Maltese teachers and the politics of engagement

Abstract

One of the main differences that Horkheimer (1976) highlights when distinguishing between critical and traditional theory is that unlike the latter, the former is constantly aware of the social context which gives rise to it, as well as of the practical context of its application. While traditional theory believes itself to be 'value-free', critical theory is explicitly concerned with engaging the world as it is, in order to imagine a world as it could and should be. Critical theory is therefore mainly concerned with the political interest in liberating human beings from conventional thoughts and practices. Its main task is to unmask the constraints pertaining to particular social, political and cultural contexts so that people free themselves from the rules of habit, prejudice and superstition and gain the power to become self-determining agents. From this point of view, social organisations such as schools are not inert structures to which teachers and students ought to conform. The rules and regulations that govern institutions are socially constructed, that is they have been made by human beings over time. If these 'man' -made rules do not respond to democratic needs and hopes, then they must be reconstructed in view of alternative aspirations. Teachers have an important part to play in the project of social change. They are responsible for educating citizens, and are therefore in a privileged position to intervene in the evolution of people (students, parents), institutions (schools) and society more generally. They can be empowering agents if they are politically active in struggling for a more democratic society (Giroux, 1988; Shor, 1992). In order to do so teachers not only have to reflect critically upon their activities within the contexts of classrooms and schools: they also have to relate such experiences to the wider socio-political context. They need to be able to historically and socially locate their own practice, that is they need to understand those processes which, over the years, have created the conditions under which they labour. Schools and teachers are involved in participating in - as well as constructing - 'life-forms' . Educators cannot but be critically aware of the cultural and socio-political practices that constitute their work places if they are to imagine alternative life-forms, other possible ways of living together in a more just environment. It is quite impossible to have democratic societies without democratic environments in schools - but it is also difficult to imagine democratic schools in a society which h~s abandoned democratic values. Problems encountered in both spheres have to be addressed simultaneously due to the complex interrelationships between the two. As has been argued by Sultana in the previous chapter, teachers tend to dismiss anything that has to do with the term 'politics', thinking that by so doing, they will be more free from the influence that political parties might have on the formal educational process. Party politics in Malta as elsewhere has a great influence on what goes on in schools and classrooms and has frequently imposed limits to what educators can do (see Mifsud, Chaper 3 this volume). But when teachers act as if the schools and politics were separate, they are unwittingly permitting the organised political forces to exercise their influence and to promote their interests in the educational sphere. Moreover, when teachers negate the political dimension of their work, they are unconsciously supporting and reinforcing the common belief that no one can do anything to resist the limits imposed by social and political organisations in our society. In other words, teachers' dismissal of the very real relationship between politics and education transmits a pernicious and powerful message, namely that the way a particular social order is constructed is not worthy of critical and purposeful interrogation, but that rather rules and life-forms that are imposed from above have to be fatalistically accepted. Education, as a consequence, becomes an induction into a culture of submission. But this is contrary to what is expected of educational institutions in a true democracy, where it is the culture of dialogue, participation, and direct involvement in decision-making that should be the norm. As several of the chapters in this volume have shown, teachers in Malta tend to reflect rather than contest the culture of submission that is one of the most damaging legacies of our colonial history. However, before we can address the practical question regarding the ways teachers' practices can be reconstructed, it is necessary to first engage a series of other questions, such as: Why do teachers - and many other categories of persons who live in a political democracy - feel repulsion towards politics? What are the repercussions of such a reaction? What is the relationship between the educational work of teachers and the socio-political context that surrounds and informs them? What are the limits encountered by teachers in view of the project of democracy, and what can they do to overcome them? In an attempt to answer these questions I will draw upon the theories of Jiirgen Habermas (1971;1973), an emancipatory theorist who has looked closely at the way political organisations operate in modem democracies. His writings have important implications for the way we consider schools and teachers, particularly if we are to adopt the view outlined earlier, namely that the world we inhabit is a socially constructed one rather than a god-given, unchangeable reality to which we must conform. Such an awareness can be considered as the initial step in what Freire (1972) refers to as the 'conscientisation' process, where citizens recognise that the social world is ordered in ways that work out in the interest of specific groups. As Ginsburg and his colleagues note, 'At its core politics is intimately linked to power, in both its structural and ideological dimensions. Politics thus involves exercising the capacity to get people to do something, or not to do something, or to not even consider doing something such that their action or inaction is contrary to their interests. Politics is also concerned with the control of the means of producing, reproducing, consuming, and accumulating material and symbolic resources. Politics is about who gets what, when, and how' (Ginsburg et al. 1992: 417-8). But understanding and interpreting how the world works is not enough. That knowledge ought to lead to political engagement, a collective mobilisation of all those who have democracy at heart to bring about a more just and equitable order.