Including Excluded Adolescent Boys: 
Discursive Constructions of Identity 
Volume I 
Thesis 
Kathryn Anne Pomerantz 
Submitted for Doctor of Education 
(Educational Psychology) 
Department of Educational Studies 
December 2007 
Abstract 
The main aim of this thesis is to problematise discourse relating to adolescent boys in order 
to gain a better understanding of the persistent practice of exclusion and to seek to highlight 
examples of how discourse can position boys in ways that are more inclusive. In doing so 
this work is an attempt to theorise my practice as a researcher-practitioner educational 
psychologist, to be reflexive and to raise my consciousness of the means by which 
professionals, parents and I can both liberate and limit the ways in which the identity of 
excluded adolescent boys becomes discursively constructed. Taking a predominantly 
relativist and post structuralist position I propose a model based on Lacanian theory 
integrated with methods of analysing discourse, `a critical discursive psychology' which 
frames and guides the research process throughout. As the thesis unfolds my initial 
intention to pursue the research topic from a linguistic-discursive perspective becomes 
influenced by a psychoanalytical dimension as the limitations of a purely discursive 
approach become apparent. My attempt to take a psychoanalytical reading of the discourse 
data draws attention to unconscious processes that may influence the signifying of some 
adolescent boys as either pathological or deviant and enables me to speculate as to why 
such discourses persist whilst others are repressed. However, and most importantly to this 
study, by exposing through the discourse analysis how discourse constructs the identity of 
some adolescent boys at both a societal and individual level, I am able to reveal that 
discursive constructions of the identity of adolescent boys are also open to resistance and 
change. This in turn provides rich possibilities for future research and practice. 
I 
CONTENTS VOLUME I Page 
Introduction Expectations 
5 
Chapter One Warming Up 12 
Identity through philosophy 14 
Identity through psychology 14 
Identity through structuralism 15 
Identity through post-structuralism 18 
Rationale for adopting a post-structuralist 
position 24 
Identity in education 28 
Identity in society 35 
Identity of the researcher 41 
Chapter Two Rehearsing and Setting the Stage 46 
Research focus 47 
Identity research and discursive psychology 49 
Identity research and critical discourse analysis 54 
Metaphor and Lacan's metonymic axis and 
metaphoric axis in discourse studies 61 
Methodological considerations 62 
Chapter Three Performing 70 
Ethical and practical considerations 70 
Analysis and discussion of media texts 76 
Summative presentation of the analysis of 
media data 103 
Analysis and discussion of conversational data 106 
The case of Jay 108 
Summative presentation of the analysis of 
conversational data 161 
Chapter Four Behind the Curtain 170 
A brief resume of psychoanalytical perspectives 170 
A psychoanalytical reading of biographical 
accounts in the media 176 
The case of Spike 185 
A psychoanalytical reading of the conversational 
data 200 
Chapter Five Future Performances 208 
Including excluded adolescent boys 208 
Promoting psycho-discursive research 220 
Future performances 231 
References 236 
CONTENTS VOLUME II 
Appendices Appendix One 
Information for participants 
250 
Appendix Two 251 
Participant consent form (pupils) 
Appendix Three 252 
Participant consent form (family members) 
Appendix Four 253 
Family meeting semi-structured interview 
Appendix Five 
Family closure meeting semi-structured 
interview 
Appendix Six 
Spike's suitcase: aspects of his present and 
futured self 
Appendix Seven 
Media article 1: Politicians fight over behaviour 
254 
255 
256 
Appendix Eight 257 
Media article 2: Behaviour are you winning? 
Appendix Nine 258 
Media article 3: Gone for good 
Appendix Ten 261 
Media article 4: Out of control 
Appendix Eleven 262 
Media article 5: Don't pick on the bad apples 
Appendix Twelve 263 
Media article 6: Boys box way out of trouble 
Appendix Thirteen 265 
The case of Jay: Transcript 1 Family meeting 
Appendix Fourteen 282 
The case of Jay: Transcript 2a Introductions 
Appendix Fifteen 285 
The case of Jay: Transcript 2b First impressions 
Appendix Sixteen 293 
The case of Jay: Transcript 2c Exclusion 
Appendix Seventeen 301 
The case of Jay: Transcript 2d Behaviour in school 
Appendix Eighteen 312 
The case of Jay: Transcript 3 Family closure 
Appendix Nineteen 324 
The case of Spike: Transcript 4 Family meeting 
Appendix Twenty 337 
The case of Spike: Transcript 5a Staying safe 
Appendix Twenty One 
The case of Spike: Transcript 5b Enjoying 
and achieving 
342 
Appendix Twenty Two 348 
The case of Spike: Transcript 6 Family closure 
Introduction Expectations 
This body of work represents both the pleasures and discursive struggle of six years of my 
practice as an educational psychologist, an emerging `post structuralist' researcher and 
mother of an adolescent boy. I use these labels in simplistic terms as the reader of this 
thesis will come to realise that through the influence of psychoanalyst Lacan on my work 
with excluded adolescent boys, notions of the identity of these boys, of those who teach and 
parent the boys and of myself can never be adequately described or understood. So, if 
"there is no stable tangible human subject" (Brown, Atkinson and England, 2006, p. 260) 
how can I justify the intention here to conduct research into the discursively constructed 
identity of excluded adolescent boys? 
The reader should, therefore, from the outset be aware of the purpose of the research as I 
see it, of what to expect and to be aware of certain tensions and frustrations some of which 
cannot be resolved. My journey began many years ago with a fascination for language and 
how words can be manipulated to create different meanings and how people use language 
to create different effects. As an educational psychologist in the 1990s I quickly became 
dissatisfied with the way in which language is used to attach identifications to young 
people, especially boys often leading to devastating exclusionary consequences. It seems 
there is a need to explore and problematise ways in which every day talk and text are used 
in relation to these young people. This in turn implies social constructionist and relativist 
notions of my research `position. ' What I mean by this is that I am concerned with the ways 
in which social and psychological `reality' are actively constructed within a context in 
relation to others as opposed to being pre-existing phenomena. Further to this the term 
5 
`reality' is misleading as an extreme relativist position would be one in which nothing is 
real, or to put it another way, there are multiple realities, relative to situations, individuals 
and circumstances. I do not subscribe completely to this very extreme position but would 
want to moderate where I `sit' on the relativist and realist continuum through my 
experience of working with excluded adolescent boys. From this experience, where the 
practice of excluding is so prevalent, it seems hard to deny that a reality (or problem boy 
identity) `appears to exist' and has become a belief or knowledge embedded within 
Western society (more of a realist position). However, my intent is not to seek the `truth' 
but to expose how discourse has come to shape the identity of adolescent boys and has 
epistemologically influenced those in power in society leading to the practice of exclusion. 
The predominant relativist in me wants ultimately to engage in the research process in a 
way that optimistically considers the possibility of there being alternative constructions of 
adolescent boys whereas the realist in me is drawn to the possibility of being able to explain 
the motives surrounding identity constructions. 
Where I use the term `appears to exist' this also reflects Lacan's concept of the subject as a 
product of the Real, the Imaginary and the Symbolic Orders (Lacan, 2002), concepts 
explained in chapter one of my thesis. In brief, and relating to my own interpretation of 
Lacan, the identity of excluded adolescent boys can be said to be `imagined' as a result of a 
series of discursive terms and phrases that cluster together to create meaning, that is to say 
`identifications' in the Imaginary Order. In turn these create `real effects' (eg anxiety 
amongst teachers and parents around their predictions of what some adolescent boys might 
do). Within the Symbolic Order such boys are identified as particular kinds of pupils within 
6 
discourses in which behaviour is already defined according to a series of norms. The `real 
effects' result in removing the boys from the Symbolic, through the practice of segregating 
and excluding them, to in effect wipe out their existence in mainstream schools and society. 
The Real Order, however, represents what is lacking, what cannot be put into words, what I 
understand as the non-rational, unconscious motives and desires that perpetuate these 
practices, constructions and positioning of adolescent boys which at the same time may also 
disrupt these practices by inspiring acts of resistance. 
In constructing my thesis, I write this introduction last and in doing so I come to a 
conscious point of realisation that my motivation and desire to understand better how the 
identity of adolescent boys comes to be constructed stems from the anger I feel. This relates 
to the social injustice I detect in working with these boys who are powerless and vulnerable 
to the decisions and practices of head teachers who in turn are influenced by ideological 
constructions within Local Authorities, central government and the media that appear to 
serve political, institutional and professional ends. I cannot claim to have approached this 
research in a logical fashion as the analysis and writing up happened over an intense period 
of a few weeks where I experienced an explosion of thinking and integration of ideas. This 
eruption metaphorically represents to me how my anger has been re-channelled and 
projected into a surge of energy that has enabled me to synthesise my research, the act of 
which I hope will change my practice and the outcomes for some of the young people with 
whom I work. Also, my struggle to understand and integrate the ideas of Lacan into my 
work has involved several attempts to read translations of his text and others' 
7 
interpretations of his work. Hence, my satisfaction in writing this introductory chapter and 
in redrafting chapter one was arrived as the last step in the process. 
Ultimately, the reflexive nature of my research represents the discourse I have with others 
and myself in the process, which has helped me to re-examine who I am and how I practice 
as a researcher-practioner: 
Lacan, we believe, assists us in examining our own language with a view to 
locating how our desires, our fears, our hidden motivations govern our professional 
practice. And how our social action might be seen as a function of the social 
discourses that guide our everyday practice. And how we become passionately 
attached to, or resist these discourses... 
(Brown, Atkinson and England, 2006, p. 35) 
The reader is now invited to enter into my journey which starts in chapter one as I explore 
various epistemological positions of the construct of identity that are paradigmatically and 
historically situated and explain how I come to adopt a predominantly post structuralist 
position. Chapter one also reflects the emphasis in the literature where identity is perceived 
to be both individualised and socialised and constructed through many experiences, for 
example, going to school as well as growing up in families. I found myself drawn 
continually to examples in the literature that demonstrate the way in which the discursive 
identifying of adolescent boys is subject to institutional, political and social influences in 
ways that appear to have ideological significance. This is an important point as critical 
discourse analysis (CDA) which formed part of my analytical approach is often criticised 
for failing to adequately account for explaining the social effects of the discourse. Phillips 
and Jorgenson (2002) acknowledge this and in defence of CDA, claim that it is difficult to 
address this empirically. Therefore, my emphasis in critically reviewing the literature and 
8 
drawing attention to points of wider ideological and political significance is an attempt to 
counteract what might be a later criticism of the data analysis. 
Finally, chapter one also marks the introduction of a proposed model, a hypothetical 
construction of the identity of excluded adolescent boys, based on Lacanian theory, 
integrated with methods of analysing discourse. This model is central to understanding the 
framework I used to explore, interpret and summarise constructions of the data and it is 
used and redefined throughout the thesis. 
Chapter two sets out the research focus and provides a justification for the research 
methods used, namely a combination of discursive psychology (DP) and critical discourse 
analysis (CDA). At the early stages of reading around the thesis topic it became clear that I 
wanted to look at individualised identity constructions through case studies involving 
conversations with boys and their parents for which DP provides a useful approach as it 
lends itself to systematically investigating naturalised conversations in a local context. 
However, with concerns emerging in the literature about the strong societal and political 
influences around the constructions of boys I also wanted to set a context which involved 
looking at text available through the education media, for which CDA based on the work of 
Fairclough (2001) provides an ideal analytical framework. 
However, it was more by accident than intention that I also came at a late stage in the 
analytical process to consider the need to extend my critical discursive analysis to include a 
psychoanalytical reading of the data. This came about as a result of a false start in the 
9 
research that I encountered in trying to work with permanently excluded boys who became 
`too hard to reach' as participants. This experience was also described by Hollway and 
Jefferson (2000) and in reading their work I began to question the more non-linguistic, 
unconscious process that may be influencing the discursive constructions within my own 
data. Also, a critique of discourse analytical methods is that they consider constructions to 
arise on the surface through discourse at the same time omitting to address questions of 
motivation (eg why do people persist in using discourse in non-rational ways? ) with no 
mechanism within the analytical method of interpreting the emotional significance and 
effects of the discourse. This `turn to psychoanalysis' is explored in detail in chapter four; 
however, leading up to this is the main body of the research encapsulated in chapter three 
where firstly the media articles and then the conversational data surrounding `the case of 
Jay' are highlighted, analysed and interpreted in depth using the synthetic discourse 
analytical tool that I constructed based on combining techniques taken from DP and CDA. 
In chapter four I also chose to include constructions of a further boy, the case of Spike, to 
explore how another boy with similar experiences of exclusion can be constructed 
differently. Also, the data around Spike both fascinated and disturbed me and it seemed to 
lend itself to a psychoanalytical interpretation. Much of the discourse around Spike was 
alluded to but not made explicit which drew me into Frosh's concept of the `psychology of 
hinting' (Frosh, 2002) and a realisation of the importance of this to educational 
psychologists in working with young people who are subjected to abuse especially where 
words are left unspoken or where bragging and joking around may mask the `Real' (to use 
a Lacanian term) identity of the young person. 
10 
The final chapter cannot in psycho-discursive research represent `findings' or the end of the 
story, but represents an attempt to draw together the story so far. From this point the reader 
is able to establish the implications for me as the researcher-practitioner as I propose ways 
of reshaping my practice and the practice of others within an ideational, interpersonal, 
expressive and psychoanalytical framework (drawing on ideas from Benwell and Stokoe, 
2006). In Lacanian terms I am driven to engage in more research, not because I see my 
work here as unfinished or inadequate in any way but because I am motivated to engage in 
an ongoing process of self realising. 
11 
Chapter One Warming Up 
The central tenet of this thesis is bound by the concept of identity and its construction 
through discourse. In order to begin to make sense of the identities of adolescent boys at 
risk of exclusion it is necessary to first explore the topic from an epistemological position, 
how knowledge of identity formation has been espoused in theoretical and pragmatic terms. 
However, approaches to discourse research amount to far more than a method that can be 
presented in one section of a thesis. Discursive methods are inextricably linked to the 
theoretical bases for understanding identity formation and as such attention to methodology 
will be addressed throughout all chapters of the thesis. 
The following pages of text draw from a wide range of paradigms within philosophy, 
anthropology, linguistics, sociology, and psychology but space does not permit a definitive 
exploration of all areas. To make sense of identity as a discursive construct as it can be 
applied to modern day thinking and practice, weight is given to both a psychoanalytical and 
a social constructionist perspective. From the outset I declare that I am drawn to a 
predominantly relativist position in which qualitative methods predominate. However, the 
notion of identity as being both something we are (either consciously or unconsciously) 
and something we do (through discourse and action) remains a possibility in my mind. As 
such, the reader will detect some relativist-realist tensions throughout the text that are not 
easily resolved. 
These tensions are also evident elsewhere amongst those who advocate that discourse 
constructs identity, for example in the work of Parker: 
12 
The beliefs that we have deep down about our own nature and about those 
lesser and greater than ourselves are forms of ideology... Psychoanalysis can 
help us interpret ideology and reveal its power. 
(Parker, 1997, p 135) 
In a critique by Hepburn (2003) she notes that whilst Parker (1997) claims to reject 
individualistic and cognitivist explanations of `the self' at the same time he appears to rely 
on them. However, Parker (1992) in an earlier text attempts to make sense of this by 
challenging systems of rational knowledge that presuppose a world independent of 
experience and claiming that we need: 
... a form of relativism which respects the different and provisional culturally 
bounded explanations of the nature of things... which does not slide into the 
Nietszchean perspectivism of high post-structuralists for whom there are only ever 
competing stories... relativism, can also be grounded in the assumption that there is 
a real outside discourse which we are trying to understand. 
(Parker, 1992, p. 30) 
As the thesis unfolds and the discursive data is analysed my tendency to adhere to a 
`predominantly' post structuralist position, that is to say that meanings are not fixed or 
stable but are contestable and can change, will be exposed. However, I am also drawn to 
Parker's notion of relativism as explained above and would have to declare that there exist 
culturally bounded explanations of the nature of adolescent boys that `appear' to have 
become fixed and resistant to change. 
The following sections of chapter one reflect the concept of identity as it has come to be 
understood from a range of theoretical positions. 
13 
Identity through philosophy 
This section is brief as time and space within this thesis does not allow for a detailed 
philosophical critique, but the following points are included to highlight the far reaching 
historical debates that document the espoused nature of our very existence. The Austrian 
born philosopher Martin Buber was influenced by existentialism, for example, the work of 
Kierkegaard who proposed that the human self is relational and constituted, "a relation 
which relates itself to its own self, and relating itself to its own self relates itself to another" 
(Kierkegaard, 1954, p. 146). Buber introduced the elements I and Thou as a way of 
expressing the relational aspect of the construction of humanity itself. He appears to reject 
the notion that words alone have meaning but that it is only through the experience of 
relating to others that we can acknowledge the existence of ourselves: 
Primary words do not signify things, but they intimate relations. Primary words 
do not describe something that might exist independently of them, but being 
spoken they bring about existence. 
(Buber, M. 1937, p. 15) 
The point to be made here is that from the writings of Buber (1937) it is evident that 
philosophers unsettled essentialist notions of identity by bringing the influence of language 
and relations in identity construction to the forefront. 
Identity through psychology 
The psychologist Alfred Adler (Adler, 1956; Adler and Deutsch 1959) influenced by post 
Freudian psychoanalysis and his work on personality believed that individuals have an 
idealised picture of themselves; that every idea is screened through a person's own 
personality and absorbed as much or as little as it `fits' his or her own lifestyle and picture 
14 
of himself or herself. Adler was less interested in considering how discourse might shape 
this process and his view of identity (or self) appears positivist and `fixed' but he did 
acknowledge the significance of interactions, and saw these as ways of achieving inherent 
goals, values and interests and the means of a child acquiring character traits in order to 
find his or her place within a family. Dreikurs interprets the work of Adler to suggest that 
through Adler's belief in the `Psychological Uncertainty Principle' such motivation to be 
who we are operates on a largely unconscious level: 
We do not know ourselves; we do not know the premises on which we act. We do 
not know our personal goals and, therefore, cannot be sure about our personal 
motivations or our stake in close personal relationships. 
(Dreikurs, 1959 p. 79) 
In a similar vein although at a more conscious level, Erikson's notion of identity relates to 
self awareness and personal identification; that identity is the means by which a person 
situates himself or herself in social relations. Erikson perceives this as a developmental 
process, describing adolescence as a period of `identity crisis' (Erikson, 1968) in which 
young people growing up in Western Society develop a new sense of identity following 
their rejection of parental authority. This developmental/crisis perspective, however, has 
been refuted by anthropologists such as Mead in studying young people' growing up in 
cultures such as Samoa (Mead, 1972). 
Identity through structuralism 
A less individualistic view comes from the structuralist paradigm in anthropology in which 
the structure of human thought processes is considered to be the same in all cultures and is 
expressed in cultural acts (Winthrope, 1991). As such through anthropology the essence of 
15 
humanity arises from practices and activities within a given culture. Ideas stemming from 
this were developed in the early 20th century in the form of role theory (Biddle, 1979). The 
central concern in role theory is with patterns of human conduct; that people develop role 
identities as a result of expectations and social positions. In education, this tendency was 
described as the Pygmalion Effect (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968) to explain that when 
teachers believe pupils are likely to achieve they (unconsciously) treat them accordingly 
and as such the pupils tend to conform to this expectation. Sociologists and social 
psychologists have also been influenced by role theory and the work of psychodramatist 
Moreno (1951) maintaining the belief that `role taking' is essential to socialisation and the 
development of 'self' here such roles belong to a social system. Even the playwright 
George Bernard Shaw is believed to have expressed on his 90th birthday that the way we 
behave is influenced not by our experience but by our expectations (Biddle, 1979). 
So far the above theoretical positions mostly suggest a degree of truth and certainty in the 
development of identity, that because of expectations existing within the social system in 
which we live, we become who we are: researcher, teacher, parent or boy `at risk of 
exclusion' and behave in characteristic ways. Biddle (1979) suggests that roles can be 
judged as deviant by society, leading to punishment and institutionalisation in the belief 
that this will lead to the learning of more appropriate roles. However, we could challenge 
this assumption on a number of levels. Firstly, a consideration of the national rise in 
exclusion statistics (DCSF, 2007) questions the practice of excluding boys from school as 
there is no evidence to suggest that this reduces anti-social behaviour, nor does it increase 
compliance if these boys are returned to the same social context. Secondly, a belief that 
16 
through role expectations, behaviours are induced via socialisation implies passivity and 
assumes that the person is a recipient of their assigned identity rather than a co-participant 
in its construction. This critique will be explored by a closer examination of the role that 
language plays in the construction of identity where it emerges that the experience of 
discourse is considered to be very influential in shaping who we are. 
Still within the structuralist domain we turn to the work of linguist Ferdinand de Saussure 
(1974). Whilst Saussure did not write about identity, he formulated one of the first theories 
of structural linguistics which in turn has influenced some forms of discourse analysis. The 
importance of Saussure is the prominence he gave to an understanding of how meaning is 
created although his theory (semiology) can be critiqued for being a purist view, concerning 
a study of language in and for itself rather than in context (Holland, 1998). He proposed 
that linguistic signs were composed of a signifier (the sound pattern of a word) and a 
signified (the concept or meaning of the word). Ideas such as these were adopted in 
anthropology and ethnography, for example by Claude Levi-Strauss (1963) and used to 
reinforce the idea that meaning is produced and reproduced within cultural practices where 
the structures that form the `deep grammar' of society operate in us unconsciously. 
Drawing from the work of Jakobson who introduced the notion of presence or absence of 
features in language, Levi-Strauss also proposed that the structure of language in the mind 
is based on pairs of binary oppositions (eg male-female). Such ideas, whilst at an abstract 
and theoretical level, can be said to have practical application in relation to identity 
formation. For example, in texts relating to gendered subjectivity (eg Sunderland, 2004) 
17 
dominant constructions of what it is to be male tend to be viewed in relation to what it is 
not to be male (eg female, homosexual). 
The psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, building on the work of Freud was heavily influenced by 
the ideas of structural linguists such as Saussure and existentialist philosophers such as 
Heidegger (1962) who maintained the belief that language creates and forms our reality, the 
`who we are'. Through my reading of Lacan (2002) it appears as if his ideas move away 
from his structuralist beginnings towards post structural thinking and practice, hence he is 
included in both this section and the next. However, others who interpret Lacan would say 
that to see him as a post structuralist is disputable (Parker, 2003) due to his adherence to 
there being underlying structures of language to explain human thought and subjectivity. 
Identity through post structuralism 
The advent of post-structuralism, in which language is the producer of "meanings that are 
not fixed or stable, but always changing and contestable" (Nightingale and Crombie, 1999, 
p. 228) grew out of the post modern movement in which the existence of meaning can no 
longer be taken for granted. Post structuralists such as Lacan (2002) believed that the 
concept of `self could not be viewed as a singular and coherent entity, but one of 
conflicting tensions, misunderstandings and knowledge claims (eg continually shifting 
notions of gender, class, race etc). In developing Saussure's notion of signifiers and the 
signified he highlights the gap between language and reality and also proposes a link 
between the unconscious and the conscious. Lacan believed that the function of language is 
to seek a response from the other in order to confirm the speaker's own subjectivity: 
18 
What constitutes me as subject is my question. In order to be recognised by the 
other, I proffer what was only in view of what will be. In order to find him, I call 
him by a name that he must assume or refuse in order to reply to me. I identify 
myself in language, but only by losing myself in it like an object. 
(Lacan, 2002, p. 247 as translated by Fink) 
My interpretation here is that Lacan uses the other with a small `o' in which the meaning of 
the `other' is another subject and what we see in Lacan's Imaginary Order (a conscious 
imaginary objectification of who we are, a self-identification or ideal self). However, Lacan 
also refers to the big `Other' which is represented in the Symbolic Order, defined as the 
unconscious external world (language, culture, laws, expectations etc). in which we become 
objectified through discourse. Lacan explains how identity forms through the link between 
the Imaginary and the Symbolic: 
Thus, if man comes to think about the symbolic order, it is because he is first 
caught in its being. The illusion that he has formed this order through his 
consciousness stems from the fact that it is through the pathway of a specific 
gap in his imaginary relationship with his semblable that he has been able to 
enter into this order as a subject. But he has only been able to make this entrance by 
passing through the radical defile of speech... 
(Lacan, 2002, p. 40 as translated by Fink) 
So, more specifically, Lacan proposes that the vision of himself or herself which a person 
takes to be the essence of identity is an illusion. The young child having pre-verbally 
identified with an ideal version (ideal ego) of themselves (in perceiving a mirror image of 
themselves) then through language in childhood and beyond continually struggles to 
recapture the ideal ego by developing fantasised identifications (with given objects) that 
reassure him or her imaginatively, reducing the difference between self (ego) and ideal self. 
These can be represented in language (in what Lacan refers to as the Symbolic Order) as 
symbolic or representative of 'self' ut are never in effect `real'. Lacan's Imaginary Order 
19 
represents delusional attempts to be and to remain `what one is' by identifying with 
instances of sameness and self-replication which can be observed through our actions. Ross 
(2002) provides an example of how commercial advertising reinforces people's compelling 
associations with objects with which they wish to desire: 
When the individual sees these associations made, he or she "recognises" some 
aspect of himself or herself in the imaginary field created around the object, 
identifies with it, and seeks to possess it as a concrete way of declaring his or 
her identity. 
(Ross, 2002, p. 8) 
The third aspect of Lacan's conception of the subject is that of the Real Order. My 
interpretation of the Real is that it represents the gap between the Imaginary and the 
Symbolic, the person we desire to be but can never reach because this can never be 
articulated. Brown, Atkinson and England (2006) explain this as a lack, the Imaginary 
fantasies that the Symbolic fails to capture. Lacan (2002) refers to anxiety in relation to the 
Real and the Imaginary as we struggle to become who we are which proves to be a useful 
construct later in chapter four of this thesis as I `turn to psychoanalysis' in an attempt to 
explain why we hold onto some discourses and repress others. 
One tension that cannot be ignored in critical social psychology is that in drawing on post 
structural developments in psychoanalysis, it could be assumed that what people say is 
evidence of underlying psychological structures (in attaching meaning to `the self'), but 
where is the focus on what people are doing with what they are saying in specific contexts? 
(Hepburn, 2003). My response to this is to make explicit links between Lacanian theory, 
psychoanalysis, critical discourse analysis and discursive psychology. As methods of 
analysing data, these forms of discourse analysis will be critiqued more fully in Chapter 
20 
Two, but as a starting point a more detailed interpretation of Lacan is required to 
demonstrate how this theory can begin to be applied in discursive research and practice. 
Few educational psychologists have attempted to make this link, one exception being the 
work of psychologist Billington (1995). 
Lacan, in adapting Saussure's notion of the signifier and signified added the notion of 
metonymy (movement) and metaphor, terms first proposed by Jakobson (1962). Unlike 
Saussure, Lacan proposed the notion of a chain of signifiers where one signifier (eg a word 
with its associated meanings) can be replaced by another, further reinforcing the belief that 
identity formation (through discourse) is a continual dynamic and somewhat unstable 
evolving process: 
There is no meaning in itself; the only meaning is a metaphorical one that only 
emerges from the substitution of one signifier for another. 
(Dor, 1998, p. 195) 
However, Lacan (2002) did propose that there are occasions in this process (anchoring 
points) where the unconscious symbolic stream of linguistic utterances (signifiers) becomes 
conscious by linking with signifieds, creating psychologically stable points (referred to 
analogously as buttons on a quilt). In other words there are points where these largely 
unconscious utterances become `meaningful' concepts. 
One means of integrating these ideas in a way that is of practical use to me in studying 
identity and its construction through discourse is to devise a visual model as depicted 
below. In this model the text in blue denotes Lacanian theory, the text in red represents my 
21 
integration of techniques drawn from discourse analysis and the text in green relates to an 
interpretation of the above in showing the construction of identity: 
22 
Model IA hypothetical construction of the identity of excluded adolescent boys 
based on Lacanian Theory (in Hue) integrated with methods of analysing 
discourse (In red) 
Chain of SIGNIFIERS METONYMIC AXIS 
Lacan's Symbolic Order (language of the unconscious and language of ordinary 
speech) Equates to supremacy, society and law (the social order) 
Acts of speaking and writing that expose issues of power and resistance are identified 
through: critical discourse analysis that examines intertextuality (the use of the same 
or similar words and phrases that can become transposed, substituted, displaced and 
combined across a range of texts) and linguistic analysis (how pronouns, verbs, 
adjectives, metaphors are used) 
Hypothesis: The identity of adolescent boys at risk of exclusion is represented and 
reconstructed through linguistic acts and multiple streams of discourse 
METAPHORIC AXIS 
Linguistic terms become selected and condensed 
The action orientation of talk is identified through: discursive psychology via 
interpretative repertoires (eg clusters of graphic descriptions and metaphors), 
rhetorical devices such as dilemmas of stake (eg disclaiming, blaming) and through 
critical discourse analysis that exposes interdiscursivity (the use of different 
discourses used in the same discursive event) 
Hypothesis: Discursively constructed identities of adolescent boys at risk of exclusion 
attempt to become established as factual and stable representations of the world, 
while others are repressed 
4 
SIGNIFIED 
Lacan's Imaginary Order (conscious) 
Associated with identification, objectification and signification (the illusion of a fixed 
meaning) and with frustration and motivation 
As realised through action (eg the social practice of excluding adolescent boys) 
Hypothesis: The illusory concept of excluded adolescent boys as an `established' 
identity is produced. Adolescent boys become positioned in ways that justify exclusion 
23 
The above model presupposes a trend of phenomenological intentionality as conferring a 
subjective meaning on what is perceived (the signified) out of the objective stock of 
language (multiple signifiers). In other words, and in relation to this study, Lacan's theory 
implies that the `perceived' conscious subjective identity of `excluded adolescent boys' is 
realised through metaphor and arises out of a stream of mainly unconscious discourses. 
Rationale for adopting a post structuralist position 
The work of Lacan is not without its critics and whilst the above model has possibilities as 
a framework for this research, its limitations should also be stated. Furth, (1994) considered 
Lacan's style to be obscure and difficult to comprehend. Wilden (1968) was quick to point 
out that whilst Freud declared that his work was based on hypothesis and speculation, 
Lacan boldly drew his ideas and generalised them from very limited empirical data. As a 
theory with any practical usage Wilden goes on to state that it `remains a psychology for 
intellectuals, not for people' (Wilden, 1968, p. 299). However, Lacan's system is also 
praised within the same text as remarkable in its capacity to combine original insights from 
phenomenology through to existentialism to structuralism. Through the work of Lacan it is 
possible to move away from a solipsistic psychology to one in which dialectic relationships 
can be rigorously analysed. Through a contemporary discourse study, I would argue that 
developing a framework derivative of Lacanian theory opens up possibilities that are 
potentially emancipatory for the topic under debate: including excluded adolescent boys by 
examining discursive constructions of their identity. 
24 
However, we are left with a further problem; if we adopt a Lacanian perspective then how 
can we, as Dor (1998) elaborates, ever really know who we are? 
The subject can perceive himself through his language only as a representation 
a mask, that alienates him by concealing him from himself. 
(Dor, 1998, p. 136) 
or even `who we are meant to be' as depicted in the children's book The Red Tree (Tan, 
2001) below: 
25 
The notion of `mask' in connection to identity is a theme that is developed in contemporary 
literature as portrayed in The Monkey's Mask (Kearney, 2003). Kearney proposes that the 
stories we tell each other about ourselves do not necessarily coincide with the stories we 
tell ourselves about ourselves, and that it is difficult to maintain a coherent, yet ever 
changing sense of self when we are influenced by diverse social and linguistic practices. 
Perhaps this simply reflects Lacan's interplay between the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the 
Real. Ultimately, we can never know who we are or who we are meant to be, as the Real 
always remains hidden, but we are continually motivated towards self realisation. 
The epistemological story so far depicts a shift in thinking from the rationalist notion of an 
objective reality leading to fixed identities to a more socially constructed notion of 
relational, discursive and cultural influences on identity influenced by anthropologists and 
the work of Freud, Saussure and Lacan. The post modem and post structural movements 
have led to the idea that identity is an `achievement of relationship' (Gergen, 1994) 
constructed within diverse and changing cultures and communities and as such the 
`meaning' of identity can no longer be taken for granted. Kearney (2003) however, exposes 
that post modernism in particular (characterised by a belief in "diversity, instability and 
fragmentation, " Nightingale and Crombie, 1999, p. 228) rejects the idea that there may be 
`grand narratives', existing within the mass media. She also points to the new era of social- 
psychological research, where children's voices are becoming more prominent, suggesting 
that biographical studies (eg self narratives) allow for a more holistic understanding of how 
`the self' s constructed. Bakhtin (1981) proposes a three part framework for a researcher in 
exploring such narratives: 
26 
" to determine how young people are influenced by other people or by dominant 
narratives; 
" how they present themselves to the world; and 
" how they view themselves from the inside. 
Such approaches also bring into view the affective individualised aspects of identity 
formation that are underestimated in post modern thinking. With these points in mind, I 
would claim at this stage to take a predominantly post structuralist approach but not one in 
which I adhere to the more extreme position, influenced by post modem thinking of there 
being constantly changing and fragmented identities. Taking a more conservative post 
structural view (such as that espoused earlier by Parker, 1992) I would want to consider the 
possible existence of dominant narratives that in turn influence the practice of excluding 
adolescent boys and repress alternative inclusive identifications. 
Returning to the wider societal constructs of identity I would suggest that any political 
analysis of the role of the mass media in the construction of identity might, for example, 
reveal a deliberate (? ) regression towards essentialist notions of identity. I would speculate 
that adolescent boys such as those of interest to this study, may be intentionally constructed 
as a homogenous group associated with underachievement and criminality, the motivation 
being that politicians attract votes by inventing new laws to increase the surveillance and 
exclusion of this identified group, so that law abiding, hard working adults in schools and 
in society in general can feel safe. What is beginning to emerge is the need to investigate 
both national discourses and local narratives in the construction of identity which provides 
27 
a rationale for my intent to draw techniques from both critical discourse analysis and 
discursive psychology in considering the identity of adolescent boys at risk of exclusion. 
Firstly, there is a need to take a closer look at identity within the context of what it means to 
grow up `boy' in Britain today. 
Identity in education 
Power and object relations 
Returning to psychoanalytical constructs it is relevant to mention the notion of object 
relations theory (Klein, 1932) as a preamble to considerations of `identity in education. ' 
Through her work Klein conceived the internal world as one in which we identify with 
objects that create an important basis for our relationship with our `self'. Objects become 
transferred to this inner world from the outside (introjection) and transferred to the outside 
(projection) and the various anxieties we experience as children through to adulthood are 
seen through projective identification. The defence mechanism referred to as `splitting' 
allows us to see objects (things or people) in an either/or kind of way. This helps us 
understand the tendency in talk (realised through social, political and institutional practices) 
to construct identities as either simplistically good or bad. 
This can be said to be a global phenomenon as seen in George W. Bush's use of the term 
`axis of evil' first mentioned in his State of the Union Address, 29t' January, 2002 (The 
White House, 2002) linked to a preoccupation of politicians in the Western world to 
identify and seek out terrorists/terrorist regimes (the concept of which is given meaning not 
just by the individual and collective acts of terrorists but by profiling the `type' of person 
28 
who associates with this subculture). Interestingly, the phrase `axis of evil' is seen to 
reappear intertexually in the media both immediately after the State of Union Address but 
several years later (eg McCurry and Borger, 2002; Goldenberg, 2007; Milne, 2007). This 
occurs despite attempts to discredit Bush's emphasis in relating the `axis of evil' 
specifically to the regimes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea which Tisdall, (2002) declare are 
imaginary links, disconnected from reality. A parallel can be drawn here with my earlier 
Lacanian interpretation of how phrases come to create meaning, that is to say 
`identifications' in the Imaginary Order that in turn create `real effects' (eg anxiety around 
predictions of what some people might do). 
This bipolar act of `splitting' is highly evident in education in Britain with the vast debates 
and practices that surround the inclusion - exclusion agenda. In relation to the topic of 
adolescent boys at risk of exclusion, their construction as separating from conformist and 
achieving behaviours can be explored through a number of seminal studies. Willis (1977) in 
his study of the school experiences and relationships of working class boys reveals the 
dichotomy of how some boys become constructed as `the lads', whose discourses play out 
anti-school/authority themes whilst other boys adopt the identity of `ear'oles' or `lobes' in 
other words school conformists. Interestingly, Willis notes that many of the ways in which 
the interactions of `the lads' perform this identity is in subtle and metaphoric ways: in the 
form of "having a laff' and "piss taking" (Willis, 1977, pp. 28 and 32). Willis further 
relates the consequences of these less favourable identities in terms of the positions and 
choices available to these young men as they leave school and attempt to enter the job 
29 
market. The way in which such divisions become institutionalised and oppressive is 
reflected in the writings of Foucault: 
We gain an understanding of how the `normal' person and the `deviant' each 
reproduce power relations in their everyday interaction. It is in this sense that 
the modem construction of deviance works to hierarchize individuals in relation 
to one another. 
Foucault (1977, p. 233) 
School experiences and identifications 
Running parallel to and influencing the way in which young people construct ther identities 
in schools is the nature of school experience itself. Searle (2001) in describing his 
revolutionary attempts to create an inclusive school experience felt hampered by the 
introduction of a centralised National Curriculum and competitive market forces pushing 
attainments rather than inclusion as the main pedagogical goal. What Searle notes is lacking 
in schools are opportunities for children to learn about themselves, their own lives and their 
own histories: 
They [children] are excluded by what they are commanded to learn and by much 
of the prescribed body of knowledge, which often relates to them only in as much 
as it humiliates and ignores them. They are frequently excluded by prevailing 
attitudes towards race, class, gender, language, history, religion, culture and the 
essential features of the communities to which they belong. 
Searle (2001, p. 10) 
Rosenthal (2001) takes this point further stating that dominant and powerful people often 
choose to include or exclude `weaker' individuals on the basis of similarities or differences. 
As applied to school settings he feels there need to be more meaningful dialogues between 
pupils and teachers, "regular conversations about diversity" (Rosenthal, 2001 p. 390) so 
they can acknowledge points of similarity to and difference from one another, to know each 
other better, for inclusion to be realised. A small Scottish research project conducted by 
30 
Turner and Waterhouse (2003) is used to illustrate this point. Tuner and Waterhouse found 
examples of discursive practice in two secondary schools where former deviant pupil 
identities had been replaced by normalising discourses. This "discourse of inclusivism" had 
the effect of improving relationships, attainments and "in-school careers" (Turner and 
Waterhouse, 2003 p. 30). However, we must be cautious about over generalising from 
studies aimed at investigating the identifying experiences of young people through 
discursive practices in just two school systems. 
The reality in education is far removed from the above ideal. The practice of categorising 
children as having behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) as encouraged by 
the SEN Code of Practice (DfES, 2001) coupled with the myriad of labels emanating out of 
clinical practice such as Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity (ADHD) are what 
Mancuso, Yelich and Sarbin refer to as "social constructions of unwanted conduct" 
(Mancuso et at 2002, p. 252). By representing children using such terms, not just through 
ascribing labels but through institutionalised conversations (eg school review meetings) and 
texts (eg statements of special educational needs) such identities acquire meaning allowing 
the practice of separating and excluding many such children to become validated. Watson 
(2005) notes that such conceptualisations are child focussed and: 
... ignore the way in which institutions constitute subjects and determine the 
position of individuals- the repertoires they can perform and the way in which they 
can be- within the social structure. 
(Watson, 2005, p. 59) 
Also, the process of a young person being identified with the label Emotional and 
Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) is extremely haphazard due to the varying practices and 
31 
standards applied in different schools and Local Authorities (Kelly and Gray 2000). Even 
the government acknowledges that perceptions of whether a child's behaviour constitutes 
an emotional and behavioural difficulty will differ depending on the context and are subject 
to individual teachers' expectations (DFE, 1994). Confirming the British experience, 
Kauffman (2001) notes that subjective notions of the identification of EBD extend to the 
American school system. They exist as a projection of the anxiety of a perceived threat to 
the stability, security or values of that system. 
However, even when individual children are pathologised; when opportunities do arise for 
such children to relate to adults and explore biographically a sense of self (as in the 
experience of Mary below talking to her school educational psychologist) the possibilities 
of alternative subjectivities begin to emerge: 
... on the first occasion I met Mary she just chattered away non-stop, and this 
continued to be the pattern of our meetings. It was almost as if the words Mary 
used were totally disassociated from their usual representations; but it was also 
the case that Mary seemed not to talk to me but to an `other' who was present for 
her. 
(Billington, 2000, p. 48) 
Gendered Subjectivities 
The identities of boys at risk of being excluded from schools cannot be divorced from a 
consideration of constructions of masculinity, especially during adolescence (the most 
significant period during the educational life of a child when the exclusion of boys is 
practised, DCSF, 2007). Modood (2005) in fact declares that within disadvantaged groups 
there are always intersecting identities, for example, combining elements of gender, culture, 
32 
ethnicity and social class. Mills (2001) argues that schools are a major social site for the 
formation and contestation of masculinities. A number of key studies, some biographical in 
nature illustrate this point. As a starting point, the study by Willis (1977) mentioned earlier 
depicts a vivid picture of school as the place where a typology of working class 
masculinities are collectively produced, some being considered more powerful and 
dominant in the hierarchy than others. 
More recent ethnographic studies carried out in British secondary schools (such as Connell, 
1989; Mac an Ghaill, 1994) provide further examples of how schools are sites where 
masculinities are constantly reproduced, reinforced and contested through pupil-pupil and 
pupil-teacher interactions. Over time, however, consistent with Lacan's signifiers and 
signified and the notion of intertextuality in critical discourse analysis (along Lacan's 
metonymic axis), these studies show a shift in the way vocabulary becomes assigned to 
these identities; from `lads' and `ear'oles' to `cool guys' `macho lads', `wimps' and 
`swots'. Further to this new identities of `doing' adolescent are emerging today as seen in 
terms such as `emos' and `goths'. Studies of classroom discourse in British secondary 
schools (eg Davies, 2003; Edwards, 2007) provide stark accounts as to how persistent 
masculine discourses are played out in lessons at the expense of talk related to learning. 
Another study, (Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman, 2002) involved group and individual 
interviews with 11-14 year old boys in British schools encouraging narrative style accounts 
of the boys' lives in order that they could conceptualise and experience themselves and 
others in relation to the world around them. A small number of girls were included in some 
of the interviews. The research revealed that boys are largely defined in terms of their 
33 
difference to girls, they have a sophisticated understanding of the contradictions associated 
with negotiating masculine identities and the methodological approach seemed to open out 
new avenues for the boys to think about redressing the distortions produced by the 
constraining hegemonic masculinity. Girls it would appear, assist in the construction of 
hegemonic masculine identities. Thompson et al (1998) found that girls perceive boys as 
vulnerable because they can't express their emotions, whilst they paradoxically despise 
boys who appear `emotionally leaky' ascribing to them the identity of `wimps'. 
Adopting the word `hegemony' meaning dominant ideology (Gramsci, 1978) studies such 
as the above appear to suggest that through institutional experience many boys identify or 
seek to identify with a hegemonic masculinity symbolised by "brutalisation, physical and 
emotional abuse, hardness and strength, contempt for sensitivity, delicacy and emotional 
intimacy" (McLean, 1996, p. 16). Images such as these convey a sense of personal struggle 
as articulated by Bakhtin (1981) in his theory of dialogic relations through which a person 
undergoes a lifetime of struggle to `become' somebody. In psychoanalytical terms this 
process is also associated with pain and vulnerability in the sense that boys separate from 
their mothers' nurturing world as perceived to be something that is both desirable but also 
repulsive. Again the concept of masculinity is seen in opposition to femininity which is 
played out in school environments in various discursive forms such as the denigration of 
girls into merely sexual objects, a preoccupation in talking about male dominated sports 
such as football and less explicitly through the practice of homophobic bullying (Haywood 
and Mac an Ghaill, 1996; Salisbury and Jackson, 1996; Davies, 2003 and Edwards, 2007). 
Paradoxically, however, can we really accept the premise that schools as institutions are 
34 
responsible in providing a context for the creation these hegemonic masculinities if the 
practice of exclusion by those in authority signifies the disapproval of brutal, abusive and 
bullying practices? 
Identity in society 
The commonly used phrase `boys will be boys' (along with other recurring discourses, such 
as `poor boys' and `failing schools, failing boys' Epstein et al, 1988) has led to an 
expectation that many boys will identify with anti-social practices, both in school and in 
society. However, it can be said that assumptions such as these have largely gone 
unchallenged until the rise of feminism which can be seen as problematising these 
constructions. Other factors have also contributed to a deconstruction of masculinity, one 
being the demise of industrialism in Britain and changes in the work force leading to times 
of mass unemployment and vocational uncertainties, resulting in what some refer to as 
`redundant masculinities' (McDowell, 2003). This also draws attention to the paradoxical 
nature of being a boy, that whilst boys might be perceived as powerful and privileged over 
girls there is also a sense of them being powerless and vulnerable. 
A wider look at identity in society demonstrates the extent to which boys are commonly 
constructed as problematic and shows that the consequences of this construction, the 
practices of both school exclusion and social exclusion are inextricably linked. The 
individuality (personal identity) of `problematic' boys can be said to be closely linked to 
their social identity (as understood by the belief that identity is constructed at both an 
individual and social level, Harre and Moghaddam, 2003). Durkheim (1968) proposed that 
school experience reflects the wider society through which our social being is constituted 
35 
"this being in each of us is the end of education" (Durkheim, 1968, p. 124) and that the 
individual is sacrificed for the better good of society. This might sound like an out of date 
and ultimately essentialist and developmental perspective where social practices, such as 
exclusion through a `collective conscious' can be justified. However, I doubt that it is far 
removed from the motivation to monitor, restrict and exclude problem boys (and men) that 
persists today. Also, this `social identity', which has been largely neglected in research 
(Bennett, 2004) is important to explore through critical research as it is clearly a problem 
for marginalised young people, with significant consequences for their education, health 
and economic well-being. 
Constructions of youth 
Young people (especially, but not exclusively young boys) growing up in society today 
appear to have become collectively associated with antisocial behaviour, irresponsibility 
and criminal acts, which separate them from most adults who are diametrically positioned 
as sociable, responsible and law abiding. This identification of the young has been realised 
through multiple academic and political discourses: 
... the packaging and repackaging of `youth' in popular, policy, political and 
academic discourses operates to silence and subjugate the young as `other', to 
demonize, differentiate and disenfranchise, to exploit and to displace anxiety. 
(Brown, 2005, p. 2) 
However, the meaning of the term `youth' is questionable as we see the media demonizing 
ever younger children in response to their crimes, as was seen in reference to the 10 year 
old perpetrators in the James Bulger murder case. Brown, (2005) offers a fascinating 
36 
historical account of the construction of youths (especially boys) as criminals from the 
Victorian era to the present day. Notable points are that as a result of changes to the welfare 
state, the development of the youth justice system and developments in the police force 
(including vastly increased means of surveillance in modem times and increasing laws 
relating to offences) young people are not necessarily more problematic than before but are 
increasingly more visibly problematic. Brown, (2005) notes that media representations are 
dominated by a `problem youth' paradigm and along with the growth of the media there has 
been a growth in troublesome populations. Further to this Robb (2007) notes that young 
people are now bombarded by visual images depicting how thin, healthy and attractive they 
should aspire to be and through commercialism there exists a multitude of choices enticing 
young people to associate with material objects through which their identities can be 
validated: 
Our very identities our sense of ourselves and who we are, even who we might or 
should become, are constantly refracted through media images. 
(Brown, 2005, p. 2) 
These media representations in turn are closely allied to policy development which further 
perpetuates the social practice of exclusion. 
Contemporary sociological texts that look at the social identity of young people tend to use 
the term `youth' in preference to `adolescent' as the latter tends to be seen as a 
psychological concept associated with early notions of adolescence being a period of storm 
and stress as a result of physiological changes (Hall, 1904). The term youth (whilst relating 
chronologically to the same period as adolescence) has more social constructionist 
connotations with an interest in ways in which young people are positioned and defined 
37 
within society. However, whilst I do not see myself as a traditional positivist psychologist I 
still favour the term `adolescent' due to the influence of the psychoanalytical perspective in 
my work. The term `adolescent' should be able to be compatible with the view that whilst a 
sense of self may be constructed, changed and influenced by socially constructed identities 
there may also be critical points in the individual construction of self (both unconscious and 
conscious) that occur at certain points in a young person's development, especially those 
arising from early mother/carer and child interactions. 
Family experiences and identifications 
This brings us to an important but neglected area in the literature (as noted by Robb, 2007) 
indicating the influence of family (and in particular parent-child) discourse that may also be 
highly influential in the construction of identities. Through a revival of Bowlby's theory of 
attachment and maternal deprivation (Bowlby, 1988) in recent years there has been much 
speculation of the significance of the very early bond created with the mother (usually) and 
baby through non-verbal reciprocal interaction and emotional attunement, leading to an 
internal working model of the child `seeing themselves' as a person worthy to be loved and 
to be able to show love to others. Despite the perceived influence of context and social 
constructions of identity the ability of a child who has been deprived of developing this 
positive internal working model has far reaching affects on the way in which they can be 
and are perceived to be in educational settings (Geddes, 2006). 
38 
Those who have studied the school exclusion of adolescents have recognised the continuing 
importance of the emotional relationships young people need with adults, both in school 
and at home, through which they can make dialogic sense of their experience in the world 
(Cullingford, 1999). Whilst this may seem obvious, what is less clear is the nature of 
discourse in the home through which these identities might be realised: 
The importance of mothers in the process of identity formation should be 
acknowledged rather than dismissed as anti-models who have performed their initial 
nurturing function. A theory about the construction of a masculine identity in 
relations with fathers and mothers, identifying and rejecting features of both within 
a historical and social context is needed. 
(Reward, C. 1996) 
A number of studies reveal that boys tend to turn to females (girls or their mothers) to talk 
about issues such as health, and sexuality (Brannen et al 1994). Boys also indicate that they 
feel emotionally closer to their mothers than their fathers (Frosh, Phoenix, and Pattman, 
2003a) although they express a desire to be closer to their `often absent' fathers. 
Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman (2002) also suggest that it is the way that young men relate to 
their parents that is crucial in enabling them to explore the various identity positions 
available to them. In line with Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman (2002) I would, therefore, 
advocate that there is potential for understanding masculinities as being constructed 
through discourses that are influenced by both psychodynamic as well as social processes. 
Hofer, Youniss and Noack (1998) report on individualistic studies of parent-adolescent 
interactions in Germany and the Netherlands, showing how through discourse adolescents 
and parents differentiate themselves whilst maintaining good relationships with each other. 
Using a conversation analysis approach Hofer and Sassenberg (1998) categorised discourse 
39 
by identifying the following speech acts: `an initiative', `a response to an initiative', `an 
argument' or 'a reaction to an argument', showing that these facilitated adolescent 
individualisation. This study was conducted in Europe and involved 11-17 year old mother- 
daughter dyads, so the findings are rather removed from the constructed identities of British 
adolescent boys. However, the study revealed that the mothers used more initiatives: 
requests, proposals, questions and modifying arguments, whilst the adolescents used more 
reactions to initiatives: counter arguments, arguments and rejecting of requests in order to 
gain independence. They also noted that this parental style of interacting remained constant 
even when the content of the discourse changed and that the parents remained active in 
communicating with their daughters. 
Kreppner and Ullrich (1998) report that different parental communication styles can be 
found in families and that these also remain fairly constant within families and across 
situations: 
(i) 
(0i) 
(iii) 
habitual- characterised by low ambivalence, low discussion intensity 
ambivalent- higher degree of ambivalence, low discussion intensity 
secure- low ambivalence, high discussion intensity with the mother 
However, they highlight that the communication style of adolescents tends to change 
depending on the age of the young person. At around 13 years adolescents tend to increase 
their use of statements and negotiations with the mother when they strive for autonomy and 
affirmation, whereas communication patterns with fathers appear less complex. By 15 years 
of age some studies note an increase in `relational symmetry' where the mother re-adjusts 
40 
c, '_3 
her communication style to include more negotiations and fewer statements, which affirm 
one's position whilst considering the other's view, McLellan and Yates (1998). What is 
unclear from these studies is the range of identities, available to young people through these 
different styles of family discourse although it is thought that the secure parental 
communicating style allows the adolescent to `try out' a wider range of identities than in 
families where this is lacking (Kreppner and Ullrich, 1998). This view is consistent with 
research into secure attachments and attachment difficulties that are believed to result from 
the very earliest mother-baby interactions (Ainsworth et al, 1978) and suggests that parent- 
child interactions are also highly influential in creating adolescent identities, hence 
suggesting that identity construction is a relational, evolving and discursive process. 
Finally it is thought that to achieve healthy pro-social functioning as an adult, adolescents 
need to develop autonomy during this period of their lives which requires a good deal of 
negotiated discourse within family settings. For some young people, however, opportunities 
to have many or any interactions with their parents during this critical period are lacking. 
The absence of parent-adolescent discourse is thought to have more far reaching 
consequences than parent-adolescent discourses that are discordant (Cullingford, 1999). 
Identity of the researcher 
The notion of reflexivity is essential to social constructionist, discursive research along 
with the belief that researchers bring their own histories to their work. As such this study 
would lack credibility if I did not declare my own position and motives within the social 
41 
world under investigation (Wellington, 2000). Firstly, the reader so far may have noticed 
the bias in investigating the identity of adolescent boys. But... 
Why boys? 
Why adolescents? 
Why discourse? 
What justifies me as a female researcher to be able to begin to make sense of masculine 
identities? 
Why identity? 
Why boys? Why adolescents? 
The very fact that boys are significantly over represented in school exclusion figures for 
both fixed term and permanent school exclusions (DCSF, 2007) and that this is more likely 
to occur during adolescence, determines a need to try to address this problem due to the 
significant educational and social consequences for boys. However, first and foremost I am 
the mother of an adolescent boy (who is affectionately known in the family as Mr C) who 
has struggled most of his life to acquire a positive identity as ascribed by others (teachers, 
relatives, peers) myself included. At the age of 13 Mr C's problem identity changed to that 
of a calm, rationale, considerate young man. All this at a time when the literature talks 
about challenging adolescent-parental discourses whilst one's son works through his 
`identity crisis'. I want to make sense of that. I also spend 50% of my professional life 
working exclusively with children and young people who have become permanently 
42 
excluded. I want to acknowledge my own prejudices and projections of difference (Lenney, 
2006) and those of others, in order to inform reflective professional practice. 
Why discourse? 
As a young child I came to associate with a discursive, literate identity within a social 
context where my mother was a writer and poet. I was able to read before I went to school 
and developed a fascination for words, word play and how words can have many 
associations and meanings. I also had an identity as a `comper', someone capable of 
(sometimes) winning competitions through the skill of writing catch phrases. As a teacher I 
studied for a Diploma in Language and Communication Impairments in Children through 
which I developed close associations with speech and language therapists. As an advisory 
teacher for the `gifted and talented' I quickly discovered the power of manipulating 
question forms in discourse with children that enabled them to conceptualise their thinking 
at the highest levels. Through my constructed identity as an educational psychologist I 
perceive myself as a humanist, forever searching for ways of constructing `thick 
descriptions' of children and young people as opposed to `thin descriptions' constructing 
pupil identities that lead to negative consequences (Freedman and Combs, 1996). A 
personal and professional fascination with the potential link between language and 
behaviour began to emerge along with the belief that we should not take the performative 
power of discourse for granted (Gale and Densmore, 2000). 
43 
What justifies me as a female researcher to be able to begin to make sense of 
masculine identities? 
The literature suggests that in the last century the rise of feminism has served to expose the 
process whereby masculine identity becomes formed. There are different definitions and 
styles of feminism (eg Marxist, liberal and radical, Hepburn, 2003) and a traditional 
emphasis (eg that of Millett 1971, a radical feminist) is one of patriarchy where men are 
seen as `being' more powerful and superior to women. Consequently feminism has been 
perceived as needing to work to assert female rights. Feminists such as Cixous (1986) and 
Irigarary (1985) who were influenced by psychoanalysis and Lacan provide a more post 
structuralist perspective advocating that identifications of masculinity and femininity are 
constructed. As such, women can signify through their own writing alternative positive 
feminine identities which are variously constructed and not always positioned as secondary 
to men. Further to this, feminist Nancy Chodorow (1978) proposes that rather than 
accepting the unproblematic traditional notion of there being `specific personality 
characteristics in men, ' men can also be seen as the product of contemporary society and as 
such can also have variable identities. From this more post structuralist feminist position I 
feel we can acknowledge and intervene in areas of identified male powerlessness and 
vulnerability, to improve the quality of life for boys and men, and women indirectly of 
course! 
This being the case, I might be well positioned as a woman researcher working with a 
group of adolescent boys in being sensitive to the ways in which the boys position 
themselves and are positioned by others. Further to this, in the previously quoted study by 
44 
Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman (2002) the researchers felt that the presence of girls in some of 
the group interviews with boys enhanced opportunities for the boys to construct themselves 
differently. Therefore, I feel I can defend my position as: 
... women's experiences represent a site outside the dominant discourse which 
can be used as a starting point for the problematisation of naturalised 
understandings. 
(Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002) 
Why identity? 
During my emergent identity as a social constructionist I conducted an earlier study 
investigating classroom discourses between teachers and an adolescent boy displaying 
challenging behaviour (Pomerantz, 2005). In a chance meeting with a teaching assistant 
after the data had been gathered the assistant commented to me that the boy's behaviour 
could best be understood as an attempt to represent his identity. This unexpected 
conversation has fuelled my curiosity to investigate the discursive construct of identity in 
relation to adolescent boys at risk of exclusion from school. 
Finally, Kearney declares that: 
We are the most important part of the research and it is much more useful if we do 
not cover our tracks. Those tracks are central to the story. 
(Kearney, 2003, p. 60) 
Taking Kearney's advice and emulating the practice of Edwards and Potter (1992) I will 
post reflexive comments at points throughout the text in order to continually reflect on my 
own identity, not just as a researcher, but as a mother and practising educational 
psychologist. 
45 
Chapter Two Rehearsing and Setting the Stage 
Drawing from a review of the literature relating to identity and the positionality of the 
myself in relation to it, the following `position statements' can now be summarised: 
" Identity can be conceptualised as both individualised and socialised. 
" Discourse in talk and text is performative in constructing identities. 
" Identity studies can be informed by psychoanalytical theory and discourse 
theories and methods. 
" Biographical studies provide fertile ground for establishing how identities are 
constructed. 
" Feminist studies have enabled the social construction of boys to be realised and 
expose areas of powerlessness and vulnerability in boys' lives. 
" The construct `identity' can be seen as a combination of intersecting gendered, 
cultural and social class subjectivities. 
" Key sites for the construction of adolescent identities are families and schools. 
" Identities evolve and change over time and are influenced by critical relational 
periods in the life of a child. 
" The social practice of excluding adolescent boys cannot be divorced from the 
way masculinity is discursively constructed in school settings and from 
politicised rhetoric surrounding problem youth that is played out in the media. 
" Institutional exclusion represents the projection of anxiety by those in power in 
response to the `splitting' of bad boys from good boys and from most girls. 
46 
Research focus 
From these position statements the following key research questions were then 
extrapolated: 
How is the identity of excluded adolescent boys discursively constructed nationally (in the 
education media) and locally (in family and peer group conversations)? 
What counter discourses exist creating new identities that facilitate the inclusion of 
adolescent boys? 
The following is a subsidiary research question, and although not central to the study, is 
one which is difficult in relational research to ignore: 
How is the identity of the parents, teachers and researchers of excluded adolescent boys 
constructed in relation to them? 
Taking a social constructivist and predominantly relativist position I do not set out to 
search for the truth about the exclusion (or the potential inclusion) of adolescent boys. 
Instead I seek to identify ways in which excluded adolescent boys become positioned 
through talk and alternative constructions that may have the potential to bring about change 
for those who need it. Burr (1995) provides a relevant example: 
... a-study in which the researcher claimed that children in education are caught 
up in oppressive power relations would be evaluated not in terms of whether this 
was an accurate or truthful account of reality, but in terms of how useful and 
liberating such an analysis might be to children themselves. 
(Burr, 1995 p. 162) 
If we accept the premise that identity is discursively situated, then by definition the 
research methods must be discourse related. This leads us to a consideration of the wide 
47 
variety of discourse methods available to researchers. However, as previously stated 
`discourse analysis' is more than a methodology (Willig, 2001) and is a whole theoretical 
paradigm in itself. Put more accurately it is a collection of paradigms stemming from many 
disciplines which offer a confusing labyrinth of possibilities. Beginning with an early text 
on the topic, (Potter and Wetherell, 1987) the reader is confronted with the daunting 
realisation that "it is a field in which it is perfectly possible to have two books on discourse 
analysis with no overlap in content at all" (p. 6). Also, the term `discourse analysis' a 
construction in itself with a number of different meanings depending on which theoretical 
basis you approach it from, tends to be used in the literature as an umbrella term which can 
encompass any one or combination of the following: conversation analysis, ethnography of 
communication, discursive psychology, critical discourse analysis, poststructural discourse 
analysis and Foucauldian discourse analysis. 
Space does not permit a thorough critique of all these methods which has already been 
undertaken in my earlier work (Pomerantz, 2004). As discourse techniques require 
considerable practice, I had already trialled the use of conversation analysis (Pomerantz, 
2005) and Foucauldian discourse analysis (Pomerantz, 2004). I had found conversation 
analysis more suited to analysing controlled classroom interactions and looking at the 
patterns of sequence in talk rather than a method suited to the systemic analysis of 
biographical accounts. Foucauldian discourse analysis at the other extreme was felt to be 
limited in proposing the continual construction and reconstruction of identity as defined by 
discourse with little attention as to how linguistically this is achieved. Also, some would 
argue that Foucauldian discourse analysis whilst useful in exposing issues of power and 
48 
resistance fails to take into account the emotional aspects of identity formation and is in 
most respects opposed to a psychoanalytical approach (Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman, 
2003b). In view of the research questions, the theoretical basis and analytical methods that 
are best suited to the areas of enquiry are those from discursive psychology and critical 
discourse analysis (linked to psychoanalytical interpretations) that are explored in detail 
below. 
Identity research and discursive psychology 
Discursive psychology is well documented as an alternative approach to the study of 
memory, emotion and identity in particular (Willig, 2001), moving away from traditional 
realist studies that view discourse as an informative tool (eg through questionnaires and 
interviews) to establish facts about some underlying reality. Rather than seeing talk as a 
means to an end, discursive psychology is interested in treating all versions of the world as 
constructions; establishing how talk itself helps us create meanings relating to constructs 
such as identity. As such, the emphasis is on identifying discursive resources rather than 
cognitive processes and discursive practices rather than features of individuals (Hepburn, 
2003). The aim of the analysis in discursive studies is not to categorise people but to 
identify the discursive practices through which the categories are constructed. 
Potter and Wetherell (1987; 1995) were among the earliest proponents of discourse analysis 
from the perspective of discursive psychology and were interested in the action orientation 
of talk, that is to say how people use discursive resources to achieve interpersonal 
objectives in social interaction. In order for a person to establish that what they are saying 
49 
is a factual and stable representation of the world they are faced with dilemmas of stake 
which can take a number of forms such as `disclaiming. ' For example, a disclaimer is a 
verbal device that anticipates and rejects potentially negative attributions; "I don't agree 
with the permanent exclusion of pupils but... " Adding to this plethora of terms, discursive 
psychologists tend to use the term interpretative repertoire (clusters of terms, figures of 
speech etc) instead of `discourse' to emphasise that language use in everyday life is flexible 
and dynamic: 
One of the advantages of considering constructions like culture-as-heritage as 
interpretative repertoires is that it suggests that there is an available choreography 
of interpretative moves - like the moves of an ice dancer, say - from which 
particular ones can be selected in a way that fits most effectively in the context. 
(Wetherell and Potter, 1992, p. 92) 
In the late 1990's a series of debates surrounding different forms of discourse analysis took 
place especially in relation to the perceived (and contested) similarities and differences 
between conversation analysis and discursive psychology out of which has come the 
suggestion that discursive studies in social psychology require a more synthetic approach 
(Wetherell, 1998). For example, the close analysis of situated talk-in-interaction in 
conversation analysis where analysis of turn taking and sequential organisation identify the 
orientations, meanings and interpretations of participants within a specific discourse event 
could be seen to complement the approach in discursive psychology where interpretative 
repertoires and variability in situated accounts can expose how speakers take up various 
subject positions in talk. Developments in discursive psychology have been fore fronted in 
particular by Edley and Wetherell (1997) who have drawn on the concept of ideological 
dilemmas (Billig 1987; Billig et al, 1988) linking this with interpretative repertoires and the 
50 
notion of subject positions to create a more critical discourse analysis, or as stated by 
Wetherell (1998) a "critical discursive social psychology" (p. 405). 
The notion of positioning (Davies and Harre, 1990) refers to the dynamic construction of 
identities relative to others and represents an essential feature of social interaction. Relating 
this to discursive psychology, positioning is considered to be the process of negotiation as 
people actively take up positions within different and sometimes competing discourses. As 
such, people can become both the subjects of discourse and agents in social and cultural 
reproduction and change. This suggests an air of optimism for our excluded adolescent 
boys, although Hall (1996) would argue that in the modern world identities have become 
fragmented and unstable as they are constructed across a number of contradictory and often 
antagonistic discourses. 
Harre's notion of positioning is useful as it allows discursive psychology to begin to take 
account of how individuals might be constructed in relation to wider socially constructed 
identities and social practices; an aspect of discursive psychology that is generally lacking 
as it assumes meaning is produced through or in text which negates the need to look at the 
wider, social and material context for further information. 
The work of Billig (1987) drew attention to the concept of ideology; that is to say the ways 
of thinking and behaving in a particular society which make the ways of society seem 
natural and unquestionable. In relation to discursive psychology, rather than creating 
language, people can be said to use terms that are "culturally, historically and ideologically 
51 
available" (Billig, 2001 p. 217) and through the rhetorical analysis of patterns of discussion 
and argument, ideology (what is taken for granted as common sense) can be revealed. An 
example of the influence of Billig's work would be the study by Wetherell and Potter 
(1992) who provide one of the most extensive accounts of how they used discursive 
psychology to study the discourses of Pakeha (white new Zealanders) about Maori cultures 
in which they show the social consequences of these discursive constructions. Further to 
this Billig et al (1988) have highlighted that the utterances of ideology are rarely 
straightforward but are often `dilemmatic'. Analysis by some discursive psychologists has 
then developed to include tracking the ideological tensions between the use of competing 
interpretative repertoires as participants in talk try out, manage, or resist different versions 
of culturally available repertoires. 
Discursive psychology, despite its bold attempts to synthesise with other discourse analytic 
approaches such as conversation analysis and draw on post structuralist concepts such as 
subject positions and ideological dilemmas, has some limitations. Notably, more recent 
forms of critical discursive psychology cannot explain why people are motivated to identify 
with some discourses and not others (Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002) and its concern is with 
public discourse, which prohibits an understanding of how we may study internal 
manifestations of discourse such as thought or self awareness (Willig, 2001). Further to this 
discursive psychology denies the possibility of identity construction as being anything other 
than a conscious process. Attempts to redress these points come from the work of Hollway 
(1989) who was influenced by Lacanian theory and who draws on object relations theory to 
propose that aspects of our subjectivity are formed very early in life when the child shifts 
52 
from being at one with the mother to being separate. As a result we are universally 
predisposed to desire security which Hollway sees as an explanation for why some people 
invest in certain discourses. Billig (1997) although influenced more by Freud than Lacan 
considered it possible to link psychoanalysis and discourse analysis through the concept of 
the `dialogic unconscious' meaning that through dialogue people repress thoughts, and at a 
more general level, acquire the ability to repress. For example, some ways of talking make 
certain themes possible and others taboo, so that statements not only repress thoughts but 
also take part in that repression which would explain why we might invest in one particular 
discourse over another. 
More recently Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman (2003b) have used Lacanian psychoanalytical 
theory to explore the way subjects are positioned in discourse and consider that such an 
approach obviates the need to see individual and social identities as separately constructed. 
This is significant in reference to my thesis as Frosh et al draw from their own research 
with adolescent boys in which they demonstrate that some boys take up positions in 
opposition to the dominant ideology of hegemonic masculinity. Frosh et at make reference 
to Lacan's Symbolic order as a site where subjectivity is formed, where the conditions for 
communication are created and out of which develops a deeper recognition of 
`subjecthood. ' Adopting aspects of culture are seen as a necessary condition of `selfhood. ' 
In this theory, the subject is structured in and by discursive relations which are 
institutionalised in culture and manifested in linguistic practice, and through this 
are productive of human consciousness. 
(Frosh, Phoenix and Pattman, 2003b, p. 41) 
53 
This interpretation of the processes of identity formation is consistent with my proposed 
`hypothetical construction of identity' presented in model 1, chapter one. 
Wetherell (2003) drawing from her discursive research on men and masculinity (Edley and 
Wetherell, 1997) demonstrates that taking a psychoanalytical reading of the transcribed text 
helps explore how men who have grown up in similar contexts can represent these 
experiences and position themselves differently. Particular anxieties and forms of defence 
and object relatedness (eg splitting and projecting) seek to explain these positional 
differences. However, Wetherell (2003) raises questions about the justification of the 
knowledge claims that a psychoanalytical reading entails and provides a critique of such 
methods. 
A further discursiv