What’s “<i>Inkyara</i>”? Dynamics over Masculinities

<p>In Japan, gender and education studies have shown that children and youth construct boundaries between men and women. This trend has become especially prominent since the late 1990s when post-structuralism emerged under the influence of Europe and the United States. These studies were significant in highlighting children and youth as agents in constructing the gender-binary category.<br><br>While these studies have shed light on inter-gender differentiation, they have neglected to consider how intra-gender differentiation is constructed. Not only were empirical studies not conducted, but there were also problems with the methodology used. When feminist post-structuralism was imported from the West into Japan, the rejection of socialization theory was emphasized. Gender and education studies in Japan, which are influenced by post-structuralism, reject two aspects of the previous studies: the researcher’s a priori definition of the gender-binary category, and the socialization and internalization schema (Nakanishi 2004). They emphasized a focus on contexts in which agents defined and constructed the gender-binary category. It follows that they could only analyze cases where agents definitely state gender-binary categories, for example, ‘men’, ‘women’, ‘girl’and ‘boy.’ In other words, the researcher cannot describe intra-gender-differentiation, because when slang is used to name an emerging intra-gender differentiation, agents are only classified as not having stated a definite gender-binary category.<br><br>In this paper, I explore “inkyara,” a slang word in general use among Japanese junior high school and high school students. The focus is on how students use “inkyara” as an interpretational framework that operates in different contexts among high school male students, where their analysis of masculinity is embedded in processes that regulate gender in male and female high school students. The data for this paper were obtained from ethnography and interviews which I conducted at X high school, focusing on a male student group called “yanchanakora.”<br><br>The findings are as follows.<br><br>First, whether students do so consciously or unconsciously, “inkyara” does not refer to a specific type of student. Instead, it functions as an interpretative framework that is applied to all students. Second, “inkyara” has various meanings depending on the context. For example, this framework means a deviation from heterosexual objects when applied to female students. On the other hand, it involves becoming an object of aggression when applied to male students. Third, as the grade gradually increases, students come to reject this framework. In this process, masculinity is redefined and the focus changes from a principle of aggression to a principle of breadwinning. In addition, students who are in a hegemonic position in this group prompt this redefining, while students on the periphery stick to the principle of aggression.<br><br>These ethnographic findings have several implications for gender and education studies in Japan. First, it is important that we focus not only on inter-gender differentiation but also on intra-gender differentiation. Second, frameworks such as “inkyara,” which are used by youth, are not static categories. Rather, they are dynamic categories that are constructed in the contest for hegemony over masculinities in student subcultures. Third, what we need to develop gender and education studies is an approach that does not deny the meta-definition or schema about gender by a researcher, but provides appropriate definitions according to reality. We should also carefully draw out how these definitions are constructed and transformed in different contexts.</p>