Action research for contexts of change and inequality

Undoubtedly, the past half-century has witnessed an escalation of changes in the social, political, economic and educational structures in many societies around the world. Some have seen change as a challenge and hope while, for many others, it is a source of concern and worry. Some have adopted change with gusto, while for many it is something to be resisted. Some say we live in a world and times with an increasing awareness that “times are changing”, while for some “the more things change, the more they stay the same”.

Why ask new questions?

It can probably be said those people who work in the world of the natural sciences— chemistry, biology, mathematics, and so on—regard themselves as inhabiting a fairly straight-forward epistemological world. They have a body of knowledge to draw upon from within any given area, much like a set of bricks in a wall, and when they conduct their experiments, they add another brick to that wall … and the wall gets taller, and they know more than they did before. Such scientists would contend that the questions they ask as part of their research flow naturally from the very nature of the world itself. But even then, they could also argue that the specifics of the question ultimately don‟t really matter that much, because if enough people work on any given brick, the truth will eventually emerge anyway.

What is the relationship between social governance and schooling?

The most frequently told story charting the rise of mass schooling should be fairly familiar to most of us. This story normally centres around the post-enlightenment social changes of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and details how society slowly became more caring and more humane, and how we all decided that rather than simply being fodder for the mills, all children – including those from the working-classes - had the right to an education. The more civilised we became, the more we pushed back the school leaving age, until we eventually developed schools which clearly reflected the values and ambitions of the wider community. After all, are school not simply microcosms of society at large? In addition to this, the form that modern schooling takes is regarded as an unproblematic part of the same story. Of course we should organise our learning in the way we do, with the emphasis on formalised learning spaces, graded curricula, timetables of activities, various forms of assessment, and a clear hierarchy of authority. These features of the contemporary education merely reflect the fact that this is self-evidently the best system available. After all, how else could education possibly be organised?

From the panopticon to the playground : disciplinary practices

It is easy to take many of the practices that constitute the contemporary school for granted. Timetables, academic records, rows of desks, playgrounds, guidance counsellors now all seem a natural and inevitable part of an optimal learning environment. However, the evidence suggests that they did not appear by chance. Instead, they were put in place, albeit often in a piecemeal and haphazard way, as part of the process by which a new type of institution was constructed. By understanding the school as a disciplinary society, constituted through a variety of diverse practices, it becomes possible to re-interpret the way we have come to educate ourselves. No longer is the modern school some kind of pedagogic inevitability—simply the best and most obvious way to educate, the end result of two thousand years of trying to finally get it right. Rather, mass schooling, as we know it, is an historical by-product of changes in the way society was organised. It is a contingent collection of particular forms of government, deployed at different historical moments, often for quite different administrative and educational reasons.

New routes for the field trip

As with the broader field of education research, most writing on the subject of school excursions and field trips has centred around progressive/humanist concerns for building pupil’s self-esteem and for the development of the ‘whole child’. Such research has also stressed the importance of a broad, grounded, and experiential curriculum - as exemplified by subjects containing these extra-school activities - as well as the possibility of strengthening the relationship between student and teacher. Arguing that this approach to the field trip is both exhausted of ideas and conceptually flawed, this paper proposes some alternate routes into the area for the prospective researcher. First, it is argued that by historicising the subject matter, it can be seen that school excursions are not simply the product of the contemporary humanist desire for diverse and fulfilling educational experiences, rather they can, in part, be traced to eighteenth century beliefs among the English gentry that travel formed a crucial component of a good education, to the advent of an affordable public rail system, and to school tours associated with the Temperance movement. Second, field trips can be understood from within the associated framework of concerns over the governance of tourism and the organisation of disciplinary apparatuses for the production of an educated and regulated citizenry. Far from being a simple learning experience, museums and art galleries form part of a complex of disciplinary and power relations designed to produce a populace with very specific capacities, aspirations and styles of public conduct. Finally, rather than allowing children ‘freedom’ from the constraints of the classroom, on the contrary, through the medium of the field-trip, children can become accustomed to having their activities governed in the broader domain of the generalised community . School excursions thereby constitute an effective tactic through which young people have their conduct managed, and their social and scholastic identities shaped and administered.

Youth, personhood and 'practices of the self'

In contrast to most previous research in the field, this paper argues that the concept of 'youth' is best understood as an example of the governmental formation of a specific type of person. It is constructed at the intersection of a variety of diverse problematisations, being produced by the processes of individuation/ normalisation and the regulation of relations of time. Within programs such as those pertinent to the management of sex, an array of technologies structure the practices by which individuals pattern their own conduct - thereby fashioning a kind of habitus. This forms part of a general strategy of enrolling the objects of these programs in their own self-reformation. Consequently, `youth' can be understood as `the doing of specific types of work on the self'. By utilising this framework, the paper not only seeks to identify and better understand some of the sexual subjectivities associated with the construction of youth, it also seeks to offer some new directions for research in the area.

'Anorexia Nervosa' : asceticism, differentiation, government

This paper looks at the severe fasting practices most commonly found among young women. Almost all explanations for this behaviour centre around the notion of the pathological condition 'anorexia nervosa'. However, food asceticism has a well-documented history, particularly when it concerns religious fasting. In ancient Greece, dietary asceticism constituted an important part of the means by which individuals constructed an acceptable 'self'. Ascetic fasting then later resurfaced at various historical moments and in various different places — such as amongst medieval religious women and, in a broader way, amongst contemporary young women. It is argued that these practices have traditionally formed part of the mechanisms by which differentiation by age and sex occurs. Overall, it is hoped that this analysis will permit not only a different focus on 'anorexia nervosa', but also on some of the ways in which young people become gendered.

Pathologising difference, governing personality

Recent research has stressed the integral part played by teachers in both preliminary diagnosis and ongoing treatment of a range of conduct and personality disorders. Teachers are not only required to be aware of a variety of new categories of difference (Attention Deficit Disorder, Selective Mutism, Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, to name but a few), but are also now lauded for extending the role of education into new areas of social management. This paper will take issue with this understanding on two counts: first, teachers have always sought to mould the personalities of students, and the pathologisation of specific forms of conduct is simply a new tactic within a very old and familiar strategy. Second, schools do not simply discover disorders such as ADD as objective facts of nature. Rather, they are part of the process through which such differences are created, and by which individuals can be more effectively governed.

Setting limits to teacher responsibility

The purpose of this article is to raise some concerns over ongoing changes to the nature and scope of the teaching profession. Teaching is a responsible profession, and teachers have always been charged with the job of turning out the next generation of citizens—educated, healthy in mind, and healthy in body. The question is: how far should this responsibility extend? Just what should schools be responsible for? This article proposes some limits to teacher responsibility.