Crisis discourse in physical education and the laugh of Michel Foucault

The central argument in this paper is that talk of crisis functions as an important shaper of contemporary understandings of Physical Education, and in this sense becomes a means for intervention by 'experts' into the form and function of the institutional practices and understandings that work to de. ne the field; in other words, talk of crisis is properly understood as crisis discourse. This argument carries an important implication in that when we attempt to intervene via the activities of 'expertise' in our institutional practices, especially when we do so within crisis discourse, we need to recognise that notions of control over where this intervention will lead are little more than illusory. Implicit here is a recognition that the current field of Physical Education, as it has historically emerged, is not given to us outside of our own construction of it and, yet, that field, though contingent on our thought and actions, possesses a certain objective density which imposes itself on us. Recognising this, we need to commit ourselves to practices which seek to change this field, while at the same time understanding that our change-oriented practices, too, will be dense with effects we may not comprehend until they have betrayed us. This attitude was called by Michel de Certeau 'the laugh of Michel Foucault'. By examining this phenomenon qua an examination of the way multiple, often conflicting discourses found their way into the popularly identified crisis in Australian Physical Education during the first half of the 1990s, this paper focuses on how crisis discourse that was invoked strategically ( particularly by the socially critical 'left') as a catalyst for change tended to produce conservative outcomes due to the way particular historical themes tended to colonise the discursive spaces created. This historical case raises important questions about the relations we presently take up within and toward Physical Education whenever we wish to speak its 'truths', and provides a standpoint from which both existing understandings of the field and future emergences of crisis discourse may analysed.