Cultural influence on perception and judgement of sexual harassment is widely discussed in sexual harassment research. Yet, very few studies have delved deeper into the various norms and values of a culture, to understand how perception and interpretation of sexual harassment at the workplace is influenced by culture. This article attempts to fill this gap, by exploring how gendered behavioural norms instilled by Sri Lankan culture, shape perceptions about every day socio-sexual behaviours that occur in workplaces, influencing the interpretation and perception about workplace sexual harassment. Employing qualitative research methodology, in-depth interviews were used to gather information. The findings of the study unearthed how Sri Lankan women have developed notions of “good women” and “bad women”, rooted on various gendered behavioural norms internalized in them through rigorous primary and secondary socialization processes. Constant advices on proper behaviours, sanctions on dress codes and advices on the nature and type of relationships that women should maintain with the opposite gender, appear to influence women’s notions of this “good women” and “bad women” images, which in turn influence their perceptions about what is acceptable and unacceptable socio-sexual behaviours at workplace, and consequently, how they perceive, interpret and respond to instances of sexual harassment at workplace.
AbeyasekeraA. (2008). Gender ideologies in the school curriculum: A textual analysis of secondary school text books. Sri Lanka: CENWOR.
2.
AbhayadevaC. (2007). Gender and pre-school education. In JayaweeraS. (Ed.), Gender, education and socialisation (pp. 5–34). Colombo: CENWOR.
3.
AdikaramA.S. (2005). Is sexual harassment a problem at Sri Lankan workplaces?Colombo: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
4.
BarakA. (1997). Cross-cultural perspectives on sexual harassment. In O’DonohueW. (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 263–300). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
5.
BarrP.A. (1993). Perceptions of sexual harassment. Sociological Inquiry, 63(4), 460–470.
6.
BerdahlJ.L.MagleyV.J.WaldoC.R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(4), 527–547.
7.
BergerP.L.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
8.
BernsteinA. (1994). Law, culture, and sexual harassment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142(4), 1227–1311.
9.
BlumenthalJ.A. (1998). The reasonable women standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behaviour, 22(1), 33–57.
10.
Centre For Womens Research (CENWOR). (2007). Gender dimensions of the millennium development goals in Sri Lanka. Colombo: Author.
11.
CharmazK. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S. (Eds), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CharmazK. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S. (Eds), The sage book of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
De AlwisM. (1997). The production and embodiment of respectability: Gendered demeanours in Colonial Ceylon. In RobertsM. (Ed.), Sri Lanka: Collective identities revisited (Vol. 1, pp. 105–144). Colombo: Marga Institute.
FitzgeraldL.F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1070–1076.
17.
FitzgeraldL.F.SwanS.MagleyV.J. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioural and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In O’DonohueW. (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 5–28). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
FoulisD.McCabeP. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perceptions. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 37(9/10), 773–798.
19.
FrazierP.A.CochranC.C.OlsonA.M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 21–38.
20.
GeeM.V.NortonS.M. (1999). The confluence of gender and culture: Sexual harassment in the international arena. Management Decision, 37(5), 417–423.
21.
GutekB.A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
GutekB.A.O’ConnorM. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 151–166.
23.
HardmanW.HeidelbergJ. (1996). When sexual harassment is a foreign affair. Personnel Journal, 75(4), 91–97.
24.
HewamanneS. (2011). Negotiating sexual meanings: Global discourses, local practices, and Sri Lanka’s Free Trade Zone (FTZ) factory workers. Ethnography, 13(3), 352–374.
25.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). New Delhi: SAGE.
26.
HuntC.M.DavidsonM.J.FieldenS.L.HoelH. (2010). Reviewing sexual harassment in the workplace: An intervening model. Personnel Review, 39(5), 655–673.
27.
JayaweeraS. (1993). The socialisation of the girls child. In CENWOR (Ed.), Shadows and vistas: On being a girl child in Sri Lanka (pp. 148–181). Colombo: CENWOR.
28.
JayaweeraS. (2000). Education. In CENWOR (Ed.), Post Beijing Reflections: Women in Sri Lanka 1995–2000 (pp. 60–88). Colombo: CENWOR.
29.
JudicibusM.D.McCabeM.P. (2001). Blaming the target of sexual harassment: Impact of gender roles, sexist attitudes, and work roles. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 44(7–8), 401–417. Retrieved 11 August 2002, from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2294/2001_April/79856432/print.jhtml
30.
LarsenS.E.FitzgeraldL.F. (2011). PTSD Symptoms and sexual harassment: The role of attributions and perceived control. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(13), 2555–2567.
31.
LimpaphayomW.WilliamsR.J.FadilP.A. (2006). Perceived differences in sexual harassment between business school students in the US and Thailand. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 32–42.
32.
LutharV.K.LutharH.K. (2002). Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to explain sexually harassing behaviours in an international context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(2), 268–284.
33.
MarshallA. (2003). Injustice frames, legality, and everyday construction of sexual harassment. Law and Social Inquiry, 28(3), 659–689.
34.
MazerD.B.PercivalE.F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationship among perceptions, attitudes and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20(3/4), 135–146.
35.
McCabeM.P.HardmanL. (2005). Attitudes and perceptions of workers to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(6), 719–740.
36.
McDonaldP. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Review, 14(1), 1–17.
37.
NgC.OthmanJ. (2002). Unwanted and unwelcome: Sexual harassment in the Malaysian workplaces. Gender Technology and Development, 6(3), 389–407.
38.
ObeyesekereG. (1984). The cult of the Goddess Pattini. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
39.
PadhiP.K.GujralA. (2003). Sexual harassment at workplace: A socio-legal analysis. Management and Labour Studies, 28(2), 125–140.
40.
PereraI. (2002). Teachers’ classroom practices: Is there gender discrimination? In MendisS. (Ed.), Gender resource book for teachers. Colombo: CENWOR.
41.
PickerillJ.M.JacksonR.A.NewmanM.A. (2006). Changing perceptions of sexual harassment in the federal workforce, 1987–1994. Law and Policy, 28(3), 368–394.
42.
PryorJ.B.DeSouzaE.R.FitnessJ.HutzC.KumpfM.LubbertK.ErberM.W. (1997). Gender difference in the interpretation of social-sexual behaviour: A cross cultural perspective on sexual harassment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(5), 509–535.
43.
ReeseL.A.LindenbergeK.E. (2005). Gender, age, and sexual harassment. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(4), 325–352.
44.
ReeseL.A.LindenbergeK.E. (1997). ‘Victimhood’ and the implementation of sexual harassment policy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17(1), 37–57.
45.
SheetsV.L.BraverS.L. (1999). Organisational status and perceived sexual harassment: Detecting the mediators of a null effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1159–1171.
46.
SigalJ. (2006). International sexual harassment. Annual New York Academy of Sciences, 1087(1), 356–369.
47.
SigalJ.GibbsM.S.GoodrichC.RashidT.AnjumA.HsuD.PanW.K. (2005). Cross-cultural reactions to academic sexual harassment: Effects of individualist vs. collectivist culture and gender of participants. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 52(3/4), 201–215.
48.
TimmermanG.BajemaC. (1999). Sexual harassment in Northwest Europe: A cross-cultural comparison. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 6(4), 419–439.
WelshS.CarrJ.MacQuarrieB.HuntleyA. (2006). I am not thinking of it as sexual harassment: Understanding harassment across race and citizenship. Gender and Society, 2(1), 87–107.
51.
WijayatilakeK.WickramasingheM.SamarasingheG.LiyanageK.AbeywardenaJ. (2000). Sexual harassment in Sri Lanka: Women’s experiences and policy implications. Colombo: CENWOR.
52.
WijayatilakeK.ZachariyaF. (2001). Sexual harassment at work: Plantation sector. Colombo: International Labor Organisation.
53.
WrightC.V.FitzgeraldL.F. (2007). Angry and afraid: Women’s appraisal of sexual harassment during litigation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 73–83.
54.
ZimbroffJ. (2007). Cultural differences in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 14, 1311–1341.
