Does Critical Postmodernism Help us 'Name the System'?

Abstract

A basic element of postmodernist theorizing in education is the critique of essentialistic modes of social analysis, including reproductionist theories that seek to specify how schooling is structurally linked to the capitalist socio-economic system. Critical postmodernists, notably Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, and Stanley Aronowitz, agree that reproductionist theories are problematic and contend that an anti-essentialistic approach is more fruitful. I argue, however, that their version of anti-essentialism pre-supposes certain false dualisms, and is thus fundamentally awed. Furthermore, their notion of postmodernity-which is based in part on anti-essentialism-fails to adequately characterize key developments in contemporary capitalism. In summary, critical postmodernism does not help us 'name the system' as part of the effort to develop a more viable theory of radical education. A structural, reproductionist theory that takes into account local struggles and 'non-class' phenomena remains an essential part of an emancipatory project to transform existing institutions.

Critical postmodern theory in mathematics education research: a praxis of uncertainty

“…Employing critical theory therefore requires the researcher to use her or his scholarship to dismantle the constructors' hegemonic power and the reproduction and execution of that power through institutions such as media and schools (Slott, 2002). The critical theorist questions the production, validation, dissemination, and reproduction of knowledge through these institutions; there is no innocence in even those efforts to include those who have hitherto been alienated (Marx & Engels, 1848/1978 in the conversations, as that which appears to be neutral is too often rife with hegemonic power.…”