The arguments presented here illustrate the process by which rhetoric and history of curriculum influence the displacement of women as agents in history and history education, particularly as the standardization movement has become the predominant marker of what constitutes knowledge in public schooling experiences. In fact, curriculum scholar, William Pinar (2012) contends that “it is the symbolic character of curriculum that renders debates over the canon struggles over the American identity itself” (Pinar, p. 188). It is the influence that these symbols have and understanding what those influences are in context that make historical research connected to rhetorical criticism. Kathleen Turner (1998) argues that “rhetorical history seeks
…show more content…
History curriculum normalizes and socially reproduces gendered roles and gendered citizenship. While centering gender connotes a reframing of curriculum that triggers fear among many conservatives about the way American Exceptionalism and active citizenship is taught, the premise of using gender as a category of historical analysis is engaging students to investigate existing historical paradigms. J.W. Scott (1986) asserts that while gender is a social construction, “it says nothing about why these relationships are constructed as they are, how they work, or how they change” (p. 33 where is it in the article?). Joan Kelly asserts that such gendered constructions act to reify “a particular social order” that privileges men at the …show more content…
History curriculum as each navigates the simultaneous “common sense” and complicated tropes of an “angry feminist” culture, this study highlights the importance of feminist historians and feminist scholars of history education in creating and circulating the rhetorical resources necessary to build and sustain gender as a category of historical analysis.
__________________________________________________________________
To understand how the “common sense”rhetoric of curriculum influenced by policymaker responses to revisions that would embrace gender as a category of historical analysis, this dissertation enacts a rhetorical-historical approach blending rhetorical criticism with rhetorical history in understanding the complicated nature of the use of gender as a category to reframe curriculum.
History curriculum normalizes and socially reproduces gendered roles and gendered citizenship. While centering gender connotes a reframing of curriculum that triggers fear among many conservatives about the way American Exceptionalism and active citizenship is taught, the premise of using gender as a category of historical analysis is engaging students to investigate existing historical paradigms. J.W. Scott (1986) asserts that while gender is a social construction, “it says nothing about why these relationships are constructed as they are, how they work, or how they change” (p. 33 where is it in the article?). Joan Kelly asserts that such gendered constructions act to reify “a particular social order” that privileges men at the …show more content…
History curriculum as each navigates the simultaneous “common sense” and complicated tropes of an “angry feminist” culture, this study highlights the importance of feminist historians and feminist scholars of history education in creating and circulating the rhetorical resources necessary to build and sustain gender as a category of historical analysis.
__________________________________________________________________
To understand how the “common sense”rhetoric of curriculum influenced by policymaker responses to revisions that would embrace gender as a category of historical analysis, this dissertation enacts a rhetorical-historical approach blending rhetorical criticism with rhetorical history in understanding the complicated nature of the use of gender as a category to reframe curriculum.