• No results found

A critical discourse analysis of the construction of knowledge of gender in sociology at upper-secondary school

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "A critical discourse analysis of the construction of knowledge of gender in sociology at upper-secondary school"

Copied!
47
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Fakultetet för Lärande och Samhälle

Kompletterande pedagogisk utbildning 90 hp Handledare: ​Frida Wikstrand Datum för slutseminarium:​ 2021-01-11​ Examinator: ​Joakim Glaser

Degree Project for Supplementary

Pedagogy with a Specialisation in

Sociology for Upper Secondary

School

Examensarbete i Kompletterande Pedagogisk

Utbildning med Inriktning Sociologi för gymnasiet

15 Credits, Second Cycle

A critical discourse analysis of the construction of knowledge of

gender in sociology at upper-secondary school

En kritisk diskursanalys av hur kunskap om genus konstrueras i sociologiämnet på gymnasiet.

(2)

Abstract

This thesis presents a critical discourse analysis of how the sociology of gender is constructed in the sociology syllabus and two textbooks aimed for use at upper secondary school level. I use Bernstein’s theory of framing and classification to understand how power over knowledge is distributed through this construction. I take as my starting point that sociology, as framed in the syllabus, allocates a lot of power over knowledge to individual teachers. I outline the short history of sociology as a Swedish school subject and problematise this based on the fact that the majority of sociology teachers have limited education in sociology. I argue further that sociology as a discipline is characterised by an ambiguous canon and lack of pedagogic traditions. This increases the demands on sociology teachers. Based on previous research, I identify the sociology of gender as a potentially contentious area that warrants investigation. Critical Discourse Analysis (herein - CDA) takes as its starting point that discourses are a vehicle of ideology, and that ideology is capable of oppression or marginalization. Through critical discourse analysis it can be revealed that the construction of knowledge of gender marginalises queer voices and sociological perspectives on gender from outside the global North whilst simultaenously segregating feminist theory from mainstream sociology. “Mainstream sociology” in this context can be taken to include theories and perspectives which are used to understand society and social processes as a whole, such as the class, crime and deviance, the state and media. The construction of gender also ​selectively ​draws upon dominant socio-cultural discourses on gender, such as gender equality politics and sociological research. Violence against women, and masculinity are two topics identified as important in gender equality politics, for example, but are not part of the construction of the knowledge on gender. This is in itself not surprising, the analysed course is only 100 points in total and cannot possibly cover everything, but it does raise questions about which perspectives are included and which are excluded. Importantly, the purpose of this thesis is not to discredit the knowledge of gender as constructed by the syllabus and textbooks, and to supplant it with other perspectives. This would be unconscionably arrogant and simply replacing one set of ideologies with other ideologies. This would be counterproductive to the aims of CDA. The purpose is rather to reveal the ideologies behind the discourse and enable an informed discussion from multiple perspectives. I conclude this thesis by arguing for the benefits of introducing norm critical pedagogy into sociology

(3)

teaching as a means of countering bias in knowledge creation and selection, and as a pedagogical tool in a field where no identifiable pedagogic approach exists as yet.

(4)

Table of contents

A critical discourse analysis of the construction of knowledge of gender in sociology at

upper-secondary school 0

Introduction 5

1.2 Purpose and research question 7

1.3 A note on reflexivity 7

Theoretical perspectives 9

2.1 Basil Bernstein: power over knowledge 9

2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis : Theoretical background 10

2.3 Kumanshiro and oppression as Othering 10

Background: Sociology as a discipline and a school subject 11

3.1 Sociology - a “field without a center”. 12

3. 2 The “Founding Fathers” and gender 13

3.3 Sociological perspectives and gender: Feminist Theory and Queer Theory 15

3. 5 Feminism and feminist sociology: Not a monolith 16

4 . Relevant research 17

4.1 Reza Azarian and Sociology’s Pedagogical Challenge 17

4. 2 Berggren and “Who is Theory?” 18

4.3 On the importance of textbooks 19

5 . Methodology 20

5.1 Sampling - the official pedagogic discourse 21

5.2 Methodological limitations 21

5.3 Fairclough's CDA framework and the three dimensional analysis 22

5. 4 Method - execution 24

6 Result and analysis 24

6.1 Stage 1: What is the identified social “problem”? 24

6.2 Stage 2 - Multi-dimensional analysis of the official pedagogic discourse. 25 6.3 Discursive dimension: the official pedagogic discourse as circularly interrelated 30

6. 4 Sociocultural practice 30

7 Concluding Discussion 34

7. 1 The Northern hegemonic discourse on gender 35

7 .2 Conclusions 38

Stage 3: Does the social order (sociology and related discourses) somehow need the

problem? 38

Stage 4: Identify possible ways past the problem/Concluding remarks 38

(5)

Methodological reflections 40

Bibliography 42

(6)

Introduction

The Swedish upper-secondary School reform of 2011 established a multitude of new subjects for what would become the new school system. One of these subjects was sociology, and it has proven to be a popular subject with a broad intake of students 1​. A review from ​Svenska

Sociologiska Förbundet (Swedish Sociology Organisation - herein, SSF) in 2018 found that

sociology features on four national programmes (Barn och Fritidsprogrammet; Samhällsvetenskapsprogrammet; Humanistiska Programmet; Ekonomiprogrammet) and that in 2016 13, 078 students who graduated upper secondary school that year had taken one of the three sociology courses. That number is likely to be higher now and does not include the number of students who read a sociology course at adult education institutions 2​. Sociology is thus well

represented in secondary school and can reasonably be expected to be encountered by a sizable number of students preparing for both higher education and work in the field of childcare.

SSF has openly embraced the creation of sociology as a school subject. Sociologist Jan Carle, in SSF’s scientific journal ​Sociologisk Forskning, ​argues that the reformed upper-secondary school provides numerous positive changes and possibilities for the development of sociology in society as well as in the academy 3​. Carle laments, however, the

apparent failure (thus far) of schools and universities alike to capitalise on this opportunity for development; Sociology is categorised by Skolverket as a ​visst ämne/​certain subject, together with subjects such as photography, art and culture and pedagogy. This is as opposed to a being classified as a vanligt ämne/ ​regular subject, such as Swedish and Religion​ 4​. The practical

consequence of this is that it prevents universities from offering a teacher education specifically directed at sociology and therefore ensuring a reliable supply of sociology teachers. There are currently two paths to qualifying as a sociology teacher: The first is through a Kompletterande Pedagogisk Utbildning (KPU, post-graduate teacher’s education), which is the path I find myself on and require at least 90 university credits in sociology. Teachers can also become qualified by showing they have ​equivalent knowledge​. No guidance is provided as to what this practically entails. It is thus possible to teach sociology without studying sociology. Regardless, only one third of sociology teachers are qualified to do so (meaning they at the very least had equivalent

1 Carle, J. “Den nya gymnasieskolan - Sociologins framtid?”, Sociologisk Forskning, (2015)52 (1) : 81 -

84.

2 Fagerberg, J. Sociologi på gymnasiet : En kartläggning från Sveriges Sociologförbund. (2018) 3 Carle, J. OpCit.

(7)

knowledge) and even within this group there was a great variation in how much sociological knowledge teachers had5​. ​Carle argues that this is detrimental to the quality of teaching of the

subject both at upper secondary school and to the development of sociology within the academy: students may arrive at university to study sociology with significantly varying understandings of the subject, whilst at the same time sociology departments cannot develop in the same way as they might if the department were to open up further to students on teaching programmes. To further compound these potential difficulties, there is a, at the time of writing, complete lack of sociology-specific pedagogical approach6 for the upper-secondary school context, and very

little at university level.

In this paper I argue that the broad framing in the sociology syllabus demands a lot of individual teachers' specialist knowledge. Using Bernstein’s theory of framing and classification I argue that this renders sociology teachers powerful teachers! I further problematize the epistemological boundaries and history of sociology. As a discipline, it consists of multiple different theories and perspectives, sometimes competing, attempting to understand society. The battle over which (or maybe whose) perspectives should “count” as sociology is fraught with bias and ambiguity. Generally, what is accepted sociology is determined through research and teaching practices at sites of higher education, in course syllabi and reviews of articles published in scientific journals. It is then spread horizontally in textbooks aimed at higher education students and somewhat vertically distilled in material aimed at secondary school students and teachers - that is to say, textbooks. The sociology syllabus is broad and open to interpretation, bestowing a lot of interpretive responsibility onto the sociology teacher. Research shows that where teachers lack the necessary formal education, textbooks understandably become a powerful pedagogic tool7​. Even for teachers with years and years of formal education in

sociology, a textbook is an extremely valuable tool. Thus, in this context it is the official policy documents (curriculum/syllabus) and textbook that largely determine what sociology is, even when teachers are not required to exclusively teach the entirety of the books.

Selection of knowledge, in any field, necessarily requires deeming certain knowledge as legitimate, as worth knowing, and other knowledge as not. Sociology takes as its subject things

5 Fagerberg,OpCit, p.19 6 Swedish ​ämnesdidaktik.

7 See, specifically: Azarian, R., Sociologins Didaktiska Utmaning, En rapport om sociologiundervisningen

(8)

which are very close to the everyday lives of teachers and our students: identity, social relationships, family, class, education, religion and gender, amongst other things. These are sometimes sensitive, sometimes controversial topics that require thoughtfulness, tact and respect for respect for the student’s right to a safe learning environment. Applying a critical perspective helps to illuminate those privileged and those marginalised. For example, the dominant construction of the sociology of gender is very often based on the assumption that to talk of gender is to talk of the female perspective, implying that maleness is the norm, females are the non-norm, and all other genders on the spectrum are collateral. Furthermore, the absolute vast majority of known societies are, to varying degrees, patriarchal. The universities and academic conventions in which sociological knowledge production occurs are entrenched in institutionalised patriarchalism, even if universities are arguably more gender diverse today than historically. Consequently, our understanding of the sociology of gender originates from within this paradigm. Blind engagement with and teaching of this risks reproducing it if the underlying norms are not questioned.

1.2 Purpose and research question

The purpose of this thesis is thus to critically explore how the sociology of gender is constructed in the context of Swedish upper-secondary education. That is to say, what is presented as the acceptable sociological knowledge of gender, and what ideologies does this reveal? I want to know how teaching material interprets the syllabus requirement to teach gender in a sociology context, and if there are any significant differences between textbooks. Do the theories and perspectives on gender differ? What is identified as central to the sociology of gender? My research question is:

How is the sociology of gender constructed in the curriculum and how is this interpreted in two sociology textbooks aimed for use at upper-secondary school?

1.3 A note on reflexivity

“Situated knowledges are about communities, not about isolated individuals. The only way to find a larger vision is to be somewhere in particular.”8 - Donna Haraway

8​Haraway, Donna. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial

(9)

A note on reflexivity is considered to be good practice in social science research, particularly in research within the field of education9​. In this section I outline the formal epistemological and

ontological underpinnings which have shaped this thesis, as well as a personal profile of my “situated knowledges”. This study implements critical discourse analysis to reveal hidden or unspoken ideologies in the construction of sociology of gender in the sociology course for upper-secondary school. CDA is biased towards the party considered to be oppressed or

marginalised and stresses the importance of reflexivity in research, where the researcher makes explicit their positionality in relevant contexts, and explicitly interweaves this into their

arguments. Knowledge production and interpretation should be understood as being situated within the particular positionality of the researcher, which I attempt to outline here.

My research paradigm is governed by the epistemological beliefs of interpretivism and the ontological understanding of our reality as socially constructed. Knowledge too, is socially constructed. This paper is the final piece of examination for a postgraduate degree in education, leading to a professional teaching qualification. This both constrains and provides opportunities for my research. On the one hand I need to conform to a number of formal requirements in order to achieve a passing grade. Other standpoints that I occupy are that I am a woman and a feminist and I have occupied both privileged and marginalised standpoints in my life. I am also an

immigrant who learned Swedish as an adult, meaning that it is possible that I miss small nuances in meaning in texts and pictures that a native speaker might be more attuned to. It also means that I might notice things that might otherwise go unnoticed or seem uninteresting. For example, the context in which I initially studied sociology was very different to the one I am preparing to teach in. Sociology has a long history as a school subject in England, where I completed

secondary school, and is very closely controlled by external examination boards. Teachers cannot pick and choose between topics and perspectives according to their students interests and needs, but must teach according to detailed syllabi. I found this to be a disempowering

experience, which served only to further the distance between my life and sociology.

Consequently, I am intrigued by the empowerment potential of teachers being able to shape the sociology they teach and the impact this can have on students.

9​Bozalek, V., Zembylas, M. “Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational

(10)

1. Theoretical perspectives

In this section I outline the theoretical perspectives which have been most influential in shaping this thesis. These are Bernstein's theory of framing and classification, Kumanshiro’s

anti-oppressive education/norm-criticism and the theoretical aspect of Critical Discourse

Analysis. ​ ​This list is not exhaustive, however, and different theoretical perspectives are raised in their relevant contexts.

2.1 Basil Bernstein: power over knowledge

I use Bernstein’s framing and classification theory as a lens through which to understand the construction of the sociology of gender contextualised within the school system. Bernstein’s theory centres initially on three​ ​message systems, curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation, which combined are“concerned with the production, distribution and reproduction of official

knowledge​”​10.

Curriculum​ refers to ​what​ is defined as knowledge. ​Pedagogy​ to the form or mode of the

transmission of the selection of knowledge, above11​. The third message system, ​evaluation,

simply refers to how teachers evaluate students progress and ultimately achievement. Due to time and resource constraints, evaluation will not be covered in this paper in any detail, other than the acknowledgement that individual teachers ultimately design examinations and set grades and that this naturally influences the selection of knowledge.

Bernstein introduced the concepts of framing and classification to understand how power over knowledge is distributed. ​Classification ​refers to the boundaries within and between subjects. Where there are strong boundaries between subjects, classification is said to be strong. Where there are weak boundaries, classification is weak 12​. When classification is weak teachers

have more power over what counts as knowledge.

Framing describes ​how ​content is controlled, organised, paced and taught.​ 13 A syllabus

with rigid topics, to be studied in a predetermined order within a specified timeframe and

10 Sadovnik, Alan. Basil Bernstein (1924–2000). Prospects. 31. (2001).10.1007/BF03220044.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257275283_Basil_Bernstein_1924-2000

11 Pedagogy is also the message system which most closely correlates to the Nordic and German field of

didaktik. For purposes of continuity I use the word pedagogy in its anglo-context

12 Bernstein, Basil, ​Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique, Rev. ed, Rowman

& Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Md., 2000[1996]

13 Bernstein, Basil. & Bernstein, Basil (red.), ​Class, codes and control Vol. 1 Theoretical studies towards a

(11)

assessed in a specific way is strongly framed. Weak framing occurs when a teacher has the discretion to select topics based on students interests or readiness and to adjust pacing, organisation and assessment accordingly. Sociology is an example of a weakly framed subject: the core content requirements are extremely broad, and leave a lot of room for interpretation, teachers must cover the core content but can decide when, in what order, in how much detail and how to assess. Due to weak framing and classification, I argue that sociology teachers are powerful teachers, and this thesis examines how the topic of gender is constructed within these parameters of power.

2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis ​: ​Theoretical background

This thesis implements a Critical Discourse Analysis of the construction of the sociology of gender. CDA is characterised interchangeably as both a method and theoretical approach, which is why I consider an introduction in this particular chapter to be justified. A central tenet of CDA is that discourse is a powerful tool shaping how we view the world. Language is not neutral and innocent but disguises a multitude of ideologies, power relations and norms presented as common sense knowledge14​. Thus, the way in which the sociology of gender is

discursively constructed is important for our students' understanding of what does and does not constitute legitimate sociological knowledge of gender. For example, if knowledge of gender is discursively constructed as existing primarily within a binary system, this legitimizes a

dichotomous “common sense” approach to understanding gender and renders alternative approaches, outside of the binary.

CDA emphasises the potential of discourse in reproducing oppressive power relationships through ideology. If we take the above example, a discourse which constructs gender as binary has the potential to marginalise non-gender conforming students. Finally, CDA has its roots in critical social theory. As a methodology, it presupposes the existence of oppression and is

inherently in solidarity with those who might be said to be oppressed by or in a given discourse15​.

2.3 Kumanshiro and oppression as Othering

Implementing ​CDA presupposes the existence of a by-or-in the discourse oppressed group. But what does this mean in the context of education? Students are protected by law from

14 Fairclough, OpCit, 2011.

(12)

discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, transgender identity and age. The values work of upper secondary school curriculum emphasizes teaching human rights, and helping students to reject the subjection of people to oppression and to be able to interact with other people based on respect for cultural, linguistic, religious and historical differences16​. It is as such, happily, unlikely that the discourse constructing the sociology of

gender actively promotes subjugation or oppression. However, the understanding of oppression that this thesis takes is that it can take more subtle forms, based on unassuming societal norms.

Kevin Kumashiro writes that there are four approaches to understanding and tackling oppression in education: “Education for the Other, Education About the Other, Education that Is Critical of Privileging and Othering, and Education that Changes Students and Society.” 17this

thesis lacks the time and space to delve into these approaches in detail, what all of these approaches have in common is an understanding of oppression as Othering “ ​in and by

mainstream society”18. ​Kumashiro defines the Other as those groups that are traditionally

marginalised- the female students, queer students, male students that are not “typically masculine”, ethnic and religious minorities, and much more, depending on the context. This thesis understands oppression and marginalization as including Othering by mainstream society, as described by Kumashiro.

2. Background: Sociology as a discipline and a school subject

In this section I outline the background to my research question, why I think it is worth researching, and the particular contours of Sociology both as a discipline and as a school subject. I posit that teaching sociology in a weakly framed context demands a lot of individual sociology teachers. This is problematised by the fact that the majority of sociology teachers active today are not qualified, and that the threshold for qualifying in sociology is low and ambiguous. To compound this problem further sociology is, as a discipline, ambiguous, with a canon that is both hard to define and argumentatively ethno and androcentric. I argue that the narrative of the “founding fathers” of sociology is problematic, and outline the visibility of gender in sociology and the perspectives that have contributed to this field thus far.

16 Curriculum for upper secondary school 2011

17 Kumashiro, Kevin K. “Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education.” Review of Educational

Research 70, no. 1 (March 2000): 25–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070001025. P. 1

(13)

3.1 Sociology - a “field without a center”.

Sociology has an ambiguous canon, which takes different forms depending on the time and place one is interacting with it. This can most likely be said of any number of disciplines which take ever changing societies and cultures as their subject. I would argue, however, that the ambiguous canon cannot be blamed entirely on the dynamic nature of society alone, but also on the fact that sociology as a discipline is perpetually engaged in a mission to define itself and stake out its claim as a valuable academic discipline 19​. This conflict emanates from within

sociology - within sociologists - between different perspectives each staking out their claim for proverbial space.

Stacey and Thorne, some three and a half decades ago in 1985, commented that:

“Sociology is large and fragmented; since the 1960s, when functionalism was undermined as the

dominant paradigm, sociology has been a field without a centre 20​”. While many years have

passed since then, I argue that their conclusion is still valid. Sociology is a dynamic, ever changing field of competing theories, perspectives and even competing epistemology and ontology. Whereas sociology in the classical period tended towards positivism and quantifiable knowledge, contemporary sociology leans heavily on qualitative and interpretive knowledge. Sociology intermingles with the personal and political baggage of both the researchers producing knowledge and the teachers teaching it. The sociology of the individual teacher therefore becomes very important in determining what knowledge actually is. Joan Alway describes the unusual predicament of sociology:

​It is generally understood and accepted that there is no one body of sociological theory that is universally regarded as valid. What is less commonly acknowledged and addressed is that there

19 This is an anecdotal observation I made having studied sociology in British and Swedish universities

and noting the differences between them. This observation is grounded on research and theories outlined in this thesis.

20​Stacey, Judith, and Barrie Thorne. “The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology.” ​Social Problems,

(14)

is not a great deal of agreement within the discipline about precisely what sociological theory is or should be​”​21

This is the unusual internal struggle that arises when a discipline is founded largely as a reaction to understand rapid social change some hundreds of years ago, followed by centuries and decades of even more rapid change. The rise of modernity as a result of industrial and political revolutions in Europe and North America was a major factor in establishing sociology 22​,

yet now we find ourselves in a postmodern society, sometimes struggling to contort our very postmodern realities and identities into increasingly antiquated sociological theories.

3. 2 The “Founding Fathers” and gender

The founding of sociology as a discipline is often credited 23 to a group of philosophers and

economists in the 19th century with three things in common: They were all male, white and occupied privileged positions in society that allowed for the advancement of their academic work. Those most often credited are Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim (both French), Karl Marx, Max Weber and George Simmel. Students, and later researchers, of sociology in its formative years were equally as diverse. The core of sociology, as identified by the “fathers” , was understanding modernity24. The industrial revolution, scientific enlightenment and the class society were the main subjects of these thinkers’ works and the main (visible) subject of this social framework was men: Men worked in industry, men were scientists and women belonged to the class their fathers or husbands belonged to, seeing as they had limited means of engaging social mobility on their own. Sociology was less interested in social phenomena falling outside of this narrow frame of reference.

This is not to say that gender was not an important aspect of understanding society, or that there were no female researchers, rather that it did not feature prominently within the accepted framework of sociology at the time. Gender was then, as now, central to understanding

21​Alway, Joan. "The Trouble with Gender: Tales of the Still-Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociological

Theory." ​Sociological Theory​ 13, no. 3 (1995): 209-28. Accessed December 10, 2020. doi:10.2307/223297. P 209

22 Alway, Ibid.

23 The two textbooks examined, just as every introduction to sociology book I have read and my own

sociology education confirm this. This anecdotal evidence is supported by research in the background section.

(15)

society. Harriet Martineau (1802 - 1876) wrote and published numerous books and journal articles on social theory, politics, the economy, sociology and in doing so incorporated overlooked issues such as marriage and domestic life. She translated Comte's work into English and clarified some of his ideas and produced research that would become significant for the field of social research methods25​. Despite this, and despite her writing predating Durkheim and Marx,

she is rarely mentioned in the classical sociological canon. Similar fates befell Jane Addams (1860 - 1935) and Margaret Mead (1901 - 1978) 26whose feminine perspectives on society did

not neatly fit in the sociological frame of reference. With each repetition, in the classroom and in teaching material, of the narrative of sociology grounded in the plight of the (male) worker in modernity, the more entrenched this becomes.

Thus, the ​visibility of gender in sociology is a relatively recent “addition” to the canon. I use this word deliberately to highlight that the sociology of gender is often discursively constructed as being additive to sociology, rather than integral.

In recent years, the dissatisfaction with the continued prevalence of the founding fathers narrative has become more evident. Raewyn Connell, for one, disputes the narrative of the founding fathers and the original focus on European modernity, as a myth 27​. Connell reviewed

sociological literature from the classical era and found that​“​the gaze of Spencer, Ward, Engels, Letourneau, Tönnies, Durkheim, Sumner, Giddings, Hobhouse and their colleagues ranged far beyond Europe.​”​28 ​Connell argues that the rise of sociology not only depended on knowledge

from the colonised world but was intimately interwoven with academic propaganda to legitimise the further exploitation of colonised people by emphasising the “difference” between colonizer and colonised. This less palatable history of sociology was accordingly filtered out and rewritten in the canonisation process, serving as a double oppression of colonised people who had their culture and knowledge wiped out, but also used for legitimising their own oppression.

The point that I wish to make here is that sociology is a complex, contended discipline that is difficult to distill into knowable facts in the pages of teaching books. Gender has historically been absent from the sociological radar, not by accident, but because it was written

25 Hill, Michael R. 1991. “Harriet Martineau (1802-1876).” Pp. 289-297 in Women in Sociology: A

Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook, edited by Mary Jo Deegan. New York: Greenwood Press.

26 Margaret Mead gained deserved recognition in the fields of psychology and anthropology, recognition

of her contributions to sociology took some time.

27 Connell, R. “Canons and Colonies: The Global Trajectory of Sociology”. 2019. Estudos Históricos Rio

de Janeiro, vol 32, no 67, p. 351-367, maio-agosto

(16)

out of the canon. This can be problematic for the construction of the sociology of gender and how we teach it. We as teachers reproduce the subject through our teaching and it is vital therefore that we avoid reproducing harmful bias.

3.3 Sociological perspectives and gender: Feminist Theory and Queer Theory

Feminist theory and perspectives have been instrumental in making gender visible in sociology. 29

However, in recent decades queer theory has become gradually more influential in the field of gender generally, and has been making inroads in sociology 30​. This is not necessarily a reflection

of the qualities of queer theory, more the speed of adaptability of sociology as an academic discipline. Like feminism, queer theory originated in the political sphere, as a reaction to oppression and injustice of marginalised groups 31​. While feminism and queer theory have a lot of

common, such as a rejection of patriarchal norms and the acknowledgement of gender as socially constructed, there are also a number of points where the perspectives diverge. Some queer theorists, such as Stephen Valocchi, contend that sociology has so far failed to incorporate queer perspectives on gender as legitimate and valuable contributions to the sociological field32​.

Valocchi notes ​two critical elements to queer theory/queer analysis that potentially diverge from the dominant understanding of gender in sociology:

1. A fundamentally different understanding of sex, gender and sexuality.

According to Valocchi, sociologists are used to thinking of gender in terms of the established male/female binary. Bodies are either male or female, gender presentations are either feminine or masculine, sexuality is either homosexual or heterosexual. These categories are fixed and unchanging. Paradoxically, although these categories are recognised as ideological social constructs, they are still the primary lens throu​gh which sociological research is conducted, and in doing so are normalised as naturally occuring phenomena. The study of gender has, thus far , necessitated this use of binary categories to understand society. Queer theory differs in its

29​Giddens, Anthony, ​Sociology, 6. ed., Polity press, Cambridge, 2009

30​Valocchi, Stephen. "Not Yet Queer Enough: The Lessons of Queer Theory for the Sociology of Gender

and Sexuality." ​Gender and Society 19, no. 6 (2005): 750-70. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27640849.

31 Valocchi, Ibid. 32​Valocchi, Ibid

(17)

attempt to deconstruct the binary itself, seeing it as oversimplified “ideological fiction” 33 that

fails to account for the complexities of our lived-in experiences.

2. The significance of sexual identity

Valocchi argues that the hetero/homosexual binary and the heterosexual norm in general has been left largely uninterrogated by the sociology of gender. It is also argued that sexuality and gender have been regarded as two separate variables. Queer theory, on the other hand, argues for deconstructing this binary by focusing on sexual identities and practices which cannot be subsumbed by the binary, and by focussing on the relationship between gender and sexual identity.

3. “An epistemological challenge” - who is the subject in sociology?

A final (for the purpose of this thesis) point of divergence between feminism, queer theory and gender is the question of who the “subject” is in sociology and sociology of gender in particular. McCann writes that ​“While feminism has historically focused on the subject category of

"woman," queer theory has concentrated on radically unfixing normative subject”34. ​In this

regard, feminist and queer theory appear to be at odds with one and other. On the one hand it may be argued that demolishing the category “woman” erases the lived-in experiences that people have had for the exact reason that they are categorised as a woman, on the other hand, relying on that category as a sociological lens does indeed inevitably perpetuate the use of categorisations.

3. 5 Feminism and feminist sociology: Not a monolith

Tracing the relationship between feminism and queer theory and the contibutions they have made to a sociological understanding of gender is no easy task. This is partially because there are many overlapping points, and partially because feminist thought is highly heterogenerous. There have been three feminists “waves”, each one benefiting from, building upon and critiquing the previous35​. The vast plethora of ideas, positions and perspectives that are

33​Valocchi, Ibid ​p 753

34​McCann, Hannah. "Epistemology of the Subject: Queer Theory's Challenge to Feminist Sociology."

Women's Studies Quarterly​ 44, no. 3/4 (2016): 224-43. Accessed December 17, 2020.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44474071. P. 224

(18)

grouped together under the term feminism would be impossible to cover in this short thesis. Suffice to say that there are both points of convergence and divergence. Not all feminists think alike. An opposition to patriarchy and an ultimate goal of female empowerment and emancipation may be said to unite feminism but opinions on how to reach these goals differ materially. On top of all this, the feminist discourse has been by and large dominated by the voices of compartively privileged female scholars in the global North36​.

4 . Relevant research

In this section I outline one report and a piece of field research which I see as relevant to this thesis. Both are from Swedish universities. I believe it is important that the research used in this thesis reflects the Swedish specific aspects of sociology, rather than importing and trying to adapt from the vast sea of American and British research on teaching and learning sociology. This is because I consider sociology, weakly framed as it is in the context of Swedish secondary schools, to be fundamentally different from the strongly framed secondary school sociology in England, for example, while I cannot comment on American sociology.

4.1 Reza Azarian and Sociology’s Pedagogical Challenge

There is, at the time of writing, no Swedish high school sociology specific research that I am aware of. There is very little at university level in a teaching and learning context. It is telling then that the one report I was able to locate on teaching sociology in Sweden specifically raises the lack of a sociology specific pedagogical approach 37 as problematic. The background to

Azarians report was to address issues raised with regard to teaching sociology as part of the teacher education programme at Uppsala University. It was concluded that teaching in sociology was deficient primarily due to an absence of a competence in sociology-specific pedagogy 38​.

This was said to be a reflection of the total lack of sociology-specific pedagogy studies at a national level, rather than a lack of competence within the sociology department in Uppsala

36 Salen, Sara. “Capitalism, Postcolonialism and gender: complicating development.” Gender and

development network - ThinkPieces. July 2019.

37 In Swedish, ämnesdidaktik 38 In Swedish, ämnesdidaktik

(19)

alone39​. Azarian writes that this absence is due to two major factors: Firstly, sociology, like

other society oriented subjects, has a relatively short history as a discipline. The second and greatest obstacle, according to Azarian, is the problem of identifying “the disciplines theoretical and methodological core40​”. Whereas in the natural sciences there is a long accepted consensus

on what the actual “stuff”, the facts and theories and perspectives, of teaching and learning should be, there is no such consensus in sociology. It is unclear what the established knowledge base is and what teaching should contain and focus on. As the “what” aspect of the curriculum is unclear, the “how” of pedagogy is even more ambiguous.

A direct consequence of this is that teachers were found to rely almost wholly on textbooks and their construction of sociological knowledge in their teaching. Thus, the textbooks become instrumental in defining what sociology actually​ is​.

Much of this affirms the problems that were raised in the theoretical background section of this thesis. What can be taken away from this report, I argue, is that the selection of knowledge in sociology, including the construction of the sociology of gender, is complicated by ambiguities and uncertainties at university level, and since this is where teachers actually learn the sociology they will later teach there is no reason to believe that this problem disappears at secondary school level. Additionally, this report confirms the significance of textbooks in teaching weakly framed/classified subjects.

4. 2 Berggren and “Who is Theory?”

As part of a larger review of inclusivity in course literature for sociology courses at Swedish universities called “Who is Theory?” 41 Kalle Berggren found that course literature for sociology

courses at Uppsala university was overwhelmingly male dominated. Greater variation, and inclusion, was noted when courses were structured around well known theories rather than famous ​names in sociology​ 42​. This, I would argue, is indicative of how deeply entrenched

classical theory is in the identity of sociology. It was also found that female writers and gender perspectives -which seemed to go hand in hand-were mainly to be found in specialised courses on power or social categories, rather than general social theory, confirming their status as outside

39 Azarian, R., Sociologins Didaktiska Utmaning, En rapport om sociologiundervisningen inom

Lärarprogrammet, Sociologiska institutionen Uppsala universitet Maj 2017. P 2

40 “...disciplinens teoretiska och metodologiska kärna”. P.2 41 Original “Vem är teori?”

42 Berggren, Kalle. 2018. ”Vem är Teori? Ett Normkritiskt Pedagogiskt Perspektiv På Sociologisk Teori”.

(20)

the mainstream and legitimately limiting the cross-contamination of gender perspectives with mainstream (male-dominated) perspectives. This pattern was found to be overall representative of the 11 other universities that were reviewed. In only one instance (Lund University) was there any set literature that problematised the sociological canon from a gender perspective43​.

However, given that gender is a primary frame for understanding social interactions, this segregated knowledge approach is inherently flawed 44​. Gender is typically invoked to understand

experiences of people outside the male heterosexual norm. It posits “classical” sociological theory as objective, applicable to everyone and neutral, rather than reflecting the views and experiences of the white wealthy men behind the theory. Presenting gender theory as outside of other sociological theories is essentially the male norm writ large. Sociologist and academic critic Sara Ahmed commented on the paradoxical reproduction of a subject that has been allowed to define itself through the practice of citing scholars in academic contexts:

These citational structures can form what we call disciplines. I was once asked to contribute to a sociology course, for example, and found that all the core readings were by male writers. I pointed this out and the course convener implied that “that” was simply a reflection of the history of the discipline. Well: this is a very selective history! The reproduction of a discipline can be the reproduction of these techniques of selection, ways of making certain bodies and thematics core to the discipline, and others not even part.45

4.3 On the importance of textbooks

Textbooks are considered by this thesis to have a central role in constructing the sociology of gender. This is because research shows us that textbooks have a central role in what teachers actually teach46​. A report by Boel Englund for ​Skolverket​ confirms the vital importance of

textbooks in forming teaching and learning, particularly in social studies (​samhällskunskap) ​and

43 The students on an advanced level sociology course read “Why is classical theory classical?” By

Raewynn Connell, as detailed in Berggren, Ibid.

44​Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, edited by Barbara J. Risman, et al., Springer International

Publishing AG, 2018.​ ProQuest Ebook Central,

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/malmo/detail.action?docID=5419330.

45 Sara Ahmed, blog: https://feministkilljoys.com/2013/09/11/making-feminist-points/

46 Englund, Boel, ​Vad har vi lärt oss om läromedel? en översikt över nyare forskning : underlagsrapport till

(21)

languages. Englund summarised the multi-functional role of textbook in the five following terms: 1) Textbooks provide a legitimate and authoritative guarantee of sanctioned knowledge; 2) textbooks create a sense of community and cohesion; 3) textbooks more easily facilitate the evaluation of students knowledge and progress; 4) textbooks are seen as a way of reducing teachers and students work burden, and 5) the textbook has a disciplinary roll in that it simply keeps the students busy and demonstrates the legitimate path to school knowledge47​. With this in

mind, I argue that my decision to analyze the discourse on gender presented in the textbooks is justified, as it is very likely that this is the construction of gender that sociology students will meet.

5 . Methodology

In this chapter I briefly outline the main methodological tenets of CDA. I discuss the procedure for sampling, data collection and analysis and potential ethical concerns and limitations. CDA has a long history of use within educational research as a means of describing, interpreting and criticizing educational​problems​48​. One of the defining tenets of CDA is that research begins by

identifying a potential social problem, usually a problem which centres around oppression, social injustice or discrimination of marginalised groups. The problem does not necessarily emanate from the discourse itself but may be implicitly reinforced or perpetuated by it. 49​. CDA reveals

how language mediates relationships of power and privilege in “social interactions, and bodies of knowledge”50 and as such has been used extensively in education research. It is an awareness

raising exercise which allows for a more conscious discussion of the dominant discourse as well as opening up space for other discourses 51​. My intention is not thus to supplant certain ideologies

with other ideologies that I personally prefer, but to highlight the ideologies presented and the falsehood that they are common sense, and to explore how they can be challenged/reduce their harmful impact.

47 Englund, Ibid, p 25 - 26

48 Rogers, R.,”CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN EDUCATION INTRODUCTION: THE

EMERGENCE OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH” in M.

Martin-Jones, A. M. de Mejia and N. H. Hornberger (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd Edition, Volume 3: Discourse and Education, 53–68. #2008 Springer Science

49 Fairclough, Wodak. OpCit 50 Rogers, R., OpCit 51 Van Dijk, T., OpCit

(22)

5.1 Sampling - the official pedagogic discourse

This study utilizes purposive targeted sampling combined with Bernstenian theories of discourse and power in education to ascertain my empirical material.

This material has been carefully selected as it represents what in Bernsteinian theory is referred to as the ​official pedagogic discourse (OPD). ​The OPD​ ​regulates relations between the state, the school and the student53​. Furthermore, both Azarian and Berggren affirm the importance of

textbooks in constructing sociological knowledge. There are slight differences in the intended audience for each textbook. Whereas Forsell​ ​is primarily used in programmes that prepare students for higher education and within adult education,​ Phillips​ is used primarily in the

vocational childcare and recreation programme. Thus the textbooks represent a variation of what different sociology students are likely to interact with.

5.2 Methodological limitations

A CDA of the outlined sample has notable limitations. It cannot tell me anything about classroom practice; how teachers teach or students learn. This would require an extensive

52 Kurskod: S0ISOO0

53​Bourne, Jill Official pedagogic discourses and the construction of learners’ identities. In, Hornberger,

Nancy H. (ed.) ​Encyclopedia of Language and Education. ​(2008) Springer.

Empirical material Published by

Syllabus for both the subject and the course “sociology” kursplan för kursen “sociologi”

Skolverket (2011)52

Textbook in sociology/Läromedel i sociologi Forsell, Johan, ​Läromedel i sociologi​, Andra upplagan, Gleerups, Malmö, 2017

Sociology - the basics/Sociologi - grunderna. Phillips, Tove, ​Sociologi: grunderna​, 1. uppl., Gleerup, Malmö, 2012

(23)

ethnographic study and/or phenomenological observations, which unfortunately would not be possible for this thesis, due in part to lack of access to the field due to the coronavirus pandemic 2020, but also due to time restraints and the (insurmountable, in my opinion) challenge of building trusting relationships with students that would be required for such a study.

Nevertheless, I hope that this thesis provides a sturdy basis for classroom based research one day. Furthermore, CDA requires the researcher to “side” with marginalised or oppressed groups in order to reveal potentially harmful ideologies. This is a limitation in so far as it prevents objectivity and makes distance between researcher and data hard to achieve. Choosing which oppressed or marginalised perspective to “side” with also presents its own problems, as there are inevitably a vast number of groups - and differences within that group - that may be excluded by any given discourse, even where the best of intentions to include as many as possible exist. In this choosing process I exclude already excluded and marginalised groups, and privilege a group as worthy of extra attention. In this case I have chosen to focus my attention on gender, when I know that ethnic and religious minorities have also been excluded from the wider sociological discourse. However, what I hope to achieve with this method is to encourage critical reflexivity of how sociological knowledge is constructed.

5.3 Fairclough's CDA framework and the three dimensional analysis

In this section I outline Fairclough's CDA analytical framework and method for social science research. The framework is organised into 5 stages, ranging from the identification of a problematised area for research, to final critical reflections on the contribution of the analysis to the solution of the problem.

Stage 1 : “Focus upon a social problem which has a semiotic aspect.”54

Stage 2: Identify, through analysis, obstacles to it being tackled.

Fairclough developed the following three dimensional analysis specifically aimed at examining texts and which I have used to partially structure my analysis:

54​Frey, Bruce B., ed. ​The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. 4

(24)

Source :Fairclough, Norman, ​Critical discourse analysis the critical study of language​, Second edition., Routledge, Abingdon, 2013. P. 133

Text dimension:​ The first dimension of analysis consists of the text itself: the syllabus and the

textbooks. I look at uninterrogated “common sense” norms, what is being said, what is excluded.

Discourse practice: ​Sometimes referred to as discursive practice, this dimension is focused on

the different discourses which a text directly draws upon, such as other syllabi, previous curricula and educational policy. For the purposes of this thesis, the sampled discourses largely draw on each other, and do not need repetition.The bulk of the analysis is done at the level of socio-cultural practice, below.

Sociocultural practice​: Whereas the discursive practice dimension is narrow, the sociocultural

practice dimension focuses on the much broader arena of social and cultural elements which both influence the discourse, and are in turn influenced by the discourse itself. Fairclough argues that all social practices are necessarily “practices of production”55​ in that they are the arenas within

which social life is produced. In this thesis I argue that two relevant socio cultural arenas are national gender equality politics and sociological research and theory. Thus, according to CDA logic, the construction of the sociology of gender is able to shape the discourses surrounding gender equality politics and sociological research and theory.

The concluding section of this thesis will cover stage 3 - 5. ​Stage 3: ​Consider whether the social order (the social context in which the texts are produced and consumed)​ ​“needs” the

55Fairclough., N in Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael, ​Methods of critical discourse analysis [Elektronisk

(25)

problem; stage 4: Identify possible ways past the obstacles, and; ​stage 5:​ Reflect critically on the analysis

5. 4 Method - execution

In carrying out this critical discourse analysis I began by reading my material in its entirety. I focused on how the requirement to teach gender is framed. I read the two textbooks in their entirety, taking note of whether gender perspectives were integrated or separated in separate chapters. I use a number of analytical questions (detailed in the results section) informed by my theoretical and research background, to guide my analysis. I began my analysis by focusing on the language used in the syllabus and in the textbooks. This is stage 1 of Fairclough’s model, located at the text dimension/word level. What is included, or excluded (explicitly or otherwise) and do the textbooks interpret the same requirement in similar or different ways? Do the words used implicate a value judgement beyond the information transmitted? I then expand my analysis to include the relevant discursive and sociocultural dimensions, which I determine to be the analyzed documents themselves, national gender policy and sociological research and practice. As the aim of CDA is to reveal embedded ideologies that may discursively oppress, marginalise or Other certain groups I am not objective in my analysis, but approach the discourses

questioning what other perspectives have been excluded at the expense of those privileged, using the outlined theory and research background outlined above as a guide. Those perspectives that have been privileged are then presented and problematized in the results section. Furthermore,my analysis also reveals that it is not only groups that are potentially marginalized by the discourse on the sociology of gender, but entire sociological schools of thought. In this case, sociology from the global south. This is discussed in chapter 7.

6 Result and analysis

6.1 Stage 1: What is the identified social “problem”?

CDA has emancipatory goals, and as such is focused on confronting the social problems that confront what Fairclough affectionately refers to as “t​he ‘losers’ within particular forms of social life – the poor, the socially excluded, those subject to oppressive gender or race relations, and so forth.”56​ Gender norms are deeply entrenched in the multitude of social interactions we encounter

(26)

on a daily basis, from the “cradle to the grave”: from the kindly grandparents who gift their granddaughters dolls and their grandsons footballs; the parents who have different sets of rules and expectations for their sons and daughters; well-meaning teachers who brush away the emotions of their male students while encouraging their female students to talk through their problems. Sometimes these norms are harmful for our students. Thus, when the specific opportunity does arise in which to engage in a rational discourse of gender, based in well supported qualitative and quantitative research, it is imperative that that discourse as far as possible does not serve to inadvertently perpetuate harmful norms and marginalising of groups.

The “problem” is thus the difficulties in - or institutional resistance to - establishing a sociological canon that is truly inclusive, and the harmful effects this might have on our students. In the context of gender the “losers” are those who are “Othered” by the discourse on gender both in sociology but also in mainstream society. This can include non-gender

conforming individuals, females who are not traditionally feminine, men who are not

traditionally masculine and those whose sexuality falls outside of the heteronorm. This list is not exhaustive.

6.2 Stage 2 - Multi-dimensional analysis of the official pedagogic discourse.

The syllabus​ (part of Bernstein’s curriculum message system) 1. Text dimension

It will be remembered that the curriculum message system serves to distribute power over knowledge through how strongly or weakly a subject is framed and classified. Below is the sociology syllabus in its entirety and it will be noted that the language used is both broad and neutral.

​“Teaching in the course should/shall cover the following core content:

● The creation of societies, cultures, identities, social processes and socialisation. ● Social structures based on class, gender, ethnicity, culture and religion.

● Social norms and the categorisation of people.

● The meaning of integrity, social control, segregation and marginalisation. ● Discrimination, equality and equal treatment.

● Methods for critically evaluating information. ● Contemporary social issues.”

(27)

There are very few adjectives or qualifiers and the nouns are uncontroversial. The wording is broad and open to interpretation, but does demand specific obligations to “cover”57​ specific

content. No choice is implied here but all aspects ​shall ​be covered, though “cover” leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Broad, neutral classification decentralises the distribution of power over knowledge, so neutral wording is not equivalent to indifferent. It is weakly classified and framed. Power over knowledge in this case falls to the teacher actualising the core content. No definition of gender is given, and the teacher is not required to present it separately , or to present certain methods, theorists or theories as more privileged than others. The wording “social structures based on gender” is itself very broad, as is the inclusion of other core content that could easily be interpreted as relevant to the field of gender specifically as well as other areas of sociology, such as: ​Discrimination, equality and equal treatment, Social norms and the categorisation of people To understand the significance of this, it can be compared with sociology syllabi in the UK58​, for

example, which is very strongly framed: teachers must teach to exact specifications, in a specific order and must cover identified theories and perspectives. For each subtopic, such as “crime” or “religion”, gender - along with class, ethnicity and sexual identity - is integrated, rather than being a separate area of study. Teachers have no power to alter the curriculum for the needs of their students and are not in control of assessment. Thus, the power of knowledge in such a strongly classified environment is at the macro-level of the state controlled education and examination board. In a weakly classified sociology, the teacher has significantly more opportunities to influence their subject matter and thus what they present as the legitimate knowledge in the sociology of gender. In this respect , the devolution of power to the classroom level through weaker classification and framing is an opportunity to shape sociology.

Pedagogy message system - ​“Läromedel i Sociologi”/Textbook in Sociology (2017), Johan

Forsell and “Sociologi - Grunderna”/Sociology - The Basics (2012), Tove Phillips.

In this section I analyze part of what Bernstein refers to as the pedagogy message system, which is the legitimized forms of transmission of ​curriculum, ​above. When we think of pedagogy, or its

57 Original: “behandla”. “Behandla” is translated to “cover” in Skolverkets official translations. 58 AS and A level specifications, version 1.1 2 December 2016 available at

(28)

scandinavian counterpart ​didaktik​, it is tempting to primarily focus on what happens in the classroom as transmission of knowledge, but in Bernstein’s theory the selection and preparation of knowledge, based on the curriculum, is an equally as important part. The textbooks represent an interpretation of the curriculum. As the subject is weakly framed (meaning the teacher can select and adapt knowledge from the curriculum) the textbook is not definitive in that it does not preclude the teacher choosing other material and different sociological discourses. Textbooks do, however, have a symbolic legitimizing function as well as being practically useful in the

classroom for setting work and homework.

Dimension 1: text

In executing this part of my analysis I used a range of questions to guide my analysis. These questions were developed as a response to the issues raised in previous research and the theoretical background, as discussed above, and as support for my research question, repeated here: “How is the sociology of gender constructed in the curriculum and how is this interpreted in two sociology textbooks aimed for use at upper-secondary school?”

How is the knowledge structured? (Analytical questions used to guide my analysis)

Forsell Phillips

Is there a dedicated chapter on the sociology of gender?

Dedicated chapter of 20 pages (out of 241 pages). The Title of the chapter is “Gender: The Socially Constructed Sex”.

There is a subchapter of 5 pages (out of 219) on gender under the main chapter heading “social structures” Is the sociology of gender

integrated into other parts of the book?

No, but the chapter of gender incorporates other areas of the core content, including: socialisation, inequality and discrimination,

Yes. Equality and the salary-gap in two separate chapters. (add one page to the total pages on gender)

Which subtopics are considered central to the sociology of gender?

(centrality can be indicated by use of subtitles, repetition,

The social construction of gender, gender socialisation, gender norms and gender roles, the pay-gap, equality and

Pay-gap, discrimination, gender socialisation, sexuality, gender roles, cultural gender differences.

(29)

length of discussion, listing in glossary etc.) discrimination,masculinity and feminity, intersectionality, feminism, media representation, patriarchy, informal power structures, the male norm, protest and quota as a means for change.

Are sociological theories structured according to well-known names or well-known perspectives, or both?

Theories are structured according to well-known names, broader perspectives are interspersed throughout the book.

Theories are structured according to well-known perspectives, theorists are accordingly slotted into the perspectives.

Which sociological theories or theorists are validated by the book?

Comte is presented as the “father” of sociology.

Durkheim, Marx, Max Weber and Simmel are the “four classical theorists”. Simone De Beauvouir and Judith Butler feature in the gender chapter.

Durkheim, Parson, Merton, Marx, C.W Mills, Weber, G.H. Mead, Arlie Hochschild are presented as classical theorists significant to the forming of sociology. Nancy Chodorow, Margaret Mead, Fanny Ambjörnsson are named as ​feminist

sociologists​ in the subchapter

“Newer Sociological

Perpsectives” (add one page to total pages on gender) Which sociological

perspectives are presented in the books?

Symbolic interactionism, functionalism, structuration theory (Giddens). Feminism is not presented as a

perspective, it is presented as an identity and/or political movement.

Conflict theory, functionalism and symbolic interactionism are presented as the “three big perspectives”. Feminism is not a perspective, it is an identity and/or a movement.

Are any sociological

theories/theorists with a focus on gender included in the formation of the sociological canon (“the classics”)

No. No, but Margaret Mead is

mentioned as belonging to “newer sociological perspectives”.

(30)

Comments

The two textbooks share a number of similarities and differences in their construction of the sociology of gender. In both instances the “founding fathers” narrative is predominant,

regardless of whether chapters are structured around famous names or well-known perspectives. Earlier sociological contributions with a gender perspective, such as Harriet Martineau and Jane Addams are erased from the formation of the classical sociological canon. It is telling that in

Phillips ​book Margaret Mead is presented as part of “newer sociological perspectives”, even

though her work predates a number of theorists who were presented as the formative shapers of sociology, such as C.W. Mills, Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton. My own interpretation of this positioning is that while Margaret Mead's research itself is not new, indeed her research was formative in social psychology and anthropology59​, a gender perspective in sociology is.

An additional observation is that the textbooks differed significantly in how much space was allocated to the sociology of gender. In quantifiable terms the sociology of gender

specifically took up 8.3 % of pages in Forsell and 3.16 % in Phillips. The books differed also in which perspectives were considered as important in the sociology of gender, as can be seen in the above table. The two books did not share a single theorist with a focus on gender. Thus, sociology of gender is constructed in two different ways, depending on the book, and this increases the demands upon the sociology teacher.

59 Biography: Margaret Mead. Britannica online. Available at

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret-Mead the founding fathers/origins

of sociology?

Feminist theory used to understand gender?

Yes Yes

Feminist theory used to understand gender?

Partially (see below) No Is there any critical reflexivity

of theories of gender? Feminism is presented as being unpopular/controversial but important for equality.

Feminism is presented as being unpopular/controversial but important for equality.

References

Related documents

1.1.3 Mobile Internet has critical importance for developing countries Choosing emerging markets, and particularly Turkey, as our research area is based on the fact that

Further when Melania Trump and Queen Raina visits the Excel Academy, it’s explained through the quote “(…) [this] was also a part of a day of photo ops intended to cast a softer

Leader gender moderates the relationship between controlling leadership behaviours and employee well-being in terms of self-rated health, burnout, self-rated job satisfaction and

When the students have ubiquitous access to digital tools, they also have ubiquitous possibilities to take control over their learning processes (Bergström & Mårell-Olsson,

Figure 8.1C Anterior leaflet shape in heart H3 during six key times during a representative cardiac cycle: (clockwise from upper left) T1 at the time of peak LV diastolic inflow; T2

For piecewise ane systems, i.e., systems whose dynamics is given by an ane dierential equation in dierent polyhedral regions of the state space, the computation of invariant sets

This research conducts a critical analysis on the Act from the perspective of gender equality and aims to answer the research question: To what extent does the

In a research and intervention project we investigated how an increased awareness of gender issues in science and in science teaching among pre-school student teachers