1

CONSTRUCTION OF MASCULINITIES IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN TURKEY

Canan Koca & Pınar Öztürk

Hacettepe University, School of Sport Sciences and Technology, Ankara, Turkey

Introduction

“It is not acceptable for a boy to play volleyball with girls when we are playing

football. We force him to play with us.”

“We (boys) have to behave like a man. If someone does something that is not relevant to

our group (male group), he is accused of being disloyal to us.”

These words were spoken by two of the Turkish boys who were participants of the study

of Atencio and Koca (2011) which examined the construction of masculinities in Turkish

physical education. The comments of the Turkish boys illustrate the importance of playing

football and avoiding interaction with girls as contested practices in Turkish masculine

community in physical education. Few studies examined the construction of masculinities in

Turkish physical education by using different approaches such as Pierre Bourdieu’s theory, post-

structuralist approach and Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice approach (Atencio &

Koca, 2011; Koca, Atencio & Demirhan, 2009). These studies demonstrate that young men’s

masculine identities were actively constructed relative to both their social classes (habituses),

practices of masculine communities and the structuring of the social field of physical education in

Turkish schools.

It is an important task for social science research to explore how gender relations are

experienced and gender identities negotiated in the field of physical education in different

cultural context. Besides, although many researchers have worked to make the lives of Western

boys in physical education visible (e.g. Connell, 2008; Davison, 2000; Hickey, 2008, 2010; Lee,

Macdonald & Wright, 2009; Messner & Sabo, 1990), more work is needed to develop

understanding of girls and boys from diverse backgrounds, different material conditions, and with

varying degrees of access to power and resources. Therefore, drawing on recent studies on

physical education we will analyze the construction of different masculinities in physical

education by considering the patriarchal characteristics of Turkish society and the context of

physical education in Turkish schools. Thus, the present study has a possibility to extend earlier

researches about the construction of masculinity in physical education to a different sociocultural

2

context of Turkey which represents a secular country that embraces both Middle Eastern and

Western values.

This chapter begins with an overview of the literature on masculinities in physical

education and sport. Then, a brief description of physical education context in Turkey and gender

relations in Turkish society are provided before presenting an analysis of construction

masculinities in Turkish physical education.

Literature on masculinities in physical education and sport

Several scholars argue that the body is a key site for the expression and reinforcement of

gender (Bordo, 1990; Butler, 1997). Due to the body being on show and subject to examination

in physical education the body is central to practices in this context (Azzarito, Solmon &

Harrison, 2006; Brown, 2006; Hall, 1996). On the other hand, the social construction of the body

in physical education and sport, focused on issues of slenderness, muscularity and physicality,

has been of central importance to the construction of femininities and masculinities (Hall, 1996;

Wright, 1998).

It is well documented that physical education classes and sports are important sites of the

production of masculinities, and of gender order (Messner & Sabo, 1990). The gender order

refers to historically constructed relations of power between men and women that privilege men

over women through definitions of masculinity and femininity are developed in relation to other

subordinate forms and to femininity (Wright, 1998). Within this gender order hegemonic forms

of masculinity are developed in relation to other subordinate forms and to femininity (Light &

Kirk, 2000). The gender order in physical education is such that girls are generally marginalised

and absent because boys are at its centre.

Patriarchal consciousness in this gender order has been manifest in physical education by

the different cultural expectations that have been held for girls and boys by emphasizing physical

activities that are considered to be masculine or feminine (Scraton, 1992). For example, such

gendering of activities is related to tradition and teacher ideologies about appropriate sports

which give the girls the distinct impression that some sports, i.e. football are not a sport for them

(Koca, 2009; Swain, 2000). However, both boys and girls are not a homogeneous group and their

experiences of physical education are diverse and complex. Numerous researchers have

documented how school physical education and sport practices (re)produce hegemonic forms of

masculinity while acting to marginalise other ways of performing masculinities and femininities

3

(e.g., Bramham, 2003; Light & Kirk, 2000; Pringle, 2008; Renold, 2004; Swain, 2000).

Researchers argue that patriarchal discourses, such as physical strength and aggression, have

been valorised in physical education, thus hegemonic masculinity is embodied power and

competence and exercised over others. The term ‘hegemonic’ can be used to define the most

‘culturally exalted’ or ‘idealized’ (Connell, 1990, p. 83) form of masculinity in physical

education context. Consequently, although the association of sport and hegemonic masculinity

advantages boys as a group, more individual boys than is commonly supposed experience

physical education negatively (Martino, 1999).

As Connell (2000) argue that masculinity does not exist as an ontological given but comes

into existence as people act, masculinity should be identified within a specific social context and

social practices. Therefore, before providing the analysis of the construction of masculinities in

Turkish physical education context, we will briefly outline the characteristics of Turkish physical

education curriculum and sport participation of Turkish youth. Then, since sports and physical

education are practices, which are socially constructed within the culture in which they exist, and

any adequate account of them must be grounded in an understanding of power, privilege, and

dominance within society (Sage, 1993: 153), we will provide the information about gender

relations in Turkey.

Physical education in Turkey

The Turkish physical education curriculum has recently been changed; however, the

previous national curriculum which was developed by the Ministry of National Education (MEB)

in 1988 was still delivering in several Turkish schools. Even as the national physical education

guidelines are standardised for all schools, there are substantial discrepancies related to the

implementation and content of these guidelines. The new curriculum changed the focus from

traditional sport-based activities (e.g., marching drills, gymnastics, track and field, wrestling,

volleyball and football) to physical activities that promote life long participation (e.g., dance,

games and outdoor activities). It has two main learning areas: (a) movement knowledge and

skills, and (b) active participation and healthy life (MEB, 2006). Physical education is

compulsory in all Turkish schools from ages 6-18 years; primary schools are expected to aspire

to provide one-hour physical education per week for 1st-5th grades and two hours for 6th–8th

grades.

4

There are no differences for girls and boys in terms of physical education activities and

environment in Turkish physical education curriculum. However, in many, especially in private

schools, boys and girls are segregated in 6-8 grades. In many Turkish schools, sports were

organized along strictly gendered lines: football and basketball for the boys; volleyball and

gymnastics for the girls. Although coeducation in physical education is a norm for all grades to

ensure that girls and boys received the same educational opportunities, like in many other western

countries, the coeducation has not automatically brought with the development of equal

opportunities for girls or boys in the case of PE. For example, it has been found that Turkish PE

teachers hold gender-stereotyped beliefs about the different abilities of girls and boys, laden with

patriarchal stereotypes of appropriate masculine and feminine behaviour (Koca, 2009).

Researcher argued that gender equity was recognised to provide equal educational opportunities

for all students; it was a more far-reaching issue that included curriculum and pedagogy, equality

of learning opportunity, classroom interactions and equal expectations from teachers and

relations between boys and girls in PE context.

Sport and physical activity are not integral components of national culture and social life

in Turkey. The level of participation in physical activity and sport of Turkish people is very low

(25%) (Active Living Association, 2009). Although schools are the key agency in providing a

physical education for all young people with the additional opportunities to participate in extra-

curricular activities, many Turkish students did not participate in physical activities in and out of

school and their activity levels were low (Hümeriç, Kirazcı, Ince & Çiçek, 2005). Hümeriç and

her colleagues observed 6th, 7th and 8th grade students and they found that students spent little

time in moderate to vigorous physical activity in physical education classes and they were

generally standing or sitting and little time walking and running. Furthermore, girls’ physical

activity participation levels in and out of school are lower than boys (Koçak, Harris, Işler &

Çiçek, 2002) and girls have less positive attitudes toward physical education and sport in

comparison to boys (Koca, Aşçı & Demirhan, 2005; Koca & Demirhan, 2004). Studies show that

sport participation of boys is supported by their families so that they can prove their masculinity

and girls' sport participation is not encouraged prevented in order to preserve their feminine

outlook and qualities (especially those that require physical power) (KASFAD Report, 2012;

Koca, 2006).

5

In Turkey, sport is an area of male dominance both numerically and culturally. Women

are less represented at every level and in every position in sport. In recent years the participation

of women in sports and physical activity is increasing, however the number of women for each

sports component is way behind males (e.g., fans, athletes, coach, professionals, and managers).

According to 2011 data, 9.98% of the athletes and 18% of the coaches are women. The ratio of

men to women in GSGM is 87.8 to 12.2%. Women take part in only 4.2% of the high and middle

level management of all sport federations (KASFAD Report, 2012). We can argue that gender

differences in sport participation of Turkish girls and boys can be partly explained by this gender

gap in the field of sport.

Gender relations in Turkish society

Although in recent years there have been significant changes in women’s politic

movements and legal positions of women, gender inequality still strongly exists in the society

depending upon patriarchal system including traditional gender relations (Koca & Hacisoftaoglu,

2010). There is a big gap between men and women in economic participation and opportunity,

educational attainment, access to healthcare, and political empowerment (CEC 2008, 22).

According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2012, which benchmarks national gender gaps of

countries on economic, political, education and health-based criteria, Turkey ranked 124th out of

135 countries in terms of its success to achieve gender equality.

Turkish society is accepted as highly patriarchal with clear-cut gender role differences

(Sakalli-Ugurlu & Beydogan, 2002). A patriarchal family model exists whereby the husband is

named as the head of the family; he has the first say concerning the family’s place of residence,

and has primary responsibility for taking care of his wife and children. A recent study by Copur,

Erkal, Dogan and Safak (2010) indicates that independent of background characteristics such as

level of urbanization or education, the gendered division of household labour remains rather

strong in Turkey. Although the New Turkish Civil Code sets the equal division of the property

acquired during marriage as a default property regime, assigning an economic value to women’s

hitherto invisible labour for the well-being of the family household, man is till holding the

authority for the economy/expenses/money/property in the family (Sancar, 2009).

Traditional expectations and attitudes toward gender roles in the Turkish society have

been preserved to a great extent. As in other societies, men are identified as independent, self-

confident, aggressive, and successful, whereas women are described as passive, emotional,

6

nurturing, and warm. Turkish women still consider marriage and motherhood as the ultimate path

to status attainment (Copur et al., 2010; Kağıtçıbaşı, 1982). On the other hand, particularly for

lower class men in Turkey, having a family, being a father, being an authority for the honour of

their family, and earning money are very important (Sancar, 2009). In their study with Turkish

young males, Cengiz, Tol and Küçükural (2004) argued that having responsibility for taking care

of the family and having money/financial power and social status are very important for their

masculine identity.

Like other patriarchal societies, traditional attitudes about gender roles for women and

men are transported and put in to practice in socialization in Turkish society and men and women

have internalized their gender roles (Kandiyoti, 1995). The parents encourage their daughters to

be dependent and obedient, whereas boys are allowed to be more aggressive and independent

since they are expected to cope with the outside world (Ataca, Sunar & Kağıtçıbası, 1994). We

suggest that this patriarchal model directly structured the hierarchical and male-centred practices

operating in Turkish masculine communities in Turkish physical education classes.

Analysis of the construction of masculinities in Turkish physical education

In this section, we will provide the analysis of the construction of masculinities in Turkish

physical education within three sections: (1) Meaning of the field of physical education for

Turkish boys, (2) The constitution of masculinities in Turkish masculine community in physical

education, and (3) Football and violence in Turkish masculine community in physical education

1. Meaning of the field of physical education for Turkish boys: Does social class matter?

Studies suggest the experiences of Turkish young people in physical education are greatly

impacted by their distinctive social class and gendered backgrounds (Atencio & Koca, 2011;

Koca et al., 2009). As also observed by others (Lee, 2010; Light & Kirk, 2000) social class

provided differential access to cultural and social capital and therefore have an impact on amount

and type of participation in sport. In addition, school context together with social class is also an

important site for participation in physical activities and sport. As indicated by many researchers

in different cultures (e.g. Australia: O’Flynn & Lee, 2010; China: Ha, Macdonald & Pang, 2010;

United Kingdom: Dagkas & Stathi, 2007; the United States: Atencio, 2010) the role of the school

context in shaping young people’s participation in physical education.

Koca et al. (2009)’s analysis suggests that there is a difference in perceived value of

physical education between middle and lower class Turkish young people. Most of the middle

7

class boys and girls (from secondary school) prioritised academic and career pursuits and thus

dismissed the need to be involved in physical education. They devoted much of their time and

energies preparing for the High School Entrance Exam. However, physical education was highly

valued by the girls and boys in working class schools because it provided young people with

more opportunities to be physically active in comparison to their non-school lives. They were

also able to use facilities and equipment that were generally inaccessible to them outside of

school. This is particularly true for the lower class girls, who came from more traditional Muslim

families who emigrated from the eastern region of Turkey.

Turkish middle class boys did not evaluate the meaning of physical education relative to

its potential to help them succeed academically or in subsequent professional careers. Whereas

physical education is highly valued by many Turkish lower class and poor boys, since it provides

them with more opportunities to be physically active in comparison to their everyday non-school

lives. Generally physical education was highly regarded by lower class young people because it

provided them a space in which to escape from the everyday constraints and stresses of living in

immigrant communities that were severely impacted by poverty. The lower class young people in

the study of Koca et al. (2009) came from physically and verbally abusive families and they often

had immense family commitments such as looking after siblings and older family members on a

regular basis. Therefore, the authors argue that their individual habitus, as constructed by and

within the conditions of their families and communities, provided them with certain outlooks and

capacities which led them to invest in physical education in particular ways.

Turkish lower class boys consider marching activities which is one of the core subjects in

the former Turkish physical education curriculum as crucial to their military futures, and

arguably, to their sense of masculinity: “We will all be soldiers and we will have to do some

physical activities in the army.” These boys were thus avid participants in school physical

education because they considered it to be their only avenue for physical activity and sport and

because it lent itself to preparation for military careers. Military service in Turkey is compulsory

for all male citizens between the ages of 20 and 41, therefore these boys perceived physical

education as an opportunity for their military service.

This military perspective of the Turkish physical education is expressed by a male

physical education teacher: Turkey is a country with a military mentality and this is embedded in

our course subjects. (We do) marching activities in the first 10 minutes. When you look at the

8

content of the programme, you can easily see that there is always military order. Students don’t

become disciplined without doing marching activities. The school administration wants physical

education teachers to take the control of the students. As noted by Hickey (2008), sport and

military discourses such as those found within Turkish physical education nurture ‘masculine

attributes’ and seemingly fosters ‘the transition of boys to (real) men’ (p.150, parentheses in

original). However, this authoritarian nature of the physical education program was heavily

criticised by the girls, in particular. They often commented that they found the physical education

classes to be overly disciplinary and of little relevance to their futures: “There are so many rules

in physical education. Don’t speak, don’t walk, don’t run, and don’t sit.”

Although sport is not a significant part Turkish culture, except for physical education,

sport has a significant place in the lives of all Turkish young men regardless of social class. For

example, for many of the Turkish boys interviewed in the study of Koca (2006) described how

sport was an inherent part of their identity and talked about the ways in which it enhances their

masculine identity. For many lower class young men, participation in sport began in the primary

school years in the neighbourhood area, community sport clubs and school teams; for the middle

class young men, participation began mostly in private sport clubs, family fitness clubs and

school teams. They had a perceived identity that was flawed within a social and cultural context

that upholds sport is a significant practice for boys. In the eyes of some Turkish parents, sport

may transform a “protective shield” which contributes to masculinity of their sons and keep them

away from the “feminine characteristics”. As many researchers argue that within contemporary

Western culture many believe that a boy's social and cultural development is based largely upon

the values attributed to sport (O’Flynn & Lee, 2010; Swain, 2000). Similar to other societies, we

can say that sport has a critical role in the boy's development process in Turkish society.

2. The constitution of masculinities in a Turkish masculine community in physical education

Atencio and Koca (2011) analysed the construction of masculinities in Turkish physical

education through Carrie Paechter’s conceptualisation of gendered communities of practice. They

suggest that this model is useful for conceptualising how Turkish young men come to engage

with physical education classes which can be considered as masculine communities of practice.

Their analysis relies upon Wenger’s (1998) model of communities of practice which describes

how diverse social practices and identities are created relative to the workings of a particular

learning community or community of practice.

9

Wenger (1998) reminds us that different forms of membership, categorised as full

participation, peripheral participation, and marginal participation, exist within a community of

practice. A full participant is on an insider trajectory within the group, maintaining their

membership through participation in community practices. A peripheral participant has partial

participation within a group; however, their non-participation is considered to be a significant

learning opportunity. They exist on a peripheral trajectory that enables them to learn by

contrasting the dominant practices of the group with their own. These individuals are considered

to be on an insider learning trajectory that will eventually lead to full participation in the future.

Marginalized participation is seen as an insurmountable barrier to full participation as it involves

one’s permanent relegation on an ‘outbound’ trajectory; these ‘outbound’ trajectories are

problematic for learning because they offer no hope for full participation and instead signify non-

membership and permanent restriction (Atencio & Koca, 2011).

Paechter (2003) argues that young people engage with learning communities that work as

sites of gendered activity; through their ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ young people learn

what it means to be masculine or feminine and come to constitute gendered identities

accordingly. The learning of what it means to be male or female within a social setting result in

shared practices in pursuit of the common goal of sustaining particular localised masculine and

feminine identities (p.71). This perspective suggests an investigation into the ways in which

different masculinities and femininities are performed in different social situations, and

concomitantly, how communities of masculine and feminine practices are ‘established,

perpetuated, and changed’ (p.71).

As Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest that learning takes place through formal teaching

activities and informal peer group learning, Atencio and Koca (2011) paid closer attention to

informal peer group learning which occurred during the 40 minutes of ‘free time’ built into the

Turkish physical education lesson. The final 40 minutes of the Turkish physical education lessons

were set up as a ‘free period’ for the students. In this context, the shared repertoire constituting

the masculine community of practice included measuring one’s physical strength and prowess

through activities such as fighting, playing rough, wrestling, and playing football. The authors

argued that physical dominance was a practice through which an idealised form of masculinity

emerged and was maintained in the masculine community of practice. For example, the following

excerpt from a field note similarly demonstrates how the boys compared and measured their

10

physical strength as means of signalling their masculinity within the community of practice: Pre-

lesson: two boys are wrestling (wrist wrestling) on the gym mat. One of the boys is very thin, but

the other one is very big. The thin one said “I am stronger than you are” but he lost. They have

tried this several times. The other boys who are watching the wrestlers celebrated the winner by

carrying him on their shoulders in the gym. This field note extract highlights how displays of

physical power and prowess structured the context of mutual engagement.

Embodied practices such as those highlighted above constituted the conditions of mutual

engagement which consequently sustained certain hierarchical patterns of masculinity in the

physical education class. The unstructured nature of the ‘free time’ lent itself to these conditions

where boys could create and participate in activities which reflected a traditional version of

masculinity based around the exhibition of physical strength and skill; those who displayed these

traits could most significantly participate in the masculine community of practice (Atencio &

Koca, 2011).

Demonstrations of physical prowess and strength were highly valued by the lower class

boys in this Turkish masculine community. The boys’ ability to take up higher status positions

through physical dominance would be particularly important, as they often had no recourse to

more culturally valued symbols of masculinity (e.g., educational success and professional

careers). Further, toughness and foul language played an important role in affirming and

reaffirming the individual and collective masculine identities of the Turkish boys. Threatening

and confrontational behaviours such as fighting, pushing, and cursing were often important to the

boys’ interactions with each other (Atencio & Koca, 2011; Koca et al., 2009). One of the

legitimised practices where the positions of boys were negotiated is football. In the following

section, we will discuss football practices in detail.

As indicated in Turkish masculine community in physical education, full participation and

higher positions of power in the context of a masculine community of practice requires one to

display a repertoire of acceptable characteristics and behaviours in physical practices which

reflect skill, strength, and power. Many researchers examined the relationship between these

physical practices and the embodiment of masculine and feminine identities in physical education

and sport context is examined by Bourdieu’s sociological approach (Brown, 2006; Gorely,

Holroyd & Kirk, 2003; Hunter, 2004; Lee, 2010; Light & Kirk, 2000).These researchers argued

that Bourdieu’s notions of the habitus, social field, practice and the exchange of physical capital

11

are very helpful to understand how individuals come to engage with the valued capitals and

discourses of physical education through recourse to their unique personal, social, and cultural

circumstances and histories.

Bourdieu argues that sport and physical education have become part of the larger field of

struggle over the definition of the legitimate body and the legitimate use of the body in

contemporary society (Bourdieu, 1978). Habitus works similarly to subjectivity but emphasises

embodiment and the role of the body in constituting habitus, as well as constituted by habitus

(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Therefore, the physical body is the external manifestation of the

habitus as well as constituting the habitus warranting inclusion in understanding the definition

and practices where the body is central. Within physical education setting, the body is a central

instrument for the expression of skill and subject knowledge and therefore, the embodiment

feature of habitus seems to be useful to analyse physical education as a social field. The social

field is defined as “a network or a configuration of objective relations between positions”

(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p.72). Social fields are hierarchically organised in relation to

individuals’ access to, or ownership of, various forms of capital. These conditions, whereby

individuals come to take up various amounts of capital based on their unique deployment and

construction of habitus within a social field, constrains individuals’ ability to succeed. In

addition, bodily practices in physical education can be seen as Bourdieu’s concept of practice as

the means through which social fields and the habitus are mutually constituted and is through

practice is particular social fields that capital is accumulated.

Drawing from Bourdieu’s work, Koca and her colleagues (2009) suggest that individuals’

personal histories and current socio-cultural circumstances influence their positioning within the

social field of physical education. They showed the students’ habitus and physical capital became

important to the ways they perceived and experienced physical education. Some of the boys who

were perceived as having athletic abilities and sporting interests were able to achieve higher

status and gain an appreciable amount of respect and friendship amongst their peers. The physical

education teacher would ask them to perform movements which required physical strength and

prowess in front of the class and also gave them responsibility to choose teams for basketball or

football matches. Through these practices which were authorised by the teachers, these boys

easily converted their physical capitals into social capital. These kinds of authorised practices

(which conferred higher status positions upon the boys with the requisite form of physical

12

capital) had a negative impact upon the other boys who did not have valued physical capitals.

They felt devalued and internalised that he was not capable of playing with the higher status

boys. For example; two boys preferred to play with girls or chose to sit on the sideline of games;

they did not want to be involved with the more physically powerful boys. As a result, these boys

were criticised and forced to play with the more dominant boys. These two boys were attempting

to position themselves as passive participants in the physical education class because they did not

embody the valued form of masculine physical capital; they came to occupy subordinated

masculinities because of their devalued form of habitus.

3. Football and violence in Turkish masculine community in physical education

The traditional patriarchal model directly structured the hierarchical and male-centred

practices operating in the physical education community of practice; that is, an ascendant version

of heteronormative and socially high status masculinity was integrally linked with the prevailing

practice of football (Atencio & Koca, 2011). As documented in previous studies (e.g. Hauge &

Haavind, 2011; Hickey, 2008; Martino, 1999), competitive sports, particularly football, represent

domains through which acknowledged masculinities can be constructed. As Hickey (2008)

argues that football (the most popular sport amongst young men in Turkey) has also played a key

role in reproducing a form of masculinity that reflects power and aggression, as well as ‘the

doctrine of strongest, hardest, and fastest’ (p. 150). The expression of this socially-valued form of

masculinity through football worked to sustain particular learning trajectories and associated

gendered subject positions. Boys who were immersed and excelled in football took up ‘full’

learning trajectories and became accepted as ‘fully masculine’ while those who were uninterested

or non-competitive in football took up marginalised learning trajectories. We suggest that these

diverse learning trajectories came to reflect differentiated versions of masculinity.

For the majority of the Turkish boys, football became a crucial means of developing a

shared repertoire of practices within the masculine learning community, ultimately leading to the

construction of an idealised masculine identity (Atencio & Koca, 2011). Therefore, it

underpinned the shared meanings and practices of masculinity and sustained boundaries of

participation and non-participation in Turkish physical education context. The following

comments of two Turkish lower class boys illustrate the specific importance of football as a

contested practice in this community of masculine practice: “Football is important for us. We

ranked ourselves based on who could play football well.” “Boys in our class are very obsessive

13

about playing football. For example, if you do not kick the ball properly they immediately curse

or beat you.”

These comments illustrate how a social order was established relative to the young men’s

seeming capacity to play football. The boys who good at playing football gained higher status

than others; whereas the boys who are not good at playing football took up marginal learning

trajectories within the masculine community of practice. As Swain (2000) pointed out in his

study, football is seen a key signifier of successful masculinity, and its practices are a major

influence on hegemonic masculinities, which are performed and defended in relation to other

masculinities that become subordinated and marginalised.

In the same study, the Turkish boy (Erdim) who took up subordinated position in this

Turkish masculine community of practice expressed that he never enjoyed playing football with

the other young men in the class: “I am a man but I don’t want to play football. I like dancing.

The boys in this class think it is girly. I’m really good friends with all the girls in the class.” The

prevailing terms of mutual engagement involved avoiding interaction with women; as such,

Erdim’s participation with women was considered feminine and even homosexual behaviour as

noted in the following excerpts: “Erdim has a good relation with the girls. He always plays with

them rather than us [boys]. He does not like fighting. So they [boys] are calling him ‘fag’. We

[boys] want him to look like a man. Sometimes we [boys] provoke him. We [boys] tell him that

‘You couldn’t hit a girl’. He never hits a girl. So everyone calls him ‘fag’.”, “We [boys] do not

want boys in our class to play with girls. I mean he has to behave like a man. We [boys] will tell

him that you are a girl!” These comments showed that Erdim was not accepted by the other

young men as being a legitimate member of their masculine learning community since he did not

play football and did not behave in ways expected for men. Erdim’s desire not to play football

with the boys, and to instead play with the girls, threatened the boys’ masculinity construction

and their power within the masculine community of practice. They therefore attempted to enact

male power and associated exclusionary practices on him. Attencio and Koca (2009) argued that

in this masculine community of practice, the exclusion of boys like Erdim was necessary to the

construction of the hierarchised learning community. As many other researchers in different

countries documented (e.g., Bramham, 2003; Light & Kirk, 2000; Pringle, 2008; Renold, 2004),

the masculine practices and discourses in Turkish physical education context (re)produce

hegemonic forms of masculinity while acting to marginalise other ways of performing

14

masculinities (Erdim’s masculinity in this case) and femininities. Consequently, Erdim remained

marginalised on a peripheral learning trajectory in this Turkish masculine community in physical

education.

During the unstructured and largely unsupervised free period, boys mostly played football

in the school garden. When the boys were not playing football, the girls used the space to play

volleyball; the girls usually walked around the school garden since the boys usually occupied the

space. The exclusion of girls seemed to be a standard practice in the school garden where football

took place; they were considered incapable of handling the physicality of the football. Several

studies exploring masculinity construction in schools have cited the playground as an important

social space for gendered segregation by boys’ domination through the football and restricting

access of girls (Atencio, 2010; Renold, 2004; Skelton, 2000; Swain, 2000). In their study of

playground football, Epstein, Kehily, Mac an Ghaill, and Redman (2001) argue that playground

football participation signalled “‘doing boy” acceptably’ (p.163) and ‘being a “real man”’ (p.

159); the football discourse dominated the school playground for both young men and women,

and structured codes of inclusion and exclusion based on the ideals and practices associated with

traditional masculinity. Therefore, Atencio and Koca (2011) argue that in the largely

unsupervised conditions where football was played in the school yard (the teachers were inside

and the boys led the games of football), the boys in our study took up varying positions of

membership within the masculine community of practice according to how they differentiated or

aligned themselves with girls.

The dominant boys strongly believed that aggressive and violent acts in football were

essential for maintaining one’s membership status in the community of masculine practice in the

lower class Turkish school: There are some boys who cannot score even if there is no goalkeeper.

This makes us [boys] very angry. We [boys] curse him or fight him for his stupidity. Atencio and

Koca (2011) suggest that violent acts are one of the characteristics of Turkish masculine

community and this is highly related to the wider social context where the young men lived. It

has been argued that violent behaviours are an important strategy in the construction of

masculinity among lower class Turkish men (Sancar, 2009). In another study conducted in

squatter settlements in Ankara, the researcher noted that most of the young men had low

education levels, had few professional opportunities, and did not work in regular, permanent jobs;

as such, they earned money from illegal work and often socialised in the streets (Demren, 2006).

15

Sancar (2009) has found that these young men felt that women should not work outside the home

and used physical violence to uphold the honour of their family and local community.

Discussion

Throughout this chapter we have endeavoured to show how Turkish physical education

worked as a masculine community of practice which supported social hierarchies and

masculinities organised around male dominance. Atencio and Koca (2011) proposed that

gendered discourses worked to shape social relations within the prevailing community of

practice, and in so doing, came to influence how certain students ‘want to and are permitted to

participate in’ (Paechter, p. 71) masculine practices made available to them through Turkish

physical education.

The analysis which draws on recent Turkish studies would suggest that boys within the

Turkish masculine community are learning being a man through continuously negotiating the

assumptions and claims that are embedded in the many masculinity discourses they encounter in

physical education contexts. As noted by Paechter (2003), ‘to be accepted as “fully masculine”

within a particular social grouping, one must display particular characteristics and behaviours. If

one does not, one risks rejection from the group on the grounds of “otherness”, of not conforming

sufficiently closely to the local conception of what it is to be a man’ (p.74). Football was the

determining principle through which young men could participate in full, partial, and marginal

ways in Turkish masculine community of practice in physical education. Some young men took

up insider learning trajectories which led to full participation because they were considered

competent footballers. However, as Connell (2008) notes that the strong influence of physically

confrontational and competitive sports such as football within the physical education curriculum

leads to hegemonic masculinities which are sustained through subordination of their peers.

The practices in the Turkish masculine community in physical education and the

experiences of Turkish boys are similar to the boys in other countries that in physical education

classes where hegemonic forms of masculinity were emphasized, boys who either were lows

skilled or did not perform their masculinity through aggressive and competitive behaviours were

marginalized and bullied (Bramham, 2003; Davison, 2000; Renold, 2004; Swain, 2000).

However, as Atencio and Koca (2011) suggest that the wider social and cultural context

contributed to the discourses and practices found in the community of practice, and the ways in

which masculinity was learned. That is, the young men’s previous understandings and

16

engagements with masculinity, in relation their local community and families, affected how they

learned masculinity in physical education. Therefore, in studying masculinities as communities of

practices, then, we have to be mindful both of their local nature, and of their relationship to wider

communities and social structures (Paechter, p.73).

The analysis presented in this paper has implications for the attitudes of physical

education teachers towards boys since the dominant masculinities are reproduced by both

students and teachers. Through the practices (e.g. giving the responsibility to the boys who have

athletic abilities for choosing teams for football match) which were authorised by the teachers,

these boys easily converted their physical capitals into social capital. These kinds of authorised

practices (which conferred higher status positions upon the boys with the requisite form of

physical capital) had a negative impact upon the other boys who did not have valued physical

capitals. The problem faced by boys who are not accepted as a member of masculine community

of practice in physical education because of their less athletically skilled is the possibility of total

absence from all forms of physical activity during childhood and adolescence. Further, although

the influence of sporting participation in childhood on active life styles is significant, it can be

seen that school physical education remains a potentially powerful context to promote physical

activity for both middle and lower class young people (Koca et al., 2009). Therefore physical

education teachers should encourage all boys to be more physically active in physical education

classes. As Hickey (2010) argues that physical education teachers should act more strategically

and this requires a pedagogic shift that involves teachers working more purposefully with young

males to broaden the parameters for self-formation with the legitimate and desired uptake of such

a masculine identity. For acknowledging this pedagogic shift in physical education context; the

need to challenge the hegemonic nature of sports and masculinized sports must be emphasized in

physical education teacher training programs.

References

Active Living Association (2009). Active Living Research. Cited at the 14.02.2013 on

http://www.aktifyasam.org.tr/projeler/aktif-yasam-arastirmasi.

Ataca, B., Sunar, D., & Kağıtçıbası, Ç. (1994). Variance in fertility due to sex-related

differentiation in child-rearing practices. Paper presented at the 12th International

Congress of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Pamplona, Spain.

17

Atencio, M. (2010). ‘I don’t wanna die too early’: Young people’s use of urban neighbourhood

spaces in the United States. In J. Wright, & D. Macdonald (Eds.), Young people, physical

activity and the everyday, (pp. 29-41). London: Routledge.

Atencio, M., & Koca, C. (2011). Gendered communities of practice and the construction of

masculinities in Turkish physical education. Gender and Education 23, 1, 59-72. doi:

10.1080/09540250903519444.

Azzarito, L., Solmon, M. A., & Harrison, L. (2006). “…If I had a choice, I would…” A feminist

poststructuralist perspective on girls in physical education. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport, 777, 222-239. doi: 10.5641/027013606X13080769704569.

Bordo, S. (1990). Reading the slender body. In M. Jacobus, E. Fox Keller & S.

Shuttleworth (Eds.), Body/Politics. London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1978). Sport and social class. Social Science Information, 17, 819-840.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Bramham, P. (2003). Boys, masculinities and PE. Sport, Education and Society, 8, 1, 57–71.

doi:10.1080/1357332032000050060.

Brown, D. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘‘Masculine Domination’’ thesis and the gendered body in

sport and physical culture. Sociology of Sport Journal, 23, 162-188.

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.

Cengiz, K., Tol, U. U., & Küçükural, Ö. (2004). Hegemonik erkekliğin peşinden [Following

Hegemonic Masculinity]. Toplum ve Bilim, 10, 50-70.

Commission of European Communities (2008). Turkey’s progress towards accession. Brussels:

CEC.

Connell, R. W. (1990). An iron man: the body and some contradictions of hegemonic

masculinity. In M. A. Messner & D. F. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, men and the gender order:

Critical feminist perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Connell, R. W. (2000). The Men and the Boys. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Connell, R. W. (2008). Masculinity construction and sports in boys’ education: A framework for

thinking about the issue. Sport, Education and Society, 13, 2, 131-145.

doi:10.1080/13573320801957053.

18

Copur, Z., Erkal, S., Dogan, N., & Safak, S. (2010). Sharing and spending time on domestic

tasks: A Turkish sample. Journal of Comparative Studies, 41, 1, 87-109.

Dagkas, S., & Stathi, A. (2007). Exploring social and environmental factors affecting adolescents'

participation in physical activity. European Physical Education Review, 13, 3, 369‐384.

doi: 10.1177/1356336X07081800.

Davison, K. G. (2000). Boys’ bodies in school: Physical education. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8,

2, 255-263.

Demren, Ç. (2006). Erkeklik Arzusu ve Kahvehane: Ankara Yatıkevler Gecekondu Mahallesinde

Erkekliğin Insasi [Desire to Manhood and Kahvehane: Masculinity Construction in

Ankara Yatıkevler Squatter Neighbourhood]. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Institute of

Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

Epstein, D., Kehily, M., Mac an Ghaill, M., & Redman, P. (2001). Boys and girls come out to

play: making masculinities and femininities in school playgrounds. Men and

Masculinities, 4, 158-172. doi: 10.1177/1097184X01004002004.

Gorely, T., Holroyd, R., & Kirk, D. (2003). Muscularity, the habitus and the social construction

of gender: Towards a gender-relevant physical education. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 24, 429-447. doi:10.1080/01425690301923.

Ha, A. S., Macdonald, D., & Pang, B. O. H. (2010). Physical activity in the lives of Hong Kong

Chinese children. Sport, Education and Society, 15, 3, 331-346.

doi:10.1080/13573322.2010.493313.

Hall, M. A. (1996). Feminism and Sporting Bodies: Essays on Theory and Practice. Champaign,

IL: Human Kinetics.

Hauge, M. I., & Haavind, H. (2011). Boys' bodies and the constitution of adolescent

masculinities. Sport, Education and Society, 16, 1, 1- 16.

doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.531958.

Hickey, C. (2008). Physical education, sport and hyper-masculinity in schools. Sport, Education

and Society, 13, 2, 147-161. doi:10.1080/13573320801957061.

Hickey, C. (2010). Hypermasculinity in schools: the good, the bad and the ugly. In M. O’Sullivan

& A. MacPhail (Eds.), Young people’s voices in physical education and youth sport.

International Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport: Routledge.

19

Hunter, L. (2004). Bourdieu and the social space of the PE class: Reproduction of doxa through

practice. Sport, Education and Society, 9, 175-192. doi:

10.1080/1357332042000175863.

Hümeriç, I., Kirazcı, S., Ince, M. L., & Çiçek, S. (2005). Assessment of health-related physical

activity level, lesson context, and teacher behaviour in public and private elementary

school physical education. Journal of ICHPER-SD, XLI, 4, 20-24.

Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1982). Sex roles, value of children and fertility in Turkey. In Ç. Kağıtçıbaşı

(Ed.), Sex Roles, Family and Community in Turkey (pp. 151-180). Bloomington, Indiana:

Indiana University Press.

Kandiyoti, D. (1995). Gendering the Middle East. UK: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd.

KASFAD Report (2012). Kadınların spor ve fiziksel aktiviteye katılımı [Women's participation in

sport and physical activity]. Kadınlar için Spor ve Fiziksel Aktivite Derneği [Turkish

Association of Physical Activity and Sport for Women], Ankara: 2M & Sim Press.

Koca, C. (2006). Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Alanında Toplumsal ve Kültürel Yeniden Üretim [Social

and cultural reproduction in the field of physical education and sport]. Doctoral Thesis.

Institute of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara.

Koca, C. (2009). Gender interaction in coed physical education: A study in Turkey, Adolescence,

44, 173, 165-185.

Koca, C., Aşçı, F. H., & Demirhan, G. (2005). Attitudes toward physical education and class

preferences of Turkish adolescent in terms of school gender composition. Adolescence,

40, 365-375.

Koca, C., Atencio, M., & Demirhan, G. (2009). The place and meaning of the field of PE in

Turkish young people lives: a study using Bourdieu’s conceptual tools. Sport, Education

& Society, 14, 1, 55-75.

Koca, C., & Demirhan, G. (2004). An examination of high school students' attitudes toward

physical education with regard to gender and sport participation. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 98, 754-758.

Koca, C., & Hacisoftaoglu, I. (2010). Struggling for empowerment: Sport participation of women

and girls in modern Turkey. In T. Benn, G. Pfister & H. Jawad (Eds.), Muslim women in

sport (pp. 154-165). United Kingdom: Routledge International Publishing Series.

20

Koçak, S., Harris, M. B., Işler, K. A., & Çiçek, S. (2002). Physical activity level, sport

participation and parental education level in Turkish junior high school students.

Pediatric Exercise Science, 14, 147-154.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J. (2010). Student’s evolving meanings and experiences with physical activity and sport. In

M. O’Sullivan & A. MacPhail (Eds.), Young people’s voices in physical education and

youth sport. International Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport: Routledge.

Lee, J., Macdonald, D., & Wright, J. (2009). Young men’s physical activity choices: The impact

of capital, masculinities and location. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 33, 1, 59-77. doi:

10.1177/0193723508328904.

Light, R., & Kirk, D. (2000). High school rugby, the body and the reproduction of masculinity.

Sport, Education and Society, 5, 163-176. doi: 10.1080/713696032.

Martino, W. (1999). 'Cool boys', 'party animals', 'squids' and 'poofters': Interrogating the

dynamics and politics of adolescent masculinities in school. The British Journal of the

Sociology of Education, 20, 2, 239-263. doi:10.1080/01425699995434.

Messner, M. A., & Sabo, D. (1990). Sport, Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist

Perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ministry of National Education (MEB, 2006). Curriculum. Cited at the 24.03.2013 on

http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program2.aspx/

O’Flynn, G., & Lee, J. (2010). Committed young men & well-balanced young women: Private

schooling, physical activity & the classed self. In J. Wright, & D. Macdonald (Eds.),

Young people, physical activity and the everyday, (pp. 59-74). London: Routledge.

Paechter, C. (2003). Masculinities and femininities as communities of practice. Women’s Studies

International Forum, 26, 1, 69-77. doi 10.1016/S0277-5395(02)00356-4.

Pringle, R. (2008). ‘No rugby- no fear’: Collective stories, masculinities and transformative

possibilities in schools. Sport, Education and Society, 13, 2, 215-237.

doi:10.1080/13573320801957103.

Renold, E. (2004). Other boys’: negotiating non-hegemonic masculinities in the primary school.

Gender and Education, 16, 2, 247-266. doi:10.1080/09540250310001690609.

21

Sage, G. H. (1993). Sport and physical education and the new world order: Dare we be agents of

social change? Quest, 45, 151-164. doi:10.1080/00336297.1993.10484081.

Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., & Beydogan, B. (2002). Turkish college students’ attitudes toward women

managers: The effects of patriarchy, sexism and gender differences. Journal of

Psychology, 136, 647-656.

Sancar, S. (2009). Erkeklik: İmkansız İktidar [Masculinity: Impossible Power]. Istanbul: Metis

Yayınları.

Scraton, S. (1992). Shaping up to Womanhood: Gender and Girls’ Physical Education. Milton

Keynes: Open University Press.

Skelton, C. (2000). ‘A passion for football’: Dominant masculinities and primary schooling.

Sport, Education and Society, 5, 5–18.

Swain, J. (2000). ‘The money's good, the fame's good, the girls are good’: the role of playground

football in the construction of young boys' masculinity in a junior school. British Journal

of Sociology of Education, 21, 1, 95 -109. doi:10.1080/01425690095180.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

World Economic Forum (2012). Global Gender Gap Report. Cited at the 23.03.2013 on

http://www3.weforum.org/ docs/ WEF_ GenderGap_ Report_2012.pdf.

Wright, J. (1998). Reconstructing gender in sport and physical education. In C. Hickey, L.

Fitzclarence & R. Matthews (Eds.), Where the boys are: masculinity, sport, and

education. Geelong: Deakin University Press.