Although the previous section looked at common patterns that have been identified among the various behaviours of men, authors have nonetheless identified differences between the behaviours of working and middle-class groups. As such, it has been suggested that working-class men demonstrate different versions of masculinity to those demonstrated by middle-class men (see: Messerschmidt, 1993; Willis, 1993 [1981]; Marusza, 1997; Collier, 1998; Connell, 2000; Courtenay, 2000; Gorman, 2003; Iacuone, 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Gayo-Cal et al., 2006; Nayak et al., 2006). In terms of Connell (1995/2008), for instance, working-class men are seen to have marginalised masculinities. Moreover, some working-class men are suggested to construct varieties of ‘protest masculinity’, characteristic of increased risk-taking and aggressiveness, as a means of defying their subordinated position within the masculine hierarchy (Courtenay, 2000; Iacuone, 2005; Connell, 2008 [1995]). This variety of masculinity was also referred to as ‘oppositional masculinity’ by Messerschmidt (1993). By distinguishing the varieties of masculinity demonstrated by men of different classes, such authors are identifying patterns of behaviour common among the men within each group (Courtenay, 2000; Iacuone, 2005). Otherwise, if there were no within-group common patterns, there would be no way of identifying specific differences between the groups, just a myriad of idiosyncratic behaviours.
In review of the literature, this section will first identify behaviours which have been found to cut across social class boundaries. It will also make the argument that working and middle-class men harbour a common notion of successful masculinity, and in order to maintain or increase status during relations between men, gravitate to this socially constructed representation. From this perspective, differences in their behaviours can be located with their differing social and material resources (Gorman, 2003; Cohen, 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Gayo-Cal et al., 2006; Nayak et al., 2006).
Some authors have identified common patterns of men’s behaviour that cut across social class boundaries (Light & Kirk, 2000; Redman et al., 2002; Allen, 2005; Marja & Kirsimarja, 2005; Hatchell, 2006). For instance, risk-taking behaviour (Houtte, 2004), emphasised heterosexuality (Allen, 2005), and an adversity to effeminacy (Cowan & Mills, 2004; Plummer, 2006; Bennett, 2007) are suggested to be common patterns exhibited by men regardless of their social class. Further common patterns identified to transcend class boundaries are the importance men place on competitive sports and physical strength (Light & Kirk, 2000; Skelton, 2000; Swain, 2002 & 2004), their drinking behaviour (Lewis & O’Neill 2000; Marja & Kirsimarja, 2005; Faulkner et al., 2006; Keller et al., 2007), criminal activity (Moore & Mills, 1990; Cullen et al., 2006), and use of discourse to emphasise their masculinity (Gough & Edwards, 1998; Redman et al., 2002; Hatchell, 2006; Bennett, 2007).
Boys, regardless of their social class, have been observed to resist education (Jordan, 1995; McDowell, 2002; Benjamin, 2001; Houtte, 2004). As the education system requires pupils to be submissive, it has been suggested to fit more comfortably with stereotypical femininity than masculinity (McDowell, 2000; Archer et al., 2001; Benjamin, 2001; McDowell, 2002; Reay, 2002; Gorman, 2003; Levinson & Sparkes, 2003; Houtte, 2004; Phillips, 2004; Allen, 2005). This has been identified as a reason why boys have greater tendencies to resist the system than girls (McDowell, 2000; Archer et al., 2001; Benjamin, 2001; McDowell, 2002; Reay, 2002; Gorman, 2003; Levinson & Sparkes, 2003; Houtte, 2004; Phillips, 2004; Allen, 2005). Thus, owing to a common notion among boys that educational achievement constitutes submissive behaviour, it is likely to be damaging to a boy’s masculine status in the eyes of his peers (Whitelaw et al., 2000; Archer et al., 2001; Benjamin, 2001; Reay, 2002; Houtte, 2004; Phillips, 2005; Kane, 2006; Phillips, 2007).
Despite some across-class patterns, working-class boys have been documented to demonstrate a greater resistance to education than middle-class boys (Willis, 1993 [1981]; Archer et al., 2001; Reay, 2002; Whitehead, 2003; Nayak, 2006). Because
working-class men traditionally demonstrated their masculinity via demonstrations of physical invulnerability rather than financial stability (Hall, 2002; McDowell, 2003; Nayak, 2006), to achieve academically, working-class boys might place their masculine status in even greater jeopardy than middle-class boys (Benjamin, 2001; Reay, 2002). Consequently, they are likely to view higher education as a riskier option than maintaining their masculine status via a continued emphasis on physical strength (Archer et al., 2001; Hall, 2002; Reay, 2002; Gorman, 2003; McDowell, 2003; Whitehead, 2003; Nayak, 2006).
These class dynamics are perpetuated in a number of ways. For example, failing in education often results in low status employment (McDowell, 2000; Reay, 2002). Having a low income can prevent a man from demonstrating his masculinity through consumerism (Dittmar et al., 1995; Nayak, 2006) and result in poor accommodation within high crime environments (MacDonald & Marsh, 2001). These may have an impact on the quality of education working-class children receive (Archer et al., 2001; Reay, 2002; Kosut, 2006), the language and social practices with which they are socialised (Gorman, 2003; McDowell, 2003; Nayak, 2006), and the way they are judged by larger society (Lucey & Reay, 2002; MacDonald & Marsh, 2002).
Beck (1998), Gorman (2003) and Cohen (2005) have argued that the distinction between the social and material resources of the working and middle-classes is as prominent as ever. According to such authors, the life experiences and knowledge accrued by the middle-classes maintains the social and economic gulf and perpetuates the exclusion of the working-classes. Nevertheless, the literature also suggests that the working-classes themselves help to perpetuate the divide (Gorman, 2003; Nayak, 2006). For instance, despite the well documented collapse of the manufacturing industry (Jefferson, 2002; Hall, 2002; McDowell, 2002; Koballi, 2004; Hutton, 2005), working-class men are suggested to still aim for upward mobility through manual employment (Marusza, 1997; Johnston et al., 2000; McDowell, 2000; Archer et al., 2001; McDowell, 2002; Gorman, 2003; McDowell, 2003; Nayak, 2006; Bishop et al., 2009).
Some literature suggests that white, working-class men in contemporary society continue to demonstrate their masculinity through the historical traditions of circuit drinking, fighting, bragging about sexual exploits, watching and playing competitive sport and, ultimately, socialising in all white, all male, heterosexual environments (Marusza, 1997; Tomsen, 1997; Gorman, 2003; Kimmel, 2003; Nayak, 2006). Furthermore, authors, such as Marusza (1997), Kimmel (2003), and Nayak (2006), have argued that, of all the investigated social settings, clubs and pubs are the environments where men’s demonstrations of masculinity are most frequent and apparent. As such, this is another example of masculinity being demonstrated during relations between men (Gibson, 1994; Levi-Strauss, 1995 [1969]).
According to Phillips (2005 & 2007), a man’s masculine status, judged by men during relations between men, is subject to how close his behaviour approximates a celebrated notion of masculinity. Some practices are recognised as ‘successful’ and afforded status, whereas others are recognised as unsuccessful and subordinated (Phillips, 2005 & 2007). This notion is apparent within a number of studies (McDowell, 2000 & 2002; Reay, 2002; Gorman, 2003; Ribeiro et al., 2007). On the surface, then, working and middle- class men might appear to be demonstrating very different forms of masculinity. However, their differing patterns of behaviour might be motivated a common notion of successful masculinity, the aim being to avoid ostracism and abuse during relations between men (Anderson, 2001). From this perspective, men employ their differing social and material resources in ways which are likely to be recognised by men, regardless of their class, as successful demonstrations of masculinity (Nayak, 2006).
Men with fewer material resources through which to demonstrate their status have been suggested to place greater emphasis on demonstrations of fearlessness (Anderson, 2001) and physical invulnerability (Johansson, 1990; Hall, 2002; McDowell, 2003; Nayak, 2006). In this sense, working and middle-class men might be employing their differing social and material resources in ways which demonstrate the same underlying attributes (Archer et al., 2001; Demetriou, 2001; Gorman, 2003). The behavioural differences observed in men sharing similar material resources might instead be accountable to their
differing physical capabilities (Messeschmidt, 1999; Forrest, 2000; Light & Kirk, 2000; Benjamin, 2001), or their differing abilities to transcend emotional vulnerability (Phillips, 2006; Plummer, 2006).
According to Campbell (1949/1993), myths communicate the same masculine exemplar regardless of whether the hero is depicted as a lover, warrior, tyrant, or saint. Hence, because the transcendence of vulnerability is indicative of character attributes rather than concrete modes of conduct, it is flexible enough to be demonstrated in multiple ways. For example, the transcendence of fear could be demonstrated through extreme sports (Anderson, 1999), challenging job occupations (Whitehead, 2006), risk taking behaviour (Houtte, 2004), or daring criminal activities (Hall, 2002). Physical invulnerability could be demonstrated through an athletic physique (Wienke, 2008), competitive sports (Wellard, 2006), manual employment (Nayak, 2006), or physical aggression (Anderson, 2001; Zdun, 2008). Men’s demonstrations of remote emotionality could range from them not crying at funerals to them declining emotional support at times when it might be necessary (Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004; Bennett, 2007).
Emerging from this section of the chapter was the notion that men can use different behavioural strategies and resources in order to demonstrate the same underlying ‘masculine’ characteristics. Consistent with critical realism (Wilson & McCormack, 2006; Bergin et al., 2008), this suggests that, despite the influence that social norms can exert over behaviour, agents retain some autonomy in the ways in which they gravitate to them. The following section will focus more closely on the role of context in relation to men’s demonstrations of masculinity.