Men, Masculinity, Aggression and Dominance: An Exploration of How Young Men are Socialized to Deal with Situations of Man-on-Man Aggression and Dominance By Zinhle Vilakazi Supervisor: Nick Davies A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at the University of Witwatersrand Johannesburg 2019 i DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY I hereby declare that this thesis, unless specifically indicated to the contrary in the text is my own work, and that it has not been submitted for any degree at another university. Zinhle Vilakazi Department of Psychology University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg 2019 ii Acknowledgements Ngingathanda ukubonga umphathi wami wokucwaninga uDr Nick Davies, ngesineke sakho nangosizo anginikezelona. Ngiphinde ngibonge imibono yakho eqondayo, esenze kubenemiphumela omuhle kwezemfundozami. Above all, I appreciate your encouragement to critically engage with literature on masculinity, this has shaped the lens through which I now view life. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to everyone who participated in this study, without whom this study would not have come to completion. Thank you for your investment in helping me explore into parts of masculinity that I would have otherwise had very little insight into. KuMamawamiongizalayongingathandaukubongakakhulungokuzinikelakwakhokukho konkeokwenzileekuqinisekenikokuthingikwaziukufezaamaphuphoami. You have been my confidant, my smile keeper and my personal cheer leader. I hope to be for you, what you have always been for me. To my partner, Kgomotso Hlabangwana, the robust conversations about my research and for loving me in a way only you know how. I love you. To my family, Zama, Hayley, Qhophelo, Pono, Pinocchio, uMamThoko, no malum eongalumani nalo olumanayo, thank you for your continued investment in my journey. Your love and support has been anchoring. Thank you to my youngest brother, Arnold for bearing with me. I appreciate all the cups of coffee (sweetened by your love) that you have made me. To my friends, DK, Letso and Olwethu, thank you for your love, support and all the laughter we continue to share together. I appreciated your presence throughout this journey. Tatiana, thank you for your late-night calls and consistent friendship throughout this journey. You have extended yourself beyond what is expected of a colleague and I am eternally grateful for the friend I have found in you. To James, thank you for agreeing to be my co-facilitator and sharing your ideas and food with me. I will forever hold the experience of you close to my heart. To Rooksar, thank you for giving me the power of Thor! Thank you, Phiwe for being such an overall stunning human being. Thank you for holding me in mind and keeping me grounded when things seemed uncertain. iii Ngithanda ukunikelalomsebenzi ngokukhetekile kuMkhuluwami, umtwanakaLucy; Maziya, Gembe, Mkhabela, Mcusi omhlophe izandla nezinyawo. Asikho isigaba sempilo yami ongazangewanikelano kumangalisayo. Inhliziyo yamiibuhlungu ngokuthi awukwazanga ukubakhona name ukuze ubone imiphumela emihle yemisebenzi yakho. Uhlezi usenhlizweniyami ngasosonkeisikhathi. Ngiyabonga ngokungi bumba ngibe yilenkosazana engiyiyo namuhla. Ngiyathemba ukuba uyazi qhenya ngomzukuluwakho. iv Abstract There is a considerable body of research placing young South African men at the core of interpersonal violence. Within these studies they are frequently positioned as both perpetrators and victims of extreme and homicidal modes of aggression. In light of this gendered nature of interpersonal violence, this study was directed at exploring how young men’s responses to a situation of man-on-man aggression and dominance might be linked to how society encourages or expects a certain masculine performance from men in such situations. This study’s secondary goal was to offer some ideas about how young men might establish a masculine identity through aggression and dominance. In the pursuing research aims, a total of 14 young adult men attending university participated in this qualitative study. From the analysis what became evident was the continuous pressure that young adult men experience in society, through various social institutions, to somehow fit into dominant or hegemonic constructions of masculinity. Within the context of this study, the proximal cause of aggression and dominance was attributed to broader concerns regarding presentation of a masculine identity, self-worth and social status. Keywords: Masculine identity, gender socialization, identity development, aggression and dominance, interpersonal violence, hegemonic masculinity v Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. ii Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv 1. Chapter 1 .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Research Questions ................................................................................................. 4 1.3. Rationale .................................................................................................................... 4 2. Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 9 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9 2.1.1. Identity Formation.............................................................................................. 9 2.1.2. Socially Constructed Gender Identities ....................................................... 13 2.1.2.1. Gender Socialization ................................................................................... 18 2.1.2.2. Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity .............................................. 21 2.1.2.3. Masculine Interpersonal Aggression and Dominance ....................... 22 3. Chapter Three: Methodology ....................................................................................... 28 3.1. Research Design .................................................................................................... 28 3.2. Description of Participants and Procedure ......................................................... 28 3.3. Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 30 3.3.1. Focus Groups .................................................................................................. 30 3.3.2. Semi-structured Individual Interviews .......................................................... 33 vi 3.4. Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 34 3.5. Ethical considerations ............................................................................................ 36 3.6. Research Reflexivity and Researcher’s Experience ......................................... 38 4. Data Analysis and Discussion ..................................................................................... 41 4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 41 4.2. Manly Honour (Discourses around Establishing and Preserving a Masculine Identity) ............................................................................................................................... 42 4.2.1. Building and Maintaining a Reputation as a Honourable Man ................. 44 4.2.2. Managing Public Perception .......................................................................... 47 4.2.3. What it Means to be a Man (The Function of Aggression and Dominance in Fulfilling Gender Roles) ........................................................................................... 60 4.2.3.1. The Big Wheel .......................................................................................... 60 4.2.3.2. The Reliable Oak ..................................................................................... 64 4.2.3.3. Give em Hell: “The Story of Goliath” ..................................................... 70 4.2.3.4. Manly Business (Discourses Around the Function of Aggression and Dominance in Avoiding Femininity) ........................................................................ 74 4.3. Reaction to Transgressors .................................................................................... 78 4.3.1. Active Silencing of Atypical Responses ....................................................... 78 4.3.2. Emasculating Men to Reinforce Traditional Masculine Performance ..... 84 4.3.3. Distancing Gender Non-Conforming Men ................................................... 97 5. Chapter 5: Conclusion ................................................................................................ 103 vii 5.1. Central Findings .................................................................................................... 103 5.2. Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................... 105 5.3. Directions for Future Research .......................................................................... 106 References ........................................................................................................................... 108 Appendix A: Vignette ....................................................................................................... 127 Appendix B: Focus Group Interview Schedule ............................................................... 128 Appendix C: Individual Interview Schedule ..................................................................... 129 Appendix D: Focus Group Information Letter ................................................................. 130 Appendix E: Focus Group Consent Form ....................................................................... 132 Appendix G: Participant Informed Consent ..................................................................... 136 Appendix H: Informed Consent for Audio Recording .................................................... 138 Appendix I: Ethics Approval Letter ................................................................................... 139 1 1. Chapter 1 1.1. Introduction Theorists across a number of disciplines, including political sciences, anthropology, sociology and psychology depict manhood as precarious and elusive as a social status (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). Cultural statements such as “men are made, not born”, serve as an indicator of the precarious and intangible nature of manhood (Gilmore, 1990), with a masculine identity being earned rather than being biologically inherited, and at any moment it can be taken away (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). Literature pertaining to men and the construction of masculinity has shown that men often engage in various behaviours to gain and maintain their masculine status (see for example Ref 1, Ref 2). In addition, such literature indicates that in most societies the acquisition of a masculine gender identity is not an easy process. The literature reveals that most men are indoctrinated from a young age with certain ideas of masculine behaviour (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Gilmore, 1990) then are later required to display these behaviours in a public domain, sanctioned as appropriate by their male (and female at times) peers (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). There are a number of situations that provide men with the opportunity of displaying these man making behaviours (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Crowther, Goodson, McGuire & Dickson, 2013) such as those that allow men to generate dominance in social relations (Ratele, 2013), those that involve risk taking where men can demonstrate fearlessness and situations where men can demonstrate physical aggression or the readiness to demonstrate it (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). A situation of man-on-man aggression and dominance offers a favourable setting for males to act in a manner which proves their masculinity for various reasons (Connell, 2002; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Whitehead, 2005; Wojnicka, 2015). For the most part, the expression of aggression and dominance by males in most societies is seen as a cultural script for gaining a masculine status (Connell, 2002; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Whitehead, 2005; Wojnicka, 2015). Thus, the expression of these behaviours helps men avoid precarious non-masculine positions (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Whitehead, 2005). A great deal of literature suggests that in most societies, including South 2 Africa, the display of behaviours that signal aggression and dominance in interpersonal settings is considered as an act of honour, more so, if the display of these behaviours are in response to provocation (Saucier & McManus, 2014; Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008; Stevens, 2008; Swart, 2006). Additionally, some research studies show that a masculine status is further legitimized when the display of aggressive and domineering behaviours happen between men because they belong to a social category that is linked to power (Whitehead, 2005; Wojnicka, 2015). Therefore, the expression of these behaviours between men is seen as an expression of power (Whitehead, 2005; Wojnicka, 2015). According to Bourdieu (2002) the show of aggression and dominance between men forms part of various masculine competition games where by men can test and validate each other’s masculinity. This show of aggression and dominance helps them achieve a masculine status more readily, as opposed to occupational or educational alternatives which signal material, cultural and capital success; all of which are tenets of a dominant form of masculinity (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Whitehead, 2005). Schrock and Schwalbe (2009) contend that a masculine status is readily achieved in these situations because the display of these behaviours can be used by males without material resources to defy subordination. They posit that aggressive and domineering behaviours symbolically represent a claim to privilege; they elicit respect from peers and allow men to resist exploitation (Schrock & Schwalbe, 2009). Although there are a number of men who resist adopting a masculine style of being that demands that they show aggression and dominance (Crowther et al., 2013; Ravn, 2017), masculinity scholars continue to uncover evidence that men of all classes in Western nations (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Eastman, 2012) and countries like South Africa (Jewkes et al., 2015; Ratele, 2013) are under continuous and immense pressure from society to conform to a type of masculinity that prescribes aggression and dominance. Prominent researchers in the field of masculinity, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), state that aggression is socially encouraged and expected as it is a prescription of an ideal and abstracted form of manhood, referred to in the literature, as hegemonic 3 masculinity. Dominance and competitiveness are also qualities closely associated with hegemonic masculinity that males are encouraged to demonstrate (Morrell, Jewkes, Lindegger & Hamlall, 2013). Hegemonic masculinity is a culturally idealized form of masculinity commonly conceptualised as a set of values that are determined by men in power with the purpose of including or excluding marginalized men and women from certain positions of power and organizing society in gender inequitable ways (Jewkes et al., 2015; Joseph & Lindegger, 2007). Hegemonic masculinity is the combination of several features (Jewkes & Morrell, 2012). According to Jewkes et al. (2015) and Jewkes and Morrell (2012), these include a hierarchy of masculinities and the differential access to power that occurs among men (over women and oppressed men);with the difference in access to power, albeit not solely, conceptualized in terms of differences in sex, but also in terms of race and class (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). In addition to these features are the interplay which takes place between the ideals that men hold, their identities, interactions, power and patriarchy (Jewkes & Morrell, 2012). It is largely debated that this form of masculinity is not only problematic for females because it frequently keeps them in positions where they are dominated by males, but it is also taxing on males because its encouragement of competitive relations, between males, comes at the expense of their health and quality of life (Jewkes et al., 2015; Seedat, van Niekerk, Jewkes, Suffla & Ratele, 2008). Seedat et al. (2009) continue to state that hegemonic masculinity becomes a health risk because a show of strength and physical resilience is valorised no matter the danger or the violence involved. The impact of this is most evident in South Africa where the contents of hegemonic masculinity are the demonstration of strength, toughness, as well as the willingness and capacity to use violence. (Jewkes et al., 2015; Morrell et al., 2013). It is also evidenced in the excess of mortality as a result of interpersonal violence between men (Matzopoulos et al., 2015). It is beneficial for such reasons that research in the field of masculinity to engage in an exploration of how society informs the manner in which males conduct themselves, in particularly, situations whereby 4 males formulate an identity, through the behavioural prescriptions and proscriptions that society sets out. Aims  The purpose of this study is to explore how young men’s responses to a situation of man-on-man aggression and dominance might be linked to how society encourages or expects a certain masculine performance from men in such situations.  The study also aims to offer some insight into how young men might establish a masculine identity through aggression and dominance. 1.2. Research Questions a. How might gender socialization influence how young men manage situations of personal man-on-man aggression? b. To what extent do young men establish a masculine identity through aggression and dominance? 1.3. Rationale Globally an estimate of 1.3 million people die each year as a consequence of violence in all its forms (self-directed, interpersonal and collective), which accounts for 2.5% of mortality worldwide (WHO, 2014). The most recent Global Status Report on Violence and Prevention revealed that since the year 2000, approximately 6 million people have been killed globally as a result of interpersonal violence (WHO, 2014). The degree of violence in South Africa, as indicated in South African studies investigating mortality trends from 1997 to 2012, positions interpersonal violence as the 8th leading cause of death (Pillay-van Wyk et al., 2016; Matzopoulos et al., 2015). In addition, South Africa’s homicide rate of 38.4 per 100 000 population, which is inclusive of non-fatal interpersonal violence; that is much more common and under reported, continues to place it as one of the three most violent countries in the world (Matzopoulos et al., 2015). 5 There is a considerable body of research placing young South African males at the core of interpersonal violence (Mahlangu, Gevers & De Lannoy, 2014; van Niekerk et al., 2015). Moreover, men are frequently positioned as both perpetrators and victims of extreme and homicidal modes of aggression (Mahlangu et al., 2014; van Niekerk et al., 2015). The literature goes on to reveal that young males are predominantly affected by interpersonal violence (Mahlangu et al., 2014; van Niekerk et al., 2015). In 2012, interpersonal violence was included in the list of the top 10 leading causes of death for South African males, a factor which was not observed in the list of the top 10 leading causes of death for South African females (Pillay-van Wyk et al., 2016). Additionally, data collected from the year 2000 reveals that interpersonal violence among young adult South African males, are nine times higher than the global average and that young South African males are five to six times more likely to display violent behaviour in comparison to females (Kheswa & Notole, 2014; Otwombe et al., 2015). The high rates of interpersonal violence amongst young adult males is also evidenced in a study conducted by the MRC-UNISA Crime, Violence and Injury Lead Programme (2008) which aimed to identify the risk and protective factors of male interpersonal violence. This study revealed that South African males were six times more likely to die as a result of homicide than females (Donson, 2009). Furthermore, recent studies show that this ratio remains unchanged and while female homicides have continued to decrease significantly over the years, male homicides have not kept up with the pace of this decline, despite the fact that male interpersonal violence has been recognized as a public health priority (Choe, Zimmerman & Devnarain, 2012; Matzopoulos et al., 2015; van Niekerk et al., 2015). This gendered nature of interpersonal violence in early adulthood (as discussed above), coupled with the oscillating positions between victim and perpetrator, which males often hold in situations of interpersonal violence (Mahlangu et al., 2014; van Niekerk et al., 2015) is the reason for this study. Moreover, this study particularly draws its focus on males and their responses to situations of male aggression and dominance, rather than focusing on females and their responses to interpersonal aggression and dominance by male perpetrators. However, it does not intend to 6 minimise the magnitude and effects of interpersonal violence against females by male perpetrators. Rather, the aim of this study, through its specific focus on males between the ages 18-23 years and their responses to situations of male-on-male aggression and dominance, leans towards offering some ideas on the various kinds of social conditions which have been established and are continuously created to maintain the high rate of male-on-male interpersonal violence. The study’s focus on young males between the ages of 18-23 is partly influenced by research, both internationally and nationally, which has found that males between the ages of 15-29 years account for a large proportion of deaths linked to interpersonal violence (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwian, & Lozano, 2002; Mahlangu et al., 2014; Matzopoulos et al., 2015). Additionally, this research is based partly on South African studies which implicate early adult males as the main perpetrators and victims of interpersonal violence (Mahlangu et al., 2014). Increasing mortality rates are not the only consequence of male interpersonal violence. Male interpersonal violence has long term negative psychological and health implications on both an individual and a societal level (Choe, Zimmerman & Devnarain, 2012; Mahlangu et al., 2014; Otwombe et al., 2014). As a public health priority, interventions aimed at reducing and preventing male interpersonal violence should aim to understand the conditions that allow for its preservation in society (Ahmed & Suffia, 2012). A review of the literature purportedly indicates that interpersonal violence amongst young adult males have been attributed to a range of factors (Crespi, 2003; Vetten & Ratele, 2013). For instance, some studies lean towards biology as the basis of violence in young adult males, whilst other studies consider life experiences and other contributing social factors as the cause of violence amongst this population (Crespi, 2003; Vetten & Ratele, 2013). Various studies conducted on the South African young adult population reveals that interpersonal violence amongst this population is generally committed by young adults who come from lower- socioeconomic backgrounds (Jewkes, 2002; Otwombe et al., 2014; Shields, Nadasen, & Pierce, 2008). Additionally, studies such as these do not show a causal link between poverty and the enactments of violence but indicate that it creates situations that make it more likely (Otwombe et al., 2014; Ouzgane & Morrell, 2005). 7 However, such studies do not adequately explain why males, as opposed to females of the same socio-economic group, are more likely to perpetrate and experience violence. These studies also fail to account for the occurrence of violence amongst young adult males across all socio-economic groups. A great deal of research exploring issues relating to young adult males and the manner in which they are socialized to behave, in more violent ways (or perceived masculine ways), focuses on sexual and physical aggression against women and children (Matzopoulos et al., 2015; Stevens, 2008). Such studies link political, familial and societal conditions as specific socialization agents on young adult males (Schwartz et al., 2012). Differential socialization and the construction of masculinity can be seen as factors in young male’s increased tendency for the enactment of violence (Crespi, 2003). A feature of interpersonal violence that is frequently ignored or less reflected upon is that of man-on-man aggression and dominance (Matzopoulos et al., 2015; Stevens, 2008). There appears to be limited research investigating how young adult males are socialized to manage conditions of interpersonal aggression and dominance, as well as issues related to the enactments of masculinity as it pertains to aggression. For this reason, research exploring how young adult males are socialized to deal with situations of aggression and dominance is necessary to add to the body of existing literature on males and masculinity. This reason constitutes an aspect of what this research aims to do. The secondary aim of this research study is to investigate the extent to which a masculine identity is established through dominance and aggression. An understanding of how masculine identities are established through aggression and dominance can aid in the development of intervention programmes directed at reducing and preventing interpersonal violence, as it can explore the spaces in which the definition of masculinity is created, taught and assimilated (Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention, 2015; Mahlangu et al., 2014). As longitudinal studies on aggression have indicated, early patterns of aggressive behaviour are predictors of later violent behaviour, a trend that is often seen in males (Temcheff et al., 2008). 8 9 2. Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1. Introduction This section will review the extant literature, discussing the link between masculine identity and aggression/violence. In particular, this chapter will delve into literature which examines the role of socialisation in encouraging aggression and dominance as a masculine trait. It is important to note that this research focuses specifically on men and that the researcher will make use of the words ‘his’, ‘he’ and ‘him’. Therefore, it is important to be cognisant at times of the fact that the theory may also be applicable to women. 2.1.1. Identity Formation In his seminal work Erikson (1968) wrote “In the social jungle of human existence there is no feeling of being alive without a sense of identity” (p.130). He uses this phrase to emphasize a period of time when a young person is faced with the psychosocial task of establishing a cohesive sense of identity. Erikson (1968) implicates identity development in the facilitation of individual well-being and adjustment, proposing the opposite should an individual fail to develop a coherent identity. The outcome of this psychosocial task is identity confusion (Erikson, 1968). Erikson (1968) further states that though identity is shaped throughout an individual’s life, most of the work is done during the transition between childhood and adulthood. Erikson continued to theorize that the beginning of puberty brings with it vast developmental changes in cognitive functioning and physical skills (Erikson, 1968). The theory goes on to state that the considerable development which takes place during adolescence is not limited to the advancement of one’s cognitive ability and improved physical skill, but rather, it also extends to increase autonomy and independence (Erikson, 1968). According to Kroger (2004), these psychosocial developments that take place during adolescence allow for individuals to interact to a greater extent with the social world; signifying the shift from childhood to adulthood. Erikson (1959) believed that any attempt to understand an individual cannot be done outside the individual’s social context. Further, he theorized that the individual and 10 society are intricately interconnected and dynamically related in perpetual change (Erikson, 1959; Erikson, 1968). Erikson was the first to highlight that the social world exists within the psychological make-up of every individual (Sokol, 2009; Hoare, 2002). Erikson (1968) believed that the formation of an identity is dependent on the individual’s interaction with the social world, outside their relationships with significant others making up their family. He proposed that society provides the individual with spaces where he can explore ideologies, as well as selectively repudiate and assimilate identifications that are formed in childhood (Erikson, 1968). These identifications inform that which a child understands about themselves, their capacities, their body parts and their roles (Erikson, 1968). The more contact an individual has with society, the more an individual configures additional identifications (Erikson, 1968). Erikson (1950, 1968) posited that there are dangers to identity development in spaces where alternative ideologies were limited, such as a family setting where children establish their initial identifications, or a society that values and permits certain ideas whilst prohibiting and disregarding other forms of thought. He theorized that under such conditions the individual would, in his conformity, accept the only criterion of worthiness that has been offered to him (Erikson, 1968). In this process, Erikson (1968) believed that the individual not only sacrifices his imagination, but also readily abandons his capacity to engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation, submitting himself to what Marx called “craft idiocy”. Building on these ideas, Erikson hypothesized that an individual’s final identity is made up of all significant identifications that are shaped by a number of interactions which are altered to form a unique and reasonably cohesive whole (Erikson, 1968). Even though he wrote at length about identity formation in adolescence and revolutionized developmental thought; Erikson has often been criticized for being vague in his definitions of identity and ambiguous in his explanations of identity development (Sokol, 2009; Beyers & Luyckx, 2015). In reviewing the literature, a number of theorists have attempted to conceptualize identity in efforts to expand on Erikson’s work (Beyers & Luyckx, 2015; Kroger, 2004; Marcia, 1966; Marcia, 1980). 11 Marcia, a prominent identity theorist, contributed to Erikson’s work on identity by making his theory explicit and testable. As a result, this offered a broader understanding of identity and its formation (Kroger & Marcia, 2011). Moving away from Erikson’s ideas of a final identity as the outcome of identity formation, Marcia (1980) proposed that identity is not fixed and that throughout life, various elements are constantly being added to it and discarded from it. He further construed identity as an internal, self-constructed dynamic combination of abilities, beliefs, drives and individual history (Marcia, 1980). Marcia (1980), labelled this self-constructed dynamic organisation as a self-structure, other times he referred to it as an identity structure. From this perspective, the term identity is used to describe the makeup of values, principles and roles that an individual has adopted. Therefore, the period of identity formation, is when an individual explores these roles, values and principles without committing to them (Beyers & Luyckx, 2015; Marcia, 1966; Marcia, 1980). The consequence of a poorly developed identity structure results in reduced insight into one’s uniqueness and an increased reliance on external factors in the process of self-evaluation (Marcia, 1980). Conversely, a well-developed identity structure is one which is flexible in that it is open to changes in relationships and society (Marcia, 1980). An individual with a well-developed identity structure has a greater understanding of both his distinctiveness, as well as his similarity to others; in addition, the individual has an increased awareness of their capacities and uses this knowledge of the self to operate in the world (Marcia, 1980). According to Schwartz et al. (2013), the point in adolescence, at which there is an exponential increase in the amount of time individuals spend exploring who they are or what they want, is between 18 – 25 years of age. It should also be highlighted that various identity researchers come to the same conclusion (see for example Klimstra et al, 2010; Kroger, 2002; Luyckx, Gossans, Siemens & Beyers, 2006). This period is referred to as ‘late adolescent’, ‘emerging adulthood’, ‘early adulthood’ or ‘young adulthood’ (Klimstra et al., 2010; Triple, 2013). The term that will be used in this study to refer to individuals of this age group, whom are in the process of formulating an identity is ‘young adult’. 12 Though Marcia believed that the process of identity formation is not a static one and that identity is constantly being shaped throughout life; he posited that individuals have a period of moratorium whereby they consider a number of identity related choices and eventually gain a clear sense of self-definition or an overarching personal identity (Marcia, 1966; Marcia, 1980). Although Marcia acknowledges socio-cultural effects on identity formation, much of his work implies a passive surrounding (Yoder, 2000). More contemporary researchers believe however, that models that propose the process of identity formation as internalized and self- constructed, assume the identity exploration and commitment occur in fixed environments (Alarid & Vega, 2010; Cote & Levine, 2002; Steensma, Keukels, Vries & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013; Yoder, 2000). Contemporary researchers go on to argue that such models disregard the impact of socio-cultural factors, such as racism, poverty and gender bias, on internal psychological processes (Steensma et al., 2013; Verschuren, Rassaert, Claes, Moons & Luyckx, 2017; Yoder, 2000). A number of studies point to how South Africa offers a unique set of circumstances to assess identity formation among the South African Youth (Alberts, 2000; Norris et al., 2008). These studies highlight how social and political change such as the end of Apartheid can impact significantly on identity formation (Alberts, 2000; Norris et al., 2008). A salient feature of this social and political change is that the mechanisms and institutionalized barriers that had historically hindered identity development were gradually dissipating (Mashegoane, 2012). For example, issues regarding gender equity, education and career opportunities and barriers to political participation were being addressed which subsequently influences identity development and self- perception (Mashegoane, 2012). Regardless of this political and societal transformation, it should be noted that South Africa remains a stratified society where the formation of an identity is unlikely to be homogenous (Norris et al., 2000). Verschueren et al. (2017) research on gender, age and contextual differences in identity formation highlighted the importance of including contextual variables into identity formation methodologies. Their research found that males and females do not manage the psychosocial task of developing an identity similarly, linking this differentiation in identity formation to the manner in which society is organised. 13 Verschueren et al. (2017) found that males were less inclined to explore identity related options than females and that some males even avoided doing so. In addition to this, their study found that males were more likely to commit to ideals and roles that society typically expects males to adopt (Verschueren et al., 2017). Other studies exploring identity, gender differentiation in identity formation and gender constructions suggest that the difference in consolidation of identities between females and males lies in the developmental task of an evolving gender-role identity (Davies, 2007; Kroger, 2007). According to Davies (2007), young adulthood is a period whereby individuals define themselves on the basis of the characteristics that are closely related to each masculine or feminine gender-role. Though this process begins in childhood, the pressure to measure up to culturally sanctioned gender- roles is intensified during this period (Kroger, 2007; Sneetsma et al., 2013). Some writers, like Philaretou (2001) attribute the difficulties young adult males experience in consolidating their identities to the responses they receive from society. Philaretou (2001) suggests that the challenges males have in forming cohesive identities is due to the emphasis social institutions place on young adult males and their masculine identities. This means that a masculine identity needs to be achieved and judged to be achieved by individuals around them. Contemporary gender theories state that this input is often given to the individual through verbal and non- verbal communication which is performative (Litosseliti & Sunderland, 2002). These theories suggest that gender identities are processes that are constantly negotiated and modified in public spheres (Litosseliti & Sunderland, 2002). The following section of the literature review will discuss gender and gender identity as an enactment of beliefs about gender. 2.1.2. Socially Constructed Gender Identities The world is organized around ideas that males and females are different in terms of needs, desires and capabilities (Holmes, 2007). It was historically assumed that these differences were the consequence of biology. In his book, The Division of Labour in Society, initially published in 1893, the social theorist Durrheim believed that the progressive differentiation of anatomy manifested in the differentiation of political and economic functions, including psychological differences (Durrheim, 14 1984). He argued that, as a consequence of an evolutionary process, males were biologically equipped to be more productive in society and were capable of advancing a society’s economy, as well as ensuring its survival (Durrheim, 1984). He further argued that the subordinate positions held by females in society were organic and socially necessary; stating that only females in primitive societies desired to be equal to males (Durrheim, 1984). Weber, another social theorist, noted to have had some insights on inequalities between males and females, hypothesized that the domination and subordination of females were due to the natural superiority of the physical and intellectual capacities of males (Webber, 1947). Though Webber and Durrheim often stressed in their works the impact of social forces in a number of things; they failed to scrutinize ‘sex’ as a significant social division (Holmes, 2007). Biological essentialist views of femaleness and maleness remain popular; they are reiterated in the media and shared in biology textbooks (Ratele, 2008). In more recent years, biological essentialism is further supplemented by the work done by the Human Genome Project which often suggests that baby boys are the result of a sex determining gene (Ratele, 2008). On the contrary, authors such as Kimmel (2011) argue that one’s anatomical composition does not determine who one is, that is, biology does not determine whether one becomes masculine or feminine. Ratele (2008) found that biological researchers often confuse the presence of a Y chromosome or the possession of a penis with masculinity. There is a clear distinction between the two; the term ‘sex’ refers to the biological differences between males and females and ‘gender’ refers to the ideas about the differences between being masculine and being feminine, both of which are socially produced (Oakley, 2015). This then means that individuals are not born with gender identities. Rather, meanings and expectations about how they should exist in the world are created and attached to their bodies by society and this in turn is strongly implicated in gender identity development. The most common usage of the term ‘gender’ refers to the socially constructed differences between women and men, notably based on divisions that are biological between males and females (Oakley, 2015; Connell, 2009). In this sense, gender is used to highlight both difference and dichotomy. Connell (2005) finds such definitions of gender problematic. Connell and Pearse (2014) state that human 15 character cannot simply be observed through the notion of gender as dichotomous because in reality it is not. They further state that using dichotomy as the core basis in defining gender would mean that the differences between women and the differences between men would be excluded from the concept of gender (Connell & Pearse, 2014). In addition to this, Connell and Pearse (2014) argue that a definition based on difference implies that where difference cannot be observed gender cannot be seen. Kimmel (2011) proposes that gender be construed as socially constructed and multidimensional. It is plural in that there are no singular normative definitions of femininity and masculinity (Kimmel, 2011) and that gender differences are produced by the manner in which society is organized by social structures (Connell, 2009). Thus, meanings of femininity and masculinity can vary over historical time and fluctuate within any given culture as well as in different cultures (Kimmel, 2011). In addition to this, definitions of masculinity and femininity can vary over a period of an individual’s life (Kimmel, 2011). The idea that there is no universal lasting definition of gender and that meanings are produced by social structures is demonstrated in a study conducted by Hadebe (2013), where he interviewed 15 males between the ages of 21 and 50 years in peri- urban areas in KwaZulu Natal. The aim of this research was to explore how cultural and religious or faith practices impacted on Zulu men’s understandings of their masculinity. The research goes on to investigate the degree to which political culture, shaped by the South African Constitution and which promotes gender equity is, if at all, changing their perceptions of masculinity (Hadebe, 2013). Hadebe (2013) writes that during pre-colonial times Zulu boys were expected to be hunters and cowherds and eventually grow into men who grow the homestead economy. The activities they were involved in not only socialized them to behave aggressively and to contest respect amongst their male peers but they were also intended to prepare them for manhood (Hadebe, 2013). The homestead economy, which was once the core of male dominance, did not survive the introduction of colonialist capitalism and the influence of the missionary enterprise, which also brought with it a new set of standards of behaving, as well as a change in structural 16 patterns. As a result, Zulu masculine identity evolved (Hadebe, 2013). The Christian tradition aided by the introduction of Apartheid in South Africa, contributed negatively on the evolution of the Zulu masculinity, as it undermined the Zulu man’s respect among his peers and authority (Hadebe, 2013). According to Hadebe (2013), in response to policies set up by the apartheid government, Zulu nationalism steadily eclipsed in the early 1900’s. Further, Zulu tradition and masculinity became politicized and was used to redefine what it meant for one to be a Zulu man (Hadebe, 2013). However, the militarised concept of manhood which rose through the influence of Zulu ethnic nationalism did not withstand the transition of democracy in South Africa because the democratic government promoted gender equality (Hadebe, 2013). Hadebe’s (2013) study revealed that males use the combination of cultural and religious beliefs in their understandings of what it means to be a man. In addition to this, his study revealed that some males shaped their understandings of masculinity around the standards set by the current political culture (Hadebe, 2013). Studies like the one conducted by Hadebe partly serve to emphasize the impossibility of deploying a singular concept of gender in a highly divided country like South Africa which has been historically ruled by racialized power that still continues to exist (Hunter, 2005; Morrell et al., 2013). Along with demonstrating gender as plural, Hadebe’s study signifies how gender is also relational. Gender is relational in that individuals construct their ideas about their gender identity in perpetual reference to what it means to be masculine or feminine because the individual relates to those around him (Kimmel, 2011). Males often construct their ideas about masculinity in relation to femininity as well as their ideas about other masculinities (Connell, 2009). Kimmel (2011) observed that a dominant universal component of masculinity is that of anti-femininity. Males construct their meanings of what it means to be men in juxtaposition to what is meant to be a woman (Kimmel, 2011). In an explanation of gender as both plural and relational, Kimmel (2011) states that gender is therefore also situational; stating that meanings ascribed to masculinity and femininity varies from one context to the next. By situational, Kimmel (2011) 17 rationalises that gender is comprised of a particular set of behaviours which are produced in certain social situations; implying that as the situation changes, so does gender alter in the process of this change. Therefore, social institutions are responsible for creating what it means to be masculine or feminine through ideas and activities. In their seminal paper, West and Zimmerman (1987) describe gender as the property of an institution rather than the property of an individual. Holmes (2007) highlights that though social structures shape individuals into being feminine and masculine, individuals are not without their own sense of agency. This does not imply that individuals can do whatever they want or that everything depends on these differences within individuals because society is always structured to constrain individuals (Connell, 2009; Holmes, 2007). As a result, even though individuals have a sense of agency and act in accordance to their agency, society is organized in such a way that it impacts on the choices that individuals make and it has a major effect on the consequences of those choices (Holmes, 2007). The difficulty faced by individuals in exercising their agency is due to the belief that they are accountable to society and further, dependent on how their actions maybe characterized by others (West & Zimmerman, 1987). West and Zimmerman (1987) go as far as describing gender as an ideological device with as much power to produce, reproduce as well as legitimize both the choices and limits that are established on the sex category. Consequently, individuals may not always behave in stereotypically masculine or feminine ways. However, individuals are cognizant of the fact that engaging in behaviour that is specific to their sex maybe detrimental in an arena where they are being assessed (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Literature exploring the social constructionist perspective of gender, describes the act of producing behaviours as either masculine or feminine. In thinking of gender as plural, relational and situational, West and Zimmerman (1987), state that gender needs to be thought of as something that individuals do repeatedly during interactions with others. Doing gender comprises of intricate socially directed continuous interactional and micro-political activities which classify particular pursuits as manifestations of femininity or masculinity (West & Zimmerman, 1987). The following section of the literature review will explore the manner in which individuals 18 display gendered behaviours and how culture instils the need for individuals, particularly males, to do gender. Furthermore, it will explore aggression and dominance as gendered behaviours. 2.1.2.1. Gender Socialization Doing gender requires that individuals do things in interactions that are categorized as either being masculine or feminine. West and Zimmerman (1987) state that when individuals do gender, it is more of a situated doing, performed in either the actual or virtual presence of others who are believed to be oriented to its production. By this, West and Zimmerman (1987) contend that the performance of gender should not be construed as the property of individuals, but rather, that it be understood as an emergent feature of social institutions. West and Zimmerman (1987) further state that, even though one’s masculinity or femininity is placed on them based on their biological sex from birth, it is through everyday life experiences where this categorization is determined and maintained. Further, these categorizations are also maintained by socially mandated identificatory displays which declare an individual’s membership of either the masculine or feminine category (West and Zimmerman, 1987). As a social requirement, in producing gender individuals expect that others will judge them and respond to them in a particular manner (West & Zimmerman, 1987). In working from a social constructionist perspective, individuals can do gender behaviourally through interactions as noted above, institutionally and through discourse (Burr, 1994; Goffman, 1977; West & Zimmerman, 1987). In one of Goffman’s (1977) influential work, he demonstrates how gender is performed institutionally in his account of how physical aspects of social settings provide a resource for the expression of our difference. When gender is performed through discourse it is seen as being conveyed through a collection or arrangement of images, stories, statements or meanings that construct a particular understanding of events or certain versions of an object (Burr, 1994; Parker, 1992). Thus, discourses are also influential in determining how individuals structure identity of self and their personal experiences (Parker, 1992). According to Burr (1994), a key assumption 19 underpinning social constructionist theory is that knowledge is constructed by our daily interactions and maintained through social processes. Social constructionist view language as an expression of thought that is constructed and determines the ways in which experience and conscious are structured. In addition to this, Burr (1994) states that people construct and reconstruct their identities through the use of language. From the moment a baby comes into the world it is flooded with symbols and language which affects its conception of gender (Carter, 2014). Language used in society to describe males often centre on their physical characters and themes such as agility and potency, whereas the language which is appropriated to females might address delicateness, fragility and sensitivity (Carter, 2014). These different approaches to males and females from birth are aimed at shaping behaviour patterns and delineating boundaries; these boundaries eventually become identity standards (Stets & Carter, 2011). Further, according to Carter (2014), identity standards are references on interactions and contexts that individuals draw on to evaluate the self in relation to others. Therefore, discourses on masculinity and what it is to be ‘a real man’ have implications on how males structure their identities. According to Omar (2011), individuals will often behave in accordance to their ideas of masculinity in terms of what is expected from them by the environment. Omar (2011), states that different displays of ideas on masculine behaviour shape an individual’s masculine gender identity. He further states that the more an individual does gender in his interactions with others the more the individual commits to a set gender identity and as a result the gender identity becomes pronounced within the self and evident through its expression (Omar, 2011). Individuals learn these displays through their interactions with others and in different contexts (Carter, 2014; Lorber, 1994; Omar, 2011). A number of South African studies on masculine identities suggest that there are various micro-cultural processes that influence the formation and expression of a masculine identity (Bhana, 2005; Mac an Ghail as cited in Blackbeard & Lindegger, 2007). Blackbeard and Lindegger (2007) describe micro-cultural processes as an intricate web of representations, interactions and cultural meanings. Within this complex web an individual’s definition of identity is negotiated (Blackbeard & Lindegger, 2007). Crespi (2003); postulates that it is within 20 these spaces that individuals are socialized to behave in ways that are prescribed for specific genders. These spaces can include the family environment, peer groups, sports teams and information presented in the media (Crespi, 2003). The term socialization is used to describe a process where individuals are pressured to become members of a society and members of certain groups that exist within society (Crespi, 2003; Elder, 1969). Socialization is a process that facilitates transitions from one status to another through respecting environmental norms, laws and customs (Crespi, 2003; Elder, 1969). Thus, socialization is a process where individuals learn what it means to exist as adults in society; from childhood individuals learn to see themselves and how they behave in relation to others (Holmes, 2007). With the knowledge of environmental norms, customs, laws, and how other individuals generally react to certain behaviours; individuals have internal conversations with themselves where they reflect on socially acceptable ways of being (Holmes, 2007). An aspect of socialization that is relevant to this study is gender socialization. Gender socialization is a more focused form of socialization. Gender socialization is a process through which individuals of different sexes learn to behave in gender specific ways whilst simultaneously being pressured to conform to these gendered ways of being (Kimmel, 2011; Philaretou, 2001). Gender based values, beliefs, norms and attitudes that guide how individuals should behave have been developed, altered and passed on to individuals through social institutions (Philaretou, 2001; Davis, Thomas & Sewalish, 2006). It was initially believed that gender socialization ends in childhood, however the literature shows that gender socialization continues throughout life (Holmes, 2007; Kimmel, 2011). Kimmel (2011) states that the process of gender socialization is not effortless neither is it finite. He further states that it is continuous because meanings of gender are produced about gender through institutions over an individual’s life course, within different contexts and from one culture to the next (Kimmel, 2011). Lorber and Farrell (1991) offer heterosexuality as an example of institutional gender prescriptions that have been passed through time by means of socialization and social organization. Historically religions, families and laws that governed society 21 required that males who considered themselves men and females who considered themselves women, be sexually attracted to each other (Lorber & Farrell, 1991). Individuals are constantly being policed and encouraged to adhere to these prescriptions by society. Similarly, ideas of masculinity are passed on and reinforced within micro-cultural contexts. Some studies on masculinity in the South African context show evidence of the continuous promotion of aggressive and misogynistic forms of masculinity regardless of the policies and laws which aim to enhance gender equity (Bhana, 2005; Langa & Eagle, 2008; Mahlangu et al., 2014). Langa and Eagle (2008), found that the South African military served as a micro-cultural context that enforces certain ideas of masculinity which are then assimilated by individuals within that community. According to Langa and Eagle (2008), masculinity in the military is understood as the collection of symbols, discourses, ideologies and practices that are linked with the category of being a man. The military community is one that socializes males to conform to hegemonic forms of masculinity (Langa & Eagle, 2008). 2.1.2.2. Masculinity and Hegemonic Masculinity In the early 1980s Connell developed the term hegemonic masculinity as a form of masculinity to define the configuration of gender practices which guarantee the dominant positions that men hold in society and legitimizes the subordination of women (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Also included amongst those subordinated men in dominant positions, are marginalized men who do not meet the hegemonic ideal (Kahn, 2009). According to Connell (2005), hegemony is associated with cultural dominance which is located within society and further located within this framework, are gender relations of subordination and dominance which exist between groups of men. Connell (2005) offers the European and American context as an example of gender relations of dominance and subordination among men. Cornell (2005),goes on to state that there are in these societies, heterosexual men who hold dominant positions and homosexual men who hold subordinated positions as a result of 22 personal boycotts, street violence, which includes being threatened and murder, in addition to cultural and political exclusion. Within the South African context hostility towards homosexual masculinities is considered as being fundamental to male heterosexuality, where homosexual men are feminized and often referred to as being abnormal and unAfrican (van der Walt, 2008). Through this oppression homosexual masculinities are positioned at the lowest end of the hierarchy among men and from a hegemonic perspective, homosexual masculinity can easily be assimilated to femininity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Although homosexual masculinity is by far the most prominent example of subordinated masculinities, it should be noted that it is not the only subordinated masculinity. Heterosexual men can also be excluded from the group that holds the legitimate version of masculinity through a process that is marked by verbal abuse (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Those excluded from the circle of legitimacy are referred to as “sissies”, “wimps” or “pushovers” and within these descriptions the symbolic blurring with what is seen as feminine is clear (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Although men may be marginalized on the basis of behaviour, sexuality, race or class, they do benefit from the patriarchal dividend (Morrell et al., 2012). As noted above, although not all men scrupulously exercise the hegemonic form of masculinity (Morrell et al., 2012), a number of men learn gender practices which is incorporated it into daily life experiences and interactions (Omar, 2011). In order for masculinity to be understood as being incorporated into daily interactions, males need to enact behaviours that are characterised as masculine or behaviours that they understand to be masculine (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Therefore, males are expected to perform behaviours that distinguish themselves from females across various situations (Omar, 2011). According to Brickell (2005), it is in the individual’s best interest to behave in a manner that guarantees a favourable impression by others, especially in situations where males have to enact behaviours that are characterised as masculine. In view of the fact that hegemonic masculinity is perceived to be the most ideal form of masculinity, males may attempt to perform behaviours that are characteristic of hegemonic masculinity (Brickell, 2005). 2.1.2.3. Masculine Interpersonal Aggression and Dominance 23 Historically and cross culturally there have been stereotypes that dictate what men ought to be (Moss-Racusin, Phelan & Rudman, 2010). These stereotypes function as a set of gender rules that shape expectations for how men should behave and are often in line with the tenets of hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Moss et al., 2010). These stereotypes are able to powerfully shape how men behave because they legitimize a man’s masculine status in the event that he adheres to them (Bosson et al., 2009; Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). The literature reveals that these masculine stereotypes demand that men be dominant, stoic, self- reliant and aggressive (Bosson et al., 2009; Kimmel, 2003). The Blue Print Model for Manhood proposed by Brannon (1976), offers four main themes that summarize and demonstrate stereotypical behaviours that men produces to achieve hegemonic masculinity. These include ‘No Sissy Stuff’, ‘Be the Big Wheel’, ‘The Sturdy Oak’ and ‘Give ‘em Hell’ (Brannon, 1976). The themes proposed by Brannon (1976) describe the standards to which men are judged. The inability to match up to these standards can result in some form of backlash such as future victimisation (Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). According to Bosson, Prewitt and Vandello (2006), individuals who violate these gender norms are vulnerable to social punishments and risk being disliked, physically abused, ostracized, ridiculed and other times they are treated less than human. Perceived to be the most influential of the themes (Noyes, 2007), the theme labelled ‘No Sissy Stuff’ describes the idea that men need to be knowledgeable about how women behave and that they should behave in ways that are not stereotypically feminine (Brannon, 1976). It is an idea that reinforces the separation of gender and rejects all things thought to be feminine which have the potential of threatening that which is masculine (Kimmel, 2003). Essentially, the theme labelled “No sissy stuff” is an expectation within society which requires men to behave in ways that are non- feminine (Noyes, 2007). According to Smith, Parrot, Swartout and Tharp (2014), men internalize these societal expectations and fear appearing as feminine through their actions or values, this phenomenon is referred to as anti-femininity (Zurbriggen, 2010). This fear drives men towards portraying a façade of toughness and masculine dominance in the effort to avoid appearing weak or docile particularly in interpersonal 24 interactions (Smith et al., 2014). This anti-femininity explains why men and society marginalize homosexual men and why heterosexual men express a sense of discomfort about being around homosexual men (Kahn, 2009; Smith et al., 2014; Zurbriggen, 2010). The second major theme is called “Be the Big Wheel” (Brannon, 1976) and is a phrase used to underscore the extent to which masculine stereotypes call for men to take charge and be in control in most situations (Chrisler & McCreary, 2010; Kahn, 2009). Additionally, it refers to a man’s desire to assert his dominance over others with the goal of achieving a masculine status as perceived by oneself or according to society as a whole (Smith et al., 2014). For Aboim (2010) hegemony and dominance are closely associated and cannot be pulled apart. According to Smith et al. (2014), in order to obtain and maintain dominance in interpersonal relationships an individual can either objectify or dehumanize the other. Men who internalize and adhere to this masculine norm are likely to use extreme measures to establish their dominance over others (Morrell et al., 2012). A large body of literature reveals that men who embrace ‘the big wheel’ can be bullies, aggressive in interpersonal relationships or they can be leaders (Kahn, 2009; Moss-Racusin et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2014; Zurbriggen, 2010). The signifier of the power and dominance that they hold is often communicated to them through the respect they perceive to have been given within social interactions, the status they hold in society, the amount of wealth they may have and how they carry themselves in a physical space (Chrisler & McCreary, 2010; Noyes, 2007). Failure to conform to this dominant way of doing masculinity can result in men feeling powerless or being socially perceived as powerless (Kahn, 2009; Moss-Racusin et al., 2010). The third theme which makes up Brannon’s (1976) model is ‘the sturdy oak’. According to David and Brannon (1976), there is an expectation for men to be tough, confident, independent and reliable in a crisis. Society requires that men appear to be invulnerable (Chrisler & McCreary, 2010) and for them to have the capacity to control their emotions (Kahn, 2009). The need to adhere to masculine ideals such as stoicism and self-reliance increases men’s inclination to enact physical harm through demands for aggression (Moss-Racusin, Phelan & Rudman, 2010). However, 25 adhering to such ideals of masculinity can be damaging physically and mentally (Moss-Racusin, Phelan & Rudman, 2010). In addition, this affects men’s ability to maintain relationships because they have difficulties regulating their emotions (Kahn, 2009). ‘Give em hell’ constitutes the fourth theme of masculinity. It involves the idea that men have to be both courageous and risk taking, even though such actions might not be in their best interest (Brannon, 1976; Chrisler & McCreary, 2010; Kimmel, 2003). Men who seek to align themselves with this aspect of masculinity do so in a number of ways (Kahn, 2009). In their subscription to this version of masculinity they seek both violence and adventure regardless of the threat that it may present to them (Kahn, 2009). In order to fulfil these requirements, men are expected to embody qualities such as perseverance, defensiveness, competitiveness and aggression (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). Brannon (1976) acknowledges that no particular man can achieve a demonstration of all four themes, however, they contend that most men compare themselves both consciously and unconsciously to these benchmarks of masculinity. In addition, they posit that most men attempt to achieve in all four domains by exercising these themes (David & Brannon, 1976). Thus, a growing body of literature indicates that cross culturally men are often preoccupied with the active, public demonstration of manhood (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Cohn & Zeichner, 2006; Smith et al., 2014; Vandello et al., 2008). A good deal of evidence suggests that this is because of the fact that in many cultures men are required to prove their masculinity (Saucier & McManus, 2014; Vandello et al., 2008). This need to prove their masculinity is further intensified when a man’s masculine status is challenged or questioned (Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle & Schwaz, 1996; Saucier et al. , 2016). A situation of man-on-man interpersonal aggression and dominance presents such a challenge for various reasons (Cohen et al., 1996; Saucier et al., 2016; Vandello et al., 2008). Bourdieu (2002) contends that this is due to the belief that aggression and dominance between men forms part of various masculinity games where men can test and validate each other’s masculinity. This is further evidenced by studies which state that man-on-man aggression and dominance provide men with opportunities to 26 display and prove their masculinity because in interpersonal interaction itself involves the acts of challenging dangerous adversaries, brutally testing physical stamina, risky public displays of toughness and asserting one’s power over another (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Gilmore, 1990; Saucier & McManus, 2014; Saucier et al., 2016). Consequently, offering men the opportunity to prove their masculinity. A series of studies demonstrate that men who do not respond with displays of aggression or dominance in interpersonal confrontations with other men face reputational damage and stigmatization (Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008; O’Dea, Castro Bueno, & Saucier, 2017).These studies indicate that in most cultures failing to defend oneself from threats to a masculine status is seen as dishonourable (Prewitt- Freilino & Bosson, 2008; O’Dea, Castro Bueno, & Saucier, 2017). Cultures of honour dictate that men demonstrate aggression and dominance in situations where their masculine status and reputation have been threatened and to never back down from a fight (Cohen et al., 1996; Swart, 2006). In a seminal paper, Cohen et al. (1996) defines honour as the value an individual sees in himself and the value that society places on an individual based on his actions. Moreover, he argues that honour be construed as a form of collectivism that is based on social image and reputation (Cohen et al., 1996). Additionally, the distinction between an individual’s self-image and social reputation, in cultures with a high orientation towards honour, is often vague (Cohen et al., 1996). Within these cultures it is assumed that an individual’s behaviour is likely to be affected by communal codes (Cohen et al., 1996). According to Saucier et al. (2016), cultures in which acts of honour, such as demonstrating aggression and dominance, is used in response to threats to a man’s gender identity, is perceived as morally appropriate and men who hold onto these masculine codes of honour are likely to act accordingly. The act of demonstrating aggression and dominance, in response to threats to one’s masculine gender identity, is seen as an attempt to reassert one’s standing in the broader hierarchy of masculine identities and it is perceived as an act of demonstrating one’s manhood (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Ravn, 2017). Stevens (2008) reported similar findings in his study where he aimed to: 27 ‘elicit and uncover discursive networks pertaining to power in the personal narratives of homicidal encounters of male participants who have been convicted and incarcerated for homicide in South Africa’ (p.51). Stevens (2008) found that these participants engaged in discourses of honour preservation whereby their narrative indicated that demonstrations of violence was seen as an attempt to establish a reputation and a status in a public domain. Stevens (2008) attributes the use of violence as an attempt to maintain a sense of power in relation to others. Thus, the show of dominance and aggression over others serve as effective character establishing behaviours (Stevens, 2008). Bosson (2009) points to how men who hold onto masculine honour beliefs can find challenges to their gender identity anxiety provoking. Prewitt-Freilino and Bosson (2008) posit that the fear of being classified as anything but a man plays a role in the rigid adherence to gender rules that are restrictive. Deviating from gender prescriptions, in situations of man-on-man aggression and dominance, is experienced as threatening to the self by men, because they anticipate being stigmatized (Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008; O’Dea, Castro Bueno, & Saucier, 2017). In efforts to protect their masculine identities and to prevent any discomfort which may be caused by stigmatization causes men to communicate in stereotypic masculine behaviours (Barnes et al., 2017). Consequently, men use extreme forms of aggressive and domineering behaviours as a defence against these anxieties because these behaviours are socially perceived as masculine (Barnes et al., 2017; Bosson, 2009; O’Dea et al., 2017). 28 3. Chapter Three: Methodology 3.1. Research Design The research design employed in this study was qualitative in nature as the research employs an in-depth inquiry into the subjective responses, perceptions and thoughts offered by young male participants about masculinity, aggression and dominance. A qualitative research design was appropriate for this study because it allows the researcher the opportunity to obtain a particular understanding of the ‘hows and whys’ of human experiences and behaviours along with the motivations which govern such behaviour (Blanche, Durrheim, & Kelly, 2006). In addition, a qualitative research design was considered relevant, as this study also attempts to analyse social representations rather than just explaining them (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). This was indicated because the research’s secondary aim was to explore how young men establish a masculine identity through aggression and dominance. According to Ritchie and Lewis (2003), one function of a qualitative research study is to explore, in an in-depth manner, the understanding of the social world of the research participants, through learning about their social circumstances and perspectives. The researcher used two qualitative data collection techniques, namely focus groups and semi-structured interviews, in order to yield information that would address the research aims. The following section will review the participant selection procedure, explain how the data was collected and thereafter explain how the data had been analysed. Furthermore, the following section will provide an overview of the ethical procedures carried out throughout and it will provide a reflexive analysis about the research process. 3.2. Description of Participants and Procedure The sample consisted of 14 young adult males drawn from the University of the Witwatersrand (WITS) located in Johannesburg. In order to address the research aims, purposive sampling was used for the selection of the focus group participants. This was done with the aim of ensuring that sufficiently rich data was generated from the focus group’s participants as it afforded the researcher the opportunity to select participants who meet the criteria of the study (Blanche et al., 2006). In addition to 29 the purposive sampling the researcher used snowball sampling as it was difficult to find participants who would participate in the study; snowball sampling allowed the researcher to ask participants if they knew of someone who might be willing to participate in the study (Struwig & Stead, 2009). The criteria for the selection of participants, for this research study were males between the ages of 18 – 23 years, attending WITS. When establishing the selection criteria, in particular the age criterion, Marcia’s (1980) development theory was kept in mind. This theory, in particular postulates that, although identity formation is an ongoing process, young adults in tertiary institutions are offered a period of moratorium, during which they explore who they are, something which is often not afforded to young adults who are immediately forced into the world of work. The researcher assumed that rich data regarding how young adult males establish a masculine identity, particularly with regard to aggression and dominance, and how society influences the manner in which they behave, would be collected through employing these selection criteria. The researcher approached The Department of Psychology at WITS in order to gain permission, to lectures, as a means of inviting male students to participate in the study. Once permission was obtained, the researcher briefed students at four lectures about the nature of the study and invited them to participate (Appendix D). In addition to this, the researcher also put up notices in The Psychology Department building inviting students to participate in the study (Appendix D). Neither race nor culture were criteria in the selection however, in is interesting to note that only black men volunteered to participate. The racial and cultural composition of the individuals who participated in the study could be in part a reflection of the demographics of the University where just over 54% of the students are black (University of the Witwatersrand, 2018). It could also be in part a reflection of the researcher’s decision to do snowball sampling and as such lead to participants inviting other males who they knew. Additionally, Participants who volunteered to participate in the study were contacted telephonically and dates for the focus groups were set based on availability. On the days when the focus groups were conducted; participants were once again informed of the purpose of the study (Appendix D). Two 30 focus groups were conducted, three weeks apart. Each group consisted of seven, randomly assigned participants. Upon completion of the focus groups, a sub-group of six participants were selected from the focus groups, three from each of the two focus groups to participate in individual interviews. The participants for the individual interviews were chosen in part through a purposive opportunistic sampling. This type of sampling method is often used once a study has commenced and certain individuals within the study exhibit characteristics that are in some way related to the topic of interest (Struwig & Stead, 2009). According to Struwig and Stead (2009) this method can be used once a group has been observed performing certain activities in which individuals within the group appear to be interested. In this particular research project, participants who appeared relatively reserved or quiet in the focus groups were approached as the researcher assumed that they would illustrate cases of different views to the ones being shared in different settings. The researcher decided on this sampling method on the basis that gender is situational (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) and it was therefore assumed that the participants would perform gender differently in different contexts. The researcher then contacted these participants telephonically and invited them to participate in a one-on-one interview. A meeting with the individual was set-up and participants who agreed to be interviewed individually were informed of the nature of their participation in the study (Appendix F). 3.3. Data Collection Qualitative research data collection techniques include in-depth interviews, focus groups, direct observation, role play and simulation, diary methods and case studies (Mack et al., 2005). Two types of techniques were used in the process of this research, namely focus groups and thereafter, semi-structured individual interviews. 3.3.1. Focus Groups Focus groups as instruments of data collection were considered appropriate for this study because the responses within the discussions that are held in the groups are often less inhibited than those that are generated in individual interviews (Ritchie & 31 Lewis, 2003). Moreover, the idea that masculinity and hegemonic masculinity is produced and reproduced in social contexts (Kimmel, 2011; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) meant that the focus groups in which the research was conducted could serve as a microcosm of the social context. Thus it allowed for the researcher to draw on information, both verbally and non-verbally, to wield in focus groups for analysis. In addition to this, Connell (2005) states that it is often through the socialization process that masculinity is negotiated and it is for this reason that the researcher anticipated the use of focus groups which would then generate information which may not have been produced in individual interviews alone. Male students who willingly agreed to participate in the study were given information letters (Appendix D) detailing the nature of the study and they were given the relevant information consent (Appendix E). Both the information letters and the consent letter were read through with each participant and participants were then asked if they had any further questions regarding their participation. Once the consent forms were signed the researcher set up times to run the focus group that would be suitable for all participants. A vignette relating to man-on man-aggression and dominance (Appendix A) was presented to the group and thereafter members were invited to share their responses to the vignette. A vignette was used in this study to create a space in which actions within context can be explored (Barter & Reynolds, 1995). Furthermore, vignettes offer the participants the opportunity to define the situation provided in the vignette on their own terms (Barter & Reynolds, 1995) and thus participants can share what they imagine they ought to do in such a situation of man- on-man aggression. The vignette presented to the group portrayed a scenario in which a man is confronted by another man in the presence of other men and women. The rationale was that, the manner in which young adult males portray masculinity in this situation would reflect how society expects them to behave as men. It would also reflect on the ideas that the participants hold about masculinity and how they incorporate these ideas into their sense of identity. The vignette was used in conjunction with an interview schedule (Appendix B) consisting of open-ended questions designed by the researcher in order to obtain 32 information relevant to the study (Hancock, 2002). The questions were based on ideas from the literature review and were pertinent to the vignette and it aimed at eliciting the following information: - Reactions to male interpersonal aggression and dominance. - Constructions of Masculinity. - Gender socialization strategies used by individual and groups. - Participants’ adherence to masculine stereotypes. - Possible anxieties about violating masculine gender rules. Additionally, depending on the participant’s responses additional questions were asked (Hancock, 2002). The focus groups ran for approximately 60 minutes each and were facilitated by the researcher with the help of a co-facilitator (a male psychology student also studying towards their MA (Clin Psych). Neither of the facilitators engaged directly in the discussion through sharing their own ideas on the topic. When the researcher and co-facilitator interjected it was solely with the intention to either insert a new prompt when a discussion had been exhausted, or to ask participants if they could expand on their thoughts. At other times the researcher and co-facilitator would engage in the discussion to clarify a statement which may have been interpreted as ambiguous. This was done in an effort to avoid misinterpreting the data during analysis as such misinterpretation would not accurately or fairly represent the participant’s thoughts or feelings on the subject matter, although it is acknowledged that how material is heard and interpreted will not always represent what was intended by the speaker (Stephen, 2012) The interviews were also audio recorded and the audio recordings (Appendix H) were used for transcribing and data-analysis. According to Blooms and Crabtree (2006), the advantage of using an audio recorder is that it provides the researcher with an opportunity to submerge herself in the experiences that take place during the interview. 33 3.3.2. Semi-structured Individual Interviews The difficulty in relying on focus groups alone as a method of data collection, particularly in a study which aims to elicit information about how individuals construct an aspect of their identity, may result in some individuals who may feel uncomfortable with disclosing certain kinds of information within a group context (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Morrell et al., 2013; Struwig & Stead, 2009). This may also be particular to perceptions of masculinity where the risk of backlash based on responses is possible (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Morrell et al., 2013; Struwig & Stead, 2009). Therefore, semi-structured individual interviews were used to access material which individual participants may have been reluctant to share in the focus groups. Semi-structured interviews are considered as one of the most powerful ways for a researcher to obtain information that allows for the understanding of individual behaviour because they allow research participants to discuss issues beyond set questions and it also allows for participants to share more personal aspects (Hancock, 2002; Struwig & Stead, 2009). The semi structured interview schedules were based on relevant literature, as well as including the observations and material from focus group discussions. An interview schedule (Appendix C) was designed to guide the interview and it consisted of open- ended questions which explored four broad areas: - Definitions of masculinity - How participants perform masculinity o Experience of participating in focus group with other male participants o Experience of individual interview with female interviewer - Understandings about their own masculinity - Beliefs about what shaped participant’s masculine identity - Behaviours participants expect from other men and themselves These interviews ran for approximately 45 minutes and were audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim by the researcher. 34 3.4. Data Analysis The method of analysis that was utilized in this study was a critical thematic content analysis as this method entertains both constructionist and interpretive perspectives (Lawless & Chen, 2019). Davies (2008) suggests that this straddling of dual perspectives simultaneously reflects an interest in both describing and interpreting characteristics of human behaviour along with understanding the implications of both social discourses and practices as it impacts on human behaviour. Lawless and Chen’s (2019) analysis of critical approach to analysis found that it simultaneously highlights hegemony and envisions opportunities for social change. They further state that this kind allows us to move closer to challenging dominant social structures as well as creating spaces and avenues for social justice (Lawless & Chen, 2019). The researcher decided to work within this framework because social constructionist research is interested in how individuals construct and reconstruct the self through their use of language (Burr, 1995) which will assist the researcher in addressing part of her research aims regarding how males establish a masculine identity. In addition to this, social constructionist research is interested in how knowledge is constantly being constructed in our daily interactions and sustained through social processes (Burr, 1995). This is also employed in understanding how the social context influences particular individual’s accounts found within the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). With regards to the topic, it can be argued that society encourages particular versions of masculinity through discourses and social arrangements and that these have an effect on how individual males understand the concept of masculinity and act in relation to it. As such, the researcher’s analysis of the collected data was guided by the key assumptions underpinning the social constructionist theory. According to Braun & Clarke (2006) acknowledging the theoretical framework a researcher uses is important and should be stated as it does not present the data reflected upon in the paper as simply the ‘voice’ of the participants alone. They contend that the theoretical framework that the researcher uses, whether stated or unstated, in the methods is apparent in the narrative evidence the researcher selects, edits and deploys to frame their arguments (Braun & Clarke, 2006). 35 The researcher used critical thematic analysis because it is a form of analysis that involves identifying, analysing and reporting on the themes that emerge within the collected data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A theme is described as a summary of the key aspects of the data collected in relation to the research question and that a theme represents, to some degree, the meanings which are shared or common within the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Maguire and Delahunt (2017) argue that thematic content analysis goes beyond just summarizing the data but it also aims to interpret and make sense of it. In a seminal paper on analysis, Boyatzis (1998) stated that, when beginning the process of thematic content analysis, it is important that the researcher is able to effectively pick up on the themes within the data. According to Braun & Clarke (2006), in order to efficiently develop themes, the researcher needs to be open to all forms of information. As such, two thematic approaches were employed in this study; namely the inductive approach and theoretical thematic approach in order to pull out as much information from the data. Theoretical thematic approach includes the use of pre-determined themes that are drawn from existing literature on the topic, whilst the inductive approach makes use of emergent themes which are newly generated from the data collected (Hayes, 2000; Struwig & Stead, 2009). The researcher utilized the inductive approach to offer a richer description of the general data collected and the theoretical thematic approach was used with the aim of providing a much-detailed analysis on some of the aspects of the data (Struwig & Stead, 2009). The analysis of this research was based on the step by step process articulated by Braun and Clarke (2006). Although this process was not fixed, it assisted the researcher to submerge herself in the data and mull over it. - Once the researcher had transcribed the collected data, she familiarized and immersed herself in it by reading and re-reading the transcribed data, making notes, and brainstorming. According to Blanche, Durrheim and Kelly (2006) this step is necessary in the process of data analysis because it ensures that the researcher is familiar with the data to the extent that she is knowledgeable on what information was found across participant transcripts and which data can be used to support certain interpretations. 36 - Initial codes were then produced and put in place. Codes identify an aspect of the transcribed data that appears to be interesting to the researcher and that can be assessed in a meaningful way (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thereafter the researcher searched for emerging themes. More specific themes were then developed in order to keep the research more manageable and focussed. - Next, the researcher reviewed, modified and further developed the preliminary themes that were identified. This was done to ensure that they made sense, that they would be useful in addressing the research aims, that they were coherent and that they were distinct from each other. Much of this work was done on a Microsoft excel spreadsheet where the data associated to each of the developed themes was colour coded. The transcribed data was then re-read again to add data which was missed in the initial coding. - The researcher then defined and refined the themes by indicating what the theme is about and what it is not about; in addition, determining what feature of the data is represented by each theme. - Once the interpretation of the data was complete, the researcher proceeded to construct a report which detailed the findings of the study and the conclusions that were drawn on the analysed data. - A research supervision process was also conducted in order to limit the personal views of the researcher in the analysis of the research (Davies, 2007). For the reason that this study used a critical approach to thematic analysis in addition to systematically looking for shared phenomena amongst the participants, the researcher also looked for power-relations, status-based hierarchies and larger ideologies within the data (Lawless & Chen, 2019). 3.5. Ethical considerations It should be noted that there are possible ethical implications with regards to the research study, which the researcher was extremely attentive to, owing to the fact that the researcher was working with human subjects (Blanche et al. 2006). After receiving ethical clearance from the University of the Witwatersrand Ethics Committee (Appendix I), the researcher proceeded with the research process. It should also be noted that maintaining anonymity of the research participants posed 37 an ethical issue because the researcher conducted focus groups with the assistance of a co-facilitator and because the groups were made up of more than just individual participants. Therefore, the researcher set rules from the onset with all participants regarding the sharing of personal details revealed in the group outside the group context (Smith, 2008). In addition, participants were required to sign a confidentiality agreement. Furthermore, participants were audio recorded in both the focus groups and individual interviews, recordings and transcriptions were kept safely on the researcher’s computer which is password protected. The transcriptions were also emailed to the researcher’s supervisor, where they were stored in a password protected file. Both the recordings and the transcriptions were only processed and analysed by the researcher (Zinhle Vilakazi) and her supervisor. The researcher also let the participants know about the extent of their confidentiality through informed consent (Blanche et al., 2011). While verbatim quotes were used, pseudonyms were also used in order for no identifying information to be present in the report or transcripts. In addition to this, informed consent also covered the factual information regarding the details of the study, the methods, the risks and the benefits (Blanche et al., 2011). Before going into the focus groups, the researcher took note of Smith’s (2008) warning with regards to ethical issues that may arise due to the interactional nature of a group context. These ethical issues may include members of the focus group silencing or intimidating other members. Additionally, due to the nature of the data collection method (being a vignette where enactments of masculinity would be explored), the researcher was aware of the fact that individuals whose responses differed from what was constructed as acceptable responses within the focus group, could be humiliated, silenced or intimidated by other members (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Pascoe, 2007). Therefore, the researcher had discussed with her supervisor the proper manner in which a situation may be addressed as and if they occur. This would involve further addressing the situation after the group interview with the individuals involved in the interaction. Participants were also informed that in the event in which they should require debriefing as a result of their participation in the study, counselling and debriefing services would be made available to them. They were informed of this even though there were no perceived 38 risks of participating in the study. Participants were also informed that there would be no material rewards for participating in the project. Along with the availability of counselling and debriefing services, the researcher informed the participants of their right to withdraw from the study at any moment should they wish to do so before the submission of the research report. Prospective participants were given information letters (See Appendix D and E) explaining the project and matters such as confidentiality and right to withdraw. They were also asked to sign a letter of consent (see Appendix F and G). Finally, participants were included in the study once they had signed a form indicating their voluntary participation and for their consent to be audio recorded. Participants were also advised that transcripts of their interviews and focus groups may be used for further research and would not be kept for a period of longer than five years and that these transcripts and audio recordings would be destroyed at that point. Furthermore, the participants were informed that the documents would be stored on a password protected file and that only the researcher’s supervisor as well as the researcher would have access to the transcripts. 3.6. Research Reflexivity and Researcher’s Experience Qualitative research cannot offer the same kind of distancing in the research process as seen with quantitative research particularly with regards to the findings being presented as objective truths. Evans et al. (2018) state that qualitative researchers need to adopt research methods that are rigorous enough to ensure that the findings presented in their studies are not simply the result of their own perspectives, prior knowledge or logic, but are appropriate and of sufficient quality to add to the body of existing literature. They state that the qualitative researcher can do this in a number of ways such as employing a robust social theory which helps the researcher distance themselves and think critically about their role in the research study (Evans et al., 2018). Therefore, adopting the method of making the qualitative researchers’ perspective explicit, through the practice of reflexivity, should be taken. (Evans e