An interview with Henry A. Giroux


BY Manuela Guilherme

Centro de Estudos Sociais
Universidade de Coimbra

Henry Giroux became established as a leading figure in radical education theory in the 1980s. Not only did he revive the arguments for civic education proposed by the main educational theorists of the 20th century, namely Dewey, Freire and others such as the reconstructionists Counts, Rugg and Brameld, but he also advanced their theories by expanding them into the idea of a ‘border pedagogy’. His proposal can be viewed as the application of a post-colonial cosmopolitan perspective to the North American notion of democratic civic education. Giroux provides us with a vision for education that addresses the challenges which demographically and politically changing western societies are facing at the beginning of the 21st century. The longer it takes for policy makers in education to take his guidance seriously, the more time and possibilities we will all be wasting and missing. In fact, educators at all levels of the educational system and all over the world are experiencing growing de-motivation and even frustration because they feel they have been forced backwards lately instead of moving forwards in challenging themselves, both as professionals and citizens, to meet the needs of our fast-changing societies. Giroux has urged educators and academics to react against these paralysing pressures and to be critical, creative and hopeful about the potential that both they and their students offer, in order to counter the conservative political tendencies which have been imposing a definition of excellence in education that means submission to market pressures rather than educational excellence in terms of innovative intellectual production. Giroux argues for both critique and possibility in education and advocates independence and responsibility for teachers and students, that is, he claims dignity and respect for educational institutions, teachers and students. Giroux has bravely recovered the political nature of the everyday labor of educational researchers and of educators themselves. Furthermore, Giroux has also eloquently theorized a critical pedagogy of Cultural Studies based on what was proposed by the educationalist Raymond Williams himself. In fact, the field of Cultural Studies has been problematised, and is itself problematic, although very rich and promising, since it has broken down the barriers between disciplines. Therefore, it needs to be fully theorised in order to describe its goals, as well as the bases of its knowledge and processes. Giroux has made important contributions to these processes by mapping the relationships between language, text, society, new technologies and underlying power structures. He has thus responded to its critics and to those academics who have adhered to it in order to follow fashion or find a way out of their now neglected traditional disciplines. In addition, he has indicated new paths that go beyond recuperating Williams’ and Hall’s politically committed and scientifically founded new field of Cultural Studies and move into examining the implications of new technologies in the exchange and re-creation of new knowledge within new power relationships. It is nonetheless worth mentioning that Giroux has also been successful in identifying new modes of representation and learning.

Giroux has indeed advanced a new school of thought and inspired both educational theorists and practitioners into action with his powerful, vibrant and committed voice. By advocating a pedagogy of responsibility, he has himself taken responsibility for his own political and social role as an academic. He has focused his sights on redefining and strengthening the notion of ‘the public’ with regard to knowledge, education and civic life, mainly by incorporating into the construction of those fields the concepts of ‘public time’ and ‘public arena’. While most educational theorists have focussed on the influence of society on the educational context, Giroux, although critically unveiling the political and economic forces that threaten academic and school independence and creativity, is more daring and clearly draws our attention to the transformative potential of the academy and the school within wider a society. In doing so, he recaptures the political in the pedagogical. Finally, even though he focuses his discourse on general education, civic education and cultural studies, Giroux’s proposals for educational theory and practice offer language and intercultural communication theorists and practitioners a basis for renewing their visions and practices. Having made these points, in an attempt to contextualize Giroux’s statements below, it is now time to let his voice emerge.


READ FULL ARTICLE AT: http://www.henryagiroux.com/RoleOfCritPedagogy.htm

Henry Giroux: Rethinking the Promise of Critical Education Under an Obama Regime

Tuesday 02 December 2008

by: Chronis Polychroniou, t r u t h o u t | Interview

In the most general sense, I understand education as a moral and political practice whose purpose is not only to introduce students to the great reservoir of diverse intellectual ideas and traditions, but also to engage those inherited bodies of knowledge thorough critical dialogue, analysis and comprehension. At the same time, education is a set of social experiences and an ethical space through which it becomes possible to rethink what Jacques Derrida once called the concepts of the "possible and the impossible," and to enable what Jacques Rancière calls loosening the coordinates of the sensible through a constant reexamination of the boundaries that distinguish the sensible from the subversive. Both theorists are concerned with how the boundaries of knowledge and everyday life are constructed in ways that seem unquestionable, making it necessary not only to interrogate commonsense assumptions, but also to ask what it means to question such assumptions and see beyond them. As a political and moral practice, education always presupposes a vision of the future in its introduction to, preparation for and legitimization of particular forms of social life, demanding answers to the questions of whose future is affected by these forms. For what ends and to what purposes do they endure?

READ FULL ARTICLE: http://www.truthout.org/article/henry-giroux-rethinking-promise-critical-education

HOME PAGE



Theories of Metaphor in Discourse > Contemporary Theories of Metaphor

Background Papers

The four background papers cover some of the major ideas currently active in the field of metaphor. The first paper, Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), summarises the view of metaphor that has dominated the field since the 1980s, replacing earlier views that saw metaphor as decorative or literary use of language. The other three present recent responses and challenges to this theory.

All approaches share the idea that metaphor involves two concepts or conceptual domains: the Topic (or Target), which is what is being spoken or written about, and the Vehicle (or Source), which is used metaphorically to speak or write about the Topic. The Vehicle (or Source) is distinct from the Topic and its use influences how the Topic is understood.

The theories differ in which aspects of metaphor they emphasis and in their proposals for how metaphor works. CMT (1) emphasises the conceptual, downplaying the language that people actually use. Context-Limited Simulation Theory (CLS - 3) prioritises thoughts and emotions attached to the Vehicle or Source concept and language, seeing these as key to metaphorical meaning. Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models Theory (LCCM - 4) does something similar, with the idea of ‘cognitive models’ appearing to be more or less the same as ‘networks of perceptual simulators’. CMT takes a broad view of metaphor, including those conventionalized into language and thought; LCCM rejects all but the strongest Topic / Vehicle contrasts as being metaphorical. The Discourse Dynamics Framework (2) attempts to explain how these variations can be connected into a single framework that takes account of language in use.

Other theories of, and around, metaphor that are widely referenced in the field include (with key names):

Class Inclusion theory of metaphor (Glucksberg & Keysar)

Conceptual Blending (Fauconnier & Turner)

Metaphor as Analogy (Gentner)

Primary metaphor theory (Grady)