Advertisement

Thinking Bodies: Practice Theory, Deleuze, and Professional Education

  • Bill GreenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 11)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Professional Education Professional Practice Reading Pedagogy Practice Theory Commonsense View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Dianne Mulcahy, Jennifer Sumsion, Anne Kinsella and Jo-Anne Reid for their helpful feedback on draft versions of this chapter.

References

  1. 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
  2. Buchanan, I. (1997). The problem of the body in Deluze and Guattari, or, what can a body do? Body and Society, 3(3), 73–91. doi: 10.1177/1357034X97003003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Colebrook, C. (2000). From radical representations to corporeal becomings: The feminist philosophy of Lloyd, Grosz and Gatens. Hypatia, 125(2), 76–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2000.tb00315.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cutler, A., & MacKenzie, I. (2011). Bodies of learning. In L. Guillaume & J. Hughes (Eds.), Deleuze and the body (pp. 53–72). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2009). What is philosophy? London/New York: Verso (Orig. pub. 1994.)Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289. doi: 10.1080/13540600902875340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Towards a corporeal feminism. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Grumet, M. R. (1988). Bodyreading. In Bitter Milk: Women and Teaching (pp. 129–149). Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hermansen, H., & Nerland, M. (2013). Reworking practice through an AfL project: An analysis of teachers’ collaborative engagement with new assessment guidelines. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 187–206. doi: 10.1002/berj.3037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hughes, J. (2011). Pity the meat? Deleuze and the body. In L. Guillaume & J. Hughes (Eds.), Deleuze and the body (pp. 1–6). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables of the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meek, M. (1982). Learning to read. London: The Bodley Head.Google Scholar
  22. Moffett, J. (1991). Teaching literacy. In Coming on center: English education in evolution (pp. 39–60). Montclair: Boynton/Cook Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Piper, H., & Stronach, I. (2008). Don’t touch! The educational story of a panic. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. 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/
  25. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. doi: 10.1177/13684310222225432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reckwitz, A. (2012). Affective spaces: A praxeological outlook. Rethinking History, 16(2), 241–258. doi: 10.1080/13642529.2012.681193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. Roy, K. (2005). On sense and nonsense: Looking beyond the literacy wars. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(1), 99–111. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-8249.2005.00422.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Sellar, S., & Gale, T. (2009). Pedagogies of critique: Struggling with what and how to think. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17(1), 103–114. doi: 10.1080/14681360902742936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sellers, M. (2013). Young children becoming curriculum: Deleuze, te whariki and curricular understandings. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Semetsky, I. (2013). Learning with bodymind: Constructing the cartographies of the unthought. In D. Masny (Ed.), Cartographies of becoming in education: A Deleuze-Guattari perspective (pp. 77–91). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, D. W. (2012). On the nature of concepts. Parallax, 18(1), 62–73. doi: 10.1080/13534645.2012.632976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Thrift, N. (2006). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Vick, M. (2000). What does a teacher look like? Paedagogica Historica, 36(1), 247–263. doi: 10.1080/0030923000360112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vick, M. J., & Martinez, C. (2011). Teachers and teaching: Subjectivity, performativity and the body. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(2), 178–192. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00552.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watkins, M. (2009). Discipline and learn: Bodies, pedagogy and writing. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Teacher EducationCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations