KLAS1709_Education Through Foucauldian lens

Education through Foucauldian lens

Rajani Naik
Wendan Quian
Zsuzsa Major

KLAS1709 Let’s talk theory! Social Theory and Societal Perspective on Education and
Educational ResearchFaculty of Education and Psychology
Educational Sciences, Year I.
University of Jyväskylä
 1

Introduction

In this essay mainly to books on the sociology of education were used: Social Theory and
Education Research edited by Murphy (2013) and Contemporary debates in the sociology of
education edited by Brooks, McCormack & Bhopal (2013).

Michel Foucault’s theory, which captures and explains the relation between power and
knowledge - used for social control - within and beyond educational institutions, is used as a
theoretical approach (framework/background) of three different topics, with the intention of
gaining a better understanding of their key issues. These topics are expanded in chapters of the
Contemporary debates in the sociology of education and are further discussed/analyzed with the
use of Foucauldian lens in this essay, in the following order: Chapter 2. Globalisation and
Sociology of Education Policy: The Case of PISA, Chapter 13. Towards a Sociology of
Education and Technology, Chapter 11. Fear In and About Education.
The first two chapters, the topics of international student assessments and digital
technology/digital surveillance were explored with the use of Foucault’s panotpicon metaphor
and his surveillance definition. The third issue of the essay is one of fear, which was mostly
contrasted and explained with Foucault’s concept of symbolic violence.
 2

PISA test and its allies – an international panopticon?

In this section, relying on the analytical tool of the panopticon developed by Michel Foucault,
international test programs, especially PISA, are analyzed to see whether they have become a
panopticon in assessing, monitoring and regulating countries’ quality of education globally.
Therefore, the panopticon doesn’t have to be limited to a single government. The exercise of
power in the field of knowledge may reach an international level.

In his influential book Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault introduced the concept of the
panopticon and used it as a tool to analyze the invisible power and surveillance in society. The
panopticon is an architectural design of a “prison” originated by Jeremy Bentham. The
panopticon differs from other prisons in that it has a central watchtower which is darkened and
the watchers inside are difficult to be seen by the people in the cells. Being uncertain about
whether they are being watched or not, individuals in the cells start to police their own behavior.
In other words, the panopticon is an intricate design that induces self-surveillance while power
remains hidden.

In fact, the panopticon does not have to be a physical prison that leads to self-surveillance.
Foucault used it in “a wider discourse on disciplinary technology, regimes of control, the
labelling of individuals, the keeping of records and attempts to influence self-perception” (Hope,
2013, p. 36-37). For example, “in schools, the keeping of registers, filing of reports, wearing of
standardised uniforms, observance of rules, strict use of timetables, regimented examinations and
ostentatious punishments can all be seen as fashioning a panoptical discourse of control”. (ibid.)
By using these disciplinary methods, the power group can monitor the behavior of individuals
and alter their behavior towards the standards the power group has set. This is a process that can
 3

be called normalization, while the power group exercises their control and reaches their aim
(Allan, 2013).

During the past two or three decades, international comparison tests in education have been run
with the support of international organizations (Lingard and Sellar, 2013). For example, the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has supported the
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Assessment of Higher
Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO); the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA) has supported the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). The
primary goals of these international tests are to facilitate high education quality and to narrow the
gap of education inequality, both globally.

However, could these test practices be regarded as a form of panopticon? Probably. Foucault had
identified three ways in which surveillance was undertaken (Allan, 2013): hierarchical
observation, normalizing judgments, and examination. Hierarchical observation encompasses a
form of supervision of supervisors, with everyone accountable to authority from above.
Normalizing judgments are used to justify correction and coercion in teaching and to promote
standardization and homogeneity. The examination introduces individuality in order to fix and
capture it, and makes it possible for individuals to be described, judged, measured, and compared
with one another, in their very individuality. In the case of international tests, these three
methods are all used. For example, PISA has its quality control that includes visits from the
National Centre Quality Monitor (NCQM) and the PISA Quality Monitor (PQM) (OECD, 2017).
In addition, almost every participating country and region has their own institute responsible for
the PISA test. After testing, all participants are graded and ranked according to their
performance. In this process, each individual country and region is judged in terms of the level of
quality in basic education. OECD aims, for example, to use PISA performance results to urge
poorly performing countries and regions to reform their education and get a better result in the
next round. OECD stated that countries such as Germany and Brazil have been able to improve
their student performance in PISA tests and make their education systems more inclusive
(OECD, 2018). After years of existance, PISA has become an authority power that examines the
level of quality in basic education of the participating countries and regions following the test
 4

standards that PISA has made. The participating countries and regions are also starting to surveil
themselves in order to get a good result in their PISA test.

Digital technology recontextualizing Foucault’s panopticon metaphor of school surveillance

Continuing with the semantic expansion of the Foucauldian panopticon metaphor, from the
internationalized surveillance, conceptualized and implemented through today’s international
evaluation practices in education as discussed above, towards the more and more obscure general
surveillance of contemporary standard education, in this section panopticism will be reappraised.
By discussing how digital technology determines education, reflecting especially on how
surveillance technologies are integrated in present-day education, the panopticon metaphor of
school surveillance will be re-contextualized.

Facer and Selvyn in their Towards a Sociology of Education and Technology entitled writing
(2013) state that “digital technologies of all shapes and sizes are becoming embedded into the
everyday fabric of contemporary education” (p. 218) and they discuss the implications of this
increasing normalization of technology within mainstream education in lines with: 1. the
concepts of virtualized education and personalized learning; 2. institutional technologies and the
notion of data-driven accountability; and 3. the commercialization and privatization of education
with the means of technology. Whilst all three issues are presenting evidence of an altered
education, underlining/implying the importance of a separate in-depth analysis – of each issue
(also highlighting how education is building on the politics of power relations), the second
subject matter is the one themathizing school surveillance stipulated by digital technology
(which can be associated, put in paralell with Foucault’s ideas of surveillance), therefore this will
be further examined with the analytical tool of the panopticon.

“We are now seen to be living in an era of ‘big data’ where computerised systems are making
available ‘massive quantities of information produced by and about people, things, and their
interactions’” (Facer&Selvyn, 2013, p.223). Due to the rewritten ontology of power (and control)
by the technology induced data-world (by the emerged era of ‘big data’), the concept of
surveillance, the idea of panoptical self-surveillance, which was somewhat based on a two-actor
model, became blurry, in lines with a more dispersed, more fluid power (and control). (Hope,
2013) This two actor model is based on the interlinked notions of knowledge and power -
constructing the individual as object of knowledge (knowledge becoming the hidden power) and
 5

as controlled subject – the individual controlling/regulating her/himself, thus becoming his/her

own subject but the object of someone else. Today’s surveillance is inter-rational in its nature,
with the individual shifting positions between being a subject and an object: being able to engage
in counter-surveillance, but also to construct her/his own data identity (shaping the object
position and creating the knowledge, hence gaining power) (Hope, 2013). According to this
understanding of contemporary surveillance (surveillance of technology) the panopticon
metaphor proves to be too narrow (see definition of the panopticon in first section) and cannot
describe/define the surveillance of the digitalized (data) world.

Opposed to this discredited panopticon metaphor, when looking at the classification systems
which resulted from the continuous and automatic monitoring of individuals through digital
technologies, contemporary surveillance not only influences self-perception (because even if the
individual is capable of shifting positions within the construction of surveillance, the self-
regulatory impact of surveillance is the same), but also affects directly and indirectly the chances
and the choices of the knowledge-objects/data subjects/individuals (Hope,2013). Hope, referring
to Poster in his article, says that “the development of online technology and complex data
handling systems has led to the emergence of a super-panopticon.” (p. 39.)

School surveillance, the monitoring of students has long been practiced in education through
learning and development assessments, examinations, attendance registers and physical
observations. With the appearance and the implementation of digital technology surveillance in
school has been augmented with monitoring cameras, plagiarism softwares and web interfaces
(such as Wilma - which parents can use to obtain information about school related instructions
and teaching arrangements – it is also a replacement of the attendance registers, grade
catalogues). “New technologies extend both the temporal and spatial reach of teachers’
surveillance practices” (Hope. 2013, p.42), they also aim for promising to deliver the
Foucauldian utopia of constant monitoring by the “invisible observer”. But again, the effect of
this contemporary panopticism (“classical school surveillance” augmented by digital technology)
seems to be the same (just as the impact of the panotpicon before the digital era): “Students
become socialised into a culture of monitoring within schools, encouraging them to behave as a
compliant subject. Central to Foucault’s discussion of panopticism and power is the potential to
encourage people to engage in observation of the self.” (Hope, 2013, p.42)
 6

However students do resist the institutional power exercised on them through school
surveillance, since Foucault’s above mentioned utopia cannot be delivered by the upgraded
(digital) surveillance: observation is still unlikely constant and universal with an unlikely
omnipresent observer (students are able to escape form surveilling eyes). They (students) do so
(resist) by watching their watchers (observing those who are the authority) and by mirroring the
school surveillance (for example sharing photos/videos on social media.)

Next to the resistance of the students (to the idea of students engaging in counter-surveillance)
Facer & Selvyn’s discussed issue of institutional technologies and the notion of data-driven
accountability, is not focusing on the surveillance of the individual per se but rather on the
surveillance of the educational institutions. They point at the term ‘governing education through
data’ and talk about a shift from central regulation of institutions to individual self-evaluation,
and thus self-regulation -of the educational institution. “Technological systems are used to
support the ‘formalised, technically developed, and rationalized procedures that regulate the
everyday operations of institutions’.” (2013, p. 224) These digital processes and techniques are
supporting a new form of government that is very Foucauldian and very panoptical, the
contemporary inter-rational surveillance fueled by its basic concept of accountability.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary accountability is: “the fact of being responsible for what
you do and able to give a satisfactory reason for it, or the degree to which this happen”.
Institutions are thus naming the results (DATA) of the multilayered and arborescent surveillance
they use accountability (having the data for accountability), them being accountable at all levels,
being able to present data on/about possibly everything (for ex. student-teacher performance).
With the use/analysis of data (created by institutional technology systems) on past performance
and behavior, teachers and school managers /leaders rely on predictive surveillance as well
(Facer & Selvyn, 2013), they are mending, altering their behavior towards the standards of
“those” to whom they are accountable for (parents/guardians, local municipalities).
 7

Analysis of fear and symbolic violence in schools through Foucauldian principles

The thought of school students, children between the ages of 6 and 15 years, being afraid of
waking up most mornings and going to school is absurd. Still somehow, it is the truth. So much
so that parents receive hours of training on how to overcome, “school anxiety” in their children
(Philips, 1968). What is this institution that makes its very existence redundant?

The article by Jackson titled, “Fear In and About Education”, quite aptly captures this sentiment
and argues how to go deeper than analyze the individual psychological differences. Her
perspective on school anxiety and/or fear is novel because she argues that it is embedded in the
way we view school and certain practices our current educational systems indulge in.

Setting the context that anxiety is the emotion that is reported most often by students, she
explains that understanding how fear works is very crucial in order to foster theories and
practices to uphold social justice. Fear, she says, “sustains hierarchies” (Jackson, 2013, p.200).
And if we are to stand a chance to challenge fear, we need to first understand the ways in which
it operates. It is with this understanding that Foucauldian principles of symbolic violence and
surveillance will be used to interpret current practices in education in most parts of the world.

Through the lens of Foucault’s symbolic violence, we observe that our understanding of the
world around us does not only come from what is said or the meaning of an utterance, but rather
a discourse of knowledge created by what can and cannot be said. Therefore, all that is said and
done becomes a way of representing the world in interactions of power and dominance. And this,
is bound by certain rules that become normative in society (Allan, 2013).

When such an analysis is applied to study education, it becomes quite apparent that the whole
system and every detail in it is what has become normative over the last few centuries due to
certain ideologies being in dominance. For example, our curriculums focusing so heavily on
math and science reflects the supposed needs of society in creating more adults working to
progress science and technology. This seems to have been the priority in the late nineteenth
century and early twentieth century schooling. However, considering that large parts of our
factories are automatized, we have ended up in a surplus of trained factory-workers surpassing
our need resulting in large scale unemployment in many parts of the world.
 8

The example that Jackson stresses on is the importance given to examinations and test taking.
Since there is such a heavy prominence given to doing well in exams, we are creating a
generation of school-goers who are afraid of failing. Sometimes to such a large extent that that
fear percolates into everyday life at school (Jackson, 2013).

Systems such as these within education fall in line with Foucault’s assumption that schooling is
built upon and sustained by fear. Jackson points out that schools and teachers rely on fear to get
“school-work” done and even use this as a motivating factor.

Most aspects about schooling seem to agree with Foucault’s surveillance – school buildings,
teachers as inspectors of learning, what students learn – the curriculum, and exams to name a
few. He and other scholars list many of these in their explanation of surveillance (Hope, 2013).
But it is relatively rarer that symbolic violence has been discussed with respect to schooling or
education. This is the reason behind Jackson’s act of giving attention to this lesser spoken about
phenomena in education and schools (Jackson, 2013).

By establishing fear in schools, education is displaying symbolic violence in order to “establish

and maintain control and compliance, and thus is a deeply embedded feature of schooling in
many countries” (Jackson, 2013, p.204). There are definitely aspects of this kind of violence seen
in some practices as explained above. However Jackson expounds that there are many ways in
which symbolic violence and fear operates in schools and we are not even near understanding
those. It is with this knowledge that Foucault’s theory becomes pertinent in comprehending this
complex, convoluted institution of education and also in having a chance to undo or solve the
problems that today’s education is causing.

Conclusion

Michel Foucault’s ideas are truly inspiring, prove to be relevant and seem very useful in
analyzing the modern day educational system, contemporary educational phenomena. As we
seen in the first part of the essay, the concept of panopticon can be applied for gaining a better
understanding of the impact of PISA. In the second part of the essay it has been shown how
digital technology re-defines in certain ways the Foucauldian surveillance, re-conceptualizing the
panopticon metaphor but keeping its essence, not being able to discredit the concept. And in the
 9

last part, with the use of Foucault’s symbolic violence light was shed on the (lack of)power
entrenched in fear.
 10

References

1. Accountability [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Cambridge Online Dictionary, 05. 31. 2018, Retrieved
from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accountability.
2. Allan, J. (2013). Foucault and his acolytes: Discourse, power and ethics. In M. Murphy
(Ed.), Social Theory and Education Research (pp. 33-46). Routledge.
3. Facer, K. & Selwyn, N. (2013). Towards a Sociology of Education and Technology. In
Brooks, R., McCormack, M., & Bhopal, K. (Eds.), Contemporary debates in the sociology
of education (pp. 218-235). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
4. Hope, A. (2013). Foucault, panopticism and school surveillance research. In M. Murphy
(Ed.), Social Theory and Education Research (pp. 47-63). Routledge.
5. Jackson, C. (2013). Fear in and about Education. In Brooks, R., McCormack, M., &
Bhopal, K. (Eds.), Contemporary debates in the sociology of education (pp. 185-201).
Palgrave Macmillan, London.
6. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2013). Globalisation and sociology of education policy: The
case of PISA. In Brooks, R., McCormack, M., & Bhopal, K. (Eds.), Contemporary
debates in the sociology of education (pp. 19-38). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
7. OECD. (2017). PISA quality monitoring. In PISA 2015 Technical Report.
8. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2015-Technical-Report-Chapter-7-Quality-
Control.pdf
9. OECD. (2018, May 29). How Does PISA Shape Education Reform?. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/
10. Phillips, B. N. (1968). The nature of school anxiety and its relationship to children's
school behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 5(3), 195-204.