Gastos en la estación de servicio

―Systems of social relations consist of patterns of roles, relationships, and forms of domination according to which one might place any given person at a point on a complex grid that specifies a set of categories running from class, gender, race, education, and religion, all the way to age, sexual preference, and position in the family.‖ (Hays, 1994:65)

I have devoted considerable time in discussing and reflecting on the MELISSA experience. But this is a parochial reflection, only to frame imminent issues that require further consideration. Up to this point, I have explored the original ambitions of the project, its foreseen research plan, and its expected results. I proceeded to describe its leading findings, both in the quantitative (self- efficacy) and qualitative (discourse analysis) domains. As both an investigator and course facilitator throughout much of the process, I recognised that these elements do not depict the ICT- for-education experience satisfactorily. Apart from a tentative discourse analysis, furthermore, the concept of „meaning‟ has not assumed a central role in the MELISSA enterprise.

The journey toward a more extensive inquiry is thus underway. Essentially, this entails a transition in methodology from intervention-based action research to a naturalistic approach, re- emphasising the role and extent of meaning (in its many manifestations). Furthermore, this also creates a transition in theory, from loosely arranged psychological and semantic analyses, to an integrated, symbolic narrative. Furthermore, in light of some of the local understandings of ICT, I am guilty (victim?) of two subtle misdeeds.

Firstly, I presented teacher responses (in Chapter V) beyond the context of critical interpretive inquiry. This has resulted in an abstract depiction of „discourse‟, void of the nuances of social interactions and meaningful encounters. This implies, furthermore, a certain static, or absolute, representation of teacher narratives – definitive and final views, incapable of change. Second, I offered a rather exotic portrayal of teacher narratives. In keeping with the tradition of Said‟s Orientalism (1978, see Chapter III), the attempt to „know others‟ through academic inquiry is often confounded by essentialism. Because of the static, contextually removed representation of teacher narratives, we risk fixing boundaries between the researcher („onlooker‟) and the subject („exotic other‟).

110 Ultimately, the portrayal of research participants, of their plural realities and subjectivities, warrants critical consideration. The many accounts, experiences, and attitudes thus far expressed, require social context, and theoretical depth. For example, those instances of technological determinism, of globalised views, of disempowerment, and of productivity, do not (should not!) exist as singular exoticisms. Information technology is global, functional – this is surely a common and implicit belief? Do we attach special meaning and purpose to otherwise redundant expressions/discourses of techno-enthusiasm (see Bates, 2000)? Are expressions of the many utopias and dystopias of information technology equally surprising (see Wellman, 2004)? Or do we perceive, in these expressions, a modernity bias, in which information becomes hegemonic and deterministic?

I return to these matters in due course. For now, the very social manifestations of ICT – and their characteristics – are embedded in larger cultural, political, and ideological structures. The (re)presentation, then, of such elements needs to depict these structures, as presented in the social worlds and plural realities of study participants. For this reason, and in the effort to advance a fuller understanding of the „digital technology experience‟, I intend to journey deeper. This warrants a discussion around the systems of social relations and of meanings that underpin the lifeways of our teacher community. These systems help define and position the social order to which individual agents enrol and which, in turn, helps shape their social experiences (Hays, 1994). An emphasis on these foundations will also shed light on the meaning framing/creation process of individual agents.

Knowledge facilitators, social workers, engagers

The concepts and theories employed by scholars and analysts are only useful to the extent that they clarify the everyday activities in which individuals are engaged (Manning & Smith, 2010). For this reason, the many local „understandings‟ of digital technology do not exist as absolute representations of reality. Rather, they are anchored in the empirical world, and are defined by those individual and group behaviours that typify daily life. It is not conceivable, however, to describe the many actions, behaviours, or in Blumer‟s terms, “multitudinous activities” of those participants in this study (1969:6). Yet, I did observe a particular „teacher realm‟ that seemed to emerge within the primary school community.

111 Generally, teachers, managers, and learners engage in the ebb and flow of everyday primary school life. This life is guided or shaped by an overarching educational directive, as denoted by the national vision for education (see the „Action Plan to 2014‟, Department of Basic Education). Broad-based policy, however, does not necessarily encapsulate the many roles and activities that characterise school life at the grassroots. When queried on his daily activities, one senior educator at Rosmead described his routine functions:

 Educate;

 Inform students about the technicalities of growing up;  Up skilling the students to help them to be productive;  Social work counselling [for] both parents and students;  Moulding the students and help them see opportunities;

 Help them deal with the results of the social circumstances and [the] political climate, and [help them] rise above all that.

(Deputy Principal at Rosmead)

These functions reveal the diversity of the teacher realm at primary school level. Teachers are not reducible to „teachers‘, bound to stale classrooms and chalkboards (admittedly, a horridly essentialised notion!). Rather, their duties range from being knowledge facilitators, social workers, and engagers. The same individual at Rosmead elaborated on his responsibility to learners:

At Grade R, they come in as „clean slates‟ that have different languages, cultures, beliefs and have only been exposed to their families. So we then help them not [to] operate from ignorance and fear about each other, and help them transition to accommodating each other.

Much has been written about the role of educators in modern pedagogy – I do not intend to labour the point. These expressions from a MELISSA respondent, however, convey the miscellany of social actions in the school environment. Teachers very much fulfil secondary parent functions, and guide students in dealing with their surroundings. They harness and mould those crucial skills learners would require in becoming productive members of the (knowledge) society. Educators also act as counsellors, helping students transition from positions of “ignorance and fear” to positions of accommodating and integrating diversity. Essentially, this diversity of acts / activities / behaviours epitomises the social lifeways and educational functions of teachers:

I try by all means to give whatever I‟ve got to put it through to the learners as much as I can. (Teacher at Zimasa)

112 Most of the students have been traumatised. I majored in Psychology and linguistics, so I am comfortable counselling students. I also talk to them because I want to see them achieve their goals. (Teacher at Thembani)

Teachers – or more sensibly, educators – regard themselves with obvious holism: beings that are central to the pedagogical process, and to the socialisation of youth. They are required, quite naturally, to possess skills and capabilities that far exceed their training. Within the interactionist perspective, these systems of social relations – of realms – define much of group life. Such relations are embodied empirically as facets of the social environment (Manning & Smith, 2010). It would then seem, rather evidently, that the introduction and use of technology would always be contained within the idiosyncrasies of everyday relations. In this vein, does a computer laboratory, or a digital device, or the internet, advantage teachers as trauma counsellors, as knowledge facilitators, as social enablers? Can the application of ICT4D somehow be conducted within these realms?

Interactive domains

An innate component to the teacher‟s system of social relations is interactive domains (Blumer, 1969; Hays, 1994; Sassen, 2013). This refers to the rather apparent notion that group members socially interact with one another. Human conduct is formed in interaction:

Group life necessarily presupposes interaction between the group members; or, put otherwise, a society consists of individuals interacting with one another. (Blumer, 1969:7)

Interaction is not simply the medium in which social forces or psychological properties are expressed (ibid.) – rather, it is an embodied function in its own right. Any productive discussion about teaching and learning practices, therefore, must be grounded in concrete analyses of the diverse interactions that go on in classrooms and other educational settings (Säljö, 2012). This emphasis on interaction in the educational space reminds of the influential premise by philosopher John Dewey: “education is a process of living and not a preparation for future living” (1897:78). If we follow this Deweyan principle, the social-scientific pursuit should take us into the daily lives of teachers, students and others as they engage (interact) in joint activities (Säljö, 2012). This exploration opens up a more differentiated view of the pedagogic process, as a social, interactive, and personified environment (ibid.):

113 Yes, yes. And we help each other, I‟ve got other teachers that are more knowledgeable than me or I‟ve forgotten something, you know? I can just ask and they will come and assist me, so we assist each other when we‟re in a lab and doing something. We‟re very excited about it and we like to work, sit and work in the lab and doing IT. Working together. (Teacher at Blossom)

I am getting learners to be involved in a lesson so they can learn the meaning from the lesson. They get active involvement in a lesson. (Teacher at Rosmead)

I am no longer enslaved to the use of the textbooks, I tend to be more into using things like the Internet as I get more current and up to date examples of the concepts I might be teaching which helps the students appreciate the relevance of the topic in their everyday life. (Teacher at Rosmead)

The principal activities that are I am involved in are social work. Like, I spend a lot of time counselling students who come from broken homes, have been victims of rape, violence. (Teacher at Thembani) Social interaction, however self-evident, is both a definitive and diverse function in the daily lives of educators. The above examples are minor representations of those interactions that characterise the teacher‟s daily experience. Barring the many frustrations of teaching politics and technology resources, teachers interact as mediators of information skills, as peer-to-peer supporters, as social counsellors, and as self-guided learners. This latter engagement refers to human-computer interaction – a seemingly extended characteristic of the Deweyan educational life process. Collectively, these interactions are inseparable from those teacher functions, behaviours and activities thus far explored.

Successful social interaction contributes to a greater sense of community, increased learner motivation and enthusiasm (Newman, Olle, & Bradley, 2012). Among both learners and educators, peer-to-peer interactions contribute to strengthened critical thinking and problem solving skills as outcomes. Peer collaborations facilitate the co-construction of new knowledge, which is the primary goal in education (ibid.). In light of these engagements, the primary school manifests as both an active and interactive education society. It follows logically that both the meanings attached to and the dealings with digital technology stem from the everyday interactional practices that embody this society, inter alia (this will be discussed with reference to Sassen, 2013 in following sections).

Blumer offers additional insight in social interactional practice, and presents two forms or levels of interaction in human society. He refers to these in Mead‟s earlier work, respectively as the “conversation of gestures” and the “use of significant symbols”. Blumer terms these as “non- symbolic” and “symbolic” interactions (1969:8). The former takes place when one responds to an

114 action (bodily movements, expressions, tones of voice) immediately or unreflectively without interpreting that action. Symbolic interaction is a process of reflective identification or interpretation of an action. Stated differently, this is the characteristic and implicit process of seeking to understand the meaning of each other‟s action.

Ultimately, the association between people, groups, and objects exists in the form of social interactional practices. This is predominantly manifest on the symbolic level. As individuals, collectives, or objects are encountered, social beings take account of the presented action, and so formulate their own action. Both individual and joint conduct is formed in and through this on- going process – they are not mere expressions or products of thought. By virtue of symbolic interaction, human group life is necessarily a formative process and not a mere arena for the communication of pre-existing factors (Blumer, 1969:10). I examine this process more closely in the section titled Systems of meaning.

The nature of ‘objects’

Any system of social relations also contains a series of object types (see Hays, 1994; Blumer, 1969). MELISSA respondents encounter these in various capacities:

Mostly I use computers here at school to research the lesson I will be presenting. (Teacher at Zimasa) Yes, we do use communication channels especially email. We don‟t encourage SMSs because especially when you are a language teacher, learners they use those SMS language. So you make sure when you are busy with email you try to be [as] formal as possible. (Teacher at Zimasa)

They use cell phones. They use cell phones quite a lot, but I‟m not sure about the scanner and other things. But you know what, one time I said to them last year: “What can you do if you don‟t have access to the internet?” They said, “We do have cell phones. We can search for the information.” Then I said to myself, “these kids are very clever because really, instead of going to Mxit, the can use it.” (Teacher at Rosmead)

I go for Facebook, for research. Like my daughter is doing Matric, looking for dresses, looking for hairstyles. I don‟t go for music. I go for educational purposes like if I need any information I just go there. And meeting different people from everywhere. (Teacher at Moshesh)

115 No but things like Mxit, because one of my colleagues told me that her child messed up her mind because she was so Mxit-focussed. Even if the child is washing the dishes, she would have the phone on the other side up. One day that phone fell in the sink then the parents said “yes thank you God, now my child will concentrate”. So that is thus a bad thing. So I have this bad conception about Mxit and whatever. Although my daughter is Mxiting her friend. (Principal at Vukukhanye)

Digital technologies consist of both physical (hardware) and non-material (software) objects. Social objects are also perceived: learners/students, children, teachers, friends, and colleagues. Abstract objects are encountered as conceptual or notional phenomena: research, communication, encouragement, relief, the judgement that “kids are very clever”, the belief that Mxit is a “bad thing”, and the like. In these observations, I could not explicitly differentiate between abstract objects and their associated meanings. An abstract object such as „functionality‟ (using computers for administration or research), then, also indicates the implicit meaning of such an object (in this case, its functional value).

The nature of objects is determined by the meaning it has for the person for whom it is an object (Blumer, 1969). Such meanings are attributed or shaped through social interactions. Thus, the associated meaning of objects arises fundamentally out of the way they are defined to a person by others with whom he/she interacts. This meaning sets out the way in which an individual perceives, acts toward, and communicates about an object. Objects, therefore, become frames of reference for behaviour, for action, and interaction. The same object – in its physical or notional form – may represent different symbolic associations for different individuals. This is an obvious but understated point. Consequently, a physical object like a personal computer may simultaneously imply feelings of „function‟, of „fear‟, and of „power‟ (as in our prior MELISSA examples).

Social interaction is a salient feature in the process of meaning-making. Out of a process of mutual indications (gestures, expressions, acts), common objects emerge. These are objects that have the same meaning for a given set of people, and are seen in the same manner by them (Blumer, 1969). This commonality may explain some of the universal meanings associated with digital technologies: functionality, ease of information access, efficiency of communication, empowering, globalised, and the like. Some of the foremost local understandings of ICT share a common framework of meaning (for example, the many positive associations with technology as a teaching and learning enabler). However, the very social and interactionist basis of such meanings can invoke an array of perspectives, thoughts, and symbolisms.

116 Introspective realms

Considering our MELISSA exploration, we observe the emergence of a dramaturgical self (Goffman, 1959) across interrelated levels:

It enlightens me, there are so many things that I have learnt that I thought I knew. Most of the time with the computers, we did the ICT with Khanya there are things that we have learnt but they [are] still haunting me. But now with the MELISSA project, I used to browse on my own most of the time, now that I am doing this thing with MELISSA I have learnt more now, things that I thought I knew only to find out I don‟t know them. (Teacher at Zimasa)

You must deal with the learners in the mainstream, and you must also deal with those learners who are a little bit gifted, you know? So you must be a jack-of-all-trades, you must help each and every one, and that is a huge challenge especially in this time. Where I am teaching now, I sit with a class of forty- eight learners and that is not an easy task. (Teacher at Rosmead)

But parents nowadays [do] not care. But if I think about myself, I was also a working parent, teacher or not, I was also a working parent because you know afternoon when I came home from school I had to see to my kids, I had to see that they have to do their homework, their school work. I had my own work to do. (Teacher at Blossom)

These statements warrant further consideration because of their reference to the „acting self‟. In the first instance, the particular respondent assumes the role of a discrete individual on what Goffman terms the „play stage‟. The person recognises her lack of skills and knowledge in terms of using computers. She recognises too her inability to understand the many concepts acquired during Khanya training. And she attributes the MELISSA programme as being informative, to the extent that she is „enlightened‟. The respondent at Rosmead, conversely, refers to her broader capacity with reference to a discrete, organised group: the teacher. She speaks of the (ideal?) educator as being a “jack of all trades”, and of her own challenges as a teacher in a resource- limited environment.

The respondent at Blossom refers to „parents‟ as an abstract or external community. She indicates that this community “does not care”, and laments their lack of involvement. She positions herself within this community as well, referencing her past responsibilities as a working parent. On this level, the „generalised other‟ (Goffman, 1959) is reconciled with the individual self. Ultimately, these examples are minor indications of the layered self as a dramaturgical organism. An important matter that stems from this fact is that the individual is enabled to interact with him/herself. Blumer regards such interaction as being inherently social – a form of communication or indication that gives meaning to objects and directs action (1969:13).

117 The self as acting organism (and inward object) departs from the view, common in the social sciences, that the person is wholly driven by psychological properties or social structural factors (Manning & Smith, 2010). From earlier observations, we may perceive of the individual teacher