Despite CEDAW’s stance, which explicitly forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, the four Business Studies textbooks continue to reinforce heterosexuality as a norm. I found that the four high school textbooks propagate exclusionary and heterosexist discourse. The textbooks avoided or ignored matters related to sexual diversity, endorsing ideas of compulsory heterosexuality. None of the four texts attempt to confront or question essentialist notions of sexuality or heteronormative hegemony, thereby rendering alternate discourses as hidden or non-existent.
The same is confirmed elsewhere (see Wilmot & Naidoo, 2011; Potgieter & Reygan, 2012;
Temple, 2005). I see this absence of same‐sex sexuality as part of the process of institutionalised heterosexism: a way of making clear that heterosexuality is the only ‘normal’
sexuality and thus the only sexuality relevant to students. As long as LGBTI individuals are silenced in textbooks, heterosexist culture proceeds unchallenged.
The text across the four textbooks strictly enforces the ideology of heteronormativity by dichotomising heterosexuality and same-sex sexuality, normalising heterosexuality, and emphasising a rigid distinction between male and female. Repeatedly the texts define a couple as a man and a woman, and parents as mother and father. In these ways, heterosexuality is continually legitimised as the central, authoritative norm. Butler (1999, p. 13) argues that the:
institution of a compulsory and naturalised heterosexuality requires and regulates gender as a binary relation in which the masculine term is differentiated from a feminine term, and this differentiation is accomplished through the practices of heterosexual desire.
189
Such representations may therefore actively regulate gendered interactions through the policing and shaming of gender constructions/performances, which do not automatically portray their hegemonic notions of masculinities/femininities. It is these constructions or performances of gender that have real social and emotional consequences that can be damaging for learners.
The heterosexual discourse across the four textbooks upholds masculine power over women, with the implied intention of convincing female readers that they are to be reliant on men economically and to serve men sexually. Butler (1990) describes this relationship between gender and heterosexuality through the heterosexual matrix that assumes that for bodies to cohere and make sense, there must be a stable sex expressed through a stable gender (masculine expresses male, feminine expresses female) that is oppositionally and hierarchically defined through the compulsory practice of heterosexuality.
As in the international research cited, heterosexual identity is virtually all pervasive across the four textbooks (Bazzul & Sykes, 2011; Salami & Ghajarieh, 2015). The intention of the writers to challenge stereotype and prejudice as described to by their Constitution would appear to be contradicted or betrayed by the heterosexist language used, which may convey unintended meanings of heterosexuality as norm whilst ignoring other sexualities. Ignoring LGBTI identities or subordinating them to a hegemonic norm can be seen as the means by which heterosexuality defends its privileged status.
I share Temple’s (2005) concerns that the pervasive acceptance of heteronormative behaviour privileges students that fit the heterosexual norm, and oppresses through omission and silence those who do not. In this way, students learn that only certain types of knowledge are legitimate (Apple, 2000). As Butler (1990) predicted, the children who encounter universal forms of gender inherently link those genders to compulsory heterosexuality.
This invisibility negates the different ‘ways of knowing’ of LGBTI learners and tends to discourage students from critiquing the discrimination, prejudice and social injustices faced by many LGBTI people; it thus lessens the importance of social justice and citizenship education in this field across the four SADC countries. The omission of LGBTI representation from the nations’ classrooms is a serious problem for a number of reasons, first of which is that a democracy requires tolerance, fairness and an informed citizenry (Wilmot & Naidoo, 2011;
Potgieter & Reygan, 2012). This gap in Business Studies textbooks sends a message that
190
reinforces discrimination and prejudice based on ‘non-normative’ sexual and gender identification.
It is necessary, as Salami and Ghajarieh (2015) argue, to question whether these textbooks deliberately disregard differences and seek to construct LGBTI identities as ‘just like us’ based on the assumption that LGBTI people seek assimilation into normative heterosexual institutions. Textbooks should disrupt heteronormative representation in order to encourage students and teachers to develop critical thinking skills to question assumptions and the bias they encounter in their teaching and learning (Potgieter & Reygan, 2012).
In understanding why LGBTI individuals are invisible across the four textbooks, I draw on Wodak’s (2001b) discourse historical approach of taking into consideration context, specifically the cultural context, under which the selected textbooks are written. Theoretically, the marginalisation of LGBTI in the textbooks studied could be explained as a product of discriminatory customs and traditions of the selected countries.
In Swaziland, President King Mswati III stated, “Homosexuality is regarded as Satanic and ought to be kept far away from us” (Ammon, 2012, p. 2). In Lesotho, the country’s Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act prohibits same-sex relationships, which are regarded by many as
“not normal” (Makoa, 2010, p. 13). In Zimbabwe, where the President has been in power for 35 years, a similar value system exists. The President has promoted the idea that homosexuality is “un-African,” describing it as a disease “coming from so-called developed nations” (Carter, 2013, p. 6).
In Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Lesotho the State has excessive control of the textbook publishing industry and curriculum; anything or anyone in violation of the State could face prosecution (Makoa, 2010, p. 18). In this punitive system, there is a high level of intolerance, especially to sexuality; one can therefore expect textbook writers not to digress from these values.
In South Africa while the Constitution is progressive and there is advocacy for inclusion, sensitivity and consciousness, this does not translate into practice – as evident by exclusion of LGBTI persons from the selected textbook. The textbook authors write about issues of inclusivity but they do not own it, live it and practice it – it is merely part of meeting publishing criteria.
191
The focus on disciplinary content takes precedence over anti-prejudicial content in school textbooks. This confirms the role of textbooks as ideological tools responsible for the transmission of cultural values and beliefs (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; Foster &
Crawford, 2006).
8.2 Language is masculine – firstness of male pronoun/the generic 'he' and '-man'