Higgins, M. (in press). Reconfiguring the optics of the critical gaze in science education (after the critique of critique): (Re)thinking “what counts” through Foucaultian prismatics. Cultural Studies in Science Education. DOI : 10.1007/s11422‐016‐9799‐4 Lead Editor: L. Bencze. This review is a rejoinder to Anna Danielsonn, Maria Berge, and Malena Lidar’s paper entitled: Knowledge and power in the technology classroom: a framework for studying teachers and students in action. M. Higgins University of British Columbia, Cross-Faculty Inquiry e-mail: marc.higgins@ubc.alumni.ca Reconfiguring the optics of the critical gaze in science education (after the critique of critique): (re)thinking “what counts” through Foucaultian prismatics Marc Higgins Keywords: critique · Foucault · Panopticon · multicultural science education · reflexivity There has been in the modern Western world (dating, more or less, empirically from the 15 th to the 16 th centuries) a certain way of thinking, speaking and acting, a certain relationship to what one knows, to what one does, a relationship to society, to culture and also a relationship to others that we could call, let’s say, the critical attitude. (Foucault 1997, p. 24, emphasis mine) The purpose of this article is to explore what Michel Foucault refers to as “the” critical attitude and its relationship to science education, drawing from Foucault’s (1997) insight that the critical attitude is but a critical attitude. This article is a rejoinder to Anna Danielsonn, Maria Berge, and Malena Lidar’s paper, “Knowledge and power in the technology classroom: a framework for studying teachers and students in action.” Where Danielsonn and colleagues think with Foucaultian power/knowledge to examine and (re)consider teacher-student didactic relations in science and technology education, this article critically examines the power/knowledge relationship between science educators and science education to critically explore the modes of criticality produced and produceable. Particularly, I explore possibilities for and of critique that stem from and respond to what Bruno Latour (1993) refers to as the crisis and critique of critique. Herein, I consider the ways in which criticality in science education is always mediated by conceptual apparatuses, whether real or imaginary, present or elsewhere (e.g., the laboratory; see van Eicjk and Roth 2007). In particular, I metaphorically employ two optical apparatus: the mirror and the prism. Analysis reveals and informs how the critical gaze is, is not, and could be with/in science education, suggesting that, as science education scholars, we may want to disinherit the mirror metaphor