Instalación y acceso

In conversations with students, specific personality traits were used to discuss, describe and distinguish the popular girls. These, and their relevance to the notion of popularity, will now be considered in more detail. In general the ‘popular’ girls were considered by themselves and others to be confident and loud, however, these were simultaneously considered to be both positive and negative attributes.

In a conversation about their position within the school and whether they consider themselves popular, the girls considered sameness and difference.

Isabel I wouldn’t say we’re any different to anybody else (.) I think we’re all equal

Laura I just think we’re like more confident than some people

150

Becca we’re just different to everyone else

Siobhan why wh in what way are you do you mean like Laura I think it’s cause we talk to like (.) Isabel everyone

Laura everyone like we’d go up and talk to like Paige or someone like if we had to ask them something

Student yeah

Laura but they wouldn’t come up and ask us kind of thing

Siobhan yeah

Becca we’re not scared to like (.) talk to anyone

In some respects the girls consider themselves to be similar to everyone else, however, one way in which they are different is that they are ‘more confident’, ‘talk to everyone’, and are ‘not scared to like talk to anyone’. As well as positioning themselves as ‘confident’, the girls consider others to be lacking confidence and ‘scared’, which is considered to be a deficiency in others which they do not share. Clearly ‘confidence’ is a trait which the girls construct as positive and something which they are happy to consider themselves to be. Being loud is also a trait that the popular girls claimed to have which makes them different from others.

Lorelai yeah I think we’re more louder so people more like (.) so I think more they’re more quieter then we’re louder

Female confidence and loudness has led to the emergence of the term ‘ladette’ to describe girls who are felt to have more traditionally ‘masculine’ traits such as loudness, aggression, swearing, smoking and binge drinking (Dobson, 2014). However, despite in some senses these girls being considered to be loud and aggressive, the term ‘ladette’ does not seem appropriate, as the girls seem to have taken ownership of the arguably ‘masculine’ traits of loudness and intimidation and made them positive traits which are the domain of confident women.

Sian I think people in our group are better at arguing

151

Laura she’s like confident she’s not afraid to speak her mind kind of thing

Lorelai we can argue like more than boys can

Also highlighted in the girls’ explanation of their social group is toughness. This is very important to discuss since it has been noted elsewhere that girls’ ‘voices are frequently missing from research about aggression and violence in schools’ (Waldron, 2011: 1299). The assumption that violence or dominance are masculine and only of relevance amongst boys diminishes the actions of girls and positions them as trivial and non-threatening (Solomon, 2006). This is problematic given the discussion in this chapter, which highlights the ways in which these girls feel powerful and are acknowledged as such by others. Equally, although it has been found elsewhere that ‘toughness did not have the same meaning for femininity, where being heterosexually attractive, accepting subordination to hegemonic masculinity and having as many friends as possible were keys to popularity’ (Eliasson et al., 2007: 602). Here ‘toughness’ was seen to be an important aspect of the popular girls interactions with others and did not detract from their popularity. Instead, the popular girls in this school actively positioned themselves as tough. Identity or aspects such as ‘toughness’ are relational and socially constructed, therefore reputations of being tough can be built through relationships and interactions with others (Gergen, 2009b). The girls made verbal threats of physical violence, which give a sense of aggression and potential violence. Equally, stories emerge which are told in various forms by different groups. An example is the story of Madison asking Isabel for a fight. Isabel claims that this event did not happen but that Madison continues to tell this story because she tells others that Isabel would not fight her.

Ellie no it’s just Madison makes out she’s big saying that she asked for a fight but she didn’t

Isabel I know she didn’t ask for a fight (.) and then [she acts like she said it

Becca [then she acts like

Becca Isabel said no and it makes her seem better and she’s not

152

Becca like faggish

Isabel yeah like a little faggot Student (little laugh)

Isabel I’m gonna knock yous out in a minute

This event may or may not have happened and other students may consider it to have happened differently. What is important here is the fighting talk. In both verbal threats and the offer of a fight, the girls are positioning themselves as confident and competent aggressors who would be willing and able to fight. They deny Madison’s position of toughness by saying that she ‘makes out she’s big’ and ‘she acts like…’ both of which suggest a false or fake presentation. Equally, they acknowledge that asking for a fight ‘makes her seem better’ as it positions her as tough. It would also position her as ‘better’ than Isabel who would not fight, again privileging toughness and willingness to fight as positive attributes. However, the girls again deny Madison’s positions as they said ‘it makes her seem better’ rather than ‘it makes her better’, since they are again alluding to a false or fake presentation. At the end of the extract some of the girls were having a private joke and were smiling at each other, to which Isabel says ‘I’m gonna knock yous out in a minute’. The conversation then moves on to a different discussion.

The girls’ use of ‘faggish’ and ‘faggot’ is also interesting here. ‘Fag’ has previously been used as a derogatory term to mean ‘gay man’, or a man who is seen to be insufficiently masculine in some way. It is unlikely that here the girls literally mean that, by saying that she would not fight her, Madison is making Isabel appear to be a gay man. ‘Fag’ was (and in many cases still is) used to denigrate men as it highlighted how they differed from an idealised version of a strong, heterosexual man. It seems to be being used similarly here, where the girls are describing an unwillingness to fight as ‘faggish’. What is important is that in this extract this term is being used only with reference to girls, who are similarly being positioned in a negative manner for not being willing to fight.

Not only are these girls loud, confident, and intimidating, they also actively construct these identities and put pressure on each other to behave in such ways. Amongst the popular girls an ability to stand up for yourself and be intimidating was considered to be a positive attribute. One member of the group, Laura, is considered to not meet the required standard for ‘sticking up for yourself’ and she is called to account for this by her friends. An ability to

153

‘stick up for yourself’ is considered to be an integral part of being part of the ‘popular girls’ and here Laura is criticised for not doing this sufficiently.

Becca everyone sticks up for Laura cause she won’t stick up for herself so everyone gets involved

Laura I do if it’s like not someone like

Isabel no but Laura you wouldn’t stick up for yourself

Laura I did erm yesterday (.) I had a go at her Becca but when she was saying stuff back you you

were just like oh all right then

Laura yeah cause I’m not gonna start anything Ellie you were just like oh all right (.) yeah but

you have to

Laura no but there was no point Becca you have to fight back Ellie yeah but she denied it Becca get the claws out Ellie she denied it Laura

Isabel you don’t need to fight or anything but you need to stick up for yourself because you don’t

Laura yeah I did

Isabel no but you say your point and then people will say something back and you’ll just be like OK (.) because you don’t stick up for yourself like a hundred percent everyone else sticks up for you

Here the girls are clearly charging Laura with not ‘sticking up for herself’ sufficiently. Laura tries to defend herself and points to things she said or did as evidence or her attempting to stick up for herself, but these are met with further criticism, evidencing that Laura’s actions were not sufficient. Laura says that she did ‘have a go’ at someone, but Becca says ‘but when she was saying stuff back you you were just like oh all right then’. This is deemed to be too passive and not ‘sticking up for yourself’. Laura then moves on to say that she simply did not want to ‘start anything’, however the girls still say that this is unsatisfactory, and both Becca and Ellie tell her that ‘you have to’. It is clear from this extract that ‘sticking up for yourself’ is something which is considered important amongst

154

the popular girls and is not optional. Furthermore, the extract above demonstrates how this pressure is applied to all members of the group to ensure that this continues.

This demonstrates the role that girls play in actively constructing and policing appropriate (gender) behaviour. Without acknowledging this we risk continuing to construct girls as fairly passive and not actively involved in their own construction. However, it is important to note that these girls are not policing a version of emphasized femininity, but instead a more dominant femininity where girls are expected to ‘stick up for themselves’ and be intimidating. However, I argue that it would be inappropriate to label this as ‘masculine’, as this is not how the girls themselves (or others in the school) constructed this behaviour. The girls have turned these types of attributes into something feminine and positive, although this is a more ‘dominant’ femininity. This raises important questions about this terminology and the circumstances in which it is applied. Francis (2012) draws on Bakhtin’s notion of ‘heteroglossia’ and ‘monoglossia’ to begin to consider how we might address these concerns. Cases of this type of terminological difficulty are beginning to be seen, particularly amongst young people (Anderson, 2009, 2011; McCormack, 2011, 2012). However, to use this to argue for an abandonment of these terms seems pre-emptive and limiting. Francis (2012) suggest considering these cases as heteroglossic. Whilst alternative constructions and cases where some terminology seems to be being challenged exist, this does not necessarily lead to changes in the monoglossic, the broader discourses and understandings of gender and sexuality in society. These ideas seem powerful and a potentially useful way to understand some of the concerns and difficulties raised in this analysis.

As an example of the way in which, despite some potentially heteroglossic constructions of gender, monoglossic constructions prevail, the analysis will consider how the constructions and behaviours discussed above were perceived by others. Whilst within the popular girls, and possibly amongst some other girls, this construction of the girls being dominant and able to ‘stick up for themselves’ is positive, this does not necessarily transcend into all scenarios and amongst everyone. As discussed in the literature review, teachers have been seen to have negative opinions of these types of girls and in Reay’s (2010) study described them as ‘bitches’ and ‘little cows’. Equally, in this research some of the teaching staff seemed to disapprove of these girls.

155

After the lesson I talked to the teacher and she said that when she started working at the school she was surprised at how violent the girls were. She said that “with the boys you expect it, boys are boys, but not with girls”. She said that if she was their age she would be scared of some of the girls, especially Bianca’s group “because of their mouth”.

This highlights two main points (which have been touched on in the previous discussions). Firstly, these girls can be considered to have some of the traits of ’masculinity’ such as dominance and intimidation, but achieve this more through verbal skills and verbal intimidation and aggression (i.e. “their mouth”). However, rather than girls simply adopting some of the traits associated with masculinity, here a more dominant femininity is achieved as the girls actively construct this as something feminine, positive and an attribute of the ‘popular girls’, meaning that different forms of dominance and ways of being dominant can emerge. Secondly, these things are continuously re-created in interaction and therefore are constructed differently in different contexts. So whilst in some contexts and relationships the girls’ ‘mouth’ is constructed as negative (for example amongst the staff), in others (for example amongst the popular girls themselves) it is constructed as something positive, and in fact those who cannot ‘stick up for themselves’ are criticised by their friends, as in the case of Laura discussed previously. This is an example of the heteroglossic and monoglossic constructions which Francis (2012) refers to.

When discussing groups which researchers often consider to be performing a ‘failed’ masculinity or femininity, Paechter (2012: 234) argues that ‘researchers need to understand that while particular masculinities and femininities may appear to be failing from the point of view of the dominant, they may not seem so from the perspective of those whose masculinities and femininities they are’. In previous research, teachers referring to these types of girls negatively has been used to demonstrate that these girls are demonised for their inappropriate gender performance and that girls who perform ‘masculinity’ are sanctioned (for example, Reay, 2010). However, it is important to note that, in this case at least, whilst from a middle-class, adult/teacher perspective this type of femininity may be bad or problematic, it is not constructed as such amongst the girls themselves. These verbal skills and dominance are something particularly owned by the popular girls, something which they are highly adept at, and something which they considered to make them different from ‘others’. It is something which they praise in each other and actively encourage their friends to engage

156

in. Therefore, when labelling performances of gender as ‘failures’ or using adult (whether teacher or researcher) constructions to argue for ‘failure’, sanctioning, or whether traits are considered ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, it is important to explore the students own constructions of these and whether they construct themselves in these ways.

As well as the potentially ‘masculine’ characteristics discussed above, the girls also showed ‘feminine’ characteristics. The girls often engaged in performances of femininity in the classroom such as applying make-up or brushing their hair. However, an interesting element to these performances is that others are often forced to participate or the activity somehow becomes the main focus of the lesson. For example, in the following extract the girls decide to put make-up on male students.

Jo and Alica are throwing make-up and laughing. Bianca and Lorelai join in. They laugh and talk about how to put some on a nearby boy’s face. Alica gets up and does this. Bianca instructs her after she has done it saying “Alica go get that thing off Ash” meaning put some makeup on Ash. Alica puts foundation on Ash’s neck as she walks past. Ash says “urgh” loudly, he looks around and shouts “urgh” again. Jo says “it’s just makeup”.

The girls put make-up on Tyler as well and they began to throw make-up pads at people. Three boys then left the classroom to go and wash the make-up off. They did so without permission from the teacher and so are told off on their return. Two other boys moved seats so that they were sitting further away from the girls. When Bianca asked why they had moved the support teacher said ‘because they didn’t want make-up thrown at them’ in a pointed manner. This scenario had begun with one of the girls simply taking out make-up and putting it on in the lesson, yet it had escalated to involve five boys, a number of girls and three members of staff.

The popular girls’ verbal displays of ‘femininity’ could also come to dominate. For example, in a group interview involving two boys and two girls, the conversation was about where students sit at lunch time. Bianca then says ‘I’ve still got fake tan in my erm face mask in my hair, I put a face mask and it got all in my hair here (.) it’s really horrible’. The conversation them becomes about make-up and hair and Isaac and Bianca’s appearance when they are on skype. A further example is Bianca talking about her nails during a lesson. She leans over and asks a boy “Ben what do you think

157

of my nails?” he looks up but says nothing but she continues “do you like them or not?” he responds “nails are nails”. Despite his lack of interest Bianca pushes him to give an opinion and then says that he is wrong as she is very pleased with her new nails which she paid to have done. In response to this confident and pushy questioning by Bianca, Ben seems nonchalant and uninterested. This demonstrates what Korobov (2011) described as an ‘ordinary masculinity’ as a way for men to deal with and respond to women’s non-emphasized femininity behaviours. Although Bianca is the more dominant and pushy in this conversation, even though Ben does not directly challenge Bianca, he also avoids fully participating in the discussion, despite Bianca’s pushing. Therefore, whilst on the one had girls’ challenges to emphasized femininity can be powerful, this ‘ordinariness’ can be a subtle yet powerful tool to avoid being positioned as the less powerful.

Elsewhere it has been found that boys dominate lessons (Francis, 2005; Shilling, 1991). Francis