Australian Journal of Teacher Education: Volume 33/ Issue 2, Article 4, The Art of Loving in the classroom: A Defence of the Affective Pedagogy, Alan Patience – Sophia University, Tokyo, 2008
This reading on Affective Pedagogy made me think about not only teacher-student relationships but I thought about whether during my academic experiences the idea, of Affective pedagogy, neo- liberal economics and utilitarian pedagogic idealism was instrumental to how teachers taught and whether these different approaches would influence or challenge how I would teach. In the digital age there has been an increase in online teaching and with the current global crisis, it raises an important question about whether Affective pedagogy is relatable within the context of Practical Knowledge and/ or Technical Knowledge.
So, what is practical and Technical Knowledge?
Technical Knowledge: Can be learned from books, it can be learned from correspondence, moreover much of it can be learned by heart, repeated by rote, applied mechanically. Technical Knowledge in short can be both taught and learned in the simplest terms of the words.
Practical Knowledge: On the other hand, is acquired through relating closely to a teacher who has intuitive expertise in the field of knowledge in question it cannot be acquired from a training schedule by the rote, learning of a set of formulas or by rehearsing programmatically – specified actions. Oakesholt,1991,15
I think that these definitions predispose an understanding of the two types of teaching relationships that take place within education and how students in turn invest in their learning. The relationship between student and teacher is dictated by how whether or not there is a level of interconnectedness and mutual respect and compatibility. Analogous teaching methods that correspond to Technical knowledge inaugurates a very fractured relationship between student-teacher, self, and knowledge (Ontology-Knowledge), there is no pedagogical relationship that defines the learning experience. Practical Knowledge adopts a collaborative educational intimacy, where there is a level of trust as well as vulnerability, so students adopt this mentality when learning; can allow themselves to be fully immersed in the content as well as their own sense of self.
During the tutorials, it was important to listen to more seasoned teachers talk about the idea of love care, and belonging within their respective practices and how this can be introduced within the classroom respectively. One of the things that were picked up on by the tutor: Linda was that care and belonging were discussed at length but the conversations surrounding love collectively there was a definitive avoidance. Love is a subject that everybody chose not to respond to, it felt very much like a grey area within teaching practice, aspects of the conversations about the love between a teacher and a student is quite a grey area and could be characterised as an appropriate, so with such avoidance of such language and terminology how does love take shape and form within the classroom- Affective Pedagogy.
Affective Pedagogy
Affective Pedagogy- is about feelings and emotions, its about learning outcomes. Indeed, the feelings and emotions are inseparable from the learning outcomes. It is distinguished in the first instance by teacher-student interactions that echoes Oakeshott depiction of “Dramatic Friendship”.
What is dramatic friendship?
Dramatic friendship: Means relating wholeheartedly to another person who engages the imagination, who excites contemplation, provokes interest, sympathy, delight, and loyalty simply on the account of the relationship entered into. (Oakeshott, 1997,337)
Affective pedagogy is evident in student who:
- Value a discipline (or disciplines) and their associated practices
- Value imparting to their students
- Challenge students learning environments, whilst respecting their developing intellects
- Assess students’ academic progress transparently and constructively
- Encourage students to move beyond their knowledge comfort zones and
- Engage student in dramatic friendships
Affective teacher-student relationships are never predictable. Of necessity they are simultaneously auspicious, dynamic and hazardous—like all dramatic friendships. For the teacher, it entails accepting emotional vulnerability as well as engaging in the conveying of knowledge. It also requires the highest ethical integrity. In short, it is risky—indeed, very risky. It is not for the faint-hearted or for those whose relating’s are wilfully (or neurotically) constrained by chauvinistic or fundamentalist ideologies.
During the discussion one of the other students made a very valid point about the importance of listening and referenced the five levels of listening:
This was a fairly new concept to me but highlighted the importance of being very measured in how we respond not only to students work but how we take the time to understand out positionality, privilege and how conversations can either include of further alienate students. I thought about when discussing students work, the use of language how tutors may not feel fairly comfortable divulging into these conversations pertaining to race, gender, history to a certain degree and as a result are conscious about overstepping and causing offence. Another point that was made was aspects of mental health/ pastoral care and the difficulty of speaking to students where there has been no academic training although this is fundamentally intertwined within the role unofficially.
I think that it’s important although it’s quite uncomfortable to ask questions to create intercultural dialogue in understanding not only how we relate to the content but how we connect to our peers and students through their own narratives and how this links to perceptions on identity politics. This links to Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of Emotions by Martha. C. Nussbaum where there is a philosophical focus on the ancient Greeks and the Roman stoics, Nussbaum argues that “emotions are evaluative appraisals that ascribe high importance to things and people that lie outside the agents own sphere of control” having the emotional intelligence to create and connect not only to ourselves, but we should value the importance of emotions such as love in how we engage and how we form attachments to objects and others. This point is further illustrated in:
Charles Taylors book – Ethics of Authenticity Power of recognition:
Similarly like the concept of Affective Pedagogy the terminology Significant Others is created to denote the idea of the relationship between (student – teacher, epistemology and ontology) and how abstract inquiry can be methodically to language and how identify with ourselves and others thus intersectionality.
“This crucial feature of human life is fundamentally dialogical character. We become for agents capable of understanding ourselves and hence identifying our identity through our acquisition of rich human languages of expression. For my purpose here I want to take language in a broad sense covering not only the words we speak, but also other modes of expression whereby we define ourselves including the languages of art of gesture, of love and the like. But we learn these modes of expression through our exchange with others.
People do not apply the language needed to self-definition on the road. Rather we were introduced to them through Interaction with others who matter to ask what George Herbert means it’s called significant others.
The Genesis of the human mind in this sense is not monological but something each person accomplishes on his or her own but dialogical. We don’t just learn languages in dialogue and then go to use them for own purposes. We have course expected to develop our Own purposes. We have course expected to develop our own opinions outlook stances towards things and to considerable degree through solitary reflection. But this is not how things work with important issues like the definition of identity. We define Our identities and I look with, sometimes in struggle against, the things are significant others want to see us.
The projection of an inferior or demeaning image on another can actually distort and the press, to the extent that the image is internalise not only contemporary feminism but also a race relations and discussions of got multiculturalism are underived by the premise that before loading of recognition can be a form of oppression”
I think that without having dialogue, educational, and self-reflective intersectional conversations pertaining to student’s work which percept’s their academic, cultural environments, this could lead to further exclusion. This opens up a rebuttal on the possible ramifications of identity politics.
The main critiques of identity politics:
Identity politics branded as separatist and fragmentary.
“Intersectionality becomes guilty by association it allegedly breaks grouped into smaller subgroups the infinite regress problem” (Ehrenreich, 2002)
Identity politics values cultural recognition over economic distribution. In other words, groups climbing identity politics wants recognition of their own narrow interest rather than having a broader commitment to social good. This claim circumvents vast literature documents and how disenfranchise groups tackle the issue of social justice culturally thus (race, gender, sexuality and economic distribution close, class as inseparable)
Concretely by categorising gender and race-based claims as cultural and disassociating them from economic justice claims, this criticism fails to address the ways in which economic injustice relies on gendered and racialized structures and historically specific ways.
To conclude I just wanted to give my final thoughts on what I thought about:
Neo- liberal economics and utilitarian pedagogy:
“The apparently preferred contemporary teaching practise in late modern education system can be identified as utilitarian pedagogy. They are conducted in self-regarding psycho-social zones that isolate individuals from each other and severely constraining the scope of the curriculum”
Within the context of Neoliberal and utilitarian pedagogy exploitation is at the helm of monopolising the university and the curriculum and therefore the institution. So, the University employs an academy-based system, where education is used to determine student’s intellect and marketability. Teachers are valued based on the performance, which is incredibly dangerous and a steep road to embark on, although the outcome for attending these universities is obtaining a degree there is no incentive for educational and personal growth and well-being.
Bibliography
1.K. Crenshaw, Intersectionality, Polity Press, First Edition (25 Mar. 2016)
2.C. Taylors, Ethics of Authenticity Power of recognition, Harvard University Press; Reprint edition (31 Aug. 2018)
3. M.C. Nussbaum -Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge University Press; New e. edition (3 July 2003)
Session Tutorial Links:
https://interrogatingspaces.buzzsprout.com/683798/4795271-belonging-in-online-learning-environments
https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/223417/AEM3_FBCP.pdf
I’ve just added this little anecdote from the album- “The Miseducation of Lauren Hill” where the students are focussing the concept of love although this is not related within the teaching and learning context, I liked how the conversation of love was introduced by the speaker in terms of students understanding of love at an elementary level.
1. (1.5.11-6:19 ), 2.(16.21-17:50), 3. (21.56-23.05) min