Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality,
and to see the links to virtual rooms.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Sofie Smeets
(Utrecht University)
Nina Hosseini (University of Amsterdam)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
- Location:
- G5
- Sessions:
- Thursday 27 June, -, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
In response to classroom tensions educators often employ perspectives of niceness. Yet, niceness can maintain and reproduce the social inequities educators want to combat. By increasing insights in dynamics of niceness in this panel, we want to contribute to more equitable education.
Long Abstract:
Recent examples of discussions on transgender rights, Black Lives Matter protests, reproductive rights, migration as well as on Covid-19 measures and the Russo-Ukrainian war show how freedom of expression can often be related to rising tensions in classrooms and educational institutions. However, navigating social justice and safety issues, educators often feel the need to draw from niceness, kindness and empathy to avoid confrontation, discomfort and polarization. Additionally, doubts about their capacities required to facilitate these heightened debates, and possibly existing discursive limits of educational institutions feed in to this need.
However, several scholars (Pascoe 2023; Ladson-Billings 2004) have argued that niceness does not resolve societal tensions in education, but hinders socio-political understanding of systemic injustices related to race, gender, sexuality and religion, and instead maintains the dominant status quo.
Yet what does niceness in an educational context mean? Which processes (words, actions, movements, expressions, performances) reveal niceness, and how does niceness relate to other concepts such as kindness, good intentions, benign diversity? Is there are potential to niceness, and what are its limitations or alternatives? What role do educator’s sense of agency and discursive limits in educational institutions play? And in which ways is it related to the reproduction of dominant structures such as white supremacy and heterosexims?
In this panel, we aim to further conceptualize niceness in education from critical, anthropological perspectives and connect it to the struggle for educational equity. With this understanding we hope to contribute to the dismantling of reproduction of inequities in education.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Thursday 27 June, 2024, -Nina Hosseini (University of Amsterdam)
Paper short abstract:
Drawing on a literature review on social justice teacher education, we illustrate dilemmas around niceness, emotions and discomfort experienced by student teachers and teacher educators in teacher education aimed at disrupting systemic inequities.
Paper long abstract:
Based on a literature review, we discuss common challenges in social justice-oriented teacher education. For example, resistance and emotional responses are to be expected when addressing issues like white privilege (e.g. Ohito, 2020; Hyland, 2010; Rolon-Dow et al., 2020). When analyzing these emotions, it is important to acknowledge that they are not individual, apolitical experiences: Emotions can stem from systemic inequities, influence the sense of connection or distinction between groups, and can hinder social change (Ahmed, 2014). Although various authors show how these responses and the resulting discomfort can be employed as teachable moments, they also carry the risk of creating situations that are unsafe or place a large toll on student teachers, especially those from marginalized backgrounds. As a result, teacher educators may resort to niceness to avoid conflict and discomfort. This means social justice teacher educators are often navigating a delicate tension. Introducing issues of racism in the classroom may evoke stigmatizing remarks or put students from marginalized backgrounds in a position where they must explain or even defend their reality of oppression (Matias & Grosland, 2016; Berry et al., 2021). However, not addressing it or staying ‘neutral’ as a facilitator can lead to silencing or reproduce harmful dominant discourses (Galman et al., 2010; Jones, 2016). By illustrating dilemmas around niceness from empirical and theoretical literature, we aim to contribute to our collective understanding of what happens in education that aims to transform systemic inequities, but can often (unintentionally) reinforce the injustices it is trying to disrupt.
Abhishek Shah (Columbia University)
Paper short abstract:
This paper argues that practising “education as the practice of freedom” requires pedagogy and texts that do not simplify or pacify but provoke and agitate and foster a just relationship with the context of learning.
Paper long abstract:
Is the university classroom operating as a space to safeguard and privilege every student’s experience and feelings, rather than one where we can interrogate and reflect on experiences and contexts that reproduce power structures? This paper examines the feasibility of implementing "Education as the Practice of Freedom" at Teachers College, Columbia University, through bell hooks' writings on education and change. It is based on my engagement and ethnographic work during a four-month long course devoted to studying selected texts by hooks. I ask if texts and pedagogy can radicalise cis men to organise and deconstruct the privilege they gain from patriarchy (and other power structures if they do so). This is inspired by my observation that my white male peers and I (as a caste privileged cis male student), were not uncomfortable while working through hooks’ texts with the collective mission of deconstructing (any) benefits some of us gain from power structures. I argue that questions over pedagogy and content cannot be separated from the context of the classroom and the institution. Learning about the demographics of students, professors and staff in the institution and its various programmes, the history and political economy of the institution and neighbourhood, including organising efforts by students, staff and professors, and degree-related requirements is key to learning about the context. I argue that practising “education as the practice of freedom” requires pedagogy and texts that do not simplify or pacify but provoke and agitate and foster a just relationship with the context of learning.
Karen Villegas (University of California, Berkeley)
Paper short abstract:
This paper examines the ideological conceptions of language and literacy practices in ESL citizenship classes. Drawing on yearlong participant observation, I examine a lesson covering slavery and the civil rights movement to show how the space of critical thinking collapses.
Paper long abstract:
This paper examines the ideological conceptions of language and literacy practices in adult, English as a Second Language (ESL) citizenship classes. Adult migrants enroll in these classes to prepare for the naturalization process and acquire U.S. citizenship. I argue that ESL citizenship classes do not foster a sense of political incorporation or belonging, and instead position U.S. immigrants to identify as workers rather than citizens who can influence their world. Drawing on yearlong participant observation of the northern California site; I examine a lesson covering slavery and the civil rights movement to show how the space of critical thinking collapses. By relying on niceness, the pedagogical discussions of the class succumb to an insidious form of inclusivity and multiculturalism that reinscribe monocultural assimilation so that immigrants may become U.S. citizens. Nondominant “new citizens” are assimilated into low-paying jobs, rather than divested from oppressive conditions. In educational spaces like ESL citizenship classrooms – and primary and secondary schooling – the civil rights movement has come to stand in for nonviolence, progress, patriotism, and morality – all of the values the state wants us to enact, neglecting the radical foundation of the civil rights movement and its pedagogical potential. Within the context of domestication, this paper shows how these ideologies manifest in the classroom and their limits for counter-hegemonic thought while considering the expansive possibilities or (im)possibilities within these spaces of indoctrination
Naomi van Stapele (The Hague University of Applied Sciences)
Paper short abstract:
Gaza's destruction leads to frictions in Dutch classrooms, often ignored due to 'action reticence' by White lecturers, reinforcing White supremacy. A student initiative, rooted in 'pedagogy of discomfort' and 'response-ability', disrupts this and offers possibilities of White accountability.
Paper long abstract:
The ongoing devastation in Gaza since October 7th and the destruction of life there has been largely ignored by numerous Dutch academic institutions. This silence has catalysed frictions within academic settings among students, between students and teachers, and against the institution itself. Following Tsing (2005), I define 'friction' as the complex and dynamic interplay of diverse, and often conflicting, cultural and social forces. Embracing this friction is crucial in fostering mutual learning and enhancing critical thinking. My anthropological study at a Dutch institution, involving faculty and students, reveals the insidious power of the prevailing discourse on diversity within Dutch society. This narrative, deeply embedded in a culture of 'Niceness' (Castagno, 2014) and the preservation of ‘White comfort’ (Cairo, 2021), allows many White educators to evade their pedagogical responsibilities. Some White educators in my study used the term 'handelingsverlegenheid', or 'action reticence' in English, to justify their avoidance of addressing these frictions. This term reflects a deep uncertainty about how to engage pedagogically during challenging 'hot moments' (Tuitt & Stewart, 2021), highlighting an inability to engage in affective practices and relational ethics essential for mutual learning (Zembylas & Loukaidis, 2021). This paper demonstrates how and why 'action reticence' perpetuates White supremacy in educational settings and particularly harms students of colour. Additionally, I explore a student-led intervention designed to disrupt this inertia by their (White) lecturers, grounded in the 'pedagogy of discomfort' and 'response-ability' (Bozalek & Zembylas, 2023), offering 'clearings' (Vollebergh and Van Stapele, 2023) for White accountability in Dutch Higher Education.
Sarah Franziska Gerwens (LSE)
Paper short abstract:
The paper presents discursive strategies that render white race talk nice and manage not-nice educational inequality. I draw on 18 months of fieldwork in German schools to argue that distancing, minimising, and defending keep whiteness nice, and expressed happiness/sadness signal niceness to others.
Paper long abstract:
Research on white race talk often focuses on dismissals, discomfort, and ignorance - not-nice moments and manoeuvres. The paper argues that this focus risks obscuring how race talk can happen nicely, even happily, and how this helps manage the not-niceness of racialised inequality especially in such a ‘nice field’ as education.
The paper draws on 18 months of fieldwork in and around schools in a mid-size German city, including work and volunteering as a classroom aide, participation in school open days, and interviews with educational staff/administrators (55) as well as parents (33). Transcripts and field notes were analysed in the tradition of critical discourse studies and coded thematically using NVivo.
I argue that distancing, minimising, and defending offered ways to deal with not-niceness, read (accusations of) racism, and kept whiteness nice. These strategies acknowledged racism but made it palatable; kids’ slurs were “playful”, teachers “not possible” to accuse. Expressions of laughter, happiness, and sadness, meanwhile, performed that innocent white people not only said nice things but did so the nice way: with a smile, a chuckle, a heartfelt yet helpless “things are unfair.”
This paper adds to the growing body of critical work on niceness in education by exploring its discursive dimension and underlines how it protects whiteness. I highlight how nice talk was race evasive not in semantics, as ‘colorblind’ speech is often characterised to be, but in consequence. Nice-washed race was rehabilitated as a conversational topic, but critical, anti-racist speech got curtailed and racism remained out of focus.
Sofie Smeets (Utrecht University)
Paper short abstract:
In my ethnographic research with Dutch higher education teachers I see a focus on good intentions in their inclusivity practices, also when tensions arise. Their varying responses confirm an individualized understanding of inclusivity, leaving little space for structural educational inquality.
Paper long abstract:
In recent years diversity and inclusivity have become important items on the policy agenda of Dutch higher education institutions. Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences aims to be a school where everyone feels welcome, regardless of their background. In broadly defined terms the school urges educators to create inclusive learning environments for all students. When educators engage with the call for more inclusion, the lack of a conceptual framework becomes problematic and raises different questions: How do teachers engage with inclusivity? How do they shape their inclusivity practices and how do these practices inform us on their understandings of diversity and inclusivity in higher education? Based on ethnographic fieldwork with educators in higher education I see that teachers draw from personal experiences and interests and create inclusivity initiatives based on general principles of pedagogy and educational theory. Their intentions to positively contribute to inclusion overrule related tensions and discomfort in education. I observed how teachers evade, trivialize, patronize, (re)negotiate amongst others in response to highlighted frictions, marginalizations, power differences and confronting understandings of diversity and inclusivity. Yet despite varying reactions, educators remain focused on their good intentions. I conclude that in this process a generalized and individualized understanding of inclusion prevails leaving little space for understanding and discussing structural inequality.