An Examination Regarding Educational Administration in the Context of Foucault’s Power Analysis

Abstract

Background. Educational administration is a field that requires disciplinary collaboration and working in theory and practice. However, especially in Turkey, it can be said that theoretical and practical information produced in educational administration has reference retrieval from business administration, economy, management, organization and similar areas. In this context, it can be said that ontological, epistemological and methodological dilemmas and deadlocks are experienced due to not adequately nourishing from human and social sciences (philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology etc.) in educational administration field. Studies produced in the field of educational administration congregate around the models developed in capitalist societies with the main themes like ‘quality management', ‘strategic management', ‘risk management' and ‘job satisfaction'. Mentioned themes can generate problem areas that are up to date and needs to be discussed. However, created information is seen to have tendency being stereotyped in theory and practice.Management is an act that includes the constituents of power and strength. Therefore, how power areas are structured in administrative acts and processes, and how power relationships are constructed and maintained need to be examined. By this study, it is aimed to provide a contribution to the field since limited studies are performed concerning education, management and power relations in educational administration field in Turkey. Thus, new perspectives are presented about determining ‘power' areas in educational organizations by the context of expanding power conceptualization in education system and educational practices that is defined by Foucault (b.1926-d.1984) and Althusser (b.1918-d.1990) as one of the government's ideological devices. How administrative acts and processes are influenced from the relationship between knowledge and power, concretized progressively in contemporary societies, is a problem area that needs to be investigated. In this study, contributions of Michel Foucault's concept of power analysis to educational administration are discussed. Foucault presents rich point of views about some concepts like subject-power, types of power [panoptic power/bio-power], panopticon and inspection societies, subjectivism and technologies of the self for reanalysis and construction of educational politics by means of his unique sociology. This study covers the topics of power concept, power as regime of truth production, power analysis tools and struggle methods against power, administrative concept and criticism of neo-liberal political rationalism. In addition, the study puts emphasis needs analysis of educational administration approaches and present states of educational politics in the light of power concept. In this context, Foucault's ‘discipline' and ‘power' conceptualization and development are thought to provide contributions to intellectual development of educational administration field. In order to understand how power areas are constructed in educational administration politics and administrative processes, and question what kind of negotiation and distance occur between people serving education and prevailing ideology, requirement for awareness development in research and application processes is concluded.Power and Truth Regime Production. Foucault (2000b, p. 37-38) expanded the term of ‘power' that was restricted only by the definition as being government device. Philosopher asserts the reason of expansion of this concept like that traditional governmental theory does not reveal the function and practice field of government devices in all aspects. According to him, power struggles comprise complicated sociological and political problem areas in their core. Foucault suggests multidimensional power analysis especially in the context of ‘oppressing', ‘directing', ‘managing', ‘power group', ‘government device', ‘hierarchy', ‘supervision', ‘prohibition' and ‘enforcement' concepts. He states that power of the government does not represent all power relations. Government power is a meta-power that adopts -prohibition and alignment- function in its core, and has super structural position that operates micro-power relations under its basis (Foucault, 2000b; Günlü, 2003; Saygılı, 2005). Power needs truth regime in order to maintain its existence and legitimize its existence style. Power areas both produce knowledge and nourish power. Individuals articulated without getting space the criticism of power's vicious cycle, especially administrators, become blind across this truth production with their ideals concerning preserving and maintaining their power relations. It is the scientific areas that enables penetration of power relations to societal structure and establishes the definition of truth regime and reality statement. These power relations neither can be differentiated without the production, accumulation and circulation of this reality statement, nor settle down and function. Specifically, power does not function without –reality statements economy- that is within the power and is effective by means of power. Power does not give up querying, searching and saving; power institutionalizes pursuit of reality, provides profession and rewards it (Foucault, 2000b, 2003).Tools for Analyzing Power and Struggling Methods with Power. According to Foucault (2000b, p. 105-111), techniques for analyzing power can be summarized as in the following: 1. It is necessary to seek power in most regional and most local locations, institutions, and in locations and tools where it exceeds the boundaries of its arranger and determinative rules, disperse in its institutions and embodied in techniques. 2. It is required to examine power in its specific place with actual impacts in which there is a direct and indirect relationship with the thing that can be named as temporary object, goal, and practice area in terms of its surface. Therefore, the question that needs to be directed are “How the processes run in the level of subjection procedure or in the level of constant processes that enclose subordination of bodies, management of actions, direction of behaviors?” instead of directing the questions like “Why someone wants to dominateWhat is the thing to aspire? What are their major strategies?” 3. Power should be analyzed considering the circulation and functioning of the thing as a chain. Power functions, power functions in the form of a network and in this network, individuals not only enter into circulation, but also they comply and implement it. Individuals always are the tools of power. Power utilizes individuals as a passageway, but not exposed to individuals. 4. It is necessary to analyze power bottom-up; that is, it is required to realize histories of power, its unique structure, how power moves within small mechanisms that have specific and infinite strategy and techniques, and then how these power mechanisms that have unique technologies are surrounded with general mechanisms and global forms of domination, how they transformed and expanded. 5. Ideology products can accompany with major mechanisms of power. To illustrate, an education ideology which is on the basis of extreme power network is not ideologies. At this point, it is necessary to examine forming and accumulation tools of knowledge, observation methods, saving techniques, research and investigation procedures, and verification devices. Based on the above statements, education administrators have to answer two questions: “Why I manage this micro power?” and “Why I don't avoid being included in entrenched management and control system?” For emancipation of our thinking styles that are formed in this manner, this is a new beginning for transforming power, conflict, and domination areas to forms of human life. Education practices in operation deal with how individual can exhibit obedience. Controlling of education by capitalist and ruling class in Turkey, endeavor of creating unique plant/factory like schools, turns the form of this obedience to tool that serves for neo-liberal ideals. It is necessary to focus on how to nurture self-emancipation that do not meet the given discipline categories. For deciphering micro power structures in educational organizations, dynamics that generate societal realities, set of rules and transforming of epistemologies form the starting point of construction of a more human society. It is obliged to consider educational approaches that address individuals as subject, construct historical, societal and political experiences, examine domination styles in behalf of truth, and assist formation of self-perception and manners. Schools are facing with the risk of transformation to international educational organizations. In this context, not only educational sciences and teacher training programs as production of knowledge, but also academicians are faced with the danger of being considered as tool status. Concept of Administration and Criticism of Neo-liberal Political Rationality. Administration explains meaningful relationship between administering and thinking systems. Administration is the integrity of organizations that enable practice of power styles with administrative, politic and technical tools for security devices, instructions, analysis, thoughts and tactics (Foucault, 2000b, p. 285; English, 2006; Peters, 2002). Administration is the determiner for comprehension of educational politics (Gillies, 2008). Foucault's administration concept corresponds to management of the behaviors. Learning is thought to be a powerful tool for organizing of education and teaching in terms of politics and economics.With the significant expansion of administration, education responds the question of how economic practices and actions are operated for cooperation (Olssen, 2006). Administration functions for management of educational politics as a device. In terms of actors, procedures, organizations and actions, education is the primary politics area of governments. Administering: is “order of things, the most convenient arrangement, directing human behaviors, and constructing potential action areas for human as regards techniques and methods” (Gillies, 2008, p. 416).Administration is the analysis of politics rationality, quality of rules and laws, logic, management approaches by ideal principals, management discourse in thoughts and actions. Transforming to democratic values in political discourses, supervising value differences, founding trust, nourishment, acknowledging democracy as being a life style rather than an administration type, knowing collective and participatory life experiences,and forming management rationality beyond power types can be effective (Gillies, 2008, p. 425). In this context, when the field of information forming political language is considered, not disregarding totalitarianism of the produced knowledge in educational administration and who constructs the truth regime for the produced knowledge in the field can be the starting point for analyzing micro power relations that are generated through knowledge. On the other side, neo-liberal management rationality depends on gaining self-management capacity based on market conditions. Political rationality of neo-liberal management is formed by risk taking, competition, individual responsibility and profit-centered legitimized tactics. Neo-liberal rationality uses inspection as management technique with internalizing security concept in social life rather than using discipline. Neo-liberal politics deals with human and values of human life with the extent of its economic return. This kind of management mentality exactly refers to biopolitics. Individuals deserve value-laden life in the extent of participating economic production and bringing profit. By means of handling social and political problems as technical and economic problems entirely, the problems can be solved through “sustainability ratio” principle. Teacher training and employment practices in Turkey can be exemplified to the case that “sustainability ratio” should be handled for the solution of the problem. Solution practices of neo-liberal power, pointing market, constructing social field with market language in adapting deadlocks are coded as individual failure (taking KPSS score or similar scores for designation of teachers) (Aka, 2004; Aytaç, 2005; Köse, 2009). Power Discourse and Educational Administration. Dilemmas in educational administration and politics direct academicians to deal with concepts like conflicts, dismissal, curriculum change, centralized exams and similar areas in education rather than contemplating the problems of the field and analyzing social codes. When already knowledge and practices in the field are analyzed, it can be said that educational administration is in the state of searching its identity. The field seems to be “artificial” due to not producing peculiar forms. If this concept is taken into account, power concept can be used to analyze knowledge-power and normalization concepts by considering the process of educational politics. Therefore, epistemological place of educational administration that is formed around “truth regime” forces to debate superficiality of the knowledge and dominant approach (Barrat, 2004; Levine, 2008). Hereby, power and power areas can be analyzed thoroughly in educational administration. In the work of Foucault named “Panopticon” (2000c, p. 106-107, 126, 130); he handles hospitals, dormitories, educational organizations, factories, workshops and prisons as the parts of social power that make up functioning conditions of industrial and capitalist society, beginning in the 19th century. Modern society directs lives of individuals in a punitive system, discipline them, and oversee extreme presences. It achieves surveillance on behalf of justice, aesthetics, knowledge, health and collective benefit. Like other organizations, educational organizations as being protector centers of “normal” and “normative” beings undertake the modern work of a prison guard. At this point, educational administration functions with administrative purposes in general and adopts “therapeutic” roles in particular. In this respect, education operates the conformation of individuals to developmental process in accordance with the societal “normality” and elimination of “pathologic” characters outside of social normality. In this process, the functions of educational administrators in given social order are inspecting and monitoring the nourishment of individuals contributing “panopticon” that are normalized to societal order and aligned with the social system. Conclusion. Educational administrators and researchers should aware that given disciplining and normalizing social codes serve truth regime which determines the acts of educational politics and administration determined through educational ideologies. It is necessary to develop a new point of view to knowledge of the field, enclosed with security, risk management, entrepreneurship, standardization, planning, effectiveness, efficiency, profit and cost like business terms, in terms of criticizing what kind of rationality they served to. Therefore, researchers and implementers in educational administration field, the following suggestions should be opened to debate: 1. Analyzing how administration processes are constructed, examining what kind of relationship there should be with the dominant ideology of human nurturing, disputing what kind of strategies should be taken into account in research and implementation processes. 2. The content of administrator training should be strengthened by sociological, political, economic, psychological and philosophical tools in order to arouse awareness of means of pressure used in administrative process and acts. 3. By means of using inspection, monitoring, control and discipline tools in administrative processes, administrators should be encouraged to adopt humanistic administrative attitudes with ignoring transformation of “object of power”. 4. Administrators are required to have intellectual and political identities. Knowing political identity as a devise comprising inclusive politics and human sciences in real terms rather than being polarizer of given ideologies.5. In administrative acts for construction of organizational structure, it is necessary to leave the strategies, which divide individuals as regards location, time and ability, categorize individuals, and standardize them, and it is required to construct an organizational culture comprising differences and dynamics in its agenda. 6. It is necessary to define researchers and implementers in educational administration field as being free intellectuals contributing the construction of more fair and humane world.

Keywords

• foucault , educational administration , educational politics , power

Foucault’un İktidar Analizi Bağlamında Eğitim Yönetimine İlişkin Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Bu makalede, Michel Foucault'un iktidar kavramına ilişkin çözümlemeleri eğitim yönetimi bağlamında tartışılmıştır. Foucault'un, özne-iktidar, iktidar biçimleri [pastoral iktidar/biyo-iktidar], büyük kapatılma ve denetim toplumları, özneleşme ve kendilik teknikleri gibi kavramlaştırmaları, eğitim politikalarının yapılandırılmasında yeni bakış açıları sunabilir. Çalışmada, iktidar kavramı, doğruluk rejimi üretimi olarak iktidar, iktidarı çözümleme araçları ve iktidarla mücadele yöntemleri, yönetimsellik kavramı ve neo-liberal politik rasyonalitenin eleştirisi konuları ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca, eğitim yönetimi yaklaşımlarıyla eğitim politikalarının hâlihazırdaki durumunun ve pratiklerinin iktidar kavramı ışığında çözümlenmesi ihtiyacı üzerinde durulmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, eğitim yönetimi alanındaki akademisyenlerin, egemen paradigmanın hizmetinde teori ve söylemler üreten bireyler olarak değil, ürettiği bilgi ile eleştiri pratiğini kurabilen entelektüeller olarak kendilerini konumlandırmaları önerilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• foucault , eğitim yönetimi , eğitim politikaları , iktidar kavramı

Kaynakça

1. Aka, A. (2004). Foucaultcu perspektiften disipliner iktidar teknikleri ile bireyselliğin üretilmesi. Eğitim, Bilim ve Toplum, 2(28), 28-40.
2. Akar, M. Y. (2007). Marksist ve Foucault’cu iktidar anlayışları üzerine sosyolojik bir karşılaştırma (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Kırıkkale.
3. Althusser, L. (2006). İdeoloji ve devletin ideolojik aygıtları. İstanbul: İthaki.
4. Aytaç, Ö. (2005). Bürokratik kurumlar ve baskı düzenleri. FÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(1), 249-278.
5. Barrat, E. (2008). The later Foucault in organization and management studies. Human Relations, 61(4), 515-537.
6. Barrat, E. (2004). Foucault and the politics of critical management studies. Culture and organization, 10(3), 191-202.
7. Chan, A. (2000). Redirecting critique in postmodern organization studies: The perspective of Foucault. Organizational Studies, 21(6), 1059-1075.
8. Chan, A. (2001). Toward a genealogy of organizational culture. The perspectives of Foucault. Critically Constituting Organization. NY: John Benjamin.

9. Chandler, A. M. L. (2009). Agent and subject of discipline: How novice teachers experience techniques of power (Unpublished dissertation). University of Nevada, Nevada.
10. Çetin, H. (2001). Devlet, ideoloji ve eğitim. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25(2), 201-211.
11. English, L. M. (2006). A Foucauldian reading of learning in feminist, nonprofit organizations. Adult Education Quarterly, 56(2), 85-100.
12. Foucault, M. (2000a). Özne ve iktidar (Çev. I. Ergüden ve O. Akınhay). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
13. Foucault, M. (2000b).Entelektüelin siyasi işlevi (Çev. I. Ergüden ve O. Akınhay). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
14. Foucault, M. (2000c). Büyük kapatılma (Çev. I. Ergüden ve O. Akınhay). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
15. Foucault, M. (1992a). Hapishanenin doğuşu (Çev. M. A. Kılıçbay): Ankara: İmge.
16. Foucault, M. (2002). Toplumu savunmak gerekir. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi.
17. Foucault, M. (2003). İktidarın gözü (Çev. I. Ergüden ve O. Akınhay). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
18. Foucault, M. (1992b). Ders özetleri. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi.
19. Gambetti, Z. (2009). İktidarın dönüşen çehresi: Neo-liberalizm, şiddet ve kurumsal siyasetin tasfiyesi. İ.Ü. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 1-11.
20. Gillies, D. (2008). Developing governmentality: Conduct and education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 23(4), 415-427.
21. Gore, J. M. (1995). After postmodernism: Education, politics and identity and school life. In Smith, R. & Wexler, P. (Eds.), Foucault’s poststructuralism and observational education research: A study of power relations. London: Taylor &Francis.
22. Günlü, R. (2003). Özerklik, toplumsal dönüşüm ve eğitim. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 1(1), 4-19.
23. Hesapçıoğlu, M. (2000). Michel Foucault hakkında. Foucault, psikoloji ve ruhsal hastalık. İstanbul: Birey.
24. Huckaby, M. F. (2007). Making use of Foucault in a study of specific parrhesiastic scholars. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(6), 771-788.
25. Karaismailoğlu, F. (2006). Sosyal teoride iktidar tartışmaları: Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Foucault (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa.
26. Karakayacı, Ö. ve Kurtarır, E. (2006). Töre seçilmişler ve diğerleri, güç, erk, iktidar olguları bağlamında insancıl bir iktidara doğru. Planlama felsefesi, (Editör: E. Kurtarır). İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları.
27. Köse, E. (2009). Yeni bir iktidar tarzı olarak liberal yönetim zihniyeti ve beşeri-sosyal sermaye kavramı. (htpp://iibf.ogu.edu.tr. kongre/bildiriler/02-01.pdf. erişim tarihi, 24.03.2010).
28. Kurtarır, E. (Ed.). (2006). Planlama felsefesi. İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Yayınları.
29. Levitt, R. (2008). Freedom and empowerment: A transformative pedagogy of educational reform. Educational Studies, 44, 47-61.
30. Levin, G. (2008). A Foucaultian approach to academic anxiety. Educational studies, 44, 62-76.
31. Limas, J. M. C. (2006). Technologies of disciplinary power in action: The norm of the “Good student”. Higher Education, 52, 665-686.
32. Maxcy, S. (1991). Educational Leadership: A pragmatic perspective. NY: Bergin & Garvey.
33. Mann, S. J. (2008). Study, power and university. The institutions as a context for learning. Critically Constituting Organization. NY: John Benjamin’s.
34. Mayo, C. (2000). The uses of Foucault. Educational Theory, 50(1), 103-116.
35. Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Rutledge.
36. Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O’Neill, A-M. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship, democracy. London: Sage.
37. Olssen, M. (2006). Understanding the mechanism of neoliberal control: lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25(3), 213-230.
38. Olssen, M. (1999). Michel Foucault: Materialism and education. London: Bergin and Garvey.
39. Peters, M. A. (2007). Foucault, biopolitics and the birth of neoliberalism. Critical Studies in Education, 48(2), 165-178.
40. Peters, M. A. (2002). Foucault and governmentality. Understanding the neoliberal paradigm of educational policy. School Field, XII(5/6), 59-80.
41. Prasad, A. (2009). Contesting hegemony through genealogy: Foucault and cross cultural management research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(3), 359-369.
42. Rose, N. (2001) The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), 1-30.
43. Saygılı, A. (2005). Modern devletin beden ideolojisi üzerine kısa bir deneme. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 54(3), 324-340.
44. Seals, G. (1998). Objectively yours, Michel Foucault. Educational Theory, 48(1), 59- 66.
45. Shenker, S. (2008). Applying Foucault’s “archaeology” to the education of school counselors. Educational Studies, 44, 22-29.
46. To, S. (2006). Using Foucault’s concept of power to analyze school discipline and draw implications for school social work service in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 49(6), 779-790.
47. Yıldırım, Y. (2004). Batı siyasal aklının analitiği: Yeni bir egemenlik formuna doğru. Toplum ve Bilim, 99, 28-64.