A sociological exploration of the influence of inclusive masculinity practices and experiences of homohysteria among self-identified gay rugby players in South Africa

Abstract

Contemporary masculinity theorists believe that the social dynamics between heterosexual and gay men are changing. These changes, they contend, are evidenced by the increase of overt displays of homosocial tactility among men and a decline (albeit, uneven) in homophobia and homohysteria. Previous models (e.g., hegemonic masculinity theory [HMT]), according to the proponents of inclusive masculinity theory (IMT), were unable to theorise these variations in masculine expressions. Said changes continue to spill over into various social institutions, including that of contact sport. Long regarded as a hypermasculine context in South Africa and abroad, recent studies show that the game of rugby has become more inclusive towards multiple masculinities. Although research conducted in the US and UK are well-documented, the topic remains under-researched in South African academe. To this end, the objective of this study was to explore the influence of inclusive masculinity practices on the fear of self-identified gay rugby players in South Africa of being socially perceived as gay (i.e., experiencing homohysteria). Using a qualitative approach, I purposefully selected seven self-identified gay men who played rugby. They were invited through material sent to an inclusive rugby club and individual gay rugby players as well as through snowball sampling. I conducted in-person and virtual audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with two self-identified Black and five White men. The findings culminated in the Exclusive-Inclusive Safe(r) Rugby Club Model (EISR-CM). Based on the collected data, this conceptual model demarcates the reasons gay men play rugby; the ideal features they ascribe to masculinity in rugby; the reasons why they decided to join or refrain from joining an inclusive or exclusive gay rugby club and the influence of inclusive masculinity practices on the men’s experience of homohysteria in their respective teams and/or clubs. Regarding the first, the findings show that the men’s primary and secondary gender-role socialisation played a significant role in their decision to play rugby from an early age. They identified their fathers, brothers, male coaches and friends of their parents as key figures who motivated them to join the sport. Interestingly, in both cases of socialisation, they showed a critical inclination towards how traditional gender roles reinforced specific masculine ideals for them to aspire to: on the one hand, they recalled conforming to orthodox masculine ideals, whereas, on the other hand, the parents of some participants allowed them to express the tenets of inclusive masculinities. A second reason why gay men played (and continue to play) rugby is because of their need to accrue gender, body and masculine capital. This involves the participants “dialling up their testosterone” to be socially respected, integrated and revered by the teammates. This finding relates to the idealisation of masculine features in rugby. Continuing to subscribe to their primary socialisation, some

participants valued stoic, orthodox and muscular ideals of masculinity. Concurrently, they confirmed the “attractiveness” of such traditional masculine traits for themselves and others. They did, however, qualify their responses in this regard. Although some might associate their partiality to traditional masculine and muscular archetypes (e.g., the “gay clone”) to them performing complicit masculinity, they refrained from solely conforming to hegemonic masculinity, opting to perform their hybridity to express their personal desirability and partiality towards an idealised masculinity as opposed to uncritically subordinating themselves through vertical homosociality. They, therefore, expressed a propensity for horizontal homosociality, emotional expressiveness, inclusivity and authenticity as idealised features of who they were as men. Read together, the reasons the gay rugby players decided to join or refrain from joining an inclusive or exclusive gay rugby club and the influence of inclusive masculinity practices on the men’s experience of homohysteria resulted in five implications. First, they joined their respective clubs to establish horizontal homosocial brotherhoods with gay teammates and heterosexual coaches and allies. Second, they wanted to become advocates for gay men’s inclusion in rugby. This resulted in some adopting the so-called “fuck you! Watch this! I can do this!” attitude to work towards gay men’s acceptance, social change and inclusivity. In so doing, third, the men got a new-found appreciation for the inherent diversity and multiplicity of gay (and heterosexual) masculine identities and bodies. As the findings show, this challenged the men’s personal internalised homophobia and homonegativity towards gay men. Furthermore, through championing inclusivity, the club’s management and membership strove to educate and sensitise men about homosexuality (in general) as well as acceptable and impermissible uses of language and behaviours (in particular). These initiatives sought to dispel stereotypes, myths and homophobia. A final meaningful contribution of the study is how men, regardless of their age (i.e., whether they were members of Generations X, Y or Z) showed an affinity for the tenets of inclusive masculinities. In conclusion, although the difficulty associated with the recruitment of more participants may arguably speak to South African gay men’s internalised homophobia or homohysteria, the findings show how those who participated, after having joined an inclusive/exclusive rugby club in South Africa, noted experiencing higher levels of horizontal homosociality and lower levels of homohysteria. This could encourage other gay men to join future research endeavours.