Standing alone: sexual minority status and victimisation in a rural lower secondary school

ABSTRACT

Studies worldwide indicate that sexual minority students often face different forms of bullying in everyday life at school, and young people growing up in communities with conservative values, such as in rural areas, are often in a particularly vulnerable position. Nonetheless, there is an absence of studies addressing the everyday lives of sexual minority students in rural schools. Drawing on interviews with students in the ninth grade of a rural lower secondary school in Sweden, the current study has investigated experiences of violence and harassment routinely directed at sexual minority students at school. The results indicate that the local gender regime is strongly framed by heteronormative values that position non-heterosexual students as the Other. Sexual minority students are exposed to homophobic name-calling on a daily basis, and threats and physical violence are also common. To fit in and to ‘survive’ in school, sexual minority students are forced to accept the homophobic name-calling and are sometimes also forced to physically fight back. This study concludes that it is important that schools address issues around violence directed towards non-heterosexual students, and that ways to create a more inclusive and safe school environment be identified.

KEYWORDS:

• Homophobia
• rural
• secondary school
• sexual minorities
• violence
• victimisation

Introduction and aim

Sexual minority students (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer), or students who are perceived by others as being a sexual minority, often face different forms of bullying, violence and verbal harassment in schools (Mayer 2008; Pascoe 2013). Several studies from around the world indicate that, compared to their heterosexual counterparts, sexual minority students have more mental health problems, higher rates of depression and increased risk of failing academically in school (Bishop and Casida 2011; Martin-Storey and Crosnoe 2012).

Students in different parts of the world, including America, Australia, Europe, South East Asia and Africa, have also reported that sexual minority students hear degrading words such as cunt, gay, lesbian, queer, dyke, sissy and faggot on a daily basis in school (Epstein 1998; Hillard et al. 2014; Herron 2017; Horton 2019; Msibi 2012; Pascoe 2013; Plummer 2001). Despite this, these words are quite often unnoticed, unchallenged and even excused by the adults in the school (Bishop and Casida 2011; van Leent and Ryan 2016). When these microaggressions in the form of verbal harassment become a part of everyday school life, there is a great risk that they will become normalised and thereby made invisible (Hlavka 2014; Gartner and Sterzing 2016). As Msibi (2012) notes, ‘language is a powerful tool in which homophobia and heterosexism are entrenched’ (p. 523).

Although sexual harassment and bullying directed at sexual minority students are very common in schools, American research shows that teachers often have difficulty developing strategies to deal with these forms of violence (Anagnostopoulos et al. 2009; Hillard et al. 2014). Even if teachers try to stop and challenge gendered acts of harassment, lack of support from the school administration and colleagues limits their ability to tackle the problems and act with the desired force (Mayer 2008). Research from Iceland and Finland has also shown that, even though there are teachers who are well aware of the vulnerability of sexual minority students, sexuality is a rarely discussed topic in schools (Kjaran and Kristinsdóttir 2015; Lehtonen, Palmu, and Lahelma 2014). Rather, it is a topic that is avoided, hidden and silenced by teachers (Lehtonen, Palmu, and Lahelma 2014).

Another dimension discussed by Finnish and British researchers is the complexity of distinguishing between a ‘joke’ and harassment or bullying. This often makes it difficult for teachers and other school professionals to recognise potential problems or harassment, and to know when to act and support the students who might be targeted and deal with the students who might be involved (Lahelma 2002; Rawlings 2017). Educational research has also shown that school-based sex education – education that should prevent and diminish risks for young people – instead tends to maintain heteronormativity, sexism and racism (García 2009).

There are also studies documenting positive experiences of sexual minority students. The study by Morris, McCormack, and Anderson (2014) is one such example. Their interview study of openly bisexual male students in different schools across the UK indicates that the participants had positive experiences of coming out, and they also experienced an inclusive school environment. One of the limitations of the study, discussed by the authors, was that all participants had privileged backgrounds. The authors argue that the outcome of the study might have been different if it had also included participants from rural and socially deprived areas. Another dimension raised by the authors is that the study only reports the experiences of openly bisexual young people. They suggest that the stories of students who remain closeted might have looked different; such students might find the school environment to be hostile and have a generally negative experience of school life.

American research suggests that sexual minority students in rural areas are in a particularly vulnerable situation and are at the greatest risk of being exposed to verbal harassment and homophobia (Bishop and Casida 2011). Conservative values often dominate in rural areas, which often results in a very hostile environment for sexual minority students, who receive little or no support, not even in school (Bishop and Casida 2011; Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz 2009). Further, Msibi’s (2012) South African study suggests that communities with conservative values and traditional masculine and feminine ideals create a hostile school climate for sexual minority students. Results from a larger national survey conducted in Sweden indicate somewhat different demographic patterns. This survey shows that homophobic hate crime is as common in the major metropolitan areas of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö as in the rural areas of the country (Brottsförebyggande rådet 2018). The same study also shows that there are no differences in the risk of being exposed to this form of hate crime when looking at educational level or gender. At the same time, when looking more closely at the level of income, another pattern becomes apparent. People with low incomes are more likely to report that they have been exposed to homophobic hate crime; this is especially common among men. This survey does not, however, say anything about how these issues occur in everyday life in schools.

Horton (2019) demonstrates, in his ethnographic study conducted in Vietnamese lower secondary schools, how school bullying is both gendered and embodied. Drawing on the experiences of one key informant, a young male who was regularly bullied by his male and female classmates, the study shows how the bullying in this case was influenced by local masculine norms. The study acknowledges the importance of theoretical reconsideration of how bullying in schools is investigated and analysed. According to Horton, it is important, and necessary, to take an intersectional approach and take a variety of socially differentiating categories into account when investigating bullying in schools.

Previous research has also shown how homophobic harassment is used as a strong gender policing discourse among young boys to ensure that the existing gender order is maintained both within and outside of the school (Martino 2000; Mills 2001; Pascoe 2005, 2013; Plummer 2001). Within schools, boys who are considered by others to be unmasculine or lacking in toughness are often exposed to homophobic harassment (Plummer 2001). Still, most boys find it difficult to rise to the expectations and pressure to ‘achieve’ masculinity, and they are also constantly expected to prove and re-prove their masculinity (Mills 2001). The fear of not ‘fitting in’, and also the fear of speaking out about violence and inequalities in school and of being denounced as traitors to their gender lead most boys to uphold the existing gendered power relations by demonstrating their superiority over subordinated boys as well as girls (Mills 2001; Epstein 1997, 1998; Kimmel 2001; Plummer 2001). As Epstein (1997) has argued: ‘The dual Others to normative heterosexual masculinities in schools are girls/women and non-macho boys/men. It is against these that many, perhaps most, boys seek to define their identities’ (p. 113).

This paper addresses sexual minority status and victimisation in a rural school in Sweden. Although the number of studies around the world that address issues of sexual minority students has increased, studies from Anglo-Saxon countries such as the UK, the US and Australia still dominate the research field (e.g. Epstein 1997, 1998; García 2009; Hillard et al. 2014; Mac an Ghaill 1994; Mills 2001; Pascoe 2005, 2013; Plummer 2001). In comparison, studies examining these issues in Sweden are still very uncommon, and the few existing studies are predominately surveys (Nationellt centrum för kvinnofrid 2018). Studies addressing these issues have not yet been conducted in the Swedish educational context, which is the focus of the current study. Moreover, practically no educational research have been conducted in rural areas (cf. Beach et al. 2019). Drawing on interviews with students in the last year of lower secondary school, the aim of the current study is to investigate experiences of violence and harassment directed at sexual minority students in the everyday life of a rural school.

Theoretical framework

This study draws on the theoretical understanding of sexuality and gender as performatively constituted by the acts and regulatory everyday practices of young people in schools (Butler 1990, 1997). Theoretically, the current study draws from an understanding of gender as part of activities that one does (Kimmel 2000; Connell 1987, 2003). This also means that there are multiple ways in which people can express gender in their daily lives (Connell 2003).

Within institutions such as schools, the specific ways in which gender is produced and reproduced create specific gender regimes (Connell 1987). Gender regimes are the specific representations of power relations between the dominant and subordinated masculinities and femininities and the power relations between heterosexual and non-heterosexual students in school. Students and teachers are part of the school’s local gender regime, and they construct and reconstruct different forms of masculinities and femininities as well as heteronormativity.

On a structural level, heterosexuality is given hegemonic status in society. Butler (1990, 1997) argues that heterosexuality is the compulsory form of sexuality in society, and this existing power relation is something that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, have to confront on a daily basis. In society, heterosexual masculinity and heterosexual femininity represent the natural, legitimate and desirable alternatives. The heteronormative ideal connects to Butler’s concept of the heterosexual matrix (1990), which refers to the ideological power system of a heteronormative understanding of sexuality, gender and sex in the society. Connell (2000) discusses this hegemonic order in relation to hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is an ideal that is seldom achieved. However, this is a norm to which all individuals, despite gender and sexual orientation, have to relate. Other masculinities, as well as femininities, are measured in relation to, and are subordinated to, this normalising and hegemonic heterosexual masculinity.

In line with Connell, Kimmel (2001) argues that the hegemonic status of manhood is manifested through the opposition of sexual minorities, women and racial minorities. To achieve manhood, and to be accepted by other men, men take part in different forms of homosocial enactments. Homophobia is one central organising principle in how homosociality is represented. The homosocial enactments of masculinity are surrounded by constant competition and also by fear: of failure, emasculation by other men, and being humiliated or being labelled as ‘sissy’, Kimmel argues. As a result, hegemonic masculinity leaves little (or no) room for those who do not fit the hegemonic norm (Mills 2001; Kimmel 2001; Pascoe 2005; Plummer 2001).

In the current study, the theoretical framework presented above will provide a framework for analysing and understanding the social processes of victimisation and marginalisation of sexual minority students in the everyday life of a rural school.

Methodology

This study is part of a national research project funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare exploring students’ experiences of violence and harassment in lower secondary school. More specifically, the study draws on students’ narratives of violence and harassment in everyday life at school, how this emerges and what kind of support students in different vulnerable situations state that they receive from other students and school officials. The study is designed as a set of case studies of schools located in different demographic areas and with different catchment areas across Sweden. This paper draws from the case study conducted at the rural school in the study.

During the initial phase of the study, an ethical review application was submitted to the Regional Ethical Review Board [application number Dnr. 244-18]. The board approved the application during the spring of 2018. The school was contacted after the board’s decision. Access to the school was initially gained through two teachers at the school. The teachers were contacted and informed about the study through personal emails and phone calls. One of the teachers became the gatekeeper of the study and helped arrange access to two ninth-grade classes in the school. All participants in the study received an information letter describing the purpose of the project. Students agreeing to participate signed the letter; students under the age of 15 needed their guardian’s written approval. To further engender trust, the research team also provided information on the project at the time of the interviews. Approximately 40 students – almost all of the students in the two selected classes – agreed to participate in the study. The interviews were conducted in February 2019. To ensure confidentiality, the name of the school as well as the names of all the participants have been anonymised (Vetenskaprådet 2017).

Amber school – a rural lower secondary school

The current study was conducted at Amber school, a lower secondary school in the Swedish countryside. About 400 students are enrolled at the school, and it is the only lower secondary school in the municipality. Amber school is located in the community of Pinehill, which has approximately 3000 inhabitants. The catchment area of the school covers the entire municipality, which includes Pinehill as well as the surrounding smaller villages. Like many other rural areas in Sweden, the region of Pinehill is dominated by forests and lakes. Pinehill and Pinehill municipality have a long tradition of small-scale businesses, predominately manufacturing industries, and there are good railway connections to other parts of the region and other parts of the country. The education level in Pinehill is quite low, which is typical in rural areas. The proportion of inhabitants born abroad is approximately 10%, which is lower than the national average of 20% (Statistikmyndigheten SCB 2019a). In the last election, in September 2018, the Social Democrats, historically the workers’ party, and the Sweden Democrats, the political party on the far right, received most votes in the municipality (Statistikmyndigheten SCB 2019b).

The interviews

This study was designed as an interview study of students of the ninth grade. Focus group interviews were conducted during the initial phase, and interviews were later conducted with pairs and individuals selected from the focus groups. Each focus group included four to six students. During the focus group interviews, different topics emerged, which enabled follow-up questions of specific topics during the interviews with pairs and individuals. The students could choose whether to be interviewed individually or in pairs. In all, seven focus group interviews, twenty individual interviews and two interviews in pairs were conducted with students in the two classes. The focus group interviews lasted up to an hour, the individual interviews were approximately 30 minutes long, and the interviews in pairs lasted about an hour. All interviews were audio recorded and fully transcribed.

The interviews were semi-structured and covered themes such as security and safety in school, physical violence, verbal violence, sexual harassment, homophobia and support from the school. In the current article, the specific focus will be on the students’ narratives and experiences regarding the vulnerable position of sexual minority students and their regular exposure to violence at school.

The interviews were analysed thematically, which means that the transcripts were read through several times and the data was coded and analysed in several steps (Braun and Clarke 2006; Nowell et al. 2017). These analytic steps included the following: (1) familiarisation with the data, (2) initial coding of the data material, (3) searching for recurrent patterns in the data material (i.e. themes), (4) reviewing the main and sub-themes and (5) applying theoretical perspectives in order to theorise, analyse and situate the data. It is through this step-by-step process that three main themes connected to violence directed at sexual minority students emerged in the data. These themes will be the focus of the current study, and the results will be organised according to them: (1) Being in the minority position, (2) Physical and verbal violence, and (3) Standing alone.

This study mainly draws from an individual interview with a boy named Hugo. During the individual interview with Hugo, he revealed that he is bisexual and he shared his experience of being in a sexual minority position and exposed to violence in school as well in the local rural community. It is with this background that Hugo became the key informant of this study. The empirical data is presented as follows: The first section of the empirical study, under the heading Being in the minority position, draws from focus group interviews with boys and girls and from the individual interview with Hugo. The second and third parts of the empirical study, presented under the headings Physical and verbal violence and Standing alone, draw only from the individual interview with Hugo.

Being in the minority position

The general picture that emerged during the interviews with the students at Amber school is that it is quite hard to be a newcomer in school. If fellow students consider you to be different, it is even harder to be accepted. This was something that a group of boys discussed during one of the focus group interviews.

YO:

Is it hard to be different here?

Hilding:

Yes, it is!

Hugo:

Yes, it is! They pick on everything!

Jacob:

They might think that you should be like them, you know. So if you are a guy and like guys they will kill you or something. It is not wrong to like someone of the same gender.

Hugo:

No, it isn’t.

Several of the students in the study expressed how students in the sexual minority and students who challenge existing heterosexual norms have a particularly vulnerable position in school. This group of students is also at greater risk of being exposed to physical violence and threats, according to the students interviewed.

Elvira:

We have a girl at this school who is transgender and wants to become a guy, and he receives a lot of comments like ‘fucking trans’, ‘you do not deserve to live’ and things like that. It is comments like that. It is not your fault that you feel that you are born in the wrong body, and that you feel like that, but people pick on you because of that.

YO:

Is it random people who shout things like that in the corridors?

Elvira:

Well, it is mostly the pack who picks on that person.

The narratives reveal that the local gender regime of Amber school not only positions sexual minority students as outcasts, it also marginalises them and places them in a subordinated position in relation to the heterosexual students (cf. Butler 1990, 1997; Connell 1987). This dominance of the heterosexual matrix strongly influences the existing power system at the school (cf. Butler 1990).

During the interviews a recurrent pattern emerged in that it was a certain group of students, referred to as ‘the pack’, that was victimising sexual minority students. It was also this group of students that created a violent atmosphere in school, and several of the students said that they were afraid of this group. The general opinion among the other students was that ‘the pack group’ was rowdy and misbehaved, and they were also referred to and categorised as students with right-wing political views.

Hilding:

They skip school and misbehave; they snuff and throw snuff on the walls, all kind of things. Very uncivilised behaviour.

Hugo:

You could actually call them neo-Nazis, because they hate everything and everyone, so I call them that.

YO:

Do they have that kind of political view?

Hilding:

Yes, they are right-wing, they hate immigrants.

Hugo:

They hate everyone. They want people to die and shit.

Hilding:

They are homophobic.

One of the students in the study, Hugo, had personal experiences of being exposed and victimised due to his sexual orientation. His story will be the focus and frame for the rest of this article. During the individual interview, Hugo further described his experiences of being an outcast and marginalised in Amber school, and he revealed that he is bisexual. Hugo explained that he has been bullied for almost the entire time he has been at school and that it continued in the seventh grade when he moved with his family to Pinehill from another part of Sweden. Things changed slightly for the better during the eighth grade, and now in the ninth grade he feels that he has become part of the class and has good friends that he hangs out with in school and during his spare time.

YO:

What is it like to be bisexual here in Pinehill?

Hugo:

It is terrible, terrible!

YO:

Right.

Hugo:

Yeah, because you are so fucking exposed!

YO:

The friends you have told, are they friends here at school?

Hugo:

Yes, they are.

YO:

Are they people you can trust?

Hugo:

Yes they are. The ones I have told I can trust.

Hugo describes his vulnerable and marginalised position in terms of being ‘so fucking exposed!’. Due to his marginalised and vulnerable position he trusts only his closest friends, and it is only the inner circle of friends that knows about Hugo’s sexual orientation. Having friends, and friends that he can trust, is vital to Hugo’s well-being in school. The local context of Amber school and the rural community of Pinehill makes it hard for Hugo to be open about his sexual orientation with everyone, which is why he remains closeted to most people. Previous studies have also discussed the importance of the local context. Rural areas are generally more conservative and influenced by more traditional values compared to urban areas, where it is often easier to come out (Bishop and Casida 2011; Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz 2009; Morris, McCormack, and Anderson 2014). As for the community of Pinehill, the current political situation, with a large number of inhabitants voting for and supporting the Sweden Democrats – a party with strong traditional family values and hostility towards sexual minorities – might explain the hostility and fear that sexual minority students face at Amber school, meaning that they, like Hugo, remain closeted.

Physical and verbal violence

The social exclusion and vulnerability that Hugo has experienced takes many forms. He has experienced physical violence, threats and verbal harassment in school. In some cases, it was simply luck that the physical violence did not escalate more than it did in school.

YO:

What happened when you were assaulted in school?

Hugo:

They did not manage to do that much; they pushed me and stuff like that and I tried to come loose from their grip and they wrestled me down on the floor and were about to kick me, but then some people came so they ran off.

YO:

Is it a particular group of students who do this? Who were those students?

Hugo:

Yes, it is those fucking idiots that I talked about yesterday, the pack; they are just constantly doing things.

YO:

Is it mostly guys?

Hugo:

Yes.

YO:

Or have girls also subjected you to it?

Hugo:

No, no girls do things like that.

It is the same group of students, boys from the so-called pack group, who subject Hugo to physical violence. These results correspond with previous research that shows that boys in school are not only more frequently involved in physical violence, but they are also more frequently exposed to physical violence in the school milieu (Eriksen and Lyng 2018). Students who identify as a sexual minority are in a particularly vulnerable position and are at great risk of being exposed not only to physical violence but also homophobic name-calling (Mayer 2008; Msibi 2012).

At Amber school there are also two other sexual minority students; like Hugo, they have been exposed to physical violence and homophobia. As Hugo explained about one of the students who is gay: ‘He has also been beaten in school several times and all kinds of shit. He has been beaten and stalked and all that’. Homophobic name-calling was also something that Hugo himself had experienced multiple times in school: ‘They call me “fucking faggot” and shit like that’. When it came to the homophobic name-calling, he said that both girls and boys from the pack group were involved in this. At Amber school, homophobia is also expressed through homophobic ‘jokes’ (cf. Lahelma 2002; Rawlings 2017). These so-called jokes are so common that they have become a normalised part of the everyday joking culture of school: ‘There are a lot of people who joke about it’, Hugo says.

Being an exposed student in the minority position was also expressed in other ways. One afternoon, a mob of approximately 30 people gathered outside the school and waited for Hugo to leave the school building. There was a rumour in the local community that Hugo was gay, and that had created hostility among the pack group. Hugo experienced and recalled this situation as extremely hostile.

Hugo:

I know one time in the seventh grade when I was in the youth club, which is located here in school, when there were like thirty people who waited for me outside and wanted to fight and shit like that. / … / They were so many and, fuck, I did not dare to walk out. There had been some fucking rumour that I was gay, and that triggered them like hell. / … / They hate everything, all, everyone, so it would not surprise me if they do the same to women, if you know what I mean.

Hugo’s narratives reveal how the hate and violence that he is exposed to create a very hostile school milieu, and he also recurrently refers to ‘the pack group’ as the perpetrators. He has also experienced hate and violence outside school, in the local community of Pinehill. On one of those occasions, he was waiting for a train at the local railway station.

Hugo:

Then there was an occasion when I was at the railway station. The thing that I really think was bad at the railway station was that there were people all over the place and no one did anything.

YO:

Were you beaten?

Hugo:

Yes, and I started to bleed and things and my nose got broken.

This narrative is not only framed by the physical violence that Hugo was exposed to but also by the passivity of the public who witnessed the incident, which creates double exposure for Hugo. Hugo is not only surprised about this passivity but also expresses deep disappointment that no one stopped the fight and tried to help him.

Standing alone

His vulnerability in school also resulted in Hugo having to find his own strategies to handle the violence that he is exposed to. In seventh grade, which was the most vulnerable time for him in school, Hugo experienced no support from the school whatsoever, so he had to solve the problems by himself. According to Hugo, the only way to handle hostile situations at that time was to behave in a similar way and fight back.

Hugo:

The only thing that really works on them is violence, violence and threats, and threaten them back.

YO:

Did you ever talk to any adults in school about this?

Hugo:

Yes, I did many times. I talked to the police about it, I talked to the school officials about it, I talked to my parents about it and they even contacted the Swedish Schools Inspectorate, but nothing happened anyway, and it continued like this for a year.

Even though the school, the police and even the Swedish Schools Inspectorate had been informed about Hugo’s vulnerable situation in school, nothing happened. Seventh grade was, according to Hugo, the worst period of lower secondary school: ‘It was pure hell’, he stated. Now in the ninth grade, things have changed for the better and he finds that he is getting better support from the school.

YO:

Can you talk to your current head teachers?

Hugo:

Yes, I can.

YO:

Are there any other teachers you can turn to?

Hugo:

Well, yes, our history teacher Erik, but I have not talked that much to him, though.

YO:

How do you feel about the conversations with the school counsellor?

Hugo:

Very good, super good. I have been talking to her for almost two years now.

The narratives also reveal that receiving support from school officials is vital. In recent years, many teachers have quit their jobs and new teachers have arrived, which has created uncertainty among the students. As shown in the extract above, the current head teacher of Hugo’s class and also the history teacher are involved with the students and listen to them. They are also teachers that Hugo himself would turn to if he needed some kind of support. The school counsellor is also highlighted as having a particularly important role in Hugo’s everyday life in school. She is a person that Hugo has turned to and talked to since the seventh grade, and she is someone he trusts and has confidence in.

Another picture that emerges during the interview about everyday life in school is that almost no one among the students dares to stop and come to the rescue when the pack group beat or harass other students. There seems to be a strong discourse of ‘saving your own skin’ at Amber school.

YO:

How do the other students react when someone is beaten? Do they support and rescue that student?

Hugo:

No, because there is never anyone who has seen anything; no one sees anything. It is so strange.

YO:

Really? So no one sees anything, but everyone is there?

Hugo:

Yes, you know, there are not that many who dare to intervene with the pack. Most people do not want to have anything to do with them, and if someone else is beaten they do not want to risk their own lives; that is why they do not intervene. You are quite pleased that they beat some else and not you, you know.

‘No one sees anything’ gives quite a clear picture of how Hugo experiences situations when violence occurs in school. There seems to be general fear of the pack group, and Hugo continues to explain that, to survive in school, he not only has to be physically strong but also emotionally strong.

Hugo:

Whoever is strongest wins; that is the mentality at this school.

YO:

You really have to be tough?

Hugo:

Yes, it is all about survival; that is why I have to put up with some things and shit like that.

YO:

Right, you have to accept the jokes and be part of it, although you do not like it.

Hugo:

I think the best humour is when you can make sarcastic jokes with your friends, but you do not mean it. Sometimes they go too far. The reason why I feel like this is because the word ‘faggot’ and all that, the ridicule over the years, the beating and all that have affected me deeply, you know. Then you become more sensitive about those words, even when your friends joke about it, although they do not mean it. Those words have affected me deeply and I think they will forever.

Hugo’s narratives not only reveal that students in a sexual minority have to use physical violence and fight back, but they also reveal that his position in the sexual minority forces him to accept the homophobic name-calling, ‘joking’ and heterosexism at school. The results correspond to Pascoe’s (2005) study about adolescent masculinity and the use of ‘fag’ as an insult among boys in school. Pascoe argues that the fag insult is not only linked to homosexual boys, it is also directed and used to police heterosexual boys: ‘Fag talk and fag imitations serve as a discourse with which boys discipline themselves and each other through joking relationships’ (Pascoe 2005, 330).

The continuous microaggressions at Amber school could be understood in the light of existing gender relations and the local gender regime at the school (Connell 1987, 2003). The homophobic harassment and physical violence at the school have become such normalised parts of everyday life that they not only reinforce heterosexuality, they also maintain the hegemonic masculine order (cf. Connell 1987; Kimmel 2001). The existing culture of silence at the school and the way students avoid intervening when other students are exposed to violence might, at least among the boys, be understood in the light of the fear of being humiliated and accused of being unmanly (cf. Kimmel 2001; Mills 2001). With no space for those who do not fit the hegemonic norm, Hugo and other sexual minority students are placed in a most vulnerable position (cf. Mills 2001; Pascoe 2005; Plummer 2001).

Conclusions

Looking at studies exploring the everyday lives of sexual minority students in schools, we can see that research conducted in Anglo-Saxon countries still dominates the research field (cf. Epstein 1997, 1998; Mills 2001; Pascoe 2005, 2013; Plummer 2001). There is still a lack of educational research focusing on these issues in the Swedish educational context, not least in the context of rural schools. This study has contributed new insights about these issues by exploring students’ experiences of violence and harassment directed towards sexual minority students in a rural school in Sweden.

The results in this study reveal that being in the minority position is very difficult. Sexual minority students are exposed to different forms of violence – they are beaten at school, exposed to homophobic name-calling almost every day and are even exposed to stalking when they leave the school building. The local school milieu is described by the students as very hostile towards sexual minority students and other minority students, especially when the so-called pack group turns up in the corridors. Most students are afraid of this group and try to avoid them. When students are beaten by the pack group, no one intervenes because they are afraid to do so. This has resulted in a school culture among the students where ‘no one sees anything’. Looking at it in terms of conforming masculinity at the school, the silence and lack of support among the boys might be understood as an expression of fear of being labelled as ‘sissy’ and unmasculine (cf. Kimmel 2001; Mills 2001).

The results from the current study also show that having supportive friends and school officials is important in enabling students to actually manage everyday life in school. Hugo, who has personal experience of being in the minority position and being the Other, describes how he has been forced to accept the homophobic name-calling to fit and blend in, and how he has to be physical and mentally strong to ‘survive’ in school. Name-calling occurs on a daily basis and has become a normalised part of the students’ school culture and the local gender regime (cf. Connell 1987; Gartner and Sterzing 2016). The recurrent homophobic harassment and physical violence within the school not only normalise heterosexuality, the dominance and status of hegemonic masculinity also remain unquestioned (cf. Connell 1987; Kimmel 2001). As suggested by Lehtonen, Palmu, and Lahelma (2014), homophobic name-calling in school influences not only non-heterosexual students but also the students who identify as heterosexual, since it reinforces heteronormative values and influences the entire gendered culture of the school.

This case study has contributed new knowledge about everyday life in a rural school with regard to violence and harassment directed towards sexual minority students, and with a specific focus on the experiences of a bisexual young boy called Hugo. While it is impossible to make any general conclusions about violence directed at sexual minority students, this study still says something about these issues in this specific case, that is, in the local school context and in the local rural community. Importantly, also in relation to these results, previous research has shown that bisexuals, regardless of gender, are more likely than other groups to report that they have been exposed to violence and threats (Axelsson et al. 2013). Additionally, bi- and homosexuals, regardless of gender, are more likely than heterosexuals to report that they have been exposed to degrading treatment, physical violence and exposed to threats. Another important issue to raise here is the increased public support for parties on the far right in Sweden (and elsewhere in Europe). Among sexual minorities this might lead to increased fear of being exposed to hate crime. Previous studies have not addressed these issues, which underlines the importance of also investigating this in the future.

To conclude, it is evident that more research on violence directed at sexual minorities is necessary. Studies like the current one can contribute to and increase the knowledge about sexual minority students’ experiences of violence in schools (and their everyday lives in general). More case-study research examining these issues will be necessary in the future, as it can provide knowledge and insights that go beyond the results of the survey-based research in this field that has predominated in Sweden. In line with previous research, I also argue for the need for increased awareness among professionals who meet sexual minorities in their daily work (c.f. Nationellt centrum för kvinnofrid 2018). This is particularly important because ignorance tends to increase the vulnerability within these groups even more (Nationellt centrum för kvinnofrid 2018). By acknowledging the experiences of sexual minority students and by giving them a voice, and by listening to them and learning from their experiences, we can more effectively address heterosexism and violence in school and create a more inclusive and safe school environment. Moreover, it is also of great importance to support boys in questioning and challenging hegemonic subject positions, and to support students in challenging other forms of unjust power relations among students (cf. Mills 2001).

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the students at Amber school who participated in this study. A special and most humble thanks to Hugo, who trusted me enough to share his story about being in a sexual minority position in a rural school and community. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of International Journal of Inclusive Education for their helpful and constructive comments on this article. I dedicate this article to Hugo.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [grant number 2017-00071].

Notes on contributors

Ylva Odenbring

Ylva Odenbring is Associate Professor of Education at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Her main research area is in the field of sociology of education, with a special focus in the areas of gender, social class, student welfare and student victimisation.