Hugo and Thompson: comparative analysis

Hugo & Thompson

The past marginalization of women in a variety of professions is an accepted fact in current academic circles. Indeed, the historical facts speak for themselves: although gaining the vote early in the 20th century, women remained excluded from entering certain professions, and even educational institutions. In society, they were expected to stay home and raise children, or at most become school teachers or nurses. They were generally marginalized from making any significant impact on any of the professions that they entered. However, it is also true that this did not serve as a deterrent for such involvement and influence. Indeed, it is only by means of their professional drive that women did indeed make an impact in both their expected and unexpected professional capacities.

As seen in Jane M. Hugo's work (1990), the marginalization of women in adult education means that their contributions have not enjoyed the prominence in history than did those of men. This does not however mean that these contributions were absent or insignificant. Upon closer examination, I am inclined to lean more towards Hugo's views than those of Thompson. Melody M. Thompson (1997) holds that current terms and values cannot be applied to a past where these same terms and values were interpreted in a different way. These two authors therefore appear to have widely divergent views upon the historical marginalization of women and their contributions to the field of adult education.

Hugo (1990, p.1) places emphasizes the importance of value over marginalization when it comes to women's roles: "The work of feminist historians alerts us to the alternative stories possible when researchers ask questions which value rather than marginalize women's contributions to society."

The above words appear to indicate that much can indeed be learned from considering the historical role of women in society, and particularly in adult education. This echoes my own belief that the future is only as meaningful as the past upon which it is built. It is therefore not only necessary or possible to learn from the female role in certain professions, but also vital in order to provide meaning and structure to the current and future roles of such women. Historical visibility is important in several respects.

On the one hand, it is important for women in the professions in question. Women in adult education today can for example learn from the actions and achievements of their historical counterparts. They can build upon the experiences of the past in order to pave their own way in the profession and also find inspiration to act as pioneers themselves. By understanding that others like them have struggled with several issues in history, modern women can be fortified in their own specific struggles. Regardless of the social structures and discourse of the past, it is therefore vital that the past be depicted accurately in order to identify role models for the adult educators of today.

In another respect, providing an accurate history of adult education in terms of the female professionals involved is an important representation of social structures. It influences the general view of women in professions even today. A more visible historical depiction of women in adult education, for example, can diminish what prejudice and marginalization paradigms still remain regarding women in professions. Indeed, by being presented with these historically visible women, society more readily accepts the same presentation of women in modern times - women become historically viable, as it were. Both women and society as a whole can therefore learn from a greater historical visibility.

Researchers such as Hugo serve to identify the reasons for marginalization, which in themselves can provide both a learning and preventative tool for current and future practices. These reasons help to identify the problem and bring to light the social elements that contributed to the marginalization problem in the past. One of the reasons is the literary paradigm of the time. Hugo (1990, p.8) for example notes: "...men attended to and treated as significant only what men said...men...could view the women in relation to themselves." In this light, it is clear that the prevailing social attitude was that men were the intellectual leaders, while women entering the field were seen only as subordinate contributors to the pioneering work of men. A related reason is the nature of data sources and the definition of adult education of the time. Hugo (1990, p.9) says in this regard that "...an involvement by women that later histories interpreted as marginal...represented only a fraction of the adult education work women did." The main reason for this was not as much a conscious marginalization of women in the profession, but also how the profession was defined. According to Hugo (p.9), voluntary adult education organizations run by women would not have reported their activities to record keepers, simply because they did not feel that they belonged to the field in a formal capacity.

The fact that marginalization is not the only issue, should definitely be kept in mind. This does not however mean that these issues and also historical visibility are not important. It means only that all the reasons for the historical invisibility of women in the field should be brought to light, examined thoroughly, and remedied. This can be a valuable lesson, as the popular saying, "those who do no learn from history are doomed to repeat it" would imply. In order to ascribe to women their rightful place in the adult education sector, this rightful place should also be acknowledged in historical terms.

Thompson (1997, p.43), on the other hand, appears to disagree with the marginalization theory. According to her view, it is important to distinguish between intent and consequences in terms of the specific historical period in question: "...historians have neglected to consider the concept of ideologically contested meaning...that reflect alternative paths - and ongoing conflicts over meaning - with differing consequences for women." The author appears to contend that, because terms such as "patriarchal" and "professionalization" (p.43) do not have clearly delineated meanings even today, this should also be applied to the effects of marginalization in the past as perceived via the ideologies of today.

I would however disagree. Hugo indeed points to this very point in her work with her reference to the above-mentioned volunteer organizations in adult education. The contention is not however over the degree of perceived marginalization at the time. The point is that women in the field are historically invisible for various reasons, only one of which is terms, meanings, and perceptions during the time in question. Thompson appears to focus solely on the semantic issue: the way in which marginalization (or its absence) was expressed and understood, as opposed to the consequences of this understanding now. She approaches the subject from a very intellectual, and to some degree valid, viewpoint.