In between distributive and evaluative rules: paradox of pedagogic (mis)governance

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the paradoxical nature of ‘pedagogic governance’, developed from Bernstein’s ‘pedagogic device’, that is, the use of pedagogic means (including knowledge) to govern entire populations in a ‘totally pedagogised society’. While knowledge structures have received extensive coverage, not much attention has been given to the tensions between/within the distribution and evaluation of curricular knowledge. Through Derrida, I elaborate on the nature of distributive rules, theorising why a weakly framed curriculum is always open to transgression, that is, the ‘potential discursive gap’. However, the subversive power of knowledge is hamstrung by the evaluative rules through high-stakes public assessment and legal-juridical regulations, over which the state is attempting to wield greater influence. Constant struggles between distributive and evaluative powers entail the paradox of pedagogic (mis)governance. To illustrate my argument, this article draws on the politics of curriculum reform in postcolonial Hong Kong as an example.

KEYWORDS:

• Pedagogic governance
• pedagogic device
• Basil Bernstein
• Liberal Studies
• distributive rules
• evaluative rules

Acknowledgement

The author is enormously grateful for the comments given by Professor Parlo Singh and two anonymous reviewers on the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 From 1978 to 2010, Hong Kong education system adopted a ‘3 + 2+2 + 3’ model, with three years of compulsory junior secondary education, two years of senior secondary education leading to an eliminatory HKCEE (taken at age 16), and two years of matriculation leading to the A-level at age 18. After 2009, the system shifts to a ‘3 + 3+4’ structure, with three years of compulsory junior secondary education, three years of compulsory senior secondary education leading to the HKDSE exam (taken at age 17), and four years of undergraduate studies.

2 Recontextualising contexts can be divided into the official recontextualising field (ORF, state agencies, departments of education) and pedagogic recontextualising field (PRF, schools, colleges, civil society groups, etc.) (Bernstein 2000, 33).

3 This is evident in the most recent attempt made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in China and the EDB to invalidate a History exam question in the HKDSE in 2020. The controversy ended up in a High Court hearing.