Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884

Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse

Cary Buzzellia, Bill Johnstonb,*
a
Department of Curriculum & Instruction, School of Education, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington,
IN 47405-1006, USA
b
Program in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, Indiana University, Memorial Hall 313, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

Received 2 June 2000; received in revised form 14 September 2000; accepted 20 October 2000

Abstract

This paper examines the complex relationships among authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse. We
begin by suggesting that teacher authority is an ever-present feature of classroom interaction. We further point out how
theoretical and empirical research has demonstrated convincingly that teaching nearly always involves unequal power
relations and at the same time is fundamentally moral in nature. We then outline Bernstein’s (Pedagogy, symbolic
control and ideology: Theory, research, critique, Taylor & Francis, Bristol, PA, 1996) notion of pedagogic discourse as a
means of clarifying the relations among authority, power, and morality as they are played out in classroom discourse.
We analyze an extract from a transcript of a writer’s chair activity in a third-grade US classroom, focusing on two
dilemmas of authority that the teacher faced in this activity; we suggest that these dilemmas can be best conceptualized
in terms of Bernstein’s twin notions of regulative discourse and instructional discourse, the two components of pedagogic
discourse which reflect the twin notions of power and morality. Finally, we consider the implications of the analysis for
a deeper understanding of the moral dimension of classroom discourse. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.

Keywords: Classroom interaction; Pedagogic discourse; Teacher authority; Moral dilemmas; Moral dimensions of teaching;
Expressive morality

1. Introduction The issue of authority in education has been

explored in some depth by various scholars; yet, as
This paper examines the practice of authority in Oyler (1996) points out, most of these explorations
classrooms and argues that authority is best and analyses are fairly theoretical, abstract, or
understood in relation to the twin concepts of general in nature, and do not go into detail about
power and morality. We illustrate our contention how power relations are played out inside specific
with an analysis of an extract from a third-grade classrooms. Exceptions to this generalization
writer’s chair activity in an American classroom. include Oyler’s own work and that of Gore
(1994, 1996). On the other hand, while the topics
of power and morality have each been the focus of
empirical and theoretical investigation in educa-
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-812-855-4968; fax: +1-
tional research, the two have rarely if ever been
812-855-5605.
E-mail addresses: cbuzzell@indiana.edu (C. Buzzelli), juxtaposed. Researchers have looked either at
billj@indiana.edu (B. Johnston). morality (e.g. Noddings, 1984; Jackson, Boostrom,

0742-051X/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 7 - 3
874 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884

& Hansen, 1993) or at power (e.g. Apple, 1982; see authority as a bad but avoidable thing, and
Gore, 1994). However, as Maxwell (1991) and devise structures for schools and educational
others have noted, there is a relationship, and an systems that seek to minimize the role of authority
intimate and important one at that. in the processes of schooling (see Spring (1999)
Our intention in this paper is to examine the and Welker (1992) for reviews of radical philoso-
relationship between authority, power, and mor- phies of schooling).
ality, and specifically to suggest how this relation- In our own work, we take a third position in
ship plays out at the micro-level of classroom making two fundamental assumptions about
interaction. Our work in this area is based upon authority in teaching. Firstly, we believe that the
the premise that teaching is inherently a moral authority of the teacher is a constant in education.
activity. Our conceptualization of the morality of We believe that this is so whatever form of
teaching, in turn, has far less to do with pedagogy is involved, and however the teacher is
distinguishing between good and bad practices. prepared to share authority or devolve responsi-
Rather, our interest in this research concerns ways bility to the students. Such a position is held by
in which moral values, conflicts of values, and writers as different as Noddings (1984, 1992) and
moral dilemmas are played out in the context of Freire (1972), and accords with our own experi-
classroom discourse. In the process of engaging ence and everything we have read about actual
with this issue, we have found it useful to apply classrooms. This situation is not value-free. Far
different yet related theoretical frameworks to the from it, in factF as we shall argue hereF the way
micro-analysis of linguistic and other interaction the teacher’s authority is enacted in the classroom
in classrooms. The present paper constitutes one is a profoundly moral matter. Nevertheless, we
such application. believe that however it is realized, it is a matter of
fact that in the vast majority of the world’s
classrooms, the teacher possesses authority. Of
2. Authority, power, and morality in education course, as Spring (1999) points out, much theoriz-
ing about authority in education acknowledges
2.1. Authority in classrooms this fact and focuses to a very large extent on the
question of how to reconcile it with the goals of a
There is a long history of debate regarding the democratic education.
role of authority in education. Two fundamental Secondly, we follow Oyler (1996) in conceptua-
and opposing traditions of thought can be lizing teacher authority as having two distinct
discerned. One tradition maintains that educa- though interrelated facets. In her study of the ways
tional settings can and should be authoritarian in in which a first-grade teacher shares authority with
nature. Spring (1999) identifies this tradition with her students, Oyler describes how student-initiated
thinkers from Plato (in The Republic) through talk during instructional events fell into two
Adam Smith (1776) and his Wealth of Nations to categories: ‘‘process-type comments or questions’’
the Soviet educational theorist Makarenko (1955). and ‘‘content initiations’’ (p. 13). Oyler notes the
According to this line of thought, the role of similarity of these two categories to Peters’ (1966)
education is ‘‘to train individuals to sacrifice for distinction between the teacher being in authority
the common good’’ (Spring, 1999, p. 12). The and being an authority. The former refers to
authoritarianism flows from education’s role in the teacher’s ability to direct actions within
supporting the state. the classroom, the latter to her status as the
In contrast to this position, over the last two possessor and transmitter of sanctioned forms of
centuries or so there has developed a powerful knowledge.
tradition of anti-authoritarian or radical ap- It is worth noting that the two dimensions of
proaches to education. This line is represented by teacher authority discussed above are in fact
such theorists and practitioners as Neill (1960), intimately bound up with each other; some would
Goodman (1964), and Illich (1971). These writers say they are coexistent. A well-established
 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884 875

formulation of this position is Foucault’s (1980) cratic classrooms is ultimately exclusive and
concept of power/knowledge. Foucault argues that disempowering from the point of view of the
legitimated forms of knowledge and legitimated students themselves. Similarly, Oyler (1996, pp.
forms of power are essentially part of the same 24–25) observes that in many cases, a simplistic
regulatory mechanism. In educational terms, this view of power relations in the classroom sees
point has been made with great clarity by Hoskin teacher power as a bad thing in itself. She further
(1990), who draws attention to the ‘‘double points out that this view is rooted in a belief in the
meaning’’ (p. 30) of the word ‘‘discipline,’’ which supreme importance of the individual and of
refers both to the formal exercise of regulatory individual freedom. The power of the teacher,
power (put simply, managing a class) and the then, is seen quite simply as an undesirable
legitimated bodies of knowledge that form restriction on the freedom of learners; this leads
the substance of education (teaching the lesson). to what Oyler calls ‘‘abdication of teacher
Like the concept of ‘‘discipline,’’ we see the authority’’ (p. 24).
concept of ‘‘authority’’ as including both these Gore (1994, 1996, 1998) emphasizes this point,
notionsFthe teacher possesses authority both in noting that for Foucault the question is
the sense of having the power to direct classroom not whether a certain practice is good or evil,
activities, and in the sense of having the knowledge such that good practices are advocated and
that the students need to acquire. implemented and evil practices are to be avoided.
Rather, Foucault is concerned with how practices
2.2. Power relations in teaching are used. Gore notes that previous analyses of
classroom practices have focused on the ways in
This mention of power brings us to the question which power is held by individuals or groups of
of power relations in classrooms and in schooling individuals. For Gore, Foucault’s assertions
generally. The ideological critique of power rela- that ‘‘power circulates rather than being
tions in education is represented by writers from possessed’’ (1996, p. 2) shifts the emphasis of
Young (1971) and Bernstein (1975) to Apple analysis from those who hold power to
(1982) and beyond. Briefly, these writers depict the mechanisms of schooling. Such a shift
the school as a societal institution which serves in leads Gore to propose that we begin with the
the ongoing reproduction of existing power rela- question: ‘‘What specific practices actualize
tions, and hence inequities, prejudices and so on. relations of power in pedagogy?’’ (1998, p. 280).
The aim of schooling is to produce ‘‘good’’ To address this question, Gore has focused
citizens: i.e., citizens who do what they are told her own research at the micro-level of classroom
and serve in their turn to replicate the state as it interaction. Because her goal is ‘‘demonstrating,
stands. Part of this process involves the reproduc- rather than only asserting, disciplinary
tion of legitimate forms of knowledge. Apple puts power’’ (1994, p. 5) analyses must examine the
it succinctly: ‘‘Schools allocate people and legit- shifting movements of power between teacher and
imate knowledge. They legitimate people and students. Thus, for Gore, once instructional
allocate knowledge’’ (1982, p. 42). practices that actualize power are identified, we
Critical pedagogists (Giroux, 1988; McLaren, can then begin to examine how to use them. It is
1989) concur with the ideological analyses stated this notion of power that we shall be using in the
above, yet they call for an active role for teachers present paper.
in explicitly counteracting the reproductive and
hence, oppressive agenda of the school. Critical 2.3. Morality in education
pedagogy, in turn, has itself been criticized by
many. Ellsworth (1989), for instance, notes that The final concept that we utilize, morality, has
critical pedagogy has engendered its own ortho- been the subject of increasing attention in the
doxy and hierarchy, and that its elitist use of educational literature over the last two decades,
language and overly optimistic vision of demo- first by theorists such as Noddings (1984), Tom
876 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884

(1984) and others, then by researchers working the classroom. These discrepancies may be seen as
with empirical data (e.g. Jackson et al., 1993; conflicts (Colnerud, 1997; Joseph & Ephron,
Noblit & Dempsey, 1996). Different conceptions 1993), moral dilemmas (Johnston, 1991), or
of what morality is have been proposed. We will contradictions of values (Whitehead, 1993; Placier,
adopt the fairly straightforward definition offered 1996), or in terms of moral relativity (Willett,
by Buzzelli and Johnston (in press): morality Solsken, & Wilson-Keenan, 1998); but in either
‘‘constitutes that set of a person’s beliefs case, the notion of a single set of moral values for
and understandings which are evaluative in the classroom is highly problematic (Applebaum,
nature: that is, which distinguish, whether con- 1996). A degree of uncertainty and ambiguity must
sciously or unconsciously, between what is right always accompany discussion and analysis of the
and wrong, good and bad.’’ We also follow moral in classrooms and in education (Johnston
Buzzelli and Johnston in further asserting that et al., 1998). In the present study, our under-
‘‘moral beliefs, values, and understandings are standing of morality in education concurs largely
played out at the critical point of contact between with the picture outlined above.
the private, individual sphere and the social The preceding selective literature review posi-
realm’’: that is, ‘‘moral beliefs are both ‘personal’ tions our own examination of authority, in
and ‘cultural’.’’ relation to power and morality, in its theoretical
The literature on morality in education is and conceptual context. However, since, like Gore,
extremely diverse and covers a wide range of we wished to examine these issues at the micro
issues. Nevertheless, certain themes and common level of classroom discourse, we needed a frame-
understandings recur. There appears to be general work with two crucial features: (1) it would allow
agreement upon the following points: us to focus on the interplay of power and morality
First, teaching itself involves moral action in relation to teacher authority at the micro level
(Tom, 1984). Teachers are moral agents (Bergem, of classroom discourse, and (2) it specifically
1990; Johnston, Juha! sz, Marken, & Ruiz, 1998), framed classroom discourse as moral in nature.
and education as a whole, and thus classroom The work of Basil Bernstein, and specifically his
interaction in particular, is fundamentally and notion of pedagogic discourse, was especially
inevitably moral in nature (Goodlad, Soder, & appropriate for our analysis of the moral dimen-
Sirotnik, 1990; Ball & Wilson, 1996). From the sions of classroom discourse.
teacher’s point of view, teaching involves constant
and complex moral decision-making (Tippins,
Tobin, & Hook, 1993), and also a sensitivity 3. Theoretical framework: Bernstein’s pedagogic
to possibilities in contexts and individuals discourse
that Simpson and Garrison (1995) call ‘‘moral
perception.’’ Over the years in a number of his writings
Second, it is widely recognized that the ways Bernstein (1975, 1990, 1996) has outlined the
in which moral issues are realized in the notion of pedagogic discourse. For Bernstein,
classroom are both complex, subtle, and all- pedagogic discourse is a principle which leads to
pervasive. What Jackson et al. (1993) refer to as ‘‘the embedding of one discourse in another, to
the expressive morality of the classroom includes create one text, to create one discourse’’ (1996, p.
what teachers and students say and how they 46). The pedagogic discourse embeds the discourse
behave, but even extends to the layout and decor of specialized competencies to be acquired, that is,
of the classroom. The moral layeredness of class- what learners are to learn, in the discourse which
room teaching (Hansen, 1993) must thus be creates and regulates social order. Bernstein refers
acknowledged as a constant feature of educational to the former discourse as the instructional
contexts. discourse and the latter discourse which ‘‘legit-
Lastly, there will always exist discrepancies imizes the official rules regulating order, relation
between the various moral values played out in and identity’’ (1990, p. 188) as the regulative
 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884 877

discourse. He notes that the two are often room, and is an inherent feature of the discourse of
separated as the ‘moral and instructional’ but that instruction. Bernstein’s work brings this fact to the
in fact there is only one discourse: a single fore and allows us to appreciate its centrality in
pedagogic discourse constituted by a grammar teaching. It also raises an important point about
that functions as a recontextualizing principle: the level of analysis used when examining class-
room interactions.
Often people in schools and in classrooms make
For Bernstein, an understanding of the nature of
a distinction between what they call the
symbolic control must include analysis of pedago-
transmission of skills and the transmission of
gic discourse as it occurs at the micro level of
values y. Most researchers are continually
classroom interaction. In this paper, we take the
studying the two, or thinking as if there are two:
same approach. This is consistent with Gore’s call
as if education is about values on the one hand,
for the use of micro analyses as the most
and about competence on the other. In my view
appropriate way of examining the mechanisms of
there are not two discourses, there is only one
schooling. Thus, Bernstein’s construct of pedago-
y. The regulative discourse is the dominant
gic discourse provides us with a moral lens
discourse y this is obvious because it is the
through which we can examine the complex
moral discourse that creates the criteria which
interplay of authority, power, and morality as it
give rise to character, manner, conduct y In
occurs in the moment-to-moment, turn-by-turn
school it tells children what to do, where they
interactions between teachers and children.
can go. (1996, p. 46–48)
Our use of Bernstein’s construct of pedagogic
Bernstein views the regulative discourse as the discourse is also in keeping with the suggestions
moral discourse because it creates ‘‘a moral offered by Heath (2000). When making sugges-
regulation of the social relations of transmission/ tions for the use of qualitative methods in studying
acquisition, that is, rules of order, relation and language in education, Heath reminds us that ‘‘we
identity, and y such a moral order is prior to, and cannot forget the extent to which we now under-
a condition for, the transmission of competencies’’ stand the embeddedness of language in systems of
(1990, p. 184). Bernstein summarizes these rela- meaning, situation, and ideologies surrounding
tionships noting that ‘‘[p]edagogic discourse is teacher-student relations’’ (2000, p. 58). We agree
then a recontextualizing principle/discourse which with Heath’s observation. As the literature cited
embeds competence in order and order in compe- above indicates, the relationship between power
tence or, more generally, consciousness in con- and authority has been examined from a variety of
science and conscience in consciousness’’ (1990, p. perspectives, as have the moral dimensions of
185). teaching. Yet, few studies have specifically exam-
Bernstein’s concept of pedagogic discourse is ined the interplay among power, authority and the
especially appropriate for our analysis of teacher moral dimensions of teaching and this is what is of
authority and the interplay of power and morality central interest to us, namely, how the interrelation
that underpins it. Pedagogic discourse specifically of authority, power and morality play out at the
frames classroom discourse within a context of micro level of classroom discourse.
both power relations and moral values by reveal- Our method in performing this analysis will
ing how the instructional discourse is embedded in have as much in common with literary analysis as
the regulative discourse. This is particularly with conventional discourse analysis. Rather than
important because it provides us with a means of attempting to demonstrate statistical relations or
analyzing how the dual nature of authority formal aspects of discourse, we are more interested
examined earlier is contained in a single feature in how discourse is used by the participants,
of classroom discourse: a discourse that both especially in this case the teacher, to bring about
creates and regulates social relations and social certain ideological endsFthat is, how the form
identities. Of course, the regulation that Bernstein and content of the discourse are intertwined
talks about occurs in some form in every class- (Bakhtin, 1981). For this reason, our reading of
878 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884

the transcript will be selective, interpretive, and panies authorship. This struggle is heightened for
speculative, rather than exhaustive or definitive in both teacher and students because it occurs during
nature (Wells, 1999). We aim to suggest possibi- an author’s chair activity the purpose of which is
lities of interpretation rather than establishing for children to share stories they have written.
fixed meanings. Our intent is to examine how the content of
Our goal in this research and in using Bern- writing instruction is embedded within a discus-
stein’s notion of pedagogic discourse is to examine sion of conduct and social order. It involves the
the ‘embeddedness’ of the instructional discourse ways the teacher guides and instructs, in effect
within the regulative discourse. Put differently, aiming at the regulation of students’ behavior.
analyzing classroom dialogue as pedagogic dis- Guiding, instructing and regulating students’
course provides a powerful means of examining behavior are moral aspects of teaching that involve
how the language of instruction, in Bernstein’s the teacher’s expression of her power and author-
phrase quoted above, ‘‘embeds competence in ity.
order and order in competence.’’ Thus, by using The second reason we selected this dialogue is
the notion of pedagogic discourse as the analytical that it involves a number of exchanges between the
tool for examining classroom discourse, we can teacher and her students focusing on a specific
develop a better understanding of the often hidden moral issueFhow to deal with Robbie’s use of the
political and moral dimensions of classroom word ‘beer’ in his story. We believe an in-depth
interactions. analysis of a single dialogue provides a rich
opportunity to explore how the complex relation-
ship among power, authority and morality are
4. The beer dialogue played out in the day-to-day world of an
elementary classroom.
We now turn to an examination of classroom The dialogue that appears below was recorded
dialogue to illustrate the points we outlined above. in a third-grade classroom during an author’s
We selected this dialogue for two reasons. The first chair activity. During this activity, students take
reason is that this dialogue illustrates a teacher’s turns reading stories they have written. After the
dilemma. The teacher’s dilemma is a struggle reading of each story, the author asks fellow
between enacting her beliefs on how to nurture students if they have comments or questions about
children’s emerging voices as authors while at the the story. We join the dialogue as Robbie begins
same time enacting her authority as a regulator of his story.
what and how the children write. Her latter
concern focuses on developing in children the (1) T: All right, Robbie. Go ahead.
skills of self-regulation so that as writers they will (2) Robbie: OK. I’m gonna start a new
understand and monitor the influence that their chFstory, because my other one, I
words and stories may have on others. This had so many misspelled words, and,
teacher, like the teachers Ball and Wilson (1996) um, I haF, in my first chapter is at
write about, experiences the dilemma of being jammin gym, and I just started on it
caught between her own values of respecting the today, and, here I go! (Begins read-
individual voice, the writer’s voice, that she wants ing) Joey, come on. If we are going
to nurture in each child, and her own concern for to jammin gym, we have got to go
respecting the discipline and craft of writing. Put now. I have rented a limo to take us
differently, she is concerned with nurturing and there. OK. Let’s go. The limo is
encouraging students’ expression of their own here. We are on our way. Joey said,
voice, that is, in part, a representation of their ‘Hey guy, up in the front, where’s
own identity as an author as expressed in their the beer?’ Under the seat. Joey,
writing, and the concern of guiding and instructing move out of the way, AAAAHH!
students in learning the responsibility that accom- Joe’s hanging out the window. And
 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884 879

that’s all I said. (Class claps) Re- like, uh. What would be acceptable
sponse. (Children put their hands up) as far as words that we use here at
Jessica. school, and uh, what are your
(3) Jessica: How in the world did Joey get out, thoughts on it?
hanging out the window? Whispering among children: ‘‘It’s
(4) Robbie: Because I pushed, I knocked him OK,’’ ‘‘I don’t like it,’’ ‘‘I don’t
out of the way and he hit the door, think’’; Will, standing near the tea-
and he’s hanging off the door, out- cher, says something.
side, and we’re going a hundred (17) T: Wait a minute, turn around and tell
miles per hour on the freeway. He’s everybody.
hanging by his pinkies and then we (18) Will: I don’t like the worFwhen he uses
go up to a hundred and ten and he beer in the story. It’s sort of a slang
falls out the window. Chris? word, especially if it’s a kid’s story
(5) Chris: Um, well, this is just a suggestion, all that you’ll be reading to a class. I
right, um, oh, I’m just supposed to mean, grown-ups, like, if you were
ask one questiony Are y’all gonna reading a grown-up book, you’d
get caught drinking that beer? probably find some stuff like that
(6) Robbie: He is. Well, actually, he’s going to in it, but not in a kid’s story.
get arrested because he falls out the (19) Mark: I know, if he changed it to root beer,
window and he rolls a couple of feet it’d be SAFE.
and then goes up to the bank and he (20) Chris: Safe?
goes where all the money’s hid, and (21) Ann: I used to drink root beer.
then he breaks in, and then he goes Robbie makes an inaudible comment.
to jail, and then that’s when the real (22) Clare: Well, what if it gets public? I mean,
funny part’s going to be. When we it’ll give children the idea to do it.
go to jail. When HE goes to jail. (To (23) Marie: I know and it’ll influence them.
group asking to see who is to share Most students look toward the tea-
next or for a final question:) Any- cher.
body? (Students point and mumble (24) T: OK. Well, I don’t ever really want to
among themselves) Kate. make a person change their words or
(7) Kate: Noy their thoughts in a story, but just
(8) T: Uh, before Robbie leaves I want to every once in a while something kind
discuss some little something that- of comes up, maybe a word that
FI’m wondering if, what you maybe is, might offend somebody
thought about. JustFwhen he used else in the room or might, like Clare
the word beer in the story, uh, I’m saidFClare, what was it you just
wondering, how do y’all feel about said abouty?
that? (25) Clare: It might get published one day, and
(9) Mark: Some kinds of beer are good for if you likey childreny encourage
you. them to do it.
(10) Robbie: It’s alcohol. It’s non-alcohol. (26) T: In other words, it might influence
(11) Mark: You know, like root beer, it’s not somebody. And again, I don’t
alcohol. ever want to make you change
(12) T: Well, that wasn’t said. something, but I just wanted to
(13) Mark: He cany hear your thoughts on it because
(14) T: That wasn’t said, see. there’s certain subjects that, uh,
(15) Robbie: I can change it to that. might or might not be acceptable
(16) T: Well, I’m just thinking, you know to children.
880 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884

5. Analysis and discussion of the beer dialogue that an important part of being a good writer
involves being a responsible writer and this
In our analysis we will focus on two issues, both responsibility entails maintaining an awareness of
of which can be couched in terms of tensions of what is appropriate for a particular contextFin
authority. First, the teacher faces the problem of this case, the classroom. In making this point, the
supporting students’ competence as writers while teacher embeds learning how to write in the
also nurturing an awareness of how their writing broader framework of using moral standards to
may influence others. Essentially, the teacher must regulate and guide what one writes, and that each
address the notion that classroom discourse, as of these demands a conscious awareness of the
Bernstein argues, intertwines the instructional and other. The teacher is at once expressing herself as
the regulative into a single pedagogic discourse. an authority on writing in the way she is guiding
Secondly, the teacher faces the question of how to the students in developing an understanding of the
exercise her authority for moral ends (Hoskin, responsibilities of a writer toward their audience
1990). These two interrelated issues arise when and the context in which they write, while at the
Robbie includes beer-drinking as an element in his same time maintaining her position as a teacher in
story (2). authority, as exemplified by that fact that she
initially raises the question about the appropriate-
5.1. Using authority to support students’ writing ness of the word ‘beer’ in Robbie’s text, and
subsequently guides the discussion. For the teacher
The teacher’s response to the first issue begins at who is both an authority and in authority, this
(8) when she first calls into question Robbie’s use means that her actions are a means both to
of the word ‘beer.’ Robbie, noting the concern, instruct and to regulate the students’ writing
attempts to change the meaning, saying at (10) behavior. Thus, we see how the dual meanings of
‘‘It’s non-alcohol’’. However, the teacher refers authority are present by way of the teacher’s
back to the text twice for clarification: at (12) contributions to the dialogue. Further, our recog-
‘‘Well, that wasn’t said’’, and at (14) ‘‘That wasn’t nition of these dual meanings of authority serves
said, see.’’ At this point the teacher is using the to inform our understanding of pedagogic dis-
original text to regulate the parameters of the course. As Bernstein (1990, 1996) notes, the
discussion in that she seems to be saying that we instructional discourse is embedded within the
can only talk about what is in the text. This is regulatory discourse. This means that our under-
followed at (15) with Robbie’s saying ‘‘I can standing of instruction is always within the context
change it to that.’’ The teacher does not directly of regulation. Thus, the teacher’s statements are
address this suggestion, perhaps leaving Robbie part of a regulatory discourse which has embedded
wondering why it is rejected. At (16) the teacher within it the instructional discourse concerning
raises the topic of appropriate writing and texts at learning how to write.
school when she asks: ‘‘What would be acceptab-
ley here at school.’’ She then asks for the 5.2. Using authority for moral ends
students’ thoughts. This section of the dialogue is
interesting for several reasons. The second issue the teacher faces involves her
In raising the question about what is acceptable, role as moral agent specifically in her relation
a message is sent to students that there are aspects (Noddings, 1984) with Robbie. In this issue, the
of writing which must be regulated and that the central dilemma of authority seems to be roughly
regulation must be performed by them as authors. as follows. On the one hand, her respect for the
Although the teacher wants the students to express individual voices of the studentsFa value which,
their ideas through writing and story telling, she is presumably, leads her to conduct such activities
calling their attention to the norms that define with the children in the first placeFsuggests that
what is acceptable at school. At this point in the she should allow Robbie to write whatever kind of
discussion, the teacher is saying to the students story he likes. Furthermore, she seems committed
 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884 881

to what might broadly be seen as a constructivist Interestingly, while she explicitly rejects Robbie’s
approach to teaching, leading her to believe that posthoc attempts at self-regulation, she simulta-
rather than telling children things, they are more neously nurtures it in the other children. Her first,
likely to learn if they can engage their own voices rather vague contribution at (8) (‘‘I’m wondering,
in dialogue to think them through. This is why the how do y’all feel about that?’’) is intended to lead
teacher says she ‘‘just wanted to hear your the children to an awareness of the need for self-
thoughts on it’’ (26). regulation. When they fail to pick up on this, her
On the other hand, the teacher has a moral duty next question addressed to them is more directive,
towards Robbie and also the rest of the class, while still refraining from any overt moral judg-
which she perceives as encouraging that which is ment: ‘‘What would be acceptable as far as words
‘‘good’’ and discouraging that which is not; and it that we use here at school and, uh, what are your
is this duty that impels her to comment on thoughts on it?’’ (16). She directs things further
Robbie’s mention of beer. Here, she is concerned when, it seems, she hears that Will has got the idea,
about both the values that Robbie is ‘‘picking up,’’ and, using her authority, gives Will the floor. At
and about the moral messages that are being sent this point, the other children also follow along,
to all the other children in the room. Such concern and soon they are chiming in with ‘‘It’ll give
is emblematic of teaching as a moral activity children the idea to do it’’ (Clare at (22)) and ‘‘It’ll
(Hansen, 1998). At the same time, however, the influence them’’ (Marie at (23)). Here the specific
teacher’s concern highlights the nature of the dual authority invested in the teacher, over both
dilemmas continually faced by teachers (Hansen, process and product, is used to apply what in
1998). political science has been called ‘‘soft power’’
In the teacher’s response to this dilemma, we see (Barber, 1995) in the interests of moral agency.
her actively figuring out how best to use her The dilemma resides in the fact that it is debatable
authorityFin the dual sense of power and knowl- whether, for example, ‘‘It’ll give children the idea
edge referred to aboveFin the interest of moral to do it’’ is a contribution in Clare’s own voice, or
guidance and moral rightness. This struggle is whether the teacher, through her control of the
played out publicly, for example, at (24), when she discourse with the help of her own authority, has
comments: ‘‘Well, I don’t ever really want to make put words in Clare’s mouth.
a person change their words or their thoughts in a Thus, in this dilemma of the teacher we can see
story, but just every once in a while something the intersection of many of the themes from the
kind comes up, maybe a word that maybe is, might present paper. First and foremost, though, her
offend somebody else in the room,’’ and at (26): dilemma is a clear example of Bernstein’s pedago-
‘‘And again, I don’t ever want to make you change gic discourse: The instructional discourse of
something, but I just wanted to hear your thoughts learning how to write in order to express one’s
on it because there’s certain subjects that, uh, own unique voice is embedded in, and thus subject
might or might not be acceptable to children.’’ The to and trammeled by, the regulative discourse that
teacher’s response to her dilemma hinges around establishes and maintains moral rules of social
the word ‘‘but’’ in this utterance. She evidently relations and identities, and thus adjudicates what
wants the students to find and express their own is and is not offensive and, more generally speak-
voices. Indeed, she is acutely anxious not to ask ing, morally acceptable. In taking part in and
them to change their words and thoughts. But she overseeing pedagogic discourse, the teacher is
also has to weigh the possible negative moral inevitably using her authority both for purposes
influence of what the students’ voices might of regulating power relations and for moral ends:
express, what she terms here as things that ‘‘might she is both a political and a moral agent in the
offend’’ others. classroom.
What the teacher seems ultimately to be aiming Finally, the teacher’s dilemma in the beer
at is what might be called self-regulation on the dialogue represents a concrete example of the
part of the students (Buzzelli, 1995; Green, 1999). abstract dilemmas of teacher authority referred to
882 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884

above, which theorists have long grappled with. she employs ‘‘soft power’’ (Barber, 1995) rather
How should teachers use their authority in ways than a heavy-handed approach. In other words,
which support student learning yet do not while she is not being authoritarian, she is still
represent an imposition on their individual free- using her authority as teacherFin both senses
dom (Tobin, 1995)? And conversely, how can a Fto convey a particular moral message.
teacher nurture a classroom where students’ voices The moral significance of this kind of dialogue is
can be heard and yet where these voices are considerable. Not only is individual voice valued;
informed by a sense of responsibility? The beer there is also a premium placed on social interac-
dialogue shows how these dilemmas are enacted in tion and the negotiation of everything from
very real ways through actual classroom interac- classroom processes to personal meanings.
tions, and how teachers have to re-address them Furthermore, such values as responsibility are
afresh each time they arise. promoted: when students (or anyone else, for that
matter) know that their voice is valued and
listened to and will be taken into consideration,
6. Conclusion and implications they automatically feel an enhanced sense of their
own responsibility to participate effectively and to
Through our analysis of this dialogue, we have make sure their contribution is accurately phrased
considered how the teacher’s dual authority is and interpreted. Put simply, they care about what
brought to bear in instructing students in two they say in class, because they know it matters. It is
important aspects of writing. One aspect has to do in examples such as this that the moral dimension
with a conscious awareness of the effects of their of empowerment through dialogue can be seen
writing upon those who read or hear their stories; most clearly.
the second aspect involves the expression of one’s This dialogue offers a small but telling example
voice as an author. Further, the dual nature of of the complex ways in which the dual nature of
authority is revealed in Bernstein’s notion of teacher authority is played out in classrooms.
pedagogic discourse. Thus, the analysis has There is no single right or wrong way to handle
demonstrated how the instructional discourse with situations such as the one described here; we only
its function of developing competencies, in this wish to argue that they can be best conceptualized
case, nurturing children’s emerging skills as writers in terms of the tensions of morality and power that
and the expression of their voices, is embedded in are unavoidably inherent in the exercise of
the regulative discourse which functions to main- authority. These tensions can never be resolved;
tain social order, manner, and conduct by telling they present constant difficult choices to the
children to write so as not to offend others or teacher, and each time they arise they must be
influence them in negative ways. dealt with afresh in complex and ambiguous moral
As a whole, this dialogue captures the profound contexts in which decisions are rarely easy or
dilemmas of a teacher committed to a dialogical straightforward. However, as with many other
approach to teaching. It would be much simpler aspects of teaching, the effort to understand the
for the teacher to say something like: ‘‘Robbie, I tensions of authority is important in itself. As
forbid you to use the word ‘beer’ in a story again. educators from Freire (1972) to Hoskin (1990)
It’s a bad word, and it doesn’t belong in a third have pointed out, authority is a constant in
grader’s essay.’’ It is a tribute to her teaching that teaching; the authority of the teacher, and the
she chooses a response which conveys her concern relations of power and morality that underlie it,
while allowing Robbie and the other children to should then be a source of continual reflection.
follow the argument through by themselves. Yet it This is especially important because, as we have
could also be said of this passage that the teacher seen, context plays a vital role, and the complex,
is getting her point across just as effectively as if changing nature of each particular classroom and
she had made the blunter statement. Indeed, it is each group of learners means that the relation-
because she believes this way is more effective that ship between power and morality, and thus the
 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884 883

particular forms that authority takes on, must Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a
constantly be reevaluated and reconceptualized. critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin and
The present paper offers a way of embarking on Garvey.
Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. A. (Eds.). (1990). The
this process. moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, P. (1964). Compulsory mis-education. New York:
Horizon.
Acknowledgements Gore, J. M. (1994). Power and pedagogy: An empirical
investigation of four sites. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
An earlier version of this paper was presented at
tion, New Orleans, LA, April.
the annual meeting of the American Educational Gore, J. M. (1996). Understanding power relations in
Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April pedagogy. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the
1999. Australian Association for Research in Education and the
Educational Research Association, Singapore, November.
Gore, J. M. (1998). On the limits of empowerment through
critical and feminist pedagogies. In D. Carlson & M. Apple
References (Eds.), Power/knowledge/pedagogy: The meaning of demo-
cratic education in unsettling times (pp. 271–288). Boulder,
Apple, M. (1982). Education and power. Boston, MA: Routle- CO: Westview Press.
dge & Kegan Paul. Green, T. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of
Applebaum, B. (1996). Moral paralysis and the ethnocentric conscience. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
fallacy. Journal of Moral Education, 25, 185–199. Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson Hansen, D. T. (1993). From role to person: The moral
and M. Holquist, trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas layeredness of classroom teaching. American Educational
Press. Research Journal, 30, 651–674.
Ball, D. L., & Wilson, S. M. (1996). Integrity in teaching: Hansen, D. (1998). The moral is in the practice. Teaching and
Recognizing the fusion of the moral and intellectual. Teacher Education, 14, 643–655.
American Educational Research Journal, 33, 155–192. Heath, S. B. (2000). Linguistics in the study of language in
Barber, B. R. (1995). Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times education. Harvard Educational Review, 70, 49–59.
Books. Hoskin, K. (1990). Foucault under examination: The crypto-
Bergem, T. (1990). The teacher as moral agent. Journal of educationalist unmasked. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and
Moral Education, 19, 88–100. education. Disciplines and knowledge (pp. 29–53). London:
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class and pedagogies: Visible and Routledge.
invisible. In Class, codes and control, Vol. 3 (pp. 116–156). Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper
London: Routledge. Row.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse, Vol. Jackson, P. W., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. T. (1993). The
4, class, codes, and control. London: Routledge. moral life of schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and ideology: Johnston, D. K. (1991). Cheating: Reflections on a moral
Theory, research, critique. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. dilemma. Journal of Moral Education, 20, 283–291.
Buzzelli, C. A. (1995). TeacherFchild discourse in the early Johnston, B., Juh!asz, A., Marken, J., & Ruiz, B. R. (1998). The
childhood classroom: A dialogic model of self-regulation ESL teacher as moral agent. Research in the Teaching of
and moral development. In S. Reifel (Ed.), Advances in early English, 32, 161–181.
education and day care (pp. 271–294). Greenwich, CT: JAI Joseph, P. B., & Ephron, S. (1993). Moral choices/moral
Press. conflicts: Teachers’ self-perceptions. Journal of Moral
Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (in press). The classroom as Education, 22, 201–220.
moral. New York: Routledge. Makarenko, A. (1955). The road to life. Moscow: Foreign
Colnerud, G. (1997). Ethical conflicts in teaching. Teaching and Languages Press.
Teacher Education, 13, 627–635. Maxwell, M. (1991). Moral inertia. Ideas for social action.
Ellsworth, M. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado.
Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical
Harvard Educational Review, 59, 297–324. pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York: Longman.
Foucault, M. (1980). In: C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge. Neill, A. S. (1960). Summerhill. A radical approach to child
Selected interviews and other writings of Michel Foucault. rearing. New York: Hart.
Brighon: Harvester. Noblit, G. W., & Dempsey, V. O. (1996). The social construction
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, of virtue: The moral life of schools.. Albany, NY: State
trans.). London: Penguin. University of New York Press.
884 C. Buzzelli, B. Johnston / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 873–884

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. A feminine approach to ethics constructivist perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 22,
and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California 221–240.
Press. Tobin, J. J. (1995). The irony of self-expression. American
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New Journal of Education, 103, 233–258.
York: Teachers College Press. Tom, A. (1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York:
Oyler, C. (1996). Making room for students: Sharing teacher Longman.
authority in room 104. New York: Teachers College Press. Welker, R. (1992). The teacher as expert: A theoretical and
Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. London: Allen & historical examination. Albany: State University of New
Unwin. York Press.
Placier, M. (1996). An action research approach to a contra- Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural
diction in teaching: Reconciling grades with democratic practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge
education. Action in Teacher Education, 18/3, 23–32. University Press.
Simpson, P. J., & Garrison, J. (1995). Teaching and moral Whitehead, J. (1993). The growth of educational knowledge.
perception. Teachers College Record, 97, 252–278. Creating your own living educational theories. Bournemouth:
Smith, A. (1776/1990). An inquiry into the nature and causes of Hyde.
the wealth of nations ((2nd ed.)). Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Willett, J., Solsken, J., & Wilson-Keenan, J. (1998). The
Britannica. (im)possibilities of constructing multicultural language
Spring, J. (1999). Wheels in the head. Educational philosophies of practices in research and pedagogy. Linguistics and Educa-
authority, freedom, and culture from Socrates to human tion, 10, 165–218.
rights. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Young, M. F. D. (Ed.) (1971). Knowledge and control. New
Tippins, D. J., Tobin, K. G., & Hook, K. (1993). Ethical directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-
decisions at the heart of teaching: Making sense from a MacMillan.