CAN DEBATING GENDER VIOLENCE BE ‘A BOY THING’? ROLE-DISTANCE STRATEGIES AND MASCULINE PERFORMANCES IN A SCHOOL SETTING

In this contribution I discuss the results of the Project The (un) reasons of violence [Le (s)ragioni della violenza]. Men at work, carried out in two professional schools of Veneto (Italy) in 2019. The Project was promoted by GRU (Men’s Responsibility Group), a service dealing with men who have perpetrated violence against women, in collaboration with the anti-violence Ngo Iside (Venezia-Mestre). The activities implemented within the program had a double goal. The first was to investigate the relationship between social constructions of masculinity and gender violence, targeting boys’ voices and views with the technique of focus group. The second aim was to involve students (boys and girls) in an anti-violence campaign to foster their awareness on this topic. To pursue this second objective, students were asked to carry on a small research and design their own anti-violence manifesto. As referent for the GRU service at the time, I managed three encounters and one focus groups for each class. The focus groups (one mixed, and one only with boys) involved an overall number of 21 students (13 boys). In addition to allowing the collection of narratives, the meetings were also an opportunity for participatory observation of doing and displaying gender among peers. Discussions were focused on two main themes: a) students’ expectations regarding gender entitlements in intimate relations (mainly heteronormative, but not only); b) students’ representations and 'explanations' regarding masculine violence against women in the society. Interpretation of results keep into consideration the situatedness of the discussion in the classroom, where anti-violence and gender equality discourse was realistically perceived as a binding norm promoted by the school institution. At the same time, I problematize my posture in the research (and education) field, as a man investigating, debating, and teaching about gender violence. Adopting an ethnographic approach, I consider here masculinity as a flexible and adaptable resource activated by boys to negotiate the definition of 'appropriate' gender identities and practices - coherent with the pro-feminist framework of the meetings - while reassuring their adhesion to the male group solidarity and its tacit normativity. In other words, I consider how boys’ adherence to pro-feminist anti-violence narratives and in favour of gender equality combine with role-distance strategies that reaffirms plural forms of masculine expression and solidarity, with ambivalent effects. Findings are used to reflect on the way masculine norms might adapt to gender equality and anti-violence discourses promoted by institutions (such as school) by reaffirming the implicit distinction between 'official' and 'practical' (masculine) rules of social life.