Smooth conversations: sexuality as a linguistic resource in a secondary language classroom

ABSTRACT

In the present article, the interlinking between language and sexuality in a secondary language classroom is explored. The aim of the article is to examine use of performances of sexuality in conversation practices in an English classroom in a Swedish secondary school. The data production method is classroom observations, and the examples analysed are taken from field notes made during three grade eight English lectures in a Swedish secondary school. Using concepts of normativity and performativity, I analyse how sexuality is employed in classroom conversations. The results show that reproduction of heteronormativity seems intrinsic to language education in these cases. The pupils, in various ways, employ sexuality as a common bond that facilitates smooth conversations, for instance by using references to hypothetical heterosexual relationships, thereby positioning themselves as heterosexual, or by drawing on other recognizable performances of, e.g. femininity, masculinity and heterosexuality.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexuality
• language education
• heteronormativity

Introduction

The present article addresses the interlinking of language and sexuality in a secondary language classroom. It sets out from the following tenets: first, sexuality is an intrinsic part of language education and literacy practices (Alexander, 2008; Ashcraft, 2009; Blackburn, 2002; Nelson, 2006); and second, heterosexuality is used as a taken-for-granted conversational resource in a variety of contexts in society, which renders interactive benefits to those who use it and simultaneously reproduces heterosexuality as normative (Kitzinger, 2005a, 2005b). Sexuality – denominating repeatable performances of relationships or expressions of desire or identification – is crucial to human experience and existence, and therefore an important part of education. Because language education largely concerns learning to read and express ‘the word and the world’ (Freire & Macedo, 1987), sexuality is inevitably an integral part of this. However, the pervasiveness of sexuality in language education often seems to go unnoticed and be taken for granted in teaching practices, resulting in overlooked bias in, for instance, representation (see, e.g. Kappra & Vandrick, 2006; Vetter, 2010). In other words, ‘inattentiveness’ (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 223) to the repetition of sexuality performances in language classroom practices reproduces taken-for-granted notions and, thus, normative notions of sexuality keep being reproduced.

In the English Syllabus in Sweden, phrases concerning developing pupils’ ‘confidence in their ability’ (Skolverket, 2011, p. 32) to use the language hold a prominent position. To develop this ability, pupils obviously need to practise their productive and receptive skills in different situations. Furthermore, in the syllabus, confidence in using English is categorized as a ‘communicative’ skill (Skolverket, 2011, p. 32) which pupils are expected to develop through teaching. However, using a language in any situation assumes a number of things, such as vocabulary to draw on, conceptual comprehension and, not least, some level of proficiency in the prevalent discourses guiding conversational courses of action. In other words, speaking in an interactively successful way presupposes some sort of conversational content that is expressed using words as well as a conversational structure that makes sense both to yourself and to your fellow interlocutor/s. Thus, drawing on the discursively known is a reasonable and in some ways inevitable way of going about the task of conversing, especially when the conversation is more or less on demand, which is often the case in a classroom.

However, this circumstance poses a problem if the discursively known is also simultaneously, unilaterally and normatively exhorted and repeated without interruption or questioning, which is often the case with sexuality. Repetition, if left ‘unmarked’ (Brekhus, 1998), tends to reproduce the normative as normative, and regarding sexuality in Western school discourses, heterosexuality is the normative (see, e.g. Epstein & Johnson, 1998; Ericsson, 2015; Ferfolja, 2007; Rasmussen, 2006). This, in turn, is problematic, as heteronormativity renders other sexualities invisible or produces them as deviant or unnatural. Thus, given the intrinsic position of sexuality in human subjectivity (Butler, 2004), the reproduction of sexuality in conversational language classroom practices becomes an important object of study.

When you learn a language, you need a position to learn and speak from. This highlights the importance of problematizing issues concerning how pupil subjectivity is conditioned through language education. Studies carried out within the Swedish educational context have shown how heteronormativity is in play in different educational settings (Ambjörnsson, 2004; Bäckman, 2003/2006; Bengtsson, 2013; Bromseth, 2009) as well as in language education (Ericsson, 2015; Jonsson, 2007; Milani & Jonsson, 2011). However, there is a call for more research on processes that bring about subjectivity in school (Malmqvist, Gustavson, & Schmitt, 2013). This is pertinent not least in Swedish language education, which has been emphasized as an area in need of more research generally (Lindgren & Enever, 2015, p. 12).

The aim of the present article is to examine use of performances of sexuality in conversation practices in an English classroom in a Swedish secondary school, and the function of such performances in different types of classroom conversations. This is accomplished by studying the ‘discursive work’ (Coates, 2013, p. 538) through which sexuality is re/produced, employed and invoked in these conversation practices.

Theoretical framework

Calling into question practices of unmarked repetition of sexuality performances in classroom conversations, the present article takes as its theoretical point of departure queer perspectives on sexuality and subjectivity. Queer perspectives make the production of heterosexuality the main object of study and underscore the prominent position of language in meaning-making processes (Butler, 1993/2011; Cameron & Kulick, 2003; Jagose, 1996). Language is highlighted as constitutive in terms of its ability and function to provide categories and ‘ … the production and labelling of categories is a key function of language in relation to sexuality’ (Cameron & Kulick, 2003, p. 150). The equivocal concept of normativity (Butler, 2004, p. 206) is used to examine the discursive effects of unmarked repetition of performances of sexuality in the language classroom. In one sense, normativity refers to shared guidelines, or ‘commonly held presuppositions by which we are oriented’ (Butler, 2004, p. 206), but normativity also refers to ‘the process of normalization’ (p. 206) in which some norms function coercively as ‘criteria for normal “men” and “women”’ (p. 206). This process thus excludes that which does not ‘fit the norm’ (p. 206). Because language education practices largely contain different conversational practices, and because conversations rely on successful repetitions of performances, i.e. performativity (Butler, 1993/2011), normativity in both its senses could be expected to be in play in language education conversational practices.

Studying the ways in which sexuality, in general, and heterosexuality, in particular, pervade language educational practices also means studying what is taken for granted, as ‘ … a distinctive feature of these “displays” of heterosexuality is that they are not usually oriented to as such by either speaker or recipient’ (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 223). Sexuality performances can thus be expected to be inferred by, e.g. pupils ‘ … in the course of some activity in which they are otherwise engaged’ (p. 223). In identifying and studying this ‘inattentiveness’ (p. 223), I draw from the ‘sociology of the unmarked’ (Brekhus, 1998, p. 34), turning the analytical focus to the ordinariness of sexuality employments and invocations in conversations and the function of this ordinariness in producing smooth classroom conversation. Analytically, this marks what in practice appears unmarked and in that way seemingly constitutes a ‘default neutral setting’ (Brekhus, 1998, p. 41).

Sexuality denotes practices that materialize performances of expressions of, for instance, love, desire, or identifications with orientations of desire, for instance, heterosexuality. Heteronormativity denotes practices that reproduce heterosexuality as the expected, normal and taken for granted or, put differently, ‘ … those structures, institutions, relations, and actions that promote and produce heterosexuality as natural, self-evident, desirable, privileged and necessary’ (Cameron & Kulick, 2003, p. 55). Gender and sexuality are theorized using the work of Butler and her theory of performativity (Butler, 1990/1999, 1993/2011, 2004).

Data and analysis

The data presented here were produced as part of a broader study focused on aspects of sexuality in secondary language education in Sweden. Classroom observations were made in two different groups of 8th graders in two schools located in different parts of one of the largest cities in Sweden. For a consecutive period of about four months (March-June, 2012), a total of 31 classroom observations were made during a selection of the two groups’ classes in Swedish and English. The length of each observation was determined by the full duration of each class, which ranged from 50 minutes at a minimum to one hour and 25 minutes at a maximum. My role was that of an ‘observer as participant’ (O’Connell Davidson & Layder, 1994, p. 169), taking detailed field notes. The field notes constitute the data for the analyses. For the present article, instances from three different English lessons were chosen for analyses. All names are pseudonyms and for enhanced anonymity the two classes are represented as one, inspired by Sike’s (2010, p. 152) ‘composite characters’. Italics are used to denote talk extracted from the field notes.

To examine the ‘discursive work’ (Coates, 2013, p. 538) done concerning how hetero/sexuality is employed and reproduced as an intrinsic part of classroom conversations, I have made a selection of telling cases (see similar approach in Sunderland, Cowley, Abdul Rahim, Leontzakou, & Shattuck, 2000). The examples empirically exemplify what I theoretically define as the employment of hetero/sexuality performances in language classroom conversations. The examples are not a representative summary of all of the produced data, but they constitute a selection of examples that demonstrate a range of ways in which sexuality performances and the surrounding inattentiveness function as conversational resources, whilst simultaneously performatively producing heteronormativity. Using examples in this way means that I do not have any ambition to generalize from these cases. Instead, my ambition in performing this detailed examination of a few cases is to produce ‘context-dependent knowledge’ (Flyvbjerg, 2004) that can serve as learning material. This is also a response to Nelson’s (2006, p. 5) call for queer inquiry as a way to ‘feature a range of knowledges and practices’ with the purpose of challenging us ‘to reconsider and reinvent our own practices’. The chosen examples vary in character, they feature both informal classroom conversations and direct responses to instructional calls from the teacher. The analyses concern the discursive production of sexuality by highlighting repetition of unmarked conversational practice and, thus, they do not concern any internal desires or private descriptions expressed by the informants regarding their sexual orientation (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 222).

Heterosexuality as a bank of linguistic resources

The following examples illustrate how sexuality is invoked, employed and reproduced in conversational practices in the language classroom. In the first three examples, heterosexuality is employed and reproduced as a common ground resource for smooth and uninterrupted conversation, both as ‘topic talk’ (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 229) and more indirectly as a ‘taken-for-granted backdrop’ (p. 232). The fourth example shows instead the importance of ‘getting it right’ when employing sexuality as a linguistic classroom resource.

Smooth talk in speaking tests

The following two examples are collected from the same English lecture. After having finished a written test, some of the pupils are asked to stay and take a speaking test. Most of the pupils in the class have already taken this test, but a few remain. Two boys and a girl are asked by the teacher to stay in the classroom together with the teacher and me. They sit down together and the teacher tells them that the test is a copy of the speaking part of an old National Test.¹ The teacher explains further that they get to pick a card and on this card are listed three things within the same theme. Their task is then to tell the group which of the three alternatives they prefer and why they prefer it. The teacher also says that, after they are done talking themselves, they should ask their friends what they prefer out of the three alternatives, and why. After this exercise, the teacher explains, they get to pick another type of card where they are expected to form and express an opinion about a statement written on a card, and then, as before, pass the question on to their classmates and ask whether or not they agree.

One of the boys picks a card and gets to tell the group whether he would prefer dreadlocks, tattoos or piercings. He states that he would not want any of them, because he thinks that dreadlocks are strange, tattoos get ugly as you grow older, and that he would not want a piercing. When he says he does not want a piercing, the three of them start laughing a little and the girl says laughingly: But the belly button, on you, that would be cute. At this, they laugh even harder, as if, in my interpretation, it is unthinkable that this boy would want to have a belly button piercing. The boy then asks the girl if she would ever consider doing a piercing and she answers that she would like to pierce her belly button and that she already has three ear piercings. To this, no one laughs or responds in any other way I can perceive. The question is then passed on to the remaining boy, who says he might want to get a tattoo when he gets a little bit older. This statement is not met with laughter or any other response I can perceive.

When the first group is done, a second group, consisting of four girls, is asked to come in and take the test. After getting the same instructions from the teacher as the first group, they start working their way through the cards. One of the cards asks them to talk about whether they prefer to use email, Facebook or send text messages. Two of the girls say they prefer to send text messages or call because it is faster, and that sending emails is old. The third girl proclaims that: If you want to talk to somebody, you like to start with Facebook, and then he write (sic) back and you get his number. Two of the other girls follow this up by starting to talk about how they would communicate with a potential person they like. They refer to this hypothetical person as he and him. Another card then asks them to talk about whether they prefer to shake hands, hug or kiss. One of the girls starts discussing in what situation you might prefer to hug or shake hands. She then moves on to talk about kissing and explains that:  …  kiss maybe you do with your boyfriend, and then laughingly she adds that you don’t go to somebody you don’t know and kiss him!

In light of Kitzinger (2005a) and her description of how heteronormativity is re/produced in ‘mundane ways’ (p. 232), the pupils’ unmarked heterosexuality performances in the shape of seemingly taken-for-granted references to heterosexual desire and normative femininity and masculinity appear conspicuous. In the first example, when the pupils discuss beauty aspects of dreadlocks, tattoos and piercings, they draw on local normative notions of femininity and masculinity. Put differently, in their speech they repeat gender performances with established meaning attached to them (Butler, 1990/1999, p. 178). It is notable that the first boy leaves out the reason for why he does not want to get a piercing. This omission is further underscored, I suggest, by the girl’s latching on to his statement by making a joke about how cute (an adjective commonly used to describe children or kittens, etc.) it would be if he were to get a belly button piercing – something that they all laugh at unanimously. Normative assumptions about femininity and masculinity are employed by the pupils as a way of making smooth and easy-going conversation in a strictly instructed situation in which they have to speak English. This is noticeable in the boy’s disavowal of the thought of getting a piercing, the ease with which they all laugh at the thought of him getting a pierced belly button, followed by the inattentiveness to the girl’s ensuing statement that she would like to pierce her belly button. Recalling the double meaning of normativity, this example shows, I suggest, how normativity is in play both as a means of finding a ‘common bond’ (Butler, 2004, p. 206) and as a process of normalization, in which certain materializations of masculinity are produced as being excluded from the norm.

In the second example, a similar practice of the taken-for-granted is observed, but here the pupils also explicitly position themselves as heterosexual and thereby clearly ‘accomplish sexuality in their interaction’ (Coates, 2013, p. 538) by orienting ‘to a dominant heteronormative discourse’ (p. 538) and locating themselves within hypothetical heterosexual relationships (for similar findings, see Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 232). Within the girls’ discussion about different means of communication, heterosexuality is ‘relied on as a taken-for-granted commonplace’ (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 232), and one of the girls explicitly makes available information about her (hypothetical) heterosexual desires ‘as part of the main action she is engaged in’ (p. 232) by describing how she prefers different means of communication in different situations. In this way, heterosexuality is employed as a linguistic resource that is drawn on in her account of her communicative preferences, as a clear response to the instructional call to talk about a given subject. In a similar manner, one of the other girls discloses her (hypothetical) heterosexual desire in the course of describing why she would opt for a kiss in a certain situation but not in another. Here too, heterosexuality is relied upon as a ‘common bond’ (Butler, 2004, p. 206) when the girl locates herself within a (hypothetical) heterosexual relationship. Just as in the first example, drawing on this common ground as a linguistic resource makes perfect sense in this situation, given the arranged character of the conversation and the fact that they must speak and that speech has to be about something. Furthermore, I suggest that the ‘inattentiveness to heterosexuality’ (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 223) accompanying aspects of the girls’ sexual disclosures reproduces heterosexuality as expected and taken for granted, i.e. normative, in these conversations. Thus, normativity as a process of normalization is in play. As in the first example, use of the normative becomes an intrinsic part of taking this speaking test.

In a sense, reproduction of the norm in these cases can be seen as sanctioned by the instructional situation itself. The pupils have to talk. That is the ultimate purpose of the arrangement, and the topic is largely chosen by someone else. There is also an explicitly verbalized encouragement to interact with, and facilitate the situation for, others. This is a test of the pupils’ ‘communicative skills’ (Skolverket, 2011, p. 32). Finding a common bond that facilitates the production of speech thus seems pivotal to succeeding with the task. By drawing on recognizable performances of, e.g. femininity, masculinity and heterosexuality, the pupils manage to make the conversation ‘fun’ and ‘talkable’. In light of the pressure of this arranged conversation, drawing on taken-for-granted normative assumptions about sexuality seems like the reasonable thing to do. It makes the conversations run smoothly and the pupils can latch on to what the others say relatively easily (i.e. provided that you can and want to draw on the normative in this way). Having these resources at hand and being prepared to use them facilitates the pupils’ engagement in the conversations. If what you say makes sense and does not stir up any emotions or disputes, then the conversation is running smoothly and you may even end up laughing together in supposed harmony. The common bond facilitates smooth conversations and therefore also becomes a tool for the pupils in coping with the task of producing spoken English on demand.

Back-drop heterosexuality as a means of efficacy

The third example does not include explicit talk about heterosexuality. Instead, heterosexuality is implicitly employed and reproduced as a facilitating means when the pupils go about completing a classroom assignment. During one lesson, the pupils are instructed to come up with and then perform mini-plays loosely based on a textbook text about the human skin, which they had as homework. The preparation time was about 20 minutes. The teacher divides the pupils into groups of four to five, and I notice that sex seems to be important to the teacher when dividing them. For instance, when only eight pupils remain to be grouped together, the teacher says: Morgan, Jennie, Elsa, and one more boy  …  Let’s take Alfred! Getting an equal representation of boys and girls in each group thus seemed to be a determinant factor. In the end, the groups are heterogeneous in terms of sex. I sit down with a group consisting of two boys and two girls. Their task is now to come up with a play and then prepare to perform it. One of the girls immediately takes charge of the conversation and comes up with a few suggestions as to what the play could be about. One of the suggestions is that the play can feature a teenager who wants to get a tattoo and the teenager’s mother who opposes this. After a short talk they arrive at this suggestion as their best option and then turn to the task of role casting. The girl in charge asks what parts the others want, but one of the boys immediately replies, seemingly annoyed, by asking her instead what part she wants. She then says that she wants to play teenager, and asks the other girl in the group if she is ok with playing the mother. The other girl confirms that this is fine, and the girl in charge then turns to one of the boys and directs the question to him. He answers that he too wants to be a teenager, and the girl in charge then settles the casting by declaring to the remaining boy: Then you will be the dad. They then quickly turn to the task of coming up with the lines and start preparing to perform.

I suggest that this example illustrates how taken-for-granted heterosexuality, in the shape of heteronormative assumptions about family constellations, is employed as a common bond: a facilitating means of organizing a school assignment. The example also shows how this use of sexuality is intrinsic to the educational practice. I suggest that heteronormativity functions here as a facilitator of efficient and smooth classroom work. A crucial facet of these practices is that they take place whilst the pupils are doing something else. Heterosexuality is thus not invoked as a topic, but employed as a default setting, affecting intrinsically both the plot of their play and the management of their work. In the course of an activity that is about managing the completion of a classroom assignment, the pupils draw on the heterosexual norm in multiple ways, almost like a ‘sophisticated discursive toolkit’ (Milani, 2015, p. 15). Here, drawing on heteronormativity by means of knowing and taking for granted, for instance, the given member positions of a heterosexual family constellation, seems to facilitate the structuring of a smooth logic in the conversation, thus also facilitating the successful completion of the assignment in a relatively efficient way. Use of heteronormativity seems to create leeway for the pupils to engage further in the assignment, as the norm acts as a lubricant, smoothing the conversation with all that it takes for granted.

Employment of the norm and the efficiency accomplished can perhaps be seen most clearly at the end, when the girl in charge finalizes the casting by merely stating the seemingly obvious, namely that the only part left is that of the father, which is then accepted without any dispute. However, the practices leading up to this moment continuously repeat and reproduce heteronormative ‘recognizable cultural formations’ (Milani, 2015, p. 13). With only 20 minutes to spare, the pupils’ efforts need to be efficient in order to be successful. The ambition to be efficient is visible in, for instance, the manner in which one of the girls takes charge and rapidly manages the group’s endeavour. The efficiency of the group’s work is further enhanced by the way the group draws on the heterosexual family norm as the backdrop to their story. Employing this as a ‘taken-for-granted backdrop’ (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 232), the group does not have to argue or discuss what parts should be in the play. The backdrop produces leeway for the pupils to engage further in other necessary things, like elaborating more on the actual plot.

The norm of the heterosexual family thus seems to supply the group with a readymade set of characters found in a family. In accepting and expecting the heteronormative family constellation, the group also accepts, expects and actively draws on immanent discursively recognizable gender formations while making their casting decisions based on the pupils’ sex. The annoyance raised by the replying boy asking the girl in charge what part she wanted was not, in my interpretation, over who got to play the mother, but instead who would be the teenager. In the course of the argument, this was easily settled, because the norm could readily handle two children in one family. The remaining set of parts of the mother and the father seemed taken for granted (the idea of a family of two mothers or two fathers did not seem to be in play here) and caused no argument once the girl in charge had made sure the other girl would agree to play the mother. The remaining girl indeed had to play the mother: that was the only part open to her because the part of the teenager was already taken, just as the only part open to the remaining boy was that of the father, promptly declared by the girl in charge through her last establishing remark: Then you will be the dad. The pupils seem to stick to heteronormativity in order to work in an efficient manner that causes few ‘interactional hurdles’ (Kitzinger, 2005a, p. 236).

‘Wrong’ heterosexuality as interruption

Drawing on the taken for granted is not only a straightforward business, but has to be done within locally negotiated borders that are sometimes fiercely contested (for a similar discussion, see Godley, 2006). This last example represents a case of ‘gendered borderwork’ (Godley, 2006) in which the borders of normativity are contested. During an English class in an all-boys constellation,² the class is discussing six magazine covers that are presented as ‘Famous magazines’ in a two-page spread in their text book Wings. 8, red. Textbook (Mellerby, 2009). The pupils have been handed instructions on a small separate piece of paper with some follow-up questions. After having talked in smaller groups for a couple of minutes, the pupils are made to engage in a teacher-led discussion with the whole group. When talking about the girls on the covers of the magazines, one boy expresses his attraction to the famous singer Britney Spears, who is one of the girls featured on a cover, by exclaiming: She’s hot! The comment is made in English and I interpret it as a contribution to the ongoing, teacher-led conversation. Immediately the boy’s comment is remarked upon, in Swedish, by one of the other boys, who says in a loud and, in my view, challenging tone: Are you serious? (originally, in Swedish: Är du seriös?). They then engage in a short, mumbling and, as I see it, fierce argument in Swedish that I cannot distinguish. The short exchange of words then finishes by the second boy saying, in Swedish, in a loud and still challenging, voice Cunt! (originally, in Swedish: Fitta!). Then the argument is over. The first boy does not respond to this last misogynistic slur (and neither does the teacher), and the class starts to talk about other aspects of the magazine covers.

In this example, the local border for the ‘right’ kind of heterosexual male desire seems to be contested. The first boy’s expressed desire for Britney Spears, featured on the magazine cover in a sexualized pose (with her t-shirt drawn up over her belly button and her right hand pulling the rim of the trousers slightly downwards thus showing a large portion of her belly), is met with immediate and fierce questioning from the second boy. The boys’ argument ends with the first boy getting called a cunt. I suggest that this slur positions the first boy in an explicitly claimed disrespected female subject position, as the misogynist slur associates the first boy with disavowed femininity. I also suggest that the slur interpellates disavowed lesbian subjectivity in the classroom, given the way the slur functions to position the Britney-desiring person in a female subject position. The slur therefore becomes a successful way of performatively accomplishing both sexism and homophobia. Being subjected to both misogyny and homophobia, the first boy is, in a sense, doubly positioned in two discursively less powerful positions; he is positioned both as a woman and, implicitly, as a lesbian.

In this case, drawing on heterosexual desire as a common bond does not seem to succeed, which proves that not all repetitions of heterosexuality serve as neutral fodder for smooth classroom conversations. The boys’ argument interrupted the classroom conversation in an abrupt manner, simultaneously interrupting the ‘wrong’ kind of male heterosexual desire from becoming normalized in the classroom. By marking (Brekhus, 1998) the desire for Britney Spears in terms of questioning it, it was uplifted from the zone of the mundane and instead produced as significant, though wrong or deviant. By closing the argument with the ‘cunt’-remark, the marked practice was efficiently wrapped up with negative connotations.

Concluding remarks

The results of the present study draw attention to the ‘mundane ways through which heteronormativity is produced and reproduced’ (Kitzinger, 2005a) in ordinary language classroom conversations. I have highlighted the prevalence of sexuality and normativity within these practices as well as the pervasiveness of the use of sexuality as a means of achieving efficiency and smooth conversations in the language classroom. By repeating normativity, the pupils accomplish ‘a sense of the “common”’ (Butler, 2004, p. 206) in their seemingly harmonious and light-hearted conversations during the speaking tests, and through a similar repetition the common is relied upon and used as an efficiency producer in the completion of a classroom assignment. At the same time, however, this ‘recourse’, as Butler (2004, p. 206) puts it, to the common excludes ‘those lives which do not fit the norm’ (p. 206). While heteronormativity seems to be a cost-effective way of going about ‘doing pupil’, this also has to be underscored as processes of normalization, i.e. the second sense of Butler’s (p. 206) concept of normativity. Additionally, these processes must be underscored as an intrinsic part of language education, which is obviously problematic.

The reproduction of heteronormativity seems intrinsic to language education in these cases, as heterosexuality serves, in a variety of ways, as a resource for constructing smooth conversations in the English language classroom. Drawing on normativity is an understandable strategy for the pupils to use to create unity (Butler, 2004, p. 206) and achieve seemingly harmless common conversational ground, especially considering the aims expressed in the English syllabus emphasizing the development of pupils’ confidence in using the language (Skolverket, 2011, p. 32). However, it must be recognized that these practices also constitute an ‘exclusionary matrix’ (Butler, 1993/2011, p. xiii), which inevitably will exclude some experiences, feelings, interests, etc., from serving as resources for constructing smooth conversations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Angelica Simonsson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6224-9539

Notes

1 The National Tests are mandatory tests that pupils in Sweden take on a regular basis throughout their years in school. In compulsory school they take the tests in English in year 6 and 9.

2 For this particular English lesson, the group consisted of boys in my regular observation class, as well as some boys from another class due to special group arrangements this particular week. Only boys who had given me their written consent to participate in the study occur in the data.