doing 1 discourse 1 analysis 1 using Foucault - AARE

Schoolingȱandȱ‘disorderly’ȱobjects:doingȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱusing

Foucault

LindaȱJ.ȱGraham

QueenslandȱUniversityȱofȱTechnology

PaperȱpresentedȱatȱAustralianȱAssociationȱforȱResearchȱinȱEducation2005ȱAnnualȱConference,ȱSydney27thȱNovemberȱ–ȱ1stȱDecember

Correspondence:Linda J. Graham.Centre for Learning Innovation,Faculty of Education,Queensland University of Technology,Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Linda Graham 2AARE 2005 Paper Presentation

Schoolingȱandȱ‘disorderly’ȱobjects:ȱdoingȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱusingȱFoucault

But here is an example of another possible orientation. In analysing a painting, one can reconstitutethe latent discourse of the painter; one can try to recapture the murmur of his intentions which are not

transcribed into words, but into lines, surfaces, and colours; one can try to uncover the implicitphilosophy that is supposed to form his view of the world… [or] … try to show that it is a discursive

practice that is embodied in techniques and effects. In this sense, the painting is not a pure visionthat must then be transcribed into the materiality of space; not is it a naked gesture whose silent andeternally empty meanings must be freed from subsequent interpretations. It is shot through… with

the positivity of a knowledge (savoir). It seems to me that one might also carry out an analysis of thesame type on political knowledge.

Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, p.214.

ActȱI:ȱPedagogicalȱsystemsȱofȱformation

ThisȱpaperȱisȱderivedȱfromȱtheȱworkȱIȱamȱdoingȱthroughȱmyȱdoctoralȱstudy,ȱwhichȱaimsȱtointerrogateȱ theȱconstructionȱofȱothernessȱandȱdifferentialȱ treatmentȱofȱchildrenȱpresentingwithȱproblematicȱbehaviourȱinȱschoolsȱ(Graham,ȱ2006;ȱGrahamȱ&ȱSlee,ȱ2005;ȱGraham,ȱ2005).Itȱ doesȱ notȱ contributeȱ toȱ argumentsȱ thatȱ debateȱ theȱ “truth”ȱ ofȱ ADHDȱ orȱ claimȱ that“behaviourȱdisorderedness”ȱisȱpurelyȱaȱsocialȱconstruct.ȱȱInstead,ȱIȱtakeȱtheȱpositionȱthatȱitisȱ notȱ necessaryȱ toȱ engageȱ inȱ ‘aȱ battleȱ “onȱ behalf”ȱ ofȱ theȱ truth’ȱ byȱ debatingȱ ‘thephilosophicalȱ presuppositionsȱ thatȱ mayȱ lieȱ within’ȱ thatȱ truthȱ norȱ theȱ ‘epistemologicalfoundationsȱthatȱmayȱlegitimateȱit’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.205).ȱȱIndeed,ȱFoucaultȱmaintainsȱthattoȱ‘tackleȱtheȱideologicalȱfunctionȱofȱaȱscienceȱinȱorderȱtoȱrevealȱandȱmodifyȱit’,ȱoneȱshould‘questionȱitȱasȱaȱdiscursiveȱformation’ȱ(1972,ȱp.205),ȱwhichȱinvolvesȱmappingȱtheȱsystemȱbywhichȱparticularȱobjectsȱareȱ formedȱandȱ theȱ ‘typesȱofȱenunciations’ȱ implicatedȱ (Foucault,1972,ȱp.205).ȱȱThisȱisȱtakenȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱinsteadȱofȱengagingȱinȱaȱbattleȱofȱtruthȱandȱfictionwithȱtheȱhumanȱsciencesȱasȱtoȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱADHDȱorȱ“behaviourȱdisorderedness”,ȱ theobjectiveȱ isȱ toȱconsiderȱnotȱwhetherȱADHD/behaviourȱdisorderȱ isȱ trueȱbutȱhowȱ itsȱobjectsmightȱ becomeȱ formed;ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ howȱ isȱ thisȱ particularȱ differenceȱ articulatedȱ andȱ broughtȱ toattentionȱandȱwhatȱmightȱbeȱtheȱ‘effectsȱinȱtheȱreal’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1980a,ȱp.237).

SceneȱI:ȱMappingȱSystemsȱofȱFormation

Whenȱ engagingȱ withȱ Foucault’sȱmetaphorȱ ofȱ aȱ discursive/technologicalȱ grid,ȱ Scheurich(1997)ȱdiscussesȱtheȱconstructionȱandȱrecognitionȱofȱaȱproblematicȱgroupȱoccurringȱwithinwhatȱheȱdescribesȱasȱaȱ‘gridȱofȱsocialȱregularities’ȱ(Scheurich,ȱ1997,ȱpp.98,ȱ107).ȱȱImportantly,Scheurichȱdescribesȱ thisȱgridȱ asȱ ‘bothȱ epistemologicalȱ andȱontological;ȱ [for]ȱ itȱ constitutesbothȱ whoȱ theȱ problemȱ groupȱ isȱ andȱ howȱ theȱ groupȱ isȱ seenȱ orȱ knownȱ asȱ aȱ problem’(Scheurich,ȱ 1997,ȱ p.107).ȱ ȱ Ofȱ interestȱ inȱ thisȱ paperȱ isȱ howȱ particularȱ childrenȱ comeȱ bedescribedȱasȱaȱproblemȱwithinȱtheȱschoolingȱcontext.ȱ ȱFollowingȱScheurich’sȱsuggestionȱofepistemologicalȱ actions,ȱ Iȱ investigateȱ pedagogicalȱ discoursesȱ orȱ discursiveȱ practicesȱ asenunciationsȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972)ȱthatȱdetermineȱwhomȱaȱproblemȱgroupȱisȱ(Scheurich,ȱ1997).


Thisȱ isȱ consistentȱ withȱ Foucault’sȱ suggestionȱ toȱ tackleȱ truthȱ byȱ questioningȱ itȱ asdiscursiveȱ formation,ȱ usingȱ discourseȱ analysisȱ toȱ interrogateȱ theȱ productiveȱ powerȱ ofpsychopathologisingȱ pedagogicalȱ discourseȱ andȱ howȱ thisȱmayȱ implicateȱ schoolingȱ asȱ ‘asystemȱofȱformation’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.205)ȱofȱcertainȱtruthȬobjects.ȱȱInȱorderȱtoȱfacilitateȱaninvestigationȱ ofȱ pedagogicalȱ discoursesȱ thatȱ constructȱ recognisableȱ (Butler,ȱ 1997a)“disordered”ȱobjectsȱ throughȱstatementsȱ thatȱdefineȱ theȱbehaviourallyȱproblematicȱschoolchild,ȱthisȱpaperȱfocusesȱonȱtheȱdeploymentȱofȱwhatȱmightȱbeȱcalledȱaȱdiscursiveȱanalytic;ȱamethodologicalȱ planȱ toȱ approachȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ pedagogicalȱ discoursesȱ throughȱ thelocationȱ ofȱ enunciationsȱ orȱ statementsȱ thatȱ functionȱ withȱ constitutiveȱ effectsȱ (Foucault,1972).

ActȱII:ȱOrientation

SceneȱI:ȱTheȱStatement.

Foucaultȱprivilegesȱ theȱ“statement”ȱextractedȱfromȱ ‘theȱsimpleȱ inscriptionȱofȱwhatȱ isȱsaid’(Deleuze,ȱ1988,ȱp.15).ȱȱHeȱdescribesȱtheȱstatement,ȱnotȱasȱaȱlinguisticȱunitȱlikeȱtheȱsentence,butȱasȱ‘aȱfunction’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.98).ȱȱTheȱstatementȱasȱ“function”ȱcanȱbeȱtheorisedȱasȱadiscursiveȱ junctionȬboxȱ inȱwhichȱwordsȱ andȱ thingsȱ intersectȱ andȱ becomeȱ investedȱwithparticularȱ relationsȱofȱpower,ȱ resultingȱ inȱanȱ interpellativeȱeventȱ (Althusser,ȱ1971;ȱButler,1990)ȱinȱwhichȱoneȱcanȱ‘recognizeȱandȱisolateȱanȱactȱofȱformulation’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.93).AccordingȱtoȱFoucault,ȱtheȱstatementȱisȱaȱ‘specialȱmodeȱofȱexistence’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.100)whichȱ enablesȱ ‘groupsȱ ofȱ signsȱ toȱ exist,ȱ andȱ enablesȱ rulesȱ orȱ formsȱ toȱ becomeȱmanifest’(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.99).ȱȱThus,ȱinȱtheorisingȱtheȱtacticsȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱproductionȱofȱpsychiatric“truth”ȱ andȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ aȱ power/knowledgeȱ specificȱ toȱ theȱ humanȱ sciences,Foucaultȱ(1972)ȱlooks,

toȱdescribeȱstatements,ȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱenunciativeȱfunctionȱofȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱtheȱbearers,ȱtoanalyseȱ theȱconditionsȱ inȱwhichȱ thisȱ functionȱoperates,ȱ toȱcoverȱ theȱdifferentȱdomainsȱ thatthisȱ functionȱpresupposesȱandȱ theȱwayȱ inȱwhichȱ thoseȱdomainsȱareȱarticulatedȱ (Dreyfusȱ&Rabinow,ȱ1982,ȱp.56;ȱFoucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.86,ȱ87).

Inȱ doingȱ so,ȱ Foucaultȱ findsȱ thatȱ ‘psychiatricȱ discourseȱ findsȱ aȱ wayȱ ofȱ limitingȱ itsdomain,ȱ ofȱ definingȱwhatȱ itȱ isȱ talkingȱ about,ȱ ofȱ givingȱ itȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ anȱ objectȱ –ȱ andthereforeȱ ofȱmakingȱ itȱmanifest,ȱ nameable,ȱ andȱ describable’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ 1972,ȱ p.46).ȱ ȱHemaintainsȱ thatȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ categoriesȱ andȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ disordersȱ (suchȱ asȱ theevolvingȱdescriptionsȱwithinȱtheȱDSMȬIVȬTR)ȱservesȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱhumanȱsciencesȱwithȱalocatableȱ objectȱ ofȱ scrutinyȱ (Foucault,ȱ 1975b).ȱ ȱ Ofȱ interestȱ hereȱ isȱ howȱ theȱ statementfunctionsȱ notȱ toȱ defineȱ ‘objects,ȱ fullyȱ formedȱ andȱ armed,ȱ thatȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofpsychopathologyȱhasȱthenȱmerelyȱtoȱlist,ȱclassify,ȱname,’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.47)ȱbutȱinsteadhowȱ theȱ statement,ȱ asȱ aȱ functionȱ ofȱ certainȱ discursiveȱ dividingȱ practices,ȱ ‘enablesȱ [theobject]ȱtoȱappear…ȱtoȱbeȱplacedȱinȱaȱfieldȱofȱexteriority’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.50).

SceneȱII:ȱRecognisingȱparticularȱobjectsȱofȱdiscourse

Correspondinglyȱ Butlerȱ declaresȱ that,ȱ ‘[o]neȱ “exists”ȱ notȱ onlyȱ byȱ virtueȱ ofȱ beingrecognized,ȱ but,ȱ inȱ aȱpriorȱ sense,ȱ byȱ beingȱ recognizableȱ (originalȱ emphasis,ȱButler,ȱ 1997a,


p.5).ȱ ȱ Itȱwouldȱbeȱ reasonableȱ toȱ argueȱ thatȱ statementsȱwithinȱpedagogicalȱdiscourseȱ thatspeakȱ toȱ poorȱ regulation,ȱ impulseȱ orȱ attentionalȱ controlȱ areȱ theȱ meansȱ byȱ which“disordered”ȱdiscursiveȱobjectsȱ(Deleuze,ȱ1988)ȱbecomeȱarticulatedȱandȱmadeȱmanifestȱinȱaformȱ thatȱ isȱ “recognizable”ȱ (Butler,ȱ 1997a).ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱway,ȱpedagogicalȱuseȱ ofȱbehaviouraldescriptorsȱ synonymousȱ withȱ ADHDȱ diagnosticȱ criteria,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofattentionalȱ orȱ regulatoryȱ capabilities,ȱ effectivelyȱ speaksȱ intoȱ existenceȱ theȱ “behaviourallydisordered”ȱschoolchildȱasȱaȱrecognizableȱ(Butler,ȱ1997a)ȱ‘objectȱofȱdiscourse’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,p.50).

Thusȱ borrowingȱ fromȱ Foucault,ȱ Iȱ interpretȱ theȱ statementȱ asȱ anȱ articulationȱ thatfunctionsȱ withȱ constitutiveȱ effects.ȱ ȱ Inȱ discussingȱ Foucault’sȱ interestȱ inȱ theȱ statement,Deleuzeȱpointsȱ toȱ theȱ constitutiveȱpropertiesȱ intrinsicȱ toȱ aȱ statementȱbyȱ impartingȱ thatȱ a‘statementȱhasȱaȱ“discursiveȱobject”ȱwhichȱdoesȱnotȱderiveȱ inȱanyȱsenseȱ fromȱaȱparticularstateȱofȱthings,ȱbutȱstemsȱfromȱtheȱstatementȱitself’ȱ(Deleuze,ȱ1988,ȱp.8).ȱȱToȱbrieflyȱillustrateIȱhaveȱextractedȱaȱstatementȱ fromȱ theȱ“SwaynevilleȱStateȱSchoolȱSupportiveȱEnvironmentManagementȱ Plan”ȱ (Swaynevilleȱ SSȱManagementȱ Plan,ȱ 1995).ȱ ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ schoolȱ behaviourmanagementȱ policyȱ postedȱ onȱ theȱ EducationȱQueenslandȱwebsiteȱ asȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ oneschool’sȱapproachȱ toȱ studentȱdiscipline.ȱ ȱUnderȱ “CodeȱofȱBehaviour”ȱ theȱ schoolȱ listsȱ thecategoryȱ“Courtesy”.ȱȱTheȱfirstȱpointȱoutlinedȱis:

Allȱpeopleȱareȱexpectedȱto:

1. Thinkȱbeforeȱtheyȱspeakȱi

Inȱkeepingȱwithȱmyȱproject,ȱtheȱquestionȱbecomes:ȱhowȱdoesȱthisȱstatementȱfunction?

SceneȱIII:ȱTracingȱtheȱpositivityȱofȱaȱknowledgeȱii

Theȱ constitutiveȱobjectȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ isȱ aȱpersonȱwhoȱ speaksȱonlyȱ afterȱ clearlyȱ thinkingȱofwhatȱitȱisȱtheyȱwantȱtoȱsay;ȱtheȱconsidered,ȱthoughtfulȱsubject.ȱȱCorrelatively,ȱanȱoppositionisȱ formed.ȱ Theȱ antithesisȱ ofȱ theȱ thinking,ȱ considered,ȱ reasonedȱ subjectȱ isȱ alwaysȱ theunconsidered,ȱpoorlyȬregulated,ȱunreasonableȱsubject,ȱ forȱaȱ ‘statementȱalwaysȱdefinesȱ itselfbyȱ establishingȱ aȱ specificȱ linkȱwithȱ somethingȱ elseȱ thatȱ liesȱ onȱ theȱ sameȱ levelȱ asȱ itself…almostȱinevitably,ȱitȱisȱsomethingȱforeign,ȱsomethingȱoutside’ȱ(originalȱemphasis,ȱDeleuze,1988,ȱ p.11).ȱ ȱ Inȱ locatingȱ thisȱ statementȱ andȱ identifyingȱ itsȱ “function”ȱ orȱ constitutiveproperties,ȱitȱisȱalsoȱpossibleȱtoȱisolateȱtheȱworkingsȱorȱ“positivity”ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.214)ȱofaȱ particularȱ power/knowledgeȱ –ȱ theȱ mantraȱ ofȱ “selfȬregulation”ȱ whichȱ marksȱ thepsychologicalȱprojectȱtoȱconstructȱtheȱselfȬgoverningȱindividualȱ(Popkewitz,ȱ2001).

Interestingly,ȱandȱdespiteȱdifferencesȱ inȱpsychologicalȱandȱmedicalȱ conceptualisationsofȱAttentionȱDeficit/HyperactivityȱDisorder,ȱliteratureȱfromȱbothȱpsychologyȱandȱmedicinerevolveȱaroundȱdiscussionsȱofȱADHDȱasȱaȱdeficit,ȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱinȱattentionȱbutȱinȱtheȱlocusofȱ executiveȱ controlȱ (Barkley,ȱ 1998;ȱWallace,ȱ 1999);ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ aȱ perceivedȱ lackȱ ofȱ abilityȱ tocontrolȱ attentionȱ orȱ impulseȱ (Atkinsonȱ&ȱ Shute,ȱ 1999;ȱHolmes,ȱ 2004;ȱWhalenȱ&ȱHenker,1998).ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱway,ȱ IȱreadȱADHDȱasȱaȱmedical/psychologicalȱconstructȱ thatȱprivilegesȱ theabilityȱ toȱ selfȬregulate.ȱ ȱThisȱ isȱ evidentȱ inȱADHDȱ diagnosticȱ questionnaires,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theConnor’sȱ Parent/Teacherȱ Ratingȱ Scales,ȱwhereȱ questionsȱ relatingȱ toȱ callingȱ outȱ inȱ class,


remainingȱseatedȱorȱinȱlineȱareȱcommon.ȱȱInȱprivilegingȱsuchȱselfȬregulatoryȱabilities,ȱwhichinȱ youngȱ childrenȱ isȱ anȱ impossibleȱ ideal,ȱmedicalȱ andȱpsychologicalȱdiscourseȱ setsȱupȱ asimpleȱ bifurcationȱ inȱ childhoodȱ behaviourȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ andȱ isȱ beingȱ appropriatedȱ fordisciplinaryȱends.

Itȱmattersȱ littleȱwhyȱtheȱSwaynevilleȱStateȱSchoolȱbehaviourȱmanagementȱpolicyȱmadesuchȱ aȱ statement,ȱ forȱ ‘thereȱ isȱ noȱ pointȱ inȱ distinguishingȱ betweenȱ theȱ differentȱ typesȱ ofintentionality’ȱ(Deleuze,ȱ1988,ȱp.8).ȱȱWhilstȱthereȱareȱprobablyȱaȱnumberȱofȱexplanationsȱastoȱ whyȱ thinkingȱ beforeȱ speakingȱ isȱ expected,ȱ Iȱ amȱ interestedȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ functionȱ thestatementȱperforms.ȱȱNeitherȱdoesȱitȱmatterȱinȱwhatȱcontextȱaȱstatementȱisȱborn,ȱparticularlyinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱarchivalȱrecords.ȱȱEntextualisationȱresultsȱinȱtheȱrepresentationȱoftheȱchildȱ throughȱaȱcaseȬfile,ȱaȱ ‘decontextualisedȱ textȬartifact’ȱ (Mehan,ȱ1996,ȱp.359),ȱwhichobjectifiesȱ theȱchildȱandȱ theirȱallegedȱactionsȱ inȱclinicalȱ terms.ȱ ȱThisȱ isȱhighlyȱproblematicfor,ȱasȱFoucaultȱmaintains,ȱthisȱ“case”ȱisȱ‘noȱlongerȱaȱmonumentȱforȱfutureȱmemory,ȱbutȱadocumentȱ forȱ futureȱuse’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ1977,ȱp.191).ȱ ȱTheȱ significanceȱofȱ this,ȱparticularlyȱ inlightȱofȱ theȱQueenslandȱGovernment’sȱ intentionȱ toȱestablishȱaȱcentralȱdatabaseȱ thatȱ tracksnotȱonlyȱstudentȱacademicȱhistoryȱbutȱbehaviouralȱ“history”ȱasȱwell,ȱisȱprofoundȱ(Wardill,2004).ȱȱIfȱtheȱdiscoursesȱteachersȱuseȱtoȱdescribeȱchildȱbehaviourȱareȱindeedȱconstitutiveȱof‘disorderly’ȱobjects,ȱthenȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱsuchȱaȱdatabaseȱcouldȱhaveȱdevastatingȱeffectsforȱ childrenȱ whoȱ comeȱ toȱ beȱ describedȱ inȱ theseȱ ways,ȱ furtherȱ implicatingȱ schoolingpracticesȱinȱspirallingȱADHDȱdiagnosticȱratesȱ(Davis,ȱBeer,ȱGligora,ȱ&ȱThorn,ȱ2001;ȱMackey&ȱKopras,ȱ2001).

Thusȱ ifȱ statementsȱ areȱ ‘theȱ words,ȱ phrasesȱ andȱ propositionsȱ whichȱ revolveȱ rounddifferentȱfocalȱpointsȱofȱpower…ȱsetȱinȱplayȱbyȱaȱparticularȱproblem’ȱ(Deleuze,ȱ1988,ȱp.17),forȱmyȱ researchȱprojectȱ Iȱ locateȱ“statements”ȱasȱ thingsȱ saidȱwithinȱ theȱdiscoursesȱusedȱ todescribeȱproblematicȱbehaviourȱ inȱ schoolsȱ thatȱ functionȱwithȱ constitutiveȱ effectsȱ toȱ speakintoȱexistenceȱ theȱ“behaviourallyȱdisordered”ȱ schoolchildȱasȱaȱ recognizableȱ (Butler,ȱ1993)‘objectȱofȱdiscourse’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.50).ȱ ȱTherefore,ȱ lookingȱ toȱ ‘ADHD’ȱandȱ ‘behaviourdisorderedness’ȱ inȱ schoolsȱ asȱ aȱ discursiveȱ formation,ȱ andȱ therebyȱ theȱ ‘behaviourallydisordered’ȱchildȱasȱaȱdiscursiveȱ truthȬobject,ȱentailsȱ theȱ locationȱofȱaȱparticularȱ familyȱofstatementsȱ andȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ anȱ analyticȱ toȱ examineȱ theȱ wordsȱ andȱ phrasescoagulatingȱaroundȱpedagogicalȱdescriptionsȱofȱ“disruptive”,ȱ“disordered”ȱorȱ“disturbed”behaviourȱ inȱ schools.ȱ Inȱ “doing”ȱdiscourseȱ analysisȱ thisȱway,ȱ Iȱwillȱ attemptȱ toȱmapȱ thesystemȱ throughȱ whichȱ theseȱ particularȱ truthȬobjectsȱ areȱ formedȱ andȱ theȱ ‘typesȱ ofenunciations’ȱimplicatedȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.205);ȱtoȱcallȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱdangersȱinherentȱtotheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱproblematicȱchildȱbehaviourȱisȱdescribedȱinȱschools.

ActȱIII:ȱ“Doing”ȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱusingȱFoucault

Toȱ interrogateȱ pedagogicalȱ discoursesȱ relatingȱ toȱ childȱ behaviourȱ asȱ ‘practicesȱ thatsystematicallyȱformȱtheȱobjectsȱofȱwhichȱtheyȱspeak’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.54),ȱIȱanalyseȱthreetexts.ȱȱTheȱprincipleȱtextȱisȱaȱstatementȱdescribingȱproblematicȱchildȱbehaviourȱinȱschool.ȱȱOfconcernȱisȱhowȱthisȱparticularȱstatementȱfunctionsȱ–ȱwhatȱdoesȱitȱdoȱandȱwithȱwhatȱeffects?ȱȱInexaminingȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱthisȱstatement,ȱmyȱanalysisȱwillȱbeȱinformedȱbyȱtheȱexaminationofȱtwoȱotherȱtexts.ȱȱEachȱdemonstrateȱtechniquesȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱmeaning;ȱspecifically


howȱtheȱuseȱofȱperformativeȱlanguageȱandȱintertextualȱreferenceȱcontributeȱtoȱandȱenhancetheȱconstitutiveȱpropertiesȱofȱdiscourse.ȱȱTheȱaimȱisȱtoȱ‘tryȱtoȱgraspȱsubjectionȱinȱitsȱmaterialinstanceȱasȱaȱconstitutionȱofȱ subjects’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ1980b,ȱp.97)ȱ throughȱ theȱ interrogationȱofdiscursiveȱpracticesȱ thatȱ objectifyȱ andȱ subjugateȱ theȱ individual.ȱ ȱObjectificationȱ actsȱ asȱ alocatingȱdevice,ȱaȱmechanismȱofȱvisibilityȱ(Deleuze,ȱ1992;ȱEwald,ȱ1992)ȱthatȱformulatesȱhowaȱ ‘groupȱ isȱseenȱorȱknownȱasȱaȱproblem’ȱ (Scheurich,ȱ1997,ȱp.ȱ98).ȱ ȱOnceȱconstitutedȱasȱanobjectȱofȱaȱparticularȱsort,ȱ individualsȱcanȱbeȱdispersedȱ intoȱdisciplinaryȱspacesȱ (Graham,2006)ȱinȱthatȱ‘gridȱofȱsocialȱregularity’ȱ(Scheurich,ȱ1997)ȱandȱfromȱthere,ȱbecomeȱsubjectȱtoparticularȱdiscoursesȱandȱpracticesȱthatȱButlerȱarguesȱresultsȱin,ȱ‘theȱ“onȬgoing”ȱsubjugationthatȱisȱtheȱveryȱoperationȱofȱinterpellation,ȱthatȱ(continuallyȱrepeated)ȱactionȱofȱdiscourseȱbywhichȱ subjectsȱ areȱ formedȱ inȱ subjugation’ȱ (Butler,ȱ 1997b,ȱ pp.358Ȭ359).ȱ ȱ Throughȱ thisprocess,ȱ individualsȱ notȱ onlyȱ comeȱ toȱ occupyȱ spacesȱ atȱ differentȱ pointsȱ inȱ theȱ socialhierarchyȱbut,ȱthroughȱtheirȱcontinualȱsubjugation,ȱcomeȱtoȱknowȱandȱacceptȱtheirȱplaceȱasnaturalȱ(Graham,ȱ2005).

Inȱtheȱcontextȱofȱthisȱpaperȱthen,ȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱ isȱreadȱasȱaȱexerciseȱ inȱexplicatingstatementsȱ thatȱ functionȱ toȱplaceȱaȱdiscursiveȱ frameȱaroundȱaȱparticularȱposition;ȱ thatȱ is,statementsȱ whichȱ coagulateȱ andȱ formȱ rhetoricalȱ constructionsȱ thatȱ presentȱ aȱ particularreadingȱ ofȱ socialȱ texts.ȱ ȱTheȱ intentionȱ isȱ toȱdemonstrateȱhowȱ suchȱ statements,ȱ inȱ elidingotherȱreadingsȱ(Derrida,ȱ1967),ȱcomeȱtoȱpresentȱaȱparticularȱviewȱofȱtheȱworldȱandȱpreparetheȱgroundȱforȱtheȱ‘practicesȱthatȱderiveȱfromȱthem,ȱinȱtheȱsocialȱrelationsȱthatȱtheyȱform,ȱor,throughȱ thoseȱ relations,ȱ modify’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ 1972).ȱ ȱ Followingȱ Foucault,ȱ Iȱ interpretstatementsȱ asȱ thingsȱ saidȱ thatȱ privilegeȱ particularȱ waysȱ ofȱ seeingȱ andȱ codifyȱ certainpractices.ȱ ȱ Theȱ regularityȱ ofȱ statementsȱ bothȱ inȱ generalȱ formȱ andȱ dispersionȱ comeȱ torepresentȱ aȱ discursiveȱ field,ȱ orȱ aȱ ‘familyȱ ofȱ statements’ȱ (Deleuze,ȱ 1988,ȱ p.11)ȱ thatȱ inbetrayingȱaȱ‘positivityȱofȱknowledge’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.214)ȱcanȱbeȱ(re)tracedȱandȱlinkedȱtoaȱ constitutingȱ fieldȱ ofȱ powerȬknowledge.ȱ ȱ Theȱ effectȱ ofȱ statementsȱ privilegingȱ thepsychologicalȱnotionȱofȱselfȬregularityȱandȱselfȬgovernmentȱ isȱ toȱ ‘speakȱ intoȱexistence’ȱanirregular,ȱ ungovernedȱ objectȱ –ȱ theȱ “behaviourallyȱ disordered”ȱ childȱ withȱ concomitantreferralsȱ toȱ behaviourȱ managementȱ programs,ȱ guidanceȱ officers,ȱ paediatriciansȱ orpsychiatrists.

ActȱIV:ȱTurningȱtoȱliteraryȱvsȱliteralȱversionsȱofȱtruth

Myȱprincipalȱ textȱ inȱ thisȱanalysisȱ isȱaȱstatementȱdescribingȱanȱ incidentȱ thatȱoccurredȱ inȱaschoolȱ involvingȱ problematicȱ behaviour.ȱ ȱ Ofȱ concernȱ isȱ howȱ thisȱ particularȱ statementfunctionsȱ–ȱwhatȱdoesȱitȱdo?ȱȱInȱexaminingȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱthisȱstatement,ȱmyȱanalysisȱwillȱbeinformedȱ byȱ theȱ preliminaryȱ examinationȱ ofȱ twoȱ otherȱ textsȱ thatȱ eachȱ demonstratetechniquesȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱmeaning,ȱspecificallyȱfocusingȱonȱtheȱperformativeȱpropertiesofȱlanguageȱandȱtheȱroleȱofȱintertextuality.

SceneȱI:ȱTheȱeffectsȱofȱtheȱperformative

WhenȱIȱreferȱtoȱtheȱperformativeȱIȱreferȱtoȱtheȱliteraryȱuseȱofȱtheȱnotionȱofȱperformativity,ȱ‘toposeȱquestionsȱaboutȱhowȱ toȱ thinkȱaboutȱ theȱconstitutiveȱ forceȱofȱ language,ȱ theȱnatureȱofdiscursiveȱ eventsȱ andȱ literatureȱ asȱ anȱ act’ȱ (Culler,ȱ 2000,ȱ p.503).ȱ ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theperformativeȱ propertiesȱ ofȱwordsȱ tellȱ aȱ storyȱ byȱ evokingȱ imagery,ȱ “performing”ȱ actions


‘ratherȱthanȱmerelyȱreportingȱthem’ȱ(Culler,ȱ2000,ȱp.504).ȱȱToȱdemonstrateȱtheȱperformativeinȱlanguage,ȱIȱdrawȱonȱWilfredȱOwensȱandȱtheȱpoem,ȱDulceȱEtȱDecorumȱEst.

Gas!ȱGas!ȱQuick,ȱboys!ȬȬAnȱecstasyȱofȱfumbling,ȱȱȱFittingȱtheȱclumsyȱhelmetsȱjustȱinȱtime;ȱȱȱButȱsomeoneȱstillȱwasȱyellingȱoutȱandȱstumblingȱȱȱAndȱfloundȇringȱlikeȱaȱmanȱinȱfireȱandȱlimeȱ...ȱȱȱDim,ȱthroughȱtheȱmistyȱpanesȱandȱthickȱgreenȱlight,ȱȱȱAsȱunderȱaȱgreenȱsea,ȱIȱsawȱhimȱdrowning.

(Owen,ȱ1963)

Inȱ theȱ aboveȱ stanza,ȱ Owensȱ usesȱ wordsȱ likeȱ fumbling,ȱ clumsy,ȱ yelling,ȱ stumbling,flound’ringȱ andȱ drowning.ȱ ȱ Theseȱ wordsȱ conveyȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ urgencyȱ andȱ movement,confusionȱandȱhorror.ȱȱOwens,ȱaȱwarȱpoetȱkilledȱinȱactionȱduringȱWWI,ȱmanagedȱtoȱconveytheȱ conditionsȱ facedȱ byȱ soldiersȱ atȱ aȱ timeȱwhenȱ politicalȱ reportsȱwereȱ heavilyȱ censored.Althoughȱ thisȱwasȱwrittenȱ someȱ 90ȱ yearsȱ ago,ȱ theȱ languageȱ transportsȱ viaȱ theȱ imageryconjuredȱbyȱemotiveȱwordsȱthatȱ“perform”ȱbyȱconveyingȱactionȱandȱdrama.

Whilstȱpoststructuralȱaccountsȱofȱmeaningȱ inȱ languageȱassertȱ theȱdeathȱofȱ theȱauthor(Barthes,ȱ 1977)ȱ becauseȱ theȱ potentialȱ forȱ multipleȱ readerȱ interpretation/sȱ hasȱ beenestablishedȱ(Humesȱ&ȱBryce,ȱ2003),ȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱ thatȱmeaningȱ isȱcompletelyȱupȱforgrabs.ȱ ȱThisȱwouldȱbeȱrelativismȱand,ȱ ifȱthisȱwereȱreallyȱtheȱcase,ȱwhyȱwouldȱpostȬtheoristsbotherȱwritingȱorȱ sayingȱanythingȱatȱall?ȱ ȱ Instead,ȱpoststructuralȱargumentsȱdiscountȱ thesovereigntyȱofȱ theȱauthorȱandȱdestabiliseȱ theȱ treasuredȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱsignifierȱandsignifiedȱ (Peters,ȱ 2004;ȱ Trifonas,ȱ 2000),ȱ claimingȱ thatȱ theȱ signifiedȱ isȱ notȱ someȱ stableconstructȱbutȱcomesȱintoȱbeingȱthroughȱanȱinterpretativeȱprocessȱnegotiatedȱbyȱandȱthroughtheȱ‘culturalȱpoliticsȱofȱtheȱsign’ȱ(Trifonas,ȱ2000,ȱp.275).ȱȱTheȱprecariousnessȱofȱsignificationdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱifȱIȱsayȱ“Theȱcatȱisȱonȱtheȱmat”ȱthatȱmyȱaddresseeȱcanȱintuitȱthatȱaȱgiraffeisȱinȱaȱspaceship.ȱȱLanguageȱisȱaȱsystemȱofȱsignificationȱthatȱonȱtheȱwholeȱworksȱveryȱwell.AsȱThomasȱ(1997)ȱputsȱit:

Ifȱweȱareȱtoȱunderstandȱwhatȱ“pipe”ȱmeans,ȱtheȱwordȱmustȱreferȱonlyȱtoȱthatclassȱofȱobjectsȱnormallyȱ thoughtȱofȱasȱpipes;ȱ itȱmustȱnotȱalsoȱ referȱ toȱdogs,vacuumȱ cleaners,ȱandȱ trees.ȱ ȱAndȱ ifȱ“pipe”ȱdoesȱhappenȱ toȱbeȱ inconvenientenoughȱ toȱ refer,ȱ asȱ myȱ dictionaryȱ tellsȱ meȱ itȱ does,ȱ toȱ aȱ musicalȱ windinstrument,ȱ toȱ aȱ tube,ȱ orȱ toȱ theȱ noteȱ ofȱ aȱ bird,ȱ Iȱ canȱ beȱ confidentȱ thatȱ thecontextȱ –ȱ sentence,ȱ paragraph,ȱ orȱ longerȱ passageȱ –ȱwillȱ finishȱ theȱ jobȱ andfurnishȱtheȱrightȱmeaning.ȱȱ(Thomas,ȱ1997,ȱp.79)

Obviously,ȱtheȱwordsȱIȱsayȱgovernȱtoȱaȱgreatȱextentȱwhatȱmyȱaddresseeȱwillȱunderstandofȱ theȱ exchange,ȱ howeverȱ whilstȱ Iȱ (theȱ author)ȱ ‘madeȱ subjectȱ andȱ subjectedȱ throughdiscourse,…ȱ canȱ actȱ withȱ intent’ȱ (Saltmarshȱ &ȱ Youdell,ȱ 2004,ȱ p.357),ȱ theȱ interpretativepowerȱofȱ theȱ readerȱmeansȱ thatȱ Iȱ ‘cannotȱ ensureȱorȱ secureȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ forceȱofȱ [my]discursiveȱ practices’ȱ (Saltmarshȱ&ȱ Youdell,ȱ 2004,ȱ p.357).ȱ ȱ Iȱ canȱ influenceȱ theȱ processȱ ofinterpretationȱ throughȱ variousȱ techniquesȱ though,ȱ andȱ inȱdoingȱ so,ȱ conveyȱmyȱmeaningmoreȱ forcefully.ȱ ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Iȱ canȱ sayȱ “Theȱ catȱ isȱ sittingȱ onȱ theȱmat”ȱ andȱ thusȱmy


addresseeȱwillȱnowȱknowȱ thatȱ theȱcatȱ isȱnotȱ lyingȱbutȱ sittingȱonȱ theȱmat.ȱ ȱThisȱmayȱalsoconveyȱthroughȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱperformativeȱ“sitting”ȱthatȱtheȱcatȱ isȱaliveȱandȱnotȱ lyingȱontheȱmatȱinȱaȱstateȱofȱrigorȱmortis.ȱȱItȱwouldȱbeȱunusualȱforȱaȱdeadȱcatȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱsittingȱup.Hereȱweȱareȱdeterminingȱoneȱaspectȱofȱwhatȱ theȱstatementȱ“Theȱcatȱ isȱsittingȱonȱ theȱmat”doesȱandȱtheȱeffectȱofȱtheȱuseȱofȱperformativeȱ languageȱuponȱmeaningȱandȱ interpretation.Theȱuseȱofȱ theȱperformativeȱ isȱoneȱwayȱ Iȱcanȱ influenceȱmeaning.ȱ ȱAnotherȱ isȱ intertextualreferenceȱandȱitȱisȱtoȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱtechniqueȱthatȱIȱnowȱturn.

SceneȱII:ȱTheȱuseȱofȱintertextuality

Whilstȱweȱnowȱknowȱthatȱtheȱcatȱisȱsittingȱonȱtheȱmatȱandȱnotȱlyingȱinȱstate,ȱweȱstillȱdon’tknowȱveryȱmuch.ȱȱWeȱdon’tȱknowȱwhoseȱcatȱitȱis,ȱnorȱwhatȱcolourȱitȱis,ȱwhetherȱitȱisȱoldȱoryoung,ȱwhetherȱitȱspendsȱallȱdayȱonȱtheȱmatȱandȱhence,ȱwhetherȱitȱisȱaȱlazyȱcatȱorȱoneȱjuststoppingȱ forȱ aȱ momentȱ beforeȱ returningȱ toȱ decimateȱ nativeȱ wildlife.ȱ ȱ Inȱ artȱ suchȱ asliterature,ȱ creativityȱ andȱ noveltyȱ areȱ important.ȱ ȱEndlessȱ narrativeȱ settingȱ theȱ sceneȱ andexplainingȱ theȱ livesȱ ofȱ charactersȱ canȱ beȱ boringȱ andȱ itȱ takesȱ time.ȱ ȱ Intertextualityȱ isȱ aninventiveȱ techniqueȱ thatȱ callsȱ upȱ otherȱ textsȱ toȱ helpȱ theȱ interpretiveȱ process.ȱ ȱ Todemonstrateȱwhatȱ intertextualityȱ canȱ do,ȱ Iȱ drawȱ onȱKennethȱ Slessor’sȱWildȱGrapesȱ andcontrastȱthisȱwithȱShakespeare’sȱOthello.

Eatingȱtheirȱflesh,ȱhalfȬsavageȱwithȱblackȱfur.AcidȱandȱgipsyȬsweet,ȱIȱthoughtȱofȱher,Isabella,ȱtheȱdeadȱgirl,ȱwhoȱhasȱlingeredȱonDefiantlyȱwhenȱallȱhaveȱgoneȱaway,Inȱanȱoldȱorchardȱwhereȱswallowsȱneverȱstir.

Isabellaȱgrapes,ȱoutlawsȱofȱaȱstrangeȱbough,ThatȱinȱtheirȱharshȱsweetnessȱremindȱmeȱsomehowOfȱdarkȱhairȱswingingȱandȱsilverȱpins,AȱgirlȱhalfȬfierce,ȱhalfȬmelting,ȱasȱtheseȱgrapes,Kissedȱhereȱ–ȬȬȱorȱkilledȱhereȱ–ȬȬȱbutȱwhoȱremembersȱnow?

(KennethȱSlessor)

WeȱcanȱinterpretȱfromȱtheȱaboveȱthatȱtheȱgirlȱIsabellaȱisȱdead.ȱȱWeȱdon’tȱknowȱhowȱshedied,ȱalthoughȱtheȱwordȱ‘killed’ȱsuggestsȱsheȱdidȱnotȱdieȱofȱnaturalȱcauses.ȱ ȱWeȱcannotȱbecertainȱ though.ȱ ȱHowever,ȱ theȱ finalȱ lineȱ couldȱbeȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱOthello’sȱ finalȱ soliloquyafterȱheȱmurdersȱhisȱwife,ȱDesdemona.

IȱkissedȱtheeȱereȱIȱkilledȱthee.ȱȱNoȱwayȱbutȱthis,ȱKillingȱmyself,ȱtoȱdieȱuponȱaȱkiss.

(Othello,ȱActȱV,ȱSceneȱII,ȱlineȱ359Ȭ60,ȱWilliamȱShakespeare).

Theȱ pointȱ ofȱ anȱ intertextualȱ referenceȱ isȱ toȱ bringȱ anotherȱ text/storyȱ intoȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofinvestigationȱ toȱ informȱ andȱ enhanceȱ theȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ currentȱ text.ȱ ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ thereferenceȱ toȱOthello’sȱstatementȱprovidesȱ theȱreaderȱwithȱanotherȱ interpretationȱ (certainlynotȱ aȱ definitiveȱ oneȱ forȱ whoȱ knowsȱ whetherȱ Slessorȱ intendedȱ suchȱ aȱ connection)ȱ and


anotherȱwayȱofȱ lookingȱ atȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱWildȱGrapes.ȱ ȱ Interestingly,ȱ otherȱwordsȱ suchȱ asgipsy,ȱoutlaws,ȱblack,ȱ furȱandȱhalfȬsavageȱstandȱoutȱmoreȱafterȱoneȱmakesȱ theȱ intertextualconnectionȱbetweenȱ theȱpoemȱandȱShakespeare’sȱ taleȱofȱaȱdisapprovedȱbiȬracialȱmarriagebetweenȱ Desdemonaȱ andȱ Othelloȱ who,ȱ amongstȱ frequentȱ otherȱ animalȱ metaphors,ȱ isreferredȱtoȱasȱanȱ‘oldȱblackȱram’ȱbyȱIagoȱ(Shakespeare,ȱ1983,ȱ1:1).ȱȱInȱshort,ȱthroughȱtheȱuseofȱ intertextualȱreferenceȱtheȱstoryȱofȱOthelloȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱtoȱ informȱreadingsȱofȱSlessor’sWildȱGrapes.

SceneȱIII:ȱExaminingȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱpedagogicalȱdiscourseȱthroughȱdiscourseȱanalysis

Asȱmentionedȱpreviously,ȱ theȱanalysesȱofȱ theȱ twoȱpreviousȱ textsȱwereȱdoneȱ toȱ informȱ theanalysisȱofȱaȱprincipleȱ text.ȱ ȱThisȱ“text”ȱ isȱaȱ statementȱmadeȱbyȱaȱ teacherȱ toȱ supportȱ thereferralȱofȱaȱprimaryȱ schoolȱ studentȱ toȱaȱbehaviourȱmanagementȱprogramȱ calledȱRAPȱor“ReflectingȱAboutȱProblems”.ȱȱTheȱauthorȱwrote:

Inȱ short,ȱ “Randall”1ȱpunchedȱ 5ȱboysȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ forȱ absolutelyȱnoȱ reason.ȱ ȱThisȱ ispossiblyȱtheȱ5thȱtimeȱthisȱtermȱheȱhasȱviolentlyȱattackedȱchildrenȱinȱtheȱplayground.

ȱ“Randall”,ȱ2002.

Theȱquestionȱhereȱis:ȱhowȱdoesȱthisȱstatementȱfunction?ȱȱWhatȱdoesȱitȱdo?ȱȱAsȱwithȱDulceȱEtDecorumȱEst,ȱthisȱstatementȱdemonstratesȱtheȱuseȱofȱperformativeȱlanguage.ȱȱLetȱusȱlookȱattheȱstatementȱdifferentlyȱbyȱisolatingȱtheȱperformativeȱandȱquestionȱwhatȱthatȱdoes.

Inȱ short,ȱ “Randall”ȱpunchedȱ 5ȱboysȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ forȱ absolutelyȱ noȱ reason.ȱ ȱThisȱ ispossiblyȱtheȱ5thȱtimeȱthisȱtermȱheȱhasȱviolentlyȱattackedȱchildrenȱinȱtheȱplayground.


Hereȱ Iȱhaveȱ isolatedȱ theȱwordsȱ“punched”,ȱ“violently”ȱandȱ“attacked”.ȱ ȱTheseȱwordsmeanȱbothȱnothingȱandȱanything.ȱȱWeȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhatȱreallyȱhappenedȱbecauseȱweȱwerenotȱthereȱandȱareȱleftȱtoȱrelyȱonȱtheȱauthor’sȱaccount.ȱȱSignificantly,ȱRandallȱdoesȱnotȱgetȱtoprovideȱhisȱaccountȱwhichȱsuggestsȱthatȱhisȱviewȱofȱeventsȱisȱunimportantȱor,ȱbecauseȱtheteacherȱinformsȱusȱthatȱRandallȱactedȱforȱ‘absolutelyȱnoȱreason’,ȱthatȱRandall’sȱaccountȱhasbeenȱdiscounted.ȱȱInȱanyȱcase,ȱandȱhereȱweȱreturnȱtoȱpoststructuralȱcautionȱinȱtheȱanalysisȱoflanguage/meaning,ȱweȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhatȱtheȱauthorȱinterpretsȱasȱ“punching”,ȱwhatȱs/heȱregardsasȱ“violent”ȱorȱwhatȱinȱhis/herȱeyesȱconstitutesȱanȱ“attack”.ȱȱIȱamȱnotȱattemptingȱtoȱuncoverȱthe‘truth’ȱofȱwhatȱhappenedȱ inȱ theȱplayground,ȱasȱ impossibleȱasȱ thatȱ is.ȱ ȱOfȱconcernȱhereȱ ishowȱthisȱstatementȱfunctionsȱ–ȱwhatȱdoesȱitȱdo?

Theȱstatementȱconstitutesȱ“Randall”ȱasȱaȱmindless,ȱviolentȱattacker.ȱȱTheȱactȱisȱdescribedinȱhighlyȱemotiveȱlanguageȱwithȱtheȱuseȱofȱ“punched”,ȱ“violently”ȱandȱ“attacked”,ȱwordsthatȱperformȱ inȱ thatȱ theyȱevokeȱ imagesȱ thatȱ increaseȱ theȱeffectȱofȱ theȱstatement.ȱ ȱConsiderthisȱstatementȱusingȱlessȱpowerfulȱwords:

1 A pseudonym.


Inȱshort,ȱ“Randall”ȱhitȱ5ȱboysȱinȱtheȱfaceȱforȱabsolutelyȱnoȱreason.ȱ ȱThisȱ isȱpossiblytheȱ 5thȱ timeȱ thisȱ termȱ heȱ hasȱ behavedȱ likeȱ thisȱ towardsȱ otherȱ childrenȱ inȱ theplayground.

Interestingly,ȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ statementȱ hasȱ changedȱ considerablyȱ withȱ aȱ simplesubstitutionȱofȱ lessȱemotiveȱwords.ȱ ȱHowever,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱperformativeȱ languageȱ isȱnotȱtheonlyȱtechniqueȱusedȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱmeaningȱinȱthisȱstatement.ȱȱLetȱusȱconsiderȱwhatelseȱtheȱstatementȱdoes.

Descriptionȱofȱtheȱfiveȱotherȱboys,ȱtheirȱreaction,ȱandȱwhatȱmayȱhaveȱledȱtoȱtheȱeventȱisstrangelyȱ lacking.ȱ ȱWhetherȱ theȱ incidentȱ involvedȱ fiveȱ boysȱ inȱ aȱ groupȱ orȱ fiveȱ boysȱ atrandomȱ isȱnotȱexplained.ȱ ȱNorȱ isȱthereȱanyȱattemptȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱtimingȱofȱtheȱ incident;i.e.ȱwhetherȱ thereȱwasȱoneȱ incidentȱ inȱ thatȱdayȱorȱ fiveȱ separateȱ incidentsȱ throughoutȱ thecourseȱofȱtheȱday.ȱȱOnȱoneȱhandȱthereȱisȱanȱabsenceȱofȱcontextȱbutȱthen,ȱonȱtheȱother,ȱthereȱistheȱestablishmentȱofȱaȱanotherȱkindȱofȱcontextȱaltogetherȱwhichȱisȱbroughtȱtoȱbearȱthroughȱtheiterationȱofȱ theȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱ theȱstatement.ȱ ȱAgain,ȱ Iȱamȱnotȱseekingȱ theȱ ‘truth’ȱofȱwhathappenedȱthroughȱanȱestablishmentȱofȱcontext,ȱasȱ‘contextȱexplainsȱnothing’ȱ(Deleuze,ȱ1988,p.11),ȱinsteadȱhereȱIȱqueryȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱthisȱabsenceȱforȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱconsistentȱwithaȱFoucauldianȱnotionȱofȱdiscourseȱdoesȱnotȱseekȱtoȱrevealȱtheȱtrueȱmeaningȱbyȱwhatȱisȱsaidorȱ notȱ saidȱ (Foucault,ȱ 1972).ȱ ȱ Instead,ȱ whenȱ “doing”ȱ discourseȱ analysisȱ withinȱ aFoucauldianȱframework,ȱoneȱ looksȱtoȱstatementsȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱforȱwhatȱ theyȱsayȱbutȱwhattheyȱdo;ȱthatȱis,ȱoneȱquestionsȱwhatȱtheȱconstitutiveȱorȱpoliticalȱeffectsȱofȱsayingȱthisȱinsteadofȱthatȱmightȱbe?ȱȱItȱisȱtheȱeffectsȱderivedȱfromȱ‘hiddenȱelements’ȱconstitutedȱbyȱ‘theȱunsaid’(Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.124)ȱ thatȱ Iȱ findȱ interesting,ȱhowȱ thisȱstatementȱ functionsȱbecauseȱofȱ thewayȱitȱisȱwritten;ȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱtheȱnoisyȱclaimsȱmadeȱinȱconcertȱwithȱgloweringȱsilences.ȱȱInthisȱ instance,ȱ theȱ silenceȱ orȱ ‘lack’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ 1972,ȱ p.124)ȱ surroundingȱ causalityȱ andprovocation,ȱfunctionsȱtoȱeffaceȱotherȱactorsȱorȱactionsȱfromȱtheȱsceneȱandȱeffectivelyȱ invalidatesanyȱpossibleȱreasonableȱprovocationȱ forȱtheȱactionsȱreportedȱ inȱtheȱ incident.ȱ ȱTheȱsecondȱpartȱoftheȱstatement,

Thisȱisȱpossiblyȱtheȱ5thȱtimeȱthisȱtermȱheȱhasȱviolentlyȱattackedȱchildrenȱinȱtheȱplayground.


…isȱextraneousȱtoȱtheȱreportedȱincidentȱandȱoneȱmightȱwonderȱwhyȱitȱisȱthereȱatȱall?ȱȱIwillȱargueȱ thatȱ itȱ functionsȱ inȱ twoȱways:ȱ (1)ȱ toȱcounteractȱ theȱstatementȱprecedingȱ it;ȱandoddlyȱenough,ȱ(2)ȱtoȱsupportȱtheȱstatementȱprecedingȱit.

Thisȱmayȱ seemȱ somewhatȱ paradoxical.ȱ ȱ Howȱ canȱ (andȱ whyȱ would)ȱ oneȱ partȱ ofȱ astatementȱworkȱbothȱforȱandȱagainstȱanother?ȱȱToȱrespondȱtoȱthisȱparadox,ȱweȱmustȱreturntoȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱtheȱstatement:

Inȱshort,ȱ“Randall”ȱpunchedȱ5ȱboysȱinȱtheȱfaceȱforȱabsolutelyȱnoȱreason.


Apartȱ fromȱusingȱperformativeȱ languageȱ toȱdescribeȱ theȱ actionsȱ ofȱ theȱGradeȱ 3ȱ childȱ inquestion,ȱ thisȱ statementȱ imposesȱ anȱ interpretiveȱ paradigmȱ thatȱ positsȱ “absolutelyȱ no


reason”ȱforȱtheȱchild’sȱactions.ȱȱTheȱeffectȱofȱthisȱisȱtoȱdramaticallyȱincreaseȱtheȱseriousnessofȱtheȱactionȱdescribed.ȱ ȱToȱhaveȱ“punched”ȱanotherȱchildȱisȱserious.ȱ ȱToȱhaveȱdoneȱsoȱfor“absolutelyȱnoȱreason”ȱisȱsuggestiveȱofȱmalevolence,ȱpsychopathology,ȱaȱstateȱofȱunreason.However,ȱ andȱ hereȱ isȱ theȱ problem,ȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ aȱ childȱ hasȱ punchedȱ anotherȱ forabsolutelyȱnoȱ reasonȱ isȱ toȱ introduceȱ theȱproblemȱofȱ theȱ ‘motivelessȱact’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ1975a,p.123)ȱandȱtheȱdilemmaȱofȱhowȱtoȱpunishȱ ‘crimesȱwithoutȱreason’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1975a,ȱp.118)for,ȱasȱFoucaultȱpointsȱout,ȱ‘theȱexerciseȱofȱpunitiveȱpowerȱrequiresȱaȱrationalityȱofȱtheȱactȱtobeȱpunished’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1975a,ȱp.116).

Theȱcriminalȱsubject’sȱreasonȱisȱtheȱconditionȱofȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱtheȱlaw.ȱ ȱThelawȱcannotȱbeȱappliedȱifȱtheȱsubjectȱ isȱnotȱrational…ȱButȱexerciseȱofȱtheȱrightȱtopunishȱsays:ȱIȱcanȱpunishȱonlyȱifȱIȱunderstandȱwhyȱheȱcommittedȱtheȱact,ȱhowȱhecommittedȱtheȱact,ȱthatȱisȱtoȱsay,ȱifȱIȱcanȱenterȱintoȱtheȱanalyzableȱintelligibilityȱoftheȱ actȱ inȱ question…ȱweȱ inevitablyȱ findȱ ourselvesȱ inȱ aȱ situationȱ inȱwhichȱ theexerciseȱofȱpunitiveȱpowerȱcanȱnoȱlongerȱ justifyȱitself,ȱsinceȱweȱfindȱnoȱintrinsicintelligibilityȱofȱtheȱactȱthroughȱwhichȱtheȱexerciseȱofȱpunitiveȱpowerȱconnectsȱupwithȱtheȱcrime.ȱȱ(Foucault,ȱ1975a,ȱp.116Ȭ117)

Theȱassertionȱthatȱtheȱchildȱactedȱfor/withȱ“absolutelyȱnoȱreason”ȱthrowsȱtheȱawkwardallianceȱ betweenȱmedicalȱ andȱ psychologicalȱ conceptualisationsȱ ofȱ childhoodȱ “behaviourdisorderedness”ȱ intoȱclearȱrelief.ȱ ȱTheȱmedicalȱmodelȱofȱADHD/behaviourȱdisorderednesspositsȱneurobiologicalȱreasonsȱforȱdisorderlyȱbehaviourȱ‘withȱmedicalȱpractitionersȱhavingtheȱprimaryȱroleȱinȱinterventions’ȱ(Atkinsonȱ&ȱShute,ȱ1999,ȱp.124).ȱ ȱThisȱisȱtoȱtheȱapparentdetrimentȱofȱ anȱarmyȱofȱpsychologicalȱpractitionersȱkeenȱ toȱ remainȱ involved,ȱpromptingtacticsȱ likeȱ theȱ avoidanceȱ ofȱ wordsȱ ‘suchȱ asȱ “symptoms”ȱ andȱ “diagnosis”ȱ [which]automaticallyȱ giveȱ precedenceȱ toȱ aȱmedicalȱmodelȱ ofȱADHD’ȱ (Atkinsonȱ&ȱ Shute,ȱ 1999,p.123).

Whilstȱ Iȱ amȱ favourȱ ofȱ neither,ȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ medicalȱ andpsychologicalȱmodelsȱliesȱinȱtheirȱrespectiveȱtheorisationȱofȱagency,ȱreasonȱandȱcontrolȱwithanȱeffectȱtowardsȱperceptionsȱofȱresponsibilityȱandȱculpability.ȱȱTheȱmedicalȱmodelȱappearstoȱ acceptȱ theȱ “behaviourallyȱ disordered”ȱ childȱ asȱ havingȱ littleȱ orȱ noȱ controlȱ overȱ theiractions.ȱȱTheȱpsychologicalȱmodel,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱisȱdependentȱforȱitsȱveryȱexistenceȱontheȱ paradoxicalȱ assertionȱ ofȱ theȱ child’sȱ abilityȱ toȱ exertȱ orȱ learnȱ selfȬcontrol.ȱ ȱ Difficultbehaviourȱ isȱ interpretedȱasȱmisdirectedȱbehaviourȱorȱ seenȱ asȱbehaviourȱ thatȱ isȱgainingȱ apayȬoffȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱfixedȱbyȱreȬarrangingȱtheȱtermsȱ(Atkinsonȱ&ȱShute,ȱ1999).ȱȱOnȱtheȱsideofȱtheȱmedicalȱmodel,ȱthereȱisȱtheȱassertionȱofȱaȱlackȱinȱtheȱfacultyȱtoȱcontrol,ȱwhichȱresultsinȱ aȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ childȱ asȱ notȱ entirelyȱ responsibleȱ forȱ theirȱ actions.ȱ ȱOnȱ theȱ otherȱ side,psychologicalȱconceptsȱ relyȱonȱ reason,ȱandȱ thisȱconstitutesȱ theȱshakyȱepistemologicalȱbaseuponȱwhichȱpsychologicalȱ interventionsȱ(behaviourȱmanagement/modification)ȱrest.ȱ ȱIȱsayshakyȱbecauseȱ if,ȱasȱAtkinsonȱ&ȱShuteȱ concur,ȱ ‘theȱgenerallyȱacceptedȱpremiseȱ isȱ thatȱ themedicalȱmodelȱ isȱ theȱ appropriateȱ one’ȱ (Atkinsonȱ&ȱ Shute,ȱ 1999,ȱ p.124)ȱ andȱADHDȱ andotherȱ disruptiveȱ behaviourȱ “disorders”ȱ areȱ behaviouralȱ reflectionsȱ ofȱ neurobiologicalanomaliesȱaffectingȱaȱchild’sȱabilityȱ toȱselfȬregulate,ȱ thenȱwhereȱdoesȱ thatȱ leaveȱbehaviourmodificationȱtechniquesȱthatȱrequireȱselfȬregulatoryȱabilities?


Inȱ theȱschoolingȱcontext,ȱhowever,ȱbehaviourȱ interventionȱ techniquesȱ informedȱbyȱ thepsychologicalȱ modelȱ prevailȱ overȱ medicalȱ conceptualisationsȱ ofȱ behaviour“disorderedness”ȱ andȱ it’sȱmoreȱ conservativeȱ estimateȱ ofȱ theȱ agentiveȱ capabilitiesȱ ofȱ thechild,ȱhowever,ȱ itȱmustȱbeȱstatedȱ thatȱ theȱmedicalȱmodelȱ isȱ justȱasȱproblematicȱbecauseȱoftheȱ increasingȱ recourseȱ toȱ psychoȬpharmaceuticalȱ controlȱ (Mackeyȱ &ȱ Kopras,ȱ 2001).Psychologicalȱconceptualisationsȱmayȱfindȱmoreȱfertileȱgroundȱwithinȱ theȱschoolingȱarenabecause,ȱasȱUsherȱ&ȱEdwardsȱmaintain,ȱ ‘theȱveryȱrationaleȱofȱtheȱeducationalȱprocessȱandtheȱ roleȱofȱ theȱeducatorȱ isȱ foundedȱonȱmodernity’sȱ selfȬmotivated,ȱ selfȬdirecting,ȱ rationalsubject,ȱcapableȱofȱexercisingȱindividualȱagency’ȱ(Usherȱ&ȱEdwards,ȱ1994,ȱp.2),.ȱȱOrȱperhapsbecause,ȱ muchȱ likeȱ psychiatryȱ providedȱ theȱ courtsȱ withȱ anȱ indictableȱ subject/object(Foucault,ȱ 1975a),ȱ psychologyȱ providesȱ theȱ disciplinaryȱ institutionȱ ofȱ theȱ schoolȱwithȱ apunishableȱsubject/object.ȱ ȱAtȱthisȱpoint,ȱweȱmightȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱstatementȱthatȱsparkedȱthisdiscussion:

Thisȱisȱpossiblyȱtheȱ5thȱtimeȱthisȱtermȱheȱhasȱviolentlyȱattackedȱchildrenȱinȱtheȱplayground.


Afterȱconsideringȱthisȱstatementȱbriefly,ȱIȱquestionedȱwhyȱisȱitȱthereȱatȱall?ȱȱAsȱhasȱbeendiscussed,ȱtheȱassertionȱinȱtheȱprecedingȱstatementȱthatȱ“Randall”ȱactedȱforȱ‘absolutelyȱnoreason’ȱ raisesȱ theȱ question:ȱ howȱ canȱ heȱ thenȱ beȱ referredȱ toȱ aȱ behaviourȱ managementprogramȱthatȱisȱgroundedȱinȱandȱdependentȱonȱtheȱchild’sȱabilityȱtoȱselfȬregulate?ȱȱProbablywithoutȱevenȱknowingȱit,ȱtheȱauthorȱofȱthisȱstatementȱhasȱplacedȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱtheȱreferralitselfȱ intoȱ jeopardy.ȱHowever,ȱ inȱkeepingȱwithȱmyȱproject,ȱ Iȱ refrainȱ fromȱaskingȱwhyȱ theauthorȱ wroteȱ thisȱ andȱ whatȱ theirȱ intentionsȱmayȱ haveȱ beenȱ andȱ insteadȱ poseȱ whatȱ isarguablyȱaȱmoreȱimportantȱquestion;ȱwhatȱdoesȱthisȱstatementȱdoȱandȱhow?ȱ ȱThroughȱtheuseȱofȱintertextuality,ȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱthisȱstatementȱfunctionsȱtoȱconstructȱaȱ“history”ȱofpsychopathologicalȱbehaviour.ȱ ȱInȱdoingȱso,ȱthisȱstatementȱworksȱtoȱsupportȱ theȱ ‘truth’ȱoftheȱ first,ȱ cementingȱ theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ “Randall”ȱ asȱ notȱ onlyȱ aȱ violentȱ attackerȱ butȱ alsoȱ ahabitualȱ violentȱ attacker;ȱ constitutingȱ himȱ asȱ anȱ objectȱ ofȱ psychopathologyȱ butȱ oneȱ thatexhibitsȱaȱ‘certainȱhabitualȱwayȱofȱbehaving’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1975a,ȱp.124).

Inȱ hisȱ Collegeȱ deȱ Franceȱ lectures,ȱ Foucaultȱ discussedȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱHenrietteȱ Cornierwhoseȱ‘motivelessȱact’ȱconfoundedȱtheȱjusticeȱsystemȱuntilȱtheȱcrimeȱandȱindictmentȱagainstherȱwasȱrearticulatedȱtoȱquestion,ȱnotȱherȱinterestȱinȱtheȱact,ȱbutȱherȱresemblanceȱtoȱtheȱactitselfȱ (Foucault,ȱ 1975a).ȱ ȱ Foucaultȱmaintainsȱ thatȱ theȱ serviceȱ psychiatryȱ providesȱ toȱ thecourtsȱisȱtoȱprovideȱaȱhistoricalȱaccountȱofȱtheȱsubject’sȱconductȱinȱorderȱtoȱreflectȱtheȱact’simputabilityȱ toȱ theȱsubject;ȱwhere,ȱwhenȱ facedȱwithȱ theȱ ‘crimeȱwithoutȱ reason’ȱ (Foucault,1975a,ȱp.118)ȱuponȱwhichȱoccurrenceȱ theȱ jurisdictionȱofȱ theȱcourtsȱmightȱ stall,ȱpsychiatryprovidesȱtheȱcourtsȱwithȱaȱ‘moralȱrequalificationȱofȱtheȱsubject’ȱ(Foucault,ȱ1975a,ȱp.127)ȱthatsubstitutesȱ aȱ moralȱ historyȱ ofȱ conductȱ throughȱ whichȱ theȱ subject’sȱ actionsȱ canȱ beinterpretedȱandȱthus,ȱjudged.

Youȱ canȱ seeȱ how,ȱ forȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ theȱ act’sȱ reasonȱ andȱ intelligibility,ȱ theindictmentȱ substitutesȱ somethingȱ else:ȱ theȱ subject’sȱ resemblanceȱ toȱ herȱ act,ȱ orevenȱtheȱact’sȱimputabilityȱtoȱtheȱsubject.ȱȱSinceȱtheȱsubjectȱsoȱresemblesȱherȱact,


thenȱtheȱactȱreallyȱ isȱhersȱandȱweȱhaveȱtheȱrightȱtoȱpunishȱtheȱsubjectȱwhenȱwecomeȱtoȱjudgeȱtheȱact.ȱȱ(Foucault,ȱ1975a,ȱp.124)

Returningȱ toȱmyȱ currentȱ analysis,ȱ theȱ effectȱofȱ theȱ secondȱ statementȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱprioreventsȱ conjuredȱ characteriseȱ andȱ condemnȱ “Randall”;ȱ noȱ longerȱ doesȱ thisȱ statementfunctionȱ asȱ anȱ incidentȱ report,ȱ itȱ hasȱ becomeȱ anȱ indictmentȱ ofȱ characterȱ andȱ conduct.Hence,ȱ theȱ secondȱ statementȱ supportsȱ theȱ ‘truth’ȱ ofȱ theȱ first,ȱ inȱ thatȱ theȱ childȱ is“unreasonable”ȱ butȱ counteractsȱ theȱ assertionȱ thatȱ theȱ childȱ isȱ notȱ responsibleȱ (orpunishable)ȱforȱhisȱactionsȱ–ȱbecauseȱtheȱchildȱsoȱresemblesȱhisȱactionsȱandȱhisȱactionsȱareimputableȱtoȱevidenceȱofȱhisȱpriorȱconduct.ȱȱOnceȱwrittenȱtheseȱwordsȱconstituteȱanȱarchive,aȱhistory,ȱandȱtheȱchildȱquicklyȱbecomesȱaȱcaseȱconstitutedȱbyȱtheȱstatementsȱwithinȱhisȱcasefileȱwhich,ȱ ‘noȱ longerȱ aȱmonumentȱ forȱ futureȱmemory,ȱ butȱ aȱ documentȱ forȱ futureȱ use’(Foucault,ȱ1977,ȱp.191),ȱcomesȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱrationaleȱforȱ“professional”ȱinterventionȱ(Slee,1994,ȱ1995;ȱThomasȱ&ȱGlenny,ȱ2000).ȱ ȱTheȱ intertextualȱmomentȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱhalfȱofȱ thestatementȱdirectsȱ theȱreaderȱ towardsȱ theȱstudent’sȱcaseȬfileȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱusedȱ toȱsupporttheȱveracityȱofȱtheȱfirstȱstatementȱ(despiteȱitsȱobviousȱflaws)ȱandȱtheȱstudent’sȱreferralȱtoȱthe“ReflectingȱAboutȱProblems”ȱbehaviourȱmanagementȱwithdrawalȱprogram.

However,ȱpsychologicalȱdiscoursesȱthatȱspeakȱtoȱselfȬregulationȱandȱreasonȱdisseminateuniversalisingȱ theoriesȱ ofȱ cognitionȱ andȱ developmentȱ thatȱ excludeȱ throughȱ ‘systemsȱ ofrecognition,ȱdivisions,ȱandȱdistinctionsȱ thatȱconstructȱ reasonȱandȱ“theȱ reasonableȱperson”(Popkewitz,ȱ 2001,ȱ p.336).ȱ ȱ Similarly,ȱ theȱ constitutiveȱ effectsȱ ofȱ psychopathologisingpedagogicalȱ discourseȱ imbuedȱ withȱ theȱ positivityȱ ofȱ psychologicalȱ powerȬknowledgeworksȱtoȱspeakȱintoȱexistenceȱtheȱ“behaviourallyȱdisordered”ȱchildȱasȱaȱrecognisableȱobjectofȱ scrutiny.ȱ ȱ Theȱ dominanceȱ andȱ dispersionȱ ofȱ suchȱ statementsȱ privilegeȱ aȱ particularconstitutingȱfieldȱofȱpowerȬknowledgeȱwhichȱactsȱtoȱlegitimiseȱandȱbringȱintoȱoperationȱthepracticesȱthatȱderiveȱfromȱsuchȱstatements,iiiȱwhilstȱdisguisingȱtheȱexclusionaryȱlogicȱofȱsuchpracticesȱ byȱ rearticulatingȱ theȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ exclusion.ȱ ȱ Thisȱ occursȱ throughȱ theestablishmentȱ ofȱ aȱ causalȱ linkȱwithinȱ theȱ recalcitrant,ȱ uncooperativeȱ “unreasoned”ȱ childwhoȱ“chooses”ȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱwrongȱchoicesȱ(Graham,ȱ2005).

IȱstatedȱearlierȱthatȱmyȱobjectiveȱisȱnotȱtoȱconsiderȱwhetherȱADHD/behaviourȱdisorderisȱ trueȱ butȱ howȱ itsȱ objectsȱmightȱ becomeȱ formed;ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ howȱ thisȱ particularȱ differenceȱ isarticulatedȱandȱbroughtȱ toȱattentionȱandȱwhatȱmightȱbeȱ theȱ ‘effectsȱ inȱ theȱ real’ȱ (Foucault,1980a,ȱp.237).ȱȱInȱconsideringȱ“ADHD/behaviourȱdisorderedness”ȱasȱaȱdiscursiveȱformationandȱschoolingȱasȱaȱsystemȱofȱformationȱofȱdisorderlyȱobjects,ȱitȱmakesȱsenseȱtoȱdeployȱsomeformȱ ofȱ discourseȱ analysisȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱmapȱ theȱ systemȱ byȱwhichȱ theseȱ particularȱ truthȬobjectsȱ areȱ formedȱ andȱ theȱ ‘typesȱ ofȱ enunciations’ȱ implicatedȱ (Foucault,ȱ 1972,ȱ p.205).HavingȱhadȱdifficultyȱfindingȱcoherentȱdescriptionsȱofȱhowȱtoȱdoȱdiscourseȱanalysisȱusingFoucault,ȱ Iȱhaveȱ chosenȱ toȱdevelopȱwhatȱmightȱbeȱ calledȱaȱdiscursiveȱanalytic.ȱ ȱThisȱ isȱamethodologicalȱplanȱthatȱlooksȱtoȱlocateȱstatementsȱthatȱfunctionȱwithȱconstitutiveȱeffectsȱinwhichȱoneȱcanȱ ‘recogniseȱandȱ isolateȱanȱactȱofȱ formulation’ȱ (Foucault,ȱ1972,ȱp.93).ȱ ȱ Iȱhaveattemptedȱtoȱdescribeȱtheseȱstatementsȱandȱtheȱ‘enunciativeȱfunctionȱofȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱthebearers’ȱ(Dreyfusȱ&ȱRabinow,ȱ1982,ȱp.56)ȱbyȱindicatingȱhowȱthingsȱsaidȱwithinȱpedagogicaldiscourseȱ mayȱ callȱ intoȱ beingȱ aȱ recognizableȱ objectȱ ofȱ discourseȱ (Butler,ȱ 1997a).ȱ ȱ Theoperationȱofȱsuchȱdiscursiveȱdividingȱpracticesȱ inȱschoolingȱenablesȱnotȱ justȱ thatȱobjectȱ to


appearȱandȱbeȱplacedȱinȱaȱfieldȱofȱexteriorityȱ(Foucault,ȱ1972)ȱbutȱpreparesȱtheȱgroundȱfortheȱexclusionaryȱpracticesȱthatȱderiveȱfromȱthem.ȱȱȱTheȱ‘method’ȱIȱhaveȱdrawnȱuponȱinȱthispaperȱisȱcertainlyȱnotȱoneȱIȱhaveȱdevelopedȱtoȱdisciplineȱthoseȱwhoȱchooseȱtoȱdoȱdiscourseanalysisȱusingȱ Foucaultȱ butȱ toȱ aidȱmyȱ overallȱprojectȱ inȱ callingȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱdangersinherentȱtoȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱproblematicȱchildȱbehaviourȱisȱdescribedȱinȱschools.


References:

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and other essays. New York: New Left Books.Atkinson, I., & Shute, R. (1999). Managing ADHD: Issues in developing multidisciplinary

guidelines. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 9(2), 119-127.Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and

treatment (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Barthes, R. (1977). The Death of the Author (S. Heath, Trans.). New York: Hill.Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex'. New York: Routledge.Butler, J. (1997a). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.Butler, J. (1997b). Sovereign Performatives in the Contemporary Scene of Utterance. Critical

Inquiry, 23(2), 350-377.Culler, J. (2000). Philosophy and Literature: The Fortunes of the Performative. Poetics Today, 21(3),

503-519.Davis, E., Beer, J., Gligora, C., & Thorn, A. (2001). Accounting for Change in Disability and Severe

Restriction, 1981-1998. In Working Papers in Social and Labour Statistics (No.2001/1).Belconnen, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Deleuze, G. (1992). What is a dispositif*? In T. J. Armstrong (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Philosopher.

New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Derrida, J. (1967). Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences (A. Bass,

Trans.). In Writing and Difference. London: Routledge.Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (Eds.). (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and

Hermeneutics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Education Queensland: Swayneville State School Supportive Environment Management Plan.

(1995).Ewald, F. (1992). A power without an exterior. In T. J. Armstrong (Ed.), Michel Foucault:

Philosopher. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge (t. (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York:

Pantheon Books.Foucault, M. (1975a). 5 February 1975. In V. Marchetti, A. Salomoni, F. Ewald & A. Fontana (Eds.),

Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France 1974-1975 (pp. 109-136). London: Verso.Foucault, M. (1975b). Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France 1974-1975. London: Verso.Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison (t. A. Sheridan, Trans.). London:

Penguin Books.Foucault, M. (1980a). Questions of Method. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Power (Vol. 3,

pp. 223-238). New York: The New Press.Foucault, M. (1980b). Two Lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews &

Other Writings 1972-1977 (pp. 78-108). New York: Pantheon Books.Graham, L. (2006). Caught in the Net: A Foucaultian interrogation of the incidental effects of limited

notions of "inclusion". International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10((in press)).Graham, L., & Slee, R. (2005). Inclusion? Paper presented at the In Proceedings: Philosophy in

Education Society of Australasia (PESA) 2005 Annual Conference, 24th - 27th November,Institute of Education, Hong Kong.

Graham, L. J. (2005). (Re)Visioning the Centre: QSE-2010 and the quest for the cosmopolitan child.Paper presented at the In Proceedings of Philosophy in Education Society of Australasia(PESA) Annual Conference, Hong Kong.

Holmes, L. (2004, March 28th). Underactive Area of Brain Implicated in Children with ADHD.Retrieved 9th June 2004, 2004, fromhttp://mentalhealth.about.com/library/archives/0300/blmriadd300.htm

Humes, W., & Bryce, T. (2003). Post-structuralism and policy research in education. Journal ofEducation Policy, 18(2), 175-187.


Mackey, P., & Kopras, A. (2001). Medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD):an Analysis by Federal Electorate (Inquiry analysis No. No. 11. 2000-01). Canberra: FederalParliament.

Mehan, H. (1996). The construction of an LD student: a case study in the politics of representation.In M. Silverstein & G. Urban (Eds.), Natural Histories of Discourse (pp. 345-363). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Owen, W. (1963). Dulce Et Decorum Est. In The Collected Poems of Wilfred Owen: New DirectionsPublishing Corp.

Peters, M. (2004). Lyotard, Marxism and Education: The Problem of Knowledge Capitalism. In J. D.Marshall (Ed.), Poststructuralism, Philosophy, Pedagogy. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Popkewitz, T. S. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Ideas in Historical Spaces. In T. S. Popkewitz, B. M.Franklin & M. A. Pereyra (Eds.), Cultural History and Education: Critical Essays onKnowledge and Schooling. New York: RoutledgeFarmer.

Saltmarsh, S., & Youdell, D. (2004). 'Special Sport' for misfits and losers: educational triage and theconstitution of schooled subjectivities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(4),353-371.

Scheurich, J. J. (1997). Research Method in the Postmodern. London: Falmer Press.Shakespeare, W. (1983). Othello. London: Oval Projects.Slee, R. (1994). Finding a Student Voice in School Reform: student disaffection, pathologies of

disruption and educational control. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 4(2),147-172.

Slee, R. (1995). Changing Theories and Practices of Discipline. London: The Falmer Press.Thomas, G., & Glenny, G. (2000). Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: bogus needs in a false

category. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 21(3), 283-298.Trifonas, P. (2000). Jacques Derrida as a Philosopher of Education. Educational Philosophy and

Theory, 32(3), 271-281.Usher, R., & Edwards, R. (1994). Postmodernism and Education: different voices, different worlds.

London: Routledge.Wallace, I. (1999). You and Your ADD Child: Practical Strategies for Coping with Everyday

Problems. Sydney: HarperCollins.Wardill, S. (2004, 18 October). Parents to sign school rules deal. The Courier Mail.Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. (1998). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders. In H. O. Thomas &

M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychopathology (Third Edition ed.). New York:Plenum Press.

i Swayneville State School Supportive Environment Management Plan, 1995, p. 8.ii Here I refer to the earlier citation of Foucault’s description of ‘another possible orientation’ (p.213) in TheArchaeology of Knowledge (Foucault, 1972)iii Here I am referring to, for example, referrals to behaviour management programs, guidance officers,paediatricians or psychiatrists, suspension, alternative-site placement or school exclusion

Date post:	15-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times

doing 1 discourse 1 analysis 1 using Foucault - AARE

Documents