Reading normalised knowledge production from a feminist perspective a case study

Transcription

1 Challenging Education Feminist and anti-oppressive perspectives on teaching and learning. Nordic conference on feminist pedagogies, Uppsala, Sweden, 14th - 16th of June Siv Fahlgren, Senior lecturer in Social Work Department of Social Work Coordinator of Forum for Gender Studies Mid Sweden University siv.fahlgren@miun.se Anders Johansson, Senior lecturer in Literary Studies Department of Humanities Mid Sweden University anders.johansson@miun.se Reading normalised knowledge production from a feminist perspective a case study As a case study this paper presents a feminist reading of a Swedish university textbook which, according to the authors, presents the social science bases of the Swedish programme Bachelor of Science in Social Work (Meeuwisse et.al 2006, p. 20). By looking at the normalisation processes that take place within this textbook, we want to disclose which knowledge that is normalised and thereby privileged and at the same time make visible the power of the discourses that in these processes create subordination and exclusion. In our reading we want to emphasise how normalised knowledge production is conditioned by discursive and ideological circumstances that the authors can not control. Circumstances so fundamental that they can be difficult to distinguish from what is often called facts, for example in terms of shared academic understandings of knowledge, objectivity and neutrality, meritocracy and university hierarchy. The book that we read is an anthology written by 28 Social Work researchers in Sweden (21 men and 7 women). 16 of the writers are full professors (13 men and 3 women). As a basic academic textbook this book aims at being representative of the discipline, and it is written by acknowledged researchers, so it offers an opportunity to view how the discipline looks upon itself in terms of what it considers to be normal. The discourse analysis questions we pose to the texts are: What is normalised? How is this accomplished, and what may the consequences be? (Fahlgren 1999, Rätsel 2007). The answers will provide a picture of the underlying structures of the discourse. An important point of departure is that any discursive order, and therefore also any organisation of a textbook, enacts power.

2 Normalisation When the normal is applied to social situations, the meaning of it tends to slide from something ordinary (or a statistically normal distribution), by way of constituting the opposite to deficiency or deviation, to some valued ideal or how something ought to be (Hacking 1990). This slide makes normalisation bring together facts and values in a comprehensible manner, very difficult to see through. Since normalisation is about being regarded as, or being made into, something normal, it also has a very broad range of meanings in different contextual frames: It is related to the ordinary, which is an important aspect of how it can be regarded as neutral in relation to values. It can also be connected to social belonging, the right to a normal life, and hence productive for social empowerment. It is normative, implying what ought to be. Finally it could be connected to disciplining and discriminating, for example in social institutions such as welfare institutions as sites at which normality is negotiated, created and re-created (Fahlgren 1999, Foucault 1974/1987), at the same time recreating sameness and cultural cloning (Essed 2004). The most important aspect of the normal is hence that it is unavoidable in forming a community and therefore apparently neutral - and that it at the same time is discriminating, exercising power, and therefore always normative. This paradoxical outcome tends to be forgotten when the normal is used to ground and establish values and discriminations. Because of its close ties to the concept of the ordinary, its reliance on values, its normativity, is hidden by statistics and pragmatic definitions of what is normal. A feminist reading has to be aware of the fact that values and norms are already a part of the making of differences in the most basic sense. It is more primary than the normal. If we do not see this, we risk losing the ability to be structurally critical since structures are already there and may end up with only individual challenges of the normal, which may seem free and unsituated. The most important findings from our reading are the following, here presented in a short sketch, to be expanded and elaborated on in a coming article. Pluralism Pluralism is a keyword in contemporary academic institutions, and also in this textbook as a whole. When it comes to pluralism the concept of perspectives provide the epistemological basis for letting different and even contradictory standpoints coexist inside a discipline s borders. But not all that is presented in the textbook is classified as perspectives. The aspects that are treated as perspectives, and are gathered in a separate section of the book called Perspectives on Social Work, are power, gender, ethnicity and ethics. It is said that they are

3 to permeate all research, but since they are categorised as perspectives they are limited to something extra, something that one can choose or not choose. By not presenting topics like organisation and method as certain perspectives they appear, on the other hand, to be neutral and central, and therefore not something that is open to choice. Individual choice is a discursive way of hiding structural relations of power and gender. Normalising eclecticism can therefore make the processes of exclusions and marginalisations invisible. Instead of being explicit, it presents a multiplicity of alternatives, and then performs an evaluation through pragmatic and implicit descriptions of what is considered normal, which is shown by the frequent use of words like dominating, usual and important which look neutral but rely on systems of values. Pluralism can therefore be a way to exclude the other by inclusion. Men as an invisible, normal centre Pluralism, pragmatic motivations, and letting what is normal decide what is to be incorporated may be unavoidable strategies for an editor of a textbook. But at the same time they do exercise power, do discriminate and marginalise, like all conceptualisations and categorisations. Whereas men are dominating as theorists, what is missing is the theorizing of men (Hearn 1998 p. 782). The theorists are not explicitly presented as men; nor is the fact that most of them are men in any way problematised. This omission is made because of the discursive practices: men as men are absent and avoided, and the presentation of the theory frame is not in any way gendered. In this way a scientific knowledge position is created, with a voice coming from nowhere that is based on a common scientific understanding of what is neutral and objective. The paradoxical result of this assumed neutrality and objectivity is, however, that it reproduces exclusions and discriminations. The normal as common sense invisible and taken for granted The textbook is full of concepts that are not problematised or theorised, for example in relation to gender, ethnicity and class. Concepts like the individual, clients, social problems, social control, social integration, conflict, consensus, order, chaos, family, nurturing and so forth, are used as neutral concepts in regard to power structures, taken for granted and untheorised, except in individual chapters. In this way power relations are made invisible and thereby also legitimised. Questions to be asked are: What individual?, Whose society?, Whose social problem?, Whose definition?, etc.

4 Conclusions The discourse that presents itself in the textbook is full of silences, exclusions, inclusions, values, differences and manifest statements that all have consequences. When it comes to gender the discourse tends to marginalise it. This is not due to any ill will by the authors, but a consequence of how the discipline of Social Work functions as a discourse. We do not want to criticise the individual authors of the texts, but rather point to the fact that any decision, whether editorial or pragmatic, always has consequences to be considered. Most exclusions can be legitimately motivated by pragmatic decisions such as we have to draw the line somewhere. Nevertheless, that a decision is pragmatic does not mean that it can not be criticised. Practice is a powerful way of forgetting that one is always discriminating. Silences are also important. Hearn states it like this: Not explicitly talking of men, not naming men as men, is a structured way of not beginning to talk of and question men s power in relation to women, children, young people and indeed other men (Hearn 1998, pp ). Pluralism s complicity in this implicit centering of men is related to an unwillingness to see the other and open oneself to its gaze. Different kinds of perspectives are accepted just as long as the inclusion of the other does not threaten one s own position. In this way status quo is maintained. One may answer the critical questions that we pose above by saying: How could it be otherwise? But that is just how discourses function; they make us unable to see how it could be different. A critical reading may, however, open to possibilities previously unseen. By pointing to the fact that pluralism may function in direct opposition to the articulated aims of those who advocate it, one can hopefully make such an opening. Ref: Essed, Philomena (2004) Rasism och preferens för sammahet. [Racism and the preference for sameness] pp in K. Mattssson & I. Lindberg (red.) Rasismer i Europa [Racism in Europé], Agora, Stockholm. Fahlgren, Siv (1999) Det sociala livets drama och dess manus. Diskursanalys, kön och sociala avvikelser [The drama and script of social life. Discourse analysis, sex and social deviance], Department of social work, Umeå University nr 29, Umeå. Foucault, Michel (1974/1987) Övervakning och straff [Discipline and Punish] (Lund: Arkiv förlag). Hearn, J. (1988) `Theorizing men and men's theorizing: men's discursive practices in theorizing men, Theory and Society, Vol. 27(6), 1998, pp Meeuwisse, A., Sunesson, S. & Swärd, H. (Eds.) (2006) Socialt arbete en grundbok, [Social Work: a basic text book], Natur och Kultur, Stockholm.

5 Rätzel, N. (2007) `Kön och rasism i diskurser, [Gender and racism in discourses], pp in Sandell, K. & Mulinari D. (ed.) Feministiska interventioner, [Feminist interventions], Atlas Akademi, Stockholm.