 
Week 4 - Local School Management
|  | School-Based Management in the New Millennium:
Gender and Attitudes to Local School Management |
| |
Listing of Papers | |
DR KAREN STARR
South Australia, Australia
RESEARCH CONDUCTED with principals of state secondary schools in South Australia from 1996 to 1998 found that women were more opposed to Local School Management (LSM) and other structural reforms in educational provision, policy and practice than their male peers.
Intensive Interviews
As a result, the investigation turned to the gender implications of structural reform and LSM specifically. Intensive rounds of interviews were then conducted with sixteen women secondary principals. In distilling interview transcripts, it is clear that women principals are highly aware that hegemonic conceptions of gender affect the social behaviours they encounter on a daily basis. Further discussions and probing revealed how pervasive gendered assumptions overtly and covertly affect organisational behaviours and, ultimately, policies, provisions/resources and practices - in this case, in education.
Elsewhere I have described the gendered structuring of power and the gendered division of labour in the principalship (Starr, 1998). In this paper I will discuss 'gender' as a social construct. I will then focus on a little known and rarely discussed aspect of gender, that is, in terms of how it structures 'cathexis'. I have conceived this term in a particular way to make sense of many of the women principals' comments about how they considered 'gender' to be played out in their professional experiences.
'Gender', Cathexis and the Body as a Sign
'Gender' does not equate with an individual's biological sex, yet it is influenced by it. 'Gender' is a social process constructed on hegemonic notions about maleness and femaleness, which comes into play in the practices and texts of everyday life. 'Gender' refers to bodies and what bodies do (Connell, 1987). Hence, a female body confers femininity on a girl or a woman because her body is socially defined by its femaleness.
Implicit are certain social expectations and assumptions that affect life actions and opportunities which a female individual will encounter every day in her relationships with others and in her experiences in the world, which are based solely on her sex. And, of course, the same applies to men. This is the social process of gender construction at work. It is not static, but shifts to accommodate changing times and contexts. Hence common conceptions of 'woman' at the beginning of the new century in Australia differ from conceptions of 'woman' that circulated at the beginning of the last century, when women had only just been granted suffrage, and when all kinds of regulations and taken-for-granted assumptions restricted their access to areas of the workforce and universities, for example.
Reading the Signs
Through the social process of gender construction, one's body can be read as a sign or signifier - as a marker of sameness or difference to the observer. On encountering a person an observer makes immediate assumptions about him/her which are based solely on what the observer knows/thinks/expects such a body to do. Hence, a first time acquaintance will 'weigh up' or label people, consciously or unconsciously, in terms of skin colour, sex, age, level of education or wealth, for example. The body becomes sign. These initial signifiers about a person translate into assumptions about them, which affect the subsequent relationship that develops with that person. A person does not influence these reactions, they are automatic. Furthermore, there is nothing the person can do to change an observer's initial summations or the meanings the observer has attached to them.
Reading the body as sign is integrally connected to the gendered structure of cathexis, which primarily concerns emotionality, as well as sexuality and identity. Asymmetrical power relations and the gendered division of labour are aspects of gender inequality which are not new to us. Exposure of gendered cathexis, however, represents a departure from usual discourse on women in leadership and management, and it is to this topic that the discussion now turns.
Connell (1987) extends Freud's use of the term 'cathexis' beyond 'an attachment to an idea or image' to describe the construction of emotionally charged social relations in the material world. Emotionality in social relations ranges from hostility to affection, from misogyny to desire, from intrigue or interest to disregard. I suggest that these emotions are always complex and often subconscious and lie at the basis of our reading of the body as sign. Hence cathexis is a gendered social structure that is organised on a bipolar masculine/feminine opposition, which is inextricably linked with inequalities of power.
Cathexis influences the cultural definitions of masculinity and femininity and cultural power associated with them. Cathexis, therefore, rests on 'the emotional investment in gender difference' (Hollway, 1994, p. 248), which maintains unequal social relations between men and women. This affects an individual's gender identity and experiences, as s/he is confronted in myriad subtle and overt ways, in everyday life, by others' assumptions about how s/he should behave and what values s/he should hold.
Gendered divisions of social experience tend to produce different conceptions of self in men and women, as well as different beliefs, and different constructions of the world around them. These are issues about identity. Identity as a definitional, dynamic, 'self-structure' then explains the tenor of an individual's relationships, modes of operation, social values, as well as the experience of 'threats' to identity. Gendered experience also affects the general conceptions that one sex has towards the other. In order to preserve our gender identity we have to constantly regulate and maintain our social practices in gender roles which are constructed around notions of 'appropriateness' and 'the norm' (cf Paechter, 1998).
Cathexis in the Principalship
In the principalship, cathexis is experienced when the woman principal is seen as a woman before she is seen as a professional who has authority. Alongside gendered structures of power and production, cathexis renders the experiences of women in the principalship 'different' to those of their male counterparts. 'Difference' explained in this way is an effect of the gendered experience, not of biological sex. Through this conception, essentialist and normative explanations about 'differences' between the sexes are eschewed.
The women principals involved in this research interpret the structure of cathexis as a manifestation of gendered exclusionary, stereotypical, marginalising, violent and silencing behaviours in the social life of the principalship. When asked what makes their jobs different from that of male principals - because all the women principals believe there is a difference - the women's stories mainly concern oppositional behaviours for which the only explanation appears to be their sex and the cathected associations attached to it. Women principals focused on emotionally charged threats to their identity as the major way in which the structure of cathexis is overtly experienced. The range of behaviours cited concern behaviours such as sexualised attention, hostility and aggression, threatened violence or threats of negative professional consequences, professional sabotage and the continual undermining of their work. These are mostly harassing and abusive behaviours which indicate that women are not readily accepted in management.
All the women principals interviewed stated that they experience abuse and harassment on a continual basis, such that these behaviours have become an expected part of the job. These are not 'rare' events and they are recalled with a sense of grave injustice and as the most irreconcilable aspect of the role. Harassment and bullying are often explained in the literature in terms of power differentials. But, in these cases, the women principals hold positional power, so the concept of cathexis explains this contradiction. And interestingly, the women believe that these behaviours are not only on the increase, but that they have encountered incrementally more abuse and harassment the higher up the organisational ladder they have climbed.
Women principals perceive that they are made aware of the structure of cathexis in very different ways than men and women who are located in stereotypically 'acceptable' positions for their sex. As an example, many expressed the view that they encountered very different, more supportive and accommodating behaviours when they were classroom teachers. What cathected relationships in effect do is to over-emphasise women's social status through the body, whilst understating or marginalising women's powers of social and political exchange (Lewis, 1993).
Snipers in the School
The most common type of cathected experience reported by women principals comes in the form of generalised harassment usually from individual males or groups of male teachers, but also from superintendents, bureaucrats and parents. Mostly negative cathexis is evident in what one woman referred to as the 'snipers' in the school. The women perceive 'snipers' as mostly comprising men, representative of hegemonic masculinity, who become the judges, jurors and sensors of a woman principal. 'Snipers' scrutinise the woman principal's work for mistakes and omissions and will take the oppositional view to what she says or does as a matter of course, in a manner which is 'dressed up' as professionalism.
Hence, cathexis, as it is most commonly played out in the day-to-day lives of women principals, concerns people who 'get on your case and undermine you' (Woman Principal), through attempts to embarrass, ridicule, deride, disagree, through constantly requiring explanations and refusing to accept a woman principal's authority. The behaviours also include constant questioning and 'nit-picking', accusations, 'back-handed' remarks and commentary which women principals perceive as being designed to make their lives as difficult as possible and to put them off their stride (cf. Franzway, 1999). One woman explained:
'I get a lot of people who'll test the boundaries. There's a group in every school that gives the principal a hard time. ... And they usually sit at the back of the staffroom, and they are usually men - usually middle-aged. They will challenge a female principal and a young female principal. There's always a sniper in your group. You'll get up in a staff meeting and they'll shoot the left field question or the left field statement and you always know where it's going to come from. It was very disconcerting to start with. They test your boundaries, test your knowledge, and see how far you'll let them take this. You have to make the decision about how to react to it - to ignore it and take it, to deal with it humorously or aggressively. It depends on the circumstances how I respond.'
(Woman Principal).
This woman understands that it is gendered experience that requires her to have to 'manage the difference'. Many studies show how women in authority are much more likely to have their authority challenged than men in the same position (e.g., Cockburn, 1991; Ramsay, 1995; Bondurant & White, 1996). Men's oppositional behaviour towards a woman principal is usually supported by other men (and occasionally by women), and is digressional, rather than developmental to the task in hand. This was mentioned as a common situation in staff meetings, where mens' oppositional behaviours are perceived as an attempt to subvert the power of the principal:
'What makes me really angry is when people bring things up at staff meetings against management - the "why has this been allowed to happen?" type of stuff - and yet they never come and see me first. They could bring any problems or concerns to me directly, but they much prefer the kudos of an audience. It happens all the time over petty things.'
(Woman Principal)
This principal reports that women staff members perceive that such behaviours had not been so noticeable during the time of her male predecessor.
Cathected behaviours reflect persistent and subtle gender differences drawn from socio-cultural-historical traditions which position men as the controllers of public discourse and decision making - as discursive managers of the public mind. They maintain a status quo of male privilege and women's marginalisation. One woman observed:
'It's the way people look or stare at you, it's in what is said and in what questions are asked. It's the psychology of being watched and challenged. It can be very subtle and covert, but you can't miss it. You are reading it for what it is.'
(Woman principal)
Mateship System of Male Affiliations
In their discussions, many women spoke about male networks which perpetuated the bi-polar structure of cathexis. The principals were highly aware of the benefits of masculine homosocialisation - the mateship system of male affiliations, which exclude women.
Homosocialisation can be observed in many staffrooms, within district groups of principals, within the education bureaucracy and within the academy. Women principals viewed homosocialisation as a blatant form of cathected practice, which marginalises women, excluding them from informal information sharing, decision-making and resources. These age-old practices in education systems uncover their 'moral exclusions' (Fine, 1992, p. 114). Furthermore, as Fine (1992, p.114) found, 'much of what [holds] the insiders together [are] feelings of superiority to the excluded group outside'. Once uncovered of its innocent explanations of mateship, 'tradition', and women's disinterest in being involved, these activities are seen as precluding women from collegial support, whilst extending the burden of household, child or aged care responsibilities to the women who partner the men involved.
Threats to identity and other negative consequences of the structure of cathexis incur effects which impact more severely on women than on men, according to the principals interviewed. The effects of abuse that goes unresolved, and the continual re-running of these episodes of violence, have corporeal effects which accrete over time. The women recorded a long list of physical, psychological, behavioural and emotional effects which they attributed mainly to the cathected aspects of the job. This is a major reason why they view the structure of cathexis as the most difficult with which to contend and as the most difficult to explain and understand. Women generally keep these issues to themselves - put on their public persona and hide their private passions/emotions. As Bacchi (1990, p.118) states, 'in the cut and thrust of the market place, admitting vulnerability is tantamount to admitting failure'. The current market-liberal policy regime appears to be supporting such an 'individualised' view of the world.
Structural Reform and Cathexis
How did women principals relate to issues of cathexis to a study on the structural reform agenda? The women principals perceived that cathected aspects of the gender regime in state education are connected to the structural reform agenda in many ways.
The women principals believe that issues of harassment and abuse are increasing, and explain them as a psychological outcome of competitive individualism and the cavalier entrepreneurialism implicit in neo-liberal/free market policy regimes which amplify work individuation, competition, reduce co-operation and diminish support structures. It is viewed as a triumph of the 'private' over the 'public'; of the individual over the collective.
The women principals perceive a lack of internal consistency within a constantly restructuring education system, with breakdowns in communication, cross-'divisional' co-ordination and inequitable resource allocation being problems that precipitate further restructurings. The competition for scarce resources is becoming too concentrated. There is too much resting on self-interest for the system to operate in a cohesive, consistent and co-operative way.
Furthermore, women are perceived as part of the 'problem' for men. Harassment and abuse are perceived as indicators of antagonisms, antipathy and competition within the gender regime, as contradictions and tensions become more pronounced. Men's interests would be better served if the separation of public/private spheres as predominantly male/female preserves were reasserted more stridently. A backlash against feminism, equal opportunities and equity policies, and widespread perverted beliefs about affirmative action strategies (which have never been used in principal appointments) is an effect of this frustration. Faludi (1992) explains what is happening here:
' ... the anti-feminist backlash has been set off not by women's achievement of full equality but by the increased possibility that they might win it. It is a pre-emptive strike that stops women long before they reach the finishing line.' (Faludi, 1992, p. 14)
Ball (1987) argues that competent women are discriminated against because of the threat they pose to men's identity in competition:
'The argument is that men who find themselves challenged and beaten by a woman will experience a particular threat to their self-esteem and their belief system. One way of dealing with such threats is to develop hostility towards that which poses the threat - the high-performing woman'. (Ball, 1987, p. 297).
Buchan agrees:
'Efficient and competent females are constantly diminished. Seen as threatening, they are the target for denigrating comments about their femininity. There are numerous overt and covert pressures designed to encourage women to step gracefully aside and let men move up the ladder.' (Buchan, cited in Ball, 1987, p. 208).
This points to problems within the construction of the state's equal employment opportunities policies as supporting same/equal treatment and meritocracy rather than focusing on inherent inequalities in terms of power and hierarchy in employment within the education system.
A deeply held conviction, supported by many male staff, is that it is the boys and men who are now 'disadvantaged', and that gender equity policies which focus on women and girls should be replaced by those supporting men and boys. Gender equity is often not conceived as pertaining to both sexes, but rather is viewed in a competitive way which suggests that feminism is largely to blame for mens'/boys' current 'disadvantage' (cf. Kenway, 1997; Gill & Starr, 1999, forthcoming).
The women principals believed that in a culture where political correctness' has been derailed, people are more apt to vent their views and anger in a hostile way, particularly to a woman principal who may be perceived as part of 'the problem', as well as being perceived as less powerful and less threatening than a male principal. Hostile behaviours are also viewed as an outcome of the legitimation crisis in the state where coercion is the chief means of achieving compliance with unpopular values, reforms and restructurings.
Cathexis is evident in a more strident instatement of masculine power and culture in the gender regime of the education system - particularly in leadership positions in schools and in educational bureaucracies. Feminist agendas have been marginalised within education bureaucracies and women have been marginalised from significant power and capital. The women also believe that the principalship is in a weakened structural position, with principals' voices being distanced from policy making. Policy makers are predominantly bureaucrats and ministerial staffers who are positioned as the theorists, decision makers, developers, resource allocators and overseers. Principals are positioned as practitioners, advice-seekers, policy implementers, resource recipients and the overseen. Over the past decade the educational bureaucracy has become a more male dominated institution, with very few women appearing in the ranks of 'executive' management.
Conclusion
The women interviewed are adamant that the 'body-as-woman-secondary-principal' gives rise to cathected associations for many people which ultimately discriminate against and marginalise women in the principalship.
The structure of cathexis is a form of signification of gender difference and, therefore, of power differentials and oppression. The women principals in this research perceive that cathexis in the gender regime in education systems has become more overtly anti-feminist, particularly in light of neo-liberal ideals about competitive individualism, and conservative notions about women's 'place'. In this way, the women argue that cathected behaviours are often motivated by stereotypical assumptions about gender appropriate locations and activities within the gender order. The secondary principalship attracts behaviours towards women incumbents that suggest to them that they are viewed as 'trespassers' and 'unruly'.
It is clear that restructuring and reform in education have done nothing to restructure and reform gender relations in educational administration. In particular, the women's accounts suggest that negative emotional and gendered attachments are ascribed to women principals and that they occur both in spite of, and through, recent policy shifts. While policy continues to embrace a stringent rational, technical, procedural and coercive approach which elides the affective and the psychological, women will continue to be disadvantaged in the principalship. However, hope resides in Connell's (1987) assertion, that hostility and disaffection accompanies 'crisis tendencies' in the gender order. Women must not be deterred. Despite the opposition encountered, a more strident assertion of anti-feminist behaviours and activities are indicative that women might be getting somewhere and must not be put off their quest for equality between the sexes.
_____________________________________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr Karen Starr is Chief Writer of the South Australian Curriculum, Standards and Accountability Project (SACSA) which will be implemented in state, Catholic and independent schools and pre-schools in South Australia in 2001. The SACSA is being prepared by the University of South Australia in collaboration with the Council of Educational Associations of South Australia (CEASA). Prior to this appointment, Karen Starr was a principal in state secondary schools in South Australia. Her doctoral thesis was entitled: 'That Roar Which Lies on the Other Side of Silence: An Analysis of Women Principals' Responses to Structural Reform in South Australian Education'.
Karen Starr can be contacted by email at:
karen.starr@unisa.edu.au
_____________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Bacchi, C. L. (1990) Same Difference: Feminism And Sexual Difference. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Ball, S. J. (1987) The Micro-Politics Of The School: Towards A Theory Of School Organization. London: Routledge.
Bondurant, B. & White, J. W. (1996) 'Men Who Sexually Harass: An Embedded Perspective'. In Shrier, D. (Ed) Sexual Harassment in The Workplace And Academia. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press Inc.
Cockburn, C. (1991) In The Way Of Women: Men's Resistance To Sex Equality In Organizations. London: Macmillan.
Connell, R. W. (1987) Gender And Power: Society, The Person and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Faludi, S. (1992) Backlash: The Undeclared War Against Women. London: Chatto & Windus.
Fine, M. (1992) Disruptive Voices: The Possibilities Of Feminist Research. Michigan: The University Of Michigan Press.
Franzway, S. (1999) By Any Means Possible: Strategic Debates and Dilemmas. Paper presented at the University of South Australia, Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences, Magill Campus, 20 May.
Gill, J. & Starr, K. E. (1999) 'Gender And Schooling: Still Making The Difference?' In Johnson, B. & Reid, A. (Eds) Contesting The Curriculum. Brisbane: Social Science Press.
Gill, J. & Starr, K. (forthcoming - 2000) 'Sauce for the Goose: Deconstructing the Boys-in-Education Push'. In Discourse: The Australian Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 21, No.3.
Hollway, W. (1994) 'Separation, Integration and Difference: Contradictions In A Gender Regime'. In Radtke, H. L. & Stam, H. J. (Eds) Power/Gender: Social Relations In Theory And Practice. London: SAGE Publications.
Kenway, J. (Ed) (1997) 'Will Boys Be Boys? Boys' Education'. In The Context of Gender Reform. Deakin West, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Lewis, M. G. (1993) Without A Word: Teaching Beyond Women's Silence. New York: Routledge.
Paechter, C. (1998) Educating The Other: Gender, Power And Schooling. London: The Falmer Press.
Ramsay, E. (1995) 'Management, Gender And Language: Who Is Hiding Behind The Glass Ceiling And Why Can't We See Them?' In Limerick, B. & Lingard, B. (eds.) Gender and Changing Educational Management. Rydalmere, NSW: Hodder Education.
Starr, K. (1998) 'Power and Production in Site-based Management: The Responses of Women Principals to Structural Reform in South Australian Education'. In South Australian Educational Leader, Centre for the Study of Public Education, Vol. 9, No 4, November.
|
|
| | |
