Abstract
This article invites a discussion about the inclusion of issues on gender and sexualities in the curriculum of five different interdisciplinary undergraduate courses that focus on the formation of educators (Arts, Languages, Mathematics and Computing, Humanistics and Nature Sciences) at Universidade Federal do Sul da Bahia, in Brazil. The analytical methodology is the autobiographic experience, based on the Benjaminian storyteller, and the results are constituted by this experience under analysis within a narrative organized in three moments: (1) the discussions within a group of professors of these courses about the inclusion of such issues in the curriculum; (2) the construction of study plans; and (3) the experiences in the classroom. The narrated process shows that the issues on gender and sexualities, from a scientific perspective (gender and queer studies, and feminisms) are incipient on these courses, unknown to the students, and a challenge to the school. In this sense, the experience influenced some change into the reality of these courses, by including specific topics in the curriculum that dialogue directly with the educational process.
Introduction
The discussion about gender and sexualities in the formation of educators in Brazil is relatively recent, even though the foundations from feminist academic studies in the country date back from the 1960s, and the broad spectrum of sexualities’ studies had already been a part of Psychology departments and institutes. In the educational field, “sexual education”, from a normatizing perspective within the Brazilian State, has been present since the 1920s (Sayão, 1997), however it is only in the 1980s, with the proximity of a political opening in Brazil after a period of military dictatorship, that these topics are included from a more emancipatory perspective, albeit in a manner significantly intertwined with the AIDS-prevention paradigm.
There is noticeable change, over the 1990s, towards a growing affirmation of the necessity of including such topics, particularly in formative spaces for basic education (Louro, 1996, 1999; Silva et al., 2000), drawing from Foucaultian and post-structuralist studies of curriculum and education, which both include the reference to the French thinker in the educational field and, particularly, in studies of curriculum, as well as from the spectrum, within feminist studies, of a critical perspective that situates the discursive field into the same epistemological standpoint to think about gender, bodies and sexualities.
It was only in 1997, 11 years after the “political opening” in Brazil, that the theme “sexual orientation” is included in the National Curricular guidelines, although yet from a quite informative–preventative idea at the populational and individual levels (Altmann, 2001), denoting, as Foucault (1999) points out, both the incidence of disciplinary power and of biopower. Even if one understands the importance of the inclusion of such theme, and that it, in this moment, brings some opening to the diverse ways of living sexualities, the document treats it as a transversal one. In the field dedicated to the formation of educators, the distinction of topics related to gender and sexual diversity is only included in the National Curricular Guidelines (DCNs, in the Portuguese original), that is, in the form of law, in 2015 (Brasil, 2015).
This is the moment, as Dourado (2015) notes, in which the National Education Council (CNE, in Portuguese) deepens the curricular organicity in teacher education, connecting spaces for higher education to basic education. This document contains the text in which the insertion of topics on gender and sexual diversity is deemed mandatory and also a structural aspect in the formation, that is, it is where there is a clear indication that such concepts must necessarily be a part of educational training for basic education. This important publication, supported by labor unions, research associations in education, and social movements involved with the struggles for the right to education, comes during a troubled political moment in Brazil, in which an impeachment process is carried out against an elected woman president and in which conservative movements linked to religious organizations influenced the removal of education on gender and sexual diversity from the National Educational Plan (PNE) (Brasil, 2014), influence that, through political pressure, also had previously led to the vetoing of an educational project designed to the formation of educators named “School without Homophobia”, in 2011 (ABGLT et al., 2011).
It is within the context of DCNs implementation that this study is situated, effected as an autobiography of narrative inspiration (Benjamin, 1994) from a lived experience at the Universidade Federal do Sul da Bahia (UFSB). The purpose is to narrate, from annotations, memories, documents, the implementation process that took place within formation courses for educators in that institute, organized in an interdisciplinary form in 5 different courses – interdisciplinary licenciate degrees (LIs) 1 –, as follows: Mathematics and Computing and its technologies; Languages and codes and its technologies; Arts and its technologies; Human and Social Sciences and its technologies; and Natural Sciences and its technologies. The implementation, as might be reviewed in the narratives within this paper, has occurred through the creation of a Curricular Component (CC) common to all LI courses, named “Education, gender and sexual diversity”, with a 30-hour workload, and a part of the courses’ “common trunk”, a set of CCs organized in mixed groups from all courses, intending to ensure what is prescribed by the DCNs.
Who is the narrator and what is the narrated space? Or an autobiographical methodology
For Benjamin, the best narrative is one that is the closest to oral tradition: Nothing facilitates more the memorization of narratives than that sober concision which saves them from a psychological analysis. The greater the naturality with which the narrator renounces psychological subtleties, the more easily history will be recorded in the listener's memory, the more completely it will be assimilated to their own experience and the more irresistibly they will yield to the inclination of recounting it one day. (Benjamin, 1994: 204) Social transformation as a curricular project is regarded considering that the politics of the curriculum is a process of inventing this very curriculum and, as such, an invention of ourselves. A constant, endless political struggle, however exerted contextually by each one of us and, because of that, being able to bring in itself a possibility of hope. The hope of a better world embodied into the understanding that, if it is utterly impossible to signify this world once and for all, it is still necessary to invest in that signification. We might dedicate ourselves to it without losing sight of how unstable, provisory and precarious it is, and precisely because of that, how potent it is too: open to be constantly remade in an unpredictable manner. (Lopes, 2013: 23).
The narrative syntheses will be composed with documental elements and will already evidence the theoretical dialogues which guided the curricular construction that was experienced. As already referred by Lopes (2013), the curriculum is a political struggle and, as an actor within the process, one cannot deny who this narrator is. This narrator who is now opening up his pedagogical experience is a White cisgender man, homosexual, belongs to the salaried middle-class, has a bachelor’s degree in Psychology, is a performance artist, has a master’s degree in Special Education and a PhD in Sociology, he has been working in higher education for 15 years, and has been an activist in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, intersex, and asexual movements since the 1990s. Far from denying the initial assumption within this section (Benjamin, 1994), this is about evidencing, in connection with the post-critical studies on the curriculum, from which political place one speaks, within the relations of power in the educational environment of Brazilian higher education. That is, in order to practice one of the premises in these studies, in feminist and post-feminist theories themselves, questioning the alleged neutrality in the construction of knowledge requires the affirmation of the epistemological and political place from which one speaks, for to produce knowledge on gender, sexualities, education and curriculum constitutes a daily struggle, without losing the rigor that underlies it.
A struggle that begins with the DCNs and moves towards the lived relationships within the educational day-to-day
With the approval of the new DCNs (Brasil, 2015) for the formation of educators, I have sent an e-mail to the group of professors responsible for the structuring of the “common trunk” in the LIs, requesting that topics were included in accordance with Article 13 in that document, paying particular attention to the fact that the specific contents on gender and sexual diversity, my area of studies, were not regarded in such curricula: § 2° Formation courses shall guarantee that, within curricula, there exist specific contents from the respective knowledge area or interdisciplinary ones, their foundations and methodologies, as well as content related to the foundations of education, formation in the area of public policy and educational management, their foundations and methodologies, human rights, racial/ethnic, gender, sexual, religious, generational diversities, Brazilian Sign Language (Libras), special education and educational rights of adolescents and youth serving socioeducational measures. (Brasil, 2015: 12)
The work in the field of studies on gender and sexualities in which I am involved is known amongst faculty, students and administrative staff, if only because in 2015 I was a victim of a homophobic manifestation in the university’s news board, an event that was widely publicized, including the local media. I was also at the forefront of the discussions on the implementation of what is called nome social 3 within this university, having written, along with part of the academic community, a document that served as a basis for such discussions, and coordinated a debate in an event at the university, in which a trans activist was participating, where it was necessary for us, even, to intervene in the panel discussion on two occasions: one, to correct the inadequate conceptual usage of the nome social; and another to read the final document and to register a redress to the directing panel, who silenced women from the local feminist movement by interrupting them in their moments of speaking.
Therefore, in view of these two historical and public moments, it would be practically impossible to disregard my activism and knowledge in the area. In response to this e-mail, I am questioned by a colleague about the need for this discussion, noting that it was interesting to him that I was not previously interested in the licenciatura degrees (the aforementioned LIs), to which I replied that I am part of the faculty of these courses and that now I was specifically bringing this demand up. This first interlocution was corroborated by other colleagues – who do not have extensive knowledge in the area – delegitimizing my position, stating that these subjects were already dealt with by using the philosophical concepts of “love” and that it would not be necessary, therefore, to include these topics.
As Louro (1996) well points out, the educator training designed for “ladies” positions the place of “love” as a fundamental one, within the normatization of teaching in basic education; even within the psychologizing discourses of education specialists, norms of behavior exist in the normatization of a feminine model, either of the mother or of the teacher (Guimarães, 2014; Guimarães and Braga, 2015). We can say that, here, a White, cisgender and heterosexual man, who represents hegemonic power within educational environments, advocates that the concept of “love”, such as present in hegemonic Western philosophy, can replace the advancements provided by feminist studies and gender studies, by the knowledge constituted outside academia by distinct activisms. Such defense might be understood as the reification of that common practice when women are included in teaching, which was constituted by religious and psychological discourses that normatize the behaviour of women, given that an argument utilizing a “more philosophical” discussion would suffice for the debate about studies on gender and sexualities.
I had, then, to initiate a broad debate, which occurred in meetings with professors, in e-mail exchanges, and in meetings with students, in order to organize an argument that was articulated with academic language, the hegemonic language that oppresses me/us, but one that needs to be claimed for it to become resistance. I have learned from hooks, when she reflects upon the idea of an “oppressor’s language” in Adrienne Rich during her classes, that: I imagine them listening to spoken English as the oppressor’s language, nevertheless I also imagine them realizing that this language would need to be possessed, taken, claimed as a space of resistance. I imagine that moment in which they noticed that the oppressor’s language, taken and spoken by the mouths of colonized folk, could be a space of connection, as one of intense joy. In such perception, there was the understanding that intimacy could be restored, that a culture of resistance could be formed in such a way that it would enable the recovery from the trauma of slavery. I imagine, therefore, African people listening to English for the first time as the “oppressor’s language” and then re-listening to it as a potential place of resistance. (hooks, 2008: 859) Feminist critiques and education. Queer pedagogies, the philosophy of difference, cultural studies and decoloniality. The curriculum and pedagogical practices at the school, in the context of gender relations and sexualities. (Teaching Plan, 2016: 1)
The syllabus becomes a plan: developing a proposal for action
The developed syllabus presents a broad spectrum of the studies and practices for education, gender relations and sexualities, comprehending that the historical process is marked, within this process, by the post-critical curricular trends in education, considering the historicity of feminist and queer studies and of decolonial movements. It points towards a debate which dialogues simultaneously with school spaces, non-formal educational spaces and formative spaces within social movements. Certainly, in order for this rather broad syllabus proposal to be implemented, it was required that we had a plan that included:
A historic comprehension of the constructed place of the “female teacher”, from feminist perspectives. A discussion on the relations between power, gender relations and sexual dissidences, within the scope of the educational process. An analysis of public policies directed towards education, within the scope of promoting gender equality and the respect to sexual diversity. A reflection about the school as a space for discussion about differences. An analysis of practices in the school space, teaching materials and public policies directed towards the promotion of gender equality and the respect to sexual diversity (Teaching Plan, 2016: 2).
These objectives were defined in a group of three professors, myself included, directly involved in education, and not necessarily with experience in the studies of gender or sexualities. The discussion was centered on the need to configure the spaces of the school, of the educational policies and of other formative spaces as a field of professional action for the people to be graduated in the LIs.
The main space of action is teaching, and this professional place, like any other, is permeated by power relations. Obviously, as Hall (2016) states, there are different representations of what it means to be a female professor, which can even be opposed to each other. We can say that in Brazil, the social position occupied by teaching in basic education – which involves salary levels, the understanding, as previously mentioned, that a good teacher only needs to provide an adequate maternal conduct, and the precarious workplace conditions – situates this professional in a place of non-hegemonic power. Thus, most representations about female professors, from the media to educational policies and school spaces, are derogatory. Representations are created, as Silva (1996) recalls, in socially defined ways, in order to organize life, the world and, depending on the position within the relations of power, one can be a subject or object of representation.
We understood, in the group, that it is from the place of “being a female professor” that the other objectives unfold: the relations with the educational policies that determine how the school is; the daily experiences of the relations between educators and students, traversed by the relations of power and by gender relations among them; the place for the differences, for gender identities and sexual diversity that involve the school and educational spaces; and the pedagogical practice itself in the materiality of the school.
Given the proposed plan, we thought that the function of this debate would be to question each and any indicative related to a “manual of good behavior”. We developed the syllabus in the perspective of departing from some ideas which could destabilize what is constituted as fundamental and what is presented in the whole of the representational system: (1) that there exists a binary way to think of gender; and (2) that differences are deviances. Along with these 2 conceptions, we are supported by the comprehension within queer pedagogies: To undertake such theoretical choice implies dealing with contradictions, surely, but it implies putting aside the logic of dialectics, which presupposes a synthesis and the overcoming of contradiction. In this perspective, we seek to overcome the reasoning along the lines of
The day-to-day of meeting moments
Higher education is rather directed towards an alleged inclusion through allegedly neutral knowledge, even in the careers in humanities or the licenciaturas. As hooks says: There is not much of a passionate teaching or learning in higher education nowadays. Even where students are desperately wishing to be touched by knowledge, professors are still afraid of the challenge, still let their concerns about losing control prevail over their desires to teach. Simultaneously, those of us who teach the same old topics in the same old ways are frequently, intimately annoyed – unable to rekindle passions we might once have felt. (hooks, 1999: 122)
The program went towards a history of feminisms, from women’s different struggles, involving, beyond the classical discussion on the White European feminist waves, Black feminism, intersectional feminism, decolonial feminism and transfeminist perspectives. In order to accomplish that, I found support in hooks (1995, 1999), Louro (1996, 1999), Jesus and Alves (2012), Lugónes (2014) and Davis (2016). From there, we moved towards the historical struggle between feminisms and LGBT movements, providing notions about how the concepts within the very movement were also consolidating over time: I was basically supported by Facchini (2005) and Colling et al. (2011), in order to present, basically, the places that have been established within social movements, their places of power, and their discourses when in disagreements.
We shifted, then, to the discussion more focused into the perspective of queer pedagogies (Louro, 1996, 1999, 2007) and the proposition of monster pedagogy (Cohen, 2000). The latter, as a political–methodological proposition, has significantly drawn the students' interest: The monster appears within the interval in which difference is perceived as the division between, on one side, the voice that registers the “existence” of the “different” and, on the other, the subject thusly defined, the criteria for such division is arbitrary, and might range from anatomy to skin tone to religious belief, to customs and political ideology. The destructiveness of the monster is, indeed, a deconstruction: they threaten to reveal that the difference has its origins in the process, not in the fact (and that the “fact” itself is also subject to constant reconstruction and change). Given that what has been recorded within the history of the west has been mainly European and masculine, women (She) and non-whites (They!) have seen themselves repeatedly transformed into monsters, be it to validate specific alignments concerning masculinity and whiteness, be it to simply expel them from these domains of reasoning. The feminine and cultural others are already monstrous enough if considered in isolation within patriarchal society, however when they threaten to mix, a whole economy of desire sees itself under attack. (Cohen, 2000: 45)
Together, we understood that we could develop pedagogical practices which are able to teach about the respect to differences, although not encompassing, in doing so, all difference within the common and simplistic sphere of diversity, nor teaching from an identity circumscription, and considering, anyhow, each identity as political. It is about, then, a proposition in favor of a multitude of differences, differences that are political: The queer multitude has nothing to do with a “third sex” or with a “beyond genders”. It is constituted through the appropriation of the disciplines of knowledge/power over the sexes, through the rearticulation and deviance from the specific sexopolitical technologies that produce “normal” and “deviant” bodies. In opposition to “feminist” or “homosexual” politics, the politics of the queer multitude does not rely on a natural identity (man/woman) nor on a definition based on practices (heterosexual/homosexual), but on a multiplicity of bodies that rise against the regimes that construct them as “normal” or “abnormal”: they are drag kings, gouines garous, bearded women, dickless transfags, cripcyborgs … what is at stake is how to resist or how to deviate from the sexopolitical forms of subjectification. (Preciado, 2011: 16).
The students then decided to produce teaching materials to be used in Basic Education. Each small group of students has produced a different material: guides; books; educational games; and videos. According to their own statement, public schools lack such materials, which can now be used as artifacts, technologies that propose other becomings, other bodies, other places which encompass all knowledge development produced by social movements and academia, so that they can be used creatively at schools or non-formal educational means.
While presenting their materials, I asked the groups to make a theoretical explanation to support each construction, and it was very interesting to notice how students who, not long ago, had no contact with the topics could, beyond developing teaching materials that could perfectly be used in their future classes in basic education, also noticeably demonstrate an understanding of the concepts studied: each material with its own specificities, but articulated with the discussed concepts. Experiencing the pedagogical practice through the development of material was, beyond the theoretical development, a channel for a process of incorporation, into the daily lives of these students, of the concepts, struggles, and pedagogical processes for their formation.
And the struggles continue …
This autobiography, between pieces of narration and reflection, brings forward some important points:
The discussions on gender and sexualities are still minor in the daily activities within the formation of educators. Even if there is an affirmation of such discussions from a legal standpoint, there is a lot of sexism, homophobia, and transphobia impregnated into academic discourses, something which still excludes these conversations from the courses. I state, here, that none of these topics end up entering the curricula without struggle. It was within an excessive, extenuating dispute that a resistance was produced, and at any moment, in contingent relations of power, there could be backward contexts, given that there are hegemonic forces for its removal. It is possible to stimulate a discussion about these topics without an excess of academic predominance. Good resources were used with an emphasis on education, not losing sight of the seriousness involved in knowledge production. We could verify that students had no contact with these themes and that it was possible for them to engage with these classes, as we could observe in the development of their teaching materials, which was founded at length upon the learned concepts.
There is still a lot to be produced, in terms of resources for educators’ formation regarding gender relations and sexualities. This work had the objective of bringing an experience of a viable formative itinerary, departing from a trajectory that was collectively organized, in disagreements with (some) colleagues and in the collective construction with (some other) colleagues and students.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
Special thanks go to Viviane Vergueiro for reviewing and translating the article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.