Conclusions to Forum 3: Homosexuality in Children’s Literature

Better late than never, I will try to round-up this year’s last forum. The issue, again, revolved around the topic of homosexuality. This time the topic was inserted in the context of children’s literature. The idea was to ponder about whether it is right or wrong to include such controversial issue in stories for children. After considering your very valuable interventions, I think it is possible to reduce the different opinions to two main stances:

1) The first one could encompass those opinions expressing or implying the idea that children are not mature enough to cope with the idea of homosexuality. In a way, this position implies that homosexuality may be ‘confusing’ for children.

2) The second position would include those opinions expressing that it would be good for children to be in contact with the idea of homosexuality, since in this way they would learn to take it as something natural.

Although both positions admit a tolerant view towards homosexuality, those people adhering to the second stance make it explicit that, for them, homosexuality shouldn’t be condemned as a sexual deviation. This is important since everyone in the forum bestows an educative purpose to children’s literature. In consequence, it seems logical that, for a person who sees homosexuality as something normal, the insertion of this topic did not represent a risk in the education of children. Perhaps, unconsciously or not, those adhering to the first position may feel that facing children to the idea of homosexuality may ‘confuse’ them. But this potential ‘confusion’ can only take place if we admit that there is something wrong in homosexuality. If homosexuality were normal, then, what sort of confusion could we think of?

In reality, it is not the issue of homosexuality that is problematic in this discussion, but children’s literature itself. If we take so much passion in discussing such an issue, this is because, in a way, we perceive that children’s literature is a medium for cultural and social instruction. In consequence, no matter how naïve we think stories for children are, they always convey ideology. Although hidden or in disguise, genre roles, class struggles, sexuality, race and a long list of controversial topics have always been part of children’s literature. Why do princesses always await passively for their prince to rescue them? Why should any romance end up in a marriage? Why do marriages mean a happy ending? Why do we usually read about royal families and not about servants? Why most heroes are white, tall and smart? When we analyse stories for children from a critical perspective, it is not so difficult to identify the values, beliefs and principles that they convey. Perhaps, the important conclusion we can extract from this debate is that children’s literature is never innocent or apolitical. In a way, what we consider right or wrong for our children is the reflection of the world we believe in. If we believe that there is nothing wrong about homosexuality, then we wouldn’t find any problem in reading our children a book containing homosexual characters. If we don’t agree in reading our children such a thing, then this might be because, overtly or not, we find homosexuality objectionable.

Conclusions to Forum 2: Schism in the Anglican Church?

I don’t know why both last forum discussions and some of our later class debates ended up revolving around the issue of homosexuality. Apparently, this seems to be a topic that involves deeply rooted feelings and beliefs, all of which seem to easily move people towards debate and confrontation. Taking into account the potential violence that underlies such emotional discussions, I’d like to begin by acknowledging the respectful tone in which all these debates were carried out so far.

Everything started with our second Forum, which was meant do discuss the possible schism in the Anglican Church. Although the key point was the ambiguous proximity between Anglicanism and Catholicism, what seemed to have caught most of the attention was the acceptance of homosexual bishops by the English church. Among the positions expressed in the forum, there were two clear visions that prevailed:

• On the one hand, it is possible to identify a tendency to consider homosexuality as contrary to the Scripts, and thus to understand that accepting homosexual priests is an unavoidable contradiction for any Christian creed. According to this view, homosexuals cannot be integrated within Christianism, but should build themselves their own set of religious values.
  

• The other point of view prevailing in this forum was that, although one may accept homosexuality within Christianism, it’s not possible to introduce this radical change within an established church without creating something new. According to this view, we cannot go on talking about Anglicanism if we accept homosexual priests. For this view, then, schism is logical and expectable.
  

It called my attention that no clear opinion acknowledged the possibility of institutional evolution. Even within such a traditional field like religion, a historical perspective can bring to light the existence of constant change and transformation. As we mentioned in our last L&C III class, the Catholic Church is perhaps the clearer example of this constant transformative inertia that no institution can avoid. We could mention the radical changes that this church underwent in relation to wealth, forgiveness, witchcraft, heresy, slavery, education and even the interpretation of the Bible. To anyone, it is clear that the church that promoted the Inquisition was based on principles and beliefs that radically differ from those hold by the current Catholic Church. But this which is clear for the Roman church because of its long history and tremendously huge institutional apparatus is also clear for any religious institution provided that we look closely at their historical development.

This third point of view is a historical one, which in a way opposes to both views defended in the forum, since it acknowledges that religions can change, sometimes even radically, without necessarily turning into something new or without necessarily finding a problem in opposing to what they had been in the past. This is called evolution. Since religious institutions are at the same time social institutions, it seems logical that they evolve and adjust their values and principles to the changes and the evolution of the societies in which they are immersed.

FORUM 3: Homosexuality in Children's Literature

In one of Néstor's comments to Vanesa's post (here), he wondered about the inclusion of such topics as homosexuality in children's literature. This issue is in a way also connected to our second forum discussion, the one about homosexuality, the Anglican church and the risk of a schism (here).

I though it would be interesting to share opinions on this issue. Do you think it right that literature for children cover this controversial topics?

FORUM: Schism in the Anglican Church?

Some months ago, the Anglican Church’s announcement that they would allow women as bishops brought voices of a new schism in this church (the allowance of gay bishops had already begun this crisis in 2003). Interestingly enough is the fact that those priests threatening with leaving the Anglican Church would go to –and be gladly welcome by- the Catholic Church, from which Anglicanism split almost 500 years ago. 

We would like to hear your opinion about all this. Why do you think the allowance of female and gay bishops can bring about so much annoyance? Why would discontented Anglicans join Catholicism?

Here are a few articles on this topic that you can browse if you want to:

On gay bishops: here and here.

On female bishops: here and here.