School and Achieving a Non-sexist Education

Forming a Counter-Hegemonic School and Achieving a Non-sexist Education

Feminist counter-hegemony is described as:

The creation of a self-conscious analysis of a situation and the development of collective practices and organization that can oppose the hegemony of the existing order and the begin to build the base for a new understanding and transformation of society. (Weiler, 1988)

This definition has striking similarities with the definition of non-sexist education. “The term non-sexist education refers to intentional and systematic interventions to counteract sexism in society by educational means” (Routledge,2000: 505). The first adaptation of this perspective has been the formation of Gender and Women Studies Departments. Since those departments serve to a restricted number of people, all of whom are university graduates its use has been quite limited.

A counter-hegemonic school needs to be empowering for all marginalized groups starting with women. Bhasin (1992) states, “Formal education and knowledge have subordinated and disempowered women”; that is why they need to be empowered today. The concept of empowerment of women has two distinct approaches that need to be clarified. A radical empowerment approach entails the conscientization of the pupils, in the Freirean sense of the word whereas the more commonly occupied concept of empowerment of women is liberal and has been utilized after the neo-liberal climate of the1980s in the development for disadvantaged groups discourse. For a sustainable development women’s education was equated to schooling, the decrease in birth rates and infant mortality. Such an individualistic approach did not aim at social transformation but a rise in the human capital of the individuals.

Stromquist (2002) seems to be a follower of the former approach to women’s empowerment. According to her empowerment consists of four dimensions. Each of which is equally important but not sufficient by itself:

·               Cognitive, that is, critical understanding of one’s reality.

·               Psychological, that is, feeling of self-esteem.

·               Political, that is, awareness of power inequalities and the ability to organize and mobilize.

·               Economic, that is, the capacity to generate independent income. (p:23)

Stromquist (2002) starts by how empowerment of women through formal education is possible but continues with informal/adult education, as she believes that all four dimensions of empowerment can only be applied in adult education. As to elementary education, only the two dimensions are realizable but the following steps of education can establish the basis for the other two dimensions.

When referring to primary and secondary schooling, empowerment should enable girls (children and adolescents) to develop the knowledge and skills to nullify and counter sexual stereotypes and conceptions of masculinity and femininity that limit the social potential of women. (p: 26)

Forming counter-hegemonic school necessitates a lot of effort by the teachers. One obstacle can be the unwillingness of the teachers to adopt such a standing. Acker poses the question why the teachers show so little effort on the issue and looks for the explanations of teacher resistance in four different ways. First, the anti-sexist initiatives might not be appealing to teachers; second, characteristics of the teachers might be a barrier; third, teachers might not accept them because of their ideologies about gender or education like child centered learning, environmental determinism, neutrality; fourth, the conditions of teachers, such as micro-politics at the school, classrooms, colleagues and their expanding role, might not be encouraging a change in their attitudes (Acker,1988).

Another obstacle on the way to social transformation for gender equality is the hegemonic nature of patriarchy. As it is stated in the previous chapter, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony explains why change against the dominant ideology is difficult. The patriarchal hegemonic ideology continually requires the consent of women. The women themselves might have adopted patriarchal ideology and might be reproducing it. Therefore, a woman teacher does not mean that the class is gender equal or a woman principal does not mean that the school climate is not sexist any more. On the other hand, profeminist male teachers or female teachers who do not call themselves feminist might as well work for gender equality at school.  It is important that the teachers be close to their students. Among the students, resistance to school authority might prevail in different forms and sometimes work to their disadvantage in the long run. They cannot make use of the liberating potential of school. The relationship between the teacher and the students are important in overcoming the resistance students show to school.  (Kessler, 1985)

A third obstacle is discussed by Dale Spender (1983) who argues that efforts of the teachers to create an equal environment in the class arouse resistance of the male students since they are used to being privileged, having the advantage. They resist talking about women’s experiences. Girls on the other hand are used to being marginalized and even engage in the conversation about male experiences. Such instances prove that feminist teachers need to be backed up by the prevailing culture and the administration at schools. Otherwise, their ideas may easily be marginalized.

The resistance by boys needs to be addressed by policies that target them. When Kessler and his colleagues (1985) inquired why the campaigns to combat sexism at schools could not be successful, they emphasized that those campaigns did not target male students. Male teachers are especially important in reaching the boys since they are also the role models and they can act as the allies within. This is not an easy task in the light of Stanworth’s (1983) findings that male teachers differentiate between boys and girls more sharply and pay less attention to girls compared with the female teachers.

According to Kessler and his colleagues (1985) the argument that schools are gender-stereotyping pupils is not enough to explain the situation. They explain that there are specific gender regimes at schools, which are subject to change over time or in case of intervention. Furthermore, masculine and feminine roles are multiple and according to the gender climate some forms become hegemonic or emphasized.  Achieving a non-sexist education means taking the gender climate at that school into consideration.