Copyright by Alexander McKay, 1997

261 Pages·1998·15.47 MB·English

SEXUAL IDEOLOGY AND SCHOOLING:
TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY OF SEXUALITY EDUCATION
Alexander McKay
A thesis subrnitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education
University of Toronto
@Copyright by Alexander McKay, 1997
1+1 National Library Bibliothèque nationale
of Canada du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4
Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or seU. reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du
copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or othewise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
Sexual Ideology and Schooling:
Toward a Democratic Philosophy of Sexuality Education
Doctor of Philosophy
1997
Alexander McKay
Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education
University of Toronto
Abs trac t
Because noms related to sexuality are an important determinant of
the nature of society, sexuality education in the schools is the
subject of passionate debate. This discourse reflects a struggle
between Restrictive and Permissive sexual ideologies. These
ideologies compete for influence in shaping sexuality education. As
a result, sexuality education often constitutes ideological
indoctrination. Neither of these sexual ideologies is immune to
legitimate critique. Establishing the superiority of a given sexual
ideology is problematic £rom both a philosophical and scientific
perspective. Furthemore, a diversity of ideological perspectives
towards sexuality is affirmed in pluralistic democracies.
The objective of this thesis is to articulate a philosophy of
sexuality education appropriate for a democratic society, Based on
Rawls' (1993) theory of political liberalism, this philosophy
proposes that sexuality education ought to be centred upon the
overlapping consensus within a democracy on the right to freedom of
belief. It is argued that sexuality education drawn £rom sexual
ideology inhibits the right to critically appropriate beliefs and
values. In contrast to many prevailing fo rms of sexcality education,
it is contended that a democratic educational approach must
facilitate the ability of students to critically deliberate between
competing ideological perspectives on sexuali ty . Furthermore, it is
shown that a derriocratic philosophy of sexuality education has
significant implications for how issues such as homosexuality,
gender relations, and pregnancy/sexually transmitted disease
prevention are addressed in the classroom. In conclusion, it is
argued that although liberal philosophy, as it relates to sexuality,
has been subject to considerable criticism, a democratic philosophy
of sexuality education, based on political liberalism, offers a
prornising fouridation for removing ideological bias £rom sexuality
education and for contributing to the enhancement of democratic
culture.
iii
A number of people have, over the years, contributed to the ideas
expressed in this thesis. In particular, 1 am grateful to William
Lawlor, Ronald Morris, Gerald McKay, and Michael Barrett. Their
insights into human sexuality and sexuality education have had
considerable influence on me. I am deeply indebted to my thesis
supervisor, Dwight Boyd. His ability to zero in on those areas of
the thesis that needed improvement, to ask challenging questions,
and to make excellent suggestions for furthex reading greatly
enhanced the quality of my writing. Without the love and support of
my parents, Janet and Gerald McKay , none of my acadernic achievements
would have been possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Chapter One: Sexuality and Sexuality Education:
implications for the Nature of Society
Introduction
Sexuality and the Nature of Society
Sexuality Education
Conclusion
Chapter Two: Restrictive and Permissive Sexual Ideologies
Introduction
Restrictive Sexual Ideology
Permissive Sexual Ideology
Conclusion
Chapter Three: Sexual Ideology in the Schools
Introduction
The Influence of Restrictive Sexual Ideology
on Sexuality Education
The Influence of Permissive Sexual Ideology
on Sexuality Education
The Bare-bones Approach to Sexuality Education
Conclusion
Chapter Four: Discovering the Truth About the
Nature of Sexuality and Seacual Ethics:
Implications for Sexuality Education
Introduction
Can We Discover the Truth About Sexuality?
Implications for Sexuality Education
Conclusion
Chapter Pive: Sexuality, Moral Pluralism,
and the Concept of Liberal Democsacy
Introduction
Political Liberalism
Conclusion
Chapter Six: Sexuality Education: Towards bemocracy
Introduction
The Meaning of Democratic Education
Conclusion
-ter Seven: A Democratic Approach to Key Issues
in Sexuality Education: Eamosexuality, Geaüer Equality,
and Pregnaacy/STD Preveation
Introdüct ion
Addressing the Issue of Homos~maliïy
Zronoting Gender Zqua1lt-y T-Lrough Çemaïity S&icztisz
Addressing the Issue of ?regna.icy,/STC preve~tim
Conciusiori
Conclusion: Sexuality Education and Social Justice
References
INTRODUCTION
Sexuality education in the schools is not a new idea. Since
the late 19th century, schools have played an active role in helping
young people learn about human sexuality (Bruess 6c Greenberg, 1994).
For example, in 1905, the American Society for Sanitary and Moral
Prophylaxis began conducting classes in the schools on sexually
transmitted diseases. "They called for a return to Victoriari values,
emphasizing the 'pure' nature of women and the importance of sexual
restraint in men" (Strong & Devault, 1994, p. 216). During the early
part of the 20th century, social hygienists in Canada were using the
concept of nature study to introduce sexuaiity educa~ion in the
schools with the hope that children would "understand the basics of
reproduction without having their sexual instincts prematurely
aroused, and be able to steel themselves with this knowledge when
faced with the possibility of sexual corruption in word or deed"
(Sethna, i994, p. 192). By the early 1990s, nearly every State in
the U-S. and every Province in Canada either mandated or strongly
recommended that some form of sexuality education be provided in the
schools.
From its inception, however, sexuality education in the
schools has been a highly controversial issue. As the
comprehensiveness and explicitness of sexuality education has
increased, the controvexsies surrounding it have become more
volatile and frequent. Pitched battles over the objectives and
nature of school-based sexuality education axe increasingly
occurring in cornrnunities across North Arnerica (Rienzo,1 989 ; Kantor,
1994; Sedway, 1992; Ross & Kantor, 1995). One of the results of
these controversies iç that sexuality education in the schools lias
been unable to reach its full potential in helping young people
protect and enhance their sexual health. For example, as Ehrhardt,
Yingling, and Warne (1991) suggest,
sex education programs in the United States have been
troubled by controversy over whether schools and parents
should encourage abstinence as a "moral stance" or
should accept sexuality as an important marker of
adolescent development and develop realistic educational
programs. Because of the absence of a clear message that
takes into account the realities of adolescent
sexuality, this country has not been as successful as
other Western countries in preventing unwanted teenage
pregnancies. Similarly, the effectiveness of educational
programs to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs has been
severely hampered by debates of morality, taste, and
religion rather than a realistic public health approach
(P. 3 6 ) .
Tragically, these kinds of moral disputes, particularly in the
United States, have constrained the ability of educators to provide
effective AIDS prevention education programs. As Vermund (1995)
explains,
A destructive feature of the politics of human
im.nunodeficiency virus ( HIVI in£e ct ion and acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is the polarization of
~ i e ~ o i n tmasn a KIV prevention-advcxates. -y-persons
of good will urge risk elimination through mutual
monogamy (asswing an HIV-seronegat ive, nonmg-usi ng
partner) or celibacy, while others advocate risk
reduction through more selective choice in sema1
relations and the use of barriers. This strategic
difference is epitornized by the recurrent debates about
school-based sexual education and preventive health
services for adolescents. Reliance on "just say no"
campaigns is deemed the only moral option by some while
being seen as inêffectual - and therefore immoral - by
others. The provision of public health services,
including condom distribution, is seen as encouraging
promiscuity by some and as saving young lives by others
(p. 1488).
A study conducted by The Alan Guttmacher Institute found that
" teachers regard pressure from parents, the community or school
administration as the major problem they face in providing sexuality
3
education" (Forrest & Silverman, 1989, p. 65). Earls, Fraser and
Sumpter (1992) state that "When it cornes to public education, the
sexuality curriculum is mired in conflicting influences" (p- 200)
and Bruess and Greenberg (1994) note that "In the 1990s there has
been a growing wave of censorship ravaging sexuality education in
communities and states around the nationU(p. 58)-
These comments help to show that sexuality education is,
without question, one of the most controversial subjects ever to be
introduced lnto the public school. While there are frequent
disagreements about the best way to teach reading, writing and
arithmetic, these disputes do not typically involve considerations
of morality, taste, and religion. Although the teaching of History,
English Literature and other so called "social studies" has been
prone to controversy along lines similar to that of sexuality
education, seldom have these quarrels reached the same intensity as
the battles over the appropriate nature and content of instruction
in hurnan sexuality. Relevant, meaningful, and effective sexuality
education in the schools is unlikely to occur unless we can
establish a framework to rnediate these quarrels.
Some of the conflicts surrounding sexuality education in the
schools appear irresolvable. Our beliefs about the nature and
purpose of human sexuality are often very strongly held and they
dictate, to a great extent, what we believe should be taught in the
sexuality education classroom. For example Our society is clearly
divided on the issue of homosexuality. Some people believe that
hornosexual behaviour is wrong, while others believe it is
acceptable. As a result, some people believe strongly that sexuality
education should teach young people that hornosexuality is immoral