An Immanent Critique of Critical Pedagogy
An Immanent Critique of Critical Pedagogy
复制标题
对批判教育学的内在批判
DOI：
10.1111/edth.12368
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Quentin Wheeler
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Quentin Wheeler
在这篇文章中，昆汀·惠勒-贝尔旨在重新构建最近重新思考批评教育学核心原则的尝试。他辩称，这些尝试之所以不成功，是因为它们再现了批评教育学中的一个更深层次的问题--具体地说，就是认同危机。他认为，这一问题的根源在于，从事这一传统的人随着时间的推移，越来越远离并忘记了其根源于批评理论；结果，批评教育学现在处于一种稀释和碎片化的状态，批评教育者无法在理论上围绕一套共同的原则将多种批评教育方法结合在一起。为了解决这一问题，并开始重新构建批评教育学的核心原则，惠勒-贝尔首先简要概述了围绕马克斯·霍克海默的经典论文《批评理论和传统理论》的争论，重点讨论了为什么批评理论发展成为介于哲学和社会科学之间的交叉学科传统。然后，他解释了为什么最近重新思考批评教育学的尝试依赖于对批评教育传统的一种有问题的、尽管占主导地位的叙事--一种只默许批评教育和批评理论之间的联系的叙事。这种占主导地位的叙述导致了批评教育中的认同危机，因为它支持了关于哲学和社会科学对批评理论的重要性的集体记忆丧失。最后，惠勒-贝尔试图对批评教育做出一个细微的定义：将批评教育与批评理论的根源联系起来，同时尊重批评教育方法的多样性。
In this essay, Quentin Wheeler‐Bell aims to reframe recent attempts to rethink the core principles of critical pedagogy. He argues that these attempts have been unsuccessful because they reproduce a deeper problem — specifically, an identity crisis — within critical pedagogy. The source of this problem, he contends, is that those working in this tradition have, over time, become more distant from and forgetful of its roots in critical theory; as a result, critical pedagogy is now in a state of dilution and fragmentation in which critical pedagogues are unable to bring the plurality of critical education approaches together theoretically around a set of shared principles. In order to address this problem and begin to reframe the core principles of critical pedagogy, Wheeler‐Bell first briefly sketches the debates around Max Horkheimer's classic essay “Critical Theory and Traditional Theory,” focusing on why critical theory grew into an interdisciplinary tradition situated between philosophy and social science. Then he explains why the recent attempts to rethink critical pedagogy rely upon a problematic, albeit dominant, narrative of the critical education tradition — a narrative that only tacitly recognizes a connection between critical education and critical theory. This dominant narrative contributes to the identity crisis within critical education because it supports a collective memory loss regarding the importance of both philosophy and social science to critical theory. Finally, Wheeler‐Bell attempts to develop a thin definition of critical education: one that connects critical education back to its roots in critical theory, while respecting the plurality of critical education approaches.