Pedagogical and strategic blind spots: Critical and Indigenous theories of education in dialogue

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Gavin Meyer Furrey
{"title":"Pedagogical and strategic blind spots: Critical and Indigenous theories of education in dialogue","authors":"Gavin Meyer Furrey","doi":"10.1177/14782103231181244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper advances a theoretical analysis of the similarities and differences between critical theories of education and Indigenous theories of education along three main themes: epistemological and ontological groundings, the means of education, and political projects. While both schools of theory critique neoliberal and neoconservative tendencies in curriculum and in the political economy of education, and both promote pedagogies favoring freedom from oppression, respect, and sustainability divergences in the two schools of thought are important to grasp for theoretical and strategic reasons. This paper delineates these differences and arrives at the following broad conclusions: (1) while critical theories of education are epistemologically contentious, Indigenous theories of education are ontologically rebellious; (2) while critical scholars emphasize protecting and improving public schools in the name of preserving a public good, they largely ignore how the political economy of education and different political goals encourage Indigenous educators to turn towards options beyond the traditional public school for creating alternative educational spaces; and (3) while critical scholars promote a remaking of the public sphere to increase the participation and opportunities of all individuals within it, Indigenous scholars in education favor a model of schooling capable of raising citizens that are first citizens of their own communities, and then citizens of broader communities; this tension might be best illuminated by a liberal versus a communitarian political philosophy. This paper concludes in arguing that while the two bodies of literature have much in common, a pro-public school discourse, as well as new theories for intercultural pedagogy, should address the divergences evident in these themes.","PeriodicalId":46984,"journal":{"name":"Policy Futures in Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Futures in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103231181244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper advances a theoretical analysis of the similarities and differences between critical theories of education and Indigenous theories of education along three main themes: epistemological and ontological groundings, the means of education, and political projects. While both schools of theory critique neoliberal and neoconservative tendencies in curriculum and in the political economy of education, and both promote pedagogies favoring freedom from oppression, respect, and sustainability divergences in the two schools of thought are important to grasp for theoretical and strategic reasons. This paper delineates these differences and arrives at the following broad conclusions: (1) while critical theories of education are epistemologically contentious, Indigenous theories of education are ontologically rebellious; (2) while critical scholars emphasize protecting and improving public schools in the name of preserving a public good, they largely ignore how the political economy of education and different political goals encourage Indigenous educators to turn towards options beyond the traditional public school for creating alternative educational spaces; and (3) while critical scholars promote a remaking of the public sphere to increase the participation and opportunities of all individuals within it, Indigenous scholars in education favor a model of schooling capable of raising citizens that are first citizens of their own communities, and then citizens of broader communities; this tension might be best illuminated by a liberal versus a communitarian political philosophy. This paper concludes in arguing that while the two bodies of literature have much in common, a pro-public school discourse, as well as new theories for intercultural pedagogy, should address the divergences evident in these themes.
教育学和战略盲点:对话中的批判性和本土教育理论
本文从认识论和本体论基础、教育手段和政治计划三个方面对批判教育理论与本土教育理论的异同进行了理论分析。虽然这两种理论流派都批评课程设置和教育政治经济学中的新自由主义和新保守主义倾向,并且都提倡有利于摆脱压迫、尊重和可持续性的教学法,但从理论和战略的角度来看,把握这两种思想流派的分歧是很重要的。本文对这些差异进行了梳理,并得出以下结论:(1)批判教育理论在认识论上具有争议性,而本土教育理论在本体论上具有反叛性;(2)虽然批判性学者强调以维护公共利益的名义保护和改善公立学校,但他们在很大程度上忽视了教育的政治经济和不同的政治目标如何鼓励土著教育工作者转向传统公立学校之外的选择,以创造替代的教育空间;(3)虽然批判性学者提倡重塑公共领域,以增加所有个人在其中的参与和机会,但教育领域的土著学者赞成一种能够培养公民的学校模式,这种公民首先是他们自己社区的公民,然后是更广泛社区的公民;自由主义与社群主义政治哲学最能说明这种紧张关系。本文的结论是,尽管这两个文学体有许多共同之处,但支持公立学校的话语以及跨文化教育学的新理论应该解决这些主题中明显的分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Policy Futures in Education
Policy Futures in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
76
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信