Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This is the opening paper of a special issue that focuses on certain cultural tendencies that have emerged as topical issues in the school curricula, in both flourishing and struggling against their social frames, namely: gender, sexuality and diversity. At the same time, new approaches to teacher education have ranged from varieties of feminism to critical race theories, postcolonial studies and queer theories. So, the first reaction from our collection of papers points out that teacher educators are the ones who share the responsibility to know, use and endorse these pedagogies of learning as reference frameworks for practice. Therefore, we offer this collection for the wider international audience interested or invested in the field, for a further reflection on the topical issues and provocative questions of our very challenging times in education and educating.

Keywords

Gender diversity globalization policies teacher education

This special issue focuses on certain cultural tendencies that have emerged as topical issues in the school curricula, in both flourishing and struggling against their social frames, namely: gender, sexuality and diversity. At the same time, new approaches to teacher education have ranged from gender studies and feminist perspectives to critical race theories, postcolonial studies and queer theories.

However, the reach and scope of the critical pedagogies in schools pertaining to these issues is still limited, even in the most gender-equal and diversity-ridden countries, such as Sweden. Meanwhile worrying trends have appeared globally. For example, in Brazil the critical pedagogues experience a somewhat ‘speechless moment’ in facing growing street violence against women, transgender and queer people. At the same time, in Russia, the liberal-minded teachers have had to succumb under the neo-traditionalist official state ideologies, which advocate very conservative and oppressive views on gender roles, sexualities and families, tied to nationalism and religion. (Peterson, 2007; Sorainen et al., 2017).

The global-scale backlash developments – post-Trump, post-Brexit, post-Putin and post the general closing borders policies in the European Union – affect heavily against gender equality, sexual diversity and immigration issues also in higher education. The public debates and political controversies around these issues are built increasingly, in a very affect-arousing manner, around nationalist and even bigoted understandings of the role of education and the state in the nation building. To avoid a narrowing understanding of the teachers’ role in such a turbulent moment of history, we suggest that teacher educators should not be silent upon the vicissitudes of these crucial issues in terms of the continuing development of our societies.

We recognize that the idea of putting together a dossier that addresses aspects of teacher education around the globe aiming to diminish prejudice and other damaging behaviours targeting the ‘different’ has been tackled already in terms of earlier political and historical contingencies. However, at this very moment of profound political and economic – the rise of right-wing populism and the shift to finance capitalism – changes worldwide, what was merely a preconception could be materialized in several ways that we intend to illustrate in this special issue. We will provide an intellectually strong, solid and culturally expanded forum to strengthen the arguments for diversity in teacher education to enhance novel ways to redescribe both educating and education. The idea to open this discussion was prompted by our previous research, which may differ in focus but is clearly complementary when it comes to pointing out that such perspective is timely and valid for and across cultures (Fortunato, 2014, 2016; Guimarães et al., 2016; Mena, 2017; Sorainen, 2015a).

In that matter, we suggest an interesting use of new artefacts, and to learn from manifold, even unexpected sources, such as a combination of a pedagogical experiment and artistic re-imaginations and new technologies to explore the often invisible power structures and hierarchies that are rooted in schools. For example, the classic Jane Elliot’s ‘Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes’ social experiment – in which she showed how any random individual could feel neglected and left outside just because of the colour of her/his eyes – provides one such intriguing rerouting of our devices for new pedagogies on inclusivity and social justice. This experience has been used to trigger an important debate about the politics of recognition during teacher education at universities. The main lesson from the ‘Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes’ experiment might be formulated in the following way: People must be treated as such, and must not be taken for granted or misjudged for their skin colour, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, sensory resources or other idiosyncrasies (Fortunato, 2014). In other words, teachers should pay attention to both their own self-reflection and equal treatment very seriously, and not take for granted these important issues at school (Fortunato, 2016).

In the last 50 years, there has been an international push to promote quality teacher education programs (Mussett, 2010; Sánchez and Mena, 2010; Zeichner, 2014). In particular, this has taken place after several international reports, such as TALIS, PISA, TIMMS, and PIRLS concluded that teaching is a key factor to better promote the performance of students in schools. Nonetheless, the complexities of the teaching profession have proven to result in unpredictable contexts of achievement (Ball and Cohen, 1999). Ball and Cohen (1999) This, in turn, makes the pedagogies of teaching vital in order to develop an accordingly clearer understanding of the education practices.

Hence, many methods have been developed from the developmental teacher learning styles to situated learning theories, constructive learning and subject-matter theories of pedagogy to the more critical approaches. These last, the critical approaches in teacher education, stand out as those theoretical frameworks that acknowledge and bring to the fore the issues of gender, sexuality, race and diversity. The many branches of these approaches vary from feminism, postcolonialism and critical race studies to queer and trans* theories (trans* is an umbrella term that refers to all of the identities within the gender identity spectrum, see Halberstam, 2017). The critical aspect that they jointly highlight is that education cannot be regarded as an unbiased and impartial discipline (Ellis and Maguire, 2017). Rather, in many instances, education tends to serve to legitimize the disempowerment of minority social classes and social groups, and to transmit cultural stereotypes and reproduce the existing inequalities in the society (Bowles and Gintis, 1976; Giroux, 1981).

Queer theories have focused on understanding questions about gender, sexuality, identity and desire as experiences that go beyond conventionalism, reformism and social rule from the 1990s (Rubin, 1984; Butler, 1990; Edelman, 2004). This blooming field has also prompted a body of research on the intersectionality of gender and sexualities, and further, trans* studies (e.g. Babette, 2000; Berrigan, 2003; Halberstam, 2005; Fletcher, 2006; McCabe et al., 2003), and research on lesbian and homosexual culture as well as queer kinship and family structures (e.g. Weston, 1991; Almaguer, 1991; Halperin, 2002, 2012; Halberstam, 2017). It has reopened the field to consider sexual and gender categories in less restrictive, non-hierarchical, non-binary and anti-naturalizing ways. According to the major proponents of queer theories, the concepts of gender and sex have been largely misunderstood as something given instead of devices of certain power discourses, and therefore used as non-referential synonyms in many instances (Butler, 1990; Duggan, 2003; Edelman, 2004; Halberstam, 2011; Muñoz, 2009; Sedgwick, 1990; Warner, 1993).

However, there are marked differences that have been increasingly catching the eye of schoolteachers, education stakeholders, and teacher educators. Consequently, as the legal landscape in most western societies has rapidly changed towards more equal sexual rights, Rainbow Families¹ are increasing in statistics, and thus also becoming more visible in all liberal countries (Moring, 2014). Consequently, the children of non-heteronormative families have also become more numerous, and recognized as Rainbow Family children in schools and kindergartens. The first generation of these children have already become parents and have put their own children into school. Along with these changes in kinship and family form, Rainbow Families have become both the target and the tool for diverse politics and state ideologies (Sorainen et al., 2017).

The United States (US) anthropologist Gayle Rubin (1976) theorized that the term sex is related to anatomical structure, and the term gender is related to an imposed or adopted social and psychological condition. The radical US feminist thinker, Judith Butler (1990) further developed Rubin’s formative analytical sex/gender division into an important theory of the genealogy of gender. By now, Butler’s body of work has become almost mainstream in terms of how gender is articulated and understood in the academic discourses in the USA, Europe and beyond. This again, is reflected in the popular culture and media which now looks at gender variance, sexual diversity and the multiplicity of family relations with much more open eyes than, say, a decade before. Therefore, our special issue is timely as it looks with fresh eyes on the historical moment where human life in all its variations and novel ways to relate to each other and to other species has started to bloom, while is also met with increasingly hostile neo-conservative forces from the populist political right and fundamental religious conservative ranks.

The concept of ‘heteronormativity’ became enormously important to critical studies in terms of analysing and understanding diversity around the year 2000. The term refers to the normative assumptions of sex, gender, desire, and their cross firing that form an oppressive and dominating, “naturalized” hegemonic matrix (Butler, 1990). According to this dominant cultural logic, a woman should be feminine, with strong feelings towards a masculine figure that desires her back. All other ways of conceiving sex, gender and desire are sanctioned in one way or another. For instance, in Putin’s Russia lesbian-parented families and queer communities are persecuted via anti-gay legislation. In Brazil, the trans* community regularly suffers from street violence. At the same time, a new worry has arisen around the so-called homonationalism as the alt-right movement in the US and the lesbian/gay bigotism in Europe has started to influence national policies and politics (Duggan, 2003; Halme-Tuomisaari and Sorainen, 2017). However, this bigotism fails to notice the real-life circumstances that teachers in school, early education and higher education have noticed now for several years. The first and second generation Rainbow Family children are, arguably, much more fluid and experimental in their take on partner choice, gender identity and sexual ‘orientation’ than the members of those generations and family cultures where the bigoted leaders (mostly white men in their mid-50s) or their own children were socialized (Moring, 2014; Sorainen, 2013).

Therefore, it is a focus to envisage novel ways to discuss and include these themes – the fluidity, historicity, temporality and contingency of genders and sexualities – into the forum on teacher education in the increasingly globalized world. The unique historical moment urges us to find ways to rethink our tools to struggle against the new challenges. For instance, accessing the job market nowadays demands new rules mainly because the new ‘inheritocracy’ (the elite kids of the evermore wealthy, who inherit a good family name and the most expensive private schooling) is replacing what we came to know as meritocracy (Sorainen, 2015b). They do not only take over the best jobs but, as a social group (and a social construct), they are replacing the socially more equal social values. In other terms, the globalizing business seeks to affect the education system and select those who can afford the elite schools and those teachers who best serve its interests.

But given that we now face a moment where both the sexual rights, gender diversity and bigotism are thriving at the same time (see the alt-right movement) – what are the possible ways that teacher education could seek to answer these massive challenges that the simultaneous shift to sexual rights, finance economics and post-conservative politics raise in our societies? The answer is not simple. Thus, the problem that comes with gender and inequity in teacher education is about the societal constructs that are still associated to it, namely, the assumed and even enforced roles for both men and women. The pervasive binary understanding of gender is typically related to a variety of social representations that define who the two assumed genders are as a group (i.e. men are providers while women are nurturers and child carers). These powerful discourses work to print expectations, behavioural patterns, and associated beliefs to all individuals.

For these reasons, this special issue suggests that teacher education ought to encourage new generations of teachers to educate to reinforce the emerging diversity of the identities of students, rather than to assign them automatically to gendered roles, and accordingly, to heteronormative sexual positions amidst the increased sexual diversity. The identity claims that students themselves may have, if taken seriously, could work to promote the acceptance of the teachers on the way students view themselves as male or female. However, teachers need to be careful to give space also for those students who may not have such claims or whose claims shift (Sorainen, 2013). In this regard, teachers should accept and promote students’ personal understanding and feelings towards their self.

This may lead to complex operations with non-hegemonic conceptualizations of gender (i.e. intersexuality or trans* identities) as well as different sexual identities (i.e. queer, heterosexual, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, polyamorian, asexual, pansexual). Conversely, the roles that refer to how the society expects males or females to behave and think according to a set of (often hidden) parameters may influence students also in very conservative ways (i.e. neo-conservatism ideologies, alt-right, official backlash). It is important to note that class, race, postcolonial issues and other ‘new’ social demands figure as new political phenomena that demand further analysis.

On the other hand, the globalized capitalist system is increasingly polarizing social formations into two social classes different from each other: the working class (the wage earners) and the entrepreneurs (speculators). This division of labour is leading to rather antagonistic viewpoints and styles of life in terms of affordability, social accomplishments and empowerment. This simplified and dominant social structure worldwide is also neglecting other conceptualizations of personal identities, sexual roles and the experiences of race and racism.

Regarding this last point, the term ‘race’ presents at least two foremost problems in current society. On one hand race is not a biological construct, but rather cultural. Traditionally this concept has been built upon the assumption that genetic differences have shaped human variations. In this sense, it might be better to talk about species and speciesism. What are those parameters that stress differences between humans and animals? What are those markers and concepts that we have come to use when we discuss and valorize differences between social groups? What is the heritage and legacy of that lexicon that we are geared to use in terms of human diversity, social histories and power imbalances? Whose struggles count, and whose articulations win the political privilege of being ‘significant’ or ‘rational’ in this debate?

Secondly, and related to the above-mentioned points in more significant ways, there are wider variations within the groups of human ‘races’, than between them (Lewontin, 2004). Thirdly, what we call ‘races’ cannot be ranked regarding any predetermined human traits. This sort of classifications empowers some social groups as unmarked ‘races’ – a race without race (middle-class western whiteness) – over others, in materializing distinctions about superiority/inferiority according to social status, prestige and wealth.

For those reasons, perhaps it is the postcolonial theorists (Said, 1978 and followers) who help us to fully understand the dualities between the ‘superior’ and the ‘inferior’. This would form a politically but also intellectually demanding attempt to reclaim other cultural identities (social, sexual and racial) as culturally legitimate and socially valid. And, this is exactly what we have set as our goal in this special issue.

As strangers to strangers (Ahmed, 2012), and as strangers to our ‘own’, we look to adopt the concept of ‘otherness’ as the quality of being different without entering any biased classification. In here, the intersectionality approach provides a great way to understand deeper the complexity of identities and the ways how persons could embody and attach to in different positions in ways that render the power hierarchies extremely contingent. For example, the ways that power works between, let’s say, a young black lesbian teacher in relation to upper-middle classes, or a latino gay male student/white straight working-class female student and a middle-aged white straight teacher, pose a variety of questions of how class, race, age, sexuality and gender actually speak of vulnerability, hierarchies and privilege.

The risk with working from an intersectionality point of view is that it might reduce the specifics of, for example, race or sexuality as just one aspect of gender. However, we have come to believe, based on our rigorous and long-term studies in this field, that this approach is apt to help teacher educators to promote a more open perspective for teachers to perceive the ‘different’ as the norm, which still would include the idea and practise of social justice at its heart.

Quite a few years ago, Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder (1974) put it this way: ‘if you want to get ahead, get a theory’. Similarly, if teachers or teacher educators are looking to make progress in their work with students, it means that teacher education pedagogies are indispensable. This is because they not only provide a framework to understand practice but also set the very foundation for educational research. Therefore, we would like to highlight that – as we have stated throughout the lines of this introductory paper – the urgency of critical pedagogies to help us to face complex issues of diversity in the globalization lies within such validated theoretical frameworks as critical race theories, queer theories and feminism. However, teachers’ work cannot be reduced to applying decontextualized concepts or skills (Britzman, 1991). Rather, they need to bridge our understandings of real practices to the pedagogies of teacher education (Tillema et al., 2009) in search of a more complete and diverse understanding of our students and the contemporary school to better serve the goal of social justice in the future.

It is to be acknowledged that ‘teacher education is embedded in social, cultural and political contexts and these contexts shape both teacher education pedagogies and the research into teacher education pedagogies’ (Mena, 2017). Thus, the first reaction from our collection of papers points out that teacher educators are the ones who share the responsibility to know, use and endorse these pedagogies of learning as reference frameworks for practice. Therefore, we offer this collection for the wider international audience interested or invested in the field, for a further reflection on the topical issues and provocative questions of our very challenging times in education and educating.

Footnotes

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.

Note

Ivan Fortunato is a PhD professor at the Federal Institute of São Paulo, Brazil. He is the coordinator of the FoPeTec research group for teacher education and Editor-in-Chief of Revista Internacional de Formação de Professores. Email: ivanfrt@yahoo.com.br.

Juanjo Mena is an associate professor in the Department of Education at the University of Salamanca (USAL, Spain), member of the GRIAL research group. Treasurer ISATT (International Study Association on Teachers and Teaching; ). Email: juanjo_mena@usal.es.

Antu Sorainen is an Academy of Finland Fellow, University of Helsinki, Finland and Director of the Research Project CoreKin – Contrasting and Re-Imagining Margins of Kinship (2016–2020) and PI of the Research Project Will-Writing and Inheritance Arrangements in Sexually Marginalised Groups (2014–2019). Email: antu.sorainen@helsinki.fi.

References

Ahmed

(2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press.

Almaguer

(1991) Chicano men: A cartography of homosexual identity and behavior. Differences. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 3(2): 75–100.

Babette

(2000) Is gender a social construct or a biological imperative? Paper presented at the Seventh Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference. Family Futures: Issues in Research and Policy, Sydney, Australia, 24–26 July.

Ball DL and Cohen DK (1999) Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a Practice-Based Theory of Professional Education. In: Sykes G and Darling-Hammond L (eds) Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, pp. 3–32.

Berrigan

(2003) Transexual marriage: A trans-Atlantic judicial dialogue. Law & Sexuality: Rev. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender legal issues 87: 112.

Bowles

Gintis

(1976) Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic life. New York, USA: Basic Books.

Britzman

(1991) Practice Makes Practice. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.

Butler

(1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, USA: Routledge.

Duggan

(2003) The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston, USA: Beacon Press.

10.

Edelman

(2004) No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press.

11.

Ellis

Maguire

(2017) Teacher education pedagogies based on critical approaches: Learning to challenge and change prevailing educational practices. In: Clandinin

Husu

(eds) The Handbook of Teacher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE.

12.

Fletcher

(2006) In re marriage of Simmons: A case for transsexual marriage recognition. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal 37: 533–570.

13.

Fortunato

(2014) “Olhos azuis, ou as leis 10.639/03 e 11.645/08 na prática”. Revista Espaço Acadêmico (UEM) 13(152): 49–55.

14.

Fortunato

(2016) Questões referentes à sexualidade: PCNs e a educação física escolar. In: Neto

Fortunato

(eds) Contribuições da educação física escolar à prática transversal. Curitiba: CRV, pp. 45–62.

15.

Giroux

(1981) Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling. London, UK: Falmer.

16.

Guimarães

Vergueiro

Fortunato

(eds) (2016) Gênero e cultura: perspectivas formativas. São Paulo, Brazil: Edições Hipótese.

17.

Halberstam

(2005) In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York, USA: New York University Press.

18.

Halberstam

(2011) The Queer Art of Failure. Durham, USA: Duke University Press.

19.

Halberstam

(2017) Trans* A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability. Berkeley and Los Angeles, USA: University of California Press.

20.

Halme-Tuomisaari

Sorainen

(2017) ‘Pretend to be straight!’ What’s wrong with the world? #WeekendEssay. Allegra lab – Anthropology, Law, Art and World March 11, 2017. Available at: http://allegralaboratory.net/pretend-to-be-straight-whats-wrong-with-the-world-weekendessay (accessed April 2017).

21.

Halperin

(2002) How to do the History of Homosexuality. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Halperin

(2012) How to be Gay. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Belknap Press.

23.

Karmiloff-Smith

Inhelder

(1974) If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition 3: 195–212.

24.

Lewontin

(2004) The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism and environment. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

25.

McCabe

Boyd

Hughes

et al. (2003) Sexual identity and substance use among undergraduate students. Substance Abuse 24: 77–91.

26.

Mena

(2017) Learning through pedagogies in Teacher Education (Section foreword). In: Clandinin

Husu

(eds) The Handbook of Teacher Education. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE publishers, pp. 509–513.

27.

Moring

(2014) Oudot perheet: Normeja ja ihanteita 2000-luvun Suomessa [Queer Families: Norms and Ideals in the 21th Century Finland]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press. Available at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/39269 (accessed April 2017).

28.

Muñoz

(2009) Cruising Utopia. The Then and There of Queer Futurity. New York, USA: NYU Press.

29.

Musset

(2010) Initial Teacher Education and Continuing Training Policies in a Comparative Perspective: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review on Potential Effects, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 48, OECD Publishing. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kmbphh7s47h-en (accessed April 2017).

30.

Peterson

(2007) Political identities/nationalism as heterosexism. International Feminist Journal of Politics 1(1): 34–65.

31.

Rubin

(1976) The traffic in women: Notes on the 'political economy' of sex. In: R

Reiter

(ed) Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York, USA: Monthly Review Press, pp. 157–210.

32.

Rubin

(1984) Thinking sex. Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In: Vance

(ed) Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Boston, USA: Routledge, pp. 267–319.

33.

Said

(1978) Orientalism. New York, USA: Penguin.

34.

Sánchez

Mena

(2010) Hablamos de lo que no existe y de lo que existe no hablamos. Infancia y Aprendizaje 33(2): 185–197.

35.

Sedgwick

(1990) Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley and Los Angeles, USA: University of California Press.

36.

Sorainen

(2013) Kieroonkasvamisen mahdollisuudet [Growing Up Queer)] Nuorisotutkimus [Journal of The Finnish Youth Sociology] 31(1): 23–42.

37.

Sorainen

(2015a) We are not containers!: On experimental objects, past-struggles and alternatives for education. Allegra lab – Anthropology, Law, Art & World. March 10, 2015. Available at: http://allegralaboratory.net/we-are-not-containers-on-experimental-objects-past-struggles-and-alternatives-for-education (accessed April 2017).

38.

Sorainen

(2015b) Queer personal lives, inheritance perspectives, and small places. Lambda Nordica special issue on queer kinship and reproduction 19(3–4): 31–54.

39.

Sorainen

Avdeeva

Isupova

Zhabenko

(2017) Strategies for non-normative families, parenting and reproduction in neo-traditional Russia. Journal of Families, Relationships and Societies. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/frs/pre-prints/content-ppfrsd1600095r1#Refs (accessed April 2017).

40.

Tillema

Mena

Orland-Barak

(2009) Formación de investigadores: perspectivas y procesos subjetivos implicados en la investigación educativa. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del profesorado 12(3): 27–30.

41.

Warner

(1993) Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

42.

Weston

(1991) Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New York, USA: Columbia University Press.

43.

Zeichner

(2014) The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 40(5): 551–568.

Teacher education for gender,sexuality,diversity and globalization policies

Abstract

Keywords

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Note

References