Positioning a ‘mature’ self in interactive practices: How adolescent males negotiate ‘physical attraction’ in group talk

Neill Korobov, Michael Bamberg

British Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2004 · 145 citations · 35 references

Concepts

TL;DR

These moments are crucial for negotiating peer status, distinguishing childhood from adolescence, and establishing a normatively heterosexual self during adolescence. The study examines how adolescent boys (12–15) achieve a sense of maturity by managing heterosexuality in group interaction, showing that maturity emerges from talk rather than developmental tasks. The authors analyze moments of negotiation about physical attraction and identify three discursive strategies—underscoring non‑literality, denials with concessions, and differentiation through caricature—to manage heterosexual desire. They conclude that maturity is produced through flexible, fragile identity projections that continuously refine finely tuned positioning skills.

Abstract

This article presents a discursive psychological approach in examining the ways that adolescent boys (ages 12–15 years) accomplish a sense of ‘maturity’ by bringing off and managing certain features of ‘heterosexuality’ in group interaction. We focus on and analyse moments when the boys negotiate implicit challenges, make evaluations and offer assessments concerning their physical and sexual attraction to girls' looks. These moments are highly important for negotiating their peer status, for working toward a distinction between ‘childhood’ and ‘adolescence’, and for marking a normatively heterosexual self within the burgeoning institution of adolescence. We will specifically show how ‘heterosexual desire’ is carefully managed in group discussions where the boys participate in normative heterosexuality, but in ways that are nevertheless designed to appear mature and knowing, rather than shallow, naïve or sexist. Three discursive methods of negotiation are identified and described in detail: (1) underscoring the non‐literality of actions by appealing to motives, (2) denials with built‐in concessions, and (3) differentiation through caricature. Couched within the proposed discursive framework, we are reversing the traditional logic of developmental approaches to ‘maturation’. Rather than viewing maturation as the effect of resolving developmental tasks, we argue that ‘maturity’ comes to existence in the way talk is accomplished; that is, as highly flexible and fragile projections of identity that involve a continuous refinement of ‘finely tuned positioning skills'.

References

35