Bozalek, V., Bayat, A., Motala, S., Mitchell, V., & Gachago, D. (2016). Diffracting socially just pedagogies through stained glass. South African Journal of Higher Education, 30(3), 201-218. https://doi.org/10.20853/30-3-647

After the authors’ friend and colleague Theo Combrinck passed away in 2014, Bozalek et al. (2016) used Karen Barad’s idea of diffraction to consider his legacy. Diffraction – as explained by Hultman and Lenz Taguchi (2010) – is the process that occurs when a wave, such as water, light, or sound, encounters and is unalterably changed by some other entity, such as another wave or an object. The original wave “partly remains within the new wave after its transformation into a new one, and so on, wave after wave” (Hultman & Lenz Taguchi, 2010, p. 535). The process of becoming through diffraction implies that nothing exists outside of the context of intra-action: there are no autonomous entities, only entities made real through encounter with other entities.

Bozalek et al. (2016) explore how diffractive encounters between themselves and Combrinck affected their respective processes of becoming, and how the process of reflecting on this collectively as a writing group led to further and ongoing intra-action and, consequently, diffraction. They frame their exploration in Baradian terms, declaring their apparatus (discursive inputs and processes) to include intra-actions with Combrinck, theories, questions posed by group members, texts, and collaborative technologies; and defining their agential cut (scope of exploration) as the broad topic of socially just pedagogy from a post-humanist stance (p. 205).

The article is designed to engage the reader in the diffractive process of becoming. It does this first by creating a text the reader can intra-act with: Bozalek et al. eschew traditional writing structures, such as persuasive arguments, in favour of curated open-ended reflections, many of which begin with an unedited quote by Combrinck rather than an attempted re-representation of his ideas. The reader also becomes a participant in the intra-active encounter, and subsequent diffraction, through learning about Combrinck’s life, digesting metaphors he created, noting his typos and writing errors, considering his colleagues’ comments about him, and thinking about the tenets of his approach to socially just pedagogy.

The authors note the significance of local social justice protests which took place during the writing of this paper as further inputs to their diffractive process(es), tacitly inviting the reader to consider what aspects of their own context may impact their intra-action with the paper. For example, as I read I thought about my current teaching assignment, and specific students, parents, and scenarios that have recently taken place. The consciousness of the authors of their own apparatus called upon me as reader to define my own apparatus and agential cut. I did not adopt the cut chosen by the authors, but rather approached the reading primarily with intention to better understand Barad through seeing their theories in application; and secondarily to inform me as a teacher seeking a more fulfilling experience of becoming in this profession. My interest in socially just pedagogy formed a third consideration, and curiosity about posthumanism a fourth. My apparatus included numerous theories and texts not taken up explicitly by the authors, the writing utensil and printed copy of the article I used to write notes and musings in the margins, the process of and technologies used in writing (and rewriting) this OER entry, and a set of memories, interests, and ruminations unique to my own life.

While labeled “conclusion”, the result of this paper is not an end or proven point; rather, it is “a dynamic product with relational agency that can entangle readers” (Bozalek et al., 2016, p. 215). Through its development, its authors explore ways in which their individual and collective existence is defined through past, present, and future encounters with Combrinck. And, through intra-action with the completed text, readers explore and cause their own existence in relation to the writers, Combrinck, and their collective apparatus.

References

Bozalek, V., Bayat, A., Motala, S., Mitchell, V., & Gachago, D. (2016). Diffracting socially just pedagogies through stained glass. South African Journal of Higher Education, 30(3), 201-218. https://doi.org/10.20853/30-3-647

Hultman, K., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 525-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.500628