‘It’s freer and easier in a changing room, because the barriers disappear…’ a case study of masculinity ideals, language and social status amongst Swedish ice hockey players

Abstract

Previous research has identified sports-related risk factors that can cause acts of violence outside the sporting milieu. The purpose of this case study is to examine the ideals, language and social status of male ice hockey players and determine whether and how they affect their views of sexuality, aggressiveness and actions outside the ice hockey milieu. The method and material are based on a qualitative content analysis of interviews with six senior ice hockey players in Sweden. Research on masculinity and violence theoretically inspires the study. The findings show that expectations and norms can create increased status in a team and at the same time can also make it difficult for players to fully follow their own values and inner guides. In other words, players can be themselves, yet sometimes have to toe the line and follow the group (even if they do not always want to). Another finding is the dilemma of silence and the difficulties that players face in setting limits for team-mates who, for example, joke in a diminishing and inappropriate way. The article ends with a discussion about the challenges that these results entail regarding progressive (violence-preventative) work within ice hockey at the individual and structural levels.

Keywords:

• Hegemonic masculinity
• norms
• violence
• team community
• power

Introduction

The goals of the Swedish Sports Confederation (RF), which organises the vast majority of club sports in Sweden, are to promote health amongst children, youth and older people (För en god och jämlik hälsa SOU, 2017; Proposition, 2007/08) and to enable everyone to participate, experience joy and community and ensure that no-one is harassed or discriminated against. This means that an increased gender equality and a reduction of sexism and homophobia are central to RF (RF, 2010, 2013, 2018). In some reports Sweden is ranked as one of the world’s most gender equal nations (World Economic Forum, 2018), while other data shows how (male) athletes are accused and convicted of various acts of violence (and crimes) outside the sports arena. In Sweden, we have seen how athletes have been convicted of rape and sexual assault (Aftonbladet, 2019; Expressen, 2017; Sydsvenskan, 2018). Although, sexism, harassment and violence are not unique to Sweden and its athletes, journalists’ reports and previous research (see e.g. Allain, 2008; MacDonald, 2014, 2018; Pappas, 2012; Robinson, 1998) have contributed to making ice hockey players interesting study objects.

One reason for this is that ice hockey is a sport that encourages ‘traditional’ masculine attributes. For example, male players are taught to use their bodies to protect team-mates and aggressiveness and hard physical contact are considered to be parts of the game (Allain, 2008; David & Brannon, 1976; MacDonald, 2014; Messner, 1992; Vaz, 1982). In this article, we are particularly interested in the potentially transmitting relation between participation in (Swedish) ice hockey, the attitudes and language that are nurtured here and the inclination to be sexist, aggressive and violent both on and off the ice. It is often argued that participating in sport has a favourable impact on well-being and other health-related factors. But what if a sport, such as ice hockey, simultaneously educates young male athletes to become aggressive and display such behaviour inside and outside the sports arena? Our study aims to contribute to the understanding of the transferring potential of attitudes and values in a male-dominated team sport milieu. The inspiration for this focus is drawn from research that interprets violence as a continuum, i.e. that derogative attitudes and language are an initial step towards physical violence. However, our research focus does not assume that Swedish ice hockey is a particularly problematic sport, or that sexism and violence are solely related to men. However, given the Swedish examples that have appeared in the media and statistics showing that men are over-represented in violence cases in general (BRÅ, 2018a), there is value in exploring the ice hockey culture from this perspective in more depth.

The purpose of this (exemplifying) case study is to examine the ideals, language and social status of male ice hockey players in Sweden and to determine whether and how these aspects affect the players’ views of sexuality, aggressiveness and actions outside the ice hockey milieu. The research questions are:

• How do the players perceive sexist and aggressive language and how do they experience that the Swedish ice hockey milieu affects their views of women, femininity and homosexuality?

• How have experiences in the ice hockey milieu affected the players’ actions outside the sport?

Obviously, ‘violence’, ‘sexism’ and ‘homophobia’ can be manifested and defined in different ways and the focus could, for example, be on physical violence (e.g. unwanted or physical touching or action against someone’s will) (see e.g. Sekot, 2009), sexual violence (rape or other forced sexual acts) (see e.g. Fasting & Sand, 2015) or psychological or symbolic violence (e.g. direct or indirect threats or ridicule) (see e.g. Best, 2011; Bourdieu, 2001). There is a broad consensus that violence, and above all men’s violence, is a major public health problem which, in addition to physical injuries, has long-term consequences for individuals, families and society (EIGE, 2014; Flood, 2019; Hearn, 2015). Our exemplifying case study (which is part of a major project on ‘Ice hockey in change’) intends to contribute increased knowledge about the risk factors in sport and sports’ transmitting potential for individuals to develop derogative attitudes and violent behaviour inside and outside the sports milieu. In this way, our study adds to the fields of inclusivity and violence prevention in sport. Below, we theorise the relations between hegemonic masculinity, sport and violence and follow this up with a review of previous research. We then present our findings with a specific interest in the transferring potential of ice hockey that makes players act violently both on and off the ice. The article closes with a short discussion and conclusion.

Theoretical frame: hegemonic masculinity, sport and violence

Gender ideals are complex, fluid, practice- and structure-oriented (Connell, 2005, p. 67). These aspects are woven into Connell’s (1983, 2005) work, which takes its departure in the Gramscian-inspired perspective/concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’. A certain point in Connell’s work is that gender practices form a social hierarchy, in which particularly white, heterosexual men are given (and take) the opportunity to assume dominance and, in this way, assume a hegemonic position. Economic, cultural and social conditions frame individuals’ abilities to express hegemonic ideals (Connell, 2005). Thus, several sections of society help to shape the foundations (and the process of change) for the hegemony of men and masculinity (Hearn, 2015). Full contact sports are interpreted by Connell (2005) as upholders of traditional, hegemonic masculinity ideals, in that young men are given the opportunity to exhibit qualities such as aggression, courage, sacrifice, strength, self-confidence and (hetero)sexism (see also Lenneis & Pfister, 2015; MacDonald, 2014, 2016, 2018).

Several sports can be said to be ‘loaded’ with gender ideals that are ‘transmitted’ to individuals. For example, ice hockey is a milieu in which boys/males and girls/females learn that it is important to shoot hard, be strong and not show weakness (Allain, 2008; MacDonald, 2014) . The different rules for women and men can be interpreted as upholders of masculinity’s higher status (Dicarlo, 2016; Gilenstam, Karp, & Henriksson Larsén, 2008). The ‘transmitting’ process is, thus, active both at an individual level (player’s skills, what the coach encourages, etc.) and a structural level (different rules, men’s version of the game as normative, etc.), which contributes to the loading of ice hockey’s gendering content.

From a critical perspective, the separation (through gendered rules) of boys/girls and men/women supports men’s domination and has several consequences (cf. Dicarlo, 2016). Echoing the masculinity ideals identified by David and Brannon (1976) over 40 years ago, ice hockey and other gender separated sports milieus could teach boys/men to avoid (stereotypically) feminine behaviour, including things like openness and vulnerability. Later on, boys/men are often encouraged to pursue recognition, success and social status and to enhance independence, self-confidence, strength and toughness. Sports like ice hockey also teach boys/men how to deal with violence, aggression and boasting and to oppose authorities when necessary (cf. Gilenstam et al., 2008; Pappas, 2012; Weaving & Roberts, 2012). Such ideals normalise men/masculinities and place women/femininities as ‘outsiders’, in that they have to negotiate the dilemma between the sport’s demand for a muscular body and society’s expectations of the ‘feminine’ body (Alsarve & Tjønndal, 2019).

The circumambient gender ideals condition the individual’s possibilities to negotiate and change attitudes, language and actions and are, thus, central to the reproduction of the hegemony of men and masculinities (Connell, 1983, 2005; Hearn, 2015). That is, when gender ideals emerge at structural and individual levels, it can be difficult for individuals to break with these ideals, norms and stereotypes without being stigmatised, ridiculed or diminished. In other words, in some milieus gender inequality, diminishing attitudes and stereotypical norms become normalised, which makes it difficult for individuals to express themselves differently. This is how power works in a hegemony (Connell, 1983, 2005). Indeed, examples in the media and in previous research on ice hockey point to (some) ice hockey milieus as cementing these norms.

This reasoning, which emphasises both structural and individual aspects, does not mean that all individuals are irresponsible in their actions. However, it does highlight how a group can put pressure on individuals to do or say things (e.g. to a female) that they would not even contemplate if were they alone (Connell, 2005; Flood, 2019). Players may not reflect on alternate actions that challenge the group’s norms. Such ‘counter-hegemonic’ actions would challenge the boundaries of the community and a person’s position in it (Flood, 2019; Flood & Pease, 2009). Such questioning or renegotiation, thus, entails risking your own status, which could result in exclusion from the team’s community. This reasoning stipulates that players’ communities are stable and only change reluctantly, although, this is not always the case if there is resistance. However, research has pointed to some ‘change reluctant’ forces that elucidate young men’s socialising as more emotionally ‘disconnected’ and lacking in ‘intimacy’ than women’s friendshipping. Thus, ‘care for each other’ is, for example, associated with something ‘feminine’ or ‘namby-pamby’ and something that many young men ideally avoid in their homosocial socialising (Flood, 2019; Pollack, 2006).

Put differently, sports that enable men to exploit aggression, strength and (hetero)sexism help to uphold men and masculinities as hegemonic, reproduce a lack of gender equality and support stereotypical gender barriers. A technique that sports employ to produce men and masculinities as hegemonic is the institution of gender separate rules (see e.g. McDonagh & Pappano, 2008; Weaving & Roberts, 2012). One consequence of these rules is that men’s performances (often) appear to be more demanding, more dangerous or more difficult, which in turn give male athletes a more elevated position in an imagined hierarchy. This becomes apparent in ice hockey when men are able to practise open-ice body checking and play without helmet grids, which women are not allowed to do. Therefore, males are given unique opportunities to express a certain kind of courage, vulnerability, willingness to sacrifice, aggression, dominance, independence and risk taking (Weaving & Roberts, 2012). More specifically, it is men’s violence (in a broad sense) and their own and others’ exposure to violence that distinguish men’s ice hockey from women’s. That is, men have a monopoly on using and portraying socially accepted violence through sports such as ice hockey, which ultimately and generally gives them greater social status (than female ice hockey players) (cf. Lorenz, 2016; Pappas, 2012; Pappas, McKenry, & Catlett, 2004; Stark, 2010; Weinstein, Smith, & Wiesenthal, 1995).

Similar to hegemonic qualifications, violence has both individual and structural aspects and can function as masculinising. Connell (2005) emphasises that ‘everyday violence’ in, e.g. popular culture or sports can be rewarding and, in this sense, is related to masculinity constructions and violence. In other words, men’s violence is a way of maintaining (some) men’s power and dominance over women (and other men) and can, thus, be interpreted as a strategy to reproduce the hegemony of men (Hearn, 2012). In this way, violence as a social phenomenon has both productive and progressive aspects (e.g. it gives male ice hockey players the opportunity to achieve a higher social status than women), but also problematic and conservative dimensions that can be detrimental to some men and women (Flood, 2019; Flood & Dyson, 2007; Flood & Pease, 2009). This interpretation of violence as a continuum has also been developed by Heise (1998), who suggests that violence is affected by a complexity of individual, community and macro-social factors. The understanding of violence as a continuum is employed by several organisations. For example, the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) states that ‘violence is enacted under many different manifestations’ and goes on to define physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence as different forms that are not mutually exclusive (EIGE, 2014). While this ambiguity of violence can make effective preventative work challenging, it also emphasises the importance of recognising how structural factors and individual norms, attitudes and stereotypes around gender can reproduce the hegemonic gender order (Connell, 2005; EIGE, 2014; Messner, 1992; Messner & Sabo, 1994).

Several factors, such as masculinity ideals, group dynamics and rules (Andreasson, 2006; Pappas, 2012), could, thus, explain the emergence of aggressive and violent acts in sport (Moesch, Birrer, & Seiler, 2010). This means that aggression and violence in sport are complex and can be problematic, cause injuries and be dangerous. On the other hand, the combat moment, body checking and the rhapsodic violence in men’s hockey can be perceived as fascinating and creating sport’s popularity and ‘character’. Notwithstanding, violence and aggression have a complex connection with femininity, masculinity and ice hockey (Allain, 2008; Lorenz, 2016; MacDonald, 2014) . The construction of hegemonic types of masculinity ideals, thus, takes place in a ‘system’ that involves individuals’ (players’, coaches’ etc.) views of ideal performances and structural factors such as regulations, the economy and the media. A player’s violence, for instance in the shape of sexism and aggressiveness, is, thus, part of a more sophisticated system, where the reproduction of men’s hegemony can take the form of micro-level actions (Connell, 2005; Hearn, 2015). What we aim to study more closely, in this case, is the empirical link between a group’s norms and whether and how they contribute to violent behaviour. In the next section, we review research on gender and violence in general and (gendered) violence in sport and ice hockey in particular.

Previous research: men/masculinity, violence, sport and ice hockey

Sport has made it possible for men to measure and test their power and properties with and against each other and has, thus, been exploited to foster men with specific qualities, such as loyalty, fighting spirit until the end (of a game) and obeying rules and the coach’s orders (Holt, 1989; Lorenz, 2016). Understandably, the introduction of rules is of importance, although, there is sometimes a fine line between a regular and an irregular hit. In Messner’s (1992) interviews with American male football players it appears that the ideal hit damages the opponent in a legitimate manner. Translated into ice hockey, this means that, although, a check could result in an opponent’s brain concussion, it could still be legitimate and just without being penalised by the referee.

However, ideal ice hockey characteristics are formed in specific contexts. For example, different player and coach ideals and playing styles (with some common features) have been formed in Sweden, Canada and Russia (the former Soviet Union). A common denominator seems to be the importance of showing toughness on the ice, where the intensity of violence varies in different contexts and situations. The media has also often attributed special characteristics to hockey players, such as heroes or ‘machines’ with an instrumental or mechanical body perception, where players’ bodies are expected to endure brutal checking and aggressive play (Stark, 2001). What is also interesting from a historical perspective is that women and men were governed by the same rules (in Canada) during the early 1900s and that in the 1920s and 1930s body checking was allowed in women’s games. These rules were later changed, which prohibited women from showing physical brutality and practising body checking (Weaving & Roberts, 2012).

In a specific situation, the hegemonic version of masculinity is closely related to a striving to acquire (high) social status, influence and power (Connell, 2005). In a team situation, ice hockey players’ skills can strengthen or weaken their position and status amongst their peers, although, the measurement and negotiation of social position can also take the form of fun wrestling or other expressions of socialising violence (Connell, 2005; Pappas, 2012; Pappas et al., 2004). Messner (1992) writes that it is common for (male) players to hear that they shoot like a girl or a gay. Similar results have been identified in a Swedish context (Andreasson, 2006; Fundberg, 2003). Here, players are ascribed feminine characteristics in order to diminish or place their action in relation to an ideal version of (hegemonic) masculinity, i.e. ideally a real (male) hockey player does not display traditional feminine characteristics (see also Stark, 2001). Clear boundaries for femininity and homosexuality seem to be vital in the shaping of this ideal and research on masculinity and sport has convincingly identified a relatively widespread sexism and homophobia amongst practitioners (Luisi, Luisi, & Geana, 2016; MacDonald, 2014, 2018; Messner, 1992; Messner & Sabo, 1994; Pappas, 2012; Pappas et al., 2004). The ‘survival’ of these undemocratic actions (e.g. racist, homophobic and sexist jokes) can be explained by their glue-like function in players’ communities (Luisi et al., 2016) and school contexts (Jonsson, 2007). In the Swedish context, these ideals are often referred to as ‘macho culture’, which can be translated as exaggerated or hyper masculine ideals (see e.g. Jewkes et al., 2015).

Although, masculinity/femininity ideals are changing and affect health and violence differently, contemporary statistics in Sweden and elsewhere show that men are over-represented in both suicide and violence statistics (BRÅ, 2018b; Flood, 2019; Hearn, 2015; Socialstyrelsen, 2019). Thus, there are more or less obvious connections between violence and men (Hearn, 2012). Feminist research on violence emphasises that violence must be understood from a gender power perspective and as a continuum where men’s use of guns in a war has cultural links to men’s violence in popular culture and at home (Hearn, 2012; Heise, 1998).

Ice hockey is a popular sport with a lot of physical contact, close fighting moments and even trash-talk and as such contains different forms of violence (Luisi et al., 2016; Pappas, 2012; Pappas et al., 2004; Vaz, 1982). In their study of violence and aggressive actions in ice hockey, Pappas et al. (2004) identify three risk factors: team-mates, coaches and family. Their interviews with ice hockey players (in a North American context) show that aggression, toughness, courage and a willingness to fight can even increase the status of players. Coaches and parents can incite such behaviour with the argument that characteristics like these signify preparations for adult life (see also Allain, 2008, 2014; Flood, 2019; Weinstein et al., 1995).

These results are also of interest for the ‘transmitting’ potential, in that they signal ‘intrinsic’ risk factors (team-mates and coaches) and ‘external’ factors (i.e. family, social background). The ice hockey milieu can, thus, have different consequences for different individuals, where some might become violent and others not. Here, male-dominated team sports with physical contact seem to be important to investigate, especially as research (from North America) has indicated that athletes involved in such sports risk transferring aggressive behaviour (e.g. overdosing on drugs, exposing others to sexual harassment, homophobic violations and committing suicide) to situations beyond the sports field (Messner, 1992; Pappas, 2012; Pappas et al., 2004) to a greater extent than non-athletes.

To summarise, the actions and performances of individual hockey playing men are here interpreted in a wider cultural context where, for instance, the use of violence can appear to be clear and concrete. That is, the violence in ice hockey is situated and motivated in a game-winning logic and as a strategy to demonstrate dominance and win games, which can take the shape of tough checking or starting a fight. Team-mates are always expected to back each other up in any situation. Conversely, if players do not protect other team-mates, they risk losing respect (Weinstein et al., 1995). In this sense, violence has a cultural meaning that is motivated by the sport’s ‘logic’. However, this logic is also linked to the history of ice hockey (Lorenz, 2016; Stark, 2001) and to societal structures that contribute to making the sport a central upholder of men’s hegemony (Connell, 2005). In this sense, (hockey) violence can also be non-physical, e.g. trash-talk or sexist jokes.

Method, material, limitations

Case studies are often used to examine certain arenas, e.g. communities, societies or organisations, in order to extract the ‘exemplifying case’ that describes the typicality within these arenas. In this article the purpose is to identify and define the circumstances and conditions of a typical situation, namely the changing room (Bryman, 2008). Interviewing players from different Swedish ice hockey leagues has made it possible to gain a broader picture that includes players with different skills and experiences at different hockey levels. In our project, we also consider case studies of the roles of coaches, spectators and social media in relation to longitudinal, historical research.

Qualitative interviews were chosen because there is limited research on ice hockey playing men’s experiences of sexism, violence and offensive actions in sport in the Nordic region and also because they (ideally) result in a deeper understanding of culture than surveys (Bryman, 2008). Our intention has been to acquire more knowledge about players’ experiences and attitudes in order to help us to understand why players act and behave in certain ways and also to more easily compare the results with the North American findings.

Individual interviews were chosen in order to avoid the likelihood of players responding to peers’ norms in order to fit in and not be perceived as deviating from them by team-mates, although, it is also possible that players are not ‘released’ from group norms in an individual interview. Several potential informants declined to participate due to the content of our study and some regarded the topics as too sensitive and taboo to talk about, even anonymously, with an outsider. Although, it is impossible to speculate why others declined to participate, it may be that some players were not interested in discussing their sport and their team experiences from a critical perspective. In the end, six informants expressed a willingness to take part in the study and interviews were conducted with them individually in private rooms or by telephone. According to Bryman (2008), there is no consensus about how many informants are needed in qualitative research, because this all depends on the informants’ answers and eventual similarities, etc (see also Patton, 2015). Hennink, Kaiser, and Marconi (2016) argue that, although, a higher number of informants is ‘positive’, six is enough to identify elements and themes from qualitative interviews. In our study, the players’ answers all pointed in similar directions.

The informants were partly chosen through contacts with the Swedish Ice Hockey Association and partly through ice hockey clubs in the various divisions in central Sweden. Information letters inviting players to participate in the study were sent to the coaches of senior teams in six clubs via e-mail. The coaches then replied with the names and contact information of those players who were willing to contribute to the study. Given the circumstances and the difficulties of finding informants, the players were chosen in accordance with their accessibility after initial contacts and the approval of each team’s head coach. This method is often used when it is difficult to find respondents in other ways (Wardhaug, 1996). The interviewed players were between 19 and 33 years of age. Two of the players were professionals in SHL (the highest division in Sweden), one in division one, two in division two and one in the third division (see Table 1). Although, the skills and experiences of the players differed, they had all been active in ice hockey since early childhood.

Table 1. The players’ pseudonyms, ages and ice hockey levels (divisions).

Name	Age	Division
Örjan	22	SHL
Åke	24	Div 1
Yngve	33	SHL
Walter	19	Div 2
Urban	25	Div 2
Stefan	22	Div 3

Qualitative content analysis was used as the analytical method, with inspiration from Graneheim and Lundman (2004). The interviews were semi-structured, started with questions about the players’ sporting backgrounds and then moved on to questions about language, ideals, other people’s views, perceptions of masculinity and violence and, finally, group dynamics. The interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min, were recorded and then transcribed verbatim directly after the interview. The recordings were listened to several times in order to get a feel for how and when the interviewee emphasised things. After reading all the transcriptions several times, the analysis was conducted by means of a multi-step process (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). The first step of the analysis was to find meaning units in the interview transcripts, i.e. quotes that pinpointed what the interviewee was trying to say. These quotes were then condensed into narrow meaning units by removing any unnecessary words yet retaining their sense or meaning. The second step was to identify the underlying meaning of the quote in relation to the theoretical framework and previous research. The third step was to find similar underlying meanings and group them into subthemes. Finally, the subthemes were grouped into the broader themes that are presented in the next section.

Findings

This section initially presents the broad categories of community and social status, the content of which is then examined in more detail by means of subcategories, such as heterosexuality/homosexuality, sexism, marginalisation/reduction and the milieu’s transferring potential. The interview data is considered as ‘one’ entity, but selected parts (quotes) are also highlighted.

‘A second family’: community and social status amongst the players

All the players emphasised the sense of community that was shaped in the ice hockey milieu. This helped to explain the popularity of the game, the culture’s strength and the stability of its content regarding values and attitudes. Playing ice hockey was perceived as an important part of the informants’ lives and in the team or in the changing room all the players felt ‘accepted’, ‘at home’ and that they could be themselves. The players described how the milieu created comradeship based on closeness and safety/security:

It’s hard to imagine a life without the sport/…/It’s so much more than just hockey. It is a social network, and for my own part to regularly compete at a fairly high level and to actually have something to do. (interview with Åke)

Team-mates, leaders, coaches and other sports-related people became a ‘second family’ where the players could say whatever they wanted without the risk of being judged. Here, they learned how to be ‘good’ team-mates, follow a game plan and be part of team building.

Despite the players’ narratives of how they could be ‘themselves’ in this milieu, they also described how they sometimes felt obliged to conform to the group’s norms and that distinct social hierarchies were formed between the players in the team. In contrast to the sense of being oneself in the ice hockey milieu, the players also talked about the insecurity of fully being themselves by, for instance, expressing an independent opinion. The community and its milieu, thus, have some contradictory ingredients:

It’s like a family, we can talk about everything and be ourselves/…/Even if you don’t agree with a player who might have a higher status than yourself, if someone calls someone a faggot you have to laugh even though it’s not funny. (Interview with Urban)

When asked about strategies or ways of achieving social status, and thereby a higher position in the hierarchy, the informants highlighted three general achievements. The first was being a successful player, which, e.g. meant scoring many goals, covering shots or being a skilled ‘playmaker’. Second, players could also gain status through social skills, e.g. by joking. Third, status could be obtained by being physically stronger than team-mates. Here, the informants gave examples of fun wrestling, weightlifting and other ways of measuring and proving strength (cf. Connell, 2005; Pappas, 2012; Pappas et al., 2004). Generally, it was considered important to engage in this positioning and be or become part of the group and not just ‘be around’, but be seen, heard or in other ways recognised by team-mates. For example, Örjan said: ‘Those who are good [on the ice] get high status directly, people look up to them. But those with authority and who decide what happens off the ice also have high status’ (interview with Örjan).

According to Connell (2005), team-mates invest in different sports-related and social practices that form a social hierarchy with different opportunities to adopt a dominating position. What is of interest here is the engagement in this investment. Although, the players described the challenge of ‘getting a place in the team’, where newcomers to a team often had to ‘toe the line’, all the players expressed a commitment to becoming part of the community. Understandably, there are different techniques for building and strengthening team spirit. In some teams, fun or embarrassing tasks that new players are required to perform (so-called initiation rituals) are used to ‘welcome’ the player and make him part of the community.

However, being new to a group also involves the players’ emotions and seems to initiate some kind of internal negotiation. One player expressed his experience of being a newcomer in the team as: ‘We have to toe the line… and think like the older players/…/they might say “the referee is so damn rotten, boy how I hate him”. You are obliged to agree with them’ (interview with Walter). According to the player, trying or expressing a different opinion in such situations was difficult, and other informants also described how they felt ‘forced’ to say or perform things that their ‘inner’ selves perceived to be wrong. Another player said:

Openly disagreeing with someone about a serious or sensitive subject, like sexism towards women is out of the question, you’ll get picked on by the entire team, it’s better to agree and keep your mouth shut. (Interview with Stefan)

With Flood’s (2019) work in mind, the players’ experiences exemplify how individual men simultaneously bond and give up a piece of themselves in order to follow the group’s norms. From the players’ perspectives, the possibility to negotiate, change or break with the community’s norms was not perceived as an option, because this could lead to exclusion or even freeze-out. This is also characteristic of how power in a hegemony functions as something normal, where alternatives are difficult to contemplate (Connell, 2005). It is important here to clarify that the ‘fear’ of exclusion was a conceived consequence in the interview situation and that adapting to prevailing attitudes and group norms was considered ‘safer’ than expressing a different opinion.

Being able to joke with(out) social barriers

The players perceived the ice hockey milieu as a nice break from family or work. One reason for this, the players said, was that in the team there was little talk about serious things and more about fun things:

It’s freer and easier in a changing room, because the barriers disappear/…/we can talk about sex, about women, actually anything that doesn’t belong to the workplace… There’s a lot of talk about girls. Who you’ve had sex with and how … Then there’s always things like, yes, she’s an easy catch and so on … who is good looking, who is ugly and so on. (Interview with Walter)

The players described that they valued these interactions with like-minded people and that this was the main reason why they were still active. In this ‘break’, joking was important for the players. It was considered a joy to sit down and joke about ordinary things and to make rude jokes about socially ‘sensitive’ subjects like immigration or homosexuality. The rude jokes were not considered problematic as long as they had a twist of irony in them. ‘It’s clear that you go in quite hard with various personal attacks, but from my own experience it’s always for fun’ (interview with Åke). Sometimes racist messages and jokes occurred: ‘…those of us sitting there know that there’s always a twinkle in the eye … and sometimes racist stuff does come out, but those who say it are only joking’ (interview with Walter). The players argued that it was normal for an ice hockey player to joke a little more and perhaps more rudely than other athletes. Rude jokes were regarded as a way of strengthening the team spirit and building comradeship.

Messner (1992), MacDonald (2016, 2018) and others have found that diminishing jokes about ‘socially sensitive topics’ risk fertilising (hetero)sexism and homophobia. In this sense, joking as a social process functions as an inclusive bonding and as social glue in the team, although, at the same time it also reflects exclusive, undemocratic (sexist, racist and homophobic) attitudes (cf. Flood, 2019). Even though the players argued that sexist, homophobic or racist jokes were not serious, but mostly ‘for fun’, they signalled that the ice hockey milieu formed a culture and language that were considered as incorrect outside that situation. That is, the players ‘knew’ that expressing homophobia and misogyny was politically incorrect at work or in the family. However, this phenomenon is not limited to ice hockey, but also occurs in other sports and in other groups in society (see e.g. Jonsson, 2007; MacDonald, 2014; Messner, 1992).

Does this mean that sexist jokes are meaningless and that the cultural values they signal are not really transferred to the players, i.e. the attitudes do not become part of their morality outside the ice hockey milieu? We explore this in more detail below, but it is worth pointing out that our informants confirmed that derogative ideals that were appreciated in ice hockey could be transferred by some players outside the rink. For example, one player said: ‘Of course, you want a girlfriend that has big breasts, a big but and a slim waist! That’s the ideal’ (interview with Stefan), which in our interpretation exemplifies an objectified and sexist view of women/femininity.

Jokes (together with other factors) can, thus, be said to contain a transferring potential and be a risk factor in developing problematic behaviour. This aligns with and strengthens previous research regarding the importance of preventing and challenging a group’s sexism and homophobia (Flood, 2019; Flood & Pease, 2009; Pappas et al., 2004). With Connell’s (2005) characterisations of a hegemonic masculinity in mind, ironic and misogynistic jokes function as conserving, degrading, marginalising and unifying acts in upholding a social hierarchy. Additionally, the changing room situation per se, its traditions and taken-for-granted logics need further research in order to specifically pinpoint how progressive changes can be made in ice hockey.

The ability to joke can be seen as an ‘entrance ticket’ to the team’s community. According to the informants, a frequent topic was that women could be joked about in different ways and in some teams this was ‘worse’ than in others. The players argued that this type of joke was at its worst when they were in their late teens (16–19 years), but that it was now downplayed. However, they added that there were still many misogynistic and sexist jokes around and that they were still part of the atmosphere and language in the changing room. Our informants, thus, confirmed the stability and difficulty of changing language and values about what was perceived as fun. According to Flood (2019), jokes about women can be interpreted as a strategy to avoid association with femininity.

Flood (2019) also indicates that men’s homosocial bonding is more emotionally disconnected than women’s. In relation to this, the silent acceptance of inappropriate jokes appears to be central. The informants said that this had occurred in several teams and they believed that most players had sometimes crossed the line in what could be considered appropriate. Line-crossing situations like this were handled in different ways. One player said, ‘It goes quiet and there’s a strange feeling, but no one does anything about it’ (interview with Walter). However, there seemed to be limits for the silence. One player said: ‘If it’s not for fun or is too vulgar, I think that someone would react, absolutely’ (interview with Åke). Another player said: ‘If an aggressive person says something stupid, we can tell the person who was exposed that he didn’t really mean it’ (interview with Yngve).

According to some players, there was a risk of destroying the ‘good atmosphere’ and pleasant mood if a player told another that he had said or done something inappropriate. Flood (2019) identified ‘care for each other’ as being associated with something feminine. An ice hockey player who is expected to be tough, aggressive and strong (Allain, 2008, 2011, 2014; MacDonald, 2014; Pappas et al., 2004) and has an instrumental body perception may have limited opportunities to express care – especially if this is associated with femininity. That is, in order to avoid the ‘risk’ of being considered feminine, some men may choose to be silent and not explicitly show their peers that they care for others. On the other hand, the players’ statements indicate that they did show some kind of concern for each other, but that this was expressed in a way that did not threaten their masculinity. In this way, our informants’ statements nuance Flood’s (2019) work, in that they indicate that whilst some men do show that they care for others, the repertoire for showing this is more limited for men than for women.

The offensive jokes seemed to weld the team’s community together, which in turn limited the inclinations and the possibilities for players to set boundaries for team-mates’ homophobic and misogynistic jokes. According to the players, this kind of behaviour had developed over a long period of time in the ice hockey context, which historical research on the Swedish context (and others) confirms (Lorenz, 2016; Stark, 2001, 2010). In other words, the players felt free in the changing room because some (social) barriers disappeared, even though other (misogynistic and sexist) barriers still existed. This culture can be considered as both a tradition and something that is learned at an early age and can be said to form the basis for intervening in and challenging these hegemonic ideals. The players in the study were aware that their language, jokes and other behaviour were problematic or undesirable in one sense (e.g. if someone in the team had a sister who had got into trouble), but were disinclined to put an end to them. The fact that this behaviour is learned at an early age, strengthens its transferring potential (Flood, 2019).

Diminishing, disparaging and marginalising femininity and homosexuality

Another aspect of team formation is how traditional/stereotypical femininity is associated with undesirable characteristics for ice hockey players. One player talked about what he thought the attributes of a real ice hockey player should be:

Sometimes players are called ‘a wimp’ or ‘an old hag’. It somehow expresses something girlish, which is not good. Not good attributes for a man. A man should be violent and determined! … In some way women are made for men. That they are only there to have sex with. Some people have that attitude. (Interview with Örjan)

Clearly, ascribing traditional femininity to a male ice hockey player is a strategy that is designed to reduce his social position and vice versa, whereas attributing traditional masculinity ideals can raise his social status (e.g. Allain, 2008; Connell, 2005). According to the players, diminishing and disparaging jokes were common, but that such language could also be used during a match. For instance, they might tell each other to ‘stop playing like sissies’ if they did not play hard or effectively (i.e. manly) enough. Such statements echo the masculinity ideals identified by David and Brannon (1976) and that are fundamental in Connell’s (2005) description of hegemonic masculinity. However, the players (again) claimed that ‘it’s just something you say’ and you don’t really mean it and regarded it as an expression of frustration that came out in a silly verbal way. One informant argued that these expressions varied a lot and that in some teams the language was described as more cautious: ‘It happens, but at a decent level. Someone in the team might have someone, you never know, a relative or a sister who has got into trouble or difficulties’ (interview with Yngve).

The players argued that ‘gay talk’ still existed to a relatively large extent. According to the players, calling somebody ‘gay’ was not a derogatory view of homosexuality, but was either used as a swear word or instead of words like ‘idiot’ or ‘jerk’: ‘Yes … we say “gay” and call each other “gays”, unfortunately. I think that many just say it as a word, but no-one means that someone really is gay’ (interview with Walter). Another player argued that the tone was important for determining the meaning of a word: ‘It’s difficult to reproduce here. It has a lot to do with the tone. It is not as though someone looks someone else in the eye and with contempt says: “Are you gay, or what?”’ (Interview with Åke.)

Words like ‘gay’, ‘wimp’, ‘hag’ or ‘bitch’, thus, seemed to be used in similar ways with similar connotations and were not considered ‘serious’ by the players. Similar results have been found in previous research (Jonsson, 2007; Luisi et al., 2016). The players seemed to be aware that the use of these words could be perceived as problematic and inappropriate outside the ice hockey context. Nevertheless, they continued to use them because they thought that this kind of language and attitude ‘has been around for a long time’ (interview with Örjan). This could be interpreted as another example of how the historical tradition has transferring consequences for the present ice hockey milieu (Connell, 2005; Flood, 2019). One player added a reflection that he now heard similar words used by younger people and in the younger teams. The players argued that this kind of language was difficult to erase and thought that very few players would be able to or want to say ‘no’, or put an end to it (or to the jokes), because it could spoil the atmosphere in the team. In this way, the players touched on the importance of approaching both the individual and structural (traditional) levels in order to make preventative changes in the milieu (cf. Flood, 2019).

From inside to outside: the milieu and its transferring potential

During the interviews some players argued that there was a ‘macho culture’ (a term that in Sweden refers to an exaggerated or hyper masculine ideal) in ice hockey and that this also affected some players outside the ice hockey milieu. A number of factors helped to shape this kind of masculine culture, but silence and the disinclination to set boundaries for each other seemed to be central, in that they helped to (re)create norms (and a normality) that were not considered to exist in the same way outside the ice hockey space. The informants interpreted the term ‘macho’ as players continuously proving their strength and never expressing or showing any sign of weakness or uncertainty. One player said: ‘I compare myself with others, which one of us is the best. I can think, “I’m stronger than him”. An identity is created in order to strengthen yourself’ (interview with Örjan). The Swedish players, thus, expressed similar ideals to those that Allain (2008) and MacDonald (2016) found in a Canadian context. To paraphrase Connell (2005), the informants expressed practices that were assumed to give them opportunities to dominate other men (and women).

Although, there were positive connotations with a macho culture in ice hockey (to feel strength and self-assurance), some players argued that these ideals and their consequences were also problematic. However, masculine ideals that expressed traditional or ‘old-fashioned’ manliness seemed to be under negotiation and, according to the informants, only fragments of them remained. The players said that typical expressions of the ‘extinctive’ macho culture were ideals such as ‘grin and bear it’. One player exemplified this by saying:

It doesn’t matter if you’ve broken four limbs, you should ideally run until you have to crawl and then crawl a bit more. I cannot put my finger on what it is, but I think it’s pathetic in any case. (Interview with Åke)

Other informants considered that ‘macho behaviour’ could be employed as compensation if a player was not skilled enough to secure status and position in the team (and its internal hierarchy). Common ‘compensatory’ behaviour that could also be demonstrated off the ice included having a domineering attitude, always having to prove your strength, show supremacy and authority and not back down for anyone. One player said that ice hockey players considered themselves to be bigger and stronger than other athletes, such as football or floor ball players, who were considered as ‘softies’ who were unable to ‘stand up’. These characteristics (of a domineering attitude, always having to prove strength, not backing down for anyone, etc.) have also been identified in the ice hockey milieu by other researchers (e.g. Allain, 2008; MacDonald, 2016; Weinstein et al., 1995) and are part of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2005).

Follow-up questions were asked about the ‘macho culture’, which revealed that ‘aggressiveness’ seemed to be an appreciated ideal, especially on the ice, and was equated with showing good spirit and will. On the other hand, being an aggressive person off the ice was not considered desirable. Playing aggressively meant being able to check hard and show that you ‘wanted something’. But this aggressive style of play was also based on a certain logic. For instance, being aggressive in all situations was not appreciated and players who just ‘skated around’ in a violent and aggressive manner were denigrated, because their behaviour could affect the team negatively. This type of player was considered to belong to the past and the informants called them ‘brunkare’ (the English word ‘goon’ was not used), whose only task was to make as much trouble as possible. In previous research ice hockey players are ascribed a rather a one-sided ideal of aggressiveness, but our data underlines what Connell (2005) would consider as the situational and practice-oriented aspect of a gender ideal. We argue that this nuance is important for understanding the construction of hockey masculinity in Sweden.

Ideally, aggressiveness should not be employed in all situations on the ice and should also not be transferred from the rink to outside practices. Despite this, one player said:

I play physically and have been told to go in and hit in order to spread energy to the team/…/Yes [aggressiveness can be transferred off the ice] absolutely, especially if you mix it with alcohol. I have noticed that when I have been out that there are such tendencies. (Interview with Walter)

Another player said: ‘It’s obvious that some players come to blows in the pub, but at the same time I think it’s something that happens to everyone [not just hockey players]’ (interview with Åke). According to our informants, after consuming alcohol some players tended to act violently and aggressively in situations outside the rink. Previous research also refers to alcohol as a problematic risk that increases the propensity for violence (cf. Flood, 2019; MacDonald, 2014; Naughton, 1996; Pappas et al., 2004; Weinstein et al., 1995) in that it reduces a person’s capacity to judge. In addition, we argue that a player’s ability to orientate between what is considered normal in the changing room and abnormal outside it seems to be obscured by the consumption of alcohol. In other words, what is perceived as a fun joke in one space might be perceived as a serious insult in another and motivate the use of violence, especially if alcohol is involved.

Although, none of the informants said that they had used violence off the ice themselves, they thought that some team-mates did. In this way, the players confirmed what has been highlighted in previous research, namely that aggressive/violent ideals that are appreciated in a sport such as ice hockey can mean that some players act violently off the ice (Flood & Pease, 2009; Katz, 1995; Pappas et al., 2004).

Although, ‘pure’ fights (i.e. fighting for the sake of it) were not regarded as desirable, showing your fists was sometimes motivated. According to Connell (2005), the situation decides whether a fight is legitimate or not, which simultaneously reveals an image of fighting as ‘normal’. In other words, if it is required it is desirable. Some of the informants had been involved in fights and said that if they were unfairly checked or beaten it was (informally) legitimate to pay back in kind. The players also said that they had experienced how coaches had asked them to go in and start a fight to fire up the team. This means that violence (in the shape of fist fighting on ice) becomes a part of the winning logic of ice hockey with links to a historical tradition of gaining respect in the game (cf. Lorenz, 2016; Stark, 2001; Vaz, 1982; Weinstein et al., 1995).

Put differently, these examples show how ice hockey shapes a milieu that allows males to display a certain kind of masculine courage that involves body checking and different forms of violence (e.g. physical or verbal). Connell (2005), Messner (1992) and others interpret this as a production of hegemonic masculinity (Weaving and Roberts (2012) describe it as ‘sport paternalism’) that nurtures an idea of (some) men/masculinities as tough and hardy and women/femininities as fragile and weak. In ice hockey, this hierarchy is supported by rules that distinguish male and female ice hockey. Weaving and Roberts (2012) argue that these rules prevent female ice hockey players from ‘flourishing’ and that the prohibition of body checking in female ice hockey is based on the false idea that physical ‘work’ is more harmful for women than for men.

Encouragement of aggression and violence is, thus, an emancipative power that helps to reproduce men/masculinities as superior. One informant touched on this aspect by arguing that aggressiveness could be something positive that could be made use of outside the rink if, for example, a player was being ill-treated: ‘You can stand up for yourself if someone treats you badly’ (interview with Yngve). The same player also said that ice hockey (and aggressiveness) gave him the confidence to resist unfair treatment. In short, it is ingredients like this that in certain situations activate hegemonic masculinity and contribute to its problematic and progressive (emancipative) dimensions. It is this duality that creates the stability of a hegemonic version of masculinity (Connell, 2005).

Discussion and conclusion

In this article, we have investigated whether and how ice hockey, as a milieu with certain values, attitudes and languages, nurtures ideals related to violence and aggressiveness that are then transferred to other social areas outside the rink. We have shown how a strong community is built up by certain types of jokes and where some players state that violence becomes part of the game’s winning logic. According to our informants, some players then take these actions and their associated values out of the ice hockey milieu. Regarding ice hockey players’ use of physical violence outside the rink, the informants regarded alcohol as an explanatory factor and risk element.

From the perspective of violence as a continuum (Hearn, 2012, 2015; Heise, 1998), it is possible to point to more explanatory factors for its occurrence. As this is only a case study our ‘evidence’ is scarce, although, it does indicate that diminishing attitudes and sexist jokes, along with a view of violence as part of the sport’s logic and its historical traditions, could be risk factors for some individuals (Messner & Sabo, 1994; Pappas, 2012; Pappas et al., 2004; Weinstein et al., 1995). However, the jokes are ‘defended’ by the players as part of the tradition and should not to be taken seriously. Future research would benefit from an investigation into the potentially problematic consequences that a community based on undemocratic attitudes and values may have for individuals, especially if a group forms a strong sense of inclusion on exclusionary grounds.

One measure that could help to check aggressive behaviour in a team is that every time a player expresses derogatory attitudes against women, such as women are ‘made for men’ and that ‘they are only there to have sex with’, leaders, coaches and peers should set clear boundaries. How this is implemented is, of course, another matter. Our study indicates that such an act could function as a method of violence prevention (Flood, 2019). However, that is not to say that jokes should be banned from the changing rooms, but that inappropriate jokes and expressions that are insulting to others should not be encouraged.

From a more critical perspective, researchers (and journalists) have interpreted ice hockey players’ communities as closed and as places where players protect themselves and their teams (e.g. Allain, 2014; MacDonald, 2018; Robinson, 1998; Vaz, 1982). Our informants confirmed this ‘protection’ to some extent, in that they regarded the team as a second family and expressed joy at being in this ‘bubble’. However, we would argue that the protection of the culture goes beyond the specific ice hockey and club milieu, in that the behaviour that is accepted there is spread to outside situations and reproduces the derogatory attitudes, behaviour, language and the content of men’s hegemony (Connell, 2005; Hearn, 2015; Heise, 1998). Paradoxically, there is both a reproductive force and a progressive potential here. For instance, the media, spectators and sponsors have powers that could change, challenge or continue the culture. As governing bodies, the Swedish Sports Confederation and the Swedish Ice Hockey Association could also help to reduce the gap between policy and practice, by e.g. making it clearer that there are consequences for actions that contravene a gender equality policy. Ultimately, these surrounding bodies can strengthen the ice hockey milieu’s transferring potential of both its positive and problematic aspects. Preventative work that aims to erase sexism and homophobia in this culture should therefore not only focus on individuals, but also on structural forces (cf. Flood, 2019; Heise, 1998).

The purpose of this case study has been to examine the ideals, language and social status of male Swedish ice hockey players and how these are perceived to affect their views of sexuality, aggressiveness and their actions outside the ice hockey milieu. The results show that homophobia and (hetero)sexism exist in the changing rooms and that these are either regarded as problematic or mean that players can be themselves without any social barriers when joking about such subjects and that they do not really mean what they say. Above all, the study reveals the dilemma of ice hockey players relating to expectations and norms that afford status in the ice hockey milieu, but that are risk-filled if the same norms are transferred outside the sport. The consumption of alcohol increases this risk. Of central importance is also the dilemma of players wanting to be themselves, but also having to toe the line and follow the group’s norms. Silence and the propensity to not set boundaries for team-mates who, for example, joke in diminishing (inappropriate) ways are interpreted as key upholders of hegemonic masculinity ideals. In this way, the study contributes knowledge about group norms and silence (complicit masculinities) as risk factors in sport. The power of the group’s norms is, thus, a key factor around which to develop violence prevention work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.