Popular filmic and literary stereotypes of teachers from Brodie and Chips to Keating and Schneebly have not only reflected a public desire for radically innovative and perverse teaching practices, but also created those paradigms in ways that are not always readily identifiable or traceable. This article seeks to analyse tensions between traditional institutional protocols and contemporary populist opinion on the role of the effective teacher. In doing so, the article takes Peter Weir’s Dead Poets Society (1989) as a primary example (...) of those tensions and argues for a perverse ‘foolosophical’ view of pedagogical performance and a new appreciation for the necessity of ignorance in the classroom. Since ignorance and understanding are not taken as unambiguous antonyms, the article proposes that effective teaching and learning occur most effectively in the interstices between humility and hospitality. (shrink)

How does teaching veer? In what ways can we tell if a literature lesson veers constructively or otherwise? How do we determine its limits and the correlations between success or failure in our teaching when — individually or collectively — we veer in a novel, a short story or a poem? If veering, as Nicholas Royle argues, can offer us a more dynamic critical vocabulary for reading literary works by developing singular responses to risk, failure, uncertainty and difficulty, then surely (...) it can also be a profitable way to determine the peripheries of pedagogical practice, what we can and cannot expect from the experience of education. Using the example of the short story ‘Powder’ by Tobias Wolff, and the responses from a given class in the specific context of reading this story, this article examines moments of veering and the difficulties of responding responsibly to the vicissitudes of what I will call moments of unlearning. The questions are, can we veer from theories of literature to theories of teaching? Have critique and difficulty (critique as an experience and practice of difficulty) run aground in our current context? Is it time, consequently, to veer away from difficulty as the purpose of teaching and learning? And if so, what would that veering look like as a practical pedagogical action? (shrink)

What does it mean to be un? This is not my question; it’s Jacques Rancière’s. In what follows I assign myself the simple task of explaining this turbulent little prefix and of recounting what this un connotes in Jacques Rancière’s work. More specifically, I tease out what it means in view of his prodigious writings on the politics and practice of education, of what it means to teach, to learn, and to fail to do either, of the aftermath of knowing (...) what it means to know that one does not know what one is doing when one conscientiously engages in teaching and learning, and how that uncertain knowledge can initiate an emancipatory awareness of what is often referred to in Rancière’s work as... (shrink)