The Paranoid Curriculum
John Schostak
1996
(This schema was
developed during a Master's course I taught when a Visiting Professor at
McMaster University, Canada - it has been developed in Schostak 2000)
This outline develops a
schema for a particular kind of curriculum, a particular kind of learning
relationship, generated between a
dominant individual/group (Pd read as dominant person) and an Other, a subordinate or inferior individual
or group (Os read as subordinate other).
It starts from the assumption
that we are born into worlds, the shape of which, the scenery of which, the
elements of which must be formed into relationships, perspectives, ways of
seeing through the process of learning a language/culture. The mirror has long been used as a
metaphor of this process. Mead and
Cooley in the 1930s both talked of the self being formed through the ways the
other responds to the self. Cooley
talked in particular of the looking glass self. Lacan talked of the mirror stage of child development. At around 7-18 months old, the visual
acuity of the child develops faster than the ability to coordinate the limbs of
the body. Looking into a mirror
somehow fixes and gives shape to the body which is at odds with the sense of
inner incoherence, or clumsiness from not being able to control the bodily
movements and sensations.
Similarly, as the child develops, language and culture provide a means
of 'fixing' or giving shape to all the unknowns, the uncertainties, the flux of
life. Cultural products provide
mirrors, selves are fixed by the self's own gaze into the mirror.
The following schema is
constructed with these ideas in mind and in particular with the case of Judge
Schreber in mind:
Pd has a conceptual
framework which defines Os in terms of
1. identity
2. conduct
3. potential for becoming/growth
4. use and value
5. social position and function
Simultaneously, Pd's
framework defines how Pd should behave towards Os to realise goals and
intentions (this is applied in terms of a specific Regimen).
Pd applies a Regimen (R) on
Os. The principles and procedures
which define R are directed towards a systematic control of:
1. Os's beliefs about Pd's intentions and knowledge
2. Os's conduct and behaviour
3. Os's presentation of Self in terms of such dimensions
as posture, speech, dress
4. Os's interpretations of bodily experiences, awareness
of bodily experiences and formation of body-image
5. Os's beliefs concerning the extent to which Pd
knows/sees into Os
6. Os's knowledge of Self and World
7. Os's experience of Self and formation of self identity
(where identity is a function of the Other)
In addition, records and
reports about Os are made and continually reported. Some are a) behind the scenes, and some are b) as a
continual reminder to Os.
In relationship to these
experiences, where Os is not privy to Pd's framework, nor to the goals and
values, Os's options are:
1. complete Faith in Pd
2. an attitude which leads to the continual search
for
3. signs upon which to found interpretations of Pd's
behaviour in order to inform own reactions in terms of either
4. choose to take recourse to counter discourses which
either:
I.
have no access to Pd
discourses
II.
or, have covert access
to Pd discourses
III.
or, members have been
but are no longer Pd's
5. choose complete or limited submission
6. choose 'a quiet life' of apparent submission
7. choose disguised rejection
8. choose open rejection
Because Pd anticipates Os's
alternatives to complete Faith, Pd's strategies for the application of R are:
1. adopt a discourse of love, care and a benign
vocabulary which categorises all Pd acts as being 'in your best interests';
such a discourse screens or veils,
2. use force, threats, terror
3. use privation (by denying access to opportunities and
rewards) in conjunction with '1' and a discourse of opportunity, and merit
4. generate a discourse of self blame for all failure,
and self praise for all success as covering discourse which creates a sense of
self-responsibility and autonomy
The most subtle of
strategies would use all of the above within a discourse structure that
disguises or diverts attention from the real source of any threats, and
privations and which permeates all discourse with 'love', 'care' and a
vocabulary of 'in your best interests'.
_____________________________________________________________________
Comments and
hyperlinked notes added May 2003
It is not too farfetched
to see educational manuals advocating these approaches. Have a look at John Lock for a very
early behavioural account or
Rogers' more recent manual for teachers.
References
Cooley, C. H. (1902) Human nature and the
social order, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons
Lacan, J. (1977) 'The mirror stage as formative
of
the function of the I', in: Écrits. A selection.
London: Tavistock/Routledge
Locke, J. (1693, 1989) Some thoughts concerning
education, edited with
introduction, notes and critical apparatus by John W. and Jean S. Yolton,
Oxford, Clarendon,
Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press
Schostak, J. F. (2000) 'Developing Under
Developing Circumstances: the
Personal and Social Development of Students and the Process of Schooling'
in: J. Elliott and H.
Altrichter, Images of
Educational Change, Open
University
Schreber, D. P. (1955, 1988) Memoirs of My
Nervous Illness. Trans. Ida
Macalpine and Richard, Hunter. (London: Dawson, 1955). Second Revised Edition
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Belknap.
Return to Main Page of the Enquiry Learning Unit