The complexity of interactions between individuals is reflected in the responses to viewing behaviour that could be described as bullying. The status of the individual within the hierarchical structure of the school, alongside expectations of role can limit or enable actions. Not only are there differences in status between children and adults, but also between adults in their differing roles. These categorisations
normalise the expectations of behaviour within schools. The lack of access to the policy document (discussed earlier 5.1) combined with status within the school staffing hierarchy combines to constrain or forbid courses of actions that might be available to other members of staff. This contrasts with head of year, Mark, discussing Levi’s imitation of Brett’s stutter he states that children:
sometimes need to be shown, kids when they are eleven, twelve, thirteen, they have quite a narrow view of the world, they know certain things are wrong and they know certain things are right, they don’t necessarily know the grey areas in between
His specific discourse demonstrates the complex nature of relationships between individuals, drawing on educational discourses and conceptualisations of the child. He also connects it to a moral or ethical standard, employing a “discourse of personal responsibility” which “creates a self which is focused on itself” (Hepburn 1997, p36). He references his role as teacher in modifying or changing behaviour, “if you can draw a parallel as a teacher or pastoral leader between what they already know is wrong, with something that they don’t know at the moment is wrong, then that helps them learn”. His role as ‘teacher’ or ‘pastoral leader’ enable him to take action to correct behaviour he deems as unacceptable in students. This interplay of actions by both students and staff illustrate how the availability of discourses to individuals are representative of power relations, in that members of staff, ‘subjects’ in school both approach actions of students with a differing framework, not just knowledge, but also the ways of responding and actions taken.
The contrast between actions are illustrated in through the differing job roles indicated earlier (p86) demonstrating how discursive and social contexts both enables and constrains ways of thinking, speaking and acting in systematic ways.
Positioning within the school hierarchy of staff produces remarkably different agency and actions. Both are limited by the dividing practices of labelling distinct roles. This construction of the individual as central to their own agency continues to reinforce and maintain existing hierarchical power relations, not just for students, but for staff. Essential to the existence of power is one who can act and so there are in principle, many possible responses or subject positions within a relation of power. Bradford and Hey (2007) argue these interactions between staff and students and indeed between students are neither arbitrary nor innocent, but aim to position the subject, whilst simultaneously self-positioning. Some staff position themselves as subjects with the role of surveillance, with actions being limited to passing information on. The higher your position in the hierarchy, as demonstrated by head of year, Mark expands your role from merely surveillance, but also identifying where and how action can be taken.
Similarly students would employ the positioning within a hierarchy of staff, those with greater status as denoted by their title and position in the hierarchy of schools being deemed to have more power. There would be differing responses to a request from a head of year as opposed to a support member of staff. Illustrating Schott & Søndergaard argument that “a complex phenomenon which is enacted or
constituted through an interactive/intra-active entanglements that exist between a variety of open-ended social, discursive, material/physical and subjective forces” (2014, p9).
Whilst it is pertinent to note that as subjects within a setting their role is clearly prescribed in policy as an “active approach” (Respecting Others WG 2011, p2) and for the majority of staff in responding to bullying this necessitated “investigate really to find out” (Mari, see page 93). Asking staff to respond to the vignettes may place staff in the position of needing to garner further information which might be more readily available to them when dealing with situations that arise in their own school settings,
6.4 The subject under surveillance
Staff willingly become part of the disciplinary technologies that seek to maintain the power knowledge relationship, “surveillance is made of willing participants who give their consent to the system of control” (Peters 2017, p34). Staff view themselves as enforcer and investigator consistent with their own identity within the hierarchical
structure of schools. These technologies exist within a set of accepted discourses that define and police a particular view of the ‘subject’, both student and staff, regulating, labelling and enforcing compliance. Staff saw their role as ‘investigators’ and the need for establishing factual evidence, suggesting that there is a framework that involves a set of criteria. This offers few opportunities for consistency relying on “narrow definitions that clearly define its acts, perpetrators and locations”, but is “problematic in the reality of student interactions” (Rawlings 2019, p699).
Despite the different stereotypical types of bullying that might be suggested in the vignettes, for staff the “character” or the “personality” of those involved applied to both the possible bully and victim. Administrator Maggie discussing the name calling of Emma in vignette 6, adds “(I) think that would need to be investigated “and goes on “that not only the victim identifies bullying, but the observers recognise it as bullying”. The focus is not just on the one individual, but also the bully, victim and bystander concur that it has happened. The establishment of factual evidence is part of the investigative process for staff in arriving at the decision whether a behaviour is bullying or not. It is not enough to simply acknowledge that in some way an individual has had an emotional, physical or psychological reaction to a particular set of actions or interactions. The limits of interpretation are fixed, and often reinforced by a procedural set of actions. Assistant head, Gwen reinforces how the reporting procedures help to monitor, and continue the surveillance students:
But with everything, any incident, you have got to report it to us, as a school we try to monitor and follow up, and the head of year has a very good handle on whether this is, you know, Jacob was tripped over by Steve today, but yesterday he was tripped over by Andrew, and the day before he was tripped over by Ben, they would have a very good handle on that, rather than the teacher who deals with that incident. So that is why our reporting procedures are really important, so they are aware
Developing the ‘subject’ is not a one off act, but a “whole ensemble of regulated communications” and a “means of a whole series of power processes (enclosure, surveillance, reward and punishment, the pyramidal hierarchy)” (Foucault 1986, p426). The concept of ‘discipline’ is central to the power/knowledge dichotomy where the truth of bullying is deemed to be isolated behaviours of deviant
individuals that need to be rectified, and are legitimised through the exercising of power relations. Power /knowledge is exercised through the technologies of
domination and of the self and affect both students and staff in schools (Grant 1997) and are further enhanced with the use of control.
6.5 “It’s done with more than one person in mind” (Jeff - teacher)
Schools themselves control the movement of bodies through time and space, regulation and discipline. Class room teacher Jeff draws attention to a much broader purpose behind behaviour perceived as bullying. He highlights thatindividuals are proactive in causing hurt and distress to the individual, he suggests that there is a much wider agenda, in that it is a clear signal to others, a way of communicating to a larger social group with the objective of obtaining or maintaining power and control; aimed at an individual to cause hurt and distress, with the effect of controlling the behaviour of others. This seeks to reinforce the unstated, but closely observed rules of social groupings, and often invokes race, class and gendered identity. This is part of the policing of what are considered to be
behaviours that are outside of the “norm”. If we take Rob’s efforts to become elected as class representative, the defacing of his poster offers alternative views by
speculating on his sexuality. The purpose of which Jeff observes, “It’s done with more than one person in mind”, establishing power relations through the gaze of others.
Whilst both Tara and Jeff showed some awareness and recognition of the social context of bullying and the need for the presence of others for actions to be
effective, they both pointed to contributory factors located within the individual such as status, home environment, emotionally vulnerable, physically weaker or
marginalised by identity as central to motivation or intent. This illustrates the argument made by Ringrose and Renold (2010) that the policing and identification of difference as a marker are used as a method of coercing individuals into
gendered roles deemed appropriate in their cultural setting. Thus retaining the focus of adults on investigation and the hierarchical nature of passing concerns on,