Conversations about Art This article describes a disruptive model of interpretation, which explores positioning in discursive practices embedded in visual culture as a means of understanding self and difference. The model understands interpretation as a Foucauldian (Martin, Gutman, & Hutton, 1988) technique of the self, and its use may give art teachers and students strategies for understanding the social construction of interpretation, self, and difference through discursive positioning. In understanding this construction, students may be able to disrupt or resist 'where they are coming from'-their assumed discursive positions with, and interpretations of, the artwork-and explore self and difference. The term 'visual culture' acknowledges the inclusive and boundarycrossing aspects of postmodernism where the traditional high art canon of museum art-painting and sculpture-is de-fused. The `new canon,' if one still wants to name this reconfigured body of knowledge, becomes 're-fused' with the inclusion of all visual cultural images, that is, the visual arts and crafts including performance and installation, the popular mass media of television, film, advertising, music, and architecture. Disruption in Educational Practice To understand the term disruption in the sphere of postmodern, poststructuralist theory is to understand it as a critical dismantling of the concept of structures coming out of the writings of early 20th-century theorists, particularly Husserl and Heidegger. It evolves out of concern with the adequacy of the concepts of structuralism, that is with the analytic methodology concerned with structures and with the general rules by which structures work. At the heart of structuralism is a desire to uncover the rules, the linguistic systems which form the basis of human social and cultural practice. Structuralism is intimately concerned with the cultural phenomena of modernism under whose umbrella it sits and from where it assumes that the same underlying structures determine the language of social and cultural practices. Michael Lane (in Cherryholmes, 1988) states succinctly that: (Structuralism) is presented as a method whose scope includes all human social phenomena... social sciences... humanities... and the fine arts. This is made possible by the belief that all manifestations of social activity, whether it be the clothes that are worn, the books that are written or the system of kinship and marriage that are practices in any society, constitute languages, in a formal sense. Hence their regularities may be reduced to the same set of abstract rules that define and govern what we normally think of as language (p. 18) Therefore, the language of clothes or myths or the practices of education, can be analyzed for meaning in terms of their structures only. Structuralist ways of thought have dominated educational practices and made knowledge claims which, although questioned and critiqued (Cherryholmes, 1988; Geahigan, 1998; Wolcott, 1996) have remained intact in contemporary education. A major premise of structuralism in analyzing the structure of texts, works and practices is that the underlying structure is defined by the relationships between their constitutive parts. Objects can never be related outside their structure to their social and historical contexts. How an object has come into existence and continues to exist are not issues for meaning. It means that the human subject, the self, is excluded or decentered, the new centered subject being the structure itself. Eagleton (1983) emphasizes the anti-humanist position of structuralists, stating "that they reject the myth that meaning begins and ends in the individual's experience" (p. 113). Modernist metanarratives as structures appear to give us centers of authority or transcendental signifieds around which we can fix standards and goals. In educational structuralism such centers are concepts like 'excellence in education ' or 'equity in education ' or 'equity in education' or 'multiculturalism. …