2.7. Conceptual framework
2.7.2. Feminist interpretations of social constructionism
58
is associated with human rights for women within the education system. Teachers would also view gender equity as creating the conditions for justice for both men and women, according to their needs.
59
outcome to equality of opportunity”. Moreover, Sikes and Measor (1992) assert that liberal feminists are also criticised on their over-emphasis on individual freedom at the expense of others in the community.
Socialist feminism
The focus of socialist feminism is to remove oppression by banning capitalism. Their interest is more on the position of females within the family and economy. In educational contexts, the authors are concerned about how schooling structures reproduces class, sexual, social and labour divisions. Socialist feminism challenges curriculum differences not only because females are trained in office skills but because females and girls are not trained in sciences and other related fields like their male counterparts (Acker and David, 1994). Socialists feminists are criticised by radical feminists in that they tend to make alliances with men, in which the “women’s interests are bound to be subordinate” (p.44). Moreover, Sikes and Measor (1992) maintain that socialist feminism argues that schools reproduce gender inequality and class inequality. Sikes and Measor (1992) further assert that labour division is also important in socialist feminist thinking. Socialist feminists also suggest that schools enforce appropriate roles to girls by reproducing the division of labour. Socialist feminism further suggests that schools “play a part in gaining the consent of girls to their subordinate status and to their place in the domestic sphere” (p.25).
Radical feminism
Similar to social feminists, radical feminists focus on changing social structures, which challenge and eliminate male dominance and patriarchal structures. According to Obrien (1983, p.13), “the goal of a feminist education is not equality in knowledge, power and wealth, but the abolition of gender as an oppressive cultural reality”. They also focus on daily life gender politics in schools.
For example, teachers giving unequal attention between boys and girls. The radical feminists are accused for “prioritisation of sexual oppression over that based on race and class” (Murphy &
Livingstone, as cited in Acker and David, 1994). Unlike liberal and social feminists on education, radical feminists had made limited “attempts to relate school life to the economy and to the family”
(Acker & David, 1994, p.50). According to Sikes and Measor (1992), radical feminists focus on the analysis of the way in which patriarchy spreads in schools. They emphasise the power relations between boys and girls in schools. Radical feminists maintain that boys dominate in schools and classrooms which results in negative impact on girls succeeding in schools. They assert that boys
60
“take the lion’s share of the teacher’s attention” (p.28). The following section describes the feminist interpretations of the theory of social constructionism used by Morojele (2013; 2014).
Social Constructionism is a sociological theory that puts forward a different view, orientation and philosophy about understanding the nature of knowledge (epistemology) and reality (ontology) (Gergen, 1985). The principal proposition of the Social Constructionism theory is that the processes by which people come to describe, explain and thus understand the world (including themselves) in which they live is through communal interchange (socialisation) (Gergen, 1985).
The Social Constructionist theory is also one of the well accepted and fundamental pedagogical theory for understanding learning as the processes by which people come to describe, explain and thus understand the world (including themselves) in which they live (Belanger, 2011). As a pedagogical learning theory, the proposition of Social Constructionism is that learning (processes and what is learnt) occurs through social interaction (socialisation), i.e. what is understood as knowledge and reality is a product of socialisation. The Social Constructionist theory postulates and assumes that learning occurs through all the stages of life and can be applied to infant, child and adult learning (Belanger, 2011). Learning (the processes of understanding the current nature of knowledge and reality) is lifelong, dynamic and contextual (Gergen, 1985; Belanger, 2011).
As with many other theories, the Social Constructionist theory has protagonists/proponents and antagonists/contenders. Feminist thinkers (philosophical supporters of the female gender) are amongst the leading proponents of the Social Constructionist theory (Gergen, 1985). The Feminists’ interpretation of the Social Constructionist theory is that, unlike the Empiricist perspective, it is liberal and accommodative of different approaches to understanding the nature of knowledge and reality (Gergen, 1985). According to feminists’ interpretation of the Social Constructionist theory, it is favoured because its communal basis of knowledge cannot be employed by males to construct views of women that contribute to the defeat, repression and oppression as has been the case with the Empiricist theory (Gergen, 1985).
61
The Social Constructionist theory and particularly its interpretation by feminists is used as a theoretical framework for analysing the views and beliefs of Physical Science teachers about gender equity in education. Based on the social constructionist theory, it is thought that the views and beliefs of the Physical Science teachers are a product of learning through socialisation. It is thought that views and beliefs of Physical Science teachers about gender equity in education have been developed, matured and adapted to their socio-cultural contexts and experiences of childhood, adult school learners and adult tertiary learners up to the current professional environment. Other researchers support the influence of the socio-cultural contexts, socialisation processes, practices and experiences of the perspectives (including views and beliefs) of people about gender equity in education, for example its influence on school boys (Connell, 1996) and teachers (Haggerty, 1995; Morojele, 2013; 2014). The theoretical positioning for analysing the views and beliefs of Physical Science teachers about gender equity in education is similar to that of Morojele (2013; 2014).