Developing a theoretical framework to understand teacher’s subjectivities and emotionality
2.6 Subjectivity and spatiality: building theoretical links
The ‘emotional turn’ related to social theory and education in the last two decades, as outlined in the foregoing discussion, is coupled with a ‘spatial turn’. This ‘spatial turn’ is closely related to advances in technology, such as Internet, computers, mobile phones and air travel, which increases accessibility and erodes boundaries between people and information (Crang & Thrift, 2000; Howarth, 2006). Subjectivity, power, ethics and notions of space are inextricably interrelated (Howarth, 2006; Pile, 2008). Subjectivity, Pile (2008, p. 213) asserts, is the “process through which individuals make sense - unconsciously, emotionally, psychologically - of the shifting and colliding worlds that they live in”. From a geographical perspective, Pile (2008, p. 208) argues that a spatial dimension offers important, innovative ways to understand the ‘where’ of subjectivity and analyse “asymmetrical power relations that interpolate subjects”. Multiple forms of subject formation, he contends, take place within social, cultural and political contexts to produce flexible and dynamic subjects. He makes distinct frameworks within which subjectivity develops: frameworks of identity, power and meaning, frameworks through what individuals do (practice) and how they relate to others (ethics and care) and shifts towards frameworks that foreground affect, feelings and emotions. This draws attention to the close relation between subjectivity, power, ethics, emotions and space. Therefore, I contend that examining spatiality or where the subject is, is important when exploring subject formation and subjectivity (Lefebvre, 1991; Pile 2008).
64
Howarth (2006) argues that notions of space and its significance in social and political analysis are widely contested and remain under-theorised. By this he means that even though the significance of spatiality in studies concerning subjectivity, emotions and ethics is alluded to; “the category of space is never really defined and constructed in a rigorous theoretical fashion” (Howarth, 2006, p. 110). For Howarth (2006), space is conceptualised as either particular social or spatial contexts or sites where social and political practices and processes take place, or as spaces with properties and powers resulting in social and political consequences. However, Giddens (1984, p. 368) maintains, “space is not an empty dimension along which social groupings become structured, but has to be considered in terms of its involvement in the constitution of systems of interaction”. Giddens draws attention to the import of space in everyday face-to-face interactions and routines as well as social reproduction. Individuals, he contends, are ‘positioned’ in locales and regions as they follow their ‘time-space paths’ in created environments, however he fails to clarify exactly how space, locales and regions constitute social practice, social systems and social reproduction.
Space, according to Lefebvre (1991), is ‘political and strategic’ and central to analysis of social practices, while Soja (1996) draws attention to a ‘socio-spatial dialectic’ suggesting that space is produced culturally, and as a component of the cultural network, can be produced, adjusted, acknowledged or denied. Spatial notions of closeness and distance are also inherent in Hargreaves’s theory of emotional geographies. Spatiality and social practices are intricately entwined (Howarth, 2006; Pile, 2008). For Pile, spatial practices are social practices which entail the everyday routines of individuals within webs of power relations.
In accordance with the recent surge in research on spatiality and subjectivity (Hetherington, 2011; Howarth, 2006; Pile, 2008); spatiality, power and knowledge production (Foucault, 1984; 1980); spatiality, emotionality and ethics (Ettlinger, 2004; Zembylas & Ferreira, 2009) and spatiality and geography (Rose, 1998; Soja, 1999), I argue that integrating the notion of spatiality, even as a subsidiary theoretical component, is valuable to understand and analyse teachers’ subjectivity and emotionality and explore what goes on in the “spaces of ethical consideration and care” in classrooms where HIV and AIDS education is taught (Pile, 2008, p. 212).
65 2.6.1 Foucault’s spatial politics
Spatiality exists as an integral concern and insight implied throughout Foucault’s writings about the architectural designs of prisons, asylums, hospitals and libraries, power/knowledge, surveillance and the panopticon (Elden & Crampton, 2007; Hetherington, 2011; Thrift, 2007;
Zembylas & Ferreira, 2009). Spatiality, for Appelby (2009, p. 102), denotes “relations of power in particular places” and offers greater insight into participant’s experience and social and political contexts. Space, Foucault (1980; 1984) contends, is inextricably linked to power and knowledge. Although Foucault advocates that notions of space are relevant in architectural planning, he nevertheless illuminates that space is crucial to understand and explain “the relations that are possible between power and knowledge” (Foucault, 1980, p.69). As such, Foucault adopts a ‘spatial lens’ as an analytic tool to make sense of the inextricable link between subjectivity, power and knowledge. Foucault (1984, p. 246) puts it this way:
It is somewhat arbitrary to try to dissociate the effective practice of freedom by people, the practice of social relations, and the spatial distributions in which they find themselves. If they are separated, they become impossible to understand.
Related to Foucault’s spatial insights, are the notions of utopia and heterotopia which he delineates in terms of relational and non-relational emplacements or positions (Hetherington, 2011; Howarth, 2006; Zembylas & Ferreira, 2009). Elden and Crampton (2007) maintain that Foucault’s notion of heterotopia significantly influenced the work of Soja and Hetherington.
According to Hetherington (2011, p. 464): utopias denote “emplacements that are not real spaces but which have a broad relationship to reality that allows us to consider the real space of society as a totality in contrast to the imaginary ideal”, while heterotopia refers to “realised examples of utopia within society”. By this he means that heterotopia epitomise different, ambivalent, ‘other’ sites whose difference is emphasised by its relation or non-relation to other spaces. Howarth (2006) opines that Foucault’s notion of contradictory political and social spaces denote ‘places of heterotopia’ or spaces of ‘multiplicity or heterogeneity’.
Echoing Foucault, Howarth maintains that utopias are ‘unreal spaces’ which are directly or inversely related to real spaces, while heterotopias denote counter-sites or outside places of
66
realised utopia (2006, pp. 122-123). In the same vein, Zembylas and Ferreira (2009, p. 4) contend that Foucault’s notion of heterotopia draws attention to the “importance of space in power relations, subjectivities and knowledge development” and signify “subversive sites and places” with an inherent affective dimension that challenge normal practice (2009, p. 1).
Zembylas and Ferreira (2009) contend that affective, heterotopic spaces of the classroom, exemplify sites of resistance and transformation which are significant in identity formation.
Heterotopic, transgressive spaces, they suggest, offer teachers opportunities to stimulate alternate educational discourses and practices, challenge resistant identities beyond dominant social norms and enact new associations with the ‘other’. Zembylas and Ferreira (2009, p. 5) put it simply: “in being different spaces, heterotopias challenge the ways we think and feel, interrogate our discourses and practices, and contest the normalities in which we often settle”.
Of particular importance to this study are possibilities offered by heterotopic, affective spaces in classrooms of HIV and AIDS teaching for teachers to resist and challenge dominant social norms, constitute multiple, dynamic identities and transform their practices.
According to Foucault (1984), space is essential to understand communal life and how power is exercised. Disciplinary power, Foucault argues, shifts control to individuals who assume and internalise their constant surveillance and visibility to others, and consequently self- monitor and regulate their behaviour. In other words, his innovative analysis of the spatial implications of surveillance, power relations of the panopticon, and how knowledge is generated is related to space and power. Subjects, Foucault (1984) contends, construct their identities through a discursive system called governmentality. Central to his notion of governmentality and theory of disciplinary power are notions of surveillance and spatiality.
For Foucault (1984), surveillance has several spatial undertones which play a role in the production of knowledge. Foucault extends his notion of surveillance from prisons and hospitals to schools and society, and asserts that subjects employ ‘technologies of the self’ to influence how their own ‘selves’ as well as others perceive them. Foucault (1984) therefore argues that public space is morally regulated by such ‘technologies of the self’. Foucault’s notions of subjectivity, space and governmentality, geographers posit, are significant to examine how identity is related to space (Elden & Crampton, 2007). While Foucault (1980, p.77) admits that “geography must indeed necessarily lie at the heart of my concerns”, Elden and Crampton (2007, p. 13) acknowledge that his work “was remarkably informed by the spatial problematic”.
67
We are “intrinsically spatial beings” which draws attention to the spatial dimension of subjectivity and spatial process of teaching (Soja, 1996, p. 1). This is evident, in recent years, with a surge in interest in spatiality of classrooms and teaching (Dixon, 2007; Dornbrak, 2008; Watkins, 2010). This motivated me to consider a subsidiary spatial dimension to explore possible links between teachers’ subjectivity, emotionality and spatiality.
In this study, I contend that Foucault’s spatial politics of surveillance and his notion of heterotopia have consequence to explain and analyse power relations and knowledge production in the collective space of the HIV and AIDS classroom. This analysis may also shed light on how teachers “thought out space” in the HIV and AIDS classroom (Foucault, 1984, p. 244). Institutional spaces such as the classroom, Appleby (2009, p. 102) contends, produce teachers as subjects “who are vested with certain powers, including the power to organise and control the classroom space”. I argue that extending a spatial analysis to the HIV and AIDS classroom will offer insights into the link between teachers’ identities and emotionality, power relations and the knowledge about HIV and AIDS produced in the classroom. This study focuses on teachers’ identities, subjectivities and emotionality and how these are related to their HIV and AIDS teaching. However, as the preceding discussion intimates, subjectivity, emotionality and spatiality are inextricably linked, which motivated me to add a subsidiary spatial dimension to my theoretical framework. It is also hoped that examining the spatiality of classrooms and teaching will shed light on and contribute to an under-theorised, yet growing area of enquiry.
Although spatiality is implied in Foucault’s work (Dixon, 2007; Dornbrak, 2008; Elden &
Crampton, 2007; Thrift, 2007), Lefebvre (1991) argues that he does not make explicit whether he is referring to theoretical, practical, mental or social space. In the same vein, Soja (1996) contends that Foucault did not explicitly follow through with his notions of spatiality and criticises this as a blind spot of his work. Nevertheless, Lefebvre and Soja extend Foucault’s notions of spatiality to develop their theories on spatiality related to geography;
however, they do not directly theorise about the spatiality of classrooms and teaching. Given that the main focus of this study is teachers’ subjectivity and emotionality related to their teaching about HIV and AIDS, I believe that it is beyond the scope of this study to delve in much greater depth and theorise spatiality. This could be an avenue for further research on teachers’ subjectivity and the spatiality of teaching.
68