Critical Thinking for Social Justice in Global Geographical Learning in Schools

Abstract

This study aims to theoretically investigate the notion of critical thinking for a more just understanding of self and “others” in global geographical learning. It focuses on the kinds of injustice in the world which are driven by our relationships with “others.” By drawing on the literature of critical education, philosophy of education, and geography education, this study reveals how universal notions of criticality tend to easily undermine those perceived as global others and may highlight, in deficit mode, their perceived differences. Instead, the study presents the imperative of deconstructive thinking for a more just world. The article concludes by proposing a teaching strategy for alternative criticality which strives for justice in school geography.

Key Words:

• critical thinking
• school geography
• global learning
• deconstruction
• social justice

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Christine Winter and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Notes

1 Key Stage 2 (KS2) denotes the curriculum normally assigned for school students aged 7–11 years in England. The Key Stage 3 (KS3) curriculum serves students aged 12–14. Whereas the GLP presents its target for being for British Key Stages 2 and 3, which cover students aged 7–14 years, in this theoretical article, I do not want to limit certain age groups to a proposed approach to criticality for social justice. As Bruner (2009) argued, any concept can be taught in an intellectually honest way to learners of any age or stage of development (Spiral curriculum).

2 Against positivist assumptions, for instance, Habermas (1974) refutes the idea that knowledge or truth is produced by some kind of “pure,” “neutral,” and “ahistorical” intellectual act. By attempting to uncover how different kinds of knowledge are constructed by the particular human interest that they have, he argues that it is always constituted on the basis of interests shaped by not only the “natural” needs of the human species, but also by historical and social conditions. Rorty (1982) also criticizes that such a view of Enlightenment philosophy is merely a vain attempt “to step outside our skin and compare ourselves with something absolute…to escape from the finitude of one’s time and place, the ‘merely conventional’ and contingent aspect of one’s life” (6).

3 This article frequently conceives “social justice” along dimensions of race, gender,and class, including religion, ethnicity, and dis/ability as it draws on largely the literature of critical pedagogy. Yet, geographic location (geopolitical inequality between the global North and the global South) (McEwan 2009), temporality for future generations (sustainable development) (Hopwood et al. 2005), species (bio-citizenship) (Barker 2010), and environment (ecological citizenship) (Dobson 2003) represent additional realms of social justice. In this article, through the following deconstructive thinking, I encourage students and teachers to reconsider their own understanding of social justice and, as such, invite “others.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gapcheol Kim

Gapcheol Kim is a Lecturer in Geography Education in the Department of Social Studies Education at Daegu National University of Education, Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea. His research focuses on school geography curriculum with a specific interest in global citizenship education.