Notes
on: Zembylas M and McGlynne, C. (2012)
'Discomforting
pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical
dilemmas and transformative
possibilities'.British Educational Research Journal
38 (1): 41-59.
Dave
Harris
A
discomforting pedagogical activity designed to
teach
students about social injustice, 'an adaptation
of the classic "Blue-Eyed,
Brown-Eyed" exercise', was tried out in an
integrated school in Northern
Ireland with 10 and 11 year old students.An ethnographic study offers an
evaluation showing mixed results, and
some risks.
There is a
common assumption that social injustices are
taught meaningfully by engaging students
emotionally, as in Boler's [and
Zembylas's] pedagogy of discomfort.Participants move outside their comfort
zones and this helps them
challenge dominant beliefs habits and practices
that sustains social
inequalities.But how effective are
discomforting pedagogies? How should teachers
deal with discomforting
emotions?One
issue concerns the
difficulties of establishing boundaries to limit
the discomfort and pursue the
implications.The case study of a
Northern Ireland school is contexted, page 42,
showing the importance of the
history of recent conflict as likely to produce
particular dilemmas.The
study focuses on the emotional experience
of students and teachers, how teachers operated
with a pedagogy of discomfort,
and how the children responded.
As
background, we can see emotions as involved in
relations
of power, and is crucial in forming social
norms.Emotional
expressions and conduct are
themselves normative.Disrupting
the
norms will change the emotions associated with
them and question
attachments.A particular interest is in
being able to reflect on 'norms and practices
that sustain
inequities'(43).Encountering injustice
usually evokes emotions such as 'anger, outrage
or sadness', but it would be a
mistake to identify [the perception or
definition of] injustice with these
emotions. For
example, compassionate
feelings for children who are treated unjustly
'do not guarantee activism to
transform the structures of oppression'.Nevertheless, emotion is a significant
component in justifying
oppressive structures.We
need to
understand how emotions are reproduced and
connected to values and beliefs:
exploring injustice is a good way to do this.However, an appropriate pedagogy needs to
be thought out, together with
its risks.
Nevertheless,
there is a 'pivotal role of emotions and
disrupting
hegemonic perceptions and feelings', and if
teaching is to challenge these
feelings, it must involve some discomfort.Felman, who teaches about the holocaust,
says that teaching should
produce emotional volatility, even a crisis in
students, although without
driving them crazy.But is
this
ethically responsible?Can
the topic be
taught without discomfort?However,
in
principle, Boler and Zembylas (2003) argue,
there are no safe places in
classrooms, since they are always the subject of
power and privilege.Conversely,
it should always be possible to
create 'some sort of safety in the classroom',
(44) even when deliberately
discomforting, and this is necessary to engage
in critical enquiry of students'
own beliefs.
A pedagogy
of discomfort might be necessary to deconstruct
conventional ways of thinking and feeling.This in turn will help educators 'begin
to identify the unconscious
privileges as well as the invisible ways in
which they comply with dominant ideology'.However,
this might not always be the
consequence, and some privileged students might
be able to rationalise or
develop a sentimental reaction, or even
reinforce their own identity, or just
get depressed and overwhelmed [citing Wang
2005].Sometimes,
apathy can be pierced, and transformation
catalysed.However, each pedagogy of
discomfort 'is singular and unique' (45), and
context is crucial: effects can
not be known in advance.
The case
study is then described.It is
a liberal mixed school, committed to
ending sectarian and racist prejudice.Classroom activities often challenge
these head on.The surrounding community is not divided
by
religion or social class.There
is a
high proportion of SEN children, one of the
school's specialities.There
is an emphasis on 'child focused practice'(46),
listening to children's needs, representing
their views on a junior board of
governors, and prioritising children's interests
in development.The teacher had chosen for the study had
used
discomforting pedagogy already, and was
mentioned as being particularly willing
to tackle difficult issues.He was
known
to the researcher (McGlynn) and there was a good
level of communication and
trust. Zembylas acted more as a critical
outsider.
The
intention was to look at the ways in which
students reflected
on 'their discomforting emotions' and how the
teacher managed his 'emotional
investment in relation to his pedagogical goal';
how ethical and practical
dimensions of discomfort was managed; how the
pedagogical approached was
justified to challenge sectarian prejudice.Qualitative ethnography was pursued.McGlynn had worked with the school
already.There
was the usual ethical permissions [with
a rather vague description of what the team were
doing, 47].The team interviewed, observed the
classroom
or over a week, and collected documents, four
student focus groups were also
organized, one immediately after, then five
months later.Everything was tape recorded and
transcribed.Questions focused on
feelings and aspirations related to this
particular exercise.The
teacher was asked frequently to describe
the emotions he was experiencing and how these
might be connected to student
emotions.Zembylas
helped to code the
responses.
The
pedagogical exercise followed on from reading The boy in
the striped pyjamas.Children
were allocated groups according to
how they chose a playing card, and in the
teacher rewarded 'good' ones and
punished 'bad' ones [excluded them from freely
chosen activities].The
teacher chose in particular some well
behaved children who seemed able to cope and
play along, and put them in the
bad group.He hoped that children would
rebel against injustice and report him, or ask
to leave the classroom.Observations
fill out the details, 48.[It
seems that the majority good children are
the only ones who are supposed not to know what
is going on—the bad group is
simply taken out of the classroom and not
allowedfree
activity].After a while, the teacher confesses that
his
actions are random, and later, that it is false,
and connected to the book they
have been reading.Then they have a
'full and interactive discussion'.The
teacher checks that the children are not too
upset, asks them how they felt
['anxiety, fear, shock, confusion and anger',
but it is not clear whether this
is from the activity or from reading the book,
49] and affirms their
feelings.They
wind up with 'an extended
circle time'.
'Evident
anxiety' was observed as the children turn their
cards over.As the bad group were
excluded, one kid was particularly 'outraged'
and protested out loud.Others
resisted the challenge.It is
possible that these reactions were
induced by the presence of the researcher.Most children told the protester to shut
up and put up with it, and most
ignored the bad group.Teacher
confessing
it was a random choice produced more shock, and
more protest about it being not
fair, although some girls attempted to justify
the teacher's action.Revealing
the purpose of the whole thing
produced relief, and some 'heated debate' about
who was right and who had seen
through it already.
In the
circle time, some of the good group showed
behaviour
which implied 'perhaps,
some degree of
satisfaction at classmates discomfort' (50).Only two felt guilty.There
was
recognition that children would require courage
to challenge the teacher.One
did not want to get the teacher into
trouble, especially if the researcher was
writing it down.However, this 'may also be a convenient
excuse for not challenging the teacher's
action'.Some
of the stooges were disappointed that no
one had supported them.Fear
of teacher’s
reaction if anyone had questioned him persisted
in the focus groups, although
some realized that they should stand up for
their friends.They did seem to see a connection between
the
activity and the book, 'and hence met the
teacher's objective regarding
injustice'.[allegedly direct speech is
recorded, 50].
Follow-up
interviews after five months with focus groups
of
mixed good and bad children explored any
long-term implications.All
the children remembered the lesson, and
described 'a much wider range of emotions than
they did five months earlier'
(51), probably because they had been able to
'narrativise' their emotions
better after a lapse.Some
children were
confused about why the others were put into a
bad group.Not all the bad group do seem to have
been
wised up, and some were scared.More
expressed feelings of guilt, including gilts
that others had been selected for
the bad group.The good group 'reported
a deep empathy' for the bad group, and imagined
their feelings of fear or
confusion.Both groups were afraid of
the teacher shouting at them, including the bad
group who were really worried
about punishment.Two good group
children said it was a memorable and different
lesson: others were less sure
and had to be encouraged to comment.Some good group children were 'more
confident in expressing feelings of
discomfort' about the pedagogy, and only one
disliked it because of an adverse
personal reaction—she was a relatively isolated
child anyway.Three children said they now have learned
to
stick up for their friends.Some
in the
good group felt proud that they had been
considered 'mature enough to cope'.
The
teacher had warned that the lesson might be
controversial, but felt justified.He
saw discomfort as a deliberate strategy and said
it helped to create the sense
of moral justice: the researcher adds it can
provide concrete insights about
what it is like to be a victim.Controlled discomfort was to challenge
and provide the possibility of
alternatives.It was necessary to
actually experience some degree of injustice 'in
order to fully empathise with
those who are subject to it' (53).He
claimed some former pupils had to challenge
sectarianism in their secondary
school.No
one had ever actually
reported him, however, although he thought that
long-term consequences might be
more important.He had planned to
minimise 'serious upset', by selecting the bad
group carefully, for example: they
were rapidly informed that the activity was
fake, but they might have suffered
for a couple of minutes.However,
the
risks were outweighed by the 'potential
learning'(54): knowing the children was
crucial, as were subsequent activities to let
them express their feelings.The
teacher recognised that less reasonable
comments might have been made outside the
classroom.
Overall,
the pedagogical exercise had different
impacts.Emotional
reactions were better
developed after a lapse of time.There
were several risks, including those produced by
the differences between teacher
and students.A variety of emotions were
indeed expressed.Except in one case,
although students thought that the activity was
valuable.However,
discomforting pedagogy might have
different results in different circumstances.Safety nets might be inadequate—for
example, some of the children
researched were still showing discomfort after a
period of several months.Further,
'it is not always clear that all the
students are engaged in meaning for learning
about social injustice'(55) —for
example, the differential power between teacher
and student subdued the
reactions.However, one student did take
the risk of disagreeing with his teacher, and
students were still thinking
about injustice even after five months.
So is this
an appropriate level of discomfort?How
can excesses be avoided?Were
the safety nets in this case
adequate?It
seems that we must always
have 'mechanisms to debrief children' (56) in
particular.Pedagogical effectiveness is also
unclear.Some
children only got the
purpose of the lesson following discussion with
peers.Some
children showed only 'passive
empathy…[which]
…runs
the risk of ignoring active
responsibility to one another or taking action
to reduce injustice'.The
children might well end up simply 'in
"the no win trap of guilt vs. innocence"'[citing
Boler 1999], with no
positive results for themselves or for others.The positive results after a lapse of
time might simply reflect the ability
to narrativise emotions.Time
lapses can
both heighten and reduce emotional intensity.'Retrospective reflection in itself may
generate passive empathy and
runs the risk of embellishment'. Teachers have
to encourage active empathy
instead: discomfort can have an initial effect
of breaking with accustomed ways
of thinking and feeling.
Anyone
using discomforting pedagogy needs to be clear
about
the ethical and pedagogical responsibilities.Teachers require 'an ethic of empathy and
caring', and to provide a safe
space.Students
may confront each other
in very different ways, and they need to be
supported if they are trying 'to
gain greater clarity about their emotional
investment and increase their
ability to account for their values and their
effects on others' (56-57).Student-teacher
relationships are
complicated, and not all teachers can do it.
The
context of this particular case study makes it
particularly valuable, and there is a clear
awareness of the need to manage
conflict.In
this case, the teacher,
children, parents and the school community in
general seem able to 'determine
the levels of acceptability and appropriateness
of such a pedagogy' (57).The
real issue is how [to create such a
context and] to enable teachers and students to
demand justice and managing any
possible discomfort that might be required.
The useful
references include:
Boler, M.(1999)
Feeling power: emotions and education.New York: Routledge