(Portion of) Prompt: Explain postmodern theory as it applies to the study of curriculum as a social, political, and cultural phenomenon.

I stared blankly at the pristine whiteboard. Moments later Sister Isabella wrote a few science terms near the top of the board. I instinctively opened my desk, grabbed a pen, and searched for my notebook.

“Copy down the three vocabulary words, hereditary, genotype, and phenotype. You know just like I showed you. Use the word in a sentence after you copy the definitions. When you finish turn to Chapter 7 so we can start reading today.”

That was seventh grade. There was a textbook. The textbook was the truth. We followed it religiously chapter by chapter. We dared not to stray outside the safe bounds of the organized material. It was the authority, and we never thought to question or discuss its contents. I had no idea what a curriculum was, but I suppose the textbook served as one for the class.

My anecdote is not unique. Throughout my teaching career, I have witnessed similar approaches to curriculum planning. Teacher textbook editions provide year long arcs, reliable objectives, and materials closely paired to standards. The introductory pages of teacher editions provide uniform head shots of prominent academics, teachers, and curriculum specialists. Under the pictures sit impressive titles and tight biographies, assuring the user that the book (and its curriculum) is credible. The appearance of scientific veracity permeates the entire endeavor. This is no accident. Bobbitt’s (1918) idea that a curriculum can be scientifically constructed set the bar for contemporary ideas of curriculum. Bobbitt (1918) believed in verifiable truth and objectiveness, insisting “an age of science is demanding exactness and articularity” (p. 12). The traditional view of curriculum values efficiency, output, and preparation for adult life more than the interests of the learner (Flinders & Thornton, 2013).

A traditional approach to curriculum, like that of Bobbitt, builds upon a modernist worldview. A philosophy of modernity situates reality within measurable and logical structures. Modernity’s faith in logical positivism reinforces the idea that objective reality is revealed by logical, scientific empiricism (Slattery, 2006). Thus, a curriculum should be as objectively constructed as the structures of a quantitative world. What if we don’t live in that type of world? What if we live in a world dominated by “the primacy of subjective experience” (Slattery, 2006, p. 37)?

In contrast to a traditional, modernist curriculum sits the study of curriculum as a social, political, and cultural phenomenon. Relinquishing claims to objective truth and reality, a postmodern viewpoint rejects modernity’s positivist assertions. Slattery (2006) asserted that we need a postmodern curriculum for a postmodern world. He wrote, “the philosophy of modernity remains mired in Cartesian binary and dualist thinking, scientific positiveness, and structural explanations of reality. Postmodernism [offers] eclecticism, inclusiveness, and irony” (p. 18). Slattery (2006) offered some of the following words to describe postmodernism, (dis)equilibrium, evocative, eschatological, existential, expressive, evolving, and experimental (pp. 6,7). Postmodernism emphasizes the subjective experience of reality. For this reason, I include a short anecdote to introduce this analysis. Personal experience illuminates my hermeneutic understanding of the text.

The world as a subjectively experienced construction elevates the social, political, and cultural phenomenon of all individuals and groups. Slattery wrote (2006), “integral to postmodernism is the critique of reason, totality, universal principles, and metanarratives — grand explanations that seek to explain all of reality from a singular perspective” (p. 40). This critique of metanarrative opens the curriculum to negotiation, to myriad understandings of the world. The curriculum (and understandings of the world) no longer has a singular source, objective truth. Individuals and groups are freed to explore and create authentic alternatives to traditional metanarratives used as weapons of oppression against gender, sexual orientation, and race. The contestation of traditional notions of power, privilege, and understanding is an empowering act. Unfortunately, I am not sure if schools and teachers have the tools or understandings to facilitate the contestation of the curriculum. If the curriculum is to be challenged, debated, and reconceptualized, schools must have the frameworks to do so.

Tiatorio (2005) does not believe education should steer away from controversial subjects. In designing an ethics course, Titario (2005) hoped, “students would commit to improving their own understanding of an issue by seeking to better understand the ideas of others” (p. 20). The Socratic Seminar and cooperative group discussion are avenues to engage students with “timeless moral questions” (Tiatorio, 2005, p. 25). Opening the classroom to authentic discussions about difficult moral and ethical dilemmas allows for the potential of a socially constructed postmodern curriculum. Although there is an opening for contestation and dialogue, it should be closely managed by the teacher. This is a major place, amongst many, where Tiatorio rejects a postmodern curriculum and worldview. He imagined the teacher to play a key role in creating the boundaries and structures of the discussions (p. 21). In effect, the teacher is still the expert who controls the manipulation of the curriculum. Any subjectivity of the curriculum is shaped by the objective truths of the teacher. Tiatorio (2005) granted the curriculum a minor degree of ambiguity in arguing for a discussion-oriented ethical study, but mainly rejected the postmodern tenets advocated by Slattery (2006).

This is where I see a postmodern curriculum today. I believe it offers exciting opportunities, especially for resisting hegemonic cultural powers, but I am skeptical of its implementation within the explicitly modern structures of education. A curriculum inspired by a postmodern worldview remains a normative assertion at this point. No doubt, individuals, especially teachers, have the power to transform normative opinion to tangible action. As a classroom teacher, I see few individuals willing to exercise that power for postmodern ideals.