Toward a New Sociology of Curriculum

Abstract

Anthony Giddons, the English sociologist, once remarked that those who waiting for a Newton of the social sciences are not only waiting for a train that won't arrive, they're in the wrong station alto gether.1 Giddons' remark could very well have set the stage for one of the most interesting and urgent debates now taking place in the curriculum field in the United States. At the heart of this debate is the question of whether the curriculum field can continue to pattern itself after the model of the natural sciences. It is not simply that the curriculum field suffers from serious misconceptions regarding its mode of reasoning and methodology. What is at stake is more than a con ceptual problem. The real issue centers on whether the field is moribund, both politically and ethically. Put another way, is the curriculum field in a state of arrest, incapable of developing either emancipatory intentions or new curricular possibilities?2 Debate of this sort is not new to the curriculum field. Questions concerning the role that schools and curriculum play in reproducing the values and atti tudes necessary for the maintenance of the dominant society have been raised by educators since the turn of the century. What is new is the scope as well as the nature of some of the questions being raised. This should not suggest that a new school or paradigm has appeared in the field. Such an assumption would be both misleading and inaccurate. It would be mislead ing because those who make up what I will label as the new sociology of curriculum movement represent many critical strands and traditions. It would be in accurate to call such a movement a paradigm because it would oversimplify its varied members' relatedness and depth of commitment to a new world view, one that speaks to a unifying set of assumptions and