Abstract
This article moves toward the continued creation of spaces and places to share, discuss, argue, challenge, and celebrate the profound number of theories and methodologies within qualitative inquiry. To do so, I take up some nuances and tensions in the television series, Game of Thrones, and work/think/play with them in relation to Deleuze and Guattari’s packs and masses configurations. I use this theorizing to briefly discuss doctoral training in qualitative inquiry and in particular how the experience of pack AND mass leadership have the potential to be lived out in ways that allow those with less power to work/think/play a bit. The aim is to take seriously how those seated at the table have a profound influence on what is stated and not stated; the direction a dissertation takes; what becomes thinkable and what remains unthinkable; and whether work/think/play can be realized.
Introduction
In summer 2017, I finally relented and started watching Game of Thrones. Given that the first season began in 2011, I had much catching up to do—however, since I have developed some pretty powerful binge-watching skills in my middle-age years, by summer’s end I caught up to present-day Game of Thrones. And although my intended purpose in doing so was for leisure, I could not help but think of this series as I developed my ideas for a short contribution to this special issue.
This special issue aims to open up conversations about what might exceed the boundaries (imagined, invented, established) of the research study—what the coeditors have named work/think/play, with a specific focus on the context of doctoral training. I really like this image—or at least what I imagine when work/think/play is interwoven in doctoral education. It helps me see that most anything one does has the potential to be an act of work/think/play, but perhaps only when those involved are willing to exceed boundaries. As the coeditors of this special issue write, Work/think/play is what happens behind-the-scenes that, for whatever reason, has remained behind the scenes: the work/think/play that you’ve never been asked about, never written about, and never talked about. This could mean, for example, the work/think/play involved when tinkering, inquiring, and experimenting in planned and unplanned spaces; when working through anxieties that might cause paralysis or discourage us from problematizing concepts such as data, methods, and theory; when living life and being in the world are inseparable from research; and any other instances we can’t name or haven’t thought of yet. (Bridges-Rhoads, Van Cleave, & Hughes, this issue)
In Game of Thrones, it can be argued that dynamic and complicated tensions between “staying inside” boundaries and exceeding them are constantly at play, in sometimes explicit ways, other times implicit ways, and often in devious ways. As families, bastards of families, royalty, peasant, Southerner, Northerner, master, slave, men, women, the living, the dead, the human, the nonhuman, the believer and nonbeliever in a God, and so on, position themselves with/for/against one another, there is a deep and real sense that everyone is at risk at all times—although those with powerful family names are more likely to escape risk (except when they are directly facing one another). This reminds me of something Deleuze and Guattari (1980/1987) suggest when differentiating between leading packs (think wolves) and leading masses (think monarchs): Doubtless, there is no more equality or any less hierarchy in packs than in masses, but they are of a different kind. The leader of the pack or the band plays move by move, must wager everything every hand. (p. 33)
In high powered Game of Thrones families, even though they are leading masses (to be sure), the inner circles of these families look much more like packs—all sorts of playing move by move, and wagering everything (even if disguised) every hand. Of course, either- or logic (leading packs or leading masses) is alluring and dangerous in this context as well. Powerful and less powerful families toggle between leading packs (those close to them) and masses (those with more distance), so the moves and the wagers take different shape, in different ways at different times, and depend on each individual leader’s philosophy, personality, goals, strengths, and their degree of “honor” and “goodness.”
I will not go much further into the depths of Game of Thrones, here in the introduction, as it is likely that the readership of this special issue will have varying familiarity with the show. Instead, I will pick and choose a couple more nuances in Game of Thrones and work/think/play with them in relation to Deleuze & Guattari’s packs and masses configuration—and will then use this theorizing to briefly discuss what I think this has to do with doctoral training in qualitative inquiry.
***********************************************
Work/Think/Play(ing) With Game of Thrones and Deleuze
One formal structure that is in place in ruling families is the small council—made up of the king or queen, the king’s or queen’s hand, and a select group of additional advisors depending on the wishes (goals, tactics, strategies, plots) of the king or queen. As suggested above, the ruling leader (head of the small council) can run the council in more or less democratic ways. In all cases though, the small council is a space where much gets discussed and decided. It is a powerful space.
As in all institutions, there are any number of ways in which the small council functions and is led—which again depends greatly, of course, on the leader, but also on the context of the institution and its histories, goals, discourses, commitments, and so on. In Game of Thrones, the small councils throughout the land and across the seas range, arguably, from the controlling, devious, and manipulating; to the ego-centric, cunning, and deceitful; and to the strategic, principled, and empowering, to name a few. In nearly each episode, viewers gain glimpses into the various ways in which ruling families lead, as they attempt to accomplish their goals. These goals vary. Some families seek total dominance, others their “rightful” claim to the throne, others unity and cooperation, and others safety from the dead. They are all interested in gaining and maintaining power—regardless of whether their desired end-game is perceived as “for good” rather than “for evil,” and regardless of whether their methods are perceived as more or less just.
As to whether or not there is power at work in various small councils is not at issue. Rather, the question is how (please italicize how) power is at work—and how different expressions of power produce different experiences and outcomes for those involved. When Deleuze and Guattari emphasize the difference between leaders of masses and packs they are not simply setting up a clever metaphor. As they do in many different ways throughout A Thousand Plateaus, they are setting up a configuration to help readers really think about how singularity not only differs from multiplicities, but also how thinking with multiplicities is more desirable. They are also careful not to project multiplicities as something that settles matters. Pack leadership (acts of multiplicity) does not wash out power, privilege, and authority any more or less than mass leadership (acts of singularity) do. Rather, I think, the experience of pack AND mass leadership have the potential to be lived out in ways that allow those with less power and privilege to work/think/play a bit.
In Game of Thrones, there are two leaders who have been on a collision course with one another throughout the show’s entirety—Cersei and Daenerys. And the arch of their characters have been written as evil versus good, to some degree, but both with no less willingness to wield their power. I also think their leadership can be read through Deleuze and Guattari’s mass and pack leadership. To illustrate, I will not provide detailed contextualizing, but will focus instead on a brief analysis of their leadership styles.
Cersei is cast as villain. Her leadership style gets results and is primarily fear-based. Daenerys is cast as hero. Her leadership style also gets results, and is primarily growth-based. I think they both move between mass leadership and pack leadership, as the situation demands. That is, they are both clearly demarcated as leader in mass hierarchy, where they are not at any real risk of losing their power—they do not need to wager hand-by-hand. They are in control. Other times they lead as pack hierarchy, where they are at risk and do need to wager hand-by-hand.
In both mass and pack leadership moments, Cersei sets out to control and manipulate. Her cunning strategies get her into and out of trouble and consistently culminate in the outcome that she desires. Along the way, there is little room for members of her small council to work/think/play—and if they do, the consequences are harsh, exacting, and sometimes lethal. Nearly everyone fears Cersei.
Daenerys, however, sets out to strategize, maneuver, and empower. Like Cersei, she is not afraid to exact deadly punishment, but is also willing to choose other consequences. She shows more mercy than Cersei. She listens to her small council—allowing them to propose ideas and advise her. Her small council members are often genuine partners in decision-making. The less powerful are also, at times, able to hold some power. They also get to tinker, dream, and imagine a bit.
So, what does all of this have to do with doctoral training in qualitative inquiry?
Quite a bit, I think.
***********************************************
Doctoral Training and the Small Council
What if a doctoral student’s dissertation committee is imagined as a small council, where all sorts of theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical moves are treated less as “mass-work” and more as “pack-work”? How might the dissertation small council work in ways that allow for work/think/play? And how might these small councils look and feel more Daenerys than Cersei?
The advisor convenes and facilitates the small council, all faculty members of the council vote, the doctoral student has to come and “make their case” to the council through formal meetings throughout the process, and likely works individually with members of the council throughout the process, communicating back and forth with the advisor—moving and wagering, navigating and wondering, asking and not asking, puzzling and celebrating, worrying and relaxing, and so much more.
It is likely that small councils look very similar in terms of how they are organized (individual institutional policies and practices aside), the purpose they serve, the work they are to do, and so on. But how these small councils function and how they are experienced by those in various power positions likely look and feel very different. Although I am not interested in turning the remainder of this short article into a thematic analysis of my perceptions and reflections serving on nearly 70 small councils over the last 12 years as an academic, I am interested in drawing on those small council experiences (broadly and preserving confidences, of course) that I think, collectively, can make for Daenerys work/think/play spaces.
It is important to emphasize that what I suggest in the remainder of the article is not based on a single small council experience. Rather, it is an amalgamation of many, many committees—shards of my own experiences and conversations with others (students and professors) about their experiences. The attributes I describe, then, are in many ways a description of an “ideal” small council for work/think/play.
For purpose of review, I repeat the coeditors’ purpose for this special issue: Work/think/play is what happens behind-the-scenes that, for whatever reason, has remained behind the scenes: the work/think/play that you’ve never been asked about, never written about, and never talked about. This could mean, for example, the work/think/play involved when tinkering, inquiring, and experimenting in planned and unplanned spaces; when working through anxieties that might cause paralysis or discourage us from problematizing concepts such as data, methods, and theory; when living life and being in the world are inseparable from research; and any other instances we can’t name or haven’t thought of yet. (Bridges-Rhoads et al.)
Working from this image of work/think/play, there are some fairly consistent attributes in small councils where the doctoral student’s work has been “allowed to” take on a tinkering/inquiring/experimenting quality where concepts such as data, methods, and theory could not only be used but also be problematized. As I describe these attributes, I am not meaning to suggest that the moves and wagers that take place necessarily feel positive or that there are not, at times, sharp disagreements, conflicts, and anxieties. Rather, the ongoing work and the outcome of the work has been marked by a commitment to or pursuit of work/think/play.
Pack-Leading, More Than Mass-Leading
In my theorizing section above, I suggested that Daenerys’s and Cersei’s leadership, writ large, certainly involved mass and pack leadership. However, I think the dissertation small council work should involve more pack-leading—and this has been the most important attribute of the small councils (that allow for work/think/play) for which I have served. I read the Deleuzoguattarian distinction between mass and pack leading in a few ways that apply well here.
First, the distance between the leader and the masses in mass leadership is not only in terms of direct contact—where the leader rarely sees, talks, or engages with those whom she or he is leading (the monarch in the castle, the CEO in the corner office). The distance also is marked by how mass-leaders hold and communicate knowledge, direction, and purpose when they engage with the mass. Even though the dissertation small council is a small group, the leaders (advisor and committee members) can create quite a distance between themselves and the student (think Cersei). The faculty members can explicitly and implicitly make it clear that they know more about the process of completing the dissertation—how it should look, what it should do, what the best data, methods, and theories are, to name a few.
These, of course, seem like appropriate pedagogical responsibilities for the small council. However, in Daenerys small councils how this plays out has felt a bit different. These small councils seem to be uniquely skilled at drawing out and helping the student tinker and experiment. There are fewer road blocks built during small council meetings. There is more listening, than telling. It feels like the leaders of these small councils are more willing to move and wager their own thinking and ideas. Which leads to a second point.
Because the formal leader of a mass does not need to wager everything, every hand she or he can be lulled into thinking their way, is the better way (again, think Cersei). In Daenerys small councils, the advisor seems to act a bit more like a pack leader (moving and wagering) and is particularly skilled at facilitating the council toward tinkering, experimenting—and more times than not, it works. That is, the student (to varying degrees) tinkers and experiments with convention in small and/or large ways through data, methods, and/or theory. Related, I think all members of pack-leading small councils are “comfortable in their own skin,” which leads to the next important attribute of Daenerys small councils.
Composition of the Small Council
It is obvious that whomever is seated at the table of the small council has a profound influence on what is stated and not stated; the direction the dissertation takes; what becomes thinkable and what remains unthinkable; and whether work/think/play can be realized. So, how does a small council become a work/think/play space?
Again, small council members seem comfortable in their own skin. They appear genuinely able and willing to learn with and from all members of the council—including the student (more on this in a moment). They are comfortable sharing what they know, and equally comfortable admitting they do not know everything. They are ok yielding to other members of the small council. This does not mean that everything always runs smoothly on these councils. There is plenty of wrangling, conflict, and rough terrain that is navigated. As in the Deleuzoguattarian pack, there is no less hierarchy than in a mass. But the navigating is different—it builds, grows, and creates. It sparingly shuts down or controls (again, think Daenerys).
Members of these small councils also seem able to work productively along the tension between making sure the student is following convention just enough so that the student is able to “enter the academy” AND is able to tinker, experiment, and disrupt those same conventions. In many cases, these professors have a work/think/play ethos in their own research. They have become very skilled at navigating this tension and are able to mentor students based on these experiences. They treat convention as something that is constantly made and unmade and are equally skilled at pointing students toward places and spaces that are more or less open to convention AND disruption.
Finally, Daenerys professors deeply value their students’ knowledge and expertise—and although they still take their place further up the academic hierarchy, they do so with a deep sense of humility. Paying careful attention to the moments in which their students flash insight and brilliance—pointing out these moments to the students and the rest of the small council.
Data, Methods, and Theory More as Processes Than Things
I think it is an incredibly exciting time to be a qualitative researcher. There are a profound number of theories and methodologies to work/think/play with in qualitative inquiry. And an equal number of spaces and places to share, discuss, argue, challenge, and celebrate these theories and methodologies.
Daenerys small councils become spaces that embrace this reality. Concrete decisions are still made, but the decisions seem to be, at least tacitly, understood as partial, temporary, and in flux. Data, methods, and theory tend to be treated more as processes to be engaged, than things to be picked up and wielded.
The student is encouraged to think with theory (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012), rather than use it to “frame” the work.
The student is encouraged to know their primary methodology so deeply that they can put it in dialogue with other methodologies and theories to see what might be produced.
The student is encouraged to think qualitative data differently—to treat it as never neutral, as under erasure, as constructed and deconstructed, as made and unmade.
Hard theoretical reading is treated as something to turn ourselves over to—to get comfortable not having answers, just more questions. Daenerys small councils make this demand, but do so in a supportive way. They do not expect their students’ writing, based on this hard theoretical reading, to necessarily, especially early in the process, look so neat and clean and conventional (i.e., like the fifth-grade five-paragraph essay). Hard theoretical reading often leads to hard theoretical writing. This writing takes time and a different type of labor. Daenerys small councils are patient with this process, and are skilled at helping students learn to make hard theoretical writing of hard theoretical reading accessible when publicly presented.
Related, Daenerys small council members are equally interested in helping students put their theorizing to work in daily living and action. Very often the data/methods/theory are explicitly grounded in a nagging social issue, problem, or concern—and the qualitative study is carefully designed and implemented to illuminate, explore, and/or disrupt the issue/problem/concern.
And finally, Daenerys small councils are able to figure out ways to theorize-act in the world, where tinkering and experimenting is deeply valued and encouraged.
***********************************************
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.