The critical educator's two bodies, or, why the personal is still not political.
Saved in:
| Title: | The critical educator's two bodies, or, why the personal is still not political. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Low, Remy Yi Siang1 (AUTHOR) remy.low@sydney.edu.au |
| Source: | Teaching in Higher Education. Aug2025, Vol. 30 Issue 6, p1454-1461. 8p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Critical pedagogy, Human body, Feminist criticism, Social constructionism, Subjectivity, Other (Philosophy) |
| Abstract: | Where is the body in critique? By this, I do not mean the body as an object of critical inquiry; we have had several generations of fruitful works that have called the apparent 'naturalness' of the body into question – from feminist to postfeminist criticism, from Foucault to Bourdieu to Butler. We are, read in one way or another by these luminaries, inhabitants of bodies that serve as carriers of social meanings and signs, which are in turn ordered by prevailing forces that order the contexts in which we live. But what about the body that gets dizzy, dissociated, and nauseous, that eats, drinks, walks, urinates, and defecates, and that gets sick, degenerates, and dies? Where is this 'natural body' when the 'symbolic body' is performing critique in the classroom? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Teaching in Higher Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Where is the body in critique? By this, I do not mean the body as an object of critical inquiry; we have had several generations of fruitful works that have called the apparent 'naturalness' of the body into question – from feminist to postfeminist criticism, from Foucault to Bourdieu to Butler. We are, read in one way or another by these luminaries, inhabitants of bodies that serve as carriers of social meanings and signs, which are in turn ordered by prevailing forces that order the contexts in which we live. But what about the body that gets dizzy, dissociated, and nauseous, that eats, drinks, walks, urinates, and defecates, and that gets sick, degenerates, and dies? Where is this 'natural body' when the 'symbolic body' is performing critique in the classroom? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13562517 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/13562517.2025.2449638 |
