Macintosh and
Loutzenheiser (2006) make the interesting argument in this article that “queer
theories and queer bodies offer multiple ways to re/read the language of
inclusivity and dominant political norms. Reading these through citizenship
reinforces the necessity of placing queer theories within a larger anti-oppression
framework” (p. 101). In applying queer theory into our classrooms and schools,
notions on what is considered to be “normal” and “accepted” will be exposed. It
is in the best interest of all to begin acknowledging that schools are “part of
a larger social system and the systemic nature of the heterocentric ideology in
which it is embedded” (p. 96).
“Queer theory takes as its premise an
unsettling of identities” (p. 96). Queer theory is a means to compliment and
further the current model of sprinkling gay and lesbian issues into curriculum.
The authors make an important criticism that not only is the lack of curriculum
problematic, but inclusion of gay and lesbian content without proper and
necessary contextualization is also irresponsible. Furthermore, queer theory is
a lens through which we can view the complications of identity formation.
Citizenship is not only tied to individual subjectivity, but also to one’s
public belonging and sociopolitical placement. In relation to schools and
classrooms, student’s sociopolitical placement has significant both inside and
outside the school. Schools are not monolithic spaces: “these spaces have
normalizing tendencies and regulatory functions” (p. 97). The destruction of
queer youth and confined acknowledgement of queer youth as citizens acts as a “normalizing
apparatus”. Particularly problematic is the inability of queer students to “be
seen”, develop a feeling of belonging to, having the ability to attain rights or
being considered a “legitimate” being. This lack of recognition suggests to
queer students that they are unimportant and ought to remain invisible. Queer theory
offers educators an opportunity to apply critical pedagogy and curriculum, as
well as disrupt heteronormativity in schooling.
I thought the
discussion surrounding “silences within queer theory” was a particular strength
of the article. It is important to recognize though a valuable theory to
schooling, queer theory is not without its “faults” or criticisms. The authors
highlight that the theory fails to “live up to its full critical potential” by
failing to take into consideration the interrelationships between race,
sexuality, and class. The normativity of whiteness remains unexamined or
unacknowledged even within queer theory, which is highly problematic. The first
national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian
schools concluded that “the high degree of isolation for youth of colour with
regard to LGBTQ matters suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to
finding means of reaching out to youth in ways that are appropriate and
informed about cultural issues and taboos surrounding LGBTQ matters” (EGALE,
2011, p. 21).
Though I appreciate
the points that Macintosh and Loutzenheiser make about the need for/value in
applying queer theory in schools, I believe they missed a crucial aspect with
regards to religious schools and conflicting views. The reality is that religious
schools, namely the Catholic school system in Ontario, remain a popular choice
for many parents. This goes back to the opinion that discussions of queer
inclusion, acceptance and/or recognition being “values-based” with many people
(parents, administrators, politicians, policy-makers etc.) continuing to
believe these debates have no place in schools. How can we overcome this
belief? It would appear to me that it would be necessary in order to even begin
thinking of properly implementing queer theory in schools as suggested by the
authors. Does queer theory automatically come into conflict with religion? Can
the two really coexist?
While reading the
article, I was also craving some (concrete) examples of implementing queer
theory in classrooms. Here I also think there should have been a discussion on
the unpreparedness of most teachers and administrators when it comes to queer
issues/queer theory. Though most teacher education programs in Ontario, from
what I have heard, touch upon LGBTQ issues and homophobic bullying, the
information we receive is mostly the superficial stuff that is often “a rush to
inclusivity” resulting in “a reification of heteronormativity” (p. 101). What
is needed is a change not only in schools and classroom teaching, but a shift
in organizational beliefs and teacher education programs.
Equality for Gays and Lesbians
Everywhere (EGALE). (2011). Every class in every school:
The
final report on the first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia,
and
transphobia in Canadian schools. Retrieved from http://egale.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2011/05/EgaleFinalReport-web.pdf
Macintosh, L. & Loutzenheiser, L. (2006). Queering citizenship. In
G. Richardson & D.
Blades (Eds.), Troubling the canon of citizenship education. (pp. 95-102). New
York: Peter Lang.
Great analysis, Rebeka. I had very similar thoughts about wanting more concrete examples after reading the Tupper chapter. Both articles level some amazing critiques but fall a bit short on what they means for actual school/classroom practice. I guess it is hard to talk about how exactly an institutional shift takes place. :)
ReplyDeleteExcellent write-up. Thank you for pointing out the EGALE resource. I agree, Queer Theory and to some extent, earlier Feminisms, were criticized for their apparent silences on issues of race and class. I think one future opportunity that would benefit the movement -- and combatting heteronormativity discourse in schools -- is the growth of international professional networks among teachers. Teachers in other countries are fighting for recognition in a way the Canadian teachers first began to some 25 years years ago. Youth LGBT networks are also similarly borderless, and international collaboration will lend new energy and purpose to the movement at home.
ReplyDelete