Giroux’s “Public Pedagogy & the Responsibility of Public Intellectuals: Youth, Littleton, & the Loss of Innocence”

Giroux, Henry A. “Public Pedagogy and the Responsibility of Intellectuals: Youth, Littleton, and the Loss of Innocence.” JAC, vol. 20, no. 1, 2000, pp. 9-42.

Giroux’s work here amplifies what’s at the heart of public pedagogy: the tension that arises from society’s in/formal teaching to reinforce a particular status quo–or dominant discourse (a la Gramsci)–and the work of public intellectuals committed to resistance. In this piece, Giroux illustrates this tension with the phenomenon of childhood. Specifically, his thesis is that childhood is not innocent; childhood, like any identity, is political because it is infused with power relations. Whiteness and privilege protects some children from the consequences that black, brown, and poor children face. Simultaneously, our culture defines black, brown, and poor children as “at risk,” yet paradoxically, characterizes these children as “a major threat to adult society” (Giroux 17). Even as we symbolically erect programs to save these very same “at risk” children, we operationalize stereotypes that tear them down. The result of this discourse is that two white teenagers can shoot 12 high school students and the world doesn’t live in fear of white teenagers; we are “surprised” and “stunned” by such behavior, even though it is pattern in our country.

Giroux demonstrates how corporate culture has crafted the dominant discourse around childhood that at once creates a nostalgia that is deceptive while belittling youth. The media feeds into the narrative that culture corrupts youth while simultaneously participating in that corruption.

While Giroux’s claims throughout the majority of the piece do a good job illustrating the problem with our 21st century approach to childhood, his final section “Public Intellectuals and the Challenge of Children’s Culture” falls short. He makes a call for public intellectuals to take childhood in public life, questioning power dynamics and being critical educators. This leaves me unsatisfied, not because I disagree, but because it’s too abstract. You can tell me what the shitty problem looks like. Why can’t you present what a solution might look like?