Power and discourse
3.5 Ethics and power
48
questions how subjects are positioned within these discourses and how subjects are subjected to the emerging leadership discourses (Chapter 6). It explores how discourses shape the subjectivity of leaders (Chapters 6 and 7). How is meaning created through discourse (Chapters 6, 7 and 10)?
How then does one analyse discourses? Yule and Brown define discourse analysis as:
…a way of studying language. It may be regarded as a set of techniques, rather than theoretically predetermined system for the writing of linguistic rules. The discourse analyst attempts to discover regularities in his data and describe them. (1983, p. 23)
Various texts are produced in the school setting that can be analysed for the communicative event that led to the production, distribution and consumption of the text. One such example is the Code of Conduct for Learners analysed in Chapter 8. As Prinsloo explains: “an analysis of a communicative event implies a multifunctional view of text that involves considering the text itself, the discursive practices relating to production, distribution and consumption of the text, and relating it to the social, cultural, economic and historical practices and circumstances” (2007, p.
16).
49
2. Emotions: Feelings, such as guilt, connected to moral issues, emphasised by Freud.
3. Behaviour: How we behave, and the extent to which we behave honourably or not, emphasised by social learning theorists.
Starratt (2004) defines ethics as the study of values, principles and beliefs that support a moral way of life. He offers a useful framework that encompasses an ethical triad: the ethics of justice (fairness in our decisions and actions); the ethics of critique (reflection on how we meet our ideals); and the ethic of care (our actions and demands of relationships). Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) have expanded Starratt’s (2004) framework to include two other dimensions of ethics: the ethics of profession (ethical conduct demanded from professionals); and the ethics of community (ethics is viewed against communal responses to morality). Chapter 10 focuses on five incidents involving ethics. These incidents are developed for the discussion through a combined framework that analyses ethical actions through the five domains: the ethics of justice, critique, care, profession, and community.
The ethics of justice is defined by Starratt (1995, p. 51) as “the claims of the institution to serve both the common good and the rights of individuals in the school”. Kohlberg (1971) argues that the ethical goal of school should be more than promoting equity and equality of opportunity, but to teach children to contribute to a society that is just and fair. Tyler (2005) maintains that two factors must be present for this to happen: decision-making of school leaders must be of highest quality and be inherently neutral, consistent and free of bias; and everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to voice their opinions.
The ethic of care is a display of the pastoral responsibilities of leaders. It encompasses caring, concern, compassion, connection and empathy (Martin, 1993). The limitations of the patriarchal concept of justice have been highlighted by feminist writers such as Gilligan (1982) and Noddings (2002). Gilligan (1982) argues that the ethic of care transcends the ethic of justice through its benevolent and compassionate orientation, especially in supporting the weak, the disadvantaged, minority groups and people with difficulties. Starrat (2004) outlines three elements to the concept of the virtue of presence which are relevant here. Behaviour needs to be affirming by firstly, recognising and celebrating achievements and accomplishments and; secondly, by being critical
50
through encouraging self-reflection; and thirdly, by enabling initiatives and innovative approaches in an environment where support and endeavour are reciprocated. Wilson (2008) states that the ethic of care can conflict with the ethic of justice where an individual is censured or punished in defence of the interests of the wider school community (for example the pastoral responsibility of an educator to care for and punish a learner who is a drug addict).
The ethic of critique arose out of the tension between the ethics of justice and democratic principles (Giroux, 1992; Greene, 1988; Freire, 1970) especially when justice was juxtaposed with individual rights, privileges and culture. The ethic of critique forces the school leader/manager to give consideration to how decisions made privilege or oppresses certain individuals or groups based on gender, social class, disability, ethnicity, race etc. The ethic of critique poses critical questions such as “who makes the laws; who benefits from the law, rule or policy; who has the power and who are the silenced voices” (Gross and Shapiro, 2004,p.48). Decisions taken by school leaders could privilege the powerful and dominance of one group over another, which could be perceived as value judgements. School managers therefore need to be sensitive to issues of conflict, interests groups, human rights and dignity, and listening to a range of perspectives before decisions are taken.
The ethic of profession has developed from the combination of the ethics of justice, care and critique (Starrat, 2004; Shapiro and Stefkovich, 2001). Each profession is regulated by an ethical code of practice. The ethic of profession is infused with the ethics of care, justice and critique and places the learners’ interests at the heart of ethical practice. When communal responses, such as religious ethos, enter into ethical practice at schools, the ethic of community prevails (Furman, 2004). In terms of driving the moral agenda in schools, the ethic of community overshadows the individual. The frameworks offered by Starrat (2004) and Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005) provide valuable insights for analysing the ethical and moral issues during an interactional event (see Chapter 10).
51 3.6 Conclusion
This chapter has mainly drawn upon Foucauldian concepts of power, space, discourse and relations of power and has indicated how such an analysis will enable us to look closely at social practices and expose power relations, subjugated knowledges and how power relations shape interactions. It allows us to see the familiar in a fresh light. The concepts of surveillance, gaze, normalisation, and discourses throw new light on to the discipline and practice of leadership and management, exposing its power relations, and its pervasive effects in shaping the ethical decisions made.
Without critical reflection and attention to power relations, school management could easily become inward looking and give inadequate attention to parents, learners and other stakeholders.
Foucault sets up a framework of critique that enables me to challenge the taken-for-granted practices in school management and leadership and how they see and think of the learners.
Foucault’s work has been criticised for failure to address the gendered nature of domination. His approach to power can be criticised in highly autocratic/ patriarchal contexts. Best and Kellner (1999) also criticise the individualistic nature of his analysis. He emphasises the ‘self’ as the agent of opposition- thus his failure to theorise the collective action in modern societies.
In the next chapter I will explore frames of meaning which actors draw upon. This is the second of the theoretical chapters.
52