I'm moving towards reading books (that have been long sitting in my collection, in dire need of reading!!!). Since the length of these books is rather hefty compared to the other articles I've read, I'll be doing this by chapters, and not by the entire book (I'd have to be mad for that!). I'm also moving to a more informal style, since these posts double as my note-keeping even moreso than my state reviews, and I don't want to hassle with formal writing on these too much (-:
Pallota-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
First chapter: 'Messing up the school sex filing cabinet': Introducing the Research. Pp. 1-27
Though, like most introductory chapters, there's a lot glanced over very quickly, it's easy to see this book will have some valuable nuggets of information in helping to review the state laws. Of key interest are:
1) The idea that helping polyamorous families is 'pro-family', though this seems somewhat contingent on the actual number of poly families out there.(pg. 11)
2) One of the interview quotes that is used identifies the lack of accessibility to polyamory & bisexuality in the broader culture. I'm hoping to (and expect to) see more on this later in the book. (pp. 22-3)
3) How the 'public sphere' is created, and [my thoughts] how policy influences the level of silence and openness allowed in such public spaces, as well as the broader impacts of that silence and openness. This really connects to an earlier interview quote as well: "You do adultery and affairs on earth but not honest polyamory." (pg. 23 for concept, pg 11 for quote).
4) I absolutely love the 'pass, border, pollute' model used here. I ran into it earlier in the Understanding Nonomongamies collection, but somehow it really hit home this time around that these three models could plug in very nicely to the levels of exposure I keep hinting about in my state reviews. (pg 26)
5) More of a for-the-future note, but the idea of passionate sociology is very appealing to me, both personally and as a persuasive/rhetorical method for making normative arguments in a policy spectrum. Consider that this kind of dialog is used in politics already, imagine the effect if it's backed by actual research instead of political dogma? Ok, granted I'm getting overly politicking here, but it's a legitimate concern for actual social change, how does one move from solid research to social change? passionate sociology strikes me as having a built-in mechanism to provide the impact necessary to convince people of the importance of the subject. (pp. 19-25)
Of particular interest to me are points 3 and 4, as I can see the strongest connections between those issues and the policy that I'm studying, both for the present and the future.
Until next chapter!