Jarratt, Susan C. “Feminist Pedagogy.” A Guide to Composition Pedagogies, Tate, Rupiper, Schick, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 113-131.

Summary

This essay traces key questions and insights in the field of Feminist Pedagogy. The author synthesizes multiple perspectives on a number of inter-related issues through the lens of gender including: language and genre; discourse in the classroom; feminism as a topic in the composition classroom; and perceptions of the field of composition as well as female composition teachers. Jarratt provides an overview of central debates examining what it means to practice Feminist Pedagogy and ultimately underscores that more than something definitive or prescriptive, Feminist Pedagogy embraces questions and practices that aim to examine and shift power through language, writing, and reflective processes.

Quote Bank

“… basic practices of feminist pedagogy are ones it shares with the pedagogical innovations of the process revolution in writing instruction: the decentering or sharing of authority, the recognition of students as sources of knowledge, a focus on processes (of writing and teaching) over products. But what makes feminist pedagogy distinctive is its investment in a view of contemporary society as sexist and patriarchal, and of the complicity of reading, writing, and teaching in those conditions. … Questions guiding this pedagogy ask of composition: Who created the knowledge and practices of this field? In whose interests do they operate? Are there realms of experience left out in the traditions of this body of knowledge? Who gets to teach this material? Who gets to learn it? Are there ways of teaching and learning that seem more suitable for one gender or another? Any compositionists who apply these questions to their teaching (whether or not they employ the strategies named above) could be said to practice feminist pedagogy.” (115-116).

“… looking at the ways gender structures language and other symbol systems enables the kind of close attention to words and their effects that any composition teacher should strive for. In its interest in the social contexts for writing, the belief that language does things, and the concern with the operations of power, feminist pedagogy has strong links with rhetorical, cultural, and critical pedagogies (see chapters herein by William Covino, Diana George and John Trimbur, and Ann George; see also hooks, Teaching). … Feminist pedagogy, to my mind, is not about forcing all the students to subscribe to a particular political position but rather engaging with students on the terrain of language in the gendered world we all currently inhabit.” (115-117)

“Feminist pedagogy needs both to talk about women as a group—women teachers, women students but also to notice differences within gendered categories, especially when it comes to student writing and reading practices. … It seems that most feminist compositionists today focus on gender construction rather than sex difference, but the ethics of feminist politics and argument suggest that, in our ongoing collective project, we not dismiss the work of those who hold other positions nor see those positions as outdated and superseded.” (117)

“One of the central tasks of feminist pedagogy has been reflecting on what it means to be a woman teaching writing. …The teaching of writing, then, becomes the “distaff partner” to a masculine enterprise (literary criticism)-a domain for women and children, “the counterpart, the handmaiden, and low order basement attached to vernacular literary study” (40_42). … Cheryl Johnson’s reflective essay on the body of the teacher models a kind of case study exploration of situations arising from a setting in which the teacher does not fit into the neutral, assumed social categories: white, male, straight, able-bodied, etc.” (118-120)

“Taking women students seriously, borrowing the title of an important early essay by Adrienne Rich, means for feminist pedagogy in composition listening to the ways women speak (or remain silent) in class. … Since the early work in this area, scholars have begun to pay more attention to the ways class, region, and race differences in conversational patterns inflect findings related to gender. … The feminist pedagogue, like any good teacher, will aim to create contexts for class discussion in which all students will have opportunities to express their ideas and to learn to listen attentively and respectfully to the ideas of others.” (120-121)

“The androcentric knowledge generated by universities pretends to be objective and complete; women’s accounts of their experiences in every area of life (e.g., of bodies, home, nature, pasts) challenge the completeness and value neutrality claimed for this one-sided knowledge (Lather). The feminist validation of personal experience fits well with many composition theorists’ focus on student experience as a necessary starting point (Macrorie) or legitimate focus (Murray) for writing; both feminists and expressive compositionists are strongly committed to admitting the presence of the whole person into the educational scene. … Women of color and postcolonial feminists have made passionate articulations of their experiences in a dazzling variety of written forms … making the case in unconventional arguments that the borders defining academic discourse are similar to the boundaries dividing genders, races, classes, and sexualities: limits that have more than symbolic significance (e.g., Gil-Gomez). Disrupting form is a disruption of the gendered rules keeping women (and other members of nondominant groups) out of places of power and influence (see also Bleich).” (122)

Analytical Reflection

I found this article interesting and helpful as an overview of key questions surrounding Feminist Pedagogy.  What resonated most were some of the concrete practices mentioned: “the decentering or sharing of authority, the recognition of students as sources of knowledge, a focus on processes (of writing and teaching) over products” (115). These values are familiar to me from my work with young people in non-traditional learning environments, all of which centered social justice analysis and approaches. Using popular education methods, young people’s lived experiences were valued as sources of knowledge and our work reflected principles of valuing youth voices and youth leadership. I am still grappling with how to transfer these practices to the classroom given the difference of a classroom space from a more informal space that non-profit organizations often create for young people. The formality of the classroom in terms of my being an authority figure and wanting to (and needing to) maintain a certain level of authority is currently something I am trying to negotiate in relation to the above practices.

Relatedly, the essay discusses gendered perceptions of women who teach composition and how a binary is imposed on “masculine authority” and a “feminine ‘facilitator’ role.” As a queer person of color, I am aware of racial and gender dynamics in the classroom that could undermine my authority but also don’t want to give up my values to have that authority. I think gaining more experience in the college classroom as a teacher will yield a healthy balance as I will be more confident and adept at knowing how and when to make certain choices in the classroom towards shifting power.  I appreciate how Jarratt states that feminist pedagogy brings these issues “out of invisibility so that their sources and effects in the context of a sexist culture can be examined” (120). Examining issues of how one is perceived and having space for discourse around that is both affirming and empowering. While Jarratt wrote this essay 20 years ago, all people who have been historically disenfranchised on the basis of gender are of course still negotiating the terrain of a (hetero) sexist, racist culture. In other words, the negotiation of how to present oneself in the face of other people’s projections is still relevant.

I also appreciated attention to the “politics of speaking” and how gender, race, and class influences classroom discussions. I have been noticing these issues in my own classroom and have been wondering how best to address it in terms of pedagogical practice. In my previous work in non-profit settings, the ground rules were set up collaboratively at the beginning of any group work and would invariably include commitments to be aware of one’s participation and reminders to push oneself to either listen more or speak up more, depending on one’s default comfort zone. While this isn’t an explicit way of addressing gender in the classroom, it could be a tactic towards more balanced participation.

Jarratt’s discussion of collaboration and revision and of disrupting form as “disruption of the gendered rules” were particularly interesting. This resonates most with me as a writer. As a writer, I am deeply interested in and inspired by such processes and genres. As a teacher, I am wondering how much these approaches and practices can be valued in a freshman composition course; while our current curriculum exemplifies the values of collaboration, in terms of genre, it seems as though basic understandings of genres is needed before delving into disruption.

Questions surrounding subjectivity and objectivity in writing and research also resonated with me. The hegemonic and masculine valuing of objectivity is an ever-present force. The both/and approach that Jarratt lands on, “teaching students how to develop reflective positions within their narratives and to find and understand the experiential roots of their public arguments” is helpful and a reminder of how feminist pedagogy attempts to dismantle hierarchy, while conscious of issues of positionality and the production of knowledge.

I overall valued the essay for providing historical context to the trajectory of feminist pedagogy and for demonstrating feminist pedagogy through the text itself by including a multiplicity of perspectives while centering questions, values and practices that challenge binary thinking and attempt to shift power. While some of the essentialist questions in the essay irked me, I value the need to examine gender in a variety of contexts, in relation to history, power, language, genre and experientially.