Constructivism deconstructed: From Kant to Lyotard. The process and criteria for judgement (Immanuel Kant, Jean-Francois Lyotard)

The purpose of this study was to develop a framework to determine the relation between modern American public school policies and practices, access, and the Constitutional ideal of free speech. For this study, access was defined as the acquisition of discourses appropriate to engage in political activities commensurate with fulfilling the promises of the American democratic ideal. This ideal was to be advanced through public education designed to prepare students to be critical and reflective citizens. To be critical and reflective, one needs multiple frameworks concerning what counts as "truth" to make judgments about history and possible futures. Free speech, or, more fundamentally, freedom of thought, is essential to making democratically appropriate political judgments. This being the case, then Constructivism, a currently pervasive practice in public education, ought to be consistent with freedom of thought. A deconstructive analysis of the discourse of Constructivism should reveal any contradictions between Constructivism and democratic ideals.; As a method of analysis, deconstruction must necessarily begin and end with the present. The epistemological foundations of Constructivism are consistent with modern Western thought, which is based on the work of the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant's contribution to Western thought was two-fold. On the one hand, he recognized the openness of thought; however, on the other hand, his particular method of making judgments about what counts as "truths" excluded all other methods. Jean-Francois Lyotard recognized this contradiction and proposed that Western discourse be deconstructed through an analysis of "language games." For Lyotard, a "language game" is a relationship between an addressor, an addressee, and a referent to any particular discursive interaction. Lyotard reasoned that if justice (the relationship between individuals) is to be consistent with democratic ideals, then there must be at least the possibility of accessing a potentially infinite array of possible solutions to resolve justice controversies. Lyotard describes this infinite array of possibilities as the domain of the prescriptive "language game." On the other hand, Lyotard argues, Kant's method of judging "truth" limits possibilities, which places Kant's method in the domain of the efficiency "language game." This dissimilarity of language games is what Lyotard calls a differend, a place where two incommensurable ideas clash.; Lyotard argues that the differend allows for the possibility of a ruse (a strategy) that potentially provides for a new type of "language game." For Lyotard, the interplay between a differend and a ruse is the essence of Western liberal politic, which has the potential to constitute justice and maximize access.; Applying Lyotard's notion of language games as a framework, the deconstruction revealed epistemological contradictions between Constructivism and both access and the Western liberal democratic ideal. Constructivism as an ideal is consistent with the American democratic ideal of access through freedom of thought (justice); but, in practice, Constructivism as a process limits thought to specific, predetermined ends such as mandated state and national standards. The process of Constructivism is consistent with the Modern notion of progress (efficiency). This contradiction between justice and efficiency constitutes a differend. Because Constructivism promises students that they will construct their own reality (freedom of thought), those who practice Constructivism should either (1) not limit students' judgment's to external standards of truth or (2) not promise students that they will construct their own version of truth.