JUDGING CRITICAL THEORY, XVI

 

An advocate of critical theory continues his/her presentation[1] …

 

With the last posting describing one school of thought under the general construct critical theory – that being reconstructionism – this posting will describe the second school, reconceptualization.  Of the two, reconstructionism has a more collectivist orientation, while reconceptualization leans more toward an individualistic perspective.  Yes, the two share many aims, but the latter emphasizes addressing more directly questions of consciousness.

          How do the two, more specifically, share in the goals and claims they make?  Here is a list of overarching, common attributes:

 

·       they both have an organic and holistic view of people and society,

·       they have a constructional view of knowledge as explained by this blogger in his explanation of constructs,[2]

·       they place an emphasis on personal experiential knowledge,

·       they recognize the power of pre-conscious knowledge,

·       they use the humanities as a source of knowledge (more so with reconceptualization),

·       they place in priority personal liberty with responsibility and higher levels of consciousness (driving one’s consciousness toward self-actualization – again, more so with reconceptualization),

·       they value diversity and pluralism as both a means and ends,

·       they advocate a need to reconstruct social and political processes, and

·       they set forth a new language.

 

But here is how reconceptualization differs from reconstructionism.  During the later years of the twentieth century, life and culture changed drastically from the Great Depression years of the 1930s.  And in those later years, reconceptualization picked up steam.  For one, it applied more recent curricular approaches and adopted its language to a new set of sensitivities and insights (for example, using terms such as “deconstruct”).

          It also employed different categories of consciousness such as gender, race, and sexual orientation as well as socio-economic class, this last category being what reconstruction featured in its arguments.  Reconceptualization advocates point out how these other groups have their own views concerning oppression and oppressive conditions – some are like class-based ideas and views of realities and others differ.  That is, in particular they often vary from class-based views in their consciousnesses regarding oppression.

          Other points of difference include:

 

·       in terms of curriculum, reconceptualization does not hold it as a final product but as an experience, preferring the verb form of curriculum, currere,

·       its advocates rely to a greater degree on psychoanalytic (preconscious) study in analyzing pedagogic conditions and needs,

·       and these advocates are leery of scientific efforts at “discovering” targeted explanations and instead depend on more holistic, as opposed to analytic, understanding.

 

On this last point, reconceptualization advocates see science, as it is mostly practiced, to be overly aimed at problem-solving and tends to support bureaucratic, shallow efforts.  As such, it is a research approach that seriously tends to obfuscate efforts at forming enriched understandings or meanings.  In this, with his problem-posing form of study, the late Paulo Freire can be considered more of a reconceptualization educator who promoted holistic research. 

Irrespective of what their critics claim regarding their approach, reconceptualization advocates argue that their work is value free and not meant or aimed at indoctrinating their audiences, be they students or social activists.  They also boast of broadening their perspective by freely incorporating a larger array of literature such as poems, novels, short stories, and plays – do not be surprised if one finds in their work references to visual arts as well.

          Other points of distinction with reconstructionism are that reconceptualization often relies heavily on existentialism[3] and phenomenology.[4]  It is more focused on individual development as it often centers on self-actualization.  There, the theoretical ideas of Abraham Maslow are recurringly employed.

          This blog has observed that reconceptualization tends to be more in line with the natural rights view than what reconstructionism has been and probably not more so than when its advocates rely on perceptional claims of Carl Rogers and Arthur Combs.  These advocates, while still maintaining the moral and theoretical differences with the natural rights view, do take on a more individualistic view than the more traditional reconstructionist approach.  More concretely, they tend to cater to individuals’ whims and biases.

          Beyond these differences, critical pedagogy overall has had significant influence on higher education in both the US and Europe.  Starting in the 1960s (coinciding with the protests against the Vietnam conflict), its corps of supporters have engaged in various healthy – sometimes unhealthy – debates over various concerns.  Those concerns include community, diversity, social justice, and a host of other concerns over perceived instances of oppression.  Often their discourses relate these concerns to establishing or maintaining societal health.

          For those readers who follow the news of late, they can verify that these issues are or are becoming more central to the national discourse.  Various “red” states are taking a more proactive approach to counter the efforts of critical theorists and have taken on the ill-defined term “anti-woke” to summarize the concerns and antagonism for what critical advocates tend to favor.  And some of this has been affecting civics curricular efforts including the banning of books and other media.

---

[1] This posting heavily relies on the work of William Schubert.  See William H. Schubert, Curriculum:  Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility (New York, NY:  MacMillan Publishing Company, 1986).

[2] This blogger has in several postings given a definition for the term, construct. For example, posting dated November 22 or 23, 2010, “A Default Construct,” and can be found in Blog Book First Hundred, accessed May 6, 2023, BLOG BOOK FIRST HUNDRED - Google Docs, 67.  It gives a shortened definition.

[3] General belief in individual existence – investigative effort to determine what is the nature of being, particularly as it applies to individual human beings, as one experiences reality in this ultimately indeterminable world – and in total freedom and responsibility.

Existentialists point out that people are constantly faced with choices in which there are no known laws, ethical standards, or traditions to show the way. This makes life a state of being that inevitably produces anxiety.

[4] Study of consciousness as it relates to being. Founded by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger; it can be a somewhat opaque philosophy. For the purposes here, though, the interest is in its contributions to how one’s mental acts, consciousness, handle   the very nature of things in the practical world. It therefore is an alternative to empirical sciences.