Towards a Pedagogical Paradigm Rooted in Multilinguality

I imagine that choosing any one alternative out of the three educational models provided by Spring (2007/this issue) may not really be adequate for a new social–sociolinguistic theory for a potentially just world order. As an alternative to the persistently degenerating consumerist model of the education security state, it may not be enough to borrow extensively from the classical, progressive and indigenous models but also turn our attention to the dialectics between social theory and action and to language as multilinguality that mediates this interaction such as in the work of Habermas, Foucault, and Bourdieu (for an insightful discussion of the work of these philosophers on these issues, see Sarangi, 2001); we also need to carefully examine such monumental efforts and their critiques in the field of education as the National Educational Policy Investigation in South Africa in 12 volumes (National Education Coordinating Committee, 1992) and the National Curriculum Framework (National Council of Educational Research and Training, 2005) with all its 21 position papers divided into three volumes; namely, Curricular Areas, Systemic Reforms, and National Concerns. We are indeed looking for a society in which there is space for universal “happiness, satisfaction, and leisure”; but I think we are also looking for a society that ensures an autonomy of mind and reflection and of care and respect for others. As Spring indicates, there are serious problems with such short-cut solutions as “think globally; learn English; remain rooted in your national identity.” As you get increasingly sucked into the consumerist economy, long hours of work leave you with no happiness and leisure; there is no time for reflection so that you are not even aware of what is destroying you; ruthless competition leaves no space for caring for others and the diversity of your life style, and communication systems vanishes faster than you realize.