to ‘traverse’ disciplines such as feminism, race and identity politics, postmodernism,
postcolonialism and cultural studies. Current criticisms of critical pedagogues often centre
on their use of postmodern approaches: there is particular disapproval of their over-use of
‘their own neologisms (newly-coined words)’ (Gibson 1986, p. 16). It is also
acknowledged, even by those “inside” the field, that the association of critical pedagogy
with the more individualistic postmodernist perspectives has “opened up” critical
pedagogy to the range of criticisms of that perspective and specifically that it is ‘too
theoretical, abstract, esoteric, and out of touch’ (Apple 2000, p. 253); ‘proudly
unpragmatic’; and connected ‘poorly with life in the classroom’ (Wrigley 2006, p. 179).
It is important to emphasise that critical pedagogy does not necessarily subscribe to
a Marxist or equivalent viewpoint1, although there have been recent calls to distance it
from postmodernism and move ‘back’ towards an ideological focal point (McLaren 2001).
While the moralistic goals of critical pedagogues may align with those of liberal and
“social democratic” educationalists wishing to promote ‘equality, dignity, security, and
participation’ (Osler 1998, p. 125), their visions of the root causes of injustice, as well as
the methods they advocate to combat injustice, are somewhat different. The critical
pedagogues’ view that the struggle against injustice is a fight for ‘emancipation’ (Giroux
2003) rather than ‘freedom’ (Sen 1999) is a subtle but important distinction resting on the
powerful concept of oppression.
De Lissovoy (2008, p. 84) laments the ‘variety of directions’ from which critical
pedagogy approaches the ‘problem of oppression and education’ and suggests that they
should be ‘connected to standpoints’ (common epistemological worldviews arising from a
particular social, cultural or economic position), based on the theories of Lukacs (1971).
The ‘standpoints’ from which oppression theories could arise are wide-ranging and might