David Hiles

Beyond normalization and impairment: theorizing subjectivity in learning difficulties – theory and practice

Normalization and social role valorization continue to play a central role in shaping debates and practice relating to learning difficulties. In the context of recent arguments this paper draws on the work of Foucault to deconstruct these theories. Foucault’s work alerts us to a conceptual confusion at their heart which reproduces a common but problematic individual–society dualism. There is an implicit, and problematic, presence in the theories of a pre‐social individual conceived as having essential impairments and who is passive in the face of negative socialization. We propose that Foucault’s ‘ethical’ domain of inquiry, with its concern for how people actively understand themselves and govern their conduct in relation to specific values and a ‘truth’ that they are obliged to recognize in themselves, provides the basis for returning the individual‐as‐subject to theories in an active, critical manner.

Towards a critical ontology of ourselves? Foucault, subjectivity and discourse analysis,

Applications of Foucault’s work in psychology have been criticized for using an under-theorized notion of discourse. This has recently been addressed by Hook, who provides a timely and detailed consideration of the implications of Foucault’s theoretical and methodological writings on genealogy. Hook’s work also hints at but leaves unaddressed the challenge for critical psychology of accounting for Foucault’s concerns with the constitution and experience of forms of subjectivity. In relation to this challenge, we contend that Foucault’s work can productively be understood as a series of analyses comprising a tripartite critical ontology with significant concerns for subjectivity and individual conduct. We set out this reading and briefly explore Foucault’s intellectual debt to Heidegger. We argue that this suggests the possibility of a form of discourse analysis conceptualized along similar lines to Foucault’s “critical ontology of ourselves.” This is illustrated with some examples from recent research.

‘I can die today, I can die tomorrow’: lay perceptions of sickle cell disease in Kumasi, Ghana at a point of transition

Objective. To describe the lay meanings of sickle cell disease (SCD) in the Ashanti region of Ghana. Design. Depth interviews with 31 fathers of people with SCD; a focus group with health professionals associated with the newborn sickle cell screening programme, and a focus group with mothers of children with SCD. Results. Whilst there are discourses that associate sickle cell with early or recurrent death, with supernatural undermining of family well-being, and with economic challenges in purchasing medical care, other discourses that value children and other family practices that resist stigma are also in evidence. Conclusion. Lay perspectives on SCD are constructed in the contexts of enduring culture (the high value placed on children); changing culture (medicine and research as available alternative discourses to supernatural ones); altered material circumstances (newborn screening producing cohorts of children with SCD); changing political situations (insurance-based treatment); enhanced family resources (the experience of a cohort of young people with SCD). Above all the praxis of successfully caring for a child with SCD, and the political experience of sharing that praxis, stands in opposition to discourses of death and helps parents resist stigma and despair.

‘You can’t’ but ‘I do’: Rules, ethics and the significance of shifts in pronominal forms for self-positioning in talk

Mulhaüsler and Harré contend that pronoun systems set out fields of expression ‘within which people can be . . . presented as agents of one kind or another’. Despite interest in pronominal forms by various discourse researchers, analysis of pronouns-in-use from this perspective remains underdeveloped. This article undertakes such an analysis, drawing on Rees’s theories about the ‘distance from the self ’ encoded in different pronouns. Our data, from interviews analysed as talk-in-interaction, show participants shifting between pronominal registers as a way of presenting their social world and positioning themselves as agents within it. ‘Fourth-person’ pronouns allow the distancing of reports of lack of agency from the deictic centre of self and express a ‘deontic modality’ through which one can position oneself in relation to moral imperatives. Along with shifts into and out of the first-person register, this is notably used to maintain an agentive self-positioning in talk about situations of relative powerlessness.