高中公民與社會教科書之性別教育論述探究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2014
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究旨在探究高中公民與社會科教科書性別教育的論述呈現情形，採用論述分析之方法進行文本的研究。並以公民與社會科九九課綱、現行公民與社會科必修與選修之教科書作為分析對象，探詢四大領域文本論述對性別平等教育的態度與其所持的意識型態，以檢視各領域之性別平等教育圖像，分析結果如下：
一、四大領域在課綱中置入性別議題的態樣：
（一）社會領域成為性別議題發聲的主要空間。
（二）各領域對於個體的不同預設皆影響該領域往後在性別議題發展的方向。
（三）四大領域雖為同一學科，各領域對於該議題的詮釋仍堅守不同的領域知識，呈現各說各話的情形。
二、四大領域在教科書文本論述實踐下的圖像：
（一）社會領域：在性別認同上給予多元性別關係的理想描繪，在圖文的描述上仍再現了異性戀的性別框架。忽略多元的性別群體受壓迫的經驗與其他多元文化因素的交織探討。
（二）政治領域：承襲課綱保持緘默的態度，但檢視圖文的內容卻也可發現文本往往在去性別的論述中，潛藏男性為中心的知識價值，遺忘了女性與其他性別群體在政治領域的參與經驗與社會貢獻。
（三）法律領域：其嘗試在相關刑事法規納入性別平權立法的推動脈絡，與性別平等教育相扣合，但文本談及相關不平等之事例，仍聚焦在兩性上的不平等議題，對於多元的性別群體在權利上的保障與適用並未提及。
（四）經濟領域：從客觀中立的經濟學論述，排除性別議題置入的可能性。但檢視相關供需與家務生產議題，可發現文本對家務勞動的性別劃分、市場生產與消費行為的性別想像間接合理的與父權社會的性別配置相扣合，再現父權社會的市場性別結構。
三、四大領域在教科書文本論述中的互動：
（一）文本與課綱的論述承接，仍受主流意識形態的撼動。
領域之間的論述雖承襲課綱的內容與安排，但仍受到主流性別意識形態的左右，最後形塑出不同面貌的性別圖像。其不僅凸顯出各領域在課綱保有論述的能動性，也說明了教科書文本仍受主流性別價值的影響。
（二）領域間透過論述的支持與搭架，再現父權社會的性別秩序
四大領域透過不同的學理知識、選擇說與不說的方式，彼此橫向的串聯與支持，構連出父權體制在不同場域中的性別秩序，鞏固了父權體制的性別價值。雖在社會領域存在溢出的論述挑戰父權的搭架，但力量仍顯薄弱，父權透過文本論述所表露的權力一覽無遺。
This study aims to explore the representation of discourse of gender education in civics and society textbooks by applying discourse analysis to the 2010 curriculum guideline and to the textbooks. Through the exploration of how the ideology and attitude of gender-equal education are held, the study examines the image of gender-equal education in the four areas—social, political, law, and economic—in civics and society textbooks. The results of the study are as follows: The first how gender issues are deal with in the 2010 curriculum guideline is about: 1.The social area provides more room for gender issues than the other areas do. 2.The different attitude for gender affect the development of gender issues in the four areas. 3.Although the four areas are integrated as one subject, each area sticks to its own content knowledge and therefore shares little commonality of perspectives on gender issues. Second, how gender equality is depicted through the discourse in the four areas of the textbooks: 1.In social area: It ideally illustrates the multiplicity of gender relationships in terms of gender identity. However, the descriptions of the graphics still represent heterosexual-oriented perspectives, ignoring the minors’ experiences of being oppressed and failing to also include multicultural factors in the exploration of gender issues. 2.In political area: The discourse of textbooks inherited the attitude of 2010 curriculum guideline: not referring to any gender issues. Through inspection of the graphics, however, the hidden male-centered value and knowledge can be found in the discourse of de-gendering. Females’ and other gender groups’ community involvement experiences and contributions to the society are overlooked. 3.In law area: It attempts to incorporate legislation of gender equality into the introduction of criminal laws, which corresponds with the objectives of gender equality education. Nonetheless, when cases of gender inequality are mentioned, the focus is limited to male and female. How the rights granted by law can be applied to multi gender groups has yet been discussed. 4.In economic area: It excludes the integration of gender issues with neutral and objective discourse of economics. If we further investigate relevant issues such as demand, supply or household, we can find that gender images of household work and market production and consumption activities are suggesting gender arrangements in a patriarchal society and reproducing patriarchal gender structure. Third, the relation of four areas in text discourse: 1.Although the discourse in the textbooks follow 2010 curriculum guideline, they are still influenced by mainstream ideology, shaping different gender images. It can be concluded that each area maintains its authority to deal with gender issues, and that textbooks are under the impact of mainstream values of gender. 2.The four areas support and connect with one another, representing and consolidating patriarchal gender values and orders by applying their respective content knowledge and by choosing either to deal with gender issues or not. Although parts of the discourse in social area expresses different opinions on gender which are not based on patriarchal gender values, the impact is not strong enough. Patriarchy can be easily shown through the discourse.
This study aims to explore the representation of discourse of gender education in civics and society textbooks by applying discourse analysis to the 2010 curriculum guideline and to the textbooks. Through the exploration of how the ideology and attitude of gender-equal education are held, the study examines the image of gender-equal education in the four areas—social, political, law, and economic—in civics and society textbooks. The results of the study are as follows: The first how gender issues are deal with in the 2010 curriculum guideline is about: 1.The social area provides more room for gender issues than the other areas do. 2.The different attitude for gender affect the development of gender issues in the four areas. 3.Although the four areas are integrated as one subject, each area sticks to its own content knowledge and therefore shares little commonality of perspectives on gender issues. Second, how gender equality is depicted through the discourse in the four areas of the textbooks: 1.In social area: It ideally illustrates the multiplicity of gender relationships in terms of gender identity. However, the descriptions of the graphics still represent heterosexual-oriented perspectives, ignoring the minors’ experiences of being oppressed and failing to also include multicultural factors in the exploration of gender issues. 2.In political area: The discourse of textbooks inherited the attitude of 2010 curriculum guideline: not referring to any gender issues. Through inspection of the graphics, however, the hidden male-centered value and knowledge can be found in the discourse of de-gendering. Females’ and other gender groups’ community involvement experiences and contributions to the society are overlooked. 3.In law area: It attempts to incorporate legislation of gender equality into the introduction of criminal laws, which corresponds with the objectives of gender equality education. Nonetheless, when cases of gender inequality are mentioned, the focus is limited to male and female. How the rights granted by law can be applied to multi gender groups has yet been discussed. 4.In economic area: It excludes the integration of gender issues with neutral and objective discourse of economics. If we further investigate relevant issues such as demand, supply or household, we can find that gender images of household work and market production and consumption activities are suggesting gender arrangements in a patriarchal society and reproducing patriarchal gender structure. Third, the relation of four areas in text discourse: 1.Although the discourse in the textbooks follow 2010 curriculum guideline, they are still influenced by mainstream ideology, shaping different gender images. It can be concluded that each area maintains its authority to deal with gender issues, and that textbooks are under the impact of mainstream values of gender. 2.The four areas support and connect with one another, representing and consolidating patriarchal gender values and orders by applying their respective content knowledge and by choosing either to deal with gender issues or not. Although parts of the discourse in social area expresses different opinions on gender which are not based on patriarchal gender values, the impact is not strong enough. Patriarchy can be easily shown through the discourse.
Description
Keywords
高中公民與社會, 論述分析, 性別平等教育, senior high school civics and society, discourse analysis, gender equality education