A Foucauldian perspective on service-learning
4.4 An exposition of the elements of the apparatus of service-learning
Foucault’s words by asking: “By whom do we consent to be directed or conducted? How do we want to be conducted? Towards what do we want to be led?” (Foucault, 2007, p. 264).
Likewise, communities and academics may also resist the subjectivities constructed in the regime of truth and, in practicing their freedom, choose to be otherwise.
It is easy to be lured by an exploration of motives and intentions in this kind of analysis, or to make judgements of good or bad. Neither of these avenues of enquiry yield useful results, as these results always depend on whose version of the truth is privileged. It is therefore more useful to examine what people actually do – their practices. It is for this reason that this study chose to focus on the practices in the context of small group critical reflection. The next chapter will explain how this was executed. Before that, it may be useful to foreground the various aspects of the service-learning endeavour that are often taken for granted, not problematised, and assumed as either neutral or beneficent. The section which follows attempts to provide a schematic for understanding critical reflection in action, that is, service-learning as it is exercised in practice. This schematic tries to foreground players in, and aspects of, the service-learning apparatus, which may otherwise not be brought to bear in our reflections on our practice.
Figure 4.1: Elements of the service-learning apparatus.
Gilbert’s (1997) original diagram of communities of practice has been utilised here and extended to try to unmask the multiple elements of the service-learning apparatus. The current diagram attempts to draw attention to the subjectivities that are constructed through the apparatus. While traditional service-learning research has focused on the skills, knowledge and understandings that service-learning produces, a Foucauldian perspective questions what ways of knowing, doing and being are privileged, in other words, what subjectivities are created and promoted. This conceptualisation of critical reflection can be used to imagine different outcomes when certain perspectives are privileged or silenced.
The reader needs to imagine, instead of this static two-dimensional representation, a
dynamic process where the circles expand and contract, and the exercise of power moves in different directions at different stages of the process.
4.4.1 Historical position
Foucault (1982) would emphasise considering the historical development of the
construction of these subjectivities. Thus, a Foucauldian perspective would argue that we need to consider the participants in the service-learning process, as well as how they have come to be constituted in their current form. Higher education institutions, for example, have their own historical traditions, which may be different in different parts of the world (depending on how higher education was born in that context, and the current influences on the form it takes). In the USA, the leaning towards a service-oriented approach in higher education developed initially through the land-grant universities (Stanton & Erasmus, 2013).
In South Africa, different institutions have their own histories, for example, formerly designated ‘black’ universities or previously advantaged institutions, which have impacted on their current form, structure and function. These ‘genealogies’ serve to privilege certain forms of governance and subjectivities. Moreover, the lecturer approaches the endeavour with her own positioning, her own sociocultural and educational history. Her gender, race, relative privilege or disadvantage and other contextual factors serve to position her in particular ways.
Likewise, communities, or the community, have their own historical position. The literature review troubled the notion that in South Africa, the term community is generally associated
with a geographic cluster that in the main consists of ‘black’ disadvantaged people. This is not how communities are constructed in other parts of the world. In the USA, the
‘community’ partner in service-learning is usually a service organisation of some sort (Stanton & Erasmus, 2013). The literature review also questioned the utility of the homogenous way of thinking about community in South Africa, as well as the manner in which it restricts community engagement to certain forms. Thus, communities have their own genealogy which constructs the members in particular kinds of ways.
As a body, students also have their own historical position. Being a student has been understood in various ways over time and geography. The subjectivity of being a student also manifests in different ways in different parts of the world, where ‘traditional’ students in one setting constitute ‘non-traditional’ students in another (e.g. school leaver, full-time versus full-time employed, mature, online student). It is useful to consider that each student who enters the service-learning process may have their own history (e.g. first generation university student) which will influence their being in the context.
4.4.2 Contexts
The figure depicts the fact that each participant in the service-learning process enters from their own sociocultural/political/historical context with its concomitant injunctions and prohibitions. The higher education institution operates within the context of the broader Department of Education. It is mandated to fulfil education policy imperatives and comply with its conditions (as per the White Paper 3, for example). In addition, within the higher education sphere, there are discourses in this regard about community engagement and the responsibilities of higher education. There are discourses within the higher education
institution itself, and structures (or the lack thereof) to support community engagement, which all direct investment (or lack thereof) in these kinds of activities.
As described above, the genealogy of a community positions it in a particular way in the broader context. This positioning depends on perceived disadvantage or privilege; racial and gender constructions; geographic location (urban or rural); origins (community-based, faith-
based), etc. Similarly, the lecturer and students are also constructed along these dimensions of privilege, race, gender and origin.
4.4.3 Within the critical reflection process
Thus, when the academic, student and community join through service-learning, these different genealogies and contexts constitute the frames and the regimes of truth within which critical reflection takes place. In the process of critical reflection, the academic enters from a particular disciplinary (in terms of academic discipline) perspective with its agenda, goals, texts, discourses, practices, and power practices, etc. As has already been explored, the agenda may be the production of activists or empathic practitioners; the goals may be to provide a challenging learning experience to sharpen skills, or to work effectively within a given community; the discipline will have its own texts and discourses; and the facilitator will have her own power practices.
The context of the academic interacts with that of the students who have their own agenda (meaningful community service, experience to improve their resume, achievement of good grades); their own prior learning experiences (including community-based experiences);
their own discourses and practices as students; and their own power practices, which they can use to resist or engage with the process.
These two participants interact with a community site where the students are based. The community site will have its own agenda (meeting specific tangible needs, participating in creating more socially conscious students); its own discourses and practices; its own local knowledge and possibly texts; and its own power practices, whereby it can embrace or resist the students’/faculties’ efforts or interventions.
The bidirectional arrows in the diagram are meant to indicate the dynamic flow of power, which can be in multiple directions. If we expand or contract any of the circles (representing the players), this would also impact on the power effects. What the diagram is attempting to depict is that, in order to understand the subjectivities that emerge from the service- learning process, we need to understand the dynamic flow of power and resistance
between the different participants in the process. The diagram also attempts to allow for the possibility of resistance, which is not explicitly captured in much of the service-learning literature. If we imagine any of the arrows being only unidirectional, or even absent, this would impact on the construction of the subjects within and through the process. The expansion or contraction of the participant ‘circles’ also allows for the possibility of hegemonic or subjugated discourses in the process.
In addition, it would be naive to assume that the critical reflection process only occurs during allocated academic sessions (and it is undesirable for it to be so). Students continue to debate issues long after class is over; they take their debates and questions to their homes, families and friendship groups. Conversations at their community sites continue, conflicts arise and are negotiated. This diagram therefore needs to be considered as only one part of different nested systems.
In one way or another, subjectivities are constructed. Ultimately, students submit evidence of their new subjectivities in papers/portfolios/assessment tasks for examination. These products are designed to demonstrate their insights and learning through the critical
reflection process. By allowing for the possibility of resistance or freedom that co-exists with power practices, we can also imagine that what the participants, and perhaps students in particular, demonstrate is their astuteness in establishing what it is that a particular
academic is looking for, the discourses, the questions and conclusions that have been ‘cued’
so effectively through the process. If critical reflection is a strategic game (Macfarlane &
Gourlay, 2009), we must anticipate that the participants will learn the rules and develop strategies and tactics for negotiating the best outcome.