Interpellation - the ways that schools and teachers bring students into line

(i.

When you are working with your students in class, what do you feel about the source of power that is legitimating what you are doing? 
If have trust and faith in the ideals that senior management wish to impart to the learners and the culture they wish to establish in the institution, then I feel okay about it. It’s important that I feel that source of power listens to any contributions I make to what that culture looks like, what those ideas are, and how they might be achieved. That said, not every detail of what the powers that be wants to happen will be possible to enforce, and I particularly tend to be ambivalent about enforcing bureaucratic rules I don’t agree with.

What is driving you to do the things you do?
Being a good employee, keeping my job, furthering my career are all part of my motivations, as well as being a generally kind person with his own values and rules for what good interaction/behaviour looks like. I will always endeavour to ensure the learning environment is comfortable and safe for the learners so that everybody feels able to engage and contribute – both to the to the learning as well as socially.

It is ideology of course but where has this ideology come from? 
Some of the ideology comes from the institution, from management, the associated board, informed by the rules of wider society; some, such as my own personal values and rules, come from the experience of living in and contributing to a society along with being part of learning institutions as a learner and teacher these personal ideologies are mainly come from ideas about how to treat people in mana-enhancing, kind, empathetic ways. My own ideologies come from knowing how one would like to be treated, knowing how it feels to be treated badly/unkindly, knowing how it feels to see those in authority letting people treat others/their peers badly/unkindly – knowing what kind of learning /working environment I want to be a part of and create for others.

What are the main tenets of the ideology that you have bought into as a teacher?
That participants in the learning should behave in ways that respect others. These are communal spaces and learning is often a collective experience – people should not be allowed to be abusive, bullying, harmful to others, either emotionally or physically.

Who/what benefits from your interpellatory activities as a teacher? (We like to say it is students of course but who else?) 

 I benefit from my interpellations (Althusser, 1970), because they create an environment that is more pleasant to be in and work in that if I did not have any interpellatory activities at all. The learners benefit too, because any interpellations are designed to create atmospheres and environments that are conducive to learning and wellbeing. The wider institution benefits too, through a reputation of having well-run learning spaces and producing successful learners. In a far broader sense, society benefits too, from learners who have positive attitudes and behaviours moving on to contribute to the wider world.

Think of a moment or moments in your own education and work lives when you really felt called to do something or learn something. Think carefully and critically about what was involved. Why did you hear the call but others didn’t? What emotions were involved? How was your responding to the call also a response to power? In Dave Backer’s terms, did you ‘get with the programme’? if so, why?

I heard the call because I was the one disrupting the class. High school Fench, 3rd Form, sometime in the 1980’s. It wasn’t a huge disrutption that I caused, nor a huge intervention on the teacher’s part, but it is a small moment that stands out in my memory. It involved was the French teacher addressing the room: “Who is that stupid, stupid person?” I didn’t realise at first that it was me causing the problem, swinging on my chair and letting it squeak against the desk – or more like I didn’t realise that noise could be heard around the room and that was what he was interpellating about. When I understood, when I believed-suspected-knew (Backer, 2018) that it was me who was being called, I recognised myself as a subject (Althusser, 1970). The teacher and and the rest of the class understood it too – that I was the subject being callled into line. The emotion I felt was one of shame. I was interpellated successfully and did indeed ‘get with the programme’. I abruptly ended my disruptive behaviour and was quite silent and obedient in class for many lessons to follow. Also think of a moment or moments when you were called to do something, be someone but refused the call…

One example of an Ideological State Apparatus (Althusser, 1970) in my life comes in the form of a social media chat group. The ideology present in the chat rests in how one should behave as part of the group – one must agree that everyone with what is said in the group, and ratify the actions and behaviours of those in the group, no matter what. I often find myself refusing the call because I disagree with many behaviours of those in the group. I am resistant to the ideologies of the ‘state’ (Backer, 2018). In doing so I am isolated and not considered a true part of the group until I get with the programme and begin to behave in ways that are congruent with the values of the group.

Also think about moments when you were the interpellator, you were the one calling someone else to be a certain way/do a certain thing. What was involved? How did you feel? Did the person respond to your interpellation? If they did, how did you feel about them? If they didn't, how did you feel about them?

I can recall one incident, again a minor moment, when my authority as a classroom teacher was challenged by a student in the school group visiting my education facility. The young man in question mocked the way I said his name when the group was first introduced. This took place with an audience of the class looking on. I repeated his name as he had said it, and asked if I was correct with my pronunciation. He said his name once more and I realised I had been saying it correctly all along. I used humour to diffuse the situation and interpellate him into ‘getting with the programme’ (Backer, 2018). The group was there to get work together in collaborative fashion, offering resistance to the programme would only get in the way of our progress. The wider group laughed, and we all quickly moved on. While I felt an initial resistance to the young man after that incident, I made sure to build a connection with him, one-to-one, as soon as I was able to. It felt like we connected and were able to work together happily from then on. Being the interpellator was not always comfortable for me, particularly in the beginning of my teaching career. I would often be unsure in my position, and felt awkward wielding any authority, at times feeling almost fearful because of the thought that occurred in those moments: what happens if my interpellation fails? If the interlocutor resists and I am humiliated by this supposedly subservient being, this child? As I gained teaching experience, I understood interpellation much better, and believe each person finds their own style of interpellating learners. The style I have found that works for me over the years is that it is best done with reasonableness, keeping a calm manner and often with lightness and humour. The confidence to interpllate like this only comes from experience.

References:

 

Althusser, L. (1970). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In L. Althusser, Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 85-126). Monthly Review Press.

Backer, D. I. (2018). Interpellation, Counter-interpellation, and Education. Critical Education, 9(12), 1-21. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6VD6P449