See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/31871065

Critical Pedagogy and the Constitution of Capitalist Society

Conference Paper · September 2007

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
2 128

1 author:

Glenn Rikowski
University of Lincoln
86 PUBLICATIONS   521 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marxism and Education View project

The Current State of the Horological Industry in the British Isles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Glenn Rikowski on 26 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Critical Pedagogy and the Constitution of
Capitalist Society
Glenn Rikowski, Senior Lecturer in Education Studies, School of
Education, University of Northampton

A paper prepared for the Migrating University: From Goldsmiths to

Gatwick Conference, Panel 2, „The Challenge of Critical Pedagogy‟,
Goldsmiths College, University of London, 14th September 2007

Critical Pedagogy: A Brief Introduction

Critical pedagogy began life in the works, thinking and pedagogic

practice of Antonio Gramsci, supplemented with the works of key
thinkers from the Frankfurt School, but especially those of Jürgen
Habermas. It attained wider recognition in the writings and teachings
of Brazilian radical educator and activist Paulo Freire. Specifically,
Freire‟s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972) laid the foundations for
what became the American Critical Pedagogy School of the 1970s and
onwards. The writings of Ivan Illich and the plays and radical drama
theory of Augusto Boal were also importance elements for the
development of critical pedagogy during the 1970s. Today, Critical
Pedagogy in North America, whilst not mainstream, has spawned
doctoral and Maters programmes and a plethora of web sites devoted
to it [1].

Ten years after Freire‟s death in 1997, a major international

conference has been organised in his honour [2]. Significantly though,
this conference focuses on Freire‟s relevance to education in the
Mediterranean Basin, indicating that Paulo Freire and critical pedagogy
are now having impacts far beyond North and South America.
Regarding the UK, the writings of Paula Allman (1999 and 2001) have
ensured that critical pedagogy has attained a firm foothold in
education debates and politics – especially in the field of adult
education, but increasingly more so in the contexts of higher education
generally and teacher education specifically [3]. The Reinvention
Centre for Undergraduate Research, a joint initiative between the
universities of Oxford Brookes and Warwick, cite Paulo Freire as one of
its inspirations [4]. Significantly, St. Martin‟s College of Higher
Education in Lancashire runs a Masters course in Critical Pedagogy and
Social Justice [5]. The British Sociological Association (BSA) Education
Study Group, via the BSA Conference 2008, will stage a symposium on

1
„Critical Pedagogy: Creatively Responding to Government Education
Agendas‟ in April 2008 [6]. This indicates that some acolytes of critical
pedagogy in the UK are thinking about how it can be incorporated into
New Labour‟s education policy initiatives. Though whether this strategy
results in critical pedagogy becoming crushed under the hoof of
government education agendas, or those agendas becoming
radicalised, remains to be seen. Even New Labour‟s own Teaching and
Learning Research Programme (TLRP), sponsored by the UK‟s
Economic & Social Research Council includes a „Critical Pedagogies
Project‟ headed by Deborah Youdell [7].

But what is „critical pedagogy‟? It is not easy to pin down. Ira Shor
(1992) characterised it as:

“Habits of thought, reading, writing, and speaking which go beneath surface

meaning, first impressions, dominant myths, official pronouncements, traditional
clichés, received wisdom, and mere opinions, to understand the deep meaning, root
causes, social context, ideology, and personal circumstances of any action, event,
object, process, organization, experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media
or discourse” (p.129).

This definition reads similar to what the radical sociology of the late-
1960s and early 1960s was about. It suggests commitment to social
transformation, but no more than that. On the other hand, it could be
read as advocating a form of “empowering education” that was
agnostic regarding social emancipation – emancipation from capitalist
society on a collective basis. Shor‟s definition also reads rather like a
sophisticated commitment to critical thinking that is based on
individual cognitive emancipation. This form of emancipation is
primarily concerned with uncovering underlying truths behind
sometimes baffling and debilitating appearances and ideological
smokescreens. The aim, it seems, is to get at the “deep meaning” of
phenomena encountered in everyday life, including what goes on in
schools, colleges and universities. Social emancipation, therefore,
appears to be suspended above the quest for cognitive depth.

Of course, the moment of individual “cognitive emancipation” can be

linked to a project of “social emancipation” which is necessarily
collective. But it need not be, and when it is not, critical pedagogy
contains a „critical deficit‟, and heralds an impoverished and stunted
form of emancipation. Certainly the extensive and seemingly
comprehensive outline of critical pedagogy enunciated by Dardar,
Baltodano and Torres (2003, pp.10-16) seems to be all embracing, yet
it too rests insufficiently firmly upon social emancipation: the liberation
of humanity from capitalist society, indeed from capital‟s social

2
universe [8]. For example, the discussion on how education in
contemporary society systematically undermines the „class interests of
those students who are most politically and economically vulnerable
within society‟ rests on a neo-Weberian conception of class-as-status-
group and implies, by default, that the class interests of these
students can be met in the existing form of society: capitalism.
Furthermore, there is no mention of the abolition of class; the
termination of all classes in society. In these ways, and through key
omissions, critical pedagogy becomes a form of Left liberalism, where
social justice, equality, social worth etc. (in general, and in relation to
education specifically) can be solved or resolved within the existing
framework of capitalist society. The solutions appear to rest on
equalising resources and changing attitudes towards certain groups
(and education has key role here for Left liberalism) within capitalist
society. Educational theorists such as Peter McLaren, Paula Allman and
I believe this outlook to be an alluring, simplistic and an apparently
easy way out of our social predicament. In practice, it locks the
educational Left into chasing rainbows. Critical pedagogy for social
emancipation should be the goal; emancipation from capitalist society
with its value-form of labour and the rule of money.

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy

The lack of „criticality‟ in some versions of critical pedagogy was

apparent many years ago. This can be seen in Giroux (1981), who
preferred to speak of „radical‟ rather than „critical‟ pedagogy, where, in
a US context, „radical‟ is aligned more closely with socialism, or at
least a Left project that threatens the smooth running of capitalist
society and is committed to furthering the interests of disadvantaged
groups. Almost in despair, Giroux noted that:

“… the American left often appears baffled over the question of what constitutes
radical educational theory and practice. Beneath the plethora of pedagogical
approaches, that range from deschooling to alternative schools, one searches in vain
for a comprehensive critical theory of education which bridges the gap between
educational theory on the one hand and social and political theory on the other”
(p.63).

As well as the divisions between educational and social and political

theory, Giroux also noted a further deficit within critical or radical
pedagogy, for:

“One also searches in vain for a systematic theoretical approach to a radical analysis
of the day-by-day socio-political texture of classroom structure and interaction, i.e.

3
how specific forms of knowledge and meaning penetrate, develop, and are
transmitted within the context of the classroom experience” (Ibid.).

This deficit has been addressed in many studies since Giroux was
writing in 1981, with the work of Michael Apple, and especially his
work with James Beane (Apple and Beane, 1999) particularly pertinent
here. Yet it could still be argued today that classroom studies, even
radical ones clearly committed to challenging hierarchies, inequalities
and championing the disadvantaged in education, are not strongly
connected to a project of social emancipation. Indeed, it is not clear,
as Richard Hatcher (2007) has indicated how they could so be without
theorising on how critical pedagogy relates to extra-education political
movements and parties and to trade unions and workers‟ and
students‟ struggles, and making the necessary practical links though
political action.

Finally, Giroux (1981) argued that:

“Amidst the theoretical shambles characteristic of the educational left, two major
positions stand out: these can be loosely represented, on the one hand, by the
content-focussed radical and, on the other, by the strategy-based radicals. These
representations are, of course, ideal-typical and should not be seen as exhibiting
rigid boundaries. … The content-focussed radicals define pedagogy by their
insistence on the use of a Marxist-based perspective to provide a demystifying
analysis for students of the dominant ideology reproduced in varied forms in the
prevailing system of schooling. On the other side, there are the strategy-based
education (sic). This group defines radical pedagogy as the development of „healthy‟
non-alienating classroom social relationships. In this case, specific classroom social
encounters are designed to help students break through the engineered boredom
and oppression characteristic of late capitalist relations of production and its
everyday life” (Ibid.).

On Hatcher‟s (2007) analysis, the content-focussed radicals are

misguided as they fail to acknowledge that changes in consciousness
are not just „ideational‟ (p.4) but linked to concrete practices and
struggles. Indeed, he argues that decisive and significant changes in
consciousness take place in concrete struggles against the actual
forces and human representatives of capital. Ideas change through
struggle. Regarding the strategy-based radical in the classroom,
Hatcher holds that any limited prefigurative classroom activities, based
on visions of how education in capitalism might be different, are either
reformist or utopian, and invariably both. This is because they are
typically not linked to campaigns, movements and parties outside of
the classroom. Thus, the capitalist state finds them relatively easy to
neutralise, control, terminate or degrade. Giroux, like the vast
majority of critical or radical pedagogy protagonists, according to

4
Hatcher, simply gives what goes in educational institutions too much
significance and prominence in the struggle for socialism. For Hatcher
the problems of „changing the consciousness of teachers‟ and „state
limitation and repression‟, have not been addressed adequately by
critical (or even by revolutionary critical) pedagogues (p.7). Thus, he
asserts:

“My argument is that the strategy that addresses these two issues most effectively
has at its centre the experience of collective action both inside and outside the
classroom – campaigns, struggles, collective forms of resistance and for alternatives.
It is through collective action that the consciousness of the mass of teachers can
change, and the constraints of state repression, mediated by school management,
can be resisted” (Ibid.).

In light of this, he advocates the „united front which unites a range of

political-educational positions, reformist and revolutionary, liberal-
humanist, social-democratic and Marxist, on the basis of common
campaigning objectives‟ (Ibid., original emphasis). Thus, for Hatcher
without these underpinnings, critical or radical pedagogy can
degenerate into the illusion of „socialism in one classroom‟ without
being anchored in any substantial movement or campaigns for socialist
advance [9].

The shortcomings of mainstream critical pedagogy have also been

noted by many others, and Dardar, Baltodano and Torres‟ (2003)
summary of these (pp.16-20) is a useful starting point. It is precisely
because of these shortcomings and the propensity for critical
pedagogy to slide into Left liberalism, that Paula Allman (1999 and
2001) and Peter McLaren (McLaren, 2005; McLaren and
Farahmandpur, 2005; and McLaren and Rikowski, 2006) have
distanced themselves from more mainstream versions, and have
advocated „revolutionary critical pedagogy‟ or „critical revolutionary
pedagogy‟ instead. For McLaren:

“A revolutionary critical pedagogy operates from an understanding that the basis of

education is political and that spaces need to be created where students can imagine
a different world out side of the capitalist law of value, where alternatives to
capitalism and capitalist institutions can be discussed and debated, and where
dialogue can occur about why so many revolutions in past history turned into their
opposite. It looks to create a world where social labour is no longer an indirect part
of the total social labour but a direct part of it, where a new mode of distribution can
prevail not based on socially necessary labour time but on actual labour time …
Generally classrooms try to mirror in organization what students and teachers would
collectively like to see in the world outside of schools … [And] … drawing upon a
Hegelian-Marxist critique of political economy that underscores the fundamental
importance of developing a philosophy of praxis, revolutionary critical pedagogy

5
seeks forms of organisation that best enable the pursuit of doing critical philosophy
as a way of life” (McLaren and Rikowski, pp.7-8).

It is this final point that really distinguishes mainstream critical

pedagogy from McLaren‟s „revolutionary critical philosophy‟. It
highlights that political organisations must incorporate „critical
philosophy as a way of life‟; that is, encompass a philosophy of
revolution as real, sensuous activity. Contrary to Hatcher‟s (2007)
outlook, McLaren takes the quality of social relations in organisations
seeking to transform capitalist society into account. It is the quality of
human relations as expressed in collective political projects against
capital, where all are encouraged to be „philosophers of praxis‟
(McLaren, in McLaren and Rikowski, 2006, p.16), that is a crucial
feature of anti-capitalist organisations for McLaren. Of course, McLaren
is well aware of the constraints and social structures making this
process difficult (see p.6); though Hatcher begs to differ, casting the
hapless McLaren as only being concerned with the „battle of ideas‟
(p.3).

Whilst I agree with the arguments of Paula Allman and Peter McLaren
about the „domestication‟ of critical pedagogy, and see the need to
move towards a more radical „revolutionary critical pedagogy‟, I would
want to pinpoint precisely that which makes revolutionary critical
pedagogy truly critical. In this way, I build on their work.

The Constitution of Capitalist Society

For me, a critical pedagogy should have at its foundations the critique
of capitalist society. However, at the core of this enterprise is a
critique of what Moishe Postone (1996) takes to be the basic
structuring features of capital‟s social universe. These phenomena
constitute the „fundamental core of capitalism‟ (pp.24-29). However,
Postone argues that for Marx, the category of value is key:

“… for Marx, the category of value expresses the basic relations of production of
capitalism, - those social relations that specifically characterize capitalism as a mode
of social life – as well as that production in capitalism is based on value. In other
words, value, in Marx‟s analysis, constitutes the “foundations of bourgeois
production”” (Postone, 1996, p.24).

Furthermore:

“… value does not refer to wealth in general, but is a historically specific and
transitory category that purportedly grasps the foundation of capitalist society”
(p.25).

6
Thus, the critique of capitalist work as the production of value as well
as of use-values (useful things) as commodities is essential, and from
this it follows that critical pedagogy should be concerned with the
analysis and critique of work in society today – and this includes the
work of teachers and all those involved in education and training.
Indeed, later on I shall argue that the labour of teachers has a special
status as an object of critical pedagogy.

Postone goes on to uncover other aspects of the basic structuring

features of capitalist society. The commodity, incorporating exchange-
value as well as value and use-value is important. Surplus-value is
important for understanding the form that labour exploitation takes in
capitalist society. However Postone includes a long list of other
categories: abstract and concrete labour; socially necessary and
surplus labour; abstract time, historical time and socially necessary
labour time; money; and capital – and many others, and their
relations and configurations in capitalist. Finally, how these relations
are effected via various social mediations is explored. It is the critique
of all these categories and their relations that should be at the heart of
a truly critical pedagogy. In this way can we can come to comprehend
the nature of social domination in capitalist society – all the better to
terminate it, for:

“In Marx‟s analysis, social domination in capitalism does not, on its most
fundamental level, consist in the domination of people by other people, but in the
domination of people by abstract social structures that people themselves constitute”
(Postone, 1996, p.30).

Thus, social emancipation for Postone, and for me, consists in

liberating ourselves from these abstract social structures. It is
imperative that we understand them; a key task for critical pedagogy.

Though Postone works through many of the basic structuring features

of capitalist society, in my view he does not address sufficiently one of
the most significant: labour power. As I have argued elsewhere (in
Rikowski, 2006, labour power is capitalism‟s „weakest link‟. This is so
as:

“It is the only commodity in the social universe of capital that can create, sustain and
expand capital through surplus-value production. This establishes its supreme
importance in the firmament of commodities. In addition, this magical commodity
resides in the personhoods of labourers, and is ultimately under the jurisdiction of
their wills. Thus: labour power is the supreme value-creating power on which capital
depends for its existence, and it is incorporated within labourers who have the
potential to withhold this wonderful social force (through strikes or leaving the

7
employment of a capital) or worse, to use labour power for anti-capitalist activity
and ultimately for non-capitalist forms of production. Together, these features make
labour power capital‟s weakest link. Capital depends on it, yet has the capacity to be
used by its owners against capital and to open up productive forms which capital no
longer dominates. Marx and Marxist analysis uncovers this with a great force and
clarity as compared with any other critical social theory. In indicating the fragility of
capital in this way, and in pinpointing its weakest link, Marxist analysis is vindicated
and justified” (Rikowski, 2006, p.8).

In contemporary capitalist society, education and training play a

crucial role in the social production of labour power – the single
commodity on which the expansion of capital and the continuation of
capitalist society depend. Thus, a truly critical pedagogy that has
political resonance should uncover this fact of life in today‟s capitalism
– with many examples and studies and debates and discussions,
drawing on people‟s everyday experience of education and training in
capitalist society. Hence, the process of education itself, and its role in
reducing human life to labour power, should become leading topics in
any worthwhile critical pedagogy.

Critical Pedagogy and the Constitution of Capitalist Society

From what I have said so far, the main priority of critical pedagogy is
to critique the ways in which human labour constitutes capitalist
society (how we become dominated by our own creations) and the
constitution of capitalist society in terms of its basic structuring
features. This will entail a critique of capitalist work and education,
amongst other things. It is also clear that rather than starting out from
Gramsci, Freire or Habermas, that I am advocating a critical pedagogy
based on the works of Marx and Marxism. Furthermore, this
perspective on critical pedagogy situates it as an aspect of anti-
capitalism. Critical pedagogy is a form of anti-capitalist education, and
indeed is the latter‟s „first moment‟ (see Rikowski, 2004, pp.567-568).

Although the starting point for critical pedagogy as a species of anti-

capitalist education is critique of the basic features of capitalist society,
there are other levels involved in this educational adventure. The
second level is the analysis and critique of the inequalities that are
generated by capitalist society, which is a critique of:

“… all forms of inequality in capitalist society – class inequality, sexism, racism,

discrimination against gay and lesbian people, against disabled people, ageism and
differential treat of other social groups – and how all these forms of inequality link to
capital accumulation and value production. The content of the allied critical pedagogy
indicates how these divisions, these insidious rifts, are embedded aspects of

8
capitalist social life. But it is also indicated how people struggle against these
divisions and how unity in difference can become a reality (with examples from
contemporary society and history)” (Rikowski, 2004, p.567).

It is here, too, that notions of „social justice‟ (fairness, equality etc.)

arise.

The third level of the „moment of critique‟ is „a critique of all known

aspects of capitalist social life‟ (Rikowski, 2004, p.568), which can be
related to the second and third levels where necessary. Yet:

“The key point is that we need to encourage our students to be critical of all aspects
of capitalist society, whilst acknowledging its advances over previous forms of
society such as Feudalism and ancient societies based on slave labour. No aspect
should be sacrosanct” (Ibid.).

Critique of capitalist education itself is important here, as noted

earlier, and Rikowski (2004, pp.573-575) provides further material on
this point.

Of course, thus far I have not discussed any of the contingencies

revolving around this form of critical pedagogy as anti-capitalist
education. Some may be sceptical about whether school students, for
example, could be or should be taught much about the basic
structuring features of capitalist society. Yet as Mike Cole has indicated
to me, in the former Yugoslavia school students were taught Marx‟s
theory of exploitation in capitalism, including how surplus value is
generated [10]. I taught Marx‟s theory of surplus value to A-level
sociology students in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s; it doesn‟t take up
much time if you have decent diagrams, and most seemed to grasp it
easily enough.

Yet there are certain things the critical educator needs to consider: the
age of the students, and their prior learning which relates also to the
sector (primary, secondary, further, higher and adult etc.). The
academic subject is important too. Those teaching economics,
sociology and history would seem to be blessed. Those teaching
education studies in higher education particularly so, as the social
production of labour power can be appropriately addressed there.

All of Hatcher‟s (2007) points about the capitalist state clamping down
on some of the critical spaces necessary for critical pedagogy, whilst
also opening up some avenues or ignoring some aspects of it need to
be kept in view and worked through within our own lives as educators
and workers. His advice about how teachers might gain support from

9
colleagues and trade unions in their endeavours in critical pedagogy is
also worth keeping in view. There are a growing number of examples
of critical pedagogy in the mainstream education literature and in the
radical education literature, but more examples, and analysis of them,
are required, and Hatcher is right to point this out. Finally, Hatcher‟s
view that we need awareness and analysis of actual and potential
resistances to critical pedagogy from our colleagues, managements,
parents and other significant actors is to be heeded.

Conclusion: Critical Pedagogy as Anti-Capitalism

It has been argued that a truly critical pedagogy has the following
features:

* It is based on the works of Marx and Marxism first and foremost;

* The starting point is the critique of the basic structuring phenomena

and processes of capitalist society – which involves a critique of the
constitution of capitalist society;

* The second most significant level of critique is the host of social

inequalities thrown up by the normal workings of capitalist society –
and issues of social justice can be brought in here;

* The third level of critique brings in the rest of capitalist social life –
but relates to the first and second levels as frequently as possible;

* Two keys fields of human activity in contemporary society stand in

need of fierce critique: capitalist work and capitalist education and
training (including the social production of labour power);

* Labour power – as capital‟s „weakest link‟ – deserves special

attention as it has strategic and political significance.

These are the basics of critical pedagogy as anti-capitalism.

This does not preclude bringing in all the insights, teaching strategies
and approaches that can be found in the vast literature on critical
pedagogy. However, if sight of these reference points becomes lost or
very hazy then critical educators need to take stock as their anti-
capitalist status is open to question.

10
Self-criticism is also necessary in relation to how we operate as
academics and teachers: our writings, our research outputs (if in
higher education), our teaching and learning resources, and other
ways in which we use media (e.g. web sites, blogs, social networks
such a MySpace and so, as well as TV and radio appearances). How do
all of these gel with critical pedagogy as anti-capitalism?

How critical pedagogy as anti-capitalism has not been related to larger

questions of political strategy, i.e. the relation between it and various
campaigns, movements, education within political parties and groups,
informal and non-formal education – and indeed how it relates in a
more general sense to socialist transformation. Paula Allman (1999
and 2001) has given many valuable insights on these topics. Building
on her analyses I hope to address more general questions of relations
between critical pedagogy, anti-capitalism and social transformation in
future work. Like Allman (in her 2001), I also hope to write about and
critique aspects of my own practice as a critical educator starting from
the principles stated above.

Notes:

[1] Many of these developments can be viewed at „Critical Pedagogy on the Web‟:
http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~stevens/critped/page1.htm

[2] See „International Seminar, Paulo Freire (1997-2007) – The Life Wide Learning in
Europe and in the Mediterranean Basin‟ at:
http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/rikowski-point/entries/2007/08/09/paulo-freire--
-international-seminar/1254. This is no longer available, but details of the seminar
can be found at:
http://www.centrostudibruner.it/eventi/seminario_educazione_adulti.pdf

[3] Joyce Canaan at the University of Central England has also contributed
significantly to the development of practice, research and writing on critical
pedagogy during the last few years (see or example Canaan, 2005). Michael Neary
at the University of Warwick (see Neary, 2005; and Neary and Parker, 2004) and Ian
Cook at the University of Birmingham (see Cook, 2000) have also advanced critical
pedagogy in the UK, along with a number of others too many to mention.

[4] The Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research web site, with a quote from
Freire inscribed in its logo is at:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/research/cetl/

[5] This is run by Dr. Margaret Ledwith. She also heads the Centre for Critical
Pedagogy and Social Justice Education at St. Martin‟s College. See details at:
http://www.ucsm.ac.uk/assbs/CPSJ/CPSJCP.htm

11
[6] For details on this, see: http://journals.aol.co.uk/rikowskigr/rikowski-
point/entries/2007/09/11/critical-pedagogy-creatively-responding-to-government-
education-agendas/1347 No longer available, but can now be found at USC Firgoa:
http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/node/37108

[7] Details on the Critical Pedagogies Project can be viewed at:

http://www.tlrp.org/cpp/

[8] These authors look at critical pedagogy through the following perspectives:
cultural politics; political economy; historicity of knowledge; dialectical theory;
ideology and critique; hegemony; resistance and counter-hegemony; praxis: the
alliance of theory and practice; and dialogue and conscientization. Despite my
reservations regarding that there characterisation of critical pedagogy lacks critical
depth (of which more later), it certainly has critical breadth. I would recommend
their chapter to any newcomer to the literature and practice of critical pedagogy.

[9] Although I have cited approvingly Hatcher‟s work here, there are other aspects of
his analysis with which I disagree. First, his understanding of my own work
constitutes wilful misrepresentation – but he has been doing this for a couple of
years now (see Rikowski, 2005). Second, he offers familiar platitudes regarding how
to link struggles inside and outside education. Does he think folks can‟t work, or
have not worked out this basic stuff for themselves? Third, critical pedagogy in his
eyes has only limited value. Indeed, it could even be seen as a form of fatalism and
utopianism, though he appears very inconsistent on this (see p.5 – where he argues
that „the movement to multiply instances of radical pedagogy is a vital element in
socialist strategy in education‟). Fourth, his analysis tends to focus on schools (where
his arguments are strongest) and to ignore, higher education, adult education and
teacher training (where they are weakest). Fifth, his critique of „revolutionary critical
pedagogy‟ (RCP) (drawing on the work of Paula Allman, Peter McLaren and myself) is
a travesty. According to Hatcher, RCP remains a vision and a programme with no
means to implement it. That is true, but Hatcher has no vision or programme – only
platitudes offered in a patronising and self-righteous manner. All he has is a lot of
familiar stuff about links, campaigns and united fronts, and interesting analyses of
three instances of class struggle in the schools sector, boosted by wishful thinking
regarding their significance. Finally, he misunderstands (via Stewart Hall‟s flawed
characterisation of Marx), Marx‟s notions of „ideological forms‟ and the
superstructure, and writes as if the opening sections of Marx and Engels‟ The
German Ideology had never been written. There are more examples of where
Hatcher‟s superficial reading of Marx and his predilection to misrepresent my own
views, but these will be addressed (along with the issues noted previously)
elsewhere.

[10] Mike was told this whilst on holiday in one of the countries constituting the
former Yugoslavia.

References

Allman, P. (1999) Revolutionary Social Transformation: Democratic Hopes, Political

Possibilities and Critical Education, Westport, Connecticut & London: Bergin &
Garvey.

12
Allman, P. (2001) Critical Education Against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and
Revolutionary Critical Education, Westport, Connecticut & London: Bergin & Garvey.

Apple, M. & Beane, J. (1999) Democratic Schools: Lessons from the Chalk Face,
Buckingham: Open University Press.

Canaan, J. (2005) Developing a Pedagogy of Hope, paper presented at the Marxism

and Education: Renewing Dialogues VI Day Seminar, on „Realms of Freedom,
Struggles, Alternatives and Agency in education‟, The Drama Studio, Institute of
Education, University of London, 4th May.

Cook, I. (2000) „Nothing Can Ever Be the Case of “Us” and “Them” Again‟: exploring
the politics of difference through border pedagogy and student journal writing,
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol.24 No.1, pp.13-27.

Dardar, A., Baltodano, M. & Torres, R. (2003) Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction, in:
A. Dardar, M. Baltodano & R. Torres (Eds.) The Critical Pedagogy Reader, New York
& London: Routledge.

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Giroux, H. (1981) Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling, Lewes: Falmer
Press.

Hatcher, R. (2007) ‘Yes, but how do we get there?’ Alternative visions and the
problem of strategy, a paper presented at the British Education Studies Association
Annual Conference, „Alternative Visions of Education‟, Bath Spa University, July 6 –
7th.

McLaren, P. (2005) Capitalist and Conquerors: A Critical Pedagogy Against Empire.

Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

McLaren, P. & Farahmandpur, R. (2005) Teaching Against Global Capitalism and the
New Imperialism: A Critical Pedagogy, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

McLaren, P. & Rikowski, G. (2006) Critical Pedagogy Reloaded: An Interview with

Peter McLaren (interviewed by Glenn Rikowski), Information for Social Change, Issue
No.23 (summer): http://libr.org/isc/issues/ISC23/C3%20Peter%20McLaren.pdf

Neary, M. (2005) Renewing Critical Pedagogy: Popular Education as a Site of

Struggle, Asian Labour Update, Issue No.54 (March):
http://www.amrc.org.hk/5501.htm

Neary, M. & Parker, A. (2004) Enterprise, Social Enterprise and Critical Pedagogy:
Reinventing the HE Curriculum, National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship,
Policy Paper #002.

Postone, M. (1996) Time, Labor and Social Domination: A reinterpretation of Marx’s

critical theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rikowski, G. (2004) Marx and the Education of the Future, Policy Futures in
Education, Vol.2 Nos. 3 & 4, pp.565-577, online at:

13
 http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?j=pfie&vol=2&issue=3&year=2004&arti
cle=10_Rikowski_PFEO_2_3-4_web&id=195.93.21.71

Rikowski, G. (2005) In the Dentist's Chair: A Response to Richard Hatcher's Critique

of Habituation of the Nation, 31st December, in three parts, at The Flow of Ideas:
http://www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=In%20the%20Dentist[a]s%20Chair

Rikowski, G. (2006) Education and the Politics of Human Resistance, Information for
Social Change, Issue No.23 (summer):
http://libr.org/isc/issues/ISC23/B3%20Glenn%20Rikowski.pdf

Shor, I. (1992) Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change, Chicago
& London: The University of Chicago Press.

Glenn Rikowski, London, 9th September 2007

Dr. Glenn Rikowski is an independent researcher with no current academic

affiliation, based in London. He was previously (up to 31st October 2013) a Senior
Lecturer in Education Studies in the School of Education at the University of
Northampton. Prior to that, Rikowski was a Senior Research Fellow in Lifelong
Learning at the University of Central England (1999-2001) and a Research Fellow in
Post-Compulsory Education and Training at the University of Birmingham (1994-
1999). From the mid-1980s to mid-199s, he taught in schools and further education
colleges in Essex and London.
The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk
All that is Solid for Glenn Rikowski: http://rikowski.wordpress.com

14

View publication stats