Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities

Abstract

Resistance is normally thought of as a collective exercise of public political activity. In this article, Ball and Olmedo approach the question of resistance in a different way, through Foucault's notion of ‘the care of the self’. Neoliberal reforms in education are producing new kinds of teaching subjects, new forms of subjectivity. It makes sense then that subjectivity should be the terrain of struggle, the terrain of resistance. A set of e-mail exchanges with teachers, based around Ball's work on performativity, enable the authors to access the work of power relations through the uncertainties, discomforts and refusals that these teachers bring to their everyday practice. By acting ‘irresponsibly’, these teachers take ‘responsibility’ for the care of their selves and in doing so make clear that social reality is not as inevitable as it may seem. This is not strategic action in the normal political sense. Rather it is a process of struggle against mundane, quotidian neoliberalisations, that creates the possibility of thinking about education and ourselves differently.

Keywords:

• educational policy
• Foucault
• neoconservatism/neoliberalism
• resistance
• subjectivity

Notes

1. The teachers quoted in the text initially contacted Stephen to indicate ways in which his writing on performativity ‘spoke’ to their experience and aligned with their sense of fear and anger. It was later that the ensuing exchanges were recognised as offering a way of understanding situated struggles over subjectivity. The interlocutors were asked whether their emails could be used and quoted in a paper and all were willing and interested. Pseudonyms have been used. There is no ‘method’ involved here apart from a careful reading and re-reading of the email texts.

2. Foucault explains his particular use of the article how: ‘“How,” not in the sense of “How does it manifest itself?” but “By what means is it exercised?” and “What happens when individuals exert (as they say) power over others?”’ (Foucault, 1982, p. 217; emphasis in the original).

3. Michael is a primary school head teacher doing a PhD. He is in the process of analysing his interviews with a group of fellow head teachers.

4. The Ofsted evaluation system is compounded of four grades, defined as: 1: Outstanding; 2: Good; 3: Satisfactory; 4: Inadequate (for more information about Ofsted evaluation scheme see: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/schools).

5. From this Autumn, Ofsted inspections in England will be carried out without the need to give notice to schools prior to the visit of the inspectors. According to Sir Michael Wilshaw, HM Chief inspector, this measure will allow inspector to see the classroom ‘as they really are’ (Wilshaw on The Guardian, 01/10/2012). Alongside, the House of Commons Education Committee released on May 1st, its Ninth Report of Session 2010–2012 entitled: ‘Great teachers: attracting, training and retaining the best’. The title itself summarises many of the aspects and relates to the technologies referred to in our correspondence with the teachers. The Committee openly suggests that: ‘No longer should the weakest teachers be able to hide behind a rigid and unfair pay structure. We believe that performance management systems should support and reward the strongest teachers, as well as make no excuses (or, worse, incentives to remain) for the weaker’ and a bit further summarises, ‘We further recommend that the Department develop proposals (based on consultation and a close study of systems abroad) for a pay system which rewards those teachers who add the greatest value to pupil performance’ (House of Commons Education Committee, 2012, p. 47).