Domestic v. Mental Critical Theory

The theoretical power of critical social theory, and in particular critical theory in education, seems to have lost its punch. Indeed its long standing emphasis on the critiques of the past and present, without a keen sense of the future of education, broadly defined, has apparently contributed both to a demise in the appeal of critical pedagogy and a sense of loss, if not nostalgia, of the roots of critical theory as a political intellectual movement. (For a notion of an educational future, see Michael Peters, www.wwwords.co.uk/pfie/index.html.)

The apparent good news, however, is that there is a revival of sorts within strands of critical theory, namely feminists and critical scholars of color. For example Wendy Kohli has spoken about the need to make “domestic” certain macro discourses of critical theory so as to make relevant and accessible this intellectual project, especially to classroom teachers and to teacher educators. From what I understand of this work, the engagement with pedagogy strikes at the heart of domestic labor concerning social theory, despite the fact that this work is not as grand compared to its more “masculine” forms, such as ideological rails against capitalism and white supremacy. Now it is the relevance and accessibility of theory-philosophy, and who is academically entitled to perform this work, is what I want to argue may be limiting the utility of the Blog to recruit a broader profile of contributors.

Bluntly stated, scholars who embrace Kohi’s “domestic” (feminine labor) position not only may feel that they have less time to indulge (or self indulge, if you prefer), in more “mental” (my term following Willis) or masculine intellectual tasks. This mental work may in part consist of performing abstractions, though such theorizing has clear conceptual import. Although I do not personally subscribe to this perspective, I can understand it, because as a scholar “of color,” I am often asked to assist the university in efforts to “diversify.” It’s like the only scholars qualified—available to perform such labor—are minority scholars. That’s a problem.

It’s also a problem for users of blogs, in our case of the Wall. The ontological divide—who does the labor of diversity in the Academy and so on, and who is privileged to theorize in behalf of the Other-- is an issue. These dynamics are problematic and nuanced. I do not wish to take sides here, but merely to suggest that unless we find a way to inspire the domestically inclined workers in the Academy, I feel that the same old self-fulfilling prophecy will linger. We’re talking to ourselves.