Opinion & Perspective
Ethnography, Foucault, and Soul Control: AResponse to Hanaki
Sarah Holland
Temple University, Japan
In an article in the previous issue of the OnCUE Journal theinterpretations that Toru Hanaki (2007) presents seem to be souldestroyingly weighted towards control and discipline. While at first heappears to write with commanding academic language, on reflection
his use of some terms is rather superficial. Also, though he presents
some convincing ideas, they are mingled with less compellingmisinterpretations of theory. In this response, I specifically question
Hanaki’s interpretation of the term “ethnographic” and his applicationof Foucault’s notion of discipline to the EFL classroom.
In outlining his approach to research, it is uncertain why Hanaki
considers that qualitative research is unfamiliar to OnCUE readers inJapan. Even if this were the case, I do not think his article contributes
to readers’ understanding of ethnography. Indeed, it is not clear why
he refers to his reflection as an “ethnographic one” (p.20) when neither
his data nor his interpretations seem ethnographic. Furthermore, it
is unclear whether his intention is to report an ethnographic study
or only to make an interpretation that is ethnographic. If the latter isthe case, this naturally begs the question: Is it possible to make anethnographic interpretation of a teaching situation without actuallyconducting ethnographic research in that teaching situation?
Twenty years ago Watson-Gegeo (1988) stated that “Many studies
bearing the name ethnographic are impressionistic and superficial
rather than careful and detailed” (p. 575), and if we take Hanaki’s
article as such an example, then this still seems to apply today. While48

Holland, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 48-53

ethnography cannot be easily defined, there are common identifiablecharacteristics one would expect to find in an ethnographic study,
such as taking a holistic perspective, making detailed and prolonged
observations of a social group in a natural setting, offering an emicviewpoint (an interpretation of how the participants in the study viewthe meanings of their own interactions), interviewing the participants,
and developing a culturally specific framework. While these represent
only a brief outline of some of the important aspects of ethnography, as
well as for other kinds of qualitative inquiry, there does not appear to
be much evidence of any of these defining characteristics in Hanaki’s
study, and certainly not sufficient to warrant the statement that “thisreflective analysis is an ethnographic one” (p.20).
There is also something of a contradiction in how Hanaki invokes
Geertz (1973) to justify his use of descriptive detail when the only
empirical data Hanaki refers to are his teaching notes and students’evaluations. I would suggest that the quotations from the notes containnothing like the thickly described scenes we would expect of an
ethnographic study. For example, Hanaki states, “I decided to assign
different seats to the students every time we met” (p.22), but there are
no details as to how he went about this. Did he assign seats by directing
the students once they had entered the classroom? Did he devise aseating plan and have students look for their names on the plan before
taking their assigned places? How did he keep a record to ensure thestudents were always mixed as he intended? What did he do if studentsobjected? Furthermore, how was the classroom arranged? What kindof furniture was there? Were the students able to physically move theirseats? What was the lighting like in the classroom? What noises could
be heard from outside? I am not being facetious here, because theanswers to all these questions could feasibly have a bearing on thestudents and on their learning.
Hanaki states that “Although some readers might find some of mydescription redundant or unnecessary, conversely I believe that these49

Hollanddetails are significant in “showing” (not necessarily “telling”) whatis actually happening in the classroom” (p.20). However, from themeagre descriptive detail that he does give it is not possible for readers
to recreate the scene; and so, in fact, he does not “show” us what is
actually happening in the classroom at all. Rather, the quotations fromhis notes and his prose are more significant for their lack of detail thantheir thick description. Clearly, then, the term “ethnographic” does notseem justified.
The second point I wish to address here concerning Hanaki’s article
is his misguided reading of Foucault. Coincidentally, the evening
before I read Hanaki’s article, a group of colleagues and I weresitting around discussing aspects of qualitative research. At one point
someone asked “What is the point of theory in qualitative studies?”
Later in the discussion, someone mentioned that in qualitative studies
sometimes there is a jarring juxtaposition between the theory and theinterpretation of the data. I would suggest that Hanaki’s article, inwhich he uses a “Foucauldian notion of discipline in interpreting thepower dynamics within EFL classrooms” (p.20), seems exemplary ofthis kind of muddling mismatch.
In fact, the application of Foucault’s ideas is not so much jarring
as disturbing. It is disturbing on two accounts: first, I think hemisrepresents Foucault, and second, he alludes to a comparison
between a prison and an EFL classroom: “the students and the teacher
in an EFL classroom correspond respectively with the prisoners andthe guard in the Panopticon” (p.26). I should add, however, that it
is also slightly disturbing to find myself trying to explain Foucault,
whose work is dense and complex, and I am only a novice in reading
his work. On the other hand, I am almost certain that even if I do
misconstrue Foucault’s ideas here, my misrepresentation will be more
uplifting than Hanaki’s.
Referring to the notion of disciplinary power, Hanaki writes that
Foucault’s (1977) book provides “theoretical support” (p.23) for his50

Holland, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 48-53

classroom seating arrangements. In his work Foucault describes
how the exercise of power has undergone historical changes; forexample “sovereign power” prevailed in the eighteenth century, while“disciplinary power” is a feature of the modern age. Disciplinary powerhas several dimensions, one of which is illustrated by the Panopticon,
as outlined in Hanaki’s article. While Smith (2001) suspects thatFoucault had a “grudging admiration” (p.125) for this device, I do notthink Foucault was advocating it as either a means of control outside aprison, or as a model for discipline in society.
Furthermore, the principle of external surveillance leading to selfregulation does not so readily transfer to an EFL teaching situationas Hanaki suggests. I do not think physical compliance necessarily
indicates an inner acceptance, at least not in a permanent sense.
For example, Hanaki’s students’ bodies, in accepting his seating
arrangements did not inevitably mean they had committed their souls
to learning English. Smith (2001) further states that one dimensionof disciplinary power operates “by changing patterns of thought andbehaviour through techniques of training that worked on the bodies”(p.125). However, teaching should not be about controlling patterns ofthought, but extending and increasing the ability to think. And, in EFL,ideally and ultimately, teaching involves helping students to use anotherlanguage to think in. As such, Hanaki’s talk of “imposed willingness tolearn” (p.19), “teacher’s gaze” (p.25) and “pedagogical surveillance”(p.27) seems too forceful and misplaced for an educational setting,particularly a university class, where encouraging autonomous learners
would be a more humanistic approach.
In terms of my own experience, I teach in a high school wherediscipline, in the sense of class management, can be an issue. Students
can clearly demonstrate their resistance to my teaching. For some,getting their hairstyle just right is far more important than the English
lesson. Others get really annoyed when I wake them up. As a teacher, I
must recognise the students’ power and negotiate class participation in51

Hollandterms that will build mutual cooperation. This leads me to a key point
Foucault makes about power: that it is omnipresent and negotiable:
The omnipresence of power: not because it has the privilege ofconsolidating everything under its invincible unity, but because it isproduced from one moment to the next, at every point, or rather inevery relation from one point to another. Power is everywhere; notbecause it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere(Foucault, 1976/1990, p. 93).
Power exists within all human relations and can be negotiatedrather than just being imposed from above. Students
tudents have power too,o,and they can exercise that power in resisting the teaching, as well as
in contributing to all aspects of classroom management and decisionmaking.
For me, the most interesting of all is Foucault’s work on therelationships between power, knowledge and discourses. It isnoticeable that Hanaki does not mention the Foucauldian point about
how individuals are constituted by discourses. According to Smith(2001), Foucault’s “studies explore the ways that knowledge operates
to enmesh categories of person in relationships of power” (p.123).
Part of this perspective, includes both the teacher and students being
viewed as “caught” within the EFL discourse. Foucault’s ideas do not
so much “support” a teacher’s exercise of power as explore the ways
in which a teacher’s power constitutes students, while at the same time
defining some students as “deviant”.
In concluding this response to Toru Hanaki’s article, I would liketo point out that of course there should be a place for the creativeuse of theory in EFL scholarship, for new perspectives from different
angles, and indeed for alternative modes of presentation, especially inqualitative studies. For example, Atkinson (n.d.) outlines several ways
in which postmodern ideas can extend thinking in the TESOL field.
However, such an atypical interpretation of theory, as presented in
Hanaki’s article, needs to be founded on a deep understanding of that52

Holland, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 48-53

theory, and a careful look at the implications for the EFL classroom.
Furthermore, when academic terms like “ethnographic” are employed,
they should neither be used lightly, nor as a cover for a lack ofsystematic, detailed research.
*References
Atkinson, D. (n.d.). Why postmodernism matters in TESOL.
Unpublished paper.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of theprison. New York: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1976/1990). The history of sexuality: Anintroduction, vol.1. New York: Vintage.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive
theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures(pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
Hanaki, T. (2007). An ethnographic interpretation ofdisciplinary power within the EFL classroom. OnCUE
Journal, 1(1), 19-29.
Smith, P. (2001). Cultural theory: An introduction. London:Blackwell.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining theessentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 573-594.

53