Introduction: Western colonial expectations and counter-narratives of women and education

Abstract

While there is always a risk when feminists within academia aim to foreground the experiences of women outside of the Western context, this aim is still needed given that so much scholarship and hegemonic discourse frames the Western experience as standard. This special issue presents scholarship embedded in local contexts; scholarship that relies on both large-scale studies and close qualitative work. The scholarship spotlights the voices and experiences of women outside of the Western context within educational spaces; and actively parses out and contravenes the centering of Western experience and expectations around education and schooling. This special issue is needed, especially as universities and international governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations adopt Western expectations around education; multiple nation states and regions are contracting with Western corporations and universities to provide education and schooling in developing areas. This special issue provides a balancing caution toward attention to local experience—particularly local women’s experiences—as education becomes a globally traded commodity.

In the mid-1980s, Chandra Mohanty, as well as other feminists, called on the academic and activist community to push against the norm of using Western experience as the referent and neutral standard for all experience. Mohanty’s ‘Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses’ (Mohanty, 1988) advocated for a feminism that was embedded in local experience and complexity. In 2003, Mohanty’s ‘Under Western eyes revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles’ further called for a feminism and activism that sought to avoid de-politicization of feminism; and, indeed, called on feminism to explore the nuanced experiences of women in many nations and regions (Mohanty, 2003). In the decades since, this call has been issued over and over again. In 2013 Mohanty wrote an article examining the ways that her early work had been taken up by academics and activists alike (Mohanty, 2013). While she made new claims about the need for large scale analysis of regional policies and experiences, she also reiterated her call to respect the voices of all women, and foreground the ways that women have experiences that are outside of and even contra to those that are normalized as part of Westernized discourse and expectation. Mohanty called on academics and activists, both in, and outside of academia, to refuse the easy binaries, dismantle stereotypes, and make space for non-Western experience of feminism and post-colonialism. While large-scale analysis can reveal important patterns, she argues that it is still important to foreground the nuances of localized experience.

More recent feminist scholars have continued in this vein. Loken (2014) has argued that women in the Global South are only known via comparison to women in the Global North. Women in the Global South are only seen as an object for which we (and the ‘we’ is always those of us who live in the Global North) should have compassion. However, as Loken points out, women in the Global South are rarely seen as complex individuals. Tao (2016), likewise, argues that women in Africa really only have one story—the story of hopelessness. It is the telling—and retelling—of this one story over and over that leads to stereotypes, and these stereotypes become factualized in a way that prevents anyone from seeing anything more complex, localized, and contradictory. Tao (2016) notes that Western assumptions become the referents for ‘facts’ about Africa. Women’s experiences in Africa are constantly seen through the lens of Western assumptions. Dosekun (2015) further argues that post-feminism—moving away from or into new types of feminism—are often translated in relation to Western culture. Western culture becomes the referent for the cultural move toward post-feminism. However, Dosekun (2015) points out that this is happening transnationally, and that this phenomenon looks different in different spaces. There is a need to explore feminism and post-feminism as transnational and complex phenomena, and not just as a Western phenomenon. Broeck and Junker (2014), too, argue for the need to push against Westernization as the neutral standard. They reconceive of modernity and post-modernity in a way that challenges the authority of the European and a Western world as central referents.

This special issue aims for a similar goal as the scholarship mentioned above. While there is always a risk when feminists within academia aim to foreground the experiences of women outside of the Western context, this aim is still needed given that so much scholarship and hegemonic discourse frames the Western experience as standard. This special issue presents scholarship embedded in local contexts; scholarship that relies on both large-scale studies and close qualitative work. The scholarship spotlights the voices and experiences of women outside of the Western context within educational spaces; and actively parses out and contravenes the centering of Western experience and expectations around education and schooling. This special issue is needed, especially as universities and international governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations adopt Western expectations around education; multiple nation states and regions are contracting with Western corporations and universities to provide education and schooling in developing areas. This special issue provides a balancing caution toward attention to local experience—particularly local women’s experiences—as education becomes a globally traded commodity.

The issue opens with Adami’s article on women and human rights—including the right to education. Adami asks: “Who is the subject of human rights and who feels addressed by human rights?” (Adami, p. 253). Human rights, and the process of creating human rights, are addressed, within the paper, as a process of becoming. As Adami points out, the creation of the Declaration of Human Rights was made with assumptions underlying the Western conception of ‘humanity.’ “This attempt at universalism—human rights—still excludes particularities or cultural belongings other than western ones” (Adami, this issue). In order to explore the complexities of human experience, and push against the universalism inherent in a Westernized conception of human rights, Adami draws on Todd and Cavarero to argue for the concept of the narratable self. “A narratable self is a relational self and the formation of human rights is about the relations between different narratable selves, not just Western ones. A narrative learning, or learning that allows for narration of the selves, shifts the focus in human rights learning from learning about the other to exposing one’s life story narrative in relation and experiences of human rights as respected and empowering, or as violated” (Adami, p. 258). It is only through a focus on the individual voices and life stories that we can truly understand and come to define human rights.

The issue then proceeds with an article by Aiston on the experience and status of women academics. In this article, Aiston explores how and why women experience working in higher education differently to their male colleagues. As Aiston argues, most of the literature on women academics is dominated by research conducted in the West. “The literature is characterized by what might be referred to as the ‘absent women’ discourse, namely the underrepresentation of women in the highest positions within the sector. It is key, however, to look beyond the Western academy and not assume that the status, position and experience of women academics is similar in other contexts, or that similar outcomes, for example, the lack of women as full professors globally is attributable to the same causes” (Aiston, p. 263). In fact, as Aiston points out, the assumption that priority should be given to gender equity universally, is problematic. “This is a particularly important point from a policy perspective in ensuring that academic women located in different geographic and cultural locations can benefit from interventions that are grounded in research that is locally relevant” (Aiston, p. 263). However, there is little data on women in academia outside of the Western context. Aiston addresses this dearth by considering the absence of data in the East Asian context by considering Hong Kong—and women in academia in Hong Kong—as a relevant example. Aiston presents large scale empirical data to further understand the position and status of East Asian women in academia, and advocate for policy initiatives that are driven by local contexts rather than Western assumptions.

Next is an article by Jackson on the globalization of the ‘Lean In’ phenomenon. Jackson contrasts the ‘Lean In’ phenomenon—embedded within the Western context—with experiences embedded within East Asia. ““Lean In” has become a significant movement within the new feminist landscape. It has expanded from one book to two, and from an American viewpoint to a global one, partnering with dozens of multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations worldwide. However, there are some limitations of the kind of feminist thinking exemplified by Lean In. This article critically examines the implications of Lean In as a rising discourse or ideology in relation to higher education within and outside western societies” (Jackson, p. 296). Jackson offers three major criticisms. “The first is that Sandberg (among others) offers a deficiency model of gender equality that partly blames women for sexism by focusing on internal rather than external change. Second, such emerging discourses tend to essentialize gender, precluding substantive recognition of intersectionality. Third, it is not easy to translate the pragmatic advice given to women across national contexts, as Lean In and related discourses reflect particular cultural conceptions of the workplace” (Jackson, p. 296). Jackson foregrounds the ways that Westernized notions of how women should behave in leadership positions—including leadership positions within higher education—do not play well in non-Western contexts.

An article by Ahmad and Greenhalgh-Spencer follows with a focus on the complexities of gender and math. This article “argues for a more complex literature around gender and math performance. In order to argue for this complexity, the authors present a small portion of data from a case study examining the performance of Kuwaiti students on TIMSS [Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study] and on Kuwait national math tests. Westernized discourses suggest that girls have a harder time in math classes; these discourses frame and are reified by prominent literature and practices within the field of math education research that suggest that women and girls need help in order to reach their potential in math. These Westernized discourses stand in contrast to the discourses in Kuwait that normalize women and girls as outperforming boys in all subjects—including all STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] subjects” (Ahmad and Greenhalgh-Spencer, p. 327). As the authors show, the reality is more complex. The authors close by arguing for a widening of the literature—and an expanding of the discourse—on girls and math performance. A more nuanced literature is needed to foreground the local and lived complexities of girls and math subject performance.

Sanya and Odero’s article article on women and new digital literacies comes next. They pose the question: “How can we reimagine learning and literacy in the age of ubiquitous mobile phone use?” This article takes up the gaps between Kenya’s published literacy rate and the increasing number of mobile phone users. Sanya and Odero use the case of Kenya to “understand changes in literacy, the discrepancy between the ability to read and ‘write’ on a mobile phone, and how we can include learning approaches that exploit existing infrastructure and enhance pedagogical capacities in national curricula” (Sanya and Odero, p. 310). As Sanya and Odero explain, what is “at stake here is a break away from past notions of knowledge and learning: the literacies required by educational policies versus the reality of the literacies required (and being used) in everyday life. This exploration is proliferated by advances and innovations technology that places knowledge circulation in the hands of what be students/learners” (Sanya and Odero, p. 310). Paying close attention to a rural community in Kenya, Sanya and Odero explore how a small population in a snapshot in time provides us with a way to understand how technology connects us and what the possibilities of those connections are. In Kenya, mobile phones are used in civic education, in legislative processes, in monitoring national public health concerns such as malaria, and in Kenya’s internationally celebrated successful mobile phone banking system. “All these processes require an ability to read and text using mobile phones, however discourses on literacy seem to exclude these already existing successes or newly adopted modes of learning” (Sanya and Odero, p. 310). As such, they argue that the use of mobile phones by Kenyan feminist organizations, in civic education and constitutional review processes, to make historical and political transformations exemplifies what Stuart Hall calls “articulation” (Hall, 1985, 1996). “Users are using mobile phones to challenge traditional notions of literacy and existing social and political situations” (Sanya and Odero, this issue). The use of mobile phones can be seen as a way of resisting or ameliorating one’s powerlessness, and challenging Westernized notions of literacy and proper schooling.

The special issue then proceeds with an article by Greenhalgh-Spencer and Jeron the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-assisted education in developing nations. The authors explore the possibility that Westernized assumptions about and expectations of ICT-assisted education are acting as an unreliable referent for developing nations. “Often, international development programs envision online education and ICT-assisted education that rely on the same sort of infrastructure that would be available in developed countries. However, less developed nations do not have this same level of infrastructure” (Greenhalgh-Spencer and Jerbip. 276). In this article, the authors provide a design–actuality gap-analysis of the internet infrastructure that exists in developing nations and nations in the Global South with the deployed ICT-assisted programs that are designed to use internet infrastructure to provide educational opportunities. “Programs that specifically pinpoint females’ access to schooling are foregrounded in this paper” (Greenhalgh-Spencer and Jerbi, this issue). The research presented in this article highlights two types of design–actuality gaps: there are places where there is access to internet infrastructure, but very little access to ICT-assisted educational programs; and there are also places where ICT-assisted educational programs have been deployed, but there is very little access to the kind of internet infrastructure that is necessary to support these programs. The authors present a technography of the gaps: mapping out the gaps and possibilities. “These maps also show the low level of access to programs specifically aimed at girls’ and women’s education” (Greenhalgh-Spencer and Jerbi, p. 276). The authors use this technography to argue for policy changes that could lead to greater access to ICT and education supported by ICT for girls and women in developing areas. “By mapping out gaps in resources, they pinpoint areas where access for girls and women to education is particularly poor, and show whether there are programs in the area that are addressing these needs, and whether there is the infrastructure to develop such programs” (Greenhalgh-Spencer and Jerbi, p. 276).

The issue closes with an Afterword by McCarthy and Tomlin. McCarthy and Tomlin foreground the ways that Western Colonial Expectations still act as a referent for recent scholarship in education. These authors parse out the ways that colonialism and post-colonialism still rely on Western assumptions and expectations. They focus on the complexities of material contextual experience; and the ways these experiences oppose the too-easy Western narratives of reality and proper schooling. McCarthy and Tomlin call attention to the ways that globalization can be homogenizing, and yet still fraught with extreme difference.

All of the articles in this issue are united by a focus on a local, complex, and nuanced feminism. All of the articles seek to challenge Westernized notions of normalcy. All of the articles highlight educational spaces and policies that exist in an international context. Yet, while there are many thematic similarities, each paper is unique in its focus on a specific context, locality, or situation. These papers continue Mohanty’s call to take up large scale data and global phenomena, but highlight local voices and specific materialities. As more and more international universities (International Trends in Higher Education, 2015) move toward offering or supporting the development of courses for an international audience—including courses focused on participants in the Global South and developing nations—policy-makers and academics should take a critical look at the local exigencies that stand in contrast to Western expectations of education. This special issue provides strong arguments in that direction.