This lesson demonstrates how to use a simulated real-world task in order to teach a grammar principle, and simultaneously build communicative and cultural competence.
Sex education has had mainly two discourses: paternalism and liberalism. Both of these discourses focus on what to avoid in sexual activity, but this is not why people engage in sex. Furthermore, these discourses mention that one should... more
Sex education has had mainly two discourses: paternalism and liberalism. Both of these discourses focus on what to avoid in sexual activity, but this is not why people engage in sex. Furthermore, these discourses mention that one should not engage in sex until “one is ready” but this is quickly set aside, and the focus moves on what to avoid in sexuality. These discourses have set up norms where engaging in sexual activity is only valuable in the context of a certain model (usually within a heterosexual monogamous marriage). This thereby makes both the paternalistic and liberal models limited. I argue that by using Foucault’s hermeneutics of the subject and his notion of what it means to take care of the self will open up discourses where students can “empower” themselves and form a relationship with themselves, and to see themselves as sexual subjects. Part of taking care of the self means to take care of others: the practices are not done by oneself, but through an engagement with others where these practices become principles of action. I investigate the discourses of paternalism and liberalism and show their limitations by showing their norms in sex education. I then investigate what Foucault means by taking care of the self along with parrhesia–which means truth-telling in a courageous and honest way where risk is involved. Finally, I apply care of the self in sex education. By using new discourses, these will elicit new questions and engage the students as sexual subjects. I will use three practices: (1) discourse of erotics, which would open up new discourses and allows certain questions and expressions to be discussed and thinkable; (2) repairing the self after emotional harm or oppression in a sexual context. A “repair” would still be learning how to take care of the self as the foundational point in order to “move beyond” the destruction of the self; and (3) new modes of relationships, which would allow different forms of sexual expressions and practices as part of what it means to be a sexual subject. With these practices, one can be “free” by undergoing techniques of the self and exercising parrhesia.
Traditionally, love has been seen as searching for one’s “other half.” We are determined to find our soul mate and if we do not find one, we are deemed “less than human” or not truly living up to our potential humanity. In society, the... more
Traditionally, love has been seen as searching for one’s “other half.” We are determined to find our soul mate and if we do not find one, we are deemed “less than human” or not truly living up to our potential humanity. In society, the fusion of lovers is permeated through our culture. The main reply against this is Sartre but he still falls under the rubric of the fusion model. Luce Irigaray is a philosopher that stands against the fusion model altogether. She will point out the mistakes that both the tradition and Sartre have fallen into and what they have been assuming. For both sides, they are assuming that love can only happen (1) under a unification of the individuals, (2) if the individuals are equal, and (3) under a pre-existing framework of having a family. In the end, Irigaray will conclude that love as a unification is possible, but one would not want that anyways because it just leads into Sartrean sadomasochism. In fact, one would not want love qua union at all. Genuine love for Irigaray means that the lovers must be different, and with that, I will bring in her concept of sexual difference and what it could mean for society if everyone followed the rubric of sexual difference.
