Show Less

Curriculum

Decanonizing the Field

Series:

Edited By João M. Paraskeva and Shirley R. Steinberg

Curriculum: Decanonizing the Field is a fresh and innovative collection that is concerned with the totalitarian Western Eurocentric cult that has dominated the field of curriculum studies. Contributors to this volume challenge dominant and counter-dominant curriculum positions of the Western Eurocentric epistemic platform. At a time when the field laudably claims internationalization as a must, arguments presented in this volume prove that this «internationalization» is nothing more than the new Western expansionism, one that dominates all other cultures, economies and knowledges. Curriculum: Decanonizing the Field is a clarion call against curriculum epistemicides, proposing the use of Itinerant Curriculum Theory (ICT), which opens up the canon of knowledge; challenges and destroys the coloniality of power, knowledge and being; and transforms the very idea and practice of power. The volume is essential reading for anyone involved in one of the most important battles for curriculum relevance – the fact that there is no social justice without cognitive justice.

Prices

Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Part IV: The dynamics of ideological production

Extract

part iv the dynamics of ideological production · 1 8 · ideology and methodological attitude Patti Lather There is no social practice outside of ideology. —Hall (1985:103) In 1983, Eisner wrote, “for 80 years educational research has been defined largely as a species of educational psychology … in turn … influenced largely by behaviorism” (p. 14). Just five years later, Eisner’s words seem dated: the grip of psychologism on educational theory and practice has been loosened by an explosion that has transformed the landscape of what we do in the name of educational research. This explosion goes by many names: phenomenological, hermeneutic, naturalistic, critical, feminist, neo-Marxist, constructivist. And now, of course, we have the proliferation of “post-conditions”: postpositiv- ism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, post-Marxism, and, my least favorite, postfeminism.1 In spite of so many differences within each of these terms that they are better referred to in the plural, e.g., feminisms, postmodernisms, each questions the basic assumptions of what it means to do science. What we are faced with, in essence, is a transdisciplinary disarray regarding standards and canons where a proliferation of contending paradigms is causing some diffusion of legitimacy and authority (Marcus and Fischer, 1986; Clifford and Marcus, 1986). 366 patti lather As I said at the 1987 AERA conference,2 all of this shifting, all of this de-centering and dis-establishing of fundamental categories, gets dizzying. It is not easy to sort out the seduction of “the glamour of high theory” (Jan Mohamed and Lloyd, 1987:7) from what is useful for those...

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.