feature
Technologized democracy: A critique on technology's place in social studies education
Printable version
Building on the discussion of historical deterministic impulses driving research of technology in education, which we outlined our previous article (McKnight & Robinson, 2006), this paper provides a more concrete demonstration of the effects of reducing technology to a rational, neutral object -- one that functions to manipulate, store and access bits of information, which are then represented as knowledge. To accomplish this task we focus on a particular discipline -- social studies -- because of significant claims that it is the discipline to create democratic citizens by fostering diversity of thought, action and peoples.
We argue, however, the discourse of technology embraced by the field of social studies actually serves to reduce diversity of thought and action. In effect, the principles of technological determinism dictate that technology is a neutral tool for the manipulation and control of information, and as such exists outside of cultural, political or personal critique. Once such control is established, a consensus of use and obeisance to its practices are assumed, making dissent or alternative viewpoints difficult and unlikely. This runs counter to NCSS claims of a diverse society being necessary for the survival of American democracy.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a more concrete demonstration of the effects of this neutral tool formation. To accomplish this task we focus on a particular discipline -- social studies. We chose social studies because of a particular and significant claim that it is the discipline to create democratic citizens. And within the last two decades, the field of social studies has begun to increasingly assert that computer technologies and the Internet are the new tools by which to perform that task (e.g. Berson & Berson, 2000; Berson, Lee & Stuckart, 2001; Bolick, Berson, Coutts & Heinecke, 2003; Fairey, Lee, & Bennett, 2000; Glenn, 1990; Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee & Dralle, 2000; Rose & Ferdinand, 1997; Van Benschoten, 2000; White, 1997; Whitworth & Berson, 2003). In only one special issue of the national social studies research journal, Theory and Research into Social Education (Ross, 2000), was technology questioned. However, the problem was framed as an either/or proposition (to use or not to use), calling for the field to either embrace the Luddite position or to accept technology as an educational tool to develop democratic citizens. The authors neglected to perform a historical examination into the shifting meanings and assumptions concerning technology.
This has left the field blind to a certain irresolvable tension that questions computer technology's usefulness in creating the kind of democracy that the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) asserts it wants to help create, which can be summed up in a statement within their national standards (NCSS, 2002): "[t]he primary purpose of the social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world." This statement acknowledges that America's democratic strength lies in preserving diversity of thought and peoples. We argue, however, the discourse of technology embraced by the field of social studies actually serves to reduce diversity of thought and action. In effect, the principles of technological determinism dictate that technology is a neutral tool for the manipulation and control of information, and as such exists outside of cultural, political or personal critique (Apple, 1988; Bowers, 2000; Feenberg, 1999). Once such control is established, a consensus of use and obeisance to its practices are assumed, making dissent or alternative viewpoints difficult and unlikely (Bowers, 2000, 1988; Feenberg, 1999) which runs counter to NCSS claims of a diverse society being necessary for the survival of American democracy.
Technological Determinism, Agency and Control
The field of social studies has not acknowledged or contemplated the social criticisms of Apple (1988), Bowers (2000), Feenberg (1999) and others. Instead, the overwhelming concern lodged within the social studies and technology discourse has been basically two fold: (1) the massive expansion of computer technologies in society and by extension all levels of schooling; and (2) the research to understand how best to employ these technologies to increase student achievement.
The belief is that such achievement indicates that the student will be able to engage in data-driven decision making, meaning that he or she possesses skills to access, manipulate and store the massive amount of data that is being produced. This technical skill has become the focus of social studies and technology research and has resulted in the exclusion/omission of the ethical and philosophical questions of how technology affects how we perceive and engage in the world (Bromley, 1998; Bowers, 1988; Feenberg, 1992, 1999; Levin, 1998; Lyotard, 1984; Postman, 1993; Santora, 2001; Zambon, 2003). When a technical skill becomes the focus, issues of democratic agency are reduced and the individual becomes governed by norms concerned with control rather than freedom. Feenberg (1999) identified this condition within certain American institutions: "In medicine, education, and administration, technical devices prescribe norms to which the individual is tacitly committed by organizational belonging. Technocracy is the use of technical delegations to conserve and legitimate an expanding system of hierarchical control" (p. 75).
Consequently, and following both Weber (1958) and Heidegger (1977), this technocratic condition reduces notions of citizenship to a
[c]onscientious performance in mindless subordinate roles. The public sphere withers; a literal reign of silence is instituted as one-way communication replaces dialogue and debate throughout society...The resulting weakness of democratic interventions into technology is symptomatic. The fundamental problem of democracy today is quite simply the survival of agency in this increasingly technocratic universe. (Feenberg, 1999, p.76)
And as such, computer and communication technologies are unquestioningly viewed as a natural tool to increase students' ability to participate within democratic life without acknowledging its inherent mechanisms of control, which counters the very democratic principles social education researchers claim they are promoting.
As an example, in our wide ranging search of social studies and technology research, we came across a resource database created and maintained by Michael Berson of the University of South Florida, USA, who is widely known as a social studies and technology researcher. (The database is located on his website, http://www.coedu.usf.edu/edg7931/selected_resources.htm.) Berson acknowledges that the list is selective, but at the same time his choices are telling. Of the more than 500 citations listed, about ten could be viewed as critical examinations of the philosophical and socio-cultural implications and assumptions of technological thinking in the social studies curriculum. Most focus on descriptions of Internet resources or methods of using computer technology and the Internet that are supposed to lead to academic achievement of some sort (e.g., Whitworth & Berson, 2003). This situation speaks to the problem of how the neutrality assumption creates the conditions in which any "critical democratic thought" becomes defined as a technical activity of retrieving, storing and analyzing data bits. This confuses facts with knowledge (Landoli & Norris, 1997) and fails to consider the ethical, philosophical, social and cultural implications of technology on democracy and the individual's condition within corporate existence (Apple, 1988; Bowers, 2000, 1998; Bromley, 1998; Postman, 1993). As an example of the ways that critical democratic thought is translated into technical skills, consider the conclusions of Whitworth & Berson from their meta-analysis of the social education literature:
There is a slight emergence of activities that enhance civic competence and critical thinking skills ... and lessons requiring that students critically evaluate content they encounter on the Internet. More publications including research are needed, which explore how computers in the classroom contribute to citizenship skills. (2003, p. 483, italics added)
Impact of Technological Determinism in Social Education
The pervasiveness of the neutral, deterministic discourse and the assumptions lodged within was illustrated by a recent experience of both authors. During a panel at a national conference with technology and social education researchers in 2004, panelists were lamenting national policy and funding priorities that privileged clinical randomized trials (CRT) in educational research (i.e., National Research Council, 2002). The lamentation, however, was not about the appropriateness or feasibility of CRTs, but a moral argument resulting from concerns that students in a randomly-assigned control group would not receive the same technology interventions of the experimental groups. However, when we posed the question "might it be immoral that we as experimenters are forcing experimental groups of students to use new technology?" we received blank stares and aggravated comments that claimed it was inconceivable for technology to lead to anything but progress. While one may consider this an isolated experience, the social education literature suggests otherwise. In their meta-analysis, Whitworth and Berson (2003) found that "over half of the NCSS literature reviewed and a third of all publications reviewed within the broader readership provided Internet resources and lessons using websites" (p. 483). Although the literature is flooded with writings about the available technology resources and methods for its use, there is little empirical research to justify its use. These deterministic impulses have led to a social education research literature that is:
... lacking in the area of gender differences in attitude and achievement following integration of computers into the social studies classroom. Research is also needed in the area of how technology use in the social studies impacts academic achievement and learning outcomes. (Whitworth & Berson, 2003, p. 484)
The existing literature suggests that social education has blindly accepted the use of technology within the classroom as a given good; so much so that it is willing to devote over half of its technology-related articles to descriptions of Internet resources without questioning the efficacy of these resources in the classroom.
Further, consider the quote that introduced Whitworth and Berson's review of the literature:
Within the social studies, technology has served a dual role as an important instructional tool that may have a significant effect on the global, political, social, and economic functioning of American society. As both a method of instruction and a topic of instruction, the impact of computers and technology on social studies is immense. However, the extent to which this potential is being fully realized in the social studies classroom has not been sufficiently explored. Technology-based learning has the potential to facilitate development of students' decision-making and problem solving skills, data processing skills, and communication capabilities. (Whitworth & Berson, 2003, p. 473)
The authors rightly acknowledge the controlling effect of technology on the functioning of society, but because technology is determined a priori to forward societal progress, its outcomes are also pre-determined. On the one hand, the authors argue that the impact of technology as method and topic of instruction is "immense." On the other hand, they claim its potential (impact) has not been sufficiently researched. Such statements are consistent with the state of the field where, as stated above, more than half of technology-related articles simply describe Internet resources and uses of technology with little attention paid to empirical research exploring the effects of technology on gender differences, attitudes or achievement.
Through determinism, technology is inscribed as a fully articulated and closed curriculum of "the what," "the how" and "the why." For example, Crocco (2001) and Doolittle (2001) argue this inscription continues a particular trend within technology and social education research that assumes there is no need to articulate a theory of learning and instruction when discussing technology in the classroom. Crocco's concern is that technology research (and we would argue all education research) needs "a strong statement about the model of teaching and learning necessary or at least favored in fulfilling these promises of enrichment and improvement," and that such conceptual frameworks were missing (2001, p. 387). Doolittle also argues for learning theory, but expands the position put forth by Crocco. He is one of the few to acknowledge that "[i]t is time within social studies education to take a long look backwards at the beliefs, assumptions, and theory underlying the domain, so that the look forward to practice and pedagogy is clear, informed, and valid" (2001, p. 502).
The metanarrative of determinism is further sustained because technology is viewed as neutral, and therefore beyond reproach. Research highlighting the failures of technology to improve classroom practices or society is explained in terms of the use of technology, not in terms of inherent qualities, even limitations, of the technology. For Whitworth and Berson the reasons technology has not achieved its classroom potential lie not with the technology itself ("guns don't kill people"), but with researchers who need to "more sufficiently explore" the "potential" of technology so that education (subordinate to the imperative of technology) can "keep up the pace" set by technology (2003, p. 494).
Technology, Democracy and Social Education
The effect of technology is not limited to content and technological learning outcomes, however. The totalizing effect of technology can be understood as no less than "the global, political, social, and economic functioning of American society" (Whitworth & Berson, p. 473), with technology as the democratizing agent that can prepare students to assume their social and economic roles. To provide insight into this fundamental belief in the usefulness of technology and the Internet in social education to create an informed citizen, we turn to two specific examples. The first is a quote from Berson, Lee and Stuckart:
Today, effective citizenship includes a range of computer technology skills.... Citizenship in a democracy implies critical thought, and critical thought requires information. Technology can make more information available to students than ever before. The Internet, in particular, has the ability to dramatically increase the amount of information available to students.... The Internet supports National Council for the Social Studies curriculum standards related to citizenship. (2001, p. 214)
The second is a quote from A. D. Glenn:
Democratic societies depend on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of their citizens in order to maintain the stability needed to grow and prosper. In a technological age, democratic citizens also need the knowledge and skills appropriate for the time.... Citizens in a democracy must ... comprehend how data are collected, stored, analyzed, and used in policy-making decisions; gain the technological skills needed to access and manipulate information...; be able to assess the quality of the information being presented to them...; [and] develop analytical skills needed to develop descriptive and explanatory generalizations. (1990, p. 216-217)
Interrelated assumptions can be gleaned from these quotes. Berson et al. (2000) emphasize that the Internet has increased the amount of worthwhile information, and that the ability to access greater amounts of information is required for critical thought, where critical thought is implied as the crucial component to achieving the ideal of the informed democratic citizen. Glenn (1990) identifies the social studies classroom as the site to operationalize critical thought. Through appropriate instructional strategies the Internet will produce students with the "skills" to "access," "assess" the quality of, and "collect" information in an effort to "analyze," "manipulate" and "store" this data. In short, critical thought within a social education and technology framework, considered proxy for informed democratic citizenry, is reduced to an acquisition of skills as a means to "maintain the stability" needed for societal (read, economic) growth.
This data "retrieve-assess-manipulate-store" approach is intimately tied to the larger instrumentalist discourse of technology, which has the effect of actually reducing diverse voices and ways of knowing and privileging the reproduction of existing media. According to Feenberg (1992,1995, 1999), agency emerges as the critical issue in a society that claims democracy as its guiding force yet surrenders control to a technocratic ideal that over-rationalizes and reduces democratic activity to the collection of instrumental and therefore self-evident data. If in a democracy technology is situated within a discourse that presents it as a neutral tool by which to obtain and sort information into pre-determined categories supplied by technocratic mode of thought, then little room is left for alternative forms of action or thought that supposedly defines an individual within a democracy. In other words, what room is there left, in democratic terms, for voices of dissent? This unintended effect is the opposite of what a large body of literature has come to view as the necessary condition for a vital democracy (c.f., Apple, 1988; Bromley, 1998; Bowers, 1988; Cherryholmes, 1988; Santora, 2001).
For instance, Berson et al. (2001) argue that the NCSS informed citizen goals will be accomplished by expertly utilizing computer technology and the Internet to improve social studies curriculum and pedagogy. The Guidelines for Using Technology to Prepare Social Studies Teachers advocate for preservice teachers to "not simply acquire skills that make them proficient at using technology, but also learn how to use technology to make their teaching better" (Mason et al., 2000, p. 109). The guidelines also argue that we develop students' personal and civic beliefs, and they provide an exemplary lesson "designed to develop on-line research skills while allowing students to examine current perspectives on controversial issues" about the Bill of Rights (Mason et al., 2000, p. 112). This lesson was chosen because it "clearly explicates strategies for navigating the Web... [and allows students to] evaluate the web sites in terms of their authority and accuracy" (Mason et al., p. 112). The claim is that such a lesson includes both skill acquisition and instruction about the "importance of learning to become discriminating and responsible consumers of, or producers on, the Internet" (p. 112).
Instruction aimed at developing a democratic citizenry able to think critically certainly requires ability to access and retrieve information (Grant, 2001). However, it is problematic to use the term "critical thought" in relation to informed citizenry and the use of technology. The quote by Mason et al. (2000) reveals an attempt to make a distinction between what are actually two technicist activities. They rightly acknowledge that the technical activity of "mastering" is a component of learning how to operate technology. However, for them, going beyond so called "basic skills" of computer technology translates into little more than an act of accessing and recognizing the authority of historical/social studies data, which are used to illustrate what is considered a factual (or appropriate) piece of knowledge about the Bill of Rights. In effect, "appropriate instruction" pivots around accessing, determining, and regulating (all considered critical acts) what constitutes credible website and database information that will point the student to a particular understanding of democratic citizenry. Hence, good direct instruction is considered to be a matter of convincing students that credible knowledge is that which can be accessed and stored in a database, assessed accurate as judged by some outside authority, and then (re)produced into some form that supposedly speaks for itself. The assumption is that once the data is retrieved and given form, then a rational decision can be made given the cause and effect nature of such forms of illustrating data. Again, the computer and the Internet are represented as but "tools" to move the individual toward a democratic act, which, as illustrated above, is highly problematic given the Weberian effects of technicist thinking on the individual.
Significant here is an assumption concerning critical thought that directly relies on technocratic discourse categories that are closed to critical examination of technology and its underlying assumptions (Bowers, 1988; Bromley, 1998; Feenberg, 1999). Technocratic discourse ("technocracy") refers to broad systems of administrative control that sustain institutional currency and power through an association to scientific expertism by claiming rationalized, effective and efficient manipulation of modern life even while claiming an allegiance to democratic activity (Bowers, 1988; Feenberg, 1999). Those appropriating (or better, appropriated by) the technocratic discourse eagerly utilizes advancements in computer technologies to support its claim of supporting a rationalized democratic mode of thought.
As much critical theory and historical research has illustrated, these categories have been institutionalized within and perpetuated by schools and colleges of education (Gitlin, 1996; Labaree, 1992; McKnight, 2004). In turn, these categories have filtered to public schools, and have been reproduced by teacher and student alike in ways that can foreclose on other possible voices that approach criticalness from a much different space and understanding. As one example, consider Santora's (2001) remarks:
Differences in race, class, gender, sexual orientation and faith define contemporary classrooms in ways that challenge white middle class educators' and students' traditional assumptions, beliefs, values, knowledge, theories and practices. Critiques emanating from the pluralism of marginalized groups challenge the universality, truth-value, fixity, rationality, objectivity and neutrality attributed to Western European and andocentric liberal thought. (p. 151)
Schools and colleges of education are historically well entrenched in such thinking, and in fact further the disposition in preservice teachers to employ the technicist, rationalistic discourse, which frames democratic activity as a data-driven one with technology as the prime tool for data retrieval. Labaree (1992), in an historical discussion of the professionalization of teaching, identifies the effects of this particular method of thought. Labaree (1992) argues that professionalization of teaching involved the rationalization of classroom instruction which
Promotes a vision of scientifically generated professional knowledge that draws heavily on the movement's roots in formal rationality.... Teaching would become more standardized – that is, more technically proficient according to scientifically established criteria for accepted professional practices. (p. 147)
The rationalistic approach situates the teacher as expert, curriculum as bits of information to be mastered as part of standardized benchmarks, and technology as the tool to neutrally deliver knowledge controlled by disciplinary experts. This mode of thought, with its overarching assumption of technological determinism (Feenberg, 1999) does not acknowledge multiple ways of knowing that would allow for a democracy within which diverse voices compete in public discussion over what may or may not constitute the "good life" (Santora, 2001; Stanley & Whitson, 1993). Instead, such an approach, which, as identified above, can be called technocratic, assumes the management of society and all its institutions as its highest ideal. Feenberg (1999) identifies certain effects of this technocracy that envelops social institutions such as schools. Feenberg asserts that such technical administrative methods cause the public sphere to wither, and a "literal reign of silence is instituted as one-way communication replaces dialogue and debate throughout society" (p. 101).
As discussed above, in social studies research the effort to promote the use of technology has translated into the privileging of a particular kind of informed citizenry, one that assumes technology is a neutral tool to access information necessary for rationalized decision making. This research follows the same trajectory as other disciplines that appear to construct education as an engineering and technological problem:
[T]he whole complex of scientific knowledge, engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, and institutions and infrastructures that make up the totality of a technology. A technological regime is thus the technology-specific context of a technology which prestructures the kind of problem-solving activities that engineers are likely to do, a structure that both enables and constrains certain changes. (Rip & Kemp, 1998, p.340)
This type of informed citizenry is technically competent in accessing what information the existing media doles out. This became apparent in a recent study Robinson and McKnight (2006) performed with a group of secondary pre-service teachers in a social studies class where students quickly fell into the kind of technological discourse of which Feenberg (1999, 1992) elaborated. Each student had to develop a unit plan that was to incorporate use of the Internet, including at least 20 websites addresses that directly related to their chosen topic. Their results indicate websites students found on the Internet largely replicated information available in textbooks, encyclopedias, previous lesson plans from organizations and commercial sites considered "authoritative" and "accurate" (Mason, et al., 2000, p.112). One may argue this is not an issue with technology (guns don't kill people), but with the students and their teachers (people kill people). That is, additional ways of critically knowing and constructing knowledge are present on the Internet, but these students did not leverage the Internet to harness this information. However, as Rip and Kemp (1998) point out, technology is more than a tool, but the larger organizing principles of social studies in general prevent sources that fall outside of the bounds of social studies (local narratives, etc.) from even being considered.
Explicit knowledge is formalized, denotative, exclusive of all other discourse forms of knowledge and can be easily articulated through formulas, maps, standards, graphs and so on (Lyotard, 1984). Charles White (1997), a long-time researcher into technology and social education, provides a representative example of this tendency to privilege the explicitness that technology brings: "If I were to summarize technologies potential for social studies in a single concept, it would be 'knowledge navigation'... [in which] well designed software portray structures visually, as a kind of knowledge map" (p.2). White's concern about computer technology has to do with its continued expansion for greater access as an instructional tool to help students store and analyze data, so that they can become informed citizens.
A the opposite pole from explicit knowledge is narrative or implicit knowledge, which is contextually and culturally based, flexible, contingent upon one's temporality and historicity and is not easily electronically transmittable. This is not to say that implicit knowledge does not involve technical skill, but it is a skill of intuition and "know-how" learned over a long set of experiences.
This kind of knowledge is not something that can be acquired didactically. Rather, it is a narrative form of knowing that leads to particular skills over a long period of time. Implicit or narrative knowledge cannot be communicated easily, since it must be reduced and given form through words or numbers, and in doing so, the subjective nature and intuitive insight attempting to be communicated is lost. Such form of knowledge takes much inter-subjective interaction and time. In much of the social studies technology research, this implicit form of knowledge is inherently lost due to the reliance on formalized computer mediation and reliance on, in White's (1997) words, "knowledge mapping." This becomes a form of cultural reproduction that forecloses on diversity of thought.
As Bowers (1988) and many others (i.e., Gitlin, 1996; Labaree, 1992; McKnight, 2004) have illustrated, students engage in this act of reproduction the moment they enter into the institution of schooling. Students take in the explicit privileged forms of knowledge as information and easily gravitate, when involved in classroom or homework activities, toward replicating this type of information without being directed. In fact, such undirected movement is considered critical thought, for it is the student performing the task toward a prescribed end without overt teacher guidance.
A democratic citizenry that comes to depend on explicit forms of knowledge inevitably loses the implicit, local knowledge that constitutes so much of our daily, cultural existence, those "unspoken rules that govern the use of different language systems –- spoken, body, space, time and so forth –- to changes in social context, performing skills and pursuing activities" (Bowers, 1988, p. 8). Such implicit knowledge functions to preserve the many cultural voices that give American democracy its diversity, and hence, its staying power, and resists the rationalistic reduction of democratic life to the manipulating and disseminating of information produced by a small elite group in the various disciplines accepted as legitimate. The effect of this is that the many diverse voices that inhabit and infuse cyberspace with true democratic potential are blocked to teacher candidates, teachers and students (Bowers, 1988). Instead of a tapestry of diverse voices seeking solutions through alternative discourses and cultural ways called for by Santora (2001), such dependence on technological approaches that have heretofore privileged a data-driven democracy, actually produce the sort of citizen Stanley and Whitson (1993) problematizes:
More and more we have adjusted to a culture dominated by expert opinion while our confidence in our own abilities to make complex social judgments continues to erode.... Life appears so complex that the average person abandons political action for personal development and survival.... Citizenship is reduced to surviving, following rules, and occasionally voting. (Stanley & Whitson, p. 58)
This individual may become technically proficient at accessing and disseminating information, but is unable to understand how to interpret subtleties and ambiguities, an act dependent upon the implicit knowledge necessary to navigate the complex set of cultures that constitute America.
Technology and Democracy
We have argued that a focus on explicit forms of knowledge serves to reproduce dominant ideologies and suffocate a diversity of voices. However, it is not from strict governance of websites but the ways in which deterministic discourse treats technology—the Internet in particular—as unproblematic and neutral. We posit that one way forward is that social education researchers need to explicitly foreground diversity, as teachers and students have been long indoctrinated into the explicit, traditional, and non-diverse accounts as true and good and hence outside of questioning.
Although there are an increasing number of claims about the potential of the Internet within social studies and democratic citizenship education (Glenn, 1990; Mason et al., 2000; Whitson & Berson, 2003), social education research has been somewhat silent on issues of diversity and technology (c.f., Marri, 2003b; Salinas & Robinson, 2002; Zambon, 2003). This is problematic because, as we have highlighted throughout this paper, diversity is a necessary component of democracy. To foreground diversity, we believe it should be articulated within a democratic framework and present liberal and multicultural conceptions of democratic citizenship as a framework to address our concerns about deterministic discourse and the NCSS goals on diversity. A multicultural and democratic framework acknowledges not only the explicit forms of knowledge necessary to participate within a democratic society, but also the implicit forms of knowledge, or social wisdom, within its frame.
As we previously argued, past social studies education and technology research has articulated a democratic framework that revolves around technology -- and the Internet in particular -- providing access to "more information" that allows citizens to reason critically, and the social studies classroom as a site to practice this skill (e.g., Berson, Lee, & Stuckart, 2001; Glenn, 1990). Each component is useful and has provided a foundation for social studies educators to think about and employ the Internet in their instruction. However, these claims present a narrow account of democracy that creates an incomplete picture of the relationship between democracy, the Internet, and social studies. These claims only focus on explicit forms of knowledge and associated skills, and do not discuss implicit forms of knowledge -- how diverse information, theoretical perspectives and voices should stem from democratic principles and the ways that the Internet affords and/or constrains these principles. Liberal democratic ideals attempt to avoid this critique by arguing for "diverse information," and elaborating on the technology savvy, rational conception that "more information" enables citizens to engage in democratic deliberation.
A progressive society counts individual variations as precious since it finds in them the means of its own growth. Hence, a democratic society must, in consistency with its ideal, allow for intellectual freedom and the play of diverse gifts and interests in its educational measures. (Dewey, 1916, p. 305)
Dewey's vision of a progressive democratic society problematizes claims that more information is necessary for democratic citizenry because these claims do not ensure that 'more information' is not 'more of the same information.' To sustain its democratic health, society must seek out variation—differing opinions, ideas and worldviews.
Dewey's democratic goals were radical in that he acknowledged the importance of diversity of thought. However, his conception also has the trappings of liberal democratic theory. Dewey only refers to politically diverse thoughts, and was uncomfortably silent about other dimensions of difference such as class, gender and race. This is problematic because in his estimation, educational change is a function of social need and social need is evaluated against democratic ideals. Any democratic ideals that ignore (or discount) issues of diversity will be translated into schooling institutions that do the same. To understand why liberal democracy is silent on issues of socio-economic and cultural diversity, one must look to its central tenets of unity and neutrality. Unity is anchored in the phrase e pluribus unum which translates into a process of moving from many to one and creates the goal of "transcending difference, conquering and overcoming it" (Parker, 1996, p. 111). Neutrality assumes "all men are created equal" and perpetuates the rugged individualism of "pulling one's self up by the bootstraps." Neutrality creates a path to unity, but requires the explicit elimination of difference and diversity (Marri, 2003a).
Multicultural democracy explicitly acknowledges socio-cultural differences and treats diversity as essential for democracy because it protects liberty and challenges the status quo (Marri, 2003a; Parker, 1996). Within this multicultural frame, e pluribus unum is not translated 'from many, one,' but 'with many, one' (Parker, 1996). Such translation focuses on diversity and unity and allows "larger publics" and "little publics" to coexist. Larger publics are "the normative grid that binds citizens together in a broad political comradeship" (Parker, 1996, p. 118). Little publics are "associations based on religion, ethnicity, language, race, hobbies, labor -- interests of all sorts, some of which are incompatible from one group to another" (Parker, p. 118). These publics come together on difficult issues on creative democratic paths and are a necessary part of the continuing public discussion, not a means to sustain predetermined democratic ends (Dewey, 1916). Parker argues that multicultural democracy "has no end other than the path itself. Ends arise on the path" (1996, p. 114). He continues, "Viewed as a creative, constructive process, democracy is not already accomplished, in which case citizens today need only to celebrate and protect it, but a trek that citizens in a pluralist society make together" (p. 114). Multicultural democracy enables national discussions to remain open to views that conflict with the "dominant" or "mainstream" common sense perspective, so that democracy does not diminish to the point of irrelevancy. This discussion does not come easy (Gay, 1997), but it is through this struggle of learning to be comfortable being uncomfortable and by "associating and resolving issues with people whose views are different from one's own that democracy is learned" (Marri, 2003a, p. 273).
Acknowledging the importance of diversity within democracy provides grounds for the central questions of multicultural democracy (Parker, 1996). The first question is: Who is and who is not participating in democracy? This question ensures that the little publics exist alongside the larger publics. For if one finds that groups are not participating, then one can begin to explore why they are not participating. The second question is: How wide is the path to participation? This question examines the social structures and paths that affect participation (Marri, 2005).
Multicultural Democracy, Technology and Social Education
Proponents claim that the Internet is a useful tool in social education to create an informed democratic citizen because it provides access to "more information," which equals better democratic citizen decision-making. We argued for a multicultural democratic framework that explicitly addresses issues of diversity, rather than a means to access and store more information. We also believe that it can create a space for social education and technology research that could lead to greater diversity in democratic citizenship education. In particular, a multicultural framework safeguards our democratic agency by struggling within the diverse knowledge, practices and wisdom of the larger and little publics and are not doomed to reproduce more of the same explicit knowledge by asking who is and is not participating within this explicit knowledge game, and how wide is their path of participation.
Students must have a multicultural theoretical framework that addresses race, class and gender perspectives that will direct them away from the largely Eurocentric narrative, within which resides the technocratic framework, and toward those voices and perspectives mostly ignored in textbooks except as sideline material. Examining Internet technology in the social studies with a multicultural democratic framework surpasses the emphasis on "technological savvy," because the latter emphasizes the access and manipulation of "more information" without interrogating whether the information is homogenous, redundant and representative of only one form of thought. A multicultural democratic framework can be used to create curriculum to facilitate a pedagogical approach that will actually lead to the increase of diversity in the creation of democratic citizens.
Concluding Remarks
Stanley and Whitson's (1993) warning of a technologized citizenry came more than a decade ago, and little seems to have changed in social education curriculum and technology research. This is a condition that must concern all. In effect, it is our ending argument that if in social studies curriculum a critical conversation does not take place, then technology as an instrument will less and less be at the disposal of humanity and will instead become the tool that wields us -- which for teacher education departments throughout the United States is exactly what is happening. In Alabama, the state department of education is already requiring each teacher education program to incorporate into nearly every course an increasing number of "technology standards." These standards deal with technology as a neutral tool to deliver the curriculum more "effectively and efficiently." Not one standard implies any critical examination of the moral, ethical or political nature of technology, especially its relation to and affect upon democracy.
This critique can be expanded to a national scale when discussing the largest American teacher education accrediting agency, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). NCATE, in its most recent Professional Standards (2002) document, prominently displays the word technology 62 times. In this document, technology is presented as one of the most significant tools for teacher candidates (teacher education no longer calls them students) to increase K-12 student achievement. NCATE (2002) has infused the technology-as-neutral-tool mentality in every standard for which teacher education departments are held accountable, yet nowhere is it required for teacher candidates to critically examine the socio-cultural assumptions and effects underpinning its use. In fact, NCATE has moved into the realm of virtue ethics by holding teacher education departments accountable for guaranteeing that all teacher candidates possess the "correct" (read, "positive") disposition toward the use of technology as an instructional device (McKnight, 2004). Teachers are now expected to identify the use of technology as an inherent good and, hence, one that if handled properly will result in student achievement (following the same "guns don't kill people" logic). NCATE is not concerned about technology as a philosophical principle to be interrogated and questioned as to its effects on students and teachers alike. This has a powerful effect on social education in the university, for NCATE has designated NCSS as the agency to oversee the spread of technological determinism within the field of social studies.
Such critique should not be interpreted as a subscription to the Luddite view, which is useless at this juncture. No one can argue against technology's capability to allow us to go faster and produce more; or medical technology's success in saving lives; or military technology's success in taking lives. To abandon technology -- while the thought may be at times philosophically and morally appealing -- would be absurd. Technology is all around us (even in the classroom). As Herb Simon articulated in The Sciences of the Artificial, "The world we live in today is much more a man made, or artificial, world than it is a natural world. Almost every artifact in our environment shows evidence of human artifice" (1996, p. 2). Even if one were to reject classroom computer technology, then where should one stop?
We do not argue for the removing technology from classrooms. Such action falls prey to the same exceptionalist thinking that has continually plagued schooling, and society, from the Puritans to current technophiles. Any course of action, regardless of the curricular program, taken blindly in the name of "bettering" our classrooms or 'progressing' our society, is inherently foreclosed to critique. As discussed at the beginning of the article, a democracy can survive only if a diversity of ideas is open to critique, dialogue and deliberation. This condition is especially pertinent for social studies educators, responsible for the educational development of democratic citizens in an ever more technologized society.
References
Apple, M. (1988). Teaching and technology: The hidden effects of computers on teachers and students. In Landon Beyer and Michael Apple (Eds.) The Curriculum, (pp. 259-288). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Berson, M. (2000). Rethinking research and pedagogy in the social studies: The creation of caring connections through technology and advocacy. Theory & Research in Social Education, 28(1), 121-131.
Berson, M., & Berson, I.R. (2000). An introduction to global child advocacy: Historical action, contemporary perspectives, and future directions. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, 1(1), 1-2.
Berson, M. J., Lee, J. & Stuckart, D. (2001). Promise and practice of computer technologies in the social studies: A critical analysis. In William B. Stanley (Ed.), Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century, (pp. 209-230). Greenwich, CT: Information age publishing.
Bolick, C. M., Berson, M., Coutts, C., & Heinecke, W. (2003). Technology applications in social studies teacher education: A survey of social studies methods faculty. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), Article 1. Retrieved March 15, 2004 from http://www.citejournal.org/vo3/iss3/socialstudies/article1.cfm.
Bowers, C.A. (1988). The Cultural Dimensions of Educational Computing: Understanding the Non-Neutrality of Technology. Teachers College, Columbia University: Teachers College Press.
Bromley, H. (1998). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education/Technology/Power: Educational Computing as a Social Practice, pp. 1-28. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany.
Cherryholmes, C. (1988). Power and Criticism: Poststructural Investigations in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Crocco, M.S. (2001), Leveraging constructivist learning in the social studies classroom: A response to Mason, Berson, Diem, Hicks, Lee, and Dralle. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, [Online serial], 1(3) 386-394.
Dewey, J. D. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Doolittle, P.E. (2001). The need to leverage theory in the development of guidelines for using technology in social studies teacher preparation: A reply to Crocco and Mason et al. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(4) 501-516.
Fairey, C., Lee, J., & Bennett, C. (2000). Technology and social studies: A conceptual model for integration. Journal of Social Studies Research, 24(2), 3-9.
Feenberg, A. (1992). Subversive Rationalization: Technology, Power and Democracy. Inquiry 35, (3/4).
Feenberg, A. (1995). Subversive Rationalization: Technology, Power and Democracy. In A. Feenberg & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the Politics of Knowledge (pp. 3-22). Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning Technology. New York: Routledge.
Gay, G. (1997). The relationship between multicultural and democratic education. The Social Studies, 88(1), 5-11.
Gitlin, A. (1996). Gender and professionalization: An institutional analysis of teacher education and unionism at the turn of the twentieth century. Teachers College Record, 97(4), 588-624.
Glenn, A.D. (1990). Democracy and technology. The Social Studies, 81(5), 215-217.
Grant, S.G. (2001). It's just the facts, or is it? Teachers' practices and students' understandings of history. Theory & Research in Social Education, 29(1), 66-108.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Labaree, D. (1992). Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching: a genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 123-154.
Landoli, C. & Norris, W. (1997). Contradictions and asides: A social critique of the Internet. Journal of Technology Studies, 23, 35-41.
Levin, B. (1998). The educational requirement for Democracy. Curriculum Inquiry, 28 (1), 57-79.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translation from French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Marri, A. (2003a). Multicultural Democracy: Toward a better democracy, Intercultural Education, 14(3), 263-277.
Marri, A. (2003b). Social studies, race, and the World Wide Web. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives on the social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum (pp. 247-269). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), Article 1. Retrieved March 21, 2003 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/ currentissues/socialstudies/article1.htm.
McKnight, D. (2004). An inquiry of NCATE's move into virtue ethics by way of dispositions (Is this what Aristotle meant?). Educational Studies, 35(3), 212-230.
McKnight, D., & Robinson, C. (2006). From technologia to technism: A critique on technology's place in education. Technology, Humanities, Education and Narrative (THEN) Journal, 3 (Summer 2006). On-line serial at http://www.thenjournal.org/feature/116.
National Council for the Social Studies (n.d.). Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies. Retrieved April 9, 2004 from www.socialstudies.org/standards.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). 2002 edition. Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education, Glossary section. Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research, R.J. Shavelson & L. Towne, (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Parker, W. C., (1996). "Advanced" ideas about democracy: Toward a pluralist conception of citizen education, Teachers College Record, 98(1), 104-125.
Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly : The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Knopf ; Distributed by Random House.
Rip, A. & Kemp, R. (1998). Toward a theory of socio-technical change. In S. Rayner and E.L. Malone (eds.). Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. II. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Press.
Robinson, C., & McKnight, D. (2006). WWW and multicultural democracy: Evaluating U.S. history websites. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Making a Difference: The Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 592-598). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rose, S. A. & Ferdinand, P.M. (1997). Using technology for powerful social studies learning. Social Education, 61 (3), 160-166.
Ross, W. (2000). The promise and perils of e-learning. Theory and Research in Social Education, 28(4), 482-492.
Salinas, C., & Robinson, C. (2002). Finding multiple voices through the Internet. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 14(3), 31-32.
Santora, E. M. (2001). Interrogating privilege, plurality and possibilities in a multicultural society. In William B. Stanley (Ed.), Critical Issues in Social Studies Research for the 21st century, pp. 149-178. Greenwich, CT: Information age publishing.
Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stanley, W.B. (Ed) (2001). Critical Issues in social studies research for the 21st century. Greenwich, CT: Information age publishing.
Stanley, W. B., & Whitson, J. A. (1993). Citizenship as practical competence: A response to the new reform movement in social education. The International Journal of Social Education, 7(2), 57-65.
Van Benschoten, E. (2000). Technology, democracy and the creation of community. National Civic Review, 89(3), 185-192.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. T. Parsons, trans. New York: Scribner's.
White, C. (1997). Information technology in U.S. social studies classrooms: potentials and realities. Paper presented at the meeting of Korean Social Studies Association. Jinju, South Korea, Aug. 8, 1997.
Whitworth, S., & Berson, M. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2 (4), 472-509, Article 1. Retrieved March 25, 2004 from http://www.citejournal.org/vo2/iss4/socialstudies/article1.htm.
Zambon, M. (2003). Technology, race consciousness and the oppressor. In Gloria Ladson-Billings (Ed.) Critical Race Theory Perspective on Social Studies: The Profession, Policies, and Curriculum, (pp.271-290). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Designed and hosted by Interactive Communications & Simulations, copyright 2007.