View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Picturing Sex Education: Notes on the Politics of Visual Stratification

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Picturing Sex Education: Notes on the Politics of Visual Stratification
Language: English
Authors: Janssen, Diederik F.
Source: Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Dec 2006 27(4):495-514.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2006
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Sex Education, Models, Social Stratification, Social Organizations, Foreign Countries, Semiotics, Case Studies, Postmodernism, Textbook Evaluation, Curriculum Evaluation, Visual Aids, Pictorial Stimuli, Visual Learning, Politics of Education
Geographic Terms: Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1080/01596300600988762
ISSN: 0159-6306
Abstract: This paper addresses the scarcity of research on depictions and layout in sex education materials. It is argued that pictures and layout can inform an analysis of social stratification based on visual access. This process of social organization is located using four theoretical models. However these models do not lend themselves to a close reading of graphical strategies. To illustrate how pictures operate, three European works are subjected to a comparative semiotic analysis: "Zeig Mal!" (Germany, 1974), "Vies is lekker" (Holland, 1979), and "Questions children ask and how to answer them" (UK, 1997). It is concluded that the works examined inform three pedagogical paradigms of sex education: liberationism, post-structuralism, and stratificationism. These paradigms are discussed in relation to three known paradigms of analysing power (sovereign power, discipline, and control) and a newly discussed paradigm of ultrastructural confinement. (Contains 15 notes.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 53
Entry Date: 2009
Accession Number: EJ831836
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEag13tTjW5tuO09_Wb_nexAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLN04Fk9lMETEwDKWQIBEICBmjgkM9pchWPiaJSDtiBCn0Pn-ik44on3hKn4iv2afEBC9uRWyWbshEOrlF6keRlS0atajs95TndkjccyUqbukJdD4kEGH0zZnaYUm9zGmZbvR8uCCLpcIkfOsszKwYLVOWhaMsz7YWjEGg_zPa3XFp7B1zWwzIR6RQFCTUe0JcEVb9-qxqXElIlb_Mvti_XFcGnKS95usXzyiKM=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0022909450;54j01dec.06;2019Feb13.17:05;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0022909450-1">Picturing Sex Education: Notes on the politics of visual stratification. </title> <sbt id="AN0022909450-2">Sex: Education, visual access, stratification</sbt> <p>This paper addresses the scarcity of research on depictions and layout in sex education materials. It is argued that pictures and layout can inform an analysis of social stratification based on visual access. This process of social organization is located using four theoretical models. However these models do not lend themselves to a close reading of graphical strategies. To illustrate how pictures operate, three European works are subjected to a comparative semiotic analysis: Zeig Mal! (Germany, 1974), Vies is lekker (Holland, 1979), and Questions children ask and how to answer them (UK, 1997). It is concluded that the works examined inform three pedagogical paradigms of sex education: liberationism, post-structuralism, and stratificationism. These paradigms are discussed in relation to three known paradigms of analysing power (sovereign power, discipline, and control) and a newly discussed paradigm of ultrastructural confinement.</p> <p>Following Michel Foucault, discursive readings of late 20th century "sex education" have been offered as a matter of routine (see, for example, Harrison & Hillier, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; Irvine, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]; Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref3">25</reflink>]; Middleton, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]; Monk, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref5">34</reflink>]; Thorogood, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref6">44</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref7">45</reflink>]; Tien, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]; Wagener, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref9">48</reflink>]; Willig, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref10">52</reflink>]). What interests me are the ways curricular strategies are deployed to articulate a discourse of pedagogy against its many discursive opposites (such as paternalism, foundationalism, and authoritarianism). Broadly speaking, this analysis feeds into a broader critique of the conventionalized metaphors of pedagogy.</p> <p>For instance, judging from a comprehensive cross-cultural review of indigenous sex education practices (Janssen, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>]), the metaphor and concept of "education" is at times impossible to apply, and in fact commonly absent from indigenous pedagogical and sexological rationales. In non-Euro-American settings there is not always a clear-cut occasion, event, persona, product, or curriculum associated with the cross-generational transmission of sexological know-how. This absence of institutionalization, whatever the motivation, usually leaves an important place for informal and extracurricular play. Interestingly, this also applies to late capitalist information-centred societies, which are characterized by a rapid rise in extremely decentralized networks of exchange, the navigation of which requires very low levels of sophistication and offers relatively high degrees of anonymity and unprecedented levels of efficiency. This proclaims a post-curricular era in which the educational apparatus is effectively rivaled by new infrastructures. This has led to an exodus of neo-conservative activists from abstinence-only curricula to the access sites of allegedly porn-loaded networks ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>], forthcoming).</p> <p>My argument is that these developments not only relocate the site of pedagogical intervention, but reinvent the very paradigm of education. Cruikshank ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]) noted that:</p> <p>In neoconservative programs such as abstinence-only education, the promotion of marriage, and workfare, the individual will is no longer useful as the instrument and effect of power as it was in disciplinary schemes. Instead, the will is treated as an obstacle to good government. It is my contention that the linkage of power–knowledge so painstakingly described by Foucault is more or less broken in these efforts to "re-moralise" the state and civil society. Power, uncoupled from knowledge, does not operate productively according to a norm, but negatively against the pluralisation of norms. ... This is government by mandate and fear rather than governmentality.</p> <p>As Cruikshank argued, this is not a return to the deployment of alliance from the deployment of sexuality, nor are faith-based initiatives and workfare a return to an earlier pastoral power. In neopolitics there is no reform, but rather in its stead the questioning of its self-evidence.</p> <p>In short, these developments necessitate (and indeed have led to) a research focus on the strategic positioning of the pedagogue and to a theoretical reassessment of pedagogical discourse in relation to strategic manoeuvring. This manoeuvering, I contend, is best observed when under pressure from heavily politicized social and cultural anxieties, as seen in sex education and, more specifically, where the sex becomes explicit, as seen in the use of graphical materials.</p> <p>In this article I want to focus on graphical and pictorial strategies in sex education. As curricular imperatives, both the overarching domain of "the sexual" and the niche of "the sex education illustration" are recognized zones of ideological rough-and-tumble. However, pictures in sex education books are rarely examined (see, for example, Beyer, Ogletree, Ritzel, Drolet, Gilbert, & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>]; Hartlaub & Dreznick, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]; Jackson & Gee, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]; Low & Sherrard, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref17">27</reflink>]; Pollis, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]; Salas, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref19">40</reflink>]; Whatley, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref20">50</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref21">51</reflink>]). This is unfortunate, given the wealth of research opportunities for pictorial semioticians, visual historians, visual anthropologists, ethnologists, curriculum theorists, pedagogues, culture critics, gender activists, and discourse analysts working in the domains of law, pedagogy, and sexualities.</p> <p>For the purpose of this article I would suggest that the question of the sex education picture can be abstracted as follows: in terms of pedagogical necessity, how do discourses of "the sexual" (orientation, identity, performance) feed into discourses of "the visual" (access, mediation, exposure, gaze)? This question has been addressed routinely from a number of viewpoints. For instance, among subhuman species coital performance is taken to be dependent on modeling based on visual access. In human societies the comforting simplicity of this observation is compromised, as analysed through diverse theoretical paradigms (cf. Janssen, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]), including the following.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-3">Human Ethology</hd> <p>Schiefenhövel ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref23">41</reflink>]), p. 159) assumed that a desire for coital privacy, regardless of the identity of the spectators, is universal in man. Coital privacy lessens the threat posed by dominant males to the pairbonding stability of copulating dyads that exclude these dominant males (cf. Money & Ehrhardt, 1973/[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>], p. 201). This concealment strategy would develop early, in the "latency" period (roughly 7–12 years). In fact, it was argued that the ethos of "sexual privacy" is a productive replacement for the Freudian notion of latency. However, this model is less useful in accounting for the specific ethic of intergenerational privacy or cross-cultural differences in the notions of "the private" and "the personal." If anything, it explains why copulation by young males is shielded from the eyes of the alpha male (e.g. the father), not vice versa.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-4">Structural Functionism</hd> <p>The hiding of coitus within the familial setting has invited a spectrum of psychodynamic ramifications. Sigmund Freud was dedicated to traumatological models of what he dubbed the <emph>Urszene</emph> ("primal scene") from the very beginning of his psychoanalytic thought (Esman, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>], pp. 50–53). The matter was taken up by generations of psychoanalysts, as well as psychodynamically inclined educationists, and was recruited into discussions of domestic nudity, naturist lifestyles, and parent–child and sibling co-sleeping and co-bathing. During the 20th century visual "exposure" became a classic theme in the popular culture of parenting. Interestingly, however, these issues in practice hardly ever invited legal intervention.</p> <p>In short, this traumatogenic notion of visual exposure has a century long history of speculation and a certain degree of hegemonic currency. The alleged mechanisms can be summarized as: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>) erotic "charging" of the young spectator without adequate discharge opportunities; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>) sadomasochistic misinterpretation; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref28">3</reflink>) intensification of Oedipal dynamics resulting in an increase in castration awareness (Okami, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]; Okami, Olmstead, Abramson, & Pendleton, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]). However, this all remains untested. The model requires that "primal scene exposure" jeopardizes tensional equilibria that define the Oedipal triangle, thus compromising the delicate process of its management. Support for this biological element (as for the pan-cultural universality of Oedipality) is inadequate. Specifically, traumatic effects of visual exposure to adult coitus were refuted in retrospective research in the 1970s and even in prospective data in the 1990s.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-5">Conflict Theory</hd> <p>This model requires the conceptualizing of coitus as techne (technical, instrumental knowledge), and hence as an economic asset unevenly distributed over the age gradient, a distribution effected by the exercise of power, with such exercise benefiting the powerful in controlling power gradients. In most societies the child appears to be confined to the cohort or stratum of expertise it is assigned to, and in most cases sexological expertise can be conceptualized as a "technology," intellectual capital, a totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency. Visual access to coitus as a technology is controlled because it is the inaugural step to a motivated trajectory of (political, civil) participation in a psycho-sexual economy.</p> <p>In its strictest form this model requires the (at least potential) equivalence of coitus to both parties in terms of meaning (e.g. pleasure) and, ethically, in terms of entitlement. These requirements are generally met with opposition. In any case, Marxist (and generally econo-repressive) analyses of the place of the child in the family have rarely addressed these issues of sexological monopoly, "age classes" and class privilege.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-6">Symbolic Interactionism, Social Constructionism</hd> <p>According to the fourth and last theoretical paradigm, parents choose to delay the transmission of coitus as a concept by moderating exposure to the existence, content, and legitimacy of the concept. An age-stratification in the attribution of meaning to sexual interaction, and to interaction as sexual, is accomplished by active and passive non-labelling and mislabelling of what in adult contexts is labeled "sexual" (Gagnon, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref31">12</reflink>], pp. 88–90), and by "neutralization" and "suppression" of such labels (Newson & Newson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref32">35</reflink>]). Seeing coitus, in this model, does not necessarily amount to any clear-cut understanding of the observed, nor does it enforce any single reading. Seeing is not witnessing. "Learning coitus" is thus characterized by a curriculum in which: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>) childhood coitus does not take place because of a lack of operational meaning or its non-representation in mainstream occidental scripts of "being a child" or "childhood sexuality"; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>) teenage coitus takes place within a gradual shift of meaning, its representation in scripts being "titrated" or gradually infused on the basis of some curricular ethos. This model, explored and popularized since the 1960s, does not provide a legitimization for the age stratification of visual exposure, however, it problematizes both "the sexual" and "the observed" as the sites of symbolic mediation and social negotiation and, hence, of social stratification.</p> <p>Theoretical options, of course, do not solve the question of how graphic mediation and visualization strategies feature in pedagogical discourse and praxis. This requires a critical ethnographic and ethnomethodological approach to the image in use. In the next section I offer some findings from the ethnographic record to contextualize the contemporary Western status of graphics in sexual education. Any localization, it should be acknowledged, is necessarily political. The space I am trying to forge is one in which one might ponder the latitude of social possibilities and the discursive situatedness of shared decision-making. The space I am trying to forge is one in which one might ponder the latitude of social possibilities and the discursive situatedness of shared decision-making. For educational works this situatedness is usually some form of <emph>in loco parentis</emph>, however, some sexual instruction books are explicitly intended to free children from parental conservatisms, and/or to free parents from their own cultural inertia. Visual mediation, in the current digital era, is an altogether paradigmatic aspect of the representation of the sexual self (for instance in terms of "border work", that is to say, the continuous policing and affirming of the boundaries of the self and of the in-group necessitated by their discourses), which necessarily operates on the perceived (dis)harmony of its pedagogical pretences and alleged properties (among which are disclosure, intimation, arousal, necessity, referentiality). Here, also, one is tempted to estimate the applicability of the widely discussed contrast between <emph>studium</emph>, generalized symbolic meanings in photos, and <emph>punctum</emph>, aspects that produce an emotional response which cannot be named or made part of the image's general meaning (Barthes, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]). As with any cultural text, the sex education picture can only be productively analysed in terms of the to and fro of intentionality and interpretation. The image, then, is a negotiated entity, a proposition always under consideration.</p> <p>For instance, when a child (growing up in the1980s in The Netherlands) I myself skimmed photograph laden textbooks such as Haeberle's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]) <emph>Sex atlas</emph> and naturist magazines available from public libraries, neither of which were specifically intended for child readership; I also drew naughty pictures myself. Here, the performative aspects of the image (managing to find, consume, discuss, create, hide, and destroy them) impress me as relevant to the issue of pedagogical efficiency. While these auto-ethnographic findings may seem idiosyncratic to some, they may suggest that images are of interest as they are "worked up" in a praxis of the graphic, a praxis that is contingent on author/consumer intentions and is open to ethnographic inquiry.</p> <p>More specifically, in this paper I question how the delimitation of this praxis is accomplished by features of the image that exceed the basic level of content and that refer to a textual/visual praxis (other than reception). Since ethnographies on the actual use of sex education images are practically nonexistent, I concentrate on auctorial intent and stratagems that aim to enforce specific forms of usage.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-7">The Sex Education Picture: Ethnographic notes</hd> <p>How do instructional sex pictures fit into the ethnography of what in the west has come to be addressed as "sex education"? In what we might inclusively call pedagogically motivated communication of the topics of procreation and sexual performance the visual is located on a scale that stretches from painstakingly enforced absence to prescribed participative practicum.</p> <p>It is interesting to note that comparison between modes of mediation and representation is often taken to be unproblematic, and productive of a culturally unambiguous hierarchy of realism. If we accept this for the moment, the following can be observed. Providing "more" than the non-graphic (talks and texts) and "less" than full practice, pedagogically intended mediated forms of the visual include ritualized dramatic spectacles (in which the novice might participate) and depictions. Visual mediation is usually considered a compromise between general or specific taboos pertaining to communications based on kinship, age stratum, gender, and/or betrothal status, and on the other hand a perceived necessity of formalized sexological instruction. Depictions can be further broken down into interactive representations and figurines and non-interactive depictions.</p> <p>Interactive representations and figurines are usually three-dimensional objects fulfilling some illustrative purpose. These include clay or wood models, clay figurines, anatomically correct dolls, chickens, statues, sticks and stones, and so on.</p> <p>Non-interactive depictions are usually two-dimensional representations. These include pictorial materials, which may include pseudo-interactive visual features (cut-out, flip-out, look through the hole, transparent) and cinematographic products. A spectrum of realism is noted, stretching from video and full page colour photos to highly abstract and minimal line drawings.</p> <p>Deconstructing a discursive schism between the performative and the representational, interactive depictions are interesting bridges between doing and observing sex. Anatomically (hyper)correct dolls have been mentioned as part of indigenous child play among the Pilagá Indians, Australian Aborigines, the Fan and Bafia of Cameroon, the Bwiti, and Normanby Islanders. In the West dolls with genitals have enjoyed some pedagogical currency after their (disputed) ascendancy as a diagnostic tool since the early 1980s. It should be noted that in the case of the Pilagá, children themselves made the dolls provided by researchers genitally explicit, whereas in the case of some Australian children genitals were said to be the "most prominent part" of native dolls. Also notable here is the cross-culturally prevalent juvenile production of explicit graffiti or picture-mediated jokes or riddles. Emerging developments in visual interactivity include the explicit videogame, and minors' auto-pornographic opportunities via mobile phones and webcams (<emph>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>]; cf. Walton [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref38">49</reflink>], pp. 14–15).</p> <p>For 20th century Euro-American juveniles non-interactive depictions amount to the modal visual "exposure load" with regard to sexual activities and bodies (Escobar-Chaves, Tortolero, Markham, Low, Eitel, & Thickstun, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]). Here we can observe that this exposure has consistently attracted medico-legal speculation in terms of pathogenic "primal scenes" (Freud), "pornography," and "sexualizing" media (Janssen, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>]). This currently informs an industry of V-chips, porn-blocking software, search engine filtering, media rating systems, and an assortment of legislative measures.</p> <p>Sex education materials have been progressively cartoonized during the 1980s in response to a general backlash against the use of visually explicit media intended for student audiences and, specifically, the development of "child" pornography legislation, which makes it impossible to legally depict sexual posturing, activities, or the "living anatomy" of bodies that appear to be under the age of 16–18 years.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>] It should be noted that this legally consolidated <emph>Zeitgeist</emph> also caused an over-exclusive attitude in which mere photographic nudity of minors (and even of adults) is avoided (unpublished data). I hasten to add that over-exclusion seems to spill over even to cartoonesk depictions and that historically the corpus of sex education materials has remained far from the full legal range of pictorial freedom.</p> <p>From the cursory ethnographic exploration above we might conclude that the production, inclusion, and content of sex education pictures are informed by (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>) a medico-legal consensus of dealing with the nexus of sexuality, visual access, and age stratification, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>) a formal political–juridical articulation of this consensus, and, finally, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>) an informal praxis that (as argued) might entail an ethic that appears hypercorrect in comparison with formalized cultural maxims or penal codes. What we do not learn is how this consensus is accomplished and how we are to conceptualize this accomplishment.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-8">Visual Access: Three paradigms of power</hd> <p>The theoretical collage and rough political cartography of the sex education picture offered above do not allow a close reading of its deployment in specific texts. In the remainder of this paper I would like to briefly look at three pedagogical works that illustrate three variations in late 20th century West European deployment of "the visual" in sexual pedagogy. By this I would like to explore the productivity of looking at graphic content and layout as important and integrated modes of ethical performance, by which such aspects as pictorial content, style, and function emerge as pristine cultural indicators of the way "the sexual" and "the visual" are recursively implicated or dissociated. I argue that this is an historicizable yet perennial cultural conundrum, of which content analysts usually only see the end solutions (or rather, the end compromises).</p> <p>Allow me to suggest at this point that the conventional register of "exposure" (the inverse of access) is usually deployed to create a market niche of passive culture victims. Even the ultra-conservative curriculum designers knows that pictures are activities, that they are accomplished by specific, motivated form of usage. As an introduction, consider Good Touch Bad Touch<sups>®</sups> (<ulink href="http://www.goodtouchbadtouch.com">http://www.goodtouchbadtouch.com</ulink>). Specifically marketing "effective personal body safety" to "faith-based clients," including Mormons, Quakers, and Muslims, the curriculum uses colouring books and workbooks, including "crosswords, mazes, and other fun puzzles and exercises." From this marketing material we can infer that this interactive curriculum is about spuriously unfinalized or template realities requiring premeditated forms of visual closure. Children fill in colours in an outline design leading to collaborative construction of ("agreement on") a thus finalized statement (colour plates) that provides the only answers that fits the predetermined visual schemas and leads to the visual reward of completion (cross-words). Children find ("recognize") the only way out (maze), while they put into place the missing pieces to complete the visual totality (puzzle). The proposed good–bad binary is enforced by a visual regimen of truth. As an interim conclusion I would suggest that specific visual strategies invite specific modes of discursive complicity and ideological conformism.</p> <p>Chosen from a convenience sample of sex education works (<emph>N</emph>=88) selected for a graphic content analysis,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>] three cases appear to me lucid examples of the divergent paradigms (liberationism, postmodernism, and stratificationism) according to which "the sexual" may be located within a pedagogical framework. These (German, Dutch and British) cases are presented, specifically in terms of their use of pictures and layout, and concluded by comparative observations.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>]</p> <p>It should be noted that the works chosen were written and marketed in settings requiring a specific ethno-historical appraisal, for instance by acknowledging domestic and foreign reviews, translations, sales, reprints, school and public library dissemination, censorship, the juridical matrix, contemporary publications, and the wider cultural appropriation of the work. I hint at these aspects below, but a full analysis would warrant another paper. For instance, <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> (case study 1 below) fitted the German left-liberal scene of <emph>anti-autoritäre Erziehung</emph> and the sexual rights movement. Its reception mirrored that of other German booklets which featured comparable graphic non-restraint (see, for example, Amendt, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]; Jacobi, Kriedemann, Maier, & Peters, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]). The second, Dutch book was published in a historical window of extensive sexual tolerance, a low conditional consent age of 12, and even partially state funded self-help groups for self-identified paedophiles. Lastly, the third work to be discussed can be situated in a therapeutic industry mobilized around the now consolidated notion of sexual abuse which occasioned diagnostic vigilance, "safe" pedagogical practices, models of "normative sexual development," and a militaristic discourse of "age-appropriate sexuality." With this as the context, I will explore visual strategies as they inform paradigmatically differing conceptions of pedagogical authority. These works, then, do not necessarily inform a visual culture per se, while they clearly do exemplify alternative narratives of pedagogical performance and thus, I will argue, models of power.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-9">Case Study 1: Mid 1970s, Zeig Mal! liberationism (Germany)</hd> <p>In translation <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph>, <emph>Show Me!</emph>, (McBride & Fleischhauer-Hardt, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]) has received occasional library bans and legal consideration[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>] and according to present US legislation mere possession of the work may be construed as illegal, given its inclusion of prepubertal erections and underage genital touching. In a <emph>SIECUS Report</emph> book review E. J. Liebermann ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>]) (a later co-translator of Otto Rank) described the work as "indigestible, an oxymoronic oddity of rawness overdone ... blatantly erotic, childishly adult, somberly silly, elegantly gross."[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]</p> <p>The whole of the back cover of <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> is given over to rationalizing its format's ultimate reliance on photography.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>] According to the authors all of the work's photos need to be viewed before a child's education could be considered "complete," thus offering "support" to such an education, and <emph>a forteriori</emph> "a basis and stimulus" for parents. This parental address is explicitly stated four times (front cover, back cover, prologue, and epilogue). The main part is taken up by two-page spread black and white pictures of bodies bordered by running commentaries by various people. Captioned photographs centralize emotional, evaluations of visual or (personal or observed) bodily experiences with a definitely positive bias.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref54">7</reflink>] Parents are invited to discuss matters verbally, as exemplified in a second, psychodynamically slanted illustrated part. An unillustrated Appendix deals with apparently secondary topics: birth control, homosexuality, aberrant sexualities, STDs.</p> <p>In <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> image is separated from and privileged over text spatially,[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref55">8</reflink>] editorially,[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>] narratively,[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref57">10</reflink>] and in the title. The authors note that only a "graphical and truth-abiding" approach would prevent "anxiety and feelings of guilt". This realism is legitimized by the claim that the children, after some effort, were photographed in "natural" postures/attitudes, complemented by their unedited, "spontaneous" commentaries on the photographs.</p> <p>The narrative flow of the pictorial part of the book is overly inclusive of psychodynamic themes (clearly inserted to work in concert with the following text section), such as fraternal envy (after the birth of a brother) with regressive (oral) features, a full Oedipal scenario (incest wish and patricidal intent), denied penis envy, phallic pride, phallic subordination, traumatological anticipation of primal scene, and anticipated parenting roles. Interestingly, both male and female masturbation features (narratively and photographically) as an adolescent practice learned by same sex verbal communication to the starring 7 (or so) year olds, whereas, according to the narrative, petting and coitus is learned through observation. Also of interest, on a number of occasions pre-adolescents expressed displeasure at graphic exposure (Dutch edn., pp. 30–31, 53, 74–75) and the "progressive" child-driven narrative is punctuated by conservative evaluations of the children's graphic knowledge by the more elderly (pp. 40–43, 99, 101, 103, 124–125).[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>] Hence, the pictures, by their presence, legitimize the healthy (if Oedipal) child's scopophilia and punish censorship by grandparental prudes.</p> <p>The photographs are without graphic contextuality (purely white background, soft edging) and are thus devoid of embedment in and reference to real life. For instance, no clothing other than a single shirt, which does not cover, is featured and only small timespans (sequences) are offered. This provides the feel of a dreamlike (ideal, ideational, Utopian) state. Genre-typical graphic features are conspicuous by their absence: no trans-sectional views, no graphic dealing with intracorporeal anatomy/processes, and no systematic coverage of somatic trajectories.</p> <p>In sum, this work propagandizes the functional and ethical primacy of visible-experiential "sexuality" as social bodiliness, in which visual age stratification is acknowledged then transgressed and thus "punished" or contested. The flow of dreamlike "floating" bodies delivers normative sexuality as a trajectory in visual experience, a moral dialogue about visibility within what appears a bankrupt gerontocratic monopoly on spectatorship. One might speak of a visual dialectic script, the product of which simultaneously features and embodies the defeat (and in effect, demonstrative marginalization and banishment) of both "conservative" and "ambivalent" pedagogies. The work contests "bad pedagogy" by refusing to feature it graphically: it is represented as interruptive commentaries by elderly characters, or rather, their <emph>unmet complaints</emph>; what we get is their voices and, visually, their troubled faces but never by their bodies.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref59">12</reflink>]This contestation, however, seems to speak more to the assumedly "repressed" parent than to the visually and experientially deprived age classes the authors propose to enlighten. Children should <emph>see</emph> all but <emph>learn</emph> only indirectly, through the now well-guided parent. The book explicitly offers the graphic as moral signification and non-experiential anticipation of experience, but only as an instrument for emancipation, addressing hierarchy (more than the deprived age classes) directly at the allegedly central site of reform (the repressed parent). The book self-consciously reduces itself to an exemplary instance of the only possible (namely a graphic) assault on invisibility, or rather on "unnatural" anti-visualization mentalities. The work is photo-centred in that it works, i.e. conforms to the photographer's celebrated oeuvre, to express a self-consciously countercultural anticonservative ethic here legitimized as a mode of preventionalism at the site of unnatural emotion ("anxiety," "guilt") discursively divorced from (literally) "appendicated," factual, and interpretative, as well as possibly conflictual, sites, like STD. Note that "negative" and "deviant" scenarios remain unillustrated in this edition as clinical enumerations more or less completely split off from the main text.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-10">Case Study 2: End of the 1970s, Vies is Lekker postmodernism (Dutch)</hd> <p>I consider myself just a kid in matters of sexuality. (Wolffers, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref60">53</reflink>], p. 7)</p> <p>A 1979 Dutch work, <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph> (Wolffers, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref61">53</reflink>]), which translates uneasily to "Dirty is Sweet", takes a personal, call me by my first name, anecdotal, colloquial approach, by a male physician. A substantial part of the book comprises an illustrated glossary. The first of 22 chapters specifically addresses the historical contingency of the range of educational books and use of graphics therein. For instance, an anecdotal distinction is made between conversational and monographical "education," this passage (p. 64) and the work's narrative style being suggestive of siding with an alleged boy's preference for dialogue. Implicitly, the booklet emerges as a workable hybrid solution. However, books are repeatedly contested in their content and their utility is questioned (pp. 49, 64, 84). Historicizing passages throughout the work are used to juxtapose the notion of problematic sexological "old times" with the book's implicitly progressive tone. The author offers multiple digressions from the text, for instance quasi-formal footnotes containing highly personal or legal details, thus creating a multi-level reading. In anecdotal form the author's own childhood features as a successfully subversive undercurrent. The adult case (personalized by the author's parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts) is consistently presented as aberrant: euphemistic, anti-sexual, avoidant, rude, neurotic, ignorant, naïve, homophobic, prejudiced, and medicalizing. Sexological facts turn out to be debated and contingent. Chapters routinely start with a an assault on formality (e.g. joking), then end up in a dialectic <emph>aporia</emph>.</p> <p>This work is post-structural in a range of respects. Elements of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) abundant self-reflection on and pseudohybridization and critique of genre (genre as historical, problematic, and "perhaps inferior" alternative), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) historicizing (e.g. the author situated historically, onomasiological discussion of obsolete moralistic terms), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>) author-centring, gendered author and author critique, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>) cultural relativism, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>) subversion (consider the title), (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>) norm contingency, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref68">7</reflink>) moral dialectic, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref69">8</reflink>) norm reversal and anti-hierarchy (adult as aberrant), (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref70">9</reflink>) personalized voice, (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref71">10</reflink>) multiplicity of voice, (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>) ambivalence and erratum as editorial revelation, (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>) a multidisciplinary approach (history, ethnography, legislation), and so on make this work remarkably (in fact painstakingly) postmodern. Sexuality here is a field of possible, personalized untruths of which subversion and jocularization is frequent and justified. No facts, says the friendly gendered doctor, but here's (typically twisted) opinions and probabilities.</p> <p>Other than <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph>, the author of <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph> does not offer a judgemental verdict. For instance, what during the 1980s came to be called paraphilic behaviour (exhibitionism, voyeurism, incest) is described in conjunction with normal child phenomena (a nod, but only a nod, to polymorphic perversity), however, moral ramifications are evaluated as culturally and morally contingent and, typifying this era, without need for prosecution.</p> <p>Illustrations here are accordingly benign and normalizing. Pictures also add to the author's post-structural momentum. In fact, apart from genre-typical images (coitus and pregnancy), illustrations invariably demonstrate postmodern preoccupations. In order of appearance, we encounter the following plots: confusion/struggle, transgression (scatological graffiti), evaluative controversy (in digesting porn), joke, variation (morphological), self-exploration (anatomical), fantasy (sexual), autoerotic indulgence, multimodality/unclear boundaries (of affective states), queer identity, prank, indigenous knowledge, emancipatory self-assertion (pro-abortion demonstration), perversion (paraphilic behaviour as variation), ethno-historical particularities, commodification (hooker), travesty (transvestite).</p> <p>To sum up, while hardly transgressing taboos on depiction, the textual and graphical assault on modernist notions of factuality, authority, normality, and ideal types (best exemplified by the author's autobiographical rejection of "Love" with a capital L) in <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph> is arguably more complete, more radical, and more effective than the "iconospasm" of <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph>. The aggression here is embodied, personal, and non-committal. Graphics consistently privilege the plural, the variable, the queer, the subversive, the other, the peculiar or exotic, the ought not, and the (internally as well as externally) conflicting. (That said, the male seems a consistently naturalized category.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref74">13</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-11">Case Study 3: 1997, Questions children ask and how to answer them stratificationism (UK)</hd> <p> <emph>Questions children ask and how to answer them</emph> (Stoppard, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref75">43</reflink>]) is a book addressed to parents, advertised as for supervised co-reading. In its introduction the work proposes to help in coping with "all difficult, sensitive and controversial" questions that would stimulate children's "curiosity," offering "guidelines," "the extent," and the words (back cover). The attitude to education translates as a parsimonious protocol: wait for questions arising from "natural curiosity" then look up in the book the simplest explanation as dictated by the universally applicable schema and protect the child from information it might not be able to "handle" ("timing is crucial," p. 6).</p> <p>In this book one finds the construction of a complementary dyad, the constitutive parts of which are a shy, nervous or relaxed (not nervous), yet often inadequate, parent and an emotionally/mentally immature, potentially "confused" child endangered by its (however natural) curiosity for "the truth," frustrated by "half-truths" picked up from misguided peers. According to the book's proposed "healthy" communicative curriculum the "right" information should be given to prevent promiscuity. Scientifically sound, such a curriculum would render sex "normal" and thus prevent indulgence, and stimulate "responsibility," as it does in a range of topics "considered controversial."</p> <p>Throughout the book a universally applied three or four strata age segmentation of answers is proposed, the legitimacy of which is not offered, and hardly discussed.[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref76">14</reflink>] The book covers "sex and birth" as the first of five pedagogical fields that appear, ultimately, idiosyncratic. For instance, questions children might ask about "The unknown" cover death, religion, and the dark. The text offers a straitjacket of "backgrounds," "guidelines," and "what else you should know", as well as a listing of "other" questions which remain unanswered.</p> <p>Interestingly, the schema icons indicating age segments are photos of (dressed) children (all made to act out attitudes of intense wonder and puzzlement), "supplying the questions" represented as boxes. The answers are accompanied by generally uninformative drawings that figuratively mirror the age-specified narrative elements. Drawings privilege the allegedly "normal": heterosexual coitus is depicted twice (mechanics not shown), condoms are shown but applied on bananas, homosexuality is covered but shown in platonic imagery.</p> <p>The general marginality of the graphics is suggested by the fact that children within all age segments are exposed to the same, namely all, pictures. Also, there is a lack of clear age differentiality in the cartoonesk characters. The pictures do not add to the pedagogical experience; they are gratuitous illustrations.</p> <p>Typically for this "demystification" question and answer genre, information is thought to fuel "forbidden fruit" effects. The pedagogical momentum is consistently detailed using a negative psycho-medical plot: the anxious, worried parent copes with hard questions from endangered, puzzled children so as to prevent dire consequences and ensure healthy relationships. The coverage of some questions appears to be instituted to construct the idea of a pathological outer range (consider the marginal, ambiguous, and unanswered status of the generally more confronting "other questions"), and age segments are clearly legitimized as construing a constant and central threat of pathological "age-inappropriate" ahead knowledge.</p> <p>The coverage of masturbation, which is a continuous flux of likely to arise negativity and likely or possible negative scenarios, becomes more apparent if we look at a short amount of text as abbreviated below (all italics are mine) (Stoppard, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref77">43</reflink>], pp. 32–33, translating back to English) (the same goes for homosexuality, pp. 36–37):</p> <p>Answers to parents: [masturbation being the] <emph>hardest</emph><emph>question</emph>, <emph>not</emph> because <emph>difficult</emph>/ but because of addressee's [<emph>mistaken</emph>] attitudes/ conditionally <emph>less secretive</emph>/ child should <emph>not worry</emph>/ child hears tales of <emph>dirtiness</emph> and <emph>horrible</emph> consequences spread by <emph>worried</emph> parents/ proximately caused by <emph>warnings</emph> to child/ [again, sex being] a <emph>hard</emph> matter because of parent's <emph>ignorant</emph> childhood/ <emph>not bad</emph>/ <emph>no</emph> need for <emph>shame</emph>/ has to be <emph>tolerated or ignored</emph>/ if happening/ needs to be <emph>restricted</emph> (privacy)/ <emph>not</emph> to be dealt with as if <emph>bad</emph> habit/ <emph>not</emph> in public/ is <emph>innocent</emph>/ check if not <emph>unwilling victim</emph>/ <emph>no</emph> objects [masturbation aids]/ cave <emph>abuse</emph>/ age difference is <emph>alarm</emph>/ masturbation <emph>not</emph> sex/ functions to <emph>lose tension</emph>/ should <emph>worry</emph> if frequent/ e.g. because emotional <emph>neglect</emph>/ do <emph>not punish</emph>.</p> <p>Answers to children: do <emph>not</emph> with others around/ child can touch child if <emph>don't mind</emph>/ <emph>not</emph> inside [no introduction of objects]/ some say it is <emph>bad</emph>/ but this is <emph>untrue</emph>/ do <emph>not</emph> with others around/ <emph>never bad</emph>/ <emph>nothing bad</emph> will happen/ <emph>not</emph> causing to be <emph>deaf or blind</emph>/ <emph>no zits</emph>/ <emph>no hair</emph> on palms/ if this <emph>nonsense</emph> is told say its <emph>not</emph> true/ erections happen for <emph>no</emph> reason/ <emph>not</emph> touching is OK too [additional note: prepubertal orgasm is erroneously denied as a physiological possibility].</p> <p>We see here that prepubertal masturbation, although portrayed as "in itself" perfectly "normal," emerges from a pool of negative scenarios and negated negations. At best, the functions of masturbation are homeostatic, epistemological (curiosity), and non-erotic. Pictures (which surprisingly suggest, consummated masturbatory activity) can be thought of as included only because and as encapsulated and neutralized by this overkill of double negative rhetoric. Early quests for sex emerge as negative, and only after thus necessitated correction, limitation, interpretation, and opting-out solutions emerge as "normal," "healthy," and even "inevitable." All variations and activities that depart from the conservative norm are, conversely, not covered.</p> <p>The disciplinary regime of the book's layout is worthy of further analysis. The modal juxtaposition < < photo ↔ drawing > >[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref78">15</reflink>] clearly mimics the dual agenda seen in the text: to have <<[photographed] questioning bodies > > appear authentic (and thus to reduce real psycho-sexual trajectories to an arbitrary number, selection, taxonomy, and order of questions) and to render the status of answers quite the opposite, namely conditional, unverified, and optional. Thus, there exists the spatial principle</p> <p>< < photo child (right on left page) ↔ image child (left on left page) > >which reinforces the question–answer bifurcation in terms of</p> <p>< < real/legitimate ↔ conditional/constructional/negotiable > >and</p> <p>< < answering bodies > > ↔ < < answered bodies > >A second consistent spatial configuration</p> <p>< < text addressing the parent (right page) ↔ text addressing the child (left page) > >propagandizes or reaffirms a generational role dichotomy</p> <p><<(not) questioning ↔ (not) answering > >and, inherently, a dichotomous authoritative-administrative order:</p> <p>< < meta-communication ↔ communication > ></p> <p><< (meta-authority versus authority) ↔ (authoritative versus apprentice) > >This diagnoses a hierarchical epistemological division,</p> <p><< expert insight ↔ parent insight > >as well as a dichotomans conception of the pedagogical process,</p> <p>< < back-stage pedagogy ↔ on-stage pedagogy > ></p> <p>< < legitimization (ratiocination, psychologizing) ↔ execution > >and, finally, a more obvious modal-temporal organization,</p> <p>< < reading ↔ speaking [looking] > ></p> <p>In stark contrast to <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph>, the use of graphics is subordinated to the master operational grid, which is unilateral lecturing, not a "dialogue" as the preface proposes (compare the use of "background" sections). One notes an exclusive problematization of vertical familial communication. The basic ontological fabric, comprising "facts" read then told, is compartimentalized according to a master problem grid, which is age. Another organizing principle, expertise, is insufficiently addressed on the back cover: "Dr. Miriam Stoppard, a well-known, leading expert on parents and their children."</p> <p>To sum up, in <emph>Questions children ask</emph>, the sexuality of children is contained in the idea that it is unproblematically localizable in "learning," in desires which are, at best, protoerotic: "natural curiosity," cognitive deprivation. The overall format of the work suggests that this reduction effects control: the assignment of human experience to the realm of "information" to ensure compartimentalized management thereof.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-12">Discussion</hd> <p>All three books juxtapose themselves against an image of the ignorant or historical parent, an almost genre-typical feature. However, in the works examined we note obvious differences between graphic deployment, content, realism, author centrality, and so on. For instance, the works deploy different strategies as spatial solutions for "additional" ("other") data: appendix, glossary, footnote, "other" box, and so on. More importantly, the visual and layout strategies of the books inform paradigmatically different ways of thinking about power and pedagogy.</p> <p>The political struggle of the visually aggressive, rebellious and pornographic (depending on the definition) <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> is a typical Reichean–Marxist battle informed by an econo-repressive paradigm. In <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> photos correct a visual deprivation; they attack a curriculum that short-changes a class of subjects entitled to necessary visual coverage of a crucial human experience.</p> <p>In contrast to <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph>, the uncritical adoption of the psychodynamic template by <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph>, together with the paternalistic and pathologizing attitude towards the repressed parent, is diagnostic of a contrast between a graphic assault on age stratification and modernist theorizing projected onto the depicted children's remarks (thus compromising their proposed authenticity). A comprehensive discussion of the scene and process of depiction is not offered; no comments are made, for instance, on the selection of photographs, the occasion of children commenting on the flux of events, the pedagogical (e.g. naturist) background, and the relationships if any, between the depicted subjects, and so on. This adds to the work being an instance of deviant inversion of a moral curriculum, in contrast to the attack on the notion of centralities of <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph>.</p> <p>In <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph> sexuality turns to sexology. The Oedipal complex is exchanged for a progressively successful negotiation of perspective in a world of misguided opinions. Emotional–physiological–visual indulgence (<emph>Zeig Mal!</emph>) is exchanged for evaluative idiosyncrasy, exposed adult manipulation, and commonsensical self-reliance. While <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> sought to liberate the repressed child enmeshed in both an Oedipal and a seniority plot (two modes of structural confinement), <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph> offers the full post-structural blast of optionality and contingency. However, in <emph>Questions children ask</emph> we find ourselves in yet another plot. Here the child is delivered not to the dialectic of the passions and the nagging of impotent gerontocrats, nor to the indetermination and moral vacuum of the postmodern, but to the blunt presence of an age-stratifying protocol. While visual access is anarchically accomplished in <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> and deconstructed in <emph>Vies is Lekker</emph>, it is ultrastructural in <emph>Questions children ask</emph>. Allow me to explain.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-13">Paradigms of Power</hd> <p>Our triadic analysis feeds into models of sovereign power, discipline and control as proposed by Michel Foucault and Giles Deleuze (Janssen, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref79">23</reflink>]; Janssen, forthcoming). In his <emph>Histoire de la sexualité</emph> (Foucault, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>]) and his lectures (Foucault, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref81">11</reflink>]), Foucault brought us from taboos to discourses of visual access. As we have seen, this allowed a change in narrative plot, as well as in the strategic usage of the visual. In <emph>Zeig Mal!</emph> recalcitrant photographers turn the table on the senile enforcers of obsolete taboos by simply breaking them. In our second example (<emph>Vies is Lekker</emph>) the child is drawn into a negotiation in which she/he is the disciplining subject itself, in which she/he is seduced to co-opt with, internalize, and join in with alternative versions of sexological reality and citizenship. This is the classical normative subject, who "is" the multiplying choices that she/he is allowed and increasingly required to make.</p> <p>After Foucault's sovereign and disciplinary societies, according to Deleuze ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref82">6</reflink>]), we find ourselves in yet newer pedagogical narratives. These are stories of control, continual training (<emph>formation permanente</emph>), and continuous monitoring (<emph>contrôle continu</emph>). This takes us into the world of filters and moderators, in short, a world in which access is no longer a visible structure or a negotiated norm but an infrastructure, a network.</p> <p>Other than in the Deleuzean premonition, which keenly anticipated the mass Internet culture, a technocratic move beyond normativity also produces a need for ultrastructures in which pedagogical interventions are rendered invisible and unnegotiable. with the term <emph>ultrastructure</emph> I mean a mode of control which, unlike a norm, locates itself beyond the reach of dissent, beyond the realm opened up by its own discourse. Here, as exemplified in <emph>Questions children ask</emph>, access has become so pivotal that it is not the clear objective of an intergenerational struggel or an obvious moral dilemma (natural, shared by all), nor even precarious endeavor of navigating controlled thought uncontrollable networks (in the Deleuzean sense), but a problem already resolved in the pedagogical protocol. In <emph>Questions children ask</emph> all questions and all answers are already there; the consumer (the parent) has only to navigate the approved route. The pedagogical quagmires of access and stratification are rendered ultrastructural to the pedagogical format. The protocol, in fact, solves these problems, rather than propagandizing an imperative and philosophy of embattlement. To clarify, with an ultrastructuralist pedagogy of sex we pass beyond the post-normative cyberspace in which the choice of access means mobility and in which stratification and surveillance are subject to the possibility of sabotage or hacking.</p> <p>With ultrastructuralism we have a protocol which negates the very option of access and mobility and which drains both pedagogical and student agency. This is a paradigm that can be found not only in a number of sex education books, but in the entirety of the 1990s therapeutic cult of age-appropriateness, especially in the USA, which invests heavily in chronometric age (Chudacoff, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>]) and in "developmental" stages rather than the earlier medico-hygienist desiderata of regulation, firmness, and discipline (Turmel, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref84">47</reflink>]). That is to say, a prime focus of critical "youth sexuality studies" should be a critical approach to its historical entanglement in clinical and psychotherapeutic praxis. The pedagogical link should be obvious: a therapy culture of sex requires continual, mandatory, and preemptive teaching of "age-appropriate," "healthy," "green light," and "OK" sexualities, and the "unteaching" of others. In short, it requires an ongoing pedagogical fiat and elaboration. The radical moment, I suggest, occurs where the pedagogue ceases to be an extension of this bulwark, and where sshe/he operates amidst the uncertainties, contingencies, and dilemmas that curricula simply do not solve, and industries of truth simply do not allow.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>Conventional anthropological models of the restriction of visual access to the sexual do not solve the issue of strategic deployment of the graphic. It is here, however, that visual/spatial aspects of sex education materials are of interest to discourse analysts and critical pedagogues. In this paper I have analysed these strategies in three European sex education works. As to the status of pictures, we go from explicitly centralized objective (<emph>Zeig Mal!</emph>), to narrative accomplice (<emph>Vies is Lekker</emph>), to non-offensive ornament (<emph>Questions children ask</emph>). However, in the last work the spatial orchestration of binaries effects a highly determined structuring of the way in which information is navigated, a way that de facto marginalizes the question of access, rendering it pedagogically invisible and "resolved." Insofar as sex education amounts to a dialectic of the four discussed paradigms of power (sovereign power, discipline, control, and ultrastructural confinement), the last paradigm may well prove the most detrimental for a praxis of critical sex pedagogy. To recap, ultrastructuralism avoids the pedagogical task of reminding a subject of its class membership, repressions, and deprivations. It also avoids the pedagogical task of negotiating an ethnic of normal performance, subjectivity, choice, and "taking care of the self." It even avoids the pedagogical task of mentoring "browsers," "hackers," and critical "users," in terms of their navigation skills and mobility.</p> <hd id="AN0022909450-15">Notes</hd> <ref id="AN0022909450-16"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref26" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> 1. <emph>State Child Pornography Statutes</emph>. National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) document, current as of April, 2004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> 2. The results await further processing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> 3. I have used contemporaneous Dutch translations of the German and English first editions. There is no reason to suspect that the translations are graphically or textually different from the original editions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> 4. Child pornography. Hearing S.2856, before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session (1982, December 10).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref52" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> 5. This review mirrors the review in the <emph>Journal of Marriage and the Family</emph> (de Lissovoy, [7]) of <emph>The sex book</emph> (Goldstein, Haeberle & McBride, [14]), which also featured photos by Will McBride, in which the reviewer lamented the "out-of-context" (captionless) photos as "distasteful in a book purported to be oriented to the education of the young"; their choice and placement "do not necessarily contribute to any concept of logical information" and "may serve to defeat the manifest purpose of rational education." As did Liebermann, this reviewer, a later Professor Emeritus of Child Development and Family Relations, rejected what he construed as graphic excess, idiosyncracy and semantic contingency ("the eye of the beholder"), with the proposition of an exclusive "rational" instrumentalism, meaning a pictorial subjugation to textually accomplished "logic."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref53" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> 6. The photographer Will McBride is known for his youthful male nudes, with books like <emph>Boys</emph> (McBride, [28]) and <emph>Coming of age</emph> (McBride, [30]). The work followed an earlier educational work for high school students, <emph>Lexikon der Sexualität</emph> (Goldstein & McBride, [13]), and was followed by the less radical sequel <emph>Zeig Mal Mehr!</emph> (Herrath, Sielart, & McBride, 1989). While in Germany the distribution continued until a seventh edition in 1986, in American the 1975 edition was the last (Schneider, [42]). The photos were reproduced as miniatures in the retrospective <emph>I, Will McBride</emph> (McBride, [29]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref54" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> 7. Twenty are positive, as against three that are child-ambivalent and six (all articulated by seniors) that are negative.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref39" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> 8. The pictorial first part comprises 140 pages with centerfold photos and marginal text. The textual second part comprises only 32 illustrated pages.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> 9. Children are supposed to look at pictures, then, being "educated," parents verbally "explain" graphic details and technicalities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 10. Eleven explicit textual references in the first part deal with vision, a mere two with verbal statements.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 11. Elderly persons feature only in captioned photos.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 12. Older bodies enjoy more extensive coverage in the 1989 sequel.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 13. There are three cases of coverage precession: the chapter on dick precedes that on cunt, wanking precedes fingering, and condom precedes female contraceptives.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 14. However, examples would allow that 6 month and 1 year departures from the schema are acceptable. Age schemas are peculiar to American pedagogical discourse and in American sexual development research (see Janssen, 2003, II, pp. 622–623).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 15. I use the formula << <emph>x</emph> ↔ <emph>y</emph> >> to express spatially accomplished dichotomous relations between <emph>x</emph> and <emph>y</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0022909450-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Amendt, G.1970. Sex-Front, Frankfurt, , Germany: März Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barthes, R. (1981). Camera lucida: Reflections on photography(R. Howard, Trans.). New York: Hill & Wang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beyer, Ch. E., Ogletree, R. J., Ritzel, D. O., Drolet, J. C., Gilbert, Sh. L. and Brown, D.1996. Gender representation in illustrations, text, and topic areas in sexuality education curricula. Journal of School Health, 66(10): 361–364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cruikshank, B. (2004, October). Neopolitics: Policy decentralization and governmentality. Paper presented at the conference Professionals Between Policy and People, Amsterdam/Utrecht, The Netherlands 7–8 October.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chudacoff, H. P.1989. How old are you? Age consciousness in American culture, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deleuze, G. (1990). Negotiations: 1972–1990. (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press..</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Lissovoy, V.1972. Book review: The sex book. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34(2): 385–387.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Escobar-Chaves, S. L., Tortolero, S. R., Markham, Ch. M., Low, B. J., Eitel, P. and Thickstun, P.2005. Executive summary. Pediatrics, 116: 297–300.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Esman, A.1978. The primal scene: A review and a reconstruction. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 28: 49–81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M.1976. Histoire de la sexualité, Vol. 1, New York: Vintage Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foucault, M. (1999). Les Anormaux. Cours au Collège de France, 1974–1975 (F. Ewald & A. Fontana, Eds.). Paris: Gallimard/Seuil.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagnon, J. G.1977. Human sexualities, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, M. and McBride, W.1970. Lexikon der Sexualität, Wuppertal, , Germany: Jugenddienst.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, M., Haeberle, E. J. and McBride, W.1971. The Sex Book: A Modern Pictorial Encyclopedia, New York: Herder & Herder.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haeberle, E. J.1978. Sex atlas, New York: Seabury Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, L. and Hillier, L.1999. What should be the "subject" of sex education?. Discourse, 20(2): 279–288.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartlaub, M. G. and Dreznick, M. T.2001. Human sexuality textbooks: A critical look at the visual presentation of sexually explicit material. Teaching of Psychology, 28(3): 219–221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herrath, F., Sielart, U. and McBride, W.1988. Zeig Mal Mehr! Eiu Bilder- und Aufklärungsbuch uüber Sexualität, Weinheim: Beltz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irvine, J. M.2000. Doing it with words: Discourse and the sex education culture wars. Critical Inquiry, 27(1): 58–76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, S. and Gee, S.2005. 'Look Janet', 'No you look John': Constructions of gender in early school reader illustrations across 50 years. Gender & Education, 17(2): 115–128.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobi, P., Kriedemann, H., Maier, L. and Peters, I. 1974. Sexfibel, Opladen, , Germany: Leske Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssen, D. F. (2003). Growing up sexually, Vol. I., World reference atlas, Vol. II, The sexual curriculum. Victoria Park, , Australia: Books Reborn.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssen, D. F. (2005, May). Current western problems of 'taught' and propaedeutic sexualities. Paper presented at the Cultural Aspects of Sex/Sexuality Education Conference, Institute of Education, University of London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janssen, D. F. (Forthcoming). Sex as development: Curriculum, pedagogy and critical inquiry. Pedagogy, Culture & Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, R.1996. Sexual dissonances: Or the 'impossibility' of sexuality education. Curriculum Studies, 4(2): 163–189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liebermann, E. J.1975. Show me!. SIECUS Report, 4(1): 6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Low, J. and Sherrard, P.1999. Portrayal of women in sexuality and marriage and family textbooks: A content analysis of photographs from the 1970s to the 1990s. Sex Roles, 40(3): 309–318.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, W.1987. Boys, München, , Germany: Verlag C. J. Bucher.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, W.1997. I, Will McBride, Köln, , Germany: Könemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, W.1999. Coming of age, New York: Aperture Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, W. and Fleischhauer-Hardt, H.1974. Zeig Mal!, Wuppertal: Jugend Dienst Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Middleton, S.1998. Disciplining sexuality: Foucault, life histories, and education, New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Money, J. & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1996). Man & woman, boy & girl. London: Aronson. (Original work published 1973).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monk, D.1998. Sex education and the problematization of teenage pregnancy: A genealogy of law and governance. Social & Legal Studies, 7(2): 239–259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newson, J. and Newson, E.1968. Four years old in an urban community, London: Allen & Unwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okami, P.1995. Childhood exposure to parental nudity, parent–child co-sleeping, and 'primal scenes': a review of clinical opinion and empirical evidence. Journal of Sex Research, 32(1): 51–64.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okami, P., Olmstead, R., Abramson, P. and Pendleton, L.1998. Early childhood exposure to parental nudity and scenes of parental sexuality ("primal scenes"): An 18-year longitudinal study of outcome. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(4): 361–384.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (2004, March 29). Teen who posted own photo charged with child porn</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollis, C. A.1986. Sensitive drawings of sexual activity in human sexuality textbooks: An analysis on communication and bias. Journal of Homosexuality, 13(1): 59–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas, A. M.2004. "Power and repression/repression and power: homosexuality in subversive picture books and conservative youth novels". In Sexual pedagogies: Sex education in Britain, Australia and America, 1879–2000, Edited by: Nelson, C. and Martin, M.113–134. New York: Palgrave.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiefenhövel, W.1982. "Kindliche Sexualität, Tabu und Schamgefühl bei "primitiven" Völkern". In Die Entwicklung der Kindlichen Sexualität, Edited by: Hellbrügge, Th.145–163. München, , Germany: Urban & Schwarzenberg.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, A.2003. Discussing privacy and sexual shame cross-culturally. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 31(2): 195–201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoppard, M.1997. Questions children ask and how to answer them, London: Dorling Kindersley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorogood, N.1992. Sex education as social control. Critical Public Health, 3(2): 43–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorogood, N.2000. Sex education as a disciplinary technique: policy and practice in England and Wales. Sexualities, 3(4): 425–438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tien, L.1994. Children's sexuality and the new information technology: A Foucaultian approach. Social & Legal Studies, 3(1): 121–147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turmel, A.2004. Towards a historical sociology of developmental thinking: The case of generation. Paedagogica Historica, 40(4): 419–434.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagener, J. R.1998. "The construction of the body through sex education discourse practices". In Foucault's challenge: Discourse, knowledge, and power in education, Edited by: Popkewitz, Th. S. and Brennan, M.144–169. New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, M. (2005). Possession of child pornography. Background Paper 2005/2, November. New South Wales, , Australia: Council for Civil Liberties.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whatley, M. H.1988. Photographic images of Blacks in sexuality texts. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(2): 137–155.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whatley, M. H.1992. Images of gays and lesbians in sexuality and health textbooks. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3/4): 197–211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willig, C.1999. "Discourse analysis and sex education". In Applied discourse analysis: Social and psychological interventions, Edited by: Willig, C.110–124. Buckingham, , UK: Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolffers, I.1979. Vies is lekker, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Diederik F. Janssen</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref84"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ831836
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Picturing Sex Education: Notes on the Politics of Visual Stratification
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Janssen%2C+Diederik+F%2E%22">Janssen, Diederik F.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Discourse%3A+Studies+in+the+Cultural+Politics+of+Education%22"><i>Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education</i></searchLink>. Dec 2006 27(4):495-514.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2006
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Education%22">Sex Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Stratification%22">Social Stratification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Organizations%22">Social Organizations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semiotics%22">Semiotics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Postmodernism%22">Postmodernism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Textbook+Evaluation%22">Textbook Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Evaluation%22">Curriculum Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Aids%22">Visual Aids</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pictorial+Stimuli%22">Pictorial Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Learning%22">Visual Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Politics+of+Education%22">Politics of Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Netherlands%22">Netherlands</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/01596300600988762
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0159-6306
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper addresses the scarcity of research on depictions and layout in sex education materials. It is argued that pictures and layout can inform an analysis of social stratification based on visual access. This process of social organization is located using four theoretical models. However these models do not lend themselves to a close reading of graphical strategies. To illustrate how pictures operate, three European works are subjected to a comparative semiotic analysis: "Zeig Mal!" (Germany, 1974), "Vies is lekker" (Holland, 1979), and "Questions children ask and how to answer them" (UK, 1997). It is concluded that the works examined inform three pedagogical paradigms of sex education: liberationism, post-structuralism, and stratificationism. These paradigms are discussed in relation to three known paradigms of analysing power (sovereign power, discipline, and control) and a newly discussed paradigm of ultrastructural confinement. (Contains 15 notes.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 53
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ831836
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ831836
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/01596300600988762
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 495
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sex Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Stratification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Organizations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semiotics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Postmodernism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Textbook Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Aids
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pictorial Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Politics of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Netherlands
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Picturing Sex Education: Notes on the Politics of Visual Stratification
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Janssen, Diederik F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2006
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0159-6306
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1