Ranciere’s perspective that “the child is already political even as she is acquiring her first
language” (p. 57).
Politics is the clash between two ‘heterogeneous processes’, the process of
equality and the police process. The process of equality is a realized, emancipated
subject inserting his or her voice, ideas and perspectives into the dominant, normative,
and prevailing perspectives of society (the police process). This insertion by the process
of equality is often confrontational and has the effect of recalibrating the status quo. It is
the type of insertion, the type of utterance, the type of speech that is intrinsically political
in nature and therefore it produces political outcomes. It is “speech with political
‘effects’ in the sense in which Ranciere defines politics. It is the kind of speech that
produces ‘new inscriptions of equality’ within the police order” (Bingham & Biesta,
2010, p. 140). Consequently, because of what it produces as it comes into being,
subjectification is intensely democratic.
Democracy thus establishes new, political identities, identities that were not part
of and did not exist in the existing order – and in precisely this sense it is a
process of subjectification (my emphasis). Or as Ranciere puts it: Democracy is
the designation of subjects that do not coincide with the parties of the state or
society (Bingham & Biesta, 2010, p. 35).
In this vein, critical pedagogue, Henry Giroux (2011), argues that teaching, if properly
executed, "refuses to decouple education from democracy" thereby allowing divergent
voices to be honored and heard (p. 141). He further argues that “learning is not about