“Equality is fine as a transitional demand, but it’s dishonest not to recognize it for what it is – the easy route. There is a difference between saying ‘we want to be included’ and saying ‘we want to reconstruct your exclusive system.’ The former is more readily accepted into the mainstream.” — Reni Eddo-Lodge (2017, pp. 184–185)

Definition

Leaders who are guided by an ethic of discomfort assume that discomfort, pain, and suffering (to a certain degree) can be useful in disrupting one’s “cherished beliefs and assumptions” (Boler, 1999, p. 176).

Ethnocentrism

The dominant group tends to believe that the norms they follow represent the ‘natural’ way human beings do things; thus, those who behave otherwise are judged as morally wrong. This viewpoint is ethnocentric, which refers to the practice of judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture. This often leads to the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. Ethnocentrism can manifest in various ways, such as viewing other cultures as primitive, uncivilized, or inferior to one’s own.

An ethic of discomfort can help leaders question their own participation in perpetuating discriminatory beliefs and practices. It calls leaders and educators to question their complicity in reifying racist and misogynist beliefs. Leaders are further called to acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge, to be, as Foucault (1994) urged, “very mindful that everything one perceives is evident only against a familiar little known horizon” (p. 448).

Challenging ‘Safe Spaces’ and Normative Assumptions

Leaders who adopt an ethic of discomfort challenge the notion of ‘safe spaces,’ which have long been popularized as places designed to protect people from psychological harm (Wilson-Forsberg et al., 2023). Zembylas (2017) argued that:

there are no safe classrooms spaces, if one considers that conditions of power and privilege always operate in them… Safety cannot be constructed as the absence of discomfort; experiencing discomfort should not be confused with the absence of safety.

Discomfort can then be used as a tool by leaders and educators to “unsettle a comfortable narrative around a specific social issue” (Wilson-Forsberg et al., 2023, p. 346). Wilson et al. (2023) further promoted “an ethos of disruption” (p. 346) for unsettling prevailing norms. This requires that educational leaders create “disruptive moments of sharing and listening openly to each other’s stories” (Zemblyas, 2017, p. 8), as well as acknowledge the power dynamics that govern the classroom and institutional decision-making structures.

Educational leaders who follow this theory regularly interrogate normative assumptions that underpin and drive educational policies and institutional governance (Burns, 2017). Leaders question their deeply held assumptions and beliefs and engage in active rather than passive empathy, requiring not only a desire for change but also action (Zembylas, 2017).

The summary table below highlights the main objective of an ethic of discomfort, its core principles, and benefits of adopting this framework for analyzing ethical dilemmas and making decisions.

Historical Origins

Shoshana Felman

The notion that discomfort is not only inevitable but also ethical was initially suggested by Shoshana Felman (1992) in her work on the role of crisis in listening to stories of suffering and trauma from her experience teaching about the Holocaust. Felman asked educators: “Is there a relation between crisis and the very enterprise of education?… Is there a relation between trauma and pedagogy?” (p. 18). She concluded that “when teaching engenders some sort of crisis in the student, and this is done with care about students’ well-being, then there is potential for transformation” (Zembylas, 2015, p. 164).

Felman (1992) called for educators to theorize norms and how they operate constructively or destructively in educational institutions. Discomfort, then, she argued, can be used as a tool by educators for individual and social transformation:

If teaching does not hit upon some sort of crisis, if it does not encounter either the vulnerability or the explosiveness of a (explicit or implicit) critical and unpredictable dimension, it has perhaps not truly taught . . . I therefore think that my job as a teacher, paradoxical as it may sound, was that of creating in the class the highest state of crisis that it could withstand, without “driving the students crazy,” without compromising the students’ bounds (p. 53).

Michel Foucault

The ‘ethic of discomfort’ was first articulated by Michel Foucault (1994) in his essay “For an Ethic of Discomfort.” Foucault asserted that discomfort could serve as an antidote against dogmatism and complacency. He advised:

never to consent to being completely comfortable with one’s own presuppositions. Never to let them fall peacefully asleep, but also never to believe that a new fact will suffice to overturn them; never to imagine that one can change them like arbitrary axioms, remembering that in order to give them necessary mobility one must have a distant view, but also look at what is nearby and all around oneself. To be very mindful that everything one perceives is evident only against a familiar and little known horizon, that every certainty is sure only through the support of a ground that is always unexplored. The most fragile instant has its roots. In that lesson, there is a whole ethic of sleepless evidence that does not rule out, far from it, a rigorous economy of the True and the False; but that is not the whole story (p. 448).

Foucault viewed ethics as a continuous, ongoing practice of self-reflection and a trajectory towards a more critical understanding of oneself (Omohovere, 2022). This is quite distinct from position stating, whereby a person takes a stance on a particular issue or topic. Viewing ethics as a process, then, requires that leaders become reconciled with uncertainty and embrace vulnerability and ambiguity of the self. They must, as Zemblyas (2017) challenged, “acknowledge the limits of knowing the other and the ethical claim that unknowability makes” (p. 11).

Pedagogy of Discomfort

In 1999, Megan Boler first coined the term ‘pedagogy of discomfort,’ which has since been expanded upon by Michalinos Zembylas, Claire McGlynn, and others. These social justice scholars argued that students’ experiences of discomfort are pedagogically valuable in learning about the victims of justice. This pedagogical approach is “grounded in the assumption that discomforting feelings are important in challenging dominant beliefs, social habits, and normative practices that sustain social inequities and create openings for individual and social transformation” (Zembylas, 2015, p. 163).

Teachers who adopt this approach challenge students to critically analyze their ideological values and beliefs in relation to race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. Such a pedagogy, argued Zembylas (2015), “has at its aim to uncover and question the deeply embedded emotional dimensions that frame and shape daily habits, routines, and unconscious complicity with hegemony” (p. 166). When educators and students closely problematize their habits, they may begin to identify their unconscious privileges and the invisible ways in which they perpetuate the dominant ideology (McIntosh, 1989).

Ethic of Violence and Nonviolence

In 2005, Judith Butler furthered the conversation by introducing the dual concepts of the ‘ethic of violence’ and ‘ethic of nonviolence.’ She highlighted that violence is frequently inflicted on those who do not conform to the dominant ethical norms, for example, when students or employees are forced to accept a collective ethos about what is considered ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Leaders who have failed to engage in the necessary work of unpacking the complexity and ambiguity of existing conditions, and who have not supported students and employees in this work, are guilty of ethical violence (Zemblyas, 2015). An ethical norm, therefore, becomes violent when it is imposed in the name of universal principles (e.g., democracy and justice).

If ethical violence is the insistence of uniform thinking, then, in contrast, nonviolence is the process of interrupting dominant narratives. From a Foucauldian perspective, the critique of the self is an important tool in the constitution of nonviolent ethics. Foucault (1979) advised that people should problematize manifestations of discomfort “without portraying them as acts of bad faith or cowardice, to open a space for movement without slipping into prophetic posture” (p. xxvii).

Pedagogic Dissonance

The ethic of discomfort can be linked to Jansen’s (2009) pedagogic dissonance, which occurs when one’s assumptions are shattered, and post-conflict pedagogy, which is founded on hope (Freire, 1992). As Vandeyar (2019) argued, “In a post-conflict society the former oppressor and the oppressed do not get caught up in a blaming game” (p. 1789); rather, “This kind of critical pedagogy recognizes the power and the pain at play in school and society, and their effects on young people, and then asks how things could be better” (Jansen, 2009, p. 154).

Situated Within Educational Leadership Theory and Practice

Although Foucault’s ethic of discomfort is based on the social and political arena, and Boler and Zembylas’s pedagogy of discomfort is situated within the classroom, their ethical frameworks can also be applied to educational leadership, as they have important theoretical consequences for leaders in educational settings.

Universities have long been positioned as places where students are exposed to a wide range of ideas, including those that may be discomforting or challenge their beliefs, to encourage critical thinking and intellectual growth. But for a long time, university campuses were relatively homogenous. With the increasing number of students from diverse cultures entering universities, the need for educators to effectively communicate across cultures has increased.

Challenging Dominant Narratives

For over a decade, social justice scholars have argued that the obligation of educational leaders to guarantee a ‘safe space’ is an impossible and sanitizing task (Boler, 2004; Zembylas, 2017). From this perspective, people should be wary of leaders who ask, “why can’t we all just get along?” As Zembylas (2015) identified, “the assumption about safe speaking in which all shared ideas can be engaged respectfully and critically is illusory due to the embodied and historical differences of students and teachers” (p. 165).

Slee (2009) cautioned that empowerment, a key concept of inclusive leadership, caters to those already empowered. Research has demonstrated that Western-centric frames dictated what was considered inclusive in an educational setting (England & Brown, 2001). Common guidelines for inclusive educational settings are often not responsive to power relations; for example, advocating for fairness by allowing equal time for all narratives assumes that all narratives have equal airtime in our everyday lives (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2016).

Some scholars have recommended restricting dominant narratives to create greater equality (e.g., see Sensoy & Diangelo, 2016). While Burns (2017) posed the question: “Perhaps the question now is not so much how do we move ‘towards inclusion’…, but what do we do to disrupt the construction of centre from which exclusion derives?” (p. 790).

From this ethical orientation, educational leaders are obligated to question hierarchical structures and power dynamics within educational institutions. They must critically examine the way decisions are made and how policies are implemented, seek to create more equitable environments, and move away from universal norms of ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ and ‘democracy.’ As leaders, they must model and promote critical thinking and questioning among students and staff. Further, they should encourage a culture of intellectual curiosity and openness to new ideas, which can lead to a deeper understanding of complex issues and a willingness to challenge prevailing norms and assumptions.

Transformational Leadership

The ethic of discomfort closely aligns with the theory of transformational leadership, which emphasizes the importance of leaders challenging the status quo and the need to critically examine existing power structures and norms to bring about transformation. Transformational leadership is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals, which requires that leaders assess followers’ motives and needs and assume that followers bring their whole selves into the workplace (Northouse, 2019). It is a relational form of leadership that emphasizes the importance of reciprocity and consideration of multiple perspectives, whereby both the leader and follower work towards raising one another’s level of morality (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, it is concerned with the collective good and calls leaders to transcend their own interests for the sake of others (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leadership has the potential to positively influence peoples’ moral identities and emotions (e.g., empathy and guilt), thereby enhancing moral decision-making and action (Zhu et al., 2011).

The role of the transformational leader is to discern how far they can push others to a point of discomfort without causing harm. Importantly, this requires that leaders have trusting relationships with others, as well as an awareness of the diverse experiences of their community, as they will need to draw upon deeply held “internalized cultural logics to create greater insight and behaviour change” (Burns, 2017, p. 791).

Note that this ethical perspective does not follow a consensus-based model nor distributed form of leadership. It assumes that there is an inherently differential power relationship between the leader and the follower, and therefore, positional authority is prioritized. Therefore, leaders must first have a critical awareness of their own attachments to particular narratives before they demand others do this work; importantly, leaders must embed themselves as participating members in the conversations, modelling vulnerability and uncertainty.

Benefits of Ethic

While there is a certain degree of risk associated with adopting this ethical frame, it has great potential for transformative change and developing intercultural understanding of leaders, followers, educators, and students. Embracing discomfort can lead to personal growth by expanding one’s understanding of the world and oneself. Experiencing discomfort can enhance empathy by providing insights into the experience of others, thus promoting a greater understanding of diverse perspectives.

Vandeyar (2019) argued that the most effective way to develop intercultural understanding and empathy is through experiential learning that fosters an ethic of discomfort and pedagogic dissonance; “such learning will create opportunities for diverse groups of academics to walk in the shoes of another and to experience discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes first-hand” (p. 790). One successful method used worldwide is the practice of Story Circles (Deardorff, 2020) for developing intercultural competencies. Story Circles focus on a process of listening, self- and other-awareness, reflection, sharing, empathy, and relationship building.

This ethic has the potential to influence social change. Many students around the world are taught in oppressive classrooms “by academics who are demeaning, unprofessional, and use their power in ways that discriminate unfairly against students” (Shay, 2016, p. 3). When educators and leaders realize that they are not merely conduits of curriculum and educational policies but rather complex beings working within and potentially contributing to value systems, they may be motivated to problematize these systems by analyzing dominant discourses and meaning-making practices within educational and administrative policies (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016).

Drawbacks of Ethic

Leaders who follow an ethic of discomfort assume a certain degree of risk, particularly those who work within polarized contexts where ethical and political ideologies are imposed by those in authority and the academic freedom of faculty is challenged by political and social structures.

In recent years, there have been more attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion. In the United States of America, for example, Republican lawmakers have introduced 40 anti-DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) bills targeting higher education institutions since 2022, which prohibit educators from teaching about systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege (Insight into Diversity, n.d.). Similarly, in Canada, anti-SOGI protests over sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum in Canadian schools have occurred across the country. Nationalist policy agendas around the world restrict what can be taught, either covertly (e.g., fear tactics) or overtly (e.g., changes to legislation), which require leaders to interrogate their own complicity in perpetuating racist and discriminatory beliefs and practices.

Similarly alarming are attacks on academic freedom — a fundamental principle of higher education that permits scholars to pursue and advance knowledge that serves society. Academic freedom involves three aspects:

• research and teaching that furthers knowledge and understanding
• adhering to the ethical and methodological standards of one’s discipline
• participation in collegial or shared governance to ensure that decisions affecting academic life in the university are based on scholarly expertise (Baugh et al., 2021)

In Europe, research and teaching are under pressure due to political constraints, including government foreign policy and societal expectations. Seckelmann et al. (2021) highlighted the following threats to academic freedom within the European context:

• the economic orientation of university governance, which emphasizes efficiency, competition, and external evaluation
• new rules concerning trigger warnings, speech restrictions, and ethics commissions

As a result, leaders who adopt an ethic of discomfort need to be cognizant of the environment within which they work and the potential risks they may be taking for themselves and their organizations, colleagues, and students. While this chapter offers a hopeful alternative to the status quo, it may require that leaders adopt a subversive approach to decolonizing educational systems.

It also may require that leaders be willing to empathize with students and colleagues who hold racist and misogynist beliefs and not be dismissive or undervalue their perspectives, in order to facilitate transformation without causing division. Zembylas (2017) described this as a willingness to make oneself “strategically sceptic in order to empathise with the troubled knowledge students carry with them, even when this troubled knowledge is disturbing to other students or to the teacher” (p. 13).

Educational leaders’ ability to understand their own belief systems and the value systems of others may affect their success in responding to diversity. Before leaders consider adopting this ethical approach to decision-making, they need to ask themselves the following questions:

• Am I ready to unlearn, re-learn, and fundamentally transform as an individual and an academic?
• Am I literate about the historical injustices and diverse intellectual debates within my discipline, within the academy, and within the community in which I live and work?
• Am I willing to address issues of power and belonging and dismantle colonized structures and practices within my institution?
• Am I willing to walk in the shoes of another and to experience discrimination, prejudice, and stereotypes first-hand? (Vandeyar, 2019)

Recommended Readings

• “Ethic of Discomfort: Is Asking for Nude Lipstick Racist?” by Edgar A. Burns (2017), Race Ethnicity and Education
• “Practicing an Ethic of Discomfort as an Ethic of Care in Higher Education Teaching” by Michalinos Zemblyas (2017), Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning (CriSTaL)
• “Respect Differences? Challenging the Common Guidelines in Social Justice Education” by Ozlem Sensory and Robin DiAngelo (2014), Democracy & Education

References

Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. Palgrave Pivot.

Baugh, B., Caton, K., Fraser, L., Haggarty, P., Kamphuis, C., McCormick, R., Meyers, J., Pollock, A., Ramirez, G., & Tsigaris, P. (2021, September). Statement on academic freedom. Thompson Rivers University. https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/statement-on-academic-freedom54137.pdf

Boler, M. (1999). Feeling power: Emotions and education. Routledge.

Boler, M. (2004). All speech is not free: The ethics of ‘affirmative action pedagogy.’ In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogue in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence (pp. 3–14). Peter Lang.

Burns, E. D. (2017). Ethic of discomfort: Is asking for nude lipstick racist? Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 22(6), 788–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1417250

Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. Fordham University Press

Deardorff, D. K. (2020). Manual for developing intercultural competencies: Story circles. UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370336

Eddo-Lodge, R. (2017). Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race. Bloomsbury Circus.

England, J., & Brown, T. (2001). Inclusion, exclusion and marginalisation. Educational Action Research, 9(3), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790100200164

Felman, S. (1992). Education and crisis, or, vicissitudes of listening. In S. Felman & D. Laub (Eds.), Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis, and history (pp. 1–57). Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1979). For an ethic of discomfort. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984, vol. 3 (pp. 443-448). The New Press.

Foucault, M. (1994). For an ethic of discomfort. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (Vol. 3, pp. 443–448). New Press.

Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Howell, J. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43–54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165064

Insight into Diversity. (n.d.). The war on DEI. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/the-war-on-dei/

Jansen, J. D. (2009). On the clash of martyrological memories. Perspectives in Education, 27(2), 147–157. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC87522

McIntosh, P. (1989, July/August). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom Magazine, 10–12.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publishing.

Omhovère, C. (2022). For an ethic of discomfort: Studying Canadian literature(s) from afar. L’Atelier, 13(2), 121–143. https://ojs.parisnanterre.fr/index.php/latelier/article/view/597/843

Seckelmann, M., Violini, L., Fraenkel-Haeberle, C., & Ragone, G. (2021). Academic freedom under pressure? A comparative perspective. Springer. International Publishing.

Sensoy, Ö. & DiAngelo, R. (2016). Respect differences? Challenging the common guidelines in social justice education. Democracy & Education, 22(2), Article 1. https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol22/iss2/1

Shay, S. (2016, June 13). Decolonizing the curriculum: It’s time for a strategy. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/decolonising-the-curriculum-its-time-for-a-strategy-60598

Simon Fraser University. (n.d.). Equity, diversity, and inclusion. https://www.sfu.ca/edi.html

Slee, R. (2009). Travelling with our eyes open: Models, mantras and analysis in new times. In M. Alur & V. Timmons (Eds.), Inclusive education across cultures: Crossing boundaries, sharing ideas (pp. 93–106). Sage Publications.

Vandeyar, S. (2019). Why decolonizing the South African university curriculum will fail. Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives, 25(7), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1592149

Wilson-Forsberg, S., Monaghan, S. R., & Corrales, D. C. (2023). Witnesses to inhumanity on shifting terrain: Embracing an ethic of discomfort for optimal learning in an international field course. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 18(3), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/17461979221097073

Zemblyas, M. (2015). ‘Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: The tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics and Education, 10(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2015.1039274

Zemblyas, M. (2017). Practicing an ethic of discomfort as an ethic of care in higher education setting. Critical Studies in Teaching & Learning, 5(1), 1–17. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.14426/cristal.v5i1.97

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J., (2011). The effect of authentic transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 801–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.004