I am tempted to write an article someday entitled "Almost Brown." I have
seen lots of folks far less critical, but also far less productive, sail
through tenure and promotion without justification, while others who
practice counterhegemonic pedagogy get harrassed in academia or "tolerated"
in the liberal approach to diversity and treated as tokens just as much as
minorities or women. While I feel there are imposters in the field of
critical pedagogy, I would not include Henry or Peter among them. They
would be even richer if they were writing "Bell-Curve" books. I doubt if
Rush Limbaugh worries about making house payments. I think it would be
useful to read some of the admonitions in critical pedagogy for people to
ensure that their personal lives represent the same consciousness and
subsequent actions as they profess or demonstrate and advocate in their
classrooms. Peter has recently written his own critique of critical
pedagogy as potentially falling into the same ruts as the dominant
discourse in academia. None of us are perfect, just as Cornel West said,
we all harbor wrinkles of racism-- and I'm sure other isms-- and I feel
liberatory pedagogy is as much for the oppressor as it is for the
oppressed. I also believe passing judgements is detrimental in the sense
that we are hopefully evolving. The poem which is often cited in critical
pedagogy by Antonio Machado reflects this spirit. "Caminante no hay
camino, se hace el camino al andar." In all of my conversations with
Macedo, Giroux, Darder, McLaren, Chavez Chavez, and others, the idea is
always present that, not only should critical pedagogy be critical of the
status quo, but it should also be a tradition which promotes self critique.
Respectfully, roberto
>Kathie Goff wrote:
>>My question is, What happens when university professors who are men
>>practice critical pedagogy?
>
>They get famous, write zillions of books, and reap the benefits. Just ask
>Henry Giroux or Peter McLaren! (raw answer)
>
>Of course, it depends on which "men", and the degree to which their
>masculinity and race and class and sexuality priviledge are also
>on the line. In my university, those male profs who profess critical
>pedagogy in
>their classes, and yet act like pigs outside of their professorial role are
>white, virulently heterosexual, and extremely ambitious and I might add
>successful. For those guys, critical theory simply represents another
>authoritative discourse with which to represent themselves as
>sumultaneously powerful and heroic. A master narrative of good versus
>evil. For them, professing critical theory in no way problematises
>their own identity.
>My theory is that this is why it is precisely these same guys who (not only at
>my university) who go nuts and actually agressively apeshit over folks
>like Liz Ellsworth- folks who could actually require some accountability on
>their part. It is critical theorists who lambasted Liz Ellsworth in
>Harvard Ed REview and elsewhere just 'cuz she challenged their
>authority- not some band of right-wing fascists.
>
>>What would be the benefits of men teaching this way?
>depends
>
>
>>What do you see as problematic?
>everything, except for dogs, coffee and chocolate
>
>Mary
>
>Mary Bryson, Associate Professor, Education/UBC
>Principal Co-Investigator: GenTech Project
>http://www.educ.sfu.ca/gentech/index.htm