The unethical gaze, the unethical touch, the caring touch, and pedagogy
I have had the opportunity to think about my research on ethical tactility in relation to two separate scholastically related articles this week. I was going to speak about each of these articles separately, however I realized that they really do work well in tandem for they express exactly the two ends of the spectrum that I address in my dissertation.
The first was a very refreshing insightful article on how hugging is understood in the school environment, by Francine Kopun, and can be found here . Kopun starts her article with anecdotes from boys and girls in Toronto schools about how hugging works for teenagers. Basically hugging is the teenagers new handshake for a large majority of them. Even amongst the students of the all-boys Upper Canada College, there are strict rules to how hugging works. At UCC we see more of the shoulder bump than the hug, a move that screams "there are boundaries after all," in that awkward teenage boy sort of way, which I find endearing and very much part of the growing-up process.
Kopun's point is that some US schools have banned any sort of touching for fears of inappropriate touching. Kate Dickson, an English teacher in Toronto gave what was for me the most quintessential quotation in regards to ethics and tactility in any setting: "People shouldn't have to touch one another if they don't feel like it."
I could not agree more, the premise of an ethical interaction being one where there is communication between the parties that will be interacting, and if both parties agree that touch can occur then this is ethical. This does not involve a long negotation process, some friends, couples, family members have bodily clues that state that this touch is allowed and wanted.
What the US schools are trying to avoid are instances of unethical touching, where there is no understanding between the parties, and butts are grabbed, breasts touched as a joke. This is unethical, not funny, and within a classroom or school setting does nothing but taint and close off the educational space so that the interaction needed for an ethical classroom experience becomes an impossibility.
The new scouting code given in the article: "A handshake is generally acceptable; a hug is sometimes acceptable; and an embrace is usually unacceptable," indicates the degree and separation of types of tactility. The more of the body that is in contact the more unacceptable it is. These laws and codes are in place so that abuse does not happen, however a cut and dry understanding of tactility erases the ability to demonstrate a tactile ethic of care. I have not had the experience of teaching very young children (the youngest student I have educated was 8 years old or so) so I would appreciate comments on this contentious issue, what do they tell you to do in teacher's college? I would never as a rule touch a child at all, however I can also see how the care that a touch on the arm can give can be a positive thing when the student has doubt within a classroom setting. I like the 1ft bubble rule, keep 1ft between yourself and others at all times, it assures that ethicality of space is maintained.
But what about the gaze? Well according to the most ridiculous and unethical statements uttered by the vice-chancellor of Buckingham University found here his gaze within the classroom goes well within that 1ft bubble rule. Kealey says that female students are a perk of the job for male academics. Now not only is this ridiculous on a heteronormative plain, this is the most egregious abuse of power on the part of an educator and is completely 100% unacceptable and very very very unethical. Kealey suggest that watching your students should be a way to make your home life with your partner more acceptable. It makes me angry that people are defending his actions and words as a joke, as satire. This is not satire, in fact those people should actually find the definition of satire in the OED, there is nothing that makes me more angry than when people attempt to hedge their misogyny in satire. At no time is it ethical to stare at anyone as though they are something to simply be consumed. One should always be aware that there are unethical gazes as easily as there are unethical touches. What kind of ethical educational space can an educator create when these are the gazes that are being given within it. There is no security here, there is no understanding here, any conversation or interaction will be tinged by the unethical gaze. It is my sincere hope that Kealey loses his job for his ridiculous comments, tenure or not. It is COMPLETELY unacceptable for a professor and administrator of a University to behave in this manner, and he has clearly demonstrated that he is incapable of creating and fostering the classroom environment needed by his students for a fulfilling and rewarding educational experience. His look but don't touch mentality and mantra, does not remove culpability....the gaze can be as unethical as the touch.
The first was a very refreshing insightful article on how hugging is understood in the school environment, by Francine Kopun, and can be found here . Kopun starts her article with anecdotes from boys and girls in Toronto schools about how hugging works for teenagers. Basically hugging is the teenagers new handshake for a large majority of them. Even amongst the students of the all-boys Upper Canada College, there are strict rules to how hugging works. At UCC we see more of the shoulder bump than the hug, a move that screams "there are boundaries after all," in that awkward teenage boy sort of way, which I find endearing and very much part of the growing-up process.
Kopun's point is that some US schools have banned any sort of touching for fears of inappropriate touching. Kate Dickson, an English teacher in Toronto gave what was for me the most quintessential quotation in regards to ethics and tactility in any setting: "People shouldn't have to touch one another if they don't feel like it."
I could not agree more, the premise of an ethical interaction being one where there is communication between the parties that will be interacting, and if both parties agree that touch can occur then this is ethical. This does not involve a long negotation process, some friends, couples, family members have bodily clues that state that this touch is allowed and wanted.
What the US schools are trying to avoid are instances of unethical touching, where there is no understanding between the parties, and butts are grabbed, breasts touched as a joke. This is unethical, not funny, and within a classroom or school setting does nothing but taint and close off the educational space so that the interaction needed for an ethical classroom experience becomes an impossibility.
The new scouting code given in the article: "A handshake is generally acceptable; a hug is sometimes acceptable; and an embrace is usually unacceptable," indicates the degree and separation of types of tactility. The more of the body that is in contact the more unacceptable it is. These laws and codes are in place so that abuse does not happen, however a cut and dry understanding of tactility erases the ability to demonstrate a tactile ethic of care. I have not had the experience of teaching very young children (the youngest student I have educated was 8 years old or so) so I would appreciate comments on this contentious issue, what do they tell you to do in teacher's college? I would never as a rule touch a child at all, however I can also see how the care that a touch on the arm can give can be a positive thing when the student has doubt within a classroom setting. I like the 1ft bubble rule, keep 1ft between yourself and others at all times, it assures that ethicality of space is maintained.
But what about the gaze? Well according to the most ridiculous and unethical statements uttered by the vice-chancellor of Buckingham University found here his gaze within the classroom goes well within that 1ft bubble rule. Kealey says that female students are a perk of the job for male academics. Now not only is this ridiculous on a heteronormative plain, this is the most egregious abuse of power on the part of an educator and is completely 100% unacceptable and very very very unethical. Kealey suggest that watching your students should be a way to make your home life with your partner more acceptable. It makes me angry that people are defending his actions and words as a joke, as satire. This is not satire, in fact those people should actually find the definition of satire in the OED, there is nothing that makes me more angry than when people attempt to hedge their misogyny in satire. At no time is it ethical to stare at anyone as though they are something to simply be consumed. One should always be aware that there are unethical gazes as easily as there are unethical touches. What kind of ethical educational space can an educator create when these are the gazes that are being given within it. There is no security here, there is no understanding here, any conversation or interaction will be tinged by the unethical gaze. It is my sincere hope that Kealey loses his job for his ridiculous comments, tenure or not. It is COMPLETELY unacceptable for a professor and administrator of a University to behave in this manner, and he has clearly demonstrated that he is incapable of creating and fostering the classroom environment needed by his students for a fulfilling and rewarding educational experience. His look but don't touch mentality and mantra, does not remove culpability....the gaze can be as unethical as the touch.
Comments
Post a Comment