Methodology of the analysis of school disciplinary practices: the principles of disciplinary action
On December 21, 2017, at one of our regular SESL seminars, Kirill Maslinsky gave a presentation “Methodology of the analysis of school disciplinary practices: the principles of disciplinary action”.
His study was based on 158 interviews with teachers and students who were teaching and studying at “ordinary” schools of the Soviet era. The research also incorporated the results of studies on archival documents of such schools. An analysis of these interviews and documents has allowed him to put forward a methodology for systematic description of implementation of the school disciplinary practices. His research is based on the theory of disciplinary power suggested by Michel Foucault, and Kirill further modifies it by suggesting that the system of disciplinary standards can function only as a result of targeted efforts of disciplinary agents (teachers). Disciplinary practices exist independently of the subject; they organize a space of choice for the agent, and the agent can use them for punishing students. The author identifies 4 abstract principles for exercising disciplinary power by the teacher: disciplinary response, delegated punishment, degrading punishment, and exclusion (isolation). Disciplinary response implies an immediate reaction to the perceived violation; it can be verbal or non-verbal. The verbal reaction includes a rebuke, an order, a threat, and ignoring. A reproachful look, a touch, or an attack (throwing an object at a student) belong to non-verbal reactions. The presenter has noted that basically only male teachers could consider themselves at liberty to give their students a cuff on the nape, but women usually used an intermediate object (a pointer, or a class register). The second principle of disciplinary action is delegating of a disciplinary action to a different agent: to the Young Pioneers cell, to the parents who were likely to use physical or other kind of punishment at home, to the school administration, or to the penitentiary system with a threat to send the student to a colony. The degrading punishment can be expressed as a verbal admonition (for example, in front of the teachers meeting), or as an exhibit of misconduct (for example, in a school wall newspaper). Also, shaming as an instrument of pressure could be projected at clothing (e.g., by removing a Pioneer red scarf, or an apron), or at space (for example, sending a student to stand in a corner). The last and fourth principle of disciplinary action implies exclusion of the offender from a situation under the control of a disciplinary agent. For example, in such cases, the teachers could send students out of the class for bad behavior during the lesson, or, on the contrary, lock them up in a classroom during recess. After the presentation, the seminar participants were recalling cases of disciplinary actions from their former schools. One of the most debatable points was a comparison between the suggested scheme of Soviet disciplinary practices and the current situation in the modern schools, a discussion on the changes in the school’s outlook on permissibility of certain actions, and, most importantly, on how the role of parents has changed. It can be suggested that, over the past decades, parents support children and often they oppose to disciplinary actions at school. We look forward to the results of a new research on the current practices of disciplinary actions in the modern school!