Affect, race, and white discomfort in schooling: decolonial strategies for ‘pedagogies of discomfort’

Abstract

The present paper theorises white discomfort as not an individual psychologised emotion, but rather as a social and political affect that is part of the production and maintenance of white colonial structures and practices. Therefore, it is suggested that white discomfort cannot be critically addressed merely in pedagogic terms and conditions within schools and universities. By foregrounding white discomfort in broader terms, the aim of the paper is to provide a more holistic and dynamic account which opens up a realm that situates the pedagogisation of white discomfort within the broader decolonising project of disrupting white colonial structures and practices. The paper calls for both a decolonising and a critical affective approach to pedagogies of discomfort that would focus on examining and addressing strategically how white discomfort comes to be experienced and dismantled within broader affective, material and discursive assemblages of race, racism and whiteness.

Keywords:

• White discomfort
• pedagogies of discomfort
• decolonising pedagogies
• pedagogisation
• race
• affect

Acknowledgement

I am deeply grateful to Cheryl Matias for reading an earlier version of this paper and offering generous and encouraging feedback.

Notes

1. There are various accounts of ‘whiteness’ in the literature on Critical Whiteness Studies, Critical Race Theory and Critical Philosophy of Race. Critical Whiteness Studies, for example, pay particular attention to the invisible cultural practices that perpetuate white privilege and supremacy. Critical Race Theory focuses on the notion that racism is pervasive and systemic, not merely an individual pathology. Critical Philosophy of Race looks at how race is understood through various philosophical traditions (e.g. epistemology, phenomenology etc.). It is beyond the scope of this article to compare and contrast these accounts in terms of their understanding of ‘whiteness’, although it is important to recognise that there might be conflicting accounts (e.g. how critical philosophy of race retains the concept of race). My interest here is in highlighting the existence of structures of white supremacy and privilege in the broader society that are created and maintained through institutions, relationships and practices; this is why I draw mainly from Critical Whiteness Studies in this paper.

2. A related term in the literature is DiAngelo’s (2011) notion of ‘white fragility’, which has been used to explain the tendency of Whites to avoid any discomfort, triggering a range of defensive moves (e.g. argumentation, silence, avoidance). Although there are similarities between ‘white fragility’ and ‘white discomfort’, I prefer the latter term in this paper for two reasons. First, the notion of discomfort is directly relevant to the term ‘pedagogies of discomfort’ that constitutes the focus of my analysis. Second, the notion of discomfort emphasizes more specifically the manifestations of anxiety and stress, whereas fragility is a more general term for the state of vulnerability. Given that my interest is on racial anxiety and stress as affective/emotional practices, I find that the notion of discomfort captures more precisely what I want to highlight.

3. For example, reading a novel or watching a movie and discussing how empathising with some of the characters’ suffering can lead to a more critical understanding of the invisible white privilege and the sustained oppression of people of colour.

4. Applebaum (2017) suggests that educators’ ‘strategic empathy’ (Zembylas 2015a) with white students in the classroom ‘may be problematic,’ because ‘it might function as a form of comforting the white student’ (864). The questions emerging from this claim are: Under which circumstances strategic empathy might function in this manner? Is there something ‘endemic’ in the function of strategic empathy that makes it susceptible to the practice of comforting? I find it somewhat troublesome that strategic empathy may be confused with the practice of comforting. The fact that an educator chooses to empathise with white students – that is, to understand their perspectives and imagine how they might feel, working against his or her own emotions – does not imply that he or she condones their perspectives nor does it suggest that empathy is automatically translated into some sort of comforting practice. Sometimes in our virtuous efforts to confront white discomfort, we (social-justice educators) may be compelled into the position of dismissing the function of strategic empathy out of fear that it might provide comfort to white students. Although I agree that comforting white discomfort might be problematic, it would be equally problematic to dismiss empathy as a strategic response to concerns that white students might be treated ‘too hard.’.

5. Decolonial love, according to Sandoval (2000), is a process of social and political transformation that promotes a new ethics of relationality that is grounded in reparative practices of love towards the Other; thus, decolonial love re-imagines human relationships on a different ethical basis. The recognition of the violence of dehumanization as a result of coloniality is necessary for forging ethical relationships based on love (Figueroa 2015).