Willis (2005)
talks in the beginning of his book ‘Race, Identity and Representation in
Education”, of how young people are the foot soldiers of modernity. He talks of
how schools are one of the principal sites for the dialectical playing out of
disjunctions and contradiction, which underlie some of
the most urgent education debates – from traditionalism versus progressivism,
to the canon versus multiculturalism”. In society today, social debates
regarding the status of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT)
community are being spurred by young people, the foot soldiers of a modern and
progressive social movement that wish to remove the contradictions of
traditional legislation in favour of policy that promotes the desires of a
changing society, and a cultural understanding and tolerance of the rights and
legitimacy of the human, regardless of their sexual preference.
On the 17th
of October 2012, The Herald Sun released an article entitled “Being straight no
longer normal, students taught”. The
article explains how a “Proud Schools
consultation report recently recommended that schools review existing Personal
Development, Health, and Physical Education programs from Year 7 to "incorporate
learning about same-sex attraction and sexual diversity because of schools
being, according to research by LaTrobe University, the "primary site of
homophobic abuse".
What was troubling
about this article however was the response of Upper house MP Fred Nile, who
attacked the program, calling it "propaganda", suggesting that
educating students about issues regarding the cultural acceptance and political
legitimacy of the GLBT community in society equated to brainwashing. In
addition to these comments, Nile suggests that because homosexuals are a
minority group, making up 2% of the population, the education department should
not give priority to a program that aims to reduce the psychological impacts
the suppression of a homosexual identity can have on a child. Nile, I feel, is
an example of an older, culturally and socially stagnate individual resistant
to the flows of cultural modernisation because it questions legislation and
social norms locked in tradition that he is culturally comfortable with.
Willis (2005)
suggests that changes and progression of culture to reflect a changing
society to protect the rights of
minorities to the adult eye, may seem to be mysterious, troubling, and even
shocking, resulting in a lack of understanding and acceptance. This to me
however does not seem to be a legitimate reason for Nile or any other
politician to cover what comes across as fear of change with “brainwashing”.
The idea that the education of individuals on the desires and social legitimacy
of a community has been rejected by a politician because they are a minority of the population will remain an educational issue in terms of
how schooling will reflect the changing society and culture.
References:
Devine, M. 17/10/2012,
‘Being straight no longer normal, students taught’,
<http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/being-straight-no-longer-normal-students-taught/story-e6frf7jo-1226497360980>
Willis, P. (2005).
Afterword: Foot soldiers of modernity: The dialectics of cultural consumption
and the 21st-century school. In C. McCarthy, W. Crichlow, G.
Dimitriadis, & N. Dolby (Eds.), Race, identity and representation in
education (2nd Ed.), (pp.461-480), New York: Routledge.
Hello Emma,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, I appreciate your insight – you seemed like the most appropriate blogger in which to return a comment. So here I go.
Firstly, I would like to address your comment, “Nile suggest that because homosexuals are a minority group... the education department should not give priority to a program that aims to reduce the psychological impacts the suppression of a homosexual identity can have on a child.” Mr. Nile, I feel was calling it an inequality to address just one source of violence and abuse in schools, when there could be a higher percentage of children in suffering from bullying as a result of other identity issues.
Mr. Nile I believe, in terms of “brain washing” – is concerned that students who are confused about their sexuality will pin point their confusion as homosexual tendencies as a result of such a program driving the acceptance and acknowledgement of non-heterosexuality. That is not to suggest that the acceptance and acknowledgement should not be implemented, but students may furthering-ly struggle to identify themselves sexually as a result – I hope that makes sense. Basically, I mean: students might think “I’m confused about sex, am I gay?”.. and find themselves embracing a whole lifestyle that doesn’t correspond with homosexuality; they felt it was the right direction, but later down the track have to redirect themselves to the sexual orientation that does fit their identity.
Anyway, that is just some food for thought.