Advertisement

High Passions: Affect and Curriculum Theorizing in the Present

  • Alyssa D. Niccolini
  • Bessie Dernikos
  • Nancy Lesko
  • Stephanie D. McCall
Chapter

Abstract

In a time of impassioned rhetoric and extreme educational policies, this chapter urges curriculum scholars to pay attention to affect. Affect studies supplement other approaches to theorizing curriculum by attending to contemporary emergences of thinking-feeling, offering opportunities for non-dualistic thought and pedagogy, and focusing on human and non-human encounters. Two research vignettes portray the complicated encounters and desires circulating around becoming a reader and going to college. Affect theories can encourage wonder and hope, and, in turn, evoke and support thinking-feeling differently, with new objects, and in new directions.

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2011). Promise of happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, S. (2014). Willful subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. (2006). Becoming and being hopeful: Towards a theory of affect. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(5), 733–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, B. (2014). Encountering affect: Capacities, apparatuses, conditions. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baugh, B. (2010). Experimentation. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary (pp. 93–95). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, J. (2001). The enchantment of modern life: Attachments, crossings, and ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biddle, R. (2010). The kids can’t read. Retrieved from http://spectator.org/39390_kids-cant-read/.
  11. Bjerg, H., & Staunæs, D. (2011). Self-management through shame – Uniting governmentality studies and the ‘affective turn.’ Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 11(2), 138–156.Google Scholar
  12. Blackman, L. (2013). Immaterial bodies: Affect, embodiment, mediation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Boldt, G., Salvio, P., & Taubman, P. (Eds.) (2009). Classroom lives in the age of accountability. Bank Street College of Education Occasional Papers Series 22, 3–7.Google Scholar
  14. Brennan, T. (2004). The transmission of affect. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chen, M. (2012). Animacies: Biopolitics, racial matters, and queer affect. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clough, P. T. (2008). The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia, bodies. Theory, Culture and Society, 25(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clough, P., & Haley, J. (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman, R., & Ringrose, J. (2013). Deleuze and research methodologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cvetkovich, A. (2012). Depression: A public feeling. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Damasio, A. (2000). The feeling of what happens: Body, emotion and the making of consciousness. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  21. Deleuze, G. (1992). What is a dispositif? In J. Armostrong (Ed.), Michel Foucault philosopher. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). What is a minor literature? (R. Brinkley, Trans.). Mississippi Review, 11(3), 13–33.Google Scholar
  23. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dernikos, B. (2015). A gender gap in literacy? De/territorialing literacy, gender, and the humanist subject. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest LLC (3704464).Google Scholar
  25. Flatley, J. (2008). Affective mapping. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greene, D. (2014). How common core standards kill creative teaching. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/17/how-common-core-standards-kill-creative-teaching.
  27. Grosz, E. (1993). Bodies and knowledges: Feminism and the crisis of reason. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 187–215). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  29. Halberstam, J. (2011). The queer art of failure. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris, A. (2004). Future girl: Young women in the twenty-first century. London and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Harris, S. (2015). Literacy letdown in primary schools. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-81287/Literacy-letdown-primary-schools.html.
  32. Henriques, J. (2010). The vibration of affect and their propagation on a night out on Kingston’s dancehall scene. Body & Society, 16(1), 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hickey-Moody, A. (2013). Youth, arts and education: Reassembling subjectivity through affect. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Irwin, R. (1999). Facing oneself: An embodied pedagogy. Arts and Learning Research, 16(1), 82–86.Google Scholar
  35. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, S., & Vagle, M. (2013). Living contradictions and working for change: Toward a theory of social class-sensitive pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 42(3), 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Bertram, M. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
  38. Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. (2013). Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 629–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lesko, N., & Talburt, S. (2012). Enchantment. In N. Lesko & S. Talburt (Eds.), Keywords in youth studies: Tracing affects, movements, knowledges (pp. 279–289). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  40. MacLure, M. (2013). Coding as an analytic practice in qualitative research. In R. Colemand & J. Ringrose (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 164–183). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Marcus, G., Neuman, R., & Mackuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Masny, D. (2012). Cartographies of multiple literacies. In D. Masny & D. Cole (Eds.), Mapping multiple literacies: An introduction to Deleuzian literacy studies (pp. 15–42). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  43. Massumi, B. (2015a). Politics of affect. Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  44. Massumi, B. (2015b). Q & A with Brian Massumi. Retrieved March 13, 2018, from https://dukeupress.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/qa-with-brian-massumi/.
  45. Massumi, B. (2015c). Ontopower: War, powers, and the state of perception. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCall, S. (2014). What kind of girl?: Curricular knowledge and the making of girls in two all-girls schools. Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest LLC (3622268).Google Scholar
  47. Miller, J. (2013). Traveling auto/biography. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  48. Miller, J. (2014). Curriculum theorizing in the throes of audit culture. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 16(1), 13–30.Google Scholar
  49. Muñoz, J. (2000). Feeling brown: Ethnicity and affect in Ricardo Bracho’s The sweetest hangover (and other STDs). Theater Journal, 52(1), 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ngai, S. (2005). Ugly feelings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Niccolini, A. D. (2016). Animate affects: Censorship, reckless pedagogies, and beautiful feelings. Gender and Education, 28(2), 230–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pillow, W. (2007). ‘Bodies are dangerous’: Using feminist genealogy as policy studies methodology. In S. Ball, I. Goodson, & M. Maguire (Eds.), Education, globalisation, and new times: 21 years of the Journal of Education Policy (pp. 139–147). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Pinar, W. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Pinar, W., & Grumet, M. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  55. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Puar, J. (2012). ‘I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess’: Becoming intersectional in assemblage theory. PhiloSOPHIA, 2(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  57. Rai, A. S. (2015). The politics of affect: Berlant on affect and austerity. Retrieved from: https://mediaecologiesresonate.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/politics-of-affect/.
  58. Rajchman, J. (2000). The Deleuze connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ringness, T. (1975). The affective domain in education. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  60. Ringrose, J. (2013). Postfeminist education? Girls and the sexual politics of schooling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Saldahna, A. (2005). Vision and viscosity in Goa’s psychedelic trance scene. ACME: An International e-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4(2), 172–193.Google Scholar
  62. Sedgwick, E. (2003). Touching feeling: Affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sedgwick, E. K., & Frank, A. (Eds.). (1995). Shame and its sisters: A Silvan Tomkins reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Seigworth, G., & Gregg, M. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In M. Gregg & G. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 1–25). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Shanahan, T. (2011). Common Core vs. guided reading: Rejecting instructional level theory. Retrieved March 13, 2018, from http://www.cdl.org/articles/common-core-vs-guided-reading/.
  66. Shaviro, S. (2010). Post-cinematic affect. New York, NY: Zero Books.Google Scholar
  67. Smits, H., & Naqvi, R. (2015). Framing peace: Thinking about & enacting curriculum as ‘radical hope’. New York, NY: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Springgay, S. (2008). Body knowledge and curriculum: Pedagogies of touch in youth and visual culture. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  69. Springgay, S., & Freedman, D. (2007). Curriculum and the cultural body. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  70. Springgay, S., & Truman, S. E. (2016). Stone walks: Inhuman animacies and queer archives of feeling. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(6), 851–863.Google Scholar
  71. Springgay, S., Irwin, R., Leggo, C., & Gouzouasis, P. (Eds.). (2008). Being with a/r/tography. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  72. Springgay, S., & Zaliwska, Z. (2016). Learning to be affected: Matters of pedagogy in the artists’ soup kitchen. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(3), 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Staiger, J., Cvetkovich, A., & Reynolds, A. (Eds.). (2010). Political emotions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Stewart, K. (2007). Ordinary affects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. St. Pierre, E. (2013). The posts continue: Becoming. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 646–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taubman, P. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  77. Thrift, N. (2004). Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 86(1), 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thrift, N. (2007). Nonrepresentational theory: Space/politics/affect. London and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Vannini, P. (2015). Nonrepresentational methodologies: Reenvisioning research. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weber, K. (Ed.). (2010). Waiting for “Superman”: How can we save America’s failing public schools? New York, NY: PublicAffairs Perseus.Google Scholar
  81. Weinstein, G., & Fantini, M. (1970). Toward humanistic education: A curriculum of affect. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
  82. Whitlock, G. (2006). Soft weapons: Autobiography in transit. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  83. Wiegman, R. (2012). Object lessons. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Zembylas, M. (2007). Risks and pleasures: A Deleuzo-Guattarian pedagogy of desire in education. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alyssa D. Niccolini
    • 1
  • Bessie Dernikos
    • 2
  • Nancy Lesko
    • 3
  • Stephanie D. McCall
    • 4
  1. 1.NeckargemuendGermany
  2. 2.Florida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  3. 3.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.University of PennsylvaniaStroudsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations