Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dialogic Pedagogy for Social Justice: A Critical Examination

  • Published:
Studies in Philosophy and Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A crucial component of any education, dialogue is viewed by many social justice educators as their primary means towards rectifying social inequalities. Yet the extent to which the particular educational practices they recommend meet the needs or interests of their students who face systemic disadvantage remains unclear. This essay examines claims for and against dialogical pedagogy for increasing social justice. While conceding that dialogue is necessary for developing praxis as a student and participant in society, the essay argues that the prescriptive tone of some educators committed to social justice undermines their capacity for dealing concretely with the needs and interests of those they intend to better serve. The conclusion is drawn that educators committed to increasing equality must develop pedagogical attitudes informed by various educational implications of structural injustice as well as by the specific contexts in which they serve as teachers of both particular skills and content.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Freire (1970).

  2. Lugones and Spelman (1983, p. 578).

  3. Dead Prez (2000).

  4. Freire (1970, p. 79).

  5. Gender usage is from the original text.

  6. Freire (1970, p. 76).

  7. Glass (2004, p. 17).

  8. Glass (2004, p. 28).

  9. Boler (2004, p. 19).

  10. Boler (2004, p. 3).

  11. Boler (2004, pp. 3–14).

  12. Boler (2004, p. 13).

  13. Lugones and Spelman (1983, p. 581).

  14. Lugones and Spelman (1983, p. 580).

  15. Hooks (1995, p. 186).

  16. For particular instances see Lugones and Spelman (1983) or Jones (2004, pp. 57–68).

  17. de Castelle (2004, p. 53).

  18. Rizvi (2005, p. 177).

  19. Actually, it is more accurate to say that Lugones articulates this in dialogue with Spelman in the piece; while critical to dialogue, the essay consists primarily of dialogue between the two feminist thinkers.

  20. Lugones and Spelman (1983, p. 581).

  21. Lugones and Spelman (1983, p. 576).

  22. Chang (2006, pp. 931–932).

  23. Boler (1994).

  24. Mayo (2006, p. 44).

  25. Jones (2004, p. 62).

  26. Appiah (1994, p. 163).

  27. Oakes (1986).

  28. Rizvi (2005, p. 177).

  29. Mitchie (1999).

References

  • Appiah, K. A. (1994). Identity, authenticity, and survival: Multicultural societies and social reproduction. In A. Guttman (Ed.), Multiculturalism: The politics of recognition. Princeton: Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boler, M. (1994). The risks of empathy: Interrogating multiculturalism’s gaze. In Philosophy of education yearbook 1994. Champaign: University of Illinois.

  • Boler, M. (2004). All speech is not free: The ethics of ‘affirmative action pedagogy’. In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogues in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence (p. 19). New York: Peter Lang.

  • Chang, M. J. (2006). Affirmative action. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 931–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Castelle, S. (2004). No speech is free: Affirmative action and the politics of give and take. In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogues. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dead Prez. (2000). They school. In Lets get free. New York, NY: Relativity Records.

  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (trans: Ramos, M. B.). New York: Continuum.

  • Glass, R. D. (2004). Moral and political clarity and education as a practice of freedom. In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogues. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooks, B. (1995). Killing rage. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (2004). Talking cure: The desire for dialogue. In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogues. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lugones, M. C., & Spelman, E. V. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism, and the demand for ‘the woman’s voice’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(6).

  • Mayo, C. (2004). The tolerance that dare not speak its name. In M. Boler (Ed.), Democratic dialogues. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchie, G. (1999). Holler if you hear me: The education of a teacher and his students. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, J. (1986). The policy and practice of curriculum inequity. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1).

  • Rizvi, F. (2005). Representations of Islam and education for justice. In C. McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity, and representation in education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Policy Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 360 Education, M/C 708, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA

    Liz Jackson

Authors
  1. Liz Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liz Jackson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jackson, L. Dialogic Pedagogy for Social Justice: A Critical Examination. Stud Philos Educ 27, 137–148 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9085-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9085-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation