Sync and body-presence are required for affective resonance in teaching

Evidence

But this resonance effect can only be realized in the synchrony necessary to the correct working of affective harmonization and collective improvisation. From which comes a second MAXIM OF CORPORAL PRESENCE: only presential interaction directly uniting resonant bodies can optimize pedagogical practice. We saw why in the preceding paragraphs: in the same way that email disfigures the subtlety of the interpersonal modifications that come about in face-to-face conversation, research gestures are reduced to caricatures of themselves when one tries to distribute them preserved in videos, theoretical formalizations or methodological principles. — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 286

Categorization

  • XREF: Extends the earlier email-vs-face-to-face argument from this same book (disfiguring interpersonal subtlety). — connects to: Shared physical co-presence enables the cognitive harmonizations that build subjectivity — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 72; Lancaster schools synchronized pupils’ bodies through measured spacing and simultaneous action — Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 227; Shared synchronous ritual synchronizes the heart rates of participants and their kin — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 380 (+6 more)
  • SEED: Angle on remote work and teaching: which interactions genuinely require co-presence, which do not.

Broader Connections