Parallax

ISSN: 1353-4645 (Print) 1460-700X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tpar20

Posthumanism, Decoloniality and Re-Imagining

Pedagogy

Annouchka Bayley

To cite this article: Annouchka Bayley (2018) Posthumanism, Decoloniality and Re-Imagining
Pedagogy, Parallax, 24:3, 243-253, DOI: 10.1080/13534645.2018.1496576

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2018.1496576

Published online: 06 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tpar20
parallax, 2018, Vol. 24, No. 3, 243–253, Posthuman Pedagogies
https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2018.1496576

Posthumanism, Decoloniality and Re-Imagining Pedagogy

Annouchka Bayley

The dead, white men that created Enlightenment pedagogy now find their
posthumous legacy in need of an urgent re-imagining as ‘[t]he human, social
and environmental devastations induced by economic disparities and struc-
tural injustices in the access to the benefits of the global economy and its
advanced technologies add another layer of violence to the contempor-
ary world.’1

In response to this, how can ‘we’ pedagogues come to glimpse – through a

glass darkly, perhaps – ways in which to diffract ideas about teaching and
learning from across educational sectors that remain response-able to the dif-
ficult mission of reinventing notions of what (and who) constitutes the
human in today’s twenty-first century world.2 As Rosi Braidotti suggests:

These questions resonate across the field of posthumanities. For

instance, posthuman discourses of the digital and environmental
humanities, crossed with postcolonial and feminist studies, raise
more urgently than ever the question of scale: how can we re-think
our interconnection in the era of the Anthropocene, while re-
thinking our new ecologies of belonging? The connection to the
natural environment and to the technosphere of new media
recasts the issue of alterity in non-human terms that cannot be
adequately dealt with in the discourses and language of
poststructuralist difference, let alone universalist humanism.3

Talking, thinking, moving and feeling with the urgency of Braidotti’s and
other scholars’ questionings, I begin to walk in circles in my garden consider-
ing what might be involved in the creation of a ‘next step’ in pedagogy, won-
dering why I cannot seem to get out of this trap – literally in this moment a
trap of circularity, bare feet cutting side-down into backyard grasses, marking
over and over again a pathway of a borrowed shape. How performative can
pedagogy be? What kinds of runway might be paved in order to take neces-
sary and timely ‘lines of flight’ out of here and towards possible new presents
and futures, towards a truly participatory approach to twenty-first century
pedagogy?4 What can be (un)done in the practice of teaching itself, to invoke
Gayatri Spivak, that might decentre the circular Vitruvian-ism of our educa-
tive heritage? How might ‘we’ Others, we teachers, we atomic and agentic
‘selves’ diffract our colonial heritages differently through pedagogy? The
question is no longer simply an ‘if’ or a ‘why’ but how. Simply HOW?
parallax
# 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
243
 By diffracting this question through myself here, now, my own heritage of per-
formance art momentarily emerges fractally. I have burnt, broken, hung, cut
and bled on stage and still been no closer to the performative justice-to-come
that my own cultural inheritances have craved (as a feminist Christian-Muslim-
Jew in no particular order, diffracting the prism of a material-discursive
‘identity’ endlessly in-flux) to give voice to. But perhaps this act of performing
selves, performing memories, performing silent and loud agential Othernesses
as I have understood them from moment to moment, has come to inform an
approach to teaching and learning that focuses on exactly who and what gets a
voice, right down to an atomic level. Not just, in fact a voice, but the right to
be a teacher, the right to have one’s own myriad and spectral heritages heard.
The right to responsibly acknowledge that ‘we’ are constituted by multiple,
entangled Othernesses, including nonhuman ones that are bred in the bone.
Thus, emerges a momentary territorialisation as the fault lines of all my walk-
ing questions rumble and mould into shape: Who and what teaches?

This kind of approach diffracts the Vitruvian Man out of centre stage, and
thus with him, diffracts the foundations of Enlightenment pedagogies. Who
or what gets to be acknowledged in the development of epistemology and its
dissemination via teaching? Who or what is actually present in the creation of
knowledge? How do knowledge and being, ontology and epistemology fuse in
the moment of ‘learning’ to create the very world we are studying and how
do we wish to participate in that?

Asking how we might come to wish to participate agentically moves fused

notions of onto-epistemology towards yet another diffraction: Karen Barad’s
onto-ethico-epistemology. In Barad’s construction we ‘mark bodies’ as we come to
know them, scoring them and ourselves into painful and pleasurable being.
Can we stay with this kind of trouble long enough to (un)learn?

The term onto-ethico-epistemology may be as much a mouthful to swallow for some

pedagogues as it is to say, but the point is perhaps interesting and provides a
challenge to current modalities shaping pedagogic practice. How might ‘we’
pedagogues interested in both decoloniality and posthumanism and where and
how they might diffract practice when held together, conceive of an entangle-
ment of ontology, epistemology and ethics? Moreover, could an understanding
of teaching and learning via such an entanglement produce a state of affairs
where pedagogy becomes a site for the re-casting of the world away from
Vitruvian-isms? Where justice is marked by the response-ability of a host of
material-discursive phenomena finally given their agentic ‘voice’/‘space’/‘time’/
‘self’. Where these become teachers of new practices, new knowledges, new per-
formativities of human and nonhuman, new practices of decolonisation that
unravel the barbarisms of ‘Man’ and how ‘he’ has waged violence not only on
minds, histories, genders, cultures and presents, but also on possible futures?

The essays that make up this Special Issue (SI) diffract pedagogy through
such posthuman prisms, speaking to and with decoloniality, vital materialism,
Bayley
244
affectivity, post-qualitative research and a host of ambitions that come
together to trouble the theory/practice divide in education from a position
of decentring Vitruvian notions of the human. In this spirit, rather than
remain solely at the level of critique each essay offers positive formulations of
possible alternatives grounded in practice. In such urgent times, theory itself is
not enough. We need to find practices to stay with the trouble stirred up by
late capitalism in the anthropocene moment – a moment where ‘scholarship
committed to the refusal if not the undoing of a world riven by new kinds of
warcraft, injustice and exploitation’ requires the courage of action.5

‘Beginning somewhere’ in the spirit of ‘one must begin somewhere’ with

such a project requires that ‘we’ lay our first action carefully and thought-
fully. Indeed, as Gayatri Spivak states:

If the ‘somewhere’ that one begins from is the most privileged site
of a neo-colonial educational system, in an institute for training
teachers, funded by the state, does that gesture of convenience
not become the normative point of departure? Does not
participation in such a privileged and authoritative apparatus
require the greatest vigilance?6

Thinking through this with Donna Haraway, one might say: it matters what
matters we use to think matters with.

Thus, in order for this SI to respond response-ably to ‘our’ current moment

with all its violence and creativity, how might it responsibly begin?7 Perhaps,
in truth it has already begun, bound in a bright and colourful paper cover,
in an edition of a journal known for its radical approach to critical theories,
peer reviewed by a host of largely white, tenured academics, edited by two
Western(ised) editors filtrated through years of being located, if not quite
within then at least closer to, the Vitruvian position of The Academy. In a sense,
in order to critically contemplate all this, this SI in actual fact, starts from
somewhere in the middle with a powerfully constructed argument offered by
Michalinos Zembylas. Zembylas argues for the entanglement of decoloniality
and posthumanism in developing approaches to teaching and learning that
‘open up radical possibilities for both cultivating an ethics of relational ways of
being and knowing and giving priority to the task of decolonisation.’8

Zembylas suggests throughout that re-thinking a posthumanist form of educa-

tion must involve a tenacious awareness of just how easy it is to inadvertently
‘replac[e] one form of humanistic Higher Education with another’. Instead
of falling into this trap, the author suggests a critical vigilance ‘that pays
adequate ethical and political attention to the complex task of dismantling
the systematic and widespread linkages between humanist knowledges with
coloniality’. The article goes about this by combining the work of Sylvia
Wynter and her consideration of reconstructions of curricula from a decolo-
nial perspective with the work of Rosi Braidotti in her challenge to ‘the
parallax
245
 ethics, politics and epistemology of western humanism embedded in univer-
sity curricula and pedagogies’, and how her approach ‘creates openings to
resist the neoliberal order of higher education’.9

Zembylas’ tone is one of impassioned caution, raising questions that are argu-
ably vital to the creation of fully aware, posthuman approaches to pedagogy –
namely, can we pedagogues aiming to work with posthumanism to disentan-
gle the academy from the proliferation of humanist Vitruvianism in all its
exclusive and exclusionary guises. Can we find ways to commit responsibly to
such a project via a vital awareness of just how easy it is to slip back into
humanism when decoloniality is not close to the heart of our endeavours? In
service of this aim, Zembylas suggests that the two fields entangle together to
‘pluraversalise’ the task ahead.10 This challenge acts as an important caution-
ary tale of sorts and in the spirit of bold and critically aware beginnings
(albeit from the middle – as mentioned earlier), aims to start the reader of
this SI off on an important critical note: beware what you wish for – for who
or what is wishing.

Following Zembylas comes the offering from Asilia Franklin-Phipps and

Courtney Rath. It is rare, perhaps, to find an article – and a short one at
that – that truly gets one up off one’s chair with excitement. Viewpoints are
designed to be just that, to offer a glimpse of the world(s) from within some-
one else’s vision of what justice-to-come might look like, and this article does
just that with tenacity, humour and boldness. Franklin-Phipps and Rath’s
polemical account urges us to stay with the trouble11 of ‘keep[ing] educa-
tional spaces safe from the corporatizing forces of neoliberalism, forces that
insist inclusion is a remedy for oppression, forces that insist learning out-
comes are the equivalent of knowledge, forces that insist the intellectual free-
dom of scholars is less important than the comfort of those they challenge, in
the classroom and in the public.’12

The dangers of ‘remaking children in the image of an educated (white, male,

economically stable person)’ are discussed as a means of replicating/provid-
ing salvific futures. In contrast to this, Donna Haraway’s notion of making kin
is turned to as a form of practice, not just a theory. Indeed, the authors state
unequivocally that ‘we cannot theorize teacher education differently, whilst
teaching as we always have’, calling into question the separation between
teaching and research in order to upend the violence that uncritical forms
of pedagogy does by virtue of simply paying lip service to the idea of decolo-
niality. Ontological possibilities, challenges to humanist notions of progress,
widening the domain of what counts as competency, all these things are con-
sidered brightly, passionately and urgently in the aptly titled: How to Become
Less Deadly.13

Posthumanism as a burgeoning field owes much of its current form to a heri-

tage that is positioned within the tradition of the sciences – an inheritance
which Karen Barad has taken up, calling for a (re)configuration of its
Bayley
246
founding epistemological principles. Speaking with and to the work of Barad,
Marc Higgins and Sara Tolbert address the kinds of violence inflicted on epis-
temologies that fall outside of the European Enlightenment – a violence that
emanates inherently from within the discipline of science and its pedagogical
formulation – particularly in terms of the Nature/Culture divide. Again, the
article is framed around practice, starting with an invocation of Barad’s ques-
tioning call: ‘what kind of (curriculum and) pedagogy help students (and
teachers) to learn about practicing response-able science?’ The authors go on
to discuss how ‘science education’s (pre)dominant conceptualization of
Nature(-Culture) makes palatable and possible the on going dispossession
and devastation of Indigenous Land’.14

Critical evaluations of response-ability become the key iterative framework of

the article’s consideration – and this is cleverly (and excitingly) approached
via a structuring of a new curriculum. The proposed curriculum is sorted
into a series of ‘topics’, ‘purposes’ and ‘further driving questions’, each end-
ing with a short reading list. These structuring terms and fields of peda-
gogic inquiry are created here to reconfigure ideas of responsibility/
response-ability through practices that are ‘informed by Indigenous, post-
colonial, and post-humanist theories’ and offer not only a critically robust
questioning of what science education does to indigenous others, but that
also offers a map of practices, if you will, that the reader can effect immedi-
ately. Thus, the authors actually do what they discuss – teaching and
research, theory and practice, and, of course, via discussion, Nature and
Culture are entangled to offer ‘A Syllabus for Response-able Inheritance in
Science Education’.15

Moving from the entanglement of Nature and Culture as a mode of resist-

ance to the colonial scoring of science pedagogy, to a questioning of who
and what has agency in collaborative art making, Aaron Knochel describes a
practice-based arts project where ‘developments in the cultural framing of
technologies within posthuman bodies provided an opportunity to construct
new pathways to thinking outside of ‘Western logos’ by questioning the sub-
ject's autonomy within human-technological hybrids’.16

In this practice-based investigation, Knochel works with Deleuze and

Guattari’s notion of the assemblage to discuss distributive agencies that reframe
social action, particularly when understood via posthumanist perspectives.
Constructing drawing machines of different size, shape and weight and then
drawing together with these machines, participants become part of a human/
nonhuman assemblage that allows for critical notions of collaboration in and
of art-making. Knochel argues for a ‘[f]eminist technoscience critique
[which] highlights trajectories meant to decentre the humanist subject as an
important backdrop to understanding a distributed agency within the
assemblage’.17 In this mode, the project-based approach to teaching and
learning becomes such a trajectory, not only in terms of investigating distribu-
tive power, but for understanding transdisciplinarity as a phenomenon that
parallax
247
 both describes and allows for complex human and nonhuman inter- (and I
would argue, intra-) actions.

From a humanist perspective, ‘collaboration’ is an anthropocentric affair, but

when the borders between who or what gets to be seen as having agency
across the assemblage gets blurred, new conceptions of communication, col-
laboration and disciplinarity emerge. Knochel argues that this kind of decen-
tring is necessarily transdisciplinary, but that furthermore, transdisciplinarity
itself is a ‘falling-apart’, a ‘null-discipline’ that, amongst many things, product-
ively decentres ‘matters of fact’, turning them to ‘matters of concern’. Thus,
what was an empirical matter of fact, becomes a complex agency, which dis-
rupts disciplinarity, ideas of social action and human and nonhuman collab-
oration. Indeed: ‘What becomes critical for learning in activating matters of
concern is the recognition of posthumanity within the dynamics of art and
social practice are the materialities and translations of relation that come to
endure and what we do about it’.18 In Knochel’s wonderfully conceived art
project, art and science become collaborators, social action and ethics
become entangled, and human/nonhuman othernesses draw together and
fall apart as part of an unfolding assemblage of multiple constructive and
destructive agencies.

Continuing from Knochel’s questionings, Jamie McPhie ‘knock[s] at the

stone’s front door’ to enquire, ‘if cognitive and dermatological boundaries
are no longer organ-ised by an Enlightenment prescription, how might pedag-
ogies perform differently and more equitably?’ Through McPhie’s approach
to posthumanism, pedagogy itself becomes an agentic phenomenon, seen as
(along with Barad) ‘a living organism’. Engaging university students in a psy-
chogeographic project, McPhie asked students to ‘interview’ spaces and pla-
ces, moving towards a final task of interviewing a building: the Liverpool
ONE (UK). Requiring students to undertake such a seemingly impossible
task, project participants began to problematize subject/object, humanist
forms of ethnography and their ‘Occidental Enlightenment stories’ and intel-
lectual inheritances via practice, generating complexity-driven approaches to
teaching and learning that required students invent new approaches to listen-
ing in and beyond the ethnographic frame.19

It is perhaps hard to overstate the potential in this kind of teaching and

learning, particularly in relation to the forming of new critical approaches to
the complexity of living, entangled as part of the world-as-assemblege, com-
prising of multiple, distributive agencies. McPhie starts out by raising the
impact of this, where:

things, including concepts, become more permeable and

topological – they leak and stretch. Freed from limiting notions of
agency, things behave. Rivers have established the same legal
rights as humans in New Zealand and India, stones have been
reported slithering across the desert floor in California, an
Bayley
248
 electrical power grid in the USA has revealed a unique agential
dexterity and walls have been spotted walking over mountains in
the UK’s Lake District.20

In this kind of pedagogical formulation, securely bound phenomena – includ-

ing things such as political rhetoric and action, become deterritorialised.
‘Students start to witness agency and structure intra-mingle’. This points to
what Barad might call a posthuman performativity, and McPhie indeed states
that, ‘agency has its uses as concepts are performative. There is an inorganic
life to agency. As such, the concept of a distributed posthuman agency can
be very useful as a pedagogic tool to think with.’ Destabilising ‘securely
bound’ concepts via paying attention to the performativity of complex
agents/agencies provides a thoroughly heightened form of critical engage-
ment not only with a subject but moreover, with the method of
inquiry itself.21

Thus, pedagogy becomes performative. This is the backdrop via which McPhie
leads us as readers through a guided tour of his main, psychogeographic
pedagogical project – finding ways to interview Liverpool ONE, which they
subsequently diagnose with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Ascribing human
qualities/labels to a space beyond skin, directional flows of causality and
effect are made blurry. Is the space merely a metaphor, or is it an active
agent? This kind of questioning creates a pedagogic space for critical engage-
ment with the way ‘we’ as researchers of an occidental persuasion ‘see’ things.
Indeed, ‘[p]erformative (inorganic) posthuman pedagogies can lead to
rewarding consequences when applied to higher education and co-create the
potential to support a flatter ethico-onto-epistemological awareness’.22

In the article that follows, Alyssa Niccolini, Shiva Zarabadi and Jessica Ringrose
discuss a pedagogical project in the context of a postgraduate course on gender
and education that used the simple, everyday object of unwound yarn to high-
light issues of relationality, processes of kinshipping and critical tensions of iden-
tity. Acknowledging the profound affective impact that courses on race and
gender can have on students and teachers alike, the essay goes on to consider
feminist pedagogy from a phematerialist perspective – that is, via entangling fem-
inist activations with posthumanist theories. Indeed, ‘As phematerialists we seek
to take seriously the affective-material life of the spaces we teach and research
in, both how materialities activate thought and how thought activates materi-
ality’.23 As with the preceding essay, here the flow of causality is problematized,
however this time, the inquiry is shaped with yarn, and perhaps it is (not only)
the change of pedagogic material that produces such different diffractions.

Invoking Donna Haraway’s call to stay with the trouble, students brought in
objects meaningful to their gender and education research. These were
entangled with yellow string to create literal and critical tensions between
them, which students needed to navigate the class with (both in terms of the
critical, discursive traditions invoked, and simultaneously – or indeed
parallax
249
 material-discursively – in terms of physical space). Rather than try to resolve
the tension, the aim of this was to find new ways to stay with the trouble
of tension:

We see this as a posthuman pedagogy that worked, rather than

worked through or resolved, tension as an agentic and material
co-presence in the classroom. Opposed to a humanist progress
narrative that views tension as something to be overcome or
eradicated, we see tension as an activating force that here intra-
acted with the human and non-human bodies opening spaces for
maneouvering within difference.24

The pedagogical moment discussed in this elegantly conceived project investi-

gates the intersectionality of material-discursive phenomena, and tension,
between, within and as a phenomenon itself. Moreover, the project includes
a critical threading-through of a keen, affective awareness of how the location
of learning from within the university is woven with damaged and troubled
life worlds. The university is understood a space that is ‘an (un)evenly and
never fully safe space’ itself, and this positioning is critically discussed/
enacted as part of the course.25 The notion of kinshipping thus becomes a
highly critical enactment within the material-discursive classroom, diffracting
the course material, the materiality of the yarn and the self-as-material-discur-
sive phenomena entangled in a performative pedagogy that emerges from
within contested and troubled performativities of higher education.

With much of the SI’s focus thus far being on finding new ways to trouble
Western, Enlightenment inheritances by thinking-with and as part of mul-
tiple, distributive and affective agencies, Delphi Carstens’ essay now follows to
provoke readers with the idea that, ‘[p]edagogy that is appropriate to these
ruinous times needs to trouble us’, and importantly that ‘while we cannot
escape our humanity, there is a pressing need to redefine it; to venture
beyond the narrow confines of how the ideality and materiality of our
“humanness” has been taught, thought and practiced’.26

Carstens’ attempts to engage pedagogy via what I can only describe as kind of
pedagogic defibrulation, creating a new diffraction of Romanticism designed
to provide a counter-revolution of affective intensities, ‘one that must, in
terms appropriate to the challenges we face today, be onto-ethical, affective,
orientated to social and environmental justice as well as cognisant of the
affective poisons of nostalgia and ennui’. Pedagogues, Carstens argues, must
as a matter of urgency, come to address apocalyptic agencies in all their gui-
ses, encouraging human agents and a ‘heterogeonous series of actants to
wake up, and this must be done via taking an affective turn that generates
active intensities and vitalities’.27

Literature is the primary means here, and ‘we’ readers are taken on a journey
through the Romantics, to science fiction, to a politics and pedagogy of zoe
Bayley
250
that is as darkly ecstatic as it is instructive on the notion of trouble. Texts
come alive, spectral matterings emerge, materialities are haunted by multiple
agencies and are discussed in service of waking pedagogues up to our
response-abilities:

If left undiagnosed, untreated and unaddressed, the larger-than-

human horrors of extinction, historical inevitability and trouble
without end induce dangerous nostalgic fantasies of idealised
pasts (socio-politically, spiritually and economically) and bring on
a deadly kind of affective numbness/amnesia.28

Carstens’ article requires a robust desire to find ways to do this as ‘we’ are
transported, darkly, across a field of literary, pedagogic intensities.

Barbara Grant’s essay focuses on pursuing a ‘politics of hope’ in and for the
academy, investigating the changing life of the academy in particular relation
to doctoral supervision. Grant discusses how academics are tethered, impressed
and impelled by objects, by regulations and new practices and how these may
be embraced and resisted through posthuman, academic activism where, ‘we
don’t necessarily need new methods: rather we need to imbue our proce-
dures with new forms of alertness and new forms of representation that
“make felt the unknowability within the unknown”.29

Grant argues that the potential transgressive nature of knowledge-making in

the context doctoral research is becoming systematically overwritten as doc-
torates become steadily more like training grounds tailored for the garnering
of economic value. Thus, she focuses her ‘intellectual and practical energies
on finding ways to think about our everyday work as offering possibilities for
activism such that we might interrupt the flow of business as usual in an
increasingly competitive, performative and individualising academic environ-
ment’.30 Beginning with a project that rapidly turns into an investigation on
how stuff – human and nonhuman – assembles to create a state of becoming-
supervisor (as one never fully is but always in the process of becoming), the
article looks at how attention paid to the small everyday of objects in the life
of student-supervisory relationships enact, and therefore offer potential sites of
resistance to the construction of a doctoral imaginary.

Here, the identity of academic as supervisor, responsible for the journey and
final award of a student’s doctorate, is understood as processual, even though
‘rigid lines of stratification and sedimentation are at work to normalise and
standardise the becoming-supervisor’. Grant’s project, undertaken with eleven
female doctoral supervisors unfolds via the assembling of supervisors with
objects they associate with the identity and action of ‘supervising’. These
assembleges, considered critically, expose/create a state of performativity
where the agency of the doctoral supervisor is co-produced across a spectrum
of human and nonhuman phenomena. ‘She is linked to documents, other
humans, affects, bodiliness, tools, both known and unexpected’. Greetings
parallax
251
 cards, tears, pens, handbooks, leafy plants, cast into the consideration of the
assembling of identity allow for thinking differently about the practice of doc-
toral supervision, where, ‘[t]hinking about becoming-supervisor as an assem-
blage directs attention towards the political, practical and ethical complexities
of our work and the way that work is shaped and ordered by much more
than the inner values, beliefs and desires attributed to the human-
ist subject’.31

The final essay by co-editor Carol A. Taylor, Edu-crafting Adventures, acts not
as a conclusion, but as an ‘out-tro’ of sorts. As editors of this SI, Carol and I
have gone on to extend the call for papers into a further edited book entitled
Posthumanism and Education. There is so much to say on this burgeoning field,
so many ways to diffract socially engaged, critically aware pedagogy that con-
siders its own performativity in the marking of bodies – the marking of the
world through the making of knowledge. We hope you will be moved to offer
your own diffractions of this journey with us.

Notes

1 15
Braidotti and Gilroy, Conflicting Ibid.
Humanities, 1. 16
Knochel, “Drawing Together and Falling
2
Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway. Apart,” 299.
3 17
Braidotti and Gilroy, Conflicting Ibid.
Humanities, 33–4.
18
Ibid., 303.
4
Deleuze and Guattari, A
19
McPhie, “I knock at the stone's front
Thousand Plateaus. door,” 307.
5
Braidotti and Gilroy, Conflicting Humanities,
20
Ibid., 306.
7.
21
Ibid., 309.
6
Spivak, Outside in the Teaching Machine, 64
22
Ibid., 307.
7 23
Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway. Niccolini, Zarabadi and Ringrose,
8
Zembylas, “The Entanglement of Decolonial “Spinning yarns,” 324.
and Posthuman Perspectives,“ 255.
24
Ibid., 325.
Zembylas’ emphasis.
25
Ibid., 328.
9
Ibid., 261.
26
Carstens, Cultivating a dark haecceity 344.
27
10
Ibid., 254. Ibid.
11
Haraway, Staying With the Trouble.
28
Ibid., 352.
12
Franklin-Phipps and Rath, “How to become
29
Grant, “Assembling Ourselves
less deadly,” 246. Differently?,” 359.
13
Ibid.
30
Ibid., 358.
14
Marc Higgins and Sara Tolbert, “A
31
Ibid., 366.
Syllabus for Response-able Inheritance in Science
Education,” 273. Parenthesis in original.

Bibliography
Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement
of Matter and Meaning. London: Duke University Press, 2007.
Braidotti, Rosi, and Paul Gilroy. Conflicting Humanities. London: Bloomsbury Press,
2016.
Carstens, Delphi. “Cultivating a Dark Haeccity: A Pedagogy of the Uncanny and Dark
Transports.” parallax 24, no. 3 (2018): 344-355.

Bayley
252
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
Franlin-Phipps, Asilia and Courtney L. Rath. “How to Become Less Deadly: A
Provocation to the Fields of Teacher Education and Educational Research.”
parallax, 24, 3 (2018): 268–272.
Grant, Barbara, M. “How to Become Less Deadly: A Provocation to the Fields
of Teacher Education and Educational Research.” parallax, 24, 3 (2018): 356–370.
Haraway, Donna. Staying With the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke
University Press, 2016.
Higgins, Marc and Sara Tolbert. “A Syllabus for Response-able Inheritance in Science
Education.” parallax, 24, no. 3 (2018): 273–294.
Knochel, Aaron D. “Drawing Together and Falling Apart.” parallax, 24, 3 (2018):
295–305.
McPhie, Jamie. “I Knock at the Stone’s Front Door: Performative Pedagogies Beyond
the Human Story.” parallax, 24, 3 (2018): 306–323.
Niccolini, Alyssa D., Shiva Zarabedi and Jessica Ringrose. “Spinning Yarns: Affective
Kinshipping as Posthuman Pedagogy.” parallax, 24, 3 (2018): 324–343.
Spivak, Gayatri. Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York: Routledge Press, 1993.
Zemblylas, Michalinois. “The Entanglement of Decolonial and Posthuman
Perspectives: Tensions and Implications for Curriculum and Pedagogy in Higher
Education.” parallax, 24, 3 (2018): 254–267.

Dr. Annouchka Bayley has published several works on Posthumanism,

Education and Practice-as-Research pedagogies. In 2014 she won the Warwick
Award for Teaching Excellence. She is also a practicing performance artist
and an emerging director with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Email:
dr.annouchka.bayley@gmail.com

parallax
253