And so, I do think that although “post-modern mash-up language” might be ambiguous, we need some kind of clarity for the sake of getting a message across. Without clarity of language, what is left? Answer: Mis-communication, if you ask me.

So keep doing it and call it what you like, but try and plaster your work in as many places as possible to it can inspire others and shake up the status quo.

But I have to point out a strange contradiction here:

I see Edupunk as a label for a brand of teaching

and

Don’t put the term in a box.

Yes, language is ambiguous and fluid, but denotation + connotation = constructed meaning. So, what do you mean?

Yes you are right this is good practice. So keep doing it and call it what you like, but try and plaster your work in as many places as possible to it can inspire others and shake up the status quo. That is all Edupunk is. But that is just my opinion and what do I know.

Incidentally — please read carefully. I did not make the statement about it being a distasteful term.

You’ve mentioned something else, though, which bothers me about the term and its implications:

it requires a particular cultural understanding to fully grasp its connection to education.

Cultural implications. I am uncomfortable with blanket statements about education that are culture-specific, because they are not all-encompassing and therefore they exclude some members.

And neurotic, perhaps. Phobic? That’s going a bit too far.

Yes. But does it imply that *all* corporations and “establishments” should be rejected *no matter the circumstances*? I have never read any consistent literature suggesting that. Certainly, as you would agree, there is nothing wrong with “rejection of corporations and establishments” if it is warranted. If I’m living in the early 21st century and *not* rejecting *any* corporatism in this world then I’m certainly not a globally aware being. I’m a putz.

I prefer to think of the term “edupunk” as insufficient rather than inaccurate. Inaccurate implies that the entirety of *punk culture is aimed way off-mark when in reality, *punk truthfully suggests we take a closer look…that perhaps there are valid reasons why rebellion exists.

The anger and suspicion of antithetical corporate involvement in education (to name just one key part) is entirely justified in any good teacher’s mind. But the term “edupunk” is insufficient in that it requires a particular cultural understanding to fully grasp its connection to education. It’s a very _particular_ cultural reference and will therefore alienate some by its very nature. That’s not bad (the alienation is not intentional), but a sustainable movement through reliance upon punk (or pop) culture is not possible. If you want to spread a movement, that movement must be grounded in a much more universal idea and context.

When a particular cultural reference is made, it doesn’t mean a term lacks any utility or is necessarily fairly labeled as “distasteful”. Boxing “punk” as “distasteful” is like boxing “hippie” as irresponsible. Perhaps there is something to be wary of regarding each of those identities, but it would be wise to consider that each of those identities contains a historical energy of rebellion deserving understanding rather than dismissal.

I think the fear of being labeled “edupunk” is not grounded in reality. It might be silly, but there is nothing to worry about. Only the most neurotic of us would scurry from the term and actively argue against its use. There are plenty of distasteful things we teachers can be called, but “edupunk” ain’t even in the ballpark to those with their heads screwed on straight. And to those who get it? Well perhaps it has more value than meets the eye. Any cultural reference connected to questioning educational practice certainly can’t hurt. If “edupunk” inspires a reflective connection with some, then that’s laudable. But to even spend an ounce of energy fighting or disparaging the term is phobic.

By the way, the earlier post you made questioning the way agents are paid to recruit students to post-secondary schools…? That was very edupunk.

Tweeting with Jim Groom (the founder of the term) the other day revealed that he doesn’t see “edupunk” as a complete rejection of corporations entirely.

Then I argue that the term is inaccurate, because punk implies rejection of corporations and establishments.

And I agree with your McExample as being one that is just plain McSilly and sending the wrong McMessages to students about lifelong learning. Not to mention, it shamelessly promotes a corporation that has nothing to do with education whatsoever. Not to say that McDonald’s is a “bad” corporation — it might be, it might not be, but its purpose on this earth and mission in the world has nothing to do with educating children.