Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riss20
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riss20
A cry, a clash and a parting: a French pragmatic
sociology approach to ‘the struggle over the
teacher’s soul’
Diana Holmqvist
To cite this article: Diana Holmqvist (2020): A cry, a clash and a parting: a French pragmatic sociology approach to ‘the struggle over the teacher’s soul’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, DOI: 10.1080/09620214.2020.1865830
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1865830
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Published online: 31 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 27
View related articles
ARTICLE
A cry, a clash and a parting: a French pragmatic sociology
approach to ‘the struggle over the teacher’s soul’
Diana Holmqvist
Department of Behavioural Science and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden ABSTRACT
This article argues for using French pragmatic sociology to explore tensions regarding teachers’ work, by studying cri-tique formulated by teachers themselves. Based on inter-views with teachers in Swedish adult education it shows how teachers labour to reconcile ‘what is’ with ‘what should be’ by voicing critique. The findings suggest that, while some critique echoes institutionalised conventions without ques-tioning them, formulating critique is also a way of resisting, where teachers tap into alternative conventions, or disen-gage from established practices. Some choose to ignore institutional rules, while others change jobs. These findings establish that some critique can serve to maintain the status quo and its institutionalised truths. However, pushing at reality through acts of critique can also fracture reality, which in turn allows other conventions to take root in the cracks. Identifying the various types of critique employed to question institutionalised conventions highlights the work that teachers do to shape reality.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 5 June 2020 Accepted 12 December 2020 KEYWORDS
Boltanski; French pragmatic sociology; critique; teachers’ work; adult education
Introduction
The past few decades have been characterised by reformation in education, where teachers across the globe and in various contexts experience similar changes, such as time constraints, an increased and altered workload and more stress (cf Gewirtz et al., 2009; Lundahl et al., 2017; Subramanian,
2020). These changes are related to many factors, e.g., an increase in globalisation and internationalisation; benchmarking and other ranking practices in the name of transparency, competition, and efficiency; as well as changing demands from society (the government, students & parents, the public). These changes bring with them tensions regarding what it means to be and work as a teacher. These tensions have also been approached by various scholars in their research and a plethora of different notions been launched. For example, Hargreaves (2000) talks about ‘de- professionalization’, Evans (2008) writes about a ‘new’ professionalism, CONTACT Diana Holmqvist diana.holmqvist@liu.se
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduc-tion in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
and Ball (2003) calls it ‘the struggle over the teacher’s soul’. As with any struggle, this development is not smooth. Professional interests are shown to clash with those of other stakeholders (e.g., Ball, 2003; Bernasconi, 2006; Locke & Maton, 2019; Lundström, 2015) and in this clash, teachers act in different ways. Sometimes they comply – driven by fear of precarity (Lundström & Holm, 2011; Read & Leathwood, 2018) or by incentives (Bernasconi, 2006; Page, 2018) – and sometimes they resist (Fejes et al.,
2016; Hall et al., 2015).
To explore more closely these tensions and the conventions – or general principles – that are at play in this ‘struggle over the teacher’s soul’, this article argues for the usefulness of French pragmatic sociology1 as developed by Luc Boltanski and the Groupe de sociologie politique et moral in the mid- ’80s. Though adopted and further developed by researchers across many fields in French and German-speaking contexts, this framework has received only limited attention in the English-speaking sphere.2 Seminal for the perspective’s adoption in sociology research are the works of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot (Boltanski, 2011; Boltanski & Thévenot,
1999, 2006) and later also Eve Chiapello (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2018). These have been translated into multiple languages and have thus travelled easier outside of the French-speaking sphere than other works produced by the group. For example, Jean-Louise Derouet (1992) has used and continued developing the perspective in his research on education. However, as his works have not been translated into English, it is impossible to tell how they might have been received. This perspective remains, at the time of writing, underrepresented in research on education.3
This article shows how such an approach can help us explore points of tension and processes of disrupting established truths (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1999, p. 360), by looking at teachers’ own practices of critique. Drawing on interviews with teachers working in Swedish adult education, I show how they, when criticising the system of education and the condi-tions of their work, mobilise various convencondi-tions of worth and point out discrepancies between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’, in order to bring legitimacy to their claims. Unpacking the ways in which teachers construct critique via Boltanski’s pragmatic sociology highlights the agency of tea-chers in the so-called ‘struggle over the teacher’s soul’. By enumerating the different ways in which critique can be and is performed, I show how teachers work (by way of critique) to sometimes uphold, but also resist and shift dominant logics, or conventions of worth. Recognising this agency, I argue, is one of the embedded strengths of the theoretical resources presented here.
Below, I briefly outline French pragmatic sociology as theoretical per-spective and present the empirical data I have drawn upon. The main body of the article then makes use of this perspective’s conceptualisation of
critique to unpack five examples of criticism formulated by teachers. I then conclude the article by discussing the implications of using this framework and suggest potential avenues for further research.
French pragmatic sociology
One of the hallmarks of French pragmatic sociology is its ambition to stay close to the empirical, by taking seriously the every-day justifications and critique of actors. This is an aspect where Boltanski disagrees with his former mentor Pierre Bourdieu and critical sociology, which Boltanski considered to muffle the voices of those being studied and position the researchers as superior in their capacity to be critical. According to Boltanski (2011, p. 129) ‘[o]ne of the contributions of the pragmatic sociol-ogy of critique has been to show that actors are not abused and that they harbour no illusions’. In this, pragmatic sociology shares Weber’s view of institutions as endogenous to actions, underlining the central role of actors’ agency as they ‘contribute to the interpretative process and to the following enactment of the performative reality of institutions’ (Diaz-Bone, 2011, p. 54). However, the perspective departs from Weber in its understanding of conventions, i.e. logics of cooperation and evaluation. Where Weber views these as scientific constructions, here they are understood as ‘a kind of common knowledge for all members of society’ (Diaz-Bone, 2011, p. 56), again emphasising the perspective’s rejection of an asymmetrical relation-ship between researcher and actor (Boltanski, 2011, p. 21). In this, there are parallels between French pragmatic sociology and Actor Network Theory. This is partly because the two perspectives co-evolved, as Boltanski and Latour often exchanged ideas and visited each other’s seminars (Diaz-Bone,
2018, p. 21). Both perspectives see the actor and their entanglement with objects in the context of lived situations as central, thus making situations, networks and assemblages their units of analysis rather than focusing on individuals (Diaz-Bone, 2018, p. 22).
Further, French pragmatic sociology borrows from pragmatism and linguistics in that focus is shifted to ‘ordinary people’ who in specific situations engage in communicative practises of interpretation and valua-tion, instead of aiming to create ‘a cartographic description of the world already there’ (Boltanski, 2011, p. 24). However, the perspective is also inspired by structuralism, as it likewise looks to understand how actors coordinate and can agree with each other (Boltanski, 2011, p. 25). In other words, this perspective is interested in both micro- and macro-level, tracing how they link to each other. For this, Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) exemplified six conventions, or ‘orders of worth’ – inspired, domestic, civic, opinion, industrial and market – which they had identified as com-monly called upon by actors involved in processes of justification,
compromise, and critique. Actors call upon these conventions by referring to objects, ideas, values or phenomena connected to them, as a way of coordinating with others. While the model of macro-level conventions, called upon in micro-level situations, is seen as applicable to all situations involving negotiation, the six ‘orders of worth’ identified in this work should neither be understood as exhaustive nor permanent. Conventions depend on social context, potentially varying across cultures and time, or fields of practice. As an example, continuing their work into different areas, the authors have since identified two further conventions – an ecological (Lafaye & Thévenot, 2017) and a projective order of worth (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2018). Understanding what conventions are at play and how they are employed in a given context requires empirical research.
Here, I approach ‘critique’ as a communicative practice embedded in specific situations and formulated by actors when they perceive inconsis-tencies in reality. The function of critique is thus to point out discrepancies between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’, and to convince others of the legitimacy of the claims made (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1999, p. 363). Viewed this way, critique always involves some type of normative judge-ment, because formulating what should be is always done with reference to some type of value. Further, this conceptualisation of critique requires the acknowledgement of actors as capable of recognising and navigating the assumptions and conditions of the situations they find themselves in. Actors have to understand what conventions frame reality and what those they are trying to convince believe, if they hope to persuade them of the legitimacy of their cause.
Swedish adult education teachers
Swedish adult education (also known as Komvux or Municipal Adult Education) is a type of second-chance education that provides elementary and secondary level courses as well as Swedish language courses. It is part of the public education system and engages roughly 4% of the adult population each year (Fejes & Holmqvist, 2019). As such, this education is characterised by a few distinguishing factors. First, it is fast paced. Courses that are taught over an entire school year in upper secondary education, can be completed in as little as 5 weeks. Even if students choose a slower pace, courses must be completed in a maximum of 20 weeks, i.e. half the time of their upper secondary education equivalent. Second, this education is flexible, as stu-dents can enrol all throughout the year; can choose to take courses on-site or online; and can select the pace at which they wish to study. This emphasis on student choice, means that teachers too must be flexible, as they must diversify teaching to meet these circumstances. Thirdly, this education system can be described as precarious from the perspective of teachers
and schools, as courses are regularly outsourced to private providers through tendering based procurement. Contracts often range between 2 and 4 years, meaning that teachers cannot take job security for granted. To keep their positions, teachers employed by private providers are dependent on their schools winning contracts every few years. For many, this has simply become a reality that comes with the job (Wärvik, 2013). Fourthly, Swedish adult education is a heterogeneous institution, as all 290 Swedish municipalities decide for themselves how to organize this education locally, e.g., whether to outsource courses or not, and if to contract providers based on price, on various quality criteria, or on a combination thereof. Where in the country and by whom a teacher is employed becomes crucial for the teacher’s working conditions and opportunities.
There is little research on teachers working in this setting. However, some findings suggest that teachers are expected to spend substantial amounts of time working on administrative tasks such as writing individual student learning plans, not as learning tools, but simply ‘in case someone comes to inspect’ (Carlson & Jacobsson, 2019, p. 3). This is an example of companies, fighting to secure contracts, making promises, which teachers then must deliver on (Holmqvist et al., 2020). These findings are in line with research on other educational systems (Ball, 2003; Lundström, 2015; Page, 2018). However, the specific organisation and structuring of Swedish adult educa-tion make for other condieduca-tions and relaeduca-tionships than those present in many other public education systems (Fejes & Holmqvist, 2019; Holmqvist et al.,
2020). It is thus important to consider local contexts, also when researching topics of international relevance.
Data and analysis
The examples used in this article stem from 22 semi-structured qualitative interviews with teachers working in adult education, teaching elementary and secondary level courses, as well as Swedish language courses. Conducted in 2017–2018, these interviews are part of an ongoing research project exploring how teachers’ work and role are understood in the context of a public education system that is heavily decentralised and where courses often are outsourced to private providers. To capture the voices of teachers with a wide range of experiences, I interviewed teachers working in five different schools, both public and privately run. Teachers ranged in experi-ence from having worked in education for just over three years, to having almost 40 years of teaching experience. Several of the interviewed teachers had experience from working with both private and public providers and most had worked in other forms of education before adult education, e.g., working with children or youths. Most of them were working full time, at the time of our interview. Interviews ranged from just under an hour to
close to two hours, where I asked the teachers to describe their work, their experiences of working in adult education, and their views on the education and its organisation. Though the questions were posed in a way that encouraged descriptive narratives – e.g., ‘could you describe what a workday looks like for you’ – teachers spent large parts of the interviews voicing critique. After transcribing and familiarizing myself with the inter-views, I set out to explore the instances of critique expressed by the teachers. I view these instances of voiced critique as examples of points of tension, i.e. where teachers perceive a discrepancy between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ according to their moral judgement. When formulating critique, teachers draw on conventions already established outside the interview situation, i.e. ‘historically embedded into society’ (Diaz-Bone, 2011, p. 49). However, at the same time, critique is constructed in the interview situation and as such, teachers’ interpretation of me as a researcher (and of other factors) are contingent on what they might be aiming to accomplish with their critique. Put differently, the same teacher might formulate criticism very differently when interviewed by a researcher than when speaking to a student or being called to the principal’s office. This is because criticism can have different aims. Critique here should not be viewed as a factual recounting of ‘what is’ but as a communicative practice aimed at convincing others of the validity of the critic’s moral judgements.
Teachers’ critique – findings
The 22 interviews I conducted with teachers working in adult education contain examples of criticism of many different aspects of teachers’ work. Teachers questioned their perceived lack of control and autonomy, saying for example, that they find themselves having to spend time on tasks they do not see as central to the teaching profession. They expressed finding it difficult to plan their teaching, as new students continuously enrol in courses, study at different paces and can switch between on-site and online classes whenever they want. They voiced worries about precarious employ-ment and uncertainty regarding the school’s future existence due to the short nature of contracts through which schools are engaged to provide education. Further, teachers expressed mistrust towards others. School owners, rival schools, public officials in charge of organising education, auditors and the institutions in charge of providing students with financial aid were all criticised, as their quality and motives of their procedures and practices were called into question. Teachers also questioned the students’ motives and ability to make informed choices regarding their education. In turn, many of the examples of criticism voiced in the interviews revolve around teachers themselves feeling questioned. They argued that auditors were focusing on bureaucratic formalities, rather than what mattered; that
other forms of education, such as upper secondary school, were ignoring or dismissing adult education, thus making the teachers feel isolated from the broader professional community; and that media seldom acknowledged their existence other than to point out or uncover flaws.
From the perspective of pragmatic sociology, such criticism should be seen as indications of perceived discrepancies between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ from the teachers’ perspective. According to Boltanski (2011), actors are constantly engaged in testing the fabric of reality, searching for discrepancies, looking to pointing out the ‘cracks’. Here, the distinction between ‘word’ and ‘reality’ is vital. Where the ‘world’ refers to ‘everything that is the case’ (Boltanski, 2011, p. 57), ‘reality’ is everything that is constructed. For critique, making this distinction means understanding how actors can come to question the taken-for-grantedness of instituted realities (Blokker, 2014, pp. 377–379). However, this ‘prodding’ and testing of reality comes in different shapes and forms, each with their particular consequences.
Raising a cry of unfairness – corrective critique4
One way of testing reality is by calling attention to the unfairness of the situation. In other words, establishing value and then testing for incon-sistencies in how these values are put into practice. Adam, who works for a private provider, brings up the example of access to specialised facilities to showcase inconsistencies in how the established values are put into practice.
I also see the drawbacks of the municipality choosing to hire external providers. For example . . . You get a contract for four years – usually its two years, with the option to renew the contract one year at a time so it can be terminated if things don’t work out for any part. But that also means that . . . If you as a municipality run adult education in-house, you can invest 200,000 SEK [roughly 20,000 Euro] in a laboratory or training room and build long-term. Here, if we [teachers] want to have corresponding facilities, we’re talking about maybe a quarter of that budget and then you have to make the best of it. We can convey knowledge then too, but it won’t be as good. (Adam)
Adam’s critique is constructed around a narrative of the unfairness in being expected to provide the same quality as someone with more economic resources. He constructs his critique by connecting conveyance of knowl-edge, i.e. the core purpose of education, to economic conditions – those who
have more money can construct better facilities, which in turn leads to better delivery of education. Here we see that the underlying convention – in this
case, equating economic resources to potential quality of education – is not being called into question. Rather, the unfairness is seen to derive from its implementation (i.e. the uneven distribution of funds), which is mobilised
to construct the critical argument to persuade the listener of the validity in the critic’s objection.
Similarly, Filip, who has had a long career teaching both children and adults in various education systems and now works in a public school, criticises the unfairness in how competition between schools in Swedish adult education is set up.
I don’t think that competition is wrong, but you need the right conditions to do it properly. I don’t think there should be all that many providers, because if you have too many providers you all end up with too few students and then your economy – and through it what you can provide – is worse. You should aim for groups of 20–30 students and if you have too many providers, you can’t do that. If there are courses with many students, then you can have a bit of competition. (Filip)
Filip is critical of competition between schools but formulates his critique without challenging the worth of market relations and competition itself. Rather, he questions the fairness in how competition is being performed in the case of adult education in the municipality he works in, where many providers – both public and private – are contracted to provide the same courses and consequently have to compete for students.
In the construction of this instance of critique, students are conceptua-lised as a resource for their economic value – too few students mean poor
economy. Further, teaching and education are conceptualised based on their
economic requirements – good education requires certain economic
resources. These notions are then presented together – you can’t have good education without enough students – and contrasted with a specific
exam-ple – too many providers fighting over students – to show the unfairness of the situation. The market mechanism should thus be reformed by reducing supply while maintaining demand.
Though this might not be the interviewed teachers’ intention, their critique does not only serve to make visible the injustice they are perceiving. By building their cases upon the economic conventions they perceive as established in adult education, the teachers’ critique of unfair competition also serves to reinforce these conventions as indisputable facts and thus strengthen their grip on reality. While something is being criticised here, the underlying truth is not called into question. In other words, such corrective
critique does not serve to disrupt reality but builds on acknowledging it as
part of making its case. As such, corrective critique is resistance, but at the same time serves to validate the established truths within the given institu-tional context.
However, as we will see in the following sections, different types of critique with more radical directional foci can also be identified in the material. Corrective critique is directed ‘inwards’, as it neither aims to move away from or towards any particular convention. Rather, it turns to
the inner workings of the perceived established conventions, e.g., by scru-tinising the validity of their implementation. In the interviews, there were several examples of such critique. All in all, such critique started by estab-lishing value via way of economic or production conventions, which fits well with findings of previous research showing market and business logics as now firmly rooted and present in public education (e.g., Fejes et al., 2016; Graß, 2018; Holmqvist et al., 2020; Read & Leathwood, 2018; Verger et al.,
2017). However, there were also examples of critique that challenged the perceived established conventions towards which we will turn next.
When conventions clash – radical critique
Critique can also work to disrupt reality by appealing to alternative con-ventions and the values connected to them. Such radical critique has the aim and potential of changing reality or at least rendering it unacceptable and unjust. By offering alternative truths, it draws attention to the fragile and constructed nature of reality and opens up the possibility of existential changes. Lena, for example, who works in a public school, calls into question the established conventions that value ‘customer satisfaction’ by providing joy ratings or inflationary grades, by implicating that they might ultimately become a threat to human life.
I’m sure they [i.e. competing providers established in the municipality in which Lena works] have really good and knowledgeable teachers, school leaders and other staff, but I know for a fact that students wrongfully get passing grades. We follow the school inspectorate’s requirements and the regulations from the national agency of education to the letter. That makes for high standards and that’s why students don’t come here. Because we are too strict, we are too harsh. Students who don’t make it here move to other schools. And then they come back a year later saying that they’ve completed all courses in that subject area. I’ve personally seen several examples. Are those grades valid? Because passing a student that doesn’t have the required knowledge, and who then goes on to do something like work in health care . . . I mean if you don’t know how to convert millilitres into centilitres and you have to dispense medicine – that’s life-threatening. In the end, it can come down to human LIVES. And that’s what scares me. (Lena)
Lena sees herself as a defender of professional integrity. She positions the assessment of grading as something that can be ‘bought’ simply because
students desire them as established convention. She then calls this valuation
practice into question, by bringing up the importance of knowledge and by making the issue a question of life and death. In other words, to convince me of the validity of her critique, Lena pitches an imaginary scenario where the value to the short-sighted customer’s desire ends up in opposition to human life. Speaking with Boltanski, this form of critique is radical because it highlights the uncompromised relationships between various values, market
vs life. Even in the neoliberal era, most people would concede that human life is more highly valued than customer desires – at least when talking about it.
Similarly, Sofie, who works in a school run by a private company con-tracted to provide adult education, questions what she perceives to be a race towards grades and course completion.
Students go through adult education fast. Some enrol in five-week courses that take an entire year to teach in [other education systems]. As a teacher, you feel a lot of responsibility for the people who come here to develop their knowledge. You want it to be about more than just tumbling through and getting a grade. And that’s not always compatible with the time frame of the courses and with teaching many students at once. [. . .] That’s something I would like to convey to all decision- makers. That time is a friend of knowledge. There shouldn’t even be an option for fast track courses. That challenges us very much because, at the same time, we are highly pressured by the municipality and by society. I mean, we’re supposed to be useful! (Sofie)
Sofie establishes ‘what is’ by referencing course length; students’ movement through the system and getting grades; and teachers having to deal with many students at once. All of these persons, objects and ideas draw on conventions of production (Boltanski & Thévenot, 2006, pp. 118–123). Similar to an industrial setting, there is a focus on efficiency by shortening production time and increasing volume. These constructions are then questioned by contrasting them to concepts that draw on other conventions. Sofie positions the teacher as feeling professional responsibility for the students’ knowledge development, and a civic duty to live up to society’s expectations. These concepts can be seen as drawing on professional and civic conventions and are positioned in this instance as incompatible with the established conventions of production. In contrast to corrective critique, this type of opposition is not a cry of unfairness in how established values are being put into practice, but rather a clash of ideas about what should be valuable, what matters and why. It is a matter of fighting for the discretion to establish new institutional truths and how the teachers’ role in education should be thought of.
As constructed in the interview situation, both Sofie and Lena formulate their directional focus as ‘towards’ conventions of professionalism, civic duty and the value of human life. In other words, where corrective critique is focused on the inner workings of established conventions, radical critique is instead directed towards alternative conventions and moral judgements. All critics thus have in common that they establish what is currently valued only as contrast, as something to push off from to get to the conventions they favour.
However, engaging in radical critique can be ‘risky business’. Persons who draw on alternative conventions can be dismissed as crazy, selfish, or
out of touch with reality, if the ideas and values they call upon are not recognised. For example, for Sofie’s critique to be effective, her claim about the societal requirements for teachers to be useful civil servants needs to be accepted by those she is trying to persuade. Likewise, Lena’s comparison of human life to customer wishes is dependent on the listeners’ acceptance of the realism of her anecdote and of human life being valued higher than empty consumerist desires passing as education. As such, formulating radical critique is a balancing act. A critical teacher must interpret the situation and find references that are conducive to their cause, but at the same time acceptable to the recipient(s). As a fictive example, trying to convince a failing student of the need for the company to be profitable as a reason for refusing to provide them with additional tutoring, is potentially less effective than appealing to the student’s sense of collective justice and explaining that additional personal tutoring of one student would be unfair to others. However, situations are always laden with uncertainty, meaning that although some things are more probable than others, they are always ambiguous. For example, this particular student might not care for collec-tive or civic justice, but rather believe in the power of the market. Radical critique is thus only as effective as the magnitude of people it successfully sways.
(De)parting from established conventions – disengagement as implicit critique
A third way for teachers to test reality is through implicit critique. This form of critique differs from the previous types, in the sense that it does not follow the same generalizable structure. In contrast to corrective and radical critique, implicit critique is not formulated as critique in the interview situation. Instead, institutionalised truths are being challenged by refusing to take part in confirmation practices (Boltanski, 2011, p. 103). Some of the teachers interviewed in this study seem to question the truth of common sense presented by the established conventions, by way of disengagement. They express choosing to ignore the rules, quitting their job, or changing careers altogether, as responses to the status quo.
Boltanski & Chiapello, 2018, p. 42) label this testing of reality through refusal as ‘exit critique’, where the term is inspired by economist Albert O. Hirschman’s conceptualisation of exit as expression of dissatisfaction (Hirschman, 1970/2004, p. 4). However, the term exit does not fit all examples of implicit critique identified in my own material. Where the word exit implies leaving a place, some of the examples provided by the interviewed teachers involve staying in their positions at their schools but refusing to do as they are told or ignoring the rules. These are clearly also acts of resistance that risk exposing the fragility of reality, in the sense
described by Boltanski in On critique (Boltanski, 2011, p. 105). With this in mind, the concept of disengagement is better at capturing all three expres-sions of implicit critique presented below.
Liam, who has spent the past two decades teaching in adult education for both public and private providers, articulates this when he talks about the nine years he spent working for his previous employer.
I enjoyed working at [school run by private provider] but the workload was tremen-dous. I also worked nights and weekends. [. . .] For the first five years we had about 18–20 hours of teaching scheduled each week, but then new bosses came and started talking about teaching 27 hours instead. People [the teachers] reacted like ‘well we do as we please anyway, so we don’t have to care too much about it’. There was no need to get upset. And it was just that one particular boss [who wanted this]. Then he moved on and along came new ideas. It was a bit random, depending on which boss we had at the time. But you were so very BUSY with everything, so you didn’t have time to think all that much. The conditions were not very good for making changes either. If you wanted change, you would simply have to opt out, which I eventually did when I noticed that it was just too much. (Liam)
One way of defying the established conventions employed by teachers is by ignoring the rules that are based on values from these conventions; in favour of the teachers own professional judgement. This is exemplified in Liam’s critique when he explains that teachers employed by this provider did not feel the need to get upset about their teaching workload seemingly increas-ing dramatically. Here, school leaders are constructed as exchangeable and their demands as out of touch with reality, which in turn legitimises the teachers’ professionalised credo of ignoring the school leadership’s demands of increased productivity – we do as we please anyway. By disengaging, or departing from the established conventions, the teachers resist and impli-citly criticise the system. Further, Liam constructs his argument by referen-cing the teachers as a collective – people reacted – as a way to lend credibility to his claim that an increase in teaching from 18 to 27 hours was, indeed, unreasonable.
Another way in which the interviewed teachers disengaged from estab-lished conventions was by quitting their job at a particular school, as Liam did; or by leaving the profession altogether. Liam explains that he did not perceive the conditions to allow for change. This statement in itself shows that he did not agree with things as they were – if you wanted change you had
to opt out, which I did. As constructed in the interview situation Liam
formulates his directional focus as ‘away from’ the old school, rather than ‘towards’ the new school, thus underlining the disengagement from con-ventions he did not agree with rather than seeking out a new school more aligned with his views or with a conductive working environment.
Implicit critique can be powerful because it makes visible the construc-tion of reality by showing that established convenconstruc-tions are not omnipotent.
There is always an option to resist, even if at times this can be hard to see, as exemplified by Liam’s quote. However, as implicit critique focuses on questioning established conventions, it does not point out the way forward. It is hard, for example, to gauge if Liam was discontent with how institu-tionalised truths were being put into practice at his previous school or whether he views the world differently. In this sense, implicit critique distinguishes itself from corrective and radical critique, as it draws attention to the ‘cracks’ in reality without shining a light on what might be seen inside the cracks.
In summary, not all resistance and all acts of denunciation are equal. All types of critique presented in this article are formulated by the teachers by denouncing something. However, what is being denounced has implications for what the criticism makes possible moving forward. Corrective critique seeks to make the implementation of established conventions fairer and, in this, serves to reinforce these conventions as established truth. Critique can thus become a tool of domination (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2018; Wagner,
2014), as it satisfies the critic’s need for change without changing reality itself.
In this sense, the findings echo previous research showing that teachers adapt (more or less willingly) to institutionalised logics and/or values, and can become complicit in upholding them (Peetz et al., 2013). Radical critique, on the other hand, aims to disrupt reality by offering alternative conventions and values to live by. However, posing such critique can be dangerous, as the critic risks being dismissed as deviant and out of touch with reality.
Several of the teachers I interviewed expressed frustration at being for-gotten or not recognised by fellow teachers working in other parts of the education system, by supervisors and various officials, or even by the media. This could be interpreted as part of the teachers’ work to convince me as interviewer of their cause and the professions’ importance. However, the teachers’ perceived invisibility can also be interpreted to mean that, at least to some extent, these teachers’ critique is dismissed as invalid, and as out of touch with reality. If so, implicit critique might be perceived as a more powerful tool for the circumstances they currently face. Like radical critique, implicit critique denounces established conventions and by refusing to play along with established truths makes it possible to imagine the world differ-ently. Further, implicit critique serves to remind us that communicative practices do not always require language or verbalisation. The teachers in this study seem to formulate part of their critique as actions, i.e. as disen-gagement – by ignoring established conventions while going about their daily work, or by leaving the school. However, as implicit critique does not offer any specific alternatives to the conventions called into question, it leaves room for (potentially) any new conventions to take root and become
established (Boltanski, 2011). In this, implicit critique is more of a ‘wild card’ compared to the two forms of explicit critique presented above.
Interestingly, all three types of critique theorised by Boltanski are repre-sented in the interview data I have analysed here. Arguably, this is in line with Ball’s (2003) idea of a ‘struggle over the teacher’s soul’, as it shows how teachers fight back. As with all tactics, some are more productive than others, and they can have different aims. Going back to Evans’s (2008) concept of de-professionalisation, we can see how teachers use critique to defend professionalism. Peetz et al. (2013) for example, found that the teachers in their study were generally open to conform to changes, as long as these did not threaten to clash with their conceptualisation of the profession. Viewing the ideal teacher as an autonomous expert who bears responsibility and is collectively oriented, they voiced critique only when reforms threaten any aspects of this idea. Looking at Swedish adult educa-tion teachers, we saw how Lena posieduca-tions herself as a defender of profes-sional integrity, and Sofie argues the teachers’ profesprofes-sional responsibility for students’ knowledge development.
Unpacking critique through French pragmatic sociology
The pragmatic approach to critique presented in this article allows us to not only explore what general principles and values are currently established in education (or society at large), but also how teachers and other actors in education make use of them and to what ends. As education increasingly becomes function-focused and goal-oriented, rather than value-driven, a potential multitude of local norms and conventions arise (Mangez et al.,
2017). With this in mind, it seems highly relevant to explore the moral landscape of education, i.e. what norms and conventions are constructed and being adopted by teachers, students, and schools, as embedded in various contexts. Further, unpacking critique in this way might also help us see how teachers as actors in education navigate the tensions that arise when faced with conflicting expectations placed on them. This warrants empirically exploring how such points of tension play out, for which prag-matic sociology provides a few key features.
Firstly, it takes the situation as its analytical unit (Diaz-Bone, 2011), acknowledging the uncertainty embedded in contextualized interaction and the need for interpretation that this creates (Wagner, 2011). This distinguishes French pragmatic sociology from, for example, Bourdieusian critical sociology, which has been criticised for conceptualising social action as based in actors’ ‘classed self-interest’ (Telling, 2020, p. 4) and focusing too heavily on stable aspects such as actors’ disposition or societal structures (Boltanski, 2011, p. 20). While pragmatic sociology does not deny the existence of such structures, it instead focuses on actors’ contextually
bound experiences in specific situations as they work to deal with uncer-tainty (Diaz-Bone, 2011, p. 43). Conceptualising expectations and ideas as coherent ‘packages’ employed by actors in specific situations to ‘make things hold together’ and convince others of their claims is key, as it allows us to trace which conventions are called upon or denounced, and to make visible the in-s and out-s of what constitutes the building blocks of justification, compromise and critique voiced by actors. Further, taking situations as analytical units helps us compare different educational situations and explore how they relate to each other. Peetz et al. (2013) for example, draw on this perspective to explore various German education systems, and conclude that teachers in these institutions share a common concep-tualisation of the profession.
Second, French pragmatic sociology works to balance out the researcher- actor-relationship. An important implication and contribution of the per-spective is its focus on actors’ critical capacity. According to Boltanski, critical sociology for example risks producing asymmetry between, on the one hand, the great omniscient researcher and, on the other, actors see-mingly duped in illusion (Boltanski, 2011, p. 23). What pragmatic sociology can add here, is an understanding that actors mobilise conventions in ways which they believe will further their cause. It showcases the agency and potential sway of regular people in everyday settings and actions. In this, French pragmatic sociology also makes for a more symmetrical relationship between the researchers and actors engaged in the study. For Boltanski, this is at the core of his ‘sociology of critique’ where actors are understood as ‘capable of using sociological arguments, of participating in practices of criticism and of developing an awareness of social reality’ (Boltanski et al.,
2014, p. 565). This does not mean that pragmatic sociology denies or ignores the macro-sociological factors that e.g., critical sociology focuses on. Situations are for example, viewed as historically and contextually embedded, where established conventions are recognised by actors precisely because they have demonstrated their usefulness before (Diaz-Bone, 2011, p. 49). Further, the project of taking actors’ reflexive and critical capacity serious does not mean that actors are viewed uncritically. On the contrary, taking actors as responsible for their beliefs and holding them accountable, is what gives pragmatic sociology its critical stance (Telling, 2020, p. 13). Adopting symmetry between researcher and actor is thus a methodological choice and an ethical standpoint, aiming to do justice to ‘ordinary actors’, by giving room to their voices and acknowledging their critical-reflexive capa-city (Bogusz, 2014; Stones, 2014).
Third and last, this perspective provides a framework for understanding critique as a complex phenomenon, capable of many different things. Generally, there has been a tendency for social theories to mainly focus either on critique’s negative or affirmative character – looking either to
reject and unmask relations of domination, false consciousness and reifica-tion; or focusing critique’s productive potential through imagination and innovation (Rebughini, 2018). French pragmatic sociology avoids this dichotomy by presenting a grammar of critique that distinguishes between different types of criticism. As the findings presented in this article show, not all critique is the same – where corrective critique can serve to uphold and reproduce existing patterns of domination, radical and implicit critique have the potential to disrupt and work productively towards new realities. Further, viewed through the lens of Boltanski’s sociology of critique, such examples showcase the critical-reflexive capacity of ‘ordinary actors’ such as teachers, without ignoring these actors’ potential complicity in perpetuating the status quo.
In conclusion, education research adopting this perspective has now started being published also in English, showcasing how conventions of worth and processes of justification can operate in education (Fürst & Nylander, 2020; Graß, 2018; Telling, 2020; Ye & Nylander, 2020). Here, I have focused another aspect of Boltanski’s work, namely how actors formulate critique, via the example of Swedish adult education teachers. Though critique has the potential to unsettle, it does not always have to mean rebellion. Sometimes, these teachers have themselves adopted the established conventions valuing competition and production, and their critique serves to confirm these institutional truths. However, there are also signs of more drastic resistance, as teachers formulate radical critique, calling upon alternative conventions of worth where professional expertise and a sense of civic duty are valued. Further, teachers offer implicit critique through processes of disengagement. They refuse to take part in the institu-tional confirmation practices (Boltanski, 2011, p. 103), go against the estab-lished conventions as they tackle their everyday work, or exit by quitting their jobs or changing careers altogether (Hirschman, 1970/2004, p. 4). By disengaging in this way, they question the truth of common sense presented as reality by dominating forms of conventions.
For the case of Swedish adult education, we see that teachers work to uphold reality as well as resist it. In this, they make use of persons, objects, and concepts, constructing them through the lens of the conventions they draw upon. What exactly teachers call upon when constructing critique, how these aspects are formed within the context of specific situations, as well as what aspects of reality are being denounced and what alternative conventions are propagated, are all potential avenues for further research that could benefit from the theoretical resources offered by this perspective. For other educational contexts, this perspective might help unlock new insights into resistance. The formative power of critique hinges on a critics’ ability to persuade, which in turn is never free from contextual factors such as established conventions. Thus, we need to acknowledge that
different actors’ discretion to disregard the rules or oppose the status quo can vary greatly (Stones, 2014). Given this, it would be interesting to apply this perspective when exploring contexts and situations where critique is generally not allowed. As such, French pragmatic sociology can offer the tools to explore dynamics and tensions in the current educational landscape by moving beyond questions of who critiques, what is critiqued and why critique exists to also looking into how critique works.
Notes
1. Also referred to as Sociology of Conventions or Economies of Convention (e.g. Diaz- Bone, 2011; Imdorf et al., 2019).
2. For examples of research using this theoretical framework (however, outside the field of education) published in English cf. the 2011 special issue of European Journal of Social Theory with an introduction by Paul Blokker (2011); the anthology edited by Brian Turner and Simon Susen (2014); and more recently an anthology edited by Cloutier et al. (2017).
3. See however the following examples in English: Telling (2020), Fürst and Nylander (2020), Ye and Nylander (2020), and Graß (2018); the works of Jean-Louis Derouet (1992) in French; and in German the anthologyedited by Imdorf et al. (2019) as well as an article by Peetz et al. (2013).
4. Translations of Boltanski’s work into English are not consistent in their terminology. Here, I use Blokker’s translations, i.e. corrective and radical critique (Blokker, 2011).
Notes on contributor
Diana Holmqvist is a doctoral student of pedagogy and adult learning at Linköping University. Her doctoral research concerns conditions for and valuations of teachers’ work in adult education, as well as implications of organisation of public education through outsourcing to private providers.
ORCID
Diana Holmqvist http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9848-5098
References
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
Bernasconi, A. (2006). Breaking the institutional mold: Faculty in the transformation of Chilean higher education from state to market. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), New institutionalism in education (pp. 187–202). State University of New York Press. Blokker, P. (2011). Pragmatic sociology: Theoretical evolvement and empirical application.
European Journal of Social Theory, 14(3), 251-261. https://DOI.ORG/10.1177/ 1368431011412344
Blokker, P. (2014). “The political” in the pragmatic sociology of critique: Reading Boltanski with Lefort and Castoriadis. In SusenS. & TurnerB. S. (Eds.), The spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘pragmatic sociology of critique’ (pp. 369– 390). London: Anthem Press. Bogusz, T. (2014). Why (not) pragmatism? In B. S. Turner & S. Susen (Eds.), The spirit of
Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘pragmatic sociology of critique’ (pp. 129–152). Anthem Press. Boltanski, L. (2011). On critique: A sociology of emancipation. Polity.
Boltanski, L., Honneth, A., & Celikates, R. (2014). Sociology of critique or critical theory? Luc Boltanski and Axel Honneth in conversation with Robin Celikates. In B. S. Turner & S. Susen (Eds.), The spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘pragmatic sociology of critique’ (S. Susen, Trans.). (pp. 561–590). Anthem Press.
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2018). The new spirit of capitalism. (G. Elliott, Trans.; updated ed.). Verso. (Original work published 2005)
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/136843199002003010
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton University Press.
Carlson, M., & Jacobsson, B. (2019). Neoliberalising adult education. In M. Dahlstedt & A. Fejes (Eds.), Neoliberalism and market forces in education: Lessons from Sweden (pp. 123–137). Routledge.
Cloutier, C., Gond, J.-P., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2017). Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations: Contributions from French pragmatist sociology. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Derouet, J.-L. (1992). École et justice: De l’égalité des chances aux compromis locaux? [School and justice. Local compromises of equal opportunities?]. Éditions Métailié.
Diaz-Bone, R. (2011). The methodological standpoint of the “économie des conventions”. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4), 43–63. https://doi.org/10. 12759/hsr.36.2011.4.43-63
Diaz-Bone, R. (2018). Die “Economie des conventions”: Grundlagen und Entwicklung der neuen französischen Wirtschaftssoziologie [The economics of convention: Foundations and developments of new French economic sociology] (2nd ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education
professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00392.x
Fejes, A., & Holmqvist, D. (2019). Procurement as a market in adult education. In M. Dahlstedt & A. Fejes (Eds.), Neoliberalism and market forces in education: Lessons from Sweden (pp. 156–169). Routledge.
Fejes, A., Runesdotter, C., & Wärvik, G.-B. (2016). Marketisation of adult education: Principals as business leaders, standardised teachers and responsibilised students. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 35(6), 664–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02601370.2016.1204366
Fürst, H., & Nylander, E. (2020). The worth of art education: Students’ justifications of a contestable educational choice. Acta Sociologica, 64(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0001699320934170
Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Cribb, A. (Eds.). (2009). Changing teacher profession-alism: International trends, challenges, and ways forward. Routledge.
Graß, D. (2018). Justification and critique of educational reforms in Austria: How teachers and head teachers (Re-)frame new governance. Journal of Social Science Education, 16(4), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-851
Hall, D., Grimaldi, E., Gunter, H. M., Møller, J., Serpieri, R., & Skedsmo, G. (2015). Educational reform and modernisation in Europe: The role of national contexts in
mediating the new public management. European Educational Research Journal, 14(6), 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115615357
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698714
Hirschman, A. O. (2004[1970]). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.
Holmqvist, D., Fejes, A., & Nylander, E. (2020). Auctioning out education: On exogenous privatisation through public procurement. European Educational Research Journal, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120953281
Imdorf, C., Leemann, R. J., & Gonon, P. (Eds.). (2019). Bildung und Konventionen: Die “Economie des conventions” in der Bildungsforschung [education and conventions: The sociology of conventions in educational research]. Springer-Verlag.
Lafaye, C., & Thévenot, L. (2017). An ecological justification? Conflicts in the development of nature. In C. Cloutier, J.-P. Gond, & B. Leca (Eds.), Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations (pp. 273–300). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Locke, P., & Maton, K. (2019). Serving two masters: How vocational educators experience marketisation reforms. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 71(1), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2018.1480521
Lundahl, C., Hultén, M., & Tveit, S. (2017). The power of teacher-assigned grades in outcome-based education. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 56–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1317229
Lundström, U. (2015). Teacher autonomy in the era of new public management. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, (2015(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi. org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28144
Lundström, U., & Holm, A.-S. (2011). Market competition in upper secondary education: Perceived effects on teachers’ work. Policy Futures in Education, 9(2), 193–205. https:// doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2011.9.2.193
Mangez, E., Bouhon, M., Cattonar, B., Delvaux, B., Draelants, H., Dumay, X., Dupriez, V., & Verhoeven, M. (2017). Living together in an uncertain world. What Role for the School? Les Cahiers De Recherche Du GirsefNo. 111 (September). https://uclouvain.be/fr/ chercher/girsef/les-cahiers-du-girsef.html
Page, D. (2018). Conspicuous practice: Self-surveillance and commodification in English education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 27(4), 375–390. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09620214.2017.1351309
Peetz, T., Lohr, K., & Hilbrich, R. (2013). Die Kritik der Reform. Zur Konstruktion von Personen in Bildungsorganisationen im Umbruch [The critique of reform. On the construction of persons in educational organisations under reformation]. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 39(3), 293–313.
Read, B., & Leathwood, C. (2018). Tomorrow’s a mystery: Constructions of the future and ‘un/becoming’ amongst ‘early’ and ‘late’ career academics. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 27(4), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2018.1453307
Rebughini, P. (2018). Critical agency and the future of critique. Current Sociology, 66(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392117702427
Stones, R. (2014). Strengths and limitations of Luc Boltanski’s on critique. In B. S. Turner & S. Susen (Eds.), The spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘pragmatic sociology of critique’ (pp. 211–234). Anthem Press.
Subramanian, V. (2020). Parallel partnerships: Teach for India and new institutional regimes in municipal schools in New Delhi. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 29(4), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2019.1668288
Telling, K. (2020). The complexity of educational elitism: Moving beyond misrecognition. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(7), 927–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01425692.2020.1789847
Turner, B. S., & Susen, S. (Eds.). (2014). The Spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘Pragmatic Sociology of Critique’. Anthem Press.
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2017). Multiple paths towards education priva-tization in a globalizing world: A cultural political economy review. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 757–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1318453
Wagner, P. (2011). Handlung, Institution, Kritik. Materialien zur immer noch notwendigen Erneuerung der Gesellschaftstheorie. Soziologische Revue, 34(3), 270–276.
Wagner, P. (2014). A renewal of social theory that remains necessary: The sociology of critical capacity twenty years after. In SusenS. & TurnerB. S. (Eds.), The spirit of Luc Boltanski: Essays on the ‘pragmatic sociology of critique’ (pp. 235–244). London: Anthem Press
Wärvik, G.-B. (2013). The reconfiguration of adult education VET teachers: Tensions amongst organisational imperatives, vocational ideals and the needs of students. International Journal of Training Research, 11(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijtr. 2013.11.2.122
Ye, R., & Nylander, E. (2020). Deservedness, humbleness and chance: Conceptualisations of luck and academic success among Singaporean elite students. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1789491
