ideological context within which practice is situated and to explore ideological history. Only in so doing can one identify the effects, dangers, and limitations of these ideas and associated practices. Submitting to the language games (Lyotard, 1996) of academia, the writers/readers will self-objectify by referring to themselves in the third person. This is a stance contrary to postmodern practice, because the “I” or “we” hide behind signifiers such as “the research-ers, writers, readers”. It removes the subjective “I/we”, with all its vul-nerability and self-positioning, and replaces it with depersonalised authority. Challenging this practice, poststructuralist writers stress that “I” is central as “our accounts of the world are constructions made from the language, meanings and ideas historically available to us, the ‘I’” (Beavis & Gough, 2000:76). In this sense the present topic is narrated from a postmodern perspective, constructing meaning from different sources.