A New Critical Pedagogy

By most objectives measures, democratic governance is in retreat all around the world.  In the US, extreme political polarization has resulted in legislative paralysis, as well as the rise of politicians whose ideas, attitudes and tactics are unacceptable to many people.  Many writing teachers, myself included, are upset by this dynamic.  What is to be done?  I think the answer is clear: a recommitment to pedagogy that helps prepare young people for democratic participation.  In short, we need new politically progressive teaching methods, specifically tailored to the world our students now face.  This involves, inevitably, rethinking what makes a pedagogy progressive.

The maintenance of a healthy public sphere has often been listed among rhetoric and composition’s many goals.  In the 1980s, the field saw the rise of so-called “critical pedagogy.”  Largely influenced by the work of Paulo Freire, critical pedagogy is overtly political.  Through a variety of methods, critical pedagogues seek to help students achieve “emancipation” and “empowerment,” hoping to ultimately spur positive social change.  Of late, some scholars have argued that critical pedagogy, as such, has run its course.  This is not to say that overtly political pedagogies are out of fashion: one of the most lauded rhet-comp books of recent years (by the chair of Cs, no less) presents an overtly political writing pedagogy.  I do think, though, that ideas about what makes a pedagogy “political” or “politically progressive” have grown somewhat sedimented.

What’s the current progressive consensus?  Approaches vary, of course, but I think we can safely imagine a generic progressive classroom.  First, efforts are made to decentralize authority, to give students (relatively more) control over what and how they learn.  Second, students are taught to recognize and interrogate power structures.  It is assumed that we know what we know, and do what we do, not sui generis, but because of larger forces within society.  These forces create hierarchies that advantage / disadvantage certain groups.  With proper instruction (which often involves an introduction to critical theory), students can be taught to recognize and challenge these hierarchies.

The justification for the consensus approach is two-fold.  First, by gaining knowledge of power structures, students will be a better able to operate within them.  They will become more self-conscious and contextually aware writers.  Second, they will see that these structures are often unfair.  In turn, they’ll seek to challenge them.  Advantaged groups will realize that they need to “renounce their privilege” and embrace “allyship,” while disadvantaged groups will realize it’s “not their fault” and “by working together, we can change things.”  A combination of these factors (increased writerly agency + increased political awareness) are what makes these pedagogies “progressive.”

Now, I don’t want to completely dismiss the consensus approach; many teachers likely feel it works well.  Identifying and challenging power structures makes their teaching meaningful.  This is fine.  I highly suspect, though, that given the fact that regressive political elements now control all three branches of the US government, many teachers feel that current progressive approaches are not working.  For whatever reason, our efforts are not having optimal impact.  If this is the case (which I think it is) we need new forms of critical pedagogy.

Where should a progressive rethink start?  Well, for one, we can start by examining texts outside the conventional canon of Marxist-inspired social analysis.  I find that much progressive pedagogy (and honestly, much of rhet-comp in general) is painfully blind to how individuals actually think, feel and act.  In short, for too long we’ve focused too heavily on systems (networks, discourses, etc.) and not enough on human behavior within systems.  How can we correct this?  Well, one approach is to learn from those who study human behavior.  It seems to me that behavioral psychology can be particularly useful.

As noted, I believe that a progressive pedagogy should help prepare students for democratic participation.  This includes providing “knowledge of” (power structures, etc) and “knowledge how” (to formulate and evaluate arguments, etc).  Behavioral psychology, however, reminds us to take a more holistic view.  It suggests that a functioning democratic system requires not just that individuals have knowledge and skills, but certain dispositions.  Citizens, or a large portion of them anyway, must be inclined to act in certain ways.  In other words, if we want to promote liberal democratic values, we have to promote liberal democratic ways of being.

Now, to an extent, critical pedagogy recognizes the importance of cultivating certain ways of being.  Teachers relinquish power, for example, in order to demonstrate (and hence promote) egalitarian behaviors.  So how can behavioral psychology further such efforts?  Well, psychologists generally hold that behavioral tendencies occur together, thus allowing for the categorization of dispositions.  They also hold that certain dispositions are correlated to certain political attitudes.  For our purposes, the most relevant dispositional factor is one’s “openness to experience.”  Simply put, people who rate highly in openness are willing to accept that which is new or different.  As such, they tend towards creativity, intelligence and empathy.  In the political sphere, they resist authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, and systems of dominance.  Tellingly, research also indicates that democracy is more likely to work in relatively open societies.

From the above, we can conclude that to promote openness to experience is to promote liberal democracy.  We want our students to embrace, rather than run from that which is new or different.  To promote this dispositional tendency—which will manifest in patterns of behavior over a multitude of contexts and over a student’s entire life—is as important, I believe, as teaching context-specific knowledges or skills.

So how can we teach openness to experience?  This is a hard question.  It seems, though, that our first step should involve critiquing our current practices in light on this new goal.  Is it possible that anything we are doing is working to make students less generous towards others, less creative, less sensitive to beauty, or their own or others’ subjective states (all traits associated with high openness)?

Each teacher needs to perform her own analysis, but I do wonder if the current progressive emphasis on power structures might be working to make students more “closed.”  Perhaps well-meaning members of advantaged groups, eager not to oppress by “asserting their privilege,” are being incentivized to engage in less personal or meaningful contact with members of disadvantaged groups.  Likewise, members of disadvantaged groups, schooled in the ways of “microaggressions,” might be quicker to derive negative affect from otherwise benign encounters.  Indeed, reports indicate that cultural segregation—the clustering of same with same—is becoming more common on college campuses.  Overall, this line of analysis indicates that supposedly progressive ideas might be shutting down, rather than opening up, students’ willingness to engage with (and hence learn to accept) difference.  If so, behavioral psychology tells us that such pedagogies might be working against democratic ideals.

To close, I will say that the above is not an argument against the progressive consensus.  Instead, it is a call to take into account the whole person when theorizing how progressive political ends might be achieved.  Focusing more on dispositions, or patterns of behavior, can help us achieve a broader perspective.  What we will then see is uncertain.

Wither Cultural Studies?

As a teacher, I have a conflicted relationship with cultural studies. I don’t deny that cultural products are implicated in larger systems of power or that it’s advantageous to be aware of those relationships. I worry though about the rhetorical behavior cultural studies-style pedagogies encourage. In short, as practiced in American universities, cultural studies seems to have no positive program. This makes it “academic” (and not in a good way!). Let me explain.

As I use the term, cultural studies is a mode of cultural analysis which arose in England with the work of thinkers like Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall. It became popular in American universities in the 1990s and though not theorized much these days, still has lingering influence. It general terms, CS involves scrutinizing cultural products to reveal ways in which they are implicated in / work to support unjust power structures. A typical CS pedagogy involves the analysis of an advertisement or film or popular song, the teacher demonstrating how this object constructs its viewer as a consumer, legitimizes an unjust economic order, is racist or sexist, etc.

I admit, cultural studies-style analysis can be fun. It’s intellectual detective work. From a pedagogical perspective though, many have come to see it as something of a dead-end. We show students how to deconstruct cultural products. They do it for a grade. They have no inclination to do it outside the classroom though. Or even if they do, the ability to detect ideological influence doesn’t change their behavior as consumers or citizens.

The above complaint is nothing new. In my field of rhetoric and composition it has been addressed by Patricia Bizzell and Thomas Rickert, among others. My concern is not though that cultural studies is ineffective in bringing about revolution (no pedagogy can, of course). Instead, I worry that it makes any sort of substantive change less likely by encouraging division instead of intersubjective understanding.

As I see it, the ideal cultural-studies subject is skilled at critique, at seeing through the gauzy veneer capitalism throws over its racist/sexist/anti-human machinations. Where does she go from there though? The next step, in line with the mission of Stuart Hall and the Birmingham school, is activism, more often than not defined as “raising awareness.” This typically involves the publication and dissemination of critical findings, the formation of collectives with other critically aware subjects to discuss said critical findings. What comes after that though?

Most often nothing. And herein lies the problem. When cultural studies works it provides for nothing more than the creation of echo chambers in which one can speak / be spoken to by other like-minded subjects. This is what I would argue we are seeing among politically aware students on college campuses today. Their expressions of outrage are so fervent because a pedagogy of critique allows for nothing more than outrage (and confirmation of that outrage). “We see how X is racist/sexist/anti-human,” they scream, “why can’t others?” Because your (cultural studies-influenced) program doesn’t speak to them, I would argue. It’s academic in that it’s in-group speak. It’s therapeutic in that it feels good on an emotional level. It’s not a positive program though in that it includes no mechanism for outreach, the cultivation of shared understanding and thereby, change.

So what would a positive program for cultural studies look like? In my opinion, it would have to be focused on analyzing cultural products to see what they do for the consumer. Yes, American Sniper, for example, is a terribly racist / sexist / xenophobic film. Why does it appeal to so many subjects though? What need does it satisfy and how can we work with these subjects to satisfy said need in less socially destructive ways?

Of course, such a program doesn’t work unidirectionally. In the sort of engagement I propose, the critically aware subject must surrender certainty, be open to change and co-evolution along with the American Sniper-loving good ol’ boy. This is difficult. It’s the opposite of therapeutic because it often feels really fucking bad to have your beliefs challenged / changed. That said, I think such a program could help revitalize cultural studies as a pedagogical tool. At the very least, it would help cultural critics seem less shrill to those outside their discourse community.