You are on page 1of 4

Making little Margaret Meads: Subjectification and discourses of anthropology in social studies education

Mark Helmsing Michigan State University


Abstract
This historical study adopts a genealogical method to trace certain regimes of truth in the field of social studies education that have regulated particular discourses from anthropology on race, ethnicity, and culture lodged within social studies curriculum to construct the subject of student-as-socialscientist. The study begins with considering contemporary discourses of learning about other cultures with anthropology found in the recently revised National Standards for Social Studies. These are compared with how the classifying scheme of anthropologist Honigmann (1959) was received and reinscribed as a disciplinary pedagogical practice in Joyces influenctial social studies methods textbook, New Strategies for Social Education. The study then examines this mode of subjectification in anthropology school textbooks and anthropology curriculum projects from the New Social Studies movement to examine how anthropologists engaged in teaching about the Other. What is teachable about the Other becomes questioned when considered against the assumptions and dividing practices found in the spaces where anthropology has been (dis)placed in social studies education.

In his 1944 Presidential Address to the National Council of the Social Studies, I. James Quillen, a professor of education at Stanford University, cautiously advised his audience assembled in Cleveland, Ohio for the annual conference that the work of social studies educators was imperative if everlasting peace were to be achieved for the Western world . Quillen outlined specific features that the curricular content comprising the field of social studies education needed to adopt in order to meet the aims of the nascent area within social studies termed intercultural relations . Among his recommendations for the field to promote among teachers were recommendations for students to understand that behavior is, in large part, culturally determined, culture is inherited after birth, and the enrichment of modern culture rests on the accomplishments of people of all races (Quillen, 1945, 12). His other recommendations contained words and phrases emblematic of the desire progressive educators had in the 1930s and 1940s to meliorate society and improve the world, wording such as brotherhood, respect for essential dignity, equal opportunity, and all mankind. Yet Quillens most remarkable suggestion asserted, all people belong to some minority group and the persecution of one endangers the security and welfare of all. Quillens address provides a snapshot of the field of social studies education as it was positioned to inculcate Americas youth with values and attitudes to support and diffuse democracy throughout the country and around the world, a curricular orientation long associated with the contested history of social studies education . But within two decades of Quillens address, the field of social studies education had shifted its attention away from making future citizens fixated upon democracy through reflection on social issues and decision making and, instead, towards making future social scientists capable of replicating research for personal

intellectual and social purposes by being fluent in the language and practices of empirical, positivist social science disciplines . Positioned to defend the youth of America from the domestic influence of Communism, natural scientists and social scientists stepped out of their university offices and into public school classrooms to effect a specific kind of educational experience for students and teachers that would create a highly intelligent citizenry expertly informed in scientific thought to defend the United States from technological advances abroad while simultaneously securing enough talent to propel the technological power of the United States into the future . The curricular products of these endeavors vary amongst school subjects; however, in social studies education they are collectively referred to as the New Social Studies . Existing in schools in the 1960s and 1970s, these curriculum projects, directed and created by university professors and sponsored by influential government agencies and private foundations, the projects were considered a failure both immediately after their funding expired by educationists as well as today by historians of education who fault the projects and the curricular Frankensteins who gave life to them for failing to consider social and political pressures that prevent lasting changes to the dense, entrenched grammar of curriculum and instruction in social studies . This paper does not consider the merits or limitations of the New Social Studies movement, nor does it attempt to present a chronological survey of the historical developments associated with these projects embedded in a larger narrative of the scope and purposes of social studies education in the United States. Such scholarship already exists. Rather, my project aims to join the recent consideration of anthropologys inclusion in social education in the 20th century by suggesting the discursive regime of the social studies field at that time both illustrates and complexifies the relationship anthropological discourse has with the competing aims and purposes of social studies education to fashion disciplined bodies that become citizens committed to upholding the characteristics of the project of democracy. I intend to present findings from a historical study that adopts a genealogical method to trace certain regimes of truth in the field of social studies education that have regulated particular discourses from anthropology on race, ethnicity, and culture lodged within social studies curriculum to construct the subject of student-as-socialscientist. The study begins with considering contemporary discourses of learning about other cultures with anthropology found in the recently revised National Standards for Social Studies. These are compared with how the classifying scheme of anthropologist Honigmann (1959) was received and reinscribed as a disciplinary pedagogical practice in Joyces influenctial social studies methods textbook, New Strategies for Social Education. The study then examines this mode of subjectification in anthropology school textbooks and anthropology curriculum projects from the New Social Studies movement to examine how anthropologists engaged in teaching about the Other. What is teachable about the Other becomes questioned when considered against the assumptions and dividing practices found in the spaces where anthropology has been (dis)placed in social studies education. Historicizing the subject of social studies education In this section I plan to theorize aspects of social studies education that account for creating an educated subject by using Foucaults four-part framework of analyzing how social studies has historically fashioned its subject, which has changed throughout time. A discussion of Foucaults project as he described in his second and

third volumes of his history of sexuality The Uses of Pleasure and The Care of the Self and his essay On the Genealogy of Ethics Grouping people: The language of same and different in the National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies Sample text. Im Tired of Studying About Whitey: Anthropological thought in social studies education Sample text Conceiving mankind: Honingmans classification as a pedagogy of Othering Sample text. What is your racial stalk? Anthropology in social studies textbooks Sample text I suppose youre trying to solve the race problem: Anthropologists Leave one Jungle for a Different Jungle Conclusion Four large paragraphs References Barr, R. D., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1977). Defining the social studies: National Council for the Social Studies Washington, DC. Bohan, C., & Randolph, P. (2009). The Social Studies Curriculum in Atlanta Public Schools during the Desegregation Era. Theory and Research in Social Education, 37(4), 543-569. Davis Jr, O. (1999). Rachel Davis DuBois: Intercultural Education Pioneer. Bending the Future to their Will": Civic Women, Social Education, and Democracy, ed. Margaret Smith Crocco and OL Davis, Jr.(Lanham, 1999), 169-184. DuBois, R. D. (1945). Build together Americans: Adventures in intercultural education for the secondary school. New York, N.Y.: Hinds, Hayden & Eldridge. Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? : Teachers College Pr. Evans, R. W. (2011a). The hope for American school reform: The Cold War pursuit of inquiry learning in social studies. New York, N.Y.: PalgraveMacmillan. Evans, R. W. (2011b). The tragedy of American school reform : how curriculum politics and entrenched dilemmas have diverted us from democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fitchett, P. G., & Russell, W. B. (2011). Reflecting on MACOS: why it failed and what we can learn from its demise. Paedagogica Historica, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/00309230.2011.554423 Foucault, M. (1982). On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 229-252). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1985/1990). The use of pleasure (The History of Sexuality: Vol. 2). New York: Vintage. Foucault, M. (1986/1990). The care of the self (The History of Sexuality: Vol. 3). New York: Vintage. Hunt, M. P., & Metcalf, L. E. (1955). Teaching high school social studies: Problems in reflective thinking and social understanding: Harper & Row New York. Nelson, J. L. (2001). Defining social studies. Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century, 1, 15. Nelson, M. R. (2010). Anthropology and the anthropology projects: Long ago in a galaxy far away. In B. Slater Stern (Ed.), The new social studies: People, projects, & perspectives (pp. 213-230). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Pak, Y. (2004). Teaching for intercultural understanding in the social studies: A teacher's perspective in the 1940s. In C. Woyshner, J. Watras & M. Smith Crocco (Eds.), Social education in the twentieth century: Curriculum and context for citizenship (pp. 57-75). New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Quillen, I. J. (1945). The role of the social studies teacher in the postwar world. Social Education, 9(1), 9-12. Ross, E. W. (1997). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities, 3-20. Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom : the cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgave. Saxe, D. W. (1991). Social studies in schools: A history of the early years: State Univ of New York Pr. Stern, B. S. (2010). The new social studies: people, projects, and perspectives: Iap. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The grammar of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479. Urban, W. J. (2010). More than science and Sputnik : the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Wesley, E. B. (1943). Teaching the Social Studies (Revised Edition). New York: DC Heath & Company. Wolcott, H. (2007). The Middlemen of MACOS. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(2), 195-206.