Category: Volume 4

Aaron Barcant

 

I explore the concept of language in the English-speaking Caribbean through a feminist postcolonial & anti-colonial lens. I explore language not as a typical linguist would but in the context of language as social fabric which constitutes power. I will organize this paper into two parts. First, I will set the stage with a brief description of the Caribbean landscape through the lens of language. Here I will focus on the case of Trinidad to understand the importance of the English language to the British colonial agenda. I do this to draw forth the argument that the British colonizers understood the power of language and utilized it in their conquests of Empire expansion and consolidation, manifested both socially and institutionally; calculated to a degree where they made great efforts in their time of rule to ensure it became an essential component of identity. Second, I will then contest the colonial discourse of successful domination and imposition of language in the English-speaking Caribbean by highlighting the prominence of multiple hybrids which serve as acts of identity and resistance to the dominant order. The case of Rastafari, Reggae, and Dub Poetry will then be explored to indicate key and globally successful forms of resistance to colonial domination. I put forth that it was the recognition of the importance of language, and the disciplined focus on resistance through language that gave agency to these downpressed peoples.

Prior to the ‘discovery’ of the ‘New World’ the Caribbean was populated through a series of waves of settlement by peoples spanning the period from 4000 B.C. – 1500-1600 A.D. In Languages of the pre-Columbian languages of the Antilles (2004) archaeological and linguistic data is used to map the language communities of the Caribbean region. At the time of Spanish intervention there were seven different speech communities in the Antilles (p.123). Evidence shows Ortoiroid sites existing in Trinidad from 5250 to 450 B.C. (Rouse 1992:62; Rouse and Allarie 1979:108-109 cited in Granberry, 2004). In Trinidad and Tobago (TT) there existed at least 10 known pre-Columbian languages spoken by a variety of peoples of different origins. None of these languages remain with native speakers in these islands, though there exists a rich legacy through topographical names (Adonis and Ferriera, 2012).

Columbus claimed Trinidad for Spain on July 31, 1498 on his third voyage to the Americas. Though under Spanish rule for about three hundred years the island was neglected by prospects of other colonies, in such that it was regarded as the colonial slum of the Spanish Empire (Millette, 1970, p.1). Spain recognized the disparate and vulnerable state of the colony and in the latter half of the 18th C began to make efforts to ameliorate the situation. In 1776 a cedula was published opening to foreigners the privilege of settling in Spanish colonies on very generous terms. As such there were large influxes of peoples to the island from a variety of different backgrounds. Trinidad became ‘a French colony in all but name’; the ratio between French and Spanish citizens was twenty to one (Millette, 1970, p.25).

The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 had a consistent and visceral impact on the Caribbean colonies. In Trinidad it served to introduce new elements of instability into a fundamentally unstable society. Ideas of freedom and democracy became subjects of thought and debate amongst all aspects of the society (Millette, 1970, p.23). The revolution in St. Domingue (Haiti) further fuelled these ideas of liberation and revolt in Trinidad. Through this period Trinidad became a haven for refugees, across a full range of classes and castes (Wood, 1986, p.32). This reality became a looming threat to British colonial ambitions, and thus Trinidad became the target of British Empire. Trinidad, because of the ‘Principles and Persons which have lately been introduced there’, had become ‘a course of just alarm and real Danger to several of our most valuable Islands’ (Millette, 1970, p.35). As such in 1797 Trinidad was conquered without much resistance from the Spanish, and the first four years of the British sovereign project took form in military occupation. Trinidad became a formal British colony in 1802, Tobago in 1814, and in 1889 the two become one legal entity (Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, 2012). Britain obtained TT at the time when slavery began to be phased out, and as a result indentured labourers from India and China were brought from 1845 onwards. This dynamic has contributed significantly to the diverse linguistic repertoire of the island in many ways.

This background is important as it highlights the inseparability of language from ideology and power (Freire, 1996). It was the language of French in this context which was the catalyst for revolutionary ideas in the unique geopolitical context of Trinidad, which overdetermined the British colonial intervention. The response to this unique social setting has been a strictly regimented and institutionalized system of language imposition and constitutional engineering.

English language was initially taught to natives and slaves by missionaries, this initiated the institutionalized discourse of control through ‘liberal education’ (London, 2003, p.308). From here forward a plan was executed by the colonial power to ensure English was the primary language used both socially and institutionally. “Central to the move was an attempt to construct socially the role of a language, in this case English, and some strong ideological and cultural forces were at work to guarantee dominance not only at the time but also for today and most likely in the future” (London, 2003, p.288). In elementary schools eighty percent of the official allocated learning time was dedicated to English, as such phrases like ‘school was English and English was school’ (London, 2003, p.287) became relevant.

This British approach to language in TT was not a unique case; the ‘Macaulay Minute’ set forth an ideological praxis of language from the position of the British Empire. This discourse put forth that languages had a natural hierarchy and as such English was the language of ‘useful knowledge’ due to its refined body of philology. It was further projected that English would become the language of international communication, and by extension, ‘What was good for Hong Kong, symbolically speaking, had to be good for the Gambia’ (London, 2003, p.301).

The recognition of the impact of this approach in the current context of TT is essential when considering the argument put forth by Smith (2007) in Imperialism, History, Writing, and Theory. It must be noted that English is the vehicle through which these colonial discourses were disseminated, as Hall (2007) puts it, ‘discourse is about the production of knowledge through language’ (p.56). More specifically, it was literary formulations which gave this discourse its’ uniformity and persistence. It is fitting then that it was Edward Said (a professor in European literature) who first identified and nuanced this embodied discourse, which he referred to as Orientalism. The English language cannot be separated from the concept of the ‘other’, and creation of the ‘other’ in the discourse directed to the populations of the West. Coming back to Smith’s article, ‘language carries culture and the language of the colonizer became the means by which the mental universe of the colonized was dominated’ (p.336). In her critique of the hegemonic nature of writing, history, and theory Smith is careful not to disregard these points, but recognize them and understand that rejecting them does not diminish their existence or influence. She concludes the paper with a call to recognize the importance of relevant and useful research to indigenous communities and to ensure ‘the exercise is about recovering stories from the past. This is inextricably bound to recovery of our language and epistemological foundations’ (p.337).

In this second part of this paper I will begin to highlight the inevitable resistance to the colonial order of English language in the Caribbean. A number of these countries speak English officially, thus their populations are counted in the total global English-speaking population. Yet, if one has ever been to Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica or any of these other places one would question the hegemony embedded in these classifications.

In reality, within each island there is great diversity in how that ‘English’ is spoken; a reflection of social grouping, ethnicity, race, class, gender, sexuality, education, travel experience, and other factors. Often a foreign tourist needs translation when speaking to some local Caribbean peoples. There are many different names given to these speech forms, depending on who you ask: creole/kweyol, patois/patwah, slang, broken-english, dialect, unique accent and others. The dominant discourse surrounding creoles is characterized by the ever-present colonial dualism whereby the Creole is defined against and in subordination to the Standard. There have been many academic studies across many disciplines on Creoles (Creole Discourse, 2002). What is to be brought forth from this is the resultant deviation from the colonial ideal. Just as Black slaves could never attain the whiteness valued by the colonial order, the peoples of the Caribbean would never attain the English speech as imposed by the same colonial system. Homi Bhabha (1985) articulates this reality as a form of resistance:

resistance is not necessarily an oppositional act of political intention, nor is it the simple negation or the exclusion of the ‘content’ of another culture, as difference once perceived… [but] the effect of an ambivalence produced within the rules of recognition of dominating discourses as they articulate the signs of cultural difference. (p.153)

This is an important point with the consideration of the position of the government of Trinidad and Tobago, “Nevertheless, every Trinbagonian speaks English and you will find our charming accent one of the easiest to understand – it’s singsong like and full of flavour – just like our people!” (GORTT, 2012). This quote, taken from the government website indicates the lack of critical consciousness and resistance to colonialism/imperialism. As with the statistics, the government’s position is an erasure of any resistance to the colonial hegemony. Furthermore it shows who the government speaks to, and thus acknowledges the power hierarchy of foreign interests. This hybrid language, which the government denies, is an unconscious resistance to the colonial system. The next point of interest is the question of the product of a conscious resistance to the colonial system through the power of language.

Throughout the entire process of slavery, in the plantation engine of the capitalist economy of the Caribbean, there has been resistance. Slaves fought for freedom or death, and attempted to flee the plantations into the hills when possible. There in the hills of these islands Maroon communities were established. Each of these islands’ histories is dotted with known rebellions against the colonial system. In Jamaica,  ‘The Legacy of Tacky, Cudjoe, Nanny, Paul Bogle and Sam Sharpe was linked to the struggles of Harriet Tubman, Soujourner Truth, King Ja Ja, Chaka Zulu and King Menelik of Ethiopia’ and were known and kept alive to continue the resistance (Campbell, 1987, p. 39). Here the importance of storytelling and oral tradition inherent to African (indigenous) culture is kept alive, and serves its purpose of linking the society to grow together in knowledge.

The first Rastas were avid readers, and considered it their duty to keep informed in historical, geographical, and political contexts. In the initial organization there was consciousness with regard to the alienating effect of the power inherent in knowledge (Campbell, 1987, p.123). Thus it became fundamental that critical attention was placed on language, and the larger medium of communication. A unique, and consciously moulded language was developed; ‘Rasta Talk’, or ‘Dread Talk’ (DT). ‘This talk sought the deepest expression of racial memory, and the power of this memory was expressed in the lyrics of the Rasta song – reggae.’ (Campbell, 1987, p.124).

Rastafarians in Jamaica were in the process of creating a popular culture which was based on the spirit of resistance, combined with good humour and spirit of joy which had become part of the disposition of black peoples of the world. As capitalist relations in the society deepened, and the people had the distinct feeling that capitalism was destroying their personality, the Rastas were a section of the working poor who wanted to break the spirit of competition and individualism which permeated the society and its main institutions. (Campbell, 1987, p.121)

Drawing from Pollard (1994), Dread Talk (DT) arose out of English, consciously ‘stepped up’ to reflect position in society, philosophy, and resistance against the dominant culture. The language originally arose out of a need to speak and not be understood by the downpressors (slave masters, elite of society). It is the context of the social environment of Caribbean plantation colonies which gave rise to the urgent and resounding challenge of Rastafari. It is this violent system of slavery in all of its insidious manifestations which gave rise to a language and livity of conscious resistance. Rastafari has taken the English given by colonial powers, and ‘stepped up’ the device on a number of levels. ‘Social protest manifests itself in language change. For defiance of society includes defiance of its language’ (Pollard, 1994, p.18).

Here Fanon’s theory on violence is pertinent. As has been shown above, the colonial agenda of language imposition was a prolonged system of epistemic violence. Thus as Fanon argues, ‘at the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores self-respect’ (Fanon, 1961, p.93). This is core to the approach to language used by Rastafari which recognized the epistemic implications of the colonial system, and subverted it defiantly. This is echoed in Audre Lourde’s ever relevant and frequently quoted statement, ‘The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house’ (1984).

Rastafari and the Negritude framework were points of social organization which were race-conscious and anti-colonial. For Rastafari the platform for self representation is reggae music. For Negritude the platform for self representation is (academic) literary form. The overstanding and lived approach to language identified by Rastafari, is the essence of reggae music. The ability of this music to relate to people across the globe, in all positions (class, race, gender, or any other social construct) is the crux of its tactic of resistance. Negritude remained confined primarily to literary form, thus inaccessible to the large proportions of the social groups whom it spoke of. On the streets the symbols of Rasta and the melody of reggae are never far, while one would have to inquire to notable extents to find one versed in negritude.

The dominant number of reggae artists are male. This brings forth questions of representation within this movement of anti-colonial resistance, but is a complex reality which needs analysis. I will not go into depth here, but I will note that Rastafari cannot be removed from the colonial (patriarchal) structure it grew in resistance to. Rasta has spoken to this question; though pertinent questions are yet to be revealed in the contemporary world. I wonder about the gaps in representation and resistance that such a fact brings forth.

Vaughn Benjamin is the songwriter and lead singer of a contemporary roots/conscious reggae band known as Midnite. The band is known for its precision of beats, humility in live deliverance, and is held in high regard based on the uniqueness and critical content of the vocals. Midnite has produced an extremely large amount of albums, over 50 since their initial release in 1997.

D’bi Young is a Dub Poet of a hybrid generation. Born and raised in Jamaica, she came to Canada to study in her post-secondary years. She is critical of white (liberal) feminism (Young, 2006), for its negation of women of colours’ history of organization and self-determination. She also challenges the praxis of an academic literary base, through the use of dub poetry. Though she does not publicly define herself as Rastafari her language and ideology reflect the essence of the position of Rastafari. She has taken her life experience and channelled it into a powerful and growing praxis, which she travels and spreads in art/activist communities globally. The SORPLUSI principles are a product of a matrilineal connection to Dub Poetry in both performance and theorizing about the application of Dub Poetry to society.

Dread Talk, Reggae, and Dub Poetry are all conscious forms of resistance manifested through expression of culture. The overstanding of the importance of culture, and the role of language in maintaining and renewing culture are the essential points in these modes of resistance. They are rooted in recognition of the systemic reality of oppression which surrounds these societies, while seeking to address and confront this reality in a collective creative process. To understand DT one must have an understanding of English at its core, but once this is attained one begins the personal journey of transcending its limitations epistemologically and culturally. One can begin the journey from understanding to overstanding. This point concludes my intention; to recognize the importance language and to keep it in I consciousness through livity.

 

References

Adonis, C., & Ferreira, J. S. (2004-2012) Amerindian Languages in Trinidad and Tobago. STAN. University of the West Indies. Retrieved from http://sta.uwi.edu/stan/article13.asp

Bhabha, H.K. (1985) Signs taken for wonders: Questions of Ambivalence and Authority under a Tree outside Delhi, May 1817. Critical inquiry 12 (1), Autumn: pp. 144-165.

Devonish, H. (2010) The Language Heritage of the Caribbean: Linguistic Genocide and Resistance. Heritage Language Journal, University of the West Indies.

Fanon, F. (1961) The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.

Freire, P. (1996) Paulo Freire – An Incredible Conversation. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFWjnkFypFA

Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (2012) General Information, Language. Retrieved from http://www.ttconnect.gov.tt/gortt/portal/ttconnect/SharedDetail/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/gortt/wcm/connect/GorTT%20Web%20Content/ttconnect/home/about+t+and+t/general+information/language.

Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago (2012) General Information, History. Retrieved from http://www.ttconnect.gov.tt/gortt/portal/ttconnect/!ut/p/c1/04_

Granberry, J. & Vescelius G.S. (2004) Languages of the pre-Colombian Antilles. Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama Press.

Hall, S. (2007) The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. Das Gupta, T. Et al. (Eds), Race and racialization: Essential readings (pp.56-60). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Le Page, R.B., Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge University Press.

London, N. A. (2003). Ideology and Politics in English-Language Education in Trinidad and Tobago: The Colonial Experience and a Postcolonial Critique. Comparative Education Review, 47(3), 287.

Loomba, A. (1998) Colonialism/Postcolonialism. Routledge.

Lourde, A. (1984) The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Crossing Press.

Magnet-Johnson, C.A. (2008). Dread Talk: The Rastafarian’s Linguistic Response to Societal Oppression. Digital Archive, Georgia State University.

Millette, J. (1970) The genesis of crown colony government: Trinidad, 1783-1810. Moko Enterprises, Trinidad.

Muhleisen, S. (2002) Creole Discourse. Exploring prestige formation and change across Caribbean English-lexicon Creoles. Creole Language Library Volume 24. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Nangwaya, A. (2007) Rastafari as a Catalytic Force in Ecotourism Development in Jamaica: Development as Economic and Social Justice. UWI conference series, retrieved from http://sta.uwi.edu/conferences/salises/documents/Nangwaya%20%20A%20.pdf

Nero, S. (2006). Language, identity, and education of Caribbean English speakers. World Englishes, 25(3/4), 501-511. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2006.00470.x
Pollard, V. (1994). Dread Talk. The language of Rastafari. Canoe Press. UWI- Mona, Jamaica.

Premdas, R. R. (2011). Identity, ethnicity, and the Caribbean homeland in an era of globalization. Social Identities, 17(6), 811-832. doi:10.1080/13504630.2011.606676

Smith, L.T. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books. New York.

Smith, L. T (2007) Imperialism, History, Writing, and Theory. Das Gupta, T. Et al. (Eds), Race and racialization: Essential readings (pp. 328-338). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Wood, D. (1986) Trinidad in Transition. The Years after slavery. Oxford University Press.

Young, D (2006) ain’t I a ooman. Art on black. Toronto: Women’s Press.

Young, D (2012) r/evolution begins within. Canadian Theatre Review, Volume 150 (pp.126-129). Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/canadian_theatre_review/toc/ctr.150.html.

Cléo Mathieu

 

Le mouvement queer occidental, éclos au début des années 1990, est une contestation radicale de la prédominance du modèle binaire de genres et des stigmatisations sociales en dérivant. L’appartenance queer signifie un refus d’appartenance à l’hétéronormativité, un refus d’être identifié-e/désigné-e comme homme ou femme, et par conséquent comme hétéro, homo ou bisexuel-le (puisque les individus correspondant à ces catégories doivent au préalable s’identifier/être identifié-e-s comme appartenant à un sexe ou à l’autre). L’auto-identification comme adhérent de la théorie queer implique une opposition au conformisme et à l’absence de questionnement de la norme hégémonique. C’est une bravade aux  modèles établis, une déconstruction des catégories sexuelles imposées par le système hégémonique patriarcal : c’est une tentative d’abolir la pathologisation systématique des formes de sexualités considérées comme ‘’déviantes’’ par la société, d’abolir les formes d’aliénation basées sur le sexe. La principale force du mouvement queer contre la domination patriarcale réside dans l’adaptation permanente qui lui est sous-jacente: elle défie le concept de catégories en refusant d’y adhérer. Quoique cela soit discutable et discuté parmi les rangs même des militant-e-s queer : autant la «multitude sexuelle» qu’elle prône semble satisfaire certains puisqu’elle déconstruit le modèle binaire hétéronormatif, autant semble-t-elle insuffisante pour d’autres puisque la déconstruction mise en oeuvre n’est que partielle – il s’agit encore de catégories, quoique d’une multitude de catégories…

∞

Le concept de «multitude sexuelle» est au coeur de l’argumentaire de Beatriz Preciado. Philosophe féministe d’origine espagnole, elle est connue notamment pour ses expérimentations anti-normatives sur son propre corps, soit par la prise régulière de testostérone durant une année pour son livre Testo Junkie. Sexe, drogue et biopolitique, dans un but «politique» de déterritorialisation de son corps. Ce concept de déterritorialisation est une expression empruntée à Gilles Deleuze, et Preciado l’emploie dans un contexte allégorique de décolonisation, c’est-à-dire de réappropriation des ‘‘biens’’ colonisés, nommément le corps des individus, aliéné par l’hétéronormativité. «Une sexualité quelconque implique toujours une territorialisation précise de la bouche, du vagin, de l’anus. C’est ainsi que la pensée straight assure le lien structurel entre la production de l’identité de genre et la production de certains organes comme organes sexuels et reproducteurs. Capitalisme sexuel et sexe du capitalisme.» (PRECIADO, Multitudes queer)

∞

La vision du corps est d’ailleurs un concept fondamental à la pensée queer, car c’est par la perception que l’on a du corps d’une personne que se fait l’assignation sexuelle, de même que l’ostracisation ou la pathologisation de la sexualité de cette personne pouvant s’en suivre. Ainsi, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux catégories de genres, le corps peut aisément devenir un outil de protestation sociale. C’est en effet en accordant une valeur au corps qui est différente de ce qui est conventionnel en réduisant, voire en anéantissant l’importance accordée au corps, à l’apparence, que la communauté queer parvient à contester les catégories de genre ainsi que la division des rôles sexuels. Cette valeur est celle d’une banalisation du corps vers la liberté/libération de celui-ci – une libération des carcans socio-normatifs prescrivant un certain code vestimentaire, une certaine manière d’agir, voire même de penser, suivant le genre qui nous a été attribué – ou que l’on s’est soi-même attribué.

C’est du reste à ce propos que réside le conflit semi-interne particulièrement ambigu entre les identités queer et trans: il est considéré, par plusieurs, que les personnes trans ne remettent pas vraiment en question le système hétéronormatif. L’argument est basé sur le fait qu’une personne trans passe d’un des deux seuls genres identifiés par les codes sociaux hétéronormatifs à l’autre, et par là renforce l’idée qu’il n’existe que des femmes et des hommes. Pour d’autres, cependant, la personne trans permet de déranger le genre dans ce passage d’un genre à l’autre: la transition démontre ainsi que la binarité du genre n’est pas à priori fixe. En sus, les personnes trans peuvent développer des modes d’identifications fluides, qui se localisent entre les deux genres, en étant les deux, ou entre les deux, mais jamais que un des deux.

Il existe aussi une problématique à la communauté homosexuelle, soit le soutien d’une perspective dominatrice hétéronormative sous une forme légèrement différente; l’homonormativité, laquelle promeut un standard, un modèle de vie de beaucoup basé sur le mode de vie normalisé des hétérosexuels (se marier, avoir une famille, avoir une carrière réussie, etc.). Dans les deux cas, la remise en question des catégories sexuelles n’est pas posée de façon fondamentale: les bases sociales restent les mêmes que celles construites par le patriarcat quant au mode de vie général à suivre.

∞

Beatriz Preciado affirme dans son essai Multitudes queer – Notes pour une politique des ‘’anormaux’’ qu’il « n’y a pas de différence sexuelle, mais une multitude de différences» contredisant le modèle qui s’ancre dans la différence entre les sexes – modèle promulgué autant par les membres dominants de la société patriarcale que par bon nombre de féministes. Référence par ailleurs plutôt essentialiste puisque désignant deux catégories sexuelles (mâle et femelle) comme les seules ‘’normales’’ et qui plus est comme étant biologiquement différentes, en plus d’être (relativement) immuables en elles-mêmes. La philosophe espagnole soutient au contraire un mode de pensée constructiviste, c’est-à-dire une idée voulant que l’individu détient intrinsèquement une capacité de reconstruction (après avoir passé par une certaine dé-construction).

Cette dé-construction, prônée également par Jacques Derrida (philosophe dont le travail, outre celui de Judith Butler, fut très formateur pour Beatriz Preciado) est très proche du concept de dés-ontologisation, processus inverse à celui de l’ontologisation: « Partie de la philosophie qui a pour objet l’élucidation du sens de l’être considéré simultanément en tant qu’être général, abstrait, essentiel et en tant qu’être singulier, concret, existentiel.» (source: CNRTL) consistant ainsi en la considération particulière et non générale de l’être, de même qu’à la déconsidération de l’argument naturel. Preciado parle de «dés-ontologisation des politiques des identités. Plus de base naturelle (“femme”, “gay”, etc.) qui puisse légitimer l’action politique». Une base naturelle qui plus est véhiculée sous une forme normalisante et, par le fait-même, ostracisante.

La dé-construction à des fins de reconstruction est un concept-clé du raisonnement anti-essentialiste puisqu’y sous-tend l’idée que l’on crée soi-même son identité (l’être versus le faire), que notre identité n’existe pas préalablement à notre existence individuelle. L’identité de genre – au centre de la théorie queer – de l’humain est en constante évolution et est due à son environnement et à son expérience plutôt qu’à son essence.

∞

Déplaçant le concept de dé-construction vers une optique plus explicitement queer,  Preciado aborde la «‘’Dés-identification’’ (pour reprendre la formulation de De Lauretis), identifications stratégiques, détournement des technologies du corps et dés-ontologisation du sujet de la politique sexuelle, telles sont quelques unes des stratégies politiques des multitudes queer». En se dés-identifiant de l’assignation de genre faite dans une logique hétéronormative, comme des genres en général, en refusant de manière manifeste d’adopter les comportements prescrits par la société patriarcale, les pluralités queer se développent comme «puissances politiques et non simplement comme des effets des discours sur le sexe» (Preciado, référant à Maurizio Lazzarato). En bref: l’apparence de neutralité (en termes de genre) comme affront à l’ordre social.

∞

Preciado conclut son essai sur une référence à peine voilée aux manipulations de l’hégémonie hétéro-normative à des fins de cohésion sociale, arguant que «les politiques des multitudes queer s’opposent non seulement aux institutions politiques traditionnelles qui se veulent souveraines et universellement représentatives, mais aussi aux épistémologies sexopolitiques straight qui dominent encore la production de la science» soulignant de ce fait l’importance du rôle que joue la science dans le maintien des structures et de la logistique hétéronormative.

∞

Le mouvement queer est un mouvement très critique de ses prédécesseurs (féministes, homosexuel-le-s) qu’il accuse souvent de n’être pas assez radicaux dans leur contestation du modèle hétéronormatif. En réaction à un féminisme trop neutre en ce qui a trait à l’inégalité motivée par des considérations de nature sexuelle et basée sur la non-binarité du genre, le mouvement queer fait front contre l’aliénation sexuelle des individus par les rouages de la domination patriarcale, en choisissant d’afficher un genre (à la base outil d’oppression) ambigu – niant par le fait même l’utilité des catégories de genre, de même que la notion d’essence qui y est étroitement liée. La décolonisation des genres sous-tendant à la théorie queer tient à ce que la différence sexuelle unique n’existe pas: c’est quantité de différences qui existent entre les individus – et c’est leur abondance qui annihile leur importance.

Bibliographie

PRECIADO, Beatriz. Multitudes queer – Notes pour une politique des ‘‘anormaux’’, article mis en ligne en mars 2003,
http://multitudes.samizdat.net/Multitudes-queer et http://www.lespantheresroses.org/textes/multitudes_queer.htm
LAVIGNOTTE, Stéphane. Le queer, politique d’un nouveau genre,
http://www.lespantheresroses.org/theorie-queer.html

WILCHINS, Riki Anne. Queer theory, gender theory, Los Angeles; California, Alyson Books, 2004

DAUMAS, Cécile. Tête à queue, 14 octobre 2008,
http://www.liberation.fr/livres/0101124185-tete-a-queue

 

Lily Hoffman

 

“I just love ya, babe.” These words are often platonically exchanged between me and my closest friend, a cis-gendered femme queer woman. In an attempt to challenge capitalist mechanisms of hetero-normativity and gender performance, I decided to dress butch,1 accompanied by my femme friend. The two of us pretended to be an engaged queer couple while I tried on wedding dresses; my friend was there to act as my girlfriend and fiancé, proclaiming her (perceived non-platonic) love to me throughout our adventure. By blurring gender presentations and publicly existing as an engaged queer couple in an expensive bridal shop, this act aimed to dissent against dominant gender presentations, hetero-sexism and hetero-normativity, and confront the use of capitalist exchange as a means of gendered social control.

I chose this act of gendered deviance for various reasons. First, I present and identify as a woman, although sometimes more androgynous. I was interested in exploring a more traditionally masculine and gender-queer expression of myself, to further queer my already non-normative self-perceptions and expressions by presenting as butch. The act of wearing a wedding dress also seemed a challenge given my sometimes androgynous expression. Further, as a queer woman, I was interested in publicly displaying an expression of my sexual identity in the heterosexual space of a bridal shop I would never otherwise enter. Finally, I hold many qualms about the institution of marriage and its role within an oppressive capitalist system as a means of patriarchal and state control. I felt that this act would challenge me in its conformity to materialist expressions of femininity and beauty, manifested in a wedding dress, encouraging compliance with the institutional framework of marriage and weddings.

When my friend and I walked into the bridal shop, holding hands, we were asked politely if we had an appointment. We answered that we did not, and the woman who greeted us explained that she would check to see if it would be possible for us to be assisted without one. Her face was marked with a degree of concern or confusion. The co-worker she returned with began assisting us, starting with numerous questions. She first inquired about who was getting married, to which we replied that we were marrying each other. A look of surprise struck the employees’ faces, as they responded with “Oh, vraiment? Très bien!” Up until this point, the women were primarily addressing my ‘feminine’ friend, until I announced that we were there in search of a dress for me, and that my “fiancé” would be using her mother’s dress. Again, expressions of surprise emerged, and they ushered us into the store. As we began to examine the dresses, it took a few minutes for the employee to begin addressing me first, shifting her gaze and the direction of her words away from my feminine-presenting accomplice. Over the course of the visit, the woman assisting us referred to my friend and I as “friends,” and only once, after some stuttering and hesitation, did she use the word “fiancé.”

The responses to our deviance were subtle, and in large ways embedded within the capitalist environment the act took place in. The employees did not argue nor negate our presence as a lesbian couple in the store, yet were clearly surprised. In some ways they seemed excited; as if our presence validated their store and marriage itself as somehow “progressive” and “inclusive.” However, their surprise and excitement obviously reflects hetero-sexism and the normative assumptions embedded within the bridal shop. Lesbian presence is unexpected; while acceptable, it is perceived as somehow not ‘normal’ or unusual. Further, the initial cling to my ‘partner’ as the primary customer reflects normative gender judgements, even within a queer relationship. To the employee, the ‘feminine’ partner conformed more to conventional standards of a bride-to-be. Even with a wedding dress on my body, the employee was suggesting dresses to my friend that she should try on, prioritizing her as a potential customer over me. I suggest that the subtleties of their reactions were due to the context. In a setting of the sale of expensive material goods, explicit limiting of non-normative behaviours or obvious disapproval is not usually socially acceptable. The employees quickly warmed to our unique story when they realized we were still potential customers, from whom they could make a monetary profit. The potential capital gain from our interaction limited the explicit nature of the social control mechanisms exercised on my friend and me during our deviance. My experience of this act and acknowledgement of the employees’ reactions is reminiscent of Julia Serano’s passage “Performance Piece.”  In it, Serano discusses how understanding gender as only a performance is limited, that she “can perform gender…but [that] performance doesn’t explain why certain behaviours and ways of being come to [her] more naturally than others.”2 This act was very much a performance for me; I adopted an unusual personal style, and acted the role of fiancé to my best friend. Serano contends, however, that “when we talk about…gender as though it were a performance, we let the audience – with all their expectations, prejudices, and presumptions – completely off the hook.”3 The subsequent analysis aims to understand the construction of the performance aspect of this act, as well as examine underlying influences shaping the responses to our deviance.

Two theoretical frameworks are of primary use in the analysis of this act. First, queer theory can be utilized to understand the gendered and sexual deviance embedded in my behaviour, as well as how the social institution of marriage intersects with this particular performance. Second, Marxist feminism provides an interesting perspective on the role of capitalism and material exchange in influencing the outcomes of the event.

Queer theory suggests that gender and sexual identities are socially constructed as categorical dichotomies. An individual’s gender or sexual identity is constructed with large reference to these socially established categories. Identities are not fluid, and queer theory encourages the dismantling of such socially-prescribed categories, including ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘heterosexual,’ and ‘gay,’ among others. Langer and Martin suggest that “it is not the private experience of one’s gender (gender identity) or the public manifestation of it (gender role) that is necessarily socially constructed, but rather the conceptualizations of gender-appropriateness and gender-inappropriateness.”4 This understanding highlights the fluidity of acceptable limits to gendered behaviours.

There are various ways in which the deviant act under discussion can be analyzed through a queer theory perspective. Most obviously, our adoption of different gender presentations represents a blurring of gender expressions and categorical relevance. While I do sometimes present as androgynous, assuming a butch presentation was both a challenge to me and the traditional gender binary. As a cis-gendered woman, I have been socialized towards a more feminine physical representation. A less feminine presentation, demonstrated through my clothing, blurs conventional understandings of what a cis-gendered woman, and future bride, should look like. This blurring also challenged me to examine how much I rely on physical presentation to give cues to others and receive validation from them for my own identity. Kate Woolfe echoes these sentiments in her narrative description of her embrace of and acceptance into lesbian communities.5 Woolfe discusses how she initially catered her image to fit stereotyped versions of lesbianism, with short hair and other de-feminizing features. Her piece discusses how she heavily relied on her appearance as a means to communicate her lesbian identity to others, and utilized her physical presentation to develop her community inclusion. While Woolfe later views this vanity through a critical lens, when I dressed as a butch I felt connected to her expressed links between identity expression, community recognition, and inclusion.

Further building on queer theory, the conjunction between our gendered presentations and our existence as a queer “couple” in a heterosexual space embodies the struggle sought by queer theorists. Upon first glance, a butch and a femme couple may appear heterosexual, as their gender presentations in some ways conform to traditional ‘male’ and ‘female’ categories. The filling of these roles by two cis-gendered women, however, challenges normative assumptions about gender presentation in relation to sexual desire and relationships. Further, the passable presentation as a male/female relationship in the heterosexual space of a bridal shop can be seen as a subversive act to structures of hetero-normativity and gendered desire. As a queer ‘couple’ assuming presence in a straight space, we were confusing conceptions of belonging and acceptance, as well as conventional gender presentations, especially within queer relationships.

Specifically relating to trying on wedding dresses, the gender roles embodied and acted out during this act also align with the goal of challenging normative categorizations of gender and desire. First, a non-heterosexual ‘couple’ searching for a wedding dress is in itself challenging to structures of hetero-sexism, and the privileged access of straight couples to the institution of marriage. As well, the fact that the more ‘masculine’ presenting partner in this scenario (myself) was the primary customer confronts the rigid gender categories and acceptable limits of behaviour within them. The store employees initially, and continually throughout the exchange, perceived my femme friend as the primary customer. Queer theory would suggest that this bias was due to her more feminine presentation and stricter conformity to established behaviours within the category of ‘woman’.

In addition, queer theory can help illuminate how marriage serves as an institution of social control, especially for queer communities. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals and the state in which they marry; the boundaries, expectations, and benefits of said relationships are legally outlined. Traditionally reserved for heterosexual partnerships, recent movements are struggling for the granting of marriage rights to non-straight couples. Gay marriage is legal in Canada, yet its inclusion within Canadian socio-legal discourse can be seen as perpetuating the limited dichotomized categories of gender and desire as discussed through queer theory. The extension of the category of marriage to include gay couples normalizes gay or lesbian relationships which choose marriage, at the expense of couples including trans* individuals, non-monogamous partnerships, and other non-“normative” relationships. From a queer theory perspective, one could argue that gay marriage re-enforces the rigid polarizations of male/female and gay/straight, and thus undermines the struggle for categorical dismantling. Marriage serves as a mechanism of control, erecting normative boundaries of acceptable expressions of desire. Trying on wedding dresses is representative of this institutionalized control.
A wedding dress symbolizes the social norms embedded within marriage as well as the influence of capitalism over individual behaviours. Marxist feminism is relevant in examining the role of capitalism in shaping this deviant act, including an analysis of both the material and social interactions which occurred.

From a materialist perspective, Marxist feminism suggests that material production and the goal of profit is foundational in an understanding of patriarchy. The capitalist mode of production and exchange drives all social interactions and systems, and is fundamental in the oppression of women, and the power of men over women more generally. In many ways, this theory is consistent with the events as they unfolded in the bridal shop. First, the necessity of an appointment to visit the store serves as a screening process, restricting access to the products only to a self-selecting group of clientele. Further, the excessive price of the dresses themselves represents the pervasiveness of capitalism in achieving the socially normalized and mandated ends of marriage. The least expensive dress in the store was $2000; this price embodies a female slavery to, and need for money as a means to attain the feminine dream of being a bride. Marxist feminists might claim that this reflects the power of money and materialism over women’s actions. Further, the dresses on the floor shop were all one ‘standard’ size; they were designed to fit a 5’11” woman, who had a small waist and bigger bust. The employees contended that this was the case because most women had their dresses tailor-made to their bodies. However, offering one size, one which conforms to socially-prescribed ideals of female bodies, sells a certain body shape to customers. While women are able to have a dress tailor-made, not fitting into a dress in the store is likely to be a disappointing experience for potential customers, one which could highlight potentially already existing insecurities. Here, we can see how capitalist materialism sells certain bodies and more financially privileged lifestyles as expectations of femininity.

Drawing from Marxist feminism, I suspect that the subtleties of control manifested during the discussed interaction were in large part muted by the drive for profit. As already mentioned, the products being shopped for were extremely expensive, and it is possible the employees worked with commission benefits. While the women were obviously surprised by our presence and requests in the store, they were conscious of muting their shock, so as to not scare away or offend potential high-paying customers. From a Marxist perspective, the goal of profit on behalf of the employees, as well as the conventions of customer service as established for situations involving material exchange, can be seen as limiting the behaviours of the female employees and setting the tone for the entire interaction. Capitalism and material exchange strongly influenced the employee’s reactions, and encouraged the utilization of subtle mechanisms of social control over more explicit repressions.

Committing this gendered deviant act was particularly challenging for me. The most difficult part was the reflection experienced as a result of the linkages between my dress and gender presentation. As already discussed, dressing butch was an exaggeration of a style of appearance I already sometimes embrace. Adopting such a style prompted me to  think further about the relationship between my dress and identity. More taxing, however, was trying on the wedding dresses themselves. I have never envisioned myself in a wedding dress, or having my own wedding, and seeing myself in an extravagant, expensive gown was extremely uncomfortable emotionally. I felt as if I was drowning in white fabric, consumed by lace and excess material. The white colour made me feel dishonestly ‘pure;’ the dress’ corset made me feel trapped in a vision of femininity I do not identify with. Again, this parallels Woolfe’s expressions as a queer woman. “The Lesbian Look…has less to do with one’s sexual preference and more to do with a rejection of our culture’s values about women. The Look frees us up to be more than decorative.”6 In a wedding dress, I felt exactly that, decorative, and limited by social values of women’s beauty. Seeing myself in a wedding dress re-affirmed to me my act of embracing non-normative and androgynous aesthetics. Further, my presence in the bridal shop was extremely uncomfortable for me. I felt out of place and personally deviant in my mere presence in such an expensive and culturally select store. My discomfort with the environment and the dresses in fact limited my playing the part I assumed in the act, that of an engaged queer woman. I was less inclined towards physical or verbal displays of affection to my ‘partner’ because of this uneasiness. My deviance itself was limited by the extravagance of capitalism and materialism as it manifest in the store, and by the standards of beauty and femininity set by the environment.

Finally, this act questioned my identity and expression as a queer woman. While challenging manifestations of hetero-sexism and social gender expectations, I was prompted to examine my own relationship to institutions such as marriage, as well as how my queerness affects social interactions outside of queer-welcoming communities. Queer theory’s encouragement of dismantling categories of gender and sexual identity is an admirable goal, and personally experiencing this struggle in a capitalist setting was particularly interesting. Deviance, as well as mechanisms of control to limit dissenting behaviours, is often subtle, and strengthening the ability to behave defiantly, with confidence, is of crucial importance to dismantling oppressive systems.

 

An extended and different version of this project can be found at:
http://youngist.org/post/54548700371/my-body-my-marriage-photo-essay-by-lily-hoffman

 

1 Butch and femme are slang terms used to signify the conscious performance of (exaggerated) stereotypical masculine and feminine (respectively) gender roles, most typically by queer individuals

2 Julia Serano, “Performance Piece” from Gender Outlaws: The Next Generation, edited Kate Bornstein and S. Bear Bergman (Seal Press, 2010), page 85

3 Ibid, page 86

4 Susan Langer and James Martin (February 2004).  How Dresses Can Make You Mentally Ill: Examining Gender Identity Disorder in Children. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21:1

5 Kate Woolfe, “It’s Not What You Wear: Fashioning A Queer Identity” from Looking Queer: Body Image and Identity in Lesbian, gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Communities, edited Dawn Atkins (Harrington Park: 1998)

6 Ibid, page 504

Allison Jones

 

Introduction

As part of a larger project exploring homeschooling and educational anthropology, I conducted six semi-structured interviews with seven homeschooling parents in Montreal (five individuals and one couple) to learn more about their practice of homeschooling and the ideals behind it. Considering the small size of my sample, I do not claim to make any broad conclusions about homeschooling in Montreal or elsewhere. Nonetheless, these interviews highlighted a number of interesting themes, and raised a number of questions for potential future exploration, both of which will be outlined below.

Recruitment

I recruited participants for the interviews through a local homeschooling centre, Centre Communidée, both online and in person. I have been involved in Centre Communidée for the past 8 months, which provided me with a strong understanding of the organization and a sense of its community before I began my interviews. My research has been significantly influenced by my involvement at the centre and my relationships with people there; it is hard to consider my reflections on the centre ‘neutral’, but neither do I intend to unabashedly advocate my own interests. Thus, I hope that through examining the interviews I conducted in conjunction with previous literature on homeschooling, my analysis will provide the reader with insight into this small homeschooling community and the lives of some of its members.

My interviewees were recruited through Centre Communidée’s website and networks, and therefore my interviewees tended to have perspectives similar to those of the centre itself. This description, from the homepage of Centre Communidée’s website, gives a good sense of the mission of the organization. It reads:

Centre Communidée is a non-profit, non-religious, volunteer-run community centre for homelearning families. Membership fees are used to pay for rent, utilities and some supplies. Most activities are organized and run by people from our community, and are included in the membership fees.

All our activities are interest-based and are not designed to meet any educational requirements. As homeschooling families, you and your child are responsible for your child’s education. Communidée’s activities and workshops are offered as a supplement to your homeschooling experience. (“About the centre,” n.d.)

From this description a few key features are noticeable. First, the centre is explicitly ‘non-religious’ and the fact that activities are ‘interest-based’ suggests a pedagogical, child-led approach to homeschooling.1 Second, there is no link between Centre Communidée and the local school board; it is community-based and volunteer-run. Third, we get the sense that activities are more social than educational, and present an important aspect of families’ homeschooling methods.

Interview Findings

In my interviews, I found a relatively high level of consistency with previous homeschooling research in terms of family demographics, reasons for homeschooling, and methods and materials used. There is an abundance of different aspects of my findings that could be explored, but I have chosen to focus on themes from the interviews that have been largely absent from previous research.

The Importance of Reading. An interesting value that all but one parent mentioned was the importance of their children learning to read. I have not been able to find any research that explores homeschoolers and reading, despite the fact it was one of the most common issues that my interviewees brought up. Reading was seen as a way for children to take more control over their own learning and explore new topics. One parent summed it up as, “I thought if he can learn to read, then he can read about the other stuff.” This did not mean that all parents wanted their children to read at a young age (although some also expressed this sentiment), and two parents said that although their children had started reading later than they might have in school they did not see this as a problem. Nonetheless, reading was an underlying concern, and for many a ‘bottom line’ of what they wanted to teach their children.

Involvement in Centre Communidée. There has been little academic work written about homeschooling collectives, organizations, and centres. As my research grew from my involvement in Centre Communidée, I was curious about the role of this space in families’ lives. Four of the parents I interviewed were currently participating in activities at the centre, one had participated in the past, and one was hoping to do so soon. Parents identified two main reasons for participating in the centre. First, their children were involved in activities there, and enjoyed participating in them. Second, the centre was a space where parents provided each other with mutual support, both emotionally and practically. (For example, parents might babysit or teach each other’s children).

Diversity and Similarity at Centre Communidée. I asked the parents currently involved in Centre Communidée to comment on the diversity of the families that use the centre. One parent, who has been involved at the centre for a number of years, described:

In the sort of bigger picture of all the families that have come to the centre, if I sort of line all those people up, I would definitely find a fair amount of diversity. I mean, we have had religious families, we’ve had, you know, different races coming, different ethnic backgrounds, different philosophies of education, you know, all of that.

Despite the fact that the centre attracts a diverse group for one-off visits, it seems that the people who stay involved are fairly similar. While visiting and participating in the centre’s activities, the majority of those involved who I met were white, middle to upper-class, two-parent families in which the mother stayed at home and the father worked. The families usually take a child-led approach to homeschooling, and are often unschoolers.2 They also tend to share political beliefs, as one parent described:

I would say if you were going to look at it from a political point, most people would be fairly, more or less on the same page in terms of what they believe in. Like, what they believe the kids should eat, in terms of people’s rights, people’s, you know, they’re very more or less on the same page, supportive of women’s rights, gay rights. I assume that most of the people, I could be wrong, will more or less be together on that.

Different homeschooling approaches at times caused tensions or made other parents uneasy, though; as one parent said, “there’s some I respect enormously for what they seem to be achieving with their kids, and other ones it’s like they’re not involved.”

Attending School in Future. When asked whether they thought their children would attend school in the future, there was a marked difference between those who had been homeschooling for a longer or shorter amount of time. The five parents who had been homeschooling the longest tended responded along similar lines to this parent: “[We’re] not opposed to [our children going to school], but I would say probably more at the university or the CEGEP level rather than before.” Almost all parents indicated at least some interest in having their children attend higher education.

The two parents who had been homeschooling for a shorter time indicated a stronger expectation that their children would return to school sooner rather than later. In both cases, they had removed their children from school due to specific negative experiences and said they would not enroll their children in the same schools again. One expressed a desire for their child to attend an alternative school.

Feelings Towards School. More generally, then, what were the feelings expressed towards school by interviewees? One of the parents who expects their child to return to school in the near future described:

I guess my feeling is that I don’t feel strongly that schools are terrible and wrong and bad and oh-my-goodness. I think there are things that should be changed and should be different, that could be more effective and wonderful and good, but I don’t think that they’re this terrible thing either.

This perspective was fairly typical of those interviewed, who saw schools as having flaws, but also saw those flaws as fixable. Another parent described, “well, homeschooling isn’t perfect, and school isn’t perfect, so you have to weigh the pros and cons, that’s what I’ve discovered.”

Critiques of schools tended to focus on the methods used and on the fact that teachers are very overworked, and therefore have a difficult job to attend to the needs of 25 or 30 students simultaneously. Some parents felt that schools were too rigid in their methods, and not representative of how contemporary society works. For example, “school systems that teach this material, and this curriculum, and this so the kids end up with this, are doing everybody a disservice because society doesn’t work that way any more.”

A common feeling for those parents whose children had attended school in the past was that the schools were slow to respond to specific problems, especially bullying and poor teaching. A number of parents also identified their own school experiences as negative in some aspect, whether simply boring, riddled with poor teachers, or focused on useless material.

Suggestions for Change. Parents made suggestions both about improvements that could be made to schools as well as improvements that could be made to policy regarding homeschooling. A number of parents proposed that school boards should offer support to registered homeschoolers, but recognized such support might come with strings attached. One parent elaborated more on the fears they have about such a program, stating they were against any method that linked a family’s right to homeschool to their children’s performance:

So they say we’re going to evaluate your kid to see if you have the right to homeschool, if your kid doesn’t fare well, you don’t have the right to homeschool him? Like, that is just wrong to me. Because, even though my kids are shining little geniuses who will do just fine in the world, not everybody has such little treasures, you know. And some kids have a hard time learning one thing or another, or are different from, you know.

Other parents advocated more cooperative, grassroots relationships between homeschoolers and schools. For example, one described:

The idea of Communidée is a great idea, it should be standard, it would be really great if there was something tacked on to the existing school system, where they allow them to use the gym, or arts and crafts class…I think homeschooling partnerships with schools would be beneficial to everybody. Because I think the kids that are homeschooled would get a lot out of it, but I also think the school kids would see a different point of view.

Three parents suggested that they would also like to have the option of sending their children to school part-time in order to get basic instruction, and then be able to do activities as a family or outside of the school for the rest of the day. One parent described:

I think that is really the way to do it, to have the discipline of doing two hours of good, intensive schooling, where you can give them all the information they need at their level and probably beyond, and have the rest of the time to do whatever you want. I think that’s the approach I would like to go to.

While this depiction, emphasizing ‘intensive’ schooling, may be more rigorous than some homeschooling families would accept, the idea of not having to go to school full-time, in order to be able to do other things, was shared with others.

Suggestions for changes that could be made to the current system were described in all interviews. Parents clearly identified what was working for them about homeschooling, what they missed from schools, and what they imagined could cater to families’ diverse needs. Despite these ideas, though, only one seemed involved in homeschooling organizations that were making concrete demands of the government in order to help such changes materialize.

Implications of Findings

Overall, my interview findings were consistent with previous research on homeschooling. My interviewees fit the demographic portrait of Canadian homeschoolers put forth by previous authors (Ray, 1994; Smith, 1993; and Van Pelt, 2003). Research that has shown the tendency for change in homeschooling families over time, in methods, materials, and philosophies (such as the work of Arai, 2000; Chapman & O’Donoghue, 2000; and Van Galen, 1988), seems very applicable to this group of families, who generally focused on flexibility and practicality in their homeschool practice. Interviewees also fit the portrait of Quebecois homeschoolers given by Brabant, Bourdon, and Jutras (2005), which highlighted family-centred practices and ideals and a high level of animosity towards school boards and homeschooling registration.

There were a few topics that I found came up frequently in my interviews that are not discussed in other homeschooling research and would make interesting future topics of inquiry.

First, the increasing presence of homeschooling centres and the ways in which they act similarly and dissimilarly to schools in the lives of homeschoolers has largely been unexplored. While Centre Communidée serves more pedagogical homeschoolers, authors have also noticed a trend in the US for religious homeschoolers to create charter schools (particularly in California) in order to use state resources to purchase curriculum and support their homeschooling practice (Hill, 2000). What do homeschooling families find different about homeschooling centres and charter schools from the mainstream school system that makes them interested in being involved in the former, but not the later? Why might some homeschooling families not want to be involved in these homeschooling community groups either? How does diversity, in demographics as well as values, affect families’ participation in homeschooling centres?

Second, the sole skill that almost all families mentioned they want their children to learn is reading. Of course, reading is a very common skill in Canada, and one that is incredibly useful in many ways, but so are other many other skills (cooking, using technology, conversing, and problem-solving come to mind). Why then, was reading highlighted so prominently?

Third, many interviewees suggested that although they doubt their children will ever attend school, they do expect their children may want to attend university. How does university differ from other forms of schooling? Why is that more attractive for homeschooling parents?
Fourth, these parents articulated clear desires for a changed and improved state response to homeschooling. How might these desires be addressed in systemic reform of the education system in Canada? How can a better balance be found between state interests and family practices? Do homeschooling parents think about how the absence of their children from school may impact institutions of public education?

The research I conducted was not targeted enough at a specific issue, nor was it conducted with sufficient interviewees, in order to draw new conclusions about these realms of homeschooling. It does, however, indicate areas where existing literature does not account for the diverse and personal experiences of different families.

Conclusion

Much research has been done on homeschooling in the past fifty years as it has fluctuated between being a counter-cultural practice of leftists and hippies, a rejection of secular schools by religious fundamentalists, and a last-choice for parents whose children suffer rather than flourish in a traditional classroom. Previous research has tended to focus on why parents homeschool, what homeschooling families do all day long, and what are the demographics of homeschoolers. In this project, my interviews allowed me to explore the breadth of homeschooling, looking both at these areas as well as themes that have been unexplored so far. Those that I have summarized present avenues to be explored in future, which may tell us not only about homeschooling but also about schools, community, and larger values in our society. They are therefore important in terms of building a broader understanding of the role of education in our lives, and adapting ourselves to the variations in how that education may occur.

 

1 In a model proposed by Van Galen (1988), homeschooling families or groups are often referred to as either ‘pedagogical’ or ‘ideological’. Ideologues are religiously motivated homeschoolers, whose main critique of the school system is the ideological content of the curriculum (see for example Moore & Moore, 1979; Moore & Moore, 1981). On the other hand, pedagogues believe that schools are incompetent at teaching, and have a strong respect for the creativity and independence of children. They choose to homeschool in order to nurture this creativity and independence in a freer environment (see Holt, 1964, 1981, 1989; Neill, 1960). This model has been challenged by a number of other authors for being over-simplistic (see for example Arai, 2000), but nonetheless captures an important and basic divide in the homeschooling community.

2 Unschooling, in its most extreme form, is a version of homeschooling in which children have absolute autonomy and authority over their own lives, do what they want when they want, determine their own interests and schedules, and are free from any parental constraints on their behaviour or education. In a more moderate form, it refers to homeschooling in which children do self-directed learning, but parents may have a say in other aspects of their lives. This second form of unschooling was more represented in those homeschoolers I interviewed.

 

 

References

About the centre. (n.d.) Retrieved April 24, 2013, from
http://montrealhomelearners.ca/
communidee/

Arai, A. B. (2000). Reasons for home schooling in Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(3), 204-217.

Brabant, C., Bourdon, S., & Jutras, F. (2005). Home education in Quebec: Family first. Evaluation and Research in Education, 18(3), 112.

Chapman, A., & O’Donoghue, T. A. (2000). Home Schooling: An emerging research agenda. Education Research And Perspectives, 27, 19-36.

Hill, P. T. (2000). Home schooling and the future of public education. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1-2), 20-31.

Holt, J. C. (1964). How children fail. New York, NY: Pitman.

Holt, J. C. (1981). Teach your own: A hopeful path for education. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.

Holt, J. C. (1989). Learning all the time. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Miller, R. (2002). Free schools, free people: Education and democracy after the 1960s. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Moore, R. S., & Moore, D. N. (1979). School can wait. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.

Moore, R. S., & Moore, D. N. (1981). Home grown kids: A practical handbook for teaching your children at home. Waco, TX: Word Books.

Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill: A radical approach to child rearing. New York, NY: Hart Publishing Company.

Ray, B. D. (1994). A nationwide study of home education in Canada: Family characteristics, student achievement, and other topics. Salem, OR: National Home Education Institute, Western Baptist College.

Smith, S. D. (1993). Parent-generated home study in Canada: The national outlook 1993. New Brunswick: Francombe Place/Research Associates.

Van Galen, J. A. (1988). Ideology, curriculum, and pedagogy in home education. Education and Urban Society, 21(1), 52-68.

Van Pelt, D. (2003). Home education in Canada: A report on the Pan-Canadian study on home education 2003. Medicine Hat, AB: Canadian Centre for Home Education.