‘Empathy is a Better Emotion’: The Trouble with Empathy in High Stakes English Classrooms

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccen20
Changing English
Studies in Culture and Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ccen20
‘Empathy is a Better Emotion’: The Trouble with
Empathy in High Stakes English Classrooms
Allayne Horton
To cite this article: Allayne Horton (18 Jul 2024): ‘Empathy is a Better Emotion’: The
Trouble with Empathy in High Stakes English Classrooms, Changing English, DOI:
10.1080/1358684X.2024.2372859
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2024.2372859
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 18 Jul 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 137
View related articles
View Crossmark data

‘Empathy is a Better Emotion’: The Trouble with Empathy in
High Stakes English Classrooms
Allayne Horton
Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT
Although interdisciplinary scholars have long debated the ethics of
empathy, it continues to be widely seen as universal, prosocial, and
reparative in education. Subject English, long associated with the
work of producing civilised, moral and cultured students, is a critical
locus for the activation of empathy. But what becomes of empathy
in the high stakes senior secondary English classroom? Drawing on
an in-school ethnography, the paper begins to map the ways in
which empathy is activated through and around set literary texts in
Victorian Certicate of Education (VCE) English classrooms in
Australia. In so doing, it highlights the unpredictable nature of
empathy as a relation exceeding pedagogical mediation, as well
as the troublesome aspects of empathy entangled with neoliberal
imperatives and the interpellation of the civilised English student.
Finally, it turns to the generative possibilities of an empathy
unsettled – an unruly empathy.
KEYWORDS
Senior English; VCE;
empathy; emotion; difficult
knowledge; literary
pedagogy; text selection
Introduction
As the teacher walks with her students out of the classroom and down the corridor,there
is a hum of quiet excitement – the novelty of a changing scene. They carry their copies of
The Women of Troy, pens, notebooks and computers, and they stroll, relaxed, into the
senior common room. Sofas are spun, cups of tea and coffee are placed down on tables,
and the class now face each other in a long oval formation. As books open, the teacher
assigns reading roles, and a small performance begins. The reading unfolds and the
teacher gestures to stop – she rereads certain lines slowly, looking into her students’ eyes
with a muted though pained expression: the ‘blood smeared temples’, the ‘screams and
moans’ of the Trojan women, ‘now chattel, prisoners of war’. Her students tell her that
they find this difficult – the wailing of the suffering women, ‘confronting’. She nods in
understanding and waits for them to elaborate. With silence returned, she closes her
book and shifts in her chair. ‘You know’, she begins softly, ‘I come from a war-torn
family, and many of you will have stories about this too . . . ’
Returning to the reading after sharing something of her grandparents’ experiences of
grief and trauma as Romanian refugees, the teacher brings a sense of levity and
CONTACT Allayne Horton allayne.horton@unimelb.edu.au
CHANGING ENGLISH
https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2024.2372859
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med-
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

amusement to the room by comparing Poseidon’s egocentric monologue to Trumpian
rhetoric. But soon again, she pivots, stopping the reading, slowly pointing out and
reinforcing the ‘cruelty’ and ‘brutality’ of the assault on Cassandra – shades of sadness
and disgust in her voice. Clicking her pen, in the same breath, she then asks plainly, ‘OK,
so – what key themes can we see here and annotate?’
This vignette is a shadow of an event I observed and experienced in an in-school
ethnography with a Year 12 Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) English class
studying Don Taylor’s translation of The Women of Troy. It illustrates some of the
ways in which the feelings of the teacher and her students are naturally and strategically
mediated during an exercise of literary study. Empathy, although not mentioned in the
VCE English curriculum, begins to emerge in this scene as the teacher models an
empathetic response for the suffering Trojan women by feeling with them, a sense of
pain in her voice when reading and discussing their grief and trauma, and by showing
a sense of understanding by making personal connections to her family history. Yet, at
the same time, the reading and reflecting is punctuated by directions away from feeling
and connecting; explicit and strategic instructions to annotate the text according to
assessable outcomes echo as constant refrains. Here, we have something of the complex
interplay of pedagogical intentions towards empathy and curriculum/assessment pres-
sures in a senior secondary English classroom – a key concern of this paper.
Although empathy has been a motif in previous work on VCE English teachers and
their pedagogical choices (Kitt 2019; McLean Davies and Buzacott 2022), it has yet to be
closely theorised and mapped in relation to set literary texts and the high-stakes, acute
neoliberal imperatives of this context. Following the path of feminist affect scholars
concerned with entanglements of power, affect and subjectivity (Ahmed 2004–2014,
2006; Berlant 2006, 2014; Cvetkovich 2003, 2012; Sedgwick 1997, 2003), the paper is
guided by the provocation: how is empathy activated through and around set literary
texts in VCE English? I approach this task from the positionality of a female white-settler
teacher-researcher, invested in the potential of critical and anti-racist pedagogies, whilst
also reckoning with the ‘affective dissonance’ (Lobb 2022, 94) of my culpability and
discomfort as a white feminist empathiser teaching the same multicultural texts in senior
English and understanding the conflicts of personal/professional desires and curriculum
constraints of senior classes quite personally.
The paper follows with an overview of the research project, and then briefly explicates
the VCE English context with respect to high stakes assessments and literary study. It
then problematises empathy as an affective practice and disposition, challenging its
normative positivity. Finally, it maps the movements of empathy identified in the data
from VCE English classrooms and draws conclusions about the limitations and possibi-
lities of empathy in this context.
The study, set texts and method
The research project was inspired by my experiences as an English teacher working
with emotionally provocative or what has been called difficult knowledge (Britzman
1998; Pitt and Britzman 2003) texts – confronting narratives of a violent or traumatic
nature – in the high-stakes VCE English space. The key question guiding the project
was what feelings and emotions emerge in and around set literary texts in VCE
2A. HORTON

English curriculum and practice and what might these affects do? To identify and
follow threads of affect, I conducted close readings for language relating to emotion
or feeling (Berg et al. 2019) of policy documents (in the accreditation period 2016–
2023) alongside an in-school ethnography that sought to attune to explicit or implicit
layers of feeling. The ethnography, conducted in 2022 in a Catholic girls’ school in
South-East Melbourne, spanned six months and included two VCE English classes as
they undertook literary analysis units. Data collected from the in-school ethnography
included teacher interviews, student surveys, classroom observations, and annotated
copies of set texts from students and teachers. Affect, emotion and feeling were key
analytic frames for data analysis (Schulz et al. 2023), from which, empathy emerged
both in the explicit language of teachers and students in interviews and surveys, and
in the more implicit feelings documented in classroom observations as well as in
student textual annotations. Because empathy does not appear in the VCE English
curriculum or policy documents from this accreditation period, the findings explored
below draw exclusively from ethnographic data. The absence of empathy in policy
and curriculum documents thus highlights an interesting discrepancy between the
official or intended curriculum, and the espoused and enacted curricula represented
in the study.
Participating teachers and students self-identified as white or Anglo-Australian female
or did not specify. Teacher participants were both experienced and accomplished English
teachers but were of differing generations and held contrasting teaching philosophies.
The Year 11 class were undertaking Unit 2, Area of Study 1 (Reading and Comparing
Texts), commonly referred to as ‘the comparative unit’. In this unit, students were tasked
with reading and comparing Maxine Beneba Clarke’s memoir The Hate Race (2016) with
George Tillman Jr’s film The Hate U Give (2018). Both contemporary texts centre
experiences of racial violence, prejudice and injustice, and these were taken up as
thematic frames in the learning activities that can be broadly categorised as following
a skills-based approach (see Macken-Horarik 2014) and a careful adherence to the
perceived bounds of the curriculum as encapsulated by interview statements such as, ‘I
want them to be able to talk about stylistic structures and features and how the text
operates as a vehicle’. The Year 12 class were undertaking Unit 3, Area of Study 1
(Reading and Responding), more commonly known in schools as ‘the text response’ –
an in-depth study of a single text as a product of its contemporary moment. Don Taylor’s
translation of Euripides’ play The Women of Troy (415 BC) was the set text. Euripides’
tragedy gives voice to the enslaved Trojan women of Homeric legend as they lay in the
ruins of their decimated city. The Year 12 teacher’s pedagogical style, in contrast to their
colleague, spanned approaches of critical literacy (e.g. Luke 2012) and personal growth
(e.g. Dixon 1975). For example, in interviews, she referred to her desire to ‘get [students]
to engage on a personal level’, to bring ‘soul’ into their interpretations by ‘creating
relationships and empowering [them] to have a bit more voice’. She also described an
intention to make the text study ‘relatable’ to students with ‘popular and accessible’
contemporary examples that were then borne out in the classroom with references to
global conflicts, popular films and personal anecdotes, as exemplified by the opening
vignette. The pedagogical intentions of both teachers and their beliefs as to the bound-
aries of text study in this context played a key role in the invocation and mediation of
empathy, as discussed in the findings below.
CHANGING ENGLISH 3

Before moving on, it is important to elaborate on a significant limitation of the study
with respect to consenting participants and researcher subjectivity. Although the classes
involved in the ethnography were not homogenous, the consenting participants were
similar in terms of self-identifying as white and female. I was therefore unable to
document the words of non-white and non-binary (or non-female, in the context of
a girls’ school) students in the same way, neglecting a vital and often overlooked
dimension of the student experience. It is deeply regrettable and unfortunate that the
data set thus reflects the ongoing marginalisation of these voices. This gap is particularly
pertinent with respect to the Year 11 study of two texts that centre on racism; these
literary representations will stick differently to non-white students (Ahmed 2004–2014),
leading to fundamentally different experiences with empathy that require attention in
further studies. It is also, however, vital for white teachers and students to actively
confront and engage with concepts and narratives about racism and for white researchers
to attend these engagements. As McIntyre (1997) writes,
Whites need to take responsibility to educate ourselves about ‘the Other’ which means
reading about people of colour – their histories, their lived experiences – in their own words.
It means not relying on people of colour to teach us about themselves, or about ourselves, or
about racism and the impact of racism on their/our lives. (139)
The literary encounters and ‘white talk’ (McIntyre 1997) around empathy for racialised
figures captured by the study are therefore illuminating and important for confronting
and dismantling racism. Similarly, I continue to reflect on my own whiteness in terms of
attuning to and understanding the feelings circulating in institutions and practices
shaped by colonial imperatives and histories that privilege and affect me differently. In
a similar vein, I declare and reflect on my own entanglements with the school in which
the research project took place as an insider researcher (Holmes 2020). At the time of
data collection, I was familiar to participants as an English teacher working at the school.
The research can therefore be seen as lacking the objectivity of an external perspective
(Holmes 2020), but I have strived (to the extent that it is possible) to take a position of
‘empathetic neutrality’ (Ormston et al., 2014) with respect to the data collection and
analysis.
Literature & reading practices in VCE English
Senior secondary students in Victoria must undertake at least three units from the
English subjects, Literature, English Language, or English and English as an Additional
Language, to receive their Victorian Certificate of Education. The latter of these offerings
(referred to herein for brevity as VCE English) is the most generalist and popular, with
approximately 40,000 students taking the course in 2023 (VCAA 2023b). Debates around
set texts in VCE English have been fervent and sustained (see Horton and McLean Davies
2022), with much criticism in recent years pointing towards the lack of diversity and
representation in the text list (Bacalja and Bliss 2019; Bliss and Bacalja 2020; McLean
Davies, Truman, and Buzacott 2021).
Although the VCE English text list aims to ‘reflect engagement with global perspec-
tives’ (VCAA 2023b), studies drawing on examination data reveal that canonical texts
often occupy a central position as what is most frequently taught in senior English
4A. HORTON

classrooms (Patterson 2012). Proponents of literature as a means to nurture healing and
empathy, Martha Nussbaum for example (1990; Nussbaum 1995, 1997) have long
celebrated these canonical texts; however, it is necessary to consider how the English
canon carries affective forces into English classrooms that can shape subject positionings
and relations by frequently centring and perpetuating masculinity, heterosexuality, and
whiteness as norm and those outside this norm as Other (McLean Davies, Truman, and
Buzacott 2021; Morrison 1994,; Phillips, McLean Davies, and Truman 2022; Snaza 2019;
Thiel and Dernikos 2020; Truman 2019, 2023). As Truman (2019) explains, ‘whiteness
continues to circulate through and cling to many of the core texts, narratives and
messages that make up English literary education’ (53), and even when teachers might
try to position students as empathisers towards marginalised peoples with texts like
Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird, a critical examination of the ‘subtext, and the
absence of character development for Robinson’ is needed, as this ‘teaches that Black
people are available as props for whiteness to re-affirm itself – in this case a particularly
sticky moral whiteness that relies on Black death’ (56). The cumulative effect of these
kinds of literary encounters may work to perpetuate exclusionary binaries of norm/Other
and ‘inflict trauma’ on readers through ‘foster[ing] and reinforc[ing] a narrow view of
race, gender and/or sexuality, among other things’ (Dernikos 2018, 2). And even when
teachers select texts that seek to unsettle the English canon, the gravity of high-stakes
assessments continues to influence the ways in which students are positioned in relation
to their texts (Phillips, McLean Davies, and Truman 2022), often stymying or restricting
possibilities for creative and critical, or deeply felt literary encounters.
Moreover, because the reading is compulsory and VCE English students have little
agency in choosing texts that reflect their interests,
1
their particular ‘mental set’
(Rosenblatt 1982, 268) towards the text is telically driven: the reading is work that must
be completed to pass the subject (McGraw and Mason 2019). This, compounded by the
enduring influence of ‘traditional habits and assumptions about “doing English”’
(Doecke and Hayes 1999, 36) such as creating summaries and glossaries of quotes or
construction devices, answering comprehension questions or completing passage ana-
lyses and passive essays, as well as the need to assess through quantifiable and rankable
pieces, consecrate a rational mode of reading and responding in senior English.
2
There
may be scope for emotional or personal responses through School-Assessed Coursework
(SAC) tasks, where senior teachers have some flexibility to design assessment pieces that
demonstrate an understanding of the mandated study outcomes. However, questions of
authenticity and performativity stemming from the overarching imperative to quantify
and rank remain inescapable. These contextual pressures, in addition to the character-
istics of unique classrooms, position students to adopt certain stances in relation to texts
and characters from the outset, including orientations towards or away from a personal,
ethical kind of empathy.
Empathy: beyond a panacea
Ostensibly, empathy would be considered a prosocial, enriching or reparative ideal.
Indeed, common parlance would define empathy as a kind of imaginative internalisation
of another’s perspective, experiences, thoughts and feelings such that a positive bridge be
established between diverse lives for social justice aims. A feeling with another, rather
CHANGING ENGLISH 5

than a feeling for (Cooper 2011). Educators and policymakers have often turned to
empathy ‘as if it were a quasi-magical recipe formulated to solve issues of injustice and
ongoing crises’ (Mezzenzana and Peluso 2022, 2). It is this hopeful, reparative construc-
tion of empathy is widely taken up in education discourses as an ideal teacherly disposi-
tion (Meyers et al. 2019; Warren 2018) or as an important skill to inculcate in students
(Franzese 2017; O’Grady 2020), particularly through reading literature (Duncan, Bess-
Montgomery, and Osinubi 2017; Nussbaum 1990, 1995, 1997). Indeed, the role of the
English teacher in cultivating empathy is deep-seated in the history of subject English,
entangled with age-old and enduring imperatives to produce civilised, cultured, and well-
read students (Doecke and Yandell 2019; Hunter 1988; McLean Davies and Sawyer 2020;
Patterson 1993, 2014). An empathetic disposition as an enduring characteristic of the
civilised English student is exemplified in landmark discipline defining documents,
including the Cox Report of 1989, where literary study in English is described as:
enabl[ing] pupils to share the experience of others. They will encounter and come to
understand a wide range of feelings and relationships by entering vicariously the worlds
of others. (94, as quoted by McLean Davies and Sawyer 2020, 153)
Contemporary scholars of English education in Australia continue to centre empathy as
a key feature of the moralising work English teachers do with texts (Gates and Curwood
2023). This is also a common refrain in the professional discourse of Australian English
teachers, who make assertions such as, ‘[o]ur students look to us to teach them many
things, but through these novels, we can teach them arguably one of the most important
skills in life: empathy’ (Maserow 2021, 54) and who maintain a belief in the perceived
natural ‘link between empathy and reading and writing’ (McLean Davies and Buzacott
2022, 372). But this view of empathy often espoused by English teachers, as universally
accessible and inherently moral, is deeply problematic (see Kukar 2016; Mezzenzana and
Peluso 2022; Pedwell 2014, 2016; Throop 2008, 2010). Empathy is asymmetrical: it can
‘invit[e] problematic appropriations or projections on the part of “privileged” subjects’
(Pedwell 2016, 10). Moreover, the assumption of a universal accessibility of an empa-
thetic experience fails to account for neurodivergence, the influence of diverse personal
histories and the ways in which some people are conditioned or positioned differently –
the privileged status of empathiser may be put ‘within the reach’ of ‘certain kinds of
bodies’ (Ahmed 2006, 111) and not others. Finally, although English teachers may ask
students to empathise with certain represented lives, they cannot control which figures
and perspectives students will actually empathise with; not all empathetic relations with
literary representations will be ethical (see Boler 1999; Snaza 2019).
Inspired by the critical impetus to complicate the ‘unexamined normative positivity’ of
empathy (Lobb 2022, 85), this paper constructs empathy as an ambivalent affective
practice and disposition (Lobb 2022; Pedwell 2014; 2016, Hemmings 2012). In other
words, empathy is seen as a social relation that can be activated in ethical or unethical
ways and is made available to certain bodies to take up and then direct towards others.
A neutral conceptualisation of empathy allows me to explore and complicate empathetic
practices in terms of how they might influence teaching and learning, as well as the ways
in which teachers and students see themselves and their capacity to act in the world
(Healy and Dianne 2021; Mulcahy 2019; Watkins 2006, 2016).
6A. HORTON

Pedagogies of empathy are often closely associated with discomfort (Keddie
2022; Porto and Zembylas 2020; Zembylas and Papamichael 2017), and so it
matters how discomfort is conceptualised vis-à-vis empathy. Hemmings (2012),
Lobb (2022) and Boler (1999) assert that for a genuine or transformative mode of
empathy to occur, discomfort – and recognition of this discomfort – is key,
whereas Keen (2007) argues that ‘because novel reading can be so easily stopped
or interrupted by an unpleasant emotional reaction to a book [. . .] personal
distress has no place in a literary theory of empathy’ (208). It is my view that
because empathy is so intimately associated with performing moral goodness,
there is something generative and necessary in feeling discomfort, and without
discomfort, the empathy may be superficial (Ngo 2017) or even deleterious and
regressive (Boler 1999).
In subject English, empathy is ‘densely knotted in with connected social practices’
(Wetherell 2012, 14) that carry their own affective baggage and orientation devices, such
as normative literacies and standardised assessments. Moreover, students also have their
own orientations and unique affective histories that will influence the ways they read and
engage in classroom activities around the reading (Purcell 2023). By orientations and
orientation devices, I draw upon the work of Ahmed (2006) to speak to the condition of
being directed towards, or away from, certain objects and subjectivities. Orientation
devices deployed within societal and cultural contexts can range from explicit directives
and discourses, to subtle and insidious norms, and shape our understanding of the world
and our place within it. As Ahmed explains, ‘[t]he lines that allow us to [orient ourselves],
those that are “in front” of us, also make certain things, and not others, available’ (2006,
14). We might ask, for instance, how do pedagogical models of personal growth or critical
literacy orient student-readers towards or away from the position of empathiser-subject?
How might classroom norms and emotion rules orient student-readers towards certain
felt responses by occluding those constructed as deviant or inappropriate (Sosa, Hall, and
Collins 2021) such as discomfort and empathy?
Findings: how is empathy activated through and around set literary texts in
VCE English?
Empathy through critical personal growth
Teachers play a key role in mediating the affective landscape of the classroom through
their pedagogical choices (Mulcahy 2019; Watkins 2006, 2016). Without explicit invoca-
tions of empathy in the curriculum, it was through a pedagogical approach of ‘critical
personal growth’ (McLean Davies and Buzacott 2022, 372) that empathetic ways of
relating to characters in the texts were activated in the Year 12 English classroom.
A critical personal growth pedagogy draws on aspects of personal growth, which centres
on the subjective and emotional experience of the student-reader and their enrichment
through the reading experience (Dixon 1975), and a critical literacy approach, which
closely examines social context to question meaning and challenge hegemonies (Luke
2012). With empathy as a bonding agent, theoretically, this approach remits common
criticisms of personal growth as self-centred (Rosen 1977) or inauthentic (Patterson
1993) but may actually exacerbate the ways in which critical pedagogy promotes and
CHANGING ENGLISH 7

disciplines certain ‘noble sentiments’ of ‘“commitment”, “devotion”, and “faith”’ (Yoon
2005, 717). This said, a critical personal growth approach may also theoretically provide
the necessary groundwork for teachers to cultivate an active empathy by ‘connec[ting]
the dots between reactions to fiction and options for action in the real world’ (Keen
2007, 147).
Empathy, as an aim of a pedagogy of critical personal growth, was explicitly invoked
by the Year 12 teacher in interviews and classroom instruction. Looking to enhance
students’ capacities for empathy whilst also questioning historical and contemporary
injustices, the Year 12 teacher explained their desire to move students towards empathy
for the suffering characters of Euripides’ the Women of Troy:
[In their first reading, my students] were really opposed to all the crying and the wailing.
I would say that means that they probably don’t show as much empathy towards [. . .] when
people show outbursts of emotion, and I think that will challenge them to be a little bit more
empathetic about people’s pain.
In communal classroom readings of the text, students were routinely asked to pause, to
‘stop and imagine’ the suffering of the Trojan women: ‘imagine the wailing and crying –
their sons slaughtered – city burnt’. These group readings were also interrupted by the
teacher’s personal musings and family history, as they made connections between the
suffering of the Trojan women and the experiences of their Romanian refugee grand-
parents. Students were engrossed in these moments of personal sharing, and through the
scaffolding of critical personal growth, were asked to consider their own lineage and
personal connections to the kinds of suffering represented in the text and evident in the
historical or contemporary world. In this way, students were oriented towards introspec-
tion and an empathetic feeling with the suffering Trojan women.
Empathy opened by the invitations of dicult knowledge texts
The ethical invitations or affective provocations of difficult knowledge texts may spark
empathetic relations between readers and characters. Difficult knowledge can be under-
stood as the process of encountering knowledge that deeply unsettles the learner and
their worldview (Britzman 1998). Although difficult knowledge is not a static quality,
rather, ‘a process of engagement’ (Garrett 2011, 322), much of what can be understood as
difficult knowledge texts are narratives that are emotionally provocative and disturbing,
for instance, depicting domestic abuse or racial violence. Through narratives of trauma,
difficult knowledge texts often ask readers to bear witness to suffering (Caruth 1995) or
the plight of the Other, and by ‘utilis[ing] affective techniques’ (Schulz et al. 2023, 2) in
their composition, they make certain invitations to readers: invitations to believe, to take
up ethical positions and to feel (Groeben 2011; Gregory 2010) in relation to represented
lives. Discomfort, as a precursor to empathy, may be one such invitation or provocation
of a difficult knowledge text, as identified in student survey responses.
In anonymous surveys on their feelings about the set texts completed at the end of the
study, several Year 11 students studying The Hate Race and The Hate U Give appeared to
navigate difficult knowledge, noting feelings of upset and confrontation as precursors to
their empathic feelings for characters. For instance,
8A. HORTON

At times I felt uncomfortable reading or listening to derogatory terms being used, however it
did give attention to the real life issues in society that we are often sheltered from.
Throughout the more graphic scenes I did find it very difficult to sit through them as
I felt very confronted and upset by what happened to each protagonist.
The same student then linked this encounter with difficult knowledge to an empathetic
relation:
I felt very upset and empathetic towards the characters, although not fully relating to the
discrimination they faced, I was still upset and confronted by the texts.
There were also explicit acknowledgements from students about the challenge of con-
fronting racism in the texts as white readers, such as this response:
Both books have quite violent depictions of the effects of racism and I was angered by the
horrific racism and alienation directed at young children. [. . .] As a white woman, in a class
of predominantly white peers, it’s quite confronting dealing with topics of racism and
discrimination. But that’s the primary reason it’s important.
This self-reflexive consideration of white discomfort, provoked by the invitations of these
difficult knowledge texts to empathise with racialised characters, suggests a readiness to
move away from ‘wilfully ignorant empathy’ (Lobb 2022, 90), towards more critically
aware, ethical relations (Pedwell 2014).
Responses to textual invitations and provocations towards empathy are also seen in
personal annotations in student copies of set texts. Although students in this context are
routinely instructed to take notes that are closely scripted by the teacher, these particular
annotations were unprompted and unrelated to the learning activities. As these annota-
tions are not assessed nor are they subject to teacher or peer surveillance, they can be seen
as private comments between reader and text: residues of bilateral textual transactions
(Rosenblatt 1994). The force of The Hate Race, or the text’s invitation to feel with Maxine,
the protagonist and author, precipitated several personal notes from students.
Responding to the prologue scene in which Maxine is violently verbally abused on
a Melbourne street, one student underlined powerfully emotive phrases such as ‘Go
drown your kid!’ and ‘pulse-in-my-temples fear’ (Beneba Clarke 2016, vi) and noted
‘What a vile man!’ – positioning themselves in relation with Maxine and in opposition to
the perpetrator. Further personal notes that seem to show an empathetic perspective-
taking, a feeling with Maxine, include the later note, ‘This is so devastating’, after Maxine
describes her desire for vitiligo to make her as white as her peers. Of course, not all
students can or will accept the invitations or provocations of texts in this manner and use
this discomfort generatively, reaching for empathy as they feel with characters. Other
student annotations were more ambiguous in terms of revealing something of an
empathetic connection with Maxine. For example, one student in this class forcibly
erased violent language and racist slurs from their copy of The Hate Race by redacting
the text with black marker. Perhaps, this was an act of outrage and horror – a refusal to
perpetuate the existence of this kind of racist language. Or, perhaps, the described abuse
was all too much for the student to bear and the erasure evidences a refusal to feel the
discomfort and empathise with Maxine.
CHANGING ENGLISH 9

Empathy as a technology of neoliberalism
Neoliberalism, broadly understood as ‘instal[ing] apparatuses and knowledges through
which people are reconfigured as productive economic entrepreneurs’ (Davies and
Bansel 2007, 248), has saturated the English curriculum; for instance, institutionalising
standardised literacies (Christie 2003), shaping pedagogies and teacher identities
(McKnight 2016), and commodifying the reading experience (McLean Davies, Doecke,
and Mead 2013). In VCE English, open-ended modes of literary exploration or emotional
experience are often deemed too ‘woolly’ (McKnight 2016) and creative writing that is
process driven too ‘airy fairy’ (Frawley 2014) and reading and writing are refigured into
units of work, with standardised outcomes and rigid assessments. Within this system,
certain civilised (Ahmed 2004–2014) or entrepreneurial (Calder-Dawe et al. 2021) feel-
ings and dispositions are welcomed and promoted. Confidence, resilience (Dadvand,
Cahill, and Zembylas 2022) and empathy (Pedwell 2016) are fostered because they have
utility and market value (O’Grady 2020).
Senior English teachers grapple with pervasive and formidable neoliberal forces as
they seek to balance altruistic or social justice intentions with the need to conform to the
system and foster productive affects. After their discussion of cultivating empathy for the
suffering Trojan women, the Year 12 teacher further justified this decision in terms of
elevating achievement:
Empathy is a better emotion because you can see both sides. It’s not so much about, you
know, I think you’re great or you’re not, it’s that I see where you’re at, I see your experiences,
and I can understand where you’re coming from. And I think that’ll give more depth to their
analysis.
Empathy is activated because it has utility and value in this economy – it can be wielded
by students to improve the work of their text response and activated by the teacher to lift
their status by improving class results. This hollow animation of empathy does not
exemplify the kind of ‘critical, compassionate and ethical relationality’ (Dadvand,
Cahill, and Zembylas 2022, 289) of an authentic empathetic practice. Indeed, student
survey responses from this Year 12 class did not contain the same degree of emotional
depth or self-reflexivity as the above-quoted Year 11 group. Feelings about the experience
of the text focused on learning activities that were perceived to be ‘helpful’, and feelings
about the assessment task controlled the ways in which the text was experienced
emotionally:
It was like when we had previously done text analysis, although I really enjoyed the increased
level of class discussion.
This may be due to the differing invitations and provocations of the texts, the students as
individuals and as readers, and/or due to the influence of the more acute neoliberal
pressures of Year 12 final assessments and grades.
Discussion
Empathy was manifest throughout the fibres of VCE English classrooms as an a effect
of pedagogy and the text–reader interface. It was singled out as a feeling and relation
deemed important for student growth and social justice, whilst also being animated for
10 A. HORTON

its potential to improve essays. Interestingly, it was found that empathy seemed to
exceed or challenge pedagogical mediation. The Year 12 teacher, who sought to actively
position their students as empathisers towards suffering characters in The Women of
Troy, was not able to overcome the force of the assessment which ultimately shaped
some students’ emotional response to the text. In contrast, the Year 11 students, whose
teacher espoused an intention to focus on skills and redirect emotional or personal
responses, articulated feelings of discomfort and empathy in their discussions of the
texts. Through representations of difficult knowledge, these particular set literary texts
offered an invitation to empathise rooted in discomfort. In the unique transaction
between readers and their texts, some students accepted this invitation to empathise,
or began to move towards a kind of self-reflexive and critical empathy. These discre-
pancies between teacher intentions and the student experience of texts points to the
fundamentally unpredictable and diverse nature of empathy and empathising, as well as
the affective potentials of difficult knowledge texts to disrupt the (perceived) restrictive
bounds of the senior English curriculum.
It was also found that when empathy emerged in student responses through pedagogical
invocations or the text–reader interface, it was in a scripted, refined or civilised manner,
closely attached to feeling bad or feeling sorry, to quiet contemplation and notions of self-
improvement. This illuminates aspects of the emotion norms in these classroom contexts
(Boler 1999) and, more importantly, foundational entanglements between empathy and
the interpellation of the civilised student-subject of English. In other words, the virtuous
(Boler 1999) student of English empathises with characters ‘as a sig[n] of cultivation’
(Ahmed 2004–2014, 3) and is likely rewarded for this, genuine or ingenuine, display.
This cycle of expectation and performance may make notions of authentic empathetic
feelings and relations increasingly opaque, particularly in high stakes contexts.
Conclusion
Even when motivated by pure altruism, empathy alone cannot be reparative or transfor-
mative. ‘Empathy cannot easily, or necessarily ever’ Pedwell (2014) explains, ‘heal words of
“the past”, not only because they run so deep, but also because the past isn’t even past’
(115). The enduring social injustices represented in literature will not be mended by
student empathy. But it could be a seed for healing and social change. As emotions become
the ‘social and political resources that shape the ways through which students respond to
social injustice’ (Zembylas 2018, 98), there is a need to think critically about how emotions
are mediated in the pedagogical space; in this case, to challenge norms that see empathy
invoked for the purposes of improved essays or to benefit the empathiser, rather than the
lives or realities that would be empathised with. What would it mean to disrupt the ‘feeling
good about being good’ (Lobb 2022, 90) performative/passive circuit of the morally good
empathiser in senior English? What might an ‘affective rupture’ (Dadvant, Cahill and
Zembylas 2022, 287) of empathy done differently look like?
An unruly empathy is one that is uncomfortable, wilful and disruptive – it unfurls from,
and sits with, the unproductive feelings occluded or policed in traditional senior English
classrooms: pain, shame, resentment, confusion, anxiety. An unruly empathy embraces
and acknowledges the difficulties of discomfort and dissonance within rigid curricula and
high-stakes assessments and moves away from remediating empathy into something self-
CHANGING ENGLISH 11

serving, performative or toothless. There is a need for further research that explores the
potentials of empathy done differently – allowed to become unruly – and how it might
interplay with the actors and agencies of high-stakes English classrooms to become more
socially transformative and reparative.
Notes
1. There is perhaps more space for student agency in text selection in the latest iteration of the
VCE English and English as an Additional Language Study Design (2023–2027) with the
inclusion of mentor texts that can be selected ‘in consultation [. . .] with students [. . .] to
create meaningful and authentic connections with the[ir] experiences’ (VCAA 2023a, 15).
Although, I would argue that when these texts become entangled with high-stakes assess-
ments, the telically driven approach to the literary encounter remains largely the same.
2. Although the latest iteration of the Study Design also includes ‘a personal response to a set
text’ as a key task (VCAA 2023a, 16), ‘analytical writing about a text’ and ‘critically engag-
[ing] with a text’ (17) remain central practices enshrined in the outcomes students must
meet to pass the subject.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to the teachers and students who
welcomed me into their classrooms and generously participated in data collection activities.
I would also like to thank Larissa McLean Davies and Sarah Truman for their guidance in the
drafting of this piece.
Finally, I am grateful to both reviewers for taking the time to read and comment on my paper.
Disclosure statement
The author discloses that they were working as an English teacher at the school where the
ethnography was conducted at the time of the data collection.
Funding
Allayne Horton was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP)
Stipend and RTP Fee-Offset Scholarship through the University of Melbourne. Open Access
funding enabled and organised by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Notes on contributor
Allayne Horton is a PhD Candidate and secondary English teacher. Her research is informed by
theories of affect and feminist new materialisms and focuses on literary pedagogy and text
selection with close attention to the classroom interface.
ORCID
Allayne Horton http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7304-7593
12 A. HORTON

References
Ahmed, S. 2004–2014. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Ahmed, S. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University
Press.
Bacalja, A., and L. Bliss 2019. “Representing Australian Indigenous Voices: Text Selection in the
Senior English Curriculum.” English in Australia 54 (1): 43–52.
Beneba Clarke, M. 2016. The Hate Race. Sydney: Hachette Australia.
Berg, A. L., von Scheve, C., Ural, N. Y., & Walter-Jochum, R. 2019. “Reading for Affect: A
Methodological Proposal for Analyzing Affective Dynamics in Discourse.” In Analyzing
Affective Societies, edited by Antje Kahl, 45–62. London, UK: Routledge.
Berlant, L. 2006. “Optimism and Its Objects.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies
17 (3): 20–36.
Berlant, L. 2014. Compassion: The Culture and Politics of an Emotion. New York and London:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203871096 .
Bliss, L., and A. Bacalja 2020. “What Counts? Inclusion and Diversity in the Senior English
Curriculum.” The Australian Educational Researcher 48 (1): 165–182.
Boler, M. 1999. Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. New York and London: Routledge.
Britzman, D. 1998. Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Calder-Dawe, O., M. Wetherell, M. Martinussen, and A. Tant. 2021. “Looking on the Bright Side:
Positivity Discourse, Affective Practices and New Gemininities.” Feminism & Psychology 31 (4):
550–570.
Caruth, C., ed. 1995. Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Baltimore and London: JHU Press.
Christie, F. 2003. “English in Australia.” RELC Journal 34 (1): 100–119.
Cooper, B. 2011. Empathy in Education: Engagement, Values and Achievement. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Cvetkovich, A. 2003. An Archive of Feelings. Durham: Duke University Press.
Cvetkovich, A. 2012. Depression: A Public Feeling. Durham: Duke University Press.
Dadvand, B., H. Cahill, and M. Zembylas. 2022. “Engaging with Difficult Knowledge in Teaching
in Post-Truth Era: From Theory to Practice within Diverse Disciplinary Areas.” Pedagogy
Culture & Society 30 (3): 285–293.
Davies, B., and P. Bansel. 2007. “Neoliberalism and Education.” International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education 20 (3): 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701281751 .
Dernikos, B. 2018. “‘It’s Like You don’t Want to Read it again’: Exploring Affects, Trauma and
‘Wilful’ Literacies.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0 (0): 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1468798418756187 .
Dixon, J. 1975. Growth Through English: Set in the Perspective of the Seventies. Oxford University
Press for the National Association for the Teaching of English.
Doecke, B., and T. Hayes 1999. “Good Dreams Bad Dreams: Text Selection and Censorship in
Australia.” English in Education 33 (3): 31–42.
Doecke, B., and J. Yandell. 2019. “The English Literature Classroom As a Site of Ideological
Contestation.” In Worldwide English Language Education Today, edited by A. Al-Issa and S.-
A. Mirhosseini, 35–52. New York: Routledge.
Duncan, C., G. Bess-Montgomery, and V. Osinubi. 2017. “Why Martha Nussbaum Is Right: The
Empirical Case for the Value of Reading and Teaching Fiction.” Interdisciplinary Literary
Studies 19 (2): 242–259.
Franzese, P. A. 2017. “The Power of Empathy in the Classroom.” Seton Hall Law Review
47:693–716. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2956433 .
Frawley, E. 2014. “No Time for the ‘Airy Fairy’: Teacher Perspectives on Creative Writing in High
Stakes Environments.” English in Australia 49 (1): 17–26.
CHANGING ENGLISH 13

Garrett, H. J. 2011. “The Routing and Re-Routing of Difficult Knowledge: Social Studies Teachers
Encounter When the Levees Broke.” Theory & Research in Social Education 39 (3): 320–347.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2011.10473458 .
Gates, E., and J. S. Curwood. 2023. “A World Beyond Self: Empathy and Pedagogy During Times
of Global Crisis.” Australian Journal of Language & Literacy 46 (2): 195–209.
Gregory, M. W. 2010. “Redefining Ethical Criticism. The Old Vs. the New.” Journal of Literary
Theory 4 (2): 273–301. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt.2010.017 .
Healy, S., and M. Dianne. 2021. “Pedagogic Affect: Assembling an Affirming Ethics.” Pedagogy
Culture & Society 29 (4): 555–572.
Hemmings, C. 2012. “Affective Solidarity: Feminist Reflexivity and Political Transformation.”
Feminist Theory 13 (2): 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700112442643 .
Holmes, A. 2020. “Researcher Positionality – a Consideration of Its Influence and Place in
Qualitative Research – a New Researcher Guide.” Shanlax International Journal of Education
8 (4): 1–10.
Horton, A., and L. McLean Davies. 2022. “Where Are the Students? A Close Reading of Priorities
and Silences in Scholarly and Public Debates on VCE English (1990–2021).” The Australian
Educational Researcher 50 (4): 1253–1268.
Hunter, I. 1988. Culture and Government: The Emergence of Literary Education. London: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Keddie, A. 2022. “Engaging Boys in Gender Transformative Pedagogy: Navigating Discomfort,
Vulnerability and Empathy.” Pedagogy Culture & Society 30 (3): 401–414.
Keen, S. 2007. Empathy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kitt, B. 2019. “Creating Connections Between Senior and Middle Years: Perceptions on Teaching
the Art of Creative Writing.” Literacy Learning: The Middle Years 27 (1): 51–59.
Kukar, P. 2016. “‘The Very Unrecognizability of the Other’: Edith Stein, Judith Butler, and the
Pedagogical Challenge of Empathy.” Philosophical Inquiry in Education 24 (1): 1–14.
Lobb, A. 2022. “The Empathiser’s New Shoes: The Discomforts of Empathy as White Feminist
Affect.” In Affective Intimacies, edited by M. Kolehmainen, A. Lahti, and K. Lahad, 83–99.
Manchester University Press.
Luke, A. 2012. “Critical Literacy: Foundational Notes.” Theory Into Practice 51 (1): 4–11. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.636324 .
Macken-Horarik, M. 2014. “Making Productive Use of Four Models of School English: A Case
Study Revisited.” English in Australia 49 (3): 7–19.
Maserow, L. 2021. “Teaching Empathy Through Diverse Texts.” Idiom 57 (2): 54–55.
McGraw, A., and M. Mason. 2019. “Reading in English Classrooms: A Developing Culture of
Disenchantment.” Changing English 26 (2): 137–149.
McIntyre, A. 1997. Making Meaning of Whiteness: Exploring Racial Identity with White Teachers.
Albany: Suny Press.
McKnight, L. 2016. “Meet the Phallic Teacher: Designing Curriculum and Identity in a Neoliberal
Imaginary.” The Australian Educational Researcher 43:473–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13384-016-0210-y .
McLean Davies, L., and L. Buzacott. 2022. “Rethinking Literature, Knowledge and Justice:
Selecting ‘Difficult’ Stories for Study in School English.” Pedagogy Culture & Society 30 (3):
367–381.
McLean Davies, L., B. Doecke, and P. Mead. 2013. “Reading the Local and Global: Teaching
Literature in Secondary Schools in Australia.” Changing English 20 (3): 224–240.
McLean Davies, L., and W. Sawyer. 2020. “On Being ‘Well Read.” In Bloomsbury Handbook of
Reading Perspectives and Practices, edited by B. Marshall, J. Manuel, D. L. Pasternak, and
J. Rowsell, 145–166. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/reader.action?docID=
6321325&ppg=160 .
McLean Davies, L., S. E. Truman, and L. Buzacott. 2021. “Teacher-Researchers: A Pilot Project for
Unsettling the Secondary Australian Literary Canon.” Gender and Education 33 (7): 814–829.
Meyers, S., K. Rowell, M. Wells, and B. Smith. 2019. “Teacher Empathy: A Model of Empathy for
Teaching for Student Success.” College Teaching 67 (3): 160–168.
14 A. HORTON

Mezzenzana, F., and D. Peluso. 2022. Conversations on Empathy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Imagination and Radical Othering. London: Routledge. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/
5dce5a48-a0c8-44e8-a29d-122d4a18f294/9781000816341.pdf .
Morrison, T. 1994. “Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination.” Modern
Philology 92 (2): 267–271.
Mulcahy, D. 2019. “Pedagogic Affect and Its Politics: Learning to Affect and Be Affected in
Education.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 40 (1): 93–108.
Ngo, H. 2017. “Simulating the Lived Experience of Racism and Islamophobia: On ‘Embodied
Empathy’ and Political Tourism.” Australian Feminist Law Journal 43 (1): 107–123. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2017.1321090 .
Nussbaum, M. 1990. Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nussbaum, M. 1995. Poetic Justice: The Literary Imagination and Public Life. Boston: Beacon Press.
Nussbaum, M. 1997. Cultivating Humanity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
O’Grady, A. 2020. Pedagogy, Empathy and Praxis: Using Theatrical Traditions to Teach. Springer
Nature Switzerland. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-39526-1 .
Ormston, R., L. Spencer, M. Barnard, and D. Snape. 2014. “The Foundations of Qualitative
Research.” In Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students & Researchers,
edited by J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, and R. Ormston, 1–26. 2nd ed. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Patterson, A. 1993. “‘Personal Response’ and English Teaching.” In Child and Citizen: Genealogies
of Schooling and Subjectivity, edited by D. Meredyth and D. Tyler, 61–86. Brisbane: Institute for
Cultural Policy Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Griffith University. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/
50578/ .
Patterson, A. 2012. “Australian Literature: Culture, Identity and English Teaching.” Journal of the
Association for the Study of Australian Literature 12 (1): 1–14.
Patterson, A. 2014. “The Legacy of Ian Hunter’s Work on Literature Education and the History of
Reading Practices: Some Preliminary Remarks.” History of European Ideas: 40 (91): 89–95.
Pedwell, C. 2014. Affective Relations: The Transnational Politics of Empathy. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pedwell, C. 2016. “De-Colonising Empathy: Thinking Affect Transnationally.” Samyukta:
A Journal of Gender and Culture 1 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.53007/SJGC.2016.V1.I1.51 .
Phillips, S., L. McLean Davies, and S. E. Truman. 2022. “Power of Country: Indigenous
Relationality and Reading Indigenous Climate Fiction in Australia.” Curriculum Inquiry
52 (2): 171–186.
Pitt, A., and D. Britzman. 2003. “Speculations on Qualities of Difficult Knowledge in Teaching and
Learning: An Experiment in Psychoanalytic Research.” Qualitative Studies in Education 16 (6):
755–776.
Porto, M., and M. Zembylas. 2020. “Pedagogies of Discomfort in Foreign Language Education:
Cultivating Empathy and Solidarity Using Art and Literature.” Language and Intercultural
Communication 20 (4): 356–374.
Purcell, M. 2023. “Affective Enactments: The Pedagogy and Cultural Politics of Reading in an
Australian Classroom.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 44 (1): 133–146.
Rosenblatt, L. 1994. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
Rosenblatt, L. M. 1982. “The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response.” Theory into Practice
21 (4): 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848209543018 .
Schulz, S., L. Rigney, M. Zembylas, R. Hattam, and N. Memon. 2023. “Affect and the Force of
Counter Stories: Learning Racial Literacy Through Thinking and Feeling.” Pedagogy Culture &
Society: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.8077/14681366.2023.2173276 .
Sedgwick, E. 1997. Novel Gazing: Queer Readings in Fiction. Durham: Duke University Press.
Sedgwick, E. 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham: Duke University
Press.
Snaza, N. 2019. Animate Literacies: Literature, Affect, and the Politics of Humanism. Durham:
Duke University Press.
CHANGING ENGLISH 15

Sosa, T., A. Hall, and B. Collins. 2021. “Disrupting Rules of Emotion in an Urban English
Classroom.” English Teaching: Practice & Critique 20 (1): 16–32.
Thiel, J. J., and B. Dernikos. 2020. “Refusals, Re-Turns, and Retheorizations of Affective Literacies:
A Thrice-Told Data Tale.” Journal of Literacy Research 52 (4): 482–506.
Throop, J. 2008. “On the Problem of Empathy: The Case of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia.”
Ethos 36 (4): 402–426.
Throop, J. 2010. “Latitudes of Loss: On the Vicissitudes of Empathy.” American Ethnologist 37 (4):
771–782.
Truman, S. E. 2019. “White Deja Vu: Troubling the Certainty of the English Canon in Literary
Education.” English in Australia 54 (3): 53–59.
Truman, S. E. 2023. “Colonial Crises of Imagination, Climate Fictions, and English Literary
Education.” Research in Education 117 (1): 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/00345237231183343 .
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. 2023a. “VCE English and English As an
Additional Language (EAL) Text List 2023.” https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/eng
lish/2023EnglishEALTextList.docx .
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. 2023b. VCE English External Assessment
Report. https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/english/2023/2023english-report.docx .
Warren, C. 2018. “Empathy, Teacher Dispositions, and Preparation for Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy.” Journal of Teacher Education 69 (2): 169–183.
Watkins, M. 2006. “Pedagogic Affect/Effect: Embodying a Desire to Learn.” Pedagogies: An
International Journal 1 (4): 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800701341533 .
Watkins, M. 2016. “Gauging the Affective: Becoming Attuned to Its Impact in Education.” In
Methodological Advances in Research on Emotion and Education, edited by M. Zembylas and
P. A. Schutz, 71–81. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29049-2_6 .
Wetherell, M. 2012. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: Safe.
Yoon, K. H. 2005. “Affecting the Transformative Intellectual: Questioning ‘Noble’ Sentiments in
Critical Pedagogy and Composition.” JAC: A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture & Politics 25 (4): 717–
759.
Zembylas, M. 2018. “Reinventing Critical Pedagogy As Decolonizing Pedagogy: The Education of
Empathy.” Review of Education, Pedagogy, & Cultural Studies 40 (5): 404–421. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10714413.2019.1570794 .
Zembylas, M., and E. Papamichael. 2017. “Pedagogies of Discomfort and Empathy in Multicultural
Teacher Education.” Intercultural Education 28 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.
2017.1288448.
16 A. HORTON