What do you think?
Rate this book
Feminisms & Critical Pedagogy Cl
First Published in 1992. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
220 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 1992
1 person is currently reading
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 6, 2010
Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy is a collection that attempts to question some of the gendered notions about critical pedagogy that have developed (largely because, as Carmen and Gore note, much of the scholarship at this point had been written by men [ix:]). The authors take a poststructuralist feminist approach that is anti-foundational, rejecting "the self-certain subject, the truth of science and fixity of language, and the functionalist order imputed to the social and to theories of the social" (5).
In "Progressive Pedagogy and Political Struggle," Valerie Walkerdine argues that progressive pedagogy and notions of freedom and liberation are wrapped up in bourgeois notions of the modern state and democracy because they rely on a notion of the individual who is free from overt control (15-16). Women's sexuality is wrapped up in these notions, as women have been positioned as a nurturing mother that has been deployed for the "liberation" of children: "Women teachers became caught, trapped, inside a concept of nurturance which held them responsible for the freeing of each little individual" (16).
In "Feminist Politics in Radical Pedagogy," Carmen Luke argues that critical pedagogy has supposed a form of subjectivity that is masculinist and "renders its emancipatory agenda for 'gender' theoretically and practically problematic" (25). Giroux's notion that critical pedagogy is based on critique and action (29) is problematic because women's critique is often situated in men's discourses and spaces, and difficult for women in domestic and working-class labor spaces (30). Much critical pedagogy, Luke argues, rein scribes the public/private dichotomy and continues to subordinate the private to the public (31).
In "What We Can Do for You! What Can 'We' Do for 'You'?: Struggling over Empowerment in Critical and Feminist Pedagogy," Jennifer Gore critiques the use of the term "empowerment" in critical pedagogy, noting that the term supposes "(1) an agent of empowerment, (2) a notion of power as property, and (3) some kind of vision or desirable end state" (56).
In "Interrupting the Calls for Student Voice in 'Liberatory' Education: A Feminist Postructuralist Perspective," Mini Orner argues that "student voice," as it has been proposed in much scholarship on critical pedagogy, is "an oppressive construct" because it can be essentializing (in it's called for "authentic") (75), because it gets "interrogated" by educators who determine when the voice is successful and liberated (87), and because it ignores the power in students' silence (81).
In "Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy," Elizabeth Ellsworth critiques discourses of critical pedagogy for too providing "repressive myths" about "empowerment," "student voice," "dialogue," and the term "critical" (91). She argues that these discussions of critical pedagogy are often de-contextualized and abstract (92), and the term "critical" serves as a code word for certain political agendas (93). Additionally, "empowerment" is often not given a historical and political context (99). The language of critical pedagogy is often too rational, and Ellsworth writes: "As long as the literature on critical pedagogy fails to come to terms with issues of trust, risk, and the operations of fear and desire around such issues of identity and politics in the classroom, their rationalistic tools will continue to fail to loosen deep-seated, self-interested investments in unjust relations of, for example, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation" (105).
In "Post-Critical Pedagogies: A Feminist Reading," Patti Lather continues in the vein of Ellsworth, asking how "our very efforts to liberate perpetuate the relations of dominance" (122). She analyzes the responses of Giroux and McLaren to Ellsworth's article, showing how they attack Ellsworth rather than taking the more productive path of trying to "resituate our emancipatory work" (127).
In "Progressive Pedagogy and Political Struggle," Valerie Walkerdine argues that progressive pedagogy and notions of freedom and liberation are wrapped up in bourgeois notions of the modern state and democracy because they rely on a notion of the individual who is free from overt control (15-16). Women's sexuality is wrapped up in these notions, as women have been positioned as a nurturing mother that has been deployed for the "liberation" of children: "Women teachers became caught, trapped, inside a concept of nurturance which held them responsible for the freeing of each little individual" (16).
In "Feminist Politics in Radical Pedagogy," Carmen Luke argues that critical pedagogy has supposed a form of subjectivity that is masculinist and "renders its emancipatory agenda for 'gender' theoretically and practically problematic" (25). Giroux's notion that critical pedagogy is based on critique and action (29) is problematic because women's critique is often situated in men's discourses and spaces, and difficult for women in domestic and working-class labor spaces (30). Much critical pedagogy, Luke argues, rein scribes the public/private dichotomy and continues to subordinate the private to the public (31).
In "What We Can Do for You! What Can 'We' Do for 'You'?: Struggling over Empowerment in Critical and Feminist Pedagogy," Jennifer Gore critiques the use of the term "empowerment" in critical pedagogy, noting that the term supposes "(1) an agent of empowerment, (2) a notion of power as property, and (3) some kind of vision or desirable end state" (56).
In "Interrupting the Calls for Student Voice in 'Liberatory' Education: A Feminist Postructuralist Perspective," Mini Orner argues that "student voice," as it has been proposed in much scholarship on critical pedagogy, is "an oppressive construct" because it can be essentializing (in it's called for "authentic") (75), because it gets "interrogated" by educators who determine when the voice is successful and liberated (87), and because it ignores the power in students' silence (81).
In "Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering? Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy," Elizabeth Ellsworth critiques discourses of critical pedagogy for too providing "repressive myths" about "empowerment," "student voice," "dialogue," and the term "critical" (91). She argues that these discussions of critical pedagogy are often de-contextualized and abstract (92), and the term "critical" serves as a code word for certain political agendas (93). Additionally, "empowerment" is often not given a historical and political context (99). The language of critical pedagogy is often too rational, and Ellsworth writes: "As long as the literature on critical pedagogy fails to come to terms with issues of trust, risk, and the operations of fear and desire around such issues of identity and politics in the classroom, their rationalistic tools will continue to fail to loosen deep-seated, self-interested investments in unjust relations of, for example, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation" (105).
In "Post-Critical Pedagogies: A Feminist Reading," Patti Lather continues in the vein of Ellsworth, asking how "our very efforts to liberate perpetuate the relations of dominance" (122). She analyzes the responses of Giroux and McLaren to Ellsworth's article, showing how they attack Ellsworth rather than taking the more productive path of trying to "resituate our emancipatory work" (127).
Displaying 1 of 1 review