Month: January 2014

‘Feedback’ as a power game

We are so used to being subjected to various administrative processes that often we don’t question them anymore. After all, that’s how you get efficiency – not just when the people in charge do things in an orderly way, but when the people they are in charge of follow along without making a fuss. Singapore is a VERY efficient place. And all that efficiency can sometimes make us forget that administrative processes and devices don’t fall out of the sky fully formed. There is nothing natural about them. It is PEOPLE who devise them, with particular motives, and particular implications. In these motives and implications is a story of power, however deeply embedded it is. And in the technological society where technique (as Jacques Ellul explains it) is everything and everywhere, the story of power can be so deeply embedded that even the people devising the administrative processes may not be aware of it. Among all the forms of technique that administrators employ to efficiently govern their institutions, perhaps there is none so pernicious in its embedding of power games as those mechanisms which are devised in the name of “feedback”. The word sounds so innocuous. What could be so bad about telling someone how they have done? Surely everyone takes that information in a perfectly neutral way and uses it to improve their performance. From the point of view of the organisation, it is the epitome of efficiency. And you know, it is even more efficient if that “feedback” is encoded in an official document – a form. After all, we all know that a paper trail is by far the most effective way of keeping track of essential communication within an organisation. Forms make good sense because they provide a standardising template.

Except for the fact that at the receiving end of all this administrative efficiency are people. Who are messy in their refusal to react to any action in exactly the same way. Just as I was musing on the power game that “feedback” is, I read this article in the Washington Post about a study of people’s responses to performance appraisals. To quote from the article:

New research by psychologists at Kansas State University, Eastern Kentucky University and Texas A&M University looked into how people respond to negative feedback they receive in a performance review. They guessed that people who are motivated by a real desire to learn would respond well to getting critical feedback in a performance review, using it to improve how they work without much in the way of complaint.

They were wrong.

Those who like to learn—presumably some of the best employees—were significantly bothered by the negative feedback they received. The research is a reminder not only of how much people dislike criticism, but of how dangerous performance review tools like rankings and ratings can be….

Those with the strongest learning goal orientation were still significantly unhappy with the constructive criticism they had received.

What this study suggests is that “feedback” can be a dangerous thing, even depressing good performers, no matter how “constructively” it is phrased. I would like to suggest, based on a critical framework, that the reason people get discouraged by feedback is because they KNOW at some level that it is a power game. You work your butt off, you try to do everything right, and at the end of the day someone who may not even be much better at her/his job than you are at yours gets to write down on paper what s/he thinks about your performance. And the most galling thing is that her/his word counts more than yours. How can that NOT be about power? To make it even more suspect, this study tells us that it may even have distinctly INefficient results on subsequent performance!

So why do people in power still insist on formal channels of “feedback” if it does not actually improve performance? I argue that the practice continues in ever more innovative ways because it reinforces the power asymmetry. And my educated guess is that for something that purports to afford standardisation, it actually opens the way for very arbitrary manipulations and consequences. Using a sociotechnical lens allows us to see that a “feedback” form is much more than just a piece of paper that provides a helpful template. Motives matter. They get embedded in the design of the form, and the way in which the form is designed can lead to new ways of using the form, which can then lead to re-designs of the form, and so on. At every point decisions are made. And every decision is part of the power game.

We don’t have to keep considering this in the abstract. I have an example of this power game that I’d like to introduce. It is hypothetical after a point, but the building blocks of the hypothesis are in place, enough for us to make some plausible extrapolations based on what we know about the context. Foreign domestic workers in Singapore face a lot of hardships, as can be seen from numerous articles on the website of “Transient Workers Count Too” or “TWC2” for short. Yet their mistreatment by numerous actors and devices is the result of a complex web of processes – cultural, economic, and administrative. The following is just one example of how some of these factors come into play in a power game:

You know a mall is declining in value when the shops and restaurants get slowly edged out by the maid agencies and tuition centres. One mall that is trying valiantly to resist this creep is Bukit Timah Plaza. Popular Bookstore, DBS Bank and NTUC Fairprice give it some respectability, but the “maid agencies” are gathering on the fringe. I detest these agencies. There seems to be not a shred of recognition for the humanity of the young ladies they treat as commodities. I have seen these young ladies standing for hours in the agencies, in various grotesque performances of efficient servitude and eagerness to learn to please their masters.

Today I walked past one of these agencies and saw a news clipping proudly displayed on their glass door:

maid agency feedback

This made me even angrier. Imagine the situation. The foreign domestic worker (henceforth FDW – the word ‘helper’ is as objectionable to me as ‘maid’ because it denies the professional nature of the relationship and therefore the worker’s right to be treated fairly) is in a position of vulnerability. She lives with her employer, isolated for the most part, from her family and friends. She follows arbitrarily set rules, work hours and practices. She has no real way to negotiate the terms of her employment – at the level of this lived reality – with her employer. We do not even need to go so far as to bring in FDWs who are abused by their employers. Even in a perfectly cordial situation, the FDW is vulnerable to arbitrary power games, often unconsciously enacted by well-meaning employers.

This agency has decided to go the extra mile in improving their service! They ask the employers for “feedback”, and then write up this feedback in the form of a letter to the FDWs providing advice on how they can better serve their employers. This is adding insult to injury! Not only does the hapless FDW have to follow the arbitrary rules the employer sets, she also has to read a litany of her faults via the mediation of the agency – which adds an extra layer of distance between her and her employer, and further reinforces her lower status. Someone in the Straits Times decided this was worth writing about as news, and the agency was so chuffed with the publicity that they proudly displayed this letter  on their glass door. Now, anyone coming to the agency takes it as a given that “feedback” is part of the package, that it is a good thing, and that they don’t ever need to view their FDW as a human being with feelings and opinions of her own.

Not all feedback is of this variety of course. There are formal feedback systems that help the powerless to articulate their concerns and anxieties. Students’ anonymous review of teachers in universities is a good example. These feedback loops do not exist as relations of domination or as technologies of governance when we view them from the perspective of the powerless. They are specific conduits that help communication to circulate “freely, without obstacles, without constraint and without coercive effects” to quote Foucault. The relation of domination embodied in a feedback system that is unidirectional from a position of power – employer to domestic worker, for example – is inhibitive and delimiting in ways that are not always immediately perceived by those with power, but viscerally experienced by those without.

Someone posted a quote on Facebook the other day from the British television series “Yes, Minister“:

” … but Humphrey, you’re more concerned with means than ends …

of course I am minister, administration has no ends … “

This made me laugh, as it would anyone who is familiar with the dry wit of Humphrey Appleby. However it contains what I think is a blind spot of technocrats – that their administrative processes and devices have no ends. It is not that administration has no ends, but that the means ARE the ends, insofar as the means are the means of maintaining both the efficiency and invisibility of power structures. And each new technique builds on the ones that come before in what seem like perfectly logical ways. At each stage there is a moment when intervention is possible, when the power game can be made visible and questioned. But that moment is brief and usually rationalised away as an inefficiency.

When we spot such a moment, I’d like to think that is the time when we step up to the plate and make an attempt – however quixotic it may seem to those who lack imagination – to reclaim a scrap of our humanity.

Advertisements

Revisiting Freire’s work: Howard Gardner, Noam Chomsky and Bruno della Chiesa

I’ve been reading Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed“, and one of my favourite things to do is to look for videos in which people discuss books I’m currently reading. That’s how I came across the video embedded above. Howard Gardner moderated the discussion with Noam Chomsky and Bruno della Chiesa. Held at the Harvard Graduate School of Education as part of its Askwith Forum series, the discussion was about the impact of Freire’s work and its relevance for education today.

My first contact with Freire was when I encountered the term “critical literacy” in the context of educational research in Singapore. Some dedicated Googling led me to Freire, and I quickly got the sense that there was nothing very critical – in the Freireian sense – about any curricular design in Singapore. At that time I still didn’t understand why. I read a paper by Aaron Koh that critiqued the co-optation of the term by educational planners in Singapore, but my understanding still remained very much at the level of exasperation that something could be implemented that could really move the young of the nation to be politically active and yet it was not being done. Repressive Singapore government etc etc.

It took actually reading “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” to understand the very specific context that Freire was addressing with his work. I had assumed from the way the terms “critical literacy” and “critical thinking” were being used in the Singapore context that it was precisely this context that critical pedagogy was meant to be able to address. But of course it was not. Freire was critiquing the approach of communists in Brazil – who claimed to want to free the oppressed, yet went about it by telling the peasants what to think. Freire argued that the oppressed need to be ‘conscientized’, or made aware of their oppression, so that they could then decide for themselves the terms of their liberation. The power of the prepositional choice comes through very clearly: Pedagogy OF the Oppressed, and not Pedagogy FOR the Oppressed. The learning must come from the people if it is to belong to  them and be authentic for them. Not be pre-determined for them and  then poured into them. In the case of the latter, which Freire refers to as the ‘banking model of education’, pedagogy becomes another form of oppression, and not a means of liberation.

In fact this stress on the preposition OF as being the key to Freire’s approach was pointed out by Bruno della Chiesa in the above video. Chomsky provided some important historical background, but it was Bruno’s* comments that really drove right to the heart of Freireian pedagogy. There are two major points from the discussion that I would like to draw out here, and both emerged from audience questions:

(1) In the US – specifically at the Harvard Graduate School of Education where this discussion was held – Freire’s work does not appear on the curriculum. It was pointed out that this was surprising, and the audience member who brought this up asked if the lack of Marxist and other critical scholarship was because it was seen as dangerous. Howard Gardner replied that it may not be seen as dangerous. Rather, it might be seen as irrelevant. This is when it got interesting, because both Bruno and Chomsky contested Gardner’s bifurcation, arguing instead that “irrelevant” is a mask for “dangerous”. Bruno gave an example that I have transcribed below, because I found it both relevant for my interests, as well as fascinating. It is from his work with the OECD, which is the organisation responsible for PISA. Bruno described his response to PISA when it was introduced, as well as the criticism he faced when he raised some critical objections:

“PISA is certainly a very interesting study. However, some of us – a minority, a small minority – had a critical stance from the beginning and said well look, PISA is interesting. It’s certainly one of the most powerful comparative tool that has been developed so far in terms of – well, you know – comparing performances of fifteen-year-olds here and there. However, it’s statistics, for god’s sake. And it’s only statistics. You have statistics which you… what does it tell you? Nothing. You remain at the surface of the whole thing. And then the discussion started but it was crushed very quickly. “Oh you guys are old-fashioned. You are like sixty-eighters”. Or it said “Oh look at your hair”. You’re completely superseded. You know, exactly that sort of things. And I said “Well look. I wonder actually if it’s not too easy to say – to take for instance a book like that, or in what we’ve done, examples that are yes maybe a bit out of date – to completely dismiss very powerful ideas that go back well beyond sixty-eight, to the gospels, or to the other writing of wisdom that we have in all great philosophical systems. Just one thing. Quantophrenia. You know this tendency of…the social sciences to put everything in numbers in order to look serious. Like the natural sciences. But in fact it is in the first place to look serious that at the very end of the day it is much worse than that. It is a way to not go deeper into the explanation. Again, it is one thing to say so many people are living under this standard of poverty. Once you have said that, you are still not asking why are these people living under that standard. And when you say, for instance, in this country or that country in studies like PISA, for instance, so many children succeed, so many children do not succeed, et cetera, fine. Now let’s talk. Why is that? We can go further, we can go deeper. PISA provides the tools for that. But as soon as you start to discuss it – and you say well look at the sociocultural and socioeconomic background of these kids who are failing at school, then you are called a communist.”

Chomsky put the finishing touches on this narrative when he used Samuel Huntington’s “Crisis of Democracy” to explain that in the neo-liberal view, critical perspectives are deemed irrelevant precisely because they are dangerous.

(2) The question of the relevance of Freire’s work for the developed world was raised. Freire was quoted in an interview as saying that his work should not be imported into any other country. Rather, it should be revisited. In the US for example, it was pointed out that the middle class is both the oppressor and the oppressed, unlike in Freire’s time when there was a clear delineation between the oppressors – a small elite who had everything – and the oppressed – a large majority of poor people. There was no firm answer on the question of how to practically reinvent the theory for developed countries, but Bruno did describe situations in which “critical education” was introduced, but more as a “hollow incantation” than any substantive pedagogy. This, he said, was because in a neo-liberal framework, we want some critical education, but only for the elite. Otherwise “it starts to become unmanageable”. As Chomsky phrased it, if people become aware of their oppression, “they start to go after the throats of those with power”. In fact, the “crisis of democracy” was precisely identified as an excess of democracy, with the accusation that institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young were not doing their job, which was why people were protesting, demanding  their rights, and generally making nuisances of themselves!

This brought me full circle, because it gave me new understanding of the initial introduction in, eventual co-optation by and ultimate disappearance of the term “critical” from Singapore’s educational discourse. It is not because Singapore is unique in its ‘authoritarian democracy’, but because such critical thinking is irrelevant for an avowedly neo-liberal context. What IS the scope for reinventing Freire’s theory in this context? That’s something that I need to read and think more about.

* I realise I have referred to him by his first name instead of by his last. My only excuse is that I was so taken by his humour and insight that I simply couldn’t think of him as anything other than just-plain-Bruno. Plus there is all that hair.