Defining 'radical' and 'critical pedagogy'

Ben,
I thought I might twin those two themes because of their proximity. Firstly - I think I am with you on the self-defining 'radical'. What does it suggest? In what sense is the word being used and understood? I can't help but think of it in terms of the 60's, and Shor (not to overuse the interview but they touch, candidly, on such a wide spectrum of the rhet/comp field) was one. So I think in looking at how he has evolved, how this active radical now defines himself, is interesting. Like to me the questions are of constraints and conditions. What is possible? And how do we know that?

Shor: The last thing I'll say is that sometimes we think of transforming pedagogy in an historical vacuum and don't consider that the political climate has been hostile and conservative for twenty years now. What's possible in such a political climate is less than what's possible in a more insurgent or progressive era. I'd like us to blame ourselves less for some of the restrictions or limits that we discover in experimenting and transforming, and understand that we're pushing against some powerful limits set by the climate. What we can do, we accomplish inside a specific setting in a real history.

I really really dig your friend's thoughtful response: I'm a political liberal but an educational conservative. Ben I think your thought that it is a state of mind, a "deep state of solidarity with the students and their struggle to find meaning/voice/access/understanding/purpose. i think it is also an acknowledgment that the teacher is not ordained to be the only expert in the classroom."Spot on! I'm open to describing myself as a radical as long as I'm committed to that term's meaning as open and requiring constant interrogation.

So to me the next interesting question is, can this "deep state of solidarity" be achieved in a mode that doesn't exactly resemble critical pedagogy. Like if I were to discuss what my class looks like, in this composition/lit course, it looks like the following: the students are in groups and i'm standing or sitting not in a circle (the power actually feels too centered for me in that mode, and all that empty space in the middle) but close almost'within' their groups. Not necessarily at the front of the room, but trying to be among them. What I try to create is a discussion of literature that is situated, deeply, within their own experiences, and one of the risks I take is that I try to bring my own odd and out there life experiences and their connection to the text, in such a way that it lets them feel free to do so. I'll say something ridiculous in the hope that they might start to make really interesting, and unconventional connections to the text. Make them feel that their thoughts aren't odd but compelling and rich and worth weaving into the text. This, however, might be a romantic idea.

And the way I'll respond to a student's reading attempts to be really open and inquisitive, like "tell me more", and respond within a vocabulary that draws, loosely from pragmatism, but is also, hopefully, explicitly empathetic. So - like "I find that really persuasive", "That is a very cool connection you've made", and if I don't think it's persuasive I'll try and say "Hmmnn I'm not sure I'm completely convinced but I'm open to the idea, definitely". Is this 'frontloading' student discourse? I'm not sure.

And then it brings up this question (and all of its perils): How did I learn best? And if I can figure out how I've learned best, can/should/what are the risks of applying that to my students? I learned by seeing profs engage the texts in ways that I thought were alive, and cool, and interesting, and I tried to model them. So if that means in my class the "student discourse" wasn't frontloaded, it worked for me, regardless, and allowed me to find my voice.