Critical theory was introduced into the field of educational leadership and administration in the 1980s by a group of scholars (e.g., Foster, 1986, Greenfield & Ribbons, 1993; Sirotnik and Oates, 1986; Smyth, 1989) all committed to the idea that education must be deeply transformed to address in-built injustices. Proliferating across the US, Europe and Australia, key principles of critical theory at the time focused on a concern for suffering and oppression, addressing uneven power-relations, and leadership as a political act. (e.g., Capper, 2019), with an emphasis on “the larger issue of social justice for all” (Starratt, 2014, p. 69). Thus, critical theory was inextricably tied to ‘social justice’ (e.g., Foster, 1986; Mckenzie et al., 2008; Niesche, 2018). As the two discourses, critical theory and social justice educational leadership (SJEL), are intertwined, development in one discourse (critical theory) in many ways mirrors and impacts also the development in the other (SJEL).
At first, critical theorists primarily targeted positivistic (scientific and instrumental) perspectives in leadership discourse (Gunter, 2001; Oplatka, 2009), mostly applying a Habermasian communicative perspective to promote more socially just educational policies and organizations (Khalke, 2015). But soon after a parallel critique pointed inward, to the inadequacies of ‘critical theory’ and ‘social justice’ in educational leadership discourse. Influenced by postmodernist and poststructuralist thinkers (e.g., Blackmore 2006; Capper, 2019; Furman & Starratt, 2002; Wilkinson, 2008), critical theorists found social justice discourse to be inadequate in two crucial respects: the discourse glossed over racial discrimination and was not sufficiently committed to integration/inclusion (and thus diversity). The very same critique was leveled at critical theory itself, and these limitations have given rise, in the last two decades, to alternative critical epistemologies, each devoted to the consideration of a different form of ‘difference’ (identity) that is claimed to be neglected or insufficiently addressed by former epistemologies (Capper, 2019). Critical theory, or the broad critical interrogation of social systems and arrangements, disintegrated in the past few years into a growingly diverse and fragmented set of what can be called “post-critical theories”. The underlying motivation driving these theories is the centering on ‘difference’ or ‘diversity’ as the main principles of critical epistemology. The breaking up or disintegration of critical theory to a plurality of identity-based views, either according to gender, ethnicity, race, (dis)ability, or the intersection of these, certainly enriched the discourse, the accuracy of the terminologies used in the aim to advance equity and wellbeing to specific groups and contexts, and keeps the discourse vigilant to those who are not “part of the conversation”.
However, despite these contributions, grounding critical theory (and consequently SJEL) on ‘difference’ and ‘diversity’, I shall argue, restricts the ability to address real-world injustices and inhibits the effective application of social justice leadership policies and actions. A different conceptualization is needed today for critical theory, and consequently SJEL, that is neither restricted to ‘diversity’ or ‘difference’ (reflected in the prioritization of ‘inclusion’-based policies) nor that traces back to a modernist espousal of universal procedures that are insufficiently sensitive to context and to the manifold forms of injustices in current educational systems. My aim is to outline a different path for critical theory and SJEL, one that is grounded on ‘moderation’, and which can already be found in the work of ‘early adopters’ of critical theory in SJEL discourse. Two main theoretical resources will be used in order to substantiate a moderation-oriented conception of SJEL: Smith’s (2013) discussion of ‘moderation’ and Robert Starratt’s (1991, 2003, 2014) work on ethical leadership.

This conceptual paper applies textual analysis of three main theoretical sources. The first is an overview of critical discourse in the field of educational leadership and organization. I follow Capper’s (2019) review of developments in critical epistemologies in the field of educational organization and leadership and further support the depiction by appealing to central authors applying critical theory to the field (e.g., Blackmore 2006; English, 2020; Gunter, 2001; Wilkinson, 2008). The second source is Alexander Thomas Smith’s (2013) definition and discussion of ‘moderation’. While there are many definitions of moderation, I apply Smith’s definition given its explicit connection to progressive education (mainly Dewey) and to political activism. The third source is Robert Starratt’s extensive work on ethical leadership (1991, 2003. 2014). From Starratt I extract three main principles to ground critical theory and SJEL on moderation.

Based on Smith’s (2013) ideological-progressive definition and discussion of moderation and Starratt’s holistic and comprehensive view of ethical leadership, it is possible to ground critical theory and SJEL on moderation. Smith defines moderation as a “disciplined engagement with divided publics. Conceived primarily as a dialogue open to learning from others” (Smith, 2013, p. 133). This way of conceiving moderation is connected to a critical engagement with a plurality of different and competing perspectives that unfold in addressing issues of social justice. Moderation is then the ability to address this plurality in an open, disciplined and systematic manner. Starratt makes three specific contributions to this endeavor. First, addressing injustices entails ‘cultivating responsibility’ – a term used by Starratt to connect social justice to ethical leadership by acknowledging and engaging with competing perspectives. Second, rather than an ethical theory (in the singular) Starratt develops a pluralistic ethical perspective that is composed of several different ethical perspectives (critique, justice and care), each addressing different aspects or dimensions of social justice. Third, each ethical perspective, when taken on its own, has the tendency to regress to its extreme, and this has negative implications on the ability to holistically and effectively address injustices in education. The understanding that each ethical perspective is both constituted and limited by competing ethical perspectives has a moderating effect and promotes a more nuanced critical perspective (critical reflexivity) that acknowledges the diverse and competing claims of social justice. This critical reflexivity (and responsibility) allows moving beyond ‘diversity’ and ‘difference’ towards a moderation-oriented critical perspective for enacting mindful, holistic and more suitable social justice policies and actions.

Blackmore, J. (2006). Deconstructing diversity discourses in the field of educational management and leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34(2), 181-199. Capper, C. A. (2019). Organizational theory for equity and diversity: Leading integrated, socially just education. New-York, N.Y: Routledge. English, F. W. (2022). Postmodernism: Structured Doubt Within Leadership Certainties. In F. English (Ed), The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse (pp. 1-23). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Foster, W.P. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books Furman, G. C., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Leadership for democratic community in schools. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 105–133. Greenfield, T. & Ribbins, P. (Eds) (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: towards a humane science. London: Routledge. Gunter, H. (2001). Critical approaches to leadership in education. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 94-108. Khalke, R. (2015). Critical theory in educational administration: An overview of the field. In D., Burgess & P., Newton (eds.), Educational Administration and Leadership: Theoretical Foundations (pp. 67-80). New-York, N.Y: Routledge McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M., … Scheurich, J. J. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 111–138. doi:10.1177/0013161X07309470 Niesche, R. (2018). Critical perspectives in educational leadership: A new theory turn? Journal of Educational Administration and History, 50(3), 145–158. Sirotnik, K.A. & Oakes, J. (1986). Critical perspectives on the organization and improvement of schooling. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Smyth, J. (Ed.). (1989). Critical perspectives on educational leadership. London: Falmer Press. Starrat, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202. Starratt, R. J. (2003). Centering Educational Administration: Cultivating Meaning, Community, Responsibility. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Starratt, R. J. (2014). Ethics and social justice: Strangers passing in the night?. In I. Bogotch & C. M. Shields (Eds.). International handbook of educational leadership and social (in) justice (pp. 67-80). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Wilkinson, J. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A critical examination of diversity and educational leadership scholarship. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40, 101–112.