The study of a social phenomenon is a complex endeavor and, perhaps, it is a journey . The study that is contextualized and analyzed in this discussion occurred during 2013ā2015 in the United States. An identity is ostensibly what is deconstructed hereāone rooted in a historical inheritance. Identity itself is rooted in history. Without history, there is no identity . Memories are fragments that are put together to form a coherent narrative of who and what a person is to themselves and to others. History , then, is a collection of points of view. When considering this statement of how individuals know themselves, statements such as this are possible: The first casualty of war is morality, and knowledge may be power but what we do with knowledge indicates wisdom. Alternatively, perhaps, questions such as this could be asked: Why does one personās understanding differ from another when reading the same text? Reductionist answers could include uneven amounts of knowledge , different levels of social power by the observers and agents of change , or inherited structural privileges that ostensibly advantage one group over another. These may be helpful observations for generating discussion. There is something more, though, and part of that something more is identifying a process behind a structure that animates social cohesion or manipulates social differentiation. I endeavored to conduct a grounded theory study (Glaser and Strauss 1967/2012; Charmaz 2005) of preservice K-8 teachers to posit information for discussion of how society is fostered in the present era, and to begin to decipher such information gathered. This process is not āneat.ā It is āmessy.ā This discussion is not meant to provide any āfinalā answers, as there is no finality to be found here. Rather, here is an avant-garde chronicle using various literature, popular sources, survey data, and inquiry into the context of these sources of information. Asymmetrical problems of social practice seem to require asymmetrical discussion. To focus this problem, a case study is posited on identifying a medieval social construct and how it may be understood today by preservice teachers who select curriculum in early childhood education (ECE) and middle-level education . These years set the stage for later development.
To understand the concept of the current understanding of chivalry as a social foil in American culture (see Ashton and Kline 2012; Pugh and Aronstein 2012; Kelly 2012; Harper 2010), I posit archeophisomorphic theory, or ArchPM, as an aesthetic curriculum theory. With this study, I found the subspeciality of what I call archeophisomorphology. This combines aspects of Gestalt psychology, hermeneutical philosophy, and anthropology using a mixed-methods approach to answer questions of cultural change and continuity with aspects of reanimation and cyclicality. In this section, I explain ArchPM and its development from the grounded theory case study of American preservice K-8 teachersā conceptions of chivalry conducted as part of an investigation of the continued presence of the chivalric ethos as a social artefact. The chivalric ethos is an archeophisomorph āthat is, a retro social construct that continues to āliveā in the present in an adapted form.
As an aesthetic curriculum theory with application for the K-12 subject of social studies , ArchPM has application for philosophers of education to process the cultural understandings brought into the classroom by every student . In parallel with Jalongo and Stampās (1997) contention that every preservice K-8 teacher should integrate the arts across the curriculum they teach, Donald Blumenfeld-Jones (1997) noted: āAn hermeneutic description of process reveals that consciousness of hermeneutics provides critical and generative aspects for aesthetic experienceā (p. 319). An aesthetically responsive curriculum places teacher and student as co-constructors of curricular content, and it is in this process that the celebration of the individual within the group can generate aesthetic understandings of each other.
Jenna Shim (2011) stated: āWe, as a collective of scholars, researchers, and practitioners committed to diversity and equality , must continue to search for a more realistic and more responsible way to move us forwardā (p. 755). I suggest that an aesthetically responsive curriculum design is a tool for accomplishing āforwardā movement in celebrating diversity, because ArchPM as an aesthetically responsive curriculum theory is co-construction of understanding that provides a foundation for the celebration of the individual as a unique contributor to the community while simultaneously being based on state learning standards (Joseph 2011) and the Common Core State Standards.
The theoretical framework is organized as follows: I will explain what I call archeophisomorphic theory based on a combination of Hans-Georg Gadamerās (1975/2013) ā fusion of horizonsā (pp. 313, 317) and the concept of Gestalt isomorphism (see Lehar 2003). First, I provide context for this theoretical framework as it pertains to archeophisomorphic theory (or for short, ArchPM theory). Second, I explain my theory by detailing each of the two foundational componentsāGadamerās fusion of horizons and Gestalt isomorphism āand why combining the two is important for identifying how an ancient value may persist into the present. Third, I list and then explain the three definitional assumptions and the elements that comprise those assumptions. Fourth, I explain the archeophisomorphic effect within the context of the theory being an aesthetic educational theory to explain how an ancient social value may persist into the present through artistic (multimedia) representations āvisual and textual. Fifth, I detail a limitation of the theory.
Context
Archeophisomorphic theory is posited as an aesthetic theory that establishes a praxis under the auspices of a definition, assumptions, elements, and example of aesthetics education . Aesthetics is avant-garde creativity and, as such, tends to be idiosyncratic when students are not required to replicat...