“Back to the Backlash?” Primary Practitioner Discourses of Resistance to Gender-inclusive Policies

Abstract

In this article I discuss how observed discourses of resistance indicate the exclusion of the standpoint of primary school practitioners from feminist theorization, as well as the exclusion of feminist perspectives from primary school practice. I do so from a feminist position which sees the modernist policy framework of the gender-inclusive curriculum as still having transformative potential in the postmodern era, whilst also perceiving the need for much more specific analysis of the varied discourses of resistance. The data is selected from a wider longitudinal case study that investigated the conceptualization and enactment of a gender-inclusive curriculum policy in the state of Victoria in Australia since 1975. I focus this discussion on interviewed “exemplars” who observed primary practitioner resistance to gender inclusive curriculum policy. I conclude that this case study empirically demonstrates the failure of “backlash” in accounting for the significant specificities of primary practitioner discourses of resistance.

Thanks are due to the helpful comments offered by the reviewers of this article.

Notes

1. I take “transformation” to mean enabling curriculum reform of mainstream primary practice and I argue that this should constitute an improvement from a feminist perspective (Collins, 2000b; Johnson, 2001b, 2002f).

2. I agree with Cornell (1995) that poststructural theorists would reject the periodization that I employ in taking the described stance.

3. Some recent work in academe seems to have particular potential for linking with the primary teaching profession (see, for instance, Beckett, 2001; Foster, Kimmel & Skelton, 2001; Gill & Starr, 2000; Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2001a, 2001b; Johnson, 2002d; Kenway et al., 1998; Martino, 2001; Martino & Meyenn, 2001; Meyenn & Parker, 2001). In addition, there is incisive critique of “backlash” in academe, but the limited scope of this article does not permit engagement with these ideas here. Very briefly, backlash explanations are aptly criticized as eurocentric, limited to the formal legislative sphere, and effectively seeking to dilute feminist debates within academe (see, for example, Lingard & Douglas, 1999; McLeod 1998a).

4. This perspective is located in wider support for the “practitioner research movement” (see, for example, Day, 2000; Fullan, 1993; Grundy, Robison, & Tomazos, 2001; Johnson, 1999, 2002b; McTaggart, Henry & Johnson, 1997).

5. It is relevant to note that I was surprised to uncover this degree of primary teacher resistance through this study. Indeed, the intent behind the wider study was to explore gender-inclusive exemplars. I did not set out to document “the losses of the left” as expressed so eloquently by Brown (2000).

6. The term “senior” here is used to refer to occupational hierarchy, as opposed to chronological years.

7. Curriculum development and planning in Victoria—Ministerial paper number six (Ministry of Education and Training Victoria, 1984) is the illustrative policy document of the day. It establishes this view of policy as shared discourse. Working for gender justice in schools (Ministry of Education and Training Victoria, 1991) stands out as an interesting exception and for elaboration on this policy material see Johnson (2002f). For broader analysis of the policy literature at the state and federal levels see Johnson (2002a) and for an overview see Johnson (1998a, 1998b, 2002e).