Posted on April 6, 2020
“Re-negotiating the aims of the hierarchically structured education: transformable power and pedagogic identity”
Kostas Kokogiannis
(Doctor of Sociology of Education (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Greece)
FINAL PAPER
for
ESREA Life History and Biography Network: 2006 Conference
TRANSITIONAL SPACES, TRANSITIONAL PROCESSES and RESEARCH
Volos, Greece, 2-5 March 2006
THEME:
“Re-negotiating the aims of the hierarchically structured education: transformable power and pedagogic identity”
SUB-UNITS
- The school as mechanism of the government owned power
- The school as mechanism of the transformable administrative power
- The disciplinary administrative model and the construction of pedagogic identity
- References
Abstract
Indeed, in our days, the administrative organization of education unfortunately imposes the operation of an "advantageous observatory" through which we can finally gaze one and unique meaning of the educational phenomena: more particularly, the educational phenomena function as a “well-orderly factory” of foreseeable and consequently controllable situations. This "well-orderly factory”, that is strengthened by the discourse of homogeneity, supports itself onto the two basic structural elements of educational system: a) the center of control (everything is being regulated and formed by the ministry of education, as it happens mainly in Greece) and b) the aims of the educational organization, which are supported by a central system of values that is found in the top of educational system (and, consequently, everything else inside the system should be considered as a specialization and application of these values).
Besides, the lower position of the educator within the hierarchical scale and the control (legislative, bureaucratic…) that is exerted upon him led to the perception that the educator isn’t less than an executive body (particularly in Greece) - a perception that affected and affects upon his “self-image” and social prestige negatively.
Moreover, the administrative norms (despite they reproductively reflect the government owned power) simultaneously create a complex mesh of practices that assist the production of new forms of power within the pedagogic relations. According to the Foucault, the disciplinary coercions “have their own particular discourse and create same systems of knowledge and various cognitive fields”.
Therefore, the fact that the power within the transitional educational space is today exerted via, on the one hand, the legal frame of the educational politics and, on the other hand, the techniques of discipline ("standard'" codes of behavior that produce and reproduce power in the context of educational administrative model), as well as the fact that the fermentations of “standardization” increasingly dominate on the legal processes, finally interpret the lack of initiative and creativity of all that they work and live in the school, explain the emaciation of the right to be different, justify the annihilation of each “self-administrative experience” through the free experimentation. The pedagogic identity of educator is permanently found in a conflicting process…
THE SCHOOL AS MECHANISM OF THE GOVERNMENT OWNED POWER
Trying to clarify the role of the state as economic entity we would finally stress out that his being first work (and objective) is to legalize, to ensure, to promote and to maintain the conditions or relations of production, which allow, maintain and ensure the accumulation of capital (Harris, 2002). Certainly, the fact that the state always attains to be presented as a "total of neutral institutions" that serves the common interest is indeed remarkable. (Holloway, Picciotto, 1978). According to Jessop (1978: 45), the more effective method for a state to be presented in this way is: “the use of democratic and collective elements within a program that encourages the government owned intervention for the benefit of the accumulation of the capital”. Then, the “logic”, and the administrative model of the capital are also conveyed into the school (one of the "neutral" institutions for the sake of the common interest), as long as we simultaneously encounter the state to be presented as the basic protagonist at all the cases of mapping out the educational policy (Dale, 1992).
At the same time, this conveyance of the “logic” of the capital is more effectively attained via the form (organizational and administrative frame) of the school program than only via the content of the provided knowledge (Apple, 1993). More specifically, the control of behavior, the resolution of conflicts and the repression that is frequently appeared in the schools are being developed due to the sovereign processes of school program and less than it seems due to the content of knowledge which is transmitted by the school (1993: 59). The education, in other words, constitutes a government owned mechanism for the distribution of sovereign ideology and the “production” of persons who have the suitable knowledge and values in order to serve the needs of the running model of production (Εrben and Cleesen, 1977). At the same time, however, the schools help in the legalization of the new knowledge and the new values and also contribute to the configuration of the ideology of new arising classes (Williams, 1977). In any case, the issue is that “each aspect of education is closely tied up both to the economical and the cultural side of its character. The schools produce workforce and legalize knowledge, but they simultaneously produce knowledge and legalize the faculties which come on the students” (Apple, 1993: 71). We understand, therefore, that the state (whose mechanism is the education) presents itself as the most important factor of understanding the role of schools.
However, on the other hand, we owe to pose some certain pointings out, which are necessary in order to comprehend the relation between the state and the educational policy. According to the recent sociology of policy, we will be in error if we consider that the social policy and practice are operations with unique direction from the top to the base. More specifically, the educational practice does not incorporate and simply follows the goals and directions of the policy that political and executive sector of the state “dictates”. As long as the nature of policy contains the conflict, that is an essential element (Bowe and Ball, 1992), the policy is always expressed like a text which is available to an abundance of readers (and also multiple readings) and consequently to an abundance of practices (Codd, 1988). Since the educational practice cannot be exclusively comprehended as linear consequence of power which is being imposed by the political and executive sector of the state we should finally wonder weather an abstractive approach of government owned power (which commences from the center and is extended to the educational base) could convincingly interpret all the multiple phenomena, techniques and processes of the power that emerge from the educational practices. To this point, I consider that the contribution of Foucault is important.
More particularly, Foucault (2002: 46) emphaticly stressed out that the power shouldn’t be considered as massive and homogeneous phenomenon of imposition. It isn’t something that others possess and also distribute at exclusivity and others do not possess but undergo. It is analyzed as something that circulates and functions on an assembly line. It’s practiced in the network and the individuals do not simply circulate within it, but they permanently go through the power and at the same time they exercise the power over others. Consequently, if we consider the bureaucratic organization of education as a compact and complex network we will easily understand that the multifarious nuances of power relations which are developed within the school practice can be interpreted by means of the dynamics of the bureaucratic model itself and not by means of the government owned power (from above and from a distance). Michael Pusey (1976) analyzing the educational system from the viewpoint of sociology of organizations observed that the bureaucratic organizations (the educational organizations are also included) tend to be self-strengthened, to stand up to the changes and to demur at their own objectives.
It’s worth mentioning that the power which derives from the administrative organization of the education couldn’t be understood if it wasn’t included in the context of the government owned administration. Moreover, we should point out that the government owned power undertook and also imposed the organized education establishing the public school (“mass education”), in the context of the “industrialized” society with new needs of job market and a continuous “democratization” of the societies (Kokogiannis, 2005). Besides, we should not forget that the legal regulations that determine the structure and operation of the education as organism result from the political decisions of each government owned power and, on this account, school is an important political institution, although we know that school dosen’t finally practice policy according to the narrow meaning of the term (Kostantinou, 1994: 19). The school, therefore, is a mechanism of reproduction of the government owned power, not however by virtue of the over-simplified and one-dimensional explanatory terms. The school is not simply a surface of linear reflection of each government owned power, but it is also a bureaucratic ("rational") organism that is self-strengthened via the production of power.
THE SCHOOL AS MECHANISM OF TRANSFORMABLE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER
The school as government owned organism has certain concrete attributes through which the school reality is portrayed: determined goals, determined role of the members of the organism, control for the concretization of the objectives of the organism, conflicts resulted from the diversity of the opinions of the members (Konstantinou, 1994: 18-19). As long as the school is responsible for the processes of education and learning is also characterized as "pedagogic" organism. The characterization "pedagogic" is typical of’ course if we think about that the school [as integral part of the government owned administration with intensely bureaucratic characteristics as: specialized and selected personnel on the strength of specific qualifications, the hierarchical and centralized system of power, the uniformity (Banks, 1987:327) and, moreover (especially in Greece) the projection of a neutral objectivity (Pan-hellenic Examinations) and the establishment of one linguistic code (Anthogalidou, 1979)] stops each trace of initiative emanating from under and impedes the growth of the feeling of responsibility (Gotovos, 1985). Indeed, the impetus of the administrative organization is so strong that N. Poylantza's (19842: 323) considers that the center of weight of the modern states has been shifted from the legislative power to the executive and at extension to the administration. The laws that are voted by the Parliament are usually laws – frames which aren’t brought into force till afterwards the relative decrees, decisions and encyclicals have been set forth by the administration (19842: 314-315).
We, therefore, confront a “technocratic administrationism” in the education and depending on the predominance of the “technocrats” or “bureaucrats” within the government owned mechanism and the resistance of teachers (Dale, 1982) we usually pay regard to the technical or bureaucratic control of educators respectively, whereas the aims, the content, the method, the evaluation and the planning of teaching seem to be an exclusive work of the “specialists” as concerns the conception, in contrast with educators who finally apply and simply carry out whatever has been programmed by the others (Maurogiorgos, 1985). At the same time, in the context of the “bureaucratization” of education, the imposition of “rationalization that the government owned superior knows what it is equitable and desirable for all those who are inferior in the hierarchy to think and to do” (Gotovos e.l 1983) results in that all educators who don’t conformed to the administrative norms aren’t only amenable to the law but also to their hierarchically administrative superiors. Certainly, the legal and functional power of the encyclical contributes to the above pointing out by far, as long as the encyclical also involves the administrative mechanism in the process of conformity (1983: 51).
The process, consequently, of conformity to the education is encouraged by this rationally administrative planning, which is immediately influenced by a type of “scientism” or “technicism”. Initially, the scientism (namely, all the things are being considered as appropriate objects for empiric and systematic research) led to the optimistic idea that planning e.g. of curriculum can become science or that the effectiveness of school is unbreakably connected with the performances of the students. (Standish, 2002) – provided that, of course, the regular conformity of the educator is controllably ensured on the strength of the pre-mentioned administrative model. Respectively, the “technicism” – namely, the common acknowledgement that all the hindrances that concern the acquisition of dexterities, qualifications, as well as the attainment of learning, can be overtaken by means of a technical solution (2002:.64) – reveals at the same time the disadvantage of the educational aims that are appeared from outside and above: the restriction of the “emancipatory” activity of the students, in other words an activity that education owes to incorporate in its body (Dewey, 1916: 108).
According to above, it’s time for bringing forward a crucial query: how much the educational aims, that are strictly structured on an abstract rational base and respond to the technocratic administrationism of the school, have finally meaning as to the process of education for the life and also the growth of personal character of the student by virtue of the interests of concrete practices and the effectuation of this proceeding.
I think Hirst (2002: 200-202) gives a satisfactory answer to the above question who emphaticly condemns each knowledge (as well as its dominating imposition as equitable via concrete rational aims) that is exclusively conceived by intellectual abstraction. In this case, the knowledge is rendered limited in the field of the application and importance in parallel with a decrease in its value as concerns the determination of complicated decisions, and the enormous sectors of human experience. The understanding of the educational aims and the consequent accomplishment of choices on generalized rational bases concern in effect the quest of universal proposed truths, abstractly and in advance. However, we shouldn’t forget that the concepts, the proposals, the rules and the principles that we structure, have simultaneously thymic and volitive meaning - beyond cognitive (2002: 204-205).
The multi-dimensional, therefore, meaning of the above principles and rules (as this meaning is being expressed by means of the educational aims) does not seem to be applied on the grounds of the current technocratic administrationism of the school that is finally characterized by the following features: the imposition of the predetermined hierarchy and the delimitation of the instructive matter, the imposition of one and exclusive textbook (as it happens mainly in Greece) and the imposition of one kind of examinations which don’t function as a means of diagnosis but as a means of classification and selection of the students. (Iliou, 1982). In this, consequently, legal-normative frame the educators, on the other hand, as government owned employees, are being subject to explicit engagements in respect of their pedagogic role. It’s worth mentioning that the educators usually tend to “ideologize” their engagements by far, so they construct a clerical bureaucratic conscience in which the ideology of neutrality and objectivity, as well as the ideology of duty and faith in specified roles register (Αnthogalidou, 1990: 66).
According to this case of “bureaucratization” of consciences and roles, the pointings out of Foucault (vitally well-aimed and penetratingly precise, I would complement) contribute by far to the understanding of the phenomenon. In particular, Foucault refers to a mesh of power relations and more specifically to the disciplinary coercions (as it’s said: mechanics of discipline) which are expressed by virtue of the administrative model – attempting to convey the latter thesis into our own subject of negotiation, over and above he juxtaposes the disciplinary technique to the right of sovereignty, as it is expressed by virtue of the legal-normative frame – that we previously stressed out. According to Foucault (2002:57) we do not have, on the one hand, “the wordy and explicit legal system of sovereignty and on the other hand certain wordless disciplinary coercions, that work underground, covertly and recommend the tacit background of the major mechanics of power”. the disciplinary coercions “have their own particular discourse and create same systems of knowledge and various cognitive fields”. Therefore, the fact that the power within the transitional educational space is today exerted via, on the one hand, the legal frame of the educational politics and, on the other hand, the techniques of discipline ("standard'" codes of behavior that produce and reproduce power in the context of educational administrative model), as well as the fact that the fermentations of “standardization” increasingly dominate on the legal processes, finally interpret the lack of initiative and creativity of all that they work and live in the school, explain the emaciation of the right to be different, justify the annihilation of each “self-administrative experience” through the free experimentation (Bergidis, 1983). The fermentations of “standardization”, moreover, interpret the mechanisms that “armour” the administrative, instructive and ideological legacy via its own reproduction (Gotovos, Maurogiorgos 1986), as well as the present objective of disciplinary power to “construct” convenient and obedient individuals to its exertion. Apart from that, the pointings out of Foucault (1991: 177-178) that, on the one hand, the envisagement of the disciplinary society is “the automation of individuation” and, on the other hand, the particular envisagement is being attained “when the individual internalizes all the submissive techniques of the power (which renders the exterior coercions inoperative and leads the individual to produce his required obedience and conformity in his own right”) are, I think, masterfully adaptable and functionally exploitable to our own subject of negotiation, if we at the same time include in the latter comment two important disciplinary means of imposition in the frameworks of the educational administrative model: a) the hierarchical surveillance and b) the imposition of a norm which differentiates both educators and students by virtue of the binary opposites of good and evil.
THE DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE MODEL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PEDAGOGIC IDENTITY
Initially, the specific administrative model and the pre-mentioned disciplinary means of imposition encourage by far the “bisected view” of all those who participate in the educational act. This kind of view allocates the participants into two general, completely distinct, categories: “ those that do also those that are done, those that mold also those that are molded, the schoolteachers and the students, the educators and the educated, the instructors and the guided” (Bauman, 2002:242). Automatically, a mesh of power relations is evolved that causes a result of sovereignty (Foucault, 1987: 128-129) within the pyramidal administrative frame of the subsuming relations of interdependence. Certainly, with regard to this point, we have to stress out that the power is not discipline, “is mainly a likely way of energy of power” and further more “there are assenting disciplines” as it happens in the pedagogic relation (the relation of teaching) many times, that is to say the transition from someone who knows more to someone who knows less (1987: 130). The query that results, however, in the particular case is whether the administrative model of education (that we examine and that it uses the discipline as basic way of energy of power) imposes a pre-decided model of consent, in brief, whether this model facilitates teachers and students to wonder about the contingent proportion of not-consent that is included in their relations and, more specifically, to wonder how much this degree of not-consent is necessary.
The current, therefore, administrative organization of the education unfortunately imposes a pre-decided consent, a consent that only a “turned into implement” informative discourse can anticipate in the frameworks of the educational politics (done by virtue of this discourse). As Mills mentions (1997: 183-185), the extreme “turned into implement” use of language (as well as the latter is being strengthened in the context of the “standardized” administrative organization of education) downgrades its holistic and proportional dimension – namely, its contextual character. The issue is that due to this kind of character language is being interlinked with the culture, the memory, the unsaid feeling, with whatever promotes its transition from a shrunken system of points (broken away from the polymorph of human experience) into a language of “words and things”. The language, however, that is being evolved in the frameworks of a homogeneous bureaucratic educational model functions as apologetic discourse of homogeneity, as well as its notional dimension is being overemphasized and its interdrastic-communicative dimension is simultaneously downgraded (Xristidis, 1999:155).
In other words, the administrative organization of education unfortunately imposes the operation of an "advantageous observatory" through which we can finally gaze one and unique meaning of the educational phenomena: more particularly, the educational phenomena function as a “well-orderly factory” of foreseeable and consequently controllable situations. This "well-orderly factory”, that is strengthened by the discourse of homogeneity, supports itself onto the two basic structural elements of educational system: a) the center of control (everything is being regulated and formed by the ministry of education, as it happens mainly in Greece) and b) the aims of the educational organization, which are supported by a central system of values that is found in the top of educational system (and, consequently, everything else inside the system should be considered as a specialization and application of these values) (Bauman, 2002). Consequently, each effort of “self-administrative” experience and “open” subjectivity will be progressively absorbed by the system, as such effort simultaneously functions as alibi of an oppressive society that wants to seem pluralist and also of a power that it seeks a human person. Besides, the lower position of the educator within the hierarchical scale and the control (legislative, bureaucratic…) that is exerted upon him led to the perception that the educator isn’t less than an executive body (particularly in Greece) - a perception that affected and affects upon his “self-image” and social prestige negatively (Athanasiou, 1990).
More specifically, the crucial query concerning the role of an educator is whether his pedagogic reciprocation (by means of the self-perception about his pedagogic role) is being undermined by the claims of the administration. Many times, the opposition between the social expectations and the self-expectations that the educator has about his pedagogic agency (due to the administrative specifications and claims that he comes up against) inevitably composes a perpetual conflicting situation (Pyrgiotakis, Xochelis, 1986). In other words, the educator, as “civil servant” simultaneously owes to teach, to educate, to evaluate, to justify, to consult according to the government owned specifications (legal, administrative) that the educational power anticipates or imposes. This brings about the variance of the pedagogic agency and the construction of a faddish pedagogic identity.
Conclusion:
Finally, the current administrative organization of the education imposes the canalization of such learning that does not escape from concrete cultural constants and cultural models. It’s incumbent upon, in this way, the continuous improvement of an objective in advance, an improvement that is comprehended only as a linear course to a “better” objective, according to the anticipated cultural constants and models. Moreover, the specific linear course, in a “cycloteric” way, refers to an improvement of the current administrative rules and furthermore to an improvement of such knowledge of the educators that on no account trample over the reproduction of the administrative model of power. Certainly, the issue is that the administrative norms (despite they reproductively reflect the government owned power) simultaneously create a complex mesh of practices that assist the production of new forms of power within the pedagogic relations. According to the Foucault, the disciplinary coercions “have their own particular discourse and create same systems of knowledge and various cognitive fields”. In parallel, it’s worth mentioning that the administrative organization of the education serves and brings on the dissolution of any pattern of co-decision between the schoolteachers and the students, undermining accordingly the autonomy of all those involved in the educational process and disembroiling completely the objectives of the education from the means that none other than education uses. Finally, we couldn’t miss out that the capability of the educator to construct his pedagogic agency and identity and consequently to harmonize the social expectations (that have economic, administrative, political and cultural character) depends on the construction of his personal and social identity and more widely of his socialization, which acquires meaning via the interpretation (key-word) of none other than the educator as concerns his role.
REFERENCES
ATHANASIOU, L. (1990). The evaluation of the educator in the school. Scientific Yearbook of the University of Ioannina (Teachers Training College). p. 9-61.
APPLE, M. (1993). Education and Power. Thessaloniki: Paratiritis
ANTHOGALIDOU, TH. (1979). «The bureaucracy in education». Αnti. 127: 22-25.
ANTHOGALIDOU, TH. (1990). Social critisism and ideology in education. Athens: Odysseas.
BANKS, O. (1987). The Sociology of Education (transl. Τ. Darberis). Thessaloniki: Paratiritis.
BAUMAN, Z. (2002). The post-modernity and its harmful features. (transl.. G. Babasakis). Athens: Psychogios.
BERGIDIS, D. (1983). From Educational Reform to Self-administrative Experimentation. Athens: Andromeda.
GOTOVOS, A. – MAUROGIORGOS, G. – PAPAKONSTANTINOU, P. (1983). «Government teaching and educational act. The role of the encyclicals in the teaching organization”. Scientific thought. 12: 51-63.
GOTOVOS, A.. (1985). “Pedagogical rituals. Modern Education. 21: 42-43.
GOTOVOS, A. – MAUROGIORGOS, G. (1986). “Occupational socialization of the recently appointed educator: from desk to seat” in Α. Gotovos et. al.. Critical Pedagogy and Educational Act, Athens. p. 105-116.
DALE, R. (1982). “Education and the Capitalistic State: contributions and contradictions” in Apple M. (ed) Cultural and Economic Reproduction in Education. London: R. K. P.
DALE, R. (1992). “Whither the state and educational policy: recent work in Australia and New Zealand” in British Journal of Sociology of Education 13(3): 387-395.
DEWEY, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.
FOUCAULT, M. (1987). Power, Knowledge and Ethics. (Transl. Z. Sarikas) Athens: Ypsilon
FOUCAULT, M. (1991). The micro-physics of the power. (Transl. L. Troulinou). Athens: Ypsilon
FOUCAULT, M. (2002). On the vindication of the society. Athens: Psychogios.
HARRIS, K. (2003). “Intentions! Whose intentions? in R. Marples (ed.) The aims of the education (transl. P. Chagipadelis). Athens: Metechmio.
HIRST, P. (2002). “The nature of the aims of education” in R. Marples (ed.) The aims of the education (transl. P. Chagipadelis). Athens: Metechmio.
ILIOU, M. (1982). “The notion of the equality of occasions and their multiple political use”. Inspection of the political science 3: 103-105.
HOLLOWAY, J. and PICCIOTTO, S. (1978). “Introduction: Towards a Materialist Theory of the State” in John Holloway and Sol Picciotto (eds) State and Capital. London: Edward Arnold.
JESSOP, B. (1978). “Capitalism and Democracy” in Gary Littlejohn et al. (eds) Power and State. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
KOKOGIANNIS, K. (2005). Humanities and Vocational Education – Theoretical and empirical approach. Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis
KONSTADINOU, CH. (1994). The school as bureaucratic organization and the educator’s role within this. Athens: Smirniotakis.
MAUROGIORGOS, G. (1985). “Educational reforms, technocracy and technical control” Modern Education 21: 16-35.
MILLS, S. (1997). Turning away from technology: a new vision for the 21th century. (Επιμ.). San Francisco: Sierra Club books.
WILLIAMS, R. (1977). Marxism and Lirerature. New York: Oxford University Press.
POULANTZAS, N. (19842 ). The State, the Power, the Socialism. Athens: Themelio.
PYRGIOTAKIS, I. (1986). Socialization and educational inequalities. Athens
PUSEY, M. (1976). Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Case Analysis in Education. New York and Sydney: Wiley.
PUTNAM, H. (1983). Realism and Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
STANDISH, P. (2002). “Education without aims?” in R. Marples (ed.) The aims of the education (transl. P. Chagipadelis). Athens: Metechmio.
XOCHELIS, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the School – Topics of Sociology of the School.
Thessaloniki: Kyriakidis
XRISTIDIS, Α. (1999). Language, Politics, Culture. Athens: Polis.