Agenda

Empowering women for gender equity

ISSN: 1013-0950 (Print) 2158-978X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ragn20

Half of the picture: Interrogating common sense

gendered beliefs surrounding sexual harassment
practices in higher education

Peace Kiguwa, Mzikazi Nduna, Andile Mthombeni, Polite Chauke, Naledi

Selebano & Nontobeko Dlamini

To cite this article: Peace Kiguwa, Mzikazi Nduna, Andile Mthombeni, Polite Chauke, Naledi
Selebano & Nontobeko Dlamini (2015) Half of the picture: Interrogating common sense gendered
beliefs surrounding sexual harassment practices in higher education, Agenda, 29:3, 106-117

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1052678

Published online: 14 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 237

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ragn20
article
Half of the picture: Interrogating common
sense gendered beliefs surrounding sexual
harassment practices in higher education
Peace Kiguwa, Mzikazi Nduna, Andile Mthombeni, Polite Chauke, Naledi Selebano and
Nontobeko Dlamini

abstract
Sexual harassment is not only a pervasive concern in many institutions of higher learning but more recently has come
under the spotlight in critical discussions of academic and gender citizenship within institutional contexts in South
Africa. Recently, as part of the institutional response to recent incidences of sexual harassment, a new and
independent Sexual Harassment Unit at the University of the Witwatersrand was formed. However, institutional
responses and strengthening of sexual harassment policies can only go so far in addressing the problem of gender
violence within higher education contexts. A more concerted effort is needed that engages and destabilises the
‘common-sense’ and normalised cultures of gender and identity that are inherent in everyday interactions between
gendered beings. This normalised culture is functional in informing how staff and students within tertiary institutions
both interpret and respond to incidences of sexual harassment. We present critical analyses of focus group interviews
conducted with different groups of male and female students and support staff at the University. The analysis
highlights the role and influence of taken-for-granted assumptions of gender, identity and power that are functional in
promoting a ‘culture of violence’ within this context. In interrogating problematic assumptions and their normal-
isation we point to the need for interventions which expose their role and influence so that more effective
institutional interventions can be realised. We argue that there is a need for interventions, to take cognisance of and
actively engage the deeply entrenched beliefs concerning relations of gender. These beliefs influence how practices
and relations of sexual harassment are both perceived as well as how they are challenged.

keywords
sexual harassment, tertiary institution, gender, culture, identity

The recent focus on institutional contexts of
gender violence and discrimination has high-
lighted widespread sexual harassment within
higher education contexts. This has been
particularly so in relation to young women
and campus violence. A recent Feminist
Africa Special Issue (2012) for instance docu-
ments the prevalence of sexual harassment
amongst students and between students and
staff within tertiary institutions. Recent
reports indicate an increase of sexual harass-
ment amongst students and staff in the
universities of Botswana, Zimbabwe and
Namibia (Edwards-Januch, 2012; Mosime
et al, 2012; Wekwete and Manyeruke, 2012)
amongst others. In this article, we discuss
constructs of sexual harassment in focus
group discussions with male and female
students and support staff on campus. An
important aspect of normalisation of violence

Agenda 105/29.3 2015

ISSN 1013-0950 print/ISSN 2158-978X online
© 2015 Peace Kiguwa et al.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2015.1052678 pp. 106–117

is the constructions of masculine and femin-
ine in relation to the gender binary in which
both women and men are positioned in fixed
sexual roles.
Unpacking sexual harassment
The University of the Witwatersrand’s revised
sexual harassment policy defines sexual har-
assment as:
"unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature or
other unwelcome conduct based on the
gender or sexual orientation of the victim,
affecting the dignity of women and men
working, studying, visiting or living at the
University. Sexual harassment includes
same-sex harassment” (University of the
Witwatersrand, 2013:3).
Sexual harassment victimisation has been
documented as affecting the victim’s health
(Bucchianeri et al, 2014), and students’ aca-
demic performance (Norton Rose Fulbright
South Africa and Centre for Applied Legal
Studies, 2013). However, even though it is an
area of social policy research and governed
under both equality and labour law in South
Africa1 sexual harassment has had little insti-
tutional attention compared with other issues
such as racism. This may be because sexual
harassment covers “a spectrum of activity”-
rather than a single act of sexual assault -
“ranging from inappropriate or suggestive
comments to threats and acts of physical
violence” (Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa
and Centre for Applied Legal Studies, 2013:7).
sexual harassment has had little institutional
attention compared with other issues such as
racism
By virtue of their role as educators it is
widely assumed that members of institutions
of higher learning are better informed and
more aware of sexual rights; equally that
they are aware of their responsibility in relation
to these rights. However the recent incidents
of sexual harassment reported on the Univer-
sity of the Witwatersrand (WITS) campus in
which four senior lecturers were investigated
in 2013 would suggest otherwise (Norton
Rose Fulbright South Africa and Centre for
Applied Legal Studies, 2013; WITS Council,
2013). Some universities, including WITS,
Interrogating common sense gendered beliefs surrounding sexual harassment practices
article
have introduced policies to prevent and
address sexual harassment (University of the
Witwatersrand, 2013). Following the incidents
on the campus in 2013, the university
authorised two independent investigations be
conducted on sexual harassment on the cam-
pus2. Recommendations include an independ-
ent Sexual Harassment Unit, guidelines for
relationships between staff and students, edu-
cation of staff and students and awareness
raising and importantly that students continue
to engage in dialogue on sexual harassment
(University of the Witwatersrand, 2013).
The prevalence of reports of sexual har-
assment in educational institutions suggests
that there is a blurred area in terms of the
exercise of the sexual right to association and
sexual responsibility. These reports suggest
misuse of power on the side of male lecturers
and the sexual exploitation of female stu-
dents. The problem of sexual harassment in
educational institutions is often seen as a
legal and women’s rights concern. However,
it also raises the psycho-social conditions and
the culture of violence that tolerates and
perpetuates the problem. Institutional cul-
tures of violence have a complex sociohistory
that stretches as far back as the basic educa-
tion foundation phase (University of the Wit-
watersrand et al, 2014; Mulumeoderhwa and
Harris, 2014; Swartz, 2009).
Studies of sexual harassment in institu-
tions of higher learning (Edwards-Januch,
2012; Mosime et al, 2012; Wekwete and
Manyeruke, 2012) have tended to focus on
age and status-created power relations
between the perpetrator and the victim, shift-
ing focus away from the gendered nature of
sexual harassment. This results in failure to
address the gender-power dynamics in sexual
harassment (Swartz, 2009 ). This is not to
downplay the importance of both age and
status to such dynamics. The gendered rela-
tions of power however remain at the core of
any sexual violence, both reflecting and reas-
serting the broader complex intricacies of
gender inequality within society.
A recent study in the United States (US)
sought to understand how sexual violence is
“accounted” for by those affected (Hlavka,
2014). A troubling finding made in the study
is that many young girls consider sexual
violence to be ‘normal’. The study demon-
strates that such normalising attitudes toward
sexual violence contribute to the low rate of
reporting amongst women. This study
107
article
reported here had a similar objective in rela-
tion to exploring how members of the WITS
campus both understand and name particular
violent gendered practices as sexual harass-
ment. The project aimed to feed into current
institutional responses that include policy
revisions, awareness campaigns on campus
as well as destabilising appearances of dom-
inant sexist values and heteronormative social
culture within the institution.
Heterosex: normalising gender
through culture
Shefer (2004) has argued that heterosexual-
ity remains an unproblematised and silent
component of sexuality in much mainstream
social scientific research. This lack of atten-
tion has steadily shifted somewhat with more
feminist work interrogating the naturalised
assumptions of heterosexuality. Destabilising
practices that challenge and shift heteronor-
mative socio-cultural meanings are central to
much feminist theory and practice. For Shefer
(2004) the concept of hetero-(sexuality)
allows us to engage relations of gender and
its myriad intersections, and we would argue,
through an interrogation of power that is
intrinsic to both intimate and structural rela-
tionships. We endorse Berlant and Warner’s
(1998) conceptualisation of heterosexuality
as a consolidation of practices, norms and
institutions. This allows us to engage sexual-
ity as constituting myriad psycho-social
dimensions of being and relating. More impor-
tantly, the psychological dimensions of sexu-
ality cannot be separated from its social and
material aspects. Similarly, Oswald et al
(2005) describe heteronormativity as ideolo-
gical in function and practice. Part of this
function is the promotion of heterosexuality
as the norm. The current institutional framing
of sexual harassment adopts a stance of
sexual harassment that allows for a much
broader scope of practice – e.g. harassment
between same-sex parties as well as challen-
ging the view of harassment as embodying
only one particular kind of perpetrator and
victim (i.e. men as perpetrators and women as
victims and/or students as victims and staff
as perpetrators). Such a holistic conceptuali-
sation is certainly welcome and necessary.
However, the articulation of gender with other
social asymmetries, such as class and sexual
orientation amongst others, also demands
engagement in policy. Such articulations
108 AGENDA 105/29.3 2015
influence if and how incidents of harassment
are reported within the institution.
Destabilising practices that challenge and
shift heteronormative socio-cultural
meanings are central to much feminist
theory and practice
Harcourt (2009:14) defines gender as the
“psycho-social, political-cultural, scientific and
economic reading of sexual differences that
inform all human relations”. Culture and iden-
tity may be deployed in the reinforcement of
particular gendered subjectivities as fixed and
embodying an ‘essence’. The norms that influ-
ence specific practices must be explored with
an understanding of the institutional contexts
of behaviour, performance, gender articulations
and other subjectivities. Such an exploration is
useful to understanding why and how some
behaviour is considered as problematic and not
others, as well as when incidents of harassment
will be reported or not. Institutional responses
must therefore address not only policy and
structural factors related to regulating and
curbing incidences of harassment, but also the
entrenched gender beliefs that inform relational
interactions and individual action and agency.
Methodology
Research Design
This study was conducted at the University of
the Witwatersrand by a team of lecturers and
post-graduate students. A feminist approach
to studying sexual harassment was used,
linking theory and consciousness raising
with practice and intervention (Conroy,
2013). This study used Participatory Action
Research (PAR) methodologies (Healy, 2001;
Vlaenderen and Neves, 2004) which are
similar to those used in recent studies of
youth sexuality (Vaughan, 2014) and sexual
violence (Keygnaert et al, 2008). PAR meth-
odologies take seriously the social change
ideal of researching people’s lives. It is also
critical of any notion of objectivity that posi-
tions the researcher outside of the contexts
and subject matters that they study. Our
subjectivities, ideological positions, privileges
and biases come to the fore and are readily
acknowledged as relevant to how we read
storied lives, report findings and engage inter-
vention. Utilising such an approach was

especially appropriate as the research focus
was on intervention and destabilising hetero-
normative practice and beliefs. We sought to
not only gather information on how indivi-
duals on campus perceived sexual harass-
ment but also explore ways that we could
shift binary understandings of gender that fed
into practices of harassment. Consequently
the research process entailed multiple means
of data collection as well as feedback to the
participants. These included focus group ses-
sions, individual interviews as well as interactive
participant and researcher workshop sessions.
In the latter sessions, more active and critical
dialogue was advanced. Both participants and
researchers participated in different ‘play-act-
ing’ scenarios that related to different thematic
issues in sexual violence and harassment.
These were used as benchmarks to discuss
individual perceptions and responses to the
scenarios and interrogating the influencing fac-
tors in these perceptions and responses. In this
regard then, the researchers were as much a
part of the data collection and interrogation as
the participants. A qualitative research design
was adopted in order to understand individuals’
sense-making. This approach further allowed
the researchers to engage in an in-depth manner
with the data and digital recording data of
participant reflections from the participant
workshops and debriefing workshops. This art-
icle focuses on several themes: defining what
behaviour practice constitutes sexual harass-
ment, constructs of perpetrators; gendered
physical presentations such as dress code and
nuances of harassment practice amongst inde-
pendently-contracted support staff within the
institution. These themes address the broader
study objectives of gathering information on
subjective understandings of sexual harassment
practice and policy amongst members of the
community, as well as exploring experiences of
harassment amongst diverse group of members
that include academics, students, administra-
tors, independent-contract and support staff.
the researchers were as much a part of the
data collection and interrogation as the
participants
Participants
Participants were invited to participate in the
research on sexual harassment through open
Interrogating common sense gendered beliefs surrounding sexual harassment practices
article
invitations in public domains within the cam-
pus. Interviews with participants took place
on campus. Sixty participants comprising two
groups, 30 support staff and 30 students,
took part. These two groups comprise part of
a broader sample cohort that includes aca-
demic and administrative and managerial
staff. In this article, we present data collected
from the support and student groups. No
names are used to avoid possible identifica-
tion of participants.
Focus group sessions were held over a
three-month period and facilitated by two
members of the research team. Participants
from each group attended three focus group
discussions (with 10 participants in each
focus group). The focus group sessions
included both single sex (for the personal
discussions) and mixed sex groups (for the
facilitative workshops).
To an extent this study shares, similar
characteristics with other feminist and PAR
studies where “the researcher and the
research subject share the spatial history, as
well as the multiple positionalities in their life
cycle…” (Muhanna, 2013: 14). All of the
research team members studied at similar
South African public universities, and as
young women have experienced and continue
to experience various forms of sexual harass-
ment both directly and indirectly. It is for
these reasons that in this study the position
and subjectivities of the researchers inevit-
ably becomes a subject of study (Muhanna,
2013). In this regard, our analysis and inter-
pretation of results were conducted through
team focus group discussions that enabled us
to interrogate and think deeply about our own
positions as young black women academics
within tertiary institutions and how our differ-
ential positioning influenced our own naming
and interpretation of participant accounts.
Analysis and discussion
The single sex group discussions focused on
experiences and perceptions of sexual harass-
ment incidences and policy. Participants were
asked to reflect on their understandings and
personal knowledge of sexual harassment
within the institution. The mixed sex discus-
sions focused on facilitative workshops that
addressed general case examples of sexual
harassment and which were used as a bench-
mark for further discussion on the nuances of
harassment and gender violence more
109
article
generally. Interviews were transcribed for
thematic and discursive analysis of the data.
This involved reading transcripts for overall
thematic patterns emerging. A second layer
of analysis was then conducted that focused
on the use of language in constructing sub-
jectivities and practice in particular ways and
as part of justificatory functions that may be
used by both women and men in constructing
some behaviour as harassment and not
others. This latter approach is in keeping
with feminist poststructuralist analytic
approaches that emphasise the role of lan-
guage in legitimating relations of domination
between groups, particularly gender violence
(Boonzaier, 2006).
Analysis of the focus group discussions in
the study highlight some pertinent concerns
for effective intervention practice within insti-
tutions more generally and the current insti-
tutional context. Intervention practice that
fails to engage the gendered psycho-social
dynamics between individuals sets itself up
for only engaging half of the picture. A
psycho-social approach to intervention
includes an exploration and grappling with
the beliefs, psychological investments and
socio-cultural nuances that influence how
gendered subjectivities are performed in dif-
ferent contexts. This psycho-social complex-
ity is at the heart of much resistance,
contradiction and under-reporting of sexual
harassment behaviour. The current interven-
tion focus specifically addresses structural
and policy level forms of response that do
not take these factors into account. Campus-
based intervention must therefore entail
attention to the structural as well as the
interpersonal and group level. The latter can
include social awareness campaigns that
tackle entrenched gendered beliefs and
engage sociocultural influences that actively
work with the community for gender trans-
formation. This will involve long-term work-
shop endeavours that are aimed at
consciousness-raising and shifts in conscious-
ness. This work is both structural and psy-
chological. Intervention strategies must also
cater to the universal community and not just
those privileged enough to access knowledge
and information. Our findings demonstrate
that many members of the independently-
contracted support staff are not even aware
of the procedures for reporting sexual harass-
ment due to lack of access to such informa-
tion. This is related to broader concerns of
110 AGENDA 105/29.3 2015
unequal technological expertise and access to
knowledge. Gender stereotyping amongst
both men and women also does not acknow-
ledge that men can be victims of sexual
harassment.
Sexual scripts and harassment
ambiguity
Some common beliefs were apparent about
courting practices and that these are inter-
preted differently in rural and urban contexts
by both men and women. A male participant
described it as normative for a man making
advances to hold hands and even the waist of
a woman in the rural villages, while at the
same time acknowledging that this very same
sexual advance could be considered harass-
ment in the urban university context. There
was agreement that being touched by a male
suitor could constitute harassment if it is
unwelcome. Female participant 1 in the mixed
sex workshop said:
“…because I don’t know this man and I am
not in a relationship with him [females in
group “yes”] so if he come to me and
greets and touches me in these parts
(touching body) that is sexual
harassment…”
The relational and institutional context within
which sexual and gendered behaviour takes
place proves to be a foregrounding dimension
to interpreting particular behaviours and prac-
tice as harassment. The rural/urban divide
proved to be a key determining factor in
whether practices of physical touching could
be described as harassment or not. In the male
focus group, this distinction was especially
prominent, with the group agreeing that during
the process of courting some intimate physical
contact is acceptable within the rural context
but not in an urban context., a male support
staff participant observes:
Participant 9: “…ja…it is okay, you see to
do that when we are back home. Even she
will not mind that [other participants nod].
But when it comes to this place, then it is
not okay [other participants nod].”
Facilitator: “why is it not okay?”
Participant 9: “Because in this place, we
have different understandings, you see.
We cannot bring our tradition to the

university or even just normal, because we
are not in the village. So in the village, to
me that is not harassment. But in this
context, they will say that it is.”
Facilitator: “What would you say?”
Participant 9: “To me, I am not touching
this person with the intention of haras-
sing, you see. It is just the way we do it
back home. So if she says she does not
like it, then I will stop. But when I come to
her the first time, yes, I will touch her. But
the thing is sometimes it is okay and she
does not mind.”
The construct of ‘legitimate’ victims and per-
petrators of sexual harassment is important to
critiquing embedded notions of both gender
and sexuality
The above interaction highlights the contexts
within which physical boundaries may or may
not be crossed and alludes to the necessity of
being able to ‘read’ the social context relative
to the cultural sexual scripts that influence
gendered behaviour. This practice of reading
cultural and sexual scripts is also imbued with
the ability to engage in code-switching prac-
tice that allows the individual to read appro-
priate moments of gendered behaviour. What
is implicitly not interrogated in this dialogical
conflict is the problematic practice of intim-
acy in the negotiation of physical boundaries.
Determining appropriate behaviour in the rural
and urban contexts becomes secondary to
the normalised entrenched cultural practice of
male transgression of personal space. The
current institutional policy fails to fully engage
such nuances in understanding how different
cultural practices affect how men and women
understand and choose to respond to inci-
dents of harassment. Thus, institutional
efforts at curbing practices of harassment
through awareness campaigns often fail
because many women and men simply do
not perceive certain gendered acts of trans-
gression as transgression. For example, for
many of the participants code-switching eti-
quette – a process by which individuals
perform different (gendered) subjectivities
relative to their context – was considered to
be the primary issue at hand and not invasion
of personal intimate spaces.
Interrogating common sense gendered beliefs surrounding sexual harassment practices
article
Who is a perpetrator?
Discussion of the question of perpetrator/
victim dynamics raised how the stereotype/s
of a typical perpetrator can be misleading.
The exclusion of people who do not fit with a
heteronormative representation of perpetrator
are precluded from accessing help and not
taken seriously.
For example, a male participant in a work-
shop with support staff said that he believed that
female-to-male harassment did not exist and
was supported by some female participants:
Facilitator: “ …what would sexual harass-
ment be for example if it’s from a female
to a male?”
[Male participant 3 laughs]
Facilitator: “or does it even exist?”
Male participant 7: “no there isn’t.”
Facilitator: “there isn’t?”
Male participant 7: no. “That question is
quite difficult [laughs].”
His response could be indicative of assump-
tions about masculinity that dismisses the
validity of male vulnerability (ie that it is
laughable). This can be explained by the
gender power that men are assumed to pos-
sess which protects them from being victi-
mised. When probed, some suggested that
males would not report and even when they
reported they would not be taken seriously.
The construct of ‘legitimate’ victims and
perpetrators of sexual harassment is import-
ant to critiquing embedded notions of both
gender and sexuality. For example, the parti-
cipants considered that men are neither vic-
tims of female harassment nor victims of
male harassment. The respondent’s response
corresponds with and confirms the attitude
towards male victims of sexual harassment
more generally: a response alleged to be held
even by authorities (McDonald, 2012). A nar-
row understanding of sexual harassment is
also evident in its construct as an exclusively
physical transgression – and relegated to male
behaviour only. In the discussion with male
participants, one male student observed:
“…we all have our different explanations
of sexual harassment, for me, it’s a phys-
ical thing….if someone touches me where
I don’t want to be touched then that’s
111
article
sexual harassment. To me, it is men who
will do that, not women.”
The discussion of sexual harassment also
intersected with discourses around a ‘typical’
perpetrator’s age. Female participant 4 in the
support staff workshop stated that:
“…as we were growing in school, they
taught us, that we shouldn’t allow grown
men to call us over and touch us
all over…”
Warnings against “grown men” inadvertently
shift attention away from the gender-power
dynamic, drawing attention to the older age of
the perpetrator, whilst in fact practices of
sexual harassment and violence transcend
age. A possible result of this perception is that
young women may learn to fear older men and
ignore the danger of abuse from age mates.
And yet, research highlights disturbing acts of
sexual harassment and violence amongst peers
(Mulumeoderhwa and Harris, 2014).
The boundaries between sexual harass-
ment and rape are also often blurred. Under-
standings of what constitutes harassment are
attenuated by variables such as age, relation-
ship to the perpetrator and the use of force. The
blurred lines can influence how many women
and men consider harassment to be detrimental
to their well-being as opposed to the violent
abuse that rape implies. For instance, the
presumed lack of aggression and/or obvious
violation meant that reporting such incidents
became irrelevant in comparison to more viol-
ent acts. Normalising attitudes to sexual har-
assment can feed contradictory responses to it.
Participant 1, a female in the workshop with
support staff, stated the following:
“…so within sexual harassment, the person
will probably touch you inappropriately and
tell you all sort of funny things you see, so
the rapist will just see you and go straight to
trying to force themselves on you…”
Identifying a rapist as a forceful stranger
perpetuates a dangerous myth that confuses
young people and makes it more difficult to
recognise or identify a perpetrator. The dis-
course of ‘relationship to the perpetrator’
sometimes influences the prosecution of vio-
lations as it is assumed that the violation is
more likely to be by a stranger, while cajoling,
persuasion and grooming with use of
112 AGENDA 105/29.3 2015
deception by an acquaintance is not taken
seriously (Hlavka, 2014). Violation by an
acquaintance is reported to be more common
and more difficult to report and prosecute
(Conroy, 2013; Hlavka, 2014). The question-
ing of entrenched beliefs of who makes a
legitimate or plausible perpetrator (and by
implication, a plausible victim) must continue
to expose the myth that perpetrators are
unknown and commit acts characterised
exclusively by violence.
cajoling, persuasion and grooming with use of
deception by an acquaintance is not taken
seriously
Dress code and sexual behaviour
Feminist literature has demonstrated the pre-
valence and function of notions of ‘female
respectability’ that effectively regulate and
discipline women’s bodies and behaviour
(Clarke and Spence, 2013; Ramirez, 2014,
Shefer, 1990 amongst others). These works
highlight the sociocultural policing of how
women may and may not re/present them-
selves through visual appearance. Discursive
constructs of ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ women are
intrinsic to such representations and have
implications for how women’s bodies are
constructed as ‘inviting’ sexual violence and
harassment. These constructs of appearance
and behaviour were evident in the focus
group discussions with both women and men.
Participant 7 (male): “Again, a woman
who invites attention and then complains
that it is unwanted is problematic.
Facilitator: How do they invite it?
Participant 7: You have to look at the how
she presents herself, the dress, the beha-
viour, like is she flirty, all those things.”
Participant 3 (female): “[nods]…yes, many
female students in fact flirt with the
lecturers. So they can’t now complain of
harassment.”
Dress code was referred to in a way that
reproduces the myth that women who dress
provocatively ‘invite rape’. Firstly, such dis-
course diverts the attention away from the
perpetrator to the victim and maintains the
status quo: hegemonic masculinity that is
characterised by not taking responsibility for

sexual violence. Secondly, it diverts attention
away from the act of violation by questioning
the victim’s moral responsibility. Suggesting
that certain dress codes are used by women
to lure men from ‘innocent’ to ‘perpetrator’
absolves men of any sexual responsibility.
Sexual harassment in the workplace
for support staff at University
Support staff constitute university staff who are
not academics. They can be permanently
employed by the university, as in the case of
office admin and secretaries, or are employed
indirectly through a contract with a service
provider, as is the case with the cleaners. One
of the workshops held with women cleaners3
revealed that they were familiar with the experi-
ence of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Sexual harassment in which a transactional
aspect was referred to alludes to other inter-
secting power relations within the institution as
workplace. Participant 6 complained:
“…this thing of getting a job by using your
body is not right…”
Her statement was supported by the other
participants who spoke about their exposure
to practices where there was pressure to
engage in sex in exchange for a job, for
allocation of more work hours, and proposi-
tions to renew their contract. Participant 4
stated that:
“…I have never seen it but I have heard of
it, I remember when we had a meeting at
Senate house … [facilitator 4: yes], the
time our contracts were coming to an end,
there were some sisters who were work-
ing at Junxion [facilitator 4: oh at Wits
Junxion], some did complain of harass-
ment… others in order to get a job, one of
their bosses wanted to sleep with them,
so that they may get a job. [facilitator 4:
ok]. Yes, others did actually sleep with
him and others didn’t, so they got the job
because they slept with him…”
Cleaners working on an hourly-pay, on con-
tract within the institution hold precarious
jobs. They are often single mothers and
breadwinners of households who are respons-
ible for support of their children. Sexual
harassment places them under difficult
Interrogating common sense gendered beliefs surrounding sexual harassment practices
article
pressure. Failure to obey a supervisor could
lead to victimisation and worse, possibly
job loss.
Participant 1: “maybe if that happens,
what I could do is to go to the offices
and then complain and say for example,
that my supervisor is now demanding
1,2,3 from me.”
Facilitator: “which means now that they
see you [participant 1: you see], and they
know your name, which mean it is no
longer anonymous.”
Participant 1: “that is why we end up
being afraid of going there.”
Participant 6: “and furthermore if you
report them, in the office and say such
and such, they are going to change you,
you won’t be posted everyday.”
Participant 6: “you are going to be treated
badly, like you did something wrong,
because of what they did.”
The current institutional (as well as union
entities) policy on sexual harassment does
provide protection from harassment for sup-
port staff, including contractual staff such as
cleaners. Furthermore, free sexual harassment
counselling services are available for all mem-
bers of the institution. And yet, all of the
cleaners agreed that they would never think
of using either services or report incidences of
harassment. There was a sense of lack of
trust in peer support and lack of trust in the
investigating and disciplinary processes
within the institution.
the implicit silencing around incidents of sexual
harassment reinforces the social order that
normalises sexual violence
Implications of findings for
institutional responses to sexual
harassment
Two important implications are evident: first,
the implicit silencing around incidents of
sexual harassment reinforces the social order
that normalises sexual violence. Second, insti-
tutional responses to sexual harassment must
think up ways so that responsible and effect-
ive interventions can be devised for such
113
article
contractually vulnerable groups within the
institutional space. This must include more
concerted effort to involve such groups in the
current dialogue on sexual violence in the
institution as well as making the effort to
understand the unequal relations of power
(and all of its intersections) for such a group.
These groups have typically (voluntarily in
most instances) not been involved in the
public campaigns and dialogue initiatives tak-
ing place within the institution. Part of this is
related to loss of employment concerns, gen-
eral disinterest, lack of knowledge about such
activities but also a general sentiment that
they are not part of the institutional commun-
ity. It is not enough to revise policy and open
dialogue on these issues in social, formal and
cyber spaces that they are unable to particip-
ate in. As feminist researchers and activists,
we would advocate for an engagement with
institutional culture that addresses the
broader structural, interpersonal and ideolo-
gical underpinnings of social change and
transformation. Destabilising the heteronor-
mative culture within institutions of higher
learning should include attempts at redress at
multi-levels as well as more reflective analysis
of how policies are in fact enacted. This focus
on the interpersonal and ideological under-
pinnings of intervention includes exploration
of how and when sexual hierarchies come to
be articulated within such institutions, how
heteronormativity intersects with race, class,
sexuality etc to shape both women’s and
men’s experiences of gender and gender
violence. Understanding and intervening in
cases of sexual harassment must also mean
engaging with the expressions of normative
beliefs and values, for example, and how
these are often expressed through practice.
Lastly, current framings directed toward spe-
cific classed subjects highlights the implicit
reinforcement of selective citizenship,
whereby some members of the institutional
context are unintentionally excluded from
dialogical participation.
Concluding remarks
It is our contention in this article that explor-
ing the different dimensions of heteronorma-
tive culture is necessary to challenging
practices of gender violence such as sexual
harassment. The learnt practices that influ-
ence everyday gendered interactions not only
reinforce normative gender expressions but
114 AGENDA 105/29.3 2015
also may be used in the interpretation and
justification of behaviour which violates indi-
vidual well-being and sexual rights. The sub-
jective meanings attached to practices of
sexual harassment illustrate that both men
and women struggle with defining and inter-
preting some behaviour as harassment when
the inculcation (through cultural norms
amongst others) is seen as acceptable or not
open to question. In this regard, not all
sexually aggressive behaviour is interpreted
as such as well as reported given the subject-
ive and ambiguous understandings that are
evident. More work should be done that
explores these subjective meanings attached
to heteronormative practice in the fight
against gender violence today as well as the
myriad forms of vulnerability that exist within
campus spaces. These meanings function in
what Collins (2013:72) refers to as “danger-
ous common-sense” and affect the ways that
we both justify gendered violent practice and
intervene for change. Addressing gender viol-
ence in the lives of young girls and women
cannot in the long term prove effective if
dangerous common-sense knowledge about
gendered subjectivities, behaviour and prac-
tice take a backseat to institutional policy
interventions. This fight must be two-fold,
engaging both macro and micro level inter-
ventions and destabilising strategies.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the African
Gender Institute (AGI) for funding this pro-
ject as well as the WITSIE research team.
Notes
1. For example the Employment Equity Act, no. 55
of 1998, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention
of Unfair Discrimination Act, no. 4 of 2000
(PEPUDA).
2. Independent inquiry into the allegations of sexual
harassment at the University of the Witwatersrand
by Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa and Centre
for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) and investigation
by law firm Bowman Gilfillan into specific cases of
sexual harassment.
3. Other support staff that included security guards
and administrative staff were also conducted but
are not presented here.
References
Berlant L & Warner M (1998) ‘Sex in public’, in Critical
Inquiry, 24 (Winter), 547–566.
Boonzaier F (2006) ‘A gendered analysis of woman
abuse’ in T Shefer, F Boonzaier & P Kiguwa (eds)

The Gender of Psychology, Landsdowne, Cape
Town: UCT Press.
Bucchianeri MM, Eisenberg ME, Wall MM, Piran N &
Neumark-Sztainer D (2014) ‘Multiple types of har-
assment: Associations with emotional well-being
and unhealthy behaviors in adolescents’, in Journal
of Adolescent Health, 54, 6, 724–729. doi:10.
1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.205
Clarke V & Spence K (2013) ‘“I am who i am”?
Navigating norms and the importance of authenti-
city in lesbian and bisexual women’s accounts of
their appearance practices’, in Psychology & Sexu-
ality, 4, 1, 25–33.
Collins A (2013) ‘Bullies, sissies and crybabies: Dan-
gerous common sense in educating boys for viol-
ence’, in Agenda, 27, 1, 71–83.
Conroy NE (2013) ‘Rethinking adolescent peer sexual
harassment: Contributions of feminist theory’, in
Journal of School Violence, 12, 4, 340–356.
doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.813391
Edwards-Januch L (2012) ‘Action research on gender-
based violence at the University of Namibia:
Results and methodological reflections’, in Femin-
ist Africa, 17, 102–114.
Harcourt W (2009) Body Politics in Development.
Critical Debates in Gender and Development,
USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Healy K (2001) ‘Participatory action research and social
work: A critical appraisal’, in International Social
Work, 44, 1, 93–105. doi:10.1177/00208728010
4400108
Hlavka HR (2014) ‘Normalizing sexual violence: Young
women account for harassment and abuse’ in
Gender & Society. 28, 2, 1–22, doi:10.1177/089
1243214526468
Keygnaert I, Wilson R, Dedoncker K, Bakker H, Van
Petegem M, Wassie N & Temmerman M (2008)
Hidden Violence is a Silent Rape: Prevention of
Sexual & Gender-Based Violence Against Refu-
gees & Asylum Seekers in Europe: A Participatory
Approach Report, Belgium: International Centre for
Reproductive Health: Ghent University..
McDonald P (2012) ‘Workplace sexual harassment 30
years on: a review of the literature’, in International
Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 1, 1–17.
Mosime ST, Ntshwarang P & Mookodi G (2012) ‘Map-
ping sexualities and sexual body politics on Univer-
sity of Botswana Campus: A feminist action
research approach’, in Feminist Africa, 17, 48–62.
Muhanna A (2013) ‘When the researcher becomes a
subject of ethnographic research: Studying
“myself” and “others”’, in Gaza Women’s Studies
International Forum, 45, 112–118. doi:10.1016/j.
wsif.2013.11.010
Mulumeoderhwa M & Harris G (2014) ‘Forced sex, rape
and sexual exploitation: attitudes and experiences
of high school students in South Kivu, Democratic
Interrogating common sense gendered beliefs surrounding sexual harassment practices
article
Republic of Congo’, in Culture Health and Sexual-
ity, 17, 3, 1–12.
Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa & Centre for Applied
Legal Studies, University of the Witwatersrand
School of Law (2013) Independent Inquiry Into
Allegations of Sexual Harassment at the University
of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2013,
Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Oswald RF, Blume LB & Marks SR (2005) Decentering
Heteronormativity: A Model for Family Studies.
Sourcebook of Family Theory & Research, Thou-
sand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.
Ramirez A (2014) ‘Control over female ’Muslim’ bodies:
culture, politics and dress code laws in some
Muslim and non-Muslim countries’, in Identities:
Global Studies in Culture and Power, 1–16.
doi:10.1080/1070289x2014.950972.
Shefer T (1990) ‘Feminist theories of the role of the
body within women’s oppression’, in Critical Arts,
5, 2, 37–54. doi:10.1086/02560049008537635
Shefer T (2004) ‘Heterosexuality’ in K Ratele, N
Duncan, D Hook, N Mkhize, P Kiguwa & A Collins
(eds) Self, Community & Psychology, Landsdowne,
Cape Town: UCT Press.
Swartz S (2009) IKASI: The Moral Ecology of South
Africa’s Township Youth, Johannesburg: Wits
University Press.
University of the Witwatersrand (2013) Sexual Harass-
ment, Sexual Assault and Rape Policy and Proce-
dures, HRG/10 C.F.R. (2013).
University of the Witwatersrand. Centre for Applied
Legal Studies, Cornell Law School. Avon Global
Center for Women and Justice & Cornell Law
School. International Human Rights Clinic (2014)
‘Sexual violence by educators in South African
schools: Gaps in accountability’, Avon Global Cen-
ter for Women and Justice and Dorothea S Clarke
Program in Feminist Jurisprudence, Paper 6.
University of the Witwatersrand (WITS) Council (2013)
‘Statement from the Chairperson of the Council of
the University of the Witswatersrand, Johannesburg,
Pertaining to Sexual Harassment’, 25 April 2013,
Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand.
Vaughan C (2014) ‘Participatory research with youth:
Idealising safe social spaces or building transform-
ative links in difficult environments?’, in Journal of
Health Psychology, 19, 1, 184–192. doi:10.1177/
1359105313500258
Vlaenderen HV & Neves D (2004) ‘Participatory Action
Research and local knowledge in community con-
texts’ in D Hook, N Mkhize, P Kiguwa & A Collins
(eds) Critical Psychology, Lansdowne: UCT Press.
Wekwete N & Mayeruke C (2012) ‘Strengthening
research capacity in Africa: Gender, sexuality and
poliics with a strategic focus on the lives of young
women’, in Feminist Africa, 17, 91–102.
115
article

PEACE KIGUWA (PhD) lectures in the School of Human and Community

Development in Psychology at the University of the Witwatersrand, South
Africa. Her research interests include gender and sexuality, critical race
issues and critical social psychology. She is currently co-editor of the
accredited journal Psychology in Society (PINS), the Unisa student-oriented
journal New Voices (NV) and co-editor on three Special Issue journals
currently in press. She has co-edited three books (UCT and ZED press
releases) and has published in both local and internationally accredited
journals. She was Research Fellow on the South African Netherlands
Research Programme on Alternatives in Development (SANPAD) and has
served on the executive committee of the Division for Research and
Methodology (PsySSA). Email: Peace.Kiguwa@wits.ac.za

MZIKAZI NDUNA (PhD) is a National Research Foundation (NRF) Y-rated

scientist and an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology,
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. She has research interests in
HIV/AIDS, father connections, sexual and reproductive health and rights,
gender and gender-based violence and psychological distress pertaining to
women, children and sexual minorities. She is an alumnus of the Sexuality
Leadership Development, the Carnegie and the ICP CHANGE Fellowships.
She has co-authored 36 peer reviewed journal articles, presented in
international and local conferences and reviews articles for more than five
international journals. Mzikazi is a member of the Gender-Based Violence
Prevention Network for the Horn, East and Southern Africa, the HIV
Vaccines Network and the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC)
Women’s Sector Expert Group. Email: mzikazi.nduna@wits.ac.za

ANDILE J MTHOMBENI holds a Bachelor of Arts degree (with double majors

in Psychology and Sociology). She seeks to pursue her studies further all the
way to PhD in Research Health Psychology and lead as an example to other
young people that grow up in impoverished backgrounds. She is a part of an
advocacy action research team that aims to empower young women’s
leadership skills through research around Sexual and Reproductive Health
and Rights (SRHR). She is a young radical feminist who is also against
gender-based violence and has a passion to see change in the lives of young
women/people in general. She has attended conferences focused on
mainstreaming youth in the post 2015-development agenda. She currently
works as a Research Assistant at the Department of Psychology at the
University of the Witwatersrand. Email: Andile.Mthombeni@wits.ac.za

POLITE CHAUKE is a Social Work masters graduate from the University of

the Witwatersrand. She is currently an intern at South African History
Archive (SAHA) and her research interests are in gender, masculinities,
sexual and reproductive health rights and social justice. Email: polite.
khanyisa@gmail.com

116 AGENDA 105/29.3 2015

 article
NALEDI SELEBANO is currently employed by the Commission for Gender
Equality as a research intern. She has recently graduated for her Master’s
degree in Social Work by Dissertation which focused on the psycho-social
effects of unemployment on young black men from Soweto. Her research
interests are in gender, fatherhood, masculinities, and femininities. Email:
np.selebano@gmail.com

NONTOBEKO G DLAMINI is a graduate who holds a Bachelor of Arts

degree, Honours and Masters degrees in Industrial Psychology. She is
currently working towards pursuing a PhD in Philosophy with particular
focus on Critical Diversity Studies, based at the Centre for Diversity at the
University of the Witwatersrand. She is a part of an advocacy action
research team that aims to empower young women’s leadership skills
through research around the areas of Sexual and Reproductive Health and
Rights (SRHR). She works as a Research Assistant at the Centre for Critical
Diversity Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand. Email: noben-
khosi11@gmail.com

Interrogating common sense gendered beliefs surrounding sexual harassment practices 117