Notes on:
Uitto, M. (2011) 'Humiliation, unfairness
and laughter: students recall power relations
with teachers'. Pedagogy, Culture and
Society 19 (2): 273-90
Dave Harris
[A Finnish study based on a self-recruited
group. Memory is obviously a factor.
Negative memories arise as the major problem for
teacher education]
Negative memories arose quite often.
Teachers had 'humiliated or favoured or laughed at
their students'(273). Some remembered
teachers who were caring and admirable, and these
are often stressed, but a negative memories need
to be addressed, especially if they lead to
problems as in Britzman and Pitt (1996). We
do not know enough about how relationships become
negative. Of course, memories are always
reconstructions.
Conventional research on school memories have
noticed the importance of power, and this shows up
in negative ones as well. Some students
recalled an unfair use of power, arbitrary
treatment, 'humiliating and forcing them,
physically assaulting them, punishing them
unfairly, showing favour and discouraging
them'(274). The institutional culture of the
school seems to have shaped these power relations,
although not always uniformly. We know that
emotions are significant as in Boler and Zembylas, and that
they are complex.
What do students remember about their
teachers? A magazine published a request for
material involving remembering teachers. 141
letters and emails were received, from 116 women
and 25 men with different backgrounds and
experiences: nearly half were over 60 years of
age. After contact, some people produced
more information. The study was based on
narrative research, understanding the process of
story telling. Memory is also good at
recalling what it felt like, 'sensibility', and
emotional descriptions appeared. Although
writers took their memories to be 'significant and
true'(275), although of course they are
reconstructions, 'a dialogue between past,
present, and future' (276). Writers of
course wish to portray themselves in a particular
way. Stories always contain cultural
elements and contexts.
Writers often recalled how they experience their
teachers and how they were dealt with.
Negative emotions were common, but stances towards
order and discipline were also recalled.
Some teachers were 'inspiring and appreciative'
and had had an influence. The dominance of
negative memories, mentioned by 79 writers,
produced ethical problems. Expressions used
included '"sad", "painful", "bad", "traumatic" ,
"terrible", or "negatively colored" (276).
Respondents talked about abusive treatment,
insults and wounds, as some refer to teachers as
sadists and monsters. In some cases,
negativity emerged only in 'style and tone'.
The negative memories were read as an entire
story, and 'shared, content themes and plots'
(277) were sought. This led to a focus on
power relations, and the importance of emotions as
well as making sense of memories. Some
complexity emerged, uncovered by close analysis of
one story [which is then described in some
detail].
First encounter and setting is described, set in
the 1950s when teachers were considered to be
authorities and required discipline and
order. Educational opportunities have just
been widened. A particular teacher was
focused upon, probably a man, although this was
not confirmed. The students had to learn to
be a proper pupil. They were told about
rules and practices on their first day, and they
wanted to conform. However, this student
soon got into trouble for a late attendance [her
skis had broken], and the teacher mocked her
skis. She told her father who repaired them
[rather than buying new] . Not only the
laughter, but the very teacher gaze had been
upsetting, linking with material about the
controlling eye of the teacher. The
objection seems to be a moral one turning on what
should be appropriate for a teacher: teachers were
expected to be exemplary. The student
clearly had to control her emotions, as in
Zembylas and others, and there might have been an
additional gender issue.
The student was able to resist, wondering how she
would complain, and defiantly using her old skis
—rebelling in the students' own words. Other
students were also able to speak back or defend
fellow students, question teachers actions 'but
only in their minds' (280), as a kind of silent
rebelling. The words the teacher uses are
not significant in this case, but other students
could recall them 'word for word'. Sometimes
this had a considerable impact: one student was
rebuked as being ugly and big in a gymnastics
lesson, and this seems to have put her off
permanently.
Bodies were also objects of power. Students
were forced to eat their food, forced to write
with their right hand, and 'take off their pants
for a medical examination' (281). Corporal
punishment was forbidden, but there were some
physical assaults, squeezing their shoulders
painfully, for example. Physical and mental
violence sometimes followed failure. Some
students said they had been singled out, and this
caused a moral objection because teachers 'are
expected to be fair and just'. Favourtism
appeared as 'unequal evaluation of students work'
(282), only reading out favourite students work,
using different principles for punishment.
One student objected that his teacher had been
unusually distant and cold and had ignored him in
the corridor.
There were separate and isolated instances, but
also 'repeated and continued' ones. Some
students were particularly strict and threatened
shame for failure; some particularly produced
tension to scare the pupils and make them
nervous. Humiliation was common, 'part of
every history lesson' for one student.
Interrogation produced 'nervousness, tension and
fear'. Students tries to explain this
sometimes in terms of personal characteristics,
including taking pleasure in using power.
Most tried to avoid being shamed or labelled as
ignorant 'by studying hard' (283) and being
diligent, exercising power over themselves.
The particular student was especially hurt by
being accused of copying. She cried and told
her mother. Her father happened to be chair
of the school board, but felt that this
disqualified him from saying anything. She
worked hard at being a dutiful pupil, but realised
that this could also be evidence that she had been
cheating, so indicating that the teacher always
has power. Her father's position meant he
did not support her in this case, but other
parents defended their children, and some teachers
favoured students whose parents were on the school
board.
Other students were hurt, but did not tell anyone,
even when bullied or subjected to arbitrary
power. This links with studies that show
that teachers are prepared to use arbitrary power
if it helps them control students. However,
this did have an impact on learning.
Teachers were also criticized if they are 'lacked
enthusiasm, used teaching methods that made a
subject uninteresting or out of date, or, directly
discouraged students'(285). Some were
punished for misunderstanding, or for an offence
even if they had not committed it. Some
punishments were seen as 'overly excessive
compared with the reasons for punishment': one was
punished for asking a classmate for help; she was
humiliated by being made to sit on a seperate
raised desk, but she felt she should just have
been taught a bit better. There is a
reminder of Foucault with this technique of
isolation and surveillance. Power was often
exercised in public—work was held up for other
students to see as failure, students were called
'nasty nicknames' (286), and appearance or skills
were mocked. It was worse if other students
also laughed.
This particular student was often in tears, and
suffered several incidents. She was
supported by her parents and siblings,
though. She ended her story by commenting on
the '"vast authority of teachers"', and suggested
that would inevitably lead to misuse. She
recognized that it could have influenced her
subsequent life, but looked back at an adult and
saw it more positively.
Some writers recalled students rebelling or
questioning their teachers, but most showed a
certain complexity, of opposition managed by self
control. [compare with Willis's
famous study of British working class males]
Many writers looked back on these episodes and
tried to make sense of them by suggesting reasons
for the action or by 'considering the memories
from a moral perspective'(287). In general,
pedagogic relations are how the teachers teach
students about power. Power can be positive
and beneficial, but it can demoralise students
'even unintentionally'. It is always
possible 'for teacher power to be
oppressive'. The experience of students
should be better understood, and how they
interpret situations. Telling people about
experiences 'can be liberating'. This is why
student memories should be addressed in teacher
education, working on power relations and the
emotions involved in them. This is important
especially because teachers have often been
influenced by their own school experiences.
We might use writing, memory, drama and
drawings. Negative or problematic memories
might be a particular focus. We might want
to use Britzman and Pitt on Freudian transference
to understand how to proceed [and on the
importance of disclosure]. Teachers should
develop more sensitivity 'the experiences and
emotions of students' (288).
Negative experiences do seem 'to have formed
lasting memories in the students', and negative
emotions 'often seem to have remained
unresolved'. Negative memories about
teachers 'are repeatedly recalled and retold' [and
the influence of mass media must be
important]. We should reflect on them.
Notes show that sometimes students were able to
resist by giving teachers mocking nicknames, or by
smoking in prohibited areas.
back to education
studies page
|
|