Critical Reflection 4

For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the study of education is discipline and the concepts that surround it, for that reason I have chosen to look into “Michele Foucault on education: a preliminary theoretical overview” by Roger Deacon. Deacon organizes ideas, theories and concepts from many of Foucault's writings and puts them into three themes/ categories: an historical or 'technico-political' account of the rise of the school, from its negatively oriented seventeenth century
origins to its more positively conceived nineteenth century entrenchment and expansion; an explication of the everyday mechanics of schooling as a disciplinary technology or 'moral orthopedics'; and lastly, the implications for contemporary educational institutions and practices of a model of education as a 'block of capacity–communication–power'. The second theme that Deacon points out based on Foucault's material is referred to as “Schooling as moral orthopedics” (2006) which is a look into the everyday mechanics of schooling as a disciplinary technology. What Foucault means by “Schooling as moral orthopedics” is schooling as being the back-bone or spine, or perhaps the fix or cure to spinal problems, that establishes morals, discipline, and control of the members of society through the socialization process. It is the shift from negative to positive features of discipline that was “of primary importance in the establishment of schooling as a society-wide disciplinary technology” (Deacon, 2006, p.181) which led to modern day educational procedures. Along with this came new procedures, such as apportionment of time (becoming increasingly reinforced every day), development of new teaching methodologies,
manipulation of bodies and so forth, through which, as Deacon states, “individual and collective subjects could be managed, their contexts regulated, their capacities augmented, and their effects channelled” (2006, p.181).

The disciplinary procedures and regulations come from the need to expand to increasing populations, which requires new methodological approaches. As a result there was a shift from the traditional method of one on one teacher-pupil tutoring to the monitorial method of older or more advanced pupils being tutored by a teacher who would then tutor other pupils. As Deacon (2006) asserts in the article this was then “superseded by the 'simultaneous method' of direct group of instruction by a single teacher” (p.181). In this method it would be effective for the authoritative power to instil discipline, morals, behaviour, and essentially control to the large population.

Being the predominant method in the modern world, the “simultaneous method” is something that I experienced throughout my entire education, from elementary school to high school and throughout university. This is not uncommon and the majority of Canada and the world are taught through this method with exception to perhaps some private schools, particular cultures, and of course home schooling. In my own experiences, I found this method to be quite problematic and insufficient to develop critical thinking skills. Reflecting on my years through a public school system it seems clear that engaging students with course material and critical thinking, rather than alienation, was not the goal, there was rather a higher priority given to instilling discipline. Socialization and discipline may not be a conscience goal by teachers or even schools, however it is obvious that the foundations of the schools that I went to were built on the foundations that Deacon mentions, to control and instil certain morals, bodily actions and so forth.

So where does this phenomenon become problematic? Is it really problematic that we are taught discipline? Personally I believe in order and structure but still find modern day methods to be quite flawed and conservative. It feels as if the way disciplinary procedures are used simply assert to the students that the world is the way it is and there is no changing it, this is how you behave and act, this is right and this is wrong. This is closely related to concepts that Freire discussed in regards to the banking model and free conscience. While I do not consider myself to be a humanist per se, I still feel it is necessary to allow more freedom to reason, not in regards to the banking model but in terms of more loosely regulating control and discipline, to ensure we are not prohibiting our capacity. To argue for the phenomenon it could be said that exerting disciplinary processes is not to create the illusion of being stuck in an unchanging world, but to establish structure, order and the prevention of certain dangers. This being said the reality of the situation is that it is alienating students and preventing individuals from reaching their capacities, I don't think the mind can ever be completely free and able to make entirely free decisions however I do feel that we have blocked our true capacities with modern- day disciplinary processes and methodologies.

Reference-

Deacon, R. (2006). Michele Foucault on education: a preliminary theoretical overview. South African Journal of Education, 26(2), 177-87.