Society has proven that when a person or group of people claim to have more
knowledge than another person or group, they often show power over one another. By
being knowledgeable about a certain topic, subject, or time in history a person can use
that knowledge to gain power. Knowledge and power directly correlate to Eurocentric
social studies curriculums globally. These connections are made by what Au, Brown &
Calderon call the role of whiteness and silence that excludes non-white voices to be
heard in historical context further spreading the white Eurocentric social studies
curriculum. In our past, we see how movements regarding social studies curriculum
either progress or digress inclusion of the forgotten voices in history. For instance,
modern-day states argue over critical race theory and the effects it has on children in
school. The critical race theory critiques liberalism and argues that whites have been
the primary beneficiaries of civil rights legislation. This directly connects to how the
curriculum is made for schools because it’s the people in power who spread the
knowledge they want others to hear. From our reading by LaGarrett J. King, he states,
“Even the more liberal social studies movements, such as the progressive and social
reconstruction periods, continued the “regime of truth” (Foucault, 1977) of White
superiority and Black inferiority (King, Davis, & Brown, 2012; Watkins, 2006).” As
white supremacy overtakes the school curriculum through different means we look at
what Ross describes as the “struggle” for social studies curriculum. Ross states,
“Operationally curriculum-standards projects in social studies are anti-democratic
because they severely restrict the legitimate role of teachers and other educational
professionals, as well as members of the public, from participating in the conversation
about the origin, nature, and ethics of knowledge taught in the social studies
curriculum” (Ross, 29). In this verbiage of teachers as “curriculum conduits” the
curriculum-centralization efforts in instruction are and can be separated from curricular
goals and objectives. Teachers should not only be a conduit of the curriculum for
students but be included in the full participation of creating the curriculum. Struggles
in the curriculum come at all angles but it’s what Ross says at the end of the article that
resonates with me. “It is the struggles over these contradictions that have shaped the
nature of the social studies curriculum in the past and continue to define it today”
(Ross, 32). Whiteness overcomes the school’s curriculum outlining different ethnic
groups struggling for inclusion. Different groups such as Chicanos/Latinos, Asian
Americans, and Native Americans struggle for inclusion in the social studies
curriculum because of the whiteness and silence embedded into the curriculum.
“Despite a wide range of important intellectual ideas and tensions in the field of
curriculum studies, the most significant voices to surface are again white male
academics” (Au, Brown, Calderon, 6). The white male ideologies resemble Foucault's
ideological construct informed by power. As for other studies a scholar named
Blackwell decided to study and advocate for the study of “Genealogies of resistance.”
Valenzuela states, “Such approaches draw from discarded and subjugated knowledge
to create “new forms of consciousness customized to embodied material realities,
political visions, and creative desires for societal transformation.” As generations move
on the historical importance to change curriculums as time progresses is important in
providing an inclusive learning environment for all students no matter race, gender,
nationality.
Au, Brown, and Calderon wrote about master narratives within the foundations of
curriculum studies revealing truths about two sides. The “invisible” narrative of the
foundation of curriculum studies has a massive hole in its ideas, histories, and theories.
For instance, African American philosopher Alain Locke was one of the leading
scholars of mainstream curriculum debates in the 20th century but he is often not
mentioned. This is another example of how white Eurocentric ideas take priority over
“invisible” narratives in history. In the invisible narratives, Asian Americans’ history
in the curriculum is scarce. Other ethnicities are left out of the curriculum because of
the whiteness that leads the plot of the curriculum. In the “master” narratives of the
foundations of curriculum studies, the ideas, theories, and histories all fall under one
“master” narrative excluding others. The “master” narrative is the whiteness and
silence that has been embedded in the social studies curriculum throughout history. I
do completely agree with these claims about the social studies curriculum. I agree
because in the social studies curriculum the main storyline is led by white influencers
that shaped the world. As a teacher, our goal is to make the content culturally relevant
to not exclude a narrative from the curriculum’s storyline.