Gilbert, Rob and Gilbert, Pam. (1998). Masculinity Goes to School. Reviewed by Kim Jones, Ohio University and Trimble (OH) Local Schools

Gilbert, Rob and Gilbert, Pam. (1998). Masculinity Goes to School. London: Routledge Pp. ix + 293. $75.00 (Cloth)     ISBN 0-415-19793-7 $24.99 (Paper)     ISBN 0-415-19794-5 Reviewed by Kim Jones Ohio University and Trimble (OH) Local Schools October 23, 2000             Cultural constructions of appropriate gender roles are as numerous as are cultures themselves. Certain recent popular works, however, have urged a return to "essential" and "natural" roles. The relevance of such a proposal rests on the answer to a key question: to what extent are constructions of masculinity and femininity biologically determined as opposed to culturally imposed?             Among those who challenge the claims of biological determinism, other issues surface. Notably, those who endorse cultural explanations seek to identify the mechanisms by which children learn to behave "as men" and "as women." Some of these researchers devote particular attention to the role schools play in perpetuating dominant versions of femininity and masculinity             In Masculinity Goes to School, Australian authors Rob Gilbert and Pam Gilbert explore this issue by examining the schooling of males. Their book considers the issue from various perspectives—both broad and narrow—and provides useful insight into the ways school practices promote a form of masculinity that limits male choices while at the same time functioning to oppress female and less dominant male students.             According to Gilbert and Gilbert, popular press reporting on boys' schooling reveals a disturbing pattern. Shallow, sensationalistic claims that boys lag behind girls in standardized testing and that they are being cheated of rich educational experiences dominate contemporary reporting of the issue. Another media trend is to treat boys as a uniform demographic group, despite obvious differences resulting from a variety of background characteristics. This depiction promotes serious misinterpretations of boys' plight. Gender after all has much less influence on academic performance than do other background characteristics such a socio-economic status and race. Framing the question as one of boys versus girls and constructing female villains on whom the precarious state of masculine schooling may be blamed are two other common media tactics. The authors provide several examples of popular literature to demonstrate the prevalence of this sort of thinking.             The authors catalog many other common themes in the popular presentation of gender issues. These include notions that a serious crisis currently exists in the process of men's development, that men have been "demasculinized" as the women's movement has brought more women into the workplace, that men need to "pull away" from women in order to realize their full potential, and that certain naturally "masculine" activities are crucial for boys if they are to become "real men." Popular works parading as scientific treatises do much to reinforce these notions, contend the authors. Bly's Iron John (1991) and Biddulph's Manhood: A Book About Setting Men Free (1994) emphasize the "loss of the essential man" and assert that masculinity exists as a uniform objective reality. According to such authors, the masculine essence originates in biology, cultural memory, or a combination of the two. Biological explanations treat the role of brain size and testosterone and make claims about the physical bases for aggressive behavior.             The Gilberts argue that these popular works tend to present an amalgam of simplistic and dangerous points drawn from biological, psychological, and historical pseudo-science. Moreover, the authors contend, these works represent a nostalgic quest for a simpler, idyllic past, free from the conflicting pressures of contemporary society. The authors denounce such simple explanations, criticizing them for ignoring the complexities of childrearing and for perpetuating an archaic, patriarchal, and rigid form of masculinity. Furthermore, the authors worry that such explanations may serve more to justify than to explain male behavior. Ultimately the authors question the credibility of biological claims about essential masculinity, noting that such claims rely on a weak research base. They view such claims as "a combination of unwarranted generalisation and gross oversimplification" (p. 38).             After dismissing the arguments from biological determinism, the authors examine cultural explanations of male behavior. In particular, they note that traditional cultural mores tend to prescribe gender roles narrowly, a circumstance that actually limits rather than expands options for men. Despite such narrowing, Gilbert and Gilbert nevertheless draw attention to the range of behavioral options available to both men and women. In their view, "perhaps the most significant point...is the wide variety amongst men and women, which should focus attention on their potential for variability rather than the reductionist search for a single dominant form" (p. 44).             Not only are various versions of masculinity available in contemporary society, the process by which such constructions are internalized is complex. Dominant versions prevail, however, often reinforced by institutionalized caricatures of masculinity. Promoted by retailers, military recruiters, parents, coaches, and teachers, these idealizations of manliness constitute the available options from which most boys must choose. The Gilberts, however, encourage a broader rendering of "multiple masculinities." Their approach would allow boys to examine a multiplicity of rewarding possibilities within a wide range of societal frameworks.             Unfortunately, caricatures of masculinity play a key role in shaping most boys' construction of self. Television, film, toys, and electronic games provide imagery that supports a version of masculinity based on "action." Under this version, the "real man" is cast as a silent, emotionless, and physically combative (often violent) hero. Commenting on the imagery of dominant masculinity represented through sport, for example, the Gilberts remark "men's sport is the archetype of institutionalized masculinity" (p. 60). Through success in sports, boys gain entry into the traditional male network, garner status and prestige, and receive acceptance and approval from their fathers. Boys interviewed by the Gilberts perceived sports as a way to gain friends and fit in; they contrasted the sporting boy with the "bookish" boy.             The authors express concern that sports' warlike emphases on domination, the exclusion of women, and the inflicting and bearing of pain provide both justification and rehearsal for oppression of women later in life. They also offer cautions about boys' preoccupation with violent videogames. Predominantly male oriented, these games encourage bullying, misogyny, and homophobia by valorizing the popular persona of the self-reliant male aggressor. As Gilbert and Gilbert conclude, "sport and electronic gaming—whether by intent or by default—produce and market a politics of gender under the guise of apolitical pleasure and entertainment"(p. 80).             While contemporary girls are frequently encouraged to resist traditional roles, boys are rarely encouraged to do the same. But by failing to resist the hegemonic versions of masculinity pressed upon them, boys may actually consign themselves to lives that are lonely, emotionally bankrupt, and violent. The authors argue that parents and the extended family often function to sustain traditional roles by teaching boys to reject their mothers, romanticize their fathers, and fear emotional intimacy. In this context, the authors explore the "cult of mother blaming," a view of child development premised on the belief that the son must eventually sever emotional ties with his mother in order to avoid being emasculated by her.             Another worrisome consequence of the popular image of the aggressive, isolated, unemotional male concerns the way acceptable male sexuality is constructed. Under the dominant construction, boys are given permission to act aggressively both toward women and toward homosexual and less aggressive boys. This construction promotes mistrust and dislike of women and homosexuals, and, in its more extreme form, gives men permission to express their dislike through violent acts.             Fear of intimacy and the unwillingness to form emotional attachments moreover foster a construction of masculinity that privileges rational knowledge. Such knowledge then becomes the exclusive province of men. Women, by contrast, are granted dominion over lesser knowledge, grounded in the realm of emotion and intuition.             Given these critiques of the traditional ways boys are socialized, the Gilberts proceed to examine of the impact of schooling on the formation of masculine identity. Noting that young children are still uncertain about which characteristics adults assign to men and women and also that children are separated more by gender within school than they are outside of schools, the authors argue that schooling does have a tremendous impact on the development of a gendered identity. "The school as an institution, with its historically reproduced rules, routines, expectations, relationships and rewards, and its deployment of artefacts [sic], resources and space, actively shapes what happens within it, for all its inhabitants. Gender is pervasively and powerfully implicated in this shaping"(p. 114).             To explore how institutionalized practices promote traditional images of masculinity as natural and absolute, the authors examine school organization, management, and symbolism. The competitive, authoritarian, and hierarchical structure of school administration; the practice of task distribution by gender among teachers; the distinct ways in which teachers address boys and girls; and the exceedingly gendered realm of school sports are all cited as mechanisms by which schools demonstrate and reinforce traditional gender roles. Even academic subject matter takes on a gendered valence. Boys prefer "male" curricula such as math and vocational studies, and they avoid "female" curricula such as language arts and history. Specific school interventions may also restrict the range of acceptable versions of masculinity from which boys can construct male identities. For example, schools pay an inordinate amount of attention to disciplining boys for their aggressive behavior. Does this attention work to curb or to fuel boys' aggression? The authors suggest that this practice may actually work to sustain the belief that aggression is a natural part of the male persona. While overtly punishing boys for bullying and fighting, teachers and principals may be contributing to the message that such behavior is "naturally" male.             The authors end the book with a brief discussion of research-based strategies for changing current models of hegemonic masculinity. Recent attempts to address the issue, typified by the work of Browne and Fletcher (1995), are criticized by the Gilberts as overemphasizing the development of interpersonal relationships while ignoring societal structures that perpetuate dominant views of masculinity. Turning to other models, the authors group existing strategies for boys' programs into disciplinary approaches, knowledge-based approaches, group strategies, skills training, and methods of personal development. Based on the work of Martinez (1994), Collins and colleagues (1996), and Connell (1983), the authors recommend implementing change through a whole-school effort involving administrators, teachers, and parents as well as students.             Impediments to be expected in the quest to promote alternative forms of masculinity include both resistance from the many men and boys who currently benefit from hegemonic masculinity and defensive societal reaction to change. Gilbert and Gilbert conclude by noting that while altering perceptions of masculinity may not be as difficult as one might suppose, other significant and perhaps more fundamental questions remain: Should alternate forms of masculinity be developed and promoted? Or should a broad range of human values be made available to boys so that they can shapes lives in whatever ways they choose? Is the emphasis on boys' schooling just another example of how society overvalues males and male development? In the final analysis, Gilbert and Gilbert propose that schools create an atmosphere of reduced pressure, enabling boys to select identities that make sense to them from among the various forms masculinity may take.             Gilbert and Gilbert provide a very readable overview of issues related to gender and to schooling, even to readers unfamiliar with the topic. Commonsensical and anecdotal at times, the discussion seems, however, to be founded firmly upon theory, calling upon the work of more than 100 different researchers and research teams. Some of the authors' claims about the popular representation of males in the media are not as well founded as are those about traditional gender research, but the authors provide enough examples to support their case.             That the authors, the media, and the schools in question are Australian hardly diminishes the relevance of the piece to conditions in the United States. Australian slang presents an interesting challenge in a few instances, as in quotes from the press describing men who were nearly "car-domiciled" and "mullet-eyed" (p. 27), and in comments by schoolboys regarding "mucking around for a bludge subject," "dobbing on people," and "giving all the teachers brown eyes" (p. 172). Otherwise descriptions of the media, schools, and the types of behaviors characterizing hegemonic masculinity could have been derived from the American experience.             The primary value of Masculinity Goes to School lies in its ability to raise the consciousness of the public in general, and school employees in particular, about the nature of the systems that perpetuate a dominant and rigid form of masculinity. Gilbert and Gilbert's depiction of the sort of masculinity that is consciously and unconsciously modeled in schools rings quite true with this teacher of twenty years. The authors do an excellent job of uncovering school structures that promote hegemonic masculinity, and the process of unmasking these structures is extremely important. Because they are so ubiquitous, these structures often go unnoticed. Beginning and established teachers, counselors, and school administrators will therefore benefit from a work that explicitly points them out.             The authors do not, however, attend to all of the relevant issues. Unexamined, for example, is consideration of the extent to which schools can change in the absence of comparable changes in the media's treatment of boys and men. Further, the authors do not explore questions about "who benefits": Who crafts popular media versions of masculine reality, and who employs these shapers of reality? How are these controlling parties benefiting, and what might be their motivation to support change? Can perceptions of masculinity be changed within schools if the traditional model of masculinity continues to be dominant among CEO's, government officials, and society at large? Despite these unanswered questions, Masculinity Goes to School does provide a solid foundation for understanding the ways that schools and other cultural institutions contribute to the formation of gendered identities, and its analysis certainly supports further inquiry into a significant and timely topic. References Biddulph, S. (1994). Manhood: A book about setting men free. Sydney: Finch Publishing. Bly, R. (1991). Iron John: A book about men. London: Element. Browne, R., & Fletcher, R. (Eds.). (1995). Boys in schools: Addressing the real issues--behaviour, values, and relationships. Sydney: Finch Publishing. Collins, C., Batten, M., Ainley, J., & Getty, C. (1996). Gender and school education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Connell, R. (1983). Which way is up? Essays on class, sex, and culture. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Martinez, L. (1994). Boyswork: whose work? Association of Women Educators' Journal, 3(2), 3-12. About the Reviewer Kim Jones is a doctoral student in the College of Education at Ohio University, and a teacher of math and reading at Trimble Middle School in Glouster, Ohio. Her interests include rural culture and local history.