Monday, September 26, 2016
October 10...The Beyond Critique Readings
I want to keep this as open-ended as possible, so please post about the reading (some possible directions you might go: what sort of emotional/affective reaction do you have to what you are learning about critical theory? how do you like Levinson's approach? has/how has his discussion and diagram about theory helped you to think about critical theory and theory in general?). Please post twice and make at least the second post primarily a reaction to or dialogue with other posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading Levison’s chapters was a great refresher on Marx, Weber, and other theorists that touch on sociology and critical issues. As someone who is more a practitioner than a theorist, I could totally relate to his explanation (on p. 7) that social theory is pretty abstract (especially to practitioners) yet needs to continually be tied to practice in order for it to be relevant. He’s sees the role of theory in education as a way to create dialogue about what’s happening in our practices. I agree that there needs to be constant dialogue about the social issues that affect our classrooms. Many times teachers close their doors and teach in isolation hoping that the issues the students bring to the classroom are left outside. This is not helping anyone (teachers, students, parents) and could just create more social issues as students try to live two separate lives between home and school.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed reading about the idea of “structured domination” which I think, although he didn’t use those terms, could tie nicely to Bourdieu’s social field theory with habitus, fields, and doxa. As you mentioned last week, once you really like a theorist you start to tie their ideas to everything you read and see. So maybe I am too much of a Boudieu fan but I do think change is hard, especially if you are the only one wanting to change. For instance, in our “Theorizing Back” group, Donia is looking at first year teachers and the voice (or lack there of) that they have in some buildings. The field that they are in respects veteran teachers’ voices more than newbies and that domination is enduring. Critical social theory allows us to look at issues like that and make more sense of them rather than just throwing our hands up and not doing anything.
Heather
I also agree that there needs to be dialog between the keepers of the theory and the practitioners, and I believe it just does not happen much in real life. Levinson and his coauthors believe that “the role if theory in educational scholarship is precisely to stimulate dialog with, to continually nourish and be nourished by, the kinds of theories that inform our educational practice” (p. 6). Levinson says the one-way arrows in Figure 1.1 indicate how sociological theory may contribute to everyday theories and movements, but not vice versa (p. 7). Later in the Max Weber section, the characterization of bureaucrats (p. 40) reads like a description of university-affiliated scholars. I wonder if something about the “bureaucratic apparatus” is an impediment to dialog with “ordinary persons” like teachers, or if there’s something in the structure of the two bureaucracies (university and P-12) that obstructs mutual "nourishing".
Delete~ Carolyn
Heather, I think Ross destroyed us, as I too saw Bourdieu in much of the readings.
DeleteYour point about bringing those issues into the classroom is part of my struggle as well. Not that I believe we should shut them out, but how much of that belongs? When is it ok to say as an educator, no, that needs to be left behind for better things?
I haven't taken Ross' class and haven't read much Bourdieu--but I see the connections to our project plans. I'm interested in his ideas about "misrecognition".
DeleteHeather, I agree with much of what you said. I find there is a lot of talk about social issues in schools and ideas that could be helping not only the teachers but also the students but due to the domination and top down theory it is not happening. I think it is important to continue to discuss these issue and encourage action along with those talks. As my group researches and discusses the School to Prison Pipeline, I find the "structured domination" that you discuss to be front and center. Social order is an area that needs to be addressed in our communities in order to help our students in poverty to feel valued and hopeful when they live in the trauma of the circle of poverty in varying cultures. It is hard to separate school and home for these students as they are fighting to survive some or most of the time depending on the situation. - Jodi
ReplyDeleteHey, it’s Laurie.
DeleteI think Jodi and Heather are on the right track with the idea of “structural domination.” It dovetails nicely with the bit on p. 228 about Cornel West’s “politically engaged pragmatism aimed squarely at the cultural and economic divisions of the present age.” It also reminded me of a quote from the book we’re reading in 711, Sarah Ahmed’s On Being Included, about “how something becomes given by not being the object of perception” – like that David Foster Wallace commencement address about fish not knowing that water exists because they’re always in it (http://bulletin.kenyon.edu/x4280.html)
So … in the interest of creating a space for reactions and dialogue … How aware do you think teachers and students in schools affected by the school-to-prison pipeline (and other manifestations of inequality/inequity) are of the structural barriers and obstacles that exist? And what is the impact of that (lack of) awareness?
Laurie, I think your two-part question is so vital to addressing the school-to-prison pipeline. As a person who taught in a school where there were pipeline-esque incidents, I know how frustrating it is to watch administrators act upon situations in ways that are not in the best interest of the student, or the school for that matter (once word gets around and the community no longer trusts that the school will do right by students and families). It becomes difficult to simply teach "your kids" when you know that there are so many others being treated unjustly. It is frustrating and negatively impacts faculty moral, community-building, and trust within the building. I think teachers are quite aware of the structural barriers and obstacles that exist in education, but feel marginalized in their own right, and therefore believe that their voices will not be heard. I would even argue that they themselves are victims of "structural domination."
DeleteI think many students, parents, and even teachers muddle on unaware of the structures in place. They (we) don't often question the system except when it directly inconveniences our role. Transparency would
DeleteTransparency would be necessary for agency.
DeleteKim here:
ReplyDeleteI find critical social theory really attractive in its marriage of theory and practice. The introduction and many times in the subsequent chapters really detailed the value of theory while also acknowledging the need to make theory grounded in societal reality. Marx is a good example of this in his economic theory emerging from the industrial revolution and capitalist realities he was living in. It is important to acknowledge the realities of the day-to-day classroom experience in order to be an effective change agent. Without doing so, an educational scholar is in danger of finding that their envisioned alternative structures that are more equitable or inclusive cannot find perch with practitioners.
I am not gonna lie, Levinson’s diagram of theory was a nightmare. Having said that, the description of his diagram was well explained. I feel comfortable with his explanation of sociological theory versus social theory, but I am still not entirely clear on the logic behind his placement of critical theory in the nightmare Venn Diagram. He moves it more toward social theory, which I think has to do with the its push to acknowledge assumptions (cultural, political, etc.). What do you guys think?
I was also confused by the diagram and Levinson's explanation as well. I have trouble understanding how some sociological theories could be placed outside of general social theories (because all sociological theories are developed to understand some social reality and are derived from observations and deep thought regarding patterns of behavior in society). Also, I understand differences inherent between positivist and interpretivist ideas, but don't think that the social sciences (in general) is still waging a war between positivist and interpretative philosophies. I think this is why the diagram doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems that the postmodern perspective acknowledges the complete objectivity is not possible but at the same time pragmatism leads us to hold certain beliefs about how the world is or how things work, so that it is possible to impact change. I wonder how the diagram might change if it went beyond the interpretivist/positivist divide and incorporated a postmodern or pragmatic "way of knowing". Where might critical theory be placed then?
DeleteMichael Here:
DeleteWell since you asked Kimberly, it is important to tie critical theory closely with positivist theory because as we see in the vennish diagram, critical theory appears closer to positivist theory more so than interpretivism. I think a better way to think of this, or at least the way in which I construct it in my mind is by borrow a quote from Helder Camara which states, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.” In the realm of the positivist theory giving food to poor is an action which showcases clearly the way to liberate entanglements from structural dominance. While the interpretivist view is questioning why the poor cannot get enough food.
I think nightmare diagram is an excellent way to put it. The explanation helped, and as he spent time discussing interpretivism vs. positivism, I feel as if the shift to the right for critical theory does indeed have to do with assumptions as you noted, but I saw the placement a little differently. I think those assumptions are rooted in the more rigid positivist tradition (the sociological theory side), rather than the ability to interpret/understand as social theory does. In the explanation of the figure, he states that critical theoru is placed on the intersection of the two, but it doesn't seem that that is entirely true.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to comment that it was refreshing to read something written in more colloquial speech. I think the overuse of jargon and elite speech is probably one of the biggest reasons such tension exists between academia/higher ed and P12 classrooms. But I digress…
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the mission of the book, and the statement that the role of theory in education is to promote discourse. It feels very pragmatic, the desire to want to talk through challenges and change in our system.
Levinson's diagram doesn't seem to totally match his words. In particular, as I noted in my comment to Kim, he claims that "critical theory" lies as the intersection of social theory and sociological theory, but it seems to shift right more than that. I feel as if maybe this is Levinson's own criticism of a more positivist approach to understanding theory, and that this approach in it's attempt to find a truth needs to be critiqued by those who simply seek to understand.
This semester is really challenging me as both of the courses I am taking are really examining education and curricula through a critical theory lens. My struggle as I read this assignment and we work our way through others is with WHO they (men and some women) are that are speaking for the masses in education. Marx, who stood for the workers was born middle class with the opportunity FOR higher education. Weber was raised by wealthy parents, and these are just two of the many theorists discussed. While I am not dismissing those who are the voice for the people who have none, do/did any of these theorists TRUELY understand what it is/was to BE in the minority? To BE poor? Those who are “socially dominant” are the ones thinking deeply about people that I am not convinced they truly understand. I am personally struggling with this “Great (Male, Privileged) White Hope” that swoops in to save everyone, to speak of including everyone equally in an education in which they have never participated. How do I reconcile with this? How do I read this without a jaded perspective?
Hey Bri - I always love your posts! Last spring in my feminist epistemology class we had a deep conversation about whether the researcher needs to be part of the group that she researches. I had to blurt out "where does all this leave the White researcher?" The prof suggested that White (who do not belong to the group they represent in their work) "use their position for good" and keep doing what they are doing but recognize that their position is "epistemological." This has become very important to me because I study a group that I am not a part of. I guess in practice it means I aim for transparency and keep in the foreground the idea that whatever I say or write is always informed by who I am.
DeleteBrianne, I also feel cynical about theorists speaking for minority groups they cannot relate to or truly understand. I try to reconcile what I know of them and attempt to believe that they understood the populations they represented. For example, Freire was afflicted by poverty and hunger after his father died during the Great Depression. He implemented an approach to address the problem of illiteracy in his region. However, he designed something pragmatic, something that could be implemented. I question others with only theory and no application. I also think about colorism as Dr. Leslie Jones discussed in her presentation on “race” as a social construct and how that impacts the power dynamics of those who are heard. This is difficult for me to wrap my head around because on my own experiences and seeing the “legal and political superstructure” play out.
DeleteI have also thought about all the things you all have discussed here. I have a little hope remaining for theory, as I'm hoping the theories that privilege the voices of those who aren't heard inspire us all as researchers to incorporate those who aren't heard in the research themselves, and not just as subjects. I think this is where critical methodologies come into play. PAR (participatory action research) is just one of many ways to do this. This way, the subjects of research can also steer the ship and use their agency for themselves. After reading these chapters and some other things, I'm seriously considering incorporating this methodology into my dissertation work.
DeleteAbsolutely agree with these concerns. I think Freire addresses this when he writes about the oppressor speaking for the oppressed. And Kiara--we should talk! I plan to use a PAR methodology for my dissertation research.
DeleteJorli-
DeleteI think one of the issues for graduate work and theories (and not just those related to education) is that it tends to be a very homogenious group. You are generally talking about Caucasian, and able to afford the money and time commitment of returning to school. This tends to produce a population that looks very similiar. I think that due to the nature of CCC we have a more diverse population that other programs out there. However in general it seems that graduate education and theory has not progressed as far as we would like to believe in terms of diversity. I feel like this is why Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory (and all the other theories that look at the meta-narrative) are so important. However my concern is that if I am looking at the education system as an upper middle class female, am I (or others) missing some of the issues for the people I am trying to help? Or have I identified the issues but not really seen the issues. Meaning, as an outside can I truly understand the underlying problems or the framework for the community.
OK, this is a two-parter
ReplyDeleteThe Beyond Critique readings covered much territory under the umbrella of critical social theory, and I found Levinson’s approach basically fair to the scholars and their positions. My focus in this post is the discussion of Nussbaum and Sen’s work in Chapter 8. Specifically, I’m writing about the neoliberal idea of “capabilities approach” (p.223) and its connection to literacy.
Lately, I’ve been particularly drawn to issues surrounding equality-of-outcomes v. equality-of -opportunities and adult literacy education. I continue to turn to the work of one of my fav scholars and theorists, the godfather of literacy himself (smile), Brian V. Street. Street’s work informs my dissertation interests and has been a thread running through my writing for the past several years.
Street’s article, Literacy inequalities in theory and practice: The power to name and define (2011), pushes back against a capabilities approach as put forth by Sen, Nussbaum, and others. For example, Nussbaum’s list of human capabilities includes “being able to use the senses … informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training” (in Levinson, p. 224). One point of Street’s (2011) argument is that naming and categorizing literacy in a capabilities approach suggests it is an autonomous technology that has consequences. Street opposes this notion of literacy, and instead puts forth his ideological model of literacy in which he posits literacy is a socially and culturally embedded practice. Literacy is not a thing; it is something people do.
Street argues that naming literacy a capability (an autonomous technology) defines it as a set of skills that can be taught void of context and measured. It implies some people “have it” and are “literate” while others do not and are “illiterate.” Street (and others like little ol’ me) argue that this is problematic in adult literacy education because it fosters the equality-of-outcomes idea. Equality-of-outcomes suggests that society needs to make literacy education more widely available to “those poor people” so that they can “become literate” and thus, flourish. The ideology underlying this model, according to Street, is that literacy becomes academic, isolable skills that are purported to have consequences—people who are literate will be able to “use their senses” as Nussbaum would say, or literate people get jobs and the economy will improve. Literacy, as defined by the autonomous model in a capabilities approach, suggests it brings about consequences that are often referred to as the literacy myth (Graff, 1970). The literacy myth suggests that “becoming literate” can overcome such injustices as poverty, gender discrimination, and institutionalized racism. Part 2 continues below...
I will not fully develope my argument here, but I want to return to the equality-of-outcome idea in the capabilities approach before I finish.
DeleteI see the equality-of-outcomes as being entrenched in neoliberalism that suggests we educators and teachers can improve outcomes for all people, not by changing the institution, but by “fixing” people—educating them so that they can develop their “capabilities” to live life fully. I find this idea distasteful and ethnocentric. It smacks of elitism. I think the underlying ideology hidden by the wonderful sounding “help them develop their capabilities” idea is this: society views some people as in need of help and in need of being fixed because they differ from Anglo, middle-class sensibilities. The problem with this approach, from a justice perspective, is that the institutionalized inequalities in the education system are not addressed. In the capabilities approach, institutions are not deemed the problem, people are deemed the problem.
Finally, I’ve been talking conceptually, and of course I do not think that literacy education is useless or does not have value. I certainly think there are skills that people can be taught, such as reading and writing, and that these skills are important! I take issue with the implicit ideology that underlies the capabilities approach and the neoliberal idea that people need fixing. I think Levinson could have brought these ideas out more in the chapter.
I’ll end with one of my favorite Street quotes: "One of the most powerful mechanisms available to ideology is to disguise itself."
Thank you for bringing this up--I have been fascinated with this perspective on literacy since I first heard you talk about it (702 maybe?). It often occurs to me even in my own classroom as I consider what my students need to be/should be learning!
DeleteVirginia here:
ReplyDeleteThe readings by Levinson helped clarify critical theory for me and, like Kim, I appreciate the idea of theory and praxis coming together here. I identified with Levinson when he states, “…criticalists are outraged at gross inequality, and they want to alleviate or minimize human suffering and maximize well-being (Introduction chapter, p. 13). This resonated in me and confirmed much of why I decided to apply to the C.C.C. program and leave the public school system. However, the most disheartening part of this is at the end of the introduction chapter when Levinson says there are few “critical success stories.” He expands on that by saying that many theorists have been able to identify structural domination and communicate their findings, but few have been able to “emancipate” these oppressed groups. I found it helpful that Levinson provided some history to critical theory beginning with Marx and the Frankfurt School and then giving many examples of how various theorists have contributed to the field, including individuals I would not have thought to consider like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Buddha. The final sentence in Chapter 8 also stood out to me. Levinson says, “…change will be hard, but not changing, ultimately, will be much harder” (p. 244). Thus, we must find a way to bring down the barriers of structural domination despite the lack of successful praxis in the past.
Hey, it’s Laurie.
DeleteVirginia, I felt the same way when I read the bit about how few success stories there are. It’s similar to the feeling I sometimes leave the 617 class with on Thursdays – vaguely discouraged and irritable. (And also hungry.)
Maybe we’re setting goals and defining success wrong, though. It seems unlikely things are the way they are by accident, and even less likely that the people who made them this way will change them because we point out that it’s unfair. I’ve used this quote in papers – probably more than once – and I really like it:
Critical pedagogy is the best approach to test preparation in that the students are developing the important skills that will allow them to perform on tests as they also develop the language to critique the structure and nature of the tests that they must take if they are to make it successfully through the K-12 system (Cabrera, 2014, p. 1109).
Maybe what we as educators ought to do is not so much save the kids, as prepare them to effect change in their own way. That would also address Bri, Susan, and Melissa’s concerns about white people trying to speak for and save groups of which they are not members.
This statement in the Introduction stood out: “Critical social theory is best at enabling us to see more clearly how domination works. It is good at critiquing power and the mechanisms of oppression. It is not so good at specifying the means of liberation” (p. 12). Nonetheless, as a seeker of the means, I was hopeful when I came across the sections on World-Systems Theory, Global Political Economy, and Postcolonial Critique, and on The Latin American Case (pp. 229 – 238). I am in need of theoretical tools for understanding context of my work and study, which has to do with education for the de facto refugees from Central America who currently present themselves in large numbers at certain U.S. schools. World-systems theory, with its talk of core and peripheral states, might provide some perspective on the push and pull factors that compel these students to come here or background for understanding their struggles in school when they arrive. The pushback against this theory, which “reemphasizes the agency and creative resistance of the local people, even as it still stresses the domination of a global-political economic system” (p. 231) seems promising--now maybe we’re getting somewhere, liberation-wise. But good postcolonialist ideas like indigenous/environmental movements don’t work in places where indigenous environmental leaders are systematically killed off, and liberation theology seems irrelevant nowadays. As Bri points out, there are problems with socially elite theorists doing the explaining for the marginalized. When “agency and creative resistance” takes the form of exile, and refugee kids end up in ill-suited U.S. public schools, whose fossilized neoliberal orientation we can sit around and critique all day, then what?
ReplyDelete~ Carolyn
Carolyn, sounds like you have the opportunity to develop theory, not just read and write about it! Seriously, you make the case for a true gap in the theory.
DeleteBased on Levinson’s approach, I want to take a more constructive and proactive position to critical theory by learning how to alter structures of oppression through awareness and action in my community. I want students to be able to name the structural causes of their oppression as Freire did with his students. I want to understand how and why domination is perpetuated in schools through the agency-based practices and decisions of many, and if kids are learning what Schutz calls “stocks of knowledge” or how to negotiate and interpret situations for real-life application. Are students able to navigate schools? What do they need to learn? How could I facilitate this process?
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at the diagram for the dynamics for social theory and theorizing, I wonder if schools are positivist or interpretivist institutions? I could see them as both, and even so, I worry schools may have a stronger inclination towards intepretivism, which is dismissive of culture and claims objectivity. Intepretivism may be a problem when addressing the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse groups. I have read works by Freire, Marx, and Mariátegui because I have an interest in insurgencies and revolutionary movements in Latin America, but now Gramsci’s pragmatic critical theory and his idea of using counter-hegemony to change society has caught my eye.
I definitely enjoyed reading the Levinson chapters. They served as a great refresher on some major sociology theorists. The diagram from the introduction was helpful and insightful for me. I never really thought of a difference between social and sociological theory and definitely never considered the latter to be more on the positivist end.
ReplyDeleteMax Weber's 4 types of social action really resonated with me and my group's issue, the school-to-prison-pipeline. When thinking about response to deviance (or so-called deviance) in the education system and the way in which punishment is often racialized, an argument could be made for each type (and its presence in the education system). I'm especially focusing my attention on the very first type, instrumentally rational social action. Levinson says Weber defines it as "action informed by rational calculation of ends and means" (36). One could argue that zero-tolerance policies have been boiled down to a similar formula, some kind of calculation that is one-size-fits-all. Perhaps school discipline could benefit from being more interpretive and enacted on a case-by-case basis versus a positivist one-answer-for-all approach that results in racial bias, failure in school and lives spent in jails and prisons.
So, perhaps this may be stretching Marx way beyond any sensible means of an analogy, but his position that “meaningful labor is so central to the definition of fulfillment, the denial or exploitation of such labor constitutes the most serious kind of domination,” (p. 29) struck me and stayed with me for a while as I read. I kept coming back to its relevance to today’s educational focus on test scores rather than the consideration of what actually constitutes student achievement. Most educators would say that their work is fulfilling, but I believe that they would also say that they feel “less good(?)” about their work when test scores are not “where they should be” or their school didn’t “meet the benchmark.” I feel like policymakers and administrations disregard teachers’ hard work when test scores are low. The way data is analyzed, numbers are crunched, and testing grades are the sole focus of the end-of-year activities fails to acknowledge the “meaningful labor” that took place all year long. Such denial sets the tone for the school and faculty. I have watched this happen year after year, and have definitely been a part of the self-doubt-filled conversations educators have with each other regarding their students’ performance. I can’t help but make the connection to reformers’ and the system’s domination over teachers.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Levinson’s approach to critical theory. His “supporting actors/actresses” theories help me gain an overall picture of overlapping ideas as well as those that may remain at odds with one another. Mostly, I respect his ability to acknowledge the value that various theories have in expanding the ground that can be covered by a strict approach to critical theory.
Kim here:
DeleteI think your analogy is very applicable to the standardized testing atmosphere of today’s schooling. The line that you quoted from Marx and the subsequent discussion about the system’s domination of teachers reminded me of Nel Noddings’ desire to see a system with many more models for excellence than just academic achievement. She hopes for an educational system that reflects student interests and talents and respects excellence and achievement outside of the traditional core knowledge subjects. Fixing these kinds of systematic problems in education seem at times overwhelmingly complicated, which is why I was glad to see the sort of coalition-building discussion going on in Levison’s Chapter 8. In that chapter, Levison makes connections to schools of thought related to critical theory, but not fully entrenched in it, hoping for better dialogue between these theories/ theorists. After reading through this section I wonder if many of these related, but not critical, theorists have remained outside of the domain of critical theory in order to better represent the realities of their lived experience. For example, liberalism is often taken to task by critical theorists over its ties to capitalism. But, it is perhaps these very ties to capitalism that would make liberalism a great ally of critical theory. Liberalism might help effect critical change to school systems within a capitalist society before more equitable, Marx-approved, economic systems can be put into place. The way Levinson talks about critical theorists suggests a great capacity for exclusivity - criticizing philosophies that do not fully fit into the critical spirit. I hope that the spirit of communication Levinson sets up in this final chapter helps increase the dialogue among related philosophies in order to see more critical success stories that Levinson noted are sorely lacking in the field.
Brionna--I appreciate your application of Marx to teachers' labors. When we talk about burn out...they are feeling over worked and under appreciated! Just this past week, a colleague was in my classroom in tears because she was so overwhelmed with meetings and paperwork that she felt she couldn't focus on "what matters...what I do in the classroom with the kids".
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI was also struck by the connection you made with teachers and meaningful labor, particularly when you take into account what could be considered the manufacturing of education. By this I mean teachers are given a prescribed curriculum to teach their students for a test that they have little input in creating. In many cases the teachers do not administer or grade these tests (as they are standardized their input has little value). I see how teachers could feel alienation in that, among other similarities, they "see the efforts only briefly before the finished product enters the marketplace."
DeleteIt's Jodi.... In Chapter eight, one of the quotes that stuck out to me about critical social theory in regard to my interest in trauma and the School to Prison Pipeline was, "Instead, understanding the role of identity in human life (and lives) requires careful attention both to the particular qualities and capacities of an individual, the collectively structured norms of behavior...available in a given social context, and the existing conditions under which one's awareness of these qualities and norms come out." I really think this speaks to the theories associated with looking into what is really happening in living environments, cultural norms, behaviors that may be happening due to trauma or mental illness, and as a researcher then being able to to try to understand these areas and be open-minded to what is happening in schools and the lives of the students being affected. Race, ethnicity, and gender is also discussed which plays a part in one of the theories we are considering.
ReplyDeleteI have learned to consider many of these areas discussed in the chapter as I have observed in RPS and in my work with the homeless. There needs to be more communication and compassion for children going through so many traumatic experiences. The school system tends to push academics on our children when many of them are too distracted from life events to even focus. We need to work hard to consider the child and their needs first before we can teach them.
Social justice is obviously a large part of the problem along with the domination in our top-down society. How can we have the same expectations as educators when each child has different needs? We say we work on this and provide what is needed but I have seen so many fall through the cracks time after time. This is not just a cultural issue but an issue that affects many.
As I stated in my earlier post, I appreciate Levinson's ideas and perspectives of the theorists. We have a lot of work ahead of us, friends!
I found Levinson’s approach both accessible and informative. I’ve come a long ways since fall, 2014, when I had to write a paper about critical theory and science education and had absolutely no idea what I was talking about! The introduction’s attention to moving ‘”beyond critique” into the messy world of educational practice’ (p. 12) spoke to my own concerns about educational theory.
ReplyDeleteThere were several ideas that I would like to explore further. First, in the introduction, Bourdieu’s idea of misrecognition (p. 11) stood out—in k-12 education, there is a “game” to be played by all parties; some know the rules and play it well, others deliberately flaunt the rules, and still others are unaware of the rules and strategies. Pulling back the curtain on the game, its rules, and the motives for it can shift the power structures in a classroom and school. Compliance with the game can lead to superficial success, but at what cost?
As one raised in a conservative, evangelical Christian home, I was fascinated by Weber’s arguments for the Calvinist origins of capitalism. As I wallow through this election cycle and the bizarro-world we live in where so-called Christians cling to Trump as their political savior, I see some explanation in Weber. If someone believes that their faith is tied to their material success, and feels that they are suffering economically, then anyone who promises them wealth, or “greatness,” must be God’s intended candidate.
It was in chapter 8 that I found my voice. In the section on pragmatism, the work of Cornel West and Nancy Fraser in critical pragmatism demonstrate the potential for theorizing about power and agency while attending to application and consequences. Under spirituality and ecology, the words and work of King, West, Buddha, and Kingsolver offer voices outside of the usual chorus (thank you, Levinson!) that help me to connect to critical theory in new ways that may better lead to action.
Finally, the work of Freire and Broda, while focused on oppression of rural people, informs my thinking about power structures and domination in school settings. Broda’s participatory action research methods have become part of my dissertation research plans.
Michael Here:
ReplyDeleteI keep returning to Weber’s definition of “domination” as the “opportunity to have a command of a given specified content obeyed by a given group of persons” (p.39). In a lot of ways because of people’s complacency in society domination of one group of people occurs “naturally” over another groups. To some extent we have “signed off” on the dominance issue a long time.
For instance, we all have cell phones; yet, those phones are cheaply made in China or some other developing country for very little cost, but a huge cost to the people. In many ways, living in America or developed countries affords us the luxury of being dominate. We are the dominate culture, and either people voluntarily comply or we annihilate them – either physically in war or economically with sanctions. It is extremely difficult to talk about critical theory without touching on the economic aspects propelling us away from equity. We are based on capitalistic ideals and it is difficult to have equality within capitalism because it rewards the dominancy in unbelievable ways.
All this to say, I like Marx’s concern about the economy as the driving for in which to create change. I know social institutions need to affect change, but wealth is a huge proponent of change in a society. When we feel we have “enough” or are “comfortable” then we feel safe to give, but if we don’t have “enough” then we feel as if we cannot give.
Also, I really dug on Marx’s idea about commodity fetishism. The idea that a product or good has this mysterious power. The worker makes it for the elite, but then wants it as well because it allows for social status, but because the worker doesn’t have enough money he must then keep working those 12 hour days in order to pay for the commodity; it is diabolical.
Micheal,
DeleteI really like your view on the readings. I also agree that based on the way our society is run and the idea that the rich get richer, critical theory needs to look at (for instance) what is available to certain groups based on their economic status. You can only become to dominant when you only have access to certain parts of a city, or certain people that are currently holding power. I think economic issues are a huge part of the way our schools are run and the reason critical theory is so important.
Critical theory has always been something I was drawn to. The reading brought up memories of my first introduction to critical theory, through listening to Bourdieu in the film “Sociology is a martial art”. I felt Levinson’s approach produced many questions for me and also supported some ideas that I had developed about critical theory (such as the importance of reflexivity for making theory practical). I disagree with Levinson's perspectives regarding the differences between sociological theories and social theories. I also don't understand how this distinction is useful. In particular, I do not think that sociological theories are always developed without consideration for applicability or without concern for how sociological theories can make an impact on society. In my limited experience, I have found that for many sociologists, in fact, there is a general concern for understanding how social problems they develop, how they are defined, and how our society chooses to act (or not) to address them. The way I see it, sociological theory like social theory, often pushes the boundaries of our understanding about our society, critiques and opens our eyes to underlying assumptions and bias which produce and perpetuate inequalities in our society. This idea of theoretical usefulness for real world situations (pragmatism), is something that Levinson continually discusses throughout the chapters, and appears to be something that he values about critical theory. I share this view of critical theory as being potentially useful in defining and developing solutions to social problems.
ReplyDeleteVirginia here:
DeleteI agree Anna. I like the idea of developing solutions to real social problems. Levinson certainly makes a case for the need for praxis but also mentions how many theorists haven't succeeded. This makes me wonder about our project and trying to find solutions to help culturally diverse students be successful in school.
Michael Here:
ReplyDeleteAll this critical theory reminds me of a quote from Che Guevara: “The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall”.
Critical theory calls in to account radical thoughts because it is based around the concept of structural domination and human inequality. I quote Che because a long time ago I read his biography, and was impacted not just by his life, but by the involvement of American interests in South America. If ever there was an example of dominance all you have to do is look at America’s involvement in Latin and South America over the past 100 years – heck the past 10 or 20 years to see the effect of structural dominance. Anyway, Che was a dedicated revolutionary and he left Cuba to try and start another revolution in Bolivia, but was killed by the Bolivian Army.
The picture that still stands in my mind, as there were first person accounts, is of Che riding a starving donkey through the jungles, wheezing (he had bad asthma for years) as the animal lumber along with the hope of radical change. Unfortunately, the Bolivian army caught him with little effort and presumably executed him. The romantic vision lives in my mind because he was fighting for equity. He was going against the “structural dominance and inequality” in order of facilitate human emancipation and equity. He lost, but he took the theories he had developed and put them in action.
Jorli-
ReplyDelete“The role of theory in educational scholarship is precisely to stimulate dialogue with, to continually nourish and be nourished by, the kinds of everyday theories that inform our educational practice” (p. 6).
I have struggled with the idea of theory guiding our work and being bound to theory, but this sentence sums up very nicely the reason (in my mind) for using theory. I like that the author points out that everyday theory plays a role in theory.
On page 2 the author opens the conversation about critical theory up with a conversation about how education can either reinforce or challenge domination and power. This seems to me to be part of the goal of the CCC program, to identify where domination and power are in play and then work towards changing this. I was disappointed when later in the introduction the author states that while Critical Theory is great at identifying issues, it is not so great at fixing or coming up with solutions to those issues. I feel that just identifying the issue is only half the battle.
One of the things that I did not understand in the reading, is why being against capitalism is seen as a founding factor for being a Critical Theorist. After reading the section on Marxism I better understand the issues with capitalism, in fact I find it very fascinating. However, it seems that many economic systems can have the class and power issues that capitalism has.
Jorli cont.-
DeleteOne of the parts I really enjoyed about Marx's theory was the idea of "false consciousness." The idea that capitalism gives workers the idea that they are free and able to change their situation, but in reality they are not. Marx suggested that culture is developed by the landowners and those with means in order to pacify (and keep in check) the rest of the people. It is fascinating to me that culture can pacify and prevent people from realizing what is going on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn reflecting on this week’s readings and their relationship to my growing understanding of education theory a few statements/ideas stood out:
ReplyDeleteThe first begins with a comment by Levinson on Freire:
“Freire understood that a precondition for transformative social action was an educational process that would enable the oppressed to clearly see and name the structural causes of their oppressions” (p 237).
Highlighted in the article is the line “enable the oppressed to clearly see and name.” If my understanding of Freire is correct, he seeks to utilize the terms and concepts known to his students as a means to engage them in critical thinking and social action. This reminds me of experiential learning (EI) in which the teacher is called to identify and elicit prior knowledge from students in order to build connections to new material. This aspect of EI is built upon the biological premise that neural networks are the foundation of knowing and that, in order for new information to take root, they must find connections to previous networks (Zull, 2008). Connected to this concept is Estava and Prakash’s concept on he “art of living and learning” (p. 241). Here I see a reclamation of education by a return to the concepts and practical knowledge of what Estava and Prakash term the “soil cultures” (p, 241). Again, there appears to be a return to previous knowledge as a means to establish sustainable and transformative growth.
It is interesting to me that this type of transformative learning seems to have emerged from Mexican, Brazilian, and Indian theorists. The focus of which, it seems, to be education as an emancipatory tool rooted in community engagement and collective learning. Its legitimacy in Western education seems to be rooted more so in the individual psychology of the student (with its legitimacy dependent on its empirical validation through biology and psychology). This got me to wonder how schools in the US are utilizing transformative/experiential learning and how we might advance this model in way that provides an emancipatory voice to the collective educational experience.
I am also very interested in hearing about what people think of the following comment and how it might relate to your school experience (both as students and as educators):
“Before the modern period, art, morals, and science were all fused together, usually under the aegis of a hegemonic church or worldview…. modernity helped differentiate these activities…these potential advantageous differentiations eventually hardened into dissociation, with an aggressive materialistic science crowding out the other spheres” (p.241)
Zull, J.E. (2008). The art of changing the brain. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC