Governmentality: ‘it made me think more’

Governmentality, introduced in chapter 3, involves people being educated to think and act in a way which brings their ‘inner lives’ into alignment with a dominant discourse (Usher et al., 1997). In this sense, people regulate their own conduct, ways of thinking and aspirations. For example, the National Occupational Standards which underpin academic and practice learning, discussed in chapter 2, emphasise social work students’

accountability to the Codes of Practice. The next two extracts show the operation of governmentality, as speakers respond to my request for examples of how registration had affected their ‘journey towards becoming a social worker’:

Extract 9 Angie:

1. Well it made me think more about 2. My behaviour out of

3. Out of work

4. Whereas I don’t think I’d even thought about it before […]

5. So yeah I do think it’s important actually.

Extract 10 Tom:

1. Well I’ve had to

2. Write about [being registered] in my essays 3. It comes up you know

4. In terms of 5. Ethics

6. That’s obviously a hot topic in 7. You know

8. Reflecting on my work and in my essays 9. And so I do that

10. And I often refer to the GSCC’s Codes of Practice in that […]

11. But more than 12. But

13. I am aware of it and

14. I have

15. I have thought about it 16. And I’ve thought about 17. You know

18. It is 19. Er 20. It is

21. It is a position of responsibility again 22. To have that

23. To have that registration.

Both speakers acknowledge the implications of registration for their behaviour outside work, but extract 10 is particularly interesting because it illustrates the capillary qualities of power (chapter 2) which permeates people’s thinking. The speaker initially frames his response in relation to meeting the academic requirements: he refers to the Codes in his written work. He then modifies his position, emphasising a more self-aware identification with the professional implications of registration. It could be argued that drawing on the high impact repertoire enables both speakers to construct themselves as ‘willing subjects’

ready to take up their expected positions in the regulatory discourse. In extract 10, the speaker’s reference to essay writing and reflection illustrates how students use technologies of the self (Martin, 1988) to transform themselves into social workers.

Technologies of the self are closely bound up with the concept of governmentality, because such transformations enable people to take up subject positions on which the discourse depends for its success.

Two especially striking instances of governmentality emerge in the data, as participants respond to my invitation to discuss examples of when they had felt ‘worried about breaching the GSCC Codes of Practice’. Some say that they had not worried at all; but two speakers take particular care to align their personal identities with their professional suitability.

Extract 11 Tom:

1. Well

2. I am careful not to do anything that would jeopardise my registration 3. I am

4. I’m conscious that I’ve got this 5. Registration

6. But I don’t know what I would be doing 7. To jeopardise it

8. Because I don’t 9. You know

10. I’m not that kind of person that would go out 11. And er

12. Take drugs or anything like that 13. You know it’s not

14. That’s just not me 15. So

16. I can’t imagine what I would be doing to 17. Jeopardise it

18. But

19. But yeah I am

20. Definitely aware of my 21. Er

22. Kind of position in 23. Society I guess.

Extract 12 Fran:

1. I just wondered if the process [of registering with the GSCC] had gone smoothly 2. Or whether you had any worries about the process

3. Like are they going to contact me, are they going to Jak:

4. I was surprised they didn’t 5. And the reason for that was 6. I’ve had four surnames in my past 7. For various reasons

[…]

8. Yet it wasn’t queried at all 9. And I don’t know

10. I always felt like that was a bit weird 11. And that maybe they should.

Extract 11 shows the speaker constructing a particular version of personal identity, as he takes up a subject position as a responsible member of society. He positions himself as

‘careful’ and ‘conscious of’ protecting his registration, even though he doesn’t knowingly engage in any behaviour which might ‘jeopardise’ it. In extract 12, in expressing surprise that he has not been called to account for his a-typical family background, the speaker positions himself as a subject of regulation.

Finally, I want to explore some further instances of governmentality which, compared with the extracts above, depict ambivalence towards the regulatory discourse. The students are discussing the implications of registration for off-duty behaviour. Extract 13 intentionally provides a fuller version of the interaction shown in extract 4.

Extract 13 Pete:

1. I suppose these things are reviewed and looked into properly and perhaps 2. You know

3. As long as that’s done and people are given a chance to have their say then 4. You know, that’s fine

Fran:

5. Mmm Pete:

6. We’re providing a service to vulnerable people at the end of the day 7. And if there is anything which questions people’s

8. Ability to do that work 9. Um

10. Then

11. You know, I suppose that’s [registration]

12. Definitely a good thing.

Fran:

13. I mean that’s been quite a change I think […]

Pete:

14. I suppose health and social care services are just being 15. Pulled into all sorts of scrutiny these days aren’t they and […]

16. You know

17. In terms of being accountable to 18. The public.

Extract 14 Angie:

1. As long as 2. It doesn’t get 3. Silly

[…]

4. I think it’s fair enough really.

These two speakers adopt rhetorical strategies - ‘I suppose’; ‘perhaps’; ‘as long as’ - which convey ambivalence. They modify their acceptance of registration: it is reasonable so long as the system is operated properly and fairly, with a degree of moderation. Contrasting these conceptualisations of registration with the positive ones expressed in extracts 1 - 4, I suggest that participants are facing an ideological dilemma which springs from the

contradictory discursive meanings of registration. Drawing on Billig et al., 1987, Edley (2001:204) argues that different repertoires, and the ideological dilemmas they generate,

‘do not necessarily arise spontaneously and independently, but develop together as opposing positions in an unfolding, historical, argumentative exchange’. In chapter 2, I argued that social work registration developed out of different debates: on one hand, the drive for professional status, and on the other, a response to the perceived failings of social services departments. When faced with the dilemma of aspiring to a profession whose trustworthiness and status are in question, participants are presented with a choice of taking up a subject position of either compliance or resistance. In order to reconcile the dilemma, students have to do rhetorical work to construct a reasonable subject position. For example, the speaker in extract 13 deals with the potential mistrust in his chosen profession by locating it within the wider discourse of risk and public accountability (McLaughlin, 2007).

McLaughlin’s critique (2007:1269) of registration was that it had produced the ‘24/7 social worker’, placing people under the scrutiny of their colleagues, service users and members of the public. The data shows some interesting patterns which illustrate both governmentality and the idea of being under surveillance:

Extract 15 Angie:

1. If

2. You were 3. I dunno

4. Drunk and disorderly or something and it was in the local paper

5. It doesn’t look good does it really 6. I mean it’s not good anyway but 7. You know if they do have headlines.

Extract 16 Pete:

1. I guess it doesn’t look good if 2. I don’t know

3. People are acting in a way which isn’t appropriate I guess.

It is interesting that both speakers use the phrase ‘it doesn’t look good’ to preface examples of when a social worker’s out of work behaviour might be seen and judged negatively by members of the public or the media; similar ideas are evoked in extracts 24 and 25 below.

Overall, extracts 13 – 16 suggest that the speakers arrive at a position which is both compliant and potentially resistant towards registration. As future professionals they are obliged to adhere to the regulatory discourse: but, as degree level students, it is reasonable to take a critical approach. Fleming (2005) argues that even irony and scepticism can be a form of resistance to discourse. In the next section I consider this idea further.