But when we work with Freire's ideas, we draw from societal contexts other than our own, When Freire talks about empowerment it is within a revolutionary context, However, because our context is advanced western capitalism, we have come to mean by empowerment an individual, personal empowerment and not the transformation of society. For example, we call it empowerment when literacy students fill in application forms or go to the local shopping mall by themselves for the first time. When personal empowerment is interpreted as achievement within an educational setting the transformative aspect of this theory is lost. As a result we need to work further with the concept of empowerment to find out if it can be the basis for a transformative pedagogy in the Canadian context. As it stands now, it is not yet an appropriate critical pedagogy for adult literacy work in Canada. The question is where do we go from here?

When we develop a literacy theory from a critical perspective we will benefit from feminists who argue that there is a dialectical relationship between theory and practice. This understanding will contribute to developing a literacy practice oriented to social change. Theories that are conceived by those who are not familiar with the lived experiences of literacy learners, nor with the societal context in which they live, do not provide an adequate basis for developing a literacy theory.

Both critical education theory and feminist theories of language have a lot to offer literacy practitioners. In spite of the limitations of Freire's critical education theory for literacy work in Canada, like Weiler we believe, "both critical educational theory and feminist theory share an underlying concern with the relationship subject and an oppressive social structure", both emphasize that social structures and knowledge are socially constructed and thus are open to contestation and change" (1988, p.4). This belief that social change is possible, and that literacy learners must also participate in creating a more equitable society, are vital concepts for a critical pedagogy for literacy.

Before we had a feminist theory, we found that our experiences and our interests as women were not well represented in theories. Part of the process of beginning to create a feminist theory was a process of naming our experiences and demanding that these experiences be discussed and considered in the public realm. The practice of writing down the lived experiences of adult literacy learners, who are disempowered by society, will also be part of the process of creating a critical theory of literacy.

We believe that our practice will change when we begin to engage in critical pedagogy. Discovering the difference between the two is in itself exciting and stimulating. The language experience approach is one example of practice which could either be used to further the goal of good pedagogy or also to further the goal of critical pedagogy.

Earlier we suggested that language experience as a method is probably good pedagogy but is not necessarily critical pedagogy. We cannot be clear about what critical pedagogy is when programs which have different goals all claim that language experience should be used because "it works." If we talk about this method in terms of its success without tying it closely to a clearly articulated goal, we blur the different ways in which language experience stories can be used. It is extremely important to our work for social change to know precisely why we use language experience stories, because it shifts how it is that we use them.

When we look carefully at language, we see that language has the power to shape our experiences. Referring to Whorf's work, Dale Spender observes that "language is not neutral. It is not merely a vehicle which carries ideas. It is itself a shaper of ideas" (1980, p.139). Like women, literacy learners need to become aware that language is not neutral. Language shapes their experiences and as a result their experiences need to be represented in the language. Part of our political project then becomes finding ways to include literacy learners in the public realm by assisting them to create language which represents their experiences. A feminist critique of language says women must become visible in the language. As Spender observes:

Alphabet of Common Objects [c. 1860]. ‘The Lion was not drawn from life: the Milkmaid was.'

Males, as the dominant group, have produced language, thought and reality. Historically it has been the structures, the categories and the meanings which have been invented by males - though not of course by all males-and they have then been validated by references to other males. In this process women have played little or no part. It has been male subjectivity which has been the source of those meanings, including the meaning that their own subjectivity is objectivity (1980, p.143).