Content uploaded by Dorte Kousholt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dorte Kousholt on Nov 12, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
1
Contradictions and conflicts – researching school as conflictual social
practice
Charlotte Højholt & Dorte Kousholt
Introduction
A key challenge for psychology is how to conceptualize the life problems faced by individuals in
such a way as to take into account both the subjective and situated dimensions and the societal and
historical character of human life. This challenge is clearly apparent in the conflicts surrounding
problems in children’s school lives. It is, for instance, widely discussed – politically, in research and
in everyday school contexts - whether such problems should be understood in terms of an individual
diagnosis, the child’s family life, the competence of the teachers, the social dynamics in the
classroom, or organizational or societal issues. Psychological concepts are often both embedded in
and permeate understandings of problems at school, contributing to individualization, abstraction,
categorization and displacement (Burman, 2017; Danziger, 1997, 1990). We suggest in this article
that a theoretical development of the concept of conflict may support the widespread endeavors to
transcend such reductionism by developing contextual and dialectical understandings of problems in
children’s school lives.
Through a focus on conflicts, we discuss theoretical challenges in conceptualizing the
dialectic relationship between historical conditions and situated interplay in concrete everyday
practice. We argue that the concept of conflict can help us move beyond the tendency within
psychology to regard history and situated practice, structure and activity, and so-called micro and
macro processes in isolation. In addition, focusing on social conflicts challenges understandings of
social life as unambiguous or as governed through hegemony. This implies the development of
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
2
understandings regarding how political conflicts concerning societal institutions form part of inter-
subjective and personal conflicts in everyday life.
First, we present key arguments for our focus on conflicts in relation to children’s school
lives. We then discuss different conceptualizations of conflicts in order to develop our theoretical
argument. Finally, we examine examples from empirical work we have conducted as part of a recent
study “Children’s Inclusion as Conflictual Collaboration between Families, Teachers, School
Leaders and Legislation”. This allows us to illustrate how the conflicts we analyze are
simultaneously both personal – related to individuals’ possibilities for conducting everyday life – and
historical – related to political discussions of how to deal with contradictory aspects of public
education.
Why focus on conflicts in children’s school lives?
Comprehensive research has analyzed the individualized representations of school problems
(Varenne & McDermott, 1998; Mehan, 1996; Røn Larsen, 2018). We have also found such
individualization to be widespread in our own research and encounters with school practice;
however, our analyses suggest that processes leading to individualization are ambiguous. Analyzing
the course of events and the interplay of different parties reveals conflicts concerning how school
problems should be understood, who is responsible for what, and what the school should prioritize,
include and focus on. Such conflicts are rooted in contradictions intrinsic to the organization of
public education and linked to political ideologies regarding how these contradictions should be dealt
with. The school is a controversial historical institution, illustrating what Jean Lave conceptualizes as
historical struggles over class and other life-saturating divisions in and through the production of
everyday lives (Lave, 2019; see also Holland & Lave, 2001). In addition, the school is an everyday
context in which many children and educational professionals cooperate and conduct their personal
lives (Dreier, 2008; Højholt & Kousholt, 2018a; Schraube & Højholt, 2016).
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
3
The involved parties (children, teachers, school leaders, psychologists, and parents) have
different perspectives on school problems and on what is important in everyday school life, but in
psychological investigations of the problems, such disagreements are seldom explicitly addressed –
investigations often focus on students’ individual behavior, and on categorizations of individual
difficulties. In this way, social problems - and disagreements about them - become displaced to
individualized categories.
In our previous research, we have discussed how such categorizations of individual children
imply different ways of understanding them and different social conditions for their participation
(Højholt, 1999, 2006; Højholt & Kousholt, 2018a; D. Kousholt, 2011, 2016). We have discussed
such processes as “situated inequality” (Højholt, 2016) and as part of social exclusion. In this article,
we want to focus on the conflicts that simultaneously seem to dominate these kind of processes in
schools and to be absent from the psychological terminology about school problems. Illustrating how
these conflicts relate to societal conflicts about the school may pave the way for conceptualizing
such problems in ways that take into account the school’s historical contradictions and analyze
activities and participation in school as intersubjective ways of dealing with these contradictions.
In this way, subjectivity and personal perspectives are understood as anchored in common
historical practice (Axel, 2011, 2002; Bernstein, 1971; Chaiklin, Hedegaard, & Jensen, 1999;
Holland & Lave, 2001; Jensen, 1987, 1999; Lave, 2008, 2011, 2019; Chaiklin & Lave, 1993). This is
a situated approach to structural and political issues with a point of reference in the shared societal
life, where people deal with common matters from different locations and positions (Dreier, 2008;
Holzkamp, 2013; Højholt & Kousholt, 2018a; Schraube & Højholt, 2016). Nevertheless, these
common matters are multifaceted and contradictory (Ollman, 2015, 2003). Thus, we want to open
theoretical possibilities for analyzing the broader context of school problems and how contradictory
aspects of social practice are simultaneously incompatible and dependent on one another (Ollman,
2015, 2003; Axel, 2011, submitted). The focus on conflicts represents a way of approaching the
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
4
interrelatedness of psychological phenomena in social life as opposed to dualistic
compartmentalization of psychological functions.
Conflicts in and about public education seem to provide an illustrative case for exploring
how historical and political discussions form part of personal and intersubjective ways of making
things work in social institutions. The conflicts among the involved adults appear essential in
shaping the children’s opportunities to participate meaningfully in educational settings (Højholt,
2006). Since 1990, we have followed difficulties related to children’s everyday lives and the
collaboration between the involved adults; and ‘behind’ every case, course of events or example, we
have encountered conflicts between, with and about children (Højholt, 1999, 2006; Højholt &
Kousholt, 2018a; D. Kousholt, 2011, 2016).
Against this backdrop, we have conducted a multi-perspective research project with the aim
of exploring children’s possibilities for participation in school through a focus on conflicts. Different
subprojects have explored children’s communities and parental collaboration, teacher
professionalism, municipal management and organization of support, and school leadership. Through
an exploration of interconnected processes seen from children’s, parents’, teachers’, pedagogues’,
school leaders’, psychologists’ and officials’ perspectives, we address how situated conflicts in
everyday practices can be analyzed in light of historical and political struggles concerning the school
as an institution (Højholt & Kousholt, 2018b).
To contribute to the discussions of school as a conflictual practice, we will present different
ways of conceptualizing conflicts and discuss the theoretical challenges that emerge when analyzing
such differences. By critically examining the shortcomings of typical ways of conceptualizing
conflict, we will develop a subject- and practice-oriented approach to conflictual cooperation (Axel,
2011).
Different approaches to the concept of conflict
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
5
The concept of conflict is central in understandings of the fundamental nature of communities or
societies. Conflicts can be seen as a threat to social order (as in Talcott Parsons’ structural
functionalist approach (1951) – also categorized as a so-called consensus theory) or as an intrinsic
part of development (as in Marxist dialectical materialist approaches – categorized as a social
conflict theory , Marx & Engels, 1998; Marx & Sitton, 2010). These approaches in turn constitute
different foci: Social stability and shared norms vs. class struggle and change. There are likewise
psychological theories that view conflicts as threatening and/or necessary part of development.
Whereas Kohut (self-psychology) suggests that internal conflicts should be regarded as a sign of
disturbance, in the psychoanalytic tradition conflicts are inherent in psychic development and
growth, as seen, for instance, in the work of Kernberg or Mahler (this comparison is discussed in
Akthar, 2014). In developmental psychology, conflicts are often linked to crises and can result in
both regression and development (according to Erikson (1965), for example, conflicts are
developmental turning points and how successfully they are dealt with influences the child’s
transition to the next developmental stage). In this way, the concept of conflict seems to be related to
key theoretical problems in psychology illustrating the challenges of conceptualizing the inner
connections between subjects, their lives and development and their common societal history. Often
conflicts are seen as evolving from a kind of confrontation between the subject’s inner needs and
demands on the subject from the surroundings, but the conflicts seem to become either a driving
force for individual development or a threat to psychic stability. Conflicts become “conflicts in our
mind” (the title of an article by Smit (2011)) – and appear in different conceptualizations related to
the internalization of cultural ideas or societal demands that nevertheless result in ‘inner conflicts’.
This recurring figure in psychology seems to form a kind of theoretical background for abstract
understandings, decontextualization and the displacement of problems. With a point of reference in
persons conducting their life through participation in structures of social practice (Dreier, 2009), we
suggest replacing the understanding of ‘conflicts in our mind’ with analyses of conflicts in our life
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
6
and in this way relating historical and political conflicts to personal conflicts in people’s everyday
lives. However, before we return to this, we will now explore theoretical dilemmas tied to the
concept of conflict.
Searching for research literature about ‘conflicts’ reveals a vast and heterogeneous field
which spans from research regarding international (inter-state) conflicts to social conflicts between
children in the schoolyard. Research about conflicts often seems to be closely related to developing
models for conflict resolution (peacemaking, mediation models or techniques to reconcile the
conflicting parties). Within a school context, conflict resolution or mediation models, such as student
mediation and non-violent communication, have gained considerable ground. The focus on conflict
resolution models often diminishes the focus on the basic understanding of how to conceptualize
conflict.
Through a short presentation of a number of debates surrounding different approaches to
mediation, we discuss the understanding of conflicts that underpins these approaches as a way to
address how different conceptualization of conflicts have roots in different theories of human nature
(Picard & Melchin, 2007). By examining the underlying assumptions of what constitutes a conflict
and the appropriate aims for mediation in different mediation approaches, we will raise key issues
related to the understanding of conflicts, and thereby clarify our approach to conflict when analyzing
school practice as a many-sided matter.
There exist a wide range of methods and models for addressing conflicts. We base our
discussion on the classification of approaches to mediation described by researchers at the “Center
for Conflict Education and Research” (Carleton University, Canada). Researchers at this center have
developed a novel approach to conflict: the “insight approach”. They discuss the insight approach in
relation to “narrative” and “transformative” approaches since these approaches are positioned as
alternatives to the more individualistic “interest-based” approaches that have long dominated
mediation practice (Picard & Melchin, 2007).
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
7
Our approach to the concept of conflict shares certain critiques of individualistic
understandings with the insight approach, and there are therefore some similarities; however, there
are important differences, which we will discuss in this article. Sargent, Picard, and Jull (2011) place
the insight approach within what they refer to as an interactionist framework (with reference to
Mead, among others) and contrast this to the interest-based approach. According to Sargent et al., the
interest-based approach builds on the “assumption that humans are fundamentally self-referential
actors, whose needs and desires are generated internally, rather than relationally” (p. 347-8); an
assumption that can be traced back to individualist thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes. In such
approaches, individuals are seen as rational, goal-directed actors and the environment as imposing
constraints on each individual’s possibilities for achieving their goals. This means that the conflicting
parties are understood in isolation from one another and conflicts become a struggle arising out of
incompatible goals or interests. Sargent et al. state that “the conflict takes the form of a struggle in
which each party seeks to achieve his or her own goals at the expense of, or in spite of, other parties”
(p. 348). Therefore, resolving conflicts becomes a matter of identifying “tradable interest” and
making satisfying settlements (Sargent et al., 2011). Resolving conflicts by identifying ‘trade-offs‘ or
compromises can be seen as a parallel to Holzkamp’s concept of “instrumental relations” where
other people become “instruments” for fulfilling one’s own needs and interests. This concept is
presented against the backdrop of a similar critique of individualistic approaches – Holzkamp’s point
being that such human relations are not basic human nature but ways of dealing with a contradictory
situation under constrained conditions (Holzkamp, 1979).
Sargent et al. point out that such individualistic approaches overlook that human actions are
not merely goal-directed but responses to social situations. Based on this critique, they argue for a
more dynamic relational understanding of conflict, grounded in an understanding of humans as
fundamentally social beings. To understand how conflicts arise, Sargent and colleagues argue, it is
important to understand that “people make meaning out of their environment and seek to realize
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
8
what matters to them — their cares” (p.345). They argue that the concept of cares includes more than
the pursuit of individual interests or needs. Cares involve our expectations regarding other people’s
behavior, our basic values, and the relationships and forms of cooperation we would like to build.
“Our cares, therefore, are not just our own concerns but also involve us in judgments about how
other people ought to behave and how the world ought to be ordered” (p.345). According to the
insight approach, conflicts thus arise from a person’s subjective experience of “threat-to-cares” -
situations where we experience threats in relation to what matters to us, to our values. When we
defend our cares, others can in turn experience this as a threat to what matters to them. Sargent et al.
underline that the concept of cares can contribute to our understanding of the intensity often
connected with conflicts – even when, from an outside party’s perspective, it can seem like a small
issue. Our cares are relational and involve “social identities” (Sargent et al., 2011). Through this
conceptualization of cares, the insight approach emphasizes that conflicts are simultaneously both
social and personal and involve ‘what matters to us’.
Drawing on the previously stated point that the underlying concept of conflict has a
significant impact on conflict resolution strategies and hence on how problems are addressed, we
will briefly present the different aims of mediation. To clarify their insight approach to mediation,
Picard and Melchin (2007) compare this approach to narrative and transformative mediation
approaches. The interest-based models focus on the conflict between opposing interests, with a
pragmatic focus on reaching a settlement. The narrative and transformative approaches, meanwhile,
encourage exploration of the relationship issues involved. In brief, the narrative approach focuses on
constructing an alternate story or narrative that supports mutual respect and cooperation, whereas the
transformative approach to mediation attempts to empower the various parties and encourages
recognition of other perspectives. Both the narrative and transformative models assume that the
conflict under discussion is linked to problem-saturated histories developed during the relationship
between the parties. Hence, in this terminology, focusing only on the problem will keep the disputing
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
9
parties locked in the conflict. For the mediator to support a resolution, he or she must shift the focus
away from the problem (Picard & Melchin, 2007, p. 37).
In the insight approach, the aim of mediation is that the contending parties gain a deeper
understanding of the relational issues underlying the conflict through insight into each other’s
differing interests and values. This, in turn, may change their experience of the conflict and shift the
conflict situation from an impasse towards greater openness to the other party’s concerns (Sargent et
al., 2011).
As noted, the different approaches to conflict open for different ways of dealing with the
problems that are assumed to be at stake in the conflict (the ‘content’ of the conflict). The proponents
of the insight approach criticize the narrative and transformative approaches for presenting conflict
resolution as ‘a new story’, whereby the dynamic relationship between the person and her world is
lost (Sargent et al., 2011). Picard and Melchin write:
Narrative and transformative approaches get to them [deeper relationship issues]
by steering disputants away from discussing the problem, while insight mediation
does it by steering disputants toward and through the discussion of the problem.
(2007, p. 50)
They argue that gaining insight into the issues related to the problem can pave the way for new
perspectives and attitudes and thereby improve the relationship between conflicting parties.
Following this line of argument, we suggest that when the problem is not addressed, the opportunity
to learn from it and from the different perspectives on it is missed. Even so, the insight approach
seems to stick to questions of interpersonal relationships, the answers to which are to be found by
identifying the correct form of communication. Without ignoring the importance of constructive and
open dialogue in relation to conflicts, such focus nevertheless fails to fully address the ‘content’ of a
given conflict. To do so involves exploring the conditions of the conflict and how these can be
developed. With the insight approach, we gain a more dynamic relational approach to conflicts than
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
10
in narrative and transformative approaches. However, what is still widely overlooked is that
relationships are anchored in historical practices. Hence, cares and values are connected to ways of
taking part in and dealing with societal concerns. To address this, we need to develop concepts that
can connect conflicts to contradictory life conditions and collective problems in a common world.
Conflicts in a practice perspective
Our approach to conflicts is based upon a concept of social practice that understands humans as
connected through common tasks and endeavors (Hedegaard, Chaiklin, & Jensen, 1999; Schatzki,
2017; Lave, 2008, 2011; Stetsenko, 2008, 2017; Chaiklin & Lave, 1993; Lave, 2019). These tasks
and endeavors are related to what we term common matters. Our approach is parallel to Axel’s
description of common causes:
In their historical social praxis, people arrange themselves around common causes:
in our society we find common causes like schools, companies, families, construction
projects, political activities (Axel & Højholt, in press, p. 7).
We prefer to use ‘matter’ since it connotes ‘what matters to us’ and in this way connects subjects and
situations. However, the point is the same: Common matters are not uniform or homogeneous; they
are multifaceted and contradictory, and people are differently positioned and engaged in them. What
does this understanding imply when we turn to the concept of conflict? In this section, we will draw
on the theoretical dilemmas concerning the conceptualization of conflict that were outlined in the
discussion of the various mediation approaches to unfold our approach to conflicts.
Based on a concept of social practice, we understand people as acting collectively in various
social contexts that are arranged historically around certain societal concerns. As in the interactionist
insight approach, people are seen as acting based on what situations mean to them - but meanings are
entangled in historical processes and actions get their meaning through how others relate to them.
The concept of social practice used here entails that humans are connected in a social life and are
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
11
thereby condition for on one another. In this dialectical approach, conflicts are part of historical
processes as an always immanent potentiality that arises from people engaging together in a
collective practice (such as the school), where there are different positions, possibilities for action,
perspectives and standpoints (Dreier, 2009, 1997). Societal practices are contradictory in that they
hold contradicting societal concerns and are composed in contradictory ways. Hence, in social
practice, the participants must deal with contradictions and coordinate with each other to make things
work (Axel, 2011).
In this way, we base our approach on an understanding of historical structures as
interconnected practices arranged as ways of dealing with various common societal problems and
tasks; for instance, the education of children. This means that the different perspectives on the
children and on the school (on what school life should be about) can be analyzed in light of how they
are interconnected. The point is that these different practices interrelate – what happens in one
context influences what is going on in the other – and that the school as social practice is complex
and many-sided and is related to a multiplicity of different interests and aspects (compare Axel,
submitted).
In such an approach, the different perspectives of the parties involved are linked to common
matters, as well as being differentiated by the different tasks the parties have in relation to the
children’s school lives and their part in the conflicts (Axel, 2002, 2009). Thus, conflicts are
conceptualized as inherent to social practice, and exploring these conflicts can contribute to
knowledge about problems and to the development of practice (Busch-Jensen, 2015). From a Marxist
perspective, the common matter is contradictory, containing incompatible elements that are
dependent on one another (Ollman & Smith, 2008; Ollman, 2003). Below, we will try to exemplify
this point through dilemmas among participants dealing with contradictions in everyday school life.
The participants relate to the contradictory relations in different ways and have different conditions
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
12
for dealing with them. Furthermore, these contradictions are potentially conflictual. Axel formulates
this double possibility as conflictual cooperation:
Conflictual cooperation is thus a phenomenon, where participants striving to do
something together may end up in struggles and divisions about the common cause
- may be torn apart (Axel, submitted, p. 15).
When conflicts are viewed as a question of incompatible principles (or ideologies), rather than as two
sides of the same coin, it becomes easy to lose sight of the common matter and its complexity. When
conflicts become deadlocked, those involved may experience themselves as isolated from and in
opposition to each other, and threatened by each other’s incompatible interests. Our analysis thus
grounds interests in a social life in another way than the previously outlined insight approach.
Conflicts are tied to a shared engagement in the problems that need to be dealt with. Taking such an
approach shifts the focus of investigations from individual incompetence to the conditions for
finding workable ways of coordinating or for experiencing entrenched opposition. The attention to
engagements in a social world is something we share with the insight approach and we find their
concept of ‘cares’ inspiring – however, in a practice perspective, engagement and personal
preferences are anchored in historical social activities and concerns.
As such, the different perspectives of the parties involved in the education of children can be
analyzed as connected through their involvement in common matters, and conflicts become a
potentiality linked to engagement in common problems. Contradictions challenge coordination:
every day, the participants in school life must coordinate with one another in order to make things
work.
In praxis, making things go together which won't go together maintains the
contradiction, but in a form which can be handled practically (Axel, submitted, p.
12).
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
13
Observations of the situated interplay in the everyday life of the school illustrate this point: Every
participant works continuously with the challenges of making contradictory and incompatible
elements ‘go together’ in their activities. There is therefore a need for concepts addressing not just
the distribution of tasks and perspectives, but also the content of conflicts – what are the conflicts
about? Before we turn to examples from our empirical work that enable us to discuss our theoretical
concerns, we will provide some context by briefly outlining some central problematics in the
school’s development as a key institution in the Danish welfare society. This will provide a backdrop
for the subsequent discussion of situated conflicts – the aim being to link conflicts of everyday life to
contemporary political conflicts.
Historical changes and political struggles concerning the school
As an institution for the education of future citizens, the school is a central site for debate about how
to develop a democratic society – and hence also for social conflict. Many parties participate in
making school what it is - not only children, teachers and school leaders who lead their everyday
lives at the school, but also parents, psychologists and various school counselors and politicians are
engaged in developing the school. On one hand, the school connects these different parties in a
shared engagement to provide all children with good education; on the other hand, the different
parties are divided through different tasks and concerns in relation to the school. The school thus
comprises multiple, often conflicting, interests and practices and can be understood as a conflictual
matter. In this section, we will outline a number of central aspects of the historical changes and
political struggles associated with the development of the school system in Denmark.
Over the years, Denmark has had a number of quite different school systems – during the 19th
century, a segregated school system was developed with different schools for children from different
social backgrounds (for example, separate schools for the children of farmers and of the aristocracy).
The ways of differentiating between and categorizing students, and the forms of schooling they are
offered, have changed over time; today, one of the characteristic features of the Danish welfare state
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
14
is a comprehensive public school, where differentiation is something to be dealt with via teaching
strategies in the classroom (Ljungstrøm, 1984; Coninck-Smith, 2002).
The comprehensive public school has been a central trademark for the Danish welfare state.
Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been critique of and dissatisfaction with the public school
system and an increasing number of parents choose private schools for their children (the last 10
years have seen an increase in the number of children attending some form of private school: in
2018, the figure is 18.2% of all school-aged children).
In 2001 Denmark placed lower than expected in the PISA test (Program for International
Student Assessment) - often referred to as the PISA shock - which triggered both criticism and
intense debate about the quality of the Danish school (for an analysis of the affective charges, see
Staunæs and Pors (2015)). The PISA results were used politically to argue for radical changes in
order to raise academic standards, with more focus on individual competencies, discipline and
national standardized tests (K. Kousholt, 2016). In the debate, others have responded to such
arguments by emphasizing that the public school’s objective is to educate democratic and self-
determining subjects rather than ‘soldiers in the global competition’ (Holm, 2010; Gilliam & Gulløv,
2016).
Parallel to such discussions, the tendency to refer an increasing number of children to
segregated special education was problematized, which led to the passing of the so-called “inclusion
law” in 2012. The aim was to ensure that the vast majority of children (the stated aim was 96%)
should receive their education within regular classrooms. In 2013 the parliament decided on a school
reform, preceded by a great deal of political struggle and involving multifaceted changes (including
extending the school day, a focus on improving academic attainment and more physical activity).
The same year, a political regulation of the working hours for teachers was implemented – in spite of
widespread resistance from teachers and their professional organizations. This regulation increased
the requirement for teachers to be physically present at the school as well as increasing the
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
15
responsibility and influence of school leaders. Furthermore, a growing number of professional
groups have become integral to the school’s everyday practice (including pedagogues, consultants
and inclusion teachers). Such changes illustrate political struggles and the engagements of a number
of parties in the development of the school, and point to cooperation and coordination as central
issues in everyday school life.
Teachers navigate in this complex landscape of conflicts in relation to how the school must
prioritize, how problems are to be understood and how to promote learning in relation to a diverse
group of children (Barth, 1991; Hedegaard & Chaiklin, 2011; Mardahl-Hansen, 2018). In public
debates, teachers’ professionalism is a heated issue, as is the distribution of responsibility between
teachers and parents, with the latter assigned increased responsibility for the school life of their
children (as made explicit in the “Act on increased parental responsibility”, 2006).
School leaders operate in conflicts and power struggles in municipal politics and their local
school community. They have been given new managerial tasks in relation to inclusion in the
everyday practice of the school as well as new tasks in relation to performance evaluation
concerning, for example, the branding of the school. They facilitate the coordination of diverse
interests - municipal agendas and budgets, teachers’ working conditions, parents’ demands - and are
expected to safeguard the academic performance of the school in general as well as the well-being of
the children (Busch-Jensen, 2018, in prep).
These changes draw attention to central contradictions and dilemmas in the school as a
complex societal practice – issues of inclusion, differentiation, standardization, regulation, as well as
solidarity, well-being, flexibility and collaboration, are enmeshed in the history of the school. As
such, these changes highlight the school as a conflictual matter – as a common concern that
comprises multiple and often contradictory aspects.
The many involved parties are, on the one hand, all engaged in developing the school (and
can be held accountable for its problems), and on the other hand, they have different tasks, different
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
16
access to knowledge about what goes on at school and different kinds of responsibility connected to
different aspects of the school. The described historical changes have illustrated struggles, disputes
and disagreements; however, it should be emphasized that such disagreements are not arbitrary. The
disagreements between different participants in school life express their shared engagement and
provide an opportunity to expand our understanding of the practice in question. Their different
perspectives can be analytically linked to their different positions while their various responsibilities
and contributions are differentiated in a complex practice structure (Dreier, 2008; Højholt, 2011).
Their perspectives on the problems are formed by the tasks they have in relation to the children and
the part they take in the conflicts.
In this section, we have tried to illustrate the many interconnected issues surrounding the
development of public education. The involved parties are not only distributed in terms of different
responsibilities and tasks; they are also knitted together in relation to a shared but conflictual matter.
To manage one’s own specific tasks necessitates relating to the contradictions.
Inherent contradictions in the school lives of children
Especially in the case of children, we encounter a strong tendency to individualize conflicts – to view
them as caused by individual children’s psychological problems or lack of social skills. On the other
hand, we also encounter conceptualizations of conflicts as relational and as linked to poor
communication, a question of positioning, ‘bad chemistry’ between specific children or some kind of
childish mudslinging. In continuation of our theoretical discussions above, we analyze the children’s
interplay as subjective ways of dealing with the contradictions of the school as an important context
of their everyday lives with their peers.
It is a central condition of school life that children continuously and simultaneously must
relate to the agenda of the teaching, their personal learning processes and their shared social life both
inside and outside the classroom. Teaching and learning do not take place in isolation from
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
17
children’s social lives, but are embedded in an everyday life with numerous social dynamics. To
make things work, children must ‘wriggle‘ and twist their attention, maneuvering in relation to lots
of things going on at the same time and finding ways of maintaining a plurality of foci in a flexible
way - sometimes more intensely and vigorously than at other times. Focus and flexibility are not
only to be reconciled, they can also be varied, even quite deliberately; to take an obvious example,
when transitioning between periods of solving a task in a lesson and recess. This involves
collaboration with peers, but children often have different approaches to solving a given task and
dealing with the contradictions.
Children are often told to work together to complete tasks where they are supposed to make
sure that their peers have their say while also solving the task in what the teacher considers a correct
way. In our observations, we have noted a number of situations where the children come into conflict
with one another regarding the procedure for solving the tasks they have been given: one student
prioritizes finding the correct answer and solving the tasks quickly while another prioritizes the rule
about taking turns and ensuring everyone is involved. This can be seen in view of the intense
political conflicts about how to prioritize discipline and academic excellence while still being able to
cooperate and include each other referred to earlier.
Observing students being given academic tasks in the classroom illustrates how they
approach the same task in different ways – seen from the children’s perspectives, it is not the same
challenge they confront. Some children have an open-minded and easygoing attitude, taking a
flexible approach where they also pay attention to other forms of social interplay and regulate their
focus on the task at hand so as to maintain timing and rhythm with their classmates. Others are so
meticulous and thorough that it is difficult to solve the task in the time allotted – their approach may
be considered too focused and inflexible. Others seems to concentrate too little on the task, rushing
to complete it so they can turn their attention to other matters.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
18
When acting in the social practice of the school, focus and flexibility appear to be
contradictory aspects – both incompatible and necessary – that participants must reconcile. This is
not a question of individual competencies, but of how common activities are organized, the
possibilities for participation and the forms of collaboration. Therefore, political discussions in and
about the school often concern how different parties ought to relate to, for instance, rules, discipline
and disturbances, and how the children’s various perspectives should be taken into account.
Regulating social life is a historical and controversial issue when it comes to creating learning
environments for the different children in a society.
In interviews, the children talk about the twin considerations of, on the one hand, the need for
a quiet atmosphere in the class to be able to concentrate and, on the other hand, being able to discuss
tasks with their peers and collaborate. They need the teacher to maintain order, but if the teacher
yells at them and is too bossy, the classroom is not a nice place to be. Some children seem to be able
to concentrate while engaging in multiple activities, while others experience the same situation as
tumultuous and disruptive. The children hereby illustrate the challenges of integrating very different
aspects of school life in terms of order, quiet, flexibility, fun, friendships, and collaboration in the
classroom.
Using an example, we want to demonstrate how a seemingly trivial conflict between some
children in a first grade class highlights these contradictory issues and how parents, through their
joint responsibility for supporting their children’s school lives, sometimes find themselves in conflict
with one another. We suggest that this conflict be understood in light of the aforementioned general
contradiction between focus and flexibility and the historical conflicts regarding how to deal with
this contradiction.
To be able to teach, teachers have to take certain practical measures to maintain order in the
classroom (Mardahl-Hansen, 2018). The students in this class are also supposed to take part in
creating a pleasant learning environment. They therefore take turns in keeping order in the classroom
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
19
for a week at a time. This involves, among other things, returning the empty milk crate to the school
kitchen after lunch. Two children are expected to cooperate on this task: in our example, the students
Carl and Naja. Naja wants to return the milk crate straight away and her friend Anna wants to help.
Carl, meanwhile, is involved in a discussion with some other boys, who are planning what to do
later. He does not want to leave just now and seems to feel under pressure from the two girls. Anna
keeps insisting and shouting, which leads to Carl becoming frustrated and angry before threatening
to hit the girls. This frightens and upsets Naja and the school phones her mother and asks her to pick
up Naja, who cries when she gets home. Naja’s mother promises to talk to Carl and his mother the
next day, but when she is unable to find Carl’s mother, she decides to talk to Carl on his own about
collaborating on tasks at school. Carl’s mother is uncomfortable with another parent telling her son
how to behave – from her perspective, a teacher should have been involved. Despite their intentions
of collaborating and a number of attempts to resolve their differences, the two mothers end up
embroiled in complicated conflicts.
How to analyze everyday life conflicts
In relation to the conflict about the milk crate, the different approaches to the task can be analyzed in
terms of reconciling social obligations to friends with school tasks – a challenge of everyday school
life that children and young people tackle in different ways and under different conditions (Højholt
& Kousholt, 2018b). Anna and Naja are focused on completing the task Naja has been given right
away, with Anna’s clear show of support making it easy for Naja to focus on her classroom
responsibilities while spending time with her friend. For Carl, the conditions are different: were he to
shift focus to the task of returning the milk crate, he would remove himself from the negotiations
planning social activities and risk not being included in such plans. He therefore feels he needs to
take care of social obligations to friends first.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
20
How to regulate between focus on the task and flexibility in relation to the children’s
cooperation and social interplay is a conflictual matter, and teachers, politicians and parents have
different perspectives on this issue. As stated earlier, in political debates it is often formulated as a
choice between discipline and attention to social dynamics in the classroom. As such, what are
interrelated concerns, two sides of the same coin in pursuit of a common matter, become ‘torn apart’
in entrenched, dualistic opposition, which often entails certain ways of participating in school life
and certain perspectives being marginalized or excluded. Reconciling the contradictory concerns that
participation in school life entails represents a challenge for all children, but in some situations it
becomes too difficult and creates conflicts in their personal conduct of everyday life (Højholt, 2016).
In this article, we have concentrated on discussing theoretical concepts and illustrating
how everyday conflicts may be analyzed as intersubjective ways of dealing with general
contradictions and historical conditions in relation to arranging school life. In previous research, we
have focused on processes of individual categorization and exclusion, which we see as related to the
ways social conflicts develop – the point being that social conflicts constitute conditions for
processes categorizing specific children (Højholt, 1999, 2006, 2011; Højholt & Kousholt, 2018b; D.
Kousholt, 2011, 2016). Ways of dealing with the inherent contradictions of the school that displace
problems may therefore have consequences for how the involved participants understand one
another. In such processes, some children’s actions may appear groundless or without reason, and
thereby mysterious, to the adults, which can lead them to experience the child as problematic.
Likewise, the involved adults may find it impossible to comprehend each other’s perspectives. In the
story about the milk crate, for example, one of the mothers sums up her experience of the conflict as
follows: “We are too different; I cannot talk to that mother anymore.” It seems the mothers give up
on understanding each other.
The two mothers seem to be engaged in the pursuit of the same thing – their child’s
personal wellbeing, integrity and learning opportunities - but their children present quite different
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
21
experiences of the dilemmas they face when participating in school life. Parents are connected
through their children’s common life at school and they are involved in and share responsibility for
the social environment (for example, by playing an active role in solving problems that arise at
school). In interviews, the parents express different perspectives on the children’s social life and on
how teachers should regulate the collaboration between both children and parents - regulation and
discipline being a heated issue in today’s political school discussions. Naja’s mother explains that
she appreciates that the new teacher has the class under control - that this gives a sense of security
(referring to her daughter’s previous anxiety regarding school). Carl’s mother calls for the teachers to
get more involved in regulating the children’s social life (for example, by regulating the groups in
which the children play) and has some concerns about Carl’s situation at school that she would like
them to take into consideration. As mentioned, the distribution of responsibility between school and
family is another heated issue. In each their way, parents are concerned with how to balance rules
and regulations on the one hand, and flexibility and attention to subjective considerations on the
other. According to another mother, the flexibility with regard to rules has been a problem for her
child and has led to disagreements between parents. Other parents explain that school life becomes
too tough for their children if it is not possible to show consideration for the individual’s needs. Such
conflicts are likewise present in political debates about inclusion and how the school should
prioritize in this regard – the law on inclusion has turned out to be more controversial than expected
and is currently being renegotiated.
Such different perspectives could be seen as merely a question of different values - each
person having their individual opinions - but we have tried to illustrate how perspectives are
grounded in a social practice, in different experiences with children’s personal dilemmas and in
engagement in a common but many-sided matter. In their conduct of everyday life, the parents have
to deal with contradictions between, for instance, consideration for their own child’s interests and
cooperation and solidarity with other parents and their children, who may have other interests with
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
22
regard to school life. Such dilemmas are not only a matter of values or principles, but related to how
we understand ourselves as parents – to social self-understanding and to the conditions of everyday
life (Holzkamp, 2013; Dreier, 2009). Conflicts may be experienced as threats to our personal conduct
of everyday life since they may require new ways of understanding parenting and new
understandings of how children’s wellbeing and learning possibilities are connected to the
communities they build in school. Different experiences of and perspectives on dilemmas and
contradictions of everyday life may challenge our active struggle to make life coherent, as well as
challenge the conditions for taking on the tasks and responsibilities we find significant. This
highlights why many conflicts concern quite practical matters – developing conduct of everyday life
is quite a practical matter and is connected to personal concerns and the possibilities for influencing
the conditions relevant to such concernsi. Nevertheless, developing new understandings of the
distribution of responsibility between, for instance, parents, children and education professionals is
part of developing school practice. The contradictions challenge those involved to rethink the
understandings they act upon, and this opens possibilities for development.
Historical contradictions in the conduct of everyday life
In this article, we have tried to illustrate that conflicts (even those that are seemingly banal) can be
linked to central issues in school life - issues that cannot be reduced to questions of relations,
communication or narratives (even though the way we communicate of course has consequences for
how we are able to deal with conflicts). Concerning the specific discussions about ‘focus or
flexibility’, these aspects appear both incompatible with and dependent on one another. In everyday
school life, they are linked but also imply a potentiality for conflict. In conflicts, such interconnected
aspects may be ‘torn apart’ into dualistic oppositions. This seems to generate discussions about
choosing one or the other - focus or flexibility.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
23
Conflicts have personal (sometimes even existential) meaning for the participants, connected
to their efforts to conduct their personal lives – and conflicts are historical, connected to political
discussions about general contradictions regarding, for instance, the organization of education for the
children in a society. As we have sought to illustrate, the history of the school is characterized by
conflicts about different ways of arranging in relation to contradictory concerns, for instance, equal
access to education for different children, improving academic attainment and competences in
response to global competition, differentiation, inclusion, assessments, democratic citizenship and so
forth. Developing schools that remain relevant for different participants in changing societies is no
simple matter.
This calls for the development of theoretical concepts enabling us to anchor conflicts and
personal dilemmas in the social practice they are part of, and to learn about the complexity,
contradictions and multiplicity of common matters through the different perspectives and
experiences. Analyzing the historical contradictions in the situated conflicts of everyday practice
offers an opportunity for conceptualizing the dialectic relationship between historical conditions and
situated interplay.
There are parallels here to the insight approach, as discussed previously, but also a crucial
difference. While the insight approach emphasizes that working with conflicts requires curiosity and
inquisitiveness regarding differences and values, the common matters, as well as the structures and
contradictions of social life, do not appear to be taken into account. Therefore, there seems to be a
lack of opportunity for analyzing conflicts as part of the development of practice. We contend that it
is vital to learn about the substance of conflicts, as well as the social structures, through the different
perspectives of those involved. Conflicts can offer an opportunity for insight into the many aspects of
the matter at hand and the ways different aspects are simultaneously both contradictory and
interdependent.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
24
In addition, we need knowledge about the conditions for taking part in the social practice of
the school. Perspectives and understandings are anchored in a concrete everyday life and
contradictions are often experienced and dealt with in quite practical ways. Contradictions are related
to acting together in the school and simultaneously creating conditions for supporting different
children’s learning processes, for shared and varied foci, for engagement, and for incorporating a
multiplicity of perspectives. To be able to develop school practice, we need access to knowledge
about how problems are perceived from different perspectives – and knowledge about the
distribution of responsibility, tasks and influence in the historical structures built to deal with
common questions regarding the development of education. This highlights issues of democracy in
relation to societal institutions: Who is given the opportunity to have their say, to contribute with
their particular perspectives and influence the development of the conditions of school life? How can
we learn from differences and use them in the development of social practice? Answering these
questions requires an investigation of the entanglements of deadlocked conflicts, experiences of
powerlessness and resignation with processes of social exclusion. How can we as psychologists
explore the conditions that can engender collaboration, influence and agency as opposed to
unresolved conflicts, problem displacement and marginalization?
In the introduction, we problematized the role of psychology in processes of
individualization, categorization and exclusion. However, theoretical psychology may also develop
conceptualizations that can be used to draw connections, point to social conditions and analyze
contradictions in social practice.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the research group Subjectivity, Technology and Social Practice at Roskilde
University and especially our research colleagues in the research project Children’s Inclusion as
Conflictual Collaboration between Families, Teachers, School Leaders and Legislation.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
25
Funding
The article draws on research awarded by the Danish Council for Independent Research 2014-2018:
https://typo3.ruc.dk/en/departments/department-of-people-and-technology-
dpt/research/projekter/childrens-inclusion-in-school-as-conflictual-collaboration-between-families-
teachers-school-leaders-and-legislation/
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
References
Akthar, S. (2014). Kernberg and Kohut: A Critical Comparison. In D. W. Detrick & S. P.
Detrick (Eds.), Self Psychology - Comparisons and Contrasts (pp. 329-362). New
York: Psychology Press.
Axel, E. (2002). Regulation as productive tool use. Frederiksberg: Roskilde University Press.
Axel, E. (2011). Conflictual cooperation. Nordic Psychology, 63(4), 56-78.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276/a000045
Axel, E. (submitted). Distributing Resources in a Construction Project: Conflictual
Cooperation about a Common Cause and its Theoretical Implications. Theory and
Psychology.
Axel, E. & Højholt, C. (in press). Subjectivity, Conflictuality and Generalization in Social Practice.
In C. Højholt & E. Schraube (Eds.), Subjectivity and knowledge: Generalization in the
psychological study of everyday life. New York: Springer. Theory and history in the human
and social sciences
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
26
Bernstein, R. J. (1971). Praxis and action : Contemporary philosophies of human activity.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Burman, E. (2017). Deconstructing developmental psychology (3. ed.). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Busch-Jensen, P. (2015). The Production of Power in Organisational Practice – Working
with Conflicts as Heuristics. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies 16(2),15-25.
Busch-Jensen, P. (in prep). Conflictual collaboration as essential ‘ingredient’ in school
management, in Research in Education Sage Journals
Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., & Jensen, U. J. (Eds.). (1999). Activity Theory and Social
Practice: Cultural-Historical Approaches. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Chaiklin, S., & Lave, J. (1993). Understanding practice : perspectives on activity and
context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coninck-Smith, N. d. (2002). Skolen, lærerne, eleverne og forældrene : 10 kapitler af den
danske folkeskoles historie i det 19. og 20. århundrede [The School, the Teachers, the
Students, and the Parents: 10 chapters of the Danish Public School History in the 19th
and 20th Century] (1. ed.). Aarhus: Klim.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological
Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (1997). Naming the mind : how psychology found its language. London: SAGE.
Dreier, O. (1997). Subjectivity and social practice. Århus: Århus Universitet, Institut for
Filosofi.
Dreier, O. (2008). Psychotherapy in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
27
Dreier, O. (2009). Persons in Structures of Social Practice. Theory & Psychology, 19(2), 193-
212. doi:10.1177/0959354309103539
Erikson, E. H. (1965). Childhood and society (2. rev ed. ed.). Harmondsworth.
Gilliam, L., & Gulløv, E. (2016). Children of the Welfare State: Civilising Practices in
Schools, Childcare and Families: Pluto Press.
Hedegaard, M., Chaiklin, S., & Jensen, U. J. (1999). Activity Theory and Social Practice: An
introduction’ in. In M. Hedegaard, S. Chaiklin, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity Theory
and Social Practice (pp. 12-30): Aarhus University Press.
Holland, D., & Lave, J. (Eds.). (2001). History in Person. Enduring struggles, Contentios
Practice, Intimate Identities. Oxford: SAR-press. James Currey.
Holm, C. (2010). Skolen skaber ’soldater’ i nationernes konkurrence [The School makes
'Soldiers' in the Competition between Nations]. Asterisk (55), 10-12.
Holzkamp, K. (2013). Psychology: Social self-understanding on the reasons for action in the
conduct of everyday life. In E. Schraube & U. Osterkamp (Eds.), Psychology from the
Standpoint of the Subject. Selected Writings of Klaus Holzkamp (pp. 233-341).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Højholt, C. (1999). Child Development in Trajectories of Social Practice. In W. Maiers, B.
Bayer, & B. Duarte Esgalhado (Eds.), Challenges to theoretical psychology. North
York: Captus Press.
Højholt, C. (2006). Knowledge and professionalism - from the perspectives of children?
Journal of Critical Psychology, 81-106.
Højholt, C. (2011). Cooperation between Professionals in Eduational Psychology: Children's
Specific Problems are Connected to General Problems in Relation to Taking Part. In
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
28
H. Daniels & M. Hedegaard (Eds.), Vygotsky and Special Needs Education:
Rethinking Support for Children and Schools (pp. 67-86). London: Continuum Press.
Højholt, C. (2016). Situated Inequality and the Conflictuality of Children’s Conduct of Life.
In E. Schraube & C. Højholt (Eds.), Psychology and the conduct of everyday life (pp.
145 - 163). London: Routledge.
Højholt, C., & Kousholt, D. (2018a). Children Participating and Developing Agency in and
Across Various Social Practices. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International
Handbook of Early Childhood Education (Vol. II, pp. 1581-1598). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Højholt, C., & Kousholt, D. (Eds.). (2018b). Konflikter om børns skoleliv [Conflicts about
Children's School Life]. Copenhagen: Dansk psykologisk Forlag.
Højholt, C., & Kousholt, D. (in press). Parental Collaboration in Relation to Children’s
School Lives: Advanced Regulation or an Opportunity for Solidarity? International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.
Jensen, U. J. (1987). Practice & progress. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Jensen, U. J. (1999). Categories in activity theory: Marx's philosophy just-in-time. In S.
Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U. J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity Theory and Social Practice
(pp. 79-99). Århus: Aarhus University Press.
Kousholt, D. (2011). Researching Family through the Everyday Lives of Children across
Home and Day Care in Denmark. Ethos, 39(1), 98-114. doi:10.1111/j.1548-
1352.2010.01173.x
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
29
Kousholt, D. (2016). Collaborative research with children: Exploring Contradictory
Conditions of Conduct of Everyday Life. In E. Schraube & C. Højholt (Eds.),
Psychology and the Conduct of Everyday Life (pp. 241-258). London: Routledge.
Kousholt, K. (2016). Testing as social practice: Analysing testing in classes of young
children from the children’s perspective. Theory & Psychology, 26(3), 377-392.
doi:10.1177/0959354316641911
Lave, J. (2008). Situated learning and changing practice. In A. Amin & J. Roberts (Eds.),
Community, economic creativity, and organization (pp. 283-296). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lave, J. (2011). Apprenticeship in Critical Ethnographic Practice. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lave, J. (2019). Learning and Everyday Life: Access, Participation, and Changing Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ljungstrøm, C. (1984). Differentiering og kvalificering : to væsensdimensioner i skole- og
uddannelsesforholdene [Differentiation and Qualifications: Two Significant
Dimensions in School and Education]. Udkast, 12(2), 133-169.
Mardahl-Hansen, T. (2018). Teaching as a social practice. Nordic Psychology, 1-14.
doi:10.1080/19012276.2018.1457451
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The German Ideology. Including Theses on Feuerbach and
Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Marx, K., & Sitton, J. F. (2010). Marx today : selected works and recent debates (1. ed. ed.).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
30
Mehan, H. (1996). Beneath the skin and between the ears: A case study in the politics of
representation. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice. Perspectives
on activity and context (pp. 241-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ollman, B. (2003). Dance of the dialectic : steps in Marx's method. Urbana, Ill.: University
of Illinois Press.
Ollman, B. (2015). Marxism and the philosophy of internal relations; or, How to replace the
mysterious ‘paradox’ with ‘contradictions’ that can be studied and resolved. Capital &
Class, 39(1), 7-23. doi:10.1177/0309816814564128
Ollman, B., & Smith, T. (2008). Dialectics for a New Century. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system (5. ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Picard, C. A., & Melchin, K. R. (2007). Insight Mediation: A Learning-Centered Mediation
Model. Negotiation Journal, 35-53.
Røn Larsen, M. (2018). Paradoxes of Inclusion: Administrative Procedures and Children’s
Everyday Lives. In M. Hedegaard, K. Aronsson, C. Højholt, & O. S. Ulvik (Eds.),
Children, Childhood, and Everyday Life: Children’s perspectives (2 ed., pp. 129-148):
Information Age Publishing.
Sargent, N., Picard, C., & Jull, M. (2011). Rethinking Conflict: Perspectives from the Insight
Approach. Negotiation Journal, 27(3), 343-366. doi:10.1111/j.1571-
9979.2011.00311.x
Schatzki, T. (2017). Practices and People. Teoria e Prática em Administração, 7(1), 26-53.
doi:10.21714/2238-104X2017v7i1-32735
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
31
Schraube, E., & Højholt, C. (Eds.). (2016). Psychology and the conduct of everyday life.
London: Routledge.
Smit, H. (2011). Conflicts in our mind. Theory & Psychology, 21(3), 377-395.
doi:10.1177/0959354310371859
Staunæs, D., & Pors, J. G. (2015). Thinking Educational Policy and Management Through
(Frictional) Concepts of Affects. In K. N. Gulson, M. Clarke, & E. B. Petersen (Eds.),
Education Policy and Contemporary Theory. Implication for Research (pp. 99-109).
London & New York: Routledge.
Stetsenko, A. (2008). From Relational Ontology to Transformative Activist Stance on
Development and Learning: Expanding Vygotsky’s (CHAT) Project. Cultural Studies
of Science Education(3), 471-491.
Stetsenko, A. (2017). The transformative mind : expanding Vygotsky's approach to
development and education. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful failure. The school America builds.
Colorado & Oxford: Westview Press.
i In research about parental collaboration, the conflicts between schools and parents are often
conceptualized as a question of institutional power and resistance. Our outset in a historical structure
of interconnected practices directs focus towards distributed subjects who are connected through a
common (contradictory) matter - instead of individuals resisting regulations. As stated in the
introduction, the concept of conflict can help us move beyond the tendency to regard everyday
practice and institutional power as separate ‘levels’. Focusing on social conflicts challenges
understandings of social life as governed through hegemonic power - and political questions may be
Published in Theory & Psychology, 2019, this is authors final version- minor correctional changes was made before publishing
32
seen as part of the social life related to different aspects of multifaceted concerns. In such an
approach, the question of power and influence in school is at stake as related to how conflicts about
priority and distribution of resources are handled – for example through democratic exploration or in
a one-sided manner (Højholt, 2016; Højholt & Kousholt, in press)
