Pedagogy and the ‘Cultural Turn’ in Geography
Pedagogy and the ‘Cultural Turn’ in Geography
复制标题
教育学与地理学的“文化转向”
DOI：
10.1068/d1901ed
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Richard D. Heyman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Richard D. Heyman
克莱夫·巴奈特（1998）和诺埃尔·卡斯特里（1999）最近在《社会与空间》上发表的社论将地理学“文化转向”的争论带入了一个新的领域：课堂。Barnett和Castree将讨论从理论的高地转移到教学的低级领域，在地理文化研究方法的核心发现了一种教学法，这种教学法“是管理社会生活的一部分，并使个人和群体按照新自由主义经济学和社会保守主义的规范进行自我调节”（Barnett, 1998，第634页）。尽管卡斯特里警告说，不要得出这样的结论，即文化转向“只不过是一种特别狡猾的伪装下的学术新保守主义”（1999，第260页），但他问道，文化转向地理学所引入的“新的知识模式”是否“仅仅是被一种完善的教学模式所吸收，在这种模式中，教师“指导”学生，对国家和企业来说，清晰的思考、解决问题的能力、清晰的演讲、连贯的写作、和其他核心可转移技能？（第260页）。虽然Barnett和Castree正确地提出了教育学的问题，试图达成“对学术工作的政治购买的更世俗的估计”（Barnett, 1998，第634页），但他们过于匆忙地将文化转向与保守的教学实践等同起来，从而忽略了左翼地理学家对来自文化研究传统的“批判教育学”理论的日益参与。我想建议，在文化studiesö引入的“知识的新模式”之后，更好地理解学术工作的政治相关性，认真对待Barnett和Castree的呼吁，将地理的文化转向制度化地置于academyöwould中，与不断增长的“批判性教育学”工作体接触，试图理解文化转向的教育学含义。通过这样做，左派地理学家将处于更好的位置，以实现“新知识模式”为课堂实践开辟的激进可能性，而不是看到它们被浪费或被传统的教学方法所利用。我并没有像巴内特和卡斯特里那样，以不可支持的假设来否定文化研究方法，认为它们必然意味着一种反动的教学法。我想指出，在“批判教学法”的标题下，从文化转向中产生的教学法理论，对那些试图避免卡斯特里所设想的那种合作场景的左翼地理学家来说，具有重要的借鉴意义。换句话说，由文化转向引入的“知识的新模式”不应该被归咎于新自由主义手中的教学法，恰恰相反：当涉及到课堂内产生的知识时，这些新模式意味着一种新的教学法，这种教学法具有促进课堂内外更包容、解放和民主实践的激进可能性。Barnett谴责了他所看到的从文化研究中流出的“文化”和“政治”的模糊和总体化概念的扩散：“带有文化色彩的人文地理学最近被抵制和反对的抽象概念所消耗，其中源自流离失所的民粹主义美学的政治评估词汇取代了对社会关系或制度的任何重要分析”（1998,633 ^ 634页）。Castree扩展了Barnett的论点，强调了它在制度上将地理学的文化转向置于一个重组的学院中的方式，并建议地理学的文化转向可以被视为客座编辑环境与规划D：社会与空间2001，第19卷，第1 ^ 6页
Clive Barnett's (1998) and Noel Castree's (1999) recent editorials in Society and Space take the debate over geography's c̀ultural turn' into new territory: the classroom. Moving the discussion from the high ground of theory into the lowly realm of teaching, Barnett and Castree find at the heart of cultural studies approaches in geography a pedagogy that is `̀ part of efforts to manage social life and render individuals and groups self-regulating in accordance with the norms of neoliberal economics and social conservatism'' (Barnett, 1998, page 634). Although Castree warns against concluding that the cultural turn is `̀ no more than academic neoconservatism in a particularly cunning guise'' (1999, page 260), he asks whether the `̀ new modalities of knowledge'' introduced by the cultural turn into geography are `̀ being merely coopted into a wellestablished pedagogic model in which teachers `instruct' students in what, for the state and business, are the desirable arts of clear thinking, problem solving, clear speaking, coherent writing, and other CTSs [core transferable skills]?'' (page 260). While Barnett and Castree rightly raise the question of pedagogy in attempting to come to terms with `̀ more mundane estimations of the political purchase of academic work'' (Barnett, 1998, page 634), they too hastily equate the cultural turn with conservative teaching practices, thus ignoring the increasing engagement of left geographers with theories of c̀ritical pedagogy' that have come out of the cultural studies tradition. I want to suggest that a better understanding of the political relevance of academic work in the wake of the `new modalities of knowledge' introduced by cultural studiesö one that takes seriously Barnett's and Castree's calls for institutionally situating geography's cultural turn in the academyöwould engage with the growing body of work in c̀ritical pedagogy' that seeks to understand the pedagogic implications of the cultural turn. By so doing, left geographers would be in a better position to realize the radical possibilities for classroom practice opened up by `new modalities of knowledge', rather than seeing them squandered or co-opted through traditional pedagogic approaches. Instead of dismissing cultural studies approaches on unsupportable assumptions that they necessarily implicate a reactionary pedagogy, as Barnett and Castree seem to do, I would point out that pedagogic theory coming out of the cultural turn, under the rubric of c̀ritical pedagogy', has important lessons for left geographers who seek to avoid the very scenario of cooptation that Castree envisions. In other words, the `new modalities of knowledge' introduced by the cultural turn are not to blame for pedagogies that play into neoliberal hands, just the opposite: when taken to implicate knowledge produced inside the classroom, those new modalities imply a new pedagogy that holds radical possibilities for promoting more inclusive, emancipatory, and democratic practices, inside and outside the classroom. Barnett castigates what he sees as the proliferation of vague and totalizing notions of `the cultural' and `the political' flowing out of cultural studies: `̀ Culturally tinged human geography has recently become consumed by abstract notions of resistance and opposition, in which a vocabulary of political evaluation that is derived from a displaced populist aesthetics substitutes for any significant analysis of social relations or institutions'' (1998, pages 633 ^ 634). Extending Barnett's argument, Castree emphasizes the way in which it institutionally situates geography's cultural turn in a restructured academy and suggests that `̀ geography's cultural turn can be seen as Guest editorial Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2001, volume 19, pages 1 ^ 6