Guttorm, Hanna, University of Helsinki:
(Fe)male crafts. The gender-based craft education in Finland.
Paper presented at ECER 2004 - Post Graduate and New Researcher Pre-Conference
Tuesday 21st September 2004
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to open the gender system of craft education in Finland.
Craft education in Finnish school system is divided into textile and technical work. Craft education is obligatory for every pupil in the first seven school years, from which the first four years the subject of craft is taught with the same content to every pupil. Beginning from the fifth grade the pupils have to – or are able to – choose textile work or technical work in the majority of schools. The choices are approximately 90 percent gender-based: girls choose textile work and boys choose technical work.
In this paper I will show up the prevailing situation through making a short discourse-analytic review of the curriculum texts of the Finnish comprehensive school from 1970´s until 2004 and comparing them to craft education related school memories, which have been collected from the visitors at The Craft Museum of Finland from the summer of 2000 until the spring of 2003.
The results of the analysis show that the curriculum texts are mostly gender-neutral, but that the reality about how the pupils make the choices is still far gender-based and often self-evident.
Key terms: gender, gender system, craft education, curriculum, discourse analysis
1. Introduction
I’m writing my doctoral thesis about the representation of craft and gender in the Finnish comprehensive school curriculum and the practices of craft[1] education in Finland. The history of Finnish craft education has had and still has a very far gender-based tradition. When Cygnaeus brought elementary school to Finland in the 1860’s he also brought the subject of handicrafts for girls and boys. The tradition of crafts at the end of the 19th century and the strict division of labour of the agricultural society defined the contents of girls’ and boys’ handicraft instruction. (Isaksson 2003.) Girls studied textile work (knitting, sewing and so on) and boys wood- and metal work in elementary school. And this situation is still prevailing 90-percently now at the 21st century, even though the comprehensive school curricula have already from the 70’s signified gender balance by making the craft areas “free”(alternative) for every pupil to choose. The choices are still gender-based: In 1996-1997 in those schools where the pupils had to make a choice between technical and textile work after the 4th grade (at age 11),eleven percent of technical work pupils were girls and only 2 % of the pupils studying textile work were boys (Ojala 1998, 251). According to Jukka Lehtonen’s (2003) research, some schools don’t give any choice because of the traditional gender thinking or practical reasons.
I’m especially interested in the explicit and implicit gender system concerning craft making and teaching, in which gender system means culturally defined places and habits for a woman or a man. The gender system could also be named as gender agreement, like Yvonne Hirdman (1995) calls it. The study of gender and gender system and the social construction of them belong to cultural studies and especially in feminist study tradition. Cultural studies are interested in different cultural practices, institutions and constructions asdivisions of the exercise of power as well as of resistance (Hall 1992). Gender is based on the concept sex, but emphasizing it as a social construction. Butler (1990, 1993) speaks of making/performing a sex/gender, not being it.
Not much research on gender and craft education is done in Finland: Ossi Autio (1997) has written his dissertation on boys and girls and the development of their technical skills in common craft instruction. Sirpa Kokko (2003) has written licentiate’s dissertation on girls in gender-based craft education. The situation, where girls mostly choose textile crafts and boys technical crafts, seems to be only normal and not strange or something to wonder at. In many researches inside of craft or technology education the current situation is stated as a self-evident truth.Outside of craft education there has been made some research (e.g. Lehtonen 2003, Lahelma 1992, Gordon & Lahelma 1999), where this problem has come evident and apparent.
2. Methods
In this paper I will show up the prevailing situation through making a short discourse-analytic review of the curriculum and teacher guide texts of the Finnish comprehensive school from 1970´s until 2004 and comparing them to craft education related school memories, which have been collected at The Craft Museum of Finland from the summer of 2000 until the spring of 2003. The recollections have been written by museum visitors, pupils from different times.[2]
The analyzing method is discourse analytic.In discourse analyze which became general in social sciences from the 1980’s any spoken, visual or written presentation is understood as a text (Fairclough 1995, 4). The concept “discourse” is used in cultural studies in many various meanings (e.g. Potter & Wetherell 1987, Foucault 1972, Hujanen & Pietikäinen 2000). In this study I understand discourse like Hujanen and Pietikäinen (2000, 7) as a signification of a thing, a phenomenon or a group from a specific point of view.
3. Gender in the curriculum and recollections of craft education
Aiming for equality
The aim of gender equality[3]in connection with craft education is mentioned first time in the 1970 curricula. In accordance with the curricula committee the role differentiation between boys and girls should be get rid of “as far as possible” (Anon. 1970a, 49). Equality between sexes seems to be significant but like being imposed by outsiders. Equality is seen important, but not necessarily possible in the widest meaning and realization alternative, which the 1970 curricula introduces as one studying program, which would include both traditional boys’ and girls’ craft subjects (Anon.1970b, 338). The sentence “as far as possible” shows that the possibilities of a strict equality are seen tiny because of the questioning discourses, which I’m going to introduce next.
Different sexes
In the teacher guide for textile craft for lower classes there is a title “Different pupils” and there a subtitle “Physical abnormalities” and under this subtitle there is written how boys because of the “natural physiological differences” need more place around themselves than girls (Anon. 1988a, 15).So, boys are defined explicit as different and physiological abnormal in textile classes. Gender difference becomes ontological also according to a statement, in which it is said, that “facts about the development and character of the talents of both sexes is needed while applying the curriculum for pupil groups consisting of both girls and boys” (Anon. 1988c, 10). The biological sex is represented as such a differentiating factor, which the teacher has to pay special attention to. These statements show up the stereotypes and prejudices craft teachers have had against different sexes. (Here I just have to wonder about the situation in music or history classes – how are the supposed gender differences noticed there?)
In the recollection writings the individual’s sex plays a remarkable role. It seems self-evident that girls study textile, and boys, technical work. However, it was expressed that it was nice to try the woodwork, the male subject, too. Nevertheless, the women don’t have to explain their positive experiences like this one man:
In textile work instead, in the lower classes, I was good. Being mathematically clever, it was easy for me to crochet a perfectly round potholder. I have been crocheting as a hobby as an adult too. Ilkka
The mathematic skill is a good excuse for the capability of the textile technique of crocheting. According to many researches (e.g. Paechter 2000) mathematic skill is seen as a natural skill for males – so here it can be seen as a proof of the masculinity of the writer.Proofs are really needed, as also according to Apo (1995, 207)men have not been able to take part in women’s work without losing respect in the eyes of other men, whileit has always been easier and more acceptable for women to take part in men’s work too. The respect can also be at stake in the eyes of their own family:
I made a fine bag. The reaction at home was quite interesting. Pasi, age 21
Pasi does not tell what the reaction was like. The only thing he tells, by telling his name, is that he’s a boy. Also according to Lehtonen’s (2003, 79-87) boys “stooping” to a women’s position causes amazement. The boys who make an atypical choice of craft (by choosing textile work) are often laughed at or their sex or sexual direction is questioned.
Different interests
The curricula 1970 says, that pupils choosing the craft field should not do it regarding their sex, but that also boys should be able to choose textile crafts and girls should be able to choose technical work (Anon. 1970b, 338). Although after some more pages the expected sex of the pupilin textile crafts become apparent: on the fourth grade the pupils are going to sew a summer skirt (mt., 343). Correspondingly in an exchange course (for the pupils who have studied mostly the other craft field) there is recommended to sew shorts, waistcoat, peaked cap or some other hat and to study “textile information of every man” (mt., 345).
In the same document the contents of the exchange course in technical work are decorations and jewelers (mt., 349). The sex and the expected essentialistic interests of a sex come even explicit evident in optional courses in wood work, where one course is especially planned “also for girls”. “Also for girls” is offered decorations, art pieces and articles for daily use as target of art carpentry, book binding and leather works (mt., 354).
The suppositions on the different interests of girls and boys appear essential in the texts above. Skirts and other clothes which traditionally belong to the clothing of girls disclose the expected and supposed sex of the pupil participating textile craft courses. In technical work girls who can possible participate to some courses are notified by planning courses which especially satisfy the explicit supposed interests of girls: decorations and art pieces.
The suppositions of different interests of girls and boys are still evident in the teacher guides of year 1988. Teacher guide for technical work wants to aim to gender equality in that way, “that the tasks should not be bound up to sex or should at least be equitable both boys and girls traditional tasks” (Anon. 1988b, 6).This kind of sentences are not written e.g. in the teacher guides for art education.Teacher guide for textile crafts speaks under the aim of equality only about exchange courses (Anon. 1988a, 19), which may also imply that the boys are expected to participate textile crafts only during the exchange courses.
In one recollection there shows up an inner conflict about the own interests:
I had good experiences in textile work. For some reason, not in woodwork (1/2 year). Now as an adult I like woodwork and enjoy doing it. Raija, age 35
Now as an adult Raija notices that she likes woodwork, but in school the experience was unsuccessful. She is not questioning that, but I have to ask whether the experience from the woodwork lessons really could have had a possibility to be different. Or was that the only way to experience technical work: not easy, not even a possible area for a girl? De Lauretis writes that she doesn’t see experience as only subjective even though the person himself thinks it is his own experience. She writes that subjectivity is constructed through a social process, where one perceives and comprehends as subjective (referring to, even originating in, oneself) those relations, which in fact are social and, in a larger perspective, historical. (De Lauretis 1984, 159.)
Different choices
The supposed differences of the sexes also operate as a support/backing to the advocacy of the choice. Freedom to choose is seen to be equality. Already the 1970 curriculum (Anon. 1970a, 338)does not want to decrease the pupils’ possibilities to choose, what she or he wants, even though there earlier were no possibilities to choose at all. Also the 1988 teacher guide to upper secondary school mentions, that “to get to know both craft divisions and to make a choice after that educates pupils to equality” (Anon. 1988c, 26). Even the newest curriculum (this year) speaks about the emphasize of pupils’ craft studies (Anon. 2004, 244). The importance of choice is emphasized, and also the suppositions of the different interests are hold tight. The curriculum is thus showing what girls and boys are suppose to be interested in and what they actually should choose in order to be normal girls or boys.
Sirpa Kokko (2003) was reminiscing with eight female university students about their craft education. The choice of textile work was remembered as self-evident and apparent. Some students didn’t even remember the choice at all, perhaps because the possibility to choose was not offered. Many writers of the school memories neither mention the area of craft or any materials or techniques. The gender-related craft is so self-evident that it is not worth mentioning. The self-evident (“normal”) choices have not always succeeded and an abnormal choice was scaring:
At the upper level I chose technical work as an optional subject, and the experience was miserable. I got almost nothing done.I have always been interested in rag[4] craft and I should perhaps have had the courage to choose it in the upper level instead of technical work. Aapo, 25
Gender neutrality – is equality reached?
The curricula 1994 and 2004 are gender neutral in the meaning, that sex is not mentioned. Textile and technical work are defined in 1994 curriculum as a subject whole, to be taught to all the pupils regardless of sex. In addition to the common subjects, the 1994 curricula allowed craft to be applied in different subject divisions. (Anon. 1994, 104.) The curriculum from this year says that in addition to common teaching to all pupils the pupil can be given a possibility to emphasize in his/her craft studies after his/her interest and talents either to textile or technical work (Anon. 2004, 244). Different interests and even talents are still there and defend the significance of pupil’s choice. Emphasizing of gender difference and choice differences (which are probably supposed to depend on the gender difference) is avoided while believing that the pupils can choose subjects and subject fields without any social pressure (Lahelma 1992, 55).
How to be or behave like a man or a woman is perceived from the surrounding world; parents, teachers and friends reveal it directly and indirectly. Although the curricula uphold gender equality, the teachers can sometimes undo these efforts, for example, by allowing girls not to take the subject seriously:
The best craft lessons were in the 3rd year, when we had to study technical work. The attic of our old wooden school was the painting place of our “wooden rotten snags”. There we spent the lessons playing house till the teacher came to the lower end of the stairs and shouted that the lesson was over. Mari, age 29
The subject “common craft” was also noticed by the Finnish newspapers, with one example from the Helsingin Sanomat presented here: Gendered beliefs and perceptions regarding craft making were still in 1990 strong in Finland.
Picture 1. A caricature by Kari Suomalainen published in Helsingin Sanomat 2.10.1990.
© The estate of Kari Suomalainen
The translations:They say for equality’s sake boys should in make handicrafts in schools. Above a pullover knitted by Little-Kalle for father. / In the same way girls are expected to do technical work. Here is Little-Liisa’s technical work for mother. Little-Liisa doesn’t even know herself what it is.
4.Discussion
The official curriculum texts are the more gender neutral the newer they are. However the gender neutrality transforms already in the contents of subjects or in the teacher guides to gender specificity and understanding of different sexes. Gender equality is seen to realize when the pupils can make a free choice, but as we can notice in the recollections, the abnormal choice is not always easy to do. Teachers, pupils and parents live in the social genderalized world and read the gender neutral official texts with their genderalized eyes. Even though the choice is in theory free and the curricula are aiming gender equality, the influence of gender system is stronger than the influence of legislation. The theoretical gender neutral curriculum becomes genderalized only in the practices of the school (Lahelma 1992, 90, 118).
Gordon, Holland and Lahelma (2000, 195) say that the gender-neutral policy is prevailing in Finland because of the myth of gender equality, which is thought to be far advanced. The gender-neutral policy is though not remedying the existing and partly self-evident experienced dicotomic gender presumptions.