In the Fall of 2008, I enrolled in Education for Social and Cultural Change (ELC 721), a graduate course in the UNCG Education Leadership and Cultural Foundations program. The course was taught by H. Svi Shapiro. The curriculum included reading and discussing the following books (all links to openlibrary.org):
The final assignment was to respond to the following:
To be citizens of this country and members of the global community means to understand something of the force and pressures that are shaping our lives. It indicates an awareness of the political, moral, religious and cultural movements that are
contesting for influence and power here and elsewhere in the world.
How has this course contributed to our understanding of what citizenship education in a postmodern world should mean?
In what sense can it be argued that such an education is an intellectual, moral and spiritual process?
With some modifications for the blogoshere, this series, Citizenship Education, is my final paper submission.
With the growing awareness of the global scope of our everyday activities, dialog concerning political, moral, religious and cultural movements is now as relevant as ever. Education should cultivate knowledge of worldviews, from which we articulate our understandings of political, moral, religious and cultural norms from and into an integrated vision of reality. Critical reflection is crucial. How does my worldview impact my perception of my experiences? Part of the process of critical thinking is entering into dialog with others, with the full knowledge that real disagreements will exist. We can study worldviews in a number of ways. We can compare and contrast their conceptualization of the postmodern condition. We can evaluate the justice worldviews do to our everyday experiences. We can reflect on how worldviews encourage us to think of our neighbor. In this essay, I will critically reflect on the ideas of several authors, and attempt to enter into a dialog with them.
The term “Citizenship Education” implies the teaching about the particular relationship between an individual and a particular state, including the special rights and duties of the citizen. But the readings, films and discussions of this course were about something larger than being a citizen of the United States of America in the 21st century. They were more about coming to terms with the reality of being a member of a global community. They were about the realities that the golden rule to “do unto others as you would have to do unto you,” or the biblical command to “love my neighbor as myself” is not so easy when my neighbor is so very far away and so very strange. Each of the authors seem to intuitively understand that we struggle to relate to others equally, yet at the same time acknowledge, and do justice to, our real differences. Some of these differences are increasingly perceived to be at odds. The Postmodern era is full of questions. If our differences are at odds, how can we justify valuing one over another? If values are subjective and culturally bound, are there any beliefs and behaviors that we are responsible to uphold and others that are off-limits? Can I love my neighbor next door the same as someone who resides in across the globe? Someone who speaks a different language? Someone who worships a different deity? Is equality real, or is it just a notion that others may reject, justified in their accusation of the West’s imperialism? Answering these questions, and others equally as difficult, requires critical thinking. We need to heavily scrutinizing our conception of reality, and the norms it engenders. We need to hold our thought-life up to our everyday experiences and see if they correlate. We need to converse.
We are story-telling beings. Part of being a person is being involved in stories, telling stories about oneself and about others. We naturally think and talk about ourselves and our experiences as story. We want to understand ourselves, to have identity, and identification involves associating with something else. Stories carry meaning and significance. It helps us to see ourself as part of something that is bigger than us. I am a McClain. The McClain’s have a long history of migration. I am also a Whitmire. The Whitmires have a long history of farming, and, in contrast to the McClains, the majority haven’t migrated out of Western Pennsylvania for nearly two hundred years! This is not to say either family’s migration activity (or lack thereof) is superior, it is simply to say I share identity with both and therefore take comfort when confronted with a decision about my own migration, because I can understand the decision as part of a bigger story. If I stay, I can think of myself as being a typical Whitmire, living the Whitmire story. If I decide to move, then I’m being a typical McClain. This identity component provides a way for me to wrestle with and respond to my circumstances. It plays a part in my ability to have some peace about reality, and hope about the future. In this sense, an identity is a part of a person and a person is part of an identity. I think it is human to take this line of thinking to its logical end, and to attempt to locate an identity in a grand narrative, a cosmic story, a comprehensive theory of reality, a worldview. There are those that say humans should stop this project. But I do not think it is advisable nor possible. But what I do think one can do is fail to critically reflect upon one’s worldview. A person can have a lesser understanding about how his or her worldview influences his or hers perception of everyday experiences. When we fail to critically reflect on our worldview, we risk failing to recognize how our perception of the events in our lives has an equal part as the actual events. Events outside our control, and our interpretations of those events, inside our control, work together to color our experiences.
We are limited beings, however. Each of has physical limitations and has limited experiences. Therefore, the act of critically reflecting must incorporate regular dialog with others. This dialog will assist us in exposing blindspots in our worldview. This dialog will include consensus, but also disagreement. We should anticipate this. The world is not perfect. Disagreements are real. This is why authors write books advocating for change. The more we learn the more we discovery there is more to learn. We will continue to theorize about what we don not yet understand and those theories will differ. We will continue to shape differing worldviews.
How can we compare and contrast worldviews? I am inclined to agree with the philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff. In the collection of essays on higher education, Educating for Shalom, Wolterstorff advocates that the biblical concept of Shalom provides some guidance, “[The scriptures] speak of shalom, where everything exists in right relationship with everything else- God, humanity, nature.”(130) Shalom is a state of being which results from a proper recognition of how the diverse aspects of reality relate to each other and to God for the benefit of all. Shalom entails every entity and has an “ideal of human flourishing.”(Wolterstorff, 142) Justice is the cornerstone of shalom. Continuing, Wolterstorff says, “And those right relationships, [the biblical writers] insist, include justice. Without justice, without all the marginal and voiceless persons of the world being brought back into the community and given voice, there is no shalom.(130) A healthy worldview, one which can be characterized by shalom, will include a respect for the normative relationships found in reality, a love for neighbor and critical thinking marked by dialog.
Neighbor can be defined geographically, which include geopolitical affiliation, as well as cultural and economic aspects. But this is a weak definition. My neighbor is also the person who lives on the other side of the globe. The idea of Neighbor is not bound by space. I should want what’s best for people living across the globe equally as for people living next to me. While physical proximity will influence the kinds of interactions I’m likely to experience, I should not discriminate against someone just because he or she did not have the good fortune to live next to me. Nor is the idea of Neighbor bound by time. I should also want justice for those who will come after me. I should not be satisfied to leave my grandchildren, as well as the grandchildren of a person who lives on a different continent, a world with corrupted resources. That would be a failure to be their neighbor. I consider neighborliness to be normative. It is good and right and ultimately contributes to human flourishing, my own and my neighbors.
In contrast, what are the characteristics of a dysfunctional worldview? First, such a worldview will fail to recognize and respond accordingly to the relationships of Creator and creation. It will therefore fail to justly acknowledge and respect the diversity inherently found in reality that we all experience. Rather, it will advance reductionism, theories that favor one aspect of reality over others or credits one aspect of reality as the source of all.(Clouser, 127) It will fail to value a true plurality, denying that the diverse aspects of reality can really work together for good. The end-result of reductionism is a totalitarian, a “one size fits all” view of reality. In contrast to human flourishing, this singular, unifying vision results in human entrapment; the reductionists risks becomeing a slave to his or her misplaced loyalty. The result is that reductionists strip themselves and their neighbors the fullness of life. Secondly, a poor worldview will encourage us to favor ourselves over our neighbor. This injustice may be carried out on a small or large scale. It may result in slighting the person living next door, or prejudging a large group of persons. Lastly, the poor worldview disdains criticism. At first its adherents seek to dismiss critics, but ultimately, if empowered, they will seek to eliminate those who stand in opposition.
Francois Lyotard, in his widely recognized The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge wrote we are now living in an era in which Modernism “has lost its credibility.”(quoted in Wolterstoff, 120) This diagnosis sees the postmodern condition as a loss of faith in the worldviews embraced by Western civilization. The Enlightenment gave rise to a dualistic view of reality based on the Cartesian concept which separated and elevated mind over matter.(Pearcy, 103) We should recognize this reductionism. It attributes more power and authority to one aspect of reality. However, with the advances of science, matter came into prominence, and the immaterial aspects of reality, especially the spiritual, were denigrated. This story, of which Modernism is the product, promised humanity increased happiness through the mastery of nature through science. But this mastery has a cost. Modernism required that we accept a material side of reality as more real, more universal. Matter is the source of facts and cannot be questioned. In contrast, the immaterial “side” of reality, the realm of values, is non-binding and individualistic. This arrangement, so the Modernist worldview argued, allows us to maximize freedom; both society and individuals will achieve maximum happiness.
Postmodernism recognizes that Modernism has failed to deliver on its promises. We are not happier; we do not feel more free. Surely with the advent of science we have more power to extend our resources, but we are not fulfilled. We are discovering that Modernism is tyrannical. It tells us we should derive norms from facts alone because values, the immaterial “stuff” of life, like love and justice, do not carry the same weight as facts. We should therefore subject our values to “the facts.” As a result, we struggle with the question of whether we master material, or does material master us. Increasingly, we doubt if freedom exists. We recognize our happiness, indeed our humanity, is in jeopardy. We are experiencing a worldview blowback. I believe some of the course material support this line of thinking.
—
Clouser, Roy. The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay Into the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Rev. Ed. University of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame, IN. 2005.
Pearcy, Nancy R. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Crossway Books. Wheaton, IL. 2005.
Wolterstoff, Nicholas. Joldersma, Clarence W and Stronks, Gloria Goris. Eds. Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI. 2004.
Worldview Dialog
Citizenship Education
PREFACE
In the Fall of 2008, I enrolled in Education for Social and Cultural Change (ELC 721), a graduate course in the UNCG Education Leadership and Cultural Foundations program. The course was taught by H. Svi Shapiro. The curriculum included reading and discussing the following books (all links to openlibrary.org):
The final assignment was to respond to the following:
With some modifications for the blogoshere, this series, Citizenship Education, is my final paper submission.
With the growing awareness of the global scope of our everyday activities, dialog concerning political, moral, religious and cultural movements is now as relevant as ever. Education should cultivate knowledge of worldviews, from which we articulate our understandings of political, moral, religious and cultural norms from and into an integrated vision of reality. Critical reflection is crucial. How does my worldview impact my perception of my experiences? Part of the process of critical thinking is entering into dialog with others, with the full knowledge that real disagreements will exist. We can study worldviews in a number of ways. We can compare and contrast their conceptualization of the postmodern condition. We can evaluate the justice worldviews do to our everyday experiences. We can reflect on how worldviews encourage us to think of our neighbor. In this essay, I will critically reflect on the ideas of several authors, and attempt to enter into a dialog with them.
The term “Citizenship Education” implies the teaching about the particular relationship between an individual and a particular state, including the special rights and duties of the citizen. But the readings, films and discussions of this course were about something larger than being a citizen of the United States of America in the 21st century. They were more about coming to terms with the reality of being a member of a global community. They were about the realities that the golden rule to “do unto others as you would have to do unto you,” or the biblical command to “love my neighbor as myself” is not so easy when my neighbor is so very far away and so very strange. Each of the authors seem to intuitively understand that we struggle to relate to others equally, yet at the same time acknowledge, and do justice to, our real differences. Some of these differences are increasingly perceived to be at odds. The Postmodern era is full of questions. If our differences are at odds, how can we justify valuing one over another? If values are subjective and culturally bound, are there any beliefs and behaviors that we are responsible to uphold and others that are off-limits? Can I love my neighbor next door the same as someone who resides in across the globe? Someone who speaks a different language? Someone who worships a different deity? Is equality real, or is it just a notion that others may reject, justified in their accusation of the West’s imperialism? Answering these questions, and others equally as difficult, requires critical thinking. We need to heavily scrutinizing our conception of reality, and the norms it engenders. We need to hold our thought-life up to our everyday experiences and see if they correlate. We need to converse.
We are story-telling beings. Part of being a person is being involved in stories, telling stories about oneself and about others. We naturally think and talk about ourselves and our experiences as story. We want to understand ourselves, to have identity, and identification involves associating with something else. Stories carry meaning and significance. It helps us to see ourself as part of something that is bigger than us. I am a McClain. The McClain’s have a long history of migration. I am also a Whitmire. The Whitmires have a long history of farming, and, in contrast to the McClains, the majority haven’t migrated out of Western Pennsylvania for nearly two hundred years! This is not to say either family’s migration activity (or lack thereof) is superior, it is simply to say I share identity with both and therefore take comfort when confronted with a decision about my own migration, because I can understand the decision as part of a bigger story. If I stay, I can think of myself as being a typical Whitmire, living the Whitmire story. If I decide to move, then I’m being a typical McClain. This identity component provides a way for me to wrestle with and respond to my circumstances. It plays a part in my ability to have some peace about reality, and hope about the future. In this sense, an identity is a part of a person and a person is part of an identity. I think it is human to take this line of thinking to its logical end, and to attempt to locate an identity in a grand narrative, a cosmic story, a comprehensive theory of reality, a worldview. There are those that say humans should stop this project. But I do not think it is advisable nor possible. But what I do think one can do is fail to critically reflect upon one’s worldview. A person can have a lesser understanding about how his or her worldview influences his or hers perception of everyday experiences. When we fail to critically reflect on our worldview, we risk failing to recognize how our perception of the events in our lives has an equal part as the actual events. Events outside our control, and our interpretations of those events, inside our control, work together to color our experiences.
We are limited beings, however. Each of has physical limitations and has limited experiences. Therefore, the act of critically reflecting must incorporate regular dialog with others. This dialog will assist us in exposing blindspots in our worldview. This dialog will include consensus, but also disagreement. We should anticipate this. The world is not perfect. Disagreements are real. This is why authors write books advocating for change. The more we learn the more we discovery there is more to learn. We will continue to theorize about what we don not yet understand and those theories will differ. We will continue to shape differing worldviews.
How can we compare and contrast worldviews? I am inclined to agree with the philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff. In the collection of essays on higher education, Educating for Shalom, Wolterstorff advocates that the biblical concept of Shalom provides some guidance, “[The scriptures] speak of shalom, where everything exists in right relationship with everything else- God, humanity, nature.”(130) Shalom is a state of being which results from a proper recognition of how the diverse aspects of reality relate to each other and to God for the benefit of all. Shalom entails every entity and has an “ideal of human flourishing.”(Wolterstorff, 142) Justice is the cornerstone of shalom. Continuing, Wolterstorff says, “And those right relationships, [the biblical writers] insist, include justice. Without justice, without all the marginal and voiceless persons of the world being brought back into the community and given voice, there is no shalom.(130) A healthy worldview, one which can be characterized by shalom, will include a respect for the normative relationships found in reality, a love for neighbor and critical thinking marked by dialog.
Neighbor can be defined geographically, which include geopolitical affiliation, as well as cultural and economic aspects. But this is a weak definition. My neighbor is also the person who lives on the other side of the globe. The idea of Neighbor is not bound by space. I should want what’s best for people living across the globe equally as for people living next to me. While physical proximity will influence the kinds of interactions I’m likely to experience, I should not discriminate against someone just because he or she did not have the good fortune to live next to me. Nor is the idea of Neighbor bound by time. I should also want justice for those who will come after me. I should not be satisfied to leave my grandchildren, as well as the grandchildren of a person who lives on a different continent, a world with corrupted resources. That would be a failure to be their neighbor. I consider neighborliness to be normative. It is good and right and ultimately contributes to human flourishing, my own and my neighbors.
In contrast, what are the characteristics of a dysfunctional worldview? First, such a worldview will fail to recognize and respond accordingly to the relationships of Creator and creation. It will therefore fail to justly acknowledge and respect the diversity inherently found in reality that we all experience. Rather, it will advance reductionism, theories that favor one aspect of reality over others or credits one aspect of reality as the source of all.(Clouser, 127) It will fail to value a true plurality, denying that the diverse aspects of reality can really work together for good. The end-result of reductionism is a totalitarian, a “one size fits all” view of reality. In contrast to human flourishing, this singular, unifying vision results in human entrapment; the reductionists risks becomeing a slave to his or her misplaced loyalty. The result is that reductionists strip themselves and their neighbors the fullness of life. Secondly, a poor worldview will encourage us to favor ourselves over our neighbor. This injustice may be carried out on a small or large scale. It may result in slighting the person living next door, or prejudging a large group of persons. Lastly, the poor worldview disdains criticism. At first its adherents seek to dismiss critics, but ultimately, if empowered, they will seek to eliminate those who stand in opposition.
Francois Lyotard, in his widely recognized The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge wrote we are now living in an era in which Modernism “has lost its credibility.”(quoted in Wolterstoff, 120) This diagnosis sees the postmodern condition as a loss of faith in the worldviews embraced by Western civilization. The Enlightenment gave rise to a dualistic view of reality based on the Cartesian concept which separated and elevated mind over matter.(Pearcy, 103) We should recognize this reductionism. It attributes more power and authority to one aspect of reality. However, with the advances of science, matter came into prominence, and the immaterial aspects of reality, especially the spiritual, were denigrated. This story, of which Modernism is the product, promised humanity increased happiness through the mastery of nature through science. But this mastery has a cost. Modernism required that we accept a material side of reality as more real, more universal. Matter is the source of facts and cannot be questioned. In contrast, the immaterial “side” of reality, the realm of values, is non-binding and individualistic. This arrangement, so the Modernist worldview argued, allows us to maximize freedom; both society and individuals will achieve maximum happiness.
Postmodernism recognizes that Modernism has failed to deliver on its promises. We are not happier; we do not feel more free. Surely with the advent of science we have more power to extend our resources, but we are not fulfilled. We are discovering that Modernism is tyrannical. It tells us we should derive norms from facts alone because values, the immaterial “stuff” of life, like love and justice, do not carry the same weight as facts. We should therefore subject our values to “the facts.” As a result, we struggle with the question of whether we master material, or does material master us. Increasingly, we doubt if freedom exists. We recognize our happiness, indeed our humanity, is in jeopardy. We are experiencing a worldview blowback. I believe some of the course material support this line of thinking.
—
Clouser, Roy. The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay Into the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories. Rev. Ed. University of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame, IN. 2005.
Pearcy, Nancy R. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition). Crossway Books. Wheaton, IL. 2005.
Wolterstoff, Nicholas. Joldersma, Clarence W and Stronks, Gloria Goris. Eds. Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI. 2004.