Search

'How can we apprehend homophobia "as more" than we currently know?' This paper attempts a conceptual intervention to rethink current approaches to homophobia in schools. It draws on ideas from feminist philosopher Todd around attention and openness to uncertainty. It also employs queer theoretical notions of subjectless antihomophobia education from Airton, arguing there may be utility in understanding that homophobia is not held by a subject -- as an attitude or set of meanings used against others. Interview narratives from a two-year research project exploring the production of sexual meanings at school offer a window into acknowledging homophobia as subjectless. That is, homophobia does not need a queer-identified subject to be its target to operate. Nor, does homophobia need an ignorant or fearful (human) subject to perpetuate it. Subjectless anti-homophobia education requires understanding homophobia as something in which all of us are implicated, and where homophobia is never ours alone.

This paper is interested in thinking more about sexuality education at school. As such, it is concerned with a mundane and unacknowledged feature of the sexuality classroom--the mapping of movement. While human movement is a familiar focus of educational research, the movement of things is not. With reference to Barad's concept of intra-activity, the paper maps human-non-human movements and characterises these as a sexual choreography of schooling. Instead of asking what does movement mean or reveal about sexuality education, I attend to the event movement inaugurates. Predominantly theoretical, the paper weaves together ideas from conventionally disparate disciplinary fields. These include Edensor's concept of rhythm from geography, Eggermont's notion of the choreography of schooling from education, and Barad's spacetimemattering from quantum physics. This theorisation enables a recognition of movement as a force in human-non-human classroom intra-actions implicated in the becoming of sexuality education as event.

Young people may face conflicting and confusing messages about what it means to respond well in relation to homophobia and transphobia. Consequently, we ask--What might it mean to respond well to homophobia and transphobia? This strategy, inspired by Anika Thiem and Judith Butler, is recognition of the ambivalent conditions which structure attempts to respond well to bullying related to gender and sexuality. Such an approach is counter to educational responses that suggest a remedy in advance of the enactment of perceived bullying. Our paper draws on research conducted by the authors in four such schools, two in Australia and two in Aotearoa/New Zealand. It is a deliberate turn away from focusing on who should be held to account for homophobia and transphobia.

This paper asks, what more can we think in relation to debates around young people's use of mobile phones at school? Rather than attempting to answer the question of whether mobile phones are "good" or "bad" for young people, this paper recasts the debate's ontological underpinnings. To do this feminist appropriations of the Deleuzian concept of assemblage and a relational materialist notion of "more-than-human" are drawn on. By recognising sexuality-as-assemblage, it is possible to see more-than-human elements (such as mobile phones) as implicated in the becoming of sexuality at school. This conceptualisation implies new texture and dimensionality to the wider project of (re)producing sexual meanings and identities at school. It also necessitates acknowledging an ontologically different understanding of the human-non-human divide, that decentres young people and/or phones as to "to blame" for "negative" practices like sexting. Instead, agency manifests via the intra-activity that occurs when mobile phones and young people are in-relation.

In a discussion of Deleuze's theorization of concepts, Todd May asks "what can a concept do with that which cannot be identified?" Or to put it another way, May writes--"A concept is a way of addressing the difference that lies beneath the identities we experience." This is not to say that identities, concepts, and experiences are linked in particular ways. The possibility of extending what a concept can do is also brought under scrutiny by Ann Burlein, who draws on the work of Elizabeth Wilson to argue "Feminism needs to engage with scientific authority not simply at those sites where it [science] takes women as its objects, but also in the neutral zones, in those places where feminism appears to have no place or political purchase." "Why not feminist critiques of the liver or the stomach, she asks?" Such styles of thought are the inspiration for this paper. We argue that queer concepts in education should not stop at places where education takes queer bodies as its objects, but that queer concepts have an important role to play in places where, at first glance, they appear to have no place or purchase.

This article explores the potential of queering as a mode of critique by problematising the ways in which liberal politics of race shape normative understandings of health in a high school classroom. Drawing on findings from an Australian and New Zealand (NZ) research project designed to respond to religious and cultural difference in school-based sexuality education programmes, we critically queer how the Maori concept of "hauora" is deployed in the intended and operational NZ Health curriculum to shape the raced subject. Despite the best intentions of curriculum developers and classroom teachers to utilise Maori ways of knowing to meet their obligations within a bicultural nation, we argue that the notion of "hauora" is domesticated by being aligned with normalising individualistic notions of well-being that reflect the Eurocentric neoliberal individual enterprise subject. Palatable notions of Maori epistemologies as cultural artefacts and iconography drive that "inclusion". The "cunning politic" of (bicultural) recognition legitimates Maori ways of knowing in ways which privilege whiteness--reproducing rather than disrupting networks of power and dumbing down Maori epistemologies.

This article is concerned with how to analyse photographs produced during research on sexualities and schooling. Photo-diaries and photo-elicitation were employed in an examination of the sexual cultures of two New Zealand secondary schools. This visual methodology sought to disclose spatial and embodied dimensions of sexualities at school while centring and valuing students' perspectives. In an attempt to answer the question "what does this photograph "really" mean", the author experiments with a series of analytical accounts conceptualised as "realist", "interpretivist", "performative" and "materialist" approaches. These readings are interrogated for their political and ontological effects. On the basis of the project's aims of taking young people's perspectives seriously and foregrounding material reality, an argument for a "materialist" reading is made. (Contains 4 figures.)

This paper explores "the 5 cm rule", a regulation around student contact discovered during an investigation of the sexual culture of schooling with 16-19-year-olds in New Zealand. Implemented to stem "inappropriate and unwanted" touching, it stipulates that students must maintain a physical distance of 5 cm at all times. It is argued this rule represents a contemporary type of biopower which forms part of the sexual culture of schooling. As a technique of corporeal regulation it is characterised by a "loose" exercise of power, that allows for student resistance while producing subjects' "docility-utility" (Foucault, 1980). The paper contends that the rule contributes negatively to "the sexual culture of schooling" by constituting student sexuality as "unruly" and "problematic". This stipulation also prescribes a set of gender relations that are inhibitive of mutually negotiated and pleasurable corporeal experience. (Contains 1 note.)

This article examines the sexually explicit comments and references to pornography in young men's answers to a survey about sexuality education. Instead of viewing these remarks as simply impertinent and therefore discountable, I argue that they offer insights into the constitution of masculine identity and an erotic deficit in sexuality education. Many of these comments make requests for the inclusion of enfleshed (female) bodies in sexuality programmes and the use of pornographic materials (i.e. videos, magazines). These responses can be seen to represent a challenge to school authority in the way they are laden with "shock" value and push at the discursive limits of "sexual respectability". In a school environment that seeks to deny the sexual and contain student sexuality, these statements symbolise an assertion of young men's sexual agency. Young men's remarks also offer a critique of sexuality education that is de-eroticised and which denies them as positive and legitimate sexual subjects. The implications of these comments for how sexuality education might be conceptualised are considered. (Contains 10 notes.)