Sex, death and consensual education

Christina Aguilera as a schoolgirl in a Skechers ad.

I’ve finished reading Instead of Education, one of John Holt’s influential tomes about unschooling and home schooling. As soon as I started typing my notes into the thesis wiki, I had to make a Vagina deja vu category to keep track of all the concepts I recognized from studying women’s sexuality and reproduction over at All About My Vagina. The root of all the deja vu seems to be one single thing, and it’s one of my favourite things, too! It’s consent.

John Holt spends a lot of Instead of Education making the point that compulsory education is, by nature, oppressive and unethical. (The book is a bona fide manifesto! ‘Students, you have nothing to lose but your chains’… the whole deal. I liked it.) My favourite quotes on this topic are in the wiki:

This seemed vaguely familiar, but I couldn’t put my finger on why until, about a hundred pages in, Holt started writing about teacher-learner relationships. He insists that because these relationships involve one person assuming a position of authority and power (the teacher), teaching relationships need to be temporary, well defined, and free to leave. Maybe I’m the only person who hears that and thinks immediately of BDSM, but I think it’s a really useful parallel!

There is a huge amount of sex writing about boundaries, relationships, temporary roles, domination and, above all, consent. I think what John Holt was after was consensual education. When he talks about the impossibility of consensual education within the framework of compulsory schooling, he sounds exactly like lesbian feminists who believe hetero sex is automatically oppressive within a patriarchal society. It’s about consent, and the circumstances under which it is possible.

My favourite discussion of consensual sex is The Ethical Slut‘s characterization of consent as an active collaboration for the benefit, well-being and pleasure of all persons concerned. An ‘active collaboration’ is exactly the kind of learning John Holt promoted. E.g.,

Like a few children I know in the U.S., [unschooled children from Ny Lilleskole in Denmark] are probably much more able than most of their [conventional] schoolmates (who can only submit or resist it) to make use of [conventional] school, to get from it at least some of the things they want for their own reasons.

It makes perfect sense that a freedom loving gal such as myself would want all relationships to be consensual, but I’d never thought of teaching as a relationship. I started to wonder what other situations I might enjoy more by examining the relationships involved and finding ways to make them consensual.

I think this definitely applies to self-defense (I had trouble making sense of it until I realized that being attacked is a relationship, not a situation). Cooperation and competition in business is another one.

Mainly though, I think this might be a good way to think about dying and death. There are obvious hot topics about death and consent (euthanasia, living wills, etc), but I wonder what could be gained by trying to have a consensual relationship with Death itself. It clearly has terms of engagement; maybe I could come up with my own set of terms and we could collaborate.

Comments

Hi!

Doesn’t consent imply choice? What happens if you don’t give consent? If consent is not necessary, then is consent relevant here? Isn’t this an example of false agency?

Perhaps I am thinking about engagement in a different way than you, but it seems to me that when death is engaged, there are no choices available that will change the outcome, and consent is not required. The relationship proceeds regardless. There may be emotional resolution in response to a recognition of engagement with death, but this is different than consent for engagement.

You can’t just tell the pirate not to come aboard, right?

Yes, yes, all these things! This is definitely in the “fantasy role playing” stage of engaging with death, to see which things would be possible in reality and which things wouldn’t.

I guess I’m wondering if thinking about consent can be useful even in non-consensual relationships… In the self-defense example, obviously an attacker and defender don’t have a consensual relationship, but it was still useful to consider ways to contribute to the outcome of the attack (e.g., is this about attacker-defender, attacker-victim, or something else?). If being attacked was out of my control, the outcome of the fight was still up for grabs. Even if dying is a given, a good way to find out what is still up for grabs might be to decide to take responsibility for contributing.

Or considering those Danish kids in the John Holt quote, who did unschooling for awhile and then had to go to a compulsory high school: They had no choice about going to school, but because they had experience with consensual education they were able to make some use of the situation. They weren’t consenting to be educated, since they didn’t have a choice, but they could make some efforts to turn the situation towards their own goals. They had ideas about what they would consent to, given the chance.

But yes, definitely, nobody should be held responsible for, e.g., being boarded by pirates! It is good to find these disclaimers.

I guess what I should be researching is ways to deal with non-consensual situations.

Also, are you Jen like The Hawk? Hi! Unlaunched website!

Certainly! I am Jen (Hawk)!

Hi!

These are all interesting topics! Fun to think about!

I’m making you a button that says “Certainly! I am Jen (Hawk)!”

That’s way better than “Hello my name is…”






There’s more.