The groves of Academe

Andrew Varley looks at some original research

Brendan Gough and Gareth Edwards, of the University of Sheffield Hallam, had the idea of furthering the study of "hegemonic masculinities" by putting together a group of young men under the influence of alcohol and examining their subsequent conversation. The results have been mocked in the press. Simply quoting Gough and Edwards is to mock them. Having been the perpetrator of similar, if more modest, outrages, I wondered whether their piece of work, "The beer talking: four lads, a carry out and the reproduction of masculinities", was an elaborate spoof. Unwilling to put myself in the ludicrous position of the bishop who attacked "Gulliver's Travels" as a pack of lies, I thought it wise to check with the editor of The Sociological Review, the journal in which Gough and Edwards' paper appeared. He assures me that it is "a serious study of the attitudes towards masculinity, race and sexuality expressed by young males".

In an episode of Fawlty Towers, Basil comments that his wife should appear on Mastermind: "Sybil Fawlty, specialist subject, The Bleeding Obvious." Perhaps she had studied sociology, which, at its lowest level, is little more than the statement of the commonplace expressed in terms which make it sound improbable. Gough and Edwards quote an earlier authority in their discipline as suggesting that "drunkenness may be an aspect of masculinity," which, in its way, is clearly a reasonable observation. It does not require an edifice of pseudo-academic endeavour.

"This study, then," say the authors, "is a detailed exploration of one all male gathering and the ways in which four young white heterosexual men (including one of the researchers - GE) negotiate and reproduce a range of masculinities whilst drinking alcohol." In essence, what happens is that four young men, identified by pseudonyms, George, Dave, Chaz, and Ewan, the latter being the co-researcher Gareth Edwards, get drunk together in a flat. Gloriously, the authors say of these four that "all hail from Manchester," as though they bumped into one another on a blasted heath. I should have thought that the participation of Ewan contaminated the research and they seem dimly aware of the possibility: 
"GE thought of taking field notes as the session progressed. However, as the hour approached this idea was rejected as it was felt artificial and unrealistic (sic)." It could also be argued that there was likely to be little academic value in notes made by one drunk about the aperçus of three others.

The use different groups make of language, how it forms a bond, how it identifies the alien, and how it influences perceptions, is an important subject. The addition of a mind-altering chemical, in this case, alcohol, is more likely to confuse the issue than shed light, unless you believe that veritas lies in vino.

The four young men - they are all twenty-one - hold inarticulate conversations of extreme vulgarity, during the course of which they disparage Welshmen, Asians, homosexuals, and women. The transcripts show them to be uneducated, of the lowest intelligence, and of such meanness of spirit that it is difficult to identify them as members of a civilised society. These things seem to be the most significant thing about George, Dave, Chaz, and Ewan, not that they were drunk. Certainly, it is undoubtedly true that alcohol disinhibited them sufficiently to express a dislike for the alien and a fear of the power of women, or at least to express these things in order to feel part of the group. On the other hand, the alcohol did not transform them into other beings. Like the Devil, it needs raw material. Again, that is not to say that truth is in wine - or in this case, lager: it is possible that, sober, George, Dave, Chaz, and even Ewan, who registers mild disapproval at some of the more grotesque sallies of his pals, were thoroughly ashamed of the sentiments they uttered when drunk and genuinely found them repugnant. By the way, it may or may not, depending on your recent exposure to higher education, come as a surprise to learn that these young men are undergraduates at Sheffield Hallam, two of them, we are told, studying psychology.

If anything worthwhile were to have emerged from this exercise, it would have been necessary to have had a control group of similar individuals - undergraduates of Sheffield Hallam or foul-mouthed morons - whose "discourse" was monitored whilst they were sober. It is surprising that The Sociological Review admits research carried out in such an unscientific way. The authors do offer the comment that a "follow-up interview of the men would, however, be useful to see to what extent their thoughts about masculinity match their masculinity as it is expressed," which, as a statement of the Bleeding Obvious, takes some beating. The assumption is implicit that drunkenness somehow released an essential quality of the men, as though the booze were a tool permitting some kind of insight. But alcohol was an active participant in the research. It informed the "discourse", affected the perceptions of George, Dave, Chaz, and Ewan, and refracted, through its own distorting prism, their sober attitudes.

The authors conclude that "this research can be seen as part of the current attempts to gain a more sensitive understanding of gender and how it shapes and is shaped by individuals". Gough and Edwards introduced alcohol into the equation and took no account of its effects in their answer, such as it is. It would be dangerous were anyone to take this stuff seriously because insights into aspects of personality and the nature of masculinity, or femininity come to that, are not achieved through the bottom of a glass...

...I still can't help feeling that the editor of The Sociological Review and I have been the victims of a hoax.