Practice

The third facet of an institution is Practice which, for the purpose of this thesis, I define as the act of doing within the Space of an institution guided by the Text for example, teaching interest as natural and beneficial or considering interest to be Haram. The Practice facet of the institution is therefore the process through which an individual produces self- understanding and examination for his own conduct as well as judge the conduct of others. Rabinow (1984, p.11) argues that Foucault has been “primarily concerned with isolating those techniques through which the person initiates an active self-formation … [that] takes place through a variety of operations on [people’s] own bodies, on their own thoughts, on their own conduct”.

Current strands in institutional theory, specifically, institutional work and institutional logic, approach institutions from a Practice facet and has been theorized and studied as the

originator of change/stability or disruption in the process of institutionalization. The theorization of the Practice facet of the institution includes collective action, micro- foundation, macro-foundation and performativity (see for example Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Czarniawska, 2009; Hambrick & Chen, 2008; Hargrave & Van De Ven, 2006; Lawrence & Phillips, 2004; Lounsbury, 2002, 2007, 2008; Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007; Lounsbury & Ventresca, 2003; MacKenzie, 2003, 2006, 2009; Millo & MacKenzie, 2009; Mutch, Delbridge, & Ventresca, 2006).

Practice, as defined in this thesis, links the subject position (identity) created through Space and Text of the institution with the actions of the individuals seeking to establish or refute the subject position. Practice in this sense provides the “tangible focal point for shifts or alternations in institutional logics” (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 129). In other words, Practice enables the mobilization of resources and efforts towards or in opposition to the identity

(Hambrick & Chen, 2008; Prichard, 2004), and Space and Text provide a collective identity that is materialized/ marginalized in Practice that involves the mechanism of dominance and resistance. Schneiberg and Lounsbury (2008) argue that mobilization can come from both within and outside of the institution and often involves an exploitation of existing contradiction within the identities and multiple logics.

An important point worth mentioning here is that the distinction between Space, Text and Practice is somewhat subjective. While a classroom can be categorized as a Space when it is studied in relation to the department, the classroom in itself remains a combination of Space, Text and Practice. Similarly the department within a university can be categorized as Space when it is studied in relation to the university. Any deviation from the current level of analysis will change the system of differentiation between these facets of discourse. Thus, 82

while it is tempting to understand a piece of legislation or policy as Text, that text is a combination of Space, Text and Practice.

To conclude, a study of institutionalization will involve looking for discursive relations between the Space, Text and Practice facets of a discourse that creates a subject position. To understand the process of institutionalization, we need to understand how the three facets of the discourse are interrelated and actualize themselves through subject positions. If I am permitted to present the argument graphically it will look like:

The diagram above represents the two phases of power/knowledge. The solid lines, the first phase of institutionalization, create subject positions based on the facets of discourse i.e. Space, Text and Practice. The dotted line shows relations between the subject positions and Space, Text and Practice represent the second phase of power/knowledge. As argued earlier in Chapter Three, power/knowledge is actualized through the subjects who create further avenues for the exercise of power. To put the argument in an example, the four

F a cet s o f D isco u rse Space Text Practice S u b je ct P o sitio n A S u b je ct P o sitio n B S u b je ct P o sitio n C S u b je ct P o sitio n D

Figure 4.2: Space, Text and Practice as Enablers of the Subject Position

subject position are the ones which I encounter on daily basis: A, as a family member (a father and husband); B, as a researcher (doing PhD work); C, as a pupil (working under supervisors); and finally D, as a Muslim (religion discourse). Each of these subject positions overcomes the other when exposure to Space, Text and Practice changes. This exposure to Space, Text and Practice, with their respective temporal dynamics, guides me towards the appropriate behaviour (norm) for further exercising of the subject position. If we are to accept the definition of the institution as the provider of the guided pattern for appropriate action, then one can argue that the institution is itself a product of discourse through its facets of Space, Text and Practice and their interrelationship.

The Text or guiding principles (of an institution) however are not given nor are their existence a priori. They are a product of political efforts surrounding displacements, discontinuities, ruptures, domination, oppressions and pleasures. Foucault’s studies have been about bringing back the contested nature of the order that appears as a-political. By analysing the Space, Text and Practice surrounding an institution we can re-politicize the orders. In other words, studying institutionalization guided by Space, Text and Practice will incorporate the lost “ruptures and discontinuities” in an analysis of history and thereby “portray the past as a series of events unfolding into the present (Kearins & Hooper, 2002, p. 736)”. Through these we seek to understand the political history between discourses and get an understanding of how they led to the emergence of objective truths. For example, if we are to take the subject position that I occupy as father while working under the institution of family, it is not given a priori. There are constant discourses involved around how a father is to behave e.g. the discourses of family violence, child education, religious and other fiduciary duties towards raising a child. All these discourses construct the Space, Text and Practice of fatherhood. Also, the child-raising practices today are different from the practice of child- raising say a decade ago. While disciplining a child would have been an acceptable way of

raising them, the same disciplining is now classified as family violence. In the case of this thesis, discursive institutionalization guided by Space, Text and Practice relations highlight how various ruptures and discontinuities led to what is understood as objective knowledge in academic finance. Human sciences (such as finance) requires for its emergence and application a body of knowledge “that is not only created through the functioning of disciplinary institutions and technologies but provides, in itself, the basis for controlling in individuals” (Loft, 1988, p. 19). The figure below represents the argument graphically:

As depicted in the figure above, the subject position is a product of the discourses generated through a number of Space, Text and Practice facets of discourses originating from the institutions who themselves are a product of Space, Text and Practice and are exposed to this based on the inter-institutional system of organization.

Institution A

Constructed through its own exposure to Space,

Text and Practice

Institution C

Constructed through its own exposure to Space,

Text and Practice

Institution B

Constructed through its own exposure to Space,

Text and Practice

Institution D

Constructed through its own exposure to Space,

Text and Practice

Subject Position

Constructed through Space, Text and Practice from competing and collaborating

institutions

Figure 4.3: Institutions as Product of Space, Text and Practice

In other words, to study institutionalization one needs to understand the different subject positions originating from the competing and collaborating institutions through promulgating its own Space, Text and Practice facets of a discourse. Graphically, the argument can be represented by combining the two Figures 4.2 and 4.3 above.

Figure 4.4: Understanding Institutionalization

Subject Position A Actualized through Space Text

and Practice

Subject Position D Actualized through Space

Text and Practice

Subject Position C Actualized through Space

Text and Practice Institution B

Promulgated through its own Space Text and

Practice

Institution C Promulgated through its

own Space Text and Practice

Institution E Promulgated through its

own Space Text and Practice

Institution D Promulgated through its

own Space Text and Practice Institution A

Promulgated through its own Space Text and

Practice

Subject Position B Actualized through Space

Text and Practice