Page 131 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 131
m. hrženjak ■ sporty boys and fashion girls ...
of boys’ care for their looks paradoxically conceals the fundamental care
for their appearance which must unambiguously demonstrate the absence
of taking care for one’s looks, because this is the distinguishing feature
that establishes boys not only as different to but as the opposite of girls.
The seeming contempt for the feminised practice of care for looks estab-
lishes a distance to everything feminine, which represents the basic norm
of hegemonic masculinity. This reveals the gap between the actual living
practices of young people and the symbolic norms with which they con-
struct gender difference as binary and irreconcilable.
Intersections of Gender, Ethnicity and Class
The concept of hegemonic masculinity offers insight into the plurality of
men, hierarchy and the positions of power established between men and
stemming from their diverse positions in relation to hegemonic mascu-
linity. The second dimension of differentiation is determined by social lo-
cation or multiple belongings according to ethnicity and class. Both di-
mensions show mutual overlapping and coeffects. In the continuation, I
analyse the position of ethnicised masculinity in relation to the hegem-
onic norm through the example of clothing practice. Gender is the fun-
damental, but not isolated category, and along with gender teenagers also
“adopt” ethnic and class identity positions. These intersections do not
represent processes in which certain a priori existing inherent differenc-
es between ethnic groups would automatically produce different types
of masculinity and femininity. It is more that processes of the ethnicisa-
tion and production of the ethnic “other” a priori exist in society, mak-
ing the images and discourses of “cultural difference” become intertwined
and invested in how masculinity and femininity are performed and ex-
perienced. Constructions of cultural differences are important elements
of social contexts, in which different ways of masculinity and feminin-
ity occur, and this, in turn, establishes ethnicity and class as coeffective
dimensions of the generation of masculinity and femininity (Hrženjak,
2011). For example, Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (2007) analyse the com-
plex investments of British working-class teenagers in the adoption of the
style of the racialised youth subculture. They define them as an example
of how boys use race and ethnicity as a cultural source for establishing
teenage male subjectivity, with the racialised coloured “other” represent-
ing the central position in relation to which the dynamics of the forma-
tion of a white boy’s identity takes place. A more detailed illustration was
given by Phoenix (2004) in her analysis of the Afro-Caribbean boys who
gender identity constructions that are seemingly indifferent to one’s looks and the gendered
meaning of clothing systems.
129
of boys’ care for their looks paradoxically conceals the fundamental care
for their appearance which must unambiguously demonstrate the absence
of taking care for one’s looks, because this is the distinguishing feature
that establishes boys not only as different to but as the opposite of girls.
The seeming contempt for the feminised practice of care for looks estab-
lishes a distance to everything feminine, which represents the basic norm
of hegemonic masculinity. This reveals the gap between the actual living
practices of young people and the symbolic norms with which they con-
struct gender difference as binary and irreconcilable.
Intersections of Gender, Ethnicity and Class
The concept of hegemonic masculinity offers insight into the plurality of
men, hierarchy and the positions of power established between men and
stemming from their diverse positions in relation to hegemonic mascu-
linity. The second dimension of differentiation is determined by social lo-
cation or multiple belongings according to ethnicity and class. Both di-
mensions show mutual overlapping and coeffects. In the continuation, I
analyse the position of ethnicised masculinity in relation to the hegem-
onic norm through the example of clothing practice. Gender is the fun-
damental, but not isolated category, and along with gender teenagers also
“adopt” ethnic and class identity positions. These intersections do not
represent processes in which certain a priori existing inherent differenc-
es between ethnic groups would automatically produce different types
of masculinity and femininity. It is more that processes of the ethnicisa-
tion and production of the ethnic “other” a priori exist in society, mak-
ing the images and discourses of “cultural difference” become intertwined
and invested in how masculinity and femininity are performed and ex-
perienced. Constructions of cultural differences are important elements
of social contexts, in which different ways of masculinity and feminin-
ity occur, and this, in turn, establishes ethnicity and class as coeffective
dimensions of the generation of masculinity and femininity (Hrženjak,
2011). For example, Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (2007) analyse the com-
plex investments of British working-class teenagers in the adoption of the
style of the racialised youth subculture. They define them as an example
of how boys use race and ethnicity as a cultural source for establishing
teenage male subjectivity, with the racialised coloured “other” represent-
ing the central position in relation to which the dynamics of the forma-
tion of a white boy’s identity takes place. A more detailed illustration was
given by Phoenix (2004) in her analysis of the Afro-Caribbean boys who
gender identity constructions that are seemingly indifferent to one’s looks and the gendered
meaning of clothing systems.
129
