If we recognize ourselves in Foucault’s discourse, this is because what today, for us, is intolerable is no longer so much that which does not allow us to be what we are, as that which causes us to be what we are. (Morey, 1992, p. 125)
Introduction
The performativity culture of the contemporary TEO within which learning advisors work, as discussed in chapter two, has a significant impact on how advisors perform their role, and the grounded theory of tactical enacting clearly demonstrates the extent to which performativity drives learning advisor behaviour. While the grounded theory of tactical enacting reflects the discursive context from which it has emerged, further discussion is needed to explain the complexities of the grounded theory and to understand it fully. The work of Foucault provides “a set of effective tools for intervening within contemporary discourses of power” (Ball, 2013, p. 4), and so I employ an analytical framework related to Foucault’s (1991) concept of
governmentality as a lens through which to discuss the grounded theory of tactical enacting. The purpose of applying a governmentality framework to the grounded theory of tactical enacting is to connect the macro-level realm of the performativity organisation with the micro-level realm of learning advisor behaviour uncovering the discursive forces operating in the contemporary TEO and to add a further layer of analysis to the grounded theory for a more nuanced explanation of learning advisor behaviour.
Foucault’s concept of governmentality is a useful framework through which to
examine how, in tactical enacting, learning advisors are implicated in “techniques and procedures for directing human behaviour” (Rose, 1999a, p. 20). Governmentality provides the analytical tool with which to investigate not only how in tactical enacting
101
learning advisors are governed by performativity but also how advisors govern themselves and others in relation to performativity. The lens of governmentality will help illuminate how performativity is enacted by advisors in the everyday
performance of their role. A focus on everyday enactments of performativity (Ball, Maguire & Braun, 2012) is particularly useful when analysing learning advisor
behaviour as conceptualised in the grounded theory of tactical enacting, because such a focus positions performativity not as a force but as a mediated phenomenon (Ball et al., 2012). From the perspective of a mediated phenomenon, learning advisors, in tactical enacting,are positioned both as subjects ofperformativity and active agents in mediating and enacting performativity practices. The grounded theory of tactical enacting is strongly performative and therefore begs to be examined in more detail. Governmentality provides the analytical framework with which to examine the detail of the grounded theory as an effect of the discourse of performativity.
While the grounded theory of tactical enacting reveals learning advisor behaviour to be driven strongly by performativity and that advisors shape and make sense of themselves in relation to performativity, other drivers of behaviour are also evident in the grounded theory. These behaviour drivers include the standards advisors set for themselves and those which relate to the sort of professional they wish to be. Learning advisors shape and make sense of themselves in relation to their own standards as well as those of performativity.
Shaping and making sense of oneself – in Foucauldian terms, self-formation and the relationship one has with oneself – are central features of Foucault’s (1997a) concept of ethics. The relationship advisors have with themselves along with the self-forming work they do can be glimpsed in the grounded theory of tactical enacting. For this reasonFoucault’s concept of ethics offers an additional tool to probe more deeply into how learning advisors make sense of themselves in the performativity organisation and to discuss how this process shapes their actions and self-evaluation.
My rationale for bringing Foucault’s concept of ethics to the discussion of the grounded theory is not to propose that in tactical enacting learning advisors resist
102
performativity; it is evident they do not. Performativity is clearly normalised for advisors. However, in the light of Foucault’s assertion that an ethics of the self is “not a blueprint for political action” (McNay, 2009, p. 67), my purpose in using Foucault’s ethics in the discussion is to better understand the non-performativity drivers of
learning advisor behaviour visible in the grounded theory and to determine whether or not in tactical enacting advisors “engage self-consciously in practices that might make her/him differently” (Youdell, 2006, p. 42) given the apparent absence in the grounded theory of advisor resistance to performativity.
A methodological note: While the philosophical position underpinning this research embraces a critical realist ontology, I argue this position does not conflict with
Foucault’s more relativist one for the purposes of this research. I have taken Foucault at his word when he says his work should “be a kind of toolbox which others can
rummage through to find a tool they can use however they wish in their own area” (Foucault as cited in Nealon, 2008, p. 111). My philosophical position, which combines critical realist ontology with a pragmatist epistemology, provides space for the
adoption and use of analytical tools which will “facilitate fruitful paths of human discovery” (Powell, 2001, p. 884). Furthermore, “Foucault is a realist” (Gauthier as cited in McKerrow, 2001, p. 6) and while realist in this sense is not the philosophically critical kind, I believe Foucault would approve of the pragmatic adoption of his tools to further my critical realist intention to “improve [my] interpretations of truth”
(Cruickshank, 2003, p. 2) by discussing the emergent grounded theory through the lens of governmentality. Given the strong performativity nature of the grounded theory of tactical enacting, Foucault’s concepts of governmentality and ethics provide
appropriate, illuminative analytical tools with which to discuss the grounded theory and facilitate further discovery.
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section briefly explains Foucault’s notion of governmentality and the interrelated concepts relevant to the discussion; namely, discourse and ethics. Specific justification for using these concepts in
discussing the grounded theory is included. Section two comprises two parts. The first part of the section argues that in tactical enacting,forms of governance associated with
103
the performativity discourse of contemporary TEOs (Roberts, 2013) within which learning advisors work are rationalised and put into practice by advisors. More specifically, that learning advisors govern themselves and others; that they both are made subject and subject themselves to the performativity discourse by actively constructing a performance identity and constituting themselves as the performing subject. The second part of the section argues that in tactical enacting,learning advisors act to reconcile the performativity discourse that disciplines and normalises them by fostering an ethical sensibility and disposition in order not to be governed by performativity alone (Myers, 2008).