Internationalization of Curriculum Studies through an Elusive Curriculum
TCI, as the journal of the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies (IAACS), supports a worldwide -not uniform nor homogenized -field of curriculum studies. Different conceptions, different frameworks, different languages (even in English), different discourses allow to construct an elusive curriculum. Portelli (1987) presented this expression in an old paper that discusses the definitions about curriculum. In his words, simplistic answers to the question "What is
... estion "What is curriculum?" will be misleading, the answers cannot represent the complexity of curriculum, the different possibilities of understanding curriculum. Nowadays, it is possible to consider that this process is deeper, especially with the internationalization of the field. The field is bigger, more complex and plural, with a diversity of countries, universities, theories, influences and subjects. However, if we consider the curriculum as discourse, such elusiveness does not refer to a plurality or a broadening of the field. The curriculum is elusive, because it has no ground to define once and all what curriculum is. Curriculum is a sign that succumbs to the language games. Because of the incessant translation, curriculum discourse has no origin, no end. Translate, iterate, as Derrida points out, is not an option, when we speak, write, produce knowledge. We cannot escape of it. We are always immersed (maybe constituted) in translation [I might add that the writing of the so-called 'original', in return, has continually been transformed by translation: a case of parasitic feedback, including this parenthesis (Derrida, p. 101)]. If we read, the translation happens. If we are read, we are translated, and this process allows us to exist as producers of texts and as the authors of curriculum field. In this perspective of an elusive curriculum, a curriculum without ground, I understand the internationalization of the curriculum field. In this same perspective, TCI stands as a vehicle for curriculum papers and insert them in the field. In this perspective, 2015.1 TCI presents four papers and a review. In the text, Freire and the US Reconceptualization: Remembering Curriculum as International Conversation, Daniel Johnson-Mardones draws on the internationalization of Curriculum Studies as a process since the very beginning of the reconceptualization of the field in the United States. He argues that Paulo Freire´s work, from Brazil, strongly influenced the US reconceptualization of the field. He also argues that, instead the Marxist framework of this author, post-critical authors quoted his books more than critical authors. As Johnson-Mardones presents, Freire's curricular influence came from humanities fields rather that from those more oriented to social sciences.