One more last working class hero

other firefighters policing their masculinity (see Chapters 3-5). Firefighters use these skills to bring their own agendas
to interviews and build images for a researcher (as well as their senior officers, other firefighters and the public). I
consider that whilst some of the data that follows could equally be introduced later in the report, it is appropriate in the
methodology chapter because it gives a good insight into how firefighters might try to avoid scrutiny and control what
they reveal. It also contextualises my arguments in a ‘hands-on’ way for firefighters and I am sure they will recognise
their behaviour.
31
2.5.1. Firefighter’s ability to talk
Throughout this report firefighters are shown as gregarious talkers, especially about The Job and in the conclusion it will
be shown that firefighters’ conversations are instrumental in the way they develop and police their masculinity. Chapters
4 and 5 will show that the policing element of this process is important to anyone researching in the fire service, because it
means that firefighters are often cautious about what they say. In particular, Chapter 4 will suggest that firefighters’
conversations take place within an informal hierarchy, and that probationers must accept this hierarchy before they are
taught their occupational skills. One rite of passage to acceptance in the hierarchy, requires that probationers spend about
six months listening to peer group leaders say before participating in conversations (see Chapters 3 and 4). Listening, also
teaches probationers (and all firefighters) to take care when they do eventually participate in discussions. Any slip,
particularly any chance revelation of weakness, however minor, can become an inroad that the watch may then exploit
during a windup: a situation colloquially seen as fire service humour and a favourite pastime amongst firefighters (see
Chapter 4).
Firefighters’ behaviour at these times appears to be far from being humorous. What they identify as ‘a laugh’ and a
testing process, I identify as cultural policing (see Chapter 4; Mac an Ghaill 1996: 68). Firefighters work within what
might be described as a Foucaultian panoptican (see Chapters 3-5; Sheridan 1980; Rabinow 1986). The watch, watch
each other and themselves all the time and because firefighters recognise that others are watching this regulates their
behaviour. Firefighters rationalise their windups as a necessary process, in their life or death occupation; one that ensures
each team member is up to the task (see Chapters 3 and 5). However, the windup does not only enforce dictates necessary
for firefighting and safety. Firefighters also police their masculinity in a wider hegemonic sense with their humour.
Innocent conversations, supported by the windup, are the essence of firefighters’ informal hierarchy. In particular,
conversations are the source of the understandings that firefighters will fit-in with, and the watch will identify those who
might resist and require persuasion to conform (and to test researchers, see boob test above). To avoid the gaze of the
watch, firefighters remain alert to hidden agendas in any conversation and are careful about what they say. ‘Informal’
cultural policing apart, firefighters’ adroitness at avoiding/diverting ‘the gaze’ is also tested when senior officers visit the
station. Chapter 5 indicates that firefighters’ very skilful acting in front of their senior officers, avoids the uniformed
bureaucracy of the fire service (where rank equates to right) becoming an ‘iron cage’. Firefighters practice around the
mess table in learning how to control their words and behaviour and to provide the right image is a useful resistance that
protects them; this time not from their ‘friends’ on the watch, but the officers (see Goffman 1997c: 28).
2.5.2. The agency of the respondent: deceit
Firefighters develop skills to talk in a way that provides the right image, maintains their status, and raises political
agendas. This can often involve a careful over-emphasis to perpetuate the image of a good firefighter (see Chapter 3;
Goffman 1959; Baigent 1996: 25), something less wary spectators (including researchers) may not expect: a process also
recognised within the police (Finch 1993: 184). To support this argument I shall now provide some data from a focus
group to indicate how firefighters can organise a conversation to raise a politically motivated sexist point against female
firefighters. We were talking at this point about female firefighters:
Ian:
One of these women regularly has PMT and we were talking about it the other day, and I regularly look
at the sick book.
(Brigade two, firefighter, 8 years’ service, age 30 110 ).
However, insider knowledge identified what had occurred, leading to rich data of hidden patriarchal agendas that provided
a ‘chance’ release of information to suggest PMT was a problem 111 , a debate that then came back.
Ian:
But the one thing I worry about, when my wife has her period she is a pain in the arse and you hear most
fellers say ‘it’s this week again’, and some women they reckon can like .. 112 when you read the papers,
some people have attacked their husbands with knives, but the week after they’re as good as gold .. the
scenario I imagine is your going into a fire .. if your going in with a female .. I can say bird, because this
110 When a respondents name is mentioned this is changed to protect their anonymity.
111 Howell (1994: 13) indicates that when firefighters were asked “if they felt that performance of a woman colleague during periods was a matter of
concern 83% said that it was” and this is typical of the way that men use women’s procreative physiology to discriminate against them (see Lorber 1994:
46-49).
112 Key throughout the thesis .. pause, … missing words.