Third wheel thoughts on method and the shitty curriculum

ABSTRACT

In this article, I interrupt in the exchange between Hugo Letiche and Nathan Snaza published in this same issue. What concerns me are a series of unsophisticated questions about method, including the repudiation of curriculum as method and syllabus, which I will initially refer to, and later endorse, as “the shitty curriculum.”

Notes

1. One might find it odd for me to describe Letiche and Snaza as lovers, and their exchange as something of a lover's quarrel, but I think it is hard to see these sorts of exchanges as anything but amorous.

2. In 2010, I penned an essay, included in my 2017 collection, Tell Them Something Beautiful: Essays and Ephemera, titled “‘Death to Self’ as Catholic Posthumanism,” arguing for a posthuman reading of the Christian Gospel—far be it from me to suggest a facile humanism against the errors of posthumanist critique today.

3. One can also find this in the preface to Snaza and Weaver's edited book, which is also more famously repeated by Rosi Braidotti in The Posthuman (2014).

4. I make this distinction in the fifth chapter of my book Folk Phenomenology: Education, Study, and the Human Person (2013).

5. I present this reading of the reconceptualization of curriculum in “Folk Phenomenology and the Offering of Curriculum” in Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy 13(2), 121–135.

6. A recent essay of mine titled, “Theological Posthumanism and Atheistic Education,” in the Summer 2017 issue of The Education Letter makes this point more clearly.

7. I laid this out in more detail in a chapter entitled “History and Philosophy of Education as ‘Post Qualitative’ Educational Research,” in Blount, Errante, and Kimball's (2017) Philosophy and History of Education: Diverse Perspectives on Their Value and Relationship, to which Patti Lather wrote a critical response.