Adolescent boys, embodied heteromasculinities and sexual violence

IntroductionSince the 1990s, I have focused much of my research on life history interviews of adolescent boys and girls involved in violence and nonviolence (Messerschmidt, 2000, 2004, 2012, 2016). The life stories of adolescent boys- which are the subject of this paper-reveal a close relationship among in-school bullying, reflexivity, embodiment, and heteromasculinities in understanding their involvement in sexual violence. Before I begin summarizing two of the adolescent boy life history case studies, let me explain what I mean by "reflexivity," because it may be an unfamiliar term to some readers. In reflexivity we exercise our conscious mental ability to consider ourselves in relation to the particular social context and circumstances we experience (Archer, 2007). This conscious mental capacity in reflexivity involves engaging in internal conversations with ourselves about particular social experiences and then deciding how to respond appropriately. In reflexivity we internally mull over specific social events, interactions, structures and discourses, we consider how such social circumstances make us feel, we prioritize what matters most by defining our immediate concerns, and then we plan and decide how to respond (Archer, 2007). Although we internally deliberate and eventually make reflexive choices to act in particular ways, reflexivity is based on the situational and socially structured practices, discourses and interactions that we confront. Reflexivity mediates the role that social circumstances play in influencing social action and thus is indispensable in explaining particular social actions, such as sexual violence. Although individuals often engage in routine and habitual social actions (Bourdieu, 1980), I emphasize here conscious and deliberate practices that necessarily involve reflexivity.In what follows, I first briefly explain the life history methodology used in the study. I then turn to two white working-class adolescent boys that I interviewed, both of whom ended up engaging in sexual violence. The partial synopses of these two boys' life histories serve as examples of what in-school bullying, reflexivity, embodiment, heteromasculinities and sexual violence by certain adolescent boys looks like in practice. Finally, I conclude by reflecting upon what we learn from these life stories, in particular the relationship among reflexive embodiment, heteromasculinities, and sexual violence.The Life History MethodThe paper focuses on two white working-class teenage boys from New England, USA-Sam and Zack (both pseudonyms)-who were both bullied as wimps. It examines how this bullying victimization is related to their specific constructions of localized heteromasculinities and eventual sexual violence. In the late 1990s, I completed life history interviews of teenage boys and girls to examine the construction and formation of gender and sexual practices through violent and nonviolent social action. Thirty youth (fifteen boys and fifteen girls) were interviewed after obtaining informed consent from each participant and their parent/guardian. A "maximum-variation" sampling procedure was used to ensure a selection of interviewees from a wide range of home life and other background situations. Although not a representative sample, the thirty life history case studies revealed the more elusive elements of teenage life that are often difficult to capture in quantifiable variables. Each life story deepens and augments our understanding of how eventual sex/gender/sexuality construction is related to personal life history.The life history method implemented in this study involved voluntary and confidential one-on-one tape-recorded "informal conversational interviews" (Patton, 1990, pp. 280-282). These conversations were completed in two meetings of approximately three hours each. The conversations were fluid, allowing each interviewee to take the lead rather than merely respond to topical questions. …