Listening as Attending to the “Echo of the Otherwise”: On Suffering, Justice, and Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Listening to stories of suffering can be difficult, painful, and even traumatic.Yet listen we do and listen we must.If we do not hear or bear witness to these stories, then we are rendered incapable of responding, of answering for our or other's actions, of taking a position of responsibility.Thus listening is central to the ways in which educational projects of social justice are conceived.Within these projects there is a legitimate focus on listening to the voices of the marginalized and the wounded, and on giving space and time to those groups to articulate their own experiences, struggles, dilemmas, and needs.In the context of teaching and learning encounters, students are often exposed to narratives that offer them radically different experiences from their own and when these experiences are marked by suffering, their responses can cut across a range of emotional registers: solidarity, pity, empathy, desire, identification, and guilt, to name a few.Such responses reveal some of the ways students "receive" the other and the degree to which they become hosts, as it were, to the other's narrative presence.Underlying each of these responses is a certain quality of attentiveness in the listening of those stories; and it is this quality that seems to me to be important for considering ethical relations across difference, and ultimately for relations of justice.For instance, someone who might deeply identify with another who may be suffering (for example, a victim of racial or sexual violence) may not be listening and attending fully to the difference that marks the other's experience as unique and distinct from one's own.Thus, in thinking about the ethical significance of encountering the other in education, it is important to explore listening as a quality of attentiveness that promotes responsibility.What is it that we listen to when we listen?How does listening contribute to establishing a specifically ethical attentiveness to difference?And, how might listening open up the possibility for a just response?I turn to the work of Gemma Corradi Fiumara and Emmanuel Levinas to think through these questions and to elaborate an account of listening that promotes conditions for a non-violent relation to the other.I wish to explore the ways in which listening does not only respect the other's alterity, but indeed attends to it.That is, I seek to show how listening not only contributes to an ethical response to suffering, but-through its capacity for attentiveness-how listening is itself an ethical response.THE LANGUAGE OF LISTENING, LISTENING TO LANGUAGE For Fiumara listening is the "other side of language," a necessary but forgotten component that is integral to the unfolding of any communication between subjects: 1No narratives would exist without some disposition to listen.A narrative propensity may be a necessity for regaining a sense of our own history and the continuity of life; in fact our own history may be ultimately construed as being as ancient as life itself.…Yetno narratives could be conceivable in the absence of some listening disposition.2
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,061 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,015 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».