I’ve been reading and writing a bit lately on two research and education movements that started in the late 70s and are still around in some form today — the math anxiety movement and critical mathematics education.
The term “mathematics anxiety” first appeared in the literature in the early 1970s (Suinn et. al., 1972; Nash, 1970), and was popularized by Sheila Tobias and others working in the late 1970s to address mathematical avoidance, particularly in women (Tobias, 1976, 1993). When Tobias published her article “Math Anxiety: Why is a Smart Girl Like You Counting on Your Fingers?” in Ms. Magazine in 1976, she was calling for an explicitly feminist and political response to a subject that was acting as a “critical filter” (Sells, 1978) that kept women out of science and engineering. When Tobias published her article on math anxiety in Ms. Magazine in 1976, she was calling for an explicitly feminist and political response to a subject that was acting as a “critical filter” (Sells, 1978) that kept women out of science and engineering. In response, a body of research blossomed to examine math anxiety and its correlates, including gender (Ashcraft & Ridley, 2004). However, the frame of anxiety pathologized the experiences of people struggling with mathematics and made those struggles individual rather than communal. The reality may be that what is termed “anxiety” is a normal response to mathematics education (Johnston, 1995). Anxiety is an individual problem, but we have a societywide issue with mathematics in the United States (Ginsberg et. al., 2005), so we need context for mathematical struggles that can include community, culture, and politics (Lave, 1988; Apple, 1990).
Overlapping in time with the movement to create awareness of mathematics anxiety was another movement that impacted mathematical education — critical pedagogy. The critical pedagogy movement began with Paolo Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1970. In the 1980s the movement was continued with Shor, Giroux and others expanding the theory to colleges, K12 schools, and producing work that allowed teachers to engage practically with the complex and theoretical issues Friere raised (Shor, 1987). There were several people working to bring critical pedagogy to mathematics, in what proponents termed “critical mathematics education” (see, for example Frankenstein, 1987).
As a movement, critical pedagogy was also concerned with mathematics as a critical filter (Skovomose, p. 2) as was mathematics anxiety, but the focus of the movement social justice rather than individual emotional reactions to mathematics. The push for critical mathematics education suffered arguably from too much politicization, as it was a highly leftist movement, and not every classroom is going to be able or willing to adopt and clearly leftwing agenda. Critical mathematics education and ethnomathematics show us that it is possible to empower people through mathematics. Critical mathematics education emphases the context in which mathematics education occurs, an aspect largely neglected by educational theory, which makes a variety of assumptions about the classroom — that the teacher has sufficient content knowledge, students are not struggling with poverty and hunger, that there is no violence, and so forth (Skovsmose, 2008). The problem with this is that it obscures study of how inclusion and exclusion operate within mathematics education (Skovsmose, 2008).
Mathematics eduction is assumed to be simply and universally a positive. This view is expressed for instance by Peter Hilton (1980), “Math avoidance has always existed; it is an urgent problem now because mathematics is so important today to the citizens of an industrialized nationin their daily lives, in their job opportunities, in their understanding of the world around them. Math avoidance stultifies and impoverishes; mathophobia may be compared with the loss of one of the primary senses.” (Hilton, 1980) Indeed, there is a nearly universal view that mathematics is important, largely due to its usefulness even among people who hate mathematics and mathematics classes (Sam, 1999). People do not question the primacy of mathematics , because mathematics is seen as the bedrock of science and technology, which is the path of progress as a society, and a primary center of our positivist education (Frankenstein, 1987; for an exception, see Johnston). However, the apparent importance of mathematics does not mean that people really need to develop mathematical competence, for as Frankenstein says, “Both the (apparent) complexities of technology and the (superficially) wonderful concrete changes it has made…convince people that control over our hightech society must be left to ‘experts’” (Frankenstein, 1987, p. 185). This produced a wonderful tension between a nearly universal belief that math is important and an equally universal avoidance of the subject!
I’m working right now looking and connections and disconnections between math anxiety and critical mathematics education right now (so I’ll write more later), but one of the things that I am consider is looking at all of this through an ethical frame. Kohlberg put framework of moral and ethical development in which a person moved from selfcentered concerns to concerns that were oriented toward justice and universal rights (Nair, 2005). In the 1970s, Carol Gilligan proposed an alternative framework, called the ethics of care, in which development moves from care of the self, to care of others, to balancing ones own needs with others (Nair, 2005). This is an ethics based on care, responsibility and relationships. I see the mathematics anxiety movement as being very much situated within the ethics of care. Our wish to be of service to people who are anxious about mathematics would hopefully lead us to certain actions as a society and educational system that would be of service. The critical mathematics education movement fits more into an ethics of justice (although care is certainly still present). It is interesting to me that the math anxiety movement actually began with a justice concern, but became more about care. Of course justice and care are not mutually exclusive! I’m still trying to come up with coherent thoughts about this, so thoughts and suggestions are more than welcome.
———
References: I know I missed some here, so let me know if you want ones that aren’t here!
 Frankenstein, M. (1987). Critical Mathematics Education: An Application of Paulo Freire’s Epistemology. In I. Shor (Ed.), Freire for the classroom: a sourcebook for liberatory teaching (pp. 180–210). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.
 Hilton, P. (1980). Math Anxiety: Some Suggested Causes and Cures: Part 1. The TwoYear College Mathematics Journal, 11(3), 174–188. doi:10.2307/3026833
 Nair, I. (2005). Ethics of Care. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics. Macmillan Reference USA.
 Sam, L. C. (1999). Public images of mathematics. Retrieved from http://worldcat.org/oclc/53610229
 Skovsmose, O. (2008). Critical mathematics education for the future. ICME10 Proceedings.

Suinn, R. M., Edie, C. A., Nicoletti, J., & Spinelli, P. R. (1972). The MARS, A Measure of Mathematics Anxiety: Psychometric Data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(3), 373–375. doi:Article
 Tobias, S. (1976). Math Anxiety: Why is a Smart Girl like You Counting on Your Fingers? Ms., (September 1976), 56–59.
 Tobias, S. (1993). Overcoming Math Anxiety. W. W. Norton & Company.
#libmath I am surprised that this concept of math anxiety was being closely looked at in the 70’s. I have never heard of the concept until around the late 90’s. I would like to understand the politics surrounding this topic. It seems to me that this has been an issue.
The 70s really saw the birth of the idea of math anxiety, which probably reached its height of attention at schools and colleges in the 90s. I do think that the politics of the issue are really interesting, but often get ignored in favor of the individual focus.