Affection as a movement of desire bound to pedagogical relations

In this article I present my journey through the pedagogy of affection, starting from a conjuncture that made me pay attention, in the teaching of Psychology of Art, Contemporary Visualities and Arts-based Research at the Faculty of Fine Arts, to the entanglement between desire and pedagogical relations. From this crossroad, I consider pedagogical relations (inspired by Bernard Charlot, Elizabeth Ellsworth, Alfred Porres and Max van Manen) as part of an encounter between subjects and knowledge that affects the positions of students and teachers and challenges the dualism ‘them and us’. Desire (based on Gilles Deleuze and Jacque Lacan) emerges in pedagogical relations as an agency that needs to leave behind the obsession to reproduce and, mainly, to interpret, diagnose and classify the student. At this crossroad between pedagogical relations and desires, affects appear when an experience of encounter of subjectivities (how we know and narrate ourselves) and knowledge (how we link ourselves to what we know) takes place. To illustrate this entanglement of pedagogical relations, desire and affects, I present two examples connected with my roles of teacher and researcher. The first one links with an Artsbased Research course where teachers and students learn horizontally and differentially. The second one, focusing in a cartography make by a secondary school teacher to give an account of her learning path, is part of a larger research project "How do teachers learn: educational implications and challenges for social change". Both examples contribute to explore the notion of affection as part of a substantial change in the relationships around politics, research, and pedagogy. Fernando Hernández-Hernández 76 Matter: Journal of New Materialist Research, Vol 1 No 2 (2020): p.75-96 ISSN: 2604-7551(1)

practice" (Ellsworth, 1997. Van Manen (1991/1998 refers to pedagogical influence as "something that radiates or flows and can have various consequences or meanings. In a broad sense, influence connotes the open attitude that a human being shows towards the presence of another" (p. 32, paraphrased).
Finally, the opportunity I had to explore in detail the notion of pedagogical relationship was with Alfred Porres' doctoral dissertation. We started from the consideration that learning is a committed educational act that seeks to transform both the student and the teacher and that it is situated in the centre of a teaching experience aimed at building a pedagogical relationship that moves from doing by the teacher to doing 'with' the students (Porres, 2012, p. 16). The "pedagogical relationship" focus on the encounters between subjects, and with their self-knowledge, the others, and the world.
This pedagogical relationship cannot be planned -as Atkinson's (2018)  In this way, teaching and learning do not only require finding the most appropriate planning of a sequence of contents, so that there is a correspondence between the input of information and its reproduction. Nor does it require a way of understanding assessment as the acquisition of specific skills that are reflected in paper and pencil activities planned by the teacher and carried out by the student.
Having the pedagogical relationship as a reference leads us, on the contrary, to pay attention to how meetings in which subjectivities and knowledge shared are made possible. Pedagogical relationship makes the class space, above all, an opportunity for subjects encounters around experiences of thinking, knowing, and sharing. Facing higher education from this position questions two fundamental principles of "the one most prevalent teaching method, used in over 90% of college and university classrooms" (Naiva, 2000.p. 71): the teachers are the depositary of the information and knowledge that they transmit to students who have to reproduce it. As a consequence of this discourse, the teacher embodies the authority and power of the  (1) one who knows, as opposed to those who are considered as subjects of not knowing (the students) (Schmidt,et al. 2015). This logic underpins the dominant vision of what teaching innovation in the university should be. However, pedagogical relationship does not seek to add rubrics for assessment, nor does it pursue a planning in which each activity is defined in advance. Pedagogical relationship is configured as a process that reflects an encounter that, because it is uncertain, can only be inscribed in the sphere of the possible.
Therefore, a pedagogical relationship is an encounter that affects our positionalities of being students and teachers, and the dualism 'them and us'. Here, positionality is understood "as a political process" and as "relational construction, while the conditions of possibility for an agent depend on its position concerning others" (Fares, 2010, p. 81). Because the pedagogical relationship is not only about learning information or generation of knowledge but also of ways of being together in reciprocity. A pedagogical relationality is an option that is chosen, not given, and that is (re)invented in each relationship experience (in each course, with each group). This inventive process puts the pedagogical relationship in a position of uncertainty and vulnerability. As Porres (2011, p.68) reminds us, a displacement is generated from the teacher as "someone who learns from their own practice" to the teacher who stands in front of his or her students as "someone who learns with them." This displacement makes the pedagogical relationship not egalitarian, nor horizontal but reciprocal. It affects and is affected by those who become part of it.  (1) course of Visualities. As I mention in Barreiro & Vroegindeweij (2020) with the Pedagogy of Affection something similar to the new materialisms happened to me: I already had a "materialistic attitude before I heard about the new materialism" (p. 140). Teaching Art Psychology, promoting art education projects in schools and paying attention to pedagogical relations, constituted a breeding ground in which an affective pedagogy, as a displacement of bodies and subjectivities, was already present, without giving it this name.

The place of desire in the pedagogical relationship
The place of desire in the pedagogical relationship should not be linked to motivation, the location from which Psychology has approached this notion by camouflaging it and doing a kind of sleight of hand that has deprived it of meaning in the pedagogical relationship. Elsewhere (Hernández, 2011), I have referred to the distinction between the 'field of desire', as a psychic field full of contradictions, fluctuations, appropriations and colonized by those who seek to control and induce desire, and the notion of 'desiring movement' that opens the possibility to think about a pedagogical relationship that acts affectively in the formation of desire by meeting and relating to the Other (Colectivo Situaciones-Berardi, 2007, p.13).
Once this initial idea of desire has been pointed out, not as a force but as a desiring movement, it may be useful for us to rescue the difference that the influential psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan makes between need, demand, and desire (Padilla Petry & Hernández, 2010) to situate the place of this concept on the pedagogical relationship. Demand is a concept linked to the notion of the Other. Its mechanism requires an opposition to the Other. Desire metonymically produces demands (Lacan, 1962), but demand can be understood as a demand for love and recognition of the Other (Lacan, 1959). As a demand must be articulated and responded to through meanings, the need becomes more complex and is taken to another level (Lacan 1998 emphasizes the difference between the typical impermanence of all disaffection and the durability of desire in the symbolic order. (Lacan 1998).
When we take Lacan's conception of desire to the pedagogical relationship it becomes to recognize that desire is permeated by the symbolic order (located in the teacher and the students), is indestructible (never satisfied) and is always referred to the Other (a place that can be occupied by the teacher). This approach leads to the question: Is it possible to translate Lacan's conception of desire into a pedagogical relationship?
We have discussed on this issue (Padilla Petry & Hernández, 2010) concluding than Lacan thinks that acting on one's desire is not an easy thing to support and that only in the psychoanalytic context can be placed in its purest form. Lacan's position is a possible approach to the relationship of desire and its place in the pedagogical relationship. But there is another possibility, closer to the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, which is the one proposed by Alves Paraíso (2009) who considers that "desire is to let us be carried away by the movement of life. But to let ourselves be carried away by the movement of life, we must find 'something that suits us', make connections and build partnerships 4 " (p. 280). Deleuze suggests, that desire would be a fault, something we lack. That is why Deleuze (1966), in the visual document Abecedarium, points out "for me, desire is not it's a foul. It's not a natural occurrence. It's constantly linked to an agency that works". In this interview, Deleuze also says "desire refers to a state of things; everyone must find the things that suit him." And he argues "there is no desire that does not carry an agency". He suggests: "Find agencies that suit you!"; "Never interpreters!". An agency is composed of states of things, styles of enunciation and movements of territorialization-deterritorialization. Desire deterritorializes a pedagogical relationship that thinks of desire as an agency that needs to leave behind the obsession to reproduce and, mainly, to interpret, diagnose and classify students.
An example of this deterritorialization took place in the final assessment of an Artsbased Research course. We -two co-teachers-construct this class as a project articulated from the movements of the group, where teachers and students learn horizontally and differentially. There is a problem to investigate artistically, but the path to follow and the destination to reach is unknown. At the end, the question arises  (1) of how to assess what has been a shared process. Each student writes a story about his or her journey in the course, pointing out their tensions and discoveries. One teacher writes a letter to each student in which we give them back our view of the path that they have reflected in their writing. In this crossing of messages, we avoid classifying the students and respond to each one by opening new possibilities in their desire to learn. These messages are publicly shared, around a table, broadening their meaning and contributing to expanding the network of relationships generated during the course.
In the last part of this article, we present another example of deterritorialization, based on the story that a secondary school teacher generates from the cartography in which she gives an account of her learning paths. This example is part of a research project in which we invited primary and secondary school teachers to participate in a series of meetings in which they made cartographies of their times, places, experiences and learning trajectories. From this research experience as an encounter between subjects, we woven a gaze about teachers' learning of as a biographical, embodied, and relational (Hernández Hernández, Aberasturi, Sancho Gil & Correa Gorospe, 2020).

Encounter with affection: learning as being affected
At the crossroads between pedagogical relationships and desire, affects appear, are produced, occur, when an experience of encounter of subjectivities takes place. This encounter cannot be predicted or used as a shortcut to learn from specific cultural or pedagogical devices such as a move or a performative class; this encounter emerges.
Something similar is what happens when we assume the transformation that takes place in the encounter between subjects if we pay attention to the fact that a self in the process of becoming configures selective stories, and confronts power with an alternative narration of the present.  (1) movement of affection. In this movement, students and teachers are involved in processes taking place when, as subjects with capacity of agency feel affected by an intra-action of relations (Cvetkovich, 2012, p. 2 paraphrased). This movement of affection leads to change their view of themselves, the others, and the world. In this framework, as Atkinson (2011) points out, real learning is configured as part of an event that transforms the learner (and the teacher). This transformation is a movement of affection because this real learning is about 'feeling affected' and constitutes a movement linked to the capacity to exist in a transit between states.
This transit was called by Spinoza, affection, which Camps (2011: 65) considers as intrinsic to human nature, as inevitable as breathing, growing, and dying. In this idea of affection Spinoza understands affects as the affections of the body, by which the power to act of that same body is increased or diminished, favoured or harmed, and I understand, at the same time, the ideas of those affections. Thus, if we can be the proper cause of any of these affections, then I understand by "affection" an action (Spinoza, 1677(Spinoza, /1980. Deleuze & Guattari (1980/1988 take up Spinoza's perspective, especially when he says that to every relationship of movement and rest, of speed and slowness, which puts together an infinite number of parts, corresponds a degree of power. To the relations that compose an individual, that decompose or modify her/him, corresponds intensities that affect them increasing or decreasing her/his power of action, (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980/1988. In this way affections "are the forces, intensities, or capacities to move and be moved" (Cvetkovich, 2012, p.134).
Affection is not a force that is isolated but transversal since it crosses all the dimensions of knowledge, the subject as an individual, and reality. Furthermore, it implies a substantial change in the relationships around politics, research, and pedagogy. Affection is "what separates the master from the slave is the capacity to transform [...] effectively, only a more powerful affects overcomes a more immediate and tempting one" (Camps, 2011, p. 86-87). Therefore, when we think about affection, we do it in the context of relationships, paying attention to the experiences of being involved, to the possibilities of making tangible the tension that is projected in the critical capacity of reflection (on what affects us, as teacher and student).  (1) From this approach, the affection would be an invisible force that precedes individuality, and that positions relationality (there is always another) as the ontological axis. Affections, therefore, produce and recognize transformations, as part of a relational intra-action. This Baradian notion (Barad, 2007) enabled to glimpse the mutual constitution of entangled organisms and the blurred boundaries between bodies and objects, considering them as discursive material phenomena, and the nuclear element that makes an affective movement possible. This means paying attention to the movements of affection that are generated in relationships. Not as predefined categories or indicators but as 'emergencies' that, through memories of what has been experienced, make visible what has been affected. This allows, as Spinoza points out, to transform the affection that prevents action into 'affects' that enhance action. And it is this transforming capacity "that separates the man (and the woman) master of (her)himself from the slave" (Camps, 2011, p. 84).
Affections are that invisible force unembodied in a corporal becoming, in an expression of an encounter between a corporeal form and forces that are not necessarily "human" (Hickey-Moody, 2016: 260) that, situated in a concrete moment and a relational situation, overflows in such a way that it allows a displacement from one state to another. "Affection is, therefore, ebb and flow, like the cycle of the tide, it transforms itself and what surrounds it and finds new meanings, applications and potentialities through its use [...] it is a materiality that has always been and is in the process" (Bakko & Merz, 2015, p. 8). One way of locating the movements and temporalities of affects is through 'affective practices'.

Dialoguing with teacher affective learning experiences
I bring this approach to affect to explore the place of affects in the learning trajectories of secondary school teachers in the research project: "How do secondary school teachers learn: Educational implications and challenges to address social change". One consequence of this affective approach to teachers' learning movements is considering how their contributions and experiences affect researchers' trajectories in and out of the research process. This meant that when we invited teachers to be part of the research by mapping and exploring their learning trajectories, I became part of an entanglement of relations that also affected me (Hernández-Hernández, 2019).
When I, as part of a larger research group, start thinking on the 29 cartographies created by teachers, I entered unknown spaces of multiple meanings. In these spaces cartographies and teachers' comments were not taken as isolated evidence, but as a rhizoanalytic (Guattari, 2012) opportunity for regarding researchers' diaries, collected photos, videos, and the presentations shared later with teachers. All, as part of these assemblages and of an immanent ethics (Cumming, 2015) that transformed what data could be. By accompanying the development of teachers' affective learning cartographies, I was challenged to be involved in a process of inquiry that subverts the limits of the research relationship. This is an event (Atkinson, 2011) that, while disturbing and transforming me modifies the traditional spaces of research at the university, leading me into the space-event of affective researching. This move was particularly clear when we decided to adopt cartography as the strategy for exploring and thinking on effects on teachers' learning trajectories.
In this process, we did not try to analyse cartographies, but to move through them and point out some concepts that emerged concerning learning, body and affects. In this attempt, various concepts emerged from narratives and mappings: affects/shock/emotion, displacement, experience, corporeality/body, materiality/spatiality, movement, temporality, other's body, performativity/performance. I explore, in the next part, the relationship between learning, affect an embodiment based on a female teacher's cartography and story she explains from it.

Learning as an entanglement of biographical experiences, corporeality and affects
Andrea (fictional name), a novice female teacher of Spanish Language and Literature, was one of the 29 secondary teachers mentioned above. I chose her cartography and her story around because she allows me to explore the links between corporeality and affections with her experience of learning (Carrasco-Segovia & Hernández-Hernández, 2020). The process undertaken to carry out this dialogue has been the following. First, I make a presentation of Andrea, based on what she said about herself, to explore "the sensations, intensities and textures" (Coleman & Ringrose, 2014, p. 4) through which she experiences learning; and to understand the multiplicity of teachers' learning worlds and the questions raised by their cartographies, not as methods that 'capture' these realities, but rather convert them into reality.  (1) Andrea is a young substitute teacher of Spanish Literature in one of the Secondary Schools involved in the research project. At the time she made the cartography, she was no longer working at the secondary school where we met one of the groups of teachers of our study. However, since her time at this school was intense, and involved a learning process in terms of other ways of conceiving teaching, Andrea wanted to continue in contact with these teachers. That is why she responded to our invitation sent by e-mail explaining the purpose of the research and sharing some exemples of teachers' learning cartographies. She studied journalism and considers that knowledge and learning emerge in collaboration.

Andrea: learning as entanglement of corporality and affects
The structure of Andrea's cartography (see image 1) is composed of circles. In these circles she incorporates different aspects of her life, which dissolve the opposition between the inside and the outside of the school and the classroom.
I have understood my cartography as a mandala. For me, mandalas mean fusion, a circle that has neither beginning nor end. All the elements are essential, nothing is understood without something else, and since the technique of painting mandalas is from the center to the outside, I am going to explain my cartography as if we were painting a mandala.
In the beginning, I point out the horizontality of the mandala's relations, as well as the places and subjects with which it is linked and which affect it in the learning process.
The first circle is the professional, in which a color and a person's name are indicated.
The first location of Andrea's learning is in the circle where the bodies of students and the teacher are put in relation and generate experiences of affects. As Atkinson (2017) points out, referring to learning in childhood, this takes place, as Andrea evidences, through the intra-action of the bodies and their discursive inscriptions.
But it will be the signaling the meaning that she gives to the red colour, where Andrea outlines the place of the affected body in the process of learning, by inscribing it in a network of relations: I've put it in red. Colours are very much related to the chakras and energy points of the body. And I understand red as a colour of passion and love. In this case I love this teacher because he was like a guide who marked my path to teaching. his legacy.
This idea links to the path proposed by Atkinson when he points out that "Learning as an intra-action is thus a material-discursive process" (2017: 37). This intra-action allows for the emergence of an affected corporeality which also opens to objects. As is the case with books, in which Andrea projects a new form of establishing This relational movement in which Andrea places her sense of affected learning breaks down the boundaries between the disciplinary, the institutional, and the relational. At the same time, she places the body and corporeality (which always is affected and relational) at the centre of a holistic way of coping with learning.
For example, there are classes in which I start with a 10-minute yoga session, put on music, and relax. I start the class in this way, because if the student is not predisposed to learn, it is impossible for him/her to connect and learn.
The presence of the other as body manifests itself in her learning process, to which she also invites her students to participate and where relational affection crosses over learning. Affections are embodied in the experiences of the corporeality of which she gives an account in the cartography. Affections are also in the balance Andrea makes of what has enabled her to carry out the cartography and to think of herself from it.  Barad (2007in Arlander, 2014 points out, the world is reconfigured into a continuum of intra-actions where the elements are combined for action, not as the result of it, "because the intra-actions in and from the bodies do not exist as individual elements, but they arise from the intra-action" (Arlander, 2014, p. 28).
In this movement, affection appears in intra-actions. What makes it possible, as we see in Andrea's learning journey, is that if we speak of affect, it is because it allows us to think about the relationships around learning from another ontology and epistemology. Therefore, it redefines a language, proposing a new way of expression.
Becoming, as Bakko and Merz (2015, p. 8) (1) Considering on what I discuss in this article, I could outline a pedagogy of affects, based on an affirmative criticism of learning and not on its denial. This approach can be made based on the affects mobilized in the desire movements which make pedagogical relations possible. Teachers' cartographies, to which I have referred in this article, do not act as a triggering method, but as an onto-epistemological space where the intra-action between biographical, corporal, and affective teachers' experiences are visible.
Emphasizing the pedagogical relationship and its link with affections allows to look closely at what happens in the corporeality -bodies as relational spaces-. Also, what happens when the spaces and times in which the subjects, desires, and knowledgeand not the students, teachers, and disciplinary contents -act in an entanglement that occurs and cannot be planned. To aspire to this position requires, as bell hooks (1994) suggests, to think of educational institutions as places of strategic intervention. This means considering what students' self-problematization capacities mobilize in the context of a pedagogy designed to question different aspects of the life of pedagogical subjects.
There is the last aspect that I would like to point out, and that has to do with the writing of this text as a possibility of thinking and giving an account of how the issues here mentioned relate to my career as a teacher and researcher. With doctoral and master's students, we explored the difference between writing 'about me' and writing 'from me'.
Without trying to establish a dichotomy, I would like to point out that the second option inscribes the story of the self in a web of relationships, not only of facts but of ideas and social forces. Writing about pedagogical relations and the pedagogy of affection places me in a position that questions stabilities and opens to the immanent and the uncertain.
Having pointed out these considerations, I would like to conclude by inviting the reader to fill in the gaps s/he has found in this article. In doing so, besides avoiding the idea  (1) decentralization of dualities and positions, something that the University needs to deal with to reframe its social function.