Advertisement

The Politics of Evil

  • Cathryn van KesselEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Educational Futures book series (PSEF)

Abstract

The politics of evil refers to an invocation of evil in political rhetoric against a person or group that, intentionally or otherwise, stifles democratic debate, and can promote hate speech such as George W. Bush’s reference to the “Axis of Evil.” Labelling a group as evil taps into powerful imagery from religion, popular media, and other cultural sources. Drawing from a qualitative study with Grade 11 students and the concept of order-words from Deleuze and Guattari, this chapter examines the power the label of evil has in the context of the study of historical and contemporary events.

References

  1. Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods. Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 321–334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.642845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, K. J. (2015). Modern misogyny: Anti-feminism in a post-feminist era. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous. (n.d.). Why are Muslims so evil? Yahoo Answers. Retrieved from https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120309021220AAH26DR.
  4. Arendt, H. (2006). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. New York, NY: Penguin. (Original work published in 1963)Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, R. (2007). Doing focus groups. London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belt, A., & Belt, P. (2017). Teachers’ differing perceptions of classroom disturbances. Educational Research, 59, 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  8. Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. J. (2010). Relationality and the myth of objectivity in research involving human participants. In J. Higgs, N. Cherry, R. Macklin, & R. Ajjawi (Eds.), Researching practice: A discourse on qualitative methodologies (pp. 105–121). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  9. Britzman, D. P. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 442–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  11. Bryant, L. R. (2011, February 20). Two types of assemblages. Larval Subjects. Retrieved from https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/two-types-of-assemblages/.
  12. Bush, G. W. (2002, January 29). State of the union address. Presidential speeches archive. Charlottesville, VA: Miller Center. Retrieved from https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-29-2002-state-union-address.
  13. Carlson, D. (1985). The cold war in the curriculum. Educational Leadership, 42, 57–60.Google Scholar
  14. Collier-Reed, B. I., Ingerman, Å., & Berglund, A. (2009). Reflections on trustworthiness in phenomenographic research: Recognizing purpose, context and change in the process of research. Education as Change, 13, 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2008). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). London, UK: Continuum. (Original work published in 1980)Google Scholar
  16. Ellefsen, L. (2016). An investigation into perceptions of Facebook use in higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 5, 160–172.  https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n1p160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fabello, M. (2013, May 20). Thin privilege [Video web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPETV_Jw1XU.
  18. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2013). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.Google Scholar
  19. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hester, M. (1992). Lewd women and wicked witches: A study in the dynamics of male domination. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hitler, A. (2001). Mein Kampf. (R. Manheim, Trans.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published in 1925)Google Scholar
  22. Kettunen, J., & Tynjälä, P. (2017). Applying phenomenography in guidance and counselling research. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2017.1285006. (Advance online publication).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lachman, S. J., & Bass, A. R. (1985). A direct study of the halo effect. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 119(6), 535–540.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1985.10542924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lang, J. C. (2011). Epistemologies of situated knowledges: “Troubling” knowledge in philosophy of education. Educational Theory, 61, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsson, J., & Holmström, I. (2007). Phenomenographic or phenomenological analysis: Does it matter? Examples from a study on anaesthesiologists’ work. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 2, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York, NY: Guildford.Google Scholar
  27. Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Löfström, J. (2014). How Finnish upper secondary students conceive transgenerational responsibility and historical reparations: Implications for the history curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(4), 515–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Löfström, E., Nevgi, A., Wegner, E., & Karm, M. (2015). Images in research on teaching and learning in higher education. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 1, pp. 191–212). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.  https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220150000001009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 28–49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42589189.
  32. Marton, F. (2015). Necessary conditions of learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Marton, F., & Pong, W. Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 335–348.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500284706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ndalianis, A. (2012). The horror sensorium. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Peck, C. (2010). “It’s not like [I’m] Chinese and Canadian. I am in between”: Ethnicity and students’ conceptions of historical significance. Theory and Research in Social Education, 38, 574–617.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peck, C., Sears, A., & Donaldson, S. (2008). Unreached and unreasonable: Curriculum standards and children’s understanding of ethnic diversity in Canada. Curriculum Inquiry, 38, 63–92.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2007.00398.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pitt, A., & Britzman, D. P. (2003). Speculations on qualities of difficult knowledge in teaching and learning: An experiment in psychoanalytic research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 755–776.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390310001632135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simpson, D. P. (1968). Cassell’s Latin dictionary. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Spielberg, S. (Director). (1975). Jaws [Motion picture]. Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures.Google Scholar
  41. Stanley, T. (1999). A letter to my children: Historical memory and the silences of childhood. In J. P. Robertson (Ed.), Teaching for a tolerant world, Grades K-6: Essays and resources (pp. 34–44). Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  42. Stewart, D., & Shamdasani, P. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Thacker, E. (2011). In the dust of this planet. Washington, DC: Zero.Google Scholar
  44. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Kessel, C., & Crowley, R. M. (2017). Villainification and evil in social studies education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 45, 427–455.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1285734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wood, K., Jaidin, H., Jawawi, R., Perera, J. S. H. Q., Salleh, S., Shahrill, M., & Sithamparam, S. (2017). How and what teachers learn from collaborative professional development. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 6, 151–168.  https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlls-09-2016-0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Youngblood Jackson, A. (2013). Posthumanist data analysis of mangling practices. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 741–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations