10 Kostas Dimopoulos
Classification examines the relations between categories, whether these categories are
between institutions, social groups, discourses, or practices. By definition, strong
classification formulates well-defined boundaries, whereas weak classification results in
blurred or more permeable boundaries between such categories. In other words strong
classification is predicated on the rule ̳things must be kept apart‘ while weak classification on
the rule ̳things must be put together‘ (Bernstein, 1997). Classification is related to relations
of power between agents affiliated to each category. Strong classification implying well
defined borders between categories, leads in turn to fixed identities which tend to act as
border guards maintaining the autonomy of their field of practice. On the contrary, weak
classification constructs fluid negotiated identities which tend to act as mediators between
different fields of practice.
In this chapter we are especially interested in exploring the symbolic boundaries which
are inscribed in the form of material boundaries in the design of school space between the
following categories: a)school as an institution and its social environment, b) different social
groups acting within it, c) different knowledge domains (subjects) and d) different practices.
Framing on the other hand refers to the regulation of communication in the social
relations through which the social division of labour is enacted. In the context of this chapter
framing refers to the controls on communication that take place within school. At this point it
is interesting to point out the distinction made by Bernstein (1977) between instructional and
regulative discourse as constitutive parts of the pedagogic discourse. The former refers to
selection, sequence, pacing and evaluation of school knowledge, whereas the latter refers to
the principles of social order and identity formation. Where framing is strong, school (with its
various manifestations as teaching staff, official curricula, school buildings, artefacts selected
and placed within school space by school authorities, etc) has explicit control over the
elements constituting the pedagogic discourse. Where framing is weak students have more
apparent control over the pedagogic communication and its social base. It is possible for
framing values-be they strong or weak-to vary with respect to the elements of the practice, so
that, for example, you could have weak framing over pacing but strong framing over other
aspects of the discourse.
It follows that adopting the Bernsteinian theoretical language, modern schooling seems to
favor strong classifications and framings, while post modern schooling seems to be more
compatible with a significant weakening of classifications and framings as far as the
regulative discourse is concerned. On the contrary, as far as the instructional discourse is
concerned, framing in post-modern schooling seems to be further strengthened. This trend is
more evident in the case of assessment where students‘ achievements are typically assessed
on the basis of centrally predetermined ̳learning outcomes‘, described in terms of targets for
acquiring competencies and skills.
The way we attempted to translate the notions of classification and framing in relation to
material culture of schooling, clearly indicates that it is possible to identify elements of this
culture that seem to fit more to the pedagogic requirements and standards of either modern or
post-modern schooling.^2 The only area that it seems to be relatively immune by the material
culture of schools is that of instructional discourse. On the contrary it seems that the social
(^2) The sociological notions of classification and framing are very useful for analyzing systems of signs and linking
them with the social order since they are conceptually homologous with the corresponding notions of
paradigmatic and syntagmatic signs.