<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p> This article analyzes discomfort about sexuality expressed in formal education. It draws on Foucault’s analysis of sexuality as a privileged object of biopolitics (the object of regulation, surveillance, and discipline) and the most instrumentalized element in power relations in the Western world. Related to this is also the pedagogization of child sexuality, which even today is still characterized by ambiguities and discomfort. The author concludes that silence about non-hetero-sexualities and the biomedicalization and physicalization of (homo)sexuality are the most common and obvious symptoms of discomfort about (homo)sexuality in Slovenian schools. These manners of treating sexuality are usually interpreted as neutral, but the author interprets them as strategies of conflict avoidance which in fact support a heteronormative social order and (implicitly or explicitly) even legitimize the exclusion of all who cross the boundaries of ‘normal heterosexuality’. They strengthen prejudice, motivate ignorance, and can even be used as an excuse for violence. The article points out that education does not provide a magic formula since it cannot foresee its own effects due to the complexity of social relations and the nature of the education process (e.g. Millot, 1983).</p></abstract>

This article analyzes discomfort about sexuality expressed in formal education. It draws on Foucault’s analysis of sexuality as a privileged object of biopolitics (the object of regulation, surveillance, and discipline) and the most instrumentalized element in power relations in the Western world. Related to this is also the pedagogization of child sexuality, which even today is still characterized by ambiguities and discomfort. The author concludes that silence about non-hetero-sexualities and the biomedicalization and physicalization of (homo)sexuality are the most common and obvious symptoms of discomfort about (homo)sexuality in Slovenian schools. These manners of treating sexuality are usually interpreted as neutral, but the author interprets them as strategies of conflict avoidance which in fact support a heteronormative social order and (implicitly or explicitly) even legitimize the exclusion of all who cross the boundaries of ‘normal heterosexuality’. They strengthen prejudice, motivate ignorance, and can even be used as an excuse for violence. The article points out that education does not provide a magic formula since it cannot foresee its own effects due to the complexity of social relations and the nature of the education process (e.g. Millot, 1983).

Heteronormativity: School, ideology, and politics

University of Ljubljana Faculty of Social Sciences Kardeljeva pl. 5 Ljubljana 1000 Slovenia

Journal of Pedagogy

{"article-title":"Heteronormativity: School, ideology, and politics"}

This article analyzes discomfort about sexuality expressed in formal education. It draws on Foucault’s analysis of sexuality as a privileged object of...

Heteronormativity: School, ideology, and politics

Published Online: Dec 31, 2013

Page range: 162 - 187

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2013-0009

Keywords
sexuality, gender / sexual norms, heteronormativity, discomfort, school, education

This content is open access.

Heteronormativity: School, ideology, and politics

Published Online: Dec 31, 2013

Page range: 162 - 187

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2013-0009

Keywordssexuality, gender / sexual norms, heteronormativity, discomfort, school, education

This content is open access.

Keywords
sexuality, gender / sexual norms, heteronormativity, discomfort, school, education