Critical Pragmatism

Critical pragmatism evolved from the need for a critical revision of pragmatism, which was held in low regard by many philosophers, especially in Europe. One of the contributing factors for the need was the lack of structured and identifiable standards and procedures allowing for rational and reflective practices in pragmatism. Critical pragmatists view the curriculum as the vehicle with which schools can bring about the desired social changes for the advancement of the community. To achieve this goal, curriculum developers must understand and appreciate the main premises of critical pragmatism.

In pragmatism, Charles Sanders Peirce's maxim is the requirement of clarity of meaning while critical pragmatism requires the validity of meaning as well as clarity; in other words, critical pragmatism asks whether the knowledge will mean the same for different people in different contexts. Cleo Cherryholmes in his book, Reading Pragmatism, argued critical pragmatists should examine their thoughts and actions in terms of imagined outcomes. He asserted that critical pragmatists attempt to examine their actions in relation to history and power, and as a result, critical pragmatists reinterpret their goals in light of theories and beliefs to form new goals.

Critical pragmatists view knowledge as the manifestation of understandings of the relationship between theory and practice. To the critical prag-matists, theoretical and empirical knowledge have to be embedded within practical reasoning to be of value. Pointedly, critical pragmatism attempts to make sense of knowledge in the context of the real world. To the critical pragmatists, the focus should be placed on the clarity and validity of the meaning of empirical and theoretical knowledge.

Critical pragmatism reconciles pragmatic and critical pedagogies in a comprehensive approach. Pragmatic pedagogy contends that students should be taught the knowledge and skills that will prepare them to function in the society. In essence, the curriculum has to be learner centered, which focuses on improving students' abilities of problem solving to advance in the existing society.

On the other hand, critical pedagogy asserts that students should be encouraged to critique the existing educational practices and suggests changes that will improve the educational system and in turn the community. In other words, the curriculum needs to have a learner-centered approach that focuses on the students' critical skills to analyze and evaluate the current society, identify its ills, and develop solutions to change such society to the better. It is important to note, however, that critical pragma-tists acknowledge the need to teach fundamental knowledge and skills while giving students the choice to chart their path as they learn.

Alison Kradlec, in her 2007 book Dewey's Critical Pragmatism, argued that Dewey's pragmatism was critical because it was focused on the use of interdisciplinary research and practical field experiences to examine and critique the socioeco-nomic and cultural factors that result in the pervasive inequalities in U.S. society.

These ideas have significant ramifications for curriculum studies and development. In critical pragmatism, the curriculum has to afford students the tools to better understand the social and economical factors that lead to the current structure of the society through the implementation of thematic, interdisciplinary problem-based curricula in the schools. Colleges of education have to train future teachers on the development and delivery methods of such curricula. Schools have to foster learning communities that empower teachers to implement such curricula.

...