Sexual subjects: some methodological problems in researching sexuality in schools by Debbie Epstein Paper for AARE Conference November 1993 (draft paper: please do not quote without authorÕs permission) School of Sociology University of Central England Perry Barr Birmingham B42 2SU 021 331 5532 Abstract Many sociologists and psychologists use schools as a primary source of subjects for research into children/young people. This paper argues that we can make no generalizations from Ôschool studentÕ to Ôyoung personÕ, since the categories ÔpupilÕ and ÔstudentÕ are discursively produced within the specific context of the school. Following from this argument, the paper will explore the specific difficulties of researching questions of sexuality within the school context. Sexuality is both unspeakable and all pervasive within schools. It is, therefore, virtually impossible for students to talk about sexuality without positioning themselves as oppositional. While it is clearly important to research the sexual cultures of schools and the ways in which students negotiate sexuality education, we need to be clear about exactly what is and what is not possible in the school context. ÿSexual subjects 1 Alistair:1 [I]n ... this discussion group, we were talking about when we came out [and] I kind of gave this coming out story and then we talked a bit and someone else said something and I remembered that I could have an earlier version of that coming out story and in fact I had about, I donÕt know, I canÕt count them, IÕve got several, but I kind of divided myself up into little bits, and at school I was one thing and with one sexuality and another thing with different groups of friends and at home I was completely different .... Sebastian: You present different masks to the world, different worlds. I mean, itÕs difficult because in a sense you never stop playing a role. ... (Group discussion: December 1992) Tim: I donÕt think itÕs really possible to generalise, itÕs not even possible to speak about an individual, because their reactions may be different in different contexts ... (Interview2: September 1992) Introduction3 Lesbians and gay men, such as those quoted above, are often more than usually aware of the differences in their personae and, indeed, identities in different contexts. In this paper, I shall be arguing that these differences also exist amongst heterosexuals and that this must be taken into account in the research process. In particular, I shall be arguing that being a school pupil/student is a discursively produced subject position which is not the same as being some sort of generic ÔchildÕ or Ôyoung personÕ and that this throws into question the commonly accepted processes by which researchers investigate pupils/students and then generalise their findings as if they were equally applicable in all situations in which young people live. Certainly, schooling takes up a great deal of time for young people between the ages of (in the UK) five and sixteen and, therefore, constitutes an important part of their lives.4 Furthermore, many significant relationships which are made within the school context are continued outside that context and vice versa. The ways in which pupils/students are positioned and position themselves within the school both shapes and is shaped by the way their lives are constructed outside the school context. Nevertheless, it seems unsatisfactory to take findings from within the school context and generalise them as if they would be exactly the same had the research been carried out in any other context. In other words, what I am arguing is that the kinds of observations which researchers can make and the answers which they can obtain from interviews or questionnaires conducted on school students within the school context cannot be taken, unproblematically to refer to the lives of those respondents outside the school context. Questions asked and answered while in school may receive very different treatment if asked and answered in the context of, for example, a youth club, a disco, a street corner or a night-club. Similarly, observation of behaviours and practices will reveal differences according to the specific contexts in which they are made. Research on childrenÕs language Researchers investigating cognitive development often draw conclusions from young childrenÕs use of language, frequently in the school context. Thus, for example, Donaldson (1978) infers that young children are not aware of metalinguistic features of the language from their failure to ask questions about the meanings of words when being told stories by teachers. However, as Sealey points out: Nevertheless, it is not a new observation to say that young children use language differently in the home and in the school (and that the language of the home is often richer and more varied than the language of the school). Tizard and Hughes, for example, have pointed out that: The children responded to the differences in these two settings by behaving differently themselves. They tended to answer the staffÕs questions briefly, or not at all. They rarely asked the staff questions of their own, or made the kind of spontaneous remarks that keep a conversation going. (1984: 236) However, observations like these have rarely been used to raise methodological questions about research in schools. One exception is Sealey (1993). SealeyÕs research was concerned with investigating Ôwhat young children know about language and its role in social relationshipsÕ (ms: 1) and her paper discusses the methodological questions that arose during the course of her research, which included both participant observation in schools and the analysis of journals of childrenÕs use of language kept by their mothers. She concludes that: Traditional research has tended to focus on the individual child as a consistent being with essential characteristics, while Ôdiscourse analysisÕ in schools has described how teachers structure ÔofficialÕ classroom talk. A shortcoming of both these stances in school-based research is the failure to analyse less obviously apparent aspects of the effects of discourse. Questions remain, for example, about not only the extent to which classroom discourses limit the individualsÕ ÔrightsÕ to more than their prescribed share of linguistic interaction with the teacher, but also the limitations they place on what children are able to be while in the classroom (ms. 17, emphasis added). This paper is specifically concerned with the limitations which discourses of schooling place on what children-as-pupils (young people-as-students) can say and do in the particular context of talking about sex and sexuality with a researcher in school. Research on sexuality Research on sexuality in general has become a leading issue in contemporary social sciences (see, for example, Connell and Dowsett 1992; Duberman et al 1989; Fuss 1991; George 1993; Plummer 1992; Weeks 1991). Sociological research which focuses specifically on young people in relation to sexuality has been somewhat thinner on the ground. This is, perhaps, surprising, given the common sense presumption that adolescence is a time of burgeoning sexual awareness and desire (especially in young men/boys) and the moral panic surrounding AIDS. Early work in the field is to be found in Lees (1986) McRobbie and Nava (1984) and the ground-breaking work by Lorraine Trenchard and Hugh Warren with young lesbians and gay men (Trenchard 1984; Trenchard and Warren 1984). More recently the Women, Risk and AIDS Project have produced a number of booklets on young women and sexuality in relation to AIDS (for example, Holland et al. 1990a; Holland et al. 1990b; Holland et al. 1991; Thomson and Scott 1991). The WRAP researchers used questionnaire data from 500 young women followed by 150 in-depth interviews to explore the Ôsexual relationships, beliefs and practices of purposive samples of young women in London and ManchesterÕ (Holland et al. 1990b: 26). However, they do not reveal how they found their sample or where they carried out their interviews. This mean that, although their material is interesting, it is not possible to analyse their work in the light of the particular contexts of the research. Sue Lees (1993) has recently updated her work on sexuality and adolescent girls. Lees carried out the research for both her books in London schools. Lees describes her book as concerned with four core debates about adolescence: the concept of socialization; the inappropriateness of regarding girlsÕ adolescence as being about the development of autonomy; the view that gender is either irrelevant or that the differences between girls and boys are biologically determined; and the often ignored relations of power between women/girls and men/boys (1993: 13). The book represents an attempt to take the debate forward in these four areas in ways which demand a complex and contextualised analysis. It is at its strongest when discussing girlsÕ strategies of resistance and the power relations between girls and boys. However, she is less successful in her discussion of adolescent masculinity, which she sees as much less problematic and contradictory for boys than femininity is for girls. This leads her to make some major generalisations about both boys and girls. For example, she suggests that: Being academically successful [at school] involves taking on, in so far as they are permitted to, attributes that are considered to be masculine. This can only be achieved at some cost, by behaving in an ÔasexualÕ way. (ibid.: 16) However, this depends rather on the context in which the girl finds herself. The view that being successful academically and the concomitant necessity of behaving in an ÔasexualÕ way, for example, may well be obviated by attending a single sex school (see, also, Deem 1984). Furthermore, the girl herself might not see behaving ÔasexuallyÕ at school or with school friends as a cost. In some cases, academic success and being seen as a ÔswotÕ may well have achieving perceived ÔasexualityÕ as an intended consequence. For example, a young lesbian who is not ÔoutÕ at school but attends a lesbian and gay youth group may choose academic success to avoid the compulsory nature of heterosexuality within the school. Equally, some young women who have experienced sexual abuse may choose the academic route in an attempt to avoid being seen as a sex object. The point here is that a full and multi-layered interpretation of the responses of research subjects needs full contextualisation, which takes account of the specificities of the context of research as well as of more general variables like gender, race or class.5 Producing the subject It is, by now, an accepted part of post-structuralist and post- modern thinking that the notion of the unitary, non-contradictory subject which has characterised post-Enlightenment thought, is one which lacks explanatory power (see, for example, Henriques et al 1984). Foucault (1978) suggested that subject positions are produced through discourse and discursive practices and others have followed him, and drawn on, in particular, Lacanian psychoanalysis, to explore the fragmented nature of identity and subjectivity (see, for example, Epstein 1993; Henriques et al 1984; Rutherford 1990; Walkerdine 1990). Briefly, the argument is that subjectivity is historically and locationally specific, and that identity is constructed in relation to particular discursive practices. For Foucault, for example, ÔhomosexualÕ identities have been produced in relation to discourses of heterosexuality (1978). Thus both the dominant and oppositional ways of ÔbeingÕ, both discourse and counter-discourse, relate back to the dominant or hegemonic. Henriques et al. (1984: 117) argue that: ves, consumers, workers of one kind or another, etc. Ð must refer to the specificities of the different practices in order to describe the different subject positions and the different power relations played out in them. It cannot simply speak of a specific subjectÕs behaviour and attitudes ore ascribe in advance the subjectÕs position according to class or gender. In this model for understanding subjectivity, it is important to note that the production of subject positions is on-going and never fully achieved (see, also, Davies 1989). Moreover, subject positions held by the same person can be contradictory. Heterosexual women, for example, may be both feminist and have psychic and social investments in relationships with men which they themselves perceive as unequal and/or problematic (see Hollway 1984 and 1987). Furthermore, subject positions shift and develop in relation to particular contexts and institutional practices. Producing the student/pupil as subject In researching young people in the school context, it is, therefore, important to understand the general features discursive practices of schooling in general and the micro- politics particular schools,6 as well as the discursive practices of the research process. The questions, here, are what the particular characteristics of schools are and how these affect the subject positions of children/young people-as-pupils and of researchers working in schools.7 For the purposes of this paper, I wish to focus on three aspects which characterise schools. Firstly, schools are structured around age relations of a particular kind; secondly, they are institutions within which discipline plays an important part; and, thirdly, schools are hierarchically organised, not only for the students, but also for adult workers within them. One of the most striking features of schools is that they are organised around relationships between adults-as-teachers and non-adults-as-pupils. This is so taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned in discussions about schooling. The model of childhoold which is constructed through schooling in Western industrial countries is one which centres on notions of the natural development of the child, through age-related progression. This is problematic in several ways, one of which is that it ignores and denies the active engagement of children and young adults with the formation of their own identities. Furthermore, it privileges discourses of cognitive development at the expense of other discourses which produce the child subject/object. The different stages of schooling provide a key site for this engagement. Identities are formed in school in relation to the formal curriculum and its categories, for example, the academic/vocational split, the arts/science division and the academic/ sporting polarity. They are also worked up from models and anti-models offered through every day life social intercourse within the school between teachers, ancillary staff and pupils, among teachers and among pupils. Teachers, daily formed by the routines, are by no means immune from these more informal processes either. We can, then, understand the school in terms of shifting and reciprocal relationships in which both teacher and pupil identities are formed. Depending on their particular domestic circumstances, schools mark, for many children, an entry into a world more public than that of the household or even of the peer group. Schools offer a very different social space for the work of identity formation than most domestic contexts. An early task for young children is to learn to be a pupil (e.g. Willes 1983), work which involves both learning the externally given rules and discovering their own relation to being a pupil or student. This also involves negotiating the differences and tensions between the expectations and preferred identities of home and school. The age relationships of schooling are relations of power in which adult judgements are, in general, decisive, whether through the authority of the individual teacher or through the school and its institutional supports. These powers, which are most strongly expressed through the formal and informal disciplinary processes of schools. Examples include the compulsion to attend school and the whole gamut of school rules. Schools have available to them a range of disciplinary procedures. Some of these are coercive, taking the form of various kinds of punishment from being Ôtold offÕ, through being kept in detention, to being excluded from school. Others are more informal and derive from the complex discursive practices of the school. Walkerdine (1984), for example, argues that schools are institutions of regulation which operate through practices of confession and surveillance to which both pupils and teachers are subject. We can see this particularly clearly in relation to the complex dress codes which exist in schools.8 Pupils are often required to wear school uniform9 and even where these are not required, it is likely that certain rules will exist which control their dress in what seem to be arbitrary ways. On the other hand, pupils will have their own dress codes, which require that they modify the uniform or, if no uniform is worn, conform to the requirements of their particular group.10 Often the two sets of requirements are in conflict, with the result that a great deal of energy may be spent by teachers in trying to control childrenÕs clothing. Teachers, too, are usually subject to dress codes. It would not be acceptable, for example, for a teacher to attend school in torn jeans,11 and a track suit may only be worn by physical education teachers. In the case of teachers, dress codes are both to do with controlling their sexuality and with making sure that they appear authoritative by virtue of the adult, and more or less formal, attire. While these dress codes are usually self- imposed, the structures of schools provide hierarchies in which coercion could be used if necessary. These hierarchies are formal, with head, deputy, senior and junior teachers, ancillary staff and pupils each occupying particular positions within them. They also emerge informally amongst both staff and pupils, in ways which depend on particular personal and micro-political contexts. All these characteristics affect what teachers, pupils and researchers can do or say in the context of the school. Whether they position themselves and are positioned as pro- or anti- school, pupils (and teachers) responses to researchers are made within the context of unequal power relations of age and hierarchy and of the disciplinary processes, formal and informal, of the particular school where the research takes place. It is therefore, important that these be explored in relation to research before any generalisations are or can be made about the area of research. Furthermore, in most cases the researcher will be closer in age to teachers than to pupils.12 Because of this age difference and because the researcherÕs role is clearly not that of pupil, the researcher is likely positioned by pupils as, in some senses at least, a teacher (see, also, Canaan 1990). Consequently, even though good rapport may be established with pupils, that rapport will be within the constraints of this positioning, just as a teacherÕs rapport with students is constrained by being a teacher. This will be the case no matter what the subject of research. In the case of research on sexuality the constraints are magnified because of the particular role which sexuality has in the life of the school. Sexuality and schools The common sense assumption that children are ÔinnocentÕ about sexual norms and relationships is very misleading. Yet prevailing notions of innocence in early childhood, in the context of child- as-pupil/adult-as-teacher power relations, nurture a certain ostensible desexualisation of schools as institutions. Paradoxically, sexual constructions are all-pervasive in the school context, while, at the same time, sexuality is specifically and vehemently excluded from the formal curriculum or confined to very specific and heavily guarded spaces. Sex education is a separate category, somewhat removed from the rest of the curriculum, and often devalued in relation to both vocational and academic subjects. In most cases, moreover, sex education is not about sexuality at all. It focuses on certain biological, procreative functions (and their ÔplumbingÕ) and on sex as danger; a constraint reinforced in the National Curriculum in the UK. In particular, as Redman (1994) argues, key issues of pleasure and desire, of sexual identities and sexuality as power, autonomy and dependence are usually present only as conspicuous absences.13 One of the problems which sexuality educators face in opening up ÔseriousÕ discussion about sexuality in PSE lessons is, precisely, the desexualization of schooling and the closeting of sexuality into this particular space. One consequence of this is that talking about sexuality, or sex, becomes either embarrassing or a form of oppositional student culture. This is also a problem in researching sexuality in schools. In our observation at ÔHeathlands SchoolÕ, for example, a lesson about different methods of contraception during which various devices were passed round, was one which most of the girls found both embarrassing and, in their words, ÔdisgustingÕ. On the other hand, the repertoire of overt sexualization as student resistance is immense, including: sexual jokes and Ôtalking dirtyÕ; the use of sexual categories such as ÔpoofÕ, ÔlezzieÕ or ÔslagÕ; the deliberate, but covert, sexualization of teachers and texts; the finding of double (and sexual) meanings in everything; fantasies about the famous; and gossip about the relationships, desirability and reputations of peers.14 Such cultural forms are not confined to the secondary school or the culture of older pupils. Sex play is well established from an early age, and finds expression both in pupil talk and ÔpretendÕ games. Even as young as six, however, children are often well aware that such play is transgressive within the school context (see Sealey 1993: 6-7). In this situation, it is not surprising that attempts to open up discussion about sexuality are often met with silence, giggles or Ômessing aboutÕ (see Redman 1994; Sanders and Burke 1994; Wolpe 1988). It is interesting that the common element between expressions of embarrassment and disgust and the Rabelaisian humour which pupils often use or generate is the emphatic release of emotion - which is precisely what is ruled out of order by the serious lesson and the general school context. This difficulty in engaging in serious and emotionally literate discussion about sexuality is not created only by teachers. Pupils also split off the informational work around Ôsexual problemsÕ from emotionally charged Ôsex talkÕ and classroom discussion from playground behaviours. Furthermore, in our society, sexuality is seen as the most private and aspect of the Ôinner selfÕ. According to Pattman (1991: unpublished), even within the Ôliberal sex education paradigmÕ it is unusual for teachers to refer to their own experience of sexuality, yet liberal methods prescribe that the studentsÕ own experience is, at least, a starting point. Equally, in researching sexuality, researchers are likely to be constrained in what they reveal about their own sexuality, even where they follow Oakley (1981) in being prepared to answer questions about themselves. These constraints are to do not only with the researchersÕ own willingness to be open, but also with the fact that, within the context of the school, and especially with a relatively unknown adult, there are some questions which young people simply cannot ask. Students are likely to resist such one-sided revelations. For example, at ÔHeathland SchoolÕ I observed one lesson on the subject of Ôlove, which was a follow- up to a lesson on ÔfriendshipÕ. The teacher, ÔLorna DixonÕ, in discussion about girlsÕ brainstorms on ÔloveÕ asked them about the difference between loving members of the family and loving one other person: LD: LetÕs be bold and talk about one-to-one relationships. How is that love different from love in the family? Asma: I feel itÕll be stronger. LD: Have any of you felt love for a boy or a man? Tracy: (nods) LD: Thanks for being honest. Why has this group put here Ôlove is a sexual relationshipÕ? Diana: You wouldnÕt have sex with someone you didnÕt love. Asma: Prostitutes do. Tracy: ItÕs a job to them - like youÕre a teacher. LD: LetÕs explore that Tracy: You can still have sex without loving someone. You might be pressured by your boyfriend. Tasneem: You could be raped. In this interchange, the girls distance themselves from the teacherÕs Ôpreferred honestyÕ. The only moment of overtly personal revelation is TracyÕs nod, and Lorna acknowledges that this is courageous (an acknowledgement which is a feature of her style). It is important to note, further, that Tracy consistently positioned herself as being anti-school. She saw herself as a rebel, who was able to shock other pupils and teachers alike by, for example, openly carrying condoms in her purse. Researching sexuality The difficulty of researching sexuality in the school context, then, is that sexuality pervades the school day and is present, in some form, in virtually every interaction (see, also, Kehily 1993). At the same time, and contradictorily, it is also virtually unspeakable without being oppositional to the school. Thus, when a researcher calls upon a pupil to talk about sexuality, this constitutes, in some ways, permission to the subject to position her or himself as part of the school counter- culture. This has clear implications for what can be understood from researching sexuality in schools. Firstly, it calls into question the typical scientific method of induction, where generalisations are made on the basis of particular situations. What happens in schools and the ways in which pupils behave there constitute an important part of their lives, both because of the amount of time spent in schools and because school life and life outside school cannot be held entirely separate, even where that may be desired in some cases.15 It is, therefore, worth researching sexuality in schools in order to develop clearer understandings of the ways in which schooling is experienced in relation to sexuality (and vice versa). Such understandings are, indeed, essential to developing the curriculum in ways which take account of pupilsÕ sexual cultures. Secondly, the complexity of researching sexuality in schools raises more general questions about the ways in which science typically isolates certain variables for research such as that on Ôgay genesÕ (Guardian, Saturday 17 July 1993; Observer, Sunday 18 July 1993). The point, here, is not that such science may be Ôbad scienceÕ, but that Ôscience-as-usualÕ works in this simplifying and reductionist way.16 The methodological problems of researching sexuality in schools, then, are both part of a more general methodological and epistemological point: that is, that the research subject is produced (and produces her/himself) in the context of the discursive practices of the institution within which the research takes place. Furthermore, in the case of sexuality, there are particular discursive practices in schools which make it difficult to research and impossible to generalise. My call, then, is for such research to be concerned with the multi-layered contexts of schooling and the particular contexts of the actual school(s) in which the research takes place. In this way, it should be possible to provide theoretical frameworks for understanding the particularities of individual schools and classes which can help teachers develop approaches to sexuality education which have some chance to relevance to the pupils they teach. NOTES REFERENCES Ball, S.J. (1987) The Micro-Politics of the School. London: Methuen Canaan, J.E. (1990) Individualizing Americans: the making of American suburban middle class teenagers. unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago Connell, R. W. and Dowsett, G. W. (1992) Rethinking Sex: Social Theory and Sexuality Research. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press Davies, B. (1989) Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales: preschool children and gender. Sydney: Allen and Unwin Duberman, M., Vicinus, M. and Chauncey G., Jr. (eds.) Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past. New York and London: Meridian/Penguin Epstein, D. (1993) Changing Classroom Cultures: anti-racism, politics and schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books Epstein, D. (ed.) (1994: in press) Challenging Lesbian and Gay Inequalities in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press Epstein, D. and Johnson, R. (1994: in press) ÔOn the straight and the narrow: the heterosexual presumption, homophobia and schoolsÕ in: Epstein, D. (ed.) Challenging Lesbian and Gay Inequalities in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press Foucault, M. (1977) (trans. Sheridan, A.) Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. London: Penguin Foucault, M. (1978) (trans. Hurley, R.) The History of Sexuality: Volume 1: an introduction. London: Penguin Fuss, D. (ed.) (1991) Inside/out: lesbian theories, gay theories. New York and London: Routledge George, S. (1993) Women and Bisexuality. London: Scarlet Press Harding, S. (1991) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from womenÕs lives. Milton Keynes: Open University Press Henriques, J., Hollway W., Urwin, C. Venn C. and Walkerdine V. (1984) Changing the Subject: psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen Hollway, W. (1984) ÔGender differences and the production of subjectivityÕ: in Henriques, J., Hollway W., Urwin, C. Venn C. and Walkerdine V. Changing the Subject: psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Methuen Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C. and Scott, S. (1990a) Sex, Risk and Danger: AIDS education policy and young womenÕs sexuality. WRAP Paper 1. London: Tufnell Press. Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Scott, S., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (1990b) ÔDonÕt die of ignoranceÕ - I nearly died of embarrassmentÕ: condoms in context. WRAP Paper 2. London: Tufnell Press Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Scott, S., Sharpe, S. and Thomson, R. (1991) Pressure, Resistance, Empowerment: young women and the negotiation of safer sex. WRAP Paper 6. London: Tufnell Press Kehily, M. (1993) ÔTales We Heard in School: sexuality and symbolic boundaries. unpublished M.Soc.Sci. dissertation: University of Birmingham Lees, S. (1983) Losing Out: adolescent girls and sexuality. London: Verso Lees, S. (1993) Sugar and Spice: sexuality and adolescent girls. London: Penguin Pattman, R. (1991: unpublished ) ÔSex Education and the Liberal ParadigmÕ, PhD research, Department of Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham Plummer, K. (ed.) (1992) Modern Homosexualities: fragments of lesbian and gay experience. London and New York: Routledge Redman, P. (1994: in press) ÔShifting ground: rethinking sexuality educationÕ in Epstein, D. (ed.) Challenging Lesbian and Gay Inequalities in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press Rutherford, J. (ed.) (1990) Identity: community, culture, difference. London: Lawrence and Wishart Sanders, S. and Burke, H. (1994: in press) ÔAre you a lesbian, Miss?Õ in Epstein, D. (ed.) Challenging Lesbian and Gay Inequalities in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press Sealey, A. (1993) ÔMaking up stories: the constraints of discourse in research with childrenÕ, paper given at British Sociological Association annual conference, April 1993 Steinberg, D. L. (1993) ÔPure CultureÕ; a feminist analysis of IVF ethos and innovation. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Birmingham Thomson, R. and Scott, S. (1991) Learning About Sex: young women and the social construction of sexual identity. WRAP Paper 4. London: Tufnell Press Trenchard, L. (1984) Talking About Young Lesbians, London: London Gay Teenage Group. Trenchard, L. and Warren, H. (1984) ÔSomething To Tell YouÕ: the experiences and needs of young lesbians and gay men in London. London: London Gay Teenage Group. Tizard, B. and M. Hughes (1984) Young Children Learning: talking and thinking at home and school. London: Fontana Walkerdine, V. (1990) Schoolgirl Fictions. London: Verso Warren, H. (1984) Talking about School. London: London Gay Teenage Group Weeks, J. (1991) Against Nature: essays on history, sexuality and identity. London: Rivers Oram Press Willes, M. (1983) Children into Pupils: a study of language in early schooling. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1I would like to thank Alistair Chisholm for organising and leading this group discussion among three gay students. Throughout this paper, names have been changed unless the person speaking has specifically said that they wish their own names to be used. 2This extract is taken from one of a series of interviews during 1992 and 93 with lesbian and gay teachers and students about their experiences within the English education system. I would like to thank all these teachers for participating in my research on sexuality and education, and the schools where I was allowed to participate, observe and interview students and teachers. I have not used the actual name of the school mentioned in the article. Richard Johnson and Peter Redman have also been engaged in different parts of the project with me, and this paper arises, in part, from discussions with them during the course of the project. I would also like to thank Alistair Chisholm and Shruti Tanna, who did some of the interviews and organised some of the group discussions, and Mary Kehily and Anoop Nayak, who have worked with pupils in one of the schools investigated. (See Kehily 1993 for a report of their research. 3I would like to thank Deborah Lynn Steinberg and Peter Redman for their help in preparing this paper. 4About 40% of 16 to 18 year olds continue into some form of further education, either academic or vocational, in the UK. The ages for compulsory schooling differs from country to country, but the general point remains the same. 5These are the variables most commonly referred to in reports of research. Less frequently mentioned are disability, sexuality and other differences which make a difference to peopleÕs lived experience. 6The practical value of BallÕs concept can be seen in analyses of school change based on case studies (e.g. Epstein 1993) and in the application of the ideas of Michel Foucault on the Ômicro- physics of powerÕ to education (Ball 1991). 7This section of this paper draws heavily on my work with Richard Johnson, forthcoming in Epstein (1994) 8Dress codes are, significantly, often about controlling pupilsÕ expressions of sexuality. See Epstein and Johnson (1994) for further discussion of this point. 9This is particularly the case in the United Kingdom, where the wearing of uniform is absolutely standard in secondary schools and common in primary schools. In other countries, school uniform is less frequently required, but dress codes are ususally still enforced. 10See Canaan (1990) for a discussion of the ways in which young peopleÕs production of oppositional dress codes reproduces the disciplinary discourses of schools in profound ways relating to demands for conformity. 11The Australian soap, Home and Away, has, more than once, featured a story line about teachersÕ dress codes, which a young, ÔradicalÕ (but not too radical) teacher has appeared at school in clothes considered to be too informal by the head. 12In my own research project, one of the researchers was a 3rd year undergraduate on placement for a year and her relationship to the pupils was noticeably different to my own and that of the other researcher, Peter Redman. 13See Epstein and Johnson (1994) for a fuller discussion of this point. 14For elaborated examples of mythic sexual tales in school, see Kehily 1993 . 15Young lesbians and gay men, for example, often try to keep their life outside of school entirely separate from their life in school. 16See, also, Harding (1991) and Steinberg (1993)