Last week, I was working on my final paper for Concepts and Issues in Social Science Research, I used Culturally Sustaining Theory as a theory of my proposal.
According to Paris and Alim (2014), students have many differences due to their cultures, histories, and backgrounds. In order to equity in the learning environment, existing pedagogies offered the activities which designed as relevant for the students’ cultures. However, learners might need to practice their own cultures as well as school cultures. In this way, they could sustain their cultures as well as the activities of the school culture. In order to do that, they asserted that pedagogies could be adapted as going with the flow which means multicultural and multilinguistic learning environment.
While I was working on the theory, “loving critique” grabbed my attention. They needed to explain why existing pedagogies have a perception as if people of color are problematic. Instead, the pedagogies are a lack of embracing the differences. According to them,
We orient our critique by building on the crucial asset-based pedagogical work of the past and use loving critique to denote the position of deep respect from which we problematize and extend three areas of scholarship and practice:
1.Previous conceptualizations of asset pedagogies
2. Asset pedagogies that foreground the heritage practices of communities of color without taking into account contemporary/evolving community practices
3. Asset pedagogies that do not critically contend with problematic elements expressed in some youth cultural practices.
I agree with Paris and Alim. The problem is the existing approaches, stereotypes, and bias. Instead, loving critique is the way of constructing bridges between the differences, understanding and respecting. We are all the parts of the same world.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.