Kathy Sanford
University of Victoria
Abstract
|
This paper will examine the findings of an investigation into the in/exclusive nature of social studies curriculum documents, specifically an examination of perspectives used to understand historical events and the language used to report these events. My investigation has revealed a limited set of lenses offered by curriculum through which we can view historical events, and clearly indicates a need to address the exclusionary nature of curriculum in regard to gender. |
As supervisor of student teachers, I have had the opportunity to visit many social studies classrooms in the past decade. I have seen a wide variety of teaching strategies, concepts, and topics being presented to students, and have come to recognize consistent commonalities that flavour social studies classrooms.
I am by now quite prepared for what I observe in social studies classrooms, but I must confess to disappointment and more than a little boredom each time I visit. I have heard tales of explorers, inventors, political leaders, writers, and religious gurus recounted, but all of them have been about men. As a female, a feminist educator, a member of a historically overlooked group, I am eager to hear about what the other half of the population was doing as worlds were being discovered, revolutions waged, miraculous weapons and tools developed, and world-shifting decisions made. Why is it that women have figured so insignificantly in the history and development of the world? What were they doing with themselves?
I find it difficult to believe that women over the vast course of the world's history have contributed so little (as suggested by historical textbook accounts), that their accomplishments are so few as to be relegated to sidebar anecdotal stories of exceptions where they have shown initiative, bravery, or intelligence e.g., Nellie McClung, Emily Murphy, Adrienne Clarkson. As cartographers have recognized the need to view the physical world from perspectives different from the traditional Eurocentric view, we need also to consider different positions from which to view world events, to change the focus from a patriarchal Eurocentric view to one that considers alternative gendered views. We do not need "herstory", but we need to fully embrace the multiple meanings of "history", as defined in the dictionary:
|
An account of an event; a systematic account of the origin and progress of the world, a nation, an institution, a science, etc.; the knowledge of past events; a course of events; a life-story; eventful life, a past of more than common interest. (Gr historia - knowing) Chambers Dictionary, p. 793 |
Perhaps it is time that "eventful" and "common interest" be understood more fully, from the perspectives of all members of our society. Perhaps it is time to move from a "male-defined education" (Tetreault, 1986, p.227) to education that embraces gender balance.
In discussing the exclusionary nature of social studies curricula, I will address two postmodern issues in the consideration of historical representation, i.e., perspective and language (Gaskell, 1989; Spender, 1980; Tannen, 1993). Both perspective and language are used to reflect and maintain the dominant values of dominant societies, i.e., middle class Eurocentric male societies (Mahony, 1998). These values (competition, individuality, physical strength and stamina, mental agility, emotional detachment, logic, rationality) represent only a part of the human condition but because only these are represented in our historical accounts, other values (emotional connection, cooperation, collaboration, nurturing) are forgotten or worse, dismissed as being irrelevant, trivial, and weak, deemed not worthy of inclusion. The history of nameless, faceless women, who spiritually and emotionally supported their male counterparts and who educated and nursed the children and the aged, is a critical piece of the whole of history that is still missing from modernist accounts of historical events (Kuzmic, 2000). The reconfiguration of history to include the recognition of women's roles will shape how current events are viewed and recorded today, and how our future is played out.
A survey of western Canadian social studies curricula reveals, at best, an acknowledgement of the need to recognize "gender balanced material" and "non-sexist teaching strategies" (www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/k/). Some curricula relegate discussion of gender to appendices entitled "Gender Equity" (www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/), mention of support materials such as "Women in the Middle Ages" (www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/) identified at the end of a long list of videos. Other curriculum documents refer to the need for equal opportunities, "regardless of gender" (www.edu.gov.mb.ca) (as if gender is something to overcome), and still others make no significant reference to issues of gender (www.learning.gov.ab.ca).
A survey posted on Alberta's provincial curriculum internet site (www.learning.gov.ab.ca/surveys/ss10to12/default), asking participants for input into a review of existing social studies curriculum, lists 24 potential themes/topics of study. Participants are asked to rank the importance of each of these themes, which consist of a range of areas including Nationalism, Globalization, Economic Systems/Policies…#16 of the list, the only mention of gender issues, is Women's History/Women's Studies (www.learning.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum). And, despite references in curriculum documents to issues of gender equity, the curriculum content remains unchanged. And the textbooks, other than a scattering of photos of females and brief mention of female accomplishments, remain unchanged. As Kuzmic comments, we need to examine "how textbooks, as curricular and cultural texts, construct and define masculinity in particular ways," and to examine "the ways in which schools serve as social, political, and cultural sites where patriarchy is not only manifested and maintained, but may also be contested (Kuzmic, 2000, p.105, italics mine).
From my investigations of curriculum documents, I have come to the conclusion that the language of social studies reflects the patriarchal world, with emphasis placed on "logical connections: "technological innovation", "political and legal structures", "responsible citizenship", "rational decisions" (www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/). The language focuses on the impersonal and the public at the expense of personal language that connects people together through shared understandings and common experiences (Spender, 1982; Tetreault, 1986). And while curriculum documents do not exclusively/specifically refer to males, reference to "government", "political parties", "military", and "church" serve to exclude females as having little or no place in these structures.
Textbooks still used in today's classrooms cling to exclusionary language with titles such as "Prehistoric Man" and classrooms abound with exclusionary language, e.g., discussions of the "origin of man", that continues unchecked. Texts such as The Lord of the Flies are used to exemplify aspects of culture and society formation. However, as Gilligan (1984) suggests, development of moral and cultural understandings is significantly different for males and for females, and women have identifiably different modes of communication than do men (Belenky, 1986; Tannen, 1993). Although there are many spaces in the cited curriculum documents for broadening the historical and societal perspectives presented, the lenses through which events are viewed do not allow for alternative gendered understandings of history. For different perspectives, we must look to alternative sources, such as internet sites such as Women Who Have Made History (www.geocities/com), Women in World History (www.womeninworldhistory.com/) and History of Women and Science, Health and Technology (www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/WomensStudies/bibliogs/hws/hws.htm).
Texts such as those suggested above provide proof that women indeed have had a role in shaping history, and offer new lenses through which to view history. For example, in a memorable letter from Abigail Adams to her congressman husband John Adams in 1776, she asked him to "remember the ladies" in the "new code of laws" (www.feminist.com), yet over two centuries later we find ourselves in a similar position, demanding of curriculum developers and textbook writers to "remember the ladies." While there are many alternative texts providing information about women in history (see Appendix A), this information has yet to find its way into mainstream school textbooks and alternative perspectives into mainstream school curricula.
There are clear implications for female and male students in being exposed to biased and partial histories. Firstly, interest in social studies topics is not generated for females where exclusionary language and perspectives are consistently used. Concerns of adolescent females are not centred around battles enacted more than half a century ago and the weapons used to wage those battles, or around "political and legal structures", "rational decisions", or "technological innovation" except as these have a direct effect upon their lives. Any personal connections are seldom made explicit in social studies curricula and textbooks. As stated by Catherine Morland in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey in 1817, "…history, real solemn history, I cannot be interested in… I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all - it is very tiresome. Secondly, female role models are very seldom offered, as demonstrated by the posters, videos, and texts offered in classes. The clear implication given to young women is that leadership, power, and authority belong to the world of men. Politics, exploration, and invention are in the realm of the male, public world and are not (yet) available to women whose successes lie in the private spaces of home, classroom, and local community.
Finally, the perpetuation of patriarchal values continues through the language and perspectives chosen for portrayal in existing social studies curricula. These traditionally male values and activities (domination, battle, gaining power, creating structures) lead to ongoing world understandings of how to live and how to be successful. I have often heard teachers defend the importance of social studies by saying that we need to learn from history, yet how can we learn from a history that is only partially represented?
What would be the impact of reorganizing curriculum from different perspectives, e.g., family, health issues, alternative educations, caring for the environment? What if issues such as the following were explored:
Impact of society on
For every topic and issue identified in the curriculum, there are multiple alternative perspectives and viewpoints. These need to be surfaced for both male and female students, so that all citizens have opportunities to understand the world from multiple facets, a curriculum that truly offers "a sense of belonging for each one of our students" in a "study of people in relation to each other and to their world", a world that is becoming increasingly diverse and without alternative understandings, increasingly at risk.
Appendix A
www.nwhp.org/#: National Women's History Project
www.rootsweb.com~nwa/: Notable Women Ancestors
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~kmiddlet/history/women/wom-mm.html
www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/ande-mar.htm: Women In History: Profiles
www.feminist.org/research/teach3.html: Feminist Chronicles 1953-1993
www.distinguishedwomen.com/: Distinguished Women
http://bailowick.lib.uiowa.edu/wstudies: Women's Studies: History
References
Alberta Learning. Social Studies 10-20-30 Curriculum. (2000). www.learning.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/.
Alberta Learning. Social Studies 7-9 Curriculum. (1989). www.learning.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/.
B.C. Ministry of Education, Curriculum Branch. (1997). Social Studies 8 to 10, Integrated Resource Package. www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., Tarule, J. (1986). Women's Ways of Knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books Inc.
Chambers Dictionary. (1994). Edinburgh: Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd.
Gaskell, J., McLaren, A., Novogrodsky, M. (1989). Claiming an Education: Feminism and Canadian Schools. Toronto: Our Schools/ Our Selves Educational Foundation.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Golding, W. (1954). Lord of the Flies. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Kuzmic, J. "Textbooks, Knowledge, and Masculinity: Examining Patriarchy from Within" in Lesko, N. (Ed.). (2000).
Masculinities at School. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mahony, P. "Girls will be girls and boys will be first." In Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., and Maw, J. (Eds.). (1998).
Failing Boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Manitoba Education, Training, & Youth. Social Studies Curriculum. www.edu.gov.mb.ca/educate/manet.
Saskatchewan Education. (1992). Overview of Social Studies Curricula. www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/k/index.html.
Spender, D. (1980). Man Made Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Spender, D. (1982). Women of ideas and what men have done to them: From Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Tannen, D. (1993). "The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance" in Tannen, D. (Ed.). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tetreault, M.K. (1986). "The Journey from Male-Defined to Gender-Balanced Education". Theory into Practice (25), 4, p 227-234.
Tupper, J. (1998). Dis/counting women: A critical feminist analysis of two secondary social studies textbooks. Unpublished masters thesis. University of British Columbia.
Kathy Sanford is an assistant professor at the University of Victoria. Her research interests include issues of gender, literacy, popular culture, and assessment, and the intersections of these issues with teacher education.