Advertisement

Posthuman Methodology and Pedagogy: Uneasy Assemblages and Affective Choreographies

  • Jennifer CharterisEmail author
  • Adele Nye
Chapter

Abstract

Pedagogic posthuman assemblages are a generative means for exploring entanglements of affect that circulate through humans and non-humans. In this chapter, we include a poetic account of our posthuman pedagogic research practice that leverages our work as feminist scholars in the academy. Through the curation of an uneasy assemblage (Bone and Blaise in Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16: 18–31, 2015), and its presentation as an affective choreography, we juxtapose the personal and political, the biographical, the technological and the sociological. The uneasy assemblage, comprising images, media articles and reported responses to scandals from the public, deterritorialises qualitative research practice, and allows for an interrogation of how affect mobilises in the form of gendered violence. This research work, generated through a feminist process of slow musings (Taylor in Cultural Studies-Critical Methodologies, 16: 201–212, 2016), underpinned a conference presentation that was conceptualised as an affective choreography. In taking up an imaginative posthuman approach, we rethink our embodiment in assemblages and entanglements across a range of spaces: higher education spaces; pedagogic spaces at conferences; cyber spaces; and schooling spaces. This pedagogic practice in higher education embraces vital materialism.

Keywords

Affect Affective choreography Uneasy assemblage Vital materialism Intensities 

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2010). Feminist killjoys (and other wilful subjects). http://sfonline.barnard.edu/polyphonic/print_ahmed.htm. Accessed 10 December 2016.
  2. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bissell, D. (2009). Obdurate pains, transient intensities: Affect and the chronically pained body. Environment and Planning A, 4(41), 911–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, A., Crimmins, G., & Henderson, L. (2017). Reducing the drag: Creating V formations through slow scholarship and story. In S. Riddle, M. K. Harmes, & P. A. Danaher (Eds.), Producing pleasure in the contemporary university. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bolt, B. (2013). Introduction: Toward a ‘new materialism’ through the arts. In E. Barrett & B. Bolt (Eds.), Carnal knowledge: Towards a ‘new materialism’ through the arts. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  6. Bone, B., & Blaise, M. (2015). An uneasy assemblage: Prisoners, animals, asylum-seeking children and posthuman packaging. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Braidotti, R. (2016). Posthuman critical theory. In D. Banerji & M. Paranjape (Eds.), Critical posthumanism and planetary futures. New Delhi: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Charteris, J., Gannon, S., Mayes, E., Nye, A., & Stephenson, L. (2016). The emotional knots of academicity: A collective biography of academic subjectivities and spaces. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charteris, J., Nye, A., & Jones, M. (2018). Feasible Utopias and affective flows in the academy: A mobilisation of hope and optimism. In A. L. Black & S. Garvis (Eds.), Women activating agency in academia: Metaphors, manifestos and memoir. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Clough, P. (2008). The affective turn: Political economy, biomedia and bodies. Theory, Culture & Society, 5, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colebrook, C. (2010). Introduction. In A. Parr (Ed.), The Deleuze dictionary. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, B., & Gannon, S. (2006). Doing collective biography: Investigating the production of subjectivity. New York, NY: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2007). Dialogues II (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dovey, K. (2010). Becoming places: Urbanism/architecture/identity/power. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Easteal, P., Holland, K., & Judd, K. (2015). Enduring themes and silences in media portrayals of violence against women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 48, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, C. (2016, August 18) The epidemic of rape culture in schools can no longer be ignored. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/the-epidemic-of-rape-culture-in-schools-can-no-longer-be-ignored-20160817-gquv53.html. Accessed 18 August 2016.
  19. Gale, K. (2016). Theorizing as practice: Engaging the posthuman as method of inquiry and pedagogic practice within contemporary higher education. In C. A. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble. London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hemmings, C. (2005). Invoking affect: Cultural theory and the ontological turn. Cultural Studies, 19(5), 548–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Honan, E., Henderson, L., & Loch, S. (2015). Producing moments of pleasure within the confines of an academic quantified self. Creative Approaches to Research, 8(3), 44–62.Google Scholar
  23. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manning, E. (2013). Always more than one: Individuation’s dance. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Massumi, B. (1995). The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique, 31, 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayes, E. (2017). Reconceptualizing the presence of students on school governance councils: The a/effects of spatial positioning. Policy Futures in Education, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317739468.
  28. McKnight, L. (2016). The deep end: Pedagogy, poetry and the public pool. www.publicpedagogies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/McKnightL.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2018.
  29. Mulcahy, D. (2012). Affective assemblages: Body matters in the pedagogic practices of contemporary school classrooms. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2018). Weinstein, sexual predation, and ‘rape culture’: Public pedagogies and hashtag internet activism. Education Philosophy and Theory, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1427850.
  31. Phipps, A., Ringrose, J., Renold, E., & Jackson, C. (2017). Rape culture, lad culture and everyday sexism: Researching, conceptualizing and politicizing new mediations of gender and sexual violence. Journal of Gender Studies, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2016.1266792.
  32. Probyn, E. (2004). Teaching bodies: Affects in the classroom. Body & Society, 10(4), 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaviro, S. (2010). Post-cinematic affect. Washington, DC: Zero Books.Google Scholar
  34. Springgay, S. (2014). Approximate-rigorous-abstractions: Propositions for posthumanist activation in educational research. In N. Snaza & J. A. Weaver (Eds.), Posthumanism and educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. St. Pierre, E. (2016a). Deleuze and Guattari’s language for new empirical inquiry. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(11), 1080–1089.Google Scholar
  36. St. Pierre, E. (2016b). Rethinking the empirical in the Posthuman. In C. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, C. A. (2016). Close encounters of a critical kind: A diffractive musing in/between new material feminism and object-oriented ontology. Cultural Studies-Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, A., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2015). Learning with children, ants, and worms in the anthropocene: Towards a common world pedagogy of multispecies vulnerability. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(4), 507–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thrift, N. (2004). Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect. Special Issue: The political challenge of relational space. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 86(1), 57–78.Google Scholar
  40. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Tilly, C., & Hoad, N. (2017). Interactive digital storytelling team. Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC). http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/ssm-same-sex-marriage-respectful-debate-ugly-side/8996500. Accessed 26 October 2017.
  42. Tran, M. (2006, October 26). Australian Muslim leader compares women to uncovered meat. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/australia.marktran. Accessed 20 September 2017.
  43. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. (2014). Unbecoming claims: Pedagogies of refusal in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 811–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. University of New South Wales Gendered Violence Research Network. (2017). Gendered violence & work. What is gendered violence. https://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/research/gendered-violence-research-network/gendered-violence-work/. Accessed 10 September 2017.
  45. Wolf, M. (2017). Affective schoolgirl assemblages making school spaces of non/belonging: Emotion. Space and Society, 25, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Youdell, D., & Armstrong, F. (2011). A politics beyond subjects: The affective choreographies and smooth spaces of schooling. Emotion, Space and Society, 4(3), 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zillman, C. (2017, October 16). ‘Me too’: How Alyssa Milano’s two-word protest against sexual harassment went viral. Fortune. http://fortune.com/2017/10/16/me-too-facebook-alyssa-milano/. Accessed 18 October 2017.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations