Fag Discourse as a Disciplinary Mechanism

“Fag is not necessarily a static identity attached to a particular (homosexual) boy. Fag talk and fag imitations serve as a discourse with which boys discipline themselves and each other through joking relationships. Any boy can temporarily become a fag in a given social space or interaction. This does not mean that boys who identify as or are perceived to be homosexual aren’t subject to intense…

Here's a picture of the scholar for those who need a face to the name. 

Basically, thanks to C.J.'s work in Dude, You're a Fag, I feel prompted to answer a research question. This stems off of C.J.'s concept of "fag discourse". My question is this: Does or How Does the Fag Epithet play out in a location where it is stigmatized? 

Pascoe approached the developing masculinity of adolescent boys (and girls) in her empirical  study at Riverside High. Some key points to take away from Dude, You're a Fag, are:

1.) The Fag Epithet is used to police male behavior. The rules are strict and easily sanctioned and were pervasive in Pascoe's research site.

2.) Fag Discourse is a very gendered form of homophobia. Pascoe determined that the label "fag" was not necessarily tied to sexuality, but it is strongly associated with gender. Also, while the subjects in the study said they would not use "fag" towards a gay individual the discourse was used on all who did not adhere to aim for hegemonic masculinity. Therefore, it was used on all those who do not display proper masculinity regardless of orientation (i.e. it was absolutely practiced on gay individuals). Female individuals can be masculine. These girls got more respect in C.J.'s study than unmasculine males. 

3.) The Fag Label can be mapped. The fag identity for most individuals is temporary, but it can only be lost when it is placed on someone else. Picture this: Jimmy's finger is slammed in his friend's locker door between classes. When Jimmy yelps due to the pain, Sean calls Jimmy a "fag". Jimmy (burned and labeled) and Sean walk to class. On the way they see a friend who went on a date the past weekend. Jimmy states, "Dude, I heard Christine ditched Josh at the movies this weekend. He's such a fag. He can't even keep a girl interested for a couple hours." Does this make sense? One can follow where the identity moves and how it is lost only when it is put onto someone else. This creates a mean spirited cycle that polices masculine displays where no one is immune.

4.) Mild to Severe forms of Bullying are Pervasive and Severe. The institution supports and encourages hegemonic masculinity, which involves the dominance and control over women in particular (but includes other men as well). Students were regularly harassed and the school did little to stop it, faculty even participated. 

5.) Heterosexuality is Compulsive. Public sexuality is as much about masculine displays as it as about emotion or attraction. Dominance over women is primary to masculinity. 

Questions? Ok, so these are obviously just some points in the book that relate to this question that is floating around in my head. I asked C.J. for some direction for research on the subject of what I am going to call Stigmatized Fag Epithet. 

In her book C.J. notes that the juxtaposition of the fag identity with compulsive heterosexuality increased or highlighted masculinity in young men. This idea in particular raised my question of stigmatized fag epithet. Based on my own previous life experiences with several Christian youth groups, I ask how does this play out in a location where hate and foul language is stigmatized. A boy in church may not be allowed to participate in this masculinizing practice of throwing the fag label at others and deflecting or directing it himself to affirm his masculinity. OR can they???

Here's the idea fleshed out a bit:

-Hate is a sin. Simple idea, basked up by lots of references in the main Christian text (aka the Bible). For some idea of how hate is seen in the church check out this site, although this particular site does not necessarily reflect the exact views of all denominations.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm

-Many denominations do not condone homosexuality and believe it is also a sin. BUT often homosexuality is seen as either a forgivable sin or a sin not allowed in the church, but allowed for lay people. See the wiki below. (yeah, wiki reference, but this gave a concise description of denominational stances on homosexuality).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

-Masculinity must be affirmed in different ways in the church (other than the fag epithet or explicit sexual domination/conquest of female bodies) due to pledges of abstinence and avoidance of sin (hate). According to Amy Wilkins' article "Masculinity Dilemmas" Christian "non participation in heterosexual conquest" is justified by the self-control attributed to abstinence and hides other "gender discrediting" attributes so masculinity is still constructed and performed, but in an alternative fashion. 

Wilkins, Amy C. 2009. “Masculinity Dilemmas: Sexuality and Intimacy Talk amongChristians and Goths.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34.2: 343-68.

-This is a lot of information, but bear with me, it's worth it. 

Overall:

***The fag discourse polices masculinity (Pascoe) +Hate is sin, fag is hate speech/foul language and cannot be verbally performed + Juxtaposition of fag identity with heterosexual masculine performance bolsters masculinity + Christians find alternative ways to perform masculinity in lieu of heterosexual conquests (Wilkins) = The fag discourse could be played out in the modern youth group in more physical interactions or physical juxtaposition of fag identity with heterosexuality.

I've heard the observation that men in prayer is an intimate picture. I agree that this religious practice is personal and intimate, but to the lay person it also seems somewhat contradictory to hegemonic masculinity. Sure, homosocial bonding is required for masculinity, but this does not necessarily involve long moments of physical touch or softly spoken personal feelings and desires. 

I would propose an empirical study consisting of participant observation and interviews to study this phenomenon of stigmatized fag discourse in modern youth groups. I take this from my own participation in youth groups earlier in my life. 

It was always offensive when leaders would make fun of homosexuality in skits or informal conversations. This was rarely explicit in that it was not verbally claimed as homosexual mimicry or mockery, but it was definitely implied. These performances that were condoned by various religious institutions (youth groups) coupled with what seemed like a general acceptance of fag mimicry between male friends made me question the sexuality of many of my male friends within youth groups (just being honest)

But when these performances were juxtaposed with heterosexual displays, it bolstered the male heterosexuality and masculinity just as if the fag discourse had occurred verbally such as it did in Pascoe's research.