Foucault taught to Y12. I need some help please

[Thatsinteresting]

I have received an email from school that Y12 will be looking at Foucault's theories on Power. This in itself isn't a huge issue but the video they have been sent to watch does say that he also wrote about sex and sexuality. The teacher always signs off he/him and so I'm wondering if he is subtly trying to introduce queer theory. I know that Foucault was a child rapist who wanted to remove the age of consent but I'm wondering if I should say something to school and if so what?

They would agree that their ideas were contingent. But not that it was a linear staged process that ‘started’ with Plato.

AlisonDonut it seems many posters are too caught up in the idea of philosophy to spot the big red flag dropped right over this.

To be fair, if you want to excise all thought produced by men who displayed predatory or exploitative behaviour towards women and children, there won't be much left in the Western history of ideas...

Is there a teacher subscribing to a harmful ideology proposing to offer drop in sessions to promote those thoughts too?

What is ‘need’? I’d have thought it cool at that age.

I don't think Shortshrift was arguing their point - though I think your assessment of her point is inaccurate- she was stating a fact - you can't assess their claims without knowing what came before.

It feels to me like cancelling….things like renaming Hume tower at Edinburgh and Gladstone Hall at Liverpool are being demanded by people influenced by Foucault’s ideas.

Him being cancelled in turn seems ironic? Fair?

It is not ‘a cancelling’ to not promote a paedophiles views to school children in school.

Sounds like the school know it is somewhat dodgy, hence the email. I think most parents would wonder why they are being emailed about this topic if the email doesn't explain the concern properly. I wouldn't per se have an issue with a teenager in Y12 learning about sex and sexuality, or indeed those a bit younger, but I had personally just about heard of Foucault, but not the abuse.

The reason Mengele has had no long term influence in medicine and human biology is because, following the war, scientists universally made the principled decision to never use his findings.
He discovered an incredible amount about human functioning - imagine the experiments you could do, the data collected, the knowledge resulting if you didn't have any ethical qualms at all.
He was an evil man, his methods were evil, so even though his work produced knowledge that may have proved lifesaving - and none of those experiments will ever be repeated - we don't know anything as a result of Mengele's research by principled choice.
I'm not sure I agree, but I can certainly see the parallel @WarmingClothesontheRadiator was drawing: earth shattering social scientific insights not withstanding, maybe the right thing to do is ignore Foucault.

@Thatsinteresting my reaction to the detail about it being a lunch time drop in class is, run a mile.

This "brain isn't fully formed until 25" rubbish really has to stop. It's up there with "we only use 10% of our brains" for evidence-free pseudo-science.

Awe, but it's so useful to reduce prison numbers in the male estate when men, as a class, are at the height of their criminality.

It’s the very peak of progressive brain rot for me. One could quite reasonably use that theory to conclude that this is therefore the group that ought to be incarcerated more, for everyone’s protection while those brains settle down – but no, that wouldn’t allow us to show how compassionate we are, so back onto the streets they go.

What are you talking about?

This thread is about whether it is ok to teach a certain philosopher’s ideas to sixteen year olds.

I’m talking about the reduction in criminal penalties for under-25s, which was referred to in the post I quoted and replied to.

Hint: if you read the post and the quote, and click on ‘show quote history’, then you won’t get caught out like that again.

I didn’t refer to sentencing guidelines at all.

My consideration re: under 25s was gender transition and recommendations made for the under 25s in the Cass Review.

Fair enough, mea culpa. That’s what led me to start wittering on anyway.

“The brain” no, but the PFC does continue to develop into the third decade. No need to link this to anything else

To see Queer theory as it can unfold, this thread is worth reading:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5229814-5229814-an-abuser-hiding-in-plain-sight-theatre-director-turned-out-to-be-a-paedophile?latest=1

I doubt they will be talking about queer theory.
His seminal work is around power and control and submission to control in troubled times. The pandemic provides a very good case study for his ideas around power as does the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.
Teachers are very aware that they have to be careful what they teach and what they say in classrooms.
The only thing that might be worth asking is which part of the national curriculum is being taught with Foucault.

All of the brain continues to make new connections throughout your life. When you are young more connections are made in a shorter space of time. But the brain does not reach an age where it becomes sentient and unchanging.

Teachers are very aware that they have to be careful what they teach and what they say in classrooms.

Hence this teacher who subscribes to queer theory doing this as a lunch time drop in club where he feels has more freedom to say what he likes…

And who has already sent out a notification that the man in question also talks about sex and sexuality hoping that one student asks a question and then that legitimises a discussion.

Honestly, schools used to be trained in seeing this behaviour as a red flag, and now they are so committed to the pronoun people they cannot even see this for what it is. This is textbook behaviour of a certain section of society which we are not allowed to flag up any more otherwise we will be banned from here.