North-South reflections on boyhood, masculinity and schooling: two primary schools in London and Durban

In this paper, we make an argument for collaborative and comparative gender research in schools by comparing two cases of 11-year-old boys in schools, Daniel in the United Kingdom (UK) and Jordan [¹] in South Africa (SA). The genesis of this project lies in global networks that weave researchers together. These networks are uneven, in the sense that they tend to emanate from the Global North (Demeter, 2020; Melber, 2015) and they are also dynamic. Technological advances have tended to make geographical and national borders more permeable, making collaborations and conversations easier and bibliometric research attests to increased global research collaboration (Gui et al., 2018). This occurs within the global North and between hemispheres, but despite the opening up of intellectual space to more participants, “the geographic distribution of knowledge sources (and) the reshaping of cooperation networks,” have only shown modest shifts (Zitt and Bassecoulard, 2005, p. 406). Yet knowledge is produced in the global South with relative autonomy from the North (Bank and Jacobs, 2015). Almost 20 years ago, Raewyn Connell theorized this as Southern theory: knowledge produced in the global South but not incorporated into the canon, hardly acknowledged and left on the margins (Connell, 2007). Her work of naming this phenomenon alerted scholars worldwide to the geopolitics of knowledge production and inequalities that persist. Conversations and the interconnectedness of researchers can dilute knowledge inequalities. As Connell puts it, social science should be thought of “not as a settled system of concepts, methods and findings, but as an interconnected set of intellectual projects that proceed from varied social starting points into an unpredictable future” (Connell, 2007, p. 228).

This paper has its foundations in collaboration between the global North and South. Over the last 30 years, academics in SA and the UK engaged in researching gender in schools, developing agendas that deepened research and resulted in active collaboration. The collaboration was instigated by political developments in SA: Nelson Mandela, having spent 27 years in prison, was released in 1990. This marked a process of transition towards the ending of apartheid and the embrace of non-racialism and democracy. Up until this time, many international, progressive academics had avoided contact with South African universities. In the 1980s, an academic boycott had been proposed by the African National Congress (ANC) in exile as well as the internal oppositional movements such as the United Democratic Front. The boycott was also supported by the academics' union, UDUSA (Union of Democratic University Staff Associations) (Morris, 1989; Bunting, 2006). With the electoral success of the ANC in 1994, there were no longer political barriers to travel and academic engagement. Amongst the first of a wave of British-based academics to make use of this opportunity was Debbie Epstein. Having been involved in radical student politics at the University of the Witwatersrand and fearing arrest, she fled SA in 1962. 33 years later, she returned (Epstein, 2013). She pursued a career in teaching before finding a home at the Institute of Education (IoE) in London. Her research reflected strong feminist commitments, and it was to pursue the prospect of gender research in schools that Epstein visited SA in 1995.

Epstein was part of a global network of gender scholars that at this time largely omitted SA because of its years of political and academic isolation. Her visit in 1995 and her connections with Robert Morrell were thus an important moment when South African researchers could become active in these networks and collaborative research could be undertaken. South African gender researchers were acquainted with the literature on gender and schooling developed in the UK and were influenced especially by the theoretical work of Australian sociologist (Connell, 1987).

A collaboration between the IoE and the School of Education at the University of Natal Durban (UND) developed. It was financially supported by the Durban office of the British Council and featured exchange trips between London and SA. The research team was expanded to include Relebohile Moletsane in Durban and Elaine Unterhalter, a colleague of Epstein at IoE. Unterhalter had strong South African connections and had been active in the anti-apartheid struggle, working with the exiled activist, Harold Wolpe (Unterhalter, 2020).

Deevia Bhana joined the South African research team, which by the late 1990s had grown to three academic staff, all based in the Education Department at UND, as well as a number of postgraduate students.

The growing relationship across the geographical divide highlights the importance of connections. Unterhalter, as a South African located in the UK, described her “foreignness” as “a huge resource”. “It generated intense discussions about political strategies, and nurtured curiosity, respect for knowledge, scholarship, and creativity to work with and through differences to try to understand something about the projects of social justice that absorbed us” (Unterhalter, 2020, p. 4–5). The development of this collaboration rested on shared values and an appreciation of differences in experience and positional knowledge and, in time, resulted in multiple publications (Morrell et al., 2009).

The comparative study of Daniel and Jordan was enabled by Epstein's network at the IoE. One of her postgraduate students was Jon Swain whom Morrell met during one of the exchange visits to London. Swain's interest in gender in primary schools in London made it possible to conceive of a comparison of masculinity in primary school, respectively, in London and Durban, and in due course, he became an author of this paper. In Durban, Bhana had been developing an interest and expertise in gender and young children, and although she was familiar with Swain's earlier research, she had not had the chance to write with him until Morrell, her former colleague, suggested a collaboration. All had been influenced by Epstein's idea of discussing ethnography across multiple national sites in their exploration of gender and elite education (Epstein et al., 2013).

Even though schooling takes a similar form throughout the world, for learners, the location and circumstances of the school shape their experiences. In this article we compare the experiences of two 11-year-old boys who go to school in locations that are far apart. We highlight the importance of geopolitics – contrasting the global North with the global South – while focusing on three levels that impact this experience: the national, the institutional and the personal.

Over the past decade or so, masculinity scholars have highlighted the importance of engaging with young men and boys in global North-South contexts as a way to enhance feminist and critical studies on men and masculinities (Hearn et al., 2015). Similar points have been made in relation to the study of gender in education (Epstein and Morrell, 2012).

In relation to primary schooling, there are already a wide range of studies across the globe, including SA, which has shown that primary schools are formative sites for gender identities and relationships (Bhana, 2016; O’Keeffe, 2022; Lee et al., 2019). Concepts developed in the global North do not always fit neatly with Southern realities (Connell, 2014). Making context central to analysis allows for the sensitive interpretation and adaptation of concepts. Crain Soudien suggests that Southern theory helps in this process by getting below the surface generated by big-sweep educational surveys. To avoid universalisations, he argues that one needs to work “information from settings of difference with a great deal more sensitivity” (Soudien, 2010, p. 12).

Connell (1995) proposed a framework for the analysis of masculinities, highlighting that there were multiple masculinities and a hierarchy where hegemonic masculinity was at the apex, identifying aspirations and ideals for boys and men and also serving to justify a patriarchal gender order, which featured male dominance over females. In addition, she identified subordinate masculinities, positioned at the bottom of the hierarchy, which symbolically are derogated as feminine.

Recently, a distinction has emerged between dominant and hegemonic masculinities. Whereas dominant masculinity is the most culturally celebrated version of boyhood and provides a template of how to think and act in a particular setting, hegemonic masculinities, which can also be dominant, “legitimate an unequal relationship between men and women, masculinity and femininity, and among masculinities” (Messerschmidt, 2018, p. 75). There are also positive forms of masculinity, more egalitarian and less hierarchical. Those are termed personalised (Swain, 2004) and caring masculinities (Elliott, 2016). Personalised masculinities are practised in small groups of boys (and men) and draw on an individual's interests and dispositions, like music and sport; they are inclusive and equitable and are non-hierarchical, without any clearly identified leader. Caring masculinities refer to men in caring professions like nursing or fathers but can also include individuals who care and show kindness about and towards others in everyday relationships (Scambor et al., 2014). Finally, there are also more blended formations of masculinity (Swain, 2023) that propose that boys can embody and enact both masculine (e.g. athleticism, strength and independence) and feminine qualities (e.g. showing kindness, emotion and sociability) as part of their gender identity.

All primary schools have their own gender regimes and, although they vary, the general pattern is for boys to dominate the space and for schools to reflect this dominance (Dyment et al., 2009; Thorne, 1993). Masculinities come into existence through action; the social and material practices, which defines the boys' masculine identities are generally described in terms of what they do with, and to, their bodies (Connell, 2000). School sports can create a “top dog” that legitimates unequal relationships between boys and girls, masculinity and femininity and among masculinities (Messerschmidt, 2018; Swain, 2000). However, dominating or hegemonic systems are not inevitable and, although schools can help produce hegemony, they can also do much to contest it and create greater gender equity and a kinder and more equal culture, which emphasises values like tolerance and respect.

Boys seek and gain status by using and maximising resources (Swain, 2004). They include physicality and athleticism, which are often the most highly cherished, and other such as personal resources (e.g. being self-confident and assured) and social resources (e.g. being able to socialise with people and form friendships). There are also specialist forms of culturally valued knowledge which act as a form of cultural resource (e.g. knowledge about computer games). Interpersonal and linguistic skills (e.g. being able to influence people and make them laugh) are also valuable resources.

Primary schools in SA share many, but not all, of the features with schools in the global North. SA has a long history of colonialism and the establishment of schools drew on models from Europe, especially the UK. On the other hand, the learners, teachers and parents in these schools are in some respects quite different from those in the global North. This remains the case 30 years after the end of formal apartheid in 1994. Varying by region, learners come from diverse backgrounds. SA has 11 official languages, high levels of inequality and poverty and cultural practices that reflect precolonial history and demography. As a result of this, school populations become highly heterogeneous, allowing more than one dominant or hegemonic masculinity to exist simultaneously. Amongst the issues that are specific to SA schools are harsh disciplinary practices. Corporal punishment is still widely used in township schools, despite being banned in 1996, and strongly influences gender identities (Hunter and Morrell, 2021).

In this paper, we emphasise the importance of context/place, not only in two different schools but in two countries on two different continents. Differing locations afford boys different opportunities to create identities and different versions of being a boy. As boys in the UK and SA experience primary schooling, we ask how their identities are shaped by changing contexts and evolving understandings of gender. We argue that thinking with, and applying, various theories in comparative education is important because it contests reductive narratives to illuminate how understandings of boyhood are entangled with schooling and surrounding social circumstances that tell us more about similarities and distinctness in the experience of masculinity.

The two research projects that we describe below were not coordinated across research sites, and we only looked for similarities and differences once the research had been completed. Amongst the factors that made for useful comparison were the connections with Debbie Epstein and the approach to gender and schooling research developed in the IoE in London. The concepts and theories utilised were uniform across the research projects, although these were necessarily adapted, refined and contested at each of the three levels that structure this comparison.

This paper uses a gender comparative analysis or a collaborative, proximate comparative design to examine how masculinities are made and contested among 11-year-old boys in two school settings across two countries. Whilst primary schooling has some broad institutional similarities across countries, we are interested here in how schooling and young masculinities are produced through everyday interaction. A gender comparative analysis is operationalised by treating gender as relational, historically situated and intersectional, comparing boys' practices across sites in relation to race, class and place (Crenshaw, 1991). The comparative frame is informed by gender relational theory and by Southern theory, positioning cross-border collaboration as a methodological commitment to co-producing situated knowledge that resists Northern universalism while keeping open dialogue across unequal yet complementary research networks (Connell, 2005, 2007).

We analyse the relationship between school and constructions of masculinity at three different levels: background information about each country and the systems of schooling at the national level, the influence of two local schools at the institutional level and the lives of two young boys attending these schools at the biographical level: Daniel in London and Jordan in Durban.

The data generated in the two studies comes from semi-structured interviews, which lasted around 45 min (and were digitally recorded), and informal observations of playground games, which were chronicled in field notes. Data for both methods was analysed thematically and followed the process advocated by Braun and Clarke (2022). Ethical approval was obtained from the respective ethical boards at each researcher's university. Clear explanations were given regarding the study's purpose and voluntary nature. Written informed consent was secured from parents/guardians, and verbal/written assent from the boys. The two boys, both middle-class, represent distinct and particular stories, which reflect gendered trajectories in their respective countries. While we are not claiming them to be representative of a possible wider population, we regard the two narratives as being “telling” cases (Candappa, 2017) which allow us to draw out concepts and theories. The headings that we use to organise the cases are (1) introduction and background; (2) relationships; (3) sport; (4) violence; and (5) technology. We explore the practices the boys adopt; the forms of masculinity they enact; and the resources they draw on.

According to the 2021 Census, the total population of England and Wales was 60 million, and 82% [²] of the population was White, while 18% belonged to a Black, Asian, mixed or other ethnic group (Cabinet Office Race Disparity Unit, 2021). London is the capital city with almost 10 million people and is significantly more racially diverse than the country as a whole, with 46% of Londoners being Black and Minority Ethnic (Trust for London, 2026). London is generally a liberal and tolerant place to live, and racial tensions are rare.

SA has a population of 62 million people, classified as 81% Black African, 8%, Coloured, 7% White and 3% Indian/Asian. 27% of the population is under 15 years old (Statistics South Africa, 2023). Durban is situated in KwaZulu-Natal, the most populous province, where a large majority of the population speaks isiZulu. Durban is the country's largest port with a population of three million and is often called the largest Indian city outside of India. The Indian population arrived from the 1860s onwards and was divided along religious (Hindu and Muslim), ethnic and class lines and was geographically collectivised by colonial and apartheid law, which limited them to specific locales. There are tensions with local African Zulu speakers that sporadically have flared into animosity and were expressed in a series of violent and deadly riots, most recently in July 2021.

The UK has an old and well-established schooling system. Schooling is free in 93% of schools, and only 7% of students attend private or independent schools where parents pay fees. (IFS, 2023). 40% of primary schools are academies, which are separate from local authority control, and, although attended by pupils of all social classes, they are not obliged to follow a standardised national curriculum and are often closely connected to business interests (Department for Education, 2026). Although UK state schools are relatively well-funded and resourced, the gap between private and state schools in per-pupil resources has doubled since 2010 (Sibieta, 2021). Primary schools are situated in both working-class and middle-class areas and, particularly in cities, where they have multicultural populations.

SA's schooling system is dynamic, reflecting a country still in transition 30 years after the formal ending of apartheid. The proportions of children attending state schools in SA are almost identical to the UK: according to 2018 figures, 93% of children aged 6–13 years attended public (government) schools (Statista, 2023). Under apartheid, the schooling system was organised along race lines. The schools with the least resources served Black Africans. After 1994, schooling became free for all. Schools were desegregated and reorganised, but a hierarchy of schools remains. The majority of the private schools serve a Black population dissatisfied with public schooling, although there are a small number of elite private schools modelled on the UK's public schools which date back to the late 19th century, as well as a generation of much newer schools, run as businesses (similar to the academies in the UK) and catering the emerging middle classes (Muzanya, 2023).

Schools in SA are formally classified into five quintiles. The best-resourced are former white schools, and these charge substantial fees. The worst-resourced schools are free, but the quality of education offered is often poor so that many Black African parents attempt to enrol their children in former White or Indian schools (Hunter, 2019). Academic performance in primary schools varies greatly, but in the poorest schools, (Black) learners fare badly in basic literacy and numeracy, well below continental levels (Fleisch, 2008). Poor performance levels have not improved despite major state funding, and there is a large gulf between performance in well-resourced, middle-class schools and township schools (Spaull, 2013).

Schools in the UK are located in a neoliberal marketplace and compete against each other for pupil funding. Primary schools' performance in state-organised examinations, such as Standard Assessment Tests (SATs),[³] is used early to establish their place in a hierarchy. There is less competition amongst SA schools (other than the private schools) and, as in the UK, learners tend to attend school that is closest to them. Aspirant parents seeking to enter their children at better schools are often constrained by resources (Hunter, 2019). In the UK, there has been an increase in state control and surveillance, and teachers now are told what and how to teach, and there are regular government-sanctioned inspections. SA's education system is regulated by various laws that seek to standardise conditions, regulate pupils throughout and assure quality. It also has a system of inspection although its implementation is patchy partly because of resistance by teachers and teacher unions. Class sizes in UK primary schools are much lower in fee-paying schools—around 15 against 27 pupils (Department for Education, 2026). These figures are largely replicated in SA: the private (independent) schools have 16 learners to a class, whereas public (state) schools across both sectors average 32 (Muzanya, 2023).

Although there is a growing problem in the UK related to food poverty, and there are plans to provide breakfast clubs in every primary school, scarcity of food at home in SA is common and can lead to violent exchanges between young pupils (Bhana, 2005). Primary schools operate as key sites in the production of masculinities, and in SA, this is based to a greater degree on the hegemonic notion of male power and authority (Bhana and Mayeza, 2016). In both countries, sport – particularly football – is a key signifier of masculinity but in SA, there are more behaviours tied to the body, such as bodily strength and competitiveness (Govender and Bhana, 2023a). Hegemonic and alternative patterns of masculinity are evident even when boys are very young (Mayeza and Bhana, 2020). Masculinity is used as a resource to express heterosexual domination against those identified as effeminate and gay (Bhana and Mayeza, 2016).

Physical violence is not common in UK schools, and there is a diminution of homophobia. The word “gay” was used extensively around 2000 (Swain, 2024) and now is less mentioned today (McCormack, 2012). There is also now a greater tolerance of different ethnicities, which are well integrated. More positive and egalitarian forms of masculinity, such as caring and personalised masculinity, have emerged, and there are fewer examples of hegemonic masculinity. Many schools seem to be kinder places with more gender equity; boys get on better with, and mix more easily, with girls and there is far less misogyny. Violence is much more prevalent in SA schools. It is not only the domain of young boys – girls too are prepared to fight – and this is woven into young femininity. But boys predominate when it comes to fighting. Masculinities are created in the playground where homophobia is expressed as “we don't play with gays” (Bhana and Mayeza, 2016). Similarly, young boys construct gender “boundaries” and “police” gender “transgressions” on the school playground during break time, which reinforces gender distance and hierarchy (Mayeza, 2017).

One of the most profound changes in UK schools in recent years has been the introduction and influence of social media, mobile phones, tablets and computers. Most pupils in UK schools have a mobile phone, although schools and parents (particularly middle-class parents) tend to control their use, and many schools ban them in the classroom. Teachers in the UK use Smartboards connected to the Internet and much teaching is based around this new technology. In SA, the use of digital technologies in the classroom is dependent upon the race and class context and the school quintile status. South Africa's Census (2022) and Statistics South Africa (2023) illustrate that 92% of the population owns a cell phone with upward trends in access to the Internet. Even when poor, the penetration of the cellphone into SA life is widespread.

Daniel attends a co-educational primary school (with pupils aged 4–11) in outer London which has around 300 pupils on roll and a multicultural population of around 50% Asian, 45% White British and 5% miscellaneous pupils. It performs well in the national SAT examinations and has a good reputation in a middle-class catchment area. Lessons begin at 9.00 a.m. and end at 3.30 p.m.; most pupils live within 2 km of the school and walk to it. The pupils sit in rows of desks organised by boys sitting next to girls. The school is a happy place; there is very little bullying, homophobia or misogyny, particularly where Daniel is, in the top year, before transferring to secondary school. There are 30 pupils in the class (the maximum number allowed by government).

There are few disciplinary problems, though; occasionally, a few pupils disrupt lessons. Teachers do not have to use many sanctions, and physical punishment is banned. Timekeeping is tightly controlled: if pupils are late for school, they find the gates shut and need to report to an attendance officer. The school follows a prescribed national curriculum, which has become narrower in recent years. The school holds a daily assembly where the whole school comes together, and all the pupils from different faiths attend. The school runs around a dozen clubs; the most popular are football and netball (open to both sexes), but there is also crochet, art and musical theatre. There is a school football team (again open to boys and girls), although they only play a few matches a year against other schools.

Jordan attends a co-educational public school (with learners aged 5–13), which is located along the Indian Ocean shoreline. The school is a quintile 5, fee-paying public school in a middle- to low-income area. There are about 1,000 pupils, and about half the learners are Black African and the rest are Indian (1% are Coloured (mixed race) learners). The school is situated 3 km from Jordan's home, and many learners walk or travel by car or minibus. A daily assembly is held in the school in a sheltered area called the quad. The assembly begins at 7.30 a.m. Lessons begin at 7.45 a.m. and end at 2.00 p.m. Learners generally enjoy attending school, although there is some physical bullying and incidents are reported daily to the department head. Instances of homophobia are fairly common but less recognised and addressed. Learners are required to follow a school code of conduct that imposes levels of punishment based on the severity of misconduct. Corporal punishment is prohibited, and teachers found guilty of administering it are dismissed. The language of instruction is English, and almost all learners are proficient.

Jordan's class has 44 learners. Desks are arranged in rows, with random seating arrangements – boy/boy, girl/girl, or boy/girl. The school follows a nationally set curriculum and assessment policy, and learners are assessed accordingly. Jordan is ranked in the top 10 of his class based on examination marks. The school offers extracurricular activities after school: chess, coding, table tennis, football, cricket and volleyball.

A day in the lives of two 11-year-old boys.

Both Daniel's parents are professionals and very supportive of the school. Daniel leaves his house at about 8.40 a.m. and walks to school with three friends (Asian boys), which takes about 10 min. He is a friendly boy who enjoys school and is proud of it, and characteristically, for middle-class boys, he appreciates the value of education and wants to work hard to get good grades. Daniel enjoys Maths but hates English – not so much the reading, but the newly introduced rules about grammar, which are difficult, and he does not see their relevance. Daniel has one teacher who is responsible for the whole class over the whole academic year. He likes and respects his teacher and appreciates that she spends time making the lessons interesting. Daniel really likes art but does not get much chance to spend time on it, as the curriculum focuses on the 3Rs and the teacher devotes a lot of time to practising for the SAT exams. However, what he really lives for at school is spending time with his friends and playing football. His ambition is to play professionally for a top London team.

Daniel gets on well with his male friends. His favourite time is lunchtime when he plays football. Studies show that at this age, the peer group has the greatest influence on the construction of identities (Paechter and Clark, 2007). Boys and girls generally get on well with each other, and Daniel has a secret platonic girlfriend. They are just “friends”—they do not see each other outside school or go anywhere together. There is no widespread culture of sexuality, and pupils at this age are quite innocent. Studies show that boys need to be careful about mixing too closely with girls, as they can be stigmatised as becoming feminised (Renold, 2005; Swain, 2004); however, Daniel's girlfriend is viewed by the other boys as a source of status.

Daniel loves football, which is a major signifier of dominant masculinity at this age (Swain, 2000). In contrast to the docile, passive bodies of the classroom, football is about the active body in motion, and the boys' performances are defined in terms of being “fast”, “strong” and “skilful”. There is a large game played every day in a fenced area and girls join in too. The games are taken seriously and are competitive without being aggressive. If a boy gets hurt and cries, this is not seen as a threat to his masculinity. Daniel is one of the most skilful footballers and is often a captain who chooses the teams.

Although research shows there is a great deal of mental (including cyber bullying) and physical bullying in some schools in the UK (Armitage, 2021), there is little bullying in Daniel's year group; there are very few fights, and Daniel has not been involved in any.

Daniel has his own smartphone. In 2023, around 55% of children aged between eight and 11 years in the UK owned a smartphone (Ofcom, 2023). However, he is not allowed to use it during school hours, so he doesn't usually bring it. After school, he plays computer games: his favourite is a game called Roblox, and he plays online with other boys in his class, often for around two hours a night. He also uses his phone to play games. There is a large WhatsApp (a messaging service) group in the class, but he finds it “too gossipy” and “too girly” and is not particularly interested. There is little use of social media with middle-class children of this age, and there tends to be a greater amount of parental surveillance (Lee, 2023).

The practices Daniel displays are working hard as the “good” schoolboy, the sporting practice of football, and the techno practice of using mobile phones and computers. The main form of dominant masculinity, which is most valorised and personified by Daniel, is the athletic, sporty, but also conforming boy, who is very popular with his peers and his teachers. He is not a leader, in the sense that he does not set the agenda in how to behave or have a group of followers. He does not practise a hegemonic masculinity which involves subordinating other boys or girls, and there was no obvious gender hegemony in the year group. However, he also performs more personalised forms with his interest in computers. He also enacts a caring form of masculinity, showing kindness and consideration to other pupils in his class, and a blended masculinity (Swain, 2023), which involves performing both masculine qualities (e.g. activity, resilience, and independence) and feminine qualities (e.g. passivity, showing kindness and collegiality). The main resource he draws on to gain peer group status is physicality/athleticism (particularly his football), but he also has personal and social resources and well-developed interpersonal and linguistic skills.

Both Jordan's parents are teachers at different schools within their local area. Jordan wakes at 6.30 and takes a private taxi to school, arriving at 7:20. While waiting for the assembly to start, he runs around with his friends even though it is prohibited because learners might get injured if they fall on the paved area. After the assembly, he goes to class, which begins every day with a 30-min reading period. Jordan's favourite subject is maths, and he likes solving problems. He is very talkative in class and frequently gets reprimanded by the teacher.

Jordan has lunch during break time at 10:30 a.m., and he talks to his best friends, both of whom are Indian boys. All learners are expected to sit in a designated area on the playground and eat an early lunch. There is no interaction with girls because boys and girls are separated during break time. Although running, and action games like soccer (football), are prohibited, Jordan and his friends defy the rules to play games in the playground. Jordan's defiance of school rules is not about asserting dominance or seeking power over his peers; instead, it is about utilising a space for fun and social engagement. He does not experience any trouble or bullying on the playground. Jordan enjoys the school day. He has several teachers who teach him different subjects; he does not have a favourite teacher because he likes all of them. He especially likes school now that he has started coding and robotics, and he attends an after-school club.

School finishes at 2:30 p.m. His transport drops him off at his grandmother's house, where he completes his homework, until his parents pick him up after their work.

Jordan has a group of friends and plays with them during break time. In the classroom, Jordan sits next to a boy who is a good friend. Boys do not play with girls at break times, as they prefer to play physical games together, and girls tend to stick together. The girls have their assembly during this time. By separating boys and girls, the school reinforces a gender dichotomy based on the belief that boys and girls must be kept apart (Paechter, 2021). Most of Jordan's friends are boys, and he says he feels more “chill” (comfortable) with boys than girls. Although Jordan may speak to some girls before the morning assembly, his male friends influence him to fall into line, accepting gendered separation at school. In this way, he avoids homophobic taunts. In SA, boys and girls who challenge the gender binary are marginalised through the use of derogatory terms such as sissies and moffies (homosexuals) for boys and “tomboys” for girls, thus reinforcing rigid gender norms and limiting their sexual expressions (Mayeza, 2023).

In many SA schools, soccer/football remains a highly masculinised and racialised sport (Bhana and Mayeza, 2016) and is a central marker of masculine status. Jordan enjoys playing but isn't a skilled player and gets picked last in playground games. Jordan is disappointed not to be on the school team, and now focuses on robotics and coding. Jordan looks down on the good soccer players because they do not work hard and often disrupt lessons. He identifies them as the “class clowns” and “failing” boys.

Jordan likes informal games. He and his friends play “freeze tag,” where the boy who is the tagger catches another boy, and that boy has to freeze. The school discourages these games, fearing injury to learners, but Jordan enjoys running with his friends on the playground.

Although fights on the school ground are quite common, especially between Indian and isiZulu-speaking Black African boys (Govender and Bhana, 2023a), Jordan walks away from confrontations. He draws on his Christian beliefs to resist violence. Aggression is not central to his identity and aligns him with yimvu (sheep) masculinity, which rejects violent dominance and embraces peace (Bhana, 2016). Non-violence is associated with Mahatma Gandhi and provides an alternative way of asserting masculine identity (Omer, 2021).

Jordan loves coding and robotics. He stays after school to learn to problem-solve and sharpen his maths skills. Coding and robotics make him popular at school, and he represents the school in competitions. He owns a cellphone but does not bring it to school.

Jordan works reasonably hard and wants to achieve academically. His main practices are centred on mathematics and technology (robotics and coding). For some boys, being good in mathematics and technology are to the making of masculinity. As Mendick (2005) and Jaremus (2021) more recently suggest, these scientific domains are competitive and associated with proof of intelligence. Doing science, robotics and technology is a key site to both impress and alienate others (Mendick, 2005).

This form of masculinity features intense competition, but the main hegemonic form is found in physical games like soccer with occasional fights and expressions of homophobia and violence. Jordan is able to navigate a path towards masculinity based on an investment in mathematics and technology. Historically, as Yengde (2021) notes, non-violence was a key strategy for Indian men to negotiate their identities under colonial rule (Yengde, 2021). It is important not to homogenise Indian men; however, Jordan's resistance to and association with robotics and technology suggests a pathway towards masculinity based on scientific prowess and economic value placed on the scientific domain and masculinity.

With his interest in robotics and coding, he also enacts a type of personalised masculinity. The main resources Jordan draws on to enhance his peer group status are the personal resource of being self-confident, the social resources of being able to socialise with people and form friendships and the cultural resource gained from his knowledge of computers/technology.

There are many similarities between the two 11-year-old boys and their two schools. They both come from middle-class backgrounds where their parents support the schools; they are both bright and sociable and have well-developed interpersonal skills. They are both self-assured and want to achieve academically. The boys express their masculinity through their bodies and are also able to exercise agency: Jordan's ability to critically self-reflect enables him to challenge gender binaries, but both embrace more fluid understandings of gender identity. Moreover, they show qualities of kindness and caring and practise personalised masculinities, based around digital technologies. Within each school, sport (particularly football/soccer) is an important marker of successful masculinity.

There are many more differences than similarities between the two. Apart from their ethnicities, Daniel is more focused, more conforming and hard-working than Jordan, and, in his school, Daniel is allowed to play football during free periods and is one of the best players. This enables him to construct an active, physical and dominant form of masculinity. Jordan's boyhood expresses a mix of robust, informal, physical activities, an embrace of mind-focused academic pursuits and a naughtiness which transgresses school rules. Jordan does not like football much, and his attention is more directed to new technologies.

Masculinities are multiple, and their formation is dependent on the context. We found evidence of a hybrid or blended form in the UK. In SA, Jordan expressed a non-violent masculinity, although gendered divisions and the subordination of the feminine remain universal. Gender and sexuality in both countries are shaped by intersections of social class and, to a lesser extent, race; however, structures of culture, history and religion are more salient in SA, reflecting the legacy of colonialism, apartheid and traditional customs. Sexuality and homophobia in the SA school are more evident, although approaches between African township and Indian boys are often quite different (Govender and Bhana, 2023b). In the UK school, relations between boys and girls were generally platonic. Daniel had more interactions with girls and viewed them as equal. Daniel also mixed freely with different ethnicities in his London school, while Jordan's experience is shaped by his identity as a member of a minority group, South African Indians. Jordan plays with Indian boys and feels distance from Zulu-speaking Black African boys; yet, he draws on legacies that include the passive resistance of Mahatma Gandhi, who lived in Natal at the beginning of the 20th century.

This paper contributes to the study of comparative education by identifying, in the first instance, how knowledge production occurs across major geopolitical divides. The paper shows that points of personal connection are critical in forging research collaboration, and this includes both shared interests and competences as well as situationally specific knowledge. Differences and shared understandings combine to enable comparison and, at the same time, demonstrate how conversations enrich understanding. In this case, links between London and Durban, enabled initially by the 1995 visit of Debbie Epstein to SA, developed into an enduring and productive research collaboration.

Using context and spaces at three different levels, the paper then explores how distinct contexts afford similar and different opportunities for boys to construct masculine identities. In doing so, the paper opens up critical spaces for rethinking how young masculinities are produced and performed within distinct educational and socio-cultural contexts. The comparative analysis of primary school boys in the UK and SA engages Northern-dominated understandings of masculinity, highlighting the entanglement of socio-political, cultural and economic forces that shape young boys' experiences and identities.

The paper emphasises the embodied, fluid, and contested nature of masculinity as it is lived out in educational spaces. It is evidenced in the constructions of boyhood and influenced by global, regional and national systemic factors, which in turn impact institutions. The comparative lens adopted here illustrates how boyhood and masculinity are shaped by specific socio-economic landscapes and reinforced by dominant gender norms. Recognising these entanglements allows for a deeper interrogation of how masculinities are constructed, challenged and reimagined through educational experiences.

It is important to remember that schools have the power to influence and affect change. Hegemonic gender systems are neither natural nor inescapable and, although schools can help produce gender hegemony, they can also do much to combat it and create a kinder and more equal community. As gender is socially and historically constructed, it means that it can be changed. Children need to be involved as active co-producers and participants in their education around gender equity and social justice, and if the aim is to build gender transformations, they need to be involved in decision-making.