著者

広瀬 裕子

出版者

一般社団法人 日本教育学会

雑誌

教育学研究 (ISSN:03873161)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.72, no.1, pp.15-26, 2005

---

This paper analyses the compulsory school sex education introduced in 1994 in England. This system was instituted at the point when the public-private dualism was losing its effectiveness. Factors this paper examines are the role of the Family Planning Association, the nature of the Parliamentary Debates, and the Moral Right's criticism against 'permissiveness'. The findings are as follows. This system was established as a part of education reforms conducted by the Thatcher and Major governments in the 1980s and 1990s. As effective and practical sex education was required for the new system, the governments appreciated so called progressive sex education methods and contents, which had been supported by the FPA and had been severely criticized by the conservatives, especially by the Moral Right, fundamentalist Christians, for its 'permissiveness'. In spite of the criticism by the Moral Right, polls and researches showed that most parents wished school sex education. Media was also in favor of it. Since 1960s, the liberalization in society had varied people's life styles including their sexual attitudes and behaviors. This generated not only positive but also negative aspects in society including increasing numbers of single parent families, and unwanted teenage pregnancies. The request for Government's initiative to deal with these problems gradually became visible. The fear of spreading HIV/AIDS backed up this trend. The provision of sex education to all pupils was then thought to be the most effective solution to tackle these problems. As sex education is strongly valued, teaching compulsory sex education at schools is actually governmental intervention into people's values. The fundamental rule that the government should not intervene into people's values was losing its effectiveness facing the urgent problems. The reason why this thesis did not function is because its underpinning public-private dualism was losing its powers as this did not, in fact, represent the nature of modern society. The excellent analysis of Foucault's clarified that sex in modern society was not a mere personal factor located in the private world but a key factor for the comprehensive political function. According to Foucault, sex was at the pivot of the discipline of the body and the regulation of the population that constituted the two poles around which the organization of power over life was deployed. The public sphere therefore could never be indifferent to sexuality and sexuality could never function apart from society. The previous rule then should be understood as a means employed to control members of society in the assumption that individuals would voluntarily keep common values, which, of course, has proved to be an illusion. The compulsory sex education introduced in England is a good example to see the nature of sexuality and states. States will intervene into the private sphere when this does not function properly to supply disciplined members.