Wounds and reinscriptions: schools, sexualities and performative subjects

al 1998, Gilborn & Mirza 2001). In Australia these approaches have led to the insistence
that we ask ‘which boys & which girls?’ (Collins et al 2001). And in the UK race and
social class have been shown to be far greater indicators of educational disadvantage than
gender (Gillborn & Mirza 2001).

At the same time as responding to and enriching these popular debates, work within the
sociology of education has begun to engage with post-structural theories to make sense of
the school’s impact on, and school experiences of, particular groups of students.

Attention has turned from boys and girls to masculinities and femininities (Connell 1995,
Hey 1997, Kenway et al 1997; Mac an Ghaill 1994, Mcleod 1999, Youdell 2000 & in
press). Attention has also begun to turn towards sexualities and schooling. Schooling and
sexuality sit in an uncomfortable relationship. It has been argued that schools and
sexuality are constructed as fundamentally discrete and that the people who populate
schools - students and teachers - are constructed as intrinsically non-sexual (Epstein &
Johnson 1996).

Epstein & Johnson’s (1996) work makes a significant contribution to a small, but
expanding body of work that uses post-structural theorisations of the subject to examine
the experiences of gay and lesbian students. Similarly, Nayak & Kehily (1996) make
sophisticated use of these ideas to argue that homophobic practices in schools are central
to the ongoing constitution of heterosexual masculinities. And Mac an Ghaill’s (1994)
work demonstrates the fluidity of young men’s identity and sexual practices. Much of this
work proceeds from a critical understanding of the reach of hetero-normativity in

<<   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >>

More intriguing information