[Note:
This posting is subject to further editing.]
This blog, as a parting observation in
the last posting, pointed out that critical theory has developed into two
schools of thought. The one is reconstructionism
and the other is reconceptualization. [1] Both share certain ideas and claims, but they
do vary enough to be considered separately.
This posting will address reconstructionism and the next will describe reconceptualization.
Some credit John Dewey with the founding of
reconstructionism and its heyday was during the 1930s – years that coincided
with the Great Depression. As it applied
to education – which was Dewey’s main concern – it was/is based on the belief
that learning should mostly emanate from one’s experiences. Further, those recollections of experiences
should be reorganized – that is, reconstructed – so that they provide students
with added meaning and direction in facing current conditions and subsequent
experiences.
Paulo Freire, whose work was just reviewed in this blog, illustrates
how this prescription can be implemented through school instruction. That would be one approach, but as one reviews
how this school of thought has been considered by others, there has been
various approaches derived from reconstructionist ideas. There are those who promote social
reforms. And these other efforts are
targeted at those conditions that have rendered the working class being
exploited by oppressive conditions. Low
wages, long oppressive hours, unsafe working conditions, child labor were among
the conditions they would strive to change in the 1930s and beyond.
There were those among the reconstructionist groups who
encouraged teachers to work in organizing others to join socialist or communist
labor movements. They tended to argue that
teachers should teach their students what they deemed to be the follies of
capitalism. And there were those who
pushed for teachers to do all these roles, but they added that such actions,
even in the days of hostile labor strikes and demonstrations, should be
performed without resorting to violence – they believed it was not necessary.[2]
The overall educational aim was to enhance the ability of
students to change themselves so as to allow them to generate the insights
necessary to understand their conditions – as being oppressed – and be
motivated to work toward the transformation of society. National figures leading this movement
included George Counts and Harold Rugg.
They expressed the belief that education could and should be a medium by
which to create and promote a new social order.
The curriculum for which they advocated conceived of
education as a force to institute a new spirit for education, one that could be
applied to the whole curriculum. Yes,
that curriculum would still teach the basics – reading, writing, math – and the
academic disciplines – in the social studies that would be history, government,
geography, economics – but to present them in such a way that it would promote this
new social order. In so doing, it would
be characterized by a social/communal, as opposed to an individualist, focus. That is, it would emphasize cooperation, not
competition.
Inherent with such an approach is its ideal vision of
society. That would be an organic
(interdependent) view that calls for an interdisciplinary mode of research. It would disfavor epistemology based on
specialization that one associates with positivist/scientific studies that
schools generally teach even today. That
is, in seeking reconstruction, one puts aside the use of detached disciplines –
which the advocates of the natural rights view favor – and apply multidisciplinary
lessons.
But what should be
pursued should be done within the context of self-actualization or a proactive
effort to have students discover who they really are. What prevails, though, is something else,
i.e., a younger generation – not exclusive to today’s youth – that is overly
influenced by cultural and other forces – encapsulated in the prevailing discourses
of the day and that affect them at subconscious levels. Consider today the force of pop culture.[3]
And added to that general
aim in content is the utilization of instructional processes critical pedagogues
call praxis.[4] That praxis should be conducted through
sensitivity and penetrating criticism where students actively evaluate what
they experience. And one can add that in
relation to social studies – particularly civics – this approach, even if one
does not ascribe to it, does offer a good deal of useful ideas.
Advocates argue that the
nation could stand for a good dose of “social self-realization” that could be
assisted by adopting various instructional suggestions from the critical approach. Yet, this school of thought did not enjoy
much currency in the US in the thirties or since. There was the adoption of texts written by
Harold Rugg back in those years, but they ran into controversy during the
fifties and were removed.
Why were they removed? Business groups found them offensive. This blogger can share a bit of firsthand
information on this score. No, he did
not teach in the fifties but does have a copy of one of those books – America’s
March toward Democracy – and judges it to be fairly mainstream. As evidence, here is a passage taken from the
beginnings of the book:
...[F]or at least
two centuries and a half [before the Revolution] there was a more widespread
spirit of individual liberty in America than in the Old World of Europe and
Asia. By that we mean that the Americans were much freer to live and work as
they pleased. The chief factor introducing this spirit was the frontier. … On the frontier men and
women were forced to depend upon themselves for their living. There was no one
else to rely upon for help. … We say that there grew up a spirit of
self-reliance, of initiative, of democracy. And this frontier spirit of
individual liberty played a most fit important part in changing the American
government to the
needs of the changing American civilization.[5]
A passage resembling the Communist
Manifesto? Not really.
It
reminds this blogger of the natural rights construct which guides what is
taught in history and civics classes today.
In the introduction to the book, Rugg does claim that the text aims to
encourage problem-solving activities, and a review of its content – way short
of reading every page – this blogger does not find any open-ended problems
students are called upon to solve.
Reconstructionism’s
advocates on college campuses during the ensuing years did verge on being radicals
– at least some of them. During the Cold
War – especially during the “McCarthyism years” – they were actively hassled and
subject to various punishments by the authorities – denial of tenure, FBI
investigations, criminal prosecutions, etc.[6]
More recently, while more
success has been experienced by reconceptualization followers, one can find reconstructionist
ideas filtering onto published works in professional journals – at least in
terms of the topics being addressed. And
with this noting of reconceptualization, the other school of thought, this
blogger brings this posting to an end and points out that that school of
thought will be the topic of the next posting.
[1] William H. Schubert,
Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and
Possibility (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986). Most of the descriptive comments in this
and the next posting rely heavily on ideas presented by Schubert.
[2] See Progressive
Education and Social Reconstruction, Encyclopedia.com. Website: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1/g2-3468301130.htlm .
[3] “Popular Culture,” Central Community College (n.d.),
accessed May 3, 2023, https://libguides.cccneb.edu/popculture#:~:text=As%20the%20name%20implies%2C%20popular,conduct%20themselves%20and%20so%20on.
[4] See “Judging Critical Theory, VII,” Gravitas: A Voice for Civics, April, 7, 2023.
[5] Harold Rugg, America's
March Toward Democracy (Boston, MA: Ginn and Company, 1937), 8-9.
[6] Ellen Schrecker, “Political Tests for
Professors: Academic Freedom during the
McCarthy Years,” The University Loyalty Oath (October 7, 1999), accessed May 3,
2023, https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/symposium//schrecker.html.
