Semiotics

Signifying the Transition from Modern to Post-Modern Schooling... 21

Thus, specific technologies of power enacted in school environment create a docile body
that can be observed, normalized and ranked, and thus function effectively in the larger social
body of which it is a part. Individualizing the bodies of the masses avoids dangerous
aggregates and thus creates a more docile, manageable and politically incapacitated human
being. For example, in schools, desks are organized in rows and columns, isolating

individuals from each other and making them easier to observe.^7
Such ̳technologies of power‘ are effective because they permeate multiple facets of
school life and thus naturalize power, which makes it difficult to provide surfaces for
resistance. The omnipresence and subtlety of the technologies of power, where the locus of
power is diffused corresponds to a state of weak framing. However, there are many cases
where these technologies of power become easily discernible and detectable by a trained
critical eye. These cases correspond to a state where the social control that schooling exerts
on its subjects is visible and thus, framing is strong.
Using a combination of the Foucauldian and Bernsteinian theoretical frameworks as a
starting point, it could be argued that framing is determined by the degree to which material
aspects of schooling can be read as technologies of power attempting to transform young
bodies into ̳docile‘ students‘ bodies. These bodies must be trained and internalize the proper
conduct in the school environment. In turn, this proper conduct mainly concerns students‘
mobility, modes of work, modes of communication as well as the latter‘s recognition of the
hierarchical social relationships within the school community.
Following this line of argumentation, the level of framing promoted by the material
culture of a school depends on:

a) how explicitly regulated is the use or to put it differently up to what extent the

criteria for competent use of school space and artifacts are both explicit and specific,

b) the extent to which students‘ vision and mobility is controlled

c) the extent to which various objects can enter into different relationships to each other

and

d) how far the various material aspects of school environment could be ̳read‘ as

signifiers of asymmetrical social relationships between teachers (or more generally

schools) and students.

As far as the first dimension is concerned the higher the explicitness, the stronger
framing. Framing is weak in the case that such regulation is either absent or covert. Bernstein
claims that where the criteria for competent usage of the space are both explicit and specific,
any deviation on the part of the user from the legitimate use is perceived as ̳pollution‘ which
is highly visible and thus easily traced and for this reason penalized (Bernstein, 2007). For
example consider the case of a classroom where the desks are put in rows, the books are put
in the bookcase in alphabetical order and there are drawers labeled with each student‘s name.
Such a classroom constructs a space where deviance in the form of ̳pollution‘ is highly
visible. If a user (student) as much as leaves a personal mark (a failure to replace a book in its
original position, a misplacement of his/her belongings to the drawer of another student, a
messy arrangement of the desks) this constitutes pollution and such pollution is quickly

(^7) The spatial segmentation is enhanced by temporal segmentation. A tightly regulated schedule of activities allows
for easier management and comparability.