(De)colonizing Critiques: Critical Pedagogy, Currere, and the Limits of the Colonial Mentality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currere, which literally means ‘to run the racecourse,’ embraces a lived curriculum rooted in our subjective experiences. Currere allows us to trace our life history by salvaging memories our subconscious has refused to forget. This “complicated conversation” with oneself reveals moments and experiences we have taken for granted and helps us see why we are the way we are, and why we are not who we say we are. As a critical pedagogue in Santurce, Puerto Rico, I have always seen education as a vehicle for social justice, but in the process, I have left many of my assumptions unquestioned. How can critical pedagogy and its unencumbered “I” benefit from autobiographical writing? Can currere aid critical pedagogues avoid messianic complexes and address the invincibility of their high-browed, top-down, hierarchical approach to education? Through the use of currere’s regressive writing, I explore my colonial tattoos and the roots of my critical pedagogy. I suggest that autobiographical writing through currere offers a way to address the incongruence of critical pedagogy and adequately address the “I” of ideology. Currere allows critical scholars to analyze moments in our lives we have taken for granted; why we remember them reveals hidden facets of our personalities and our life’s histories. It reveals the concealed causes of our assumptions about life and the oppressive internal structures that inform our subjectivity. Currere allowed me to uncover the unerasable brandings of colonialism which are constant reminders to me and others that my incalcitrant independentismo, critical pedagogy, and existentialist approach to life are very much rooted in the coloniality of my being; they are badges I bare as I walk along the racecourse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".