Foucault as Educator: Analyzing Power, Knowledge, and the Self in Education
Michel Foucault's work offers a powerful lens through which to examine the complex dynamics of power, knowledge, and the self within educational settings. His theories, particularly his concepts of technologies of domination and technologies of the self, provide a framework for understanding how institutions like schools shape individuals and how individuals, in turn, can exercise agency within these structures.
Technologies of Domination and Technologies of the Self
Foucault distinguishes between two kinds of technologies: technologies of domination and technologies of the self. Technologies of domination "determine the conduct of individuals and submit them to a certain ends." These technologies are associated with mechanisms of normalization and subjectification, through which the body is ideologically contained and rendered docile, productive, and efficient. Foucault spent much of his intellectual career delimiting the presence of technologies of domination in the human sciences, showing how through the discursive practices of objectification and classification.
Technologies of the self, on the other hand, are techniques that permit individuals to effect, by their own means, a certain number of operations on their own bodies, their own souls, their own thoughts, their own conduct, and this in a manner so as to transform themselves, modify themselves, and to attain a certain state of perfection, happiness, purity, supernatural power. The concept reflects Foucault’s late turn to the subject. Foucault moved to correct his one-sided analysis of the modern subject (understood as an effect of discourse), by going back to the “origins” of modernity, to the study of Greco-Roman culture, and turning his attention to the ancient, ethical notion of the “care of the self” (le souci de soi).
The return of, and to, the subject in Foucault’s late writings, however, has led to much controversy. As a critic recently remarked, “it is an ironic return,” since “the reinvocation of the subject serves as a means of showing its historical construction, not its metaphysics". Foucault still rejected an a priori understanding of the subject (the subject is not a substance) but now simply turned his genealogical focus from the formation of the subject to the self’s own active self-formation as subject through specific technologies.
Agency and Subject Position
In an attempt to bridge his earlier thinking and this new concern, Foucault introduces agency in his understanding of the constitution of the subject. As Mark Olssen observes: “‘Technologies of the self’ . . . are operated by individuals themselves who have the agency to utilize strategies of power to manage and affect their constitution as subjects through a recognition of the possible ‘subject positions’ available, and through resistance, to change history”.
Read also: Comprehensive Guide to Criminal Justice Programs
Those familiar with Foucault’s Archeology of Knowledge (1972) will recall that he uses the notion of “subject-position” namely to dismantle the view that the subject exists prior to discourse: a subject, Foucault tells us, is “not the speaking consciousness, not the author of the formulation, but a position that may be filled in certain conditions by various individuals". In a similar vein, Foucault writes elsewhere that the subject is simply “a complex and variable function of discourse". Ironically, however, Olssen’s use of “subject position” is intended to underscore not its social and institutional character but the possibility of freedom; it is argued that an awareness of available “I-slots” would enable the subject to position itself differently and thus to make itself otherwise than previously constituted.
Institutional Norms and Power Dynamics in Education
Foucault's theories are particularly relevant to understanding how institutional norms shape power dynamics in education. According to Michel Foucault (1977), institutions like schools rely on a network of norms and practices to enforce compliance, normalize behavior, and establish hierarchies. "These norms, often established by higher-level decision-makers, profoundly influence the dynamics between teachers and students. For instance, the ‘teacher-centered instruction’ norm can be seen as a mechanism of control, regulating the behavior and interactions of individuals within educational settings.” In a Foucauldian sense, these norms act as instruments of disciplinary power that regulate how students behave and how teachers instruct.
The Role of Grading Systems and Testing
One of the most significant institutional norms is the grading system, which acts as a motivator and a control mechanism. Grading creates a hierarchy among students, distinguishing the “high achievers” from those deemed “underperformers”. This distinction often becomes internalized, shaping students’ learner self-image. The grading system becomes a means of “normalization,” where those who deviate from the norm are labeled and marginalized.
Testing and grading affect students and extend to teachers and principals. In some districts, teachers’ and principals’ careers depend on their students’ performance on standardized tests. Their careers were on the line, and they resorted to unethical practices to meet the unrealistic expectations imposed by the standardized testing culture.
Surveillance and the Gaze
Another institutional norm that shapes power dynamics is surveillance. Foucault’s concept of the panopticon illustrates how constant observation leads to self-regulation (Foucault, 1977). In classrooms, the teacher often assumes the role of a panoptic overseer, their gaze ever-present and their authority unchallenged. This scrutiny fostered a sense of self-surveillance in me and my peers, where we preemptively adjusted our behavior to avoid drawing negative attention.
Read also: Computer Science College Guide
Behavioral Codes
Behavioral codes form another layer of institutional norms, dictating acceptable conduct. Rules regarding speaking out of turn, moving between desks, and asking questions outside the prescribed curriculum often silence curiosity. Such norms discouraged free expression and reinforced the hierarchical power structure between teachers and students. This alignment with strict behavioral norms left little room for dialogue or dissent.
The Teacher as a Normative Agent
In this network of norms, the teacher acts as a normative agent, perpetuating institutional standards and expectations. The teacher’s power lies not only in their ability to impart knowledge but also in their role as arbiters of these norms. They decide which voices are heard and silenced, who is recognized, and who remains invisible. Teachers often need to be made aware of how they reinforce these norms, as they are also products of the same disciplinary structures. They, too, are subject to scrutiny from administrators, parents, and policymakers, affecting their interactions with students.
Disrupting the Norms: Towards a Critical Pedagogy
Foucault reminds us that “where there is power, there is resistance”. To disrupt these norms, we must adopt a critical pedagogy that questions the status quo and fosters environments where all voices are valued (Giroux, 2011). Here are a few ways educators can move toward a more equitable and empowering classroom:
- Shift the focus from competition to collaboration by incorporating peer and portfolio-based evaluations.
- Create a safe space for students to challenge ideas, ask questions, and share their perspectives.
- Allow students to have a say in the curriculum, encouraging them to take ownership of their learning journey.
- Move away from a one-size-fits-all approach and tailor instruction to accommodate different learning preferences.
Read also: Becoming a Better Student
tags: #Foucault #as #educator #analysis
