Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Boys doing art : negotiating masculinities within art curriculum Imms, Wesley David 2003

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-792277.pdf [ 22.51MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054888.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054888-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054888-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054888-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054888-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054888-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054888-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054888-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054888.ris

Full Text

Boys Doing Art B O Y S D O I N G A R T : N E G O T I A T I N G M A S C U L I N I T I E S W I T H I N A R T C U R R I C U L U M . B y W E S L E Y D A V I D I M M S B.Ed. , University of South Australia, 1985 M . A . , University of British Columbia, 1997 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y In T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Curriculum Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A February 2003 © Wesley David Imms, 2003 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date Z-S- - P S * DE-6 (2/88) Boys Doing Art ii ABSTRACT A recent stream of gender discussion has focused on a better understanding of the ways in which boys construct their concepts of masculinity, and the role of schools in this process. However, what has largely escaped attention has been the ways that individual subject curricula provide boys with opportunities to develop their concepts of gender. A participant-as-observer ethnography was conducted over one academic year in a single-sex, fee-paying school for boys to examine this issue. Evidence from informal and formal observations and interviews of 40 staff and students was used to document participants' beliefs concerning the structure of masculinity, the provision of opportunities within the school and art curriculum for boys to negotiate their concepts of masculinity, and the role of art curriculum in boys' development of gender identities. Participants' responses created a four-layered model of boys' engagement of masculinity. They allowed the researcher to describe and analyse a complex hierarchy of forms of such engagement that ranged from a superficial level comprising a predictable picture of stereotypes, to an almost inaccessible layer of "individual" masculinities. This final layer, described by boys as separate from their culture and constructed of their personal values and beliefs, owned characteristics similar to those being sought by contemporary gender research. Six barriers that limited boys' access to this final layer were identified in the school. They included the dominance of cultural stereotypes, a lack of a safe forum for the exploration of gender identities and an emphasis on a school curriculum that failed to facilitate expression. Additional barriers were related to the lack of freedom within classrooms, curriculum that generally came short of accommodating boys' unique ways of learning, and very limited opportunities to develop egalitarian relationships. Participants identified the school's art curriculum as "boy-friendly", in that it assisted boys to overcome these barriers. It held personal significance for boys, mandated exploration of "the self, created a safe venue for expression and communication, and provided academic, intellectual and curricula freedom. It "levelled the playing field" between differing types of boys, allowed multiple solutions to problems, offered Boys Doing Art i i i curriculum that was relevant to boys "real" lives, was non-competitive, and allowed teachers to focus on "the personal" with boys. These findings hold considerable significance for both art education and masculinity research. The study indicates that many boys already own the impetus to explore egalitarian masculinities. However, they require curricular support for this to happen in schools. Research presented in this thesis suggests that a discipline-oriented art curriculum owns epistemological and pedagogical qualities that can make it an exemplar of this type of curriculum. Boys Doing Art iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table Of Contents iv List Of Tables viii List Of Figures ix Preface x Acknowledgements xi Dedication xiii SECTION I: ANTECEDENTS Introduction To Section I: The Ill-defined But Inescapable Link Between Curriculum And Boys' Masculinity Development 1 Chapter 1 Framing The Issues: Art And The "Mysteries of Masculinity" 3 An Overview Of The Chapter 3 1.1 Some Questions Concerning Boys "In Isolation" 3 1.2 One Boy Doing Art 8 1.3 Can Art Unlock Some Of The "Mysteries" Of Masculinity? 21 1.4 What Issues Does This Study Address? 22 1.5 The Structure Of This Thesis 24 Conclusion 25 Chapter 2 What We Know: Masculinity And Education 27 An Overview Of The Chapter 27 2.1 What Is Masculinity? 27 2.2 Representations Of Masculinity: A Critique 43 2.3 How Is Masculinity Multiple? 47 2.4 Multiple Masculinities And Schooling 54 Conclusion 60 Chapter 3 What We Know: Art Education Curriculum And Masculinity 63 An Overview Of The Chapter 63 3.1 What Is "Discipline-oriented Art Education Curriculum"? 63 Boys Doing Art v 3.2 Art Curriculum And Gender 73 3.3 Art Curriculum And Masculinity 92 Conclusion 96 Conclusion To Section I: What We Need to Know - The Call For Qualitative Inquiry Into Masculinity And Art Education 97 Research Foci • 98 SECTION II: METHODOLOGY Introduction To Section II: Framing The Study 99 Chapter 4 The Nature Of Ethnographic Research And What it Contributes To This Study 103 An Overview Of The Chapter 103 4.1 Origins, Structure And Implementation Of Ethnography 103 4.2 Why Use Ethnography? 122 Conclusion 124 Chapter 5 The First Phase, "Conceptualising The Boundaries" 125 An Overview Of The Chapter 125 5.1 First Access 126 5.2 Initial Impressions 128 5.3 Preliminary Study Design And Procedure 157 Conclusion 161 Conclusion To Section II 163 SECTION III: THE STUDY Introduction To Section III: Boys Doing Art 165 Chapter 6 The Second Phase, "Immersion" 167 An Overview Of The Chapter 167 6.1 I mmersion 168 6.2 Reflections On My Immersion 202 Conclusion 218 Chapter 7 The Third Phase, "Emerging Themes" 221 Bays Doing Art vi Overview Of The Chapter 221 7.1 Structure Of The Interviews 222 7.2 The Interviews: Art Curriculum 224 7.3 The Interviews: Masculinity 245 7.4 The Interviews: The School 268 7.5 Reflections On My Emerging Themes 289 7.6 A Preliminary Model of the Phenomenon Of Boys Exploring Masculinity Through Art Education 293 Conclusion 298 Chapter 8 The Fourth Phase, "Making Sense" 301 Overview of the Chapter • 301 8.1 What Range of Masculinities Exist In The School? 301 8.2 What Role Does Art Play In Boys' Negotiation of Masculinities? 325 8.3 Does the School Impact Art's Role In Boys' Masculinity Development? 340 Conclusion 342 Chapter 9 The Fifth Phase, "Wider Contexts" 346 Overview Of The Chapter 346 9.1 The Significance Of Boys Doing Art For Masculinity Discussion 346 9.2 The Significance Of Boys Doing Art For Art Education Curriculum Development And Gender Research 354 9.3 Recommendations For Future Research 358 Conclusion To Section III, And A Final Observation 360 References 366 Appendix A Details Of Greene's College 393 Appendix B An Extract From The Greene's College Art Curriculum 394 Appendix C An Extract From The Greene's College Art Syllabus 397 Boys Doing Art vii Appendix D Catalogue Of Observations and Interviews 401 Appendix E A Page From The Field Diary '. 406 Appendix F Line Plot Of Frequencies Of Observations And Interviews 407 Appendix G Consent Letter To Student Participants 408 Appendix H List Of Codes 411 Appendix I Original Interview Questions Resulting From Immersion Data 412 Boys Doing Art viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Sampling For Interviews: Summary And Profile Of Interviewees 155 Boys Doing Art ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 The Triptych of Concerns for Boys' Schooling 16 Figure 2 Orientations of Current Gender Theories 43 Figure 3 A Model of the Application of Multiple Masculinities Principles to Boys' Studies 59 Figure 4 Provincial Model that Guides Greene's Art Curriculum 70 Figure 5 Preliminary Sampling Framework 151 Figure 6 Phases of the Study 157 Figure 7 Interview Questions Resulting from Immersion Data 223 Figure 8 Boys' Layered Engagement of Masculinity 303 Figure 9 The Qualities of Curriculum That Boys Identify as Helping Them Negotiate Masculinities 326 Bays Doing Art PREFACE Some aspects of the data included in this thesis have been explored in articles that have either been previously published, or are currently in the process of publication, by this author. The discussion of the various disciplinary approaches to masculinity (pages 27-62) was published in 2000 under the title "Multiple masculinities and the schooling of boys" in the Canadian Journal of Education. 25. (2) 152-164. Boys' responses to the interview questions concerning art education (pages 224-244) are currently in press by Australian Art Education under the title "Boys talk about 'doing art': Some implications for art education." Malcolm's story, and the associated discussion concerning boys and art education (pages 8 to 21), is currently under review by Art Education under the title "Searching for meaning in one boys' experiences doing art". Boys Doing Art xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to my Doctoral Supervisor, Professor AnnaKindler (Department of Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia, and now Dean, School of Creative Arts, Sciences and Technology, Hong Kong Institute of Education) for her assistance not only during this project, but also throughout my whole graduate studies. Professor Kindler has been untiring in her attention to my many academic needs. I thank her for her professionalism, her friendship, her support, and her genuine interest in my growth as a researcher. I could not have hoped for a more skilled mentor. I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee, Professor Jane Gaskell (Associate Dean, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia) and Professor Donald Fisher (Department of Education Studies, University of British Columbia), for their wisdom, patience and guidance. It must be a challenge to act in this role to a student living on a different continent. Professor Gaskell and Professor Fisher provided excellent advice on critical issues. I am indebted to their efforts. The Principal, staff and students of "Greene's College" are owed a special thanks. They were overwhelmingly supportive of the project from my first approach in 1997, and continued this interest through to the completion of the thesis. The art staff, in particular "Meg", and "Victor" were instrumental in making Boys Doing Art a success. I cannot begin to describe the generosity with which they treated me. With little or no reward possible, they continually opened their doors and fully encouraged my investigation of their teaching. Likewise, many of the staff (both teaching and administrative) and boys of Greene's College participated with enthusiasm in this project by giving of their time, and "opening up" in a way that allowed the ideas contained in this text to grow. My children Tyson and Phoebe (and now, recently, Lachlan) deserve acknowledgement for their support through patience. During the long years of our graduate studies, Christine and I often discussed the rewards that children receive when they watch their parents role model the many struggles and accomplishments of studentship. Now that this time is past I can state that these rewards come at a considerable cost. A lack of finances, a pre-occupied father, and hours spent listening to mind-numbing discussions were the reality of their lives for some time. While the spectacular environment of Western Canada, and the lifelong friendships formed with the Bays Doing Art xii wonderful people of Vancouver were a huge benefit of our time there, Tyson and Phoebe are to be commended on the maturity they displayed in accepting their lot with a spirit of adventure. My wife Christine has been a partner in my studies for many years. Her interest, enthusiasm and willingness to discuss the many aspects of the project's progress were the foundation of its eventual successful completion. Christine accepted without murmur the increased workload my studies caused, and supported my progress even when 1 felt none existed. It is because of her support and confidence in my abilities that I am now able to look back on a rewarding and profitable period of my life. I pass on my heartfelt thanks to the teaching staff of the Faculty of Education with whom I had contact, and particularly to those within the Department of Curriculum Studies who guided my development for a number of years. I must also thank The University of British Columbia for their generous financial support through the endowment of University Graduate Fellowships in 1997, 1999,2000 and 2001. I add my thanks to the Department of Language, Literacy and Arts Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia, for its support during the final writing and defence stages of this project. From this University, I am also indebted to Ms Kate Donelan, a most willing listener and knowledgeable adviser, and Mr Chris Ullbrick, a master of software issues, for their valued help. Beys Doing Art xiii DEDICATION To Mike Pickering. A wonderful man. Boys Doing Art SECTION I: ANTECEDENTS Introduction to Section I: The Ill-defined But Inescapable Link Between Curriculum and Boys' Masculinity Development Boys Doing Art is situated at the intersection of contemporary masculinity theory and art education curriculum. The study explores the wonderful phenomenon of boys doing art, and the special role art curriculum can play as they negotiate with their peers their individual concepts of "being male". In the process, the project makes the case that masculinity is not a mysterious entity removed from boys daily experiences; rather, boys engage daily with their peers in negotiating and mediating their own values and beliefs about masculinity. As such, masculinity a multiple construct, is constantly in a state of movement as a concept, and the school curriculum, particularly art curriculum, plays an important role as a vehicle for these actions. The link between art curriculum and masculinity development is very real, much utilised by boys, and inescapably linked to many boys' active development of masculine mores. The text is divided into three sections. They slowly immerse us into what is a complex issue, beginning with the Antecedents; what we know, think we know, and should know about masculinity. The second section, Methodology, frames the study itself; how it was planned, its methodology, and the basic background information of the site school, gained during a preliminary "pilot study". The third section, The Study, immerses us into the lives of a number of boys and members of staff, by recording their ideas and beliefs and actions. These observations are influenced by my own biases as a teacher and a researcher. But owing to the inclusion of considerable amounts of participants' own comments and observations, I hope the ideas represented and Boys Doing Art 2 conclusions drawn are presented with enough impartiality to allow the reader to form individual interpretations of what was seen and heard. This section concludes by applying results from this study to the wider context of current masculinity debate in schools, and suggestions are made concerning future directions for education strategies and gender research. Section I positions provides background information to the study by positioning the researcher in terms of his interests and the particular lens through which he views this phenomenon, by describing previous research (and lack of research) on this topic, and by placing Boys Doing Art within this literature. Boys Doing Art 3 Chapter 1: Framing the Issues - Art and the "Mysteries" of Masculinity An Overview of the Chapter Inquiries into educational practice are often inspired by teachers' experiences in the classroom. This study is no different. My curiosity about boys doing art was slowly shaped by the actions of many boys across a decade of teaching. Of the hundreds of incidents I witnessed, some events and some students were, perhaps subconsciously, identified as "significant" and book-marked in my memory for future appraisal. This chapter will situate Boys Doing Art within such beginnings by providing an account of the way that one boy's experience of operating within the art curriculum has ramifications well beyond the immediacy of his situation. Using this vignette, in Chapter 11 will outline the key issues to be addressed in Boys Doing Art; I will situate in a preliminary way these issues within the broader field of boys' schooling issues; I will define the parameters of this study; I will describe the structure of the report and its limitations. Some Questions Concerning Boys "In Isolation" Walking towards Greene's College 11 am struck by the fact that as a structure it is not at all what I expected. Its physical presence seems so much at odds with its reputation. From my experience with privileged private schools, and from what I'd heard about Greene's College , I expected something grand; a magnificent main entrance, or an impressive facade, or rows of award winning buildings stretching out of sight. Instead, I am faced with something quite humble and unpretentious, a medium-sized flat building that looks like it has been given secondary position to a number of sports fields on the site. 1 This is a pseudonym. In a move characteristic of its openess, the school requested to waive its right to anonymity. It was my decision to continue to use pseudonyms in order to protect the identity of individual participants. Boys Doing Art 4 With all this space available, its single storey structure is surprisingly close to the street, hiding quite meekly behind a row of cedars. The inconspicuous brick walls, the low-slung roofline, and the school's uncomplicated gardens around its perimeters, all help to create a feeling of comfortable existence without ostentatious trappings. In a way, the school's architecture makes rather unimpressionable first impact on a visitor. The only hint of affluence from the first view of Greene's College, the only indication this place owns a privileged status amongst schools in the Western Canadian city that is its home, is a clerestory ceiling rising from the centre of the school block and running half the building's length. This metal and glass edifice strikes me as architectural whimsy, as something that is uncharacteristic to the rest of the structure, and as being suggestive of extravagance somewhere at the heart of this institution. My impression is that it is the only outward sign that this school has money, it has prestige, and it enjoys privilege, the rewards earned from sixty years of successfully catering to the schooling needs of some of this city's wealthiest children. In spite of the non-intimidating nature of the building, I am still quite nervous approaching the school. I feel overwhelmed by the feeling that I am being presumptuous in assuming some mandate to impose myself into the life of this place. However, the fact is that I have been given permission to be an observer for a school year amongst the people of Greene's College, to ask questions and to record their daily lives. My purpose is to report how its inhabitants view complex phenomena that are challenging educators into the twenty first century - the mysteries surrounding the way we are schooling our young males towards "manhood". Looking at Greene's College I realise that there is no better place to begin my search for answers. This school only educates boys, and its concentration of young men in Boys Doing Art 5 one place is going to be very efficient for my study. Of greater interest, however, is that by being single-sex, its covert function is to "school for the man", to take young boys and prepare them for their various roles in society. I am intensely interested in this phenomenon because it presents, in an actual education setting, something that is normally only theorised. Educators are beginning to discuss more widely the idea of "schooling for masculinity", and here, in this all-boy school, there is an example of it being enacted. However, choosing a single-sex school does have its drawbacks. The current climate of contemporary gender research in education often portrays such institutions to be an anachronism. Boys, this research claims, already enjoy the privilege of being the dominant gender and we do not need schools that try to accentuate this advantage. Schools that have resisted "going co-ed" during the sweeping wave of gender reform during the 1980s, it is argued, have ignored the reality of what "gender" means in the new age, and this has condemned them to a slow and ponderous shuffle towards extinction. Certainly, during my reading on this subject I have not found any influential genre of research that supports all-boys' schools. By all rights, I should be avoiding this elite, privileged and exclusionary place like the plague. Yet, as I walk towards Greene's College and question in my mind just what I really am hoping to do here over the next year, I feel excited by a strong sense of purpose. My aim is to gain a better understanding of boys' and their schooling. My experience suggests this is the best place to begin. This sense of "lightness" owes it roots to my many years of classroom teaching. For a decade before beginning graduate studies, I taught in primary and secondary schools in Australia. One of those schools was also all-boys, an institution with a similar "feel" to Greene's College . That school was about the same size in terms of student numbers, it Boys Doing Art 6 had a similar reputation amongst the community, and I suppose it also had a common purpose. During those years as a teacher and administrator of art, I witnessed what I felt were both positive and negative issues to do with all-boys' schools. I accepted as logical the argument that the lack of girls meant boys missed some valuable "social skills" development. I accepted the assumption that so many boys together created a heightened sense of "machismo" with a result being a corresponding sexist school culture. I could also see how the bond of "brotherhood", created so strongly in these schools, resulted in an elitist network among its graduates as they lived out their lives in the community. Certainly some of the practices of these schools were questionable. They had a largely male staff, justified on the grounds that "boys need role models" (except for the almost exclusively female staff teaching the early years where, conversely, they were not described a role models but as "nurturers"). The rhetoric "we do better without girls" created an arrogant and worrying image. An unpleasant aura of privilege and elitism permeated most levels of these schools. I drew on these reflections often during my graduate studies as I considered and questioned the merits or otherwise of all-boy education. To reinforce my negativity, my fellow education students' automatic litany of the disadvantages of these schools worked in tandem with the predictable treatment and surprisingly sparse representation of single-sex boys' schools in the academic literature. Eventually, however, my mind began to register inconsistencies between, on the one hand, the theory that these schools were "hot houses of chauvinism", and on the other hand, many of the things I remember seeing while working in such institutions. Contrary to boys always marginalizing "the other", I remembered specific instances where boys I taught actively embraced what could only be called egalitarian concepts of gender. Rather than being aggressive and oppressive I Boys Doing Art 7 remembered specific examples of boys I taught coming to me for help with the harassment they were experiencing not from their peers but from staff, parents, and even from girls in sister schools. Rather than being non-communicative, insular and non-expressive, I remembered specific examples of boys I taught actively negotiating with others their individual beliefs concerning violence, rape, social injustice, wealth, race, equality, homosexuality, and so on. My own experience in all-boys' schools brought me to the realisation that educational literature on this topic was deficient, possibly to the point of misrepresentation. I surprised myself by beginning to question if there might be many positive attributes of all-boys' schools that went against the arguments I had previously accepted without question. Although I was feeling an increasing discomfort about these gaps in the literature, I never the less stopped short of a determination to justify the existence of all-boys schools. They are quite capable of defending themselves, and they have often been insulated by their wealth from the need to do so. I eventually realised that my increasing discomfort did not come from this "misrepresentation" of all-boys' schools, but from the descriptions of the boys themselves. When analysing these institutions researchers were, for once, challenged to deal with boys in isolation. Thus, reading about male single-sex schools opened the door to the literature that dealt with boys within gender debate. As I immersed myself in the literature, I developed a suspicion that educational researchers appeared to know very little about boys' actual practices. Although (or perhaps because) boys were rarely specifically addressed, their role in studies concerning a myriad of gender concerns in education tended towards generalisations about what they thought and why they acted the way they did. Boys dominated discussions, boys bullied, boys relegated girls to positions of inferiority, boys were selective in their subject choices Boys' Doing Art 8 and they marginalised those who differed from the norm. The literature contained monolith assumptions about boys, and suggested that few writers had stopped to listen to what boys actually had to say, or to ask them what their behaviours really meant. This omission was critical because, in my experience, boys had much to offer in the quest for gender-equal schooling, if only we would listen. On that winter morning, looking at the facade of Greene's College , the strong sense of purpose I felt came from the realisation that many boys taught by me over the years had been challenging me to explore in greater depth the phenomenon of their masculine development. Their actions in my art classes had been showing me that education's comprehensive theoretical knowledge about gender was hindered by poor practical knowledge of masculinity. This literature was plagued with assumptions, generalisations, and stereotypes, and appeared more rooted in socio-scientific theory than being reflective of what boys actually did. The boys had also been providing me a point of entry for my studies; the way they used their art lessons. I had consistently noticed boys' willingness to open themselves to others as they engaged in the "creative process" of making and talking about art. There was, I felt, something that existed within the art curriculum, which provided insights into a whole new aspect of boys' behaviour - an aspect that was totally contrary to those behaviours much of our gender literature in education told us to expect. One Boy Doing Art One example would be Malcolm 2, a boy I first taught when he was in grade five. Many members of the staff thought him to be quite "different", a boy who often kept to himself and had a tendency to brood over issues and argue against popular trends. He was 2 A pseudonym Boys Doing Art 9 mostly quiet in class but he also had the ability to flare into emotive arguments against fellow students - and at times, even against what a staff member was teaching. He had a history of temper tantrums and low-level violence, a history of truancy, and a history of good academic ability displayed in a very haphazard manner. Personally, I found him to be a great student to teach. As I showed slides of artists and spoke about the ideas that drove their passions, Malcolm would sit quietly listening, his red hair over his slight, pale face a picture of contemplative interest. When some other students would give in to the temptation of flippant and shallow answers, Malcolm would often become annoyed and would counter with responses demonstrating quite insightful thinking. If an assignment in our studio component met his approval, it was always done competently and completed to a standard that showed this boy could take a challenge seriously. But he was often a loner, or at best had a single close friend. The other boys mostly treated him with indifference. Malcolm's carefully articulated answers in class discussions often seemed to wash over them with little effect. All in all, as far as I was concerned, the skinny little kid was a good student but a little out of place with many of his peers. One Saturday afternoon when he was in grade six, Malcolm and a friend broke into a local suburban primary school and vandalised a number of classrooms and offices. The authorities measured the damage in the thousands of dollars, they called the police who laid charges, and the wheels of our society's justice system were put into motion against Malcolm. On the following Monday morning, talk in the staff room centred on this "strange little kid", how he had "finally really done it", how the Principal would be forced to "come down on him". The general opinion was that he would be expelled. So it was with some interest we waited for the Tuesday staff meeting to hear an official verdict on Boys Doing Art 10 the boy. During that meeting, the Principal spoke of Malcolm's future - how expulsion would begin for an eleven-year-old boy a downward spiral, which would be extremely difficult for him to break. Amongst the eloquent phrases we were used to hearing from our leader came an important message - this boy was not bad, he didn't deserve this type of future, and that we, the school, must fight for Malcolm. Malcolm came back to school a few days later looking quite sheepish. He seemed to withdraw from the fame that his attempts at school refurbishment had provided him with his peers. With the Principal's mandate in mind, I watched Malcolm with interest over the next few years. In grade seven and eight he became increasingly interested in the visual arts. While not necessarily "gifted", Malcolm was focused, he was prolific, and he became captivated by two aspects of his art. He relished the challenge of art production, and he thrived in articulating the ideas that drove his work. He was always involved with his fellow students in the banter and discussions and arguments that are part of being active in art, often involving the lives and philosophies of the artists on whom we reflected during our studio work. Malcolm chose art as an option in grade nine and ten and appeared in the studios more and more often during lunch hours and after school, as well as enrolling in a number of our evening extension programs. The intellectual properties of the subject, however, seemed to captivate him as much as anything. This included the history lessons which challenged boys to think about their work in context of the social philosophies of other artists, and the discussions with the other boys concerning their art works, what was working and what wasn't and why, with no two opinions ever the same and no conclusions ever reached. The subject also included analysis of his work and friends' work and other artists' work, where he appeared to develop deeper perception skills and Boys Doing Art 11 ability to make reasoned judgments about what he could see. In short, it was the combination of history, of the discussion of aesthetics, of participating in arts criticism, which supported and strengthened his studio production, and appeared to turn Malcolm's art into a rich source of intellectual inquiry. I remember during the year when Malcolm was in grade ten, a secretive and mysterious nihilistic conceptual art group emerged within the school. Occurring suspiciously soon after his class studied Surrealism and Dada, a number of posters appeared around the school advertising the "coming of the Floppy Oreos", and some anonymous articles were published in the school magazine that argued this group's driving philosophy. These types of activities went on for some time until, dramatically, there was a "coming out". The group (Malcolm and a friend) stood and read a political manifesto during an English Literature class before a bewildered teacher who was sure the lesson had started by exploring mysticism in Shakespeare. The manifesto proclaimed a state of "moral anarky" (sic), and signified the beginning of a period of activity the likes of which the school had not seen before. Students in the school were captivated; from that time on something different was always happening as Malcolm and another student tried to outdo each other in conceptual "happenings". There were pictures of marijuana being grown in pots on the roof of the Supreme Court building (doctored, we preferred to believe). A student sat all night in a hallway, dressed in a tuxedo, his diary of "thoughts" on a plinth before him, his eight hours of immobility captured on video for fortunate examiners to later watch. There were all-weekend art expeditions where inexplicable things were done with canvas and baked beans and celebrated in class the following week via Polaroid photographs. Students were wrapped in plastic and placed ceremoniously in the middle of a sports field. There was a Boys Doing Art 12 confusing incident during the first XI's training one evening concerning some flour and a wheelbarrow. Perhaps most importantly, there was a flurry of intellectual debate. I still have memories of slight Malcolm, paintbrush in hand, standing in the middle of the art room having a toe-to-toe argument about Andy Warhol with the school bully, a boy who in any other venue would have knocked him flat just for being within arm's reach. This was a period of intense activity, with philosophical statements and academic essays written and distributed, groups of students arguing and conspiring, the normality of art lessons thrown out the window. Luckily for the school and the art staff, the rigorous grade eleven and twelve academic years looked like they would dampen the mischievous aspect of Malcolm's imagination, perhaps bring him down to earth a little and give the art staff some respite. But characteristically for Malcolm, from the very start of grade eleven he began turning out a stunning body of work, which caused quite a stir around the school. The works shocked us. Firstly, they were large, most about a metre and a half square, painted in oil on canvas. However it was their content that caused us the most problems. I remember one painting that contained strong sexual overtones was ripped off the wall by an incensed woodwork teacher in his self-appointed role as school morals watch-guard. The next day it was presented to the vice principal as "an insult to one's sensibilities" and the art staff spent an interesting morning defending the artwork and Malcolm's right to express in this way. During this year, Malcolm's art depicted his disgust concerning violence, rape, social injustice, capitalist oppression of society, and the moral degradation of society, themes in which many teenagers doing matriculation art seem to wallow. However, he had a way of Boys Doing Art 13 presenting them in a provocative, powerful context that made you sit up and take notice. He used a limited palette, he strongly manipulated his oils, and he employed stark composition. One of his works, called "Rape", appropriated a popular commercial icon, the image of a girl that appeared on millions of boxes of matches. In Malcolm's work she was naked, tied and gagged, threatened by two males with guns, a clumsy yet powerful symbol of the sexual exploitation of women by capitalism. Another, called "Suicide" depicted a figure in the very act of committing suicide. The subject had an actual Band-Aid stuck over his mouth; the superficiality of society's attempts to remedy the anguish of the individual. And there were many others just like them, all of them powerful and challenging works. I believe for Malcolm the paintings were very much the end-point of a long process. His studio work was supported by a wealth of assignments and statements, explanations and philosophical meandering, jottings in his journal, presentations to his class, endless discussions with other boys and art staff - all of which served as a powerful conceptual underpinning to his studio work. This theoretical foundation enabled him to survive his confrontation with the morals police in the vice principal's office, and that empowered him to engage his peers so successfully in absorbing debates. These processes lead to a heightened knowledge that, by grade eleven, had Malcolm leaving me floundering in his wake. Ultimately this was not important, as he never made it to grade twelve. The art staff was persuaded (perhaps even relieved) to let him enter his portfolio a year early in the annual matriculation external assessment at the end of his eleventh grade. Malcolm's work, and his defense of this work, so impressed the external moderators he won one of the higher grades in the state for art and was given an early admission into the local university to begin his Bachelor of Fine Arts. Boys Doing Art 14 As I walked the driveway towards Greene's College the first day of the study it was reminisces of Malcolm that fdled my mind and helped me clarify my purpose. In my mind I came to the realisation I was not being presumptuous in assuming some mandate. My experiences teaching students like Malcolm and researching boys in education had led me consistently towards this place at this time. Of the hundreds of students I had taught, his case was the one I most remembered - not because he was necessarily unique, but because his story resonated with significance concerning the unanswered questions about boys' schooling in my mind. This experience provided me with some meaningful connections I thought had the potential to fill the void between education's haphazard and theory-based literature on masculinity and the reality of what boys did in classrooms, and suggested to me the contribution this study could make to gender knowledge in education. The real importance of Malcolm's experiences is not immediately apparent. On the surface it reads as a heart-warming "success" story. I am sure the headmaster would agree. At a young age Malcolm was on the verge of being made to live with the fact he had thrown away a benefit his parents, good people who certainly were not well off, had saved for years to give him. The headmaster's belief in the boy and in the school most likely made a significant difference to this scared boy. Perhaps it was also a success for this all-boys school. Although it is quite possible Malcolm might have worked through his problems in a co-educational institution, the fact was it happened in this school, the type of place that much of the literature tells us is a hothouse for the breeding of competitive, insular males who actively seek to marginalise "the other". In some way, this school developed a boy-culture that provided Malcolm opportunity and freedom to negotiate his own unique identity. Boys Doing Art 15 Art education should also claim Malcolm's story as one of its successes. The focus on a discipline-oriented curriculum, particularly during those formative late primary and early high school years, with the slide shows and weekly art history lessons, the adherence to a skills-oriented curriculum slowly building his abilities year after year, the critique sessions, peer reviews and peer assessments where Malcolm argued and gave way, where others began to "see through the artist's eyes". Al l these things made a difference. While other subjects may, in different ways, provide similar challenges to boys, art can enjoy some credit here for being the vehicle for Malcolm's renaissance, the tool he used for his rebirth from "boy in trouble" to "boy makes good". I must admit it was at this superficial level I often analysed art's importance to boys. Over many years of teaching the subject there were many "Malcolms", all with different stories but unified by the fact they used art as a foundation, or as a fulcrum in their efforts to build and express their identities. As such, art, and the schools that supported progressive art programs, deserved considerable credit. However it is beyond a simple apportioning of credit that the significance of Malcolm's story lies. At a second level of analysis his experiences are heavy with meaning for boys' current educational "predicament". Malcolm's experiences "flesh out" some impersonal but worrying statistics about boys' difficulties in schools. For some time academic journals, the popular press, scholarly writings, school newsletters, and government reports to name a few sources, have been providing what is becoming an irritatingly familiar litany of boys troubles. Modern age boys in Western countries, this literature proclaims, are experiencing academic, social and relationship problems (Figure 1). In the hyper-equality climate of modern society and education, boys are apparently the new underclass (Clarke, 1997; Men, tomorrow's second sex, 1996). They perform worse Boys Doing Art 1 6 BOYS' SOCIAL CONCERNS BOYS' RELATIONSHIP CONCERNS Suicide Violence Unemployment Incarceration Avoidance of Leadership Behavioural Disorders Immaturity Sexism Chauvinism Restrictive 'hierarchies' 'CRISIS" OF MASCULINITY BOYS' I ACADEMIC CONCERNS Under-achievement Retention-between-classes Learning Disorders Figure 1. The triptych of concerns for boys' schooling. in academic tests compared to girls (Pascal & Bertram, 1995), their levels of literacy fall below those of girls, and they are more likely than girls to experience retention between grades - to be held back a grade (Lee & Bryck, 1986). Boys are the majority of cases diagnosed with learning disorders (Bushweller, 1995). Boys are less likely to attend universities than girls (Duffy, 1996), and contrary to common beliefs they are less likely to have meaningful careers than girls (Pascal & Bertram, 1995). These factors combine to construct social problems. Boys often have low self-esteem. Boys have lower career expectations than girls. Boys are more likely than girls to be unemployed. Boys form the majority of behaviour disorders (Soderman & Phillips, 1986). Boys are many times more likely than girls to commit suicide, to have a car accident, to be incarcerated, and to be victims of violence (Bushweller, 1995). Boys Doing Art 17 These genuine causes for concern irritate because they are often quoted in such limiting ways that little useful theory for educators has resulted. Two arguments have predominated. One approach argues such statistics prove boys are in crisis. Society, it claims, is on a feminist inspired attack on boys where equality of opportunity has swung too far towards the feminine and is now systematically destroying all that is masculine in our schools. Boys have no acceptable male role, no rites of passage. There is no recognition of, or catering to, the essential characteristics of masculinity, which in the past have served our community so well. A responding argument claims this is not the case, that boys in crisis is a backlash against advantages won for girls after nearly three long decades of educational change and constitutes an attempt to divert attention away from girls' needs. If anything, boys are perpetrators of their own demise. The problems they now face in schools are self-inflicted, being due largely to their own intransigence. By steadfastly adhering to now irrelevant masculine mores, boys have condemned themselves to an antiquated role in society, a dead-end position that reflects their inability to share power, to accept alternate constructs of knowledge, to recognise the reality of a society that has forever moved beyond accepting that women can be marginalised into a passive and subservient role. At this level of debate Malcolm's case can be used to elaborate either of these arguments, as one sees fit. In the former he is a troubled boy robbed of a valued pathway towards masculinity and driven to vandalism through frustration and the lack of opportunity to express his manliness. While regrettable, his violence illustrates how boys in our "new society" desperately need socially appropriate opportunities to exercise their strength, their energy, their capacity for action. Alternatively, in the latter argument, Malcolm is a boy turned vandal by some atavistic desire to showcase his ability to be Boys Doing Art 18 violent, by his need to affirm masculine power, and by his desire to bookmark a manly "place" or "territory" amongst his male peers. His experiences in art simply reinforce the fact that boys instinctively seek to be dominant, to use whatever social forces are at their disposal to fortify their own ways of thinking, their own types of knowledge, their own mores of action. These polarised arguments lack the scope to do justice to the complexity of Malcolm's experiences. They address gender through the important issues of relationships and negotiation of power and assertion of dominant forms of knowledge, but do so predominately through a binary "us and them", "winner and loser" context that keeps this debate distant and irrelevant to the immediacy of real life in classrooms. The narrowness of these approaches is best illustrated by the limitations of their subsequent strategies for boys. The boys in crisis approach views them as simply requiring some sort of rescue. If boys have been robbed of valued masculine mores, our schools need to reintroduce such mores by dusting off and implementing into contemporary curriculum many old and trusted methods of "making the man". After all, these methods have served boys and society very well in the past (see for example, the debate surrounding the Citadel case in the USA, or the rhetoric coming from the International Council of Boys Schools). If boys are in crisis, they need us to throw them a lifeline, and that lifeline is the reaffirmation of essential values of masculinity, based on the atavistic precedents of the past. The boys as perpetrators of their own demise approach treats boys as requiring treatment to alter their bad habits, whether or not they accept the need to have this remedial attention. Malcolm's story is illustrative of the way boys are isolationist, yet require the validation of a male order and will go to any lengths - including violence - to Boys Doing Art 19 achieve that recognition. Boy culture is built on the success of the individual, and in today's relational environment, one boy's success is not a worthy achievement if it fails to address the injustices to others that are often a consequence of his success. These simplified descriptions of what are complex and important arguments are elaborated in greater depth in Chapters 2 and 3. However, for now they briefly sketch what I see as the essentialist character of gender discussion concerning boys in education over the past two decades, and suggest where my frustration lies with much of our purported knowledge of boys that is presented in this literature. At this level of analysis this discussion has been little more than an un-winnable academic gender-competition, and has created a discourse that provides more confusion than light. In many ways it has failed to come to grips with the things we do not know but should. I would argue the existence of a third layer of meaning to this vignette. Within Malcolm's story is evidence of powerful connections occurring between boys, an interchange that has significant meaning for education's response to the myriad of "boys' problems". This has to do with boys' relations and the maneuverings that occur between boys within the school-culture and within subject curricula, as they actively and continuously construct their identities. Boys Doing Art will argue that this constitutes their inter andintra-masculinity negotiations. Malcolm's story suggests that his academic and social problems were manifestations of a deeper issue. He was a boy who was struggling to establish a relational position in his peer group. He was, also, at the same time struggling within himself, wanting to come face to face with some issues of social inequalities that disturbed him. However, he could not do this in isolation or without help. He appeared to use art to build a skill, and used that skill to explore his own set of beliefs and values. He used his art to negotiate the validity of his beliefs amongst his peer group Boys Doing Art 20 and within the culture of his school. These are not the actions of either a boy "being rescued", nor one being "treated". They are the actions of a boy wisely and sensibly using the school and the curriculum to negotiate his own gendered identity with his peers. If this is indeed a "success" story then the success is Malcolm's, and he is successful due to his own actions. I believe that many boys are experiencing troubles that are distinctly different to the concerns that girls continue to have. I also believe that these problems are largely the result of boys' own actions. Indeed, boys are not passive victims of a society "gone wrong", they are in fact actively involved in negotiating and manipulating the factors that affect their position in society. This is the very reason we must turn to boys for answers to how education should be addressing their problems. Malcolm showed me that if many boys are the architects of their own misfortune, they also have the capability and desire to pursue their own salvation, given favourable circumstances. In Malcolm's case, these "circumstances" had something to do with the culture of the school and the nature of the art curriculum. Attempting to identify and facilitate these factors within schools and curricula is ground that much of the boys in crisis and boys are the perpetrators of their own demise discussions have rarely travelled. As I entered Greene's College at the start of this study, I realised that thanks to Malcolm, I could see this point constituted the gap between our academic knowledge of boys and the reality of what happens in schools. Our ignorance lies in not understanding how schools and specific subject curricula can channel the energy that drives boys like Malcolm to be active in building worthwhile identities. This constitutes a significant gap in our knowledge, because this "energy", while it may be the cause of boys' many problems, Boys Doing Art 21 may also be (as Malcolm's story suggests) the catalyst for some of their most significant successes. Can Art Unlock Some "Mysteries" of Masculinity? Education research has not been blind to the existence and importance of this "energy", nor for its importance in facilitating boys' "successes". For some time, the common assumption has been that the mysterious thing that causes boys problems in schools is, logically, rooted in what makes them unique - their "masculinity". Thus, education has generally approached boys' social and academic problems as a gender concern, and has struggled for some time to understand how "masculinity" is manifold in the education process. This literature has recognised that success for one boy at the expense of others is no worthwhile educational goal, but the identification and utilisation of factors that help boys negotiate egalitarian masculinities holds significant benefits for girls, as well as marginalised males. The underlying rationale in masculinity discussion in education, has been the assumption that within the unknown (and often disputed) factors that shape it, lies the cause and antidote to boys' anti-social, sexist behaviour. By changing masculinity by manipulating these factors, boys (and men) will be redeemed (Connell, 1996; Segal, 1990). While the goal is clear - greater knowledge of masculinity, and using that knowledge to build tools to change masculinity to a more egalitarian form - we have lost our way. As educators we are by nature rooted in the realities of the schooling process, yet in regards to boys' education we appear to have become bogged in socio-political theories and strategies based on theory, rather than on practical reality. Masculinity in education remains a mystery because of this. As will be discussed in Chapter 2, we cannot agree on Boys Doing Art 22 even its most fundamental characteristics, thus our deeper levels of analysis are becoming increasingly polarised beyond their relevant domains. Boys Doing Art will suggest that the way from this "vacuum of knowledge" lies in our classrooms. Malcolm's story illustrates that boys engage in complex negotiations of values and beliefs and these negotiations are often carried out within a complicated gender-context we conveniently call "masculinity". His vignette suggests that boys use the school and specific subject curricula as forums - even vehicles - for these negotiations. So it is possible that there are variables within art education curriculum that facilitate the types of growth we want in our boys. Thus it is possible that boys' actions in art education can help unlock some of the "mysteries" of masculinity. Art education can, perhaps, provide a convenient window through which we educators can understand the processes in which many boys engage when developing their masculine identities. The possibility exists that art education can provide evidence of the valuable role specific school curricula play as boys develop attitudes and adopt behaviours that are of concern to us all. What Issues Does This Study Address? Boys' Doing Art is situated at the intersection of contemporary masculinity debate and art education. Malcolm's story is only a brief glimpse of this complex interplay, but asks a number of important questions concerning masculinity, art education, and to a lesser degree single-sex boys' schools: Does art education affect boys as they develop their concepts of gender? Specifically, to what extent and in what way does art curriculum help boys facilitate their masculinites, and to what extent can it provide the environment necessary for boys to negotiate those masculinities between each other? How does recognising the negotiation of this range of masculinities inform current Boys Doing Art 23 research into marginalisation and inequality in gender relations in schools? What implications does this have for future directions for boys' schooling? These are far reaching and broad issues that cannot be addressed in their totality in one study. Therefore, some limitations need to be acknowledged. Boys Doing Art looks almost exclusively at art education. This is not to imply other subjects have less significance for boys' gender-development. The study owns this focus because, firstly, my observations from the classroom suggests art education may have considerable value for boys during this process, and secondly, it is because there is very little information currently available about the interplay of art education and masculinity. Single-sex boys' schools receive some exposure within Boys Doing Art, but it is not my aim to provide exhaustive data about, or to be either a critic or an advocate of these types of schools. The decision to site the project in one of these schools gives a valuable opportunity to glimpse single-sex schools' unique contribution to boys' schooling. Characteristics of single-sex boys' schools emerge from the data through participants' comments and my own observations. These characteristics are important in terms of the educational experiences of the boys concerned. However, they are relevant only to Greene's College and are not intended to constitute judgements about these types of schools in a more generalised context. Boys Doing Art looks exclusively at boys. This occurs not only in the physical sense (being set in a school where there are no female students present), but the study also does not address in depth the important issue of boys' relationships with girls. The intention is not to ignore the relational aspect of gender, a focus which is emerging as the central tenet of modern studies in this field. Nor does this suggest boys' interchanges with, attitudes towards, or beliefs about girls are not important. To the contrary, they are of huge Boys Doing Art 24 importance. However, all research has limitations. The scope of this project reflects my belief that gender research is ready for a boy-specific study. As will be stressed in Chapter 2, within the current climate of gender-relationship focused studies, we need to know more of boys' relationships and exchanges with other boys. We need to understand in greater depth how boys build their masculinities within "masculinity". We need to explore the capacity of masculinity to effect its own change. Successful strategies for boys require as a foundation some understanding of how masculinity operates in all situations, boy to girl and boy to boy. Our knowledge of the former situation has received, and is continuing to receive, considerable attention while the latter has received very little. The Structure of This Thesis What follows in this text is a description of what boys, the boys' teachers, the school administrators, and the researcher see as the impact of the school structure and the art curriculum on boys during the process of their gender development. This information is presented in a format intended to both faithfully reproduce the contexts within which it is offered, and to meet academic conventions. As mentioned briefly, the report is organised into three sections. Section I provides the antecedents to the study, Section II explains its methodology, and Section HI presents segments of the data, data analysis and a conclusion that examines the issues of this study within the context of future research directions. This structure serves three purposes. Firstly, it is "user friendly", allowing readers who will have differing interests in this topic to easily navigate a preferred pathway through the mass of information required by scholarly convention. Secondly, this structure serves to systematically draw the reader through the relevant background information, through procedural details, towards immersion in the actual study. Thirdly, Boys Doing Art 25 this structure allows the data collected in terms of participant observations and comments to be unencumbered by distracting procedural and theoretical details. Each section and chapter has an introduction and a conclusion, and each chapter deals with one important aspect of this research. Figures and tables have been used sparingly to illustrate concepts, the appendices contain the majority of factual information that would otherwise clutter the text. There are no full copies of transcripts, due to the size of the documents, and to protect the anonymity of the participants. However, quotations carry identifying details that allow verification with raw data where needed. Conclusion Boys Doing Art is a small contribution to a complex debate. What to do with our boys in schools is a rapidly escalating issue, critical to parents and educators due to a seeming lack of direction. What issues are we trying to address, what strategies should we have, and how should we implement them? I am going to argue that boys doing art in schools are also "boys doing gender", and boys doing gender are young males in the process of negotiating a social role that impacts others - males and females. This is done while participating in, and relating to, the school's structure and more importantly, specific subject curriculum. This report will argue that at this critical junction of negotiating masculinities and implementing subject curriculum, there exist tools and opportunities for educators to work with boys on building sensitive, compassionate, worthwhile masculinities. Boys Doing Art will detail how art curriculum is ideally placed and well structured to maximise this benefit to boys and to offer guidance to mainstream education concerning this emerging, critically important debate. As such this study is specific and particular. Boys Doing Art 26 But its findings open doors to new avenues of masculinity research - using curriculum to achieve what before has been unreachable. Boys Doing Art 27 Chapter 2: What We Know About Masculinity and Education A n Overview of the Chapter Malcolm's vignette suggests that art curriculum acts to develop boys' knowledge, it assists in their exploration of relationships, and it provides them with a venue in which they can address issues of social justice. The relevance and importance of these functions on boys' emerging "manhood" needs to be contextualised within current gender debate. Malcolm's vignette also suggests that, i f we are to better understand whether boys' actions within curriculum might constitute an active negotiation of gender values between boys, a more encompassing interpretation of the construct of masculinity (than is commonly recognised) is required. What this pluralist interpretation looks like, and how it can be used, requires investigation. In Chapter 21 review the images of masculinity that have evolved as a result of much investigation by the various academic disciplines and their associated discourses. The chapter asks how these images might help us to understand boys' gender experiences within curriculum in schools. In the process, I draw from the literature a pluralist interpretation of masculinity, present it as a model, and specify how Boys Doing Art wi l l use this model as a " lens" when analysing boys' actual interactions within art curriculum. What is Masculinity? As a concept, masculinity has been explored through the disciplines of psychology, history, anthropology, and sociology. Its applications have been investigated using psychological models and psychoanalytical constructs, identification of gendered sex-roles, analysis of gendered power structures within society, discussions concerning its political manifestations, and most recently, through post-structural examinations of the "gendering" functions of knowledge and meaning. What, briefly, do these broad and Boys Doing Art 28 often diverse approaches and techniques tell us about the construct and nature of masculinity? Discipline-based Explorations of Masculinity Psychology. Psychology explored masculinity by assuming that phenomena observed specifically (originally through therapy) could be developed into generalised principles that apply to all men. This discourse has provided at least two significant genres of masculinity exploration, sex-role theory and psychoanalysis. With the former, the behaviours and attitudes of men and women came under close scrutiny during the 1970s using psychological testing in an attempt to define essential characteristics of masculinity and femininity. The assumption was that masculinity (and femininity) was "a thing" that could be identified as belonging to an individual, to be one of their possessions (Hearn, 1996). Bern's (1974,1977) exploration of androgyny, based on the Freudian theory of representation in all individuals of an "inner" feminine and masculine included a statistical measure to itemise essential masculine and feminine characteristics. Considerably earlier, Terman and Miles (1936) identified sex-roles as a duality of masculine and feminine characteristics; as an example, male aggressiveness, strength and competitiveness was balanced by female compliance, nurturance and tendency towards cooperation. Bern's (1974) work extended this bimodal concept of sex-roles to suggest an interchange of these qualities between the sexes. Her research supported de Beauvoir's (1974) notion that while distinct masculine (transcendent) and feminine (immanent) ways of working existed, their representation in daily activity was not necessarily gender-specific, opening sex-role theory to investigating the socialisation processes organised around these perceptions of masculinity and femininity. These investigations were somewhat limited, as will be discussed shortly. Boys Doing Art 29 This process resulted in two bodies of knowledge. Men's behaviour was categorised into "gender personalities", the definable "manly" characteristics which controlled how they behaved. A classic example of this was Brannon's (1976) now well quoted "no sissy stuff, "the big wheel", "the sturdy oak", and "give 'em hell". Secondly, it categorised attitudes. For example, men were classified as rational and linear (Collins, 1974), tough minded and analytical (Kantner, 1975), individualised and subjective (Pagano, 1988); while women were characterised as communal and group centred (Macdonald & Macdonald, 1988), circular, mystical, unifying and emotive (Mitrano, 1981), nurturing and cooperative (Thompson, 1986). Sex role theory, while opposing essentialist notions that gender is innate, still resulted in interpretations of men and women's gendered social behaviour as being largely pre-determined with little free agency in their actions. Men, it was considered, were "more like actors on a stage, playing out pre-scripted parts. To be a man, they suggest, is to play a certain role. Masculinity represents just a set of lines and stage direction which males have to learn to perform" (Edley & Wetherell, 1996, p. 100). A second psychological approach to masculinity was developed through psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis typically viewed masculinity as the product of interplay between the unconscious and conscious. Sexuality and gender were co-constructed through a long process of conflict, rather than being determined by nature. The unconscious and the conscious were gendered and exerted a powerful influence on men through timeless truths and archetypes. These ideas formed the nucleus of an influential genre of scholarship that critiqued education as symptomatic of society's structure and predominately concerned with "regeneration" of male norms. As an example, Grumet's (1988) landmark work Bitter Milk: Women and Teaching described education as a process Boys Doing Art 30 of "transference", the act of regeneration of norms symptomatic of the structure of society. This structure was inherently masculine, education was a symbolic, phallic order created by men and pedagogy the act of reproducing the strategy of domination or repression of the feminine. Chodorow (1978) described the "fragility" of masculinity, caused by paternal absence and the role of mothering. With the latter, Chodorow reversed Freud's (1955) Oedipus complex to describe how a societal requirement on mothering is to "defeminise" the boy, causing her to "drive away" the male-child. He seeks to re-establish the bond through repressing childhood attachments and dependencies on her by displaying overly masculine characteristics thus showing he is no longer like her and worthy to redeem the attachment. Another genre of psychoanalysis in masculinity exploration has been the essentialist masculinity authors, now increasingly referred to as the "mythopoetics" (Connell, 1995). Although attempting to appeal to some timeless and essential quality of manliness, one example, Bly's Iron John (1990) was simply another attempt to characterise late twentieth century masculinity. Through metaphor and myth Bly described an archetypal masculinity deep within the psyche; the persona becoming repressed by the feminine anima. He described a "wild man within", the Oedipus struggling to break from the mother, and in doing so relegated masculinity to being simply the application of atavistic behaviours; long subjugated essential qualities within each man. Bly's analysis of masculinity has been accused of embodying an anti-intellectual (Messner, 1997) "popularisation" of men (Segal, 1990); if anti-masculinist discourse is No-Phallus, says Tacey (1997), then "the Iron John tradition is virtually All-Phallus" (p. 6). However, despite its "pseudo-academic" reputation (see for instance Connell, 1995), this "atavistic" image of masculinity has proved a popular trend in some masculinity Boys Doing Art 31 related discourse, more because of the mark it hits (men's insecurities caused through their lack of knowledge concerning their gender) than any solid theoretical contribution to this field. In addition, its impact is very real in education debate with "atavistic" images of masculinity heavily underscoring arguments calling for curriculum to "school for the man" (Fox-Genovese, 1995; Hawley, 1991). Sociology. Sociology has attempted to describe masculinity within the context of its cultural construction. Sex-role theory, while valuable, had the limiting effect of not contextualising the applications of masculinity, never really coming to grips with it as a set of cultural and historical practices influencing and being influenced by the social environment (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985). Psycho-analysis also viewed masculinity as specific and particular to the individual, again resulting in socially isolated analyses, such as the peculiarities of the "popular" atavistic masculinity politics which supposedly helped 1980s and 1990s "men in crisis", but tried to do so without being expositional of women's needs, thus ignoring social reality. Both psychological approaches have been critiqued as ignoring the cultural manifestations of masculinity, and in particular, the issue of power relations between the genders (see, for example Heam's, 1987 The Gender of Oppression, and Connell's, 1987 Gender and Power). In addressing these shortcomings, sociology argued masculinity as generalised culturally but containing within its structure specific and particular qualities, the generalised form pre-existing the particular (Tolson, 1977). Or in other words, the argument was that there existed a number of masculinities (plural) which culminated in one version of masculinity (singular). The singular has been increasingly critiqued as hegemonic in structure (Kimmel, 1995; Messner, 1997; Segal, 1990), its identifying characteristic being the exercise of power in gender relations (Connell, 1987). The plural Boys Doing Art 32 images of masculinity investigated by Hearn and Collinson (1994), Connell (1995), and others, have proved more problematic, as will be outlined shortly. In some ways the sociological discourses, in broadening our view of masculinity, have created a rod for their own backs. They have been required to accommodate within this culturally situated theory considerable ambiguity of historical and cultural manifestations of masculinity. They include issues raised by the other partners in the social sciences, history and anthropology, as well as parallel discourses in social theory dealing with marginalisation of men due to race (Galeson, 1995), class (Willis, 1977) and sexuality (Mac an Ghaill, 1994). Anthropologists have studied masculinity from a cross-cultural perspective, highlighting its diverse representations and multiple meanings in other than westernised cultures. Mead (1934) in her studies in the South Pacific Trobrian Islands brought to the attention of western academe the cultural diversity of the meanings of masculinity and femininity. Herdt (1981) shocked many with his ethnography of ritualised homosexual practices as part of masculinity rites of the Sambia in Papua New Guinea, while Meigs (1990) described the existence of multiple gender ideologies amongst the Hua in New Guinea, with one version of the masculine form including both initiated males and women who had born three or more children. Such studies that argue applying positivist theories of masculinity across cultures is a futile exercise, have suggested that the concept of masculinity is an "ethnocentric or even a Eurocentric notion" (Hearn, 1996, p. 209); they have done much to question the existence of masculinity as "object". While anthropological studies have highlighted cultural diversities in masculinity, historical studies have focused on its multiple representations across time, elaborating an evolutionary characteristic of masculinity. Such studies of the historically changing roles Boys Doing Art 33 of masculinity have been useful in illustrating that various concepts of late twentieth century masculinity have socially constructed origins; there have never been absolute manly qualities (see for example Seccombe 1986, on the evolving values associated with the concept of male bread winning; or Rutherdale 1996, on the changing role of fatherhood). Such histories document men's gendered past, but while the discipline of history has been about men, it has not been about masculinity (Pleck & Pleck, 1980). An image of masculinity has been created as both developing across time, but also being particular to time; while masculinity is often modified according to ongoing social development (Franklin, 1984) the process is not necessarily a linear one. Terminology and applications of meaning can greatly differ, an example being the considerable differences in the use of the term "manliness" between the early and late Victorian eras (see Hearn, 1996, p. 209). Mac an Ghaill (1994, 1996) has become a key theorist in articulating the singular masculinity's policing of male sexuality and its marginalisation of men of race, class, and/or disability. The Making of Men: Masculinities. Sexualities and Schooling (1994) breaks from a heterosexual, white and middle class tendency of past analyses to examine how masculinised perceptions of sexuality, race, class and physical ability are constructed, rather than inherited, in this case within a secondary school in England. Lengthy ethnographic studies, in which Mac an Ghaill (1994) directly accesses gay students' experiences, discusses how men "become heterosexual", and the operation of power relations as central in this process. A central focus is that popular notions of "what it is to be a man" have not changed as quickly as social changes in employment, social assistance and the status of women, creating for young men a crisis within the fragile, heterosexual, hegemonic masculine order. Boys Doing Art 34 Some synthesis of these sociological theories has been accomplished in Connell's Masculinities (1995). Connell investigates past attempts to study masculinity as a science and rationalises sociology as the discipline best positioned to account for its myriad representations racially, historically, culturally, and sexually. He utilises a historical analysis of masculinity to construct a theory of it as inherently patriarchal and hegemonic. He notes masculinity has always changed and developed, but always in relation to (rather than in isolation from) femininity. This is a powerful theme running through his work; the notion that masculinity has never been static, it has always been a site of gendered change and continues to evolve, but that change and evolution has always acted in concert or conflict with femininity. Connell's often aggressive treatment of some enactment's of psychoanalysis are offset by his acknowledgment that aspects of their theories have preceded modern sociological concepts; sex-role, while limiting, provided some situational based analyses of masculinity, such as Hacker's (1957) exposition of homosexuality as "men's flight from the new burdens of masculinity", or Hartley's (1959) studies of sex-role pressures on father-absent children. Studies such as these have taken masculinity from an entity composed of certain socially engineered characteristics to being the practices of men influenced by their environments. Gender, for Connell, is a study of gender relationships, and a study of gender relationships must encompass the power relationships of the sexes. As a result Connell argues men are as capable of introducing gendered change as are women. He argues a limiting (unitary) theory of masculinity hinders change through its associated effect of "demobilising guilt" on men (see also, Connell, 1989). But that is not the primary cause. Men's resistance to change in sexual politics is rooted principally in their investment in Boys Doing Art 35 their institutionalised power advantages and must be addressed by situating masculinity within the social enactment of power. Sociology has expanded theories of masculinity to discuss its structure as a hierarchy of power enactment within one, hegemonic structure. This theme has been elaborated by a number of authors such as Mac an Ghaill (1994), Hearn and Collinson (1994), and of course Connell (1995), to gain an understanding of men within their lived experiences, a discourse now popularly termed "pro-feminism" which will be discussed shortly. The contribution of the major disciplinary approaches of psychology, sociology, history and anthropology to our knowledge of masculinity is an enlightening but complex web of theory, a body of knowledge that has described a variety of images of masculinity. These approaches have been quite divergent, from positivist descriptions of masculinity as a set of definable and measurable actions and attitudes, to it being seen as a complex set of behaviours regulated by interactions with other men, women, and power structures within society, multi-layered as it is influenced by sexuality, class and race but ultimately forming one hegemonic and patriarchal unity. These theories are common in that they define masculinity as some type of "entity". Titles such as Changing Men (Kimmel, 1987), Remaking Men (Tacey, 1997), and Slow Motion: Changing Men. Changing Masculinity (Segal, 1990) illustrate a new wave of gender thinking that is challenging theorists to reconsider the past situation where masculinity was "assumed", where it was treated as a monolith structure and was utilised primarily to categorise the disadvantages it imposed on women. The challenge now is to view masculinity as a possible partner in gender reform and how it might be best changed to achieve that aim. Some argue very little change is Boys Doing Art 36 needed; the essential qualities of masculinity are sound and simply need "redeeming" (Tacey, 1997). Others feel only a total dissemination of patriarchy can provide the social redemption of men (Stoltenberg, 1990). Whether it is academic theory or the "very essence of men" (Biddulp, 1994) which require the change is a moot point between these polarised discourses, but the fact is masculinity is becoming a key variable in new gender theories and the attention is now on its flexible, changeable image. Representations of Masculinity Through the Discourses A number of discourses have embraced these disciplinary theories and utilised them to meet varying socio-political agendas. How have these discourses informed our understanding of masculinity? In what way have their voices reified disciplinary theories into readable images of masculinity? Feminism. Feminism has been primarily concerned with gender, the breadth of the analysis well beyond the scope of this paper to fully encompass. In education alone, feminism has critiqued the gender-history of education (Butler, 1990a), the construction of gender within curriculum (Grumet, 1994; Miller, 1993), the gender-conflicts of childhood, adolescence and the curriculum (Biklen, 1993; Fine & Macpherson, 1993), gender and public policy in education (Reiger, 1993), school administration and gender dynamics (Blackmore, 1993;Kinnear, 1994; Theobald, 1996), the "feminisation" of teaching (Grumet, 1981; Guildford, 1994; Prentice & Theobald, 1991), gender and post-secondary schooling (MacKinnon, 1990; Stewart, 1990), the intersection of gender and class (Barman, 1995b), the intersection of gender and ethnicity (Carty, 1991; Stanley, 1995), private schooling and gender (Barman, 1995c; McCrone, 1993) and many topics well beyond. These contributions have occurred as part of what Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery and Taubmann (1995) describe as "the reconceptualisation"; the revolution from positivist to Boys Doing Art 37 post-modernist interpretations of knowledge that occurred in western cultures during the latter half of the twentieth century. Feminism joined the attack on curriculum as a tool developed by technocrats, to explore it "as it is lived, embodied, and politically structure" (Pinar et al. 1995, p. 358). Primarily concerned with the manifest inequities for women within society, mainstream as well as educationally focused feminists presented complex and comprehensive analyses of the gendered construct of society through two schools of thought. A "liberal" focus of feminism used sex-role theory to undertake an analysis of sexism and gender stereotyping, seen as rampant in education Within the school structure, subject texts (Brannon, 1976), patterns of school authority, types of classroom interaction (Sears & Feldman, 1974), and streaming within the curriculum (Sadker, Sadker & Steinham, 1989). The aim of this approach was an equity with men achieved through steady change, change brought about by legislated "equality of opportunity" strategies (in some western countries), applications of androgyny theory (Bern, 1974; Collins, 1977b) allowing availability of all facets of education equally to both sexes, and a general move towards gender neutral schooling as a form of equality between the sexes. Feminism's "liberal" approach to gender issues in education achieved a heightened awareness of institutionalised sexism, both in society and how it was embodied within schooling. If the "liberal" focus of feminism was a slow and deliberate attempt to catalogue and nullify the qualities of masculinity which created the social inequities surrounding patriarchy, a "radical" approach also existed which directly attacked masculinity, describing it as a patriarchy and questioning how it produced and reproduced gender constructs. A key aim was to explore how power structures, which maintained the patriarchate, could be dismantled. This created a significantly different image of Boys Doing Art 38 masculinity from the "liberal" approach. The former relied on gender being a product of social construction with gendered differences essentially socially engineered through gendered practices. The "radical" approach maintained an essentialist belief that women held distinct qualities that were unavailable to men, and these qualities were infinitely superior to those of men (Chodorow, 1978). This view of masculinity and femininity concentrated on identifying society as a masculine enterprise, dominated by the "masculine ethic of rationality" (Kantner, 1975), and described a world dominated by males, a world split between the private and public spheres. The private sphere encompassed mothering, emotionalism, "expressivity", and imagination and was the domain of the feminine. The public was the world of rationality, competitiveness, positivism and linear thinking, and being dominated by men (Astin & Bayer, 1973). "Radical" feminism focused on the differences between the "knower" and the "known" and aimed for radical social change not through the slow attempts to legislate for equality, rather by challenging the power structures that maintained one form of knowledge above another. Within this approach the image of masculinity was as a collective body of men whose primary purpose was the exclusion of women from practical and noetic power. Feminism has made significant contributions to our understanding of masculinity as a concept by critiquing masculinity as hegemonic, in that it seeks to elevate the masculine over the feminine in all facets of social interaction (Segal, 1990). This approach has provided a frame of reference for an enlightened analysis of late twentieth century masculinity and society. However, transferring its theory into situational based analyses, describing how that "masculine concept" called masculinity enacts this hegemony, is more problematic. For the majority of activism since the 1970s, feminism has portrayed society as a patriarchate thus logically, all men as the patriarchs; it has Boys Doing Art 39 assumed a holistic privilege of men in society and thus has had little reason to explore masculinity as a complex multi-layered or problematic structure (Martino, 1995). While the wide array of feminist agendas has provided immeasurable contributions towards a more egalitarian society, one legacy has unfortunately been a restricted monolith definition of masculinity and a non-representational image of men as a unified, homogeneous and privileged body (Jackson & Salisbury, 1996). The socio-political men's movements. Feminism has not been the only discourse to attempt to explore the nature of masculinity. Some men's movements have made contributions also. Messner (1997) in his Politics of Masculinities attempted the difficult task of mapping this political landscape. He catalogued the principle men's movements such as Promise Keepers, NOMAS, Gay Liberation, Men's Rights, the Mythopoetics, and many others. These movements, while primarily interested in pursuing political aims, in the process promulgated "ideological" images of masculinity that were commonly recognised within society. When sorted according to political aims and ideological beliefs, Messner identified that the many men's movements occupied three polarised sites within the landscape of masculinity discussion. These sites he named terrains, and labelled them "anti-feminist", "anti-patriarchal" and "racial and sexual" in orientation. Many of the eleven movements that occupied these terrains, through social-activist rationales, represented the overtly political in masculinity discussion. However, Messner's mapping can also be translated to the education paradigm; a number of these political movements also perform the function of providing a theoretical platform for educational gender-positions. The rationales supporting arguments concerning all-boy schools (Hawley, 1991), "feminised" schools (Podles, 1995), Boys Doing Art 40 "equality of opportunity" measures (Kenway & Willis, 1997), anti-homophobia schooling (Redman, 1996), and many other issues, can be neatly overlaid on Messner's landscape to remind us that masculinity issues in education are widely varied and are deeply rooted in social politics. Messner's (1997) view of these masculinity discussions as inherently political is a useful (if rather simplistic) tool in categorising such a diverse field. However two problems emerge. Firstly, it neglects to position these actions into actual experience. In theory his work is a neat job of alignments. However, the reality is that the images of masculinity created by his model have limited practical applications when working with actual boys. Their complex sets of beliefs and actions, set within a constantly changing social phenomena are more a fluid "sea" with confusing and unpredictable cross-currents and waves, than solid and unchanging terra-firma. Secondly, in designing such a rigid taxonomy Messner allows little room for mobility of individuals between groups. The possibility exists that, for example, a man aligning himself with the Promise Keepers may also support NOMAS principles. While enlightening, Messner's thesis is in danger of being overly prescriptive and deterministic. None-the-less, Messner's work benefits contemporary gender discussion in at least two ways. Firstly, it highlights the fact that the contribution some of these groups make to our overall picture of masculinity is questionable. Many of them, while "popular", cannot be credited with a similar positive impact on society as feminism, which has based its ideologies on a more comprehensive critique of society. Many of the movements described by Messner, by being overtly political, tend to be largely self-serving and are aimed at meeting specific agendas or the preservation of selected attributes of masculinity. In the process, many have contributed little towards addressing relational inequities Boys Doing Art 41 between the sexes and the future formation of a more egalitarian society. The images of masculinity created by these movements, of masculinity being in crisis, or being essentially violent and nihilistic, or constituting the rightful leadership role in society, accurately portray only some men's beliefs concerning masculinity, seen under certain circumstances. The "men's movements", as voices in masculinity discussion, are fragmented, and are, it could be argued, not representative of most men's lived reality. A second benefit of Messner's work is its careful description of a fourth terrain. This terrain contains discourses that overlap, to some extent, all three of the otherwise polarised terrain. He terms it a "coalition" of progressive attitudes to masculinity, so named because it draws together many elements of the other discourses to build a "middle ground" where pluralist interpretations of gender can be recognised. Its existence is, for Messner, the recognition that within the political machinations of social-activist masculinity debate, there is a trend away from the essentialist images of masculinity that have dominated for so long. Central within this fourth terrain, this "middle ground", are the Social Feminist Men, or in academia, "pro-feminist" scholarship. Pro-feminism. Pro-feminist scholarship has become the predominant vehicle for the elaboration of the contemporary sociological theories of gender described earlier. This genre of discussion has navigated a challenging course between the essentialist defensiveness of mythopoetical, anti-feminist (and anti-intellectual) masculinity politics, and (again largely essentialist) anti-patriarchal radical feminist politics to create a "middle ground" where a wider, more pluralistic vision of masculinity could be elaborated. Pro-feminism is identified by two predominant characteristics; an acknowledgment of patriarchy and power constructs as the central functions of masculinity, and secondly, a Boys Doing Art 42 view of masculinity as not one body, rather a complex social construct organised in multiple, hierarchical levels. Pro-feminism has its roots in both the discipline of sociology, with its wish to elaborate a cultural construction of gender theory (rather than sex-role or psychoanalytical); and in feminism, acknowledging their ideology of the domination of patriarchy and the centrality of issues of power within gender issues. Pro-feminist authors such as Jeff Hearn (1996), Bob Connell (1987, 1995) and Mairtfn Mac an Ghaill (1994, 1996) have included feminist power theories to construct an image of masculinity as multiple in construct. Because the work of this group greatly informs this study, it will be discussed in more detail (together with its shortfalls) during the second part of this chapter. Pro-patriarchy. The pro-feminist vision that masculinity is, in essence, a support structure for patriarchal hegemony over women (and marginalised males) is countered by arguments that patriarchy constitutes a stabilising force for good in society. Men's unification into a patriarchy by adherence to "manly" codes of behaviour, it is claimed, is a necessary and natural social phenomena that has been weakened through anti-male social politics (Tacey, 1997). While Lynne Segal (1990), or Jeff Hearn (1996), or many of the other more radical forces amongst feminists and pro-feminist men seek a total dismantling of the institution of patriarchy, many men's movements, particularly those with strong roots in Jungian psychology, view the disinheritance of the "great father" as also spelling the death knell for masculinity as a whole. This is seen as something to be avoided at all costs, to the extent of accepting that, paradoxically, masculinity must change (Tacey, 1997). However, it is the nature arid the extent of that change which forms one of the topics of current masculinity debate. Some say patriarchy's redeeming features Boys Doing Art 43 should be kept while exorcising those elements (the result of radical gender politics) which are destructive to women, men, and society (see, for instance Podles', 1995, arguments for segregated schools for boys). Tacey (1997) in his book Remaking Men: The Revolution in Masculinity argues that Jungian theory has been appropriated and misrepresented by the "mythopoetics". Archetypes of masculinity, he affirms, contain the key to the redemption, rather than the destruction, of patriarchy. However, Tacey feels masculinity is being swamped by "the rising feminine", a combination of the "killing discourses" (radical feminism and radical pro-feminist men) who spread negativity concerning the father image in modern society. Patriarchy, he says is both necessary and irreplaceable as a "force that binds" and can be modified to accommodate significant change. What is masculinity? How does this variety of academic disciplines and discourses explain the construct that is supposedly common to all men? And how does it help inform a greater understanding of boys' actions in school? Representations of Masculinity: A Critique RADICAL FEMINISM PRO-PATRIARCHAL M E N ' S M O V E M E N T S C O N C E P T O F MASCULINrTY A S "MULTIPLE" P R O F E M I N I S T M E N L IBERAL FEMINISM GENDER AS BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED GENDER AS — SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED PLURALIST INTERPRETATIONS OF QENDER . _ _ . F i g u r e 1 . M o d e l o f C u r r e n t T h e o r i e s o f G e n d e r Figure 2. Orientations of current gender theories. Boys Doing Art 44 The academic disciplines present a number of confusing rationales for studying boys. Jungian theory explains some boys' poor behaviour and sexist beliefs as the product of repressed archetypes; therefore, Podles (1995) would argue, we must examine boys from the perspective that they are confused and misbehave because they no longer have clear masculine roles. Sex-role theory qualifies and quantifies masculinity as a set of attitudes and behaviour; therefore, we must examine boys from the perspective that their sexist preference for school subjects, their tendency to discredit things deemed feminine (Thompson, 1986), and their propensity for violence (Skelton, 1996), among other things, are the enactment of gender roles. Sociological theories present masculinity as an investment in male-dominated historical and cultural social power structures and boys' behaviour as defending that system. Therefore, we must examine boys in order to understand men's aggressive oppression of women (Connell, 1996). Common to this literature is a negativity about boys: It has presumed a mandate to identify what is wrong with masculinity, ignoring the possibilities that many boys are "okay" and that certain schools and curricula encourage boys to develop egalitarian concepts of gender. Few researchers have looked for what is good in boys' actions in schools. Three assumptions in the current literature limit this research. The first is essentialist thinking which assumes that masculinity is unchanging and common to all men. Essentialist thinking supposes that masculinity is an innate and inseparable part of men's psyches. A monolithic view of men as privileged, women as oppressed, requires gender to be a static, pre-determined system of sex-role enactment. The genders, however, do not form harmonious wholes; they are not pre-determined entities constructed of particular behaviours, actions, and beliefs that are automatically adopted according to sex. Consequently, this binary structure of gender precludes Boys Doing Art 45 investigating the complex structure of masculinity and has largely ignored problematizing men as part of the solution to gender problems. Secondly, this shared essence is assumed to manifest itself in precisely the same way in all boys. The "essential" characteristics of gender just discussed are useful as theoretical distinctions in academic debate but often inaccurate and lacking in scope when applied to specific boys. To relax in the assumption that boys exhibit identical gender characteristics is to create monolithic stereotypes applicable to very few individuals. Such categories are of very little practical use when dealing with boys in schools on a day-to-day basis and extremely difficult to apply in research in schools on actual boys. But they are widespread, and the accompanying value assumption can be quite damaging in peoples' lives (Connell, 1989; Jackson & Salisbury, 1996). Third, contemporary masculinity discourses have largely failed by constructing images of masculinity that are removed from men's actual practices. Hegemonic, patriarchal theory is effective for explaining the oppressed status of women, and men "on the street" may perhaps acknowledge hegemony over women in theory. But few would agree that they live it. This makes the theory difficult to use in ethnographic research because it diverges from participants' perceptions. Men's movements have also created images of masculine behaviour that are idealistic, focus dangerously on men's issues in isolation from women, and are removed from what men actually do. This is apparent in the Jungian stereotypes of an archetypal male, in mythopoetic movements' search for an inner essence or deep manliness, and in the espousing by single-sex boys' schools of a formula for schooling "the man" (Hawley, 1991). These are not informative interpretations of masculinity but abstractions from practical reality—or, at times, quite simply political manoeuvrings. Boys Doing Art 46 These theories presented by the disciplines and discourses have dominated gender discussion since the 1960s. Clearly, there exists no definitive account of masculinity or a singular discourse which embraces all interests and opinions. However, collectively they provide a rich diversity of knowledge and constitute in broad terms the intellectual environment for any study of boys in schooling. Each of these different theoretical perspectives has its own contribution to make in understanding men and their experiences. For no single theory or academic approach can hope to capture and account for every facet of even a single man's life, let alone the lives of black men and white men, gay men and straight men, and men of all different socio-economic classes. Yet while it is important to encourage an interdisciplinary perspective upon men and masculinity, this does not mean that all of the available approaches will be equally useful or insightful. Instead, it is more likely that some theories will carry a heavier explanatory burden than others. (Edley & Wetherell, 1996, p. 97) Certainly that is the case for Boys Doing Art, which relies on the interpretation that masculinity is the embodiment of boys' actions and beliefs, not a clinical or psychological entity. This study investigates if boys should be given opportunity to articulate how they inhabit a variety of masculinities rather than one, and explores how they might negotiate their own interpretations of masculinity rather than simply, passively, accepting their gender as a set of pre-determined roles. To allow this exploration, Boys Doing Art requires an image of masculinity that is located somewhere between the two essentialist positions shown in Figure 2. In other words, it challenges the notion - supported by both the biologically created and socially determined interpretations of gender, that masculinity is a single entity that is common Boys Doing Art 47 amongst all boys. The image required of this study is one that recognises that each boy's masculinity is unique to himself, and that each boy is responsible for its structure. Much past masculinity discussion does not have this degree of flexibility, with the possible exception of what Connell (1995) calls the emerging concept of "multiple masculinities", situated within that ill-defined and unstable pluralist interpretation of masculinity shown centrally in Figure 2. As will be argued in the remainder of this chapter and indeed in the remainder of this text, for Boys Doing Art this image of masculinity is the interpretation that will be required to carry Exlley and Wetherell's (1996) "burden of explanation". How is Masculinity "Multiple"? While a number of polarised interests are strongly represented within contemporary masculinity literature, it is apparent that a genre of post-modernist writing has also emerged (Pinar et al. 1995; Soerensen, 1992) to theorise a change in masculinity discourse and to link many of the divergent gender ideologies into a rational "middle-ground" of contemporary masculinity discussion (Messner, 1997). This "middle ground" has championed a problematisation of masculinity on the basis that past assumptions, which have tended to categorise men into a "unitary" definition of masculinity (Soerensen, 1992; Martino, 1994) not only have limited our knowledge of men, but have also disadvantaged our understanding of gender as a whole by restricting any comprehensive analysis of the complex gender structures which operate in society (Connell, 1995). Connell (1987), Martino (1995), Hearn (1996), and others have argued that we need to view masculinity as being multiple in construct. This approach recognises that a number of masculinities exist. Some say each of these masculinities operates in a state of Boys Doing Art 48 continual, active hegemonic contest against other masculinities and femininities (Hearn, 1996; Mac an Ghaill, 1996). Others see boys and men mediating an infinite variety of masculinities (Imms, 2000b). Either way, the view is of boys and men continually engaging in "gender relations" with other males and women (Connell, 1995). While the dominant pro-feminist masculinist writing on this topic has been criticised for being illogical in demanding an extinction of patriarchy (Tacey, 1997), for continuing to support what is in effect still largely a monolith definition of masculinity (Imms, 1998b), and for failing to recognise many men's attempts to counter dominating and oppressive behaviours from both other men and women (Jackson and Salisbury, 1996), the central thesis of men constructing their own versions of masculinity, rather than passively accepting one patriarchal form, has been enthusiastically accepted by many theorists (Hearn, 1996). How does this "reconceptualisation" of masculinity translate into the educational forum and what does it mean for Boys Doing Art? The answer to this question is that it has begun discussions on the evolving nature of masculinity, and how schooling participates in that process. What began as a broad, largely sociological analysis of men's power and gender relations with women has spawned a genre of writing in education that problematises boys and their schooling experiences; "what to do about the education of males, particularly heterosexual males, (has) emerged, since maleness and masculinity (are) increasingly foreclosed as sites of possible insight and change" (Pinar et al. 1995, p. 373). Connell (1987, 1989, 1995) has for a number of years been concerned with deconstructing categorical views of masculinity to explore how it actualises hegemony. In Masculinities (1995) he used data from field research of groups of men to layer Boys Doing Art 49 masculinity into a hierarchical structure. The men, from working and middle class backgrounds, were interviewed at length from 1985 to 1988 to produce a life-history analysis of the influence of social structures (including schooling) on their enactment of gender. From this study Connell posited that not one but four layers of masculinity existed and labelled them as hegemonic, subordinated, complicit, and marginalised. But rather than being actual men, these categories represented sets of values and actions exhibited by males in various socio-cultural circumstances; for Connell masculinity is a hierarchy of relationships between men. For Connell (1995) these categories represent a multiplicity of masculinity, the "relational" aspect of masculinity being the interactions of men struggling to achieve or maintain dominance over other men and women. Masculinities (Connell, 1995) represents the culmination of a number of years of development of the theory of masculinity having within its structure a multitude of layers, or masculinity (Connell, 1985, 1987, 1989,1990, 1993). This process of opening masculinity to detailed examination has been continued by a number of other authors. Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (1996) follow in a similar vein to Connell when investigating enactment of masculinity within the staff of an English secondary school. They describe schooling as facilitating "a process of negotiation, rejection, acceptance and ambivalence" of masculinity between boys (p. 59). The hierarchy of masculinities, they say, is "never secure but must always be won. Collectively they form a hegemonic order mediating oppression and domination of women." (p. 52. My emphasis.) New foci have also emerged. McMahon (1993) drew attention to the fact that "unitary" versions of masculinity allow men to escape accountability, to regard their Boys Doing Art 50 actions as a product of a separate entity. The concept of multiple masculinities, for him, serves to focus on men's material practices; in other words, how masculinity relates to what men actually do. Hearn (1996) elaborates further, noting in his succinct critique of multiple masculinities that the problem all this time with many past discourses was that they looked for "it", the political, identifiable, structured phenomena of masculinity, when in fact they should have been focusing on "who", the actual actions of men as constituting "masculinity". An understanding of masculinity might more obviously lie in men's actual practices, within the complexity of their daily relationships with each other and with women, than in trends and theories. The Construct of Multiple Masculinities The concept of multiple masculinities has five key characteristics. 1) Firstly, it recognises that masculinity exists as a multiple entity, not homogeneous or necessarily consistent with a range of simplistic characteristics. 2) Secondly, it views gender as something constructed by its participants as well as by societal forces. Individuals do not automatically adopt a pre-determined gender role; rather they are continually active in building, negotiating and maintaining perceptions of their gender. 3) Thirdly, gender is a relational construct. Boys/men do not construct their versions of masculinity removed from the influences and effects of femininity or other men; rather, the opposite gender and other men have considerable influence in the framing of individual perceptions of "manliness". Likewise, family, school and society in general exert considerable forces during this continual process of gender construction. 4) Fourthly, to multiply masculinity is to diversify hegemonic structures of power, rendering them more assessable to rehabilitation. 5) Fifthly, a "multiple masculinities" approach links polarised dialogues Boys Doing Art 51 with a shared concern for males not adequately addressed in previous discourses, in the process focusing on gendered power imbalances in society. A "multiple" interpretation of masculinity has a number of advantages for this study. Firstly, it has potential to provide an uncritical environment for the investigation of masculinity. While many essentialist positions on masculinity collide "head on", this theoretical framework represents an intersection of many disciplines and discourses in gender, achieved by focusing discussion on the relationship between boys and boys, and boys and girls, rather than on their differences. Secondly, it sets a positive agenda. Past studies, basing their research on the notion of "masculinity as an entity", have been bogged in an un-winnable gender-war. By pitting all men against all women, essentialist gender theories have frustrated any real progress towards identifying "change" (Segal, 1990). The acknowledgement of gender as a pluralist construct allows room to acknowledge boys' attempts to change masculinity from within masculinity. Thirdly, multiple masculinity theory provides a lens through which research can more closely interpret the interactions of men with men, men with women and men with society. While many past studies have lacked credibility by regarding them as a unitary, homogeneous body (see for example Addelston, 1996; Reay, 1990b; Skeleton, 1994), this approach frees boys from a limited definition of gender and gives them credit for their attempts to negotiate their own versions of "manliness". Finally, a benefit of this approach is that it is friendly to ethnographic inquiry, a methodology relatively free of positivist interpretations of knowledge (Pinar et al. 1995) and able to focus on men's lived experiences rather than theoretical categories and over-deterministic ideological abstractions. Boys Doing Art 52 Not withstanding these advantages, it needs to be recognised that there are also limitations to this approach. The overall scenario from what is very much a discourse in its infancy is the impression that while masculinity should be viewed as multiple in construct, the hierarchy of those masculinities has been critiqued only as far as a few generalised layers; categories which can be utilised to explain the majority of men's experiences. However, it is impossible to fully articulate or classify the range of masculinities that may exist. We simply don't know enough about how men live when viewed through this theoretical lens. There has been little raw data gathered to date - a shortfall because theorising can not encompass anywhere near the range of masculinities that may exist if they are truly flexible and in a continual state of change. One current limitation of this multiple masculinity concept, then, is a lack of ethnographic data to further the theory. A second limitation is a current tendency to treat males as owning or enacting a masculinity. The categories that are offered in the literature (for example Messner's or Connell's or Mac an Ghaill's) need to be more fully articulated through ethnographic portrayals of men's actual lives, that seek to describe them as being representative of sets of values, beliefs, not actual men. To be fair, this new field has begun to document how this range of masculinities are flexible, with men transferring from one "type" to another depending on prevailing (and constantly changing) socio-environmental conditions (Edley & Wetherell, 1996). But the field seems to have remained fixated on identifying the hierarchy of one masculinity over another, rather than the more productive outcome of exploring the nature of these masculinities. An example is Mac an Ghaill (1994) who categorised male teachers in a school as being either "professionals", "the old collectivists" or "the new entrepreneurs" according Boys Doing Art 53 to their actions and opinions (from interviews) on a range of topics such as labour relations, school organization, and educational reform. Such attempts to restrict to a few layers the complexity of a social situation creates a view of the phenomena which is very limiting, because it promotes the assumption that men's responses to varying stimuli are pre-determined. Such hierarchical approaches do little to account for the mobility between masculinities that must occur over time and place in reaction to varying stimuli. In short, multiple masculinity theory is currently limited by the absence of an articulated, formulated theory of intra-masculinity mobility. In effect, such discussion constitutes the very type of monolith categorisation of masculinity that this literature is trying to disseminate. This aspect of pro-feminist masculinist theory that describes all boys as participating in hegemony, should be contested. The possibility exists that many boys construct versions of masculinity which recognise girls and women as their intellectual and social equals and react strongly to incidents of both masculinist and feminist oppressive behaviour. To classify these males as part of a hegemonic order over simplifies the complexity of the structure of contemporary society and fails to acknowledge a powerful force within masculinity which is active against the "mediation of oppression and domination". Literature in this field is still to come to grips with both the concept of the true range of masculinities which exist and the possibilities of the extent of mobility between masculinities. An aspect of Boys Doing Art will be the extension of pro-feminist masculinity theory to incorporate a view of the tension of ideas and values between men, so far interpreted as the enactment of hegemonic masculinity, as also constituting negotiation between the many types of masculinity. A myriad of masculinities, many with differences Boys Doing Art 54 away from the "norms" of hegemonic masculinity, are constantly negotiating and re-negotiating for recognition as being valid and worthwhile. But rather than constituting only a state of conflict, as described by Connell (1995), Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (1996), Hearn (1996), and others, many masculinities to the contrary operate within a framework of active mediation with each other. This intra masculinity negotiation represents an acceptance of "the other" between men. Boys Doing Art explores the notion that art education is a site which facilitates anti-hegemonic practices within its epistemology and curriculum. Multiple Masculinities and Schooling In what way will a "multiple masculinities" approach be used by this study to interpret boys' construction, maintenance, and negotiation of masculinity in a school? There are some instances where multiple masculinities theory has been used to rationalise pedagogical gender strategies. Wayne Martino (1995) utilised student responses to characters portrayed in set texts in English lessons, to get the students to explore how these responses contained gendered subjectivities. The characters presented a variety of often ambiguous gender traits, allowing students to reify their own beliefs on sexuality, masculinity, and femininity. Martino identified a variety of "positions" between the boys, some situating themselves in overtly hegemonic stances to the scenarios given in the text, while others identified a range of gendered responses that were not stereotypical. Pam Nilan (1995) used another the English classroom to examine how male and female students constructed characters that embodied stereotypical gendered identities. Text written by some of the students, and the characters portrayed within the play, were later de-constructed to explain that popular culture inevitably demarcates a unitary Boys Doing Art 55 femininity and masculinity. Nilan concluded that the interjection of feminist principle into such a classroom scenario, while acting to multiply gender constructs, is prone to outright rejection. This is because it is perceived to be "imposed"; or the opposite response is possible, where it is re-articulated by the students in an empty and meaningless way because it is seen as "the right" response and necessary to pass. David Jackson and Jonathon Salisbury (1996) used a Personal Development program in a school to explore the construct of sexual identities and relationships between boys and with girls. Using role plays, boys put themselves (as a woman) in the position of the sexually intimidated in a variety of settings; in a bar, in a crowded bus, as the recipient of an obscene phone call. Boys were faced with the reality of feelings caused by such harassment, the injustice of the situation, and the power of gendered identities to perpetuate such behaviours. Robert Smith (1995) used life histories of a group of young male pre-service social science teachers to explore how masculine gendered identities are created and maintained. Over a period of five weeks the men participated in a men's group, aimed at sharing how each participant's ideas of masculinity were shaped by life experiences, the influence of popular culture, and relationships with parents, siblings, and school friends. A result from the study was an awareness (identified through follow up interviews) of the comparison between the debilitating and limited nature of unitary masculinity, and the freedom afforded by an acceptance of a variety of masculinities. The scarcity of such studies indicates that although schools and the curriculum have been sites of considerable gender studies, masculinity as a multi-variant has rarely been the subject of specific attention. Perhaps due to the "infancy" of this multiple masculinities approach, the studies which have been done to date display a limited Boys Doing Art 56 mandate. They have largely been either feminist or pro-feminist masculinist studies centering on identifying and elaborating those characteristics, behaviours and attitudes which are deemed, by the mainstream feminist ideologies, to perpetuate male oppression of women, and they have subsequently focused on the deconstruction and reconstruction of masculinity within the classroom. While providing some valuable information, these attempts need to be recognised as still operating within quite limiting parameters of all boys exhibiting and enacting a homophobic, sexist, hegemonic masculinity, young patriarchs in the making, with little accommodation being made for those males who may not fit this mold. While reading these accounts (Jackson & Salisbury, 1996; Martino, 1995) I sometimes feel sympathy for the many boys whose day-to-day existence have not included active oppression of the feminine. By leading these boys by the nose to recant their guilt as partners in hegemony (see Reay, 1990b), or for being homophobic, or a perpetrator of the "male gaze", or being a potential sexual predator (see Skelton, 1994), many studies have failed to be realistic about how masculinity is enacted in a multitude of ways that differ male-to-male. To the contrary, relatively unreported in this literature has been the possibility that many young men enact masculinities that may in some way reject theoretical hegemonic norms. This literature also fails to take account of the debilitating, even marginalizing, effects on such males as such diatribes unfairly treat all boys as toxic (Pollock, 1998). Unlike many of these studies, Boys Doing Art is not focused on the rehabilitation of masculinity. One aim of the study is to illustrate that a range of alternative, egalitarian masculinities may be represented in schools and might operate in the real sense removed from perceptions of "subordination", "compliance", "marginalisation", and "hegemony". This questions the necessity of recantation and focuses debate on more realistic strategies Boys Doing Art 57 which may serve to strengthen elements of curriculum which help boys reject hegemony, in the process embracing a diversity of race, class, and sexuality in gender. Using "Multiple Masculinities" as a Research Lens Connell's (1996) analysis of the goals of a number provides some clues towards the way a multiple masculinities approach can be used by the educator and the researcher as a lens to more fairly assess boys' actions in schools. Connell uses programs currently operating in Germany, England, and Australia to identify some common goals, and concludes that three foci exist in programs that seek to identify and encourage the concept of multiple masculinities with boys. Relationships. The first is the need to focus on boys' relationships. While schooling is centered on building relationships, our gender culture can see it as a feminine trait Aspects of education, such as the fostering of competitiveness and the culture of school sports, perpetuates this assumption. What "good" programs undertake, is to break stereotyped concepts of relationships with boys and encourage the growth of relationships that accept alternative beliefs and values. While Connell's points are quite problematic (males also enjoy considerable relationships from schooling, academic competitiveness is not necessarily only masculine, current research suggests girls are now thriving in this environment, and sports have always been mooted as being "team building" rather than the opposite) the focus is pertinent. Subject curricular is ideally suited to pursue this aim. Curriculum can provide boys with an opportunity to explore and mediate differences on a common ground, within defined parameters. This in turn builds communication and conflict resolution skills - the foundation for healthy relationships. Knowledge. A second aim of "good" boys programs in schools, is to develop boys' levels of knowledge. "Academic" knowledge is, again, perhaps a non-gendered Boys Doing Art 58 schooling aim. However, for some time, there has been concern for boys' schooling performances. In Australia boys' inferior academic performance has lead to various parliamentary inquiries and, a national conference on boys' literacy (Alloway, Davies, Gilbert, Gilbert & King, 1996) and analyses of their overall academic achievement (MacCann, 1995). Similar concerns have been expressed in British Columbia, Canada (Clarke, 1997; Kilian, 1998) and in many other countries (see, for example Bushweller, 1995, for the US; Soderman and Phillips, 1986, for England). In art education, boys have been identified as having significantly lower academic achievement than girls (Imms, 1997a). The need to address with boys the importance of pursuing academic knowledge is important, if only to circumvent a future distraction from masculinity issues caused by images of boys as somehow disadvantaged. However, Connell identifies the "academic" as only one form of knowledge that should be addressed. Of equal importance is "cultural" knowledge, the acknowledgment of alternative form of representing truth, of understanding cultural phenomena from the perspectives of others. This is a common theme now in many subjects, particularly art education where pluralism and multi-cultural issues significantly influence the study of art history and art criticism; two of the four curriculum "disciplines" (Chalmers, 1996). Issues of social justice. "Good" boy programs in schools encourage them to address issues of social justice. Boys need to discuss and evaluate their role in building an equitable and just society. Connell recognises that hegemonic masculinity imposes severe restrictions on boys through the agencies of "marginalisation" (often self-imposed through "protest masculinity"), through "oppression" (leading to inadequate opportunities for self-expression) and through "domination" (where boys restrict other boys' free participation). Such restrictions must be overcome, and this needs to be a central focus when working Boys Doing Art 59 with boys. Undeniably, some boys regulate and police a dominant masculinity against other boys. The resulting loss of opportunity for boys forced to submit to this hegemony is an educational concern. BOYS' INVOLVEMENT IN "JUSTICE" ISSUES Marginalisation of Girls and Other Males Homophobia Racism BOYS' ACQUISITION O F K N O W L E D G E Cultural Knowledge Academic Knowledge BOYS' RELATIONSHIP SKILLS Intra-Popular Culture Relationships Equality of Relationships with Girls Leadership and Active Participation BOYS' C O N S T R U C T I O N O F "MULTIPLE MASCULINITIES" Figure 3. A model of the application of multiple masculinities principles to boys' studies. Connell's work provides educators with a mapping of some very relevant areas of concentration when developing and implementing masculinity strategies, by directly addressing the three broad areas of concern discussed in Chapter 1 (Figure 1); that is, their academic, social, and relationship concerns. Whereas in Figure 1 these culminate in a supposed "crisis of masculinity", from a multiple masculinities perspective they are used to implement strategies that culminate in an acceptance of a multiplicity of masculinities (Figure 3). In practical terms Figure 3 constitutes a framework for foci when conducting classroom observations and interviews. Boys Doing Art 60 Where previous studies of boys in schools have failed them by identifying only those behaviours typical of a hegemonic masculinity (Addelston, 1996; Browne & Fletcher, 1995; Kenway and Willis, 1997) Boys Doing Art will seek to observe boys negotiating a multiplicity of masculinities. When asking how this will be done, some directions are becoming more clear. The study must rely on describing and documenting what is seen and said. The study must avoid being over-deterministic, by looking for the "goodness" in boys as well as evidences of hegemony. The study must identify instances of recognition of "the other", the acceptance of other representations of masculinity as being equal to one's own. The study must look for boys' willingness to talk and negotiate, for boys' willingness to be accountable for actions and personal epistemologies. The study must search for those actions that indicate boys' wish for broader interpretations of academic and cultural knowledge. In doing so, Boys Doing Art will attempt to capture a view of young men that has somehow, so far, evaded our critical gaze. Conclusion No one "model" of masculinity is provided by the academic disciplines. The socio-political agendas of the discourses that have used these images of masculinity have created a confusing situation. Is masculinity an "entity" to be put on by boys like an overcoat? Is it a part of boys' physiological pre-programming, constructed of essential characteristics that forever distance the masculine from the feminine in the same way sex differences distance male from a female? Or is masculinity somehow integral to boys' very "beings", locked within archetypal structures within our society to the extent that attempts to remove these archetypes from our society will deprive boys of the fundamental foundations of their existence? Boys Doing Art 61 Education's reluctance to deal directly with boys' schooling concerns stems from this confusion. Should we treat boys as misunderstood, misrepresented, or toxic? Feminism has limited explorations of masculinity by adhering to a "men as oppressors" hegemonic ideology, due in part to the fear of any "backlash" against girls' hard won advances in educational equality. Gender programs in schools aimed at boys are not widely successful, often meeting resistance from boys (Kenway & Willis, 1997). Despite the best intentions of skilled and committed practitioners and researchers, our ignorance of boys' concepts of masculinity results in "strategies for boys" that assumes their guilt in hegemonic practices, that hold few benefits that boys can see, and that have little relevance to their actual gender-experience. The field is moving slowly towards recognising a plurality of gender, having arrived - with considerable caveats - at the position of acknowledging that multiple masculinities are preferable to the "singular" interpretation (Soerensen, 1992). The time is ripe for a study that will explore how this reinterpretation is manifest in the classroom. The importance of Malcolm's story is that while, on its own, it cannot re-define masculinity, it does begin the process of identifying the existence a negotiation of masculinities between boys, and provides a window into boys' active construction of gender concepts. The truth is, considerable gaps still exist in our knowledge of gender in schools. Education remains unsure of its aims when working with boys. What characteristics define an "acceptable" masculinity? Who determines these characteristics, according to what criteria? How do boys define their masculinity, or the qualities that create an acceptable form? If boys are such problems, are they all at fault? If not all, then of those "acceptable" masculinities, what do they look like, how do boys form them, and do Boys Doing Art 62 schools and curriculum play a part in their development? Little consideration has been given in the past to boys' understanding of what their masculinity is and how it is formed. If we don't know how boys view, apply, and live within "masculinity", how can we ask boys to change it? Past "gender" programs aimed at boys appear to have held little relevance to the reality of their day to day lives (see, for instance, Browne & Fletcher, 1995). Little consideration appears to have been given to how the values being "pushed" at boys fit the reality of their lived existence. The application of essentialist gender theories has limited our understanding of masculinity in schools and has "turned off' many boys from actively pursuing egalitarian gender relations. What is exciting is the recent acceptance of a plurality of gender within these otherwise traditional gender theories. This "reconceptualisation" sheds light on complex actions in which boys engage when negotiating masculinities with other boys; a critical juncture that is a natural and logical site for education, through curriculum, to facilitate "egalitarian masculinities". Education must begin the process of examining how curriculum (in its realistic state, that is, when it actually engages with students) influences boys development of masculine images, and how it is used by boys to undertake this process. Boys Doing Art 63 Chapter 3: What We Know - Art Education Curriculum and Masculinity An Overview of the Chapter The previous chapters argued a pressing need to explore how individual masculinities are negotiated using subject curricula. While this is an important step towards a more complete understanding of masculinity, the significant outcome for education will be knowledge concerning how schooling helps the development of egalitarian versions of manhood amongst boys. Malcolm's vignette suggests art education may, inadvertently, already be achieving some significant successes in this direction. The possibility exists that art curricula are already addressing to some degree the needs that recent gender research into masculinity has set as goals for education. While some subjects have begun the process of articulating such contributions, what progress has art education made? This chapter will focus on identifying current knowledge in art regarding its role in facilitating pluralist interpretations of gender between boys, in two stages. Firstly, I will provide a definition of "discipline-oriented art curriculum" and will outline this curriculum model's efforts to incorporate gender issues within its actual curriculum. The second part of this chapter will discuss understanding of masculinity in art education and will assess how one form of curriculum is positioned to work with boys. The purpose of this chapter is to situate boys within art education's "gender gaze". What is "Discipline-oriented Art Education Curriculum"? Historical Antecedents to Art as a Discipline of Study The origins of discipline-oriented art curriculum lie in the social-political manoeuvrings of the United States' post-war attempts through education, to consolidate at home the country's international status as a world power (Freedman, 1987). During the Boys Doing Art 64 1950s education became a political tool which was utilised as a treatment for an ill society, far too important "to be left in the hands of professional educators." (Rickover, 1959, cited in Efland, 1988). The "Sputnik incident" in 1957 spurred significant educational changes in curriculum development, characterised by the call for a "return to the traditional task of formal education in Western civilisation, the transmission of cultural heritage, and preparation for life through rigorous intellectual training of young minds to think clearly, logically and independently" (Rickover, 1959, cited in Pinar et al. 1995, p. 154). Far from isolated in his opinion, Admiral Rickover's statements reflected a general social and political belief that education should be utilised to facilitate technocratic advancement. This punctuated a period of discipline-oriented curriculum development, primarily within the fields of mathematics and science (Pinar et al. 1995). Art education was not left out in this process. The Penn State Seminar in 1965, a forum sponsored by the US Cooperative Research Act, began to formalise a "new art education", one that would meet the needs of a rapidly changing society (Efland, 1988). During the conference Manuel Barkan drew on Bruner's (1960) theory of disciplines as structures of knowledge to posit that such a disciplinary approach was also suitable for art education. He suggested there existed in art the structural equivalent of the knowledge forms that existed in science. Though he knew that they were not the same, he assumed that something akin to the structure of concepts in science could be found that would serve as the rational underpinning for curriculum in art. [Based on] David Ecker's notion of the artistic process as qualitative problem solving Barkan conflated artistic activity with scientific activity. (Efland, 1988, p. 267.) Boys Doing Art 65 This new vision of art curriculum advocated that art criticism and aesthetics should be integrated with the traditional areas of studio production and art history to construct "a way to engage in inquiry about art" (Efland, 1984, p. 211). As such it was hardly an original approach; Kern (1987) noted that antecedents to the concept of teaching criticism and history as partners (although, not necessarily equal partners) to studio production had historical ties to practices dating from as early as the 1870s in the US, while Efland (1988) and Smith (1987) viewed the findings of the seminar as the culmination of over twenty years of art education curriculum development. The Penn State Seminar was unique, however, in advocating a paradigmatic shift in art education curriculum theory. One of its most persuasive themes was the notion that art or art education [was] a discipline in its own right. Seminar participants concluded that the curriculum in art can be both structured and disciplined, with the goals of art instruction determined from the characteristics of the discipline rather than that of children at various stages of development. (Efland, 1984, p. 205.) What was historically new from this seminar was the proposition that art was a discipline of study, a body of knowledge capable of being imparted extrinsically through a sequential curriculum (Greer, 1984), rather than an experience, a predominantly intrinsic interchange between the individual and a predetermined cognitive development schema, largely unaffected by external factors such as systematised instruction (Brittain, 1979). The latter, a Lowenfeldian legacy (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987) was the accepted educational approach to art both in the USA and internationally prior to Penn State. The former was to become the dominant theory towards the new century. Boys Doing Art 66 During the Penn State Seminar, Bruner's (1960) notion of a "discipline" being a structure of knowledge was utilised by Barkan to model an artistic discipline based on structures of concepts similar to science. This was expected to bring "rationality to the task of curriculum development" for art education (Efland, 1988, p. 272). This disciplinary status of art was not unanimously accepted. In its broadest sense MacGregor (1985) debated whether the four components of a discipline-oriented art curriculum, when combined to a single entity, were technically compatible with any of the contested definitions of "a discipline". Aesthetics and criticism, he suggested, perhaps more properly belonged to the field of philosophy, while art history was logically a branch of history. This clearly was how these areas were viewed prior to the mid-1960s, during which time art education was predominantly studio production (Freedman, 1987). Critics of the new art curriculum argued the discipline label did little more than impose a fixed structure on educators which mechanised and systematised art education and conflicted with its core strength; that is, catering to intrinsic creative qualities rather than extrinsic learning schemata (Efland, 1984). Others viewed the construct of art as a discipline as enabling art to establish itself as a bona fide academic subject within the school curriculum (Eisner, 1988b). Certainly in its pre-1980 form it reflected socio-political pressures to provide "substance and rigor" to art education (Delacruz & Dunn, 1995). Whether or not this approach constituted a true discipline, it still represented a model of curriculum that successfully responded to historical, socio-political and art education pressures to provide theoretical structure to contemporary instruction in the visual arts (MacGregor, 1985). The influence of Broudy (1987) added aesthetics to this hypothetical structure (Greer, 1992b), the philanthropy of the J. Paul Getty Foundation provided powerful political and financial support, and Discipline-based Art Education Boys Doing Art 67 (DBAE) emerged in the USA during early 1980s to argue art as a bona fide discipline of study and to claim a position within the core educational subjects (Eisner, 1988b). The Construct and Function of a "Discipline-oriented" Style of Art Curriculum The structure of the discipline-oriented style of art curriculum was not complex. This model proposed that "four parent disciplines - aesthetics, studio art, art history, and art criticism - are taught by means of a formal, continuous, sequential, written curriculum across grade levels in the same way as other academic subjects" (Greer, 1984, p. 212). How Canada responded to this style of curriculum by incorporating it into provincial programs, will be discussed in Chapter 5 when describing how art is taught at Greene's College . However, respond it did, largely because it recognised that the advantages of this approach were quite clear. Activities and skills presented in sequence produce an evolution from a naive (untutored) to a sophisticated (knowledgeable) understanding of art, taking into account children's level of maturation and tasks ordered from simple to complex. When art is taught with this kind of structure, it answers critics who maintain that art education has little to do with art. The artworks of children become examples of concepts learned, in addition to being expressive efforts. (Greer, 1984, p. 212.) Criticism and support for the discipline-oriented model. DBAE did not receive unanimous embrace from all art educators. The early years of developing discipline-oriented curriculum into syllabi for implementation in schools saw a wide debate characterised by often-conflicting opinions. Much of the literature that emerged through the 1980s and into the early 1990s reflected the developing status of DBAE. For a number of years an interpretive genre of literature sought to describe and explore how this model could be taught. Greer (1984) emphasised DBAE as being "a formal, continuous and Boys Doing Art 68 sequential written curriculum" (p. 212). Lanier (1986) described these fundamentals within an historical context. Rush (1987) and Dobbs (1989) interpreted a systematic discipline-oriented approach to art production as representative of the way artists manipulated imagery. Crawford (1987) was enthusiastic of the (overdue) recognition of aesthetics as integral to art curriculum and DiBlasio (1985) saw this discipline as helping to formulate Barkan's "structures of knowledge" theory to practical fruition. In art criticism Anderson (1993) posited students would be challenged to recognise the subjectivity of opinions and the need to identify value orientations. Because DBAE presented a structured, sequential curriculum, it would allow a wider variety of assessments in art than ever before (Day, 1985), in both qualitative and quantitative methodologies (Gentile & Mumyack, 1989), and would allow for standardised assessment with a subsequent increase in academic credibility within the school (Hamblen, 1987). The optimism for DBAE within these examples from the literature was heartening. This approach was viewed as the model of art education that would heighten student motivation in art, thus improving learning (Silverman, 1988). DBAE, it was argued, would also place art as the subject within the school curriculum to complete the development of the "all-round" individual (Eisner, 1987), and would provide the context to help students better understand a post-modem (Moore, 1991; Parks, 1989) and communications-based society (Spratt, 1987). A strong view was that DBAE's benefits were of such significance it was worth the effort of overcoming obstacles to see it entrenched as the predominant model of art education curriculum (McMurrin, 1989). These "obstacles" were presented through a critical genre of literature that focused on DBAE's conceptual assumptions. Some saw a significant, unexplained, gap existing between how DBAE viewed the way students learned in and through art, and the practical Boys Doing Art 69 reality of the art classroom. Arnstine (1990) believed this model of curriculum was not politically or structurally refined, that it contained inherent obstacles that far outweighed any advantages. According to Stinespring & Kennedy (1988), one of those obstacles was its degree of analytical abstraction in all areas except studio, abstractions that would serve to confuse students and teachers alike, and lead to difficulties in imposing the curriculum into syllabi. Pittard (1988) lamented its failure to explain pedagogical practices, while DiBlasio (1987) questioned if it could carry its theoretical strengths into actual practice. With "pedagogical popularisation", she said, original goals and objectives would be diluted or even lost negating DBAE's advantages. MacGregor (1985) drew institutional control of public curriculum into the debate by questioning if Getty would impose sanctions in order to protect DBAE from such an unravelling. Eisner defended DBAE on the grounds that it was misunderstood rather than inherently flawed (Eisner, 1988a). Others accepted the challenge of "fleshing out" DBAE (Greer, 1987) by researching the effects of many versions of DBAE on classroom practice (Berry, 1995; Erikson & Stein, 1993;Kindler, 1992). One Canadian province's response to discipline-oriented art curriculum. As an "outside viewer" (MacGregor, 1985), and more realistically, as a partner to the US in discipline-oriented curriculum development reform, Canada during this period instituted changes to its national art education curriculum that redefined the nature of art in its schools. A study of Canada's national and provincial curricula indicate it also pursued development of a discipline-oriented style of curriculum. Figure 4 provides a description of the provincial art education model that guides the art program at Greene's College . Boys Doing Art 70 P E R C E I V I N G / R E S P O N D I N G C R E A T I N G / R E S P O N D I N G I M A G E - D E V E L O P M E N T A N D D E S I G N S T R A T E G I E S ( S T U D I O / A R T C R I T I C I S M ) Students perceive and respond to images in ways that demonstrate awareness of the sources, techniques and strategies of image development and design Students create images reflecting their understanding of a wide variety of image sources, techniques and design strategies. M A T E R I A L S , T E C H N O L O G I E S A N D P R O C E S S E S ( S T U D I O / A E S T H E T I C S / A R T C R I T I C I S M ) Students perceive and respond to images from a variety of different types of artworks in ways that demonstrate their understanding of how the choice of materials, technologies, and processes affects images. Students create images that demonstrate their ability to communicate effectively using a variety of materials, technologies and processes. C O N T E X T S ( H I S T O R Y ) Students perceive and respond to images and the ways these images reflect and affect social, cultural and historical contexts. Students create images that communicate understanding of and appreciation for the influence of personal, social, cultural and historical contexts. V I S U A L E L E M E N T S A N D P R I N C I P L E S O F A R T A N D D E S I G N ( A E S T H E T I C S ) Students perceive and respond to images from a variety of different artworks in ways that demonstrate their understanding of the visual elements and principles of art and design. Students create images that communicate their understanding of and appreciation for the visual elements and principles of art and design and how they are used to communicate. Figure 4. Provincial model that guides the Greene's College art education curriculum. Correlation to the "disciplines" in parentheses. While more complex in structure to the US version just described, the models own significant parallels. From an epistemological perspective they both identify the student's individual engagement of art using a variety of intellectual skills (not just through studio activities) as their most important feature. This contrasts to previous curriculum that tended towards treating students as receptors of a curriculum. In addition, both models are exactly that - models. They provide a structure for art programs, but avoid being prescriptive, leaving the development of specific syllabi to the classroom teacher. Significant commonalities exist on a pedagogy level as well. They are both structured around the four key disciplines of studio, aesthetics, history and criticism. Boys Doing Art 71 While the provincial model utilises differing terminology, and incorporates "criticism" across the other three disciplines rather than treating it as a separate area of study, the essential structure remains identical. In addition, both models place emphasis on sequential, accumulative learning. These points are strongly reflected in the curriculum statements produced at Greene's College (see Appendix B and C). What is important to note is that that these moves in the US to "discipline" art education curriculum, significantly impacted the way art was, and continues to be, taught in schools such as Greene's College . The maturation of the discipline-oriented approach. As the 1990s approached there appeared a general acceptance that discipline-oriented art curriculum was well discussed and understood and had, still with some contest, matured into the dominant curriculum theory in North America (Pearse, 1992). This was indicated by the emergence of research which began to examine the Getty model from a widening perspective (Hamblen, 1986). Amdur, (1993), Muth (1988), and Thompson (1995) began to conceptualise it within a co-curricular context. Hamblen (1988a) posited it as potentially anti-sexist, its discipline structure supportive of attempts to identify the elements inherent in texts, curriculum and pedagogy that nurtured sexist epistemologies. Stroh (1989) noted the similarities between design education and DBAE and the correlation between the successes they were enjoying. Silverman (1988) identified a strong democratic tendency as inherent to DBAE, while Zeller (1989) and Hamblen (1988b) began to look at it as a generic curricular instrument extending into the humanities and beyond into general education. Greer (1992a) used drama and music education's interest in DBAE as a sign of its immanent recognition as the arts curriculum model. Perhaps most indicative of the advancement of DBAE discussion was the beginning of a trend around the early 1990s to Boys Doing Art 72 utilise it as a lens through which art education's position in the "paradigmatic confusions" of the post-modernist age could be investigated (Pearse, 1992). Delacruz (1990) suggested it was a movement towards addressing critical social issues that motivated the controversies remaining in DBAE. For example, Risatti (1987) wanted DBAE to investigate how it communicated social and personal values, McFee (1991) felt art education and DBAE needed to look towards the social sciences to provide a broader, deeper understanding of the interplay of curriculum and cultures, and Chalmers (as early as 1987) called for a reconceptualisation of how DBAE interpreted culture (Chalmers, 1996). These "post-modern" discussions situated DBAE within a critical sociological framework and included a small but significant gender discourse. The trend towards more critical analysis of art's concepts and assumptions (Wolff, 1990) using broader theories in ascendancy in the social sciences (McFee, 1991) saw some sophisticated gender critiques by feminist of art education and curriculum. These discussions were situated within art curriculum theory (McRorie, 1996), the contexts of art education (for example, Freedman, 1994) and art pedagogy (Calvert, 1996), often utilising contemporary critiques of empowerment to call for a broader definition of the structure of power within art education curriculum (Hicks, 1990). One practical example of this was Wolff (1990), who noted that sociological analyses of society were highly relevant to art education but rarely used. She believed DBAE had focused on shallow interpretations of complex social issues such as class and gender. DBAE appeared rooted, she said, in simplistic "sculpture for girls" strategies without looking to the limiting underlying assumptions of art education. Boys Doing Art 73 As wi l l be discussed more fully in the following section, this trend, encouraged by Wolff (1990), Hicks (1990), Freedman (1994) and others, reversed modernist assumptions that art curriculum manipulated its participants, to argue that participants used the curriculum to arrive at their own determinations concerning gender, but were restricted in the range of those determinations by society's sexist construct. While this concept has been explored predominately through feminist analysis of the impact of art curriculum on girls, Boys Doing Art argues that examining the complexities of masculinity is also part of this agenda. Curriculum equally impacts boys and girls, and the nature of that impact is not always negative one way and positive the other. Malcolm's story suggests that the prevailing social mores of gender represented in art curriculum are more complex than we imagine. When its curriculum possesses particular characteristics, boys directly challenge those social mores. They can use art to accept, reject or modify established concepts of gender. Art can be a workshop of gender mediation. Wolf f (1990), Hicks (1990), and Freedman (1994) are correct - it is more accurate to view participants manipulating the curriculum rather than the reverse. As relationships between boys are negotiated within art curriculum the result can often be that the acceptance of other's opinions, and the acceptance of those with difference, becomes part of their negotiated concepts of "masculinity". No boy-specific study has explored this accuracy of this conjecture. So how does art's gender research "set the scene" for such investigation? Art Curriculum and Gender -When discussing gender, the prevailing sensibility (as outlined in Chapter 2) is that there exists a system of social constructs that maintain a dominant patriarchy throughout society. This occurs through the institutionalisation of male power privileges, and comes Boys Doing Art 74 at the expense of marginalising and oppressing women (Segal, 1990). In education, feminists have been able to identify a pattern of hegemonic practices by men entrenched within the history and structure of schooling and the design and enactment of curricula (Gray, 1987). Education, it is comprehensively argued, is inherently gendered. Such is the widespread institutionalisation of sexist bias in schools, the plausible assumption is that all facets of education act to maintain this privilege. Logically, subject curriculum is one active agent in this process (Sadker, Sadker & Steindam, 1989). These are not rash assumptions made from superficial analyses. They result from decades of feminist research; an immensely broad agenda of inquiry covering the many significant fields briefly described in Chapter 2. How is art education represented within this dominant body of knowledge? And how does art education, as one of the "agents of oppression", enact sexist bias through its curriculum? Trends. Issues and Methodologies in Art Education Gender Discussion These questions are significant for Boys Doing Art because this study is situated in art education's gender discourse, and it seems reasonable to assume that this subject's previous explorations of gender may well shed significant light on the issues raised by Malcolm's story. The stages of gender research. To conduct such a review, it is relevant to first note that mainstream education has followed a particular pattern of research into gender. Pinar et al, (1995) argues that this pattern is constituted of four stages. The first stage was the focus on inequality of opportunity between the sexes. This line of enquiry examined the way schooling deprived women of the educational advantages enjoyed by males. The second stage used sex-role theory to "flesh out" the nature of these differences. Within this stage, a more radical feminist approach developed a contrary (essentialist) argument Boys Doing Art 75 that women owned unique ways of "knowing" and "being" (Chodorow, 1978). A third stage focused on sexism's widespread institutionalisation in society and education. Finally, a fourth stage consisted of feminist and pro-feminist scholarship which analysed gender's permutation into concepts of knowledge and ways of knowing throughout society; a discussion that has lead to a critique of the way masculinised knowledge has historically maintained a patriarchal hegemony in society and schools (Pinar, et al, 1995). These stages spanned thirty or more years of scholarship and contributed to a significant reconceptualisation of curriculum. Originally, curriculum was treated as a tool, designed by technocrats, for the implementation of knowledge. From research such as feminism's analysis of power constructs, curriculum is now acknowledged as being an educational phenomena "which is lived, embodied and politically structured and is enacted to and by and on the individual" (Pinar et al. 1995, p. 319). We will return to this important achievement soon. Firstly, though, it is useful to catalogue how art education used these stages of research when dealing with its own particular gender issues. The stages of art education gender research. Art education consistently followed similar themes of discussion to those identified by Pinar et al. (1995) as being characteristic of mainstream feminist research. Inequality of opportunity in art education was a popular subject in the 1970s. The predominant focus was the exclusion of women from art academe, seen as representative of the subjugation of females in education and schooling (Glenn and Sherman, 1983; Lovano-Kerr, Semler & Zimmerman, 1977; Michael, 1977; Packard, 1977). The challenge was for women to be more visible at this level in art education (Collins, 1978; Collins, 1979; Sacca, 1996; Sandell, 1979; Whitesel, 1978). A second phase examined the differences between males and females - Pinar et al.'s (1995) second stage. A variety of studies investigated ways the sexes differed in art Boys Doing Art 76 production (Collins, 1977; Salkind & Salkind, 1997), art viewing (Neperud, 1986), and how sex differences could be identified through children's art works (Dalton, 1996; Duncum, 1997; Flannery & Watson, 1995). The third theme, critiques of sexism, were undertaken in art education through an historical perspective (Efland, 1985; Erikson, 1979; Korzenick, 1990; Stankiewicz, 1982), through the questioning of how gendered viewing preferences might be socially engineered (Chalmers, 1977), and through an examination of how children's art works are useful when identifying socially engineered sex stereotyping (Feinburg, 1977; Zurmuehlen, Sacca & Richter, 1984). The fourth theme in gender discourse, the analysis of the way gender permeates concepts of knowledge, has been addressed through appeals to recognise women's "ways of being" in art production (Hamblen, 1988a; Helgadottir, 1991; Sacca, 1989), in art criticism (Garber, 1996) and through art history (Hagman, 1990). A synthesis of discussion around this latter theme appeared in Collins and Sandell's (1996) Gender Issues in Art Education: Content. Contexts and Strategies, which strongly argued the need for women's "ways of knowing" to be recognised within the art curriculum (Garber, 1996), in the processes of forming that curriculum (Sacca, 1996), and to be supported within art education's pedagogy (Attenborough, 1996; Wyrick, 1996). Within the context of questioning masculine hegemony of knowledge, Check (1996) addressed homophobia and Honeychurch (1995) the institutionalisation of sexualities within art education. The methods used in art education gender research. Further examination of art education's gender research shows that similar methodological tools to those used by mainstream feminism were employed to argue these topics. Sex-role theory argued that masculinity and femininity were not biologically determined but were gendered identities created and reinforced by structures within society. As an example, the Bern Sex Role Boys Doing Art 77 Inventory (Bern, 1974, 1977) measured an individual's sense of him or herself on masculinity and femininity scales. During the 1980s considerable attention was given to using this methodology to identify and discuss essentialist elements of men and women in terms of attitudes and behaviours3. Of the art education gender studies cited previously, a considerable number used this approach to argue that many characteristics of an individual's art production reflected the existence of socially constructed gender-roles. For example, Feinburg (1977) found there was a clear sex-related evolution of themes in children's drawings. Boys' aggressive qualities were seen in their propensity for war themes, images of violence and conflict. They contrasted this with girls' "helping themes" of cooperation and nurturance. Another example comes from Salkind and Salkind (1997) who found that gendered differences existed in children's unsolicited choice of topics of art works. They concluded children were influenced in their choice by environmental rather than biological variables. Boys' experience gained by playing with three-dimensional toys, war games, and construction sets developed favourable spatial skills. In contrast to the boys, girls experiences were more circumspect. They played quietly in small groups, which provided training in social skills. A third example was Dalton (1996) who argued that children's drawings reflected the "genderising" nature of society. He identified that at "gender constancy" (the stage of maturation where we realise our sex is permanent) children utilised their art to make statements about their gender with their peers. He also concluded that children used their 3 To reiterate from Chapter 2, it was argued men owned specific characteristics such as being rational and linear in their thinking (Collins, 1974), they prized being tough minded and analytical (Kantner, 1975), and they wished to be individualistic and subjective (Pagano, 1988). If men owned these characteristics, women had their own. They were communal and group centred (Macdonald & Macdonald, 1988), circular, mystical, unifying, and emotive (Mitrano, 1981), and nurturing and cooperative (Thompson, 1986). Boys Doing Art 78 art works to experiment and express their own interpretations of gender roles. Flannery and Watson, (1995) found no gender differences in terms of artistic ability in tests on children's art, but noted that boys' drawings were less realistic and more aggressive than girls. They found a pre-disposition to violence in the art work of those with supposed "masculine" traits. Feminist power analyses have constituted the most recent trend in gender analysis in art education, Pinar et al.'s (1995) fourth stage. To reiterate, Grumet (1988), Chodorow (1978) and others used and adapted Freudian psychoanalytical theory to argue the process of education being that of "reproduction" of gendered qualities, the "mothering" role supporting a "fragile masculinity" (as discussed in the previous chapter). Pagano (1988) argued that women had no ownership of curriculum, and were complicit in supporting a patriarchal curriculum. She was joined by others who identified how the disparate masculine and feminine spheres operate in education. Within art education, a great deal of the ground work for such feminist power analyses occurred as early as 1975 with -Nesmer's (1975) and Chicago's (1975) challenge for the need for women artists to display masculine attributes to be "successful", and Collins' (1977, 1978) use of androgyny theory to argue that the rising feminine in contemporary art production came at the expense of compliance with "the masculine", rather than as a genre of expression in its own right. A number of other art studies have developed this theme. Sacca (1989) arguing from the position that sex differences were socially created, posited that art was a tool that could be used to deconstruct perceptions of "feminine" and "masculine". The repercussions of such a strategy would be a total reorganisation of the value system within art and art education to alleviate any essentialist notions of gender. Hamblen, (1988a) viewed the practice of art as being based on masculine interpretations of art and inculcated Boys Doing Art 79 with masculine value systems. Art curriculum, she argued, had the potential to challenge this archetypal image of the "male artist as role-model" by breaking the focus from predominately studio production to place equal value on areas of art curriculum such as criticism, appreciation, and aesthetics. This would allow the introduction of new interpretations of what was good in art that differed from the masculine values that had dominated the field for so long. Freedman (1994) addressed the dilemma for women of either becoming masculine in their ways of producing art, or remaining marginalised. "Men intended to draw women into their professional communities [but] in the process recreated women to be more like men" (p. 156). She advocated a broader definition of art to include "visual culture" (or manifest images). Her reasoning was that historical representation of art were rooted in masculine values of "greatness", "progressiveness" and "independent genius". Visual culture, on the other hand, was inclusive of cultural artifacts, mass media, designed objects, and other representations of art in which women had a long and close association, and provided them their own art history. This brief foray into what is a rich field of research indicates gender has been an important focus for art education for many years. What it also suggests is that gender research in art education has closely paralleled mainstream feminist research. This has happened in terms of its progression (or stages of development of ideas), it has happened in terms of the issues it has addressed, and it has happened in terms of the methodological tools that have been used to conduct this broad array of analysis. Why is this significant for Boys Doing Art? There are two points of issue. Firstly, this body of research is all we have to describe how art is perceived (in terms of gender) by its participants, something I will call art's "gender image". Is this gender image of art, rooted as it is in feminist research, Boys Doing Art 80 accurate for boys? Can it be used to help us analyse boys' experiences in the subject? Secondly, this body of research is all we have that describes (in gender terms) the impact of art's curriculum on its participants. Is this description inclusive of all students who study the subject? Does it give us the room to examine how, in gender terms, students engage the curriculum, and more particularly, how boys might explore a plurality of masculinities operating within the curriculum? The Resulting "Gender Image" of Art Education A consistent conclusion from the body of literature briefly outlined in the previous section has been that art education is not dissimilar to the rest of society; art has gender values that underlie its most core practices, and these values are inherently disadvantageous to girls. In art education the claim is that women are excluded (professionally, in art making, and in types of knowledge inherent to the subject), and that there exists a privileging of masculine values in art education to the detriment of women and girls. One method of exclusion of women in art was by making a distinction between art as a profession and art as a craft. Bernard (1981) described how society and men created a male exclusivity to its professional occupations by demeaning feminine art forms. According to Bern (1993) this practice is the privileging of male experience and the "otherising" of female experience; that is, males and male experience are treated as a neutral standard or norm for the culture or the species as a whole, and females and female experience are treated as a sex-specific deviation from the allegedly universal standard, (p. 41) Women's exclusion was based on the assumption they created art differently to men, and that theirs was the "deviation from the universal standard". Women's very natures Boys Doing Art 81 prevented them from producing art in a "professional" manner; that is, their art was not original, creative, imaginative, individual, or unique (see Collins, 1977). Instead, they were restricted to a world of "simple expressive scenes and homely virtues" (Congdon, 1996). Chalmers (1996) gave an account of such beliefs in action with his description of Fanny Mclan's attempts to open an art school for women in Victorian England. Mclan was a tireless advocate for the inclusion of women in art's professional ranks, but was continually opposed by institutionalised patriarchy; in her case a male run board voicing sexist stereotypes of the feminine in art. If women were to undertake art, it was to be within the "feminine" realms of decoration and craft. A second method of gender division in art was through the privileging of a "male aesthetic". The literature has consistently argued that the types of knowledge and value hierarchies that underlie art education derive from male values surrounding art's operation as an occupation. Any other functions of art - for example for enjoyment, decoration, or collaborative inquiry - were secondary to its operation as a profession (Collins & Sandell, 1996). One of the methods of maintaining this domination of male values in art was the elevation of the academic. McCrone (1993) describes the division of masculine and feminine as the separation of the aesthetic from the academic, the clear alienation of subjects such as art and music to the "female alignment" and part of "the only legitimate vocation for respectable ladies" (p. 34). These subjects were supposedly vital to women when seeking to develop and exude a refined and cultivated patina, important to a successful family and social life, and the positive and useful expenditure of leisure time. In contrast, "hard" applications of art was a male domain, such as the professional career and the application of art skills to logical and linear fields like technical drawing. These were elevated in status because of their economic purposefulness. Boys Doing Art 82 Another gender division was cultural. Congdon (1996) describes how historically women's art world's have been created to be different than men's; the rarefied, cultural and "high art" world of "fine" art, shut off from women's storytelling, traditional, identifying and autobiographical art world, set within their (and their families) lived experiences. This is an image of men's "museum" art as distinct from women's "home and folk" art. The research that has followed these trends and investigated these issues has effectively created a gender image of art education. Girls are excluded within curriculum because they must either conform to male dictated standards of high art - something that is counter to the feminine ways of engaging in the subject - or be relegated to "the other" (Park, 1996). Efforts in curriculum development and pedagogy practice are now aimed at acknowledging that a feminine "sensibility" exists within (and in spite of) a masculine hegemony of art history (Chicago, 1975); that girls own a legacy within art practice and art aesthetics that is unique to them and is equally valid to the masculine (Congdon, 1996). Women's unique ways of doing art has been increasingly used as a rallying point for women to redress their exclusion from the dominant world of men's art (Collins, 1978). This has created significant implications for art education with calls for strategies to help girls counter the historical domination of masculine values that have consistently degraded "women's art forms" (Calvert, 1996, p. 156). The field has consistently argued that art's gendered history (as a profession, and generally in society) means it has a similarly gendered image in art education. That is, the types of knowledge and value hierarchies that dominate art have a recognisable parallel in art education. Boys Doing Art 83 Shortfalls. Omissions and Strengths of Art's Gender Research As mentioned, in arriving at such a gender image of art education, the subject's research followed a largely feminist led research agenda. While impressive in scholarship this discourse represents only a small genre of discussion in art education (Helgadottir, 1991) and is recognised as having limitations in terms of the range of issues addressed (Packard & Zimmerman, 1977), and in terms of its ability to research in depth the implications of many of the "conjectures" it highlights (Pariser & Zimmerman, 1990). I make this point simply to stress that art education's gender research is far from complete, that it owns significant shortfalls that impact Boys Doing Art, and that this study can help to address these omissions. Has art education fully explored its gender image? The first of these shortfalls is that the gendered image of art education created by this body of research is particular to girls and does not articulate many boys' perceptions, or experiences, in the subject. For example, this gender image of art education that argues it is rooted in masculine values does not adequately explore why art education owns a "feminine" image in schools, and what effect this has on its participants. To explain, it is necessary to look briefly at education as a whole. If gender discourse in general has a history of examining differences between the sexes, it comes as no surprise that subjects within education have also been identified as owning gender images. Some subjects are perceived as "feminine", some are "masculine". How these images came into being we will discuss shortly, but it is important to note how they are used. Pinar et al. (1995) describes education having a history of utilising such images to regulate gender. This happens in two ways. Firstly, by supporting these gender stereotypes of subjects, education has streamed students into a masculine/feminine divide. Boys Doing Art 84 For example, boys "did shop" (industrial arts) while girls did home economics. Secondly, it used subject curriculum to regulate gender through policing students' concepts of sexuality. The most obvious example of this has been the homophobic and highly masculinised sub-culture generated around school sports (see, for instance, Mangan, 1981; Skelton, 1993) but has also acted to overtly "sexualise" other subjects within feminine terrains (see, for examples within art education, Check, 1996 or Honeychurch, 1995). Thirdly, by maintaining an academic hierarchy of subjects, education has regulated concepts of gender. Hierarchies of subjects have been constructed based on masculine forms of knowledge; the "academic" subjects being those which were rational, logical, linear, and cognitive, while the "non-academic" constituted the subjects which were emotive, circular, expressive, and other supposed "feminine" traits. Anne Sorensen (1992) notes that girls, for the best part of this century have accepted gendered stereotypes and reacted to the "unfeminine" by avoiding "hard" subjects. Female rejection of the sciences and of technical subjects is now seen as opposition to the male symbolism of the subjects and a masculine educational culture. Studying mathematics or physics, for example, is felt by girls to be unfeminine. To go to technical schools/courses is seen as similar to adapting to a masculine form of learning i.e. performance, competition, control, subject fanaticism, (p. 207) Soerensen makes a distinction between school subjects that are "technical" or "welfare" in orientation; the former are male oriented in that "work proceeds in a single-minded fashion in a controlled environment" (p. 209). Similarly Grant and Harding (1987) identified boys avoiding "the soft" subjects and preferring the "technical", because these subjects were "geared towards those, chiefly male, who are not primarily interested in it in Boys Doing Art 85 terms of its contribution towards meeting human and social needs, this being an area which is generally of greater interest to girls" (cited in Stables, 1990, p. 223). Other examples of the division of subjects between the masculine and the feminine abound. Helgadottir, (1997) noted that the "feminisation" of technical subjects and the "masculinisation" of home economics did little to improve enrolment and participation from the "opposite" gender and while a masculinising of home economics not only failed to attract consistent male participation it also reduced its attraction as a subject for girls. Omerod (1975), when discussing boys' and girls' choice of subjects identified a number of subjects as either strongly female or strongly male in preference. In his study the feminine subjects of choice were art, biology, English, French, history, music and home economics; while the "male" subjects of choice were chemistry, geography, mathematics, physics, sport and technical subjects. St