Media Education as Counter-Conduct: Developing Dialogic Practices and Analyzing Change in Subjectivities

  • Kiran Vinod Bhatia
  • Manisha Pathak-Shelat


In this chapter, dialogic practices of engagement are identified as a technology of counter-conduct because they are rooted in democratic strategies of participation and preserve the autonomy of all the stakeholders participating in the process. These practices are deployed to enable students to acknowledge why and how their subjective identities influence their classroom participation and their attitude toward the “religious other.” As a result, students experience alternate subjectivities and often require a platform to enact/act out their newly acquired identities. In this chapter, we demonstrate how theater can be appropriated for creating a new reality and a new set of experiences in and through a story to subvert particular forms of action. We demonstrate how as children enact the role of the “other,” the dominant rationality is disturbed, their subjectification is challenged, and they are encouraged to study the coalition of multiple contexts in which the performance was conceived and enacted.


Technology of counter-conduct Dialogic practices Deconstructive reading Semantic networks Theater Alternate identities 


  1. Alexy, R., & Rivers, J. (1990). A theory of constitutional rights. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1978). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Blühdorn, I. (2006). Self-experience in the theme park of radical action? Social movements and political articulation in the late-modern condition. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group.Google Scholar
  6. Bourne, J. (2003). Vertical discourse: The role of the teacher in the transmission and acquisition of decontextualized language. European Education Research Journal, 2(4), 496–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. boyd, H. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur foundation series on digital learning—Youth, identity and digital media volume (pp. 119–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(3), 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casquete, J. (2006). The power of demonstration. Social Movement Studies, 5(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dery, M. (1993). Culture jamming: Hacking, slashing and sniping in the empire of signs (Vol. 25). Westfield: Open Magazine Pamphlet Series.Google Scholar
  11. Drotner, K. (2008). Leisure is hard work: Digital practices and future competencies. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity and digital media (pp. 167–184). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New Delhi: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Garlough, C. (2008). On the political uses of folklore: Performance and grassroots feminist activism in India. The Journal of American Folklore, 121(480), 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gee, J. (2003). What video game have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giroux, H. (1987). Critical literacy and student experience: Donald Graves’ approach to literacy. Language Arts, 64(2), 175–181.Google Scholar
  17. Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. New York: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  18. Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Henderson, L. (2009, March). Let’s all be neighbours on Will Wright Street. Walrus Magazine, 56–58.Google Scholar
  20. Howard, R. (2005). A theory of vernacular rhetoric: The case of the “Sinner’s Prayer” online. Folklore, 116(2), 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins, H., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., & Zimmerman, A. (2016). By any media necessary: The new youth activism. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kanpol, B. (1992). Postmodernism in education revisited: Similarities within differences and the democratic imaginary. Educational Theory, 42(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2008). The global corporate curriculum and the young cyberflaneur as global citizen. In N. Dolby & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Youth moves: Identities and education in global perspective (pp. 17–32). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linell, P. (2003). What is dialogism? Aspects and elements of a dialogical approach to language, communication and cognition. Retrieved 31 December 2017 from
  29. Littleton, K., Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., Rowe, D., & Sams, C. (2005). Talking and thinking together at key stage 1. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 25(2), 67–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mason, B. (1992). Street theatre and other outdoor performance. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Meikle, G. (2007). Stop signs: An introduction to culture jamming. In K. Coyer, T. Dowmunt, & A. Fountain (Eds.), The alternative media handbook (pp. 166–179). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The visible and the invisible (C. Lefort, Ed. & A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  35. O’Neill, K. (2004). Transnational protest: States, circuses, and conflicts at the frontline of global politics. International Studies Review, 6(2), 233–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oring, E. (2008). Legendary and the rhetoric of truth. Journal of American Folklore, 121(480), 127–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prentki, T., & Selman, J. (2000). Popular theatre in political culture: Britain and Canada in focus. Bristol: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  38. Rojas-Drummond, S., Fernandez, M., Mazon, N., & Wegerif, R. (2006). Collaborative talk and creativity. Teaching Thinking and Creativity, 1(2), 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. Wold (Ed.), The dialogic alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19–45). Oslo: Scandinavian Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sams, C., Wegerif, R., Dawes, L., & Mercer, N. (2005). Thinking together with ICT and primary mathematics: A continuing professional development pack. London: SMILE Mathematics.Google Scholar
  41. Sawin, P. (2002). Performance at the nexus of gender, power, and desire: Reconsidering Bauman’s verbal art from the perspective of gendered subjectivity as performance. Journal of American Folklore, 115(455), 28–61.Google Scholar
  42. Smyth, J. W. (1987). A rationale for teachers’ critical pedagogy: A handbook. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  43. Srampickal, J. (1990). Voice to the voiceless. New York: St. Martin.Google Scholar
  44. St John, G. (2008). Protestival: Global days of action and carnalivalized politics in the present. Social Movement Studies, 7(2), 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valsamidis, P. (2016). Representing “Us”—Representing “Them”: Visualizing racism in Greek primary school films. In J. Singh, P. Kerr, & E. Hamburger (Eds.), Media and information literacy: Reinforcing human rights, countering radicalization and extremism (pp. 213–222). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  46. Velde, J. (2012). From liminal to liminoid: Eminem’s trickstering. Bergen: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  47. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and teaching: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (2000). Language for thinking. In M. Cowie, D. Aalsvoort, & N. Mercer (Eds.), New perspectives in collaborative learning. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  49. Wegerif, R., Perez Linares, J., Rojas Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Velez, M. (2005). Thinking together in the UK and Mexico: Transfer of an educational innovation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 199–211.Google Scholar
  50. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizens? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kiran Vinod Bhatia
    • 1
  • Manisha Pathak-Shelat
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Journalism and Mass CommunicationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUnited States
  2. 2.MICAAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations