The kinds of subjects constructed in the service-learning process
6.5 Contradictory subjectivities
6.5.1 Professional psychologists and little girls
by examining the binaries apparent in the data, which served to construct these complicated subject positions.
talk, I proposed that students consider themselves part of this expert psychology community, even as “novices” (line 662).
In the next excerpt, from session five, I again positioned the students as psychologists:
Lisa: So we have to like really:: (.) brainwash everyone into 1080
Carol: Brainwashing 1081
Lisa: Ja 1082
Carol: Is this our role now 1083
Group: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 1084
Lisa: [( )]
1085
Anna: [( )]
1086
Carol: [manipulation and brainwashing (.) specialities of the psychologist]
1087
(Session 5)
This talk happened in the context of the students discussing their frustrations with their community partners, who were not taking up the students’ proposed interventions in the manner in which they had hoped they would. Lisa proposed resorting to “brainwashing”
(line 1081) everyone to get them to comply. I questioned this by repeating the word, which Lisa confirmed. This turned into light-hearted banter, as demonstrated by the loud laughter, the overlapping speech which could not be heard above the laughter, and my comment
“[manipulation and brainwashing (.) specialities of the psychologist]” (line 1087), which was also part of the overlapping speech. This talk at this time in the discussion served to provide some relief from the reports of frustration, but in addition, in my talk I position the students as having the role of the psychologist. In the use of “our” (line 1083), I indicate that the students and I are on the same level and, at the same time, propose two sophisticated (if dubious) skills of “manipulation and brainwashing” (line 1087).
The talk thus positions the students as professional psychologists. Whilst the students take up this position, they also characterise themselves as inadequate. The following excerpts from sessions six and seven illustrate this.
Anna: So maybe just find (.) make sure that he:: (.) like just meet with him for 1810
about five ten minutes and see (..) and then (.) introduce ourselves to the 1811
teachers ask them to introduce [themselves to us]
1812
Lisa: [Maybe it would be nice if he] can introduce us 1813
Unclear: Ja 1814
Anna: Introduce us ja 1815
Lisa: For him to (.) you know set the [( )]
1816
Carol: [Ja]
1817
Lisa: So it’s just not these three lil girls coming in and 1818
Mary: It would be better for him to introduce us 1819
(Session 6)
In this excerpt, the students were planning for a workshop at their community site and they emphasised the importance of the principal (“he” (line 1810)) introducing them so that they were not construed as “three lil girls” (line 1818). Lisa proposed that the introduction was made by someone else in order to avoid being disregarded by the participants; once she had made her argument, Mary agreed that this was a good idea.
This issue emerges again in the following session:
Lisa: Before we we we (.) we organised N*[[speaker]] (.) and even phoned 1174
L*[[NGO]] we were talking about it (.) that (.) the reception we received on the 1175
first visit was who are you like I felt like who are you young child to come here 1176
and tell me how to do my job 1177
(Session 7)
Lisa reported that she felt like she was perceived as a “young child” (line 1176) who was imposing on the community site. Her repetition of “who are you” (line 1176) serves to indicate her lack of authority in the context, and her positioning as a childish impostor.
Despite positioning the students as psychologists, in session three I also position them as inadequate by referring to them as “pipsqueaks”, as per the excerpt below:
Anna: Tsyooh it’s so many I mean we have 17 staff for 600 kids (.) it’s so:: like 660 you think about it and it’s just
661 Carol: The ratios
662 Anna: I don’t know how these people haven’t jumped off a cliff 663 Carol: Exactly (.) exactly
664 Anna: I would have
665 Carol: [And now here] come these pipsqueaks saying 666 Elle: [And now we]
667 ((Breaks down into laughter and people talking over each other – unclear)) 668 (Session 3)
Anna was relating the challenging context that the teachers work in, as well as her
recognition of how difficult this must be: “I don’t know how these people haven’t jumped off a cliff” (line 663), and that she would not have coped: “I would have” (line 665) [jumped
off a cliff]. I agreed with her characterisation of the context and then referred to the students as “pipsqueaks” (line 666). Not only did I refer to them as pipsqueaks, but in the talk, I presented them as presumptuous by stating “[And now here] come these pipsqueaks saying” (line 666). In the context of the discussion, this statement served to characterise them as slightly brazen to assume they know and understand what the educators are experiencing, and how they should change. This exchange also results in laughter and overlapping speech, but the characterisation remains.
Positioning the students as professional psychologists serves to construct them as highly skilled workers who have consequent responsibilities in the communities in which they are working. The position of little girl or pipsqueak speaks to their inadequacy in the context, and their lack of capacity to effect change. The service-learning subject is therefore a professional psychologist – pipsqueak little girl.