The construction of ‘alternative masculinity’ among men in the childcare profession

Abstract

In Germany about 3%–5% of kindergarten teachers¹ (for children aged 3–6) are men (BMFSFJ 2010). In this qualitative research on men as kindergarten teachers I analyzed how men in this profession construct masculinity while working with children and during interaction with (mostly female) colleagues, parents, and in the interview situation. Therefore, 10 men teachers were observed for one day in their working environment and interviewed in qualitative interviews. One main theoretical implication was the concept of ‘doing gender’ (e.g. West and Zimmerman 1987, Gildemeister 2004), which was adopted to understand the ‘doing masculinity’ of these men. Another theoretical basis is the concept of hegemonic masculinities by Raewyn Connell (1987, 2006), which was used, critically discussed, and as a result re-conceptualized. The discussion of the theoretical implications and the analysis of the empirical material showed that Connell's theory misses a type of masculinity that opposes hegemonic masculinity, just as her type of ‘complicit masculinities’ supports it. From the interviews and observations a type of ‘alternative masculinity’ was developed.

Keywords:

• doing gender
• doing masculinity
• hegemonic masculinity
• alternative masculinity
• qualitative research

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Imke Schmincke (Munich) and Theresa Sauter (Brisbane) for very helpful comments and correction on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

1. They are not usually referred to as teachers in Germany because no academic/university education is required of people wanting to work in kindergartens. The German word used to describe caregivers in kindergartens is Erzieher, which could be translated as ‘educator’.

2. The interviews were accompanied by interviews with experts on the topic. The project and its results are presented in detail in Buschmeyer 2013.

3. Data and further information: www.koordination-maennerinkitas.de. It is hard to get more precise statistical data due to the fact that if you count only those who were professionally trained the sample may include men who are leaders of an organization and no longer work with children.

4. There are other types of masculinity described by Connell which will not be discussed in further detail here as they are not relevant for the empirical and theoretical results of this study.

5. All names have been changed to take care of anonymity.

6. The numbers refer to the written document produced from the interviews and observations.

7. Using the term ‘insecurity’ should not be understood as a psychological interpretation. Rather it was a trait typically portrayed by men who were identified as complicit masculinity but seemed confused due to the contradictory models of masculinity they faced in the context of their life and work.