Gender Contradictions in Early Childhood Education: A Doll Study on Teacher Interactions, Assignments of Communication

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

2021/2022

Uploaded on 08/01/2022

hal_s95
hal_s95 🇵🇭

4.4

(655)

10K documents

1 / 15

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
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.**************************
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff

Partial preview of the text

Download Gender Contradictions in Early Childhood Education: A Doll Study on Teacher Interactions and more Assignments Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

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.**************************

'Ohyoubeautifuldoll':Genderedlanguage

practicesinthefirrtmonthofschool

PaperpresentedtoAmericanEducationalResearch

AssociationAnnualMeeting

NewOrleans,April4-8,

Sllt.PWflettMTOEOUCATtON

l'..A ::,. tlI 1VI' ,

f tt.'tt.

-,,y o'1,

54 I P.;

t ,

Barbarakamler

DeakinUniversity

Geelong,Victoria

Australia

PERMISSIONTOREPTViDUCTTHIS

MATERIALHASBEEH,RANEFDBY

I'HEE A,i(INALHsnoc-ELFs

NI(1-4IIPik

Thispaperispartof

aDEETCknderEquity

CurriculumReform

ProjectconductedwithJo-anneReid,RodMaclean,

AlisonSimpson

BESTCOPYAVARAREE

controlleddiscourseandactivityasacontradictorysite;of

teachersasbothsubjectand

objectofavarietyofdiscourseswhichproducetheindividualas

sometimespowerful

andsometimespowerlesstoresistgendering,evenwhereclassroom

curriculumand

practiceisgenderinclusive.

Theresearchreportedhereadoptedcasestudymethodologyto

focusononeclass

groupoftwenty-eightPrepchildrenenteringa

suburbanprimaryschoolinalarge

regionalcentreinsouthernVictoria,Australia.Prepisthefastyear

ofschoolin

Victoria,alternatelynamedKitdergartenandReceptioninotherstates.

Theschool

drawsonapopulationfromamiddlelowersocioeconomicarea

cor;sistingofdiverse

multiculturalorigins,includingSerbian,Croatian,Greek,Japaneseand

Chinese.The

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.

Thecontextofdolltalk:Morningtalk

Thetranscriptsofdolltalkexaminedherecomefrommorning

talksessionswhich

occurredfirstthingeachmorningafterthechildrengatheredon

therug.(Forafuller

analysisofmorningtalkseeKamleratal1993).Likethe

sharingtimedescribedby

Michaels(1986),morningtalkwasaclearlyboundedspeechevent,

withadefined

beginningandending.ThroughoutthesessionMrsTtookundisputed

control.She

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

/socialoccasionofmorningtalkandwhichpositionand

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.

Thedollasmorningtalkobject

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

pretty(7).Sheisnot,however,

perfect,becausesheisabitnoisy(5).Throughthe

tagquestion,isn'tshe(7),Mrs'I'

attemptstogainNikola'sagreementthatitisimportantforthedoll tobequietinschool,

quietnessbeingahighlyvaluedbehaviourfordolls, andbyassociationforwell-

behavedgirls.

Laterinthemorningtalksession, asthechildrengrowrestlesswaitingforeachclass.

membertohavetheirturnatmorning news,Mrs.T.directlyaddressesthedollby

nameinanattempttogaincontroloverthedisruptioncausedbyhercrying.

Text2:

'Shereallylookslikeaschoolgirlreally'

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

ormotherofthedoll.Thequestionsassume

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.

Theschoolgirlasdoll

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

publicforums,shewas

observedtobeactive,volubleandlivelyinherinteractionswithpeers

inthe

playgroundandatherwork-table.Onthemorninginquestion,Sheela

hadbeenoutof

theroomandmissedherturnaroundthecircle.OnherreturnMrsT

invitesherto

cometothefrontoftheroomtoshowthe dollshehasbroughtthatmorning.

exclama6onohwow(3)andhighpitchedrisingintonationwhatlovely

hair(3)canberead

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

that):As

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

positive:herhairisanicercolour,it'sbeautifidhair,lovelydarkhair(6).MrsTis

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

ratherthanblondeness.Sheelahasshiny,blackhair,herskinisdark.She

doesnot

looklikethewhite,blue-eyed,bride-dollwhichMrsTrejectsasanormforgirlsto

measurethemselvesagainst,orforthatmatterlikeanyoftheothergirlsintheclass.

BymarkingSheela'sdifference,however,Mrs.T'sdiscoursedefinesSheelaas

'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

II

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.

Conclusions

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

of

goodnessandpassivityshouldnotbeunderestimated.

Thefeministpoststructuralistanalysisusedinthispaper,withitsfocuson

subjectivity

anditsdiscursiveconstitution,raisesanumberofissuesinrelationtoprojects

of

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

either

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).

Outlineofatheoryofpractice,

trans.RichardNice,Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bourdieu,Pierre(1984).Distinction:AsocialcritiqueQlthejudgement

oftaste. trans

RichardNice,London:Routledge&KeganPaul.