“…boys will be boys” and will naturally do “boy things.” By the same token, “men will be men” and will continue to do “men things.” (Bird, 1996, p. 125)
The aforementioned quote was extracted from a 1996 study, which delved into the conceptualisation of masculinities in terms of sociality. By sociality, I refer to a human tendency to associate with one another in social groups. Specifically, the study aimed to relate homosociality (a term popularised by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick to describe and define social relationships between people of the same sex) to the perpetuation of hegemonic masculinity. Although homosociality is not allied with a particular sexual orientation, the development of the theoretical term has mostly been connected to heterosexual males in institutional settings. According to Flood (2008), homosocial interaction encourages the formation of bonds. These bonds serve as surveillance mechanisms, which control men’s relations with women, as well as other heterosexual men who take on non-hegemonic masculinities.
Personal interactions with boys in same sex schools and boys/men in male residences on university campuses have highlighted a significant trend in the way residence systems or boarding house practices uphold hegemonic masculinities, in the name of tradition. The designation of a ‘school slut’, the pressure to hook up with someone after a social event and collective cat calling activities are only but a few examples of these traditions, which often remain unchallenged. An idea of ‘brotherhood’ is promoted in residences/boarding houses. It is through these, rather than individual efforts, that hegemonic masculinity is upheld. Failure to fuse into some brotherhood may have notable social and emotional consequences for some boys/men.
The formation of a brotherhood united in patriarchy is the norm. Those who deviate from a masculinity embedded in the subordination of women and ‘weaker men’ are ostracised. Practically, this may involve exclusion (direct or indirect) from collective residence activities. For new ‘converts’, the idea of such a brotherhood provides a space to foster new relationships. Those who find themselves within the brotherhood already, are offered an opportunity to build a masculine status, which determines the social circles one is admitted into and of course, the type of girls/women one can hook up with. This collective participation in brotherhood creates a system that polices men’s sexual relations, with other men and with women.
I am reminded of a more comic illustration of such a brotherhood. The ‘bro-code’ (a modern manual outlining friendship etiquette) was made popular by Barney Stinson - a character from the television show How I met your Mother. The ‘bro-code’ may be a simplistic way to illustrate the idea of a brotherhood, yet many male friendships in schools and residences are governed by some implicit ‘bro-code’. These codes control relations between men and women. The codes prescribe who you date, what you wear, who you associate with and the kinds of experiential stories you tell. In this way, the brotherhood becomes an audience for which one performs, even away from homosocial spaces.
Some male friends of mine, existing within university residences have spoken to me about the tensions that come up when negotiating their sexuality within homosocial spaces. They struggle to find the balance between interacting with members of the opposite sex to prove their “non-gaynesss” while maintaining enough interaction with their ‘bro’s’ to avoid being out of favour with the gents. This is confusing, even for myself. Evidently, living in pro homosocial spaces can become taxing, both, for those who wish to uphold hegemonic masculinity and those who have alternative views/beliefs of masculinity. Residences and similar settings should work towards a dynamic and inclusive homosociality, which notes and encourages alternate codes for men’s social and sexual relations with others.
References
Bird, S. R. (1996). Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity. Gender and Society, 10(2), 120-132.
Flood, M. (2008). Men, Sex and Homosociality: How Bonds between Men Shape their Sexual Relations with Women. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 339-359. doi: 10.1177/1097184X06287761