POWER AND PEDAGOGY: WITHIN AND BEYOND THE SCHOOLING 
INSTITUTIONÄ




Jennifer M Gore
Senior Lecturer in Education



The University of Newcastle
NSW, 2308
Australia
(049) 216709(phone)
(049) 216896 (fax)
jmg@cc.newcastle.edu.au (e.mail)

















Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian 
Association for Research in
Education, Newcastle, November 1994.  

Please do not cite or reproduce without
permission.Ä

I am grateful to the Australian Research Council for the funding 
which has
supported this study, to all who participated in the research, 
and to James Ladwig,
Gavin Hazel, and Marie Brennan for their comments on earlier 
drafts of this paper.

If we recognise ourselves in Foucault's discourse, this is 
because what today, for
us, is intolerable is no longer so much that which does not allow 
us to be what we
are, as that which causes us to be what we are.
(p.125, Morey)

The history of educational reform is littered with discarded 
ideas and practices, with policies that
were never enacted©©at least not as they were intended, and with 
libraries of academic theories well
past their shelf©life.
Despite the diversity of educational ideas and enormous 

intellectual labour invested in
educational change, the experience of schooling, probably for 
most readers of this text, bears some
remarkable similarities.  For instance, what Philip Corrigan 
(1991) refers to as the "tightening of
bodies" that accompanies schooling is manifest in generations of 
former and current students who
raise their hands to speak, who ask permission to leave rooms, 
who tense up in examination
situations, who beam with the tiniest expressions of approval.  
Our similar experiences of schooling
are also evident in the quick recognition of teachers and 
students in a range of social situations,
and our assumption of (or resistance to) those positions in adult 
pedagogical situations as diverse
as teaching an adolescent to drive a car, sharing a recipe, or 
learning about parenting.  One need
only watch young children "play school" to observe the longevity 
of certain schooling practices.
It is my contention that the apparent continuity in pedagogical 
practice, across sites and
over time, has to do with power relations, in educational 
institutions and processes, that remain
untouched by the majority of curriculum and other reforms.  With 
the exception of Bernstein (1975;
1990), Bourdieu and Passeron (1977), and a handful of others who 
have drawn on their work,
educational researchers have paid little attention to the 
micro©level functioning of power in
pedagogy.
In this paper, I address two specific questions that contribute 
to the investigation of power
relations in schooling: How do power relations function at the 
micro level of pedagogical practices? 
To what extent is the functioning of power relations continuous 
across different pedagogical sites? 
The arguments I construct in response to these questions will be 
informed by Michel Foucault's analytics of power and my own 
empirical study of four distinct pedagogical sites.
This work has its origins in my sense that the range of practices 
and relationships possible
in classrooms ©© whether school or university, informed by 
technocratic, critical or feminist
philosophies ©© was limited.  In my earlier analysis of critical 
and feminist pedagogy discourses
(Gore, 1993) I concluded that the specific instructional 
practices advocated were not so different
from the practices of mainstream educators.  I speculated that 
the institution of schooling might
produce its own "regime of pedagogy,"  a set of power©knowledge 
relations, of discourses and
practices, which constrains the most radical of educational 
agendas.  Conducting an empirical
investigation of pedagogical practice seemed the necessary next 
step in my attempt to understand
and subsequently alter long©standing institutional practices.

Foucault on power relations
Foucault's analytics of power was helpful in conceptualising this 
study, for its focus on the microªfunctioning of power relations.  
Once declaring himself a "happy positivist," Foucault (1981) 
sought

to ground his ideas in empirical events.  Methodologically and 
theoretically, then, I chose to explore
pedagogical practices from a Foucauldian perspective on power.
Foucault (1977) argues that "disciplinary power" emerged with the 
advent of modern
institutions and extended throughout society such that 
continuities in power relations are evident not
only in schools, hospitals, prisons, factories, and other 
institutions, but also outside of these
institutions: "A certain significant generality moved between the 
least irregularity and the greatest
crime: it was no longer the offence, the attack on the common 
interest, it was the departure from
the norm, the anomaly; it was this that haunted the school, the 
court, the asylum or the prison"
(p.299).  
Foucault's concept of disciplinary power explicitly shifts 
analyses of power from the "macro"
realm of structures and ideologies to the "micro" level of 
bodies.  Foucault (1980) argues that unlike
the sovereign power of earlier periods, disciplinary power 
functions at the level of the body: 
In thinking of the mechanisms of power, I am thinking rather of 
its capillary form of
existence, the point where power reaches into the very grain of 
individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their 
action and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes
and everyday lives. (p.39)
Foucault (1980) elaborates the invisibility and pervasiveness of 
power in modern society: "The
eighteenth century invented, so to speak, a synaptic regime of 
power, a regime of its exercise within
the social body rather than from above it" (p.39).  Using the 
exemplar of the Panopticon, with its
normalising surveillance, Foucault describes disciplinary power 
as circulating rather than being
possessed, productive and not necessarily repressive, existing in 
action, functioning at the level of
the body, often operating through "technologies of self."
There is a scholarly debate over whether Foucault's analysis of 
power was particular to
penal institutions or intended to characterise all of modern 
society.  There is general agreement that
Foucault provided a careful elaboration of specific techniques of 
power in penal institutions ©©
techniques of surveillance, normalisation, individualisation and 
so on.  What seems to be in
question is the extent to which his analysis of penal 
institutions was intended to apply to other
institutions ©© the extent to which he was illustrating a general 
theory of society with the penal
example, or tentatively proffering a general theory which emerged 
as a result of his investigation of
prisons.  Certainly, without doing the same kind of sustained 
analysis, Foucault (1983) made
observations about the functioning of power in educational 
institutions.  For instance, he said:
Take, for example, an educational institution: the disposal of 
its space, the meticulous
regulations which govern its internal life, the different 
activities which are organized there,
the diverse persons who live there or meet one another there, 

each with his [sic] own
function, his well©defined character ©© all these things 
constitute a block of capacityªcommunication©power.  The activity 
which ensures apprenticeship and the acquisition of
aptitudes or types of behavior is developed there by means of a 
whole ensemble of
regulated communications (lessons, questions and answers, orders, 
exhortations, coded
signs of obedience, differentiation marks of the `value' of each 
person and of the levels of
knowledge) and by means of a whole series of power processes 
(enclosure, surveillance,
reward and punishment, the pyramidal hierarchy). (218©219)
I interpret this passage as evidence that while Foucault 
illustrated his analysis of disciplinary power
with reference to other institutions, he left the detailed 
analytical work to those "specific" intellectuals
with a closer attachment to education.  The analysis of select 
passages from Foucault's vast (and
sometimes contradictory) work is a common form of scholarly 
engagement with his ideas.  Rather
than contribute further to these debates on the basis of claims 
to have read Foucault better than
others, I have taken up the question of power relations in 
pedagogy on the basis of an empirical
study of contemporary pedagogical sites.

Power relations in pedagogy
Four diverse sites were selected in the hope of being able to 
construct some broad statements
about power relations in pedagogy.  The sites were high school 
physical education classes with an
explicit focus on bodies; a first year teacher education cohort, 
working with three lecturers; a
feminist reading group; and a women's discussion group which met 
for the purpose of intellectual
stimulation, usually via reading courses provided by community 
education organisations.
One part of the study
I want to emphasise that the scope of the overall project is 
clearly much larger than can be
conveyed within this paper.  There are many other theoretical and 
methodological concerns
which I am addressing elsewhere.
 involved putting Foucault's techniques of power in penal 
institutions
to the test of relevance for contemporary pedagogical 
functioning.  Put simply, I was asking the
question "Are the mechanisms of schooling like the mechanisms of 
prisons, in terms of the microªpractices of power Foucault 
identified?"  It will probably not be surprising that my research 
yielded a
"positive" result ©© that I found the techniques of power which 
Foucault elaborated in prisons
applicable to contemporary pedagogical practice ©© especially 
given Foucault's (1983) view that "the
fundamental point of [power] relationships, even if they are 
embodied and crystallized in an
institution, is to be found outside the institution" (p.222).  
Finding what one looks for in research has
been both a perennial problem and a source of comfort for many 
researchers.  I would emphasise,

however, that it would have been possible to not find these 
techniques of power, especially not in
each of the sites, diverse as they were.

Techniques of powerÄ
In the remainder of this paper, I briefly elaborate each of the 
eight major techniques of power that I
investigated in order to demonstrate, first, that they are 
readily recognisable ©© that they exist in
pedagogical interaction ©© and, second, that they were found in 
all of the sites studied.  Next, I
present some cross©context comparisons based on 
quasi©quantitative analysis.  Finally, I make
some statements about the usefulness and dangers of the approach 
I have taken.
As Foucault (1983) says, analysing what happens in the exercise 
of power relations is "flat
and empirical" (p.217).  The following segments of data, taken 
from fieldnotes or transcripts
These episodes have been selected randomly by simply opening, for 
each category, the file
of data segments which were coded with that technique of power.  
The number of coded
segments per category per site ranged from four episodes of 
Regulation in the feminist site
to 746 episodes of Distribution in the physical education site.
, are
certainly that.  While contextualizing and categorizing are joint 
components needed in qualitative
research (Maxwell and Miller, 1993), demonstrating techniques of 
power in order to show that they
exist in pedagogy requires only the systematic process of 
categorisation.  Furthermore, especially
without the specific context of each session in which these data 
were collected, each event or
episode is open to multiple interpretations and many episodes 
could equally legitimately appear in
more than one category.  Indeed, the majority of episodes were 
coded for multiple practices of
power, indicating the co©incidence and rapidity with which power 
is enacted.


ÃSurveillanceÄ

Without turning, the teacher says "Zac, you know I can always 
tell your voice. (PET11R8)
Pseudonyms are used throughout and other identifiers are removed 
or changed.  The data
source is coded such that PE refers to the physical education 
site, TE to the teacher
education site, WG to the women's discussion group, and FEM to 
the feminist reading
group.  Transcripts are distinguished from fieldnotes via 
quotation marks.  The transcripts
have been edited slightly, in order to facilitate reading.  Given 
the multiplicity and complexity
of pedagogical events, no truth claims are made with these data.  
As Bourdieu et al. (1991)
say, we need to "renounce the impossible ambition of saying 
everything about everything, in
the right order" (p.10).¾

Surveillance was found frequently during our
My research assistants, Erica Southgate and Rosalie Bunn, and I 
spent approximately 6
months in each of the sites, during 1993, making detailed 
observational notes and audio
tapes of all group meetings during that period.
 observations ©© where surveillance was defined as
"supervising, closely observing, watching, threatening to watch 
or expecting to be watched." 
Consider the following additional examples:
The teacher goes to the board where she draws a smallish 
rectangle in the bottom right
corner and writes inside it "B1" to indicate that Bill has one 
demerit point. (PE11J4)

"In your early field experience placements, you'll have a 
cooperating teacher who will
supervise your work very closely." (TEL1)

Elisabeth conducts a roll call. . . .  She then conducts an 
exercise aimed at putting names
to faces: each student, starting from the back row must give 
their name and tell of one
school experience.  (TE1)

Because Judith is the only one who seems to be making any defence 
of the book, Carol
continually looks at Judith when she critiques as if it's a 
personal debate.  This goes on for
some time until Judith says in protest "Don't look at me." 
(FEME1)

"Well, since then I've read about 10 other books.  I just pushed 
the other one to the back." .
"It's not memorable, is what you're saying there, hey?"
"Well, it was for a time."
"What page did you get up to Elaine?"

"Did you get that far Judith?
"127. I got to." (noises of surprise)
"Oh, I only got to 75."
"This is one ups womanship!" (Laughter) . . .
"You only did half of what she did!" (in a self mocking tone).
"I know.

"Well, I didn't read it. That gives me the other end of the 
continuum." (FEM5)

In these examples, teachers monitor students, students monitor 
each other.  Surveillance singles
out individuals, regulates behaviour, enables comparisons to be 
made.  It is important to remember
the productiveness of power.  Foucault (1977) declared: "A 
relation of surveillance, defined and
regulated, is inscribed at the heart of the practice of teaching, 
not as an additional or adjacent part,
but as a mechanism that is inherent to it and which increases its 
efficiency" (p.176).   More
generally, Foucault (1988a) said:
Power is not an evil . . .  Let us . . . take something that has 
been the object of criticism,
often justified: the pedagogical institution.  I don't see where 

evil is in the practice of
someone who, in a given game of truth, knowing more than another, 
tells him what he
must do, teaches him, transmits knowledge to him, communicates 
skills to him.  The
problem is rather to know how you are to avoid in these 
practices©©where power cannot not
play and where it is not an evil in itself©©the effects of 
domination which will make a child
subject to the arbitrary and useless authority of a teacher, or 
put a student under the power
of an abusively authoritarian professor, and so forth. (p.18)Æ"Æ
At least some of the surveillance practices outlined above can be 
seen as serving purposes
productive for pedagogy.  Getting to know the names of one's 
students and keeping students "on
task", for instance, are mechanisms which increase the efficiency 
of pedagogy.  


ÃNormalisationÄ

Okay, so what we want and hope that you will have competence in 
by the end of your
teacher education program, is that you'll be able to articulate 
and defend a personal theory
of education, which is moral and socially just, because you are 
involved in a moral
enterprise.  You're making judgements all the time about goodness 
and worth, judgements
about whether this particular learning activity is a worthwhile 
learning activity, whether a
decision that you've made in managing . . .  a learning 
difficulty in the classroom is a fair
and just decision.  So the whole notion of teaching as social 
practice is that it's an ethical
practice.  You'll be able to communicate effectively to your 
pupils, to your peers, the people
with whom you work, and the community at large.  It's very 
important that teachers can
Ôjustify what they do and that they can learn from each other."ÄÄ 
(TEL1)

Foucault (1977) highlighted the importance of "normalising 
judgement" or normalisation in the
functioning of modern disciplinary power.  He explained that such 
normalising judgement often
occurs through comparison, such that individual actions are 
referred "to a whole that is at once a
field of comparison, a space of differentiation and the principle 
of a rule to be followed" (p. 182). 
For the purposes of my research, normalisation was defined as 
"invoking, requiring, setting or
conforming to a standard ©© defining the normal."  The following 
examples, like the one above,
should be readily recognisable:

Ingrid also dislikes Eisenstein.  She thinks a better feminist 
representative could have been
chosen.  She feels that Eisenstein is "too giggly", not serious 
enough about the issues. 
(FEME3)


"It was the time when Germaine Greer was writing too.  Yeah, the 
feminist movement was
starting, and she would have been aware of this.  So that she 
would have been involved in
that.  Yes, I'm sure she would've.

"She was in Sydney, and she was at Uni.  So she would've been 
involved in that." (WG4)

"I've got a favourite quote here that's a really amazing one to 
throw at you so early, but I
want you to, from the very beginning, see that thinking about 
theory and practice is not
some sort of weird, archaic, out there, other kind of thing.  
Theory is really exciting. 
Thinking about theory is exciting and it's certainly not 
abstract." (TEL1)

Kate gives an example of a student at the institution who, 
because of his religion and
upbringing believed that corporal punishment had a place in 
schools.  Kate finds this "hard
to come to grips with."  She unpacks the assumptions behind this 
student's belief.  Then
she asks if his belief was justifiable: Educationally ©© No. 
Corporal punishment does not
promote learning.  Morally ©© No. He has no right to do this to 
another person.  Socially 

No. This behaviour does nothing to promote harmonious 
relationships in the world. 
Politically ©© No.  It is against the law.  She says "End of 
argument." (TE2)

I hear the class teacher telling her "Success breeds success".  
Clearly both teachers are
urging her to try to improve her marks.  Amy, her back to the 
class as she is "encouraged"
by the two teachers, pulls her windcheater hood over her head (as 
if to retreat into the
security of it). (PET11R22).

A girl climbs on the stage behind the teacher and looks over his 
shoulder: "Oh, you're
writing reports".  He glances at her with an annoyed expression: 
"Shh.  If I blow this, it has
to go right round to everyone again," he tells her (i.e., one 
mistake will require all those staff
responsible for this student's report to rewrite it.  No errors 
or crossing out permitted on this
"official" document). (PEP8R14)

A young girl is seen standing looking in from the door.  The 
teacher's back is toward her,
but the girls in the class see her and one calls out "Yes, can I 
help you?" (taking on the
teacher's role). (PET11R8)

Whether in relation to participants in these pedagogical 
settings, or in relation to other people or
views, reference to standards appears to be common feature of 

pedagogy.  Educating is about the
teaching of norms ©© norms of behaviour, of attitudes, of 
knowledge.  Here, the productiveness of
power would seem to be a fundamental precept of pedagogical 
endeavour.
Foucault's view of power relations as enacted at the site of the 
body is also demonstrated
in some of these examples.  For instance, the girl who pulled the 
hood of her jacket over her head
while being singled out and challenged by teachers, was probably 
not doing so because she was
cold.  Similarly, it was a student's movement onto the stage and 
another's standing at the doorway
which prompted responses ©© or, in Foucault's terms, prompted 
"actions upon actions."

ExclusionÄ

There is a great amount of discussion as students fire questions 
or make observations
about body building. . . .  One of the girls makes a statement 
about how "disgusting" female
body builders look and that it is "not natural." (PET11R2)

The category of "exclusion" was used in my research to mark the 
negative side of normalisation ©©
the defining of the pathological.  Foucault refers to exclusion 
as a technique for tracing the limits
that will define difference, defining boundaries, setting zones.  
As Tyler (1993) demonstrates in her
genealogical research, even in kindergarten some children, some 
dispositions and behaviours, are
constructed as "better" while others are quickly excluded.  One 
long term aim of my research is to
identify techniques of power which need not be as they are in 
pedagogy ©© to identify what Foucault (1988) called "spaces of 
freedom."  Other examples of exclusion follow:
The women criticise the tutor saying ©© "there's no comment on 
our work" and "he even has
poor grammar". . . . Julie says "He just doesn't answer our 
questions, he's not extending
us." (WGJ5)

They take out their WEA brochures to discuss what course they 
might choose next. 
Someone comments that "there was more enthusiasm when we did our 
own books".  There
are other comments that "We've lost direction" and "we need a 
tight structure.  More
comments are made about being "not sufficiently focussed," 
"didn't take things away with us
from a learning point of view" when we "have done things on our 
own." (WGJ5)

Mrs Fernley says "Come on. You cannot be chatting merrily and 
writing at the same time". 

A girl says "Want a bet?"  Mrs Fernley: "You can't write and 
read".  A student says "We
never do, we just write."  (PE11J31).

A boy was sent to sit on the side of the court.  He seemed to go 

without much reticence,
and also without the kind of spectacle some students create in 
these situations.  (PE8J1)

Mrs Fernley says "Right©o, listening" (there is noise again 
already).  "Justine.  Patrick.
(pause) I don't want to get angry but my barometer is just about 
at its limit".  She goes to
the board and draws a barometer indicating that she is already 
very close to exploding. 
She elaborates "I have asked 3 times for you to listen to the 
person who is talking.  It is
simply rude.  Be prepared for punishment." (PE8J5)

Justine says "Compared to my grandmother, women today do more 
shopping, cleaning,
cooking and so on".  There is some debate, mainly between the 
girls.  Mrs Fernley says: " I
do not wish people to be speaking while others are trying to".  
Sally says: "I reckon women
do less now because men are doing more".  Will retorts: "What's 
your problem? with
everything being sexist?"  Other boys call out "Yeah!  Sexist 
pig!" agreeing with Will's
characterisation of Sally.  There is a mass eruption of noise and 
arguing as the girls defend
Sally's position.  (PE8J30)

Ingrid asks why they have the pre©program presenter dressed as 
she is.  The presenter, a
diminutive Asian woman in her twenties wears an evening dress of 
black velveteen with
large drop earrings.  It gives her something of a gothic 
appearance.  Elaine replies: "To
make her look sexy".  There is much laughter at the irony of 
prefacing a show about gender
with a stereotypically attractive woman. (FEME3)
 
The thing I found interesting, and it's a harrowing thought, but 
the thing I found interesting is
that I've seen those things operate in real life.  I can quite 
well believe it because people do
go, time and time again, into a relationship which you can see 
from a mile away isn't going
to last and they just resist and resist and resist. (FEM5)

She said something I disliked and she's not a feminist, so I 
wrote, rather a longish letter,
pointing out that I wanted them to take it into account and also 
pass it on to her. (FEM5)

Now when you look at some of the literature on viewing teaching 
as problematic, some
people say that teachers operate at different levels.  I do have 
some problems where
people talk about levels because it implies a hierarchy and I 
think it's very difficult to rank
teachers into some kind of hierarchy.  . . . [I prefer] more of a 
continuum, that as teachers
we can view our practice as ranging from this end of the 
continuum as quite unproblematic
right through to at this end of the continuum, extremely 

problematic. (TEL4)

In these examples, there is the exclusion of individuals ©© in 
one case the bodily removal of a
student from the activity.  Particular identities and practices 
are also excluded, as are ways of
constructing knowledge.  Very often exclusion and normalisation 
occurred together, where the
pathological was named in the process of establishing the norm.

Canguilhem (1991), one of Foucault's teachers, argues that in the 
question of which comes
first, the normal or the pathological, the normal is logically 
first, but empirically second.  Some of
these examples, including the last one from the teacher education 
site, illustrate Canguilhem's point. 
A pedagogy which does not set boundaries, which does not 
normalise and pathologise, is almost
inconceivable.


ÃClassificationÄ

Ingrid offers the view, taken from a book she has read, that men 
are warlike and
conquering by nature while women are peaceful and sedentary.  
Therefore women are
much more likely to be forcibly oppressed.(FEME3)

Differentiating groups or individuals from one another, 
classifying them, classifying oneself, is
another common technique within Foucault's elaboration of 
disciplinary power and found within the
pedagogical sites investigated.  Some additional examples are 
provided:

Helen asks if the others have seen a photo of the author ©© she 
describes her as a "large,
masculine, person."  One of the women jumps in with the comment: 
"Well, someone
married her!"  (WGJ2)

But once again Ingrid disagrees saying that the "libertarians" 
promoted it.  "Libertarians" is
said in a derogatory tone. . . .  Maxine suggests that the author 
indulged in this sort of
relationship because she was a "creative type" and wanted to 
experience everything in life. 
(FEME5)

Mrs Fernley arrives and says "Right©o.  Your tests.  Some of you 
did very well. Some of you
didn't do very well." (PE8J30)

They begin their movements to the music.  Brett and his partner 
are uninhibited in their
movements, clearly enjoying themselves.  I notice that, by 
comparison, the majority of girls
are much more restrained in their movements.  Several stand in 
one larger group, perhaps
too embarrassed to engage in this activity.  Seeing this, the 
teacher calls out "those people

who are having trouble, walk in time together.  I don't want to 
see groups of five standing
together." (PEP8R20)

She explains how students should fill in the sheet titled 
"Today's Mother and Father" which
involves a colour representation of the distribution of chores 
and responsibilities in the
student's home.  The chores and responsibilities are already 
written for the students and
include "gives love," "in charge of finance".  . . .  She is 
quick to cater for those students
who don't have both mother and father in the home by suggesting 
students might adjust the
task to indicate male and female responsibilities in the home, be 
they children or adults,
related or not.  . . .  Sally says to the girl next to her "Dad 
gives most love.  He really does." 
The other girl says "So does mine."  (I wonder what this says 
about mother/daughter
relationships during adolescence).  (PE8J30)

Zac returns to his seat as a conversation develops about the 
awarding of some Australian
beauty crown to a male.  The teacher remarks that she sees it as 
"a step ahead," but Zac
is baffled about how a "guy" could win the competition.  The 
teacher explains that he had
raised a lot of money for charity and that the competition "has 
to be non©sexist."  Madeleine
remarks that the winner "is a Nancy."  (PET11R11)

In our community as yet, teaching's not regarded as the kind of 
high status that some of
the other professions are. . . . It's ironic, is it not, that 
people seem to be more prepared to
educate those who will look after their cats, than those who will 
look after their kids." 
(TEL1)

Kate states that the teacher who operates as a critical analyst 
will take on different roles:
coach, mentor, facilitator, listener, questioner, comforter, 
model, etc.  Some of these roles
will be active, she said, others will be passive ©© depending on 
the situation.  Kate continues
by discussing the operation of teaching as totally unproblematic 
or taking a more critical
approach.  Those who operate under the latter will see teaching 
as far more complex. 
(TEL4R)

As these examples illustrate, pedagogy proceeds via 
classificatory mechanisms ©© the classification
of knowledge, the ranking and classification of individuals and 
groups.  A whole tradition of
educational research has addressed problems associated with the 
reproductive sorting functions of
schools.  Examining specific micro©practices of classification 
may be one way of intervening in these
problems.

ÃDistribution
"What we've organised for the tutorials is . . . some second and 
third year students [who]
would like to have a chance to share with you some of their 
experiences of the practicum. .
.  We'll break into smaller groups and we'll actually withdraw, 
so you'll be able to say those
things that you really do want to discuss that you might be 
feeling a bit tentative about."
(TEL9)

Foucault also argues that the distribution of bodies in space ©© 
arranging, isolating, separating,
ranking ©© contributes to the functioning of disciplinary power.  
The exercise of power via techniques
of distribution is evident in the following examples:
The teacher calls on them to form a semi©circle around her so she 
can explain the aims of
the lesson. (PEP8R1)

While the teacher is handing out sheets at the back of the room, 
one of the boys near the
front gets up from his seat and hits another boy in the front 
row.  The "Victim" calls out
"Miss," but the teacher is busy, her back turned toward them as 
she distributes the sheets. 
The "Attacker" glances at her briefly to see if his actions have 
been detected, but seeing theÔ
coast is clear, he returns to his seat.  (PET8R17)

The teacher states she wants groups of "3 or 4 maximum".  Then: 
"Everybody write your
responses down on your sheet and put it in your book please".  
The students don't move
yet to comply with the teacher's request to form groups.  Rather, 
they talk quietly among
themselves as the teacher goes round and distributes an extra 
worksheet.  (PE8R17)

The teacher moves Robert's desk apparently in an attempt to 
prevent him talking to his
mates, and to avoid his distraction from the questionnaire.  
(PE8R32)

Another boy runs back from jumping and ever so subtly wheedles 
his way in, way ahead of
the end of the line. (PE8J3)

"The people who are going to be working with you are Kate, 
Elisabeth and myself, and our
room numbers and our phone numbers are there.  And it might be 
now an opportune time
to just mention who will be your tutor for the groups that meet 
at 12.30 . . . Um, Group 1, . .
. you know which groups you're in don't you?  You know which 
groups you've been placed
in? (long pause)  So Group 1 which has Katie Adams, and Sue 
Allan, and Michelle
Alexander, and a whole lot of other people, you'll be with me and 
you'll be in room 32.  So
those I'm with are in 32.  Those of you who are in Group 2 will 
be with Elisabeth in 50, and

those of you who are in Group 3 will be with Kate will in room 
45A.  Do you want me to
repeat those?  Has everybody got it?" (TEL1)

The students are seated on chairs toward the very back of the 
room, a few are along the
side wall near me.  A girl asks if she can sit on the floor.  Mrs 
Fernley says "yes" and
several students immediately sit and lie on the floor.  She then 
seems to change her mind
saying that it would be better to get a chair so she "won't have 
to yell."  It seems this was a
comment that student behaviour is worse when on the floor.  
(PE11J8)

Madeleine asks other girls if they want to skip with her.  A few 
decline.  She then asks me
and I decline too.  Madeleine turns with some exasperation, it 
seems.  Bill finally accepts
her invitation.  When Bill is done, Zac is called upon by 
Madeleine.  He says "Do I have
to?" and acts very reluctant, but skips anyway.  Madeleine then 
asks Shaq to skip, saying
"Shaq, come over here."  He comes over but says he wants to skip 
by himself first.  He
says he wants to get warmed up.  Madeleine does not accept this.  
She skips double time
and tells another boy to run in and join her.  Several of the 
students laugh at this. 
Madeleine says to one boy, "Go play with yourself.  I'm 
skipping."  She is encouraged by
Annalise to try "double dutch" (I think that's with 2 ropes 
turning in opposite directions). 
Madeleine goes off to the storeroom and emerges with a huge heavy 
tug©of©war rope.  Both
of the teachers seem to have left the hall at this point . . .  
The students laugh raucously at
Madeleine's new rope.  Several others join in, swinging the huge 
rope which makes a solid
thud each time it hits the floor.  (PE11J10)

I make an executive decision that I will not take notes.  The 
seating arrangements are such
that I must be included in the circle.  We sit in close proximity 
to each other and the number
of participants is small ©© I feel that taking fieldnotes would 
be too intrusive.  (FEME1)

Jill, who is the recorder, sat beside Mary, the Chair.  In a 
sense this mirrors the teacher at
the front of the room.  It may have been coincidental however. 
(WGJ1)

These examples illustrate a wide range of distributive 
techniques, from teachers assigning rooms,
physically moving bodies, requiring students to form groups, to 
students moving themselves or
imploring others to do so.  

ÃIndividualisationÄ

"But when I was reading, I kept thinking, would I have the moral 

courage, or the emotional
Ôcourage, to do what she has just done?" (WG1)

Giving individual character to oneself or another is a common 
technique of power in pedagogy, as
illustrated below:
"I grew up in the _____suburbs.  I went to a country Teacher's 
College.  I was sent to
____area for my first school.  I then went to the inner city.  
I'm now teaching on the
________.  So, I've really come quite full circle around NSW, I 
think.  And what it's done in
the time that I've been teaching primary school is that I've had 
to change myself.  I've had
to rethink what I was doing as a teacher." (TEL1)

She encourages a student to run and practice the jump, saying 
"Patrick."  As he
unenthusiastically approaches the mat, walking rather than doing 
a proper run©up, the
teacher calls out, "Go Patrick!"  He complies, but without 
putting any effort into the action.
(PEP8R1)

The teacher writes names (Robert, Peter and Kane) on the board:  
"If I thought you were
writing down the answers I would not have done that.  But it 
appears to me that you're not
paying attention, nor are you doing what you're supposed to be 
doing.  So, Peter, put your
pen down. Robert, put your pen down please." (PET815)

Meanwhile a discussion has begun about Monica Seles suing German 
tennis for the injury
that was inflicted upon her and the financial losses involved.  
Annalise says "she's pretty
young", I think implying that she has time to recover and become 
Number 1 again.  Curt
says "I think she's pretty", an unusual admission from an 
adolescent male, I thought, until
he continued with "I like the way she grunts, Miss!"  Several 
groans are heard, along with a
few of those lecherous male laughs so common among groups of 
men/boys. (PE11J9)

At this point another of the girls enters the class, saying 
"Sorry I'm late, Miss".  She
explains that she has been to see one of the other teachers to 
see whether she could "drop
PD".  Madeleine interrupts, claiming "No she wasn't, Miss. She's 
been in the toilets."
(PET11R14)

The group is unanimous in its dislike for the text.  Somebody 
asks whose idea it was to
read it.  I think Carol points the finger at Ingrid who says that 
she hasn't read it for a long
time but doesn't remember it being that bad.  There are a number 
of critical comments
concerning the flowery nature of the writing.  (FEME5)

ÃTotalisationÄ


"Teaching as a profession requires us to go on engaging in 
professional development
throughout our careers . .  . So I hope we can model for you what 
we're asking you to do in
your own professional lives." (TEL1)

At the same time as individualisation is a common technique, 
totalisation, the specification of
collectivities, giving collective character, forms a readily 
recognisable element of pedagogical
activity. 

"But she's really the same as all of us.  I mean, if we travelled 
in an area like that
(Afghanistan), we would form our own opinion . . . and we'd then 
come home and tell it all,
writing letters about what we thought."  (WG1)

"I think the Australian male has changed." . . . "Lots of women 
didn't question things much
then, because they weren't economically capable." (WGJ4)

Elaine states that "we think of dilemmas as a choice between two 
evils, but that it is now
more appropriate to think of them as two alternatives."  (TEL3R)

"You are going to be a teacher.  Kate, Ruth and I are teachers."  
(TEL5R)

"Does a teacher have the right to tell or make judgements about 
competencies?  Does the
State have a right to dictate?  And what about parents, what 
rights do they have regarding
their children's education?"  (TEL3R)

We enter the small video viewing room at the far end of the 
library with the students.  I
comment that the back row is already taken.  One girl says "We 
are Year 11 students, after
all!" (PE11J3)

A boy remarks in relation to Mrs Fernley's forthcoming long 
service leave "Teachers are
always going away.  It's a great life." (PET11R4)

The noise does not diminish as she continues referring to the 
handouts.  She tells the
students "Read it, look at it, or go out.  Listen.  Make choices,  
I don't care".  They quieten
for awhile.  (PE11J8)

"One of the main effects of alcohol is that it gives you a high.  
That's why people drink it. 
It's not because they love the taste, although some people do, 
but I would suggest that
most people drinking beer for the first time, for example, 
probably wouldn't like its taste."
(PET8R10)

As the students chatter, the teacher makes the announcement "you 
know what my

expectations are, and I expect certain things of you."  The 
students begin to settle. 
(PET8R10)

Be it through simple inclusive linguistic structures, such as 
using the word "we", or addressing
whole groups of participants in the pedagogical site or 
elsewhere, totalising is clearly a technique
used in pedagogy for governing or regulating groups.  Students 
and teachers also "totalise"
themselves by naming themselves as part of some or other 
collective. 


ÃRegulationÄ

"The subject, as you can see, is assessed on a pass/fail basis. 
And we're intending that to
be the case because we hope that the course will be intrinsically 
interesting." (TEL1)

Regulation was defined in my research as "controlling by rule, 
subject to restrictions, invoking a
rule, including sanction, reward, punishment."  While all of the 
previous techniques of power could
be seen to have regulating effects, this category was used 
specifically to code incidents in which
regulation was explicit.
Three of the boys who usually attend this class enter with a note 
for the class teacher
which she reads.  The boys indicate that they have been asked to 
move furniture for one of
the other teachers.  The class teacher emphasises that the note 
she has been given states
that the boys were asked to move furniture.  She concludes "That 
means you're here [for
the lesson] now ".  They smile at the fact that she has not been 
fooled into thinking that
they had permission to spend the rest of the period doing this 
job, but state that "we have
to go and get our bags".  They leave again. (PET11R2)

"Madeleine, that's your fourth infringement".  Madeleine makes 
some excuse, asking the
teacher "Did you see that?"  Nevertheless, and without much 
further persuasion from the
teacher, Madeleine collects her things and leaves the room saying 
"And I'm not coming
back!" (I don't get the impression that she feels too much 
animosity over the incident as she
was quick to comply with the teacher's decision.  I was aware 
that one of the class rules
involved allowing four infringements in any week, and any further 
violations required the
student spending two lessons in the library and the expectation 
that they would catch up on
the work that they had missed.  Madeleine's exit precipitated a 
discussion among the boys
about how many "demerits" each of them had). (PET11R4).

"You've probably been told in all your other classes about the 
idea of plagiarism and

cheating and things and it's very important that you start right 
from the first day, that you do
get a copy of the referencing procedures and that you use them 
and you do reference your
material correctly.  And if you have problems with understanding 
the reference system then
you come to see me and I'll show you how to do it.  But it is 
vital that you do reference
you're material, that you don't just use great big chunks of 
other people's work without
acknowledging it.  It's not appropriate and it won't be 
accepted." (TET1B)

"That did change, but it wasn't until 1942 in fact, the early 
1940s, that aboriginal people
could actually legally, they were legally able to go to western 
schools."  (TEL2)

When the discussion turns to the "caring" argument relating to 
quarantining HIV positive
people, Ingrid says that this is done in Sweden under an 
humanitarian guise.  Most of the
group seems incredulous over this policy.  The group discusses 
the effect of such a policy. 
Carol says that people who thought they might be HIV positive 
would not submit for tests
because of a fear that they would be interned in one of the 
separate HIV communities. 
Therefore these people "go underground."  Somebody points out 
that this is the converse of
the Australian policy. (FEME6).

Now the teacher responds to the noise level in the class, and to 
the flying of the paper
plane through the air, by adding some initials to the one already 
in the chalked square at
the bottom of the board.  The owner of the plane objects to his 
name being included as he
had not thrown it.  The teacher counters: "I told you that if I 
saw that plane flying, you'd get
a referral."  She threatens the class: "OK, my next instruction 
will be to get your books out
and we'll start to write."  One of the boys continues to talk.  
The teacher says "Chris.  Out"
pointing with her outstretched arm toward the door.  "You'll have 
a 5 minute sin bin."  The
boy complies but hovers in the doorway, still regarding all that 
occurs in the class as he
faces inwards.  (PET8R5)

"But if it was because we decided to answer every question, he 
says here, `the topics for
discussion at the end of each lecture are suggestions only, to be 
used as much as you
require, to stimulate and guide discussion.'"  (WG1)

"I just couldn't get into it, to be honest."
"Oh, I was quite interested."
"Oh, I want to finish it."
"I'm loving it.  I think it's wonderful."
"So it was the lack of time we gave ourselves to finish the novel 
that was the problem,

rather than the novel itself."  (WG2)

As with other categories, regulation sometimes involved reference 
to knowledge and not only
reference to group rules or restrictions.  To the extent that 
this whole set of examples resonates
with readers, conjuring up memories of similar incidents as 
teachers, students, or members of other
groups, I trust I have demonstrated that these categories have 
been useful and relevant for the
analysis of classroom power relations.  In what follows, I 
outline some broader insights which have
emerged from the analysis of data thus far conducted.


ÃContinuities across pedagogical sites
Ä
Many educational theorists would expect quite different practices 
of power in the four disparate sites
in which my study took place.  For instance, some feminist, 
critical and other radical pedagogues
have argued that their classrooms should or can do away with 
power.  From this perspective, where
power is often an evil to be done away with, less power might 
have been expected in the feminist
and teacher education

The teacher education program was driven by strong critical and 
feminist educational
perspectives. sites than in the others.  From the perspective on 
power informing this
study, however, no site was free of power relations and no site 
"escaped" the use of techniques of
power.  Rather, as the examples demonstrate, the broad techniques 
used in the exercise of power
relations were found in the radical and mainstream, and the 
institutionalised and nonªinstitutionalised sites.  Hence, my 
speculative view that the institutionalisation of pedagogy within
schools and universities constrains radical agendas might not be 
supported by the study, as a
generalised claim.  Instead, it seems that pedagogy, as a 
modernist enterprise, has some
continuous features across quite different locations.  This 
continuity might be accounted for, in part,
by the fact that participants in the "non©institionalised" sites 
were adults ©© people who had already
been subjected to and had learned the governmental processes of 
pedagogy.
Finding these techniques in contemporary pedagogical practice is 
not surprising, given
Foucault's view of the disciplinary techniques of prisons as 
having their beginnings in pedagogy: 

Foucault emphasizes in Discipline and Punish that the disciplines 
linked to the Panopticon
were first used in secondary education, then primary schools, 
then the hospital, then the
military barracks, and only later the prisons.  So the panopticon 
was not dispersed into
society from the prison; on the contrary.  (Kelly, 1994, p. 370)

While a continuity in pedagogical practices across time is 

suggested by this passage, and while
there is certainly considerable evidence in popular literature on 
schooling, and in the memories of
generations of students and teachers (Southgate, forthcoming), of 
minimal change over time, my
own study was not designed to "test" continuities over time, but 
continuities across sites.

As the above examples illustrate, I am able to claim continuity 
in the broad "techniques of
power" for each of the four sites investigated.  While the 
specific effects of those practices of power
may have varied across sites, I can say with some confidence that 
power relations in pedagogy
were enacted via techniques of surveillance, normalisation, 
exclusion, distribution and so on.  These
techniques were often productive for pedagogical (or other) 
purposes.  Perhaps Foucault's (1977) 
statement about surveillance as inherent to pedagogy and as 
increasing its efficiency, holds also for
the other techniques.  Part of my ongoing analysis is oriented at 
identifying specific forms of
surveillance, normalisation and so on which were necessary for 
teaching, and those which may
have been peripheral, such as regulating students' dress and 
eating habits in classrooms, for
instance.

The examples also demonstrate that each of the techniques of 
power, as I defined them,
was employed in a number of ways: sometimes they functioned in 
the construction of knowledge; at
other times, they functioned in the construction of relations 
among participants in the various sites;
at yet other times, they functioned in the construction and 
maintenance of particular subjectivities
(often defining one's self).  Moreover, as already indicated, 
these techniques of power also occurred
frequently in combination, illustrating the rapidly circulating 
functioning of power relations, and
highlighting Foucault's view that power relations are 
simultaneously local, unstable, and diffuse, not
emanating from a central point but at each moment moving from one 
point to another in a field of
forces (Delueze, 1988).  The complexity which this analysis 
embraces is, in my view, illustrative of
the ways in which a Foucauldian analysis of power in schooling 
can complement and extend past
analyses, and aid the empirical study of power.

In order to draw comparisons between and within sites, and 
between and among the
techniques of power, the relative frequency of each technique of 
power was calculated, where each
segment of data had been coded with the multiple techniques of 
power that could be discerned. 
When examining these frequencies across all sites, I found 
individualisation and totalisation were
the most common techniques.  Foucault (1988b) writes of the kind 
of rationality in which are
institutions are grounded, a rationality characterised by the 
integration of individuals in a community

or totality that results from a constant correlation between 
increasing individualisation and the
reinforcement of the totality.  This "rationality" was most 
obvious in the teacher education site, not
surprisingly given that we observed a first year cohort of 
students in their introductory subject,
where a certain kind of teacher was being produced.

Across all sites, there was also substantially less use of 
regulation (explicit reference to or
enactment of rules, sanctions, etc.) and surveillance 
(observational techniques) than the other
techniques.  This "finding" is consistent with Foucault's 
elaboration of the increasing invisibility of
governmentality in modern society.  The "Panoptic" operation of 
surveillance (which is invisible but
constantly possible) may well have had an impact on specific 
practices enacted by participants but
was not visibly exercised in as frequent a manner as were 
normalising and other practices. 
Observing that which is "invisible" is, of course, a problem.  
Nevertheless, the subtle techniques
which I have called, after Foucault, normalisation, 
classification, exclusion, and so on, were much
more frequently observable than direct surveillance and 
regulation

Average proportions for each category indicate the following as 
the most to least common
practices across all sites: individualisation 24.7, totalisation 
17.8, exclusion 16.5,
classification 15.8, normalisation 15.7, distribution 14.0, 
surveillance 5.4, regulation 4.8.

As already stated, I am not attempting to argue that the 
techniques of power were
configured identically no matter which pedagogical site.  There 
were differences evident between
sites, even in the few decontextualised passages I have presented 
above.  Foucault's view of power
as operating in capillary style, from the infinitesimal, does not 
imply there are no patterns in the
circulation or functioning of power.  For instance, the examples 
provided, however open to multiple
readings, suggest that teachers and students exercised power 
differently.  That is, in many cases,
students' power was "reactive" rather than "active" (Deleuze, 
1988).  Power circulated in these sites,
but the exercise of power was certainly not equal for all 
participants.


ÃConclusion

My study responds to those critics who have accused Foucault of a 
totalising characterisation of
modern disciplinary society, and for a representation of power 
which it is not possible to go beyond
or free oneself from.  Donnelly (1992), for instance, finds 
difficulty with Foucault's notion of
panopticism "when he generalises the notion and empties it of all 
specific context" rather than when

he, genealogically, "deploys it to make intelligible actual 
practices" (p. 202).  While supporting
Foucault's detailed genealogical work, Donnelly is critical of 
what he terms Foucault's "epochal"
arguments about modern society.  He argues that Foucault fails to 
demonstrate adequately the
development of modern disciplinary society.  I posit that 
Donnelly (and other critics like him) revile
what they read as a pessimistic vision of society on the basis of 
their own theoretical and political
desires for accounts of modern society which privilege human 
agency, if not continuing hope in
revolution.

In my view, such reactions to Foucault's conception of modern 
disciplinary society emerge,
at least in part, because Foucault's notion of power relations is 
so different from traditional
conceptions of power and because of the strength of discourses 
attached to dominant notions of
power.  Foucault's modern disciplinary society is only gloomy if 
the very presence of power (diffuse
and pervasive as Foucault posits it) is troubling.  However, 
Foucault (1983) was not troubled by the
simple presence of power:  "The exercise of power . . . incites, 
it induces, it seduces, it makes
easier or more difficult" (p.220).  Difficult as it sometimes is 
in the context of hierarchical institutions,
Foucault's analysis of power implores us to remember power's 
productiveness.

 Power's pervasiveness, then, seems primarily to be a problem for 
those who would wish to
remove power, because they continue to understand it as somehow 
sinister, rather than embracing
Foucault's (1983) point that "a society without power relations 
can only be an abstraction" (p.222). 
We are all familiar with the operation of power at the 
micro©level, as the resonance of my examples
with readers probably bears testimony.  However, this functioning 
of power remains largely invisible
in our daily practices, unless we are looking for it.  The 
micro©level documentation of power
relations provided in this paper demonstrates why the removal of 
power relations (conceived in this
way) is inconceivable.

However, and this is the crucial point of my study and of this 
paper:

To say that there cannot be a society without power relations is 
not to say either that those
which are established are necessary, or, in any case, that power 
constitutes a fatality at the
heart of societies, such that it cannot be undermined. (pp. 
222©223) [emphasis added]

Through his genealogical method, Foucault presented himself as 
documenting the way society 
and how we have come to be the way we are, rather than 
prescribing a new social form through
the declaration of normative positions.  Nor was he proposing a 

form of power which leaves no
space for activism or change: "All my analyses are against the 
idea of universal necessities in
human existence.  They show the arbitrariness of institutions and 
show which space of freedom we
can still enjoy and how many changes can still be made" 
(Foucault, 1988c, p.11).

As Francois Ewald (1992), Director of the Foucault Center in 
Paris, says, "we have a
responsibility with regard to the way we exercise power: we must 
not lose the idea that we could
exercise it differently" (p. 334).  Documenting the techniques of 
power outlined in this paper,
identifying those which seem essential to pedagogical enterprise 
and those which might be altered,
is my own contribution to thinking about how educators might 
exercise power differently.

In bringing about educational reform, I argue that we must know 
what we are, and what we
are doing (in education), in order to begin to address adequately 
how we might do things differently. 
Despite the potential enactment of the very governmental 
processes of modern society that
Foucault studied, and in part criticised, with this attempt to 
document techniques of power in
pedagogy, pedagogy's governmental influence, both within and 
beyond schooling institutions, is
enormously powerful in the control of populations.  Attempting to 
understand those processes and
remove those which are harmful cannot, in my view, be any more 
dangerous than maintaining what
already exists.

The micro©level focus of Foucault's analytics of power, 
therefore, is not only useful for
understanding power's operation in specific sites, as 
demonstrated here, but also has clear potential
in addressing change possibilities.  That is, the Foucauldian 
approach enables us to document that
which causes us to be what we are in schools and hence, 
potentially, to change what we are. 
Given the continuing widely documented negative effects of 
schooling for many students and
teachers, such change seems a worthy pursuit.


ÃReferencesÄ

Bernstein, B. (1975). ÃÃ Class, Codes and Control: Towards a 
Theory of Educational Transmissions. 
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. (1990). The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse.  
London and New York: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J. (1977).  Reproduction in 
Education, Society and Culture.  London
and Beverly Hills: Sage.

Canguilhem, G. (1991).  The Normal and the Pathological.  New 

York: Zone Books.
Corrigan, P.R. (1991). "The Making of the Boy: Meditations on 
What Grammar School Did With, To,
and For My Body."  In H.A. Giroux, ed. Postmodernism, Feminism, 
and Cultural Politics,
(pp. 196©216).  Albany: State University of New York Press.

Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault.  Minneapolis: University of 
Minnesota Press. 

Donnelly, M. (1992).  "On Foucault's Uses of the Notion of 
`Biopower'."  In T.J. Armstrong, trans.

Michel Foucault Philosopher, (pp. 199©203).  New York: Harvester 
Wheatsheaf.

Ewald, F. (1992).  "Summary of Discussions."  In T.J. Armstrong, 
trans. Michel Foucault
Philosopher, (p. 334).  New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Foucault, M. (1977).  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the 
PrisonÄ.  New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1980).  "Truth and power."  In C. Gordon (Ed). 
Power/knowledge: Selected interviews
and other writings 1972©1977, (pp. 109©133).  New York: Pantheon 
Books.

Foucault, M. (1981).  "The Order of Discourse."  In R. Young, ed. 
Untying the Text: A Post
Structuralist Reader, (pp. 48©78).  Boston: Routledge and Kegan 
Paul.

Foucault, M. (1983).  "The Subject and Power."  In H.L. Dreyfus 
and P. Rabinow, eds. Michel
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 2nd edition, 
(pp. 208©26).  Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. (1988a).  "The Ethic of Care for the Self as a 
Practice of Freedom."  In J. Bernauer
and D. Rasmussen, eds.  The Final Foucault, (pp. 1©20).  
Cambridge, MA & London: The
MIT Press.

Foucault, M. (1988b).  "The Political Technology of Individuals." 
In L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P.H.
Hutton, eds. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel 
Foucault, (pp. 145©162). 
Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Foucault, M. (1988c).  "Truth, Power, Self: An Interview with 
Michel Foucault." In L.H. Martin, H.
Gutman, & P.H. Hutton, eds. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar 
with Michel Foucault, (pp.
145©162).  Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Gore, J.M. (1993).  The Struggle for Pedagogies: Critical and 
Feminist Discourses as Regimes of
Truth.  New York and London: Routledge.

Kelly, M. (1994).  "Foucault, Habermas and the 

Self©Referentiality of Critique." In M. Kelly, ed.
Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate.  
Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Maxwell, J.A. and Miller, B.A. (1993).  "Categorization and 
Contextualization as Components of
Qualitative Data Analysis."  Unpublished manuscript.

Morey, M. (1992).  "On Michel Foucault's Philosophical Style: 
Towards a Critique of the Normal."  In
T.J. Armstrong, trans. Michel Foucault Philosopher, (pp. 
199©203).  New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.

Southgate, E. (forthcoming).  "Collective Memory and Discourses 
of Schooling" (tentative title).  PhD
manuscript, The University of Newcastle.

Tyler, D. (1993). "Making Better Children."  In Meredyth, D. and 
Tyler, D., eds.  Child and Citizen:

Genealogies of Schooling and Subjectivity, (pp. 35©60).  Griffith 
University: Institute of
Cultural and Policy Studies.