Doing being applied linguists: the importance of experience
SEVEN CASE STUDIES
Critical pedagogy
This last example differs from those previously described in that it reports a general approach rather than a project grappling with a specific issue. The approach is indeed so general that it offers an alternative way of doing applied linguistics and we look at examples 1 to 6 from this alternative point of view. But in addition to permeating the whole field of applied linguistics, critical pedagogy (itself an aspect of critical applied linguistics) is a project in itself since it occupies space for both teachers and students of applied linguistics in their studying and in their research.
Critical pedagogy, and more generally critical applied linguistics, represents a kind of postmodern version of critical discourse analysis. As such it places the onus of action firmly on the subject, in this case the learner, student, reader. Alastair Pennycook (1994a) describes the approach (‘Towards a critical pedagogy for teaching English as a worldly language’). He takes as his point of departure: ‘it is impossible to separate English from its many contexts and thus a key tenet of the discourse of English as an International Language – that it is possible to “just teach the language” – is equally untenable’ (Pennycook 1994a: 295).
Pennycook is concerned to make clear that he is not proposing a prescriptive set of teaching practices; what he is doing is ‘to lay out some general concerns in developing critical pedagogies of English’ (ibid: 300). He recognizes that his stance is ideological but points out that all education is political while usually pretending it is not: ‘I would argue that all education is political, that all schools are sites of cultural politics’ (ibid: 301).
Pennycook emphasizes the importance of ‘voice’ which is used to refer to ‘a contested space of language use as social practice … (it) suggests a pedagogy that starts with the concerns of the students, not in some vapid, humanist “student-centered” approach that requires students to express their “inner feelings”, but rather through an exploration of students’ histories and cultural locations, of the limitations and possibilities presented by languages and discourses … a critical practice in English language teaching must start with ways of critically exploring students’ cultures, knowledges and histories in ways that are both challenging and at the same time affirming and supportive’ (ibid: 311).
As a specific instance of the working out of critical pedagogy, Pennycook reports an experience when he was teaching English in China. He became aware that numbers of foreigners who purported to be teachers of English were in fact Christian missionaries. He decided that his students needed to be given the opportunity to consider this situation:
In a course on ‘British and American culture’, a course that had always previously consisted of lectures on the political and education systems, festivals and holidays of the United States and the UK, I decided to add a topic on American fundamentalism to the curriculum … it was important to make available to my students alternative readings of the United States that drew links between fundamentalism and right-wing politics and showed how the vast expansion of English language learning was being used by those who sought only to ‘convert’ their students and preach their right-wing politics. The object here was to give my students ways of thinking about connections between the language they were so busily engaged in learning and other cultural and political complexes about modernity, Christianity … anti-abortion campaigns … Chinese population problems and family policies, freedom of speech, and so on.
(ibid: 313–14)
Pennycook is at pains to point out that this approach does not detract from his responsibilities to ensure his students’ ‘success’ as normally defined. He sets out his creed:
I am suggesting that first, we need to make sure that students have access to those standard forms of the language linked to social and economic prestige; second, we need a good understanding of the status and possibilities presented by different standards; third, we need to focus on those parts of language that are significant in particular discourses; fourth, students need to be aware that those forms represent only one set of particular possibilities; and finally, students also need to be encouraged to find ways of using the language that they feel are expressive of their own needs and desires, to make their own readings of texts, to write, speak and listen in forms of the language that emerge as they strive to find representations of themselves and others that make sense to them, so that they can start to claim and negotiate a voice in English. (ibid: 317–18)
It is important to note that unlike those who argue the case for linguicism (Phillipson 1992), Pennycook does not oppose the spread of English as long as it is approached critically: ‘I believe that the spread of English, if dealt with critically, may offer chances for cultural renewal and exchange around the world’ (Pennycook 1994a: 325).
