Class 8: March 3, 2008

Postmodern, Post-Slattery, Post-Baudrillard: Where to Next?

Something we didn't talk about in all the celebration of Slattery and Baudrillard and postmodernism was if postmodernism is here to stay. Might it wither away like modernity? Might modernity return after a postmodern implosion? Who's to say? People could, after the exponential information dissemination of the late 20th century that continues now, define more aggressive social interests, possibly rendering highly polarized and internally aligned social castes. Ingested information (education) creates personal independence and, in the mind of the right individual, considerable power. Just think of the Watergate scandal. Baudrillard said it wasn't a scandal until Nixon's enemies got hold of the information and spun it to make it appear like a scandal. Also, consider the those who learned, in the US, how to fly the planes that brought down the Twin Towers.

Knowledge about the power that information can create isn't 21st century wisdom. I like the biblical proverb that says, "Get the truth, and sell it not - wisdom, instruction and understanding" (Proverbs 23:23). The gospel of Matthew also says (7:6), "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces." These days, information isn't even being bought and sold (yes it is , but), it's free, all thanks to the internet. Should there be univerally tighter controls over information and regulation of internet content? We regulate content availability in schools. However, regulation takes us back to modernity, doesn't it?

Slattery

On p18 of his article, Slattery points out that "postmodern educators are committed to a new concept of curriculum development that will complement the social and cultural milieu of [the postmodern] era of human history." Are we? We are all postmodern educators because we are all teaching in postmodern times. But do we believe that the curriculum we create complements the present social and cultural milieu? We need to really be in touch with the milieu before we can begin, so should we all own a cell phone or an iPod? I have neither, but have been considering a cell phone because it is cheaper than my OnStar subscription and car phone. Also, with the increasing use of podcasting to deliver programs that actually interest me, it might do me well to succumb to some kind of iPod technology. This is Baudrillard's object domination of the subject.

I am not saying Slattery is wrong about the commitment of postmodern educators, but agree with his implication suggesting that before a postmodern educator embodies a postmodern spirit. I also agree with him when on p20 he says that "postmodernism offers the best theoretical paradigm for exploring curriculum development." This implies eclecticism, an operative mode that makes good pedagogical sense.

A section of Slattery's paper that demonstrates a problematic with postmodernism is found on on p30. There, Slattery says that Pattie Lather and other feminist researchers would argue that David Griffin is an ultramodernist because he attempts to reconstruct a worldview that includes truth and God. What in heaven's name is wrong with that? Is there no room for God and an idea of absolute truth in a postmodern reality? Yes, postmodernism acknowledges many truths, but within those many is the possibility of one absolute. There is something common to all in the human condition, and that is the capacity to experience truth, even if it is personal. Perhaps this common experience could be considered an absolute truth if one founded upon a deity can not.

In class, I summed up Slattery's article with what at the bottom of p31 he quotes Henry Giroux as saying: "Giroux's inclusive political theory affirms the democratic, eclectic, and empowerment dimensions of postmodern thought." And, as it says a few lines above that quote, traversing "subject-area disciplinary boundaries" demonstrates a commitment to postmodern reform. Therefore, math can be taught with science, and ELA with social studies. Great news. Yet, has that not always been known?

Baudrillard

Drumroll please. "Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth, vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Yes, I quoted the wrong verse in class (I said 11:1, then 1:11), but at least my quote is in Ecclesiastes.

The simulacrum. I took for granted that everyone would have understood the word to mean simulation, an artificial reality, so I didn't define it. It may have been worthwhile to, however. Also, though I discussed it in my handout, I didn't address in the presentation the flip of the Borges map. I looked up Borges in my preparation for the presentation and read the fable, but made no mention of it. Regardless though of my significant omissions, I think I satisfactorily discussed Baudrillard's ideas of simulated reality.

The questions I had posed for reflection (see http://www.forrm.ca/edub7560/PresenterSheets.pdf) were intended to foster dialogue on the simulacra that exist within society and in particular education. Curriculum, though it is guided by "reality", can be seen as a pure simulacrum. Curriculum is the map which preceeds the territory: teachers teach and the world is shaped by the teaching, which in turn informs curricularists, who inform teachers, who again teach, and the cycle repeats itself. It is an endless trade in codes (values), models (identity) and signs (signifiers of values and identity), which Baudrillard says is the mark of pure simulacra. This implies that reality is just one big simulation that is conceived within peoples minds and enacted by their bodies. Shakespeare said "all the world's a stage, and we are all mere players on it" (maybe not a perfect quote, but it's off the cuff). The global village has become a Disneyland, and we are all actors in a world of our own creation, which scarcely resembles the natural... the real. This may be true, but the reality principle, that natural law which governs the cosmos and protects metaphysics, can never be overtaken by the world of simulation. The true reality principle is not connected to capital, as Baudrillard might have us believe, but to nature, the order of existence. And though the signs of a simulated bank robbery might be the same as those of one real, making them equivalent at a sign level, there is still a distinction between the two at the level of intention, which is of the real order of things and not simulation.

Intention, as we have discussed in class, is one of those things that in the classroom, gets flipped around. What my intentions are for a math lesson may actually have the reverse effect, depending on the variables at play. So, Baudrillard's reversal idea makes sense. Yet, when the map can't scribe out the reality, it is the map which changes to adjust to the reality. How many of us have had to create a lesson on the fly because the students directed it so? Reality principle to the rescue! Also, grades are the common currency of education, signs that open doors to scholarships and advancement. The problem with grades, as we all know, is that an 80% from Teacher A may be equivalent to a 90% from Teacher B. Where's the truth? Who would really deserve the scholarship? At one level, the signs are equivalent. Is standardized testing the only mechanism we have to build justice into the system? What about a homogeneous delivery where every teacher teaches the same lesson for the same amount of time, using the same assignments and assessment tools? Justice? Truth? Jusuth? Truice? ?!? Post-reality?

Last comment. My play on tautologies to deny Baudrillard's claim of the truth of the simulacrum didn't actually prove the simulacrum false, but just cast Baudrillard's claim into doubt. The laws of logic definitely state that a true statement can not imply a false one. However, the T --> ~T statement actually had nothing to do with the assertion that the simulacrum was true. The claim that the simulacrum was true was just a claim Baudrillard had made, without proof. The thing was, he lied. So, the sumulacrum is as much false as it is true, which makes it meaningless. Vanity of vanities!