









Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
This paper explores how teacher interactions with dolls in morning talk sessions contradict gender-inclusive classroom practices, positioning girls as dolls and reinforcing gendered roles. The study uses data from summary field notes, transcripts, and an interview with the teacher. The analysis draws on Bourdieu's notion of habitus and Foucault's emphasis on discourse as a form of power.
Typology: Assignments
1 / 15
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!










DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 371 364 CS 214 368
AUTHOR Kamler, Barbara
TITLE "Oh You Beautiful Doll": Gendered Language Practices
in the First Month of School.
PUB DATE Apr 94
NOTE 15p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (New
Orleans, LA, April 4-8, 1994).
PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Reports
Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS *Classroom Communication; Communication Research;
Discourse Analysis; Feminism; Foreign Countries;
Primary Education; *Sex Differences; *Teacher
Behavior
IDENTIFIERS Australia (Victoria); *Communication Behavior;
Conversation; Discourse Communities
ABSTRACT
A case study examined the processes by which girls
and boys in their first month of primary school assume particular,
highly gendered subjectivities within the school setting. Subjects,
28 children of diverse multicultural origins entering a suburban
primary school in a large regional center in southern Victoria,
Australia, were observed in the classroom and on the playground.
Selected transcripts of over 100 hours of classroom talk were
compiled. Analysis of transcripts of classroom talk was conducted at
the microanalytic level. The teacher was also interviewed. Results
indicated that, although the teacher worked against such positioning
in a number of settings, her interaction in morning talk in relation
to gendered doll-objects stands out as a contradiction to her usual
non-gendered practice. Findings suggest that feminist
poststructuralist analysis is a way of reading teacher discourse and
action that locates contradictions and inconsistencies as an effect
of discourse rather than as a personal failure of individual
teachers. ,Findings also suggest that while issues of subjectivity in
relation to discourse have been an important recent theme of feminist
poststructuralist work in education, such theoretical understandings
have not had much' impact on projects of nonsexist education.
(Contains 21 references.) (RS)
Ye**********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be 2ade
from the original document.
********************************************1.**************************
Sllt.PWflettMTOEOUCATtON
f tt.'tt.
54 I P.;
t ,
PERMISSIONTOREPTViDUCTTHIS
MATERIALHASBEEH,RANEFDBY
I'HEE A,i(INALHsnoc-ELFs
NI(1-4IIPik
BESTCOPYAVARAREE
controlleddiscourseandactivityasacontradictorysite;of
teachersasbothsubjectand
objectofavarietyofdiscourseswhichproducetheindividualas
sometimespowerful
andsometimespowerlesstoresistgendering,evenwhereclassroom
curriculumand
practiceisgenderinclusive.
Theresearchreportedhereadoptedcasestudymethodologyto
focusononeclass
groupoftwenty-eightPrepchildrenenteringa
suburbanprimaryschoolinalarge
regionalcentreinsouthernVictoria,Australia.Prepisthefastyear
ofschoolin
Victoria,alternatelynamedKitdergartenandReceptioninotherstates.
Theschool
cor;sistingofdiverse
multiculturalorigins,includingSerbian,Croatian,Greek,Japaneseand
classroomandplaygroundexperienceofthechildrenandtheir
teacherwasobserved
andrecordedonvideotape,audiotapcandinfieldnotes
duringthefirstfourweeksof
schoolinJanuaryandFebruary1993.Selectedtranscriptsofover
100hoursof
classroomtalkwerecompiled,withatleasttwofulldaysperweek
fullytranscribed.
Atleasttwomembersoftheresearchteamoffourwerepresentat
alltimesduringthe
study,andanoutside,professionalteamofvideoandsound
recordistswerepresent
ononefulldayofeachweek.Inthisway,we
compiledasdetailedandmultifaceteda
representationaspossibleofthepracticesthatcomprisethefirst
monthofschool.
Ananalysisoftranscriptsofclassroomtalkwasconductedata
microanalyticlevel
usingsystemiclinguistics(Halliday1985,Poynton1990)and
criticaldiscourse
analysis(Kress1985;Fairclough1992).Closeanalysisofselected
videotape
segmentswasalsoundertakeninorderto
documentwhatThreadgold(1992:9)calls
theroleof'embodiedsubjectivity'inthemakingofalltexts. Aninteractiveanalysis
whichdetailedboththevisualandlinguisticwasdeveloped,reading
thebodyastext,
andmappingbodilyposturesandmovementsasthese
workedinconcertwithandin
oppositiontotheverbal.Thiswasparticularlyimportantas
muchoftheyoung
children'sinteraction,resistanceandcompliancewasaccomplished
withoutwords.
Inmakingmorningtalktheobjectofstudyinthispaper,three
datasourceshavebeen
utilised:summaryfieldnotesforallmorningtalksessionsduring
thefirstmonthof
school;fourmorningtalktranscripts(February3,4,16,26)
representingroughlythe
beginning,middleandendpointofourobservations;andan
interviewwiththe
classroomteacher,MrsT,inAugust,1993,sixmonthsafterthe
conclusionofthedata
collection.
Thetranscriptsofdolltalkexaminedherecomefrommorning
talksessionswhich
occurredfirstthingeachmorningafterthechildrengatheredon
therug.(Forafuller
analysisofmorningtalkseeKamleratal1993).Likethe
sharingtimedescribedby
Michaels(1986),morningtalkwasaclearlyboundedspeechevent,
withadefined
beginningandending.ThroughoutthesessionMrsTtookundisputed
decidedwhentostallandwhentoconclude,howmuchdieressionor
interruptionto
allow,freelyinterjectingquestionsandcommentstothe
newsgiverandthegroup.
Thechildrensatinacircleonthefloor,withMrs.Tatone
endofthecircleonachair.
Theprocedurewastomovearoundthecircleandgivealltwenty-seven
childrenan
opportunitytospeak.Thismeantthatchildrendidnotbidforturnsas
inother
classrooms(e.g.Michaels1986,Christie1989,Kantor1988),nor
didtheyhaveto
raisetheirhandsandcompetefortheteacher'sattention.The
circlesignifiedafairly
relaxedsetofspeakingrules:childrencouldrefuseaninvitationto
speakorvolunteer
commentsv.ithoutbeingexplicitlyinvited.Whilethecirclegavegreaterpowerto
speak,italsogavegreaterresponsibility.Achildwhoseturn
ituasmusteitherspeak
orrefusetospeak,shecouldnot
respond;alleyeswereonher,shewasthesole
focus
ofthecollectivegaze.
AlthoughMrs.T,likemostearlychildhood educators,justifiedmorningtalkasan
activitywhichfostersorallanguagedevelopment, anumberofstudieshaveshownthat
otherileologicalpurposes arealsoaccomplished.Christie's(1989)systemiclinguistic
analysisinafirstgradeAustralianclassroom describedmorningnewsasacurriculum
genrewhichproducedaparticularkindofchildtext,farless opentostudenttopic
nomihationandstructuringthaniscommonlybelieved. Michaels'(1986)analysisof
sharingtimeinafirstgradeAmericanclassroom differentiatedtwonarrativestyles
adoptedbychildren,topic-centredstylesapprovedbytheteacherandtopic-associating
styleslessfavouredbutmorecharacteristicofblack studentsintheclassroom.Baker
andPerrot's(1988)conversationalanalysesofmorningtalkinnineAustralianinfants
andprimaryclassrooms,demonstratedthatchildren'severydaylifeinterestsare
subordinatedtoandappropriatedbythecultureoftheschoolandorganisedto
legitimateschoolknowledge.A morerecentanalysisofmorningtalkbyLukeetal
(1993)inanAboriginalandIslandergrade oneclassroom,revealedthatmorningnews
positionsandconstructschildrenandchildren'scultureinwayswhichbothmarkand
silencedifference.
Theanalysisinthispaperbuilds onthesestudies,butaddressesanotableabsenceby
investigatingmorningtalkforthekindofgendered workitaccomplishes.It
deliberatelyshiftsitsfocustothelinj;uisticandbodily processeswhicharepartofthe
constructschoolgirl
subjectivities.DrawingonBourdieu's(1977) notionofhabitus,asetofembodied
predispositionsthatstructureandarestructuredbysocialinteraction,wehavecometo
seethatitisthroughtheeverydaypracticesofschooling,such asMrs.Tsinteractions
arounddolls,thatthesocial group'structuresin'tochildren'sbodiesandminds
enduringwaysof.behavingandthinking asgirlsandboysinschool.
Wehavecalledthe processofshapingthestudenthabitus'disciplinarywork'
followingFoucault's(1979)viewofttle'internalisation ofthegaze'ofauthorityto
producesocialpowerrelations.Foucault's
emphasisondiscourseasaformofpower
whichinscribesthecollectiveandindividualsocialbodyhasbeenparticularlyhelpful
inunderstandingthe waysinwhichchildrenareshapedasstudentsandthe waysin
whichthisshaping occursdifferentlyforgirlsandboys.Discourseoperates notasan
abstractsetofideasbutasGrosz(1990:63) suggestsas'amaterialseriesof
processes,wherepoweractivelymarksorbrandsbodiesassocial,andinscribes
them,asaneffectofthis,withdifferentiated
'atn-ibutr:sofsubjectivity'.Thispaper
examinesoneofmanyregulatorypractices associatecwithteacherdiscourseand
action.thatshapethegoodschoolgirlsubjectduringeiefirstfourweeksofschool.
ThehousekeepingcomerinMrsT'sclassroomwasexceptionalfortheabsenceofany
dolls.Herobjectiontothe waydollspositiongirlsandcreateunrealisticbodyimages
wasstatedstronglyinaninterviewfollowingdatacollection:
HasitcomethroughthatIcan'tstanddolls. hatethem.It'snotniceofmeprobably,
hutIneverplayedwithdolls. Ihatethemandmydaughterdidn'tplaywithdolls ...To
medollsreallydosay.especiallytheBarbiedolls,heythisiswhat welooklike.NoI
d-n'tlooklikethatandIwouldn'thkcthegirlstoreallythink thattheyshould ...andI
u.,nkthat's wheretheyreallydogetwrongideasaboutit.Wedon'tlook likethatandI
findit insulung thattheyputthingsoutandsaythisis women.
(InterviewwithMrsT.August1993)
AlthoughMrsTquestionedthevalueofdolls,shedidnotwishtodevaluewhatgirls
valued.Iftheybroughtdollstoschoolanddolls createdaspaceforgirlstospeak,this
wastoheaffirmed Potentialdiscursiveconflictarose,therefore,whengirlsbrought
3
MrsT Sheisabitnoisyisn'tshe?
6 Nikola
7 MrsT IhopeyOudon'tdothattoherdoyou?
8 Nikola
9 MrsT Ohdear,what'shernline,doesshehavea
nameNikola?What'sherrizme?
6 Nikola Amy.
7 MrsT Ohthat'saprettyname.Amy'sactually
verywellbehavedinschoolisn'tshe?
Shesitsthereveryquietly.
8 Nikola
Nikolanods.Justineleansoverand
tapsthedoll'sbackthreetimessoshe
makes3sharpcries.
Nikolasmiles,Justinenodsyes.
Nikolabobsherbackandforth
times.Nikolapullsthedollcloseand
nods.
Nikolaholdsthedollbyherfeet.
Nikolatakesthedollbyherarmsand
lowersthedoll'sheadtothefloor.
Linguistically,thedollisgivenagencybyMrsT.Itisthe dollwhohascometo
school,ratherthanNikolawhohasbroughther.Nikola embodiesthislinguistic
representationbycontinuallymovingthedollandgivingherlife, turninghertoface
MrsT,movinghettotheground,holdingherclose. Thedollisnamed(nameis
repeatejfourtimes),andhencegivenidentityand power.Sheisnotananonymous
object,sheisaperson,achild,agirl.Further,sheis evaluatedpositivelybythe
teacherwiththefeminineattributeslovely(1,3)and
attemptstogainNikola'sagreementthatitisimportantforthedoll tobequietinschool,
quietnessbeingahighlyvaluedbehaviourfordolls, andbyassociationforwell-
behavedgirls.
Laterinthemorningtalksession, asthechildrengrowrestlesswaitingforeachclass.
membertohavetheirturnatmorning news,Mrs.T.directlyaddressesthedollby
nameinanattempttogaincontroloverthedisruptioncausedbyhercrying.
Text2:
1
AloudcryingsoundisheardNikola
holdsthedollonherside.
MrsT Amycouldyoujustbealittlebit
quieterplease.Doyouthinkshecan
be?
Nikola Nikolaholdsthedolluprightinfront
ofhcr,sothatherownfaceis
obscuredbythedollwhoturnsto
faceMrsT.
4 MrsT She'sbeenverywellbehavedsofarNikola
hasn'tshe?
Nikolamovesthedolltoareclining
positionsoAmy'sheadrestsagainst
herchest
Shereallylookslikeaschoolgirl.really. Nicolamovesboththedoll'shands
andmovesherhead.
6-
Havingestablishedtheidentityofthedoll,MrsTreprimandsAmy,asthoughshewere
theonecrying.WhileMrsTisobviouslyawarethatNikola
iscreatingthedisturbance,
shechoosesnottocriticiseNikoladirectlyinnegativeterms;rathershewarnsherto
conformtoappropriateschoolgirlbehaviourthroughthedollobject.
Asanindirect
formofcontrolthisappearstobeeffective,butitsimultaneouslyachievesgendered
positioningsforchild,object,andteacherinwaysthatMrsTseemsunaware of.
NikolaworkswithMrsTtoproducethisconstructionbyholdingthe
dollinfrontof
herownface,creatingadoll-maskpersonawhichfacestheteacher.
Mrs.Tsdirect
question,Doyouthinkshecanbe?(2)andtagquestion,hasn't
she?(4)shiftthe
addressee(youisNikola,sheisthedoll)IndfunctiontorepositionNikolaascaretaker
Nikola'sagreement;sheisaskedtostand
outsideherselfandtakeuptheteacherevaluationthatbeingawell
behaved
schoolgirl/dollrequiresquiet,whiletherepetitionofreally(4)addsfinal
authorityto
thejudgment.
ClearlythisisnotadeliberateployonMrs.Tsparttodiminish
whatitmeanstobea
schoolgirl;althoughsheovertlyrejectsprettydollinessasaschoolgirlnoon,
her
statementisremarkablenonethelessforitsdisciplinary
shaping.Ifthedolllookslikea
schoolgirl,really,thangirlswhowishto,begoodschoolgirlsmustinturn
looklike
dolls.Anexaminationoftranscriptsoutsidemorningtalksessions,
revealedthatthis
constructionofthegoodschoolgirlindoll-liketermsalsooccuredat
othertimesduring
theschoolday,whenforexampleonFebruary4,MrsTselectedgirlsto
takethelunch
orderstothecanteen:
IthinkI'mgoingtochooseJustinebecauseJustine'sbeensittirmupso
beautifullythis
morning,andJustine,let'ssecifwecanfindafriendtogowithyou,urnsomeone
who's
beendoingtherightthingallmorningandthere'slotshere,lotsofyou.
Urn,perhaps
Sheela,wouldyouliketogoovertothecanteenandtakethisover?Sheela'sbeen
sitting
upsobeautifullyandquiet.
(February4)
LikethedollAmy,thegirlSheelaisnamedasthegoodschoolgirl
subjectwhosits
upbeautifullyandquietly.Both
SheelaandJustinearenewtotheschooland
don'tknowtheirwayaroundverywell;bychoosingthemMrsTsignals
theyarc
responsiblestudentswhoaretobetrustedtofindtheirwaytothecanteen
and
back.Linguistically,however,theyarenotconstructedasresponsible,
onlyas
quiet.Itissilenceanduprightposturewhicharevalorisedhereas
goodschoolgirl
behaviour.Thegirlsarediscursivelypositionedasgooddolls,their
compliance
andmalleabilitypublicallyrewarded.
AsecondfeatureofMis.T'sdolltalkemergesfromthestrugglebetweenherwishtc
appropriatethegirl'sobjectsforthepurposeofcritique,andtotalktothe
girlsintheir
owntermsaboutthedolls,attheriskofreaffirmingvaluestowhichsheisopposed.A
contradictoryeffectoftheteacherdiscourseinthisinstanceistoposition
girlsas
objectsofthedisciplinarygaze.Thisisexemplifiedinamorningtalk
sessionon
February16withSheelaandherdollAriel.SheelaisaquietMuslim
girlwhois
compact,agileandalert.SheisattentivetoMrs.T
anddiligentinaccomplishing
schooltasks.Althoughshespeakssoftlyandinfrequentlyin
observedtobeactive,volubleandlivelyinherinteractionswithpeers
inthe
playgroundandatherwork-table.Onthemorninginquestion,Sheela
hadbeenoutof
theroomandmissedherturnaroundthecircle.OnherreturnMrsT
invitesherto
cometothefrontoftheroomtoshowthe dollshehasbroughtthatmorning.
exclama6onohwow(3)andhighpitchedrisingintonationwhatlovely
assendingupthedoll'sappearancewhilesimultaneouslytryingtoacceptSheela'soffering.
ThroughoutMrsTalternatesherbodyorientationandcommentsbetween
Sheelaandthe
class,sothatHowwouldyouliketohavehairlikethat?(3)isdirectedattheclass,while/
reckonhairthiscolourwouldbeterrific,whatdoyouthinkSheela?(4)is directedatSheela.
Inbothinstancesquestionsareusedtoimplicatetheclassinhercritique
ofthedoll's'rather
outlandishhair.Interestingly,MrsTcontinuestopullandtouchthedoll'shair throughout,
almostasifshewereplayingwithit.
ThatMrsT'sfocusisonthedoll'shairisindicatedbythefactthatsherepeats
theword
hairninetimesinthisshortspaceoftime.Linguistically,theattributes
associatedwith
thedoll'shaircanbeevaluatedaspositive(lovely,terrific),attention getting(seeyou
coming,noticeyouinthestreet)andsomewhatambiguous(thatcolour,like
adultresearcherswereadMrsT'scommentsassarcastic;assimultaneously
overexaggeratingthedoll'sbeautyandunderstatingtheoutrageousnessofherhair,as
signallingherconflictbetweencritiquingandaffirmingthechild'scontribution.Itis
notclearhowever,howthechildrenreadhercomments,inparticularSheela.
Somewhatparadoxically,despiteMrsT'sobjectionstothedoll'sappearance,her
discoursefixesthechildren'sattentiononthedoll'sappearance,particularlyher
hair.
Thefactthatsheisdressedasabrideisignoredoratleastnotcommentedon.
Sheis,
however,lateridentifiedbySheelaasArielofthemermaidnarrative,afactverifiedby
MrsTwhensheholdsthedollupsidedown(8),andlooksunderherskirt
perusing
atailorfeet.
ThisattentiontohairisinterestinggivenFriggaIlaug'sworkinFemaleSexualization
(1987),wheresheandagroupofwomencollectivelyexploretheprocessesthrough
whichwomens'bodiesbecomesexualised.Workingthroughmemoriesofchildhood,
theirstoriesdocumenthowindividualpartsofthebodyarelinkedwithsexuality,how
routinesofhomeandschoolpositiongirlswithinpatriarchyasobjectsofmale desire
andconstructanoverexaggeratedconcernwithexternalappearance..Withinthiswork
therelationbetweenhairandgenderpositioning,betweenhairandsexualityis
explored:thesensualityanddangeroffree-flowing,long,untamedhair,thetidiness
andorderlinessofschoolgirlplaitsasopposedtothenaive,frivolous,flirtatiouspony
tailortheshorthaircutwhichismarkedasmasculine..
MrsT'sfocusonthedoll'shairmaybeoneofamillionmomentsinthechildren's
lives
whichworktoconstructrelationsbetweenhairandgenderpositioning.Theshift
in
teacherdiscoursefromthedoll'shairtoSheela'shair,however,seemsparticularly
problematicasitlinguisticallyandbodilypositionsSheelaasdollandasobjectofthe
children'sgaze.TheattributesusedtoevaluateSheela'shairareunambiguously
affirmingSheela'srealhaircomparedtothedoll'sartificialhair.Thisistheonly
point
whercsheusesthepronominal1toassertherteacher-authorisedversionof
attractivenessIthinkI'dratherhaveyourhairSheela,1thinkyoursisanicercolour
(6).TheshifttotheprocesslookmarksSheela'shairasobjectandechoesthe
wordingusedbyMrsTthroughoutthetranscriptstoencouragechildrentoshow
their
morningtalkobjects(e.g.letmelookatyours,comeandlet'shavealook).When
Mrs
TreachesouttobringSheelaincloser(6).shetouchesherhairandplays
absentlywith
afewstrands,justasshehaddonemoment'searlierwiththedoll'shair.
MrsT'sattentiontoSheela'shaircanbereadasanaffirmationofSlicela'sdarkness
doesnot
looklikethewhite,blue-eyed,bride-dollwhichMrsTrejectsasanormforgirlsto
measurethemselvesagainst,orforthatmatterlikeanyoftheothergirlsintheclass.
'other'
intermsofgenderandethnicity.Thccontradictionofcourseisthatby
affirming
Sheela'sappearanceasanindividual,sheissimultaneouslypositionedas
doll,as
somethingtobelookedat.IndiscussionwithMrsTaboutthisinteraction,she
indicatedshewastryingtoaffirmSheela'sdifferenceandworkagainstdoll-stereotyped
appearance,butcouldseethatherdiscoursemightbeunderminingherintention.
InattemptingtomakesenseofsuchcontradictionsinMrsTsinteractions,wecameto
understandthepowerofgenderedobjectsfromworldsoutsidetheclassroomtoactivate
gendereddiscourseswithin.WhileMrs.Tdidnotvaluetheobjectsofgirlsandboys
differently,shesometimesusedthemdifferently.Althoughwebservedthatboys
werenotdiscursivelypositionedasobjectwhenpresentingtothegroup,oncloser
inspectionwefoundthishadmoretodoviththenatureoftheobjectthanthegenderof
thechild.TwomorningtalkinteractionswithAllan.andJustineillustratethepoint.
TheinteractionwithAllanfrommorningtalkonFebruary16,constructs avery
differentpositioningthanSheela's.AlthoughMrsTasksAllantobringhiswatch to
thefrontoftheroomtoshowthegroup,itisnotheldupforgroupscrutinyandthereis
noblurringintheteacherdiscoursebetweenchildandobject.
Text4:'That'salovelyuatch'
MrsT
Allan
3 MrsT
4 MrsT
Allan-
MrsT
Allan
MrsT
9 Alan
Itt MrsT
Allan
OhgoodmorningAllan.
GoodmorningMrsT.
MIdon'tdothatpleaseboysyouknow
betterthanthat.
Whatareyougoingtotellusabout
Allan?AhRohanyouknowbetter.Put
yourhandsinyourlapanddon'tdoit.
I'vegotawatch.
Andhasitgottherealtimeonit?
Yep
Givemealook.
alwaysliketoknowwhenthere'sanother
watch.
Whatabeauty.
Thakalovelywatch.Wheredidthat
comefromAllan?
Mybirthday.
ThomasandRohansittingtoAllan's
leftarepointingattheboom
microphonewhichisheldoverthe
children'sheadsastheyspeaktheir
turnsinmorningtalk.
Rohanticstoreachupandtouchthe
microphone.Allanwatcheshim.
HesmilesatMrsT.holdinghisleft
handupandpointingtothewatch
withhisright.hand.
Allangetsupandmovestothefront
oftheroomtoMrsT.holdingout
hishand.
MrsTtakeshis.handasiftheywere
dancing.
Shepullshishandcloser.Hefaces
herandkeepshisbacktothe
classroom.
Allandropshishandtohisside.
8
10
11 MrsT
Justine
tstnT
12 Justine
I3 MrsT
Imightbeabletoborrowthat,you
knowhowI'malwayslosingmypens,
alwayslosingthemIcouldperhaps
twrowthatIlikethatone,isitareal
pen?
Ohwellthat'sgreat,lookatit,alittle
Australiankoalaontop,whatalovelyone
wheredidthatcomefromJustine?Where
didthepencomefrom?
Mummyboughtitforme,Lindy'sgota
pinkone.
Oh,wellyou'llheabletodo,ohyes
you'vedonelotsofwritingintheretoo,
goodonyou,great.
Shepullsthetopoffthepenand
reachesouttohandittoMrs1'.
MrsTleansoverandtakesthepenin
herhands.Sheturnsitoverasshe
speaks.Justinewatchesher,tapsher
rightfingersagainsthermouth.
Justinenmls.
MrsTtouchesthekoala.
MrsThandsthep acktoJustine.
JustineholdsupthepadsoMrsT
canseeitandtakesthepenback
JustinehandsthepadtoMrsT.
MrsTflicksthroughthepages.
Justinewatchesandsmiles.
MrsThandsbackthepad.
AswithAllan,theevaluationsofJustine'sobjectsareunambiguouslypositive.The
penisalovelyone(11).Penandpencilareconstructedashighlyvaluedschoolobjects
andthereisnotensionbetweentheteacher'sdesiretoaffirmthechildandauthorisethe
valuesrepresentedbytheobject.Accordingly,Justineispositionedas:(a)a
responsibleperson,muchlikeAllan,whocanhelptheteacherwhenshelosesher
pens.Theprocessborrow,usedtwice(9),signifiesthatJustinehassomethingof
valuethattheteacherwants;(b)aliterateperson,onewhoauthorisesschoolvaluesby
writingoutsidetheclassroomandhencewhosepossessionisworthyofdirectteacher
approval,Ilikethatone(9).
UnlikeSheela,bringerofdolls,Justineaswriterisnotobjectifiedinthediscourse.
Thereisnoconfusionbetweenherandherliterateobjects.Whiletheuseofthe
diminutivelittleAustraliankoala(11)makestheobjectcuterthanmighthaveoccurred
inaboy'sturn,Justineisevaluatedpositivelyindirectterms,goodonyou(13),thatis
'goodonyouforengaginginliterateworkandforbringingobjectstheteachervalues,
unlikethedolls.'Suchinteractionsdemonstratedtous,thatwhenmorningtalkobjects
weremoreneutral,gendereddiscourseswerenotactivated;whereas,whenobjects
werehighlygendered,boysandgirlsalikewerepositionedwithinwhatDavies(1989)
callsthe'incorrigibility'ofthemalefemaledualism.
Thispaperandthestudyofwhichitisapartpromoteanawarenessoftheinitiationinto
schoolingasagenderedpractice.TheanalysisofthepracticessurroundingMrs.T's
dolltalkdemonstratethecontradictoryspacesinwhichteachersworkingforgender
equityoftenfindthemselves.Powerfulgenderedpracticesfrompeerordomestic
discourses,whicharevaluedbychildren,entertheclassroom,andteachersmust
decidehowtodealwiththem.Simplerejectionofthesepracticesisnotanoption;
accordinglyteachersareconstantlymakingdifficultdecisionsabouthowfarto
accommodateandsustainthesepracticeswithoutcompromising-theirownvalues.
Takenasawhole,Mrs.Tsdollinteractionsconstnictedanumberof
contradictoryand
genderedsubjectpositions,includingschoolgirlasdollandmother.
Herdiscourse
appearstobeproducedoutofconflictingdesiresto
acknowledgegirls'contributions
andridiculethegenderedbodyimagesdollsrepresent.Intheend,however,
Mrs.T
doespositiondollsasgirlsandgirlsasdolls,asobjectsoftheclassroomgaze.
Itisin
particulartheslippagebetweengirl,dollandwomanthatremainsproblematicand
demonstratesthepowerofgenderedobjectsfromoutsidetheclassroom,to
activateand
authorisemarginalandnegativediscursivepositioningsforgirlsandwomenalike,
withintheclassroom.Althoughunintentionalandincidental,thepowerofsuch teacher
discoursetodisciplinetheschoolgirlsubjectandinscribeherwithattributes
goodnessandpassivityshouldnotbeunderestimated.
Thefeministpoststructuralistanalysisusedinthispaper,withitsfocuson
subjectivity
anditsdiscursiveconstitution,raisesanumberofissuesinrelationtoprojects
genderequityreform.Firstly,itdemonstratesawayofreadingteacher
discourseand
actionthatlocatescontradictionsandinconsistenciesasaneffectofdiscourserather
thanasapersonalfailureofindividualteachers.Teachersarcthemselvesconstituted
bydiscoursesthatproducecontradictionsanddifficultiesabouthowtheymightcarry
outprojectsofreform;asthecaseofMrsTdemonstrates,
itisnotasimplematterto
critiqueadiscourseandbepartofitatthesametime.
Secondly,itsuggeststhatwhileissuesofsubjectivityinrelationtodiscourse
have
beenanimportantrecentthemeoffeministpoststructuralistworkineducation,
such
theoreticalunderstandingsmaynothavehadmuchimpactonprojectsofnonsexist
education(Yates1993:3).Teacherdiscoursemaycontinuetoreproducegendered
meaningsoutof'habit'andtherebycontradictofficialdiscoursesofgender
equityand
reform.Thiscertainlysuggeststhatteachersneedanincreasedawarenessoftheways
inwhichthediscursiveandbodilypracticesofschoolingconstitutechildren
differentiallyas
femaleormale.Inserviceworkwithteachersthatdevelopsa
discourseforexaminingsubjectivityandthediscursiveforceswhichshapeclassroom
talkisessential,andcertainlyahigherprioritythantheproductionof gender-inclusive
materials.Forwithoutawayofmakingvisiblethegenderedandcontradictoryways
weinteractwithchildrenasschoolgirlsandschoolboys
fromtheverybeginningof
school,itisdifficulttoenvisagetransformation.
Andfinallyawordaboutcontradictions.Contradictionsareasignofstniggle
and
strugglesareultimatelyhopeful;theyindicatediscourseinflux,shifting subjectivities
andhenceenableustoimaginethepossibilitiesofchange.Analyseswhichallow
contradictionstoemergeratherthanremaintransparentasthenaturalwayofoperating
areimportant.Thefactthattheprocessofregulationappearsto
besodeeplyandyet
invisiblygenderedneedsseriousconsiderationbytheteachingandresearch
communities.Thispapertakesonestepintheprocessbyattemptingtodescribe
and
namethesepracticessothatwemaybegintoenvisageothers.
References
Baker,Caroline&Perrott,Christine(1988).Thenewssessionininfants
andprimary
schoolclassrooms,
BritishJournaloftheSociologyofEthwation. 9,(1).19-38.
Bourdieu.Pierre(1977).
trans.RichardNice,Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
oftaste. trans
RichardNice,London:Routledge&KeganPaul.