[Note: This posting is subject to further editing.]
An advocate of critical theory continues his/her presentation[1] …
By way of transition from reporting on how
critical theory developed during the latter decades of the twentieth century,
this posting addresses some loose issues.
Specifically, this blog described how critical theory drifted toward a more
varied set of views among the ranks of its advocates. That included addressing more directly pedagogic
applications. Here, in this posting, a
few further transitional points will be made.
That time period, the late 1900s, was noted for
the variation the theory adopted and of note was the contributions of Jurgen Habermas. That variation addressed concerns from
political advocacy positions by other critical theorists and from a philosophic
perspective which happens to have been initiated early on by Max Horkheimer. These sorts of varied arguments led to
developments among academics such as the initiation of the sub-field, political
psychology.
Of note is the work of Erich Fromm (The
Authoritarian Personality and The Fear of Freedom) who developed
methods that escaped the limitations of empiricism. Whether emanating from these scholars or
elsewhere, these themes took certain degree of popular interest among what
became known as the counterculture movement – the “love generation.”
And this counterculture also stressed the
themes of personal politics, sexual liberation, and the critique of
authoritarian family and educational structures, it was in large part following
a direction mapped out by the Institute’s early study written by Horkheimer,
“Authority and the Family,” which was published in 1936.[2]
While this last citation identifies some of the
earlier thinking that led to what eventually developed within critical thought,
these developments basically took place in the post-World War II years,
especially in the sixties. With years to
germinate, this sort of argumentation either contributed or even energized
newer “liberation” movements, such as the feminist movement.
And with that backdrop, one can venture into
how critical theory has affected pedagogic concerns. Recent postings have
been reviewing what proved to be the most meaningful challenge to what has been
since the late forties the main perspective guiding civics, the natural rights
view. The dominant view relies on the philosophic tradition of classical liberalism
as espoused by many political thinkers, none more eloquently than John Locke.
It is a tradition
bolstering the rights of the individual and can be most succinctly summarized
as the belief that people have the right to do what they individually wish to
do if by doing so they do not interfere with the rights of others to do
likewise. While stating that this
dominant view is strongly held by the American populace, it is as any given
view of governance and politics – dominant or not – subject to challenging
views.
In the case of natural
rights, that would be, more than any other view, critical theory. It, critical theory, holds to various beliefs
and values that counter the prevailing view.
For example, while it might favor a level of individual rights, critical
theory does not rely on liberty as its trump value, it instead relies on
equality. Some might consider its view of equality as radical in that, in its
purest form, champions equality of results – or that all are equally able to experience
individually their humanity.
That is, this view promotes
equality in which all in society, to a meaningful degree, share equally in
societal benefits. As Marx put it, “From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need.” With just that
distinction one can anticipate that critical theory, if it were to hold a
dominant position in a nation’s collective view of governance and politics, would
promote a drastically different civics educational curriculum than what now is
in effect.
But does all of critical
theory relate to civics education? From
what this blog has reported of late, one can readily argue that all the
concerns encompassed by critical theory literature deal with questions
appropriate to civics.
The point of briefly
reviewing above the last notions of critical development in the post World War
II years is to draw readers’ attention to the more recent developments
associated with critical thought. Currently,
critical literature directly addresses such issues as multiculturalism, sexism,
classism, or teacher training. But the following quote indicates how civic
issues underlie typical reported critical research and advocacy:
What remains unclear in the debate within critical pedagogy
is the relationship (or tension) between utopian thought, values, and pragmatic
theory. In other words, while the postmodern and poststructuralist critiques
have led many radical educators to accept the problematic and contingent nature
of values – including those of radical democracy – there remains an inclination
on the part of critical educators to employ such contingent values (e.g.,
emancipation, freedom, empowerment, democracy, justice, solidarity, etc.) as
the basis of a utopian view to orient sociocultural formation.[3]
Fancy language to say that critical educators are concerned
with the meat and potatoes of what makes up civics education.
But how can critical
educators view the natural rights perspective as being a threat to equality or
any other political value? The notion that the dominant view of allowing
everyone to go about their lives as they wish as long as each of them avoids
hurting others seems fairly noncommittal or neutral. If so, “what’s the beef?”
Critical literature
discards the claim that the dominant, liberal approach is a neutral one.
Basically, critical pedagogy holds that the natural rights view is one that
supports the current distribution of power and wealth. It argues that that view’s
advocates' most influential strategy in gaining support consists in espousing
discourses that bolster the advantages of pure capitalism and the almost total
reliance on science as a source of legitimate and useful knowledge (a position
that can be called scientism).
The critical approach
would have students engage in a series of inquiries in which they would delve
into the oppressive character of the dominant system and learn how that system
accomplishes the following: deprivation of equality of condition, socialization
of not only the upper segments of society but also the oppressed segments,
maintenance of the legitimacy of the system, and the processes of value
formulation on an individual basis with little or no concern for the
consequences such formulations have on the interests of the common good.[4]
That formulation instead
advances the interests of the upper classes or other advantaged groups to the
detriment of those not so advantaged.
And therefore, a good deal of inquiry that students would take on in a
critical curriculum would be centered on analysis of the dominant language as
expressed in common discourses, which sets up the context and parameters of
people’s thinking and actions.
And with that, this
transitionary posting will come to an end.
Again, the goal is to impart sufficient information to consider the work
of the Brazilian educator, the late Paulo Freire. For those who might want to look ahead, the
key work Freire contributed to critical pedagogy literature, is Pedagogy of
the Oppressed. There is also an
institute, the Freire Institute, where one can look up related information
online.
[1] These postings that convey the basic information regarding
critical theory heavily depends on the overview provided by William Outhwaite. See William Outhwaite, “Critical Theory,” in The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, edited by David Miller, Janet
Coleman, William Connolly, and Alan Ryan (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd), 106-109.
[2] William Outhwaite, “Critical Theory,” in The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, edited by David Miller, Janet
Coleman, William Connolly, and Alan Ryan (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd), 106-109, 108.
[3]Lisa. J. Cary, “The Refusals of Citizenship:
Normalizing Practices in Social Education Discourses, Theory and Research in Social Education, 29, 3 (Summer 2001),
405-430, 417. Postmodern is defined by Collins
Dictionary as “a late twentieth century approach to art, architecture, and
literature that typically mixes styles, ideas, and references to modern
society, often in an ironic way.” Science
Direct defines poststructuralism as “an intellectual movement that emerged
in philosophy and humanities in the 1960s and 1970s. It challenged the tenets of structuralism,
which had previously held sway over the interpretation of language and texts in
the humanities and the study of economics and cultures in the social sciences.” Both encourage heightened interest and focus
on cultural factors in how language and reality is interpreted.
[4] Neil O. Houser and Jeff J. Kuzmic, Ethical
Citizenship in a Postmodern World: Toward a More Connected Approach to Social Education
for the Twenty-First Century, Theory and
Research in Social Education 29, 3 (Summer 2001), 431-461.
