Abstract

AbstractThe authors considered the capacious feeling that emerges from saying no to literacy practices, and the affective potential of saying no as a literacy practice. The authors highlight the affective possibilities of saying no to normative understandings of literacy, thinking with a series of vignettes in which children, young people, and teachers refused literacy practices in different ways. The authors use the term capacious to signal possibilities that are as yet unthought: a sense of broadening and opening out through enacting no. The authors examined how attention to affect ruptures humanist logics that inform normative approaches to literacy. Through attention to nonconscious, noncognitive, and transindividual bodily forces and capacities, affect deprivileges the human as the sole agent in an interaction, thus disrupting measurements of who counts as a literate subject and what counts as a literacy event. No is an affective moment. It can signal a pushback, an absence, or a silence. As a theoretical and methodological way of thinking/feeling with literacy, affect proposes problems rather than solutions, countering solution‐focused research in which the resistance is to be overcome, co‐opted, or solved. Affect operates as a crack or a chink, a tiny ripple, a barely perceivable gesture, that can persist and, in doing so, hold open the possibility for alternative futures.

Highlights

  • The authors considered the capacious feeling that emerges from saying no to literacy practices, and the affective potential of saying no as a literacy practice

  • We argue that affect circulates through, between, and around the refusal to comply with normative understandings of literacy practices, which, in many instances, remain tethered to a humanist, Western-centric, and patriarchal logic

  • We give a brief summary of affect theory, which we argue can rupture humanist logics that continue to undergird conceptualizations of literacies through an attention to more-than-personal, excessive feelings and their potentials

Read more

Summary

The Field of Literacy

New Literacy Studies conceptualizes literacy as a social practice, often realized through ethnographic encounters with script and oral language (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Street, 1993b). One day the turtle went for a walk on dry land He was away from the lake for a few weeks. “I can’t,” said the turtle, “I don’t have any language to describe it.” At least to begin to be able to account for, the unruly and wild within literacy practices, scholars increasingly have turned to posthumanism and Deleuzian theories, with a sense that the ways in which New Literacy Studies, multiliteracies, and multimodality have defined literacies was not enough (Lenters, 2016), that something was missed (Leander & Boldt, 2013). Affective literacies were always there, lying at the edges of ethnographic explorations until researchers bumped up against them as they moved through the world, prompting a greater consideration of, for example, sensations within bodies and what remains inarticulable, how people felt as they gestured in the sand, stretched out to do a drawing, or enacted the sweep of a pen on paper

Complicating the Humanism of Literacies
Embracing Affect
Discussion
Not Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call