Advertisement

Oppression, Obscuration and Ideology

  • Glenn Toh
Chapter

Abstract

Guided by critical educator Paulo Freire’s vision for conscionably humane forms of education, this chapter examines the nature of power asymmetries, oppressions, fragmentations and imprisoning discourses operational within educational domains, in particular, English teaching. Discourses of neutrality, accountability and utilitarianism are problematized, discourses which undermine otherwise more humanizing ideals, while educators are seen variously to be professionally and subjectively collusive or complicit with regimes of oppression where hegemonies and mythologies are routinely nourished around ‘enlightened’ research or pedagogical practices which are empowering (alas only) in appearance, but decidedly oppressive in reality. The case of certain aspects of second language acquisition (SLA) research is highlighted as an example of presumption and oppressiveness in the way the learner is interpolated and invoked as a subject-object of scrutiny.

References

  1. Alderson, J. C. (2009). Setting the scene. In J. C. Alderson (Ed.), The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions (pp. 8–44). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benesch, S. (1996). Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 723–738.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Burgess, C. (2010, March 23). Higher education: Opening up or closing in? Contradictory reform goals could scotch chances of success. The Japan Times [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 2 December 2017, from http://japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/20100323zg.html.
  5. Canagarajah, A. S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–939.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00678.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  9. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gass, S. (1998). Apples and oranges: Or, why apples are not orange and don’t need to be: A response to Firth and Wagner. Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 83–94.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb02597.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gass, S. M., Lee, J., & Roots, R. (2007). Firth and Wagner (1997): New ideas or a new articulation? The Modern Language Journal, 91(Focus Issue), 788–799.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00669.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall, J. K. (1997). A consideration of SLA as a theory of practice: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 301–306.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05482.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanson, J. (2013). Moving out of the monolingual comfort zone and into the multilingual world: An exercise of the writing classroom. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms (pp. 207–214). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ishikawa, M. (2011). Redefining internationalization in higher education: Global 30 and the making of global universities in Japan. In D. B. Willis & J. Rappleye (Eds.), Reimagining Japanese education: Borders, transfers, circulations, and the comparative (pp. 193–224). Oxford: Symposium.Google Scholar
  17. Kasper, G. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 307–312.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05483.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerr, R. (2009). The politics of ELT projects in China. In J. C. Alderson (Ed.), The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions (pp. 85–103). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kohn, K. (2018). MY English: A social constructivist perspective on ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2018-0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12057.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kubota, R. (2011). Questioning linguistic instrumentalism: English, neoliberalism, and language tests in Japan. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 248–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Long, M. H. (1997). Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 318–323.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05487.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLaren, P. (2015). Reflections on Paulo Freire, critical pedagogy, and the current crisis of capitalism. In M. A. Peters & T. Besley (Eds.), Paulo Freire: The global legacy (pp. 17–38). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  25. Oda, M., & Toh, G. (2018). Significant encounters and consequential eventualities: A joint narrative of collegiality marked by struggles against reductionism, essentialism and exclusion in ELT. In B. Yazan & N. Rudolph (Eds.), Criticality, teacher identity, and (in)equity in English language teaching: Issues and implications (pp. 219–236). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Otheguy, R., Garcia, G., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307.  https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  29. Pennycook, A. (2007). The myth of English as an international language. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 90–115). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  30. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar
  32. Rivers, D. J. (2013). Institutionalized native-speakerism: Voices of dissent and acts of resistance. In D. J. Rivers & S. A. Houghton (Eds.), Native speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 75–91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rivers, D. J. (2015). The authorities of autonomy and English only: Serving whose interests? In D. J. Rivers (Ed.), Resistance to the known: Counter-conduct in language education (pp. 94–120). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Stewart, A., & Miyahara, M. (2011). Parallel universes: Globalization and identity in English language teaching at a Japanese university. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in Japan in the era of globalization (pp. 60–79). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Toh, G. (2003a). A case for having a more critical orientation to ELT in Southeast Asia. World Englishes, 22(4), 531–538.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00318.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Toh, G. (2003b). Response 2. World Englishes, 22(4), 548–549.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00323.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Toh, G. (2013). Locality, re-localization, structure-to-structure localism and the TOEIC test: Implications for English language education at tertiary level in Japan. In R. S. Webster & S. A. Stolz (Eds.), Measuring up in education (pp. 226–251). Melbourne: Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia.Google Scholar
  38. Toh, G. (2015). Dialogizing ‘the known’: Experience of English teaching in Japan through an assay of derivatives as a dominant motif. In D. J. Rivers (Ed.), Resistance to the known: Counter-conduct in language education (pp. 144–167). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Toh, G. (2016a). English as medium of instruction in Japanese higher education: Presumption, mirage or bluff? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Widdowson, H. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–389.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3587438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Widin, J. (2010). Illegitimate practices: Global English language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35–58.  https://doi.org/10.2307/40264510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glenn Toh
    • 1
  1. 1.Language and Communication CentreNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations