Interrogating Critical Pedagogy

The Voices of Educators of Color in the Movement

Pierre Wilbert Orelus, Rochelle Brock, Pierre Wilbert Orelus, Rochelle Brock

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317684640
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Éducation
• Thema: Théorie et pratique de l'éducation

Educators, teacher practitioners, and social activists have successfully used critical pedagogy as a tool to help marginalized students develop awareness and seek alternative solutions to their poor educational and socioeconomic situations. However, this theory is often criticized as being mostly dominated by privileged white males, bringing issues of race and gender to the forefront. This volume provides insight on how critical pedagogy can be helpful to scholars and teachers alike in their analysis of racial, gender, linguistic and political problems. It features a wide range of respected scholars who examine the way and the degree to which critical pedagogy can be used to improve education for students of color, women and other marginalized groups.

Part I

1 Critical Pedagogy of Experience, Caught in the Loops of Seeing and Being

Refusing to Give Up Until the Job Is Done

Leila E. Villaverde and Roymieco A. Carter

The work in this book is timely, for critical pedagogy has an ample history to draw from and hold accountable. Critical pedagogy literature has been in circulation since the late 1960s if not earlier, and as students often ask, “Why hasn’t it changed the educational landscape?” Although a good question, it’s not one easily answered. Despite the work of critical pedagogues, the systemic inequity and institutionalization of education is a behemoth. In many ways critical pedagogy has failed us, and we have failed its mission. The reality is that critical pedagogues have fought upstream, taught against the grain, and still find themselves dissatisfied or unfulfilled and in unchanging contexts. Others are held back in the face of student, family, colleague or administrator resistance. In any variation of the preceding, critical pedagogy is situated and questioned; it is not as though there is a lack of ideas, literature or examples, yet the sheer labor of sustaining it positions critical pedagogy as expendable. So many are caught in the endless loops of seeing these incongruencies and inequities, of being in the midst of such political warfare and blindness, and clearly being committed to creating a better way. Contrary to many who may believe criticality is lacking, we are fairly convinced it exists albeit to varying degrees. Where we see the biggest chasm is in application, living out exactly what recognizing criticality entails. We are moved to take risks in calling things as we see them; this is obviously not without cost, and we mobilize a substantial amount of courage to provoke these conditions. But given the many times we hear folks say, “Be the change you wish to see in the world,”¹ we thought to contribute a significant experiment toward teaching to the change desired inside and outside. In this chapter we chart critical pedagogy as a terrain, in order to clearly see where and how it has germinated, illustrate (futurist) teaching to change, and offer a brief media analysis study as an example of curricular potential.

Critical Pedagogy: Mapping the Terrain

Scholars such as McLaren and Kincheloe’s (2007) Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now? and Darder, Baltodano, and Torres’s (2008) The Critical Pedagogy Reader have reflected on the field and its copious contributions. The literature extends from neoliberal critique to classroom practice, community organizing, and research methodologies. The reach and depth of critical pedagogy is undeniable both nationally and internationally as evidenced through the Freire Project and the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. Some teacher education programs devote courses to critical pedagogy or foundations of education, yet it’s not the pervasive theoretical thrust, although graduate programs seem to give it much more credence (Brownlee Dell, 2014). The greater point here is that despite the vast range of work out in critical pedagogy, higher education and K–12 schools continue to disinvest in these possibilities. American education, as a whole, is struggling; more testing and standards do not fix the achievement gap (if you buy into that) or inequities in tax-base resources for schools. The increased technocratization of teacher professionalism further deskills educators, and such attempts at “improvement” are detrimental to the development of a critical consciousness and praxis (Kincheloe, 1993; Leistyna, Woodrom, & Sherblom, 1999). The curriculum is narrowed with each policy (No Child Left Behind, Common Core State Standard Initiative, Race to the Top, Reaching to Achieve, etc.), and both teachers and students feel less and less capable. This would be somewhat manageable if schooling wasn’t as pervasive and omnipresent as it is: too many life decisions are determined on one’s performance through school. It might be tolerable if these were conduits/means to a progressive end and if somehow these educational trends furnished learned and knowledgeable citizens ready for the future (not recapitulating as is and has been). So in many ways critical pedagogy has failed us as wholeheartedly as it is touted. We know that critical pedagogy, by itself, is not enough; still we stick with it; deal with the difficulties, as well as challenges; and resist walking away prematurely.

Critical pedagogues have endeavored to understand this de-skilling and deeply analyzed the forces working to maintain status quo practices, but the field has not dedicated as much time to its insufficiency. Theorists from a variety of interests rest on similar grounds, students are better served through an engaged pedagogy (hooks, 1994) and pedagogy is about expanding the nature of knowledge, what is legitimized, circulated and known. The sociopolitical forces producing a narrow rendition of curricula reduce discussions on pedagogy to methods or gimmicks to entertain students, while critical pedagogy aims to expand the ability to wrestle with/think through content and recognize the necessary connections to the social, economic, historical and political dynamics. Critical pedagogy has always regarded power as a pedagogical terrain. In contrast traditional methodologies of education attempt to flatten access to critical analysis, obscuring the production and reproduction of power while investing more on the bureaucratization of power. It seems evident that plenty of tools exist to focus on the insufficiency of critical pedagogy in the landscape of such regressive politics. For one, this climate isn’t new, precisely because of the significant residue left from previous incarnations; it is even more stifling now. The confluence of a troubled economy and restrictive politics dramatically lessens the tolerance for possibility or turns a blind eye toward it. Methods that would provide critique and fervor around unjust practices are suppressed, so it becomes imperative to shift gears entirely, thus, the reason behind a newly energized focus on vocational training as the sole purpose of higher education. This strategic move forces the humanities and liberal arts to rationalize their subsistence and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines hurry to capitalize. Not great, but effective, and once again faculty, students and communities are fractured and conquered. We don’t argue for our interdependency, for the absolute necessity of juxtapositions in the production of knowledge and innovation. Once again we are invited to outsmart the system while tiring of it. So how can we employ critical pedagogy in the service of the change we need to see?

Futurist Teaching, Teaching Toward Future(ISTIC) Thinking

The majority of teaching is geared to the past while cloaked in a futuristic, aka “21st century” rhetoric. Since we are already in the 21st century, many contradictions arise. Why would anyone want to teach for the sanctity of the past? Teaching through and with the past is an entirely necessary project, but maintaining its vestiges takes on a different exclusive tenor. It is amazing that we can sit with our peers in the academy and revel in the comforts of the past, stabilized by the leverage of rightness. Then we stand in front of young (and not so young) people asking questions that have not changed in the last 40 years as students are caught between the behavioral outcomes and the weight of institutional knowledge. How many students understand that they are being prepared for a world that existed for their parents, if not their grandparents? We have witnessed a growing apathy within many educational spaces and one rationale might be the rise in what Ulrick Beck (1992) calls the “risk society.” What we witness through this concept is the growth of a generation that breaks with previous industrial societies. The reflection of “progress” then casts an image of bellowing smokestacks and a steady flow of workers moving in and out of buildings around the clock with mechanical efficiency. The job was the end goal of education. Subsequently, industry shifted and cried out for an “intelligent” workforce, a labor force that would be prepared to solve problems, as they arise, yet not sufficiently intellectually curious to question why they were in a cycle of mundane repetition in the first place.

As the manual workforce gave way to corporate structures, agency spurred as workers reflected on their relationships to the workplace. They saw themselves as primary agents of meaning, not the workplace itself and this eroded blind loyalty to it as well (Beck, 1992). This gives way to many opportunities for interrogation and analysis. We would be remiss if we left this illustration intact without disrupting the seeming forward progress. Simply because agency increased, corporations took hold and manufacturing plants changed, didn’t mean a layered and interdependent society was created. Today we see evidence of Beck’s traditional societies, early modernity, late/reflexive modernity and postmodernity, yet we can’t dislodge from these images, from the comforts of security these were said to promise. Problematically these comforts act as simultaneous restraints, holding back the agents they created in the name of abstract individualism and economic autonomy. Revealing these contradictions is important, not in order to condone the manufacturing of social drones or positivist new agents of oppression but to underscore how wedded we are to particular structures and our obsession with managing risk. Taking risks, having the courage and intellectual reasoning to do so contributes to an innovative and forward-thinking society, not one that is stuck in the past but one who uses it.

What if we stopped asking technology, corporate and for profit agencies to fix our educational system? What if we opted to engage the minds, bodies and spirits of students through risk? What if we asked for students to assist us in our commitment to questioning and attempting to comprehend the unknowns of the world? What if we took time for serious play and taught students the value of strategic risks and understanding failures through critical reflection? Kincheloe’s (2003) writings and personal narratives relay tales of subversion and agency by refusing to stand over students as a pillar of knowledge that casts shadows over them blocking any chance to witness the possibilities of accessing (for themselves) knowledge directly. If we refuse the social manufacturing of heroism and present an image of collective strength to students, they are encouraged to understand the mutual implication of indoctrination and to find a catalyst for their production of knowledge. To reveal the multidimensionality of teaching to the future, certain factors are imperative—committing to interdisciplinary practice, using the imagination as a way of knowing and being a participant with your students. What does it mean to be with your students? At minimum, it means you avoid situations that remove you from the opportunities to produce new knowledge with them. Privilege all queries as well as multiple answers; realize with students when a question amplifies the spirit and power of knowledge production within any given space. It is important to realize how indispensable taking risks is and what this means to enacting critical pedagogy, demanding the apt switch and interplay between various roles in the learning process. You will find yourself simultaneously inside and outside of the experience. The ability to flow in and out creates an equilibrium that provides security where students can realize the pain of failure is temporary and resilience can develop for all involved. Education, as a critical endeavor, can advance a better society, and Marcuse (2001), speaking to this engages Kant’s stated goal, “that children be educated, not in accordance with the present but that of a future, better condition of the human race, namely, in accordance with the idea of humanitas ” (p. 77).

Sure, this may sound fanciful, but we propose that these are real/material outcomes of a practice that has been celebrated by so many individuals and often hesitantly adopted as an educational shift in culture. Marcuse (2001) explains this resistance in The Individual in the Great Society and the inherent subversive element in Kant’s work, yet believes the success of such a shift depends on the active participations of its citizens. For instance, take any group of people anywhere in the world where a common experience is playing itself out. The group members are stumped as they seek answers to a posed question or situation. Then an exciting thing happens. Someone in the group rephrases the question. The energy previously siphoned only moments before is reversed and replaced by a surge of responses and associations. What just happened? Why did it happen? What does the future have to do with it? The rupture that takes place whenever ideas surge forward and sweep everyone into the creative impulse is the inspiration to change, to participate, to be in the midst of change. It is the permission to move past where you are and to attempt to see possibilities, even if they are far-fetched. It is a “break with the past,” an all too common phrase on the verge of losing its potency because of its overuse. Politicians, business leaders, social theorists, artists, critics and, ironically, religious leaders have asked others to imagine the new and “break from the past.” Alvin Toffler’s (1971) Future Shock addresses both the ways in which sociopolitical forces shape our thinking and how decentered society becomes as this is revealed and change occurs: “We must learn how they alter the texture of existence, hammering our lives and psyches into new and unfamiliar shapes. We must understand how—and why—they confront us, for the first time, with the explosive potential of future shock” (p. 18). In this text Toffler reveals several points for us to mull over; he lays clear the presence of a puppet master; of an agenda mediating our experiences and the resistance, disbelief/shock and seduction of a different future; and of the potential in the unknown which requires breaks with the past. This invitation into the future undoubtedly requires a radical shift in thinking, one that invites sustainability and the ability to see an unfulfilled promise as reason to move forward and dedicate to a new vision. Where the shock surges is critically important, analyzing whether the source of alarm is produced from recognizing strings are attached or whether the direction of change is the larger issue. Discerning multiple intentions and perspectives is essential in futurist thinking; one question leads to another, and binaries are dispelled.

As an example for futurist thinking, let’s look at testing. Testing is a typical part of institutional learning, a measuring stick for progress and an evaluative measure to monitor the basic effectiveness of content saturation and immediate knowing, allegedly. To generally refuse to test because it’s antiquated and a poor indicator for many who do not test well as a result of any number of social, personal and behavioral reasons may be missing the point entirely. If testing is used, should it not clearly highlight the goals for learning and measuring competencies in this way? Should we be willing to closely analyze what is desired from the test and how effective it is towards achieving those results? Could we actually consider other methods of testing (cooperative testing) that are not so divisive or restrictive? Testing is a major point of contention in American public schools and in institutions of higher education, so this is no easy feat. However, critically analyzing “testing” might reveal that the problem is not just the test as a mechanism or the act of testing as catalyst to anxiety, personal image and stress for students that is the problem. We hyper-focus on testing and lose sight on educating all while losing professional ground in discerning which measure of evaluation is best suited for x, y or z. We also obscure the evident problems with a single gauge for competency or performance. In addition to these considerations, tests are used to augment academic funding models for American schools, and there is a wide range of stakeholders including educational administrators, teachers, students, parents, local, regional and national politicians all vying for their perspective. It’s not su...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Series page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Introduction Critical Pedagogy at the Race and Gender Crossroads
• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Contributors
• Index