[Explaining Non-Binary Pedagogy through Queer Youth Education]
The purpose of this essay is to explain A. Finn Enke’s paper entitled “Stick Figured And Little Bits: Toward a Nonbinary Pedagogy” through three main distinction within the study of Queer Youth Education. “Over a decade of addressing this issue both as an educator and as a trans person has convinced me that there is no single or universal “right”, “best”, or problem-free solution to the pronoun challenge in the classroom.” (Enke 2016) Enke discusses Non-Binary Pedagogy through Four Modes Of Explanation; ‘Stick Figures and Little Bits’ explains the issues around of gender neutral bathrooms, ‘Gender Neutral Bits’ dives into Non-Binary pronouns such as they, them,their, ze,hir,zir,em,em’s,per,per’s,xe,xem,xir: or using a person’s name instead of pronouns, ‘From Neutral To Non-Binary Bits In The Classroom’ which discusses the issues of stigmatization, ignorance, and disclosure, and lastly ‘Play’ which explains the complexities of how to help make educational environments more welcoming to trans and non-binary youth. Enke’s Four Modes Of Explanation could be structured as a Non-Binary Pedagogy focusing on the institutional, linguistic, climate, and accessibility of gender. Might be worth noting that Enke’s Four Modes Of Explanation are introductions to one of many frameworks of a Non-Binary Pedagogy that focuses on the discourses of gender spectrum through material understandings of masculine and femininity. (..stick figure is not a static representational entity that simply points to “real” entities outside of itself (males, females; binary gender system), but rather, the signs themselves produce binary gender.” (Enke 2016) The conversation of entities and the other spectrum within discussions of Non-Binary Pedagogy; organic and artificial will be discussed in another essay. How do these four models of explanation inform queer youth education? This essay will attempt to use material evidence of queer youth education; This essay will be split into two sections Queer Theory and Education in order to substantiate our claim to gain a better understanding of queer youth through Enke’s Non-Binary Pedagogy.
In this first section it becomes apparent that Queer Theory encompasses a multiplicity of contradictions and view points but particular evidencing concepts apply more closely to Enke’s first mode of explanation. Institutional conversations of idealism and expected modes of being become apparent within the absence of gender neutral washrooms within spaces these institutions govern. Subjects of earlier generational that govern Academic institutions may still continue to show signs of Strategic Essentialism, the Heterosexual Matrix, and lack integration of anti-nomativity thinkings within their administrative duties or educational practices. This concept of the formation of ‘essential’ identities based on shared identity that formulates new communities of identities support Enke’s discussing of not being problem free because “Privileged [within educational research on LGBTQ issues] has been a tacit ‘strategic essentialism’ in which queer educational research needs to be visible queer subjects to study.” (Gilbert 2014) This essentialism or concept of essential identities breeds not only privilege of shared identity but essentialist philosophies that exist in academic institutions. Who are these expected visible queer subjects? Are these subjects queer youth and non-queer youth? Are these subjects also non-human entities? Individuals that govern these academic institutions can be motivated in producing structural changes for gender neutral bathrooms if one explores theory outside of queer theory, such as trans studies and the Non-Binary Pedagogy. Another example of Queer theory that brings amplification of the other modes of explanation in Enke’s Non-Binary Pedagogy are The Heterosexual Matrix. Queer theorists such as Mindy Blaise and Africa Taylor amplify Gilbert’s discussion by citing Butler “It is this matrix that produces masculinity, femininity, and heterosexuality as the only logical options” (Mindy Blaise and Affrica Taylor 2012) that push an essentialist and binary agenda of queerness. Bringing to foreground that this binary agenda perpetuates linguistic expectations and normativities that Enke discusses with Non-Binary pronouns and therefore creates problems of complicit education within campus climate and accessibilities needs of queer youth and non-queer youth that fall outside of Queer Theory’s homo-normativity. By using these two examples of Queer Theory we come to make sense of the issues and solutions within the Non-Binary Pedagogy. We have just demonstrated that a construction of Queer Theory informs an education of sexual and gender identities but within it’s construction manifests Enke’s “no single or universal “right”, “best”, or problem-free solution” (Enke 2016).
Moving from a contextual explanation of the Non-Binary Pedagogy’s Four Modes Of Explanation, issues of institutional, linguistic, climate and accessibility…this section will take particular examples of studies of education and pertain more to the material bodies of queer youth as apposed to the contextual and theoretical existings of queer youth. The two main educational concepts we are focusing on are Campus Climate/Culture and the relations between Formal, Non-Formal, and Informal. “Conflating “School Climate” with “School Culture”” (Payne and Smith 2013) explain how without making a distinction between Climate and Culture becomes a problem of marginalizing queer youth that exist outside of the binary. Enke’s mode of explanation of that moves away from bathroom issues and linguistic issues and into the physical experiences of the subjects that exist outside of the gender binary. The third mode of explanation; Climate “And yet, we may be placing an inappropriate burden on students when we require introductions using names and “personal gender pronouns” (Enke 2016) shows how even if the culture of the academic institution possess understandings of queer theory and trans studies..implicate means of complicit education for queer youth and non-queer youth…campus climate problems can STILL arise from the problem-free. “How then can we lay the groundwork that allows all students (regardless of their prior experience with or beliefs about diversity) to be fully present? (Enke 2016) The structure of school culture is always shifting to adapt and meet the needs of queer youth such as gender neutral washrooms but this expectation to identity as anything in order to share common space such as a classroom poses much more complex question for educators teaching students who’s pronouns, identities, and existence possibly change at any given second. This seaways into the un-binary framework of Formal, Informal, and Non-formal education. This framework could be argued as an ideal framework because it sheds light on not the multiplicity of sexual and or gender identities but multiple ways of learning. Suzanne De Castell discusses ‘No Place Like Home’ which states “Multimodal re-conceptualization of literacy and its practices are important, we believe, for populations with whom conventional text-based literacy has been used largely to discipline and punish..” (De Castell 2004) shows how there are possible reasons why queer youth may find certain ways of learning to me more ideal than others. Discussed in class Formal education emulates a particular structure and curriculum formulated for a classroom setting, Informal education are ways of passing learning through media such as television, art, and anecdotal experiences, and Non-Formal education is neither Formal or In-formal because of it’s semi-structured setting such as a community support group. These variances in educational formats allows a final amplification of Enke’s forth mode of explanation; Accessibility. By understanding multiple ways of learning through different educational formats queer youth way have more opportunities to learn through organic development instead of a linear progression. Making education more accessible for queer youth may involve an understanding of where queer youth are physically positioned. Getting an education where you are not disciplined also may be reasons why formal institutional education is problematic for queer youth. Enke concludes with “Creating and learning a new language does not happen automatically or simple because one believes it should happen. It takes work, it takes practice, and it takes a certain kind of courage” (Enke 2016) The reason why linguistic explanation was not left until this section of the essay is because the challenges that exist with Non-Binary Pedagogy are perchance entirely rooted in linguistic understanding. This essay serves as an introduction to Non-Binary Pedagogy through it’s linguistic qualities and practices. The generational divide between student and teacher brings its own intergenerational issue of what constitutes forms of education or knowledge production.
Jeffrey A. Bennett’s “Queer Teenagers and the Mediation of Utopian Catastrophe” expands on concepts outside of Queer Theory and Educational Studies that have been discussed in this essay to amplify Enke’s Non-Binary Pedagogy. We will use an excerpt by Bennett in order to conclude this essay. “Dissecting the utopian and apocalyptic fragments of LGBT rhetoric provides countless opportunities for understanding movement practices.” (Bennett 2010) Issues with Bennett’s statement continue a discourse in binary concepts of gender. The constant relieved inclusion of the Q+ in LGBT may seem docile and unimportant but speaks to a larger issue of youth existing outside of the gender binary. As this essay concludes we can reevaluate what linguistic function this essay has served by reminding that in the introduction we explained the division of sections that is used in order to introduce Enke’s the Non-Binary Pedagogy. We defined these into Four Modes Of Explanation; institutional, linguistic, climate, and accessibility. Also, we specified that this Non-Binary Pedagogy is one of many different Pedagogy’s and that it focuses around the gender spectrum of Non-Binary in order to make room for a spectrum existing outside of human perceptions gender being; Organic and the Artificial. We then split the essay into two sections, Queer Theory and Educational Studies where we found contextual evidence to amplify Enke’s Non-Binary Pedagogy. We also made a progression from discussing how the contextual evidence in queer theory might effect individuals who govern academic institutions to the material evidence of queer youth that might exist in Educational Studies. We specified the value in a multiplicity in ways of learning and education to the multiplicity of gender identities. We concluded that even through Enke’s Youth Pedagogy can be amplified using Queer Theory and Educational Studies, it is still very unclear who these queer youth subjects are that exist outside of the gender binary. Furthermore, the linguistic mode of explanation for the use of Non-Binary Pronouns seems still contextually unsubstantiated and therefore unjustified. “Changing the signs, and changing our language, ultimately involves everyone.” (Enke 2016) Even though this concluding statement seems promising, questions of intersectional and positionality are left unanswered. This argument for a linguisitic adaptation may ultimately have absence in intergenerational analysis. Concluding that these are reasons why this essay it titled an Explanation of Non-Binary Pedagogy through Queer Youth Education and not Forward to an Introduction to a Research Proposal on Linguistic Adaptation.
Bibliography or Works Cited
Bennett, Jeffrey 2010, A. Bennett Queer Teenagers and the Mediation of Utopian Catastrophe, Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2010, pp. 455 476
Blaise, Mindy and Taylor, Africa 2012, Using Queer Theory To Rethink Gender Equity.
De Castell, Suzanne;Jenson, Jennifer McGill Journal of Education; Fall 2006; 41, 3; ProQuest pg. 227
Enke, A Finn 2016, Stick Figures and Little Bits: Toward a Nonbinary Pedagogy. Gilbert 2014, Introduction to Queer Youth In Schools.
Payne, Elizabeth and Smith, Melissa 2013, . . . Why We Need to Rethink LGBTQ Bullying.
Poteat V. Paul, Scheer Jillian R., Mereish Ethan H 2014, Chapter 8, Factors Affecting Academic Achievement Among Sexual Minority and Gender Variant Youth.