T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A

F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s

1

EDST 601A, FIRST YEAR DOCTORAL SEMINAR

CRITICAL SOCIAL THEORY Section: 081 Instructor: Claudia Ruitenberg Term 1, September 8-December 4, 2009 604-822-2411 Wednesdays, 9:00am-noon Office: Ponderosa H131 Location: Pon H 115 Email: claudia.ruitenberg@ubc.ca COURSE DESCRIPTION This doctoral seminar offers an opportunity to immerse yourself in the world of social theory (broadly speaking) and related debates in education, as well as to systematically interrogate the basic arguments put forward by social theorists. More specifically, in this course we will engage in an examination of critical theoretical traditions and conceptual problems in the social sciences and humanities as they relate to the field of education. We will read and discuss a range of contemporary social, cultural, and educational theorists. Theoretical trends, issues, and perspectives in contemporary education—including problems of theory formation and links between the social sciences, humanities and education—will be central in our discussions. You will also be asked to reflect on the implications of committing yourself to a theoretical vantage point in your research program. Ultimately, then, this course aims to provide you with the necessary conceptual tools to conduct theoretically informed work for a larger research project. GUIDELINE FOR PARTICIPATION Since this is a graduate seminar, I expect all to participate, with the understanding that people participate in different ways. Participation is not graded. Inspired by the views of scholars such as Jacques Derrida and John Caputo, I place great value on the university as a space for unconditional questioning. To this end, I use the guideline that you can say and ask anything in class, but that you cannot declare what you (or others) have said or asked off-limits for questioning. COURSE READINGS Required text: EDST 601A Course Readings Package, available in the UBC bookstore indicates a reading from the course readings package indicates a reading that is available on-line (typically through the UBC library subscription

to electronic journals, so remember to activate VPN when off campus) Supplementary readings are available either on-line or from the reserve sections of the Koerner and Education Library.

2

COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION Student-directed inquiry (20%)1 You will be asked to choose one of the seminars in weeks 3-9 or 11-13 to prepare questions for small-group discussion. (There will likely be more than one person per week.) The questions are part of a short written assignment (1-2 pages). The assignment should include the following three components: 1. a paragraph taken directly from one of that week’s readings; 2. a brief commentary relating this paragraph to your own experience, interests or concerns

(i.e., why did this particular paragraph speak to you?); 3. an open-ended question. Because this question should guide small group discussions, make

sure it is a genuine question that you would like to explore with your colleagues, not a rhetorical question, a question that invites “yes” or “no” answers, or a question designed to “test” whether your colleagues have read the text well.

Please bring copies of your assignment for your colleagues. I will evaluate only the written assignment (not your skills in moderating the discussion) and according to the following criteria: • quality of interpretation (i.e., does your commentary show that you have understood the

paragraph you have selected?); • quality of the question(s) (i.e., have you posed one or more open and stimulating

questions?); • quality of the writing (i.e., is your writing clear, and free from spelling and grammatical

errors?). Book review (30%) This review of 8-10 pages should focus on one single-authored book from the following list: Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The middle class and social

advantage. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Brown, W. (2006). Regulating aversion: Tolerance in the age of identity and empire. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge. Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks (C. L. Markmann, Trans.). New York: Grove Press.

(Original work published 1952) Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. New York: Routledge. Nakamura, L. (2007). Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the internet. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.

1 I am indebted to Dr. Ann Chinnery at Simon Fraser University for the development of this assignment.

3

A book review involves both descriptive and evaluative components. Spend no more than one third of the review on the description of the content and author of the book, leaving at least two thirds for your critical review. As bell hooks (1994) reminds us, “critical interrogation is not the same as dismissal” (p. 49), so while the review should not be an uncritical celebration of the book, neither should you focus solely on your disagreements with it. In the conclusion, tell the reader whether you would recommend this book. If not, why not? If so, to what audience? Your book review will be evaluated according to the following criteria: • accuracy of description (i.e., do you represent the central argument(s) and perspectives of

the book correctly?); • quality of your discussion (i.e., do you raise insightful, critical and relevant questions?); • quality of the writing (i.e., is your writing clear, and free from spelling and grammatical

errors?). Due date: October 14th (week 6). Final paper (50%) In the final paper (max. 15 pages) you should bring one or more of the theoretical perspectives we have discussed in the course to bear on a topic in your area of research interest. You might, for example, choose to argue for a particular theoretical perspective to inform research in your area, or you might choose to critique the dominant understandings of core concepts in your research area, or you might choose to juxtapose two theoretical perspectives in relation to your topic of interest and arrive at a question. Whatever approach you take, the final paper cannot be merely expository, that is, it cannot merely describe theories; you have to use these theories in a critical way in relation to your research topic. You should get a brief proposal for the final paper approved by me at your earliest convenience but no later than November 11 (week 10). Your final paper will be evaluated according to criteria specific to the type of paper you choose to write, as well as the following general criteria: • accuracy in referring to other people’s ideas; • quality of the writing (i.e., is your writing well organized, clear, and free from spelling and

grammatical errors?); • proper use of sources (i.e., do you use references to support or illustrate rather than make

your points, and do you cite properly and consistently?). Due date: December 2nd (week 13).

4

WRITING AND REFERENCING For ease of reading and evaluating, please make all your assignments double spaced, left justified, in a reasonable font size (Times 12 is a good indicator, but you may wish to use other fonts for aesthetic reasons), with 1” margins. I do not accept handwritten work. Please submit all assignments electronically as Word documents (.doc or .docx). One of the things I value in academic work is understanding how none of us comes to know what we do on our own. As educational scholar Madeleine Grumet (1988) writes,

Lodged right in the middle of this term that we extend to honor the people who have influenced and cared for us, is the word ‘knowledge.’ An acknowledgment is an admission. It makes explicit what is tacit, or sometimes denied, in every scholarly monologue: none of us knows alone. (p. ix)

Please acknowledge the people through whose knowledge you have come to know what you do. My main concerns in referencing are a) that you honour other people’s ideas and wording, and b) that you are consistent in the way you note your sources. To this end, you may follow a well-known reference format, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago style. The reference format I will use is APA (5th edition). If I have any reason to believe that you have handed in an assignment you did not write yourself, or that you have failed to attribute certain sections of your paper to their respective authors, I may examine my suspicion by submitting the electronic copy of your assignment to TurnItIn. For more information on UBC’s subscription to TurnItIn, please see http://www.vpacademic.ubc.ca/integrity/turnitin/index.htm. If I find evidence of academic dishonesty, I will follow procedures as outlined in the Academic Regulations of the 2009/2010 University Calendar. (For your information: the word “plagiarism” comes from the Latin plagirius, kidnapper, which is derived from plaga, net. Don’t kidnap other people’s ideas!)

5

WEEK 1 (SEPTEMBER 9): INTRODUCTION WEEK 2 (SEPTEMBER 16): WHY THEORY? Required reading Popkewitz, T. S. (1984). Paradigms in educational science: Different meanings and purpose

to theory. In Paradigm and ideology in educational research: The social functions of the intellectual (pp. 32-58). New York: The Falmer Press.

Taylor, C. (1985). Social theory as practice. In Philosophy and the human sciences (pp. 91-115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ball, S. J. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255-271. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3121983)

Supplementary reading Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of

concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225-248. (DOI: 10.1086/421123) Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching qualitative

research as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57. (http://people.ehe.ohio-state.edu/plather/publications-2/articles/2001-present/)

WEEK 3 (SEPTEMBER 23): THE WORKINGS OF POWER, PART I Required reading Coben, D. (1995). Revisiting Gramsci [Electronic version]. Studies in the Education of

Adults, 27(1), 36-51. (http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9508092608&site=ehost-live)

Althusser, L. (1994). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (B. Brewster, Trans.). Available online from http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/LPOE70ii.html and http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm. (Original work published 1970)

Bourdieu, P. (1978). Sport and social class. Social Science Information, 17, 819-840. (DOI: 10.1177/053901847801700)

WEEK 4 (SEPTEMBER 30): THE WORKINGS OF POWER, PART II Required reading Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.

(http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343197) McDermott, R. & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture “as” disability. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly, 26(3), 324-348. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195676)

6

WEEK 5 (OCTOBER 7): DEMOCRACY AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE, PART I Required reading Habermas, J. (1974). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (S. Lennox & F. Lennox,

Trans.). New German Critique, 3, 49-55. (Original work published 1964) (http://www.jstor.org/stable/487737)

Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Supplementary reading Warner, M. (2002). Publics and counterpublics. Public Culture, 14(1), 49-90.

(http://publicculture.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/1/49) WEEK 6 (OCTOBER 14): DEMOCRACY AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE, PART II Book review due Required reading Rancière, J. (2004). Introducing disagreement. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical

Humanities, 9(3), 3-9. (http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16099185&site=ehost-live)

Mouffe, C. (2000). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Political Science, 72, 1-17. (http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_72.pdf)

Supplementary readings Ruitenberg, C. W. (2008). What if democracy really matters? Journal of Educational

Controversy, 3(1). (http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Resources/CEP/eJournal/v003n001/a005.shtml)

Ruitenberg, C. W. (2009). Educating political adversaries: Chantal Mouffe and radical democratic citizenship education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(3), 269-281. (DOI 10.1007/s11217-008-9122-2)

WEEK 7 (OCTOBER 21): THE POSTCOLONIAL LANDSCAPE, PART I Required reading Fanon, F. (1967). The fact of blackness. In Black skin, white masks (C. L. Markmann,

Trans., pp. 109-140). New York: Grove Press. (Original work published 1952) Lemert, C. (2006). Frantz Fanon and the living ghosts of capitalism’s world-system. In

Durkheim’s ghosts: Cultural logics and social things (pp. 3-7). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Alfred, T. & Corntassel, J. (2005). Being Indigenous: Resurgences against contemporary colonialism. Government and Opposition, 40(4), 597-614. (DOI 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00166.x)

7

WEEK 8 (OCTOBER 28): THE POSTCOLONIAL LANDSCAPE, PART II Required reading Spivak, G. C. (2000). The new subaltern: A silent interview. In V. Chaturvedi (Ed.),

Mapping subaltern studies and the postcolonial (pp. 324-340). New York: Verso. Brown, W. (2006). Tolerance as a discourse of depoliticization. In Regulating aversion:

Tolerance in the age of identity and empire (pp. 1-24). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Derrida, J. (2002). Derelictions of the right to justice (but what are the ‘sans-papiers’ lacking?). In Negotiations: Interventions and interviews 1971-2001 (pp. 133-144). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1997)

Supplementary reading Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.),

Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271-313). WEEK 9 (NOVEMBER 4): GENDER & SEXUALITY, PART I Required reading De Beauvoir, S. (2007). The independent woman. In S. During (Ed.), The cultural studies

reader (3rd ed., pp. 337-357). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1949) Lemert, C. (2006). Simone de Beauvoir and why culture is a semiotics of the Other. In

Durkheim’s ghosts: Cultural logics and social things (pp. 235-240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs, 13(3), 405-436. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174166)

WEEK 10 (NOVEMBER 11): UNIVERSITY CLOSED FOR REMEMBRANCE DAY WEEK 11 (NOVEMBER 18): GENDER & SEXUALITY, PART II Required reading Lemert, C. (2006). Foucault and why analytic categories are queer. In Durkheim’s ghosts:

Cultural logics and social things (pp. 221-226). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, J. (2004). Beside oneself: On the limits of sexual autonomy. In Undoing gender (pp. 17-39). New York: Routledge.

Edelman, L. (2004). The future is kid stuff. In No future: Queer theory and the death drive (pp. 1-31). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Available from UBC library as e-book

Supplementary reading Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory. Australian Humanities Review, 4.

(http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-Dec-1996/jagose.html)

8

WEEK 12 (NOVEMBER 25): CULTURE, MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, PART I Required reading Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. W. (2007). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass

deception (J. Cumming, Trans.). In S. During, The cultural studies reader (3rd ed., pp. 405-415). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1969)

Hall, S. (1996). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In D. Morley & K.-H. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 262-275). New York: Routledge.

WEEK 13 (DECEMBER 2): CULTURE, MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, PART II Final paper due Required reading Boler, M. (2007). Hypes, hopes and actualities: New digital Cartesianism and bodies in

cyberspace. New Media & Society, 9(1), 139-168. (DOI: 10.1177/1461444807067586) De Castell, S. & Jenson, J. (2006). Education, gaming, and serious play. In J. Weiss, J.

Nolan, J. Hunsinger & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 999-1018) (DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-3803-7)

Supplementary reading: Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the

late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149-181). New York: Routledge. (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html)