Ex(er)cising Student Voice in Pedagogy for Decolonizing: Exploring Complexities Through...

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]On: 14 November 2013, At: 05:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Review of Education, Pedagogy, andCultural StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gred20

Ex(er)cising Student Voice in Pedagogyfor Decolonizing: Exploring ComplexitiesThrough DuoethnographyBrooke Madden & Heather E. McGregorPublished online: 13 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Brooke Madden & Heather E. McGregor (2013) Ex(er)cising Student Voice inPedagogy for Decolonizing: Exploring Complexities Through Duoethnography, Review of Education,Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35:5, 371-391, DOI: 10.1080/10714413.2013.842866

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2013.842866

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gred20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10714413.2013.842866

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2013.842866

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Ex(er)cising Student Voice in Pedagogy forDecolonizing: Exploring ComplexitiesThrough Duoethnography

Brooke Madden and Heather E. McGregor

Engaging in pedagogy for decolonizing as a theoretical approach to Indigenous1

education2 with adults raises questions and tensions, particularly whenindividual student experience and structures embedded within colonial relationsof power trouble one another in unpredictable ways. In this article we useduoethnography to explore experiences with pedagogy for decolonizing ina mandatory doctoral course in a Faculty of Education. As a student presenter,Brooke facilitated the pedagogical encounter3 that centered a sharing circlein which Heather participated as a student.4 Together, we explore fourcomplexities that arose through this teaching and learning encounter: (1) studentvoices presenting numerous multifaceted experiences and locations, but withoutnecessarily linking experiences to relations of power in critical ways; (2) thecontext of the learning community, activity, and dynamics between studentserecting perceived constraints on what becomes ‘‘sayable and doable’’ (Orner1992, 81); (3) predicating the activity on a binary (Indigenous=non-Indigenous)that may not adequately account for the identities of all students; and (4)recognizing the possible limitations of pedagogy, as well as accounting for thepossibility of generative learning from those very limitations.

Entering this pedagogical encounter as the facilitator and a participatingstudent, we had shared intentions: to center the distinct positionality of Indigen-ous peoples and Indigenous educational strengths and needs, in ways that were‘‘close to home’’ for participating students. However, from our perspectives,this pedagogical encounter did not facilitate the intended outcomes. Rather thantake refuge in futility, our writing emerges from a desire to focus more closely onhow the voices of graduate students exposed the impossibility of a stable, auton-omous, unified, knowable individual=identity that can be revealed and trans-form(ed) through pedagogy for decolonizing, insofar as it relies on a call forstudent voice. We attempt to think pedagogy for decolonizing as possible, withan awareness of its inevitable limitations. Working toward promoting (more)ethical relations in and through Indigenous education (Donald, Glanfield, and

The Review of Education, Pedagogy,

and Cultural Studies, 35:371–391, 2013

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1071-4413 print=1556-3022 online

DOI: 10.1080/10714413.2013.842866

371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Sternberg 2012), we extend an ongoing conversation about what it might mean toresignify a pedagogy of voice, where subjectivity5 is conceived of as ‘‘a process,perpetually in construction, perpetually contradictory, perpetually open tochange’’ (Belsey 1980, 132).

PEDAGOGY FOR DECOLONIZING AND A CALL FOR STUDENT VOICE

Responding to colonial strategies that have excluded sources of Indigenousknowledge6 from educational institutions, on June 1, 2010 members of theAssociation of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE) signed the Accord onIndigenous Education at Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences (Dwyer2010). This Accord commits deans, directors, and chairs of education within theCanadian university context to transformative educational change through‘‘establishing mechanisms and priorities for increased Indigenous educationalengagement, establishing partnerships with Indigenous organizations and com-munities, and using educational frameworks based on Indigenous knowledge’’(ACDE 2010, 2). In endeavouring toward the goals of the Accord, one approach7

is to draw on a framework for decolonizing, particularly to inform pedagogicalstrategies (e.g., Chinnery 2010; Dion 2007; Iseke-Barnes 2008; Wolf 2012).

The term decolonization can mean many things; it continues to be utilized asa verb and, often problematically, a metaphor across diverse fields of study andfor various purposes (Tuck and Yang 2012). To counter this conflation and thepossibility of misunderstanding, we recognize the need to align our research withspecific theoretical frames within our particular educational context. We under-stand the position of Indigenous peoples as different from other distinct or min-ority populations jockeying for acknowledgement in the inter-, cross-, andmulticultural negotiation that is Canada. Likewise, making space for Indigenousknowledges in educational institutions is more than an equity issue. In as muchas Indigenous peoples have primacy in Canada as First Peoples, responsestoward them from dominant non-Indigenous Canadian society frequently stillreflect a deep and resentful experience of dissonance in facing the ‘‘Other’’ (Ermine2007; Haig-Brown 2009; St. Denis 2011). We engage with and extend Indigenousframeworks for decolonizing research (Smith 1999) and education (Battiste 1998,2005, 2012a) that involve the ‘‘two-prong process’’ (Battiste 2012b) of deconstructingand reconstructing. Deconstruction involves examining colonization and colonialstrategies that continue to be utilized by settlers to exploit, and justify the theftof, Indigenous lands and resources (e.g., government policies such as the IndianAct and treaties; Eurocentric history taught in Canadian schools; research on,and resulting misrepresentations of, Indigenous peoples). Reconstruction centersIndigenous epistemologies and ontologies in working toward localized educationand research priorities as outlined by Indigenous communities.

When attempting to ‘‘think with’’ decolonizing to engage Indigenouseducation within a mandatory doctoral course in a Faculty of Education,Brooke invited the twelve students8 enrolled in the course to participate ina re=stor(y)ing sharing circle.9 Participants were asked to share a personal deco-lonizing story of coming to understand their historical, political, social, and=or

372 B. Madden and H. E. McGregor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

cultural relationships to Indigenous peoples, land, and=or Indigenous education.To support students who were unfamiliar with the oral format, Brooke suggestedthe following guides: (1) prepare a personal introduction that included acknowl-edgement of identity markers that may be important for the group to understandtheir story; (2) set their story in a community (such as the place they consider‘‘home’’) and acknowledge the Indigenous peoples of that place in a manner thatattempts to position the storyteller in relation to Indigenous peoples and terri-tory; and (3) upload a digital artifact to an interactive world map that that wouldassist the storyteller in illustrating the place of their decolonizing moment ora metaphor for decolonization.10 Brooke explained that decolonizing stories ofteninvolve learning from the counter-stories and testimony of Indigenous peoplesthat challenge stereotypical, racist, appropriated, and=or censored (mis)represen-tations. Further, decolonizing stories are often marked by insights into howoppressive systems function, as well as an understanding of Indigenous interestsand methods of resistance and resurgence that challenge colonial relations ofpower.

The goal of the facilitation was twofold. First, it would encourage students toexplore how (neo)colonial systems shape historical and ongoing Indigenous–non-Indigenous relationships, including individual connections to, participationin, and privilege accrued as a result of such systems. Second, it aimed to initiateconsideration of the ways educators and=or doctoral students in education mightreconfigure their biographies with Indigenous peoples to work together to dis-mantle oppressive structures of colonization for Indigenous sovereignty andself-determination. It is important to underline that the medium for nurturingcritical agents who worked toward these goals was the preparation and sharingof a personal decolonizing story, as well as learning from other differently experi-enced students (see Strong-Wilson 2007 for a discussion of the how multiple her-meneutic loops operate consecutively). This call for student voice11 assumesindividuals who are conscious of their social, cultural, and historical positions,and associated emancipatory possibilities,12 as well as capable of challenging col-onial ideological, epistemological, and ontological commitments in various cul-tural processes, including education (Kincheloe 2006; see also Apple 1990;Freire 1970=1993; Giroux and McLaren 1986).

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMINGS: DUOETHNOGRAPHICEXPLORATIONS OF PEDAGOGICAL COMPLEXITIES

Following the pedagogical encounter there was ample evidence, presentedbelow, that the sharing circle ended prematurely and some students (includingHeather) had experienced emotional reactions to the pedagogy for decolonizingthat went unresolved. Our individual and shared consternation regarding thisperceived failure and the possibility that the encounter had done harm to indivi-duals called us to look more deeply into its potentialities, including the intent toexercise student voice. Two central questions directed our inquiry: What are thelimitations, silences, and challenges experienced by facilitators and participants whenpedagogy for decolonizing is taken up in a graduate seminar? And Can facilitators

Exploring Complexities Through Duoethnography 373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

imagine, and therefore prepare to address, the potential risks and vulnerabilities encoun-tered through this approach, particularly when risks are differentially distributed amongparticipants of diverse and intersecting identity locations and experiences? Questionssuch as these are on the minds of instructors taking up the work of incorporatingIndigenous content into higher education, and warrant further scholarly analysisand candid discussion. Although sharing difficult pedagogical moments canproduce vulnerability and risk, we view it as part of a responsibility towarddecolonization in the academy (Kuokkanen 2010).

Our analysis of similar and divergent narratives of the pedagogical encounterthat challenged our constructions of subjectivity, voice, power, and privilege13

has been significantly informed by duoethnography14 (Norris 2008; Norris,Sawyer, and Lund 2012). This methodological approach utilizes written collegialconversations to study how two or more subjects draw on and challenge theirown assumptions and commitments. Writing practices that contributed to thisarticle arose organically and independently, including journaling and e-mailconversations, and later intentionally through a course assignments andcollaborative writing. We took into consideration postings by students in theclass on a public course blog, related to the pedagogical encounter.15 As wedescribed our experiences four complexities for examination came into focusand were revisited frequently with theoretical tools for sense-making. The analy-sis and interpretations we present in this article are significantly shaped byOrner’s (1992) feminist poststructural critique of assumptions that often under-gird critical pedagogies. Orner’s theory offers analytical frames to consider: (1)reliance on a unified, essential self that is knowable and therefore capable ofbeing rationally reflected upon; (2) a call for ‘‘authentic’’ student voice wherevoice is presumed to be singular, unchanging, intelligible, and capable ofrepresentation; (3) dependence on binary oppositions to facilitate studentengagement and structure analysis and=or inquiry; and (4) disregard for the con-textual nature of classroom interaction. Once a draft of the article was complete,we approached the students and professor whose narratives and comments weinclude, both by sharing our text and through in person conversations. Theseinteractions required, and produced, a great deal of sensitivity but they wereabsolutely necessary and formative. The addition of other perspectives servedto illuminate slippage in our writing, further revealing multiple subjectivitiesand new findings. We also benefited from feedback offered by several other col-leagues who were not involved in the pedagogical encounter—and we are grate-ful for the support extended by all of these colleagues.

We offer duoethnographic conversations not as an accurate representation,nor as an attempt at a single text ‘‘where the ‘complete’ life is told’’ (Richardson2001, 36), but rather we recognize that ‘‘what we know about the world and whatwe know about ourselves are always intertwined, partial and historical’’(Richardson 2001, 36). We share accounts of how we have come to interpret theseevents through our partial, subjective, shifting, and often ambiguous lenses, forthe purposes of this work at this time. Our ‘‘specific, local, and historical con-texts’’ (Richardson 2001, 35)—and particularly our communication with eachother—have (re)shaped our memories in quality, content, and selection, and byextension have shaped the accounts we tell. Our writing is also influenced by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

scholarly conventions, the audiences we have in mind, and concern forsensitivity to the people who experienced the events we describe. We know thatothers experienced, and will remember, the events differently.

We shift into separate voices in the following sections, indicated with ournames. This is an attempt to (more) transparently represent our individualexperiences with, and perspectives on, the pedagogical encounter, our individualways of identifying and making sense of the complexities, as well as representingsome of the ways we have encountered each other. We have intentionally fea-tured juxtapositions such as Brooke’s leadership of the facilitation contrastedwith Heather’s reaction to participating; Brooke’s application of poststructuraltheoretical lenses to (re)view the pedagogical encounter contrasted withHeather’s attempts to work within=against a narrative approach to examineexperience; Brooke’s longing to form a new conception of pedagogy contrastedwith Heather’s longing to form a new conception of self and relations betweenselves, following a shared disappointment.

NOT THE SETTLER I HAD IN MIND: ELICITING MULTIFACETED VOICES

Brooke

Orner (1992) contends that critical pedagogies often rely on humanist presupposi-tions of a unified, conscious, and thus knowable, individual. This individualengages in the process of what Freire (1973=2000) calls conscientizacao, ‘‘learningto perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action againstthe oppressive elements of reality’’ (35). It is important to note that while Freire’spedagogy was informed by the liberatory struggles of an oppressed people, heclaims that ‘‘dehumanization . . .marks not only those whose humanity has beenstolen, but also (though in a different way) those who have stolen it’’ (44; see alsoMemmi 1991). Accordingly, critical pedagogy has been extended for use in teachereducation to prepare ‘‘transformative intellectuals’’ (Giroux and McLaren 1986)who may occupy positions of privilege to varying degrees. Transformative intellec-tuals ‘‘attempt to insert teaching and learning directly into the political sphere’’(216) and engage in continually ‘‘reading the world’’ (Freire and Macedo 1987)from their own situated experience, which involves reflection and action—orpraxis—to articulate and work toward emancipatory possibilities.

This assumption is revealed in the e-mail I sent to students regarding prep-aration for the pedagogical encounter I called Re=stor(y)ing Sharing Circle: ‘‘Thisactivity is intended to shift participants from passive observers who are readingabout Indigenous thought in course texts to active witnesses who recognize theways in which their own histories and life stories are connected to those of localIndigenous peoples.’’ In preparing and sharing a personal decolonizing story, Iheld that students would uncover how Eurocentrism obscures the notion thatnon-Indigenous peoples continue to be in multiple relationships with Indigenouspeoples, places, and knowledges on a daily basis (Haig-Brown 2008). Upon learn-ing about the ways (neo)colonial relations of power impose ontological and epis-temological norms and limitations, I anticipated students might first become


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

enraged, then inspired to shed the identity of unaware passive observer tobecome a newly enlightened, decolonizing individual who is in relation to, andactive in supporting, Indigenous peoples and priorities.

In practice, however, students shared stories that revealed intersectional,contradictory, and shifting identities that rarely fit into the two mono-cultural,raceless, and gender-neutral categories (i.e., passive observer and decolonizingindividual) I mentally mapped out in a linear progression. Instead of decoloniz-ing stories, most exemplified characteristics of ‘‘confessional tales’’ as elaboratedby Pillow (2003): ‘‘[tales] that work to identify and define the ‘other,‘ . . . [andseek] similarities between the researcher and the subject, a reflexivity that seeksto make ‘your’ self closer to ‘your’ subject’’ (182). For example, one white femalestudent shared her experience living and working within an Indigenous com-munity, at first conveying closeness but punctuated by moments of cross-culturaldiscomfort and miscommunication. These moments, left unproblematized, hadthe potential to reinscribe stereotypical representations of Indigenous peoplesas alcoholics and Indigenous men in sexual pursuit of white women. Followinglocal sharing circle protocols ‘‘require[s] that participants not respond to oneanother but only share their own thoughts and words when it is their turn tospeak’’ (Nadeau and Young 2010, 79), and the sharing circle took the total timeallotted for the facilitation, leaving no opportunity for further discussion. Thismeant I was unable to ask critical questions about how colonial history, racism,and hegemonic and heteronormative notions of gender may have impacted con-temporary Indigenous–non-Indigenous relationships within the particular com-munity in which the student’s story was set (see also Marker 1998). Thestudent who shared this anecdote told me later that she was also eager to discussit further. She expressed concern about the dangers of leaving her story unexa-mined and the vulnerability and frustration she felt by what she perceived asher inability to convey a nuanced portrait of shifting subjects responding to spe-cific, and changing, relations of power in which they were embedded.

Without the opportunity for deeper discussion, I feared some of the voices Ielicited through this pedagogy for decolonizing may have reinforced rather thandisrupted existing colonial relationships. Others have elaborated how failure tolink personal stories to historical and structural contexts of ongoing colonizationrisks reinscribing existing problematic stereotypes which acts as a form of epis-temic violence (James, Marin, and Kassam 2011; Hubbard and Razack 2011),resists acknowledgment and critique of the role institutions play in perpetuatingracism and colonialism (Simpson, James, and Mack 2011), and obscures contex-tual factors that provide a basis for understanding individual and group prac-tices of those involved in ‘‘the struggles of subjugated populations in theirIndigenous homelands’’ (Jiwani 2011, 340; see also Simpson and Yun 2011).

Heather

As a person who is highly conscious of Indigenous–non-Indigenous relations inCanada, being asked to prepare for this Re=Stor(y)ing Sharing Circle activity byBrooke was exciting. For a mandatory course surveying curriculum historyand social issues, it presented a welcome change in pedagogy as well as focus.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

On the other hand, as I identify Arctic Canada as my home, and being in relation-ship to Inuit in Nunavut as a defining characteristic of my family, work, andidentity, I was immediately confounded as to how I could tell one short storyto fulfill Brooke’s assignment. This could not be a long-ago memory dredgedup and casually described; decolonizing is an ever-present story in my life. Irecognized the constraints of the time allocated for this discussion in the classschedule set by the professor, over which Brooke had little control. Yet, when Ithought about how much I could say, a distinction formed in my mind betweenmyself and other students who I suspected did not even know if there wereIndigenous people on the land they called home. I felt my perspective to be dis-tinct because relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in theArctic are different than elsewhere in Canada,16 and I was struggling to makesense of how that might make decolonizing different too.

That day I was the seventh person to speak in the sharing circle. As the othersin my class shared, I began to feel uncomfortable and I began to compare theirstories with mine. What I heard was a lot of distance between students and theIndigenous peoples in (what is now) Canada and elsewhere in the world. Thiscontrasted with my experience of relative closeness. The stereotypes I perceived,instead of what I hoped would be a more complex treatment of identity andIndigenous–non-Indigenous relationships, reinforced this sense of distance. I sus-pected some students had intentionally chosen not to speak about their ‘‘home’’context, as was suggested in the assignment, but rather to tell a story about some-where they had travelled. I interpreted this as a strategy of avoidance, as a way tosidestep feelings of discomfort, implication, or responsibility. Even though thisdistance did not come as a surprise to me, I was projecting expectations ontothe students as I anticipated standing out in the crowd. I found it harder thanI expected to listen to students who were just coming to know about Indigenouspeoples living near to them, whereas I did not have the choice not to know when Igrew up in a community where Inuit form the majority population (not that Iwould have exercised it anyway!). I observed energies of resistance, skepticism,and lack of interest in the activity. Above the voices in the room, I began to hearringing in my ears and my heartbeat started to quicken. I was feeling hot, out ofbreath, and tingly. I felt like a train of misunderstanding was rumbling downthe tracks right toward me and I could see it coming but I could not get out ofthe way.

THE ICE CRACKS: THE FORCE OF CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS

Heather

As I first entered the class that day, I was looking forward to speaking aboutmyself, and feeling I could contribute something important to class discussion.As the activity design required us to link our stories to place, I felt that itaccommodated that I am from Arctic Canada, where educational policy andschool realities are substantially distinct from the contexts most students arefamiliar with. In that sense it felt like a welcome antidote from the displacement


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

that I experience as a result of the geographic and cultural distance betweenNunavut and where I go to graduate school. Despite concern about the lengthof time allotted for each of us to talk, I was aware that I usually feel confidentabout my voice in class. Perhaps there was some hubris or entitlement to positionmyself as knowledgeable about the topic because of my life experience. I also feltthere was a rapport forming in the class, and I was conscious of supportingBrooke in taking initiative to facilitate the activity.

However, in planning to speak about moments and memories that werecomplicated and messy, and choosing not to characterize Indigenous–non-Indigenous relations in my life as exclusively positive, empowering, or eveneasily definable, I did want to get it right. I wanted to convey my points, andthe associated messy feelings, carefully. To prepare I wrote out speaking notesthat I thought would help me stay focused. Referencing a picture of Arctic Oceanice, I had intended to say:

This picture shows me walking on the ocean sea ice. What you can’t tell from the picture isthe constant cracking sound that comes with walking on ice that is subject to incoming andoutgoing tides. It is an eerie experience actually. Even though intellectually you know youare safe with eight feet of ice holding you up, there is this echo of risk and vulnerabilityaround you. In the spring when the ice is melting a lot more, this sound and the instabilityit implies becomes even more pronounced. Ocean sea ice is my metaphor of identity poli-tics in Nunavut,17 both broadly speaking and in terms of my experience. I have felt a lot oftension because of it throughout my life, and yet I know it is only a fraction of what Inuithave felt. Inuit in Nunavut arguably have the most political and cultural power of Indigen-ous peoples in Canada, and they feel their land has been mostly returned to them—and yetpower relations are still constantly shifting. Just as you think you’ve sorted out where youfit in the community there is the echo of a crack in the back of your mind. I’m not sayingthis to overdramatize it—the experience of it is dramatic enough.

After saying this, I had planned to go on and give a few examples of momentswhen the ‘‘ice’’ had shifted for me: as a nine-year-old child being bullied on theplayground (which I perceived to be on the basis of race), as a teenager whoseclassmate committed suicide in eighth grade, as a young adult being excludedfrom student employment with the government because I was not an Inuit landclaim beneficiary, and later working alongside strong Inuit women leaders ingovernment. I do not remember whether I actually shared any of these exam-ples, because while explaining the ice metaphor I burst into tears. I could notregain my composure and I vividly remember being overwhelmed by myown emotion in a way that did not usually happen. I think I said that I couldnot share all that I had prepared, I could not speak openly or honestly, and thatI was not safe. I was very unsettled—and I did not think I was the one whoshould be unsettled!

I cared a lot about supporting this conversation and the activity Brookeprepared, but I did not expect to feel so vulnerable. I did not expect to react tothe stories of other people in class in a way that changed what I said or stoppedme from sharing. I did not expect to feel silenced by the activity. I was shocked bymy emotion, as well as my own discomfort with being emotional in class, includ-ing the sense I got from the other people in the room that it was not acceptable,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

that the students and the professor did not know how to handle my eruption=disruption. The class time ran out after each student in the circle shared, andwithout further discussion about what had happened, and without the opport-unity to respond to each other, I felt profoundly undone and unsatisfied.

Brooke

As the sharing circle carried on, I heard several students perform confessionaltales that I perceived to center whiteness, reify stereotypical notions of Indigen-ous peoples, and essentialize and=or appropriate Indigenous peoples, cultures,and=or knowledges. I stared at the center of the circle perplexed; the studentswere not telling the types of decolonizing stories I had in mind! Based on pre-vious conversations and my knowledge of Heather’s work supporting reconcep-tualization of Nunavut school programs toward cultural responsiveness, I bothdesired and anticipated that Heather would share a decolonizing story thatwould inspire students to analyze Eurocentrism and appreciate the possibilitiespresented from integration of Indigenous knowledges, knowledge holders, andpedagogies within schools.

Heather states that ‘‘I do not remember whether I actually shared any of theseexamples,’’ and my memory corroborates that, during the sharing circle, she didnot reveal specific moments when the ‘‘ice’’ shifted for her. I later learned of thestories she intended to share through our collaborative writing on our commonexperience of participating in the re=stor(y)ing sharing circle. I wondered: Whydid I assume that Heather would share a particular type of decolonizing story?What did my investment in Heather sharing a story rich with themes of trans-formation and progress toward space for Indigenous knowledges reveal aboutmy commitments to critical, specifically decolonizing, pedagogies? How didmy discursive practices shape educational norms, directing what was intelligibleand contained and what became excessive?

During the circle I watched as Heather’s face became flushed and her backmuscles stiffened. I listened as her voice began to shake with anger before rup-turing, giving way to tears. I remember being surprised that no one reachedfor her to signal that her story was still welcome in our circle. Orner (1992) cau-tions that ‘‘when we focus on the multiple voices and contradictions present inspecific sites as specific historical moments, it becomes impossible to supportuniversal calls for student voice . . .There are times when it is not safe for stu-dents to speak’’ (81). She suggests interrupting the call for student voice to exam-ine how contextual elements direct what is sayable and doable. This examinationmight take the form of considering how the entanglement of a learning com-munity (e.g., mandatory graduate seminar) is located within a particular histori-cal period; the shifting relations of power amongst students within and beyondthe classroom; the presence of a multitude of subjects who hold a variety of philo-sophical and political commitments; and structural constraints. How might Ihave approached the facilitation differently if I seriously considered that onlyone of thirteen classes in the mandatory graduate seminar18 was devoted toIndigenous–non-Indigenous relations? That calling for students to investigatewhiteness often produces resistance (Schick 2000; Sleeter 2005; Tompkins 2002)?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

If I considered further that comments made by some students on severaloccasions suggested they did not support the university-wide commitment tointegrating Indigenous content across all disciplines and levels? That my percep-tion of some students was that they did not see themselves in relation withIndigenous peoples at all? That at least one student’s experiences of decolonizingwere, as Heather wrote ‘‘dramatic enough’’?

‘‘IT FEELS SO UNEASY . . .’’: PEDAGOGY FOUNDED ON A BINARYOPPOSITION

Brooke

In drawing on theoretical discussions of decolonization (Battiste 2012; Smith2012; see also Kincheloe 2006) and practical examples of pedagogy for decoloniz-ing (e.g., Dion 2009; Regan 2010; Strong-Wilson 2007) that rely on the binaryopposition Indigenous=non-Indigenous, I structured my approach around thesetwo categories. Before discussing how the use of an Indigenous=non-Indigenousbinary impacted one student’s participation in the facilitation, it is necessary tobriefly explore how this pair of terms interrelate in a particular manner whichrisks rendering whiteness19 invisible.

Orner (1992) explains that terms positioned as binary oppositions are a productand process of Eurocentrism and have historically been constructed in a mannerthat privileges the first term over the second. Considered from this perspective,one might posit that the construction of an Indigenous=non-Indigenous binaryis a political process that seeks to center Indigeneity in discussions of Indigenousresearch, education, sovereignty, and so on. A brief reading of scholarly literaturethat focuses on non-Indigenous peoples in any of the aforementioned areas, how-ever, reveals a situation in which the term non-Indigenous is often synonymouswith white and of European heritage. The binary opposition then becomesIndigenous=white European, as opposed to Indigenous=non-Indigenous, andregardless of the order the terms are presented, Indigenous can be investigatedas the abject. From this vantage point, the term non-Indigenous excludes a dis-cussion of the complex experiences of peoples of color who simultaneously par-ticipate in and are subject to the colonial project while facing marginalizationthemselves, as well as unique decolonizing sites, strategies, and goals that maybe available from this standpoint (Lawrence and Dua 2005; Gaztambide-Fernandez 2012). Similarly, the term non-Indigenous runs the risk of acting as aTrojan horse that obscures a discussion of the ways in which white privilegeand Eurocentrism shape Indigenous–non-Indigenous relationships as racial,ethnic, and cultural differences are collapsed under the totalizing moniker.

I am bringing Orner’s (1992) warning—that dualistic oppositions structure ourways of thinking about the world in a totalizing manner with serious conse-quences—by exploring a third complexity centered around the response of aninternational student.20 I was aware that this student had spoken previouslyabout his tribal affiliations and working from a framework that sought to includediscussion of diasporic Indigeneity (Adefarakan 2011). In the week leading up to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

facilitating the pedagogical encounter I asked him if he considered himselfIndigenous. He explained that he did not; his parents are from different ethnicgroups and so he saw himself as a person with more than one origin. Guidedby scholarly examples that explored the decolonizing experiences of peoples ofcolor (e.g., Dion 2007), I encouraged him to contribute to the activity as anon-Indigenous student. In the end, he decided to participate in the sharing circlebut opted not to tell a decolonizing story. He wrote of his feelings of discomforton the class blog: ‘‘It feels so uneasy to engage in a dialogue that one has little orno experience with. This is especially challenging when one has never livedwithin or been in the proximity of such things under discussion.’’ His blog post-ing captivated me as he continued unpacking his position:

In [country], for example, despite more than 120 ethnic groups which speak different dia-lects=vernaculars . . .we do not talk of Natives or Aboriginals. No one has the right to claimownership of the country or the land. After all, land is a government property that isentrusted temporarily to those who are in need of it.

After independence, the major task was to make sure that we spoke one language, that is,‘‘[country], the nation of ours’’ . . .Thus we are brought up in a way that we do not talk ofpeople’s origin, colour, language, religion, lifestyle, etc.

His story was so rich in intertwined themes that I considered it to be highly relevantto the sharing circle: the diversity of Indigeneity, colonization, nationalism, capital-ism, language, culture, and property to name a few. Yet, because my framing of thefacilitation relied on an Indigenous=non-Indigenous binary, he felt ‘‘uneasy’’ andunable to participate because he did not see himself reflected in either term orfeel comfortable structuring his story according to an Indigenous-non-Indigenousrelationship. Jardine accounts for his response by suggesting that ‘‘[dualistic opposi-tions] are inadequate for understanding a world of multiple causes and effects whichinteract in complex and non-linear ways, and which are rooted in limitless array ofhistorical and cultural specificities’’ (as cited in Orner 1992, 78). This student’sexperiences of colonization and political decolonization (i.e., ‘‘independence’’) werevastly different than the specific Canadian intercultural experiences I had in mindwhen developing the activity. His particular location and political commitmentsto a united national identity were, at best, ignored by myself as facilitator and, atworst, directly challenged by seeking his participation in the sharing circle.

Heather

The binary opposition Indigenous=non-Indigenous that made participation diffi-cult for another student in the pedagogical encounter felt unsuitable to me aswell, although from a different location. In the moment of experiencing the con-trast between stories shared by other students and the emotion attached to myown story, I did not want to be in the category ‘‘non-Indigenous.’’ It did not feellike I belonged there, if these were the stories non-Indigenous people told. I feltthat there should be some category for ‘‘experienced’’ or ‘‘ally.’’ The differencebetween my lenses on the issues and the lenses I perceived from the other peoplein the room felt insurmountable. Yet, I did not feel like there was any concrete


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

identity location that I could call on, to push others to think differently abouttheir own stories. Ultimately the hurt that overcame me and made it impossiblefor me to finish sharing was paralysis in the face of my own whiteness and atension within myself about what complicity that represented.

Brooke

I am keenly aware that deconstruction of stratified binaries from which identitypolitics are often conducted is a ‘‘double edged sword,’’ troubling problematictotalizing categories while also ‘‘undercutting the very ‘modest authority’ tospeak of and from their own experiences for which [marginalized peoples] havestruggled’’ (Lather 2008, 221). I proceed cautiously with this precarious projectbecause I agree with Lather’s (2008) assertion that:

To urge a troubling of the closures and sometimes pieties of identity politics, standpointtheories, and experience-based knowledge and the backlash against identity politics isnot to try to close this openness but to keep us moving in order to produce and learn fromruptures, failures, breaks, refusals. (224, emphasis in original)

Working from this assumption, I consider how I might involve participants inpedagogy for decolonizing that explores how categories both constrain andenable. Is it possible to examine how binaries have historically been constructedas opposites to justify and naturalize relations of power, while still utilizing thevery approaches that are often founded on such dualisms? In which ways mightthe terms Indigenous and non-Indigenous be resignified to invite greater partici-pation and more complex and complicated discussion of relationality, coloniza-tion, and sovereignty? What might it mean to engage in a pedagogical process,through which the pedagogy itself is undone (see Lather 2007)? A pedagogyfor decolonizing ‘‘sous rature’’ (Derrida 1976); continually working towarddecolonization of a de=colonizing process.

LEARNING FROM COMPLEXITIES: THE REALIZATION OF LIMITS ALONGSIDEGROWTH

Heather

Upon consideration I came to perceive my experience in this pedagogy for decolo-nizing as illustrative of what Orner, Miller, and Ellsworth (1996) call ‘‘excessivemoments,’’ consisting of the ways ‘‘bodies, subjectivities, pleasures, fears, histories,and power relations overflow the protocols, norms, and forms that are intended to‘contain’ them’’ (73). This helped me think differently about my emotion, mysilence, and the pedagogical possibilities associated with voice. Although I wasnot in the classroom space to ‘‘collect data,’’ I left class that day feeling as if I werecarrying a new bag of ‘‘emotional data’’ (St. Pierre 1997) that weighed down myexperience and remained in my memory. I wrote in a journal entry:

I often bring my heart with me into class, and sometimes I bring my nine-year-old selfwith me into class. I had never thought before about whether that was acceptable in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

graduate level learning communities. There were differences between what I expectedfrom myself in the classroom and what really happened in my experience.

I wished to ‘‘justify’’ the troubling data, to move it from being transgressive or‘‘uncodable, excessive, out-of-control, out-of-category’’ (St. Pierre 1997, 179),toward something learned, something acceptable, something useful (see also Brown2004). I went about seeking meaning in the excess, partly by writing and alsothrough seeking ‘‘response data’’—looking for others to help ‘‘give me the giftof different language and practice with which to trouble my commonsenseunderstanding of the world’’ (St. Pierre 1997, 185). Thinking with Brooke,through the insights and questions of feminist poststructural theory, allowed thisrupture to become generative.

In attempting to perform myself as a non-Indigenous person who feelsstrongly connected to Inuit and Nunavut and committed to Indigenous edu-cation, and feeling as though I had failed, pedagogy became more like a paradox.Orner, Miller, and Ellsworth (1996) described pedagogy as: ‘‘necessarily a sus-pended performance—suspended in the sense that its completion is constantlyinterrupted and deferred by the knowledge of the failure-to-know, the failureto understand, fully, once and for all’’ (89). They go on to say that it is ‘‘per-formed ‘precariously on the rackety bridge between self and other,’ teacherand student, agency and constraint’’ (89). Upon entering the classroom I assumedmy voice could represent my ‘‘reality’’ and even potentially transform ‘‘reality’’for the other students (Orner 1992). I was disappointed that I felt others in theclass had not ‘‘heard’’ me, because I could not express myself or leverage myvoice confidently or rationally, or in a controlled way (what I assumed othersexpected from me). The classroom became a space of potential unpredictability,risk, and unexpected exposure. Upon leaving, I had a more complicated andmore humble awareness of what might occur through performance of pedagogy,regardless of the facilitator’s best laid plans, recognizing in myself that identity isnot singular, unchanging or unaffected by the context in which the speakingoccurs (Orner 1992, 80).

In stepping into this messy pedagogical terrain, I do not mean to suggest that aperson cannot claim an identity position. I am particularly concerned that this notbe interpreted as a questioning of the possibility of asserting Indigeneity. Rather,there is a reminder here of the possibility that viewing ‘‘subject positions, ver-sions of history, and interpretations of experiences’’ as ‘‘temporary and contin-gent within an ongoing process’’ (Orner 1992, 86) may make better space forethical relations amongst members of a learning community and better spacefor learning. Acknowledging a space and process of becoming may be more com-mensurate with Indigenous knowledge. Although I am not entirely deterredfrom critical or decolonizing pedagogies and would not go so far as to state, asOrner (1992) has, ‘‘It seems impossibly naıve to think that there can be anythinglike a genuine sharing of voices in the classroom’’ (81), I recognize that thesilences, the impossibilities, the ruptures, and the excess will occur and can beas important as more ‘‘stable’’ performances of voice.

I have since used this experience as a story in facilitating other workshops onthe topic of the role of teachers in Indigenous teaching and learning. It has been


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

useful in generating discussion about how learning, even within those edu-cational spaces that may be viewed as ‘‘unconstrained,’’ is always (already)excessive, resulting in excessive moments that—in my view—should be carefullyattended to rather than repressed. Although I felt like the decolonizing intentionsthat Brooke and I shared had failed in this context, our debriefing and efforts atmaking sense of what happened have pushed us much further on a journey ofengaging with critical and decolonizing pedagogies, and the inherent limitationsof those efforts, which poststructural theories have helped us identify and under-stand. I wrote in a journal entry:

I am still thankful to Brooke for opening up the space to centre Indigenous experience andpersonal experience in our class. It was a good learning experience for me and a goodreminder of the self I carry around, embedded inside . . . even if I feel far away or feel Ihave white ‘‘insulation’’ here (I can’t hear the ice cracking here), the experience of Inuitin Nunavut, and in Canada, simmers only just below the surface for me, and I wouldn’thave it any other way.

Brooke

After closing the sharing circle, I felt as though the facilitation did not unfold asthe theory promised. Consideration of students’ decolonizing stories suggestedto me only a small number of participants had taken this opportunity to ‘‘learnfrom the biography of their relationships with Aboriginal people’’ (Dion 2007,329) or ‘‘consider different meanings and worldviews’’ (Korteweg, Gonzalez,and Guillet 2010, 331). Few signs suggested that students were ‘‘challenged bycounter stories in order to produce a shifting of horizons’’ (Strong-Wilson 2007,127), the type of ‘‘learning that transforms attitudes’’ (Curwen Doige 1999,383). I was left to ponder Ellsworth’s (1987) famous question, ‘‘Why doesn’t thisfeel empowering?’’

I recognize that the total proportion of course work and amount of class time(3 hours) allotted to topics of Indigeneity, whiteness, and Indigenous–non-Indigenous relationships in Canada acted as a severe limitation and distinguishesthis example of a(n) (attempted) pedagogy for decolonizing from the work ofscholars cited above. Although several pedagogical complexities emerged fromthis facilitation, I wish to be clear that I do not view an increase in curricular spaceand time as viable resolutions to these challenges. Rather, these complexities arepresented as considerations and perhaps warnings concerning (1) the impossi-bility of a stable, autonomous, unified subject that can be understood and trans-form(ed) through student voice; (2) disregard for students’ local struggles andthe social and historical contexts in which classrooms are located; and (3) relianceon the use of an Indigenous=non-Indigenous binary. Moreover, the significanceof considering what pedagogy for decolonizing might entail within courses thatare not specifically focused on Indigenous content, and thus are often limited byinstitutional constraints such as time and disciplinary knowledge, cannot beoverstated. My experiences of participating in both types of graduate coursessuggest much needs to be done in spaces not designated for Indigeneity, inorder to lay the ground work for recognition of Indigenous epistemologies and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

ontologies, as well as approaches to education and research, as elaborate, histori-cal, and valid systems.

Using Orner’s (1992) critique, alongside additional feminist poststructuralunderstandings of qualitative research and education, to rethink the sharing circlehas been a most useful exercise in grappling with the question: ‘‘What are the sinsof imposition we commit in the name of liberation?’’ (77). Colonizing theories andconcepts that were imposed, practiced, and (re)produced in the name ofdecolonization have been explored, heightening my awareness of the inevitablelimitations of pedagogy for decolonizing, whereas previously I stated that moststudents ‘‘just did not understand the assignment.’’ This troubling has resultedin several questions and considerations that I intend to take seriously,continuously reworking in an attempt to (momentarily) listen for, examine, andrepresent complexities (Cook-Sather 2007).

CONCLUSION

The recent commitment to an emphasis on Indigenous content in postsecondaryinstitutions across Canada, particularly in teacher training programs, raises theimportance of the decolonizing work that frequently and necessarily accompaniessuch an endeavor. We have used duoethnographic conversation methodology andactivated feminist poststructural theory as ‘‘tinkerers’ tools’’ (Derrida 1976) to recon-sider our experiences of, and approaches to, working toward decolonizing goals. Wefeatured four shared, and sometimes contested, complexities. We (re)visited thesecomplexities from the vantage points of stories and experiences, the responses eli-cited from the pedagogical encounter, and what potential the complexities had tobecome intersectional points for theorization. We have looked to provide insight intohow unpredictable pedagogy for decolonizing can be, and must be, in its inherentdependency on dialogue and differing and divergent student experience.

Through this example of pedagogy for decolonizing, the complexities thatarose included: (1) performance of confessional tales that we perceived to reinforcerather than disrupt existing Indigenous–non-Indigenous relations of powerthrough centering whiteness, reifying stereotypical notions of Indigenous peo-ples, and essentializing and=or appropriating Indigeneity; (2) experience of par-alysis rather than an ability to resist, teach, or change, resulting from thedissonance between what was prepared, intended, and expected, and how thepedagogical moment felt in the classroom—steeped in unpredicted emotions,memories, and relational engagements; (3) realization that voices of studentswere silenced through reliance on the binary opposition Indigenous–non-Indigenous, which simultaneously collapsed differences between students thatidentified with one category or the other, as well as dissuaded participationfrom those who did not see themselves reflected in either totalizing term; and(4) juxtaposition of disappointment in the limitations of pedagogy for decoloniz-ing that limited opportunities to respond to complexities and attend to structuralconstraints, alongside recognition of growth through this occasion for reflexivity.

Thinking with poststructural understandings of subjectivity and voice aboutcurrent conceptions of pedagogy for decolonizing allowed us to begin making


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

sense of the factors that contributed to this near failure in decolonizing, and whatlearning this apparent futility might generate. This study attempts to contributeto the larger field of curriculum studies by demonstrating the opportunityinherent in theoretical intersections. Theory building that links distinct researchand education paradigms offers frames for analyzing teaching across difference,both within and outside the boundary of Indigenous–non-Indigenous. Contribu-ting empirically grounded complexity to current pedagogical theories has thepotential to open up spaces to reconceptualize decolonization, offering new waysof engaging students and teachers in supporting Indigenous education. We tra-verse this theoretical space carefully, recognizing that in some cases activatingpoststructural theories in relation to Indigeneity may silence or make incommen-surable material dimensions of experience with=in relations of power.21

We take the position that pedagogical formulae for decolonizing cannot beemulated in classrooms without significant consideration toward the people,place, time, and relations that shape any pedagogical encounter (see Freire inMacedo 2007). The risks of drawing on differing and divergent student experi-ence with a specific outcome (e.g., decolonizing) in mind is heightened whenapproaches that have roots in Indigenous traditions, such as the sharing circle,are attempted in an institutionalized setting and structure. Even with the bestpreparations, a facilitator cannot guarantee the stability of identity, the perfor-mance of voice, the exercise of agency, the prevention of paralysis and silencein the encounter between participants, or the opportunity and ability to respondto difficulties that might arise. Acknowledging that limits inevitably lead to com-plications, we have attempted to shine light on these complexities to leveragethem toward learning possibilities that can, by extension, lead to more responsivepedagogy.

Complexities arising from Eurocentric constructs such as a humanist individ-ual, student voice, and stratified binary oppositions are related to, but not com-pletely determined by, specific factors noted within our description, such as thetime allocated within the course, the potential for dialogue following a sharingcircle in which risk is assumed, the precision of a question posed to studentsand their interpretation of it, as well as an instructor’s assumptions about theintended outcomes. Discursive constructions of pedagogy for decolonizingentangled with contextual elements produced what was intelligible, and whatbecame transgressive. In some cases, the stories that were silenced prior to, orcould not be shared during, the pedagogical encounter were in fact what wasdesired on the part of the facilitator and student. With this experience we havenot given up on existing notions of pedagogy for decolonizing but instead con-tinue to look for ways to embrace complexity through supposition of subjectivityand voice as contextual, multifaceted, perpetually in construction and, thus,impossible to capture and secure.

NOTES

1. As this article draws on global Indigenous perspectives and is intended for an internationalaudience, we utilize the term Indigenous throughout. Within Canada, the Indigenous peoplesare often referred to as Aboriginal and include First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

2. Drawing on our summary of the goals of the Association of Canadian Deans of Education Accordon Indigenous Education (ACDE, 2010), we utilize the term Indigenous education throughoutto refer to (1) attending to Indigenous–non-Indigenous relations; (2) promoting Indigenousknowledges in educational settings; (3) advancing Indigenous leadership; and (4) nurturing andmobilizing Indigenous research and methodologies.

3. Pedagogical encounter refers to the temporal activity leading up to, marked by, and following thepedagogy for decolonizing facilitated by Brooke.

4. We view the graduate students who participated in this pedagogical encounter as colleagues, butrefer to them as students in this particular context for simplicity.

5. We draw on Derrida’s (1976) notion of the subject as an effect of subjectivity where transcendenceof language is an impossibility. The subject we explore is never stable and is involved in theongoing, active process of taking up certain subject positions in the form of local reactions andresponses to specific, and changing, colonial relations of power in which they are embedded(Britzman 2003; Foucault 1980; Jackson and Mazzei 2012).

6. We utilize the term Indigenous knowledges to refer to Indigenous cultural knowledge, traditions,and values that collectively ‘‘can be seen to constitute a particular world view, a form of con-sciousness, or a reality set’’ (Kirkness and Barnhardt 1991, 4–5). Holistic and dynamic, Indigenousknowledge ‘‘is not a uniform concept across Indigenous peoples’’ (Battiste and Henderson 200035); knowledges are situated within a cultural context=environment and generally acquiredexperientially and through demonstration (i.e., Indigenous pedagogies) (Archibald 2008;Kawagley and Barnhardt 1998).

7. Several prevailing pedagogical approaches to engaging Indigenous education in higher educationexist and often overlap such as multicultural pedagogies; learning from Indigenous knowledges,knowledge holders, and pedagogies; antiracist=anticolonial pedagogies; and place-based pedago-gies.

8. At the time of planning for the facilitation, no student in the class had identified as an Indigenousperson.

9. For coursework that week, three journal articles were assigned by the professor. They explored:the status of whiteness in education (Leonardo 2009), the roles of Indigenous knowledges in edu-cation (Haig-Brown 2008), and Canadian intercultural relations (Schick and St. Denis 2005).Brooke interpreted the topics presented in this set of readings to be commensurate with, andan opportunity to engage, pedagogy for decolonizing.

10. In an attempt to focus on oral instead of text-based engagement with topics, Brooke made arrange-ments with the course instructor to wave the weekly requirement for students to post on thecourse blog and instead prepare comments for the sharing circle.

11. We use the singular form of the noun voice intentionally as pedagogies for decolonizing, as well asother critical approaches often respond to notions of oppression that necessitate group=politicalsolidarity articulated through a common voice toward a shared goal(s).

12. Pedagogies for decolonizing have been positioned as emancipatory when utilized with Indigen-ous and=or non-Indigenous students as they aim to challenge the ontological and epistemologicalconstraints imposed through Eurocentrism and additional colonial strategies (e.g., Dion 2007;Iseke-Barnes 2008; Strong-Wilson 2007).

13. In referring to examining and negotiating constructions of subjects, voice, power, and privilegethrough duoethnography, we feel it is important to clarify our shared views of colonial relationsin our social context. Within colonial relationships characterized by domination, we view discur-sive and nondiscursive intersections of racial, gendered, economic, and state power as organizedinto particular systems and social relations that secure colonization of traditional Indigenous ter-ritories, obstruct the capacity of sovereign nations to govern, and enact epistemic violence throughthe exclusion and delegitimation of Indigenous knowledges (Coulthard 2010; Jiwani 2011;Hubbard and Razack 2011, 321).

14. Because duoethnography ‘‘is not a fixed blueprint but always emergent and uncertain’’ (Norris,Sawyer, and Lund 2012, 25), we veer from duoethnography as defined by Norris, Sawyer, andLund (2012) in two significant ways. First, although duoethnography typically avoids beginning‘‘with a survey of existing literature’’ (Norris, Sawyer, and Lund 2012, 34), we initiated this dia-logic methodology with a theoretical framework in place. This decision reflects the pivotal rolethat the bodies of literature that focus on Indigenous education and critique and call for voice


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

played in aiding the authors in considering pedagogy for decolonizing. Second, instead of focuss-ing on a broad topic in general, as others have (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, and activism, Lundand Evans 2006; creative writing, Norris and Greenlaw 2012; learned concepts of beauty, Sheltonand McDermott 2012), our exploration of pedagogies for decolonizing centers a specific time-limited shared experience from which we hope to make meaning.

15. Permission has been granted by students to include excerpts from the course blog in this article.16. I argue elsewhere (McGregor 2012) that this is owing to the substantially smaller and more tran-

sient non-Indigenous population, the shorter history of colonization, the climate, the linguistic andcultural vitality of Inuit society, and completed land claims.

17. Upon reflection I notice this metaphor resonates with poststructural notions of the unstable sub-ject and shifting relations of power and resistance that are continually reconstructed, reconfi-gured, reconstituted: ‘‘all categories are unstable, all experiences are constructed, all reality isimagined, all identities are produced, and all knowledge provokes uncertainties, misrecognitions,ignorances, and silences’’ (Britzman 1993, 22). At the time I had no such intention for that sense ofthe message or metaphor.

18. In my experience, this is becoming standard practice in university courses not specifically focusedon Indigenous content. I do not mean to suggest that these topics were taken up in a tokenisticmanner, rather that most students likely had very little previous experience with Indigenousknowledges and pedagogies. The professor’s decision to pair weekly readings that explored thestatus of whiteness and the role of Indigenous knowledges in education, as well as Canadianintercultural relations, suggests the professor viewed an analysis of whiteness as a necessarycomponent of engaging in anti-racist and anti-colonial critiques (Simpson and Yun 2011).

19. I do not consider whiteness static or uniform. Material and discursive dimensions of whiteness arehistorically constructed and internally differentiated (Frankenberg 1993, 1997, 2001). Throughinternal differentiation, whiteness emerges as a multiplicity of identities that inhabit local customand national sentiments and, moreover, are spatially and temporally dependent, gendered, classspecific, and politically manipulated (Twine and Gallagher 2008).

20. Permission has been granted by the student to include elements of his story as well as excerptsfrom the course blog.

21. Cruikshank (1998) warns, for example, that the postmodern troubling of narrative runs the risk ofdisregarding Indigenous claims that are based necessarily on authoritative oral tradition. Shepoints out that the possibilities inherent in theoretical work require the interruption of scholarlynorms, and associated vulnerability (Cruikshank 1998, 165).

REFERENCES

Adefarakan, T. (2011). (Re)conceptualizing ‘Indigenous’ from Anti-Colonial and Black FeministTheoretical Perspectives: Living and Imagining Indigeneity Differently. In G. J. S. Dei (Ed.),Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education: A Reader (pp. 34–52). New York, NY: Peter LangPublishing, Inc.

Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and Curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.Archibald, J. (2008). Indigenous Storywork: Educating the Heart, Mind, Body, and Spirit. Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.Association of Canadian Deans of Education. (2010). Accord on Indigenous Education. January 25.

http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/pdf/Accord%20June1%202010.pdfBattiste, M. (1998). Enabling the Autumn Seed: Toward a Decolonized Approach to Aboriginal

Knowledge, Language, and Education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 22(1), 16–27.Battiste, M. (2000). Maintaining Aboriginal Identity, Language and Culture in Modern Society. In

M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision (pp. 192–208). Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Battiste, M. (2005). You Can’t be the Global Doctor if You’re the Colonial Disease. In P. Tripp &L. Muzzin (Eds.), Teaching as Activism: Equity Meets Environmentalism (pp. 121–133). Montreal,Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Battiste, M. (2012a). Aboriginal Education. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of EducationalFoundations, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Battiste, M. (2012b). Bringing Aboriginal Education into Conventional Education: Nourishing the LearningSpirit. Paper presentation at 2012 Canadian Society for the Study of Education Annual Meeting,Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Battiste, M. Y. and Henderson, J. (2000). What is Indigenous Knowledge? In Protecting IndigenousKnowledge and Heritage (pp. 35–56). Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Purich.

Belsey, C. (l980). Critical Practice. London, UK: Methuen.Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach (rev. ed.). New York,

NY: State University of New York Press.Brown, F. L. (2004). Making the Classroom a Healthy Place: The Development of Affective Competency in

Aboriginal Pedagogy. Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,Canada.

Chinnery, A. (2010). ‘‘What good does all this remembering do, anyway?’’ On Historical Conscious-ness and the Responsibility of Memory. In G. Biesta (Ed.), Philosophy of Education (pp. 397–405).Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

Cook-Sather, A. (2007). Resisting the Impositional Potential of Student Voice Work: Lessons for‘‘Liberatory’’ Educational Research from Poststructuralist Feminist Critiques of CriticalPedagogy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28, 389–403.

Coulthard, G. S. (2010). Subjects of Empire? Indigenous Peoples and the Politics of Recognition in Canada.PhD dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Cross, M. and Naidoo, D. (2012). Race, Diversity Pedagogy: Mediated Learning Experience forTransforming Racist Habitus and Predispositions. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and CulturalStudies, 34, 227–244.

Cruikshank, J. (1998). The Social Life of Stories: Narrative and Knowledge in the Yukon Territory.Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Curwen Doige, L. A. (1999). Beyond Cultural Differences and Similarities: Student Teachers EncounterAboriginal Children’s Literature. Canadian Journal of Education, 24, 383–397.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Dion, S. (2007). Disrupting Molded Images: Identities, Responsibilities and Relationships—Teachersand Indigenous Subject Material. Teaching Education, 18, 329–342.

Dion, S. (2009). Braiding Histories: Learning from Aboriginal Peoples’ Experiences and Perspectives.Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Donald, D., Glanfield, F., and Sterenberg, G. (2012). Living Ethically within Conflicts of ColonialAuthority and Relationality. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 10(1), 53–77.

Dwyer, M. (2010). Deans Sign Accord on Aboriginal Education. Retrieved from http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/06/01/deans-sign-accord-on-aboriginal-education/

Ellsworth, E. (1989). ‘‘Why Doesn’t This Feel Empowering?’’: Working Through the Repressive Mythsof Critical Pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 297–324.

Ermine, W. (2007). The Ethical Space of Engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 193–203.Foucault, M. (1980). Power=Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.,

C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon.Frankenberg, R. (1993). White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.Frankenberg, R. (Ed.). (1997). Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.Frankenberg, R. (2001). The Mirage of an Unmarked Whiteness. In B. B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I. J.

Nexica & M. Wray (Eds.), The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness (pp. 72–96). Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.Freire, P. and Macedo, D. P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the Word & the World. New York, NY: Routledge.Gaztambide-Fernandez, R. A. (2012). Decolonization and the Pedagogy of Solidarity. Decolonization:

Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 41–67.Giroux, H. A. and McLaren, P. (1986). Teacher Education and the Politics of Engagement: The Case for

Democratic Schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 213–238.Haig-Brown, C. (2008). Taking Indigenous Thought Seriously: A Rant on Globalization with Some

Cautionary Notes. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 8–24.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Haig-Brown, C. (2009). Decolonizing Diaspora: Whose Traditional Land Are We On? Cultural andPedagogical Inquiry, 1(1), 4–21.

Hubbard, T. and Razack, S. (2011). Reframing Two Worlds Colliding: A Conversation between TashaHubbard and Sherene Razack. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33, 318–332.

Iseke-Barnes, J. (2008). Pedagogies for Decolonizing. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31, 123–148.Jackson, A. Y. and Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing Data Across

Multiple Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.James, C. E., Marin, L., and Kassam, S. (2011). Looking Through the Cinematic Mirror: Film as an

Educational Tool. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33, 354–364.Jiwani, Y. (2011). Pedagogies of Hope: Counter Narratives and Anti-Disciplinary Tactics. Review of

Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33, 333–353.Kawagly, O. and Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native

Reality. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Knowledge Network.Kincheloe, J. (2006). Critical Ontology and Indigenous Ways of Being: Forging a Postcolonial

Curriculum. In Y. Kanu (Ed.), Curriculum as Cultural Practice: Postcolonial Imaginations (pp. 181–202). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Kirkness, V. J. and Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and Higher Education: The Four Rs Respect,Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–15.

Korteweg, L., Gonzalez, I., and Guillet, J. (2010). The Stories are the People and the Land: Three Edu-cators Respond to Environmental Teachings in Indigenous Children’s Literature. EnvironmentalEducation Researcher, 16, 331–350.

Kuokkanen, R. J. (2010). The Responsibility of the Academy: A Call for Doing Homework. Journal ofCurriculum Theorizing, 26(3), 61–74.

Lather, P. (2007). Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts Toward a Double(d) Science. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Lather, P. (2008). Getting Lost: Critiquing Across Difference as Methodological Practice. In K.

Gallagher (Ed.), The Methodological Dilemma: Creative, Critical, and Collaborative Approaches toQualitative Research (pp. 219–231). London, UK: Routledge.

Lawrence, B. and Dua, E. (2005). Decolonizing Antiracism. Social Justice, 32, 120–143.Leonardo, Z. (2009). Pale=ontology: The Status of Whiteness in Education. In M. Apple, W. Au, & L.

Gandin (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education (pp. 123–136). New York, NY:Routledge.

Lund, D. E. and Evans, R. E. (2006). Opening a Can of Worms: A Duo-ethnographic Dialogueon Gender, Orientation, and Activism. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 10(2), 55–68.

Macedo, D. (2007). Reinserting Criticality into Critical Pedagogy. In J. L. Kincheloe & P. McLaren(Eds.), Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now? (pp. 391–396). New York, NY: Peter LangPublishing.

Marker, M. (1998). Going Native in the Academy: Choosing the Exotic over the Critical. Anthropology& Education Quarterly, 29, 473–480.

McGregor, H. E. (2012). Nunavut’s Education Act: Education, Legislation and Change in the Arctic.The Northern Review, 36(1), 27–52.

Memmi, A. (=1991). The Colonizer and the Colonized (H. Greenfeld, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Memmi, A. (2006). Decolonization and the Decolonized (R. Bononno, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota Press.Nadeau, D. and Young, A. (2010). Basic Rules for a Sharing Circle. In Staff and Faculty Aboriginal

Cultural Training (SFACT): Building Respectful Relationships Curriculum (pp. 78–79). Victoria,British Columbia, Canada: University of Victoria.

Norris, J. (2008). Duoethnography. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative ResearchMethods (pp. 233–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Norris, J. and Greenlaw, J. (2012). Responding to Our Muses: A Duoethnography on BecomingWriters. In J. Norris, R. D. Sawyer, & D. Lund (Eds.), Duoethnography: Dialogic Methods for Social,Health, and Educational Research (pp. 89–114). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Norris, J., Sawyer, R. D., and Lund, D. (Eds.), (2012). Duoethnography: Dialogic Methods for Social, Health,and Educational Research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Orner, M. (1992). Interrupting Calls for Student Voice in ‘‘Liberatory’’ Education: A FeministPoststructuralist Perspective. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy(pp. 74–89). New York, NY: Routledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Orner, M., Miller, J. L., and Ellsworth, E. (1996). Excessive Moments and Educational Discourses thatTry to Contain Them. Educational Theory, 45(1), 71–91.

Pillow, W. S. (2003). Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodo-logical Power in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.

Regan, P. (2010). Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliationin Canada. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Richardson, L. (2001). Getting Personal: Writing-Stories. International Journal of Qualitative Studies inEducation, 14(1), 33–38.

Schick, C. (2000). By Virtue of Being White: Resistance in Anti-racist Pedagogy. Race Ethnicity andEducation, 3(1), 83–102.

Schick, C. and St. Denis, V. (2005). Troubling National Discourses in Anti-Racist Curricular Planning.Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 295–317.

Sleeter, C. (2005). How White Teachers Construct Race. In C. McCarthy, W. Crichlow, G. Dimitriadis,& N. Dolby (Eds.), Race, Identity and Representation in Education (2nd ed., pp. 243–256). New York,NY: Routledge.

Simpson, J. S., James, C. E., and Mack, J. (2011). Multiculturalism, Colonialism, and Racialization:Conceptual Starting Points. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33, 285–305.

Simpson, J. S., and Yun, E. (2011). Anti-Racism and Anti-colonialism in Canada: Identifying KeyComponents of Critical Pedagogy in Film. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,33, 365–376.

Shelton, N. R. and McDermott, M. (2012). A Curriculum of Beauty. In J. Norris, R. D. Sawyer &D. Lund (Eds.), Duoethnography: Dialogic Methods for Social, Health, and Educational Research(pp. 223–242). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies (2nd ed.). London, UK: Zed Books Ltd.Strong-Wilson, T. (2007). Moving Horizons: Exploring the Role of Stories in Decolonizing the Literacy

Education of White Teachers. International Education, 37, 114–131.St. Denis, V. (2011). Silencing Aboriginal Curricular Content and Perspectives Through Multicultural-

ism: ‘‘There are Other Children Here’’. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 33,306–317.

St. Pierre, E. A. (1997). Methodology in the Fold and the Irruption of Transgressive Data. InternationalJournal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10, 175–189.

Tompkins, J. (2002). Learning to See What They Can’t: Decolonizing Perspectives on IndigenousEducation in the Racial Context of Rural Nova Scotia. McGill Journal of Education, 37, 405–422.

Tuck, E. and Yang, W. (2012). Decolonization is Not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education& Society, 1(1), 1–40.

Twine, F. W. and Gallagher, C. (2008). The Future of Whiteness: A Map of the ‘‘Third Wave’’. Ethnicand Racial Studies, 31(1), 4–24.

Wolf, S. J. (2012). Critical Citizenship, Popular Theatre, and the Social Imagination of Pre-ServiceTeachers. In R. Mitchell & S. Moore (Eds.), Politics, Participation and Power Relations: Transdisciplin-ary Approaches to Critical Citizenship in the Classroom and Community (pp. 35–49). Rotterdam,Netherlands: Sense Publications.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ritis

h C

olum

bia]

at 0

5:58

14

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Ex(er)cising Student Voice in Pedagogy for Decolonizing: Exploring Complexities Through...

Documents

Transcript of Ex(er)cising Student Voice in Pedagogy for Decolonizing: Exploring Complexities Through...