Beyond respect:
the missing points of gender education in Taiwanese context
Shu-Ching Lee[*]
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association New Researchers/Student Conference, University of Warwick, 6 September 2006
Abstract
This paper attempts to explore teachers’ interpretations of gender equality through doing fieldwork in four secondary schools in Taiwan. I set out with a feminist post-structuralist perspective to rebuild the gap between policy-making and practice. Based on the preliminary analysis of nineteen interviews and contextual data, I find that a large majority of interviewees regard ‘respect’ as the core value in gender equality. Respect in their interpretation is mainly twofold—firstly, ‘respect for human rights’, and secondly, ‘respect for biological difference of femininity and masculinity’. However, the former has been largely eclipsed by the latter, albeit ‘respect for human rights’ has been claimed to be fundamental for all. Educators’ interpretations of respect are shown to provide a means of understanding the gap between policy and practice.
Keywords: gender education, educational policy, interpretation, teacher education
Introduction
For the past twenty years, Taiwan has undergone dramatic economic, political and social changes(Hsiao, 1992), which facilitated women’s movements in the 1980s. As early as 1988, the focus of women’s groups was transferred to education. The Awakening of Women Foundation[1] initiated an activity called “reviewing textbooks thoroughly”, by which they reviewed textbooks of national language, arts and social science in primary and high schools (Shu, 1999)[2]. They found that contents of textbooks displayed strong sexual stereotypes and discriminatory images (ibid.).Apart from the Awakening of Women Foundation, the setting up of the Taiwanese Feminist Scholars’ Association (TFSA) in 1993 marked another milestone[3]. The TFSA hosted the Conference for Women’s Situations in Taiwan in 1995, which examined women’s situations in health, welfare, legislation, politics, economy and education.[4] In the field of education, Hsieh (1995) identified the hidden problems in schooling, including the staff structure of ‘men-superiority, women-inferiority’, the sex segregated programmes, the sex prejudice and discrimination in curricular materials, campus security, etc. In response to women’s organisations, the Commission for Gender Equality Education, Ministry of Education, was established in 1997. In recent years, the Taiwanese government has initiated gender reform in educational settings. Gender Equity Education Act was passed on 4 June 2004; the Enforcement Rules for the Gender Equity Education Act was subsequently passed on 13 June 2004, and then the Regulations on the Prevention of Sexual Assault or Sexual Harassment on Campus on 30 March 2005. However, after the passage of these laws on gender education, how do schools respond to this mainly ‘externally’ initiated change?
It is commonly assumed in Taiwan that once educators are given appropriate training, guidelines or teaching materials, gender biases can be expected to eliminate. Is it that simple? Occasionally good policies in design are poorly implemented in the field (Stromquist, 1997: 31), let alone we do not know yet if gender education policies in Taiwan are ‘good policies in design’. Implementation[5] is significant after the stage of policy formulation and authorization (laws passed). Take United States for example, despite the passage of legislation in relation to gender education in the 1970s[6], ‘Americans schools continue to be rife with gender inequalities’ (Bank, 1997: 7). One of the possibilities, Bank argues, is the ‘complexity of policy implementation’ (ibid.)[7], thereby giving rise to what she calls the ‘policy paradox’: ‘The more things change, the more they remain the same’ (ibid.: 5). Yet where and how do these complexities come from? Bank has a clear explanation,
A law, executive order, or court decision is not an unambiguous rule that everyone understands in the same way, that can, must, and will be supported and followed by everyone, and has a clear and anticipated consequences (Bank, 1997: 8)
Policy formation does not end with the legislative moment (Bowe, Ball & Gold, 1996), ‘for any text a plurality of readers must necessarily produce a plurality of readings’ (Codd, 1988: 239). Admittedly, the school is composed of administrators, teachers, pupils, and parents, all of whom ‘have their own interpretations of what gender is or should be, what gender equity means, what the intention of law “really” is, how serious they must take it, what effects it will or should have on school programs and practices.’(Kenway et al., 1998:9), and yet introduce some modifications to policy through their interpretation (Stromquist, 1997). That is, policy is regularly re-inscribed as it is woven into school (Kenway et al., 1998). The complexities of policy leads to what Kenway et al. (1998) name ‘the mysterious gap’ between policy and practice. There is seldom a perfect match between policy prescriptions and educational practices; “there was almost a ‘mysterious gap’ between the hopes represented in such theories, policies and suggestions for practices and what happened in schools” (ibid.: 200). Yet what and where is the gap? How has it been formulated? Why is the gap mysterious? Kenway does not espouse further, neither does current literature investigate into this gap. Neither am I able to deal with in this paper. Nonetheless, I intend to demonstrate educators’ (including headteachers, administrators and teachers) interpretations of gender equality, which may have implications for policy. All in all, my research question in this paper is: what are educators’ interpretations and re-inscriptions of gender equality? What are underlying premises behind these interpretations?
Research Methodology
A gender perspective is absent from the mainstream policy analysis although there has been a growing recognition of the need for a feminist theory of the state since the 1980s (Kenway, 1990; Marshall, 1997). The earlier feminist work on educational policy analysis, nonetheless, according to Kenway (ibid.) was rather ahistorical and functionalist in their reasoning (i.e. showing how the state constantly functions in the interests of patriarchy and, in some cases, capitalism). As Harding (1987) claims, the feminist perspective, the review of historical context and a critical perspective of sociology provide a relatively complete picture. Such feminists as Arnot, Marshall, Blackmore and Kenway have strived to build the gap by putting gender in the center to go deeper into gender relations in policy making, process and consequences. A similarity between them is a postmodernist or post-structuralist bent without denying the systematic power of the state and society. They all look at gender identities, experiences, agency, subjectivity, discourse, power and knowledge in wider social, economic and political relations.For example, Marshall (1997) developed a form of feminist critical policy analysis to add critical issues and ways of framing questions about power, justice and the state in gender equality education policy. Kenway et al. (1998) intended to see broader patterns of power, to be precisely, the policy process of gender reform within and across schools by employing post-structuralist theories of policy. Kenway et al. (ibid.) indicated the availability of feminist post-structuralist theory in gender policies in school settings:
Feminist post-structuralism led us to conceptualise gender reform as a political process of making and remaking meaning in schools in ways which sought to challenge the unequal gender settlements of particular schools and their localities as well as those of wider society; Further, it led us to portray gender reform as a discursive field within which meanings about gender reform itself were constantly negotiated and contested; a field in which truths are made and remade.
Post-structuralist theories of policy appear an appropriate departure for my research questions. Following their footsteps, this paper sets out with the feminist post-structuralist perspective, attempting to rebuild the gap between policy-making and practice through micro-level fieldwork. Although this approach remains developing, yet incomplete, ‘a better understanding of the complex and subtle nuances of the policy process will help to facilitate the broad feminist project’ (Kenway, 1990: 7). It is noteworthy that theories themselves are not used as either lens or frameworks to look at my data; rather, they function as approaches to probing and ruminating data. Presumably theories may be further modified or sophisticated through theories being re-examined by data collected from fieldwork.
Quite a few policy sociologists argue that interview can offer insights into policy; moreover, it is useful in building the gap between micro/macro, explanatory/descriptive and theoretical framework/empirical data (Lee, 2006). In this sense, interview becomes one of my crucial methods to probe research questions. With semi-structured interview, in particular, I could be freer to ‘probe beyond the answers in a manner which would appear prejudicial to the aims of standardization and comparability’ (May, 2001: 123).The sampling strategies to be used in my research are purposive and snowball. Purposive sampling, which Maxwell (1998: 87 adapted from Patton, 1990: 169) terms ‘purposeful sampling’, is a strategy in which ‘researchers handpick the causes to be included in the sample on the basis of their judgement of their typicality’ (Cohen et al. 2000: 103). Snowball sampling[8] is used as a complementary tool in this research. For this paper, I interviewed with 12 schoolteachers, 5 administrators, and 2 headteachers. Apart from that, I sat in on staff meetings and in-service teacher training courses, observed school activities, and collected school documents. I also hosted study groups for teachers, by which not only did I have more interaction and discussion with teachers but the study group per se also functioned as an approachto empowering teachers.
Preliminary Findings
In response to the regulation of ‘four hours of gender education per semester[9], Mountain City School invited a lecturer from some Christian organisation lecturing ‘virginity education’ entitled ‘Waiting until the wedding day’. This lecturer firstly told a true story to students: a boy joined the army when his girlfriend went on her study in a graduate school. After he finished his service in the army, the girl’s mother told him they could cohabit outside. Nonetheless, this boy insisted they would not live together until the wedding day for the fear that his physical urge may cause unwanted result. ‘My body can only be owned by a person in the world—I will contribute to him only on the wedding day’ (Fieldnotes, 15/11/2005), the lecturer said.
The lecturer subsequently switched to the discourse of sex differences. She said, ‘It is very helpful in love relationships if you can understand the differences between men and women.’ She excerpted a few sentences asking students to guess what men or women would say.
“ I can help you sort it out.’ (Some students said men while some answered women, but the ‘right’ answer from the lecturer is ‘men’.)
“ I hope to be recognised and thanked” (Male students answered women while female students said men. The ‘right’ answer is ‘men’ again.)
“ I hope to be listened and concerned for,’ (More voices coming out answering ‘women’. To be sure the ‘correct’ answer is female.)
“ I would like to deal with stress through being alone.’ (A variety of answers had come out before the lecturer said, ‘right, that’s men’. She explained further, ‘do not annoy your boyfriend when he is stressed.’ And then, she asked students ‘how to help women deal with their stress?’ Her correct answer is ‘Just listen to them!’ (Fieldnotes 15/11/2005)
A variety of gender education activities are under way on campus in Taiwan. Which groups being allowed or chosen to get in campus implies significantly for gender education. As options/decisions themselves are value-laden, it is necessary to examine further ‘values’ behind these choices. Reading through the fieldnotes above, more or less we can get a feeling of something: students’ ideas of sex/gender may be more flexible than teachers. However, in any case, students become the objects being ‘corrected’ or ‘instructed’ by teachers. School educators’ interpretations of gender education policy are closely linked to their imagination of gender equality and gender education. Headteachers’ attitude and idea of gender, in particular, influences ambience of school culture (Lee, 2006), thus relating to practice of gender education. Due to word limit, I only demonstrate educators’ readings of gender equality in this paper.
Respect for What?
Although there is not total unanimity on a few points, there is a very high level of agreement on most. Respect is espoused as the most significant essence in gender equality. It is not surprising in that egalitarian social beliefs have been widely embraced by the democratic Taiwanese society. The word ‘respect’ is in common use by people from a wide range of backgrounds. In any case, ‘respect’ is a crucial objective in education in Taiwan. We can easily see ‘respect’ in a majority of educational documents. For instance, Article 2 of the Act for Educational Principle stipulates ‘respect for human rights’ and Article 3 regulates ‘respect for the value of human nature’. In addition, ‘respect’ has been profusely shown in gender-education-related official documents. Gender Equity Education at Compulsory Stages, for instance, ‘respect’ can be read in its three core competences and their implication, objectives in curriculum and capacity index[10].
As ‘respect’ is a word in daily use, it seems to be taken for granted. Further, it becomes the panacea for educational problems of every aspect in Taiwan. ‘Respect’, however, could mean anything. Every individual may have his/her indication of ‘respect’ while using the same word. Put in another way, although all people are talking about ‘respect’, they may refer to different ‘respects’. This dislocation may be associated with the misunderstanding or misinterpretation between policy and practice. With regard to gender education, what do educators mean by ‘respect’? What roles does it (the ‘respect’ they refer to) play in gender education? Educators’ interpretations of respect are shown to provide a means of understanding the gap between policy and practice.
Respect for Human Beings
Educators’ respect is mainly twofold—firstly, ‘respect for human rights’, and secondly, ‘respect for biological difference’. Let me elaborate ‘respect for human rights’ first. A large number of teachers point out that human rights are rights to which people are entitled by virtue of being human. They are therefore ‘universal’ rights in that they belong to all human beings (Heywood, 1999). They imply that the discussion of gender is not necessary since human beings consist of people of all genders (men and women in their eyes). As Su-Ying said,
I consider it [gender equality] to be an individual right; that is, let people of different sex roles share either rights or obligations. They should equally respect each other. (Su-Ying, 42+, female, headteacher)
Yu-Mei boiled down all kinds of diversities to ‘human’.
I argue that complete gender equality refers to complete respect: respect our children[11] completely. We shouldn’t say boys are supposed to do this while girls do that. Whoever you are, either a boy or a girl, you have to take your responsibility; you have to obey rules; you have to have a sense of honour. That’s what I ask for students in the class. (Yu-Mei, 46, female, teacher)
Equally, Jhih-Yuan, a male English teacher, said ‘I have been thinking that human beings are created equal…but not only for men and women. We should respect senior citizens and children as well’. Li-Shu has a similar idea. She said,
Very often I talk to students: Should genders be equal? It’s a value I clarify relatively frequently; another is: should men and women be equal? ….gender is not a matter of equality, possibly it is not a problem of gender equality; rather, it is a problem of equality of human beings. In this respect, we should say that what we are seeking is not the idea of gender equality, but the idea of equality of human beings. (Li-Shu, 30, female, teacher)
Their underlying assumption ‘gender issue (if they think there is any) can be sorted out if human rights is emphasized’ reveals their lacking in gender consciousness and lacking in knowledge of gender. Through historical review of status of public/ private, we can see ‘human’ has been unquestionably referred to ‘man’ until very recent years. Tracing origins of some imperatives in Greek life and thought, which arose on the basis of the public-private distinction, Elshtain (1981: 202) points out that men were linked to culture/public/powerful/free/citizens while women were to nature/private/downgraded/unfree/noncitizens. She espouses the reasons why women had been silenced by power in the public speech:
Women were silenced in part because that which defines them and to which they are inescapably linked- sexuality, natality, the human body (image of uncleanness and taboo, visions of dependency, helplessness, vulnerability)- was omitted from political speech. Why? Because politics is in part an elaborate defense against the tug of the private, against the lure of the familial, against evocations of female power. (Elshtain, 1981:15-16).
Equally, Hosken (1981) argues that it is wrong to assume humanity, human rights or mankind are inclusive. Additionally, we see a selective application of ‘human rights’, albeit an expended notion of it in recent years (Arat, 1999). In this sense we shall investigate if the language of ‘human rights’ is used as excuses to deny women’s rights and how has ‘human rights’ been applied selectively in relation to gender issues.