Philosophy of Classroom Discipline
“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse compartments may be realized.” (Foucault)
Foucault and Heidegger, modern philosophers, both describe power in these terms, as the facility to manipulate an object without force. Understanding this point of view is important, not only for state institutions who attempt to exert power over citizens and deviants, but also for teachers as they try to use disciplinary power to control the events in their classroom. Unfortunately, the majority of status quo disciplinary systems are entrenched in the mindset that power can be exerted over individuals through the use of coercive punishments and threats, actions which usually have the complete opposite result, less control over the students. A system that more closely mirrors Thomas Gordon’s view of discipline as self-control would be a far superior disciplinary model because it recognizes the true nature of power.
Thomas Gordon’s disciplinary model specifically critiques the use of coercion and intimidation to exert power and control over students. Coercion to Gordon only reinforces a notion that violence is an acceptable form of control. Additionally, coerced and intimidated students will often retaliate against authority figures who attempt to exert coerciv...
Discipline, the way to obey rules and codes of behavioral attitudes, using punishment to correct disobedience, an essential ingredient for “good” can be found within our childhood schools. At the start of Wes Moore’s school years, Wes Moore had problems with motivation to go to school and he would skip school with some of his classmates who skipped the same day. This lead to a lack
With the hopes of homogenizing behavior, normalizing judgment utilizes disciplinary power to control citizens. As a panopticon is emplaced in society, Foucault states “in each of its applications, it makes it possible to perfect the exercise of power” (Foucault 206), meaning correct behavior becomes more practiced and understood as society fears the consequences of rebellion. This occurs, as Foucault describes, “in several ways: because it can reduce the number of those who exercise it, while increasing the number of those on whom it is exercised” (Foucault 206). Once the majority of society members have conformed to such behavior, power is transferred from the individual to choose how they act, to the institution that normalized the behavior. Furthermore, as normalized judgment is practiced in society, it becomes more widely
The intent of this argumentative research paper, is to take a close look at school systems disciplinary policies and the effect they have on students. While most school systems in the nation have adopted the zero tolerance policies, there are major concerns that specific students could be targeted, and introduced into the criminal justice system based on these disciplinary policies. This research paper is intended to focus on the reform of zero tolerance policies, and minimizing the school to prison pipeline.
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
Another major reason why juveniles are ending up in the juvenile justice system is because many schools have incorporate the zero tolerance policy and other extreme school disciplinary rules. In response to violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly grave. These policies have been enacted at the school, district and state levels with the hopes of ensuring the safety of students and educators. These policies all rely on the zero tolerance policy. While it is understandable that protecting children and teachers is a priority, it is not clear that these strict policies are succeeding in improving the safety in schools.
Thereby, institutions that were intended to nurture youth (schools) have been collapsed into the practice of surveillance and criminalization, often acting as the behest of police and probation officers. In the case of Spider, he was isolated from “regular” school and sent to EOCS, which was a school for students who had already been officially labeled as deviants and delinquents by the school district. There, many of the teachers had a common practice that whenever any student misbehaved, the teachers would threaten either to call the police, to send them to jail, or call their P.O. (sometimes, even for students that weren’t on probation). In the schools attempt to main social order, it used the full force of criminal justice institutions to regulate students’ behaviors with constant threats. Also, Rios accounts that Slick’s beating, a student at an EOC, was the result of the schools impeccable communication between a security officer, the administrators, and police officer Miles. At these types of teaching facilities, stigma, labeling, detention, harassment, and humiliation are just about the only consistent experience that adolescents could count on as they entered the school. If students attempted to resist criminalization by acting up, a police officer lurked nearby ready to pounce. In essence, school was simply an extension where young people were criminalized for their style and culture. As a matter of fact, many of the boys Rios describes, saw no distinction between the school and police officers who constantly lurked around them, like a “zookeeper watching over animals at all times.” Police officers played a crafty “cat and mouse game” in which adolescent boys remained in steady trepidation of being humiliated, brutalized, or detained. Hence, this sort of control is created by a
Unlike other theories of power, Foucault (1998: 63) argues, “power is everywhere and comes from everywhere”, it is distributed throughout society and not held by the dominant class. He also states that power makes human beings who they are. Foucault’s theory is particular in that he doesn’t just viewed power negatively, but rather acknowledges it to be productive and a positive element that “produces reality” (Foucault 1991:194). These ideas contrast political economy, which suggests that the dominant class do hold power and influences the media. The idea of power producing reality reflects in the reality TV show Big Brother. Big Brother demonstrates how Foucault sees power as an everyday phenomenon, which produces reality. Big Brother is a show consisting of housemates who are everyday people living in the Big Brother house together. Big Brother produces the positive side to power that Foucault suggested, as watching over the housemates becomes a productive way to monitor their behaviour, without coercion. Foucault’s theory on discipline and disciplinary power hold a special quality. Foucault (1977: 201) contrasts other theorists stating that discipline can be produced through surveillance and “permanent visibility”, causing people to discipline themselves, with the absences of violence. He (Foucault 1977) suggests this can be used in prisons, schools and workplaces, through the idea
Michel Foucault may be regarded as the most influential twentieth-century philosopher on the history of systems of thought. His theories focus on the relationship between power and knowledge, and how such may be used as a form of social control through institutions in society. In “Truth and Juridical Forms,” Foucault addresses the development of the nineteenth-century penal regime, which completely transformed the operation of the traditional penal justice system. In doing so, Foucault famously compares contemporary society to a prison- “prison is not so unlike what happens every day.” Ultimately, Foucault attempts to exemplify the way in which disciplinary power has become exercised in everyday institutions according to normalization under the authority network of individuals such that all relationships may be considered power relations. Thus, all aspects of society follow the model of a prison based on domination. While all aspects of society take the shape of prison, most individuals may remainignorant of such- perhaps just as they are supposed to. As a result, members of society unconsciously participate in the disciplinary power that aims to “normalize,” thus contributing to and perpetuating the contemporary form of social control. Accordingly, the modern penal regime may be regarded as the most effective system of societal discipline. [OK – SOLID INTRO]
As it will be discussed further in the paper, power should not be taken detached from its context, but rather it should be taken into consideration within its social structure and in relation with knowledge. However, it is also important to stress that for Foucault power is (a) productive and beneficial and (b) present at every level of the social body, macro and micro. Moreover, power “comes from below” , yet Foucault is not stating that there does not exist domination (in the case of a prison, for example, guards have a clear advantage over the prisoners), however power relations exist in all circumstances (again in the case of a prison, both groups are involved in power relations) and “domination, then, is not the essence of
What is power? And why do people really want to have control over it, like really. Power is not tangible, one cannot hold it in their hands and weld it like a sword. People have fought over it like if it was gold or the solution to immortality. Yet, this “power” has caused so much damage for such an intangible thing. People in history have been oppressed, killed, slaved, and more. Whether it was in the beginning of history there has always been the people who had wanted to have this power. Foucault’s “The Subject and Power” assumes that power is not wielded through oppression, but rather through the individuals who have control over it. There was Hitler, Napoleon Buonaparte, the Italians, the English, the Irish, and today in history it is the Anglo-Saxons. Hitler oppressed and killed the Jewish. Now, the Anglo-Saxons have been oppressing the Mexican Americans in the United States. The question remains though, why? Or what makes those who say they are in power, have power? What qualifies to be in control of power? Are there qualifications that
Power plays a very important role in society and is closely tied to other key concepts such as knowledge and freedom. It is therefore important to investigate its origin and operation. The conventional view of power as something that is law-like and is primarily restrictive and negative is a limited view of its real form, which Foucault claims is far more dynamic and omnipresent. Power is not just contained in the state, its institutions, and the law but is a multiplicative force that is inherent in the relations existing at all levels of a society. It is complex and productive and circulates in every direction, producing all sorts of results.
Many human beings have been involved in a power struggle of some sort since the beginning of time. Between power in the business world, classroom, and government it is often clear who is subordinate and who is dominant. Subordinates may at times feel powerless; however, they can gain satisfaction out of aesthetics and hidden transcripts because of the personal freedoms it represents to them.
To help students to feel capable, connected and contributing (or the three C’s) Linda Albert asks us to make five fundamental changes to our classrooms, or what she calls “Paradigm Shifts in Cooperative Discipline” (see figure 2). Firstly, we need to move away from a “hands-on” or “hands-clenched” approach to discipline, which is an authoritarian style of classroom discipline, to a “hands-joined” or democratic style of classroom management. Secondly, we need to recognize that student behavior is a choice, and not caused by some outside force, though these forces may influence student behavior it is ultimately the student’s decision on how they will act in your classroom. Thirdly, she asks us to abandon our long list of classroom rules and replace it with a concise code of conduct; shifting the classroom atmosph...
..., Barry A. "School Discipline: “Is There a Crisis in Our Schools?" Australian Journal of