This posting will be the
last dedicated to critiquing critical theory.
Overall, this blogger believes that this construct and its accompanying critical
pedagogy have contributed a number of positive effects to the field of civics
education and social studies in general.
Mostly, those contributions have been in relation to its focus on the
needs of the disadvantaged, particularly considering how the advantaged have
used their resources to further their economic interests, often at the expense
of the lower classes.
Demonstrating this last
claim, there are ample cases in which the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and big
business in general can take advantage of their ability to hire top rated
attorneys. This representation, in turn,
can protect them against lawsuits and other legal efforts to compensate harm that
average people might suffer at the hands of these entities.[1]
Along with favoring these
“big shots” in tort litigation, they favor contractual agreements and other
provisions of the law that hinder regular people’s rights to gain access to the
courts or, if access is achieved, have favorable decisions rendered. This type of information is what would be
highlighted in a critical education curriculum.
Not only would this
alleged unjust behavior be shared with students, but critical leaning lessons
would analyze what individuals and communities can do about righting these
wrongs. And if done according to
instructional strategies that that construct promulgates, it would be done in
an open discussion format.
This would not only
enhance the knowledge of students but also be useful in developing their
intellectual capabilities. And lest one
forgets, such instruction helps the communal interests of those less advantaged
students since part of the lesson is to teach and encourage students to
actively engage in political action – praxis – which targets those who can
authoritatively right the wrongs of any exploitive conditions.
But this blogger does see
that the approach suffers from certain shortcomings. For one, the construct is situated upon an
array of assumptions that its adherents apply to the debate over curricular
issues including its instructional methodology.
For example, he once debated a critical pedagogue over whether the US
Constitution is a slave document or not.
Admittedly, it was mostly
a semantic argument, but words are important.
To give readers the summary substance of that argument, the critical
pedagogue claimed that by permitting slavery to not only exist but flourish and,
by doing so, it promoted the enslavement of African descendants. This
blogger argued that the Constitution did accommodate slavery – in some very
meaningful ways – but it did not mandate it and, with the structure and values
it promoted, it helped establish the stage for its eventual demise.
Irrespective of how
readers judge this back and forth – if it were limited to two people having a
disagreement, no big deal. But if there
is a corps of teachers believing the nation’s constitution is an exploitive
legal document, this can be a very hurtful assumption or belief. Such conclusions can logically lead to
de-legitimizing arguments or claims being presented to unsophisticated
populations of students and some might reasonably consider that dangerous.
Hopefully, readers do not
believe this type of concern links this blogger with the rhetoric and policies
of Governor Ron DeSantis and his favoring the disallowing of leftist or
critical content in Florida classrooms.
This blogger believes that true liberty is not achieved through
educational censorship, but through the inclusion of as many messages as is
reasonably possible.
This blogger’s concern
with critical pedagogy is that through its questioning – how they, the
questions, are reflective of their ideological beliefs – steer their approach toward
those ideological beliefs and do stack the deck against truly open inquiry. Of course, with such unfettered bias in how
the material is presented or under what context it stands, the accusation of
indoctrination seems justified.
He is not trying to overstate the
case, but he feels, having known critical pedagogues, that in some cases – i.e.,
in terms of some educators – the net effect will be to unduly promote a
political agenda which happens to undermine the legitimacy of the nation’s
political system. That would be bad enough,
but when couched in the language of an issue-centered curriculum, the influence
would be tacit and even more insidious.
How?
This approach, critical pedagogy – has a definite political agenda
backing its efforts. It highly relies on
Marxist biases. While many do not consider
themselves Marxists – and often with good and honest reasons – it is in danger
of precluding the legitimate concerns and constructive contributions
conservatives add to the related debates.
In other words, the approach is too committed to leftist positions as
expressed in the information they tend to provide or in the questioning they
employ.
If the reader
wishes to read more of what critical pedagogues have to say, let this blogger
suggest some names. He believes these writers and their works would be a good
start in delving into critical literature. This list includes, of course, Paulo
Freire, but also Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Jonathan Kozol, Ivan Illich, John
Holt, Peter McLaren, bell hooks, and Ira Shor (who actually bases his writings
on his own classroom experiences). And there are many others.
[1] See for example, Michelle Conlin, Dan Levine, and
Lisa Giron, “Special Report: Why Big
Business Can Count on Courts to Keep Its Deadly Secrets,” Reuters (December 19,
2019), accessed May 27, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-courts-secrecy-lobbyist-specialre/special-report-why-big-business-can-count-on-courts-to-keep-its-deadly-secrets-idUSKBN1YN1GF.
No comments:
Post a Comment