One more last working class hero

particular not to challenge sexism 106 . Goffman’s work brilliantly portrays how complex social interaction can be and
how all manner of tests are set as pitfalls to test/destroy an image (see Goffman 1997a 1997c 107 ). I cannot overemphasise
how skilled firefighters are at testing those around them (see all Chapters). Each time I met with firefighters they tested
me and I realised that my response would influence my access, or even if I got access at all. On one visit to a firestation, I
was subject to what I have labelled the boob test. This is a near perfect example of firefighters’ sexism, how they test each
other and how they tested me.
29
2.4.4. The boob test
At one station a peer group leader passed round a picture of a topless woman for all to ‘admire’. Experiential knowledge
alerted me that this was a test, to see if the insider status I claimed extended to supporting firefighters’ heterosexist and
sexist agendas (see Chapter 5). Firefighters’ apparent innocent passing round of a picture was a test of where my loyalties
lay in regard to equal opportunities. This was not unexpected, because I was making a claim to access on the basis of a
shared dividend of having been a firefighter. Therefore, this firefighter needed to know what shared understandings we
had before deciding how much access I was to be given. In similar situations, many pro-feminists may react with disdain
and fly feminist colours, but that would have risked exclusion (see Hsiung 1996: 132). My aim in doing my research was
to be an insider, so I used my experiential knowledge, indicated “dramaturgical loyalty” (Goffman 1959: 212), smiled and
then handed on the picture. Like others I suspended my ‘feminist’ approach and participated in a charade to keep insider
access (see Hearn 1993: 45-47; Lal 1996: 196; Higate 1998). Through this one act I recognised why so many researchers
consider it necessary to carry out their own particular form of covert research. I am not comfortable with deceiving my
subjects, but I am not naïve either.
2.4.5. Risking my new identity
However, there was a second crucial lesson I learned from the boob test, and this concerns my attempts to change my
behaviour. When I chose not to confront the gawking eyes of the firefighters’ sexist test and looked at the picture of the
women with the 52” bust, I recollected the ‘pleasure’ of sexism. Resembling a reformed smoker who accepts just one
cigarette, that one incident could have damaged the tender shoots of my pro-feminist ambitions; for me an emptying
thought. As I have already suggested I am much impressed with Hochschild’s notion, that “surface-acting” can develop
into “deep-acting” (Hochschild 1983: 54) if an actor immerses in a role (see Goffman 1959: 252-253). In particular, I
argue throughout this report this was how the fire service initially reinforced my childhood socialisation and completed
my education as a patriarchal male. As an 18 year old, I had first ‘surface-acted’ to conform to social pressures to be like
other males around me (see Seidler 1977). Before that, I followed the boys reported in Prendergast and Forrest (1998) and
went from shortie to ’ardnut in the school playground. Then, when I joined the fire service, I willingly accepted and
immersed myself into a role that then became a ‘natural to me’ way of life. As I gained status, my behaviour turned to
‘deep acting’ and when my turn came, I ‘persuaded’ probationers to join firefighters’ patriarchal hegemony. Currently in
a reversal of the earlier process, I am consciously acting out a part with the intention of socialising myself towards profeminism.
However, I have to be careful; nothing is set in concrete and I remain acutely aware of this.
2.4.6. Do the ends justify the means?
I take no pride in my hypocrisy/acting when I put the research before my pro-feminist stance. I am also disturbed by the
temptation sexism still appears to hold for me. However, I am convinced that if my research is going to achieve any of its
pro-feminist aims, I must provide examples of firefighters’ day-to-day actions. Then I hope firefighters will follow my
analysis and make a choice to change some of their negative behaviour. To do this I have to maintain access, and I realise
that any attempt to challenge firefighters’ views during the research could result in immediate exclusion by gatekeepers
defending their hegemonic masculinity or provide less valid data. The fire service has all but avoided scrutiny to date, and
I found access very difficult (see next section). The possibility of raising the consciousness of firefighters in a macro
sense after this research is more important than an attempt to help the few I met within the research. The need is to finish
this report and work towards a publication. Then I can intervene more actively. It is clear I am not alone in this dilemma,
because feminists have also collected data using some form of cover. Lal (1996) and Katz (1996) indicate that without a
“willingness to be untruthful for strategic reasons” (Katz 1996: 172), they would not have achieved access. Abu-Lughod
(1991: 161, 1993) followed a similar understanding by seeing herself as a “halfie” (half Palestinian and half American),
who, in order to gain access, rotated between being a Palestinian woman in the field and a feminist academic out of it.
Berik also used a similar approach when she adopted ‘alien’ gender norms to access a Turkish village (Berik 1996: 61).
Mascarenhas-Keyes was particularly resourceful when she became a “chameleon, multiple native” (1987: 182), who
changed her dress and persona according to the religious perspective of her Eastern informants. It appears that without
passing, “loyalty tests” (Warren 1988: 37), access will reduce. I have, it appears, done what others have done and
106 Late in the research I did challenge a senior academic at the Fire Service College about sexism and his sexist attitude is reported in the conclusion.
107 Goffman (1997c) argues that image management is so practised that it appears as a ‘natural’ form of behaviour, especially when operating in known
environments. However, behaviour is not natural and this becomes clearer when operating in an unfamiliar territory, especially when there is a need to
be accepted/respected. We then take part in a complex process in which we ‘feel’ for the proper way to act. One way we do this is to watch our
audience and use their reactions, almost as a mirror, to identify if we are presenting the correct image. Giddens (1979) suggest that as skilled,
knowledgeable agents capable of reflexivity we can think for ourselves and reflect on the effects of our conversations (see Hochschild 1983).