Abstract
The articles in this special issue are a small sample of those presented at the 3rd International Conference on Critical Pedagogies and Philosophies of Education, held at Liverpool Hope University in June of 2015. This first conference was organised by the Paulo Freire Centre at Liverpool Hope, which had a particular focus on fostering research into Critical Pedagogy and Philosophy of Education, and gathered scholars from all over the world. Since then, although the Paulo Freire Centre has closed, the conference continues to take place every year, and the fourth annual meeting was held at the University of Winchester, July 2017, and co-organised with Emile Bojesen. The Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain (PESGB) has continued with its support from the outset, and we are very thankful for this.
In the editorial for the special issue of the 1st International Conference on Critical Pedagogies and Philosophies of Education, published in this journal at the beginning of 2017 (Vol. 15, No. 1), I commented on the current situation of Critical Pedagogy as being problematic. I noted that there seems to be a lack of attention being paid by educationists and policy makers to the work being done by those working from a Critical Pedagogy perspective, and that this is perhaps the case because these theorists have failed to reply successfully to criticisms and take stock of new developments in the process of globalisation. In this respect, the late Ilan Gur-Ze’ev (2003: 13) insightfully noted: I believe I do not run the risk of exaggeration by asserting that in fact all current versions of Critical Pedagogy have lost their intimate connections to the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School; not much is left of its original relation with the Frankfurt School that was an enrichment so fruitful for the very possibility of Critical Pedagogy; for Paulo Freire and early Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, Michael Apple, Ira Shor, and other founders of the unexpected present popularity (and irrelevance) of the different versions of Critical Pedagogy. This historical and philosophical gap is not a regretful condition per se; if only a fruitful transformation and a rich, elevating, alternative had lifted…[Critical Pedagogy] [my emphasis, my insertion].
When I wrote about this in that first editorial I was in a European context, and I agreed with Gur-Ze’ev’s words and found myself extremely interested in his counter-education project. As I understand it, this project both continues and departs from Critical Pedagogy; that is to say, it is borne out and deeply connected to Critical Pedagogy, but it tries to resolve many of the foundational problems identified by critics, and in so doing, it takes Critical Pedagogy to another level – which Gur-Ze’ev now calls ‘counter-education’. Having returned to Latin American, more specifically Brazil, I now find myself obviously immersed in that perspective and agreeing even more strongly with Gur-Ze’ev. Critical Pedagogy must face and respond to criticisms and demonstrate that it remains relevant for the development and transformation of contemporary society, and for this to happen it must remain always Critical Pedagogy.
This critical aspect is not always present in the theorising and practical work of theorists and academics in the field of education. In a recent event in Brazil, a national conference organised by ANPEd (Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Educação; Nacional Association for Postgraduate Programmes and Research in Education), which is arguably the most important and prestigious in the country, Brayner (2015) presented a very interesting paper, entitled “Paulofreireanismo: instituindo uma teologia laica?” (PauloFreireanism: Are we institutionalising a secular theology? (my translation)), which I find very pertinent for our discussion here. He starts his discussion by asserting that the focus of his paper is not Freire, at least not directly, and that he is not interested in positioning himself as being in favour or against Freire’s ideas; rather, the focal point of his paper is the issue of ‘paulofreireanismo’ (i.e. paulofreireanism) present in Brazilian academia and some parts of Brazilian society. He refers to that which Wilhem E Mühlmann, in his Les méssianismes révolutionnaires dans le Tiers Monde, describes as the institutionalisation of an idea, in a particular religious organisation or political party (and Brayner adds: education), and that this means that this idea has lost its original appeal, and that it is trying to legitimise itself by other means. Further, and in an interesting passage of his paper, he comments that he has Freirean academic colleagues and that something about them has called his attention; that is, despite being academics, who by this very condition should be ‘critical’ individuals, they continue to glorify Freire’s name, and to treat his work and his educational legacy in an uncritical way, rarely submitting it to a rigorous and objective critique. Unfortunately, I have witnessed very similar situations, and I suspect that this situation is replicated in other Latin American contexts, and throughout the world, not just in respect to Freire, but also to other thinkers and ideologies. I believe that Brayner’s paper demonstrates the relevance of Gur-Ze’ev’s words, and that Critical Pedagogy must remain critical if it is to remain relevant to today’s society. Gur-Ze’ev’s warning was a very wise and pertinent one. Thus, without dismissing Freire’s highly important contribution to Critical Pedagogy and Philosophy of Education, we would be amiss if we did not consider the present state in which his work is held by many in education in light of Gur-Ze’ev’s desire that we should continuously review and critique all methodologies, ideologies and approaches to education.
This special issue aims to help further develop Critical Pedagogy, drawing attention to research by new scholars working in the field as well as to the more established theorists such as Peter Roberts, Judith Suissa, John Petrovic and Kellie Rolstad – it also joins scholars from Europe, Australasia, North and South America. I tried to organise papers following a chronological ‘history of ideas’ order, so to demonstrate the breadth of work and various perspectives being adopted by philosophers of education. The first article, “Educating for autonomy: Reading Rousseau and Freire toward a philosophy of unschooling”, by John Petrovic and Kellie Rolstad, provides an overview of the unschooling movement, highlighting the important philosophical differences between unschooling and homeschooling. In relation to this, the authors note Rousseau’s differentiation between making a person or making a citizen, and then consider Freire’s lesson that citizens must engage with the collective in critically transitive ways. They conclude by presenting a philosophy of unschooling in schools as something necessary to education for democracy, so that we can face today’s neoliberalism.
The second article, “Learning to Live with Doubt: Kierkegaard, Freire and Critical Pedagogy”, by Peter Roberts, comments that in Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments there is an implied theory of doubt that is portrayed as a pivotal aspect of educational experience, evident in the thoughts, words, deeds, and relationships that structure Climacus’s tale. Roberts argues that there are many different theoretical approaches that can be taken in exploring the implications of Kierkegaard’s thought for education, particularly Freire. This is so because in Freire’s pedagogical theory and practice, doubt has both epistemological and ethical significance. It is linked with other key Freirean virtues such as humility and openness, and it forms part of the process of learning how to question. But it is also related, through the Freirean idea of being ‘less certain of one’s certainties’, to the ethical priorities we determine, the political commitments we have, and the actions we take as we negotiate our way in the world. The following article, “The Event, the Messianic and the Affirmation of Life – A Post-Critical Perspective on Education with Agamben and Badiou”, by Joris Vlieghe and Piotr Zamojski, discusses the work of two philosophers, Alain Badiou and Giorgio Agamben, arguing that the joint educational reading of their work opens a post-critical view on education. This is to say, it suggests an alternative that is not just a criticism of the existing system, but an entirely affirmative one. Badiou and Agamben have shown that education is about the possibilities we have at our disposal to begin anew with our world – which also turns education into an important political issue. The fourth article, “Teachers’ Lifelong Learning: Emerging Dialogues from Gert Biesta’s Philosophical Views”, by myself, Bettina Steren dos Santos, and Carla Spagnolo, comments on the importance of lifelong learning for teachers as something that is essential and fundamental for the improvement of the teaching and learning processes in education. We explain and discuss some theoretical views related to the theme of teachers’ lifelong learning, especially those put forward by Gert Biesta, and make some suggestions for teachers’ lifelong learning that aim to make a difference with regards to how teachers carry out their day-to-day activities. We conclude by arguing that teachers must contribute to the character formation and socialisation of the individual, so that they recognise themselves as unique in the world, but at the same time, know their responsibility in the environment in which they live. It is not enough to adapt to the curricular parameters required by legislation; it is essential that the teaching profession encourages inquiry, discussion, and can constantly re-evaluate and reconstruct that which constitutes knowledge.
The fifth article, “Pedagogies of Indignation and The Lives of Others”, by Judith Suissa, provides a discussion on Neel Mukherjee’s novel, The Lives of Others, which depicts characters dealing with a situation of extreme and violent oppression. This is used as the basis for looking more closely at some of the theoretical assumptions about hope, agency, and critical consciousness that underpin Critical Pedagogy. Suissa suggests that it may be educationally and philosophically valuable to reflect on the ethically troubling choices that individuals in extreme situations make in their fight against oppression, and to ask questions about the risks and the costs involved when people, through a process of critical consciousness, become fully free to claim their moral and political agency. The following paper, “Schooling as a Rational Rite of Passage”, by Ivan Dimitrijevic, refers to Van Gennep’s conception of the rites of passage, and shows that the schooling rite corresponds to basic myths of the modern age; that is, progress, tolerance, freedom, and equality. Referring to Hobbes’ political views, the author argues that schooling represents a way out of pre-modern forms of political dissociation marked by inequality, servitude, and unhappiness; that is, schooling is a rational rite of passage from feudal society to the modern one. Finally, the last contribution, “Affects and Politics in the Classroom: A Group-Based Approach to Education”, by Antoine Janvier and Sophie Wustefeld, discusses the insights of two streams of French institutional pedagogy from the 1960s: the clinical and political dimensions of learning, and the benefits of group-based approaches in education. These pedagogies, based on structural analysis of relationships in the classroom, explore how teachers’ and learners’ hierarchical relationships to knowledge hinders communication in traditional pedagogies; and how the teacher’s traditional stance in the classroom tends to reinforce psychological stress in learners by placing the teacher as a new parental figure. Both pedagogies introduce mediations or techniques inspired by Célestin Freinet, such as the learners’ council, which aim at disrupting hierarchies in the classroom.