Opinion & Perspective
Shared Interpretations and Dialogic
Learning: A Reply to Holland
Toru Hanaki
Nanzan University
When I heard from the editor that my recent article entitled An
Ethnographic Interpretation of Disciplinary Power within the EFLClassroom (Hanaki, 2007a) had received a response, I was both
excited and concerned. I was excited because nothing seems better toa fledging researcher than receiving a response to his own writing; atthe same time, I was concerned at the thought that my writing might
have troubled at least one reader to the extent of compelling themto write a response. In this case, the writer, Sarah Holland, offered acritique mostly centering on my use of the term “ethnographic” andmy application of Foucault’s notion of “discipline.”
Holland identifies some weaknesses in my writing that could
mislead readers due to problematic understandings of the academic
practice of ethnography and Foucault’s conceptualization of power,
among other issues. I accept these criticisms, but would like to argue
that Holland has misinterpreted my intention in applying an image of
the Panopticon to EFL classrooms.
Holland’s first major criticism focuses on my use of the term
“ethnography.” Quoting Watson-Gegeo (1988, p. 575), Holland argues
that my study is “impressionistic and superficial rather than carefuland detailed.” Holland goes on to contend that my reflection does notmeet the essential criteria of ethnography, such as “taking a holisticperspective, making detailed and prolonged observations of a socialgroup in a natural setting, offering an emic viewpoint,…interviewing
the participants, and developing a culturally specific framework” (2008,54Hanaki, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 54-58p. X). Further, Holland points out that my writing does not provide thekind of “thick description” (Geertz, 1973, pp. 3-30) that allows thereaders to visualize what was actually happening in the classroom.
If the aforementioned criteria have to be fulfilled to justify the useof the term “ethnography,” and my use of the term has the potential todisturb the “true” ethnographers (of which Holland is presumably one),
I would prefer to reword my research as “reflective interpretation.”
Before doing that, however, I would like to emphasize that I used theterm “ethnography” not from my disregard for this research practice
but from my deep respect for it and for the masterful ethnographic
writings of such scholars as Clifford Geertz (1973) and Erving Goffman(1959). I believe that this type of inductive approach to research brings
a deep insight into human interactions within EFL classrooms and anyother cultural communities. Therefore, I attempted to contribute to
the wider acceptance of ethnographic research tradition in the TESOL
field by referring to my own study as ethnographic. As the data formy reflective interpretation was obtained inductively through my own
teaching experiences over eighteen months, I thought that it would not
be inappropriate to present it as an example of ethnographic writing, ina broader sense. If this claim could be seen to damage the reputationof ethnography as a rigorous academic practice, however, I would
prefer to refrain from using the term in this instance.
The second major criticism offered by Holland focuses on my“atypical interpretation” of Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power(p. X). As Holland recognizes rightly, it would be nonsense to assert the“correct” interpretation of texts produced by such complex thinkers
as Foucault, whose intellectual scope spans from structuralism topoststructuralism. At the same time, it would also be true that one could
present more reasonable, persuasive, and heuristic interpretations ofsuch texts than others do. My understanding of Foucault is that hetends to conceptualize “power” as both restrictive and enablingforces. The treatment of power as an enabling force is most apparent in55

HanakiFoucault’s later works such as The History of Sexuality: An Introduction(1976/1990), which was quoted by Holland. However, at somepoints, Foucault seems to have focused much of his attention onto the“analysis” (not advocacy) of the restrictive dimension of power, and it
could be argued that Discipline and Punish (1975/1995) represents sucha text. While Foucault (1976/1990) recognizes “the omnipresence ofpower” (p. 93) perhaps more than any other major social theorist, andthus introduces a radically new way of understanding the function ofpower within societies, the scope of his analysis naturally includes therestricting dimension of power (as well as the enabling dimension). In
my recent article, I did not attempt to propose a comprehensive pictureof Foucault’s philosophical stance (if such an attempt is ever possible);rather, I purposefully employed Foucault’s insights particularly into therestricting aspect of power. Perhaps, I should have emphasized thispoint more clearly to avoid misleading some readers.
Holland criticizes my article as “soul-destroyingly weighted toward
control and discipline” (p. X) and states that she was disturbed by myapplication of an image of the Panopticon to EFL classrooms and theresulting link between prisoners and students. Further, she identifies
some problematic expressions of mine, such as “imposed willingness
to learn” (Hanaki, 2007a, p. 19), “teacher’s gaze” (p. 25), and“pedagogical surveillance” (p. 27), which she argues could damage ahumanistic approach to EFL education.
While I acknowledge that some of my expressions might soundtoo forceful, demanding, and even authoritarian to some readers, I
used these terms, in fact, to realize engaged, cooperative, dialogic
learning communities. It might sound paradoxical, but I explored therestrictive dimension of disciplinary power within EFL classrooms inorder to support each student to become “an agent of his or her own
learning endeavor” (Hanaki, 2007b, p. 12). As Holland herself does, I
also respect my students’ exercise of power (even if it is an expressionof resistance) and their autonomy in decision-making. However, I56

Hanaki, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 54-58

also believe that students sometimes need some sort of restriction,
coercion, or control, a little push from someone to perform to thebest of their potential. Perhaps, I should have called that little push“encouragement”; however, I rather chose to use the term “discipline”
or some other related word with negative connotations in order tomake a clear parallel to the Foucault’s philosophical image of thePanopticon. Further, I should emphasize that I treated the “Panopticon”
as a philosophical device to capture the “power relationships” withinclassrooms; in other words, I intended to compare neither classrooms
to actual prisons nor students to actual prisoners. My commitment
to realizing dialogic classrooms should be evident partly in the later
section of the article “Balancing the Use of Disciplinary Power andStudents’ Spontaneity” (pp. 27-28) and another article of mine entitled
Realizing Dialogic EFL classrooms, which appeared in The Language
Teacher (Hanaki, 2007b).
It is unfortunate that arguably my true intention was misinterpretedby Holland, and possibly some other readers. This misunderstanding
might have been caused by my “superficial” interpretation of Foucault,
as Holland (p. X) describes it. On the other hand, however, I am morethan fortunate in having this opportunity to further clarify my points andmake some additional comments on my reflective article. Holland’s
critical response certainly assisted me in refining my thoughts on thissubject matter. In that sense, this published correspondence between
Sarah Holland and myself might embody a form of dialogic learning,
an ideal that perhaps both of us similarly envision.

References
Foucault, M. (1975/1995). Discipline and punish: The birth ofthe prison. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1976/1990). The history of sexuality: An
introduction. New York: Vintage.
57

HanakiGeertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive
theory of culture. In C. Geertz, The interpretation of cultures(pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of self in everyday life.
New York: Anchor Books.
Hanaki, T. (2007a). An ethnographic interpretation of
disciplinary power within the EFL classroom. OnCUE
Journal, 1(1), 19-29.
Hanaki, T. (2007b). Realizing dialogic EFL classrooms: A
reflection on teaching experiences in the U.S. The Language
Teacher, 31(2), 9-13.
Holland, S. (2008). Ethnography, Foucault, and soul control: A
response to Hanaki. OnCUE Journal, 2(1), 48-53.
Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining theessentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 573-594.

58