Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Zembylas, Michalinos]On: 1 March 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931192170]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Educational Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713406264

Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas andtransformative possibilitiesMichalinos Zembylasa; Claire McGlynnb

a Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus b Queens University, Belfast, UK

First published on: 14 December 2010

To cite this Article Zembylas, Michalinos and McGlynn, Claire(2010) 'Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions,ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities', British Educational Research Journal,, First published on: 14December 2010 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2010.523779URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.523779

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713406264

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.523779

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

British Educational Research Journal2010, iFirst Article, 1–19

ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/10/000001-19© 2010 British Educational Research AssociationDOI: 10.1080/01411926.2010.523779

Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilitiesMichalinos Zembylasa* and Claire McGlynnbaOpen University of Cyprus, Cyprus; bQueens University, Belfast, UKTaylor and FrancisCBER_A_523779.sgm10.1080/01411926.2010.523779British Education Research Journal0141-1926 (print)/1469-3518 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis0000000002010Assistant Professor [email protected]

This article examines the potential and limitations of pedagogy of discomfort in a classroom of 10-and 11-year-old students of an integrated school in Northern Ireland. At the centre of the analysisare the students’ and the teacher’s emotional experiences and the resulting consequences when adiscomforting pedagogical activity (an adaptation of the classic ‘Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed’ exercise)is implemented to teach students about social injustice. The theoretical framework that informs thisinvestigation is grounded in the notion of ‘pedagogy of discomfort’. A qualitative, ethnographic per-spective forms the basis for the data collection and analysis. The findings show that the pedagogicalexercise does not have the same impact on all participants, yet it contains several risks, most notablythose of differential power and privilege between teacher and students and the ethical implicationsof putting some children (even temporarily) in a disadvantaged place. The implications are dis-cussed in terms of teaching and learning through discomfort.

Educators often assume that social injustices can be made meaningful to studentsthrough pedagogical activities that engage them emotionally (Boler, 1999; Berlak,2004; Zembylas, 2008a). In fact, it has been argued that a pedagogy of discomfort (Boler,1999; Zembylas & Boler, 2002; Boler & Zembylas, 2003) can be intentionally adoptedto enhance the learning experience of students who struggle to understand social injus-tices. A pedagogy of discomfort, as an educational approach, emphasises the need foreducators and students alike to move outside their ‘comfort zones’. Pedagogically, thisapproach assumes that discomforting emotions play a constitutive role in challengingdominant beliefs, social habits and normative practices that sustain social inequitiesand in creating possibilities for individual and social transformation.

But, how appropriate is it to engage students in pedagogical activities that creatediscomforting situations? Are these discomforting pedagogies really effective in

*Corresponding author. School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Open University of Cyprus, 5Ayiou Antoniou Str., Strovolos 2002, Nicosia, Cyprus. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded By: [Zembylas, Michalinos] At: 06:51 1 March 2011

2 M. Zembylas and C. McGlynn

creating transformative possibilities for students? How can a teacher deal withstudents’ discomforting emotions in ways that are ethically and pedagogically accept-able? The answers to these questions, we will argue, are unavoidably grounded in theethical issue of whether vulnerability and discomfort have any place in the classroom.However, given that it is not always clear where, when, how and if educators canestablish boundaries regarding the nature or amount of discomfort required as wellas its resulting implications, this article examines the potential and limitations of apedagogy of discomfort in a classroom of 10- and 11-year-old students of an inte-grated school in Northern Ireland. Integrated schools in Northern Ireland haveroughly an equal balance of students who come from the two conflicting communities(i.e. Protestants and Catholics) and who are educated together (McGlynn et al.,2004). Only 6% of schools in Northern Ireland are formally integrated (NorthernIreland Council for Integrated Education [NICIE], 2009). Existing research on inte-grated education in Northern Ireland shows that there are numerous (social,emotional, political) challenges for participating students and educators and that arange of pedagogical approaches is implemented (McGlynn, 2009). Therefore, thecontext of an integrated classroom embedded in a society faced with a legacy ofconflict is a pertinent site for the examination of whether a pedagogy of discomfortcan be valuable given attentiveness to ethics and potential vulnerabilities. We high-light and critique the role of a pedagogy of discomfort in terms of safety, risk, comfort,ethics, responsibility and vulnerability—issues that come up in explicit or implicitways, as we examine the interactions of the students and the teacher involved.

At the centre of our analysis are the students’ and the teacher’s emotional experi-ences and the resulting consequences in one classroom in which a discomforting peda-gogical activity is implemented. The following two questions formulate the backboneof this case-study investigation: (1) How does the teacher implement, experience andjustify pedagogy of discomfort in the classroom? (2) How do the children respond topedagogy of discomfort and what are its transformative implications (if any)? We beginwith an overview of the theoretical framework that informs this investigation, includinga brief description of how ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ has been theorised so far and howit guides our research. After describing the educational setting of our study and itsresearch methodology, we present data illustrating the ways our participants experi-ence and reflect on a discomforting pedagogical activity that is conceptually groundedin the classic ‘Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed’ exercise.1 On the basis of this analysis, we endwith a discussion of the possibilities and limitations of pedagogy of discomfort in theclassroom.

Theoretical framework

It has been argued that emotions are involved in relations of power and are crucial tothe formation of social norms (Lupton, 1998; Lutz & Abu-Lughod, 1990). The inter-action of emotions and power within a social context creates social norms ofemotional expression and conduct (Boler, 1999). Disrupting these social normsdemands a change in the emotions associated with these norms (Ahmed, 2004). For


Discomforting pedagogies 3

example, disrupting social inequities requires a re-evaluation of the emotional attach-ment to certain norms and practices that sustain inequities. It is in this sense that it isargued that there are important links between emotion and (in)justice which need tobe taken into consideration in classroom situations (Zembylas, 2008a, b; Zembylas &Chubbuck, 2009).

Simply encountering injustice typically evokes emotion—anger, outrage, sadness—yet the relationship between emotion and justice is far from simple. While feelings ofoutrage and anger may readily be evoked by unjust circumstances, reducing the iden-tification of injustice to the presence of the ‘right’ emotions is deeply problematic(Berlant, 2000). Such a reduction leaves an individual’s determination of right orwrong, justice or injustice, as idiosyncratic, based on the presence or absence of spec-ified feelings. Similarly, if injustice cannot be equated with simply feeling bad, neithercan justice be identified as simply feeling a set of ‘good’ emotions, such as empathyfor those who suffer or a sense of shared human vulnerability (Butler, 2004).Compassionate feelings for children who live in poverty and/or are treated unjustly,for example, do not guarantee activism to transform the structures of oppression thatmay have created the injustice in the first place, nor do they assure action to redressthe inequity.

Though the presence or absence of emotions does not guarantee justice or injus-tice, emotion is still a significant component in the production or prevention ofgreater justice. Deeply entrenched social norms create and sustain the structures thatprivilege or oppress—norms which are attended by significant emotional response.Challenging those social norms means changing our emotional relation to them; thatis, seeing the consequences of these norms as either gain or loss (Ahmed, 2004).Emotion, then, contributes to either the reproduction or transformation of the socialnorms that create injustices. As this is true in the larger society, so any understandingof social justice requires a fundamental recognition of the integral role of emotions inreifying or disrupting injustices.

In general, understanding how emotions are (re)produced enables educators andstudents to see how social justice operates through our emotional connections tocertain values and beliefs. It is such a context that provides a compelling basis for thepedagogical exploration of social (in)justice. Exploring the restrictive and the produc-tive forms of pedagogical engagement with (in)justice offers educators and studentsopportunities to become aware of different modes of emotional connections to valuesand beliefs (Zembylas, 2008a). Given, however, the emotional challenges of teachingabout social justice or learning from exploring injustice, it is appropriate to considerwhat forms of pedagogical engagement are ‘appropriate’ and what risks are involved.

Ellsworth (1989) described vividly the immense emotional challenges of teaching/learning for social justice, emphasising the emotional ambivalence associated withenacting critical pedagogy.2 Any understanding of discomforting pedagogies is thusinextricably linked to analysing the pivotal role of emotions in disrupting hegemonicperceptions and feelings. It has been argued, therefore, that if a major purpose ofteaching is to unsettle taken-for-granted views and emotions, then some discomfortis not only unavoidable but may also be necessary (Berlak, 2004). From her experience



teaching about the Holocaust in the classroom, Felman (1992) concluded that teach-ing should provoke a crisis response in students if the material is emotionally volatile:

If teaching does not hit upon some sort of crisis, if it does not encounter either the vulner-ability or the explosiveness of a (explicit or implicit) critical and unpredictable dimension,it has perhaps not truly taught … I therefore think that my job as a teacher, paradoxical asit may sound, was that of creating in the class the highest state of crisis that it could with-stand, without ‘driving the students crazy,’ without compromising the students’ bounds.(p. 53, original emphasis)

In response to Felman’s comments, Rak (2003) raises questions about whethercreating discomforting emotions is an ethically responsible way to teach. What doesit really mean that students are not driven crazy? Rak suggests that there are otherways to present, teach, and discuss testimonies in the classroom, without necessarilycreating discomfort. On the other hand, Boler and Zembylas (2003) argue thatthere are no safe classroom spaces, if one considers that conditions of power andprivilege always operate in them. Yet, although there are power imbalances, powerdoes not necessarily equate to safety; therefore it is possible to formulate some sortof safety in the classroom, even under discomforting conditions. Whether or notteachers are able to create safety and/or discomforting conditions, it is important toopen up a much needed learning space in the classroom to engage students incritical inquiry regarding their values and beliefs. Whilst we need to create opportu-nities to allow students to engage in critical inquiry, these can still be safe andsupported.

Boler (1999) argues that a ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ is necessary in offering newwindows on the world that teaches teachers and students how to unpack their cher-ished beliefs and ‘comfort zones’3 in order to deconstruct the ways in which they havelearned to see, feel and act (see also Zembylas & Boler, 2002; Boler & Zembylas,2003). Such a pedagogy has as its aim to uncover and question the deeply embeddedemotional dimensions that frame and shape daily habits, routines, and unconsciouscomplicity with hegemony. By closely problematising these emotional habits, it ishoped that teachers and students will begin to identify their unconscious privileges aswell as the invisible ways in which they comply with dominant ideology (Boler &Zembylas, 2003).

However, it needs to be emphasised that this process should not be assumed to bealways already transformative, and beyond question. In other words, there are noguarantees for change in the status quo. Also, concerns about the ethical implicationsof discomforting pedagogies must be foremost on the agenda. That is, are discomfort-ing pedagogies always appropriate and effective? Can discomfort have the oppositeeffect from what educators envision? Many privileged students, argues Wang (2005),resort to rational arguments or sentimental reactions and fail to acknowledge how theirown emotional attachments affect their knowledge and practices, despite the discom-fort that their educators may create for them. Some of these students respond to thediscomfort involved ‘by choosing to reinforce their own identities rather than risk self-transformation, while others feel overwhelmed and depressed by the dark side ofhistory and culture, from which they have been sheltered’ (p. 58). That is to say, not



all students will respond in the same way or benefit from discomforting pedagogies;some may adopt an anti-oppressive attitude, others may resist, and still others mayexperience distress (Kumashiro, 2002).

On the other hand, as students encounter examples of oppression and injustice, theemotions of sorrow and discomfort they experience can pierce apathy and provide thecatalyst needed to act for change (Greene, 1998). Therefore, under some circum-stances, discomforting learning may help teachers and students to engage in newaffective relations with others. Indeed, engaging emotions as part of discomfortingpedagogies can be a catalyst for individual and social transformation (Callahan, 2004;O’Brien & Flynn, 2007). Kumashiro argues that it is important to move into thisdifficult emotional terrain with students:

Not surprisingly, some educators choose not to teach such information or to lead studentsto uncomfortable places … Felman (1995) suggests that learning through crisis is not onlyethical, but also necessary when working against oppression. What is unethical, shesuggests, is leaving students in such harmful repetition. Entering crisis, then, is a requiredand desired part of learning in anti-oppressive ways. (2002, p. 79)

Each pedagogy of discomfort, then, is singular and unique and has to be examinedwithin the social and historical context in which it is implemented. This ambivalencein terms of its value and implications is part of the process, because no pedagogy ofdiscomfort can be known a priori. Thus far, a pedagogy of discomfort has beenpredominantly theorised within the literature on teacher education (Knight-Diop &Oesterreich, 2009). In this article, we want to push these boundaries and explore howa pedagogy of discomfort might manifest in classrooms of children who live in a post-conflict society.

Overview of the educational setting

The integrated classroom discussed in this article was observed a number of times aspart of a larger ethnographic study of two integrated primary schools in NorthernIreland. The school reported in this article is categorised as liberal in its approach(McGlynn, 2008); that is, it backgrounds Catholic or Protestant difference, but it alsodemonstrates a commitment to tackling sectarian or racist prejudice, and so is classi-fied as a liberal/critical school (McGlynn, 2009). Policy and practice in this schoolgenerally reflect this classification, with evidence of learning activities that, whilstseeking common ground between diverse groups, do not shy away from challenginginjustices such as sectarianism and racism head on.

The school is situated outside a small town and has just under 200 children in boththe main primary school (children of 4–11 years) and its pre-school. Demographicallythe pupil population is 40% Catholic, 40% Protestant and 20% other or no religion,with approximately 55% of families representing mixed marriages between Catholicsand Protestants (compared to less that 10% elsewhere in Northern Ireland). Thus,the community in which the school is situated is a more tolerant one compared towhat one would expect in a divided society. There is also a wide socio-economicspread. The school is attended by a high proportion of children with special



educational needs (SEN),4 in particular children on the autistic spectrum, whoseparents have been attracted by the school’s reputation for supporting SEN pupils andits child-centred approach. The latter is evidenced by the child-focused practiceobserved on all visits to the school by Claire; for example, through relationships—theway in which adults listen and respond to children’s needs—through structure—theexistence of a junior board of governors that reports directly to the school governingboard—and through prioritising that places the children’s interests at the centre ofschool development planning.

We chose Mr Johnson (pseudonym), the teacher, as the focus of this article forseveral reasons. First, we knew we wanted to explore discomforting emotions ofteaching about social (in)justice, and Mr Johnson had used such pedagogical activi-ties in the past so he was a good candidate to study. In addition, the school principalhad singled out Mr Johnson for his willingness to tackle difficult issues in the class-room. Whilst she acknowledged that his teaching methods were not always orthodoxand might be seen as controversial, she maintained that his learning objectives wereworthwhile. Second, one of us (Claire) has conducted research in Mr Johnson’sschool for a number of years so a level of communication and trust was establishedthere, producing the level of openness necessary between researcher and participant.Though this relationship could have presented a conflict of interest, the fact that theother researcher (Michalinos) had no relationship with Mr Johnson provided a coun-terbalance to that limitation. While Claire’s relationship with Mr Johnson involvedregular and extended discussions about his pedagogical approach in integratededucation, Michalinos functioned as a critical outsider who entered the processwithout a similar level of closeness.

Research approach

Grounding this exploration in the theoretical framework described earlier allowed usconstantly to keep in mind two important ideas: first, to look for the ways in whichstudents reflected on their discomforting emotions, and to examine the teacher’s ownemotional investments in relation to his pedagogical goal; and second, to pay atten-tion to the ways in which the teacher dealt with the ethical and practical dimensionsof students’ discomforting emotions and how he justified his pedagogical approach tointerrupt sectarian and prejudiced habits in his classroom. To explore these ideas, weused a qualitative, ethnographic perspective (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Denzin,1997) as the basis for the data collection and analysis. One of us (Claire) has beeninvolved in researching integrated schools in Northern Ireland for the past 10 years;the classroom in which we conducted this study was chosen because Claire hadcollaborated with this integrated school for a number of years. This research approachallowed us to examine the multiple aspects of what could be learned from a single casestudy about how discomforting emotions were constituted in a classroom thatattempted to teach about social justice.

The research had ethical permission from Claire’s university and the parents hadsigned a consent form for their children to be observed and interviewed. The informed



consent of the children to participate in classroom observations and focus groupinterviews as part of a larger study of integration practice was obtained before thelesson observation and before each interview. They were informed that Claire waslooking at ‘the things they were doing in school around mixing with and learningabout children from different backgrounds’ and they were told how the researchwould be used. Throughout the study children were encouraged to ask questionsabout the research process and they were familiar with Claire’s presence in the class-room. They were made fully aware that they could retire from the research at any stagewithout consequence. The data collection methods included interviewing, intensiveethnographic observations of Mr Johnson’s classroom over one week, and collectionof documents (curriculum and policy documents, school demographic information,teaching materials and children’s work). Semi-structured interviews were conductedwith Mr Johnson (three times; including interviews before and after the pedagogicalexercise), and four focus groups of students selected by the teacher—one groupimmediately after the exercise and three groups, five months later. Each group hadfour children. The children were informed that the interviews would focus primarilyon the playing card lesson that Claire had observed and how they felt about thatlesson. The children interviewed selected their own pseudonyms and these are usedin presentation of the data.

This article focuses particularly on the participants’ emotional reflections. All inter-views were conducted by Claire and were tape-recorded and transcribed, each inter-view lasting between 45 minutes and one hour. Mr Johnson and his students wereasked questions about a range of issues, including their feelings and aspirations aboutintegrated education in general, but more specifically about their feelings for theparticular pedagogical exercise used in the classroom. The possible bias of the datacollection process was counterbalanced by cross-analysis of the data conducted byMichalinos, who did not participate in the data collection process. Mr Johnsondiscussed specific parts of his classroom activity and how they did or did not meet hispedagogical goals. At numerous points throughout the interview process, he wasasked to describe the emotions he experienced and how those emotions were or werenot connected to how he perceived his students’ emotions.

To ensure validity, we worked separately and collaboratively, using an interpretivemethod of coding (Erickson, 1986) to ascertain confirming and disconfirmingevidence of assertions arising from our data sources. All the texts were examined(independently by both of us) multiple times, looking for evidence of emotionaldiscomfort in students’ reflections on the pedagogical activity. The themes that weredeveloped in both of our analyses were explored in greater depth and were put intobroader categories. The overarching themes and categories began to illustrate vari-ous aspects of the discomforting emotions related to Mr Johnson’s activity. Thisanalysis (guided by our research questions) narrowed down the categories into thefollowing two: students’ discomforting emotions related to Mr Johnson’s activity;and Mr Johnson’s vision and practice of his pedagogy, how he perceived hisstudents’ emotions and what he did about students’ discomfort. These categorieswere used as the basis of the development of our analysis and discussion presented



here. But before discussing these two categories, the pedagogical exercise isdescribed.

The pedagogical exercise

As a primary school teacher Mr Johnson teaches only one class, the 10- and 11-year-olds, who he has taught exclusively for the last 4.5 months. One boy, with severelearning difficulties, is not present during the observed lesson on the pedagogicalexercise, although others with milder special educational needs remain. The class hasrecently been reading The boy in the striped pyjamas, a novel about friendship (andbetrayal) between a German officer’s son and a young Jewish concentration campprisoner. To follow on from this Mr Johnson has planned a pedagogical activity basedon the ‘Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed’ exercise that will discriminate between ‘good’ and‘bad’ children in the class at the turn of a playing card, with the ‘good’ children beingrewarded and the ‘bad’ punished by exclusion from free choice of activity. He hascarefully selected five ‘bad’ children who are in fact well behaved and who he feelswill be able to ‘cope’ with the situation and play along to dupe the other children. MrJohnson’s reported aim is for the children to rebel against the injustice and report himto the principal. He hopes that a child will have the ‘courage’ to ask to leave the class-room and then go directly to the principal, although this has not happened in otheryears.5 As she observes the beginning of the lesson, Claire writes in her journal:

When I enter the classroom the children and teacher have just returned from lunch andare settling into their places. On each child’s desk is a playing card, face downwards so thatthe colour and suite is not visible. The teacher begins by introducing the lesson as a followon from The boy in the striped pyjamas. He tells the class not to touch the cards yet. He tellsthem that ‘if you have a red card, you will have a good afternoon, happy days. The red cardis a reward for being good, you will be able to do whatever you want: PC, art, games, etc.You do not want to get a black card. If you get a black card you do not deserve to get achoice of activity; you have let us down. If you get a black card you will spend the next twohours looking at a wall whilst the others have a good time’. The teacher has been watchingeveryone … He says that the children who receive a black card have let the school downas a result of their behaviour at a recent open night. ‘You do not want to get a black card.You want a red card—you have worked really hard for the school. If you get a red card youare not to talk to anyone with a black card, they don’t deserve it. You will see how teacherdeals with those with black cards …’

‘Lift the card only so you can see it. If you get a black card come up and I will deal withyou outside. Turn the cards—if black go outside’ (there is a central area outside the classthat we can see through a glass wall. This is where the black card children go). The chil-dren look anxious as they turn the cards. I see some that get a red card and put their handsover their mouth. The black card children are now outside the classroom with the teacherand it appears to us through the glass wall that they are being told off.6

Claire has already been told by Mr Johnson that this is the moment, immediately afterthe cards are turned, when he will reveal the purpose of the activity to the black cardchildren and secure their cooperation. The majority of the class, the 16 children whoreceived a red card, are convinced that the black card children are in trouble with the



teacher. The ‘bad’ children return after a few minutes and sit in silence facing the wallat different parts of the classroom. Mr Johnson warns the ‘good’ children not to talkto them as the ‘bad’ ones have let the school down. As requested by the teacher thered card children quickly sort out their choice of activity and proceed with it, althoughthe atmosphere in the room is quiet and subdued. At various intervals Mr Johnsontakes the black card children out of the room again in full view, but not hearing, ofthe rest of the class. After the third time of doing so, he announces that his actionshave nothing to do with some children’s behaviour at a recent open night (as heinitially told the class), but are in fact completely random.

After another cycle of the black card children going out and once again returning(the card lesson lasting nearly one hour in total), Mr Johnson reveals to the wholeclass that the activity is false and connects it to the book they have been reading byindicating that the difference can depend on chance, namely the turn of a card. Thechildren watch a short extract of the film of The boy in the striped pyjamas (the part inwhich the German boy betrays his Jewish friend). After this Mr Johnson initiates a fulland interactive discussion of the activity and its purpose and he asks the children toreport how they felt. He affirms that their feelings (anxiety, fear, shock, confusion andanger) are understandable and checks that the children are not upset. The follow-upactivities, the film extract and discussion take one hour, right up until the bell for endof school. The following day an extended circle time is initiated to explore the chil-dren’s emotional reactions further.

Discomforting emotions of the children

Claire observed evident anxiety as the children turned the cards over and some shockas they saw that they had received a ‘good’ card or a ‘bad’ card, and this was done incomplete silence by a normally lively class. As Mr Johnson immediately took the blackcard children out, George (previously identified to Claire as ‘Asperger’s’7 and withsocial problems in his previous school) was outraged and said very loudly: ‘Thoseguys didn’t do anything’. The other pupils resisted this challenge to the teacher’sauthority: ‘It doesn’t matter. Don’t talk about it’. Claire heard the comment, ‘Don’tcry’ from one girl, although she did not observe anyone crying. Other than lookinginitially shocked, the black card children displayed no signs of distress, rather theyacted most convincingly. It is pertinent to reflect here on the role of the researcher aswithout her presence Mr Johnson could not have picked up all of this feedback.However, it is probable that the children were aware of her and acted somewhatdifferently in her presence. For the most part the children obediently engaged in theiractivities, pausing only when Mr Johnson went out of the room with the black cardchildren. At these points George continued to attempt to persuade others of the injus-tice that was occurring. The other children sided firmly with the teacher: ‘Don’t betalking about it any more’. Thirty minutes into the lesson the red card children wereall (apart from George) busy with their chosen activity, totally ignoring the black cardpupils. When Mr Johnson finally announced that the choice of children was in factrandom there was more shock. George pointed to the inequity of this (‘It’s so unfair!’)



and for the first time other boys agreed (‘Not fair at all!’). A group of four girls, whowere sitting together, suggested a possible justification for the teacher’s actions: ‘It’sbecause people don’t listen to instructions’.

When after one hour Mr Johnson revealed that the activity was a set-up and care-fully explained the purpose of it, there were broad smiles from the black card children.George appeared relieved that he had been correct after all. When Mr Johnson askedthe red card children how they felt when they saw their card, they talked of theirdelight and of their relief. The black card children reported a wider range of feelingson initially seeing their card, including fear, shock, confusion, anger and disappoint-ment. After the teacher affirmed that all of these feelings were understandable, it wasthe end of the school day and the children left amidst heated debate (‘I told you so!’,‘I knew it!’).

The next day Mr Johnson convened an extended circle time to discuss the card activ-ity. When he asked who had ‘loved’ getting a red card half of the class raised their hands,implying, perhaps, some degree of satisfaction at classmate’s discomfort. When theteacher asked who had felt guilty, only two hands were raised. There were further claimsthat the children had wanted to take action but had not done so because of their fear.The power differential was evident, as one pupil (Jonathan) said to the teacher: ‘I don’tthink anyone in this class would have the guts to tell you that you were wrong!’ Jonathanreported that he failed to take a stand as a result of both self-preservation and his loyaltyto the teacher: ‘I thought Claire might be writing it down—I didn’t want me or you[teacher] to get into trouble’. This suggests that the presence of the researcher mayhave impacted on the children’s behaviour, but it may also be a convenient excuse fornot challenging the teacher’s actions. There was disappointment expressed bymembers of the black card group: ‘I thought someone would say something. Georgedid, but I thought someone else would’. Mr Johnson acknowledged the children’s feel-ings as a valid response to the activity: ‘There are loads of emotions here!’

Later that day Claire discussed the activity with a focus group of mixed red andblack card children from Mr Johnson’s class. Once again the prevailing emotionreported was fear of the teacher’s reaction if the children questioned his actions.Claire asked the children what they had learned and their responses indicated theimportance of sticking up for their friends, in spite of their fear. One (Brandon)smiled and recognised that this might be easier said than done: ‘Let me think … Itmight teach us that doing the right thing rather than being scared if you knew defi-nitely what happened to it, but I was just so scared, you know Mr Johnson you don’twant to get on his wrong side!’

The children appeared to be able to make a connection between the card activityand the book that they had been reading, The boy in the striped pyjamas, and hence metthe teacher’s objective regarding injustice. As Sam said:

I think it taught us it’s unfair to like exploit people because of something you can’t help,like it was just luck yesterday that somebody didn’t get a black card and to exclude peoplefrom something that isn’t their fault … It almost seems the same situation because the boyBruno was too scared of Lieutenant Cotler to say that he had given him this food ‘cos heknew he would be sitting or something rather than standing up for his friends.



After a period of five months Claire returned and held further focus group inter-views with two red card groups and one black card group of children to examinewhether there was any long-term emotional implication of this pedagogical exercise.All of the children clearly recalled the lesson and discussed with Claire theiremotional response to it, describing a much wider range of emotions than they didfive months earlier. It is possible that the time lapse enabled the children to ‘narrat-ivise’ their emotions in ways they could not do whilst still caught up in the activityitself. Red card children reported feeling ‘confused’ during the lesson because chil-dren who did not deserve a black card had received one. For the black card childreninitial confusion was also an emotion experienced, as being given a black cardappeared to challenge their conceptions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. This was alsocombined with feeling scared, as two black card boys explained:

Arnold: I felt confused because I didn’t know what I’ve done wrong.Aaron: And I felt as well … you know kind of … you could probably say confused as well.

Scared.

Whilst immediately after the lesson only two children expressed guilt, five monthslater a number of red card children talked of experiencing guilt because they had notstood up for their friends:

Zoe: … I think that I felt pretty guilty as well because … umm … you knew … you arealways with those people and you think well what have they done wrong, youknow? You know, I’ve been around them and they haven’t done anything and youfelt guilty and you were scared …

There was also guilt that the wrong children had been selected for black cards:

Becky: You had this awful feeling in your stomach that maybe … I should be one of thepersons that are in there, not them … but you still didn’t know why they’ve beenpicked and then you had this feeling in your head that I don’t understand howthey’ve been picked.

The red card children reported a deep empathy for those who received black cards,imagining their feelings as fear, confusion, worry and fright. Both the red card and theblack card children were scared of the teacher ‘shouting’ at them and the possibleconsequences if their parents were informed. The black card children, though,reported their initial feelings of worry:

Sam: I really thought I was gonna get it ‘cos he’s quite a good actor, I genuinely thoughtwe are really gonna get it. So like, we’ve really done something …

Aaron: I was really worried and thinking that how … you know … what … I thought hewas gonna … it was a really great punishment.

It appeared that this lesson was particularly memorable because of the emotionalreaction that it evoked. As two red group children mentioned:

Bobby: You know it was the first time we’ve done something like that.Zoe: I’ve never had a lesson like that before, so it was a completely different experience,

but it was quite unusual, but exciting at the same time.



When asked whether it was a good lesson or not, George immediately declared thatit was a ‘really good’ lesson. However, in his focus group he was the one least sure ofthe point of the lesson. Other members of this focus group were less forthcomingabout whether the lesson was ‘good’ or not and required some encouragement toshare their opinions:

Interviewer: If you don’t like it you can say so.Anna: It’s a bit of both because after the lesson you sort of learnt something and then

… but you were sort of like sad because … whenever we were doing somethingfun the rest of our friends couldn’t join in.

In contrast to George, however, Anna and Lia were able to quickly identify that thelesson was worthwhile, that they had learned to stand up for what was right and thatexclusion of certain groups of people was wrong. The second group of red cardchildren was generally more confident in expressing feelings of discomfort regardingthe lesson, despite reporting that it was worthwhile and that they understood the pointof it. Of all of the children Zoe came across as the only one who disliked the lesson:

Zoe: I definitely did not like it because the feelings really did stick into me and I just feltlike … But after the lesson feelings went away but I just still didn’t enjoy the lesson,I really didn’t. But it was a good thing to explore it and I may never do it againbecause I just didn’t like it.

This may be connected to Zoe’s concern to maintain friendships, an issue shereported that she particularly valued, having had to move to several different schools.Despite feelings of discomfort, Matthew, Zoe and Becky all acknowledged havinglearned to stand up for their friends. The black card children also had ambivalent feel-ings regarding the point of the lesson:

Arnold: Well, I didn’t really see the point of it at the time … I was feeling confused whyhe did do it.

Sam: I thought he had a point to make, ‘cos then he talked about the Jews and that wasa good point.

However, they raised no objection to taking part in a similar activity again, althoughSam reported that she would be more suspicious another time. There was alsoevidence of a sense of pride that Mr Johnson had considered the black card childrenmature enough to cope.

The teacher’s vision and practice of his pedagogy

Prior to the red card/black card activity Mr Johnson had warned Claire that the lessonshe would observe may be considered controversial in its methods, although he wasconfident that these methods were justifiable due to the learning that would take placeregarding injustice. The teacher was looking forward to the lesson and recognised therendering of discomfort as a deliberate teaching strategy. Afterwards he reported:

It was designed to make them feel uncomfortable about what had happened in the class-room … were they uncomfortable enough to challenge what was wrong or were they



prepared just to carry on with the activities that they were given? … You want the childrento feel uncomfortable because they know what’s happening is wrong so there’s that senseof moral justice within the classroom.

Such an activity deliberately provides children with concrete insights into what it feelslike to be a victim or a perpetrator of injustice. Mr Johnson defends the use of‘controlled discomfort’ as a pedagogical approach that may allow children to developthe capacity to deal with challenging situations:

Controlled discomfort, taking the kids outside … I suppose taking the kids out of theircomfort zone. Taking them to places where they might not get the opportunity to do … insafe areas and giving them the skills to be able to deal with that … you are making themmaybe think in a different way … And I think that’s why you have to do it with kids at thisage before they transfer on, because what we did is nothing compared to real life and theyare gonna meet that on a daily basis …

The controlled discomfort—that is, the teacher’s informed assessment of the level ofdiscomfort that is appropriate for his class—serves a purpose: to both challenge andto provide the possibility of alternative views. To the teacher discomfort is a necessarystrategy; that is, the children must experience some degree of injustice in order to fullyempathise with those who are subject to it:

I suppose it is because unless they live it, unless they see it in action, an example of it, theycan’t empathise … So when you start talking about people who have nothing it’s not alienconcept any more, they’ve been to a situation where people were made to feel bad becauseit wasn’t their fault. So why should … ‘cos we are going to deal with refugees, why shouldpeople not have human rights, why should, because of the colour of their skin, why shouldthey be discriminated against?

As an example of the application of this learning Mr Johnson pointed to some formerpupils who may have challenged sectarianism in their secondary school. He arguesthat using discomfort in the classroom may lead to children having the confidence tostand up against injustice in real-life situations. Whilst he had taught the card lessonbefore, no child had yet reported the teacher to the principal, an action which hewould consider the ultimate success of the activity. He is conscious, though, that theoutcome of such a teaching activity may not be immediate, with the longer termactions of the children perhaps more important.

Mr Johnson had planned the card activity carefully to minimise the possibility ofserious upset to the children. He stressed how carefully he had selected the five blackcard children for their perceived ability to both cope with the situation and to playalong to dupe the rest of the class:

Some of them had a very high level of maturity … they knew what we are trying to do andwhat I was trying for them to see … ‘cos I spoke to them and said when we do the Boy inthe striped pyjamas these are things that will happen, people will be for no reason whatso-ever apart for being Jewish will be killed. Now to a lesser extent for no reason whatsoeverbecause you get a card you are gonna be taken out of the classroom and treated badly.They had a sense of maturity, they were able to deal with that at the time.

To reduce the level of student discomfort the majority received red cards and theblack card children were immediately removed from the classroom to be informed



that the activity was a fake. However, he recognised that for a couple of minutes therewas an emotional cost for the black card children:

You put them in a really bad place first. The kids that are sent out … they go to a reallybad place first before you can talk to them and tell them it’s a joke. So you are playing anawful lot with the kids emotions that aren’t … maybe not fully developed yet and theirunderstanding of their emotions isn’t fully developed.

Mr Johnson was aware of the risk that some may not have had the capacity to copewith the situation and yet as he weighed up the pros and cons of the activity, the poten-tial learning, combined with his knowledge of the children, appeared to be worth therisk. One strategy that Mr Johnson used constantly throughout the activity was veryclose observation to monitor how the children were coping emotionally. To this endhis knowledge of the children and of their capacity to deal with different situations,amassed over the months that he has been teaching them, was crucially important.

Mr Johnson also stressed the importance of providing an extended circle time forthe children to talk about their feelings after the activity:

I wanted to give them the opportunity to get that out … when they were dealing with thediscomfort they were able to then verbalise their feelings and also get engaged in some way,so they were able to talk it out and understand what they were feeling was wrong but whydidn’t … why didn’t they tackle it then?

Mr Johnson acknowledged that the activity was an emotional experience for thechildren but once again he argued that the results outweigh the discomfort thatprecedes them:

when I do contextualise it, when I do talk about the issues that would be eventuallyinvolved in regards to the Holocaust, for example, that brings them totally on board. Theyknow that what has happened has been for a reason.

However, he also recognised that some feelings that the black card children may havehad about being let down by their friends were more likely to be verbalised in the play-ground than during circle time, where he acknowledged that ‘a lot worse’ thingsmight happen than those that occurred in the controlled climate of the classroom.

Conclusions and implications

At the beginning of this article, we raised three questions: (1) How appropriate is itto engage students in activities that create discomforting situations; (2) How effectiveare discomforting pedagogies in creating transformative possibilities for students; and(3) How can a teacher deal with students’ discomforting emotions in ways that areethically and pedagogically acceptable? These questions have been investigatedthrough a pedagogical activity in a classroom of 10- and 11-year-old students of anintegrated school in Northern Ireland. The red card/black card activity demonstratedthat it was discomforting for students to engage in learning that aimed to teach themabout social injustice. The teacher’s approach was based on the idea that controlleddiscomfort in learning was valuable both at the intellectual and the emotional levels.



As it was shown, the pedagogical exercise did not have the same impact on all partic-ipants; the red card group responded differently from the black card group. Also, fivemonths after the activity the children seemed to report emotional reactions in termsthat were noticeably more heightened than those that they expressed immediatelyafter the exercise, perhaps because they had had the time to reflect on it and comparetheir stories. At the same time, it was clear that the activity contained several risks,most notably those of differential power and privilege between teacher and studentsand the ethical implications of putting some children (even temporarily) in a disad-vantaged place. Mr Johnson felt confident that despite these risks, it was importantfor his students to engage with ‘difficult’ issues. The students reflected on this activ-ity, expressing a variety of emotions including fear, shock, confusion, anger anddisappointment; except in one case, all of the students who were interviewedmentioned that the activity was valuable.

The questions posed are not easy to answer by any means. First, the issue of ‘appro-priateness’ to engage students in discomforting pedagogies depends on a number ofissues such as the students’ age, the ethical implications, the risk evaluation, and thepotential for constructive effects. Although we certainly do not advocate the use ofdiscomforting pedagogies under all circumstances—clearly, not all discomfortingactivities are acceptable or ethical—the ideas of pedagogy of discomfort (Boler, 1999;Boler & Zembylas, 2003) can be helpful in guiding the teacher–student relationshipsand the students’ potential transformation. A basic feature of pedagogy of discomfortis that it pushes students and teachers to move outside of their ‘comfort zones’. Todo so requires commitment, responsibility and compassion from the students and theteacher alike.

It is clear from the data in this study that the children find Mr Johnson’s activityuncomfortable, with effects reported months after. The only ‘safety nets’ provided arediscussion at the end of the activity, an extended circle time on the next day and focusgroups with a researcher. The focus group data suggests that these children’s discom-fort stays with them for months. One might argue that Mr Johnson’s students areoffered an opportunity to critique some of their assumptions about themselves andothers, yet it is not always clear that all the students are engaged in meaningful learn-ing about social injustice. The differential power between Mr Johnson and hisstudents is catalytic in subduing the students’ reactions to authority. Yet, it is remark-able that there is at least one student responding to the risk of disagreeing with MrJohnson; even more impressive is the fact that five months after the controversialactivity, students are still engaged in self-reflection that does not reduce the complex-ities of the struggle against injustice.

Consequently, is Mr Johnson’s pedagogical activity ‘appropriately’ discomforting?As Felman (1992) reminds us, a pedagogical activity is ‘appropriately’ discomfortingif it provokes critical self-reflection ‘without driving the students crazy’ (p. 53). But,what does this really mean in practice? How does a teacher ensure that the studentsare not driven ‘crazy’ given the element of risk involved? One might argue that MrJohnson takes measures to reduce the emotional impact on children. However, arethose enough? Could the teacher ever ensure that the students would not be driven



to highly uncomfortable feelings? Pragmatically speaking, what the teacher can do isprovide a ‘safety net’ to guard children against provoking potentially harmfulemotions, and to make sure that children are not placed in an immensely vulnerableposition; if this happens, however, the teacher has to have in place mechanisms todebrief children from whatever ‘difficult’ emotions they may experience.

Even if a classroom activity is acceptable, though, what is its pedagogical effective-ness? For George, the purpose of the lesson was not clear until it was discussed by hispeers at interview and this reinforces the need for the teacher to ensure that the chil-dren are fully aware of the reason for the discomfort he has engendered. Additionally,several red card children mention feeling guilty or sorry for black card children,engaging in what Boler (1999) terms passive empathy, essentially a benign state ofempathising with the oppressed. But passive empathy runs the risk of ignoring activeresponsibility to one another or taking action to reduce injustice. Therefore, even themost inviting pedagogical activity may simply put students in ‘the no-win trap of“guilt vs. innocence”’ (Boler, 1999, p. 187). The simple identification of some redcard children with black card children and the passive empathy produced through this‘reading’ assures no actual change. In fact, as Boler (1999) notes, passive empathy ‘inand of itself may result in no measurable change or good to others or oneself’ (p. 178).

It is encouraging, of course, that five months after the activity, some students recog-nise their complicity to the injustice that took place in the first place. However, asnoted earlier, it may be that, given the time lapse, the children are able to ‘narrativise’their emotions. Time lapse, as pointed out in some research studies (e.g. see Smithet al., 2004), has a differential impact on emotions and may sometimes heightenrather than reduce emotional intensity. As such, children may tell stories of guilt, fear,confusion and empathy in ways that would have been impossible whilst still caughtup in the event itself. Indeed, this retrospective reflection in itself may generate‘passive empathy’ and runs the risk of embellishment. Consequently, if teachers wantto encourage active empathy, then their efforts have to create spaces that facilitate theways in which students can recognise, address, and act on social injustices. It is in thiscontext that pedagogy of discomfort may create its critical effect, making it more diffi-cult for teachers and students to think, feel and act in accustomed ways (Boler &Zembylas, 2003).

Finally, those who engage in discomforting pedagogies need to clarify for them-selves and the students a number of ethical and pedagogical responsibilities. As seenin the activity analysed here, engaging in a discomforting pedagogy is not withoutcomplications, and the ethics of doing so must be carefully considered by teachers.Prior to the activity, the teachers must be fully aware of the transformative aims of theactivity and how students’ discomforting emotions are to be dealt with in honest andethical ways. An ethic of empathy and caring is necessary to provide a safe place forstudents to examine, challenge, and change their cherished beliefs and assumptions.How teachers and students speak, how they listen, when and how they ‘confront’ oneanother matters a great deal, as Boler (1999) asserts. Students need to know that theyare emotionally and intellectually supported in their efforts to gain greater clarityabout their emotional investments and increase their ability to account for their values



and their effects on others. Also, not all teachers can do this kind of work withchildren; there are complicated power dynamics and relationships that may make theuse of discomforting pedagogies very difficult.

A final note about the post-conflict context of the study: in many ways MrJohnson’s classroom could be anywhere in the world. However, the value of a peda-gogy of discomfort in a classroom composed of members of conflicting groups in asociety faced with the legacy of conflict cannot be overstated. Discomfort in MrJohnson’s classroom happens because issues of safety and vulnerability are notignored—there may be disagreement about the level to which they are considered butthey are considered. Discomforting pedagogy is potentially more challenging as issuesof ‘difference’ are more to the fore (and potentially discomforting in themselves).That is, some of these issues are accentuated in this sort of context. But the teacher’sintervention has to go beyond acknowledgement and embracing those hurt by racismor sectarianism; discomforting pedagogy requires that the students are empowered toconfront such behaviour and do so confidently.

In conclusion, it is true that there might be criticism that discomforting pedagogiesrequire considerable vulnerability, and thus the ethical responsibility of the teacherbecomes a complex issue. We agree but we also emphasise that the teacher, the chil-dren, their parents and the school community in general will determine the levels ofacceptability and appropriateness of such pedagogies. The issue for us is how tocreate public and school pedagogies that enable teachers and students to take respon-sibility and demand justice, without evading the possible discomforting feelings thatmay be required.

Notes

1. The ‘Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed’ exercise was originally conducted in the days following the as-sassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr in 1968 by third-grade teacher Jane Elliot at theRiceville Iowa Elementary School. Eventually, the exercise became famous after a documenta-ry entitled A class divided was filmed by Frontline in the early 1970s. In this pedagogical activity,the students learned about prejudice and discrimination through intensely discomforting emo-tional experiences which brought some to tears. For more information see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/ (accessed on August 10, 2010). Ever since, this popular,yet controversial, pedagogical exercise has raised many discussions about whether it is ethicallyappropriate to engage children in such discomforting activities for the sake of learning (Infinito,2003; Rak, 2003).

2. An example of ‘critical pedagogy’ in the classroom would be to organise learning activities thatexplicitly address and problematise the power inequalities involved in racist or nationalist be-liefs, emotions, and practices in everyday life.

3. The term ‘comfort zone’, as discussed in Boler’s work, implies the emotional space in whichsomebody feels comfortable, without taking any risks or feeling threatened.

4. The SEN figures for the school are 22% on the SEN register compared to 20% of NorthernIreland’s average for 2008–2009.

5. The teacher’s belief that any child would have the courage to leave the class and report him tothe principal might be surprising to some, especially if one is not aware of the culture in thisschool. Although we do agree that it is rather naïve to think that the children would do such athing, it also depends on how the children view the principal and what is expected from them.



In this particular school, there is a culture of pushing for social justice and anti-discrimination;therefore, it is not completely unrealistic that the teacher expects his students could do such athing some day.

6. As noted previously, this pedagogical activity is conceptually grounded in the classic ‘Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed’ exercise. However, there are fundamental differences between the activitystudied here and the ‘Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed’ exercise. Mr Johnson had adapted the activityto reduce any negative impact on the ‘bad’ children, who are quickly positioned by the teach-er as having an important role to play in the lesson. Unlike the classic ‘Blue-Eyed, Brown-Eyed’ exercise, the ‘black-card children’ (i.e. the ‘bad’ ones) know they are not really ‘bad’and by being on the inside of the event they are in some ways empowered through their im-portant role. On the other hand, although brown-eyed and blue-eyed children experience op-pression in turn, none of them know until the very end that the teacher does not really viewthem as ‘bad’. During this time verbal abuse and physical retaliation become part of play-ground life and normally lively children, once wearing the collar, become unconfident andunhappy. One could argue, however, that the black card children in Mr Johnson’s activity en-dured a painful period of time before the activity was explained to them; and the red cardchildren never knew and had to endure the guilt and shame of being the ‘good’ children. Thefact that the cards were arbitrarily handed out also added to the children’s confusion anddisorientation.

7. Our position here is revealed in our use of speech marks; that is, we recognise that such labelsare socially constructed and are always contentious.

References

Ahmed, S. (2004) The cultural politics of emotion (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press).Berlak, A. (2004) Confrontation and pedagogy: cultural secrets and emotion in antioppressive

pedagogies, in: M. Boler (Ed.) Democratic dialogue in education: troubling speech, disturbingsilence (New York, Peter Lang), 123–144.

Berlant, L. (2000) The subject of true feeling: pain, privacy, and politics, in: S. Ahmed, J. Kilby,C. Lury, M. McNeil & B. Skeggs (Eds) Transformations: thinking through feminism (London,Routledge), 33–47.

Boler, M. (1999) Feeling power: emotions and education (New York, Routledge).Boler, M. & Zembylas, M. (2003) Discomforting truths: the emotional terrain of understanding

differences, in: P. Tryfonas (Ed.) Pedagogies of difference: rethinking education for social justice(New York, Routledge), 110–136.

Butler, J. (2004) Precarious life: the powers of mourning and violence (London, Verso).Callahan, J. L. (2004) Breaking the cult of rationality: mindful awareness of emotion in the critical

theory classroom, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 102, 75–83.Denzin, N. K. (1997) Interpretive ethnography: ethnographic practices for the 21st century (Thousand

Oaks, CA, Sage).Ellsworth, E. (1989) Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of

critical pedagogy, Harvard Educational Review, 59, 297–324.Erickson, F. (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching, in: M. C. Wittrock (Ed.)

Handbook of research on teaching (New York, Macmillan), 119–161.Felman, S. (1992) Education and crisis, or, vicissitudes of listening, in: S. Felman & D. Laub (Eds)

Testimony: crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis, and history (London, Routledge),57–75.

Greene, M. (1998) Introduction: Teaching for social justice, in: W. Ayers, J. A. Hunt & T. Quinn(Eds) Teaching for social justice (New York, The New Press), xxvii–xlvi.

Infinito, J. (2003) Jane Elliot meets Foucault: the formation of ethical identities in the classroom,Journal of Moral Education, 32(1), 67–77.



Knight-Diop, M. & Oesterreich, H. (2009) Pedagogical possibilities: engaging cultural rules ofemotion, Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2678–2704.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2002) Against repetition: addressing resistance to anti-oppressive change in thepractices of learning, teaching, supervising, and researching, Harvard Educational Review,72(1), 67–92.

Lupton, D. (1998) The emotional self: a sociocultural exploration (London, Sage).Lutz, C. & Abu-Lughod, L. (Eds) (1990) Language and the politics of emotion (Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press).McGlynn, C. (2008) Leading integrated schools: a study of the multicultural perspectives of

Northern Irish principals, Journal of Peace Education, 5(1), 3–16.McGlynn, C. (2009) Negotiating cultural difference in divided societies: an analysis of approaches

to integrated education in Northern Ireland, in: C. McGlynn, M. Zembylas, Z. Bekerman &T. Gallagher (Eds) Peace education in conflict and post-conflict societies: comparative perspectives(New York, Palgrave Macmillan), 9–26.

McGlynn, C., Niens, U., Cairns, E. & Hewstone, M. (2004) Moving out of conflict: the contributionof integrated schools in Northern Ireland to identity, attitudes, forgiveness and reconciliation,Journal of Peace Education, 1(2), 147–163.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook(Newbury Park, CA, Sage).

Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) (2009) Taking the fear out ofdifference. Available online at: http://www.nicie.org (accessed August 10, 2010).

O’Brien, M. & Flynn, M. (2007) Emotions, inequalities and care in education, in: P. Downes & A.L. Gilligan (Eds) Beyond educational disadvantage (Dublin, IPA), 70–88.

Rak, J. (2003) Do witness: Don’t: A Woman’s Word and trauma as pedagogy, Topia, 10, 53–71.Smith, M., Bibi, U. & Sheard, E. (2004) Evidence for the differential impact of time and emotion

on personal and event memories for September 11, 2001, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(9),1047–1055.

Wang, H. (2005) Aporias, responsibility, and the im/possibility of teaching multicultural educa-tion, Educational Theory, 55, 45–59.

Zembylas, M. (2008a) The politics of trauma in education (New York, Palgrave Macmillan).Zembylas, M. (2008b) Trauma, justice and the politics of emotion: the violence of sentimentality

in education, Discourse, 29(1), 1–17.Zembylas, M. & Boler, M. (2002) On the spirit of patriotism: challenges of a ‘pedagogy of discom-

fort’, Teachers College Record Online. Available online at: http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID = 11007 (accessed 10 August, 2010).

Zembylas, M. & Chubbuck, S. (2009) Emotions and social inequalities: mobilizing emotions forsocial justice education, in: P. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds) Advances in teacher emotionresearch: the impact on teachers’ lives (Dordrecht, Springer), 343–363.


Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities

Documents

Transcript of Discomforting pedagogies: emotional tensions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities