Identity Politics

Identity politics within curriculum studies finds at its root the link between one's individual history and cultural experiences and the course of study, or curriculum, at hand. In short, identity politics in curriculum studies brings together oneself with the curriculum. Scholars of identity politics ask questions about whose identity is being taught in the curriculum, whose is not, and why?

Emerging as a significant field of inquiry and in response to the political tensions and historical events of the 1960s, the field of identity politics within curriculum studies was birthed during an era when the majority population, and its traditional dominance over politics, started to be questioned, especially in terms of civil rights. In the 1960s, in short, curriculum studies scholars began to draw attention to the idea that civil rights was a political issue influenced by one's identity, and as it turned out, they reasoned, those who held political power made curriculum decisions. As a result, whoever held political power also held power over the curriculum. Those in political power used their power—knowingly or unknowingly—to have their identity represented in the curriculum. And in reverse, those who did not hold political power—minority and cultural groups of all kinds—held no power to influence the curriculum. Their identities were not represented in the curriculum.

Yet curriculum studies scholars continued to note, despite any minority or cultural group's absence from the curriculum, a message about their identity, and their power was still being communicated. The message was simple: What matters is represented in the curriculum, and what does not matter is not represented in the curriculum. Since their identities were represented, those who held political power supposedly matter. Since their identities were not represented, those who did not hold political power supposedly did not matter, or so the message communicated. Minority groups, in essence, found themselves underrepresented in the curriculum and their voices (or identities) silenced.

Over the years, as scholars of identity politics began to emerge from all types of minority groups, the political implications of these curriculum messages were exposed. Scholars pointed out that if the field of curriculum studies allowed any one, dominant majority to control (or have power over) the curriculum, then students would receive—because of what the curriculum taught them—only that majority's view of what mattered. Traditionally, the dominant group to have political power over the curriculum, and have their identity represented, was a White, male, heterosexual view.

Under this premise, curriculum studies scholars and civil rights activists began to question the legitimacy of who held the power to make curriculum decisions. They asked the following questions: Who holds the power? Who does not hold the power? Who is represented, and who is not? What are the political implications of having or not having representation in the curriculum? What messages are being sent as a result of having or not having political power in the curriculum? In answering these questions, identity politics [Page 460]scholars have found that the curriculum should represent all people, not just the majority. Students would benefit from hearing from a diversity of identities and their political leanings, they argued. So scholars of curriculum studies set out to create a different future for students, a future that would embolden educators to make curriculum decisions that attempted to place value on all people and on all voices.

...