Gender and the Creative Voice: Addressing Misconceptions of Masculinity and Femininity in the Art Classroom
John Sharp
Columbia College Chicago
Action Research Brief
Ignorance is maintained through cultures of silence. As I reflect upon my student teaching experience, I have come to face a very real reality that has wormed its way through repressive histories and directly into the seats that filled my very classroom. In my elementary student teaching placement, I realized that while the classroom was full of books about the arts, I could not find one in which a female artist was the focus. In another instance, a school librarian approached me and offered me a book on women in art history stating, “In all my years here, no one has ever checked this book out, I thought maybe you could use it.” Engaging students in both reflective and analytical dialogue has played a significant role in the shaping of my personal pedagogy. However, as discussions developed in my classroom, I noticed that the majority of contributing voice was primarily of the male students. Even female students who were extremely competent in both their knowledge and execution of artistic processes were silent. Is it possible that even in my own classroom that, somehow, female students have been disallowed to have a voice on even subjective matters, especially as it relates to art and the creative voice? (This creative voice is referring to the visual depiction of one’s voice, that is their artwork.) So what happened to their voice?
Action Research Question:
How can I ensure both male and female learners have an equal creative voice in the art classroom?
Sub-questions:
- How can I help students understand common misconceptions of masculine and feminine in the art classroom?
- How do the differences in male and female adolescent development affect student engagement in the art classroom?
Literature Review
While the silencing of women in the visual arts as a means of professional endeavor certainly predates the Impressionist era, the 19th century provides an orthodox example that remains, in part, even until the present age. Women, especially the unwed, of the 19th century were commonly ostracized and reviled if they were to make appearances in public without a chaperone. As a result, they were persuaded to develop interests in music, crafts, and visual arts; all of which were limited to the company of other women and in the privacy of their own homes. Of course, these were not a means of professional development as were the case of their male counterparts, but rather a method of self-refinement.
The greatest obstacle to the integration of the female creative voice in art was found in the commonly subjective experiences they portrayed in their work. Such subjectivity was highly discouraged and even discriminated against by the male dominated art establishment. While the women’s suffrage movement proved great advances for women’s rights, the contemporary feminist art movement, foreran by Judy Chicago in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, “broke from conventional artistic subjects, methods, and pedagogy to find new ways to represent female experiences and make it more possible for female art students to succeed as professionals” (Fields, 2012).
Considering this repressive history, why have women, historically and even now, been disallowed to have a voice on subjective matters, especially as it relates to art and the creative voice? This creative voice is referring to the visual depiction of one’s voice, that is their artwork. What happened to their voice? Psychologist Carol Gilligan (1982) posited curiosity as to how men, when speaking of themselves and their human experience do so with such little regard to their connection to women, as if they were not part of themselves? For that matter, Gilligan (1982) begged the question, “How do women come to speak of themselves as though they were selfless, as if they did not have a voice or did not experience desire?”
The values of American culture have been deeply rooted in the precepts of independence and self-governance. Gilligan (1982) understood that calling these matters into question could be easily perceived as questioning the concept of freedom itself. The questioning of freedom is not the greater picture, according to Gilligan (1982), but rather the consideration of fragmented human relationships and the dissipation of voice.
Although the extent of dominance varies from culture to culture, the dominant male voice is one that has transcended cultures for millennia. According to Julia T. Wood (1993), the whole weight of our culture- as well as accepted theories of moral reasoning- lay behind the male voice.
To stand in the shadow of all of this poses a great responsibility for today’s educator. In particular, how can the 21st century art teacher be sure that they are affording both male and female learners an equal creative voice? Conquering such an obligation will require art educators to do three things: recognize the misconceptions of the feminine and masculine, understand the differences of male and female development, and, ultimately, encourage equity of creative voice.
Perhaps the most common misconception is not a matter of who has silenced the female voice, but rather a matter of how it has been silenced. To begin understanding this, Gilligan (1982) suggested that to identify gender by either strictly biological or societal determinations leaves no room for a voice. Rather she suggested that gender is a product of both and therefore so is the human voice. Furthermore, to operate under the conception that masculine and feminine is biological, according to Becky Francis (2010), raises both the challenge of identifying and categorizing behavior and further perpetuates cultural stereotypes that disempower otherwise talented individuals. When students and teachers, both male and female, contend that masculine and feminine behavior is determined by strict biological attributes, mainly sex, they misunderstand that there are distinct and equally valid ways of conceiving and expressing selfhood and connections with others. As a result, they tend to perceive their way as exclusive and others’ as inferior. Historically, according to Anna Milanowicz and Barbara Bokus (2013), the male developmental experience has been considered the normative standard, which has resulted in a severe misinterpretation of the female experience as either an anomaly or a developmental failure. What then are the inherent differences that have shaped such cultural stereotypes of the masculine and feminine and repressed an equitable voice between men and women for so long?
One of the greatest differences in gender are those that relate to the moral development patterns of males and females. Carol Gilligan, diverged from the idea of a single dimension of moral reasoning. In doing so she revealed that men and women differ in how they “view relationships and how they apply interpretive frameworks” (Milanowics & Bokus, 2013). Additionally, her research suggested that females are concerned with showing care by responding compassionately to the needs of others. On the other hand, Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory suggested males believe one should be fair and just by impartially respecting other’s rights (Wood, 1993). Furthermore, the significant difference between men and women, according to Gilligan (1982) is a matter of what she describes as “relational errors.” This fault prescribes that men know women the better they know themselves, while women come to know themselves the more they know others. As a result, Gilligan (1982) determined men and women each share in “building relationships around a silence that is maintained by men not knowing their disconnection from women and women not knowing their disconnection from themselves.” As a result, what has been revered as “masculine” or “feminine” is the result of an outstanding debt of ignorance maintained by silence. Consequently, these social constructs ensue in the classroom.
As a result of this silence, a significant pitfall for the female/feminine is what Elizabeth Bell (2004) referred to as playing “The Good Girl.” Bell (2004) defined “The Good Girl” as one who is influenced by "cultural pressure to conform to the dominant conventional image of the ideal, perfect girl—who is always nice and good, who never hurts other people's feelings and who contains her feelings, especially anger." As a result, these “good girls” often subject themselves to pedagogy of shame and learned helplessness. According to Bell (2004), self-deprecating their work is a strategy to invite pity and easier grading. Their “helplessness” manifests itself in pursuing subjective desires vicariously through others. This however, is not solely “The Good Girl’s” fault. The heaviest perpetuation of “The Good Girl’s” identity is at every step that guides a teacher to look past the female student to seek the ideas and attitudes of boys. In turn, that girl is conditioned to comply and be silent (Bell, 2004). How then is a teacher, especially an art teacher, to better ensure equity among the voices of their students?
In a study among her students, Wood (1993) discovered, in regards to moral voices, most women and some men adopt the voice of care, most men and some women endorse the voice of fairness, and some members of each sex employ voices that blend attention to caring and fairness. More recent research confirms Wood’s assessment. Milanowics and Bokus (2013) sought to discover if “females think and act differently when confronted with other females than they do with males, and if males process and report information differently depending on the gender of their recipient.” Congruent with Wood’s research, their results indicated moral orientation is not only gender-specific but also context-dependent. The same can be implied for the creative voice. Just as the moral voice determines ethical decision-making, the creative voice reveals the core of one’s intentions, beliefs, and emotions expressed through art. Neither the moral or creative voice is to be determined by the social expectations of the “feminine” or “masculine.”
The goal of the teacher is to recognize the silences in the classroom and to counteract the pre-eminence of and deference to male voices, and to question gendered notions of voice as masculine (Bell, 2004). Engaging the classroom in this way can initially be very intimidating, and is not likely to shift overnight. The foremost concept to be understood by both the art teacher and the student is there is no “correct” voice. According to Joscha Legewie and Thomas DiPrete (2016) the past thirty years have proved a steady decline in overt discrimination of girls in the classroom, yet the recent studies suggest that the voice of boys in the classroom maintains dominant. Teachers should take heed that equity of voice only exists by definition if the treatment of that voice maintains fair and impartial. Regardless of whose voice has been silenced longer, the voices must exist in an equitable and shared space where no voice is applauded at the expense of another.
Nevertheless, Bell (2004) suggested that a first bridge to equity in student voice is to take a "talk-time tally." This is to literally count who speaks, how often, and for how long. This provides the teacher, as well as the students, with a very practical and quantitative assessment of who is having the greater voice in the classroom. To regulate and promote equity in student voice, Bell (2004) also provides the “penny to talk” system. Every student is given three pennies at the beginning of class. Each student can only use the three they are given, but each student must use all of their pennies. Subsequently, the over talkers are required to be more self-reflective while the reserved and silent students are encouraged to speak up. These strategies are just a few practical ways to raise awareness of silence and encourage voice in the classroom.
However, affording both male and female learners an equal creative voice must be more than a series of isolated practices. Rather it requires re-inventing the culture of the classroom into what Lawrence Kohlberg (1977) described as a “just community.” School has commonly been viewed as a “values enterprise,” according to Kohlberg (1977) but not a moral institution. In order for teachers to understand the differences and ultimately facilitate the progression of male and female moral development, Kohlberg (1977) implores educators to “help students consider genuine moral conflicts, think about the reasoning they use in solving such conflicts, see inconsistencies and inadequacies in their way of thinking and find ways of resolving them.” In order to avoid shallow and pedantic discourse, that very well might include a myriad of voices, classroom discussion, according to Kohlberg (1977), must be part of a broader and more enduring involvement of students in the social and moral functioning of the school. Furthermore, teachers should challenge students with moral issues faced at large by their communities as real dilemmas that demand their attention and contribution rather than an anecdotal situation in which a set of predetermined rules by the teacher should be applied. The most significant means to acquiring this “community of justice” depends on the teacher’s willingness to provide an atmosphere which determines the mode of voice to be heard based on principle rather than power.
Recent research substantiates Kohlberg’s call to action as Joscha Legewie and Thomas A. DiPrete (2016) focused on debunking that only girls view school work as acceptable and sometimes even encouraged while working for academic achievement, which by contrast for boys, is considered as feminine and thereby stigmatized by their peers. Their findings concluded, “boys' resistance to school is not purely a function of either their class background - as many studies suggest - or the fact of their masculinity – as other research suggests - but instead depends on schools' and classrooms' local cultural environment.”
With this culture in mind, Wood (1993) found that students actually began to engage in remarkably open dialogue with each other as they explored different ways of understanding and responding to one another. When this is the culture that is invited into the art classroom, defensiveness can be replaced by interest and genuine excitement for learning can ensue. The male/masculine students can begin to open up outside of themselves and the female/feminine students can feel more liberated to express their creative voice without ridicule or humiliation.
Tracy X. Karner (1991) revealed a profound observation that the realm of art offers no formalized criteria for evaluating competence. That is, the very subjectivity that has been repressed from the female voice but embraced by the male/masculine is, in fact, what defines art to begin with. Furthermore, Karner (1991) drew attention to expert evaluations of student work at the San Francisco Art Institute, which concluded that there were no discrepancies in the ability or the quality of the work based on sex differences. The fact is, both male and female artists themselves define the act of creating art in a similar way. The cornerstone of establishing an equitable culture of voice in the classroom is determined by students’ and teachers’ willingness to understand that one’s artistic capacity and ability to express a creative voice is not determined by sex or gender assumptions alone.
It should be noted, however, that the concept of equality in the human voice must be deeper than just the individual recognizing that they have a voice. The deeper implications of equality are worked out through cultures and societies developing a greater understanding and acceptance of the various male/masculine and female/feminine voices that transcend sex alone. The concept of equality in creative voice is not limited to strictly the sex/gender centric voice. In addition to the repressed voice of the female/feminine in the creative arts, there still remains the silenced voice of a multitude of cultures, ethnicities, intellectual and developmental capacities, and many others- all of which should be considered by the educator. Teaching to these exciting differences will result in a culture that promotes both an awareness and appreciation for human diversity and creative voice.
Data Collection Tools:
Data Analysis:
Sub Question 1: How can I help students understand common misconceptions of masculine and feminine in visual art?
- Source One- Artist gender pre-assessment (Appendix A)
- Source Two- Masculine/Feminine character inventory worksheet (Appendix B)
- Source Three- “I used to think…but now I think” reflection essay (Appendix C)
Sub Question 2: How do the differences in male and female adolescent development affect student engagement in the classroom?
- Source One: Talk Time Tally (Appendix D)
- Source Two- Penny-to-Talk (Appendix E)
- Source Three- Student designed classroom norms for critiques and open discussion (Appendix F)
Action Research Plan Timeline:
First Quarter (Week 1-4):
- Share action research plan with other department faculty and administrators
- Prepare art and gender unit materials
- Distribute and collect artist gender pre-assessment
- Distribute and collect masculine/feminine character inventory worksheet
- Student designed classroom norms for critiques and open discussion
- Talk time tally- for teacher data
- Penny-to-Talk- for teacher and student data
Second Quarter (Week 2-8)
- Talk time tally- for teacher data
- Penny-to-Talk- for teacher and student data
- Revisions to student designed classroom norms for critiques and open discussion
Third Quarter (9-12):
- Revisions to student designed classroom norms for critiques and open discussion
Final Quarter (13-16):
- Revisions to student designed classroom norms for critiques and open discussion
- Distribute and collect student “I used to think…But now I think” reflection essay
- Share results of research with department faculty and administrators
- Prepare future curriculum based upon research results
Obstacles and Opportunities:
The foremost obstacle I anticipate is that not all students, parents, or faculty will share the same willingness to make themselves vulnerable toward developing a greater understanding and acceptance of the various male/masculine and female/feminine voices that transcend sex alone. Engaging in these procedures may be especially difficult for students who come from cultures that enforce strict gender roles and social expectations. In lieu of this obstacle, I am presented with a tremendous opportunity. Raising an awareness of masculinity and femininity as variously demonstrated through art histories will not only allow students to better understand the identities and creative voice of others, but their own as well.
Appendix
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
References
Bell, E., & Golombisky, K., (2004) Voices and silences in our classrooms: Strategies for
mapping trails among sex/gender, race, and class. Women's Studies in
Communication. 27 (3) 294-329. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.
1080/07491409.2004.10162478?journalCode=uwsc20
Fields, J., (2012) Frontiers in feminist art history. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 33
(2) p.21.Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/fronjwomestud.33.2.
0001?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Francis, B., (2010) Re/theorizing gender: Female masculinity and male femininity in
the classroom? Gender and Education. 22 (5) 477–490. Retrieved from http://eds.b.
ebscohost.com.emils.lib.colum.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=9d60dce
2-850a-45bd-9bed-edfcbd736b5a@sessionmgr112&hid=112
Gilligan, C., (1982) In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Karner, T. K., (1991). Gender and evaluation in fine art. Mid-American Review of Sociology. 15 (1)
53-69. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23252938?&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents
Kohlberg, L. & Hersh, H. R., (1977) Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into
Practice, Moral Development 16 (2) 53-59. Retrieved from: http://links.jstor.org/sici
?sici=0040-5841%28197704%2916%3A2%3C53%3AMDAROT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23
Legewie, J. & DiPrete A. T., (2012) School context and the gender gap in educational
achievement. American Sociological Review. 77 (3) 463-485 Published by:
American Sociological Association
Milanowicz, A. & Bokus, B., (2013) Gender and moral judgments: The role of who is speaking
to whom. Journal of Gender Studies. 22 (4) 423–443, Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org
/10.1080/09589236.2012.719314
Wood, J. T., (1993) Bringing different voices into the classroom. NWSA Journal, 5 (1) 82-93.
Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4316240?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents