Decanonizing the Field
Edited By João M. Paraskeva and Shirley R. Steinberg
Part III: Curriculum inquiry: re-thinking/de- canon the canon
part iii curriculum inquiry: re-thinking/de-canon the canon · 1 3 · epistemicides Toward an Itinerant Curriculum Theory* João M. Paraskeva The perilous balance of our society, Galeano (1997) claims, “depends on the perpetuation of injustice. The deprivation of the majority is necessary so that the waste of a few is possible” (p. 215). Our society “incapable of fighting poverty, it fights the poor, while the dominant culture, a militarized culture, worships the violence of power” (Galeano, 1997, p. 216). The curriculum field is not innocent in this social tragedy. Despite some remarkable counter- hegemonic challenges to this social saga within and beyond the field (Paraskeva, 2011), the truth of the matter is that the field keeps legitimat- ing one of the most lethal enzymes of the dissemination of such injustice; dominant curriculum practices and theoretical approaches legitimate specific Western Eurocentric modes of thinking (Walsh, 2012, p. 12). Historically, cur- riculum hegemonic groups – even specific progressive movements – persisted in perpetuating the impossibility of “the yet to come possibility” (Andreotti and Souza, 2012, p. 3) of different epistemologies within and beyond the Western Eurocentric platform, imposing a totalitarian “discourse of truth” * My most recent work has been profoundly influenced by a compound epistemological yarn of Western and non-Western approaches, and countless debates with a myriad of colleagues and friends around the world. Within this yarn I would like to highlight the work of Boaventura de Sousa Santos. 262 joão m. paraskeva (Cusset, 2008, p. 131), one that “objectivity is synonymous with subjectiv-...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.