Andrea Westcot
8 annotations
3/6/2015
Bonnell, Cheyenne Marilyn. “FreshMAN Composition: Blueprint for Subversion.” Meeting the
Challenge: Innovative Feminist Pedagogies in Action. Eds. Maralee Mayberry and Ellen Cronan
Rose. NY: Routledge, 1999. 215-28. Print.
History of the Search: I found this book while searching “embodied pedagogy”. That search
turned up another article in this book. This article is connected to my day-to-day work, so I
thought I’d read it to see if it connects to my topic.
Identification: Substantive nonscholarly. This is written in a conversational tone, and the focus
of the text is to report teaching practices, rather than to discuss research. It’s lightly cited, and
doesn’t really engage in scholarly conversation. I chose it because it’s also a personal account –
a teacher talking about her teaching practice.
Summary: In this essay, Bonnell reports on her successes in incorporating women’s studies
content into her freshman composition class. She argues that such a class is actually ripe for
feminist content, but that the teacher needs to anticipate and deflect resistance by incorporating
experiential learning techniques. She outlines her semester-long course plan with activities,
assignments, and tips for teaching throughout.
Bonnell argues that freshman composition classes are well suited for feminist content because of
instructor’s power to chose their own content, the fact that feminist issues permeate so many
aspects of life, and because even an even-handed “gender studies” focus actually incorporates so
much more about women than the alternative. The class focuses on consciousness-raising,
media images of gender, intimate partner violence, and student research projects. She
emphasizes student creation of content because it keeps the students from feeling that the
professor has stacked the deck. She emphasizes also student recreation of research studies so
that they are invested in and believe the outcomes that are reported.
Response:
I need to weigh my deep concerns about the essentialism of this article (remember, it was
published in 1999) with a reading of how this is an anticipation of thinking about embodiment in
the classroom.
Here are the problems: as written, the work here is deeply heteronormative and cisgenderspecific. “Men” and “women” are framed as exclusive, complementary categories, and students
are assumed/required to identify with one category or the other. Ugh. But, again, 1999.
What’s useful here is the centrality of experiential learning to how she frames student
engagement. She emphasizes throughout how the professor must frame herself not as an
authority, but as a facilitator. She also emphasizes trust and student community as central to the
learning experience. She emphasizes that the teacher must anticipate resistance and give space
for it to be spoken, and offers ways to do that which emphasize evidence-based conclusions.
She’s not talking about embodiment, but I feel like her classroom is doing what Jordon’s is – it’s
just not being named. And, her work is justice-oriented (in a 90s sort of way).
Butterwick, Shauna, and Jan Selman. “Embodied Knowledge and Decolonization: Walking with
Theater’s Powerful and Risky Pedagogy.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education 134 (2012), 61-69. Wiley Online Library. February 15. 2015.
History of the Search: I found this by using the VCU Library Search box. My search terms were
“pedagogy” and “embodied”.
Identification: This is a scholarly source – it’s published in a scholarly journal, it responds to
scholarly literature, and it’s cowritten by 2 scholars (in theater and education, respectively). It’s
also a personal account – both writers use personal accounts of teaching as evidence for their
claims, and those personal stories are written to stand out from the text and be attached to the
particular writer who lived them.
Summary: In this scholarly article, the authors link the experience of teaching with ideas of
embodiment, decolonization, and justice. They argue that the inclusion of somatic theater
practices in classrooms can be fraught with danger, but that risk is worthwhile because they can
“trigger” the uncovering of unremembered truths, and therefore lead to enfranchisement and
social justice. The authors are drawing on their personal experiences of using theater practices in
classrooms: Selman writes of how her introduction to the popular theater movement led her to
rethink her own experiences in theater classes, and Butterwick writes of how her adaptation of
these practices into adult education classes has created opportunities for her students to
understand deep truths. The authors also draw on three literatures for their evidence: somatic
theater studies, feminist studies that focus on the reclamation of the body, and critical pedagogy.
The authors make several subclaims. First, they argue that popular theater practices, because of
their embodiment and their attention to justice, offer a means of decolonization – both by
breaking down the mind/body dualism and by breaking down relations of power. (Here, they
specifically draw on Native American theater as evidence for their claim.) Second, they argue
that this decolonization experience helps to expand the theater’s focus from personal growth and
actualization to a larger project of justice-seeking. Third, they point out that these kinds of
classroom practices can expand students’ limits, and thus can be triggering – students’ safety
must be protected (and classrooms need to be “safe enough to be dangerous”) (68). Finally, they
argue that this risk is worthwhile because by creating strong emotional experiences, students
experience a palpable need for action.
The work is deeply personal, but the authors are conscious of connecting to a larger literature of
decolonization, embodiment, and social justice.
Response:
I find especially useful here the way that Butterwick and Selman are drawing an implicit parallel
between popular theater and radical pedagogy. They argue that popular theater creates an
experience that goes beyond traditional theater work, which “was ‘personal development’ rather
than radically transformative” (64). This connects to the idea in radical pedagogy that education
is not just about personal growth and knowledge, but a meaningful intervention into power
relations. I think this is also about the authors’ interrogation of their own privilege – it is a
privileged stance to seek out “personal development.”
I am frustrated at several points with the authors’ use of evidence. They read their personal
experience well, but their use of scholarly texts is frustrating – often, they don’t explain how the
sources support their claims, and other claims are left asserted but unevidenced. For example, on
page 66, the authors argue that a perspective shift in which the student fundamentally reunderstands their world is first experienced in the body and only later translated to the mind.
They draw on Jack Mezirow’s work here, but don’t really explain it. What’s frustrating about
this is that it is not self-evident here how the BODY is essential to the kind of learning the
authors are describing. They talk about deeper understanding and triggering experiences – but I
want to understand more how these are embodied experiences.
That said, I have great respect for how these two teachers are in tune with the needs of their
students. Their consideration of the intimacy and danger of somatic practice in the classroom is
particularly useful – to uncover experiences of colonization means to lay ourselves bare, and that
is significant. I also am interested in their assertion that students learn on a deeper level –
connect to their own experiences – when presented with bodies in motion. I want to learn more
about that. They talk about how memory is stored in the body, and therefore erupts when
experiencing somatic practice. Here’s the thing: I have experienced that (in particular in Rosie
Taylor’s yoga classes), but I think that it all sounds pretty “woo” here. Stronger evidence outside
of experience and assertion is needed.
Gustafson, Diana L. “Embodied Learning: The Body as an Epistemological Site.” Meeting the
Challenge: Innovative Feminist Pedagogies in Action. Eds. Maralee Mayberry and Ellen Cronan
Rose. NY: Routledge, 1999.
History of the Search: I came across this book by searching “embodied” and “pedagogy” in the
VCU library search box. The book includes several texts about teaching and learning – this one
focuses on the body.
Identification: This is a scholarly source – printed in a scholarly anthology (published by
Routledge – a scholarly press), focusing on theory and pedagogy, and engaging in a scholarly
conversation about pedagogy. It’s also a personal account – Gustafson narrates her experiences
as a student in a course centered on the body.
Summary:
Diana Gustafson narrates and analyzes the experience she had taking a course (“Health, Illness,
and Knowledge of the Body: Education and Self-Learning Processes”) which paired learning the
somatic practice of qi gong (a Chinese breathing meditation) with reading texts about Chinese
vs. Western medicine, the mind/body dualism, etc. She argues that this pairing of body work
with text work fundamentally unsettled western assumptions about knowledge, epistemology,
and the body by creating a space for a self-learning process that embraced embodied knowledge.
Most of the article is devoted to a narrative of Gustafson’s experience in the class. She discusses
course practices, assigned writing, texts, and learning outcomes. She argues that by centering the
learning of a physical practice (qi gong) in an academic space, the course offered an opportunity
“to lay bare the process of constructing self-knowledge and to articulate the nature of my self as
a social construction” (256). Gustafson shows how, in western culture, the self is constructed in
opposition to the body by privileging the mind (257-9).
Gustafson outlines many advantages to this kind of embodied learning. First, she argues that
because the course was delivered in an explicit and self-conscious feminist way, it offered
“students…”a curriculum and a pedagogy that allows them to become critical producers of
knowledge” (261). She outlines 5 main outcomes of this learner-centered, body-centered
approach. First, the course framed the body “as an epistemological site,” or a site for knowledge
unrecognized in other academic spaces (264). Second, the course emphasized the diversity of
the students by providing a space for them to hear from other students – in particular, by
discussing bodily experiences, the diversity of those experiences came to the forefront (265).
Third, by destabilizing the western construction of knowledge, all knowledge was open for
critique and deconstruction (266). Fourth, in that space of questioning knowledge and
assumptions, students’ understanding of themselves as “self” was questioned, and students
engaged in a process of reconstructing the self with new knowledge and understanding (267-8).
Finally, because students identified with each other in this process, there was a woman-centered
politics that emerged in the classroom (268-9).
Reaction:
Gustafson’s framing of western ideas of the mind/body division is really interesting (256-60).
She outlines not just a Cartesian mind/body dualism, but a Christian mind/body/spirit triad, and
a biomedical body-as-object construct. The important point is that all of these Western
(Eurocentric, masculinist) systems are about privileging the mind and the mind’s hold on
knowledge.
I am struggling with this essay on two fronts. First, I’m not sure how applicable this is to
learning environments that are not so explicitly body-focused. In other words, I wonder whether
the content of the course so defined the delivery of the course that this applicability of this style
of delivery is limited. In other words, is it possible to aim for the epistemological and political
goals of this class (body-centered knowledge, learning to reconstruct the self as a response to
intimately knowing a diversity of selves) without devoting the class to the content of mind/body?
Or, is that too “light” to be worthwhile?
Second, I’m struggling with the self-selection of courses like this. Gustafson includes a long
passage that examines an intentional and unintentional weeding-out process that the course
underwent in the early weeks (262-4). It seems clear that men were weeded out (which,
honestly, I think is fine in a feminist-specific classroom). So were students whose medical
understandings were “too western” – in a way, those who most held onto western knowledge
self-selected out of the course. More disturbing, disabled students dropped the class because
there was no way to accommodate their disabilities. Ick. Now, Gustafson brings up that the
class was explicitly framed to the students so they knew what they were getting into, and
students self-selected out when they heard that framing. I’m not sure what I think of that…
Ivinson, Gabrielle. “The Body and Pedagogy: Beyond Absent, Moving Bodies in Pedagogic
Practice.” British Journal of the Sociology of Education 33.4 (2012), 489-506. Taylor and
Francis Online. Web. February 17, 2015.
History of the Search: I found this via VCU Library Search using the search terms “body” and
“pedagogy.”
Identification: This is a scholarly source: it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it
presents original research to a scholarly audience.
Summary:
Gabrielle Ivinson uses a semiotics approach to explore embodied pedagogy. She argues that
multimodal education environments decenter power and meaning-making by embracing the
mind, the body, and the environment as agents in the creation of meaning. Therefore,
multimodal education environments interrupt the disciplinary power and reproduction of coded
knowledge of the educational institution. She engages in a lengthy theoretical conversation as an
underpinning for a later case study that compared the bodily practice of choreography
classrooms to traditional educational spaces.
In the first section, Ivinson draws on the theory of Basil Bernstein (sociologist of language and
education; semiotician) to argue that non-privileged groups are excluded or alienated from
education because of the codes of language. This happens first through language: schools speak
in “abstract codes” (ex: math, history) that don’t recognize young people’s “speech codes” (491).
Then, it happens through the body: the body is regulated/shamed through language, so that
students are “socialize[d]…into rhythms, routines and bodily practices to which some find it
particularly difficult to conform” (492).
In the next sections, Ivinson develops a connection between pedagogy, embodiment, and
semiotics. First, she critiques the Cartesian dualism which asserts that the mind is the sole agent
of the self (the mind is the will which acts upon the material world and the body to exert control)
(492). But, she’s unsatisfied with Merleau-Ponty’s reversal of the Cartesian dualism, in which
he centered the agency of the “lived body” (493). Instead, she wants to offer a synthesis between
mind, body, and other forces. To do this, she draws on complexity theory, which sees causality
as nonlinear and organic. In this framework, neither the body nor the mind are causal – instead,
both exist in relationship in an environment that also can act as a causal agent (494). (She works
through this via a semiotic look at language.) She links this to pedagogy through a discussion
of multimodal pedagogy – that even without technology, teachers draw on gesture, model, and
movement to create meaning (494-5). She argues that this sort of multimodal approach “places
dynamic and purposeful sign-making as central” to the creation of meaning, and therefore,
meaning is made not just by teachers but by everyone in the classroom (495). Therefore, “such
approaches seek to recognise learners not as those who reproduce existing signs, but rather as
active sign-makers involved in dynamic processes” (495).
Ivinson offers a case study of a choreography class in order to show a particularly pointed
example of multimodal education, in which “action, music, talk and language” were all used to
create a dance (498). She shows how this multimodal education experience built trust, allowed
for improvisation, incorporated students’ knowledge, and relied on modelling (rather than
dictation) for student learning (497). She argues that examples such as this offer ways to see
students participating in sign-making and that their learning can be seen in their ability to
transition between modalities (500). She points out that the hierarchy of knowledge (where
academic knowledge is privileged) can be repeated even in these spaces, but that it happens
within a context where students bring to the classroom their own everyday experiences and
knowledge. The choreographer in the case study actively incorporated students’ knowledge into
the dance, even while asserting a hierarchy of knowledge.
In the conclusion, Ivinson argues for the applicability of this dance case study to other teaching
environments – especially those that would seem to “demand docile [bodies]” (502). She points
out that multimodality is central to all classrooms (especially in the semiotic sense that she’s
working within). She also points out that embracing pedagogic practice that incorporates the
body is not about privileging the body, but recognizing it as one way meaning is constructed.
Finally, she emphasizes the democratic power of such pedagogic practice and awareness.
Response:
This article was a tough slog for me, in part because I’m rusty on semiotic theory. What I find
particularly useful here is that Ivinson takes great pains to explain WHY embodiment is central
to meaning-making (rather than just asserting that to be true). I also find her discussion of
“complexity theory” to be useful – this is not about absolutism or ideological purity, but instead
about understanding that all human interactions are multimodal. Therefore, our interactions in
the classroom need to acknowledge and recognize multimodality – not as a distraction, but as a
necessary component of learning.
Her justice-oriented argument is secondary – almost a side-effect of embodiment, as she’s
written it here. But, I still think it’s useful: this is not about USING embodiment to manage
classrooms (cf. Jordon) but about EMBRACING the reality of embodiment to transform
education. This reading comes from the fact that she starts with a critique of Western education
and Western subjectivity – she’s seeing embodied pedagogy as an interruption of both. The fact
that she frames that within complexity theory means not revolutionary change, but embracing of
what’s already there.
Jordon, Sherry. “Embodied Pedagogy: The Body and Teaching Theology.” Teaching Theology
and Religion 4.2 (2001), 98-101. EbscoHost Academic Search Complete. Web. February 18,
2015.
History of the Search: VCU Library; “embodied” AND “pedagogy”
Identification: This is a scholarly essay, published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal by a
theology professor at the University of St. Thomas. The author is rooting her argument in
scholarly research.
Summary: In this reflective essay, Sherry Jordon discusses the ways she considers embodiment
in her theology classrooms. Ultimately, she argues that via a consideration of proxemics and
kinesics, embodied teaching can lead to teaching that is “an authentic integration of theory with
practice, and pedagogy with theology” (101). Jordon bases her argument on personal experience
as a teacher, and she fleshes out that discussion with an introduction to the scholarly literature on
embodiment.
Jordon discusses embodiment in the classroom in four ways, each with an eye to the experiences
of students and teachers. First, she discusses proxemics, or the use of space (from buildings to
furniture to informal spaces). She discusses the ways that teachers can manipulate classroom
spaces to enhance student learning and “create community” (99). Second, she discusses kinesics,
or the use of body language and “the importance of nonverbal messages” (99). She discusses
kinesics from two directions: first, with the caution that body language varies intensely across
cultures, and second, with the hope that teachers can use their bodies to convey and “dramatize”
concepts to enhance student understanding (100). Third, Jordon encourages teachers to consider
students’ embodiment in their teaching, such that information presented in a variety of ways
(particularly through visual aids, aural aids, and field trips) can enhance student engagement.
Fourth and finally, Jordon discusses the impact of stress and health on the experiences of
students and teachers. She advocates for care of the self and others as a way to foster an
authentic connection with students.
Reaction: This article doesn’t get into the theory of embodiment, but instead focuses on the sort
of everyday practice of embodied teaching. There is nothing fancy here – instead, it seems like a
way for teachers to consider how what they already do is a form of embodied learning. The
ideas of kinesics and proxemics are interesting ways to consider embodiment in a sort of
“everyday” way. Shifting desks around, moving around the room, engaging students in ways
other than lecture – this is obvious stuff to me, but it’s interesting to consider these as embodied
learning. Significantly, we know that these sorts of manipulations of the physical space enhance
student engagement. But, we don’t really consider that “embodiment” – instead, it’s “learnercentered”. This leads me to ask – what is the overlap between “embodied pedagogy” and
“learner-centered teaching”?
Kazan, Tina S. “Dancing Bodies in the Classroom: Moving Toward an Embodied Pedagogy.”
Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition and Culture 5.3
(2005), 379-408. Project Muse. Web. February 20, 2015.
History of the Search: Search terms: “embodied” “pedagogy”. Found via VCU Library Search.
Identification: This is a scholarly source – it engages deeply with critical theory, it’s published
in a scholarly journal, and it’s based on the writer’s dissertation research. It’s also a personal
account, as much of the evidence is based on the writer’s own experience.
Summary:
In her article, “Dancing Bodies in the Classroom,” Tina Kazan argues for understanding the
classroom as a “corporeal text,” in which students’ and teachers’ embodiment can be “read” to
understand the power relations therein (381). She also argues that understanding the classroom
as a corporeal text will enhance the experiences of both students and teachers.
Deeply theorized, the work here depends on a reading of Bakhtin’s ideas about perspective (or,
“the surplus of seeing”) – Bakhtin argued that our perspectives define our epistemologies, and
our view is limited by our situatedness. It should be noted that while Bakhtin did not explicitly
connect these ideas to the body, Kazan emphasizes that his work is especially materialist, and
thus conscious of the physical body (384). Kazan is drawing a parallel between Bakhtin’s
reading of texts (wherein individual texts reinforce or disrupt genre) and a reading of bodies
(where in bodies disrupt or reinforce perceived categories) (382). For Bakhtin, perspective /
situatedness is about both the limitations of our views and the surplus/excess information our
views afford us.
Kazan applies this theoretical lens to an extended analysis of a ballroom dance class she took
with a friend, who is a lesbian. Kazan and her friend presented as lesbian (though Kazan is
straight) – this presentation disrupted the instructor’s assumptions about her students and
complicated her use of language in the classroom space. Kazan emphasizes the ways that bodies
offered both a disruptive, contentious force in the classroom (one which complicated discourse)
and a means of expression when language failed. She also emphasizes that her instructors’
difficulty in making sense of her students’ gendered embodiment meant that those very students
received a sub-standard education in the class. Throughout, Kazan emphasizes that the view of
both student and teacher are limited; thus, the students are called upon to discipline themselves
(cf. Foucault’s discussion of the panopticon).
Important throughout is the contextualization of bodies. The classroom context presupposes
particular participants (usually, students are framed as middle class, white, etc.) – this necessarily
means that some bodies are framed as outside of this perceived norm. Institutions frame and
erase bodies, molding them into the norm. This occurs both for students and for teachers (since,
in a Bakhtinian framework, both have perspectives). To illustrate these concepts, Kazan recalls
two experiences of male students reinterpreting her position as “datable woman”, rather than
“teacher/authority.” She argues that these experiences invariably occur over email – this is a
space not policed by the assumptions of classroom embodiment, which construct her as an
authority. She argues that these moments are ones of students policing and disciplining her
body.
Kazan ends the article with a section on applicability. She emphasizes that the classroom must
be framed as a practice space – where we undergo the bodily practice that we, as writing
teachers, are teaching. She argues for disrupting the perceived heirarchies of the classroom by
manipulating the classroom architecture (for example, by having students write on the board, an
important signifier of “teacher”) (401). She shows how classroom architecture also creates
spaces where students are more likely to resist, less likely to connect, because the space
(panopticon-style) is built so that students are observers o the teacher, and must trust the
observations of others about themselves.
Reaction: I think that Kazan’s use of Bakhtin is particularly useful, especially in his definition of
perspective as a particular bodily experience. I am drawing a connection between this construct
and feminist standpoint theory (Nancy Hartsock?). A question arises: Bakhtin defines
situatedness and the surplus of seeing in bodily terms – this is an everyday experience of living
in a body. While his discussion of the body is not explicit, it is implicit and present. I wonder if
the feminist discussion of standpoint might add to this concept. What I find useful about
standpoint theory is that it incorporates history (both personal and social) to perspective /
standpoint. That said, do they implicate the body and power in important ways.
Kiefer, Markus, and Natalie M. Trumpp. “Embodiment theory and education: The foundations
of cognition in perception and action.” Trends in Neuroscience and Education 1 (2012), 15-20.
SciVerse Science Direct. Web. February 15, 2015.
History of the Search: Found via VCU Library Search. Keywords: embodiment AND
education
Identification: This is a scholarly source. It was published in a scholarly journal (“Trends in
Neuroscience and Education”) and wen through peer review. The Authors are professors of
Psychiatry at the University of Ulm in Germany. This is not an independent research study;
instead, it is an overview of important research regarding embodiment and cognition.
Summary: The purpose of this article is to provide “a comprehensive overview of the latest
research on embodied cognition in several cognitive domains” and to “[discuss] important
implications for teaching and learning” (16). The authors argue that the current
neuropsychological data shows that, contrary to earlier theories, evidence of close links between
the brain’s cognitive and sensory systems indicate that cognition is deeply connected to our
bodily and sensory experience. The authors outline a basic debate in the history of
neuropsychology. The earlier (“classical”) view is that cognition systems are different from
sensory systems. This is the view of much of Western philosophy – that the mind and body are
separate. The newer model (“embodied,” “grounded” and/or “situated” cognition) suggests
instead that there are close links between the brain’s cognitive and sensory-motor systems.
Therefore, even abstract and symbolic knowledge (such as knowledge of abstract concepts like
“justice”) are rooted in our bodily experiences and sensory-motor processing.
The authors offer several researched examples as support for their claims. First, they show that
the relationship between reading and writing appears to show that “handwriting, which links rich
sensory-motor representations to perceptual letter shapes, improves subsequent reading
performance compared with typewriting” (16). Second, the authors show that our memory recall
is a deeply embodied phenomenon. For example, subjects were asked to remember a list of
action verbs; they remembered the list much better if they “did” the words as they memorized
them (16). Third, our conceptual memory appears to be deeply connected to our perception and
action – we are able to remember novel objects because of our perception of them, not because
of linguistic explanations (18-19). Finally, our conceptual memory for numbers seems similarly
embodied – for example, adult often rely on the same finger-counting methods they used as
children (19). This idea expands to non-numerical concepts, such as “guilt”, or “freedom” (19).
Our memory of those concepts seem to be similarly linked to the body in that these abstract
concepts are linked to the sensory-motor memories experienced when we learned the concept.
The authors argue that these findings are essential for teachers to understand, especially as basic
processes (handwriting, production of goods and services) become alienated from us. They
conclude, “as human cognition is the basis for communication, planning, problem solving, and
action, rich embodied knowledge about the functioning of our physical and social world is highly
important for the development of our societies” (20).
Response:
I don’t tend to gravitate to these scientific explanations (and I fear that I’ve oversimplified the
science embarrassingly here in this summary), but I find this work to be really interesting. In
particular, I think that this has huge implications for our increasing tendency to learn from
screens rather than books, pen, and paper. I wonder if this can (or must) be historicized – is
cognition hard-wired, or can it change with experience? My point is this: did the study on
handwriting and learning look at people who had grown up handwriting or had grown up typing?
Is there a generational gap here? What is gained, along with what is lost?
The authors’ final conclusion is fascinating: if we learn things via the manipulation of objects in
our environment, that means we learn the world by experiencing the world. Lacking that
experience, we lack the cognitive ability to make the world better. That’s deeply significant.
Wilcox, Hui Niu. “Embodied Ways of Knowing, Pedagogies, and Social Justice: Inclusive
Science and Beyond.” NWSA Journal 21.2 (2009), 104-120. JStor. Web. February 22, 2015.
History of the search: I found this using VCU Library search, using search terms “embodied”
and “pedagogy.”
Identification: This is a scholarly source – written by a sociology professor, and published in an
important Women’s Studies scholarly journal. Finally, it’s written in a very study-like way
(though the classroom experience is the study here). This is also a personal narrative, in that
Wilcox discusses her involvement in the classroom and departmental education process.
Summary: Wilcox argues that attention to bodily knowledge in the classroom is advantageous
for students (because it makes both the information and activism accessible for them) and for
faculty (who can use it as a vantage point to critique European, masculinist knowledge
production in the Western academy). She centers her analysis on a year-long residency at her
university by an activist, grassroots dance troupe; that residency provided multiple venues for
embodied pedagogy.
She opens by theorizing “embodied knowledge” / “embodied pedagogy” (terms she uses
interchangeably and defines as “an epistemological and pedagogical shift that draws attention to
bodies as agents of knowledge production” (105). Drawing especially on Elizabeth Grosz’s
ideas of situated knowledge and the ways bodies offer a means to deconstruct hierarchy,
objectification, and dualism, Wilcox also forefronts feminist critiques of science, in which a
critique of pure objectivity is connected to a valuing of bodily knowledge (105-6). She points
out the usefulness of critical pedagogy, but remarks that that particular school of thought has
often marginalized the body and had vocal critiques of feminist pedagogy.
Wilcox identifies three “interconnected concepts through which embodied knowledges can be
foregrounded: lived experiences, cultural performance, and bodily intelligence (106). She
argues that students’ lived experiences need to be thoughtfully incorporated into the classroom,
lest they foster unexamined dualisms of inside/outside the classroom and mind/body.
She
sees performance (especially performance engaged in social justice) as a potent means of
centering discourse and epistemology on the body (107). Finally, she emphasizes the bodily
intelligence - the skillful use of the body to manipulate the world – is a basis for an important
kind of learning (108).
Wilcox analyzes an extended case study, showing how the residency of the Ananya Dance
Theatre (ADT) at the College of St. Catherine offered a collaborative opportunity to explore
bodily pedagogies in the pursuit of environmental justice. She uses this case study to outline 3
pedagogical practices that center on the body: specific workshops that emphasize the body;
artistic residencies on campus, and incorporating embodied ways of knowing into the classroom.
She outlines how all of these practices must deal with student resistance, but ultimately offer
opportunities for collaboration, shared knowledge-making, and critical engagement in the world.
She takes particular care to show the impact (some measurable, some less so) these practices
had, in qualitative terms.
In particular, Wilcox emphasizes the ways that embodied pedagogies can offer new ways of
learning and knowing, in ways that might already be present in classrooms. She emphasizes the
ways that science classes already capitalize on bodily intelligence, especially in lab work (1178). She also emphasizes the inclusivity and interdisciplinarity of bodily pedagogies (117). Most
importantly, she argues that these practices need to be engaging with social justice issues so that
students’ educations are deeply connected to the material world and meaningful change.
Response: I find compelling Wilcox’s urge to measure outcomes here – she’s thinking like a
sociologist, but she’s also thinking strategically about framing the work of embodied pedagogy
and women’s studies within the university. She emphasizes student responses in evaluations as a
site for evidence for this impact. Importantly, she thinks about the scope of embodied pedagogy
programs – this residency program allowed students and faculty to engage with embodied
pedagogy in multiple ways and at multiple depths (from attending a performance to also doing a
workshop to taking a semester-long course). This is interesting (especially in connection with
her discussion of bodily intelligence in science classes), since it offers multiple ways of
considering embodied pedagogy, while still insisting on engaging such pedagogies in critically
informed ways.
I’m also interested in her focus on social justice. For Wilcox, embodied pedagogy becomes a
way for students to viscerally understand social justice issues that may be understood only
conceptually beforehand. In some ways, this is about bridging between different subjectivities –
that if our lived experience is limited to not having experienced these social justice issues (due to
privilege), then embodied pedagogy becomes a way to recreate that experience for students.
Cultural performance, then, needs to be experienced both as audience and as participant –
viewing the issue, and experiencing the issue, are both essential to understanding.
Works Consulted
Bickell, Barbara. "Embodying Exile: Performing the 'Curricular Body'." Curriculum and The
Cultural Body. Ed. Stephanie Springgay and Debra Freedman. NY: Peter Lang, 2007.
201-16. Print.
Bonnell, Cheyenne Marilyn. "FreshMAN Composition: Blueprint for Subversion." Meeting the
Challenge: Innovative Feminist Pedagogies in Action. Eds. Maralee Mayberry and Ellen
Cronan Rose. NY: Routledge, 1999. 215-228. Print.
Butterwick, Shauna, and Jan Selman. “Embodied Knowledge and Decolonization: Walking with
Theater’s Powerful and Risky Pedagogy.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education 134 (2012), 61-69. Wiley Online Library. February 15. 2015.
Doerr-Stevens, Candace. “Limbs Beyond the Skin: Exploring the Physical Realities of Digital
Composition.” English Teaching: Practice and Critique 10.3 (2011), 60-71. EbscoHost
Education Research Complete. Web. February 22, 2015.
Fissette, Jennifer L., and Theresa A. Walton. “‘Beautiful You’: Creating Contexts for Students to
Become Agents for Social Change.” The Journal of Educational Research 108.1 (2015),
1-15. Taylor and Francis Online. Web. October 15, 2014.
Freedman, Debra, Iris Striedieck, and Leonard Shurin. "Not Without My Body: Embodied
Learning With/In the Online Learning Environment." Curriculum and The Cultural
Body. Ed. Stephanie Springgay and Debra Freedman. NY: Peter Lang, 2007. 39-49.
Print.
Gustafson, Diana L. “Embodied Learning: The Body as an Epistemological Site.” Meeting the
Challenge: Innovative Feminist Pedagogies in Action. Eds. Maralee Mayberry and Ellen
Cronan Rose. NY: Routledge, 1999. 249-73. Print.
Ivinson, Gabrielle. “The Body and Pedagogy: Beyond Absent, Moving Bodies in Pedagogic
Practice.” British Journal of the Sociology of Education 33.4 (2012), 489-506. Taylor and
Francis Online. Web. February 17, 2015.
Jones, Stephanie, and Hilary Hughes-Decatur. “Speaking of Bodies in Justice-Oriented, Feminist
Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 63.1 (2012), 51-61. Sage
Publications. February 22, 2015.
Jordon, Sherry. “Embodied Pedagogy: The Body and Teaching Theology.” Teaching Theology
and Religion 4.2 (2001), 98-101. EbscoHost Academic Search Complete. Web. February
18, 2015.
Kazan, Tina S. “Dancing Bodies in the Classroom: Moving Toward an Embodied
Pedagogy.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language,
Composition and Culture 5.3 (2005), 379-408. Project Muse. Web. February 20, 2015.
Kiefer, Markus, and Natalie M. Trumpp. “Embodiment theory and education: The foundations of
cognition in perception and action.” Trends in Neuroscience and Education 1 (2012), 1520. SciVerse Science Direct. Web. February 15, 2015.
McLaren, Peter. Critical pedagogy and predatory culture : oppositional politics in a postmodern
era. NY: Routledge, 1995. Print.
Ollis, Tracey. A Critical Pedagogy of Embodied Education: Learning to Become and Activist.
NY: Palgrave, 2012. Print.
Perkinson, James W. “Pedagogy Beyond Piracy: Un-Learning the White Body to Recreate a
Body of Learning.” Teaching Theology and Religion 15. 4 (2012), 323-37. Wiley
Blackwell. Web. February 15, 2015.
Shapiro, Sherry B. Pedagogy and the politics of the body: a critical praxis. NY: Garland, 1999.
Print.
Springgay, Stephanie. Body, knowledge, and curriculum: pedagogies of touch in youth and
visual culture. NY: Peter Lang, 2008. Print.
Warren, John T. “The Body Politic: Performance, Pedagogy and the Power of
Enfleshment.” Text and Performance Quarterly 19.3 (1999), 257-265. EbscoHost
Communication and Mass Media Complete. Web. October 15, 2014.
Watkins, Megan. Discipline and Learn: Bodies, Pedagogy, and Writing. Boston: Sense
Publishers, 2012. Online. Ebrary. February 22, 2015.
Wilcox, Hui Niu. “Embodied Ways of Knowing, Pedagogies, and Social Justice: Inclusive
Science and Beyond.” NWSA Journal 21.2 (2009), 104-120. JStor. Web. February 22,
2015.