Researchers have examined homophobic language (HL) with both qualitative and quantitative methods and have studied HL's relationship to multiple factors such as sexual prejudice, masculinity, and religiosity. However, our understanding of this language, while expanding, is still limited because the meaning of this evolving language varies depending on the context in which the language is used. In order to get a more in-depth and current understanding of this language, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 males who were high school seniors. I also conducted 102 hours of observations in their high school. I analyzed the interviews and observations with a phenomenological hermeneutic method. Based on the interpretations from this analysis, findings indicated that students used HL in order to marginalize other students; to both challenge adult authority and also to emulate admired adults; to get attention and assert authority by using rebellious and taboo language; to explore and understand certain aspects of sexuality and masculinity; to police sexuality and masculinity within the parameters of traditional and expected roles; and to increase group cohesion. I explored each of these themes in detail and considered how students both shape and are shaped by their culture. To conclude, I offer suggestions for strategies to support a more accepting culture and to decrease the use of HL.

Large scientific studies have recognized homophobic language as a national concern (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 2001; Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010). Concerning perceptions of homophobic language use, quantitative studies were mostly conducted in specific areas of the United States and qualitative studies have largely approached the issue with the theory of masculinity. The current study proposed to approach the study actively challenging all assumptions about homophobic language use. This study assimilated 20 adolescents' perceptions of homophobic language, using a hermeneutic qualitative methodology. This study found that in addition to policing masculinity, homophobic language was used to police sexuality, normality, and popularity. In regard to adolescents abstaining from using homophobic language, three themes emerged, including when in the presence of individuals perceived as being homosexual, when having a personal connection to a homosexual, and when associated with vulnerable populations. Participants self-identified with peer groups. These personal connections shaped how students abstained from and participated in using homophobic language. This study's findings are summarized, ending with implications for practice. Although interventions targeting groups of students may be helpful—ultimately a larger cultural shift towards engagement with and an understanding of marginalized groups must occur.

No description available.