Abstract
In this chapter, dialogic practices of engagement are identified as a technology of counter-conduct because they are rooted in democratic strategies of participation and preserve the autonomy of all the stakeholders participating in the process. These practices are deployed to enable students to acknowledge why and how their subjective identities influence their classroom participation and their attitude toward the “religious other.” As a result, students experience alternate subjectivities and often require a platform to enact/act out their newly acquired identities. In this chapter, we demonstrate how theater can be appropriated for creating a new reality and a new set of experiences in and through a story to subvert particular forms of action. We demonstrate how as children enact the role of the “other,” the dominant rationality is disturbed, their subjectification is challenged, and they are encouraged to study the coalition of multiple contexts in which the performance was conceived and enacted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Though identity shifting has been identified as one of the most important dialogic practices of engagement under the third dimension of the counter-conduct framework developed in this book, it unfolds into and informs the fourth dimension of the framework i.e., experiencing a shift in subjectivities.
- 2.
Students had created these conceptual notes in Gujarati language. We translated it into English while transcribing.
References
Alexy, R., & Rivers, J. (1990). A theory of constitutional rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas.
Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1978). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge.
Blühdorn, I. (2006). Self-experience in the theme park of radical action? Social movements and political articulation in the late-modern condition. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(1), 23–42.
Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group.
Bourne, J. (2003). Vertical discourse: The role of the teacher in the transmission and acquisition of decontextualized language. European Education Research Journal, 2(4), 496–521.
boyd, H. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur foundation series on digital learning—Youth, identity and digital media volume (pp. 119–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(3), 247–259.
Casquete, J. (2006). The power of demonstration. Social Movement Studies, 5(1), 45–60.
Dery, M. (1993). Culture jamming: Hacking, slashing and sniping in the empire of signs (Vol. 25). Westfield: Open Magazine Pamphlet Series.
Drotner, K. (2008). Leisure is hard work: Digital practices and future competencies. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity and digital media (pp. 167–184). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New Delhi: Penguin Books Ltd.
Garlough, C. (2008). On the political uses of folklore: Performance and grassroots feminist activism in India. The Journal of American Folklore, 121(480), 167–191.
Gee, J. (2003). What video game have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giroux, H. (1987). Critical literacy and student experience: Donald Graves’ approach to literacy. Language Arts, 64(2), 175–181.
Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. New York: Bergin and Garvey.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.
Henderson, L. (2009, March). Let’s all be neighbours on Will Wright Street. Walrus Magazine, 56–58.
Howard, R. (2005). A theory of vernacular rhetoric: The case of the “Sinner’s Prayer” online. Folklore, 116(2), 172–188.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., & Zimmerman, A. (2016). By any media necessary: The new youth activism. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.
Kanpol, B. (1992). Postmodernism in education revisited: Similarities within differences and the democratic imaginary. Educational Theory, 42(2), 217–230.
Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2008). The global corporate curriculum and the young cyberflaneur as global citizen. In N. Dolby & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Youth moves: Identities and education in global perspective (pp. 17–32). New York: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Linell, P. (2003). What is dialogism? Aspects and elements of a dialogical approach to language, communication and cognition. Retrieved 31 December 2017 from http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-k/personal/perli/What-is-dialogism.pdf.
Littleton, K., Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., Rowe, D., & Sams, C. (2005). Talking and thinking together at key stage 1. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 25(2), 67–182.
Mason, B. (1992). Street theatre and other outdoor performance. London, UK: Routledge.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. New York, NY: Routledge.
Meikle, G. (2007). Stop signs: An introduction to culture jamming. In K. Coyer, T. Dowmunt, & A. Fountain (Eds.), The alternative media handbook (pp. 166–179). London: Routledge.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The visible and the invisible (C. Lefort, Ed. & A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
O’Neill, K. (2004). Transnational protest: States, circuses, and conflicts at the frontline of global politics. International Studies Review, 6(2), 233–251.
Oring, E. (2008). Legendary and the rhetoric of truth. Journal of American Folklore, 121(480), 127–166.
Prentki, T., & Selman, J. (2000). Popular theatre in political culture: Britain and Canada in focus. Bristol: Intellect Books.
Rojas-Drummond, S., Fernandez, M., Mazon, N., & Wegerif, R. (2006). Collaborative talk and creativity. Teaching Thinking and Creativity, 1(2), 84–94.
Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. Wold (Ed.), The dialogic alternative: Towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19–45). Oslo: Scandinavian Press.
Sams, C., Wegerif, R., Dawes, L., & Mercer, N. (2005). Thinking together with ICT and primary mathematics: A continuing professional development pack. London: SMILE Mathematics.
Sawin, P. (2002). Performance at the nexus of gender, power, and desire: Reconsidering Bauman’s verbal art from the perspective of gendered subjectivity as performance. Journal of American Folklore, 115(455), 28–61.
Smyth, J. W. (1987). A rationale for teachers’ critical pedagogy: A handbook. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Deakin University.
Srampickal, J. (1990). Voice to the voiceless. New York: St. Martin.
St John, G. (2008). Protestival: Global days of action and carnalivalized politics in the present. Social Movement Studies, 7(2), 167–190.
Valsamidis, P. (2016). Representing “Us”—Representing “Them”: Visualizing racism in Greek primary school films. In J. Singh, P. Kerr, & E. Hamburger (Eds.), Media and information literacy: Reinforcing human rights, countering radicalization and extremism (pp. 213–222). Paris: UNESCO.
Velde, J. (2012). From liminal to liminoid: Eminem’s trickstering. Bergen: University of Bergen.
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and teaching: Expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer Sciences.
Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (2000). Language for thinking. In M. Cowie, D. Aalsvoort, & N. Mercer (Eds.), New perspectives in collaborative learning. Oxford: Elsevier.
Wegerif, R., Perez Linares, J., Rojas Drummond, S., Mercer, N., & Velez, M. (2005). Thinking together in the UK and Mexico: Transfer of an educational innovation. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(1), 199–211.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizens? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bhatia, K.V., Pathak-Shelat, M. (2019). Media Education as Counter-Conduct: Developing Dialogic Practices and Analyzing Change in Subjectivities. In: Challenging Discriminatory Practices of Religious Socialization among Adolescents. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29574-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29574-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29573-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29574-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)