Through a phenomenological study of horse-human relations, this article explores the ways in which, as embodied beings, we live relationally, rather than as separate human identities. Conceptually this challenges oppositional logic and humanist assumptions, but where poststructuralist treatments of these issues tend to remain abstract, this article is concerned with an embodied demonstration of the ways in which we experience a relational or in-between logic in our everyday lives.
Cette étude porte sur la place qu'occupe l'émotion dans l'élaboration du savoir et examine la contribution qu'elle apporte dans la compréhension des pratiques du savoir “incorporé”. Toute pratique du savoir, qu'elle soit reconnue ou non, comporte un élément d'émotion. L'auteure se penche sur la valorisation de l'émotion entre autres en phénoménologie, en portant une attention toute particulière à la signification des sentiments, qui englobent l'affectif et le sensuel. Grâce aux sentiments, nous pouvons prendre conscience de la relationalité du savoir et entreprendre de tisser des liens libres et créatifs opérant entre le moi et autrui dans la pratique du savoir. This paper is concerned with the place of emotion in knowledge and the ways in which a consideration of emotion contributes to an understanding of embodied knowledge practices. Whether acknowledged or not, all knowledge practices are emotional. The positive valuation of emotion is considered in traditions such as phenomenology, paying particular attention to the significance of feeling combining, as it does, the affective and the sensual. Feeling makes us aware of the relationality of knowledge, and it opens up the possibility of creative and open forms of relations between self and other in knowledge practices.
Although dialogue is a common word in educational theory, its full significance is diluted if it is seen as a matter of exchange or negotiation of prior intellectual positions. In fact, the dia-of dialogue indicates through: dialogue moves through participants and they through it. Dialogue allows participants to have thoughts they could not have had on their own, yet to recognise these thoughts as developments of their own thinking. On this understanding of dialogue, education is a transformative rather than simply accumulative process. Similarly, team teaching is often thought to involve no more than the summative logic of sharing loads and adding perspectives. In dialogic pedagogy, however, team teaching refers to the way that the supportive relationship between teachers opens opportunities for students to join the team as teachers. Although teachers and students have different responsibilities, all learn through a collective dialogue. The article draws on our practice of dialogic team teaching large first-year classes. IntroductionDialogic pedagogy begins with the paradox that teaching is an impossible project. No matter how determined or knowledgeable they are, teachers can, as independent agents, teach students little or nothing. The role of teachers is only carried to fruition when students act, grow and learn. Rather than an action that one person performs for or on another, teaching is what teacher and student do together. By the same logic, learning is also a collaborative exercise and, moreover, a necessary element of teaching. Real learning, like real teaching, occurs in the dialogue that constitutes the meeting of teacher and student (see Felman, 1982).People often assume that the di-in dialogue refers to two parties, in contrast to the one party of a monologue. The corollary of this conventional view of dialogue is that it is based on a variety of exchanges between two prior and identifiable positionsthat is, it arises from interaction, competition, opposition and the reconciliation of positions. In fact, however, the dia-of dialogue indicates through. As Bohm (1985) puts it, dialogue implies 'a new kind of mind' that carries and is carried by the participants: the dialogue moves through them and they through it. Dialogue is not located in any or even in all of the individual participants, but rather in a whole that is incommensurable with the sum of the finite parts. Thus, Merleau-Ponty (1974) argues that dialogue is a relation arising between participants, controlled by no one:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.