1

Psychicalcontextsofsubjectivityandperformativepracticesofremuneration:themovementofdesireinteachingassistants’narrativesofwork

JasonGlynos(DepartmentofGovernment,UniversityofEssex)

&ClaudiaLapping(InstituteofEducation,UCL)

(AcceptedforpublicationinJournalofEducationPolicy)

AbstractArangeofsociologicalworkhastheorizedneoliberalregulativeregimes,suggestingthecontradictionscontainedintheenactmentofpolicyandforegroundingthepainfuleffectsoftheseprocessesonsubjectivitiesproducedwithinperformativeschoolcultures.Thispapercontributestothisbodyofworkbytracingthemovementofdesireinteachingassistants’subjectiverelationstoworkplacepracticesofremuneration.Wedothisthroughananalysisofaseriesofgroupandindividualfreeassociativeinterviewswithteachingassistantsworkinginprimaryschools.DrawingonaLacanianaccountofthewayprocessesofidentificationchannelaffect,asdesire,throughsignifyingchainswithinadiscursivefield,weexploretheassociativechainsofmeaningthatoverdeterminethesubjectivitiesproducedwithinperformativepracticesofremuneration.WesuggestthatthecomplexandcontradictorychainsofsignificationembodiedintheschoolenvironmentconstituteaspacewherefragileteachingassistantsubjectivitiesreiteratepreviousrelationstoanambiguousOther.Introduction:theorizingtheproductionofremunerativepracticesandrelationstoworkDebateaboutpayandremunerationinthemediaisoftensensationalisedinrelationtothehighpayofexecutives,sportsstars,andcelebritiesontheonehand,inrelationtothosereceivingbelowminimumwageontheother,or,alternatively,inpolarizedresponsestoworkersstrikinginavarietyofprivateandpublicsectororganisations.Itisperhapstemptingtodismissoutofhandthesensationalized,truncated,andofteninconsistentstancesonpayandremunerationcirculatinginthepopularmediaandinoureverydaydiscourse;andtheextenttowhichthesedebatesaffectpolicyorpracticeisdifficulttodetermine.However,popularnarrativesofjustification,aswellascommondeliberativedynamics,andthetermsofspecificpoliticaldebatesre-emergeintheeverydayinteractionsthatconstituterelationstopayandremuneration.Theappearanceordisappearanceofthesediscursiveelementscancontainimportantcluesabouthowregimesofremunerationaresustainedandhowtheymightbe

2

transformed.Thispaperforegroundsoneapproachtointerpretingtheseclues:anapproachthatenablesustoexaminetheunconsciousprocessesthattieindividualsubjectsintotheremunerationregimeofaparticularsector,andtotracemomentsofpotentialfissure.Wedothisthroughananalysisofaseriesofgroupandindividualfreeassociativeinterviewswithteachingassistantsworkinginprimaryschools.Contemporarydevelopmentsintheneoliberalandfinancialisedpoliticaleconomyhavebeenidentifiedwithcontradictorymomentsinourbeliefsandpracticesaboutwealth(Davies2014;Peck2009;Langley2008).Politicaldiscourseprovidesanillustrationofthesecontradictoryarticulations.Amomentofeconomicprosperityin1998madecrediblethewidelyreportedclaimthatPeterMandelson,aseniorUKLabourpolitician,hadsaidthathewas‘intenselyrelaxedaboutpeoplegettingfilthyrich’.Ifnothingelse,thisdemonstratesinaratherbrazenmannerhowregimesofpayandremunerationcometobetakenforgrantedwhenothereconomicindicatorsprovideanopportunityforcomplacencyandwishfulthinking.Thiscomplacencymightbeunderstoodasaformofexuberance,anidealizingaffectiveresponsethatignorescomplexitieselidedbynarrowlydefinedindicators.Incontrast,inapost-2008financialcrisiscontextpayandremunerationhavemovedontothepoliticalagenda,asapointaroundwhichtounifypublicoutrage,andalso,increasingly,asthefocusforspecificpolicyproposalstoregulate,forexample,executivepayorzerohourscontracts(ResolutionFoundation2013).Thereisthusclearevidenceofashiftinpoliticalrelationstoexistingregimesofpayandremunerationwithinwhatmightbethoughtofasthesame‘neoliberal’politicaleconomy.Oneinterpretationofthisshiftmightbethatthesenseofprecarityfollowingthecrisiscreatedaneedforanalternativeobjectofmoralcondemnation.Aquestionremains,though,aboutwhetherandunderwhatconditionsthiskindofshiftmightbemobilizedasaresourcetounsettleor‘reactivate’thefundamentaleconomicassumptionsuponwhichthelegitimacyoftheseregimesisgrounded.Momentsofexuberanceandprecaritycanalsobetracedwithintheeducationsystem,and,forthepurposesofthispaper,inthefigureoftheteachingassistant.Teachingassistantstraditionallysupportedteacherswitharangeoftaskstoensurethesmoothrunningoftheclassroom,buthaveincreasinglytakenonrolesdirectlyrelatedtocurriculumdelivery.Oftentheirworkisalignedwithdedicatedfundingstreamstargetingindividualorsmallgroupsofchildrenidentifiedassuitableforadditionalsupport.UnderNewLabouraseriesofreformsdivertedproCeédsofprosperityintotheschoolsystemtoregulateandoptimizetheworkingtimeofteachers.Oneinitiativewastheintroductionofastatutoryrightforteacherstobeallocatedring-fencedtimefor‘planning,preparationandassessment’(PPA)(TimesEducationSupplement,2005).Thedivertedfunds,andadditionalregulatorychanges,allowedschoolstopayappropriatelytrained

3

‘HigherLevelTeachingAssistants’(HLTAs)tocoverclasses,toenableteacherstotakeuptheirPPAtime.NewLabouralsosupportedtheintroductionofworkbased‘FoundationDegrees’:programmesofundergraduatelevelstudythatenabledstudentswhomightnototherwiseaccesshighereducationtobuildonskillsandknowledgedevelopedintheworkplace.FoundationDegreesforteachingassistantsenabledmanywhohadfoundemploymentinschoolsdespitelackofqualifications,frequentlywomenwhohadn’thadopportunitiestostudyearlierinlife,toreturntoeducation.Thiscouldinturnleadtoafulldegreeand,ultimately,qualificationasateacher.Whileofferingnewopportunitiesforprogressionforasignificantlymarginalizedsectoroftheworkforce,thesereformsaddedtothecomplexityofthecategorizingsystemwithintheworkplace,whichnowgradedteachingassistantsfromNVQslevel1-3throughtoHLTAandpotentiallyautonomousclassroompractitioner;andatthesametimeprovokedoppositionfromteachingunions,whofeltthatthepromotionofteachingassistantstocoverPPAtimeunderminedtheprofessionalstatusofteachers.Nevertheless,therewasacertainexuberancebothabouttherecognitionofteachers’needforplanningtimeandaboutthedevelopmentofnewroutesforequityinaccesstoeducationalandprofessionalopportunities.Undertheausterityregimethatfollowedthe2008financialcrash,themoreexuberantelementsofthisscenariohavethemselvesbeenrevealedasfragileandprecarious.Changesinteachers’conditionsofpayprovideoneillustrationoftheprecariousaspectofexuberantremunerativereforms.Duringtheperiodofausterityavarietyoflongstandingmechanismsforensuringtransparencywithinanationalpaysystemwererevokedasschoolsweregivenmoreautonomyinpracticesofremuneration(NationalUnionofTeachers,2013).Atthesametime,intensifiedmechanismsofaccountability,intheformofperformancerelatedpaylinkedtopupilachievement,replacedattemptsmadeintheperiodofprosperitytoofferscalesofprogressionthatrecognizedthevalueofclassroompractice(ibid).Thusanexuberantmomentofapparentuniversalismandrecognitionofprofessionalknowledgequicklyevaporated.TheNUTactioninoppositiontothesechangeswasoneelementofthecontextoftheprojectreportedinthispaper.Asmanyothershavenoted,theseinstancesofshiftingdiscoursesandregulativepracticesofpayandremunerationcanbetheorizedinavarietyofways.WalkerdineandBansel(2010)pointtotheoppositionbetweenGiddens’understandingoflatemodernityasofferingopportunitiesfora‘reflexiveprojectoftheself’andRose’ssuggestionthatthisimperativetochooseisitselfaconstruction,anobligationtobefreethatisdemandedofsubjectsofneoliberaltechnologies(p.495).McGimpsey(2017)notesthatliberalandneoliberalpolicyshiftshavebeendescribedasexemplifyingsuccessiveformationsof‘thestate’,andthatthiskindofanalysisprojectsanideaofthestateas‘acomprehensiveand

4

comprehendibleunity’(p.67).Thecoherencethisimpliesisquestionedinanalysesthatviewpolicyinitiativesasconstitutiveof,ratherthanresponsiveto,acauseoraproblem:McGimpseysuggeststhat‘austerityfunctioneddiscursivelytoshiftthelocusofthecrisisfromprivatedebtandrecklessgovernanceinthefinancialsectortolevelsofpublicspending’(ibid,p.72);whileThompsonandCookarguethatacrossshiftsineducationpolicythefigureof‘theunaccountableteacher’or‘teacherastheproblem’isproducedasajustificationforneoliberaltechnologiesofaccountability(2014).AlltheseauthorssuggestthatDeleuze’sconceptionof‘assemblage’offersamoreproductivewaytounderstandthepoliticsof‘neoliberalism’.OnefeatureofDeleuziananalysesisaresistancetoanunderstandingof‘neoliberalism’asatemporalorspatialunity,orasahegemonicstructurewithunitaryorpredictablesubjectivatingeffects.Ratherthanseekingtoidentifycoherence,an‘assemblage’anti-methodologysuggestswemapsocialformationsascontingentbutproductiveconjunctionsofparts(McGimpsey,2017;DeleuzeandGuattari,1984).ForexampleMcGimpseymapstheconjunctionoflocalism,austerity,andmechanismsforcalculatingthevalueofreturnsonsocialinvestmentsasthedistinctive‘lateneoliberal’publicserviceassemblagethatemergedintheUKafterthefinancialcrash(2017:72).WalkerdineandBansel(2010)comparecommunitiesinSydneyandintheSouthWalesvalleysexperiencingsimilarchallengesofaglobalizedlabourmarketthatdemandsindividualized‘entrepreneurial’workeridentities.TheyarguethatarecognizablevocabularyofentrepreneurialaspirationwasevidentinSydneyworkers’narrativesofsolitaryexperiencesofredundancyandrestructuring.Incontrasttheestablishedpresenceoftradeunionsandsensitiveinterventionstosupportworkers’planningpost-redundancyintheSouthWalescommunityenabledex-steelworkerstoexperiencecreativenewcareerpossibilities‘lessasaspirationthanrevelation’(503).Theyconclude:‘neooradvancedliberalismandglobalisationarenotmonolithicforcesthattrampleuponlivesinsuchawayastocompletelypredictandspecifytheoutcome’(506).Thisuseof‘assemblage’toexplorere-orderingsofpartialelementsofdiversecontextsisconsistentwithpolicyenactmentresearch(Balletal,2011;Braunetal,2011;Bradbury,2014;Santori,2014),whichusesethnographic-typeapproachestotracethewayjuxtapositionsofdifferentelementsofcontext(e.g.geography,knowledgeorprofessionalvalues,materialinfrastructure,externalrelations,seeBraunetal2011:588)producediversepracticesandsubjectsofeducationpolicy.So,forexample,BradburyobservesthewaytheassessmentprofilesrequiredinUKearlyyearssettingsinvolveteachers’professionaljudgment,butthenaskteacherstotransformthatjudgmentintoanumericalrecordforpurposesofaccountability,simultaneouslyacknowledgingandthenunderminingteachers’expertknowledgeandstatus(2012;2014).Atthelevelof

5

theteacher,Ballhasdescribedthisas‘akindofvaluesschizophrenia’or‘splitting’(2003:221;seealsoRogers2012;Bernstein,2000),connotingthewaythatpsychicalprocessesareimplicatedintheformationofthepolicysubject.ADeleuzianperspectivemightdescribethisasafusingofcontradictoryparts–partialelementsofexpertknowledgejuxtaposedwithpartialelementsofanaccountabilitysystem–andaredirectionofflowsofaffectwithinanearlyyears’educationassemblage.AfurtherspaceofarticulationbetweenDeleuzianassemblagetheoryandpolicyenactmentresearchcanbetracedinthetheorizationofpolitics,agencyandthenew.Deleuze’stheorisationoftheassemblageisalsoatheorisationofthepossibilityofthenew,andadisplacementofthe‘self’asthesubjectofaction.Inthisview,thepossibilityofthenewrequiresacreative,politicalre-orderingofassemblage,differenceasopposedtorepetition(ThompsonandCook,2014:712),andthiscreativityisassociatedwiththeaffectivecapacitiesofdesire(Bignall,2010).Incontrast,someofthemoretraditionallyFoucauldianaspectsofpolicyenactmentresearchcanseemtoviewcontemporarydisciplinarytechnologiesasuni-directionalintheireffects,squeezingthebreathoutofpocketsofresistance.Ball’sclassic2003paper,‘Theteacher’ssoulandtheterrorsofperformativity’,forexample,concludes:‘Thepolicytechnologiesofmarket,managementandperformativityleavenospaceofanautonomousorcollectiveethicalself’(226).Thisrecoursetoanotionofautonomyorcollectivityasaunified,thoughthwarted,subjectofethics,appearstocreateapoliticalimpasse.Similarly,inrecentworkforegroundingthesignificanceofmicro-processesintheproductionofcontingent‘versionsofprofessionalism’(Perrymanetal,2017),thesubjectappearsaspoliticallyinert,‘compliantintheirdomination’(ibid:2).However,otherresearchinthefieldhasexplicitlyexploredpossibilitiesforteacheragencyandtheorizedmomentsofresistance(Balletal.2011;Braunetal.2010;Bradbury2012,2014;Wright2013).Bradbury’sstudyoftheearlyyears’classroom,forexample,developsBall’snotionof‘cynicalcompliance’asapainfulmodeofagencythatappearsincontextsthataretightlymonitoredbymultipletechnologiesofaccountability(2012).Heranalysispointstotheaffectivecostthisentails,arguing:“weneedtoderomanticisetheideaofteachers’resistancetodominantneo-liberaldiscoursesandconsidertheemotionalcostsoftheirexerciseofagency.”(ibid:183).Thisbodyofworkraisesaseriesofquestions.Onesetofquestionsrelatestothewayparticularsubjectstakeuppositionsofcompliance/resistance:Howmightwebetterunderstandtheappearanceanddispersalofcompliant/resistantsubjectpositionswithinthefieldofeducation?Whatconstitutesasubjectivityasaparticularmodeofagency/resistance?Therearealsoquestionswemightposeabouttheinterpretationofpsychicalandaffectiveprocessesintheproductionofthesesubjectivities:Howmightwebetterunderstandthe‘emotionalcosts’

6

associatedwithcompliance/resistance?Isitpossibletotracearelationshipbetweenaffect,ordesire,andtheproductionofasubjectivityasaparticularkindofcompliant/resistantsubject?Psychoanalyticunderstandingsofboththeunconsciousanddesirecanhelpustoexplorethesequestionsaboutsubjectivityandaffect.Followingfromtheinsightsintothesignificanceofbothaffectandsubjectivitydevelopedinpreviousresearch,thispaperexploresthesequestionsbytracingthemovementofdesireinteachingassistants’subjectiverelationstoworkplacepracticesofremuneration.DrawingonaLacanianaccountofthewayprocessesofidentificationchannelaffect,asdesire,throughsignifyingchainswithinadiscursivefield,weexploretheassociativechainsofmeaningthatoverdeterminethesubjectivitiesproducedwithinperformativepracticesofremuneration.WesuggestthatthecontradictorychainsofsignificationembodiedintheschoolenvironmentconstituteaspacewherefragileteachingassistantsubjectivitiesreiteraterelationstoanambiguousOther.Thistheorizationofthemovementofdesire,foregroundingtheroleofunconscious,symbolicassociations,providesinsightsintocomplexdynamicsofstasisandchange,andaddsdetailandnuancetoexistingaccountsofagencyandenactmentineducationpolicyresearch.Inadditionweargue,speculativelyandplayfully,foranunderstandingofpsychicalobjectsandunconsciousprocessesasacontextfor,oraspartialobjectswithin,aremunerationassemblage.Where,forexample,WalkerdineandBanselforegroundcontextsoftimeandplaceintheircomparisonacrosssettings,thepsychemightbeseenasadisplacementofhistoricalandgeographicalcontexts,condensingnormsandprinciplesacrossspace-time.FromtheperspectiveofthosewhoforegroundtheoppositionbetweenLacanianandDeleuzianphilosophies(e.g.O’Sullivan,2009)thejuxtapositionofLacanianandDeleuzianapproachesmightbeconsideredproblematic.However,Deleuze’sacknowledgementofhisdebttoLacansuggeststhatthejuxtapositionofthetwoisnotillegitimate,eventhoughwearedeployingsomeoftheterms–‘signifier’,‘symbolic,’‘Oedipus’–thatheexplicitlyrenounced(Deleuze,1995:13-4;Smith,2005:642-3).WehopethatitmightperhapsbepossibletomitigatethetraditionalpsychoanalyticreificationofOedipalorfamilialrelationswithinthepsyche.Weneedtoputthisriderupfront,asouranalysismostcertainlyreiteratesaspectsofOedipus.Thequestioniswhetherwecanavoid,inthewordsofDeleuzeandGuattari:‘takingpartintheworkofbourgeoisrepressionatitsmostfar-reachinglevel[..]keepingEuropeanhumanityharnessedtotheyokeofdaddy-mommy’(1984:50).Wehopethat,ratherthanshouting‘daddy-mommy’,althoughthatisarisk,ouranalysisinflectstheoedipalrelationtoaparentalOtherwithLacan’smobiusstrip,oreven,thoughlessdirectly,Deleuze&Guattari'smycelium-stylerhizomemetaphors,todisturbessentialisingconceptionsofinnerandouter,orofthepsychicandthesocial.

7

Beforemovingontotheprojectandanalysisofthematerial,webrieflyreviewthewaypsychoanalyticconceptionsofrepetitionandresistancehavebeendeployedinpreviouspsychosocialanalysesofrelationstowork.Repetitionandresistanceinrelationstowork:aspacefortheunconscious?InBeyondthePleasurePrinciple(1920)Freudtracedtherelationbetweenresistanceandrepetition.ThisformsthebasisfortheconceptualizationoftransferenceandalsoforFreud’sunderstandingofthedistinctivenatureoftheclinicalspace.Withinpsychoanalyticpracticeithadinitiallybeenthoughtthatasymptommightbeovercomebyexplainingitsmeaningdirectlytothepatient.Analystsdiscovered,however,thattherewasaresistancetothiskindofdirectinterpretation.Freudthentheorizedthisresistanceasitselfanaspectofthesymptom:acluethatmightshedlightonrepetitiouspatternsofbehaviourthatimpedesatisfaction.Theconceptofthetransferencesuggeststhatsuchpatternsmightbeunderstoodasrepetitionsofprevioussignificantrelationshipswithinanewcontext,suchastheclinicalsituation.Clinically,thetransferenceisadistinctivesituationinwhichthepatientcanbothrepeatpreviouspatterns,andcometorecogniseandthusshifttheunconsciousdesirethatlimitedtheirrelationsinthisway(ibid:289).Psychosocialworkthatdrawsonpsychoanalysishasusedtheseideasbothtointerpretrepetitiouspatternsininterviewnarratives,andtointerpretrelationswithintheresearchprocessitself.AlexMoore’s(2006)analysisofteachers’responsestopolicydirectivesusestheconceptofrepetitiontotraceconflictingpositionarticulatedininterviewaccounts.Hedistinguishesbetweenmoresociologicalinterpretations,whichfocusonexplicitstatementsofideologicalaffiliations,andpsychoanalyticinterpretationsofreiterateddesire.Wherecontradictionsemergeininterviewnarratives,Mooresuggests,itisproductivetoexploreboththeselevelsofanalysis.Heillustratesthiswiththecaseofoneparticipantwhoseneedtoavoidconflictandtobeseenaslikablehadwonoutoverhispoliticalconvictionswhenpolicychangeswereintroducedinhisschool:‘Billseemstohavebeencompelledtosubordinateonesetoffeelings–todowitheducationalandpoliticalideology–toanotherset,todowithnotwantingtolosepopularity’.Mooredescribesthisas‘thetriumphofdesireoverideology’(2006:497).Layton,apsychoanalyst,hastracedsimilardynamicsinheranalysisofclassrelationstothe‘entrepreneurial’subjectivitydemandedbyneoliberallabourmarket.Sheidentifiesrepetitioustransferentialpatternsimbuedwithclassrelatedexpectations,andrelatesthesebothtoherpatientsexperiencesatwork,andtotheirrelationwithherintheclinic(2016).ItisalsoworthnotingthatThompsonandCook(2014)citeMoore’sworkonrepetitionandtransferenceintheirDeleuziananalysisofthe

8

failureofeducationpolicymakingtoconstitutedifference.Theiranalysispositsthepolicymakingassemblageasneedingtobreakoutofthehabitof‘teacherasproblem’(712).TheirargumentispositionedwithinDeleuze’scomplextheorizationofrepetitionastheimaginaryproductofcontemplation(Deleuze,2004),which,whilenotdirectlypsychoanalytic,hasclearresonanceswithbothFreudianandLacanianideas.AnumberofresearchersinfluencedbyLacanianideashavebeenexperimentingwithwhattheydescribeasapsychoanalyticallyinformedactivistapproach.Theseapproacheshavetwodefiningobjectives.Firstlytheyaimtodisruptand/orre-signifydominantdiscoursesofeconomicdevelopmentandthewaythesediscoursespositiondisadvantagedcommunitiesaslackingindependentdiscursiveorpoliticalresources.Secondlytheyaimtocollaboratewith,identify,nameandsupportexistingandfrequentlyunrecognizedlocalizedidentitiesorgroups(Ozselcuk,2006:232;Healy,2010:498).Inordertodothis,theysetupfocusgroups,interviews,conversationsandworkshopsthatexplicitlyaimtointroduceideasabout,forexample,cooperativeorworkertakeoversasaresponsetotheadoptionofcapitalistvaluesinstateorganizations(Ozselcuk,ibid),ortherecognitionanddevelopmentofalternativeformsofeconomicvalue(Gibson-Graham,2002).Theseauthorsdrawonpsychoanalysistoanalyseresistancesthatemergeintheencountersbetweenresearchersandparticipants:tounderstand,forexample,Turkishworkers’identificationswithapositionas‘stateemployee’,despitetheambivalenceoftheirrelationtothetermunder‘statecapitalism’(Ozselcuk,ibid).Apsychoanalyticunderstandingofthesignificanceofambiguityisalsoexplicitlydeployed:collaborativeworkshopsdrawattentiontotheambiguityoremptinessofnaturalizedtermssuchas‘theeconomy’(Healy,2010;HealyandGraham,2008);andresearchersalsoreflectontheeffectsoftheirownpositionasanenigmaticotherwithintheresearchprocess(Healy,2010:499-500;seealsoCharalambous,2014).Thecentralityandcomplexityofresistanceandambiguityintheseprojectsissignificant,asthelevelofdirectionintheactivitiestheresearchersinitiatecouldbeinterpretedasimpositionsontoparticipants,fromapositionofauthority.ItisalsonoteworthythatwhileHealyandGraham,forexample,reportontheirmoreproductiveencounters,inwhichtheywereabletotracedevelopmentsintheirownandparticipants’discourse(Healy2010),theyalsorecordthatthiswasnotthenorm.Theyexplainthattheirinterventionsweremoreusuallymetwithavarietyofobjections:argumentsthatalternativestotheexisting‘economy’wereexceptions,notreproducible,orliabletoco-optationinsupportofcapitalism(HealyandGraham,2008).InresponsetothisHealyargues:‘Thepsychoanalyticconceptoffantasyallowedustounderstandtheexpressionofapassionateattachmenttocapitalocentricconceptionsofeconomicspace,evenwhenthisattachmentispainfulorparalyzing’(2010:504).While,asnotedbyOzselcuk

9

(ibid:234),itisriskytoexplainawayobjectionsasirrationalorunconsciousattachments,acarefulreadingofemphasesandcontradictionswithinthedatacansupportsuchinterpretations.Theworkoftheseresearchersopensupaconceptualandamethodologicalspace.Firstly,mightitbepossibletodevelopamorenuancedunderstandingoftheunconsciousstructureofresistancesidentifiedintheiranalyses?And,followingfromthis,mightamoreexplicituseoffreeassociativemethodologieshelpustoexplorethenatureoftheseunconsciousprocessesintheconstitutionofrelationsbetweenparticipantsandtheremunerativepracticesoftheworkplace?Weelaborateonthesequestionsinturninthefollowingsections.Firstwesetouttheconceptualisationsofoverdetermination,identificationanddesirethatwewillgoontouseintheanalysisofourprojectdata;followingthatweexplainthefreeassociativeapproachweadoptedinourinterviewswithteachingassistants.Overdetermination,identificationanddesireInconceptualizingourdatawedrawontheconceptofoverdetermination.IntheInterpretationofDreams(1958)Freudusedthistermtodescribethemultiplesymbolicconnectionsbetweentheelementsofadreamandtheunconsciousdreamthoughts:

Notonlyaretheelementsofadreamdeterminedbythedreamthoughtsmanytimesover,buttheindividualdream-thoughtsarerepresentedinthedreambyseveralelements.(1958:389)

Crucially,Freudargues,itisthefactthatthemanifestelementsofadream,likewords,‘arepredestinedtoambiguity’(ibid:456)thatallowsmeaningstobedisguisedandexpressedinthisway,throughprocessesofcondensation.Inaddition,Freudsuggests,theconceptofoverdeterminationcanalsoexplaintheproductionofaffectwithinadream,sothatelementsorsignifierscanbeseenasachannelfortheexpressionandtransformationofaffectiveintensities(ibid:618).Thesefundamentalinsightsaboutthearticulationanddisguiseofmeaningandaffectthroughalinguisticallystructuredprocessofsignificationprovidesthebasisforourconceptualizationoftheinterviewmaterial.However,whereasFreud’accountsuggestsacomplexnetworkofdreamthoughtsthatistheexcessivematerialthatdeterminesthecontentofadream,wedrawonLaclauandMouffe’s(2001)conceptualizationofafieldofdiscursivityastheexcessivematerialfromwhichdiscourseisarticulated.Ouranalysistraceselementsofdiscoursethataretemporarilyfixedtoconstituteaspaceforsubjectivity,andforegroundsopenorambiguousaspectoftheseelements.We

10

dothisbyidentifyingrelativelystablechainsofmeaningwithinthechaoticmassofsignifyingelementsthatconstitutetheinterviewdata.ALacanianunderstandingoftherelationbetweensubjectandothercanhelpustotracethemovementofdesireinprocessesofoverdetermination.InLacaniantheorysubjectivitycomesintobeingwhentheinfantidentifieswithasignifierthatrepresentsanOtherwhoconfersasenseofbeingonthesubject(Fink,1995;Lacan,2010).ForLacan,asforFreud,thisprocessisalwayssimultaneouslysymbolicandaffective.Theinfanthangsontothe(m)Other’swordsandactionsinaneffecttodiscernbothhermeaningandherdesire;andtodispeltheintenseprecariousnessassociatedwithoverwhelmingexperienceofambiguity.Itisthusthroughthequestioningofthedesireofthe(m)Otherthatthesubject’saffectischanneled,asdesire,throughtheappropriationofmeaningfulsignifiers.Throughoutlife,thesubjectcontinuestoguessatthemeaninganddesireofanambiguousOther,representedbyavarietyofsignifiersembodiedin/asindividualsandinstitutions.Thequestion:‘WhatdoestheOtherdesireofme?’andtheidentificationwithasignifierthatmightrepresentthedesireoftheOther,arecentraltotheongoingproductionofsubjectivity.Itisthuspossibletotracethemovementofdesirebyaskingthequestion:WhichOtherconstitutesthedesireofthesubject?TowhichOtherdotheyaddresstheirbeing?InLacaniantheoryafurtherrefinementinthemappingofdesireisconstitutedinthedistinctionbetweenidentificationintheSymbolicandidentificationintheImaginary(Lacan,2006[1966];Evans,1996).SymbolicidentificationisarelationtotheOther,asrepresentedbyasignifierrecognizedasbelongingtoanopensignifyingsystem.Thesubjectrelatestothesignifierasoneelementofasymbolicallyarticulatedsetofnormsorprinciples.Thesenormsorprinciplesconstituteapositionfromwhichwecanworkoutifwearegoodorbad,likeableornotlikable.WhenweidentifywithaSymbolicOtherwearethusabletostabilizeasenseofouridentityinrelationtoanopenbutmeaningfulsymbolicstructure.Imaginaryidentificationisarelationtotheother,asrepresentedbyasignifierthatisunderstoodasifitisunifiedorwhole,aself-evidentvaluethatdoesnotrequirejustificationinrelationtonormsorprinciples.WhenweidentifywithanImaginaryother,itisasifourwholeidentitydependsonsimilarityordifferencewithoneidealorsignifier.SymbolicandImaginaryidentificationsarecontrastingstancesinrelationtothesamesetofsignifyingelements;andanyonesignifyingelementcanstandinfor,orrepresent,avarietyofo/Others.Thedifferentmodesofidentificationare,however,associatedwithdifferentaffectiveinvestments:moreintensefeelingsofrivalryorcompetition,forexample,mightbeindicativeofanImaginaryidentification;inSymbolicidentification,incontrast,affectismoredispersed,abletomoveacrosselementsinthenetworkofsignifiers.Thesemodesofidentificationthusdiffer,significantly,intheextenttowhichthesignifyingstructurepermitsthe

11

movementofdesire.The‘aim’,inpsychoanalyticterms,isidentificationintheReal:anoverwhelmingandunsustainableencounterwithradicalcontingencyanduncertainty,fromwhichitmightbepossibleforthesubjecttoradicallyreformulateintransigentdesire.Inrelationtoourproject,theaimistoattempttomapdesire,thechannelingofaffect,withinrelationstopracticesofremunerationatwork.Ourinterestisinwhatsustainspracticesofremuneration(orwhatorganizesthepartialelementsofaremunerationassemblage);andwespeculatethatdesirehasaparttoplayintheongoingprocessofproductionofthesepractices.So,putanotherway,weareinterestedinthewaythefragilityofteachingassistants’unconscious–Symbolic,ImaginaryorReal–identificationsmightintersectwiththefragilityofpracticesofremunerationintheworkplace.Politically,thereisaquestionabouthowsuccessfullysubjectiveidentificationswithinworkplacepracticescancontainaffectandarticulatedesire.Methodologically,thereisaquestionabouthowitmightbepossibletointerpretinstanceswithinourinterviewdataasSymbolicorImaginaryidentifications.Frequentlyrelationsoscillatebetweenthetwomodes.Intheanalysissection,wehavedecidedtouse‘o/Other’,throughout,toforegroundboththeunpredictablemovementofdesireandtheoscillationbetweenidentificatorymodes.ALacanianinspiredfreeassociativemethodologyOurprojectexperimentedwitharangeoftechniquesforproducingandexploringfree associative material with our interview participants. Bollas (1999) hasdescribedthecontrastingmodesoflisteningtoorreceivingapatient’sspeechindifferentschoolsofpsychoanalysis.HecontrastsFreud’s technique,whichusesthe analyst’s silence to allow the gradual emergenceofmaterial,withKleiniantechnique,which recommends frequent intervention to interpret projections (188).Purefreeassociationisimpossibletoachieve,sotheseapproachesarenotmutually exclusive or incompatible, they simply provoke or facilitate differenttrajectories in the associations (ibid:63). Free associative approaches tointerviews within psychosocial research have tended to recommend minimalinterventionbytheresearcher,bothtoguardagainstpotentiallysensitiveclinicaltype interventions, and to avoid directing thematerial (Hollway and Jefferson,2000;Milleretal2008).Whilepayingattentiontoboththeseconsiderations,wedevelopedaslightlydifferentapproach,inspiredbytheworkofLacan.Inplanningthe interviewsour focuswasexplicitlyon theuseof signifiers,andonways inwhichwemightpotentiallydrawourparticipants’attentiontoequivocationandambiguities in their speech (see Fink, 1997:15). We also attempted to avoidrespondingtothematerialexceptattheleveloflanguage,orsignifier;although,ofcourse,wedirectedthenarrativesthroughourinitialquestion,andadditionally

12

whenweselectedsignifierstouseapromptsforfurtherassociationswithintheinterviews.Ourparticipantswerefourteachingassistants,workingatdifferentschools,butallinthefinalyearofaparttimeBAinEducationStudies.Theytookpartinseriesof group and individual interviews. In the first group interview we invitedparticipants to say anything that came to mind in relation to ‘pay andremuneration’.We then interviewedeachparticipant individually,usingwordsand phrases we selected from the prior group interview (e.g. ‘lucky girl’,‘breadwinner’, ‘behind closed doors’) to prompt further associations. In thesecondgroupinterviewweusedthreenewspaperheadlinesaspromptsforfreeassociativewritingandspeaking(‘Britain’sbankbossestogetmillionsinsharepayments inbonuscapdodge’; ‘WayneRooneysignsupforManchesterUniteduntil June2019for£85m’; ‘Parentswillstruggle tounderstandteachers’strikeaction’).Inthefinalindividualinterviewswithtwooftheparticipants,weagainusedwordsandphrasesfromourpriormeetingsasprompts;withtheothertwoparticipants,weborrowedfromtheBiographicalNarrativeInterpretiveMethodandbeganwiththerequest:Pleasetellmethestoryofyour life(WengrafandChamberlayne,2006).Inthefinalinterviewswealsoinvitedparticipantstoreflectontheexperienceofparticipatingintheproject.Wemetwithparticipantsjointlya few months after the final interviews to feedback initial findings, and thisgeneratedfurthermaterial.Theethicsformstipulatedthatparticipantscouldwithdrawatanytimeoraskusnot touseany sensitivematerial, and therewere instanceswhereparticipantsspecified material in this way.In addition, at the beginning of the first groupinterview,andagainineachsubsequentinterview,weexplainedtheideaoffreeassociation: that this approach meant that they should not expect ‘normal’conversational responses, and that this might make them anxious.Within theinterviewsweinvitedthemtoletusknowifitbecametoouncomfortableatanypoint.Inthisway,wegainedconsentforacertainlevelofanxietyinrelationtoparticipationintheproject.MappingandLayeringtheFieldofDiscursivityWebeginouranalysisbymappingsignifiersofremunerationwithinthedata,tracingthewaytheirmoreambiguousaspectsrelatetotheSymbolicorder,orthefieldoftheOther,inourcasethefieldofprimaryeducationasembodiedintheschoolenvironmentsexperiencedbyourparticipants.Wethenexplorecontrastingchainsofmeaningsattachedtoonesignifier,‘sellyourself’,aninjunctionofferedtopromotesuccessfulprogression,butalsoapointoffissurewithinthegroup.Indoingthis,wetracecluesthatshedlightontheo/Otherto

13

whom,wemightsay,participantswereaddressingtheirbeing.Theo/Otherappearsfrequentlyinourdataintheconcretefigureoftheheadteacher;butisalsorepresentedbyprofessionalideals,politicalideologiesandfamilybasedmoralvalues.Aswesawearlier,suchconcretefiguresorsignifiers,liketheelementsofadream,canserveasaportalthroughwhichanynumberofsymbolicordersaretransmitted,overdeterminingthesubject’srelationtoworkplacenorms.Whileouranalysisreadsthesesymbolicordersintermsofourparticipants’biographically-inflectedpsychicinvestments,itisworthnotingthatbiographicalelementsalsotransmitwiderculturalandsocialnorms.Thesamematerialmightthusbeinterpretedtoexploredimensionsof,forexample,gender,class,sexualityorethnicity,whichresonatewithintheunconsciousrelationsthatarethefocusofourdiscussionhere.Ourinitialanalysisofthefieldofdiscursivityattemptstomapsignifiersboththroughfrequencyofappearancewithinthedataandalsoinrelationtoleveloffixityofmeaningandrelationstoothersignifiers.Thefrequencyanddiscursivepositioningofsignifiersalone,however,doesnotfullycapturetheirsignificanceinrelationtotheproductionofsubjectivity.Drawinginferencesaboutwhethersignifyingrepetitionsindicateinterestingaspectsofanidentificationprocesses,arepetitioncompulsion,ormerecoincidencerequiresfurtherinvestigation.Thefinalsectionofouranalysis,therefore,tracesinmoredetailrepetitiouspatternsintheassociativechainsofsignifiersoftwoofourparticipants,showinghowtheyoverdeterminecontrastingidentificatorypositions.Throughthiswedevelopnewinsightsintotheapparentfissuresandfixitiesinparticipants’constitutionofateachingassistantsubjectivity.Ambiguities:spacesoffissureorfixingofmeaningOurinitialrequest,‘sayanythingthatcomestomindaboutpayorremuneration’,elicitedarangeofsignifierstorepresentmechanismsandobjectsofexchangeinprocessesofremuneration.Thefirstgroupinterviewbeganwithaseriesofinterventionsaboutcontracts,qualifications,coursesandpayscales(02:08-16:00andon);‘money’(firstat05:28)wasalsomentioned,andrelationstothissignifierseemedparticularlysensitiveoraffectivelyloaded;therewerealsoreferencestohours,weeksandyears.Inoppositiontotheserelativelystraightforwardprocessesandobjectsofexchange,‘experience’(firstat05:28)wasreferredto,bothassomethingtobegainedthroughwork,andsomethingthatworkmightlookforinanemployee.Otherprocessesandobjectsofexchangethatemergedastheinterviewprogressedincluded:‘performancerelatedpay’(firstat17:00)‘holidays’(firstat28:01)i-pads(firstat28:10),andarangeofothersmallgiftsorbonuses.Lateronintheinterviewlessconcretetypesofremunerationwerediscussed:‘beingappreciated’,‘beingrecognised’,‘beingvalued’,‘seeingchildrenprogress’,‘makingadifference’(70:38).So,while

14

thei-padsandotherexamplesofoneoffgiftsorbonuseshadrelativelyfixedreferents,othersignifiersofobjectsofexchangeweremoreambiguous.Theambiguousaspectsitispossibletotraceinsignifiersofremunerationcanberelatedtothepositionofano/Otherabletofixordestabilizemeaningswithinaparticularcontext.Acontract,forexample,mightappeartospecifyclearandstableexpectationswithrespecttoemploymentandremuneration.However,thisisnotalwayshowitisexperienced.Aiereportedthat:‘SinceSeptembertheheadteacherchangedmycontracttounqualifiedteacherstatus,somysalaryhasgoneup’(GI1,2:08),suggestingthattermsaredependentonthewhimofauthority.Inasimilarway,althoughwiththeoppositeoutcome,BeesaidwhenshequalifiedasanHLTA,andexpectedhercontracttochange,shewastold:‘sorry,Ican’tpaythat’(GI1,02:58).Ceéalsoreporteddifficultiesinconfirmingherassignmenttotheappropriatepaygrade.Whennewcontractscameinandstaffhadtoapplyforanewgrading,shesaid:‘Ithought:theyknowwhatIcando,soIdon’thavetowriteallthisdown’(GI1,14:41),andconsequentlywasassignedtothelowergrade.Theindeterminaterelationbetween‘contract’,‘qualification’androlefulfilled,inthiscontext,createsanambiguityineachsignifier.Althougharangeofpossiblemeaningsareinplay,inmostinstancessubjectsturntotheheadteacher–astandinfortheo/Other–asawaytoresolvetheambiguityoftherelationbetween‘contract’and‘qualification’.Theambiguousconnotationsofthesignifier‘money’seemedtoevokeparticularlystrongfeelingsofambivalence:simultaneousrecognitionofitsexistentialsignificanceanddenialofitsroleasamotivatingfactorinrelationtopromotionatwork.Beesaid:‘althoughIneedthemoney,desperately,Iamreallylookingforexperienceofteaching[…]it’snotreallyaboutthepay’(GI1,05:28).WhenAiechallengedthisclaim,Beereiterated:‘Doyouknowwhat?It’snotthemoney,trustme’(06:00).AtthesametimeAiesaidthatshetoowouldhaveacceptedmoreresponsibility‘evenif[myheadteacher]didn’tgivemeanymoney’(05:54),andlateremphasized:‘when[myheadteacher]saidtome[aboutapayrise],Isaid“really?”Iwasshocked.Isaid,“look,I’mnotdoingthisforthemoney”’(GI1,08:21).Bothparticipantsthusdistancethemselvesfromsuggestionsthattheymightbeworking‘forthemoney’.So,whiletheliteralreferentofthesignifier‘money’maybemorestablethantherelationbetween‘contract’and‘qualification’,itsambiguousaffectiveandmoralconnotationsmeanthatitisunstableasapointofidentificationforparticipantsinthegroupinterview.Thereisnoobviouspositionfromwhichano/Othermightconferjudgmentonanappropriaterelationbetweenthesubjectand‘money’.Themomentaryunity,inwhichbothBeeandAiearticulatedanidentificationwith‘notdoingitforthemoney’,wasundoneintheindividualinterviews.Inherfirstindividualinterview,Beereiteratedthat,althoughundeniablyimportant,

15

‘moneyisnotmyaim’(BInt1,p.6).Incontrast,associatingtotheprompt‘toomuch’inhersecondindividualinterview,Aiesaid‘Idon’tthinkyoucaneverhavetoomuchmoney’(AInt2,p.2).Sheelaboratedarelationbetweenmoney,salaryandworth:‘Peopleassociatethemoremoneytheyearnthebetterworththeyare.’;‘Ithinkit’sawayof,yoursalary,thewayyouseeyourselfaswell,howyou’revaluedanditdoessomethingforyourself-esteemaswell,Ithink.’(AInt2,p.3).Itseemspossiblethatthestrongassociationbetween‘money’and‘self-esteem’constructedhereputAieinapositionofrelativevulnerabilitywithinthegroupinterview,whereotherparticipantsidentified‘experience’and‘passion’asmoreimportantvaluesintheirrelationtowork.Inthefirstgroupinterview,‘experience’appeared29times,butwithoutanyapparentfixingofasharedmeaning.Forexample,atcertainpoints‘experience’wasopposedto‘qualifications’anditwaspointedoutthatsometimesteachersmighthavelessrelevant‘experience’thanTAs(GI1,67:36).However,intalkingaboutdifferencesbetweenthenurserynursequalification(NNEB)andtheNVQforteachingassistants,participantCeéopposed‘experience’to‘theory’,suggestingthattheemphasisonplacementsintheNNEBwasmorevaluablethanthetheorybasedwritingintheNVQ(GI1,16:30).Hereexperiencewasassociatedbothwithaspecificqualification,andwithactivitiesdirectlyrelatedtoworkintheclassroom.Ceéconcluded:Ceé: Ithink,attheendoftheday,thereisn’tanythingthatcancomparewith

experience.[Groupinterview1,17:00]Theexchangethatfollowedmightbeinterpretedasastruggleoverthemeaningof‘experience’.Aiemakesanassociationfrom‘experience’totheintroductionof‘performancerelatedpay’andtoexperiencesoutsideeducation,‘banking’and‘beingamother’.Shethususestheopennessof‘experience’asasignifiertoexpandthemorelimiteddefinitionthatCeé’sinterventionhadimplied:Aie: Ofcourse.That’swhythey’rebringinginthisnewstructure-Ceé: AndIstillthink–Aie: -withtheperformancerelatedpay,andthentheHeadteacherhasgot

morepower,you’vegotmore...BecauseI’vecomefromabankingbackground,I’veonlybeeninschoolforthreeyears,butalltheexperiencesthatIbringin,ofbeingamother,frombanking,doesn’tmeanthatI’mgoingtobelesscapablebecausesomeone’sgottwentyyears’experienceandI’veonlygotthreeyears.[Ceé:that’strue]I’vestillgotlifeexperiencesthatIcanbringintothejob,itdoesn’tmatterifyou’reinbankingorteachingorwhatever,that’swhatthey’regoingtobeabletotakeintoconsiderationandgiveyouyourpay.

[Groupinterview1,18:08]

16

Theopennessoftheterm‘experience’enablesdifferencestobecoveredover,butatthesametimeleavesuncertaintyaboutwhatmightberecognizedasdeservingremuneration.TheexchangeimmediatelyfollowingAie’sinterventionherere-explodedthediscursiveterrainofvalueinrelationtotheworkofateachingassistant.Itopenedupbothdiscursivefissuresandexplicitoppositionswithinthegroup.HereAieassertstheneedto‘sellyourself’,andthisseemstohavesignificantaffectivevalencewithinthegroup.BeeechoesAie’swords,whileCeéintroducesanewvocabularythatstandsincontradictiontothevocabularyof‘performance’and‘selling’:Bee: Oh,sonowIcanseewhereIam.Aie: Yes.Ceé: Butnoteveryonewillhaveit,noteveryonethatcomesinfrombanking

willhaveitAie: Butit’sdowntoyoutosellyourself.Ceé: Ohit’sdowntoyouyesBee: Youhavetosellyourself.Aie: Buteveryonedoes.Evenateacher,youcouldbetwoteachers,ifyougoto

aninterview,you’vestillgottosellyourself,you’rebothqualifiedteachers,whoaretheygoingtotakeon?Whicheveronepromotesthemselvesbetter.That’showitworksinanyjobyoudo.I’vehadalotofex…

Ceé: Well,Ithinkteaching’savocation.[Groupinterview1,18:38]

Ceé’suseof‘it’here–‘noteveryonewillhaveit’–isopentointerpretation.Itinitiallyseemstoconnotethe‘experience’requiredtobeateachingassistant;howeverherfinalinterventionpointstosomethingmorespecific.ItseemsthatwhileAieisconstructinganidentificationbetweenteachingandworkincommercialfields,Ceé’sinterventioncreatesadifferentpointofidentificationviathesignifier‘vocation’.ThequestionaLacanianpsychoanalyticframeworkdirectsustoexploreis:Towhicho/Otherarethesesubjectsaddressingthemselvesastheyconstructtheseidentifications?Orhowisthesubjectinterpretingtheambiguousdesireofano/Otherinarticulatingidentificationswiththesecontrastingdiscursivepositions?Tracingassociativechainsofsignificationaroundtheinjunctionto‘sellyourself’Ourinitialaccountofambiguitiesinthediscursiveterrainoftheinterviewsindicatesthewayaseriesofassociatedsignifyingchainsemergedthat

17

structuredthespaceofteachingassistantsubjectivity.Itispossibletodelineatetwoorganizingchains:oneincluded‘experience’,‘passion’,‘vocation’and‘care’,resonatingwithanalysesofprofessionalidentity(e.g.Bradbury2014);theotherincluded‘performance’,‘targets’,‘sellingyourself’,‘beingvocal’and‘speakingup’,andhasclearcontinuitieswithotheranalysesofentrepreneurialandperformativediscoursewithinneoliberalism(WalkerdineandBansel,2010;Balletal,2011;Layton,2016).Inthissectionwetracethecomplexwaypositionsinthesesignifyingchainswerebotharticulatedandresistedintheinterviews.Thesignifier‘sellyourself’appearedtwelvetimesinthefirstgroupinterviewand,asalreadynoted,seemedtocarryasignificantaffectivecharge.SixtimesitappearedininterventionsfromAie,whowasmostclearlyidentifiedwiththe‘sellingyourself’position.ItwasalsoAiewho,incoveringPPAtimeandbeinggivenanunqualifiedteacher’scontract,appearedtohavemademostprogresstowardstheaimofbecomingateacher.Aiealsousedthesignifier‘vocal’seventimes,fourtimesintheimperative,asanexplicitinjunctiontoherpeers:‘You’vegottosellyourselfandbevocal’(09:29);‘youshouldbemorevocal’(36:18);‘you’vegottobevocal’(60:00);‘youneedtobevocal’(90:10).Theinjunctionto‘sellyourself’and‘bevocal’,articulatedbyAie,seemstobeassociatedwiththeneedtoassertyourselfinordertomakeprogressatwork,andAiereferstoherownrecentpromotionasevidenceofthe‘truth’ofthisinjunction.Nevertheless,theevidenceintheinterviewssuggestsheradvicemeetshesitationandadegreeofskepticismfromtheotherparticipants,eachofwhomappearedtobothacknowledgeandresistrecommendationstospeakupandaskforwhattheywanted.CeéappearedtogentlyteaseAie,sayingthatshewasnotverygoodatsellingherself,butshecould‘getsometipsoffAie’(GI1,23:39).Beeinitiallyappearedmoreopentochange,referringtoAieas‘inspiring’(BI1,p.2)butseemedresignedtonotacting:‘I’mactuallyreprimandingmyselfthatIshouldbedoingit,andI’mstilldoingthereprimandingbutnotdoinganything’(BI1,p.2).ParticipantDee,inasimilarway,acknowledgedthattherewerepossibilitiesforseekingmorerecognitionfortheadditionalrolesshetookonatwork,butsaidshewouldnevergoandaskforanincrement:‘becauseit’ssucha,youkindof,forwhatyouare,andthenyouhavetoputapriceonit.’(DI1,p.3).Herstruggleforwordshereseemstomimictheproblemsheisdescribing:thatofnamingor‘puttingaprice’on‘whoyouare’.Inresistingtheinjunctionto‘bemorevocal’,allthreealsodescribedtheirworkusingtermsthatsuggestanexcessintheirworkthatcan’tbenamedorrecompensed.Ceéusedtheterms‘it’and‘vocation’,Beetalkedabouther‘passion’,andDee,‘satisfaction’.Wemightthinkofthesesignifiers,articulatedasalternativesto‘speakingup’and‘sellingyourself’,asplaceholdersforamorecomplex,asyetunspokenchainofsignification.Itisalsoworthnotingtheway

18

thatthecontrastingsignifyingchainsmightbeunderstoodtositsomewherebetweenopenSymbolicstructureandmorelimitedImaginarypointsofidentification:alevelofmovementofdesireispossiblewithineachchain,from‘experience’to‘vocation’orfrom‘performance’to‘sellingyourself’;butmovementacrosschainsseemstobemorerestricted.Inthenextsection,weattempttogofurtherinexploringtheoverdeterminationofthesepositionsbyexaminingtheassociativematerialthatemergedacrosstheinterviews.Wetracethemorecomplexsignifyingchainsthatmightcontaintheexcessassociatedwitharticulationsof‘passion’,‘vocation’and‘satisfaction’.Indoingthis,wealsoexploretheunconsciousroleoftheo/Other,andtheo/Other’sdesire,asconstitutiveelementsofthesubject’saddress.RespondingtoambiguityviathedesireofanotherHowdoworkersresolveambiguitiesaboutwhatmaybedemandedofthemintheworkplace,whatisexpectedofthem,whattheyareremuneratedfor?Theyrespond,perhaps,inpatternsassociatedwithanotherambiguousdemand,fromano/Otherwhoistakeninsomewayasaguarantorofidentity.Psychoanalysissuggeststhatthesepatternsofresponsearemostfrequentlyestablishedinourearliestrelationships,oftenwithparents,withinthefamily.Twoparticipants,DeeandAie,talkedabouttheirfathers.Tofollowthroughourqueryaboutthewayambiguitiesaboutrelationstopracticesofremunerationmayresolvedthroughunconsciousrelationstoano/Other,inthenextsectionweexplorethechainsofassociationsinmaterialfromDeeandAie’sinterviews.Inboththesecasestherearereferencestostrongaffectiveresponsesassociatedwiththesechainsofsignification.ParticipantD:‘youneveraskforanything’Therepetitionofthesignifiers‘never..ask’attwomomentsinDee’sfirstinterviewcreatesalinkthatmightalsobeunderstoodasasymbolicorunconsciousrelation.First, talking about the possibility of progressing at work, Dee commented: ‘Iwouldnevergoandaskforanincrement’(Int.1,11:07).Thecategoricalnatureofthisclaimmightalreadysuggestadistinctiveaffective investment.Then, inherassociationstotheprompt‘breadwinner’,Deesaid‘youknow,itwasmyfather,itwas themanof thehousewhobrings themoneyandhasgotmorepowerandauthority’(Int.1,17:34).Shealsocommented,‘I’mtryingtothinkaboutmebutno,it’shim’(19:25).CLasked:‘Anyotherthoughtsthatcometoyourmindaroundyourfather?’andDeeresponded:

Authoritativeandyoucan’tmessaroundandyoucan’taskformore[…]Youneveraskforanything[…]Weneveraskedforanything.(Int1,21:06).

19

‘Neverasking’atworkcanthusbesymbolicallylinkedto‘neverasking’herfather,aproviderwhowasalsoafigureofpowerandauthority.Another repetition that brought an element of her father into her relations toaskingatworkcanbetracedacrossDee’sfirstandsecondindividualinterviews.Describinghowshe’dfeltwhenshe’dgonetoaskherheadteacheraboutdoingthedegreecourse,Deesaid: ‘I found ita littlebituncomfortable’.Shethenseemedsurprisedbythisfeeling:

Ican’tbelieveit’sabituncomfortable[…]It’sabitfunny,Ihaven’tthoughtabout it like this, because, I’m really digging inmyself and this iswhatcomestomind[..]Idon’tthinkI’lleverbegoingintoaskbecausemaybeit’sagainstmyprinciplesorsomething. Idon’thavebigprinciples,but Idon’tfeelcomfortable.(Int.1,13:22)

Here there is an association between feeling ‘uncomfortable’, ‘asking’ and‘principles’,andthesameassociationcameupinDee’ssecondinterview.Inherassociations to the prompt ‘debt’ Dee talked about an experience from herchildhood:

Whenyouhavetogoandaskformoney,everybodyknowsaboutit.Itislikeashameandafeelingof,youknow,disgrace[…]Ihaveseenpeopleinthepast,notpeopleactually,itwasmydad,whoisapersonwhohasgotlotsofprinciplesandeverything.However,healwayslentmoney,butatsomepointinhislifeheneededsomemoney,heaskedsomeone,andhewasindebtandhecouldn’tpayback[…]OhmyLord,I’veseenthatinfrontofmyeyes, theway thatpeoplebehaved.Theykeeprepeating that,youknow, you’ve taken my money and all these things, and it was reallydisgraceformydad,andformyself.(Int.2,07:05)

Soherewehave‘neverasking’formore,anincrement,atwork;and‘neverasking’formore,orforanything,whenshewasachild.Wealsohavean‘uncomfortable’feeling associated with asking, when, it is suggested, asking is against herprinciples; andamorepainful feeling, ‘shame’or ‘disgrace’,whenher father, aprincipledman,hadtoaskforaloan.Takingthisnexusofassociationstogether,wemightask:TowhomdoesDeeaddressherstrongsensethatitiswrongtoask?Or,alternatively,wemightask,onbehalfofwhomdoesDeeexperienceshameinrelationtomoney?BearinginmindDee’scommentthat:‘I’mtryingtothinkaboutmebutno,it’shim’,itmayperhapsbeplausibletosuggestthatwhenfacedwithambiguityintheworkplace,herresponsecanbeunderstoodasanattempttoliveuptoher

20

father’sprinciples,tofulfillherfather’sdesire.Dee’srelationtoarticulatedprinciples,assignifiersoftheo/Other,mightbeinterpretedasindicativeofSymbolicratherthanImaginaryidentification.However,themergingsuggestedin‘I’mtryingtothinkaboutmebutno,it’shim’,mightbeinterpretedasamoreImaginaryfeature.Thepowerfulaffectiveresponsesuggests,perhaps,anopeningintotheReal.ParticipantA:‘Isthatagoodthing?Idon’tknow.Butthat’swhatwehavetodo’It is also possible to trace a repeated associative pattern in participant Aie’saccount,which can similarly be associatedwith a parental relation. At severalpointsAie’saccountevokedamoralreferencepointwhichwasatoddswithheractions,whichwerejustifiedbyreferencetoasenseofinevitabilityorofforcesbeyond her control, and an affective association to a negative or frighteningexperience.Oneinstanceofthisassociativepatterncameinheraccountofbothrecentstrikesinschool,inwhichAiehadnotparticipated,andhermemoryoftheminer’sstrikeinthe1980s:

Sowhen they strike,when the unionswent on strike at school, I didn’tstrike,Iwenttoschool.Iknowthat’sprobablynotseenastherightthingtodo,butIjustdon’tthinkit’sgoingtoachieveanything.[…]Iwasakid,but Irememberwhenall thepeopleupNorthwentonstrike[…]all theminerswentonstrike.Itwashorrendous.Wehadcutelectricityforafewdaysaweekanditwasjusthorrendous.(Int2,p.4)

HereAbothacknowledgesthatherdecisionnottogoonstrikemightbeseenas‘nottherightthingtodo’,butalsojustifiesit,articulatingaslightlyfatalisticsensethatnothingcanbeachievedthroughthistypeofaction.Atthesametime,intheaccountoftheminers’strike,thereisanenigmaticreference,intherepetitionof‘horrendous’,toastrongaffectiveexperience.AsimilarfatalisticpatterncanbediscernedinAie’sresponsetooneofthewordsweselectedfromthegroupinterviewtouseasapromptforassociationsintheindividualinterviews.Inherresponsetotheterm‘changingchildren’shereferredto a course she had attended, Childhood Studies, inwhich they had discusseddifferent ways of conceptualizing children and the implications these had forteaching.Shecontrastedsomeofthemoreidealisticcurriculumprinciplestheyhaddiscussedwithcurrentrequirementsandpracticesinschool,andcommented:‘Is itagoodthing?Idon’tknow.Butthat’swhatwehavetodo[…]Is itagoodthing?Idon’tknow.Butthisisthesocietywelivein’(Int.2,p.7).Here,asinhercomments about striking,Aie appears topoint to amoremoralor ‘acceptable’

21

position, but suggests that this ideal is in conflict with an externally-imposednecessity.Thesemightbeunderstoodasalternativesetsofprinciplesorsymbolicchainsinrelationtowhichshemightidentifyas‘good’.ItmaybepossibletoassociatethisconflictwithareferencetoAie’sfatherinthesecondgroupinterview.Participantswereaskedtorespondfirsttotheheadline‘Britain’sbanbossestogetmillionsinsharepaymentsinbonuscapdodge’,andthentotheword‘dodge’.Therewereassociationsto‘tricking’,‘somethingfalse’,‘avoiding’,and‘somethingtodowithtax’.Aiecontributed:

Forexample,Iknowpeople,mydad,yearsagoIknowthisiswhathedone.Hehadabusiness[…]andtoavoidpayingthetaxhewentbankruptandchangedthecompanyname.Thefactoryisstillthere,buthechangedthenametoavoidpayingtaxes.Sothingslikethatdogoon.It’sdodgy.ButIthinkitwaseasiertogetawaywithitbackintheseventies.

Aie’smemoryofherfatherispresentedasaneutralexample–‘thingslikethatdogoon’–butwithinthestorytherearetracesofthepatternidentifiedintheprevioustwoinstances:i.e.sometimesthemore‘acceptable’moralpositionhastoberejected.Inthecaseofstrikesandpedagogy,Aiecitesexternalforcesthatappearimpossibletocounter,asajustificationfornot‘doingtherightthing’.Inthisinstance,theinevitabilityismoreenigmatic,perhapshintedatinherspeculation:‘Ithinkitwaseasiertogetawaywithitbackintheseventies’.Onepossible,speculative,interpretationofthiscollectionofinstancesisthatAie’sstanceintheworkplace,andherconflictedpositioninginrelationtobothstrikesandpedagogy,revealhowherrelationtoworkplacenormsresonatewithanunconsciousrelationtoherfather.Herjustificationsofactionsthatdon’tconformtoarecognizedmoralcodemightbeinterpretedasattemptstocompensateinsomewayforherfather’sactions.Aie’smorespontaneousoccupationofasimilarpositiontoherfatherissuggestiveofanImaginaryrelation;whilethearticulationofafatalisticprincipleofjustificationperhapsopensaspaceforamoreSymbolicidentification.TheseidentificationsmightbeunderstoodasanunconsciousgluethatcanhelptoaccountforAie’sstanceintheworkplace.Finally,itisimportanttonotethatouranalysishassuggestedthewayidentificationsareconstructedbothwithinsignifyingchainsassociatedwiththeworkplaceandviaassociationsbeyondtheimmediateworkplace,butwithasimilarstructureorsymbolicresonance.Theserepetitiousidentifications,withinandacrossdiscursivefields,arechannelsforthearticulationofdesire.

22

Conclusion:PsychicalcontextsofpracticesofremunerationandthepossibilityofthenewWebeganwithaquestionaboutwhattiesindividualsubjectsintotheremunerationregimeofaparticularsectorofemployment.Wealsowonderedwhetherwemightdevelopamorenuancedaccountoftherepetitionsandresistancesidentifiedinpreviousstudiesofsubjects’relationtotheworkplaceeconomy(Moore,2006;Oszelcuk,2006;Healy,2010).Ouranalysishasexploredthewaysuchresistancescanbetracedthroughcomplexsignifyingchainsandsymbolicassociations.Theycanthusbeinterpretedasresponsestotheambiguousdesireofano/Other,suggestingthecomplex,powerfullyaffectiveandpotentiallypainfulrelationsthatareembeddedwithinworkplacerelations.Basedonthisanalysisitispossibletospeculatetwodifferentpointsofpotentialfissureorfragility.Inrelationtotheparticipantsassubjects,wemightpointtomomentsoffragilityintheiridentifications:momentswheretheseidentificationsmayfailtoperformthefunctionofresolvingambiguityandchannelingpotentiallyoverwhelmingaffect.Whenwesayidentificationsarefragile/fissured,wemeanthatthiscontainingfunctionofidentificationisatriskofbreakingdown.Inrelationtopracticesofremuneration,weunderstandfragilityasamomentwhentheformationofthepracticeassuchisputatrisk.Variousmomentsmightconstituteashiftintheformationofthepractice:newregulatorypolicies,industrialactionorworkforceattrition.Wespeculatethatsuchmomentsmightemergewhenexistingpracticesexertpressureonthepossibilityofsubjectsmaintainingacontainingrelationtothepresumeddesireoftheo/Other.Inotherwords,thereneedstobespacewithinthediscursivefieldforboththediscoursethatenablesthesubjecttoresolveambiguityandthediscoursesthatmakesenseofexistingpracticesofremuneration.Whenthesecan’tbeeitherbroughtintoalignmentormaintainedatasseparate,botharevulnerable.Perhaps,asZizekandothershaveargued(Zizek,2005:55;StraehlerPohlandPais,2014),itispreciselythespaceforsomethingelsethatsustainstheideologicallandscape.However,simplytighteningthegripoftheperformativeregime,inthehopeofforcingaleakageofaffect,maynotbeaplausiblepoliticalstrategy.Alternatively,wemightattempttopositionouranalysisinrelationtothenotionofassemblage,andthepoliticsofthenew.Deleuzianapproachesforegroundthecontingentconjunctionofpartswithinanassemblage,andtheroleofdesireinthearticulationofthenew.Wemight,then,verylooselysuggestthatthesignifyingelementsmappedinouranalysiscanbeinterpretedaspartswithinaworkplaceremunerationassemblage,andthatSymbolicandImaginarymodesofidentificationcanbeunderstoodasformsofconjunctionsbetweenparts.Veryloosely,wemightarguethatthesepartialelementsandcontingentconjunctions

23

mightbethoughtofasoneofthecontexts,apsychicalcontext,fromwhichanassemblageisconstituted.Additionally,fromtheperspectiveofpolitics,theideaofthenewanditsrelationtodesirecanhelpustoindicatethespaceofpoliticsinouranalysis.Whiledesireistrappedintheoldoppositionalcircuits–performativityversusvocationalvalues–therecanbenonovelty(c.f.ThompsonandCook,p.712-3).Ifdesireisabletobreakfree–callthataLacaniantraversaloftheReal,oraDeleuzianevent–wemightthenglimpseapoliticsofdifference.BibliographyBall,S.2003,‘TheTeacher’sSoulandtheTerrorsofPerformativity’,JournalofEducationPolicy,18(2):215-228Ball,S.,Maguire,M.Braun,A.andHoskins,K.,2011,‘Policyactors:doingpolicyworkinschools’,Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,32(4):625-39Bernstein,B.2000Pedagogy,SymbolicControlandIdentity(2ndEdition),NewYork:RowmanandLittlefieldBignall,S.2010‘Desire,apathyandactivism’DeleuzeStudies,4(4):7-27Bollas,C.(1999).TheMysteryofThings.London:RoutledgeBradbury,A.(2012)‘“Ifeelabsolutelyincompetent”:Professionalism,PolicyandEarlyChildhoodTeachers’,ContemporaryIssuesinEarlyChildhood,13(3):175-186Bradbury,A.2014‘Earlychildhoodassessment:observation,teacher‘knowledge’andtheproductionofattainmentdatainearlyyearssettings’,ComparativeEducation,50(3):322-39Braun,A.,Ball,S.Maguire,M.andHoskins,K.2011,‘Takingcontextseriously:towardsexplainingpolicyenactmentsinthesecondaryschool’,Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,32(4):585-96Braun,A.Maguire,M.&Ball,S.J.(2010)‘PolicyenactmentsintheUKsecondaryschool:examiningpolicy,practiceandschoolpositioning’,JournalofEducationPolicy,25:4,547-560.Charalambous,Z.(2014)ALacanianstudyoftheeffectsofcreativewritingexercises:writingfantasiesandtheconstitutionofwritersubjectivity,PhDUniversityofLondonInstituteofEducationDavies,W.(2014)TheLimitsofNeoliberalism,London:Sage.Deleuze,G.andGuattari,F.1984AntiOedipus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia,London:AlthonePressDeleuze,G.(2004)DifferenceandRepetition,LondonandNewYork:ContinuumDeleuze,G.(1995)Negotiations,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPressEvans,D.(1996)AnIntroductoryDictionaryofLacanianPsychoanalysis,London,NewYork:RoutledgeFink,B.(1995)TheLacanianSubject:BetweenLanguageandJouissance,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress

24

Fink, B. (1997). A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Harvard:HarvardUniversityPress.Freud,S.1920Freud,S.(1920)‘BeyondthePleasurePrinciple’,inOnMetapsychology:TheTheoryofPsychoanalysis,ThePelicanFreudLibraryVolume11,PenguinBooks1984,275-338Gibson-Graham,J.K.(2002)‘BeyondGlobalvsLocal:economicpoliticsoutsidethebinaryframe’,GeographiesofPower:PlacingScale,eds.A.HerodandM.Wright,Oxford:BlackwellPublishingHealy,S.(2010)‘TraversingFantasies,ActivatingDesires:EconomicGeography,ActivistResearch,andPsychoanalyticMethodology’inTheProfessionalGeographer,62:4,496-506Healy,S.andGraham,J.(2008)‘BuildingCommunityEconomies:APostcapitalistprojectofsustainabledevelopment’inD.Ruccio,ed,EconomicRepresentations:AcademicandEveryday,LondonandNewYork:Routledge,291-314Hollway,W.andJefferson,T.(2000)DoingQualitativeResearchDifferently:FreeAssociation,NarrativeandtheInterviewMethod.London:SageLacan,J.(2006[1966])'TheSubversionoftheSubjectandtheDialecticofDesireintheFreudianUnconscious’,inhisEcrits,trans.BruceFink,NewYork:WWNorton.Lacan,J.(2010)TheSeminarofJacquesLacan:BookVi:‘DesireandItsInterpretation’1958-59,Trans.Gallagher,C.Availableat:http://www.lacaninireland.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/THE-SEMINAR-OF-JACQUES-LACAN-VI.pdfLaclau,E.andMouffe,C.(2001)HegemonyandSocialistStrategy:TowardsaRadicalDemocraticPolitics(2ndedition),London,NewYork:VersoLangley,(2008)TheEverydayLifeofGlobalFinance,Oxford:OUP.Layton,L.2016,‘Yaleorjail:Classstrugglesinneoliberaltimes’TheEthicalTurn:OthernessandSubjectivityinContemporaryPsychoanalysisEdsD.GoodmanandE,Severson,LondonandNewYork:RoutledgeMcGimpsey,I.(2017)‘Lateneoliberalism:Delineatingapolicyregime’,CriticalSocialPolicy,37(1):64-84Miller,C.,Hoggett,P.&Mayo,M.(2008).Psycho-socialPerspectivesinPolicyandProfessionalPracticeResearch.InP.Cox,T.Geisen,&R.Green,(eds.),QualitativeResearch&SocialChange–UKandOtherEuropeanContexts(pp.112-131).Basingstoke:Palgrave.Moore,A.2006‘RecognisingDesire:APsychosocialApproachtoUnderstandingEducationPolicy’,OxfordReviewofEducation,32(4):487-503NationalUnionofTeachers2013‘ProtectingSchoolTeachers:NUTbriefingonschoolteachers’pay’,accessedonline2017O’Sullivan,S.(2009)‘TheStrangeTemporalityoftheSubject:BadiouandDeleuzebetweenthefiniteandtheinfintie’,inSubjectivity,Vol27,155-171Ozselcuk,C.2006‘Mourning,Melancholy,andthePoliticsofClassTransformation’,RethinkingMarxism,8(2):225-240

25

Peck,J.(2009)ConstructionsofNeoliberalReason,Oxford:OUPResolutionFoundation(2013)AMatterofTime:TheRiseofZeroHourContracts,London:ResolutionFoundationRogers,S.2012‘Recontextualising‘Play’inEarlyYearsPedagogy:Competence,performanceandexcessinpolicyandpractice’BritishJournalofEducationalStudies,60(3):243-60Santori,D.(2014)Intensifiedmarketenvironmentsineducationandthedevelopmentofdefaultsubjectivities:Chileasacriticalcase,PhDUniversityofLondonInstituteofEducationStraehler-Pohl,H.andPais,A.(2014)‘Learningtofailandlearningfromfailure–ideologyatworkinamathematicsclassroom’inPedagogy,CultureandSociety,22(1):79-96Smith,D.W.(2004)‘TheInverseSideoftheStructure:ZizekonDeleuzeonLacan’,inCriticism,45/4,635-650TimesEducationSupplementFAQ(2005)PPA,http://www.tesfaq.co.uk/ppa,accessed2016Thompson,G.andCook,I.(2014)‘Educationpolicy-makingandtime’,JournalofEducationPolicy,29/5:700-15Walkerdine,V.andBansel,P.(2010)‘Neoliberalism,WorkandSubjectivity:TowardsaMoreComplexAccount’,inM.Wetherell&C.T.Mohanty(Eds.),TheSageHandbookofIdentities(pp.492-507)Wengraf,T.,&Chamberlayne,P.(2006)Interviewingforlifehistories,livedsituationsandpersonalexperience:thebiographical–narrative–interpretivemethod(BNIM).ShortGuidetoBNIMInterviewingandInterpretation.Availableattom@tomwengraf.com.Wright,A.(2013)Contestedimagesoftheschool:Apost-MarxistanalysisofeducationpolicyundertheNewLabourgovernmentandthedivergentapproachestoitsimplementationinEnglishsecondaryschools,PhDThesis,Colchester:UniversityofEssex.Zizek,S.(2005)TheMetastasesofEnjoyment:SixEssaysonWomenandCausalityLondon:Verso