This article is a response to Allan Luke's [(2018). Critical literacy, schooling, and social justice: The selected works of Allan Luke. New York, NY: Routledge] provocation to "join an international, intercultural and peer-conversation" about the imaginings and possibilities of "an education for critical literacies" (p. xii). Using Edward Said's [(1983). The world, the text, and the critic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press] "traveling theory" to reflect on my own engagement with critical literacy over time, place and space, I stitch together an account of how I mobilized critical literacy within the challenging national contexts of Hong Kong and Singapore after first encountering critical literacy in Australia with Allan Luke. Finally, drawing on emerging theories of postcritique (e.g. Anker, E. S., and Felski, R. (Eds.) (2017). Anker, E. S., and Felski, R. (Eds.) Critique & postcritique. Durham: Duke University Press; Felski, R. (2015). The limits of critique. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Moi, T. (2017). Revolution of the ordinary: Literacy studies after Wittgenstein, Austin, and Cavell. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), I explore how top-down, "methods" frameworks in critical literacy might be re-oriented towards more radical and inquiry-based approaches, resisting the imposition of artificial limits to critical literacy pedagogy.
[Copyright of Curriculum Inquiry is the property of Routledge.]

The implementation of moral and national education (MNE) in Hong Kong came to a stand-still when in 2012 anti-MNE student protests triumphantly saw it being shelved. Many perceived MNE as indoctrination and politically motivated by the leadership. Five years have gone by since the demise of the MNE. Ostensibly, the struggle for hegemonic control over the MNE curriculum is lost for the moment. However, this paper argues that the battle for control over the implementation of MNE is not yet over. Simmering politics about the shelved MNE continues to be a point of debate in the media. I frame this argument using subterfuge hegemony in conjunction with analysis of news discourse on the MNE debate to demonstrate how hegemonic work is carried out in South China Morning Post. Such a line of inquiry and analyses is significant as it offers the chance to deconstruct the differing interests and power relations around a high stake citizenship/civics education. It also throws light on the on-going tensions building up around the clash of liberal and illiberal ideologies that are embedded in the One Country, Two Systems political order in Hong Kong.
[Copyright of Curriculum Inquiry is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2018.1435972]