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.
