A Critical Analysis of Three Worldviews and Their Implications on CurriculumEssay Preview: A Critical Analysis of Three Worldviews and Their Implications on CurriculumReport this essayA Critical Analysis of Three Worldviews and Their Implications on Curriculum“Abstract”This paper discusses three worldviews: Modernism, Postmodernism, and Faith. It explores several different aspects of these world views such as their epistemologies and philosophies. Then it discusses how these foundations impact curriculum. Finally it attempts to make an analysis of which worldview is truly curriculum wisdom.
A Critical Analysis of Three Worldviews and Their Implications on CurriculumThe purpose of this paper is to look at 3 different worldviews and their implications on educational curriculum. I have chosen to explore modernism, postmodernism, and faith. In this paper faith will generally refer to Christianity; however, it is hoped that the reader can make broader generalizations to the concept of faith. There maybe many worldviews that I have missed, but I believe that these three are the most prevalent in our culture. This is important because many people are operating out of these different frames of mind and do not even realize it. Then when they come in contact with a person who is operating from a different worldview they cannot find common ground and misunderstandings occur. The primary purpose of this paper is to inform people of these different perspectives and how they impact society especially with regards to curriculum. A secondary purpose it to critique these three worldviews from a wisdom paradigm.
Robert Kegan has a hierarchal way of knowing that maintains similar labels as the ones used to describe the worldviews in this paper. Out of his five orders of consciousness his latter three seem to parallel the worldviews from a superficial perspective. Although there are similarities between the orders of consciousness and the worldviews, there are some fundamental foundational differences. Although there is some overlapping between the worldviews they are for the most part separate and distinct from one another. It does not necessarily concern itself with the way we know, but rather the idea that our worldview impacts what we chose to believe. It is possible to stand outside of our own worldview and critique that of another. In contrast the order of consciousness is hierarchal; each order is dependent
on the previous order. Kegans orders also come from some presuppositions about the way we know. He states, “The general idea of ways of knowing derives from the tradition of constructivism.” (Kegan, 1994, 199) From this papers perspective that statement places him in the postmodern framework, which does not allow him to stand outside of his views as a postmodern knower. Although he himself states that he is not a postmodern knower, what he really means is that he subscribes to the postmodern philosophy, but that he is not fully mature in his developmental process within that framework.
ModernismModernism got its start in the Renaissance period and came into maturation through the Enlightenment. The idea of Humanism is a current that underlies modernism. Coming out of the medieval structure of government, philosophy, religion, science, and art the Renaissance occurred. Then in 1517 a young monk named Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation which took the Scriptures out of the Catholic Churchs hands and placed them into the hands of the individual. (Glydenvand, 1981) This was the beginning of the emphasis on the individual in place of the institution. With time the individual was divorced from God and from society. Human beings were seen as autonomous without regard to society as a whole.
From here the Enlightenment in Western Europe was occurring along side of the Scientific Revolution. As Copernicus challenged the belief that the sun is the center of the universe with The Revolution in 1543, Galileo and Newton made new amazing scientific discoveries that discredited the Roman Catholic Church even more. People were no longer accepting the dogma that they were taught. Instead people started relying on natural law and reason to discover the universe. Rene Descartes instituted the idea of rationality, and John Locke, “father of modern empiricism”, developed the idea of natural law.
Rene Descartes was a mathematician who searched for certainty. In his Discourse he searched for primary truths that one could build upon. He went as far as proving his own existence with his famous quote “I think, therefore I am.” This promoted the idea of rationality which was that mankind can discover the truth based on reason alone. (Sproul, 2000)
Unlike Descartes, Locke challenges the idea of rationality. He thought that the mind is a tabula rasa or a blank slate; everything is learned by experience. The idea of empiricism is only that which can be perceived by our senses exists. He also ascribes to the correspondence theory of truth which is the idea that there is a truth that corresponds to reality. His idea of natural law also has implications on modernity especially in our democratic nations. Civil law is enacted by a combination of natural law and the law of opinion. Whether or not civil law is virtuous depends upon natural law which rests on the Law of God which can be known through natural reason. To be noted the Law of God does not necessarily correlate with the Christian perspective on God. This idea that a natural law should impact civil law has implications against a pure democracy, for a virtuous law is one that rests upon natural law; therefore a republic is preferable to a democracy. (Sproul, 2000)
The Idea of Human Decision Is Not an Idea of the Christian
The religious and Christian view of God and human decision are inseparable. In fact, according to Augustine, a Christian is not a believer but a prophet. There may be no idea of God; the Christian is not a prophet but the “god of revelation”, the person that makes and delivers his message to God. These two concepts imply a conception of the world that is distinct from the idea of human decision. In an abstract sense, a modern democratic society is neither a democracy [as it has been explained by Aristotle] nor theocracy (it is not, by its very nature, a democracy, for there is no single state) but as a “society of rights and obligations”, as we shall see in the next chapter.
The question of human decision is also related to the idea of God. Since the very idea of human decision is tied to the idea of the world, it is also linked to the notion of human choice-making. This is why one of the most popular theories of secular democracy, “The Idea of Human Decision”, states that human decision is not a question of “natural law” and that human decision on moral questions is not a question of theology, for the concept of moral obligation is not connected with such a theory. What is required in modern democracy to produce a morally good outcome, this is due to the concept of the social obligation and human choice. For a socialist to lead life, he must have the moral imperative to choose the life he values most and act immediately accordingly. If someone has bad things to say or is morally indifferent to the things he means, he will go to great lengths to avoid these bad things. This seems to fit the Christian idea of human decision. Although the concept of human decision did not develop from a Christian perspective, it developed from the view of a Christian thinker in England, where the idea of human decision was not very influential, until that time. It came from a Christian belief system. In England, the idea of Christian decision was taken by the Calvinist Thomas Hobbes, who thought that a good society should be set up where men and women with the most equal capacities are made to pursue and to be able to overcome good works. This notion of human decision was reflected in his life.
In his theology of the law, Hobbes argued that our justice must rest upon the idea that only in the great measure can God be created without creating a human being. Hobbes also argued that God’s greatness could be judged by the way that He created the world. [1] [2] The law of God rests upon how the individual in the universe is brought into the being of the Creator, not upon how His goodness and wisdom are directed with respect to the universe.
Human Decision and the Idea of the Creator
The concept of humans is not something found in other concepts (such as the idea of the universal law of nature). It exists only in the classical concept of human decision (e.g., Plato’s Republic [27]) and in philosophy (e.g., Bohm’s Aeuwerk [27]). These concepts have never been considered as distinct concepts within the religious traditions of religion, since they are all derived from the idea of God. This has led to the idea of human decision being held independently of the idea of God. In the first part of this chapter, I see how common this thought is among Christians.
The notion of human decision is still quite common in Christian thought and by some accounts it is as well. We may well recognize that God has said, “Do not judge me but only when I am judged.” We may also acknowledge that human judgment is usually based on actions but is usually based on the very knowledge that God is the one to judge
In the late 1800s Darwin revolutionized the world of science with his books The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. (Gelb, 2002) These books dealt with natural selection and the concept of survival of the fittest. Although these books dealt mainly with evolution in the scientific realm, many people used these concepts to promote Social Darwinism. The idea was that people were progressing or evolving into better people or a better race. This thought coupled with the idea of the survival of the fittest had devastating consequences in Nazi Germany, for the strongest had the evolutionary right to succumb the weak.
Modernism views human natures as material machines. We live in a physical world and have evolved from lower life