On the Fate of Women: “Equality Does Not Mean Identity”

Abstract

Although the IBE produced some pioneering surveys in the 1930s on women and education, the only International Conference entirely devoted to this question took place as late as 1952, on the initiative of the women’s NGOs supported by UNESCO. But the IBE’s recommendations expressly call for broad access to education for women at all levels of schooling, including universities and vocational courses. Contradictions remained: opinions plainly reducing women to their biological reproductive functions faced clearly heard demands for equality in education. After this conference, one can observe an increased awareness of the injustice suffered by girls and women, in access to both courses of study and diplomas.

Of the 65 problems selected for treatment by the ICPEs between 1934 and 1968, only one was entirely devoted to the situation of women in education, and this was only in 1952, on the initiative of the women’s NGOs supported by UNESCO (Hunyadi, 2022, pp. 452–59). Of course, in all the previous surveys—behind the statistics, the rational speeches, the liberating pleas—the feminine was hidden behind the masculine. But this silence is surprising: the IBE’s mission was to leave no one, least of all the most vulnerable,¹ on the sidelines of the conquering march of education, held to be a condition for social justice, equality and subsequently for the emancipation of individuals and peoples. Moreover, several of the IBE leaders and their close relations (especially wives) as well as the main secretaries of the Bureau² moved in women’s networks which were well represented by the collective members of the Bureau and those who appeared on its committee for initiatives.³

How then can we understand this silence? The subject may seem too controversial, as is suggested by the speeches on the regularly mentioned boundless differences between countries, traditions and cultures regarding the “conditions of women”. There was certainly little detection and, consequently, little awareness of the extent of the segregations suffered in the field of education, and also because of their insidious subtleties that led to this “invisibilisation”.⁴

In this context, what were the positions and initiatives taken by the stalwarts of the IBE? What developments were taking place in the treatment of gender issues in the ICPEs? How were contradictions—if they were identified—dealt with by this chorus of diplomats and experts who had long been essentially male, but whose voices were meticulously transcribed and translated, day and night, by discreet but efficient secretaries who were almost exclusively female?

Pioneering International Surveys

Looking at sources other than those of the ICPEs, we can see first of all that the decision-making bodies of the IBE had integrated the gender issue into their concerns and that several international surveys had been carried out but without leading to an international Conference.

The Bureau was one of the first international public law institutions to initiate regular international surveys on the status and salaries of women teachers in the public school system, starting in the late 1920s.⁵ Then, in 1932, in collaboration with the ILO,⁶ the IBE conducted a pioneering survey on La situation de la femme mariée dans l’enseignement officiel (The situation of married women in official education): 42 replies were collected from Ministries of Public Education and were published in 1933, highlighting the discrimination suffered by wives in the education market.

Moreover, in December 1939, the management committee—which had just been set up so that the IBE could survive the war—devised a survey on home economics in primary and secondary schools: it was then taken for granted that only women were concerned, even though it was recommended that this subject should be included in the curriculum for young men. It is worth noting the concern to give a broad and above all theoretical definition to this “home economics”, presented as a way for young girls to gain access to other subjects such as political economy, civic education, public hygiene, history and geography (L’enseignement ménager dans les écoles primaires et secondaires, 1941, p. 29).

It should also be observed that while the preparatory surveys for the ICPEs dealt with the teaching profession, from 1935 onwards explicit mention was systematically made of women. Admittedly, women were still discriminated against in managerial positions as well as in the secondary school network (there was hardly any mention of higher education,⁷ which was left to the ICIC in their division of tasks). It is noted that women were gradually gaining more and more positions in primary education, acquiring rights in pre-school, and many voices were raised to welcome this and to advocate for wage equivalence.

One more salient point: as soon as peace was achieved, the IBE Council decided to update its data on the rights of married women in the teaching profession. Launched in May 1946, this time the survey focused on the right of women teachers to continue to work in the public sector after they were married.⁸ Of the 45 countries that responded, 40—like the USSR—stated that these rights were guaranteed, but at the same time they cited specific clauses that sometimes reflected social provisions in their favour (maternity leave, sometimes in return for a reduction in salary, etc.), and sometimes practices that were inconsistent with these rights (a married woman could only work if her husband’s salary was insufficient to support the family, or if she had no children, etc.). It was usual at that time to consider marriage as an act of resignation or to translate it into salary reductions or the withdrawal of benefits. Beyond the legal position, there was also stifling moral pressure for the woman to stay at home with her own children, rather than “hogging” a job at the expense of a father with a family.

Among the few countries that mentioned gender distinctions was Switzerland, hitherto hailed as a land of democracy and a Mecca of pedagogy: without justification. Almost half of the Swiss cantons reported they required the resignation of a married woman, unless there were exceptional circumstances, including widowhood or divorce. These two outcomes were therefore the “laissez passer” to keep one’s job! These discriminatory laws dated mainly from the crisis of the 1930s and several cantons, such as Geneva, mentioned that they no longer corresponded to practice or had just been modified.⁹

Male Bastions Solidly Preserved

A comparison of the results of the two international surveys on the fate of married women shows that little change in the case for greater equity was noticeable between 1933 and 1947. In the meantime, however, the war—which had just afflicted a third of the responding countries—had fundamentally reconfigured gender relations, including in the labour market. For six years, women replaced the men who had been mobilised: of course, they took on domestic activities, including work in the fields, on the farm, in craft industries and in shops; but they also worked in schools, factories, workshops, hospitals and administrations, when they were not mobilised in the Resistance or at the front.¹⁰ The ICPEs’ half-hearted acknowledgement of women’s abilities and valour in these particular circumstances is clear.

But this double IBE survey also makes visible the relentless crusade to confine women to the private sphere. The documentation gathered in the two inquiries shows that in times of public budget cuts, civil servants were directly targeted:¹¹ the so-called double salaries controversy, which was initiated or reinforced following the 1929 crash and tirelessly revisited during the 1930s and 1940s, had a lasting effect on women teachers, especially within the state sector (status of civil servant couples).¹²

The deliberations allow us to highlight the strategies of the state, the employers and, at times, supported by the unions,¹³ to keep women in subordinate positions and statuses (including lower salaries, insurance, benefits); often there is only support for them if it does not jeopardise the social order, male economic and political strongholds or male supremacy in the labour market.

In light of the trends revealed by these data, some answers can be given to our initial question about the invisibilisation of women within the ICPEs. Silence can function as a rallying compromise. It is about pretending to be in harmony, or at least of having possible arrangements, allowing one to openly plead for educational justice and equality for all (where all would be included), without having to denounce the injustices and discrimination about which one is aware, or to claim a feminist stance that was little recognised in these circles, when it was not outright discredited. For a long time, people were content to ensure that school jurisdictions did not ostensibly discriminate against girls; examining the realities on the ground was more rarely ventured, and this was disastrous in so many “remote and savage” regions, but these realities were also likely to oblige countries that proclaimed themselves to be “civilised” to face their own contradictions.

We do not exclude that the IBE’s partners could de facto subscribe to certain distinctions on account of the very principle of adjusting to the profiles of the populations to be schooled and to the specific nature of each, which was eagerly recommended by the reformist movements; the IBE itself regularly advocated these differentiation approaches.

Thus, it was under strong external pressure that the IBE tackled the perennial issue of women’s equal access to education.

1952: Putting an End to Relegation “the Sanctuary of the Family”

In 1952, it was no longer in the background but in the spotlight that women appeared. Not only was this ICPE prepared by women’s associations, mandated by UNESCO, it was also the first to be chaired by a woman: Margaret Clapp, US delegate and dean of Wellesley College.¹⁴ This Conference was the only one with so many women, apart from secretaries, interpreters and typists. They were delegates from ministries and IOs/NGOs (32%), and they spoke out extensively. For the first time again, vocational (post-secondary) and higher education were addressed (levels usually reserved for either the ILO or the ICIC, then UNESCO).

This ICPE also initiated a new way of dealing with gender issues, by confronting head-on the discrimination suffered by women, as well as within the public school environment. A dam seems to have been breached; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “governed” the issue: UNESCO’s director, Torres Bodet, who was used to flamboyant pleas to protect the most disadvantaged, introduced the debates by stating that the tradition summarising the female mission as “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” was being demolished. Yet Torres Bodet focused his speech on UNESCO’s commitments to “fundamental education” (not secondary, vocational or higher education) and made it clear in 1952 that “equality does not mean identity” (pp. 25 and 30). The spirit of this slogan permeated all of the ICPE.

The protagonists were encouraged in this by Piaget himself,¹⁵ and from the outset declared themselves to be aware of the difficulty of the task in view of the diverging positions and the lingering prejudices. The warnings went on and on; it was important to be patient, to avoid being too enterprising, to guard against overly radical solutions, as “a misuse of these principles could compromise progress more seriously than inaction”, explained an honorary professor of educational sciences from Belgium Mlle A. de Loneux (ICPE, 1952, p. 37). As we shall see, this message calling for compromise was heard, right down even to the recommendations adopted.

As far as the positions taken were concerned, we might have expected an alliance between women, or a clear distinction between the sexes, but this was by no means the case. Although firm, the representatives of the delegates of women’s or feminist associations showed restraint: Was this in order to guarantee even a slight change in the mentalities of this predominantly male hemicycle? To avoid any implosion? Or even because they themselves had made it their mission to have certain specificities of women recognised? The tensions and contradictions were obvious, but they were far from being confined to cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries, or to political and educational orientations.

The Essentialisation of Differences…

Beyond the weight of traditions and prejudices, beyond the socio-economic imponderables (to which we will return), the first culprits were quickly pointed out: “it was especially the women who had not benefited by the facilities of the access of women to education who were the most hostile to their daughters benefiting by it to-day”, insisted the delegate of the United Kingdom’s Colonial Office, F. H. Gwilliam (p. 36). This makes it possible, in counterpoint, to respond to the urgency of providing more training for young girls: it was up to them to change and reduce prejudices, since the transformation of mentalities was their responsibility and depended on their own attitudes and aptitudes, notions which were crucial in the debates.

Populations in so-called underdeveloped contexts or under colonial rule were grouped together. It was the speech of the Indian delegate, Ms Ashadevi Aryanayakam, which widened the breach—opened by the director of UNESCO with the distinction between equality and identity—into which the representatives of several empires successively rushed. She carefully problematised the distinction between education and instruction, and then asserted that “In India, the women, though illiterate, were not un-educated in the true sense politically, socially and culturally. This had been proved by the important part they played in the non-violent struggle for freedom and in the recent election”. India would thus demonstrate that schools only make sense if they are in harmony with the national traditional culture and education, the artistic and folkloric heritage, of which women as the primary educators would be the guardians (p. 38). In this context, her argument cannot be questioned. Nevertheless, as women are assigned by their biological nature to the perpetuation of traditions that embody the specificities of a people, they are confined to their original environment, their land and folklore.

It is only a short step from there to presupposing that they embody what constitutes the most instinctive and emotional part of the human being; and some people took this step to state that women represent the least civilised, most primitive, most savage part of the human being; women show the human being in his or her “natural state”.

The comparison and even the assimilation between women and savages, whose very nature is essentialised, were the subject of various statements, first and foremost by delegates of the great empires in the territories under their jurisdiction: the United Kingdom, France and Portugal. The representative of the Colonial Office of the United Kingdom, already quoted, proclaimed that “it was for the population of a country to decide itself upon the type of education it desired” (p. 55); she clearly announced the intention to facilitate these people’s access to autonomy and women’s access to secondary and higher education. Two speeches in the name of France pointed out that “insofar as overseas territories were concerned, it was the responsibility of France to lead them to full knowledge of the modern world without, however, cutting them off from their roots” (ICPE, 1952, p. 44), nor uprooting them from their environment, which required favouring basic education, confined to agriculture, hygiene and literacy.¹⁶ Henriette Surgen, general inspector of infant schools, author of the preliminary report and, as such, an influential expert in the debate, expressed an even more radical view of the indigenous peoples, doubting their ability to build themselves as individuals. She deduced that France must “prepare the territories confided to it for autonomy”; this implied that the education of girls “was begun at the youngest stage possible [which] presented the following advantages”:

The possibility of combating the innate clumsiness of the local inhabitant in manual activities in the field; the possibility also of struggling against the almost unhealthy affectivity, the blind submission, the difficulty of the native to see himself as an individual, and the lack of social life which was due to this attitude. (p. 52)

Then it was the turn of António Ferro, the delegate from Portugal, to speak passionately about “correcting this age-old injustice”, but he immediately moderated his terms, to avoid

not going to the other extreme and particularly not contributing to mutilating and destroying nature’s masterpiece, woman. […] The chief reason which prevented them from competing with men in number was precisely their superior creative genius, for it affects life itself […] under pretext of devoting themselves entirely to tasks which were altogether inferior to their fundamental condition of creators of life and of the sublime mothers of men. (pp. 68–69)

While they all recognised the specificity of women’s identity, contained in their reproductive and maternal functions, the speakers did not draw the same conclusions. For some, this biological difference, justified by nature, allowed its legitimisation and sealed the inevitability of the distinctions that result from it. This was the verdict of the delegate from Spain:¹⁷ “motherhood and the education of their children. No other function could ensure the maximum development of their personality, and the extent of their influence on society” (p. 70). Others, like the French delegate Marcel Abraham, stated that one could not subscribe to such “nostalgia” about femininity and motherhood, which “presents many aspects which are cruel for women today and which are sometimes blind to masculine egoism”. Discrimination was radically denounced, but the watchword remained intangible: “equality whilst respecting differences”. For his part, he clearly insisted on the importance of offering every woman “the chance of living fully and realising her potential” (p. 72). By essentialising these differences, by invoking the immutable order of biology, it was the socially constructed and historically instituted dimensions that were masked, blocking any possible evolution (Image 20.1).¹⁸

Image 20.1

Discussion during the 1952 ICPE on women in education. In this first conference dedicated to the crucial issue of access of women to education, the role and place of women were meaningful for the first time. Women’s NGOs and UNESCO were the instigators of this topic. (© IBE)

Equality, but Under What Conditions?

One can see the difficulty of taking a stand in the middle of the twentieth century, where opinions plainly assimilating women to their biological reproductive functions faced clearly heard demands for equality in education. For the most part,¹⁹ these claims were justified because “A society which obliged women to work should enable them to do so under the same conditions as men” (p. 72), the French delegate stated firmly. The number of reports and speakers who denied the reality of this discrimination should be noted: sometimes because they did not understand its nature or did not have the data; maybe they did not see other possibilities, did not think it was natural and could not measure its radical nature. A succession of delegates at least claimed that equality had already been achieved in their countries: this was the case in Italy, Cambodia, Liberia, Burma and Turkey (ICPE, 1952, pp. 53, 54, 70, 71 and 72). In the case of Pakistan, it was stated that as soon as it had gained independence, the country had been able to establish democracy and give full rights to women (p. 44; this would be reiterated in 1962, p. 115). Here independence is clearly presented as a stepping stone to greater equality for women in education.

Even though it was unanimously recognised that endemic poverty is the cause of the under-education of girls in the world, it was the socio-economic and political repercussions of equality that seemed the most intolerable. In this respect, we can say that the socio-economic issues were the backdrop of the debates, but few of them went into the causes in depth, simply mentioning class relations and the misdeeds of capitalism, certainly in order to avoid political interference (class struggles, issues of colonialism, aftermath of the war).

Equal access to education presupposes equal access to diplomas, at all levels, which are the key to fairer access to the labour market. Certainly, the conviction that their aptitudes and tastes “naturally” lead women to fields that correspond better to them remained reassuring, to the teaching profession in particular, where employment had long been regulated, as we have seen, by salary distinctions, reinforced by the horizontal hierarchies of the fields and vertical hierarchies of the school grades. There was a lingering threat of the dismantling of male bastions in the economic world which were the structuring principle of horizontal segmentations between the activities of men and women and of hierarchies between qualified and unqualified positions (Schoeni, 2012). Even as the rights of women, of peoples and of the most vulnerable were readily proclaimed, although barriers were not actually being erected against them, the speeches nevertheless revealed how much the economic, social and political emancipation of these groups seemed to be disturbing.²⁰

In a “Democracy of Utopia”…

In her preliminary report and then her concluding assessment, Henriette Surgen presented herself as “by profession a teacher of girls”, “a feminist through love of justice and reason”; she recognised that in “a democracy of utopia” (pp. 121 and 125)²¹ equality would be guaranteed in educational, professional and civic terms. She clearly pointed out the existing psychological, the social and also the economic resistance, especially after compulsory education. By calling for special attention to be paid to this transitional period, where the most drastic selections are made, she was more proactive than the UNESCO director, who focused on fundamental education. Surgen tactfully stated her positions in the form of questions, which contained the intended guidelines. She concluded her report by saying that “the principle of more justice for women is established, the solution is on the way” (p. 127). The emancipation of women through education would thus constitute a shared horizon of expectation. It would be utopian to pretend that there was a common position on rights and status.

The select committee in charge of drawing up a first version of the recommendations (of which Surgen was rapporteur) would take into account the precautions suggested at the very beginning of the ICPE. The proposed recommendations attempted to reconcile the contrasting positions of the partners at the 1952 Conference. The recommendations did not compromise on questions of equity, but the latter was tempered by the criteria of aptitude and the differentiation of psycho-physiological developments. Organised in six chapters, the articles called for in-depth investigations to better define the most appropriate measures that would accelerate the movement in favour of women’s access to education. Then the next five chapters set out a succession of solutions applicable to all types of education, fundamental education, vocational education and higher education, and specific to teaching staff. All recommendations used the conditional tense,²² even for fundamental education, in order not to impinge on any state prerogatives. By the end of all the debates, including those concerning the recommendations, the principle of envisaging equality of access to secondary, professional and higher studies was unanimously adopted.²³ Yet still with the support of educational and vocational guidance services, which undoubtedly played the role of border guards: through these services, it was a question of “taking into account the characteristics of each sex and individual aptitudes, and the conditions of the labour market” (R 34, 1952, N° 30). Women’s measured access to qualifications clearly remained conditioned by socio-economic requirements.

The Tipping Point Towards Raising Awareness of Girls’ Rights to Education?

Did this Conference mark a turning point in the approach to “equal access by women to education”, which was the title of the ICPE of 1952? Looking at the evolution of the proportion of women delegates,²⁴ we can clearly affirm the number of speeches on gender issues and the pleas for greater gender equity. We can observe an increased awareness of the injustice suffered by girls and women, both in access to courses of study and to diplomas. The transformations were certainly tenuous; were they the result of the conciliatory logic of this gathering in search of fraternal agreements? The evolution was perceptible on the issues of equal access but with respect for differences, and also on the possible scholarships, compensatory offers and specific courses of study for girls (with primarily practical content), which corresponded, as we know, to diversionary courses of study.²⁵ Equality of opportunity, equality of achievement, equality of access to the most sought-after higher education qualifications, equality in the labour market—with the not insignificant exception of managerial positions in education (to stick to the causes in which the IBE invested)—were much more rarely addressed or problematised and, even less, defended.

However, a few voices, sometimes dissonant, denounced these differentiations and the severe discrimination that ensued, but these stances were far from reaching a consensus.

When the 1967 Yearbook of Public Education was compiled, the 90 countries that contributed to it were asked to give a follow-up to the 1952 recommendation.²⁶ Forty countries did so, two-thirds of which had just gained independence or undergone a revolutionary change of regime (Yearbook, 1967, p. LXXX). Most of the responses stated that formal equality had been achieved but that practices were being slow to adjust to it: states clearly used this forum to justify their jurisdictions and school policies. They declared that they were striving to rescue women from their level of inferiority and even servitude, claiming that they had to fight against habits and prejudices that had been ingrained for centuries, not to mention the economic and social difficulties that were especially detrimental to women. The UN Assembly Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination of 7 November 1967 was mentioned. Among the countries that the IBE summary presented as the most committed were Cuba, India and Iran; curiously, Japan was not mentioned in the introduction, although it too provided detailed evidence of the initiatives taken. Some, such as Cyprus, Ethiopia, Finland, Korea, Guyana, Hungary, Kenya, Ireland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Singapore and Uganda, stated, sometimes with statistics, that this issue had been resolved in their country. Others, such as Cuba, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Togo, pointed out that education, neglected under “foreign occupation”, had made a great leap forward since then, with the undisguised intention of attesting to their ability to pursue a fairer education policy. These pages showed the gap between principles and practices and between speeches and realities on the ground, but also how much the perception of the role and rights of women differed according to countries, faiths, ethnic groups and cultures.

During these years, the 1950s and 1960s, links were more clearly established between poor regions (whether rural or urban, in the countries of the North or the South) and illiteracy, which still hit women hard. It was precisely these hundreds of millions of illiterates in the world that constituted the main cause taken up by the International Conferences on Public Education between 1934 and 1968.