Affective dissonance and the conventional discourse:

astonishment

May 2015 (Internal audit interviews, at work): I try to understand why our annual planning practice is claimed to guarantee equal treatment, autonomy and flexibility. Once again I listen to comments which criticise the rigidness of the lecturers’ working plans, but at the same time justify sustaining this practice which produces them as discipline-specific lecturers.

I voice my opinion: ‘This does not make any sense!’ and immediately wish I could take it back. My comment is taken personally. I can sense it from the silence which enters the room for a while.

‘Time and time again, you stick yourself, to accept someone else Give up the wish, let go of the dream, barricade, fantasy Burn the dogma, let the fire overtake, the desire to define’

Mantra, Dave Grohl, Joshua Homme, Trent Reznor This vignette is from an encounter, which broke down my understand-ing related to the discursive and material practices of the conventional

discourse. This encounter happened in an audit interview concerning our annual planning process. I was glancing at the lecturer who illus-trated this rigid practice, looked dead tired and at the same time em-phasised the flexibility of it and the freedom of the lecturers. I tried to stick myself, to accept that these are the conditions perceived as normal, but I failed. I was caught by surprise by the brilliance of the machinery, which produces the ‘the business-as-usual’ rationality and functions so automatically and autonomously that we are unable to grasp its power effects. I suddenly voiced my opinion, although my task was merely to take notes. My opinion was not meant as a value judgement against our lecturers, but against the coerciveness of the current practices in the existing rationality. Yet, I could sense from the awkward silent moment, which took over the room that my comment was taken as a personal offence, although it was meant as an act of concern and care.

It was an honest opinion filled with astonishment of how something so coercive produces, with such an ease, our lecturers as autonomous and free subjects.

After the interview was over, I explained vigorously to one of our top managers how certain practices are a hindrance for strategic profiling and how they tie our subjectivities in a constraining way to the existing rationality. My head was pounding because of an annoying sense that the majority of us is appropriating the conventional discourse – in-cluding me. However, the value of this encounter is that it triggered a reflective cycle related to my self-production. I realised that as long as ‘the teaching-as-usual’ is sustained, the way we – including me - have acquired the truth about a particular discipline (such as electric engineering or financial administration), becomes the process of how students should cognise the same truth. In other words ‘the way that truth is made apparent through repetition also indicates the way that the same truth can be acquired’ (Gordon, 2009). Efforts to change these practices are resisted, because they unsettle our sense of self.

The following excerpt is from a meeting, where I introduce key find-ings of the internal audit concerning our annual planning process (Top management meeting, 6/2015):‘We should remember that our RDI activities are not only projects, which are funded by external resources. I

assume that our RDI activities also relate to developing the organisations in the region through integrating development activities with teaching and learning. […] We collect feedback from our students in various ways […]

When they give negative feedback […] it appears as if there is no courage to intervene, to discuss these issues with the lecturers. […] how the implemen-tation of the course could be developed so that the students would feel that they receive better guidance and reach the learning outcomes.’

This excerpt reveals that I relied on being critical, but committed in promoting practices, which support students’ learning, co-operation with working life and improving the competence of the employees. I expressed my concern that we would no longer be able to respond to the needs of our students and the region if our primary concern is to produce outputs. However, after realising how I am also appropriating the conventional discourse and might end up intensifying it through the profit discourse, I decided to be more supportive towards the values, practices and modes of comportment related to strategic profiling. In other words, after realising how producing ourselves as particular kind of ethical subjects had become a knowledge project and thus a form of resistance, I began to appropriate strategic profiling. I was hoping that as the new curricula are implemented, our lecturers would also realise that the new approach is an opportunity to support students learning and co-operation with the region differently compared to the teach-ing-as-usual approach. Hence, I was truly disappointed when I had a discussion with one of our employees (Field notes, 3/2017):

Employee (support services): ‘One of the lecturers had told students that ‘find a problem and solve it’. That’s all. Students were walking from room to room looking for a problem. They were given no sup-port by this lecturer.’

Me: ‘Great! This is exactly what happens when the ‘the teach-ing-as-usual’ approach is challenged. It is striking when someone thinks that ‘if I am not allowed to teach, I will do nothing.’

This excerpt reveals what happens when the truth claims of the ‘the teaching-as-usual’, i.e. the genealogy of a pedagogical practice, is

ques-tioned. I realised being completely fed up with the debates related to the curricula renewal; I felt that the aims of this massive project were distorted, which is why this discussion ignited an urge to pass a judge-ment. However, this judgement was needed to reflect the demands our lecturers felt answerable in the conventional discourse. The curricula renewal aimed at turning the focus from ‘the teaching-as-usual’ to stu-dent-centered approach. Since the overall framework was orchestrated top-down by the matrix, our lecturers were indignant because they perceived this renewal as questioning their pedagogical expertise. The renewal also unsettled their self-production, which led to judgements from the line management that the matrix ‘bounces the line’ (Unit manager, a management training session, 5/2016). Accordingly, as seemingly democratic and ‘selfless’ subjects, we produce our place in this matrix of discourses by negating the value of the other’s difference (Diprose, 2002).

3.2 Affective dissonance and the profit discourse: frustration