literature review

Pedagogies for Critical Change in the Sociology Classroom

Most, if not all, sociology professors would agree that it is important to be consciously reflective of what they teach. Sociology in theory and practice is complicated by the fact that it is one of the most reflexive areas of scholarship, in that the tools and mindsets that the field can offer can and should be critically applied back onto itself by sociologists looking to improve the efficacy of sociological practice. For many sociologists, including myself, the roots of sociology are not only in forming empirical, academic understandings of social life in human groups, but also necessarily include using that body of knowledge to achieve liberatory social justice. Thus, good scholarship in the sociology classroom necessitates critical contextualization of social reality taking place in the classroom itself and the oppressing and privileging structures which undergird interaction.

There has been a noted disconnect between instructors’ intended pedagogies and the pedagogical praxis in the classroom (Braa 2016, Breunig 2009, Cuesta and Witt 2014, Liasidou 2012, Parker and Lynn 2002, Preston and Aslett 2014, Rubin 2012). Though professors of sociology certainly have good intentions and make noble efforts to further their field, a number of factors, namely hegemonic and hierarchical social structures and adoption of neoliberal ideals hinder and counteract how sociology is taught, understood, and deployed from the university outward. In the words of Cuesta and Witt (2014:14), “It would be contradictory to talk about democracy and injustice and simultaneously maintain a traditional, hierarchical teacher/student

1

relationship in the lecture room. Such an arrangement would be hypocritical and unconvincing.” A rather niche group of scholars have constructed their own practical pedagogies, as well as appropriating other anti-oppressive theories and pedagogies in order to problematize, deconstruct, and reclaim the hegemonic status quo found in sociology. Among these are the noteworthy theories of critical pedagogy and activist pedagogy, which will be two of the main focuses of this review. The main focus will be on pedagogies of post-secondary education, where the majority of scholarly research is conducted, but this is not to discount work performed outside of academic institutions or anterior to post-secondary education (a point important to acknowledge).

Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is a body of philosophy that, in short, applies the concepts built through critical theories into the field of education (Braa 2016, Breunig 2009, Rubin 2012). Much of its basis comes from dialectical theory from Neomarxist thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci, and was developed and refined in the late 20th century to the present by scholars including Paulo Freire, Ira Shor, Peter McLaren, Peter Mayo, and Henry Giroux (Braa 2016, Breunig 2009). Critical pedagogy serves as a “possible emerging paradigm for the social sciences that is dedicated to an emancipatory praxis that is both humanist and scientific” (Braa 2016:1). It applies to both teaching and learning, and involves “the development of a critical consciousness (conscientization) of the many contradictions in social life” (Ibid., 11). Its goal is to give students tactics including dialogue, discourse, and dialectics that promote students’ voices (Ibid., 11) for sake of the ability to apply social theory to the ‘real world’ in, around, and outside of academia. Breunig (2009:250) complicates this definition, discussing how “the mere

transmission of theoretical knowledge about these concepts does not ensure that students are acting upon the justice-oriented intentions that the theory purports. Theory needs to be connected to practical, lived experiences both outside and within the classroom.” Her argument centers around the results of a study that demonstrate how professors can successfully apply critical pedagogy to classroom practices (Ibid., 247), and the results are consistent with theories of praxis from Braa (2016), Cuesta and Witt (2014), McCusker (2017), Preston and Aslett (2014), and Rubin (2012). Preston and Aslett (2014:511) note that collective, interpersonal learning is at the heart of these strategies, and that collaborative learning is “contrary to the neoliberal dogma of individualism, and reinforce[s] the value of lived local knowledge from student experiences.”

To scholars involved with critical pedagogy, the validity and applicability of using these in classrooms comes from having a multiplicity of perspectives and voices contribute to conscientization, which is an inherently Marxist (or Neomarxist) dialectical approach. For this reason, one of the most important contributors to developing contemporary critical pedagogy is the umbrella of intersectional theories (Liasidou 2012). Included here, but not limited to, are discussions of feminist pedagogy (Cuesta and Witt 2014, McCusker 2017), critical race theory (Parker and Lynn 2002), and critical disability theories (Liasidou 2012).

Intersectionality as Informant to Critical Pedagogy

Liasidou (2012:168) briefly defines intersectionality as a pedagogy as “an emancipatory theoretical and analytical tool in interrogating and deconstructing educational discourses of individual and social pathology that evoke and legitimize the constitution of the ‘non-ideal student’ in current schooling.” There have been innumerable intersectional scholars throughout all of academic history, but many of their voices have been starting to reach more ears in the last

few decades. There are considerably fewer scholars, however, who specialize in intersectionality as directly and pragmatically applied to pedagogical praxis, but certain contemporary scholars are drawing in existing works from intersectional scholarship to add greater dialectical dimensionality to critical pedagogy.

Feminist pedagogy, with its roots in women’s and gender studies, is one of the most prominent modes of intersectionality that has been applied to critical pedagogy. Cuesta and Witt (2014:13) support this, saying “feminist perspectives, implemented as gender conscious pedagogy, can impact social justice in society by stimulating consciousness about equality, diversity, social rights and democracy, inside and outside the university.” Inclusive teaching topics, practices, and pedagogies allow opportunities for students to become more self-confident in their critical social engagement (Ibid., 20). Cuesta and Witt conducted an autoethnographic study that sampled alumni of their own gender studies classes to determine how their gender conscious pedagogies shaped students relationships with scholarly praxis. Their results were consistent with the body of scholars already presented in that actively using such pedagogies conscientized students (Ibid., 21). The authors note that “the pedagogical tool we used in the courses is based on a two-way communication between teachers and students and that teaching in both large and small groups help students to be self-confident [emphasis added]” (Ibid., 20).

Critical race theory (CRT), another body of social theories emerging in the mid-90s,

dialectically and critically engages with racism not simply as individual racist acts but as an oppressive social structure that the United States was founded upon (Parker and Lynn 2002:9). It can be applied similarly to critical pedagogy and praxis, and Parker and Lynn in their essay go even further, showing how CRT, when applied through a pedagogical lens to qualitative research

adds critical dimensionality. They also emphasize how pedagogical CRT must exist not only in theory but in educational praxis: “For the critical race qualitative researcher, therefore, it is also important not only to deal with issues of nonunitary subjectivity in narrative representation but also to document how this plays out in various settings such as schools, where expectations of different groups of students based on race can lead to fluid but fixed notions of racial identity and responses by school officials to the achievement or failure of students of color” (Ibid., 16).

Though her essay is focused on using critical pedagogy to inclusively educate, Liasidou uses the example of the structural marginalization of students with disabilities (2012). Critical disability studies can be used as a theoretical platform for disability to be problematized, de- and reconstructed to add another dialectical perspective to pedagogical praxis (Liasidou 2012:169). What separates critical disability studies from the aforementioned intersectional theories is that its socially constructed basis is only partial. Disability is physical or biological for people who are affected by it, which further complicates how educational systems regard the ‘ideal student’ (Ibid., 170). Liasidou uses this to expose another way in which neoliberal attitudes redefine students as human capital “‘human resources’ rather than ‘resourcefully human’ (Ibid., 174).

Schools compete to recruit students they deem to be ‘value adding’ (in capitalistic terms) while discriminating towards students whose ‘diminish value’ by having marginalized identity factors (Ibid., 175).

Activist Pedagogy

Activist pedagogy, according to scholars Preston and Aslett, is a logical expansion or dissemination of critical pedagogy for teachers to use in practice to counteract the negative presence of neoliberalism in education (2014:502). It seems a paradoxical or redundant notion,

but Preston and Aslett see critical pedagogy not as a fully realized, usable praxis, but a theory of praxis that needs to then be applied into real situations. Activist pedagogy, therefore, is the pedagogical praxis of critical theory of pedagogical praxis. This does seem semantic or hypocritically attached to theory, but the authors extensively detail how their ideas were autoethnographically formed through their own experience teaching classes on social work.

Activist pedagogy has no broad, easily explicable theory because it is the thoughtful and critical way that teachers approach navigating their individual situations to most effectively serve their purpose as instructors. Their goal is to “[build] a community of activist learners and educators in the classroom, with tangible and meaningful opportunities to initiate and advocate for change.

Such an approach goes beyond the critical pedagogy stance, which can become mired in democratic principles ignoring fluid subjectivities and oppressive conditions of capitalism” (Ibid., 514).

These theories are consistent with and constituent to the ideas presented by Laura and

El-Amin in their essay “Teachers as Activists” (2015) and Cuesta and Witt’s essay (2014). Laura and El-Amin argue that “teacher activism is not a body of literature in and of itself” (2015:2), instead drawing on the multicultural and intersectional (read: multidimensional) bodies of work as seen through a critical pedagogical lens. Cuesta and Witt agree that activist pedagogy for teacher activists is not a universal body of thought, because “what happens in a teaching situation is always unique because it is dependent on the communication between teacher and students.

The situation specifically includes time/space situations” (2014:15).

With these bodies of scholarship in mind, instructors can frame how to situationally and organically react to larger structural problems that negatively influence academia (both within

and outside of sociology). Systems such neoliberalism, structural racism, patriarchy, and ability-based discrimination invisibly affect education for the worse, and without critical scholarship and critical application of that scholarship, educational institutions lose efficacy. This is most so the case in the social sciences like sociology, but these fields also stand as main areas that this can be uncovered and resisted. Attentive scholarship starting in undergraduate studies (i.e. where I currently am) or even earlier can help promote reformative, radical studies

that inspire young scholars to look beyond the status quo to see the potential of the world around them.

REFERENCES

Braa, D. b. (2016). Critical Realism, Neomarxist Theory and Critical Pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy, 13(2), 1-21.

Breunig, M. (2009). Teaching For and About Critical Pedagogy in the Post-Secondary Classroom. Studies In Social Justice, Vol 3, Iss 2, Pp 247-262 (2009), (2), 247.

Cuesta, M., & Witt, A.-K. (2014). How Gender Conscious Pedagogy in Higher Education Can Stimulate Actions for Social Justice in Society. Social Inclusion, 2(1), 12-23.

Laura, C. & El-Amin, A. (2015). Teachers as Activists. In M. HeB. Schultz & W. Schubert The Sage Guide to Curriculum in Education (pp. 160-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Liasidou, A. a. (2012). Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability, race, gender and class. Journal For Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), 10(1), 168-184.

McCusker, G. (2017). A Feminist Teacher's Account of Her Attempts to Achieve the Goals of Feminist Pedagogy. Gender And Education, 29(4), 445-460.

Nyden, P. W., Nyden, G. E., & Hossfeld, L. H. (2012). Public Sociology: Research, Action, and Change. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Parker, L., & Lynn, M. (2002). What's Race Got to Do With It? Critical Race Theory's Conflicts With and Connections to Qualitative Research Methodology and Epistemology.

Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 7.

Preston, S., & Aslett, J. (2014). Resisting Neoliberalism from within the Academy: Subversion through an Activist Pedagogy. Social Work Education, 33(4), 502-518.

Rubin, D. d. (2012). Critical Pedagogy and Dialectical Thought in the Secondary English Classroom. Theory In Action, 5(2), 70-81.