Self-fashioning or transmission of truths and values
Rodman Webb asks the question, “Who created this knowledge and whose interests
are served when it is taught?” He asks this question after discussing the
issue of who holds the power in education, especially as this power relates to
curriculum choice. He refines his argument by contrasting the viewpoints of
Allan Bloom and critical theorists. Bloom believes that knowledge must be
systematically prioritized or there is no way to determine truth or to argue
equally about ultimate values. If this prioritizing does not occur, he believes
that students will not be encouraged to debate the politics of power since they
will not have some common ground upon which to proceed. Critical theorists, also
referred to as pluralists by Webb, believe knowledge should be presented to see
how power relationships sustains the values and truths that are taught. In this
way, students will develop the critical thinking skills and abilities to become
active participants in political debate. While these differ, Webb points out
that these opposing viewpoints represent an argument over what knowledge is
liberating.
The issue of what knowledge is most liberating is an issue of curriculum choice.
From the argument that Webb outlines, Bloom can be seen as advocating a
curriculum that focuses on the traditional western history along with its values
and truths. Thus those in power, whether politicians, middle-class parents, or
professional administrators, should continue to support the development of a
core curriculum that stresses this western heritage. Critical theorists, on the
other hand, seek to allow a more diversified curriculum in which values and
truths are critiqued for their validity as connected to the issues facing
students today. While Webb does not specify, critical theorists would not
totally disregard the western tradition, but would analyze its underlying
structure of power for validity, while allowing values and truths from other
cultures to emerge.
Both of these viewpoints involve a question about the content of the curriculum.
Or to be more specific, what are the basics and how are they to be taught.
Madeleine Grumet argues that curriculum is a “conversation.” Her argument
revolves around the idea of relations. In educational practice, the relationship
of knowledge to the student and their understanding of the world is the
definitive essence of education. Thus, the educational process becomes oriented
toward the discovery of the relations between how knowledge has benefited man
and who it has benefited. Equally, this knowledge is critiqued by trying to make
sense of how the values and truths have served the interests of those in power
or in the majority.
On the surface, some would argue that this last approach appears to advocate a
relativist approach to education that presents no truth or value except those
which are discerned by the student. Since relativism, also known as secular
humanism or situation ethics, is viewed by those in power as a threat to the
maintenance of social structures and of democracy, this approach is routinely
regarded as being in direct opposition to the values and truths that have made
America successful and powerful. Business, religious and cultural interest
groups have all rallied to seek a more rigorous curriculum that is of no threat
to the underlying assumptions by which they operate. The question becomes, does
a more critical and analytical approach of knowledge in education truly enable
students to use the educational process as a means of bettering oneself?
To answer this question, I must draw upon my knowledge of the history of values
and truths, particularly as this relates to the western heritage. From the roots
of western civilization to the present, education has usually supported the
structures of power. One can look at the educational practices of medieval
Europe or those as they exist in America today to see that the selection of
curriculum is structured to achieve this goal. However, throughout this long and
sometimes barbaric past, individuals who have incorporated other knowledge into
the prevailing structures of education have been able to transform the values
and truths of the western world. This is evident during the Renaissance and the
Reformation. It was true during the political struggles of Britain and America
during the late seventeenth and eighteenth century. Since there exists the
belief that mankind evolves both technologically and philosophically, these
changes in values and truths can only be looked upon as being beneficial to
mankind. The question becomes, did these critical analyses enable the individual
to retain one’s values and heritage? By opening up the educational process in
America today, will students achieve the equality and enabling that is denied
them?
I must answer yes and no. On the positive side, opening up the curriculum to
critique and inquiry allows the student to incorporate ones life experiences,
values and attitudes into the content. As was true in the past, these life
stories can often bring a new understanding or value to the facts that are
presented. In this approach, students’ relations, feelings, anxieties,
associations, memories, aggressions are not “banished,” as Grumet describes.
For the student, education can become a process that has intrinsic value.
Instead of rote memorization of values and truths that appear to have no
significance, the student becomes immersed in the complexities of the world as
it exists. This enables the student not only to speak the language of the elite,
but also to reformulate values and ideas in light of current life experiences.
It seems to me that this approach enables the student to become actively engaged
in the political debate.
On the negative side, such criticism and transformation can be costly and
dangerous. Individuals who attempt to posit new values and truths are often at
the mercy of those who seek to discredit or banish them. History is full of
examples of exterminations and persecutions that have occurred due to those who
challenge the system. While in one sense, an individual can be enabled to
actively engage those in power, there always is the potential for the individual
to be excommunicated from the fellowship of other citizens. Whether a wide
majority of students would be willing to undertake this risk or would be even
interested in fashioning themselves in this manner is a question that remains.
Of even more importance, is this the goal of education or is the goal of
education merely the process of transmitting the values and truths of the
predominate power or the majority in society?
© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson