VARIED
VIEWS OF EQUALITY
(April
4, 2011)
As
I did with the natural rights construct, I begin my review of
critical theory construct with my take on its moral view. On what
basis does the theory define what good or evil is? As with the
natural rights view, a good place to start is to see what constitutes
justice for critical theorists. If you recall, the natural rights
construct holds, as a trump value, the value of liberty. Liberty for
natural rights advocates centrally defines what they see as justice.
For critical theorists, the central ideal, their trump value, is
equality. This does not mean all critical theorists discard liberty,
but it does mean that when given a choice between the two qualities,
for them equality wins out. Of course, as a trump value, placing
equality in priority skews how advocates measure other social
aspects. For example, many of them would argue that equality is a
precursor for true liberty; that those who are on the short end of
the equality stick have their liberty severely restrained.
THE
MOST EGREGIOUS FORM OF ELITISM
(April
8, 2011)
In
the last posting, I looked at American feelings regarding equality.
I listed five orientations concerning equality that Americans have
voiced during the course of our nation's history. Some of these
orientations would sound foreign to many of us today, but at one time
or another, each one was held by significant numbers of Americans.
We, it can be said, have “advanced” beyond some of them. I will
describe each of these orientations so that we can somewhat gauge
what our own feelings are in relation to one or all of these ideal
views of equality or inequality. After reviewing these different
views, you might ask yourself: what do I think the preferred view of
equality should be?
A
“NATURAL” RESULT?
(April
11, 2011)
Critical
pedagogues hold central to their moral view the value of equality.
Before describing the exact nature of that commitment, I want to
review what Americans have thought about equality. In the last
posting, I reviewed the first of five orientations toward equality
that I have noted in my reading of American history. That
orientation was more a sense of inequality and a “justification”
for the belief that not only was inequality a natural course of human
existence, but also a condition that should be promoted through
custom and law. I named that orientation genetic elitism in that it
reflected the idea that superiority among humans was due to qualities
inbred to those who have them. This type of thinking leads logically
to the notion that “chosen” families should be given advantages
that are not shared by those not so blessed. While a product of
feudal thinking, the remnants of these beliefs survive today.
I
WANT IT ALL AND I WANT IT NOW
(April
15, 2011)
American
political thought has given prominent standing to the ideal or value
of equality. Some attribute this bias to our Judeo-Christian
heritage. After all, the belief in the soul, as an equal entity with
all other souls, adds to our spiritual sense the notion that we are
all equal before the Lord. Whether that extends to our material
lives here on earth is another matter.
WHO'S
RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCCESS?
(April
18, 2011)
Nine
years ago, a prominent philosopher passed away. His name was John
Rawls.1
He thought and wrote about justice and his arguments have been used
by what we currently call liberals or progressives. His main
argument is best understood, I feel, by looking at what Rawls felt
justice to be. He didn't give us a straight definition, but instead
gave us a mental exercise.
LABOR
IS LABOR IS LABOR
(April
22, 2011)
Over
the last several postings, I have reviewed different views of
equality that have enjoyed varying degrees of favor among the
American public through the course of the nation's history. I have
done this because I feel that with an understanding of how Americans
view equality or, for that matter, inequality, we can talk more
knowledgeably of how critical pedagogues address their moral
positions regarding civic affairs. They hold as central to their
moral position their trump value: the value of equality. And the
way they seem to define this value constitutes the fifth orientation
I am presenting in this posting.
A
CRITICAL MORAL STAND
(April
25, 2011)
Unlike
the natural rights construct, there is no singular moral view among
critical theorists and critical pedagogues. I have pointed out that
Marxian strains within this line of reasoning, to a large extent,
sees the social forces dictating the conflict between entrepreneurs
and laborers as mostly amoral. That is, there is not much moral
consideration when people are just following their nature and
promoting their personal interests that are defined by the position
they happen to inhabit. History has placed people in such positions
and they, along with all of nature, will just develop according to
deterministic laws. For others, though, their commitment to the
critical construct is based on more of a moral outlook. For example,
those who follow liberation theology equate the inequality existing
in developing countries to sinful behavior.
What follows is but one view or argument supporting a moral position
to which critical pedagogues might ascribe.
SOME
INFLUENTIAL SOURCES OF CRITICAL POLITICAL THOUGHT
(April
29, 2011)
In
the last posting, I proposed a moral position for critical educators.
I anchored that position claiming that critical educators have a
commitment, as a trump value, to the value of equality. Equality,
within this moral stand, is defined as a social and economic reality
in which all citizens, by and large, enjoy equal levels of income and
wealth. That reality is characterized with people either basically,
to some significant degree, being equal in the ownership or access to
material resources or, at least, meaningfully, a la Galtung's
concern,1
closing the gap in the rate at which they are advancing economically.
This, if accepted, would be for critical pedagogues a moral stand
and motivates what they strive for in their political and educational
goals.
TEMPTING
THE MARXIST SCENARIO?
(May
2, 2011)
A
belated happy May Day!
I offer this wish hoping to get you in the mood for what follows in
this posting.
LANGUAGE
AND PRAXIS
(May
6, 2011)
Recently
on CNBC, Joe Kernen, co-host of Squawk Box, plugged his new
book, Your Teacher Said What? He actually “co-wrote” the
book with his daughter, Blake Kernen. The subtitle of the book calls
for creating a fifth grade entrepreneur. He indicated the book was
not an indictment of teachers; he likes his daughter's teachers, but
feels that the image of business people, portrayed in schools, is
often not sufficiently respectful. After all, business people,
properly motivated by a profit motive, start businesses that create
jobs, provide a product in demand, and garner a profit. Win-win-win!
Society benefits from the enterprise. And I agree. But I am not a
critical theorist or a Marxist or a critical pedagogue. They would
find the claim that business interests are not being represented in
our curriculum with sufficient respect or are even given a tarnished
image as laughable. In this I also agree, somewhat. As I have
argued through this blog and in a published work,
the prevailing curricular view that dominates our social studies
offerings is the natural rights construct. That construct, in its
purest form, bolsters the theoretical and moral perspectives that
serve as a foundation for our capitalist system. I would argue that
our whole system of private enterprise is well fortified by what is
taught in our schools.
CRITICAL
POLITICS IN THE PRACTICAL WORLD
(May
9, 2011)
If
you have been following this blog over the last several postings, you
can probably figure out why critical theory and critical pedagogy
have not caught on with either teachers in general or the
professional segment of educators that provides services to school
districts, state educational bureaucracies, or the federal
government. I would also include the general public, but people in
general are mostly unaware of critical theory or critical pedagogy.
The extent to which anyone would follow the writings of critical
scholars, and this writing varies greatly in terms of intensity or
purity, is mostly limited to the scholarly practitioners in our
institutions of higher education. Even there, the most ardent
followers are primarily limited to particular fields such as
curricular studies, educational philosophy, educational sociology,
and educational political studies. But there are among us those who
pursue political activity that, again to varying degrees, reflects
the beliefs of the critical theory construct.
No comments:
Post a Comment