Amana Mattos is an associate professor at the Institute of Psychology at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (Uerj). Her work deals with Developmental Psychology and Political Psychology, addressing topics such as “youth and adolescence”, “freedom”, “feminist theory” and “political subjectification”.
In this interview, Amana talks about positive perspectives and challenges for schools, professionals and the education system, which take into account care, gender issues and the emergence of new technologies.
1) For you, how important is teacher training that takes gender issues into account?
Teachers occupy places where content and values are transmitted at school. I understand that, for this reason, their stances on gender issues have a strong impact on the subjectivation of children and young people. Today, when we talk about “gender issues” at school, it is common to think about homo and transphobia, which are serious problems in our society. But not only that. Teachers reproduce gender stereotypes and sexist behaviors in their relationships with students on a daily basis without realizing it. It is common to see educators telling children that “girls cannot behave like that because they are ugly”, “boys have to be strong, not cry, and play football”. These are clichés that we see reproduced all the time in classrooms and school yards, and that directly contribute to the formation of bodies and ways of boys and girls understanding themselves in the world, dealing with each other, with differences.
Pedagogy courses are extremely flawed in offering critical perspectives on gender and sexuality. When they enter this topic, they do so through conservative theories of developmental psychology, which naturalize sexual differences in socialization processes. This type of approach does not provide tools for teachers to discuss and work on intolerance towards different bodies, machismo, homo and transphobia at school and in society. I see that it is necessary to bring this discussion to pedagogy courses and teaching degrees and offer spaces for continued training so that educators can discuss these issues throughout their professional careers. It takes a lot of work to deconstruct naturalized ideas.
2) You carry out research on some emerging practices in contemporary schools. Talk a little about the perspective of ethics of care as an alternative to the simple transmission of knowledge from teachers to students.
It is important to emphasize that the discussion I make about the ethics of care is completely within the field of feminist theories. I say this because I have observed a growing interest in this term “care” in the field of health (psychology included) and law, but without basic problematizations about care. For example, much is said about “teacher or professional caregiver” without clearly mentioning that the professions linked to care are female professions. The term is used in masculine terms, but in practice we find the teacher, the psychologist, the social worker, the nurse... This invisibilization of women in these professions means that important characteristics of this work are left aside. For example: dealing with the other's body, at different levels, is part of caring. If we are talking about early childhood education, this is very clear. The teacher has a closeness to the children's bodies that is often confused with the mother's (once again, women's) functions. Why do we make this invisible? If we talk more directly about this woman-care association, it is even possible to problematize this. Why are there so few male teachers in early childhood education? Why does our society insist on stating that men should not take care of the bodies of people who are in vulnerable situations (children, the elderly, the sick)? If we put this into question, perhaps we can reflect on the fact that our society prohibits certain toys for boys, such as dolls, playgroups and other toys that refer to the domestic universe. Returning to your question, I have been trying to think about how our school diminishes the importance of relationships of care between teachers and students, valuing only the “transmission of knowledge”. However, for children and young people to learn, this care is essential. If we focus more on these experiences, discuss them more at school, perhaps we can discover ways that value a lot of school experiences that are not “evaluated” or “scored” by tests, saerjinhos, enens and quetais, but that are part of who these people are. people who live at school, who graduate every year. And, of course, we will be able to discuss more openly about the countless gender issues that permeate this experience.
3) How is it possible, in the school environment, to deal with the emergence of new interactive and real-time technologies, which place children and young people in a position of greater independence in relation to teachers?
It is interesting to realize that Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are a problem for schools as they want to say in advance what needs to be learned, known and mastered. There, ICTs will certainly be a problem, since children and young people can very quickly access content that teachers want to provide pedagogically, in homeopathic doses. I think it is necessary to recognize that the new generations will master much better than their teachers the equipment and gadgets that are appearing every day on the market. However, educators can use this ability to their advantage, engaging students in activities that require these skills with a focus on the content to be covered in the discipline. Furthermore, I think that the fact that we are immersed in images – in advertising campaigns, in newspapers and news portals, in consumer goods – opens up a huge field of discussion for teachers to explore. It is essential that we read these images, work on the ideas that support them.
All of these activities certainly require preparation from teachers, exchange with colleagues who have had similar experiences, and discussion. I see that there is a lot to be achieved in the format of our current schools to allow this type of work – but, even so, there are already many, many professionals who carry out activities in this direction.
4) In what sense can seeing the student as a subject who has the capacity to act and decide about what they want from school benefit education practices?
Our school (when I say ours I refer to the modern school and, specifically, the Brazilian one) is deeply marked by hierarchies that superimpose the authority of those who know more over those who know less, the hierarchies of those who are more experienced over those who are less, and, in the case of public schools, also class and race. This overlap makes the school a space that is not very open to exchanges and negotiations that call into question the places that are already given.
However, what I have observed in my research in schools is that this unshakable hierarchy has called into question the viability of schools as a space for transmission and intergenerational dialogue. When teachers are not open to this dialogue – because dialogues always bring the possibility of positions being disturbed, obviously – we see the intensification of tensions, and even open confrontations. Students who don't want to attend classes, who mess around in the courtyard, who aren't interested in the subject or don't respect teachers. For their part, teachers who abuse their authority, who humiliate students, or who simply “give up” teaching, showing up at school but not dedicating themselves to teaching.
Certainly, children and young people have something to contribute to what is taught to them. This does not mean that older generations should not guide younger generations on what they need to learn and know – the commitment to school transmission is guided by this gap. But it is important to remember that students arrive at school full of knowledge, references and ideas that need to interact with what is taught. Much of the knowledge and information that generations of teachers learned at school is already outdated or out of date, but learning to think is what remains. I believe that educators need to invent ways of talking to this other knowledge on a daily basis.
I know I'm talking about a much more complex picture when we're talking about Brazilian public schools, but it has caught my attention that the authoritarian stance of male and female teachers, which greatly bothers students, is exactly the stance that has been taken by government officials in relation to concerns public education policies. It is undeniable that there is complete disrespect towards the teaching profession in the current governments, and the strikes that are taking place at the moment only make this clear. This authoritarian stance of the government does not contribute anything to improving education, and I would venture to say that it is often reproduced in the classroom.
5) How can a school that starts to consider relationships of care and dialogue between teachers and students as a teaching/learning practice function as a space for transforming gender norms?
Firstly, because by understanding that care is part of training, certain activities become more valued. This understanding is not at all easy, especially because, when we look around, everything tells us that care should not be valued: early childhood education teachers earn much less than high school teachers; professionals (mostly women) who take care of the school space – cleaners, lunch ladies – earn much less than professionals who transmit knowledge; Mothers are always invited to meetings about the school's day-to-day activities (which have everything to do with caring for students and teachers) and much less so are fathers (because there is a tacit idea that they have “more important” things to do). Therefore, I believe that valuing these care practices – including economically! – is a way of breaking gender stereotypes, which not only demarcate the places of men and women in our society, but mainly, hierarchize these places.
It is also a way for us to think about what bodies the school has strived to produce. Do girls who have interests in clothes, games and subjects considered “boyish” have a guaranteed place at school?
Do boys who do things considered “girly” find space at school?
Are transgender children and teenagers welcomed in everyday school life? Many studies and statistics have shown us that this is not the case. The school is still very much at the service of reproducing gender binarism, a grim and conservative binarism, which does not take into account the countless possibilities for the sexes to exercise and invent themselves. But school is also the place where most children and teenagers spend a lot of their time, and where many meetings and exchanges take place. I have increasingly invested in giving space to these productions, letting their unpredictable exercise point us towards directions and paths towards education. It has been a very exciting challenge.
Comments