Page 59 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 59
r. šribar ■ study in the virtual class: doings of feminist pedagogy ...
into a certain topic is ignored. And the students already possess adequate
knowledges on subjects which are not known to the teacher. To avoid the
implications of hierarchy and unethical power positioning in the form of
a priori authority, the concept of empowerment has been criticised. In the
field of social anthropology, Angela Cheater summoned the discussion on
the problematic connotations of the concept by arguing that it might cov-
er over the hegemonic power relations. Those who empower do not recog-
nise the receivers’ rights to define their own interests. By empowerment,
they even construct them as being less able to do that (Cheater, 1999, p. 6).
The body active in the somatisation of experiences and the produc-
tion of energy in the two-way teaching/learning communication cannot
be devoid of its dual nature: it is described, mediated by discourse, and at
the same time influenced by discourse. The pedagogic embodiments call
for a collective investment in understanding the relation of the body with
the symbolic and imaginary dimensions of gender-related discourse.
Just like Emilie Lawrence, some other authors consider feminist
pedagogy an open structure which consists of an increasing “number of
key practices” (Hassel & Nelson, 2012). According to my comparison of
expert articles and blogs on the doings of feminist pedagogy, and my own
lecturing, described for the first time in the present discussion, I see iden-
tical approaches.
The similarities in personified liberating pedagogic knowledges and
skills are intelligible. To practise feminist pedagogy, you need not become
a scholar in the sub-field, it is sufficient to transpose feminist epistemolo-
gies to class. What might differ is the interpretation, anepistemology, and
its applied imagination in response to the common denominators of fem-
inist pedagogy. As stated, they are recognised by Emilie Lawrence, who
questions the speaking dominant voices in class (2016, para 9). The con-
sequence of the freedom in which feminism is to be applied to pedago-
gy are numerous options for interpreting and validating experience, and
ways of using experience as a teaching/learning tool; similarly, the trans-
formative teaching and learning is not prescribed in some universal form.
This is the point of reflecting on my own pedagogic practice as logical-
ly unique: formulating a micro curriculum of the transferable feminist
knowledge and skills to empower students in the field of informed active
citizenship and human equality, and with the aim to let myself become
powered by the students’ questions, narratives and other contributions
to the class community. I consider this relationship of equal importance
as the reading of feminist texts; actually, it is stimulative for reading and
making inquiry into new fields of feminist (trans)gender studies. The he-
gemonic voice of feminism in feminist pedagogy is deconstructed by the
57
into a certain topic is ignored. And the students already possess adequate
knowledges on subjects which are not known to the teacher. To avoid the
implications of hierarchy and unethical power positioning in the form of
a priori authority, the concept of empowerment has been criticised. In the
field of social anthropology, Angela Cheater summoned the discussion on
the problematic connotations of the concept by arguing that it might cov-
er over the hegemonic power relations. Those who empower do not recog-
nise the receivers’ rights to define their own interests. By empowerment,
they even construct them as being less able to do that (Cheater, 1999, p. 6).
The body active in the somatisation of experiences and the produc-
tion of energy in the two-way teaching/learning communication cannot
be devoid of its dual nature: it is described, mediated by discourse, and at
the same time influenced by discourse. The pedagogic embodiments call
for a collective investment in understanding the relation of the body with
the symbolic and imaginary dimensions of gender-related discourse.
Just like Emilie Lawrence, some other authors consider feminist
pedagogy an open structure which consists of an increasing “number of
key practices” (Hassel & Nelson, 2012). According to my comparison of
expert articles and blogs on the doings of feminist pedagogy, and my own
lecturing, described for the first time in the present discussion, I see iden-
tical approaches.
The similarities in personified liberating pedagogic knowledges and
skills are intelligible. To practise feminist pedagogy, you need not become
a scholar in the sub-field, it is sufficient to transpose feminist epistemolo-
gies to class. What might differ is the interpretation, anepistemology, and
its applied imagination in response to the common denominators of fem-
inist pedagogy. As stated, they are recognised by Emilie Lawrence, who
questions the speaking dominant voices in class (2016, para 9). The con-
sequence of the freedom in which feminism is to be applied to pedago-
gy are numerous options for interpreting and validating experience, and
ways of using experience as a teaching/learning tool; similarly, the trans-
formative teaching and learning is not prescribed in some universal form.
This is the point of reflecting on my own pedagogic practice as logical-
ly unique: formulating a micro curriculum of the transferable feminist
knowledge and skills to empower students in the field of informed active
citizenship and human equality, and with the aim to let myself become
powered by the students’ questions, narratives and other contributions
to the class community. I consider this relationship of equal importance
as the reading of feminist texts; actually, it is stimulative for reading and
making inquiry into new fields of feminist (trans)gender studies. The he-
gemonic voice of feminism in feminist pedagogy is deconstructed by the
57
