The performative nature of this article simultaneously functions at multiple levels. It is at once an article about, among other things, the significance of the sonic and its qualitative differences from more ocular forms of expression, the inability to discern between that which occurs of its own accord and that which is manufactured, and questions of attention, intention, and expression. It is also an inversion of how sound is most often utilized in scholarship. In this case, rather than sounds explicating text, the text of this article functions as a kind of libretto for the sonic version of this piece.
AokiT. T. (1991). “Sonare and vidare: Questioning the primacy of the eye in curriculum talk.” In WillisG.SchubertW. H. (eds.), Reflections from the heart of educational inquiry: Understanding curriculum and teaching through the arts (pp. 182-198). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
2.
AhmedS. (2010). The promise of happiness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
3.
AppleM. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BakerB. M. (2013). William James, sciences of mind, and anti-imperial discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BernaysE. (1928). Propaganda. New York, NY: Howard Liveright.
6.
BullM.BackL. (2003). The auditory culture reader. Oxford, UK: Berg.
7.
ErlmannV. (2010). Reason and resonance: A history of modern aurality. New York, NY: Zone Books.
8.
FeldS. (1982). Sound and sentiment: Birds, weeping, poetics, and song in Kaluli expression. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
9.
GershonW. S. (2010a). Entertaining ideas and embodied knowledge: Musicians as public intellectuals. In SandlinJ. A.Schultz, BurdickB. D.BurdickJ. (Eds.), The handbook of public pedagogy (pp. 628-638). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
GershonW. S. (2010b, December17). Sound identity: Race, space and place in an urban middle school [Sound installation]. Kent, OH: Kent State University Gallery.
11.
GershonW. S. (2011). Sound curriculum: Recognizing the field. In NavqiR.SchmidtH. (Eds.), Thinking about and enacting curriculum in “frames of war” (pp. 89-120). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
GershonW. S. (2013b). Vibrational affect: Sound theory and practice in qualitative research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13, 257-262.
14.
GershonW. S. (2017). Sound curriculum: Sonic studies in educational theory, method & practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
GershonW. S. & The Listening to the Sounds of Science Project. (2012, March17-July15). Making sense of science: The sounds of teaching and studenting in four urban classrooms [Sound installation]. Akron, OH: Akron Art Museum.
16.
GitelmanL. (2006). Always already new: Media, history and the data of culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
GoodmanS. (2010). Sonic warfare: Sound, affect, and the ecology of fear. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
GreggM.SeigworthG. J. (Eds.). (2010). The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
HowesD.ClassenC. (2013). Ways of sensing: Understanding the senses in society. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
JacksonP. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22.
JenkinsH.FordS.GreenJ. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York: New York University Press.
23.
KahnD. (2001). Noise water meat: A history of sound in the arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Kim-CohenS. (2009). In the blink of an ear: Toward a non-cochlear sound art. New York, NY: Continuum.
25.
LaBelleB. (2015). Background noise: Perspectives on sound art (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
26.
MassumiB. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
OliverosP. (2005). Deep listening: A composer’s sound practice. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.
28.
PetersJ. D. (2015). The marvelous clouds: Toward a philosophy of elemental media. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
PuarJ. K. (2012). “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess”: Becoming-intersectional in assemblage theory. PhiloSOPHIA, 2(1), 49-66.
30.
RoquetP. (2016). Ambient media: Japanese atmospheres of self. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
31.
SeigworthG. J.GreggM. (2010). An inventory of shimmers. In GreggM.SeigworthG. J. (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 1-29). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
SpindlerG.SpindlerL. (1982). Roger Harker and Schönhausen: From the familiar to the strange and back again. In SpindlerG. (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 20-47). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
33.
SterneJ. (2003). The audible past: Cultural origins of sound reproduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
34.
SterneJ. (Ed.). (2012). The sound studies reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
StollerP. (1997). Sensuous scholarship. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
36.
TsingA. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
TyeL. (2002). The father of spin: Edward L. Bernays and the birth of public relations. New York, NY: Picador.
38.
WeheliyeA. (2014). Habeas viscus: Racializing assemblages, biopolitics, and Black feminist theories of the human. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
39.
WeibelP. (2017). Sound art: Sound as a medium of art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
WozolekB.VarndellR.SpeerT. (2015). Are we not fatigued? Queer battle fatigue at the intersection of heteronormative culture. International Journal of Curriculum and Social Justice, 1, 186-214.
