Advertisement

Schooling Masculinity

  • Anna Hickey-MoodyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, I provide some resources for thinking about how masculinity is learnt, through examining the ways boyhood is conceived both explicitly and implicitly in Deleuze and Guattari’s work. I then turn to my attention the impact that their thought has had on contemporary studies of masculinity and youth, particularly in relation to work emerging within the field of the sociology of education.

Works Cited

  1. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angervall, P. (2016). The academic career: A study of subjectivity, gender and movement among women university lecturers. Gender and Education, 30(1), 105–118.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1184234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaise, M. (2013). Charting new territories: Re-assembling childhood sexuality in the early years classroom. Gender and Education, 25(7), 801–817.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2013.797070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowlby, J. (1990). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. London and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brazelton, T. (1983). Developmental framework of infants and children: A future for pediatric responsibility. Journal of Pediatrics, 102(6), 967–972.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(83)80036-5get.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broude, G. J. (1990). Protest masculinity: A further look at the causes and the concept. Ethos, 18(1), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, J. A. C. (1961). Freud and the post Freudians. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Cervoni, C., & Ivinson, G. (2011). Girls in primary school science classrooms: Theorising beyond dominant discourses of gender. Gender and Education, 23(4), 461–475.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2010.506868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Connell, R. W. (2000). The men and the boys. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corbett, K. (2009). Boyhoods: Rethinking masculinities. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G. (1990). Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York, NY: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  13. Deleuze, G. (1996). L’Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze. France: Sodaperaga Producations.Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H. R. Lane, Trans., Vol. 1). Minneapolis and New York: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus (B. Massumi, Trans., Vol. 2). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. Deleuze, G., Guattari, F., Parnet, C., & Scala, A. (2007). The interpretation of utterances (A. Hodges & M. Taormina, Trans.). In D. Lapoujade (Ed.), Two regimes of madness: Texts and interviews 1975–1995 (pp. 89–112). New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  17. Edel, R. R. (1968). What Little Hans learned. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 4(2), 189–204.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.1968.10745138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliott, K. (2018). Negotiations between progressive and ‘traditional’ expressions of masculinity among young Australian men. Journal of Sociology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783318802996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrell, F. (2015). ‘We’re the mature people’: A study of masculine subjectivity and its relationship to key stage four religious studies. Gender and Education, 27(1), 19–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2014.976183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freud, S. (1907). An open letter to Dr. M. Fürst. Essaydocs. Retrieved from http://essaydocs.org/the-complete-works-of-sigmund-freud-works-psychical.html?page=160.
  21. Freud, S. (1963). The sexual enlightenment of children (E. B. M. Herford, D. Bryan, J. Strachey, & E. Colburn Mayne, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Freud, S. (1965). Three essays on the theory of sexuality (J. Strachey, Trans.). London: Basic Books and Avon.Google Scholar
  23. Freud, S. (2002). The “wolfman” and other cases. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Harwood, V., Hickey-Moody, A., McMahon, S., & O’Shea, S. (2016). The politics of widening participation and university access for young people: Making educational futures. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harwood, V., & Rasmussen, M. L. (2004). Problematising gender and sexual identities. Research Gate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306228445_Problematising_gender_and_sexual_identities.
  26. Hickey-Moody, A. (2009). Unimaginable bodies: Intellectual disability, performance and becomings. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  27. Hickey-Moody, A. (2013). Deleuze’s children. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(3), 272–286.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2012.741523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hickey-Moody, A. (2018). Little Hans and the pedagogies of heterosexuality. In M. P. J. Bohlmann & A. Hickey-Moody (Eds.), Deleuze and children (pp. 29–47). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, A. Y. (2010). Deleuze and the girl. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 579–587.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.500630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klaus, M. H., & Kennell, J. H. (1976). Maternal-infant bonding. St. Louis: Mosby.Google Scholar
  31. Koyuncu, E. (2017). Psychoanalysis of Little Hans: Deleuze and Guattari’s case against Freud. Dialogues in Philosophy and Social Sciences, 10(2), 69–81.Google Scholar
  32. Kumm, B. E., & Johnson, C. W. (2017). Subversive imagination: Smoothing space for leisure, identity, and politics. In K. Spracklen, B. Lashua, E. Sharpe, & S. Swain (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of leisure theory (pp. 891–910). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacLure, M. (2013). The wonder of data. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies, 13(4), 228–232.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613487863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacLure, M. (2016). The refrain of the A-grammatical child: Finding another language in/for qualitative research. Cultural StudiesCritical Methodologies, 16(3), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacLure, M. (2018). Encounters and materiality in intimate scholarship: A conversation with Maggie MacLure. In K. Strom, T. Mills, & A. Ovens (Eds.), Decentering the researcher in intimate scholarship (Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 31) (pp. 197–204). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. McDowell, L., & Harris, A. (2019). Unruly bodies and dangerous spaces: Masculinity and the geography of ‘dreadful enclosures’. Urban Studies, 56(2), 419–433.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018810320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mooney, C. (2010). Theories of attachment. St. Paul, MN: Red Leaf.Google Scholar
  38. Nash, A., & Penney, T. (2015). The radical productivity of play. Philosophy of Computer Games Conference. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/17157995/The_Radical_Productivity_of_Play.
  39. Renold, E., Ringrose, J., & Danielle E. R. (2016). Children, sexuality and sexualization. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Ringrose, J. (2018). Digital feminist pedagogy and post-truth misogyny. Teaching in Higher Educations, 3(5), 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ringrose, J., & Coleman, R. (Eds.). (2013). Deleuze and research methodologies (1st ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ringrose, J., Warfield, K., & Zarabadi, S. (2018). Feminist posthumanisms, new materialisms and education. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  43. Ross, J. M. (2007). Trauma and abuse in the case of Little Hans: A contemporary perspective. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 3(55), 779–797.Google Scholar
  44. Valdes-Dapena, P. (2006). Top cars: Men vs. women. When it comes to cars, it’s easy to figure out what men are after. It’s women who are complicated. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/funonwheels/06/06/male_cars/index.html.
  45. Winnicott, D., Brazelton, T. B., Greenspan, S. I., & Spock, B. (2002). Winnicott on the child. Cambridge, UK: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Wolpe, J., & Rachman, S. (1964). A critique of Freud’s Case of Little Hans. In Eugene A. Southwell & Michael Merbaum (Eds.), Personality theory and research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Media and CommunicationRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations