User:Wiki Editor J98/sandbox

How can we understand the challenges/backlash of Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) in Ghana?
“While we recognize that there are people with these abnormal sexual orientations and request that they be treated and helped, we oppose very strongly any CSE that teaches the acceptance of LGBTQ and same sex marriages as normal” communique from Catholic Bishops of Ghana (Ghanaian Times, 2019)

In 2019 the Ghanaian Government announced the launch of a new Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) policy with the slogan Our right, Our lives, Our future; a program designed to both widen and improve Sexual Reproductive Health (SRH) education in schools (Dorine, 2021). The former quote displays the opposition shown towards this policy decision by the Ghanian Bishops during their annual conference on national issues (Ghanaian Times, 2019). This statement is just a snippet of the backlash seen around the country, which resulted in the policy being publicly repealed by the President. However, whilst considered controversial, SRH is not new to Ghana, it has been incorporated within its curriculum since at least 1967 (Dorine, 2021). The question, therefore, is what makes CSE so controversial within Ghana that it can foster such backlash? This essay uses both a contemporary study of CSE plus a historical analysis of Ghana and SRH to answer this. By first studying how CSE is understood this essay opens the perspective of the critics. Looking back at the British colonial presence within Ghanaian history will then be crucial to further show how understandings of sexuality have been established. In doing so it will demonstrate how attitudes on genders and sexual norms were changed through European influence. The essay concludes not by giving a solution for implementing a successful CSE program but by providing an understanding of why pushing this type of program in Ghana may face backlash. Through understanding Ghanaian history and its relationship with Europe and ‘the west’, it is reasonably believed that European influence has not only altered Ghanian ideas of sexuality, so that they may be opposed to the more liberal ideas that are associated with CSE; but also, it has created increased resistance to further influence from ‘the west’, due to a history of imposition and oppression regarding its local customs.

CSE? Tell me more
To understand the backlash towards CSE, the term itself must first be understood. According to the official United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) definition given out in their International technical guidance on sex education, CSE is explained as: ''“a curriculum-based process of teaching and learning about the cognitive, emotional, physical and social aspects of sexuality. It aims to equip children and young people with knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that will empower them to: realize their health, well-being and dignity; develop respectful social and sexual relationships; consider how their choices affect their own well-being and that of others; and, understand and ensure the protection of their rights throughout their lives.”'' (UNESCO, 2018, page number needed).

This description in part is helpful as it highlights how CSE aims to be comprehensive by taking on multiple realms of sexuality education. However, whilst useful, the starting point for understanding why CSE receives such backlash is to recognise that this is not the only description, a major fault is that the concept seems to have no agreed-upon definition (Miedema, et al, 2020, p.750). This is significant as it provides a fast route for the backlash to grow, as opponents of CSE are gifted the tools of ignorance and choice. When critics pronounce CSE as pushing a certain agenda, fewer individuals have a complete understanding of the concept to challenge them. Furthermore, the fluidity of definitions provides a pick and choose attitude regarding debates on the subject, this was evident within Ghana during the 2019 controversy.

To highlight the power of terminology, this section analyses the different interpretations of CSE, understanding how they have fostered controversy. The predominantly visible backlash has tended to be around CSE’s focus on gender and sexuality rights. During the controversy, the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA) defined CSE in its simplest terms as ‘a rights-based and gender focussed approach to sexuality education’(Awusabo-Asare et al., 2017, p.7). These terms have seen CSE critics determining this to mean a focus on gender and sexuality rights, particularly Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) rights. As such, the definition has forged a concern of European imposition, as opposers to CSE claim that the policy aims to promote and force ‘western’ gender ideologies which go against their own nation’s cultural norms and values (Miedema, et al, 2020, p.751). Some groups have even gone as far as to claim that CSE aims to “indoctrinate the Ghanaian youth into same-sex sexual practices” (Asante and Hanchey, 2021, p.216). Similar critiques are applied to alternative descriptions which focus on other areas of CSE, for instance, points on intimacy and sex-positivity, as they argue it is an attempt to sexualise children (Miedema, et al, 2020, p.753). Of course, a major fault of these criticisms is that they ignore the various extra layers of CSE, however, by recognising that CSE can take on various descriptions it can be understood how backlash can become hyper fixated on certain areas. Regarding the critiques themselves, it is easy to simply associate them with conservative/homophobic attitudes, however, this essay chooses to delve further and understand how these attitudes have developed. To do this, a historical analysis of Ghana’s relationship with the west and sexualities is explored.

“You don’t like CSE! How come?” - The development of Ghanaian Sexual Attitudes
The development of Ghanian attitudes regarding sexualities goes beyond the conversation of sex but towards gendered identities as well. Colonialism is shown to have had a major impact on these attitudes, going far and deep beyond just structural-developmental changes but cultural as well. Exploring the relationship between power, culture and gender within this period, shows how ideas imposed ideas about sexuality and gender altered the norms and values in Ghana, leading to the attitudes seen today by the critics of CSE. The development of masculinities provides an interesting starting point, as CSE critics tend to be predominantly male. Within colonial Ghana, “there were multiple notions of masculinity” (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003). The Akan societies of Ghana perceived at least three, firstly the “adult masculinity signified by marriage”, where the man was expected to care for his wife, clothe, feed, farm for her and house her (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.90). Secondly, there is senior masculinity, “reflected in the figure of an elder” (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.90). This is a point which was not dependent upon age, wealth or his number of wives, but on “a person’s comportment, reputation, and ability to speak well, mediating conflicts and providing advice”, particularly within his own “abusua (matrilineage)” (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.90). The concept of the abusua is important to identify as it placed not the family conceived in marriage as central but instead, the maternal line, as a man “would be succeeded by a nephew (or niece)” (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.90). Finally, there is that of the Big Man, reserved for that of a successful trader, cocoa farmer or official with the ability and expectation to share his wealth (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.90). The significance of understanding the diversity of identities within the male gender is to highlight the impact of colonialism, particularly the arrival of Christian missions and how they altered these perceptions in Ghanaian culture. Missionaries, such as most colonial institutions, arrived within colonies with a self-ascribed moral superiority, taking a central role in assisting with the Imperial “civilising mission” (Ashford, 2021, p.96). Through taking responsibility for running most schools within colonial Ghana, they acted as a hotpot for the reproduction of British cultural norms and values. (Ashford, 2021, p. 96). The altering of Ghanian male masculinities occurred through the enrolment of young boys into their mission schools, shaping them into new masculine identities to what existed within local culture: “monogamous husbands who showed primary allegiance to wife and children and secondarily to their abusua” (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.90). Through the transition, gendered dynamics within society became altered; men were pushed into what became male-dominated colonial institutions, i.e., scouting, police and civil service, whilst women were pressured into fulfilling domestic roles for their husbands (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.90-92). Further gendered divisions were formed through the importing of British Law, particularly regarding marriage, which transformed the identity of the married women in law from being the “wives to husbands to being wives of husbands” (Hawkins, 2002). The change demonstrates how colonialism forged and imposed the patriarchal masculinity of Imperial British society in Ghana, which places men as primary breadwinners whilst women are considered subservient domestic wives. The impact of such is seen as contributory to the attitudes seen within contemporary Ghana today regarding sexuality, however, more significantly, it highlights the power of missionary schools.

Returning to the actions of Christian missionaries is highly important as they are one of, if not the primary, actors in the development of SRH in Ghana. One of the most predominant types of missions was the Presbyterian group, formed out of the Basel missionaries (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.91). A brief analysis of the values they imposed allows a greater understanding of contemporary Ghanaian culture. Firstly, however, it is necessary to address how these institutions validated their claim to moral superiority. Edward Said’s (2003) Orientalism helps explain this by stating how “European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient” (Said, 2003, p.3). The same premise applied within the African continent. Within a society where cultural ‘customs’ allowed polygamy and didn’t prioritise the monogamous patriarchal family structure, Britain, and particularly its Christian missionaries allowed themselves to feel superior and saw to civilise the groups which they saw as ‘backwards’ (Ashford, 2021). As already established, missions were at the heart of the ‘civilising mission’ running the majority of schools during the colonial period (Ashford, 2021, p. 96). In addition to the gendered stereotypes which were shown to be enforced, the teaching went further to discuss sexualities. However, the result of these discussions was to solidify the minimal extent to which sexuality was to be accepted within society, that is to be within the boundaries of monogamous marriage; the premise of pre-marital or extramarital sexual relations was forbidden and highly frowned upon (Lindsay and Miescher, 2003, p.98). Regarding ideas on homosexuality within Ghana, it is unfortunately hard to find much information, however, it can be obtained that anything outside of the heteronormative monogamous marriage was deemed unacceptable. Ultimately, these values became ingrained within the institutions and society, remaining as one of the most prominent pieces of colonial residue to survive the decolonisation of Ghana. Understanding the former provides clarity on the cultural norms and values which are shown within contemporary Ghana, particularly by critics of CSE. However, for greater insight, it requires moving the analysis toward independent Ghana where SRH first gained prominence.

The British are gone, what now? How SRH developed in Independent Ghana
Interestingly, it was Protestant Churches within Ghana that were first to push for sexuality education for young people, particularly for girls and young women (Ashford, 2021, p.91). The push came in the late 1950s, during the switch to independence in 1957, and their commitment to the cause was shown through the creation of the first Christian Council family planning clinic in 1961 (Ashford, 2021, p.91). However, the premise in which sex education entered schools and society indeed sets the tone for how SRH can be understood in Ghana and why CSE is opposed. The plea for sex education was not for the promotion of providing safe and consensual sex for sexually curious teenagers, but instead, it stood “with the explicit goal of moulding monogamous, Christian citizens for the new nation” (Ashford, 2021, p.93). Ironically, the Christian council’s push for sexuality education was a by-product itself of the apparent negatives of colonialism, which were said to be the ‘detribalisation’ of African women and the ‘revolutionising of their morals’ (Ashford, 2021, p.96). ‘Urbanisation’ and changes in the economy were apparently to blame for increased promiscuity, therefore sexuality education for young women was presented as an important tool to ensure that they maintained good Christian values and stayed committed to the institution of marriage, a way of controlling female sexualities (Ashford. 2021, p.96). Additionally, sexuality education was directed toward young adults and newlyweds, as Christian groups conveyed the need to persuade people that “childless marriages were ‘not necessarily failures”, promoting a childless monogamous marriage as better than straying from the Christian path (Ashford, 2021, p.98). The overwhelming characteristics of most of the actions taken during the decolonisation period display an active effort to secure the image of the monogamous Christian marriage within the national character of Ghana. It seems that the consequence of the early colonial imposition of norms and values within Ghana through Christian Missions set the standard for morality within society. As ideas of promiscuity were entering the nation from ‘the west’ through magazines, films and other mass media, the need to protect the morality of youth through the “correct” sexuality education became a priority in nation-building (Ashford, 2021, p.99).

Since its first implementation, SRH has taken significant steps and is now an established part of the Ghanaian curriculum. However, whilst teachers are required to teach it, the extent to which they do demonstrates how the old norms and values are a continued barrier to Sexuality Education in schools. Understanding the challenges that CSE faces within Ghanian classrooms today is the final piece for understanding the historical roots of CSE backlash. The starting point is recognising that CSE is not universally undesirable, indeed, young Ghanaians have shown an active desire for the teaching of a full CSE in schools (Awusabo-Asare et al., 2017, p.43). However, it is generally due to the attitudes and temperament of teachers that their education is limited (Awusabo-Asare et al., 2017, p.43). The extent to which CSE/SRH exists within education is not as a separate subject but instead as integrated information (Keogh et al., 2018, p.5). Whilst the benefit of this integration is that it allows sex education to overlap with different aspects of life, it has created an environment where teachers who are either untrained in SRH or disagree with the values can skip the content (Keogh et al., 2018, p.5). Furthermore, sexuality education predominantly finds itself intertwined within elective or non-examinable modules, meaning the loss of learning has no direct impact on students’ educational careers (Keogh et al., 2018, p.6). Furthermore, “the most comprehensive range of CSE topics, is an elective which is taken mostly by girls, evidencing an enduring perception among some Ministry of Education (MoE) officials that CSE is more relevant to girls” (Keogh et al., 2018, p.6). This last point demonstrates that the gendered perceptions of sexuality education have continued from those seen at the beginning of independence.

Attitudes show the focus is still on instilling the values of monogamous Christian marriage within young people, particularly females who were seen as more morally corrupt. Evidence of this is displayed in how “Eighty-six percent of heads and 94–96% of teachers believed that males and females should remain virgins until marriage, and nearly all believed that sexual relationships should only be between men and women” (Awusabo-Asare et al., 2017, p.43). Despite Sexuality Education now being more focussed on the health and medical side, providing safe sex through contraceptives, the old values have created a barrier to this learning. Contraceptives, whilst having been proven helpful in combatting negative SRH outcomes, are considered a cause of further promiscuity (Awusabo-Asare et al., 2017, p.44). Furthermore, ideas supporting abortion are still considered by around a third of heads and teachers to be unacceptable and unfaithful (Awusabo-Asare et al., 2017, p.44). The nature of these critiques regarding SRH/CSE in Ghanaian education shows a profound similarity to the morals imposed through British Colonialism. It is therefore evident that the cultural shift which happened during the British Colonisation of Ghana had a lasting impact which has continued into contemporary Ghana today, explaining the backlash of CSE.

What has been learnt?

CSE/sexuality education is clearly a subject that is still controversial within Ghana and the primary reason is due to the strong conservative Christian values which dominate society. It is understood that CSE creates a fear of the imposition of western ideologies, particularly regarding LGBTQ rights. However, within this, female rights are also to be considered of concern, as Ghana emits strong patriarchal values which centre on controlling female sexualities. Whilst repression of gender and sexualities rights are not to be accepted and celebrated, an analysis of Ghanian history shows they can at least be understood. Evidence shows that most norms and values regarding sexuality and gender within contemporary Ghana are a by-product of European imposition and cultural domination through British colonialism. The desire of imperial Britain to claim moral superiority and cultural hegemony had a direct impact on the cultural growth of Ghanaian society, pushing it down a path of conservative Christianity. The backlash regarding CSE is therefore understood as a direct result of the destruction of local Ghanaian customs and the impositions of British Christian norms and values. In terms of implementing CSE within Ghana in the future, this knowledge needs to be both considered and publicly expressed so that Ghanaians can reclaim their cultural agency and construct a CSE program that works best for them, whilst addressing the former challenges.