This document is a master's thesis submitted by Markéta Sošťáková exploring the links between masculinity and violence among primary school boys in rural Burundi. Using Bronfenbrenner's bioecological framework, the thesis examines how masculinities are constructed for boys in relation to violence through an analysis of micro, meso, and macro level factors. Key findings include that masculinity in the rural context is associated with traditional provider roles rather than violence, and education is seen as key to masculinity due to lack of economic opportunities. Nonviolence is connected to rejection of violence or consideration of its impact on education. The construction and display of masculinity in conflicts depends on individual triggers and situ

1. 1
BOYS
AND
VIOLENCE:
The
Construction
and
Display
Of
Masculinities
in
Rural
Burundi
Master
Thesis
|
Markéta
Sošťáková
International
Development
Studies
|
University
of
Amsterdam

2. 2
COLOPHON
Thesis
submitted
on
the
19th
of
November,
2014
in
part
fulfillment
of
a
M.Sc.
in
International
Development
Studies
Graduate
School
of
Social
Sciences
University
of
Amsterdam
BOYS
AND
VIOLENCE:
The
Construction
and
Display
of
Masculinities
in
Rural
Burundi
Supervisor:
Dr.
Jacobijn
Olthoff
Supervisor:
Dr.
Lidewyde
Berckmoes
Second
Reader:
Dr.
Ria
Reis
Cover
Pictures:
Markéta
Sošťáková
Date
November
2014
Markéta
Sošťáková
10701176
marketa.sostakova@gmail.com

3. 3
ABSTRACT
Motivated
to
gain
insight
into
the
gender
aspects
of
the
‘cycle
of
violence’
in
Burundi,
this
study
adopts
an
interdisciplinary
multi-­‐scalar
approach
to
explore
the
links
between
the
use
of
violence
and
the
construction
of
masculinities
among
primary
school
boys.
Applying
Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological
‘Process-­‐Person-­‐Context-­‐Time’
framework,
the
study
offers
a
comprehensive
understanding
of
micro,
meso
and
macro
factors,
relationships
and
their
dynamics
shaping
boys’
masculinity
in
relation
to
violence
over
the
period
of
middle
childhood
and
early
adolescence.
Based
on
in-­‐depth
interviews,
participatory
sessions
and
a
survey,
the
study
searches
for
trajectories
to
non/violence
particularly
in
the
micro
environments:
it
examines
the
boy’s
individual
resources,
his
socialization
in
the
current
gender
regime
and
his
outlooks
on
the
context
of
(post-­‐conflict)
violence
in
the
community,
school
and
home.
Findings
of
this
research
suggest
the
general
need
for
more
complex
and
contextual
understanding
of
the
links
between
African
masculinities
and
violence.
Firstly,
in
contrast
to
dominant
academic
literature
on
African
hegemonic
masculinities,
the
study
offers
evidence
that
masculinities
in
Burundian
rural
areas
are
not
in
the
first
place
connected
to
violence
but
to
the
traditional
provider’s
role,
the
values
of
morality
and
hard
work
associated
with
that.
Violence
against
women
is
not
a
sign
of
manhood
but
a
weakness.
Secondly,
diverging
from
the
portrayal
of
young
men
as
danger
to
themselves
and
the
society,
the
qualities
of
hegemonic
masculinity
in
Nyabiraba
are
affected
by
the
context
of
rural
poverty
and
lack
of
economic
opportunities.
Education
is
a
key
to
the
prison
of
rural
life.
Hence,
it
is
primarily
the
educational
achievements
to
prove
boy’s
talent
and
masculinity.
Nonviolence
is
either
connected
to
their
repulsion
by
violent
behavior
and/or
reflection
on
its
consequences
for
their
educational
chances.
Boys
lacking
academic
skills
and
talents
are
more
likely
to
take
advantage
of
their
physique
to
prove
their
masculinity
to
reach
the
same
recognition.
Thirdly,
the
study
analyzes
the
display
of
this
complex
concept
(masculinity)
in
the
moment
of
a
conflict.
How
the
situation
unfolds,
seems
to
depend
on
the
nature
of
the
conflict
(connected
to
individual’s
breaking
point),
the
situational
factors
(mostly
the
presence
of
a
peer
group),
and
the
individual
construction
of
masculinity.
The
study
is
an
important
contribution
to
the
literature
on
gender
regimes
and
hegemonic
masculinity
in
Burundi.
It
also
adds
to
the
child
development
literature
as
it
provides
complex
view
on
the
construction
of
boys’
masculinities
in
the
rural,
post-­‐
conflict
areas.
Key
words:
construction
of
masculinities,
non/violence,
rural
Burundi,
children,
bioecological
framework,
‘masculinity
in
action’

4. 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Greeting
me
with
big
hugs
and
warm
three-­‐step
handshakes,
I
would
like
to
thank
all
boys
and
girls
from
Mayemba,
Nyabibondo
and
Nyabiraba,
who
welcomed
me
in
their
lives
and
have
been
sharing
their
stories
with
me.
Their
hope
and
determination
to
improve
their
fates
despite
the
conditions
of
deprivation
had
been
motivating
me
day
by
day
to
find
out
more
about
their
lives.
I
would
also
like
to
thank
the
professionals
in
Burundi
who
have
shared
with
me
their
opinions
and
perspectives
on
violence
and
its
prevention.
I
admire
their
hard
and
exhausting
work
for
Burundian
children
and
communities.
I
hope
I
can
contribute
to
their
work
with
my
findings,
to
repay
the
kind
cooperation,
time
and
attention
they
had
given
me.
My
big
gratitude
goes
to
my
supervisors.
I
am
thankful
for
their
aspiring
guidance,
insights
into
the
research
world
and
advice
from
the
first
meetings
until
the
last
checks.
I
would
like
to
express
my
appreciation
to
Jacobijn
Olthoff,
for
her
stimulating
suggestions,
for
keeping
me
on
track
and
focused.
Your
work
and
knowledge
on
children
are
a
great
inspiration
to
me.
I
am
thankful
to
Lidewyde
Berckmoes,
for
her
encouragements
through
the
fieldwork
but
more
importantly,
for
making
the
Burundi
project
happen
and
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
be
part
of
it.
My
acknowledgements
also
go
to
all
my
friends
who
accompanied
me
throughout
my
studies
in
the
Netherlands
and
my
fieldwork
in
Burundi.
Finally,
I
thank
to
my
family:
my
parents
and
my
brother
who
have
been
supporting
me
throughout
my
entire
studies
and
on
whom
I
can
always
rely
on,
no
matter
where
life
takes
me.

5. 5
LIST
OF
FEATURES
LIST
OF
BOXES
Box
1:
Critical
sympathy.
Box
2:
A
girl
‘mzungu.’
Box
3:
My
translator
is
late.
Box
4:
Claude’s
opinion
on
gender
roles.
Box
5:
The
stick.
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
1:
Bronfenbrenner’s
‘
Process-­‐Person-­‐Context-­‐Time’
model.
Figure
2:
Conceptual
Diagram.
Figure
3:
Structure
of
Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological
layer
(Person)
in
this
study.
LIST
OF
GRAPHS
Graph
1:
“Do
you
think
the
father
should
have
greater
say
in
making
family
decision
than
the
mother
(f.ex.
what
to
buy
with
earned
money)?”
Graph
2:
“How
many
times
a
day
your
family
eats?”
Graph
3:
“Do
you
think
other
kids
will
think
a
boy
is
afraid
if
he
refuses
to
fight?”
LIST
OF
MAPS
Map
1:
Burundi.
Map
2:
Nyabiraba
commune.
LIST
OF
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo
1:
Children
running
to
morning
school
assembly
in
Nyabiraba.
Photo
2:
Learning,
playing,
observing.
Photo
3:
Brainstorming,
participatory
session.
Photo
4:
Drawing
‘The
Real
Man’/
‘The
Real
Woman.’
Photo
5:
Tea
fields
in
Nyabiraba.
Photo
6:
Transportation
in
rural
areas
can
be
challenging
Photo
7:
The
cost
of
schooling
is
excessive
Photo
8:
Brainstorming.
Photo
9:
Drawing.
Photo
10:
Stakeholder
analysis
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1:
Themes,
participants
and
location
of
participatory
group
sessions.

6. 6
ABBREVIATIONS
CE
Civic
Education
CFS
Child
Friendly
School
CNDD-­‐FDD
Conseil
National
Pour
la
Défense
de
la
Démocratie–Forces
pour
la
Défense
de
la
Démocratie
(National
Council
for
the
Defense
of
Democracy–Forces
for
the
Defense
of
Democracy)
CP
Corporal
Punishment
FNL
Forces
nationales
de
libération
(The
National
Forces
of
Liberation)
PBEA
Peacebuilding,
Education
and
Advocacy
Programme
PPCT
Process-­‐Person-­‐Context-­‐Time
(model)
UNESCO
United
Nations
Educational,
Scientific
and
Cultural
Organization
UNICEF
United
Nations
Children's
Fund
WHO
World
Health
Organization

7. 7
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
LIST
OF
FEATURES
5
ABBREVIATIONS
6
1
INTRODUCTION
10
1.1.
MAKING
THE
CONNECTION:
MASCULINITIES
AND
VIOLENCE
10
1.2.
OBJECTIVES
AND
RELEVANCE
OF
THE
STUDY
12
1.2.1
OBJECTIVES
12
1.2.2.
ACADEMIC
RELEVANCE
12
1.2.3.
CONTRIBUTION
TO
PRACTICE
13
1.3.
OUTLINE
OF
THE
CHAPTERS
14
2
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
15
2.
1.
MASCULINITIES
15
2.
1.
1.
‘THE
GENDER
POLITICS’
15
2.
1.
2.
THE
‘MAKING
OF
’
MASCULINITIES
17
2.1.3.
AFRICAN
MASCULINITIES
AND
VIOLENCE
19
2.2.
VIOLENCE
21
2.2.1.
PROVOCATION
AND
CONFLICT
21
2.2.2.
DEFINING
VIOLENCE
21
2.
3.
BIOECOLOGICAL
FRAMEWORK
23
2.
4.
CONCEPTUAL
SCHEME
26
3
METHODOLOGY
27
3.1
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
27
3.2.
METHODOLOGICAL
POSITIONING:
BETWEEN
CULTURE
AND
MORALITY
27
3.3.
RESEARCH
METHODS
28
3.3.1.OBSERVATIONS
29
3.3.2.
PARTICIPATORY
METHODS
30
3.3.3
IN-­‐DEPTH
INTERVIEWS
31
3.3.4.
SURVEY
31
3.3.5.
DATA
ANALYSIS
32
3.3.6.
SAMPLING
32
3.4.
REFLEXIVITY,
QUALITY
AND
LIMITATIONS
33
3.4.1
TRUST
AND
SUSPICIONS
33
3.4.2
TRIANGULATING
THE
CONTRADICTIONS
34
3.4.3.
QUALITY
35
3.4.4.
LIMITATIONS
36
3.4.5.
ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
37
3.4.
6.
REFLECTIONS
ON
THE
RESEARCH
PROCESS
38
3.5.
RESEARCH
CONTEXT
39

8. 8
3.5.1.
BURUNDI
39
3.5.2.
NYABIRABA
COMMUNE
40
3.5.3.
PRACTICALITIES
OF
THE
RESEARCH
41
4
FRAMING
MASCULINITIES
42
4.1.
SOCIAL
RELATIONS
AND
VIOLENCE
42
4.1.1.
LAND
DISPUTES
43
4.1.2.
IMPUNITY
AND
JUSTICE
44
4.2.
GENDER
REGIME
47
4.2.1.
POWER
RELATIONS
48
4.2.2.
HOUSEWORK
AND
GUARDING
THE
STATUS
49
4.2.3.
DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
51
5
CONSTRUCTING
MASCULINITIES
54
5.1.
SCHOOL
54
5.1.1.
THE
VALUE
OF
EDUCATION
54
5.1.2.
CHILD-­‐TEACHER
RELATIONSHIPS
57
5.1.3.
CURRICULUM
ON
VIOLENCE
59
5.1.4.
PUNISHMENTS
60
5.2.
FAMILY
62
5.2.1.
MATERIAL
RESOURCES
62
5.2.2.
PARENTS
AS
ROLE
MODELS
64
5.2.3.
DISCIPLINE
66
5.3.
PERSONAL
RESOURCES
68
5.3.1.
PHYSIQUE
69
5.3.2.
TEMPERAMENT
AND
ANGER
71
5.3.3.
EMOTIONAL
RESOURCES
71
6
‘MASCULINITY
IN
ACTION’
74
6.1.
THE
CONFLICT
74
6.1.1.
‘THE
BREAKING
POINT’
75
6.1.2.
SITUATIONAL
FACTORS
76
6.2.
“NOT
ME!”
LABELS
OF
VIOLENCE
AND
NONVIOLENCE
77
6.3.
THE
TWO
MASCULINITIES
78
6.3.1.
NONVIOLENT
DISPLAY
OF
MASCULINITY
79
6.3.2.
VIOLENT
DISPLAY
OF
MASCULINITY
82
7
CONCLUSIONS
AND
REFLECTIONS
85
7.1.
MAIN
FINDINGS
86
7.1.1.
“WHAT
IS
THE
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
VIOLENCE
AND
THE
QUALITIES
ASSOCIATED
WITH
DOMINANT
MASCULINITIES
AMONG
BOYS?”
86
7.1.2.
HOW
ARE
THE
SPECIFIC
SOCIOCULTURAL
AND
PERSONAL
FACTORS
INFLUENCING
THE
CONSTRUCTION
OF
MASCULINITY
OF
BOYS?
88
7.1.3.
WHICH
ASPECTS
OF
MASCULINITY
IMPACT
BOYS’
DECISIONS
TO
THE
USE
OF
VIOLENCE
OR
NONVIOLENCE
IN
THE
CONFLICT
SITUATION?
91
7.2.
REFLECTIONS
ON
THE
FINDINGS
92
7.2.1.
CONTRIBUTIONS
92

9. 9
7.2.2.
LIMITATIONS
93
7.3.
RECOMMENDATIONS
94
7.3.1
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
POLICY
AND
PRACTICE
94
7.3.2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
FURTHER
RESEARCH
95
8
LITERATURE
97
9
ANNEXES
105
9.1.
OPERATIONALIZATION
TABLES
105
9.2.
SURVEY
109
9.3.
PARTICIPATORY
SESSIONS
(LIST
OF
ACTIVITIES)
112
9.4.
TABLE
OF
PARTICIPANTS
113
9.5.
INFORMED
CONSENT
115

10. 10
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.
MAKING
THE
CONNECTION:
MASCULINITIES
AND
VIOLENCE
Since
its
independence
in
1962,
Burundi
has
been
suffering
from
‘cyclical
violence’
(Baghdadli
et
al.,
2008;
Daley,
2008;
Vandeginste,
2009).
Experiencing
outbursts
in
1965,
1972,
1987
and
1993,
the
country
is
now
left
with
a
complicated
legacy
of
ethnic
and
political
disputes
after
the
last
devastating
conflict
ending
in
2005.
Violence
can
be
triggered
by
various
pretexts—nationalism,
poverty,
ideology,
racism
and
other
inequalities
to
name
a
few—
but
given
the
concentration
of
weapons
and
the
practice
of
violence,
“gender
patterns
appear
to
be
strategic”
as
the
dynamics
of
violence
are
shaped
by
masculinities
(Connell,
2000:
29).
In
conflict
situations,
masculinities
may
act
like
‘gasoline
on
fire’—
escalating
aggression
and
cause
difficulties
to
peace
resolutions
(Holter,
2000:
61).
Scaling
down
from
group
struggles
to
interpersonal
violence,
men
are
also
the
main
perpetrators
of
violence
against
other
men
and
against
women.
With
the
presence
of
violence
at
home
and
in
the
community,
children
in
Burundi
perceive
violence
as
part
of
their
daily
life.
They
experience
it,
they
witness
it
but
also,
they
perpetrate
it.
For
mistakes
at
school
or
at
home
parents
and
teachers
physically
punish
children;
poverty
can
motivate
them
to
engage
into
exploitative
relationships,
or
being
abused
by
their
peers
and
adults.
Violence
and
the
fear
of
it
is
indisputably
affecting
children’s
wellbeing
and
perspectives
as
it
has
long-­‐term
consequences
for
pupils’
physical
and
mental
health,
development
but
also
concentration,
and
participation.
Children
are
also
perpetrators
themselves
as
many
conflicts
among
them
are
resolved
with
hurtful
insults
or
fierce
fights.
Small
arguments
and
conflicts
where
use
of
violence
is
the
easiest,
or
the
only
option
considered,
are
fueling
a
vicious
circle
where
fighting
brings
on
beatings,
beatings
bring
on
anger
which
brings
back
fighting.
By
some
children,
violence
is
understood
as
a
primary
way
to
negotiate
in
relationships.
Even
in
such
context,
violence
does
not
‘just
happen’
but
the
way
events
will
turn
out
is
strongly
influenced
by
boys’
masculinity
(Hamlall
and
Morrell,2012:
3).
The
current
context
of
normalized
violence
and
the
outbreaks
of
conflict
on
a
generational
basis
in
Burundi
are
standing
behind
the
motivation
to
this
research.
Analyzing
the
predispositions
of
the
Burundian
state
to
its
past
genocides,
Daley
supports
the
importance
of
examining
local
masculinities,
as
she
believes
it
is
the
outcome
of
the
intersection
of
race,
ethnicity,
the
patriarchal
state,
masculinity,
the
geopolitical
economy
and
militarism
(2008:
231).
Such
investigation
includes
a
challenge,
according
to
Belgian
scholar
Peter
Uvin,
who
has
been
extensively
working

11. 11
in
the
region
of
Rwanda
and
Burundi.
He
presents
field
data
contrasting
the
dominant
view
on
young
men
usually
portrayed
as
a
danger
to
themselves
and
the
society,
concluding
instead
that
dominant
academic
views
on
masculinity
and
violence
“does
not
hold
in
Burundi”
(2013:
Kindle
2591-­‐2597).
In
his
view,
Burundian
masculinities
are
not
primarily
violent
and
the
academic
generalizations
on
African
masculinities
are
far
beyond
acceptable
for
this
particular
local
context
(Ibid.).
With
the
collected
field
data
I
am
aiming
to
gain
insight
into
this
complex
situation:
first,
by
examining
the
factors
and
mechanisms
behind
the
construction
of
violent
or
nonviolent
masculinities
of
primary
school
children
and
second,
through
their
display.
The
main
research
question
guiding
this
research
is
therefore
as
follows:
“In
which
ways,
and
by
what
personal,
situational
and
sociocultural
factors
are
boys’
masculinities
constructed
and
displayed
in
the
rural
context
of
Nyabiraba
commune,
Bujumbura
Rural?”
Applying
Urie
Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological
model
to
this
study,
it
allows
me
to
capture
the
complex
construction
of
one’s
masculinity
throughout
the
layers
of
multiple
environments,
proximal
processes
and
personal
characteristics
in
the
timeframe
of
childhood.
The
dynamic
research
design
of
this
study
corresponds
to
the
intentioned
use
of
the
model
for
“science
in
discovery
mode”
(Bronfenbrenner
and
Evans,
2000:
999),
instead
of
the
verification
process.
Masculinities
are
fragile
and
fluid
constructs,
often
remaining
an
abstract
concept.
For
this
reason
I
choose
to
take
an
approach
of
‘masculinities
in
action’—
therewith
providing
the
evidence
when
gender
identity
is
uncovered
and
masculinity
is
played
out,
either
through
the
use
of
violence
or
nonviolence.
A
central
starting
point
of
this
research
is
that
the
character
of
one’s
own
masculinity
is
a
choice,
not
a
biological
predisposition,
therefore
the
promotion
of
non-­‐
violent
forms
of
masculinity
could
help
to
alter
the
character
of
much
of
the
violence.
As
Connell
argues
“the
task
is
not
to
abolish
gender,
but
to
reshape
it;
to
disconnect…courage
from
violence,
steadfastness
from
prejudice,
ambition
from
exploitation
(2000:
39).”
Development
practice
around
the
world
can
support
the
initiative
with
evidence
of
several
promising
interventions
engaging
with
boys
and
men,
who
reported
significant
change
in
their
attitudes
to
the
use
of
violence
(Promundo,
2012).
Adopting
interdisciplinary
and
multi-­‐scalar
approach
to
understanding
the
local
aspects
of
masculinities
and
violence
is
highly
relevant
to
policy
makers
and
INGOs
as
these
actors
contribute
to
the
search
for
better
practice
in
violence
prevention.
With
my
study,
I
would
like
to
contribute
to
a
safer
and
welcoming
environment,
where
children
can
grow
up
without
fears
of
their
parents,
teachers
or
each
other,
and
moreover
to
a
deeper
change
towards
more
just
and
equitable
society.

12. 12
1.2.
OBJECTIVES
AND
RELEVANCE
OF
THE
STUDY
1.2.1
Objectives
Children,
who
currently
constitute
a
majority
in
Burundi1
will
become
tomorrow’s
adolescents,
and
finally
Burundi’s
men
and
women.
Working
with
children
and
their
socialization
in
their
early
age
can
be
fruitful
when
preventing
violence,
considering
that
previous
research
in
the
trajectories
of
violence
is
predicting
high
levels
of
aggression
among
adolescents
if
it
was
already
high
during
their
childhood
(Brame,
2001).
There
is
no
evidence
of
the
‘late
onset’
from
transition
from
a
low
physical
aggression
in
childhood
to
high
trajectory
in
adolescence
(Ibid.).
I
associate
myself
with
the
belief
that
children
are
important
social
actors
in
their
own
right
in
context,
where
traditionally
they
are
denied
those
rights
of
participation
and
their
voices
remain
unheard
(Alderson
in
Christensen
and
James,
2008).
Only
by
understanding
their
realities
and
strategies
of
dealing
with
conflicts,
we
can
confront
the
issues
connected
to
masculinities
and
violence.
It
is
then
integral
to
view
boys
as
experts
on
their
own
lives
and
find
a
meaningful
way
to
consult
with
them,
not
through
their
adult
caretakers.
For
that,
it
is
appropriate
to
adopt
participatory,
child-­‐centered
and
action-­‐oriented
approach
especially
with
regard
to
my
research
goals:
to
collect
boys’
narratives
and
thick
descriptions
of
life
attitudes,
perceptions
and
beliefs
considering
violence,
examine
all
aspects
of
boy's
socialization,
context,
factors
and
mechanism,
influencing
boy’s
masculinity.
1.2.2.
Academic
relevance
This
research
is
a
relevant
contribution
to
the
academic
literature
on
the
development
of
children’s
masculinities
in
rural
and
post-­‐conflict
context
of
Burundi,
a
country
largely
overlooked
by
donors
and
academia.
Despite
the
efforts
of
cross-­‐cultural
psychology,
the
studies
on
children’s
construction
of
gender
identities
are
still
limited
outside
the
Western
context,
the
less
for
Africa,
or
Burundi.
Even
then,
the
variety
of
the
sources
is
hardly
living
up
to
the
academic
literature
on
childhood
that
has
been
forming
in
the
West
for
decades.2
As
Niewenhuys
pointed
out
more
generally,
studies
of
childhood
in
the
South
seems
to
come
from
“
‘lesser’
disciplines
such
as
social
work
and
social
anthropology”
(2013).
Instead
by
inventing
separate
specializations,
this
disproportion
could
be
balanced
by
1
The
median
age
in
Burundi
is
17
years
(Index
Mundi).
2
Such
notions
apply
also
to
other
disciplines
that
this
study
is
concerned
with,
for
example
rural
gender
relations.
Until
now,
it
is
has
been
connected
only
to
developmental
issues
(health,
income,
etc.)
in
Africa.
On
the
other
hand
some
of
the
predominantly
Western
literature
in
that

13. 13
the
eclecticism
of
the
post-­‐colonialism
approach
(Viruru,
2005).
This
study
aims
to
contribute
to
that
by
freely
borrowing
and
mixing
concepts
(Bronfenbrenner’s
model
originally
from
psychology,
the
concept
of
hegemonic
masculinity
from
gender
studies),
data
(qualitative
and
quantitative)
and
methods
(traditional
and
participative)
in
order
to
combine
them
in
one
study.
This
study
aspires
to
collect
data
by
applying
an
advanced
Western,
bioecological
model
well
known
among
psychologists,
in
its
full
strength
(but
culturally
sensitive—Triandis
and
Brislin,
1984)
to
children’s
development
in
Burundi.
Such
attempt
aims
to
contribute
to
bridging
the
asymmetry
between
the
way
academics
study
childhood
in
the
West
and
in
the
South.
The
gendered
examinations
of
schooling
in
the
developing
countries
have
focused
in
large
measure
on
the
unequal
access
or
unequal
conditions
in
the
classroom,
gender
based
violence
of
boys
and
male
teachers
against
girls3
.
All
of
these
are
very
pressing
and
serious
issues,
however
the
literature
on
violence
among
and
between
boys
(particularly
at
schools,
not
urban
street
gangs)
is
less
developed
though
there
is
a
large
global
literature
on
boys
at
school,
which
includes
some
reference
to
discussion
of
competitive
and
aggressive
masculinities
(Martino
and
Meyenn,
2001,
Swain
2004,
Hamlall
and
Morrell,
2012).
This
research
also
seeks
to
address
a
void:
the
strong
link
between
boys,
masculinities
and
violence
can
obscure
important
moments
when
boys
avoid
violence.
Previously
quoted
Uvin
sees
the
scholarly
literature
on
masculinity
in
Africa
‘exaggerated
and
miserabilizing’
(2013:
Kindle
3186-­‐3196).
This
study
uncovering
both
choices
of
violence
and
nonviolence
aims
to
add
knowledge
and
perspective
to
the
academic
sources.
1.2.3.
Contribution
to
practice
The
research
directly
adds
to
the
development
practice,
as
primary
data
collected
will
be
shared
with
the
partners
of
the
Peacebuilding,
Education
&
Advocacy
Programme
(PBEA).
Given
the
recurrent
outbreaks
of
violence
in
Burundi,
this
research
is
embedded
in
a
larger
project
of
multi-­‐systemic
analysis
of
the
intergenerational
transmission
of
violence
and
resilience
aiming
to
build
knowledge
and
enhance
the
design
and
impact
of
UNICEF
interventions
in
Burundi.
3
For
example
the
work
of
Dunne,
Humphreys,
Leach,
2003.

14. 14
1.3.
OUTLINE
OF
THE
CHAPTERS
The
study
is
organized
into
seven
chapters,
the
first
of
which
(i.e.
the
current
chapter)
introduces
the
connection
between
violence
and
masculinities
and
its
possible
use
for
the
prevention
of
intergenerational,
interpersonal
and
structural
violence.
Chapter
2
gives
a
theoretical
base
to
the
main
concepts
and
frameworks
in
this
study.
First,
it
elaborates
on
the
multiplicity,
hierarchy
and
fluid
formation
of
masculinities.
Second,
the
chapter
defines
the
concepts
of
violence
to
establish
the
extent
of
this
research
at
school,
in
the
community
and
at
home.
It
also
includes
the
explanation
of
Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological
theory
as
a
tool
for
analysis
but
also
an
organizing
principle
for
the
empirical
data.
Lastly,
all
concepts
are
set
together
into
a
conceptual
scheme
visually
showing
the
masculinity
in
construction
and
‘in
action.’
Defining
more
precisely
the
scope
of
this
study
with
a
research
question
and
subquestions,
Chapter
3
contains
the
methodology
of
the
conducted
fieldwork.
It
encompasses
the
methodological
and
ethical
concerns
of
working
with
children
and
the
reflection
on
the
choice
of
methods
and
their
execution.
It
also
introduces
the
location
and
the
practical
aspects
of
the
research
that
are
important
for
the
understanding
of
the
obtained
data.
Framing
the
context
of
masculinities,
Chapter
4
is
focusing
on
the
first
layer
of
the
of
the
bioecological
framework—
community
in
Nyabiraba,
Bujumbura
Rural.
It
presents
two
aspects
of
social
relations
in
the
community,
land
disputes
and
impunity.
It
goes
on
discussing
the
ideal
of
hegemonic
masculinity
as
a
fundamental
part
of
gender
regime
in
the
community
to
grasp
the
understanding
of
boys’
ideas
of
manliness.
Chapter
5
presents
the
remaining
two
environments
of
the
framework—
the
layer
of
school
and
family.
This
chapter
provides
the
main
building
blocks
for
understanding
both
violent
and
nonviolent
masculinities
as
it
elaborates
on
the
dynamics
of
the
proximal
relationships
but
also
the
personal
characteristics.
Personal
characteristics
can
significantly
influence
other
elements
of
the
framework,
and
shapes
the
development
of
child’s
identity.
The
chapter
highlights
the
complex
connections
between
education,
rural
poverty,
future
prospects
and
the
consequences
of
violence.
Chapter
6
is
placing
the
boys
in
the
moment
of
conflict,
describing
how
their
masculinity
is
challenged
in
provocations,
and
which
situational
considerations
boys
make
before
responding
to
aggression.
Bringing
together
all
empirical
data
of
the
study,
the
final
section
of
the
chapter
organizes
the
main
patterns
behind
the
construction
and
display
of
nonviolent
and
subsequently,
violent
masculinities
(serving
partially
also
as
a
conclusion).
Finally,
Chapter
7
concludes
the
study
by
summarizing
the
primary
findings,
relevant
for
wider
academic
debate
as
well
as
giving
recommendations
for
developing
nonviolent
masculinities
for
policy
and
practice
in
peacebuilding
interventions.

15. 15
2
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
The
two
main
theoretical
concepts
of
this
study
are
masculinity
and
its
intersection
with
violence.
The
following
parts
will
depict
masculinities
as
a
fluid
and
dynamic
construction
in
everyday
situations
as
well
as
their
hierarchies
among
men
and
boys.
The
chapter
goes
on
to
explain
the
elements
of
the
masculine
identity,
its
mechanisms
and
how
these
are
constructed
within
key
sites
in
diverse
relationships.
Secondly,
this
chapter
introduces
the
concept
of
violence
and
how
the
moment
of
provocation
confronts
a
boy’s
masculinity.
As
a
tool
for
analysis,
the
chapter
elaborates
on
the
elements
of
‘Bronfenbrenner’s’
Person-­‐Process-­‐Context-­‐Time
framework.
The
chapter
concludes
with
a
diagram
visualizing
the
interaction
of
all
concepts.
Unfortunately,
this
theoretical
section
will
be
biased
towards
the
general
patterns
of
masculinities
identified
in
the
literature
coming
predominantly
from
the
West.
Such
choice
is
driven
by
reasons
explained
in
section
1.2.2.
but
also
following
Uvin’s
criticism
on
overly
generalized
literature
on
African
masculinities.
Rather
than
preoccupy
one
with
generalizations,
I
aim
to
employ
an
exploratory
research
with
the
blend
of
methods
and
theories,
as
post-­‐colonialism
and
cross-­‐cultural
psychology
suggest,
gaining
a
locally
specific
view
(Triandis
and
Brislin,
1984).
The
African
context
is
not
left
out,
though.
The
chapter
includes
contemporary
academic
discussions
on
the
link
between
African
masculinities
and
violence,
highlighting
several
challenges
for
the
analysis
and
interpretation
of
empirical
data.
2.
1.
MASCULINITIES
“Masculinity
is
what
any
given
society
accepts
as
features
associated
with
the
male
gender
and
expressions
of
maleness”
(Uchendu,
2008:
3).
2.
1.
1.
‘The
gender
politics’
In
recent
years,
the
theoretical
framework
on
gender
has
moved
beyond
the
biological
determinism
of
‘boys
will
be
boys’
and
beyond
simplistic
views
of
socialization.
The
most
recent
view
on
the
concept
claims
that
masculinities
are
neither
biological
nor
rigid
social
structures.
Instead
of
focusing
on
masculinity
as
a
fixed
characteristic
or
a
norm,
this
approach
examines
the
dynamic
construction
of
masculinity
in
everyday
interactions
(Hearn
and
Seidler
in
Connell,
2005:
39).
Masculinity
is
a
diverse,
contextual,
and
fluid
concept—
constantly
changing
according
to
where
we
are,
what

16. 16
we
are
doing
and
whom
we
are
with.
Men
and
boys
have
a
multiplicity
of
masculinities
employed
and
enacted
at
different
times
(Paechter,
2003:
69)
and
make
situationally
specific
choices
in
responding
to
social
practices,
rather
than
confining
to
one
particular
masculinity
(Wetherell
and
Edley,
1999).
Boys
are
not
a
homogenous
group.
Gender
identity
is
defined
by
an
intersection
with
other
social
structures,
factors
and
life
experiences.
Even
though
they
may
often
start
from
similar
positions,
men
take
unique
paths
that
form
their
gender
identity.
Yet,
acknowledging
the
multiplicity
of
masculinities
is
only
the
first
step
of
understanding
‘the
gender
politics’
in
the
gender
relations.
That
is,
not
all
masculinities
are
appraised
equally:
depending
on
the
cultural
dominance
in
the
society,
different
types
of
masculinities
are
either
hegemonic
or
subordinate
(Connell,
2005:
76).
In
the
concept
of
Australian
sociologist
Raewyn
Connell,
hegemonic
masculinity
occupies
the
dominant
position
in
gender
relations
in
specific
cultures.
It
is
the
idea
of
the
‘Real
Man’
to
which
any
other
masculinity
is
being
compared.
In
practice,
the
‘subordinate’
forms
of
masculinity
are
classified
according
to
their
closeness
to
the
hegemonic
form.
At
the
end,
it
may
only
be
a
minor
group
of
individuals
practicing
and
embodying
this
model,
as
the
expectations
of
this
kind
of
masculinity
are
impossible
to
meet
(Kaufman,
2000:
214).
In
societies
where
masculinity
is
valued
more
than
femininity,
it
also
entails
a
greater
emphasis
on
proof
(Paechter,
2007:
19).
Most
men,
boys
especially,
doubt
their
masculinity
and
fear
‘not
being
manly
enough’
(Ibid.).
A
boy’s
anxiety
about
being
‘weak’
or
‘weird’
means
he
is
trying
not
to
be
too
different
from
‘the
hegemonic
ideal’
(Phoenix
and
Frosh,
2001:
34).
Boys
gain
their
understanding
of
hegemonic
masculinity
by
observations
and
encounters
with
men
in
their
community.
This
practice
leads
boys
not
only
to
understanding
of
masculinity
but
also
embed
them
in
the
surrounding
culture
as
they
try
to
follow
this
model
(Paechter,
2007:6).
In
a
boy’s
life,
this
search
for
a
hegemonic,
acceptable
form
of
masculinity
is
the
equivalent
to
gaining
popularity
and
status
(Epstein
and
Johnson,
1998),
which
is
one
of
the
most
important
parts
of
school
or
community
life
(Adler
and
Adler,
1998).
The
concept
of
the
peer
group
is
crucial
for
the
construction
of
masculinity,
as
this
group
carries
the
gender
definition
of
boyhood
and
its
collective
meanings
(Morrell,
1998).
Through
these
groups,
boys
tend
to
comprehend
what
it
means
to
be
a
boy
in
terms
of
their
values
and
interests.
One
must
adopt
specific
characteristics
and
behaviors
to
be
accepted
into
certain
groups
by
its
members.
Through
‘intricate
and
intense
maneuvering’,
boys
can
earn
a
certain
status
in
their
peer
group,
which
needs
to
be
further
sustained
almost
on
daily
basis
(Swain,2003).
For
instance,
if
a
boy
has
gained
and
maintains
his
status
with
fighting,
he
needs
to
be
alert
of
potential
rivals
as
his
status
could
devaluate
if
he
gets
beaten
(Ibid.).
Kaufman
calls
it
an
“enormous
terror,”
when
boys
are
frightened
of
being
laughed
at
by
others
or
even
target
of
violence
from

17. 17
the
others
(2000:220).
Therefore,
boys
are
pressured
to
constantly
demonstrate/
prove
their
masculinity
which
can
lead
to
direct
violence
or
to
domination
in
spaces
and
ways
that
are
not
considered
violent
(such
as
triumphs
at
sports
or
dominating
class
discussions
etc.,
Ibid.).4
2.
1.
2.
The
‘making
of
’
masculinities
Key
sites
Considering
the
age
group
in
this
study
(primary
school
children),
there
are
three
key
sites
for
their
formation
of
masculinities:
the
family,
the
peer
group
and
school
(Paechter,
2007:
2).
The
importance
and
influence
of
each
site
changes
over
time.
As
this
research
is
focusing
on
the
stage
of
middle
childhood
and
early
adolescence,
the
formal
institutional
setting
of
the
school
and
the
peer
groups
become
at
least
as
influential
as
their
parents
in
the
transition
of
home
to
school
(Harris,
1998;
Gilbert
&
Gilbert,
1998).
Schools
are
central
arenas
for
developing
masculinity,
as
they
set
ideas
about
what
it
means
to
be
a
boy/
a
man
in
addition
to
what
children
already
observe
in
their
family
environment.
Relationships
As
adults
mostly
structure
all
three
just
listed
environments,
the
child’s
understanding
of
appropriate
behavior
comes
from
observation
of
specific
men
and
women
(Paechter,
2007:14).
In
their
gender
practice,
children
combine
both
conformity
and
resistance
to
construct
their
identity
in
relation
to
others
within
the
wider
social
context
of
spoken
an
unspoken
rules
and
norms.
In
a
boy’s
life,
there
are
particular
relationships
that
have
greater
influence
upon
his
identity.
In
the
families,
children
are
able
to
observe
patterns
of
gender
behavior
from
their
parents
from
as
early
as
2
years
old
which
is
the
stage
in
their
development
when
they
are
starting
to
develop
their
own
gender
identity
(Martin
et
al.
2002).
In
early
childhood,
a
child
learns
in
this
environment
about
different
forms
of
masculinity
and
will
start
to
navigate
between
the
already
developed
form
and
the
acceptable
one
in
his
new
environment.
At
school,
teachers
can
explicitly
or
implicitly
draw
gender
boundaries
according
to
their
own
perceptions
and
employ
institutional/organizational
practices
to
regulate
these
boundaries.
Also
the
official
4
While
there
exist
various
sources
of
boy’s
masculinity,
not
all
of
them
lead
to
dominance.
The
section
5.1.1.
adds
more
on
the
topic
of
dominance
and
marginalization
of
masculinities.

18. 18
curriculum
aims
to
lead
students
towards
diversity
but
sameness,
where
extreme
forms
of
masculinity
are
constrained
by
various
sanctions
and
punishments.
Some
boys
may
bring
to
school
masculinity
that
is
in
conflict
with
the
ethos
of
the
school
and
pupilhood
(Warrington
et
al,
2003).
Lastly
in
the
section
on
relationships,
children
might
adopt
and
follow
the
model
of
the
most
powerful
members
in
their
local
community.
For
children
in
middle
childhood,
school
is
the
primary
site
of
gender
practices
where
they
interact
with
other
peers
and
older
children.
Boys
in
their
early
adolescence
spend
more
time
with
their
peers
group
than
with
their
parents.
Therefore,
some
theorists
(see
Piaget,
1997;
Harris,
1998)
believe,
that
peers
can
play
equal
or
even
more
important
role
in
that
particular
stage
of
a
child’s
development
than
parents.
In
comparison
to
the
child-­‐parent
relationship,
which
is
typified
by
its
asymmetry
of
power,
the
relationships
between
peers
should
be
more
balanced
as
by
definition
they
are
‘the
social
equals’
who
operate
on
the
same
level
of
behavioral
complexity
(Lewis
and
Rosenblum,
1975).
Yet,
some
(especially
older)
pupils
know
‘the
rules
of
the
gender
game’
and
will
point
out
errors
in
what
is
boyish
and
what
is
not
(Davies,
1989).
Being
accepted
and
liked
by
their
own
peers
is
one
of
the
most
important
parts
of
a
child’s
social
life.
Boys,
who
search
for
peer
acceptance
or
prove
their
loyalty
to
their
own
peer
group,
have
to
display
a
similar
masculinity
to
one
of
the
group,
which
in
return
validates
their
individual
form
of
masculinity.
In
some
groups
aggression
may
be
a
way
to
recognition
(Cairns,
Neckerman,
Gest,
&
Gareipy,
1988),
the
same
way
peace
is
for
other
peer
groups
(Morell,
2012).
Generally,
whether
a
child
will
or
will
not
be
popular
is
dependent
on
many
factors.
However
academic
and
social
skills
are
consistently
being
main
components
of
a
child’s
popularity
while
aggression
(especially
in
combination
with
the
lack
of
social
skills)
is
negatively
perceived,
with
the
exception
of
early
adolescence
(Shaffer
and
Kipp,
2014:
574).
As
popularity
changes
with
age,
the
period
of
early
adolescence
provides
a
special
‘window’
for
‘tough
boys’
who
use
aggression
as
a
tool
to
achieve
popularity
among
some
of
their
peers
(Ibid.).
Factors
to
violence
and
nonviolence
A
single
factor
cannot
explain
why
some
individuals
adopt
violence;
however,
heterosexual
dominant
masculinity
should
be
‘the
foundation
for
any
realistic
theory
of
violence’
(Heise,
1998:263).
In
a
study
of
South
African
schools,
Hamlall
and
Morrell
identified
the
key
factors
in
rising
up
to
a
fight
as
a
response
to
provocation:
“the
form,
the
social
and
physical
setting,
the
school’s
gender
regime
and,
critically,
the
investment
of
individual
boys
in
particular
constructions
of
masculinity”
(2012).
Boys
are
willing
to
secure,
advocate
or
obey
to
certain
values
as
part
of
the
process
of
constructing
masculinity
(Swain,
2003).
In
their
socialization,
they
compete
with
(or

19. 19
position
themselves
over)
others
as
they
feel
‘entitled’
to
resources
and
status,
which
is
legitimized
and
associated
with
maleness
by
the
society
as
in
Uchendu’s
definition
of
masculinity
(2008:3).
Violence
then,
can
be
performed
to
gain
or
secure
this
power,
or
as
a
defense
against
losing
face.
It
is
more
prevalent
especially
in
the
context
where
both
perpetrators
and
their
witnesses
see
it
as
a
legitimate
mean
(R.W.
Connell
2000).
The
role
of
family,
intervening
against
the
use
of
violence
sends
a
strong
signal
against
aggressive
behavior
of
boys
(Gorman-­‐Smith
et.al,
2004).
Moreover,
research
has
encountered
higher
educational
attainment,
having
a
skill,
a
realm
of
competency
to
be
an
important
factor
in
shaping
non/violent
behavior
(Connell,
2005:
131).
Some
men
have
constructed
their
nonviolent
gender
identity
as
a
reaction
to
trauma—witnessing
masculine
violence
in
their
environment
(Ibid.).
Self-­‐reflection
on
the
‘costs’
of
violent
hegemonic
masculinity
may
thus
also
lead
to
perceiving
violence
and
such
form
of
masculinity
as
unacceptable.
Alternative
gender
role
models
from
their
family
or
friendship
groups
who
support
or
inspire
boys
to
nonviolence
(whether
male
or
female)
is
one
of
the
‘keys’
to
nonviolence,
as
men
must
rely
upon
other
men
for
emotional
support
(Kaufman,
2007:50).
While
individual
psychology
certainly
plays
a
role
in
constructing
masculinities,
Seagal
emphasizes
the
circumstances
and
institutional
dimensions
of
masculinity,
as
masculinities
are
modeled
in
response
to
changes
in
the
attitudes
of
families,
other
men
around
them,
community
and
society
in
general
(1990).
Having
a
meaningful
connection
to
a
mainstream
social
institution
will
be
interesting
dimension
to
explore
especially
in
the
Burundian
context
that
is
marked
by
“broken
institutions
and
indeterminacy”
(Berckmoes,
2014:
49).
2.1.3.
African
masculinities
and
violence
While
studies
have
outlined
several
characteristics
that
are
cross-­‐culturally
associated
with
manhood5
,
there
is
no
universal
masculine
entity
(Connell,
2005:
43).
In
Connell’s
view,
the
Western
ideas
of
masculinity
are
dominant
throughout
the
world,
yet
the
local
patterns
of
masculinity
in
the
developing
world
are
shaped
by
globalization,
imperialism,
colonialism,
and
international
migration
(2005).
The
experience
of
colonization
pressed
African
men
to
accept
the
status
of
subordinate
masculinity
(Daley,
2008:
29).
As
Daley
argues,
factoring
in
almost
thirty
years
of
military
rule,
Burundian
masculinities
have
taken
on
more
violent
and
oppressive
forms
that
become
5
Characteristics
such
as
being
a
provider,
achievement,
recognition
in
front
of
a
social
group
(Gilmore,
1990).

20. 20
locally
hegemonic
using
modern
weapons
of
war
and
becoming
further
entrenched
in
all
areas
of
the
society
(2008:
123).
Most
of
the
classical
academic
literature
adopts
the
violent
view
of
masculinities,
which
are
triggered
by
frustration
and
deprivation
in
the
context
of
economic
crises.
The
hegemonic
ideal
in
Africa
is
that
men
“should
take
risks,
endure
pain,
be
tough
or
stoic,
or
should
have
multiple
sexual
partners...to
prove
that
they
are
“real
men”
(Barker
and
Ricardo,
2007:
8).
Sources
on
African
masculinities
overwhelmingly
ascribe
men’s
violence
in
the
household
to
the
inability
to
fulfill
the
widely
expected
role
of
providing
for
his
family
in
the
changing
social,
economic
or
cultural
context,
which
synthesizes
an
‘identity
crisis’
(Silberschmidt
2000:11).
In
her
work,
Silberschmidt
focuses
on
rural
and
urban
East
Africa,
concluding
that
due
to
this
identity
crisis,
men
adopt
sexually
aggressive
behavior
to
regain
their
sense
of
identity.
Indifferently,
similar
messages
of
violence
are
present
in
some
of
the
academic
literature,
and
overwhelmingly
in
the
policy
literature
on
Burundi.
A
report
on
masculinities
by
the
Peace
Research
Institute
Oslo,
summarizes
the
attitudes
of
Burundians
who
consider
domestic
violence
“as
a
necessity
and,
to
an
extent,
as
a
good
thing
(PRIO,
2012:
23).”
In
the
same
report,
boys
are
said
to
be
growing
up
“with
a
notion
of
manliness…as
someone
who
has
the
power
to
follow
his
own
whims
and
desires,…who
has
the
power…to
make
others,
primarily
their
wives,
wait
on
them
and
fulfill
their
every
wish”
(Ibid.).
The
dominant
view
in
current
social
sciences6
largely
sees
African
men
as
an
‘immanent
danger’
(Sommers,
2007:
2),
which
overrides
any
investigation
of
academic
literature
into
the
complexities
of
men’s
every
day
relations
or
their
positive
behaviors
(Collier,
1998:
22).
A
recognition
of
false
universalism
in
the
main
concept
of
hegemonic
masculinity,
has
led
to
the
sporadic
allowance
that
some
qualities
presently
associated
with
‘manhood’
may
not
necessarily
be
negative
in
all
instances
(Ibid.).
On
the
other
hand,
Uvin
holds
less
pessimistic
(alternative)
view
on
African
masculinities
considering
violence.
With
his
experience
in
Burundi,
he
explains
that
frustrations
are
not
automatically
translating
into
violence
given
the
flexibility
of
Burundian
society
and
the
persisting
traditional
norms
of
the
rural
context
(Uvin,
2013:
Kindle
3251-­‐3262).
While
it
seems
to
be
minority
view
within
the
field
of
masculinities,
it
needs
to
be
seriously
taken
into
account,
as
my
research
was
conducted
in
rural
Burundi.
6
Works
of
Barker
(2005),
Barker
and
Ricardo
(2005,
2008),
Contreras
et
al.
(2012),
Grey
and
Shepherd
(2012)
etc.

21. 21
2.2.
VIOLENCE
To
understand
the
intersection
of
masculinity
and
violence,
this
link
will
be
examined
through
exploring
how
it
is
possible
to
see
masculinity
in
action
during
provocation,
reasoning
and
resolution
of
a
conflict,
which
might
take
violent
or
nonviolent
forms.
2.2.1.
Provocation
and
conflict
In
the
context
of
this
study
on
masculinities,
conflict
and
provocation
are
the
outcomes
of
competitive
relationships
among
boys
and
their
masculinities.
Provocation
(either
verbal
or
nonverbal)
is
“a
challenging
act
to
elicit
response”
and
is
part
of
a
complex
set
of
acts
that
situate
boys
within
a
hierarchy
of
masculinities
(Hamlall
and
Morrell,
2012:
496).
It
challenges
other
boys,
who
are
perceived
as
subordinates
to
the
masculinity
of
the
provocateur,
to
demonstrate
their
gender
identity.
In
this
competitive
process,
the
provocateur
establishes
the
dominance
of
the
hierarchy
as
he
attempts
to
display
the
hegemonic
values
of
maleness
that
are
idealized
in
the
particular
community
or
society
(Connell,
2005).
Boys
might
use
violence
to
achieve
or
defend
their
masculinity
though
coercion.
Rather
than
describing
the
fight,
the
study
will
focus
on
the
first
phase
of
a
conflict:
the
provocation
and
reasoning
of
a
boy
to
engage
in
violence
or
not.7
I
will
identify
the
links
between
particular
kinds
of
conflict
and
various
situational
factors
that
are
influencing
the
choice
of
violence
and
nonviolence
in
that
given
moment
and
how
these
influence
conflict
resolution
among
children.
2.2.2.
Defining
violence
Violence
among
school
children
encompasses
a
wide
spectrum
of
aggressive
behaviors
ranging
from
violent
ways
of
solving
disputes,
unacceptable
ways
of
venting
anger
or
frustration
to
serious
incidents.
As
an
unsuitable
classification
of
violence
can
exclude
or
overlook
its
significant
acts
in
the
lives
of
children,
this
study
adopts
the
flexible
definition
appropriate
to
the
researched
unit
of
analysis
and
the
local
context.
This
research
aims
for
an
inclusive
understanding
of
violence,
not
only
including
the
purely
physical
acts
but
also
its
subtle
and
less
detectable
forms
such
as
humiliation
(as
part
of
provocation)
and
punishment
since
these
can
be
seriously
harmful
to
the
mental
wellbeing
of
a
child.
7
While
the
knowledge
of
the
act
is
valuable
to
assess
the
motivations
for
the
resolution
of
conflict
(who
loses/wins),
it
tells
us
little
about
the
patterns
behind
boys
fighting
and
not
fighting.

22. 22
This
study
is
combining
two
main
discourses:
1)
interpersonal
and
youth
violence
by
the
World
Health
Organization8
and
2)
direct
violence
by
Galtung.9
Both
discourses
complement
each
other
in
recognizing
the
nature
of
children’s
violence
in
the
home,
school
and
in
the
community
but
also
acknowledge
its
roots.
In
merging
these
two
definitions,
violence
for
the
purpose
of
this
study
is
then
defined
as
“an
avoidable
intentional
use
of
physical
force
or
power,
threatened
or
actual,
against
another
individual
or
group
in
order
to
cause
physical
or
psychological
harm,
involving
young
persons
(between
9-­‐18
years)
where
victim
and
offender
can
be
clearly
pointed
out.”
Such
a
definition
brings
up
the
dual
position
of
a
child—
being
victim
as
well
as
perpetrator
or
violence.
While
violent
behavior
such
as
insults,
fighting
and
bullying
can
have
fatal
consequences
they
generally
do
not
result
in
serious
injury.
However,
they
may
have
long-­‐term
implications
for
a
child’s
health
and
development.
It
seems
that
the
experience
with
violence
and
the
fear
of
it
have
similar
effects
(Humphreys,2007:3)
.
In
this
research,
the
concept
of
violence
is
understood
both
as
a
context—
for
the
assessment
of
the
occurrence
of
it
in
the
environment
of
home,
school
and
community
and
also
as
an
act,
by
discovering
the
self-­‐reported
attitudes
and
beliefs
towards
the
use
of
violence
and
a
child’s
personal
experience
both
as
a
victim
and
perpetrator.
As
patterns
of
behavior
transform
over
the
stage
of
a
person’s
growth,
so
too
does
violent
or
aggressive
behavior.
While
direct
violence
is
visible,
it
is
a
complex
phenomenon,
inseparable
from
the
wider
context
and
its
deeper
cultural
and
structural
roots
(Galtung,
1969).
Such
roots
will
be
investigated
in
the
layers
of
the
bioecological
framework,
which
aims
to
map
the
interactions
among
situational,
individual,
societal
and
cultural
factors
influencing
‘masculinity
in
action’
within
the
context
of
the
normalization
of
violence.
Spread
into
all
levels
of
society
and
sustained
by
traditions
and
social
institutions,
the
perception
of
violence
as
a
part
of
daily
life
is
reinforced
and
established
in
the
sense
of
normalcy,
the
incapability
to
change
or
the
accountability
of
its
perpetrators.
8
Violence:
“the
intentional
use
of
physical
force
or
power,
threatened
or
actual,
against
oneself,
another
person,
or
against
a
group
or
community,
that
either
results
in
or
has
a
high
likelihood
of
resulting
in
injury,
death,
psychological
harm,
maldevelopment
or
deprivation”
(WHO,
2002:5).
9
Violence
is
an
“avoidable
impairment
of
fundamental
human
needs
or
life
which
makes
it
impossible
or
difficult
for
people
to
meet
their
needs
or
achieve
their
full
potential.
Threat
to
use
force
is
also
recognized
as
violence'
(Galtung,
1969).

23. 23
2.
3.
BIOECOLOGICAL
FRAMEWORK
One
of
the
main
frameworks
of
this
study
comes
from
American
psychologist
Urie
Bronfenbrenner,
who
is
well
known
for
his
perspectives
on
child
development
as
being
majorly
influenced
by
natural
environments.
Ever
since
1979
when
Bronfenbrenner
first
introduced
his
socioecological
model
of
child
development
(series
of
nested
structures
“like
a
Russian
dolls”;
2005:22),
he
had
continuously
scrutinized
this
model.
It
was
not
until
more
than
a
decade
later
he
added
several
key
factors
to
the
theory,
as
he
believed
that
the
individual
was
overlooked
(especially
his
personal
characteristics).
To
avoid
confusion
with
Bronfenbrenner’s
earlier
work,
this
study
will
use
his
advanced
bioecological
“The
Process-­‐Person-­‐Context-­‐Time”
model.
The
later
version
of
his
framework
is
particularly
helpful
to
this
study
as
it
allows
me
to
grasp
both
the
biological
and
social
factors
shaping
the
interactions
within
a
specific
environment,
which
is
crucial
to
the
fluidity
of
masculinities.
With
the
layer
of
time,
it
permits
us
to
analyze
first,
the
life
span
of
masculinity
development
and
second,
the
momentary
analysis:
masculinity
in
action.
Given
the
common
misuse
of
this
theory
(Tudge
et
al.,
2009:
199)
and
to
ensure
the
quality
of
this
study,
I
will
explain
how
I
will
utilize
the
model
in
each
layer
of
my
study
not
only
as
an
organizational
tool
for
the
analytical
chapters
but
for
a
holistic
application
throughout
this
study.
Context
Situating
a
boy’s
masculinity
to
the
core
of
the
framework,
it
portrays
the
factors
that
emerge
during
the
everyday
interactions
and
relationships
on
the
individual
level
(microsystem),
such
as
contact
with
peers
at
school,
parents
at
home
or
role
models
in
the
community.
The
linkages
between
the
different
microsystems
represent
the
mesosystem
of
masculinities
(light
blue
circle).
These
spaces
do
not
include
individual
himself
but
important
connections
between
different
environments.
These
connections
can
be
both
supportive
to
the
development
of
an
individual
(such
as
cooperation
between
parents
and
teachers
against
violence)
or
they
can
be
unsupportive
(when
boy’s
peer
group
encourage
violence
despite
parents’
efforts
to
stop
boy
from
violence).
PPCT
model
also
includes
a
layer
of
Figure
1:
Bronfenbrenner’s
‘
Process-­‐Person-­‐Context-­‐Time’
model.
Source:
Author

24. 24
exosystem,
which
is
not
immediately
connected
to
the
boy
but
still
influences
the
child’s
socialization
through
other
people
in
the
child’s
life.
For
instance
when
father
needs
work
away
the
family
due
to
lack
of
economic
opportunities
in
the
village
and
returns
home
only
sporadically.
The
absence
of
father
at
home
then
shapes
the
development
of
boy’s
masculinity.
Therefore
the
local
economic
structure
influences
a
boy
through
his
personal
relationships
and
the
stress
or
support
on
those
responsible
for
socializing
him.
Lastly,
the
macrosystem
is
the
most
abstract
and
complex
of
all
these
layers,
as
it
includes
social
expectations,
traditional
beliefs
and
values.
This
layer
influences
what
experiences
the
boy
will
have
and
how
he
will
interpret
them.
A
child’s
macrosystem
is
defined
by
gender,
era,
religion,
political
ideology,
the
culture
and
heritage
(Bronfenbrenner
and
Morris,
1998).
With
research
focused
primarily
on
the
microlevel,
the
study
will
embed
non/violent
behavior
within
the
remaining
layers
of
the
framework.
Process
The
‘proximal
processes’
concept
stands
for
fairly
regular
interactions
between
an
individual
and
other
people,
objects
and
symbols
that
are
in
the
immediate
environment.
In
the
case
of
this
study,
these
interactions
form
boy’s
views
on
gender,
identities
and
the
use
of
violence.
As
these
processes
vary
across
time
and
space,
our
study
will
be
concerned
with
the
age
of
middle
childhood
and
early
adolescence
in
the
environments
most
important
to
this
age
group:
the
community,
home
and
in
particular,
the
school.
Chapter
5
will
elaborate
on
the
central
proposition
of
the
theory:
‘form,
power,
content’,
and
the
direction
of
the
proximal
processes
affecting
the
development
of
the
person.
Person
The
acknowledgement
of
the
biological
and
genetic
dispositions
of
an
individual
is
accounted
for
in
the
understanding
of
a
person
through
the
three
key
characteristics:
demand,
resource
and
force.
These
three
types
of
characteristics
are
essential
as
they
can
significantly
influence
the
direction
and
force
of
proximal
processes
and
therefore
overall,
a
child’s
development.
Personal
characteristics
in
the
model
are
presented
twice:
first,
as
they
influence
processes
and
second,
as
their
developmental
outcomes
(Bronfenbrenner
and
Morris,
1998).
Generally,
demand
characteristics
in
the
PPCT
model
are
understood
as
characteristics,
which
are
obvious
and
apparent
about
individual
such
as
age,
gender,
race
of
physique.
Resource
characteristics
are
less
obvious
and
not
directly
visible.
These
include
both
emotional
resources
(personal
experiences,
skills,
intelligence,
etc.)
and
material
ones
(access
to
food,
housing,
caring
parents,
educational
opportunities

25. 25
etc.).
Lastly,
force
characteristics
include
temperament,
motivations
and
persistence.
I
will
provide
the
list
of
relevant
characteristics
of
a
person
for
this
study
in
the
corresponding
empirical
section.
Time
The
layer
of
time
is
included
by
analyzing
the
specific
interaction
in
the
moment
of
conflict
(microtime),
the
consistent
disciplining
and
upbringing
practices
of
parents,
teachers
and
other
adults,
along
with
the
habits
of
children
themselves
in
the
meso-­‐
time.
Including
boys
from
age
9-­‐16,
we
can
also
observe
the
changes
in
masculinities
over
macrotime
and
compare
the
display
of
masculinity
between
primary
school
and
secondary
school
students.
The
developmental
trajectories
of
people
from
the
two
different
age
cohorts—the
older
boys
had
the
experience
of
a
war
conflict
themselves
while
younger
participants
remember
only
the
time
of
post-­‐conflict
and
peace.

26. 26
2.
4.
CONCEPTUAL
SCHEME
Description
of
the
diagram
The
diagram
positions
a
boy
in
a
moment
of
provocation
with
another
individual
or
group.
The
conflict
(grey
dotted
background)
is
taking
place
either
at
home,
at
school
or
in
the
community.
Masculinity
plays
a
significant
role
in
navigating
the
situation
of
conflict.
The
construction
of
masculinity
has
been
forming
for
years
through
interactions
with
factors
at
the
macro-­‐,
meso-­‐,
and
micro-­‐levels
of
the
bioecological
framework
(green
and
blue
concentric
circles)
and
in
combination
with
one’s
own
personal
resources
(red
circle
‘Person’).
Boys,
assessing
the
situational
factors
(such
as
the
presence
of
other
peers,
the
strength
of
the
aggressor
or
the
possible
consequences
of
using
violence
etc.)
then
consider
an
appropriate
action.
The
interplay
(+)
between
his
masculinity
and
situational
factors
motivates
‘masculinity
in
action,’
the
choice
between
the
use
violence
or
nonviolence
in
solving
the
conflict).
The
two
arrows
are
therefore
leading
towards
these
two
possible
outcomes—violence
and
nonviolence.
Figure
2:
Conceptual
Diagram.
Source:
Author

27. 27
3
METHODOLOGY
3.1
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
The
objective
of
the
study
is
to
examine
the
different
aspects
of
boys’
socialization,
context,
factors
and
mechanism
behind
the
construction
and
display
of
violent
or
nonviolent
masculinities.
The
main
research
question
is
therefore
as
follows:
“In
which
ways,
and
by
what
personal,
situational
and
sociocultural
factors
are
boys’
masculinities
constructed
and
played
out
in
the
rural
context
of
Nyabiraba
commune,
Bujumbura
Rural?”
A
number
of
subquestions
guided
my
research
and
provided
the
building
blocks
to
answer
my
main
research
question:
1)
What
is
the
relationship
between
violence
and
the
qualities
associated
with
dominant
masculinities
among
boys?
2)
How
are
the
specific
sociocultural
and
personal
factors
influencing
the
construction
of
masculinity
of
boys?
3)
Which
aspects
of
conflict
situation
impact
boys’
decisions
to
display
his
masculinity
in
violent
or
nonviolent
way?
3.2.
METHODOLOGICAL
POSITIONING:
BETWEEN
CULTURE
AND
MORALITY
Although
taking
a
child-­‐centered
and
participative
approach
in
my
study,
in
reality,
the
planning,
process
or
executing
the
research
is,
inevitably,
in
favor
of
the
adult
researcher
rather
than
the
children
themselves
(Christensen
and
James,
2008:
13).
Not
only
the
crucial
decisions
are
made
by
an
adult
but
also
the
stories,
experiences,
opinions
and
relationships
are
left
to
the
adult’s
interpretation.
While
this
study
is
seeking
to
explain
violence
in
the
cultural,
historical
and
socioeconomic
context
of
Burundi,
I
cannot
but
fully
agree
with
Horne
who
is
against
the
interpretation
of
violence
as
just
being
situated
within
its
context,
giving
a
way
to
cultural
relativism.
The
consequences
of
violence
for
its
victims
are
very
real
and
painful
and
there
could
be
no
consolidation
to
a
child
with
this
approach.
The
approach
that
I

28. 28
took,
i.e,
Moore's
‘critical
sympathy’
(in
Hendrick,
2008:49;
see
Box
1)
addresses
both
the
tension
of
the
adult
researcher
in
child-­‐
centered
research,
and
the
risk
of
too
much
cultural
relativism.
His
quote
does
not
only
lead
me
to
be
skeptical
towards
victorious
adults,
but
also
towards
victorious
children—the
ones
who
perpetrate
violence
against
others.
That
being
said,
my
skepticism
translated
into
more
detailed
questions,
trying
to
understand
the
roots
of
behavior.
3.3.
RESEARCH
METHODS
To
compensate
limitations
of
individual
methods,
the
study
has
employed
a
mixed
method
approach,
helping
the
triangulation
of
the
results.
Following
the
fundamental
principle
of
mixed
method
research,
I
will
attempt
to
combine
different
techniques,
methods,
approaches,
concepts
and
languages
into
a
single
study
(Johnson
and
Turner
in
Johnson
and
Onweegbuzie,
2004:
17).
In
my
research,
I
have
combined
the
strengths
of
qualitative
research
focused
on
induction
(discovering
patterns)
with
quantitative
research
working
with
deduction,
confirming
those
patterns
for
the
larger
population.
The
themes
and
questions
for
survey
(conducted
towards
the
end
of
my
stay)
were
identified
during
the
two
months
of
qualitative
data
collection.
Therefore,
the
‘mixing’
of
both
methods
was
conducted
consequently,
adopting
the
across-­‐stage
mixed
model
(Johnson
and
Onwuegbuzie,
2004).
All
interviews,
participatory
sessions
and
surveys
were
lead
in
Kirundi,
children’s
native
language,
as
the
majority
of
them
do
not
understand
French
or
their
expression
is
limited.
The
researcher
cooperated
with
two
experienced
Burundian
translators,
male
and
female.
After
a
trial
period,
children
seemed
to
be
more
comfortable
with
the
personality
of
the
female
translator;
all
interviews
were
therefore
conducted
with
her
collaboration
(see
section
3.4.3.
for
Limitations).
Conducting
research
with
a
translator
in
Kirundi
poses
additional
challenges.
For
example,
there
is
no
single
word
to
express
‘violence’
in
the
local
language.
As
my
translators
explained
to
me,
questions
had
to
be
worded
very
carefully
to
ask
either
about
domestic
violence
“amabi
akorerwa
mungo
(mu
miryango)”,
sexual
violence
“gufatwa
kunguru”,
abuse
“uguhohotera”,
emotional
violence
‘uguturubikwa”,
political
violence
“ukutumvikara
bifatiye
ku’umigambwe”
or
bad
behavior
“ubugizi
bwa
nabi”.
In
the
same
manner,
the
local
language
provides
separate
vocabulary
for
arguments
between
adults
and
arguments
between
children.
Children’s
arguments
(“gusinda”)
are
simple
misunderstandings,
that
are
easy
to
solve
and
do
not
involve
much
personal
Critical
sympathy
“The
significant
issue
is
the
universalism
of
the
anguish
of
the
oppressed…not
the
apparent
integrity
of
cultural
relativism.
Scholars
would
do
well
to
have
a
(critical)
sympathy
with
the
victims…and
skepticism
about
the
claims
of
the
victorious.”
-­‐
Barrington
Moore
(Box
1)