Critical Pedagogy--multilayered conundrum

“Critical Pedagogy: Dreaming of Democracy” by Ann George

First, I enjoyed the narration of George from a reader’s perspective. Her essay was easy to follow, flavored by questions and theories stemmed from her own struggle with critical pedagogy. This narration style allowed me to wallow alongside her and realize that critical pedagogy has many layers. The fluid synthesis of George’s references to critical works in the field allowed me see the arguments put forth by each major research/scholar in this pedagogy.

From the opening of George’s essay I felt the critical pedagogy’s connection to cultural pedagogy. Empowering students and creating democratic citizens seems to be similar aims between both pedagogies; however, George is quick to point out that critical pedagogy is unique for its explicit tie to education for citizenship. While I found many interesting ideas presented by George, several interesting points caught my attention.

First, George is discussing Freire, as she does throughout her piece, and relates his idea that “dialogue among students and teacher revolves around ‘generative themes’—domination, marriage, or work—that represent students’ perceptions of the world” in regards to “critical consciousness” education (93). As I read this passage, I wondered what the generative themes would be for today’s students? Would they still be domination, marriage, and work? How does one go about finding the major/main generative themes upon which a critical pedagogy class might be formed?

Another area of interest was George’s dialogue of the political influences upon education and how critical pedagogy scholars discuss these influences. I guess this portion of George’s article caught my attention because it is an election year. I was particularly struck by Giroux’s statement that contesting conservation definitions of education is important because it “gives voice to the poor and minorities but also to reach countless middle-class Americans who have ‘withdrawn from public into a world of sweeping privatization, pessimism, and greed’” (qtd. in George 96). Giroux made this statement in a 1987 publication, when Reagan was president, the DOW was averaging 2000 or higher, and Americans were prosperous. I wonder if there is a contradiction in Giroux’s statement and the current affairs at the time or if he feels that middle-class Americans, in general, have moved from a world of public concern and democratic understanding into a world of selfishness. Has this trend continued? If it has, how can critical pedagogy re-awake those who have withdrawn into ‘privatization, pessimism, and greed’? Will critical pedagogy help reach those that have withdrawn? Or is ‘withdraw’ a normal trend and practitioners of critical pedagogy must now address students within this new norm? I digress.

I like Jay and Graff’s point that teacher or school mandated pedagogy within a classroom circumvents democratic classes (George 100). I think that theirs is an important point to consider because while critical pedagogy aims for a democratic classroom, such a classroom may not always be possible. Thus, as teachers, how do we inject critical pedagogy into classroom where there is a restrictive mandate? George furthers this discussion by examining Jeff Smith’s notion that if teachers are to practice critical pedagogy and being democratic, teachers must let students set the agenda (wholly) for the class. This raises two questions: (1) where do teachers draw the line to being democratic? and (2) if students want a traditional classroom experience (what they have been schooled in up to college, let’s say) should the teacher give that to them as a critical pedagogy practitioner?

Yet another point that I found interesting was Finlay and Faith’s findings that students’ writing drastically improved when they used language connected to their private lives (George 103). I suppose these finding is why teachers are now trying to integrate students’ home language or the language they use outside of school into the teaching of writing and allowing students to write pieces that are self-chosen (the topics, genre, language, etc.). Students react more positively to contradicting the dominant culture/dominant language, as I believe Freire might put it.

The last idea or passage that stood out to me was the discussion of Shor and his classroom practices. I was intrigued with the concept of “after-class groups” (George 106). The immediate feedback for the teacher and the students would be tremendously helpful. Allowing both the teacher and the students to shape the direction of the class for the semester. I see it as continuously revising until the both participants have gleaned what they wanted from the course. Since I already practice a sort of class structure revision as my semester progresses, I found this concept possibly useful. However, enacting such a group would be a challenge given the time constraints of my classes. I would also worry that students would not be as forthcoming with me as they were with Shor. Often freshman are resistance and even scared to voice their opinions to the grader, no matter how flexible a teacher may seem.

Overall, I really enjoyed George’s long essay. Many of the ideas presented were thought provoking.