Fox, Catherine Olive-Marie. “Toward a Queerly Classed Analysis of Shame: Attunement to Bodies in English Studies.” College English 76.4 (2014): 337-56.
Fox extends the conversation offered by Yoon, analyzing the discourse of critical pedagogy through a queer/class conscious frame.
Keywords: Queer, Queer Theory, Queer Rhetorics, Pedagogy, Critical Pedagogy,
Monson, Connie, and Jacqueline Rhodes. “Risking Queer: Pedagogy, Performativity, and Desire in Writing Classrooms.” JAC 24 (2004): 79-91.
Yoon, Hyoejin. “Affecting the Transformative Intellectual: Questioning ‘Noble’ Sentiments in Critical Pedagogy and Composition.” JAC 25 (2005): 711-47.
“I would like to suggest the seductive force of affective dimensions of critical pedagogy discourse comes about partly through their hidden nature and partly the heteronormative frame through which they are deployed-a frame that centers on reproduction and generational transmission” (245).
“Within a heteronormative desiring framework, our work as critical pedagogues is made meaningful through “a narrative of generational succession,” of passing on our identities, values, and morality to the next generation, thereby reproducing the transformative intellectual” (245).
“Far from undermining the violence of normalization, critical pedagogy discourse deploys pleasurable possibilities of reproducing the terror of a whitely, masculinist ethos framed around “hard” inflexible emotions and arrogant righteousness” (246).
“Nonnormative subjects who “trouble” these ideals at the heart of critical pedagogy discourse are often perceived as threats that must be silenced and shamed. I would like to suggest, in concert with Yoon, however, that such conflicts can be “inhabited, written into, written about” differently” (248).
“Disidentification problematizes identity/identification and requires a contradictory stance toward critical pedagogy-leading to neither easy “consumption” nor rejection but instead to a field of force that is productive. Such a stance requires that we interrogate how citizenship, democracy, and nation-building have been encoded around cultural norms of race, sexuality, and gender” (249).
“As we assume collective responsibility for nonviolent modes of discourse, she insists that we remain desirous of change even as we surrender ourselves to the unknowable. It is our task to respond, imaginatively and compassionately” (252).