The Cultural Consciousness of Curriculum and China’s Reconstruction of the Basic Structure of Curriculum Study in the Global Era

• In Event: Studying Curriculum Reform: China Comes to America While America Leaves

Abstract

Since the Chinese Economic Reform and Opening policy in 1978,Curriculum studies has achieved the fastest development within the general field of education, but also been criticized "transplanted western curriculum study". With the advancement of globalization in China, the concept of “cultural consciousness of curriculum” receives more and more attention. At China’s Sixth National Curriculum Symposium in 2008, there were great amount of debates around the ideas that viewing curriculum as the core of education, curriculum culture as the axis of the curriculum, and cultural consciousness of curriculum as the “bulls-eye” of the curriculum culture.
The cultural consciousness of curriculum as a term origins from the idea of cultural consciousness which was created by Xiaotong Fei, a famous sociologist and historian in China. In his opinion, embedded with such cultural consciousness, China can acquire self-identity by having on-going conversions with other cultures, especially the western culture ( Xiaotong Fei,1997) .
The cultural consciousness of curriculum aims to enhance the capabilities of cultural dialogue and exchange at the new age. Curriculum studies in China does exist some problems. While the reflection on "self" is necessary, the emphasis of "curriculum nationalization" and "curriculum localization" lurks a potential danger that “cultural consciousness of curriculum "is likely to be transformed into curriculum cultural conservatism.
As a matter of fact, cultural consciousness of curriculum should contain two meanings: the globalization of local culture and the localization of foreign cultures. Localization must be placed in the context of globalization; a local curriculum development should also seek for a universal value of mankind. If we put the national values on top of universal values, it will block the chance of intercultural exchange and communication.
Raimon Panikkar's Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics provides a rich reference model for research in cultural consciousness of curriculum .Myth enables us to take everything for granted because we are immersed into it. From his viewpoint, culture is all-inclusive myth which gives us a pre-existed perspective at the structure of the world .He pointed out the dialogue between two different cultures is of great significance, since they can help each other step out "their own myths”. He also advocates to use “dialogical dialogue “instead of “dialectical dialogue”. The former complies with the humanity principle while the latter with "logos" and "rationality".
"Dialogical dialogue” needs “common language”. Comparing concepts and conceptual metaphors is a good way to seek "common language" and find out the joint points of curriculum studies among different cultures. Through sustained dialogues, we will be able to break our own “myths” and establish a "basic disciplinary structure."( Raimon Panikkar,2004)
The reconstruction of the basic structure of curriculum studies , guided by the cultural consciousness of curriculum, is apt to be interdisciplinary rather than disciplinary. It treats curriculum as a living body which nourishes itself actively in the dimensions of time and space, and eventually leads to a deeper and broader curriculum perspective.

Author

• Liu Hui, Zhejiang University