Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford New York ‘Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Séo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford and Oxford English are trade marks of Oxford University Press ISBN 0 19 442154 6 © Oxford University Press 1999 First published 1999 Second impression 2000 No unauthorized photocopying All rights resecved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Oxford University Press. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which itis published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. Typeset by Oxford University Press Printed in Hong Kong Contents Acknowledgments Preface Introduction 1 Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 2 Challenges in researching resistance ae 3 Resistance to English in historical perspective 4 Conflicting curricula: interrogating student opposition 5 Competing pedagogies: understanding teacher opposition 6 Clashing codes: negotiating classroom interaction 7, Contrasting literacies: appropriating academic texts 8 The politics and pedagogy of appropriating discourses Bibliography Index 39 s7 79 103 125 147 173 199 212Acknowledgments The authors and publisher are grateful to those who have given permission to reproduce the following extracts and adaptations of copyright material: pp, 57, 79, 173 Excerpts from ‘A Far Cry from Africa’, ‘North and South’, ‘The Schooner Flight’, ‘The Season of Phantasmal Peace’ from The Collected Poems 1948-1984 by Derek Walcott, published by Faber and Faber Ltd. Copyright © 1986 by Derek Walcott. Reprinted by permission of Farrar, Straus & Giroux, Inc. and Faber and Faber Limited. p39 Excerpt from ‘On African Writing’ from Chameleons and Gods by Jack Mapanje. Reprinted by permission of Heinemann Educational Publishers, a division of Reed Educational 8 Professional Publishing Ltd. p103 Excerpt from ‘Song of Lawino’ from Song of Lawino and Song of Ocol by Okot p’Bitek, published by East African Educational Publishers Ltd. Reprinted by permission of East African Educational Publishers Ltd. p125 Excerpt from ‘An Introduction’ from Summer in Calcutta by Kamala Das. Reprinted by permission of the author. Aithough every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders before publication, this has not always been possible. We apologize for any apparent infringement of copyright and if notified, the publisher will be pleased to rectify any errors or omissions at the earliest opportunity. To Nanthini, Lavannya, and NivedhanaPreface It is anachronistic to observe the conventions of textual ownership, such as copyright and author identification, when most authors know that their text is a collective product, representing many voices. Even if I were to leave aside such abstract forms of influence as my native community, and its history of struggle, I owe a debt of gratitude to far more people than I can acknowledge here. While students and research subjects often contribute to books written by their teachers, that support tends to be passed over. So | must begin by thanking my students at the University of Jaffna (UJ), who turned out to be my teachers of pedagogy and politics. When I returned to my home town in 1984, as one more ‘generic’ English graduate nurtured on Elizabethan sonnets and romantic odes in the capital, Colombo, I discovered a student community that was spearheading a movement for social change. In very large classes conducted under mango trees during humid afternoons, with ears alert to catch any movement of trigger-happy military patrols, the students posed questions about the meaning and purpose of English in our community. They were in the middle of a grand project of national liberation, facing the harsh reality of earningja few more rupees for their families in difficult times of economic embargo. Yet many agreed to let me interview them, and to complete questionnaires, in what must have seemed an ivory tower preoccupation with pedantic research. My colleagues at UJ also contributed much to my thinking, not least by manifesting a healthy suspicion towards my scholarship, when J returned from the USA in 1990 with a doctorate, flaunting my mastery of faddish post-modernist/post-structuralist discourses. When we weren’t running to the underground bunker from our vulnerable third-floor office during air raids, we somehow found time to navigate our way through local and Western thinking on education and society. In a teaching community unused to formal research, my colleagues also suffered the discomfort of letting me sit at the back of their classes as they taught, and offered their after-class hours for interviews. I am especially indebted to A. J. Canagaratne—a veteran English instructor, and my mentor—who had started to think about the politics of ELT, and had even published in local circles, long before the subject became fashionable. The fact that Canagaratne’s thinking has still not received a Preface vii transnational audience may be a reflection of how the political economy of publishing and scholarship works against many periphery scholars. My opportunity to indulge in academic: publishing from within war-torn Jaffna was made possible by many people. My brothers Sudarshan, Nishan, and Jehan—who were graduate students (in unrelated fields) in England and the USA at that time—kept me in touch with developments in my discipline. They photocopied every article | wanted, bought me expensive books as they were printed, tracked down my manuscripts when they were lost in the post, and liaised my revisions with editors. Imagine the lengths they had to go to, to get Phillipson’s Linguistic Imperialism, the inspiration for this book. After purchasing the book in England, they mailed it to a mutual friend in the capital, who found someone who was traveling to Jaffna and was prepared to carry it for me. The traveler was a student I did not know, who somehow brought the book (and a box of essential medicines only available in Colombo) across a heavily mined ‘no man’s land’ in Omanthai, avoiding skirmishes between the militia at Vavuniya, and through a swamp at Elephant Pass. I no longer remember this person’s name, nor the names of many others who kept the traffic of knowledge and information open in a community where making such sacrifices is taken for granted. There are others at this end (in the West) who made my research work possible. Sandra Silberstein initiated me into the world of publishing, after finding some value in a manuscript sent to TESOL Quarterly from an unknown Sri Lankan town, in frayed recycled paper, typed on a worn-out ribbon, and clumsily edited with ink, accompanied by photocopies that were t00 smudged to be decipherable. As soon as the paper had been recommended for publication by the referees, she had it composed electronically for revision, mailed her correspondence multiple times to multiple addresses, so that communication was not broken, and somehow lived with the inordinate delays associated with sending revisions backwards and forwards across a battle zone. Few editors would have been so sensitive to the difficulties of periphery scholars. She then directed my sights higher, by being the first to suggest that I might develop my research work with a view to publishing a book with Oxford University Press. The Press could not have engaged a better pair of readers for my manuscript than Henry Widdowson and Alastair Pennycook. While Widdowson checked for signs of pedagogical naiveté, Pennycook questioned any display of ideological shallowness. Both were rigorous but sympathetic reviewers, who motivated me to pursue my ideas with greater balance and discipline. Cristina Whitecross, my Editor and Publishing Manager at OUP, has advised me patiently over the five years this book was being developed. Her scrupulous editing has contributed a lot towards getting a coherent text. My friends Brian Morgan (University of Toronto) and John Flowerdew (City University of Hong Kong) have also commented on the draft. While thanking all of those |viii Preface mentioned above, I must take responsibility for any of the unavoidable choices taken here that may be seen as limitations. Here in my new academic home at the City University of New York, the faculty at Baruch College have been generous in making it possible for me to complete the manuscript, while the reduction in my teaching load in each academic year has given me the time to engage in multiple revisions. I would also like to thank the department Chair, John Todd, and the Dean of the Weissman School of Arts and Sciences, Lexa Logue, for considering this project to be worthy of their support. My wife, Nanthini, and our daughters, Lavannya and Nivedhana, have always been supportive of my endeavors. When I make eccentric decisions— such as abandoning peaceful Austin to teach in battle-scarred Jaffna immediately after obtaining my doctorate—they have made the necessary changes in lifestyle to accommodate my ‘calling’. As my daughters cross cultural and linguistic borders again, entering elementary school in New Jersey, the daily challenges they experience in negotiating conflicting identities and values confirm to me that the events, experiences, and ideas discussed in this book are of more than academic concern. Introduction I who am poisoned with the blood of both, Where shall I turn, divided to the vein? Iwho have cursed The drunken officer of British rule, how choose Between this Africa and the English tongue I love? Betray them both, or give back what they give? Derek Walcott, A Far Cry from Africa The conflict Walcott expresses is an everyday experience for millions of people in post-colonial communities. They find themselves torn between the claims of Western values and their indigenous cultures, between English and the vernacular. Ironically, however, with the passing of time, the possibility of choosing one or the other may no longer be open to them: the English language has become too deeply rooted in their soil, and in their consciousness, to be considered ‘alien’. In parts of the Third World, what is biologically true for Walcott—that two traditions mingle in his blood, and flow through his veins—is culturally true for entire populations. Some have chosen convenient, self-serving resolutions to this conflict, by understating the complex interconnection between the two linguistic traditions, History is replete with examples of colonized subjects who have ‘betrayed’ the claims of the vernacular for the advantages of English, and who now feel they are in some sense outsiders in both Western and local communities, Others, especially in the period since decolonization, have rejected English lock, stock, and barrel, in order to be faithful to indigenous traditions—a choice which has deprived many of them of enriching interactions with multicultural communities and traditions through the English language. The alternative suggested by Walcott—to ‘give back what they give’ and respond favorably to both languages—can take many different forms. Instead of maintaining both languages separately, one can appropriate the second language, and absorb parts of it into the vernacular. The creative tension between the languages can also bring forth new discourses, as Walcott, who has referred to himself as ‘the mulatto of style’, so eloquently exemplifies in his own writing. The fact that such productive interactions are possible2. Introduction demonstrates that our consciousness is able to accommodate more than one language or culture, just as our languages can accommodate alien grammars and discourses. So it would appear that there are ways of transcending this painful linguistic conflict, and even of turning it to our advantage. Achieving this transcendence, however, is not easy. It cannot be achieved by desiring a universal, race-less, culture-free identity. Such an ideal is only possible in our dreams—never in social reality, where we are fated to occupy one identity or the other, however much we might wish otherwise. The very fact that we are for ever rooted in the primary community of socialization is what enables us to negotiate or appropriate other languages (and cultures) more effectively, Research in language acquisition and cogniti confirms that a thorough grounding in one’s first language and culture eqhances the ability to acquire other languages, literacies, and knowledge.t The “achievement of new identities and discourses none the less involves a painful process of conflicting ideologies and interests. If we are to appropriate the language for our purposes, the oppressive history and hegemonic values associated with English have to be kept very much in mind, and engaged judiciously. The negative or positive responses to the vernacular and English—leading either to the ‘betrayal’ of one language, or to the ‘giving back’ of both—are largely influenced by underlying differences in perspectives on power. A decision to reject English in order to be true to the vernacular (or vice versa) constitutes a specific ideological orientation. The assumptions made by proponents of this position are that subjects are passive, and lack agency to manage linguistic and ideological conflicts to their best advantage; languages are seen as monolithic, abstract structures that come with a homogeneous set of ideologies, and function to spread and sustain the interests of dominant groups. Iwill term such a deterministic perspective on power—which has had considerable influence in linguistics, discourse analysis, social sciences, and education—the reproduction orientation. The alternative response, of engaging favorably with both Tanguages, calls for a different set of assumptions, in which subjects have the agency to think critically and work out ides i alternatives thar Favor thet orenpowennent Tes recognizes tharWhle language sty fave Trepeeave Meee Pula Ra he libesory potential of facilitating critical thinking, and enabling subjects to rise above domination: each language is sufficiently heterogencous for marginalized groups to. make it Serve their own purposes. This is the resistance perspective alluded to in the titleOf this book. Tt provides for thé possibility that, in everyday life, the powerless in post-colonial communities may find ways to negotiate, alter, and oppose political structures, and reconstruct their languages, cultures, and identities to their advantage. The intention is not to reject English, but to reconstitute it in more inclusive, ethical, and democratic terms, and so bring about the creative resolutions to their linguistic conflicts sought by Walcott and others in the periphery. iss Introduction 3 This book takes the discussion on the post-colonial status of English beyond the stereotypical positions (for or against English; for or against the vernacular) adopted thus far. I want to reflect on the diverse interests and motivations of individuals while i investigating the strates es they employ, with community and classroom contexts. I consider these issues as they relate to the activity Of English language teaching (ELT). Applied linguistics and ELT have hitherto been influenced (perhaps unwittingly) by the dichotomizing perspectives referred to above. A debilitating monolingual/monocultural bias has revealed itself in the insistence on ‘standard’ English as the norm, the refusal to grant an active role to the students’ first language in the learning and acquisition of English, the marginalization of ‘non-native’ English teachers, and the insensitive negativity shown by the pedagogies and discourses towards the indigenous cultural traditions. All such assumptions ignore the creative processes of linguistic mediation, interaction, and fusion that take place in social life. To pursue these concerns is to adopt a socially-situated orientation to pedagogy, in which learning is considered as a value-free, pragmatic, egalitarian enterprise, and where the acquisition of a new language or discourse should not give rise to undue inner conflict among students. But, in the post-modern world, education has lost its innocence. The realization that education may involve the propagation of knowledges and ideologies held by dominant social groups has inspired a critical orientation to pedagogical paradigms. This book is informed by such a critical orientation to pedago} ‘experienced by learners of English in post-colonial communities, ° ~Abhougti téaching ie English warlaiide has become controversial activity, few ELT professionals have considered the political complexity of their enterprise. Does English offer Third World countries a resource that will help them in their development, as Western governments -and development agencies would claim? Or is it a Trojan horse, whose effect is to perpetuate their dependence? In his major study of the politics of ELT, Phillipson (1992) conducts a scathing attack on English for functioning as a tool for imperialist relations and values, However, his reproductionist orientation is responsible for some of the limitations as Tell as the strengths of his book, There is inadequate sensitivity to the conflicting demands and desires experienced by Walcott and others like him. The overly global approach to the subject is not conducive to exploring the day-by-day struggles and negotiations with the language that take place in Third World communities. More importantly, the subtle forms of resistance to English and the productive processes of appropriation inspired by local needs, are not sufficiently represented. It is time, therefore, to take the exploration of this subject further.4 Introduction The framework is book explores the challenges an ibilities facing ELT in th ofthe selationships Petween the center and the periahar “Center’ refers to the technologically advanced communities of the West which, at least in part, sustain their material dominance by keeping less developed communities in periphery status.? Significant among the center nations are the traditionally ‘native English’ communities of North America, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, and for the purposes of analyzing ELT in this book I will use ‘center’ in a restricted sense to refer to these communities (overlooking non-English- speaking center communities such as France and Germany). Because many less developed communities are former colonies of Britain, I wilf use the term stich _as-Barbados, India, Malaysia, and Nigeria. Also included under this label are many communities which formerly belonged to other imperial powers, such as Belgium, France, or Spain, but have now come under the neo- iemperialst theusts_ of Bnglish-speaking concer communities, They include Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea, Tunisia, and Vietnam. The latter group of communities, in which English has acquired a somewhat limited and recent currency, is called the ‘expanding circle’ by Kachru (1986) to distinguish it from the British colonies listed earlier, which he calls the ‘outer_circle’. However, in this book I am using the label ‘periphery’ to accommodate both sets of communities. Although postcolonial is another label that can be efaployed to refer to these communities, | am primarily reserving this term to describe perspectives generated by periphery communities themselves. The center/periphery terminology also helps us to represent another distinction crucial for this book: that of naive English communities s and non- native communities, Considerable Fethinking is taking place on this linguistic cateGorization (Y. Kachru 1994, Sridhar 1994). Note that many speakers in the periphery use English as the first or dominant language; others may use it as a language that was simultaneously acquired with one or more local languages, and may display equal or native proficiency in them all. Add to this the argument that many of the periphery communities have developed their own localized forms of English, and might consider themselves to be native speakers of these new ‘Englishes’ (Kachru 1986). Since she natixenon-native distinction loses its force in this context, I will stretch the center/periphery terminology to accommodate the linguistic distinction Sekween tte wa ltionally English-speaking center communities“ (which claim ownership over the larguagehand those periphery commmimities which have recently appropriated the language. Thé variants of these two conimiunities will be referred to as ‘eniter Englishes and periphery Englishes, respectively. oe We Introduction S The organization This book is primarily an investigation of classrooms from a critical pedagogical perspective. In the first chapter I argue that traditional understanding of ediication needs to be reconceived along the lines of a more critical pedagogy, and outline the philosophical changes that motivate the development of liberatory pedagogies. I then discuss the manner in which the life and thinking of periphery subjects relate to some of the Western academic discourses that influence both traditional and critical pedagogies as they are currently understood in the center, This is in tune with the aim of the to develo) arginded theors, in other words, a thinking on language, culture, and pedagogy that is motivated by the lived reality and everyday experience of periphiery subjects: Tiethodological approach suitable for this purpose is afforded by ethnography, which in attempting to understand the values and assumptions that motivate the behavior of people in their everyday ci provides a taseful challenge to THSOHOS aNd peuaBORIeS AE are produced frome the ivory towers of academia. Using an ethnographic perspective to understand the attitudes of teachers and students in the periphery, I will develop constructs that better reflect the challenges they face in ELT. However, it is important for an ethnographic orientation to be clearly defined and contextually circum- scribed. This book focuses therefore on the Tami! community in the northern peninsula of Sri Lanka to illustrate some of the challenges facing post-colonial communities today, Choosing a small community in an already small island- state obviously limits the generalizations that can be made, but the interpretive depth deriving from careful observation of the everyday life of a community provides ethnographic validity. A perspedtive g aneraed Te om the periphery community by an insider to that community is badly needed in applied linguistic circles today. At a time when multiculturalism and diversity are fashionable movements in the center, knowledge construction in ELT, as in other academic fields, is still dominated by Western scholars. Realities of periphery communities and center influences are often discussed by center scholars, whi ounts for som i Tmitations (Phillipson 1992, Holliday 1994, Feonyeook 1994a). The location of these Schotars” prevents their well-intentioned books from representing adequately the interests and aspirations of periphery communities. On the other hand, the fact that periphery scholars enjoy membership of these communities does not automatically make them authorities on the cultures and conditions they describe. Their intimacy also brings with it certain methodological and perspectival problems, as we shall see in Chapter 2. ‘he observations emerging from the Sri Lankan Tamil community will be compared to findings of scholars in other periphery communities. This will help us to theorize the pedagogical challenges for post-colonial communities. Since this book is not limited to periphery concerns, I will relate the6 Introduction pedagogical observations developed here to the dominant constructs in applied linguistics and ELT, It is the argument of many post-colonial thinkers that their insights challenge the legitimized knowledge of the center and its governing assumptions (hooks 1990, Said 1993). The focus of this book is on the classroom life of periphery teachers and students. Many of the publications on center/periphery relations in ELT have approached the subject from a macroscopic theoretical perspective (Phillipson 1992, Pennycook 1994a}, paying less attention to the micro-social Jevel of linguistic and cultural life. For this reason, much of this book is given over to the narration of everyday life, and to the interactions of periphery communities, Whatever theoretical constructs are developed here will emerge through the narratives. But first, if we are to understand how reproduction and resistance are played out at the micro-social level, it is important to situate ‘the ‘casstooris-in the anger historical and social contexts of the mmui For this reason, in Chapter 3, before discussing classrooms, I will provide a bird’s-eye view of the linguistic and other cultural developments in the Tamil community, seen in the light of post-colonial experiences elsewhere. While the three introductory chapters contextualize the relevant theoretical, methodological, and historical background, the next four chapters analyze | specific areas in the ELT enterprise. The main questions we will ask e What discourses do local students and teachers confront in teaching materials produced by center agencies? What effects do such discourses have on the language acquisition process? How do the agendas of the center textbooks conflict with the personal agendas local students bring to the classroom? How do students cope with the tensions that characterize their encounter with center-based teaching materials and hidden curricula? Which discourses inform the teaching methods promoted by the mainstream professional circles? How do these methods relate to the pedagogical traditions of periphery communities fainiliar to local teachers and students? What effects do center-based methods have on the language acquisition process in periphery communities? What are the challenges for periphery teachers in implementing these methods? How do teachers and students negotiate the challenges posed to their identity, community membership, and values, by the vernacular and English? How do they negotiate these tensions in their classroom discourse and interactions? What implications does such classroom discourse have for the development of communicative competence? What assumptions motivate the dominant pedagogical approaches for developing literacy Kills in English? How do they relate to the traditions of literacy in periphery communities? What strategies do periphery students employ to deal with the discursive challenges they confront in practicing academic reading and writing in English? Introduction 7 This description of periphery classrooms and communities will prepare the ground, for proposals in the final chapter on how marginalized communities can acquire and use English language for their empowerment. Notes 1 For a review of the relevant research in this area, see Hamers and Blane 1989: 187-212. 2 Although there is a significant tradition of work in developing the center/ periphery perspective, dating from economist Frank (1964), the model that enjoys special currency these days is the world systems perspective outlined by social theorist Wallerstein (1974, 1991). While Wallerstein develops his model primarily in terms of economic relations, Giddens’s (1990) multi- faceted model includes the nation-state system (i.e. a political dimension), world military order (a military dimension), and the international division of labor (a production dimension), in addition to economy. But even this analysis fails to do justice to the diverse domains that participate in constructing the world system. Galtung develops a multidimensional model that posits equal influence for multiple channels of center influence (Galtung 1971, 1980). In an interlocking, cyclical process, politico-economic dominance sustains mass media, technology, popular culture, education, transport, and other domains of center superiority, But Appadurai (1994) has recently argued that the geopolitical relationship is ‘messy’, with many ironies and paradoxes, For example, the periphery today displays a drive for technology and industrial production that surpasses the center. Appadurai therefore constructs a dynamic mode! which assumes disjuncture as a constitutive principle, and adopts a ‘radically context-dependent’ approach.1 Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy The students crowded around the thatched classrooms on the university campus, warily eyeing the military helicopter circling overhead. Some suggested it was on the lookout for rebel troops, which could lead to another rocket attack on the nearby town; others said it was just a routine flight, taking supplies to the army base. As a majority began to favor the first explanation, the students started to look for an excuse to stay away from the English class, which was due to start shortly. Ravi could not make up his mind whether to go home early to join his family, or to stay ... As Mrs Kandiah came into view, carrying her teaching material, and walking briskly towards the classroom, the students saw that she was determined to hold the class. Ravi and some of the others quickly made their way into the dilapidated study block, where they could hear the droning sound of the power generator through the classroom wall. This told them that Ravi’s friends from secondary school, who had recently joined the resistance movement, were busy making fresh stocks of weapons and ammunition, Ravi always felt guilty when he heard them working, since before the university reopened he had said he wanted to join them. Where should he really be now—in the arms factory, or the classroom? Mrs Kandiah—known to all as ‘Mrs K.’—marched up to the podium and greeted them in her rather stilted British accent: ‘Good morning, students.” For her students, Mrs K. represented order and discipline in the midst of the chaos and violence outside. She believed that education, and the English language in particular, could provide meaning and hope in an otherwise desperate environment, English could give her students employment, opportunities to get on in life, and access to the cultural and material privileges of more developed countries, Ravi's feelings about the language were more mixed: sometimes English represented a world that was remote and threatening, and far removed from his family and friends; at others, he was tempted by thé images of sensual pleasure and material wealth endlessly promoted in foreign movies, magazines, and music. One of the foreign cultural agencies based in the capital had recently sent the university several sets of ELT textbooks. From one of these books Mrs K. had picked out a particular activity she was sure her students would find |10 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching interesting. In spite of all the difficulties, she prided herself on being well informed about the latest teaching methods and materials, and was currently championing a combination of process-oriented, collaborative, and task-based teaching methods. As usual, having no access toa photocopier or cassette player, she would be reading the text to the class herself. She explained that they should take notes on the short article, which was about a student living in Britain. After the students had heard the passage she would be asking them to practice the simple present, which they had studied in the previous class, as. a group activity. Worried that they might be distracted by the noise and confusion outside, and not be able to focus all their attention on the text, she advised them to listen carefully for the main themes, and to look out for the grammatical structures she'd taught them in a recent lesson inductively, Mrs K. began the first passage: ‘Peter is in his final year at the University of Reading, where he is studying Chemistry. He hopes to obtain first class honors in his final examinations so that he can continue with postgraduate work in photochemistry.’ These words set Ravi thinking about bis own situation. He had been worried for some time about whether he would ever be able to sit for his own degree. The civil war meant that some graduates had taken up to eight years to complete what was supposed to be a three-year course. Even ifbe managed to get his degree, he didn't know what he would do after that. The fighting had left more than half the local people without jobs; many had lost their homes as well. Worst of all, Ravi’s father and several other local farmers had been arrested earlier in the year, on suspicion of helping the rebel forces, and no one had any idea when they might be freed. If Ravi was to have any hope of finding paid work to support his family, he would almost certainly have to leave his mother with bis younger brother and sister, and move to the capital, or even to another country, ‘Peter is very well organized, and usually manages a reasonable balance between work and study, Since he has exams this term, he tends to spend about two hours reading in the library after school, and another hour or so at home...’ At the sound of a small explosion, Mrs K. paused momentarily in her reading. There was a scream from outside, and several students took cover beside their desks, but the blast had been some distance away. Mrs K. decided that this was hardly sufficient cause for dismissing the class, and carried on with the narration. She didn’t consider this distraction to be life threatening—not yet. ‘Peter doesn’t spend all his time working. He also belongs to the photography club, which he helped to start up last year. He likes sailing, and goes surfing whenever he can in the summer term; in the winter he plays in the university ragby team.’ Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 11 In the previous year, when the university was closed, Ravi had tried to keep up with his studies by day while training with the local militia by night, but it badn’t worked out too well. The training exercises and political classes took up too much of his time and energy, and meant he couldn't help his mother with their smallholding, “At weekends he spends some time relaxing with friends.’ Ravi spent much of his time working on the family farm. He watered the plants, manured the soil, and helped his mother take their produce to the , Monday market. Seeds and fertilizers were very expensive, but they couldn’t afford not to cultivate their small plot of land. Even though the recent harvest had been very poor, the family depended on the rice they grew, and the baskets his mother made. | ‘On Saturday nights he usually goes to a party or a disco with his girlfriend, Susan, but sometimes they borrow his parents’ car and go toa disco or a play in London.’ This passage provoked mild excitement in the class. Giggles could be heard coming from the far end of the classroom, where the girls had barricaded themselves behind some empty desks, at a safe distance from the boys. Ravi felt tempted to join his friends, who were teasing the girls. Rajan was calling out to them: ‘It’s party time!’, ‘How about it?’, ‘Who's gonna dance with me?’ As an avid watcher of pirated American videos, Rajan’s colloquial English was particularly fluent—and as a diligent student, he already felt happier talking about science in English than in his first language. ; Mrs K. pretended not to bear anything, and divided the class into separate groups of boys and girls. She asked them to draw a chart showing how Peter organized his time. Ravi bad been too preoccupied with his own thoughts to remember what Peter did or didn’t do, and with the exception of Rajan, the rest of bis group hadn't paid much attention to the discussion either. The noise of another helicopter in the distance took their minds away from the work they bad been doing in the class, and set them talking in their own language about the latest fighting, and the rumors they'd heard of. another military operation. They knew that Mrs K, would go over the passage again at the end, and provide them with the correct answers. After all, that's what she was supposed to do—she was the teacher. Ravi sat across the aisle from Rajan, who never seemed to have trouble with his English exercises. Apart from that, they had a lot in common; in particular, both detested the poverty, chaos, and corruption that surrounded ther, and longed for the sort of full and purposeful life enjoyed by Peter in the story. However, only Rajan believed Mrs K. when she said that English could give him that sort of life—an opportunity to go abroad to study or work. That's why he liked English classes best of all.'12 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching In the West, there is a rose-tinted, but not entirely false image of university life in which classrooms are equipped with the latest audio-visual and computer technology, and students go quietly about their work in a setting of green lawns and ancient quadrangles. This is far from being the full picture, but conditions are certainly much better than those found in most periphery communities, where the perennial questions about the purposes, attitudes, motivations, and consequences of learning, and the costs and benefits of schooling, have to be weighed with immense care. Education has many implications for a student’s identity and relationships, which might extend, as in the case of Ravi and Rajan, to making choices between an involvement in community struggles, and the prospect of looking for a safer and more prosperous life elsewhere. These conflicts naturally affect students’ attitudes towards learning English—including the goals and means of ELT—and show how far attitudes to ELT can be informed, shaped, and challenged by the larger social and political forces outside the classroom. This book will bring a sharper orientation to such questions as they inform ELT in the periphery. The inquiry is controversial because contemporary education as a whole (not only ELT) is considerably influenced by the knowledge produced, disseminated, and defined by the materially-developed center communities (Scheurich and Young 1997). It is well known that ‘Western centers of education, research, and publishing—whether funded by state or non-governmental agencies—provide financial backing, donate textbooks, share expertise, train teachers and scholars, and sometimes even run ELT enterprises in the periphery. Western involvement in the ELT enterprise is also expressed through other channels. Many of the structures and practices of schooling in the modern world are built on educational philosophies and pedagogical traditions which can be traced back to the colonial mission of spreading Enlightenment values for civilizing purposes! As the foregoing passage seeks to show, the English language itself can embody ideological and cultural values alien to these communities. What happens in the sort of classroom context familiar to teachers such as Mrs K., therefore, raises questions about the relevance and appropriateness of the teaching material, curriculum, and pedagogies developed by the Anglo-American communities for periphery contexts. The contrast between Peter’s well-organized, goal-directed life and the mental and social chaos surrounding Ravi could scarcely be more marked. The fact that their learning opportunities are poles apart increases the dissonance between the values represented in Mrs K.’s imported reading material and the culture of her students. As a result, the more she depends on faddish pedagogies promoted by Western teaching experts, the more her students are likely to disengage from the learning process. We are left with the most disturbing question, which is how far these many and varied influences may be shaping periphery communities according to the preferred cultural practices, ideologies, and social relations of the center. Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 13 Competing pedagogical paradigms The assumptions motivating dominant pedagogical practices fail to accom- we-are-to-exploretl questions in any depth, we shall need to interrogate the available pedagogical paradigms, and adopt necessary changes in our perspective. Mrs K.’s well-intentioned practices, which have come to be accepted as professional commonsense in ELT, assume that mastering a language is essentially a matter of acquiring its grammatical system. So she presents the simple present tense in a specific textual context, and facilitates the students’ understanding by showing how grammar functions in actual communica- tion. She also seeks to satisfy the affective and imaginative dimensions of learning through the narrative about Peter’s life, and contextualizes the jesson in an attempt to evoke the students’ interest, and help them to relate to it more directly. However, her approach is based on the assumption that learning is primarily a cognitive activity: she emphasizes that students should acquire the grammar inductively by observing its use in texts; the tasks she provides at the end of the reading provide ample opportunities for discovery and practice. By encouraging students to focus all their attention on activities inside the classroom, she gives them the impression that outside events are distractions from effective learning. For Mrs K., therefore, learning is implicitly defined as something that results from the isolated activity of the mind, unaffected by environmental influences. In addition, her interest in borrowing from the latest Western pedagogical developments suggests a belief that cognitive strategies are universal—that learning styles found to be effective for students from one community may be assumed to be equally effective for students from others. If we were to ask her for a definition of ELT, Mrs K. would probably describe it as an essentially innocent pragmatic activity of facilitating the transmission of linguistic rules and communicative skills, accompanied by the beneficial side-effects of ennobling the mind and enabling social mobility. ‘Whilst much of this could be said to make good pedagogical sense, it is important to consider how students respond to the classroom experience. Ravi’s tendency to let his thoughts roam away from the business in hand suggests that much more than grammar or language skills is being transmitted here. He and his fellow students are confronting a range of controversial values deriving from the association o! ithe Western culture and all thavit represents, including science and technology, Access to power-and-wealth, and-a-genetally stigmatized place in colonial history. Other values emerge from the reading material. Ravi is very conscious of, and to some extent demoralized by, the contrast between Peter’s happy, privileged life and his own. The fact that these socio-cultural differences interfere with Ravi’s comprehension of the passage remind us of14 Resisting Linguistic Imperialisin in English Teaching the critical role played by such cultural frames in the understanding of language and texts. Ravi’s personal experiences and background lead him to read messages into the text which disturb him in a way its authors, and his teacher, could never have anticipated. His reactions suggest that it would be ‘wrong to assume that learning is always autonomous, and never hindered or contaminated by contextual forces. Socio-cultural conditions always influence our cognitive activity, mediating how We perceive and interpret the world around us. ” ‘Contextiial influences of the sort described are intrinsic to learning, and not the optional extras Mrs K. takes them to be in her limited attempts to accommodate affective features in her teaching. Her pedagogical approach also poses cultural problems for students. Many teachers in the periphery use the task-based, process-oriented, student-centered peda om because it cores stamped withthe authority of Ganierpeotssandl cise Dar ron the attitudes and motivation of the students Mrs K. is teaching, it seems likely that they would prefer a more formal, product-oriented, teacher-centered pedagogy, of the sort now denigrated by center professional circles. If this were indeed the case, the assumption that learning strategies are common across cultures would also come under question, since it could result in teachers influencing students to adopt inappropriate cognitive and interactive styles; they might also be conveying cultural messages and images which could adversely affect their attitude to the course. We have scen how images of Western affluence and development have motivated Rajan to take his English studies seriously, while they have the opposite effect on Ravi, who is so rooted in his community that he feels alienated by them. This polarity suggests that learning has far-reaching implications for students’ values. identity, and community solidarity, and that students will always make connections between classroom proceedings and the outside world. What all this implies is that, knowingly or not, while . follows an explicit curriculum-of-grammar_and communication skills, she is also teaching aiden cssiculum of values ideologies, and thinking ‘which can mold alternate identities and community allegiance among the students. In contrast to the usual image of the teacher in control of the cl lassroom, this narrative suggests that there are powerful socio-cultural forces that influence earning in a subily pervasive manner ranted that this is the case, language learning cannot be considéréd an entirely innocent activity, since it raises the possibility of ideological domination and social conflict. Teachers should therefore attempt to critically interrogate the hidden curricula of their courses, relate learning to the larger socio-political realities, and encourage students to make pedagogical choices that offer sounder alternatives to their living conditions. The pedagogical conflicts illustrated above call for a radically different orientation to instruction, We need to reconceptualize such important constructs as knowledge and learning, and indeed, some rethinking has Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 15 already begun. The new realizations informing our pedagogical practice are coalescing under the broad label of critical pedagogy {hereafter CP). Its assumptions and practices differ from those promoted by what We might term the pedagogy of the mainstream (hereafter MP).? We can delineate the evolving choices in pedagogical orientation as follow: « learning as a detached cognitive activity us. learning as personal MP assumes that learning involves the mind solely (or primarily) in analysis, comprehension, and interpretation. The more reason is allowed to work by itself, the ‘truer’ the knowledge produced. Emotions, imagination, and intuition are to be suppressed, since they could distort the objectivity required in learning. By contrast, CP would say that it is unwise, if not impossible, to remain uninvolved in the learning process. Just as the personal background of the learner influences how something is learned, what is learned shapes the person: our consciousness, identity, and relationships are implicated in the educational experience. We should therefore consciously engage the influences, consequences, and implications of the personal in the learning process. e learning as transcendental vs. learning as situated Traditionally, the learner is supposed to rise above everything in the environment (i.e. society, culture, ideology) in order to be impartial and neutral in the acquisition of knowledge. CP posits that the learner is located in the environment, conditioned by the influences of his or her own. context. It follows that the knowledge people produce or acquire will also be grounded in their social practice and material context. Similarly, schooling has been traditionally defined a neutral site—conducted in isolation from the other messy social realities. But CP realizes that schooling is deeply influenced by the larger social and political contexts in which it is situated. The rules, regulations, curricula, pedagogies, and interactions in schooling shape, and are shaped by, socio-political realities. Schooling is so implicated in the needs, interests, and imperatives of the dominant institutions and social groups that it is often difficult to see the full effect of their influence in the classroom. « learning processes as universal vs, learning as cultural Modes of learning and thinking have typically been considered to be common for all people. CP considers that they vary according to the social practices and cultural traditions of different communities. Hence the new thinking on the methods and techniques of teaching. For MP, these are value-free instruments motivated by efficiency to conduct instruction in the most effective way possible. CP holds that the established methods embody the preferred ways of learning and thinking of the dominant communities—and that this bias can create conflicts for learners from16 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching other pedagogical traditions. Similarly, MP believes that what is learned is factual, impartial, and, therefore, correct for everyone. Knowledge is considered to provide the one universally true view of reality. Since CP holds that knowledge is socially constructed, what is considered reality, fact, or truth by the different communities is understood in relation to their social practice. This is why the different traditions of knowing found in diverse communities have to be negotiated in the learning process. @ knowledge as value-free us. knowledge as ideological MP treats knowledge as devoid of values of any moral, cultural, or ethical character. CP holds that everything is value-laden. The institutionalized forms of knowledge embody assumptions and perspectives of the dominant social groups, which introduce other communities to the same value system in order to legitimize the dominance of the élite groups. Subordinate groups may have their own philosophical traditions, and competing versions of reality that favor their own interests. Since everything that is taught already comes with values and ideologies that have implications for students’ social and ethical lives, teaching is always problematic. It is part of a teacher’s responsibility to help students interrogate the hidden assumptions and values that accompany knowledge. © knowledge as preconstructed us. knowledge as negotiated MP assumes that teaching is a process whereby established facts, information, and rules are simply to be handed over to the students. CP posits that knowledge results from constant negotiation between commu- nities in terms of their values, beliefs, and prior knowledge. Knowledge is itself a changing construct, shaped by the social and cultural practices of those who produce it. It is therefore important to negotiate knowledge more consciously, and to involve the teachers as well as the students in the learning process. Collaboration-between the two groups, as they aim to reach consensus through debate, simulates the social process of knowledge construction. learning as instrumental vs. learning as political Given CP’s realizations, it is understandable that schooling is considered to be implicated in the exercise of power and domination in society. If learning is value-ridden, and shaped by the imperatives of the dominant social groups, what is learned orientates the learner to the world view and to ideologies of the status quo. In the same way, it is not surprising that key aspects of education, such as curriculum, pedagogy, and instructional policies, are defined by the groups and institutions that control society. Learning, therefore, is a highly contested, conflict-ridden enterprise where the competing knowledge, values, and practices of diverse communities struggle for dominance. Since mainstream pedagogues assume that learning Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 17 is value-free, pragmatic, and autonomous, they can practice teaching as an innocent and practical activity of passing on correct facts, truths, and skills to students. Even if a teacher does not sympathize with the ‘facts’, he or she could function as the uninvolved intermediary, and transmit them to students. For CP, however, teachers have the ethical responsibility of negotiating the hidden values and interests behind knowledge, and are expected to help students to adopt a critical orientation to learning, The context of critical pedagogy It would be unwise to argue for CP in universal and absolute terms, without reference to the contexts and purposes of teaching. It is impossible to make a disinterested case on behalf of any position, and J can only argue why CP provides a better pedagogical framework by pointing to the relevant location and interests that motivate this work. Given the social and material context of marginalized communities, CP offers perspectives that serve their challenges, aspirations, and interests more effectively. It is also necessary to understand that ideological and socio- cultural concerns have gained importance in the pedagogical domain as a result of the larger philosophical changes that have taken place in recent history. So the best apology one can make for CP is to situate it in its historical and social context. Before considering CP in the light of these positions, I must observe a simple difference between the two pedagogies. CP conceives pedagogical practice in terms of an expanded notion of context. Both the strengths and limitations of MP derive from working with a more restricted or focused context for the learning activity. Since the classroom is separated from larger historical and social conditions, and learning is perceived primarily as a cognitive activity, teachers in this tradition can conduct more controlled observation of the learning activity, within more manageable variables. The targets and stages of learning are also made narrower and clearer, thus providing a convenient means of measuring pedagogical progress. But CP practitioners would charge that the pedagogical activity is over-simplified, and that in the process results are somewhat distorted. CP adopts a more holistic approach to learning, situating it amidst the diverse mfluences, and \tronra philosophical perspective, we must realize that the mainstream pedagogical tradition is identified with such intellectual movements as Enlightenment, rationalism, science, and modernism, which share many ideological and chronological similarities.? These movements had a radical beginning. They championed the thinking, observation, and experience of the individual against the dogmas of the state, aristocracy, and Church. These developments went hand in hand with the emergence in Europe, around the 16th and 17th centuries, of the pragmatic middle classes, of18 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching individualism, and the Renaissance. In the new dispensation, the valued mode of thought was inductive. This encouraged an attitude of observing things without any presuppositions, feelings, or biases, and letting the facts speak for themselves to form valid generalizations. According to its most extreme versions, only those things that could be apprehended by the senses were defined as real. It was this empirical approach to phenomena that was supposed to provide a complete understanding of the laws which governed life and promised human and material progress. According to this positivistic philosophy, we were considered to inhabit a closed world which possessed the complete answers to its laws of operation. The mind had the power to distinguish fact from myth, apprehend the laws of nature, and channel them for human progress. Much of this thinking has been debunked of late, by both philosophers of science and practicing scientists, as an exaggeration of intellectual activity.4 We recognize now tha: impossible for us to understand and interpret things without the mediation (and even active help) of tradition, shared values, personal predispositions, and creative imagination. In fact, knowledge constitutes a body of interpretive grids (or explanatory paradigms) that interpret reality, and is periodically revised according to the interests and experiences of the specific community. Knowledge, therefore, is intrinsically social, and constructed through interaction between community members. The question as to which community’s knowledge paradigm becomes the operating explanation of things is settled by an exercise of power. The knowledge of the dominant groups is imposed through the institutions at their disposal, including the school. This knowledge in turn serves to justify the status quo. It is from this perspective that the post-Enlightenment and post-modern orientation understands educational activity as political. There is a reason why periphery communities may nurse a grudge against the Enlightenment movement, which helped, enhanced, and/or initiated parallel socio-political movements in the West, such as industrialism, capitalism, and colonialism. These led to the domination of the periphery {Lunn 1982, Giddens 1990, Larsen 1990, Hess 1995), since the West’s technological superiority provided it with the military power and resources to colonize the Asian, African, and Latin American communities. The West believed that it was the ‘white man’s burden’ to spread its message of Enlightenment and scientific advancement throughout the world. But behind this avowedly altruistic mission was the West’s need to find more raw materials for its industry, and more markets to sell its products. The result was that colonialism boosted capitalist industry and economy, as all communities became integrated into a vast network of capitalist market economies and industrial production, and the scientific vision gained global approval. This development led to the configuration of center/periphery geopolitical relations, Although science claimed to be apolitical, therefore, it Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 19 actually complemented and benefited from a favorable set of socio-political conditions. Periphery scholars such as Nandy (1988) demonstrate how, even today, scientific and technological activities continue to victimize non- Western communities. The Enlightenment also led to the suppression of the knowledge systems of the periphery. Science was defined as a universally applicable project, rather than a cultural product of the West—one based on a Judeo-Christian/ Renaissance belief in dominion over nature, a teleological view of history, and the celebration of individualism and reason (Huff 1993, Hess 1995), The many different forms of knowing and learning represented by minority communities, which were suppressed under the universalistic claims and globalizing trend of science, have acquired a measure of prominence in the post-colonial climate. The claim that knowledge and pedagogy are value-free and acontextual has only led to the legitimation of the Western intellectual tradition. A partial corrective to this view has come from emergent post- colonial thinking and periphery knowledge, and has inspired contemporary ‘Western communities to develop a critical attitude towards their modernist intellectual tradition (Said 1993: 239-61). The shift from Enlightenment to anti-Enlightenment philosophies, from modernist to post-modernist thinking, and from colonial hegemony to post- colonial resistance, explains why the assumptions and practices of mainstream pedagogies are questioned today. Loaded with its own brand of interests and yalues, MP represents no less an ideology than CP. The difference is that while MP is informed by the ideologies of the dominant communiti the potential to interrogate this hegemony. The fact that the politico-cultural ilicntions oF teacbing English to other pomenunities are being questioned today is due to such philosophical changes. It is important for language teachers to recognize the ways in which these philosophical developments redefine their work in classrooms. Given that there is no such thing as value- free, disinterested, or acontextual teaching, teachers are faced with a stark choice between adopting undemocratic interests (perhaps as a result of not being sufficiently aware of their pedagogical ideologies) or quite openly undertaking a pedagogy for resistance. Academic reception of critical pedagogies The notions constituting a critical pedagogy are currently gaining attention in many fields. Adult literacy (Freire 1970), college composition (Bizzell 1982), literature (hooks 1989), social sciences (Marcus and Fischer 1986), feminist studies (Lather 1991), cultural studies (Grossberg 1994), and, of course, education (Giroux 1992) are just some of the fields where a critical perspective on teaching is proving to be popular. This orientation is called by different names in different circles, including pedagogies of resistance (Aronowitz and Giroux 1985); liberatory teaching (Shor 1987), radical20 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching pedagogy (hooks 1989), post-modern pedagogy (Giroux 1992), border pedagogy (Giroux and McLaren 1994), and pedagogies of possibility (Simon 1987). However, contemporary appropriations of CP by the Western academy bring with them certain simplifications and distortions, It can be argued that some of the earliest developments towards such a pedagogy were made by peasant and marginalized communities, especially in the periphery, for whom learning was always a contested and controversial activity. Social workers, clergy, and community leaders all practiced versions of CP long before it was ‘discovered’ by Western academics, Perhaps the best known example of a periphery practitioner is Paolo Freire (1970: 1985). The Brazilian educator’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which formulates the principles that guided his teaching of literacy for peasants, became sanctified scripture for Western academics in the 1980s, having served as a little-known handbook for social workers and church-based literacy organizations in the periphery for more than a decade. I will later make subtler distinctions within the CP movement to bring into relief other aspects of periphery thinking and practices, CP has become fashionable in some of the disciplinary fields mentioned above, but in ELT and language-teaching circles generally it has evoked much hostility. There are many reasons why ideological concerns are often ignored or suppressed in language teaching. Phillipson (1992) and Pennycook (1994a) have argued that the formative discourses and practices in ELT are influenced by its roots in the colonial period. It suited ELT to define language and teaching as a value-free cognitive activity, since in that way its material and ideological interests in spreading English globally could be conveniently ignored. The dominant Enlightenment tradition in the West has also helped by providing a scientistic and positivistic cast to ELT, and by encouraging its perception as an apolitical, technocratic, and utilitarian enterprise. Besides this basic ideological conflict, ELT practitioners have other minor quarrels with CP. These are eloquently reflected in a letter to me from a British colleague, in which he expresses some of the concerns felt by language teachers, and reflects on a set of exchanges on CP where I was a participant: [These exchanges in TESOL Quarterly 28/4: 609-23] highlight for me how ‘Comments’ pages are turning into a kind of academic Punch and Judy show, each party bashing the other over the head with ‘isms’—grand theoretical constructs, beating imposing names, and perhaps like Star Wars technology, each calibrated to target the Achilles heel of a specific adversary. Mainstream perceptions of ideologies tend to be as obsessions of marginal groups, threatening stability and a rational order; liberal humanists tend to feel insulted at theories which widen the net of those who should take responsibility for perpetuating oppressive practices— whether in education or elsewhere ... Too often we see wholesale labeling Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 21 or pigeonholing passing for academic discussion ... We stitch on labels, and stitch the world up in them, too. {Personal communication, Nigel Bruce, 24.11.94) Note that in describing the opponents of critical approaches as belonging to the ‘mainstream’, my colleague is consigning CP to the margins of the discipline. The fact that the assumptions and scholarship of CP appear incomprehensible to non-initiates undoubtedly accounts for much of the opposition it attracts. Symptomatic of its difficulty is the specialized jargon deriving from the ‘isms’—the grand theoretical constructs, and imposing names. CP is also perceived to be too judgmental and condescending towards other practitioners, ‘who should take responsibility for perpetuating oppressive practices’. It is therefore considered to posit certain ‘politically correct’ (the much abhorred ‘PC’) ways of thinking. A third reason is that CP is considered to be too reductive, in narrowing down all issues of teaching to matters of ideology, thereby ‘stitching the world up in labels’. Tn reading politics into everything, CP is ‘widening its net’ and imposing its ‘obsessions’. Finally, itis considered to be too confrontational, disturbing, and perhaps cynical, to the extent of ‘threatening stability and a rational order’. Many critical pedagogues have responded to these sorts of charges, for instance by explaining that their neologisms are required by the new perspectives they are trying to develop. The old language derives from assumptions that are rejected by the new theoretical orientation. Giroux (1992: 151) argues in more strident terms: ‘We're pointing to a theory that examines how you view the very realities you engage. When people say that we write in a language that isn’tas clear as it could be, while that might be true, they’re also responding to the unfamiliarity of a paradigm that generates questions suppressed in the dominant culture. The language of CP therefore involves a fundamental and far-reaching paradigm shift. This might be compared to changing one pair of colored spectacles for another for a different view of the world. It is to be expected that the new pair of spectacles will show everything in a different light. Such is the nature of paradigms, of whatever brand, whether traditional or new. Since CP is radical in the root sense of that term, it is to be expected that its perspective will strike outsiders as being too judgmental and disturbing. To appreciate the significance of CP, therefore, an effort must be made to understand its underlying premises and assumptions, a point made by my British colleague: [those critics of CP] indicate to me at the very highest level of abstraction and the deepest level of socio-political belief, a lack of the kind of reflexivity which might permit them to appreciate the deeper political points being made—or their validity. [They don’t] seem to me to have a22 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching profound—or ‘grounded’—sense of the implications of the attribute ‘critical’ when attached to pedagogy—certainly not grounded in any broader empathetic political philosophy. (Personal communication, Nigel Bruce, 24.11.94) In order to understand the project of CP, therefore, ELT practitioners need to orientate themselves to the post-Enlightenment ways of looking at pedagogical issues, Lack of rigorous reading and imaginative understanding cannot be used as an excuse for opposing a pedagogical paradigm. For their part, critical pedagogues must give heed to the charge that they are sometimes reductive and jargon-ridden, and seek to provide a clear and balanced view of their assumptions. Competing models of critical pedagogy CP must not be taken as a settled body of thought, with a uniform set of pedagogical practices and assumptions. There are different ways of orientating to power and inequality within the critical pedagogical paradigm. ‘We will mainly distinguish here between models of reproduction and resistance. These models derive from social philosophies that explicitly or implicitly theorize the nature of education and schooling. In brief, while reproduction theories are based on somewhat deterministic brands Os, resistance theoriés ate more ope: post ist. perspectives : Reproduction models explain how students are conditioned mentally and behaviorally by the practices of schooling to serve the dominant social institutions and groups; resistance theories explain how there are sufficient contradictions within institutions to help subjects gain agency, conduct critical thinking, and initiate change. CP has itself accommodated-these compt la.5 The distinction between the models, introduced in this section, will be debated as. a subtext to the ethnographic narratives in the later chapters. Examining these competing perspectives can help us develop a sounder research orientation, and a balanced pedagogy for ELT. To orientate ourselves to the main perspectives and questions generated by each model, it is useful to return to the opening narrative. In admiring Peter’s culture and lifestyle, Rajan shows greater receptivity to the values embodied in the text. Peter represents the values of urban, professional, middle-class groups through his drive for success, goal orientation, personal discipline, routinized lifestyle, and delayed gratification. These are the typical values of a society based on competition and individualism. The other features of Mrs K.’s classroom practice—such as learning to orientate to the lesson by ignoring the distractions outside the classroom, obeying the teacher, unquestioningly respecting her authority, and sticking to the order and Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 23 routine in the class—also have ideological implications. They can influence Rajan to undertake alienating mechanical labor while suppressing other expressive and spiritual concerns, accept hierarchical social arrangements, accommodate the demands of authority figures, and prioritize self-interest. The partisan nature of these practices become evident when we consider the alternative set of values the lesson chooses not to present—particularly the traditional rural values based on collective living and a relatively slow pace of life, In presenting the former set of values through its curriculum and pedagogy, the school is making a statement on the communities and cultures it considers as normative, It aligns itself with the dominant culture (based in this instance on urban, technocratic, middle-class values) and disassociates itself from others. Since the school claims to deal only with value-free facts and practices, students like Rajan may not suspect the biased nature of these values. Their legitimacy and superiority would therefore seem entirely ‘natural’ to students—they are, after all, the course’s hidden curriculum, presented under the guise of teaching the simple present tense. Students would actually compete with each other to absorb these values, without any compulsion from outside, since falling into line with these pedagogies and curricula defines educational success. However, the longer-term social consequences of absorbing such values may be imagined. Rajan, certainly, will have greater chances of joining the urban, professional, middle classes. Holding the values of the system, he will be a faithful citizen and a productive worker. He will endorse the social system whose values he holds and profits by. In short, we can see a cyclical process: the dominant social arrangement passes on its values to the school; the school (through its curriculum and pedagogy) passes on those values to students; the students uphold the status quo. The fact that Ravi is somewhat detached from these values does not mean that he is free from domination. His attitudes, being based on a rural lifestyle and values, would lead to his subjection in a more indirect and paradoxical way. To the extent that he is torn between mental and physical labor, curricular and extra-curricular activities, and individual and collective claims (with a bias towards the second set of values), we may suspect that he will not be successful in a curriculum that happens to favor the former set of values. Furthermore, his opposition to some of the messages from the lesson, and his lack of motivation, suggest that educational failure could thrust him into a farming life—which he comes from, and seems to prefer anyway. This would help rather than upset the functioning of the social system, since farmers are in any case needed to produce food for urban professionals. The school would be able to send Ravi to his chosen vocation without being blamed for his failure. Instead, he would blame himself, and accept his return to a lowly position in life as the natural outcome of his poor academic performance. He would not consider his status and educational achievement to have been determined by an unfair educational system, based on partisan I { I I24 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching values that favored one social group over the other. Rather than questioning why Peter’s (and Rajan’s) values should account for success, Ravi would simply blame himself for failing to acquire the required values and dispositions—thereby confirming their legitimacy. So the school is able to reward students unequally, and to preserve the division of labor and status hierarchy in a way that is equally acceptable to the powerful and the powerless. It therefore plays an important function in enforcing these social distinctions and legitimizing inequalities. On the other hand, if Ravi is to become a professional like Rajan, he will have to start by becoming educationally successful, and acquiring the required set of values—which means he will have to grow out of his peasant culture and dispositions. In short, through the different rewards for Ravi and Rajan the school reproduces the dominant ideologies and status quo. This is a simplified explanation of reproduction theory, but we must remember that each society displays different types of stratification, and therefore gives a different priority to its values. The ways in which the school may serve different social systems have to be studied in context. We can in fact stretch this vignette further to consider geopolitical relations in education, inquiring how schooling can influence subjects from the periphery to serve the interests of the center. Apart from the goal-oriented lifestyle and pragmatic values represented by Peter (which Tawney 1964 would associate with the Protestant work ethic and capitalism), certain aspects of the classroom relations are also built on Western technocratic values that are very different from the indigenous educational traditions. The task-based, student-centered approach, coupled with the impersonal relations between personalized pedagogical relations practiced in the indigenous Galion Being attracted to urban technocrai S, Rajai also indirectly accepts the logic of that social system. In fact, he detests the local culture and society. Clearly, his aim is to emigrate to the West and to enjoy the sophisticated lifestyle and material comforts on offer there. Rajan’s assumption that his community is underdeveloped also implies an acceptance of the Western definition of social development and progress (based on technological and material criteria), In addition to the learning environment, the English language would also play a part in internalizing the values of the liberal, individualistic, technocratic culture with which it is predominantly associated, Even if he doesn’t emigrate, Rajan will work to realize similar values and institutions in his own community. He will join the periphery élite that depends on and supports the center—thus helping to reproduce its values and institutions. A reproductionist perspective provides many important insights into processes of schooling and pedagogy. Reproduction models show how pervasively and subtly socio-political forces may shape the learning process. So through its hidden curricula, schooling serves the status quo very Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 25 effectively. The ways in which educational processes may make the dominant ideologies appear natural and legitimate, thereby making subordinate groups internalize such values, are perceptively unraveled by this theory. Such a perspective alerts us to interrogate all aspects of the learning process— curriculum, pedagogy, classroom interactions, school regulations, and educational policies—with a critical eye. The model does, however, appear to overstate the case somewhat, by developing a deterministic and impersonal perspective. It has been pointed out, for example, that domination is never wholesale or inexorable. The processes of domination and reproduction are even more complex, and always involve multifaceted forces, responses, and implications. A closer look at the vignette raises some complicating questions, and evidence that reproduction may not be fully achieved. The conflict Ravi experiences throughout the lesson, for example, should not be ignored. He is clearly uncomfortable with the disparity between what is going on inside and outside the classroom. This unease can be used for reproductive purposes by the status quo (as I have mentioned earlier); it also holds the possibility of motivating oppositional responses. Ravi’s friends, too, display displeasure with the process-oriented and collaborative teaching strategies, preferring, their own cultarally-motivated learning styles. Their lack of interest can motivate opposition to the ideologies implicit in the lesson and the pedagogy; their tensions may in turn generate critical thinking that will help them to rise above domination. Such evidence leads us to the conclusion that students come with a relatively independent consciousness that can display signs of opposition to domination; that the cultures they bring with them can clash with the alien ideologies to resist domination; that human experience is of sufficient complexity and indeterminacy to override what impersonal institutions may predicate; and that students enjoy some agency to challenge reproductive forces. There are other complexities that we need to consider. The culture, ideologies, and discourses of the dominant groups are not monolithic; they are multiple, and even contradictory. So just as the textbook presents ideologies of the work ethic, it also contains messages on the need for leisure, warm relationships, and an expressive lifestyle (reflected in the way Peter spends his weekends). By tapping these counter-cultural elements in the dominant ideology, subordinate groups can resist reproduction. Similarly, the cultures of subordinate people contain diverse conflicting characteristics. They may display traces of domination, but may also embody potential for resistance. It is wrong to assume that the cultures of the subordinate groups are always passive and accommodative. They have a long history of struggle and resistance against the dominant cultures, and members of these communities can tap the resources in their cultures to oppose the thrusts of alien ideologies. Ravi’s Tamil culture, for instance, has a long history, spanning two centuries, of interaction with colonial nations and ideologies.26 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching Local discourses, cultural practices, and literary artifacts embody this conflictual interaction. In fact, in Ravi’s contemporary society there is a thriving linguistic nationalism that opposes the learning and use of English. Students draw from these resources to produce forms of resistance to the alien curricula and pedagogies. Even the local classroom should not be conceived in monolithic terms, because it cannot be fully controlled by the social and political forces from outside its walls. There are complex layers of culture in the classroom itself which will mediate the alien pedagogies and ideologies. The local classroom contains many other forms of culture— indigenous values, students’ peer-group cultures, and teachers’ professional yalues—which will interact with the dominant ideologies in complex ways. The school may also be sufficiently detached from other social institutions and structures to enjoy a measure of autonomy. The classroom may be at tension with other institutions, generating conflict and friction with the dominant ideologies of the status quo—thereby preserving a space for resistance, In this way, the classroom can nurture some of the oppositional attitudes and cultures students bring with them. By granting more complexity to the subjects, the classroom, and the culture, we will find that domination is not guaranteed. The influence of the socio-political forces on classrooms and students can take different trajectories and outcomes. This is why Ravi’s experience of discomfort in the classroom is significant, and merits further exploration: this affirms the relative independence of consciousness, the possibility of a critical perspective, and the potential for opposition. Resistance theorists will say that it is the responsibility of teachers to channel Ravi’s dissatisfactions and conflicts along a more constructive and ideologically-informed direction. How can Ravi’s partial insights be developed and informed by theoretical clarity so that he may challenge and perhaps help transform the sources of domination he confronts? This is the burden of resistance theories. Although this book is in sympathy with theories of resistance for offering possibilities of empowerment for periphery communities, the insights of reproduction theorists cannot be ignored; It has been pointed out that if reproductive models of schooling providé“a language OF critique” to lang ff orn Teting suitable alternatives (Aronowitz ‘and Giroux 1993:+03)- These two models; then, generate questions that will be explored further in the following chapters. In what forms does center ideological influence penetrate into periphery ELT classrooms? What does the everyday life of teachers and students in the periphery suggest about how they confront, cope with, and negotiate forces of reproduction from the center? What tensions in periphery classrooms (in terms of the instructional cultures, interactions, and policies) offer space for resistance? How do the languages, discourses, and cultures of periphery communities offer resources to encourage opposition? Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 27 Theoretical backdrop to studying resistance In order to understand the assumptions motivating the emergent paradigm of pedagogical resistance we need to step back briefly from the pedagogical scene. We must also realize that the paradigm encapsulates theoretical controversies that have taken place for at least a half century between many schools of thought. We need to survey, if briefly, how these debates have helped redefine familiar constructs such as discourse, subjectivity, culture, and power. The philosophical movements of Marxism and structuralism which influence reproduction models have challenged Enlightenment belief in the autonomy of the human mind, purity of knowledge, and the ability to attain a correct, undistorted, objective understanding of reality. The Marxist perspective sees material life (especially economy) as the primary shaping influence on other domains, including education, culture, and even consciousness. The material dimension is considered to be the base.and the latter set, including education, the superstructure of social life. Some early interpretations of Marxist thinking posited that the economic relations of the base unilaterally shaped the superstructure (sce, for a critique, Williams 1977: 75-82). It thus follows that schooling and knowledge are determined by the material necessities of a particular society. What are called economic reproduction models show a direct influence from Marxism in theorizing this connection.é For structuralism, the subject is a construct of the social symbol system. Although seracturaliom gives more importance to mental life than Marxism, consciousness is coded in symbols that are socially constructed. Contradicting the humanist perspective that granted independence and autonomy for the subject, structuralism views the subject as dominated by linguistic and symbol systems. These symbol systems are ideological, and provide a partisan orientation to reality and social institutions for subjects. Institutions such as the school are perceived as helping to internalize these discourses among students. Influenced by structuralist thinking, ideological reproduction models view classrooms as determined by the dominant discourses of society, and-shaping the perspectives of the students accordingly.’ Thinkers such as Althusser reconcile their Marxism by suggesting that although the economic realm is the important driving force, it does not have full control of the superstructure. It is what he terms the ideologi apparatus (of which the school is a part) that performs the mediating function of reproducing society. . Less deterministic than the above are the cultural reproduction models which theorize the mediating role of culture in achieving Social reproduction.® These models are influenced by the theoretical insights of cultural politics developed by Raymond Williams, Bourdieu and Passeron, and the like. While economic reproduction theorists consider the relationship between28 Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching material requirements and school to be more or less direct, cultural repro- duction theorists perceive reproduction to be the result of an interesting correspondence between the values upheld by the school and those of the dominant social groups. The school shapes the consciousness and behavior of the students by distributing the cultural practices of the dominant groups as the norm. Students who acquired this linguistic and cultural capital would grow to justify and serve the interests of the dominant groups. Because of the perceived neutrality of the school, the subordinate groups imbibe the school culture without recognizing its biased and partisan nature, and, thus, participate in their own domination, So for cultural reproduction theorists, the school does not have to mirror the economic and political conditions outside its walls. Its practices and agenda may only indirectly suit the reproductive needs of the dominant institutions. This notion of the school’s relative autonomy from the economic and political instica vides greatercomplexity to thé reproductive process, But the culturalist models fail to exploit this detachmienrof the schoo! t6 Consider how it may function as an oppositional site to help change social institutions. The common point of departure for the various resistance theories from the reproductive orientation of structuralism and Marxism can be explained in the following way. When Marxism’s material grounding of consciousness and institutions is disturbed by linguistic mediation, the superstructure acquires a relative independence and fluidity to initiate change. Although structuralism helped to remove the stifling hold of the material base in just such a manner, it posited that there was a uniform set of codes that governed the functioning of subjects and institutions. These socially-consteucted codes were treated as beyond individual control or production. But if these codes are heterogeneous and conflictual, defying the construction of rigid systems (as post-structuralist notions of language define), domination cannot be guaranteed. Post-structuralist thinking thus unravels the inherent contradictions within subjects and institutions that may defy the reproductive thrusts of material or ideological structures. The project of the different models of resistance is to critique centeredness, binding, uniformity, cohesion, generalization, abstraction, globalism, and determinism in favor of decentering, unboundedness, diversity, splintering, concreteness, specificity, localism, and indeterminateness. The redefinition of constructs such as subjecthood, culture, power, and knowledge by resistance theories has enabled us to conceptualize the t ing Tesisea inking, such as post-structuralism, post-modernism, post-colonialism, neo-Marxism, and feminism, do not fall into neat compartments.’ In fact, they borrow from each other quite fluidly. But there are also ongoing (sometimes vehement) arguments and debates between and within these schools. We will only explore here how these theoretical schools converge to develop a perspective on resistance. If we are to appreciate the Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 29 discourses of resistance we must understand how the following basic constructs have been contested and redefined, and will therefore begin with the medium which is considered to lie at the heart of these redefinitions. Language Over the years we have been taught to perceive language as an abstract and neutral entity that does not embody values or ideologies. Such a transparent medium was thought to reveal to the transcendental human mind a reality without distortions. It was this orientation that gave the Enlightenment the confidence to use the passive tool of language to penetrate the veil of nature, and to master its laws. Structuralist linguistics, through the foundational work of Saussure (1959), challenged this perspective. Structuralism considers language to be a socially constructed symbol system that reflects, embodies, and constitutes the values of the speech community.!° Besides being value- laden, language is a much more independent and dynamic agent. It is viewed as constructing or socializing our consciousness. It is also through the symbol system of language that we make sense of the world and conduct thought. As such, language serves to represent, interpret, and constitute the reality available to subjects. If ideologically-loaded language serves to define our sense of reality and subjectivity, we can understand how hegemonical language can be. It internalizes the dominant values and ideologies in a pervasive and deep-rooted manner. These notions add up to politicize language and explain its powerful reproductive function. However, constructs such as discourse, ideology, texts, and social system are treated as isomorphic by structuralism. Language thus enjoys little space to resist the imposition of ideology. Subjects, too, are totally governed by the dominant discourses.!! Post-structuralist perspectives challenge the deterministic aspects of the structuralist legacy, opening avenues for the development of a resistance linguistics. While Saussure posited that linguistic signs have no positive content, but define each other in relation to the total system by being unlike each other, post-structuralists latch on to this insight to cut off linguistic signs from any control of the system or structure whatsoever. Saussure had restricted the proliferation of meaning by accommodating the signs into a tight, overarching structure. For post-structuralists, the signs were caught in a play of endless oppositions, destabilizing the structure and producing multiple meanings. Meaning thus becomes fluid and dynamic as signs are placed in different’contexts. This orientation inspires a critical practice of deconstructing texts to reveal the linguistic contradictions and inconsistencies and, thus, expose the hidden ideologies that control meaning. The exposure of suppressed meanings and discourses is the primary form of resistance for what is labeled the micro politics of post-structuralism (Foucault 1980). Because dominant groups sustain economic and political power by } i { i |30. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching manipulating meanings, unpacking this linguistic base is supposed to undermine the whole socio-political edifice.'? The definition of discourse has gone through parallel changes. While structuralism enabled the perception of language-as-discourse in orientating to the linguistic genres which come with concomitant rules of thinking, communicating, and interacting, it had perceived these genres in monolithic terms. Post-structuralism situates discourse in historical and social context as being periodically redefined according to the conflict of different communities for dominance. The resultant tension within and between each discourse enables subjects to negotiate their status and, in the process, to reconstruct discourses according to their interests and changing orientations. Furthermore, the relations between notions such as ideology, discourse, and text have been more complexly reconceptualized. While ideology finds its clearest manifestation in language, the connection between language and ideology depends on the category of discourse. The defined and delimited set of statements that constitute a discourse are themselves expressive of and organized by a specific ideology. Ideology and discourse are considered to be aspects of the same phenomenon, regarded from two different standpoints. Discourse is the linguistic realization of the social construct ideology. Furthermore, text and discourse are distinguished by the fact that the abstract paradigms of discourse are ling ally manifested in texts. It is now possible for critical linguists to posit that within one text there could be a manifestation to two or more discourses. Theorizing ideology, discourse, texts, and language as distinct constructs, while being interconnected and mutually influential, suggests the various levels of mediation involved, and opens up the tensions that enable resistance. The post-structuralist orientation to language, then, frees subjects to reclaim their agency, negotiate the different subjectivities and ideologies offered by competing discourses, and adopt a subject position favorable to their empowerment. This linguistic orientation has encouraged some schools of socio- and ethno-linguistics to reorient to linguistic conflict at the micro- social and interpersonal level, and explicate how language is implicated in the creative ways subjects negotiate identities, roles, and statuses in everyday life, Critical linguists interpret how speech genres and texts may serve the ideological interests of the powerful. More pertinent to this project, researchers of post-colonial communities reveal how subjects alternate the vernacular and English in a contextually advantageous manner to challenge the unequal distribution of symbolic and matecial rewards." Subjectivity Many implications for subjectivity derive from the above linguistic redefinitions. The heterogeneous and conflictual nature of discourses provides the possibility that one may enjoy a range of subject positions Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy 31 according to the different discourses available, and that subjectivity is always fluid and negotiable (Smith 1988). This provides subjects with the possibility of forming new identities and gaining a critical consciousness by resisting dominant discourses. Much of this thinking has centered around gaining one’s voice, that is, being able to articulate one’s interests and aspirations by negotiating a space through the competing discourses (Mohanty 1990, Walsh 1991). The specific strategy of gaining voice is contrapuntal, i.e. it is not achieved by escaping from discourse or by conforming to one, but by working against the available discourses. Resistance theories have thus been able to develop the agency of the subject to resist domination against the overdetermined control of social and ideological discourses theorized by structuralism. By arguing that subjecthood is constructed by a unitary system of language and discourse, structuralist thinking had effaced the agency, individuality, and integrity of the ‘person’. Although Enlightenment thinking placed the human subject as transcendental and autonomous, rising above influences from the material environment, with an inner core of consciousness that provided each with a unique identity, this was too idealistic. While resistance thinking acknowledges the power of dominant discourses to constitute subjectivity and confer marginalized identities for some, it enables a critical negotiation with the dominant discourses as an important step in resisting power structures. Culture Resistance theories have also opened up culture to show its inner creative tensions. While reproduction models insightfully politicized culture by noting the manner in which it performs ideological and hegemonical functions, they adopt a monolithic orientation that posits only unilateral influence. For example, the cultures of the subaltern groups are homogeneously defined, and considered to mediate on behalf of forces of domination, rather than to enable resistance. But post-structuralist theories assume that each community’s culture is made up of a conglomeration of diverse strands which embody hybrid traditions of domination and resistance. The multiple symbols, discourses, artifacts, texts, and practices that constitute a culture in a particular community are always at tension (Hassan 1987, Hutcheon 1989). Endeavors to homogeneously define a culture and impose labels such as high or low (as in the Enlightenment tradition) are attempts from the perspective of the dominant groups to limit the complexity of the cultural formation in their favor. The notion of hegemony articulates how the dominant groups are always involved in building consent to their power by influencing the culture and knowledge of subordinate groups (Williams 1977: 108-14). From this perspective, cultural hegemony is an ongoing activity, a process, that can always be met by opposition. This perspective augurs well for developing strategies of resistance. It is possible for | i