4. adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy

1 Adopting a critical perspective
on pedagogy
The students crowded around the thatched classrooms on the university
campus, warily eyeing the military helicopter circling overhead. Some
suggested it was on the lookout for rebel troops, which could lead to
another rocket attack on the nearby town; others said it was just a routine
(light, taking supplies to the army base. As a majority began to favor the first
explanation, the students started to look for an excuse to stay away from the
English class, which was due to start shortly. Ravi could not make up his
mind whether to go home early to join his family, or to stay ...
As Mrs Kandiah came into view, carrying her teaching material, and
walking briskly towards the classroom, the students saw that she was
determined to hold the class. Ravi and some ofthe others quickly made their
way into the dilapidated study block, where they could hear the droning
sound ofthe power generator through the classroom wall. This told them
that Ravi's friends from secondary school, who had recently joined the
resistance movement, were busy making fresh stocks ofweapons and
ammunition. Ravi always felt guilty when he heard them working, since
before the university reopened he had said he wanted to join them. Where
should he really be now-in the arms factory, or the classroom?
Mrs Kandiah-known to all as 'Mrs K. '-marched up to the podium and
greeted them in her rather stilted British accent: 'Good morning, students.'
For her students, Mrs K. represented order and discipline in the midst ofthe
chaos and violence outside. She believed that education, and the English
language in particular, could provide meaning and hope in an otherwise
desperate environment. English could give her students employment,
opportunities to get on in life, and access to the cultural and material
IJrivileges ofmore developed countries. Ravi's feelings about the language
/(Jere more mixed: sometimes English represented a world that was remote
"nd threatening. and far remolJed from his family and friends; at others, he
was tempted by the images olsensual pleasure and material wealth endlessly
Immwtdd In furllgn mrwles, magazines, and music.
On" ofth, foret/xII cultural agtmdets !Jalt.'d In the capital had recently sent
Ih, Im/ll,r,lty "II11re11 '""~ of HI:r ',xthrllJk,. lirom mIt! of'hUll! hooks Mr' K.
had IIIt'k(lfl rml" /lar'It'ulllr lid""'')! ,h(ll/lll, 'Uri h"r ,'ud,nt, would ~"d

10 f{t'sistinl{ l.inKuistic Imperialism in English Teaching
'''tm'stitll{. In spite ofall the difficulties, she prided herselfon being well
i"formed about the latest teaching methods and materials, and was
currently championing a combination ofprocess-oriented, collaborative,
and task-based teaching methods. As usual, having no access to a
photocopier or cassette player, she would be reading the text to the class
herself. She explained that they should take notes on the short article, which
was about a student living in Britain. After the students had heard the
passage she would be asking them to practice the simple present, which they
had studied in the previous class, as a group activity. Worried that they
might be distracted by the noise and confusion outside, and not be able to
focus all their attention on the text, she advised them to listen carefully for
the main themes, and to look out for the grammatical structures she'd
taught them in a recent lesson inductively.
Mrs K. began the first passage: 'Peter is in his final year at the University
ofReading, where he is studying Chemistry. He hopes to obtain first class
honors in his final examinations so that he can continue with postgraduate
work in photochemistry.'
These words set Ravi thinking about his own situation. He had been
worried for some time about whether he would ever be able to sit for his
own degree. The civil war meant that some graduates had taken up to eight
years to complete what was supposed to be a three-year course. Even ifhe
managed to get his degree, he didn't know what he would do after that. The
fighting had left more than halfthe local people without jobs; many had lost
their homes as well. Worst ofall, Ravi's father and several other local
farmers had been arrested earlier in the year, on suspicion ofhelping the
rebel forces, and no one had any idea when they might be freed. If Ravi was
to have any hope of finding paid work to support his family, he would
almost certainly have to leave his mother with his younger brother and
sister, and move to the capital, or even to another country.
'Peter is very well organized, and usually manages a reasonable balance
between work and study. Since he has exams this term, he tends to spend
about two hours reading in the library after school, and another hour or so
at home ...'
At the sound ofa small explosion, Mrs K. paused momentarily in her
reading. There was a scream from outside, and several students took cover
beside their desks, but the blast had been some distance away. Mrs K.
decided that this was hardly sufficient cause for dismissing the class, and
carried on with the narration. She didn't consider this distraction to be life
threatening-not yet.
'Peter doesn't spend all his time working. He also belongs to the
photography club, which he helped to start up last year. He likes sai/inl{. and
goes surfing whenever he can in the summer termj in th, wi"t~r he' /J/t.lys in
the university rugby team..
Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 11
In the previous year, when the university was closed, Ravi had tried to
keep up with his studies by day while training with the local militia by night,
but it hadn't worked out too well. The training exercises and political classes
took up too much ofhis time and energy, and meant he couldn't help his
mother with their smallholding. .
'At weekends he spends some time relaxing with friends.'
Ravi spent much ofhis time working on the family farm. He watered the
plants, manured the soil, and helped his mother take their produce to the
Monday market. Seeds and fertilizers were very expensive, but they couldn't
afford not to cultivate their small plot ofland. Even though the recent
harvest had been very poor, the family depended on the rice they grew, and
the baskets his mother made.
'On Saturday nights he usually goes to a party or a disco with his
girlfriend, Susan, but sometimes they borrow his parents' car and go to a
disco or a play in London.'
This passage provoked mild excitement in the class. Giggles could be
heard coming from the far end ofthe classroom, where the girls had
barricaded themselves behind some empty desks, at a safe distance from the
boys. Ravi felt tempted to join his friends, who were teasing the girls. Rajan
was calling out to them: 'It's party timef', 'How about it?', 'Who's gonna
dance with me?' As an avid watcher ofpirated American videos, Rajan's
colloquial English was particularly fluent-and as a diligent student, he
already felt happier talking about science in English than in his first
language.
Mrs K. pretended not to hear anything, and divided the class into separate
groups of boys and girls. She asked them to draw a chart showing how Peter
organized his time. Ravi had been too preoccupied with his own thoughts to
remember what Peter did or didn't do, and with the exception ofRajan, the
rest ofhis group hadn't paid much attention to the discussion either. The
noise ofanother helicopter in the distance took their minds away from the
work they had been doing in the class, and set them talking in their own
language about the latest fighting, and the rumors they'd heard ofanother
military operation. They knew that Mrs K. would go over the passage again
at the end, and provide them with the correct answers. After all, that's what
she was supposed to do-she was the teacher.
Ravi sat across the aisle from Rajan, who never seemed to have trouble
with his Hnl{lish exercises. Apart from that, they had a lot in commC>rIj in
/Jarticular, Imth detested the /)()llerty, chaos, and corruption that surmu"dt'11
111('m, and lot/Ked for Ih(' sorl offull tmd /Jurposefullife enjoyed by f1"ttJr I"
the story. HowC'llur. (m/y f{ajatl beliwed Mrs K. when she said that 1:';HIII,11
muM Ilil/" him thllt ,ort o{lIf,,-an (Jp/mrtunlty to JlO abroad to .tudy '"
work, 'T1lllt'. whyll1/lIk,,,' EHglI,h "'a"" IJ",t of1111,1

12 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching
In the West, there is a rose-tinted, but not entirely false image of university
life in which classrooms are equipped with the latest audio-visual and
computer technology, and students go quietly about their work in a setting of
green lawns and ancient quadrangles. This is far from being the full picture,
but conditions are certainly much better than those found in most periphery
communities, where the perennial questions about the purposes, attitudes,
motivations, and consequences of learning, and the costs and benefits of
schooling, have to be weighed with immense care. Education has many
implications for a student's identity and relationships, which might extend,
as in the case of Ravi and Rajan, to making choices between an involvement
in community struggles, and the prospect of looking for a safer and more
prosperous life elsewhere. These conflicts naturally affect students' attitudes
towards learning English-including the goals and means of ELT-and show
how far attitudes to ELT can be informed, shaped, and challenged by the
larger social and political forces outside the classroom.
This book will bring a sharper orientation to such questions as they inform
ELT in the periphery. The inquiry is controversial because contemporary
education as a whole (not only ELT) is considerably influenced by the
knowledge produced, disseminated, and defined by the materially-developed
center communities (Scheurich and Young 1997). It is well known that
Western centers of education, research, and publishing-whether funded by
state or non-governmental agencies-provide financial backing, donate
textbooks, share expertise, train teachers and scholars, and sometimes even
run ELT enterprises in the periphery.
Western involvement in the ELT enterprise is also expressed through other
channels. Many of the structures and practices of schooling in the modern
world are built on educational philosophies and pedagogical traditions
which can be traced back to the colonial mission of spreading Enlightenment
values for civilizing purposes. As the foregoing passage seeks to show, the
English language itself can embody ideological and cultural values alien to
these communities. What happens in the sort of classroom context familiar
to teachers such as Mrs K., therefore, raises questions about the relevance
and appropriateness of the teaching material, curriculum, and pedagogies
developed by the Anglo-American communities for periphery contexts. The
contrast between Peter's well-organized, goal-directed life and the mental
and social chaos surrounding Ravi could scarcely be more marked. The fact
that their learning opportunities are poles apart increases the dissonance
between the values represented in Mrs K.'s imported reading material and
the culture of her students. As a result, the more she depends on faddish
pedagogies promoted by Western teaching experts, the more her students are
likely to disengage from the learning process. We are left with the most
disturbing question, which is how far these many and varied Intlllt'llces may
be shnpin~ periphery cOlllllllmities nccordill~ to th~ pl'~fNrt'd ,:uIt'llrllI
prn~'li~'t'N, idt'oluMit'N, IUld Nodnl rdntionN of tht' cent",
Competing pedagogical paradigms
The assumptions motivating dominant pedagogical practices fail to accom
modate the type of questions arising in the periphery educational context. If
we are to explore these questions in any depth, we shall need to interrogate
the available pedagogical paradigms, and adopt necessary changes in our
perspective.
Mrs K.'s well-intentioned practices, which have come to be accepted as
professional commonsense in ELT, assume that mastering a language is
essentially a matter of acquiring its grammatical system. So she presents the
simple present tense in a specific textual context, and facilitates the students'
understanding by showing how grammar functions in actual communica
tion. She also seeks to satisfy the affective and imaginative dimensions of
learning through the narrative about Peter's life, and contextualizes the
lesson in an attempt to evoke the students' interest, and help them to relate to
it more directly. However, her approach is based on the assumption that
learning is primarily a cognitive activity: she emphasizes that students should
acquire the grammar inductively by observing its use in texts; the tasks she
provides at the end of the reading provide ample opportunities for discovery
and practice. By encouraging students to focus all their attention on activities
inside the classroom, she gives them the impression that outside events are
distractions from effective learning.
For Mrs K., therefore, learning is implicitly defined as something that
results from the isolated activity of the mind, unaffected by environmental
influences. In addition, her interest in borrowing from the latest Western
pedagogical developments suggests a belief that cognitive strategies are
universal-that learning styles found to be effective for students from one
community may be assumed to be equally effective for students from others.
Ifwe were to ask her for a definition of ELT, Mrs K. would probably describe
it as an essentially innocent pragmatic activity of facilitating the transmission
of linguistic rules and communicative skills, accompanied by the beneficial
side-effects of ennobling the mind and enabling social mobility.
Whilst much of this could be said to make good pedagogical sense, it is
important to consider how students respond to the classroom experience.
Ravi's tendency to let his thoughts roam away from the business in hand
suggests that much more than grammar or language skills is being
transmitted here. He and his fellow students are confronting a range of
controversial values deriving from the association of English with liberal
Westem culture and all that it represents, including science and technology,
access to power and wealth, and a generally stigmatized place in colonial
history. Otht'r vn lut''! t'1llt'r~c: from the read jng materia. Ravi is very
cunNdoUN of, I1ml to NOIllt' extent denlOrnlii'.ed by, the contrast between
Peter'. hAI'I'Y, l'r1vileMt'd 11ft' IIlld hiN own. Thc fn~·t tlHlt theNc '!odo-cliltur,,1
dlUrrrnctli Inrtrfrrr with R.vl'lI L'ol11l'rrhrnliloll of rhe' l'''I1.""e relllind UII of

the critical role played by such cultural frames in the understanding of
language and texts. Ravi's personal experiences and background lead him to
read messages into the text which disturb him in a way its authors, and his
teacher, could never have anticipated. His reactions suggest that it would be
wrong to assume that learning is always autonomous, and never hindered or
contaminated by contextual forces. Socio-cultural conditions always
influence our cognitive activity, mediating how we perceive and interpret the
world around us.
Contextual influences of the sort described are intrinsic to learning, and
not the optional extras Mrs K. takes them to be in her limited attempts to
accommodate affective features in her teaching. Her pedagogical approach
also poses cultural problems for students. Many teachers in the periphery use
the task-based, process-oriented, student-centered pedagogy because it
comes stamped with the authority of center professional circles. But from the
attitudes and motivation of the students Mrs K. is teaching, it seems likely
that they would prefer a more formal, product-oriented, teacher-centered
pedagogy, of the sort now denigrated by center professional circles. If this
were indeed the case, the assumption that learning strategies are common
across cultures would also come under question, since it could result in
teachers influencing students to adopt inappropriate cognitive and interactive
styles; they might also be conveying cultural messages and images which
could adversely affect their attitude to the course. We have seen how images
of Western affluence and development have motivated Rajan to take his
English studies seriously, while they have the opposite effect on Ravi, who is
so rooted in his community that he feels alienated by them. This polarity
suggests that learning has far-reaching implications for students' values,
identity, and community solidarity, and that students will always make
connections between classroom proceedings and the outside world.
What all this implies is that, knowingly or not, while Mrs K. follows an
explicit curriculum of grammar and communication skills, she is also
teaching a 'hidden curriculum' of values, ideologies, and thinking which can
mold alternate identities and community allegiance among the students. In
contrast to the usual image of the teacher in control of the classroom, this
narrative suggests that there are powerful socio-cultural forces that influence
learning in a subtly pervasive manner. Granted that this is the case, language
learning cannot be considered an entirely innocent activity, since it raises the
possibility of ideological domination and social conflict. Teachers should
therefore attempt to critically interrogate the hidden curricula of their
courses, relate learning to the larger socio-political realities, and encourage
students to make pedagogical choices that offer sounder alternatives to their
living conditions.
The pedagogical conflicts illustrated above call for Q radically di Hercnt
ol'ientation to instruction. We need to l'econceptualiZI luch IllIl'OI'lUnt
COlllltructli QI knowlcdMC' ami ICAmiIlK, and indeed, 10m. r'tltlllkillM hlU
already begun. The new realizations informing our pedagogical practice are
coalescing under the broad label of critical pedagogy (hereafter CPl. Its
assumptions and practices differ from those promoted by what we might
term the pedagogy of the mainstream (hereafter MP).2 We can delineate the
evolving choices in pedagogical orientation as follows:
• learning as a detached cognitive activity vs. learning as personal
MP assumes that learning involves the mind solely (or primarily) in
analysis, comprehension, and interpretation. The more reason is allowed to
work by itself, the 'truer' the knowledge produced. Emotions, imagin
ation, and intuition are to be suppressed, since they could distort the
objectivity required in learning. By contrast, CP would say that it is
unwise, if not impossible, to remain uninvolved in the learning process.
Just as the personal background of the learner influences how something is
learned, what is learned shapes the person: our consciousness, identity,
and relationships are implicated in the educational experience. We should
therefore consciously engage the influences, consequences, and implications
of the personal in the learning process.
• learning as transcendental vs. learning as situated
Traditionally, the learner is supposed to rise above everything in the
environment (i.e. society, culture, ideology) in order to be impartial and
neutral in the acquisition of knowledge. CP posits that the learner is
located in the environment, conditioned by the influences of his or her own
context. It follows that the knowledge people produce or acquire will also
be grounded in their social practice and material context. Similarly,
schooling has been traditionally defined a neutral site-conducted in
isolation from the other messy social realities. But CP realizes that
schooling is deeply influenced by the larger social and political contexts in
which it is situated. The rules, regulations, curricula, pedagogies, and
interactions in schooling shape, and are shaped by, socio-political realities.
Schooling is so implicated in the needs, interests, and imperatives of the
dominant institutions and social groups that it is often difficult to see the
full effect of their influence in the classroom.
• learning processes as universal vs. learning as cultural
Modes of learning and thinking have typically been considered to be
common for nil people. CP considers that they vary according to the social
practices nnd cultural troditions of different communities. Hence the new
thinkinM on the methods alld techniques of teaching. For MP, these are
value-free 1I'ltrumentN motivAted by efficiency to conduct instruction in
the molt effective WilY pUlllbl." <:1' holdl thAt the ClltAblilhed methodl
embody the prlf,rr.d wily. nf loarnln. and thlnklnll of the domlnlnt
cmmmunitle.-Ind thlt thl. bl.. cln creare cunfllct. for Ilirnen from

I(, Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching
other pedagogical traditions. Similarly, MP believes that what is learned is
fuctual, impartial, and, therefore, correct for everyone. Knowledge is
considered to provide the one universally true view of reality. Since CP
holds that knowledge is socially constructed, what is considered reality,
fact, or truth by the different communities is understood in relation to
their social practice. This is why the different traditions of knowing found
in diverse communities have to be negotiated in the learning process.
• knowledge as value-free vs. knowledge as ideological
MP treats knowledge as devoid of values of any moral, cultural, or ethical
character. CP holds that everything is value-laden. The institutionalized
forms of knowledge embody assumptions and perspectives of the dominant
social groups, which introduce other communities to the same value
system in order to legitimize the dominance of the elite groups. Subordinate
fJ;WUpS may have their own philosophical traditions, and competing
versions of reality that favor their own interests. Since everything that is
tnu/l;ht already comes with values and ideologies that have implications for
stlldents' social and ethical lives, teaching is always problematic. It is part
of 1I teacher's responsibility to help students interrogate the hidden
IISSlIlIIptions and values that accompany knowledge.
• NllfllolC'dge as preconstructed vs. knowledge as negotiated
Mil nssumes that teaching is a process whereby established facts,
IIII0I'1II11tion, and rules are simply to be handed over to the students. CP
!,o!llils that knowledge results from constant negotiation between commu
1111 irs ill tcrms of their values, beliefs, and prior knowledge. Knowledge is
1I!!Il'/t II changing construct, shaped by the social and cultural practices of
I hos(' who produce it. It is therefore important to negotiate knowledge
11101'(' I.'ollsciously, and to involve the teachers as well as the students in the
I('nrllill~ process. Collaboration between the two groups, as they aim to
1'('111.'(, consensus through debate, simulates the social process of knowledge
l'ollstl'uction.
• It'clrnillg as instrumental vs. learning as political
(;ivCII <:1"s realizations, it is understandable that schooling is considered to
11(' implicated in the exercise of power and domination in society. If
I('nl'llin~ is value-ridden, and shaped by the imperatives of the dominant
sol'inlll.roups, what is learned orientates the learner to the world view and
to idcololl.ics of the status quo. In the same way, it is not surprising that key
IlNpects of cducation, such as curriculum, pedagogy, dnd instructional
pulk!e., dre denned by the groups and institution. thAt CUIlI'l'ol sOfo:it·ty.
L~l1rninM, therefure, ill 11 hi~hly contested, c()nfli~t·rldd," 'IH.rpriNt' where
thr cOI11I,rtlnl& knuwledMc, vl11uCII, And pr.~tl,•• of elIY"" ""I11IllUllitics
mUIlIlI. for ~luI11II1IIlC'. Sine. IUllnm.llm p.eI.......um. tlfl1l 1t'lIrnlllM
is value-free, pragmatic, and autonomous, they can practice teaching as an
innocent and practical activity of passing on correct facts, truths, and skills
to students. Even ifa teacher does not sympathize with the 'facts', he or she
could function as the uninvolved intermediary, and transmit them to
students. For CP, however, teachers have the ethical responsibility of
negotiating the hidden values and interests behind knowledge, and are
expected to help students to adopt a critical orientation to learning.
The context of critical pedagogy
It would be unwise to argue for CP in universal and absolute terms, without.
reference to the contexts and purposes of teaching. It is impossible to make a
disinterested case on behalf of any position, and I can only argue why CP
provides a better pedagogical framework by pointing to the relevant location
and interests that motivate this work.
Given the social and material context of marginalized communities, CP
offers perspectives that serve their challenges, aspirations, and interests more
effectively. It is also necessary to understand that ideological and socio
cultural concerns have gained importance in the pedagogical domain as a
result of the larger philosophical changes that have taken place in recent
history. So the best apology one can make for CP is to situate it in its
historical and social context.
Before considering CP in the light of these positions, I must observe a
simple difference between the two pedagogies. CP conceives pedagogical
practice in terms of an expanded notion of context. Both the strengths and
limitations of MP derive from working with a more restricted or focused
context for the learning activity. Since the classroom is separated from larger
historical and social conditions, and learning is perceived primarily as a
cognitive activity, teachers in this tradition can conduct more controlled
observation of the learning activity, within more manageable variables. The
targets and stages of learning are also made narrower and clearer, thus
providing a convenient means of measuring pedagogical progress. But CP
practitioners would charge that the pedagogical activity is over-simplified,
and that in the process results are somewhat distorted. CP adopts a more
holistic approach to learning, situating it amidst the diverse influences, and
giving it complexity.
From a philosophical perspective, we must realize that the mainstream
pedagogical tradition is identified with such intellectual movements as
Enlightenment, rationalism, science, and modernism, which share many
ideological dill! chronologkal similarities.' These movements had a radical
beRinninM. They ",hdmpiuneu the thinking, observation, and experience of
the indivldulil AIllth111t the l.!0llmu of the IItitre, IlriNtocrlolcy, ond Church.
Th••o dov.lupn1t'l1lN wOllt h.lul In h"nd with the c:merl&ence In Eurupe,
.ruund thl 16th Inl.! 17th clnturl,., uf thl pr••111.tl..: mh.ldle ,I....., uf

individualism, and the Renaissance. In the new dispensation, the valued
mode of thought was inductive. This encouraged an attitude of observing
things without any presuppositions, feelings, or biases, and letting the facts
speak for themselves to form valid generalizations. According to its most
extreme versions, only those things that could be apprehended by the senses
were defined as real. It was this empirical approach to phenomena that was
supposed to provide a complete understanding of the laws which governed
life and promised human and material progress. According to this positivistic
philosophy, we were considered to inhabit a closed world which possessed
the complete answers to its laws of operation. The mind had the power to
distinguish fact from myth, apprehend the laws of nature, and channel them
for human progress.
Much of this thinking has been debunked of late, by both philosophers of
science and practicing scientists, as an exaggeration of intellectual activity.4
We recognize now that it is impossible for us to understand and interpret
things without the mediation (and even active help) of tradition, shared
values, personal predispositions, and creative imagination. In fact, knowledge
constitutes a body of interpretive grids (or explanatory paradigms) that
interpret reality, and is periodically revised according to the interests and
experiences of the specific community.
Knowledge, therefore, is intrinsically social, and constructed through
interaction between community members. The question as to which
community's knowledge paradigm becomes the operating explanation of
things is settled by an exercise of power. The knowledge of the dominant
groups is imposed through the institutions at their disposal, including the
school. This knowledge in turn serves to justify the status quo. It is from this
perspective that the post-Enlightenment and post-modern orientation
understands educational activity as political.
There is a reason why periphery communities may nurse a grudge against
the Enlightenment movement, which helped, enhanced, and/or initiated
parallel socio-political movements in the West, such as industrialism,
capitalism, and colonialism. These led to the domination of the periphery
(Lunn 1982, Giddens 1990, Larsen 1990, Hess 1995), since the West's
technological superiority provided it with the military power and resources
to colonize the Asian, African, and Latin American communities. The West
believed that it was the 'white man's burden' to spread its message of
Enlightenment and scientific advancement throughout the world. But behind
this avowedly altruistic mission was the West's need to find more raw
materials for its industry, and more markets to sell its products. The result
was that colonialism boosted capitalist industry and economy, as all
communities became integrated into a vast network of capitalist market
economies and industrial production, and the scientific vision gained global
u~~provnl. This development led to the configuration of center/periphery
Noopolitical relAtion•. Althou~h .dence claimed to be apolitical, thrrrt'nre, it
actually complemented and benefited from a favorable set of socio-political
conditions. Periphery scholars such as Nandy (1988) demonstrate how, even
today, scientific and technological activities continue to victimize non
Western communities.
The Enlightenment also led to the suppression of the knowledge systems of
the periphery. Science was defined as a universally applicable project, rather
than a cultural product of the West-one based on a Judeo-Christian/
Renaissance belief in dominion over nature, a teleological view of history,
and the celebration of individualism and reason (Huff 1993, Hess 1995). The
many different forms of knowing and learning represented by minority
communities, which were suppressed under the universalistic claims and
globalizing trend of science, have acquired a measure of prominence in the
post-colonial climate. The claim that knowledge and pedagogy are value-free
and acontextual has only led to the legitimation of the Western intellectual
tradition. A partial corrective to this view has come from emergent post
colonial thinking and periphery knowledge, and has inspired contemporary
Western communities to develop a critical attitude towards their modernist
intellectual tradition (Said 1993: 239-61).
The shift from Enlightenment to anti-Enlightenment philosophies, from
modernist to post-modernist thinking, and from colonial hegemony to post
colonial resistance, explains why the assumptions and practices of mainstream
pedagogies are questioned today. Loaded with its own brand of interests and
values, MP represents no less an ideology than CPo The difference is that
while MP is informed by the ideologies of the dominant communities, CP has
the potential to interrogate this hegemony. The fact that the politico-cultural
implications of teaching English to other communities are being questioned
today is due to such philosophical changes. It is important for language
teachers to recognize the ways in which these philosophical developments
redefine their work in classrooms. Given that there is no such thing as value
free, disinterested, or acontextual teaching, teachers are faced with a stark
choice between adopting undemocratic interests (perhaps as a result of not
being sufficiently aware of their pedagogical ideologies) or quite openly
undertaking a pedagogy for resistance.
Academic reception of critical pedagogies
The notions constituting a critical pedagogy are currently gaining attention
in many fields. Adult literacy (Freire 1970), college composition (Bizzell
1982), literature (hooks 1989), social sciences (Marcus and Fischer 1986),
feminillt nudiell (Lather 1991), cultural studies (Grossberg 1994), and, of
coune, edUCAtion (Giroux 1992) are jUlt some of the fields where a critical
pcnpective un teachini I. pruvlnll to hco popular. ThiN orientation ill called by
different nlUl1U In different drclu, IncludinN POdAMoMleli of re.lltllnce
(Aronowitz lind Giroux 19M,'). Ilhorltury [...chin. (Shm 19M?). radical

pedagogy (hooks 1989), post-modern pedagogy (Giroux 1992), border
pedagogy (Giroux and McLaren 1994), and pedagogies of possibility (Simon
1987). However, contemporary appropriations of CP by the Western
academy bring with them certain simplifications and distortions.
It can be argued that some of the earliest developments towards such a
pedagogy were made by peasant and marginalized communities, especially in
the periphery, for whom learning was always a contested and controversial
activity. Social workers, clergy, and community leaders all practiced versions
of CP long before it was 'discovered' by Western academics. Perhaps the best
known example of a periphery practitioner is Paolo Freire (1970; 1985). The
Brazilian educator's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which formulates the
principles that guided his teaching of literacy for peasants, became sanctified
scripture for Western academics in the 1980s, having served as a little-known
handbook for social workers and church-based literacy organizations in the
periphery for more than a decade. I will later make subtler distinctions
within the CP movement to bring into relief other aspects of periphery
thinking and practices.
CP has become fashionable in some of the disciplinary fields mentioned
above, but in ELT and language-teaching circles generally it has evoked much
hostility. There are many reasons why ideological concerns are often ignored
or suppressed in language teaching. Phillipson (1992) and Pennycook
(1994a) have argued that the formative discourses and practices in ELT are
influenced by its roots in the colonial period. It suited ELT to define language
and teaching as a value-free cognitive activity, since in that way its material
and ideological interests in spreading English globally could be conveniently
ignored. The dominant Enlightenment tradition in the West has also helped
by providing a scientistic and positivistic cast to ELT, and by encouraging its
perception as an apolitical, technocratic, and utilitarian enterprise.
Besides this basic ideological conflict, ELT practitioners have other minor
quarrels with CP. These are eloquently reflected in a letter to me from a
British colleague, in which he expresses some of the concerns felt by language
teachers, and reflects on a set of exchanges on CP where I was a participant:
[These exchanges in TESOL Quarterly 28/4: 609-23] highlight for me
how 'Comments' pages are turning into a kind of academic Punch and
Judy show, each party bashing the other over the head with 'isms'-grand
theoretical constructs, bearing imposing names, and perhaps like Star
Wars technology, each calibrated to target the Achilles heel of a specific
adversary. Mainstream perceptions of ideologies tend to be as obsessions
of marginal groups, threatening stability and a rational order; liberal
humanists tend to feel insulted at theories which widen the net of those
who should take responsibility for perpetuating oppressive practices
whether in education or elsewhere ... Too often we see wholesale labeling
or pigeonholing passing for academic discussion ... We stitch on labels,

and stitch the world up in them, too.

(Personal communication, Nigel Bruce, 24.11.94)

Note that in describing the opponents of critical approaches as belonging
to the 'mainstream', my colleague is consigning CP to the margins of the
discipline. The fact that the assumptions and scholarship of CP appear
incomprehensible to non-initiates undoubtedly accounts for much of the
opposition it attracts. Symptomatic of its difficulty is the specialized jargon
deriving from the 'isms'-the grand theoretical constructs, and imposing
names. CP is also perceived to be too judgmental and condescending towards
other practitioners, 'who should take responsibility for perpetuating oppressive
practices'. It is therefore considered to posit certain 'politically correct' (the
much abhorred 'PC) ways of thinking. A third reason is that CP is
considered to be too reductive, in narrowing down all issues of teaching to
matters of ideology, thereby 'stitching the world up in labels'. In reading
politics into everything, CP is 'widening its net' and imposing its 'obsessions'.
Finally, it is considered to be too confrontational, disturbing, and perhaps
cynical, to the extent of 'threatening stability and a rational order'.
Many critical pedagogues have responded to these sorts of charges, for
instance by explaining that their neologisms are required by the new
perspectives they are trying to develop. The old language derives from
assumptions that are rejected by the new theoretical orientation. Giroux
(1992: 151) argues in more strident terms:
We're pointing to a theory that examines how you view the very realities
you engage. When people say that we write in a language that isn't as clear
as it could be, while that might be true, they're also responding to the
unfamiliarity of a paradigm that generates questions suppressed in the
dominant culture.
The language of CP therefore involves a fundamental and far-reaching
paradigm shift. This might be compared to changing one pair of colored
spectacles for another for a different view of the world. It is to be expected
that the new pair of spectacles will show everything in a different light. Such
is the nature of paradigms, of whatever brand, whether traditional or new.
Since CP is radical in the root sense of that term, it is to be expected that its
perspective will strike outsiders as being too judgmental and disturbing.
To appreciate the significance of CP, therefore, an effort must be made to
understand its underlying premises and assumptions, a point made by my
British l.:o!lcague:
Ithose criticN of CPI inuicl1t~ to me nt the very hi~hest level of abstraction
lind the dC'epellt IC'vc:oI of Ilocio-politicnl belief, 11 Inl.:k of the kind of
reflnlvlty which mlMht porl11lt I'ht'1ll to appredl1tc the dcc:opcr political
pulnt. 1,,,lnll nhtd,-or th.lr validity. Il'ney don'tllcrM1 to mc ttl hAVC II

profound-or 'grounded'-sense of the implications of the attribute
'critical' when attached to pedagogy-certainly not grounded in any
broader empathetic political philosophy.
(Personal communication, Nigel Bruce, 24.11.94)
In order to understand the project of CP, therefore, ELT practitioners need
to orientate themselves to the post-Enlightenment ways of looking at
pedagogical issues. Lack of rigorous reading and imaginative understanding
cannot be used as an excuse for opposing a pedagogical paradigm. For their
part, critical pedagogues must give heed to the charge that they are
sometimes reductive and jargon-ridden, and seek to provide a clear and
balanced view of their assumptions.
Competing models of critical pedagogy
CP must not be taken as a settled body of thought, with a uniform set of
pedagogical practices and assumptions. There are different ways of
orientating to power and inequality within the critical pedagogical paradigm.
We will mainly distinguish here between models of reproduction and
resistance. These models derive from social philosophies that explicitly or
implicitly theorize the nature of education and schooling. In brief, while
reproduction theories are based on somewhat deterministic brands of
structuralist and Marxist thinking that developed around the 1970s,
resistance theories are more open-ended post-structuralist perspectives.
Reproduction models explain how students are conditioned mentally and
behaviorally by the practices of schooling to serve the dominant social
institutions and groups; resistance theories explain how there are sufficient
contradictions within institutions to help subjects gain agency, conduct
critical thinking, and initiate change. CP has itself accommodated these
c~mpeting perspectives at different periods under its umbrella.s The
distinction between the models, introduced in this section, will be debated as
a subtext to the ethnographic narratives in the later chapters. Examining
these competing perspectives can help us develop a sounder research
orientation, and a balanced pedagogy for ELT.
To orientate ourselves to the main perspectives and questions generated by
each model, it is useful to return to the opening narrative. In admiring Peter's
culture and lifestyle, Rajan shows greater receptivity to the values embodied
in the text. Peter represents the values of urban, professional, middle-class
groups through his drive for success, goal orientation, personal discipline,
routinized lifestyle, and delayed gratification. These are the typical values of
a society based on competition and individualism. The other features of Mrs
K.'s classroom practice-such as learning to orientate to the lesson by
iKnoring the distractions outside the classroom, obeying the teacher,
UI1~lucNtjonil1~ly relipecting her authority, and stickilli to tht' order and
routine in the class-also have ideological implications. They can influence
Rajan to undertake alienating mechanical labor while suppressing other
expressive and spiritual concerns, accept hierarchical social arrangements,
accommodate the demands of authority figures, and prioritize self-interest.
The partisan nature of these practices become evident when we consider
the alternative set of values the lesson chooses not to present-particularly
the traditional rural values based on collective living and a relatively slow
pace of life. In presenting the former set of values through its curriculum and
pedagogy, the school is making a statement on the communities and cultures
it considers as normative. It aligns itself with the dominant culture (based in
this instance On urban, technocratic, middle-class values) and disassociates
itself from others. Since the school claims to deal only with value-free facts
and practices, students like Rajan may not suspect the biased nature of these
values. Their legitimacy and superiority would therefore seem entirely
'natural' to students-they are, after all, the course's hidden curriculum,
presented under the guise of teaching the simple present tense. Students
would actually compete with each other to absorb these values, without any
compulsion from outside, since falling into line with these pedagogies and
curricula defines educational success. However, the longer-term social
consequences of absorbing such values may be imagined. Rajan, certainly,
will have greater chances of joining the urban, professional, middle classes.
Holding the values of the system, he will be a faithful citizen and a productive
worker. He will endorse the social system whose values he holds and profits
by. In short, we can see a cyclical process: the dominant social arrangement
passes on its values to the school; the school (through its curriculum and
pedagogy) passes on those values to students; the students uphold the status
quo.
The fact that Ravi is somewhat detached from these values does not mean
that he is free from domination. His attitudes, being based on a rural lifestyle
and values, would lead to his subjection in a more indirect and paradoxical
way. To the extent that he is torn between mental and physical labor,
curricular and extra-curricular activities, and individual and collective claims
(with a bias towards the second set of values), we may suspect that he will
not be successful in a curriculum that happens to favor the former set of
values. Furthermore, his opposition to some of the messages from the lesson,
and his lack of motivation, suggest that educational failure could thrust him
into a farming life-which he comes from, and seems to prefer anyway. This
would help rather than upset the functioning of the social system, since
fnrmers nrc in any case needed to produce food for urban professionals. The
school would he nble to Nend Ravi to his chosen vocation without being
hhll1eU for hiN f"lIul'e, 1I1Nteau, he woulu blame himself, and accept his return
to " lowly pOlltlon In IIfl! IlII the nRturll1 outl:ome of his poor academic
pcrfurmalU:D. H, would nut e0l1111cJ",r hllllltitul Ilnu euucatlonillachievement
tn havD btln d.c.rmln,d hy An unf.lr .duentlonal .y.t,m, bltleu un partl.an

values that favored one social group over the other. Rather than questioning
why Peter's (and Rajan's) values should account for success, Ravi would
simply blame himself for failing to acquire the required values and
dispositions-thereby confirming their legitimacy. So the school is able to
reward students unequally, and to preserve the division of labor and status
hierarchy in a way that is equally acceptable to the powerful and the
powerless. It therefore plays an important function in enforcing these social
distinctions and legitimizing inequalities. On the other hand, if Ravi is to
become a professional like Rajan, he will have to start by becoming
educationally successful, and acquiring the required set of values-which
means he will have to grow out of his peasant culture and dispositions. In
short, through the different rewards for Ravi and Rajan the school
reproduces the dominant ideologies and status quo.
This is a simplified explanation of reproduction theory, but we must
remember that each society displays different types of stratification, and
therefore gives a different priority to its values. The ways in which the school
may serve different social systems have to be studied in context. We can in
fact stretch this vignette further to consider geopolitical relations in
education, inquiring how schooling can influence subjects from the periphery
to serve the interests of the center. Apart from the goal-oriented lifestyle and
pragmatic values represented by Peter (which Tawney 1964 would associate
with the Protestant work ethic and capitalism), certain aspects of the
classroom relations are also built on Western technocratic values that are
very different from the indigenous educational traditions. The task-based,
student-centered approach, coupled with the impersonal relations between
students and the teacher, are different from the teacher-centered but more
personalized pedagogical relations practiced in the indigenous tradition.
Being attracted to urban technocratic values, Rajan also indirectly accepts
the logic of that social system. In fact, he detests the local culture and society.
Clearly, his aim is to emigrate to the West and to enjoy the sophisticated
lifestyle and material comforts on offer there. Rajan's assumption that his
community is underdeveloped also implies an acceptance of the Western
definition of social development and progress (based on technological and
material criteria). In addition to the learning environment, the English
language would also playa part in internalizing the values of the liberal,
individualistic, technocratic culture with which it is predominantly associated.
Even if he doesn't emigrate, Rajan will work to realize similar values and
institutions in his own community. He will join the periphery elite that
depends on and supports the center-thus helping to reproduce its values
and institutions.
A reproductionist perspective provides many important insights into
processes of schooling and pedagogy. Reproductiol1 models show how
pt'rvllNively lll1d Nubtly Nodo-I,olitical forcC'1I may Nhl1pe the lel1rnil'K proceNN.
So thruul&h ItII hitid,," currl~ula, 1I,:huollnll N~rV"'1I thr lltamlll quo vrry
effectively. The ways in which educational processes may make the dominant
ideologies appear natural and legitimate, thereby making subordinate groups
internalize such values, are perceptively unraveled by this theory. Such a
perspective alerts us to interrogate all aspects of the learning process
curriculum, pedagogy, classroom interactions, school regulations, and
educational policies-with a critical eye.
The model does, however, appear to overstate the case somewhat, by
developing a deterministic and impersonal perspective. It has been pointed
out, for example, that domination is never wholesale or inexorable. The
processes of domination and reproduction are even more complex, and
always involve multifaceted forces, responses, and implications. A closer
look at the vignette raises some complicating questions, and evidence that
reproduction may not be fully achieved. The conflict Ravi experiences
throughout the lesson, for example, should not be ignored. He is clearly
uncomfortable with the disparity between what is going on inside and
outside the classroom. This unease can be used for reproductive purposes by
the status quo (as I have mentioned earlier); it also holds the possibility of
motivating oppositional responses. Ravi's friends, too, display displeasure
with the process-oriented and collaborative teaching strategies, preferring
their own culturally-motivated learning styles. Their lack of interest can
motivate opposition to the ideologies implicit in the lesson and the pedagogy;
their tensions may in turn generate critical thinking that will help them to rise
above domination. Such evidence leads us to the conclusion that students
come with a relatively independent consciousness that can display signs of
opposition to domination; that the cultures they bring with them can clash
with the alien ideologies to resist domination; that human experience is of
sufficient complexity and indeterminacy to override what impersonal
institutions may predicate; and that students enjoy some agency to challenge
reproductive forces.
There are other complexities that we need to consider. The culture,
ideologies, and discourses of the dominant groups are not monolithic; they
are multiple, and even contradictory. So just as the textbook presents
ideologies of the work ethic, it also contains messages on the need for leisure,
warm relationships, and an expressive lifestyle (reflected in the way Peter
spends his weekends). By tapping these counter-cultural elements in the
dominant ideology, subordinate groups can resist reproduction. Similarly,
I hl' cultures of subordinate people contain diverse conflicting characteristics.
They may display traces of domination, but may also embody potential for
rt'Nistnnce. It is wronp; to assume that the cultures of the subordinate groups
lire nlwayM pQlilive gnd accommodative, They have a long history of struggle
nnti re.isr.nce gKninlt the dominant culrures, and members of these
~()mmunlrlell CAn tap the rellOUrCtli In rheir cultures to 0ppolie the thrusts of
"lion Idt'ulollll'll Ravl'lI Tamil culturt, for IImance, hili II lonp; hlltory,
IIpllnnlnM rwu ,'.nturllll, uf h,t.rlu:tlun with enlunlal nlltlon. And Id'olo/ilICl11

Local discourses, cultural practices, and literary artifacts embody this
conflictual interaction. In fact, in Ravi's contemporary society there is a
thriving linguistic nationalism that opposes the learning and use of English.
Students draw from these resources to produce forms of resistance to the
alien curricula and pedagogies. Even the local classroom should not be
conceived in monolithic terms, because it cannot be fully controlled by the
social and political forces from outside its walls. There are complex layers of
culture in the classroom itself which will mediate the alien pedagogies and
ideologies. The local classroom contains many other forms of culture
indigenous values, students' peer-group cultures, and teachers' professional
values-which will interact with the dominant ideologies in complex ways.
The school may also be sufficiently detached from other social institutions
and structures to enjoy a measure of autonomy. The classroom may be at
tension with other institutions, generating conflict and friction with the
dominant ideologies of the status quo-thereby preserving a space for
resistance. In this way, the classroom can nurture some of the oppositional
attitudes and cultures students bring with them.
By granting more complexity to the subjects, the classroom, and the
culture, we will find that domination is not guaranteed. The influence of the
socio-political forces on classrooms and students can take different
trajectories and outcomes. This is why Ravi's experience of discomfort in the
classroom is significant, and merits further exploration: this affirms the
relative independence ofconsciousness, the possibility of a critical perspective,
and the potential for opposition. Resistance theorists will say that it is the
responsibility of teachers to channel Ravi's dissatisfactions and conflicts
along a more constructive and ideologically-informed direction. How can
Ravi's partial insights be developed and informed by theoretical clarity so
that he may challenge and perhaps help transform the sources of domination
he confronts? This is the burden of resistance theories.
Although this book is in sympathy with theories of resistance for offering
possibilities of empowerment for periphery communities, the insights of
reproduction theorists cannot be ignored. It has been pointed out that if
reproductive models of schooling provide 'a language of critique' to
deconstruct dominant schooling processes, resistance models offer 'a
language of possibility' for reconstructing suitable alternatives (Aronowitz
and Giroux 1993: 103). These two models, then, generate questions that will
be explored further in the following chapters. In what forms does center
ideological influence penetrate into periphery ELT classrooms? What does
the everyday life of teachers and students in the periphery suggest about how
they confront, cope with, and negotiate forces of reproduction from the
center? What tensions in periphery classrooms (in term. of the inlltrllctional
cultures, interactions, and policies) offer space for r..l.ranc:.l Huw do the
langulge., di.courae., And culture. of periphery commYnlct.. off'r rClluurces
to .ncuuraa' uppulltlonl
Theoretical backdrop to studying resistance
In order to understand the assumptions motivating the emergent paradigm of
pedagogical resistance we need to step back briefly from the pedagogical
scene. We must also realize that the paradigm encapsulates theoretical
controversies that have taken place for at least a half century between many
schools of thought. We need to survey, if briefly, how these debates have
helped redefine familiar constructs such as discourse, subjectivity, culture,
and power.
The philosophical movements of Marxism and structuralism which
influence reproduction models have challenged Enlightenment belief in the
autonomy of the human mind, purity of knowledge, and the ability to attain
a correct, undistorted, objective understanding of reality. The Marxist
perspective sees material life (especially economy) as the primary shaping
influence on other domains, including education, culture, and even
consciousness. The material dimension is considered to be the base and the
latter set, including education, the superstructure of social life. Some early
interpretations of Marxist thinking posited that the economic relations of the
base unilaterally shaped the superstructure (see, for a critique, Williams
1977: 75-82). It thus follows that schooling and knowledge are determined
by the material necessities of a particular society. What are called economic
reproduction models show a direct influence from Marxism in theorizing this
connection.6
For structuralism, the subject is a construct of the social symbol system.
Although structuralism gives more importance to mental life than Marxism,
consciousness is coded in symbols that are socially constructed. Contradicting
the humanist perspective that granted independence and autonomy for the
subject, structuralism views the subject as dominated by linguistic and
symbol systems. These symbol systems are ideological, and provide a
partisan orientation to reality and social institutions for subjects. Institutions
such as the school are perceived as helping to internalize these discourses
among students. Influenced by structuralist thinking, ideological reproduction
models view classrooms as determined by the dominant discourses of society,
and shaping the perspectives of the students accordingly.? Thinkers such as
Althusser reconcile their Marxism by suggesting that although the economic
realm is the important driving force, it does not have full control of the
superstructure. It is what he terms the ideological state apparatus (of which
the school is a part) that performs the mediating function of reproducing
society.
Less determillistic than the above are the cultural reproduction models
whidl theorize the mediating role of culture in achieving social reproduction.8
Thele model. are Influenced by the theoretical insights of cultural politics
developed by Raymund WIIIIAnI, 80urdieu lAnd Paneron, And the like.
Whll, 'conomlc reproduction th.orlltl cOOllder the relatlonlhlp between

material requirements and school to be more or less direct, cultural repro
duction theorists perceive reproduction to be the result of an interesting
correspondence between the values upheld by the school and those of the
dominant social groups. The school shapes the consciousness and behavior
of the students by distributing the cultural practices of the dominant groups
as the norm. Students who acquired this linguistic and cultural capital would
grow to justify and serve the interests of the dominant groups. Because of the
perceived neutrality of the school, the subordinate groups imbibe the school
culture without recognizing its biased and partisan nature, and, thus,
participate in their own domination. So for cultural reproduction theorists,
the school does not have to mirror the economic and political conditions
outside its walls. Its practices and agenda may only indirectly suit the
reproductive needs of the dominant institutions. This notion of the school's
relative autonomy from the economic and political institutions provides
greater complexity to the reproductive process. But the culturalist models fail
to exploit this detachment of the school to consider how it may function as
an oppositional site to help change social institutions.
The common point of departure for the various resistance theories from
the reproductive orientation of structuralism and Marxism can be explained
in the following way. When Marxism's material grounding of consciousness
and institutions is disturbed by linguistic mediation, the superstructure
acquires a relative independence and fluidity to initiate change. Although
structuralism helped to remove the stifling hold of the material base in just
such a manner, it posited that there was a uniform set of codes that governed
the functioning of subjects and institutions. These socially-constructed codes
were treated as beyond individual control or production. But if these codes
are heterogeneous and conflictual, defying the construction of rigid systems
(as post-structuralist notions of language define), domination cannot be
guaranteed. Post-structuralist thinking thus unravels the inherent
contradictions within subjects and institutions that may defy the reproductive
thrusts of material or ideological structures. The project of the different
models of resistance is to critique centeredness, binding, uniformity,
cohesion, generalization, abstraction, globalism, and determinism in favor of
decentering, unboundedness, diversity, splintering, concreteness, specificity,
localism, and indeterminateness.
The redefinition of constructs such as subjecthood, culture, power, and
I<nowledge by resistance theories has enabled us to conceptualize the
potential for teachers and students to negotiate power. The movements
il1!')ucncing resistant thinking, such as post-structuralism, post-modernism,
pORt-coInn inIism, neo-Marxism, and feminism, do nor f~ II i11 to neat
l'ompnrtmentli,~In fnct, they horrow from each oth.r quit. fluidly, Iut there
Are ulllO onRoinR (Nometlmes vehement) argum.nt. and dehAr'fl hl'IWe'C'11 ond
within th"fll' Ill'honl., We" will nnly ('xpJor. h.r. how ,h... th.mClrk~l_cho()IN
cnnvor•• to d.v,l0t'l " t'I,rfll"l'tlvl' on relluln., IIwe ,ffUl "l'l'rrdl1rl' the'
discourses of resistance we must understand how the following basic
constructs have been contested and redefined, and will therefore begin with
the medium which is considered to lie at the heart of these redefinitions,
Language
Over the years we have been taught to perceive language as an abstract and
neutral entity that does not embody values or ideologies. Such a transparent
medium was thought to reveal to the transcendental human mind a reality
without distortions. It was this orientation that gave the Enlightenment the
confidence to use the passive tool of language to penetrate the veil of nature,
and to master its laws. Structuralist linguistics, through the foundational
work of Saussure (1959), challenged this perspective. Structuralism considers
language to be a socially constructed symbol system that reflects, embodies,
and constitutes the values of the speech community.lO Besides being value
laden, language is a much more independent and dynamic agent. It is viewed
as constructing or socializing our consciousness. It is also through the symbol
system of language that we make sense of the world and conduct thought. As
such, language serves to represent, interpret, and constitute the reality
available to subjects. If ideologically-loaded language serves to define our
sense of reality and subjectivity, we can understand how hegemonical
language can be. It internalizes the dominant values and ideologies in a
pervasive and deep-rooted manner. These notions add up to politicize
language and explain its powerful reproductive function. However,
constructs such as discourse, ideology, texts, and social system are treated as
isomorphic by structuralism. Language thus enjoys little space to resist the
imposition of ideology. Subjects, too, are totally governed by the dominant
discourses.ll
Post-structuralist perspectives challenge the deterministic aspects of the
structuralist legacy, opening avenues for the development of a resistance
linguistics. While Saussure posited that linguistic signs have no positive
content, but define each other in relation to the total system by being unlike
each other, post-structuralists latch on to this insight to cut off linguistic signs
from any control of the system or structure whatsoever. Saussure had
restricted the proliferation of meaning by accommodating the signs into a
tight, overarching structure. For post-structuralists, the signs were caught in
il play of endless oppositions, destabilizing the structure and producing
multiple meanings, Meaning thus becomes fluid and dynamic as signs are
placed in different contexts, This orientation inspires a critical practice of
dec()nllrructin~texts to reveal the linguistic contradictions and inconsistencies
and, thUll, expONe the hidden idenloKieH that control meaning. The exposure
of lupproll.,d mllllnlnWI and dllc.:our.cl il the primary form of resistance for
what II JI".I,d th. ",I"ru /mUtlr, of pou.muc.:turllilm (Foucault 1980).
8.'IUI. domlnlnt .roupll IUltlln .(unuml, Ind political power by

manipulating meanings, unpacking this linguistic base is supposed to undermine
the whole socio-political edifice.12
The definition of discourse has gone through parallel changes. While
structuralism enabled the perception of language-as-discourse in orientating
to the linguistic genres which come with concomitant rules of thinking,
communicating, and interacting, it had perceived these genres in monolithic
terms. Post-structuralism situates discourse in historical and social context as
being periodically redefined according to the conflict of different
communities for dominance. The resultant tension within and between each
discourse enables subjects to negotiate their status and, in the process, to
reconstruct discourses according to their interests and changing orientations.
Furthermore, the relations between notions such as ideology, discourse, and
text have been more complexly reconceptualized. While ideology finds its
clearest manifestation in language, the connection between language and
ideology depends on the category of discourse. The defined and delimited set
of statements that constitute a discourse are themselves expressive of and
organized by a specific ideology. Ideology and discourse are considered to be
aspects of the same phenomenon, regarded from two different standpoints.
Discourse is the linguistic realization of the social construct ideology.
Furthermore, text and discourse are distinguished by the fact that the
abstract paradigms of discourse are linguistically manifested in texts. It is
now possible for critical linguists to posit that within one text there could be
a manifestation to two or more discourses. Theorizing ideology, discourse,
texts, and language as distinct constructs, while being interconnected and
mutually influential, suggests the various levels of mediation involved, and
opens up the tensions that enable resistance.
The post-structuralist orientation to language, then, frees subjects to
reclaim their agency, negotiate the different subjectivities and ideologies
offered by competing discourses, and adopt a subject position favorable to
their empowerment. This linguistic orientation has encouraged some schools
of socio- and ethno-linguistics to reorient to linguistic conflict at the micro
social and interpersonal level, and explicate how language is implicated in
the creative ways subjects negotiate identities, roles, and statuses in everyday
life. Critical linguists interpret how speech genres and texts may serve the
ideological interests of the powerful. More pertinent to this project,
researchers of post-colonial communities reveal how subjects alternate the
vernacular and English in a contextually advantageous manner to challenge
the unequal distribution of symbolic and material rewards.13
Subjectivity
Mony impliclltions for suhjectivity derive irom rh••buv. IIn~lliN"k
'·t'delinitit>llll. The hetcro~eneuuN lind contllc:rull n.eu" of ~11l1~'llllrNt'1I
prllvld•• tho pOllllhility thAt nn, m~y enjoy I r..... " '''''1'''' flll,lf/lm,
according to the different discourses available, and that subjectivity is always
fluid and negotiable (Smith 1988). This provides subjects with the possibility
of forming new identities and gaining a critical consciousness by resisting
dominant discourses. Much of this thinking has centered around gaining
one's voice, that is, being able to articulate one's interests and aspirations by
negotiating a space through the competing discourses (Mohanty 1990,
Walsh 1991). The specific strategy of gaining voice is contrapuntal, i.e. it is
not achieved by escaping from discourse or by conforming to one, but by
working against the available discourses. Resistance theories have thus been
able to develop the agency of the subject to resist domination against the
overdetermined control of social and ideological discourses theorized by
structuralism. By arguing that subjecthood is constructed by a unitary system
of language and discourse, structuralist thinking had effaced the agency,
individuality, and integrity of the 'person'. Although Enlightenment thinking
placed the human subject as transcendental and autonomous, rising above
influences from the material environment, with an inner core of consciousness
that provided each with a unique identity, this was too idealistic. While
resistance thinking acknowledges the power of dominant discourses to
constitute subjectivity and confer marginalized identities for some, it enables
a critical negotiation with the dominant discourses as an important step in
resisting power structures.
Culture
Resistance theories have also opened up culture to show its inner creative
tensions. While reproduction models insightfully politicized culture by
noting the manner in which it performs ideological and hegemonical
functions, they adopt a monolithic orientation that posits only unilateral
influence. For example, the cultures of the subaltern groups are homogeneously
defined, and considered to mediate on behalf of forces of domination, rather
than to enable resistance. But post-structuralist theories assume that each
community's culture is made up of a conglomeration of diverse strands
which embody hybrid traditions of domination and resistance. The multiple
symbols, discourses, artifacts, texts, and practices that constitute a culture in
a particular community are always at tension (Hassan 1987, Hutcheon
IlJH9). Endeavors to homogeneously define a culture and impose labels such
as hiHh or low (as in the Enlightenment tradition) are attempts from the
Iwrspcctivc of the dominant groups to limit the complexity of the cultural
formation in thdr favor. The notion of hegemony articulates how the
dominilnt !(roups arc olwOlys involved in building consent to their power by
intluelH:inK the culture and knowlt'd!(c of subordinate groups (Williams
I~77: IOH-14l. Jlrolll I'hill perlll,ective, cultural hegelllony is I,n onHoinp;
lu:tlvltYI" I'ru"'C'IlIl, th"r ,,'I'" IllwIlyll he Iller hy 1l1'l'uNirioll. ThiN l'erN!"ccrive
IlUMllrll WClJI for dClv,luJ,lnM MtrIHt'MIC'1 of rulllr"Il"'l', It I. 1,0..lhl(' For

U. H~$istjng Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching
luhordinllte groups to discover the liberatory elements in their own cultures
th"t will enable them to develop a critical consciousness and resist domination,
III.' 11M dominant groups will negotiate these oppositional strategies with
th...ir own acts of appropriation. Such are the lines in which a more complex
I:ulturnl politics is being developed. Resistance involves deconstructing what
1'"NNeN for culture, discovering the contradictions in the dominant culture,
IUld developing the liberatory traditions of marginalized communities to tap
thrir oppositional potential.
K1l0Wledge
The insights into the multiplicity of codes and voices have been amplified by
pONt-modernists such as Lyotard (1984) who have attacked what they call
I he ~rnnd theories, the meta narratives, and totalities which have shackled
Ihe heterogeneity of discourses to impose unitary meanings. Such grand
Ihenries are considered totalitarian in imposing the dominant group's world
view 1111d intellectual tradition on other communities who have their own
lond knowledges. Given the non-foundationalist view that one cannot
It ppl'e111'nd reality without the mediation of language, and the social
l'ol1Nlrw;tionist view which assumes the creation of knowledge as shaped by
Nlldlll practice, it is not hard to see how knowledge is partisan and partial to
Ihe' l'ommunities which construct it. The tension between the different
kll11wledge traditions is settled by power, that is, by the imposition of the
dlllllil1llllt group's paradigms. Enlightenment reason is one such paradigm
ill flll't, a totalizing grand theory-that has suppressed the knowledge of
01l1C'!' communities. Women and other periphery groups have added to the
pllll'lllii',ation of reason by making a powerful case for the recognition of their
OWI1 preferred forms of knowing (Harding 1986, Mills 1987, Haraway
IIJIll), Harding 1991). In place of the grand theories that strive to throttle the
l'I't'lltiOI1 of knowledge by subaltern communities, resistance theories value
lond kl1owledge. These are the grounded forms of theorization that arise
11'0111 everyday life and experience in specific domains, leading to the
l'OI1Nlt'uction of relevant explanatory paradigms. Although reproduction
I he'lII'ieN nlso make the knowledge/power connection forcefully, they assume
Ilull kl10wledge is unilaterally owned and disseminated by the dominant
j.I'OllpN. Resistance perspectives theorize the possibility that the counter
kllowled~e of subaltern groups has its own critical insights to demystify the
d0ll111111111 ideologies and empower them to achieve their own interests. This
vlC'w "IHO I1NNUllles t1Hlt the knowledge/power interconnC':tion is 110t always
"'llIrIHlvc-thnt there arc ethically responsible forml uf knowblp;e for
tIhcor"wry l,uq,oleN.
Power
For reproductionist models, power is monolithic and absolute. But the
exercise of power always implies the existence of counter-power or counter
discourses. Unilateral force gains only a pyrrhic victory. Power works by
absorbing alternate forms of power to further its hegemony. This dialectical
or conflict-oriented-perspective accounts for the possibility of resistance. If
power is sustained by controlling the irrepressible interplay of heterogeneous
discourses, this provides scope for the creative and critical reinterpretation of
those discourses for purposes of resistance. Moreover, while power is
perceived in global terms by reproduction theories, resistance theories
recognize multiple sources of power. Power is sustained at the micro-level by
diverse local networks encompassing personal and collective domains, that
is, in relationships, in social institutions, and in community life. But this
interlocking system of power provides scope for tension and conflict between
the divergent domains to enable opposition and change. Finally, for
resistance theories, power in not always a pejorative force-one used solely
for domination. Power is also enjoyed by subaltern communities at different
local domains, which can be developed by them to resist domination at a
larger structural level. These redefinitions give scope for micro-politics,
encouraging subjects to nt;gotiate power in specific areas of local life. Hence
the sensitivity to the different manifestations of power: notions of identity
politics explore how power reaches into the recesses of consciousness and
subjectivity; cultural politics interrogates how power takes a cultural
expression in our everyday life; the politics of representation shows how it is
difficult to perceive or interpret anything without adopting an ideologicallY
based standpoint. Hence the significance of pedagogical politics in classrooms.
All this gives new ramifications to power-it is not something solely
exercised by the state or by 'politicians', as had traditionally been
understood.
The post-colonial connection
The relationship of post-colonial thinking to the resistance theories outlined
above is complex. While these theories are often spoken of in the same breath
as belonging to the same critical intellectual tradition, it is fair to say that
many strands of periphery thinking have developed indigenously without
direct interaction with Western paradigms.14 At present, there is greater
visibility to post-colonial thinking in the center because resistance theories
have provided a favorable intellectual climate for their reception. However, I
will show below thllt pOlt-coloni,,1 thinking is also critical of certain
diNcoun.... of reli.ttl1lo:' l,elo:ulhu to the WeMtern academy.
In lullle .OIUU, 1'0lt'Io:UIUIlII1I thlllkil1M iN IU' eXl1mple of how Mupprellled
p,upl. 1.:1'" file throUlh tho ~Ul11ltllU1t kl1uwled", Iyltem,., Illd Io:rltlc.:llly

]4 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching
intcrl'Ogate them for their empowerment. Their many strategies of resistance
t'xcmplify the views articulated by post-structuralist theorists above.
Consider, for instance, the strategy of appropriating the discourses of the
l'cnter to develop a critical consciousness and voice for marginalized
wl11munities. This is an example of how dominated people can shift
positions within an oppressive discourse to reclaim their agency, conduct
l'ritical thinking, and demand fair representation. To make the paradox
sharper, periphery thinkers may use Western theories to critique the West
and, in fact, to celebrate their own cultures and traditions,15 This is not
unlike another strategy they display: that of using English, the colonial
language, to speak and write against the Empire.
However, post-colonial thinkers have also redressed some of the
limitations of the resistance theories in the center academy. Some tendencies
in these fashionable movements may militate against resistance. The
splintering and decentering of the subject can be taken to the point of erasing
1lll,Cncy altogether. The non-foundationalist world view and the endless play
of signs constituting reality may encourage a debilitating relativism. The
lIotion that all discourses are partial and partisan in representing reality can
Ie'lld to a liberal detachment towards discourses. Such attitudes can prevent
somcone from taking a position on behalf of a specific discourse or
rOllll11unity. The preoccupation with detecting ideologies in language and
Ie'xls can become an esoteric and escapist activity that may encourage a
nHnplacency about structural inequalities. And the denial of larger totalities,
10 rhe point of lacking any coherence or rootedness, can encourage a
pre'IKcupation with micro-level issues that can be powerless to challenge
Illlll'l"o-level structures. The idea that deconstructing language and texts is the
IIllimate form of liberation has led to ignoring the material context
Illtogether, In fact, material life is treated as if it constituted purely linguistic
n".Ics and texts that some of the more recalcitrant elements of power are
oftt'll overlooked, For periphery subjects who experience multiple forms of
oppression and very pressing needs of food, clothing, and shelter, a diet of
lillll,uistic guerrilla warfare, textual resistance, and micro-politics will not
suffice, Therefore, they have endeavored to connect the interrogation of
disl'lllll'sCS with larger concerns relating to their traditions, geopolitical
"e'illitics, and historical conditions. The contribution of post-colonial
lhillkt'rs has thus served to historicize and materialize resistance thinking,16
I'ost-l'llionial discourses have not only stimulated knowledge production
ill the' pcripllt'ry; they have also invigorated the intellectual life of the center,
l'oNlwlollill1 thinkers have claimed that their work'from tht' margins of
ilnult'l1k lind political life has the potential to deel,C'n nnd further
drl11m'fI'ti~t' 4't'ntt'r dis~ollrses (hooks 1989, Snid 199,3). Wh..t t'lhlhle's their
4Th 14'"1 "C'ildill" of l(Ilowblll.t' 11 nd texts il their unlqu. lonH iOll, Tht'i r
"1'I,oNltIOlHII .lIhjC'4" r'ON/tioll, IllltNILlt'r ld,ntlty, m"lln.lh~'11 111111 LIN Ilnd
ItlrrrlllHr 4'IIIrllrl11 trl1dltlnn. I"rtlvldC' &' I:rltle.lln..,,",IY,''''I'.I,rl'llvC' on
Western discourses. The African-American scholar, bell hooks, calls this the
politics of location (hooks 1989: 177-82). Not surprisingly, she and other
minority feminists have criticized Western women for articulating modes of
resistance that are insensitive to the many-faceted oppression faced by
periphery women, caught in the nexus of race, class, ethnicity, nationality,
and gender. Just as center resistance is grounded in the social practice and
cultural concerns of center communities, periphery thinking has to be shaped
by its own location.
Periphery thinkers are also cautious about over-intellectualizing things,
Freire (1970, 1985) argues that intellectuals should not function from
outside the community to work for its empowerment, but actively participate
in solidarity with the masses, The oppressed should consider developing their
own intellectuals (from their ranks) who can critically theorize their
experiences from everyday struggle. Such a perspective implies that theory
can arise in different social sites-not only in schools or academia, It should
arise in a grounded manner, from practical experience and participation in
specific contexts of struggle. Thus theory dialectically interacts with practice
in an ongoing way, and develops in locally relevant directions. The flexibility
deriving from this position is evident in Freire himself. Thinking along
Marxist lines, but equally influenced by liberation theology, he has developed
a pedagogy that is appropriate to his locale. This attitude checks the
possibility all too evident in contemporary academic circles, to do theory for
theory's sake in an abstruse and esoteric fashion, especially influenced by
post-structuralist and post-modernist discourses.
Conclusion
The theoretical orientations we have surveyed above help us see how even
commonplace features of classroom life and everyday experience may be
charged with ideological implications, Such aspects as textbooks, knowledge,
discourse conventions, and identities of teachers and students are
heterogeneously constituted, steeped in conflict, and implicated in the
exercise of power. Those wishing to look at classrooms through traditional
paradigms miss most of the conflicts taking place in education, In order to
oricnt to certain aspects of reality, therefore, one needs to adopt the
:l ppropriate theoretical spectacles or angles of vision, But, as periphery
Ihinkcrs warn us, these theories have to be negotiated in terms of the material
l'olditions and social practices of one's community, Periphery thinkers may
also ncgotiatc ft'arlcssly with other traditions of thinking to borrow useful
l'llnstl'Ul.:ts foJ' thcir I'lirposcs, ulbeit from a clear location in their community
lIIal its intcrclltN. A"ol'tin~ l Pcril,hcry standpoint does not mean that I have
to i~l()rt' ~cmtC'r trnditionN of thinkin" And 41i1ll.:OUI'St'N. I can el1"ll~e with thcm
frum l11y IOCilflUl1 U " flClrlrhClry Nuhjt'ct. 'J'l1rouMhout thiN hook, thcorefort', I
1'1tl~,luy th. r••INtan~. p.rad1llm r.flulvl'ly-thllf ls, &!Von .. I u.a It &'1 /lit

interpreting medium, I appraise its usefulness for periphery communities and
classrooms, with a readiness to revise its constructs.
Notes
1 This is a reconstruction from the observation notes of a class which took
place at the University of Jaffna on December 1st 1990. The description
is slightly dramatized in places to throw certain ironies into relief.
2 CP and MP are ideo-typical constructs that are used here for merely
expository purposes. MP includes different approaches and methods in
ELT that will be critiqued in detail in Chapters 5 and 7.
3 For a perspective on the connections between these movements, see
Hampson 1968, Lunn 1982, Kolb 1986, Giddens 1990, Larsen 1990,
and Chappell 1992.
4 The work of philosophers Kuhn 1962, Feyarabend 1975, Gadamer
1981, and Law 1993 develops the value-ridden nature of science and
Enlightenment reason. The gender bias of science is critiqued by Harding
1986,1991, and Haraway 1989.
5 We can identify these shifting orientations towards reproduction and
resistance in the single scholar Henry Giroux, as we compare his work
during the 1970s (Giroux 1979) with his later work (Giroux 1983,
1992).
6 The work of Dreeben (1968), Bowles and Gintis (1977), and Anyon
(1980) shows the influence of the economic reproduction models.
7 The work of Althusser (1971) illustrates the position of the ideological
reproduction model. For an introduction to structuralist thinking, see
Lane (ed.) 1970, de George and de George 1972.
8 The work of Bernstein (1977, 1981), Bourdieu (1977, 1979, 1984),
Bourdieu and Passeron (1977), and Willis (1977) illustrates cultural
reproduction models. For an excellent critical review of the contributions
of these different reproduction models, see Willis 1983 and Aronowitz
and Giroux 1993.
9 For an introduction to post-structuralist and post-modernist constructs,
see Harland 1987, Hutcheon 1988, 1989, and Jameson 1990. For an
orientation to feminist thinking, see de Lauretis 1986, Showalter (ed.)
1989, and Butler 1990. For recent Marxist thinking, see Ryan 1989.
10 Note that the term 'structuralist linguistics,' used here to describe the
work of those like Barthes and Kristeva, is different from the brand of
American linguistics of the same name practiced by Bloomfield,
Chomsky, and others, which borrows Sauisurean notion. pil'l.:l'l11eal. For
An interpretation of the radical potential In SaulILlf.ln 11ilMuilltkN, see
CowArd And Hili. 1977, HodMe and Krill UII,
II While literAry and communicAtion .choll" hl¥t<."'ONd th.llC' Ilcomintil.:
lnlpllcltlun. uf power, very f.w I~hool•....1
...... IIn.uilfl~. hive
done so. Even sociolinguistic approaches look at the values in language
as not being part of its deep structure, and adopt the egalitarian view that
languages are 'different-but-equal'. But towards the end of the 1970s the
school of critical linguists approached language as fundamentally an
ideological system. Perceiving that language mystifies people as to its
underlying ideologies, and leads subjects to a blind acquiescence, critical
linguists unravelled these connections. However, they also assumed that
there is only a single ideology in social structure, that only one ideology
gets recorded in texts, and that there is a one-to-one correspondence
between language and ideology (to the extent that each grammatical item
carries a concomitant ideology)-see Fowler and Kress 1979. For
representative studies, see Kress and Trew 1978, Trew 1979, Fowler,
Hodge, Kress, and Trew 1979, and Kress 1983.
12 For an articulation of post-structuralist orientations on language, see
Derrida 1972, 1981a, Foucault 1972.
13 For a theoretical argument on the micro-social life of discursive
resistance, see Woolard 1985, Gal 1989, and Heller 1992, as they
develop it in opposition to the deterministic linguistics of Bourdieu and
Bernstein. Specific studies that exemplify the use of language for
resistance in the periphery are: Myers-Scotton 1990, 1992, Duranti
1992, Lindstrom 1992, Canagarajah 1995a, 1995b; see also Chapters 3
and 6 for examples of a resistance orientation to interpersonal
interactions in communities and classrooms, respectively. Critical
linguists have also cast away their deterministic leanings and adopted a
post-structuralist orientation of resistance-as exemplified in Kress
1985, Hodge and Kress 1988, and Fairclough 1989.
14 For a discussion of the problems in defining the relation of post-colonial
thinking to the Western academic discourses, see Mishra and Hodge
1991, Williams and Chrisman 1994.
15 Some of the contemporary scholars in this field, such as Said (1979,
1993, 1995) and Spivak (1990), have used post-structuralist thinkers
(Foucault by the former, and Derrida by the latter) to expose the unfair
representation of periphery communities and cultures.
16 For critiques by periphery thinkers of post-structuralist and resistance
thinking in the West, see Mohanty 1988, hooks 1989, Minh-ha 1989,
and Loomba 1994.

4. adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy

More Related Content

Similar to 4. adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy (20)

More from caribu (16)

Recently uploaded (20)

4. adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy