From the Work of Foucault: A Discussion of Power and Normalization in Schooling

Normalization and Power 1

Running Head: FROM THE WORK OF FOUCAULT

From the Work of Foucault: A Discussion of Power and Normalization in Schooling

By

Patricia Briscoe

B.Ed., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1991 M.Ed., University of Calgary, 2004

A Written Candidacy Exam Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

___________________________________

Graduate Division of Educational Research

Educational Leadership Program

In the Graduate School

University of Calgary

November 14, 2008


Table of Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................5 Significance of the Problem .................................................................................................7

Thesis Statement...................................................................................................................8

Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................8 Foucault and Power ..............................................................................................................9

Foucault and Normalization ...............................................................................................12 The Panopticon...................................................................................................................15

Disciplinary Technologies..................................................................................................16 Connecting Foucault’s Power, Knowledge and Normalization to Educational Context ...18

School practices. ..............................................................................................................18 Assessment. ...................................................................................................................18 Educators. . ......................................................................................................................19 The overall goals of education. ......................................................................................23

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................27

Discussion and Extension......................................................................................................... 28

Connecting to Postmodernism............................................................................................29 Critical Discourse ...............................................................................................................32

Today’s School...................................................................................................................36 Extensions ..........................................................................................................................38

Conclusion................................................................................................................................41

References ................................................................................................................................43


Abstract

It is of great importance for educators to address inequalities in schooling, as it not only

unknowingly hinders student learning for all, but it extends into deeper issues of students’

futures and issues such as social justice. The purpose of this paper is to show, through the

work of Michel Foucault, how the notion of power, knowledge and normalization can

illuminate and provide an understanding of the cyclic process of inequalities in schools.

Furthermore, I illuminate some of the issues of normalization, effects of normalization on

educators, and their ability and/or inability to identify and critically challenge the systemic

and agency of ‘normalization’. Ultimately, the more we know about such practices the more

we may advance in our actions towards promoting and ensuring more equitable schooling for

all students. These issues remain fundamental to moving forward toward ‘real’ increased

equity in schooling and to further the movement of social justice.


Introduction

“I wish to know how the reflexivity of the subject and the discourse of truth are linked –

How can the subject tell the truth about itself?

(Foucault, 1994, p. 128, as cited in McNicol Jardine, 2005)

As educators, we are in positions of power and authority within the daily lives of our

students. Most importantly, within our interactions, is the influence of power shaping our

knowledge base that we transfer and transform to our students. Students accept our position,

along with the more subtle messages in various degrees: knowingly and unknowingly,

consciously and unconsciously, and transforming and transferring ideas to form their own

beliefs and values. Consequently, educators also have the power to undermine students in

their inability to measure up to the norm (McNicol Jardine, 2005). Within this realm of power

plays a key feature, which is normalization. This allows for a unique relationship, but one that

is two fold in nature: power and normalization affects both the educators and the students. It

is of extreme importance that educators are vigilant in identifying and critically challenging

normalization for the benefits of their students. At the same time, as educators feel powerful,

they can also feel powerless because they, too, are within this same system that descends

power and normalization. As Foucault (1980a) states,

our society is not one of spectacle, but of surveillance; the circuits of communication

are the supports of an accumulation and a centralization of knowledge…it is not that

the beautiful totality of the individual is amputated, repressed or altered by our social

order, it is rather that the individual is carefully fabricated in it, according to a whole

technique of forces and bodies (p. 217).


Michel Foucault’s writings and thoughts offer many insights into the organizational

structure and operations of educational settings as well as the influence on the educators and

students within these settings. With a look at the relationship of Foucault’s definition of

power and knowledge within disciplinary techniques and normalization, which is tied to the

present direction of postmodernism, it is essential to move toward critical discourse within the

reflection and dialogue among educators. Otherwise, educators, as well as students, may

continue to be controlled by normalizing forces that do not address inequalities working

towards the sake of equility and social justice. This is a difficult mission considering we are

surrounded by a system of power and knowledge: one that we have been born into and

influenced by our whole lives (Foucault, 2002). But, a difficult task does not mean that it is

impossible. Looking to the work of Foucault, who critiques the modern Western world’s

power and social knowledge construction through disciplinary techniques, for direction and

understandings is valuable. This leads to increase in our sense of normalization, which

provides insight to future directions to live within educational settings that are more equal for

all.

Statement of the Problem

Over the past decade, Canadian schools have experienced important demographic

changes in their student population and thus have become increasingly diversified (Gérin-

Lajoie, 2008). Due to increased immigration, our school communities are diverse racially,

culturally, and linguistically. Consequently, at the heart of diversity are deviants from the so-

called definition of ‘norms’. The students within this group are considered a minoritized

group, which is defined not only to mean they are small in number, but rather they are treated

in a particular way that is negative, exclusive, and often discriminatory.


Harper (1997) explains, “diversity are what schools and educators are expected to meet

the needs of this diverse population and confront issues of gender, racial and economic

disparity, and discrimination” (p. 192). If we consider the work of Michel Foucault on power,

knowledge, and normalization, it would be difficult to consider how school structures, that

continue to be based on perpetual observation and situated on measuring deviants from a

norm, could ever absorb, much less meet, the diverse needs of our changing school

population. As Foucault has emphasized in his work, which provides perceptive and

insightful analyses of the acts of power and knowledge on normalization, “it is possible to

dismantle the confinement of normalization to create anew as well as to explore our ability to

freely appreciate differences, rather than trying to normalize them” (McNicol Jardine, 2005,

p. 11). Ryan (1991) adds that as the structure and organization of schools has remained

mostly unchanged to the factory style composition of scientific management of the 70’s,

educators will need to find ways to work within these constraints. If Foucault’s (1977; 1980a)

suggestion of normalization is correct, then it is the source that continues to produce

inequalities. Therefore, any ‘new’ directive in educational goals to meet the needs of all

students, diverse or otherwise, remains to be unobtainable goals in our schools at present if it

does not include aspects of critically challenging normalization. But, is it possible to function

outside of the structure of normalization? Or more importantly, is it possible to identify and

critically challenge some of the norms that actually create more inequalities? The answer to

these questions remains to be part of the problem. How are educators going to identify and

break some of the cycles of normalization within the school structures and organizations as

well as beyond the society within where we are situated, so that schools and those within have

the capacity and ability to embrace diversity and differences, rather than conform? Will the


understanding of the theories of Foucault, driven with critical discourse, be the future

direction of educators? This remains to be seen.

Significance of the Problem

As suggested from the work of Foucault, the effects of power, knowledge, and

normalization can still be considered one of the root causes that is alive and well within our

schools, and thus sustaining and/or increasing inequalities. As Connelly’s (2008) research

explores, there are two existing and competing frameworks in education: reproduction of

uniformity and standardized, and the diversification and difference. These competing

frameworks have left educators in a situation where they are torn about their responsibilities,

and of the possibilities to function in these competing, paradoxical frameworks. Educators

need to consider how to change or critically challenge normative expectations without the

“discipline or punishment” associated from deviances from the norm? As Foucault provides

in his analysis that the “many acts of power and knowledge can interfere with our ability to

freely explore how we may live within truth, rather than inside a prison made from our own

culture and society” (McNicol Jardine, 2005, p. 11). At the same time, Foucault (1980a),

suggests we are also embraced, within our school structures, by the panopticon-like

philosophy of observation that recycles normalization.

It appears educators are being asked to work with “square pegs, in round holes”. In the

end, minimal progress continues to be made to meet the needs of all students (Gérin-Lajoie,

2008). As Sackney and Mitchell (2002) express, “order, predictability, structure, rationality,

and control have not freed the human spirit, or promoted human creativity, and this failure is

taking its toll on personal lives, as well as on organizational activity, social relationships, and


global conditions” (p.883). In order for schools to address and meet educational goals of

increased diversity in schools, normalization and its entwined power must to be identified,

questioned and critically challenged. Otherwise as diversity continues to grow in school

settings, schools and educators will continue to fail our students in addressing the complexity

of diversity, and thus lead to other increasing problems such as social justice.

Thesis Statement

In this paper I will define aspects of power, knowledge, and normalization according to

Foucault, in order to understand its connection to schooling and the need for positive change.

I intend to illustrate how Foucault’s ideas of normalization continue to produce inequalities in

schools and connect this to the role educators knowingly or unknowingly play in sustaining

inequalities. Lastly, I will provide insight into identifying normalization and the

recommendation of critical discourse as a viable beginning for critically challenging

normalization, in order to reduce and hopefully to eventually end inequalities. Subsequently,

in doing so it is the intention that minorities, marginalized and regularly devalued students (all

deviance from the norm) will have greater academic and social opportunities in schools that

will continue into their adult life.

Literature Review

Introduction Michel Foucault’s work ranges widely across many disciplines, and education is no

exception. He has been extremely influential in raising new questions about historical

characteristics of social experience. Foucault’s special interest is in the use of science and


reason as instruments of power (Blackburn, 2005). He contends that systems of knowledge

and power are intimately connected and new forms of knowledge accompany the growth of

power. Foucault attacks what he calls “suppressing societal views”, or regulating principles

of social structure by which the self is constructed. His work led him to examine the

treatment of marginalized groups in society in order to better understand the connection of

power to control and regulate one’s life (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner, 2006). This has lead to

a fundamental framework of understanding normalization. From this framework it is the

intention that Foucault’s work will help to move schooling and society forward toward an

increased acceptance and respect of differences. The following review of some of Foucault’s

work is by no means an extensive review of his lifetime of work, but a window to his analysis

of power, knowledge, and normalization. Furthermore, to explore how his theories, analytical

concepts, and tools help identify the structure and effects of schools on educators, including

their own self-identity, is enclosed within efforts to establish a direction for moving forward

in educational equality.

Foucault and Power Foucault’s analysis of power is linked to an analysis of disciplinary knowledge,

classification, monitoring, control, punishment, and normalization of individuals (McNicol

Jardine, 2005). One of the most important features of Foucault’s theory of power is that he

refutes the claim ‘knowledge is power’, but states that he is interested in studying the

complex relations between power and knowledge, without saying they are the same thing

(Fillingham, 1993). According to Foucault there has been an evolving history of power. More

specifically, he “believes that power in the substantive sense doesn’t exist” (Foucault, 1980a,


p. 198). “Foucault approaches power with the question, ‘How is power exercised?’, rather

than ‘What is power?’” (Ryan, 1991, p.110). Therefore, the exercise of power exists in

actions which means power operates on people and “it invests them, is transmitted by them

and through them; it exerts pressure on them, just as they themselves, in their struggle against

it, resist the grip it has on them” (Foucault, 1977, p.27). Subsequently, Foucault (1980a)

extends this concept to include that “power not only operates on people but also in their

actions, attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives, rather than thinking

of power operating from above” (p.37). This form of ‘non-traditional’, non-hierarchical

flowing power is everywhere, and is much more subtle, easier to overlook, and much harder

to resist (Fillingham, 1993).

O’Farrell (2005) suggests one of Foucault’s most important point of power is that

mechanisms of power produce different types of knowledge, which collate information on

peoples activities and existence. The knowledge gathered in this way further reinforces

exercises of power on our societies. This is important in the realm of how power and

knowledge act as the normalizing force on our lives. That is how we perceive, collect and

form our perspectives on the knowledge presented to us. More importantly, is to consider that

Foucault (1980a) argues there is no absolute truth because “the exercise of power perpetually

creates knowledge and, conversely, knowledge constantly induces effects of power” (p. 52).

Then who determines what is knowledge? This is a difficult question that many philosophers,

including Foucault and his critics have argued. There is no clear answer to this complex

question, but as we learn more about the power and knowledge relationship, we are able to

make more identification and challenge this effect.

Critics of Foucault’s analysis of power suggest that he dismisses theories that power is


located within a human subject: endowed with specific attributes and capacities, such as one

would find with a president. Foucault also undermines the fact of any genuine commitment to

the betterment of society (Stangroom & Garvey, 2005). Yet, Foucault contends that power is

not within the subject. Subjects can be implicated within the power process, but that

individuals and groups do not control the process in any simple way. Foucault (1980b) argues

that to construct a general theory of power would be to “oblige to view power as emerging at

a given place and time hence to deduce it to reconstruct it genesis” (p. 189). Foucault goes

further to explain that in many cases people are not aware of the overall effects of their own

and other’s actions (Ryan, 1991). “People know what they do; they frequently know why

they do what they do; but what they don’t know is what they do does” (Foucault in Dreyfus &

Rabinow, 1982, p.187). This becomes an important and critical identification for educators in

the task challenging normalization.

Much of Foucault’s theories of power come from analyzing historical contexts. In the

17th and 18th century, power was gained from measures of public torture and execution. This

public display was intended to detour potential criminals form committing criminal acts. In

the late 18th century, as new evolving social order was taking shape, methods of control

began to change (Ryan, 1991; Wickham, 1986). “These new methods of control sought not to

crush and dismember the body as previously, but to train and exercise it, to make it

productive and cooperative” (Ryan, 1991, p. 106). Furthermore, people in organizations

aimed at the manipulation of gestures, attitudes and movements, “forging disciplined bodies

that could be subjected, used, transformed and improved” (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1892, p.154).

According to Foucault, this was the beginning ideologies of power and can be easily argued

that power ideologies are prevalent in schools today.


As Foucault traces power through history, he uses the Panopticon to illustrate his

thoughts. Foucault (1977, 1980a) draws on Panopticon-like institutes to illustrate the point of

power outside of subjects; the power embedded in these institutes produce effects with which

no one individual or group can be credited. He calls this new direction of power ‘disciplinary

techniques’, techniques for organizing new configurations of knowledge and power, which

came together around the objectification of the human subject. The act of observing and

watching people allows for the penetration, control and regulation of human behavior (Ryan,

1991). Minson (1986) suggests, “the individual constructed in such discourse is calculable to

the extent of being subject to comparative, scalar measures and related forms of training and

correction. Therefore the objection and power of Foucault’s disciplinary techniques is

normalization” (p. 113).

Foucault, throughout his work, depends on many concepts to illustrate and build the

case of the effects of power on knowledge, two of which are the presence of people

continuously being observed in organizations, combined with disciplinary techniques. These

situations create a power, which remains fundamental to the organization, administration, and

governance of men and women, and goes further to establish normalization. Even though

critiques argue that Foucault presents an essentialist theory of power, he has undoubtedly

provided a framework of power and an analysis of which explains dominance related to

normalization (Wickman, 1986).

Foucault and Normalization Foucault’s theory of normalization resides in power and knowledge. According to the

disciplinary techniques of observation, which creates a sense of power, it, in turn, relies on


creation, supervision, and maintenance of norms (and abnormalities). In other words, there

has to be a standard of norms in order to identify deviances from them, which also allows for

identifying any abnormalities. This can then lead to the idea that ‘norm’ is more valued than

what is not the ‘norm’ (meaning less valued). When such standards (norms) are established,

people are encouraged, as well as compared, to conform by means of constant observation,

examination, and documentation (Ryan, 1991). As Foucault (1977) demonstrates in his

historical analysis of clinics, uncooperative behavior was once justified for locking people up

and only acceptance of the power system and its terms of will get them defined as normal,

and thus released (Fillingham, 1993). Subsequently, it is the normalization that highlights

deviants or in educational context minoritzed groups. Therefore, normalizing processes

undercut initiatives, which work to establish individual rights and universal equality. As well,

challenges to the norms are seen to result in a loss of power, something that according to

Knight (2008), ‘dominate, norm regulating groups’, such as Whites, either consciously or

unconsciously don’t want to share or give up. This attributes to a loss in power either way.

In the most simplistic form, Foucault’s (1977) definition of normalization is “a body that is

docile and may be subjected, used, transformed and improved” (p. 136) and in “our

disciplinary society compares, differentiates, hierachizes and excludes” (p. 182). “Our 20th

century Western society, a disciplinary society, tells us not only what we must be and do, but

how we must do it” (Foucault, 1979, 1980, as cited in McNicol Jardine, 2005, p. 49)

Foucault (1977) contends that the methods associated with discipline for “those who

deviate from the established norms continually and systematically produce inequalities in the

pursuit of docility and productivity. Only the aptitudes, knowledge and actions directly

related to the overall needs of society are recognized or used” (p. 138). “Anything else is


likely to be punished or marginalized” (McNicol Jardine, 2005, p.44). Does this become a

two fold in what we are trying to accomplish in educational goals? Any current review of

Education government documents will direct that we want our students to take risk, be

critical, be creative, be individuals, but discipline them when they deviate from a norm. As

Foucault (1980a) suggests, norms derived from power invariably center on being docile and

productive - not different. Those who do differ are then ranked on the basis of where they

stand in relation to the norms within a hierarchy and processes are put in place to ‘remake’

them (Fillingham, 1993).

In education, academic student data collection highlights this point. It is a regular

practice in education settings to collect data of students’ academic achievement. This data is

then compiled and performance is ranked accordingly to the most academically challenged to

the most academically inclined to guide future instruction and services for any particular

student. The concern for educational standards and a search for excellence hold merit, but the

knowledge obtained during these methods permit not only the description of groups and the

characterization of collective facts, but also the construction of norms (Caine & Caine, 1997).

Foucault maintains that this philosophy has provided the impetus for formation and

advancement of human sciences that supply knowledge that is used in the establishment of

norms (Ryan, 1991).

As Sackney and Mitchell (2002) suggest, administrators evaluate, differentiate and

hierarchicalize workers and students on the basis of their nature, potential, value, worth and

then distribute them to their appropriate places. Organizations are traditionally organized in a

hierarchical fashion. Subjects are considered good, bad, or somewhere in between and are

located and assigned roles on the basis of their ability and/or capacity to be productive and


cooperative. The corrections of those who depart from these valued standards or norms

require the systematic allotment of sanction (Minson, 1996). That is, discipline and

punishments are applied to those who do not measure up and rewarded to when they convert

with pressure to conform.

For Foucault (1977), the concept of norms is inseparable from the concepts of

normativity and normalization. For this reason, abnormalities seek to be understood as

natural as the norm itself and thus the need to have it kept in check provides a further

rationale for surveillance of the general population. Minson (1986) suggests, “the challenge

of power and normalization over social organization, thought, and action implies a social

revolution, the transformation of one society into another, a truly social one” (p. 145). As

Foucault’s suggests normalization is complex as there are many competing, and at the same

time, overlapping angles to consider. He argued that the “knowledge that we learn in our

schools and culture warp us into their own image, force us to see, understand, and know only

a small, biased, individualized, singular, and unique selection and ordering to what is in the

world to know” (McNicol Jardine, 2005, p. 80). Subsequently, most important for educators

is being able to identify and understand the origins of normalization and effects it can have on

our, sometimes singular, thoughts and actions.

The Panopticon

Foucault’s ideas on power, knowledge and normalization provide an excellent

framework for analyzing the institutional context from which schooling has emerged.

Moreover, there are interesting parallels to be drawn between power and the structure of

educational institutions, which have come to shape so much of our society (Shore & Roberts,


1993). According to Foucault (1977), the design and physical structure of school as an

organization can be traced back to past social ideologies that were in pursuit of productivity

(and docility) by means of observation. Many organizations, including schools, were designed

around the Panopticon-like scheme such that power is embedded in this model to structure the

potential activities of students. The Panopticon, as described earlier as the architectural

structure of observation, was designed by Jeremy Bentham for prisons, and was taken up by

Foucault. Shore and Roberts (1993) suggest that the Panopticon prison provides a paradigm

for understanding the processes, which education is structured, managed and controlled.

Although it was never built, the architectural plans were a clear indication of how society was

starting to organize itself: firstly, organizational practices that reaped administration, and

secondly, control of men and women (Foucault, 1977, 1980a). Furthermore, according to

Foucault, the actions of individuals and groups - teachers, parents, administrators, students,

government officials, and special interest groups - take shape and are given direction within

these structures (Ryan, 1991).

Disciplinary Technologies

In Discipline and Punishment, Foucault (1977) explores the various ways in which the

human body became an object to be manipulated and controlled through the creation of

institutions, of which schools are included. Foucault (1977) elaborates this point with

disciplinary technologies, or techniques for organizing new configurations of knowledge and

power, which he states, came together around the objectification of a human subject. Rabinow

contends that Foucault’s (1984) aim of these disciplinary technologies were three fold: firstly,

to achieve the exercise of power at minimal cost; secondly, to extend the effects of social


power to maximum power and as discretely as possible; and thirdly, to increase the docility

and unity of all the elements of the system. “Overall to forge, in the most economic and

rational way possible a docile body that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved”

(p. 17). Thus the standardization of actions and behavior through institutions provided a

disciplinary grid for the organization of space, time, work and many other aspects of human

behavior (Shore & Roberts, 1993). Fillingham (1993) adds a summary of discipline powers

that includes: spatialization, minute control of activity, repetitive exercises, detailed

hierarchies, and normalizing judgments, All of these points connect Foucault’s ideas together

beautifully of how power and knowledge shapes normalization in structural and societal

context.

More importantly to normalization using disciplinary techniques is, even in the absence

of an observer, a sense of power continues to be present for the subject. As Foucault (1977)

suggest in the panopticon paradigm, one is never sure if they are being observed, but the

mechanisms are always in place for observing and controlling. Therefore, both the observer

and the observed can always be ‘seen’, thus everyone is caught in the panopticon design:

those who exercise the power and those who are subjected to it. “By inducing a state of

conscious and permanent visibility the panopticon-like design transforms everyone [educators

and students] into an instrument of his [sic] own subjugation and thereby guarantees the

automatic functioning of power” (p.201). In all, there are clear underlying parallels to the

panopticon in terms of the system’s ability to control through disciplinary techniques. It is

also difficult to identify and locate the source of ultimate authority. This translates into the

difficulty for meaningful change, especially in the case of identifying and breaking cycles of

normalization, which has become all too prevalent in educational change. “Educators


constantly feel tension between nurturing, supporting freedom and creative exploration, and

establishing controls and giving gratification for respectful behavior (Caine & Caine, 1997, p.

151)

Connecting Foucault’s Power, Knowledge and Normalization to Educational Context

A growing body of literature is concerned with the analysis of the discourse of power

knowledge, and normalization in education and the way these functions of disciplinary

technologies are designed to control, classify, and contain teachers and students (Ball, 1990;

Dreyfus & Rabinow 1982; Ryan, 1991). Schools became one of the multitudes of institutions

to adopt and employ pervasive regime of observation and supervision (panopticism) in its

efforts to normalize students. Like many other institutions, schools continue to produce

inequalities, despite the official policies, programs, and efforts to the contrary. The rudiments

of the organization of schooling, of which people take for granted, systemically produce

inequalities (Ryan, 1991). With a closer look at school practices, connected to the theories of

Foucault, it becomes more evident the position of normalization and areas of challenges

within schools, which includes: school practices, assessment, the educators and overall

educational goals.

School practices. A connection to school’s daily practices provide ‘real’ examples of

Foucault’s theories and normalization. Firstly, consider surveillance practices in schools.

Schools arrange classrooms, supervision schedules, school rules and regulations, as well as

teacher positioning to watch children at all times throughout the school day. According to the

Education Statutes and Regulations of Ontario (2005), educators must provide supervision to

students throughout the day when the school building and playgrounds are open. If an


accident were to occur while students were unattended or unsupervised at any time

throughout the school day, then it could result in the legal action of negligence. Very little

student activity can go unnoticed by a vigilant school staff (Ryan, 1991).

As noted earlier, the structural design of the school provides another example. Most

schools are designed with a panopticon-like philosophy to facilitate observational practices

(Ryan, 1991). At my present school there are “pod areas”, which are a pentagonal design

with classrooms jetting out from the open pentagonal area, which allows for a common area

at the centre of a collection of classrooms. Among other things, such as providing a central

work area, this design provides an ideal location to observe each classroom from one area.

Again this follows the panopticon-like philosophy to promote observation and disciplinary

practices, if necessary.

Furthermore, considering the timetable and daily time structure of school, students and

staff have schedules to follow, and everyone has a place to be at every point throughout the

school day. Timetables are arranged according to students being grouped, leveled or divided

and then go to their particular place accordingly. “The construction of these analytical spaces

and times allows teachers to know students intimately on an individual basis, and if the need

should arise, to correct any shortcomings they may display” (Ryan, 1991, p.114).

Assessment. Specifically prevalent to the concept of normalization is evaluation and

assessment. As in any institution that employs disciplinary technologies, the knowledge

obtained through observational practices must be examined, evaluated, and documented.

Schools routinely assess students from the time they enter school, starting as young as three

years old. For that matter, teachers and administrators are not exclusive of these evaluative

processes. Each student has a cumulative record containing all informal or formal assessments


as well as observations in the form of report cards, individual educational plans, behavioral

implications, and so forth. A file is started on every student that enters school and is

cumulative throughout their school life. Provincial school systems may employ various names

to these files, but in Ontario, they are called Ontario Student Record (OSR). It is the record of

a student's educational progress throughout their school years. The Education Act requires:

that the principal of a school collect information for inclusion in a record in respect of

each pupil enrolled in the school and to establish, maintain, retain, transfer and dispose

of the record. The act also regulates access to an OSR and states that the OSR is

privileged for the information and use of supervisory officers and the principal and

teachers of the school for the improvement of instruction of the student (Ontario

Ministry of Education, Ontario Student Record Guideline, 2001).

OSR’s are very formal as well as legally binding documents.

From these assessments several elements appear: “1) schools rank students according to

their capacity; 2) arrange students in academic hierarchal abilities; 3) if needed “so-called

scientific administered assessments are arranged” (Ryan, 1991, p. 114). What does this imply

about educational practices on assessment? It is quite obvious that student assessment results

are used to identify those who are deviant from a norm, and then to provide actions thereafter

to help those (abnormal) come closer to the norm. Assessment must always have a benchmark

to adhere to. In extreme cases for those who drastically deviate from the norm, special classes

are created, such as English as a second language. It is obvious to see, from these examples,

how schools not only create differences, but inequalities and exclusion, as well as confirm

Foucault’s analysis.

Educators. As per the structure, educators, like Bentham’s prisoners, become more or


less unaware accomplices in the setting up of a wider system of normalization because of the

panopticon-like structure imposed on them. “In Foucauldian terms, this is a classic example

of the molding of subjectivity through the internalization of externally-imposed norms”

(Shore & Roberts, 1993, p. 4). Consequently, educators are far from excluded in the

disciplinary techniques. They, too, are included in the observation and control processes

either directly, or indirectly, as exemplified in ‘their students’ progress. For example, most

educators have compulsory professional assessments, which Foucault (1980a) documents as a

form of isolating and objectifying the individual or subject. Foucault (1977) explains that

being a part of a structure that employs disciplinary techniques creates a sense of

internalization to discipline and monitor oneself, and be the agent of responsibility for setting

and achieving targets. Again, “this reiterates the presence of continuous and anonymous

power in the absence of ‘the controller in the tower’” (Shore & Roberts, 1993, p. 7), which

also continues a status of normalization.

As Sackney and Mitchell (2002) suggests, the organizational structure of school allows

for specific social and organizational scripts from which behavior and discourse patterns are

derived. That is to say, teachers are within a system that has coerced them to behave and think

a certain way. Lyotard (1984, as cited in Sackney & Mitchell, 2002) expresses this by stating

“an unarticulated foundation is established through complex processes of legitimization

through performativity, which is the optimization of the relationship between inputs and

outputs” (p. 883). Educators therefore play a role in the measurement of performance and

assessment practices. In other words, they are also “objects of surveillance and assessed upon

a combination of statistical indices, external or internal inspectors, institutional appraisal, and

ultimately, critical self-appraisal on the basis of performance targets for student achievement”


(Shore & Roberts, 1993, p. 5). In theory, these techniques and practices of assessment are

objective, rational, and a fair system for assessing and ensuring quality and excellence in

teaching (Ball, 1990). From one perspective, specifying outcomes in detail and applying them

at different levels-from national standards to curriculum frameworks to lessons plans – makes

sense (Caine & Caine, 1997).

The problem exist in that many researchers argue that such assessments are nothing

more than the modernity through such mechanisms as order, accountability, structure,

systematization, linear development, and control as a means to implicitly, if not explicitly,

promote the status quo (Cherryholmes, 1988; Douglas, 1986; Lyotard, 1984; as cited in

Sackney & Mitchell, 2002). As Caine and Caine (1997) suggest the consequence of control of

the curriculum, instruction, and behavior of students, interrupts the flow and opportunities of

‘real time’ student learning. From this perspective, if educators are working under these

circumstances that promotes status quo, then they and “education are not at the forefront of

social change; instead it is the stabilizing force that socializes individuals and groups into an

awareness and acceptance of their place in the social and organizational orders” (Sackney &

Mitchell, 2002, p. 883). This confirms the thoughts of Foucault in that the status quo or

normalization is a force that will take incredible efforts to break and, in particular, looking to

areas that are the origins of the continuation of norms through the implications of structure,

power and knowledge. This is especially tricky when non-compliance or deviances from the

norms and standardization are to be disciplined, punished, devalued or receive an

unsatisfactory evaluation in a system of disciplinary techniques such as in schools. Educators

are entrenched in conflicting societal responsibilities:

“responsibility for students to proficiently learn all of the knowledge, skills, attitudes


that are mandated as valuable by society; and on the other hand, parents and students

hope that we will help them find their own way in the world through frustration and

alienation or becoming lost through pressures, expectations or distractions” (McNicol

Jardine, 2005, p. 78).

Although a difficult task, it is not impossible to break the production and

reproduction of normalization and help our students achieve both expectations. In the last

decade, Gérin-Lajoie (2008) suggested that some progress of ‘upsetting’ the status quo has

been made through critical discourse initiatives such as anti-racist and White dominance

education. Wheatley (1992) adds “all this time we have created trouble for ourselves in

organizations by confusing control with order” (p. 22). Teachers must understand power and

control used to make students do what is required to achieve the teacher’s goal is different

form orderliness that comes from pursuing meaningful goals and purposes (Caine & Caine,

1997). McNicol Jardine (2005) also suggest as educators have a better understanding of how

they conceive teaching, the curriculum, schools and educational policies, it is possible to

make positive progress. However, there is still a long way to go. One of the most important

and useful aspects of Foucault’s work is that it provides educators with the vehicle to help us

understand the need to be specific about such questions and issues as normalization.

The overall goals of education. The most important direction of our actions is working

toward the end; therefore understanding the overall goals of education are important.

Subsequently, what are the goals of education? Specifically narrowing this discussion to

Ontario, I would like to focus on three important studies that have directed and stimulated the

educational goals in Ontario: the Roberts Plan, Living and Learning (Hall-Dennis report), and

the Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education, and the Issue of Dropouts (Radwanski


report). Briefly summarized, in the 60’s the Roberts Plan introduced the idea of streaming that

resulted in segregation of homogeneous groups and individual pursuits (Gidney, 1999).The

Hall-Dennis report was monumental in that it identified that “education was about self

realization and not fitting individuals for pre-determined economic or social roles. This lead

to a new direction of ‘learning how to learn’, rather than imposed, structured, involuntary,

mindless rote learning (Gidney, 1999). This meant the goal of education, as stated in the

document and highlighted by the quote ‘the truth will make you free’, is “the underlying aim

of education is to further man’s [sic] unending search for truth. Once he [sic] possess the

means to truth, all else is within his [sic] grasps” (Ontario Provincial Committee On Aims and

Objectives Of Education in the Schools of Ontario, 1967, p.9). This changed the future

educational direction in the province and was mostly in line with progressivism until the early

80’s.

The final report of this discussion, the Radwanski report, followed in the early 80’s as

an attempt to understand the new aims and roles of education since the aims of society, was

dramatically changing. That is, “an era when the prosperity of our society and the well-being

of individuals will increasingly depend on having a highly-educated population” (Radwanski,

1987, p.7). This report is a direct contrast to the Dennis-Hall report and thus the pendulum of

educational goals swing the opposite direction; back to stricter emphasis on education as an

important contributor to economic growth where competitiveness is key. Ontario schools

witnessed this initiative in “Raise the Bar” campaign: increasing student academic

achievement expectations was enforced to meet our changing competitive, economic driven

society. What this means for schools, and as suggested by Foucault, is that normalization is

prevalent in schools that are enforced by competitive requirements or normative mark.


Otherwise if you don’t meet the mark, then you are a part of the less valued group. Is this

‘less valued’ group increasing in our schools today?

This brief overview highlights the variable goals of education being contextual to

current societal, economical and political events. Some researchers even go as far as to

consider education policy as the only discourse of power (Mulford, Silins & Leithwood,

2004; Sackney & Mitchell, 2002; Shore & Roberts, 1993). What is more prevalent is the

distinctiveness of segregation based on a student’s academic ability. With the increase of

diversity in Ontario schools, the gap between academic abilities of ‘haves’ and ‘have not’s’ is

widening due to the ‘traditional’ normalization not accounting for such increased diversity

(Ryan, 2003). The overwhelming concentration of schools toward increasing academic

student learning becomes the segue for the continued and increased performance

measurement applications and the concentration of the direction for educators in their day-to

day practices. Consequently, with increased public spending in education, the government

becomes accountable for such public spending, which is directly passed on to educators in

professional accountability measures (Caine & Caine, 1997).

These past initiatives have started a chain of events; accountability dictates practices of

constant student measurement; the constant observation allows educators to rank students

with respect to each other and to a whole range of academic abilities; and educators spend

most of their time encouraging, motivating, guiding, and teaching in order to bring these

identified students to the minimal standard. “Teachers may confront, scold, prod, embarrass,

strike or praise students; they may also distribute, deprive, or award symbolic or other types

of rewards to students in their efforts to promote their adherence to minimal standards of

productivity and docility” (Ryan, 1989, pp. 233). “This is an extremely impersonal process,


whose goals are to normalize and control ‘anomalies’ in the social body, and to forge docile,

malleable subjects” (Shore & Roberts, 1993, p. 10). Unfortunately, in this process, students

are characterized or given worth according to their ability to obtain or conform to the

standard. This process of characterizing students is what Foucault implies in his theories of

power and the continuation of normalization: it conveniently identifies deviants and the

distribution of sanctions. The continuation of norms also implies an opposite effect: the

continuation of differences and inequalities. Has this become the overall goal of education: to

produce students at a level that will ensure that once they leave school they are equipped with

the tools of productivity?

“Many view school as a means to rescue the less fortunate from their undesirable

circumstances and put them on an equal footing with the rest of society” (Ryan, 1991, p. 116).

Assessment is seen as a tool to help identify those who do not meet the standard level so that

more help is given. Others think that tightening disciplinary technologies through avenues

such as accountability will improve the inequalities that are continuously mounting in

schools. One only has to look to the United States educational reform of “No Child Left

Behind” (NCLB), which clearly indicates the need for maintaining a standard, and the actions

to be taken when the standard is not meet. Consequently, “within this process there is

identification made; individuals who score high on tests and/or most cooperative are valued

higher than their comrades who happen to be less successful at these same task” (Ryan, 1991,

p. 115). Thus the overwhelming concern for productivity and reaching a norm are major

concerns and/or goals for schools and educators. These concerns also reach into many other

organizations outside of schools, such as hospitals. Ironically this means, and as Foucault

(1980a) suggested, the establishment and continuation of norms is what continues to maintain


the desire or power of productivity and docility among society, along with the inequalities

that constitute from normalization. In actual fact by strengthening the disciplinary

technologies that breathe power and normalization, it generates even more differences,

inequalities, and exclusions. The connection of educational policy, politics, and societal

ideologies are complex, as well as dictating to the direction of an educator’s discourse of

practice. The more prevalent question is: how can this cycle be broken? McNicol Jardine

(2005) has identified questions that educators need to critically think about to gain a clearer

picture of the goals of education:

In our educational institutions, what (and whose) view of the world are we giving our

students? Who is benefiting? Who is harmed? And most importantly, what knowledge

about the world is absent, subjugated, disqualified? Why? How do our students benefit

form the way we teach them? How are they harmed? Specifically, who else benefits or

is harmed? In our ability to imagine what else we might do insinuated in hidden

regimes beyond our good intentions in raising such alternatives? (p. 33-34).

Ultimately as educators ask themselves the following questions, maybe their purpose and

goals of education become clearer.

Conclusion

Accepting Foucault’s views, we can see how power, knowledge and normalization is

subsequently the production and maintenance of inequalities that is inextricable intertwined

with school structure, practices and its discourse.

This system of managing, observing, controlling, classifying, and rewarding students,

geared for the generation of maximum outputs, produces inequalities day in and day out


not only in school settings, but in institutional life throughout the modern world.

Schools then, rather than reproduce inequalities, produce them (Ryan, 1991, p. 117).

Specifically aimed at educators is the relevance for them to understand the historical context

and direction of school systems that ultimately continues to enhance the inequalities that they

(educators) work so hard to eliminate. Foucault elaborates, as educators our actions cannot be

measured on our good intentions and aspirations, but must be measured on our continual and

careful vigilance about the effects of everything in which we participate (McNicol Jardine,

2005).

Based on Foucault’s analysis of normalization and connection to power and knowledge,

is it possible for educators embraced by such institutions, and living in the modern western

world that promotes disciplinary techniques and pervasively exhibits such objectifying and

molding in our lives, able to assume such a task? We are at a crucial turning point where

educators need to, first identify, then critically challenge the structure of school and the

undertones, as suggested by Foucault, of normalization and power that ironically produces

inequalities simultaneously as we are working toward decreasing it. Foucault (1980a)

identifies that “individuals are the vehicles of power, not its point of application. The

individual which power has constituted is at the same time its vehicle” (p. 98). The discussion

to follow highlights the future directions for educators to identify, rethink, reframe and

challenge ‘normal’ in order to assume such a task.

Discussion and Extension

Foucault’s analysis of power, knowledge and normalization provides educators with a

better understanding of the nature of how all three work within school settings to classify,


monitor and control both educators and students within the dominant disciplinary school

settings (McNicol Jardine, 2005). Foucault has laid a comprehensive historical and

philosophical framework and provided examples of evidence and connections to education.

His work also provides us with insight and abilities to identify ways of resisting some of the

more negative aspects: guidance towards changing the ill effects of normalization that is

reducing educators’ efforts toward equality and student achievement. As Ryan (1991)

suggests, if we take into account observations that compare individuals and groups to norms,

then it generates the mere inequalities that we work to reduce: we cannot help but produce

unequal differences, as it is an integral component of the system that Foucault explains. More

importantly, as well as discouraging, is the abundance of work and effort by researchers,

scholars and educators that is undermined because “well meaning efforts to reduce

inequalities of schooling continue to fail because schools continue to work in a organizational

formats geared to normalize students” (Ryan, 1991, p. 118).

The question remains how educators can positively change these organizational,

normalizing, power structures so that school is a more equal opportunity for all? If what

Foucault is saying about power and normalization is correct, then a viable means to address

inequalities lies in destructing normalizing from both the structure and through the people

within. This lends itself to the question of how do we know when we are normalized? What,

if any, are the characteristics of normalization? And, how do educators go about challenging

normalization that may be hindering students’ equity of opportunities. Foucault (1994)

identifies this question by asking: “how can the subject tell the truth about itself?” (p.128, as

cited in McNicol Jardine, 2005). As McNicol Jardine (2005) extends and articulates quite

eloquently the following questions from the work of Foucault:


How can we tell the truth about ourselves, given how thoroughly we are acculturated

into pre-existing systems of knowledge and power? Moreover, is it possible to raise

fresh new voices in education, given how deeply modern societies and their educational

institutions already acculturate each of us? And most importantly, how can Foucault’s

analytic concepts and tools help educators to transform current educational practices

that we judge to be harmful and alienating? (p.19).

These questions provide the character of the discussion to follow of how educators can

use Foucault’s analysis in shaping a future direction in an effort to identify and critically

challenge normalization. Foucault’s (1979, as cited in McNicol Jardine, 2005) suggestion “is

to not only focus on the negative, prohibitive, repressive effects of our society’s practices and

expectations, but identify what they prevent or make unthinkable” (p.23). Foucault’s analysis

provides the framework and means of a better understanding that constitutes the system of

power and knowledge of normalization.

Working from his framework, it is possible for educators to identify and critically

challenge normalization. First, it is necessary to understand how Foucault’s historical

analysis is contextualized to our present era of postmodernism. Second, I explore the

characteristics of critical discourse associated with postmodernism that move us toward

‘critically’ challenging normalization. Third, taking a closer look at connecting today’s

school with Foucault and other scholars’ thoughts. And finally, offer extensions to the

discussion. Therefore, building on the work of Foucault’s analysis of power, knowledge, and

normalizing within the platform of postmodernism and critical discourse, is the suggestion to

educators in order to identifying and critically challenging normalization. These become one

of multiple steps in educating the educator on the theories of postmodernism and critical


discourse, and then provide evidence and opportunity to realize its importance to education

opportunities for all.

Connecting to Postmodernism

Knowledge differs from era to era and Foucault spent his life documenting in his

writings that at different times, what counts as true, valid, and reliable knowledge changed

(McNicol Jardine, 2005). This is a significant argument for the ability of changing what is

‘normal’. However, also linked to this process is the necessity of having alternative and

possibly multiple views. Postmodernity is helping confirm this as it conjures up images of

diversity, multiplicity and possibility, thereby suggesting that one’s assumptions, biases and

beliefs represent only one perspective on the world (Edwards, 1992; Lather, 1991, as cited in

Sackney, Walker & Mitchell, 1999). Sackney and Mitchell (2002) explain that globalization

is forcing educators to shift from modernism to postmodern expressions which is defined by

sets of multiple perspectives, especially cultural and intellectual views, which is opening a

global community. Therefore according to the discourse of postmodernism, this is a move

from a single grand theory to an appreciation of multiple perspective, voices and rationalities.

As society moves in this complex, nonlinear manner from the modernist, bureaucratic

structure into postmodernism of decentralization, the notion of power becomes particularly

emphasized in normalization because of the increased availability of knowledge, leading to

increased, multiple, and conflicting points of view. As Caldwell and Hayward (1998, as cited

in Sackney et al., 1999) suggest

the arrival of virtual schools, the diversity of voices making demands on schools, the

cyber policy challenges of access and equity, the work place transformation that as


resulted in technology and information overload illustrate that postmodernity has

arrived and is not likely to go away (p. 35).

This movement has led to greater attention to our work roles and structures of organizations

(Sackney & Mitchell, 2002), which has historically been modeled by structural and

bureaucratic conceptions (Smylie & Hart, 1999). We can relate to Foucault for better

understanding, who is a major contributor to the analysis of power/knowledge relations

(Sackney et al., 1999). Foucault’s emphasizes in his arguments is that “ideas, understanding,

and ownership of power change from society to society, from culture to culture” (p. 17, as

cited in McNicol Jardine, 2005). He considers this an opportunity to challenge one’s own

normalization, as we view others in comparison.

Today we are “using these historical conditions to contextualize our contention that an

alternative way of schooling is necessary if schools are to meet the contemporary challenges

of teaching and learning” (Sackney & Mitchell, 2002, p. 882). Subsequently, and considering

contextualization, this may be the catalyst for educators to seek more knowledge on how to

take on such a role. With the onset of such exploration of multiple and contradicting

ideologies associated within postmodernism, it brings educators into a moving place. They

are encouraged more so than ever to no longer accept one perspective because there are many

presented and available.

Foucault’s (2001) work in The Archeology of Knowledge provides direction in this area

by the emphasis that “we can see for ourselves not only how two different systems of

knowledge can be; we can also see what we need to target to change our own system of

knowledge and power” (McNicol Jardine, 2005, p. 17). This means as postmodernism brings

forth multiple and contradicting perspectives and more assessable knowledge; we are able to


see more than our own ‘truths’. Furthermore, educators now have increased opportunities to

seek, identify, and become more aware of normalization and any effects it is having upon

them.

Again postmodernism may perhaps be considered the catalyst that gives educators

opportunity to identify and challenge normalization. It is becoming less of a choice,

considering the onset of a combination of multiple perspectives and increased availability of

knowledge. Educators are more or less by default having to deal with many perspectives,

which in turn means they have heightened awareness of when they are being normalized.

Within the context of identification, Maxcy (1994) states that educational perspective is

“caught on the cusp of a new era, one between a modernist paradigm (characterized by

professional values such as responsibility, meditative role, and concern for the bottom-

line results) and the postmodern patterns marked by decentralization, pluralistic

demands form multiple voices and school system redesign” (p. 3).

According to Foucault any effort to challenge power is equal to any effort to challenge

normalization, or vice versa. This challenge must involve the realization that there is multiple

perspectives including ‘subjugated knowledge’ (Foucault, 1980a), which are voices of people

who have been marginalized. Attending to multiple perspectives is crucial to our construction

of reality, language, meanings and rituals of truth, which is the crux of postmodernism.

Otherwise, a singular perspective substantiates the longevity normalization. The importance

of the ramifications of various postmodernist understandings of power for school

organizations and educators is where we stand in education at present (Sackney et al., 1999).

This onset of multiple and contradicting perspectives have also been the catalyst for critical

discourse considering educators are faced with a ‘new’ dilemma: finding valid and credible


knowledge among the multiple angled perspectives.

Critical Discourse

Critical discourse is founded, on what Sackney and Mitchell (2002) state as, the

previous belief of creating a unifying structure of thought and knowledge, to the creation of a

structure of thought and knowledge from multiple angles. Critiques of modernist thought

have demonstrated that definitions and descriptions of fact, truth, and reality are heavily laden

with issues of power, control, and privilege (Walker, 1998). Furthermore, the reality is

construed and constructed as much from what is thought to be observable as it is actually

observed (Gergen, 1992). Such previous statements became a turning point and segue for

critical thought and discourse among educators. This translates to an effort to move from a

less normalized state (one perspective) to one of broader perspectives and less laden with

power and knowledge dominance.

In his work entitled Power/Knowledge, Foucault (1980a) highlights how we have

refused to listen to voices of minorities such as prisoners, mental patients. Instead we

“disqualify their voices as inadequate because of their so called ‘naive knowledge’, low

ranking on the hierarchy and beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity” (p.82).

To illustrate a less powerful group, Sackney and Mitchell (2002) provide the example of the

First Nations people in Canada. Many examples can also be found in Ontario schools, as

demographics have changed and are now represented by multiple ethnical/cultural groups.

Silenced voices and oppression are the epitome of the effects of power/knowledge

relationships and the strengthening of any normalization. This is all too familiar to the

practices of educators and students who do not meet the “norms” or standardized benchmark


set by a range of ministry curriculum guides, provincial standardized test, and so forth.

Educators need to be able to identify and critically reflect when non-dominant groups

are being silenced. Edwards (1992, as cited in Sackney & Mitchell, 2002) adds that

this analysis is achieved through reflexivity, which is the process of thinking critically

about the relationships among what we have said, what we have thought, and what we

have been taught and searching our words and thoughts carefully for leaps in logic and

for the inclusion of implicit or untested attributions, assertions, and assumptions” (p.

890).

Will this help reduce inequalities? Not entirely. Yet if anything it confirms, as Foucault

contends, that it creates more inequalities when considering the present changing

demographics of schools which in turn create increased diversity. The direction that Foucault

has moved us with his historical knowledge is the purpose of understanding how and why we

are affected by power and knowledge. With this we can reconstruct to include minoritzed

voices. According to Foucault “knowing, is a step in deciding what we should change and

what we should cherish and keep” (McNicol Jardine, 2005, p. 26). With the onset of critical

discourse, listening to more voices is possible and expected.

The importance of understanding the attributes of critical discourse is crucial in moving

toward directions of widening perspectives. Critical discourse is marked by otherness,

difference, and marginality, which become easy to identify Foucault’s philosophies in critical

discourse of postmodernism. What this means for the direction of discourse for educators are

two things: a fundamental shift from individualism and independence, and the concept of

power from a redesign of linear, hierarchy power/knowledge. As stated by Maxcy (1994), the

question remains: are school structures, organizations and the educators ready for such


changes when existing structures still operate in the middle of modern and postmodern?

Furthermore, is it possible to operate outside of these domains? As more and more educators

experience cognitive dissonance, one by one educators are building the capacity to positively

change educational institutions. James Baldwin quotes: “the world changes according to the

way people see it, and if you alter, even by a millimeter, the way people look at reality, then

you can change the world”. As argued quite brilliantly by Foucault from the timelines of his

writings, change is inevitable and normalization is capable of shifting as we have experienced

in the historical changes from century to century.

Today’s School

Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) suggest that as present school systems continue to be

hierarchically organized, and two features continue. Firstly, students continue to be grouped

into distinct grade levels, and secondly, teachers continue to be isolated from their colleagues.

This is not the unity needed to challenge normalization; rather it is the fragmentation of

individualism that continues normalization. Mitchell (1995) and O’Neil (1995) (as cited in

Sackney et al. 1999) agree that within fragmented education, individualism and independence

have all developed as norms. Educators in such organizational structures pay particular

attention to their day-to-day classroom duties; they seldom look beyond their immediate

space to the needs of the school or to the bigger picture. Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) also

add, as identified among educators, a lack of collaborative and collegial aspects, which has

recently received considerable attention in educational literature. Collegialism is seen as a

fundamental vehicle for effectively managing the overwhelming abundance of paradoxes

from postmodernism and the critical examination of normalization. Furthermore, Osterman


(1990) suggest the myths of ‘the perfect educator’ (educators who’s students continually do

well on standardized test), inherent in many school cultures, keeps educators from seeking

advice, support, or guidance, for fear of being considered incompetent. Ryan (1991) extends

this by connecting the disciplinary techniques addressed by Foucault to the reflection of

educators on their professional reputation to have both productive and docile students. As

well, many educators give high priority to the inculcation of correct social behavior. “A few

educators would even place it above that of learning of so-called skills” (p. 113).

All of these brief statements above give an example of the present feelings of

normalization and powerlessness among educators. As Osterman (1990) found, many

educators are also experiencing lack of innovation and creativity, as well as depression

because they [educators] don’t feel they have the leverage to make a difference. As Foucault

has suggested, educators are constantly in turmoil within their roles. Schooling and educators

are at a crossroads between doing the ‘right’ thing for their students: attending to the

emotional and social well being of our students, or preparing them academically for the

competitive, economic driven world that will be their future. The consequences of ignoring

either will be detrimental to their future. Within this turmoil, educators are trying to find a

balance for both. As McNicol Jardine (2005) substantiates, “currently, many educators find it

enormously difficult to believe in and act on the knowledge, truths, and practices that

dominate our modern western societies and educational institutions (p. 2)”, while at the same

time, work towards satisfying the above roles. As educators are immersed in their

professional field of conflicting frameworks and a world of paradoxes, they need to find their

own identity and course of action. Attempts to restructure schools are unlikely to redistribute

power unless fundamental assumptions are deconstructed (Day, 1993; Dunlap & Goldman,


1991; Hargreaves, 1995; as cited in Sackney et al, 1999), but a change of in mindset of the

educators may provide a viable direction.

Not all educators accept what may seem like a hopeless situation for some. Many

educators have made substantial progress from collegial relationships to informal and formal

learning opportunities. In the spirit of ‘generative’ educators, which are those who seek to

question the social construction of western knowledge and practice and create new

possibilities that respond to the task of learning to live together on Earth” (McNicol Jardine,

2005, p.5), they may be small in numbers but constantly growing. These educators offer hope

to other educators. This along side an era of postmodernism that makes multiple perspectives

available and promotes critical discourse: there is hope.

What will move educators forward to question the normalization they are entrenched in?

What are some of the main obstacles holding educators back? Connecting to the work of

Foucault and others will help identify some of these obstacles.

Extensions

In relation to the theories of Foucault, increased knowledge and challenging normativity

become a gain in power: one that increases the chances of reducing inequalities in education.

By beginning to examine our own modern Western body of knowledge and coming to

understand what constitutes it and what omits, we gain an additional, valuable ability to

identify and challenge our own shortcomings. Consequently, educators, who challenge

power/knowledge relations, challenge normativity. Wheatly’s (1992) suggestion is to look to

areas where control can be found and nudge us past powerlessness. “If we follow Foucault’s

line of thought, teaching and learning become much more complex, much more interesting


and much more in need of active, critical, thoughtful participation” (McNicol Jardine, 2005,

p. 87). Along with moving toward critical awareness to a position of personal efficacy and

responsibility, it reminds us to question the place of individuals within power dynamics.

Sackney et al. (1999) suggest that in addition to personal efficacy is the need to work

collaboratively with a focus on care, concern, and connectedness in order to gain sight of

larger pedagogic and philosophic concerns and possibilities. Reitzug and Burello (1995)

suggest educators are called upon to confront their own frame of reference and to encourage

reflexivity and critically reflective practice among their peers. “It is not enough to simply be

aware of our prejudices and points of view; reflectivity rather than reason, is the necessary

process that postmodern thinkers advocate for coming to a deeper sense of the kind of world

we are personally constructing” (Sackney & Mitchell, 2002, p.890). The paradox, as Hassard

(1993) states, is “division both separates and joins: the act of separation also creates the image

of something that is whole” (p.14). This has been “the criticism of postmodernism and also

the great divide in education in that unity and wholeness come through the recognition,

inclusion, and valuing of difference” (Sackney & Mitchell, 2002, p.891).

These above arguments provide justification for embracing the critical discourse of

postmodernism in mainstream social and organizational life, which values critical reflectivity

and challenging normatively. As O’Neil (1995) suggests, consequently, current work

structures do not facilitate individual or group reflection, therefore educators must create their

own space. Foucault has argued continuously, that educators who care about children and

issues of social justice should be angered and in dismay with the effects of normalizing in

educational institutions. “Foucault dedicated his entire life, studying constraints that

interfered with his ability to be himself. He was determined not to feel pressure to become


what other people, other institutions in society, or other systems of knowledge and power told

him he should become (McNicol Jardine, 2005, p. 8). His efforts have not gone unnoticed, as

many scholars, educators and citizens have given much attention to his efforts and

implemented many of his analysis into practice. We stand to learn a great deal from

Foucault’s efforts and lifetime of work. Directing educators to focus on some of Foucault’s

main analysis (1977; 1980a; 1990), during reflection guides us in the direction to questioning

normalization:

1. Disciplinary technologies of the system which rest on surveillance, discipline,

punishment, classification, reward, and normalization;

2. Frame the nature of these discourses and the alternatives of resistances that come with

it, even if we must step out of our good intentions and aspirations;

3. Locate the forms of power, the channels it takes and the discourses it permeates in

order to reach the most tenuous individual modes of behavior;

4. Be continually and carefully vigilant about the effects of everything in which we

participate, in order to undo objectifying and controlling effects in the operation of

power and knowledge of normalizing, disciplining societies;

5. Identifying negatives helps us articulate why we should replace them with practices

based on other, less disciplining and controlling, beliefs and values;

6. Analyze and listen to what people have held as true in other cultures or marginalized

groups and what they have done or not done because of the truths they held.

(McNicol Jardine, 2005).

“Is it possible to transform disciplinary systems of knowledge and power that acts so

pervasively to objectively and mold us in our individual lives?” (McNicol Jardine, 2005, p.


113). Through the above focus, educators can move in a direction of understanding.

Educators can become better at understanding their position in schooling as they recognize

the effects of power/knowledge relationships and ‘normalization’. That is, understanding

their limitations caused by ‘normalization’; an understanding that promotes us to listen and

speak more alertly, take more seriously the new, or renewed, possibilities of others, and that

our teaching is only one possibility among others. Furthermore, toward the efforts to reduce

inequalities, educators, with this heightened understating of normalization, need to make

themselves as the strangers. This is difficult, but not impossible, particularly with the

guidance of Foucault’s analysis. Foucault offered in his suggestions that educators can

transform one system of knowledge and power into another by thought and critique.

In summary, his direction is embraced by a readiness to find what surrounds us strange

and odd: a certain determination to throw off familiar ways of thought and to look at the same

things in different a way. He dreamed of vastly increased conversation between multiple and

differentiated voices: a new age of curiosity, opened channels of communication and

possibilities of renewal of knowledge and acts of power (1990, p. 328). All of these points

“act as a wedge to pry open the unity of your own system of knowledge and power, and allow

you to see new objects, statements, concepts, relationships, and ways to act with power and

authority” (Foucault, 1980, p. 83).

Conclusion

Our current social and organizational lives are filled with paradoxes characterized by

fragmentation and wholeness, diversity and unity, to name a few. This calls for different ways

of knowing and understanding underlined with epistemological pluralism and methodology


diversity, which means “we should be moving forward with a more humble, self reflective,

critical stance, rather than impositional way” (Sackney & Mitchell, 2002, p.893). Sackney

and Mitchell also argue new directions for educators is to move beyond a modernist agenda to

see multiple possibilities, multiple influences, multiple perspectives, as well as enabling

rather than controlling or enforcing knowledge-power relationships. One of the key problem

areas for educators is how to self identify and distinguish normalization characteristic of

social and organizational structures that are entrenched upon them from birth. Most

importantly, educators need to ask themselves how do they know when they are being

normalized? Although, the progress may be difficult and incremental, it is not hopeless. It is

through discussions such as this one that creates increased awareness, knowledge and further

discussion among educators to help them identify and challenge normalization that creates

such inequalities in our schooling system. In essence, from Foucault’s analysis of knowledge

and power that is driven by disciplinary techniques that normalize our modern Western world,

normalization can be broken. As Foucault contest in The Archeology of Knowledge stability

in systems of thought and discourse could exist for relatively long periods, and then change

could happen quite suddenly. Evidence of this is apparent form 9/11. Educators cannot help

but realize and challenge normalization from the increase of multiple knowledge systems and

subjugated voices made available through the movement of postmodernism that is also driven

by the key component of critical discourse. The door is open; educators walk through.


References

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B.S. (Eds.). (2006) The penguin dictionary of sociology.

(5th ed.). London: Penguin Group.

Ball, S. (1990). Politics and policy-making in education. London: Routledge.

Blackburn, S. (Ed.). (2005). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Caine, R.N. & Caine, G. (1997). Unleashing the power of perceptual change: The potential

of brain based learning. Alexandria VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Connelly, C. (2008). Marking bodies: Inhabiting the discursive production of outstanding

“Canadian education” within globalization. In D. Gérin-Lajoie (Ed.), Educators’

discourse on student diversity in Canada: Context, policy and practice (pp. 163-182).

Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

Dreyfus, H. L. & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and

hermeneutics. Sussex: Harvester Press.

Education Statutes and Regulations of Ontario. (2005). (Miline, C. & Mackinnon, M., (Eds.))

Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada Inc.

Fillingham, L.A. (1993). Foucault for beginners. Danbury, CT: Writers and Readers, Inc.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punishment: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage

Books.

Foucault, M. (1980a). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1980b). The confession of the flesh. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge:


Michel Foucault. New York: Panthenon Books.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. (P. Rabinow, Ed.) New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction (vol. 1). New York: Vintage

Books

Foucault, M. (2001). The archeology of knowledge. New York: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2002). The Order of Things. New York: Routledge.

Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York:

Teachers College Press.

Gergen, K. (1992). Organization theory in the postmodern era. In M. Reed & M. Hughes

(Eds.), Rethinking organization: New directions in organization theory and

analysis (pp. 207-226). London: Sage.

Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2008). Educators’ discourse on student diversity in Canada: Context,

policy and practice. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

Gidney, R.D. (1999). From Hope to Harris: The reshaping of Ontario schools. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Harper, H. (1997). Difference and Diversity in Ontario schooling. Canadian Journal of

Education, 22(2), 192-206.

Knight, M. (2008). “Our school is like the United Nations”: An examination of how

discourses of diversity in schooling naturalize whiteness and white privilege. In D.

Gérin-Lajoie (Ed.), Educators’ discourse on student diversity in Canada: Context,

policy and practice (pp. 81-108). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

Maxcy, S. (Ed.). (1994). Postmodern school leadership. Westport, CN: Praeger.

McNicol Jardine, G. (2005). Foucault & education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.


Minson, J. (1986) Strategies for socialists? Foucault’s conception of power. In M. Gane

(Ed.), Towards a critique of Foucault (pp. 106-148). London: Routledge.

Mulford. W., Silins, H. & Leithwood, K. (2004). Educational leadership for organizational

learning and improved student outcomes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

O’Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. London: Sage. Retrieved on October 20, 2008 from

http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au/index.html

O’Neil, J. (1995). On schools as learning organization: A conversation with Peter Senge.

Educational Leadership, 52(7), 20-23.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d). Ontario student record (OSR) guideline 2000

Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca

Ontario Ministry of Education. (n.d.) Safe Schools Policy and Practice: An agenda for action.

Retrieved on October 27, 2008 from

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/ssareview/report0626.html

Ontario Provincial Committee On Aims and Objectives Of Education in the Schools of

Ontario (1967). Living and Learning. Toronto: The Newton Publishing Company.

Osterman, K.F. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education and

Urban Society, 22(2), 133-152.

Radwanski, G. (1987). Ontario study of the relevance of education and the issue of dropouts.

Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education.

Reitzug, U.C., & Burello, L.C. (1995). How principals can build self-renewing schools.

Educational Leadership, 52(7), 48-50.

Ryan, J. (1989). Disciplining the Innut: Normalization, characterization, and schooling. The

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Curriculum Inquiry 19(4), 379-403.


Ryan, J. (1991). Observing and Normalizing: Foucault, discipline, and inequality in

schooling. The Journal of Educational Thought, 25(2), 104-119.

Ryan, J. (2003). Leading diverse schools. Dordrecht, The Neatherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishes.

Sackney, L., Walker, K. & Mitchell, C. (1999). Postmodern conceptions of power in

educational leadership. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations,14(1),

33-57

Sackney, L. & Mitchell, C. (2002). Postmodern expressions of educational leadership.

In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational

leadership and administration (pp. 881-913). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Shore, C. & Roberts, S. (1993). Higher education and the panopticon paradigm: Quality

assessment as “disciplinary technology”. Retrieved October 19, 2008 from

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp_nfpb=tr

ue&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED368248&ERICExtSearch_

SearchType_0=no&accno=ED368243

Stangroom, J., & Garvey, J. (2005). The great philosophers. Toronto: Arcturus

Publishing.

Stoll, L., Fink, D. & Earl, L. (2003). It’s about learning (and it’s about time). London:

RouteledgeFalmer.

Walker, M. U. (1998). Moral understanding: A feminist study in ethics. New York:

Routledge.

Wheatly, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization form an

orderly universe. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.


Wickman, G. (1986). Power and power analysis: beyond Foucault? In M. Gane

(Ed.), Towards a critique of Foucault (pp. 106-148). London: Routledge.

From the Work of Foucault: A Discussion of Power and Normalization in Schooling

Documents

Transcript of From the Work of Foucault: A Discussion of Power and Normalization in Schooling