Illuminating proximate ambivalence: Affect, body, and space in COVID-19 digitally-mediated teaching and learning

Abstract

AbstractWe offer the concept of proximate ambivalence to highlight the ambiguity inherent in the social and spatial relations of higher education’s digitally-mediated teaching and learning that replaced in-person seminars during the COVID-19 pandemic. By proximate ambivalence, we refer to one’s simultaneous proximity and distance in relation to an object, person, or space. We employ affect theories (i.e. collective bodies and affective atmospheres) and affective methodology—grounding our analysis in our lived experiences as illustrative examples—to demonstrate how proximate ambivalence manifests. We first show how proximate ambivalence manifested as digital technologies facilitated and disrupted collective bodies’ emergence. Second, we illuminate how proximate ambivalence materialized as affective atmospheres changed while differentiated spaces and the transitions therein faded. We argue that proximate ambivalence helps reveal interconnections between affect, bodies, and space in digitally-mediated teaching and learning.Keywords: Affect theoryhigher educationdigitallymediated teaching and learningaffective atmospheres Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 By ‘digitally-mediated teaching and learning,’ we primarily reference the wholesale shift in U.S. higher education from in-person learning to synchronous online learning in response to COVID-19. As such, our use of ‘digital’ refers to the various iterations of online/virtual teaching and learning replacing in-person seminars. Our use of ‘digitally-mediated teaching and learning’ does not refer to university courses that were designed to be offered online or courses offered in an in-person or hybrid setting enhanced by digital technologies.2 Given that our analysis is grounded in our own experiences, our social identities fundamentally limit how we theorize a normative body. As such, this analysis is constrained by our entanglement in a digital setting through bodies that emerge as cis-gendered, able-bodied, white and of color. Thus, our explication of proximate ambivalence in a digital setting may be more recognizable to those whose bodies emerge similarly. However, proximate ambivalence may be a recognizable phenomenon for the dis/abled in an in-person setting. For example, the hard of hearing may be physically close to their classmates but challenges with audible conversation may create great distances. Although our analysis emphasizes digital technology’s propensity to reduce (able-)bodies’ affective capacities, digital technology may also increase the dis/abled bodies’ digitally-mediated affective presence by accommodating challenges with sight, hearing, and mobility.3 As mentioned previously, despite Ahmed’s use of ‘emotion’ rather than ‘affect,’ we find Ahmed’s theorizing to be generative and relevant in informing our affective analysis. We join others in developing an affect theoretical framework that builds on Ahmed’s work (see Kjær, Citation2023; Shahjahan et al., Citation2022).Additional informationNotes on contributorsPaul E. BylsmaPaul E. Bylsma Paul E. Bylsma, PhD is an assistant professor of Higher Education at Grand Valley State University (Michigan, United States).Riyad A. ShahjahanRiyad A. Shahjahan Riyad A. Shahjahan, PhD is an associate professor and program coordinator for the online master`s program of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University (Michigan, United States). He is also a core faculty member of Muslim Studies, Chicano/Latino Studies and Center for Advanced Study of International Development.