Suchergebnisse

Throughout the last decade sex education has been a site of intense political struggle. This article identifies how the legal regulation of sex education operates in such a way as to incorporate conflicting discursive problematisations of HIV/AIDS and childhood sexuality through the construction of distinct categories within the sex education curriculum and the legitimisation of distinct roles for parents, teachers and health professionals within those categories. In particular it seeks to explain why sex education in schools fails at present to be a primary source of information about HIV/AIDS for young people and, consequently, identifies the urgent need for new guidance from the Department of Education and Employment.

This essay provides a theoretical examination of the law regulating sex education and focuses in particular on the way in which it responds to teenage pregnancies. Adopt ing a post-structural approach, it seeks to demystify the 'common-sense' political consensus in Britain that the current rate of teenage pregnancies is a 'problem', by examining how they are problematized by the social constructions, and moral and economic values and calculations within dominant political discourses. It then demonstrates how these constructions translate into conflicting solutions, or pro grammes, of health education and moral education. In demonstrating how these pro grammes are deployed to govern child sexuality, this essay identifies a variety of techniques of government, such as how different meanings and attributes are given to words like 'children' and 'parents' and 'health' and 'biology'; how the knowledge and expertise of health professionals are legitimized within a particular location and how the curriculum structure itself performs a particular function. In examining the role of law throughout this process, this essay demonstrates how the law concerning sex education operates outside of a repressive juridical model and is able to connect the aspirations and aims of the state with more positive uses of power.

Histories of the Arab–Israeli War of 1967 have advanced a curious commonplace. As they have sought to account for the decisive factors in what they treat as a decisive war, soldiers and interpreters of their arguments have tacitly resorted to what Adolf Loos once referred to as a 'principle of cladding', or bekleidungsprinzip, in order to explain the successes of Israel's armored corps. The bekleidungsprinzip is not a military principle but a dictum of fashion, according to which the renunciation of individual affect in dress is presumed to coincide with the emergence of the qualitative advantages of the modern. With little or no explanation to substantiate the relation between dress and success in armored warfare, histories of this war have instead explained that the causes of a decisive victory may have to be found in the relation between uniforms and technical uniformity. This presupposition possesses an intellectual history, in the course of which war intellectuals repeatedly sought to reconcile what they themselves posed as a contradiction between agency and structure by identifying a proper relation between habit and habitus. Elaborated in a series of doctrinal debates concerning the proper relation of the Jew to the tank in the Israel Defense Forces – and in subsequent interpretations of those disputes – the bekleidung argument is more than a mere curiosity of military history. It points, instead, to a theodicy of conflict according to which a reification of this history's false premises presents itself to view in repeated images of their transcendence.