Constructive Critique of Power/Knowledge for Educational Theory: Stephen Ball and the Reception of Foucault by Chia-Ling Wang
Delving into educational theory, Wang's 2011 article critiques and argues against Stephen Ball's use of Foucault's ideas. This article's analysis is intricate and challenging due to the assumed background knowledge and complex language. The arguments presented seem valid on a surface level, but weak points and logical gaps emerge as one reads deeper. Overall, while Wang raises valid points about Ball's analysis of power/knowledge in education, her critique lacks depth and fails to fully engage with the complexities of Foucault's concept, Ball's interpretation, and its application in educational theory.
There are a few weak points in Wang's argument. Firstly, Wang argues that Ball's interpretation of power/knowledge and its application in educational policy relies heavily on Foucault's earlier works and neglects to consider his later works. The author argues that Ball has a negative view of discourse (communication and discussion), whereas if Ball drew more from Foucault's later work, discourse is described as a space for change and transformation. The critique contends that Foucault's later works are more dynamic and evolving than limited to control and oppression. However, it seems that Wang may be oversimplifying Ball's position. Ball has authored 26 full-length books, twenty about educational policy. While Wang could not include all of this writing, she reiterates and critiques many of the same themes over and over. She fails to provide a comprehensive critique of his works, only citing the themes with which she has issues. While her arguments may be valid, Ball's work is a complex body of literature and should be presented as such instead of cherry-picked to support her argument. While possibly not within the scope of the article, her arguments would be stronger if she had done a more comprehensive analysis of Ball's work.
Secondly, the author suggests that Ball's analysis ignores the dominant effects of power/knowledge, which Ball himself is unaware of. However, the author does not provide concrete examples or evidence to support this claim, making it difficult to fully understand Ball's analysis's shortcomings. For example, she cites that Ball ignores the complexity of educational events and sets out to fix the use of domination in educational policy in an "overly circumscribed" way. However, she does not give clear examples of what educational events she refers to or how Ball proposes to fix the understanding of domination in educational policy and practice. A stronger argument would be made by citing examples to support the statements.
Throughout the article, there is the false dichotomy that either Ball is fully correct or entirely incorrect in his interpretation and application of Foucault's ideas of power and knowledge to educational theory when that dichotomy does not exist. Ball may be partially correct in his interpretation, at least about certain aspects of his interpretation.
I found the article difficult to get through. The language is difficult and technical, and there is a lot of assumed knowledge. I read it quickly at first and then went back and read it slowly while making notes and charts, and that helped. Wang's analysis is intricate and complex, but by adding depth and citing clear examples, her arguments could be significantly strengthened.
Bibliography:
Wang, C.-L. (2011). Power/Knowledge for Educational Theory: Stephen Ball and the Reception of Foucault. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(1), 141–156.
