CC BY
6Патрик М. Дженлинк
ПОДГОТОВКА УЧИТЕЛЯ В РЕЖИМЕ ОБЩЕГРАЖДАНСКОЙ ПЕДАГОГИКИ: ФОРМИРОВАНИЕ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНЫХ УМЕНИЙ УЧИТЕЛЯ
Ключевые слова: общегражданская педагогика, интеллектуальная деятельность, социальное агентство, учитель, подготовка учителя.
Аннотация: В данной статье автор рассматривает природу общегражданской (публичной) педагогики и вопросы интеллектуальной деятельности учителя. Касаясь деятельности как преподавателей, готовящих учителей, так и работающих учителей, он считает, что общегражданская педагогика должна касаться моральных и политических вопросов, а не только вопросов технологий. Автор говорит о необходимости реализации общегражданского подхода в педагогике, который ориентирован на моральные, политические и эстетические переменные. Автор рассматривает работу учителей как общегражданских интеллектуалов в обществе человеческого многообразия и считает, что подготовка учителя для интеллектуальной деятельности крайне необходима системе образования в демократическом обществе. Далее он приходит к выводу, что преподаватели, учителя и работники культуры для «разрешения своих проблем и демонстрации своих достижений» (Дьюи, 1922) должны обязательно совершенствовать интеллектуальные умения «более чувствительно воспринимать человека, обладать большим чувством предвидения, осознавать сущность самих умений, быть более искренними и открытыми и быть более отзывчивыми» (Дьюи, 1922). Здесь на карту ставится призыв не только связывать общегражданскую педагогику с междисциплинарными, трансформационными, креативными и разноименными отраслями практической деятельности, но и соединять такие виды деятельности с более широкими проектами, направленными на совершенствование культурных, экономических и политических аспектов демократии.
doi: 10.21510/1817-3292-2017-4-36-48
Introduction
Being a teacher in a democratic society isn't easy. Being a teacher in a democratic society is about socially engaged citizenship; citizenship that is defined by and through a public pedagogy1 and practice. Concomitantly, teaching and teacher preparation, in today's society, necessarily require a focus on the challenges of living in a democracy, and simultaneously emphasizes the difficult responsibility that teachers have, particularly in face of partisan politics, threat of global war, and the lull of better times in bygone eras. Being a teacher means learning citizenship, but more importantly, it means practicing citizenship if the public, through its educational system, is to bridge between the promise and the reality of democracy. As Greene (1967) stated, to teach in schools " . . . today is to understand a profoundly human as well as a professional responsibility" (p. 3). This will necessarily require that teachers be clear, without being doctrinaire, about the pedagogical and political projects through which we give meaning to our roles as teachers and the purpose of schooling itself in a democratic society (Giroux, 2003).
The greatest obstacle in the way, as Hannah Arendt (1958) explained, is " . . . thoughtlessness—the heedless recklessness or hopeless confusion or complacent repetition of truths which have become trivial and empty . . ." (p. 5). Decidedly, this has pedagogical implications for the school and society, as did Dewey's warning about a "social pathology" standing in the way of inquiry into social conditions. Society today, as in Dewey's time, " . . . manifests itself in a thousand ways . . . " (Dewey, 1954, p. 170), he wrote, " . . . in querulousness, in impotent drifting, in uneasy snatching at distractions, in idealization of the long established, in a facile optimism assumed as a cloak, in glorification of things 'as they are' . . ." (p. 170).
The importance of understanding teacher preparation as public pedagogy, and teaching as socially engaged citizenship speaks, to democratic, professional practice in schools; to the teacher education programs and public schools as a cultural and social agencies charged with the
1. 1 The notion of pedagogy being argued for here is part of a political project that takes as its beginning point issues of liberation and empowerment. And it rejects the notion of culture as an artifact immobilized in the image of a storehouse. Instead, the pedagogical principles at work here analyze culture as a set of lived experiences and social practices developed within asymmetrical relations of power. In this sense, pedagogy is concerned with rewriting the relationships between theory and practice, which for the teacher reflects a responsibility for understanding the intellectual work of pedagogy as a form of cultural politics. This requires respecting complexity of the relationship between pedagogical theory and the specificity of the sites in which they might be developed, and at the same time understanding the role of teacher in public pedagogy that is concerned with the work of translating democratic ideals into practical reality through teaching and learning (see Giroux, 1992, pp. 3-4, 99).
36
ntnnrOrHHfCHHH MtHPHHA CniUHOPTOCTnHn N 4(71), SOI7
nennrorHtecHHM mchphha cn ujh on to cm Hn n 4(7i), aoir SsSsS&e
responsibility of educating teachers and children, respectively, to become, in turn, socially engaged citizens. Importantly, teaching as socially engaged citizenship exemplifies the responsibility of and the need for a public pedagogy that is concerned, first and foremost, with preparing individuals who understand the challenge of being a democratic citizen, of the challenge of advanced citizenship with the not so subtle reminder that the responsible actions of citizenship, as difficult as they are, are at the very heart of an active and responsive democracy. Nowhere in the free world is the enormity of this responsibility and challenge felt more, than it is felt in a country where democracy is constantly challenged from the outside by competing nations, and unfortunately challenged from within by individuals who have forgotten how, or never had the opportunity, to practice advanced citizenship.
Necessarily, for teacher educators and teacher practitioners alike, public pedagogy must represent a moral and political practice rather than merely a technical procedure. At stake here is the call not only to link public pedagogy to practices that are interdisciplinary, transformative, creative and oppositional, but also to connect such practices to broader projects designed to further cultural, economic, and political democracy; to create a new symmetry and expand the " . . . individual and social dimensions of citizenship rights . . ." (Hall & Held, 1990, p. 179).
John Dewey (1916a), in an article "Nationalizing Education," emphasized that democracy requires continuous and thoughtful attention. Then, as now, Dewey's challenge to schools, is a challenge of entrusting teachers as public intellectuals with the future of our country. How shall we address Dewey's challenge in times of greater centralized control over our lives in and out of classrooms? How shall we address the ideals of democracy as teachers and teacher educators?
A Public Pedagogy for Engaged Social Citizenship
Notably, within the current discourse on education there exists, with few exceptions, an ominous silence regarding the role that both teacher education and public schooling should play in advancing a public pedagogy; advancing teachers' work with respect to ". . . democratic practices, critical citizenship, and the role of the teacher as intellectual" (Giroux & McLaren, 1986, p. 215). Teacher educators, teachers and other cultural workers, in order to " . . . meet their own problems and propose their own improvement . . ." (Dewey, 1922, p. 128) must necessarily develop intellectual habits that are ". . . more sensitively percipient, more informed with foresight, more aware of what they are about, more direct and sincere, more flexibly responsive than those now current" (Dewey, 1922, p. 128). Today's society and its problems will require pedagogical considerations animated by intellectual habits that reach beyond existing boundaries of education and schooling.
Teacher Preparation as Public Pedagogy
Public pedagogy as socially engaged citizenship provides a civic space and form of public outreach to those cultural groups marginalized, oppressed, or otherwise made subaltern to the dominating culture and class. The teacher as public intellectual understands that implicit in the notion of public pedagogy is the imaginative nature of art as a form of "cultural politics and the importance of culture and public pedagogy as a struggle over meaning, identity, and relations of power" (Giroux, 2001, p. 8). As well, the teacher necessarily understands that public pedagogy is concerned with pedagogical struggles that link knowing, imagination, and resistance that, as bell hooks (1991) explains, disrupts "conventional ways of thinking about the imagination and imagin a-tive work, offering fictions that demand careful scrutiny, that resists passive readership" (p. 56). In this sense, public pedagogy is an engaged social citizenship, performative practice that is marked by its attentiveness to "the interconnections and struggles that take place over knowledge, language, spatial relations, and history" (Giroux, 2001, p. 9). As a form of socially engaged citizenship, public pedagogy " . . . articulates knowledge to effects and learning to social change to create the conditions that encourage . . ." (p. 9) democratic participation in society. Translated into
nennrorHtecHHM McynmtA cn ujh on to cm hh n 4(7i), aoir SsSsS&e
the classroom, teachers as public intellectuals understand the viable role that education plays in preparing an active, critical democratic citizenry.
Schools, as agencies of a democratic society, necessarily serve a role of social responsibility to the imperatives of a substantive, vibrant democracy. That is, schools as public spaces in which public pedagogy is enacted are responsible for linking learning and social transformation, providing conditions for students to learn the dispositions and capacities necessary to become democratic citizens. As Giroux (2003) argued, teaching "in this sense becomes performative and highlights considerations of power, politics and ethics fundamental to any form of teacher-student interaction" (p. 11). This means rethinking teaching as a form of intellectual work and ". . . proposes that education is a form of political intervention in the world and is capable of creating opportunities for social transformation" (p. 11).
Pedagogy dimension
The extent to which teacher educators critically examine and can cultivate in students of teaching a conception of "self" as racially, socially, and culturally constructed texts will, in turn, write their pedagogies as a palimpsest of identity. Teacher educators " . . . must consider how our approaches to teacher education can explore "the struggles and rewards of engaging pre-service teachers as they construct and critique their own cultural self-identities" (Mullen, 1999, p. 151). As well, teacher educators must understand that learning one's identity is intertwined with social agency, and that as such agency is " . . . not simply a matter of places, but is more a matter of the spatial relations of places and spaces and the distribution of people within them" (Grossberg, 1996, p. 101). Public pedagogy concerned identity is not about engaging just the positionality of our students of teaching but about the nature of our own identities as teacher educators as they have and are emerging within and between different social, cultural, political, and spatial discourses and practices. Teacher educators who understand the formation of students' identities are ind i-viduals who also understand the formation of their own identities. In this sense, teacher education that is public pedagogy must engage students of teaching, through pedagogy of identity, that critically examines the consequences that dominant discourses and practices have had in the creation of their own lives and the lives of their students.
With respect to cultivating a pedagogy of identity, it is important to understand, as Spodek (1974) has argued: "All teacher education is a form of ideology. Each program is related to the educational ideology held by a particular teacher educator or teacher education institution, even though the relationship may not be made explicit" (p. 9). As such, spatial discourses and practices shape the identity of both teacher educator and student, often in ways not desired. A pedagogy of identity understands that the " . . . embodiment of a teacher identity is an important part of learning to teach" (Alsup, 2006, p. 105).
A public pedagogy concerned identity works to mediate the ideological positioning of identity, and creates discourses within the preparation program and experiences that address the difficulty of developing a professional identity as teacher. Such a pedagogy understands that " . . . even under best of circumstances, even thought it might be uncomfortable for us and such a discussion might mean revealing some of our own perceived weaknesses . . ." it is necessary a part of rewriting the palimpsest of identity (Alsup, 2006, p. 7). Teacher educators must necessarily situate the student of teaching with spatial discourses as a part of the process of developing a professional identity, drawing on a various discursive genres. As Alsup (2006) argued, situating the student of teaching in spatial discourses concerned with the social, cultural, political, pedagogical, and spatial nature of identity, " . . . and then critically analyzing their relationship to one's developing [a pedagogy of identity], is essential to professional identity formation and the making of a good teacher" (Alsup, 2006, p. 7).
nennrorHtecHHM mophmí gr lu h on to cm Hn m 4(7i). aoir ssssss^
The teacher educator concerned with development of a professional identity of teacher, recognizes that a pedagogy of identity requires also creating " . . . curricular experiences that facilitate complex interpretation . . . creating these 'commonplace locations' for interpretation involves a deliberate process of creating intertextual and interpersonal links among texts, readers, situations, and responses to these . . . " (Sumara, 1998, p. 206). Such pedagogy and curriculum, purposed with developing a professional identity, is continuously calling into question the location of identity, asking the question: Where is the essence of self located? At the same time, the merging of pedagogy and curriculum as a spatialization of identity recognizes that one's self, one's identity is somehow circumscribed in one's relation with others within a perceived and contextualized world of significance.
A public pedagogy concerned with teacher identity understands the importance of exploring the fictional as well as the non-fictional world of teaching. At the same time, the interpretive work of a fictional work helps the reader to develop deeper understandings of how identities are always culturally and historically affected. Sartre (1956) has suggested that when in the presence of another person, one experiences himself or herself as viewed from the perspective of the other.
Transformative dimension
Rethinking teaching as from of intellectual work that is concerned with social transformation defines, in a transformative dimension teacher preparation as public pedagogy. This transformative dimension is concerned with transforming society through translating the social issues and problems of the moment into the learning experiences of students. In turn, through this transformative process, the pedagogical is interpreted as political action toward transforming society; educating students to question and critically examine the world as it is; question what is and what ought to be, necessarily learning to differentiate the two as well as how to articulate the possibilities of a different future.
As Giroux (1988) suggested, making the " . . . pedagogical more political means inserting schooling directly into the political sphere by arguing that schooling represents both a struggle to define meaning and a struggle over power relations . . ." p. 127). Through transformative pedagogy, students learn critical reflection and action, " . . . developing a deep and abiding faith in the struggle to overcome economic, political and social injustices, and to further humanize themselves as part of this struggle . . ." (p. 127).
Public pedagogy that is transformative, for both the teacher educator and the teacher practitioner, is concerned with crossing borders; it points to the " . . . need for conditions that allow students to write, speak, and listen in a language in which meaning becomes multi-accentual, dispersed and resists permanent closure . . . a language in which one speaks with rather than exclusively for others . . ." (Giroux, 1991, pp. 510-511). The teacher as intellectual is concerned with teaching and learning that enables the politics of culture to inform the learning of students, engendering in students a sense of social responsibility in transforming current conditions that disadvantage some while benefiting others. Transformative pedagogy is concerned with curricular justice; realizing that necessity for developing practices that acknowledge how issues related to gender, class, race, and sexual orientation are resources for learning and transforming, self, others, and society. Curricular justice denotes that knowledge be organized in relation to the needs of those least advantaged, subaltern groups, then the reality of democracy may be realized (Giroux, 2003).
nennrorHtecHHM mophmí gr ujh on to cm hh n 4(7i), soi7 SsSsS&e
Aesthetic dimension
Public pedagogy, which is concerned with, as Dewey (1916b, 1934) argued, how to educate the whole child, must necessarily include an aesthetic dimension to its pedagogical considerations. This holds equally for both the teacher educator and the teacher practitioner. Aesthetic pedagogy is concerned with imagination. Dewey spoke of imagination as the capacity to look at things as if they could be otherwise. In Art as Experience, Dewey (1934) wrote that it is " . . . a way of seeing and feeling things as they compose an integral whole. It is the large and generous blending of interests at the point where the mind comes in contact with the world . . ." (p. 267). In society today, as in Dewey's time, an aesthetic pedagogy can be seen to correspond with Kearney's (1988) notion that " . . . the ethical imagination requires . . . an 'imaging otherwise' [that] entails, at the socio-political level, an 'acting otherwise, . . . (p. 361).
An aesthetic pedagogy suggests a need for teacher educators and teacher practitioners to redefine curriculum, animating the learning experience with the language of ethics in ways that commit students to a discriminating conception of democratic community in which the relationship between the self and the other can be constituted in practices sustained by historical memories, actualities, and further possibilities of a just and humane society. Such a curriculum is defined by and through aesthetic experiences that involve both teachers and students as " . . . existing beings in pursuit of meanings. They involve us as historical beings born into social reality. They must, therefore, be lived within the contexts of our own self-understanding, within the context of what we have constituted as our world" (Greene, 1978, p. 180). In considering an aesthetic pedagogy, conventional poetics serves to examine and understand the way ideology, 'master narratives', in education, much the same as in literature, are threaded into the social text, in curricular content and in dominant and subordinate voice, advantaged and disadvantaged publics. An aesthetic pedagogy is concerned with an oppositional poetics (Hunt, 1990); poetics that work to mediate 'master narratives', illuminate and interrogate issues of power, and focus on what is ethical, creative, possible, and democratic.
The point of an aesthetic pedagogy is to awaken persons to a sense of presentness, . . . to a critical consciousness of what is ordinarily obscured" (Greene, 1984, p. 133). Without aesthetic experiences, " . . . we are all caught in conventional (often officially defined) constructs in such a fashion that we confuse what we have been taught to see with the necessary and the unalterable . . ." (p. 133). Aesthetic pedagogy helps individuals to realize, much the same as when the character/narrator Tom, in Tennessee Williams' The Glass Menagerie, tells the audience that they are about to see a "memory play," (1962, p. 439), that truth will be masquerading as illusion, those in the audience are being asked to release themselves by means of their imagination. Only as they do so, only as they place in bracket from their minds the routines of the day and memories of other times will they be able to inhabit Williams' unreal world and achieve it as meaningful to themselves. For the student and teacher alike, we need to free our imagination in order to not only participate, but in order to see the truth behind the illusion as well as to discern the illusion cleverly disguised as truth. Teaching that is concerned with aesthetic pedagogy is teaching that is performative practice; "it becomes a site for memory work, a location and critical enactment of the stories that we tell in assuming our roles as oppositional public intellectuals willing to make visible and challenge . . . inequalities and intolerable oppression of the present moment" (Giroux, 2001, p. 16).
nennrorHtecHHM mophmí gr ujh on to cm Hn n 4(7i), aoir SsSsS&e
Cultural invention dimension
Teacher preparation as public pedagogy is concerned with multiculturalism in preparing teachers, which requires that teacher educators, in creating the space for learning to teach, recognize that the multiple realities of teaching diverse populations is socially constructed and identity in turn is constructed within this subjective frame of reality. As Harvey (1989) stated, "Symbolic orderings of space and time provide a framework for experience through which we learn who and what we are in society" (p. 214). Preparing teachers to enter classrooms hallmarked by diversity suggests that, as teachers, we ask, How can we position ourselves as less masters of truth and more as creators of a space in which those directly involved can act and speak on their own behalf? (Lather, 1991). This will require of teacher education a rethinking of learning that creates what Bhabha (1988) called a space of negotiation and translation. More importantly, it requires that we create " . . . space for cultural invention, . . ." recognizing that " . . . the weight of subjectivity which goes with . . ." cultural invention, " . . . is not the same as respecting identities which exist and which are endeavoring to maintain their existence, even if the two registers tend constantly to overlap . . ." (Wieviorka, 1998, p. 907).
Cultural invention as the unfinished work of teacher education stresses the political nature of cultural tensions " . . . by examining how institutions, knowledge, and social relationships are inscribed in power differently" (Giroux, 1991, p. 510), recognizing that teaching that embraces a multicultural and critical pedagogical stance " . . . highlights the ethical by examining how the shifting relationships of knowing, acting, and subjectivity are constructed in spaces and social relationships based on judgments which demand and frame . . ." (p. 510) responses in degrees of definition to the complex nature of teaching students from multiple cultures. That is, teacher education and practice that embodies cultural invention is concerned with undoing invisibility by recognizing "Otherness" as critical, cultural and spatial qualities of teaching and learning to work to create diverse, democratic citizens. Cultural invention addresses the absence of imagination in society, undoing the effacement of that society, or in particular those members of society historically made invisible.
Importantly, teacher education that prepares teachers for the work of creating spaces for cultural invention is also preparing teachers to transform schools into democratic spheres where all students experience learning that is also just and equitable and designed to prepare students as active, critical citizens of society. What is equally important is that teacher education understand that space for learning to teach must also become " . . . inextricably linked to the shifting parameters of place, identity, history and power, . . ." (Giroux, 1991, p. 511) and that learning to teach must also inextricably link teachers to the responsibility of reading and interpreting politically motivated and ideological imprinted agendas for education against such events as shifts in historical patterns of race and ethnicity, and in response how to create space for cultural invention in the classroom that becomes space for cultural invention in society as the student becomes the citizen of society.
Teacher preparation as a public pedagogy for democracy is not about preparing teachers that are passive citizens. It is about providing teachers and students with the capacities and opportunities to be creative, irreverent, and vibrant. Such capacities are essential for creating the conditions necessary for dialogue, respect, and compassion to emerge as the organizing principles necessary for sustaining a democratic society.
nennrorHtecHHM mchphha cn ujh on to cm Hn n 4(7i), soi7 SsSsS&e
Teacher as Intellectual Bricoleur2
Dewey (1916b), in his discussion of teaching that is concerned with democracy, argued the need for an "intellectual thoroughness" (p. 179) in work of education as a function of a democratic society. The notion of teacher as intellectual is instructive in a number of ways. First, it provides a theoretical basis for understanding teachers' work as " . . . a form of intellectual labor, as opposed to defining it in purely instrumental or technical terms . . ." (Giroux, 1988, p. 125). Second, intellectual speaks to the " . . . kinds of ideological and practical conditions necessary for teachers to function as intellectuals . . ." (p. 125). Third, teacher as intellectual moves the foreground the " . . . role teachers play in producing and legitimating various political, economic, and social interests through the pedagogies they endorse and utilize . . ." (p. 125). Fourth, teacher as intellectual brings into specific relief the perspective that teachers have to be " . . . seen in terms of the ideological and political interests that structure the nature of the discourse, classroom social relations, and values that they legitimate in their teaching . . ." (p. 127). In this sense, it is important to view teachers as intellectuals and at the same time contextualize in political and normative terms the concrete social functions that teachers perform. Such work will require much of the teacher, and demand the s/he be an intellectual bricoleur, that is, a person whose pedagogy and practice is guided by intellectual dispositions sensitive to the needs of the students a diverse society.
As intellectual bricoleur, the teacher recognizes the limitations of single-minded approaches to practice, " . . . the strictures of one disciplinary approach, what is missed by traditional practices . . . the historicity of certified modes of knowledge production, the inseparability of know-er and known, and the complexity and heterogeneity of all human experience . . ." (Kincheloe, 2001, p. 681). The intellectual bricoleur works in association with her/his culture and the material practices and artifacts that are available in the culture. The teacher as intellectual uses her/his pedagogy and practices to attend to the time, place, and space of the problems or decisions at hand. As intellectual bricoleur, the teacher is " . . . always already in the material world of values and empirical evidence . . . constituted through the lens that the [intellectual] . . . perspective provides . . ." (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000a, p. 367).
The bricoleur understands that his/her scholarly practices necessarily " . . . bring the world into play . . ." (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000b, p. 1019), and understands that the set of scholarly practices are not neutral, rather the practices and inquiry methods are informed by particular paradigms and ways of seeing the world as well as by the cultural or positional identities one has in relationship to her/his experiences, preparation, and practice. Importantly, the teacher must concurrently " . . . examine the etymology and the critique of what many refer to as the disciplines' arbitrary demarcations for arranging knowledge and structuring . . ." practice (Kincheloe, 2001, p. 684). In applying the notion of bricoleur to understanding the intellectual work of teachers, the teacher as intellectual bricoleur reflects a multiperspectival presence of mind in her/his pedagogy and practice. Such a perspectival presence lends to the multiple dispositions and the intellectual thoroughness (Dewey, 1916b) necessary to the work of teacher as intellectual.
2
The etymology of the term bricoleur is connected with the works of the German sociologist and social theorists George Simmel and, by implication, Baudelaire (Weinstein & Weinstein, 1991). The word bricoleur and its cognate bricolage come from bricole, a corruption of which is the English term brick wall. The root word of bricole means rebound. Bricoleur, as Levi-Strauss (1966) has noted, is "used with references to some extraneous movement" (p. 16), i.e., in physical terms a ball rebounding off a wall, in sociological terms the social interaction in activities, and in psychological terms the interacting and cognitive rebounding of ideas, concepts, and feelings experienced as one individual works in relationship to others.
nennrorHtecHHM mchphha cn ujh on to cm Hn n 4(7i), soi7 SsSsS&e
Teacher as Oppositional Intellectual
Oppositional intellectuals are engaged in work necessary to developing pedagogical principles aimed at encouraging students to learn how to govern rather than be governed, while assuming the role of active and critical citizens in shaping the most basic and fundamental institutional structures of an active and inclusive democracy (Giroux, 2003, pp. 7-8). Teachers' work as oppositional intellectuals is focused, in part, on identifying, and where and when necessary, constructing the link between learning and social transformation, provide the social and intellectual dispositions and conditions necessary for students to learn a wide range of capacities to expand human agency, and carry out oppositional work. Freire (1970) spoke to the work of the opposi-tional intellectual as an individual concerned with learning to govern, learning to be democratic, when he insisted on a pedagogy that
. . . must be forged with, not for, the oppressed (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity. This pedagogy makes oppression and its causes objects of reflection by the oppressed, and from that reflection will come their necessary engagement in the struggle for their liberation and this struggle, this pedagogy will be made and remade. (p. 33)
As oppositional intellectual, the teacher works to effect social justice and equity, opposing the political and cultural conditions that oppress, marginalize, and other disadvantage students and others. Importantly, Freire believed that conscientizagao (p. 90), a means of critical analysis, was necessary3. As oppositional intellectual, critical consciousness is necessary to the work of democratizing the public and addressing injustices and inequities pedagogically. The teacher as oppositional intellectual understands the value in linking learning and social transformation, creating the deepening attitude of awareness in which one acquires the ability to intervene because of one's historical awareness. It is through reflection and historical awareness that reality is unveiled. Teachers necessarily take seriously their work in creating oppositional space for and through their pedagogy. As Bourdieu (1999) argued, " . . . there is no genuine democracy without genuine opposing critical powers . . ." (p. 8). Teacher education must necessarily foster oppositional dispositions necessary to the intellectual work of teachers who are in schools defined by society's issues and problems, where students and teachers are engaged in the struggles of the public.
Teacher as Transformative Intellectual
As transformative intellectuals, teachers are concerned with the issue of teaching and learning linked through pedagogy and practice to the more political goal of educating students to take risks and to struggle within ongoing relations of power in order to offset oppressive conditions that work to define cultural identity and social position. As intellectual, teachers work to transform existing social texts and conditions, translating into reality a political and ethical responsibility to judge, critique, and reject those approaches to domination and control that reinforce a technical and social division of labor that silences and disempowers both teachers and students (Giroux & McLaren, 1986).
In an era of standardization, neo-liberalism, and globalization, a time when education is being redefined through political and non-public agendas, we need teachers, who as transformative intellectuals, work to develop " . . . a discourse that unites the language of critique with the language of possibility, so that social educators recognize that they can make changes . . ." (Giroux, 1988, p. 128). We need a pedagogical discourse that speaks " . . . out against economic,
2. 3 Conscientizagao, as Freire (1970,1985) explains, is the deepening attitude of awareness in which one acquires the ability to intervene because of one's historical awareness. It is through reflection and historical awareness that reality is unveiled. Conscientizagao is a means of critical analysis by which people discover they are "in a situation," a discovery of one's situationality. Only when one has an
understanding one's situationality can commitment begin (Freire, 1985, p. 93).
nennrorHtecHHM mophmí gr ujh on to cm Hn n 4(7i), soi7 SsSsS&e
political and social injustices both within and outside of schools . . ." (p. 128). At the same time, we need teachers who understand the democratic imperatives and pedagogical considerations necessary to creating and sustaining the " . . . conditions that give students the opportunity to become citizens who have the knowledge and courage to struggle in order to make despair unconvincing and hope practical . . ." (p. 128). This will require that teachers use forms of pedagogy that make " . . . knowledge problematic; utilize critical and affirming dialogue; and make the case for struggling for a qualitatively better world for all people . . ." (Giroux, 1988, p. 127).
Teachers as transformative intellectuals must necessarily begin this process in the preparation program, where, working with teacher educators, they develop an understanding of what it means to be an intellectual and what it means to work to transform self, student, and society through teaching and learning. Subsequently, the work continues in the classroom where the teacher works, taking a stance on the social issues and problems relevant to the political struggles that students and teachers experience. Taking a stance makes the teacher accountable to the partiality of her/his ideas and subsequent actions that her/his position suggests. Pedagogically, it offers both the students and teacher a way to 'perform' the dialectic between personal accountability and social responsibility by offering up a topic that will be private for some, and public for others. As an intellectual, the teacher is responsible for recognizing the classroom as a site of struggle in which the transformative intellectual helps organize and connect personal opinions, experiences, and concerns to wider contexts on one hand, while rearticulating the larger contexts back into private concerns on the other. In this sense, the teacher as transformative intellectual, through her/his pedagogy and practice works to create the social space for the student necessary to mediating the silencing effects of standardized curriculum, testing, and pedagogy by opening up the educational sphere to creative struggles, socially responsive pedagogies, and contextually relevant curriculum.
Teacher as Creative Intellectual
The teacher as intellectual recognizes that " . . . traditional conceptions of cognition, equating it with verbal and symbolic conceptualization, are inadequate to describe or explain the varieties of modes in which human knowing occurs and by which human knowing may be represented . . ." (Reimer, 1992, p. 27). As creative intellectual the teacher values the aesthetic dimensions of cognition, recognizes the need for curriculum that is not narrowly defined by standards, but rather a curriculum that works to liberate the mind through arts; fostering an aesthetic cognition. The creative intellectual understands that we need curriculum that is regarded as multiple provinces of meaning, " . . . each one associated with the kinds of experiences available to young people of different ages, with different biographies, and different locations in the social world . . ." (Greene, 1978, p. 173).
It is in the sphere of creativity, that is, a space for cultural, aesthetic, cognitive work, where teachers and students and other cultural workers may imagine alternative possible futures, creative new cultural innovations that embrace diversity and difference. It is here that the teacher as creative intellectual is needed. For the teacher, as Greene (1981) explained, ". . . there is an obligation . . . on the part of all who educate to address themselves, as great artists do, to the freedom of their students," and "to make demands on them to form the pedagogy of their own liberation - and to do so rigorously, passionately, and in good faith . . ." (Greene, 1981, p. 303).
The teacher as creative intellectual, Greene (1995) explained, understands imagination is the cognitive capacity through which one releases oneself from coercions, breaks " . . . with the taken for granted, . . ." sets aside " . . . familiar distinctions and definitions, . . ." gives " . . . credence to alternative realities, . . ." and " . . . refuses merely to comply with existing structures . . ." (p. 3). The creative intellectual also understands that individuals " . . . incapable of thinking imaginatively or of releasing students to encounter works of literature and other forms of art are . . . also unable to communicate to the young what the use of imagination signifies . . ." (Greene, 1995, p.
nennrorHtecHHM mophmí gr ujh on to cm hr n 4(7i), soi7 SsSsS&e
36). For the creative intellectual, imagination is a hallmark of curriculum, guiding the learning experiences and fostering in students level of imaginative possibility necessary to continuing the pursuit of democracy as an unfinished work.
For the teacher as intellectual, creativity work realized as imagination is translated through pedagogy and practice, reaching beyond confining walls, crossing the empty spaces between oneself and those one perceives to be unlike oneself. Imagination, however, should not, as Dewey (1916b) warned, be permitted to run loose so that it merely builds "castles in the air" and lets " . . . them be a substitute for an actual achievement which involves the pains of thought . . ." (1916b, p. 404). The teacher as creative intellectual understands that aesthetic imagination is necessary to creativity; but the social and ethical imagination is concerned for using ideas and aspirations to reorganize the environment or the lived situation.
Social imagination means turning the imagination's capacity from self to community, means inventing visions of what might be in one' deficient society and of " . . . more vibrant ways of being in the world . . ." (p. 5). By awakening students' individual and social imaginations, the creative intellectual promote students' coming together, creating a public space, a democratic community in the making (Greene, 1988, 1995).
Teacher as Public Intellectual
Teachers as public intellectuals are concerned with issues of social justice and equity, working to foster more democratic social practices that transform the space of schools. As public intellectuals, teachers understand that pedagogy in schools must be focused on morally impacting ends. As Giroux (1997) explained,
Whether in schools or in other spheres, public intellectuals must struggle to create the conditions that enable students and others to become cultural producers who can rewrite their own experiences and perceptions by engaging with various texts, ideological positions and theories. (p. 263) As public intellectual, teachers are critically aware, as was Dewey (1916b), how far we are " . . . from realizing the potential efficacy of education as a constructive agency of improving society, from realizing that it represents not only a development of children and youth but also of the future society of which they will be the constituents . . ." (p. 85). As public intellectuals, teachers must necessarily understand the school as cultural and social agency, where the intellectual activity taking place within is inextricably linked to broader social and cultural concerns; that transforming schools is linked to transforming society.
For the teacher as public intellectual, s/he recognizes that the problems of society, of teaching and learning are inescapable, because wherever the teacher is assigned to teach, s/he " . . . is asked to function as a self-conscious, autonomous, and authentic person in a public space where the pressures multiply . . ." (Greene, 1973, p. 290). As an intellectual, the teacher, unlike " . . . an artist or a scholar or a research scientist, . . . cannot withdraw to studio, study, or laboratory and still remain a practitioner . . ." (p. 290). Rather, since the teacher " . . . is involved with students, colleagues, school board members, and parents . . . he cannot work alone . . ." (p. 290). The relational agency that a teacher must infuse her/his work with, demands the teacher's work is public. Consequently, the teacher " . . . cannot avoid the great social structures beyond [his/her] classroom doors. There is always a sense in which [s/he] must mediate between those structures and the young people [s/he] hopes to liberate for reflection and choice . . ." (p. 290).
The teacher as intellectual must work in the public and at the same time work toward the liberation of the public, initiating students " . . . in certain patterns of thinking and acting . . . enable them to recognize and choose among the options presented to them . . . sensitize them to inhumanity, vulgarity, and hypocrisy; [and the teacher] must help them seek equivalents for violence and for war . . ." (Greene, 1973, p. 290). Juxtaposed with this work of the teacher as intellectual is
nennrorHtecHHM McynmtA cn ujh on to cm hh n 4(7i), soi7 SsSsS&e
the work that enables her/his students "to comprehend their society's professed ideas: freedom, equality, regard for the individual" (p. 290). Fundamental to the democratic credo, the teacher as intellectual must work each day and with each generation, distinguishing and dignifying the democratic way of life, ingraining the teaching and learning experience with " . . . conceptions of what ought to be . . ." (p. 290), premised on the norms of democracy, norms defined, as Dewey (1916b) argued, by the people of the democracy. And as democracy is an unfinished work, the norms " . . . must be created anew with each generation, by each person choosing to live a principled or norm-regarding life, if they are to become viable ideas that summon beings to moral action in the world they know . . ." (Greene, 1973, p. 290).
Final Reflections
When democracy is linked to education, it then demands that the central purpose of education be the nurturing and development of a powerful sense of agency and voice among all students in all schools. It is not enough for democratic schools to successfully transmit a static culture to all students, or to give all students the skills needed for successful future employment. Lest we are lulled into a false sense of finishedness, the questions that framed the body of this text must remain ever present in our minds as a public intellectuals, and as educators: How shall we address Dewey's challenge in times of greater centralized control over our lives in and out of clas s-rooms? How shall we address the ideals of democracy as teachers and teacher educators? It is in the constant working toward an answer that the distance between the promise and the reality of democracy may be bridged.
References
Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Bhabha, H. (1988). The commitment to theory. Social Formations, 5, 5-22. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Arts in resistance. New York, NY: New Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000a). Strategies of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 367-378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000b).The future of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1019-1023). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dewey, J. (1916a). Nationalizing education. Originally published in Journal of Education 84, pp. 425-28. Reprinted in John Dewey, The Middle Works, Vol. 10 (pp. 201-210). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916b). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: The Berkley Publishing Group.
Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, 0H: The Swallow Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.
nennrorHtecHHM mchphha cn ujh on to cm Hn m 4(7i). soi7 SsSsS&e
Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.
Giroux, H. (1991). Democracy and the discourse of cultural difference: Towards a politics of border pedagogy. British Journal of Sociology of Education,12(4), 501-519.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2001). Cultural studies as performative practice. Cultural Studies^Critical Methodologies, 1(1), 5-23.
Giroux, H. A. (2003). Public pedagogy and the politics of resistance: Notes on a critical theory of educational struggle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(2), 5-16.
Giroux, H.A., & McLaren, P. (1986). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 213-238.
Greene, M. (1967). Existential encounters for teachers. New York, NY: Random House.
Greene, M. (1973). Teacher as stranger: Educational philosophy for the modern age. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. (1981). The humanities an emancipatory possibility. Journal of Education, 163(4), 287-305. Greene, M. (1984). The art of being present: Education for aesthetic encounters. Journal of Education, 166(2), 123-135.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grossberg, L. (1996). Identity and cultural studies: Is that all there is? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 87-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hall, S., & Held, D. (1990). Citizens and citizenship. In S. Hall & M. Jacques (Eds.), New times: The changing face of politics in the 1990s (pp. 173-188). London, England: Verso.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hooks, B. (1991). Narratives of struggle. In P. Mariani (Ed.), Critical fiction: The politics of imaginative writing (pp. 53-61). Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
Hunt, E. (1990). Notes for an oppositional poetic. In C. Bernstein (Ed.), The politics of poetic form: Poetry and public policy (pp. 197-212). New York, NY: The Seque Foundation.
Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination. Minneapolis, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679-692.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern. New York, NY: Routledge.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mullen, C. A. (1999). Whiteness, cracks, and ink stains: Making cultural identity with Euroamerican pre-service teachers. In C. T. P. Diamond & C. A. Mullen (Eds.), The
nennrorHtecHHM mchphha cn ujh on to cm Hn n 4(7i), soi7 SsSsS&e
postmodern educator: Arts-based inquiries and teacher development (pp. 147-185). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Reimer, B. (1992). What knowledge is of most worth in the arts? In B. Reimer & R. A. Smith (Eds.), The arts, education, and aesthetic knowing. The Ninety-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 20-50). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and nothingness. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Spodek, B. (1974). Teacher education: Of the teacher, by the teacher, for the child. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Sumara, D. J. (1998). Fictionalizing acts: Reading and the making of identity. Theory Into Practice, 37(3), 203-210..
Weinstein, D., & Weinstein, M. A. (1991). George Simmel: sociological flaneur bricoleur. Theory, Culture & Society, 8, 151-168.
Wieviorka, M. (1998). Is multiculturalism the solution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5), 881-910.
Williams, T. (1962). The glass menagerie. In Six great modern plays. New York, NY: Dell Publishing.
