Paper short abstract:

What happens when the ambiguity of health policy engenders a politics of interpretation at local levels? How do we navigate such ambiguity? This paper addresses these questions by critiquing the contested place of ‘religion’ in debates surrounding the teaching of sexuality education in the UK.

Paper long abstract:

This paper is concerned with how the ambiguity of health policy engenders a politics of interpretation among intended beneficiaries, which anthropologists are tasked with navigating in methods, analysis and ethical positioning. It does so by taking the case of sexuality education, which is viewed by UNICEF as a cornerstone of promoting sexual wellbeing in adolescence and across the lifecourse.

In the UK, statutory guidance around the teaching of Relationships & Sex Education (RSE), including LGBT content, has provoked claims of ‘religious opposition’ among parents, activists and educators. Statutory guidance itself demonstrates how health policy engenders the potential for conflict with the category of religion, by noting that ‘the religious background of all pupils must be taken into account when planning teaching.’ The paper draws on interviews conducted with educators, activists, parents and youths from Orthodox Jewish and Muslim neighbourhoods, as well as observing debates in public fora, to illustrate how interpretations of health policy provoke conflicting ways of framing and deploying ‘religion’ vis-à-vis RSE and LGBT content.

Conducting ethnographic research and interviews on a comparative and multi-local level basis illustrates how the category of ‘religious opposition’ is itself situated. Whereas parents, activists and educators in Orthodox Jewish and Muslim neighbourhoods tended to view RSE and LGBT content as a challenge to ‘religious’ rights and freedoms, adolescents viewed comprehensive and inclusive curricula as a right in itself. Anthropological methods reveal how health policy produces, maintains and reinforces a discourse of ‘opposition’ that is best understood as a politics of interpretation.