Problematizing Foucauldian Ethics

Abstract

Foucault's technologies of the self have been used by sociological scholars of sport for nearly two decades. Yet Markula's seminal articulation of a feminist Foucauldian ethics in 2003 stands as a watershed publication, insofar as the majority of publications following this article have framed much of their analyses in relation to this work. In this article, then, I review sociological studies of sport and exercise that draw on Foucauldian ethics from Markula's article onward, paying careful attention to how Foucault's ethics and Markula's Foucauldian feminism have been deployed. Although I interpret this body of work as productive and insightful, I offer a critical reading of the emphasis on explicit problematizations and, relatedly, develop a methodological critique of researchers' reliance on interviews as a prime form of research method.

Coaching and ethical self-creation: problematizing the “efficient tennis machine”

“…Jacobs, Claringbould, & Knoppers, 2014;Pringle & Crocket, 2013;Shogan, 2007) and related disciplines (e.g. Crocket, 2016;Gerdin, 2017;Markula & Pringle, 2006;Sicilia-Camacho & Fernández-Balboa, 2009). Similarly, a growing body of coach scholarship draws on Foucault's earlier work on power and discourse to argue for the necessity, or importance, of problematization as a style of thought fundamental to innovative and critical coaching practice (Denison, 2007(Denison, , 2010Denison & Avner, 2011;Denison & Mills, 2014;Denison, Mills, & Konoval, 2015).…”

“…Although there is some diversity of interpretation and application of Foucauldian ethics within studies relating to sport and exercise (Crocket, 2016), there are certain tenets of Foucault's work which we regard as foundational to theorising technologies of the self. These include an anti-essentialist understanding of the subject, an understanding of knowledge and truth as the product of discourse and power relations, and an understanding of freedom as a set of contextually based possibilities that exist within power relations.…”

“…(Foucault, 2000b, p. 117) While the first part of this quote emphasises an explicit, rational process of critical thought, it is important to note that in the second part of the quote, Foucault emphasises that this thought process is contextual: An individual might be prompted to problematize an aspect of their sport as a result of a traumatic event (Crocket, 2014), they may be incited to problematize an aspect of their conduct as the moral code of their sport actively problematizes that aspect of conduct (Crocket, 2015), or they might come to problematize an aspect of their involvement in sport through engagement in other games of truth (Pringle & Hickey, 2010). Moreover, problematizations might be expressed by coaches and athletes on their own terms, which may not always match with the discourses of critical sociological and pedagogical scholarship of sport and coaching (Crocket, 2016).…”

“…Thus, although Foucault's technologies of self can be summarised via four seemingly progressive phases (i.e. in relation to the ethical substance, mode of subjection, practices of self, telos), the process of creating oneself as an ethical coach is complex, non-linear and requires on-going commitment or critical reflection (Crocket, 2016).…”

“…Synthesising these first four points, we now offer suggestions for how coaches might seek to engage with Foucauldian ethics. We do see merit in using either the four phases, or modes of subjectivation, of Foucault's technologies of the self (ethical substance, mode of subjection, practices of self, telos) or Markula's (2003) Foucauldian feminist ethic (ethical self-care, aesthetics of self-stylisation, critical self-awareness) (see Crocket, 2016) as a tool that coaches could use to organise a process of problematization in relation to their coaching practice. However, as we suggested above, this risk presenting Foucauldian ethics as a somewhat tidy, linear process.…”