Abstract:
This thesis examines the philosophical frameworks which underpin current approaches to sexuality education, with particular regard to literature, policy and practice within New Zealand, and also the international (western) literature. It is proposed that most current approaches fit within a continuum ranging from techno-rational, through comprehensive, analytical, critical, to 'queer theory'/post-structuralist frameworks. It is suggested that all these frameworks fall within the 'Enlightenment' metaphysic, which takes as its starting point the autonomous, freely-choosing and (sometimes) rational individual engaged in a narrative of universal human progress and/or liberation. In the practice of sexuality education, Enlightenment philosophy results in favouring a reductionist 'naturalism', and discounts all spiritual convictions and traditions as necessarily private and optional. This thesis suggests that Enlightenment approaches to sexuality lack a prior and grounding conception of personhood, are unable to deliver 'shared understandings' and are unable to transmit strong conviction in shared ethical norms in a given society.
In contrast to the Enlightenment, two other frameworks are considered: communitarianism, and theism. Communitarianism is noted to be, in its academic expression, another form of enlightenment philosophy, while in its embodied form (real communities) it can transmit strong and shared convictions, but it tends towards an inward-focus and an 'encapsulation' of worldview.
Theism is the framework which is proposed as a credible and viable alternative to enlightenment and communitarian frameworks. A form of orthodox theism is described which rejects the modernity of most western, in particular, protestant forms of Christianity. The Trinitarian basis of personhood is described as the necessary prior grounds for understanding human relationships and sexuality within a theistic framework. Given the recent emphasis on 'holistic' approaches to health education in New Zealand, theism can be regarded as providing the basis for a holistic approach to sexuality education.
In rejecting enlightenment philosophy as a basis for discourse around sexuality education, this thesis does not intend to convince by means of rational argument; it simply sets out critiques of different approaches, and invites readers to consider a theistic framework and approach as potentially viable and valid.
