Our Social Identity

Who the state tells us we are

A warning - this post is written largely tentatively. It does not suggest anything constructive or desires to. This post considers how the State through its institutions - namely the school - manages the 'truth'. I was feeling rather troubled after reading what happened to Otto Fong. I thought, why does a school care whether a teacher is gay? To me, if the purpose of a school is "education" , whether a teacher is gay or not, is insignificant.

It should be insignificant for colleagues, for parents, for the Christian right, and for the conservative majority. 1 + 1 does not make a difference if the teacher is gay. Nor will evolution become less plausible than intelligent design (Considering the number of creationists today, this should be a might). But, of course, there are those who have problems with gay teachers. There are those who might say that by Otto Fong coming out, he was trying to spread homosexual values. And some say that is really bad for an educator because he is in the position of authority.

If it was indeed possible to have and transmit "homosexual" values, who constructs these values? The argument that one's identity (especially sexual identities) can be associated with certain values have to be critically examined. Yet, more importantly, who says what values "homosexuals" have? Who controls what make up those values? Who determines what identities represent what values (I am a Buddhist and therefore I am good?)? What kind of values do heterosexual males have? Will it be better if the teacher was a gay Christian? Who determines them? It is bad science to think that "homosexual" lifestyles can be "transmitted", but more than that, to suggests "homosexuals" values are somewhat contrary to education, I think, is insulting.

In Singapore, while we have an overarching quasi-secular constitution, the idea that certain identities have certain "values" are taught in our schools. The MOE has deemed that "homosexuality does not offer a complete, natural life experience, because the human physique is not designed for homosexual intercourse. Moreover a person cannot conceive through homosexual intercourse." (Sex Education Package, See Alex Au's article for a full critique). There have been also various suggestions in the media by rather important people that somehow "homosexual" values are not good for schools. In other words, there are two implicit assertions here. First : that there is such a thing as "homosexual "values, and second: that those 'values' are not 'good'. The Ministry judges its teachers, and have the ability to punish, reward, evaluate and classify. Like a teacher who has a power to send a child out of his classroom by his position of power and his ability to enforce what are reasonable explanations, MOE can set the standards and apply them. In other words, the relationship here is not one of superior logic or reason, but of power. The power to punish, reward, evaluate and classify 'homosexuality'. A gay man, however, cannot. He cannot speak of his own values in schools. No. The MOE can. In other words, the standard bearer of truth is power. The attempts to argue "reasonableness" with the MOE is very idealistic.

Instrumental reasons have also been given why it was not unreasonable for MOE to ask/pressurise Otto Fong to take down the letter. From this perspective, Otto Fong coming out has upset too many people, there has been too much attention and this thing is probably not good for the kids etc. It has caused too much controversy, some whisper. From this perspective, when an individual joins an institution like a school and becomes part of a group, control becomes possible. As an individual, Otto Fong can be gay, can say he is gay. From that kind of logic, as a teacher, he cannot. At least not under present circumstances. He now serves other purposes. Institutional purposes. It may be that many teachers are willing to serve and sacrifice for those institutional purposes. And Otto Fong might so have chosen. A survivalist-pragmatic mindset advocate in like vein might argue that our social cohesion is so threatened that if there is so much controversy - it will split society apart, and that is why gays who are within institutions should not be allowed to tell others who they are. While one might argue that calls to violence and racism should be prohibited for such survivalist reasons, this argument can simply be flipped around to say that Singapore must learn how to tolerate gays because to survive - we must learn how to be tolerant - when there is no harm done and we must encourage 'creativity'. I have sympathy for survivalist arguments but I cannot believe it applies to gays. To label gays as "dangerous" individuals requires bad science. And if one accepts the science that gays are born that way, and grow up that way, boys growing gay already confused by being different should require support. Especially from institutions. But what is education?

If education, and that is a big IF, is about the "Truth" as scientifically/liberally determined, then it can be seen as unreasonable to ask Otto Fong to bring down the letter. It can be seen as censorship. It can be seen as false. It depends where you come from. But what kind of truth should education be concerned about? That is a question that has yet to be answered. What kind of truth was MOE concerned about? In other words, even from the argument that individuals can be seen as means to an ends, the ability to choose what determines which standard to judge the ambit of an individual's rights is a matter of power.