Teaching Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

Sara C. Motta
School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; sara.motta@nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract: In this article I reect on introducing critical pedagogy into social justice teaching in an elite UK university as part of the Nottingham Critical Pedagogy Project. I de-essentialise Freires conceptualisation of the human subject and her desire for transcendence with the introduction of Deleuze and Guattaris politics of desire. This enables an adaption of critical pedagogy from its original context of popular politics to the individualised elite setting of our project. Our pedagogical objectives become the opening of spaces of possibility which decentre the dominant regime of truth of the neoliberal university and enable imagining and becoming other. This involves disrupting normal patterns of classroom performativity in terms of student as consumer and lecturer as producer of commodities, transgressing dualisms between mind/body, intellectual/emotional and teacher/student. Our pedagogical praxis is therefore inherently political as by radically disturbing commodied subjectivities we foster processes that lead to unanticipated, maybe even unspeakable, transgressions. Keywords: critical pedagogy, subjectivity, otherness and hybridity, university, Delueze and Guattari, Paulo Freire

British Higher Education is in crisis; a crisis manifested through the intensication of the erosion of spaces of critical thought and practice and its colonisation by an exclusionary commodication which is managed through an increasing logic of authoritarianism. Yet we can view this crisis as a moment of possibility; a moment in which whilst there have been decades of eerie depoliticisation, decomposition of collectivity and erosion of both the desire for, and belief in, social and political change there is now a visible underside of negation, a no to the destruction of the public university, manifested most forcefully in the rebirth of a student movement in 2010. This movement enacts a politicisation of education. It is an urgent call to critical scholarsin opposition to those that claim education can and should be apolitical (see Fisher 2008)to politicise our practice as researchers, educators and intellectuals. This piece is written as an embrace of this call to politicise education. It situates my practice in and outside of the classroom as inherently political, which whilst often complicit in the reproduction of the neoliberal university can also be created as a transgressive space of possibility of other ways of making knowledge, understanding the world and creating ourselves and our society. My reections here are the result of my participation as co-organiser of the Nottingham Critical Pedagogy Project in the Centre for the Study of Social
Antipode Vol. 45 No. 1 2013 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 80100 C 2012 The Author. Antipode C 2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.00995.x

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

81

and Global Justice (CSSGJ), University of Nottingham. Whilst these are individual reections they have their origin and their stimulus in the ongoing critical dialogue with my co-organisers and other participants in the project (for details of the project see Bell et al 2010). They are also part of an ongoing attempt to make sense of being a single mother woman of colour in an elite university in which many of my colleagues and students whilst recognisable are also very much others to me. I am trying to learn to see white (masculine) middle-classness and move beyond my rigidities, xities and essentialising frames of seeing. I am also trying to de-essentialise homogenisation of academic experience and subjectivity as white (masculine) middle class and afuent. Both these I hope can contribute to critical praxis in this particular space and time [however uncomfortable and almost counterintuitive that may be for me (and others)].1 I argue that it is important to recover and reinvent critical pedagogy (CP) and do this by engaging with, whilst transforming, Freires conceptualisation of CP as a political act that is central to the formation of communities of resistance and revolutionary subjects. I build on his work by suggesting that in an elite commodied context of higher education it is necessary to reconceptualise the nature of the subject; away from an essentialised subject that desires transcendence and an end to oppression and towards a conceptualisation of subjectivity in which desire can be channelled into subjectivities that dont desire social transformation. I do this by using the politics of desire (ontology and epistemology) of Deleuze and Guattari. For these thinkers desire and plurality are the ontological basis of being and therefore being in the world necessarily produces and is produced by a plurality of knowledges and subjectivities even if the structuration of desire in capitalism is premised upon the creation of hierarchies, unities and xities that block this multiplicity. For Deleuze and Guattari therefore there is no essentialised desiring subject prior to its articulation in power relationships. On this basis I also critically interrogate our analysis of contemporary British university (and by implication broader society) with a focus on how the structuration of desire increasingly occurs through the development of alienated social relationships and disciplinary practices of self. Thus implicating both elite and subaltern in the reproduction of contemporary structures of domination also implies that both exist in alienated social relationships with truncated desires. This suggests that the task of CP is not to replace one privileged viewpoint (that of the oppressor) by another (that of the oppressed) but to open up the possibilities of a multiplicity of ways of being and doing that are transformatory and transgressive. Therefore it becomes possible to adapt and make useful CP in an elite higher education setting with a majority of that community (student and staff) not desiring social and political transformation. In such a setting, arguably, the pedagogies we develop are not pedagogies that construct collective communities of resistance (as we are not with organised social/political communities who desire transcendence) but rather pedagogies of possibility that open transgressive spaces of affective and intellectual possibilities of imagining and being other. This is an inherently political process. By deconstructing commodied social relationships and subjectivities and opening up the possibility of being, thinking and living otherwise as students and lecturers we practically negate the hierarchical power relationships through which contemporary higher education is produced.
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

82

Antipode

Critical Pedagogy: Theory and/as Practice

One of the problematics faced by critical educators attempting to develop CPs in an elite university setting is that this setting differs from those out of which CP and popular education emerged and has often been practiced. These settings were either embedded in popular class political struggle or came out of experiences of being and/or working with subaltern students entering into higher education settings in which their histories and experiences were invisibilised by the hidden and not so hidden curriculum (Freire 2006; hooks 1994, 2003; for contemporary examples of CP in the classroom with non-traditional students and marginalised communities, see Canaan 2002: Ryoo et al 2009). This difference in context pushes for the need to critically reect about the underlying theoretical assumptions of CP, particularly those about the subject of social change and the nature of social change, and those concerning the transformative possibilities and limitations of CP (Boler 1999). If we are not working with oppressed subaltern subjects can CP be made relevant and meaningful? If we are not working with organised or semi-organised subaltern groups can CP make an emancipatory political impact? The task of beginning to develop answers to these questions involves recovering and reinventing CP (Singh 2010). This is premised upon a dialogue between theory, practice and history which involves contesting the attempt to co-opt CP into a commodied education practice by conceiving it as a set of methods without its critical philosophical and political underpinnings and content. Conceptualising CP in this way transforms it into easily adaptable tools, which can be recuperated within the status quo and developed as a commodity with which to sell the novelty of ones course (Boler 1999, 177179; Mclaren and Da Silva 1993, 2009). In this context critical reexivity about the world becomes transformed into individualised understandings of self and other. This can reinforce the idea that social problems are the result of individual choices and behaviour. When reection is stripped of critical content, in this way, the dialogue that results easily becomes communication around hegemonic common sense ideas. This undercuts the creation of the conditions for comprehension of the world through encouraging an openness to otherness (in terms of theories about the world, and ways of being and seeing the world). Thus recovering and reinventing CP for our times and our context involves theorising practice and practicing theory which is based simultaneously in experience and philosophy, in working and thinking, in action and reection (Shor 2009, 289, 293294). Such a desire to unite the theory and practice of CP was one of the premises from which we developed the CP project. In this paper, as part of this broader process, I seek to theorise the concreteness of teaching social justice2 in an elite university setting, focusing on how we conceptualise CP, how it has and is being developed in our setting and the barriers faced in attempting to develop such a praxis in an increasingly commodied and de-intellectualised institutional environment. I focus on the insights of Deleuze and Guattari, particularly their politics of desire (as an ontological and epistemological orientation), Freires pedagogy of liberation and bell hooks teaching to transgress which can help conceptualise how one might actualise such as praxis in the classroom. I use them dialogically; constructing connections that I hope contribute to our reexive praxis as critical educators. I particularly focus
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

83

on the axis of otherness and voice as I have found these the most conducive for developing an analysis and strategy of CP in the teaching of social justice at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

The Unnished Nature of Humanity and Desire as the Grounding of Life or To Live in the Borderlands Means You. . .3
Deleuze and Guattaris positive ontology is concerned with unfettering the possibility to experiment with what a life can do and where a life might go. Ontology is here conceptualised in terms of difference and singularity; as becoming and process. Fixity, sameness and closure, to differing degrees, work against this ontology of life as being is grounded in the life force and desire that transverses life. As they argue: [Life is a] streaming, spiralling, zigzagging, snaking, feverish line of variation [that] liberates a power of life that human beings had rectied and organisms had conned (Deleuze and Guattari 1999: 501). Life, our lives, are therefore complex, unnished and indeterminate. Their philosophy is often called a philosophy of immanence in which the possibilities of moving beyond the present are found within the present itself (Bell 2010:5). They are concerned with what a life can do and what a body can do when we think in terms of becomings, multiplies, lines and intensities, rather than essential forms, predetermined subjects, structured functions or transcendent values. They are therefore concerned to transgress xed and hierarchical forms of subjectivity. In an elite higher education setting this ontological orientation suggest strategies that transgress and problematise closed and hierarchical subjectivities of the student as consumer and the lecturer as deliverer and producer of knowledge as a commodity. However this transgression should not, cannot, move towards the positing and practice of other xed homogenous subjectivities but rather towards openness and plurality. Deleuze and Guattari develop their opposition to xity around a notion of an opposition to state philosophyways of thinking and being that seek to stop the ow of life and congeal into xities and transcendent forms. As they argue transcendence enters as soon as movement of the innite is stopped (Deleuze and Guattari 1994:47). The rational subject of enlightenment philosophy is an example of state philosophy as it presents a unied subject and concurrent xing of desire. For Deleuze and Guattari this creates beings unable to think the new and overcome the present alienated structuration of desire. They conceptualise instead the schizophrenica subject transversed by a multicity of active forces who cannot think change but who knows it immanently (Bell 2010:7). However this subject is not merely a force of immanence. Rather they conceptualise productivity of desire as in the tension between immanence and transcendence. As they argue everything stops dead from a moment, everything freezes in placeand then the whole process will being all over again (cited in Bell 2010:7). Such border thinking (Mignolo 2001) suggests that it is in the slippages of certainty and in the faultlines of conformity that a productive tension between becoming and being and between a subject of state philosophy and a more nomadic subjectivity can be
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

84

Antipode

2007).4 In an elite higher education setting this suggests a focus created (Anzaldua on the cracks and margins of xity, homogeneity and monologue as places from within which to create productive spaces to transgress, however momentarily, our complicity as subjects of the neoliberal university. This ontological orientation afrms that we are always multiple, intertwined and becoming and not singular, separate and xed (Minha-ha 1989). It opens up the possibilities of becoming other(s) beyond the avenues, relations, values and meanings that seem to be laid out for us. In our context this suggests moving beyond the state subjectivities of contemporary higher education. However this capacity to recognise such plurality and openness and to reach beyond ourselves is not inevitable but rather is a potentiality, a possibility. To concretise how we open up such transgressive possibilities we need to conceptualise the specicity of how desire is structured to reproduce hierarchy, monologue and closure in British academia. This enables the identication of the cracks, margins and tensions from which to develop transgressive pedagogical practices. The contemporary structuring of desire within the university is transversed by neoliberalisation and marketisation. This is not a new process, for the university within capitalism always commodies and alienates intellectual production. Rather, it can be argued that we are witnessing an increasing colonisation of higher education by market rationality which is produced through the construction of particular commodied and alienated subjectivities and social relations (Harvie 2000). This is manifested in the increasing surveillance, monitoring and ranking of teaching, research and administrative practices within the university space (De Angelis and Harvie 2009; Levidow 2002). Our labour as researchers and teachers is transformed into a product that is ranked according to the tick boxes of evaluation sheets and the values embedded within international journals. The mechanisation of mind and commodication of thinking and learning tends to devalue that which is other; that which is outside of the dominant norm as it is not marketable, popular or acceptable within the dominant frame of knowing and knowledge (De Angelis and Harvie 2009). The increasing professionalisation and standardisation of teaching methods and of our relationships with students create mechanisms of surveillance. Such mechanisms discipline the educator and researcher but also the student who is ranked and valued against pre-established criteria of assessment, ranking of universities and grade evaluation and predetermined performance criterion. This process contributes to disabling the hearts, minds and bodies of our students and ourselves (Darder 2009:568). The docile student as consumer and potential worker and teacher/researcher as proletarian subject are forged in a way in which we internalise in our thoughts and desires many of the criteria of ranking and forms of education as product leading to practices of disciplining the self (Gill 2009). Teachers get affected by negative student evaluation results. Researchers lose their self-esteem when they receive grant rejections, rejections of their articles and questions in their activity reviews about the value of their products. Students enter into self-doubt when their marks are low or when they are not accepted for highly ranked universities and courses (Gill

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

85

2009). In such a context the rational behaviour of the student is to learn to the test, to request education as a product and to resist when education as otherness and openness in content and form are delivered. The rational behaviour of the academic worker is to produce according to the values, timings and measures of commodication. An authoritarian logic of competition, hierarchy and separation enter into the dynamics of reproduction of student and academic community. This dehumanises learning, teaching, research and writing. It produces a set of internalised practices of evaluation and discipline that reinforce the naturalisation of such alienated relationships of knowledge in our practices of self and towards others (hooks 1994). Such an environment makes it increasingly difcult to legitimise critique as a denaturalising of what is, of who we are and of what is possible and who we might be. Our desires and subjectivities (as students and academics) increasingly become the self-reinforcing basis of the commodifcation of higher education and alienation of our creative capacities. For Freire when confronted by such a situation of oppression and alienation subjects should inherently desire change that brings transcendence of their oppression; they should want to historicise reality. This is because in his ontology the human subject essentially seeks and desires transcendence (1994:39). However, for Deleuze and Guattari such desire for otherness can become channelled into practices that create subjects lacking a desire for change and transcendence, as is occurring in our present context (Bell 2010; Deleuze 2001:27). This seems to conceptualise more accurately the erosion and eradication of such desire for transcendence which characterises neoliberal subjectivity. It suggests that hope and the desire for transcendence (premised as they are on imagining otherwise) are also not givens but potentials, possibilities. Critical educators are therefore embedded within an increasingly dehumanised and alienated context produced, albeit with resistances, by their own alienated desires and self-disciplining practices (within ourselves and others) which work to decompose a desire for otherness, uncertainty and openness. Therefore our subjectivities and desires are not separate from the construction of reality. Rather, they are the essential creative capacity, often turned back against itself, of that reality (Boler 1999). What does this imply therefore about the nature of knowledge and the knowing subject and how this might impact upon our practice and orientation as critical educators in such an educational context?

Knowing Subjects
This ontological basis and conceptualisation of contemporary higher education suggests that a key orientation of our praxis should involve recognition of our complicity in the reproduction of the commodied university. This fosters the development of a practical afrmative critique of academic and student subjectivities constructed as openness to otherness. As bell hooks took from Freire, we cannot [therefore] enter the struggle as objects in order to later become subjects (1994:46). Social justice cannot be studied and learnt objectively but is premised upon the mutual recognition of ourselves as subjects and subjects implicated in the construction of reality.

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

86

Antipode

This ontology and epistemology also implies that there is not a truth to be uncovered through CP but rather an opening to a multiplicity of truths. This suggests a transgression beyond Freires universalisation in proletarian seeing that he viewed as the basis of revolutionary truth towards a Deleuzian opening to a plurality of ways of critique, thinking and changing the world. Within this conceptualization a task of CP within the university space is not to replace one privileged viewpoint (that of the oppressor) by another (that of the oppressed) but rather to develop an orientation towards a radical opening of our imaginations and practices of self. This is particularly relevant in an elite setting of higher education as it implies that elite and subaltern are complicit in the reproduction of alienated social practicealthough this recognition is not the same as eliding the signicant differences in their positionalities in the hierarchy of structuration of desire. Therefore both have truncated desires and are implicated in the construction of the other. Accordingly, truth claims and practices which create a closed and universal knowledge and knowing subject, or Royal Science, block this life force from becoming other and our potentiality to hope and reach beyond ourselves. Such closures stop movement and becoming in their transcendent predetermination of becoming into being (Deleuze and Guattari 1994:47; Robinson unpublished). When desire is channelled in this way it reinforces inequalities, domination and blockages in our capacities and potentials (Rickert 1986:360). Knowledge in such transcendent and universalising frames becomes an object that xes the world. It is a thing that can be known by a particular class of personthe teacher/intellectualwith skills and training in established methods and theories. The knower is in an external and passive relationship to that which can be known. As Freire argues, a person is [assumed] to be merely in the world, not with the world or with others; the individual is spectator, not re-creator (2006:75). This passivity is deepened in the knowers relationship with the learner who is infantilised and objectied; a subject to be lled with knowledge just as the knower once was. In this epistemological frame education, or banking education, as Freire argues, becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher/researcher is the depositor. Such educational practices conceptualise knowledge as a noun, or thing (as opposed to a verb, or process) which construct teaching space as: striated spacean arrangement in which life is organized according to hierarchical, transcendent principles: a Euclidean space in which linkages are dened and can only be effected in one way (cited in Bell 2010:9). This fosters a naturalisation of reality and attempts to homogenise our subjectivities and desires by reinforcing passivity as opposed to critical enquiry (Freire 2006). The patterns of knowing and doing posit a centre of true knowledge against which all other truth claims and practices are to be evaluated. Thereby creating hierarchies of subjects and ways of seeing/being, silencing and de-legitimising the many in the practice of universalising a one when in fact the dominant frame is itself only a particular way of seeing and being in the world (Andreotti 2010; Mohanty 2003; Robinson 2011:5; Santos 2001, 2002). In sum, a universalising and closed epistemological frame (and concurrent ontology) denies all, elite and subaltern, teacher and student, our capacity to develop our own concepts, ways of seeing and questions. For Freire we are denied
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

87

the right to speak formulate our language and articulate our words (1998, 2006). This creates a kind of subordination in both dominant and peripheral ways of seeing to a preformed reality that denies our agency and capacity to construct and reconstruct the world and ourselves.

Overcoming Silences and Exclusions by Learning to Read the World Through Other Eyes5
Accordingly, an epistemological orientation of our practice is to decentre dominant frames of knowledge. To achieve this it is necessary to make transparent the process of its construction and its positionality, its particularity as opposed to its absoluteness and universal status. The existence of the norm is premised upon the existence of the other; both of which are ctions of homogeneity and sameness which deny the actual and potential complexities of our being. Thus the denaturalisation of the dominant way of seeing and being is a relational process. This involves unpacking the assumptions, silences and exclusions of the dominant frame; a deconstruction of the crust of conventionalised and routine consciousness (Dewey 1954:183) as well as making visible other ways of seeing and being in the world. Freires understanding of pedagogy, as a pedagogy of liberation and a practice of freedom can help us to unpack this orientation. For him the oppressed whilst presented as marginals whose voices are excluded from dominant knowledge frames are not marginals as . . . they have always been insideinside the structure which made them beings for others (2006:74). Similarly Deleuze and Guatarri (1986) talk of a minor literature or in our case what we can call a minor praxis (Katz 1996). This suggests the necessity of organising our teaching, curriculum design and implementation around invisibilised practices and subjects, that which is unsaid and the outlaws. Such an epistemological orientation enables a deconstruction, or in their words a deterritorialisation, of dominant regimes of meanings and practices. Yet as Justaert argues this philosophical practice involves becoming minoritarian, a passion for the marginalised (2010:156). This does not mean the marginalised look for acceptance into the dominant frame. Rather as JanMohamed and Lloyd (cited in Delaney 2001:5) suggested, it involves the minoritys attempt to negate the prior negation of itself whereby individuals are reduced to a generic status of being minor (or to being inferior, underdeveloped or childlike). Such an epistemological practice is one of [minor literatures] most fundamental forms of afrmation. For Deleuze and Guattari the process of becoming minor is political and collective (1986:16). It is not about reafrming minority identities but creating collective ways of seeing the world and being in the world that break down hierarchies, xities and dualisms; a becoming minor in which all become minoritarian (1986:1822). This ultimately involves the creation of nomad science6 which is founded on the excluded, the underside of society, history, politics, the others. Centrally for us working in elite higher education settings this involves the dominant losing their dominant identity. Central to this process is realising this frames particularity, its implication in structures of power and oppression over others but also how the subjects who hold this frame of seeing and being in the world too have their
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

88

Antipode

creative capacities alienated. Domination and power become demystied as not merely something out there but something in here. Engagement with other theories, epistemologies, histories and practices can support the development of critical awareness of the situatedness of our beliefs, thoughts and subject positions. The curiosity about otherness and ourselves that potentially results is not based on a regurgitation of certainties and common sense assumptions. Rather it is constructed through intellectual, embodied and emotional experiences which force us to question our taken for granted certainties. For Freire this helps forge epistemological curiosity; an orientation to explore the unknown based on critical awareness (Freire 1997). Yet this is not a process to construct dualisms and xities of discrete knowledges and experiences which results in the breakdown of communication, dialogue and seeing. Rather it is to experience that no-one is purely one thing that labels like Indian, or woman, or Muslim, or American are not more than starting points, which if followed into actual experience for only a moment are quickly left behind (Said l994:336). Thus our orientation is not to replace one privileged frame by an other privileged frame but rather to demystify, demythologize and denaturalise ours and others subjectivities (see Chatterton 2007 and Cook 2000 for a very similar discussion conceptualised as border pedagogy). This reminder that we are not purely one thing is also a reminder to the critical educator in the elite institution that we cannot homogenise the experiences and perspectives of our students. We need to be open to surprise, to the uncomfortable and unexpected. We need a similar orientation to openness that we are expecting from our students. To do this means to situate ourselves in the classroom (hooks 1994). As Pearson argues this is a praxis of freedom that in contrast to a politics of control or regulation . . . is a politics of desire that allows for . . . the generation of the maximum freedom of diversity and novelty . . . but the new is always in the context of social critique (1998:411).

Pedagogies of Possibility
Pedagogically this is embedded in the development of critical literacy in which the medium is the message, bringing the way in which we learn (and create knowledge) to the centre of our knowledge (and political) practices. The critical content of any learning experience cannot be separated from the method or process through which the learning occurs. Thus as Audrey Lourde argued, The masters tool will never dismantle the masters house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change (Lorde 1984:112). Therefore the process of constructing knowledge needs to be reclaimed and remade as a critical act of opening possibility through developing pedagogies (as method and content) with students (Freire 2006). Accordingly, knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention. Freedom becomes the . . . freedom to create and to construct, to wonder and to venture. Such freedom requires that the individual be active and responsible, not a slave or a well-fed cog in the machine (Fromm 1964:5253 cited in Freire 2006:68). The critical educator recognises that people are thinking beings that make
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

89

and remake the world. Thus pedagogy cannot distance itself from the world but rather must embed itself in real world experience. It must be problem posing and student centred (hooks 1994) critically engaging with lived experience of students and of others. This is particularly relevant in an elite setting where otherness is often excluded in terms of student and academic prole and experience. It is a means of bringing the agency of the student to light and thereby highlighting the ongoing and collective nature of learning, knowledge and the construction of reality. This also involves bringing in the subjectivity, experiences and desires of the teacher. Such pedagogies challenge the dualism between teacher and student so that both are simultaneously teachers and students (hooks 1994). As Shor explains Critical teaching is not a one-way development not something done for students or to them for their own good . . . a critical process is driven and justied by mutuality (2009:291). Knowledge is therefore no longer an object possessed by the teacher given to the student. Rather knowledge becomes an ever-changing open constructed process. We become a learning community. Arguments based on the authority of the teacher are no longer valid, rather validity comes from the usefulness of knowledge for problem solving, for Freire knowledge which is on the side of freedom (2006:80) which afrms men and women as beings in the process of becomingas unnished, uncompleted beings in and with a likewise unnished reality (2006:84) and for Delueze and Guattari knowledges which enable processes of becoming other, of liberating desire (Kouba 2008). Such orientations foster a attening of the plane of hierarchy and suggest the possibility of creating smooth spaces of horizontal pedagogy. Here we can begin to open the possibility, collectively and individually, of becoming meaning makers, concept builders and creators of reality. To do this implies a mutual recognition of us as subjects, an openness to otherness and a dialogical form of communication (Shor 2009:290292). This kind of dialogic situation is only possible when all have the right to name the world. This also implies a process of ongoing curriculum building in which the teacher learns in-process how to design a course for the students, the critical teacher also learns how to design the course with the students (Shor 2009:291). True dialogue, however, is premised upon a sincere desire to engage with the meanings, experiences and desires of students and bring ourselves into this process, embracing, not silencing, our complicity and contradictions (Freire and Brito 1991). This takes humility, tolerance, historical patience and a joy and love of life and being. As Freire argues, it is impossible to teach without a forged, invented, and well-thought-out capacity to love (Freire 1998:3 cited in Darder 2009, 506). As the intellectual is not here separated from the personal and the affective, experiences that rupture divisions between mind and body, subjective and objective, emotional and intellectual can be conceptualised as constructing trangressive forms of becoming other. These experiences result in hybrid ways of seeing the world which help to open up the possibility of breaking down dualisms that divide the subject from her creative capacities, particularly acute in the neoliberal university (Boler 1999; Freire and Brito 1991).7 As Moreira (2008:7) argues (citing Dimitriadis and McCarthy 2000:55), Hybridity in this stance is a radical disturbance of both
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

90

Antipode

self and other, an encounter that leads ultimately to unanticipated, maybe even unspeakable, transgressions (see Chatterton 2007 and Cook 2000 for experiences of this type of pedagogy in critical geography).

Teaching Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

This ontological, epistemological and pedagogical orientation has shaped and been shaped by the Nottingham Critical Pedagogy Project. This project has its origins from discussion amongst a number of staff and postgraduates based in the CSSGJ begun in the summer of 2008. We agreed to develop a project that would focus on the systematisation of our experience and knowledge of CP and develop this as a core strand of our praxis as researchers, teachers and intellectuals. We composed a project proposal which included ideas for curriculum development at the MA level, the formation of a CP working group, postgraduate training in CP and the development of a tool kit for the teaching of social and global justice to be of use in higher education teaching more broadly. We bid for 5000 to support the project in its rst 2 years from the Centre for Integrative Learning (now no longer running) at the University and were successful. The project began in the 2009/10 academic year. An underlying orientation of the project is the idea that we are opening spaces of possibility for thinking, acting and being otherwise against the logic of a commodication of social relationships and subjectivities in the neoliberal university (see http://nottinghamcriticalpedagogy.wordpress.com/). Over the past 18 months we have opened transgressive spaces of possibility for ourselves to imagine ourselves as other than the commodied and mechanised worker; to begin to see each other and share our experiences; to critically reect together by theorising and discussing practices in the classroom but also our histories and desires in and outside of the classroom. We have created spaces in which we as embodied, feeling and thinking beings can recreate transgressive spaces of becoming other in which we replace a logic of competiveness and hierarchy by a logic of horizontalism and solidarity. As Freire believed [the] rebuilding of solidarity among educators [is] a vital and necessary radical objective because solidarity moved against the grain of capitalisms intrinsic perversity, its anti-solidarity nature (Freire 1998:88 cited in Darder 2009:572). We have begun therefore to politicise the crisis in higher education as a moment of possibility. The CP working group is one of these spaces. It is an interdisciplinary group that explores the possibilities and problems of using CP in the teaching of social justice in higher education settings. We have had a number of speakers (national and international) that have run workshops to help build our knowledge of the diversity of CP and its development in distinct historical and geographical times and places. We have used this as a means to map out our understanding of CP and also reect on the possibilities of developing CP in our setting. We have also had reading group discussions which have focused on particular areas of development in relation to CP, such as class, race, gender, sexuality and indigeneity, and particular theoretical traditions of CP such as feminist, humanist, post-structuralist, Marxist and anarchist (http://nottinghamcriticalpedagogy.wordpress.com).
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

91

This space has been essential in building collective knowledge and experience to develop our understanding of CP as a means of forging transgressive spaces of possibility in our practice as educators and researchers. Importantly we are not attempting to homogenise the praxis of CP in our centre or with our colleagues, but rather open up spaces for experimentation and a reaching beyond ourselves. However, the axes of otherness and voice have been key thematics that have taken on central relevance to our own praxis as critical educators in our setting. Increasingly we have stretched our conceptualisation of opening spaces of otherness to include the embodied, affective, collective and spiritual as well as the conceptual and intellectual. Particularly relevant for conceptualising and thinking through the role of subjectivities in the classroom and how power is embodied and affective has been the work of feminist and queer critical educators in the social sciences such as hooks (1994), Oberhauser (2002) and Mohanty (2003). Useful in terms of thinking beyond dualisms and xity of either dominant or subaltern subjectivities have been the autonomist traditions found in Chatteron (2007) and Robinson (unpublished 2011), and in conceptualising the role of the spiritual and sacred in CP (Andreotti 2010; Ryoo et al 2009). We have attempted to adapt these inuences to our historically and geographically distinct setting of an elite British university. One of the most consolidated experiences has been an MA module which I convene, Local power in a global era that forms part of the MA in Social and Global Justice. This experience provides a useful insight into the possibilities, limitations and risks of introducing transgressive pedagogies of possibility into this setting. Local power in a global era was devised with a commitment to contest the royal science of politics, which creates a monologue of knowing subjects, ways of knowing and knowledges which legitimise hierarchical and alienated forms of organising power and society. From its initiation it included in its content other theories, other epistemologies and other histories of struggle as a means of developing critical awareness of the positionality of dominant theories and representations of politics and our positionality within such a dominant way of seeing and being. As Meysalun8 reected after nishing the module:
We read about alternative approaches and interpretations of politics and ways of doing and reinventing politics. For each week, among the suggested readings, there were different authors, cases, approaches of a particular topic. This variety gave us the opportunity to see different angles of a given topic, question them and also question our own views about the topic. Moreover, this variety allowed the identication of the aspects that are taken for granted in the analysis of a topic, the assumptions, and how they may conict with other views. I think the identication of these aspects and the way in which the themes of the module were developed during the seminars, provided us, students, with a tool that is crucial in order to achieve positive outcomes in any relation we engage in the multipolar, multicultural and pluralistic society in which we live today.

However, our discussions in the CP working group brought to the forefront of this process the means through which this decentring of dominant frames was practiced. It suggested that there was more to critical education than challenging ideas and shifting conceptual and intellectual understanding. Rather it suggested the
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

92

Antipode

centrality of practicing a democratic education which created affective, intellectual and embodied individual and collective experiences (of both student and teacher) that actively practiced such decentring and transgression. In many respects it became re-orientated to a border pedagogy beyond dualisms and xity, and towards openness, plurality and hybridity as suggested in a deluezian inspired Freirian pedagogy conceptualised previously and found in the contemporary critical reection of scholars such as Cook (2000) and Chatterton (2007). The way that I developed the course therefore focused on opening spaces of possibility to think and feel otherwise which involved conceptual work linked to the uncovering of assumptions that underlie particular views of the world (particularly informative has been the Open Spaces for Dialogue and Enquiry, or OSDE methodology).9 This was used to foster individual and collective identication and reections about ones own assumptions about the world. The inclusion of oral histories and social movement narratives as reading materials facilitated the disruption of dominant representations of political knowledge. This helped to open the space for the inclusion of mine and students individual histories and experiences into the learning space, giving personal experience validity as knowledge and using this as the basis for theoretical reection. Importantly, and often with great difcultly, I also had to bring myself into the space putting myself on the line by making my positionality, experiences and desires visible. As hooks argues experience, whilst often painful, is a basis for transgression of the dominant frame of knowing and knowledge and the building of community, particularly when it is collectively theorised. As Morgan, a student in the same cohort as Meysalun, reected:
They did a truly extraordinary job of getting a diverse group of people to come together in a collective learning environment. In some modules, I feel that its a competition to talk as much as possible and prove to the lecturer that youve done more work than anyone else, which perhaps motivates by fear but does not ensure a positive or productive learning experience. This module was refreshingly different. We were honestly and eagerly encouraged to share not only our thoughts on texts but also our own experiences, which created a real atmosphere of community and brought the topics of collective learning and different forms of knowledge into much clearer perspective.

The building of solidarity and opening of spaces of possibility to think and create knowledge differently from the dominant frame as expressed in this students reection is inherently affective and spiritual, premised on others ways of seeing and listening to each other but also transgressive our performative commodied roles of students and lecturer (Ryoo et al 2009). The formation of a democratic, horizontal and dialogical space was more than about fostering discussion (which can often become a space for competitive performativity). It involved enabling active listening and respect between all members of the classroom space. The physical space of the classroom was important to this with us working around a round table, looking at each other with no centre space to which I belonged; disrupting the authority of the teacher as the knower. The group was often broken down into smaller groups and encouraged to move around the space, and at times we went outside, transgressing the rigidity of xity and

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

93

stillness of normal classrooms and bringing in movement and physical uidity to the space. The breaking down of dominant embodied patterns of being in the classroom helped to foster a breaking down of boundaries and hierarchies, increasing feelings of trust, relaxation and commitment to each other as a group. Fundamentally this transgression of space of the commodied and hierarchical classroom and our opening up of possibilities of otherness in terms of which knowledge is valid, what is the meaning of politics, and who creates theory (and society) were the inclusion of activities in which students embodied or enacted the politics, theories and experiences being discussed. This included the use of role play, drawing and art, consensus decision making and the running of a participatory budget. As Morgan continues:
It was truly awesome to put our theories into practice through group exercises in which everyones thoughts were considered. One of the most illuminating experiences for me was trying to chair our mock participatory budgeting meeting. Our class really came together to represent a wide spectrum of community viewpoints, which shows how engaged everyone was with the material, and it was seriously difcult to come up with a practical solutionwhich, though frustrating, is often the reality of such situations. While that particular exercise is just one example, it really helped me conceptualise the ideas of the module and experience different forms of knowledge (both from our class representation thereof and the way in which the seminar was conducted). I very much felt that we were all learning together and appreciate that Sara and David did not ever give us the impression that we were just students or that some of us had less to offer than others

Not only did the embodying and practicing of other forms of politics and knowledge creation create an external opening to others knowledges and theory but also facilitated the recognition of individuals and the group of their own knowledges and their ability to collectively create knowledge. This transgressed dominant subjectivities of student as individual and passive consumer as they became, however momentarily, aware of their epistemological, intellectual and political agency. As Meysalun expresses:
the module convenor brought different experiences, situations, and practices with which we engaged and linked to personal experiences and practices, and came out experimenting different ways of doing and being, in groups, discussing, listening, questioning, reecting, expressing, living. I think that this approach helps to engage the knowledge with our own experiences, and to experience it, reproduce it, recreate it, reshape it through and within ourselves.

This creation of a learning space and community organised around the principles of a Deleuzian-inspired Freirian pedagogy transformed that space by transgressing its commodied, alienated and hierarchical construction. We did this by performing our roles differently, by moving beyond predetermined and xed closures and towards open and multiple otherness. This created a transformatory experience for participants within our moments in the classroom. Reections from students also suggest that it impacted and fed into the opening of possibilities of other ways of being, thinking and doing politics in their everyday lives. As Morgan explains:
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

94

Antipode

I really cannot overstate how much Ive learned from this module. My classmates and I did not only learn major concepts within the eld but, perhaps more signicantly, had the chance to engage with the idea of learning through collaboration (which was in itself a key theme of our studies). As a result, Local Power in a Global Era has informed my everyday thought rather than just my academic work. I am very grateful for their efforts and wish other modules could be as inspiring.

Morgans comments suggest that such transformations involve the way in which politics is understood, the asking of her own questions and perhaps a subjective transformation in condence and political imagination. Whatever the nature of these transformations they embody the opening of spaces of subjective (and collective) possibility. They transgress a reading of the world through the dominant frame of knowing, creating and enacting politics and can result in an acute subjective awareness of ones positionality in this dominant frame. They are therefore intensely political. As Meysalun expresses:
Moreover, it is important to locate ourselves, nd ourselves in what we are learning, otherwise, why are we learning it? . . . I think that the way in which this module on local politics in an era of globalisation was given, made possible to answer some of these questions, and made possible the location of myself, my reality, the reality around, as a subject and object of knowledge, that is not xed, but alive, changing, creating and reshaping itself and other knowledge, not as ends by themselves, but as means and tools of thinking, creating, being, evolving, living.

Risks of Pedagogies of Possibility

The subject is impoverished in commodied higher education and the experience of education is subsequently dehumanised. Thus the process of closing spaces of possibility is produced through subjective, affective, intellectual and embodied practices against self and other. The ip side of this is that practices of opening spaces of possibility are subjective, affective, intellectual and embodied (Boler 1999). This section, which reects on the potential risks of introducing such pedagogies of possibility into our practices, focuses on the affective, subjective and embodied elements of this. Researchers and teachers practicing such pedagogies of possibility need to cultivate a constant openness to openness in thought and practice and a willingness to feel uncomfortable and surprised. We also need an openness to otherness that might shake our own assumptions and an orientation to critical reexivity and epistemological curiosity. Thus the I, with our dreams, desires and fears, becomes embodied and embedded in the praxis of teaching. This places critical educators in a very vulnerable and risky situation with no certainty of success. Working collaboratively as pedagogues is a transgressive act of becoming other, of liberating ourselves from the connes of the individualised and commodied university worker. Helping to forge spaces of possibility with students can be an inspiring experience that forges relationships that transcend the boundaries of the classroom and the university. It can be a surprising and inspirational experience and yet often unsettling for both teacher and student. It
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

95

perhaps involves the development of an anti-methods pedagogy which rejects the mechanization of intellectualism . . . [and] challenges teachers to work towards reappropriation of endangered dignity and toward reclaiming our humanity. The anti-methods pedagogy adheres to the eloquence of Antonio Machados poem Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar (Traveller, there are no roads. The road is created as we walk it [together]) (Macedo 1994:8). Pedagogies of possibility can be viewed as an act of love. As Freire argues, As individuals or as peoples, by ghting for the restoration of [our] humanity [we] will be attempting the restoration of true generosity. And this ght, because of the purpose given it, will actually constitute an act of love (2006:29). Yet as this praxis of teaching is a transgressive act of becoming other, it is already minoritarian, other and may not result in academic accolades from peers or acceptance and praise from students. Rather in times of dis-utopia, when desire is turned back on itself then otherness can be seen as threatening, unviable and dangerous (Amsler 2008). We can feel under enormous pressure to perform well for fear of disciplinary consequences and de-legitimisation of our practices, both through internalisation of mechanisms of discipline which lead to self-doubt, and institutional silencing of otherness. This can lead to crisis and despair and to the reverse of what we desired, not hope, but resignation. Moments of crisis and confrontation are not by necessity destructive but it takes collective praxis, and education of our fear so as to transform these moments into productive moments of courage in the process of opening spaces of possibility in ourselves and our students. As Shor and Freire, write, The more you recognise your fear as a consequence of your attempt to practice your dream, the more you learn how to put into practice your dream (1987:57). Pedagogies of possibility are therefore risky and take courage to accept being, and desire to be, always minoritarian, always other. The impact of decentring dominant frames of seeing and being in the world with students who hold such frames is also an affective process. It can a result in active resistance and antagonism as students, whose learnt subjectivity in the classroom is one of student as consumer who demand teaching which provides digestible sound bites that are easily regurgitated for assessment. What does not t this performance and regime of truth becomes threatening and potentially something (and someone) to be rejected. As one student commented in anonymous feedback on their third year course that I convened she is teaching us ideology. There is no space for other perspectives. It is a very dogmatic course. Such resistance is also often classed, raced and gendered. Therefore teachers who are othernot upper middle class white and malewill already be facing questions about their authority which can be intensied in this context. However, such resistances can also be a rst step in questioning the regime of truth of higher education; a regime of truth in which the educator is herself implicated. They can therefore contain sparks of criticality which are nevertheless intensely uncomfortable, emotionally and intellectually, for the teacher as their complicity in reproducing structures of alienation are (implicitly) visibililised in these interactions (Boler 1999:144147). Yet critical pedagogues need authority in the classroom, not to create authoritarian relationships which close down critical enquiry and openness but to foster the construction of such practices and dynamics. Thus the student as
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

96

Antipode

consumer as a dominant student subjectivity can also be one of the greatest challenges confronted in this process. Additionally, students desires and hopes do not necessarily enter the classroom. They may rationally enter with an instrumentalist and detached relationship to learning. Therefore by being forced to bring their bodies, minds and imaginations into that space they too are placed in a position of vulnerability that they may not desire. Alternatively, opening up spaces to otherness can result in crisis as students surrounded by an individualised and depoliticised environment recognise their alienation as a form of powerless not, as we might wish, as a form of empowerment. Thus as critical educators we need patience and also openness to this diversity of reactions. We need to take emotional literacy and its complexities seriously as part of the work of radical education. As Boler (1999:175176) argues:
The educator who endeavours to rattle the complacent cages, who attempts to wrest us anew from the threat of conformism, undoubtedly faces the treacherous ghosts of the others fears and terrors, which in turn evoke ones own demons. The path of understanding, if it is not to simplify, must be tread gently. Yet if one believes in alternatives to the reductive binaries of good and evil, purity and corruption, one is challenged to invite the other, with compassion and fortitude, to learn to see things differently, no matter how perilous the course for all involved.

Conclusion: Minor Praxis and/as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

In this article I have explored the praxis of introducing CP into the teaching of social justice in an elite UK university. I have worked to develop Freires understanding of the unnished nature of human beings and their desire for transcendence towards a decentring of this essentialised human subject which helps us to capture our times of dis-utopia in which the subjects of the university (and society) often lack this desire for transcendence. I have done this by introducing the politics of desire (ontology and epistemology) of Deleuze and Guattari. This helps us to engage with the contemporary structuration of desire within neoliberal society and an increasingly commodied university space. Such structuration can be conceptualised as (re)produced by our alienated creative capacities, truncated desires and docile and commodied subjectivities. This implies that both elite and subaltern are implicated in the reproduction of contemporary alienation and that both have desires that are truncated and domesticated. This then enables an adaption of CP from its original context of either organised popular politics and/or subaltern students entering formal education to the individualised elite setting in which our group nds ourselves. Our objectives therefore become not the construction of communities of resistance but rather the opening of affective and intellectual spaces of possibility where imagining other becomes possible. Such transgression decentres the dominant script and regime of truth of the neoliberal university and is therefore inherently political. The epistemological opening enabled by the introduction of Deleuze and Guattari into our praxis of CP moves us away from positing an homogenising end objective of CP which replaces one privileged frame of knowledge and knowing (that of the
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

97

oppressor) by another (that of the oppressed). Rather it suggests that the positing of a one in terms of epistemological truth is itself a reproduction of epistemological blindness that silences other knowledges and ways of creating knowledge, limiting both elite and subaltern to a frame that denies our capacity to be other and continually reinvent ourselves and each other. The invention of other subjectivities of being and knowing therefore enters into the heart of our pedagogical process. The pedagogies of possibility that help to foster this openness to otherness that helps to destabilise the subjectivities created through an epistemology of blindness and accompanying commodication of life (and the university) are problem focused, student centred and involve the development of critical literacy. This widens students and lecturers epistemological choices, transgressing current boundaries of possibility. This thereby enables a consciousness of the effects of their (our) frames of knowing and knowledges in the creation of alienation and power over themselves and others. This involves disrupting normal patterns of classroom practice and performativity in terms of student as consumer and lecturer as producer and knowledge makers, transgressing dualisms between mind/body, intellectual/emotional and teacher/student. The risks and possibilities involved in this practice are numerous but as power is reproduced through alienated subjectivities and docile bodies so its contestation and its most powerful affects are embodied, emotional, intellectual and subjective. Humanising the educational space and experience challenges the taken for granted. It fosters the destabilising of the effects of power in our subjectivities creating hybrid openings of possibility for imagining and being otherwise. These are the transgressive potentials of this pedagogical praxis. However, rejection, derision, self-doubt, de-legitimisation and fear are also likely outcomes. Learning to embrace a desire to always be minoritarian takes courage. Developing courage involves educating our fear collectively so that it can become a productive element of the ongoing process of moving beyond ourselves and challenging alienated social relationships in and outside of the classroom. As Freire argued, We must dare so as never to dichotomize cognition and emotion . . . We must dare to learn how to dare in order to say no to the bureaucratization of the mind to which we are exposed everyday (1998:3).

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Andy Robinson for the intellectual, emotional and political support that he offers me in my journey to create transgressive spaces of possibility within neoliberal spaces in and outside of the University. Our discussions and my engagement with his work have helped me to develop and rene the conceptualisation of pedagogy used in this piece. I would also like to thank the Nottingham Critical Pedagogy Group, David Bell, Heather Watkins and Deirdre Duffy for being open to developing this project in the University and amongst ourselves. It has been a productive and meaningful intellectual, pedagogical and political journey. I would also like to thank them for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Endnotes
1

There is very little room for me to explore my positionality in this particular space and time but I felt that this needed to be brought into the piece to perhaps help explain and contextualise the tensions, both logical and subjective, within it.

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

98
2

Antipode

The methodological, epistemological and pedagogical perspective developed throughout the piece involves transgressing homogenising universalism, monologues of representation and privileged subject positions. It is premised upon negative critique. Therefore in dening social justice in the context of an elite HE setting there are two methodological steps. The rst involves deconstruction of dominant norms, practices and performances of social justice in the neoliberal university; practices and norms which elide and silence hierarchies on class, race, and gendered axes and naturalise privileged subjectivities and relations of power over others. The second is an open process of construction of our understandings, practices and performances of social justice. In the case of the classroom and other spaces in the University, this suggests that it is through pedagogies and practices of transgression that these terms are constructed and embodied. As they are based on a rst step of deconstruction they speak from and within the margins against the dominant frame. 3 (1987:1). Anzaldua 4 There are potentially many creative tensions between the work of thinkers such as Deleuze and Guattari coming from the underside of the colonial north and that of those coming from the underside of the colonial south. There is no space to explore the resonances, dissonances and productive avenues of a dialogue between these ontologies and epistemologies but it is a dialogue that I am sure will create many possibilities of thinking and being other. 5 See the fascinating project Learning to read the world through other eyes http://www. throughothereyes.org.uk/ 6 See Bell (2010) for a fascinating discussion of nomadic philosophy. 7 Megan Boler argues for the importance of developing emotional epistemologies which voice and make public the experiences of alienation and oppression of student and teacher, and develop the emotional as an essential part of the construction of pedagogies of resistance and practices of liberation. She argues for the need not merely to conceptualise this in terms of abstract concepts such as desire but to historicise emotions, emotional responses and reactions and therefore to historicise desire. This is something that is explored very supercially in this piece (for further discussion, see Boler 1999). 8 In 2010, once the MA course, Local power in a global era that had been developed as part of the CP project, had nished I invited the students to write some of their reections and feelings about the course. I received two reections which form the basis of the narratives cited in my discussion of the course. 9 See http://www.osdemethodology.org.uk/ for further information and details.

References
Amsler S (2008) Pedagogy against dis-utopia: From conscientization to the education of desire. Current Perspectives in Social Theory 25:291325 Andreotti V (2010) Engaging the (geo) political economy of knowledge construction: towards decoloniality and diversity in global citizenship education. Unpublished manuscript G (2007) Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Michigan: Aunt Lute Books. Anzaldua Bell D (2010) Fail again. Fail better: Nomadic utopianism in Deleuze & Guattari and Yevgeny Zamyatin. Political Perspectives 4(1):133 Bell D, Duffy D, Motta S C and Watkins H (2010) Theorising critical pedagogy in the teaching of social and global justice: Practice informed by theory. In G Baker (ed) Teaching for Integrative Learning (vol 4) (pp 107114). Nottingham: Centre for Integrative Learning (CIL) Boler M (1999) Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. New York: Routledge. Canaan J (2002) Theorizing pedagogic practices in the contexts of marketization and of September 11, 2001 and its aftermath. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 33(3):368 382 Chatterton P (2007) Using geography to teach freedom and deance: Lessons in social change from autonomous geographies. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 32(3):419440 Cook I (2000) Nothing can ever be the case of us and them again: Exploring the politics of difference through border pedagogy and student journal writing. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24(1):1327
C

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

Global and Social Justice as Transgressive Spaces of Possibility

99

Darder A (2009) Teaching as an act of love: Reections on Paulo Freire and his contributions to our lives and our work. In A Darder, M Baltondano and R D Torres (eds) The Critical Pedagogy Reader (2nd ed) (pp 567578). New York: Routledge De Angelis M and Harvie D (2009) Cognitive capitalism and the rat-race: How capital measures immaterial labour in British universities. Historical Materialism 17(3):330 Delaney P (2001) Decolonization and the minor writer. Postcolonial Forum http:// www.kent.ac.uk/english/postcolonial/postcolonialforum/Deleuze%20and%20Guattari.pdf (last accessed 4 May 2010) Delueze G (2001) Pure Immanence: Essay on a Life. New York: Zone Books Delueze G and Guattari F (1986) Kafka: Toward A Minor Literature (Theory and History of Literature). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press Delueze G and Guattari F (1994) What is Philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press Delueze G and Guattari F (1999) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: University of Minnesota Press Dewey J (1954) The Public And Its Problems. Athens: The Swallow Press Fisher S (2008) Save The World on your Own Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press Freire P (1994) Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Continuum Freire P (1997) Pedagogia De Autonomia: Saberes Necessarios a Practica Educativa. S ao Paulo: o Leitura) Paz e Terra (Colecc a Freire P (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed . New York: Continuum Freire R and Brito F (1991) Utopia e Paixao: A Politica do Cotidiano. S ao Paulo: Trigama Gill R (2009) Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of the neoliberal university. In R Flood and R Gill (eds) Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reections (pp 228244). London: Routledge Harvie D (2000) Alienation, class and enclosure in UK universities. Capital and Class 71:103 132 hooks b (1994) Teaching To Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge hooks b (2003) Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Routledge Justaert K (2010) Liberation theology: Deleuze and Althaus-Reid. Substance 39(1):154164 Katz C (1996) Towards minor theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14:487 499 Kouba P (2008) Two ways to the outside. Deleuze Studies 2(1):7496 Levidow L (2002) Marketizing higher education: neoliberal strategies and counter-strategies. In K Robins and F Webster (eds) The Virtual University? Knowledge, Markets and Management (pp 227248). Oxford: Oxford University Press Lorde A (1984) From Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. San Francisco: The Crossing Press Feminist Series Mignolo W (2001) Local histories and global designs: An interview with Walter Mignolo. Discourse 22(3):733 Minh-ha T T (1989) Woman, Nature, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Indiana: Indiana University Press Macedo D P (1994) Literacies of Power: What Americans Are Not Allowed to Know. Boulder, Co: Westview Press. Mohanty C T (2003) Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practising Solidarity . Durham: Duke University Press Moreira C (2008) Unspeakable Transgressions: Indigenous Epistemologies, Ethics and Decolonizing Academy/Inquiry. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the NCA, San Diego, USA, November Oberhauser M A (2002) Examining gender and community through critical pedagogy. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 26(1):1931 Pearson K (1998) Freedom and the politics of desire: Aporias, paradoxes, and excesses. Political Theory 26(3):399412 Rickert J (1986) The FrommMarcuse debate revisited. Theory and Society 15:351400 Robinson A Royal and Nomad science. Unpublished manuscript.

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.

100

Antipode

Robinson A (2011) Thinking better whatever one thinks: Dialogue, monologue and critical literacy in education. Critical Literacy Theories 5(2):2566. Ryoo J, Crawford J, Moreno D and McLaren P (2009) Critical spritual pedagogy: Reclaiming humanity through a pedagogy of integrity, community and love. Power and Education 1(1):132141. Said E W (1994) Culture and Imperialism. London: Vintage Santos B (2001) Toward an epistemology of blindness: Why the new forms of ceremonial adequacy neither regulate nor emancipate. European Journal of Social Theory 4(3):251279 Santos B (2002) Beyond abyssal thinking: from global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Revista Critica de Ciencias Socias 80. http://www.eurozine.com/articles (last accessed 27 July 2010) Shor I and Freire P (1987) A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education. Westport: Bergin and Garvey. Shor I (2009) What is critical literacy? In A Darder, M Baltondano and R D Torres (eds) The Critical Pedagogy Reader (2nd edition) (pp 282304). New York: Routledge Singh G (2010) The virtues and vices of teaching and learning in higher education. Keynote speech, Oxford Brookes University Learning and Teaching Conference: Building Networks, Partnerships and Communities, 25 June 2010, Harcourt Hill Campus, Oxford

2012 The Author. Antipode

2012 Antipode Foundation Ltd.