Archive for December, 2007

The Potential for “Sex-Positive” Sexuality Education

December 20, 2007 at 5:38 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , , , ,


The Times They Are A-Changin’:
The Potential for Sex-Positive Sex Education

Introduction

The debates surrounding sexuality education have historically dealt with a range of questions regarding the content of sexuality education, who ought to be responsible for such instruction, and how we know that sexuality education has been effective. Indeed, the debate between abstinence-only and comprehensive sexuality education is only one element of a complicated and multi-faceted discussion among U.S. educators, policymakers, parents, and (occasionally) adolescents. However, this debate provides a useful starting point for historical and socio-cultural analysis because the resolution to this debate will address key philosophical questions regarding the “sexual space” available for youth to explore their own sexualities responsibly. As informed and thoughtful participants in their own sexuality, youth may gain from (formal and informal) sexuality education the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to care for themselves and their sexual partners.

What follows is a discussion of the history of sexuality education in the United States and its implications for sexuality education as it is understood and practiced today. This analysis demonstrates that 1) patriarchal constructions of gender and sexuality have deeply influenced the politics of sexuality education, especially concerning gendered double standards; 2) much of the support for abstinence-only sexuality education has been rooted in a fear of youth sexuality that is not justified by empirical evidence; and 3) while comprehensive sex educators have implemented curriculum that is more sexually liberating than abstinence-only methods, truly “sex-positive” education emphasizing the importance of sexual pleasure is still absent.

The 1960s: State-Sponsored Sex Education Makes its Debut

Prior to the 1960s, sexuality education was embedded with Victorian and Christian values that suppressed sexuality and supported rigid gender norms. “Women were regarded as devoid of passion, and were relegated to the role of moral gatekeepers of American society. Men, on the other hand, were thought to harbor natural and persistent sexual desires” (Balanko, 2002). Feminist critiques of gender, as well as social science research on men’s and women’s varying experiences of gender, have overcome much of this essentialist thinking. However, this myth still persists in American culture today, especially in popular understandings of rape and violence against women.

Sexuality education in the 1960s consisted primarily of anatomy and physiology. The primary debate in sexuality education concerned whether or not schools were an appropriate site for sex education. A study by Kirkendall and Calderwood (1965) demonstrated that most children obtained information about sex from misleading sources, particularly their peers and the mass media. As support grew for sexuality education in schools, religious leaders and parents spoke out (Stier, 1969; Thomas, 1963; Willke & Willke, 1969). As much of the so-called “education” about sex young people received from parents and church programs was loaded with misinformation and fear of youth sexuality, schools stepped forward to provide this instruction (Baker, 1969; Lucas, 1969).

Birth control was a common topic for early sexuality education, especially since the advent of the birth control pill in 1960 (Hoyman, 1969). Although discussions of birth control, and in general, an acknowledgement that young people were having sex, struck fear (and occasionally, outrage) in the hearts of parents, sexuality education programs bordering on “comprehensive” provided a realistic approach to rising rates of teen pregnancy and STDs (Avery, 1964). These programs typically were more concerned with sexuality education as a means of fostering decision-making skills rather than merely providing information (Kirkendall & Calderwood, 1965).

The question of who held the responsibility for providing sexuality education became even more important when it came to assigning teachers to facilitate these courses. As Malfetti and Rubin (1968) explain, only 8% of teacher-training institutions they surveyed provided training in sexuality education. Teachers also represented a wide range of intellectual and moral understandings about gender and sexuality, which was recognized as a major obstacle to effective education (Forman, 1969).

As expected, a fear loomed throughout the 1960s that sexuality education would lead to increases in premarital sex and promiscuity (Somerville, 1971). Developments in comprehensive sexuality education promoted decision-making skills, as well as a recognition of the significance sexuality plays in an individual’s personality and social experience. Sexual pleasure, as well as feminist critiques of sexism and heterosexism, were absent from sexuality education and largely remain so today.

The 1970s: Under the Covers and in the Classroom

In the 1970s, Reichelt (1977) emphasized the need to base sexuality on the needs of teenagers whose thoughts, feelings, and questions about sexuality were all too often ignored. Also, as discussion of sexuality became less taboo, young people expressed interest in learning more about their own sexuality. In a survey of American college students, Scales (1974) found that contraception and the emotional aspects of sexuality were topics students wanted to learn about most. Other studies illustrated other topics young people were curious about, including coitus, masturbation, oral sex, and abortion (Reichelt, 1977; Herold, et al. 1973).

The 1970s brought a wealth of new information and theory on women’s sexuality. Dunham (1970) presented a study intended to depathologize menstruation. Clifford (1978) released a groundbreaking study on women’s masturbation, which recognized and validated women’s sexual desire and agency. Fyfe (1979) conducted a workshop for young adults that successfully improved participants’ sexual knowledge, promoted positive attitudes toward masturbation, and decreased anxiety related to sexual experience.

In response to fears that sexuality education would promote premarital sex, promiscuity, and other unhealthy sexual behaviors, Rees and Zimmerman (1974) studied the sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students, concluding that participants in their study were more open to sex-related topics but less sexually active. Spanier (1976, 1978) released two studies in the late 1970s suggesting that school sexuality education plays less of a role in determining sexual attitudes and behaviors than peer information and dating experiences and that there is no direct relationship between sexuality education in high school and sexual behavior in college.

The 1970s saw increases in the breadth and depth of sexuality education, sparking further debate between proponents of a comprehensive approach and conservative voices who did not share the same enthusiasm for young people exploring and embracing their sexualities. In the 1980s, a dramatic shift took place in sexuality education as Right-wing conservatism halted sex-positive thinking in sexuality education. With discovery of the AIDS epidemic, prevention became a dominant theme in sexuality education, paving the way for the abstinence-only movement.

The 1980s: Right-Wing Conservatism and the AIDS Epidemic

The primary goal of sexuality education in the 1980s was preventing teen pregnancy (Hagenoff, et al., 1987; Page, 1988; Rienzo, 1981), which was done by providing young people with information on safe sex and birth control, along with healthy decision-making skills. Representatives of the Religious Right identified abstinence as the only realistic option for young people and saw comprehensive sexuality education as a betrayal of the American family. However, the AIDS epidemic forced stakeholders of all political perspectives to show at least some level of support for instruction of safe sex practices.

Researchers who investigated the role of parents in sexuality education often found that parents were not primary sources of sexual information for their children, not because youth were not asking, but often because parents were too uncomfortable to discuss sexuality openly (Walters & Walters, 1983). Parents treated these discussions very differently based on the sex of their children, presenting a more negative view of sexuality with female children (Darling & Hicks, 1982).

During the 1980s sexuality education was boosted by various theoretical approaches, including learning theory, labeling theory, functionalism, and conflict theory (McKinney, 1987), as well as cognitive development theory (Gruber & Chambers, 1987) and social learning theory (Hagenoff, et al., 1987). Also, for the first time diversity became a concept relevant to sexuality education. Rienzo (1985) studied the impact of aging physical, psychological, and social aspects of sexuality. Serdahely and Ziemba (1984) confronted homophobia through sexuality education with college students. Several studies in the 1980s demonstrated, as previous studies had, that comprehensive sexuality education increased students’ knowledge and openness to sexuality but no increase in sexual activity.

Exercising vastly different critiques than those presented by the Religious Right, feminists in the 1980s criticized sexuality education for perpetuating a sexual double standard that recognized men’s sexual agency but portrayed women as passive and disinterested with regard to their sexuality (Chilman, 1985; Fine, 1988; Myerson, 1987). According to Fine (1988), this double standard allowed only three discourses for sexuality education: sexuality as violence, sexuality as victimization, and sexuality as individual morality. As the double standard promoted the idea that male sexuality is naturally aggressive and overpowering, it was assumed that women were responsible for negotiating and controlling men’s sexual desires. This double standard is especially a problem regarding cases of rape and other forms of sexual violence (in which women are blamed for inciting men’s sexual abuses). Cusick (1987) also found that boys and girls surveyed agreed that girls and women ought to be responsible for contraception in relationships.

Whatley (1987) outlined a plan for equitable sexuality education, stating that such a curriculum would:

· eliminate the biological determinist model of sexuality

· replace the concept of biological sex roles with socially constructed gender roles

· recognize female pleasure and desire

· acknowledge intercourse as only one option of sexual expression

· eliminate the heterosexual assumption by de-emphasizing dating and marriage

· establish common standards of sexual behavior and responsibility for males and females

· educate against sexual violence by targeting perpetrators as well as victims

· define sex broadly within cultural and social contexts

The 1990s: Theory-Based Instruction and Sex-Positive Possibilities

Comprehensive sexuality education programs that were rooted in theory and research became much more common in the 1990s and were increasingly connected to other elements of health education. Proponents of abstinence-only education expressed increasing resistance. For example, Whitehead (1995) challenged whether or not comprehensive approaches to sexuality could ever be more effective than abstinence. Genius and Genius (1996) shared this same concern, specifically criticizing sex educators for encouraging “outercourse” and other types of sex play among youth.

Greydanus et al. (1995) recommended that effective comprehensive programs include teaching sex education in grades K-12, emphasizing communication skills and self-esteem building, coercion and abuse resistance skills, understanding gender differences, outreach to children inaccessible in schools, creating positive attitudes within the community, and including parents in sex education. Several reviews of comprehensive sex education concluded that it was successful in changing high-risk sexual behaviours (Christopher, 1995; Greydanus et al., 1995; Kirby, 1992; Mckay, 1993). For example, Christopher (1995) determined that multidimensional approaches including abstinence education could postpone sexual activity among sexually inactive students, and could increase contraceptive use among those who were already active. In addition, he found that theoretically based models were effective in achieving their objectives.

Feminist critiques of sexuality education became more common in the 1990s, especially concerning the prevalence of homophobic and heterosexist attitudes on relationships (Baker, 1993). These inequalities were not merely introduced by individual teachers adapting sexual education curriculum to their own biases and worldviews; in fact, heterosexism was common in curricular materials, including textbooks and educational videos. Feminists also emphasized the role of gender in sexuality education, supporting developmental approaches that would recognize the unique needs and interests of boys and girls, while not perpetuating sexual double standards. In relation to girls’ and boys’ varying experiences of puberty, feminists returned to Simone de Beauvoir’s comments in her landmark feminist classic The Second Sex (1989, p. 328):

Puberty takes on a radically different significance in the two sexes because it does not portend the same future for both… being proud of their manhood from an early age, [boys] proudly project towards manhood the moment of their development …. The little girl, on the contrary, in order to change into a grown-up person, must be conned within the limits imposed on her by her femininity.

Lenskyj (1990) demanded that sexuality education go “beyond plumbing and prevention” (p. 217), emphasizing the significance of sexual pleasure. Feminists also emphasized the importance of sexuality education challenging traditional gender roles, male violence against women and homosexuals, and compulsory heterosexuality. Despite efforts by feminists and gay rights advocates, the 1990s failed to bring about truly sex-positive sexuality education, largely due to overwhelming federal support of abstinence-only education.

A New Century and New Constraints on Comprehensive Sex Ed

Abstinence-only sex education has been on the rise in the United States, due in great part to federal funding initiatives in 1996 (Title V) and later in 2006 that offered special grants to states that endorsed this curriculum. In 1996, Title V of the Social Security Act, Congress concluded that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.” They further noted that non-marital sex, including any sexual activity among gays and lesbians, is “likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects” without citing research of any kind on the subject.

From 1996 to 2001, every state but California received federal funding for abstinence-only sex education. In 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation released a report stating that about one-third of secondary schools in the U.S. were using abstinence-only sex education (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2002). While conservative policymakers may have set their goals higher than one-third of all U.S. schools strictly adhering to abstinence-only sexuality education, the overall effect was more significant. In 1999, 41% of sex educators cited abstinence as the most important message they wanted to convey to their students, up from 25% in 1988 (SIECUS, 2000). The percentage of strictly abstinence-only sexuality educators also increased from 2% to 25% (SIECUS, 2000). After conducting five-year evaluations, states began joining California and rejecting federal funding. The federal government initiated another abstinence-only program in 2000, offering federal grants directly to state and local organizations through Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) – $115 million was granted for fiscal year 2006.

In 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman of California published findings of inaccurate information included in federally-funded abstinence-only sex education programs. These inaccuracies include misrepresented failure rates of contraceptives, false claims about the effects of having an abortion, and treating gendered stereotypes as scientific fact (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004).

A 2007 study demonstrated that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not (Mathematica Policy Research, 2007). Funding for Title V has been extended several times by Congress, but it will expire on December 31, 2007. The proposed Responsible Education about Life Act, which would promote comprehensive sex education, was introduced to Congress in March 2007. This act is the first piece of legislation that would provide any federal funding for comprehensive sex education.

Conclusions and Implications

Sexuality education has changed dramatically from the early “plumbing and prevention” methods of the 1960s, and several influences have shaped sexuality education as it is understood and practiced today. The notion of sexuality education being formally instructed in public schools was a new phenomenon in the 1960s, and naturally, sparked concerns from parents and religious leaders. While the state’s role in providing sexuality education is rarely questioned today, there are questions regarding what responsibility government has to regulate sexuality education. And of course, at a time when the federal government has approved massive funding programs for educational methods that have been proven ineffective, there is considerable room for scrutiny.

Feminist and gay rights movements have called into question the sexist and heterosexist politics supporting sexuality education, promoting respect for students whose sexual identities stray from the norm, while also creating a more egalitarian and compassionate space for all types of relationships. These advocates have also been at the forefront of a campaign to help the American public come to grips with talking about sexuality – in the classroom, as well as in the bedroom. As key players in the political reshaping of sexuality education, feminists and gay rights advocates hold the potential for advancing the goals of sexuality education to emphasize the significance of sexual pleasure.

While they represent a wide variety of political perspectives, in addition to levels of preparation, sexuality educators are in a position to challenge an educational system that has ignored the needs and lived experiences of students. Abstinence-only sexuality educators are, by and large, providing instruction that is ineffective, makes no secret of ignoring the sexual lives of young people, and undermines education as a practice of liberation. Even as many sexuality educators are using more comprehensive approaches (and giving up federal funding to do so), they are dealing with an educational context in which inviting students to openly express their ideas and concerns is dangerous territory. As Judith Levine notes about youth sexuality in American culture, “The idea that sex is a normative – and, heaven forbid, positive – part of adolescent life is unutterable in America’s public forum” (2002, p. 93).

While advocates of abstinence-only sexuality education speak with such conviction and certainty about the dangers of youth sexuality, it remains true that most people all over the globe begin to engage in sexual activity during their teen years. And there is no evidence that either abstinence-only or comprehensive sexuality education is doing anything in the way of holding off sexual activity among adolescents for more than a matter of months. Furthermore, when comparing sexuality education in the U.S. with such curriculum in European countries, federal support for abstinence-only programs seems even more preposterous. Even though sexuality education in Europe is “informed by a no-nonsense, even enthusiastic, attitude toward the sexual; it is explicit; and it doesn’t teach abstinence (Levine, 2000, p. 102), rates of unwanted teen pregnancy, abortion, and AIDS in every Western European country are a fraction of rates in the U.S (Advocates for Youth, 2000).

It is difficult to say whether or not comprehensive sexuality educators from the 1970s, who boldly pioneered the first sex-positive education programs, saw the writing on the wall and could have predicted that such a dramatic shift toward abstinence-only education in the 1990s and 2000s. What is clear, however, is that the failure of these programs has paved the way for a new paradigm of sexuality education in which youth sexuality is treated with respect and care, rather than fear and silence. Instead merely being reactionary, however, this sort of movement must be supported by research and cultural dialogue clarifying the role of sexuality in social development. Further criticism of sexist and heterosexist norms in intimate relationships, and in American culture more generally, could also help make clear that sexuality is not the problem, but that the politics of sexuality in American culture are fueling a range of social problems, including unplanned pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, violence against women and girls, as well as harassment of GLBT youth. Most importantly, this new movement must reject the time-honored tradition of ignoring and foreclosing the agency of “minors” (and other poorly-defined populations of young people) to live as sexual beings.

References:

Advocates for Youth (2000). “Adolescent sexual health in Europe & the U.S. – Why the difference?” 2nd ed. Advocates for Youth report, Washington, D.C.

Avery, C.E. (1964). Sex education through rose colored glasses. The Family Life Coordinator, 8(4), 83–90.

Baker, J.A. (1993). Is homophobia hazardous to lesbian and gay health? American Journal of Health Promotion, 7(4), 255–256, 262.

Baker, L.G. (1969). The rising furor over sex education. The Family Coordinator, 18(3), 210–216.

Calderwood, D. (1965). Adolescents’ views on sex education. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27(2), 291–298.

Chilman, CS. (1985). Feminist issues in teenage parenting. Child Wellfare, 64(3), 225–234.

Christopher, F.S. (1995). Adolescent pregnancy prevention. Family Relations, 44, 384–391.

Clifford, R. (1978). Development of masturbation in college women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7(6), 559–573.

Cusick, T. (1987). Sexism and early pregnancy: Cause and effect? Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 113–131.

Darling, C.A., & Hicks, M.W. (1982). Parental influence on adolescent sexuality: Implications for parents as educators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11(3), 231–245.

DeBeauvoir, S. (1989). The Second Sex. Trans. and ed. by H.M. Parshley. New York: Vintage Books.

Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational review 58, 29–53.

Fyfe, B. (1979). Effects of a sexual enhancement workshop on young adults. Journal of Psychology, 35(4), 873–874.

Genius, S.J., & Genius. SK. (1996). Orgasm without organisms, science or propaganda? Clinical Pediatrics, 35(1), 10–17.

Greydanus, D.E., Pratt, H.D., & Dannison, L.L. (1995). Sexuality education programs for youth: Current state of affairs and strategies for the future. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. 21(4), 238–254.

Gruber, E., & Chambers, C.V. (1987). Cognitive development and adolescent contraception: Integrating theory and practice. Adolescence, 22(87), 661–670.

Herold, E.S., Eastwood, J., Empringham, C., Gall, B., & McKendry, S. (1973). Human sexuality: A student taught course. The Family Coordinator, 22(2). 183–186.

Hoyman, H.S. (1969). Our most explosive sex education issue: Birth control. The Journal of School Health, 39(7), 458–469.

Kaiser Family Foundation (2002). Sex education in the U.S.: Policy and Politics. Retrieved on November 1, 2007, from www.kff.org.

Kirkendall, L.A., & Calderwood. D. (1965). The family, the school, and peer groups: sources of information about sex. The Journal of School Health, 35(7), 290–297.

Lenskyj, H. (1990). Beyond plumbing and prevention: Feminist approaches to sex education. Gender and Education. 2(2), 217–230.

Levine, Judith (2002). Harmful to minors: The perils of protecting children from sex. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.

Lucas, A.F. (1969). Why teach sex education in the schools? The Catholic Educator, 39(8), 29–32.

Malfetti, J.L., & Rubin, A.M. (1968). Sex education: Who is teaching the teachers? The Family Coordinator, 17(2), 110–117.

Mathematica Policy Research (April 2007). Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs. Retrieved on November 1, 2007, from www.mathematica-mpr.com.

McKay, A. (1993). Research supports broadly-based sex education. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 2(2), 89–98.

McKay, A. (1998). Sexual ideology and schooling: Towards democratic sexuality education. London, ON: The Althouse Press.

McKinney, K (1987). Two issues in the teaching of The sociology of human sexuality: A sociological approach and an applied emphasis. Teaching Sociology, 15, 303–306.

Myerson, M. (1987). Sex equity and sexuality in college level sex education courses. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 71–78.

Needle, R.H. (1977). Factors affecting contraceptive practices of high school and college-age students. The Journal of School Health, 47(6), 340–345.

Rees, B., & Zimmerman, S. (1974). The effect of formal sex education on sexual behaviors and attitudes of college students. Journal of American College Health, 22(5), 370–371.

Reichelt, P.A. (1977). The desirability of involving adolescents in sex education planning. The Journal of School Health, 47(2), 99–103.

Rienzo, B.A. (1981). The status of sex education: An overview and recommendations. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(3), 192–193.

Rienzo, B.A. (1985). The impact of aging on human sexuality. Journal of School Health, 55(2), 66–68.

Scales, P. (1974). Questions college students ask about sex. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 3(3), 42–43.

Serdahely, W.J., & Ziemba, G.J. (1984). Changing homophobic attitudes through college sexuality education. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1–2), 109–116.

Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (October 13, 2000). “Changes in sexuality education from 1988-1999,” SHOP Talk Bulletin 5, no. 16.

Social Security Act, Title V, section 510 (1996), Maternal and Child Health Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Somerville, R.M. (1971). Family life and sex education in the turbulent sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, .33, 11–35.

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Formal and informal sex education as determinants of premarital sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 5(1), 39–67.

Spanier, GB. (1978). Sex education and premarital sexual behavior among American college students. Adolescence, 13(52), 659–674.

Stier, W.F. Jr. (1969). Sex education: Parental involvement. The Catholic Educator, 39(8), 36–37.

Thomas, J.L. (1963). Family life and sex relations. Religious Education, 58, 96–105.

United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division (December 2004). The content of federally-funded abstinence-only education programs. Retrieved on November 1, 2007, from www.democrats.reform.house.gov.

Walters, J., & Walters, L.H. (1983). The role of the family in sex education. Journal of Research and Development in Sex Education, 16(2), 8–15.

Whatley, M.H. (1987). Goals for sex equitable sexuality education. Peabody Journal of Education, 64, 59–70.

Whitehead, B.D. (1995). The failure of sex education. American Educator, 18(4), 46–52.

Willke, J.C., & Willke, Mrs. (1969). Sex education in catholic schools. The Catholic Educator, 39(8), 33–35.

Leave a Comment

Education in Context

December 17, 2007 at 4:30 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , ,

Below is a reflection paper I wrote recently for one of my graduate courses, Historical and Socio-Cultural Foundations of Education. If you’re interested in learning about some of my thoughts on education and the importance of historical and socio-cultural analysis, feel free to take a look.

 

My experiences learning about the historical and socio-cultural foundations of education have provided me with a framework through which to understand education in context, the motivation to pursue social change despite adversity, as well as an appreciation for the power of collaboration in education. Along with other explorations into history, the course has awakened me to the neglectful treatment of history and its relevance for decision-making today. It is unfortunate, of course, because the result is often history repeating itself in ways that violate public interest and bury citizens in a fog asking, “How did we get here?”

Before taking the course, I was familiar with methods of historical and socio-cultural research, and I had my fair share of practice applying these analytical tools through my study of patriarchy, white supremacy, and other forms of oppression. However, our course readings exposed me to much more historical background to education as we think of it in the U.S. today. In addition, I became familiar with the socio-cultural heritage underlying much of what we take for granted.

While my experience in the course has not overturned any core philosophies of mine regarding education and its role in social life, it has posed serious questions to my ideas, helping me to reformulate them and present them in ways that are more relevant to diverse audiences. Of equal importance has been a deeper appreciation for discourse. I relate my experiences to a common practice in conflict resolution – breaking positions down into interests. In other words, I would not approach a dialogue with a conservative educator with the assumption that our roles are fixed or that the purpose of our dialogue is to come up with one simplistic answer to complicated and multi-faceted questions. Furthermore, I would recognize that it is just as, if not more, vital to understand their perspectives as it is that I understand my own.

Though I initially perceived this fact as some type of betrayal of self, I recognize that this course has made me less forceful (read “more patient”) about creating change in education. I do not mean to suggest that I have become apathetic, by any means. Instead, I have recognized that there is much more for me to learn before my ideas can carry weight among other educators and the many stakeholders associated with educational systems. I am much more interested in listening and asking questions now, recognizing that the short list of truly excellent and original ideas for education have developed through collaboration. While there are several individual thinkers who have influenced education in the U.S. – many of whom we have studied in the course – they did not work in isolation. And for many of them, the implications of their ideas are still being realized today by “colleagues” they will never meet.

As a master’s student studying adult and postsecondary education, I am not entirely certain of what lies ahead in my career path. What I have found especially helpful about this course, as well as my program overall through Capella University, is that I am developing the skills necessary to succeed as an educator in a variety of different areas (even “outside education”). I am not limited to being a counselor, an advisor, or other specialized position in education, though I may pursue further education and training in areas like these in the future. Instead, when people ask, I can describe myself as an educator without the necessity (or desire) to fit neatly into a predetermined box. In fact, as I am not currently working in education, I have been able to appreciate the role of this master’s program in supporting my work as an activist in ways I would not have otherwise.

To be a good activist, one must understand learning, particularly as it applies to cultural understandings of what counts as knowledge (or truth), whose knowledge matters, and the mechanisms for exchanging knowledge. If, as an activist, I am trying to lift up the voices of a particular oppressed group, then I must be able to conduct my own analysis of the situation and its context, as well as to foster dialogue that subverts the cultural values that silenced this group in the first place. Social change is a very complex process, and it thrives upon learning (in the activist, as well as society at large).

I would describe my experience as a Capella grad student as “nontraditional” but not in the stereotypical way that I had thought of online learning in the past. It is frightening to imagine that, while I have identified with radical politics so much in theory (particularly feminist and anti-capitalist), prior to my experience with Capella I have been deeply vested in a traditional understanding of what it means to be an educator. Among my forgone assumptions are the notions that any experience outside a traditional teaching job is not relevant to life as an educator, that education only happens in a formal classroom environment, and lastly, that there is a point at which learning stops and teaching begins.

One does not “receive” or “obtain” an education. It may be useful at times to consider the role of “ideological management” in education, especially to critique the way dominant groups in society have used education to enforce particular ideologies. Yet this phenomenon reflects a violation of education as a practice of democracy. When we study ideological management, then, we are actually studying an abuse of education that drastically underestimates the potential of education to liberate heart, mind, and body.

In relation to advancing my effectiveness as an activist, my experience with this course has helped me to foster dialogue among my peers about a wide range of issues we face in everyday life for which historical and socio-cultural analysis is relevant. Doing so has not merely provided for interesting conversation, but it has enhanced individual and collective understandings of experience. We are constantly making meaning of our experiences – as a cognitive process, this interchange of theory and practice is as natural as feeling thirsty, hungry, or tired. And of course, we exchange meanings with others. Yet, far too often, this educational process is handed over to traditional ideologies with little interrogation of these systems of thought or creative, original thought.

If I was to summarize the many revelations that shaped my experience of the course, I would conclude that education is at the heart of human experience, providing a foundation upon which we negotiate countless questions about our existence and how to live peacefully, sustainably, and with respect for the diverse experiences and backgrounds of all people. As such, education is a distinctly social and collaborative experience, never assuming one particular form. Instead, as we have seen, it is dynamic and ever-changing, adapting to the needs and interests of each society. We study the historical and socio-cultural foundations of education, not merely to share stories about our past, but to actively construct and engage meanings of education and how they have influenced life as we know it today (as well as what lies ahead).

Leave a Comment

Sharing the Love for J-Love

December 16, 2007 at 7:16 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , ,

DISCLAIMER: This post is rooted in a feminist/pro-feminist analysis, and as a result, it may lead readers to assume certain things about me politically and personally (e.g. that I am living, have lived, and will continue to live a responsible, pro-feminist lifestyle). The fact is, I committed a crime in January 2007, sexually violating a woman who was under my care as a resident advisor in college. I ask that you keep this information in mind when evaluating my comments in this post, as well as if you engage me in dialogue. Please read this post (listed as “Because you deserve to know” on the “ARCHIVES” page) for more information.

*

I am behind schedule on this shout-out, but I do want to voice my support for Jennifer Love Hewitt and a recent statement she published on her web site, expressing outrage at a practice that has unfortunately become very common for entertainment media. Hewitt was photographed on a beach wearing a bikini and criticized in print for having gained weight – I believe one of the headlines was “We know what you ate last summer.” I would say that, through time, entertainment media has degenerated into a wretched, deplorable waste of reporting. But that actually sounds like business as usual.

Hewitt’s comments speak for themselves, so I will post them below. You can also read her comments on her web site. Ordinarily I would provide editorial comment on this situation, relating it to sexism in media. But Johanna Schneller has done that for me – please check out her insightful editorial “A culture saturated in sexism” published in yesterday’s Globe and Mail.

From Jennifer Love Hewitt:

This is the last time I will address this subject.

I’ve sat by in silence for a long time now about the way women’s bodies are constantly scrutinized. To set the record straight, I’m not upset for me, but for all of the girls out there that are struggling with their body image.

A size 2 is not fat! Nor will it ever be. And being a size 0 doesn’t make you beautiful.

What I should be doing is celebrating some of the best days of my life and my engagement to the man of my dreams, instead of having to deal with photographers taking invasive pictures from bad angles. I know what I look like, and so do my friends and family. And like all women out there should, I love my body.

To all girls with butts, boobs, hips and a waist, put on a bikini — put it on and stay strong.

Xoxo
JLH

Leave a Comment

Critical Media Literacy

December 16, 2007 at 6:00 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Below is my first ever graduate paper, which was submitted for an introductory course for all master’s-level education students at Capella University. I am between .pdf converters at the moment, so hopefully the formatting below is okay.

Introduction

In the Information Age, media plays a leading role in shaping the beliefs, values, and worldviews of human beings. In order to be effective citizens, people must be empowered with the necessary critical tools to evaluate and critique the messages in various forms of media. They also must be able to recognize the influence of media in constructing the cultural environment and then consciously mediate this process. Ultimately, for democracy to truly function, power over the media must be in the hands of the public, rather than being dictated by corporate interests.

As has been demonstrated by various media watchdog groups, such as Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), the media system in the United States is largely dominated by traditional (patriarchal, white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist) structures of power. There are several examples of bias in U.S. media that demonstrate the fact that U.S. media is far from neutral or objective.

Media critics have observed that news coverage of 9/11 aftermath and the U.S. invasion of Iraq made the justification for war a central focus while downplaying nonviolent approaches to conflict. In fact, in the three weeks following the initial invasion, nearly two-thirds of guests on television news were explicitly pro-war, while only 10% were anti-war (Rendall & Broughel, 2003). It was this example of pro-war bias and others that led many Americans to misperceive basic facts about 9/11 and the War in Iraq. A 2003 study by the Program for International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that about half of Americans surveyed believed incorrectly that Iraq was directly connected to the 9/11 attacks, while about one-fifth of those surveyed were misled that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.

Also, Jean Kilbourne and other media critics have studied the assault on women’s bodies committed by the advertising industry that have flooded women’s consciousness with impossible standards of beauty and femininity (Kilbourne, 1999; Cortese, 2004). The routine sexual objectification of women’s bodies in advertising has been connected to various public health issues, including eating disorders, depression, and violence against women. Furthermore, as Kilbourne (1999) discusses in her book Can’t Buy My Love, advertising trains citizens into an ideology of consumption and narcissism in which building coalitions and working toward social change is replaced by instant gratification. Even in the sixties, as the civil rights movement was in full swing, corporations were co-opting the message from activists, saying, “Relax. And enjoy the revolution” (Kilbourne, 1999, p. 295).

Racism has a long history in media, particularly television entertainment in which African-Americans and other minority groups have largely been excluded from mainstream programming, except in roles that fit within white supremacist understandings of contemporary culture. For instance, Sut Jhally and Justin Lewis (1992) identify the success of “The Cosby Show” as a prime example of “enlightened racism” in television programming. The authors note that “The Cosby Show” reinforces the myth that African-Americans who don’t “make it” have only themselves to blame.

Finally, the vast majority of American media is owned by a handful of for-profit corporations that are obligated to prioritize maximizing profits over serving public interest. Bob McChesney relates the corporate ownership of media in the U.S. to a scence in the classic, Oscar-winning film The Godfather, Part II, in which a group of American gangsters are sitting on the roof of a hotel carving a cake shaped like Cuba. As McChesney (2002, p. 32) describes, “The gangsters each got a symbolic slice of the country. They would all jockey with each other for larger slices, but they agreed that only they were eligible to get a slice. It was their country.” The U.S. media system functions in much the same way but with a U.S.-shaped cake. And this time, as McChesney (2002, p. 33) explains in reference to the political economy of media, “the corporate communication giants are fighting behind closed doors to get the largest slice.”

Given this context, it is not surprising that the politics of American media would be rooted in long-standing systems of inequality. Democracy demands that citizens take ownership over media, rather than passively consuming it and allowing corporations to be the dominant storytellers in our society.

The American media system enforces a particular set of traditional ideologies (patriarchal, white supremacist, capitalist, and imperialist) through a range of delivery methods, including advertising, television programming, film, and news reporting. The enforcement of these oppressive ideologies goes largely unnoticed as American citizens lack the media literacy skills to identify them. Furthermore, the American media system, which is dominated by a handful of corporations, is structured in such a way that has historically taken control of media away from the public. As a result, even when citizens have the critical skills to interrogate media representations, they often lack access to media that would support change.

In response to this problem, I argue that media literacy is essential to empowering American citizens to make change in their media system. However, in order for media literacy to be directly applied to social change, critical pedagogy is vital as an educational method.

Critical Pedagogy & Media Literacy

Critical pedagogy is an approach to teaching that is centrally concerned with helping students question and challenge domination, including the beliefs and practices that support domination. This approach to education is rooted in the work of Paulo Freire (1990, 1994) and has been applied to postmodern, anti-racist, feminist, postcolonial, and queer theories. Critical pedagogy has grown to encompass issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, and age. Other leading theorists in critical pedagogy include Giroux (1983, 1988), McLaren (1988, 1989), Apple (1993, 1996), hooks (1994, 2003), and Schor (1980, 1992).

Media literacy is inherent to critical pedagogy because, as I have discussed, media is a primary vehicle of socialization in American society, and therefore, a primary tool of domination. Rendering visible the underlying ideology in the media we consume, media literacy empowers citizens to become active participants in the media system, rather than passive consumers. Indeed, recent initiatives in media literacy, most notably by the New Media Literacies Project, have emphasized the importance of citizens learning how to create and share their own media. This new decentralized, democratic form of (truly “public”) media system is an ideal environment for what Paula Freire called “critical consciousness,”

Sonia Livingstone (2004, p. 20) further emphasizes the interconnection between media literacy and critical pedagogy as she states,

Without a democratic and critical approach to media literacy, the public will be positioned merely as selective receivers, consumers of online information and communication. The promise of media literacy, surely, is it can form part of a strategy to reposition the media user – from passive to active, from recipient to participant, from consumer to citizen.

While proponents of media literacy may not all explicitly tie their work to critical pedagogy or make references to Paulo Freire and other critical educators, it is generally accepted in the media literacy movement that a key component of media literacy. As I have discussed, there is a significant link philosophically between these two areas of thought. However, there is room for further discussion regarding how central critical pedagogy is to media literacy, especially given the many priorities of the media literacy movement.

The lack of democracy and commitment to public interest in the American media system is certainly a major issue of media reform. Bill Moyers (2007) commented at length about these and other problems in American media at the 2007 National Conference on Media Reform:

What does today’s media system mean for the notion of an informed public cherished by democratic theory? Quite literally, it means that virtually everything the average person sees or hears, outside of their own personal communications, is determined by the interests of private, unaccountable executives and investors whose primary goal is increasing profits and raising the share prices… In-depth coverage of anything, let alone the problems real people face day-to-day, is as scarce as sex, violence and voyeurism are pervasive.

Media literacy certainly may serve as a means of waging progressive politics and attacking the status quo. Indeed, it seems central to the practice of media literacy to investigate and question one’s cultural environment. Renee Hobbs (1998), a veteran of the media literacy movement, identifies with this potential for media literacy to boost social and political change, but cautions, “Without an explicit connection between media literacy skills and social and political advocacy, media literacy may degenerate into a substitute for action instead of a spur to it.”

Not everyone involved in the media literacy movement consider themselves critical educators or tie their work to critical pedagogy – some, in fact, may have no knowledge of this tradition or its leaders. However, in addition to teaching students to become informed consumers of media and to resist media manipulation, media literacy is also focused on “developing skills that will empower citizens and that will make them more motivated and competent participants in social life” (Kellner, 2000, p. 203).

Critical Media Literacy

Given the theoretical connections between critical pedagogy and media literacy, it is useful now to explore ways critical pedagogy can be applied through critical media literacy. These recommendations are presented with a general audience in mind, presuming that each can be applied in some form to be made relevant to, as well as to meet the developmental needs of various age groups.

A fundamental first step to any form of media literacy is building a consciousness of the ways media representations shape reality, including our beliefs, values, and worldviews. Indeed, this is a primary site of resistance in media education. The advertising industry is a key example. Advertisers are in the business of selling consumers to corporations, persuading them to spend money on goods and services that they may or may not need. Advertisers are not interested in the well-being of consumers; in fact, in many cases (most notably, tobacco advertising), they survive by convincing people to behave in ways that may actually be harmful to their health, their relationships, and their voice in society. But as long as consumers ignore that reality, the advertising industry continues to grow.

Kellner (2000, p. 201) points out that media serve as “our storytellers and entertainers and are especially influential because we are often not aware that media narratives and spectacles are themselves a form of education, imparting cultural knowledge and values and shaping how we see and live our social worlds.”

Rather than to vilify consumers for passively falling victim to a predatory industry, it is important (and when engaging learners, practical) to put the experiences of consumers in proper perspective. People can be influenced by advertising and still exercise agency and self-determination. The task of critical media literacy is to recognize the context of that agency and whose interests shape it, especially who dictates our most basic assumptions about life, happiness, and suffering.

Jean Kilbourne (1999, p. 294) defines the basic message of advertising:

an individual has a need or a problem that a product can meet or fix. We are constantly told by advertising that all we need to do is use the right products and get our own individual acts together and all will be fine. If we are unhappy, there is something wrong with us that can be solved by buying something.

One aspect of critical media literacy that makes it stand apart is that the ultimate goal is not merely understanding the ideology of advertising and other forms of media, but actually beginning to challenge this ideology and transform the entire media system. This educational process, much like any radical approach to learning, demands that we begin with a radical acceptance and sympathy for the human condition. Learners must be able to start where they are, without a fear that admitting to being influenced by advertising (and other forms of media) makes them a bad person.

Putting Media in the Hands of Students

Critical media literacy must incorporate an experiential component for learners, putting media production in their capable hands. In doing so, learners can apply their creativity and critical thinking by producing their own media representations, which can instill a sense of hope and empowerment that control of media is not reserved solely for corporate elites. Learners may also (if they are lucky) get to know their own biases and limitations as media producers. These problems are inevitable, and are invaluable sites for learning and transformation.

In his dissertation, Jiing Yng-Ruey explored the potential for documentary filmmaking to socially and politically transform the lives of citizens in Taiwan. According to Yng-ruey (2002), the portable video camera has profoundly impacted the work of activists who have created subversive alternatives to mainstream media. This democratization of media “enabled ordinary citizens to express their opinions and write their own history, and in doing so learn to read the media with critical eyes and to tell stories about who they are and where they wish to go (Yng-ruey, 2002, p. 1).” Producing their own media allowed citizens to break the cultural silence that had oppressed their voices, while also breaking a creative silence that restricted their forms of expression.

Whether or not it is intended to be progandistic, corporate media is guided by the needs and interests of its owners who are trying to make a profit. As legendary media critic George Gerbner points out,

For the first time in human history, most of the stories about people, life, and values are told not by parents, schools, churches, or others in the community who have something to tell, but by a group of distance conglomerates who have something to sell (Gerbner, 1994, 385).

This emphasis on profit-making ignores the creative needs and potential of diverse communities throughout the U.S. When media production is put in the hands of citizens, they are allowed to create and share something that can be more appropriately likened to art and social commentary, opening up the hearts and minds of citizens, rather than merely seducing their pocketbooks.

Understanding Popular Culture

All educators are at an advantage to understand the social realities of their students, including their backgrounds, ability levels, interests, as well as how societal factors such as race, class and gender shape their experiences. When teaching critical media literacy, it is especially important that instructors understand one element of students’ lives that is fundamental to their ways of making meaning, yet is generally treated as irrelevant in formal education: popular culture.

As bell hooks (1997) comments in a documentary video about her work in cultural studies, “Whether we are talking about race, gender or class, popular culture is where the pedagogy is. It is where the learning is.” hooks explains that this emphasis on popular culture as an area of study is rooted in the impact it has had in shaping the cultural environment in the U.S. and around the world. She identifies popular culture as the “the primary pedagogical medium for masses of people globally who want to, in some way, understand the politics of difference (hooks, 1997).”

An analysis of popular culture as it relates to the lived experiences of students, paired with disciplined critical thinking, can be a transformative forces in students’ lives. By developing critical media literacy, learners not only able to investigate media more critically, but in doing so, they can identify and overcome harmful ideologies that restrict their potential and vision for their lives. As hooks (1997) asserts,

A person who thinks critically, who may be extraordinarily disadvanted materially, can find ways to transform their lives that can be deeply and profoundly meaningful in the same way that someone who may be incredibly privileged materially and in crisis in their life may remain perpetually unable to resolve their life in any meaningful way.

Understanding popular culture cannot enable an instructor to see the world as a student does, but it does afford him or her considerable insight into the cultural mechanisms that shape the lived experiences of students. Also, as the classroom is transformed into a space in which these cultural artifacts are relevant, students will be better prepared to apply what they are learning about media outside the classroom, enhancing both theory and practice. Finally, getting to know popular culture allows instructors, who are typically at least a generation older, to demonstrate a genuine interest to engage students and take their concerns seriously. As Justin Lewis explains, “If the point of critical media literacy is to meet students halfway – to begin to take seriously what they take seriously, to read what they read, to watch what they watch – teachers must learn to love popular culture.”

Critical and Courageous Educators

Finally, an essential but easily overlooked element of teaching critical media literacy is a fundamental philosophy underlying the work of any critical educator. Accepting the basic premises of critical pedagogy – that all education is political and that educators ought to empower students to work against domination and other forms of injustice – critical educators must be prepared for the uncertainty, conflict, and risk associated with radical social change. Critical educators must be comfortable with their role as agents of social change.

As Saltman (2000) argues, educators in general must get comfortable with their roles as public intellectuals. He explains,

Teachers are not merely in the business of passing on knowledge but understanding the significance of their practices as fostering particular social visions. By critically engaging students and curricula with regard to issues of power and politics, teachers, by virtue of their vocations, have tremendous power to counter “publicity intellectuals” in mass media who advocate oppressive and hierarchical social relations as well as unquestioned knowledge and authority. (Saltman, 2000, p. 18)

During a time when many critical educators are silenced for “making politics part of the classroom” (as if politics are instead something separate and distinct from education and social life), it is vital that critical educators speak out for academic freedom, including education that advocates for students by preparing them as critical thinkers and engaged citizens.

A basic premise to the left’s so-called “war on academic freedom” (Horowitz, 2007) is that leftist professors, who allegedly dominated American colleges and universities, are “indoctrinating” students by only teaching particular ideologies and supressing conservative ideas. In response, conservative activists such as David Horowitz suggest the need to balance liberal and conservative professors, just as affirmative action policies have sought to balance representation by gender and ethnicity. For instance, Kenneth Lee, an attorney and member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, explains,

The simple logic underlying much of contemporary civil-rights law applies equally to conservative Republicans, who appear to face clear practices of discrimination in American academia that are statistically even starker than previous blackballings by race (as cited in Berube, 2006).

Ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of what appears to be a radical turn in conservative opposition to affirmative action, this claim is also problematic because it undermines the potential for educationa institutions to develop independently without intellectual restrictions based on political party affiliations. As Michael Berube (2006) argues, “From Maine to California, the content of a public university education should not depend on whether 60 percent of the population doubts evolution or whether 40 percent of the population of a state believes in angels–and, more to the point, the content of a university education should be independent of whatever political party is in power at any one moment in history.”

Furthermore, framing any conflict, whether related to education or another aspect of social life, as merely a liberal or conservative issue, ignores a fundamental premise of inquiry. Just the same as there is never only one answer to a question, there is never only two answers. This approach to “debate” is not supported by critical thinking, nor is it at all useful when educating students for life in a democratic society.

The real indoctrination critical educators (as well as educators of any political party) ought to be working against one that relies upon what Sophia McClennen calls the “unthinking student” through the “banking model of education” (Freire, 1970). McClennen (2006, p. 16) explains,

If you require an obedient populace, then it is essential that you begin training youth accordingly. Favoring tests over critique, memorization over engagement, loyalty over social commitment, selfishness over community, and so on, implies a student educated to passively consume what the government and corporations provide rather than actively participating in a democratic society.

When applied to media literacy, critical pedagogy demands that instructors help students become informed and active participants in the realities constructed for them and by them through media, constantly reflecting upon and evaluating their most basic assumptions about reality as handed down to them by the white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal, and imperialist history of the United States. As every student holds untapped potential to create change in their society, critical educators must help students build their own vision for the future and what actions they can take today, tomorrow, and the next day to make change. In addition to a strong grasp of critical pedagogy and a passion for teaching, critical education requires an appreciation for this untapped potential and a courage to take part in radical social change.

 

 

 

References

Apple, M. (1993) Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age.

New York: Routledge.

Apple, M. (1996) Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Berube, M. (2006). What does “academic freedom” mean? Academe Vol. 92(6).

Buckingham, D. (1993). Children talking television: The making of television literacy. London: Falmer Press.

Cortese, A. (2004). Provocateur: Images of women and minorities in advertising. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.

DeBenedittis, P. (2003). Media literacy for prevention, critical thinking, self-esteem. Retrieved on September 19, 2007, from http://medialiteracy.net.

Degener, S. (2001). Making sense of critical pedagogy in adult literacy education. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. 2(2). Retrieved September 19, 2007,

from http://www.ncsall.net/?id=562.

Dennis, E. (Oct 2004). Out of sight and out of mind: The media literacy needs of grown-ups. The American Behavioral Scientist. 48(2), 202-211.

Facundo, B. (1984). Issues for an evaluation of Freire-inspired programs in the United States and Puerto Rico. Washington, DC: Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 998)

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.

Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum.

Gerbner, G. (July 1994). Television violence: The art of asking the wrong question.

The World & I.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. & P. McLaren. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of Communication, 48(1):16-32.

hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to transgress: Education as a practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.

hooks, b. (1997). Cultural criticism & transformation. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.

hooks, b. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge.

Horowitz, D. (2007). Indoctrination U: The left’s war against academic freedom. New York: Encounter Books.

Jhally, S., & Lewis, J. (1992). Enlightened racism: The Cosby show, audiences, and the myth of the American dream. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.

Kellner, D. (2000). “Multiple Literacies and Critical Pedagogies: New Paradigms. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Revolutionary pedagogies: cultural politics, instituting education and the discourse of theory. London, UK: Routledge, 2000.

Kilbourne, J. (1999). Can’t buy my love. New York: Touchstone.

Lewis, J. (Summer 1996). Rethinking media literacy: A critical pedagogy of representation. Afterimage.

Livingstone, S. (Sep 2004). What is Media Literacy? Intermedia. 32(3), 18-20.

Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

McChesney, R. (2002). Our media, not theirs: The democratic struggle against corporate media. New York: Seven Stories Press.

McClennen, S. (2006). Countering the assault on higher education. Radical Teacher, Issue 77.

McLaren, P. & H. Giroux. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York: Longman.

Moyers, B. (January 12, 2007). National Conference on Media Reform. Nashville, TN.

Program on International Policy Attitudes (2003, October 2). Study finds widespread misperceptions on Iraq. World Public Opinion. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc.

Rendall, S., & Broughel, T. (2003, May/June). Amplifying officials, squelching dissent. Extra. Retrieved August 30, 2007, from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1145.

Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Yng-ruey, Jiing. (2002). Documentary filmmaking and critical pedagogy (Doctoral dissertation, UCLA).

Leave a Comment

Got anger?

December 16, 2007 at 4:11 am · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

For as long as I can remember, I have been told that I do not get angry – as an activist, a friend, a lover, and as a colleague. I assure you now that this perception is simply not true. I experience anger much the same as anyone else. Events and circumstances pose threats to me and my view of the world, causing me to want to lash out and reassert a personal feeling of control. Yet the way I engage this conflict, and ultimately, resolve it, may be somewhat unfamiliar.

I was recently criticized by a close friend and colleague regarding my expression of emotion during an academic presentation that, for me (and hopefully at least a few in attendance), was highly transformational. For the 3rd Annual Student Scholars Day at Buena Vista University (April 2007), I presented a speech entitled, “Getting Off: A Case for Men Abandoning Manhood.” As the title suggests, the general message of my speech was that manhood is not a goal for which any man ought to strive. And rather than proposing that masculinity and femininity simply be “redefined” to support equality and freedom of (gendered) expression, I presented a radical feminist critique that sharply resisted gender as a system of injustice (regardless of how it might be repackaged to respond to feminist concerns). More specifically, the speech dealt with men’s exploitation of women through pornography, including a plea to men (“of conscience,” as John Stoltenberg might say) to resist the corrupt and damaging sexuality that has become dominant in American society.

In any speech about pornography, I try to make real for those in attendance what pornography is and what it does to women. Scholars Day being no exception, I spoke at length about the content of mainstream adult pornography, in addition to presenting visual examples (a method that demands tremendous caution – I hope to discuss this element further in future blog posts). Now, let me be clear. Despite how horrifying mainstream pornography is, absolutely none of the information I provided was new or shocking to me. I had spoken about pornography countless times before, addressing a variety of audiences. And my research had revealed that the “woman-hating” in pornography was not merely a fringe issue, relegated to a particular genre or subgenre. Instead, the entire industry, along with its intimate connections with prostitution and sex trafficking, is rooted in an ideology of hatred toward women (and a system that enforces such hatred). Yet, no matter how familiar I am with patriarchy’s firm grip on sexualities in our society, I can’t help but break down emotionally when speaking of such an atrocity.

Stifling sobs and brushing tears from my cheeks again and again as my presentation went on, I was embarrassed and worried that my audience had missed important messages in the speech. Perhaps they didn’t even take me seriously, given my uninvited display of emotion during a formal presentation. Regardless of reactions from audience members, I felt strangely fulfilled having expressed myself so openly. For the first time in my academic career, I felt I had allowed myself to be human as a presenter. I regret that, at least for some, my tears may have been distracting or confusing. Yet I see no reason to apologize for them, given the subject matter.

The close friend and colleague I mentioned, who has supported my feminist research on pornography for some time, was taken aback by my emotional display – not at the inclusion of emotion in a rigidly emotion-free space, but that I expressed sadness and despair, rather than anger. After all, the feminist anti-pornography movement has a long history of anger at the buying and selling of women’s bodies – and let there be no question, we have much to be angry about! I was perplexed, though, that my feelings of sadness (which I thought were entirely appropriate) were perceived as inconsistent with the message of my presentation.

For the sake of brevity, I can summarize much of my emotional experiences as an activist by pointing to my Buddhist practice, as well as my knowledge (and limited informal practice) of conflict resolution. Both emphasize, in various ways, the importance of mindfulness, including consciousness of one’s emotions. They also address what could simply be described as critical thinking, which involves thinking about one’s thinking in order to improve one’s thinking (not as complicated as it sounds, but difficult to learn). Both elements – mindfulness and critical thinking – involve a great deal of discipline and attentiveness, as well as the courage to confront egocentric and sociocentric tendencies in one’s thought. In reference to anger, both schools of thought would warn against indulging in anger in such a way that closes our hearts to reconciliation and restricts us in our abilities to think and feel.

When I think about a problem in our world, it is generally a very careful and patient process in which I set out to inform myself of the problem and its context, and then proceed to analyze what this problem means, and of course, what we can do about it. Now, keep in mind, this is not merely an intellectual process. If it were, my political practice would not be what it is. In fact, I could not, nor would I feel compelled to, call myself an activist. Being a activist, to me, demands an emotional awareness and sensitivity to “feel” the issues, rather than merely intellectualizing them. Borrowing a time-honored feminist adage, it seems that, in addition to recognizing the personal as political, we must recognize the political as personal.

Perhaps as our society is more inclined to pay attention to men when they are angry and aggressive (not to mention, ignorant, hateful, and abusive), it is difficult for people to see and get to know my emotions. As an activist, this leads my colleagues to misunderstand or simply ignore my work. In relationships, it causes all kinds of disruptions to patriarchal gender roles – I remember one particular instance in which my girlfriend actually became angry at me when I did not perform the appropriate masculine posturing (verbal abuse) when she missed one of our dates. And with the fellas, well, it makes me a complete gender outcast, which is actually pretty nice.

At any rate, I don’t pretend to know exactly how people ought to use anger in their lives. The purpose of this post is not to make suggestions for others or to criticize the ways other activists (feminist or otherwise) express themselves. I merely present my experiences in hopes that they might help others, and certainly to gain feedback. Anger is undoubtedly a natural part of everyone’s life, though the extent to which we indulge in it, as well as how we express it, may be profoundly different from person to person.

Leave a Comment

V-I-C-T-O-R-Y over patriarchy

December 5, 2007 at 8:35 pm · Filed under Uncategorized ·Tagged , , , , , , ,

With the exception of one junior varsity game, I have attended every Battle Creek – Ida Grove (BCIG) girls’ basketball game this season. Along the way, I have watched a brand-new starting five play with the sort of cohesiveness that ordinarily takes years to build, one of the most aggressive and dynamic post players I’ve seen in a long time (she’s 5′7″ and plays like she’s 6′7″), and a team of dedicated young women athletes with a very bright future (whether or not they make a return trip to the state championship). And barring natural disaster, I will continue my “roadie” ways and attend every game for the rest of the season – to enjoy great basketball, but more importantly, to show my political support for women and girls as athletes.

For any of my feminist and pro-feminist friends, framing my attendance at a few basketball games as a “political act” should come as no surprise. These folks are quite familiar with my concerns about the ways patriarchy has colonized women’s bodies – using, abusing, restricting, and in various other ways, possessing them. They struggle, as I do, with the reality that women are not provided with the space necessary to freely and lovingly experience their bodies as their own. You know the rules: curves are bad, (hetero)sex appeal is good, and any sign of aging is a crime. Without discussing at length the harsh effects of patriarchal femininity on women’s bodies and well-being here (see anything by Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, or Sandra Bartky – and for lighter reading, Jean Kilbourne), suffice it to say that I see women’s and girls’ involvement in athletics as meaningful political acts through which they can reclaim that which patriarchal culture is so determined to take away.

I realize now that I should not have been particularly surprised when these sentiments were met with confusion, even skepticism, from my male co-workers, who are quite convinced that the only reason a man would attend a high school girls’ basketball game (especially on a regular basis) would be to sexually objectify the girls playing. I gather that penised members of society are only tenuously excluded from this assumption if they are under 18 or share a family connection with a girl on the court. As you might imagine, my frustration facing these gender stereotypes is not that I don’t fit in as “one of the guys” by sharing in the reduction of living, breathing human beings to objectified body parts and then carefully inspecting each for sexual quality (i.e. as meat) – indeed, I am more than comfortable failing at manhood and engage in such failure with enthusiasm. My frustration stems, rather, from trying to make a statement in support of feminist causes and having this statement misperceived in such a way that seems to undermine my intent. What good does it do to attend every game in the name of feminism when my presence is perceived (at least by some) as decidedly anti-feminist?

I am not interested in claiming status as a male victim of gender discrimination, at least not in the way that has become a central component of anti-feminist backlash (constantly responding to women’s concerns with, “Yeah, but what about the men?”). Sexism is bad for everyone. But let’s not mistake men’s experiences of alienation and injustice with actual oppression (read Marilyn Frye’s work – no, seriously, read it! All of you!). Our collective fear as a culture of men’s violence and abuse is not something the feminist movement invented – it is rooted in a particular conceptualization of being human (manhood) that holds domination and objectification as core values. It is this fear that drives people to watch me with suspicion as I stand and cheer, showing my support for women and girls who resist patriarchy’s claims to their bodies. I simply hope that I can gain the trust of others (feminist and otherwise) who wish to overcome patriarchy and its effect on our society.

Leave a Comment