Abstract
Marja Peltola and Ann Phoenix have written a welcome and comprehensive book detailing their research with young people in Helsinki, Finland. They explore the ways in which contexts, identities, practices and social change are interconnected and consequently contribute to understandings of (young) masculinities. Indeed, Peltola and Phoenix bring such intersecting identities to the forefront of consideration in their research, hence ‘nuancing’ young masculinities, enabling us to better understand the negotiations, freedoms and constraints of young men’s identities. By acknowledging the situated nature of their research, this book is helpful in further building upon popular theories of men and masculinities (e.g., Bridges & Pascoe, 2014; Connell, 1995).
The research carried out by Peltola and Phoenix in Helsinki, Finland, is an interesting and rich site for such data collection given the identity of the country is strongly linked to egalitarianism and equality. Peltola and Phoenix explore how the country’s identity has the potential to mask ongoing (gendered) inequalities and provide an informative chapter that considers Finland’s culture and society, both historically and presently, situating the research well.
The researchers are strategic in their recruitment of a mix of participants. The majority of the 32 participants were young boys between the age of 12 and 15, representing different social classes and ethnic backgrounds, enabling an analysis of intersections which may inform constructions of masculinities. The authors also explore the construction of masculinities both at school and the home, paying attention to interactions with peers, parents and siblings. Both interviews and focus groups are used to collect data; many participants partake in both, and there is an acknowledgement of how each of these methods of data collection will have an impact on the performance of masculinities. The research also used photo- elicitation method within the individual interviews. The authors present a narrative analysis method developed by Burgos (1991), using this to inform their theme generation.
In the chapter ‘Hegemonic Masculinities and Constructions of Gender Difference’, the analysis is compelling and consistent in the consideration of the multiplicity of ways gender difference is achieved. There is thorough attention paid to the contextual and interactional practices during the data collection and how this shapes the participants’ engagement or rejection of certain gendered perspectives. Findings are well grounded in existing research, and theory is employed critically to interpret the data. Subsequent chapters offer interesting and well-supported findings, showing both support and deviation from other work. Particularly, the chapter ‘Violence, Popularity and Constructions of Plural Masculinities’ identifies an absence of violence and fear in creating and/ or maintaining a hegemonic status amongst others, contrary to many other empirical findings. What would have been beneficial here would be more examples of the data that evidenced this, given its interesting divergence from much other research (e.g., Hearn, 2004; Manninen, 2013).
In the later chapter ‘Family Relationships’, Peltola and Phoenix consider how the young boys’ ‘doing’ of masculinities changes when context and interaction do not demand gendered performance. This chapter is certainly important in achieving a 360-degree view of young masculinities, though at times the intersection of gender was less convincing. It may be of interest to compare how these interactions with parents and siblings may vary or evidence similarities when compared to the experiences of young women or those of other genders. This may help to better illuminate the intersections of gender within family relationships and provide more certainty in the conclusions drawn, as at points the intersection of gender was much less evident compared to research presented within previous chapters.
Readers will again find in the concluding chapter of this book that as Peltola and Phoenix bring their research findings together, there is an impressive consideration of nuance and plurality with respect to young masculinities. The authors situate their findings more broadly within the history of critical men’s studies and in the present context, serving to thoughtfully de-essentialize masculinities and understandings thereof. There is an interesting dissonance evidenced within the author’s empirical findings between changing values and everyday practice. What I believe this book does well is showing us the multiplicity of factors that mediate the ability of these young people to adapt their practices to such values. In my opinion, this book is of great value to researchers in the field of gender studies, especially in the context of critical men’s studies. It is an enlightening and engaging read on the complexities of young masculinities.