ABOUT BOYS SOCIALISATION IN SCHOOLS

DETLEV LINDAU-BANK, UNIVERSITY OF VECHTA ABSTRACT AND INTRODUCTION | THEORETICAL PART AND PROBLEMS | METHODS | RESULTS | REFERENCES

ABSTRACT AND INTRODUCTION Since the early 1990s, there has been a new theme in the educational and socializationtheory debate: boys and their problems in the search for masculine gender-identity and all that this involves, be it relationships with the opposite sex, sexuality, violence, stress, excessive demands and role models. In order to point out the importance attached by boys to the educational debate, Peter Zimmermann and I (we both worked at the Institute for School Development Research at the University of Dortmund) surveyed boys between the ages of 14 and 16. THEORETICAL PART AND PROBLEMS The main points of our survey concerned boys and their self-perception, the clown and the phrasemonger and the organization of relationships. Aspects such as physical and emotional distance, crying and comforting, role models and especially the father as a role model, schools without role models as well as the issue of male or female teachers, the gender issue at school in general and the work with boys at school also were included. All these aspects show relevant differences between boys and girls attitude and behaviour in school which have hardly been in the spotlight of educational and socializational interest. We started out with the classical theory on roles by Parsons in which social action is described as the negotiation of each others expectations. (Parsons, T.: The Social System. Glencoe / Ill. 1951.) What is interesting is that expectations from the point of view of boys are hardly described. This led to a one-sided view on gender-education which either pointed out the discrimination against girls and women or the expectations of school as an institution in other words society. The concepts in gender-education were designed adequately. Education in school had its emphasis on the equal treatment and empowerment of girls. Boys were seen as the winners or as socially less competent students who had to be raised accordingly. Nevertheless, this compensational-education concerning boys is only one side of the medal. Boys more and more become the losers in the educational system. They have more disciplinary problems than girls have, reach lower scores on their exams, etc. From all this it seemed important to us to clarify the perspective of boys on their student role in connection with their role as boys. METHODS We surveyed 1760 boys between the ages of 14 and 16. The Dortmund survey is, as far as we know, the first quantitative study to concentrate consciously and specifically on boys concerns. We carried out the survey during the academic year 1994/95 in 28 secondary schools of all levels. The questions were given to the boys in written form. Afterwards the boys were interviewed in small groups. The majority of the questions were multiple choice questions, some more detailed questions were to be answered openly.

RESULTS BOYS AND THEIR SELF-PERCEPTION To start with, I shall report on boys self-perception, which among other things is, in part, projection and reveals the guiding ideas of those surveyed. Dissatisfied, often sad or down was the response of only 7 %. Todays boys are either always in a good mood (54 %) or satisfied (22 %). Of course they also assign positive attributes to girls: these are pretty (77 %), witty (55 %) and erotic (54 %). Girls with whom the boys surveyed do not have much to do are by contrast boring (31 %), fickle (31 %) or arrogant (30 %). Asked about their role or position in their own clique, the boys saw themselves as clown (51 %), star (31 %), leader (30 %) or organizer (30 %). It is easy to read the demands of the experience society from these figures: one has to appear well-tempered and popular. The figures contain many indices of typical macho behaviour, but they also reflect the worries and behavioural uncertainties of todays boys. THE CLOWN AND THE PHRASEMONGER More than half of those questioned see themselves if anything as clowns who hide their uncertainties behind practical jokes. Those who always want to be on top of the world cannot find a place in their self-image either because of different (more serious) thoughts and (more self-critical) feelings, or due to the often contradictory social expectations of the boys role. The clown is the symbol of remoteness from other people. He performs in the ring, amusing the spectators or possibly disconcerting them. But it is difficult to find direct contact, closeness and warmth in this picture. The clown remains behind by himself and seeks the company of others. Alongside this tragic aspect there is another: the little heroes have become cool phrasemongers. The chance in values is undermining the binding pattern of masculinity. Merely to be a hero, a macho, is no guarantee of recognition. Witty phrases help one to get out of this dilemma, because one can change ones point of view as often as one likes. Many boys counter criticism with the words: Keep your cool, it wasnt meant seriously. ORGANIZATION OF RELATIONSHIPS The desire to be recognized by others continues to be revealed in the questions about the number of friends. 68 % of the boys surveyed responded by saying they had more than ten friends. 81 % said they had a best friend. An open-ended question gave the boys the opportunity to define what characterized a best friend. The most numerous responses were common interests, trust, reliability, regular and frequent meetings, and mutual give and take. PHYSICAL DISTANCE None of the boys mentioned physical contact in any form as an important feature of being best friends. 86% characterized the relationship as matiness. 2 % of the boys questioned said they had had their best friend in their arms. Physical distance was also a feature of responses to a question about saying hello and goodbye. 76 % shook hands with their best friend! Also vis--vis their fathers, the relationship seems to be organized on a basis of physical distance: 47 % shake hands when they say hello or goodbye to their fathers, 5 % embraced and kissed.

EMOTIONAL DISTANCE The friend is a mate, a pal; but it is not his job to be a comforter in times of trouble. Only 7 % would go to their friends at such times; 36 % would prefer to be alone, or need no comfort (11 %). One boy in ten allows himself to be comforted by his mother, and less than 2 % by their fathers. We chose crying as the form of expression of sorrow and grief, and asked the boys for their assessment. Crying is liberating. Afterwards you always feel better. 60 % of those questioned agreed with this statement. One boy in five thought that crying was for girls, and that a real boy didnt cry. Here we found significant differences depending on the type of school1 attended. 38 % of the secondary modern pupils thought crying was for girls, but only 16 % of the grammar-school boys (the figures for middle and comprehensive schools were 22 % and 24 % respectively). CRYING AND COMFORTING The differential attitude towards crying is re-inforced by the reaction the boys experience when they cry at home. While more than half of mothers comfort their sons (55 %), fathers do this, according to the sons, less often (39 %). Fathers tend rather to distract their sons (35%); mothers do this less (28 %). Even where comfort is given, physical distance is maintained. 29 % of those questioned are embraced by their mothers (14 % by their fathers). Here too there are striking differences depending on the type of school attended. Two not exactly new conclusions can be drawn from this. One is that a higher level of education goes hand in hand with greater potential for expression of emotion and a more differentiated attitude towards ones own emotional world. Secondly it is easier for people with a higher level of education to recognize the socially respectable answer and to give it as their response. The data show that emotions are not among the chief components of a relationship as seen by the boys. To relate to others is, for the boys questioned, something external and non-committal. ROLE MODELS Asked about their role models, 42 % of the boys responded with the name of a sportsman. Father comes in second place (35 %) followed by a film hero form the action-film genre (28 %). Teacher comes in next-to-last place (2 %), even behind politicians. Boys like their role models because they are popular (34 %), have a good turn of phrase (31 %), help people (24 %) or simply just do great things (23 %). Power, physical attractiveness, and being admired by numerous women are attributes which are only by one boy in ten as important characteristics of their role model. FATHER AS ROLE MODEL To start with, it is striking that father is right up near the top of the hit parade of role models. Is this the father as actually experienced or a fantasy father such as the children know from television? Our data show that relationships with fathers are usually characterized by physical and emotional distance. This is a reality which is contradicted by the picture of fathers presented
1

The terms used here are those (formerly) used in Britain, and are by and large correct in their implication; but the equivalence is of course not exact. Middle-school translates Realschule, more demanding than secondary modern (Hauptschule) but without a sixth-form. Comprehensives co-exist with the other forms [translators note].

by the media. In the media, fathers are often political correct, warm, fair and emotionally attached to their sons. Sons must actually want to have fathers like these, and choose them as role models. So place number two is actually occupied by fantasy fathers. Or else, the real father is meant. Why shouldnt one-third of boys choose their real father as their role model as a matter of course? Perhaps everyday things are more important to boys than we think. They sense what their father have achieved and accord it due recognition. The boys are concerned to experience reality, and they value truthfulness. So much for speculation. Let us return to interpretations for which we have evidence. The most frequently named role models are characterized by the fact that they provide simple orientation for discovering their gender identity. Sports competitions are divided unambiguously between mens and womens events. (Action-) films usually work with superficial gender stereotypes. The opposite is true as a rule for the less frequently named role models. Teachers (of both sexes) in particular try to avoid discriminating either boys or girls in the classroom, and exclude the gender question from school routine. Our thesis regarding the survey results is as follows: At school, boys find no response to their needs, uncertainties, problems and questions in the search for their gender identity. Boys behave in typical fashion according to the standard patterns, because the school still one of the most important socialization institutions educates in gender-neutral fashion. SCHOOLS WITHOUT ROLE MODELS When 14 to 16-year-old boys overwhelmingly behave in such typical fashion, I would evaluate this not only as the effect of family socialization, but above all as the effect of gender-neutral education (in the widest sense) at school. More detailed evidence for this will be presented in what follows. Boys want to be taught together with girls. 87 % of the boys responded to the question: Would you rather only have boys in the class? with an emphatic No. Asked for their reasons for co-educational teaching, three-quarters of the boys chose the answer that school with girls was more interesting. 55 % would miss the opportunity to flirt. 30 % of boys gave the gender-role-typical answer: girls ensure more peace and quiet in the classroom. A quarter of those questioned (24 %) believe that they can discuss school problems better with girls. In boys eyes, girls appear more socially competent, which on the one hand points to a typical role image, making girls responsible for the classroom climate, while on the other hand giving expression to their appreciation of the girls. The erotic tension expressed in the boys answer and the desire for the company of the opposite sex is largely ignored by the schools. As an example, we adduce the attitude of the boys towards discrimination against girls at school. Only 4 % believe that there is any. 38 % even believe that there is positive discrimination in favour of girls, while half (51 %) state that treatment of boys and girls is equal. One-third of the boys base their perception in particular on the fact that teachers (of both sexes) think that girls are more intelligent, more hardworking and nicer. A stereotypical answer? Not at all. The responses to a control question show that boys are perfectly capable of a differentiated judgement. Only 17 % believe that girls have things easier than boys, 43 % think this is true in some cases, while 36 % deny the proposition. Either the boys perception is based on a realistic assessment of school routine, or else the school suggests a climate in which gender differences play a marginal role.

MALE OR FEMALE TEACHER The latter proposition is more probable, because it is a matter of indifference to 56 % of the boys whether they are taught by a man or a woman. Only 6 % would prefer to be taught by a man, and 14 % by a woman. 19 % responded that it depended on the subject. Teachers of either sex seem to be perceived by the boys as sexless in their capacity as teachers. The boys (in every sort of school, incidentally) were divided on the question: Would you object to being taught by a (male) homosexual? A total of 49 % would not object. The answers of the 45 % who did object to homosexual teachers are dominated by the fear of molestation. Often the answers were accompanied by disparaging comments on gays in general. THE GENDER ISSUE AT SCHOOL To support the search for gender identity is one of the schools socialization functions. This function can only be fulfilled if questions of relationship between the sexes are an express topic of teaching. In the school routine there is neither time nor space for this. Treatment of the subject in school is usually rational, superficial and anxiety-ridden. Often the question of relationship between the sexes is a sensitive issue even among the staff, and one which teachers (of either sex) have not prepared. Female teachers are subject to macho remarks from male colleagues; heads and deputy heads are usually men. The school itself, therefore, provides no role models for boys at present. WORK WITH BOYS AT SCHOOL Boys approach school with their need for orientation in their search for gender identity and find little response. One of the proposals for dealing with this situation is the formation of boys groups. 53 % of the boys themselves think this unnecessary. 26%, however, would welcome a boys group. The high rejection rate is not surprising. After all, the boys have no familiarity with such groups, and identify them with discussion or self-experience group. These groups, however, should primarily be devoted to the discussion of school problems (47 %), relationships with girls (46 %), violence (45 %) and sexuality (42 %). But two-thirds of the boys thought that these topics should be part of regular teaching, and dealt with in the presence of girls. Boys groups should centre on joint undertakings like sport and excursions (59%). Boys groups are in our assessment not just places for reflecting on their own gender roles, but also, and most easily, opportunities for leisure activities. Work with boys usually also bears this in mind. A critical look at ones own gender role and the demands arising from it should be stimulated by activity and experience. A conscious examination of questions of gender identity should, in the boys opinion, be anchored in the school routine. This is not to say that teachers (of either sex) should come into the classroom armed with new educational concepts. Quite simply, what is wanted are teachers who do not hide behind things and concepts, but who provide male and female reference points in a person-oriented fashion, so that they can be identified by their pupils (of both sexes) as, primarily, men and women. SUMMARY In the beginning we wanted to clarify the perspective of boys on their student role in connection with their role as boys. The first part about boys self-perceptions hints at the 5

guiding ideas of those surveyed. They describe themselves mostly positive, also assigning positive attributes to the girls with whom they have much to do. The named roles in their cliques all reflect worries and behavioural uncertainties of todays boys. The clown and the phrasemonger is a performer, for him it is difficult to find direct contact, closeness and warmth. He remains behind himself and seeks the company of others. A great majority of those questioned says that they have a best friend, some less say they have ten or more friends. Physical contact plays no part in boys friendships. Most boys merely shake hands to say hello or goodbye to their best friend, almost half shake hand with their fathers while only a very small number embraced and kissed. Not only physical but also emotional distance is a part of boys lives. In times of trouble, very few go to their friend, looking for comfort. Many say they would prefer to be alone or they need no comfort. Still one fifth thought crying was for girls. The experiences of crying at home vary. A difference between the type of school attended is striking. A higher level of education goes hand in hand with greater potential for expression of emotion. Also socially respectable answers appear more clearly to people with a higher level of education. When asked about role models, sportsmen come first, fathers come in second place. The place of the father can be based on either a fantasy father the boys know from the media or on their real fathers which would imply that everyday things are more important to boys than we think. All the named role models provide simple orientation for discovering their gender identity. The idea of schools without role models, gender-neutral education becomes evident when asking boys about coeducation. Almost all of those questioned said they prefer being taught together with girls. Girls make school more interesting, boys can flirt with girls and girls appear more socially competent to boys. Boys desire of company of the opposite sex is largely ignored by the schools. The majority of boys are indifferent to whether they are taught by a man or a woman. Teachers seem to be perceives by boys as sexless in their capacity as teachers. There is neither time nor space for relationships between the sexes in school. Furthermore it is still a sensitive issue even among the staff. Boys groups are a way of offering orientation for boys in their search for gender identity. However, the topics to be discussed here are, by the boys, thought to be part of regular teaching. What is needed in school are teachers who provide male and female reference points so that they can be identified by their pupils as, primarily, men and women. In this sense our thesis regarding the gender-neutral education in school has been verified. The results show that we still know too little about boys ideas because we dont ask them very often, and when we ask them, we dont take the answers seriously. Educators (of either sex) tend too easily to see the boys perspectives only through the spectacles of their own role models. But thats not what boys want. If there are role models on which they orientate themselves, then they are the adults whom they meet every day. REFERENCES Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. Glencoe / Ill. 1951. Zimmermann, Peter (1998) Junge! Junge! Theorien zur geschlechtstypischen Sozialisation und Ergebnisse einer Jugenbefragung. Dortmund (IFS-Verlag, Institut fr Schulentwicklungsforschung der Universitt Dortmund.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
INTERNATIONAL VIEWS ON EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Editors ULLA HRKNEN (Editor-in-Chief) & ERKKI SAVOLAINEN (Editor), University of Joensuu, Finland Editorial Board PHILOMENA DONNELLY, St. Patrick's College, Ireland; SIDSEL GERMETEN, Finnmark University College, Norway; ULLA HRKNEN, University of Joensuu, Finland; ANNA KIENIG, University of Bialystok, Poland Publisher University of Joensuu, Savonlinna Department of Teacher Education 2008