Journal Article Critique: Foucault on camp: What does his work offer to outdoor education?

Back

Zink, R. & Burrows, L. (2006) Foucault on camp: What does his work offer to outdoor

education? Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 6(1), 39-50. 

Why you selected this article

            I selected this article because it offered a different perspective on outdoor education than is usually presented. In my undergraduate education as a psychology major, I enjoyed comparing and contrasting what I learned in psychology with sociology, anthropology, and even biology classes I took. I found the connections between disciplines to be fascinating, and to add to the overall strength of my education. I saw this article as a possible way to expand my perspective on outdoor education. I was especially interested when I read the abstract and recognized many of the buzz-words of the sociology/education program that Lauren is currently enrolled in, and felt maybe the article would provide me with a window into the sort of work she is doing in her program.

Summary of the authors argument/purpose

            The purpose of this article is to present analytical tools to enable critical analysis of outdoor education from a perspective derived from the work of French social theorist Michel Foucault. Foucault is a member of what is called the post-structuralist movement, believing that an author’s intent in writing can not be separated from a reader’s culturally biased interpretation of the work. Meaning is thus created culturally and is not inherent in any object or concept. Understanding outdoor education thus becomes less about evaluating outcomes and more about understanding creation and relationships of meanings. Zink & Burrows present and interpret some of the most relevant terms of Focauldian analysis; practices, discourse, power, and the ‘self’.

            Practices. Practices are understanding why we do what we do, but not in a definitive causal way. Understanding a practice means understanding why something appears to be normal and why other similar ways of looking at something are not considered normal. Understanding a practice also means understanding the effects that that practice have on individuals and on other practices. History in this sense is not seen as a linear progression, but an assemblage of events chosen to support a certain privileged view of how things are. In the view of Foucault, other events could also be chosen to create a completely different meaning of the history of something.

            Discourse. A discourse is a practice that forms the conceptual object of which it speaks. For instance, the term ‘outdoor education’ is a discourse because ‘outdoor education’ can only ever exist in our minds. Discourses focus on the relationship between meaning and power. Making meaning is understood to be an inherently powerful process. Words can create discourses (concepts) that would otherwise not exist. Discourses set boundaries by defining what is legitimate knowledge, and who is understood to posses that knowledge. Understanding a discourse means understanding how and why we do something, and how that makes other ways of doing that same thing less possible.

            Power. Power, to Foucault, is thought to be held by all and circulating. Power can be either productive and repressive, depending on how it is used. Power represents how certain ways of doing something become privileged over other ways. Knowledge is intrinsically linked to power such that understanding knowledge in a setting is equivalent to understanding power in that same setting. Understanding power means knowing how a society decides what is accepted as true, and who makes that decision. Understanding power is more about understanding interactions than about understanding causality.

            The ‘Self’. The self to Foucault is also a construct of power and knowledge. Understanding the self means understanding how people learn about themselves and in the process create the ‘self’. The self is understood to be multiple, complex, and contradictory. When the self is assumed to be an object of knowledge, then the self can be blamed for having a lack of knowledge.

Critique of the strength of the argument

            I am not particularly familiar with Foucault or the post-structuralism movement (or the structuralism movement for that matter…) but this article appears to be well researched. It presents a reasonable introduction to the work of Foucault and some of the important concepts contained in his work. The authors present this article as more of a window to understanding Foucault as his work applies to outdoor education than as a book explaining Foucault and outdoor education. As such, I find that this article lacks the concrete examples and conclusions that I, in my structuralist mind, desired. It doesn’t even raise questions, much less give any answers, but it presents a new framework for looking at outdoor education. As such, it almost seems like this article is not really applicable to outdoor education per-se. The authors could almost have changed Outdoor Education to Environmental Education, Sociology, etc. without having to substantially rewrite the article. It’s basically 90% Foucault and 10% outdoor education. Yet as post-structuralists, the authors can not be expected to draw conclusions for the readers since any conclusions they draw will be biased by their own (different) perspectives and will not apply to that of the reader. My only other critique of this article is the inaccessability of the terms and language used. Maybe in such a short article it is unreasonable to expect everything to be clearly explained as if the reader has no knowledge of the topic, yet it seems that the average reader of this article might have no knowledge of Foucault or post-structuralism! I had to read this article many times and consult outside resources to even begin to understand its contents and I’m still not sure I understand it all.

Discussion of applications to outdoor education programming or research

            As mentioned above, this article is relatively inaccessible to the average reader. As such, I do not think it offers a great deal to either practice or research in outdoor education. This article is almost purely theoretical in nature. Some researchers might find it interesting, and incorporate a more post-structural approach in their work, looking to understand relationships and meaning over causality. A second consideration would be to reconsider the ‘universal’ nature of much research in light of the regionality and specificity of practices according to Foucault. Unfortunately, I doubt that any approach that eliminates cause and effect, and fails to draw conclusions for wider populations is going to be very popular with grant writers and other funding sources.

Practitioners might be able to take a perspective of recognizing that ‘normality’ is a construct when working with their participants. I think this is evident in daily experiences- things outdoor education professionals consider ‘normal’ (like climbing a 50 foot tower) are not considered ‘normal’ by the rest of the population. Practitioners might also become more aware of the collective power they have to create meaning and how that might be better harnessed to move outdoor education in a positive direction.