The Heterosexual and Homosexual Male Friendships in The History Boys - Research Paper Example

? Heterosexual and Homosexual Male Friendships in The History Boys (2006 Interpersonal Communication Strategies in Relationship Building SantaBarbara City College COMM 101 16 November 2013 Intimacy is not something that British and American men, in general, seek in their male-male social relationships (Bowman, 2009, p. 171). Self-disclosure, nevertheless, includes varying forms of intimacy, and even men disclose private information to their male friends, depending on their perceptions of privacy boundaries, assessment of rewards/costs of disclosure, and decision for wanting a closer relationship, among other factors (Derlega et al., 2008, pp. 116-117). Homosexual and heterosexual men, however, may have different interpersonal communication strategies. This paper analyzes the interpersonal communication strategies of homosexual and heterosexual adolescents in the film The History Boys by Cusack and Hytner (2006). It illustrates that whatever sexual orientation these adolescents have, they use communication cues to form target impressions that can start and maintain social relationships, but there are individual-based differences on how they guard and break personal privacy boundaries, depending on their privacy rules on self-disclosure. The History Boys illustrates the controversial, but engaging, preparation of a group of young, intelligent, but randy, teenagers of Cutlers' Grammar School for their university entrance exams in the most prestigious universities, Oxford and Cambridge. The Headmaster (Clive Merrison) believed that Mrs. Lintott (Frances de la Tour) and Hector (Richard Griffiths) were admirably training these students for the coveted goal of getting into the said universities, but he still hired the help of an ambitious teacher, Irwin (Stephen Campbell Moore), to give his students an extra edge. Irwin became extra close to Dakin (Dominic Cooper) and Posner (Samuel Barnett) because of their admiration toward him. Irwin, however, got more than he bargained for, as a teacher with possible tenure and career advancement path in Cutlers, when his gender, as well as Dakin’s and Posner’s sexual orientations, revealed sexual tensions that unraveled during his teaching stint for his students. The History Boys demonstrates the various purposes of education, which can also lead to self-knowledge and self-revelation. Interpersonal communication strategies rely on communication cues that people exploit to manage impressions that will, in turn, help them in attaining social and communication goals. Communication cues refer to a wide range of verbal and non-verbal expressions that people do not always directly state or show, but rather, they are more of personally observed (Griffin, 2009, p. 139). Impression formation pertains to the process of creating mental images, or impressions, about other people, by using the cues that they project to their communication partners (Griffin, 2009, p. 139). Seiter et al. (2009) described impression management as a process of managing communicative behaviors to form desired personal images (p. 2). Dakin, for instance, wants to send a “bad boy” image to his fellow male classmates and friends. In the beginning of the film, boys lined up to see their grades, and some of them rejoiced over their high grades (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). When Dakin arrived, he said that he already knew his academic standing last night, and then he looked playfully at Fiona (Georgina Taylor), the Headmaster’s secretary-receptionist. Without even saying anything verbal, his non-verbal behavior indicates he did something sexual or romantic with Fiona last night. He wanted to send the impression that he was a sexually active adolescent, which his friends considered “cool,” since they teased him with pride afterwards (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Male-male relationships involve sending diverse communication cues to maintain their social relations. Teacher-student relations portray rich communication cues too. Hector was popular to his students because of his charming personality and intellectually engaging communication style, which the Headmaster found to be too unconventional at times. After the students learned that they would be preparing for their forthcoming university exams, Mrs. Lintott and Hector arrived. Hector told them that “good grades” gave a “longer sentence” (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). He satirized the idea of studying more after a semester of studying hard, but at the same time, he made learning sound fun because he seemed like a teacher who did not want boring classes. He appeared as a friend to his students, not a strict mentor, when compared to the Headmaster, because of the impression of friendliness that he sent to his students. Another example of impression management from Hector was during his first class with his students. He hit Timms (James Corden) in the head for using the word “Nancy” or gay in describing a famous poet (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Dakin jokingly said that he could report him for physical violence against his students, yet, the class atmosphere was not threatening, but cordial (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Hector is assessed as successful in portraying the image of a “cool” teacher who had rapport with his students. The Headmaster, on the contrary, was strict and uptight. He even ridiculed Lockwood (Andrew Knott) for wearing a milkman’s attire as part of his part-time job, as if being a milkman was the last thing that he wanted his students to be (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). The Headmaster desired to create an impression of a stringent, traditional educator, whose idea of education is turning students into successful graduates from prestigious universities and pursuing lucrative careers in the future. One more example of a teacher’s management of impression is from Irwin. In his first class with his students, he called all of his students’ papers “dull” (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Immediately, he projected the image of a teacher who would not be easily pleased because he did not want conformity. He wanted originality, no matter how controversial it was. These are examples of differences in how educators exhibited themselves in front of their students and their fellow males, depending on the social goals they wanted to attain. The next communication term that applies to the film is privacy. Privacy pertains to the right that people believe they have with regards to their private information (Griffin, 2009, p. 168). Private information refers to information that a person holds and that he/she feels must be controlled (Griffin, 2009, p. 169). Disclosure of private information is the expression of private information to third parties (Griffin, 2009, p. 169). Boundary ownership stands for the rights and responsibilities of the co-owners of private information regarding the keeping and disclosing of private information (Griffin, 2009, p. 174). A shareholder is a confidant who is completely dedicated to the handling of private information, according to privacy rules, where privacy rules are explicit and/or implicit rules about private information (Griffin, 2009, p. 174). Boundary permeability is the extent of information flow across privacy boundaries (Griffin, 2009, p. 174). Petronio asserted that privacy can be depicted as a metaphor of privacy boundaries, which depict how people think they see the boundaries between public and private information. Derlega et al. (2008) explained, using Petronio’s Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPMT), that what people consider as private impacts their self-disclosure behaviors (p. 116). They argued that factors, particularly consideration of costs-versus-benefits and desire for openness and privacy in relationships affect their self-disclosure decisions (Derlega et al., 2008, p. 116). After their class with Hector, the students talked about the meaning of riding with Hector. Dakin revealed to Posner that Hector was a “homosexual” and a “sad f*ck,” suggesting that he groped his students, but not forcefully, and that they had the right to resist these advances (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). When Scripps (Jamie Parker) rode with Hector, for instance, the latter groped his sexual organ during a traffic stop. These students were aware of what Hector was doing to them during these bike rides, but Posner just knew about it. They had privacy rules that they easily break when they were talking to their fellow male classmates. Hector’s sexuality was his private information, but Dakin disclosed it effortlessly to Posner. Among these male students, boundary permeability was high because private information flowed easily among them. Another example of boundary permeability is between male teachers and students. Houser (2005) explained that teachers are expected to show concern for their students and to establish affinity (p. 216). Irwin was quite frank in telling his students that their writings were not wrong, but they were all dull and did not give them a chance of entering Cambridge or Oxford (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). He even blatantly told them about what he thought about the people who were truly interested of their entry into high-standing universities, such as their parents and the Headmaster (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). In doing so, he was trying to build trust with his students. He was showing that if he could be that frank with their mediocrity, they would also trust him in helping them get the mediocrity out of their mindsets. In other words, Irwin did not have a strong privacy boundary when it comes to disclosing to his students what they were and what they were not. He made it sure that the boundary ownership on his students’ lack of inventiveness in their writing was known to them too. At the same time, Irwin built affinity with his students through being candid in his perceptions of their work and mindsets. Irwin showed concern for their welfare by being frank, which pushed the boundaries of their privacy and opened them all to a more truthful understanding of their further intellectual needs. To understand self-disclosure and privacy more, privacy rules are discussed next. Petronio determined the five factors of privacy rules: culture, gender, motivation, context, and risk/benefit ratio (Griffin, 2009, pp. 170-171). Averbeck (2010) explored the role of irony and humor in interpersonal communication that can affect privacy rules too. He talked about the expectancy violation that resulted from using irony in conversations (Averbeck, 2010, p. 357). In their outside-class lecture, Irwin argued that truth did not matter in writing about history (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). By saying this, he risked telling his students the idea that lying is acceptable in school. Instead, he talked about Germany not being ready for war, and yet the world blamed Germany (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). He argued that the world charged Germany for starting the war because so many people died already. Using memorials was not about “lest we forget,” for it was about “lest we remember,” Irwin said (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Irwin disclosed something private and ironic about the education system and history- they were both not always truthful because truth did not matter all the time in the past, and even, in the present and the future. Irwin suggested that people preferred to forget, not remember, in honor of the dead who could no longer speak and say the truth (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Irwin would have appeared lame to his students for being so complex in defining the truth, but he did not. By violating the expectations of students regarding history and education, he elevated his status as a teacher. He forced his students to think about history and their own understanding of it, as Dakin applied it to his sexual advances toward Fiona. For Irwin, culture affects his disclosure of private information about history because as an English man, he is considered open-minded. Perhaps for others, he would be seen as arrogant for even thinking that Germany was innocent of its sins, but it did not matter because his culture allowed openness of ideas. Gender is another factor, where Irwin’s male gender allows him to be candid to his male students. Motivation is critical, because he wanted to motivate his students to go beyond what is known. He urged them to explore what teachers and history do not explicitly say, because though the unknown may not be the whole truth, they may have some grains of truth in them. Context was important also to privacy rules because Irwin wanted to make an essential point to his students. To discuss history, his students must not be blind to the various sides of the truth, because the truth is the truths, depending on who says it. Finally, the benefits of exposure are greater than the risks. Irwin knew that his students were smart enough to know the truth about the truth- that they need to know more to be able to pass their university exams. Irwin’s self-disclosure achieved its purpose of affinity and driving important points about history. One more example of self-disclosure comes from Dakin. Bowman (2009) stressed that though males were not always as intimate as women, they do have intimate moments with their friends, where intimacy pertained to self-disclosure (p. 217). He noted that men who disclose more about themselves to others got more social support from the latter (Bowman, 2009, p. 217). After Irwin’s what-is-truth discussion, Dakin talked about his sexual advances with Fiona in war terms. He told Scripps and Posner that Fiona was his “Western Front” (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). He could not have sex with her yet because to touch “no man’s land” was not in her plans, but he got to the second base at least (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Dakin was quite open with private information regarding him and Fiona. He did not have stringent privacy rules with Scripps and Posner because he considered them as friends. To discuss the factors of privacy rules more, like Irwin, Dakin is a British adolescent who did not shy away from self-disclosure, especially when sex was involved. As a male, he also saw his sexual stories as manifestations of his machismo, which fits the context of male-male friendship. His motivation was to get social support and to build closer relationships with his friends. For the context, Dakin related his sexual interests to war, which connected their recent class discussion and his need for self-disclosure to his friends. The risks were low because his friends did not reveal this secret to Fiona. The benefits of intimacy and stronger relationship were greater for Dakin. Dakin’s decision for self-disclosure served his social and communication needs. One more example of self-disclosure comes from Posner. Posner showed that even though he was gay, he was not afraid to tell it to others, including Irwin. One time, Posner disclosed to Irwin that he was gay and in love with Dakin. He told his teacher: “I'm a Jew... I'm small... I'm homosexual... and I live in Sheffield... I'm f*cked” (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). His disclosure shows that not all homosexuals are afraid of revealing their sexual orientation to others. Irwin might have been a reluctant confidant, because knowing this made him somewhat uncomfortable, but nonetheless, as a shareholder of the private information, he did his job of helping Posner understand his identity more. To analyze Posner’s self-disclosure approach, as a British teenager, he has a lot more to lose than other more open (to gay sexuality) cultures. He even mentioned that he was Jewish, which was also not open to gay sexuality. His gender, however, helped disclose his identity better. He was not any ordinary man who was afraid to look vulnerable. He was a homosexual who wanted to embrace his gender as part of his identity, and not a “phase,” as some would describe it (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). In addition, Posner was motivated to disclose his gender to Irwin as part of catharsis and to get support. The context was even more important because Posner recognized that Dakin was in love with Irwin. By disclosing his gender to Irwin, Posner might also be gauging how Irwin felt about gay people. Moreover, Posner risked a great deal in saying he was gay to a teacher. He did not consider that Irwin might disclose the information to others. Posner focused more on the advantages of sharing private information with someone he thought he could trust. The disclosure might have made him felt better because of the benefits of catharsis and knowing that his teacher did not condemn him at all. Irwin, however, was an example of a closed homosexual who did not want to disclose his gender to others, especially his students. Dakin, however, after knowing that they all passed the university exams, was brave in advancing sexually toward Irwin. Dakin asserted that he may not be gay, but he was willing to be open to his sexual feelings toward his professor: “I'm not [gay], but it's the end of term; I've got into Oxford; I thought we might push the boat out” (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). He shocked Irwin who was not expecting Dakin to be so bold. Dakin took advantage of his teacher’s surprise by asserting that Irwin should not be afraid of who he is. He told Irwin: “I'm just kicking the tyres on this one but, further to the drink, what I was really wondering was whether there were any circumstances in which there was any chance of your sucking me off...” (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). Dakin added that Irwin was “scared shitless” (Cusack & Hytner, 2006). In terms of self-disclosure of his gender, Irwin did not want this piece of him to be evident to his students. His privacy rules are much tighter compared to Posner and Dakin. It could be because of his age and the context of his situation, being a teacher to his students. Mrs. Lintott already expressed to Irwin that he should not be involved with his students sexually. Irwin understood the risks of self-disclosure of his sexuality, so he remained silent about it. Dakin changed that by being so sexually aware and inviting. Nonetheless, nothing happened between Irwin and Dakin because time eased the sexual tension between them. Despite the breaking of privacy boundaries, they remained faithful shareholders of private information about Irwin’s sexuality. The main interpersonal communication similarities between homosexual and heterosexual boys are their intentions to manage impressions through diverse communication cues and their discreet non-verbal methods in attaining relationship goals. They used cues that served their social and individual needs. The primary difference in the communication strategies occurred in individual levels, and not based on gender, where some homosexual characters tended to be more open and lose with their privacy boundaries than some homosexual ones. Furthermore, the male characters did not specifically talk about privacy rules because of expectations of privacy boundary that was more porous toward people they trust. Finally, the film showed that competent communication is critical to male social relationships because it helps them in properly sending and interpreting communication cues. Competent communication also requires knowing and respecting privacy boundaries through implicit and explicit privacy rules. Competent communication, hence, is fundamental to relational communication that builds and sustains human relationships. References Averbeck, J.M. (2010). Irony and language expectancy theory: Evaluations of expectancy violation outcomes. Communication Studies, 61(3), 356-372. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from Communications/Media Databases. Bowman, J.M. (2009). The influences of attribution, context, and heterosexual self-presentation on perceived appropriateness of self-disclosure in same-sex male friendships. Communication Research Reports, 26(3), 215-227. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from Communications/Media Databases. Cusack, P. (Producer), & Hytner, N. (Director). (2006). The history boys [Motion picture]. United Kingdom: Fox Searchlight Pictures. Derlega, V.J., Winstead, B.A., Mathews, A., & Braitman, A.L. (2008). Why does someone reveal highly personal information? Attributions for and against self-disclosure in close relationships. Communication Research Reports, 25(2), 115-130. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from Communications/Media Databases. Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Houser, M. (2005). Are we violating their expectations? Instructor communication expectations of traditional and nontraditional students. Communication Quarterly, 53(2), 213-228. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from Communications/Media Databases. Seiter, J.S., Weger, H., Kinzer, H.J., & Jensen, A.S. (2009). Impression management in televised debates: The effect of background nonverbal behavior on audience perceptions of debaters' likeability. Communication Research Reports, 26(1), 1-11. Retrieved November 13, 2013 from Communications/Media Databases. Read More