Analyzing Symbolic Violence Phenomenon in Project Schools

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to determine whether teachers are subjected to symbolic violence by administrators and, if they are, to disclose the practices of symbolic violence, the reasons behind it, and the reactions of teachers in the face of symbolic violence. The study was conducted using a single case-holistic design. The context of this study is a prestigious and well-established project high school located in one of the high-income districts of Istanbul. The participants of the research consisted of 14 project school teachers, all of whom were selected using the criterion sampling method. A semi-structured interview form, observation, and document analysis were employed in the study to collect data. The data were analyzed through thematic analysis. This study highlights three themes that are ‘incidents of symbolic violence’, ‘roots of symbolic violence at project schools’ and ‘reactions to symbolic violence’. The results demonstrate that teachers are exposed to symbolic violence, which is more visible and severe in the vertical hierarchy at school. Symbolic violence practices are exercised not only by administrators but also by the state, colleagues, and parents against teachers. Regarding the reasons for symbolic violence at project schools, administrators with high symbolic capital, pressure groups (parents/media), and pressure on success are prominent. Lastly, the study discloses that teachers mostly succumb when confronted with symbolic violence; however, some of them resist it and even choose to respond or remain unresponsive.

Keywords

• symbolic violence
• habitus
• capital
• field
• project school

References

1. Anderson, A. (2013). Teach for America and symbolic violence: A Bourdieuian analysis of education’s next quick-fix. The Urban Review, 45(5), 684-700. http://dx.doi.org/1 10.1007/s11256-013-0241-x google scholar Apple, M. W. (2006). Eğitim ve iktidar [Education and power] (E. Bulut, Trans.). İstanbul: Kalkedon Publishing. google scholar
2. Bakioglu, A. (1996). Öğretmenlerin Kariyer Evreleri (Türkiye’de Resmi Lise Öğretmenleri Üzerinde Yapılan Bir Araştırma. M. Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi 2. Ulusal Eğitim Sempozyumu Bildirileri. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Yayınları. google scholar
3. Bhambra, G., & Shilliam, R. (2009). Silencing human rights: Critical engagements with a contested project. London: Macmillan. google scholar
4. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage. google scholar
5. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Dinstinction:a social critique of the judgement of the taste [La distinction: critique sociale du jugement]. (R. Nice. Trans.). New York: Harvard University Press. google scholar
6. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/202060 google scholar
7. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: on the theory of action. Stanford University Press. google scholar
8. Bourdieu, P. (1990a). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. google scholar

9. Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Cambridge: Polity Press. google scholar
10. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. (2014). Düşünümsel bir antropoloji için cevaplar [Answers for a reflective anthropology]. (N. Ökten, Trans.). İstanbul: Iletisim Publishing. google scholar
11. Bourdieu, P. (2015). Masculine domination. Ankara: Baglam Publishing. google scholar
12. Bourdieu P. (2015a). Pratik nedenler. (H. U. Tanrıöver, Trans.). Ankara: Kesit Publishing. google scholar
13. Bourdieu, P. (2017). Ayrım: Beğeni yargısının toplumsal eleştirisi, (D. Fırat & G. Berkkurt, Trans.). Ankara: Heretik Press. google scholar
14. Bourdieu, P., & Whitehouse, J. C. (2013). The school as a conservative force: Scholastic and cultural inequalities. In Contemporary Research in the Sociology of Education (RLE Edu L) (pp. 32-46). London: Routledge. google scholar
15. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. google scholar
16. Cirit, H.,0 & Gunday, R. (2019). Ortaöğretim özel program ve proje uygulayan eğitim kurumları’nın arka planı ve proje okul uygulamaları. Uluslararası Türk Kültür Coğrafyasında Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(2), 143-151. google scholar
17. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among the five approaches (3rd ed.). New York: Sage. google scholar
18. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). London: Sage. google scholar
19. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. google scholar
20. Denzin, N. K.,& Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In the Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 29-71). London: Sage. google scholar
21. Dubois, A., & Gadde, L., E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553-560. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0148- 2963(00)00195-8 google scholar
22. Genc, G. A. (2021) Proje okullarında algılanan örgütsel destek, okul etkililiği ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi (Publicaiton (Giresun ili örneği) (No. 690646) [Master’s Thesis, Giresun University]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi. google scholar
23. Goldstein, R. A. (2006). Symbolic and institutional violence and critical educational spaces: In the name of education. Journal of Peace Education, 2(1), 33- 52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1740020042000334082 google scholar
24. Jourdain, A., & Naulin, S. (2016). Pierre Bourdieu’nün kuramı ve sosyolojik kullanımı. (Ö. Elitez, Trans.). İstanbul: Iletisim Publishing. google scholar
25. Ministry of National Education Regulation of Educational Institutions Implementing Special Programs and Projects, T. R. Official Gazette, Issue: 29818 (2016a). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr google scholar
26. Murphy, M. (2013). Social theory and educational research. Understanding Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu and Derrida. London: Routledge. google scholar
27. Neuman, W. L. (2012). Toplumsal araştırma yontemleri: Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar I-II. cilt (5th Ed.). Ankara: Yayın Odası. google scholar
28. Nonaka I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press. google scholar
29. Olcer, H. (2019). Pierre Bourdieu sosyolojisinde simgesel şiddet sorunsalı ve biçimleri. Nosyon: Uluslararası Toplum ve Kültür Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2, 34-49. google scholar
30. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri [Qualitative research and assessment methods]. (M. Bütün and S.B. Demir, Trans.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. google scholar
31. Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381-388. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1049732317697102 google scholar
32. Sargeant, J. (2012). Qualitative research part II: participants, analysis, and quality assurance. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(1), 1-3. google scholar
33. Swartz, D. L. (2015). Kültür ve iktidar: Pierre Bourdieu’nün sosyolojisi [Culture and power: the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu]. (E. Gen, Trans.). İstanbul: İletişim Publishing. google scholar
34. Topcu, G., & Yaslioglu, M. M. (2022). Sembolik (simgesel) şiddeti eleştirel yönetim perspektifinde değerlendirmek ve mücadele etmek mümkün mü? İktisat İşletme ve Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 1 (1), 117-128. google scholar
35. Wieviorka, M. (2009). Violence: A new approach. London: Sage. google scholar
36. Yildiz, S., Korumaz, M., & Balyer, A. (2021). Symbolic violence teachers experience at schools. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 63, 165-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0101 google scholar
37. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and method (4th Ed.). London: Sage. google scholar