that praxis requires a fragile ‘alliance’ between theory and practice, ‘not a unity in which
one dissolves the other’.
‘Reflection’ by students should not simply be a superficial evaluation of ‘what they
have learnt... [and] the skills that they have developed’ (Lawson 2005, p. 14) but should
involve recognition of the ‘causes of reality’ (Freire 1972, p. 101). “True” praxis for
critical pedagogues liberates humanity because it enables us to both perceive, from
historical, cultural, economic, personal and political perspectives, and to act upon, the
‘structures of domination’ which oppress the people (ibid.). Hatcher (2007, p. 9) also
suggests that ‘the strategy of collective action. [should involve] parents, school students,
local communities, and the whole constituency of working people and oppressed groups
who have a common class interest’. However, effective action may begin with just a few
players: for example, ‘students and teachers fighting for the expulsion of a corporate
influence in their schools’ (DeLeon 2006, p. 7).
Giving students a critical sense of ‘agency’ may empower them towards
conscientization (Freire 1972; Giroux 1997). However, for Aronowitz and Giroux (1986,
p. 140), critical pedagogy must also ‘attempt to link the languages of critique and
possibility’, if it is to have any hope of success in realising such agency. An optimistic and
non-deterministic approach is therefore essential, fighting against the feeling that ‘it is
unrealistic to expect informed political deliberation from the mass public’ (Niemi and Junn
1998, p. 1). The government, through the citizenship curriculum, may project an
optimistic outlook for the future and, while this may be interpreted as a mask for the
hegemonic oppression contained within (Aronowitz and Giroux 1986), it may also provide
the necessary spaces for students and teachers to ‘re-construct the world’ for the ‘good of
humanity’ (Kincheloe 2008, p. 9).
12