This article takes up the growing concern regarding boys and schooling which is receiving international attention.
Critical of the up to designated day discourses of 'panic' that do not address the complexities and diversity of the inhabits of young men in schools, the authors draw on both the critical scholarship in masculinities, as well as their own experience(Epstein et al., 1998). In supplement to highlighting the heteronormative privilege which numerous young men have historic been allocated, the item makes evident the counter-hegemonic masculine performances of a assembly of juvenile men in school in alignment to offer alternate possibilities of masculine practice.
Discussion
The focus of this article is not to critique these two theoretical positions regarding boys and schooling. Rather, the authors believe that future directions regarding research into boys and masculinities would benefit from acknowledging the differences among 'boys' and the multiple complexities and pluralities of masculinities. That is, masculinity is often practised differently cross-culturally, intra-culturally, and individually.
An Indo-Canadian boy might understand and perform masculinity differently than an African Nova Scotian boy. However, the African Nova Scotian boy may also perform masculinity differently in different contexts, for example in school versus in church. An uncritical view of boys as a unitary group bound by an abundance of testosterone is not only an inaccurate way to represent boys, but also hides important differences which may play an significant role in current discrimination and violence in schools.
Representations of boys as a cohesive group enables a particular reading that highlights injustices assumed to impact on all boys, without acknowledging the privileged elements of masculinities that advantage some boys over other boys and over some girls. For example, arguments that position boys' academic under achievements against that of girls', creates a zero-sum game where ...