CRITICAL THEORISTS' POLITICAL VIEW

While economics is the central concern of critical theorists, they speak the language of politics.  This blog is currently reviewing critical theory’s perspective on government and politics.  The political system, to Marxists, is part of the superstructure, the institution built upon the demands of the economic elites and relied upon to protect most directly their interests. 

Politics and government are counted on, in socialists’ plans, to determine the rules by which socialist practices will be established.  This posting will describe and explain the relationship between how critical theorists see their moral outrage over the exploitive practices in market economies and their view of government and politics.

          As pointed out in a previous posting, there are various intellectual sources that influence the political beliefs of critical pedagogues.  Those sources include Hegelianism, neo-Marxist thought, the Frankfort School of Social Research, the works of John Dewey (especially his later work), post structuralists, post modernists, Jurgen Habermas, and other leftist scholars.

Their epistemological bent opposes research methods common among natural rights advocates; that is, they discard behavioral or positivist (“scientific”) protocols.  They instead rely on rational processes – dialectical (logical) processes of thought.  If readers would like to read the works of recent critical pedagogues, they might look up Paulo Freire, Michael Apple, Bill Ayers, and Henry Giroux.

Stemming from the work of Lester Frank Ward in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the curricular approach known as social reconstructionism has influenced or guided the overall thrust of critical pedagogues.[1]  As the years have passed, more formal, leftist influences have made their mark on the works of critical theorists.

In the last posting, the point was made that to varying degrees, all critical pedagogues adopt Marxian ideas.  To understand the thrust of their work, one needs to appreciate how it reflects socialist thinking.  While this is true, one should keep in mind that some critical pedagogues are barely Marxists at all, but to contextualize their work, one is benefited by reviewing basic Marxian thinking.

At a minimum, the reader should understand the following concepts:  dialectical materialism, class struggle, surplus value, dictatorship of the proletariat, and superstructure.

Dialectical materialism refers to Marx's view of the sweep of history as recurring cycles of haves oppressing the have-nots.  At its essence, this development has placed entrepreneur class – the bourgeoisie – in power today.  The have-nots are the laboring class, or as Marx referred to it, the proletariat.  As with previous political cycles, Marx foresaw that the working class, the have-nots, will eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie. 

But with this revolutionary change, because of the historical factors characterizing this overthrow, the workers were to establish a political regime where no other class would exist.  Therefore, there would not be an exploitive relationship among the people of that resulting society.  This would end the cyclical nature of politics in human history. 

Class struggle is simply the clash of interests between the oppressors and the oppressed.  In the capitalist system, the oppressors are the business owners who own the means of production.  The oppressed are the working class made up primarily of mine workers and factory workers.  During the time Marx wrote, these workers, the proletariat, usually worked during severe conditions:  long hours and dangerous and odious environments.

Surplus value refers to the excess value of produced goods and services that workers create after the costs of production are paid.  Since the value of any produced good or service is value added to natural resources or unfinished goods by the toil of workers, that value rightfully belongs to the workers.  Under capitalism, the owners of the means of production call this value profit and “steal” it from the workers.  This is the essence of politics in a capitalist system.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is the resulting power arrangement after the workers overthrow the capitalist system in which only the interests of the workers will be recognized as legitimate.  All individuals in the production processes will be workers.  Since this will eliminate class struggle, the source of political conflict will disappear and eventually, the state or government will “wither away.”

Superstructure refers to the institutional arrangement in any given society with the economic institution being the foundation and all others constituting the superstructure.  In this way, the economic institution has enormous influence over the beliefs and assumptions held by those who control the major institutions. 

Crude Marxism holds that this is a one-way relationship in that the organizing beliefs of the economic institution basically dictate the beliefs of all the other institutions.  Moderate Marxism holds that the relationship is two-way, one in which the other institutions have, to some degree, an influence on the prevailing economic beliefs.

Both forms hold that the economic arrangements will at least provide the parameters in which all institutions operate.  This relation, in terms of civics education, is particularly important as it determines the policy by which government administers public schools and even regulates private schools.  Government policy will basically protect and promote the interests of those who own or control the productive forces of an economy.

Also, the institution of education will be ultimately controlled to advance the beliefs that sustain the position of the ruling class.  Currently, Marxists would point to the promotion of vouchers and charter schools as examples of the ruling class either taking over or sustaining control of public education.[2]

As pointed out, not every critical pedagogue buys into these Marxian ideas; consequently, many look to other sources to define how they see the political, economic, and social relationships in society.  The result has been that they have utilized influences from well-respected social scientists who range from Talcott Parsons to Sigmund Freud.  The reader is encouraged to consider this literature to see the breadth of these other influences.

Critical thinkers and researchers spend a lot of ink reporting and analyzing evidence they believe verifies their view of the social realities that occur in capitalist nations such as that of the US.  In education literature, for example, they provide statistical data and firsthand accounts about how a mal-distribution of income and other resources lead to educational disadvantages of one sort or another for the oppressed classes.  This, for them, signals exploitation and systemic barriers to true equality.

The purest of Marxists bristle at “liberal” solutions to these conditions.  They see programs like Head Start as merely capitalists' strategies to ameliorate the demands of the working classes and a way to forestall the eventual rise of the proletariat which will lead to the overthrow of the capitalist class – the manifestation of the “Marxist scenario.”

Others see liberal or progressive policies as part of a process by which a more socialist governance and economics are approached.  That is, they are socialist “light” policies that serve to making conditions better and at the same time, educate a populous on how socialism is a preferred mode of social policy.  For example, the self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders’ current support of Obamacare can be seen in this light.

Overall, therefore, critical pedagogues see politics as a battle between economic classes.  They complicate this picture with attempts to consider other sources of economic exploitation, such as discrimination and any other form of injustice.  Therefore, they are, for instance, vehemently committed to fighting racism and sexism.

Currently, one can see this battle over health care policy as demonstrating this class struggle.  For example, the bill that just passed the House of Representatives is being described as a tax cut for the super wealthy amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.  One can see this example as how critical theorists see government and politics acting out in the US and around the world.

---

[1] Herbert M. Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum: 1983-1958, (New York, NY: Routledge, 1986).  In terms of Ward’s influence, see Kliebard’s book.  To be clear, Ward promoted the use of positivist protocols in social science research. 

[2] Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2010).  For this last point, see Ravitch’s book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. Ms. Ravitch is not a critical pedagogue and cannot be categorized as a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. But in her book, she gives an excellent description of how business interests are helping to destroy our public-school system.