Some Preliminary Notes on Hope and Radical Pedagogy

Prof. Grave Riddle. June 2012.

Hello again! Although you might think we have disappeared, another victim of
excessive utopianism, le petit mort of the student/protest/occupy movement which
failed to impregnate a Tory state with its pants hanging round its ankles and deliver
a revolutionits not true! We were always a non-heirarchical, nomadic, copyrightfree meme that we felt could be shared by all, and we shared an idea(l) of education
with countless other free schools/universities across the country. Yes, the energy of
the movement has gone from boil to simmer, but its not over yet. There is a strange
tension in the air, we are waiting for our opportunity again a revolution needs the
right material conditions, and strategy is still absolutely crucial. While we wait we
prepare, and disappear back into society, watching, learning, reading, talking,
working, arguing, experimentingthis isnt a weakness, its a strength. As a part of
the intellectual strata of this capitalist society, we must prepare the right ideas so that
when the time comes, we have something to contribute, these ideas then become
reality and exert a material force. Two quotes from two extreme ends of the leftright spectrum:
Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs,
the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are aroundour basic function [is
therefore] to develop alternatives to existing policiesuntil the politically impossible
becomes the politically inevitable. (Milton Friedman; in Stuart Hall, 2011: 707)
The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, supplant the criticism of weapons,
material force must be overthrown by material force. But theory, too, will become a
material force as soon as it seizes the masses. (Marx, in Perry 2002: 41)
The two quotes together remind us that on the one hand, ideas are very important,
but on the other, the hard work of political struggle must be done as well, in order to
get to the point when ideas become crucial. The problem that we radical
intellectuals have is that we are full of anxiety about our class position. Are we radical
if we have the luxury of a good education and the time to read, write and think? Are
we middle class if we have a phd? Are lecturers real workers? At what point do we
become bourgeois, when we become professors? And so on. This anxiety
usually leads to one of two solutions: preaching to a working-class that never actually
comes to your lectures on radical theory, or giving up real politics altogether and
disappearing into theory (and the nice office with a locked door through which even
ones own students arent welcome).
To combat this political dead-end, we must return to Gramsci. (Yes, its hegemony
again, sorry Scott Lash). Gramsci relentlessly explored the problem of intellectuals in
capitalist society. He distinguished between traditional and organic intellectuals. The
former are the kind that has decided they exist somewhere outside of class society,

and they pursue knowledge for knowledges sake, free from political bias. Of course,
we all know that the apolitical is still political in a capitalist society its function is
an extremely insipid reproduction of the status quo. Organic intellectuals are
spontaneously produced out of definite class positions. This means that the capitalist
class produces them (entrepreneurs, consultants, think-tanks, etc) and so does the
working-class. The latter kind is personified in the history of British cultural studies
and radical history, starting with Raymond Williams, E.P. Thompson, Richard
Hoggart. In a very interesting article, Cultural Studies and its Theoretical
Legacies, Stuart Hall describes the deeper, political intention of the CCS at
Birmingham as trying to produce an organic intellectual:
There is no doubt in my mind that we were trying to find an institutional practice in
cultural studies that might produce an organic intellectual. We didnt know
previously what that would mean, in the context of Britain in the 1970s, and we
werent sure we would recognize him or her if we managed to produce it. The
problem about the concept of an organic intellectual is that it appears to align
intellectuals with an emerging historic movement and we couldnt tell then, and can
hardly tell now, where that emerging historical movement was to be found. We were
organic intellectuals without any organic point of reference; organic intellectuals with
a nostalgia or will or hope (to use Gramscis phrase from another context) that at
some point we would be prepared in intellectual work for that kind of relationship, if
such a conjuncture ever appeared. More truthfully, we were prepared to imagine or
model or simulate such a relationship in its absence: pessimism of the intellect,
optimism of the will. (Hall, 1992)
The important thing to remember about the original holy trinity of British cultural
studies (Williams, Hoggart, Thompson) is that they wrote their first books while
teaching adult education in various parts of the country. They werent yet traditional
intellectuals. And now I can come to the point of this post; as intellectuals, especially
if we havent yet become absorbed, neutralised and ossified in the academy, we have
an important political function above and in a sense below the production of theory.
We can produce a network of real radical education, right now, which might have a
chance of producing organic intellectuals and will certainly contribute to the creation
and maintenance of a counter-hegemony.
And Im not talking of some glamorous Occupy temporary tent in the middle of
London or New York, which will only produce a temporary excitement and tourist
feeling. Im on about starting from scratch, in shitty areas, helping with literacy,
numeracy, job applications, letters to the government, creative writing, etc. I know
there is already an institutionalised version of this, with free classes supplied by local
councils. But these have a function and a style tailored for the reproduction of
existing social relations more than anything, they style of teaching and

bureaucratic apparatus behind this teaching disempowers people and (re-)trains

them for obedience to the ruling-class hegemony and political apathy.
What Im talking about is training. I have worked in a shit job for the year or so and
hated it. But I have also been working my way into a teaching career. I love teaching.
I still hate the fact that it is a job. I still hate the university as a racist and
authoritarian, elitist institution (that is leading the way in the exploitation of its
mostly precarious work-force). Im also terrified of becoming that which I hate. But I
have also realised in the transition from one type of work to another that each type of
work has its own radical possibilities. My office job just wasnt my material reality, I
am a member of the intellectual lower middle-class. I dont need to be ashamed of
this. What I shouldnt do is either pretend I am working-class white collar, or now
seize my opportunity for a safe and complacent academic career. I somehow feel that
I have found my material conditions relative to my class, and have a renewed sense of
political purpose. In the transition from being an unemployed graduate student in
London to returning to the midlands and working, I didnt know how to be radical
anymore. Now I know.
My plan now is to begin an apprenticeship in radical pedagogy. As part of my
institutional training, I need to gain teaching qualifications. But as well as this, I am
learning to teach English as a foreign language, and will soon hopefully do a
DTLLS so that I can teach literacy and numeracy. You might ask, why bother
learning the methods of the Ideological State Apparatus the answer is Im not sure.
On the one hand, this is my career path, but on the other it seems important that I
dont short sell people who really want and need this knowledge. I mean, I cannot
bring my radical ideas to a group of people who desperately need a job, cant write a
CV or speak English, and need to tick a box in an application process.
But this institutional path will hopefully be counter-balanced by a totally deinstitutionalised exploration of radical pedagogy. The two should compliment each
other, but in a certain direction. I should take from the institution, never exploit
students for the advancement of ideological education. This will be a very hard line to
negotiate. This deinstitutionalised education would offer the same things if needed,
but in a way that empowers the student, beings them to critical consciousness,
teaches them to teach themselves. This way also allows the teacher to learn from the
student, which is important to keep the direction radical, not exploitative.
This deinstitutionalised education comes from the experience and writings of people
like Paulo Freire, John Dewey, Ivan Illich. But also the work we did early on in the
UfSO, based on intuition and direct experience of bad education and the struggle for
equality within our own version. Im hopefully going to write about these ideas in
more concrete detail at some point. You might complain that these thinkers arent
left-wing, or Marxist, or whatever. I might be wrong about this, but I currently
believe that education is in a sense prior to politics and ideology. The aim of

education is to produce critical consciousness, and I dont think its necessarily good
to teach an ideology, even if it is anti-capitalist, or even to teach from an ideological
position. I think the future of radical politics lies in the achievement of a critical
popular consciousness that will crystallise a new and powerful hegemony. This could
lead to a true democracy, a socialist utopia, or just a much-needed improvement in
the existing social relations. I dont know. That kind of explicit political struggle and
battle of ideas should take place along side these kinds of bottom-up long-term
projects.
Why am I telling you all this? Because Im excited. But also to try to fight this feeling
of apathy after a another supposed failed revolution. Dont believe the hype. Thats
what the ruling classes want us to feel. We are actually all still involved somehow,
somewhere, in some important way. We should all communicate more, outside
existing channels, create new and better networks. This would really fight the apathy.
We are all in this together, no matter which side of the fence. It is the responsibility of
all of us to do what we think is right in a way that feels right. The transformation of
society will come from all angles, maybe slowly, maybe all of a sudden (or maybe a
combination of the tow, a growing surge that suddenly breaks the flood-banks). We
all have a role to play, we should try to make sure it is a progressive one, based on
passion, experience and hope, not on cynicism and disillusionment.
Prof. Grave Riddle
References and preliminary reading list:
Hall, Stuart. The Neo-liberal Revolution. Cultural Studies, 25:6, 705-728 (2011)
Hall, Stuart. Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies, 1992:
<http://cultstud.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/stuart-hall-cultural-studies-and-

its.html>
Perry, Matt. Marxism and History. Palgrave Macmillan: 2002
Gramsci, Antonio. Selected Writings 1916 -1935. Ed. David Forgacs. London,
Lawrence and Wishart: 1988
Monk, Ray. Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. London, Vintage: 1990
Wheen, Francis. Karl Marx. London, Fourth Estate: 1999
Friere, Paulo. Education: The Practice of Freedom. London, Writers and Readers
Publishing Cooperative: 1973
Friere, Paulo. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, Continuum: 1993
Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. Harper Colophon Books: 1971
Dewey, John. Experience and Education. Pocket Books: 1977