Gender and Sexual Diversity in the Curriculum
Prompt: Discuss the role of gender identity in a postmodern curriculum that respects diversity. What can we do as educators to make everyone feel welcome at school?
Be a man…
My youth was full of sport, conservative religion, and right-leaning political talk shows. I heard the phrase ‘be a man’ a lot. I knew exactly what it meant — be strong, be firm, and take care of your business. As a teacher, I still hear it. Now, my reaction is different. When my students utter a similar comment, I ask, “what does that mean?”
Most students spit out a reaction similar to what mine was when I was their age. I don’t let them off that easy. I press them a bit. I explain generalizations like ‘the tough man’ aren’t representative of all men. I insist there is not one true way a man should act. They think. They scratch their heads. For many, this is the first time they have heard such a thing.
While a sixth grader may struggle to understand the notion that “the roles [and identities] of males and females are almost always socially constructed and not biologically determined” (Slattery, 2006, p. 150), there are many opportunities to create space within the curriculum for gender and sexual diversity. For example, the current primary election is a rich deposit of such space. In a Social Studies class I teach a long discussion arose from a comment that a woman could not be a good president. Thornton (2003) showed that even slight deviations from the explicit curriculum can produce rich opportunities to rethink stereotypes. When studying the Hellenistic world, the teacher might ask, “Why did the Greeks so prize the male form” (Thornton, 2003, p. 335)? Sumara and Davis (1999) used the classic young adult novel The Giver to create a critical, interpretive space for discussing sex and sexuality. I leveraged a state standard about the Middle Ages and feudalism to create a nuanced lesson about the code of chivalry in the past and its implications today.
It is important to address issues of gender and sexuality diversity head on because there remains intense pressure for people to conform to traditional norms. The intentional inclusion of gender and sexual diversity into the curriculum helps deconstruct meta-narratives nestled deep within the hidden curriculum. Implicit acceptance of the hidden curriculum reproduces ideas like heteronormativity (Sumara and Davis, 1999; Thornton, 2003) and masculinized visions of history (Thornton, 2003). The hidden curriculum is buttressed by the explicit reification of traditional gender norms by the mass media. Additionally, a neoliberal world economy promotes traditional gender, identity, and sexuality norms. Slattery (2006) made this clear, “corporate advertising is a cultural system of stories and values that promote a profound propaganda, especially in relation to gender and sexuality” (p. 151).
Beside the inherent justice of an inclusive curriculum, there is a need to connect with the lived experiences of students’ lives. On a personal level, a curriculum complete with gender and sexual diversity values the individual humanity of each student. This helps alleviate the enormous suffering felt by many students at the hand of modernity’s understanding of gender and sexuality. It builds relationships of care (Valenzuela, 1999; Noddings, 2005). Teachers must embrace a responsibility to be at the forefront of addressing the injustices caused by narrow constructions of gender and sexuality.
Inviting the concept of postmodern hermeneutics is another way to improve community understanding of the individual’s lived experience (Slattery, 2006). Deconstructing texts and using counter narratives amplifies the unique voice of each person, culture, and moment. Teachers must also take the lead in deconstructing themselves. A crucial step in the teacher’s development of the discussed topic is a thorough examination of their own understandings. Slattery (2006) suggested that teachers “examine our own autobiography and sedimented preceptors for the ways that gender and sexuality bias has deformed each of us” (Slattery, 2006, p. 164). In doing so, teachers begin to identify conditioned and socialized through-processes that reproduce feelings such as arrogance, ignorance, and emotions of disgust (Slattery, 2006).
In closing, I recall a recent class period with eighth graders when I did explicitly mention the idea that cultures socially construct gender. They were curious, and I explained the rationale using my new daughter as an example. A boy raised his hand and said, “you know a lot of people consider me feminine or whatever, but to me, that is just how I am.” I marveled at his statement, and his classmates’ positive response. He was confident enough to be his own version of a man. We may shy away from such conversations, but there is power in them.
Works Cited
Noddings, N. (2005). “The Challenge to Care in Schools,” in Classic Edition Sources:Education, 5th edition, edited by C. Kridel. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013, p. 45.
Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. New York: Routledge.
Sumara, D. and David, B. (1999). “Interrupting Heteronormativity: Toward a Queer Curriculum Theory,” in The Curriculum Studies Reader, 4th edition, edited by D.J. Flinders & S.J. Thornton. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Thornton, S. (2003). “Silence on Gays and Lesbians in Social Studies Curriculum,” in The Curriculum Studies Reader, 4th edition, edited by D.J. Flinders & S.J. Thornton. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). “Subtractive Schooling, Caring Relations, and Social Capital in the Schooling of U.S. Mexican Youth,” in The Curriculum Studies Reader, 4th edition, edited by D.J. Flinders & S.J.Thornton. New York: Routledge, 2013.
