Journal #1 Assignment

American Educational Research Association

P o litic s o f C u r r ic u lu m : O rig in s , C o n tr o v e rs ie s , a n d S ig n ific a n c e o f C r itic a l P e rs p e c tiv e s A u th o r(s ): W illia m F. P in a r an d C. A. B o w ers Source: R e v ie w o f R esea rch in E d u ca tio n , Vol. 18 (1992), pp . 163-190 P u b lis h e d b y : A m e r ic a n E d u c a tio n a l R e s e a rc h A sso c ia tio n S tab le URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167299 A ccessed: 1 2 /0 9 /2 0 0 9 12:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Tenns and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/tenns.jsp. JSTOR's Tenns and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior pennission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-coimnercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use o f this work. Publisher contact infonnation may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera.

Each copy o f any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page o f such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more infonnation about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

I I American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review o f Research in Education. http://www.jstor.org

Chapter 4

Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies, and Significance of Critical Perspectives

W ILLIAM F. PINAR Louisiana State University

C. A. BOWERS University of Oregon

In one sense, m ost educational th eo rists w ho have envisioned using the educational p ro cess to sup p o rt social reform could be said to exhibit a “ critical p e rs p e c tiv e .” John D ew ey (1916), G eorge C ounts (1932), and H arold Rugg (1929-1932), as well as re cen t conservative critics such as A lan Bloom and William J. B en n ett, have argued for educational reform s th at presum ably would fo ste r s tu d e n ts’ capacity to think in m ore critical and inform ed w ays about the issues o f the day. W hile progressives, social re co n stru ctio n ists, and co n serv ativ es would und erstan d the social goals and con seq u en ces o f such critical thinking from quite different ideological points o f view , all could be said to advocate “ critical p e rsp e c tiv e s.” (In­ d eed, P resident B ush, in his January 1991 State of the U nion address, used the term em pow erm en t, long a favorite o f left-wing th eo rists in e d u ­ cation.) In the field o f education, particularly in the field o f curriculum , the concept o f “ critical p e rsp e c tiv e s” has been ap propriated by a group w hose intellectual ro o ts can be trac ed , variously, to the F rankfurt School o f Critical T heory and to M arxist and neo-M arxist theoreticians as varied as A ntonio G ram sci, R aym ond W illiams, and, in education p roper, Paulo F reire.

W ithin this group th ere can be said to be tw o subgroups. One has iden­ tified its agenda w ith the co n cep t o f “ critical ped ag o g y ,” and the m ost visible o f its spokesm en include H enry G iroux, P eter M cL aren, and Ira Shor (1987a). A no th er group is m ore allied with concepts o f critical schol­ arship and the politics o f curriculum , the m ost visible being M ichael W. Apple and his m any students. Philip W exler may re p resen t the vanguard o f a third group th at b oth condem ns the w ork o f the first tw o and suggests

A shorter version o f this essay, coauthored with William M. Reynolds, was presented at the annual meeting o f the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 1990.

163

164 Review of Research in Education, 18

an alternative. C ollectively, this effort— increasingly diverse and acri­ m onious— to u n d erstan d curriculum as a political tex t re p resen ts the larg­ est body o f co n tem p o rary scholarship in the field. Especially due to the efforts o f M ichael W. A pple and H enry A. G iroux, political scholarship functioned to reconceptualize the curriculum field from its m oribund, atheoretical state Schw ab decried in 1970 to its dynam ic and com plex configuration today.

The origins o f this w ork will be outlined in the first section, focusing on its conceptual developm ent (i.e., reproduction and resistance theory). In the second section, co n tro v ersies both within this discourse and from outside will be review ed. In a third section, we shall conclude with a discussion o f o u r concerns with this body o f w ork.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT Reproduction Theory

The first step in the effort to un d erstan d curriculum as a political text involved the co n cep t o f rep ro d u ctio n o r correspondence. In their widely read Schooling in C apitalist A m erica, Bow les and G intis (1976) regarded schools as functioning in the stratum o f su p erstru ctu re, a stratum d e te r­ mined by so c ie ty ’s econom ic base. Strike (1989, p. 26) po rtray s this re ­ lationship as follows:

Consciousness

Superstructure

Institutions

Relations o f production

Base

Material productive forces

C ausality occu rred unidirectionally, from base to su p erstru ctu re. E le­ m ents in the base are used to account for elem ents in the su p erstru ctu re (Strike, 1989, p. 26). In classic M arxian term s, the base determ ines the su p erstru ctu re. Bow les and G intis argued th at schools prepare students to en ter the cu rren t econom ic system via a correspondence betw een school stru ctu re and the stru ctu re o f production.

The stru ctu re o f social relations in education not only inures the student to the discipline o f the w orkplace but develops the types o f personal dem eanor, m odes o f self-presentation, self-image, and social class iden­ tifications th at are the crucial ingredients o f jo b adequacy. Specifically,

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 165

the social relationships o f ed u c atio n — the relationships betw een adm in­ istrato rs and te a c h e rs, teac h ers and stu d en ts, students and stu d en ts, and students and th eir w o rk — replicate the hierarchical divisions o f labor. H ierarchical relations are reflected in the vertical authority lines from adm inistrators to teac h ers to students. A lienated labor is reflected in the stu d e n t’s lack o f control o v er his o r h er education, the alienation o f the student from the curriculum co n ten t, and the m otivation o f school w ork through a system o f grades and o th er external rew ards ra th e r th an the stu d e n t’s integration w ith the p ro cess (learning) o r the outcom e (know l­ edge) o f the educational “ production p ro c e s s ” (Bowles & G intis, 1976, p. 131).

Relying on this principle o f co rresp o n d en c e, Apple (1979) and Giroux (1981a) argued th at schools functioned to reproduce the class stru ctu re o f the w orkplace (L iston, 1986). A lthough originating outside the cu rric­ ulum field, the principle o f co rresp o n d en ce was an im portant first step in understanding curriculum as a political text.

A second co n cep t im ported from o th e r fields aided politically oriented curriculum scholars to advance their argum ent. Louis A lth u sse r’s (1971) u nderstanding o f ideology provided an o th er m ajor concept in curriculum scholarship. M cL aren (1989) explains:

Simply put ideology refers to the production o f meaning. It can be described as a way o f viewing the world, a com plex o f ideas, various types o f social practices, rituals and rep­ resentations that we tend to accept as natural and as common sense. It is the result o f the intersection o f meaning and pow er in the social world. Custom s, rituals, beliefs and values often produce within individuals distorted conceptions o f their place in the sociocultural order and thereby serve to reconcile them to that place and to disguise the inequitable relations o f power and privilege; this is som etimes referred to as “ ideological hegem ony.” (p. 176)

W exler (1987) regarded ideology as the first key concept o f the new sociology o f education and curriculum . R ejecting w hat some c h a ra c te r­ ized as m ore “ v u lg ar” in terp re tatio n s o f the b ase /su p e rstru ctu re rela­ tionships in M arxian th eo ry , A lth u sser argued th at the relation o f the econom ic base to the institutions o f society cannot be reduced to any linear cause/effect determ inism (G iroux, 1983a, p. 79). Institutions w ere term ed “ ideological state a p p a ra tu se s” by A lth u sser (1971), w ho claim ed that institutions functioned to subjugate the w orking class. G iroux (1983a) interpreted the A lthusserian conception o f ideology for curricularists:

First, it [ideology] has a material existence: rituals, practices, and social processes that structure the day-to-day workings o f schools. . . . Second, ideology neither produces con­ sciousness nor a willing passive compliance. Instead it functions as a system o f represen­ tations, carrying meanings and ideas that structure the unconsciousness o f students, (p. 81)

166 Review of Research in Education, 18

The concept o f ideology becam e central in understanding curriculum as political tex t. C urriculum itself becam e conceptualized as an ideolog­ ical m ystification (A pple, 1990a; G iroux, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c). Both Apple and G iroux d escribed how the co n ten t and form o f the curriculum w ere ideological in nature (Apple, 1990a; G iroux, 1981c). G enerally, the ideas and culture associated w ith the dom inant class w ere argued to be the ideas and co n ten t o f schooling. D om inant culture was described as those “ social practices and re p resen tatio n s th at affirm the central values, interests, and concerns o f the social class in control of the m aterial and symbolic w ealth o f so c ie ty ” (M cL aren, 1989, p. 172).

By the early 1980s, the largely econom ic version o f reproduction (cor­ respondence) was being criticized by m any o f the sam e scholars who had em braced it in the 1970s. N ow reproduction theory was characterized as determ inistic and sim plistic (G iroux, cited in O lson, 1981), as lacking a cultural analysis (Apple, 1979, 1980), as lacking an adequate theory o f agency (Strike, 1989), and as basically m echanistic (G iroux, 1983a). In an essay titled “ C ontradiction and R eproduction in E ducational T h e o ry ,” Bowles and G intis (1980) them selves criticized their earlier w ork:

The most critical [problem] is simply this: by standing in our approach as the only structural link between education and the econom y and by its character as an inherently harmonious link between the two, the correspondence principle forced us to adopt a narrow and in­ adequate appreciation o f the contradictions involved in the articulation o f the educational system within the social totality, (p. 53)

Bowles and Gintis acknow ledge th at th eir earlier argum ent m issed certain essential asp ects o f reproduction. As L iston notes (1986), they specify notions o f sites and p ractices as crucial in understanding reproduction. They suggest th at society be regarded as “ an ensem ble o f structurally articulated sites o f social p ra c tic e ,” the prim ary th ree of which are state, family, and school (Bowles & G intis, 1980, p. 55). Social p ractices re p ­ resent “ fundam ental and irreducible elem ents of social d y n am ics” (Bowles & G intis, 1980, p. 56).

Bowles and G intis theorize four types o f social practice, the point of which is social transform ation. The first is the appropriative, the goal of which is the creation o f useful projects. The second is the political, the goal o f which is the transform ation o f social relations. The third is term ed the cultural, w hich is said to transform the tools o f discourse. The fourth is the distributive, w hich functions to alter the distribution of pow er and incom e (Bowles & G intis, 1980; see also L iston, 1988). Sites and practices “ add u p ” to w hat B ow les and G intis term a “ contradictory to ta lity ” (Bowles & G intis, 1980, p. 56).

This mixing o f sites and practices produces tw o dynam ic tendencies that have distinct consequences: reproductive and “ co n tra d ic to ry ” (and

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 167

underm ining) effects (L iston, 1988, p. 54). Bow les and Gintis acknow ledge that their earlier w ork (1976) failed to account for this fundam entally co n ­ tradictory c h a ra c te r o f social relations. S chools are said to exhibit these con trad icto ry tendencies. T he stage is set for “ resistance th e o ry .”

W exler notes th at “ the F ran k fu rt S chool analysis o f culture was also used to establish the view o f education as a site for re p ro d u ctio n ” (1987, p. 40). Am ong th o se asso ciated with the F ran k fu rt School are T heodor A dorno, W alter B enjam in, Jurgen H ab erm as, M ax H orkheim er, and H e r­ b ert M arcuse, all o f w hom are cited by politically oriented curriculum scholars, especially by G iroux and W exler. W hat was the intent o f the F rankfurt School? B roadly speaking, the F rankfurt School dep arted from the m ajor M arxism s o f the 1930s, nam ely Stalinist M arxism . F ran k fu rt School scholars d eem phasized the econom ic foundations o f M arxism and its theory o f the historical inevitability o f class conflict, including the close identification o f the C om m unist P arty with the “ dictatorship o f the p ro ­ le ta ria t.” F ran k fu rt S chool scholars ten d ed to em phasize culture ra th e r than econom ics— culture in its anthropological as well as aesthetic sense. They might be said to typify the “ early M arx ” ra th e r than the scientism characteristic o f the “ late M arx ” (M iller, 1979). M ore specifically,

It was the hope o f Horkheimer and the others that their work would help establish a critical social consciousn ess able to penetrate existing ideology, sustain independent judgment and be capable, as Adorno put it, o f maintaining its freedom to think that things might be different. (Held, 1980, p. 38)

G iroux (1983a) regarded the F ran k fu rt School as fundam ental to un­ derstanding curriculum as a political tex t (i.e., as expressing a political meaning):

I argued that the foundation for a radical theory o f schooling can, in part, be developed from the work o f the Frankfurt School and the more recent literature on the hidden curric­ ulum. Whereas the Frankfurt School provides a discourse and mode o f critique for deepening our understanding o f the nature and the function o f schooling, critiques o f the hidden cur­ riculum have provided modes o f analysis that uncover the ideologies and interests embedded in the m essage system s, codes and routines that characterize daily classroom life. (p. 72)

The hidden curriculum , first popularized by Philip Jackson (1968), was another im portant conceptual tool for politically oriented curriculum scholars. The co n c ep t refers to those unintended but quite real outcom es and featu res o f the schooling p ro cess (A pple, 1975, 1990a; G iroux & Pur- pel, 1983; M cL aren , 1989). The hidden curriculum is to be distinguished from the “ o v e rt” curriculum , o r the planned curriculum , including o b ­ jectiv es. M cL aren (1989) defines the concept:

The hidden curriculum deals with the tacit w ays in which knowledge and behavior get constructed, outside the usual course materials and formally scheduled lessons. It is part

168 Review of Research in Education, 18

o f the bureaucratic and managerial “ press” o f the school— the combined forces by which students are induced to comply with the dominant ideologies and social practices related to authority, behavior and morality, (pp. 183-184)

M ichael W. A pple, the first to re assert curriculum as a political text in the 1970s, defined the hidden curriculum in a way th at pointed to the concept of hegem ony, an o th er im portant conceptual tool for politically oriented curriculum scholars.

The hidden curriculum in schools serves to reinforce basic rules surrounding the nature o f conflict and its uses. It posits a network o f assumptions that, when internalized by students, establishes the boundaries o f legitimacy. This process is accomplished not so much by explicit instances showing the negative value o f conflict, but by nearly the total absence o f instances showing the importance o f intellectual and normative conflict in subject areas. The fact is that these assumptions are obligatory for the students, since at no time are the assumptions articulated or questioned. (Apple, 1975, p. 99)

Owing to A p p le’s efforts, in p art, the concept o f the hidden curriculum becam e taken-for-granted curriculum know ledge, widely cited by those who insisted th at the curriculum functioned to m aintain social stratifi­ cation as well as o th er stratifications, especially those o f class, race, and gender (Apple, 1982b, 1990a; A ronow itz & G iroux, 1985; B eyer & A pple, 1988; G iroux, 1981a, 1983a, 1988b; G iroux, P enna, & Pinar, 1981; Giroux & Purpel, 1983; O akes, 1985; Shapiro, 1981, 1983a; Sharp, 1980; Shor, 1986; W eis, 1988).

A nother m ajor co n cep t em ployed in understanding curriculum as a po ­ litical text was hegem ony, b orrow ed from the Italian M arxist A ntonio Gram sci (1971/1972), w ho b orrow ed the term from M arx and Engels (1974). G ram sci em phasized “ the role o f the su p erstru ctu re in p erp etu ­ ating class and preventing the developm ent o f class c o n sc io u sn e ss” (Car- noy, cited in A pple, 1982a, p. 86). H e em ployed hegem ony in tw o senses. F irst, hegem ony referred to a p ro cess o f dom ination w hereby the ruling class is said to exercise political control through its intellectual and m oral leadership o v er allied classes (G ram sci, 1985). (This is the sense in which M arx and Engels used the term .) S econd, hegem ony referred as well to the use o f force and ideology in the reproduction o f class relations (A ron­ ow itz & G iroux, 1985, p. 88). T hus, hegem ony is understood to occu r via the use o f force and via the shaping o f hum an consciousness.

The co n cep t o f hegem ony helped critical curriculum scholars refine the basic “ b a se /su p e rstru c tu re ” m odel o f reproduction th at had been ac­ cepted during the 1970s. Relying on R aym ond Williams (1976), Apple declared th at the concept o f hegem ony cap tu res the com plexity o f p ro ­ cesses o f “ s a tu ra tio n .” In p articular, A pple draw s upon W illiam s’s co n ­ cept o f “ selective tra d itio n ” to point to the w ays in which curriculum

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 169

functions to privilege certain sets and orders o f know ledge o v er o thers (W illiams, cited in A pple, 1990a, pp. 5 -6 ). O ther politically oriented schol­ ars rely on this co n c ep t in th eir analysis o f cultural reproduction (Apple, 1982b, 1986, 1990a; G iroux, 1980, 1981a, 1983a, 1988b; M cL aren, 1989; Sharp, 1980).

H enry G iroux w orried th at an overreliance on the concept of re p ro ­ duction risks a “ d iscourse o f d e sp a ir.” If reproduction occu rred as in­ contestably as Bow les and G intis and the critical scholars o f the 1970s insisted th at it did, th ere w as little hope for significant change aside from alterations in the econom ic base. The concept o f ideology p o rtray ed teach ers and students as accom plices in the reproduction of the ruling class. H egem ony seem ed to suggest th at no escape was possible, as co n ­ sciousness itself w as satu ra te d , “ forged into the cognitive chains which bind the m inds of the w orking c la s s ” (Strike, 1989, p. 137). In a w ord, reproduction th eo ry lacked a co n cep t o f agency. A lm ost overnight, re ­ production th eo ry w ould give way to resistance theory.

From Reproduction to Resistance In his widely read Learning to L a b o u r, Paul Willis (1981) introduced

the co n cep t o f resistan ce to an eager audience disenchanted w ith re p ro ­ duction theory. Willis ob serv ed th at the working class boys he studied resisted both the official and hidden curriculum o f their English secondary school. T he ro o ts o f this re sistan c e, he w rote, “ are in the shop-floor cultures occupied by th eir family m em bers and o th er m em bers o f their class” (G iroux, 1983b, p. 283). W illis’s concept o f resistance allowed politically oriented scholars to view the process of reproduction as co n ­ testable, thereb y correcting the nondialecticism o f the Bowles and G intis (1976) thesis.

The early 1980s saw considerable discussion o f resistance theory. P ar­ ticularly during the period 1980-1984, m any scholars discussed and de­ veloped resistan ce in term s o f curriculum (e.g., see A nyon, 1979, 1988; Apple, cited in O lson, 1981; A pple, 1982a, 1982b; Apple & W eis, 1983; G iroux, 1981a, 1983a, 1983b). G iroux cited resistan ce theory as im portant insofar as it co rrec te d the failure of both conservative and radical cu r­ riculum theory. C o n serv ativ es, he alleged, tended to view oppositional behavior via psychological categories such as deviate, disruptive, and inferior. Radical th eo rists had overem phasized econom ic and cultural d e­ term inants. Put differently, in radical curriculum theory th ere had been an “ underem phasis on how hum an agency accom m odates, m ediates and resists the logic o f capital and its dom inating social p ra c tic e s,” including school curriculum and instruction (G iroux, 1983b, p. 282). As noted above, G iroux ch a rac te rized the rep ro d u ctio n theory o f the 1970s as a

170 Review of Research in Education, 18

“ discourse o f d e sp a ir,” as it ignored the pedagogical possibilities of hum an thought and enlightened action.

In his introduction to G iro u x ’s Ideology, Culture and the P rocess o f Schooling (1981a), Stanley A ronow itz advocated resistance as a positive step for radical ed u cato rs. R adical ed u cato rs should begin to concentrate on the “ cracks and disjunctions created by oppositional fo rc e s” (A ron­ ow itz, cited in G iroux, 1981a, p. 31). Doing so would perm it the co n tes­ tation o f pow er in the schools. G iroux asse rted that struggles can be w aged over adm inistrative and curricular issues. R eproduction failed to inspire struggle; it w as, in G iro u x ’s w ords, a “ m yth o f total dom ination” (Giroux, 1981a, p. 99).

A special issue o f Interch ange, edited by Paul Olson and published in 1981, illustrated the rapid shift from reproduction to resistance theory. A collection o f papers from a conference held at the O ntario In stitu te for Studies in E d u catio n in T oro n to , the issue was titled “ R ethinking Social R ep ro d u c tio n .” In his introduction, Olson (1981) noted that “ social co n ­ stru ctiv ists” w ished to integrate know ledge o f hegem ony with strategies design to co u n ter it. In his essay titled “ R eproduction, C ontestation, and Curriculum : An E ssay in S elf-C riticism ,” M ichael A pple notes that his previous w ork lacked analysis th at “ focused on contradictions, conflicts, m ediations and especially re sista n c e — as well as rep ro d u ctio n ” (Apple, 1981, p. 35). H e cautions his audience, how ever, th at it is not enough to conduct re searc h into resistan ce; one m ust actually resist, in practice.

In G iro u x ’s “ H egem ony, R esistance, and the P aradox o f E ducational R efo rm ,” the outline o f his scholarly agenda for the decade is evident. D iscussing the asse ts and liabilities o f reproduction theory, he praises resistance th eo ries, w hich “ perform a theoretical serv ic e” (Giroux, 1981b, p. 13). T hese theories dem and analyses of those social practices that co n stitu te the class-based experiences o f day-to-day existence in schools. H e calls fo r the developm ent of a notion of radical pedagogy based on the pioneering w ork o f Paulo F reire (1970/1971). “ At the core of radical p ed a g o g y ,” G iroux insists, “ m ust be the aim of em pow ering people to w ork fo r change in the social, political, and econom ic stru ctu re that co n stitu tes the ultim ate source o f class-based pow er and dom ination (Giroux, 1981b, p. 24). (C uriously, the concept o f em pow erm ent— used by relatively few radical curriculum theorists in 1981— would becom e educational cliche by the 1990s.) F o r G iroux, how ever, resistance theory quickly becom es a transitional concept to pedagogy.

In 1982, M ichael Apple published tw o w orks examining issues o f re ­ production and resistan ce. In his introduction to Cultural and Economic Reproduction in E ducation , A pple distinguishes betw een tw o form s of reproduction th eo ry , th at w hich focuses on econom ic or m acrostructural issues and th at w hich co n c en trate s on cultural or m icrostructural m atters.

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 171

A ccording to A pple, the school curriculum belongs to the latter category. A cknow ledging difficulties with “ p u re ” reproduction th eo ry , A pple sug­ gests th at resistan ce and rep ro d u ctio n theory are intertw ined, th at studies inspired by this synthetical view would point to struggles in specific places. H e alludes to issues o f race, class, and gender, foreshadow ing his own scholarly agenda for the decade.

In an essay titled “ C urricular F orm and the Logic o f Technical C o n tro l,” A pple (1982a) outlines the p ervasiveness of resistance. H e al­ ludes to developm ents such as the so-called po ststru ctu ralism , w hich he depicts favorably, an attitu d e tow ard th at w ork th at would change. C on­ cluding the essay is a discussion o f resistan ces, especially those curricular sites of resistance. D espite increasing state control, A pple declares, there are m om ents o f individual resistan ce. T e a c h e rs’ resistance is said to be n ever “ far from the su rfa c e ” (Apple, 1982a, p. 269). The question b e­ com es, W hat is the status o f th ese resistan ces? A re they, in fact, coun- terhegem onic? O r do th ey function to rep ro d u ce the status quo? Willis n otes, for instance, th at the resistan ce of his “ la d s” functioned re p ro ­ d u c e vely: T heir re sistan c e to m ental labor functioned to reproduce their entrapm ent in the w orking class.

In his second 1982 w ork, A pple continues his exam ination o f resistance theory and, in particu lar, the possible reproductive consequences o f re ­ sistance. Apple w orries th at even the terrain of resistance can be viewed as determ ined by the in tere sts o f capital, not by those resisting (Apple, 1982b). D espite re sistan c e, A pple concludes, reproduction proceeds. In fact, he continues, rep ro d u ctio n will continue “ as long as the penetrations into the nature of w ork and control generated by w orking-class youths and their p aren ts are unorganized and unpoliticized” (Apple, 1982b, p. 108). Only a few years after its introduction, then, resistance itself seem ed to be in danger of being sw allow ed by reproduction.

Tw o im portant efforts to u n d ersta n d the curriculum as a political tex t appeared in 1983: H enry A. G iro u x ’s Theory and R esistance in Education: A P edagogy fo r the O pposition and M ichael W. Apple and Lois W eis’s Ideology and P ractice in Schooling. In both books, one discerns m ove­ m ents aw ay from resistan ce th eo ry . F o r G iroux, resistance points to p o s­ sibilities o f oppositional pedagogy (1983a). H e calls for a reform ulation o f the relations am ong ideology, culture, and hegem ony, one th at would “ m ake clear the w ays in w hich these categories can enhance o ur u n d er­ standing o f re sistan c e as well as how such concepts can form the th e o ­ retical basis for a radical pedagogy th at takes hum an agency serio u sly ” (Giroux, 1983a, p. 111).

Apple and W eis (1983) discuss the m ovem ent beyond simple re p ro ­ duction th eo ry , stating th at “ hegem ony is not and cannot be fully se c u re ” (p. 28). T heir view th at the cultural sphere is relatively autonom ous leads

172 Review of Research in Education, 18

them to m ove beyond re sistan c e to a belief in the possibility o f meaningful intervention in the schools. H o w ev er, th ey caution th at this action m ust be a kind o f praxis and th at the connections b etw een the schools and the larger society m ust be m ade.

The co n cep t o f re sistan c e w ould continue to ap p e ar in political analyses o f curriculum , but after 1985 it seem ed to be a point o f d ep artu re ra th e r than arrival. F o r instance, G eoff W hitty calls fo r a m ovem ent aw ay from reproduction th eo ry and academ ic critique generally to radical in terv en ­ tion. H e w arns against rom anticizing the resistan ces o f the working class, even those th at are rep ro d u ctiv e. W hat is im portant now , he argues, is the elaboration o f in terv en tio n strategies.

What the American work increasingly recognizes is that whether or not particular aspects o f education are ultimately reproductive or transformative in their effects is essentially a political question concerning how they are to be worked upon pedagogically and politically, and how they becom e articulated with other struggles in and beyond the school. (Whitty, 1985, p. 90)

Pedagogy and Practice: Issues of Race, Class, and Gender By 1985, scholarly efforts to un d erstan d curriculum politically had

begun to tu rn aw ay from rep ro d u ctio n and resistan ce theories to issues o f political and pedagogical p ractice. This shift aw ay from resistan ce th e­ ory is evident, for exam ple, in the w ork o f H enry A. G iroux, which, beginning in 1985, m oved to questions o f literacy, liberal arts, and tra n s­ form ative pedagogy. In his 1985 book Education Under Siege (coauthored with Stanley A ronow itz), G iroux discusses reproduction and resistance insofar as they lead to radical action. In the field o f curriculum , w hat is necessary is a “ language o f p o ssib ility ” (A ronow itz & G iroux, 1985). E du cato rs m ust becom e transform ative intellectuals ra th e r than “ skillful tech n ic ia n s” (A ronow itz & G iroux, 1985). W hat is now n ecessary is to “ link em ancipatory possibilities to critical form s of leadership by rethink­ ing and restru ctu rin g the role o f curriculum w o rk e rs” (A ronow itz & Gi­ roux, 1985, p. 142).

This shift tow ard action and p ractice is evident in G iro u x ’s m any jo u rn al articles (1985a, 1985b, 1987, 1988c, 1989), em phasizing alw ays the im­ p ortance o f transform ative struggle, both in school and in society gen­ erally. H is m ost re cen t books, Schooling and the Struggle fo r Public Life: Critical P edagogy in the M odern A g e (1988a), Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical P ed a g o g y o f Learning (1988b), and Critical P ed a g o g y , the S tate and Cultural Struggle (1989, coau th o red with P eter M cLaren), em phasize critical or transform ative pedagogy.

F re ire ’s w ork, w hich had been enorm ously influential in the late 1960s and early 1970s, reem erged as central to the effort to u nderstand curric­

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 173

ulum as a political tex t during the la tte r half o f the 1980s. In The Politics o f Education (1985), A P ed a g o g y fo r Liberation: D ialogues on Trans­ form ing Education (F reire & Shor, 1987), and Freire fo r the C lassroom : A Sourcebook f o r L iberatory Teaching (Shor, 1987b), F reire elucidated the significance o f critical pedagogy. Am ong those F reire influenced was George W ood, v hose in tere st in transform ation (W ood, 1988) led to the establishm ent o f the In stitu te for D em ocracy in E ducation at Ohio U ni­ versity. (By m id-decade G iroux had established the C en ter for Cultural Studies at Miami U niversity in O xford, Ohio.) P eter M c L a re n ’s Schooling as a R itual Perform ance (1986) m akes F reirían suggestions to teach ers attem pting to fo ster resistan ce in their ow n schools. In Life in Schools (1989), M cL aren provides exam ples o f critical ed u cato rs, am ong whom are John D ew ey, M ichael A pple, and H enry Giroux.

A p p le’s w ork during the mid-1980s shifts also from reproduction and resistance to pedagogy and politics, especially as th ese are u n derstood in term s o f race, class, and gender. A p p le’s scholarship during this time em phasizes political and pedagogical struggle (Apple, 1987a, 1987b, 1988; Apple & Ladw ig, 1989; A pple & T eitelbaum , 1986). In Teachers and Texts: A Political E conom y o f Class and G ender R elations in E ducation , Apple (1986) exam ines the tex tb o o k industry, particularly as it p e rp e tu ­ ates the “ selective tra d itio n .” H e calls for political and pedagogical action by critical scholars, teac h ers, stu d en ts, and parents. A pple argues th at the effort to d em ocratize the curriculum m ust be a collective one involving interested parties in addition to educational professionals.

[Critical scholars] need to be closely connected to feminist groups, people o f color, unions, and to those teachers and curriculum workers who are now struggling so hard in very difficult circumstances to defend from rightist attacks the gains that have been made in democratizing education and to make certain that our schools and the curricular and teaching practices within them are responsive in race, gender and class terms. After all, teaching is a two-way street and academics can use som e political education as well. (Apple, 1986, p. 204)

In essays published in 1988, A pple extends his analysis o f curriculum as a political text. In “ R ace, Class and G ender in A m erican E ducation: Tow ard a N o n sy n ch ro n o u s Parallelist P o sitio n ,” C am eron M cC arthy and Apple call for th eo retical w ork th at d em onstrates how race, class, and gender in terco n n ect, and how econom ic, political, and cultural pow er expresses itself in education (M cC arthy & A pple, 1988). (A description o f scholarly efforts to u n d ersta n d curriculum as a racial text requires a separate essay.) As well, they point to a shift in strategies for fundam ental change in cu rricu lar co n ten t, pedagogical p ractices, and social stru ctu res (M cCarthy & A pple, 1988). L andon B eyer and A p p le’s “ The Curriculum : Problem s, Politics and Possibilities” (1988) co n c en trate s on issues o f p o ­ litical and pedagogical agency. F undam ental to these issues is the concept

174 Review of Research in Education, 18

of praxis, w hich involves “ not only a justifiable concern for reflective action, but thought and action com bined and by a sense o f pow er and politics. It involves both conscious understanding o f and action in schools on solving o ur daily p ro b lem s” (B eyer & A pple, 1988, p. 4).

Praxis implies “ critical reflective p ractices th at alter the m aterial and ideological conditions th at cause the problem s we are facing as educators in the first p la c e ” (B eyer & A pple, 1988, p. 4). In “ The Politics of P e­ dagogy and the Building o f C om m unity” (1990b), Apple continues this em phasis on collective and co n crete action, narrating episodes from his “ F riday S em in ar.” H e rem inds his students and him self th at educational politics are inseparable from national politics: “ I am constantly rem inded of how im portant it is th at we participate in those larger struggles as w ell” (Apple, 1990).

The effort to u n d erstan d curriculum as a political tex t has shifted from an exclusive focus on reproduction of the status quo to resistance to it, then again to resistan ce/rep ro d u ctio n as a dialectical process, then again— in the mid-1980s— to a focus on daily educational practice, es­ pecially pedagogical and political issues of race, class, and gender. The m ajor players in this effort have continued to be Apple and G iroux— Apple through his volum inous scholarship and th at of his m any students (Schubert, S chubert, H erzog, P osner, & K ridel, 1988, pp. 173-174) and Giroux through his prodigious scholarly production. C learly, serious stu ­ dents o f curriculum und erstan d , as nev er before, the com plexities and significance o f cu rricu lu m ’s political dim ensions.

This effort to u n d erstan d the curriculum as a political tex t has not been w ithout criticism , how ever. The “ sociology o f curriculum ” has been cri­ tiqued from within its ranks as well as outside them . It is accurate to say that this w ork was generally ignored by the m ainstream field during the 1970s. As it becam e too im portant to be ignored, it becam e criticized.

CONTROVERSIES A m ajor critique appeared in 1988. In C apitalist Schools: Explanation

and Ethics in R adical Studies o f Schooling, Daniel L iston alleges nu­ m erous w eaknesses in M arxian analysis of schooling. Specifically, L iston criticizes the p urposes and m ethods of explanation, justification, and em ­ pirical validation in radical scholarship. A fter analyzing the w ork o f Bowles and G intis (1976, 1980), G iroux (1981a, 1983b), Apple and Weis (1983), A pple (1980, 1982), and W exler (cited in B arton, M eigham, & W alker, 1980), L iston criticizes w hat he term s the “ facile functionalist” assertions found throughout these w orks. The fundam ental base/su p er­ structure m odel is assum ed, not explained. A dditionally, there is no em ­ pirical evidence pre sen ted in these w orks to support the model. L iston (1988) states: “ M arxist explanations o f public schools, while critical of

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 175

functionalist ap p ro ach es, n ev erth eless rely on functionalist assertions and ignore rigorous em pirical assessm en ts of these claim s” (p. 101).

L iston is in tere ste d in ethical as well as m ethodological problem s in the effort to u n d ersta n d curriculum politically. H e notes th at 4‘freedom was and still rem ains the central ethical sta n d a rd ” in radical thought (L is­ ton, 1988, p. 143). H o w ev er, the m ajor scholars seem to be unaw are th at M arx him self view ed concepts o f ju stic e and equality as problem atical. L iston argues th at “ M arx view ed (and a co n sisten t M arxist tradition would construe) ju stic e as a deficient standard. M arx criticized capitalism m orally but his standard was freedom (not ju stic e), a standard em bedded in the naturalist e th ic ” (L iston, 1988, p. 168). M arx ’s prim ary concern was freedom .

Y et, L iston o b serv es, M arxist scholars often base their criticism s o f the status quo on notions o f ju stic e . “ M arxist ed u cato rs claim th at the structure of the larger socioeconom ic system is unjust and th at the schools contribute to the rep ro d u ctio n of the unjust sy stem ” (L iston, 1988, p. 123). If M arxist criticism o f the status quo cannot be based on a concept o f injustice, upon w hat can it be based? “ W hat is the basis o f condem ­ nation? The basis exists, I believe, in M arx ’s notion of freed o m ” (L iston, 1988, p. 136). L iston asse rts th at those M arxists who currently em ploy standards of ju stic e in th eir argum ents “ m ust at least recognize and ap ­ praise the m erits o f M a rx ’s ow n critique o f these sta n d a rd s” (L iston, 1988, p. 143). F u rth erm o re , he advises radical scholars to “ revise the basis of their critiques or argue against M arx ’s p o sitio n ” (L iston, 1988, p. 143). L iston m akes clear th at his critique is a “ frien d ly ” one: “ W ithout en ­ hanced explanatory claim s o r m oral ju stificatio n it does not seem likely the radical tradition will convince reasonable skeptics. I hope it does. W ithout convincing th ese skeptics it will inevitably fail. I hope it does n o t” (p. 174).

L isto n ’s claim o f “ frie n d lin e ss” appears to have been rejected, at least by one m ajor theoretician. P eter M cL aren po rtray s L isto n ’s effort as having re su rrec ted “ an old and theoretically th read b are M arxian o rth o ­ d o x y ” (M cL aren, 1990, p. 1). In his view, L isto n ’s call for em pirical validation re p resen ts a re tu rn to an epistem ological position radical schol­ ars long ago rejected , th at is, a “ stance o f objectivity and . . . the scientific goal of T ru th ” (M cL aren, 1990, p. 8). L isto n ’s logic is ch aracterized as “ re d u ctio n ist” (M cL aren, 1990, p. 4). R ecent debates regarding p o st­ structuralism m ake it “ difficult to rem ain sym pathetic to L isto n ’s p en ­ chant fo r causal m echanism and his reduction of ideology to flow charts and em pirically based fo rm u lae” (M cL aren, 1990, p. 5). F u rth erm o re, M cL aren ch a rac te rizes L isto n ’s treatm en t of G iro u x ’s scholarship as “ m onum ental in its sp e c io u sn e ss” (M cL aren, 1990, p. 7). L isto n ’s anal­ ysis can be likened to “ w hat S artre called ‘bad fa ith ,’ a kind of ritualistic

176 Review of Research in Education, 18

blood-letting, an exaggerated self-flattery, and an inflated m oral right­ eousness th at is dam aging to the b o o k s’ intent and p u rp o se ” (M cL aren, 1990, p. 7).

Like L iston, C. A. B ow ers (1987) and K enneth Strike (1989) allege th at M arxist scholars have abandoned M arx. M ore specifically, B ow ers and Strike regard radical scholars as m oving aw ay from M arxism tow ard lib­ eralism . “ M arxism has been decisively rejected. It appears that no al­ ternative hard core is on the horizon, unless it is some variety of liber­ alism ” (Strike, 1989, p. 166). Am ong those w hose w ork Strike discusses include A pple, Bow les and G intis, G iroux, Willis, L evin and C arnoy, M cL aren, and Dale. Strike m eticulously describes the m ovem ent o f these efforts to u n d erstan d the curriculum as a political tex t, a m ovem ent that increasingly exhibits “ idealist and indeed liberal te rm s” (Strike, 1989, p. 160). The em phasis on cultural autonom y ch aracteristic o f radical schol­ arship after 1985 re p resen ts, for Strike, an “ abandonm ent o f the core of the M arxist p ro g ram ” (S trike, 1989, p. 155). M arx ’s labor to substitute m aterialism for idealism has been forgotten, apparently, by those who claim the heritage. The co nsequence is the absence o f a coh eren t research program . Strike (1989) concludes:

Finally, the fact that many o f those who gave us the Marxist critique o f schooling seem to have lapsed into liberal construction is at least a piece o f evidence that allows us to see Marxism as a degenerative research program. It suggests that the problems generated by a Marxist research program cannot be solved without abandoning the program’s central as­ sumption. (p. 167)

In Elements o f a P ost-L iberal Theory o f E ducation , B ow ers (1987) cri­ tiques the w ork o f Paulo F reire , upon which m uch of the transform ative or critical pedagogy literatu re re sts. T hat w ork shares four basic a s­ sum ptions with liberalism , according to B ow ers: (a) Change is inherently progressive; (b) the individual is the basic social unit “ within w hich we locate the source of freedom and ra tio n a lity ” (B ow ers, 1987, p. 2); (c) hum an nature is basically good o r at least changeable via environm ental m anipulation; and (d) rationality is “ the real basis o f authority for reg­ ulating the affairs o f everyday life” (B ow ers, 1987, p. 2). B ow ers argues that F re ire ’s version o f M arxism is m ore appropriately ch aracterized “ as a form of dem ocratic hum anism , an ideology w hich would be scorned as a form o f revisionist liberalism in those countries th at rely upon a m ore scientific M arxism as a basis o f th eir social organization” (B ow ers, p. 1987, p. 37).

P erhaps the m ost com pelling but caustic critic of political analyses of curriculum is Philip W exler, him self an “ in sid er” to debates regarding b ase /su p e rstru ctu re , ideology, hegem ony, and so forth (W exler, 1976). In Social A nalysis o f Education: A fter the N ew Sociology (1987), W exler

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 177

charts the rise and fall o f the so-called “ new sociology.” C entral to his analysis is the linkage o f academ ic w ork to social m ovem ents outside the academ y. H e points out, for instance, th at the “ new sociology” arose in the afterm ath of the radical stu d en t and civil rights m ovem ents of the 1960s. W exler suggests th at radical critics rom anticized those m ovem ents. Politically oriented scholarship am ounted to “ a displaced im itation of it [the student m ovem ents o f the 1960s], an attem p t culturally to recapitulate the practical historical course o f the m ovem ent, in theory ” (W exler, 1987, p. 26). Radical scholarship suggested a rediscovered but unfortunately idealized in tere st in educational change (W exler, 1987). H ow ever, such change w ould o ccu r within institutions and within professional roles. W exler (1987) states:

In this view , new sociology o f education is a rationalized cultural representation o f identity politics: it is part o f a po5t-“ m ovem ent” effort to create a meaningful professionalism that is consonant with the ideal o f a defeated social movement, (p. 27)

In this re sp ect, politically oriented scholars are com m itted to their own professional ad v an cem en t, w hich they m istake fo r political activitism (see also Pinar, 1981b, p. 440). T heir activism co n stitu tes the “ cultural fo r­ m ation o f an identifiable social group w hich is engaged in sociocultural action on its ow n b e h a l f ’ (p. 4). C onsequently, “ left professional middle class institutional intellectuals becam e a socially residual rem nant, ra th e r than the institutional vanguard o f an ascen d an t social class segm ent” (W exler, 1987, p. 123).

F u rth erm o re , W exler alleges, the prim ary concepts em ployed to un­ derstand curriculum politically— rep ro d u ctio n and re sistan c e— re p re ­ sented a “ com bination o f functionalist structuralism and rom antic indi­ vidualism ” (W exler, 1987, pp. 16, 42). In co nsequence, “ the new sociology o f education is historically backw ard-looking and ideologically reactionary, although its ideals com bine the values o f the N ew L eft and traditional socialism ” (W exler, 1987, p. 127). The history of the effort to understand curriculum as a political tex t can be located in the social path of its p ro d u cers (i.e., the so-called “ new sociologists” of curriculum ). T hat path leads from

ideology-critique to awareness o f system atic reproduction through the accumulation o f cul­ tural capital; and then from idealized and socially displaced individual cultural resistance to the dissonant bifurcation betw een idealized social mobilization and an unconscious politics o f internally exiled speech. (W exler, 1987, p. 45)

The “ new sociology” m ay have becom e trapped in the progressive- liberal paradigm , but W exler allows for the possibility o f escape. C ertain strands of fem inist thought and the so-called p o ststru ctu ralism point to

178 Review of Research in Education, 18

social m ovem ents and change that might inspire collective m obilizations. P articularly, literary 4 ‘tex tu alism ” is “ potentially transform ative, . . .th e starting point for a co u n te r-p ra c tic e ” (W exler, 1987, p. 180). A dditionally, p oststructuralism might free political scholars from “ a socially inauthentic identification with ‘the w orking c la ss’ o r with the triadic oppressed groups o f ‘class, race and g e n d e r’ ” (W exler, 1987, p. 181). R eaction to this claim ed political potential o f p o ststru ctu ralism has begun to appear in print (M cC arthy, 1988, p. 8). A fem inist critique of critical pedagogy ap ­ peared late in 1989 (E llsw orth, 1989). (U nderstanding curriculum as a gender text in tersec ts, of co u rse, with understanding curriculum as a po ­ litical text. The form er, because o f its significance, requires reporting in a separate essay, how ever.)

A revised version o f a p resen tatio n m ade at the 1988 Bergam o C on­ ference, E lizabeth E llsw o rth ’s (1989) ‘‘W hy D o e sn ’t This Feel E m pow ­ ering? W orking Through the R epressive M yths o f Critical P edagogy” critiques both the conceptual stru ctu re and daily practice o f critical p e­ dagogy. Critical pedagogy should not be confused, E llsw orth insists, with feminist pedagogy, w hich ‘‘co n stitu tes a separate body o f literature with its goals and assu m p tio n s” (E llsw orth, 1989, p. 298). The key term s of critical pedagogy— ‘‘e m p o w e rm en t,” ‘‘student v o ic e ,” ‘‘dialogue” — represent ‘‘code w o rd s” and a ‘‘p osture of invisibility” (p. 301). Relying upon a decontextualized and universalistic conception o f reason, critical pedagogy leads to ‘‘rep ressiv e m yths th at p erp etu ate relations of dom i­ n atio n ” (pp. 298, 304). C ritical pedagogy, she continues, leaves the stru c­ ture of dom ination and authoritarianism in place. In E llsw o rth ’s (1989) w ords, ‘‘[critical pedagogy] fails to challenge any identifiable social or political position, institution or g ro u p ” (p. 307). The ‘‘utopian g o als” of critical pedagogy are unattainable.

In w orking with participants in the course C urriculum and Instruction 607 (C & I 607), E llsw orth (1989) conceives o f h er role as interrupting institutionally im posed limits on ‘‘how m uch time and energy students . . . could spend on elaborating th eir positions and playing them out to the point w here internal contradictions and effects on the positions of other social groups could becom e evident and subject to self-analysis” (p. 305).

This position is in co n tra st to th at o f critical pedagogy, w hich E llsw orth (1989) views as enforcing rational deliberation (p. 305). F u rth erm o re, she alleges that critical pedagogy— here she quotes F reire, Shor, and Gi­ roux— fails to question its ow n stance o f superiority o f te a c h e rs’ u n d er­ standing over stu d e n ts’ (p. 307). E llsw orth is skeptical o f critical p ed a­ gogy’s claim o f ‘‘em ancipatory a u th o rity ,” judging th at the goals for which such authority is used rem ain ‘‘ahistorical and depoliticized” (p. 307). ‘‘E m p o w erm e n t,” she insists, is defined so broadly th at it fails to

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 179

challenge specific social or political groups or positions. This failure re p ­ resents critical e d u c a to rs’ inability to confront the paternalism of trad i­ tional education (p. 307). E llsw orth goes on to criticize the concept of “ student v o ic e ,” as it is d iscussed in the critical pedagogy literature, relying on h er experience in C & I 607 to suggest its flaws. F rom a gender perspective, for instance, she notes: “ The desire by the m ostly W hite, middle-class m en w ho w rite the literature on critical pedagogy to elicit Tull e x p ressio n ’ of stu d en t voices . . . becom es voyeuristic w hen the voice o f the pedagogue him self goes unex am in ed ” (p. 312). C oncluding, Ellsw orth notes th at as long as critical pedagogy fails to u nderstand issues o f tru st, risk, fear, and desire, especially as these are expressed through issues o f identity and politics in the classroom , its “ rationalistic tools will continue to fail to loosen deep-seated, self-interested investm ents in u n ­ ju s t relations of, for exam ple, gender, ethnicity, and sexual o rien ta tio n ” (pp. 313, 314). A fter critiquing critical pedagogy’s ahistorical use of “ dia­ logue” and “ d e m o c ra c y ,” E llsw orth suggests a “ pedagogy of the un ­ know able” (p. 318), in w hich know ledge is u n derstood as “ contradictory, partial and irre d u cib le” (p. 321). R eflecting on h er own teaching, Ell­ sw orth (1989) w rites:

A preferable goal seem ed to me to becom e capable o f a sustained encounter with currently oppressive formations and power relations that refused to be theorized away or fully tran­ scended in a utopian resolution— and to enter into encounter in a way that owned up to my own implication in those formations and was capable o f changing my own relation to and investments in those formations, (p. 308)

E llsw orth (1989) ad v o cates labor tow ard a position inform ed by feminism and p o ststru ctu ralism (p. 304) in w hich none of us is perm itted to be “ off the h o o k .” E llsw o rth ’s criticism has provoked considerable co n tro v ersy , as suggested by letters published in the A ugust 1990 issue o f the H arvard Educational R eview . It is too early to judge to w hat ex ten t this c o n tro ­ versy will lead to a new stage o f form ulation of key term s in the effort to u nderstand curriculum as a political text.

CONCERNS A system atic effort to u n d ersta n d the curriculum as a political text

asserted itself forcefully during the 1970s and 1980s. The notion th at c u r­ riculum developm ent, evaluation, and so forth could be conducted in a politically neutral fashion quickly becam e one conceptual casualty o f this effort, as was the taken-for-granted assum ption th at schools functioned as avenues of upw ard social and econom ic m obility. The rejection o f these m ainstream and taken-for-granted ideas of the curriculum field was ac­ com panied by the building o f a relatively elaborate conceptual edifice,

180 Review of Research in Education, 18

among the foundations o f w hich w ere notions o f reproduction, resistance, ideology, and hegem ony. As the effort grew m ore volum inous and com ­ plex, so did the range of its in tere sts, incorporating notions of critical pedagogy and literacy as well as issues o f race, class, and gender. T en ­ sions have developed within the m ovem ent, as have criticism s from o u t­ side it. T hese, we think, are testim onies to its pow er and im portance as well as to its internal flaws. W hat has becom e indisputable is th at to understand the curriculum , one m ust un d erstan d it, at least in p art, as a political text.

The phrase “ in p a r t” leads to o ur first concern with this w ork. There are tendencies in critical scholarship to ignore those efforts th at attem pt to u nderstand curriculum in o th er w ays, as if curriculum w ere only a political text. It is, for instance, also a phenom enological text. T here is a large literature on understanding curriculum and pedagogy as a ph e­ nom enological tex t (Pinar & R eynolds, 1992), a secto r o f the field gen­ erally ignored by the critical scholars. Likew ise, literatures reflecting ef­ forts to u n d erstan d curriculum as autobiographic and biographic texts are passed over. The contextualization o f political discourse in “ p la c e ” seems largely ignored (K incheloe & Pinar, 1991). T here is a tendency here that goes beyond focusing on those subjects th at in terest one or are germ ane to o n e ’s specialization within a field. T here is here an orthodoxy, a refusal to even acknow ledge the existence o f w ork outside the cu rren t boundaries o f radical research . Politically oriented scholars are hardly alone in this, o f course. During the 1970s, traditionalists refused to acknow ledge their presence. It is also true th at phenom enologists tend to look the o th er way when political issues are raised (there are exceptions; see C arson, in press). W hat we are w orrying o v er here is a problem with the field at large (Pinar, 1990) th at goes beyond the literature we have described herein. It is w hat we might loosely term conceptual isolationism , with attendant “ nationalism ” and “ m ilitarism .” T here are w hat we might term — tongue in ch e ek — high tariff b arriers (a skeptical o utsider might term them “jarg o n ta x e s ” ) th at w ork against “ tra d e ” (i.e., the exchange o f ideas). Phenom enological curriculum theory could benefit, in our ju d g ­ m ent, from judicious em ploym ent o f the know ledge the politicists have c onstructed and collected, and vice versa. C learly, the political w ork does engage o th er traditions, som etim es appreciatively, as in the case o f fem ­ inist theory (although th ere are thorny issues here; cf. E llsw orth), som e­ times am bivalently, as in the case o f po ststru ctu ralism (cf. M cC arthy, W exler). A t o th er tim es, it simply refuses to engage o th er segm ents of the field. One might expect such smug self-involvem ent from co n serv a­ tives, but from those w ho espouse “ d ialogue,” “ v o ic e ,” “ d em o c ra c y ,” and the like, this is a disheartening state o f affairs. If the m ajor players in this secto r w ould engage o th er traditions of scholarship in an open and

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 181

nonadversarial fashion, not only w ould th eir boundaries be expanded, perhaps th eir internal disputes would be less vitriolic. It is alm ost as if, locked up behind ideological walls, these individuals seem to becom e a bit stir crazy, and w hat should be am icable differences o f opinion as well as serious efforts to educate each o th er have tended to becom e cold-w ar confrontations.

A second co n cern involves the im port o f this scholarship for the school com m unity. T hat this w ork will ex ert significant influence on classroom practice in the U nited S tates is doubtful. This prognosis is based partially upon the failure of leading th eo rists such as M ichael A pple, H enry G iroux, Ira Shor, and P eter M cL aren to respond constructively to critics outside the critical tradition and, m ost recently, to critics w ho, like E lizabeth E llsw orth, address issues in the politics of curriculum but who do not wish to be identified w ith the m ore m essianic tendencies in critical p ed ­ agogy and critical p ersp ectiv es. M ore significant, our view th at this w ork will fail to enlist w idespread support am ong school personnel is based on the failure o f critical p ersp ectiv es to address m ajor cultural shifts currently under w ay. F irst, this w ork has inadequately addressed issues o f multi- culturalism and racism . S econd, it has failed to address the intensifying ecological crisis.

C am eron M cC arthy (1990a, 1990b) has pointed to the failure of radical or critical curriculum scholarship to address adequately the concept of race. Critical scholarship was largely silent regarding race during its first and m ore significant p h a se — reproduction th e o ry — and w hen m entioned, race tended to be subsum ed u n d er class or assum ed to be of equal ex­ planatory w eight (M cC arthy, 1990b). R elatedly, the very rhetoric o f em ancipatory or critical pedagogy resides in a E uropean-A m erican dis­ course (E llsw orth, 1989). C onsider the following assum ptions o f critical pedagogy: (a) individual em ancipation and em pow erm ent are to be achieved through a p ro cess o f critical reflection th at dem ystifies h isto r­ ically and socially c o n stitu te d form s of authority, (b) The goal of the educational p ro cess is em ancipation; it m ust be viewed as a social process furthered through dialogue. F o r instance: “ In the process o f knowing the reality w hich we transform , we com m unicate and know socially even though the process o f com m unicating, knowing, changing has an individ­ ual dim ension” (Shor & F reire , 1987, p. 14). (c) The historical process of change (i.e., progress) is facilitated as individuals pursue social and individual em ancipation. Put an o th er w ay, the continual process o f au ­ thorizing ideas and values through critical reflection (a process experi­ m ental in nature w hen view ed within the longer time fram e o f a cultural group) displaces o th e r form s of knowing, (d) The educational process o f transm itting culture is preem inently political. The goal of critical w ork involves “ m aking the pedagogical m ore political and the political m ore

182 Review of Research in Education, 18

pedagogical” (G iroux, 1988b). (e) A participatory dem ocracy, w herein every m em ber evidently experiences the sam e freedom and equality in all aspects o f public life, re p resen ts the only legitim ate form o f political organization, (f) Finally, reality can be grasped in binary term s. F o r in­ stance: “ L ib erato ry dialogue is a dem ocratic com m unication which dis- confirms dom ination and illum inates while affirming the freedom o f the participants to re-m ake their culture. Traditional discourse confirms the dom inant m ass culture and the inherited, official shape o f know ledge” (Shor & F reire, 1987, p. 13).

As these assum ptions suggest, critical pedagogy and critical scholarship generally incorporate the ideals o f the W estern E nlightenm ent. As well, they incorporate the silences, m isconceptions, and hubris o f this tradition. Applied to education, this tradition reproduces m odes o f reasoning Alvin G ouldner identified as distinctive to the “ culture o f critical d isco u rse” (i.e., intellectuals w hose ow n position is strengthened by forcing others to adhere to the rules o f discourse they them selves have created and now represent as universally applicable to all culture). The highly ab stra ct concepts ch aracteristic o f political scholarship (reproduction, resistance, em ancipation, liberation, etc.) are, in principle, disconnected from the lived beliefs, values, and p ractices o f specific cultural groups. M em bers of cultural groups w ho attem p t to retain or reco v er their identities by repudiating the hom ogenization associated with m ainstream consum er culture would take exception to m any o f these assum ptions. C am eron M cC arthy (1988) notes, in this regard:

I have begun to see contemporary Marxism as something o f a classical realist text in which the subjective and om niscient speaking positions are reserved for white new middle class male intellectuals. Much o f radical education theory is there part o f the enabling linguistic com petence o f a peculiarly unreflexive community. In these frameworks, third world people are constituted as the objects o f radical forms o f intellectual tourism (Roman, 1987). (p. 8)

Probably, few cultural groups, including the advocates o f critical p e r­ spectives them selves, would be willing to live continuously in the state o f liminality th at would accom pany an ongoing and thorough process o f dem ystification (which, in this w ork, requires politicizing) o f “ the his­ torically and socially co n stru cted form s by w hich they live” (Giroux, 1988c, p. 177). Such utopian language th rea ten s to sw eep aw ay not only blocks to genuine progress, but sacred and life affirm ative traditions as well. A dditionally, the uncritical em brace o f dialogue as the sole m eans of education discloses a lack o f understanding of how group identity and traditions are m aintained o v er time (e.g., Hopi and Jew ish traditions, to name ju s t two). F o r many cultural groups, it is doubtful th at progress would be view ed as achievable through the critical pedagogy ideal o f continual doubt: “ to doubt everything, and to try to identify those form s

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 183

o f pow er and control th at o p erate in their ow n liv es” (M cL aren, 1989, p. 233).

The goals o f critical scholarship (em pow erm ent, em ancipation, and so on) and the limited suggestions offered by advocates to inspire classroom practice m ust be view ed as problem atical because o f the anthropological and linguistic pov erty o f their fundam ental assum ptions. As well, there are gender and racial blind spots th at underline the fact th at the leading advocates are E u ropean-A m erican m en. It may be that critical scholarship is self-referential scholarship and th at, b ecause these m en insist on the prim acy o f th eir concepts and m ethods, th eir w ork functions in politically conservative, even reactio n ary w ays. This divergence betw een rhetoric and political con seq u en ce has been noted at least tw ice (Pinar, 1981b; W exler, 1987).

A third concern involves the relative silence o f critical scholarship re ­ garding the ecological crisis, a silence th at could be linked with the cultural provincialism o f this w ork. W hile the crisis m erits book-length trea tm e n t, suffice it to say here th at the accum ulation of “ greenhouse g a se s,” co u ­ pled with m assive disruptions in the ecosystem caused by d eforestation, topsoil loss, and toxic w aste dum ping (to cite only a few aspects of the crisis), has led to an increasing aw areness regarding the interdependence o f hum an and natural system s. E vidence o f the diverging trend line, with hum an population and consum er dem ands on the sustaining capacities of natural system s m oving upw ard at a rapid rate while th ere is a c o rre ­ sponding decline in toxic-free eco sy stem s, has prom pted m any to question w hether the m ost basic assum ptions upon w hich m odern (W estern) co n ­ sciousness rests may be exacerbating the crisis. Aldo L eopold was among those to first recognize th at m odern consciousness is based on an an- thropocentric view of the universe and th at long-term survival o f the spe­ cies depends on the em ergence o f new m odes o f cognition th at re p resen t the com m unity o f all life form s. O thers, am ong them G ary S nyder, W es Jackson, W endell B erry, and G regory B ateson, have begun to question the adequacy o f W estern contem p o rary cultural assum ptions for long­ term species survival. H ow we u n d erstan d freedom and know ledge, among o th er fundam ental c o n stru c ts, m ust be linked with these consid­ erations, not with a n arro w er— and historically discredited— M arxist agenda of class conflict and social change.

Although G iroux and M cL aren (G iroux, 1991) have incorporated the discourses o f p ostm odernism and feminism into their m ore recen t ex ­ positions, critical scholarship as a whole rem ains located within a m ode of reasoning th at is u nresponsive to the urgent, overw helm ing ch a rac te r of the ecological crisis. B ecause space is limited, we limit this discussion to tw o essential issues: (a) how the ecological crisis leads to a different way of thinking about hum an freedom , and (b) the form s of know ledge

184 Review of Research in Education, 18

that contribute to living in a sustainable relationship with the habitat. F irst, the recognition th at hum ans are p art o f a biotic com m unity leads to a view o f hum an freedom different from th at o f the anthropocentric form ulation o f critical scholarship. In terd ep en d en ce with the biotic com ­ m unity requires a concept of freedom as self-lim itation for the sake o f others, for the sake o f species survival. A ccording to L eopold, “ a thing is right w hen it tends to p reserv e the integrity, stability, and beauty o f the biotic com m unity. It is w rong w hen it tends o th erw ise” (Leopold, 1966, p. 262). In providing an ecological m odel o f cognitive p rocesses that overcom es the hum an/nature dichotom y, B ateson challenges an an ­ thropocentric co n cep t o f hum an freedom : “ In no system w hich shows mental ch aracteristics can any p art have unilateral control ov er the whole. In o th er w ords, the m ental characteristics o f the system are im m anent, not in som e p art, but in the system as a w hole” (B ateson, 1972, p. 316). B ateson also challenges the W estern bias th at u n derstands the hum an and natural w orlds as separate b ecause of the rational capabilities o f hum an beings:

The total self-corrective unit which processes information, or, as I say, “ thinks” and “ a c ts” and “ d ecid es” is a system w hose boundaries do not at all coincide with the boundaries either o f the body or what is popularly called the “ s e l f ’ or “ c o n sc io u sn ess.” (Bateson, 1972, p. 319)

H e w arns us to recognize th at hum an beings, regardless o f their ideas o f freedom and progress, cannot survive independent o f their habitat; that is, “ the unit o f evolutionary survival turns out to be identical with the unit o f m ind” (1972, p. 483).

The position advanced by L eopold, B ateson, and others leads to a profoundly different view o f “ h u m an ” freedom than th at implied in crit­ ical scholarship. In th at w ork, the p ast seem s to re p resen t dom ination and the future an ever-expanding realm o f possibility, each succeeding generation dem ystifying the form s o f dom ination presum ably p erp etu ated by the previous generation. This sense o f ever-expanding hum an free­ dom — m aterial, political, intellectual— does not incorporate a vision of hum an freedom as contingent and interw oven with the larger biotic com ­ munity o f w hich we are part. T heir anth ro p o cen tric view o f freedom re ­ produces the W estern m yth o f perpetual progress (L asch, 1991), a m yth that has led to the cu rren t crisis, and is silent upon this, the m ost fateful issue o f the p re sen t time.

The ecological crisis implies th at we m ust u nderstand the very concept o f know ledge differently. R ecent and sym pathetic studies o f prim al cul­ tures th at have evolved in ecologically sustainable w ays (H ughes, 1983; N elson, 1983) point to how these low status cultures (as view ed by m ain­

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 185

stream W estern intellectuals) function in species-affirm ative w ays. T hese ecologically w edded w ays o f knowing m ust not be interpreted as senti­ m entalized calls for earlier, p rem odern form s o f social living, but ra th e r as suggestive o f know ledge form s unreflected in critical scholarship. W es Jackson uses the rural farm to illustrate know ledge th at is accum ulated over generations, tested in the co n tex t o f family and com m unity su r­ vival— know ledge th at has sustained, variously, the K oyukon h unter, the H opi, and even certain E uropean-A m erican groups. In A ltars o f Unhewn S to n e, Jackson w rites:

Species extinction and genetic narrowing o f the major crops aside, the loss o f cultural in­ formation due to the depopulation o f our rural areas is far greater than all the information accumulated by science and technology in the same period. Farm families who practice the traditions associated with planting, tending, harvesting, and storing the produce o f the ag­ ricultural landscape, gathered information, much o f it unconsciously, from the time they were infants: in the farm household, in the farm community, and in the barns and fields. They heard and told stories about relatives and community members who did something funny or were caught in som e kind o f tragedy. From these stories they learned basic lessons o f agronomy. But there was more. There was information carried by a farmer who looked to the sky and then to the blowing trees or grasses and made a quick decision as to whether or not to make two more rounds before quitting to do chores. Much o f that information has already disappeared and continues to disappear as farmers leave the land. It is the kind of information that has been hard won over the millennia, from the time agriculture began. It is valuable because much o f it is tuned to the harvest o f contemporary sunlight, the kind o f information we need now and in the future on the land. (Jackson, 1987, pp. 11-12)

We are not arguing, o f co u rse, th at tacit, analogical form s of know ledge can or should be ac cep ted uncritically as guides to social practice. Jac k ­ so n ’s statem en t rem inds us th at the rationalistic and experim ental form s o f know ledge em bedded in the w ork of the critical group, form s th at can be traced back through D e sc arte s to Plato, may not alw ays re p resen t the highest form s o f know ledge, nor may they be suited for living in ecological balance.

The ecological crisis confronts ed u cato rs w ith a new set of challenges unacknow ledged by critical scholars. R equired are form s of authentically radical thinking th at enable us to articulate and provisionally answ er fun­ dam ental questions hinted at by the following:

1. W hat cultural beliefs, values, and social p ractices currently tra n s­ m itted via school cu rricula are ecologically affirm ative, and w hich are rooted in assum ptions form ed in earlier historical periods w hen the natural environm ent was regarded as an exploitable resource?

2. H ow are ecologically unsustainable aspects o f our culture encoded in those language p attern s th at are em ployed in classroom s and th at te a c h ­ ers tend to take fo r granted?

3. H ow can we refram e in curricular form s the study of diverse his­

186 Review of Research in Education, 18

torical n arratives in w ays th at enable students to recognize the co n se­ quences o f an th ro p o cen tric biases, as well as prejudices against learning from ecologically sustainable cultures th at have, in the m ain, been labeled pejoratively as “ prim itive” ?

4. W hat form s o f folk know ledge (technologies, social practices, etc.) that have evolved in harm ony with the bioregion are pertinent to the crisis today, and how might these form s be incorporated into the curriculum ?

5. H ow do we, as ed u c ato rs, begin to develop the languages o f dance, painting, m usic, and narrative th at prim al peoples used as a m eans of encoding the m oral tem plates for living in ecologically sustainable re la­ tionships, and for providing m em bers o f the com m unity the experience of transform ing the ordinary into an extrao rd in ary , transform ative sense of reality?

If, as a field, we becom e aw are th at the ecological crisis requires both cultural and technical resp o n ses, the scholarly form s of understanding curriculum as a political tex t will shift. W exler’s insistence th at critical scholarship functions in politically reactionary w ays— an allegation our sum m ary of the ecological crisis supports and ex p a n d s— will be acknow l­ edged generally, and this judgm ent will then produce epistem ological as well as them atic revisions in the effort to understand curriculum as a political text. The preo ccu p atio n with re production, resistance, and crit­ ical pedagogy will disap p ear or be revised dram atically. An ecologically inform ed agenda will occupy a central place in future political scholarship. The time for such change is past due.

Conclusion F undam ental problem s plague the contem porary effort to study the

politics o f curriculum . T hese are problem s associated with gender, race, and culture; they are em bedded in the m odes of cognition as well as the them es and slogans o f critical scholarship. A dditionally, the political p ra c ­ tices o f critical scholars them selves seem self-involved, w alled-in, and at times even m ilitaristic. Finally, critical scholarship tends to omit w hat m ust be regarded as one o f the political issues, if not the central issue, of the day — the ecological crisis. T hese are staggering problem s, and, if unsolved, they th rea ten to underm ine the m ost volum inous body o f schol­ arship in the field.

D espite these significant problem s, the effort to u nderstand curriculum as a political tex t m ust be regarded as one o f the great achievem ents of the curriculum field since the 1970s. At th at time, the curriculum field, many readers will recall, was ju d g ed as m oribund, dead, and arrested by Joseph Schw ab (1970), D w ayne H u eb n er (1976), and William P inar (1978), respectively. C oncerns and questions notw ithstanding, no com m entator would regard the p re sen t field in these term s. Indeed, the volum e and

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 187

dynam ism o f critique testify to the vitality and com plexity o f the field. W ithout doubt, the apolitical blindspot o f the traditional field has been corrected. N ow we u n d ersta n d , to an ex ten t few could have fathom ed 20 years ago, the com plex o f w ays in w hich curriculum is a political text.

REFERENCES Althusser, L. (1971). L en in a n d p h ilo so p h y a n d o th er essays (B. Brewser, Trans.).

N ew York: Monthly R eview Press. Anyon, J. (1979). Ideology and United States history textbooks. H arvard E d u ­

cational R e v ie w , 4 9 , 361-386. Anyon, J. (1988). Schools as agencies o f social legitimation. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.),

C ontem porary curriculum discourses (pp. 175-200). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch, Scarisbrick.

Apple, M. W. (1975). The hidden curriculum and the nature o f conflict. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum th eo rizin g : The reconceptualists (pp. 95-119). Berke­ ley, CA: McCutchan.

Apple, M. W. (1979). Curriculum and reproduction. Curriculum In q u iry, 9(3), 231-252.

Apple, M. W. (1980). Analyzing determinations: Understanding and evaluating the production o f social outcom es in the schools. Curriculum In q u iry, 79(1), 55-76.

Apple, M. W. (1981). Reproduction, contestation, and curriculum: An essay in self-criticism. In te rc h a n g e , 72, 27-47.

Apple, M. W. (Ed.). (1982a). Cultural a n d eco n o m ic reproduction in education: E ssa ys on class, ideology, a n d the sta te. N ew York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Apple, M. W. (1982b). E d u ca tio n a n d p ow er. N ew York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers a n d texts: A p o litica l eco n o m y o f class a n d gender relations in education. N ew York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Apple, M. W. (1987a). Producing inequality : Ideology and econom y in the national reports on education. E d u ca tio n a l S tudies, 18, 195-220.

Apple, M. W. (1987b). Will the social context allow a tomorrow for tomorrow’s teachers? Teachers College R eco rd , 88, 330-337.

Apple, M. W. (1988). Social crisis and curriculum accords. E du ca tio n a l Theory, 38, 191-201.

Apple, M. W. (1990a). Id eo lo g y a n d curriculum (2nd ed.). N ew York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Apple, M. W. (1990b). The politics o f pedagogy and the building o f community. Journal o f Curriculum Theorizing, 5(4), 7 -2 2 .

Apple, M. W ., & Ladwig, J. (1989, Decem ber 20). Educators reel from decade o f right-wing attacks. The G u a rd ia n , p. 9.

Apple, M. W ., & Teitelbaum, K. (1986). Are teachers losing control o f their skills and curriculum? Jo u rn a l o f Curriculum Stu d ies, 18, 177-184.

Apple, M. W ., & W eis, L. (Eds.). (1983). Id eo lo g y a n d p ra ctice in schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Aronowitz, S ., & Giroux, H. A. (1985). E ducation under siege: The conservative, liberal a n d radical d eb a te over schooling. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Barton, L ., Meigham, R., & Walker, S. (Eds.). (1980). Schooling, ideology an d the curriculum . Sussex, England: Falmer Press.

188 Review of Research in Education, 18

Bateson, G. (1972). S te p s to an ecology o f m ind. N ew York: Ballantine. Beyer, L. E ., & Apple, M. W. (1988). The curriculum : Problem s, po litics an d

possibilities. Albany: State U niversity o f N ew York Press. Bowers, C. A. (1987). Toward a p ost-liberal theory o f education. N ew York:

Teachers College Press. Bow les, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist A m erica : E d u cational

reform a n d the contradictions o f eco n o m ic life. N ew York: Basic Books. Bow les, S ., & Gintis, H. (1980). Contradiction and reproduction in educational

theory. In L. Barton, R. Meigham, & S. Walker (Eds.), Schooling, ideology, a n d the curriculum (pp. 51-65). Sussex, England: Falmer Press.

Carson, T. (in press). Remembering forward. In W. F. Pinar & W. M. Reynolds (Eds.), U nderstanding curriculum as p h en o m en o lo g ica l a n d d eco n stru cted text. N ew York: Teachers College Press.

Counts, G. S. (1932). D are the schools build a new social o rder? N ew York: John Day Co.

D ew ey, J. (1916). D em o cra cy a n d education. N ew York: Macmillan. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why d oesn ’t this feel empowering? Working through the

repressive myths o f critical pedagogy. H arvard E d u ca tio n a l R eview , 59, 29 7 - 324.

Freire, P. (1970/1971). P ed a g o g y o f the oppressed. N ew York: Continuum. Freire, P. (1985). The p o litics o f education: Culture, p o w e r a n d liberation (D.

Macedo, Trans.). South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Freire, P., & Shor, I. (1987). A p ed a g o g y fo r liberation: D ialogues fo r tra n s­

fo rm in g education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (1980). Beyond the correspondence theory: N otes on the dynamics

o f educational reproduction and transformation. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 225-248.

Giroux, H. A. (1981a). Id eo lo g y, culture a n d the p ro cess o f schooling. Phila­ delphia: Temple University Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1981b). H egem ony, resistance, and the paradox o f educational reform. In terch a n g e, 12, 3-2 6 .

Giroux, H. A. (1981c). Toward a new sociology o f curriculum. In H. A. Giroux, A. N. Penna, & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Curriculum a n d instruction: A ltern a tives in education (pp. 98-108). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Giroux, H. A. (1983a). Theory a n d resistance in education: A p ed a g o g y f o r the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1983b). Theories o f reproduction and resistance in the new so­ ciology o f education: A critical analysis. H a rva rd E du ca tio n a l R eview , 53, 261— 293.

Giroux, H. A. (1985a). Toward a critical theory o f education: Beyond a Marxism with guarantees— A response to Daniel Liston. E d u ca tio n a l Theory, 35, 313— 319.

Giroux, H. A. (1985b). Thunder on the right: Education and the ideology o f the quick-fix. Curriculum Inquiry, 75(1), 57-62.

Giroux, H. A. (1987). Liberal arts, public philosophy, and the politics o f civic courage. Curriculum Inquiry, 77(3), 331-335.

Giroux, H. A. (1988a). Scho o lin g a n d the struggle f o r pu b lic life: Critical p e ­ dagogy in the m odern age. Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1988b). Teachers as in tellectu a ls: Toward a critical p ed a g o g y o f learning. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1988c). Border pedagogy in the age o f postmodernism. Journal o f E ducation, 170, 162-181.

Pinar and Bowers: Politics of Curriculum 189

Giroux, H. A. (1989). Rethinking education reform in the age o f George Bush. P hi D elta K a p p a n , 70, 728-730.

Giroux, H. (Ed.). (1991). P o stm o d ern , fe m in ism a n d cultural politics. Albany: State University o f N ew York Press.

Giroux, H. A ., & McLaren, P. L. (1989). Critical p ed a g o g y, the sta te, a n d cultural struggle. Albany: State U niversity o f N ew York Press.

Giroux, H. A ., Penna, A. N ., & Pinar, W. F. (Eds.). (1981). Curriculum a n d instruction: A ltern a tives in education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Giroux, H. A ., & Purpel, D. (Eds.). (1983). The hidden curriculum a n d m oral education: D ecep tio n or d isc o ve ry? Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Gramsci, A. (1972.) S electio n s fr o m the prison n o teb o o ks o f A n to n io G ram sci (1st ed.; Q. Hoare & G. N . Smith, Eds. and Trans.). N ew York: International Publishers. (Original work published 1971)

Gramsci, A. (1975). S electio n s fr o m cultural writings (D. Forgacs & G. N. Smith, Eds.; W. Boelhoem er, Trans.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.

Held, D. (1980). In tro d u ctio n to critical theory: H o rkh eim er to H a b erm a s. Berke­ ley: U niversity o f California Press.

Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work. Cur­ riculum Inquiry, 6(2), 153-167.

Hughes, J. D. (1983). A m erica n Indian ecology. El Paso: Texas Western Press. Jackson, P. (1968). L ife in classroom s. N ew York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jackson, W. (1987). A lta rs o f unhew n sto n e. San Francisco: North Point Press. Kincheloe, J. L ., & Pinar, W. F. (Eds.). (1991). Curriculum as social p sy c h o ­

analysis: E ssa ys on the significance o f p la ce. Albany: State University o f N ew York Press.

Lasch, C. (1991). The true a n d only heaven: P rogress a n d its critics. N ew York: Norton.

Leopold, A. (1966). A S a n d C ounty a lm anac. San Francisco and N ew York: A Sierra Club/Ballantine Book.

Liston, D. P. (1988). C apitalist schools: E xplanation a n d ethics in radical studies o f schooling. N ew York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Marx, K ., & Engels, F. (1974). Karl M arx a n d F rederick E ngels on literature an d art: A selection o f writings (L. Baxandall & S. Morawski, Eds.). N ew York: International General.

McCarthy, C. R. (1988). Slow ly, slow ly, slowly the dump speaks: Third world popular culture and the sociology o f the third world. Jou rn a l o f Curriculum Theorizing, 8(2), 7 -2 3 .

McCarthy, C. R. (1990a). Rethinking liberal and radical approaches to racial in­ equality in schools: Making the case for non-synchrony. H arvard E du ca tio n a l R eview (reprint series 21), 265-279.

McCarthy, C. R. (1990b). R a ce a n d curriculum . London: Falmer Press. McCarthy, C. R., & Apple, M. W. (1988). Race, class, and gender in American

education. In L. W eis (Ed.), C lass, race, a n d g en d er in A m erica n education (pp. 3-39). Albany: State U niversity o f N ew York Press.

McLaren, P. (1986). Scho o lin g as a ritual p erfo rm a n ce: Towards a p o litica l eco n ­ o m y o f ed u ca tio n a l sym b o ls a n d g estu res. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

McLaren, P. (1989). L ife in schools: A n introduction to critical p ed a g o g y in the fo u n d a tio n s o f ed u ca tio n . N ew York: Longman.

McLaren, P. (1990). Capitalist schools: Explanation and ethics in radical studies o f schooling, a review. Unpublished manuscript.

Miller, J. (1979). H isto ry a n d h um an existence: F rom M arx to M erleau-P onty. Berkeley: U niversity o f California Press.

190 Review of Research in Education, 18

N elson, R. K. (1983). M ake p ra yers to the raven: A Koyukon view o f the northern fo rest. Chicago: U niversity o f Chicago Press.

Oakes, J. (1985). K eeping track: H ow schools structure inequality. N ew Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Olson, P. (1981). Rethinking social reproduction. Interchange, 72, 1-2. Pinar, W. F. (1978). N otes on the curriculum field 1978. Educational R esearch er,

7(8), 5 -1 2 . Pinar, W. F. (1981). The abstract and the concrete in curriculum theorizing. In

H. A. Giroux, A. N. Penna, & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction: A lternatives in education (pp. 431-454). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Pinar, W. F. (1990). Impartiality and com prehensiveness in teaching curriculum theory. In J. T. Sears & J. D. Marshall (Eds.), Teaching and thinking about curriculum (pp. 259-264). N ew York: Teachers College Press.

Pinar, W. F ., & Reynolds, W. M. (Eds.). (1992). Understanding curriculum as phenom enological and d econ stru cted text. N ew York: Teachers College Press.

Rugg, H. (1929-1932). Man and his changing society (Rugg social science series o f the elementary school course, Vols. 1-6). Boston: Ginn.

Schubert, W. H ., Schubert, A. L. L ., Herzog, L ., Posner, G., & Kridel, C. (1988). A genealogy o f curriculum researchers. Journal o f Curriculum Theorizing, S (l), 137-184.

Schwab, J. (1970). The practical: A language f o r curriculum. Washingon, DC: National Education Association.

Shapiro, H. S. (1981). Functionalism, the state, and education: Towards a new analysis. Social Praxis, 9S(3/4), 5 -2 4 .

Shapiro, H. S. (1983). Class, ideology and the basic skills movement: A study in the sociology o f educational reform. Interchange, 74(2), 14-24.

Sharp, R. (1980). K n o w led g e, ideology and the po litics o f schooling: Towards a M arxist analysis o f education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Shor, I. (1986). Culture wars: School and society in the conservative restoration 1969-1984. N ew York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Shor, I. (1987a). Critical teaching and everyday life (3rd ed.). Chicago: University o f Chicago Press.

Shor, I. (Ed.). (1987b). Freire fo r the classroom : A sourcebook f o r liberatory teaching (1st ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). What is the dialogical method o f teaching? Journal o f Education, 169, 11-31.

Strike, K. A. (1989). Liberal ju stic e and the M arxist critique o f education. N ew York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Weis, L. (Ed.). (1988). Class, race and gender in Am erican education. Albany: State University o f N ew York Press.

Wexler, P. (1976). The sociology o f education: B eyon d equality. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs, Merrill.

Wexler, P. (1987). Social analysis o f education: A fter the new sociology. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Whitty, G. (1985). Sociology and school knowledge: Curriculum theory, research, and politics. London: Methuen.

Williams, R. (1976). K eyw ords: A vocabulary o f culture and society. N ew York: Oxford U niversity Press.

Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labour. Hampshire, England: Gower. Wood, G. H. (1988). D em ocracy and the curriculum. In L. E. Beyer & M. W.

Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problem s, politics and p ossibilities (pp. 166— 190). Albany: State University o f N ew York Press.