The Critical Turn in Education: Writer's Introduction Analysis
The Key Movers of Critical Pedagogy
Summary: Writer’s Introduction
Gottesman starts by introducing us to the key individuals in Critical Pedagogy whose ideas he will cover in the six chapters of his book. He mentions some minor figures who made relevant contributions, but who do not have a significant place in this account. He then describes three additional “conversations,” or institutions that have been impacted by this educational philosophy
The Key Developments
Chapter 1 covers Paulo Freire, author of the influential The Pedagogy of the Oppressed1. While the conventional wisdom in the field holds that Freire is the father of Critical Pedagogy, Gottesman argues that Freire’s influence in educational research and practice was minimal until the 1980s (more than a decade after his work was first translated to English). Gottesman contends that Henry Giroux (more on him later) is the true founder of Critical Pedagogy, but it was exposure to Freire’s Neo-Marxist educational philosophy that inspired Giroux to found Critical Pedagogy.
Before covering the founder of Critical Pedagogy, the book covers some early Marxian analysis of education. The two works he cites are Schooling in Capitalist America2, by Herbert Bowels and Samuel Gintis, and Radical Possibliites3, by Jean Anyon. While these writers may have had ideas about using schools as a way to raise class consciousness, their chief concern seems to have been to formulate the ways in which education contributes to class oppression and other inequities. In this sense, they weren’t really turning education “Critical” as much as subjecting existing education to Critical (Marxian) analysis.
The focus of the third chapter is Michael Apple and his work Ideology and Curriculum4. Gottesman argues that the ideas of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci should be considered alongside those of Michael Apple. It was Gramsci who first understood the role that cultural institutions play in protecting a society from Marxist Revolution and that the Marxists would need to engage in a “long march through the (cultural) institutions” if they wanted to achieve their utopian revolution. One of the main institutions Gramsci identified was education. It appears that Michael Apple was one of the key figures who put Gramsci’s ideas into practice.
After laying the groundwork, the book comes to the founder of Critical Pedagogy, Henry Giroux. Gottesman characterizes this development in education as being “post-Marxist.” While he doesn’t explain this fully, the main contribution from Giroux was to bring the perspective of Paolo Freire into the existing Neo-Marxist thought circles in education. It was bringing the Freirean elements into education that constituted the formation of Critical Pedagogy.
Next comes a discussion of the ideas that were incorporated into Critical Pedagogy after it was formed. The individuals most identified with bringing poststructuralist feminism into education are Elizabeth Elsworth, Kathleen Weiler, and Patti Lather. Poststructuralist feminism is considered a postmodern project more than a Neo-Marxist one, but for Critical Pedagogy it provided an expansion of the methods and content by which educators could raise critical consciousness. In particular, the idea of “standpoint epistemology” was an essential addition to Critical Pedagogy. Standpoint epistemology is the ultimate origin of claims that because science was largely formed from the standpoint of white males, it is just one “way of knowing.” On this view there are other ways of knowing that must be considered as authoritative as science.
In the last chapter we have a discussion of the incorporation of Critical Race Theory into Critical Pedagogy. Rather than essentialize the contributions of Critical Race Theory to Critical Pedagogy, we’re told of “tensions” between different scholars in this area. Gottesman indicates that there were two competing camps within Critical Race Theory, that of Gloria Ladson-Billings and William Tate (I am slightly familiar with these two due to their paper Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education5), and the position of Daniel Solorzano and Tara Yosso (whom I am not familiar with). I’m interested to see how Gottesman characterizes these different positions and whether or not there is anything essentially different between them, or if they’re quibbling over details.
Finally, Gottesman mentions a few other figures he believes made important contributions, but are not included in the book, among them are postmodernist philosopher Michel Foucault, Critical Educators Peter McLaren and Thomas Popkewitz, and C.A. Bowers, who originated “eco-pedagogical approaches.”
The Three Conversations
We’re told of the three different “conversations” that this book contributes to, by which Gottesman seems to mean that these are areas where Critical Pedagogy has exerted a noteworthy, but often unrecognized, influence. First is the history of American education. The book argues that it shows that even though figures like Dewey and Thorndike are seen as the main thinkers driving the development of American education, there was a prominent role played by radical, Marxist advocates of Critical Pedagogy in the development of education in this country.
The second conversation is with the leftist radicals in the academy. He indicates that the key figures of the New Left largely went into the social science and humanities departments of Universities. Gottesman contends that the work done in the departments of education played an essential role in the general infiltration of Marxists into the academy.
Lastly, the book can contribute to conversations surrounding the development of educational systems outside of the United States. This was interesting to me because it related to a question I had after reading Apple’s introduction: How far has Critical Pedagogy spread? We learn that many English-speaking countries underwent a similar “critical turn” as the US. There’s not a lot to go on here, but it’s possible that the spread of Critical Pedagogy can shed light on the seemingly schizophrenic actions of Western school systems during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Repeated Terms
Given the largely descriptive nature of Gottesman’s introduction, he didn’t use many crossover terms connected to specific courses of action. He did mention “Social Justice,” “Hegemony,” and “Ideology” but these terms weren’t used in connection with the ideas of Critical Pedagogy, just as common descriptors used by Critical Scholars. I’ll wait until I see them used in context to do a deeper analysis.
However, Gottesman does employ two terms that I’ve seen used by Critical Race Theorists and other advocates of Critical Social Justice: Praxis and Intersectionality. I think understanding both terms is essential to understanding the mindset and practice of Critical Pedagogy. Credit to James Lindsay on New Discourses6 for excellent coverage of these ideas.
Praxis
Origin and Simple Definition: From what I understand, the incorporation of this idea of “praxis” into Critical Social Justice Theories goes back to the Neo-Marxian Frankfurt School. Broadly speaking it means that any “Critical Theory” must incorporate implementation of the ideas into the Theory itself. You can’t just talk about it—you must inject it into society. For the Neo-Marxists, this boiled down to raising a critical consciousness in people throughout society. While the meaning of praxis has more nuance in application for the different Critical Social Justice Theories, it amounts to the same thing: find a way to get people to see how oppressive the system is.
In Critical Pedagogy: The underlying goal is to use education as an institution that raises consciousness. Praxis is how they do that. Some examples are:
Putting Critical Educators into positions of authority in schools of education or teachers’ unions
Including aspects within the curriculum that contribute to consciousness raising in children (The 1619 Project is a prime example)
Making social activism part of the curriculum by having students be required to advocate for particular social or political changes like minimum wage laws, racial equity policies, or other such examples.
Avoiding transparency to parents about the extent of Critical Social Justice in the curriculum
Establishing officers of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in schools
Requiring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion statements as part of the hiring process for teachers
Requiring sensitivity/discrimination training designed by Critical Theorists as part of the onboarding and advancement processes for teachers.
The idea behind praxis in education is to bring the thoughts of prospective teachers and advancing students closer into line with the ideas of Critical Social Justice. Anything that achieves this goal is successful praxis.
Intersectionality
This term lends itself to the motte and bailey treatment a bit more because the initial formulation by Crenshaw made some valid observations, but the idea of intersectionality is used in a horrifying way.
Motte: Discrimination can exist against many different groups, individuals who are members of multiple discriminated groups may also face discrimination unique to the combination (e.g., black women or Jewish bankers). The way these forms of discrimination interact are important identifications to make and to consider when thinking about the unfair burdens that people face.
Bailey: An individual's core essence can be seen as the intersection of the different identity groups that they are a part of (rather than the product of their choices or character). A person’s character and convictions will flow predictably from the number of oppressed (or oppressor) groups that they belong to. Knowledge of a person’s intersectional groupings is the only essential thing to know about them because everything else will derive from that.
Strategy: Within the idea of intersectionality is a call for solidarity among the marginalized groups of people. They won’t always be in agreement about specific things to advocate for, but certainly in the view that the correct way to evaluate people is by judging the extent to which they are oppressed. The idea of intersectionality is what establishes the “progressive stack,” a sort of pecking order in which higher status is granted to those who are “oppressed” to a greater degree. Furthermore, it’s this agreement to use “extent of oppression” as a standard of virtue that unifies all the Critical Theories, into a Critical Social Justice movement.
Seizing the Motte and Bombing the Bailey: That these unique forms of discrimination exist is a fact. Perhaps one that changes how you think about certain issues or interpret the claims of certain people. These unique forms of discrimination do not substitute for the ideas and character of an individual. Illogical, unsupported ideas are exactly that, regardless of the intersectional discriminations suffered by the speaker. Immoral, thuggish behavior does not become excusable or virtuous because of the racial, gender, or sexual identity of the person engaging in it.
Questions
Early in the Introduction Gottesman indicates that many times they (Critical Educators or Radical Leftists?) “…resort to sloganeering and posturing.” I wonder what he would classify as sloganeering and posturing as against legitimate praxis. I think it comes down to how effective the tactic is. For example, if hurling the accusation that someone is a racist successfully advances their leftist goals, then its praxis. If repeatedly calling everyone and everything racist causes people to take you less seriously, then it’s “sloganeering and posturing.”
Gottesman also claims in his introduction that “It is no exaggeration to say that the world is on fire.” I’m wondering what exactly he’s referring to here. The book was written in 2016, so the Trump hysteria that dominates the left to this day was probably part of it, but I also wonder if he’s referring to something more specific. My guess is that he’s referencing the shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent controversy around Fergusson, but I would be interested if there’s some other imminent threat that he views as essential to oppose. On the other hand, it became almost a leftist trope to be constantly playing the role of Chicken Little, so maybe that’s all Gottesman is doing.
We’re told that Critical Pedagogy has managed to make gains in some of the “most historically conservative areas” of education such as “educational administration and science education.” By “conservative” I take it that he means these were the areas that were less receptive to the ideas of Critical Pedagogy. Why were they harder to capture? How did Critical Pedagogy ultimately make inroads? I think that the Critical Theorists needed more leverage to move their way into these areas. Both science education and education administration were likely resistant to the initial incursions by Critical Pedagogy because they are, by nature, more rooted in reality. The people teaching students about natural laws or keeping the school running likely had less patience with abstract Marxist critiques. Critical pedagogy needed some specialized tools to make its way in.
In science education, I think Critical Pedagogy did this using Climate Alarmism. The causes of climate change are nearly always linked to industrial activities of more capitalist nations, and frequently climate fears serve as a proxy for critiques of capitalism. As a scientific topic, Climate analysis would be appropriate for students who have a solid understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, and meteorology, yet it has been routinely discussed in elementary schools for years. It is even reported that many students today experience psychological disorders associated with their fear of climate change7. The extreme distress surrounding climate coupled with a lack of deep understanding of climate systems is not education, it’s a form of critical consciousness—a “climate consciousness.”
For education administration, I believe the tool was the proliferation of “systemic racism” as a criticism of how an institution is run. Because the meaning of systemic racism is vague, expansive, and ever-changing, the only way to insulate a school from criticism of this nature is to bring Critical Theorists into the administrative apparatus of the schools. Because the cost of being tarred as a “racist institution” is so high, Critical Pedagogy seems to offer a solution in providing specialized administrators that think correctly about issues like racism (they have a critical consciousness). By presenting systemic racism as a problem that pervades all institutions, including schools, the Critical Theorists created a demand for Critical Pedagogy in the training of administrators.
After two dense Introductions, I’m finally ready to dig into the first Chapter of The Critical Turn in Education. I’d be particularly interested if you think the connections between Critical Pedagogy and climate alarmism are convincing. Please leave a comment below!
Image Credit: kurtsik
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trabajando_una_pieza_de_metal_al_rojo_sobre_un_yunque.jpg
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th anniversary ed. New York: Continuum, 2000
Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life. New York: Basic Books, 1976
Anyon, Jean. Radical Possibilities: Public Policy, Urban Education, and a New Social Movement. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Apple, Michael W. Ideology and Curriculum. 3rd ed. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria & Tate, William. (1995). Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 97. 47-68. 10.1177/016146819509700104.
https://newdiscourses.com/2021/07/critical-race-praxis-and-the-weakness-of-liberals/
https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/forging-woke-one-ring-kimberle-crenshaws-mapping-margins/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02582-8