Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In this paper we enter into the debate about the place of poststructuralist theorising and its relation to educational and psychological practices. We argue against a definition of poststructuralist theory as generating inaction and as antithetical to concepts such as ''agency'' and ''choice''. We suggest that poststructuralist theory may well have powerful implications for practice and we illustrate this through a close examination of practices in regular schools and in a school for ''behaviourally disturbed'' children. We show that through making the constitutive force of discourse visible, it is possible to work with students in ways that make them recognisable as legitimate students.
Laws et al. (Mon,) studied this question.