Is Critical Pedagogy Important?

Justine López

Morgridge College of Education

University of Denver

FINAL

CUI_4034: Curriculum & Cultural Context

May 28, 2015

Final Paper López-1

The Birth of Critical Theory

In contrast to traditional theory, oriented to understanding and/or explaining a particular

phenomenon, critical theory defined by Horkeimer (1937), is oriented toward changing society

as a whole. In 1923 Felix Weil’s donation was earmarked to develop an institute of Marxist

studies in Germany, that became the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research (The Frankfurt

School), also known as the Institute of Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) (Corradetti,

2014; Bohman, 2005).

In 1933, Horkheimer succeeded Grünberg, the first official director. Horkheimer

continued the Marxist inspiration, while at the same time he directed the Institute’s mission

toward a more interdisciplinary integration of the social sciences. Horkheimer led and influenced

members of the Institute to address a wide range of economic, social, political and aesthetic

issues—from empirical analysis to philosophical theorization (Corradetti, 2014; Bohman, 2005;

Routledge, 2011).

Under Horkeimer’s leadership and the influence of three pertinent historical events: the

failed working-class revolution predicted by Marx in Western Europe; the rise of Nazism and;

the expansion and growth of capitalism—production and consumption, Horkheimer again

redirected the schools members and mission to reflect the times (Routledge, 2011). During this

time Frankfurt School member philosophers began to redevelop Marxist thought, they were also

influenced by other social theorists and philosophers such as Hegel, Freud, Weber, Nietzsche and

Kant (Corradetti, 2014; Routledge, 2011). Today, The Frankfurt School scholars continue to

inspire critical theorists with an urgent and unique edge, from pro-democracy to anti-capitalists

(Routledge, 2011).
Final Paper López-2

What is Critical Theory?

Horkheimer (1937) asks, “What is theory?” he says, “Theory is stored up knowledge, put

in a form that makes it useful for the closest possible description of facts” (p. 188).

Subsequently, “critical” theory is distinguished from “traditional” theory based on a specific

practical purpose: hence, a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from

slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the

needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer, 1972, p. 246). In essence the essential

component of critical theory is the critique of ideology (Horkeimer, 1972).

In other words, critical theory is directed at the whole of society (what is during a specific

point in time and how it evolved to be at this point in time), critical theory should not only

improve understanding though the integration of social sciences, but should also seek “human

emancipation” (social transformation) in situations of harmful dominance (social injury) and

oppression (Horkheimer, 1972; Bercaw, 1992). In addition, critical theorists claim, combining

the poles of social sciences and philosophy (i.e. explanation and understanding; structure and

agency) permits a certain practicality to the process. According, to Horkeimer (1993) the task of

“human emancipation” is not possible without active interplay and connections between

philosophy and social science via the interdisciplinary process of empirical social research

(Horkeimer, 1972).

The overwhelming, yet practical goal of identifying and overcoming all the

circumstances of dominance and oppression that limit human freedom can only be accomplished

through interdisciplinary research (psychological, cultural, and social) which include the

critiques of institutional forms of domination—the practical aim of social inquiry is to transform

modern capitalism into a consensual form of cooperative, practical social life (Bohman, 2005).
Final Paper López-3

“A capitalist society could be transformed only by becoming more democratic, to make it such

that “all conditions of social life that are controllable by human beings depend on real

consensus” in a rational, cooperative, practical and transformative society (Horkheimer, 1972, p.

249–250; Freire, 1970).

Therefore, democracy, as a condition of social life, requires a certain public sphere of

discourse. A sphere sufficient and far reaching enough to create a strong public, hence, since the

dawn of our industrial society, the American public school system has become that public

sphere; the American school system is the political public space that creates, distributes and

redistributes political power (knowledge) as a constraint (oppression) and/or field of opportunity

(meritocracy) for multiple forums, groups, and perspectives of democracy in our current society

(Bohman, 2005: Freire, 1970). I will explain why we need critical pedagogy in the public sphere

of the classroom and will illuminate its relationship with democracy. Finally, I will review the

criticisms and challenges of critical pedagogy from the perspective of practicing educators,

theorists, and administrators.

Critical Theory Imbues Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy as a praxis oriented “educational movement” is a student-centered,

critical and democratic pedagogy. Critical pedagogy is a practice for any subject matter, it is

oriented for self and social change; it is to help students develop a consciousness of freedom.

Critical pedagogy can be thought of as habits of thought, it is not a method, it is a continuous

process of unlearning, learning, and relearning, reflection, and evaluation; the impact of this

process is believed to penetrate and impress consciousness beneath the surface of dominant

assumptions (Giroux, 2013; Kincheloe, 2011). The process is intended to initially create a state
Final Paper López-4

of confusion, letting information flow, then at some point the confusion crystallizes into alternate

forms and ideas—to name, reflect critically and to act (Wink, 2005).

Shor (1992) states, "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 consequences of any action, event, object, process, organization,

experience, text, subject matter, policy, mass media, or discourse." (p. 129). Critical pedagogy is

a relationship between teaching and learning. It takes shape in the classroom as a dialogue where

teacher and students collaborate and investigate everyday topics, academic content, and social

issues. Students become active agents of their own learning through guided dialogue carefully

crafted into critical and democratic problem-posing frameworks for getting beneath the surface

of public and private concerns of conditions for the production of knowledge, values, beliefs, and

skills (Giroux 2013; Shor 1992, 1980; Kincheloe, 2011).

Relationship with Democracy

The philosophy was first described and influenced by Freire (1970) critical pedagogy

emerged from the extended education struggles from his work in Brazil. During the 1970s and

1980s it was advance by Giroux, Simon, Livingston, and Kincheloe (Tristán, 2013). Giroux

(2013) describes critical pedagogy as an ongoing project, rather than a fixed set of references or

practice. “…It is a way of understanding education as well as a way of highlighting the

performative nature of agency as an act of participating in shaping the world in which we live”

(p. 2).

Critical pedagogy is political, it is always political because of the way it illuminates the

relationship among knowledge, authority, and power. It draws questions to the acquisition of
Final Paper López-5

agency, unlike the strategies used in traditional learning methods where teaching is approached

as a set of skills (method, technique, craft) to align with pre-specified subject matter and topics

(Tristán, 2013; Giroux 2013; Shor 1992, 1980).

Unlike conservative and traditional notions teaching and learning critical pedagogy is a

moral project rather than a technique—it combines critical theory with education (Tristán, 2013;

Corradetti, 2014; Bohman, 2005; Routledge, 2011). Critical theory combined with critical

pedagogy reflects and critiques societal bases (forces and relations of production) and systems

(culture, institutions, roles, rituals, and power structures) with knowledge from the social

sciences and humanities (Corradetti, 2014)—specifically, the primary tenant of critical pedagogy

is to question dominate or common notions of social powers that enslave, oppress, silence,

and/or derail human potentiality, in turn students who are exposed to critical pedagogies are able

to form their own understanding and meaning through guided and constructive dialogue (Tristán,

2013; Giroux 2013; Shor 1992, 1980).

Subsequently, the essence of democracy is described as a system in which the power is

vested in the people; therefore, it is reasonable to expect our eligible and vested citizens to be of

moderate intelligence, reasoning ability, and social status. Unfortunately, the power of the people

is circumvented by political groups who lobby for an educational system based on revenue

outcomes, rather than outcomes of moral relations (Apple, 2014; Willis, 1977).

As a result, conservative groups want pedagogical methods that are anti-intellectual, anti-

reflective, and anti-student. Traditional methods guarantee data-driven mandates and test score

achievement is nothing more than political subterfuge to “avoid the difficult truths about the

inequality of America’s political economy” (Tristán, 2013; Ravitch, 2013; Apple 2014). Equality

in the classroom requires the freedom for students to publicly discuss, reflect, and process
Final Paper López-6

local/global situations in context of social engagement and/or activism, and this includes the full

spectrum of tensions that critical thinking produces (Freire 1970; Kincheloe, 2011; Bercaw,

1992).

Democracy and the understanding of power and dominance are most often initiated

through relevant discourse in the classroom (Apple, 2014). In other words, critical pedagogy

supports the development of students’ consciousness of freedom; a working democracy requires

freedom of voice; and “human emancipation” requires the freedom to be heard (Giroux, 2013;

Freire, 1970; Kincheloe, 2011; Horkheimer, 1972).

Furthermore, Rousseau (2004), describes two species of inequality among men [women],

one is the natural, or physical inequality; the other is moral or political inequality—“…between

the two species of inequality, […] if those who command are necessarily better men [women]

than those who obey; and if strength of body or of mind, wisdom or virtues are always to be

found in individuals, in the same proportion with power, or riches: a question, fit perhaps to be

discussed by slaves in the hearing of their masters, but unbecoming free and reasonable beings in

quest of truth” (p. 1). Rousseau (2004) illustrates a difficult paradox to maintain, yet one that few

educators attempt to unpack. The discourse of critical pedagogy is important for two primary

reasons—it demystifies democratic authority or power, and encourages a transformative

discourse focused on social equality—a sort of solidarity within marginalized groups (Giroux,

2013; Freire, 1970; Kincheloe, 2011).

These two basic tenets of critical pedagogy are triggers for the many challenges teachers

and researchers who support critical pedagogies face daily. For example, one specific challenge

is providing teachers and researchers with a means of understanding the specific role classrooms,

schools, and districts play within race, class, and gender, while at the same time encouraging the
Final Paper López-7

move away from the reproductive roles (cultural and political), and systems of traditional

education and capitalism (Apple 1990; Mayo 1999; McLaren 2003; Willis, 1977; Ducan-

Andrade, 2008). Factors that contribute to this challenge is describe by Apple (1990), as the

existence of a hidden curriculum (socially conditioned), Shor (1992) refers to an authoritarian

environment (passive conditioning), and Willis (1977) who suggests larger cultural aspects are

reproduced in the classroom (working class students beget working class citizens) (Apple 1990;

Shor 1992; Willis, 1977). The fact is, negative reproduction occurs, molding and shaping is a

reality within the American school system, the result is the creation of easily manipulated

workers and apathetic citizens (Duncan-Andrade, 2008).

Internal challenges also arise from advocates’ suggestion that schools disclose, access,

position, and analyze themselves as a cultural and historical process, that positions students with

asymmetrical relational power on the basis of specific marginalized groupings. This suggestion

becomes a problem of organizational change at several levels of authority, thus creates tension

for advocates of traditional teaching methods—in short, as the status quo is positively and

constructively challenged which often results in a backlash of reactionary actions and behaviors

that perpetually reinforce a continuing and/or cyclical system of dominance and oppressive

(Duncan-Andrade, 2008).

Classroom Criticisms and Challenges

We often forget that education is political. As a society we are emotionally attached to

the schooling of our children and the beliefs and values that stand behind public education

(Apple 1990). However, the current use of democratic and activist approaches to teaching and

learning is considered a radical and uncomfortable shift by many practicing educators and
Final Paper López-8

community members; consequently few practitioners have offered alternative practical options

for action beyond the comforts of the status quo (Philion, 2006).

The gap of political awareness combined with the resistance of an activist and open

dialogue approach leaves many educators and practitioners with few viable options and resources

to explain best practices that would encourage discussion of dominant cultural ideologies and

mindsets that legitimize existing race, class, and gender dominance. One example of cultural

ideology in practice is how students in American schools are taught that individual actions

(individualism) is the foundation of upward mobility, this practice ignores the discourse of

discovering how society ranks individuals within social class and educational systems. Students

are not allowed the discourse to help them fully understand the social and economic “systems”

that often leads to inequalities in income, wealth, and power as the result of individual actions

(Apple, 1990; Duncan-Andrade, 2008). Unfortunately, the challenge of critiquing domination

and providing classrooms the opportunity for critical discourse is unaccompanied by practical

curriculum—Socratic discussions, collaborative learning, and criteria for judging thought is

largely missing from teacher- student awareness and skill sets (Weil, 1998).

On the other hand, there are serious critical pedagogy advocates who share a common set

of principles and elements, they take actions to facilitate dialogue (active participation of

students and teacher), critique (Duncan-Andrade (2008) …the systematic analysis of both self

and society with a focus on inequality, exploitation, oppression, and domination), counter

hegemony (construction of a counter hegemony in opposition to a bourgeois hegemony), and

praxis (an application of knowledge to the transformation of society), these core elements of

critical pedagogy, unfortunately are still missing in traditional classrooms. In addition, if core
Final Paper López-9

elements are in place, they are often misguided, or misunderstood in critically approached

classroom environments (Duncan-Andrade, 2008. p. 359).

Obstacles such as institutional constraints and teaching standards often enhance the

difficulty or impossibility of equal course development (Sweet 1998; Bercaw, 1992), in addition

varying levels of commitment among faculty creates an inconsistent platform resulting in

negative to neutral conditions that prevent the actualization of critical pedagogy in the

classroom. This is a huge problem for advocates who believe, critical pedagogy is most optimal

if integrated throughout the curriculum (Duncan-Andrade, 2008). Similarly, Dillabough (2002)

argues, the importance of identifying the “dangers” and liberal traps critical pedagogy may

expose, emphasizing the need for self-reflection and self-awareness of needs, desires, and

attitude within the frame of critical pedagogical positions as a facilitator, school, school district,

or democratic community.

Positioning critical pedagogy between the essence of democracy and teaching is a

precarious balancing act. For instance, Johnson (1999) states, that schooling is political in nature,

however “…in essence teaching is not primarily about power or politics….fundamentally

teaching is about the moral relation between teacher and students…placing political relation at

the center of teaching and learning…..falsifies the essential nature of education” (p. 561).

The ultimate question is does critical pedagogy work with dominate culture students and

classrooms? Is there a limit to its effectiveness? This question is especially relevant for those

who teach multiculturalism. The struggle to “sensitize” students and prospective teachers is an

on-going process of classroom discourse and teacher preparation. Multiculturalism is a specific

band of critical pedagogy, it calls for a systematized process that examines the conscious and/or

unconscious “identity formation” of privileged groups (Tatum, 1997). In essence, it seeks to

Final Paper López-10

move the oppressor from a comfortable or “natural” place toward a deliberate form of awareness

and transformation—a process and/or type of social justice based on cooperation and alliance

between the oppressed and the oppressor (Allen, 2005). Multicultural educators’ pedagogy

directly and deliberately challenges systematic privilege that in turn, can and will evoke anger

and hostility from fearfulness to depression for both students and teachers. Many educators

disengage and refuse to implement critical social awareness in their classrooms some claim the

challenge is too emotionally draining. However, others continue to believe that this specific

brand of critical pedagogy is vital to our democracy and is too important to give up (Allen &

Rossatto, 2009).

Discussion and Implications

Considering the nature of the criticism and challenges posed with critical pedagogy, does

critical pedagogy really matter? In respecting what student already know, as educators we are in

the best position to help them link knowledge from traditional or progressive curriculum to the

tangible realities of their everyday lives—by facilitating curiosity, risk-taking, and openness to

new and unexplored (Freire (1998). The primary challenge we face is re-socializing students

(and teachers) to expect and accept new learning experiences. Students need to recondition

themselves to expect a certain amount of discomfort with any new learning experience or

activity, especially within critical practicing classroom. Students and teachers alike must be

comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty—the unfortunate, alternative is the loss of students’

and ultimately democratic citizens’ voices.

Conclusion

The cliché, critical pedagogy matters because our future matters, speaks to the core of

conformity and the insipid passive absorption of knowledge without question. In contrast, critical
Final Paper López-11

pedagogy challenges our assumptions and leads us to ask new, interesting, and relevant

questions. Critical pedagogy gives a voice to change and encourages positive transformation—it

leads to advocacy and collaboration (Wink, 2005).

Educators who embrace critical pedagogy see it as a form of practice and as a form of

action (Giroux, 1988)—still, not all students and teachers will accept this type of action-based

pedagogy (Shor, 1996). In this case, initiating dialogue and problem posing questions with

resistant students and/or teachers is and essential key to critical pedagogy. For example,

questioning what students and teachers really expect from their education and/or career as an

educator, what is their current social reality look like, how can it change, and how might they

self-measure their level of curiosity, awareness, etc., these are examples of questions that begin

to penetrate critical and social thinking (Kaufman, 2008).

Inevitability, our philosophical goals are filtered through a critical approach to education

—social transformation is connected to social truth. As educators our responsibility and

objective is to empower silent and/or marginalized voices. At the same time, there is a

challenging intersection between the demands of dominate cultural expectations and

assessments. With these contrasting issues in mind, contemplating the purpose of schooling and

its relationship to a democratic society is complex—yet, this intersection is imperative to the fire

of critical pedagogy; this is the intersection primed for the space of inquiry (Bercaw, 1992).
Final Paper López-12

Reference

Allen, R. L. (2005). Whiteness and critical pedagogy. Critical Pedagogy and Race (pp. 53-68).

London, UK: Blackwell.

Allen, R. L. & Rossatto, C.A. (2009). Does critical pedagogy work with privileged students?

Teacher Education Quarterly. Vol. 36. pp. 163-180. Caddo Gap Press.

Apple, M. (2014). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (3rd edition).

New York: Routledge.

Apple, M. (1985). Education and power. Boston, MA: Ark Paperbacks.

Bercaw, L. & Stooksberry, L. (1992). Teacher education, critical pedagogy, and standards: An

exploration of theory and practice. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School

Officers.

Bohman, J. (2005). Critical theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Center for

the Study of Language and Information. Retrieved from the internet on 5/15/2015 from:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/:

Corradetti, C. (2014). The Frankfurt school and critical theory. Internet Enclopedia of

Philosophy. Italy: European Academy and the University of Rome.

Dillabough, J. (2002). The “hidden injuries” of critical pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 32.

pp. 203-214: Wiley

Duncan-Andrade, J. & Morrell, E. (2008). Contemporary developers of critical pedagogy. The

Art of Critical Pedagogy: Possibilities for Moving from Theory to Practice in Urban

Schools. Vol.285. JSTOR. Peter Lang AG.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New, York: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.
Final Paper López-13

Giroux, H.A. & Simon, R.I. (1988). Schooling, popular culture, and a pedagogy of possibility.

Journal of Education, Vol. 170. pp. 9-29. Boston University.

Horkeimer, M. (1937). Traditional and critical theory. Frankfurt School of Sociology. Translated

by Matthew J. O-Connell. Retrieved from the internet on 5/15/2015 from:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Horkeimer%2C+M.+

%281937%29.+Traditional+and+critical+theory.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Horkeimer, M. (1972) Critical theory, New York: Seabury Press; reprinted Continuum: New

York, 1982

Johnson. (1999). Putting critical pedagogy in its place: A personal account. TESOL Quarterly.

Vol. 33, No. 3. pp. 557-565: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL).

Kaufman, P. & Forbes, C. (2008). Critical pedagogy in the sociology classroom: Challenges and

concerns. Teaching Sociology. Vol. 36. pp. 26-33. Sage Publications.

Kincheloe, L., J. (2011). Critical pedagogy in the twenty-first century. Information Age

Publishing, Inc.

Mayo, P. (1999). Gramsci, Freire, and adult education. New York: Zed Books.

McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy. New York: Pearson.

Philion, S., & Mhando, L. (2006). From smorgasbord pedagogy to critical pedagogy: Rethinking

how we teach about race. American Sociological Association. New, York.

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to

America’s public schools. New York, NY: Random House.

Final Paper López-14

Routledge, (2011). The Frankfurt school. Social Theory Re-Wired. Taylor & Francis Group.

Retrieved from the internet on 5/15/2015 from:

http://theory.routledgesoc.com/profile/frankfurt-school

Shor, I. (1992) Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, Illinois:

University of Chicago Press, Ltd.

Shor, I. (1980). Critical teaching and everyday life. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press

Sweet, S. (1998). Practicing radical pedagogy: Balancing ideals with institutional constraints.

Teaching Sociology. Vol. 26. pp. 100-11. Special Issue. Sage Publications.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). "Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?" and other

conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

Tristán, J.M.B. (2013). Henry Giroux: The necessity of critical pedagogy in dark times.

Interview. Global Education Magazine. Retrieved from the internet on 5/15/2015 from:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14331-a-critical-interview-with-henry-giroux

Weil, K. (1998). Critical Pedagogy. Counterpoints: Towards a Critical Multicultural Literacy:

Theory and Practice for Education for Liberation. Vol. 50. Peter Lang AG.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. New York: Columbia University Press.

Wink, (2005). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world (4th ed). Pearson Education Inc.

Retrieved from the internet on 5/15/2015 from:

https://margandtish.wikispaces.com/Critical+Pedagogy,+Notes+from+the+real+world