[Pat Rasmu1]
VIVE LA RESISTANCE:
REVOLUTIONS IN THE CYCLE OF POWER AND KNOWLEDGE
By
M. PARK
Integrated Studies Project
submitted to Dr. P. Rasmussen
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts – Integrated Studies
Athabasca, Alberta
August, 2011
Abstract
This paper is an exploration of teacher-student relationships, specifically regarding power relations and resistance and how they affect student-teacher relationships and their construction of knowledge and truth. Although the paper makes connections to various theories and public teaching practices, the primary data was based on my teaching journals. I felt that this combination of the personal and public made the paper suitable for an autoethnographic format that tries to straddle the line between private and public. The paper makes extensive reference to the theories of Foucault, Bruner, and Freire and weaves them together with insights drawn from a close reading of excerpts from my teaching journals to draw conclusions about the nature of power, resistance, teaching, and learning.
Acknowledgements
No work is ever done in a vacuum; behind every accomplishment, big or small, lies a vast network of those whose help, support, and guidance were essential, and this final project is no exception. I thank my parents who brought me into this world and gave me the support and freedom to pursue my dreams. I thank my friends for letting me blow off steam when the stress became immense. I thank my friend, R. R. for her encouragement and invaluable feedback, both in discussions and in her readings of the various stages of my paper. She is and she will always be my constant reader. Mostly, however, I thank my adviser Prof. Rasmussen for her timely wisdom and hands-off style of guidance which gave me the space and scaffolding to experiment and learn. I am especially grateful for having the opportunity to read her dissertation so that in true bi-directional fashion, her learning taught me to learn and to teach what my students learn and teach back to me. [Pat Rasmu2]
M. Park
Friday, July 22/2011
Table of Contents
Introduction to Excerpt Analyses...... p. 5
Excerpt Analyses...... p. 10
Lessons (Being) Learned...... p. 25
Implications for Pedagogy...... p. 34
Reflexions...... p. 41
Works Cited...... p. 47
Introduction to Excerpt Analyses[Pat Rasmu3]
The proceeding section, entitled Excerpt Analyses, was originally called Discourse Analyses because of its use of the methodology of discourse analysis to more closely examine excerpts from my tutoring journal. As with many concepts in the “history” of Western thought, the concept of discourse has been developed by many thinkers and participants, but one writer whose work on discourse stands out prominently is that of Michel Foucault.
In his seminal work on discourse, The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, Foucault (1972) defines discourse as statements that are "...linked not only to the situations that provoke it, and to the consequences that it gives rise to, but at the same time, and in accordance with a quite different modality, to the statements that precede and follow it" (p. 28). As Foucault elaborates in this and other texts, “the situations that provoke it [the statement connected to other statements called discourse]” are social, involving the many aspects of society, such as politics, economics, culture, education, etc. which prompts him to form the intimate relation between socio-economic relations [power] and the various groups of statements called discourses, which constitute knowledge: “Knowledge is produced, that is, constructed, through disciplines, which are themselves institutionally grounded bodies of discourse that constitute what can become objects of knowledge and who has authority to speak about them” (Irvine, 2011). Foucault states: “Power and knowledge directly imply one another...There are no power relations without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (Foucault, 1977b, p. 27)” (Gore, 1993, p. 54).
Although my tutoring journal may constitute a group of connected statements, since the statements of my tutoring journal record my “private thoughts”, the question may arise as to whether they can be counted as discourse, since discourse is comprised of a group of statements that are intimately connected to the socio-economic relations of power. In short, if my journals are private, can they be said to be affected by the “public face” of power relations?
An answer from post-structuralism would be yes, even if my journals are private, they are indeed influenced by the various power relations that comprise our society (by our society, I mean the Western, North American society of which Toronto, Canada, the city in which I live, is a part), for post-structuralism would argue that one cannot divide the private and the public; every individual is a product of the various power relations of her society. In fact, for Foucault, power produces individuals: “The individual is not to be conceived of as a sort of elementary nucleus...on which power comes to fasten...In fact, it is already one of the prime effects of power that certain bodies, certain gestures, certain discourses, certain desires, come to be identified and constituted as individuals (ibid. : 98)” (Mills, 1997, p. 22). In a Foucauldian post-structural world then, there is no division between the public sphere of politics and power relations and the private world of journaling and teaching: the two are joined at the hip. In fact, as Rasmussen (2004) cites in her dissertation, “Discourse theory suggests that as a teacher, my subjectivity is shaped by the very discourses that are available to me and how I use them (Weedon, 1987; Foucault, 1980, 1981)” (p. 59).
Since I myself as an individual and as a teacher/tutor have been/am being shaped by the various power relations and discourses available to me, my journaling, as an extension of myself is also a discourse. [N.B. a post-structural view of writing does not allow writing to become some neutral mode of expression of my “self”, but “unlike the humanist subject, the subject of post-structuralism (Butler, 1997; Davies, 1992; Foucault, 1982; Sawicki, 1991) is constantly in process and only exists as process; it is constituted, revised and (re)presented through language” (Rasmussen, 2004, p. 2)]. Thus, in analyzing the excerpts of my tutoring journal, I am analyzing discourse, which is why I have decided to exchange the generic term “discourse analysis” with the more specific “excerpt analyses”. [Pat Rasmu4]
But what does it mean to analyze my excerpts[Pat Rasmu5] as discourse? What is discourse analysis? According to Foucault (1972), “we must grasp the statement in the exact specificity of its occurrence; determine its conditions of existence, fix at least its limits, establish its correlations with with[Pat Rasmu6] other statements that may be connected with it, and show what other forms of statement it excludes...The question proper to such an analysis might be formulated in this way: 'what is this specific existence that emerges from what is said and nowhere else?'” (p. 28).
The answers to this question raised by Foucault are various which is why there are many ways to analyze discourse. As Rasmussen (2004) cites: “There are numerous ways to undertake a discourse analysis or discursive reading (Kamler, Comber, & Cooke, 1997)” (p. 58). As Graham (2005) points out, there are two well-known approaches to discourse analysis: “... Critical Discourse Analysis [CDA] which draws inferences from structural and linguistic features in texts and discourse analysis informed by...a poststructural sensibility which is born of a 'theorising that rests upon complexity, uncertainty and doubt and upon a reflexivity about its own production and its claims to knowledge about the social' (Ball, 1995: 269)” (p. 3). As she (2005) continues, “The difference between CDA and poststructural theoretical approaches (using Foucault, Derrida and Lyotard among others) to discourse analysis may be found in the characteristic eschewing of claims to objectivity and truth by those in the latter tradition” (p. 3).
As seen from the above definition, CDA is more formal and structured than the poststructural approach to analysis, and as such, CDA is more amenable to being packaged and distributed as a “system”, such as in the works of Gee. As someone new to discourse analysis, I was first drawn to CDA because its systematic organization made it easy to absorb as a product. However, I soon began to realize that its very systematic nature was antithetical to the post-structural theories that underlay my conceptions of power and knowledge in my project. Thus, I took my advisor's advice: “I encourage you to put aside Gee's work and trust your own methods to emerge” (Rasmussen, comment on my annotated bibliography April 4, 2011), and I embarked on formulating a uniquely post-structural approach to analysis.
However, as Graham (2005) points out, a conundrum for such a post-structural approach to discourse analysis is “....how can one remain open to poststructural 'undecidability' (Allan, 2004) without being accused of unsystematized speculation? If one does decide to 'operationalize' (Gore, 1997: 216) Foucault or (for the masochists among us) Derrida; how does one do this without systematizing the work of 'the anti‐[Pat Rasmu7]theorists of postmodernism' (Thomas, 1997: 80)?” (pp. 4-5). I call this the post-structural paradox: if one tries to be fully post-structural, then one fails to meet the standards of “scientific rigor”[Pat Rasmu8], but if one attempts to systemize discourse analysis to achieve such rigor, then one may fall victim to “rigor mortis”, where all the dynamic life of the analysis has dissipated.
Graham's (2005) solution was “...not that I dogmatically follow someone else’s model for doing discourse analysis but that I ground my work in careful scholarship and engage in a respectful conversation with Foucault; whilst looking to and building on the insights of others, all the while making what I am doing clear without prescribing a model that serves to discipline others" (p. 6). Similarly, as my advisor stated in the context of her own dissertation where she too undertook discourse, “The method of discourse analysis used here has emerged and evolved through various re-readings and re-writings of these innerlogues[Pat Rasmu9] and of the analysis. This method has been tailor-made by/for this project and it has not been imported from some other body of research practices” (Rasmussen, 2004, p.58).
Thus, I picked up bits and pieces from various post-structural writers/thinkers and in the manner of what Derrida (1978) calls a bricoleur (p. 285), I “cobbled” - to borrow a term from Rasmussen (2004, p. 208) - various post-structural insights into tools I could use to “open up a text”. Since these tools were a way to open up the discourse of my journal excerpts, I originally called them “keys” as in the keys to open doors, but while reading Mills' Discourse, I came upon a (seemingly) random tidbit. Mills (1997) begins her book on Foucauldian discourse with a dictionary definition of discourse and the very last definition was a reference to an archaic meaning of discourse as “to give forth” (music)” (p. 2). Immediately, I began to think of my “keys”[Pat Rasmu10] not only as keys to open doors, but also musical keys. In music, there is a further double meaning of keys: the obvious keys of a piano (which I play), as well as musical keys that determine the succession of notes that sound harmonious (eg. in the key of C major, all white keys of the piano are harmonious). Although there is the limitation of a “system” of notes, eg. all white keys in the key of C major, that is the only limitation; otherwise, one is free to bang away on any of the white keys to make music.
I thought that this was a perfect metaphor for what I was trying to attempt with my post-structural discourse analysis keys. These keys would not only define a loose “system” in which to play as one analyses discourse, but it would also be dynamic enough to allow for the freedom of post-structural play (jazz improvisation). Here, I use the word “play” in its double meaning of playing music and Derridean post-structural play of words. As Rasmussen (2004) states, “I use the word “play” to summon Derrida’s sense of play. Derrida (1986) insisted that all structures have some sort of centre. I think that oppositionary energy is a centre, and once a binary opposition is deconstructed, that centre ceases to hold the structure in place. Play becomes possible as the centre gives way. (Rasmussen, footnote, 56)
Finally, I ended up with a list of 20 such keys (the fact that there ended up being an even twenty is once again, the wonderful serendipitous nature of the research process). I began using these keys to “open up my journal excerpts” and allow for post-structural play. However, as I proceeded and my focus (aka thesis) on power relations between myself as teacher and my students became more clear in my analyses, I found that I no longer needed my keys to open things up[Pat Rasmu11]. The music was in me. I could improvise. Thus, even though my keys helped me to open up my can of worms, since I no longer needed them to scaffold my analyses, they do not constitute a major part of my project and I have thus not included them in the body of my essay.
Borrowing from Barthes (1973) who analyzed various texts by dividing them into “lexia” (p. 173), I also divided up my excerpts into segments that I individually analyze. As well, borrowing from my advisor's dissertation where she analyzes her autobiographies by referring to herself in the third person, Pat, in order to achieve “psychic distance” (Rasmussen, 2004, p. 53), I refer to myself in the third person as the author-function. This is taken from Foucault's (1979) essay What is an Author? where he observes that any discourse that has the author-function has a plurality of selves; e.g. the "I" of the author, the "I" of the narrator, the "I" of the character, etc. (p.205). Since the “I” of my tutoring practice and journaling is a multitude of selves (eg. The teacher self, the thinker self, the writer self, the joker self, etc.) that are ever-changing (this whole project is about change and growth), I refer to myself in my analysis as the “author-function” shortened to the “AF”.
Excerpt Analyses
Excerpt #1 from Journal Book I, entry dated Wednesday, Dec. 22/2010:
Today, I met with D.S. He's in Grade 8 and is my second youngest student. He's in the Gifted program and a little bit proud of that. However, he truly is gifted – whatever that means – perhaps a better term would be avid. He's an avid learner and knows many things. He's also an avid talker and likes to display his knowledge. In fact, his talking is a problem because he talks so much it's actually difficult for him to get down to work. I find that half the class goes by with him just talking.
I always like to begin my class with a bit of chit-chat to get the students at ease and to build a rapport with them. I think a good learning relationship, like a good working relationship, is based on a good emotional connection. Even if you're not the best of friends – and for a good working/learning relationship, friendship may even be detrimental - you still need to be at ease with each other as this opens up lines of communication that are so crucial to any relationship.
However, with most students, after the initial chit-chat, we get down to work, but with D.S., he doesn't stop the chit-chat. It's partially my fault, because he is widely-learned and presents his knowledge in an entertaining/witty way, so that I am taken in by his conversation. However, upon realizing how little work we are getting done, I take the responsibility in my role as teacher to stop our conversations, no matter how much I am enjoying them, and tell him to get back to work.
1. Today, I met with D.S. He's in Grade 8 and is my second youngest student. He's in the Gifted program and a little bit proud of that. However, he truly is gifted – whatever that means – perhaps a better term would be avid.
The author-function (hereafter referred to as “AF”) begins with a meeting between a student and the AF. The AF presents itself as "I" and doesn't mention that it is a teacher. This is only implied by the statement that D.S. is the AF's student. The relationship between the student and the "I" as teacher is established with the possessive "my" which denotes ownership. Ownership connotes a power relation where the possessor has power over the possession. This is a juridico-discursive concept of power that sees power as a commodity that is held by someone over something: “The juridico-discursive model of power involves three basic assumptions:(1) power is possessed (e.g. by individuals in the state of nature,by a class,by the people),[my italics] (2) power flows from a centralized source from top to bottom(e.g. law, the economy, the State), and (3) power is primarily repressive in its exercise (a prohibition backed by sanctions). (Sawicki, 1986, pp. 25 - 26). Thus, the AF's conception of the relationship that he has with his student is based on the juridico-discursive model of power.
The AF describes D.S. as being "in Grade 8". This description by grade level is a function of educational discourse that labels the student by number for easy classification and identification, thus creating an object of scrutiny. The phrase "second youngest" is also a number-based label. Like the label "Grade 8", it too is age-based, which reflects the educational discursive practice of segregating students by age. Labelling is a way to analyze something/someone into attributes and then use one of those attributes to denote the person/thing. This allows for ease of reference for purposes, such as classification. This is why Foucault states that labels create "objects of scrutiny" (Foucault, 1975 b, quoted by Graham, 2005, p.8), thereby allowing institutions, such as public schools, to organize/discipline their students: "Disciplinary practices create the divisions healthy/ill, sane/mad, and legal/delinquent, which, by virtue of their authoritative status, can be used as effective means of normalization and social control. They may involve the literal dividing off of segments of the population through incarceration or institutionalization. Usually the divisions are experienced in the society at large in more subtle ways, i.e., in the practice of labelling one another or ourselves as different or abnormal" (Sawicki, 1986, p.27). Although the AF is content to use the age-based labels that scrutinize, segregate, and organize, the AF resists the label of “Gifted”. This resistance is signalled by the AF's use of the phrase “whatever that means” and the AF's substitution of the label “gifted” with the term “avid”.