When I started graduate school in the early-nineties, I was introduced to the roles of both traditional and radical theory in literary scholarship. At the same time, I started teaching writing courses to undergraduates. However, neither theory nor pedagogy ever figured into the discussions of the combined traditional and radical teaching methods from which I was learning to teach. In other words, the relationship among theory, ideology, epistemology and pedagogy was never central to my early training as a teacher. It is safe to say that I did not fully understand the profession of teaching until I understood the symbiotic relationship among these critical elements. In fact, it was not until I identified the conflict between two theoretical, ideological and epistemological paradigms existing side by side in many English classes, when I began to fully understand the “crisis in English education” that scholars had so often cited in their studies on the teaching of English in American schools. It is one facet of this conflict that I attempt to examine, explain and resolve here.
In the twenty years since radical pedagogy made its debut in higher education, it has found many advocates, but also has experienced many setbacks. As many pedagogues have noted in their work, both radical pedagogy and critical theory have struggled Sisyphus-like against the forces of vocationalization, corporatization, the institutionalized Romantic Humanist educational curriculum, and the commodification of knowledge that currently plague institutes of learning today. One unfortunate result of these forces is the institutionalization of critical theory and radical pedagogies as representing a set of skills and methods to be mastered rather than as approaches to learning and knowledge that produce critical, political and intellectual world citizens. Similarly, radical pedagogy struggles against the institutionalized ideology of Romantic individualism so beneficial to corporate America for providing it with voracious consumers, but devastating to a pedagogy attempting to produce citizens with political agency. As I will demonstrate here, both critical theory and radical pedagogy are in the midst of a paradigmatic conflict. One unfortunate consequence and the conflict that I focus on here is that they both become methods in rhetorical and interpretive reading practices transferred to empty receptacles rather than methods in rigorous critical thinking skills developed among political agents.
In the final chapters of Literary Theory (1996), Terry Eagleton suggests that postmodernity can be easily defined as succeeding modernity and the grand narratives of truth, science and the Romanticist concept of absolute knowledge. Prior to postmodernism and the rise of a variety of critical theories in the 1960's and 70's, a literature course was taught from a Romantic Humanist epistemology, meaning that "great literature " is clearly distinguishable from "bad literature " and "great literature " represents the best that has been thought and said as well as the middle-class ideologies that must be maintained. In addition, the aesthetic value of a work of literature is easily recognized by the trained reader, an assertion made by I. A. Richards in his two works The Principles of Literary Criticism (1924) and Practical Criticism (1929) . These humanist assumptions of universality have been examined and critiqued since the theory revolution of the 1970's. In sum, postmodernity has started a paradigmatic shift in the location of "legitimate " knowledge and its production from the Romanticized individual to the contingent and situated discursive practices of identity-based groups. As a result, a humanities teacher perpetuating Romantic Humanism in an English Studies course, assuming that what she is teaching is normative and positive knowledge would be demonstrating not only a lack of cultural and critical awareness but also a lack of awareness of important paradigmatic shifts in epistemology. However, accomplishing the lessons of postmodern theory and epistemology in the classroom is not as easy as merely teaching a critical theory as a method of knowledge production.
Romantic theories attempted to justify the role and importance of literature in an education as well as in the perpetuation of middle-class culture, "right reason, " and one's "best self. " However, because Romantic theory is based on the experience of an individual it resulted in a relativism that was not what most romantic thinkers intended and that paved the way for postmodern theories. Romantic and postmodern theories are, ultimately, epistemological perspectives. Where Romantic theories argue the universality of autonomous experience, postmodern theories argue the relativity and situatedness of all experience – postmodernity's alienation and fragmentation of knowledge and experience as opposed to the Romantic unification and universalization of individual experience and knowledge. When transferred to the modern institute of education, postmodern theory simply becomes the inverse of Romantic theories – "in a world which simply is, pointlessness is truth " (Graff 1995: 57 ). Hence, in the postromantic vocationalized curriculum, alienation and fragmentation are normative conditions and a truth about the human condition.
As manifestations of postmodernity, the development of identity politics and the corporatization of education have further complicated the conflicts and contradictions already straining the relationship between scholarship and pedagogy in English. The resulting disintegration of a determinable "culture " in effect, depreciates the "legitimate " knowledge being transferred to the student through humanistic educational practices. In short, postmodernity has initiated a paradigmatic shift in the location of "legitimate " knowledge and its production from the Romanticized individual to the contingent and situated discursive practices of identity-based groups.
Critical theorists such as Roland Barthes, Mikhail Bakhtin and Paul De Mann and their contemporaries have contributed greatly to our understanding about the relationships among identity, society, history, power, ideology, language, texts and learning. Moreover, these theories have had an important impact on radical and critical pedagogy. For Example, Paulo Freire and his followers invoke terms such as "critical thinking, " "student-centered, " "democratic discourse, " "dialogic, " "empowerment, " "agency " and "liberation,” demonstrating that these pedagogies are based largely on postmodern theories of identity, discourse, situatedness, deconstruction of power systems and ideological hegemony. Therefore, the theoretical goal of radical and critical pedagogies is to "empower " students with critical skills in rhetoric for examining the roles of power systems, language and the methods for producing and institutionalizing knowledge that perpetuate ideological hegemony and political systems of domination.
In his book Cultural Capital, John Guillory describes the emergence of critical theory as the result of an "increasingly technobureaucratic organization of the professional field of literary criticism " and suggests that it can be understood as the "reassertion of charismatic authority in the face of that technobureaucratic domination " (1993: 256 ). He further argues that "the very canonical organization of these texts, their recategorization as 'theory,' has the effect of neutralizing the generic, disciplinary, and ideological differences between them in much the same way that the literary cannon tends to define all canonical literary texts as the embodiment of a single quality of 'literariness' " (203) .
Focusing on de Man's theory of deconstruction as symptomatic of the aspirations of all theories to a science-like precision, Guillory demonstrates that the "emergence of a de Manian theory of language " and its "equation with literariness " is "one moment in the systematization of his teaching " (1993: 212), and is the result of an agenda seeking to "replace thematic criticism with a specifically rhetorical methodology " (207). Rhetorical methodology with its specialized terminology, then, becomes the "basis for a methodology called 'deconstruction' " (208). As a systematic method, deconstruction, when correctly applied, produces "scientific " knowledge about the human condition –whether that knowledge is determinate or indeterminate. One important difference, then, between Romantic and postmodern epistemologies is that Romanticism assumes knowledge as determinate while postmodernism assumes it as indeterminate. This is an important factor in the paradigm shift in epistemology and conflicts in English education because the student indoctrinated into Romantic Humanist epistemology seeks to unify postmodern theories into a single, finite body of knowledge. Often, the result is that students become “believers” of one theory or another and use the theory as a method for producing finite knowledge.
Examples of the systematization and institutionalization of critical theory are found in the September 2002 special issue of College English titled Lesbian and Gay Studies/Queer Pedagogies. In this issue, theorists and teachers discuss the practical difficulties in “transforming thinking and revising habitual ways of reading texts and reading the world in their students” ( Spurlin 12). Instead, what these authors found is that, as has been the case with previous radical theories such as deconstruction, their students are learning to “unreflectively churn out de-centered, destabilized textual and cultural readings of (queer) identity” that are “no different from the readings routinely produced by students under a formalist paradigm a generation earlier” ( 12).
As these examples demonstrate, the conflict this paradigm shift produces in pedagogy arises when the theory is transferred as a systematic method of knowledge production to a student indoctrinated by a Romantic Humanist educational program and ideology. In education, critical theory becomes an art of rhetoric as the proper rhetorical readings derived from a canon of master theorists are transferred to the student. One reason for this is that these methods become a discourse of mastery, and a canon of theory. The theory is transferred to and reproduced by the good student/disciple. De Man describes this transaction as the student's resistance to theory. However, the student has not resisted theory at all but is boundlessly receptive to the "transmission " of theory as "doctrine,” and as a “positive knowledge ". In short, the relationship between the teacher (as an authority and "the one who is supposed to know ") and the student (as the empty receptacle) intervenes in the work of the radical pedagogy and critical theory. In addition, the transferred theory becomes a "religion " with the teacher as master and the student as loving subject and disciple, rather than the theory being transferred as a method or "science " for producing knowledge. De Man's theory of deconstruction, then becomes positive knowledge through transference to the student as subject to master rather than as subject with agency.
The problem with the transference of a critical theory has received much necessary critical examination by the surge of debates and critiques on the viability of radical, critical and democratic pedagogical methods. At the center of these debates are, as noted earlier, the terms "empowerment, " "liberation, " "student-centered, " "democratic discourse, " "critical " and "radical. "
In his book, When Students Have Power (1996), Ira Shor examines the problematics of teaching a G.E. required course on "Utopia " held in the basement of a community college in New York using a pedagogy influenced by Freire and Dewey (xi). Shor explores the problems of "power sharing " or de-centering authority to democratize the discourse in his classroom. Shor argues that what is central to the success of a critical pedagogy involves providing an environment of "democratic discourse. " To accomplish this, the authority of the teacher must be de-centered and power must be shared between student and teacher. Shor, understandably, struggled with putting the Freirian theory of "power-sharing " into action. The primary problem that Shor discovered was that "power is a learning problem and learning is a power problem " (xi). In short, the ideological assumptions surrounding authority and its persuasive potential powerfully informs both teachers and students.
Equally influential and provocative as the terms "student-centered " and "democratic discourse, " are the terms “empowerment,” “enabling,” “liberatory,” and “critical” in relation to recent pedagogical movements. These terms have become powerful invocations of a kind of teaching practice that, in theory, gives students “agency”; that is, such pedagogies would provide students with a “democratic” forum for making critical evaluations of ideology and in making choices about such ideologies without the oppressive influence of the cultural authorities. According to teachers invoking these ideals, the cultural authorities are those teachers who adopt what is known as the “banking system of education,” and who rely on humanism's theory of absolute knowledge that can be systematically taught and easily transferred because the values are assumed to be transparent.
In her article, Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering (1989), Elizabeth Ellsworth critiques "strategies such as student empowerment and dialogue” that “give the illusion of equality while in fact leaving the authoritarian nature of the teacher/student relationship intact " (306). Her concern is that teaching practices central to the literature on critical pedagogy such as 'empowerment,' 'student voice,' 'dialogue,' and even the term 'critical' are “repressive myths that perpetuate relations of domination " and often deny any political agendas ( 298). She contends that in opposition to Freire's clear assertion that all pedagogies are political, they dismiss their own political and historical context and agenda. Instructors, then, need to acknowledge to students their role in designing the course to meet certain theoretical, epistemic, political as well as administrative agendas; they need to be accountable to students for the authority they are sanctioning in the classroom. However, the enactment of a radical, critical pedagogy of empowerment and liberation is impossible without addressing the role of the teacher's authority in the classroom and in society.
Frank McGill illustrates the difference between the student-centered and teacher-centered classroom in his essay Reading the Garden: Excursions into Walden ( 1996), from the MLA Approaches to Teaching Literature series. In his self critical and reflective comments regarding his pedagogy for a literature course covering Thoreau’s Walden, McGill notes that he killed student responses by saying “beans” when his students were saying “weeds” ( 87). In other words, rather than exploring his students “weedy” responses to Walden, McGill corrected and transferred the cultivated, or correct reading of Walden to his students. McGill’s method is what Ellsworth and others define as a teacher-centered approach enacting authoritarian discourse as opposed to democratic or even critical discourse.
The opposite of McGill’s method, then, is one in which the teacher’s educated, or cultivated knowledge of the course’s subject is dismissed in favor of the knowledge that the students bring to the class. There are many valuable critiques of such an approach to teaching. For example, if the teacher’s knowledge is dismissed in favor of the student’s, then how does the teacher handle student knowledge that is misinformed, faulty, biased, or just wrong? Many advocates of a student-centered pedagogy, such as Berlin, suggest that relinquishing authority is a false idea. The teacher’s role is not to be either authoritative or not but to be “de-centered.” Berlin has noted that even Freire neither relinquished the authority to decide how, when and where the class meetings would be conducted, nor the authority to choose the course's subject or discussion topics. What Berlin qualifies as a Freirean student-centered and democratic discourse is one in which both the students’ and the teacher’s ideologies regarding the subject of the course are confronted and debated. In other words, knowledge is not transferred but made in the process of critiquing the ideologies of all members of the class.
As a solution, Berlin suggests addressing the dilemma about democratic discourse. According to Berlin, a democratic, liberatory pedagogy of empowerment engages students in a democratic dialogue in which their experiences and ideas are the focal point and in which the teacher’s authoritative voice is de-centered, or silenced. The teacher’s role, for Berlin, then, is more like a facilitator and monitor of class discussion. Berlin even suggests that the students should be involved in the decisions about course assignments and due dates.
De-centering authority does not mean giving up control over the way class is conducted, the subject that is studied, the design of assignments or the assessment of student work. What is “de-centered” is the teacher’s “authoritative” and situated knowledge of the subject matter discussed and studied in favor of a democratic and critical discourse in which teacher and students share in the production and institutionalization of knowledge. What is debated, then, are epistemological and ideological assumptions of both teacher and students in relation to the course’s subject. Therefore, to “de-center” authority does not mean to relinquish it. Rather, it means to redefine the teacher’s role in any number of ways that are not related to traditional transference methods. For example, less traditional roles such as “archivist,” “convener,” or “facilitator” do not mean that a teacher relinquishes authority. An archivist is in control of the direction that student research and class discussion takes as what the teacher is archivist of relies on her interests, research and educational background. Likewise, a convener is in control of the topic, direction and manner of class discussion and of writing assignments that may develop from such discussions. Finally, the facilitator is in control of the tone, direction and progress of a class discussion by maintaining its momentum.
However, not all English Studies teachers would define a critical pedagogy or a pedagogy of empowerment as one that practices a “democratic discourse” or that is "student-centered. " Patricia Bizzell describes her pedagogy as empowering acculturation. Bizzell's approach provides an interesting interpretation of a “student-centered” and democratic classroom. In her essay, The Teacher’s Authority: Negotiating Difference in the Classroom (1996), Bizzell suggests that Berlin needs to acknowledge and admit his political agenda to his students, insisting that there is no such thing as a politically or ideologically neutral classroom or pedagogy. Even the supposedly liberatory pedagogies such as the “student-centered” or critical pedagogies advocated by educators such as Shor, Berlin and Freire need to be situated in relation to political, ideological and epistemological agendas.
Bizzell defines her role as the “acculturator or persuader” and acknowledges its political and ideological agenda. She argues that her role is to acculturate and persuade students to adopt the agreed upon ideologies and politics of her and her students’ society. She notes, however, that this does not mean that her role is merely to “transfer” the knowledge that matters according to some pre-defined curriculum. Rather, her role is to provide an environment in which such ideologies and values can be confronted and refuted in a democratic debate in which the student’s objections to them are taken seriously. In other words, Bizzell creates an environment in which the students’ ideas and knowledge are valued as much as the teacher’s and her society’s. It is not an environment in which the values and ideologies of a society are transferred to the students, but, rather, an environment in which they are presented to students in order for them to address, confront and, ultimately, critique them – a student-centered environment.
Bizzell's goal is to make students critically aware of their culture and of “civic virtue,” or, as I understand her to mean, make students aware of their responsibility as political agents. She asserts, moreover, that her role as teacher and her authority in the classroom is delegated to her by the students and the citizens who hired her. In Bizzell’s pedagogy, then, students are empowered because they are made aware of their responsibility as political agents in a democracy and provided with the necessary critical skills to make change and produce knowledge.
As demonstrated by the works discussed here, de-centering teacher authority means constructing knowledge rather than transferring positive knowledge. By extension, knowledge becomes flexible and progressive rather than stagnant and fixed. I agree with Bizzell that students and teachers need to be held accountable to their society for the production of knowledge in a classroom. The knowledge that matters, after all, is the knowledge that is relevant to the student's society.
The postmodern paradigm has resulted in fragmented and situated knowledges that have encouraged the development of critical pedagogies of empowerment and liberation that attempt to create student-centered and democratic discourse in the classroom, none of which can be easily described or practiced. However, these pedagogical projects are not simply about teachers discarding or relinquishing authority. Just as the problem of teacher authority is a complex one, so too is the problem of a student-centered environment in which students are held accountable for knowledge production in the classroom. The above discussions of theoretical and practical problems surrounding a critical or radical pedagogy based on the terms "student-centered, " "democratic discourse, " "liberatory, " “empowerment” and "critical, " suggest the debate has not been satisfactorily resolved. Moreover, what kind of empowerment is meant and to what degree a teacher can or does empower as opposed to indoctrinate students needs examination. A classroom environment that is “democratic,” in which a teacher’s authority is “de-centered” may not take into account either the student’s or the society’s ideological perspectives on the roles of teachers and students and how those ideologies inform not only the student’s classroom demeanor but also the teacher’s. More rigorous theorizing about what is meant by terms such as “empowerment,” “liberation,” “democracy” and even “critical” is necessary. Chances are there will be no consensus on these ideals, which will then lead to further examination and debate about the roles of teachers, the purposes of an education and the production of knowledge.
What I propose as a solution to this conflict is a dialogic critical pedagogy that combines social epistemology with discourse theory and critical pedagogy. After all, dialogue is fundamental to understanding and knowing. By providing a forum for examining the perspectives that the many epistemologies and critical theories offer, students are allowed an opportunity not only to critique the perspectives of feminism and formalism, for example, but also to critique their own politically and culturally situated epistemic perspectives. Theory benefits from critically engaging not only resistances to it, but also attempts to make its "methods " of knowledge production normative.
As the work of English Studies education is, primarily, interpretive and rhetorical practices – whether oral or written – classroom discourse must be an active and engaged discursive participation of the students with the teacher, the texts, one another and with theory and epistemology. A classroom dominated by a single theoretical and epistemological perspective, whether postmodernist or classical humanist, is an arena merely for the transference of standardized and institutionalized knowledge and "cultural capital." A traditional classroom dominated by lectures is a forum for the transference of received knowledge. The classroom dominated by shared critical discourse, on the other hand, is an arena for intellectual examinations of the subject, ideology, epistemology and for the creation of a "condition of knowledge" (Felman 1981: 31). Since the theory revolution, many contemporary pedagogues have argued, as Ron Strickland does in his essay, Curriculum Mortis: A Manifesto for Structural Change (1994), that the classroom should be a "discursive arena in which intellectuals can develop a sustained critique of existing social values through which a critical literacy can be produced" (12). A productive learning experience should encourage exploration and critique of what we know and do not yet know for all members of the classroom and a forum for critical discourse.
As postmodern theory has demonstrated, it is imperative that we examine the historical and contemporary social formations that influence the making of a text as well as the reading of it. A pedagogy grounded in social epistemology, discourse theory and critical pedagogy allows for the inclusion and utilization of various theories about culture, history, rhetoric, language, aesthetics and epistemics. Our understanding of history and of our present day society directly influence the way we communicate and interpret utterances. Most important, however, is recognizing the role of language and literature as integral parts of a continuous discourse with present, past and future. By combining cross-temporal and trans-cultural theoretical examinations, and a self- reflective critique with interpretive and rhetorical practices the classroom becomes a place of engaged critical discourse.
Moreover, a dialogic critical pedagogy can work equally well for any course in English Studies. For example, if I proposed a course for an introductory level English Studies course such as a British Literature survey course that provides chronological breadth, yet summary coverage of British literary traditions and conventions, then using a dialogic critical pedagogy allows students to find the trans-temporal and trans-disciplinary connections among the literature, the evolving theories of knowledge, rhetoric, language, aesthetics, ideology and British culture and history. As an engaged discourse not only among author, social event and reader but also with the past, present and future, as explained by Michael Macovski in Dialogue and Literature: Apostrophe, Auditors, and the Collapse of Romantic Discourse (1994),
literary discourse [is] a composite of voices – interactive personae that not only are contained within the literary text but extend beyond it, to other texts, authors, and interpretations. (3-4)
Maintaining a broader focus, then, encourages students to explore the breadth of literary themes, genres, ideologies, and forms peculiar to but also not exclusive to an historical moment and culture. Allowing for a breadth of possible topics, moreover, invites discussion of historically undervalued subjects such as the roles of women and minorities, the development of the civil rights and women's rights movements and literature, and broader discussions of the classical texts poets are alluding to or drawing from in their works, as well as related political and social events and how they are presented or referenced. Texts focusing on the individual, oppression of the working class, women and minorities invite discussions of the influence that theories of the individual, truth and knowledge as well as radicalism, revolutions and wars have on the political and social ideologies of periods and on an author's thematic focus.
Finally, a dialogic critical pedagogy allows for a certain amount of flexibility in choosing topics for a course because the focus is on how texts represent a continuous dialogue about knowledge, rhetoric, ideology, aesthetics and epistemics. A dialogic critical pedagogy, moreover, can be applied to any subject in English Studies or any combination of subjects in the humanities without over-emphasizing any one subject or text in particular but emphasizing, instead, their role in the production of knowledge. This pedagogy, then, is amenable to a variety of related subjects because it focuses on the discourse surrounding a text or subject and not on the text in isolation from the society and culture from which it was produced.
Although a more relativistic pedagogy presents its own problems (namely, what texts should one teach and how to teach them) we should consider the alternative: positivism and absolutism. It is more intellectually productive for educators to affirm their own epistemological positions than to ignore the fact that knowledge is a material product of social practices. However, just as with teaching critical theory and radical pedagogy, the actual practice of a dialogic critical pedagogy can produce additional conflicts if all the theoretical factors are not taken into consideration, but also when students resist engaging in a radical, critical and social epistemic learning position.
In several of my experiences attempting to fulfill this pedagogical project, I have confronted my own misconceptions of what it means not only to practice a social epistemic perspective about knowledge and learning, but also what it means to engage students in and facilitate an analytical and critical discourse that is necessary to the success of this pedagogy. Many of these misconceptions relate to an ideology of education and the student's and teacher's roles and responsibilities that is in a state of conflict between postmodern theory debates about notions of excellence and the traditional literary curriculum, and between teaching practices and knowledge production. These misconceptions have presented me and, I suspect, many other radical pedagogues with significant challenges in achieving dialogic, radical and critical pedagogical projects. My experiences trying to engage students in a democratic critical dialogue have made me rethink and retheorize what it means to dialogue and how various dialogic practices undermine democratic critical dialogue in a classroom. However, I prefer to think of my pedagogy as always in the process of becoming. As Antonio Faundez states: "We shall not have a new education, unless we have an education which is constantly being renewed" (Freire and Faundez 1989: 77).
Berlin , James (1996). Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Refiguring English Studies. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Bizzell, Patricia (1996). The Teacher's Authority: Negotiating Difference in the Classroom. Negotiating Difference: Cultural Case Studies For Composition. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's P.
Eagleton, Terry (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Ellsworth, Elizabeth (1989). Why Doesn't This Feel Empowering?: Working Through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review 59.3: 297- 324.
Felman, Shoshana (1981). Psychoanalysis and Education: Teaching Terminable and Interminable. The Pedagogical Imperative. Yale French Studies No. 63: 21-44.
Freire, Paulo (1985). The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation. Trans. Donaldo Macedo. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
---, and Ira Shor (1987). What is the Dialogical Method of Teaching? Journal of Education 169.3: 11-31.
---, and Antonio Faundez (1989). Learning to Question: A Pedagogy of Liberation. New York : Continuum.
--- (1993). Pedagogy of the City. Trans. Donaldo Macedo. New York: Continuum.
--- (1994). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum.
Graff, Gerald (1995). Literature Against Itself: Literary Ideas in Modern Society. 1979. Chicago : Elephant Paperbacks.
Guillory, John (1993). Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago : U of Chicago P.
McGill, Frank J (1996). Reading the Garden: Excursions into Walden. Approaches to Teaching Thoreau's Walden and Other Works . Ed. Richard J. Schneider. New York: MLA. 84 - 90.
Macovski, Michael (1994). Dialogue and Literature: Apostrophe, Auditors, and the Collapse of Romantic Discourse . New York: Oxford UP.
---, ed. (1997). Dialogue and Critical Discourse: Language, Culture, Critical Theory. New York : Oxford UP.
Richards, I. A. (1924). The Principles of Literary Criticism. New York: HBJ.
--- (1929). Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment. New York: HBJ.
Shor, Ira (1996). When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in a Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: The U of Chicago P.
Strickland, Ronald (1994). Curriculum Mortis: A Manifesto for Structural Change. College Literature 21.1: 1-13.
Spurlin, William, J. (2002). Theorizing Queer Pedagogy in English Studies after the 1990’s. Special Issue: Lesbian and Gay Studies/Queer Pedagogies. College English 65.1: 9-16.
© Radical Pedagogy