static background for action, but may be socially and reflexively produced, thereby generating possibilities for change (Burnett, 2013; Forbes & Weiner, 2012). A second difference concerns the prevalence of each space in education. Heterotopias are said to be common to all cultures, whereas Gee (2005) contends that affinity spaces are rare in schools. But this is a minor issue, for it does not matter how common each space is, only whether they can and do co-exist. My contention is that they can, as I shall now try to illustrate. One heterotopic affinity space The project space can be conceived of as a heterotopia, and as an affinity space. By suspending the norms of the dyslexia support workshop, the learning space changed from being merely exclusionary to one which was still segregated yet also disruptive and transgressive. This Other space was explicitly political, with the students contesting power relations, literacy and educational norms (Barden, 2012), and, through extensive identity work (Barden, 2014), deficit models of dyslexia. At the outset of the project, I encouraged the students to set down some collective aims for what they wanted it to achieve, and they did. Listing them, it is evident that they are strongly political. The students were explicitly seeking to influence the thoughts and actions of others, including the College's management team as well as their peers and the wider public, in order to address perceived inequalities, stigma and injustices. They wrote:
static background for action, but may be socially and reflexively produced, thereby generating possibilities for change (Burnett, 2013; Forbes & Weiner, 2012). A second difference concerns the prevalence of each space in education. Heterotopias are said to be common to all cultures, whereas Gee (2005) contends that affinity spaces are rare in schools. But this is a minor issue, for it does not matter how common each space is, only whether they can and do co-exist. My contention is that they can, as I shall now try to illustrate. One heterotopic affinity space The project space can be conceived of as a heterotopia, and as an affinity space. By suspending the norms of the dyslexia support workshop, the learning space changed from being merely exclusionary to one which was still segregated yet also disruptive and transgressive. This Other space was explicitly political, with the students contesting power relations, literacy and educational norms (Barden, 2012), and, through extensive identity work (Barden, 2014), deficit models of dyslexia. At the outset of the project, I encouraged the students to set down some collective aims for what they wanted it to achieve, and they did. Listing them, it is evident that they are strongly political. The students were explicitly seeking to influence the thoughts and actions of others, including the College's management team as well as their peers and the wider public, in order to address perceived inequalities, stigma and injustices. They wrote: