Critical Pedagogy

Critical Pedagogy: Dreaming of Democracy

Ann George’s essay examines the goals and controversies of critical pedagogy. While critical pedagogy closely resembles cultural studies and feminist studies, it is differentiated from these approaches in its commitment to “education for citizenship” (93). It is noted that critical pedagogy is often referred to by many other names. Among these are liberatory and radical pedagogy.

The goal of critical pedagogy is an empowered citizenship. This is accomplished by engaging students in analysis of the inequalities present in the power structures of dominant society and institutions like schools. In a critical pedagogy classroom, students develop the skills they need to question and resist inequalities present in everyday life and thus advance the goal of empowered citizens in a democratic society.

Critical pedagogy redefines the role of the teacher, the student and the kinds of classroom activities they engage in. This pedagogy is attractive to teachers who wish to promote student-centered classrooms that empower students to engage in critical thinking and develop a social consciousness. However, critical pedagogy raises a number of difficulties for the teacher such as how to manage the ideological space of the classroom and the motivation of the students and their willingness to expand their self-understanding in the face of critical analysis of everyday life.

Critical pedagogy, with roots in the progressive ideas of the early twentieth century education reform movement, re-emerged in the 1980’s in response to an increasingly conservative climate that “worked to undo reforms of the 1960’s and redefine schools” (95) and championed a movement toward an “authoritarian, back-to-basics, teacher-proof curriculum to restore excellence in schools” (95). In a critique of the community college system of the 1970’s, critical pedagogy theorists responded with scathing critiques on the differences between elite and community colleges and how the later taught passivity and obedience while the former focused on critical thinking and problem solving. They called for intervention and a return to “the nearly forgotten American tradition of radical education found in the work of John Dewey and his fellow progressives” (97).

Much criticism has been directed toward critical pedagogy. It is criticized for its making of the classroom into an arena for the teacher’s personal political leanings and thus neglecting the students’ goals and opinions with the result of failing to honor its dedication to promoting democracy and a democratic society. It has also been criticized for simplifying categories such as “oppressive” and “oppressed” and avoiding the question of classroom authority.

The essay concludes with a discussion of Patricia Bizzell’s work in the search for ways in which writing teachers might “foster democratic discourse and social justice” (107) in the classroom while at the same time not abusing the authority and power of the teacher.