The Lone Wolf and Cub: A Learning Developer’s Nurture of Decolonial Pedagogy in a UK Higher Education Institution. Written by Dr Ryan Arthur,FHEA
First published in 1970, Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima’s Lone Wolf and Cub depicts the perilous journey of a swordsman and his three-year-old son (Pusateri, 2001). Set in the Tokugawa period, Koike and Kojima’s manga offers the reader an apt metaphor for a learning developer’s journey of discovery. This journey seeks to go beyond the slogans and metaphors of the ‘decolonising the curriculum’ movement to understand how these very young and ‘cub-like’ decolonial pedagogies can be deployed by learning developers in British higher education institutes (HEIs). This will involve engaging with the decolonial literature to extract a definition, present a rationale, articulate principles and provide a tangible example. This essay is significant because it seeks to contribute to the minuscule literature base of decolonial pedagogies in British HEIs. More specifically, it offers a critical review of how decolonial pedagogies can be operationalised in the learning development sector.
This study utilises Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima’s gripping story of the Lone Wolf and Cub as a metaphor for an enlightening journey. As Giroux (1988, p.162) cites, ‘We are living out a story. There is no way to live a storyless… life’. This story adopts the funnel approach; it starts very broadly by looking at the parallels between Koike and Kojima’s manga and the subject at hand. This will lead to a focus on the matter of decolonisation; though this study’s focus is on decolonial pedagogies, the broader theme of decolonisation informs and shapes the pedagogies. Moving on, it is crucial that the author distinguishes between decolonial pedagogies from other pedagogies of disruption to give a better understanding of the field. Funnelling down even further, the author seeks to move from pedagogies to pedagogy by specifying an approach. The approach selected was the Critical Inquiry Approach, which prompted the development of six principles that will guide its usage. Also, the focus on the Critical Inquiry Approach required a rationale and an explanation of its deployment in the Learning Development sector, all of which completes a ‘general to specific’ journey of discovery. This study will commence with some parting thoughts about the practical usage of the Critical Inquiry Approach.
First published in 1970, Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima’s Lone Wolf and Cub depicts the perilous journey of a swordsman and his three-year-old son. Set in the Tokugawa period, Koike and Kojima’s manga offers the reader an apt metaphor for not only a learning developer’s journey of discovery but also a metaphor for the nature of decolonisation itself. Koike and Kojima were captivated by the American cinematic western (Pusateri, 2001). Instead of just recreating what captivated them, the Japanese authors sought to repurpose the mythic West for their own mythic purposes (Pusateri, 2001).[1] This repurposing of Western artefacts was not simply a matter of exchange, it was also a critique of those artefacts.
Moreover, parallels between decolonisation and the Lone Wolf and Cub can also be drawn from the violence of both. Lone Wolf, in its effort to establish itself as a ‘counter-myth’, is violent ‘at an unparalleled level of extremity and departure from realism’ (Pusateri, 2001, p. 88). Likewise, decolonial projects are violent, as Sefa Dei and Simmons (2010, p. XVIII) stated in the Pedagogy of Fanon, ‘Decolonisation is violent and is a creative urgent necessity. Such violence has a cleansing force to rinse the oppressor detoxify the oppressed, and make both the oppressor and oppressed human again’. However, it must noted that it is ‘not the violence of billy clubs, bullets, or bombs but the violence of ripping a plant out of the ground, roots and all, the violence of plowing the earth to make it receptive to new seeds (Fujino et al., 2018 p. 71). Lastly, Lone Wolf is a difficult read, there are many problematic themes and unsavoury sections. Correspondingly, decolonial projects do not hold any illusions of universal and utopian ideals, ‘it is a paradigm that harbors an element of unpredictability and uncertainty’ (Mendieta, 2003, p. 159). Smith (1999, p. 186) pointed to the ‘real-life ‘dirtiness’ of political projects, or what Fanon and other anti-colonial writers would regard as the violence entailed in struggles for freedom’.
The broader notion of decolonisation rests on the assumption that British Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are sites where the transmission and production of knowledge are wholly embedded in Eurocentric epistemologies that are ‘presented’ as objective and universal (Cupples and Grosfoguel, 2018; Domínguez, 2019). It is argued that the fetishisation of Eurocentric ways of thinking, knowing and researching has prevented ‘a broader recognition and appreciation’ of an epistemic, ontological and cultural plurality (Domínguez, 2019. p. 49). This has been referred to as the ‘hubris of the zero point’ which renders alternative epistemologies as subaltern (Castro-Gómez, 2020; Domínguez, 2019).
In a direct challenge to the ‘zero point’, decolonial projects seek to deconstruct dominant Eurocentric forms of intellectual production and transmission whilst promote the pluralisation of the knowledge field (Zembylas, 2018; Mignolo, 2007; Domínguez, 2019). Such projects have a long history; (Mignolo and Escobar, 2013, p116) notes, ‘Decolonisation is an idea that is probably as old as colonisation itself. But it only becomes a project in the twentieth century’ (Mignolo, 2007; Stanek, 2019).
It is worth briefly discussing the emergence of the project or what is also referred to as the ‘decolonial turn’, given that it birthed and continues to shape manifestations of decolonial pedagogies (Jansen, 2019). Moreover, we can view the almost ‘funnel’ form of the decolonial discourse that started very broad; with each phase, finetuning itself to address specific issues of the HE sector. Beginning broadly, the decolonial discourse began with the ‘decolonial turn’ which represented the shift from the acceptance of inferiority to the assumption of the position of a questioner; ‘It is a position that entails not only a scepticism of the a priori superiority of Europe but also radical doubt about the lack of the full humanity of the colonised’ (Maldonado-Torres, 2017). This position was largely established with Dubois’ question in 1903; How does it feel to be a problem (Du Bois, 1999; Gordon, 2000)? More specific answers to this question were forthcoming in the landmark texts of the mid-twentieth century; Aimé Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism, Albert Memmi’s Colonizer and the Colonized and Frantz Fanon’s the Wretched of the Earth. Amid the physical presence of colonial forces, these texts depicted the devasting effects of colonisation. However, decolonial projects did not cease with the withdrawal of colonial troops, in fact, ‘postcolonial’ scholarship penetrated deeper to reveal the cultural effects of colonisation; Edward Said’s Orientalism, Homi Bhaba’s Location of Culture and Gaytri Spivak’s celebrated essay Can the Subaltern Speak. Delving further, Latin American scholarship, Santiago Castro-Gomez (2020), Anibal Quijano (2000), Nelson Maldonado-Torres (2007) and Walter Mignolo (2013), moved us closer to issues around the decolonisation of epistemologies and ontologies; through their notions of ‘coloniality’ and ‘decoloniality’, our attention was drawn to the way in which knowledge is categorised, produced, controlled, legitimised and delegitimised. Finally, the last phase that took us directly to the door of university curricula was initiated by South African scholarship (Jansen, 1998; Mamdani,1998; Mbembe, 2001). With the end of the oppressive and racist apartheid system, South African scholars observed curricula, which remained mostly Eurocentric and reinforced white and Western dominance and privilege (le Grange, 2016; Heleta, 2016; Jansen, 2019). At the time of writing, the bulk of scholarship emanates from and is influenced by the Rainbow Nation.
The use of the above texts to inform decolonial pedagogies is promising for several reasons. First, the texts overwhelmingly emanate from the Global South, ensuring that the ‘fuel’ of decolonial pedagogies influences the ‘direction’ of decolonial pedagogies. As we shall discuss later, this cannot be said about other ‘pedagogies of disruption’ (Zembylas, 2018). What is also remarkable is that these texts are ‘talking’ to each other, each discussion building on the last and seeking to find a way to repurpose each other’s ideas. Second, the broad range of literature that shapes decolonial pedagogies offer unique perspectives that differentiates decolonial pedagogies from other pedagogies. Their uniqueness may enable us to address the broad range of challenges facing HEIs (UUK and NUS, 2019; Thomas, 2001). Domínguez reminds us that, ‘These are challenging times’ which require us to be ‘innovative’ to improve the quality of teaching and learning (Domínguez, 2019, p.48). Third, the ethos of the decolonial literature counteracts the deficit model assigned to students who are not from ‘traditional’ backgrounds and fail to meet the ‘success’ criteria (Nyoni, 2019; Dirth and Adams, 2019; Thomas, 2001; Hockings, 2010; Bamber and Tett, 2008; Bamber, 2008); instead, there is a recognition of the value and viability of diverse experiences. Moreover, it relocates pathology from inside individuals to the cultural and institutional context (Dirth and Adams, 2019). Fourth, these texts engaged and benefited from the European canon. However, they reformulated and extended paradigms so that they could apply it to their concrete, lived experiences (Bulhan, 1995).
Distinguishing the Field of Decolonial Pedagogies
From the 2010s, there appears to be a body of literature that was concerned with the ‘ease’ in which the language of decolonisation had been ‘superficially appropriated’ into education and other social sciences (Tuck and Yang, 2012, p.2; Jansen, 2019; Zembylas, 2018). Examples range from Sweeting’s cautious approach of using of Radical Constructivism to decolonise epistemologies (Sweeting, 2018); Baron’s ‘gumbo mix’ of various pedagogies (Baron, 2018); Richardson’s critique of Margonis’ use of Rousseau and Heidegger to develop his ontological attitude towards decolonial projects (Richardson, 2012); Monzo and critical pedagogue Mclaren’s efforts to unite decoloniality and Marxism, ‘decolonial Marxism’, arguably produced ‘Marxism-lite’ (Monzo and McLaren, 2014).
Thus, scholars have worked diligently to maintain the ‘purity’ of the decolonial discourse (Jansen, 2019). Out of this diligence, scholars sought to distinguish decolonial pedagogies from critical pedagogy. Considering that the latter is arguably the most prolific umbrella counter-tradition used in HE, it is not difficult to see why scholars have sought to place decolonial pedagogies under the critical pedagogy umbrella. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile exploring this ‘push back’ to not only give us a better understanding of the field of decolonial pedagogies but also to direct us towards key principles that distinguish decolonial pedagogies from other pedagogies.[2]
Broadly speaking, critical pedagogy, as popularised by Freire, is the cultivation of critical consciousness through the application of critical theory to the field of education. From the outset, we can identify some semblance of a non-alignment between critical pedagogy and decolonial scholarship; Freire’s central text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was seen as a response to Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth (Tuck and Yang, 2012; Walsh, 2015; Jain and Meyer, 2018). By response, it was less of a refutation, more of a refinement. Freire’s ‘timid’ referencing of Fanon understates the immense influence that Fanon had on Freire (Taylor, 1993; Jain and Meyer, 2018; Caribbean Philosophical Association, 2011). Taylor mentions that significant aspects of Freire’s pedagogy were appropriated from Fanon (Taylor, 1993; Jain and Meyer, 2018; Caribbean Philosophical Association, 2011).
Nonetheless, the non-alignment between critical pedagogy and decolonial pedagogies is observed in three contested issues. First, Freire and his critical allies situate most of the work of liberation in the minds of the oppressed whereas decolonial projects position the work of liberation in the structures of colonisation (Zembylas, 2018; Tuck and Yang, 2012; Batacharya and Wong, 2018) Tuck and Yang (2012, p. 19) argue that the less controversial mental activity of ‘conscientization’ had subsumed the more uncomfortable task of ‘disruptive’ decolonial events; ‘the experience of teaching and learning to be critical of… colonialism can be so powerful it can feel like it is indeed making change’ (emphasis added).[3]
Second, the Eurocentricity of critical pedagogy has troubled many decolonial educators (Deutscher, and Lafont, 2017, p202). Though critical pedagogy is a ‘counter-tradition’ it is still a tradition reflecting European dispositions (Luke and Gore, 1992; Ellsworth, 1989; Zembylas, 2018). In contrast, decolonial literature either ‘edits’ European epistemologies and ontologies to reflect the lived experiences of the people under the yoke of colonialism or it draws from its own well (Bulhan, 1995; Richardson, 2012). This is not necessarily the case with critical pedagogies; this was best explained by Catherine Walsh, who discarded critical pedagogies in favour of decolonial pedagogies, ‘Still, critical pedagogy in its theoretical formulations thought and paradigmatic assumptions, a Western, anthropocentric, and largely Marxist-informed endeavour’ (Walsh, 2015, p13). Similarly, Margonis (2003, p145) noted that despite Freire’s intention to overthrow the colonial heritage, he essentially prescribed the ‘teaching of Eurocentric perspectives’. Also, Allen questions whether the focus on European thinkers to critique Eurocentrism reifies the very concept that they claim to be criticising; ‘Mining the insights of European thinkers’ leads us to a kind of decolonisation from within, when what is needed is a more radical decolonisation from without’ (emphasis added) (Deutscher, and Lafont, 2017, p202). Simply put, ‘The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house’ (Lorde, 1984, p.112).[4]
Critical pedagogy’s ‘white gaze’ has created distance from women and people of colour; many were ‘leery… of its blindness to coloniality as modernity’s underside’ (Walsh, 2015, p14). It has been noted that ‘pedagogies, postures and views —often regarded as deriving from Freirean approaches’—have worked to obscure and negate the methodological standpoints, practices, processes and approaches of feminists, theorists of colour and indigenous peoples’ (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 305; Smith, 1999; Yoon, 2005; Walsh, 2015).[5]
The third issue is that critical pedagogies’ categorising approach is problematic for decolonial scholarship. Jansen (2009), an authority on decolonisation but not a friend, puts forward an intriguing observation about critical pedagogies, that sharply differs from decolonial pedagogies; the former receive and construct the world as divided; black/white, oppressors/oppressed, master/slave, and power/freedom and ‘then take sides’ to free the oppressed. In doing so, critical educators irresponsibly see themselves as ‘floating’ above the moral, ideological, and political messiness of real classrooms – ‘encasing itself in a language of certainty, abstraction and universalism’ (Jansen, 2009).[6]
No such claim is made in decolonial scholarship; instead, acknowledging and embracing one’s positionality is crucial. The ‘suicides’ demanded by critical pedagogy are regarded as simplistic and unrealistic; Ellsworth (1989) is deeply suspicious that relatively privileged educators’ cannot unproblematically enter solidarity with students of different ethnicities or gender orientations than themselves’; ‘I as a professor could never know about the experiences, oppressions, and understandings of other participants in the class. A recognition, contrary to all Western ways of knowing… that there are fundamental things each of us cannot know’ (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 153).[7]
All three of these issues are attempts to place some distance between critical and decolonial pedagogies. However, these issues have not been embraced by all parties; at a feedback session, an attendee regarded these issues as ‘strawman arguments’. The attendee was not alone in his observation; he was pre-empted by Giroux, who retorted to Ellsworth and others that they ‘succumbed to the familiar academic strategy of dismissing others through the use of strawman tactics and excessive simplifications’ (Giroux and Robbins, 2016). Problematically, in the same section, Giroux continues to critique Ellsworth’s character, of which the author has no desire to reiterate (Giroux and Robbins, 2016).
The repudiation of ‘strawman tactics and excessive simplifications’ seem to be based on the assumption that critical pedagogy has evolved; its evolution was achieved through its ‘serious integration’ and welcoming of post-structural and feminist theories of identity, power, subjectivity and culture, neo - Marxist articulations, critical race theories and postcolonial theories (McLaren and Kincheloe, 2007). However, such an eclectic integration prompts several questions; does the continuous incorporation of ideas and critique take away from the initial pedagogy? How should we regard the initial conception, if it has been constantly ‘eaten away’ by waves of critique? Similarly, Mignolo (2011, p.11) asks: ‘What should critical theory aim to be when the damnés de la terre are brought into the picture? Azumah interprets this to mean, ‘to incorporate race, gender and nature into the conceptual and political frame of critical theory would require its substantive transformation’ (Bhambra, Gebrial, and Nişancıoğlu, 2018, p.307). Moreover, it doesn’t seem that feminist and decolonial scholarship have been notified that their concerns with critical pedagogy have been adequately addressed (Darder, 2003, p. 16 – 20; Batacharya and Wong, 2018).
Perhaps there has been some degree of simplification and strawman construction. The practice of critical pedagogy is too varied; critical pedagogues have continuously observed that they have seen a wide variety of pleasing and displeasing practices in the classroom (Darder, 2003; Giroux, 1988; Giroux and Robbins, 2016). Thus, the critique against critical pedagogy may have succumbed to the Weberian notion of the ‘ideal type’ in order to conceptualise certain characteristics of critical pedagogy. Also, the simplification may be due the possibility that much was ‘lost in translation’; Darda (2003, p. 17) opened his Critical Pedagogy Reader with the admission that the often convoluted, dense and Frankfurtesque’ language’ of critical pedagogy has been a ‘serious point of contention’ in which critical pedagogues have been asked to ‘rethink the direction of the work and reconsider alternatives and approaches to the articulation of theoretical concerns’.
Taking a step back from the debate, the author observes that there is considerable agreement between pedagogies; the chief difference seems to be one of intensity. This can be traced back to Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth in which the former was charged with ‘swerving safely around it’ (Morgan, p159). This is seen in several themes, for example, though they both advocate that ‘decolonising the mind’ or the ‘cultivation of critical consciousness’ is a crucial first step to lead to tangible action, decolonial pedagogies are typified by direct action (Tuck and Yang, 2012). Anecdotally, many of us came to know about decolonisation through the various passionate student campaigns, whereas, our first encounters with critical pedagogy may have been in more banal and erudite situations (Pillay, 2016; Begum and Saini, 2018). Also, both pedagogies appreciated that engagement with the Eurocentric canon is problematic. However, decolonial pedagogies are distinguished by their attempts to subvert the canon and look for alternatives, whilst the reference list of the leading critical pedagogues reveal their moderation (Ellsworth, 1989; Smith, 1999; Yoon, 2005; Walsh, 2015).
The lack of intensity of critical pedagogy is often attributed to the overwhelming ‘white maleness’ and the ‘link to Marxist analysis and classical European philosophical roots’, which moderated pedagogues to ‘explicitly treat questions of subordinate cultures from the specific location of racialised population themselves’ (Darda, 2003, p. 17). Broadly, this observation was manifested in Freire’s last two publications (Walsh, 2015; Caribbean Philosophical Association, 2011). In his later years, Walsh accompanied Freire to the US in which his ‘whiteness’ was brought face to face with US racial politics to the extent that his ‘class-based focus seemed somehow out of place’ (Walsh, 2015; Caribbean Philosophical Association, 2011). Spurred by his meetings with racialised groups, Freire engaged much more with Fanon in his later years which lead him to intensify the link between ‘decolonisation and (re) humanisation’ (Walsh, 2015; Caribbean Philosophical Association, 2011). Allowing Fanon (1961, p. 6) to have the last words on the debate between decolonial and critical pedagogies, he succinctly states, ‘Challenging the colonial world is not a rational confrontation of viewpoints. It is not a discourse on the universal, but the impassioned claim by the colonised that their world is fundamentally different’.
From Decolonial Pedagogies to Decolonial Pedagogy
Moving on from the broad view of decolonial scholarship, this section will select the most appropriate decolonial pedagogical approach to implement in British HEIs. There are at least six different approaches (Jansen, 2017; Ammon, 2017); as these conceptions are discussed, it is essential not to read them too rigidly, there is significant overlap. Out of these six approaches identified in the literature, there are three approaches that are not entirely relevant to British higher education context as they relate to indigenous knowledge and practices (Jansen, 2017; Ammon, 2017). Such a small number of approaches are due to the context-specific nature of the decolonial discourse. The discourse is unified by the notion that no approach provides ‘an eternal philosophical foundation or universal and neutral knowledge transcendent of historical horizons, cultural conditions and social struggles’ (Rabaka, 2010, p. 20).
The first of three is referred to as the ‘additive-inclusive approach’ (Jansen, 2017; Ammon, 2017). This approach asserts that the current Eurocentric cannons are valuable but insists that new knowledge should be recognised and added to the settled curricula. However, this approach remains problematic because it can be considered ‘window dressing’ in the sense that conventional authors and concepts are left as the canon, ‘undisturbed in many ways, and all non-canonical theory occupies a secondary place in the imaginations of both students and instructors’ (Philipose, 2007). Similarly, Dominguez (2019, p. 51; Paris and Alim, 2017) points out that inclusion of alternative voices is ‘often peripheral, positioning multicultural content as outright appropriation, or merely stepping-stones towards the ‘real’ content of the western canon’.
The second approach is assimilationist; that is, it doesn’t seek to separate knowledge into neat binaries like ‘us’ and ‘them’; ‘the Global South’ and ‘the Global North’; European and Non–European. Instead, it views ‘our knowledges, in likeness to our human existences, as intertwined’ (Jansen, 2017; Ammon, 2017). Implementing this approach can be construed as a disservice to learners. Muddling intellectual traditions together may make it difficult for traditions to be treated with their proper respect and consideration of their particularities, whether European or non–European (Jansen, 2019). Building on this point, feminist Philipose (2007) argued why it is essential that we dedicate time to engage with each tradition; ‘Without comprehending the ideas that shape us in our political locations, we are without the necessary language to challenge and disrupt the continued institutionalisation of traditional concepts and ideals’.
This leads us to the critical inquiry approach (Jansen, 2017; Ammon, 2017); this concept advocates the empowerment of students to engage with canonical knowledges by critical questioning; where did this knowledge come from? In whose interest does this knowledge serve? What does it include and leave out? Whose lived experiences is this depicting? How can I utilise this knowledge to understand and map my lived experience? This approach was selected because each tradition is given ‘earthly’ attention, compelling students to confront ‘uncomfortable’ issues about the development and implications of Eurocentric traditions. Moreover, students play a lead role in creating new knowledge as they interrogate traditional canons aided by voices of dissent (Jansen, 2017; Ammon, 2017).
Principles of Critical Inquiry Approach
This section will formulate six core principles that will guide the practice of the Critical Inquiry Approach. Singh (2015, p. 379) explains the importance of this formulation,
All pedagogic discourses promote certain rules or principles of power with which they select and organise knowledge for pedagogic purposes. Even the most ‘noble’ pedagogic discourses aim at shaping communication and controlling pedagogic relations according to certain principles, so there is always an element of regulation or control in what is selected as valid knowledge.
These principles came out of a review of the decolonial literature that had a specific focus on teaching and learning. The author extracted the main themes from a largely empirical literature base of which there was minimal disagreement.
1. Positionality: The appreciation and articulation of the social and political context that creates our identities (Schmidt, 2019; Ellsworth, 1989; Sefa Dei and Simmons, 2010; Harvey and Russell-Mundine; 2019; Tuck and Yang, 2012; Begum and Saini, 2018; Donelson, 2018).
2. Explicit Purpose: The learning experience should be based on consent and intent in order to honour the diversity of lived experiences of the student body (Nyoni, 2019; Begum and Saini, 2018; Jansen, 2019; Donelson, 2018)
3. Dialogical: Holding a dialogue and developing ‘meaning-making’ from shared experiences and readings. (Schmidt, 2019; Jansen, 2019; Walsh, 2015; Boonzaier and van Niekerk, 2019)
4. Concern of the psychosocial wellbeing: Decolonial projects should be imbued with empathy and respect to uplift students. (Domínguez, 2019; Jansen, 2019; Bhambra, Gebrial, and Nişancıoğlu, 2018)
5. Theorising one’s lived experience: Building theory is central to the decolonial project, rather than just rely on critique, it is imperative that something is put forward that reflects the lived experiences of students (Schmidt, 2019; Bhambra, Gebrial, and Nişancıoğlu, 2018; Jansen, 2019; Donelson, 2018).
6. Interrogation of the taught programme: A decolonising approach is one that confronts ‘traditional claims of the educational system’s neutrality, objectivity, and colorblindness’ (Jansen, 2019; Zembylas, M. 2018b; Harvey and Russell-Mundine; 2019; Decolonising SOAS Working Group, 2018; Moncrieffe, Asare, Dunford, 2019)
As these principles came together, the social constructivist approach offered the appropriate ‘housing’. Such housing appears to foster ‘the active role played by the learner as he or she acquires new concepts and procedures’ (Lester, Stone and Stelling, 1999, p. 2). Commonly, deployed as an engine for self-efficacy[8], this teaching approach supports the Critical Inquiry Approach by placing an emphasis on students to derive their own solutions to problems, interactively with the facilitator and peers, instead of just accepting information as a ‘passive participant’ (De Wet, 2017; Lester, Stone and Stelling, 1999). Arguably, for such reasons, the social constructivist approach appears to be the most prevalent within the decolonial discourse (De Wet, 2017; Howard-Wagner, Kutay and Riley, 2012; Stewart, 2009). However, the author remains cautious when invoking this European tradition, Sweeting (2018, p.326 - 327) also trod carefully, ‘There is reason to proceed cautiously, especially given that radical constructivism is itself located within Western thought, albeit as a form of counter-tradition’. He went on further to provide some advice of which the author has taken heed; the engagement with social constructivism ‘must not be treated as ends in themselves but as ways to open up further questions’ (Sweeting, 2018, p.326 – 327). In order to enable students to become ‘social constructivist’ learners, it is essential to consider the author’s current sector.
Employing the Critical Inquiry Approach in the Learning Development Sector
With the selection of the Critical Inquiry Approach selected, it’s important to reify this conversation by looking at its potential use in my current role at London Metropolitan University (LMU). The work I do at LMU is described as ‘learning development’ (LD); coined in the 1990s, LD was defined as ‘a field of practice concerned with how students learn and how they make sense of academic conventions’ (Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 2020; Hartley et al., 2011; Hilsdon, 2018)
The LD literature has yet to engage with the decolonial literature. The absence is curious given its student-focused ethos and that much of the HE’s ‘supporting cast’ have attempted to grapple with decolonial concepts (Crilly, 2019; Pimblott, 2020). With the decolonial agenda gathering pace, neutrality is becoming less of an option, particularly given the LD’s problematic practice of the improvement of ‘study skills’ and ‘academic socialisation’ (Lea, 2016; Lea 2006; Lea, 1998). First, ‘study skills’ represents the transmission a set of atomised skills that students must learn to ‘fix’ problems with student learning, that is often treated as a pathology (Lea, 2016). Second, ‘academic socialisation’ is the unquestioning induction of students into a new ‘culture’ of the academy (Lea, 2016). Both practices may entail getting working-class students of color to speak and write more like middle-class White ones (Paris, and Alim, 2014). Also, Dominguez (2019) sees this as the ‘core of coloniality’ in which the essence of teaching is stripped down to transmitting mimicry.
Tackling our complicity in the colonisation process is not the only reason to connect LD with decolonial pedagogies or more specifically, the Critical Inquiry Approach. There is already a significant literature base in LD that could be built upon and enhanced with the decolonial literature. The Critical Inquiry Approach complements the ‘academic literacies’ approach (Lea, 2016; Lea 2006; Lea, 1998). An academic literacies approach foregrounds the institutional nature of what’ counts’ as knowledge by looking through the prism of meaning-making, identity, power and authority (Lea, 2016; Lea 2006) Such an approach invites students to read between the lines; instead of focusing on what disciplines ‘are’, and teaching mimicry to students, there is an insistence on paying close attention to uncovering what disciplines actually ‘do’ and how they shape student’s thinking and the academy’s production of knowledge (Lillis, Harrington, Lea, and Mitchell, 2016; Lea, 2016; Lea 2006).
There are comforting signs within the academic literacies approach that would welcome a much closer union with decolonial pedagogies. The academic literacies draw a significant amount of its substance from South African scholarship, the current incubator of decolonial pedagogies. Though the former may not specifically mention the latter, the pervasiveness of the decolonial project has seemingly permeated their work (Jacobs, 2013; Duckworth, and Ade-Ojo, 2015; Coleman, 2012). Second, academic literacies maintain a similar ‘plasticity’ to decolonial pedagogies, in fact, the architects of the former explicitly encourage the expansion of the ‘lens’ to explore new developments in HE (Lea, 2016).
Another positive sign that the Critical Inquiry Approach is at home in LD is that LD is often practised between the ‘cracks’ of HEIs. Though there has long been a move to embed LD into the core curriculum, a significant proportion of LD takes place the ‘cracks’ between student’s classroom time and student’s free time. These ‘cracks’, lunchtime workshops, inductions, enrichment and transitional events, offer meaningful spaces for meaningful engagement in which decolonial pedagogies can be implemented. As Walsh (2015) contended, ‘The cracks become the place and space from which action, militancy, resistance, insurgence, transgression and/as pedagogization are advanced, alliances are built and the otherwise is invented, created and constructed’. As attendance is voluntary, these spaces are not constrained by rigid assessment criteria or mapped to an evaluative framework. Correspondingly, Le Grange argues that the voluntary space is fitting for decolonial projects because ‘decolonisation is not something that should be imposed because then it would be driven by negative power of potestas’. If it imposed, it is ‘in all likelihood itself become colonising’ (Jansen, 2019, p.42).
The Critical Inquiry Approach is best suited for adults entering higher education. This is because Mezirow saw that children’s learning is socialisation; adults, on the other hand, need to acquire ‘new meaning perspectives’ (Jarvis, Holford, and Griffin, 2003). Though the rigidity of his categorisation is rather sharp, broadly, it is in ‘adulthood that we develop a more critical worldview as we seek ways to better understand our world’ (Taylor, 2008, p. 5).
More specifically, the Decolonising SOAS Working Group (2018) focuses on the rationale of enhancing institutional practice. While Le Grange (Jansen, 2019) centred on the rationale to ‘affect’ the student body. Regarding institutional practice, the Working Group (2008, p. 1) saw it as a means to be ‘responsive to the problems of colonial and racialised privilege and discrimination’. Directing attention to the ‘student experience’, Le grange noted that the university is the optimum site to dispel the illusion that Eurocentric knowledge is universal. Students often enter university believing that their disciplines are transparent, ‘untouched by the geo-political configuration of the world’ (Castro-Gomez, 2005) Thus, it is vital for students to engage with the notion that knowledge is rarely neutral; opening up a discourse about who produces knowledge, what type of knowledge is produced and valued, the context it is produced in and what knowledge is left out is crucial to contest the neutrality of the canons that students encounter (Jansen, 2019). Through this approach, a psychosocial transformation occurs, which allows students to gain a ‘critical’ feel for the game (Jansen, 2019; Mignolo, 2009; Quijano, 2000; Castro-Gomez, 2005).
Following Le grange (Jansen, 2019) who ended his chapter with a section titled 'some parting thoughts in lieu of a conclusion', the author does not 'really wish to conclude and sum up, rounding off the arguments so as to dump it in a nutshell for the reader'. Following suit, the author would like to leave the reading with some parting thoughts about the obstacles of employing Critical Inquiry Analysis. First, there appears to be only two critiques of decolonial pedagogies (Jansen, 2019; Vickers, 2019). Both of which are very mild, in order for decolonial pedagogies to refine themselves and become more robust, they need more sustained and sterner opposition, as Christian (1987, p. 63) noted, ‘Writing disappears unless there is a response to it’. Second, the Critical Inquiry Analysis should be harnessed by individuals that work within LD, it cannot be left to teaching staff alone who face ‘a painful and frustrating increase in the bureaucratization’ of their work and ‘neoliberal policy pressures that undermine and undercut’ their role, both of which have produced ‘compliance officers’ (Mirra, and Morrell, 2011; Begum and Saini, 2018; Li and Hu, 2016; Rust, Price, and O'Donovan 2003). This not to say that individuals that work within LD are without similar pressures (Hilsdon, 2018; Hartley et al., 2011). However, unlike teaching staff, our role is imbued with a specific focus on how students learn and how they make sense of academic conventions; this provides slightly more scope to hold sessions that do not necessarily conform to a rigid set of assessment criteria (Hilsdon, 2018). Third, employing this pedagogy runs the risk of a ‘violent’ backlash from members of staff, interrogating the canon and by extension ‘whiteness’ is a ‘violent’ activity, which in turn prompts ‘violence’ even within so-called progressive teaching circles (Mignolo, 2009). There is a deep almost spiritual connection to the canon; there are many individuals within the Academy that work within the spirit of Bloom’s words ‘Without the canon, we cease to think’ (Pine, 2014, p.70 - 72). Any interrogation of such sacred objects will not go unnoticed or unpunished. I have experienced this violence by just discussing the possibility of Critical Inquiry Analysis. Thus, I ask myself, is it worth it?
Abdi, A (ed) (2012) Decolonizing Philosophies of Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Albrecht-Crane, C. (2005)' Pedagogy as friendship', Cultural Studies, 19(4), pp. 491-514.
Ammon, L. (2019) Decolonising the University Curriculum in South Africa A Case Study of the University of the Free State. MA Thesis. Linnaeus University.
Albert Bandura (ed) (1995), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bamber, J. (2008) 'Foregrounding curriculum: ditching deficit models of non-traditional students' European Society for Research on the Education of Adults (ESREA) Access, Learning Careers and Identities Network Conference, 10 -12 December 2008, University of Seville, Spain
Bamber, J. and Tett, L. (2001) 'Ensuring integrative learning experiences for non-traditional students in higher education'. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 3(1) pp. 8-16
Baron, P. (2018) 'Heterarchical reflexive conversational teaching and learning as a vehicle for ethical engineering curriculum design', Constructivist Foundations, 13(3) pp. 309-319
Bartocci, C., Betti, R., Guerraggio, A., Lucchetti, R. (eds) (2011) Mathematical Lives: Protagonists of the Twentieth Century from Hilbert to Wiles. London: Springer.
Begum, N. and Saini, R. (2019) 'Decolonising the curriculum', Political Studies Review, 17(2) pp. 196-201.
Bhambra, G., Gebrial, D. and Nişancıoğlu, K (2018) (ed) Decolonising the University. Pluto Press
Boonzaier, F and van Niekerk, T (ed) (2019) Decolonial feminist community psychology. Cham: Springer
Conner, T. (2014) The Dreyfus Affair and the Rise of the French Public Intellectual. Jefferson: McFarland & Company.
Batacharya, S. and Wong, Y. (2018) Sharing Breath: Embodied Learning and Decolonization. Edmonton: AU Press.
Bulhan, H (1985) Frantz Fanon and the Psychology of Oppression. London: Plenum Press.
Castro-Gómez, S. (2020) Zero-Point Hubris: Science, Race, and Enlightenment. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Caribbean Philosophical Association, (2011) 'The Political-Pedagogical Force of Fanon and the Wretched of the Earth', Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the passing of Frantz Fanon, held at the Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz Memorial Center, NYC, 2 October 2011. Available at: https://fondation-frantzfanon.com/the-political-pedagogical-force-of-fanon-and-the-wretched-of-the-earth/ [Accessed 8 March 2020]
Christian, B. (1987) 'The Race for Theory' Cultural Critique 6 pp.51-63
Coleman, L. (2012) 'Incorporating the notion of recontextulisation in academic literacies research: The case of a South African vocational web design and development course', Higher Education Research and Development, 31(3) pp. 325-338.
Crilly, J. (2019) 'Decolonising the library: a theoretical exploration', Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal 4(1) https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/123
Cupples, J. and Grosfoguel, R (eds) (2018) Unsettling eurocentrism in the westernized university. Oxon: Routledge
Darder, A (2003) The Critical Pedagogy Reader. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
De Wet, L. (2017) 'Role with the students: a social constructivist decolonising teaching strategy', DEFSA 14th National Design Education Conference 2017: Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Deutscher, P. and Lafont, C. (eds) (2017) Critical Theory in Critical Times New York: Columbia University Press.
Dirth, T. and Adams, G. (2019) 'Decolonial Theory and Disability Studies: On the Modernity/Coloniality of Ability', Journal of Social and Political Psychology 7(1), pp. 260–289
Domínguez, M. (2019) 'Decolonial innovation in teacher development: praxis beyond the colonial zero-point', Journal of Education for Teaching, 45(1) pp. 47–62
Donelson, D. (2018) Theorizing a Settlers' Approach to Decolonial Pedagogy: Storying as Methodologies, Humbled, Rhetorical Listening and Awareness of Embodiment. PhD thesis. Bowling Green State University.
Du Bois, W.E.B. (1999) The Souls of Black Folk. New York: W.W.Norton & Co.
Duckworth, V. and Ade-Ojo, G. (eds.) (2015) Landscapes of specific literacies in contemporary society: exploring a social model of literacy. New York: Routledge.
Ellsworth, E. 'Why doesn't this feel empowering?: Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy' Harvard Educational Review, 59(3) pp. p297-325.
Fanon, F. (1968) The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, F. (1961) The Wretched of the Earth. New York, Grove Press.
Freire, P. (1993), Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum
Freire, P. and Faundez, A. (1989), Learning to question. New York: Continuum
Fujino, D., Gomez, J., Lezra, E., Lipsitz, G., Mitchell, J. and Fonseca, J (2018) 'A transformative pedagogy for a decolonial world', Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 40(2) pp. 69-95.
Giroux, H. and Robbins, C. (eds) (2016) Giroux Reader. Oxon: Routledge
Giroux, H (1988) .Border Pedagogy in the Age of Postmodernism'. Journal of Education, 170(3) pp. 162-181
Gordon, L. (2000) Existentia Africana Understanding Africana Existential Thought. Oxon: Routledge.
Hartley, P., Hilsdon, J., Keenan, C. Sinfield, S. and Verity, M. (2011) Learning Development in Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harvey, A. and Russell-Mundine, G. (2019) 'Decolonising the curriculum: using graduate qualities to embed Indigenous knowledges at the academic cultural interface', Teaching in Higher Education, 24(6), pp. 789-808
Heleta, S., (2016) 'Decolonisation of higher education: Dismantling epistemic violence and Eurocentrism in South Africa', Transformation in Higher Education 1(1), DOI; http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/the.v1i1.9
Hilsdon, J. (2018) The significance of the field of practice 'Learning Development' in UK higher education. PhD Thesis. University of Plymouth.
Hockings, C (2010) Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/inclusive-learning-and-teaching-higher-education-synthesis-research [Accessed 7 March 2020]
Howard-Wagner, D, Kutay, C, Riley, L (2012) 'Decolonising sociology curriculum: using an online immersive learning environment to deliver cross-cultural training', Annual Conference of the Australian Sociological Association (TASA 2012), TASA (the Australian Sociological Association), Australia, pp. 9.
Jacobs, C. (2013) 'Academic literacies and the question of knowledge. Journal for Language Teaching, 47(2) pp.127-140.
Jain, V and Meyer, M (eds) (2018) Connecting Contemporary African-Asian peacemaking and nonviolence: From Satagraha to Ujamaa. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Jansen, J. (1998) 'But our natives are different! Race, knowledge and power in the academy', Social Dynamics 24(2), pp. 106–116
Jansen, J (2017) As by Fire: The End of the South African University Tafelberg
Jansen, J (ed) (2019) Decolonisation in universities: The politics of knowledge. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Jarvis, J., Holford, J. and Griffin, C (2003) The Theory & Practice of Learning London: Kogan Page.
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, (2020) Home Page https://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe [Accessed: 05 March 2020].
Katz, S. and Spero, A. (eds) (2015) Bringing Human Rights Education to US Classrooms: Exemplary Models from Elementary Grades to University. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
le Grange, L. (2016) 'Decolonising the university curriculum' South African Journal of Higher Education, 30(2) pp. 1–12
Lea, M. (2016) 'Academic literacies: looking back in order to look forward',
Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 4(2) pp. 88-101.
Lea, M. and Street, B. (1998) 'Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach', Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), pp. 157-172.
Lea, M. and Street, B, (2006) 'The "Academic literacies" model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45(4), pp. 368-377.
Lester, J., Stone, B. and Stelling, G. (1999) 'Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments, user modelling and user-adapted interaction', 9 pp. 1–44.
Li, Y., and Hu, G. (2016) 'Supporting students' assignment writing: what lecturers do in a Master of Education programme', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 43(1), pp. 1-13.
Lorde, A. (1984) Sister Outsider. New York: The Crossing Press.
Mamdani, M. (1996) Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2017) 'On the Coloniality of Human Rights', Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais. doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/rccs.6793
Margonis, F. (2003) 'Paulo Freire and Post-Colonial Dilemmas'. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22 pp. 145–156 doi:10.1023/A:1022280930241 p145
Mbembe, A., 2001, On the postcolony, Berkeley: University of California Press.
McLaren, P. and Kincheloe, J. (2007) Critical Pedagogy: Where are We Now? New York: Peter Lang
Mendieta, E. (ed) (2003) Latin American Philosophy: Currents, issues, debates. Indianapolis: Indiana university Press.
Mirra, N., and Morrell, E. (2011) 'Teachers as civic agents: Toward a critical democratic theory of urban teacher development' Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4) pp. 408–420.
Mignolo, W (2007) 'DELINKING: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality', Cultural Studies, 21(2-3), pp. 449-514
Mignolo, W. and Escobar, A. (2013) Globalization and the Decolonial Option Oxon: Routledge. p116
Moncrieffe, M., Asare, Y. and Dunford, R. (2019). 'Decolonising the curriculum: What are the challenges and the opportunities for teaching and learning?', doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.26574.72003.
Monzó, L. D. and McLaren, P. (2014). 'Critical pedagogy and the decolonial option: Challenges to the inevitability of capitalism', Policy Futures in Education, 12(4), pp. 513–525.
Morgan, R. (2001) The Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorism. London: Washington Square Press
Nyoni, J (2019) 'Decolonising the higher education curriculum: An analysis of African intellectual readiness to break the chains of a colonial caged mentality' Transformation in Higher Education 4 doi: https://doi.org/10.4102/the.v4i0.69
O' Donovan, Price, M., and Rust, C. (2004) 'Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria', Teaching in Higher Education 9(3), pp. 325-335
Paris, D. and Alim, H. (eds) (2017) In Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World. New York: Teachers College Press.
Paris, D., and Alim. S. (2014) 'What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A Loving Critique Forward', Harvard Educational Review, 84(1) pp. 85–100.
Pillay, S. (2016) 'Silence is violence: (critical) psychology in an era Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall', South African Journal of Psychology, 46(2) pp. 155-159
Pimblott, K. (2020) 'Decolonising the university: The origins and meaning of a movement', The Political Quarterly, doi:10.1111/1467-923X.12784
Pine, R. (2014) The Disappointed Bridge: Ireland and the Post-Colonial World. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Philipose, E. (2007) 'Decolonising political theory', Radical Pedagogy 9(1) http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue9_1/philipose.html
Pusateri, J. (2001) 'Assassins and children: The mythology of the lone wolf and cub films' Asian Cinema 11(1) pp. 84 – 96.
Quijano, A. (2000) 'Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America', International Sociology, 15(2) pp. 215–232.
Rabaka, R. (2010) Forms of Fanonism Frantz Fanon's Critical Theory and the Dialectics of Decolonization. Plymouth: Lexington books.
Said, E. (1994) Culture and imperialism. London: Vintage Books.
Schmidt, H. (2019) 'Indigenizing and decolonizing the teaching of psychology: Reflections on the role of the non‐Indigenous ally', American Journal of Community Psychology, 64 pp. 59-71.
Sefa Dei, G. and Simmons, M. (2010) 'The pedagogy of Fanon: An introduction', Counterpoints, 368 pp. XIII-XXV.
Shih, Y. (2018) 'Some critical thinking on paulo freire's critical pedagogy and its educational implications' International Education Studies, 11(9). doiI:10.5539/ies.v11n9p64.
Singh, P. (2015) 'Performativity and Pedagogising Knowledge: Globalising Educational Policy Formation, Dissemination and Enactment', Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), p363–384.
Slotkin, R. (1992) Gunfighter nation: The myth of the frontier in twentieth-century America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Smith, L (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Decolonising SOAS Working Group, (2018) Decolonising SOAS: Learning and Teaching Toolkit for Programme and Module Convenors. London: SOAS.
Stanek, M.B. (2019) 'Decolonial education and geography: Beyond the 2017 Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers annual conference' Geography Compass. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12472.
Stewart, S. (2009). 'Family counselling as decolonization: Exploring an indigenous social-constructivist approach in clinical practice'. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 4(2), pp. 62-70.
Sweeting, B. (2018). 'Radical constructivism and the decolonisation of epistemology', Constructivist Foundations, 13(3), pp. 326-327.
Taylor, E (2008) 'Transformative Learning Theory'. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, DOI: 10.1002/ace.301.
Taylor, P, (1993) The texts of Paulo Freire. Open University Press p63.
Thomas, L. (2001) 'Power, assumptions and prescriptions: a critique of widening participation policy-making' Higher Education Policy 14 pp. 361-376.
Tuck, E. and Yang, K.W. (2012) 'Decolonization is not a metaphor' Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1) p1-40.
Vickers, E. (2019) ‘Critiquing coloniality, ‘epistemic violence’ and western hegemony in comparative education – the dangers of ahistoricism and positionality’, Comparative Education, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2019.1665268
Walsh, C (2015) 'Decolonial pedagogies walking and asking. Notes to Paulo Freire from AbyaYala', International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(1), pp. 9-21, doi:10.1080/02601370.2014.991522.
Wane, N and Todd, K. (eds) (2018) Decolonial pedagogy: Examining sites of resistance, resurgence and renewal. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yoon, H (2005) 'Affecting the transformative intellectual: Questioning "noble" sentiments in critical pedagogy and composition', JAC, 25(4) pp. 717 – 759.
Zembylas, M. (2018) 'Affect, race, and white discomfort in schooling: decolonial strategies for 'pedagogies of discomfort", Ethics and Education, 13(1) pp. 86-104.
Zembylas, M. (2018b) 'The Entanglement of Decolonial and Posthuman Perspectives: Tensions and Implications for Curriculum and Pedagogy in Higher Education', Parallax, 24(3), pp. 254-267.
[1] Koike and Kojima came out of a tradition that replaced the frontier of the United States with the Tokugawa Period and the symbol of the gun with the samurai sword (Pusateri, 2001: Slotkin, 1992).
[2] Given decolonial scholarship’s understandable apprehension of canonicity, our only means of identifying a collection of principles is through the triggering of the decolonial defence mechanisms.
[3] Their scathing critique maintains that ‘Freire’s philosophies’ have inspired educators to use ‘decolonization’ as a metaphor for ‘internal decolonization’ rationally leading to ‘the solution of decolonizing one’s mind and the rest will follow’ (Tuck and Yang, 2012; Batacharya and Wong, 2018; Shih, 2018). Conscientization alone, is not sufficient to be the central vehicle for emancipation; it is an important first step, but it is just a step (Tuck and Yang, 2012; Batacharya and Wong, 2018; Shih, 2018; Ellsworth, 1989; Luke and Gore, 1992).
[4] Unsurprisingly, the well which nourished critical pedagogy was never going to provide to the sufficient nutrients that would speak to the lived experiences of those on the ‘underside’; as Edward Said observed, ‘Frankfurt School critical theory, despite its seminal insights into the relationships between domination, modern society, and the opportunities for redemption through art as critique, is stunningly silent on racist theory, anti-imperialist resistance, and oppositional practice in the empire’ (Said, 1994, p.336).
[5] Ellsworth (1989, p305), a former devote to critical pedagogy, explains how this might occur; critical pedagogues’ insistence on rational deliberation over their truth considering competing claims compels students to subject themselves to the ‘logics of rationalism and scientism which have been predicated on and made possible through the exclusion of socially-constructed irrationally ‘others’’. As a result, critical pedagogues unwittingly collude with the oppressor in keeping ‘the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns’ (Ellsworth, 2005, p. 305; Lorde, 1984).
[6] This ‘floater’ has committed ‘class – suicide’ and ‘race suicide’.[6] They have ‘cleansed’ themselves of all inclinations in order to commit themselves to standing in solidarity with their students in their educational and political struggles… they must soak themselves in their students’ culture and worldviews’ (Freire,1993, p. 20; Freire and Faundez, 1989, p. 46; Margonis, 2003). This category of the ‘teacher’ is steeped in the thoroughly Eurocentric concept of the ‘committed intellectual’ who stands among the oppressed (Bartocci, Betti, Guerraggio and Lucchetti, 2011, p. 157; Conner, 2014, p. 44; Abdi, 2012; Yoon, 2005; Monzo and Maclaren, 2014).
[7] She continues, ‘No teacher is free of these learned and internalized oppressions. Nor are accounts of one group’s suffering and struggle immune from reproducing narratives oppressive to another’s (Ellsworth, 1989, p. 307). Decolonising pedagogies recognises and works within the messiness; it remains ‘deeply humanist’ dismantling any binary divisions that do not accurately depict the ‘messiness’ of the classroom and wider society (Ellsworth 1989; Yoon 2005; Zembylas 2013; Katz and Spero, 2015; Albrecht-Crane, 2005). Moreover, decolonial pedagogies recognises the symbiotic ‘trauma’ of colonialization on ‘oppressed’ and the ‘oppressor’ (Wane and Todd, 2018; Fanon, 1968). From Dubois’ ‘decolonial turn’, this has been a constant in the literature (Wane and Todd, 2018). For example, Fanon, who treated victims and perpetrators of torture as a psychiatrist working for French colonial forces in Algeria, famously stated, ‘For Europe, for ourselves and for humanity, comrades, we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man’ (emphasis added) (Fanon, 1968, p. 315).
[8] Defined as the belief in one’s capabilities to execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995, p. 2).
