As an imminent teacher who worships at one altar, the altar
of Michel Foucault, I have an inherently divided subjectivity. Yang claims that
“[s]omewhere between Freire and Foucault lies the work of those of us who dare
to teach” (49). This is an odd formulation because it’s not as if Foucault is
advocating for/against a kind of discipline. He is saying that discipline
operates in a specific way in our society. It operates in and through the
warden/the prisoner, the psychiatrist/the patient, the teacher/the student. It
just is. So I’m not quite sure why he thinks these daring teachers can be
in-between Friere and Foucault. We are already inside a society that uses mechanisms of power-knowledge
(juridical-scientific) in order to discipline citizen-subjects into “docile
bodies.” And without drastically changing the way we discipline we are still
inside Foucault’s discipline. Such a drastic change would, I think, entail a
radically different institution of education, an education divorced from the
state, from the psychiatric complex, from rank, from sorting, from statistical
analysis of our populations, etc. These teachers of Yang’s must be very daring
indeed.
And this creation of a docile-bodied subjectivity is not
limited to our students. We too “are disciplined to discipline our students” (Yang 50, emphasis in original). And thus
comes the division of subjectivity I opened with. To be a teacher is to endow
myself with a power that I am philosophically aware of and, therefore, want to
recoil from. To be clear, I know I have to discipline my students, and I will
discipline my students. Indeed, that’s the point: as a teacher I can’t help it.
I step into the front/center of a class (spatial arrangements being so poor at
actually changing the authoritarian nature of a classroom that the positioning
is moot), wearing my sensible teacher shoes and smiling my welcoming teacher
smile and I become the disciplinarian. To teach, I need ears and eyes. And even
if I am able to avoid pointed coercion, I am still coercing, I am still
subjecting my students to silence, to attention, to talk in groups (always
respectfully!), to the discipline that at best, Yang is outlining in the
ontology of Classroom X.
My point is, we can’t get outside what Foucault identifies.
His discipline is Yang’s discipline.
Certainly, it’s better than punishment. But it is still ultimately creating a
docile subjectivity. It’s practice for managing citizens in the state. All the
same techniques are deployed. And so, if we’re wary of this power, where do we
land? How do we act in our classrooms?
Classroom X is an okay framework. Despite the fact that I am
wary of progressive understandings of learning that claim that skills come
first and independent thought comes after. Regardless, students’ own internal
regulation of behavior (this is the performance of the docile body to a tee) is preferable to the punishment as
exclusion Yang rails against. And again, Yang is not getting in-between
Foucault and Freire here. Make no mistake, Yang’s discipline is exactly
Foucault’s.
Quickly, because I know this is getting long, Weiner’s
article too demonstrates the conduction of population that comes with teaching.
We need to discipline by “establishing a classroom environment that supports
the behaviors [we] demand” (81). It’s about producing behavior, manners.
Apparently, teaching manners is not oppressive as long as teachers explain that
they are “reinforcing social etiquette” (82). Aren’t these the exact same
thing? Is adherence to society’s rules a justification in itself? Yes, I know
“How are these kids gonna get jobs if they don’t know how to act in the ‘real
world?’” Well maybe society should change. I know I’m getting all anarchist.
Let’s press on.
So, the big question that much ink gets spilled over. The
question Yang tries to answer, but to my mind fails, is can we teach and resist
the management techniques of discipline that Foucault points out? If not, what
do we want our classrooms to look like? How do we mitigate the power we hold?
How do we make active bodies when the institution is so good at making both
teachers and students docile? For
me, I hope to resist the impetus placed upon me to sort and label my students;
techniques that make the student population legible to managing powers and
policy makers, techniques that decide the pathology of students and the
statistical outcome of said pathologies. But can I do this really? What if I
don’t agree with the implementation of the IEP, its processes or its
pathologies? What if I am wary of enacting my reporter mandate? How much wiggle
do I have? Any thoughts appreciated.
Liz, you ask some tough questions. I'm not quite sure where to start in attempting to offer any sort of constructive input. Navigating the balance between punishment and discipline, and finding the line between societally imposed behavioral norms and the actual behavior we should enforce in our classrooms will be a challenge. My feeling is that if we create an environment centered around cooperative negotiation and respect, that we will avoid many obstacles. While I appreciate the research explored in these articles, I think that at the end of the day, the take away message is simple--treat others as you would like to be treated, be transparent and consistent in your expectations and your justifications, and be human. Yes, as teachers we have to follow certain rules that are outside of our control, but I feel that we still have a lot of control in the way of creating a learning environment that the students are content with--which I think is the epitome of classroom management. I don't know that this perspective is at all novel, but hopefully it offers some beneficial insight.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Our job is to teach. Learning a new technique, skill, knowledge, etc. takes discipline. Yes you are correct that our job as teachers is not to punish nor to create individuals who are to act accordingly to social norms. However, Where can learning occur if no structure is present? Where no motivation to learn is within the person? Yes there are random occasions in life where simple observations allow you to learn a new concept, skill or what have you. But in a classroom, what time of classroom do you need in order to have a maximum output in learning? Both innovative, progressive teaching will need structure for students to learn what you are teaching.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question, we can teach without "behaviorist/disciplinary management" however, to have the highest output of learning in a classroom we must have some sort of structure where students can reach their zone of proximal development.
Liz-
ReplyDeleteYou get all anarchist, I love it. Great post. Your questions have been weighing heavy on me since I started thinking about taking this English Ed path. I've asked every teacher I've noticed was progressive in methods how much "wiggle room" they have. One was in the special ed dept., and stated that as the reason for his freedom in choices. Others state, essentially: "upon hiring me, they hire my principles." I don't know about that. And I don't think I will know how much wiggle room I have until I have a classroom and start taking some risks,
wow, I think you raise a lot of great points about this weeks readings and discipline in an institution in an institution. I think from the perspective of the teacher we have the choice and ability to create our classrooms as miniature societies of whatever we want them to be. recognizing that backlash to less traditional models would be inevitable, and that our students are being pushed toward a certain model that to make easy on ourselves would be to mimic. As a school, they have the choice to create whatever model they choose, and an ideal teacher school relationship would be one where they share similar views, to provide consistency for their students and support each other in forming this model. I think to answer your question it would be to find a school that most closely matches your own beliefs or one that will grant you the most leniency in how you mold and discipline your class.
ReplyDeleteTo attempt t answer your question about discipline and school policies, I have personally witnessed a great deal of teachers who took it upon themselves to interpret rules and manage them within their own classrooms. I feel they did this in part because they know these students on a personal day to day level, an that a bureaucratic system might not know what is best for each individual student. If something was going on that was particularly traumatic for a student, i feel it would be ok to bend the rules. It probably important to find balance between the larger school entity and the individual.
ReplyDeleteYou have a great post and raise important issues that come up in not only the articles but in real life. I agree with many of my peers, it is crucial to be able to find a good balance or equilibrium between the individual and the institution. As a teacher one has the ability to create a good classroom to not only honor what the big institution wants but overall also create that person to person relationship with the students. We can't punish students that don't readily agree with our perspectives or norms but try to address that there are different perspectives and norms and that as sophisticated human adults should respect all.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not worship at the altar of Foucault but I am a big enough fan of his creative non-fiction to know that Liz is right: the "non-repressive," punishment-free Discipline #2 that Yang attributes to Foucault is actually, according to Foucault, another part a system of power that circumscribes subjectivity. Yang seems to think that Foucault holds that punishment is always "repressive" and that discipline need not be "repressive." No. That is wrong.
ReplyDeleteYang's Discipline #2 seems to be more like a definition that Friere might provide and I wish that he had focused on that thinker as the categories he wants to write about - repression, transformation, political economy - actually belong to the school to which Friere claims allegiance. Friere is a student of Hegel who contends that discipline is actually emancipatory and transformative. Hegel equates discipline with freedom: the more that an individual is able to correct himself as an object the more control he has over himself and his environment... and therefore the more freedom and agency. Discipline then enables something like an actualization of a student's potential.
“...the reason of the child as child is at first a mere inward, in the shape of his natural ability or vocation, etc. This mere inward, at the same time, has for the child the form of a mere outward, in the shape of the will of his parents, the attainments of his teachers, and the whole world of reason that environs him. The education and instruction of a child aim at making him actually and for himself what he is at first only potentially and therefore for others, viz., for his grown up friends. The reason, which at first exists in the child only as an inner possibility, is actualized through education: and conversely, the child by these means becomes conscious that the goodness, religion, and science which he had at first looked upon as an outward authority, are his own nature” (Hegel Shorter Logic §140n).
Drew:
DeleteYour comment on Hegel reminds me of a passage of Marx's in his letters to Ruge: "It will then turn out that the world has long dreamt of that of which it had only to have a clear idea to possess it really." This idea of education as the means by which the veil is "pulled back," or if we want to be Platonic, where we come to see the images on the cave as mere images and not as a representation of reality, seems to me to be consistent both with what Marx is saying to Ruge and what Hegel is writing in regards to the child coming to realize "the goodness, religion, and science" as "his own nature": Both thinkers posit the subject moving from an unreality, a simulacrum, to one of consciousness able to see themselves as agents of change. Indeed, I agree with both you and Liz that Yang's two concepts of discipline both amount to the same thing: the creation of subjects who are the objects of some force made upon their perception of themselves in relation to the world.
Liz! Your talk about anarchy and indoctrination reminded me of a movie. It’s a foreign film called The Wave. Here’s a blurb: “High school teacher Rainer Wenger is forced to teach a class on autocracy, despite being an anarchist. When his students, third generation after the Second World War, do not believe that a dictatorship could be established in modern Germany, he starts an experiment to demonstrate how easily the masses can be manipulated.” Needless to say, his social experiment spins out of control which results in him forming a social unit that, as IMDb puts it, “has a life of its own.” But I digress. My own two cents on the topic of oppressive pedagogy is that it’s impossible to avoid, and teaching etiquette is a lesser evil that at least endows a student with the ability code switch when the situation demands it, i.e., at school, work, home, etc. In sum, its usefulness outweighs the cons.
ReplyDeletewell, as someone who rolls my eyes *(or barfs) at the incessant worship of Michel Foucault among the (soon to be unemployed) graduate social sciences masses at institutes of higher education like UIC, I'll chime in. Btw.. let me be clear, I do intellectually appreciate Foucalt's central argument about the production of power via the use of language/or a particular discourse with the "hegemonic" or oppressive assumptions contained therein, but I find the incessant fawning over Foucault to be somewhat annoying. Anyways - you cannot escape the essential conundrum. If you're going to be an anarchist, or so inclined, then you have to be consistent. As such.. no mandatory school before 16. No grades. No calls to parents. No discipline either, frankly. No... I think to escape the hegemonic grasp of the larger society and to free these students from the "chains" of their docility, then you need to abandon all these 'traditional" approaches and let the kids come and go at their own initiative and choosing so they can enjoy "the love of learning" without being "oppressed" by "THE MAN" (or in today's worlds.. almost as likely.. WOMAN). Your larger questions would even address the role of parents in their child's upbringing. Bottom line? remember that school was formed in the US (and most placed around the world) on the "Prussian model" that meant to churn out workers for the new industrial age society around them. Today the same model forms, but we are in the post-industrial age and schools are trying to churn out workers for the information age. Unless you want to challenge the bulk of societal institutions and frankly, life and society as we know it - you are almost "forced" to play the game along their lines. It goes to the heart of the question - what is the function/role of school? Since my philosophy leans toward producing an empathetic, cosmopolitan and involved future "citizen" (and this is essentially why the state funds education today, for such a purpose) - I am willing to play their game. The students can wrestle with such questions and with Foucault when they reach graduate school and make their own decisions. Last - I find it fascinating that even in the world of professional sports.. grown ass men who are multi millionaires and have physical skills that no one else can match, usually desire and crave "structure" from their coaches. I suspect this is also the case for kids.. after all, other educational research and literature supports this by discussing how a certain routine and understanding those routines are beneficial for learning. (can't quote this, but am almost certain I encountered this earlier somewhere). Last, I think you'll be the perfect "disciplinarian" (I didn't say punisher), it's my belief your personality, your voice, your manners and your blunt sarcastic approach is almost IDEAL for this - BUT - I think you will also find the space to have some interesting at least very "basic" discussions with your students (those willing to listen) about the broader Foucaltian framework you believe in and perhaps even give rise to a few "anarchists to be" !!
ReplyDeletebtw I should clarify - the concept of producing a "citizen" is supposed to be the role of HISTORY teachers, Obviously in the real world, humanities are a sure fire way to become a greeter at Walmart. - though one could make an argument for the necessary development of critical thinking skills, analysis of data, etc.
DeleteHey Liz,
ReplyDeleteAs always you offer a hearty critique and deep analysis of the readings. These readings were particularly fascinating to me, bringing up how institutions like school/work/hospitals function to keep us in line as "docile bodies" in a society with quite rigid standards of civility. There's a particular video that I was just hunting for but couldn't find unfortunately--it was a radical educational reformist who looked a lot like David Stovall (but I don't think it was him) who teaches in the Bay Area and was basically making a case for why we should torch the entire school system because of what it does to young minds and young spirits (sucks creativity and innovation out of them, etc.) Liz, I think that may be part of what you are afraid of. The idea that we contribute to the "pathologizing" and "sorting" of students by disciplining them, and also the "docilizing" and "civilizing" that MAKES them unmotivated to learn and not see the joy in learning. (When I find this video I will be sure to share it with you all!!!)
Re: your commentary here: "Is adherence to society’s rules a justification in itself? Yes, I know 'How are these kids gonna get jobs if they don’t know how to act in the "'real world?"' Well maybe society should change." I think that's one way of looking at it, but there are ways to communicate uber-basic, human "social norms" that I don't think are problematic at all, that just make sense. For example, reciprocity makes a lot of sense on an evolutionary level. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"--that's kept us cooperative and surviving for eons. What's wrong with reinforcing that kind of behavior or social etiquette in the classroom? If there's a rule to listen when other people are talking, that shows respect of another person's opinion or idea--and is an offshoot of the reciprocity norm. There are ways to "enforce" the social ettiquette that Weiner talks about without being overly authoritarian or didactic.
What I found most interesting from Yang's article was the idea of "apprenticeships [rather] than factories of learning" (Yang 56). In Yang's "Classroom X" the wheels of the classroom turn consistently and while these social and academic skills--essentially, disciplinary in nature--are encouraged, they are to ultimately serve students, who become proficient and capable and competent and feel able to express themselves through what they've learned. That's the good kind of discipline and the framework for which we should all strive. Of course it can be tough and there are these existent power relationships we must mitigate.
Or we could just go all anarchist on everybody, throw out the books, and start a movement of radical constructionist classrooms. Not sure the CPS/Common Core folks would be too pleased. Merp.
Prof. Chris Miller would argue that school is often unnecessary and that throughout the centuries young people actually "learned" as apprentices - whether that be assisting their parents on the farm, or being apprentices in the craftshop, etc. There is something to be said for that, in gaining practical skills - but the art of critical thinking and the necessary cognitive development needed to achieve it, is probably why kids sit in school until age 16, 18 or 21.
Delete