Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs Critique and Reappraisal

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,

Social Science Computer Review

DOI: 10.1177/0894439306287973

2006; 24; 274 Social Science Computer Review Leslie P. Willcocks Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs: Critique and Reappraisal https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/274

The online version of this article can be found at: Published by:https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,

can be found at:Social Science Computer Review Additional services and information for

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,/subscriptions Subscriptions:

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,/cgi/content/refs/24/3/274SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): (this article cites 12 articles hosted on the Citations

274

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs275 relevant with moves to liquid modernity (Bauman,1999),network society (Munro,2000), and new forms of technology and technobodies (Best & Kellner,2001). Instead,we argue that Foucault’s work has an abiding importance and can become even more relevant to the study of ICTs.

The article assumes a degree of familiarity with Foucault’s main work but not with its application to ICTs. Before we begin,it is important to stress the provisionality of Foucault’s ideas and the fact that Foucault himself was far from being a systematic thinker. He quite deliberately described his practices as “analytical work”rather than theory and his analysis of power relations as “not a theory,but rather a way of theorizing practice”(Kritzmann, 1988,p. 15). Somewhere,Foucault refers to Nietzche’s observation that although thinkers are always shooting arrows into the air,the key thing is for others to pick them up and shoot them in another direction. If the unfinished,open-ended character of his work creates some difficulties for its reception and use,then it also leaves open the possibility of creative appli-cations of his ideas. We must recognize throughout that Foucault himself would expect from others a development,not mere replication of his work.

Foucault:Techne and Technology

Foucault himself wrote little directly about ICT and indeed little about technological artefacts and tools,though he recognized that the technologies he was interested in were physical in part,for example,the architecture of prisons,schools,the clinic. However,he did write much about procedures,techniques,processes,and behavioral or disciplinary technologies,for example,the confession,the examination,prison rehabilitation regimes, and “technologies of the self.”This may well have led to his relative neglect among ICT researchers,though a similar omission does not seem to have done any harm to the recep-tion of the work of Giddens and Habermas,for example (Mingers & Willcocks,2004). Part of this may well be that Foucault comes less packaged,with less schemas that are easy to adopt. That said,some of his work,especially the image of the panopticon,has been trans-lated directly into,for example,studies of surveillance technologies (Lyon,1994,2003),of the use of information and databases (Poster,1990),and of discipline,information use,and technologies at work (F. Webster,2005; Zuboff,1988).

However,Foucault’s contribution can be much richer than this. For example,Foucault was well aware,not least from his reading of Heidegger,of the long-term “greatest danger”(Heidegger’s phrase) from technology and from Weberian rationalization (though Foucault, 1983,prefers to investigate “specific rationalities”) and the disciplining and normalization inherent in biopower. Had he lived into the so-called information age,he might well have made the connections between these and the key roles of media-,military-,and work-based ICTs forming this present danger,arising,in Heidegger’s (1977) “essence of technology”and in Virilio’s (2002) view,as technocratic thinking and imagination become social imag-ination itself. A Foucauldian perspective leads to a key question here:

We have been able to see what forms of power relation were conveyed by various technolo-gies (whether we are speaking of productions with economic aims,or institutions whose goal is social regulation,or of techniques of communication)....What is at stake,then,is this:

276Social Science Computer Review

How can the growth of capabilities be disconnected from the intensification of power relations?

(Foucault,1984,p. 48)

From the early 1970’s,the word technology is increasingly to be found in Foucault’s writ-ings. The word is usually used in phrases such as “technologies of power,”“political technol-ogy of the body,”“disciplinary technologies,”and “technologies of the self.”Foucault often elides the word technology with those of techne and also technique,but power always resides in his concept of technology whether referring to behavioral technologies or to technology as architectures,buildings,physical artefacts,and how space is defined and used. Foucault rarely seeks to define his use of the word technology. In an interview called Space,Knowledge, and Power,while discussing the study of architecture,Foucault (1984) offers,somewhat elliptically,the following:

What interests me more is to focus on what the Greeks called techne,that is to say,a practi-cal rationality governed by a conscious goal....The disadvantage of this word techne,I real-ize is its relation to the word “technology”which has a very specific meaning....One thinks of hard technology,the technology of wood,of fire,of electricity. Whereas government is also

a function of technology:the government of individuals,the government of souls,the govern-

ment of the self by the self,the government of families,the government of children and so on.

(p. 295)

An interesting contrast can be made with Heidegger,who was interested in the products and tools of the natural sciences and focused on “the essence of technology,”or what Dreyfus and Rabinow (1983) calls technicity,that is,the new technocratic thinking and style of practices that have emerged,distinguished from the technological devices these practices produce and sustain. For Foucault,too,to judge technology by its tools and its production is to miss the point. In his later work,however,he is looking at modern human sciences,the practices and power relations by which they are founded,and the knowledge and behavioral technologies they produce,and these operate,allied to structures,designed space,and use of tools and artefacts. Moreover the operation of these new methods (tech-nologies?) of power “is not ensured by right but by technique,not by law but by normaliza-tion,not by punishment but by control”(Foucault,1976/1978,p. 138).

Furthermore,these technologies of power function anonymously—they are implemented by everyone and no one,and autonomously—for,as Foucault once commented in an inter-view:“While people know what they do,and may know why they do what they do,they do not know what what they do does”(Foucault,1983,p. 219). Given this distinctive,historically recent blending of knowledges,disciplinary technologies,and biopower,power/knowledge emerges as the key concept in Foucault’s philosophy of modern technology. However,this philosophy of technology is particularistic. Unlike Heidegger,he does not attempt a general account of the essence of modern technology but rather reveals specific histories of techno-logical practices overlooked in other accounts of modern forms of power.

Several points occur here. First,it is important to stress that Foucault does not deny that technologies of power/knowledge can have beneficial features:“My point is not that every-thing is bad,but everything is dangerous...if everything is dangerous,then we always have something to do”(Foucault,1983,p. 224). Second,especially in his later work,Foucault indicates that modern subjects can and do subvert the conditions of their own subjectivity.

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs277 In the later volumes of The History of Sexuality,for example,the individual is increasingly positioned as the personal space where both active and passive,and regulated and resistant possibilities for human agency surface in the context of material practices (Katz,2001). The self-subjectivation practices,or “technologies of the self”as Foucault calls them,take on a more active,used dimension,less geared to relations of power and discourse,more geared to bending force back on itself and so to self’s work on the self. One can begin to read Haraway’s (1991) cyborg manifesto,“I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess”(p. 90), into the direction Foucault’s work was taking.

Third,Deleuze (1995) stresses that Foucault was one of the first to say that we have been shifting from disciplinary societies to what Deleuze calls control societies. These no longer operate by,for example,physically confining people but through continuous control and instant communication enabled by developments in material technology. In this rendering, what has been called information society can also be read as control society. If this is cor-rect,then Foucault’s power/knowledge,discourse,biopower,and governmentality remain as thoroughly applicable concepts,as Foucault intended them. Moreover,Deleuze points out that if each kind of society corresponds to a particular machine (e.g.,simple mechani-cal machines for sovereign societies,thermo-dynamic machines for disciplinary societies, and cybernetic machines and computers for control societies),then:“The machines don’t explain anything,you have to analyze the collective arrangements of which the machines are just one component”(p. 175). In other words,the machines do not determine different kinds of society but do express the social forms capable of producing them and making use of them. And of course,as we argue later,the shift to new forms of society can be exagger-ated,as we have seen in the rhetorics of postmodernism and on the Internet and in digital and knowledge economies.

Foucault—“Ghost”in the Automate–Informate Debate Although Foucault never wrote explicitly about ICTs,one book he might have written on the subject is,ironically,given the relative neglect of Foucault’s work in the area,the most cited and celebrated in the whole of the IS field,namely Zuboff’s (1988) book,In the Age of the Smart Machine. The most cited aspect of Zuboff is its major premise. ICTs can be designed and applied to automate or informate work. The former option builds on ICT potential for speed and consistency but creates deskilled blue- and white-collar jobs,mini-mizes job satisfaction,can displace physical labor,and increases the decision making,dis-cretion,and remoteness of management. Informating,on the other hand,derives from the enormous transparency given by ICT-assisted information generated from an organization’s underlying production and administrative processes. Informating enables much greater ICT potential to be exploited and more commercial advantage to be gained.

Undoubtedly,changes in technology greatly increase what is possible. But,Zuboff argues, what subsequently happens depends on transformations,profound discontinuities in fact,in how knowledge,authority,and technique are managed and implies a comprehensive,con-scious strategy. The dilemma is posed by Zuboff as a stark and ultimately political ques-tion. Will managers move from drivers of largely bodily labor to drivers of learning? Do and will managers utilize ICT to support,and even reinforce,existing political,social,and

278Social Science Computer Review

organizational structures and processes or transform these and their own positions within them to gain the full payoffs from ICT investments?

In all this,though not heavily referenced,the influence of Foucault is quite striking. Zuboff’s concept of power is not exactly that of Foucault’s,but,for her,power is a key con-cept,does circulate,and is intimately related to skills and types of knowledge. Like Foucault,she downplays conspiracy and instead stresses contingency and expediency in how things turn out. Her approach in taking a long-run historical perspective on the labor-ing body and skill in production and white-collar work,on managerial authority (called by her “the spiritual dimension of power”),and in presenting ICT as a potential discontinuity—all these echo the shape of Foucault’s work in many places. In many ways,Zuboff maps a long-run,complex,Foucault-like discourse on management,work,technology,and strug-gles,into which ICTs are finding their way.

Foucault is also influential in Zuboff’s concentration on technique,which she calls the mate-rial dimension of power. The debt then becomes explicit in the related two chapter headings, namely,“The Information Panopticon”and “Panoptic Power and The Social Text.”Her focus on biopower and the microphysics of power—how power produces bodies and minds—is also the Foucault of Discipline and Punish. Interestingly here,in her excellent research methodol-ogy,she gives a central place to phenomenology—a move Foucault would have needed to make if he had wanted to explore biopower further at the material level in institutional settings. The automate-informate dilemma is also one that points,Foucauldian-like,to “the present dan-ger”:Will we reinforce present disciplinary,panoptic tendencies through ICT applications,or will we take up other options the new boost in power and possibilities these technologies can offer? Ultimately,the pessimism in her findings,and to some extent her conclusions,also remind one of Foucault’s own dilemmas with disciplinary or biopower.

But something interesting then happens to the direction which the informate-automate debate takes. As Zuboff’s book becomes a bestseller,its Foucauldian influences and themes fall away almost completely,and the automate-informate dilemma comes to be posed as a choice for managers and indeed capitalist societies to make. Partly,this is because how the book is sold,with a simplified central message,an “informate”challenge,indeed that Zuboff asks managers to step up to in her last chapter. But interestingly,there is some inconsistency between,on the one hand,the rich historical discourse and constraints she describes,and,on the other,the levels of active choice she then assumes for managers.

In practice,Zuboff’s work becomes adopted by the Harvard Business School where she was,at the time,an associate professor. Harnessing the school’s reputational effects and its powerful marketing and self-referencing capability,the book’s public messages are pushed into certain directions rather than others. In fact,arguably,the book is used to support Harvard’s own “can do,”“born again”transformative philosophy of management,in which a dichotomous before-after,from-to message is transmitted to trainee managers and busi-nesses alike. Simple,powerful messages are likely to be more influential than the twists and turns of a long,rich,and complex book that most have probably read about rather than read all the way through. Power/knowledge circulates; people,institutions,and documents are its relays; knowledge and power produce each other indeed.

Ultimately,the meaning of Zuboff’s book is diluted and rendered complementary to,for example,Walton (1989),also a product of Harvard. Walton’s work goes on to figure promi-nently in another book highly influential in IS,namely the Corporation of the 1990s(Scott

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs279 Morton,1991). This proceeds to offer dichotomous thinking in contrasting bad-good “con-trol”versus “commitment”strategies in ICT use and,in an un-Foucauldian manner,fails to problematize commitment strategies and their political and control implications. A more informed view here is provided by Deetz (1998) and Townley (1993),who see the cultural or normative controls that operate as alternatives to bureaucratic rules and direct supervi-sion as new technologies of power developed within knowledge-intensive organizations.

A related,influential development has been the neo-Zuboffian “don’t automate,obliter-ate”message of Hammer and Champy’s writings on re-engineering the corporation,with heavy use of ICTs. Grint and Willcocks (1995) point out that Hammer and Champy work with a negative,unitary view of power,and although the objective of re-engineering is ostensibly to render the corporation apolitical,in fact successful re-engineering,supported by labor “empowerment”strategies,is designed to make managerial power and control more complete. The inherently political agenda is signalled by the marked violence in the language used,the dismissal of “resistance to change,”the determination to banish social, cultural,and historical issues by starting with a blank sheet of paper,the use of management-determined ICT designs to support the shape and process of the transformed corporation. On this view,informate is too small a step and “transformate”is necessary (see also Scott Morton,1991),but only a more radical view of power relations would seek to fully prob-lematize the intentions,approaches,and outcomes. Those in IS studying such phenomena could more than usefully adopt Foucauldian concepts and modes of analysis.

Foucault and Disciplining IS

Ironically,again,the Foucauldian elements of Zuboff’s book have been remarkably uninfluential in IS,a relatively immature discipline crying out for applicable theory. But Zuboff’s influence,taught as she is on every conceivable type of IS programme,has hardly stretched to the founding of a Foucauldian school of IS. Despite her demonstration of his applicability,why not Foucault now?

The operational word here may will be discipline. For decades,a string of scholars and articles have registered “discipline anxiety”for IS. This comes from its relative newness as an area of study and its hybridity,based as it is on an amalgamation of computer science, operational research,management studies,economics,organization studies,and strategic management,to name a few. The definitional phrase that comes to mind is the one Richard Whitley used for management studies:a fragmented adhocracy. How to discipline and gain intellectual respectability for a knowledge field lacking discipline?

A natural tendency is look to another accepted reference discipline for already approved methods,procedures,and standards,for definitions of what qualifies as knowledge and truth. One unfortunate outcome in IS is that methods and approaches have often been adopted uncritically (i.e.,failing to address the debates that surround them in their own dis-cipline; e.g.,transaction cost theory in economics) or may be inappropriate for the specific research task. This can lead to unnecessary defensive polarities developing and an overex-pectation on what a particular approach can deliver.

For historical reasons—not least because of the hard technology component of IS,the general dominance of the procedures of the natural sciences infiltrating into the social sciences,

280Social Science Computer Review

the large influence of North American academic practices in IS—the IS tendency has been to focus on quantitative,statistics-based methods and procedures derived from natural sciences. The rise of IS as a discipline has yet to be charted satisfactorily and may well benefit from a Foucauldian analysis. IS awaits its genealogist,though Introna (2001) makes a thought-provoking start in his paper on evolving regimes of truth from 1977 to 2000 at one of the major IS journals,namely MIS Quarterly. He shows the mechanisms used to produce truth and how contingent they were and how,through intentional and unintentional moves,these regimes of truth were continually shifting,opening spaces for certain types of research to become legitimate and others not. It is a matter of some pertinence here that the widespread acceptance of certain types of qualitative,interpretative,and case research into major IS journals has been a relatively recent phenomenon. In such an unstable situation,given their cross-disciplinarity and provisional methods,Foucauldian-type studies,at best,could only be marginal to how the IS discipline has been developing.

The debate on what would constitute IS as a discipline has been running for some time. Post-2000,faced with the sheer rising diversity in research methods being adopted in the field,there has been renewed discipline anxiety and fresh debates in several major IS jour-nals over establishing the rules and procedures for what counts as knowledge and how it can be legitimately produced. Introna (2003) makes an interesting Foucauldian intervention in pointing out that what constitutes acceptable research methods,processes for producing the truth,and a definable knowledge base are not matters of what is right or rationally superior, but these are inherently political questions from the start. Moreover,participants are not just disciplining others in the process of creating the IS discipline but are also disciplining them-selves. Introna also points out that if IS proceeds to constitute itself as a regime of truth,then it will need to follow Foucault (in Gordon,1980) in establishing five things. These are ?The types of discourse it accepts and makes function as true

?Mechanisms and instances that enable one to distinguish true and false statements ?Means by which each is sanctioned

?Techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth

?Status of those charged with saying what counts as true

On these counts,one would suggest that if IS is not yet externally or even self-regarded as a discipline,that it has been remarkably successful at disciplining itself,and that this process deserves much more detailed,perhaps Foucauldian study.

Assessing Foucault’s Use in IS Studies

Having said all this,some within IS have made a strong case for Foucault and indeed have used aspects of his work. Introna (1997) effectively utilizes Foucault’s power/knowledge in harness with Clegg’s (1989) conceptualization of circuits of power to explicate several case studies of ICT implementation and use. Brooke (2002a,2002b),in discussing what it means to be “critical”in IS research,argues that Foucault can be used to move beyond the Habermasian framework employed in earlier IS work. As a related point,initially Habermas was presented somewhat uncritically in IS,but there has grown up a healthy critique of his

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs281 use that Foucault’s work can readily fuel (Klein & Hunyh,2004). Indeed,Foucault challenges an idea central to critical theory when he suggests that relations of power are not something bad in themselves,nor something from which one can or must be emancipated. Foucault also argues that any production of knowledge contains within itself the potential for contradictory outcomes. If this is useful,then the scientific and positivistic heritage of IS does tend to favor adoption of approaches that are more easily “modeled,”and any line of research seeking to use a normatively articulated framework will tend to favor a Habermasian approach rather than a Foucauldian one. But when it comes to applying critical theory,who guards the guards? From a Foucauldian perspective,it is not enough to apply particular methodological frameworks; we also have to subject them to on-going critique,and Foucault’s work supplies means for doing this.

Davies has also sought to apply Foucault in several pieces of empirical research. For example,Davies and Mitchell (1994) adopted a research perspective that sought to under-stand technology formation as a power/knowledge object used within a sociopolitical con-text,but also looking at

how technological forms affect the predomination of discourse of power,allowing for the “truth”of an object’s utility value to emerge as a product of its own structural form and the value of the form according to the group world-view adopting it. (pp. 108-122)

The authors argue,with Burrell (1998),that Foucault’s genealogical method,focus on his-tory,and concept of power/knowledge are of high relevance to studying organizational forms currently emerging,particularly in relation to the control of information effects induced by the increasing reliance on information technologies within organizations.

Although Davies and Mitchell do not adopt Foucault as comprehensively as they might, they do demonstrate how his work on the regulatory nature of discourse within contextual histories can be used productively in IS studies,in this case that of IT manipulation in an Australian state government department. Following Foucault,they point to the constrain-ing regulations by which discourse is inevitably tied. They take three interacting forms, shown in Figure 1.

The three principles of exclusion are immediately external to a discourse and define and legitimize meaning and rationality within discourse. The three principles of limitation oper-ate to classify order and distribute the discourse to allow for and to deal with irruption and unpredictability. Finally,the three principles of communication create the ritual framework (akin to an ideology) of the context of any discourse,with the ritual framework being more dominating than the merely external principles.

Although these constructs may seem somewhat abstracted,the researchers do bring them to life in applying them to a concrete case,namely the purchasing of office support sys-tems. By applying all the concepts,the research shows how one system is adopted in pref-erence to another,predominantly through the prior regulations of discourse supporting the continuance of the superior technical knowledge and power of the IT function. The researchers successfully show how applying Foucauldian principles to analyzing the dis-cursive context of IT use in an organization can provide in-depth insight into the role of power and politics and whether IT is used augmentatively,to reinforce the status quo,or transformatively.

282Social Science Computer Review

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs283 make stronger truth claims in their attempts to contain clinical resource usage. Surveillance through the system also had the potential to engender a degree of self-control in clinicians’behavior,leading to rational decision making and more efficient usage of resources.

However,following Foucault,resistance by the clinicians was always possible. Disciplinary technologies such as comparative surveillance IS are not exclusively constraining but instead open up a new discursive space for action. In practice,clinicians often appropriated and manipulated the information and rhetoric of the system,diverting disciplinary practices to their own ends,principally in arguing for more resources. Indeed,some senior clinicians explored the possibilities offered by the casemix system in assuming new roles as clinician managers. However,the IS increased the transparency of professional knowledge,exper-tise,and work processes. Its deployment provided management with the technology and the rational justification for increased intervention in medical practice. Moreover,casemix information became the currency of debate,the principal media through which claims to legitimacy and control were processed. Taking a Foucualdian view,Doolin points out that in reproducing the practices associated with the casemix IS,clinicians internalized the norms and values inherent in the particular discourse in which casemix is grounded,open-ing up the possibility of their self-control as self-disciplined subjects. Thus,IS utilization could have more subtle power effects than deliberate strategies to modify clinical behavior through strengthening general management in or imposing computerized surveillance.

These illustrative studies demonstrate how Foucault’s work can be utilized creatively and productively in the IS field. Indeed,IS as a discipline may learn a great deal more on the applicability of Foucault if it addresses more seriously the altogether more developed debate and application of his work to be found in organization studies and associated areas (OS/MS).

Foucault and ICTs in Organization

and Management Studies

Foucault has had a long-standing presence in sociology and OS/MS because his con-cepts and contribution have such clear applicability to researching work organizations. Moreover,from the early 1980s as ICTs became increasingly used in organizations,it became a necessary move to embrace the analysis of how they are utilized and embedded in the social bodies,practices,and institutional arrangements of organizations. The same argument can be made from the perspective of IS studies,of course,but,one suspects,its engineering or computer science origins led to a greater focus on the technology artefact. Discipline anxiety led to the adoption of more scientistic and “rigorous”reference disci-plines,and those rising to powerful positions in the IS field tended not to espouse approaches,especially unsystematic ones,in which they themselves had not been trained.

The maturity of OS/MS Foucauldian debate and use is well demonstrated in the articles collected by McKinlay and Starkey (1998) and Carter,McKinlay,and Rowlinson (2000). These carry penetrating papers that seek to critique,develop,and utilize Foucault’s work in, for example,human resource management (see also Townley,1993),power and politics in organizations and production,managing managers,accounting,reading organizational analy-sis into Foucault,developing a Foucauldian historical dimension in the study of organizations,

284Social Science Computer Review

the relationships between discipline and desire,the epistemic nature of management,and the need to deconstruct management studies underpinned,like influencing disciplines,as it is by rationality,agency,and causality.

Foucault has also done much to breathe new life into labor process theory,not least in OS/MS researchers emphasizing how individual subjectivities and identities are con-structed and reconstructed through discourses operating in the workplace (Knights,1990; Knights & Vurdubakis,1994) There has also been an expansion of the concept of power (Clegg,1989,1998),with Hardy and Leiba-O’Sullivan (1998) positioning Foucault as pro-viding the fourth dimension of power,extending the three defined by Steven Lukes. All this illustrates a strong Foucauldian pedigree in OS/MS,and one that is directly applicable to any work in IS where ICTs are studied in organizational contexts.

Even more pertinent to our purposes is the OS/MS-accumulated evidence gained from applying Foucault to the study of ICTs. Many of these attempts focus on new managerial technologies aimed to broaden the scope and deepen the intensity of the managerial gaze but,Foucault-like,invariably with complex,often unanticipated outcomes. Surveillance, control,and legitimation are facilitated by giving complex,ambiguous phenomena “hard”numerical values (Morgan & Willmott,1993),for example,in ICT use in activity-based costing systems where the managerial gaze extends into supplier networks and market information. ICTs facilitate enumeration,which can underpin categorization and thus what is made visible. Such technologies privilege formal quantitative information,aiding in the construction of calculative realities (Bloomfield & Coombs,1992).

However,developments in ICTs to monitor and scrutinize can also facilitate panopticon-like control,making individuals within an organization both calculable and calculating with respect to their own actions. For example,Sewell and Wilkinson (1992) investigate these propensities in the context of just in time (J IT) manufacturing and total quality control regimes. They point to the development to what K. Webster and Robins (1993) call “a panopticon without walls,”where responsibility can become delegated to groups but indi-viduals become enlisted in their own control through their belief that they are subject to constant electronic surveillance through collected,retained,and disseminated information. McKinley and Starkey (1998) also point to how the extension of JIT supplier relationships accelerates the concentration and widens the scope and speed of corporate knowledge acquisition and that this is knowledge combined with economic power that is not recipro-cal:“There is no parallel gaze by consumers or supplier companies into the internal trans-action costs of the organization”(p. 10). K. Webster and Robins (1993) suggest also that these developments are not restricted to the labor process or the factory but are more soci-etal,to the point where one can speak of a more generalized “social Taylorism”made more possible through ICTs.

Bloomfield,Knights,Wilmott,and colleagues have done much important work in devel-oping Foucauldian studies of ICTs and organization. It is not possible to do justice to the richness of their work,but good examples can be found in Knights,Murray,and Willmott (1997),Bloomfield et al. (1997),and Bloomfield and Coombs (1992). A particularly rep-resentative work is that of Knights and Murray (1994). This book has the great merit in pro-viding a real,in-depth,theoretical and empirical examination of the politics of systems development. In the theory sections,it provides a Foucauldian-informed critique of the major theoretical perspectives on ICT development and implementation. From this,

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs285 Knights and Murray then develop a political processual model of organizational change. At its center stands politics as Foucauldian power/knowledge relations enacted in specific con-ditions of possibility,the social construction of which is also part of an organization’s polit-ical processes.

Knights and Murray (1994) also supply the useful definition of ICT Foucault never pro-vided (see above) to inform their Foucauldian analysis. They see ICT as a set of human and nonhuman artefacts,processes,and practices ordinarily directed toward modifying or trans-forming natural and social phenomena in pursuit of human purposes. This involves ?Technological artefacts,such as computers,hardware

?Technological knowledge,particularly systems development skills

?Technological workers and managers engaged in particular systems development and IS specialists

?The culture of technology—signs,symbols,and values brought to bear in discussing, using,and developing technology

In this analytical framework,the organization is likened to a pinball machine. While rec-ognizing the limitations of the analogy,the researchers suggest that the political process stands in the middle of the machine and is bombarded by steel balls energized in different parts of the organization. These bounce against the motor of political process and are shot back to bounce against other conditions of the organization. Though a little uncritical of Foucault,as opposed to every other theoretical approach,Knights and Murray (1994) do provide,as they show in their case study,operationalizable analytical tools that can be very useful to ICT researchers.

Foucault,ICTs,and Surveillance

Perhaps the most obvious and influential use of Foucault has been in surveillance stud-ies,not just in manufacturing and service work organizations but across society at large, including in all manner of institutional settings. There is a large literature on the theme of ICT roles in surveillance,with Lyon (1988) and Dandeker (1990) being representative of a number of writers in the late 1980s discussing the “electronic panopticon,”the “carceral computer,”and “the electronic eye.”Poster (1984) is also influenced enough by Foucault to posit an emerging “mode of information”by whose social conduits and databases mem-bers of developed economies are organized and controlled.

F. Webster (2005) also links surveillance technologies with the nation-state’s “govern-mentality”role over security needs,rights,and duties of its citizens. For him,the panopti-con is not an exact metaphor. Following Giddens,a lot of surveillance information does feed back to people and allow them to reflexively monitor their own position,prospects, and lifestyles. He is drawn instead to De Landa’s (1991) depiction of the “machine vision”of military surveillance,where power and the accumulation of information are intimately connected,manifested in things such as telecommunications interceptions,satellite obser-vations,and automatic intelligence. De Landa sees the military dream of machine vision as an extension of earlier panoptic techniques. Now humans and their eyes do not have to

286Social Science Computer Review

physically operate in the surveillance tower. Moreover,surveillance has extended from the optical to the nonoptical regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Not just computing and telecommunications but the discovery of infrared and ultraviolet radiation,radar,and radio and microwave technology have opened new resources to be exploited and new zones to be policed. De Landa offers the word panspectron to communicate the ambition of total sur-veyability vested in the “new non-optical intelligence-acquisition machine”(p. 205). This is a highly pertinent issue,not least for IS studies,if De Landa is correct in suggesting that, historically,earlier technologies developed in the military have been transmitted through a series of relays to the civilian worlds.

Lyon (1988) registers related concerns in his early work on the rise of information soci-ety. He suggests that dreams of electronic democracy must be tempered with a recognition of technological and political realities. He recognizes,even for the late 1980s,that the “carceral computer”is “a present reality,both in direct state administration and control,and in the potential for linkage with private databases”(p. 86). However,as yet the dangers had not been sufficiently recognized or resisted by citizens,and some predictions of total social control by computers may be ahistorical “in that past technological dystopias have not come into being,and may also be based on inadequate social theories”(p. 88).

If Lyon (1988) points to the “present danger,”then the subsequent direction much of his work takes suggests that in his estimation,with rising use of ICT,the danger has become very real. Thus,a Lyon (1994) work is entitled The Electronic Eye:the Rise of Surveillance Society. For him,the most socially pervasive question raised by the new technologies has become the garnering of personal information to be stored,matched,retrieved,processed, marketed,and circulated using powerful computer databases and related technologies. His position is that the electronic eye may well blink benignly,but important questions must be asked about under what circumstances and by what criteria the current computer-aided sur-veillance capability may also become undemocratic,coercive,impersonal,even inhuman.

In later work and edited volumes,Lyon and colleagues provide rich detailed studies of these and related questions (e.g.,Lyon,2003; Lyon & Zureik,1996). In all this,it becomes difficult not to read the influence and relevance of Foucault’s work,among others. Thus,in these volumes some take the phenomenon of electronic surveillance as contributing to a postmodern condition in which several “virtual selves”circulate within networked data-bases,independent of their Cartesian counterparts who use credit cards and are identified by social insurance numbers (Lyon & Zureik,1996). This raises questions of how identity and selves are constructed,sorted,and controlled,privately and publicly. In the same vol-ume,Mowshowitz sees the widespread use of databases promoting “endogenous”forms of social control,where virtual individuality,group conformity,and other-directedness will reside in the data themselves. For Poster,databases have become the new text in Foucault’s sense of discourse.

In all this,researchers point also to limitations in both Foucault’s work and in applying it to surveillance studies. Thus,Gandy,writing on “Coming To Terms With the Panoptic Sort”enlists also Giddens’s synthesis of Marxian,Weberian,and Foucauldian theory to emphasize surveillance as a modern institution and the role of the “dialectic of control”and knowledgeable human agents in all surveillance situations (Lyon & Zureik,1996). Zureik (in Lyon,2003) concludes that surveillance in the workplace is ubiquitous and increasingly based on network control technologies. He suggests that the concept of panoptic power is

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs287 important but that more than one theoretical perspective is needed to analyze how in specific contexts empowerment and disempowerment,skilling and deskilling,control and autonomy exist and indeed can coexist,depending on technological deployment,gender,and authority structures (see also Knights & Murray above).

Lyon (1993) asks:In what ways does electronic surveillance display panoptic features? He finds plenty of evidence of ICT being used to accumulate coded information for the internal pacification of nation-states and for panoptic control within workplaces,including what Zuboff calls “anticipatory conformity,”where standards of management had been internalized by employees. He also cites evidence of the spillover of panoptic surveillance into society at large in the establishment of,for example,more “efficient”network marketplaces,something that Poster (1990) refers to as a “superpanopticon”because the panoptic has few technical limitations.

But,partly following Giddens,Lyon also sees analysts of electronic surveillance picking up from Foucault a relatively undifferentiated view of power and panopticism and therefore of panopticism’s ICT-facilitated spread across different types of institutions. At the same time,he concedes that the reality of contemporary electronic surveillance is that,increas-ingly,disciplinary networks do,for example,connect employment with civil status or con-sumption with policing. But if Poster’s superpanopticon is accurate,does it nevertheless impose Foucault-type norms,incorporate biopower,discipline subjects? Maybe,Lyon sug-gests,all it can do is provide a structure,one within which real choices are still made. Ultimately,Lyon finds the panopticon wanting as an explanatory concept. Electronic sur-veillance does contribute to social control via invisible inspection and categorization. But seeing the panopticon in a “totalizing”way deflects attention form other modes of social ordering (Lyon,2003). Lyon (1993) also comments that Foucault’s failure to admit any basis of “outrage”against the panopticon inhibits the development of a properly critical theory of electronic surveillance.

Maybe one of the mistakes in contemporary surveillance theory,as in other disciplines, is to represent Foucault’s work too one-sidedly by the panopticon and its admittedly strong metaphorical power. As we have seen,Foucault is much richer than this. For example,in summarizing his own work,Foucault defined four major types of technologies,each a matrix of practical reason,each associated with a certain type of domination (Deetz,1998). Foucault presents technologies of production,of sign systems,of power,and of self. He also suggests that these may interplay in particular sites. He also worked with a generic mode of discipline,of which the panoptic represents merely one type. One way forward for electronic surveillance studies may well be to readdress Foucault’s work more fully. In addition,Dandeker (1990) suggests that,given the uneasy relations in Foucault among an idealist history of knowledge,class struggle,and the functional or technical imperatives of modern societies,his insights may be used to complement those generated by other,espe-cially Weberian,strands of social theory.

From Mode of Information to Network Society and Cyberstudies In this final section,we look briefly at Foucault’s abiding relevance in the face of devel-opments of ICTs and their uses into the 21st century. Poster (1984,1990,1995) was among

288Social Science Computer Review

the first to suggest that Foucault provides key ideas (on signification,power/knowledge, subjectification,discourse) for the development of a critical theory of the newly emerging “mode of information.”Poster suggests that the reversal of priorities Marx saw in the fac-tory whereby the dead (machines) dominate the living (workers) is being increasingly extended by the computer to the realm of knowledge. He usefully posits three stages in the mode of information:

?Face-to-face,orally mediated exchange,characterized by symbolic correspondences ?Written exchanges mediated by print,characterized by the representation of signs ?Electronically mediated exchange,characterized by informational simulations

Given the attributes and applications of ICT,an increasing,distinctive characteristic in the latter electronic stage is that the self becomes decentered,dispersed,and multiplied in continuous instability. If Poster (1990) subsequently utilizes several postmodernist thinkers to analyze the emerging mode of information,he finds how information is structured and used through databases and their relation to society best disclosed by Foucault’s analysis of discourse:“The linguistic quality of the database,its implications for politics,can best be captured by a theory,like Foucault’s,that problematizes the interdependence of language and action”(p. 97). As we have seen,Poster sees electronic circuits of communication and the databases they generate constituting a superpanopticon,a system of surveillance without walls,windows,towers,or guards.

New ICTs used in surveillance result in a qualitative change in the microphysics of power. However,he observes,technological change is only part of the process. The popu-lace,through social security cards and driver’s licenses and in their consumerist activities, for example,have been disciplined to surveillance and participating in the process. For Poster (1990,1995),when Foucauldian discourse analysis is applied to the new mode of information,it yields the uncomfortable discovery that the populace participates in its own self-constitution as subjects of the normalizing gaze of the superpanopticon. Moreover, databases are seen often not as a threat to a centered individual or a threat to privacy but as the multiplication of the individual,the constitution of an additional self,and that may be acted on to the detriment of the “real”self without that “real”self ever being aware of what is happening. For Poster,then,while recognizing the deficiencies of Foucault’s work,the concepts and methods for exploring discourse,subjectification,disciplining,knowledge, and power relations remain key to critical study of ICTs and indeed the Internet (Poster, 2001) in the emerging mode of information they facilitate. Although the genealogy of infor-mation and communications technologies has yet to be written,Foucault,as Poster (1990) recognizes,provides a considerable amount of the groundwork needed.

Munro (2000) also recognizes how Foucault has been drawn on to analyze the power rela-tions involved in computer IS. As a partial corrective,he argues not that disciplinary modal-ities of power have disappeared but that they are subject to infiltration and mutation where ICTs are transforming social relationships and allowing other forms of power to be brought to bear. The examples he includes are how the human genome project is bringing to bear bio-technologies such as genetic screening and cloning. He also cites Deleuze’s (1995) depic-tion of moves toward a “control”society (e.g.,from schools to continuing education,from prisons to electronic tagging). Also,new forms of “resistance”are possible (e.g.,computer

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs289

290Social Science Computer Review

In looking at contemporary developments,one can trace Foucault’s influence into work on biopower and technology. Best and Kellner (2001) argue otherwise and point out that although Foucault (1966/1970) heralded the “death of man”and the coming of posthu-manism,he saw this as a merely conceptual transformation from one episteme to another, whereas the shift to posthumanism is also a material matter of new technologies erasing the boundaries between biology and technology. They argue that Foucault provides no analy-sis of information and communications technologies and little consideration of the hybrid landscape of technobodies. However,Best and Kellner have to concede that Foucault con-siders both the enmeshment of the body in systems of discipline and surveillance and ethical technologies of the self that cultivate “new passions and new pleasures.”

Hayles (1999) rightly points out that the absorption of embodiment into discourse imparted interpretive power to Foucault,but he also limited his analysis in significant ways. The uni-versalization of the Foucauldian body is a direct result of concentrating on discourse rather than embodiment. Building on Foucault’s work while going beyond it requires understanding how embodiment moves in conjunction with inscription,technology,and ideology. But,as we have seen,this is something that Zuboff’s work largely achieves,whereas Sofoulis (2002) rightly points out Foucault’s influence on Haraway (1991) and her subsequent development of his notions of biopower and biopolitics in her post-Foucauldian notions of the “informatics of domination”and “techno-biopower.”Quinby (1999) has also reorientated Foucault’s work on subject formation. She uses it to develop how “technoppression”can occur in the pursuit of the programmed perfection enabled by digital and biotechnologies. A Foucauldian perspective is useful in questioning the race to human bodily perfection through technological means.

Finally,one can point to some interest in Foucault’s work among those studying the Internet. The questioning here is whether the Internet and cyberspace is or will become a form of more intensive control and power relations—precisely Foucault’s concern registered at the head of this chapter. The literature so far tends to have different interests and emphases. Three exam-ples need suffice. Thus,Aycock (1997) is interested in applying the later Foucault and his notions of technologies of the self to examine how online identities can be fashioned. Winokur (2003) applies yet again the concept of the panopticon and concludes that the codes of cyber-space are not clearly a disciplinary discourse. Boyle (1997) is interested in legal issues,sur-veillance,levels of censorship,and the development of digital libertarianism. He argues that digital libertarianism is often blind to the effects of private power but also the state’s own power in cyberspace. In practice,he finds that the state can often use privatized enforcement and state-backed technologies to evade some of the supposed practical and constitutional restraints on the exercise of legal power over the Net. He also argues that technical solutions to these dilem-mas are neither as neutral nor as benign as they are often perceived to be.

Conclusion

In providing a critical review,this article has argued for the abiding relevance of Foucault’s work and the usefulness of incorporating and developing further his thinking into contemporary studies of ICTs. This should be done as a critical act in three senses. First,Foucault should not be applied uncritically. Following Barratt (2003),he should be worked with rather than copied. This article accepts the provisional,unfinished nature of

Willcocks / Michel Foucault in the Social Study of ICTs291 many of his concepts and formulations but also demonstrates how these can and have been addressed in the study of ICTs,for example,with the use of ethnography (Zuboff,1988) and,we would argue,through social construction approaches. Secondly,Foucault has been shown to be a critical weapon usable in an IS field not overfull of such tools (the same is not argued for OS/MS,which have been much more critically aware). Moreover,as in the case of the Foucault–Habermas debates,for example (Ashenden & Owen,1999),Foucault can be used to sharpen our critique of other,explicit or implicit,social theories and philoso-phies perhaps borrowed from reputationally stronger reference disciplines and used uncrit-ically in a relatively new IS field. Finally,as we saw,Foucault can be employed in the ongoing debate over the nature of,and what it is to construct,an IS,or any other discipline.

Fundamentally,Foucault reminds us,uncomfortably,of our epistemological frailty and ontological uncertainties and from this can sensitize us to how much human use of ICT is a will toward control,certainty,and knowledge in the face of considerable risk and ambiva-lence. If he does not deal explicitly with ICTs as hardware and software,he does provide a useful corrective against narrow definitions of technology and ICT applications. Instead of privileging material technology,he privileges the behavioral and social technologies encoded and imbedded in material technologies. This provides an important corrective to recent digi-tal economy rhetorics about the transformative power of ICTs in themselves. Furthermore,his work suggests that all participate in the technologies that surround us,whether these are invis-ible or visible,whether we know it or not. Despite how he is generally presented,Foucault also urges us to acknowledge indeterminacy. There is,for example,nothing inevitable about technology trajectories. In acknowledging indeterminacy in the history of technology,we may note with Scranton (1995) Foucault’s (1996) comment that

nothing is fundamental....[There]are no fundamental phenomena. There are only recipro-cal relations,and the perpetual gaps between intentions in relation to one another. (p. 402) Finally,although Foucault’s work still awaits the further application it deserves in the ICT studies,it is strange that his theorizations of knowledge,power,and discourse have not been utilized more productively in,for example,deconstructing knowledge management and related systems. In the ICT context,knowledge awaits its genealogist,and this may be one of the richer veins yet to emerge from Foucault’s potentially important contributions to the ongoing study of ICTs and their applications as part of organizations. To bring a num-ber of strands together,and indicate one way forward,one can posit here,for example,a genealogical or historical analysis of the knowledge management discourse informed by power/knowledge concepts under the four conditions of possibility outlined by Knights and Murray (1994) For analytical purposes,these are separated out as ?Organizational—structure,practices,culture

?Subjectivity and security—subjectivity or identity and individual insecurity management (see also Knights,1990)

?Sociopolitical and economic conditions—general and local contextual factors prevailing, including those affecting gender and race relations

?Technological possibilities—solutions and innovations that can be developed from a given technology,given constraining aspects of local conditions

292Social Science Computer Review

However,this is only one way forward,and Foucault himself indicated how he would see his work being used:

A kind of tool box which others can rummage through to find a tool which they can use how-

ever they wish in their own area....I don’t write for an audience,I write for users not read-ers. (quoted in Defert,Ewald,& Lagrange,1994,p. 136)

Foucauldian studies on ICT will be more fundamentally distinguished by their critical intent,realized through their historical dimension,pursuing Foucault’s concern to problema-tize the inevitability of the present and question how things have turned out to be as they are and not otherwise. He sought to create a history of the different modes by which human beings are made subjects. More particularly,his work is concerned with studying classification,divid-ing self-subjectification practices across three fields of subjectivity,namely the body,the population,and the individual (Foucault,1983). Since his death in 1984,we have seen an enormous growth in ICT capabilities and their rising incursion into all aspect of life in the developed economies. Foucault’s remit remains abidingly important,and he leaves us with a toolbox to help us confront a fundamental guiding question:How indeed can the growth of technological capabilities be disconnected from the intensification of power relations?

Note

1. Information systems (IS) here refers to those academics,researchers,teachers,students,and indeed prac-titioners who gravitate around conferences such as the International Conference on Information Systems, European Conference on Information Systems,Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science,Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems,and Australasian Conference on Information Systems,who tend to be members of the Association For Information Systems or related or similar bodies,who write research papers and books consciously within an IS “discipline,”and who publish in a self-defined group of IS journals that may be global,regional,or national in stretch.

References

Ashenden,S.,& Owen,D. (Eds.). (1999). Foucault contra habermas:Recasting the dialogue between geneal-ogy and critical theory. London:Sage.

Aycock,A. (1997). Technologies of the self:Foucault and Internet discourse. Journal Of Computer Mediated Communication,1(2),25-38.

Barratt,E. (2003). Foucault,HRM,and the ethos of the critical management scholar. Journal Of Management Studies,40,1069-1087.

Bauman,Z. (1991). Intimations of postmodernity. London:Routledge.

Bauman,Z. (1999). Globalization:The human consequences. Cambridge,UK:Polity.

Best,S.,& Kellner,D. (2001). The postmodern adventure:Science technology and cultural studies at the third millenium. London:Routledge.

Bloomfield,B.,& Coombs,R. (1992). Information technology,control and power:The centralization and decentralization debate revisited. Journal Of Management Studies,29,459-484.

Bloomfield,B.,Coombs,R.,Knights,D.,& Littler,D. (Eds.). (1997). Information technology and organiza-tions.Oxford,UK:Oxford University Press.

Boyle,J. (1997). Foucault in cyberspace:Surveillance,sovereignty and hard-wired censors. Cincinnati Law Review. Retrieved June 26,2003,from https://www.sodocs.net/doc/0017793281.html,/pub/faculty/boyle

The way常见用法

The way 的用法 Ⅰ常见用法： 1)the way+ that 2)the way + in which（最为正式的用法） 3)the way + 省略（最为自然的用法） 举例：I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. Ⅱ习惯用法： 在当代美国英语中，the way用作为副词的对格，“the way+ 从句”实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰整个句子。 1)The way =as I am talking to you just the way I’d talk to my own child. He did not do it the way his friends did. Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are—all we have to do is to clean and peel them. 2）The way= according to the way/ judging from the way The way you answer the question, you are an excellent student. The way most people look at you, you’d think trash man is a monster. 3）The way =how/ how much No one can imagine the way he missed her. 4）The way =because

The way的用法及其含义(二)

The way的用法及其含义（二） 二、the way在句中的语法作用 the way在句中可以作主语、宾语或表语： 1.作主语 The way you are doing it is completely crazy.你这个干法简直发疯。 The way she puts on that accent really irritates me. 她故意操那种口音的样子实在令我恼火。The way she behaved towards him was utterly ruthless. 她对待他真是无情至极。 Words are important, but the way a person stands, folds his or her arms or moves his or her hands can also give us information about his or her feelings. 言语固然重要,但人的站姿,抱臂的方式和手势也回告诉我们他(她)的情感。 2.作宾语 I hate the way she stared at me.我讨厌她盯我看的样子。 We like the way that her hair hangs down.我们喜欢她的头发笔直地垂下来。 You could tell she was foreign by the way she was dressed. 从她的穿著就可以看出她是外国人。 She could not hide her amusement at the way he was dancing. 她见他跳舞的姿势，忍俊不禁。 3.作表语 This is the way the accident happened.这就是事故如何发生的。 Believe it or not, that's the way it is. 信不信由你, 反正事情就是这样。 That's the way I look at it, too. 我也是这么想。 That was the way minority nationalities were treated in old China. 那就是少数民族在旧中

(完整版)the的用法

定冠词the的用法： 定冠词the与指示代词this ,that同源,有“那(这)个”的意思,但较弱,可以和一个名词连用,来表示某个或某些特定的人或东西. (1)特指双方都明白的人或物 Take the medicine.把药吃了. (2)上文提到过的人或事 He bought a house.他买了幢房子. I've been to the house.我去过那幢房子. (3)指世界上独一无二的事物 the sun ,the sky ,the moon, the earth (4)单数名词连用表示一类事物 the dollar 美元 the fox 狐狸 或与形容词或分词连用,表示一类人 the rich 富人 the living 生者 (5)用在序数词和形容词最高级,及形容词等前面 Where do you live?你住在哪? I live on the second floor.我住在二楼. That's the very thing I've been looking for.那正是我要找的东西. (6)与复数名词连用,指整个群体 They are the teachers of this school.(指全体教师) They are teachers of this school.(指部分教师) (7)表示所有,相当于物主代词,用在表示身体部位的名词前 She caught me by the arm.她抓住了我的手臂. (8)用在某些有普通名词构成的国家名称,机关团体,阶级等专有名词前 the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国 the United States 美国 (9)用在表示乐器的名词前 She plays the piano.她会弹钢琴. (10)用在姓氏的复数名词之前,表示一家人 the Greens 格林一家人(或格林夫妇) (11)用在惯用语中 in the day, in the morning... the day before yesterday, the next morning... in the sky... in the dark... in the end... on the whole, by the way...

“the way+从句”结构的意义及用法

“tｈｅwａｙ+从句”结构的意义及用法 首先让我们来看下面这个句子: Ｒead the foｌloｗｉnｇpassagｅａnd talkａbout ｉt wi ｔh your classmaｔes．Try tｏｔeｌl whaｔyｏu thiｎk ｏf Tom aｎd ｏｆｔhe ｗay the chiｌｄrenｔrｅated ｈim. 在这个句子中，ｔhe waｙ是先行词,后面是省略了关系副词that或in whｉch的定语从句。 下面我们将叙述“the ｗaｙ+从句”结构的用法。 1.tｈe wａy之后，引导定语从句的关系词是tｈat而不是hoｗ,因此，<<现代英语惯用法词典＞＞中所给出的下面两个句子是错误的：Ｔhｉs is ｔｈeｗayｈowｉtｈａppened. This is the way how he ａlwａｙs treats me. 2．在正式语体中,thaｔ可被in which所代替;在非正式语体中，ｔhat则往往省略。由此我们得到theｗay后接定语从句时的三种模式：1) tｈe ｗaｙ＋ｔhａt-从句２）the way +ｉn whiｃh－从句3) the ｗay +从句 例如：Ｔｈe way(in whiｃh ，thａt) ｔhｅｓｅｃomｒade ｓloｏｋａｔｐrobｌems is wrong．这些同志看问题的方法

不对。 Ｔｈｅｗａy(that ,ｉn ｗhiｃh)yoｕ’ｒe doinｇit is comple ｔeｌy crａzy.你这么个干法,简直发疯。 Wｅａdmiｒｅd him for thｅｗay ｉｎｗhｉch he fａｃeｓdiｆficultieｓ． Waｌlａｃe ａｎd Ｄarwiｎｇreed ｏn the way ｉｎwhi ｃh ｄｉfｆｅrｅnt forms ｏf life had ｂegｕn.华莱士和达尔文对不同类型的生物是如何起源的持相同的观点。 Thｉs is ｔｈe ｗaｙ（tｈａｔ) hｅdｉd it. I lｉkeｄｔhe waｙ(ｔhat) ｓｈeｏｒganized ｔhe ｍeetｉng． 3.theｗay(tｈat)有时可以与hｏw(作“如何”解）通用。例如： That’s tｈe ｗaｙ(tｈaｔ) shｅspoke. = Tｈat’s how shｅspoke.

way 用法

表示“方式”、“方法”，注意以下用法： 1.表示用某种方法或按某种方式，通常用介词in(此介词有时可省略)。如： Do it (in) your own way. 按你自己的方法做吧。 Please do not talk (in) that way. 请不要那样说。 2.表示做某事的方式或方法，其后可接不定式或of doing sth。 如： It’s the best way of studying [to study] English. 这是学习英语的最好方法。 There are different ways to do [of doing] it. 做这事有不同的办法。 3.其后通常可直接跟一个定语从句(不用任何引导词)，也可跟由that 或in which 引导的定语从句，但是其后的从句不能由how 来引导。如： 我不喜欢他说话的态度。 正：I don’t like the way he spoke. 正：I don’t like the way that he spoke. 正：I don’t like the way in which he spoke. 误：I don’t like the way how he spoke. 4.注意以下各句the way 的用法： That’s the way (=how) he spoke. 那就是他说话的方式。 Nobody else loves you the way(=as) I do. 没有人像我这样爱你。 The way (=According as) you are studying now, you won’tmake much progress. 根据你现在学习情况来看，你不会有多大的进步。 2007年陕西省高考英语中有这样一道单项填空题： ——I think he is taking an active part insocial work. ——I agree with you_____. A、in a way B、on the way C、by the way D、in the way 此题答案选A。要想弄清为什么选A，而不选其他几项，则要弄清选项中含way的四个短语的不同意义和用法，下面我们就对此作一归纳和小结。 一、in a way的用法 表示：在一定程度上，从某方面说。如： In a way he was right.在某种程度上他是对的。注：in a way也可说成in one way。 二、on the way的用法 1、表示：即将来(去)，就要来(去)。如： Spring is on the way.春天快到了。 I'd better be on my way soon.我最好还是快点儿走。 Radio forecasts said a sixth-grade wind was on the way.无线电预报说将有六级大风。 2、表示：在路上，在行进中。如： He stopped for breakfast on the way.他中途停下吃早点。 We had some good laughs on the way.我们在路上好好笑了一阵子。 3、表示：(婴儿)尚未出生。如： She has two children with another one on the way.她有两个孩子，现在还怀着一个。 She's got five children，and another one is on the way.她已经有5个孩子了，另一个又快生了。 三、by the way的用法

The way的用法及其含义(一)

The way的用法及其含义（一） 有这样一个句子：In 1770 the room was completed the way she wanted. 1770年，这间琥珀屋按照她的要求完成了。 the way在句中的语法作用是什么？其意义如何？在阅读时，学生经常会碰到一些含有the way 的句子，如：No one knows the way he invented the machine. He did not do the experiment the way his teacher told him.等等。他们对the way 的用法和含义比较模糊。在这几个句子中，the way之后的部分都是定语从句。第一句的意思是，“没人知道他是怎样发明这台机器的。”the way的意思相当于how；第二句的意思是，“他没有按照老师说的那样做实验。”the way 的意思相当于as。在In 1770 the room was completed the way she wanted.这句话中，the way也是as的含义。随着现代英语的发展，the way的用法已越来越普遍了。下面，我们从the way的语法作用和意义等方面做一考查和分析： 一、the way作先行词，后接定语从句 以下3种表达都是正确的。例如：“我喜欢她笑的样子。” 1. the way+ in which +从句 I like the way in which she smiles. 2. the way+ that +从句 I like the way that she smiles. 3. the way + 从句(省略了in which或that) I like the way she smiles. 又如：“火灾如何发生的，有好几种说法。” 1. There were several theories about the way in which the fire started. 2. There were several theories about the way that the fire started.

way 的用法

way 的用法 【语境展示】 1. Now I’ll show you how to do the experiment in a different way. 下面我来演示如何用一种不同的方法做这个实验。 2. The teacher had a strange way to make his classes lively and interesting. 这位老师有种奇怪的办法让他的课生动有趣。 3. Can you tell me the best way of working out this problem? 你能告诉我算出这道题的最好方法吗？ 4. I don’t know the way (that / in which) he helped her out. 我不知道他用什么方法帮助她摆脱困境的。 5. The way (that / which) he talked about to solve the problem was difficult to understand. 他所谈到的解决这个问题的方法难以理解。 6. I don’t like the way that / which is being widely used for saving water. 我不喜欢这种正在被广泛使用的节水方法。 7. They did not do it the way we do now. 他们以前的做法和我们现在不一样。 【归纳总结】 ●way作“方法，方式”讲时，如表示“以……方式”，前面常加介词in。如例1； ●way作“方法，方式”讲时，其后可接不定式to do sth.，也可接of doing sth. 作定语，表示做某事的方法。如例2，例3；

the-way-的用法讲解学习

t h e-w a y-的用法

The way 的用法 "the way+从句"结构在英语教科书中出现的频率较高, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或 in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 一.在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮.

way的用法总结大全

way的用法总结大全 way的用法你知道多少，今天给大家带来way的用法，希望能够帮助到大家，下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。 way的用法总结大全 way的意思 n. 道路,方法,方向,某方面 adv. 远远地，大大地 way用法 way可以用作名词 way的基本意思是“路,道,街,径”,一般用来指具体的“路,道路”,也可指通向某地的“方向”“路线”或做某事所采用的手段,即“方式,方法”。way还可指“习俗,作风”“距离”“附近,周围”“某方面”等。 way作“方法,方式,手段”解时,前面常加介词in。如果way前有this, that等限定词,介词可省略,但如果放在句首,介词则不可省略。

way作“方式,方法”解时,其后可接of v -ing或to- v 作定语,也可接定语从句,引导从句的关系代词或关系副词常可省略。 way用作名词的用法例句 I am on my way to the grocery store.我正在去杂货店的路上。 We lost the way in the dark.我们在黑夜中迷路了。 He asked me the way to London.他问我去伦敦的路。 way可以用作副词 way用作副词时意思是“远远地,大大地”,通常指在程度或距离上有一定的差距。 way back表示“很久以前”。 way用作副词的用法例句 It seems like Im always way too busy with work.我工作总是太忙了。 His ideas were way ahead of his time.他的思想远远超越了他那个时代。 She finished the race way ahead of the other runners.她第一个跑到终点,远远领先于其他选手。 way用法例句

the_way的用法大全教案资料

t h e_w a y的用法大全

The way 在the way+从句中, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或 in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 如果怕弄混淆，下面的可以不看了 另外，在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮. the way=according to the way/judging from the way 4)The way you answer the qquestions, you must be an excellent student. 从你回答就知道,你是一个优秀的学生. 5)The way most people look at you, you'd think a trashman was a monster. 从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物. the way=how/how much 6)I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. 从你叫我名字的音调中,我知道你哪里人. 7)No one can imaine the way he misses her. 人们很想想象他是多么想念她. the way=because 8) No wonder that girls looks down upon me, the way you encourage her. 难怪那姑娘看不起我, 原来是你怂恿的

the way 的用法

The way 的用法 "the way+从句"结构在英语教科书中出现的频率较高, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 一.在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮.

the way=according to the way/judging from the way 4)The way you answer the qquestions, you must be an excellent student. 从你回答就知道,你是一个优秀的学生. 5)The way most people look at you, you'd think a trashman was a monster. 从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物. the way=how/how much 6)I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. 从你叫我名字的音调中,我知道你哪里人. 7)No one can imaine the way he misses her. 人们很想想象他是多么想念她. the way=because 8) No wonder that girls looks down upon me, the way you encourage her. 难怪那姑娘看不起我, 原来是你怂恿的 the way =while/when(表示对比) 9)From that day on, they walked into the classroom carrying defeat on their shoulders the way other students carried textbooks under their arms. 从那天起,其他同学是夹着书本来上课,而他们却带着"失败"的思想负担来上课.

The way的用法及其含义(三)

The way的用法及其含义（三） 三、the way的语义 1. the way=as（像） Please do it the way I’ve told you.请按照我告诉你的那样做。 I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own.我和你说话就像和自己孩子说话一样。 Plant need water the way they need sun light. 植物需要水就像它们需要阳光一样。 2. the way=how（怎样，多么） No one can imagine the way he misses her.没人能够想象出他是多么想念她！ I want to find out the way a volcano has formed.我想弄清楚火山是怎样形成的。 He was filled with anger at the way he had been treated.他因遭受如此待遇而怒火满腔。That’s the way she speaks.她就是那样讲话的。 3. the way=according as （根据） The way you answer the questions, you must be an excellent student.从你回答问题来看，你一定是名优秀的学生。 The way most people look at you, you'd think a trash man was a monster.从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物。 The way I look at it, it’s not what you do that matters so much.依我看，重要的并不是你做什么。 I might have been his son the way he talked.根据他说话的样子，好像我是他的儿子一样。One would think these men owned the earth the way they behave.他们这样行动，人家竟会以为他们是地球的主人。

way的用法

一．Way：“方式”、“方法” 1.表示用某种方法或按某种方式 Do it (in) your own way. Please do not talk (in) that way. 2.表示做某事的方式或方法 It’s the best way of studying [to study] English.。 There are different ways to do [of doing] it. 3.其后通常可直接跟一个定语从句(不用任何引导词)，也可跟由that 或in which 引导的定语从句 正：I don’t like the way he spoke. I don’t like the way that he spoke. I don’t like the way in which he spoke.误：I don’t like the way how he spoke. 4. the way 的从句 That’s the way (=how) he spoke. I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. That was the way minority nationalities were treated in old China. Nobody else loves you the way(=as) I do. He did not do it the way his friend did. 二．固定搭配 1. In a/one way：In a way he was right. 2. In the way /get in one’s way I'm afraid your car is in the way， If you are not going to help，at least don't get in the way. You'll have to move－you're in my way. 3. in no way Theory can in no way be separated from practice. 4. On the way (to……) Let’s wait a few moments. He is on the way Spring is on the way. Radio forecasts said a sixth-grade wind was on the way. She has two children with another one on the way. 5. By the way By the way，do you know where Mary lives? 6. By way of Learn English by way of watching US TV series. 8. under way 1. Elbow one’s way He elbowed his way to the front of the queue. 2. shoulder one’s way 3. feel one‘s way 摸索着向前走；We couldn’t see anything in the cave, so we had to feel our way out 4. fight/force one’s way 突破。。。而前进The surrounded soldiers fought their way out. 5.. push/thrust one‘s way（在人群中）挤出一条路He pushed his way through the crowd. 6. wind one’s way 蜿蜒前进 7. lead the way 带路，领路；示范 8. lose one‘s way 迷失方向 9. clear the way 排除障碍，开路迷路 10. make one’s way 前进，行进The team slowly made their way through the jungle.

the way的用法大全

在the way+从句中, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 如果怕弄混淆，下面的可以不看了 另外，在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮. the way=according to the way/judging from the way 4)The way you answer the qquestions, you must be an excellent student. 从你回答就知道,你是一个优秀的学生. 5)The way most people look at you, you'd think a trashman was a monster. 从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物. the way=how/how much 6)I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. 从你叫我名字的音调中,我知道你哪里人. 7)No one can imaine the way he misses her. 人们很想想象他是多么想念她. the way=because 8) No wonder that girls looks down upon me, the way you encourage her. 难怪那姑娘看不起我, 原来是你怂恿的 the way =while/when(表示对比) 9)From that day on, they walked into the classroom carrying defeat on their shoulders the way other students carried textbooks under their arms.

“the-way+从句”结构的意义及用法知识讲解

“the way+从句”结构的意义及用法 首先让我们来看下面这个句子： Read the following passage and talk about it with your classmates. Try to tell what you think of Tom and of the way the children treated him. 在这个句子中，the way是先行词，后面是省略了关系副词that 或in which的定语从句。 下面我们将叙述“the way+从句”结构的用法。 1．the way之后，引导定语从句的关系词是that而不是how,因此，<<现代英语惯用法词典>>中所给出的下面两个句子是错误的：This is the way how it happened. This is the way how he always treats me. 2. 在正式语体中，that可被in which所代替；在非正式语体中，that则往往省略。由此我们得到the way后接定语从句时的三种模式：1) the way +that-从句2) the way +in which-从句3) the way +从句 例如：The way(in which ,that) these comrades look at problems is wrong.这些同志看问题的方法不对。

The way(that ,in which)you’re doing it is completely crazy.你这么个干法，简直发疯。 We admired him for the way in which he faces difficulties. Wallace and Darwin greed on the way in which different forms of life had begun.华莱士和达尔文对不同类型的生物是如何起源的持相同的观点。 This is the way (that) he did it. I liked the way (that) she organized the meeting. 3.the way(that)有时可以与how(作“如何”解)通用。例如： That’s the way (that) she spoke. = That’s how she spoke. I should like to know the way/how you learned to master the fundamental technique within so short a time. 4．the way的其它用法：以上我们讲的都是用作先行词的the way，下面我们将叙述它的一些用法。

定冠词the的12种用法

定冠词the的12种用法 定冠词the 的12 种用法，全知道?快来一起学习吧。下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。 定冠词the 的12 种用法，全知道? 定冠词the用在各种名词前面，目的是对这个名词做个记号，表示它的特指属性。所以在词汇表中，定冠词the 的词义是“这个，那个，这些，那些”，可见，the 即可以放在可数名词前，也可以修饰不可数名词，the 后面的名词可以是单数，也可以是复数。 定冠词的基本用法： (1) 表示对某人、某物进行特指，所谓的特指就是“不是别的，就是那个!”如： The girl with a red cap is Susan. 戴了个红帽子的女孩是苏珊。 (2) 一旦用到the，表示谈话的俩人都知道说的谁、说的啥。如：

The dog is sick. 狗狗病了。(双方都知道是哪一只狗) (3) 前面提到过的，后文又提到。如： There is a cat in the tree.Thecat is black. 树上有一只猫，猫是黑色的。 (4) 表示世界上唯一的事物。如： The Great Wall is a wonder.万里长城是个奇迹。(5) 方位名词前。如： thenorth of the Yangtze River 长江以北地区 (6) 在序数词和形容词最高级的前面。如： Who is the first?谁第一个? Sam is the tallest.山姆最高。 但是不能认为，最高级前必须加the，如： My best friend. 我最好的朋友。 (7) 在乐器前。如： play the flute 吹笛子

Way的用法

Way用法 A:I think you should phone Jenny and say sorry to her. B:_______. It was her fault. A. No way B. Not possible C. No chance D. Not at all 说明：正确答案是A. No way，意思是“别想！没门！决不！” 我认为你应该打电话给珍妮并向她道歉。 没门！这是她的错。 再看两个关于no way的例句： （1）Give up our tea break? NO way! 让我们放弃喝茶的休息时间？没门儿！ （2）No way will I go on working for that boss. 我决不再给那个老板干了。 way一词含义丰富，由它构成的短语用法也很灵活。为了便于同学们掌握和用好它，现结合实例将其用法归纳如下： 一、way的含义 1. 路线

He asked me the way to London. 他问我去伦敦的路。 We had to pick our way along the muddy track. 我们不得不在泥泞的小道上择路而行。 2. （沿某）方向 Look this way, please. 请往这边看。 Kindly step this way, ladies and gentlemen. 女士们、先生们，请这边走。 Look both ways before crossing the road. 过马路前向两边看一看。 Make sure that the sign is right way up. 一定要把符号的上下弄对。 3. 道、路、街，常用以构成复合词 a highway（公路），a waterway（水路），a railway（铁路），wayside（路边）

way与time的特殊用法

way/time的特殊用法 1、当先行词是way意思为”方式.方法”的时候,引导定语从句的关系词有下列3种形式： Way在从句中做宾语 The way that / which he explained to us is quite simple. Way在从句中做状语 The way t hat /in which he explained the sentence to us is quite simple. 2、当先行词是time时,若time表示次数时,应用关系代词that引导定语从句,that可以省略; 若time表示”一段时间”讲时,应用关系副词when或介词at/during + which引导定语从句 1.Is this factory _______ we visited last year? 2.Is this the factory-------we visited last year? A. where B in which C the one D which 3. This is the last time _________ I shall give you a lesson. A. when B that C which D in which 4.I don’t like the way ________ you laugh at her. A . that B on which C which D as 5.He didn’t understand the wa y ________ I worked out the problem. A which B in which C where D what 6.I could hardly remember how many times----I’ve failed. A that B which C in which D when 7.This is the second time--------the president has visited the country. A which B where C that D in which 8.This was at a time------there were no televisions, no computers or radios. A what B when C which D that