English Version
Abstract
This paper is founded upon the premise that ‘common sense’ understandings about boys persist within schools and, given this continuing circulation of such understandings, advocates the need to critique such conceptualising. It does so on the grounds that such understandings, and the essentialist discursive knowledges informing these, fail to take account of the complex and multifarious ways in which boys come to construct themselves as masculine subjects. In demonstrating the short-comings of such ‘common sense’ understandings, and indeed to need to call these into question, the paper examines the ways in which a group of boys took up positions of dominance within their classroom and, more specifically, focuses upon the ways in which they came to perform as embodied masculine subjects. In doing so, it explores the repertoire of practices, or range of performance techniques, mobilised by these boys a repertoire constituted by, and constitutive of, hegemonic versions of masculinity.
This paper is founded upon the premise that ‘common sense’ understandings about boys persist within schools and, given this continuing circulation of such understandings, advocates the need to critique such conceptualising. It does so on the grounds that such understandings, and the essentialist discursive knowledges informing these, fail to take account of the complex and multifarious ways in which boys come to construct themselves as masculine subjects. In demonstrating the short-comings of such ‘common sense’ understandings, and indeed to need to call these into question, the paper examines the ways in which a group of boys took up positions of dominance within their classroom and, more specifically, focuses upon the ways in which they came to perform as embodied masculine subjects. In doing so, it explores the repertoire of practices, or range of performance techniques, mobilised by these boys a repertoire constituted by, and constitutive of, hegemonic versions of masculinity.
Introduction
‘Common sense’ understandings about boys persist today – both within the broad public sphere and the school context. Such understandings have seemingly percolated public and indeed educators’, thinking about boys. More specifically, such understandings continue to be given ‘air play’ in school sites. That is, these common sense understandings of boys circulate in the talk of educators who, for example, speak of “boys just being boys” and suggest that “boys will be boys”.
Such common sense understandings of boys have their naissance in discourses of biology – biology as destiny; boys as naturally or biologically ‘wired’ this way. Such discourses about boys, and indeed teachers’ take-up of these, are, I suggest, fraught with ‘danger’. Such discourses are dangerous in that they mask the complexities of what it means to ‘be’ a masculine subject and rather, offer narrow, essentialist and predeterministic views. Further, this biologising infers a tone of dismissal and ascribes to a uselessness of challengin the actions of boys, which are seen as predestined to be this way. They imply that we overlook the actions of boys, and that there is nothing to make a fuss about, or indeed, that it will prove futile to do so. Clearly, the implications of this are of significance to educators and in particular classroom teachers as they go about their daily work in the complex, dynamic and discursively-constituted site that is the classroom.
Journals for full download on the link below
Such common sense understandings of boys have their naissance in discourses of biology – biology as destiny; boys as naturally or biologically ‘wired’ this way. Such discourses about boys, and indeed teachers’ take-up of these, are, I suggest, fraught with ‘danger’. Such discourses are dangerous in that they mask the complexities of what it means to ‘be’ a masculine subject and rather, offer narrow, essentialist and predeterministic views. Further, this biologising infers a tone of dismissal and ascribes to a uselessness of challengin the actions of boys, which are seen as predestined to be this way. They imply that we overlook the actions of boys, and that there is nothing to make a fuss about, or indeed, that it will prove futile to do so. Clearly, the implications of this are of significance to educators and in particular classroom teachers as they go about their daily work in the complex, dynamic and discursively-constituted site that is the classroom.
Journals for full download on the link below
RSS Feed 
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar