In this paper we use psychoanalytic theory to explore how the subject is formed in and through their relations to knowledge. Drawing on empirical cases from post-compulsory education, graduate study and teacher education, we consider how psychoanalytic theory helps us to make sense of the processes of making sense in different educational settings. Through Jaques Lacan, and feminist interpretations of Lacan, we address ‘making sense’ both as a constitutive feature of the formation of subjectivity (i.e. how a person explains themselves and their discursive positioning to themselves and others), and as a process which relates to and is embedded within practices, interactions and procedures legitimated by particular educational contexts. The use of Lacanian psychoanalytical theory is still underdeveloped in the field of education studies, both in the UK and at international level. This seems a curious omission given Lacan’s key role as a European thinker whose anti-foundational propositions about subjectivity link him with post-structuralists such as Foucault (1982) and Derrida (1978) (Olssen, 2003). However, while all three are concerned with the construction of the subject in language, the advantage of a Lacanian framework is its offer of ‘tools for thinking’ (Mouzelis, 1995) about the psychic dimension of subjectivity and, in particular, how the individual relates to the ‘Symbolic Other’ i.e. the rules, structures and practices of the society in which we live (Drake, 2009). We work with the understanding that the subject is formed by a process of ‘misrecognition’ and ‘lack’ (Lacan, 2002) to consider: first, how individuals enunciate their sense of ‘lack’ in a variety of educational contexts; second, how this ‘lack’ indicates how they see their relations with knowledge production; and third, how it influences their view of themselves as knowledge producers. Lacan sees enunciation as integral to processes of becoming a ‘subject who speaks’. As Zizek (2006:16) explains, the ‘moment of subjective transformation occurs at the moment of declaration’. Feminist interpretations (Grosz, 1990; Iragaray, 1985; Kristeva, 1980) extend the Lacanian framework, enabling us to offer more subtle readings of desire and lack by taking into account considerations of power, excess of desire, and ‘transgressive breaches of symbolic coherence’ (Grosz, 1990: 153). Through exploring ‘moments’ of speaking and knowing through specific empirical examples from teachers, from a student, and from a teacher educator we offer a reading on developing subjectivity.

We explore five empirical examples: • A doctoral student being told to ‘be quiet and listen’ to feedback. • A teacher educator deciding when or if to intervene when observing a student teacher. • Making sense of one’s mathematical aptitude through positioning the teacher as ‘the one who knows’. • A philosophy teacher in a democratic classroom constructing ‘The Examiner’ as ‘the one who knows’. • A teacher of sociology taking the space and becoming charismatic. These cases are illustrative and, thus, draw on one of the key benefits of case study which is that it explores the ‘power of the good example’ (Flyvbjerg, 2001). We use a methodology grounded in interview data to explore ways in which these particular individuals construct themselves as speaking subjects.

In making links between data and evidence, between theory and empirical research, we explicitly situate ourselves as addressing the theme of the conference. We show that each example can be seen as having common threads. First we see the application of social rules within accepted communities of practice. Second, that individuals are making sense of that new space in terms of ‘the rules’ and how this positions what they know. Third, we show the complexity of the links between desire, making meaning and the ‘Symbolic’, whether that is figured as producing knowledge that in turn may become the ‘Symbolic’, or as knowledge production which negotiates and contests the ‘Symbolic’ in the formation of subjectivity.