Category: Critical Theory

Coming from a legal/law enforcement career background, my analysing on this case would have focused mainly on the wrongdoing “crimes” of the offender and who they committed these offences with. However, through the studies of critical theory and the Strength-based theory perspective, I have come to the realisation that most human actions are stern from situations and circumstances around the individual’s reality and social environment.

Critical theory is a Philosophy that is aimed towards critiquing and changing the prevailing view of society as whole. The aim of Critical theories is to delve beneath the surface of social life and reveal the assumption that gives us the true understanding of how the world works. It usually advocates towards a movement that is more deconstructive and instinctive in the way of thinking and practicing in social work. It is with these perspectives that practitioners/social workers are able to analyse and deal with social factors that cause the present problems that they are contending with or with social obstacles to the positive aims they are trying to achieve.

Critical theory depicts the ideas that in a practice environment like social work, thinking and analysis should pay great attention on a change that is structural. Critical theory urges social workers to ask questions that pokes and or connects with social action. Such questioning may be;

• Reflecting on what has shaped and constructed the way we are as individuals?
• Questioning the way an individual does things and why they think the way they do?

It insists that in order to really understand human behaviour, there is the need to understand the social background and the ideas mingling the problem/behaviour. Marx Horkheimer is one of the theorists that defined critical theory in the book Traditional and Critical Theory. Horkheimer stated that a critical theory has to accomplish two imperative things: it must account for the whole of society within a historical context, and it should seek out to offer a tough and all-inclusive critique by integrating insights from all social sciences.

Marxism is a theory based on the ideas of the philosopher Karl Marx. Marxism is usually known as a conflict theory; this is because it states that society is usually in conflict with each other. Marxism claims that this conflict is mainly between the rich and the poor. Marx placed a great importance on emancipation; he encouraged culture rather than material capitalism. He also determined that civilisation evolves or declines according to the economics of a society. He argued that the well-being of people’s lives is reliant upon how society makes use of its capital and or wealth.

Marx believed that once society becomes awake to the system and how it determines so much of their lives, they can then come together with the common goal to start a revolution that will lead to fairness and equality in every aspect of human life. Hence, the term “Socialism” a fiscal system that promotes fairness and equality for everyone. With this system there will be a societal structure in which everyone gave according to their ability and receive according to their needs.

In such a system people will not suffer because of their lack of capital. It portrayed the idea that everyone will work for common good and receive all that they need so they and their families can prosper. Marx intended for this theory to critique the political structure of the western society.

Reflecting this theory to the scenario above, it could be assumed that there is a system with series of capital exchange in society that has negatively affected the young offender’s life. The dropping out of school and unemployment has played a role in his or her life up to this point. The term “the rich getting richer and the poor get poorer” is somewhat evident in this scenario. This individuals actions/behaviours may be steered from the fact that they do not have any systematic support in society. If Critical theory is used and probe further into the life of this individual, it will perhaps show that they have been at the disadvantaged end of the societal systems.

This is what Theorist Paolo Freire teaches; the concentration on education with people whose communities are fraught by poverty and powerlessness and consequently the numerous connections in social pedagogics[footnoteRef:1]. Freire with other theorist like Habermas promoted the idea that change can only happen through dialogue and the deliberation between equals. This can then lead to social action. [1: Horkheimer, Max. 1937. Traditional and Critical Theory. Translated by O’Connell J. Matthew and Others. 2002.]

Strength-base theory is constructed on the notion that every individual has some strengths and self-determination that they can draw from to make positive change in their lives. This theory really aims at deploying a person’s strength to aid in their recovery or liberation. The goal is to promote the positive potentials in individuals, such as finding a purpose in life, perseverance and optimism. Focussing on the scenario above; the practice of strength-base theory with this client will primarily focus not on the problematic behaviours that the client is engaging in but rather supports the individual to recognise the inherent resources that he/she have at their disposal which they can use to counteract the difficulty/problem. The three most relevant questions that are usually used in implementing this theory in practice are:

1. What has worked for the client before?
2. What does not work for the client/individual?
3. What might work for individual in the present situation?[footnoteRef:2] [2: Pulla, V. (2017) Strengths-Based Approach in Social-Work: A distinct ethical advantage. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. 3(2).]

This concept emphasis on helping individual improve their ways and have a sense of empowerment which in tend can lead to the individual’s commitment to change.

“Empowerment theories identify and assist individuals and communities to recognise barriers and dynamics that permit oppression to persist including circumstances and actions that promote change, human empowerment, and liberation”.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Cowger, C. D. (1994). Assessing client strengths: Clinical assessment for client empowerment. Social Work, 39(3), 262-268.]

In reference to the above quote although empowerment is great, it is important to note that liberation comes effortlessly and liberation without determining the efficiency on the part that an individual can play in his or her own recovery is highly damaging to the very practice of empowerment.

Unlike the Critical theory methodology, the strength-base theory places much responsibility on the client and the social worker to achieve change, without taking into consideration aspects like socio-economic and social structure factors like poverty, discrimination, unemployment etc. This approach helps practitioners see clients as creating and rebuilding rather than broken and failing. Centring the necessary help/assistance on a person’s strength can introduce and even in some cases shape them into becoming more resilient which can foster positive growth. Focusing on an individual’s strength might further increase their vulnerability. And also the “Concept of strength” is a culturally loaded term, simply because what counts as strength may vary from individual’s perspective.

According to Saleebey (2006) “Almost anything can be considered as strength under certain conditions” (p.82). Crucial to this conclusion though is where they arise from? For example if the individual in the above scenario always agreeable to the changes proposed/suggested to him or her in their lives and does not have any boundaries, it could also mean the fear of them losing the relationship with their mentors. This means they are in some way oppressed by the power of the mentorship.

Although the strength-base theory that has an enormous significance and meaning in practice. There have been a number of critiques to this theory over the years. According to Weick (1992), depending on an individual’s “regenerative potential” and supporting an individual’s “positive capacities” (p. 24) are often said than done. It is believed that most practitioners are likely to impose their expert knowledge and prearranged action plans that may depicts insufficiencies rather working in partnership with the individual to discover all possibilities.

Moreover, H. Goldstein (1992) also argues that cherry-picking one perspective over another becomes a “futile” initiative when trying to understand how change happens (p.33). In actual fact he debates that, the theory of strength or any other perspective are a system of “social construction” that imitates professional and public attitudes and beliefs” (p.29). This is of the idea that these functions are used as metaphors in ways of intervention. Also there can be a rise in issues when the individual and or the practitioner refuse take into account the consideration of weaknesses and other risks of performance. The failure to improve on an individual’s areas of non-strength can hinder in the overall achievement of full potential. This approach offers remarkable potential to people management. However, a singular focus on noticing and optimising people’s strength will not return viable improvement in engagement and performance.

In the same breathe Critical theory has been critiqued for not proposing any clear guidance on practice. It is often unambiguously repudiating any solutions; a clear example of this is the Herbert Marcuse’s model of the “great refusal”, which upheld the abstention from engaging in active political change.

Critical theory analysis claims that most of the social problems in society come from structure and organisation rather than the individual behaviour. Challengers of critical theory argues that fundamental change is difficult to achieve and thus the urgency should be immediate social needs and the practice of social examination to understand clients/individuals. Another area of bias in Critical theory is towards collective action. The theory inclines in favour of collective action and often tends to disregard individual personal needs; this creates pressure between helping and valuing people as individuals with their own personal and possible family needs whiles also pursuing collective social justice. There is little to no explanation on emotional and various psychological issues that may have influenced a person’s behaviour or actions.

There is also the constant depiction of negativity and only seeing the downsides of every modernization. This is because critical theory aids in the discovery of a lot of things in organisation of society to be in the wrong, and this negativity can influence relationships of practitioners with the various organisations in which they work for.

Overall, social work framework of practices should facilitate the promotion of practitioners to work in a way that put emphasis on social change. Social workers need to become aware of and avoid oppressive systems and work with theoretical frameworks to achieve social justice and equality. There also has been the need for realisation on the fact that there is no one theory that is sufficient to guide ones practice. In order for one to achieve effectiveness in practice, the adaptation of conceptual pluralism is best. This is based on the idea of selecting the most appropriate approach for different or particular issues.

References

1. Ahmed, S. (2004). Collective feelings: Or, the impressions left by others. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(2), 25-42.
2. Cowger, C. D. (1994). Assessing client strengths: Clinical assessment for client empowerment. Social Work, 39(3), 262-268.
3. Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
4. Goldstein, H. (1992). Victors or Victims: Contrasting views of clients in social work practice. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The Strengths perspective in social work practice (pp. 27-38). New York: Longman.
5. Herz, M., & Johansson, T. (2011). Critical social work – Considerations and suggestions. Critical Social Work, 12(1), 28-45.
6. Horkheimer, Max. (1982). Critical Theory Selected Essays. New York.
7. Horkheimer, Max. (1937). Traditional and Critical Theory. Translated by O’Connell J. Matthew and Others. 2002.
8. Leithwood, K. (1999). Theories of Educational Management.
9. Liguo, Z. (2014). (Master of social work), Reflections on perspectives of a social worker.
10. Pulla, V. (2017). Strength-Based Approach in Social-Work: A distinct ethical advantage. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.
11. Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2006). The Strengths Perspective in social work practice, (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Weick, A. (1992). Building a strengths perspective for social work. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The Strengths perspective in social work practice (pp. 18-26). New York: Longman.

In modern society, with an ever-increasing number of images posted to social media and the internet daily, the issue of appropriation within the creative industries is more prominent than ever before. Despite there being instances of appropriation within the arts before, such as Andy Warhol’s screen prints, the number of instances in which artists are using already existing images to create their own works is on the rise, this can be seen in the works of Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine. There is a lot of controversy around the idea of appropriation and repurposing existing images, especially in regard to copyright and fair use. This essay will discuss the appropriation and repurposing of existing images by Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine, as well as considering the issues being explored within these practices.

“Richard Prince’s creative strategy has always relied on the process of appropriation.” (ARTUNER | Curated Contemporary Art, 2019) Richard Prince’s work heavily relies on the works of other people. He transforms images so that they no longer belong to the original owners and makers of the images. Some of the most known works by Prince include Cowboys, New Portraits, and Canal Zone.

Cowboy, an untitled project by Prince where he re-photographed the Marlboro cigarette advertisements and cropped out the typeface, leaving the iconic cowboy and his surroundings. (100 Photographs | The Most Influential Images of All Time, n.d.) Many people saw the repurposed work as theft, when the original photographer of the adverts, Norm Clasen, saw Prince’s work he said “If you see somebody’s copied your work, there’s something deep down in you that says, ‘I’m the author of that. Somebody took that work and re-photographed it. They’re not the ones that were out there lying with the rattlesnakes, the ants, the mosquitos.” Clasen photographed the images for a company, he was paid to sell a product, the Marlboro cigarettes, and Prince simply re-photographed someone else’s hard work to provoke. (Cohen, 2018) “There’s close to probably 17 images that have been copied,” Clasen surmised. “And it has always been a hollow feeling for me to know that that’s happening.”

Prince said about this project “The pictures I went after, “stole,” were too good to be true. They were about wishful thinking, public pictures that happen to appear in the advertising sections of mass-market magazines, pictures not associated with an author…It was their look I was interested in. I wanted to re-present the closest thing to the real thing.” (Guggenheim, n.d.)

Another of Prince’s projects that caused photographer Donald Graham to sue him was his New Portraits collection, which comprised of inkjet prints on canvas where the only modifications to the images by Prince, besides blowing them up in size, are the comments underneath the pictures. The pieces sold for up to $100,000 at New York’s Frieze art fair, where they caused considerable controversy. (Gajanan, 2016)

One of the subjects of the work found out that her image was being used and had been sold for $90,000. Writing on her Instagram Doe Deere said “Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting) of my original post. No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90k I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture” (Instagram, 2015)

Donald Graham, a photographer who works mostly in portrait, fashion and fine art styles, filed a complaint against Prince as he knowingly reproduced Graham’s photo Rastafarian Smoking a Joint without seeking permission. The complaint stated that the original image had not been modified adequately to warrant being called an original work. (Gajanan, 2016)

The original exhibition of New Portraits was held in 2014 at the Gagosian gallery in New York City, and later in 2015 at the Frieze fair in New York City, yet this is still an ongoing story as in July 2017 a judge rejected Prince’s motion to dismiss Graham’s case against Prince, meaning that the case would continue, and could set a precedent for how the fair-use doctrine relates to Instagram. (Chow, 2017)

The judge said, that to constitute fair use, “the “reasonable observer” must conclude that Prince imbued Graham’s photograph with new meaning, expression or purpose. Because Prince used essentially the entirety of Graham’s photograph without “substantial aesthetic alterations”, he said, the artist needed “substantial evidentiary support” to prove that his work was transformative.” (Gilbert, 2018)

In October 2018 Prince argued that he had to use as much of the photograph as appeared in the Instagram post to accomplish his purpose. In a 15-page statement Prince explains that he wanted to “reimagine traditional portraiture and bring to a canvas and art gallery a physical representation of the virtual world of social media.”

Sherrie Levine is a photographer, painter and conceptual artist who has created some works that are exact photographic reproductions of the work of other photographers. One of the most known examples of Sherrie Levine’s work is her series After Walker Evans. In this series Levine photographed reproductions of the depression-era photographs by Walker Evans. The series became a landmark of postmodernism, both praised and attacked as a feminist hijacking of patriarchal authority, a critique of the commodification of art and an elegy on the death of modernism. (Metmuseum.org, n.d.)

Levine reproduces photographs not by creating a new print from an existing negative, but by photographing a photograph and then claiming authorship of the new image. When Levine first presented the work, it was seen as scandalous, but is now so common that it is barely noticed. (Silas, 2017)

Levine sees her work as more of a collaboration with previous artists, in copying and replicating the work of male artists Levine also levels a feminist critique against the ingrained patriarchy of art history and society at large. Levine also questions how images are culturally constructed and the effects of their dissemination in a media-saturated age. Her use of appropriation – the deliberate borrowing and copying, with little or no alteration, of others’ images – has a long history in the 20th century took appropriation to a new level, to the point of infringing on intellectual property rights and arguably – plagiarism. (The Art Story, n.d.)

A lot of the issues being explored and talked about regarding appropriation and repurposing of existing images relates to ownership, copyright and fair use. Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright protected works in certain circumstances, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

There are exceptions and different factors that come into question of fair use, for example purpose, nature, amount and substantiality and the effect. The works by Richard Prince can be described as transformative, these uses add something new, with a further purpose or different character to the work. The problem with this is that Prince’s works were sold for profit which left it in a grey area as to whether it was a fair use of the original works. Sherrie Levine’s works also fall under the purpose and character of use factor of the fair use doctrine as they have a different purpose from the original work.

There are many outcomes that could come from repurposing and appropriating other people’s works, such as lawsuits and copyright claims being made against your work. Prince has been sued several times by different artists, including Donald Graham, and Patrick Cariou. In the case between Cariou and Prince, the district court ruled in favour of Cariou, holding that Prince’s work was not fair use because it did not comment or critique the original photographs. It was ordered that all of Prince’s unsold Canal Zone works to be delivered to Cariou for him to destroy, sell or otherwise dispose of. On an appeal, the ruling was reversed and held that most of Prince’s works were fair use for several reasons.

“In order to be fair use, a secondary use must transform the original by employing it in a different manner or for a different purpose than the original in order to produce a new expression, meaning or message. A secondary use does not need to comment on or critique the original in order to be transformative as long as it produces a new message.” (Artist Rights, n.d.)

Whether or not art is transformative depends on how it may ‘reasonably be perceived’ and not on the artist’s intentions. Even though Prince expressly stated he did not ‘have a message,’ the court still found that most observers would see Prince’s ‘Canal Zone’ as having a radically different purpose and aesthetic than Cariou’s ‘Yes Rasta’ and that this was enough to make the work transformative.

To summarise, many artists have used appropriation in their works, many in different ways. Sherrie Levine uses appropriation as a way to comment on things she finds interesting and important, especially with regards to feminism and the ingrained patriarchy in art. Richard Prince uses appropriation in ways to change meaning and the message from the original work in a way that has resulted in lawsuits and copyright and fair use being talked about a lot more within the context of art.

Bibliography

1. 100 Photographs | The Most Influential Images of All Time. (n.d.). How This Photo of a Cowboy Helped Create a New Artform. [online] Available at: http://100photos.time.com/photos/richard-prince-cowboy [Accessed May 2019].
2. Artist Rights. (n.d.). Cariou v. Prince — Artist Rights. [online] Available at: http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince [Accessed May 2019].
3. ARTUNER | Curated Contemporary Art. (2019). Richard Prince – Biography, Exhibitions, and Art on ARTUNER. [online] Available at: http://www.artuner.com/artists/richard-prince/ [Accessed May 2019].
4. Chow, A. (2017). Copyright Case Over Richard Prince Instagram Show to Go Forward. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/arts/design/richard-prince-instagram-copyright-lawsuit.html [Accessed May 2019].
5. Cohen, A. (2018). Who Actually Shot Richard Prince’s Iconic Cowboys? [online] Artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-richard-prince-stole-marlboro-man [Accessed May 2019].
6. Donaldgraham.com. (n.d.). [online] Available at: https://donaldgraham.com/ABOUT/Donald-Graham/1/caption [Accessed May 2019].
7. Freeman, N. (2018). Richard Prince Mounts Defence in Appropriation Lawsuit Over Instagram Portraits. [online] Artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-richard-prince-fighting-appropriation-accusations-leveled-lawsuit-instagram-portraits [Accessed May 2019].
8. Gajanan, M. (2016). Controversial artist Richard Prince sued for copyright infringement. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jan/04/richard-prince-sued-copyright-infringement-rastafarian-instagram [Accessed May 2019].
9. Gajanan, M. (2016). Controversial artist Richard Prince sued for copyright infringement. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jan/04/richard-prince-sued-copyright-infringement-rastafarian-instagram [Accessed May 2019].
10. Gilbert, L. (2018). Richard Prince defends reuse of others’ photographs. [online] Theartnewspaper.com. Available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/richard-prince-defends-re-use-of-others-photographs?utm_source=daily_october11_2018&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_daily&utm_source=The+Art+Newspaper+Newsletters&utm_campaign=3b0fd513a2-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_09_05_56&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c459f924d0-3b0fd513a2-60984741 [Accessed May 2019].
11. Guggenheim. (n.d.). Cowboys. [online] Available at: https://www.guggenheim.org/arts-curriculum/topic/cowboys [Accessed May 2019].
12. Instagram. (2015). Doe Deere on Instagram: “Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes…”. [online] Available at: https://www.instagram.com/p/2ygLRoR2hV/ [Accessed May 2019]
13. Metmuseum.org. (n.d.). [online] Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267214 [Accessed May 2019]
14. Office, U. (n.d.). More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office. [online] Copyright.gov. Available at: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html [Accessed May 2019].
15. Silas, S. (2017). Incorporating Photography into Art History, Starting with August Sander. [online] Hyperallergic. Available at: https://hyperallergic.com/360086/incorporating-photography-into-art-history-starting-with-august-sander/ [Accessed May 2019].
16. The Art Story. (n.d.). Sherrie Levine Paintings, Bio, Ideas. [online] Available at: https://www.theartstory.org/artist-levine-sherrie.htm [Accessed May 2019].

To be able to understand the rationale behind the critical theory, the first question we need to answer is what makes a theory critical. As it is shown in Figure 1, a theory becomes a critical theory when it is explanatory, practical and normative. Horkheimer (2002) stated that the theory should explain the existing social problems, offer practical solutions to respond to them in line with the norms of criticism put forward by the field. He (2002) also stated that critical theory should pursue “the human emancipation from slavery”, should have “liberating influence” and should work for the sake of creating “a world which satisfies the needs and powers of the human being”.

Historical Background

Critical Theory is traced back to Marx’s critiques of the economy and society. Marxism is a political and economic philosophy that views how things are. Conflict is at the centre of Marxism because he states that societies conflict with each other. This conflict is between the rich and the poor. He says that we live in a system where our society is based on few people who own factories and businesses. Since he formulated his theories during the Industrial Revolution when the capitalist system emerged, he realized that the poor stayed poor but the owners of the factories got richer and richer. This means that the capitalist society is based on a system which encourages inequality. However, he says that at some point, the working class will realize that they have the power to change things through education and personal development. This change will come when the working class rises up and makes a revolution against this inequality. The new established system should provide a social system where all people should be treated equally and all factories and businesses should be owned by each member of society. However, Marx’s idea of revolution failed.

After Marx’s failed prediction of revolution, Marxist scholar Carl Grünberg founded Frankfurt School in 1923. Frankfurt School was a group of scholars who developed the Critical Theory and put forward the truth through the reasoned arguments. The main concern of the Frankfurt School was “mass culture”. With the development of technology, cultural products such as music, film and art were distributed. These cultural products created a sameness in the cultural experience. Society passively and unconsciously was exposed to the produced ideologies and values. In doing so, not only a creation of false needs increased but also consumerism increased. This situation explained why Marx’s revolution never came and capitalism was dominant.

The main purpose of the Frankfurt School was to change society for better through action orientation and critique of society. The scholars who supported this idea were Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse. Firstly, Horkheimer put forward the conflict theory which can be used as “a platform to enlighten and emancipate people”. He also suggested that scholars should use their criticism in order to help people understand their place in the structure of society and encourage them to change. Secondly, Adorno claimed that the language that was used by the researchers to explain society was politically constructed. In doing so, the main structure/ order of society maintained. This led us to be alienated and to stay in isolation. This is also supported by Marx. When we stay like this, we cannot become whole to start the revolution. Like Adorno, Marcuse said that technology and capitalism made us dehumanize. That led people to think that they were alone and a piece of the big picture. Even if they took an action against the system, this cannot make a change in society. Finally, Fromm also rejected capitalism as the others did since it is dehumanizing and leads to alienation. He says that some roles are attributed to us in society we live in. We, as individuals, forget the fact that we are individual as a human but we always try to fulfil the expectations of the given roles by society.

What is Critical Theory?

When we define the critical theory, we have to define the traditional theory, too. Traditional theory only analyses society to explain what is there whereas critical theory aims to change society. According to Horkheimer, the traditional theorists produced works that failed to question domination, power and existing social order. However, he questioned the notion of objectivity while explaining and describing social reality. “The facts which our senses present to us are socially preformed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived and through the historical character of the perceiving organ” (Horkheimer, 1937, in Ingram and Simon-Ingram 1992, p. 242). As we understood from the quotation, the objectivity is a myth because each person can interpret the same event in a different way. Receivers might have different historical background. Depending on this background, their deduction might be different. There is no pure truth or reality that is conveyed. He rejects the idea of objectivity that is claimed to be used by traditional theorists.

The Critical Theory tries to explain social injustice and inequality. Critical theorists emphasized the importance of human agency to start a revolutionary social change. People, as human agents, can overcome this injustice and inequality. According to Horkheimer, these theorists sought “human emancipation” under the circumstances of domination and oppression. He also claimed that no one can determine what is good for society and what a good and a free society is. However, the critical theorists were able to bring the negative aspects of society which they wanted to change. They criticized and led people to question the circumstances they encountered.

Critical Theory Today

In time, critical theory started to be used as an umbrella term to define any theory emphasizing critique. That means that there are “critical theories” right now. When we use the capital “C” and “T” in “Critical Theory”, it refers to what was put forward by Frankfurt School. Critical theories are a broader term which includes the past and present members of Frankfurt School and several critical schools of thought. When we mentioned Critical Theory in the past, we also referred to Marxism because it was so dominant in Critical Theory. However, it is no longer dominant as much as in the past. Today, we need more rooms to non-Marxist critical theories.

My Reflection on Critical Theory

Critical Theory is to search for equal and just social system through questioning and challenging the existing order. While searching details of Critical theory on the internet, I realized that there might be a connection between a video called “Education is a System of Indoctrination of the Young” and Critical Theory. In this video, Chomsky criticizes education system. He says that the main purpose of education makes the young generation more obedient. This means they become passive and unable to question. According to Marxism, people unconsciously accept the power exercised by the more powerful people. Education is one of the means to make them unconsciously obedient. How they inhibit the young to question the system is to give them “stupid assignments”. When one of the students questions “the stupidity of these assignments”, this student most probably is considered to have behavioural problems. He or she will be alienated from the group whose members accept and do without questioning this stupidity. Additionally, he gives Japan as an example. The reason why Japan uses this kind of educational system is to train “very obedient workers”. This is what we call Structural-Functional View of Life. What they do is to create the most suitable people for the existing structures or sectors of society. Finally, he also talks about the 1960s when the students burned libraries and books. He says that the students started raising questions and were not obedient anymore. As a result, schools are similar to factories. They have the power to create people who are not able to question and know what to do when they want to change. The capitalist system is still dominant and people unconsciously are the followers of it because they do not know otherwise and how to question.

Introduction

Critical theory recognizes the imbalance of power in societies, and organizations, and schools. With the emergence and trends of internationalization and globalization, classrooms now consist of a diverse mixture of students from various cultures, languages and races. Educators recently began exploring the need for inclusivity and anti-oppressive pedagogy. As schools and political ideologies have shifted, critical theorists have become more visible, encouraging schools to raise awareness of social injustice and seek truths, as practiced by Aristotle (Gutek, 2015). Critical Theorists support the exploration of ideas and personal truths as an integral part of the educational experience (Ellsworth, 1989).

Critical race theory (CRT) adds the perspective of race to the exploration of self-worth and awareness (Ladson-Billings, 1998). The role that race plays in the power dynamic of education should be acknowledged to raise awareness of any society’s diversity and to understand its marginalized populations. As I develop my own philosophy of education, I realize that the concept of CRT is extremely relevant. As a person of color, I understand that race is one of the elements that defines me, but it is not my sole identifier.

In this paper, I shall provide insight into my own background and thought process by describing a trans corporeal walk I recently took while exploring the concepts of dyadic thinking and empowerment. I will argue that we should reject binary thinking, rethink the concept of empowerment, and realize how CRT plays an important role in oppression while recognizing that universal solutions are not the answer to such a complex problem.

Oppression Examined

Our culture claims that it celebrates diversity; but at the same time, it promotes a binary method of thought. Everything is either right or wrong, good or bad, liberal or conservative, love or hate. There seems to be no moderate or ‘grey’ area. This binary method of thought is closely tied to our views of oppression. For instance, the wealthy elite view themselves as powerful and on the ‘right’ side. The wealthy and powerful see the impoverished as ‘wrong’ and weak. Critical pedagogues such as Paulo Freire developed pedagogy that they believed would empower the oppressed and help them free their bodies from oppressive holds (Gutek, 2015). However, critics such as Ellsworth (1989) questioned the value of empowerment, highlighting that critical theorists did not understand that their raising the consciousness of others might have resulted in oppression or dominance instead of liberation. What she means by this is that if an outsider makes bodies believe their culture is inferior and wants them to change based on the outsider’s standards instead their own, then that may be a false consciousness. An example of this behavior might be the residential schools, where indigenous children were taken from their parents, forced to change their language, styles of dress, and belief systems (find a source). This Eurocentric dominant discourse was thought to be the ‘right’ way to live in a binary world.

Oppression is extremely complex and multi-faceted. Its sensorial experience often cannot be expressed through words. Iris Young (1990) defines oppression as reducing “the potential for other people to be fully human” (p. 1). Young further explains how this could include “denying people language, education, and other opportunities that might make them become fully human in both mind and body (p. 1). Add Concluding Sentence

A Trans Corporeal Point of View

As I walked through my university, I attuned my body to the structures around me. The environment ignited a social political flame within my body. I reflected on my educational experiences and realized how I have been socialized and educated in a Eurocentric manner although I am a person of color. I felt oppressed as I walked through this place that is entrenched in colonialism. I realized I am simply a student number to this bureaucratic system that is exchanging degrees for dollars.

One significant image that stood out to me was a glass ceiling that reminded me how institutions such as my university prevent growth and favour male-dominated Eurocentric views. I reflected on how the language, dissemination of knowledge, and pedagogy within this institution are all Eurocentric. This can be quite oppressive to people of color as they are taught from a fixed perspective. Universities seldom offer multiple perspectives of a concept to consider. I wondered why I did not have any professors who looked like me or shared my ethnicity. As I walked by the library, I reflected on the construction of power and knowledge and how teachers believe that they are empowering students through education. Most of them do not understand the complexity of the teacher’s authoritarian power and privilege, or that being in the institution leaves students feeling oppressed, invisible, and not heard.

I recognize cultural disparities across campus; it is a multicultural campus, but yet still feels segregated. International students pay higher tuition fees but are treated as ‘others’, with the campus being divided into a dichotomy of domestic versus international. The rise of neoliberalism and globalization in the last twenty years has made the world appear smaller (find a reference to support this). However, the dominant discourse, race, and power of the university often conflicts with its diversity.

Binary Thought

Humans have always sought to categorize the objects around them. This categorization created hierarchies that were important to our knowing and understanding of the world around us. For instance, the underlying element of Aristotle’s metaphysics was a “dualist concept of reality” (Gutek, 2015, p. 65). Not only did Aristotle create a binary reality of form and matter, his epistemology was also binary, consisting of sensation and abstraction (Gutek, 2015). Aristotle classified all human and non-human elements ranging from nature to people in a dichotomous fashion (Gutek, 2015). This practice created a hierarchy where one was viewed as more superior than the other. Thomas Aquinas expanded Aristotle’s dualism through Thomism. Aquinas “dichotomized life and learning into two dimensions: the spiritual and the corporeal” (Gutek, 2015, p. 81). To this day, we continue to see and think in a dyadic fashion whether it be hot and cold, black and white, or night and day.

Xanthaki (2019) provides an excellent example of how “framing discussion in the binary way of cultural rights versus women’s rights neglects the real, multiple identities of women” (p. 724). When we examine women’s rights and cultural rights in a dualistic manner, we do not take into consideration the culture, social construction, or identities of the female body (Xanthaki, 2019). We end up simplifying the discussion into a dichotomy, which does not accurately reflect the complexities of either side. For instance, when reviewing women’s rights and cultural rights, we fail to fully understand each woman’s individual experience, possible victimization, or discrimination that they are facing. The dichotomy is typically formed through a Eurocentric view that does not reflect the essence of each woman’s identity (Xanthaki, 2019).

Empowerment

Freire’s liberation pedagogy was closely tied to the notion of empowerment as he believed that education had a democratic and empowering capacity (Giroux, 2010, p. 1). Empowerment was described as a process through which students would be able to break free from oppression and transform their realities (Gutek, 2015). Empowerment occurred through a “consciousness-raising, for people to become aware of the conditions of their lives and work” (Gutek, 2015, p. 319). Freire believed that bodies would be able to empower themselves if they understood the factors that were causing their oppression, transforming their oppressive state into freedom (Gutek, 2015).

To that end, Freire developed a campaign that was intended to empower Brazil’s impoverished class through literacy (Gutek, 2015). As we examine the literacy campaign critically through Ellsworth (1989), one can begin to question if it was as empowering as Freire had hoped. He was the authoritarian at the centre of the literacy campaign. Freire had placed himself into the dominant position of authority by holding the torch to literacy and advising the impoverished classes that they needed literacy to empower themselves (Gutek, 2015). The literacy campaign held Freire at the helm, where he granted power through literacy to the impoverished class. According to Audre Lordeas as cited in Ellsworth (1989), “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (p. 305). In this context, literacy and language were both the master’s tools. Freire convinced the impoverished that they would succeed and empower themselves through obtaining these tools. I question the success of the literacy campaign and wonder whether the impoverished class of Brazil actually gained empowerment through using the master’s tools.

Reject Binary Thought

Humans have an innate desire to classify and thus, binary thought comes easily for us. For instance, Aristotle favoured classification so much so that he organized almost all objects into hierarchies (Gutek, 2015). We continue to categorize and view the world through a dyadic lens. This type of thought is extremely partial as it neglects the complexity of multiple perspectives in each situation. We should consciously deconstruct binary thought and expand our views so that we see beyond empowered and oppressed as the only two options when examining marginalization. We should disrupt binary boundaries and see beyond victims and oppressors. Through dichotomized thought, it is inevitable for one group to hold more power. It only results in further oppression and discrimination. For example, history showcases a variety of instances where dualistic thought lead to oppression. Reflecting on the British colonization of India, the binary idea was that the British were superior and the Indians inferior (Lane, 2005). The outcome was the oppression of Indian bodies that were stripped of their cultural identities.

A few weeks ago, I was in a building that I often frequent and my body was drawn towards a glass skylight that I had never noticed previously. The skylight reminded me of the notion of the glass ceiling and how minorities are continuously battling for equity and parity. I reflected on how we reside in a white man’s world infused with Eurocentrism. Upon further examination of the glass ceiling, it now reminds me how we need to shift away from dyadic boundaries and the dichotomy of the ‘other’ compared to whiteness. As minorities, if we continue along this path for too long, we will be unable to visualize ourselves outside of otherness. Dominant discourse forces minorities to stay in the position of the ‘other’ and that is exactly how we end up stuck. If we start with the way we think and see beyond dichotomous boundaries, we may be able to avoid otherizing ourselves.

Binary thought narrows the scope of the issue and simplifies it to the extent that human struggles, complexities, and challenges are removed. It does not take into consideration the individual struggles bodies have faced and the view presented is partial. Ultimately, this type of thought solidifies and justifies the status quo, making change and progress much more difficult.

Rethink Empowerment

The word empower is a construct that takes attention away from power imbalances. Empowerment fosters an ‘us versus them’ mindset where the oppressed should be given power by the dominate group. To empower is an active verb indicating that one person is providing something to someone else since they are unable to obtain it by themselves (cite for empower). I view empowerment as a process that builds reliance and control between the oppressed and their oppressors. If there is a provider of power, then the power can also be taken away from the oppressed body. If we examine empowerment critically, although it may be well intentioned, the concept of empowerment is laden with hints of the deficit ideology and victimization (Gorski, 2011). The deficit ideology “shapes individual assumptions and dispositions in order to encourage compliance with an oppressive educational and social order” (Gorski, 2011, p. 3). The concept of empowerment perpetuates the cycle of oppression by encouraging privileged bodies to perceive themselves as respectable citizens who can help the inferior oppressed bodies learn how to empower themselves as they are not able to do so themselves. Firstly, we should first seek to understand the motivation and mechanisms of the dominant class and how they can be oppressing without even being aware of it.

Many critical theorists such as Friere and Giroux tout liberation as the answer to oppression (Gutek, 2015). Freire viewed liberation as “freedom from the exploiting social, economic, political, and educational conditions that give a ruling group power over others, especially those who are impoverished materially and culturally” (Gutek, 2015, p. 320). I find the concept of liberation extremely inspiring, but we should also examine if liberation is as empowering as it sounds. In a school setting, the teacher is bestowed with the responsibility to empower their students. The raising of the critical consciousness that Freire refers to is the responsibility of the teacher (Gutek, 2015). Ellsworth (1989) illustrates how this can be a problem as the teacher is the authoritarian within the classroom and the one initiating the process of empowerment. Will the student feel their perspective is respected? Or will they feel they are being forced to accept the behavioral model the teacher feels is ‘right’?

Understanding CRT

Examining CRT can help us better understand and fight oppression. CRT tends to normalize racism and emphasizes the existence of racism in our society and encourages us, as people of color, to understand our own role in racism (Ladson-Billings, 1998). Ladson-Billings (1998) explains how “members of minority groups internalize the stereotypic images that certain elements of society have constructed in order to maintain their power” (p. 14). Internalizing such stereotypes can cause bodies to rationalize negative self-images and hold them as truth (Ladson-Billings, 1998). When examining oppression, as persons of color, we should recognize that we carry with us our own internalized racism. This internalization is the product of Eurocentric discourses that have told us that we are different. This discourse has become so powerful that we often believe it to be true. With this in mind, we should put ourselves outside of our comfort zones and expose stereotypes as social constructs that have no bearing on our identities. Engaging in such reflection requires a strong self-awareness and thus, we should seek to better understand ourselves and our own social location. When we feel we are experiencing racism, we should notice where it is coming from and evaluate why we are feeling it. For instance, if we experience an incident where we feel racially discriminated against, we should ask ourselves why we are feeling this and if the individual in question is actively engaging in racism, or if we have control over some of our internalized feelings that are causing us to react this way. CRT does not place the blame on the oppressed but sheds light on the years of discourse that has caused marginalized bodies to walk through life with internalized negative self concepts and identities.

Review Universalized Approaches

We universalize approaches and solutions to oppression. If one strategy proves to be effective, there is an assumption that it can be used in any situation. Universalizing the solution is a partial and fixed view of an ever-changing context. For instance, Freire’s raising of critical consciousness was considered a universal solution for all oppressed bodies (Gutek, 2015). The Freirean education model of liberation was also universalized (Gutek, 2015). The contextual nature of oppression is constantly changing so we should not attempt to use the same approach in every situation. By universalizing, we view each body through the same lens and fail to recognize their uniqueness including social location, identity, and social constructs. It is ironic how on one hand, we see universal solutions as a form of emancipation, but on the other hand, we are objectify each body by attempting to empower or emancipate them. We fail to recognize each body’s identity and social construction. Rather than universal approaches, we should seek to understand the complexities of each body and situation. Possibly five challenges of education –

Critical Reflection

We can pave a path to deeper understanding if we are willing to approach social dialogue without judgement. Thinking in a dichotomous fashion is preventing us to see the plethora of grey that lies between binaries. If we shift away from a binary mindset, we will accept that there is more than two ways to evaluate each situation. In understanding that our views are partial, we can work to understand others without bias.

Although our intentions may be well intended, we should fully examine how we empower others and if it is indeed the viable approach. The first step for teachers would be to remove themselves as the master and the authoritarian (Ellsworth, 1989). Instead, we should empower ourselves to consider all perspectives without forcing our opinion on others as the binary ‘right or wrong’. It is a difficult challenge to attempt. If we continue believing that the oppressed need to be saved through empowerment, we do not move forward. Bodies will empower themselves when they are acknowledged, recognized, and respected, not judged based on their circumstances.

We should also review teacher education as the classroom policies and curriculum create power relations, imbalances, and oppression. A key component of teacher training could include activities where teachers self-reflect and examine how they, as individuals, contribute to the power imbalances or situation that they wish to improve through empowerment (Ellsworth, 1989).

Self-awareness is closely connected to the understanding of internalized oppression. CRT sheds a light on how internalization can impact us. When we walk through life, we should evaluate situations with a critical lens to fully understand the difference between oppression and internalization. Being exposed to more perspectives and hearing more voices will allow us to avoid simplification of oppression and contextualization.

Conclusion

Binary thought has influenced our social configurations, such as schools, and created power imbalances throughout history. If we acknowledge that a dichotomous world exists and try our best to shift away from it, we can slowly make an impact and address oppressive discourse. To work with diverse populations and thrive in a multicultural landscape, we should acknowledge that we will never fully know each other. Do we need to fully understand each other to live in harmony and respect?

Examining oppression provides us with insight into how to move through our institutions with respect and anti-oppressive behaviors. I suggest that we continue to examine what is made impossible through empowerment so that we do not end up oppressing marginalized bodies further by doing what we think is best for them. With that, we should also consider what impacts universalizing approaches can have and fully evaluate if universalization is the correct approach.

When attempting to make positive social changes, we should seek to understand what is being made possible and what is being made impossible by our actions so that we are aware of potential implications. As a person of color, in line with CRT, I recommend we take time to self reflect and fully understand our social construction, identity, and epistemology so that we can have a strong grasp of what has internalized within our body. Lastly, I urge you to reflect on the following call to action in the powerful words of Elizabeth Ellsworth (1989):

“if you can talk to me in ways that show you understand your knowledge of me, the world, and the ‘right thing to do’ will always be partial, interested and potentially oppressive to others, and if I can do the same, then we can work together on shaping and reshaping alliances for constructing circumstances in which students of difference can thrive” (p. 324).

References

1. Gutek, G.L. (2015) Aristotle: Foundation of realism. In The philosophy and history of education (pp. 51-67). Pearson: Publishers.
2. Gutek, G.L. (2015) Critical theory and education. In The philosophy and history of education (pp. 51-67). Pearson: Publishers.
3. Gutek, G.L. (2015) Thomas Aquinas: Scholastic theologian and creator of the medieval Christian synthesis. In The philosophy and history of education (pp. 51-67). Pearson: Publishers.
4. Ellsworth, E. (1998). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297-324.
5. Gorski, P. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on authenticating the class discourse in education. In R. Ahlquist, P. Gorki, & T.
6. Montano (Eds.), Assault on Kids: How Hyper-Accountability, Corporatization, Deficit Ideology, and Ruby Payne Are Destroying Our Schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
7. Ladson-Billings, G.(1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24.
8. Lane, D.F. (2005). ‘One Power, One Mind’: Religious Diversity and British Dominion in India. Literature and Theology, 19(3), 251-264. doi:10.1093/litthe/fri038
9. Xanthaki, A. (2019). When Universalism Becomes a Bully: Revisiting the Interplay Between Cultural Rights Women’s Right. Human Rights Quarterly 41(3), 701-724. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from Project MUSE database.
10. The following article is adapted from “Five Faces of Oppression” by Iris Young. The article was originally a chapter in Oppression, Privilege, & Resistance edited by Lisa Heldke and Peg O’Connor (published by McGraw Hill in Boston, 2004).

Critical Theory was born in between the two world wars in the light of the Frankfurt School (1923) but it became influential during mid-1980s when Marxism fell out of favor due to its economic and structuralist bigotries. It was a period which the dominance of positivism existed and the scholars of the Frankfurt School developed these ideas to overcome this dominance of positivism and its related theories. There were so many important scholars who wrote about Critical Theory and they did not only criticize the orthodox theories, they also gave new insights of research and theory. One of the most important scholars of this time, Robert Cox, did not only criticize the mainstream theories, but also he used Antonio Gramsci’s work to create a world order as an alternative to the neo-realist state system and anarchy (Steans, Pettiford, Diez, El-Anis & , 2010). Critical Theory is mainly influenced by Marxist thought as in the case of Structuralism but it differs from Marxism and Structuralism in some respects. From Karl Marx’s famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach; unlike traditional theory, the aim of Critical Theory was defined not only as understanding society, but as criticizing and transforming society as a whole.

Critical Theory requires being reflective and critical about our daily practices and the relationship between theories and the way we behave. These emphasizes on our daily practices and the theories and our behaviours put importance to the role of ideas, culture, communication and dialogue (Steans et al., 2010). This relationship shows us the close bond between theories or ideas and actual social practices and understanding this bond is important for us to explore Marx’s ideology and perspective.

With the emergence of Liberalism, the inequality among the society was growing fast and this was a result of a choice, according to Liberals. In Liberalist thought, individuals are separate from society and they are taken into account one by one, not as a society because society is created through a contract among people – like marriage. So, they say that economy is also a result of the choice that individuals made on some basis and as a result of this choice they may either be rich, or be poor; any choice is a result of their free will. In the light of this new perspective, there was a growing inequality among the society as it is mentioned above. The new emerging middle class was enjoying the benefits of freedom, but a huge population of workers were selling their labour daily in order to survive. This had created two dimensional realities. One of them belonged to the new bourgeoisie that was “enjoying their freedom” – what Liberalism suggested, and the other one belonged to the workers who would describe their reality as oppression and exploitation, so they had almost no control over their lives. It can be said that Liberalism did not explain the human nature and its truth, it just reflected the perspective of the dominant class.

Critical Theory emerged in such period and as it is mentioned above it had some distinctions when we consider both orthodox Marxists and Critical Theorists. One difference between structuralists (or orthodox Marxists) was that the structuralists, as we can understand from the name, focused on the structure or the mechanism of the existing capitalist system. However, the Critical Theorists said that it is needed to be focused on social relations, culture and ideology, not only the mechanism itself. It is also needed to challenge and eventually change them from the bottom to the top.

Another difference of Critical Realists from the Marxists was that the Marxism said that society can be understood scientifically since there is a clear observation in capitalism on the basis of exploitation and expropriation and it is easy to objectively measure the inequalities among the society through the distribution of wealth. On contrary, Critical Theorists say that all knowledge is ideological and connected with social routines and interests, so we cannot say that scientific understanding works in full accordance. Steans et al. (2010) says that “We can only evaluate theories according to how far they capture the mood of the times and the configuration of forces at work in any given society and historical period, and whether they support or challenge the status quo.” So, I think we can say that this is the main opposition of Critical Theory to the mainstream theories. It tries to challenge the existing conditions, not tries to protect the status quo. They try to provide alternatives to the existing conditions, unlike mainstreams’ aim to problematize them.

The third difference of Critical Theory from the orthodox Marxists and in my opinion from the other mainstream theories is the way they see theory and the practices separately. In positivism for example, the object of the theory and the one who observes it is separate. But Critical Theorists say that these two cannot be separated from each other since it would become meaningless if we do so. They say that we first make sense of our world with our critical capacities, we then act in accordance with our knowledge, and at the end our behaviours confirm the correctness of our theory (Steans et al., 2010).

Another difference between Critical Theory and the mainstream theories is the issue of change. In the mainstream theories like realism, change is not something that is predicted. Relations between economic and social entities do not change according to them. But this is not the case for Critical Theory. Critical Theorists’ main focus is the human emancipation from the oppression of economic structures. But since the economic, social and political structures are tied closely, the change and the emancipation of people are prevented in the existing system. Critical Theorists opposes that and says that people and the state have a kind of autonomy on change that reflects the forces in society. So, one important criticism about Liberalism from the perspective of Critical Theorists is on this issue. Liberals, supposedly, argues and supports individual freedom and thus freedom; they prevent the change and freedom for the whole society via existing economic and class system.

Another point that Critical Theorists differ from the Marxism is that criticals say that the only group that has been oppressed is not the classes among the society; minorities are also oppressed according to their gender, religion, race, and ethnic origin. Marxism mainly concentrates on the class struggle and the oppression of classes in the society, but there are no signs for the oppression of other minorities in a society. This is a big difference in my opinion, because one thing that mainstream theories do is that they generally focus on one main group or one main point and that point would not be an inclusionary point or group.

As it was mentioned before, one main point for Critical Theorists is the understanding of reality. In mainstream theories like Realism, reality consists of what is out there, what is observable and the change of the reality is not possible so much. But for Criticals, change may occur with the change in ideas of people, change in concepts, and change in theories and I think this is a very important point for Critical Theory.

Another important difference of Criticals from Realists is about the agent-structure debate. In Realist perspective, the relation between agent and structure had explained the deficiencies of Realism with the relationship between the international system and concepts like anarchy, and the main agents like states or what they would call as units. But in the minds of Critical Theorists, states are not the only agents that have the privilege and priority, or they are not the only important actors of international system. As they believe in change, they also suggested that change may come with the help of Non-Governmental Organisations or social movements. Steans et al. (2010) said that “Societies are always to some extent undergoing forms of change and transition. If these tendencies are correctly understood, it is possible to intervene and influence, to some extent, the direction of change. Human beings, then, become conscious agents of social change.” So, this is a big opposition to Realist perspective of state-centrism. It can be said that Critical Theorists, at this international actors point, became closer to Liberalism, because in Liberalist thought there are attributions to international cooperation through NGOs and attributions to social movements – even their cooperation idea is not the same with Criticals.

They also criticized the alienation of human beings in the capitalist system. As in Marx’s thought, people in the capitalist system become alienated to their work and to their everyday life after some time. Even what is proposed by Liberalism is the freedom and liberty; workers are not free to choose what they do or what they buy and how they spend their leisure time. Even sometimes they do not have a leisure time. So, after a while they become alienated from their ideas, their path to human happiness and they cannot achieve satisfaction. The Frankfurt School was born in such a condition that the capitalist system was in a big crisis (The Great Depression of 1930s). They have seen the unhappiness of people and the nearly collapse of the capitalism and they thought that the revolution of the proletariat would come but it did not happen, on contrary, people had supported right-wing populist or fascist politicians.

As we can see, the Critical Theory came into being in the 1930s, but we can see its effects in the International Relations after 1980s. It had affected by the Marxism like structuralism or neo-Marxism, but it had many differences and many criticisms to it and to the other mainstream theories of International Relations. One of the biggest arguments of Critical Theory is that the knowledge and the reality is not all about science or not all about the existing; but rather, they are related to the ideas, culture, and other conditions that people’s characteristics are born within. Also, they suggested that there is a close relation between theory and daily practice as oppose to the positivists’ sharp distinction between the theory and its object. They also criticized the two different reality understanding of Liberalism, especially because Liberalism’s main point was to provide the individual liberty and freedom of choice but the inequality among the society had sharply grown and people who had to sell their labour became desperate to survive and so they became alienated from their jobs, their theories and their ideas. Also, the Criticals differed from the Marxists on the basis of structure. Marxism was so focused on the mechanism of the capitalism and they forgot about the other struggles of the people. They said that it is needed to be focused on ideologies; culture and these are needed to be challenged in order to change. From this sentence, we can understand that the Criticals believed the change unlike the mainstream theories like Realism. Realism’s and other mainstream International Relations theories’ effort to preserve the status quo that exists is another thing for Criticals to criticize. The mainstream theories are the problem-solving theories that try only to point the problem and try to solve it, they severely propose an alternative to it and this is what Criticals criticized. Criticals try to produce alternatives to the existing problem. As it is mentioned above, Criticals have believed in change among the system and the structure, unlike mainstream theorists. They believe in the emancipation of people and the emancipation of people would bring the change in the system because states and people have some power on their lives to fight for change, even though there are limitations due to the economic and political system in international and domestic arenas. Another point that they made was about the main topics of Realism. In Realist perspective, the only and most important actors in international realm are the states and nothing more. But critical theorists say that through Non-Governmental Organisations and through social movements people might bring the emancipation and eventually the change. At this point, I think Criticals come closer to Liberals on the basis of NGOs and social movements – if we think them as groups of cooperation. They also criticized the Liberalism on the basis of their argument of individual liberty and freedom. Liberals suggested that the liberty of individuals will be provided through the choices of people’s own, but in the end it brought the alienation of the working class and imprisoned them into a struggle of survival.

To conclude, the Critical Theory had made a difference and brought a multidimensional perspective to the International Relations, in my opinion. What we call mainstream theories have always focused on one main point and left the other issues of society and people aside. Realists have focused on state and its priority in the domestic and the international realm, Liberals have focused on the individual liberty and Marxism has focused on the class struggle. But what Criticals have tried to do was to bring more than one focus and said that there is a relationship between all of them; society, individuals, theories, classes and international society are all tied and we cannot focus one of them and leave others aside. So, I think Critical Theory have brought some very valid criticisms to the mainstream theories and I think this is what all theorists should do; focusing on one main point would not bring the success, considering all dimensions may bring the success.

Introduction to Critical Educational Science

The work Critical Educational Science is in reference to Critical theory with regard to the empirical educational science and the humanist pedagogy. Apart from these two paradigms it is closely related to the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. The main function would be to analyse the social conditions of production and application that dominate its field of intervention.

Critical educational Science emerged in the aftermath of the Critical Theory of Frankfurt School. It emphasizes the social character of education and of educational science. It aims to make us of the critical theory to achieve emancipation of mankind.

Foundations of Critical Theory in Education

Educational science stood for plurality and variety in its design and references. The educational science is influenced by critical theory given by Max Horkheimer. The theory is based on a number of propositions; the smaller the number of fundamental principles the more the theory is considered perfect and that the real validity of a theory depends on the relation between propositions and facts and if there is a contradiction then either there is something wrong with the experience observation or the principle.

The traditional theory is based on the idea of labor division. Horkheimer tries to distinguish between traditional and the critical theory as one based on appearance and the latter based on essence of society. Critical thought is refers to a conception of man as one who is in conflict with himself. The critical theory links the reduction of dominion and violence and tries to support the evolution and development of humanity.

The Role of Emancipation in Education

In his book Dialectics and Enlightenment (1947) Horkheimer talks on how emancipation is just more than increase in freedom. According to Marx it can only be achieved through modification of social practice, however for Horkheimer the process can also be undergone without capitalism. It is based on the double theory of myth and light for myth is light and light can be diverted into mythology. In Negative Dialects (1966) by Adorno he tries to re examine systematically the issue approached in the Dialects of Enlightenment i.e. inversion of enlightenment. So emancipation depends not only upon educational but on political action as well.

Another dimension is given by Marcuse that the creation of all social existence is very complex, thus we are unable to gauge the totality of the process. He opines that social phenomena can be attributed to the capitalist production and has a close relation with materialism. He believes that one can only get happiness from money or from political implications. He draws a relation between reason and social practice which highlighted that the conception of a society is very different from reality and thus, the possible and the real could merge into one dimension. He reveals how magic and science, life and death, joy and misery merge together through technology and politics. We live in a world where rational appears to be irrational and the irrational seems to be rational so the only way out for human beings is to believe in the ‘power of the negative.’

Habermas’s Contribution to Educational Science

Now, technology has become the means to rationalize production processes and relations but also a means of incapacity to the logic of domination. Habermas contributed to not only educational science but to epistemology, communication, language and social theory. He establishes a link between theory of society and the philosophy of knowledge and science. He aims at humanity’s education and not just individual development and the processes of individual education depend upon many factors like the social and historic development. There is a link between practical, instrumental and critical reason on the basis of three different interests of knowledge i.e. an interest in technology, an interest in practice and an interest in the knowledge of emancipation.

He opines that for theory and practice to succeed reciprocal knowledge in needed with the following;-

• The creation and development of theorems to resist scientific discourses
• The organization of explanation to verify the theorems.
• The choice of appropriate strategies and the conduct of political struggle.

The first aspect in this corresponds to affirmations while the second and third aspect corresponds to verifiable affirmations and judicious choices respectively.

Enlightenment and Emancipation in Critical Theory

The main concept of Critical Theory includes Enlightenment which is closely linked to the European tradition of Enlightenment. Kant opines it as the ability to break free from the dependence for which he is himself responsible. Thus to be clear, to have the courage to use one’s own reason is the motto of enlightenment that can be attributed to freedom through self-determination. It involves challenging any authority and domination which cannot be justified rationally and insisting on autonomy for human development.

Horkheimer and Adorno call the transformation of enlightenment into myth and madness.’ This happens when an individual who fights for the oppression and comes to power, he is again choked into the viral structure of power dynamics thus oppressing others under him and he must break open this chain. We need to avoid replacing one power structure with the other.

There are three dimensions that have put forward in the context of critical theory which aim to attain enlightenment despite the restricting factors. The first dimension talks about Adorno and his work. In his concept of ‘negative dialects’ he has clearly outlined that the effect of enlightenment must be to liberate every human being from his powerlessness and reification and this can be achieved through rationality of mind.

The second dimension by Critical Theory highlights that the emancipation process must focus on liberation from the pleasure provided by reification. And the third dimension is inspired from the model of the ‘therapeutic discourse’, where self-reflection aims at enlightenment grasped as the interiorisation of a ‘therapeutic discourse.’

The concept of emancipation is used in different contexts within the context of Critical Theory and the social sciences. Marx refers to forms of emancipation i.e. political and human emancipation. The goal of both the forms is to make the man a human whose self- reflection would be linked to an interest in full capacity and emancipation.

Emancipation can be subjective to the socio- historical factors. For some countries it might mean liberation fro, hunger and material needs but for some it could mean human emancipation in the form of self fulfillment. The other important concept of enlightenment is to defend against reification as it limits man’s capacity for self definition, his field of action and reflection.

Criticism is a central condition for emancipation. The critical analysis of the social and the economic factors provides a partial liberation from their constrictions. If education has to serve its purpose towards young generation then it must take into account constructive criticism and keep away thoughts that are not didactical. Education must keep into consideration the personal and social situation of each individual to be fulfilling.

By Society we mean the division of labor and Critical Theory refers to the theory of society to throw light on the social system. The relation between theory and practice is central to Critical Theory and critical social science.

Habermas tried to link practice to theory and thus, elaborates three aspects between them-

• The empirical aspect between science politics in capitalism
• The epistemological aspect between knowledge and interest
• The methodological aspect of theory of societies to take on the role of social criticism.

In self reflection, pure knowledge and the desire for autonomous power are inter-related and it is believed that the process of reflection is itself a step towards emancipation.

To distinguish critical science from traditional science Habermas has developed four criteria-

• Critical sociology avoids reducing intentional action to behavior.
• Critical sociology is wary of a casual reduction of the network of meanings objectified in societal systems.
• Critical sociology is wary of reducing all social conflicts to unresolved problems within self regulated systems.
• Critical sociology is wary of the abuse of power exerted by philosophical concepts.

The function of Critical Theory of education is to aid and help teachers in their educational practice. The dependence of the educational system on the social system is on a large scale. Critical Theory can thus, assist to reduce the dependence and impact of the social system on the education structure. For this it must use ideological criticism, which means a scientific disclosure of the social conditions of production and the revelation of erroneous rationalizations which are the result of flawed understanding and of the possibilities of intervention upon this situation. The main aim of ideological criticism is to identify the difference between false consciousness caused by a social or an economic factor and clear and scientific consciousness.

Most of the times it is the general public is fooled in the process of ideology and truth. For example most of the times the promises made by the political party in power are fake and just aim to restore the social peace. They do not intend on doing anything to solve the problem at the earliest. Thus, it leads to confusion among the subjects between the concept of ideology and truth. They fail to see through the dominating party’s ideological tactics the reality of the situation and thus, cannot grasp the truth.

Critical Theory’s Impact on Educational Practice

The article also talks about the critical ideology and how ideologies are the expression of an alienated consciousness. Critical Theory deals with concepts of enlightenment, emancipation, liberation from reification, social justice, peace, solidarity, freedom and self determinism. The major thought is not criticism but improvement of educational practice. Educational spheres use the method of Action- Research for more efficient results.

In this discourse Mollenhauer and Blankertz tried to oppose traditional humanist and empirical theory of education to introduce a new critical theory. It should aim for self-achievement. It highlights how there exists a difference between reality and ‘virtuality’ i.e. how theory and practice can be so different from each other. The major aim for critical theory of education sets emancipation as the aim of education so as to overcome irrationality and become liberated. When this idea is understood by the common people only then the process of enlightenment can succeed.

According to Klafki, the critical theory of education is quite different from critical theory. The latter professes negativity whereas the former does not, Critical theory of education and development aims to resist the power structures and aid man to find himself in the process.

Mollenhauer opines critical theory of education as primarily a theory of communicative action on a symbolic level and thus divides his work in three dimensions namely- education as a communicative action, education as an interaction and education as reproduction. He also highlights that many times communicative processes fail not because of individual responsibility but because of structural over determinations of the socio-economic context.

The functions of critical knowledge lie in the fact that it should not be treated just a methodology but a means to address the issues of the right from the wrong.

The book speaks about Educational Science and the importance of criticism in it. Educational Science is related to pedagogy which is related to teaching and includes examination and research of different methods and how students perceive those methodologies. But in a critical science classroom students’ views and questions serve as the starting point for scientific investigation for better living conditions. It throws light relation of domination and subordination and how hegemonic systems would not help in the achievement of goals. The main aspects discussed by Christopher Wulff in this book talks about three important factors – Emancipation, self –realization or self- fulfillment.

Thus, critical theory of education has not been only influenced by the critical theory of society but also from other paradigms of social sciences. All the problems of difference between critical theory and critical educational science cannot be solved; hence, action research is the best way to resolve such a situation.