Current Tendencies in Critical Pedagogy
Presented by Juha Suoranta (University of Joensuu, Finland)
Critical pedagogy cannot manage without the theory of social recognition, but it also needs a critical theory aiming at political and economic justice and recognition. In the debate there has been a conception of �perspective dualism�. In my view, it comes close to an integrative theory that is needed in the theory of critical pedagogy that I am supporting. In this evolving theoretical view, the goals of social recognition on the one hand and critical recognition and equal distribution on the other hand, must be seen as separate and autonomous yet equally important issues (Honneth & Fraser 2003, 2-3; Fraser 2001). This approach keeps the big political themes of oppression and class struggle in picture, and at the same time gives space for diversity of radical social movements, resistance, and acts of hope. Both sides are needed in making another world possible.
Comments
I would like to thank you all who participated to last nights' (Sep. 20, 2005) Workshop. Among other issues we discussed about the relevance of Freire, and critical pedagogy, to the middle class, and I tried to say something. Well, there is an interesting web page which says something more at www.inequality.org/
Best,
Juha
Posted by: Juha | September 21, 2005 4:42 PM
i wanted to say thanks to Juha for presenting to us so early after his arrival. stressful for him, yes, but also a very good way for us to meet him and hear about his work. probably because it is so directly relevant to the ideas Joyce and I presented on the previous week, i am excited to hear more about his claim that critical pedagogy requires a theory of recognition. but i also found myself thinking about his obvious fascination with and focus on Burawoy's talk on public sociology and teaching. it seems to me that the synthesis of teaching and public sociology is something many of us here at Minnesota care about and do fairly well, and that is could be one aspect of the distinctive vision of sociology we are cultivating here. it is great to have another participant in that project!
doug
one other thing: I found Juha's off-handed comment that he truly enjoys paying taxes incredibly refreshing and thought provoking. like many of us, i have often said i wouldn't mind paying more taxes but i have never matched his sincerity or pleasure on the matter.
Posted by: doug hartmann | September 22, 2005 12:45 PM
Yes, paying taxes is linked to the general question of how to run a decent, democratic society. And if there is a place to the concept of social capital in the lexicon of sociology, and social theory at large, it is precisely here: through its public social as well as educational policies Welfare state has contributed to peoples’ social capital.
The very idea of the welfare state, or the Scandinavian model, has been to keep everyone, so to speak, in the same boat. In concrete social political terms this has meant progressive taxing, and, in turn, state funded “free” schooling (from kindergarten to university), health care, social services, and retirement pension.
After the neo-liberal hurricane in the late 1980’s across Europe, there have been right-wing tendencies to rock the same boat, and to encourage fighting for private safe boats. Here I would like to use a Titanic metaphor: the hidden and sometimes overt purpose of the neo-liberal politics has seemed to be to weaken the function and relevance of the state – or to sink it, and offer people life-buoys by marketing them both the ideas of more freedom of choice and individual responsibilities, in the forms of private pension plans, and insurances – and wish them luck. From critical point of view – and I would say “from below” – this has meant more ordinary life insecurities – floating in the dark water, and trying to find a place from the already full or non-existed lifeboat.
It is as if the aim of right-wing politics was to get people to feel insecure, and fight against each other “in the constant struggle of living”, as the saying goes. The very idea of welfare state was to get rid of that battle, and to give people more actual freedom from the often slavery-kind of work life.
The neo-liberal song has also included the following lyrics: “More tax cuts for the rich, or corporations, investments, and highly trained people will leave Finland in a second, and our competitiveness will collapse in the global market.” The other common mantra is the following: welfare state is not efficient enough. No one, however, is launching any comparisons, or any proof to back up this claim. The outcomes of this discourse are evident: pressures to reduce public funding (in the neo-liberal talk public funding means ‘wasting money’) are increasing, and under the right-wing propaganda people are little by little loosing their social consciousness, the idea of common good, or to what it means to live in the same boat.
The newest invention is a flat rate tax. It means like in Slovakia that there is 19 percent tax rate across all the incomes regardless of earnings, whether you make 100000 or 1000 euros a months. This is perhaps, what we nowadays mean by egalité in Europe.
Posted by: Juha | October 1, 2005 2:43 PM