2.4 Theoretical framing
2.4.2 Identity formation
2.4.2.3 A poststructuralist perspective on identity
As mentioned in the previous section, poststructuralists reject the idea that identity can be seen as a fixed, essential core. Instead they contend that existing variables start to shape our lives at birth and influence the way we continue to perform our lives. Lather (1991) maintains that identity is informed by the interaction between existing structural and biographical variables and factors that are external to the individual, thus making identity continuously transient and changeable in character. Poststructuralists therefore view identity as highly ambiguous, multiple
38
and potentially contradictory. Attempts to overcome or deny ambiguity by trying to define an entirely clear coherent and consistent self may further reinforce, rather than resolve, the very ambiguity and insecurity identity strategies are intended to overcome (Collison, 2006).
2.4.2.3.1 The notion of ‘subjectivity’’
Venn (2006) strongly emphasises that when one explains a ‘lived’ life one must include both identity and subjectivity. He argues that subjectivity is a crucial factor to understanding identity.
Venn further emphasises that identity is not an autonomous concept. Woodward (1997) maintains that subjectivity involves personal thoughts and emotions that influence the different cultural positions we hold. This constitutes the sense of self which results in ‘this is who I am’.
Hall (2004) further argues that the concept of ‘subjectivity’ emphasises the making of the subject, which includes the taking up of subject positions. This foregrounds a reflexive dimension.
Subjectivities are produced and constituted through discourses (Letts, 2006). Foucault (1977) argued that discourse is the key concept of the relationship between power and knowledge, and a critical object of social analysis. Discourses are systems of thought, or knowledge claims, which take on an existence independent of the particular subject. As human subjects we constantly turn to and access pre-existing discourses as resources for social interactions with others (Stoddard, 2007). As teachers, we may think of a discourse of social rights as we negotiate our way through schooling contexts and the goal of achieving quality education for all learners. Stoddard (2007) explains that an individual’s sense of self or subjectivity, and the subject positions taken, are constructed and shaped through his or her engagement with a range of intersecting discourses.
One of the key theoretical contributions of Foucault is his rethinking of the notion of power and his analysis of the relationship between power and knowledge. Power not only operates at a macro social level but also at the local level within a range of diverse sites. Power not only functions oppressively and as a mechanism of control in social institutions, but also produces sites of resistance. Foucault also emphasises that power is relational, flows in multiple directions, and operates as a network (Foucault, 1978). It is relational in that it operates in relationships with others. A further important point he makes is that discourse operates in a somewhat open, fluid and negotiated way.
According to Foucault, power is as an everyday, socialised and embodied phenomenon and the term ‘power/knowledge’ constitutes a particular form of knowledge and understanding. For
39
example, one can analyse the cultural production of knowledge and the reproduction of gendered and racialised networks of social power (Foucault, 1980; 2000).
Thus, the production and circulation of discourses are mechanisms of social power (Stoddard, 2007). Foucault shows how we concede to multiple intersecting networks of power because we adopt the ideological discourses that permeate civil society produced by institutions such as the media and the school, for example. Further, the production of discourse may also contest, constrain and resist the exercise of power (Foucault 2000). A discourse may gain dominance over others depending on the extent to which it is strengthened and promoted by individuals and institutions.
Foucault (1972) advocates that as individuals, we take positions of agency and identity by locating ourselves in a position within a particular discourse. In this way we become subjects of the discourse by subjecting ourselves to its dominant meanings, power and regulation.
Poststructuralism highlights the complexity and fragmentation of power, and the microstructures of power (Stoddard, 2007). In educational contexts, I would argue that power has the potential to create, entrench and sustain objects of discourse to form and produce networks of leaders, teachers, scholars, policy makers and other stakeholders that would influence the nature of policy and practices.
Foucault developed the concept of the ‘discursive field’ as part of his attempt to understand the relationship between language, social institutions, subjectivity and power. Discursive fields, such as education, the school or the family, contain a range of competing and contradictory discourses with varying degrees of power to give meaning to and organise social institutions and processes.
For example, schools as institutions are made possible by a wide range of discursive practices that include policies, strategies, educational debates about what comprises an effective school, and normative social behaviour. Discursive practices are rule-governed structures that both compel individuals to behave in a particular way and sanction particular ways of behaving.
Thus, investigating an individual’s subjectivity through the lens of poststructuralism enables a researcher to interrogate the discourses that are produced and reproduced in everyday social reality and the discursive practices that constitute individuals. Discourses determine various subject positions, which can be produced within and subject to particular discourses. Stoddard (2007) explains that power is discursive, and circulates throughout lived experiences in multiple directions. It is not possible to completely resist and overcome power; rather, our research
40
should produce the kind of reflexivity that encourages us to monitor and manage relations of power and their harmful influences better.
Poststructuralists have added emotions as a dimension integral to subjectivity (Holstein &
Gubrium, 2000; Zembylas, 2003a).These theorists maintain that emotions play a critical role in subject formation since emotions connect an individual’s thoughts, judgements and beliefs, and give meaning to experiences. Zembylas (2003a) argues that the multiplicity of emotions that are likely to be experienced in any one event is complex. He further adds that it is important to observe and note the way in which an integrated personality evolves out of socially constructed emotions within a context that is shaped by and shapes the tensions of power relations. To summarise, Weedon (1987) conceptualises discourses as
ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and relations between them.
Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the
‘nature’ of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern (p. 108).
Foucault (in Ball, 1990) argues that the “the body is directly involved in a political field; power- relations have an immediate hold on it; they invest it, mark it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs” (p. 25). Stoddard (2007) explains that according to Foucault the body is socially constructed, and is a site where networks of discourse and power inscribe themselves, a critical space for relations of productive power and discourse/power regimes. The body is also a site for contested meanings.
As a principal I am aware that I am constituted and produced as a subject through a range of intersecting discourses and discursive practices. As explained, subjectivities are complex, changing and contradictory. This study therefore attempted to examine contradictions as areas of tensions and struggle in my own identity formation as a principal and leader. I hoped in my study to explore questions such as:
What are the complex ways in which power and discourse are produced in the socio-cultural context where I serve as a leader?
How do ideological discourses define and shape who I am as a leader and the limits and possibilities of social action and future visions in the particular socio-cultural context in which I work?
41 2.4.2.3.2 The duality of structure and agency
Agency and structure are viewed as two major forces that shape identity and society, and are therefore embedded in identity formation. It is critical to establish the extent to which the identity of the individual is determined by social structure and the extent to which identity is self- determined and independent of social structure. Explained further, it is the extent to which a person’s identity is determined by various structures of power and the extent to which a person uses free will or independence in his own identity formation.
Structure refers to positions within discourses that are imposed on individuals, resulting in the restriction of the agentic influence of their actions, social and cultural structures (Taylor, 1989).
Giddens (1991) defines structure as the rules (routines) and resources (material, authoritative) organised as properties of social systems, and agency as the capacity to make a difference to the world, that is, to exercise some sort of power, reliant on knowledgeable, competent human actors. Giddens (1992) further asserts strongly that structure is not to be equated with constraint but is always constraining and enabling. Agency refers to a person’s free will. If there is free will then a person is thought to have agency or to be an agent of his or her own actions.
There are many contrasting viewpoints on the duality of structure and agency. The psychological/developmental perspective is that identity formation is self-determined. It is argued that this identity formation occurs as one adapts or develops in response to the various circumstances in one’s life. Taylor (1989) describes the individual as having an agentive identity and as a self-interpreting subject. Giddens (1991) proposes that identity is a person’s own reflexive understanding and interpretation of his or her biographical narratives. According to Giddens, the ‘self’ constitutes the multilayered identities, which connect to the different roles we occupy at various times in our lives.
Giddens (1991) further posits that agency and structure are intertwined in a structuration process, creating a sense of equilibrium in the co-joined influences of personal agency and exterior structures. He explains that in the conceptualisation of identity, behaviour and identity are determined primarily on how individuals receive and process environmental information and use this to construct individualisation.
Poststructuralists not only challenge identity formation as an individual phenomenon, they also challenge it as a social phenomenon (Foucault, 1984). Poststructuralists describe identity
42
formation as a continuing process of becoming and emphasise the impossibility of an origin of the self, meaning there is no fixed self. They further argue that rather than identity being reflected in discourse, identity is constituted in discourse in an active, continuous and dynamic process. In this view the self is defined by its position in social practices.
For the purposes of my study I explore identity formation as a combination of both agency and structure. I examine the extent to which I exercised agency as a school leader and to what extent I have allowed the structures embedded in the socio-cultural context of the school to shape and co-construct my identity. Key questions I knew I would explore in my study are:
To what extent are my agency, my actions and my existence as a school leader influenced by the cultural, social and historical context in which I am located?
To what extent do my actions as a leader structure my social world and to what extent I am structured by it?
How do my agentic orientations play out, become reconstructed, change and transform in the variety of temporal-relational contexts of actions in which I lead, and what influences them?
How do social structural conditions shape, enable and constrain my actions and agency as a leader, and influence the meanings I give to them?
Summary
In constructing our identities and defining ourselves within the larger social framework, I came to believe that writing our narratives serves as a powerful space to reflect, make meanings, and negotiate ways of being. At this point in my research, I was filled with excitement in telling and retelling my story.
2.5 Research design