Thinking Bodies: Practice Theory, Deleuze, and Professional Education
This chapter offers a (different) way of thinking about the relationship between bodies and practice in professional education. It explores what it means to think the body in such circumstances, to think about the body, to draw the body into Thought. It begins by reviewing, specifically in the context of addressing the question of the body in professional practice, learning and education, what has come to be called practice theory and philosophy, understood as a loose assemblage of arguments and interests centred on practice as concept and primary organising principle for the social world. Schatzki’s work is an initial reference-point, as a key figure in the contemporary ‘practice turn’ in contemporary theory. Of particular interest here is the manner in which the body is mobilised in Schatzki’s self-described ‘residually humanist’ theory of practice, bearing in mind too his views on language and representation and his own measured, somewhat ambivalent engagement with Deleuze and Guattari. This is followed by a Deleuzian account of practice and the body, taking into account the primary question, ‘What can a body do?’. A final section is addressed specifically to the Early Years classroom, reading pedagogy, and the body-work of teaching.
KeywordsProfessional Education Professional Practice Reading Pedagogy Practice Theory Commonsense View
I want to thank Dianne Mulcahy, Jennifer Sumsion, Anne Kinsella and Jo-Anne Reid for their helpful feedback on draft versions of this chapter.
- Anderson, B., & Harrison, P. (2012). The promise of non-representational theories. In B. Anderson & P. Harrison (Eds.), Taking-place: Non-representational theories and geography (pp. 1–34). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Coffey, J. (2012). Bodies, health and gender: Exploring body work practices with Deleuze (Research Report 34). Melbourne: Youth Research Centre, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2009). What is philosophy? London/New York: Verso (Orig. pub. 1994.)Google Scholar
- Green, B. (2009). The primacy of practice and the problem of representation. In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice (pp. 39–54). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
- Green, B., Cormack, P., & Patterson, A. (2013). Re-reading the reading lesson: Episodes in the history of reading pedagogy. Oxford Review of Education, 39(3), 329–344. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2013.808617.
- Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Towards a corporeal feminism. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Grosz, E. (1999). Thinking the new: Of futures yet unthought. In E. Grosz (Ed.), Becomings: Explorations in time, memory, and futures (pp. 15–28). Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Grumet, M. R. (1988). Bodyreading. In Bitter Milk: Women and Teaching (pp. 129–149). Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
- Kamler, B., Maclean, R., Reid, J. A., & Simpson, A. (1994). Shaping up nicely: The formation of schoolgirls and schoolboys in the first month of school. Report to the Gender Equity and Curriculum Reform Project. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training.Google Scholar
- Luke, A. (1992). The body literate: Discourse and inscription in early literacy training. Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 107–129. doi: 10.1016/0898-5898(92)90021-N.
- MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2013.788755.
- Masny, D. (2012). What is reading? A cartography of reading. In D. Masny & D. R. Cole (Eds.), Mapping multiple literacies: An introduction to Deleuzian literacy studies (pp. 69–92). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
- Meek, M. (1982). Learning to read. London: The Bodley Head.Google Scholar
- Moffett, J. (1991). Teaching literacy. In Coming on center: English education in evolution (pp. 39–60). Montclair: Boynton/Cook Publishers.Google Scholar
- Piper, H., & Stronach, I. (2008). Don’t touch! The educational story of a panic. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Postill, J. (2008). What is practice theory? Extract (2008, October 30) from J. Postill, (2010). Introduction: Theorising media and practice. In B. Bräuchler, & J. Postill (Eds.), Theorising media and practice. Oxford/New York: Berghahn. http://johnpostill.com/2008/10/30/what-is-practice-theory/
- Reid, J. A. (2011). A practice turn for teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 293–310. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2011.614688.
- Schatzki, T. R. (1999). Practiced bodies: Subjects, genders, and minds. In T. R. Schatzki & W. Natter (Eds.), The social and political body (pp. 47–77). New York/London: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
- Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park: The Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
- Schatzki, T. R. (2011). The edge of change: On the emergence, persistence, and dissolution of practices. Paper presented in the Centre for Research in Learning and Change, University of Technology Sydney.Google Scholar
- Sellers, M. (2013). Young children becoming curriculum: Deleuze, te whariki and curricular understandings. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Thrift, N. (1999). Steps to an ecology of place. In J. Allen & D. Massey (Eds.), Human geography today (pp. 295–321). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Thrift, N. (2006). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Watkins, M. (2009). Discipline and learn: Bodies, pedagogy and writing. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar