In this posting, I will reuse some already posted
material. I don’t usually do this – I
think I did it once before – but there is a good reason for doing it here. Early in the history of this blog, I reviewed
the critical theory construct. I
identified it as the antithesis to the prevailing construct, the natural rights
perspective. Over numerous postings, I
described and explained the elements of critical theory, not in order to be the
definitive source of what it is, but to give you a good sense of what that
theory was about and how it was influencing the field of civics education. In addition, I critiqued the construct. In this latter effort, I used Eugene Meehan’s
criteria.[1] I did not cite each criterion, one by one,
and apply it to critical theory.
Instead, I used the criteria in a holistic way and shared what I
believed was useful and not useful about critical theory. In order to be complete, I would like this
posting to be more formal in my evaluation and address some of the Meehan criteria
more directly and unequivocally. But
first – and here comes past posted material – let me remind you – for first
timers, introduce you to – Meehan’s criteria (plus two):
Meehan's criteria were designed to
evaluate theories or explanations in the social sciences; i.e., he, in effect,
gives us a set of questions to ask of models, theories, or constructs that
serve to guide research in the social sciences.
The criteria can be summarized by the following list of concepts and
their related questions:
·
Comprehension: Does the construct explain as many phenomena
as possible which are related to the area of concern?
·
Power: Does the construct control the explanatory
effort by being valid and complete in its component parts and in the relations
between those parts?
·
Precision: Does the construct specifically and precisely
treat its concepts, making them clear in their use?
·
Consistency
or Reliability: Does the construct
explain its components and their relations the same way time after time?
·
Isomorphism: Does the construct contain a one to one
correspondence with that portion of reality it is trying to explain?
·
Compatibility: Does the construct align with other
responsible explanations of the same phenomena?
·
Predictability: Does the construct predict conditions
associated with the phenomena in question?
·
Control: Does the construct imply ways of controlling
the phenomena in question?
In addition, I have added a couple of
educational concerns:
·
Abstraction
Level: Is the construct’s abstraction of
such a nature that students will be able to comprehend it?
·
Motivation: Is the construct and its content sufficiently
interesting that students will be motivated to study it?
So, how does the critical
theory construct stack up against these criteria? Here’s my judgement. As I have tried to stress in my review of the
construct, critical theory lacks precision.
For example, a main concept utilized by that construct, exploitation, and
how the writers, who publish in this vein, use it, seem to lack any clear sense
of what exactly is meant by it. I used,
in my descriptive text of earlier date, Johan Galtung’s definition at one
point, but then provided another definition elsewhere. Galtung’s view is that exploitation exists
whenever any group in society is not advancing economically as rapidly as any
other group. So, theoretically, one can
have a society in which everyone is advancing (all boats are being lifted), but
if there is any group not rising as quickly as the rest, then that constitutes
exploitation. Paulo Freire, a writer I
reviewed extensively in my description of how this construct can potentially
affect civics curriculum, writes of the psychological aspects of
exploitation. Elsewhere, I chose a more
restrictive definition. That is, my
definition retained, as a main factor, a lack of equality, but was more
sensitive to the forces of supply and demand and what happens when policy
makers simply ignore them in the pursuit of a more just system. The final effect, with all these various
views, is a serious lack of precision. This
is because one is uncertain as to what various writers mean by exploitation. Surely, some cases of unjust treatment are
squarely examples of exploitation, but there are some that one questions. For example, a lot of questioning can be
brought up regarding the distinction between cases when people need to share in
any responsibility for their own plights; where is the line between unjust
treatment and irresponsible behavior?
I’m sure this can be sorted out, but since there is no clear, singular
expression of this construct in general, clarity in many of its expositions is
illusive.
My foremost concern with
this construct is its lack of comprehensiveness. That is, there are other concerns that civics
should address other than the exploitation of disadvantaged groups. Yes, this overall concern should not be
shortchanged in our civics curriculum, but good citizens need to know about
other issues as well. There are concerns
over the defense of our nation, about the health of our economy, about
technological changes and opportunities, about crime, civility, health care in
general, relations with other nations, relations within our communities; the
list goes on. Being so focused on the mistreatment
of the disadvantaged leaves little time for other legitimate areas of concern that
a good citizenry neglects at its own peril.
In terms of
predictability – and this refers to that branch of critical theory that relies
more directly on Marxian thought – there has not been the predicted unfolding
of historical forces the great thinker predicted back in the mid-1800s. Perhaps enough time has not evolved for the
Marxian scenario to play out; that is, maybe the inevitable overthrow by the
working classes is yet to transpire. But
if nothing else, this points to this lack of precision or reliability. More likely, it points to a lack of
predictability. I just don’t believe
Marx was correct on this one.
Along with this lack of
being able to give us a dependable overall view of how our politics have
evolved or promises to evolve, we can also cite other criteria in which this
construct goes wanting. These include
precision, power, reliability, and compatibility. This is particularly true for those who
advance what I named, way back when, “critical pedagogy 2.0” or the
reconceptualism branch of critical theory.
Let me just point out that most educators who ascribe to critical theory
adhere to this line of thought. A quip
that I believe summarizes this view is to just marry Marxian thought with
natural rights biases that idolize the individual and you have reconceptualism. With reconceptualism and its reliance on
postmodernism and post structuralism, there is a call for self-referentiality
and a rejection of any grand narratives or ideologies. It is subjectivism on “steroids.” With this view, there is little hope for any
resulting sense of a constant perception of what is or the desire to find such
a perception. Adherents call for a
serious approach to seeking the truth through historical interpretation that
relies heavily on contextualizing the information gathered and delving into
subjective forces about historical characters and the researchers
themselves. This is far more complicated
then what I can get into here, but what results is a less anchored sense of
knowing anything. Hence, such criteria
as precision, power, reliability, compatibility become, for all intents and
purposes, seriously less relevant. The
construct leaves a civics teacher, a person charged with teaching a subject
matter that is quite prevalent in people’s lives, having very concrete effects,
with a very uneasy sense. There is a
real government out there; there are very real consequences of what that
government does, and the reactions that people report, as to those effects, are
not so varied and discontinuous in content, at least within identifiable groups. In addition, the action of politics is to
funnel demands into singular policy. An
approach that renders the perception of citizens scattered and based on near
total self-perceptions undermines any meaning of citizenship and a community of
interests.
I believe reconceptualism
and its supportive philosophies have insightful contributions to make. It is a well-spring of concerns by which, if
implemented, is a source of legitimate criticism of “established truths,” be
they the product of scientific research or other sources. After all, how many scientific “truths” have
been proved false? Of course, a lot of
that is a betrayal of a truly scientific approach, for a true scientist is
about trying to prove those “truths” to be false. Instead, we have had a recurring stream of
what Bill Bryson reports, for example, when it comes to paleontology study:
Finally, but perhaps above all, human
nature is a factor in all this.
Scientists have a natural tendency to interpret finds in the way that
most flatters their stature. It is a
rare paleontologist indeed who announces that he has found a cache of bones but
that they are nothing to get excited about.
Or as John Reader understatedly observes in the book Missing Links, “It is remarkable how
often the first interpretations of new evidence have confirmed the
preconceptions of its discoverer.”[2]
So, I get the point;
science has been used for a variety of reasons beyond truth seeking. People have used it to advance without much
warrant their careers and it has been used as a political weapon at all levels
of social interaction, from the clinician who seeks a convenient course of
action to a national set of politicians seeking some advantage for some
constituency. But let us not radicalize
this concern. Let us be aware and follow
our reliance on science with a dose of skepticism, but let us avoid
overdosing. In terms of choosing content
for a classroom, a school, a school district, a national curriculum, one needs
more meat on that bone than what reconceptualism provides. We need to be able to say more than, “Oh,
that’s how I see it today” or anything that resembles that type of perspective.
With that, I complete my critique
of critical theory. I believe the
construct offers serious insights and a much needed emphasis on the plight of
those who do not share in our largesse. It
is also applicable at appropriate abstraction levels so that secondary students
can grasp the main thrust of its content.
In my previous treatment of this construct, I did question its assumed
motivational quality even among students who might be victimized by
exploitation. We witness too many
citizens who flock to the very politicians who do not address their economic disadvantages,
but are lured by more non-economic factors such as religious or nationalistic
messaging. But overall, I hope you
agree, that I am a sympathetic admirer of what critical theorists have been
able to accomplish even in the case of reconceptualism; after all, I do view
the theories I have reviewed in this blog as constructs; that is, a constructed
view of the truth – a reconceptualist notion.
But in the end, I am not an adherent.
If you wish to read more of what critical
pedagogues have to say, let me suggest some names. I believe these writers and their works would
be a good start in delving into critical literature. This list of writers includes, of course,
Paulo Freire, but also Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Jonathan Kozol, Ivan
Illich, John Holt, and Ira Shor (who actually based his writings on his own
classroom experiences). There are many
others.
No comments:
Post a Comment