Conflicts in Curriculum Theory: Challenging Hegemonic Epistemologies

The title under review, Conflicts in Curriculum Theory: Challenging Hegemonic Epistemologies, makes an important and timely contribution to the internationalization of curriculum studies. In this book, Joao Paraskeva called for freeing the curriculum from Western epistemological boundaries. He drew heavily on Santos (2008) who argued that “the decolonization of science is based on the idea that there is no global social justice without global cognitive justice [and] the logic of the monoculture of scientific knowledge and rigor must be confronted with the identification of other knowledges” (p. xlix). Situated in this line of thought, Paraskeva made a strong argument for epistemological diversity and cognitive pluralism. He recommended that we “assume consciously that (an)other knowledge is possible” and that we “go beyond the Western epistemological platform, paying attention to other forms of knowledge and respecting indigenous knowledge within and beyond the Western space” (p. 152). Paraskeva looked at the field of curriculum studies from a historical perspective. He used the metaphor of a river to offer an understanding of how the field has evolved and how different theorists fought to control the flow of the river. Referring to various tensions in the field, he proposed an itinerant curriculum theory to fight against epistemicide. He argued that deterritorialization of the field was necessary to achieve socially just curricula because the knowledge of the Western male had dominated the field of curriculum and other knowledges have been silenced. In chapter 1, “The Nature of Conflict,” Paraskeva delineated various conflicts in the curriculum field from a historical point of view. He discussed how school curricula have traditionally avoided conflicts and tensions and reproduced social inequalities through hidden curricula. At the heart of these conflicts was the agenda of knowledge: what knowledge was worth knowing? As Paraskeva mentioned: “the nature of conflict is determined by the dynamics—of form and of content—inherent in the ways socially valid knowledge is diffused throughout the schools” (p. 22). The author then traced how critical progressive theorists, such as Apple, Giroux, and others, have challenged dominant and oppressive traditions within the field of curriculum studies. Chapter 2, “The Struggle over Knowledge Control,” presented a historical account of curriculum inquiry in the United States (U.S.) from the 1890s to the beginning of the 20th century. It illustrated the tensions within the field and the battles for controlling knowledge. Discussing the works and thoughts of prominent theorists, such as Eliot, Hall, Ward, Rice, Harris, and others, Paraskeva explained how these curriculum pioneers were engaged in conflicts over knowledge control.