Advertisement

Scaling Educational Policy and Practice Intersectionally: Historical and Contemporary Cases from South and Southeast Asia

  • Mayurakshi ChaudhuriEmail author
  • Viola Thimm
  • Sarah J. Mahler
Chapter
Part of the The Politics of Intersectionality book series (POLI)

Abstract

Gender, race, caste, class, and religion, to name just a few axes of differentiation, are social constructs that have inflected the varied and unequal lives of people throughout the world for generations—some forever. To date, most have been investigated individually. Since the inception of the intersectionality framework by feminists two decades ago, however, it is now superior to analyse them as entwined, as mutually constitutive. Such intersectional approaches promise to enhance insights into continued inequalities at local, regional, national, as well as international scales. Intersectional scholars note, however, that this framework has yet to reach its potential theoretically, methodologically, and practically. A case in point is its underdevelopment within public policy discourse and application (Hankivsky and Cormier, Political Research Quarterly 64:217–229, 2011). In this chapter, the authors apply theoretical and methodological advances to the intersectionality framework from previous publications (e.g., Mahler, Chaudhuri, and Patil, Sex Roles 73:100–112, 2015) to the critical public policy sector of education. They examine how historical and contemporary education policies have been gendered and ethnicized in cases from South and Southeast Asia. Their intersectional analysis documents how policies and the people affected by them are negotiated simultaneously across multiple social scales—historical as well as geographical—en route to discriminatory outcomes.

References

  1. Acharya, P. (1995). Bengali ‘Bhadralok’ and Educational Development in 19th Century Bengal (pp. 670–673). April: Economic and Political Weekly.Google Scholar
  2. Baviskar, A., & Ray, R. (Eds.). (2015). Elite and Everyman: The Cultural Politics of the Indian Middle Class. New Delhi: Routledge India.Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, T. (2005). The Sentinels of Culture: Class, Education, and the Colonial Intellectual in Bengal (1848–85). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bhopal, K., & Preston, J. (Eds.). (2012). Intersectionality and “Race” in Education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain’t I a Woman? Revisiting Intersectionality. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 5(3), 75–86.Google Scholar
  6. Chatterjee, P. (1993). The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chaudhuri, M. (2014). Gender in Motion: Negotiating Bengali Social Statuses Across Time and Territories. Miami, FL: Florida International University.Google Scholar
  8. Chaudhuri, M., Thimm, V., & Mahler, S. J. (2014). Gendered Geographies of Power: Their Value for Analyzing Gender Across Transnational Spaces. In J. Gruhlich & B. Riegraf (Eds.), Geschlecht und Transnationale Räume. Feministische Perspektiven auf neue Ein- und Ausschlüsse [Gender and Transnational Spaces: Feminist Perspectives.] (pp. 192–209). Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  9. Chong, T. (2005). Modernization Trends in Southeast Asia. Singapore: ISEAS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167.Google Scholar
  11. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cukrowska-Torzewska, E. (2014). Intersectionality of Ethnicity and Gender: Exploring Romani Women’s Performance in Education. Ekonomia, 36, 51–89.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Department of Statistics, Malaysia. (2008). Buletin Perangkaan Bulanan.Google Scholar
  15. Göransson, K. (2010). The Binding Tie. Singapore: NUS Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hancock, A. (2007). When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hankivsky, O. (Ed.). (2012). An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Framework. Vancouver, BC: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Policy, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  18. Hankivsky, O., & Cormier, R. (2011). Intersectionality and Public Policy: Some Lessons from Existing Models. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hefner, R. W. (2001). Introduction. In R. W. Hefner (Ed.), The Politics of Multiculturalism. Pluralism and Citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia (pp. 1–58). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
  20. hooks, b. (1981). Ain’t I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  21. hooks, b. (2000). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ibsen, H. (1879/2005). A Doll House. Salt Lake City: Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Lam, T., & Brenda Yeoh, S. A. (2004). Negotiating ‘Home’ and ‘National Identity’: Chinese-Malaysian Transmigrants in Singapore. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 45(2), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, M. N. N. (2004). Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia. School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia Monograph Series No: 4/2004.Google Scholar
  25. Lundberg, A., & Werner, A. (Eds.). (2012). Gender Studies, Education and Pedagogy. Gothenburg: Swedish Secretariat for Gender Research.Google Scholar
  26. Mahler, S. J., & Pessar, P. (2001). Gendered Geographies of Power: Analyzing Gender across Transnational Spaces. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 7(4), 441–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahler, S. J., & Pessar, P. (2006). Gender Matters: Ethnographers Bring Gender from the Periphery toward the Core of Migration Studies. International Migration Review, 40, 27–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00002.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mahler, S. J., Chaudhuri, M., & Patil, V. (2015). Scaling Intersectionality: Advancing Feminist Analysis of Transnational Families. Sex Roles, 73(3–4), 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mani, L. (1998). Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Manuel, T. (2006). Envisioning the Possibilities for a Good Life: Exploring the Public Policy Implications of Intersectionality Theory. Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, 28(3–4), 173–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minh-Ha, T. T. (1989). Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mullings, L., & Schulz, A. J. (2006). Intersectionality and Health. In A. J. Schulz (Ed.), Gender, Race, Class, and Health: Intersectional Approaches (pp. 3–17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Norani, O. (1998). Islamization and Modernization in Malaysia. In R. Wilford & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Women, Ethnicity and Nationalism (pp. 170–192). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Núñez, A.-M. (2014). Advancing an Intersectionality Framework in Higher Education: Power and Latino Postsecondary Opportunity. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 29, pp. 33–92). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ong, A. (2003). State Versus Islam: Malay Families, Women’s Bodies, and the Body Politic in Malaysia. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), Islam, Gender and the Family (pp. 262–288). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Phoenix, A., & Pattynama, P. (2006). Intersectionality. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ray, S. (1964). Charulata. Drama, Romance. Edward Harrison (US).Google Scholar
  40. Sangari, K., & Vaid, S. (1990). Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shields, S. (2008). Gender: An Intersectionality Perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singam, C. (2004). Introduction: The Singapore Woman and Her Roles. In A. Chin & C. Singam (Eds.), Singapore Women Re-Presented (pp. 11–17). Singapore: Landmark.Google Scholar
  43. Singapore Department of Statistics. (2010). Census of Population 2010 – Statistical Release 1: Demographic Characteristics, Education, Language and Religion. Retrieved February 28, 2012, from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/C2010sr1/cop2010sr1.pdf.
  44. Sinha, M. M. (1995). Colonial Masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the Late Nineteenth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Stivens, M. (2000). Becoming Modern in Malaysia: Women at the End of the Twentieth Century. In L. Edwards & M. Roces (Eds.), Women in Asia. Tradition, Modernity and Globalisation (pp. 16–38). Ann Arbor: Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stivens, M. (2006). Foreword. In A. Brooks (Ed.), Gendered Work in Asian Cities. The New Economy and Changing Labour Markets (pp. ix–xi). Burlington/Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  47. Thimm, V. (2014a). “Gendered Geographies of Power”. Ein Modell zur Analyse von Bildungsmigration und Geschlecht am Beispiel von Malaysia und Singapur. In S. Förschler, R. Habermas, & N. Roßbach (Eds.), Verorten – Verhandeln – Verkörpern. Interdisziplinäre Analysen zu Raum und Geschlecht (pp. 61–84). Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  48. Thimm, V. (2014b). Geschlecht und Bildungsmigration. Lebensentwürfe und Weiblichkeitsbilder malaysischer Bildungsmigrantinnen in Singapur. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  49. Thimm, V., Chaudhuri, M., & Mahler, S. J. (2017). Enhancing Intersectional Analyses with Polyvocality: Making and Illustrating the Model. Social Sciences, 6(2), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yeoh, B. S. A., Huang, S., & Willis, K. (2000). Global Cities, Transnational Flows and Gender Dimensions, the View from Singapore. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale Geografie/Journal of Economic and Social Geography, 91(2), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and Feminist Politics. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mayurakshi Chaudhuri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Viola Thimm
    • 2
  • Sarah J. Mahler
    • 3
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology JodhpurJodhpurIndia
  2. 2.Asia-Africa-Institute, Hamburg UniversityHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations