Re-posting of a final assignment for a Curriculum Studies course at the University of Western Ontario. (c) 2011 by Vance McPherson. Please acknowledge the author in any use of this material and contact the author for permission to reprint any part.
I recently proposed a model for understanding curriculum in a social context called Curriculum Dualities. In this defence, I will provide an apologia for each of the eight categories that I have created, and each of the three dualities that I have inferred. I will then attempt to describe the wide applicability of this model to curriculum history and modern practice, and shed light on how to perceive weaknesses. Finally, I will reflect upon the way in which this model is essentially emergent from this course, and project what may emerge from it as I continue my teaching practice.
Assumptions
My Curriculum Dualities model makes a few fundamental assumptions. First is that the ultimate purpose of human effort (and, by extension, education), is praxis, or reflective action and active reflection as a means of transforming the world, and meaningful growth, variously defined by different individuals and communities, derives from lived experience, dialogue, the problematization of the world, and the development of consciousness.
Second is that knowledge is not defined as a state of the human brain that connotes a causal, isomorphic connection between what is taught and learned, but rather as patterns emerging from and distributed across relationships in dynamic networks of non-discrete entities. (Downes, 2006, p. 3). Third is that the meaning and purpose of education and knowledge is constructed by the individual in a sociological process (Dewey, 1897). Fourth is that curriculum exists beyond formal education and incorporates all ways of knowing and all ways in which the nature of knowledge changes within networks. In this light, the goals of curriculum cannot be considered outside of the context of social change or social preservation.
Second is that knowledge is not defined as a state of the human brain that connotes a causal, isomorphic connection between what is taught and learned, but rather as patterns emerging from and distributed across relationships in dynamic networks of non-discrete entities. (Downes, 2006, p. 3). Third is that the meaning and purpose of education and knowledge is constructed by the individual in a sociological process (Dewey, 1897). Fourth is that curriculum exists beyond formal education and incorporates all ways of knowing and all ways in which the nature of knowledge changes within networks. In this light, the goals of curriculum cannot be considered outside of the context of social change or social preservation.
Model Structure
The eight categories that I have described are placed around a traditional Taoist yin-yang, implying the duality that exists between each pair of categories located opposite each other, and the emergent nature of each category as one considers them in a clockwise direction. This symmetry corresponds to the Chinese philosophy of I Ching, which recognizes the octagonal geometry of the eight yin-yang combinations that reflect eight types of consciousness. (School of Wisdom, 2010).
I also borrow an influence from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in describing each of the eight categories, because I describe its characteristics, its importance to praxis and meaningful growth when it is in harmony with its opposite, the consequences of its deficiency and the consequences of its excess. Note that, like in TCM, a deficiency of one category does not necessarily carry the same symptoms as an excess of the opposite category.
I also borrow an influence from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in describing each of the eight categories, because I describe its characteristics, its importance to praxis and meaningful growth when it is in harmony with its opposite, the consequences of its deficiency and the consequences of its excess. Note that, like in TCM, a deficiency of one category does not necessarily carry the same symptoms as an excess of the opposite category.
Eight Categories
Emancipative Creativity
I chose the moniker emancipative creativity rather than emancipatory education because considering the latter in duality with utilitarian training (sometimes used to imply the “factory model) implies a sort of moral inferiority of skills training. Besides that, both aspects of “formal learning” deserve to be called education, although there is a dichotomy between them. Finally, the sort of emancipatory education described by thinkers such as Ken Robinson (2010) has as its penultimate goal the fostering of creativity and freedom of thought of individuals.
Reflection
Freire (1970) describes true words as having components of both reflection and action. I have applied this concept to curriculum and social change itself. Creativity affords students the opportunity to reflect, observe, and understand the essence of their world before categorizing it or naming it. I have included the poem The Summer Day to underscore this idea. I have also suggested that a deficiency in reflective dialogue may lead to misunderstandings (such as the Six Men of Indostan) or lack of understanding (such as Franklin’s inability to interpret her own hard work).
Reification
Borrowing from Wenger’s (1998) concept of the reification-participation duality that must exist in every community of practice, I have chosen to apply this concept to curriculum. In naming their worlds, as Freire (1970) would have, communities of practice create categories (as Barton (2005) points out, for Wenger, reification is not the mistaking of categories for the actual subject, but the process of semiosis itself (p.10). But such categories can create fissures between perceiver and perceived that “risk the ability to see the intrinsic connectedness behind all phenomena and phenomenal beings” (Bai, 2010, p.46)
. And these gaps, not corrected through participation and reflection, can lead to a hegemonic hidden curriculum.
. And these gaps, not corrected through participation and reflection, can lead to a hegemonic hidden curriculum.
Immutable Mobiles
I borrowed term from actor-network theory to describe stabilized constructs that can be transferred to new contexts — laws, policies, protocols, doctrines, etc. (Fenwick, 2010, p.122). Were I to be more consistent with language, I would have instead used the terms translation and mobilization, which denote the creation and distribution of immutable mobiles to various contexts. But I wanted to stick with the concept of immutable mobiles as a category in and of itself, because I think that these entities, created as they are after reification and in order to make technical training and standardization possible, are at the very essence of many of the modern debates that surround training. I have proposed that immutable mobiles exist as a duality with deconstruction. Although this may seem paradoxical, it is important to note that “immutable” mobiles are not actually considered to be permanently immutable (Fenwick, 2010, p. 130), but should be subject to adjustment during or after action and participation.
I have included a piece of text from a First Nations elder, describing the fallacy and arrogance of excessive trust in immutable mobiles. Tightly tied to the idea of reification, immutable mobiles must be regarded as constructions, and not truths in and of themselves.
Technical Training
I suggest “technical training” as opposed to utilitarian training because I wish to avoid the philosophical and moral connotations of the concept of utility. Instead, I propose technical training to include all aspects of education that need to be instructed directly. One does not, for example, rederive the alphabet when learning to read, and one does not invent one’s own alphabet; one is taught the alphabet directly by someone who knows it. Of course, Freire’s (1970) idea of the banker model of education, (in which knowledge is merely transferred or “deposited in the learner”) can still be avoided with good, emancipative teaching practices — the other aspect of this duality. But a degree of hegemony is implied because the entire notion of technical training suggests that there is at least one knower and at least one unknower.
Action
Opposite to reflection is action, true to Freire’s (1970) concept. Action puts into practice what has been thought of and learned. If it exceeds reflection, though, it can be reckless or oppressive, as the power can always act to exclude the powerless. I have provided two examples: Riopelle’s “Hommage à Rosa Luxemburg” is an example of these concepts put into action by a visual artist, and Obama’s 2008 election to the United States Presidency is an example put into action by a politician.
Participation
True to Wenger’s (1998) concept of the reification-participation duality, in this curriculum model, participation emerges from action as practitioners collaborate and begin to dialogue about their activities. True to actor-network theory’s concept of non-human agency (Fenwick, 2010), dialogue can also exist between an individual and an immutable mobile, or some other aspect of the world in which the individual interacts. I give the example of apprenticeship programs, which go beyond training and practical experience to bring the apprentice into the profession. Over time, the apprentice learns many things that are difficult or impossible to articulate — indeed, the opposite and compliment of reification.
Deconstruction
I have chosen deconstruction as the category to sit opposite immutable mobiles because, emergent from participation but prior to true emancipation and creativity (Bai, 2010, p. 46; Kamushiro, 2000, p.45), learners must deconstruct their own illusions of reality, understand their categories as mental constructions rather than truth, critically examine training and past actions.
Four Dualities
I have then described four dualities which I believe are sufficient to describe attitudes to curriculum throughout history and in the present time. I end my model by naming these dualities:
Education Duality
This duality incorporates emancipative creativity and technical training. While all of these categories might be styled as elements of education, these two are most commonly associated with formal, organized education and training programs. I suggest that emancipative creativity and technical training are both important and each must incorporate aspects of the other to exist in harmony, but they must be considered as opposite entities.
Praxis (Freirean) Duality
Praxis is reflective action, so I have named this duality after it, and alternatively, after the inventor of the concept. Both aspects of reflection and action must exist in all dialogued words, and in the absence of one or the other there is no praxis and no emancipation.
Community (Wengerian) Duality
Reification is of particular importance to strong-tied networks and participation is of particular importance to weak-tied networks when it comes to information flow, so it seemed appropriate to name this duality as pertaining to a community, or alternatively, after the man who developed the concept of this duality. Participation is not possible without reification to categorize and name, but reification is not possible without participation to understand how to categorize and name. A part of my model is to divorce this duality from the other Wengerian dualities (local-global, designed-emergent, identification-negotiability). Some of these aspects have been integrated into other categories, but I argue that they are not necessary as separate categories to describe curriculum history.
Construction Duality
I have chosen this name for the immutable mobiles – deconstruction duality to imply that this pairing is all about constructs – in forward motion or in reverse. Immutable mobiles are presumed necessary by all but radical anarchists, but are dangerous when confused with absolute truth; as such, we must consider them as constructs. Then, at the opposite end of the duality is the deconstruction of these constructs. One could not exist without the other, as new construction would not be possible without deconstruction of old forms. One might consider this duality to exist in a Vishnu-Shiva relationship, one god constantly destroying the universe so that the other can build up new forms.
Sufficiency of this Model
This model is designed to account for temporal and spatial differences in attitudes towards curriculum; that is, it applies to curriculum throughout history, and it also applies to curricula from around the world. The proof of the sufficiency of this model is its ability to address any curriculum problem or challenge as an imbalance of the eight categories; the model can be deemed insufficient if any problem or challenge in curriculum design cannot be described in this way.
The various problems associated with standardized testing, for example, imply an excess of immutable mobiles, technical training and action, but not necessarily a deficit of deconstruction, emancipative creativity or reflection; these aspects may well be integrated into the classroom, but they cannot flourish with the excesses. Researchers have described various hidden curricula. Apple’s (2004) assertion that an important aspect of all human accomplishment that is not taught is the importance of conflict in bringing about change or growth, is a result of a deficiency of reflection, and an excess of immutable mobiles (allowing learners to believe in the reified narrative that conflict is inherently bad and undesirable). For Kumashiro (2000), the hidden curriculum involves the belief in the dichotomy of Self and Other (p.45). This is, exactly as Bai suggests (2003, p.46), the result of an excess of reification, categorizing Self and Other without seeing the interconnectedness of the two; it also directly suggests a deficiency in participation and deconstruction.
This model also considers the other, more traditionally conservative view of education that wants to mass-produce workers for exploitation. Working as I do now in rural Zambia, I can see that there is a degree to which some villagers here do not want to be “emancipated” — they are already free-thinkers, in a sense — what they want is to have the opportunity to work in the mines. They might well argue that it is easy to have an excess of emancipatory creativity in the curriculum. Of course, I have a strong temptation to sneak in a lesson or two on labour relations, but their situation is illustrative of another perspective. A part of the sufficiency of this model is its capacity to address even those pedagogical philosophies that do not match our own Western ideas.
We can also use this model to describe biases and deficiencies in all of curriculum history, admitting that, perhaps, we have never attained a “perfect” balance in curriculum. We can see Aristotelian and Confucian education (particularly the latter, with its attention to the Rectification of Names to achieve power) as being excessive in reflection and reification, though not necessarily deficient in action; Aristotle’s curriculum may well have been deficient in participation, though, considering early Greek ideas about the separation of the educated class. Monastic curricula of Western Europe were deficient in emancipative creativity but excessive in reflection, and almost certainly deficient in action. Universities’ attention to classical antiquity during the eighteenth century was excessive in immutable mobiles (learning classical languages, studying classical texts) and deficient in deconstruction. When Huxley pushed for an increase of science education in universities in the nineteenth century, the focus moved to be more well-balanced with respect to immutable mobiles, but very heavy on reification and technical training. Robinson’s (2010) assertion that our modern schools stifle creativity is symptomatic of a deficiency in deconstruction, emancipative creativity and reflection.
References
Bai, H. (2003). Learning from Zen arts: a lesson in intrinsic valuation. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 39-54.
Barton, T & Tursting, K (2005). Beyond Communities of Practice: Language Power and Social Context. Cambridge University Press
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77-80.
Downes, S. (2006). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2006_Downes_learningNetworks_and_ConnectiveKnowledge.pdf
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.), (2004). The curriculum studies reader (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 125-133.
Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25-53.
Robinson, K. (2010). RSA Animate – Changing Education Paradigms. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
School of Wisdom. (2010). The eight trigrams. I Ching Philsophy: Chinese Laws of Creativity and Wisdom. Retrieved from http://www.ichingwisdom.com/i-ching/the-eight-trigrams/
School of Wisdom. (2010). The eight trigrams. I Ching Philsophy: Chinese Laws of Creativity and Wisdom. Retrieved from http://www.ichingwisdom.com/i-ching/the-eight-trigrams/
Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
