A Critical Transformative Leadership for Curricular Reform
by
Ms. Warren
Introduction
When we think about higher education we tend not to perceive it as a monopoly. However, there is one dominant worldview that dictates curriculum in many institutes of higher education. This paradigm is constructed upon Eurocentric epistemologies and ontologies that render silent any other way of envisioning and studying our social reality. Some educators uncritically adopt this frame of reasoning and the affects are clear. Students are adversely influenced and affected by this state of affairs.
Anglo-American students have their identities affirmed and are further imbued with the belief that their way of knowing and understanding reality is the only way. Additionally, they are further indoctrinated into a historically situated system of power and privilege, which has produced and maintained inequitable and repressive social conditions that exist today. Simultaneously, students of color find themselves having to push aside their ways of understanding “reality.” In the process they are silenced, as their ability to critically advocate on their own behalf (personal agency) is comprised. They enter the world dis-empowered and judged by a society that that does not include their voice. Perpetuating a subtle form of discrimination, this Eurcentrism is antithetical to the democratic notions our nation so boldly decries.
This essay will tackle the urgent call to address and lead a critical transformation in the inequitable conditions that exist within postsecondary education. This movement, however, can only be affected if educators take the lead to democratize their thinking and teaching methods and work to provide students with tools to diversify their thinking in critical and empowering ways. Curriculum, and even more broadly pedagogy, is key in this endeavor to facilitate change, as current pedagogical praxis operates in a wholly undemocratic manner.
The Problem: Underinterrograted Whiteness
It has been posited (McLaren
and Giarelli 1995; McLaren, P. 1993; McIntyre 1997)
that Whiteness operates as the dominant paradigm in pedagogical praxis in the
educational system in the
It must be understood that Whiteness is about more than race and more than a phenotype. One can be African American and still ascribe to Whiteness. Jackson and Tierney (in press) purport that “Whiteness encompasses privilege, status, and power, both social and discursive” (p. 7). It is a belief, a way of ordering reality that maintains a hierarchical structure of reasoning and being. However, this ideology has elusive characteristics “ . . . designed to accent a naturalized way of being [thinking and performing] that is equivalent to what it means to be White” (Jackson & Tierny, in press, p. 5). Consequently, many blacks and whites alike refuse to accept that this normative exist. In not acknowledging this normalization of Whiteness, it remains unscrutinized and its dominance is established. Thus, it is naturalized as the right way, provides “taken-for-granted frames for making sense of our social reality and maintains inequitable power structures and relations” (Jackson & Tierny, in press, p. 12).
If Whiteness ideology is the hegemonic norm upon
which our society is situated and operates, then curriculum can be seen as a
tool for maintenance of this ideology.
McLaren (1993) supports this assertion for he observes “ . . . “whiteness”. . . metonymizes the standard curricula
and constructs the legitimating norms for our pedagogies” (p. 155). Since, according to McLaren
(1993), the ideology of Whiteness can serve as a substitute for curriculum and
works to define pedagogy it has a powerful presence in the Academy. These strategies are highly effective for
maintaining power structures by inscribing Whiteness in the minds of those who
must reproduce it – white students, those of color and even educators who have
moved through educational system in
It can be argued that multicultural education is making postsecondary curriculum more inclusive of cultural difference. But as McIntyre (1997) acknowledges,
White educators are implicated in the norms, standards, and educational models set by white academics and institutions. Subsequently, we frame our perspectives of multicultural education in such a way that it loses its original critique of the multiple levels of miseducation for [students] of color and of white [students] as well, and the unequal distribution of wealth and power that exists in our nation . . . is partially lived out within the confines of our education institutions (p. 13).
As a white educator, McIntyre seems to understand the insidious nature of Whiteness ideology and the detrimental effects it can have on educators and students alike. There are, however, many educators who understand the effects and still will not critically interrogate their curriculum and teaching practices in academe for its maintenance of racial exclusion and the system of power and privilege this exclusion affords (McLaren, 1995, p. 155).
The potential effects on students are quite
negative.
Specifically, though, for students of color, this ethic can perpetuate a lack of personal agency and empowerment. Jackson et al. (2002) underscores this claim by asserting that “curricular homogeneity, poor textbook coverage of cultural perspective, and culture-insensitive pedagogy . . . fails to promote the success of student of color . . . they inhibit it” (p. 1). With this absence it becomes extremely clear to students of color that their lives and realities are of no consequence to the Academy (Jackson, Morrison & Dangerfield, 2002, p. 1-2). Moreover, through this absence, white students come to believe that the experience of people/students of color is of no concern to them. McLaren (1993), quoting Molefi Kete Asante in relation to the Black populous posits “[e]uropeanization of human consciousness . . . has a debilitating effect on the identity formation of [all students]” (p. 173). This state of affairs has an even greater incapacitating influence on our society.
The democratic notions upon which our society has been constructed are not being adequately upheld. As Whiteness ideology is reinforced through pedagogy, more often than not white students emerge as key in the reproduction and maintenance of continued marginalization and power and privilege. According to Giroux (1997), “ . . . schools are “reproductive” in that they provide different classes and social groups with forms of knowledge, skills, and culture that . . . legitimate the dominant culture” (p. 119). This is a problem for the so-called equal distribution of wealth and ethic of individuality touted as democratic. If power and privilege is afforded to those who ascribe to Whiteness ideology, then the skills and knowledge provided in academe affords some the tools for socioeconomic and political growth, while other’s ability to procure the same is severely comprised. McLaren (1993) continues this dialectic, whereby “whiteness is still a marker of special elites who have . . . political, social, and economic advantage” (p. 155). This is antithetical to a truly functioning democracy. In this frame inequities are rampant and socioeconomic and political immobility is inextricably tied to people of color.
As dismal a portrait as this essay paints of pedagogical praxis in the Academy and its effects on educators, students and our society, there is a solution. A form of leadership that is critical and transformative must be cultivated. In this respect educators become key. They are in the frontlines, that is, in the classroom. If instructors and professors begin to take a stand, students will benefit and institutes of higher education will have to take notice in an active and fundamental manner. The first step in activating this form of leadership is to address the benefits to educators, students, and society, in addition to defining just what a critical transformative leadership involves.
In thinking ‘critical,’ postmodernity offers a vehicle for this process (McLaren 1995, McLaren & Giarelli 1993; Giroux 1991, 1997). As a critical theory, postmodern directs our attention toward a questioning of ultimate authority and the borders it constructs within our society. For Habermas postmodernity is the “ . . . rejection of grand narratives [and] denial of epistemological foundations” (quoted in Giroux, 1991, p. 12). In Dick Hebdige’s musings he proclaims,
If postmodernism means . . . opening up a critical discourse in the line of inquiry which were formerly prohibited, of evidence which has previously inadmissible so that new and different questions can be asked and new and other voices can begin asking them; if it means opening up of institutional and discursive spaces within which . . . plural social . . . identities may develop; if it means the erosion of . . . formations of power and knowledge . . . [and] enhances our collective (and democratic) sense of possibility, then I for one am a postmodernist (quoted in Giroux, 1991, p. 16).
Giroux (1991) acknowledges a myriad of definitions of postmodernity. But from him it definitely,
. . . raises a new set of questions regarding how culture is inscribed in the production of center/margin hierarchies . . .[and] a reconsideration of the intersection of race [power and politics] . . .; postmodernism provides forms of historical knowledge as a way of reclaiming power and identity for subordinate groups (p. 23).
Within the Academy, the critical theory postmodernity espouses, centers on self-reflection and questioning critically the status quo defining teaching and learning and its effect on students’ identities, as well as educators’. That is, are curricula and educators empowering or oppressive? In this way, a critical leadership places the problem central (McLaren & Giarelli 1995 p. 2).
This strategy is underscored in Tierney’s (1989) critical interpretation of leadership as it relates to curriculum development and teaching in academia. But Tierney (1989) relies heavily on the notion of “moral action.” Educators have the moral obligation to promote democracy and empower students through democratizing knowledge (p. 164). This, however, cannot be done in isolation, especially since democracy is structured upon participatory governance. Leadership in this sense is about dialogue and looking inward for the betterment of individuals, communities, and societies (Tierney, 1989, p. 166). Curriculum development in its current function of constraining students’ lives, through the frame of critical leadership would potentially be emancipatory. But in looking toward a critical leadership to dismantle the system of power and privilege that exists within the minds of some educators (even if unconscious), pedagogy and society, not to mention the indoctrination of students into this ‘europeanization,’ it is not enough to lead a critical inquiry into practices and effects. In the end only a critical transformative leadership can provide the criterion for the action necessary to truly effect change.
In Tierney’s assessment of critical leadership in academe, there seems to be some trepidation in positing a ‘critical transformative leadership,’ in that he speaks of transformational leadership as a subset or aspect of critical leadership. He does not integrate the terms to boldly assert a new understanding of leadership as critically transformative. According to the Handbook of Organization Studies (1996), in its discussion of transformational leadership,
first, the leader recognizes . . . the need for change and formulates a vision in relation to those needs. Second, the leader communications that vision, a process which entails depicting the status quo as unacceptable and then generating a rhetoric, which aids in the understanding of the vision. Third, the leader builds trust in the vision. Last, the leader helps others achieve the vision through leading by example . . . and by empowering others (p. 281).
Placing this within the context of academe, pedagogy, educators, students, society and critical leadership, a transformative ethic provides the vehicle for effective action. I will postulate five components to this ethic. (1) Educators (in the classroom), are to take the role of leader. (2) Through critical dialogue and self-analysis, the understanding should be garner that in our postmodern times the need for change is eminent. The status quo of the hegemonic normative of Whiteness ideology is no longer acceptable, as it goes again the fundamental principles of democracy and the moral obligation these principles assert. (3) Based on these understandings that have evolved through critical thought, educators then establish a way of thinking and sharing knowledge that communicates their new stance in pedagogical praxis. (4) The trust, however, is the educator firmly believing that they can make a change – trusting in their newfound critical realizations. It is a scary thing to work against the status quo. But in believing in their own stance and communicating it within and through a community (with their support) that has evolved through critical dialogue, the potential for change is there. (5) The final component is to develop curriculum that has a moral underpinning and teach to empower, emancipate, and democratize.
Underscoring these ethics, Giroux’s vision is to “ . . . fashion a view of . . . teachers as transformative intellectuals who work toward a realization regarding their views of community, social justice, empowerment, and transformation” (quoted in Tierney, 1989, p.163). Even though Giroux is not explicitly saying ‘leadership,’ the connotation is there. In moving in this direction of teachers as critical transformative leaders and intellectuals, their attention has to be on content in the classroom. To develop a curriculum that upholds these ethics, the educator must be able to empathize with the needs of students and through this empathy and their critical understanding be able to “elevate [students] to new levels of consciousness . . .” (p. 165).
In a more pragmatic sense, educators enacting critical transformative leadership would design and teach a curriculum that would
“ . . . be organized in ways that enable students to make judgments about difference, that is, about how society is historically and socially constructed both within and outside a politics of diversity and how existing social practices within the various public spheres are implicated in relations of equality and justice as well as how they structure inequalities around racism . . . exclusion and other forms of oppression” (McLaren & Giarelli 1995 p. 5)
This leadership could effectively dismantle the hegemonic norm of Whiteness in pedagogy. Educational institutions and educators would actually be carrying out their obligation to students – to prepare them for effective participation within our society, providing them the necessary agency to be advocates for themselves and others in a socially responsible sense, not in a separatist ethic of individuality. Power and privilege could be questioned in a viable critical sense. Whiteness would finally be interrogated as antithetical to the democratization of students. Through a critical transformative leadership change will be initiated for the educator, institutionally (departmentally or within a small community of educators), pedagogically and for students and, ultimately, society.
My ultimate goal here is to begin a discussion of educators as leaders, a topic that is absent from much of the literature. It has also been to provide a situation or problem for educators to assert leadership. This is not to take away from the profundity of the exigence as laid out. Clearly, there is a problem. In the end, only a critical transformative leadership will reform the normative of Whiteness in curriculum that continues empower some students at the expense others and compromises the enactment of a true democratic nation.
References
Clegg, S, Hardy, C,& Nord, W. (1996). Handbook of organization studies.
Giroux, H. (1997).
Pedagogy and the politics of hope:
Theory, culture and schooling.
Giroux,
H. (1991). Introduction: Modernism, postmodernism, feminism: Rethinking the boundaries of educational
discourse. In H. Giroux (Ed.), Postmodernism, feminism,
and cultural politics: Redrawing education boundaries. (pp.
1-59)
Jackson,
R. & Tierny, S. (in press). Deconstructing whiteness ideology as a set of rhetorical fantasy
themes: Implications for intercultural
alliance building in the
Jackson,
R, Morrison, C. & Dangerfield, C. (2002). Exploring
cultural contracts in the classroom and curriculum: Implications of identity negotiation and
effects in communication curricula. In J. Trent (Ed.) Communication:
Learning climates that cultivate racial and ethnic diversity. (123-136).
McIntyre, Alice.
(1997). Making
meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial
identity with white teachers.
McLaren, P. (1993). Critical pedagogy and predatory
culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era.
McLaren, P. & Giarelli, J.
(1995) Introduction: Critical theory and educational research. In P. McLaren & J. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and educational
research. (pp. 1-22).
Popkewitz, T. (1997). The production of reason and power: Curriculum history and intellectual traditions. Curriculum Studies 29 (3), 131-164.
Tierney, W. G. (1989).
Advancing democracy: A critical interpretation of leadership.