Research Paper Philosophy Of Education

Philosophy of Education Research PaperAbstract This paper on Essentialism has been written to provide educators with a view of that philosophy and to encourage them and administrators to continue to foster excellence among their students by adhering to the principles and practices of the Essentialist doctrine. There can be no doubt that a firm grounding in a basic or core curriculum and the development of personal morals and values will be advantageous to all students. From the student entering pre-school, to the student completing a college degree, knowledge is power. Knowledge of history, of math, of science, of language, of social studies, and of the arts will benefit an individual throughout life. IntroductionTeachers who subscribe to the philosophy of Essentialism may have a somewhat easier job in that the subjects comprising the curriculum they are teaching is one which has been used for generations of students. The author E.D. Hirsch states,” School is the traditional place for acculturating children into our natural life. Family, church, and other institutions play an important role, but school is the only institution that is susceptible to public policy control.” (Hirsch, 1987, p.110). There are basic or core elements within each academic subject which formthe foundation upon which knowledge continues to expand. Essentialism is an educational philosophy which reflects the belief that the teacher provides essential knowledge to students as well as the skills to implement that knowledge. It is that knowledge and the ability to develop skills which enables the student to be successful in life. The Essentialist philosophy “emphasizesthe mastery of essential skills, facts, and concepts that form the basis of the subject matter “ (Ornstein and Hankins, 2004, p. 41). Through essentialism, or modern realism, students receive2

What are the potential dangers of privileging difference to the point of obfuscating continuity? The core-periphery model may obfuscate minute detail, but the continuity it illustrates in colonial relationships is essential for... more

What are the potential dangers of privileging difference to the point of obfuscating continuity? The core-periphery model may obfuscate minute detail, but the continuity it illustrates in colonial relationships is essential for problematizing and destroying these colonial relationships and their historical, geographical, social, political, economic, ideational, emotional, etc. legacies. The key to determining whether generalization is violent or useful comes in the intention of generalization. Do we generalize with the intention of imposing the generality upon that which differs from the order of things asserted therein, to form a standard from which we can hierarchically dominate difference to create an artificially unitary order in manifestation, or do we generalize with the intention of fighting against an oppressive Worldview, Philosophy, Social Structure, Political Structure, Economic Structure, etc. by illustrating its generally oppressive outcomes. To we generalize the Indigenous/ Shamanic Worldview and the Colonial Modernist Worldview with the intention of valorizing the Colonial, denigrating the Indigenous and thus imposing the Colonial Modernist Worldview upon Indigenous peoples, or do we generalize these Worldviews with the intention of illustrating their general differences in a manner that facilitates problematization of the banality of the Colonial Modernist Worldview and defends the Indigenous/ Shamanic Worldview from cultural genocide through cosmological, ontological, teleological, epistemological, etc. assimilation. Massey (2007) argues that general conceptions of 'the world city' set " up certain western cities (including London) as norms against which others then come to be judged. " (p. 93) In the case of world cities, then, the intention of generalization is formation of a standard that can be imposed upon the cities of the world—a standard that drives towards the oppression of neoliberal capitalist urban development—and we should thus follow her lead in critiquing this form of generalization. That being said, Massey's general thrust towards " [valuing] and [building] on the diversity between cities " (p. 93) seems to fall into a much broader trend in the contemporary Geographical literature to fetishize difference to the point of obfuscating important lines of continuity. We must eschew generalizations of world cities that seek to form a standard that can be imposed upon cities around the world to foster neoliberal capitalist urban development, but we must not eschew the generalizations of neoliberal capitalist urban development and its deleterious implications (particularly for marginalized communities) that allow us to understand the dire implications of generalizations of world cities that form standards which, when imposed upon a city, foster neoliberal capitalist urban development. We must eschew generalizations like 'the world city' that seek to dominate difference, but we must retain the capacity to generalize about systems like neoliberal capitalist urban development that, by their general, systemic nature, dominate that which differs from the norms established by the Archons of society. We must eschew generalizations that seek to dominate difference, but we must also retain the capacity to generalize about systems (Worldviews, Philosophies, Social Systems, Political Systems, Economic Systems, etc.) that seek to dominate. Generalization with the intention of dominating difference is not acceptable, but generalization for the sake of helping to destroying oppressive systems of hierarchical domination by illustrating the general implications of hierarchical domination (which is to

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *