Reflecting on the moral bases of critical pedagogy in PETE: toward a Foucaultian perspective on ethics and the care of the self

Abstract

In teacher education and in physical education teacher education (PETE), the possibilities and pitfalls of critical pedagogy (CP) for transforming society have been frequently debated. From these debates, it has become quite clear that the lines separating ‘technocrats’ from ‘radicals’ are so strongly drawn that limit the advance of PETE. In the spirit of collegiality, we offer an alternative approach to CP based on Foucault's genealogical work on the History of Sexuality. It promotes a pedagogical perspective toward the development of ethics and the care of the self. We argue that this approach, far from discrediting what non-critical pedagogues do, can not only advance the practice of CP, but also open up new ways of conceptualizing PETE that are worth considering both by critical pedagogues and by the members of other pedagogical camps. We discuss the implications of this approach in the personal, social–professional and political spheres.

Keywords:

• Critical pedagogy
• Physical education teacher education
• Foucault
• Ethics
• Morality
• Care
• Self

Notes

1. Paulo Freire, the famous Brazilian educator and one of the main representatives of CP (though not who coined the term), was a catholic and a close friend of Recife's Bishop Elder Cámara. Little wonder, then, that the educational practices he developed were strongly rooted in Theology of Liberation.

2. Our pedagogical practice is not uniform. Although we both use similar methods in class (e.g. dialog, spoken and written reflection, self-assessment), we do not practice these methods in the same manner. Conscious of this, we frequently share with each other our doubts and findings, in an attempt to mutually enrich ourselves, enhance our pedagogy and move forward in our still-tentative ethical understanding of our teaching and of our own ‘personhood.’

3. By ‘love of self’ we mean the esteem of oneself; not to be confused with ‘self-love’ (i.e. egocentrism and selfishness).

4. As distinguished from ‘freedom from’—a conception of freedom understood as liberation from external influences or impediments.

5. Admittedly, we are in a privileged position as university professors with sufficient time and financial resources to do these things. We are perfectly aware that not everybody has the same possibilities and circumstances.

6. See Fernández-Balboa and Muros (2006), for a critical interrelation between these three elements (ideology, discourse and habitus) and for suggestions for transformative action in PETE.