The eruption of various critical social theories like queer theory and critical race theory into the popular imagination in the late 2010s was proceeded for decades by their slow march through education. Isaac Gottesman’s Critical Turn in Education “traces the historical emergence and development of critical theories in the field of education, from the introduction of Marxist and other radical social theories in the 1960s to the contemporary critical landscape” (p. i). Along the way, he highlights numerous themes of contemporary critical theory which are expressed not just in education but in numerous fields.
Contemporary Critical Theory and Marxism
While critical theory and Marxism are not synonymous, Gottesman correctly calls attention to critical theory’s Marxist roots. Contemporary critical theories can be viewed as expansions and outgrowths of Marxist thought rather than as repudiations of it. It’s also worth noting that Gottesman repeatedly uses the phrase “cultural Marxism” to refer to the expression of critical ideas in the context of education. While progressive often claim that “cultural Marxism” is nothing more than a Neo-Nazi conspiracy theory, Gottesman rightly recognizes that the phrase has been used for decades within academic as an appropriate descriptive term for New Left cultural analysis.
“Although the critical Marxist tradition remains a foundation for much of the word that followed, critical educational scholars now engage a range of intellectual and political traditions that help us better understand culture and identity, gender and sexuality, race and ethnicity, constructions of ability, ecological crisis, and their myriad intersections” (p. 1-2).
“The Turn to Cultural Marxism and the Limits of Schooling… Education scholars thus increasingly preferred a cultural Marxist lens that looked at the ideological structure and content of schooling as opposed to the political economical Marxist lens that theorized capital and assessed quantifiable inputs and outcomes of schooling’s reproductive tendencies” (p. 47)
Critical Theory and Intersectionality
Today, critical theory is an umbrella category encompassing many different critical social theories. However, these separate theories have increasingly fused under an intersectional lens such that various oppressions (racism, sexism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, cisgenderism) are viewed as interlocking and inseparable. Thus, it’s no surprise that Gottesman’s book would discuss the ways in which antiracist, antisexist, and anticapitalist theories would all influence education:
“If we are going to truly push for a feminist, anti-racist democratic-socialist society (my advocacy)–one that can forcefully push against the structures and ideologies that support and entrench patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism– I believe we have to address these questions honestly, rigorously, and as a critical educational community” (p. 3)
“In addition to varying epistemic stances, the move towards situated knowledge, and ultimately to a feminist standpoint epistemology that conferred epistemic privilege on those from nondominant positions, was made by scholars who identified with a range of political traditions. In fact, feminist standpoint theory itself emerged in the work of scholars such as [Smith, Harstock, Harding, and Collins] as a move within the critical Marxist tradition and not from within postmodern thought–instead of the proletariat being uniquely positioned to lead the revolution because of the insight derived from their oppressed status vis-a-vis capitalist control of the means of production, feminist standpoint shifted the line of reasoning to the idea that women have a social location that offers unique insight into the dominant structures and ideologies that govern patriarchy” (p. 98)
“[Elizabeth Ellsworth wrote:] ‘I cannot unproblematically bring subjugated knowledges to light when I am not free of my own learned racism, fat oppression, classism, ableism, or sexism. No teacher is free of these learned and internalized oppressions'” (p. 101)
Critical Theory and Objective Knowledge
Critical theory has always aimed to challenge claims of objective knowledge, or even objective truth. In the minds of critical theorists, claims of “objectivity” are masks to conceal bids for power and a perpetuation of the status quo. Undermining these claims is especially important to critical pedagogy, since the teacher’s power depends on the students’ naïve acceptance of his authority. Objectivity can best be challenged by appeals to the “lived experience” of marginalized groups who can “see through” the oppressive narratives of the ruling class and to discern the subtle operation of power behind supposedly neutral and objective truth-claims.
“speaking broadly, critical education seeks to expose how relations of power and inequality (social, cultural, economic) in their myriad forms, combinations, and complexities, are manifest and are challenged in the formal and informal education of children and adults… This more robust understanding involves fundamental transformations of the underlying epistemological and ideological assumptions that are made about what counts as ‘official’ or legitimate knowledge and who holds it” (p. xii)
“By the mid 1980s, feminist scholars had produced a broad literature of ideas that was radically reshaping scholarship throughout the humanities and social sciences. Notably, at this time, regardless of the field or discipline of inquiry, or the intellectual and political traditions engaged, because of a similar focus within most traditions of feminist theory of knowledge as situated –e.g. that knowledge emerges from the particular lives and experiences of women— it is not surprising that many feminist scholars found an intellectual ally, if not an epistemic home, in the postmodernist and poststructuralist through developed by French thinkers… The critique of the ‘God’s eye view’ was central to most post-1960s feminist thought” (p. 95)
“in the United States the labels ‘postmodernism’ and ‘poststructuralism’ stuck as a way to name these theorists’ general call to rupture grand narratives, focus on the local and particular, illuminate contingency, deconstruct discourse, and inquire into identity. In particular, many feminist scholars identified in postmodernism and poststructuralism concepts and language to challenge the idea of a universal rational knowing subject that exists outside of social and political context, discursive regimes of power, and without gendered, raced, and classed identity. Objectivity, and a critique of the human sciences and traditional research methods, was thus a focal point” (p. 97-98)
Critical Race Theory and Education
Finally, Gottesman devotes significant space to the influence of critical race theory in particular. Given that his book was published in 2016, before CRT became either a buzzword or a byword, this emphasis seems noteworthy. What we are seeing in our culture today has been incubating in academia for decades:
“CRT [is] a movement within legal studies that gradually emerged in the 1980s following the wake of failed civil rights gains in order to illuminate the endemic nature of racism in the United States’ legal system and American society more broadly. In the mid-1990s, scholars in the field of education began drawing upon CRT as a framework to make sense of racism and inequality within educational systems. This was a landmark moment in the field. As was the case with the emergence of Marxist thought and postmodernist and poststructuralist feminist theory, the emergence of CRT radically transformed educational inquiry and discourse. For the first time, race became a central focus of scholarship, particularly among scholars on the political left” (p. 116-117).
“Following CRT [Critical Race Theory], [Ladson-Billings and Tate] argued that ‘racism is endemic and deeply ingrained in American life,” which illuminates why unequal school experiences persist; they argued that civil rights law is ineffective, which is why Brown v. Board did not solve schooling inequities; and, they argued that it is crucial to ‘challenge claims of neutrality, objectivity, color-blindness, and meritocracy’ by ‘naming one’s own reality,’ a process that happens through telling one’s stories, which ‘serve as interpretive structures by which we impose order on experience and it on us'” (p. 126)
“In his first article using CRT, in 1997, Solorozano framed his work with five themes that he viewed as central to CRT. The first theme was ‘the centrality and intersectionality of race and racism.” This theme had multiple components, most importantly the idea that ‘race and racism are endemic.’ For Solorzano, this meant that race must be a central focus of analysis, and it also meant highlighting the idea that race and racism intersect with other forms of ‘subordination’ such as gender and class, an idea about intersectionality that was formulated by Crenshaw (p. 6). The second theme was ‘the challenge to dominant ideology,’ which meant that CRT ‘challenges the traditional claims of the legal system to objectivity, meritocracy, color-blindness, race neutrality, and equal opportunity’ (p. 6). The third theme was ‘the commitment to social justice,’ which included the elimination of racism. The fourth theme was ‘the centrality of experiential knowledge,’ which ‘recognizes that the experiential knowledge of Women and Men of Color are legitimate, appropriate, and critical to understanding, analyzing, practicing, and teaching the law and its relation to racial subordination’ (p. 7). The fifth and final theme was ‘the interdisciplinary perpsective,’ which meant race must be understood in historical context and by ‘using interdisciplinary method’ (p. 7)” (p. 127-128).
“Solorzano made a case for a more diverse ‘family tree’ for CRT. Alongside Critical Legal Studies, which, as Crenshaw (2011) detailed, is the legal community CRT scholars initially emerged out of and broke off from, Solorzano and Yosso argued that ethnic studies and women’s studies, cultural nationalism, Marist/neo-Marxist, and internal colonial schools of thought influenced and continue to influence CRT, especially in education (pp. 473-474). For Solorzano and Yosso, identifying a family tree that extends beyond legal scholarship enabled them to draw from these diverse intellectual traditions while retaining the CRT identity” (p. 129).
Summary
Gottesman’s book provides an excellent summary of the impact of various critical social theories on education. While Marxism per se is no longer in vogue, the social theories that it spawned now dominate the academy, particularly within the field of education.
See all content on critical theory here.
Related articles:
Neil Shenvi - Apologetics 