Gender and literacy

1. Gender and literacy Based on Archer, L. & Francis, B. (2005). ‘They never go off the rails like other ethnic groups’: Teachers’ constructions of British Chinese pupil’s gender identities and approaches to learning. British Journal of Sociology of Education 26 (2), 165-182. King, B. W. (2008). “Being gay guy, that is the advantage”: Queer Korean language learning and identity construction. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 7, 230-252.

2. How do London teachers view their Chinese students? • Archer & Francis (2005) explore the stereotypes and assumptions teachers have about British Chinese masculinity and femininity • Goal of paper: to challenge these dominant discourses; to offer more critical, alternative representations

3. Even positive stereotypes are problematic • Stereotype: Chinese students are high achievers --an overly simplistic “‘success’ story” (Archer & Francis, 2005, p.166) • “even seemly ‘positive’ stereotypes of ethnic groups can serve to homogenise and straight-jacket the diverse experiences of [such groups] … masking issues of inequality” (Ibid.) • I.e., differences within the group are invisible

4. Gender, race and class intersect While this lecture centers on gendered discourses, these cannot be separated from discourses of race and class (one is never just positioned as a girl or boy, but also one’s race and ethnicity – ‘white,’ or Asian, e.g. – and one’s class – middle class or poor, e.g. – contributes to how one is positioned and represented).

5. Gender and literacy • More commonly, the research on gender and literacy focuses on “the boys’ underachievement debate” which sometimes means that girls’ issues “fall off the educational agenda” (Archer & Francis, 2005, p.167). • “laddishness”: British English word; young males disrespectful ‘jokes,’ drinking, misbehaving, etc. (see A & F’s note p. 180)

6. Description of Archer & Francis’ study • Interviews with 30 teachers in London: only 3 were British Chinese/Taiwanese; 20 were ‘white’ British, 3 Irish, 1 British Pakistani, 1 Greek Cypriot, 1 South American, 1 (white) French (p. 167) • A variety of questions asked; this paper focuses on “answers to questions about laddishness” (p. 168)

7. How teachers represented Chinese boys, or “British Chinese masculinities” (p.168) • Archer & Francis’ (2005) study shows that the majority of the teachers think laddishness is a problem with boys, but not with British Chinese boys (only 2 of the 30, 2 of Chinese background themselves, disagreed) • 12 felt “Chinese laddishness is unusual” and occurs when these boys are “led astray” by local black and white working-class peers (p.169).

8. “they never go off the rails” (Archer & Francis, 2005, p.169) • This phrase is repeated in the article title: it captures the assumptions these London teachers have about British Chinese boys • Even when they are ‘laddish,’ such behaviour is “less extreme due to Chinese cultural/family values and practices” (Ibid.); • Hard working, quiet, passive -- this is the norm (so those who aren’t as successful are failing “to achieve their whole potential” p.170).

9. If they do “go off the rails”… • It is because they are “infected” by other ethnicities (and “working-class masculinity” as well): a “racialised and pathologised” discourse! (Archer & Francis, 2005, p.171) • We’ll talk more about racial stereotypes next week, but racialization suggests the way race is constructed – a practice – not a category • The authors use the terms ‘racialised,’ ‘gendered’ and ‘classed’ to suggest social and discursive practices that position these boys (see Abstract)

10. Implications for British masculinity • Some data suggests that British Chinese boys who were born in the U.K. tend to exhibit more ‘laddishness’ perhaps in an effort to fit in and be more British (Archer & Francis, 2005, p. 171). • Some pointed to “a ‘Jackie Chan’ style of British Chinese masculinity” – this laddishness drew on martial arts (p.172)

11. “Chinese boys are not laddish” (Archer & Francis, 2005, p.172) • This representation draws on “established racist discourses of Chinese culture and identity”: Chinese masculinity is passive, quiet, conformist – therefore, more ‘feminine’ (Ibid) • Chinese culture is “rich” (unlike others which are cast as “deficient”) – the authors argue that this serves to “homogenise and reify cultures/ethnicities” – makes them seem like things and like all members of that culture are the same, not allowing for any individual differences (p.173)

12. How do London teachers view Chinese girls? • “passive, quiet, hard-working and high-achieving” … [not] ‘infected’ by anti-work attitudes …naturally … conform more to school” (Archer & Francis, 2005, p.174). • The authors argue that this representation “places British Chinese femininity outside ‘normal’ femininity” and, especially in contrast to working-class femininity or more ‘liberal/modern/progressive’ discourses, as docile and “problematically repressed” (Ibid)

13. Are all Chinese girls like this? • To explain cases where Chinese girls did not conform, work hard, etc. teachers again repeated the norm, showing that even the exceptions had to prove the rule … • Archer & Francis (2005) argue that such views deny “British Chinese girls agency and humanity (i.e. they are represented without liveliness, individuality or resistance)” (p. 176)

14. “both praised and problematised”(Archer & Francis, 2005, p. 177) • These London teachers had a very limited view of Chinese ‘culture’ and they invoked that view to explain their stereotypes of Chinese students as “deferent and conformist” (Archer & Francis, 2005, p.179) • Even though British Chinese students were considered to be academic achievers, they were also seen as not quite enacting a ‘normal’ (white, middle class) gender identity

15. So, what do you think? • Are you aware of these stereotypes? • What is your experience of them? • Do you think Archer & Francis (and the many studies they cite) have it wrong? If so, why? What are they missing?

16. “Being gay guy, that is the advantage”Brian King (2008) uses this quote from one of his interviewees for his title • In this study, set in Seoul, Korea, King shows that a “marginalized sexual identity” can help English language learners gain access to a community of practice • King (2008) shows that these ELLs “have invested in an imagined, ‘Western’ gay community [and thus have] strong investments in learning English as their gateway to that community” (p.232).

17. Concepts and terms • Essentialism, a definition from the Web http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/twine/ecofem/essentialism.html Notice it comes from a Lancaster University site • King argues for the use of “strategic essentialism” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_essentialism King (2008) wants “to focus on gay L2 learners in a politically useful manner” (p. 234).

18. More concepts and terms • “The naturalistic SLA context involves no formal instruction …[just learning] “through conversational interaction” BUT often L2 learners don’t get opportunities for conversation (King, 2008, p.234). • INVESTMENT: a concept developed by Norton Peirce (Bonny Norton) drawing from Bourdieu’s economic metaphors

19. Investment in Imagined Communities • Investment: learners invest in certain communities, invest in certain identities in hopes of gaining access to resources (e.g., education, friendship, money) NOT THE SAME AS MOTIVATION, which depends on a different view of the language learner (King, 2008, p. 235) • Imagined community: created by people who imagine themselves to be part of a group/nation; a sense of belonging to a particular group

20. Identity and access(King, 2008) • Identity is “a nexus of multimembership” in (multiple) communities of practice (p.235) • “The work of identity is ongoing, and identity is not an essential core” (p.235) • Investment in an imagined community is not enough: the novice learner must be able to negotiate access to that community, to be granted legitimacy by those in the CoP (p.236)

21. King’s (2008) study: Okay, we made it through the theoretical lens, now let’s look at his study • Basically, King interviews 3 gay men in Seoul, “encouraging them to speak from a gay subject position” (p.237) • 1. Pyo: past experiences with English in Manchester, England gay community, but mostly got to speak to a Filipino man there • 2. Hyoung: compared to Singapore (where he was closeted), he prefers the New Zealand community, where he was able to gain access and learn English “had to speak English all the time” (p.242) • 3. Tak: past experience in San Francisco: “his gay identity gave him legitimacy … and as a Korean his access to English was improved because his foreign perspective made him interesting to that [gay] community” (p.244).

22. The advantage of being gay • Tak “says that his ‘straight’ (heterosexual) friends have no idea how to meet foreigners” but it’s easier for gay men, both in Korea and abroad. King explains this as “a result of the legitimacy they gain (and are granted)” within a gay community (p.244). • So, what are the implications for all L2 users? Make friends with foreigners! Go for it and risk conversations …

23. Questions/ discussion King states that the “transformative purpose” of this article is to challenge “heteronormativity in the SLA field” through “adding queer perspectives” to research on language learner identities (p.230). Did you find this study challenged some of your perspectives or added to your understandings of SLA? If so, how? If not, why not? What else was interesting to you about this article, e.g. the explanation of imagined communities and of investment …