Despite the voices of Black teachers being marginalised and even less likely to be heard, it is vital that the pedagogies of Black teachers contribute to a ‘dismantling of binaries and hierarchies that privilege Eurocentric paradigms of teaching. (Escayg, 2010, cited in Boyle & Charles, 2015)
So far, my review of the relevant literature indicates that there is a marked absence of research about what teacher role models actually do. Martino (2010) argues for a disarticulation of role model discourses from the politics of representation. While I support the need to separate from the limitations of sex-role modelling as a conceptual framework (Goli et al, 2010), I do not wholly reject the notion of role model. Instead I propose an alternative framing for the debate, which focused on self- naming as a B.E.M. teacher and/or role model. My investigation is also about how the identities these B.E.M. teachers construct (and have constructed) for themselves are constituted out of (overlapping and contradictory) discourses of ‘self-naming as a role model’. In short, I propose to move the debate’s focus to one that re-connects to the politics of representation and gives voice to the self-defined B.E.M teacher. A key claim to the originality of this research is that the voices of B.E.M. teachers are so seldom heard. In addition, poststructural approaches to understanding B.E.M. role models are notably absent from the literature. In this final section of the review, I conclude with a discussion of my rationale for re-framing the debate.
A fundamental feature of B.E.M. people’s histories is their subjection in what can best be described as discourses of derogatory representations. This requires moving research enquiries towards understanding this shared legacy as knowledge production exercised through power, while examining the politics of B.E.M. teachers’ self-representation. This also requires moving research towards the minutiae of teacher-pupil power relations, while holding in tension the impact of bio- politics on social conditions. The final requirement is that research focus on the discursive constitution of B.E.M. teacher role model performances. Put simply, this means investigating in what ways their words support their actions. I now elaborate on each of the above points to conclude this section of the review.
First, I propose an explanatory frame that articulates B.E.M. role modelling through a politics of representation. This allows the inquiry to serve as a delineation of B.E.M.
teachers’ marginalised positioning in their school. In order to understand B.E.M. teachers one needs to give an account of how the representation of black men and women are depicted in schooling and in wider society. These depictions are a product of the combination of narratives about blackness in general, and narratives about black masculinity/femininity in particular. The history of black representation in a wide range of media outputs conforms to predictable images. Cooper (2006) concurs with other cultural theorists examining black masculinities and identity performances, that the predominant images depict either the completely threatening Bad Black Man or the fully assimilationist Good Black Man. The former is animalistic, sexually depraved, crime-prone and warrants surveillance, while the latter distances himself from black people and emulates white views. The assimilated ‘good’ is indicative of mimicry or, at the very least, shaped by mimesis discourses. Several scholars point to the way in which representations of blackness have been inscribed within simplistic binary oppositions of positive/negative within the dominant discursive frameworks (hooks, 1990b; West, 1999). When such frames are applied to B.E.M. teacher role models, they are reductive and fail to address questions of ambivalence or transgression. The purpose of an alternative explanatory frame would be to avoid resorting to essentialised notions of B.E.M. teachers while simultaneously highlighting the complexities of their identity politics.
A related point is that not all B.E.M. teachers may choose, or want to be held as role models. One cannot classify B.E.M. teachers as either good/bad or positive/negative role models. Yet, in the context of identity politics, there is a central focus on whether images are considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (hooks, 1990a). Following hooks’ discussions of representations, one could argue for the need to reconstruct blackness in ways that transcend judgements of whether individuals’ actions are positive or detrimental.
The idea of a good image is often informed simply by whether or not it differs from a racist stereotype. … Issues of context, form, audience, experience (all of which inform the construction of images) are usually completely submerged when judgments are made solely on the basis of good or bad imagery. (hooks, 1990a, p72)
Thus, any examination of B.E.M. teachers as role models, predicated on binaries as either good or bad, is incomplete. The complexities of B.E.M. teachers’ identity
politics are such that a varied range of reactive politics can potentially emerge. For B.E.M. teachers as role models, such politics are purchased in the field of representation, and at times at the cost of their subjugation to counter-hegemonic discourses.
The second explanatory strand builds on Britzman’s (1993a) calls for a more radical conception of role modelling practices, which gives consideration to Foucauldian ideas about power. As discussed earlier, such an explanatory frame requires understanding role modelling beyond the normative framework of labelling that occludes power and domination. The contextual or institutional particularities and the regulatory forces operating to transform or re-configure the identity construction of B.E.M. role models are yet to be explored through the application of a poststructural lens. I propose an explanatory frame for B.E.M. teachers as role models which recognises how the power relations defined as role modelling are in tension with teachers’ multiple (subject) positions. The role modelling concept has an ‘inherent logic of domination’ (Fisher, 1988, p212) Taking a Foucauldian approach, the term can be treated as an interconnected system of power relations that permeate B.E.M. teachers’ modes of behaviour and those of the pupils within their sphere of influence.
The notion of a B.E.M. teacher as a role model re-configures as an individual engaged in technologies of self-governance and as an agent of change. Self- governance refers to ‘the various operations on one’s body and soul, thoughts, conduct, and way of being that people make either by themselves or with the help of others in order to transform themselves to reach a state of happiness, purity, wisdom or perfection’ (Foucault, 1988b, p18). Thus, by taking a discursive reading that makes visible B.E.M. teachers’ agency one can account for the impact of processes of domination and how they relate to Foucauldian concepts of discourse, power and bio-power. Such a conceptualisation of the role model process is viewed as contingent and active, with the potential to cultivate radical forms of relating.
The final explanatory strand builds on arguments developed by Fisher (1988, p213) that B.E.M. ‘role models should not be exempt from the type of criticism feminists have directed towards political leadership’. Drawing on the work of other Black feminist theorists, Fisher (1988) asks how one might assess the importance of role
model entails a critical examination of the messages that teachers advocate. Following Fisher, in this thesis rather than assuming natural benevolence, the aim is to scrutinise the teachers’ intentional discursive work. Positioned as having social authority, we can critique whether their words and deeds are based on social justice principles aimed at empowering others. I understand performing as a B.E.M. role model qualitatively in terms of how atypical experiences are challenged inter- relationally and inter-subjectively (Crichlow, 2001).
The appeal of role modelling is intertwined with a naturalised acceptance of hierarchy and social authority. In discussion about role models, hooks (1990a) quite rightly argues the condition of marginality is understood from a position of respect, obligation and acceptance of the other. Rather than thinking about separation, it is thinking about total self-acceptance, and that of others. Here I also align with her view that ‘recognition allows a certain kind of negotiation that seems to disrupt the possibility of domination’ (hooks, 1994, p214). She later posits that black women need to think critically about processes of domination, because they reveal both oppressors and oppressed. She asserts that to avoid dominating or becoming a victim, it is necessary to de-colonise the mind. While it is necessary to valorise the potential for transformative agency, discernment should accompany B.E.M. teachers’ actions. From this perspective, a role model serves to make collective agency possible (Drury & Reicher, 2005), whilst constantly asking the question: who to you think you are? hooks cautions that, despite an individual’s ongoing struggles, political (or otherwise), necessitating their desire to address exclusionary practices, attentiveness is required. Assuming the mantle of role model is, as Fisher (1988, p221) reminds us, ‘rarely, if ever, a solely individual or completely social matter … [what] seems to be a deeply personal act takes place in a profoundly political environment’.
88