Abstract
AbstractIn this commentary, the author responds to three articles using affect studies to rethink literacy, in Reading Research Quarterly’s special issue on affect theory. Taking up how the three articles—by Boldt; Truman, Hackett, Pahl, Davies, and Escott; and Tanner, Leander, and Carter‐Stone—draw on divergent genealogies of affect theory, the author proposes that the ability of affect to capaciously capture such different approaches is one of its most important strengths. The author ends by considering the problem of borders as it appears across all three articles, ultimately arguing that the vagueness of concepts drawn from affect literacy is precisely what makes it an invaluable concept for thinking through how we may care for the literacies that sustain us.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
