; Averill, 2006). They can also be viewed to acknowledge the role of context and temporality in the shaping of agents’ gendered behaviours (McHale et al., 1999 & 2001); hence, they take into account the differing impacts that cultural norms, family structures, and situation specific demands can have over learned behaviour (McHale et al., 2003).

Although socialisation theories are useful, as with the aforementioned essentialist and psychodynamic theories, they have been criticised for failing to explain the fluid and often contradictory nature of boys and men’s performed masculine identities (Moita- Lopes, 2003; Smiler, 2004; Sheff, 2006). Therefore, despite these theories providing explanations for the identified common patterns of men’s behaviour (Kimmel, 1994; Anderson, 2001; Plummer, 2006; Bennett, 2007; Phillips, 2007; Bishop et al., 2009), to varying degrees, they can be criticised for failing to account for the infinitely more complex nature of social reality (MacInnes, 1998; Allen, 2005). Although socialisation theories do not justify imbalances of power between the sexes as biologically inevitable

or the only healthy outcome, they nevertheless tend to remain uncritical with regards to this issue (Carrigan et al., 1985). In contrast, this inequality forms the basis for the concept of hegemonic masculinity. The conception of hegemonic masculinity, as proposed by Carrigan et al. (1985), will be the focus of the following section.