Article Review: Difference as Ethical Encounter

In the article “Differences as Ethical Encounter,” Susanne Gannon assesses how ethical encounters are impacted by differences in pedagogical encounters. In order to assess the role of difference in shaping pedagogical encounters and the responsibility one holds, Gannon evaluates three texts that respectively include the story of a teacher instructing international students, the story of a white teacher in an Aboriginal school, and key excerpts from the “Sorry” speech delivered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Gannon utilizes the work of poststructuralist philosophers Deleuze and Levinas in order to construct a theoretical framework through which the interaction of differences in these pedagogical settings can be explored. Through examining the ethical implications of these encounters with difference, Gannon attempts to reconcile the need to address difference in order to remedy inequality while at the same time liberating individuals from the restraints that classifications denoting difference can impose.

To establish the framework through which she will evaluate her case studies, Gannon borrows from the works of poststructuralist philosophers Deleuze and Levinas. Both Deleuze and Levinas were critical of identity because of its static nature and instead preferred to discuss how difference was conceived and valued (Gannon, 2010, p. 4). Describing the undesirability of identity, Deleuze asserted that racialization involved the exercise of external force in order to place individuals in racial categories (Gannon, 2010, p. 4). Yet, Deleuze noted that difference is more fluid in nature because the stratification process through which difference operates requires continual renegotiation (Gannon, 2010, p. 5). Levinas, however, asserted that identity is less easy to escape. It is necessary to consider the “chaining” effect of identity that results from the historical attachment people have to their identities (Gannon, 2010, p. 4). The purpose of Gannon’s case studies is to observe the oppositional forces that are present when the need to rearrange differences must also coincide with being “chained” to one’s identity, or having their identity wrapped in race.

In the first case study, Gannon discusses a white teacher’s efforts to meet the needs of two international students at an Australian high school. In the first ethical counter of the case, Gannon discusses an incident where the teacher brought sushi for the student from Japan upon noticing that he was unhappy and was met with a display of appreciation (2010, p. 7). This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing difference in order to effectively meet the needs of others. If the teacher failed to recognize that cultural alienation was the root of the student’s unease, she would have missed out on an opportunity to help the student feel accepted in the school. Further, the teacher challenges her class to briefly experience alienation when she has the student from Chile student and the student from Japan read lines from a poem in their native languages for a class assignment (Gannon, 2010, p. 7). This act demonstrates the mutability of difference, as noted by Deleuze, because the native Australian students are temporarily placed in a situation where they must challenge themselves to decipher language.

The next case involves the same teacher, but this example takes place a decade earlier when the teacher taught at an Aboriginal school. Again, the teacher attempts to understand her students’ differences when she rejects the phonics kit that the other teacher in the school uses (Gannon, 2010, p. 13). The teacher creates a bilingual calendar with the students and has studied the Aboriginal language in college (Gannon, 2010, p. 13). Further, the teacher allows her students to point out inaccuracies in an Australian Geographic Magazine article on their home (Gannon, 2010, p. 11). In this case, Levinas’s chaining concept can be examined because both the teacher and the Aboriginal students are connected to one another through kinship systems and by a role that is established by their identities. Through her background as a white, educated Australian, the teacher was placed in a position of authority over the students. Further, the Aboriginal students were placed in a subservient position because of their historical background. Yet, the teacher is able to utilize an acceptance of difference to create an equitable pedagogical setting where mutual exchanges take place between students and teachers.

Finally, the “Sorry” speech by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is presented as the final example of a pedagogical scenario where difference must be reconciled in order to meet one’s responsibility to others. Gannon asserted that Rudd’s speech was a pedagogical occasion because it also involved educating Australians on the historical abuses (2010, p.16). As Gannon noted, Levinas recognized that individuals must take a shared responsibility for the fate of others outside of their identity group (2010, p. 16). As Gannon highlighted, Rudd asserted personal and collective responsibility when he made the shift between stating, “We say sorry,” and “I am sorry” in his formal apology for Australia’s history of mistreating the Aboriginals (2010, p. 16). In this example, Rudd is chained to his identity as a white Australian and head of government. Further, to properly apologize, he must acknowledge his identity in order to properly apologize for the wrongdoings of the Australian government. Thus, this example demonstrates that identity still has a role that must be considered in an ethical encounter.

As Gannon concludes, ethical differences inform the obligations that individuals have to be considerate towards one another. In order to be ethical in one’s interaction with another person, they must consider how difference informs their responsibilities to understand the needs of others. Further, individuals are “chained” to an identity that they must take into account in their encounters with one another. The three cases explored by Gannon address how teachers and speakers in a pedagogical setting must carefully navigate through differences in order to ethically engage with their pupils.

Reference

Gannon, S. (2010, November 8). Difference as ethical encounter. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, 11(1), 71-75. Doi:10.1177/1532708610386924