Introduction

Hegemonic masculinities perpetrate idealized versions of masculinity that establish socially accepted expectations for what men “should” be. Society’s ideals of masculinity include traits like being strong, stoic, competitive, and brave vary across groups of men. Since these traits are held in such high regard, people reinforce these expectations and punish those who step outside of those bounds. The expectations of certain characteristics and the reinforcement of these characteristics are closely linked to how society expects and fears violence from men. This is especially true for men of certain racial groups, such as Black men, Latino men, and Native American men. 

Society’s association between violence and masculinity has been justified through a variety of ways, including physical characteristics, “natural” roles and traits of men, and the socialization of men. Policing young men because of the perception that they are inherently violent reinforces the idea that men are inherently violent and need to be treated as such. The policing process starts early in one’s life and is most influential when people are still forming their own identities. Focusing on juvenile justice can provide unique insight into how the formation of masculinity occurs. In each aspect of the Texas juvenile justice system, from policing neighborhoods to parole, it becomes apparent how a state’s social and institutional structures build the narrative of young men being violent.

Past biological and sociological research has focused on how violence is an innate part of men’s lives. Scientists explored the effects of testosterone on men and how it can influence men’s inclinations towards violence. However, this research proved a hypothesis that higher levels of testosterone cause higher levels of violence, interpreting evidence that did not support their claim as supporting their argument. They misconstrued their data to support causation of testosterone to violence when really it only supported correlation. The correlation between responses and testosterone levels has been thoroughly researched, and newer developments found that higher levels of testosterone are a symptom of stressful situations, not the cause. Even without considering testosterone, it is widely accepted that men are more prone to involvement in all aspects of crime, especially men of color, from being perpetrators to being victims. This data is not simply because men of color are more naturally predisposed to acting in aggressive or assertive manners. Rather, men of color are more prone to being in situations that may cause reactionary aggression, such as being subject to racist remarks. Additionally, systematic oppression has created a society where people of color are more likely to be found in low-income areas where violence is perpetrated at higher levels than in more affluent areas. The acts that men commit in these lower income communities are usually relating to issues of being lower class. 

Disproportionate Effects

Young men are often labeled as violent before even entering the justice system. Misconceptions about testosterone, being naturally more assertive, and being more inclined to physical responses all contribute to the idea that men are violent. Specifically in relation to the justice system, policing in Texas varies greatly depending on geography, socioeconomic background, and identity. Rural areas generally have a large amount of social policing, where gender identity, sexuality, and social norms are upheld by the community. However, rural areas are less subject to formal policing. Urban areas tend to have both social and formal policing in their communities. Young men and women tend to be surveilled and treated differently as well, with young men overwhelmingly being classified as more violent.

Further, young men face further disproportionate regulation based on race, class, and mental health. As of July 2024, there were around 700 youth in the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD), with around 80% Black or Latino. The disproportionate arrests can also be seen in the number of children with aggression and mental-health treatment needs, with far more being admitted to facilities that fall into these categories. Boys who are non-white are policed more heavily than others, and so are boys who have existing mental health needs. This creates the assumption that it is not whether a certain boy will commit a crime, but when.

Defining Violent Behavior

When youth are arrested for committing a crime, their crimes fall under a classification of offense. The Progressive Sanctions Model lists each of the seven categories of offense and their different levels of severity. Levels Six and Seven are reserved for felony offenses that are normally classified as violent. TJJD accepts the cases of those who fall into these categories, and the rest of the youth are diverted to county or community facilities. TJJD is now seen as the “last resort” for many of these children, with only the “most violent” youth being sent there. 

The classification of violent youth is an inherently inaccurate system, as youth falling into such offense categories are not their crimes and are not always violent. Doing one act that is considered violent puts a child into a box that they are stuck in throughout their entire time in the legal system, which affects how they are treated. Additionally, diversionary programs and community placements are recommended for youth not reaching high-level offenses, but not every county or community has the resources to accommodate many youth or any at all. The youth who have nowhere else to go often end up in TJJD facilities and become perceived as violent. The result of these classifications is that youth who are not violent by definition are being seen as violent, and youth who have committed one violent offense are then seen as aggressive or dangerous when they may not be. 

The TJJD facilities’ structure also leads to the narrative of violence for youth within the facilities. Certain facilities have programs that focus on issues such as mental health or aggression. The facilities which focus on children with higher needs have a larger number of youth who have aggressive behaviors. When facilities take on a demographic that needs extra care, it is expected that the facility and the staff there can take on the role of caring for the children who are more prone to behavior that is seen as violent. Whether that requires more staff who have special training or having specific programs in place that acknowledge the risks involved, TJJD should be prepared for this outcome, as the uneven intake of children with special needs is how their facilities are designed.  If violence is a continuous problem within the facilities, that suggests that their programs are not working as intended to help reform the youth. Being unprepared for these children and then announcing that youth are simply becoming more violent enforces the idea that all children are becoming more violent, when in reality, the children who need the most help are being directed to places where they are supposed to receive specialized treatment and then are not receiving it.

In 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a report detailing the failures of the TJJD system. The DOJ’s report revealed that staff employed excessive de-escalation tactics, put youth in isolation for far too long, and did not meet individual youth’s needs. Failure on the staff’s part can lead to increasingly aggressive behavior from youth, including defensive reactions and lashing out after being isolated. Staff failures can also lead to negative reactions to hunger or mistreatment. The youth lashing out gets written up as a disciplinary infraction categorized as major or violent depending on the offense. Behaviors that warrant the classifications of major or violent include behaviors like “chunking fluids,” “threatening violence,” and even “horseplay.” Many of the actions included are often acts that any youth would do but are recognized in these cases as violent. The infractions tend to target boys for behavior that they were raised to partake in and would not receive punishment for outside of the system, which continues to reinforce that these are “bad” or “violent” youth. 

Masculinity and Violence

Being aware of the risks of being categorized as violent, like being subject to higher surveillance and punishment, youth adjust their behavior when they are within facilities. The young men must weigh the choices of how they have been socialized to interact with others with how their actions will end up affecting them. They may feel like they need to represent a more aggressive, emotionless masculinity to fit into the hegemonic ideal of masculinity within justice facilities, doing their best to be taken seriously. Performing a certain type of masculinity within these facilities can garner respect, especially if it is seen as a form of resistance to authority. One boy in the article, “The Consequences of the Criminal Justice Pipeline on Black and Latino Masculinity,” claims that he “used hypermasculinity as a form of coping, survival, and resistance…” Boys often earn respect from authority and peers by serious, stoic, and aggressive behavior. These manifestations of masculinity often come up within facilities and can make it hard to balance seeming strong while not provoking staff members and other youth. The young men are taken away from home and placed in a hostile environment, leading to them being understandably antagonistic. Since they are in a situation that creates negative emotions, the boys are even more likely to react negatively to staff trying to redirect them. 

The formulation of masculinity can be traced closely back to peer policing and surveillance. In the American South, there are certain social and gender expectations of young men. Binary gender categories and traditional expressions of manhood are directly correlated and pressure young men to act in masculine ways. For example, the “fag discourse.” Fag discourse allows young men who are perceived as feminine to keep their social standing by distancing themselves from being perceived as queer. They do this through pointing out another young man’s effeminate qualities, drawing the attention away from themselves and continuing the cycle of policing masculinity. The reinforcement of ideals like this can create instability within the facilities and can make boys act violently towards one another if their masculinity feels threatened. Their reaction is expected and is taught from a very young age. It is no wonder that when boys are socialized to think of femininity negatively and taught to be reactive to comments that target their masculinity, they react violently to the questioning of their masculine identity. In a system that exacerbates these reactions through continuous monitoring and reinforcement, boys are further trapped without positive support to teach them how to behave differently.  

Even outside of the juvenile justice facility, certain ideals of masculinity are still reinforced, as is the violence narrative. The probation and parole systems are meant to reduce the number of youth in the system. These systems help keep youth closer to home, which helps them get more community support and care. Probation, a diversionary practice instead of being sent to TJJD, and parole, a restrictive measure taken after release from a facility, both rely on heavy surveillance. If a child makes it into a TJJD facility, once they leave on parole, they are expected to reintegrate into society, even while being monitored and surveilled. The boys’ home communities require manifestations of masculinity that are slightly different from within the facilities. They are expected to keep in line with parole expectations, where they cannot step out of line, readjust to school and other social obligations where traits of hegemonic masculinity are expected, and interact with their friends and families in a similar way as they did before. After learning how to behave accordingly in facilities, it can be difficult for boys to adjust to these other expectations and can lead to them adopting a hypermasculine ideal of survival. Young men are expected to behave according to the rules set forth in their sentencing, such as parole obligations, yet they still must conform to society’s expectations of how young men are supposed to act. They are not allowed to miss school, go to certain places, or hang out with certain people, which can be difficult when doing those things is often an important part of a young man’s life. 

For any parole violations, whether committing a new crime or simply violating a technicality, young men receive punishment. The technical violations for which they can be sent back further into the system can include things like skipping school, not meeting with their parole officer, and even not paying a fine on time. Several of these violations are not even in the control of the child, but instead the responsibility should belong to their parents or guardians (like the paying of a fine). Other actions are more directly up to the youth to avoid but can be deeply connected with social consequences if they choose to follow the rules set out in parole. Not behaving as they used to behave can affect a youth’s connections with others, which encourages them to break the rules of their sentencing to do so. Punishments can include longer parole periods, having more of their freedoms taken away, or even being sent back to facilities. No matter the behavior they portray when violating the rules of parole, it can have real impacts on their recidivism rates and public perception of youth offenders. 

Continuing the Violence Narrative

Classifying young men as violent pervades every element of the juvenile justice system, which over time makes boys seem more violent. Any narrative that is put forth requires someone to create it, which can also be seen in the construction of the narrative of violence surrounding young men. Adults in power work continuously to reinforce the need for the current juvenile justice system, which in reality needs to be improved if they want children to be rehabilitated. Legislators define which acts are violent and which ones are not based on relatively arbitrary standards, such as classifying some crimes as violent and not others and by determining what behaviors in facilities are violent. Based on these definitions, police are instructed to monitor these behaviors in certain groups of people who are “at a higher risk to offend.” Youth are then sent to juvenile facilities for the violent crimes, where they are further supervised and policed by staff and peers. Based on how children behave while in facilities, they are further classified as violent, especially when their underlying charge is taken into consideration. Then, legislation is created because youth are “being violent,” which, in the legislators’ eyes, needs to be punished further to discourage it. This cycle continues to classify all youth who do one violent action as a violent individual. The association between violence and masculinity, then, makes young men seem more and more violent. 

Conclusion

Several hypotheses can be drawn about why this narrative of young men being violent is enforced and further expanded. Whether it is by policing boys of color, justifying state facilities not working as intended, or excusing staff’s violent behaviors, a resulting belief forms that boys deserve punishment for their behavior instead of love and care. Expanding the analysis of being classified as violent, such as expanded studies into female masculinities/femininities in the justice system, is important. To improve the system and to make change, people must take a closer look at the systems in place and why they have been upheld for so long. Only then can any real difference be made in transforming youth justice into a program that actually benefits those within it.