Read on Twitter
A thread - some thoughts on Liz Truss and that Foucault speech, which has really troubled me. So, anyone who has even a miniscule understanding of Foucault, would agree that her placing him 1980s comprehensive education, makes no sense at all. What is she critiquing here? (1/12)
anti racist or sexist education that some Labour councils may have advocated (the extent of which is a myth). Theoretically, this may link far more to progressivism? or generally being a good person. I am three years younger than Liz Truss and I went to a comprehensive (2/12)
school in the 80s and 90s, we did not have anti-racist and sexist education – really we didn’t. Has she forgotten her own party was in power. Sadly, her points hold more similarity to Thatcher’s speech from the Conservative party conference in 1987 “children who need to...(3/12)
“be able to count and multiply are learning anti-racist mathematics—whatever that may be. Children who need to be able to express themselves in clear English are being taught political slogans. Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being … (4/12)
taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.’”. This speech led to one of the most hateful pieces of legislation ever to enter British schools (through local authorities) Section 28 – it’s legacy still found in schools and thus society today. (5/12)
This sort of rhetoric is incredibly dangerous, positioning anyone that wants to do anything anti-prejudice as the problem, not prejudice itself. Secondly, not only is her speech full of inaccuracies (and zero actual references – fail) but it is full of contradictions. (6/12)
Why begin by saying how Britain is one of the best places to live and then suggesting there may be a problem. Then saying they are rejecting identity politics (as if that’s the problem) but framing the problem around geographical areas? Here’s the thing, any Foucauldian (7/12)
(and I suspect there are not many influencing policy or schools) would absolutely agree that ‘symbolic gestures’ and ‘unconscious bias training’ are hugely problematic as they do not address the root of the problem – they do not address structural discrimination. (8/12)
They allow for the appearance of equality and diversity, without actually living it. As such, inequality continues to circulate unchallenged. The work of Iris Bohnet (I don’t know it that well) is interesting here, as it calls for actions to reduce prejudice – (9/12)
but by choosing to implement those actions, then the assumption is that the system is biased. So – are these ideas that far from critical race theory or any scholar who used Foucault to discuss power and bias within structures and institutions? (10/12)
So maybe that’s what Liz Truss is doing – framing the problem in a way she thinks appeals to conservative voters – framing it by repositioning the problem. Maybe if she read Foucault, she’d realise he’s not the enemy she is trying to paint him as. (11/12)
