In recent years, Australian and British governments have given renewed attention to developing policies that address gender inequality, particularly violence against women and girls (VAWG). Recognising the transformative potential of education, they have extolled the virtues of their respective relationship and sex education (RSE) programs, often also referred to as ‘respectful relationships education’ (RRE), as essential to addressing gender inequality. By instilling in youth knowledge of their rights – upheld through combating harmful gender stereotypes and norms – it is hoped that these curriculum initiatives can help prevent future cases of VAWG. In my research I query how the term ‘respectful’ is deployed and whether such rights-based approaches (RBA) adequately address the gender stereotypes and attitudes that are recognised as contributing factors to VAWG (González & Rodríguez-Planas, 2020), or if they remain unchallenged.

Rights-based approaches and the concept of respect

Having read the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority’s guidance on ‘Respectful Relationships’ (ACARA, 2022) and the Department for Education (DfE) statutory guidance on RSE in England and Wales (DfE, 2021), I am perplexed by the lack of definition of the key word ‘respect.’ Instead, this important concept appears to sit in an ambiguous, yet privileged, position of remaining undefined. On one hand, this is unsurprising, given ‘respect’ has become all but synonymous with ‘equality’, the meaning of which is also often assumed. However, on the other hand, it raises questions about the underlying assumptions that sit at the heart of such a presumed positionality. What does it mean to be respectful? How can respecting someone lead to equality and the prevention of harmful behaviour? And, perhaps, how might respect be understood differently?

As both curricula draw on RBA, one could presume that the underlying idea of respect is grounded in a moral interpretation of the concept, centred on rights. From this perspective, an individual is understood to be owed respect by virtue of the fact that they are a person (Dillon, 2022). If this applies, it not only explains why a definition has not been provided, but also explains why the Australian curriculum encourages ‘critical inquiry … about respect, disrespect, [and] misuse of power’ (ACARA, 2022, n.p.). In contrast, the DfE’s guidance appears to reinforce power dynamics that sit at odds to the promotion of gender equality. Instead, students are ‘expect[ed] to be treated with respect … and show due respect to others, including people in positions of authority’ (DfE, 2021, n.p.). This statement sits uneasily as it suggests that authority automatically commands respect. Yet it leaves no room to question those who potentially act disrespectfully precisely because of their position of authority. This example highlights one of the contradictions at the heart of contemporary VAWG strategies: How can we expect pupils to recognise and maintain respectful relationships that promote gender equality if the concept of respect is never clearly defined nor given room to be critiqued?

‘How can we expect pupils to recognise and maintain respectful relationships that promote gender equality if the concept of respect is never clearly defined nor given room to be critiqued?’

Respectful relationship education and protecting women and girls

When addressing gender inequality, only Australia’s RRE makes explicit reference to, and situates the curriculum, within a wider policy network for combating VAWG. A key aspect for learning in Australia’s RRE is that each year level is expected to learn to recognise the influence gender norms and stereotypes can have on our choices and actions. In contrast, despite acknowledging RSE as an effective means of countering VAWG, the DfE only stipulates that secondary schools address these norms and stereotypes – a decision that some may deem as too late and even now is under threat (see Adu & Adams, 2023). Additionally, Britain’s guidance is situated within a broader context of legal rights, specifically the Equality Act 2010, which runs the risk of concealing the seriousness of VAWG within other forms of discrimination. This may help explain why the UN’s Special Rapporteur on VAWG wrote that the UK is failing to ensure ‘women’s rights are human rights’ are a palpable feature of government legislation.

Despite what may be perceived as a bleak assessment of current RSE and RRE, I believe there is still room for hope. But that hope is contingent on bringing to light the assumptions that underpin the strategies we are using to achieve gender equality.

This blog post relates to a paper presented at the BERA Conference 2024 and WERA Focal Meeting on Thursday 12 September at 11:15am. Find out more by searching the conference programme here.

References

Adu, A., & Adams, R. (2023, March 8). Sex education review is ‘politically motivated’, say teaching unions. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/08/sex-education-review-is-politically-motivated-say-teaching-unions

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2022). Understand this curriculum connection: Respectful relationships. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/teacher-resources/understand-this-curriculum-connection/respectful-relationships/  

Department for Education (UK) [DfE]. (2021). Relationships and sex eduation (RSE) and health education: Statutory guidance on relationships education, relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/relationships-education-relationships-and-sex-education-rse-and-health-education#full-publication-update-history

Dillon, R. S. (2022). Respect. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Standford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/respect/

González, L., & Rodríguez-Planas, N. (2020). Gender norms and intimate partner violence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.07.024