Mar 08 2010
Critical DOGME or DOGME with Sympathy for the Critical?
The Background
Back in June 2009, Scott Thornbury wrote a post on the British Council blog called “DOGME: Nothing if not critical”. A long discussion took place between Scott, myself, Diarmuid Fogarty and with some comments from Gavin Dudeney and Nik Peachey. I would like to thank all those who contributed, and not least of all Scott for starting the discussion, for tightening up my thinking on this issue. I also want to include Luke Meddings here as Scott’s co-author, as I know that he (and many others) have contributed just as much to the development of the theory behind DOGME. The full text of the discussion can be found here. As is the policy of Critical Mass ELT, I have messaged Scott and invited him to respond (the right to reply) on all aspect of this post, but totally respect his decision not to if he wishes.
For quite some time now I’ve been meaning to write a blog post on this issue, with the aim of summarising why I think Critical DOGME has more to offer the teacher and student as a pedagogical approach, and what I think might be the limitations of the absence of a truly critical underpinning. Assuming that some of you may not wish to read the longer post, I am going to summarise the key points here, and invite you to join in. I am very interested to hear more views on this issue so please feel free to express your thoughts/feelings. Now it seems more relevant than ever as Scott has sent out a message to the DOGME discussion list announcing his wish to withdraw and opening a poll for members to vote on whether it should close down or pass into new hands. Results just through indicate that 51 people voted to hand the list to the existing members which is the highest number voting for any one of the statements Scott offered as choices. Perhaps we will argue retrospectively that this is a key DOGME moment, so I thought I would add in my voice to those already discussing debating.
A Quick Summary of Scott’s Thoughts Regarding DOGME and Criticality
Summarising is always a risk, so please Scott do feel free to interject here if you feel I have butchered your viewpoint. I write this summary tentatively and in the hope that it is not too reductive.
*DOGME (as Scott sees it, and drawing on the work of Pennycook and Norton/Toohey) does adhere to the principles of a critical pedagogy, which he sees as based in the educational ideas of Paulo Friere. Scott later outlined that Friere is used by him in a “decaffinated” sense. Scott flagged up the the noticeable absence of a clear position on the question of transformation and social change at a deeper structural level as an area of ambiguity within DOGME, and within his own application of DOGME. He continued that whilst DOGME can be used to engage students and act as a “pedagogy of possibility” there is a need for maintaining a clear vision of the practicalities of the classroom. More on that below.
Scott also quoted some ideas he gathered together from fellow DOGMEists on the DOGME discussion list who pointed out that:
*Advocating the non-use of commercially produced material is in itself a call for social change as it asks for a change of classroom culture and challenges a production chain taken for granted
*DOGME can be used for bringing about radical changes in attitude to learning amongst groups (the poster cited teenagers) who may be traditionally overlooked
*DOGME has the potential to challenge the educational agenda of new capitalism and may be on of the only educational approaches doing so right now in ELT
*DOGME encourages critical thinking which may have an impact on students’ life path once having left the walls of the classroom
Critical DOGME or DOGME with ‘critical’ sympathies?
I admire Scott and his work which is something I wish to state at the outset. He has had the courage of his convictions to stand by the idea of DOGME (along with many others), and continues to argue its strengths, despite a lot of criticism from the ELT establishment. This is not an easy position to have (that of maverick) and it should always be borne in mind the personal risks that people take by trying to do things differently.
My disagreements with Scott lie in the notion of a “decaffinated” Friere, which as I argued in our discussion, perhaps loses sight of a key component of Friere’s theories. Additionally, the aspect of critical pedagogy that Scott feels DOGME is lacking in (i.e. transformative potential) is precisely that which is prioritised by those writers he draws on to formulate the list about critical pedagogy – it is not an afterthought or, as I argued in our original discussion “something which can be returned to at a later date”.
So for me, here is a summary of the points that I think separate my view from Scott’s and outline a critical DOGME rather than DOGME with ‘critical’ sympathies.
*By ignoring Friere’s revolutionary roots, the Critical becomes diluted and potentially marginalised
*Friere was very clear that student and teacher agency should exist beyond the walls of the classroom and was as much about their non-educational/social lives than it was about their learning – it was also about transforming and changing inequality in wider society
*There is a suggestion that the rejection of these aspects of Friere’s theory are to do with the need to be practical in Scott’s posts. This in turn seems to suggests that revolutionary thinking and action are a thing of the past or have no place in the classroom. By default this changes how the present is viewed (the “this is the way things are so get used to it” approach). I would argue this brings DOGME back to the status quo and makes it, in the words of Friere himself, merely “rebellious” rather than radically transformative. Its power to change things is limited as rebelliousness is tolerated, and often encouraged, by the establishment to allow a sense of diversity of ideas
*Anyone can use DOGME (this is one of its widest appeals), but if it is used by someone who does not have any other adherence to a set of equalising principles, will it not encourage the same degree of covert discrimination? I gave the example of a teacher who firmly believes that native speaker models of English are superior. They may have a lesson based on the simplicity and emergent language approach of DOGME, but may spend the whole time criticising and ‘othering’ the varieties being spoken by their students as inferior. There are no mechanisms within DOGME as Scott presents it to interrogate this. I asked Scott for a clarification on this point, and am still hoping he will expand on this!
*Has DOGME ELT suffered the same fate at the DOGME film movement in the sense that its more radical elements began to disappear as the movement matured? Were there more radical voices at the start of the movement? This is an open question to all!
For me critical DOGME is the obvious choice made by anyone wishing to encourage an open and equal relationship with their students and tread carefully and consciously in their own role as an EL teacher in a post-colonial and neo-liberal world. It also provides a way to make sure language learning is meaningful and useful within terms of reference created by all involved. But I think it has a lot more to offer when it is thoroughly embedded in a critical pedagogy which not only takes on board, but celebrates the revolutionary tradition of Paulo Friere and his contemporaries, as well as those continuing this important work in ELT today.
Over to you?
Great posting, Sara, and thanks for re-opening the debate regarding dogme’s critical credentials. I think you’ve summarised it very well, capturing something of my own flip-floppiness over dogme’s transformative potential.
One thing I’d like to pick up on. You say that “there are no mechanisms within DOGME” to interrogate its being used simply to reinforce a them-and-us mindset, particularly with regard to the acceptability of ‘non-native’ user language . I agree – there is nothing to stop a teacher espousing a dogme methodology but using it (either knowingly or not) to reinforce what Adrian Holliday calls “native speakerism”. I’m not sure, though, what “mechanisms” you could put in place either to prevent this or to ‘interrogate it – apart from debating the issue in the kinds of forum where dogme is continuously examined and replenished (as on the – recently revived – dogme discussion list). Not being a ‘method’ in any prescriptive sense (with a codified set of practices enshrined in a manual or training course), there ARE no mechanisms, of any sort – no manuals, no courses, no trainers, no inspectors, etc. All there is is the discourse about dogme, as it evolves within the community of practitioners who adhere (closely or loosely) to its main tenets. If this discourse is a bit ‘soft’ on native speakerism, this suggests a lack of congruence, given that the aforementioned ‘main tenets’ of dogme prioritise the learner’s identity and needs, and it is blogs such as yours that may help redress this. But what any single “dogme” teacher does in their classroom can’t really be legislated for.
Hi Sara,
Another amazing post from you and a great read. I also read the recent post about Dogme over on the Marxist ELF’s blog.
Having just done my own post on Teaching Unplugged over on the English Raven blog, and read some references to Dogme on Jeremy Harmer’s blog, I can’t help but think this is definitely Dogme Week in the ELT blogosphere.
One thing I have become a little uncomfortable with – in terms of all this Dogme critiquing – is the apparent emphasis on Scott, pretty much along the lines of “Scott Thornbury IS dogme!” (almost like saying “Bruce Wayne IS Batman!”). A lot of it does read as Critical Thornbury, rather than Critical Dogme. Perhaps this is why the recent book on dogme is called “Teaching Unplugged” rather than “Dogme Language Teaching” (though dogme is in the subtitle), and it might also explain why Scott has recently sought to distance himself from the dogme discussion list.
Call me unsophisticated, but I do tend to take what is relevant to me and my teaching from the broader scope of dogme, and generally don’t feel a need for Scott and his views or sources to play a really vital part in it – if at all. Generally speaking, I prefer to play the ball and not the man (if we might permit a sporting colloquialism here), and recognise that there are a lot of other people responsible for kicking the ball about.
Personally, I’ve begun to feel a bit of a need to start differentiating a little between “dogme language teaching” and “teaching unplugged”… The former appears to me to be a reference to a movement begun in the past and highly associated with particular people and their sources and analogies. The latter perhaps refers to the broader idea of unplugging from ELT as it currently operates, and throwing off all sorts of bonds and ties (including even, perhaps, some of the specifically “dogme” ones!) – though remember I pointed out this was a personal differentiation and preference.
I don’t mean for these comments to be a diversion from the substance and purpose of your post, Sara, which is well written, well researched, and alluring in its direction!
Cheers,
~ Jason
Thanks for visiting Jason. Very valid points – all of them. Speaking personally I don’t see DOGME as the domain of Scott alone and certainly see it as a much broader set of ideas than those which Scott has espoused. In many ways, Scott has put a name to something that was already there, and it is not necessarily a name that I would have chosen myself (see Marxist ELFs latest post on the limits of the DOGME film movement). But it is now known as DOGME and it is Scott who has popularised it within mainstream ELT and through encoding it in his now famous book. If anything I would say my post is an attempt to pinpoint the limitations of DOGME and its position in mainstream ELT.
In relation to this post, I suspect it reads like a critique of Scott’s work because it is…….a critique of Scott’s work! It is directly related to a much longer debate that Scott began in the British Council blog where he decided to write about whether DOGME is critical within current understandings of critical pedagogy. Now as you probably know, this is my bag and is the basis upon which this blog is founded, which is why I wrote so much on that original post. Thus far (and until today with Marxist ELF’s analysis, and my own), there hasn’t (to my knowledge) been any other attempt to really analyse DOGME on those terms (i.e. critical or Marxist etc). So you could say that this debate is one that Scott and I started and I would like to continue, but that doesn’t preclude anyone else from getting involved and indeed, I certainly hope it widens out further. My reasons for inviting Scott directly and showing respect to his right to reply are based on the fact that I wanted to link through to our discussion last June rather than starting from scratch, as some people may either have been involved in that debate or want to read it as an archive.
Perhaps you and I are approaching this from different angles – that’s fine – and you clearly have a different set of complaints as evidenced from your own post on this. My raison d’etre is to take the best that DOGME suggests but to point out that for me, it isn’t workable without a critical underpinning. So I do want to distance myself from mainstream DOGME yes indeed, but still consider it to be espousing a lot more substance than most other mainstream theories in language teaching today. Part of the distancing would be a rejection of the idea that any one theory should have a single figurehead, as this seems to defeat the very substance of a more equitable pedagogy which should be constantly open to debate. The solution is simple – don’t look to the mainstream for the answers – that is truly ‘unplugged’ so there we would agree.
Great to see you picking this issue up again Sara.
There is a new posting on Marxist TEFL Group (written in ignorance of your latest posting) which also deals with Dogme ELT. Our article is far more critical of Dogme and its originators and lacks your capacity for dialogue (which we, in part, regret).
Scott’s response to your article, however,furtrher reaffirms MTG’s opposition to Dogme and hardens our stance.
“what any single “dogme” teacher does in their classroom can’t really be legislated for.”
is a most horrendous abdication of responsibility.
How about in recognition of Interntional Women’s Day we say:
“what any single man does in their own homes can’t be legislated for”.
It should be legislated for, in agreements enacted at a local level to ensure equality and the absence of domination, fear or actual violence.
Without a commitment to developing new organisations and principles we cannot challenge inequality and domination.
Scott’s:
“If this discourse is a bit ’soft’ on native speakerism, this suggests a lack of congruence, given that the aforementioned ‘main tenets’ of dogme prioritise the learner’s identity and needs, and it is blogs such as yours that may help redress this.”
is more of the same. “Women’s Aid do a great Job with helping victim’s of male violence and you know we abhor such behaviour.”
No Scott, there is nothing radical about leaving it up to the individual. We are social animals and we must negotiate this social space and such negotiation should start from a principed stance:
e.g. We at Dogme deplore native speakerism, we shall endeavour to critically evaluate our practices so as to avoid such ideological pitfalls.
If the teacher is left to prioritise a student’s needs, how are those needs being conceptualised, through what instituional and discursive power relation?
You don’t challenge inequality by vacuous appeals to the sanctity of a teacher and “their classroom”.
I hope the rather harsh tone (borne of political urgency) encourages rather than discourages further debate.
Thanks again Sara, for a great posting.
Thank you Marxist ELF – yes I noticed your post today and thank you for coming over to my house with your thoughts. I think these are all very important points and would agree that there is a fine balance between individual and collective responsibility here.
As Scott has already visited and commented with the examples you mention, I invite him to return and I hope to address your points in relation to his view of DOGME. I do hope this can be a useful and evolving dialogue as I think that this point may well prove to be a sticking point with anyone who adheres to a critical view of educational pedagogy and who, by virtue of their beliefs, would wish the confrontation of prejudice to be a fundemental part of classroom method and practice.
Over to Scott who I hope is still around and following this thread. Scott I find the idea of adding to the list of DOGME ‘principles’ one that reads much like that suggested by Marxist ELF on native-speakerism eminently sensible and workable. What do you think?
“…can’t be legislated for BY ME” I should have added. Or “…by the Dogme group”. In a Marxist world, of course, it would be quite easy to legislate against native-speakerism, or any other departure from critical orthdoxy. You simply issue a diktat.
OK Scott, point taken. But let’s assume that there is something inbetween doing nothing (and negating responsibility for doing anything to control aspects of the classroom in the name of equalising principles) and issuing a diktat (which btw from what I know of Marxist ELF would not be in the serious suggestion tickable boxes – we need to be careful to stereotype here!!)
I think diktats went down with the Berlin wall didn’t they? Marxist ELF is an open, democratic and self-reflexive kind of blog in my view.
There are guidelines in DOGME, for example, materials light. So what is the argument against for taking a stance on native speakerism? And how far does not taking a position go? OK to be racist (a bit)? OK to be sexist (a bit) because this can’t be legislated for by you or the DOGME group? As someone who has taken a stance yourself on homophobia in ELT, for example, isn’t this a hard position for you to take? I ask because for me it would be really hard and I cannot understand how it is possible.
I think that is the point that Marxist ELF is trying to make. It sounds like (to someone interested in critical pedagogy) a relinquishing of responsibility, which seems like a paradox in the DOGME classroom which is all about sharing responsibility (btw I think students would have the right to speak out on teacher racism or native-speakerism just as well as teachers doing it for themselves as part of a critical community).
How does that fit in?
I’m not sure if I understand what you’re suggesting, Sara. Or, if I do, I’m not sure it’s realistic. Suppose we were to draft a “Dogme Pledge” along these lines:
We, card-carrying Dogme teachers
1. abhor racism, sexism and all other forms of oppression and prejudice, and refuse to countenance their presence in our classrooms;
2. abjure practices associated with native-speakerism, such as correcting non-standard English…
3. renounce…
4. reject…
5. decry…
etc, etc.
Would this make Dogme suddenly critical? Are these the ‘mechanisms’ you would like to see in place? What guidance would teachers need in temrs of implementing these ideals in classroom practice? Who would police them? Would this still be Dogme, at the end of the day? Or dogma?
It seems to me to have about as much validity as the Boy Scout Code of Honour. Mouthing the right words, but incapable of being operationalised.
To my way of thinking, you cannot impose a political or social conscience on a teacher through your choice of methodology. You can only hope they bring their consciousness with them and adopt – and adapt – your methodology accordingly.
Hi again Scott,
Thanks for bearing with me on this one. And for trying to see how this could work in practice. I urge anyone else interested to please contribute here as this is not Scott’s and my discussion alone – other thoughts most welcome!
I am not sure that I would go along with card-carrying DOGME members as a concept – would you? (or perhaps you are being humorous there?).
The slightly caricatured nature of your language to the side (I realise that you are still trying to prove the diktat nature of the questions!), let’s try break it down. I don’t think I would list them so simplistically or use that particular style to look at such important issues personally – and there is more than one way to encourage equality in a movement which does not have to follow some sort of ‘do as I say or leave’ mentality. I would like to state that this is not what I am suggesting or have suggested at any point.
Perhaps it is this polarisation of your own making that makes it hard for you to see how this could work. I think you are coming at this in a top down sense, as something that I am suggesting needs policing etc. I certainly wouldn’t be in favour of that, as it never works. No indeed – any movement towards equality, as you know, needs to come from the people involved in the community who have to believe in it. It is not possible to control any community in that sense as you saw yourself in the recent DOGME discussion list events.
I asked you how it is possible to equate an open and shared space where responsibility is shared between student/teacher, where the teacher decentres themselves, without taking into account that existant instituational/societal or individual prejudice which may interfere with this process? Surely you must have realised that some of your most vocal critics are also those who hail from a more individualised way of thinking about the classroom? The polarity is already there – so is the answer to side step it?? You have already written about this in your A-Z in relation to some of those who criticise your commentary about, for example, using ‘do you understand’ as a question in the classroom and how you have been positioned in that debate. You didn’t like it (and rightly so), so why not espouse the same sentiment but a bit deeper and wider? How can people come to DOGME, as you suggest, and then possibly change their views when those already “there” so to speak are hesitant to express their own clearly??
I think to compare anti-racist or sexist thinking with a boy scout code of honour is a paradox if ever I heard one but also a revealing one. The scouts were in a sense the ultimate representation of conservative ideology in many cases – well certainly in the UK – Baden-Powell their founder was a nasty piece of work who wanted them all up in the morning at 6am in diving into icy lakes to prove their manhood – again the choice of analogy is of importance here as his hatred of communism led him to fascist sympathies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell! – I am not sure if you meant it like this, but yes the rhetoric of the scouts is indeed one I would hope to distance myself from “I promise to serve god, queen and country”. Not at all the same as the alternative group “the wood craft folk” who are involved in empowering children towards social change – now that is more in line with what I was thinking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodcraft_Folk so perhaps your metaphors were not such an accident after all?! The Woodcraft folk promote peace and understanding, but they don’t do that without making it clear that this is important to them in their philosophy. Are they imposing their ideas on people by holding true to these principles and organising their activities around them? The first ideology (scouts) is not interested in issues of equality or inclusion and is hierarchical and conservative. The second is based on a different set of principles altogether.
What I had in mind Scott was a taking of responsibility by those writing about DOGME such as you or me or anyone else who believes those issues to be important (and I know that you do on a personal level even if you are now saying that it is not possible) to state that these issues are important rather than sidestepping them because it is felt that not everyone will agree. You may be surprised by how many people already think like this and are not afraid to state it out loud and proud? So why the sidestepping? Why the fear of stating a personal position? The native speaker issue is *the* topic in ELT at the moment, so why avoid it? Surely all who are interested in DOGME should be rolling up their sleeves and getting stuck in, disagreements and all, to thrash out some of the key themes and debates of the day? Looking at themselves in relation to the social world (and ELT world) around them?
For me the careful stepping around seems more in line with mainstream ELT where issues of importance of a social nature (or anything controversial) are glossed over. It seems like a disservice to play that game too much more than it needs to be played?
As I argued in our original exchange, by quoting commentators such as Pennycook or Friere, you are tying your hands. What do you think they would have to say about the idea that trying to clarify a joint equality agenda is about “Mouthing the right words, but (it is) incapable of being operationalised” – methinks they might disagree with you here.
Sara, thanks for your patience!
I am all for debating issues like native speakerism, and – if you scroll back through the 15000-plus postings in the dogme archive, you’ll see that this issue, along with ELF, EIL, etc has come up repeatedly. There’s been no side-stepping of the political nor the polemical. I have also written – as you know – against anodyne coursebook content, including gay invisibility. Again, no side-stepping. But dogme has never been about imposing content, politically correct or not. It has been all about negotiated content.
If there appears to be a need to shift dogme in a particular direction – e.g. towards a a more politically responsible agenda – this will be accomplished on the discussion list and in blogs – such as this one – and not by issuing communiqués.
S.
Scott,
I smell a sense of annoyance every time someone questions you about the basic philosophyof dogme, and particularly about the critical aspect of it. It’s almost as if dogme was some kind of ‘cool idea’ when you first pitched it, but now people are asking you to spend some time on giving it some meat, you simply can’t be bothered.
In order not to do thak you talk of ‘diktats’ and ‘communiques’ and merely mock anyone who dares to question the integrity of the movement. Surely you owe it to your followers and detractors to engage in thoughtful debate on dogme, rather than resorting to crude stereotypes, mocking jibes and other less-than-considered ripostes?
Jared
Thanks for that gentle rebuke, Jared.
I guess I am at a bit of a loss as to WHY dogme should be “critical” (in the political sense). I posed the question some while I back (Is Dogme critical?) and concluded that it wasn’t – or, only in a rather decaffeinated way. I must confess that I didn’t lose much sleep over this. If someone wants to politicise dogme, they’re welcome to. But I don’t see how it can be done without giving it an explict agenda that would be realised in specific materials and curricula, which would not be dogme, so much as dogma.
Nor do I see it as intellectually improper to invoke the practice of educators – like Freire – while not idneitfying completely with their explicit political agenda. You don’t have to buy the whole package if what attracts you is the methodology. In the same eclectic spirit, I borrow heavily on Curren’s Counselling Language Learning, while ignoring most of the psychobabble associated with its theory. I know that there are purists who frown on eclecticism, but I look the other way.
So, that may account for my prickliness, Jared – this earnest and, I am sure, well-intentioned but ultimately misconceived, attempt to knock the round peg of dogme into the square hole of critical pedagogy.
This is very interesting and exciting, Sara, and I would be very keen to explore the more critical aspects of life in and around the classroom and of language learning in general.
What I can’t help wondering, though, is, why it is important that dogme ELT take this on. Would it not be possible to acknowledge the good aspects of dogme and build on these to develop a critical approach, which could be adopted by practitioners?
There is already talk of dogme 2.0 which would have grown out of the dogme conceived of by Scott, Luke, and fellow list members. Could not something develop in a similar way to include a critical stance without necessarily having to get the agreement of those who already espouse dogme?
Thank you Carol. I wrote my reply to Jared without reading your post first. Had I done so, I would have cited it in mine. I am as baffled as you are.
I also agree with you that, if it’s worth its salt, dogme will evolve naturally, adapting to the changing environment, both the technological one and the ideological one. With luck, it may even mutate into something else entirely. It was never meant to have lasted this long!
Carol and Scott (and of course Jared to whom Scott has already responded),
Thanks for your continued contribution Scott and Carol and Jared great to see you here!
Of course the idea of critical dogme can exist (and will exist) with or without the agreement of those who espouse DOGME in its broadest sense. I think its already developed and will continue to develop I hope into the future – it is something I am interested in and I am pretty sure I am not alone. That is an important point. My intention here is not to seek approval and I guess I already know the limitations of trying to convince people who have their own views on a topic! But I do like to discuss and debate and that is the purpose of a blog isn’t it?
So….the intention is a) to debate and discuss – I think this is often best done by positioning the discussion within the framework most people are familiar with which is often its centre or starting point and for most in the mainstream Scott’s ideas are what they know about DOGME b) to continue the debate with DOGMEists including Scott as I enjoyed that last time round and it sharpened my thinking and if I am honest there is a c) point. Scott is someone whose writing and position on things I have admired over the years and I guess part of me finds it hard to understand why he himself is not a critical DOGMEist when he has so much sympathy for Friere’s ideas and has argued a marginal position on issues of equality more than once in ELT. Sometimes when confronted with right wing views from ELT (no names here) he moves to the left and I see glimmers of a person who is close to my own view, but then when I step out onto the stage, he moves back again (at least that is how I perceive it). I keep hoping Scott might take the more radical position again I guess and I mean that in the most respectful way
But I don’t do this in the real belief that I have the power to convince or change Scott as he is very much his own man of course.
Indeed this is a bridging post from that discussion with him last June which I am not quite ready to let go of as a lot of thinking went into it on my part (probably far too much for a blog if I am honest) and my own movement onto developing the ideas I have about critical DOGME more fully. I won’t revisit it again in this way (sighs of relief from Scott!).
As always, I try very hard to debate with those who have different views as a way of learning and developing. I find this very important. That is why I enjoyed all the posts today on DOGME – Jason’s, Marxist ELF’s and the discussion on the DOGME list about its evolution. They are all relevant and representative of insightful voices and we shouldn’t be afraid of critique. They all have points to make that are fair and sometimes right.
But Scott has said that however well intentioned, my views are misconceived (ouch!). That I am trying to knock a square peg into a round hole. I guess we will not overcome this hurdle. For me there isn’t square or round in this debate, there is continuum. And I think I see the perfect potential synergy between critical pedagogy and DOGME but that is because I do fundamentally believe not just in working with what exists, but with what could exist because so much is very very wrong in the world and in teaching. I am not ready to give up on that and I demand the impossible!!
I hope that I will remain interesting to read at the very least!!
I completely, wholehearedly and enthusiastically support what you plan to do, Sara. I do think it’s important and, as I’ve said, exciting. I enjoyed the discussion in the summer, although, unfortunately didn’t follow along as it happened. There were so many excellent points from you, Scott, and Diarmuid that I remember. I’m looking forward to future discussions on this and to participating, albeit in a much less well read capacity!
There’s a lot about dogme, as it is presented in Scott and Luke’s book, that I like, and I do think it represents a good basis on which to develop a more proactively critical perspective.
What I was mainly trying to say in my earlier comment was, go for it! Dogme’s there, take it as a starting point, develop it, fine tune it, rename it…
No better person for the job!
Ok, Sara (he said, somewhat mollified, even contrite). I appreciate your mission to move the goalposts a little further into the emancipationist camp. It was a similar impulse that motivated my previous soul-searching over the issue of dogme’s critical credentials. In the end I decided (and still believe) that you cannot dictate – or even politely suggest – how the individual teacher should deal with issues like racisim, sexism etc. You can, of course, share stories about critical events of this nature, but in the end you have to respect the autonomy of the teacher, and that teacher’s particular relationship with their learners in their particular shared context. The teacher’s job is hard enough without having the thought police breathing down their neck. (That was intended as a joke of course, but I know it will fall horribly flat).
Scott I think ‘misconceived’ was a gambit, but now accusations of the thought police! This is starting to sound like a red-baiting session! I think you know that what I am suggesting is not that at all and I think perhaps you are doing me and you a disservice to suggest it (well you did say it was a joke…!).
You are polarising here and again positioning the only way to discuss such issues as a top down and threatening one. If I have undestood correctly you have made your decision that critical pedagogy cannot be combined with DOGME, but I think at the very least you owe it to yourself (and to people like me who you consider important additions to the debate I think ) to remain open to a) how important it is to take prejudice seriously in all its forms, and especially in the classroom – I think that involves stating how important those issues are wherever possible b) there may be ways that you personally cannot see (or do not want to utilise) that take this seriously and collectively in the classroom. If the particular shared context of teacher and student in their classroom is one where students are treated unequally for any reason (or vice versa) without some sort of overarching framework to interrogate this…..well what is left? What would you do then as Director of Studies in a school, or if you knew a co-worker was treating a student unfairly? If they did it in a DOGME style does that make it alright? I don’t get this logic?
Autonomy is always a balance to community – autonomy comes with responsibility. This kind of non-intervention sounds kind of scary to me. And I don’t think its opposite is accurately described as the thought police. I don’t think this is decaffinated Freire, it is Friere drained of all life force surely. I keep feeling that with each additional post you are drawing a line under the discussion as if it were your final contribution. I feel there is so much more to say!!!
(This is becoming a bit like a tennis match. Does no one else want to chip in??)
To get back to basics. These are the three “pillars” of a dogme pedagogy (as explained in the Introduction to Teaching Unplugged):
1. Dogme is about teaching that is conversation-driven.
2. Dogme is about teaching that is materials-light.
3. Dogme is about teaching that focuses on emergent language.
Each of those three principles is operationalizable in terms of specific techniques and procedures. That is to say, these principles can be realised methodologically. Hence they constitute a program for classroom praxis and teacher development.
If you want to add a fourth ‘pillar’ – something like
4. Dogme is about teaching that is socially responsible and emancipatory…
Great, I love it.
But how do you operarationalise it? What is the methodology? What techniques and procedures are implicated? How do you implement it? How do you evaluate it? (As a trainer I need to know).
Or is it simply a posture? A nice posture, but a posture all the same.
Morning again Scott. A tennis match is a good analogy but I doubt there will be a clear winner or loser (I hope not!). Perhaps we will just finish on the high of a tie-breaker the umpire having declared an end to the match? That would be OK for me.
I just saw your comment about the various blog posts going on re: DOGME at this moment in time (on the DOGME discussion list). I think you hit the nail on the head that this is a good sign of diversification and evolution – that is perhaps an indication that something is built to last (sorry if that sounds like a car advert!). I would just like to start by saying that I appreciate yesterday must have been a tiring day for you as you had quite a few posts to comment on. I’m not in any particular hurry, so don’t feel you have to rush here. I usually leave my posts to mature for about a month as I simply don’t have the time to write more than that normally as I do like to fully contribute to other people’s blogs too. So no pressure here. I hope you feel that this attempt of mine is “thoughtful and informed” otherwise there is little point in continuing. I too hope that others will join, but it could be that people are enjoying watching our debate, which is also fine. This should be enjoyable and about learning from one another, so let me start by saying that each time I write a post it is developing my ideas a little further and your questions and contributions are assisting in that process. I hope this is shared and that we are starting on an equal footing.
So back to your questions. How can this be more than just a posture? I don’t think you can separate criteria which are attitudinal in nature as they should, IMO, be embedded in all the other factors you list as the pillars. They should be the basis upon which the other factors are formulated. As you know, attitudes are notoriously difficult to measure, so it if is measurement you are after then indeed you will be disappointed as it cannot be operationalised on those terms. From the perspective of critical pedagogy, this does feel like you are trying to knock a square peg into a round hole as the obsession with measurability is a feature of modern capitalist education systems, often without clear reasoning behind it as this implies standardisation and conformity when DOGME espouses the opposite. If attitudes were simple enough to put into methodology in a “slot into place” fashion, well then ideology would function in a different way and we could simply watch prejudice disappear in a methodological puff of smoke. It is complex. The question is should that complexity be tackled or simply left to one side as it is too messy to contemplate trying to deal with? I say not though recognise the rocky road ahead when embarking on such discussions.
What you certainly can do (and I think most teachers would “get” this) is to explore what sort of things constitute social responsibility and also to explore the idea of the self-reflexive practice. In other words, how does the teacher and the human being unconsciously bring their pre-conceptions into the classroom and how does this affect the proceedings? How do students do this? How can the invisible be made visible? It is my guess that quite a few people doing DOGME are already doing this, it is a question of developing it more thoroughly than it is. Perhaps, as Carol suggest, this critical approach will become a current or trend within DOGME, perhaps DOGME is destined never to be “complete” – well what in life and thinking these days is. Fragmentation and diversity are the name of the game. However, it seems to me that even the most conservative and mainstream elements of ELT claim to be committed to equality in the classroom. Perhaps that *is* just a posture and a familiarity with the necessity of being aware of equal opportunities and its ‘discourse’. I imagine DOGME wants to separate itself from empty platitudes?
To begin with, the discussion needs to go one step further and into the unknown rather than staying too safe. I think that is a good start and isn’t that what we are doing now? We could share stories (as this is a method you approve of) regarding how this can/has been achieved. And we might consider what makes some teachers resist or choose to ignore these issues in their classroom. Of course as we all know, ignoring is also imposing an agenda, that of removing the right for students to engage in a full range of discussions which some may be interested in. It brings the classroom back into being teacher centred, with the teacher deciding what is best for the student and removing those parts that are felt to be ‘unsuitable’.
I am also fascinated to know what you own views are regarding native speaker models as you are very involved in writing about grammar. I have never asked you this, but would value knowing how you tackle this in teaching/training situations.
Thank you indeed Carol. A bit compliment. I hope I am up for the task. I guess that’s what I am trying to do here – take the best and offer an alternative view of the rest. There are some aspects of DOGME that are not immediately compatible with CP but that is a question of adaption rather than insurmountable barrier IMHO! Much appreciated that you have faith!
Thanks Sara. I’ll return to your post when I have more time, but I just have to protest, again, at the tendency to misconstrue my argument. “It if is measurement you are after then indeed you will be disappointed as it cannot be operationalised on those terms…” Where did I ever use the word ‘measurement’??? But having decided I did, you lump me with the rest of the capitalist establishment, by association.
I used the word ‘evaluated’ (not ‘measured’) because I believe that any responsible curriculum implementation needs to be continuously monitored in terms of its uptake (not necessarily outcomes!) – which includes tracking the attitudes of the stakeholders, obviously. The learners just as much as the instructors should be involved in the process.
But my main point remains, that “to explore what sort of things constitute social responsibility” (to use your term) is an agenda, not a methodology. You can make the agenda the goal of your methodology, but then you still need to explain how you would implement it. As Pennycook nicely put it, “a critical pedagogy is NOT just sitting aroud in groups discussing social issues”. (I’m quoting from memory). So, what is it then? And how does it map on to dogme’s three “pillars”‘?
Holding message. Gotta go and teach. Will return to this later! Thanks Scott. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
Scott hello (and to anyone else who is reading!)
OK I’m back again fresh from a great lesson and some thinking time. Your arguments were not misconstrued deliberately (or anymore than you have unconsciously been doing the same). I think this is part of the dialogue isn’t it? I didn’t understand what you were saying and thank you for clarifying
I think the skill here is perhaps not to take things too personally (and we have been doing well on that score to both our credits I think), so when I talked about measurement, I wasn’t referring to you as a member of the establishment, simply suggesting that this type of thinking has its limits when looked at from the perspective of critical pedagogy. I think that point still stands but perhaps not in the same way.
I think I see what you mean about the difference between ‘evaluate’ and ‘measure’. Thank you for pointing that out. And I agree that constant evaluation is necessary – but perhaps we mean different things by that. Can you tell me how you see that working so I can get a better idea? To me it sounded kind of like the learning outcome type exercises now expected on all syllabi design – but perhaps it is something different you are speaking of. But it is not self-evident. If you tell me, I will try to understand it on your terms.
I’ve given a lot of thought to how the ‘social responsibility’ angle comes into play and also to your Pennycook quote. I don’t recognise it so can you provide a reference? Its difficult to understand it out of context – it *could* mean of course that social responsibility is also about taking action. In which case I would agree. And that sounds Pennycookesque but it could also be referring to something entirely different, so let’s try to find its rightful home, and then ponder as to its meaning. I have spent this afternoon blessed with my gorgeous group of students, thinking about how that works in practice. Surely it is through the classroom content, set up, discussion, relationships etc? And how we establish what an equitable classroom is as a group of people. A benchpin of critical pedagogy is text and understanding its levels and power (visual, written) and its representational strategies. And using a dialogic approach to unravel meaning in text at all kinds of levels. This can be text chosen by the student as what text means to them is crucial.
But it is also more than that. I think the bit that perhaps we are struggling on is how to encourage teachers to consider this on a more macro scale. How to encouage a community of practice based on equitable principles? And to take those principles on board as important. I feel that this has been done with critical pedagogists. It would be hard to exist within that framework whilst maintaining a belief that native speaker models are superior and better and the only right ones etc etc. And that non-native speaker varieties are sub-standard. Why? Because this way of thinking has been clearly located as prejudicial and steeped in the post-colonial legacy. It is rejected already throughout the work. Not as a set of “diktats” as you expressed in previously, but as emergent from a specific set of socio-historical forces.
Perhaps its worth considering how DOGME (IYO) differs from that.
And I am still interested in your thoughts on grammar and native speakerism!!
Hi Sara, I don’t have the full context for the Pennycook quote (I don’t have the book on me at the moment – but will at the weekend). Actually, I quoted it in my blog piece for the British Council/BBC website – to this effect:
But in what sense, if at all, is Dogme truly “critical”? Does the fact that it derives its content from learner language, rather than from coursebooks, make it dialogic, and hence critical? Probably not. After all, as Pennycook (1999) warns, “a critical approach to TESOL is more than arranging the chairs in a circle and discussing social issues” (p. 338)…
Having ruminated on this (on the treadmill at the gym), and in an attempt to reconcile our positions, let me pick up the point I made at the end of my last comment – that you are seeking to promote an agenda, while I am more concerned with developing a methodology. Clearly, this is too simplistic – not least, the implication that a methodology is somehow value-free. The fact that dogme explicitly invokes a learner-centred pedagogy, and prioritises “the language that emerges from the needs, interests, concerns and desires of the people in the room”, has a strong ideological basis, I’ll be the first to admit. And one hopes that, by tapping into these needs, interests etc, the teacher’s agenda is not simply a linguistic one (“Thanks for your story of how you were bullied at school, Kim. Now let’s look at the verbs you used…”)
So, what “mechanisms” (to use your term) are built into a dogme approach that will guard against this kind of dysfunctional classroom discourse? I’m not sure there are any – maybe there should be. Nor am I sure what form they should take: very general maxims of the type “Be authentic in your response at all times”, or the more specific guidelines for classroom discourse that Claire Kramsch advocates in the article I cite in How to Teach Speaking, e.g.
• pay attention to the message of students’ utterances rather than to the form in which they are cast. Keep your comments for later.
• make extensive use of natural feedback (‘hmm’/‘interesting’/‘I thought so too’) rather than evaluating and judging every student utterance following its delivery (‘fine’/‘good’). Do not overpraise.
• give students explicit credit by quoting them (‘just as X said’); do not take credit for what students contributed by giving the impression that you had thought about it before.
etc
Of course, this does not in any sense constitute a “critical turn” in the dogme methodology, but to me it is much more useful (and less intrusive) advice than the rather vague and unhelpful approach that Pennycook questions, i.e. “get into groups and discuss social issue X”. It seems to me, moreover, that respecting, validating, and authenticating the contributions of the “people in the room” is ultimately of more value, educationally, socially, and politically, than attempting to solve the problems of the world through role play. For example.
All this is by way of suggesting that there IS a way a more socially-responsible dogme can be developed, and, what’s more, it is possible to construe this in terms of a methodology, not simply an agenda. But it is socially responsible at the micro-level – i.e. in terms of the local ecology that is the classroom itself – and I suspect you are more interested in interventions at the macro level. I’ll need convincing that the language classroom is the best vehicle for this!
Hi Scott,
Thank you for coming back to this and giving it more of your time. I am interested in both the micro and the macro level and found a lot of what you said about classrooms really important. But then from other discussions we have had, I think we are often in agreement regarding classroom ecology.
I think the issue of the macro level has been touched on far more clearly than I probably ever could by Diarmuid below. And overall I agree with what he has written and have responded there if you have time to read.
I don’t think we can separate the local from the global, and I guess I feel that to not bring the macro into the classroom means having to ignore it and keep it out, as it will be in there anyway. Isn’t it a question of finding ways to connect.
Attempting to solve the problems of the world through role play. This sounds very contrived doesn’t it! I agree that I would not want to try this out. But if my students were trying to solve their problems in their world (i.e. the macro world) and needed my help and support to do this, well then I might consider role play as a vehicle for assisting them. But as an directed and meaningful activity.
I think agenda and methodology leak into one another too much to claim they are disinctly different. We all have an agenda and this influences which methodology we pick.
I think we are getting further into the details now so thanks for this!
I wish I had more time to devote to this but there are so many things going on around me, that I won’t do any of you justice in this response. Bear with me!
Firstly, I think that we ALL agree that dogme is not critical. It is, as Scott said, a rather decaffeinated transformative movement and the way that it has been almost effortlessly assimilated into the mainstream (how many DELTA Dogme lessons have there been?).
Secondly I think that we may all agree that dogme has a lot of critical potential. It questions some of the main givens (you need a well-resourced classroom/coursebooks/preconceived notion of what the students must learn). To any critical mind, such thinking is welcome.
Thirdly, I think we all agree that dogme is not living up to its critical potential. As any broad church, it tends to be run by the more moderate members.
Where disagreement starts is whether dogme NEEDS to be more critical. Unsurprisingly, those of us who view education as being PRIMARILY transformative think that it does. Equally unsurprisingly, those of us who see the world as occasionally hostile, but all-in-all not a bad place to be, probably think it doesn’t.
I am not at all surprised that Scott, from time to time, gets irked at the carping. Unlike Jared, I don’t think this is because he doesn’t like to be questioned; I do think it may have a lot to do with the fact that many of the ciriticisms levelled at dogme are often ad hominem attacks directed at Scott himself. Very often, they may take as a starting point something that Scott has said or written, but the message often gets mangled and Scott finds himself having to defend himself against something that he has never said or written. Still, he’s a big boy now and very capable of fighting his own corner!
I think it is slightly disingenuous to dig too deeply into Scott’s choice of metaphor and think that there is a danger of extrapolating too much by doing so. Dogme means many different things to many different people. The overriding impression that people have of it is that it is all about not preparing for your lesson and working with what comes from the students. I would suggest that the fact that dogme isn’t a revolutionary force is less a failing of dogme and more a failing of wider forces that socialise many of us into being no more than consumers.
If more people in dogme were of a revolutionary mindset, then dogme would be a very different creature; what I like about dogme is the fact that it is in constant flux. It resists ideologies and that is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a GOOD thing.
Scott asks how we operationalise transformative education. We don’t. We create conditions where transformative education can be operationalised. In dogme’s case, that might simply consist of stating clearly and unequivocably that the aim of dogme is to help people see that they can Do It Themselves. People might be students or teachers, or student-teachers and teacher-students. Or dogme might simply reject any dichotomy between the two. Dogme could state clearly and unequivocably that the real purpose behind doing so is that when people start to think and act for themselves, they realise that any change is at least possible. Dogme could state clearly and unequivocably that such a realisation is essential if we are ever to live in a fair and equitable world.
Dogme doesn’t say this. Dogme is more than Thornbury, Meddings et al. It strikes me that the only way of ensuring that dogme says this is to convince the collective that IS dogme. I suspect that the argument is at least another ten years in the offing. Until that time, I am glad to have found dogme because it has provided me with the framework wherein I can develop my own pedagogy which is (inevitably, I would say) informed by my politics – which are revolutionary, transformative and critical!
Thank you for visiting Diarmuid as I know you are really busy. As always I agree with what you say on the whole and value your input as someone whose been taking a critical position in the DOGME debate for a lot longer than me. I think you have put the issues in order and clarified them and probably saved a lot of time!
I agree that personal attacks and comments of Scott and also others attached to the DOGME movement doesn’t help, and hope that I have avoided this here. I think metaphors are important though and they do say something, but would agree that you cannot judge a person by his/her metaphors alone, but coupled with context and action. So I take a slightly different position to you, but agree that reducing people to a sum total of whatever they say at any given moment is a very static way of seeing things as we all change…constantly. I don’t agree with hunting people down for their contradictions, but I am interested in how all of us lives with our contradictions and combines the different influences and forces at work which shape our outlook.
Like you, I share a bottom up sentiment in terms of how critical pedagogy could function and share your idea (quote) “Dogme could state clearly and unequivocably that such a realisation is essential if we are ever to live in a fair and equitable world”. That should be the goal surely and I guess my interest in this debate is my agreement that DOGME is not critical enough at the moment and could be more so without building the barricades just yet. I can not see a clear reason for not doing this.
But as you ponder – perhaps it is a question of time. Though the idea of things progressively getting more ‘radical’ is one that I have always wondered about as sometimes it works in the reverse. The more established something becomes, the less chance for change. But I agree that DOGME is a broad spectrum of ideas, one of which is critical. Perhaps those of us who wish our pedagogy to be informed by our social beliefs should start to clarify what that might mean and come up with something more concrete. I am open to this.
Thanx again.
Hate being late to the party… real life sometimes intervenes and drags me away from the keyboard ; P
I think the difference lies to some extent to an approach to life. Please forgive me if I misrepresent either of you (Scott or Sara) but I am reminded of my A-Level politics teacher (A teacher who had a tremendous influence on me as a teenager). He declared himself a to be a Marxist (how cool!, I thought) and told us that if he couldn’t achieve a total change in society, he would rather have nothing at all. My sixteen year old self didn’t quite get it… surely, it’s better to have some improvements? But any compromise to the original vison corrupts the whole. I get it now, but I am still not sure I agree.
Friere, I’m afraid, is another of those authors I’ve heard a lot about but not yet read. However, I can sympathise with both Scott’s idea to take out some of the zing, and Sara’s complaint that this damages his concept beyond repair. When I spoke to Scott, I put to him that there was an optimum dogme context – something I still believe. He said that dogme can occur in the “cracks in the lesson” – an inclusive idea that should enable anyone to try a little bit of dogme. I’d like to say that he is a pragmatist, but that might suggest that Sara is unrealistic and dogmatic – not what I want to say at all.
As Jason points out though, it is not all Scott. Part of the reason the list has always been so lively is down to the various interpretations of the Dogme.
Hi there Darren,
The party is ongoing so please don’t apologise. Lovely to see you here and to listen to your great comments. Thanks for sharing the story of your teacher – I had a teacher like that too. Loved him! He was so inspiring. I don’t see myself like that though.
Speaking personally, if my only agenda was total change or nothing, well then I wouldn’t be very active in the here and now, which isn’t true – as I am. I understand your teacher’s thinking though, and feel there is a need for people like that around us to remind us all of how much more we could be doing? That is why I like to mix and discuss with a broad range of people and am interested in many different positions.
I think there is a lot to be said for negotiating – this is what we are doing now in this dialogue. But I also think how far you go with your negotiations (on how to improve the present) depends upon where you place your horizon in terms of the final outcome in the future. So revolutionary thinking doesn’t always mean “I do nothing till after the revolution” – this is something that always infuriated me about the left and their complacency with sexism, racism, homphobia etc sometimes. No the change must start now, with small daily steps, but always perhaps one step further than a liberal thinking person might venture to tread. I mean liberal in its small “l” sense (i.e. open to ideas of equality but not always sure about how to bring them about which can lead to a kind of paralysis). I think ELT is mostly populated by this way of thinking. So its a question of degrees. Perhaps I just push things a little further. And I am very aware that doesn’t appeal to all – but there you go! I am a big girl (to use Diarmuid’s expression) so will get over it!
So yes I guess some Friere is better than no Friere at all. But I prefer another approach (more in line with my critical allegiances). Read it all, understand it all, and then let people know which bits you are rejecting and why. That way, everyone’s clear and you have provided a justification for your decision. It also demonstrates that all of us, to a degree, pick and mix which the theories we use and focus in on different parts. But I maintain that Friere at 5th gear has more to offer than Friere at 2nd gear, for all the reason I have stated. And I think this discussion is a case in point. We are attempting to reach a middle ground that perhaps is impossible to reach, which leaves us with two polarities. An impasse some would say.
I think that I am both a pragmatist and someone who wants a better world – perhaps we are all capable of wearing both hats at different moments! Indeed everyone is a big mixture. I agree that the its best to assess the ideas that someone has rather than where they fit into a flexible or dogmatic scale (in your comparison of me and Scott) and I am trying not to pigeon hole either of us in how I am approaching this discussion! I remain open to the possibility of many interpretations of DOGME as you also cherish. And there is its strength.
And finally, and not particularly in relation to anything you said, but it goes here as well as anywhere else, there is a kind of assumption running through this thread that I am a Marxist (whatever that now means in today’s climate), I should state that whilst I find the ideas of Marxism very helpful in understanding the world, I neither think there is only one interpretation of Marxism, or agree with the ways it has been applied by politicians the world over. But at the same time, I will not reject it totally. As this also seems to negate an enormous body of work whose influence has been profound. Does that make sense? I see it as a body of theories, warts and all, that is worth our serious attention.
Hope that helps! Some of my comments aren’t related to your points, but add into the discussion anyway.
Thanks again Darren!
Great comments from Diarmuid, Scott and Darren – all of which extend and enlighten in equal measure. So much to think about (Scott I love the idea of you doing your thinking in the gym on the treadmill and me doing mine inbetween lessons, and Diarmuid and Darren snatching moments in their hectic lives). We don’t even have time to think properly anymore unless it is multitasking with other things too
Anyway, today is really hectic for me and I want a bit of time to process, so will write some more considered responses tomorrow so this is a holding blog post to say thank you for taking the time to visit and add to this debate. See ya tomorrow!
Just a quick point here. If I understand correctly, “a critical approach to TESOL is more than arranging the chairs in a circle and discussing social issues”, it is also a question of “creating conditions where transformative education can be operationalised”. Please forgive me, but as I tend to get a bit lost when people discuss theoretical issues, would it be possible for you to clarify this with a practical example of a classroom activity?
Just off the top of my head, here’s an example of what I mean.
A teacher initiates a discussion on the discovery (or “discovery”) and colonisation of America by the Spanish (I live in Barcelona so this would be useful for me). If I am to be a Critical Dogme teacher, …
a) should the main objective of the activity be that the students condemn this as brutal imperialism and support a motion demanding that the Spanish government officially apologises to the oppressed peoples of Latin America?
b) as the teacher should I use any “mechanisms”, interventionist or not, to bring about this desired outcome? And if so, what are they?
c) should feedback be based upon whether the students reach the correct conclusion in a), and should the students be assessed accordingly?
If you can enlighten me on this point I would be most grateful. I find practical examples to be so helpful … don’t you?
Ian thanks. A very quick answer before I grab my stuff and leave the office. I think your practical example is fine. I enjoy theoretical and practical discussions and often look directly at classroom activities. So for your example.
a) if there are students who raise this as an idea then I wouldn’t stop the discussion. I would trust their local knowledge on this. I would expect some variation in their thoughts and this would form a really rich topic of debate where my aim as teacher might be to help draw out the different positions on the topic, some of which would be critical (critical is a continuum).
b) No. I would act as facilitator and just rely on those students who supported that outcome to put their viewpoint across. I may ask some facilitating questions like “OK Giorgos, Kostas just said that he thinks XXXXX, what do you think about that?” or “Katerina, you said you think that the apology would not be an appropriate move, can you tell us more about that” (sorry for using Greek names, not familiar with Catalan ones).
c) No. Feedback would be based on their language performance and ability to communicate their ideas. I only formally assess language in the parts of my lessons on testing and do not include whether students agree with me or a critical agenda as part of that assessment. It is using critical pedagogy which has enabled me to control my own biases in that respect I would say and I spend a lot of time thinking about this. Others may think they are not judging based on ideas, and do it anyway, but without being honest with themselves.
Can I add a d) – undoubtedly there would be some students interested in my view. I would tell them during the lesson that I will let them know what I think at the end. And that is what I do. So I would be able to give my assessment of the proposal in your a) which may have been raised by a student once the student body have finished theirs.
Of course text is everything here. Another way to approach this would be to take in a short text which proposes that said apology is necessary and another that says its not, and then leave students to deconstruct. Same prodedure applies. As I said before though, punishment for having different ideas would never be part of my classroom I hope!
Another level that would make it critical DOGME is if some of my students were involved in making this ‘real’ outside the classroom, I would encourage them to talk about the ways they are involved in civil/community action. I would encourage them to share their experience. That would become an additional source of discussion in the classroom too. How the outside world is moving along and how people try to transform and change things in their localities, and relates to the topic of discussion. I don’t know if this is a “live” issue in your context, but please do share experience if you have any more of how such a lesson might work in practice. I have lots to share too
Does that clarify?
Now that’s the best I can do in the 5 minutes I had so gotta dash. Thanks Ian!
Ian
Leaving aside the rather undogmetic beginning where the teacher foists the topic on the students, here are some answers:
a) No. The main objective would be to explore different perspectives and to see whose interests might best be served by each one;
b) as the dogmetic teacher, you should use conversation, questions and answers as your mechanisms.
c) feedback will be language-based and will form a natural part of the discussion: “So, Josep, when you say that “We bringing civilisation to the indians,” what exactly do you mean? Do you mean ” brought” or “are bringing” or “will bring”? What do you mean by “the indians?” Why are they called Indians?” Are there any other terms that could be used to refer to them? Which do you think are more acceptable to them?”
As you can see, these questions are less about correct outcomes as they are about grammatical clarifications and vocabulary expansion. It is hard to assess students appropriately unless you know what they are trying to say. Assessment depends on being able to reassure a student that the message that they are trying to put across is, in fact, the message that they ARE putting across. This is often achieved by ensuring that the conversation doesn’t take any unintended turns. I think I rely more on self-assessment than I do on teacher assessment.
Hi Sara! First of all, thanks for your swift reply, I don’t know where you find the time!
Before I reply to your reply, I’m going to take this opportunity to come out of the political closet. Here goes! I believe that liberal democracy is the best way that we have come up with of organising societies and guaranteeing individual liberties. How’s that? In fact, I’m thinking of setting up a web page called the Liberal TEFL Group. For your interest, I once considered myself an Althusserian Marxist before adopting a more palatable Gramscian variant. I finally abandoned Marxism altogether when history left it beached in 1989. As for “theory”, I have never flirted with post-modernist madness, although I have been subject to its impenetrable relativist discourse on many occasions … good for a laugh sometimes, I suppose! I would also like to state that I am not a follower of the DOGME movement. I have my moments like everyone else, but I have no qualms about whipping out a listening on Barbie from File Upper-Intermediate if I think the circumstances are right. This may “disempower” my students for a while but they seem to get over it pretty quickly. Sorry, I digress.
Getting back to your response, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that we would do almost exactly the same in the classroom situation that I outlined in my previous comment. My answers to a), b) and c) would be almost identical. I, like you, would “draw out the different positions on the topic”, “act as facilitator” and would also tell the students what I thought on the matter (although I wouldn’t do this at the end of the class in order to avoid a now-I’ll-tell-you-the-correct-answer feel to it). All this sounds perfectly reasonable to my ears, but it doesn’t sound very “critical” somehow. Something is obviously not right, and I suspect it’s the fact that you rather side-stepped the question I posed in a). Here it is again, slightly reformulated: Would it be one of your persuable objectives that by the end of the class your students had come to the conclusion that modern Spain should condemn imperialism and publically apologise for its colonial past? The question is important because the existence or not of a political objective is the crux of the matter. When I tell my students how I feel about a particular issue it is merely incidental, it is not an objective. “Criticality” on the other hand seems to imply much more than that: a conscious objective, plan or hidden agenda to win round students to a particular political/ideological position. So, a “critical” DOGME teacher’s objectives are political or linguistic? To quote Lenin, “What is to be done?”
This brings me to a related issue. In your comment you say you would add a further level (d) to the activity to make it more critical – “I would encourage them to talk about the ways they are involved in civil/community action.” Where exactly is the “criticality” here? Is it in the “encouraging them to talk” or in the “civil/community action”? I encourage my students to talk all the time and I’m not exactly “critical”, so it can’t be that. It must be the “civil/community action”. But, would you still regard this as “critical” if your students’ “civil/community action” turned out to be membership of a right-wing political party or the Salvation Army? After all, as you know we don’t all have the same outlooks or come to the same conclusions, even when illuminated by Marxist psuedo-science.
The same thing goes for catch-all expressions like “social change” and “transformative potential”, which are splattered all over critical discourse. Well, I too am in favour of “social change”. For example I would like to see “social (and political) change” in Cuba, China, North Korea and Iran, amongst other places. And yes! I would also like to see “social change” in liberal democracies, although not of the revolutionary type, which as we know from sad experience tends to lead to terror, impoverishment, one-party governance and grotesque cults of personality.
Anyway enough rambling, this has all been in a bit of a rush! Have to sign off now! Got to go and sell some of my labour, and you have a demo to go to!
Once again, thanks for your interesting reply, Sara!
P.S. Please forgive me for using the expression “hidden agenda”, I must admit I don’t tend to quote Mr. Loach. What’s more, if indeed you have a political agenda, I’m sure you make this absolutely clear to your students at the beginning of a course. “During this course, we will be not only learning English, but also subverting the capitalist “hegemon”
Ian – do you mean that a liberal democracy is the best way that white middle class males have come up with of organising societies and guaranteeing liberties for other middle class white males? If so, I think I agree with you. Although I think if we look to the tired old example of Nazi Germany, we can see how nazism was the best possible society for Nazis to operate in; and over in Saudi Arabia, an intolerant theocracy is great for intolerant theocrats. It’s just that I don’t necessarily share your view that this is worth crashing out of the closet for: “Mother, father, there’s something you should know: I’m happy with the status quo.” I’m also rather bemused by your implication that in the modern “liberal democracy” [which is, of course, neither liberal nor democratic], we are saved from the curses of terror, impoverishment, one-party governance and grotesque cults of personality. These, after all, belong to despotic third world countries. In our liberal democracies, we don’t vote for individuals, we vote for parties and policies (n’est-ce pas, M. Obama?); nobody gets whipped off the streets and given a spot of waterboarding in some compliant blackspot in the arse end of nowhere; everyone has Enough and nobody is found Wanting; and it is just as likely that the Communist Party will be elected as it is that a Party Serving the Vested Interests of The Market will be. Truly, our form of government is worthy of export…I’m assuming that you weren’t drunk, but so rushed that you may have left your brains behind.
Of course, it might be that as someone who seems to eschew criticality, this is what your world is like. Things are What They Are Labelled. Criticality, on the other hand, is really about QUESTIONING (in capitals, to distinguish it from ANSWERING) the labels.
So to answer your question, although you seem to have tried to do that yourself, NO. Critical Dogme would not seek as its objective the [rather pointless and, despite what you say, rather unimportant] condemnation of Spain’s colonial past. The aim of critical dogme would be to require students to consider their and other’s points of view (where “consider” means think carefully about something). They may leave the classroom perfectly convinced that the sudacas had it coming, and should be grateful that the European heros brought civilisation to them, but this viewpoint would not go unquestioned. A critical dogmetic would want to explore, with the class, how widespread this opinion might be shared; they would want to explore WHY people might have different views and how these views were expressed; they would want to explore what purpose these views served; and, I think, they would want to explore whether or not the espousers of such views were personally benefitting from them.
To answer your rather peculiar dichotomy about whether critical dogme is political or linguistic, the answer (obviously) is that it is both. It aims to use students’ interests to teach them how to improve their ability to communicate in another language, but it aims to do this by encouraging them to question the world around them in the expectation that when people realise that the answers are never immutable laws of nature, the potential for change will become apparent. Even your lesson about Barbie (delivered when you “think the circumstances are right”!!!) is political.
To answer your question d), the criticality comes in the intent to explore people’s views and actions. So yes, the criticality IS still there even if your students turn out to be goose-stepping Nazi trombone players with the Salvation Army. Again, critical pedagogy is NOT about telling people how the world should be; it is about asking questions to discover how the world IS. Where you really differ from critical dogme is that you both ask and answer the questions that interest you. You are very happy to ascribe certain thought processes and conclusions to other people, but these are only really based upon your own misconceptions or stereotypes. I imagine that this is a much more comfortable way to live, but I’m not quite convinced that it is really at the root of education.
Hi Diarmuid (and Sara, later on in this comment)
Thanks for your interesting observations, I’ve finally found time to answer some of your points. To be absolutely honest I don’t know where to start, you have touched on so many things that I would like to comment on. Let’s begin by saying that your rather simplistic analysis of liberal democracy saddens me greatly. You say; “liberal democracy is the best way that white middle class males have come up with of organising societies and guaranteeing liberties for other middle class white males.” Do you really believe this? These do not sound like the words of a wise man, which after reading your blog I take you to be. But, it’s an argument I’ve heard before. It is a line of thought which taken to its ultimate consequences is able to dismiss advances in human rights such as universal suffrage and the emancipation of women, blacks and homosexuals as historically unimportant. According to this theory, the rights for which people have fought and died are reduced to mere illusions designed by the powers that be to brainwash us. The basic idea is that we have been enslaved by the hegamon but are too stupid to realise it. Any attempt at reform is playing into the hands of the enemy, our present system is rotten to the core and must be swept aside etc etc. Of course, at this point in history, I cannot really take these arguments very seriously. They seem to illustrate an almost emotional need to reject the status quo in its totality. We obviously still have a long way to go, but please let’s be able to celebrate the first black President of the United States or the simple fact that these days women don’t need to get a man’s signature to open a bank account. Is this really too much to ask?
From what you say you seem to require your students to analyse and think carefully about things, but you don’t seem to require the same of yourself. Despite all the critical rhetoric about questioning, introspection and careful thinking, you seem to inhabit a surprisingly simple, uncomplicated world. Your liberal-democracy-is-for-white-middle-class-men is in the same line as democracy-is-fascism-in-disguise, if-you-are-a-man-you-are-a-sexist, if-you-are-white-you-are-racist etc etc. Not the result of very deep analysis, if I may say so.
Although you seem to recoil from clear questions, which are free from obscurantist jargon and attempt to get to the bottom of things, I will ask you one more. Given the fact that we have to live somewhere, and without getting side-tracked by non-existent utopias, in what type of political system would you prefer to live and bring up your children? If your answer happens to be a liberal democracy, maybe you should dedicate a little criticality to why exactly that might be the case. If however your answer is one of the many other alternatives on offer, this is of course your free choice and I wish you Bon Voyage.
You say that you are bemused by my “implication that in modern liberal democracy (which is, of course, neither liberal nor democratic), we are saved from the curses of terror, impoverishment, one-party governance and grotesque cults of personality”. I have to admit that I’m rather bemused by the fact that this bemuses you, because this would in fact seem to be the case. As for waterboarding, go ahead, do a comparative study on the use of torture in different political systems. I would love to see the results, and the possible conclusions you draw from them.
Let’s get back to critical approaches to teaching – and I’d like to bring in Sara here. Although it seems clear we will not agree on political questions, it does seem that we might just be getting somewhere (i.e. common ground) as regards criticality. From what you’re saying, if all criticality means is “to require students to consider their and other’s points of view (where ‘consider’ means think carefully about something)” or “to draw out the different positions on a topic” or “encourage students to question the world around” “in an equitable space”, I’m sure we can all stand on common ground. I have no problem with this at all. Personally, I love having interesting conversations on politics and society with my students. However, I would like to add a rider to this. I’m not sure all of my students like being “critical” all of the time. In fact, I suspect, that I enjoy it more than they do. So, what do I do? Yes, you guessed it! I do a Barbie listening now and again and get them to talk about the toys they played with when they were kids. Of course, whether or not you regard this seemingly innocent lesson as “political” is your decision. There are clearly some people who prefer to live in a parallel world of permanent sub-texts, people who believe that unwrapping a Mars bar in public has political significance. But, I imagine for most mortals the everything-is-political argument is just a little bit too surreal. What’s more, it can get jolly tiresome, especially if you just want to learn English or, heaven forbid, have a bit of fun. Getting back to the lesson, of course if I see that my students are getting all cerebral on me, I am more than willing to change tack and use Barbie as a springboard for deep-level conversation on gender issues, which by the way is a topic that appears in most course books these days (“critical course books”?). However, what I don’t do is require my students to participate in sub-text analysis of everything we touch on. Like most things, I believe it’s about getting the balance right. And yes, it is usually me who gauges the vibe and then scandalously decides what’s appropriate, it’s probably because I’m a teacher (I will not expound on this now). Oh dear, I feel another question coming on. In a previous comment, I said that I am not a dogme teacher but that I probably have my dogme moments. Would it be possible for you to grant me an insy-winsy bit of criticality in these deeper Barbie moments too? I would be seriously interested to know. Of course, I would probably just call these moments having interesting conversations with students who are both interested and interesting, so I suppose it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day.
Sara, thanks for pointing out that your position is influenced by many different schools of thought besides Marxism. I have taken it on board. Maybe you could find room for a bit of liberal thought in there too
, although I imagine (as you say about my disposition towards post-modernity) the ground is not very fertile. You mention in your comment that I was trying “to find the contradictions in individuals”, and I suppose I was, but is this such a sin? In my opinion, realising that we have contradictions and then resolving them is a very important, although sometimes painful, part of learning. My intention was merely to clarify the debate by bringing it down to a very practical what-would-you-DO level. After all, theory without practice doesn’t get us very far. You also detected my, lets’ say rather tense tone. I’ve thought quite a lot about what caused this. I will try to explain. Having read both the original post and all the subsequent comments with interest, I still suspect that followers of a critical approach are still grappling with the problem of how to give their teaching a “macro” edge. I also suspect that this “macro” edge basically responds to a left-wing, anti-establishment political agenda, although I admit this is difficult to pin down exactly. I think this is where the origin of my tenseness lies. For it is ironic to say the very least, that one of the principal tenets of critical pedagogy seems to be a total or partial rejection of the only socio-political system which permits its existence, i.e. societies which broadly define themselves as liberal democracies. To use an idiom, biting the hand that feeds you is never very good form. This is the cause of my tenseness. Needless to say, there is no place for critical pedagogy in authoritarian, totalitarian or theocratic regimes, whatever their colour. To sum up, criticality is ironically most active in societies in which it is least “necessary”.
Ian
To Marxistefl : You are of course right in all you say!
Ian
Thanks for the lengthy response. I hope that helped you get it out of your system!
1. Clearly I do not believe that the world is a simple place. It is you who decides to take this “to its ultimate consequences” and you end up putting words in my mouth. Whilst I think it is perfectly acceptable to celebrate the election of a black multimillionaire in the USA, or the fact that women can open their own bank accounts, I think that these should be celebrated merely for what they are: tiny, relatively inconsequential events. Has racism tumbled in the USA? Have a look on death row or in the ghettos of the major cities. Are women now independent of men? Are they equal to men? Perhaps you see the election of the UK’s only woman prime minister as a big step forward too? So, whilst I am happy to see them as baby stes forward, forgive me if I don’t break out the Bollinger just yet!
2. I’m not sure why you think I recoil from clear questions. In my previous post, I made every effort to answer your questions and I am happy to do so again. Where would I like to live and bring up my children? Well, in a society that poses least threat to me or to them. Because you have barred Utopias from consideration, I am left with no other choice than to say that, from all of the other systems that I am aware of in the world today, the one I would prefer to live in is the one that you call a “liberal democracy”. You ask me to reflect on this very fact and ponder why it might be. Done. Oh. There it is. I am male, middle class, and white. Everyhing that the system values. If I was rich, I would have it all. Because, although you think that this is a sadly simplistic analysis, it doesn’t require much more than this. It seems absurd to have to argue this point. You point to Barak Obama – I’d ask how many black guys are telling him what to do. You point to women’s emancipation – I point to the number of women in parliament, or the number of women politicians, or the number of women prime mininsters, presidents etc. I point to the number of women out of work or in low paid employment; I point to the amount of money that women can now put in their banks accounts! Whilst you belittle my apparent simplistic analysis, you seem to think that universal suffrage, “the emancipation” of women, blacks and homosexuals makes everything alright.
3. You also seem to imply that people who don’t like where they are living have n right to criticise. What they should do, it would seem, is bugger off somewhere else. This is a rather weak argument, I would suggest. After all, if it were taken to “its ultimate consequences”, it would mean that Rosa Parks should have got off the bus and walked, or buggered off somewhere where blacks could ride the bus unhindered. The suffragettes should have restricted themselves to withdrawing to the sitting room whenever matters turned serious, or they should have buggered off somewhere (err…..) where women were allowed to participate in the electoral show. But I suspect that you REALLY mean that if people don’t like the society that YOU like to live in, they should bugger off. As it would seem that I am now more liberal and democratic than you yourself may be (!), I find myself thinking that it’s not unreasonable to want to change the place where you live.
4. My initial bemusement came from the frankly ridiculous implication that terror, impoverishment, one-part governance and grotesque cults of personality”were the exclusive preserve of the dictatorships that you complained about whereas liberal democracies have no time for that sort of thing. Indeed, it now seems that you are dismissing the use of torture by liveral democracies becuase The Others Do It More Than Us. So, is there an acceptable level of torture? Is it OK to torture somebody a little? Or is it OK to torture them as long as it’s not TOO serious? For example, to drown somebody over a hundred times is OK because it’s not a systematic approach to criminal investigations across the board. Wow! How “liberal” are you? To me, it sounds as if you still have a little marxist walking around your head
. I’d argue that you don’t even have to be THAT critical to spot the teror, impoverishment (on many levels), one-ideology governance and grotesque cults of personality that characerise modern political societies in any country.
5. Back to teaching then: I’m glad that this conversation has opened your eyes (a little) about what critical pedagogies are. You still labour under some misconceptions, but an advance has been made! Nowhere is it write that critical pedagogies must de dour, joyless and hectoring. If Amna walks into my class and says, “Hello teacher,” I don’t stop the class and examine why she felt the need to refer to my job or my role within society. I don’t deconstruct the rather hollow word “Hello” nor do I draw people’s attention to the fact that she (as a woman) felt the need to salute me (as a man). I might say, “Hello, Amna. You’re not exactly on time are you?” As a dogme teacher, I might find myself having a class about shopping and whether Selfirdges is better than the House of Fraser for make-up. When a student says that she has spent £1000 on some make-up or the other, I don’t berate her for her obsession with money, consumerism or feeling that she must paint herself to become more attractive. I might express disbelief that anyone would want to spend £1000 on such things, but would possibly ask a question along the lines of, “What’s the most you’ve ever spent on something?” or “”How would you spend £1000?” or “Is £1000 a lot of money? What kinds of things could £1000 get you in your country?” And although I think thatstudents would enjoy such conversations, I also feel confident that they provide the potential for criticality.
Again, you berate me for my lack of deep analysis and fall back on the most clicheed stereotypes: the “left” is humourless. Only non-”leftists” have fun (which explains all those famous Tory comedians – Russ Abbott, Freddie Starr etc). In my earlier post, the questioning was drier because the subject was drier: you had painted a context where the teacher was trying to get the students to apologise for the colonial past of their country. I will pander to your Smithers-type obsession with Barbie
and tell you how I might proceed: I might ask students to consider what their favourite toys were as a child; I might ask them to consider whether kids of today like the same kind of toys as kids of yesteryear (now sadly including me); I might wonder what the reasons might be for this. I might wonder whether the toys that we play with as children have any effect on us as adults. I might enquire whether or not they think that children should play with toy guns; I might find them an article to read about the insidious nature of Barbie and ask them how much they think the article is up its own arse. Any of this that different to what you might have done? As I wrote before, I think a lot of critical pedagogy is in the intent rather than the content.
6. In your comments to Sara, you fall back on your stereotyping. Still you think that critical pedagogy is about haranguing the right and being anti-establishment. It isn’t. With all of the respect in the world, you appear to be doing a bit of a Daily Mail analysis here. You seem to reject something because of what you think it is; OK, that’s natural – but better is to try and find out more about it. It might not be that scary.
Critical pedagogy is a pedagogy that believes in change. It has as its goal a fairer, more equitable society. You seem to associate these things with “the left” – but a quick look at “the left” -or “the right”, for that matter!- would be all that was needed to question this association. It is absurd to say that critical pedagogy seems to have as a central tenet the total or partial rejection of the only socio-political system which permits its existence, i.e. societies which broadly define themselves as liberal democracies.” Look back to Taliban-led Afghanistan. Women opened clandestine schools aimed at the education of young girls. This was, to my mind at least, critical pedagogy. I really don’t think that the women thought that life would be unbearable if they didn’t know long division; I suspect that they were taking a critical look at the society in which they found themselves and educating themselves in the belief that this would enable them to change their lives, their position in society, perhaps even their government. Of course, it may be that you view Talibania as a liberal democracy…
Critical pedagogies can be found everywhere and are needed everywhere. Even in the Marixst utopia that you seem to fear so much, there will be a need for critical pedagogies (although the marxists will deny it!). “The unexamined life is not worth living.” If you are happy to go around in a daze, only stopping to think whenever the TV shakes up your conscience with pictures of starving Africans or homeless Haitians, but generally prepared to overlook how your happiness might be dependent upon other people’s suffering and, in some cases, may actually CAUSE other people’s suffering, then perhaps you might disagree with Socrates.
But critical pedagogues might recognise that people ARE affected by the suffering of others and ARE keen to help when they witness it. Critical pedagogues might be keen to help people break down the walls of disinformation that surround us and to question the idea that The Way That Thngs Are Is The Way That They Have To Be. This doesn’t have to take place on a huge scale. In fact, Tony Lynch’s “Study Listening” (which is most definitely not to be found alongside The Anarchist Cookbook or Guerrilla Warfare) has critical moments where students, having done some listening about urban planning, write to the town council with their recommendations for improvements in their towns. Critical? In the context where I work, yes! Students are not used to the idea that they have any right to an opinion about how Manchester City Council should operate (but do recongise Manchester City Council’s right to take £60 off them if they throw a cigarette butt in the street).
Take it easy, Ian! We’re not preaching all out revolution in our classrooms, nor are we being particularly hypocritical in rejecting the political system which benefits us in many ways. Critical pedagogy is not a marxist conspiracy although there may be many marxist conspirators who are critical pedagogues. Critical pedagogy is merely about questioning the givens and exploring their function. It aims to give people the tools that they need to transform their lives and by doing so, their societies…and by doing so, the world. It is an admirable and honourable aim that really DOES make life worth living, in my not-so-very-humble opinion.
TROOPS OUT OF TOOTING!
Diarmuid
Hi Ian,
When Sara said “party” I am afraid she meant this in a metephorical sense. You appear to have taken her too literally and turned up drunk!!
What else can explain your melancholic musings on past relationships with Althusser and then Gramsci (it reads like unsatisfactory serial monogamy)? It is clear you remain bitter about these relations, which is a pity (although with Althusser, he did have a habit of leaving people feeling so). This would obviously explain why you are so happy about them being dumped a beach. Come over to Marxist TEFL group some time and we can talk it over (sober of course)
Similarly, what else can explain this pàranoid feeling of yours that TEFL is overrun by Marxists? You don’t need to “come out of the closet”, your ideas are most overwhelmingly those of the mainstream. You don’t need to hide.
Take a big mug of black coffee, sober up and come back and enjoy this site/discusion. You will be more than “pleasantly surprised”.
For example, if you take the time to read the comments above you will discover that Sara is neither a Marxist nor responsible for the governments in Cuba, China, North Korea or Iran (incidentally, we at MTG don’t think the first three are socialist and Iran has never even pretended to be):
“And finally, and not particularly in relation to anything you said, but it goes here as well as anywhere else, there is a kind of assumption running through this thread that I am a Marxist (whatever that now means in today’s climate), I should state that whilst I find the ideas of Marxism very helpful in understanding the world, I neither think there is only one interpretation of Marxism, or agree with the ways it has been applied by politicians the world over. But at the same time, I will not reject it totally. As this also seems to negate an enormous body of work whose influence has been profound. Does that make sense? I see it as a body of theories, warts and all, that is worth our serious attention.”
You see with a sober (open) mind you would enjoy this site/discussion so much more.
Of course, as unrepentant dyed-in-the-wool Marxists over at MTG, we are little insulted you never come to our parties
@Marxistelf,
There is very little that is dangerously or transgressively radical about dogme teaching as I see it at the yahoogroup. However, there is occasionally an actual post that is about language teaching and learning. Unlike the Marxitself/wascarol site, which is almost never about language teaching or learning–they claim for the sake of intellgectualizing and mordantly combating all anti-intellectuals who might otherwise drain their vital bodily fluids. Pretty run of the mill pseudo-Marx windbagism, if you ask me.
Thank you Ian and Marxist ELF,
It sounds like you two have a lot to talk about on the theoretical front (and I am very interested in theory too as you will have noted!), but yes Ian about the specifics of Marxism I think you will learn much more at ELF’s blog. Thanks ELF for pointing out the fact that I have indeed stated that I am not a Marxist and for listing the specific passage in a previous entry on this blog thread. To quote again (just incase its been missed as in haste people often don’t read all the posts) this is what I said:
“And finally….there is a kind of assumption running through this thread that I am a Marxist (whatever that now means in today’s climate), I should state that whilst I find the ideas of Marxism very helpful in understanding the world, I neither think there is only one interpretation of Marxism, or agree with the ways it has been applied by politicians the world over. But at the same time, I will not reject it totally. As this also seems to negate an enormous body of work whose influence has been profound. Does that make sense? I see it as a body of theories, warts and all, that is worth our serious attention.”
But having read your post Ian, I am almost tempted to say I *am* a Marxist, because there is an attack in there somewhere that is making me feel uncomfortable as it implies a denial of the right to see the world in a certain way. I thought about it a lot yesterday (as you know because I mentioned I needed some time to you in a DM) and this is what I’ve come up with.
I don’t really know what to say about your difficult political journey other than we all have them in one way or another. I have a few of my own scars along the way in relation to ideas that I have believed in that didn’t turn out to be all they were cracked up to be, and groups I was a member of etc etc where the people didn’t quite behave in the way they should have done given their politics. Perhaps we have more in common than you realise tho we may have chosen different pathways now. I know exactly how it feels to have history destroy my neat little understanding of the way things could be but then history has a habit of doing that. There is a disappointment there of course, but ultimately, isn’t it better not to then direct the same fervour in total rejection of the same said theories? I mean there are still some others travelling along the road that you went along and we are all at different points right? I think discussion is about finding out where people are on the map of understanding, and working it out from there. The debate is just as interesting, but it allows people to explore more fully.
What I have ultimately rejected is fervour – because it seems that it blinds one to the paradoxical nature of all theories. If you were expecting shock or condemnation for your “closet” moment regarding your liberal beliefs, you won’t find it here! As I have said, I try to debate with a wide range of people precisely because that means I keep an open mind. That doesn’t make my own beliefs any less stronger, it allows them to go deeper. Plus like ELF I don’t feel declaring allegiance to liberal democracy is really that risky – perhaps it feels that way because of this blog, but its what most people in our profession believe, so safety in numbers.
I hope that you can be one of those people who comes back and I have already visited you at your blog, and I would like to share more and hear more of your experiences and journey in making sense of it all. I’d rather debate with a liberal than a racist – and I am not at all surprised to find out that your classroom is a critical space (even though you reject that term yourself, as it is probably far too “post modern”). With your background I would be surprised to find out that it wasn’t. Some things run deeper than theories don’t they? Those words that are “splashed” but irritating to you (like critical, transformative etc) are ways that I choose to define my world – they are different linguistic choices from your own perhaps, but there you go. And no doubt you have a linguistic set that you use too right to describe things? Let’s try to look beyond descriptions. They tell us something about each other, but as Diarmuid pointed out earlier, metaphors do not make the person.
You clearly care very much about how you handle these ideas yourself in your classroom from all that you have said, or you wouldn’t have come over and commented. Your rejection of all that is post-modern didn’t escape my theoretical sensibilities. And I respect the gut instinct to throw it out as a pile of namby pamby nonsence. I won’t waste too much time trying to convince you otherwise as the ground is not fertile enough for that in your feelings about it. But you will note that I do use a lot of post-structuralist theory myself and value it greatly for its addition to thinking on key issues. I combine it with Marxism and Anarchism actually. And theoretically speaking they have provided me with a way to live in this mad mad world. But that’s just me.
So back to the example. If any of my students raised the fact that they were involved in the Sally army or a right wing political party then I would ask them to elaborate and tell us about their experiences. And then I would see what the other students had to say about it. I have yet to be in a classroom where a pretty full range of ideas is not represented and the idea of censorship doesn’t sit well with me as a teacher. So yes, the type of political activity or social involvement gets to be defined by the students, not by me. I don’t politically support a platform for fascists in my civilian life, and was against the fact that the BNP were invited onto BBC question time, but in my role as a teacher, I would see the issue as one that would need to be discussed and dealt with by the other members of the class. And if my opinion was sought, I would have absolutely no problem articulating what I think regarding fascism. Would you? Would anyone? That example seems to go beyond the simple critical/liberal dichotomy.
I think in terms of classroom ecology we probably pretty much all agree on this list and you will note that Scott and I whilst having different views on the macro, are very often on exactly the same page in terms of how to nurture classroom relationships and when this ecology is attacked, I will happily stand with Scott to defend the right to organise the classroom as an equitable space.
The macro is more difficult. And your questions don’t feel as if they are helping us get closer as they are about trying to find the contradictions in individuals. I am full of contradictions myself so you won’t have to look very far if that is what you are after
What I am grappling with here, and so far haven’t found the answer to, is the larger picture. But there is no hurry – so I will take a little more time.
PS – I love the word “hegamon” and will continue to use it daily for the rest of my life!
Hello Sara
In trying to locate the fuller context of the Pennycook quote (which I now realise is in a TESOL Quarterly article) I came across this – also by Pennycook – which captures better than I can the micro vs. macro view:
“We can write our grand abstractions about pedagogy, resistance, hidden curricula, multiliteracies, or dialogism, and we can present our examples of the ideal critical lesson, the critical curriculum, the comments from transformed students, the empowerment that came about. But it seems to me that trying to be a critical educator is more often about seeking and siezing small moments to open the door on a more critical perspective…”
(Pennycook, A. 2004, Critical Moments in a TESOL praxicum. In Norton, B., and Toohey, K. (eds.) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, CUP, p. 341)
This to me encapsulates the (micro) dogme view perfectly (and chimes nicely with the notion of ‘dogme moments’) i.e. that dogme is not about setting an agenda – it is about responding to the agenda that the learners set.
Thanks so much for trying to locate the quote, and for posting this excellent one too. Much appreciated.
I agree entirely with what Pennycook is talking about and I think it seems that most of those currently posting on this thread are trying to do that. The only thing it doesn’t address (and I don’t think that is because Pennycook doesn’t address it as he does in other parts of his work) is what happens when an idea produced by a learner or teacher runs contrary to the idea of criticality – that could be unconscious beliefs that the native speaker as superior, or views about standard English for example as we’ve already touched on. The macro/micro are in a constant state of interaction in the classroom.
What I think Pennycook might be referring to here is the fact that macro theories don’t mean much unless we put them into our classrooms i.e. preach it but don’t teach it. What he is not arguing, is that there is not a need for some sort of agreement amongst critical educators regarding the way the invisible function of, for example, power imbalance, can be made visible and he spend a lot of time cautioning the danger of not recognising how power circulates in the classroom – one of his main influences is Foucault after all so it would be hard to side step power as it is the mainstay of Foucaults theorising. Indeed, Pennycook invests a huge amount of his writing power in making the invisible visible in all areas of his work both in historical and cultural terms.
I also think this quote perhaps isn’t saying we should reject the other areas of development, but not overlook the absolute key importance of those classroom moments where real things happen and dialogue and change take place – both in us and our students.
I agree. But how do we address the imbalance between world view of the teacher and ‘moments’ in the classroom. How do we match them up? I think the closest answer we’ve got so far is from Diarmuid who talks about how critical educators are those who already have a revolutionary or transformative basis to their thinking (at this point). I am still wondering if the timing is not right and as Diarmuid says this needs longer to develop as a wider idea. What are your thoughts on this?
It’s taken a long time to read through these posts and I’m still not sure I completely understand all points.
What I see is Sara and Scott share a micro approach. They respond to students as individuals, encourage authenticity, honesty, vulnerability in the classroom. They look to create an atmosphere where popular notions and roles of teacher/student are dismantled and replaced with a relationship of “one human to another”. In such an atmosphere of mutual respect, learners are free to be themselves and communicate their real views/values meaningfully.
As a long time student of Buddhism I can draw many parallels between creating a particular atmosphere in the classroom and doing the same in, for example working with the dying! We receive amazing teachings from our lama but they have to be put into practice.
Here are some thoughts about working in the classroom/micro level – and how they connect with the dharma training I’ve received.
The little training I’ve received on working with the dying emphasises that to truly be of service to that being we need to.
a) completely drop any concept or role of being a “helper” – this only creates a barrier a distance, “hiding behind professionalism”. I see a direct parallel to teaching. Why do we need “roles” and “professionalism” to attain results?
b) In our hearts acknowledge and understand that in fact it’s a mutual thing. That is the dying patient (if we are open to it) is giving and helping us as much as we are to them. Direct parallel to the classroom – we can learn so much from those other human beings in the room – language and silence is a vehicle through which this can happen. (that is real communication!!)
c) That we can be comfortable with the silences and the unknown and the best laid plans can and do fall apart. Lots of classroom parallels there!
d) if we can see the person as “just another us” and put ourselves in their shoes – much judgement/fear can dissolve, much compassion and connection can arise. It is possible to do this in class too! In life!
Just a personal note on the classroom level. I’m working with teenagers who have failed in the state system, who have been labelled as problem kids. One boy (he’s 14) has difficulty sitting still for longer than 2 minutes. He has no idea or interest in theories of the world. But he likes to make paper airplanes! – we spent 45 mins where he showed me how to make the most amazing paper airplanes down to every last fold. I was genuinely learning something from him in his broken English. I was interested to pass on this knowledge to my 8 year old son. And thrilled to throw them out of the window on the top floor of the school with him and see how each caught the wind.
Other teachers also work in this way with him. He’s gone from hating school (where he was punished for not falling into line) to really liking it. (because he is being genuinely listened to).
Now – moving to the macro or “big theory – change the world through movement/collective consciousness level”
This seems to be the area Sara and Scott differ in.
Scott quite correctly points out that each teacher most work with what emerges with their own classes and it would be difficult to “impose” a blanket set of rules on individual teachers……I really understand this.
BUT – I also think Sara is correct and understand her point of view too. If I understand it correctly, it seems to me that in any area of life, be it the hospice movement, religion, politics or education there are the grass roots movements and the day to day implementation of ideas at the micro level.
And there are the thinkers, academics, researchers, lamas/gurus, politicians, – in other words people who have clout in that field – who can through their work – somehow effect a shift in “collective consciousness” at the macro level.
And it seems to me, that while daily implementation of ways of being/ways of seeing, is individual…..it is also inextricably linked with “movements” “energy” happening on a more global/marco level. In a sense they are interdependent and propel each other along.
So – it seems to me that rather than having a long checklist of do’s and don’ts, Dogme – could place emphasis on seeing everyone as worthy of respect – everyones contribution of value.
That there is value in the teacher sometimes not knowing something – not always being “the expert” “the professional” and somehow encapsulating these elements in to classroom practice which are lets face it not restricted to education and the classroom alone….
And so it comes back to the question – what is education? Is it there to reinforce norms and values which clearly are pretty imbalanced. (just take a look at the world today!) Is it to perpetuate the status quo? Or is it to provide a fresh, safe place to question, accept and challenge these things, to bring authenticity into the classroom? and dare I say it – to grow as individuals?
Personally I think it would be wonderful if all teachers had some basic training in meditation, mindfulness and loving kindness, then much of these aspects would start to emerge in the classroom too.
we are so lucky as “English teachers” that we literally can work with such a vast range of materials as mediums for this.
So I actually agree with and see both points of view. (I’ve lived in Switzerland too long!)
With all that Toblerone, Steph, CAN you live in Switzerland for too long?
Whilst I admire the sentiment in your post, I would like to question the idea that EVERYONE is worthy of respect or that EVERYONE’S contribution can be valued. What do you do when you find some repugnant ideas being expressed in class? When a student tells you that she hates “pakis”? Or another student tells that that homosexuals are like vermin? Should these views be valued or rejected? Is the person who holds these views and doesn’t want to change them worthy of respect? Part of the problem is that when we offer respect to those who fail to respect others, they inevitably end up walking right over us!
I’m not sure that I agree either with the idea that The Other is “just another us” – especially if we then move to put ourselves in their shoes! When we assume that the other person is just another us, we end up making a lot of assumptions about them; after all, they are, like everyone is, NOT another us. They are a complex individual with their own particular influences that tug at their lives and their own particular responses. So, I don’t know even how much is to be gained by putting ourselves in their shoes either. Once in they’re shoes, all we can really do is consider how we might behave in a particular set of circumstances.
As for the question, “what is education?”, I agree that it is a very important question to ask, but how is it to be answered? Do we answer with an honest appraisal of the situation as we see it or with an idealistic view of how things should be? Is there any point in the latter without the former? How do we plan to move from one to the other (assuming that they are different)?
I see education as a low-level government priority that aims to increase the economic productivity of the country, both by freeing parents up for a number of hours a day so that they can go and be productive int eh workplace, and by training the youth in the skills that are required to function approrpiately within a modern industrialised society.
I think education should be about people discovering their areas of interest and pursuing those as far as they can in order to realise their own potential and to develop their own forms of contributing to society. Before anyone picks me up too much on this, let’s bear in mind that it is 0532 and I’m still waiting for the coffee to cool down.
How do we get from A to B? Not without a fight, I suspect. And the world in which B can become a possibility requires a very different way of looking at things.
Hi all
Sorry to barge in.
Since you mentioned Freire a lot and argued about Dogme being critical or not, as a Brazilian educator I feel I have something to say, which initially might sound off topic.
I haven’t met anyone who would say that Paulo Freire didn’t change the way we think about education, he did, the way we THINK not DO, generally speaking. He’s a god in Education Schools of some public universities, among leftists, marxists, socialists, populists, etc. Now one thing is to sympathize another is to DO it. These graduates full of humanistic intentions become just another one in the mass of disheartened teachers in public education. My point is that, however great Freire was and however immense his contribution to our country was, the educational system here is, pardon me, SHIT. In many aspects worse than our Latin American fellows, who don’t have half the wealth or ‘democracy’ that we have.
Achieving something in education through unorthodox principles takes time, might take forever, and might never happen. The mass doesn’t really have the power, but every now and then someone from the mass is in power, what happens? They’re corrupted. ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ is not a profitable ideal for the government, finding oil is. Dogme is not profitable in the ELT small world, the New Interchange is.
I’m not sure about the point I’m trying to make here, I just felt like saying something cause this discussion was real inspiring. maybe what I’m trying to say is that, you’re a bunch of intelligent influential people with strong ideals, so it doesn’t matter if you’re in a global ELT revolution or in rural school in northeast Brazil, clung to your ideals and promote change.
One final thought: Are your students willing to be critical learners?
thanks!
Hi Willy,
Please don’t apologise – you are not barging in at all. I found your comments really interesting and insightful and would like to offer you a very very enthusiastic invitation to return whenever you wish. Are you teaching EL?
Thanks for offering another view of Friere’s work. As you point out it is not (unfortunately) automatic that countries where great and influential commentators live have better education systems. There are indeed critical thinkers all over the place who have not been able to really influence the flow of education at all other than in a minor way in their immediate circles of influence. And you are absolutely right to point out the difference between thinking and doing in this respect. I guess for me I am trying to find a way to bring the two together without the potential for eventual disillusionment and “giving up” which might befall idealistic trainee teachers once they hit the classroom. I think on this point, critical DOGME also has a lot to contribute. Perhaps it provides a manageable way to keep these ideals alive, and also for those with more deeply transformative beliefs to feel they can still contribute something worthy and important in education. And promote change where possible.
I also agree with the trope that power corrupts. I always try to find positive examples to prove this wrong, but it is really very hard. I do worry though that DOGME may become profitable to the EL industry if it is too firmly embraced into the mainstream as an acceptable alternative pedgagogy – and then it may become further watered down. The rejection of course books shoudn’t be underestimated as an important statement against a particular way of thinking about the ‘industry’ nevertheless, and this is one of its strengths. But is that enough? The EL business seems to be very able to find ways of making all aspects of teaching, training and thinking about learning language profitable. And increasingly so nowadays. Paradoxically we may even see a DOGME coursebook emerge at some point – it wouldn’t surprise me!
I am really glad that you enjoyed our discussion and consider it a great compliment that you found the people on this thread influential in their thinking. I hope speaking personally to cling on to my ideals, and you could say that the need to keep talking about them and debating is part of that process really. It is not easy when the prevailing idea around me is to give it up as a dream or illusion.
I think your last point is key – and I would answer not all my students *are* willing to be critical learners – and I do not expect them to be. That is why, for me, a critical approach must always place the decision regarding direction with the students. However, some students do want to be critical learners, and I have yet to be in a class where this is not the case. What I have noticed though is that without some sort of antenna for noticing this, it can be easily overlooked. So for me, a critical educator is he/she who becomes skilled in noticing where his/her students are in their own development. That includes respecting the right not to view the world in the way that I do as a given, but allowing space for students to explore what changing their world could look and feel like.
Thanks again Willy. It was a pleasure to discuss this with you.
Diarmuid and Ian,
I wanted to spend a few days thinking about all that you both said. Sorry for the delay. I find myself much in agreement with Diarmuid and was struck by the force and clarity of his writing again – always bowls me over – the examples he uses are ones that I find powerful and convincing. I am also grateful to him for answering so many of your points Ian, as you did address them to Diarmuid.
But for the few points you raised at the end which were directed at me.
I don’t think critical pedagogy = boring lessons. I also spend time largely talking about things that my students are interested in and just popping in one or two questions that take the discussion a bit further. And also responding to things happening around us in the world that everyone is aware of. Laughing with students is a really important part of any lesson and I wouldn’t go along with the idea that being critical necessarily has to be done at the expense of humour. This does sound rather stereotyped. We cannot after all run a competition on this so I guess that you will have to trust me when I say that my students seem to find me funny, and I them. What more can I do to prove it to you
I also think that critical pedagogy is going on throughout the world and is certainly not the domain of the privileged. The idea that education might connect to the desire for a better world, not just as an idea but as a reality, is not only being circulated in countries of the ‘west’. I think this does a disservice to all the people who are involved in real struggles to improve the worst of worst of conditions every day. Indeed you may argue that in countries where this struggle is much more brutal it moves out of the classroom and onto the street – but why does that negate the role education could play in understanding this? Actually I see part of my job as pointing out the fact (inevitably with the help of students who are aware of a more global picture on things) that often in the priviledged countries of the west, people are unaware of the volume of violence others are living with, mostly because their own media and government are hiding this from them.
Speaking personally, I can see plenty that needs changing in both England (where I grew up) and Greece (where I am living) and by no means do I think populaces here or there are getting a fair deal (especially right now in Greece). If you want to see a case in point, please read my latest blog post (guest blog) which is about the commercialisation of birth services here in Greece. That should give you a taster of the sort of everyday fights people have to continually go through. The fact that they can go outside and talk about it without risk of being arrested or shot as you imply is true in the main, but also questionable as in liberal democracies free speech only goes so far. That does not mean it is to be underestimated, but I don’t ever want to arrive at a point where ‘free speech’ effectively means I stop speaking and complaining?? How does that make sense. I don’t get the logic. I should be grateful and shut up? It reminds me of a chumbawamba song where the lyric goes “they break our legs and we say thank you when they offer us crutches”.
And indeed, as you point out Ian “this “macro” edge basically responds to a left-wing, anti-establishment political agenda”. Yes that seems rather self-evident for a critical pedagogist, although many people who support CP in the classroom are working in the education system – they are not masked guerillas on a mountain side. I don’t really understand why this should be a problem? Is it better then that the majority of education represents a macro edge which responds to a right-wing, estalishment (and therefore excluding) agenda? It would be impossible to take a stand against the worst aspects of this without declaring some sort of oppositional position against it.
Where do you see yourself on that continuum as I don’t think there is a neutral space there?
Despite your declaration to the contrary, I think you are keeping this discussion at a highly theoretical level and the claim to be bringing it down to practice does not seem completely evident from your posts! But that’s fine as I am enjoying it and think it provides a chance to learn. Its fine by me if you want to look for the contradictions in people – that is why I am continuing to discuss with you – as I personally don’t have a problem with my own contradictions and consider them useful a lot of the time as they enable me to cast the lense wider than the days when I wanted desparately for there to be one theory that explained everything. Perhaps (if I may venture) the struggle you seem to be having is between your past and present views. If you are convinced by the liberal democracy position then why are you here on this blog talking about critical pedagogy? You represent the majority thinking so “we” are no threat to you in that sense. I am curious what is bringing you back here (though I am glad that you are returning).
Thanks again for the chat and please do let us know what you think about the examples given.