In recent years, there have been critiques that projects of decolonization are not always compatible to Freirean theory and critical pedagogy (e.g., Gaztambide-Fernandez 2012; Tuck and Yang 2012; Zembylas 2018). Although there is recognition that discourses of critical pedagogy and decolonizing pedagogy are variously entangled, some scholars find it problematic that these terms are sometimes used synonymously (Mackinlay and Barney 2014). As Tuck and Yang emphasize, “Decolonization, which we assert as a distinct project from other civil and human rights-based social justice projects, is far too often subsumed into the directives of these projects, with no regard for how decolonization wants something different than those forms of justice” (2012, 2). Although decolonization is a concept that takes on different meanings across different contexts, it generally highlights two important ideas (Mackinlay and Barney 2014): First, it evokes a historical narrative that resists Eurocentrism and acknowledges the contributions of colonized populations across the globe; second, it emphasizes a moral imperative for righting the wrongs of colonial domination, and an ethical stance in relation to social justice for those peoples enslaved and disempowered by persistent forms of coloniality. Although Freirean theory and critical pedagogy foreground social inequalities, oppression, and reflection and action as pathways to social change, it is argued that they have ignored the White settler colonial imperatives behind the use and performance of the language and tools of critical pedagogy (Mackinlay and Barney 2014; Tuck and Yang 2012). One of the aspects of coloniality that has come to the forefront of discussions in recent years is the colonial legacies of affects and emotions, that is, the exploration of affectivity in relations of coloniality and oppression (Cvetkovich 2012). Within critical theories in general and Freirean theory and critical pedagogy in particular, the achievement of social justice and the dismantling of oppressive relations have often been linked in part with the development of affects such as empathy (Amsler 2011; Pedwell 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2016; Zembylas 2012, 2013b). I take empathy as paradigmatic of efforts to instigate the affective transformation of individuals;

中文翻译：

---

将批判性教学法重塑为非殖民化教学法：同理心教育

近年来，有人批评非殖民化项目并不总是与 Freirean 理论和批判性教学法兼容（例如，Gaztambide-Fernandez 2012；Tuck 和 Yang 2012；Zembylas 2018）。尽管人们认识到批判性教育学和非殖民化教育学的话语在不同程度上纠缠在一起，但一些学者发现这些术语有时被用作同义词是有问题的（Mackinlay and Barney 2014）。正如 Tuck 和 Yang 强调的那样，“我们将非殖民化视为一个与其他基于公民和人权的社会正义项目不同的项目，但经常被纳入这些项目的指令中，而没有考虑非殖民化如何想要与其他基于人权的社会正义项目不同的东西。那些形式的正义”（2012，2）。尽管非殖民化是一个在不同语境中具有不同含义的概念，它通常突出了两个重要的观点（Mackinlay 和 Barney 2014）：首先，它唤起了抵制欧洲中心主义并承认全球殖民人口贡献的历史叙事；第二，它强调纠正殖民统治错误的道义责任，以及为那些被持续的殖民形式奴役和剥夺权利的人民的社会正义的道德立场。尽管弗赖雷恩理论和批判教育法将社会不平等、压迫、反思和行动作为社会变革的途径，但有人认为，他们忽视了在批判教育学的语言和工具的使用和表现背后的白人定居者殖民要求（麦金莱和巴尼 2014 年；塔克和杨 2012 年）。近年来成为讨论前沿的殖民主义方面之一是情感和情感的殖民遗产，即对殖民和压迫关系中情感的探索（Cvetkovich 2012）。在一般的批判理论，尤其是弗赖雷恩理论和批判教育学中，社会正义的实现和压迫关系的瓦解往往部分地与移情等情感的发展有关（Amsler 2011; Pedwell 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014、2016 年；Zembylas 2012、2013b)。我将同理心视为激发个人情感转变的努力的范例；在一般的批判理论，尤其是弗赖雷恩理论和批判教育学中，社会正义的实现和压迫关系的瓦解往往部分地与移情等情感的发展有关（Amsler 2011; Pedwell 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014、2016 年；Zembylas 2012、2013b)。我将同理心视为激发个人情感转变的努力的范例；在一般的批判理论，尤其是弗赖雷恩理论和批判教育学中，社会正义的实现和压迫关系的瓦解往往部分地与移情等情感的发展有关（Amsler 2011; Pedwell 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014、2016 年；Zembylas 2012、2013b)。我将同理心视为激发个人情感转变的努力的范例；