Examining the heteropatriarchy: Canadian and American male teachers’ perspectives of sexual minority curriculum

Abstract

This study was concerned with an examination of the heteropatriarchy as it was performed by six self-identified heterosexual male English teachers and two high school administrators in the United States and Canada. These educators explained their efforts regarding their own thinking about identity and curriculum and their attempts to teach a sexual minority curriculum. Queer theory provided the lens for the research when considering pedagogical approaches that addressed differing identities, in general, and sexuality, in particular. Data were produced through individual teacher interviews, classroom observations, written reflections, and school curriculum materials. Administrators were also interviewed regarding school policies and curriculum expectations. These data were collected and analyzed using phenomenological methods, ethnographic techniques, case studies, and biographic life histories between 2006 and 2012 academic years. Participants were included in the meaning making of the documentation process through collaborative interrogation of their interview transcripts. The value of this research lies in its potential to consider pedagogical methods for addressing sexual minority curriculum in the secondary education English classroom in relationship to teacher identity.

Keywords:

• teacher identity
• curriculum
• sexual minority students
• heteropatriarchy

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Wayne Martino (University of Western Ontario) and William Ayers (University of Illinois at Chicago) for reviewing and advising on previous drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. As I approached my research in this area, I wrestled with terms, concepts, and vocabulary when describing LGB, transgender, queer, and other sexual markers, constructs, and identifiers. The American Psychological Association (2013) notes, “no universal agreement exists on terminology, and … language and culture continually change”. I have settled on using the language, label, and identity of “sexual minority,” although this, too, has its limitations. While gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, celibate, androgynous, omnisexual, pansexual, queer, and/or other markers might be more specific, they are not necessarily more understandable or affirmed than the reference to “sexual minority.” Defining sexuality as part of identity is complicated because many presume that genital sexual contact with someone of the same sex means one is not just having homosexual sex, one is a homosexual. This identity, then, is often linked to a moral judgment about both homosexual acts and homosexual identities. In an attempt to recognize the intricacies, nuances, and details of labels regarding sexuality, I have chosen the overarching term “sexual minority.” I conclude that “sexual minority” can be considered more inclusive if only because of its vagueness and generality. It is a term that encompasses many identities, expressions, and behaviors and is used here to include any student who is not heterosexual.

2. My attempt with this study was not to homogenize heterosexual male teachers in either country. Despite studying heterosexual men in two separate North American countries, I found some parallels in both locales regarding their hesitancy to address sexual minority curricula in their classrooms, and I emphasize some similarities here. As a citizen of both countries, I acknowledge and recognize the disparate landscape of each region, and my intent is not to homogenize any setting, identity, and/or group of individuals, which would be a rather non-queer approach and attempt.