Nowadays, society has seen an increasing number of different approaches raise the question of the (unfairness of the) status quo. In terms of the teaching and learning of English, we’ve seen discussions about a “decolonial pedagogy” arise. But what does it mean? How can we engage in it to critically question problems we see in English Language Education today? Today’s article tackles this issue by bringing up ideas Professor Bala Kumaravadivelu discusses in his article The Decolonial Option in English Teaching: Can the Subaltern Act?, published by TESOL Quarterly.
Towards a decolonial pedagogy in English language teaching
Kumaravadivelu (2016) addresses the inequality that exists between native and non-native speakers in the field of English language teaching. The Indian author tells readers some of his experiences such as not having a book published by a mainstream publisher because it was supposedly not part of the publisher’s agenda, even though similar books written by native speakers were being published by the company, and his visits to many countries for English language teaching events in which there was greater participation of foreigners, native speakers in the organization while professionals, non-native speakers from the counties in question were sitting in the audience. He points out that in the past quarter-century there have been many publications advocating the recognition of non-native speakers as authentic professionals in the field of English language teaching. However, despite the fact that non-native speakers have produced significant academic knowledge in the area, there is a “schizophrenic tendency on the part of the profession” (p. 71). An important force that works in the direction of keeping the native/non-native speaker divide is the hegemonic, center-based publishing industry. According to the author, this hegemonic entity uses the concept of method as a means of control over the English language teaching community by producing, selling, and making the world buy their products, which promotes native speakerism. Kumaravadivelu argues that this situation can be changed. However, even if the center has a role to play in the process, the major responsibility for the change belongs to the subalterns, who are in the periphery of the system. To accomplish this, the latter must develop a critical understanding of the status quo and a collective desire to subvert it. Only then it will be possible to adopt a “decolonial option that incorporates action-oriented counter-hegemonic strategies” (p. 79, emphasis in original). Some aspects of a decolonial option in English language teaching would include the discontinuation of comparative research on who teaches a certain aspect of the language better, the design of context-specific pedagogical strategies, the restructuration of education programs to prepare prospective teachers to produce materials rather than only consume, and doing proactive research to produce knowledge instead of doing exclusively reactive research. Kumaravadivelu concludes by pointing out that the literature shows that the subaltern can speak and they can also write. The important question now is whether they can act.
Practical issues
As a result of reading Professor Kumaravadivelu’s paper, one cannot stop oneself thinking about some questions that are immediately applicable to most contexts.
The first one is how the so-called native English speakers are sometimes much more appreciated as teachers than their fellow non-native English speakers. This problem extends even to contexts in which people who were born in English-speaking countries but have never received any professional instruction on how to teach a language are sometimes preferred over people who were not born in an English-speaking country but do have a degree in language teaching, which is preposterous.
The second one is how so-called non-native speakers uncritically adopt materials produced by hegemonic “center-based publishing industries”. It is important to notice that adopting some of these materials is not a problem in itself. But one has to think about the fact that sometimes the material one adopts is working exactly against oneself in the sense that it promotes “native speakerism”, which in a nutshell is an ideology promoting the idea that only so-called native speakers own the English language and have control over it. This ideology does not fit the contemporary world. If you are not sure why read our article Why You Should Not Worry About Speaking English Like a Native.
The third one is how teachers (both so-called native/nonnative ones) promote real multiculturalism, which is an important concept in such a globalized world. How can a teacher instill the desire of knowing more about other cultures and respecting them if their students see these cultures only through the (limiting) lenses of a select group of people (the center-based publishers)?
Of course, one can raise many more issues concerning Kumaradivelu’s ideas for a decolonial pedagogy in English language teaching. These are just initial thoughts meant to provoke a starting point for your own reflection.
The question that remains is how you as a so-called native/non-native teacher (or even as a student of the language) can act to effect the change we need in terms of a decolonial pedagogy in the status quo.
Reference:
Kumaravadivelu, Bala. (2014). The Decolonial Option in English Teaching: Can the Subaltern Act?. TESOL Quarterly. 50. 10.1002/tesq.202. (Read it by clicking here).
