The social construction of gender in physical education

Women’s Studs In1 Forum, Vol Pnnted m the USA

10. No

4, pp 453-465,

0277-5395/87 $3 oo+ 00 0 Pergamon Journals Ltd

1987

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION* ALISON M. DEWAR Department of Health, Physical Educatton, and Becreatton, School of Educatton and Alhed Professions, Phtlhps Hall, Mtamt Umversny, Oxford, OH, 45056, U S.A

Synopsis-This paper presents some findings from a case study of the soaal reproductton of gender in one university phystcal education programme. It explores how knowledge about gender IS organized in courses m the programme and examines students’ mterpretattons of and reactions to thts knowledge. The currrculum m this programme ISorganized around a distmctton between btologtcal and behavtoural courses on the one hand and socio-cultural courses on the other. Each type of course provides students with alternative views of gender. When gender is taught m btologrcal and behavrouml courses tt IS examined as a personal attnbute and the focus of attention IS on how differences between males and females explain the gap m thetr performance levels. When gender IS taught m soclo-cultural courses tt is vtewed as a socml issue, and the focus of attention 1s upon analyses of the ways in which play, games, and sport have been soctally constructed to produce and legitimize male hegemony. Despite this dtverstty m the curriculum students’ defimttons of tmportant knowledge lead them to vmw knowledge from btologtcal and behavtoural courses as “really useful” and knowledge from socto-cultural courses as peripheral Students see btologtcal and behavtoural explanations of sex differences m performance capabrhtres as mformatton they can use to improve performance Informatton about the soctal constructton of gender issues 1s seen as penpheral as it does not help them to functton wnhm the existing soctal frameworks.

There is a growing interest among feminist educators in analyses of the relations between the social construction of knowledge in the curriculum and the social reproduction of gender relations in society. This interest stems from a concern that much of the knowledge taught in educational institutions is ‘socially constructed by men to serve the interests of a patriarchial social order (e.g., Margo Culley and Catherine Portuges, 1985; Dale Spender and Elizabeth Sarah, 1982; Gaby Weiner, 1985). This work is important as it presents a feminist critique of the androcentric bias of much of the knowledge in the curriculum and argues for the development of an educational system in which knowledge is socially constructed to represent both men’s and women’s experiences of, and orientations to, the world. Analyses of the social construction of knowledge, although important, provide only a partial understanding of the processes involved in the social reproduction of gender. The underdeveloped link in this work is an understanding of the ways in which women and girls, and men and boys interpret and respond to the knowledge that is presented to +I am indebted to Jane Gaskell for her crtttnsms of earher drafts of this paper.

them in educational institutions. I believe, if we are to understand the ways in which patriarchial ideology is produced and reproduced in educational settings, it is essential to examine both the knowledge in the curriculum and students’ responses and reactions to this. This paper presents some findings from a case study of the social reproduction of gender in one university undergraduate physical education programme in Canada.’ Physical education is an important area for examining the social construction of knowledge about gender because it is a subject that has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in the development and social construction of masculinity (Robert Connell, 1983; James Mangan, 1983). I believe that the lack of interest in physical education and sport by feminist educators is consistent with the silence that exists in the feminist literature with respect to the social construction of masculinity and its relations to the production and reproduction of male hegemony. The fact that physical education and sports play a significant role in ‘This study was conducted as part of the requuements for a doctoral degree at the University of Brmsh Columbta, Canada See Ahson Dewar (1986) for a full report of the study 453

454

ALISONM DEWAR

the reproduction of masculinity make them important areas for analysing the production and reproduction of male hegemony. Some of the work that has helped me frame my study is drawn from a small but developing literature within physical education, which is concerned with developing the foundations for critical feminist sociological analyses of gender. For example, Ann Hall’s (1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985) work has played a central role in this initiative. In her work Hall argues for analyses of women in sport that are grounded in feminist social theory. She has drawn upon her knowledge of the theoretical and methodological debates in the feminist literature to challenge “the androcentric assumptions which have shaped our sociological knowledge about women in sport” (Hall, 1984: 84) and to provide guidelines for feminist social analyses of sport. Hall’s work does not stand alone. There are other notable discussions of theoretical issues in feminist analyses of sport (see e.g., Robert Beamish, 1984; Mary Boutilier and Lucinda San Giovanni, 1983; Catherine Bray, 1984; Paul Willis, 1982). Although these articles are diverse in their orientations they all share a commitment to social analyses of gender issues in sport which help us to understand the ways in which sport produces and maintains male hegemony. They suggest that the key to understanding the way in which sport produces and reproduces patriarchial gender relations is to examine women’s experiences in sport and trace the ways in which they interpret, experience and challenge patriarchial ideological messages. Despite this theoretical work there are few examples of empirical studies that have explored women’s interpretations of and reactions to their experiences as participants in physical education and sport. There are a number of historical analyses of the ways in which physical education and sports contributed to the legimiation and reproduction of patriarchial gender relations and women’s reactions to this (see. e.g., Paul Atkinson, 1985; Sheila Fletcher, 1985; Jennifer Hargreaves, 1985; Helen Lenskyj, 1983). This work has provided some important and valuable insights into women’s reactions to physical education in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, by their very nature, historical analyses cannot examine women’s interpretations of and reactions to their experiences as they are being lived. There are few theoretical or empirical rela-

tional analyses of gender in physical education. The historical analyses mentioned earlier are the best examples of this work. This lack of interest in physical education is surprising given the distinctions that exist between physical education and sport. Physical education programmes, especially for women, do not consist of just sport. The ways in which these programmes have been constructed and students’ reactions to them are important in understanding the social reproduction of gender relations. The empnical work that has been done on physical education has largely been descriptive and atheoretical and has not attempted to locate girls’ experiences of their physical education classes within a larger framework of social reproduction. Although this work represents a first step as it begins with girls’ descriptions of their experiences as participants in physical education classes it does not locate them within a broader framework which is sensitive to the relations between the structure and content of physical education classes and the production and maintenance of male hegemony. For example, J. Evan’s (1984) and Patricia Griffin’s (1983, 1984) research findings suggest that physical education is viewed by many girls as boring and irrelevant. Their findings show that girls are not passive “victims” in these classes but that they develop a variety of strategies for managing their participation in these classes to ensure that their involvement is minimal. Evan’s (1984) and Griffin’s (1983, 1984) observations suggest that physical education is being actively resisted by a number of girls in schools and that this resistance needs to be viewed in relation to the production and reproduction of patriarchial gender relations in physical education. I believe that the important questions that need to be answered in this regard are: in what ways do the structure and organization of physical education programmes embody and create patriarchial gender relations? How do girls react to their experiences in physical education? And, do the actions and reactions of girls in physical education have reproductive or transformative potential? Answers to these questions would help us to understand the complex and often paradoxical ways in which the instrtutionalization of sport within the educational system serves to produce, reproduce or transform the patriarchial social relations of gender which exrst in society. The purpose of the paper is to explore

Soctal Constructton

how knowledge about gender is organized within courses in the programme and to examine students’ interpretations of and reactions to this knowledge. This analysis avoids some of the problems of the earlier research on gender in physical education as it locates knowledge about gender and students’ responses to this within a larger framework of social reproduction.2 THE STUDY The data in this study are drawn from a case of an undergraduate physical education programme in one Canadian university. The dectsion to conduct a case study of one physical education programme was made for two reasons. First, physical education is an area that has largely been neglected by feminist writers. Secondly, there are few empirical or theoretical analyses of the social construction of gender in physical education and therefore there is a need for case studies that provide a first step towards gaining an in depth understanding of the dynamics of the processes involved in the social reproduction of gender. The programme that is the focus of this study is a typical example of Canadian university physical education programmes which are based on the study of physical education as an academic discipline.) The study was conducted over a ten month period (one academic year) from September 1984 to June 1985, and used three data collection techniques: participant observation, ethnographic interviewing, and document analysis. Each of the techniques were used at different times in the study, both separately and in conjunction with one another, as a means of generating and testing themes and ideas from the data during the fieldwork phase. The data reported in this paper are primarily drawn from interviews with 28 (13 male, 15 female) students and 14 (11 male, 3 female) faculty. The interviews were struc-

*This work is consistent wrth the work by Jean Anyon 1983) Angela McRobbte (1978) and Gaby Weiner (1985) which analyses the ways m whtch schools contrtbme to the production and reproduction of the soctal relattons of gender that extst m socrety ‘Phystcal educatton degree programmes m Canada are charactertzed by dtverstty rather than homogenetty and mclude programmes that are prtmarrly school based, dtsctphnary degree programmes based on the study of phystcal educatton as an academtc dxtphne, and programmes of kmestology, kinanthropometry and others that have the sctenttftc analysrs of human movement as thetr focus

of Gender

455

tured along the lines of a conversation. Each interview began with an explanation of the research and the informants were told that the interview was one means by which I was attempting to gain an understanding of their perceptions of and feelings about the programme, physical education and gender issues in these areas. In each case informants were encouraged to set the pace, direction, and length of the interview. I introduced topics, where appropriate, and probed for clarification and detail, when necessary, and also responded to any questions about my experiences or opinions about any of the issues discussed during the interview. The data were analysed in two stages. First, they were analysed as an ongoing process during the field work, where emergent themes and ideas were tested, scrutinized, and developed. Secondly, after the completion of the field work the data were analysed a number of different times in order to synthesize, collate, and develop themes, which were then checked and rechecked against data from other sources. This process of constant comparison of data (Glaser and Strauss, 1975) facilitated the reduction and organization of the data in a way that addressed the central problem of the study, the social construction of gender in the programme. The focus in this paper is on the treatment of gender in courses in the programme and students’ responses to this knowledge. The following discussion is based on the assumption that if we can understand the ways in which knowledge about gender 1s socially constructed in this programme and students’ responses to this knowledge, it will allow a greater understanding of the complex relations between knowledge, structure and the social reproduction of gender. THE CURRICULUM The curriculum in this programme is organized around a distinction between biological and behavioural courses on the one hand, and socio-cultural courses on the other. Biological and behavioural courses tend to have a self-consciously “applied” orientation. They use theory and methods from the biological and behavioural sciences to analyse human physical performance. (Performance is often used m reference to sport, but can also include health and fitness.) These courses focus on knowledge that can be used to improve mdividuals’ performance capabtl-

456

ALISON M

ities m different areas. They are concerned with knowledge that is potentially “useful” to students in the sense that it has applications to vocational practices like coaching, teaching or the health professions. Socio-cultural courses in the programme have a different focus. In these courses knowledge from the social sciences and humanities is used to analyse play, games, and sport as historically produced, socially constructed cultural forms. In these courses the emphasis is not on the, analysis of human performance potentials but presents students with a different frame of reference for analysmg play, games, and sports. In socio-cultural courses students are expected to question the ways in which play, games, and sports are constituted in society and, as such, they are exposed to critical analyses of the dominant frameworks within which these activities are understood and policies governing their practices are constituted. Although there is a strong applied emphasis in this programme, students are exposed to an alternative framework for the analysis of play, games, and sport, which focusses on the relations between sport and society rather than on the explanations of individual differences in performance capabilities. The existence of this diversity ensures that students are exposed to different definitions and interpretations of important knowledge in physical education. However, these differences are downplayed as the programme structure and organization defines knowledge from the biologrcal and behavroural courses as central and knowledge from the socio-cultural courses as peripheral to this central core. The treatment of gender m physical educatron theory courses Gender is taught in theory courses in the programme m four drfferent ways, each of which has implications for the ways in which knowledge about gender is socially constructed and reproduced. Gender as a variable in the performance equation. The most common way in which gender is framed in theory courses m the programme is as one variable that influences performance outcomes. When gender is included in courses in this way it is presented to students as either one of a number of possible variables that affect performance or as informatron, usually in the form of a chart or graph, illustrating differences that exist in

DEWAR

the performance capabilities of women and men. Typically, gender is framed as a variable in biological and behavioural courses and faculty teaching these courses tend to view gender as unimportant. The following comments illustrate this view. ‘No not really as an issue. I think in terms of research it’s a grouping factor because there are . . . to look at differences between the sexes in terms of your physiological responses and performances abilities and understand why the difference is there in performance. I don’t deal with gender. It’s a functional anatomy and physiology course so we don’t deal with it. I don’t think the book deals with it, only to say the skeletal structure is different for men and women.’ These definitions are representatrve of a commonly held view among faculty who frame gender as a variable. In this view gender 1s not categorized as an important issue but is defined as a variable that can be controlled for and, therefore, ignored or described as part of other material being presented in the course. One member of this group explained his reasons for not including material on gender in his courses. He said of his approach: ‘O.K., take the essence of the game, forget about gender . . . analyse the skill . . . look at absolute values . . . what I try to do is look at them objectively and quantify what goes on so we get rid of this mumbo jumbo . . . do the same sort of thing start to compare to quantify events irrespective of whether it’s a man or a woman and then you try to put them on some continuum, you’ve taken gender out.’ For this individual “taking gender out” and analyzing games “objectively” is a natural and logical aspect of biological and behavioural analyses of performance. The silences about gender exist because it is assumed that the effects of gender have been controlled for and therefore the information that is being presented to students is independent of gender effects. There is some recognition by these faculty that this view of gender might be linked to the “applied” nature of these biological and behavioural courses and that it might be an issue in sociocultural courses where the focus is different.

Social Construction of Gender

‘-I’m not sure I only know my own area. I’m sure that . . . I’m very narrow in my focus at the moment but I’m sure in other areas it would be an issue. AD: can you give me an example -sociology AD: what about any of the natural science courses -well . . . there’s differences rates. . . .’

457

en and men in biological and behavioural terms. An example taken from course observation provides an illustration of this way of framing gender. In one course I was observing, the professor began a discussion on sex differences by defining masculinity and femininity. She started by stating that masculinity and femininity are defined by aggressiveness and dependency and continued with the statement that

in growth

This example illustrates a commonly held view and indicates that there are differences in the treatment of gender issues in the programme which are related to the focus and emphasis of the courses. For example, it is assumed by faculty teaching biological and behavioural courses that gender is only an issue in the biological and behavioural theory courses that deal with aspects of performance in which there are well established and clearly recognizable sex differences. Gender is recognized and accepted as an issue in courses that examine the effects of growth and development on performance by these faculty because it is a widely accepted and well established “scientific” fact that there are clearly documentable sex differences in rates of growth and development. This definition of gender is consistent with the treatment of gender as unimportant because the existence of these sex differences is seen as an interesting but accepted fact that ought to be described rather than to be debated or crnitally examined. When gender is recognized as an issue by these individuals it is viewed as a potential topic for discussion in socio-cultural theory courses where the subject matter is unrelated to “applied” analyses of factors that affect performance. Thus, this group view gender as a biological category, that may relate to performance, but they also recognize that it might be an issue for discussion in socio-cultural courses which, although part of the curriculum, are peripheral to its “applied” core. Gender as an issue of sex differences. A second way that gender is treated in theory courses in the programme is as an issue of sex differences in performance capabilities. When gender is framed in this way the focus of attention is on explaining the gaps that exist in the performance capabilities of wom-

‘Female children may not be socialized into masculine sports or sports that are thought of as more masculine. For example, basketball, rugby and soccer. There are a number of studies that have looked at physical educators. Landers looked at males and females in physical education and found that masculinity was defined by aggressiveness and femininity by helping behaviour.’ and added ‘Behaviours like aggressiveness have biological and sociological aspects. Masculine behaviours are more aggressive whereas feminine ones are less aggressive. But an androgynous person is more well adjusted because they use the appropriate behaviours for specific situations. There have been studies that have looked at women in so called masculine sports, for example, basketball and they have found that women had a conflict between playing in a masculine sport and being female.’ This particular discussion highlights two important aspects of this treatment of gender. First, when there is evidence of the existence of differences between the sexes, these are viewed as a problem for women. The solution posed for this problem is that women become androgynous. In other words that they learn to display both “masculine” and “feminine” behaviours in appropriate situations. This approach does not explicitly frame differences in behaviour between the sexes as biological but views them in such a way that women are assumed to be deficient and men normative. The solution is one that is aimed at reducing deficiencies assumed to reside in women in order that they can then resolve any potential conflicts that might arise for them between being women and being involved in sport.

458

ALlWh M

The way in which gender has been framed in the preceeding example IS consistent with the “applied” focus of the course. In t hts case gender is examined as a personal attribute and the focus of attentton IS on how dtfferences bet ween males and females explain the gap m their performance levels. When sex differences become the focus of attention tmportant questions are defined as those that contrtbute towards a greater understanding of the causes of women’s generally lower performance capabthties in comparrson to those of men’s. Thus, this kind of analysts attempts to account for women’s inferiorny m btologtcal and behavtoural terms and does not include any analysis or critique of the ways m which sex differences research can be used to bolster patrtarchtal defmittons of gender. The image created of women and men m these courses has the same effect as treating gender as a vat-table that affects performance outcomes When play, games, and sport are analysed m relation to performance outcomes and sex differences are presented to students as biologtcal and behavtoural facts, women’s performance capabthties are judged agamst criteria that are taken as universal and normative and any sex differences that exist are assumed to result from men’s natural superrortty m terms of strength, endurance and power. When gender is framed m this way tt serves to reinforce and reproduce patrtarchtal assumptions about men’s natural superiorny. The treatment of gender as an Issue of rnequalrty. A third way IS treated m theory

courses m the programme IS as an Issue of inquahty. When gender is framed in this way it 1s not vtewed as a brologrcal category that influences performance outcomes, but as a soctally constructed, culturally produced set of relattons. Attention is drawn away from biological and behavioural explanations for mdtvidual differences in performance abilities and is turned towards social and hrstorical analyses of the activities themselves. This approach is one of the ways that gender is presented to students in socio-cultural courses m the programme. In this approach gender ts viewed as a problem of the inequattble distribution of resources, opportumttes, and experiences in sport between women and men. The treatment of gender as a distributive issue begins with the assumptton that inequality is a problem in play,

DFWAR

games, and sports that needs to be documented and dtscussed. This view differs from biologtcal definitions of gender as it defines gender as an Issue of social inequality rather than as a personal attribute located m mdtvtduals. Thus, in this view play, games, and sport are necessarily viewed as soctal practxes which are linked to the economic and polntcal forces that create sex mequahty m the rest of society The move away from biologrcal and behavtoural analyses of sex differences 1s evident m the language used by faculty to describe gender. For example, one of the faculty who taught gender as a distributive Issue explained why it was an important topic in her course. ‘If you’ve always worked m a world that is mixed with men and women then you can’t help but know what the problems are, especially in a field like physical education.’ She went on to say: ‘Well of course I feel very strongly that there is an on-going serious problem for women in physical education that has not gone away. I think the biggest problem for me right now is the popular perception that the problem will disappear. We have made many gains but in the process we’ve lost some of them. What I’m most worried about is that our students coming into physical education don’t think that there is a problem.’ One of the ways in which thrs problem is addressed by this professor is to use events that have happened in sport to illustrate that inequality is, and continues to be, a problem for women in sport. The approach taken by this individual to the issue of inequality is explamed in the following statement. ‘They (the students) should fmd out there IS a problem . . . we have so much to teach there isn’t time because it is such a serious problem that a great deal of time has to be spent m explaining first of all what the problem is, how it got to be what it IS and how they should change it.’ The problem is outlined for students using descriptive statistics.

Social Construction of Gender

‘I thought . . . well the easiest way to handle this is to give them actual informatton. I will tell them that statistically at the college level we have lost this, this and this . . it has to be presented so quickly unfortunately that I cannot get into the details of exactly how the material was collected . . . so I throw up some transparancies then for about one hour try to present the whole concept of this problem.’ This approach to gender, which has its bases in the differential allocatton of resourses, moves away from biological explanations of differences towards social structural explanations of inequality in sport. This kind of analysis moves away from locating the problem within individuals towards viewing it as a problem that exists within sport and the social fabric of society. Gender as a soclaily constructed set of power relations. The fourth way gender is taught in the programme, and the second way rt is presented to students in socio-cultural theory courses, is as a set of historically produced, socially constructed, culturally developed power relations between women and men. A faculty member descrrbed this approach in the following way. ‘The issues relating to gender in the area of physical activity, physical leisure and physical education and sport are typically laid out falling mto two categorical areas. One ts laid into distributtve issues and the other into relational issues. The approach I take deals with relational issues, which is the relations between the culturally developed, shared two genders and how that gets realized in distributive issues like the allocation of funds and facilities.’ When gender is framed as an ideological and hegemonic issue rather than one of the inequitable distributton of resourses between the sexes, tt is defined as a set of socially produced power relations, and play games and sport are viewed as social practices that have the potential to contribute to, but at the same time chailenge, social reproduction, and male hegemony. Typically, gender is introduced m these courses with an analysts and critique of sex differences and then moves on to an analysis of the ways in which

459

these categories are ones that have been SOctally constructed. ‘Sex gets then attention and that’s how I start off thts section . . . writing sex on the board and talking about biological sex differences. But the only reason we can do that and revert it, if that’s the right term, into gender or subvert it as a concept back mto gender and show how even biological conceptions themselves are gender based.’ This treatment of gender challenges biological definitions of sex differences and shows how these definitions contribute to the production and maintenance of male hegemony in society. The analysis of play, games, and sport as social practices and gender as a set of historically produced, socially constructed, culturally developed relations provides students with a view of gender that challenges rather than reinforces patriarchial social relations. Knowledge and the treatment of gender: Alternative views The preceeding discussion of the ways in which gender is taught in the degree programme has shown that it is framed differently in biological and behavioural, and socio-cultural theory courses. However, the “appIied” focus of the majority of the courses m the programme provides a framework for analysmg gender that legitimates patriarchial ideology and acts as a potentially powerful instrument in the definition of reality. But this view is countered in courses that do not focus on performance but, mstead, focus on the study of play, games, and sports as historically produced, socially constructed, cultural forms. Alternative views of the nature of knowledge and the social construction of sport and gender are taught in these courses. The presence of these alternatives in the programme provides the potential for challenges to mainstream views of important knowledge in physical education and, as such, to patriarchial definitions of reality. Knowledge and gender: Students’ responses The majority of student informants in the study view important knowledge in similar ways. For these students the value of theory courses is judged in relation to the “usefulness” of the knowledge that is being taught, and the utility of knowledge is judged in relation to Its applicability to performance. For

460

ALISON M

example, typical comments from both male and female students were: ‘Anatomy and physiology . . . 1 learned the most knowledge than in all my courses . . . for general knowledge that I wanted to know . . . I’d be able to apply it m the field as well . . . finding out so much about the body . . . it was really good. I think the theory courses give you an idea of how the body functions in exercise . . . prevention of sports injuries was very helpful and the physrology courses have been the most applicable for me . . . it relates to what I . . . my job. It gives me the basic understandings.’

A strong indication of the pervasiveness of the importance of knowledge that can be applied to performance in students’ perceptions of “really useful” knowledge is revealed in the following statement about one of the biological and behavioural courses in the programme. ‘It was tough because I had to study like mad . . . you have to remember alot of stuff. It’s all memorization . . . you’ve got to learn a million and one things. It’s Just cram, cram, cram.’ Yet, this student went on to say of the course ‘It was a great, great course . . . very applied, very specific, very useful.’ For this mdivldual, knowledge that can be applied to performance is still defined as important and useful even though it 1s not particularly enjoyable. In this case utrlity or the aplicability of the knowledge to performance IS more important than an interest in the material being taught. In other words, for the maJorny of student informants “really rmportant” and useful knowledge is defined as knowledge from the biological and behavioural courses in the programme, which can be applied to performance, even when this material is viewed as difficult and uninteresting. Soclo-cultural theory courses as “non-applied” or peripheral knowledge The courses cited by the majority of students as the least valuable in the programme were the ones that had no apparent relation to performance but whrch looked at the his-

DEWAR

torical and contemporary relations between sport and society. Typically, students were confused about the relevance or usefulness of these courses as they appeared to have no apparent apphcatton to performance and students did not see the link between these courses and policy issues. This was the primary reason for their unpopularity. For example, the following comments illustrate the student informants views on knowledge that 1s not perceived as useful or applied. ‘Well the philosophy of sport, it’s so stupid . . . you read all these books . . . one is called The Joy of Sport and it’s all on people’s ideas of what sport is . . . it’s just not very pertinent. The history of sport . . . it’s usually like a trival pursuit game. It’s not that important to the students and it’s probably not that important when we get out in the real world and start working . . . it isn’t that valuable . . . stuff you can find in a trival pursuit game.’ For the majority of the student informants these courses are neither useful nor interesting. They are selected because they are perceived as “easy credits” and therefore worth taking as a means of counterbalancing some of the more difficult biological and behavioural courses in the programme. Despite being perceived as peripheral or irrelevant these theory courses are sometimes chosen by students over applied, useful courses because they are thought to be easier and less work than their “really useful” counterparts. Comments such as ‘I heard that one of my science courses was pretty tough and I wanted to do a phys. ed. course but I didn’t want to do two tough ones at the same time so I picked an easier one (a socio-cultural course).’ and ‘There’s biodynamics, which is science, I find the required courses are like that then you have the fill ins like psychology and sociology . . . they don’t hold my interest.’ As a result of the tension between students’ perceptions of courses as “hard and useful” or “easy and u-relevant,” most students select

Social ConstructIon of Gender

courses that are both “really useful” and “applied” and those that are more general and have no apparent application to performance. Thus, many of the student informants select courses that are both consistent with and contradictory to their perceptions of what constitutes important and useful knowledge. Students’perspectives on gender Students’ reactions to knowledge on gender reflect their “applied” orientations to physical education. These reactions will be discussed in relation to the ways m which gender is taught in the programme. Gender as a variable or as an issue of sex differences. Most students mentioned sex differences when asked if gender was discussed in any of their courses. mica1 responses from these informants were ‘Sometimes in some courses like for your aerobic capacity and for strength and stuff like that. . . . the women’s pulse rate is dah dah dah whereas the men’s is such ‘n such . . . those kind of things.’

461

One of the women commented: ‘We did talk on women in sport and women and pregnancy . . . a bit in anatomy, they went over the differences in sex I guess alot of time is spent talking about the person as a male . . . I never really thought about it until now . . . it makes me feel like we’re kind of cheated.’ The other women, in a conversation friend, said:

with a

‘You see that’s what pisses me off about the statistics we use m physical education, they are general and all the women that are in physical education deviate from standards to begin with. We are all above the norm so why don’t we try and get some stats that show us in relation to athletes.

‘Obviously women can’t perform . . . obviously women can’t do certain men’s things, things that men do.’

Despite their frustrations with the ways in which information about women is presented in applied theory courses both women’s critiques were levelled at the nature of the statutics used about women and the lack of “accurate” information on women. Their critiques were not directed at the framing of gender as sex differences, per se, but at the inaccuracy of the information they were receiving on sex differences. The responses of most of the students to the framing of gender as sex differences is understandable given their definitions of tmportant knowledge in physical education. Information about sex differences, when it is presented as biological and behavioural fact, represents knowledge that can be applied to performance and thus is information that is potentially “useful” to students. For the women who were critical of the mformation they were given on sex differences this critique was based on the inaccuracy of the mformation rather than on the implications of framing gender in this way. Inaccurate information for these women limits its usefulness and as such provides an incomplete analysis of women’s potentials. Although this critique serves as the basis for a challenge to biological and behavloural views of women’s capabilities it is one that remains within and is accepting of the framework that defines gender as an issue of sex differences.

There were, however, two women who were critical of framing gender as sex differences.

Gender as an issue of inequality. The second way students described the treatment of

and ‘They point to scientific findings, sex, differences in performance . . . they just sort of present the accepted facts.’ The students who described gender as biological sex differences viewed the information on differences between women and men as “the accepted facts.” Gender is seen by them as one of a number of variables that affect performance. Although this group of students do not appear to view sex differences as an area of particular importance, they all explain the separation of certain performance courses in the programme in terms of biologrcal and behavioural differences that exist between women and men. These individuals viewed men’s superior strength, speed, and power as a biological fact of life that is natural and therefore unproblemattc. For example, the following comment illustrates the pervasiveness of this view.

ALISON

gender in their courses was as an analysts of social inequahty. The followmg statements are examples of the ways m which students described this approach: ‘

about how women have sort of progressed . . . like where we were in Canadran society to start off with and how we sort of progressed . . . we read a few arttcles on women in sport. .

.

.

like with history there is always a lecture thrown in here or there about women’s rights in sports.’ The reactions to this discussion of women’s inequality in sport are similar. There is a consensus among both the male and female student informants that although inequality has been a problem for women in society things have improved and women are getting closer to achieving full equality in sport. Typically, women students reacted m the following ways ‘AD: Do you think there is more equality now for women in society? -I think so . . . I don’t think about it an awful lot sometimes I think I probably should but I haven’t really, it hasn’t been a problem for me.’ and ‘It might be an idea to make people aware I think it shouldn’t be carried to extremes because I don’t think anything can be done to change it. That’s just the way people are . . . I don’t think men’s attitudes will change and the ones who are willing to change are changing now, But it might be an idea to make people aware.’ and male students responded by saying ‘I think there is equality . . . I think so . . . well I know a woman truck driver so n’s definitely getting better for the women.’ and ‘I’m always encouraging girls I think girls are great . . . I’m really against people that crttrcrze girls . . . I always encourage girls to do anything they want.’

M

DEWAR

There IS an agreement among these students that inequality has been a problem for women m society but it is no longer viewed as a serious one as they believe that the problem IS being, or already has been, solved. The feeling among these students is that inequality is not a particularily important issue as it does not directly affect performance and therefore is not an issue that ought to be focussed on in the programme. This perspective is most clearly illustrated in the following comment by a male student: ‘There are more important, worse things to worry about . . . there’s lot’s of girls m our programme, there’s equal opportunity . . . I think it’s just something they have to talk about m those history type courses ‘cause it used to be worse. Now you have girls playmg men’s sports so what’s all the fuss about.’ Students’ views of the treatment of gender as a distributive issue are consistent with their definitions of important knowledge. This information is not seen as pertinent because tt 1s not directly applicable to performance, nor 1s tt seen to be as useful since the male students believt themselves to be egalitarians and fully committed to “treating girls fairly,” and the women students view inequality in relation to their personal experiences and defme it as “a fact of life” or something that 1s “not a problem for me.” The combinatton of the locatton of this information in “non applied,” socio-cultural theory courses and students’ views of important knowledge result m this mformatron being viewed as relatively unimportant and peripheral. Gender as a socrally constructed set of power relatrons. Seven of the student informants who were interviewed were enrolled in the socto-cultural theory courses where gender was discussed as a set of htstorrcally produced, socially constructed power relations between women and men. The following comment illustrates this approach. ‘One of the things was semiology and he delt with that a fair bit and gender drscrimmatlon mvolved in the signs and symbols in society and eventually how n’s reflected in sport.’ Students’ reactions to this analysis of gender and the kinds of issues taught m these SOCIO-

Social Construction of Gender

courses are outlined in the following comments: cuItura1

‘Alot of people fmd It off the wall and sort of sit back in their chair drop their pens and wonder who is this guy. You know, where IS he coming from, did he have too much coffee this morning. I don’t get the course, I mean I sit there gomg, what is that man talkmg about.’

When students were asked speclflcally about their reactions to the matcrlal on gender their responses were less dammmg. For example, one individual said: ‘Well he tried to show through ads how the woman was being explolted from all . . . by the male . . . I never gave It much thought . . . even now I don’t think It’s . . . but I can see his point I think it’s valid.’ He went on to say that the class reacted: ‘-probably with the attitude so what there are more important things gomg on m this world . . . well I don’t think they were saying it was o.k., but they had reasons for why it was . . . they felt there were worse things . . . not being involved in the advertisement at all they could make it a strictly male ad . . . AD: So do you thmk the impresslon is that although things aren’t great for women they are getting better? ‘-Ya that’s the impression or if you’re a male we’re not the one’s causing the problem.’ The final comments by two students m the course Illustrate the dynamics of the responses to material that is critical of mamstream, applied thinking m physical educatlon. A male student described the reactlons as follows: ‘There was a reaction . . . alot of people were . . . you know . . . we’ve been duped. They couldn’t believe that all this was going on underneath . . . and at times it seemed like he was reading more mto it than there actually was there and it’s possible . . . but it’s certainly an interpretation and you can’t argue with that

463

. . . people got up and would argue the other way . . . like he was mentlonmg that gender dlscrimmatlon and male dommance m society is a sociological thmg and I remember I argued that It’s a blologlcal thing . . . we thmk in such scientific terms that it’s difficult to appreciate SOCIOloglcal developments.’

He went on to say ‘I have always been brought along in a more science oriented background. It’s hard to break away from that. It’s hard to look any other way.’ A women in the class said of the material ‘Alot of us didn’t agree with him. It’s too extreme there’s equal opportunity here so he’s reading too much into It and well that’s society.’ For these students, and many other physical educators, the previous statement rings true. The focus of the programme on “applied” knowledge and students’ definitions of important knowledge makes it difficult for them to view physical education in any other way. Thus, it is easy for students to react to material that 1sdifferent or material that provides alternative analyses of play, games, and sport by defimng it as peripheral, idiosyncratic and extreme. Knowledge, performance, and gender: Some concluding comments

The research findings presented m this paper suggest that it 1s important both to document how knowledge about gender is taught m physical education, and how students Interpret and respond to it. If we are to understand how male hegemony is produced and mamtamed in physlcal education programmes It is important to examme how knowledge about gender is framed m different courses m the curriculum and students’ interpretations of and reactions to this knowledge in order to explore the relations between knowledge, structure, and human agency in physical education programmes and their implications for the social reproduction of gender relations. The problem that feminists face when attempting to analyse the social reproduction of gender m physical education is to understand how the structures and forms of

464

ALISON M DEWAR

knowledge that exist in particular programmes produce potentially patriarchial tdeological messages, and reproduce patriarchial social relations. One way this relationship between knowledge, structure, and social reproduction is explained is to suggest that the knowledge and structures of the programme reflect or correspond to the dominant, patriarchial ideology that exists m society and therefore reproduce patrtarchial social relations. However, it is too easy to view social reproduction in terms of a simple correspondence between programme structure and knowledge, and patriarchial ideology. This paper illustrates that this is clearly not the case. First, this programme is structured to provide students with alternative frameworks for analyzing and presenting mformation about gender. However, the dominant framework in the programme, which uses knowledge from the biological and behavioural sciences to analyse human physical performance, presents knowledge about gender in a framework that defines gender as an issue of sex differences. This approach focuses on individuals and explains gaps in performance between the sexes in biological and behavioural terms. Thus, the dominant view is one that explains differences in performance capabilities in terms of traits residing in individuals which serves to reinforce and legitimize patriarchial ideology. Thts view of gender is countered by an alternative one. There are courses in the programme m which play, games, and sport are analyzed as socially constructed, hrstorically produced, cultural forms. In these courses gender is treated as a social issue rather than as a personal trouble and is analysed in a framework that locates gender inequality in the social relations of play, games, and sport rather than in biological and behavioural differences between the sexes. Thus, m this particular programme students are presented with knowledge that both legitimizes and challenges patriarchtal ideology. Secondly, it is clear from students’ responses to this knowledge that they do not simply accept everything they are being taught. The process of social reproduction 1s more complex than a linear relationship between knowledge and student response. The relationship between human agency and social reproduction appears to be complex and contradictory. The responses of the students in this study to knowledge that is not defined

as “useful” suggests that the processes described m this paper are only one small part of a much broader hegemonic process. It would appear that potentially emancipatory and transformative knowledge is rejected by students because they fail to see its relevance and applicability. The power of the discourses of science, the occupational and economic demands that exist in society, and students’ strong vocational and performance orientations seem to facilitate an acceptance of a framework that defines “important knowledge” as knowledge that can be applied directly to improve performance outcomes. An acceptance of this view of “important” and “really useful” knowledge ensures that gender remains defined as a personal trouble rather than as a social issue for the majority of students. Thus, it would appear that m order to challenge and transform patriarchial social relations it important to understand the complex ways m which male hegemony is able to neutralize alternatives and potential challenges to it. It would appear that the inclusion of knowledge in the curriculum which challenges patriarchral ideological messages is not enough. It is unlikely that students will accept these alternative explanations of gender unless the conditions in society that contribute to the maintenance of male hegemony are also challenged and transformed. Thus, it is important that analyses of the social reproduction of gender in physical education begin to examine this process in ways that are sensitive to the complexities of the relations between social structure, ideology, and human agency. Research that allows us to understand this relationship more clearly will move us towards the development of educational practices that will enable successful challenges to and ultimately the transformation of patriarchial social relations. REFERENCES Atkinson, Paul 1985 Strong mmds and weak bodies Sports, gymnastics and the medlcahzatlon of women’s education The Brrtrsh Journal of Sports H&ory 2(l) 62-71 Anyon, Jean 1983 Intersections of gender and class Accomodatlon and reststance by workmg class and affluent girls to contrary sex-role ldeologles In Walker, Stephen and Barton, Len, eds Gender, Class and Educatron The Falmer Press, Lewes Beamtsh, Robert 1984. Materlahsm and the comprehenslon of gender related Issues m sport In Theberge, Nancy and Donnelly, Peter, eds, Sport and the

Socml Constructron of Gender Soctological Imagmatron Texas Christran Umverstty Press, Fort Worth Boutther, Mary and San Giovanni, Lucmda. 1985. The Sporhng Woman Human Kinetics Press, Champargn, IL. Bray, Catherine 1984. Gender and the pohtrcal economy of Canadtan sport. In Theberge, Nancy and Donnelly, Peter, eds, Sport and the Sonologrcal Imagmatton Texas Christran Umverstty Press, Fort Worth Connell, Robert. 1983 Whtch Way IS Up? Essays on Class, Sex and Culture George Allen & Unwm, SydCul~~Margo and Portuges, Catherine, eds. 1985 Gendered SUbJeCtS.The Dynamics of Femrntst lkachmg Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Dewar, Ahson 1986 The soctal construction of gender m a physrcal educatron programme Unpublished Doctoral Dtssertatron, Umversrty of Brmsh Columbra, Vancouver, Canada Evans, J 1984. Muscle, sweat and showers. Grrls’ concepttons of physrcal education and sport. A challenge for research and currrculum reform. Physrcal Educatton Revtew 7(l) Fletcher, Sheha 1985 The makmg and breaking of a female tradrtron Women’s phystcal educatron in England 1880-1980. The Brrtrsh Journal of Sport HIStory 2(1).29-39 Grrffm, Patrrcra. 1983 Gymnastrcs 1s a girls thing. Student partrctpatron and mteractton patterns m a nuddle school gymnastics unit In Temphne, Thomas and Olson, Janice, eds, Teaching m Phystcal Educanon Human Kinetrcs Press, Champaign, IL Grtffm, Patricia 1984. Gtrls’ partrcrpatron patterns m a middle school team sports umt Journa/ of Teachrng in Physrcal Education 4 30-38 Hall, M Ann 1980 Rarely have we asked why Reflections on Canadtan women’s experiences m sport Atlantrs l(1) 51-60

465

Hall, M. Ann 1981 Sport, sex roles and sex identity The CRIAW I%pers/Les Documents de CRAF 1. The Canadian Research Instttute for the Advancement of Women, Ottawa Hail, M. Ann. 1982. The player, the woman and the necessity of femuust scholarshrp. N.A PE H E Proceedmgs, Vol III (pp 48-55) Human Kmetrcs Pubhshers, Champargn, IL. Hall, M Ann 1984. Towards a fenmust analysts of gender mequahty m sport In Theberge, Nancy and Donnelly, Peter, eds, Sport and the Soctologtcal Imagrnatron Texas Christran Press, Fort Worth Hall, M. Ann 1985 Knowledge and gender: Eprstemologrcal questtons m the soctal analysts of sport Soczology of Sport Journal 2 25-42 Hargreaves, Jennifer 1985 Playmg hke gentleman while behavmg like ladles Contradtctory features of the formatrve years of women’s sport. The Brrttsh Journal of Sports History 2( 1) 40-5 1. LenskyJ, Helen 1983 The role of phystcal education m the socrahzatron of girls m Ontarto 1890-1930. Unpublished Doctoral Drssertatron 0 S I E , Umversrty of Toronto, Ontarro Mangan, James 1983 Athleticism in the Victorian and Edwardtan pubhc school Cambrtdge Umverstty Press, Cambridge McRobbre, Angela 1978. Workmg class girls and the culture of femmmny In Women Take Issue Hutchmson, London Spender, Dale , and Sarah, Ehzabeth, eds 1982 Learnmg to lose* Sexism and educatron The Women’s Press, London Werner, Gaby, ed 1985 Just a Bunch of Gtrls. Femrmst Approaches to Schoolmg The Open Umversrty Press, M&on Keynes Wrlhs, Paul 1982. Women m sport in Ideology. In Hargreaves, Jenmfer, ed, Sport, Culture and Ideology Routledge & Kegan Paul, London