Foucault, Education, and Me

Pistol-whipping, smoking marijuana, engaging in sexual relations, and threatening the very well-being of others take place in this home away from home. Learning, teaching, thinking, creating, negotiating, and navigating social interactions take place as well. What makes it possible that actions and behaviors as varied as those mentioned in the former and the latter would occur under the same “public” roof? In this paper I will examine how Foucault’s philosophy on discipline and punishment relates to my experience with discipline in schools. I have chosen to structure this paper based on sections of Discipline and Punishment.

“Punishment”

While punishment is not –should not—be part of a school system, discipline has its place, and there is a “no vacancy” sign on the door. A regular part of many students’ and teachers’ school days are affected either directly or indirectly by incidents leading to one form of discipline or another. The discipline strategies used where I have worked are wide ranging. However, the underlying purposes of the disciplines of choice are always consistent.

Undoubtedly, schools serve to educate in an academic sense. They also provide a stage for repeated dress-rehearsals of how individuals should be as productive members of society. From early grades through high school, students are informed and reminded of procedures, rules, and regulations. These concepts are the focus of semester long courses in “Classroom Management,” in teacher education programs.

As educators, it is presumed that we not only provide students with content, but that we train them to be successful. This, of course, can be interpreted as very subjective. Whose definition of success are we using? Will our definition apply and/or be accepted by all groups which comprise the students we teach? In my experience, these questions are not ever addressed. The focus is on controlling behavior and attitude, regardless of personal differences and experiences.

A school’s role seems to, as Foucault states, adjust the mechanisms of power that frame the everyday lives of individuals; an adaptation and a refinement of the machinery that assumes responsibility for and places under surveillance their everyday behavior, their identity, their activity, their apparently unimportant gestures; another policy for that multiplicity of bodies and forces that constitutes a population. (77-78)

What has to be arranged and calculated are the return effects of punishment [discipline] on the punishing [disciplining] authority and the power that it claims to exercise. (91) In essence, do teachers’ and schools’ discipline policies make sense? Do they achieve desired effects for all parties (authorities [teachers and administrators], disciplined students, and other students)? That idea that one must punish [discipline] exactly enough to prevent repetition (93) is economically sound according to Foucault’s framework of humanity as it should apply to punishment. (92)

The major rules which illustrate the power to punish (94-101) are similar in many respects to the rules students encounter in school handbooks and in classrooms. Deterring undesirable behavior, consistently applying consequences, publicly displaying rules/policies, requiring proof of violations, and clearly stating consequences for infractions are expected practice. However, as Foucault asserts, there are limitations with this semio-technique of punishments. (103) Other methods must be applied in order to assure order. Here, specifically Foucault addresses discipline as opposed to punishment.

Discipline

The focus of exerting power addresses physical considerations to which I had not previously given much attention. Based on my understanding of Foucault, enforcing discipline incorporates the management of bodies and bodies in space. Envisioning classrooms, at both the elementary and secondary levels, it is now clear how bodies are manipulated for the purposes of discipline.

School districts I have worked in across the country appear to operate in a Foucauldian framework with respect to creating and maintaining discipline. In early grades, students stand on spots, line up, hold hands through hallways, and are assigned to designated areas to eat/work/rest. In later grades, students have assigned seats in rows at separate desks (often established based on what makes for easiest teacher surveillance and navigation), they must be granted permission to enter/leave areas of the school, and they often have to wear an identification on some part of the body.

This scenario bears a striking resemblance to the fortress (and later factory) Foucault describes, down to the description of the bell that announces the resumption of work has rung. (142) In effect, each of the pupils will have his place assigned to him and none of them will leave it or change it except on the order or with consent of the school inspector. (147) Bodies are trained and conditioned as to when they can eat, work, move, and tend to bodily functions.

This is not the only manner in which bodies are controlled. The powers that be—for intents and purposes of this paper, teachers and administrators—attempt to manipulate the ways in which bodies interact with each other and other objects. It is this control which transforms students’ bodies into docile bodies, arranged at the hand of the superpower authority figure. The concept of the correlation between body and the gesture is grounded in carrying out tasks with efficiency and speed. (152) It can dictate the way a student holds a pen, or sits in a chair. We see this discipline in many activities, including practicing handwriting, keyboarding, presenting, and play sports.

According to Foucault, not only are gestures subject to discipline, but so is the concept of efficiency and time use. The theory of exhaustive use incorporates ordered activities, and rhythms imposed by signals, whistles in an effort to ensure that students learn as efficiently as possible. (154) As far back as I can recall, my teacher training program, and later my early years of teaching, were guided by the “teach bell to bell” philosophy. Instructors and administrators used this as their mantra. If teachers were not performing in this capacity, they were not performing productively. Students and teachers were expected to let external switches guide their every action and behavior. At times, I felt conflicted with the “bell to bell” mentality. Was it in the best interest of my students? Did it mean that learning/teaching was unproductive if it was not within the confines of the rhythmic order of things?

I have often reflected on the idea that the structured, segmented days that are typical in most high schools, are not necessarily beneficial to the students served and teachers serving. A school day that is broken into six different periods of time to focus on six distinct content areas is, in many respects, far too fragmented of an educational experience, to be meaningful. In this environment, they are trained not to be scholars, but to be disciplined. A more holistic, theme or project-based approach to learning would seem to better flow with the rhythm of life, having time to create connections, interdependence, and relevance.

I would contend that a major focus—the hidden agenda--in schools is on training. In the training process, an element of individuality is lost, and power is imposed. The workshop, the school, the army were subject to a whole micro-penality of time (latenesses, absences, interruptions of tasks), of activity (inattention, negligence, lack of zeal), of behavior (impoliteness, disobedience), of speech (idle chatter, insolence), of the body (incorrect attitudes, irregular gestures, lack of cleanliness), of sexuality (impurity, indecency). (178)

With these aspects of life put under the microscope, who has time to teach, learn, or recognize what is really important? In Your Average Nigga Performing Race Literacy and Masculinity, Vershawn Ashanti Young states that every student and teacher in the building knew that no students could outshine him academically. He won oratory and science contests, and performed at high levels in reading and math. However, upon inquiring to a teacher about his educational preparation he is sent to the principal.

The principal says that he has an attitude problem and that she would have to work with him before he went to high school (31). Who really has the problem? Young is initially banished from the school, and later relegated to staying in the principal’s office. Foucauldian to the point. Young is now restricted to a specific physical space, and under the direct observation of the principal. This is her attempt of the first stage in the ‘formalization’ of the individual within power relations. (190)

Panoptican and Chillin’ with the Principal

‘Formalization’ can only begin to take place when the powers that be—educators and administrators, in this case—have constructed a community in which the actions of every student are made under the watchful gaze of authority. The architecture of many schools lends itself well to this observation. Long hallways extending from one end of the building to another, classrooms in a row as cells in a prison, open stairways, open dining halls, and restrooms which provide minimal privacy.

Many times I’ve thought about how students relinquish some of their freedom the moment they cross the threshold of the school. There is an unspoken bargain (for whom?) that in exchange for a formal education, they will be placed under surveillance, under control of the powers that be. In schools, the Panopticon functions, as in prisons, to carry out experiments, to alter behavior, to train or correct individuals. (203)

In more than ten years of serving in public school systems, I noticed that the same individuals were consistently referred for their behavior. They were in detention, or in-school suspension more than they were in their classrooms. Why? There was no effort to engage them in a process of self-exploration, to get to the underlying roots of their behavior, in essence to rehabilitate them. This occurred due to a lack of time and resources, rather than because of ignorance regarding best practices.

In the last secondary school in which I taught, I had a student who I’ll call Jeff (because that is his name). Jeff had been kicked out of every required course, other than mine. He lacked the social skills and self-control that are necessary to function productively in public arenas. I encouraged Jeff to reflect on his actions, to provide suggestions for more appropriate behavior, and to think about the outcomes of his behavior. Jeff’s behavior in my class improved, however he was still engaging in negative behaviors throughout the school building and the day.

I sought advice/assistance from other school staff members to help with his behavior. I approached one of the school administrators, to discuss options for Jeff. Although receptive to my inquiry, I could feel the chill in the air. After dismissing my claims that there were great opportunities for reform with Jeff (and others in similar situations), I was told that I could do whatever I wanted because the administration had its eye on Jeff. Although the surveillance and control component of a Panopticon seemed to be securely in place, the rehabilitation component was nonexistent.

On the contrary, in the last school in which I taught in New York City , surveillance, control, and rehabilitation were packaged in a nice little bundle. Panopticon provided a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life on men, or young adults, in this case. (205) Those students labeled as the “worst” behaved were treated in a distinctly different manner than Jeff. These students were “kept” in the principal’s office. They were free to roam the periphery, but found no use. In her office they did their work, watched movies, and listened to music. They were no longer causing havoc in classrooms and around the school, but surely this was not a viable option.

This Panopticon schema (205) provided the administrators a privileged place for experiments [on men], and for analyzing with complete certainty the transformations that may be obtained from them. (204) It was a type of location of bodies in space, of distributions of individuals in relation to one another, of hierarchical organization, of dispositions of channels of power, of definition of the instruments and modes of intervention of power. (205)They had created Panopticon with a twist; Panopticon operating with a functional mechanism that must improve the exercise of power by making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for society to come. (209) Many staff members, myself included, were unaware of the process that was taking place in this instance.

Having read and pondered Discipline and Punishment over many hours, I am now aware that variations of Panopticon are applied in different school settings, based on the needs of those in power. In the second of the scenarios referred to above, discipline was implemented by regulating movement; it clear[ed] confusion; it dissipate[d] compact groupings of individuals wandering about the [school] in unpredictable ways; it establishe[d] calculated distributions. It master[ed] all the forces that are formed from the very constitution of an organized multiplicity; it neutralize[d] the effects of counter-power that spring from them and from which form a resistance to the power that wishe[d] to dominate it: agitations, revolts, spontaneous organizations, coalitions…(219)

I know that I am not yet at the end of the tunnel, but I am beginning to see the light. How wonderful to have a framework in which to understand some of the school practices that I have often pondered. Foucault has assisted me in better understanding how various types of discipline are implemented, and how this works/or doesn’t, for the individuals affected and society, in general.

Bibliography

Foucault, Michel. (1995).Discipline and Punishment. New York: Vintage Books.

Young, Vershawn A. (2007). Your Average Nigga Performing Race Literacy and Masculinity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Butler Blog

YouTube clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLnv322X4tY

http://20six.fr/trans-ftm-gay/

While I read Gender Trouble, I continued to draw connections between what I do in my classrooms with pre-service teachers, and what I’ve experienced in the secondary schools in which I have worked.

One focus in my classes is that we all have different experiences, perspectives, and beliefs. What may be acceptable to some is completely abhorrent to others. However, we have to be willing to challenge our beliefs (and those of others) so that we might gain a greater understanding of ourselves and others.

Butler certainly encourages thinking outside of the traditional box, for me. According to Butler, she aims to “open up the field of possibility for gender without dictating which kinds of possibilities ought to be realized.” (viii) She goes on to state that “no one who has understood what it is to live in the social world as what is ‘impossible,’ illegible, unrealizable, unreal, and illegitimate is likely to pose [the] question” of the “use of opening up possibilities’.” This is exactly what we do in one of my classes. Push yourself into the unfamiliar and/or the uncomfortable. Reflect on what you know/accept, and expose yourself to that which is unknown, or new territory.

Some of what I was unfamiliar with was the concept of a distinction between gender and sex, or that one does not logically adhere to the other. The notion that one’s sex doesn’t necessarily determine his/her gender is one that we briefly addressed earlier in the semester, in our Cultural Studies (gender as performative). Butler addresses the question the stability of gender, and the fact that sexual practice has the power to destabilize gender (xi). She further asserts, as would many feminists, that there is a distinction between gender and sexuality, refusing a causal or structural link between them. She believes that heterosexual normativity ought not to order gender. (xiv)

This has great implications for the teaching, learning, and socializing that takes place in our midst (the classroom/school). Knowing this, it is imperative that we enter all arenas with an open mind, and no agenda of categorizing individuals (of course this is easier said than done, but who needs easy?). I’ve observed many classroom and school situations in which the preconceived notions of gender, on the part of staff and students alike, fit right into a “traditional” heterosexual mindset. This way of thinking places limitations on us (regarding our perceptions, and expectations) as educators, and on our ability to recognize the potential of each of our students.

Butler expresses that we must explore what society dictates about gender, so that all people (and more specifically those whose lives do not fall lovely into place where sex and gender walk off together into the sunset—thank you Mica Pollock, in Colormute, for getting past the “all” label.) can live THEIR normal life. How must we think the ideal morphological constraints upon the human such that those who fail to approximate the norm are not condemned to a death within life? (xxi)

Bourdieu resonates with me as I read Butler. The idea of educational institutions perpetuating society’s social constructs can be applied to what Butler says about subjects regulated by such structures (juridical notions of power) are, by virtue of being subjected to them, formed, defined, and reproduced in accordance with the requirements of those structures. (3)

Butler confirms my beliefs on the power of language in labeling or assigning power/domination. For feminist theory, the development of language that fully or adequately represents women has seemed necessary to foster the political visibility of women. (2) As Wittig states, the “straight mind,” evident in the discourse of the human sciences, “oppress all of us, lesbians, women, and homosexual men” because they “take for granted that what founds society, any society, is heterosexuality.” (157) A reminder of the need to be precise in our words and cognizant of their implications.

Even though Butler recognizes that the claim of universal patriarchy no longer enjoys the kind of credibility it once did, the notion of a generally shared conception of “women,” the corollary to that framework, has been much more difficult to displace. (5) To me, this means that strides have been made in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go. In our teaching and learning processes we have to continue to pose questions: Are the specificity and integrity of women’s cultural and linguistic practices always specified against, and hence, within the terms of some more dominant cultural formation? (6)

Butler reinforces the idea that the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders. (9) This outlook epitomizes the saying that you can’t judge a book by its cover….you can’t create your own norms for others. It underscores the reality that we cannot prescribe rules for people and/or their lifestyle, based on their biological sex.

More to follow soon…

Foucault

Though the read was interesting, and I've determined several ways to apply Foucault to the arenas of education in which I am interested, it is still a challenge to cast my net, catch that which I need, and put it to use in a meaningful and efficient manner. That having been said....here goes.

“In its function, the power to punish is not essentially
different from that of curing or educating.”
-Michel Foucault

Please click links for some interesting… footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6APLUeVvFE School Freud Foucault Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz_xE7ywqHc



School/Prison. Prison/School. At times, it seems as though features of each are interchangeable.

(15) [Punishment] assumed as its principal object loss of wealth and rights.
What is it that we are imposing upon students when they are disciplined? In many cases, it does not seem as though they are benefiting from the experience.

(19) What would be the most appropriate approach measures to take? How do we see the future development of the offender? What would be the best way of rehabilitating him”
A shift on rehabilitating individuals—would be an asset if used appropriately and consistently in the public school systems.

(22) Of course, we pass sentence, but this sentence is not in direct relation to the crime.”
How often does this happen? I usually interpret such situations as issues of power struggles (between administrator/teacher and student)

The body is also directly involved in a political field; power relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs (25)
This reminds me of the constant conflict of which Bauman speaks, and the concept of field proposed by Bourdieu.

I thought about teachers as “super-power ” (80), and the dysfunction of power. This is directly related to recent discussions I’ve had about teachers’ roles as leaders, role-models, and caregivers.

Regarding classroom management, Foucault’s ideas on informing defendants of their crimes and consequences, can be applied to what should happen in schools (however it doesn’t always play out this way—in power struggles, or with control-mongers, the preference would probably be ). (96)
The shift in addressing defendants’ life circumstances, attitudes, and past (99) mirror the more recent approaches of schools/districts to seek out conditions or circumstances that may impact today’s students’ dispositions.

The confinement of paupers and vagabonds (141) is reminiscent of Bauman’s Globalization. Whereas they are left in the wake of globalization, according to Bauman, they are confined in Foucault’s writing.

It made the educational space like a learning machine, but also as a machine for supervising, hierarchizing, rewarding. (147) This is more of a traditional approach to the set-up of physical space in classrooms. This wouldn’t be conducive to many of the activities in today’s classrooms (cooperative, exploratory learning)