When I first considered the term “adversarial,” I immediately thought about two  equals at opposition to each other–your arch nemesis in a comic book, maybe or two knights from opposing camps. But in this context, there is an inherent power differential and so in the examples above, maybe it would be the origin story of the superhero or a revolt against their feudal lords. Interesting that when I consider adversarial relations within a power imbalance, I automatically consider someone overcoming a negative power or rising up against an oppressor. Thinking of it this way is an inherently negative relationship.

As we’ve discussed and as I’ve considered throughout the quarter, when we’re the instructor in a classroom, we strive to minimize the power imbalance, to move away from hierarchy and toward crowd-sourcing. Part of the consequences of that shift, hopefully, is a less adversarial relationship. Still, we hold the grades, we decide the structure, the content, and somewhat gate keep the rest of academia. The extent of this negativity perhaps lies in how we consider our students.

In terms of the Dolmage reading, Westling and other instructors placed themselves in an adversarial relationship to their students. They saw some of their students as slowing down the class, taking advantage of a culture of inclusion, etc. In this way, they assert that their students are not worthy of the power (knowledge and prestige) being held and doled out by the University and the professors that represent that institution. This act of punching down and of excluding creates the greatest negative and adversarial relationship.

I see many of the pedagogical readings (Freire as an obvious example) as trying to eliminate, as much as possible, this power imbalance and subsequent adversarial relationship. Perhaps something that we are working toward is a platform for people to access the education that will help them overthrow the hierarchical, exclusionary status quo.