Schools, separating parents and family violence: a case study of the coercion of organisational networks

IF 4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Critical Studies in Education Pub Date : 2021-05-07 DOI:10.1080/17508487.2021.1919165
S. Saltmarsh, Kay Ayre, Eseta Tualaulelei
{"title":"Schools, separating parents and family violence: a case study of the coercion of organisational networks","authors":"S. Saltmarsh, Kay Ayre, Eseta Tualaulelei","doi":"10.1080/17508487.2021.1919165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper considers how complex family circumstances such as parental separation, custody disputes and family violence intersect with the organisational cultures and everyday practices of schools. In particular, we are concerned with the ways that coercive control – a strategy used predominantly by men to dominate, control and oppress women in the context of intimate partner relationships – can be deployed to manipulate and coerce the organisational networks of schools into furthering abusive agendas. Informed by cultural theory and research from sociology of education, legal studies, criminology and family violence, we show how what we term the ‘coercion of organisational networks’ (CON) both relies upon and exploits systemic misogyny and gendered unequal relations of power. These issues underpin institutional strategies often used by schools to keep parents – and mothers, in particular – at a distance. When affected by separation, divorce and family violence, being positioned in problematic terms can create additional risks for women and children. We argue that without adequate understandings of coercive control as practices within a broader constellation of systemic misogyny and gender inequalities, and in the absence of organisational cultures committed to addressing these, schools are considered complicit in perpetuating family violence and its effects.","PeriodicalId":47434,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies in Education","volume":"63 1","pages":"516 - 533"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17508487.2021.1919165","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2021.1919165","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper considers how complex family circumstances such as parental separation, custody disputes and family violence intersect with the organisational cultures and everyday practices of schools. In particular, we are concerned with the ways that coercive control – a strategy used predominantly by men to dominate, control and oppress women in the context of intimate partner relationships – can be deployed to manipulate and coerce the organisational networks of schools into furthering abusive agendas. Informed by cultural theory and research from sociology of education, legal studies, criminology and family violence, we show how what we term the ‘coercion of organisational networks’ (CON) both relies upon and exploits systemic misogyny and gendered unequal relations of power. These issues underpin institutional strategies often used by schools to keep parents – and mothers, in particular – at a distance. When affected by separation, divorce and family violence, being positioned in problematic terms can create additional risks for women and children. We argue that without adequate understandings of coercive control as practices within a broader constellation of systemic misogyny and gender inequalities, and in the absence of organisational cultures committed to addressing these, schools are considered complicit in perpetuating family violence and its effects.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学校、分离父母和家庭暴力:组织网络强制的案例研究
摘要本文探讨了父母分离、监护权纠纷和家庭暴力等复杂的家庭环境如何与学校的组织文化和日常实践相交叉。特别是,我们关注的是,强制控制——一种主要由男性在亲密伴侣关系中用来支配、控制和压迫女性的策略——可以被用来操纵和胁迫学校的组织网络,从而进一步推进虐待议程。根据文化理论和教育社会学、法律研究、犯罪学和家庭暴力的研究,我们展示了我们所称的“组织网络胁迫”(CON)是如何依赖和利用系统性厌女症和性别不平等的权力关系的。这些问题支撑了学校经常用来与父母——尤其是母亲——保持距离的制度策略。当受到分居、离婚和家庭暴力的影响时,处于有问题的境地可能会给妇女和儿童带来额外的风险。我们认为,如果没有充分理解强制控制是系统性厌女症和性别不平等的一个更广泛的群体中的做法,并且没有致力于解决这些问题的组织文化,学校就被视为长期存在家庭暴力及其影响的同谋。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Studies in Education
Critical Studies in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Critical Studies in Education is one of the few international journals devoted to a critical sociology of education, although it welcomes submissions with a critical stance that draw on other disciplines (e.g. philosophy, social geography, history) in order to understand ''the social''. Two interests frame the journal’s critical approach to research: (1) who benefits (and who does not) from current and historical social arrangements in education and, (2) from the standpoint of the least advantaged, what can be done about inequitable arrangements. Informed by this approach, articles published in the journal draw on post-structural, feminist, postcolonial and other critical orientations to critique education systems and to identify alternatives for education policy, practice and research.
期刊最新文献
Public education and teacher professionalism in an age of accountability Queer youth and critical sexuality education pedagogies within networked publics: implications for school-based practice Grappling with wicked problems: teacher professionalism and pedagogical mappings for reparative futures The role of online crisis actors in teachers’ work and lives Beyond conventional critique in education: embracing the affirmative
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1