Content uploaded by Viliem Kurtulaj
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Viliem Kurtulaj on Aug 06, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences
Year: 2021, Volume: 54, Issue: 2, 627-644
DOI: 10.30964/auebfd.809552, E-ISSN: 2458-8342, P-ISSN: 1301-3718
Power Relations and Exercise in Educational
Institutions
ARTICLE TYPE
Received Date
Accepted Date
Published Date
Review Article
10.12.2020
04.22.2021
05.01.2021
Viliem Kurtulaj
1
Eötvös Loránd University
Abstract
The exercise of power can be noticed in any social or institutional relationship. In educational
institutions, especially in the pre-university ones, power exercise can have a greater impact as
students are not yet fully developed personalities or full subjects. This theoretical research is
mainly based on a Foucauldian approach in terms of exploring and analyzing power relations
in pre-university educational institutions. A deeper understanding of power exercise effects in
schools might give school leaders, teachers and students the opportunity and the means to
handle and control power relations during the educational process. At educational institutions,
power is exercised by all actors, but in different proportions and dimensions. Power exercise
can be controlled if the actors are aware of the power they exercise and the power that is
exercised on them. The paper argues that, since the power exercise cannot be avoided and the
authority in classroom remains the same, one of the ways in which power exercise can be
controlled is through the teaching methods. It shows that the most appropriate form of teaching
is the one that does not try to conceal or hide the exercise of power through changing the
techniques of teaching.
Keywords: Education, pedagogy, power relations, school, Michel Foucault.
Ethics Committee Decision: This study does not include human subjects, thus ethics committee
approval decision is not needed.
1
Corresponding Author: PhD Candidate, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Doctoral School of
Education, e-mail: viliemkurtulaj@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-8475
628 Viliem Kurtulaj
When discourse gets institutionalized in society, it tends to produce truths for
the whole society and each truth is accompanied by power. As communication and
discourse take place in the educational process, a kind of power is exercised, because
power may be produced anywhere, at any time, at any point within each relation
(Foucault, 2011). An educational institution, such as the school, is supposed to be a
place and space where knowledge is learned and produced, and the students' talents,
interests, and tendencies are discovered and developed. In order to be such, the
educational institution should be a place of freedom where power exercises cannot
impose limitations and restrictions on the actors involved (students or teachers).
Therefore, it is important to understand how the power relations influence the
knowledge creation and transmission process, as well as the actors in educational
institutions. Using Foucault's (1980; 2009; 2011) approach to the exercise of power,
the aim of this paper is to analyse the power relations in pre-university educational
institutions in order to understand how the exercise of power affects the educational
process and quality. The terms pupil and student will be used here to refer to children
and adolescents studying at primary and secondary schools respectively. Preschool
education institutions and pupils, and higher education institutions and students,
however, are not taken into account. Pupils in preschool institutions are not analysed
here because they, as a result of their very young age, are educated in a more informal
way, including entertainment such as games, playgrounds, etc. University students are
not part of this study either, as they are over 18 years old and in most democratic
countries are legally considered responsible subjects. In view of the above, the study
attempts to answer the following research questions:
1. How do power relations influence the quality of pre-university education?
2. How can the effects of power exercise in the classroom be controlled?
This theoretical research paper intends to answer the above research questions
by revealing and analysing power relations and the exercise of power in the classroom
in two different approaches to pedagogy, namely manipulative pedagogy and
communicative pedagogy, and the two main forms of teaching, the so called non-
interactive approach, known widely as lecture, and the interactive approach, known
as seminar.
The article pursues a philosophical approach. The main concepts that operate on
the plane of immanence of this study are education and power. Therefore, this
research deals and works with the meanings and implications of these two concepts,
critically analysing the literature on the topic, and especially Michel Foucault’s (1971,
1982) works, which deal with the concept of power and its application in education.
However, other approaches, related to education and the exercise of power by authors
such as Biesta (1998), Deacon (2006), Young (1990) or Freire (1982), are also dealt
with to offer new insights into the field of philosophy of education.
In addition to the aforementioned authors, of course, there have been other
researchers who have also worked on this topic from different perspectives. One of
Power Relations and Exercise in Educational Institutions 629
them is Michael W. Apple. According to him, within and outside the school, there are
significant conflicts over knowledge and power relations. The educational process at
school cannot be considered value-free but part of the world of experience. Apple
claims that there is no one textual authority, nor one definitive set of facts that is
divorced from its context of power relations. Schools are an integral part of a
complicated and intertwined system that provides legitimacy to social groups and
allows for the re-creation, maintenance, and ongoing construction of social and
cultural ideologies (Apple, 1986). The pedagogical process inevitably contains power
relations. In school, power is exercised by each participant and by the knowledge itself
that circulates and disseminates there. Apple sees education as interconnected with at
least three elements: culture, government and economy. Consequently, the
educational process takes place in an environment where power exercise is present.
Regardless of the way of teaching, it is important that the teacher does not conceive
of the student as an object because, as Apple says, if a teacher treats a student as
“really dumb”, s/he might become “really dumb”. Moreover, he thinks that the
learning process in the classroom is also influenced by other extra-classroom power
relations related to social structure, such as symbolic context and material
circumstances. In the classroom, pedagogy should recognize the different social
positions and cultural repertoires, and the power relations between them. As a result,
Apple suggests that the methods of communication and the forms of control in the
classroom have to be seen as a dialectical relationship between ideology and material
and economic environment (Apple, 2013).
In their book Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1990), Bourdieu
and Passeron conclude that authority originating from school-based knowledge was
not only highly subjective but also reflective of a major power or cultural authority at
work. Another researcher, Paul Willis, conceived of pedagogy at school as an
instrument that plays an often-mystified role in the articulations of instrumentalism
and expressivism. In his view, remaining educational autonomies, as well as their
hopes for inclusion in emancipatory practices and initiatives, has to be fashioned on
the grounds of relations of production and relations of consumption (Willis, 1999).
Dissemination and acquisition of knowledge in school is not a linear, neutral,
technical, or mechanical process. On the contrary, it is much more complex and it
obtains power as well. Fiske (1989, p. 149) stated that “Knowledge is never neutral,
it never exists in an empiricist, objective relationship to the real. Knowledge is power,
and the circulation of knowledge is part of the social distribution of power.”
Regarding knowledge disseminated in school, Apple (1990) considered as naive to
think of the school curriculum as neutral knowledge.
Theoretical Framework
I do not know whether I completely agree with Foucault (2009, pp. 96-97) that
any discourse produces truths and consequently produces power, but I do agree that
discourses produce power. One can say that power is mainly produced by force rather
than by discourses. Actually, the concept of power has been treated by many authors
630 Viliem Kurtulaj
in different fields of social sciences, and each of them has given this term specific
features. In this paper, I use the concept of power as defined by Foucault:
The characteristic feature of power is that some men can more or less
entirely determine other men's conduct - but never exhaustively or
coercively. A man who is chained and beaten is subject to force being
exerted over him, not power (Foucault, 2002, p. 324).
Power here is not conceived as something exclusive that belongs entirely to
someone and not at all to someone else. Power cannot be treated as an object which
can be given, exchanged or recovered but as an action that can be exercised. Power is
never centralized only in one place or in one individual's possession. Certain bodies,
gestures, discourses, and desires are some of the prime effects of power which can
identify and constitute individuals. A person is both an effect of power and an element
of power's articulation. So power constitutes the individual, but at the same time, it is
the individuals who give shape to power. The individual is a vehicle of power as an
exerciser, conveyor, and resultant (Foucault, 1980).
Since education is one of the many forms of social interactions, pedagogy is an
area where discourses take place and play an important role. According to Biesta
(1998), in his paper entitled “Pedagogy Without Humanism: Foucault and the Subject
of Education”, there are two main concepts of education: A) education as
manipulation; and b) education as communication. If we make a distinction in eras,
manipulative pedagogy is mostly related to the modern era, whilst communicative
pedagogy is mostly related to the postmodern era. Referring the first concept
(manipulative pedagogy), teacher and student enter into communication in the
classroom as unequal. On the other hand, there is communicative pedagogy, which is
related to postmodernism. The latter does not see education as merely instrumental
relation. According to communicative pedagogy, education, as an instrumental
relation, ignores the emerging personhood of the pupil/student. In communicative
pedagogy, teacher and student are considered equal in the teaching-learning process
at the school. From a narrow perspective, one can say that if manipulative pedagogy
is applied, the impact of the power exercise is strong because the teacher directly
exercises power on the pupil/student; whereas if communicative pedagogy is applied,
the impact of the power exercise is weaker because both sides (teacher – pupil/student)
exercise power in an interactive process and consequently oppose each other impact.
In the classroom, the discourse which gets institutionalized is, most probably, the
discourse of the teacher because s/he is the authority. So, the teacher’s discourse
produces truths for the pupils/students. As a result, it is the teacher who exercises
power on the students. Nevertheless, this is only half the picture. Referring to Foucault
(2011), the exercising of power is not that simple and does not work exactly that way.
He states that power is found everywhere because power may be produced at any time,
at any point within each relationship. Power relations can be seen as a net, where
points from where power is exercised can be anywhere, and points over whom power
is exercised can also be anywhere. Power is everywhere... because it comes from
Power Relations and Exercise in Educational Institutions 631
anywhere (Foucault, 2011, p. 123). Consequently, the claim to eradicate the exercise
of power in the classroom by changing teaching techniques seems impossible. In any
situation, the persons involved will continue to exercise power over each other, in
different proportions, even without their knowledge or intent.
Manipulative Pedagogy vs. Communicative Pedagogy
In manipulative pedagogy, the teacher and the student are unequal in the
communication process in the classroom because the teacher is adult and consequently
is considered subject, whereas the same thing cannot be said for the pupil/student
because s/he is underage and in an ongoing formal learning process. The pupil/student
is considered as a potential subject or subject to be. So, the relation teacher –
pupil/student here is asymmetric. The pupil/student is still in the process of becoming
subject, influenced by the (manipulative) pedagogical process.
As I mentioned in the previous parts, modernism is associated with the
manipulative form of pedagogy, while later, postmodernism brought changes into the
form of pedagogy by shifting from the manipulative method to the communicative
method, claiming that in the new pedagogical form, the manipulation of students by
teachers has to be avoided (Biesta, 1998). On the other hand, manipulative pedagogy
does not try to deny student manipulation by the teacher. On the contrary, it has its
own arguments for why the teacher should manipulate the pupils and students, instead
of pursuing symmetrical communication between equals in the classroom (Peters,
1963; Young, 1990; Gössling, 1993).
Manipulative pedagogy stands behind the idea that education in schools has to
be asymmetrical because the relation between the teacher and the learners is a relation
between two non-equal subjects, or to say it clearly, between someone who already is
a subject (the teacher) and others who yet have to become subjects (the learners)
(Biesta, 1998). So, the teacher has a mission to complete. S/he has to work on a
process of teaching and the subject-formation of the students. In this respect, the
concept of Freire (2005, p. 65) known as critical pedagogy or liberatory pedagogy
could help us. Freire goes further by stating that critical/liberatory pedagogy helps
both the teacher and the students to become subjects by developing consciousness. He
considers consciousness as a condition for a human to become a subject (Freire, 1982).
The teacher, who is an adult, and educated and trained to be such, is normally
conscious of the contexts and the consequences of her/his actions. Consequently, the
teacher is a subject. Meanwhile, the same cannot be said for the students under 18
years of age. As far as education is a teaching-learning process between subject and
yet non-subjects, it is the duty of the teacher to manipulate pupils/students in order to
help them in the process of subject-formation. The first step in helping the students
become subjects is to make them aware and conscious that they are not yet full
subjects, therefore, in this phase, they need to be taught/manipulated by a professional
and specialized subject such as the teacher.
632 Viliem Kurtulaj
Manipulative pedagogy sees the student identity as an outcome of pedagogical
influence. It considers subjectivity an effect of pedagogical impact. “This shows that
the modern (manipulative) pedagogical project is founded upon a normative
presupposition, namely, the irreducible value of the (emerging) subjectivity of the
child.” (Biesta, 1998, p. 3). Especially, pupils are not yet capable or prepared of real
dialogue and communication. “The pupil is thought to lack communicative
competency… in a strict sense in which communicative competency is thought to
consist of the social capacity for entering into argumentation and the cognitive
capacity to generate or criticize arguments.” (Young, 1990, pp. 111-115). Children
can and must enter the “Palace of Communication” through the “Courtyard of
Manipulation” (Peters, 1963, p. 55). So, education is seen as a trajectory where
manipulation eventually develops into communication during the time.
Another factor, which can be used as an argument in favour of manipulative
pedagogy is age. Each person - including the pupils and students - is not considered a
full subject until a certain age. Communicative pedagogy states that education has to
be a communication process between subjects (Biesta, 1998, pp. 3-5). From here, one
might raise the question: At what age is a person or student considered a full or real
subject (subject with full responsibility)? For example, the vast majority of countries
in the world do not consider the people under the age of 18 (usually) as full subjects,
therefore their parents or legal guardians are responsible for them and the
consequences of their actions. Being under the age of 18, they lack many rights,
including the right to vote, which is one of the fundamental human rights in the
democratic world. The lack of these rights for people under the age of 18 is widely
regarded as fair because full rights are for full subjects. A person, under the age of 18,
is an incomplete subject, therefore, s/he enjoys incomplete rights. One of these rights
that is denied can be their right to communicative pedagogy. If pedagogy takes this
criterion to consider the student as a subject or not - a criterion legitimized by almost
all countries regarding several rights - then manipulative pedagogy becomes
inevitable, and communicative pedagogy becomes ineffective, since communication
– especially in the official institutions - is considered a process that occurs between
subjects. As a result, the student in the school has to be manipulated by the teacher for
her/his own good as long as s/he is not yet a complete subject.
On the other hand, communicative pedagogy, as can be understood, stands
behind the idea of the need for free and noncoercive communication in the classroom.
As closely related to the postmodernist concepts, this pedagogical theory deconstructs
the modernist idea of the human subject as autonomous, independent, rational or pre-
social. Human being here is considered as produced by a number of factors and
discursive practices. From a Foucauldian perspective, school education is considered
a process of intersubjective relations; therefore, it is not a deep or profound truth about
human subjectivity. The individual (teacher or student) is a product of several power
relations. A relation between the pupils/students and the teacher is created through
intercommunication. This relation should be equal and symmetrical. Unlike
manipulative pedagogy, which states that education is a manipulation trajectory that
Power Relations and Exercise in Educational Institutions 633
can be developed into communication, communicative pedagogy states that the
educational process should always be a communicative trajectory (Biesta, 1998).
Nevertheless, although the students are not yet full subjects, some sort of
dialogue in the classroom can be helpful to them. This does not mean that students are
equal to the teacher during the teaching process in the classroom. We would be naive
to believe it. Nor does it mean that students should be an equal part of a
communication process in the classroom because, like the teacher, they have to teach
as well, but they should be allowed to express themselves. The classroom dialogue
should also serve to give students the opportunity to learn how to articulate. Freire
(1992) also supports the idea of dialogue in the classroom by stating the following:
Dialogue between teachers and students does not place them on the same
footing professionally ... Teachers and students are not identical ... After
all, it is a difference between them that makes them precisely students or
teachers. Were they simply identical, each could be the other. Dialogue
is meaningful precisely because the dialogical subjects, the agents in the
dialogue, not only retain their identity, but actively defend it, and thus
grow together. Precisely on this account, dialogue does not level them,
does not 'even them out,' reduce them to each other. (Freire, 1992, p. 101).
Even though communication is a necessary element in education for Freire, he
sees it as a dialog that does not mean equality in the relationship between the teacher
and the students. The teacher remains the authority in the teaching-learning process.
In the classroom, the teacher is still the authority, but s/he should not be authoritarian
(Wayne, 2007).
Power Exercise in the Classroom
Based on the approaches of many scholars and philosophers, such as Foucault
(1982), Biesta (1998), it can be stated that educational institutions are a kind of
communication institution where power is exercised as well. Moreover, according to
Foucault, “What distinguishes educational institutions from prisons, hospitals, and
armies is that educational institutions emphasize more ‘communication’ rather than
‘capacity’ and ‘power’.” (Foucault, 1982, pp. 218-219). So, there is no doubt that
communication is a very important element at schools. The power exercised during
communication in the classroom is all-around and can come from all participating
actors, of course in different proportions. It may very rarely happen that the exercise
of power is one-sided.
In the school, those who are supposed to exercise power (the teachers) are caught
up and subjected by the power relation, maybe as much as those over whom power is
supposed to be exercised (the students). Not rarely, the teachers work under the
invisible pressure of those over whom power is exercised. It is an undeniable fact that
students also put pressure on teachers through communication and gestures. Teachers
also can feel the pressure of the students even if the students do not speak at all, for
634 Viliem Kurtulaj
example through their critical gazes or mimics, just as students often feel the pressure
of teachers even when the latter do not speak (Deacon, 2006).
Non-interactive (Lecture) vs. Interactive (Seminar)
To understand what form of teaching exercises more power or less power,
Foucault explores the two most prominent forms of teaching, the lecture (non-
interactive pedagogy) and the seminar (interactive pedagogy) (Foucault, 1971, pp.
199-200). Apparently, the lecture is non-reciprocal, asymmetric and unequal in terms
of communication and power relations. The seminar, on the other hand, tends to be
more equal, symmetrical and reciprocal. At the seminar, the teacher exercises less
power over the students because this form of teaching makes it possible for the power
to come and be exercised to all more equally. On the other hand, at the lecture, the
only speaker is the lecturer, so power through the discourse is exercised only in one
direction, from the lecturer to the students. In fact, Foucault (1971) argues that the
real power relations in the classroom are exercised differently.
According to Foucault, the lecture is more honest and less sly than the seminar
in terms of the relations of power because it does not try to hide or camouflage the
power that the teacher has and that is exercised in the classroom. To be clear, in both
teaching methods there are inevitably power relations and exercise. The difference in
power relations hides behind the claims of the two teaching methods.
A lecture which is tentative about its truth-claims and which exposes itself
to criticism might neutralize power relations by rendering them more
visible; whereas the ostensible freedom and reciprocity of the seminar may
disguise power relations to the extent that students uncritically absorb what
is only the informed opinion of the teacher. (Deacon, 2006, p. 184).
When the student attends a lecture, s/he is aware of the power exercised by the
teacher/lecturer in the classroom or auditorium. In this way, being aware of it, the
student is prepared to face the power exercised by the teacher. Consequently, being
aware and prepared, s/he is less exposed to this exercise of power over her/him.
On the other hand, the students attend the seminar with the thought that there
they will participate in a communication process where are all equal and free to speak,
and consequently, no power is exercised over them. The seminar gives everyone the
opportunity to speak and express themselves. On the practical side, seminar makes
the teacher more equal with the students. In this way, the seminar claims that there is
less power exercised, since the figure of power, that is the teacher, becomes part of
the discussion with students. Thus, the students, seeing the form of the seminar where
the teacher does not speak all the time, but converse with them, are unaware of the
power exercised at the seminar and therefore are unprepared for it. Not being prepared
for the power that can be exercised over them during the seminar, students are more
exposed and vulnerable to the "hidden" power that may come from the teacher and
their peers as well. At the seminar, the students are free to speak, but this is where the
power is exercised over them. The student feels the pressure of the power exerted on
Power Relations and Exercise in Educational Institutions 635
her/him when s/he has to speak; when s/he has to be active in the classroom; or in
other eventual situations that may arise during the interactive teaching process at the
seminar.
Apart from the fact that being unaware and unprepared for the power exercise
makes students more vulnerable to the power relations, there are two other reasons
why at the seminar pressure and power exercise is not disappear or weakened, even
though all are supposed to be equal and everyone has the right to speak or to express.
The second reason is that the power is not exercised by the teacher only. In
relationships, power can come from anywhere and anyone can be subject to the
exercise of power. Thus, at the seminar, power can be exercised by the teacher and by
each student. Every student who speaks at the seminar exercises power over other
students, even over the teacher. Moreover, because the students are supposed to speak
and be active at the seminar, they feel the pressure to do it even when they may have
nothing to say. It is the power of the teacher and the other students exercised over the
student each time s/he makes the decision to speak or not at the seminar. The student
is under the power of reactions not only of the teacher but also of the other students.
So, there is no decrease in the level of power exercised in the classroom, but a
diversification and maybe an increase of it. Perhaps there is a decrease in teacher
dominance, but dominance is another concept that differs from power.
The third argument for the existence of the power exercise at the seminar is that
the power of the teacher over the students is not lost, but it only gets camouflaged.
The teacher's relation with the students at the seminar may be closer and friendlier
than the relation of the teacher with the students at the lecture. That is actually true.
However, the relation remains hierarchical and official during the teaching process at
the educational institutions. This means that the statuses of the teacher and the
students do not change. The status or nature of their relation does not change either.
The relation can change the shape but the status of the participants in this relation
remains the same. Consequently, neither the core nor the relation function changes.
Even at the seminar, the teacher is the one who has the status of the person who teaches
others even though the form of teaching may be different. Moreover, as long as the
status of the participants at the seminar does not change, the teacher remains the
authority who evaluates the students. So, the teacher, using grades and marks, still has
the power to “punish” the students who do not perform well or to “reward” the good
performing ones. The students are constantly under the pressure of the evaluation, so
consequently they are somehow under the power of the one who evaluates them for
what they say or do not say. So, it would be naive to claim that the teacher's power at
the seminar is disappeared or even faded.
The arguments I presented above, concerning the power exercise in the
classroom, which rely mainly on Foucault's (1982, 2009, 2011) ideas and concepts
regarding the exercise of power in society and in educational institutions in particular,
show that changing the teaching technique from lecture to seminar does not reduce
the exercise of power in the classroom. Hence the seminar can be more suitable to be
636 Viliem Kurtulaj
used for training in methods, vocational and technical teaching than to encourage and
develop free and critical thinking in the schools (Deacon, 2006, p. 184). On the other
hand, the lecture, which gives the student more space and freedom to think without
putting pressure on the necessity to speak often and quickly as at the seminar, seems
more appropriate and more valuable to teach students theoretical subjects that require
a deeper thought to be understood.
Discussion, Conclusion and Suggestions
In conclusion, it can be stated that at pre-university educational institutions,
power is exercised by all actors, but in different proportions and dimensions. While
the exercise of power is inevitable in any social relationship, in schools, in addition to
social relationships, there is an institutional relation as well which increases and
diversifies the exercise of power. This study aimed at revealing and obtaining a deeper
understanding of the relations and exercise of power in the classrooms at pre-
university educational institutions.
Regarding the first research question I raised at the beginning of this article (How
do power relations influence the quality of pre-university education?), it has been
argued that power relations and exercise of power in schools can become an obstacle
to the development of knowledge, creation and freedom of thought. This could happen
because power relations in the classroom are all-around and can come from all
participating actors, of course in different proportions. Not being aware and prepared
for the power that can be exercised in the classroom, teachers and students are more
exposed and vulnerable to the “hidden” power that may come from any individual.
Regarding the second research question (How can the effects of power exercise in the
classroom be controlled?), it has been alleged that the actors in schools have to be
aware of the power they exercise and is exercised on them so that the exercise of
power can be controlled and managed to a certain degree. The first step in controlling
the effects of power exercise in the classroom is to make the teacher and students
aware and conscious that each of them exercises power over the others and, at the
same time, is subject to the exercise of power by the others, consciously or
unconsciously. This could reduce the negative influence of power relations on the
educational process, but, of course, could not completely avoid it. The claim to
eradicate the exercise of power in the classroom by changing teaching techniques
seems impossible and unrealistic.
Also, in this article, it has been claimed that the communication process, as if all
participants were equal, requires all parties to be subjects. The manipulative way of
teaching in the school classrooms is acceptable as long as the students are not full
subjects (under the age of 18). This does not mean that communication in the
classroom between the teacher and the students is not allowed. Communication should
not pretend equality but should be more in the form of dialogue aiming at the
development of the students’ articulation and fostering the development of the
students’ talents, interests and tendencies.
Power Relations and Exercise in Educational Institutions 637
Inter-exercise of power in the classroom is inevitable regardless of whether there
is inter-communication between the teacher and the students or not. The form of
teaching (lecture or seminar) does not reduce the exercise of power in the classroom
as long as the status of the actors does not change and, as long as power can be
exercised by anyone. What can be changed, however, is the awareness of students and
teachers about the power exercise in the classroom. Power becomes more controllable
and manageable when all involved persons are aware of it.
Since the exercise of power is inevitable in the classroom, the most appropriate
form of teaching is one that does not try to conceal the exercise of power through
changing the techniques. Teaching techniques can be changed in order to:
- make the knowledge be acquired more accessible and penetrable to everyone;
- make the process more interesting and inclusive;
- urge the students to study and develop their talents.
Still, the change of techniques does not eliminate the exercise of power in
education as long as power can be exercised in any situation by any actor.
While this article analysed the power relations in the classroom from a
philosophical perspective, it did not deal with the alternative types of teaching other
than lecture and seminar. Also, this paper is conceived according to the western
worldview of subjectivity and education, not taking into account other cultures in the
world and their relations with education and power. These are limitations of the study.
However, these are also invitations for other education and philosophy of education
scholars to analyse the alternative forms of teaching in different cultures in relation to
the exercise of power. While most studies in this field deal with the exercise of power
by educational institutions over students or society, or the power that the teacher
exercises over students, this research deals with the micro level, bringing to attention
the relationships and ways of power exercise by all actors in the classroom.
Ethics Committee Decision
This study does not include human subjects, thus ethics committee approval
decision is not needed.
References
Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and Texts. New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and Curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (2013). Knowledge, Power, and Education. New York and London:
Routledge.
Biesta, J. J. G. (1998). Pedagogy Without Humanism: Foucault and the Subject of
Education. Interchange, 29(1), 1-16.
638 Viliem Kurtulaj
Bourdieu, P., and Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and
Culture. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Deacon, R. (2006). Michel Foucault on Education: A Preliminary Theoretical
Overview. South African Journal of Education, 26(2), 177-187.
Fiske, J. (1989). Reading the Popular. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Foucault, M. (1971). J. K. Simon: A Conversation with Michel Foucault. Partisan
Review, 38, 192-201.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-
1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Afterword to Dreyfus HL & Rabinow
P. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton:
Harvester.
Foucault, M. (2002). Omnes et Singulatem. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential Works
of Foucault 1954-1984, volume 3: Power (pp. 298–325). London: Penguin
Books.
Foucault, M. (2009). Pushteti dhe Dija. Tirana: ISP & Dita 2000.
Foucault, M. (2011). Historia e Seksualitetit 1. Tirana: UET Press.
Freire, P. (1982). Education as the Practice of Freedom (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). In
Education for Critical Consciousness (pp. 1-84). New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York and London: Continuum.
Gössling, H. J. (1993). Subjekt Werden. Historisch-systematische Studien zu einer
pädagogischen Paradoxie. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Peters, R. S. (1963). Reason and Habit: The Paradox of Moral Education. In W. R.
Niblett (Ed.), Moral Education in a Changing Society (pp. 46-65). London:
Faber & Faber Ltd.
Young, R. (1990). A Critical Theory of Education. Habermas and Our Children’s
Future. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Wayne, A. (2007). Epistemology of the Oppressed: The Dialectics of Paulo Freire's
Theory of Knowledge. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(2), 1-14
Willis, P. (1999). Critical Education in the New Information Age. Labor Power,
Culture, and the Cultural Commodity. New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi
Yıl: 2021, Cilt: 54, Sayı: 2, 627-644
DOI: 10.30964/auebfd.809552, E-ISSN: 2458-8342, P-ISSN: 1301-3718
Eğitim Kurumlarında İktidar İlişkileri ve Uygulanışı
MAKALE TÜRÜ
Başvuru Tarihi
Kabul Tarihi
Yayım Tarihi
Derleme Makalesi
12.10.2020
22.04.2021
01.06.2021
Viliem Kurtulaj
1
Eötvös Loránd Üniversitesi
Öz
İktidar kullanımı, herhangi bir sosyal veya kurumsal ilişkide fark edilebilir. Eğitim
kurumlarında, özellikle üniversite öncesi kurumlarda, iktidar uygulanışı, öğrenciler henüz tam
olarak gelişmiş kişilikler veya tam denekler olmadığından daha büyük bir etkiye sahip olabilir.
Bu kuramsal araştırma, esas olarak üniversite öncesi eğitim kurumlarında güç ilişkilerinin
incelenmesi ve analiz edilmesi açısından Foucaultcu bir yaklaşıma dayanmaktadır. Eğitim
kurumlarında, sınıfta/oditoryumda iktidar ilişkileri, yaratıcılık, yenilikçilik, bilgi üretimi,
özümseme vb. için bir engel durumuna gelebilir; öğretmenlerin, öğrencilerin ve
akademisyenlerin düşünce özgürlüğünü engelleyebilir. Okullarda iktidarın uygulanışının
etkilerinin daha derin bir şekilde anlaşılması, okul yöneticilerine, öğretmenlere ve öğrencilere
eğitim sürecinde bunları yönetme ve denetleme fırsatını ve araçlarını verebilir. Eğitim
kurumlarında iktidar, tüm aktörler tarafından ancak farklı oran ve boyutlarda kullanılır.
İktidarın uygulanışı, aktörler uyguladıkları iktidarın ve üzerlerinde uygulanan iktidarın
farkındaysa kontrol edilebilir. Bu makale, iktidarın uygulamasından kaçınılamayacağı ve
sınıftaki otorite aynı kaldığı için, iktidar uygulamasının kontrol edilebileceği yollardan birinin
öğretim yöntemleri aracılığıyla olduğunu savunmaktadır. En uygun öğretme biçiminin,
öğretme tekniklerini değiştirerek iktidar uygulamasını saklamaya veya gizlemeye çalışmayan
bir öğretim biçimi olduğunu gösterir.
Anahtar sözcükler: Eğitim, pedagoji, iktidar ilişkileri, okul, Michel Foucault.
Etik Kurul Kararı: Derleme makalesi olduğu için etik kurul kararı gerekmemektedir.
1
Sorumlu Yazar: Doktora Adayı, Eğitim ve Psikoloji Fakültesi, Lisansüstü (Doktora) Eğitim Okulu, e-
posta: viliemkurtulaj@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-8475
640 Viliem Kurtulaj
Amaç ve Önem
Söylem, toplumda kurumsallaştığı zaman, tüm toplum için doğrular üretme
eğilimindedir ve her gerçeğe iktidar eşlik eder. Eğitim sürecinde iletişim ve söylem
yer aldıkça, bir tür iktidar uygulanılır, çünkü iktidar her ilişkide herhangi bir zamanda,
herhangi bir noktada, herhangi bir yerde üretilebilir (Foucault, 2011). Okul gibi bir
eğitim kurumunun, bilginin öğrenildiği ve üretildiği ve öğrencilerin yeteneklerinin,
ilgi alanlarının ve eğilimlerinin keşfedildiği ve geliştirildiği bir yer ve alan olması
gerekir. Böyle olabilmesi için eğitim kurumu, iktidar ilişkilerinin ilgili aktörlere
(öğrenciler veya öğretmenler) sınırlama ve kısıtlamalar getiremeyeceği bir özgürlük
yeri olmalıdır. Bu nedenle iktidar ilişkilerinin bilgi oluşturma ve aktarma sürecini ve
eğitim kurumlarındaki aktörleri nasıl etkilediğini anlamak önemlidir. Foucault'nun
(1980; 2009; 2011) iktidar uygulaması yaklaşımı kapsamında bu makalenin amacı,
iktidar uygulamasının eğitim sürecini ve niteliği (kaliteyi) nasıl etkilediğini anlamak
için üniversite öncesi eğitim kurumlarındaki iktidar ilişkilerini çözümlemektir.
Öğrenci (pupil, student) terimi burada sırasıyla ilkokul ve ortaokullarda okuyan
çocukları ve gençleri belirtmek için kullanılmıştır. Okul öncesi eğitim kurumları ve
yüksek öğretim kurumları bu makalede dikkate alınmamaktadır. Okul öncesi
kurumlardaki öğrenciler de bu makalede analiz edilmemektedir çünkü çok küçük
yaşlarda olmalarının bir sonucu olarak, oyunlar ve oyun alanları gibi eğlenceler de
dahil olmak üzere daha gayri resmi bir şekilde eğitilmektedirler. Üniversite
öğrencileri de 18 yaşın üzerinde olduklarından ve çoğu demokratik ülkede yasal
olarak sorumlu yetişkinler olarak kabul edildiğinden bu çalışmanın bir parçası
değildirler. Yukarıdaki açıklamaların ışığında, bu makale aşağıdaki araştırma
sorularını yanıtlamaya çalışmaktadır:
1. İktidar ilişkileri üniversite öncesi eğitimin niteliğini nasıl etkiler?
2. Sınıftaki iktidar kullanımının etkileri nasıl kontrol edilebilir?
Yöntem
Bu makale, pedagojiye iki farklı yaklaşımla (yani manipülatif pedagoji ve
iletişimsel pedagoji) sınıfta iktidar ilişkilerini ve iktidar uygulanışını ortaya koyarak
ve analiz ederek yukarıdaki araştırma sorularını yanıtlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Ayrıca
yaygın olarak ders (lecture) olarak bilinen sözde etkileşimli olmayan yaklaşım ve
seminer (seminar) olarak bilinen etkileşimli yaklaşım olmak üzere iki ana öğretim
biçimi ile ilgilenir.
Bu kuramsal araştırma makalesi felsefi bir yaklaşım izlemektedir. Bu çalışmada
içkinlik düzleminde işleyen ana kavramlar eğitim ve iktidardır. Bu nedenle bu
araştırma, bu iki kavramın anlamlarını ve çıkarımlarını, konuyla ilgili alanyazını
eleştirel bir şekilde analiz eder ve özellikle de iktidar kavramı ve eğitimdeki
uygulamasıyla ilgilenen Michel Foucault'nun (1971, 1982) çalışmalarını ele alır.
Bununla birlikte Biesta (1998), Deacon (2006), Young (1990) veya Freire (1982) gibi
yazarların eğitim ve iktidar kullanımıyla ilgili diğer yaklaşımları da eğitim felsefesi
alanına yeni anlayışlar sunmak için ele alınmaktadır.
Eğitim Kurumlarında İktidar İlişkileri ve Uygulanışı 641
Kuramsal Yaklaşım
Bu makalenin yazarı Foucault’nun (2009, ss. 96-97) iddia ettiği gibi herhangi bir
söylemin gerçek ürettiğine ve sonuç olarak iktidar ürettiğine tamamen katılıp
katılmadığını bilmemekte ancak söylemlerin iktidar ürettiğine katılmaktadır. İktidarın
söylemlerden çok zorla üretildiğini de iddia edilebilir. Aslında iktidar kavramı, sosyal
bilimlerin farklı alanlarında birçok yazar tarafından ele alınmış ve her biri bu kavrama
belirli özellikler vermiştir. Bu makalede, Foucault tarafından tanımlanan iktidar
kavramı kullanılmıştır. Buna göre:
The characteristic feature of power is that some men can more or less
entirely determine other men's conduct - but never exhaustively or
coercively. A man who is chained and beaten is subject to force being
exerted over him, not power. [İktidarın karakteristik özelliği, bazı
insanların diğer insanların davranışlarını aşağı yukarı tamamen
belirleyebilmesidir - ancak asla kapsamlı veya zorlayıcı bir şekilde.
Zincirlenmiş ve dövülmüş bir insan, kendisine uygulanan zorlamaya
tabidir, ancak iktidara değil.] (Foucault, 2002, s. 324).
Burada iktidar, bir başkasına değil, tümüyle birine ait olan özel bir şey olarak
düşünülmemiştir. İktidar, verilebilecek, değiş tokuş edilebilecek veya geri
alınabilecek bir nesne olarak ele alınamaz ancak uygulanabilecek bir eylem olarak ele
alınmalıdır. İktidar hiçbir zaman tek bir yerde veya bir bireyin mülkiyetinde
merkezileştirilmez. Belirli bedenler, jestler, söylemler ve arzular, bireyleri
tanımlayabilen ve onlara sahip olabilen iktidarın temel etkilerinden biridir. Kişi hem
gücün bir etkisi hem de iktidarın eklemlenmesinin bir öğesidir. Öyleyse iktidar bireyi
oluşturur ama aynı zamanda iktidarı şekillendirenler de bireylerdir. Birey, bir
uygulayıcı, taşıyıcı (konveyör) ve sonuç olarak bir iktidar aracıdır (Foucault, 1980).
Eğitim birçok sosyal etkileşim biçiminden biri olduğu için pedagoji, söylemlerin
gerçekleştiği ve önemli bir rol oynadığı bir alandır. Biesta'ya (1998) göre, “Pedagogy
Without Humanism: Foucault and the Subject of Education” başlıklı makalesinde,
eğitimin iki ana yönü vardır: a. Manipülasyon olarak eğitim; b. İletişim olarak eğitim.
Çağlarda bir ayrım yaparsak, manipülatif pedagoji çoğunlukla modern çağla
ilişkiliyken iletişimsel pedagoji çoğunlukla postmodern dönemle ilgilidir. İlk kavramı
(manipülatif pedagoji) referans alan öğretmen ve öğrenci, sınıfta eşitsiz olarak
iletişime geçer. Öte yandan, postmodernizm ile ilgili iletişimsel pedagoji de vardır.
Bu ikinci yaklaşım, eğitimi yalnızca araçsal bir ilişki olarak görmez. İletişimsel
pedagojiye göre eğitim, araçsal bir ilişki olarak öğrencinin ortaya çıkan kişiliğini
görmezden gelir. İletişimsel pedagojide öğretmen ve öğrenci okuldaki öğretme-
öğrenme sürecinde eşit kabul edilir. Dar bir perspektiften, manipülatif pedagoji
uygulanırsa, iktidar alıştırmasının etkisinin güçlü olduğunu çünkü öğretmenin
doğrudan öğrenci üzerinde iktidar uyguladığını söyleyebilir; oysa iletişimsel pedagoji
uygulanırsa, iktidar alıştırmasının etkisi daha zayıftır çünkü her iki taraf (öğretmen -
öğrenci) etkileşimli bir süreçte iktidar kullanır ve sonuç olarak birbirlerinin etkisine
karşı çıkarlar. Sınıfta kurumsallaşan söylem büyük olasılıkla öğretmenin söylemidir
642 Viliem Kurtulaj
çünkü otorite odur. Böylece öğretmenin söylemi öğrenciler için gerçekleri üretir.
Sonuç olarak, öğrenciler üzerinde güç uygulayan öğretmendir. Yine de bu, resmin
sadece yarısıdır. Foucault'ya (2011) atıfta bulunarak iktidarın kullanılması o kadar
basit değildir ve tam olarak bu şekilde çalışmaz. İktidar ilişkileri, iktidarın uygulandığı
noktaların herhangi bir yerde olabileceği ve üzerinde iktidarın uygulandığı noktaların
da herhangi bir yerde olabileceği bir ağ olarak görülebilir. İktidar her yerdedir ...
çünkü her yerden gelir (Foucault, 2011, s. 123). Dolayısıyla öğretim tekniklerini
değiştirerek sınıftaki iktidar kullanımını ortadan kaldırma iddiası olanaksız
görünmektedir. Her durumda bu sürece dahil olan kişiler, bilgileri veya niyetleri
olmasa bile, farklı oranlarda birbirleri üzerinde iktidar kullanmaya devam
edeceklerdir.
Foucault (1982) ve Biesta (1998) gibi birçok bilim insanı ve filozofun
yaklaşımlarından hareketle eğitim kurumlarının iktidarın da kullanıldığı bir tür
iletişim kurumu olduğu söylenebilir. Dahası Foucault'ya göre, “what distinguishes
educational institutions from prisons, hospitals, and armies is that educational
institutions emphasize more ‘communication’ rather than ‘capacity’ and ‘power’”.
[“Eğitim kurumlarını hapishanelerden, hastanelerden ve ordulardan ayıran şey, eğitim
kurumlarının ‘kapasite’ ve ‘güç’ yerine daha fazla ‘iletişim’e vurgu yapmasıdır.”]
(Foucault, 1982, ss. 218-219). Dolayısıyla okullarda iletişimin çok önemli bir etken
olduğuna kuşku yoktur. Sınıftaki iletişim sırasında uygulanan iktidar çok yönlüdür ve
katılan tüm aktörlerden gelebilir, kuşkusuz farklı oranlarda. İktidar kullanımının tek
taraflı olduğu çok nadiren görülebilir.
Okulda, iktidar kullanması beklenenler (öğretmenler), belki de üzerinde iktidarın
kullanılması beklenenler (öğrenciler) kadar iktidar ilişkisine yakalanır ve maruz kalır.
Çoğu zaman öğretmenler de üzerlerinde iktidar uygulayan kişilerin görünmez baskısı
altında çalışırlar. Öğrencilerin de iletişim ve jestlerle öğretmenlere baskı yaptıkları
yadsınamaz bir gerçektir. Öğretmenler, öğrenciler hiç konuşmasalar bile, örneğin
eleştirel bakışları veya mimikleri yoluyla öğrencilerin baskısını hissedebilirler, tıpkı
öğrenciler konuşmadığında bile öğretmenlerin baskısını hissettikleri gibi (Deacon,
2006).
Bulgular
Yukarıdaki bölümlerde sınıfta iktidar uygulamasına ilişkin sunulan, temelde
Foucault'nun (1982, 2009, 2011) toplumda ve özellikle eğitim kurumlarında iktidarın
kullanımına ilişkin fikir ve kavramlarına yönelik dayanaklar, öğretme tekniğini
dersten seminere doğru değiştirmenin sınıfta iktidar kullanımını azaltmadığını
göstermektedir. Bu nedenle seminer, okullarda özgür ve eleştirel düşünmeyi
özendirmek ve geliştirmek yerine, mesleki ve teknik öğretimde eğitim için
kullanılmaya daha uygun olabilir (Deacon, 2006, s. 184). Öte yandan, öğrenciye
seminerde olduğu gibi sık ve hızlı konuşma baskısı yapmadan daha fazla alan ve
düşünme özgürlüğü veren ders, öğrencilere daha derin bir düşüncenin anlaşılması
gereken kuramsal konuları öğretmek için daha uygun ve daha değerli görünmektedir.
Eğitim Kurumlarında İktidar İlişkileri ve Uygulanışı 643
Tartışma, Sonuç ve Öneriler
Sonuç olarak, üniversite öncesi eğitim kurumlarında iktidarın tüm aktörler
tarafından ancak farklı oran ve boyutlarda kullanıldığı söylenebilir. Her sosyal ilişkide
iktidarın kullanılması kaçınılmaz olmakla birlikte okullarda, sosyal ilişkilere ek
olarak, iktidar kullanımını artıran ve çeşitlendiren kurumsal bir ilişki de vardır. Bu
makale, üniversite öncesi eğitim kurumlarında sınıflardaki iktidar ilişkileri ve
uygulanışını daha derin bir şekilde ortaya koymayı ve çözümlemeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Bu makalenin başındaki ilk araştırma sorusuyla ilgili olarak (İktidar ilişkileri
üniversite öncesi eğitimin kalitesini nasıl etkiler?), okullarda iktidar ilişkileri ve
iktidarın kullanılmasının bilgi, yaratma ve düşünce özgürlüğünün gelişmesine engel
olabileceği ileri sürülmüştür. Bu, sınıftaki iktidar ilişkilerinin çok yönlü olması ve tüm
katılımcı aktörlerden, elbette farklı oranlarda gelebileceği için olabilir. Sınıfta
kullanılabilecek iktidarın farkında ve hazırlıklı olmayan öğretmen ve öğrenciler,
herhangi bir bireyden gelebilecek "gizli" güce karşı daha açık ve savunmasızdır. İkinci
araştırma sorusuyla ilgili olarak (Sınıftaki iktidar kullanımının etkileri nasıl kontrol
edilebilir?), okullardaki aktörlerin uyguladıkları iktidarın farkında olmaları gerektiği
ve iktidar kullanımının belirli bir dereceye kadar kontrol edilebilmesi ve
yönetilebilmesi için üzerlerinde uygulandığı iddia edilmiştir. Sınıfta iktidar
uygulamanın etkilerini kontrol etmenin ilk adımı, öğretmen ve öğrencilerin her birinin
diğerleri üzerinde iktidar uyguladığının ve aynı zamanda diğerlerinin iktidar
uygulamasına tabi olduğunun farkına varmalarını sağlamaktır. Bu, iktidar ilişkilerinin
eğitim süreci üzerindeki olumsuz etkisini azaltabilir ancak elbette bundan tamamen
kaçınılamaz. Öğretim tekniklerini değiştirerek sınıfta iktidar uygulanışını ortadan
kaldırma iddiası olanaksızdır ve gerçekçi görünmemektedir.
Ayrıca bu makalede tüm katılımcılar eşitmiş gibi iletişim sürecinin tüm
taraflarının birer özne olmasını gerektirdiği ileri sürülmüştür. Okuldaki sınıflarda
manipülatif öğretim şekli, öğrenciler tam özne olmadıkları sürece (18 yaşın altında)
kabul edilebilir. Bu, sınıfta öğretmen ve öğrenciler arasında iletişime izin verilmediği
anlamına gelmez. İletişim eşitlik iddiası taşımamalı, daha çok öğrencilerin
eklemlenmesini geliştirmeyi ve öğrencilerin yeteneklerini, ilgi alanlarını ve
eğilimlerini geliştirmeyi amaçlayan bir iletişim (diyalog) biçiminde olmalıdır.
Öğretmen ve öğrenciler arasında karşılıklı iletişim olup olmadığına
bakılmaksızın, sınıfta karşılıklı iktidar uygulanması kaçınılmazdır. Aktörlerin statüsü
değişmediği ve iktidar herkes tarafından kullanılabildiği sürece öğretim biçimi (ders
veya seminer) sınıfta iktidar kullanımını azaltmaz. Bununla birlikte değiştirilebilecek
şey, öğrencilerin ve öğretmenlerin sınıftaki iktidar uygulaması hakkındaki
farkındalıklarıdır. İktidar, tüm aktörler bunun farkına vardığında daha kontrol
edilebilir ve yönetilebilir bir duruma gelir.
Sınıfta iktidarın kullanılması kaçınılmaz olduğundan, en uygun öğretim şekli,
teknikleri değiştirerek iktidar kullanımını gizlemeye çalışmamaktır. Öğretim
teknikleri şu amaçlarla değiştirilebilir:
644 Viliem Kurtulaj
. Bilginin herkes için daha erişilebilir ve anlaşılır olmasını sağlamak için;
. Süreci daha ilginç ve kapsayıcı bir duruma getirmek için;
. Öğrencileri yeteneklerini çalışmaya ve geliştirmeye özendirmek için.
Yine de iktidar, herhangi bir durumda herhangi bir aktör tarafından
kullanılabildiği sürece, tekniklerin değişimi eğitimde iktidarın kullanımını ortadan
kaldırmaz.
Bu makale sınıftaki iktidar ilişkilerini felsefi bir bakış açısıyla çözümlerken ders
ve seminer dışındaki alternatif öğretim türlerini ele almamıştır. Ayrıca bu kuramsal
araştırma, dünyadaki diğer kültürler ve bunların eğitim ve iktidar ile ilişkileri dikkate
alınmadan, Batı dünyasının öznellik ve eğitim görüşüne göre tasarlanmıştır. Bunlar
çalışmanın sınırlılıklarıdır. Bununla birlikte bunlar, aynı zamanda diğer eğitim ve
eğitim felsefesi akademisyenlerinin iktidarın kullanılmasıyla ilgili olarak farklı
kültürlerdeki alternatif öğretim biçimlerini analiz etmeleri için davetiyelerdir. Bu
alandaki çoğu çalışma, eğitim kurumlarının öğrenciler veya toplum üzerindeki
iktidarını ya da öğretmenin öğrenciler üzerinde uyguladığı iktidarı ele alırken bu
araştırma, konunun mikro düzeyle ilgilenir ve sınıftaki tüm aktörlerin iktidar
uygulaması sürecindeki ilişkilerine ve araçlarına dikkat çeker.
Etik Komite Kararı
Derleme makalesi olduğu için etik kurul kararı gerekmemektedir.
