Feminist Pedagogy (Susan C. Jarratt)
A common thread I see running through cultural studies, critical pedagogy and feminist pedagogy is the goal of engaging students in the analysis of inequalities in power structures of dominant society. At the heart of these pedagogies is a focus on the development of the skills needed to recognize, question, and resist these inequalities. Feminist pedagogy takes this a step further with its focus on “contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal” (Jarrett, 115).
Given this, it is acknowledged that “there is a current, widely shared negative attitude about feminism in the United States” (125). Further, if we wish to engage in feminist pedagogical practices in the classroom we are warned that,” it’s good to have some advance notice about what to expect from students and to develop strategies for encountering the resistance so many offer even to the very word itself” (125). Anecdotal evidence confirming the above is easy to gather. Just mention the word feminist in some circles and watch the direction and tone of the follow-on conversation.
This leaves me wondering why there is such resistance to discussions about women's roles. While I’m sure there are many causes, some research led me to a paper titled “Unmasking Moral Dichotomies: Can Feminist Pedagogy Overcome Student Resistance?” Linda Markowitz, the author and a feminist pedagogue, discusses a study she conducted to learn how often students use “morally dichotomous frameworks to understand conflict” (Markowitz, 40). She also wanted to “determine whether exposure to feminist pedagogy during the semester might create less student resistance to discussions of oppression, difference or inequality” (40).
Markowitz's study indicates that resistance to analytic discussions of oppression, difference or inequality is based on a pre-shaped belief system that imposes dichotomous thinking. Dichotomous thinking has roots in positivist science and the belief that truth is perceived only from what we can observe and measure. This truth asks us to judge knowledge as right/wrong, good/bad, objective/subjective and so forth. It is within the framework of this system that challenges to norms, such as woman's role in society, is perceived as a threat by students.
This belief system is evident when the feminist instructor initiates a discussion about gender in relation to power and inequality and is met by students’ resistance to engage in analysis and students frame the discussion in dichotomous terms such as, “society is the blame for women having less power”, or “it’s all the fault of men”. Markowitz offers that “before we can reduce students’ perceived threats that we need to expand their morally dichotomous frameworks” (40). She proposes that feminine pedagogy practices such as “socially-contextualizing knowledge claims, participatory learning and valuing personal knowledge” (40) can help students become more willing to participate in analytical discussions of oppression, difference or inequality and its causes.
Markowitz, Linda. “Unmaking Moral Dichotomies: Can Feminist Pedagogy Overcome Student Resistance?” Gender and Education. Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2005, pp 39-55.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good points, Naomi, and thanks for bringing that other article into the conversation. People in general are resistant to change and especially to any thinking that challenges the ways they were raised to believe. And dichotomous thinking is one of the stages of intellectual development you will find in schemes like William Perry's. So it might help not to immediately throw down the gauntlet of "feminism" or "racism" or "Marxism." Instead, I would think we ought to begin with narratives that inspire empathy and help readers think about the inequalities and injustices in our society. It would also be helpful to refer back to respected documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, and speeches by respected figures, such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. Then go to essays and speeches by critical thinkers who challenge social practices based on those founding documents: Frederick Douglass, for example, or Susan B. Anthony; Martin Luther King, Jr. and Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem. At some point, a careful teacher could also introduce egalitarian, social justice principles that are found in the world's sacred texts. Moses, Isaiah, Amos, Jesus, St. Paul, Buddha, Muhammad, and the founder of the Sikh religion all speak to these issues. But it's interesting that these are all male figures, so it would be helpful to find women who challenge religion to live up to its stated principles.
This is all about thinking critically and deeply, but it is thinking that draws on universally-respected documents and principles. We are all inclined to take such principles and apply them selectively, not radically; and it is easier to condemn past practices than to see present injustices. But to me, any teaching that merely engages in skills training and helping people pass exams falls short of the high ideals of the greatest teachers. We need the equivalent of a Hippocratic Oath, perhaps. A Socratic or Deweyean Oath? (But damn it, there are those white males again! So let's don't forget Maria Montessori, Sylvia Ashton Warner, and bell hooks.)
Post a Comment