[Note: This posting is subject to further editing.]
An advocate of critical
theory continues his/her presentation …
This blog has been
reviewing how the nation’s prominent view of governance and politics has been challenged
by a leftist perspective. The prominent
view is the natural rights view, and the challenging view is critical theory. The dominant view bolsters the rights of the
individual and can be most succinctly summarized as the belief in the right of
the individual to do what that person wishes as long as by doing so the person
does not interfere with others having the same right.[1]
The
challenging construct, critical theory, in counter distinction, does not
centrally rely on individual liberty, but on equality as its ultimate or trump
value. As a concept, it serves to
organize what this left of center theory espouses. It has been considered as radical
equality in that, in its uncompromising form, it strives to establish equality
of results. Succinctly, that is, the
theory advocates for all people, to a meaningful degree, be able to enjoy
equally what a society offers, its benefits. As Marx stated it: “From each according to his ability, to each according
to his need.”
While
mainline critical literature does not address education extensively, there is
an educational branch to it, that being critical pedagogy. And to further this tie between theory and
educational practice, the concerns of critical theory overlap or can be
considered related to civics’ topics. If one merely considers the above
description, one can see the connection.
Overlapping topics include multiculturalism, sexism, classism, and even
teacher training among other concerns.
In
the following quote, the following point is made: civic issues underlie what is
typically reported in 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. [2]
This is a fancy way to
say critical educators are immersed with the nuts and bolts of what constitutes
civics education.
But
a question remains: in what way does critical
theory challenge directly the claimed threat that natural rights view poses on
equality? The basic position of the dominant
view sanctions that people go about their business as they think best if they
allow others the same leeway. This seems
fairly neutral or not offensive. Critical
theory does not agree.
Its
advocates claim that natural rights view encourages and upholds the prevailing
distribution of power, dominance, and wealth which is highly and unjustly
concentrated in the upper classes and among the dominant racial/ethnic group. That group would be Anglo white men and to a lesser
degree, Anglo white women. In that mode
of argument, natural rights proponents further support pure capitalism and an
almost total reliance on positivist studies – science – as the source of what
one needs to know or how one should go about securing such knowledge (a claim also
known as scientism).
In
critical pedagogy – as a central attribute – insists that students engage in targeted
inquiries in which they question, research, analyze (in holistic ways), and form
workable conclusions as to the degree the dominant group is oppressive. Of central importance would be the
following:
·
the ongoing deprivation
of equality as is evident in the resulting societal conditions one can readily
observe,
·
the ongoing socialization
of oppressive values among not only the upper segments of society but also the
oppressed segments,
·
the maintenance of
legitimacy of the system among all segments of the population through the use
of language, and
·
securing the processes
of value formulation on an individual basis with little or no concern for the
consequences such socialization (instruction) has had on the interests of the
total populous.[3]
Summarily, schools and
their instruction, under the dominant view, are to advance the interests of the
upper classes or other advantaged groups to the detriment of those not so
advantaged.
Under
this challenging view, critical theory, on what should students concentrate
their attention? Critical theorists would
have people’s attention, including students, on language through the discourses
one encounters among the populace. Prevailing
uses of language, they feel, set up the context elements in which people’s
thoughts develop and actions occur. How
people talk about things goes a long way in setting the parameters of what is
acceptable and expected among them. In
addition, such effects, to a great extent, happen on subconscious levels.
Valerie
Pang, Geneva Gay, and William Stanley[4]
share examples of how ongoing living occurrences affect the common ways people
judge prevalent oppressive conditions. They report that in their reflecting or
acting, in relation to minorities or other non-advantaged populations, the dominant
society participates in a range of unjust practices and policies that maintain the
conditions that sustain these unjust relationships. Often this happens quite subconsciously. These
writers identify several ways this happens.
Here
is a partial listing of those ways:
·
One, they include
community formation where exclusion of unwanted members is accomplished. That
exclusion can be on ethnic, racial, social, and cultural grounds. The plethora
of gated communities can be seen in this light.
·
Two, the dominant
group in America, Anglo men and women, are usually unaware of the advantages
they enjoy in society. As such, they are not cognitively or emotionally aware of
the systematic disadvantages under which oppressed groups suffer.
·
Three, the “bootstrap”
myth (ability to gain suitable income levels through effort and hard work),
which is dependent on a significant level of individualism, ignores the
essential role community support plays in assisting the advantaged members of
the society. The dominant natural rights discourse utilizes language replete
with reductionist, oversimplified beliefs. As for the “American Dream,” what
meaning does that image have in the complex world of inner cities and their
realities?
·
Four, too often the
accepted rationalizations embedded in the dominant discourses make it
psychologically impossible for prejudicial members of the dominant group (a
significant subgroup) to see themselves as prejudicial. Instead, they can
convince themselves that the blame for the economic misfortune of others is due,
in their version of the truth, to non-factors such as the culture of poverty.
The standard policy has been to destroy the culture of oppressed people and
assimilate them to mainstream norms and ethos which can be described as replete
with mythological language.
·
And five, ample,
subtle incidences of segregation still plague the nation as when, for example,
minority students are inordinately encouraged to choose vocational courses and
programs in schools. Constantly seeking “magic bullet” solutions which do
little to solve the complex public-school woes can be seen as part of this
deceiving language.[5]
Critical pedagogy claims that the dominant discourse supports all of these
oppressive realities.
As
for the meaning of the term, discourses, first one needs to consider the
context in which the term is used. That
is, critical theorists are referring to privileged members using language, in
its various forms, to maintain not only their privileged positions in society,
but also the continuance of the system that allows for their positions to exist. In that they sponsor verbal strategies aimed
at presenting their preferred states of affairs to seem rational and natural.
The language used portrays myths as obvious facts in describing not only a view
of what is, but also of what should be.
Their language reflects how they wish society will continue to function.
Critical
theory and, in schools, critical pedagogy has been at the forefront of identifying
and attacking oppressive language. Defenders of the dominant language and of the
social conditions that language protects have attempted to delegitimize those
who critique them. These attacks, in
turn, use different linguistic strategies that include the claim that many of
these attacks are examples of “political correctness.”
Of
late an array of new terms seem to be expressing opposing claims where one side
might use the term “woke,” the other might blurt out “gas-lighting.” The discourse battles continue quite
aggressively and this blogger, for one, finds trying to keep up with the
terminology a challenge in and of itself.
Possibly continuing these blog efforts will insist he stay abreast of
these linguistic turns.
[1] While Locke is the
often-cited source for this view, actually a distinction between Locke’s
contribution and that of Thomas Hobbes can be made. The first is more respective of duties
associated with those rights (and of natural law), while Hobbes is not. Unfortunately, according to this blogger, too
many Americans in their beliefs side with Hobbes.
[2] 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.
[3] Neil O. Houser and Jeffrey 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.
[4] Valerie O. Pang, Geneva Gay, and William
B. Stanley, “Expanding Conceptions of Community and Civic Competence for a
Multicultural Society,” Theory and
Research in Social Education, 23, 4 (Fall 1995), 302-331.
[5] See 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). Ravitch is not a critical educator, but her
study of the failure of current efforts to solve public-school problems,
through market solutions, convincingly supports the claim being made.
No comments:
Post a Comment