Omertá (82): Notes between critical pedagogy and simple criticism

On many occasions, the «critical» is added as justification for being alternative, transgressor, or above the rules. Some theoretical approaches have added the critical to their names to show the need for an alternative that goes further and that, especially, allows deepening, analyzing, and giving voice to those who do not have it, overcoming the obstacles of the discipline itself.

There have always been those who have theorized critically and coherently all their lives, acting and practicing according to what they theorize, like Paulo Freire. Therefore, they have developed a critical pedagogy that gives voice to victims of GV in a way that they become survivors. Others have taken advantage of the label of «being critical» to transgress even the values and ethical sense of what they claim to theorise, even to attack the victims in exchange for money and fame from the harassers, as mentioned in the recently published scientific article Breaking the Silence within Critical Pedagogy. Taking advantage of other people’s work and the deep sense of democratic radicalism and critical pedagogy for individual ends has led some authors to attack those who have lived their whole lives, consistently rejecting the double standards of those who separate theory and practice. These attacks are deeply wounding, breaking all ethics, with the sole aim of claiming the most remarkable medal of the «critical».

But the personal and professional trajectories of those who consistently practice and theorise a critical pedagogy differ enormously in their relationships of love or friendship in their day-to-day interactions from those who claim to be «critics» and corrupt all ethics in order to gain individual prominence. These trajectories also differ from the profound social transformations of the former and their impact on the lives of many others, with no impact from the others, who only care about their own trajectories and stick to them.