Abstract
Having taught numerous psychology courses, including the psychology of gender, for more than 20 years, I have experienced many joyful and inspiring moments within my classes. At the same time, however, I have struggled with several intellectual and ethical dilemmas, three of which I wish to address in the context of this article. The first of these dilemmas relates to the claim that psychology is an empirically based, progressive science, unified at its core in a manner similar to the natural sciences. The second dilemma is related to the tension between the claims of value-neutrality common to scientific discourse and the affirmation of values central to a feminist perspective. The third and related dilemma contrasts the use of lectures as the preferred form of knowledge transmission over a more relational form of knowing, often emphasized within feminist circles. In each case, I have found that, by approaching these dilemmas from a social constructionist perspective, I have been able to satisfactorily resolve them, while simultaneously promoting feminist values within the context of gender psychology.
A FOCUS ON DILEMMAS
My first dilemma relates to the view that psychology is an empirical science modeled on the natural sciences. Often students are presented with an image of psychology as a body of knowledge that is unified, progressive, and lawful. Yet, if one closely examines recent introductory textbooks, for example, one finds that this seeming unity is but a thin façade covering over a diverse multiplicity. Psychology is, in fact, composed of a variety of quite distinct and often incompatible fields. Textbook chapters are stitched together like a quilt, with each new chapter displaying a distinctively different pattern from the others. Each square of the quilt has its own design, with its own definitions, methods of inquiry, significant findings, and relevant conclusions. (Consider the diversity among and within the biological, learning, cognitive, social, personality, and clinical chapters.) Each of these chapters is developed on the basis of one or two specific paradigms, and in many instances they are in direct conflict. Although the problem is writ large in introductory psychology, it is also evident in other psychology courses, including those dealing with gender issues. In most gender psychology textbooks, for example, a proliferation of theoretical formulations is evident—biological, psychodynamic, cognitive, and social learning theory, among others.
I find both ethical and practical challenges in dealing with this diversity within psychology. I can choose to ignore the lack of coherence, thus supporting the pseudocoherence in the texts themselves, or I can try to explain why there are competing perspectives. To ignore the differences is passively deceptive, and to explain them away requires extensive elaborations, which may not interest students nor be supported by the readings themselves. One explanation acceptable within the natural sciences is that the science of psychology is young, and eventually all the kinks will be ironed out, false ideas will be eliminated, and a unified science will emerge.
The second dilemma refers to the notion that a science is supposed to be value free. It should focus on what is the case as opposed to what ought to be the case. Yet, as is commonly recognized within feminist circles, there is no value-free research. There are implicit values embedded in even the most seemingly neutral research as well as explicit values that are worth pursuing. Thus, for example, feminist psychologists are highly sensitive to the way in which problematic research has unfairly claimed that boys are superior to girls in mathematical abilities (Barnett & Rivers, 2004). Even more troubling has been the extent to which research from evolutionary psychology has rationalized male promiscuity and even rape (Buss, 2003), although this argument is rejected within psychology of gender texts. Again, it is deceptive to teach the traditional formulations of psychology without question, and yet to question them on the grounds of feminist ideology moves once again out of the typical stance that scientific claims should be value neutral. This problem is compounded by the fact that, in general, feminist psychology is clearly ideologically invested. Social justice concerns are a mainstay of the movement, and most feminist psychologists strongly hold that value investments are an important aspect of pedagogy. The question then arises as to how this kind of investment can be squared with the norms of scientific psychology.
These twin dilemmas combine to yield a third issue, in this case concerned not with content, but with the form of presentation. If we regard our duties as presenting the facts to students in introductory psychology classes, for example, then lecture methods are ideal. The emphasis is on the transfer of knowledge, and Power Point presentations are convenient ways to do this. Furthermore, the privileged source of knowledge is formal or systematic research, which is revealed by the professor. Therefore, the students' reports of their experiences in daily affairs serve largely as distractions from the scripted text.
Despite the seeming contradiction, most feminist psychologists place a high value on the expression of personal experiences in the classroom. In courses related to gender, a premium is often placed on activities in which the ideal is that all voices should be heard and all experiences honored. To satisfy these goals, a more participatory form of teaching is preferred. In addition, the richness of the learning experience is enhanced by embodied activities and the inclusion of emotionally charged material. This orientation challenges the notion that lecturing on the content of a psychology course is optimal; rather I find myself attracted to dialogue and experiential practices. I am aware of the dangers of this approach. For example, when I indulge in these forms of teaching, some students complain on my class evaluations that the material was not clearly presented. I also know that this approach is more personally satisfying, and I do believe most students prefer interactive classrooms.
In my experience, undergraduate instructors in gender-focused classes, regardless of their scientific orientations, are much more likely than other colleagues within the field to deviate from standard teaching practices. For example, we minimize lectures, encourage classroom discussion, welcome various forms of diversity, and integrate social justice issues into classes. We also develop activities that enlarge the scope of the course into the community and beyond. In this regard, I believe that psychology courses involving gender are better suited to resolving my pedagogical dilemmas than the typical psychology course. I do not have to pretend there is just one answer, one truth, to be delivered. Yet, although appreciating this modicum of freedom, we may also be “dancing through minefields” (Marecek, 2003, p. 49) when we deviate from traditional expectations. In adapting this metaphor, I am suggesting that the terrain for those teaching gender courses can, indeed, be dangerous—philosophically, scientifically, and ethically.
TAKING A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH
Thus far, I have alluded to three major dilemmas with which I am perennially confronted in my psychology classes. In order to deal with these dilemmas, I have found a social constructionist orientation to be an enormously useful asset. Although I may not directly refer to this framework in my classes, I do practice from within it. In my honors course in introductory psychology, I do assign readings and devote the early days of the semester to an overview of this orientation. In other classes, I treat the matter of difference with the proverbial Persian story of the blind men and the elephant. As is widely recognized, social constructionist theory has offered a major alternative to a realist view of knowledge, one that is meeting with increased enthusiasm across the social sciences. Social constructionism also provides a useful perspective in gender studies (Gergen, 2001; Russell & Bohan, 1999; Weis & Fine, 2005). Very briefly, at the core of constructionist thought is the view that all descriptions and explanations of the real are created through communal practices. As various communities come to share their language, values, and practices, so do they come to create what they take to be the nature of the real (Gergen, 2009). Thus, religious leaders frame and interpret the tenets of their religion, political groups create the platforms and policies of their parties, media advertisers create the buzz that sells their products, financial firms buy and sell derivatives, and high school girls decide what is cool in terms of dress and speech.
Scientific groups, in a similar way, develop their descriptions of the real. Black holes and mirror neurons owe their existences to the scientific communities that create and affirm them. Thus, the theories, descriptions, and explanations furnished by scientists are not mirrors of nature, but are essentially ways of shaping a vision of reality that reflects the complex interests of their particular communities.
Each way of shaping what we take to be the real has its advantages and its disadvantages. Thus, one may ask: For whom and for what purposes is this way of constructing reality helpful or harmful? What values are implicit in it? What values are suppressed? Who is heard, and who is silenced? Does it have an aesthetic appeal to it? Is it beautiful or ugly? The social constructionist orientation is not designed to abandon any particular discourse, but rather to open up a new range of reflection and creativity. It also invites people to create new theories and methods that may meet challenges in ways that are congenial with one's values.
Social Construction and the Dilemma of (In)Coherence
How does such a view contribute to my own teaching of psychology? First consider the problem of psychology's pseudo-unity. From a social constructionist position, nothing is universally the Truth; rather truth is located within particular communities of science. This proposition allows for various theoretical positions to be examined, appreciated, and/or criticized, without making an ultimate judgment about truth or falsity. Thus, for example, Freud's psychoanalytic theory is a reasonably coherent and well-known way of describing psychosocial development, and it has been promulgated by various professional groups, including therapists, for over a century. Virtually all psychology of gender textbooks include at least a brief description of this developmental theory. At the same time, diverse groups of critics treat Freud's theories as historical artifacts of little intellectual value. Such a dismissal not only discredits those who find the orientation useful in their clinical work, but it also raises the question for students as to why they should bother to master its rudiments in the first place. From a social constructionist position, however, we can present such a theory in terms of its significance, both culturally and therapeutically, while at the same time questioning its various proposals and practices from contrasting perspectives, including feminist ones.
More generally, students can be invited to learn about a broad range of theoretical orientations much as they would learn about the various schools of art, styles of music, or traditions of writing. They learn to see that all theoretical positions have both potentials and limitations. Concerns with Absolute Truth are replaced with those of utility, ethics, and aesthetics. As a teacher, I am able to present this variety of orientations without experiencing a loss of personal authenticity, that is without pretending that I am offering students basic truths of human nature rather than those that are socially constructed (Lather, 1991).
Social Construction and the Dilemma of Neutrality
A constructionist orientation also helps me to satisfactorily resolve the problem of scientific neutrality versus value commitment. First, I can recognize how various groups of scientists generate rules that must be followed if one is to remain a respected professional. If one is carrying out experiments, for example, it is an important value to obey the relevant rules of rigor, or one's credibility will be undermined. At the same time, from the constructionist standpoint, different groups share different understandings of the real and the good. Therefore, all orientations are subject to ideological questioning from the standpoint of other groups. Within the experimental paradigm, for example, it is important to try to exclude ideological biases. However, feminists may question the experimental method because it is an orientation to knowledge seeking in which the knower is the experimenter and the known are those who are studied. Issues of value concerning unequal status and power are raised within this critique.
To take a specific case within the psychology of gender, the values of promoting gender fairness and overcoming sexist practices in society are often paramount. There are two paths usually taken toward achieving these ends, and from a constructionist perspective, it is helpful for me to keep them in mind. The first path to gender equality and social justice involves the minimization of differences between genders; thus, women and men are defined as very much the same in abilities, capacities, and interests (Eagly, 1995; Hyde, 2005; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). This approach supports equal pay for equal work, the right for women to take on the same roles as men in the military and in other hazardous occupations, equal family leave time for women and men, and an emphasis on equality under the law.
The other path for feminists stresses differences between genders. This form of feminism is exemplified by the standpoint feminists (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Naples, 2003). The standpoint feminists call for the recognition of the ways in which women are different from men. They stress the biological and cultural differences between genders, and they often reverse dominant patriarchal values by giving preference to women's qualities and competencies over men's. For many of these feminists, women's ways of knowing and being in the world have advantages over men's and represent a more humane way to live and learn (cf. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1982).
There is a strong tendency among feminist educators to prefer one of these orientations to the other. However, from a constructionist position, I can explore the potentials of both positions, depending on purpose and context. Discussion may explore how each position, as a resource in countering sexist practices, serves to advance feminist ideals.
More generally, a constructionist view enables me to remain eclectic. I can celebrate the potentials of various orientations, but simultaneously open questions of practical and ideological consequence. Thus, for example, I can point out the politically conservative implications of evolutionary theory or suggest why the tendency to place the origins of sexual orientations in innate brain functions influences cultural orientations toward homosexuality. I can describe the advantages of narrative research, but simultaneously raise questions about its implicit individualism. I can express my views on what the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches are, but not as though I am speaking with a God's Eye View (Haraway, 1988). I allow my students to see that I am making value judgments that are important for me, and I invite them to do the same. This is especially important because, in my zeal to promote a feminist perspective on social justice issues, I may appear dogmatic and sexist (usually anti-male) to my students. However, in taking a constructionist position, I find my own tendencies toward moral certitude softened. I make a space for students to raise questions about the feminist positions I advance. They help me to grow beyond the strictures of my own world views.
Social Construction and the Dilemma of Pedagogy
My third dilemma concerns the tension between a realist and a constructionist approach to teaching. Should a professor's mission be to disgorge research findings developed through traditional methods of inquiry or to engage in a dialogic inquiry that is interpretive, relational, and embodied, as favored by many feminists? From a constructionist standpoint, I am sensitized to the way in which scientific facts are generated within various research communities. In effect, they also result from a dialogic process. In this light, we may say that continuing dialogue may indeed extend understanding of various empirical findings. It is in this respect that in virtually all my classes, students spend a great deal of time interacting in small groups or all together, in a circle, of which I am a part, in order to continue the dialogue.
Typically students in my classes have read a small assortment of readings and written a journal entry about them. By responding to the readings, they are engaged in a semblance of a dialogue. They reply to questions such as what they found most exciting, interesting, or puzzling in the readings; what they would like to question or challenge; how the readings relate to their personal lives or to what they have studied in other classes; and what they would like to talk about with their classmates. Through this format, I am seeking connections: to the readings, to classmates, to other sources of knowledge, and to the outside world. Students have the opportunity to challenge the materials, question one another, offer alternative ideas for consideration, and form conclusions of their own. Often I maintain a low-key posture in order to give them space, to help them trust their own voices, and to speak about what is most significant to them (Hyams, 2004). When students trust that they can control the floor of the classroom, they produce freedom and involvement, a highly liberating and enriching experience for them. In a sense, they are constructing their own learning through these activities.
Teaching courses that address these dilemmas with a social constructionist stance gives me confidence that I can facilitate the growth of each student. It is also my view that, of all the psychology courses, those related to gender are probably most likely to provide students with opportunities to think critically and creatively about their social values, their personal lives, and their future development. In this sense, it is perhaps the most valuable course they will take in their educational lives.