Advertisement

Institutional Classed Hierarchy and the Intersectional Re/production of Social Inequalities in Marzipan

  • Dorottya Rédai
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Gender and Education book series (GED)

Abstract

This chapter explores how power relations and the hierarchical structure of Marzipan is implicated in producing raced, classed, sexualized and gendered subjectivities, both discursively and via institutional practices, and how social inequalities are perpetuated on various levels of the institutional structure. First Rédai introduces the rigid and hierarchical secondary education system in Hungary and reflects on the re/production of inequalities in education in post-socialist Central Eastern Europe. Then she analyses discourses and practices which construct hierarchy among teachers and between students and teachers. In the third part she demonstrates how inequality gets constituted intersectionally by the convergence of ethnicity, gender, sexuality and class. This chapter highlights a so far overlooked aspect of the relations of schooling and sexuality: a direct connection between selective education and sexual knowledge, behaviour and communication.

Bibliography

  1. Bakó, B. (2006). Cigány módra – magyar módra. Együttélési viszonyok egy mikroközösség sztereotípiatörténetein át [In the Gypsy way: In the Hungarian way—Relations of cohabitation through the stereotype stories of a micro-community]. In Mindennapi előítéletek. Társadalmi távolságok és etnikai sztereotípiák [Everyday prejudices: Social distances and ethnic stereotypes]. Budapest: MTA Társadalomtudományi Kutatóközpont, Kisebbségkutató Intézet. http://kisebbsegkutato.tk.mta.hu/mindennapi-eloiteletek-tarsadalmi-tavolsagok-es-etnikai.
  2. Balázsi, I., Ostorics, L., Szalay, B., & Szepesi, I. (2010). PISA 2009. Összefoglaló jelentés [PISA 2009: Executive report]. Budapest: Oktatási Hivatal.Google Scholar
  3. Balázsi, I., Ostorics, L., Szalay, B., Szepesi, I., & Vadász, C. (2013). PISA 2012. Összefoglaló jelentés [PISA 2012: Executive report]. Budapest: Oktatási Hivatal.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (1993). Education. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Berényi, E. (2016). Az autonómiától a szelekcióig. Az iskolaválasztás jelentése a rendszerváltás utáni időszak magyar közoktatásában [From autonomy to selection: The meaning of school selection in Hungarian public education in the era after the regime change]. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487–511). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1992). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Csapó, B. (2003). Az iskolai osztályok közötti különbségek és az oktatási rendszer demokratizálása [Differences between school forms and the democratisation of the education system]. Iskolakultúra (8), 107–117.Google Scholar
  10. Csapó, B., Molnár, G., & Kinyó, L. (2009). A magyar oktatási rendszer szelektivitása a nemzetközi összehasonlító vizsgálatok eredményeinek tükrében [The selectivity of the Hungarian education system in the light of the results of international comparative studies]. Iskolakultúra (3–4), 3–13.Google Scholar
  11. Fónai, M., & Dusa, Á. R. (2014). A tanárok presztízsének és társadalmi státuszának változásai a kilencvenes és a kétezres években [Changes in the prestige and social status of teachers in the 1990s and 2000s]. Iskolakultúra, 24(6), 41–49.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  14. Gamoran, A. (2010). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice. In M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 213–228). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Hajdú, T., Kertesi, G., & Kézdi, G. (2014). Roma fiatalok a középiskolában. Beszámoló a Tárki Életpálya-felvételének 2006 és 2012 közötti hullámaiból [Roma youth in secondary education: Report on the 2006 to 2012 waves of Tárki’s lifecourse survey]. Budapest Munkagazdaságtani füzetek Budapest/Working papers on the Labour Market, 2014/7. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Közgazdaság- és Regionális Tudományi Kutatóközpont, Közgazdaság-tudományi Intézet, Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Emberi Erőforrások Tanszék.Google Scholar
  16. Harris Interactive. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing and sexual harassment at school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. http://history.aauw.org/files/2013/01/hostilehallways.pdf.
  17. Hill, C., & Kearl, H. (2011). Crossing the line: Sexual harassment at school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women. http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Crossing-the-Line-Sexual-Harassment-at-School.pdf.
  18. Horn, D., Balázsi, I., Takács, S., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Tracking and inequality of learning outcomes in Hungarian secondary schools. Prospects, 36(4), 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jensen, T., & Ringrose, J. (2013). Sluts that choose vs doormat Gypsies: Exploring affect in the postfeminist, visual moral economy of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding. Feminist Media Studies, 14(3), 369–384.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2012.756820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keddie, A. (2009). ‘Some of those girls can be real drama queens’: Issues of gender, sexual harassment and schooling. Sex Education, 9(1), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810802639863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kogan, I., Gebel, M., & Noelke, C. (2012). Educational systems and inequalities in educational attainment in Central and Eastern European countries. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 4(1), 69–83.Google Scholar
  22. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Central Statistical Office] (KSH). (2015). A hazai nemzetiségek demográfiai jellemzői [Demographic characteristics of Hungarian nationalities]. Statisztikai Tükör, 82.Google Scholar
  23. Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lahelma, E., Palmu, T., & Gordon, T. (2000). Intersecting power relations in teachers’ experiences of being sexualized or harassed by students. Sexualities, 3(4), 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lareau, A., & Conley, D. (2008). Social class: How does it work? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical assessment. Theory and Society, 32(5/6), 567–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawler, S. (2005). Disgusted subjects: The making of middle-class identities. The Sociological Review, 53(3), 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawton, A. (2007). Between Scylla and Charybdis: The perils of reporting sexual harassment. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 9(3), 603–655.Google Scholar
  29. Ligeti, G. (2006). Sztereotípiák és előítéletek [Stereotypes and prejudices]. In T. Kolosi, I. G. Tóth, & G. Vukovich (Eds.), Társadalmi riport [Social report] (pp. 373–389). Budapest: TÁRKI.Google Scholar
  30. Liskó, I. (2008). Szakképzés és lemorzsolódás [Vocational training and dropping out]. In K. Fazekas, J. Köllő, & J. Varga (Eds.), Zöld könyv a magyar közoktatás megújításáért [Green Book for the renewal of Hungarian public education] (pp. 95–119). Budapest: ECOSTAT.Google Scholar
  31. Lupton, R., & Hempel-Jorgensen, A. (2012). The importance of teaching: pedagogical constraints and possibilities in working-class schools. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 601–620.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.710016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McClintock, A. (1995). Imperial leather: Race, gender and sexuality in the colonial contest. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Menninghaus, W. (2003). Disgust: The theory and history of a strong sensation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ostorics, L., Szalay, B., Szepesi, I., & Vadász, C. (2016). PISA 2015. Összefoglaló jelentés [PISA 2015: Executive report]. Budapest: Oktatási Hivatal.Google Scholar
  35. Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pateman, Carole. (1988). The sexual contract. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pfeffer, F. T. (2008). Persistent inequality in educational attainment and its institutional context. European Sociological Review, 24(5), 543–565.  https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Probyn, E. (2000). Carnal appetites: Food/sex/identities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Reay, D. (2006). The zombie stalking English schools: Social class and educational inequality. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 288–307.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00351.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rédai, D. (2011). “…én az olyanokat értem meg, akik nem tehetnek róla.” Középiskolás heteroszexuális diákok diskurzusai a melegség kialakulásáról [“…I understand those who cannot help it.” Discourses of heterosexual secondary students about the emergence of homosexuality]. In J. Takács (Ed.), Homofóbia Magyarországon [Homophobia in Hungary] (pp. 140–151). Budapest: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  41. Rizq, R. (2013). States of abjection. Organization Studies, 34(9), 1277–1297.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613477640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robert, P. (2010). Social origin, school choice, and student performance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(2), 107–129.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2010.484972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robinson, K. (2000). ‘Great tits, miss!’ The silencing of male students’ sexual harassment of female teachers in secondary schools: A focus on gendered authority. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 75–90.  https://doi.org/10.1353/crt.2004.0025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Stevens, A. J., & Vermeersch, H. (2010). Streaming in Flemish secondary schools: Exploring teachers’ perceptions of and adaptations to students in different streams. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 267–284.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03054981003629862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Takács, J., Dombos, T., Mészáros, G., & Tóth, T. P. (2012). Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t bother: Homophobia and the heteronorm in Hungary. In L. Trappolin, A. Gasparini, R. Wintemute (Eds.), Confronting homophobia in Europe: Social and legal perspectives (pp. 79–105). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, Y. (2007). Brushed behind the bike shed: Working-class lesbians’ experiences of school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(3), 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thrupp, M. (1998). The art of the possible: Organizing and managing high and low socioeconomic schools. Journal of Education Policy, 13(2), 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Urban, W. (1999). Patterns of structural change in manufacturing industry in Central and Eastern Europe. In D. A. Dyker & S. Radosevic (Eds.), Innovation and structural change in post-socialist countries: A quantitative approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  50. Youdell, D. (2006). Impossible bodies, impossible selves: Exclusions and student subjectivities. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender and nation. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorottya Rédai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gender StudiesCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations