On the Importance of the Gender Perspective in School

This research is a case study on the implementation of the gender perspective (GP hereafter) at the Sorrento District Educational Institution (IED) in the Puente Aranda district of Bogotá. This investigation stems from the concern about what is happening with the implementation of GP in basic and secondary education, guided by the intuition that schools remain permeated by heteropatriarchal, androcentric logics that make it difficult for the school environment to be an equitable, just, and inclusive space for both girls and boys, as well as for members of subordinated and excluded minorities. This situation, in particular, is hard to overcome due to epistemic and structural injustices, which directly affect the quality of education.

Therefore, this study aims to combine empirical and theoretical inputs to understand how epistemic and structural injustices operate in schools and their effects on the implementation of GP. To this end, we draw on the following theoretical resources to guide the reflection and analysis of the data collected at the IED: Miranda Fricker's concept of "epistemic injustice" (2017); Linda Alcoff's notion of "gender" as a "position" regarding the production of knowledge (2006); and Iris Marion Young's conception of "structural injustice" (2011). Additionally, we reflect on the concepts of "perspective," "approach," and "gender ideology" to avoid ambiguities in their usage.

Studies on gender and GP in education at different levels agree on the need for their implementation to improve not only the quality of education (^{Donoso-Vázquez; Montané; Pessoa de Carvalho, 2014}; ^{Gamba, 2008}; ^{Rosas, 2022}) but also the development of identities and the formation of political subjects (^{Flores, 2005}). These inquiries also bring to the forefront a vital issue of social justice: gender equity, respect for difference, and the plurality of oppressed and excluded minorities (^{Busquets, 2003}). All of this contributes to the development and formation of new identities with civic, empathetic, diverse, and inclusive competencies.

It is argued that the school, in particular, is a space historically constituted by hetero-patriarchal, dualistic, and androcentric logics and dynamics that are self-perpetuating, tending to produce and reproduce models, thereby resisting substantial changes and transformations (^{Walsh, 2007}; ^{Zapata, 2014}). As a result, "[...] although educational institutions can be a positive space for fostering change, they are also places where sexist stereotypes and practices exist and are reproduced" (^{Valenzuela; Cartes, 2020}, p. 4).

In response to this context, various feminist movements have gained significant importance in recent years for their contributions to the subject of this research. Alongside them, other minorities belonging to movements focused on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and diverse sexual characteristics (LGTBIQ+), indigenous movements, and other subaltern minority sectors have succeeded in highlighting "[...] the conditions of inequality they suffer in multiple spheres of daily life" (^{Leñero, 2011}, p. 52). However, we are still far from meeting the basic standards set by international policies such as those proposed by the UN (2018) and UNESCO (^{Rojas, 2020}).

Despite this need, there are significant resistances and counter-narratives opposing the implementation of GP, which delegitimize its progress from various sectors of society and ideologies. Many of these positions are conservative, religious, and even dogmatic fundamentalist views that resist accepting expressions of diversity (^{Leñero, 2011}). This causes progress to be extremely slow, or even results in the maintenance of the status quo. Consequently, schools tend to become outdated and disconnected spaces that hinder progress toward achieving equality and equity within the diversity of the student body.

In this context, it becomes interesting to trace the dynamics occurring within the school space regarding GP, its achievements, challenges, opportunities, as well as its failures and resistances. Schools are understood as central spaces for transformation and as unique opportunities to reshape the social and cultural fabric, not only because they represent an area—"not the only one" (^{Connell, 2001}, p. 158)—that tends to be heard, validated, and resonate, but also because they are settings that inherently embody all inequalities, as these are materialized, produced, and reproduced there. It is in light of these conditions that it becomes essential to describe and delve into gender inequalities to make them visible, denaturalize them, and show how they shape the ways in which women, oppressed, and excluded minorities inhabit and navigate the school space, thus configuring a critical, "counter-hegemonic and transformative" stance (^{Martínez, 2016}; ^{Blaise, 2009}).

The issues surrounding the phenomenon of implementing GP in schools are influenced by various multidimensional factors and agents. These include, in part, stigmatization (media distortion), the influence of mass media in shaping identities, teacher biases, moralizing discourse, denial of the problems related to gender-based inequalities and inequities, the tendency to normalize certain unjust and discriminatory practices and attitudes justified by tradition and "adult-centric" morality, and the lack of knowledge regarding gender policies and their application both inside and outside the school space. It is also important to mention the construction of excluded and marginalized subjectivities, infantilization and ridicule as tools of social control, and the disputes and struggles with tradition, counter-narrative discourses, and powers that in various ways deny and oppose the implementation of GP in the school context.

Conceptual Contextualization: gender perspective, approach, and ideology

Before addressing the theoretical frameworks of this research, it is important to establish a conceptual distinction between the notions of "gender perspective" (GP), "gender approach" (hereafter GA), and "gender ideology" (hereafter GI), and their relationship with feminism. This differentiation will guide the description and analysis of GP implementation in this case study. Much of the literature on gender topics provides little emphasis on such distinctions.

The gender perspective is understood as a tool aimed at impacting laws, institutions, and organizational systems across society with the ideal of achieving not only formal but also material equality between men and women. For this reason,

[…] it constitutes an essential tool for understanding fundamental aspects related to the cultural construction of personal identity, as well as for comprehending how certain hierarchies, relations of domination, and social inequalities are generated and reproduced." The gender perspective began to be used as an analytical tool to detect situations of discrimination against women.

(^{Miranda-Novoa, 2013}, p. 347).

As Niño (2019, p. 18) clearly states when reflecting on the differences between perspective and approach in the field of law,

The theories that build models of justice, specifically from a feminist standpoint, refer to the perspective, which constructs and justifies a different lens for understanding women's issues. In other words, the gender perspective encompasses those theories and models of justice that justify a differentiated approach to addressing women's problems.

The gender approach refers to the method (^{Miranda-Novoa, 2013}; ^{Niño, 2019}), that is, the way in which the demands, claims, and projects for achieving gender equity, equality, and recognition are practically implemented in different contexts. In other words, it has a programmatic and methodological nature. Research suggests that GA is the way in which GP is introduced and implemented across different social spaces and dimensions through mainstreaming (^{Buquet, 2011}; ^{González, 2009}; Montes-de-Oca-O'Reilly, 2019). Mainstreaming is understood as the set of "[...] processes aimed at ensuring that GP permeates all educational mechanisms, as well as the systems, structures, and procedures of the school itself" (^{Montes-de-Oca-O’Reilly, 2019}, p. 108). In this sense, mainstreaming seeks to permeate and impact all areas of education as a fundamental commitment to the rights of women and marginalized minorities.

Gender ideology is perhaps the most contentious aspect of gender-related issues, partly due to the ambivalent and paradoxical nature of the term "ideology" and the way it has been received in the collective imagination of Western culture. As ^{Terry Eagleton (2003)} points out in his reading of Gramsci, the term’s most widely accepted meaning carries a negative connotation: it is seen as dogmatic, diminishing, and promoting false consciousness, exercised by hegemonic groups, the status quo, or the establishment. Consequently, and paradoxically, this understanding of the concept of ideology is often used to discredit and censor gender groups and feminist movements by conservative groups and the establishment. GI is used pejoratively to delegitimize the struggles, demands, and claims made by these minority and oppressed groups, leading to the stigmatization and delegitimization of women and militant members of these minority and oppressed groups (^{Young, 2000}).

Now, following ^{Eagleton (2003, p. 220)}, we can understand the other aspect of the concept of ideology: it is with Gramsci that the crucial transition is made from ideology as "systems of ideas" to ideology as a lived and habitual social practice, which should include the unconscious and unarticulated dimensions of social experience, as well as the functioning of formal institutions. It is this second sense that we adopt to understand GI, not merely as a negative concept, but as one that encompasses a horizon of meaning and political struggle. In this light, the concept of ideology becomes complex, not only because it is permeated by a blend of political, social, and cultural imaginaries from different, and sometimes even divergent, traditions, but also because it is unlikely that a general category of GI can fully encompass its diversity without affecting some of its factions or parts.

Thus, it is not surprising to find influences from political, economic, and theoretical schools of thought, such as Marxism, psychoanalysis, reflections on cultural determination in identity (cultural studies), the discoveries of critical theory, and decolonial thinking in opposition to hegemonic and ethnocentric thought, standing alongside hermeneutics and ideas of contextual and situated thinking, the rejection of essentialism, and the anti-biological reduction, among many other prominent ideas of advanced thought in contemporary reflection proposed by gender studies.

Here, gender ideology is understood as a set of political imaginaries, claims, struggles, and militant actions aimed at achieving the minimum standards of justice deemed necessary to ensure the conditions for gender equality and equity in all spaces of social interaction. Some of its proposals focus, for instance, on seeking a radical solution to the problem of women's subordination. It was concluded that the absolute supremacy of men in the domains of sexuality and reproduction must be challenged. This was the proposal of radical feminism to break free from the "sex equals gender" trap and dismantle the last barrier preventing women’s full liberation: sexual servitude. Gender ideology adopts the slogan "the personal is political" (Millet, 1995), where the public and private spheres are seen as being determined or influenced by political, legal, economic, and cultural ideas from hetero-patriarchal hegemonies. The public sphere, almost boundless, is the domain of the masculine, while the private, domestic sphere is the refuge of the feminine.

Epistemology in the Construction of Identity and Individuals with Political Agency

Gender is, among other things, a position from which one can act politically (^{Alcoff, 2006}). It is not a determined, stable, or essential entity, but rather a position that depends on experience, context, the body – both biological and cultural – historical circumstances, and one's relationships with others. This position, in addition to having strong political potential, also holds epistemic (knowledge-related) possibilities, which are not disconnected from the political sphere.

Identity does not determine a fixed or immovable point of view. It allows for the emphasis and articulation of perspectives different from the hegemonic one, precisely because the latter considers itself neutral, failing to recognize that it is just one perspective among many. The objectivity it claims can only be understood as a fixed vision. However, the viewpoints of the subjugated are not naïve or innocent positions; they are not exempt from critical evaluation, decoding, deconstruction, and interpretation (^{Haraway, 1995}). If gender identity is a position, as ^{Alcoff (2006)} suggests, then critical positioning depends on identity, which is continuously examined as a condition of possibility to see from a certain place, in an embodied way, and to critique the hegemonic vision. Without this identity position, critical knowledge is not possible.

Iris Marion Young also defends the thesis of gender as a position. Gender is constituted as a social relation and as a process that determines the social position and role people occupy. For Young, this position depends on a social structure: “It is an account of gender difference as a structural difference” (^{Young, 2002}, p. 93). Thus, this account, as a position in the social structure, ultimately shapes life choices, desire, sexuality, legal status, educational and employment opportunities, access to resources, political recognition, authority/subordination roles, prestige, and acknowledgment. In the case of women, this position ends up constituting an injustice against them (^{Fricker, 2017}), and this becomes even more pronounced when gender identities intersect with other social identity prejudices such as race, class, nationality, or ethnicity.

^{Young (2000)} also recognizes the political and epistemic potential of gender as an inclusive political resource, because “[...] it helps to correct the biases of dominant partial perspectives through the communication of experience and knowledge derived from different social positions” (^{Rosas; Álvarez, 2022}, p. 5), thereby expanding the knowledge we have of society. Gender’s position in the social structure gives voice to the needs, interests, and perspectives of those at a disadvantage, paving the way for more just decision-making and the possible transformation of “social structures based on domination and oppression” (^{Young, 2000}, p. 68).

This expansion of social knowledge, which addresses partial and biased perspectives, aligns with Miranda Fricker’s proposal. In her seminal work titled Epistemic Injustice (2017), Fricker analyzes, from a feminist perspective, the dynamics of understanding and interpreting social relations and individuals' roles, explaining how unjust conditions are created for oppressed and segregated minorities. When reflecting on "epistemic injustice," she divides it into two dimensions: "testimonial" and "hermeneutical" (^{Fricker, 2017}).

Regarding the first, it occurs when certain types of individuals are not granted credibility in their testimonies due to prejudices or identity-based powers that discriminate against and marginalize them. One might think of the case of a woman who seeks justice but is not believed when she accuses her abusers or attackers simply because she is a woman, or of Black people whose testimonies are discredited because of their race. Their words hold less credibility compared to other subjects: the testimony of a white police officer versus that of a Black citizen, or that of Indigenous or gay individuals against heteronormative individuals.

In the hermeneutical dimension, Fricker argues that "identity power" operates through the creation of institutions, social structures, and cultural frameworks that prevent the interpretation and understanding of the unjust and disadvantaged situations faced by certain individuals in specific roles and social interactions. Some aspects of individuals' lives become inexplicable and incomprehensible in light of the epistemic resources established by the culture. Consider, for example, the guilt felt by a homosexual person because the culture labels them as abnormal. Or women who were sexually harassed at a time when abusive touching was normalized, and the concept of "sexual harassment" had not yet been established. Thus, hermeneutical injustice is a central concept for explaining injustices and inequities in different spaces, as well as the reproduction of biases and stereotypes, and schools are no exception. Due to the partiality created by identity-based prejudices, there is a risk that "[...] some significant portion of one’s social experience will be obscured from collective understanding because of a structural identity prejudice in the collective hermeneutical resources" (^{Fricker, 2017}, p. 254). In other words, this "risk" means becoming a victim or cause of what she calls hermeneutical injustice, produced by this bias or identity partiality, which leads to the inability to understand or make sense of experiences that cause discomfort but have been normalized by society.

Thus, conceiving GP in the concrete context of schools allows for the development of a critical perspective on the inequalities, hierarchies, and forms of discrimination present in educational institutions, particularly those caused by gender. In this sense, it is committed to models of justice and differentiated approaches aimed at explaining and proposing strategies to address the issues faced by children who are discriminated against, "victims of gender-based violence" (^{Leñero, 2011}, p. 50). However, GP in schools also calls for changes in "[...] teaching and learning processes, conceptual content, non-distorted knowledge, unbiased methodologies, identification of cultural elements that tend toward domination, didactic strategies for change, and the deconstruction of identities" (Bolaños; Jiménez, 1996¹ apud ^{Donoso-Vázquez; Montané; Pessoa de Carvalho, 2014}, p. 162).

Thus, GP includes changes in institutional culture, its practices, laws, and structures, but it also introduces fundamental epistemic modifications to each academic discipline and teaching method. Academic feminism has produced the relevant scientific knowledge needed to identify and challenge forms of discrimination in various spaces, but schools have not “[...] embraced the subject matter or its processes of institutionalization within their communities” (^{Buquet, 2011}, p. 212). This framework does not constitute an already constructed perspective; rather, it functions as a horizon of meaning and critical positioning that enables the ongoing struggle to reduce discrimination, violence, and inequalities.

Methodology

Methodologically, the research employs the Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach within the paradigm of critical theory, guided by feminist epistemology and cartography. It is a qualitative-interpretive methodology with a gender perspective (GP), in the sense that, as feminist epistemology emphasizes, knowledge is always situated (^{Haraway, 1995}); that is, it exists within historically material, contextualized, embodied, and concrete conditions, without claims to universalization and neutral objectivity. For data collection, it was deemed pertinent to use "focus groups" or "discussion groups" (^{Valles, 1997}, p. 288-289). This technique is commonly used to conduct “[...] phenomenological research on people’s views and understanding of certain phenomena” (^{Wilkinson, 1998}, p. 184).

The focus groups, mostly made up of students from different grades, allowed the issues to be situated from their perspectives and facilitated the identification of emerging categories for interpretation, understanding, and the proposal of strategies for the implementation of GP in the institution. In this way, it addresses how they inhabit, navigate, and improve the school environment and the conditions of equity between girls and boys.

The contributions of teachers and alumni provided a more comprehensive, situated, and objective perspective on how the institution has, over time, addressed the challenges posed by the implementation of GP. The insights and contributions from alumni are of great importance, as they offer a comparative view and evaluation in relation to the descriptions of current students and their own experiences during their time at the institution. Likewise, the perspectives of participating teachers enriched the discussion and interpretation of the issues addressed in each focus group, informed by their discipline and expertise.

In accordance with these considerations and in line with the research objective, a Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology was implemented based on four phases: a) diagnosis of institutional issues related to GP from the perspective of participating students; b) design and implementation of spaces for reflection and new collaborations based on the results of the diagnosis and the potential of educational communities for transformation and improvement of initial conditions; c) communities of inquiry composed of teams of students, teachers, and members of partner institutions invited to support and enrich the process. These communities facilitated new representations, knowledge, and pedagogical practices regarding GP and GA, fulfilling the methodological purpose of PAR, which is to contribute to the improvement of the educational community directly involved in the research. And d) strategies and practices carried out within the institution as examples of GA. Below, some additional methodological data are presented.

Results Analysis

The findings from the analysis of the data collected during the focus groups reveal the emerging subcategories as the key aspects that most influence the production and reproduction of biases, stereotypes, and identity-based powers that perpetuate inequalities and inequities (^{Fricker, 2017}) in the experience of inhabiting and navigating school spaces. These subcategories serve as examples of epistemic and structural injustices (^{Young, 2011}), the two categories outlined in the theoretical framework guiding this analysis (Table 2).

These inquiries and descriptions, like the most recurrent ones in the production of identities and political agencies, revealed the level of reflection and awareness within the educational institution regarding gender-related issues, which can be addressed through new collaborations. This awareness and informed reflection allowed for “the creation of a school within the school” (FG4), an expression used by a student leader who emphasized the need to think about the gender perspective (GP) from a safe, dialogical, and transformative space. “A discursive approach for deconstruction, unlearning, and empowering not only those involved but also those to whom it is shared” (Teacher, FG4).

Awareness Day on GP with Students and Teachers

One of the central activities carried out as a concrete expression and application of all the discussions and learning related to the GP—led by the students of the gender school and the teachers leading the initiative—was a pedagogical session on GP with the entire institution, held on August 23, 2022. Group directors, teachers, and students participated in this session. It was structured around a guide prepared by the gender school and the female leaders interested in identifying key aspects of gender-related issues at the institutional level. In the workshop, participants were asked to reflect on the school environment and the expression of diverse identities in a safe space. The question posed was: "In your role within the academic community, how can you contribute to making the school a space of diverse and inclusive coexistence?" The responses from each group were categorized into six proposals based on priority and relevance, with the aim of incorporating them into the review of the Code of Conduct (see Graph 1).

Source: Prepared by the authors.

Graph 1 Responses Categorized by Order of Priority and Relevance 

Based on the frequency and repetition of the responses, the important role of the school in facilitating the interaction of knowledge and the recognition of individualities and their identities, without the establishment of predetermined roles, is acknowledged.

This proposal demonstrates a clear potential for reviewing the behavioral norms that create settings of discrimination and lack of recognition of diversity, along with strengthening behaviors that promote dialogue, respect, tolerance, empathy, and solidarity (Teacher, FG10).

In particular, the student group recognized the need to integrate arts, sports, and cultural activities that break away from the frameworks that generate generic gender stereotypes, which have evidently excluded girls and other diverse and minority identities.

Today's society calls for the promotion of an inclusive, non-discriminatory school that genuinely fosters gender education. Various studies and research have shown that sexist attitudes and stereotypes follow students throughout their entire educational process—from early childhood education to high school—and that these shape their behaviors, conduct, and worldviews

(^{Marín del Ojo; Cancelas-Ouviña, 2021}, p. 69).

The School as a Space for Self-Care and Care for Others

In this work, we have sought to understand the meaning, necessity, presence, and absence of a gender perspective (GP) and its relationship with the school. Following theoretical contributions and mapping practical ones, we emphasize the political and epistemic dimensions of this perspective. These dimensions are fundamental as they offer new ways of understanding and potential transformations of spaces and identities (^{Alcoff, 2006}). The epistemic relevance of a GP in the school lies in its transformative potential regarding concepts, methodologies, hegemonic interpretations, and pedagogies within disciplines. Its political importance is reflected in the attention to the absence of women and non-heteronormative subjects in masculine cognitive canons, the hierarchical relationships within the school, and the implementation of actions aimed at reducing inequality and discrimination (^{Young, 2002}).

Only a critical positioning within the social space allows for significant changes in the school space. Although this critical positioning is materially grounded in the bodies, histories, and situations of women, this perspective rises beyond its material base to be imagined, understood, and affirmed by those fighting for the transformation of spaces, classrooms, and stereotyped identities. While personal experiences serve as the initial connection with inequality and discrimination, and are a condition for adopting a GP, encountering some form of education that addresses feminism and allows for power-sensitive questions and reflections is crucial for making sense of past experiences (^{Fricker, 2017}), transforming the present, and enabling a more equal school in the future, one that highlights power relations within knowledge institutions. “Education is one of the fundamental tools for change, a crucial element for laying the groundwork to promote effective gender equality” (^{Marín del Ojo; Cancelas-Ouviña, 2021}, p. 68).

The GP is both a starting point and a horizon of meaning for the transformation of culture itself, raising awareness of the gender inequalities that permeate all spheres of culture: family, work, politics, organizations, art, business, health, science, sexuality, history, and ultimately all cultural institutions. The gender perspective is not exclusively a women’s issue, nor is it solely directed at them. Being a perspective of the concrete world and life itself, the most relevant aspect is understanding the problems that encompass vital commitments. All epistemic transformation is, ultimately, a political struggle—a struggle for recognition, for the transformation of spaces to be inhabited more justly, equally, and equitably.