Literacy, Affect, and Uncontrollability
2021; Wiley; Volume: 56; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/rrq.387
ISSN1936-2722
AutoresChristian Ehret, Jennifer Rowsell,
Tópico(s)Literacy, Media, and Education
ResumoReading Research QuarterlyVolume 56, Issue 2 p. 201-206 From the Guest EditorsFree Access Literacy, Affect, and Uncontrollability Christian Ehret, Corresponding Author christian.ehret@mcgill.ca Search for more papers by this authorJennifer Rowsell, jennifer.rowsell@bristol.ac.uk Search for more papers by this author Christian Ehret, Corresponding Author christian.ehret@mcgill.ca Search for more papers by this authorJennifer Rowsell, jennifer.rowsell@bristol.ac.uk Search for more papers by this author First published: 30 March 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.387AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat The driving cultural force of that form of life we call “modern” is the idea, the hope and desire, that we can make the world controllable. Yet it is only in encountering the uncontrollable that we really experience the world. Only then do we feel touched, moved, alive. (Rosa, 2020, p. 2) While writing the call for this special issue in the summer of 2019, we could not have imagined our work 18 months later: writing this guest editorial months into a global pandemic, newly gripped by the Black Lives Matter movement, and unsettled as a sitting president directed insurgency at the heart of U.S. democracy. Yet, we wrote grateful for the place to which this special issue has brought us in relation both to the field of literacy studies and to, in fact, ourselves as people beyond the field. In the everyday, uncertainty has brought heightened intensities since beginning this special issue, intensities that have stirred anew questions of what it means to live and what it means to bring new life to our work. Uncertainty has brought us differently to life across moments of beauty and pain, calmness and agitation, hope and horror. As guest editors, we have surveyed work in this issue and in the field to find ourselves feeling alive again to new and renewed ideas. We found ourselves thinking again about the continued importance of critical, sociocultural perspectives on literacy and their invitations to unknowing (e.g., Vasudevan, 2011), to mobilized emotion (e.g., Lewis & Tierney, 2013), and to the production of love and presence through traumas (e.g., Dutro & Bien, 2014). We also felt renewed life through the potentials of opening ourselves as interdisciplinary humanists and social scientists to the contingency of our knowledge production practices and to the potentials of being vulnerable—while working with agency and activism—to the uncontrollable in the social, affective life of research and teaching (Boldt, this issue; Truman, Hackett, Pahl, Davies, & Escott, this issue). This special issue explores the latter, presenting articles that resonate robustly with the theoretic potentials of uncertainty that bring a renewed literacy research to life and a renewed life to literacy research. We wrote this piece at a time when the world has broken open. How will we, as a field, move through this break? What are the imperatives for literacy research in urgently uncertain times? As literacy scholars, and as human beings, we will never be the same. We will never research in the same ways. For us, the question driving this editorial is an imperative bound up in the professional and the everyday: How might affect theory help us hold our vulnerabilities, our uncertainties, in our research, to help us be less certain? We can only be certain that our propensities and desires toward certainty as humans will be unsettled. Then, when uncertainty envelops, the affects shift, intensify. We are living through moments of intensity that will only continue to accrue. As they accrue, and as we explore in this editorial and through articles in this issue, power will have all the more opportunity to seize upon our desires for control. As we look to touch the world more closely through uncertainty, we therefore also ask, How can affect theory help us understand the conditions and mechanisms of power that limit capacities for learning and using literacies, leveraging our own affective tendencies against our interests? Affect and Emotion in Relation In our initial call for this special issue, we described, in a way, distinctions between the theoretic certainty of sociocultural theories of literacy and emotion that we found limiting in relation to coalescing currents in literacy studies that drew on contemporary, interdisciplinary developments in affect theory (e.g., Boldt & Leander, 2020; Leander & Ehret, 2019) and posthumanism (e.g., Kuby & Rowsell, 2017). As an emerging scholar and a senior scholar both trained in critical sociocultural theory, we have never questioned the validity of such perspectives in describing culturally constructed forms of emotion that do indeed feel, and feel deeply. Yet, we have been moved by contemporary affect theories that enlarge and enliven perspectives on the feeling of literacy in social life, unpredictable desires around reading, writing, making, and speaking that are at the core of what makes us human and that could be forced into traditional sociocultural framings as, for example, culturally determined, goal-directed action (e.g., Wertsch, 1994). In literacy research, these critical sociocultural perspectives have often described how systems of power relate to the mobilization of emotion as mediated action. For example, researchers have described how students’ previous experiences in genres or with particular writing tasks might draw out constructed emotions of anxiety, boredom, or confidence (Smagorinsky & Daigle, 2012). Similarly, Lewis and Tierney (2011) described emotion as being mobilized or distributed in the discursive and material practices of an urban high school English classroom and how the classroom activity system was “conducive to particular forms of mediated action such as emotive discussion” (p. 323), in which adolescents produced critical responses to texts that seemed irrational and disruptive, but which were, in fact, astute, impassioned, and rooted in the adolescents’ racialized histories. There is no doubt that these perspectives remain crucial for future research and practice in literacy studies. Moving From Context to Conditions: Power, Affect, and Societies of Control At the same time, contemporary theories develop understandings of affect and desire through a conceptual disentanglement of affect, initially and ontologically, from personalized or culturally constructed forms of emotion, opening literacy researchers to wider perspectives on affect in social life. The disentanglement is initial and ontological because affective intensities may sometimes develop into cultural mediated emotions, but not always. The notion of emotion as always already mediated is one limit of sociocultural theory for coming to the fullness of social life as, in part, only felt, irrational, and not only culturally predetermined. Just as mediation has aided critical scholars in thinking about the role of culture in meaning making, affect, as a depersonalized concept, aids social theorists in understanding how intensities enable and constrain bodies’ capacities to act. In their analysis of refusals in literacy education, their participants’ “literacies of no,” Truman et al. (this issue) describe ways in which a distinction between affect and emotion helped them analyze how “the personal, prepersonal, affect, and emotion are constantly shifting” and, therefore, how “taxonomies and economies of affect work like atmospheres: regulating particular bodies, rendering some bodies toxic, other bodies illiterate, other bodies disposable, other bodies overaffected, and still other bodies not affected at all.” With examples of “a teacher who quit in their first year, a silent child, a poet who refused to write, and crumpled paper in a bin,” the authors argue for capacious kindness in the spaces of uncertainty that literate refusals produce. Evoking the concept of atmosphere (see also Anderson, 2014; Hollett & Ehret, 2015), Truman et al. (this issue) point to contemporary theorizations of affect and power related to Deleuze’s readings of his friend Foucault’s work. Developing Foucault’s paradigm of a society of discipline, Deleuze (1992) argued for a movement from discipline to control (for a full discussion, see Campbell, 2011). In Deleuze’s theorization, lives inflected by neoliberalism are affected by “limitless postponements” (p. 5). Politics are a constant discourse of war against an other; lifelong learning is essential for being a productive worker; do not wait to buy your starter house; where are you on the career ladder? For Deleuze, limitless postponement creates an affective atmosphere wherein our modern desires for control (e.g., expectations needing to achieve specific forms of financial stability, the right education, permanent relationships) are constantly placed beyond our reach and in the interest of neoliberal, capital machines: In the disciplinary societies one was always starting again (from school to the barracks, from the barracks to the factory), while in the societies of control one is never finished with anything—the corporation, the educational system, the armed services being metastable states coexisting in one and the same modulation, like a universal system of deformation. (p. 5) The human desire to gain control over our lives is an inflecting point for neoliberal power. Power affects through the not-yet. Part of the irony, and the pain, in this image of power is that the desire to come close to the world—to control—keeps citizens further from encountering the uncontrollable (Rosa, 2020), from feeling alive. From theorizations of cruel optimism (Berlant, 2011) to ontopower (Massumi, 2015), for example, affect theorists have built on Deleuze’s insights on limitless postponements as an affective dimension of neoliberal societies of control. Berlant (2011) conceptualized post-1980s economic, political, and affective life as a condition of cruel optimism, wherein ordinary attachment to dreams—home ownership and lifelong intimacy—and their limitless postponements produce affective conditions of anxiety and precarity that are felt before they are known. This condition of anxiety and precarity, even if felt-precarity among those more economically stable than many, brings Deleuze’s control society to life, conceptually, in describing a generalized condition of singular, felt-everydays. With his attention on the politics of preemption and threat, Massumi (2015) described how power flows through the logic of preemption, the threat of the yet-to-come, in control societies: Preemption is when the futurity of unspecified threat is affectively held in the present in a perpetual state of potential emergence(y) so that a movement of actualization may be triggered that is not only self-propelling but also effectively, indefinitely, ontologically productive. (p. 15) Although an analysis of the post-9/11 George W. Bush Administration, Massumi’s description of a self-propelling, perpetual state of potential emergency resonates with Trumpism’s self-propelling and perpetual creation of threat—of immigrants, of a country stolen through a “fake” election. Power affects through an unreal future, playing a role in actively constituting affective life through futures that do not exist but are nonetheless expressed as real. Nichols and Coleman (this issue) describe what they term affective imaginaries to describe processes of “bringing the material world of the classroom into closer alignment with the aesthetics, norms, and practices of an imagined, affect-laden world.” The authors describe how affective imaginaries in literacy classrooms both empower students and expose them to the variability of educators’ attachments to particular ideals, such as those generated by the conditions of power and cruel optimism that Massumi (2015) and Berlant (2011) described. For instance, the implementation of a digital tracker “animated a normative expectation” in the school that Nichols and Coleman studied, when students were affected by their felt-abilities in aligning “with particular metrics for productivity in the classroom.” These felt-conditions for productivity affected students within and beyond classroom walls, cultivating feelings of contentment and self-agency for some students, increasing their power to act and producing positive attachments to a particular democratic imaginary. In contrast, for other students, there were affective conditions of “frustration, anxiety, and worry that constrained [their] movement, even beyond the material walls of the classrooms” and resulted in negative attachments to regulatory features of a democratic classroom that, in turn, “produced…affects…that…diminished their power to act.” The tracker, a nonhuman agent, seemed to produce a new felt-reality, much like the attachments of cruel optimism. Within such conditions, how might researchers move beyond critique and agitate toward methodologies of hope and potential? While critiquing flows of power through their conceptualization of racializing affect, Jocson and Dixon-Román (this issue) consider potentials from the Afrofuturist turn for reconstituting racializing affect toward more equitable futures for students in career and technical education. Via Shuri, the fictional technological genius and Princess of Wakanda in the movie Black Panther, the authors reclaim the potentials of unreal futures to actualize more equitable potentials for socially marginalized and racialized youth. Lee, Falter, and Schoonover (this issue) describe the everyday affects circulating through literacy events in the lives of seven Latino immigrant youth living in North Carolina. The authors analyze how circulations of fear around immigration in the Trump era’s U.S. South gave way to “rogue intensities” of hope, gratitude, and change during public readings of youth writing. Across each of these articles, an important conceptual move opens new, potential paths for literacy researchers opening their work to affect. Each article shifts from an exclusive understanding of context as conceived through sociocultural theories of learning and literacy (e.g., Barton & Hamilton, 1998/2012; Brandt & Clinton, 2002; Stornaiuolo, Smith, & Phillips, 2017) to an analysis of the affective conditions through which literacies are practiced and experienced. This turn to the affective conditions of literacy marks a turn not only to examining the intimate textures of literacy in everyday life but also to feeling for the ways in which power modulates and muffles life through uniquely affective techniques. How literacy relates to life and to living, through the everyday, through marginalization, and through collective imaginings, comes into sharper relief across these pieces and, potentially, in the future research for which their theoretical developments call. Touching Uncontrollability Continued research examining the affective conditions of literacy must account for developing perspectives on power in societies of control. Yet, it is in the uncontrollability that the world touches, that humans come to feel alive in elisions of power’s determining structures, emergencies, (false) promises, and postponements. This is one way in which power comes to life: to deaden it through reinforcing our own desires for control. As well, this is one way in which we, as researchers and educators, may come to life in excess of what power can capture: the human desire to encounter the unexpected, the new, the singular affects that move us through everyday life in encountering the uncontrollable. Articles in this special issue describe methodologies, theories, and techniques for encountering the uncontrollable, attuning to touch through affect. Garcia, Guggenheim, Stamatis, and Dalton (this issue) foreground glimmers as a methodological approach to understanding everyday moments of care across nine high school English classrooms in the United States. Moments of care are conceptualized, in part, for their singularity, for the very ordinariness that can often occur beyond the (pre)determinations of power, recognizing, of course, that power can also seek to determine care practices as institutional mandates and capitalizing practices. Yet, for Garcia and colleagues, as for Ahmed (2010), care can also touch, in relation to the carer and the cared for, as an emergent moment of uncontrollability: There is nothing more vulnerable than caring for someone; it means not only giving your energy to that which is not you but also caring for that which is beyond or outside your control. Caring is anxious—to be full of care, to be careful, is to take care of things by becoming anxious about their future, where the future is embodied in the fragility of an object whose persistence matters.…To care is not about letting an object go but holding on to an object by letting oneself go, giving oneself over to something that is not one’s own. (Ahmed, 2010, p. 186) As a matter of pedagogy in secondary English language arts, Garcia and colleagues show how moments of care emerge, in part, through glimmers of pedagogical letting go. For instance, they describe mismatches stemming from teachers’ partial desires to control students’ design decisions with rubrics affected by institutional pulls of curricular compliance. The mismatch was felt in students’ own literate desires to express themselves differently from larger institutional norms, normalizing conditions produced through affective pressures not only on them but also on their teachers. The authors evoke the composing process of one student, Sara: “Designing her film, Sara had to weave together her own self-care, making choices that simultaneously honored her experiences and intersected with assumptions about what elements must be included for her product to be considered a ‘good’ video.” Here, care requires a teacher to let go of the institutionalized norms conditioning the affective life of students’ design processes and requires a vulnerability of students: to let go of the desire for control over grades and institutionalized futures to care for self, to touch the uncontrollable futures of a composition in mismatch with (school) culturally predetermined value. Encountering glimmers of care enables the researchers to touch, in a way, the uncontrollable affects of their participants’ literate designs. Through a developed theory of vitality in classroom practice, Boldt (this issue) shows how literacy may come to feel vital, alive, beyond immediate human control—a desire to produce feeling in excess of any predetermined qualification or preformed cultural mediation. In doing so, she argues that in literacy research and practice, conscious, language-based learning has been overvalued. This provocative theorization demands literacy educators’ “insistent valuing of all the things that happen that can be described generally [and] that often cannot be explained in any specificity,” such as the polymodal “kinesthetic and sonic qualities of rhythm, tone, speed, repetition, innovation, and so forth” that mark moments of classroom practice that feel alive. Therefore, beyond the controllability of curriculum and lesson plans, Boldt entreats literacy educators and researchers to move yet more openly to a set of concepts developed to attune them to the “presence or absence of vitality and the intersubjective, creative, even political commitments carried in our attention to vitality.” Here, Boldt points to modes of expression that, at least, feel less controllable than language, which so often consumes the life of literacy education and research as a primary focus, despite all the life around it that escapes language. Tanner, Leander, and Carter-Stone (this issue) investigated how the affective conditions and relations of improvisational theater produced feelings of uncontrollability that both escape and produce language in possibilities for discussion, such as those generally privileged in reading education. Improvisational theater, by definition, requires the production of movement, language, and narrativization through the uncontrollable unfolding of experience. Deriving implications for reading pedagogy, the authors use the affect theoretical construct of worlding, or “the creation and presencing of unique events in time by collectives,” to imagine how literacy events world, for collectives, unexpected meanings and moments around a shared text. In doing so, Tanner and colleagues argue that a more improvisational approach to reading discussion is less about developing best practices in reading instruction, or even specific strategies, and “more about ways of being together, an ethos.” They therefore develop theories of affect, improvisation, and reading discussion that “takes seriously Rosenblatt’s (1964) claim from over 50 years ago: The making of a text with a group is a singular experience, an occurrence.” Reading discussions are moments for encountering affect, for touching through bandying about, polymodally, humorously, politically, and playfully, expressions of relation to a text, to one another. Touching uncontrollability through literacy events, for these authors, is political, polymodal, and playful. Authors are touched by participants’ affective movements and breaks in response to techniques of control through curriculum (e.g., Mr. Lincoln in relation to curricular demands) and normative designs (Sara in relation to rubrics derived from curricular demands): These are touching methodological potentials. Authors are touched by moments of vitality that produce conceptions of value that exceed previous conceptions of value articulated alone in language: These are theories of how literacy moves us beyond language, in research and practice. Authors are moved to move one another through the polymodal theater of improvisation: This is how letting go to the unfolding experiences of reading discussions opens us to the creativity of social life beyond our desires to control and rein in students’ thinking. Touching uncontrollability brings new, living movements to literacy studies in relation to the scientism and mechanisms of predictive, controlling power. Moving Beyond the Control of Social Purpose We see this as a provocative heading. Understandings of literacy since at least the advent of the New Literacy Studies have seen literacy as inextricable from the durable and preformed social contexts and purposes through which texts and language are consumed and produced. As we have argued here and elsewhere (e.g., Ehret, 2019; Pahl & Rowsell, 2020), interdisciplinary developments in affect theory have forced considerations of the uncontrollable and indeterminant in processes of meaning making through language, as well as with and around texts. These new considerations not only of the role of context but also in the role of the felt, and in the materiality of literacy, suggest a burgeoning new pathway in literacy research, through affect and posthumanism, that marks substantial growth from the path set by the New Literacy Studies now almost four decades ago. With attention to the role of texts in contemporary affective conditions, Burnett and Merchant (this issue) develop a specifically sociomaterial approach that disrupts the anthropocentric focus on human, goal-action action that has been central to the New Literacy Studies and that has “contributed to a factoring out of nonhuman agencies.” Alongside growing affect-oriented perspectives on digital literacies (e.g., Leander & Burriss, 2020; Nichols & Stornaiuolo, 2019), Burnett and Merchant point to how affect theory offers pathways for research that are all the more essential for interrogating contemporary communicative practices in a “communication economy in which a presidential tweet matters, in which online hate speech can take hold, and through which nonhumans write texts that conspire to construct our present and predict our future.” Through their analysis of the movement of a text concerning Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s approach to Brexit across scales of time and space, including from 3,000 primary school digital noticeboards, to a parent’s decontextualizing photograph, to the digital noticeboard in the British House of Commons, Burnett and Merchant theorize further how the unstable uncontrollability of meaning making with texts requires theories beyond what traditional sociocultural perspectives can now provide. Writing in relation to a long history of perspectives from the Global South, Perry (this issue) reminds literacy researchers that challenges to conscious control and the primacy of human agency in literacy have long circulated in nondominant cultures. Describing what she terms pluriversal literacies, Perry invites a consideration of literacies that are neither contextual nor universal, that are “not literacies of any particular place, topic, or people; rather, they are a practice of making sense and forming actions in relation to an always emerging global context.” With this move, she works alongside major thinkers of the Global South, of the world, to theorize literacy as an emergent phenomenon in global flux and as essentially related to nature and the material world. She thereby builds on earlier perspectives on literacy, affect, and emergence (e.g., Leander & Boldt, 2013), through close attention to the material and ecological as both situated and global concerns. Burnett and Merchant, as well as Perry, remind us of a central theme across this special issue, a theme with which we began this editorial. At a field level, literacy studies is facing a necessary uncertainty in expanding from a way of thinking about literacy that has fueled decades of research, namely, sociocultural theories developed through the wake of essential insights from the New Literacy Studies. Although, as we reiterated throughout this essay, the New Literacy Studies remain essential to future thinking in the field, sociocultural perspectives have themselves sedimented as a framework that is deeply unsettled by current crises of illiberalism, climate, and nonhuman attacks in the form of bots and viruses. We simply can no longer retain our nostalgia for humanism if we are to progress our understandings of literacy in this new world. The nostalgia for structures, for the sense of control that they lend us as researchers and educators, will not bring about the change that is so urgently needed. As we continue to change as a field, as we embrace the uncontrollable in our research and teaching practices, so too will literacy come more fully to life, in our experiences of it, our understandings of it, and our abilities to touch and be touched while working in relation to a world that, despite its flaws, will retain its beauty. Notes We thank the commentary authors—Nathan Snaza, Leigh Patel, and Ty Hollett—for contributing their time, hearts, and keen insights to this issue. We also thank Amanda Goodwin and Bob Jiménez, the editors of Reading Research Quarterly, for surrporting this issue and for allowing space in the journal for pushing forward the edges of theory development in literacy studies. Biographies CHRISTIAN EHRET is an assistant professor in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; email christian.ehret@mcgill.ca. JENNIFER ROWSELL is a professor in the School of Education at the University of Bristol, UK; email jennifer.rowsell@bristol.ac.uk. References Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Anderson, B. (2014). Encountering affect: Capacities, apparatuses, conditions. London, UK: Ashgate. Google Scholar Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. New York, NY: Routledge. (Original work published 1998) Google Scholar Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Boldt, G., & Leander, K.M. (2020). Affect theory in reading research: Imagining the radical difference. Reading Psychology, 41(6), 515– 532. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1783137CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Brandt, D., & Clinton, K. (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3), 337– 356. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3403_4CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Campbell, T.C. (2011). Improper life: Technology and biopolitics from Heidegger to Agamben. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3– 7. Google Scholar Dutro, E., & Bien, A.C. (2014). Listening to the speaking wound: A trauma studies perspective on student positioning in schools. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 7– 35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213503181CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ehret, C. (2019). Propositions from affect theory for feeling literacy through the event. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy ( 7th ed., pp. 563– 581). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar Hollett, T., & Ehret, C. (2015). “Bean’s World”: (Mine) Crafting affective atmospheres of gameplay, learning, and care in a children’s hospital. New Media & Society, 17(11), 1849– 1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814535192CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kuby, C.R., & Rowsell, J. (2017). Early literacy and the posthuman: Pedagogies and methodologies. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 285– 296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417715720CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2013). Rereading “A pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22– 46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12468587CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Leander, K.M., & Burriss, S.K. (2020). Critical literacy for a posthuman world: When people read, and become, with machines. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1262– 1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12924Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Leander, K.M., & Ehret, C. (Eds.). (2019). Affect in literacy learning and teaching: Pedagogies, politics and coming to know. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Lewis, C., & Tierney, J.D. (2011). Mobilizing emotion in an urban English classroom. Changing English, 18(3), 319– 329. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2011.602840CrossrefGoogle Scholar Lewis, C., & Tierney, J.D. (2013). Mobilizing emotion in an urban classroom: Producing identities and transforming signs in a race-related discussion. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 289– 304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.003CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Massumi, B. (2015). Ontopower: War, powers, and the state of perception. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Nichols, T.P., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2019). Assembling “digital literacies”: Contingent pasts, possible futures. Media and Communication, 7(2), 14– 24. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1946CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2020). Living literacies: Literacy for social change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Rosa, H. (2020). The uncontrollability of the world (J.C. Wagner, Trans.). Medford, MA: Polity. Google Scholar Smagorinsky, P., & Daigle, E.A. (2012). The role of affect in students’ writing for school. In E.L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D.D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 293– 307). New York, NY: Psychology. Google Scholar Stornaiuolo, A., Smith, A., & Phillips, N.C. (2017). Developing a transliteracies framework for a connected world. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 68– 91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16683419CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Vasudevan, L. (2011). An invitation to unknowing. Teachers College Record, 113(6), 1154– 1174. Web of Science®Google Scholar Wertsch, J.V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 202– 208. Google Scholar Volume56, Issue2Special Issue: Literacy, Affect, and UncontrollabilityApril/May/June 2021Pages 201-206 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)