Stories of subjectification (or not): An examination of pedagogic interactions in Singapore's higher education context

Over the last two decades, educational discourse has observably narrowed around learning as the production of human capital to address economic challenges. This preoccupation with employability prioritised education’s qualification and socialisation functions, marginalising subjectification – which focuses on students’ subjectivities and existence as individuals who lead their lives – as an important educational goal (Biesta, 2009a, 2009b, 2012a). In Singapore, while strides have been attempted towards more student-centred pedagogical approaches and holistic development, instrumentalist sensibilities driving nation-building goals remained entrenched (Gopinathan, 2015) and continue to work against subjectification. Ng (2020) noted that tensions may be produced as students are paradoxically called to attend to both instrumental adaptation and personal development. Students’ experiences of subjectification may thus be shaped by this ‘double bind’ situation (Bateson, 1972).

Despite well-developed theorisations of subjectification, there have been few attempts to synthesise a conceptual framework for subjectification (James, 2013a, 2013b, 2014). This is important to support empirical studies of subjectification, especially since Biesta’s (2010a) conceptualisation of subjectification comprises nuanced philosophical differences from seemingly similar notions, like ‘empowerment’ or ‘self-regulated learning’. Thus, a theoretical literature review was conducted, from which six principles of subjectification were derived: constant equalising, non-egological responsibilising, qualified reconciling, transgressive pluralising, interruptive reconfiguring, and ignorant disidentifying. These were used to examine available accounts of subjectification as well as the data generated from this dissertation.

Given little empirical studies describing students’ subjectification experiences, this dissertation hopes to illuminate the ways subjectification may unfold, particularly in Singapore’s higher education context. Through conducting unstructured interviews with eight undergraduate students in a Singapore university about their interactions with instructors, in-depth stories were generated and analysed to discern overarching narratives. Findings suggest that subjectification unfolded differently for participants, and whether subjectification was fully realised depended not only on instructors, but also the extents to which the participants themselves engaged in the pursuit of self-discovery. For some, subjectification unfolded as a personal quest. For others, subjectification was experienced as a release from competitive and rigid educational norms. For one participant, subjectification was triggered by a norm-deviating experience which developed his “criticality” (Barnett, 2015), the ability to take up a critical stance towards the world, in this case, towards his university education.

Furthermore, the six proposed principles of subjectification seem interconnected: the presence of one potentiates the others. Particularly, findings highlight the importance of instructors’ trust in students’ intellectual capacities and placing students in situations of discomfort, provoking them to challenge their existing worldviews. However, given the overwhelming pull of dominant norms, for subjectification to fully manifest, individuals require courage to do the difficult work of existing as a subject of their own lives, which nobody can do for them (Biesta, 2020b). While these principles evince possible pedagogical moves to foster subjectification, it is crucial not to turn them into technologies of control, which would contradict the concept of subjectification itself (Biesta, 2024).