As previously mentioned eight individual interviews were conducted with all eight participants and of which four were black and four were white. The next stage in the data collection process involved the conducting of one focus group with all of the boys who took part in the initial individual interviews.
Participant P1B, who was 16 years old at the time of the research, presented as friendly, open, and confident in both the individual interview and the focus group. It seemed that his responses were consistent in both the focus group and individual interviews, however did go into more in-depth in the individual interview. Participant P1B was involved in a relationship at the time of the interview and even though the majority of the boys in the focus group were arguing that sex is expected in heterosexual relationships, he was able to hold his own and confidently state that he was not having sex.
Participant P2B and participant P3W, who were both 15 years of age at the time of the research, were the youngest participants. During the individual interview P2B seemed quite shy and a lot of the time would talk with his hand over his mouth. When it came to issues of what girls should look like he appeared to be very uncomfortable which was conveyed in his concern that I might be offended by what he was saying. Nevertheless, as the interview progressed and rapport developed he became more open and was able to talk about issues such as sex and the biological need for men to be sexually satisfied. As much as participant P2B became progressively assertive during the individual interview, he appeared extremely anxious and shy during the focus group and did not contribute much to the discussion. What the researcher found significant was his decision to use his traditional name in the context of the focus group. This decision seems to reflect the pressure experienced by P2B to present an authentic black identity to the group of boys, but most importantly to the black boys taking part in the focus group.
For example during the focus group he was not able to state that it was okay for a boy to cry, a comment that he had made during the individual interview, „I think it‟s okay for guys to cry/some people it‟s girly but that‟s their problem.‟ This discrepancy between the private and public accounts of masculinity is reflected in Frosh et al‟s (20031
) study. These differing presentations of masculinity therefore provide insight into the, “different manifestations of
72 masculine identity construction – different ways of „doing boy‟” (Frosh et al., 20031, p. 32). Similarly, participant P3W seemed to present a more mature view of himself or what he perceived to be viewed as more „experienced‟ in both the individual and focus group. However, this need to appear in a particular way seemed more evident in the focus group in which he tended to laugh quite a lot and would talk about drinking and being with girls. That is the researcher got a sense that he was trying to impress the older boys in the group.
Participant P4W, who was 16 years old at the time of the individual interview and focus group, appeared quite confident and sure of himself in both the individual interview and the focus group. It seemed that he was comfortable to communicate openly with the researcher and a level of rapport was quickly established. What became evident was that he held views pertaining to sex as well as drinking that were quite different to the rest of the participants and was able to communicate them to the group, „Okay, I‟m going to wait for marriage.‟ This ability to communicate this to the group does not mean that P4W did not experience some anxiety when stating this differing opinion to the group. That is the researcher observed the manner in which he hesitantly stated that he was not going to have sex until he is married. Based on the researcher‟s own personal views on these issues she was vigilant not to appear biased towards him and in such a way judgemental of the other participants. Participant P5W was also 16 years old. He came across as extremely anxious and nervous in the individual interview but did seem to relax as the interview progressed. Towards the latter part of the interview it appeared like he was finding his own voice as evident in his statement pertaining to society‟s view of boys and men as always being the problem, „we‟re just always looked at as a source of a problem; which I get quite annoyed with actually.‟ This comment made by Participant P5W is one which is reflective of Shefer et al‟s (2007) argument by viewing boys and men as perpetrators and the main source of problems their particular vulnerabilities tend to be ignored. During the focus group he appeared far more relaxed, and seemed to be feeding off the ideas of the other boys.
Participant P6B, a 17 year old black boy, also came across as confident, especially in the focus group, taking up a lot of space. He was very proud of being a black boy and the majority of the photographs (Photograph O, Appendix K) that he took were representative of black culture, „black boys, even in this school, I have noticed, black boys they seem to just have culture, they just seem to be more free, they seem to be more diverse.‟ This positive sense of self was evident in the focus group in which he was able to assertively state his
73 views on apartheid and black „hurt‟ in a seemingly unapologetic nature. However, the manner in which he spoke about issues of racism in the focus group was in a way that distanced him from any personal experiences of racism, experiences that he had mentioned to the researcher in the individual interview. This lack of disclosure concerning personal experiences of race and racism can be argued to reflect three possible things. Firstly, it appears that discussing issues of racism in a group in which white boys are present may be something he experienced as difficult. However, more significantly this lack of disclosure with regard to the emotional impact this had on him can be argued to reflect the pressure boys experience to conform to hegemonic masculinity that require boys and men to be strong and unemotional (Jefferson, 1994). Thirdly, his reluctance to admit to experiences of racism may be related to the emotional invulnerability of hegemonic masculinity as a very common reaction by minority group members trying to live and succeed in potentially racist environments. It can therefore be argued that believing in full intergroup permeability is essential for buying-into, and succeeding in the realm of the dominant group.
Participant P7W, who was 18 at the time of the research, was the oldest boy who took part in the study. During the individual interview he spoke openly and seemed quite reflective on issues affecting boys. For example in relation to the issue of sexual relationships and peer pressure he stated that, „I think other guys feel under pressure having to – oh! I must equal this guy or something.‟ However, during the focus group as much as he remained confident it seemed like he too was aiming to present a more „manly‟ self as evident in his statement that he does not know many boys who are able to wait for marriage before they will engage in sexual relations. Participant P8B, a 17 year old black boy, presented as calm and confident in both the individual interview and focus group. Even though he did not dominant the focus group conversation it appeared that he was not anxious but rather did not feel the need to shout out and state his point. During the individual interview it seemed that he was able to be critical of black boys at the school stating that, „I think like, oh! I am black, I have made it, I am now equal with white people or whatever. And they tend to be a bit arrogant about that. Whereas whites are more down to earth‟.
74