Tools and Objects.

Vygotsky’s view of the use of psychological tools, including signs, has been utilised as a theoretical underpinning for this study and the work of Friere (1972), including his understanding of the word ‘object’, has been employed as a framework for implementing the research reported in this thesis.

It would seem an unnecessary duplication to list all of the identified tools again when they have already been listed in the corresponding chapters. It seems potentially more fruitful to briefly compare the investigations in terms of which of them refer to objects and which do not. The word ‘objects’ is used here to denote that construction, achieved by talk and practices, in social relations, by which some of those affected by the talk and practices are involved without actually having the right or freedom to ‘say’ anything; a usage consistent with Freire’s (1972) use of this word. Seen from this perspective, both Investigation 3 and Investigation 4 could be said not to reflect a social reality in which objects are created in such a way as that just described.

The talk and practices selected in those investigations emphasised the children’s autonomy, their right to feel that which they felt and to identify and to express those feelings. The talk employed at times of breaking sad news and the talk which surrounded death and bereavement identified in the narratives recounted in Investigation 1, however, for whatever good motives, deprived those individuals of the freedom to ‘speak their own word’ and to ‘name their world’ (Freire, 1972). These texts consisted of talk which did not communicate important things that needed to be communicated and, thereby, created silence between each

188

of the four children telling their narratives now as adults and the adults in their world, when they were children, but also, thereby, created a situation for each of those children in which they, too, were compelled to be silent. The practices employed by some professionals mentioned by counsellors in the interviews for Investigation 4 represented a depersonalising way of communicating or failing to communicate with bereaved children and, therefore, by definition, those children were treated as ‘objects’. For children to receive no reply when they are trying to communicate something important, be that consciously and verbally or unconsciously and behaviourally, from adults who are entrusted to provide care for them is, it could be argued, to fail to treat them as human beings.

The objects which appear in the texts cited in the ‘Ethics’ section of Chapter 4 involved the complication that some of those objects were constituted in the texts in such a way that, although they are expressed as ‘objects’, they also contain implications of some ‘subject’ realized elsewhere in the texts by means of the rights of some person or body to speak or act in ways which remove from or deny that right to others. Examples of this included: “the NHS” and “the Association”. The conclusion was reached that the ‘objects’ with implicit ‘subjects’ were referred to as ‘objects’ because to talk about them as ‘objects’ serves to present them as ‘objective’ things or processes and this serves the purposes implicit within those texts. It was noticed, at the same time, that there are ‘objects’ which sound like ‘subjects’ but are actually treated in an ‘objectified’ manner (which should be distinguished from an ‘objective’ manner). Examples included: “a child”, when referred to in the context of a child’s ‘best interest’ and “the patient” when referred to in the context of giving consent. A further complication identified in that investigation was that the texts use the word ‘subject’ to mean someone who participates in a research project whereas this thesis normally refers to

189

a ‘subject’ in the sense in which Freire (1972) uses the word, that is, to denote a person who is neither oppressed nor oppressing another.

The orphan protagonists of the various literary narratives examined in Investigation 2 are all constructed as objects by the texts and practices illustrated in those narratives with the sole exception of Daniel in The Shadow of the Wind who, the researcher suggests, is the only orphan protagonist to overcome by being a ‘subject’ and who experiences the reality of ‘dialogue’ and of being able to ‘name the world’ and ‘speak his own word’. It is a further suggestion of this thesis that, in addition to the principal characters in the other narratives, there are other child characters who are depicted in ways which show their construction as objects by the texts and practices described. It is not suggested that this construction is in any way intentional on the part of the authors but it is proposed that the depiction represents a shared aspect of human social reality and a common adult reaction to children’s grief and distress.

The talk and practices implicit in the programme evaluated in Investigation 5 were, of course, the same as those examined in Investigations 3 and 4, and which, it has already been noted, above, emphasised the children’s autonomy, their right to feel that which they felt and to identify and to express those feelings. The talk and practices did not ‘objectify’ the children who attended the support programme. Therefore, along with both Investigation 3 and Investigation 4, it is suggested here that the evidence of Investigation 5, of positive evaluation of the programme by the participants, whilst not answering every question about children’s grief, does support the proposition that not to ‘objectify’ children does result in helpful outcomes for grieving and distressed children.

190 3) Subjects.

Freire (1972) refers to subjects as speaking their own word and not oppressing or being oppressed. In the researcher’s view, some accounts of discourse analysis in critical psychology (for example Burman and Parker, 1993) in comparison with Freire’s work (1972) refer to a subject as being a person who has the right to speak but may not, by means of the discourse, allow others the same right to speak. It may, in fact, be the case that the operation of the discourse does itself objectify others in ways that prevent them from speaking (Parker, 1992). Freire, however, uses the word ‘subject’ to denote a person who is neither oppressed nor oppressing (1972). This difference in denotation is explored further, below.

It has already been noted, above, in commenting on Investigations 3, 4 and 5, that the counsellors and adult helpers in the bereavement support programme facilitated the children’s communication in such a way that they were able to function as subjects rather than as objects.

The adults were responsible for physical and emotional safety of the children whilst they were attending the premises used for the group sessions but the communication style adopted was based upon a belief that children are able to communicate in their own way and that they have the right to decide how and whether they will do so. Such a belief implicitly leaves no room for ‘objectifying’ those whose communication the adults are attempting to facilitate. This argument is pursued further, below, in discussing implications for theory and for methods of analysis.

In Investigation 1, the adults functioned as ‘subjects’, in the critical psychology, discourse analysis, understanding of this term, whilst the bereaved children were placed in the role of ‘objects’ since the former knew the truth about events and were able to speak about them if

191

they wished whilst the latter were kept ignorant of events and adults did not speak the truth to them about those events. By not responding to the expression of children’s feelings, and thus by ‘control’, by abdicating responsibility and by employing depersonalising styles of communication, the professionals referred to by counsellors in Investigation 4 maintained the position of ‘subject’ and placed the children in the position of ‘objects’. This provides a helpful illustration of the use of the term ‘subject’ in discourse analytic work such as that of Burman and Parker (1993) which can be compared and contrasted with Freire’s concept of ‘subject’ (1972).

The subjects in the instances of communication with ethics committees recounted on Chapter 4 were the members of the research ethics committees and the professionals effectively served by those committees. Objects defined by those texts have already been seen as: the ‘subjects’ of research projects, children, patients and, in certain ways, applicants to the committees. If successful in their applications to conduct research, of course, the researcher may then, in their turn, become a ‘subject’ if they adopt an approach which is not ‘emancipatory’ in character. ‘Subjects’ discernible in Investigation 2 are children’s guardians such as Pip’s sister, Jane’s aunt and the beadle and surviving parents such as Amir’s father and Finn’s mother. The issue of what subjects are contained in the texts employed in Investigation 5 has already been addressed in the course of the discussion, above, about that investigation and Investigations 3 and 4 since the communication style examined belonged to the same interactions although they were investigated in three separate ways.