Advertisement

The Power of Things! A ‘New’ Ontology of Sexualities at School

  • Louisa Allen
Chapter
Part of the Queer Studies and Education book series (QSTED)

Abstract

This chapter contributes to the mapping of a ‘new’ ontology of sexuality at school. Drawing on feminist new materialist thinking from Barad (Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Duke University Press, 2007), Bennett (Political Theory, 32(3), 347–372, 2004), and Lenz Taguchi (International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 706–716, 2013), it analyses photographs from a project on the Sexual Cultures of schooling in a way that takes ‘things’ or ‘matter’ seriously. Seeking to disrupt the idea that humans represent the only site for, and expression of, sexuality, it explores how matter and meaning are co-constitutive in sexuality’s becoming at school. Instead of seeing sexuality as discursively constituted through a plethora of schooling processes and practices, another proposition is offered. Sexuality does not pre-exist matter/meaning but comes into being via their relation.

References

  1. Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (2008). Introduction: Emerging models of materiality in feminist theory. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 1–19). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, L. (2005). Sexual subjects: Young people, sexuality and education. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, L. (2009a). Caught in the act: Ethics Committee Review and researching the sexual culture of schools. Qualitative Research, 9(4), 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, L. (2009b). Snapped: Researching the sexual culture of schools using visual methods. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(5), 549–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen, L. (2013). Behind the bike sheds: Sexual geographies of schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(1), 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allen, L. (2014). Tau(gh)t Bodies: Student Sexual Embodiment and Schooling. In K. Fitzpatrick & R. Tinning (Eds.), Invited chapter for edited book Health Education: Critical Perspectives (pp. 89–105). London:. ISBN 978-0-415-81595-6 (hbk) pp. 89–104.Google Scholar
  7. Allen, L. (2015a). Losing face? Photo-anonymisation and visual research integrity. Visual Studies, 30(3), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2015.1077766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Allen, L. (2015b). Sexual assemblages: Mobile phones/young people/school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(1), 120–132.Google Scholar
  9. Allen, L. (2016). Sexual choreographies of the classroom: Movement in sexuality education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Published online 28 November. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01596306.2016.1263184 Google Scholar
  10. Banks, M. (2001). Visual methods in social research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barad, K. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to Matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durhman, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barad, K. (2012). Nature’s queer performativity (the authorised version). Women, Gender and Research, 1(2), 25–53.Google Scholar
  15. Becker, H. (2002). Visual evidence: A seventh man, the specified generalization, and the work of the reader. Visual Studies, 17(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bennett, J. (2004). The force of things: Steps toward an ecology of matter. Political Theory, 32(3), 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Blaise, M. (2013). Activating micropolitical practices in the early years: (Re)assembling bodies and participant observations. In R. Coleman & J. Ringrose (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 184–200). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Colebrook, C. (2002). Understanding Deleuze. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  20. Dolphijn, R., & van der Tuin, I. (2012). New materialism: Interviews and cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ferfolja, T. (2008). Discourses that silence: Teachers and anti-lesbian harassment. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 29(1), 107–119.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, N., & Alldred, P. (2013). The sexuality-assemblage: Desire, affect, anti-humanism. The Sociological Review, 61, 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_witness@_millennium.FemaleMan©_meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hilton, G. (2007). Listening to the boys again: An exploration of what boys want to learn in sex education classes and how they want to be taught. Sex Education, 7(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hultman, K., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lambevski, S. (2005). Bodies, schizo vibes and hallucinatory desires. Sexualities, 8(5), 570–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2013). Images of thinking in feminist materialisms: Ontological divergences and the production of researcher subjectivities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 706–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenz Taguchi, H., & Palmer, A. (2013). A more ‘livable’ school? A diffractive analysis of the performative enactments of girls’ ill-/well-being with(in) school environments. Gender and Education, 25(6), 671–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacLure, M. (2013a). Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytic practice in qualitative research. In R. Coleman & J. Ringrose (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 164–183). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  32. MacLure, M. (2013b). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Measor, L., Tiffin, C., & Miller, K. (2000). Young people’s views on sex education: Education, attitudes and behaviour. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  34. Plummer, K. (2008). Studying sexualities for a better world? Ten years of sexualities. Sexualities: Studies in Culture and Society, 11(1/2), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Scholer, A. (2002). Sexuality in the science classroom: One teacher’s methods in a college biology course. Sex Education, 2(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sears, J. (Ed.). (1992). Sexuality and the curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, C., & Ivinson, G. (2013). Material feminisms: New directions for education. Gender and Education, 25(6), 665–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louisa Allen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations