Critical Pedagogy

Critical Pedagogy

1. “We can no longer afford schools peopled by educators who act without being conscious of their assumptions, their choices, and the likely consequences.” (Hinchey, 4)

One of Hinchey’s main points in “Becoming a Critical Educator” is that teachers need to spend a lot of time analyzing their beliefs and their actions. Hinchey argues that teachers need to be aware that their “ideas about what is normal, or right, or good, are the products of life experiences rather than universal laws” (25). The fact that there are no universal laws dictating what is right, good, and normal may be difficult for some people to accept; and impossible for others. For example, religion provides people with instructions from omniscient gods regarding what is right, good, and normal. There are many people who will never accept the possibility that the values of a ‘strange’ culture could possibly be “normal, or right, or good.” My first reaction to this problem is to hope that this kind of person never becomes a teacher. However, employing the tools of critical consciousness, I realize that even their value system of cultural superiority is worthy of my respect, understanding, and embrace. We are responsible to embrace not only the students who do not value education, but also to embrace those students who value hatred and intolerance. If we truly accept that we cannot know universal laws of morality, we cannot assume that hatred is immoral and deplorable. Taking critical consciousness to its extreme extension; I think that being a truly critical educator does require the embrace of those who hate. We must interact with our students in ways that respect their values; we must approach them with curiosity and validate their inherent worth. A student who hates is a student who needs love and acceptance. It is likely that developing a positive and supportive relationship with a hateful student will do more to alleviate his hatred than any amount of punitive consequences ever could.

2. “By robbing students of their culture, language, history, and values, schools often reduce these students to the status of subhumans who need to be rescued from their ‘savage’ selves” (Bartolome, 411).

Questions that have filled my head since I decided that I wanted to be a teacher have mostly been about how to control the disruptive students, the students who pass notes, the students who have private conversations during lessons. Critical consciousness provides a tool for control that is not overtly controlling. To teach a student who does not value learning requires exploring that student, discovering his personal values and interests, and using that information to connect him with the academic material in a way that he finds enjoyable or at least tolerable. Bartolome goes further to suggest that not only is this critical approach useful academically, but that it is essential in promoting social equality and transforming the status quo. When the subordinated culture is perpetually treated as ‘savage’, it is perpetually held in a subordinate position. Critical pedagogy forces us to embrace all students to help them realize their true potential and sense their individual worth.

3. “The most pedagogically advanced strategies are sure to be ineffective in the hands of educators who implicitly or explicitly subscribe to a belief system that renders ethnic, racial, and linguistic minority students at best culturally disadvantaged and in need of fixing, or, at worst, culturally or genetically deficient and beyond fixing” (Bartolome, 414).

This raises an important question, if a culture does not value education, what is the role of the educator in educating a student of such a culture? We can interact with students in socially meaningful ways and attempt to provide some educational nourishment. But, can we impose upon them a barrage of academia with the expectation that they will embrace it as we have? If a student does not value education, are we not forced to subordinate that value system to our own? The very fact that we are teachers sends a clear message that we value education. How can we simultaneously respect and embrace the values of those who do not value education and yet educate them at the same time? If it is our responsibility to enlighten them to the value of education, then we must subordinate their values; if it is our responsibility to validate their values, then our socially constructed knowledge becomes meaningless and we begin to wonder why we became teachers and not philosophers. I am being somewhat cynical here, but also genuinely curious as to how a teacher goes about balancing these two seemingly opposing ideas.

4. “Knowledge is a social construction deeply rooted in a nexus of power relations” (McLaren, 409)

I enjoy thinking about the fact that knowledge is socially constructed. First, from a scientific perspective, it is quite interesting to realize that the universe as we observe it with our natural senses is quite different from the universe we know through scientific instruments. We know, for example, that what we see as color is really just differences in the amount of energy carried by waves of light; the idea of color is created entirely by our senses and our brain based on what specific energy levels of light were most relevant to our survival as animals. From a more educationally relevant perspective, our knowledge in academic areas is also socially constructed. While all knowledge is based on what we observe with our senses, the interactions of people constructing the greater body of human knowledge plays an important role in what information is valued. Much of human history, for example, has been documented and preserved according to obvious cultural bias. McLaren argues that we are not capable of constructing knowledge outside of the influence of others because “we do not stand before the social world; we live in the midst of it.” This context creates a body of knowledge that is bias in nature, and is imposed according to bias. What is worth knowing is what the dominant culture says is worth knowing, anything else is irrelevant and a waste of time. Educators must recognize that the curriculum they are assigned is created according to the dominant culture’s values. It is the responsibility of educators to always make connections to other cultures. I suspect that achieving this goal is easier than it sounds; a bounty of cultures sits before a teacher each day, a rich wilderness of hidden cultural knowledge at the fingertips of the teacher waits to be engaged in interactive learning.

5. “Teaching is like a Chinese lyric painting, not a bus schedule” (Ohanian, 109)

I never expected that teaching could be more challenging than science. Teaching is so challenging because it lacks the concrete facts and procedures that characterize math and science. When I sit down in a math class, I can expect the procedures to be straightforward and easy to follow—even if they are complicated and tedious. When I think about teaching, I realize now that there is no fixed procedure, there are barely even any fixed guidelines! As Dr. Love says, you can feel like you are out “in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.” We are learning some very general guidelines, but for the most part, we must take what we learn and put it together in our own unique way. It is exciting; it provides great opportunity for creativity and innovation. At the same time, it is terrifying, as responsibility for failure lies on our shoulders as teachers; we are responsible for the failure of our created strategies and methods. Teaching, at times, even seems impossible. How can you possibly grab the attention of a classroom filled with completely different people with completely different interests? The exciting part is that it is possible, and a masterful artist can accomplish the task! The terrifying part is that you won’t ever be that masterful artist!

6. “Surplus powerlessness is perpetuated through a process of ‘self-blaming.’ This is thinking that all our problems, such as stresses and frustrations at work and at home, are the result of our own inadequacies and failures and that it is our responsibility to fix them by ourselves” (Irwin, 34).

Certainly, continuing my previous thought, few of us will become masterful educational artists overnight. Irwin talks about domination, powerlessness, and how when we think we have less power than we really do we have “surplus powerlessness.” Part of becoming a masterful artist is collaborating with other artists, exploring the craft from different perspectives, having opportunities to see what works and what doesn’t work without having to take all of the risks in trying new things yourself. Furthermore, Irwin says, “the myth of meritocracy is what provides the rationale for self-blaming and encourages isolation.” Teachers tend to be particularly isolated in their profession, and consequently, particularly hard on themselves when they experience failure. Irwin advocates the construction of collaborative and supportive communities in creating a sense of ‘power-with’ in social organizations. It seems that such a community of teachers could do much better in educating children than a meritocratic group of teachers competing with each other. I think that modern educators fall somewhere in between meritocracy and collaborative communities. Many teachers have good relationships with each other and talk about their kids, but few accept the possibility that their colleagues might actually have better ideas about how to teach than they might have previously thought of.

7. “As long as we believe in the myths of scarcity and the variability of human worth, then the meritocracy will make sense to us” (Irwin, 65).

This last quote really makes me think about the fundamental structure of our society. The “myth of scarcity” says that there aren’t enough resources for everyone and that we must fight for what exists; the myth of the “variability of human worth” says that some people are worth more than others. If we accept that these two myths, are in fact myths, we are left wondering where to go next. If there are enough resources for everyone, why aren’t we sharing? If all people have equal worth, why are some starving and others are gluttonous to the point of self destruction? If we create a society based on equality, what happens to competition and progress? While there are probably enough fundamental resources for everybody, there are probably not enough resources for everybody to live lives of luxury and indulgence. How much are people willing to sacrifice so that all people can live comfortably? Are we willing to sacrifice the rate of technological progress, when technology can help us solve many social and global problems? Perhaps these questions are all part of the meritocratic ideology, perhaps these questions sound ignorant from the perspective of an equal and collaborative society. Perhaps progress and luxury are easily attained when all people are truly valued for their strengths and have their basic physical and psychological needs met.