Final answer:
The discussion of hegemonic masculinity suggests that the identity of masculinity in boys stems from socially constructed roles and expectations rather than an inherent nature. It is highlighted that men's identities have historically evolved and been contested, and societal scripts often prescribe gender roles that can result in sanctions for noncompliance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding Hegemonic Masculinity
The question provided addresses how the identity of hegemonic masculinity, as adopted by boys, is shaped not by an inevitable path towards a labor trade but rather by social constructs and fears. Modern discussions on masculinity challenge the view that men uniformly benefit from male privilege, particularly in cross-cultural contexts. Cultural anthropologist Daniel Jordan Smith's work in Igbo communities shows that becoming a man is a constant, active effort filled with social challenges and pressures, rather than simply a given based on male birth.
The historical perspective on masculinity indicates a shift in the definition of male identity. Previously centered around patriarchal duty and work ethic, masculinity began to be defined in opposition to femininity and in terms of physical prowess and martial ability, as seen with the rise of figures like Jack Dempsey and the celebration of soldiers.
The phrase "boys will be boys" exemplifies the social script that justifies certain behaviors in boys and men as natural, yet this is a learned behavior through socialization. This scripting of gender roles sets expectations for behavior, which can sometimes lead to negative sanctions when individuals do not conform to these roles. Theorists like Carol Gilligan have suggested that these gendered scripts serve different social functions, with boys often socialized for objective rule-based environments, while girls are socialized for more nurturing and flexible roles.