Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An intellectual biography of Dwayne E. Huebner : biography, curriculum history, and understanding curriculum… Kyser, Joseph A. 2020

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2020_november_kyser_joseph.pdf [ 1.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0392006.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0392006-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0392006-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0392006-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0392006-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0392006-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0392006-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0392006-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0392006.ris

Full Text

AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY OF DWAYNE E. HUEBNER:  BIOGRAPHY, CURRICULUM HISTORY, AND  UNDERSTANDING CURRICULUM AS THEOLOGICAL by Joseph A. Kyser  B.Ed., University of Central Missouri, 2008 M.S., University of Central Missouri, 2010 M.Div., Boston University, 2014   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Cross-Faculty Inquiry in Education) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) June 2020 © Joseph A. Kyser, 2020 ii  The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:   An intellectual biography of Dwayne E. Huebner: biography, curriculum history, and understanding curriculum as theological   submitted by   Joseph A. Kyser  in partial fulfillment of the requirements for  the degree of   Doctor of Philosophy  in    Cross-Faculty Inquiry in Education  Examining Committee:  William F. Pinar, Curriculum & Pedagogy Supervisor   Anne Phelan , Curriculum & Pedagogy  Supervisory Committee Member   David Anderson, Curriculum & Pedagogy University Examiner   Samuel Rocha, Educational Studies University Examiner  Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Peter Grimmett, Curriculum & Pedagogy Supervisory Committee Member   iii   ABSTRACT William Pinar proposed that Dwayne Huebner may well be judged by future historians of the field as the most important mind in curriculum. Since his retirement from curriculum studies, Huebner has long been associated with theorizing curriculum theologically. Yet I believe that this articulation and engagement of his legacy needs further nuance and understanding. Using the biographical research method, this dissertation seeks to reframe Huebner’s theological legacy by contextualizing it through his lived experience and his significant ideas. This dissertation is divided into four parts. Part 1 examines the biographical method, focusing specifically on intellectual biography. Part 2 contextualizes his interest in theology by narrating the lived experience of Dwayne Huebner through interviews conducted with him as well as reviewing official professional documents. Moreover, I contextualize his engagement with theology in comparison with significant themes found in his scholarship in Part 3. This includes his educational creed, his ontology, and his understanding of knowledge and its forms. Part 4 reframes Huebner’s legacy for those seeking to theorize the curriculum theologically.    iv   LAY SUMMARY This dissertation is a biography of Dwayne E. Huebner. He was a professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, in the historic Curriculum and Teaching Department for 25 years, and then at the Yale University Divinity School, where he was the Horace Bushnell Professor of Christian Nurture (religious education) for over 10 years. Most scholars only know Huebner through one collected volume of his essays published in 1999, and many focus on Huebner’s interest in theology. This dissertation takes a closer look at his interest in theology by explaining the biographical method in Part 1, narrating his life history in Part 2, placing theology in comparison with his other ideas in Part 3, and lastly, offering a new understanding of his interest (and legacy) in theology in Part 4.   v   PREFACE Part 1 of this dissertation is partly based upon interviews conducted by Joseph Kyser with Dwayne E. Huebner. These interviews were approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) with the certificate ID: H17-00267. All other content is original and is the independent work of Joseph Kyser.     vi   TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ iv Preface .......................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... xi Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xii Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 0.1 Background of Study .......................................................................................................... 1 0.2 Literature on Dwayne Huebner .................................................................................... 2 0.3 Huebner’s Legacy with Theology ................................................................................. 5 0.4 The Problem Statement ................................................................................................ 7 0.5 The Professional Significance of the Study ................................................................... 7 0.6 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 9 Part 1: The Biographical Method ............................................................................................... 11 1.1 Chapter 1: Why a Biographical Methodology? .............................................................. 12 1.1.1 Overview of Biographical Methodology ................................................................. 14 1.1.2 Introduction to Biography ...................................................................................... 14 1.1.3 Biography as Research ............................................................................................ 16 1.1.4 Biography as Educational Research ........................................................................ 19 vii  1.1.5 Biography as History ............................................................................................... 20 1.1.6 Biography as Memory ............................................................................................. 22 1.1.7 Biography as Relationship ....................................................................................... 25 1.1.8 Biography as Psychoanalysis ................................................................................... 27 1.1.9 Biography as Interpretation .................................................................................... 30 1.1.10 Biography as Novel ................................................................................................. 34 1.1.11 Biography as Art ..................................................................................................... 36 1.1.12 Biography as Intellectual Biography ....................................................................... 38 1.2 Chapter 2: Intellectual Biography Methodology ............................................................ 42 1.2.1 Methodology for Part 2 .......................................................................................... 43 1.2.2 Methodology for Part 3 .......................................................................................... 44 1.2.2.1 Phase 1: Read and Code ................................................................................. 45 1.2.2.2 Phase 2: Analysis of Data ................................................................................ 46 1.2.2.3 Phase 3: Compose the Narrative .................................................................... 49 1.2.3 Methodology for Part 4 .......................................................................................... 50 1.2.4 Summary of Methodology ...................................................................................... 50 1.2.5 Additional Notes on Methodology ......................................................................... 51 Part 2: Life History ...................................................................................................................... 55 2.1 Overview of Chapters ..................................................................................................... 56 2.2 Chapter 3: Early Life (1923–1947) .................................................................................. 57 2.3 Chapter 4: Graduate School and       Northern Illinois University (1947–1957) ............. 67 viii  2.4 Chapter 5: Teachers College (1957-1982) ...................................................................... 87 2.5 Chapter 6: Yale Divinity (1982–1994) ........................................................................... 110 2.6 Chapter 7: Retirement (1994–Present) ......................................................................... 119 Part 3: Intellectual Narrative ..................................................................................................... 122 3.1 A Brief Narrative of Huebner’s Intellectual Life ............................................................ 124 3.2 Overview of Chapters ................................................................................................... 129 3.3 Chapter 8: Huebner’s Educational Creed .................................................................... 132 3.3.1 On Education ........................................................................................................ 132 3.3.2 On Schools ............................................................................................................ 134 3.3.3 On Learning .......................................................................................................... 137 3.3.4 On Curriculum ....................................................................................................... 142 3.3.5 Moving Forward .................................................................................................... 148 3.4 Chapter 9: Huebner’s Ontology ................................................................................... 149 3.4.1 The Importance of Time ....................................................................................... 150 3.4.2 The Search for Language ...................................................................................... 151 3.4.3 The Value of the World ......................................................................................... 156 3.4.4 The Need for Power ............................................................................................. 159 3.4.5 The Foundational Role of Relationships ............................................................... 162 3.4.6 Language and Conversation ................................................................................. 166 3.4.7 Returning to Time ................................................................................................. 167 3.5 Chapter 10: Forms of Knowledge ................................................................................ 170 ix  3.5.1 Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 171 3.5.1.1 What is Knowledge? ............................................................................................. 171 3.5.1.2 Implications of Knowledge ................................................................................... 173 3.5.1.3 Six Forms of Knowledge ....................................................................................... 179 3.5.2 Scientific Knowledge ............................................................................................ 181 3.5.2.1 What is Science? ................................................................................................... 181 3.5.2.2 Implications of Science ......................................................................................... 182 3.5.2.3 Significance of Science ......................................................................................... 186 3.5.3 Technical Knowledge ............................................................................................ 188 3.5.3.1 What is the Technical? .......................................................................................... 188 3.5.3.2 Implications of the Technical ................................................................................ 189 3.5.3.3 Significance of the Technical ................................................................................ 191 3.5.4 Aesthetic Knowledge ............................................................................................ 193 3.5.4.1 What is Aesthetics? ............................................................................................... 193 3.5.4.2 Implications of Aesthetics ..................................................................................... 196 3.5.4.3 Significance of Aesthetics ..................................................................................... 198 3.5.5 Philosophical and Theological Knowledge ........................................................... 200 3.5.5.1 What is Philosophy and Theology? ....................................................................... 200 3.5.5.2 Implications of  Philosophy and Theology ............................................................ 201 3.5.5.3 Significance of Philosophy and Theology ............................................................. 205 3.5.6 Political Knowledge .............................................................................................. 206 x  3.5.6.1 What is the Political? ............................................................................................. 206 3.5.6.2 Implications of the Political ................................................................................... 208 3.5.6.3 Significance of the Political ................................................................................... 212 3.5.7 Moral Knowledge ................................................................................................. 214 3.5.7.1 What is the Moral? ................................................................................................ 214 3.5.7.2 Implications of the Moral ...................................................................................... 218 3.5.7.3 Significance of the Moral ...................................................................................... 219 3.5.7.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 221 Part 4: Understanding the Curriculum Theologically ............................................................... 222 4.1 Overview of the Chapters ............................................................................................. 225 4.2 Chapter 11: Theology in Huebner’s Scholarship .......................................................... 226 4.2.1 Huebner’s Theological Ideas ................................................................................ 226 4.2.2 Theology as a Form of Knowledge ....................................................................... 232 4.3 Chapter 12: Why Theology, Then? ............................................................................... 238 4.3.1 Summary ............................................................................................................... 255 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 256 5.1 Limitations and Future Directions of the Study ........................................................ 263 References ................................................................................................................................ 266 Appendix A: Index of Work Chronologically ........................................................................... 299   xi   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research could not have been completed without the help of many people. First, my supervisor, William Pinar, has been extremely supportive through all of the stages of writing this dissertation as well as throughout my doctoral studies. He has shown me what it means to be an intellectual and an academic. Anne Phelan has challenged me intellectually to rise above where I was at any given moment to consider new possibilities. She graciously pushed the boundaries of what is to passionately imagine what could be. Peter Grimmett has encouraged me to look deeper and more thoughtfully at all of my assumptions. He has brought profound insight and much wisdom as I considered what knowledge is most worth knowing. There have been far too many friends, mentors, therapists, ministers, and family that have walked with me in the past to include by name. I finished this research with much gratitude for their continuous support. They have my deepest love and appreciation.    xii   DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to Dwayne E. Huebner.  1  INTRODUCTION 0.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY “Clearly one of the most important minds the field of curriculum has known, Dwayne Huebner may well be judged by the future historians of the field as the most important.” - William F. Pinar (Huebner, Hillis, & Pinar, 1999, p. xxiv)  It has been 20 years since William Pinar wrote these words, and yet, surprisingly, only a few studies have been focused upon Huebner himself or his scholarship. I was already interested in knowing more about this significant figure by the time that I read these words myself. My exposure to Huebner was led purely by my own curiosity. I have been interested in education and schooling since childhood and completed a standard teacher education program for high school business teachers, which was built upon educational psychology, classroom management, assessment and evaluation, and methods of teaching. During my master’s degree program in educational technology, I began teaching on my own at university. During this time, I was given many opportunities to revise the curriculum. I knew that when it came to my doctoral studies, I wanted to focus on studying the curriculum.  At the same time, I have dual interests in religion and education. While completing my theological degree, I contacted many professors in education to inquire about combining these interests. One of the professors suggested that I read Understanding Curriculum (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1999) if I wanted to understand the curriculum field. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, I had not known that a curriculum field existed 2  outside of curriculum development. Thus, a month before beginning my doctoral studies, I read Understanding Curriculum. I read its pages line by line, word by word, taking copious notes over the rich history held within those pages. One name kept surfacing as I studied the text: Dwayne Huebner. In one of my initial meetings with William Pinar, who agreed to become my research supervisor, I mentioned my interest in Huebner. He graciously affirmed my interest, and soon after connected me directly with Huebner. 0.2 LITERATURE ON DWAYNE HUEBNER  While many curriculum scholars are generally familiar with Huebner’s scholarship, not much has been written about the man Dwayne Huebner. Scholars mainly access Huebner through the 1999 collected volume, The Lure of the Transcendent (Huebner et al., 1999) (See Appendix A for a full list of his archived writing, both published and unpublished). The robust introduction by William Pinar in the collected volume locates and situates Huebner’s thinking within the larger academic community. Pinar highlighted Huebner’s interest in power that was similar to the thinking of Foucault, Freire, and Rorty (p. xviii). He also noted that Huebner was interested in art and aesthetics years before Eisner would make it popular (p. xviii). Furthermore, Pinar emphasized Huebner’s significant contribution by introducing phenomenological texts to the curriculum field (p. xviii). Huebner’s interest in language and theology was also highlighted (p. xx). Pinar asserted that Huebner was ahead of his time in many ways and took the lead on writing about topics and ideas that would not be developed until years later. It is assumed that readers of this study have already read Pinar’s introduction, 3  so his points will not necessarily be repeated in this study. This study merely builds upon that orientation to Huebner.  Another source that focuses on Huebner in a holistic manner is the thorough biography provided on the Christian Educators of the 20th Century website (Brown, n.d.). This encyclopedic entry written by George Brown, Jr. offers a short biography, a list of intellectual contributions to Christian Education, a bibliography, a few excerpts from Huebner’s publications, and additional recommended readings. Brown emphasized Huebner’s intellectual contributions including language, politics, hermeneutics, relationships, transcendence, philosopher, provocateur, and prophet.1 Brown’s entry is based upon interviews and written correspondence with Huebner in 2003. It contains similar information as this study does; however, my hope is that this study approaches both Huebner’s life and ideas with greater detail. Also, Brown’s audience is mostly Christian educators, whereas this study is directed toward curriculum scholars.    Some curriculum scholars have previously discussed aspects of Huebner’s scholarship. For example, James M. Magrini (2016) focused on Huebner’s phenomenology in his essay. Michael Apple (2010) wrote a moving tribute about Huebner in his essay “Fly and the Fly Bottle: On Dwayne Huebner, the Uses of Language, and the Nature of the Curriculum Field.” Another example is found in Hanan A. Alexander’s (2010) book review, “Education as Spiritual Critique: Dwayne Huebner’s Lure of the Transcendent.” In Canada, Huebner has also been the  1 Some of these themes were also selected for this study although they have no direct connection to this source. This will be indicated later, when I discuss my methodology. 4  focus of scholarship. For instance, an edited volume by Patrick Lewis and Jennifer Tupper (2009) entitled Challenges Bequeathed: Taking Up the Challenges of Dwayne Huebner takes up Huebner’s (1999) last essay in The Lure of the Transcendent and speak to how it is still relevant ten years after Lure was published.  Graduate students such as Plantinga (1985) have also studied his contributions.  While there are quite a few synoptic texts that offer an overview of the curriculum studies field, I would like to emphasize Huebner’s mention in two of them.2 He is discussed at length, as stated earlier, in Understanding Curriculum (Pinar et al., 1995). He additionally is included in the Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (Kridel, 2010). Both these texts cite Huebner as one of the first scholars to introduce phenomenology to the curriculum field (Pinar et al., 1995, pp. 44, 179, 213–215, 410, 417–419; Kridel, 2010, pp. 214, 641–642). They also emphasized Huebner’s declaration, similar to Joseph Schwab, that the curriculum field was in a doomed trajectory unless something changed (Pinar et al., 1995, pp. 187, 212, 218, 220, 232–233, 235, 849, 857; Kridel, 2010, p. 585). His desire to challenge and change the traditional field by looking to other academic traditions beyond the field of psychology led him to be considered a parent for the Reconceptualization of Curriculum Studies (Pinar et al., 1995, pp. 156, 172; Kridel, 2010, pp.  704, 873–874). He challenged the empirical study of education through psychology, behavioural sciences, scientism, positivism, and instrumentalism (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 184; Kridel, 2010, pp. 642, 873–874). He is recognized for contributing to several discourses in curriculum studies including his focus on  2 He is also discussed in Flinders and Thornton’s The Curriculum Studies Reader (2004). 5  phenomenology through temporality and language, political science, aesthetics, and theology and spirituality (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 171, 181–182, 213–215, 243, 410, 417–419, 443, 568, 573, 576, 577, 606, 627–629, 860–862; Kridel, 2010, pp. 241–242, 436,641–642, 873–874, 918). It is his focus on theology and spirituality that I turn to next. 0.3 HUEBNER’S LEGACY WITH THEOLOGY Huebner has long been affiliated with theology based on his academic writing and his post at Yale Divinity School. His legacy with theology has only been cemented with time. Chapter 12 of Understanding Curriculum (Pinar et al., 1995) is one of the first texts, if not the very first one, to formally examine the curriculum theologically. Theology is derived from the Greek theos (God) and logos (words or discourse). It is the study of, at its most basic core, “the nature of the divine and those things that are to be understood in relation to the divine” (Neville, 1991, p. 1). Huebner is cited in this chapter for his advocation of theology in place of a scientific orientation although these citations do not engage with any specific theological reference (pp. 182, 214). Instead, chapter 12 focuses on Huebner’s scholarship with a moral and ethical perspective.3 Pinar et al. (1995) suggested that moral and aesthetic discourses are part of the theological and spiritual dimensions of curriculum (p. 627). I do not question this suggestion as there is definitely a relationship between these domains; however, for the purposes of this study, Huebner’s engagement with theology will be taken in a slightly different direction.  3 This dissertation will separate the theological from the moral (see chapter 10). 6  Huebner is also connected to theology in the more recent Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (Kridel, 2010). Several of the contributors for a variety of topics noted Huebner’s theological contribution to curriculum studies (see pp. 641–642, 873–874, 918). He is additionally included in entries on “Theological Research,” (pp. 881–883) authored by Patrick Slattery (who is also a co-author of Understanding Curriculum [1995]) and on “Curriculum as Spiritual Experience” (pp. 192–193) by George Willis.  It is therefore incorrect to state that no attention has been given to Huebner, especially when examining curriculum theologically. Yet, much that has been written is generic and broadly stated without specific citations to his work (though there are a few exceptions). There is more that needs to be done to understand why Pinar would make the claim that Huebner may be the most important mind in the history of the curriculum field. This study is an attempt for that greater understanding with a specific focus on Huebner’s engagement with theology. It is not to place Huebner in conversation with contemporary scholars. The aim of this study is to provide an interpretation for his interest in theology with greater nuance and contextualization based upon an in-depth study of his written scholarship as well as personal interviews conducted with him. I intend for this interpretation to advance current thinking on understanding the curriculum theologically. To do this, I have selected the biographical method in effort to answer my research question.    7  0.4 THE PROBLEM STATEMENT  As I began reading and studying Huebner with greater focus on theology, I began to notice that scholars rarely cited specific passages, texts, or sophisticated concepts. Yet Huebner and theology (or spirituality) were not strangers to each other either (as suggested by the references above). Therefore, I began to question exactly what Huebner said in reference to theology. I also wanted to locate his interest in theology compared to his other interests. Was Huebner a one-topic scholar or was theology just one of many interests of his (the latter is the truth as we will discover in this study)? It is also well known by scholars familiar with Huebner that he moved from Teachers College to Yale Divinity to focus on religious education. What was behind this move? Were the driving factors situational, intellectual, or something else? I did not simply want to know his work better, although that is true, but I also wanted a better understanding of the life behind the work. Who was this individual? What was his career path? What are his theological beliefs and commitments? What drove his curiosities? What is the relationship between theology and his other intellectual interests in his scholarship? In short, I wanted to know what was Huebner’s engagement with theology based upon his lived experience and his significant ideas.  0.5 THE PROFESSIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY  This study is significant for curriculum studies for three primary reasons. First, dare I suggest that no other work has been done on Huebner as extensively and intensely as this one? Scholars and the public have primarily accessed Huebner through Lure of the 8  Transcendent (1999), and while this text is foundational and necessary for any serious curriculum scholar’s library, Huebner’s accomplishment is more than what is contained in this text alone. Therefore, my foremost original contribution to knowledge through this study is to offer the curriculum field, the academy, and the wider world a thorough interpretation of Dwayne Huebner’s engagement with theology through a narration of his lived experience and his most significant ideas. This narration is contained with the larger project of presenting an archive of Huebner’s life and intellectual contributions. This archive utilizes the methods of oral history and digital humanities, which is still emerging and evolving with the advancement of technology. This study as an archive is perhaps its greatest value to the curriculum field.   Second, the biographical method has been used for decades in the field of education (see Kridel, 1998). Yet, little has been published outlining the explicit and practical steps needed to compose an intellectual biography. This study utilizes and implements what I suggest is a new approach specifically designed for intellectual biographies within the larger biographical method. This new methodology encourages a much more rigorous and robust process. Therefore, the very methodology described in the next few pages is, itself, may someday be judged a major contribution to curriculum studies.   Lastly, there has been a growing interest in historicizing the curriculum field. Huebner worked at one of the most intellectually important institutions in the field’s history. Teachers College, specifically the Department of Curriculum and Teaching, has housed some of the field’s greatest minds. Whereas this narration focuses on Huebner, many other important intellectual figures are referenced, including Maxine Greene, Philip Phenix, Leland Jacobs, 9  Alice Miel, Florence Stratemeyer, James Macdonald, Virgil Herrick, and Paul Eberman. This study is one means of offering a history of the field, revealed through the life and work of one, albeit significant, participant in it. 0.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY  This study is limited in a variety of ways based on each part of the dissertation. For instance, Part 2 is limited because: 1) It does not contextualize his life as thoroughly as possible using external sources beyond Huebner. For example, it does not describe the furniture industry in Grand Rapids beyond a generalized remark based upon Huebner’s recollection of his experiences of it through his father’s professional life. It does not situate Teachers College or the department in any larger context beyond Huebner’s own lived experience. 2) It heavily relies on Huebner’s memory and reflection of events in the past. It is impossible to know what Huebner actually felt, thought, and did in the moment from the past since he kept no journals, personal correspondence (besides a few sentimental items), or other records. This is a major shortcoming as a traditional biography, which normally needs excessive amounts of source materials retained from each time. 3) It does not include thoughts or reflections by those who knew Huebner, either as colleagues or as his former students. Due to time, I determined that the simplest method would be to limit the narrative to Huebner’s own reflection as well as the few records he had access to (such as his graduate transcripts and a few sentimental letters he kept over the years).  10   Part 3 is limited because: 1) It does not examine any of the primary texts/scholars Huebner referenced in his work. The study assumes that Huebner understood the primary texts accurately, which may be a fallacy and limitation in Huebner’s ideas themselves. 2) This study does not engage with how Huebner’s ideas examined in this study have been discussed by other scholars in the field. Perhaps there is a controversy in how Huebner’s ideas have been understood, which is overlooked in this study. There is no knowledge on my part of this, but the possibility exists. 3) Lastly, as stated before the ideas presented are based upon frequency. Thus, perhaps there was a brilliant idea Huebner thought and wrote about but only once. This study would have overlooked that idea, and it is not included in this study. I do not believe that this is the case, but it is possible.   Part 4 is limited mostly due to space. Theology in curriculum studies is continuing to gain more popularity with time. Huebner did cite more theological ideas, though not as frequently as the ones included in this chapter. Further engagement and exploration with those ideas is needed.    11   PART 1: THE BIOGRAPHICAL METHOD 12  1.1 CHAPTER 1: WHY A BIOGRAPHICAL METHODOLOGY?  The method utilized in this study was determined based on my research question:  What was Huebner’s engagement with theology based upon his lived experience and his significant ideas? While all scholars have written work, few have moved from curriculum studies to religious studies (or vice versa), which makes Huebner unique in this way. Additionally, theology can be a personal endeavour so I wanted to know how connected his personal life was to his professional intellectual life. As such, I do not believe it is enough to contextualize his engagement with theology solely through his written work but in combination with his lived experience as well as his written scholarship.   Biography aims to invite readers to gain a deeper understanding of an individual. The approach used differs for each biography based on if the subject is living or deceased, if he/she is willing to participate or not, if people who knew the subject are living and willing to participate, or if there are enough records accessible to complete the narrative. I found myself with the appropriate access to enough resources (Huebner himself along with his private papers) that it seemed that the biographical method could be utilized.  In addition to the biographical method being the most logical methodology to address my research question, I believe it has other benefits for the academic community and more specifically for the curriculum studies field. First, this methodology presents the information in a relational manner. It is my desire that readers finish this dissertation feeling like they know Huebner (or at least know him a bit better). Perhaps, some will even walk away knowing more 13  about how to have a successful academic career studying the curriculum. Huebner’s life serves as a model for those who follow in his footsteps—not just intellectually but professionally in the field of curriculum studies.   Second, this methodology contextualizes his work. The Lure of the Transcendent (Huebner et al., 1999) is a foundational text within the curriculum field and paramount for any student of Huebner’s thinking. Yet, there is far more to consider than what simply rests on its pages. After reading the text, I wanted to know more about the lived experience of this man; especially since we have a common interest in religion and theology. I wanted to know what drove him to read theology, why he chose to teach at Yale Divinity, and how he got exposed to a vast amount of literature. I wanted to understand his intellectual journey better: how did his ideas shift and change over the course of his career? Is the 1999 collected volume  the best representation of his thinking or is there more? I wanted more context.   Lastly, while this biography is no official account, it does help to historicize the field. Huebner was situated in a very crucial moment in the history of curriculum studies. His lived experience records the transitional period within the curriculum field as pre-reconceptualization and during its early years. He began exploring the ideas that would have significant influence on the direction of the field. This is directly demonstrated through the connections between his scholarship and the work of his students including Michael Apple and  Greta Morine Dershimer. The next generation of scholars was highly influenced by his thinking as Part 3 will reveal in examining his ideas more thoroughly.  He also worked alongside some of that generation’s leading minds including Maxine Greene, James Macdonald, and Philip 14  Phenix. This study narrates a life during one of the most exciting times in curriculum history as the birth of the Reconceptualization occurred. This pivotal moment is necessary to record.  1.1.1 OVERVIEW OF BIOGRAPHICAL METHODOLOGY Biography is one of the earliest genres of writing that we have a record of and yet is one of the most marginalized and debated methodologies within qualitative research. The following discussion is brief, but I attempt to examine the key aspects of this methodology by introducing biography as a genre of writing, biography as research, and biography more specifically as educational research. Then, I outline some of the considerations biographers face: biography as history, as memory, as relationship, as psychoanalysis, as interpretation, as novel, as art, and as intellectual biography. These considerations were selected due to their frequency in the literature on biography and their relevance to this research. These considerations are by no means exhaustive nor will they be presented in a conclusive manner. Instead, I encourage readers to attend to the references cited if they desire to read further into these considerations.  1.1.2 INTRODUCTION TO BIOGRAPHY The genre of biography is an ancient tradition in the West dating to the Greek and Roman eras and carried forward through Christendom (Roberts, 2011). Many of these early texts are considered to be more hagiography than biography. These writings, that is, were about the “Great Men” of a society: war heroes, major philosophers/teachers, political figures, wealthy members of a community, or religious figures. Perhaps the most famous biographer of 15  the era was Plutarch who often wrote with an ethical framework (Kendall, 1965). The purpose of this writing was upon the deeds that made these (mostly) men great. In some ways this was done for historical purposes to preserve a society’s culture, and in other ways, it served to influence others to model these men’s behaviours on a moral and ethical basis.  These hagiographies only increased during the medieval period with the Christian saints. As monasticism gained popularity in the tenth through twelfth centuries, hagiographies became a common tribute to the holiest of figures. Oftentimes these were based on journal writings or through first-hand experiences of those closest to these figures. In the fifteenth century, there was a rise in autobiographies, figures writing for the purposes of counselling the readers (Kendall, 1965). As time went on, biography became a problematic endeavour due to lawsuits and civil unrest throughout Europe. Biographies about the famous were less controversial yet writers were still careful about what they wrote for fear of retribution by the subject and/or their families and friends.  The eighteenth century gave birth to the modern-day biography through the work of Samuel Johnson, and more specifically through his biography Life of Samuel Johnson, by close friend James Boswell (Hamilton, 2008). This biography and the relationship between Johnson and Boswell have been a popular topic for literary scholars and traces of this discourse underlie much of my discussion both implicitly and explicitly. For example, Johnson’s interest in biographies focused on the “episodes and stories [of one’s life] that resonated with the reader, and whose lessons could be applied to [the reader’s] own life” (Hamilton, 2008, p. 10). 16  The purpose was no longer to merely record the great deeds of an individual for positive influence but rather to use lives as a teaching tool. In some ways Johnson’s intent remains, but biographies took another turn in the nineteenth century with the emergence of Freud and psychoanalysis (Lomask, 1986). All of sudden, writers had the resources of using psychological terms to evaluate a subject’s private thoughts and inner life. Biographies were no longer about the public life supported by written artifacts and personal interviews. The individual life could be penetrated and examined with a new framework to discover motivations and perceptions. Additionally, biographies were no longer written just by writers (professional, or at the very least, somewhat prolific writers). Instead psychologists, sociologists, and historians wrote biographies. Biography became a research methodology and not simply a genre of writing. 1.1.3 BIOGRAPHY AS RESEARCH Due to the expanding fields of the social sciences in the twentieth century, biography has grown in popularity over the last 50 years although it remains a marginalized form of research. This is exemplified by biography’s mention in the Handbooks of Qualitative Research, which is currently in its fifth edition; however, the biographical method only appears as its own chapter in the first edition (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 286-305). Interestingly, even though biographical research is still being conducted across many disciplines, the engagement given to biography in each subsequent edition has been diminishing. Instead, biography is discussed more recently under the larger umbrella of narrative research (Rollyson, 2008). 17  Perhaps narrative research may be more creditable as a methodology within the academy (see Clandinin & Connelly, 2004), but for the purposes of this study, I will attend more specifically to biographical scholarship.  Louis M. Smith, author of the chapter on biographical method in the first edition of The Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994), provided a variety of forms biographical research may take — portrayals, portraits, profiles, memoirs, life stories, life histories, case studies, autobiographies, journals, and diaries — although he does not specify any definitions for these forms (p. 287). In my estimation, some defining characteristics include the length of the text, the source material(s), the purpose/context of publication (online, book, chapter, article, etc.), the author (self or other), and whether the subject is living or dead.  As an example of this, James Clifford (1970) does not believe a biography can be written about a living subject. He advocated instead for the word portrait in place of biography since access to personal records and ultimate freedom to write about the subject is not feasible for fear of libel lawsuits and other factors. Any work on a living subject is inherently more limited than is work done on deceased individuals. I found this to be true in some ways for this study since Huebner is still living and was interviewed for this study. However, the benefit of Huebner’s involvement in this study far outweighs any limitation that exists due to his involvement. Furthermore, Smith briefly surveyed the different disciplines that have utilized the biographical method most often (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). These disciplinary branches include literary theory, history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, feminist and minority perspectives (such as class/race/sexuality), and professional education.  Originally, biography 18  as research existed mostly within literary studies. Writers wrote. They had journals, letters, dairies, etc. The “hidden figures” from the past, such as women or racial minorities, do not have the records needed by biographers to write any substantial narrative. Thus, most biographies written, even up to the twentieth century, remained confined to an elite group of individuals whose records were retained (celebrities, royalty, or other writers). It was not until the other disciplines, namely psychology (Freud) and sociology, became more robust in their theories that biographies were given a new life with the capabilities of utilizing these theories and perspectives to interpret a life. Biographers no longer needed full records from birth to death to provide insight. Instead, researchers could take whatever resources were available to them and construct meaning through their theories.  Unfortunately, this both enhanced and hindered biography as a genre in both the academy and in popular culture. Carl Rollyson (2005) described many of the critiques in his book A Higher Form of Cannibalism? where he addressed the negative reputation biography suffers: as a genre that is as intellectual and rigorous as a tabloid magazine. Contemporary biographies too often seek to write about scandals, sex, or drugs. Instead of hagiography, the other extreme has emerged where biographers seek to only soil the names and reputations of individuals. This will be addressed later in regard to my own research, but it is worth mentioning that this critique (among others) against biography still challenges biography’s credibility as research within the academy. Thus, researchers must give great care to how they employ the biographical method.  19  1.1.4 BIOGRAPHY AS EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH In the past 25 years, there has been an increased interest in biographical research in education. For example, William Pinar (2009) used biographical narratives in his The Worldliness of a Cosmopolitan Education. Craig Kridel’s (1998) edited volume, Writing Educational Biography, is a foundational text for the field as its essays explore methodological issues, archival research, dissertation research, and other implications. A host of scholars contributed to the volume, among them F. Jean Clandinin and Michael Connelly, most notable for their scholarship on narrative research, as well as William Pinar, Janet Miller, and William Ayers. Further, an entire section of the book was devoted to doctoral students whose dissertations were biographical studies.  In 2019 Kridel served as the chair for the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Special Interest Group (SIG): Biographical and Documentary Research. He also has contributed to a special twenty-fifth volume of the journal, Vitae Scholasticae, which is the official journal for the International Society for Educational Biography (founded in 1982). In this article, Kridel (2008) sees the cause for the decline of educational biographies as: “insufficient attention to method among educational biographers” (p. 7). In response, he provided five forms of educational biography, which are neither hierarchical nor absolute (pp. 8–9): • Scholarly Chronicles: Focus on the documentary, historical portrayal of an individual; telling the subject’s story in a chronological pattern • Intellectual Biography: Focus on motive, critique, and a conceptual analysis of the subject’s significance in the world of ideas • Life History Writing (and the Narrative Study of Lives): Focused on social science research traditions 20  • Memoir Biography: Focused on the researcher in relation to the biographical subject • Narrative Biography: Focused on a dynamic portrayal of a life without a comprehensive account from birth to grave.   Kridel’s purpose for these forms is to provide a brief discussion on method. He insists this is not a taxonomy. He is also explicit that there is no clear delineation between these forms and often they blend into one another in a biography. One limitation to Kridel’s forms (as well as the literature on biographical methodology) is the lack of concrete steps to conduct such a study. I outline my process in the next chapter, which can be followed by others seeking to write an intellectual biography in the future. First, however, it is important to list different considerations biographers must weigh as they write their text.  1.1.5 BIOGRAPHY AS HISTORY According to biographer James Clifford (1970), “Most theorists have considered biography as a minor part of history, but not one which required much critical analysis” (p. VII). It is indeed this lack of critical analysis that precipitates historians’ devaluing of this method of inquiry. Also in play, especially in the twentieth century, is biography’s focus upon scandals and psychoanalyzing the private life of an individual as well as its lack of methodological rigor. At stake is focus and accuracy. The focus too easily slips into gossip or defamation, and the accuracy becomes dependent upon questionable sources. Of course, biography and history are connected as biography narrates a life from the past. The narration not only offers an interpretation of the individual (which I will return to later) but also of the society in which that individual lived. Sociologist Peter Berger once 21  wrote, “Every individual biography is an episode within the history of society…” (quoted in Veginga, 1983, p. 66). These episodic accounts often allow readers to access history through a different channel from what the traditional historical discourse allows. For example, Catherine Drinker Bowen, famed biographer of the twentieth century, stated:   What I asked for, what I missed in academic history was not a bias toward events or nations but a point of view toward life, some hint that the writer belonged to the human race and had himself experienced passion, grief or disappointment.  (Bowen, 1959, p. 95) Conceivably the disappointment that Bowen describes is the empathetic disconnection people experience between the present moment (her lived reality) and the past (a mere shadow of a reality that once was). In this regard, history as it has traditionally been done, has its limitations in its pertinency for some people. For Bowen, biography offered a resolution to this fracture between past and present by focusing on the individual. As biographer Carl Rollyson (2005) states, “Biography puts characters first while history favors events” (p. 142). I want to suggest that biography and history complement each other with their unique possibilities as well as with their limitations. Characters are shaped by events and those events occur through the act of the characters. This relationship is the reason many biographers continue to contend the necessity of biography on the historian’s bookshelf. Additionally, biographies suffer an unfavorable reputation due to their lack of formal methodology, namely, their failure to use a historical method. Historians have interpreted this lack of methodology as an indication for the inaccuracy biographies may offer its readers. Historians question the accuracy of facts presented in the biography to prevent it from 22  becoming a novel or fiction. Examples of this include recounting specific conversations without any documentation or describing a location or place without specific evidence to validate it. Too often historians conclude that such writings are acts of imagination and not acts of historical record.   I have attempted to address this lack of formal methodology by proposing a rigorous intellectual biographical method, one which mirrors the structure of this study. The purpose of this study is not to be an historical account conducted by a trained historian but rather an intellectual biography that reflects on persons and ideas from the past, a fine line, to be sure. In an effort to be rigorous, however, I have, when I could, validated and confirmed the facts presented in Part 2 of this dissertation. Even with that said, it is true that much of Part 2’s contents rely on the memory of Huebner himself.  1.1.6 BIOGRAPHY AS MEMORY Many biographies base their narratives on letters, dairies, journals, and the like; however, these do not exist in Huebner’s case. Instead, most of the information regarding his life experiences and relationships is based on a series of interviews conducted between 2015 and 2018.  The limitation of memory is a major consideration in this study. Scientists have shown that memories do not form as static objects that can be accessed in our mind but instead are recreated each time someone recalls a past moment. This reconstruction of the past changes, in essence, with each telling, and as such, memories evolve and change. One of the leading 23  scientists studying memory is Joseph LeDoux, Professor of Neural Science, Psychology, Psychiatry, and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at New York University. In his popular book, The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life (1996), LeDoux describes how remembering an event actually becomes more of an act of imagination than of static truth telling. Our imagination takes over based on a few details we store in our long-term memories to reconstruct the memory. The memory slightly changes each time it is reimagined in the mind. The most accurate recollection of a moment in the past is actually a memory that has not been recalled often. This is due to the premise that the more often something is recalled, the more reconstruction has influenced that memory.  Memories are, indeed, persuadable while they are being re-enacted in a person’s mind. Scientists such as Karim Nader (Nader, Hardt, Einarsson, & Finnie, 2013) have actually used a synthetic drug to remove a memory (or lessen its emotional triggering) while a person is recalling a specific memory. It appears that memories are most malleable through this reconstruction process the mind undergoes during its recall. Furthermore, the scholarship of Elizabeth F. Loftus (2017) discussed how memory can be influenced quite easily by the power of suggestion. This can lead to memories being slightly altered to completely be fabricated truths. For example, a person may recall playing with a blue toy car as a child, yet an older sibling may recall that it was red. The more the older sibling insists the car was red, the more likely the person will insert this detail into his or her own memory. This same phenomenon of suggestion can also add memories to an individual. For example, one study fabricated a political event that never occurred, 50% of participants reporting it did through the power of 24  suggestion (Frenda, Knowles, Saletan, & Loftus, 2012). The study found that the falsehood was more likely to be believed if it aligned with the individual’s attitudes and worldviews. Thus, not only do memories change based on our reconstruction of events, but they change based on how others respond to the retelling of the memory itself.  There are, however, some factors that save memories from being completely invalid. First, the memories that are often recalled for biographical accounts are long-term memories verses short-term memories. All of the studies above are based on short-term memories. Unfortunately, long-term memory has not been studied as frequently as  has short-term memory, due to the length of time necessary to study long-term memory (Ritchie, 2003, p. 31). There are several examples, however, of long-term memories being substantiated by researchers (Yow, 2005, p. 41). While the small details may not be the most precise, if an event remains in someone’s long-term memory, then it is most likely rooted in an event that actually occurred. Perhaps, then, the details presented in Part 2 might be inaccurate, but the significant episodes of Huebner’s life are assumed to have occurred. There are very few times that Part 2 attempts to give detailed act-by-act, word-for-word account of any particular episode. The broad, general nature of this narrative is purposeful, in order to present information that is sound and reasonable. As referenced above, there were many times I attempted to confirm the details of Huebner’s life based on his long-term memory, and they proved to be correct based on his description. Therefore, I stand behind the accuracy of this study even though not all of it is backed up with supporting evidence beyond Huebner’s account.  25  1.1.7 BIOGRAPHY AS RELATIONSHIP Literary critic Wayne Booth once described the biographer as “the hidden author” (as cited in Oates, 1986, p. x). Biography aims to inform its readers of an actual life lived and to do so, readers must feel immersed into that person’s world, not the author’s world. After reading a biography, readers may exclaim to their friends, “What a fascinating life this person lived!” yet give very little credit to the biographer for presenting the life in such a manner (p. 38). Yet Booth’s claim that biographers are completely ignored would be misleading. After all, Plutarch, Tacitus, and Suetonius from ancient Rome are still recognized for their biographical contributions (Kendall, 1965, p. 33). The biographer, it would seem, is held in this tension between being seen and unseen all at the same time. Postmodern and poststructuralist critiques only complicate this endeavour. Instead of the author merely being hidden, some postmodernists have pronounced the “death-of-the-author,” which troubles the notion that all questions and concerns about the text should be directed to the author (Epstein, 1991, p. 110). Based on the work of Barthes, Foucault, and Derrida, these critics suggest the reader is empowered to take the text and interpret it with or without the author’s intent in mind. In a similar vein, postmodernists have also declared death-of-the-self with constructivist or critical theory orientations. Any presentation of a particular self is problematic, since no self can be fully represented in such a limited medium such as written text, especially by a third party (Rollyson, 2005, p. 21). Thus, both biographer and the biography’s subject are caught in the postmodern grave, it would seem. 26  Is rehabilitation possible? The short answer seems to be “Yes.” Sharon O’Brien (as cited in Epstein, 1991), feminist biographer, offers several suggestions on how to engage biography in new ways including a dialogue between the author and living subject, or biographers could select subjects in mid-life instead of waiting until end of life/post-death (pp. 129–131). These approaches aim to disrupt the normal practices involved in biographical work in order to re-frame assumptions and incorporate new critical theories of understanding (such as feminist, queer, racial theories).  One major difference, then, between a modernist’s and a postmodernist’s orientation on biography is the role the biographer plays in constructing the narrative. In modernity, “the highest biographical art is the concealment of the biographer” (Kendall, 1965, p. 12). In postmodernity, the biographer should not fear being seen. In both views, there is no denying that the biographer plays a crucial role in constructing the narrative.  This research and methodology rests within the tensions of these two major paradigms. My voice, hopefully, is relatively silent in the chapters in Parts 2 and 3; however, each part is introduced with my voice. Part 4 is entirely my own voice as I reframe Huebner’s engagement with theology based on Parts 2 and 3’s contextualization. Huebner and I co-created Part 2 together through his own recollection and any supporting documentation that I could find to confirm or extend his memory. I tried to offer limited commentary on his state of mind at any given moment or justify his actions in any formal sense. Huebner was far less involved in Part 3 and Part 4 of this study. My intent with Part 3 was to let the scholarship itself drive the narration. The same is true in Part 4. I responded to much of what Huebner shared and what 27  he wrote about in his scholarship, but he was not involved in composing the chapters in any way.  1.1.8 BIOGRAPHY AS PSYCHOANALYSIS  Biography may have begun as a genre for historical records and literature, but it took a major shift with the development of psychoanalysis, a tradition that is often credited as beginning with Sigmund Freud. No longer simply a retelling of a person’s experience, biography became an examination of a person’s mental state and justification for his or her behaviour. Linda C. Wagner-Martin emphasized that “biography presents the ultimate opportunity to apply psychoanalytic knowledge; it takes insights about the figure’s behaviour and shapes a life story from those fragments” (quoted in Kridel, 1998, p. 92). Postmodernity has challenged this oversimplified understanding of biography and prefers the characterization of biography as an unfinished or incomplete narrative. While psychoanalytic theories may be interesting to consider, in my view they should be approached with caution.  Anthony Storr is just one of many scholars who suggest appreciating psychoanalytic theories while at the same time having reservations about their application (see Batchelor, 1995, p. 78). To assert a sound psychoanalytic analysis, a scholar not only has to be trained in such a field but also needs to have enough access to the subject under examination, which is simply not the case the vast majority of times. Biographies are often written about individuals who are deceased or not able to be examined properly by a professional. Biographies, 28  therefore, have gained a reputation of being a lesser form of accepted scholarship due to this pseudoscientific approach.  Perhaps the best-known scholar that has written on this subject is Leon Edel. Edel has declared that he does not try to psychoanalyze his subjects (Rollyson, 2008, p. 83). This means that he is not trying to prove anyone’s innermost thoughts or mental state. He insisted that the biographer must work with facts and supporting evidence of those facts first and foremost. He devoted an entire chapter to psychoanalysis in his book Writing Lives: Principia Biographica (Edel, 1987). I do not have the space to expound upon all the points found within this chapter, but there are a few ideas that are relevant here.  First, he pointed out that biography is the genre to list achievements, not to find the genesis of those achievements (Edel, 1987, p. 142). Oftentimes the genesis is found in the subconscious, which remains a complete mystery to many biographers. Some have attempted to use psychoanalytic theories based on their own textbook studies or their own therapeutic treatments, but Edel is cautious about this, since he does not support the notion that psychoanalysis can be learned through a textbook and worried that biographers were transferring their own experiences onto the subject being studied.  Second, he pointed out that psychoanalysis relies on/is constituted by a vocabulary that is inaccessible to many readers. Therefore, biographers had to use watered-down psychology in order to be understood by the common reader. This not only reduces the quality of psychoanalysis but also reduced the validity of the text itself. In many ways this 29  mirrors Huebner’s own critique of educationalists using psychological theories in the classroom. It is misused and becomes more problematic than advantageous. Lastly, Edel (1987) emphasized that “… the two essential ingredients of psychoanalysis are the therapist and the patient. But in literary studies we have no patients. We have a unique work by an unique individual” (p. 147). It is possible for biographers to team up with trained psychoanalysts to compose a narrative about an individual that is living. Yet, that is most likely not possible and not what is done. He found the possibilities for psychoanalysis and biographies as a partnership exciting, but he also was resolute on the limitations of the biographer in this domain.  This study refrains from making any such claims that cannot be substantiated either by Huebner himself or third-party sources. The study also does not try to enter into the mind of Huebner in the sense of asserting what his motivations were at any given time though logic and reason are used when such assumptions were made. It is also difficult to rely on Huebner’s present statements on his motivations and justifications, because it is impossible to know if those represent what he was actually thinking in the moment all those years ago or what he has concluded in the passing/intervening years. When any of his motivations or justifications are presented in this study, readers should understand them as the reflection of his current thinking. I acknowledge that there is great value in psychoanalytic biographies. This is just not one of them. 30  1.1.9 BIOGRAPHY AS INTERPRETATION   Biography is a hermeneutical task. Lawrence C. Watson and Maria-Barbara Watson-Franke (1985) state that hermeneutics is connected to biography because 1) the lived experience is a text to be interpreted and 2) the subjective biographer who does the interpretation is situated historically, and perhaps even culturally, different from that text (p. 39). People only understand something since they interpret it (Gadamer, 1989, p. 274).  In an intellectual biography such as this one, the hermeneutical task exists on both the macro and micro levels. At the macro level, biographers must decide the meaning of a subject’s life. This is either done explicitly or implicitly within the text of the biography. Implicitly the meaning of a person’s life that is determined by the biographer comes from what the biographer decides to include versus exclude in the biography. A biographer is never able to include every single artifact or fact that they have access to within the biographical account. Thus, the biographer is forced to determine what relevant material should be included in the biographical narrative. The determining criteria for inclusion or exclusion are based upon the biographer’s understanding of the subject’s life.  Biographers oftentimes will have access to diaries, journals, personal correspondences, or other written material. If the source documents are from a different era in time, the interpretive act becomes much more individualized and potentially contentious. This even applies when interviews are conducted with living subjects, since the spoken word must also be interpreted. Interviews have the potential of being clearer and more direct than historical documents from the past, because the biographer is able to ask for clarification from the 31  subject directly. Yet, it can also be even more complicated since one must interpret not just the words used but the tone and body language.   The application of hermeneutics has, of course, been discussed by many biographers. Watson and Watson-Franke also note that the approach to hermeneutics has shifted over the years. At one time biographies explained a life, whereas they shifted to trying to understand a life through a hermeneutical position (Watson & Watson-Franke, 1985, pp. 13–14). This means that the biographer must be willing to broaden and modify the often take-for-granted preconceived notions as they enter into the subject’s world (p. 21). This becomes a dialogue between the biographer and the subject, which raises new questions and takes different directions than perhaps originally intended. Gadamer suggested that this task of questioning things is based upon a conversation between the interpreter and the text (Gadamer, 1989, pp. 238, 263). The form of the questioning is not based on a methodological approach but a dialectical orientation that break down our preconceptions and assumptions (see Watson & Watson-Franke, 1985, p. 42). It becomes the hermeneutical circle that connects our own worldview to the text until that worldview and the text are fully integrated (Gadamer, 1989, p. 259). The task is not to create a methodology for understanding but to articulate and acknowledge the situation in which the understanding takes place (p. 263).   Shaun Gallagher’s (1992) classification of the “moderate hermeneutic” in his text Hermeneutics and Education, aligns most closely to my positioning for this study. This orientation accepts that no method can guarantee an absolute objective interpretation because we are conditioned by prejudices of our own historical existence. This obstacle 32  manifests itself largely within humanity’s use of language, which often changes and varies based on context, time, and place. Thus, while I seek to stay true to Huebner’s original intent for each artifact (written or verbal), it is impossible to represent his work as he intended. As Lomask (1986) states, “As a goal, objectivity belongs in the biographer’s tool kit, but so does the realization that it is beyond human grasp. What can be grasped is integrity” (p. 31). Lomask urged potential biographers to be aware and attuned to any biases they may have when evaluating materials and subjects. This awareness of one’s worldviews and context needs to be articulated by the biographer as a measure of honesty and authenticity, which leads to the integrity of the biographer. As such, this specific study aims for integrity over objectivity. Since this study is focused upon Huebner, my own role in it is hidden behind the pages yet as this section suggests, the entire narration of Huebner’s life and work is given from my interpretation. It is, thus, important for me to contextualize and situate myself in relation to Huebner and his intellectual scholarship. I currently reside in Vancouver, Canada, but I was originally born in the Midwest of the US similar to Huebner. My childhood and young adult years was spent in Missouri. My family is white and middle class. My childhood occurred fifty years after Huebner’s did. In that time, the US participated in three wars, an assassination of a President, the civil rights movement, the resignation of a President, and the end of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the US. Whereas our lifetimes have overlapped, there have also been dramatic societal and cultural events that occurred during our respective lifetimes. 33  Intellectually, my undergraduate and first graduate degree are in education. Unlike Huebner, my passion for teaching and education emerged at an early age so when I graduated from high school, I knew I wanted to pursue education as a career. I was focused on high school teaching, specifically business education. At the same time, I was extremely active in my church growing up. My family, like Huebner’s family, attended the local United Methodist Church (UMC).4 Unlike Huebner though, both of my parents were very active in the congregation, and I followed their paths into my teenage and young adult years. I became a local license minister in the UMC at the age of 19 while completing my undergraduate studies. During and after my first graduate degree, I taught at the university for three years as an instructor. After coming out as gay and accepting that the UMC does not currently ordain gay people, I still longed for the knowledge that my clergy friends had. I therefore enrolled in further graduate studies at Boston University School of Theology (BUSTH). BUSTH is the first Methodist seminary established in the US. I earned my Master of Divinity before beginning my doctoral studies at the University of British Columbia in education. My curiosity in Huebner is both professional (intellectual) and personal. Professionally, I wanted to know more about how Huebner engaged with his interest in education and theology (or more broadly, religion). I read his work as a Christian as well as an educator. My own theology could be most closely identified as mainline Protestant progressive with a  4 The Methodist Church did not unite with the Evangelical United Brethren Church until 1968, thus forming the United Methodist Church. 34  specific grounding in Wesleyan and queer theology.5 Similar to Huebner’s intellectual influences, my theology is also influenced by the work of Paul Tillich, the Christian mystics, and philosophers like Martin Buber.  Personally, I wanted to know what drove Huebner to these interests and how he managed to pursue them in a secular environment (at least secular before he moved into religious education at Yale Divinity School). I have always had one foot in the door of the academy as well as in the church. I wondered if Huebner was the same, and if so, what could I learn from him about holding these dual interests.  My curiosity for both the professional and the personal drove this study in many ways. For example, to delve deeper into his professional and intellectual contributions, I separated his intellectual ideas from his lived experience. I desired to understand his intellectual contributions from a professional perspective and his lived experience from a personal perspective. Thus, I separated these into different, yet interrelated, parts of this study.  1.1.10 BIOGRAPHY AS NOVEL Many scholars have suggested that biography is a close relative of the novel. Paula R. Backscheider (1999) suggested that either biographies are compared to history or to a novel, or as she puts it, “lives up or down to” these forms (p. 18). Biography resides somewhere between these two because, as stated, biography examines past events through the narrative form to describe someone’s lived experience. However, as this section attempts to articulate, biographies do have their own distinctions.  5 The theology of John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement. 35  For example, Leon Edel (1987) pointed out that novelists know everything about the main character (p. 16). They can do whatever they please with their characters. Biographers cannot. Biographers must base their writing upon the evidence that they have, either personal records such as journals, diaries, and correspondences or official records retained by governmental offices and other institutions. The biographer may, Edel continued, incorporate judgments or psychological theory into their accounts, but biographers should heavily consider the consequences of doing so, in order to retain the integrity of the work. Nigel Hamilton (2008) also provided an historical context for the connection between biography and the novel. He suggested that the Victorian biographers in the nineteenth century began switching to the novel in order to gain greater popularity and social acceptance (p. 17). There was less risk in writing a novel since one rarely gets sued for libel or challenged to a duel based on accusations of defamation. Thus, there are many Victorian novels that are in the form of fictional biographies, such as David Copperfield (Dickens, 1885), Oliver Twist (Dickens, 1839), The Warden (Trollope, 1859), Nana (Zola, 1880), and Lord Jim (1900). Perhaps the most famous novelist to engage with the biographical form is Virginia Woolf.  Woolf wrote a biography on Roger Fry, acclaimed English painter and social critic, in 1940. Many of her novels were biographic in form, such as Mrs. Dalloway (1925), Orlando: A Biography (1928), and Flush: A Biography (1933). She is also often attributed to creating the term life writing in her essay “A Sketch of the Past” (see Mulvihill & Swaminathan, 2017, p. 12). Yet when it came to write on Fry, she is quoted as proclaiming, “how can one make a life of six cardboard boxes full of tailor’s bills, love letters and old picture postcards?” (Oates, 1986, p. 36  19). It is indeed a challenge for the biographer to narrate a life in such a way that is enjoyable for the reader. The novel may serve as the form that narrates the common, everyday lived experience of a person. Biographers are not as free as the novelist, but they must have the ability to use their words, like a novelist, to paint a portrait of a person so that readers will be able to see the individual more clearly. The proposed intellectual biography method used in this study helps create even more of a distinction between the novel and the biography. Part 2 of this study is the only part that takes a form similar to a novel. Part 3 is still a narration of sorts, but I remain committed more so to constructing ideas together rather than sharing a story of characters and events. The ideas presented in Part 3 also serve a different purpose from that of a narrated life story that one would find in a novel. Part 4 mirrors a traditional academic paper and is not directly relevant for this aspect of biography. 1.1.11 BIOGRAPHY AS ART Biography, like a great novel, may also be considered a form of art. Woolf answered the question “Is biography an art?” in her own essays, “The Art of Biography” and “The New Biography” (see Batchelor, 1995, p. 43). Woolf believed the biographer’s role changed from being a friend and admirer of the subject to being an enemy or a troll. As she stated, the biographer “has ceased to be the chronicler; he has become an artist” (Woolf, 1966, p. 231). She concluded the essay, however, by declaring the biographer is not an artist after all but rather a craftsman who neither has “the freedom of fiction nor the substance of fact” (p. 234). 37  This doubt regarding the “substance of fact” has contributed to biography being questionable research for scholars in the academy. Yet, I believe that biography’s merit as research has creditability even amidst these doubts depending upon how the biography is positioned and presented. Woolf may have concluded that the biographer is a craftsman, but others have suggested that the most appropriate label is artist. Frank E. Vandiver, for example, emphasized that art and biography both serve the same purpose: to illuminate reality (Veninga, 1983, p. 4). It takes skill to use language in such a way that transports the reader into the world of the subject. This requires readers to not only travel to another location of the world but also to travel to another era of time (not to mention class, race, and/or gender). The readers are invited to exist in another tension: holding their own worldview in relation to the subject’s worldview, the biographer serving as the medium.  For instance, Paul Murray Kendall’s (1965) text The Art of Biography is built upon this premise. Biography, for Kendall, is an art “because the biographer is himself interfused into what he has made, and like the novelist and the painter, shapes his material in order to create effects” (p. xii). But as noted, the biographical art form is one of concealment where the biographer becomes the invisible medium between reader and subject (p. 12). Desmond McCarthy emphasized the challenge faced by the biographer, because if the biography is too fact laden, it fails to come to life and if it is too descriptive, it risks becoming a fictionalized tale (as cited in Kendall, 1965, p. 15). Thus, this genre holds truth in one hand and art in the other.     38   The value of an artistic piece can never fully be assessed by its author or creator. As such, I, as the author, cannot comment on whether this study holds artistic value or not.  I am not artistically inclined, so this has never been an aim of mine personally; however, for those who seek to use the biographical methodology for their own studies, this may speak to those researchers. The work of the biographer as artist is to take the chaos of life that everyone has, and with a careful hand weave the randomness, complications, and even the contradictions together in some form of order to create a beautiful image (Lomask, 1986, p. 39). Perhaps biography at its best reveals the high points as well as the low points of life that make it truly a beautiful thing. 1.1.12 BIOGRAPHY AS INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY  When I began this study, I asked several professors and mentors how an intellectual biography differed from a standard biography. I received a different answer from each person. One person simply replied, “It’s a biography about an intellectual.” When I searched my library database for articles and books on an intellectual biographical methodology, it returned thousands of hits of different intellectual biographies on a wide variety of people, but only a few were actually about the methodology of composing such research.   One of the few pieces that came anywhere close to guide me is a short essay by Iris Carlton-LaNey (1990), “The Intellectual Biography: A Mechanism for Integrating Historical Content.” Carlton-LaNey would agree with the statement that it is simply a biography about an intellectual. She stated matter of factly, “…intellectual biography emphasizes only one 39  phase of the subject’s life written with the continual interspersing of comments, explanations, and questions by someone other than the focal subject” (p. 46). She continued by suggesting that “the goal of the intellectual biography is to trace the thinking of a particular historical figure to ascertain major contributions to knowledge” (pp. 46–47).   Paul J. Korshin (1974), author of the article “The Development of Intellectual Biography in the Eighteenth Century” also suggested an understanding of an intellectual biography. He noted that when it is used, it is often a subtitle of a biographical account of an intellect, which also explains my library search (p. 513). He asserted that the label is used a bit haphazardly. He questioned if there really is a distinction from any other form of biographies: After all, since psychological analysis and attention to the history of ideas have become standard tools for the twentieth-century biographer, are not most serious biographies intellectual portraits to some extent, study of the subject’s thought, ideas, and mental processes? Thus intellectual biography today seems to be mainly a matter of authorial attitude or methodology as exercised in portions of a general study of a subject’s life. At its best, it is something approaching a style, less a kind of biography than a quality found in certain works.    (p. 513)  I am not convinced that an intellectual biography is only defined by the quality of the work by the biographer because I think there can be poorly written biographies that are intended to be intellectual biographies. I also think that there are, as this dissertation demonstrates, certain questions that an intellectual biography addresses that are not found throughout the genre. I do, however, appreciate his acknowledgment that the distinction between an intellectual biography compared to other biographies is fluid. 40    Carlton-LaNey (1990) recommended intellectual biographies as an assignment for social work students. As such, she offered eight guiding questions/steps to analyze the data. These have been paraphrased: 1. What are the scholar’s ideas? Were they taken for granted, novel, or radical for the times? 2. What was the scholar’s professional support system? Did she/he have a network of people she/he worked with or was he/she isolated? 3. Where were the scholar’s writings published? Journals, conference proceedings, books? 4. What was the response of the field to the scholar’s ideas? Were they invited to national conferences to speak? Were they invited to publish with others? 5. Were the scholar’s ideas of national, regional, or local interest? 6. What is the interplay that took place between producing and disseminating the scholar’s ideas? 7. What was the personal or professional motivation that compelled the scholar? 8. What were the scholar’s contributions to the field?  (pp. 48–49)  While some of these questions were very helpful for this study, they seemed limited in a way. I wanted to address the subject’s lived experience as well as his significant ideas. I was also unsure if I could determine Huebner’s reception in the field, based on the sources to which I had access.  Therefore, while this list helped formed my questions, I was more interested in drafting my own questions specific to Huebner (stated in chapter 2). I wanted to understand not only the rational formation of his ideas, especially about theology, but also his lived experience in which those ideas emerged. I wanted to understand how he got his first job and became a professor at Yale Divinity School. I wanted to see a bit of who Huebner is as a man, not just his ideas that he wrote about. I knew that if I wanted something even more robust, I would have 41  to develop it on my own. I offer the steps that follow as a systematic, rigorous, and robust method for studying and composing an intellectual biography. 42  1.2 CHAPTER 2: INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY METHODOLOGY  Taking on a biography can be quite an overwhelming task; however, I knew based on my research question that I wanted to focus on two main sources: Huebner’s lived experience through interviews with him (Part 2) and Huebner’s significant ideas in relation and comparison to theology through his written scholarship (Part 3). The amount of information contained in these sources overwhelmed me. For instance, Huebner’s written scholarship is over 2,000 pages of material. Therefore, I drew from the digital humanities approach by using NVIVO software to organize and analyze the data. I found this to be particularly valuable in order to maintain integrity in my biographical choices as described in the previous chapter. The digital humanities create its own limitations since many of Huebner’s ideas are taken out of its original context. I purposely did this so that I could systematize his thinking in a clear manner, but it does remove the original context. Additionally, the value of the digital humanities, whereas acknowledging its limitations, is found in its ability to manage and account for keywords. This accounting relies on numeric value instead of interpretation of the spirit of the text or cohesion of the overall original thought. I tried to limit (or rather contain) my biases by using this software to manage the data from the recorded interviews and Huebner’s written scholarship.  From these two sources, I articulated Huebner’s engagement with theology with greater depth and nuance than what had been done (Part 4). The methodology for each part differed yet all contribute to the larger project of an intellectual biography. I will address my 43  methodology for each part separately, but readers should understand that it is the unification of all these approaches that comprise what I am calling the intellectual biographical method. 1.2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR PART 2  I was fortunate that the subject for my study is still living, healthy, and willing to participate in the study. In 2015, long before this study was conceived in its current form, William Pinar and I interviewed Huebner over the course of three days for a total of approximately nine hours of video footage. When this study officially began, I transcribed those interviews. I decided to break his life into five eras: Birth through Second World War, Graduate School, Teachers College, Yale Divinity School, and Retirement. These eventually became chapters in Part 2. It was clear that Huebner was more interested in sharing his professional life rather than his personal life, so I felt each of these eras represented a distinct time in his intellectual thinking. While his personal life is discussed, Part 2 focuses primarily on his professional experiences and growth. Then I imported these transcripts into NVIVO, a qualitative data software program, to code them into these five chapters.6  After reviewing the NVIVO coding based on the different eras, I made a list of additional questions based on the material. Those questions resulted in an additional five recorded interviews that occurred weekly. I transcribed each of these interviews and placed them within each of the five chapters in NVIVO. I began to draft the narrative based on these  6 NVIVO allows a user to label (or tag) words and sentences. This classification system can then be analyzed for frequency and relationship to other labels used in the coding of the documents. In essence, one is able to place numerical values onto text-based data. 44  five chapters. I sought out additional documentation, such as his University transcripts, as well as other external sources, as they provided a larger context for the narrative. Occasionally, I contacted Huebner through personal correspondence, with short questions that could easily be answered in writing. There are a limited number of professional documents that have been saved during his tenure at Teachers College and Yale Divinity so I did not have access to many primary texts outside of his scholarship for review. Therefore, Part 2 tries not to assume what Huebner was thinking at any given moment in his life although, when assumptions are made, it is based on Huebner’s present reflection on his own past.   In total, this process of transcribing, gathering documents, interviewing, and composing the narrative took about four months. 1.2.2 METHODOLOGY FOR PART 3  This part of the dissertation is very different from Part 2. I wanted Part 3 to contextualize Huebner’s significant ideas, to demonstrate the relationship and location theology had within his larger work. I had access to his papers that he had retained throughout his life: over 150 documents.7 This includes the 35 essays printed in The Lure of the Transcendent (Huebner et al., 1999). The approximate number of documents per decade is: • 1960s: 67  7 The specific number varies depending upon how one counts the documents. For example, there are three different drafts of the same essay. The only commonality between these drafts is the title. Thus, sometimes each of the drafts are counted individually while other times they are grouped together based on how different each draft is from the others.  45  • 1970s: 22 • 1980s (Teachers College): 13 • 1980s (Yale Divinity): 15 • 1990s: 13  There were 18 documents that were undated, and while I usually could assume the decade, these documents are not cited within this study. They were, however, coded in NVIVO and are included in the coding numbers that follow. I knew that a unique feature of this study would be the inclusion of all of his unpublished work as well as those printed in the 1999 collection. Therefore, I began a three-phase process for Part 3. Each phase emerged organically. 1.2.2.1 Phase 1: Read and Code  In total, there were a little over 2,100 pages of material to review. I digitally scanned these pages so that they were in PDF format. Then I read each page carefully. As I read, I created a citation page. The citation page listed: title of document, date, category (speech, lecture, publication, or MISC), purpose, abstract (either provided or written by me after reading the selected document), outline (summary statements for each paragraph/movement in his argument), conclusions (Huebner’s original contribution in the essay), and key terms that would make it easy to search for common terms throughout his work. The key terms eventually formed a pattern but emerged without any formal intention for what they would be.  I also recorded my additional thoughts in a separate document entitled, “Commentary.” This contains my own responses as a reader to his ideas. Because this study focuses on his engagement with theology, many of these notes have been reserved for future 46  publications and studies. I wanted to record my thoughts and reactions, however, in case they held any value for this study.  Next, I reread the document in NVIVO and coded each sentence by two categories: subject and reference. Subjects are keywords used in the sentence. These subjects could not be predetermined, so I tried to stay with Huebner’s original language. For example, when he used the word power, I coded it for power, and when he used the word control, I coded it for control (even though by definition these two are related). It was important to stay as close to the actual text/language as possible. Some sentences were coded with 5 or more subjects, depending on what he was addressing in the sentence or paragraph. References are the names of people he cited. When I coded a reference, I always made sure to code a subject so that it would be possible to not only determine who he cited but also for the purpose. This process took around 3.5 months. 1.2.2.2 Phase 2: Analysis of Data Once I had read and coded all the documents, I reviewed the coding. In the end, I coded 897 subjects, 548 of which were coded more than once. I coded a total of 835 references, 302 of which were coded more than once. I decided that it would be better to focus on the subjects, such as theology, since that is what I wanted to drive my narrative (instead of the references Huebner used). I printed all the subjects on flash cards, listing the subject name, number of documents it was coded in, and the percentile it was ranked within the full list of subjects because I wanted to determine where theology fit within his thinking as 47  a whole. Next, I categorized all 897 subjects into the 10 themes that were most frequently coded in his work. These 10 themes informed my articulation of his ideas presented in Part 3. In addition, I ran over 300 types of reports from NVIVO. I had grouped the documents by decade, since that roughly represented his tenure at each institution (1959-1982: Teachers College, 1982-2000: Yale Divinity School). Therefore, I broke the documents into the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Additionally, I labeled each based on their category: class lecture, public speech to an audience, printed publication, or MISC document. I ran 33 groups of reports based on the decade and the function of document8: (1) Graduate Work (2) 1960s Speeches (3) 1960s Lectures (4) 1960s Publications (5) 1960s MISC Documents (6) All 1960s Documents (7) 1970s Speeches (8) 1970s Publications (9) 1970s MISC Documents (10) All 1970s Documents (11) 1980s Lectures: Teachers College (12) 1980s Publications: Teachers College (13) All 1980s Documents: Teachers College (14) Teachers College Undated Material (All years) (15) Teachers College Lectures (All years) (16) Teachers College Speeches (All years) (17) Teachers College Publications (All years) (18) Teachers College All Documents (All years) (19) 1980s Speeches and Lectures – Yale Divinity School9 (20) 1980s Sermons: Yale Divinity School (21) 1980s Publications: Yale Divinity School  8 If a category is missing for a decade (lecture, speech, publication, or MISC), it means there were no documents that fit into that category.  9 Speeches and lectures are combined because there was only one lecture for the decade. 48  (22) All 1980s Documents: Yale Divinity School (23) 1990s Speeches (24) 1990s Publications (25) 1990s MISC Documents (26) All 1990s Documents (27) Yale Divinity School Undated Material (All years) (28) Yale Divinity School Speeches and Lectures (All years) (29) Yale Divinity Publications (All years) (30) Yale Divinity School All Documents (All years) (31) All Speeches (All years: 1949–2000) (32) All Publications (All years: 1949–2000) (33) All Documents (All years: 1949–2000)  For each of these 33 groups, I ran five reports: (1) List of Subjects Coded (2) List of References Coded (3) Matrix of Subjects Coded with Other Subjects (when one or more subjects were coded at the same time, thus suggesting a type of relationship between the two subjects). (4) Matrix of References Coded with Other References (when one or more references were coded at the same time, thus suggesting a type of relationship between the two references). (5) Matrix of Subjects Coded with References (when one or more subjects were coded at the same time of a reference, thus suggesting a type of relationship between a reference and a subject).  This way it could be determined if there are any shifting relationships between subjects and references throughout time as well as his purposes for writing. For example, did he cite someone more or less in lectures, publications, or public speeches in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s? This process took around two months. 49  1.2.2.3 Phase 3: Compose the Narrative The next phase after selecting and categorizing the subjects was to review what Huebner had written about each of the themes selected. I repeated the following process for the 10 major themes as well as the six forms of knowledge (16 times in total).  Step 1: Review each time the subject was coded by listing the idea being discussed about said subject. I discovered that Huebner would often repeat the same idea about the subject throughout his career. Therefore, while a subject might have been coded 100 times, there were only 20 ideas being stated about it.  Step 2: Group all repeating ideas.  Step 3: Determine a pattern to organize those ideas:  Ø Chapter 8 is presented as Huebner’s educational creed. This is based on the themes of education, schools, learning, and the curriculum. The ideas included in each theme were based on the most frequently cited in the NVIVO coding. Ø Chapter 9 is presented as Huebner’s ontology. This consisted of merging the themes of time, language, power, relationship and world. The ideas included in each theme were based on the most frequently cited in the NVIVO coding.  Ø Chapter 8 (forms of knowledge) is organized by sections: 1) definition, 2) implications, and 3) significance. The significance of each form was determined by reviewing the documents that were cited (not all the 50  documents coded with the subject were referenced in the narrative), examining how the subject fit into Huebner’s larger point of each document.  Step 4: Compose the narrative of each theme. In total, I reviewed more than 3,172 coded material for the 16 subjects discussed. This process took around five months. 1.2.3 METHODOLOGY FOR PART 4  This was the most academically traditional part to compose, as it took the form of a standard research paper where I attempted to reframe Huebner’s legacy on theology in curriculum studies by looking more closely at the influence his interest in theology had on his lived experience as well as in his written scholarship.  1.2.4 SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY  This might seem like a complicated methodology, but it actually is a series of steps that can easily be mapped out (without the specifics above):  • Part 2: Chronology of Life Experience o Interview (with subject or those who knew the subject) o Gather supporting documents (official records, archival material, etc.) § Organize all data chronologically (this can be done using NVIVO or related software as desired) o Compose narrative • Part 3: Intellectual Ideas o Phase I: Read all documents  § Code subjects and references in NVIVO o Phase II: Analysis 51  § Determine which subjects are most significant by frequency (it may be fitting to divide the subjects by document type or date written) o Phase III: Compose the Narrative § Review each coded reference point within the source document for each subject. § Group repeated ideas. § Organize ideas into a logical form or chronologically. § Compose the Narrative • Part 4:  Relevancy of Work o Connect key life events and subjects to the contemporary moment. This part is individualized based on the author’s own intellectual interests.  Guiding Questions for each Part: • Part 2:  o What were the major events in this person’s life? o What motivated them to do what they did? o What were their major successes or failures in their career? o What were their major successes or failures in their life? o Who were their closest relationships in each era of life (family in early life, friends in school, colleagues at work, spouse, etc.?) • Part 3: o What is the thesis statement in this paragraph? o What is the point of the document? o What is the original contribution of the document? o Who was referenced to support the thesis? o Does the thesis have any connection with the lived experience articulated in Part 2? • Part 4: o What ideas/interests does the author share with the subject? o What insights can be gained from Part 2—the lived experience of the subject? o What insights can be gained from Part 3—the ideas of the subject?  1.2.5 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON METHODOLOGY  A foundational assumption to this methodology, specifically in Part 3, is that significance is determined by frequency. This raises the question: What determines the significance of an idea? There are different criteria that may be used to determine significance. 52   For example, significance may be determined based on how others react and accept an idea. Thus, an idea may only be mentioned once within someone’s work but because it is so insightful or accurate, others will also discuss it. I deliberately chose not to use this criterion for a few reasons. Mainly, I had access to Huebner himself as well as his private, unpublished papers.  I estimate that about 70% of the scholarship reviewed in this study has never been publicly accessible beyond Huebner. Thus, I wanted to focus on his entire corpus in relation to theology and not just rely on what others have been exposed to. What others have focused on regarding Huebner mattered less to me because I was looking at a far greater amount of material than others have previously had access to.  Also, it is very difficult and inaccurate to find all the essays where Huebner has been cited. For example, according to Google Scholar, The Lure of the Transcendent (Huebner et al., 1999), has been cited at least 159 times.10 It is difficult to have confidence in that number, since the book has been listed as being authored by D Huebner, D.E. Huebner, Vikki Hillis, and William Pinar. Cumulatively, those equal 159. Scholars have also cited specific essays within the 1999 collection with both D Huebner and D.E. Huebner. While the search is not infinite, it would definitely take more hours than I have, in order to even gather where Huebner has been cited. This does not include the time necessary to review those documents to determine what ideas of Huebner’s are cited. Therefore, this study does not examine how  10 A search conducted on November 16, 2018. 53  others have engaged with Huebner beyond the literature review presented in the Introduction.11  Another way to determine significance is based on my own reading of the text by asking “What ideas here are important in my opinion?” In some ways, that did occur, since I am the one that coded the essays based on subjects. Therefore, the subjects are a reflection of what I determined as the main point of each sentence/passage. NVIVO assisted in this by quantifying the main themes in measurable terms. This helped to not identify themes based on intuition or speculation about what was significant. The NVIVO coding, while based on a subjective reading and coding, was one objective means to understand what themes hold significance based on frequency. In this study, therefore, significance is determined by frequency of an idea found within the work. The assumption is that if an idea got repeated many times over the course of many years, it was an important aspect to Huebner’s thinking.  Lastly, since many of the themes and ideas were never the main thesis of any one essay, I had to decontextualize the passages from their original essays. For example, the domain of science is examined in many papers, but it is not the main thesis to any of his papers.12 In this way, I have reconstructed them, in a sense, to present to you in an accessible manner. However, I recognize that pulling ideas from their original essays can be problematic. Therefore, I have tried to retain the original meaning of the ideas that the words and sentences represent as best as I can. I recognize and acknowledge the hermeneutical layer this  11 See pp. 2–6.  12 See, for example, 1961/1999p; 1962/1999aa; 1964c; 1966e; 1975/1999af; 1979/1999j; 1985/1999y; 1987/1999z.  54  adds to this study, and I take full responsibility for any misreading of his work. My only rationale for this is I have tried, after interviewing and studying Dwayne Huebner’s ideas and life for years, to be as loyal and empathetic to his intentions as I can be. If readers take issue with any ideas presented, I encourage them to refer to the original citation.        55   PART 2: LIFE HISTORY One unique aspect to Huebner’s story is that he left the curriculum field and moved into religious studies after he retired from Teachers College. This chronological narrative attempts to explain his career move along with providing the lifelong context in which his ideas were formed and shared. I could have written a narrative that focuses solely on his relationship with religion, theology, and spirituality, but I felt that this focused narrative would have misrepresented who he was because as I discovered, his interest in theology is actually one of many interests that drove his personal and professional life. Therefore, this narrative is written from a macro-level presentation of his life story (chronologically from birth to the present). I hope you, the reader, will be attentive to the times when religion and theology are mentioned, as I will return to this in Part 4, when I reframe his legacy with theology in curriculum studies based upon his lived experience.    His intellectual life began as a scientist and, as a hobby, an artist. It was his intellectual curiosity that drove much of his pursuit through the social sciences and the humanities, including theology. He was a person that always wanted to know more and to understand the world and himself through several perspectives and intellectual paradigms. He not only challenged himself but also his students and his colleagues to expand their horizons. He challenged them to connect curricular thought to the wider academic and intellectual community. This is a narrative of how one person’s curiosity helped to shape the curriculum field. 56  2.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS I have marked Huebner’s life into five , eras, each with a chapter. Chapter 3 examines his childhood, adolescence, and young adult years. Chapter 4 begins with his graduate studies and entrance into the field of education. It first explores his time at the University of Chicago,, and then covers his studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Chapter 5 narrates his 25-year tenure at Teachers College in New York City. He went from being an assistant professor to becoming a leading curricular theorist in the field. Chapter 6 explains his move to Yale Divinity as well as the difficulties that he faced in this time.  Chapter 7 briefly depicts his retirement years; they continue to this day. This entire narrative is based upon a series of interviews conducted with Huebner between 2015 and 2018. Unless otherwise cited, all information is based on his recollection and sharing of events. I have attempted to confirm details and facts as I have been able to do so.    57  2.2 CHAPTER 3: EARLY LIFE (1923–1947) “What would you like to be remembered for?” I asked. He paused.  His eyes drifted away off into another place and after a few seconds, chuckles arose to his face. Then the answer hit him and before I knew it, he was out of his chair, departing the room saying, “I’ll answer that question in a different way for you. Let me show you.” He returned with a photograph of a single white lily and exclaimed,  “That’s what I do! I’d prefer to be remembered as a photographer.”  It was an unexpected comment for someone who spent his entire professional life in the academy. He taught 25 years at Teachers College at Columbia University and then moved into a second career at Yale University Divinity School for an additional 12 years. Yet, there Huebner stood before me glowing with pride over his prints that were of professional quality—without one reference to his intellectual pursuits. But I am getting ahead of myself. Before I can get to the significance of the white lily, I have to start at the beginning of the story. Then again, in these matters, perhaps there are no formal beginnings per se but rather starting points where we jump into someone’s life.  This jump starts with a young Catholic girl at the age of 10 immigrating to the United States from Germany during the mid-nineteenth century. She eventually settled in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and married. They had four children: two girls and two boys. 58  Heartbreakingly, shortly after their last child, a girl, was born, her husband left her to raise these four children on her own. She was a strong woman who would not be defeated by this separation. Instead, she raised her four children as a single mother during the turn of the nineteenth century to the new hope of the twentieth. She passed down her strength and courage to her children. When the two daughters grew up, they remained Catholic, while their Protestant spouses acquiesced to having a Catholic family. In contrast, both her sons married Protestant women and left Catholicism once married. If there were a weaker gender, it certainly would not be the women in this family. Her second child, Ernest Huebner (1888–1972), was a hard worker who would live through the worst economic downturn in the USA. He left school in the sixth grade to help support the family. He worked for a local grocery store at one point. Once, he got arrested for driving horses too fast on the streets of Grand Rapids. He never did learn to drive a car, but he must have been an excellent driver of horses. Later, he installed elevators until his shoulder was crushed by one in a horrible accident. This injury kept him out of the military in World War I.  Later, Ernest married Louise Vogt (1893–1967), who had been abandoned when she was two weeks old. She was adopted by a couple without any children at the time. Yet shortly after being adopted, the couple had four children of their own. Louise left school after the tenth grade. At one point she helped support the family by working in a cigar factory, rolling cigars, which may have been the cause of the health problems she experienced later in her life. 59  After marrying Ernest, she became a homemaker and raised their two boys. Ernest worked mostly in furniture factories as a machine operator, foreman of the machine room, and worked in the sample room. This was not always easy especially during the Great Depression, when the furniture industry collapsed, forcing Ernest to relocate his family to Chicago to find work. After three years, they did move back to Grand Rapids, but not long after, Ernest left again to find work throughout the country including in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and towns throughout Michigan.  Louise raised their two boys often as a single mother while her husband was away working. Their eldest son, Robert J. Huebner, was born on July 21, 1918. At around the age of 10, Robert developed Perthes disease, a serious hip condition, that forced him to remain in bed for nine months with his foot raised with a pulley to prevent his leg from shortening. After these months of being bedridden, he was in a wheelchair and eventually moved to crutches but the healing process was slow over the course of several years. His illness forced him to attend a special school for a time. As he recovered, he moved into a regular high school living the ideal teenage years filled with lots of friends and receiving solid grades. He loved fencing and swimming. He wanted to become a medical doctor due to his illness, and this dream did eventually come to pass, when he became a surgeon and general practitioner after attending Calvin College in Grand Rapids and the University of Michigan Medical School. He served in the medical corps in Germany after War World II even though he was unable to serve during the war due to his medical history.  Robert died in 1994 at the age of 76.  60  Their second son, Dwayne Ernest Huebner, was born on October 16, 1923. The first nine years of his life were typical of that period in a newly built area of Grand Rapids: vacant lots for ballgames and neighborly activities, places to hike, streams and wooded areas to explore, gardens to tend, dogs to play with, turtles and chickens to care for, kids the same age for close friendship, and a good elementary school within walking distance. Unfortunately, probably as a result of his brother’s long illness, many of those years seem to be clouded by a kind of childhood amnesia. He can remember his third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers, but draws a total blank about kindergarten and the first two grades—the time when his brother was being cared for or recovering from Perthes disease. However, his life dramatically changed when the Great Depression hit the furniture industry in 1932.  The Great Depression hit the Huebners hard. His family went on relief while his father tried to find employment for a year. In 1934, the family moved to Chicago where his father was able to find work. This move was extremely traumatic for everyone including the youngest Huebner at the age of 10. They lost their house, most of their processions and even had to send their dog, Chum, to the pound. This sense of loss had a deep influence on Huebner, which resulted in him becoming a more introverted and socially withdrawn child. He unconsciously began living life with the attitude that he had to take care of and be responsible for himself in life. Chicago was not necessarily a bright time for young Huebner. He completed the sixth through eighth grades there while his elder brother completed high school. His memory of those school years suggests that it was, for the most part, mediocre schooling, compared to 61  his first five years in the Grand Rapids’ schools with one really bad experience in a school that he attended for a few months. There was no middle school or junior high school. Each grade— sixth, seventh, and eighth—had but one teacher for all subjects (except music). One bright spot occurred though when Huebner received his first camera at The Chicago World Fair entitled A Century of Progress International Exposition in 1933/1934. He grew interested in photography, which developed much more in high school and would remain a lifetime interest. The family returned to Grand Rapids after his older brother, Robert, had graduated from high school in 1937. Their father had finally found work in Grand Rapids. Upon their return, Robert attended junior college while the younger Huebner completed high school. Huebner, upon reflection later in life, described himself as a geek, to depict his personality at that time. He was an average student, with the exception of the sciences, where he had natural talent. He did not associate with a particular group of friends, nor was he very interested in socializing with his peers. He did little to no dating, dancing, or sports. Instead, he found sanctuary in two major clubs: the Science Club and the Photography Club.  It was his talent in the sciences that led Huebner to both these clubs, as they were sponsored by two of his science teachers. William (Willy) Wasermann was the biology teacher for Huebner’s sophomore year and sponsor of the Photography Club. Huebner flourished in class and became active in the student club, becoming the club’s president during his later years in high school. Walter Wood taught Huebner during his junior year in chemistry and his senior year in physics. He was also the golf team coach and sponsored the Science Club. 62  Huebner joined and flourished in this club as well. In his last year in high school, Huebner auditioned for and received a part in the senior class play. Wood thought Huebner was wasting his time on drama when he should be more focused on the Science Club. Indeed, Huebner’s talents were in the sciences and mathematics.  In fact, he taught himself calculus shortly after graduating from Creston High School in May 1941.   There was very little question about what Huebner would do next. During his high school years, Huebner’s father exposed him and his brother to work in the factory so that they understood what factory work was about. Huebner only worked a few weeks in the factory, while Robert worked an entire summer. Both of Huebner’s parents valued education, especially his mother, who was a major influence in encouraging both sons to pursue higher education.  In September 1941, he continued his education at the local Grand Rapids Junior College, paying $25.00 a semester. He majored in chemistry, which included physics and mathematics. His high school teacher, Walter Wood, was instrumental in arranging for Huebner to serve as a chemistry lab assistant during his freshman year. Wood knew the chemistry teacher at the Junior College, William Dow. Dow was supportive of Huebner and even hired him to do personal jobs like mowing his grass, so that Huebner could earn extra money while he studied. Huebner was also encouraged by Dow and another organic chemistry teacher to become a research chemist, due to his natural inclinations.  Huebner, it seemed, was destined to follow in the footsteps of other chemistry majors from the junior college and work at Dow Chemical. However, not long after entering junior 63  college and turning 18, the world changed on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese military attacked the US naval base Pearl Harbor. In the days following, the US declared war not only with the Japanese but also against Nazi Germany and Italy.  Almost one year later, on November 27, 1942, Huebner enlisted in the army reserves in hopes of completing his second year of college. The unit was activated in the spring of 1943, but a group of men petitioned the army to allow them to finish the term. The army granted their request and delayed their activation until June of that year. On June 11, 1943, Huebner graduated from Grand Rapids Junior College with an associate degree in science. Then in July through August, he completed infantry training at Camp Fannin, Texas. During this time, he was identified as someone with special talents in the sciences and transferred to Texas A&M to study electrical engineering from November 8, 1943 to January 27, 1945.  Texas A&M offered programs in civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering to a few thousand men during the war, but as it waged on, the army needed human power in Europe. As such, the men studying civil and mechanical engineering were soon shipped overseas leaving those studying electrical engineering, including Huebner, to remain. Huebner completed five terms at Texas A&M. He thoroughly enjoyed the first three terms, but the last two became boring for him. The program included work in the then young radar field and servomechanism that were used in tanks and other weaponry.13 Ultimately, he earned a certificate in electrical engineering, since the program was specifically designed to serve the army. Huebner never did earn a traditional bachelor’s degree.   13 A servomechanism is a device that corrects a mechanism using error-sensing negative feedback.  64  After Huebner completed the certificate program, the army sent him to Camp Crowder, Missouri to be in the Signal Corps and to develop the skills of radio repair for nine months. It was here that Huebner’s life would take another change in direction entirely. Just as he found refuge in high school in the science lab and dark room, he found similar refuge in the Neosho Public Library. While his army comrades frequented the local bars and pubs, he would often escape with a few others to get lost between the stacks of books. In his personal exploration, he soon discovered books by John Dewey, Robert Maynard Hutchins, and Bertrand Russell. After reading them and living during wartime when death and destruction was a regular occurrence, one question stirred within him: “Why the hell are so many of us so poorly educated?” Perhaps it was this one pragmatic question that led to expanding his worldview unlike anything he had ever done before. It was curiosity over this question that drove him into education. He never desired to teach per se or necessarily to change the world. He desired to understand two topics: 1) What it means to be human and 2) Why his education did not help him consider this better beyond the scientific and technical. He felt inadequately educated and desired to understand why that was. He found the sciences too easy to explain humanity, yet his own human experience was far more complicated. He became curious about how education worked; therefore, he wanted to understand when it first began in schooling.  Education, for him, was an intellectual vehicle to understand himself and the world in deeper and more profound ways. He concluded that the best place to start intellectually would be at the beginning of one’s education in the elementary schools. Consequently, he knew what he 65  was going to do after his tenure in the army. The next question was: Where would he pursue his studies? He had plenty of time to contemplate his options since he was still at Camp Crowder until the end of the war in September 1945. At the age of 21, the war coming to a close, the army transferred him yet again to Camp Beale, California. Camp Beale was a Point of Overseas Embarkation (POE) with the intent of sending him to be in the occupation forces in Japan. He was, however, in the army long enough that he was assigned to the POE headquarters to select others to go to Japan. Seven months later, on March 31, 1946, he was officially discharged from the army reserves after serving for 1,220 days (3 years, 4 months, and 4 days).  Huebner returned to Grand Rapids, Michigan after leaving the army because he wanted to ensure he had proper funds to attend school even though he did have the GI Bill. The GI Bill, also known as the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, offered veterans of the Second World War payments of tuition and living expenses for schooling, mortgages, and even small business loans. Huebner was one of the approximately 2.2 million veterans to use the GI Bill to attend higher education (Greenberg, 2008). However, for his financial security, he returned to his parents’ home and worked on the assembly line at Lear Radio for one year. He decided to apply to either Teachers College in New York City or the University of Chicago during this time. Perhaps he selected these two institutions based on his Camp Crowder’s library readings of Hutchins and Dewey. Hutchins, who became president of the University of Chicago when he was 30 in 1929, was serving as its chancellor at the time (1945–1951) 66  (“Robert Maynard Hutchins,” n.d.). Dewey had been at both the University of Chicago (1894–1904) and Teachers College (1904–1930) (Gouinlock, 2019). Ultimately, he applied to the University of Chicago first and was accepted. Later in life, he suggested that if he had been accepted to Teachers College, he may have been a better elementary school teacher, but he would not have met the two men that would, once again, set in him in a new direction: Paul Eberman and Virgil Herrick.  67  2.3 CHAPTER 4: GRADUATE SCHOOL AND       NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY (1947–1957) On September 30, 1947, at the age of 23, Huebner began his studies at the University of Chicago in the elementary education master’s program. At the time, Robert Maynard Hutchins was serving as the university’s chancellor (1945–1951) (“Robert Maynard Hutchins,” n.d.). Hutchins had previously served as the university’s president at the age of 30, the youngest university president in the country at that time (1929–1945). Hutchins, whom Huebner discovered while browsing the shelves in the rural library in Missouri, believed education’s greatest role was to produce responsible citizens (Hutchins, 1953). He also advocated that universities should focus on intellectual content rather than practical skills of any particular occupation. He believed that the employer should instruct an employee on how to do a job, whereas schooling should focus on the Great Books model of curriculum and their intellectual influence on what it means to be human. This view heavily influenced the University of Chicago as a whole but specifically relates to the education that Huebner received. The faculty members in the Department of Education at the University of Chicago were more interested in researching education as a science and discipline (focusing more on theory) and not necessarily on training individuals to become public school teachers (Bronner, 1997). The department had a strong doctoral program in curriculum. There were many senior-level scholars at the university at that time concerned with establishing a science of education, a 68  number of whom focused on psychology.14 Many of his professors were experienced researchers: some even wrote textbooks and learning materials for the public schools. In this sense, his education at Chicago was less focused on teaching in a classroom and more on becoming an outstanding empiricist and researcher although this was not his intended focus at that time. This focus on psychological theory as well as limited time in the classroom did not prepare Huebner for the realities of teaching in an elementary school classroom.15 When he went to register for classes, he noticed a booth a few feet away for the program for human development. This program seemed much more relevant to Huebner’s interests, so he inquired if he could switch programs, but the administrators would not allow it. If he had switched, Huebner most likely would not have had the career path he had. Huebner struggled when he began his program by earning all Cs. Previously at Junior College and at Texas A&M, he was an average student with marks ranging from As to Cs, an estimated GPA around 3.27. He consistently performed well in scientific- and mathematical- related courses and had an average performance in the languages and the humanities. His  14 Beyond Hutchins, Robert Havighurst also graced the hallways of the university at that time. Havighurst, perhaps, is best known for his human development theory (Havighurst, 1972). William Boyd Allison Davis, who was the first Black American to hold a full faculty position at a major white university in the United States, worked alongside Havighurst in several of his research projects. Davis accomplished much in his tenure at the university, including his work on intelligence quotient (“Guide to the Allison Davis Papers,” 2009). Bruno Bettelheim, a controversial Austrian-born psychoanalyst who specialized in Freudian psychology, also was working at the university while Huebner was there (Roark, 1991). Carl Rogers, another prestigious psychologist, directed a counseling center at the University (1945–1957) (“Carl Rogers,” 2019). Lastly, and conceivably the best known in the curriculum world, was Ralph Tyler, who served as the chairman of the Department of Education (1938–1948) and the dean of social sciences (1948–1953) (“Ralph W. Tyler facts,” 2010). It is also worth noting that Tyler’s Principles of Instruction was published in 1949 (Tyler, 1949). Thus, Huebner was around as Tyler switched between these two administrative roles as well as when Principles was first published. While Huebner may not have had direct contact with these particular high-profile scholars, their presence on campus was most certainly felt implicitly.  15 Huebner’s only professional experience in the classroom was during his student teaching term. He did not have to do any further time in the classroom during his teacher education program. 69  studies at Chicago involved writing essay papers by hand, a task which was not a strength for the scientifically inclined Huebner. He had to complete some courses outside of education in order to comply with the university’s requirements for the humanities and social sciences. This included, for example, an introductory course in history and philosophy, which exposed him to Herodotus, Thucydides, Hume, and Mill. The only philosophy of education course he took focused essentially on Dewey, specifically his Experience and Education (Dewey, 1963).  The winter and spring quarters saw great improvement in Huebner’s performance, when he earned mostly As, Bs, and one C. In the winter term, he took a course entitled “Teaching Arithmetic in Elementary School.” Maurice L. Hartung, his professor, was a huge advocate of the new mathematics of the 1940s–50s and wrote a series of textbooks with Scott Foresman. During the spring term, his course “Teaching Science in Elementary School” was taught by Wilbur Beauchamp. He was a very traditional science instructor who authored a series of books on teaching science. There were only two students enrolled at that time, and yet Beauchamp stood at the podium to give a lecture. Not all his professors were so traditional. He was exposed to different pedagogical orientations that same term. Huebner had enrolled in his first class with Paul Eberman. The course was entitled, “Introduction to the Study of Curriculum and Instruction.” Huebner recalled a time he stopped by Eberman’s office a few weeks into the course. Eberman greeted him by stating, “It is a good thing you stopped by because I was about to call you in.” Eberman taught his small seminar courses interactively through dialogue and discussion with the students, much different from Beauchamp’s typical science approach through lecture with only two students. 70  Huebner’s response to Eberman’s teaching style was to sit in the back of the room, arms crossed, and remain silent for much of the hour; however, with time, he came to appreciate Eberman’s approach to teaching.  Huebner became the most successful in his academic career during the summer term of 1948. He enrolled in the course “The School in the Social Order,” taught by Newton Edwards, author of The School in the American Social Order (Edwards & Richey, 1963). Huebner was more comfortable with Edward’s pedagogy through lecture and respected the scholarship Edwards pursued. This course really encouraged Huebner’s interest in education, and it reflected in his grades that term, when he earned a GPA of 4.0. In addition to these courses, there were plenty of others that focused on psychology. These courses in psychology would provide Huebner with a solid foundation that he drew upon later, but at the time it did not necessarily translate into his becoming a successful elementary school teacher. Huebner began his student teaching experience in the autumn term following his academically successful summer. He did his student teaching at the University of Chicago’s laboratory school in a fifth-grade classroom. Dr. Anderson was the coordinator for the student teaching experience and provided little support or helpful insight for Huebner as he experienced the role of teacher for the first time in his life. In contrast, his supervising teacher, Ida B. DePencier, was a respected elementary school teacher and well known in certain circles for her work in the laboratory school. She and Huebner got along well enough, but they never formed a deep or lasting relationship. Perhaps the grade of C that he earned during this 71  practicum best summarizes Huebner’s experience and reflects the success he had as a classroom teacher. The last quarters following his student teaching were filled with courses focused on psychology. These experiences and the professors with whom he studied influenced Huebner’s thinking, but it was his relationship with three men in particular that was the most significant for Huebner’s future. During Huebner’s first year as an MA student, Virgil E. Herrick served as his advisor.  Herrick had completed all his studies at the University of Wisconsin (UW), earning his PhD in 1936 (Herrick, 1936). In 1940, he began teaching as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago and stayed until 1948. During his time there, Herrick co-hosted one of the first conferences on curriculum theory with Ralph Tyler in 1947. Although Huebner was a student at the time, he was unaware of this conference. Herrick focused his research on curriculum design by asking questions of underlying values (Kridel, 2010). In 1948, as Huebner remembers, John Guy Fowlkes, Dean of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (1947–1954), invited Herrick to return to UW in order to build the program. Herrick did indeed return to his alma mater, where he held the post of full professor until his death in 1963 at the age of 57. This move, though, left Huebner without an advisor after his first year at Chicago.  When Paul W. Eberman was assigned to be Huebner’s replacement advisor, he was still a doctoral student himself, along with John Goodlad, at the University of Chicago studying with Ralph Tyler. Eberman and Herrick were professional friends, and that is, perhaps, why Huebner was reassigned to Eberman in the first place. Eventually, Herrick invited Eberman to 72  come to the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1949, right after Huebner had graduated from the University of Chicago. Eberman had graduated in 1950. He stayed at Wisconsin (1949–1963) until transferring as dean of the College of Education at Temple University in Philadelphia (1963–1973), where he remained until retirement in 1978 (Hilty, 2010). While both Herrick and Eberman were significant for Huebner at the University of Chicago, there was a third man who intellectually influenced his thinking the most. Huebner remembers Herbert Thelen as his most intellectually stimulating professor at the University of Chicago. The two men shared an interest in chemistry although Huebner never knew this fact. Thelen had earned a BA and an MA in chemistry before earning a PhD in education (“Herbert Thelen,” 2008). Arriving in 1945, he was a relatively young faculty member to the university when he met Huebner in 1947. Thelan eventually served as chairperson of educational psychology during his tenure at the university, which lasted until 1979. He focused much of his work on group dynamics, leading to publishing five books within his career including Dynamics of Groups at Work (Thelen, 1954). Thelan was also involved with the creation of T-group (training group) in Bethel, Maine, in 1947. Huebner’s studies involved working in a laboratory in which Thelan and his students observed group dynamics between individuals through a room surrounded by curtains. This research on group dynamics was similar to the experience Huebner had with Eberman’s Socratic teaching style. Furthermore, Huebner focused on group dynamics for his master’s thesis. Huebner’s master’s thesis was entitled Vocational Preferences of Elementary School Children as Related to Peer Group Status in the Classroom (1949).  This study asked the 73  research question: “Does a child’s social relationships in the elementary school classroom indicate the child’s preferred occupational choice for the future?” For example, if a child has fewer friendships in the classroom, will that child desire to work in an occupation that has lower social interactions? Likewise, if a child has a higher number of friendships in the classroom, will that child desire to work in an occupation that has higher social interactions? The methodology for this project involved Huebner working with nine classrooms ranging from grades two through six, for a total of 223 students.  The project required a two-step process. The first step was to ask the children to list what they wished to do when they became adults. In most cases Huebner himself asked the children this question. This required him to spend a few hours in each classroom to acquaint himself with the students so that the they felt freer to give an honest response to his question. The second step was for the classroom teacher to ask the students who they wished to sit next to.  This experiment was conducted with three to two weeks remaining in the school year, so all the teachers agreed to reassign seating arrangements based on the results of this investigation until the end of the year. Huebner then attempted to map out how many times a child was selected by their peers to sit next to them. One assumption, then, is that the more social child would have their name listed by their peers more often than the child who was less social. This then would lead the children to be ranked by their social relationships. Next, Huebner assigned a number to each occupation selected by the students, based on how social the occupation is. The social-ness of each occupation was determined subjectively by Huebner. These numbers were then classified and ranked in comparison to each other. Then he used the “t” statistic to determine if there 74  was a significant correlation between a child’s social relationships and the vocational choice. Ultimately, this study found no significant correlation between the two. Huebner reflected on this master’s thesis with a little bit of embarrassment, but the thesis does represent Huebner’s thinking at the time. Perhaps the study was not revolutionary or ground-breaking for the field of education, but it does demonstrate a novice’s attempt at conducting scientific research in the classroom as an empirical researcher. More largely, the study is trying to understand the child’s perception of what is occurring in the educative act to form some type of theoretical framework. This desire to create a theoretical framework based on the perception of a child reappeared in his doctoral dissertation. On September 2, 1949, Huebner graduated with a master of arts degree, referred to as an Artium Magister [AM] on his transcript, from the faculty division of the social sciences in the Department of Education from the University of Chicago. At that time, Eberman moved to the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where Virgil Herrick had moved in 1948. He invited Huebner to join him for doctoral studies if Huebner chose to do so. Their paths would once more connect in a few years’ time.  Huebner went on to teach elementary school, starting that same month until June 1951 in Michigan. He taught fourth grade his first year of teaching and then moved to teaching fifth grade during his second year. He noted that the fifth-grade classroom was mostly white children from the South, whose parents had moved to the North to work in the automobile industry. These two years were very hard on Huebner. One of the major difficulties he had was 75  transferring all the intellectual work that he had done at the University of Chicago to the elementary school classroom.  This sense of failure was difficult for him. Perhaps his experience led him to conclude, in his own words, that he was “a miserable elementary school teacher.” This tension between being a theorist and an intellectual who is still relevant for a classroom teacher would remain throughout his professional career; others perceived his work as too theoretical and not practical enough.16 After his first year of teaching, Huebner decided to accept Eberman’s invitation to pursue doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, concluding that he did not know enough about education. Thus, in the summer of 1950, before the start of his second year of teaching, Huebner began his doctoral coursework. In that first summer session, Huebner began his studies with a course taught by Virgil Herrick. Huebner later would recount a moment that occurred a few weeks into the course. Herrick walked in and as he was preparing to begin the class asked Huebner, “I have forgotten where I left off. May I see your notes?” Huebner innocently replied, “I do not take notes.” Herrick scoffed, “You are either really good or you’re kidding yourself.” It turned out that he was indeed that good. On occasion Herrick could be hard on Huebner, but he always was very supportive of his student.  He encouraged all his students to consider how they can think about doing things differently. Herrick did not, however, press his students to become better  16 Huebner asserted that this division between theory and practice is, indeed, a false dichotomy. He believes practice uninformed by ideas shows a lack of historical and political awareness. Theories (ideas) that cannot inform practice are more or less an escapism (Huebner, personal communication, June 26, 2017). 76  writers. Huebner struggled with his writing skills throughout his career and wished he had been pushed to improve his skills more during his doctoral studies. In that same course, Huebner met James Macdonald, a classmate who would remain a personal friend and close colleague with Huebner until Macdonald’s death on November 21, 1983. Macdonald not only met one of his closest professional friends of his career, but he also met his first wife in Herrick’s course. Huebner recalled later Herrick announcing with joy and excitement that the engagement occurred within that term.  Huebner returned one more year to teaching fifth grade but then left teaching in June 1951 to enroll full-time as a doctoral student. He met his next influential mentor in the autumn term.  Every doctoral student needed a minor at that time and given his earlier work on group dynamics with Herbert Thelen, Huebner decided to minor in sociology (the same minor Macdonald selected). In the autumn of 1951, both Huebner and Macdonald met Hans Gerth. Gerth had a significant influence on Huebner’s development as a scholar. It would not be uncommon for Gerth to tell his students to read 100 or so pages. These assignments, often from several authors, gave Huebner a new sense of how many different modes of inquiry exist and of the knowledge beyond the psychological. It was Gerth who introduced Huebner to Langer, Cassirer, Weber, Marx, and many others. Hans Gerth was born in Germany in 1908; he had studied within the Frankfurt School focusing on sociology, economics, and philosophy (Gerth, 1998). He studied with famous German scholars including Weber, Mannheim, and Adorno. Gerth immigrated to the United States in 1937. He began teaching at the University of Wisconsin in the mid-1940s. Gerth was 77  most known for his expertise and translations of Weber. A sociologist of religion, he collaborated with C. Wright Mills to write Character and Social Structure: The Psychology of Social Institutions (Gerth & Mills, 1953). Gerth was working with Wright on a second book at the same time Huebner studied with him. When his wife died, Macdonald and Huebner were very caring to Gerth during this time, even visiting him at his house to offer support. Gerth returned to Germany in 1971, where he remained until his death in 1978. Gerth exposed Huebner to the work of the Frankfurt School, which continued to have a significant influence on Huebner for many years. Huebner also had a course with Herrick and Eberman, who offered this course as an ongoing seminar that continued throughout Huebner’s three years of coursework. The seminar class included Macdonald as well as other doctoral and master’s-level students. The point of the seminar was to discuss and engage with current trends in the curriculum field. In the winter term of 1951, Huebner took a class with Chet Harris, who became another major influence at Wisconsin. If Hans Gerth symbolizes Huebner’s intellectual future in exploring many disciplines, including the more philosophical, then Harris symbolizes the empirical background from which Huebner came. Harris was an English teacher who became an expert in factor analysis, matrix algebra, and statistical design (Harris, 1994). He was at the University of Chicago and was involved in the Eight-Year study, when Herrick convinced him to come to Wisconsin to help improve the program there. His research focused on testing and assessment. He served as the president of AERA from 1960 to 1961.  Harris was not the only one active in AERA from Wisconsin. Virgil Herrick also had served as president from 1957 to 78  1958. Huebner himself joined AERA in 1953, when it only had around 1,500 members.  Huebner was active within Division B but never did hold an office with the organization. Huebner took two courses with Harris, performing extremely well, and was relatively close to him. Huebner would later reflect that he was over-prepared to become an empiricist in education and underprepared for the role that he eventually did take in helping to reconceptualize curriculum studies.  Not all of Huebner’s professors stood out to him in his studies. He did take a course in educational history with Edward Kung and educational philosophy with Matthew Willing, but overall these were uneventful. Similarly, he did have a course with John W. M. Rothney, famed psychologist who expanded the program in counseling considerably at Wisconsin (“History of the Department of Counseling Psychology,” 2019). This course merely added to the already well-established expertise in psychology that Huebner had received from the University of Chicago. He and Macdonald also took a psychology course with Julian Stanley in the summer of 1953. Neither student was very impressed with his expertise, and each felt that they knew just as much of the literature as Stanley. He remembered giving Stanley a hard time. Macdonald and Huebner’s friendship only grew closer with time. They had a doctoral students poker group, which would meet regularly at the end of each week. They also were actively engaged politically on behalf of the graduate students and met with the dean of the school a few times to advocate for student rights. Additionally, they both worked as research assistants during their coursework at Wisconsin. This reflected a value of both Virgil Herrick and Paul Eberman. As mentioned, John 79  Guy Fowlkes, Dean of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1947–1954), recruited Herrick to return from the University of Chicago in order to build up the research rigor of the program. This revitalization included finding ways to financially support doctoral students. Herrick helped lead a research study that formed a Committee on Handwriting in 1951 between several professors at Wisconsin and the Parker Pen Company.  Huebner and Macdonald both worked on a handwriting project for their first two years of study.  Children of various age levels, along with some adults, would come into a laboratory and write the sentence, “The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog,” with a variety of pens on a table with a metal plate built to measure pressure. This sentence contains each of the letters of the alphabet, so they were able to measure differences in pattern pressures of these pens in relation to each letter. The results of this project were published in the book Pressure Patterns in Handwriting (Harris & Rarick, 1955).  In his third year, Huebner worked for Eberman after completing the handwriting project. His work focused on a matrix analysis of teacher qualities. Eberman’s research concerned teaching behaviour and teaching skills. This matrix analysis work took Huebner nine months to complete, using a hand calculator that could be done with today’s technology in about five minutes. Paul Eberman was Huebner’s research supervisor during his doctoral work, but it was Virgil Herrick who would have the more lasting influence on Huebner. After the third year at Wisconsin, Herrick told Huebner, “There is nothing more we can do for you here. You need to go somewhere else.” This kind of honesty was not new to Huebner’s relationship with Herrick. 80  There were several occasions when Herrick, and his wife, Helen, invited all the doctoral students including Macdonald over to their house for socializing. Soon after Huebner completed his dissertation and left Wisconsin for good, Herrick developed pancreatic cancer and died in 1963 at the age of 57 (Kridel, 2010). A few months before he died, Huebner wrote him in a heartfelt letter expressing all that Herrick meant to him. Herrick replied on April 3, 1963: I am sure you know how deeply touched I was by your letter and the feelings you expressed there, and I am sure you know the very real affection both Helen and I have for you and how proud we are of the very real success you are making at Teachers College. I’m hearing from many sources of the contributions you are beginning to make to ideas about curriculum and instruction and what this would mean for investigation and work in this field. What makes it so important to me is that it is real evidence of your becoming your own person, your own man, and also deciding for yourself the kind of contribution you want to make to the field in which you are in. This means more to me than almost anything else you could do because this is the only basis upon which substantial creative insightful work can be done in our field of interest. (Herrick, 1963)  This symbolizes the deep relationship between Huebner and Herrick. It was later when Huebner was discussing Herrick’s influence on him with one of Huebner’s doctoral students, that he began to cry. It was clear at that moment that Herrick was like a father figure to Huebner. Huebner took Herrick’s words to leave Wisconsin very seriously even though he had not finished writing his dissertation. His next step came through his connections with a classmate from both the University of Chicago and the University of Wisconsin. Indeed, Huebner was not the only one that Paul Eberman or Virgil Herrick had invited to study at Wisconsin from Chicago. Huebner first met Margaret Carroll in the elementary school 81  program. She had been a one-room-school teacher in Nebraska before the war. During the war, she served as a WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service) officer as part of the United States Naval Reserve (Women’s Reserve).  She studied with Virgil Herrick and completed her studies before Huebner did. The year was 1954, and she was already teaching at Northern Illinois State Teachers College in DeKalb, Illinois.  It was Margaret Carroll’s endorsement that enabled Huebner to be hired as an assistant professor. He remained at Northern Illinois University (NIU) from 1954 to 1957.  These years are not only transitional for Huebner as he worked on his dissertation but for the college itself. On July 1, 1955, the university changed its name to Northern Illinois State College. It became Northern Illinois University on July 1, 1957, just as Huebner left the institution. The state legislator was interested in making it a major university. It was here that Huebner said he learned the art of teaching in higher education.  He taught within the teacher education program and worked closely with preservice teachers. He taught an introductory course in psychology in a lecture-style class of around 60. During his first two years, he taught the sophomore human development course as a seminar with approximately 20 students in it. During Huebner’s final year, he worked with the seniors, who were teaching full time for one semester in elementary schools. One unique aspect to the teacher education program was that the students were observing the classroom beginning their sophomore year. Students also enrolled in a seminar course at the same time, discussing human development. Then, during their junior year, they observed an elementary school classroom, and the seminar course focused on curriculum and teaching. During their senior 82  year, they had a full term of student teaching with a coordinated seminar. Some of his student teachers were located in school systems that adopted John Goodland’s non-graded classroom model. While at NIU, Huebner drove back to Michigan to visit his family. On his way he would stop by the University of Chicago’s bookstore to peruse the shelves. It was on one of these visits that he picked up Paul Tillich’s Love, Power, and Justice: Ontological Analysis and Ethical Applications (1954), and Martin Buber’s I and Thou (1958). He also discovered F.S.C. Northrop’s The Meeting of East and West (1946). This would mark the beginning of Huebner’s exploration of theology.  His reading in theology was not the only change that was occurring while he taught at NIU. One experience that caused Huebner to stop and reflect on his teaching practices happened when a group of students asked if they could visit a one-room school. He responded by asking the students what they expected to learn from the experience. Later he realized how foolish that request was. Such situations were too complicated for such simplified responses. This encouraged his continual shifting from the psychological orientation (i.e., means-ends) of his education from the University of Chicago to an expanded understanding of knowledge. NIU had a special relationship with Teachers College, Columbia University in New York City, since several faculty members graduated from there. Additionally, Teachers College was involved with NIU in an action research program on teacher education with Ball State Teachers College (later Ball State University) in Muncie, Indiana. Several faculty members from Teachers 83  College, including Margaret Lindsay, were involved in that project. Furthermore, Stephen M. Corey, the dean at Teachers College at that time, had been a colleague of Virgil Herrick’s at the University of Chicago. Huebner became known to the faculty at Teachers College through these contacts.  In 1956, Teachers College invited Huebner to join their faculty. They flew him from Illinois to New York City for an on-campus visit. After seeing what they were doing, Huebner turned down the offer.  Theory was not part of the Department of Curriculum and Teaching’s concern. The philosophers and historians were located in other departments, but the Department of Curriculum and Teaching was focused on the practicalities of teaching and supervision. He told them that he was more interested in the theory behind education and was not interested in the change. A year later, he received two calls. One was from William Arthur Brownell, dean of the School of Education at the University of California–Berkeley from 1950 to 1962, (another friend of Virgil Herrick), and the other was from Teachers College once again. Huebner informed Brownwell he was not interested in that position. Teachers College had updated their focus and answered Huebner that they wanted him to develop a course on curriculum theory with Arno Bellack. He could not resist this new opportunity that would allow him to focus on the theory of curriculum.  Huebner recalled that NIU was sad to see him depart, but it was not entirely unexpected either. Several of the faculty members had moved on to better programs and schools throughout the country. The chair of the department was particularly supportive of 84  Huebner and hosted a going-away party for him.  They were sad to see him go, but they also understood the excitement of the new chapter in his life. The year was 1957, and Huebner found himself far from the streets of the Grand Rapids, Michigan of his childhood and on the streets of the metropolis of New York City. He was ready for the new adventures that awaited him at Teachers College, but one thing still weighed heavily on him: his dissertation. It took him two additional years before he completed his dissertation and graduate from the University of Wisconsin–Madison; a total of seven years was devoted to writing it. He successfully defended it to Paul Eberman, his supervisor, Virgil Herrick, and Chet Harris. The dissertation is entitled From Classroom Action to Educational Outcomes: An Exploration and Educational Theory (Huebner, 1959). It is an understatement to suggest that this was an ambitious dissertation. In short, Huebner tried to create a systematic conceptual understanding of what happens in the classroom, which was heavily influenced by the work of Parson and Shils.  He concluded that there are three main phenomena that occur in education. First, there is classroom action; that is, the actions done on behalf of both the teacher and the student. Second, there are the behavioural outcomes; that is, the desired change of behaviour in students that occurs due to classroom actions. Third, the link between classroom actions and behavioural outcomes is learning theory. Huebner suggested that all three components (classroom action, behavioural outcomes, and learning theory) are understood through multiple conceptual frameworks.  He attempted, as a response, to articulate a single conceptual framework that linked these three components. His intended result was that when 85  two or more individuals from various backgrounds observe a classroom, their focus, analysis, and conclusion would contain the exact same features universally. Huebner attempted this monumental task within nine chapters and 200 pages. Chapters 1 and 2 set up the problem and the background to how these different phenomena have been understood. In Chapter 3, he asserted that a conception of behaviour must be articulated since that underlies all three phenomena. Behaviour, for Huebner, can be understood as an interaction between an individual and the environment. Chapter 4 turned towards categories of outcomes by looking at the different forms behaviour outcomes often take. He ultimately suggested nine categories of behavioural outcomes. After establishing categories for outcomes, he created 10 categories of classroom action in Chapter 5. The next few chapters focus on connecting these categories of outcomes to the categories of classroom actions through notions of learning. Chapter 6 specifically focuses on learning, and he suggested five aspects to the learning process. Chapter 7 connects learning to the categories of classroom actions. In Chapter 8, he connected those classroom actions to the behavioural outcome categories. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the research and provides the implications for further studies.  While this dissertation did not revolutionize the curriculum field with his conceptual framework, it does reveal several aspects to Huebner’s thinking at that time. First, readers are able to see the tension he faced between psychological understandings based on empirical research and a more philosophical approach to understanding educational experience. Second, his work mirrored the scholarship that was occurring at that time with several 86  scholarly yearbooks focused on understanding what concepts are and the role of conceptualizations. Third, he addressed many themes that were addressed later in his scholarship such as: the environment, learning and learning theory, outcomes and the Tyler Rationale, behaviour, motivation, and classroom actions taken by both the teacher and student. These themes will be discussed in Part 3 of this dissertation.                87  2.4 CHAPTER 5: TEACHERS COLLEGE (1957-1982) Huebner found himself at Teachers College in 1957, two years before he defended his dissertation in 1959. Teachers College is a prestigious institution. It has a long history of housing some of the best-known educational figures of the time.  It was established in 1887 as an independent institution, but in 1898 it became affiliated with Columbia University (“Teachers College Historical Timeline,” 2018). Teachers College serves as the graduate school of education for Columbia University, yet both institutions are financially independent from each other. During Huebner’s time on faculty, the two institutions shared academic agreements. For example, PhD degrees were awarded by Columbia University, but EdD degrees were strictly awarded by Teachers College. Presently, all degrees are awarded by Columbia University. The president of the College is considered a dean at Columbia University. Several faculty members had joint appointments at Columbia University and at Teachers College. Huebner himself had no formal ties to Columbia University.   In the 25 years Huebner served as a faculty member in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching, he worked with many administrators: including three presidents: Hollis L. Caswell (1954–1962), John Henry Fischer (1962–1974), and Lawrence (Larry) A. Cremin (1974–1984) (“Past Presidents of Teachers College,” n.d.). He also worked with four deans: Stephen Max Corey (1955–1959) (“Dr. Stephen M. Corey, Ex-Dean at Columbia,” 1984); Fischer, who became president (c.1959–c.1963); Robert “Bob” J. Schaefer (1963-c.1974) (“A Dean of His Day,” 2005), and Harold Noah (1975–1980) (“Noah, Harold J., n.d.). The department rotated 88  its chairpersons including: Gordon N. Mackenzie, Alice Miel, Harry Passow, William E. Hug, and Huebner himself. Huebner reported that he got along well with the administration for the most part throughout his tenure. He was impressed with John Henry Fischer’s attempt to raise the academic standards of Teachers College to match Columbia University’s standards. Teachers College primarily had been a professional school, and Fischer wanted the school to focus more on academic rigor. Huebner also worked with Fischer on faculty committees during the protests of 1968 that occurred at Columbia University.17  Alice Miel was also extremely supportive of Huebner and his work, including when she was department chair. Miel was very well respected in the field (Yeager, 1995), and she provided Huebner with at least one speaking engagement. When Miel was chair, Huebner was promoted from associate to full professor. Bob Schaefer, the dean at the time, wrote to Huebner informing him that he needed to prepare his papers to be reviewed for this promotion. Huebner replied, “Bob, it is your decision to promote me or not. My decision is to stay or not stay. The two are completely not related, and I am not going to organize my material for you.” Miel herself prepared his papers for him so that he did, indeed, receive tenure and remain at Teachers College for 25 years.  17  The protests of 1968 occurred at Columbia University whenever students discovered that a gymnasium was to be constructed by Morningside Park. It was also discovered that there were links between the university and the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), which supported the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. Students displayed many forms of protests including marching on campus and sitting in offices. Teachers College tried to be proactive in their response to the situation so that similar protests would not occur on campus. Ultimately, Fischer’s proactive stance and working with faculty, staff, and students paid off without any confrontations occurring within Teachers College. Huebner worked closely with Fischer and other faculty members to prevent such protests. 89  Huebner also enjoyed the privilege of working with many faculty members throughout the various departments in the famed institution. Perhaps his closest colleagues, but housed in a different department, were Philip H. Phenix and Maxine Greene. He served on many graduate student committees with them18 and often was reading the same kinds of texts as they were. Both Phenix and Greene identified themselves as educational philosophers, whereas Huebner identified himself very much as a curriculum specialist so there was a slight difference in focus in their work. They never did formally collaborate on publications or teaching per se; however, they maintained excellent professional and intellectual relationships. There was a deep sense of shared respect. Phenix even encouraged his son, Morgan Scott, to study with Huebner to complete his doctoral dissertation, which he did do.19  Huebner was also close to Arno Bellack when he first arrived at Teachers College. Bellack and Huebner were tasked with developing the first course in curriculum theory during the late fifties. They started to have major differences when Huebner began exploring power. Bellack identified himself as an analytic philosopher, similar to Jonas F. Soltis, another analytical philosopher in the department with Greene and Phenix. Huebner tended to see power through his study of political science and continental philosophy; Bellack saw it through the eyes of the English analytic philosophers.20 This philosophical difference eventually led to  18 The committees for students were either the original EdD committee or the final dissertation exam committee. 19 Phenix started working at Teachers College in 1954, three years before Huebner was hired (Phenix, 2002). 20 Huebner used political science and continental philosophy to describe the experience people have when using power, to examine how power exists in society, and what the consequences of power are for educators. Analytic philosophers, in contrast, explore the meaning of power linguistically. What does it mean when the word power is used? What is it describing or explaining? While there is value in both approaches, Huebner found it hard to teach one course incorporating both.    90  their professional relationship dissolving, and they stopped teaching together as a result. Huebner always respected Bellack’s scholarship and found him to be a very sound scholar although the two never came to full reconciliation. Bellack retired from Teachers College the same year that Huebner did, in 1982.  Huebner was also on good terms with many other faculty members inside and outside of the department. Leland Jacobs, who taught reading and children’s literature, shared an office suite with Huebner. Jacobs received boxes full of children’s books that publishers would send to him for his review and possible endorsement. Huebner enjoyed, with Jacobs, looking at the new books as they arrived. Huebner’s scholarship reflected this focus in teaching reading and his interest in libraries in elementary schools.  Additionally, Huebner had a good working relationship with a variety of other people including those focused on history such as Lawrence Cremin and Douglas M. Sloan, professor of history and education. During the first few years of Huebner’s tenure, Cremin offered to help Huebner with his study of history, but Huebner regretfully turned him down. Huebner described it as a regret because he later gained a greater appreciation for history and historical awareness but never felt that he had refined his skills enough to do historical work academically. Huebner also was interested in the work of Robbie McClintock, Phil C. Lange, and Arthur “Wells” Foshay. Huebner recalled that McClintock was one of the first professors to receive a word processor, which was as big as a desk at the time. Lange used telephones to have children in New York City call children in Australia to speak with one another. Foshay introduced Huebner to the audiotape. Additionally, Huebner shared, for his first two years at 91  Teachers College, an office suite with Roma Gans, a scholar and activist greatly involved in the forming of New York City’s teachers’ unions.   There were a few faculty members who knew Huebner when he taught at NIU, including Margret Lindsay. He credits Lindsay as one of the people responsible for bringing him to Teachers College by endorsing his employment. Florence Stratemeyer celebrated his doctoral defense by briefly attending a party that was thrown the night he flew back to New York City after his defense. Stratemeyer’s thought had been influential in several projects at NIU.   There was, however, disagreement among faculty members who questioned Huebner’s work. Anne Lieberman and Gary Griffin were the two main challengers within his own department. They were focused on John Goodlad’s approach to schools, which did not have the same values and interests as Huebner’s thinking. Outside the department, Huebner also ran into those who objected to his scholarship. He once stated that learning theory was a major impediment: Miriam Levin Goldberg, one of Teachers College leading psychologists, simply dismissed the critique against learning theory as absurd. He frequently received this kind of rejection of his work from the wider curriculum field at the time as well. One of Huebner’s most profound experiences occurred in his early years at Teachers College.  There was a Saturday morning course, with about 120 students, that was co-taught by six professors in the elementary school program (Alice Miel, Leland Jacobs, Roma Gans, Emma Sheehy, Ken Wann, and Huebner). They spent the first part of the morning lecturing and then broke out into discussion groups.  The first time Huebner lectured in that class, he 92  noticed the absolute silence that was in that room with all the eyes looking to him and hanging on every word. While he had taught seminar courses at NIU, he never before had spoken in front of so many people and maintained their attention. Huebner was so moved that he went across the street to Riverside Church. He sat in one of the pews and simply cried. It was the first time in his 34 years of life that he realized that he had a gift that was not of his own making. He had the ability to speak in public with confidence and assurance, and the gift simply amazed him. This was a touchstone experience for Huebner in recognizing the mystery of unknowingness that accompanies human beings. This moving experience only endorsed Huebner’s intellectual journey into the religious and theological realms.  Huebner was not new to religion. He had grown up in a Methodist church within the Christian tradition. His mother was very active in the church, and his father, formally Roman Catholic, was as well. His father served as superintendent of Sunday School and served on the board. Much of his mother’s personal strength came from her religious commitments, Huebner reported, but she did not necessarily impose this on her husband or children. When the Depression hit, Huebner remembered that the church was very helpful to his mother but did very little to support his father. Once Huebner left home and went to the army, he did not bother to go to church. He did attend a Methodist church following the war since the minister there took an interest in him. He did not frequent church during his graduate studies although he may have gone to the chapel at the University of Chicago once or twice.  It was not until he went to NIU that he connected with a Presbyterian minister however he did not remember how this connection occurred. This minister attended a class session or 93  two at NIU and encouraged his intellectual interests.  This is also when he slowly started to incorporate theological texts into his courses, especially at Teachers College as an intellectual means of describing the human experience within education.    Huebner tried to find a Presbyterian church when he moved to New York City. He did attend one once, located in a nearby neighbourhood with a high number of ethnic minorities. He was turned off from the church immediately when he went into the sanctuary and saw a group of old, white people. The sermon was irrelevant to the social issues that plagued the city at that time. Huebner never did return. He attended Riverside Church but witnessed men wearing waistcoats and white gloves. This formality also turned Huebner away. He eventually found a connection with the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, which is the mother church of the Episcopal Diocese of New York and the seat of the Bishop.   His reading of religious and mystical texts soon became a professional endeavour at Teachers College in the very early 1960s (c.1960/1961). Teachers College had a long-standing partnership with the historic Union Theological Seminary, located across the street from Teachers College. The partnership allowed students interested in religious education from Union to take courses at Teachers College. Teachers College had professors from various departments serve as academic advisors for these students.21 These advisors would help create students’ program of study (which courses to take, etc.) as well as offer any academic mentorship as requested by the students. Teachers College also had a similar relationship to  21 Phenix served a similar role to Union for his department, which focused more on philosophy, theology, and education. These connections to Union only strengthen the ties between Huebner and Phenix.  94  the prestigious Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), founded in 1886 (“History of JTS,” n.d.). Paul W.F. Witt served as the advisor for this program when Huebner first arrived, but due to other commitments, Witt resigned the post. Huebner agreed to serve in this role.22  This role with Union lasted throughout his tenure at Teachers College and eventually led him to his second career, this one at Yale Divinity School. There were three main professors involved in religious education at Union during Huebner’s time: Ellis Nelson, Robert “Bob” Lynn, and Mary Tully.  All three supported Huebner’s scholarship. He was invited early on (c.1963) to a conference of religious educators at the College of Preachers at Washington Cathedral. This was one of the first times that Huebner interacted with the professional field of religious education and scholars from around the country. Additionally, the professors from Princeton Theological Seminary, Yale Divinity School, and Union/Teachers College met once a year at Princeton to discuss religious education trends and issues. He also built relationships through his work at JTS with many of his Jewish students.  In the late 1960s, Huebner co-taught a seminar course at Union with Bruce Joyce. Joyce was brought into Teachers College in 1966 (left in 1974) due to his scholarship interests in the nature of teaching. Ellis Nelson asked the pair to teach a seminar course working with their doctoral students who served as teaching assistants for Union’s courses.23 Students recorded themselves using the videotape, and then they watched the tape with their peers in the seminar course. The students and the professors discussed what they observed. Bruce  22 Huebner taught one course at Union for a term, but that was not a normal responsibility for this position. 23  This is where Huebner first met Maria Harris, who would later become an esteemed scholar within the field of religious education. 95  Joyce did not remain connected to this course, but Huebner continued teaching it by himself for several years. He continued working with religious educators more frequently in the 1970s and into the 1980s.  Huebner was not only interested, though, in the religious domain.  After his dissertation, the next major source of writing came in the summer of 1962 when he spent six weeks at Martha’s Vineyard. Much of Huebner’s scholarship was written in the form of speeches to be delivered to various groups. For example, Teachers College had a series of open lectures for all students in the summer session in 1957. Huebner was asked to deliver one of those lectures, which resulted in “The Capacity for Wonder and Education.” He wrote “Is the Elementary Curriculum Adequate?” in 1961 for the New York State Teachers’ Association meeting in October (the fourth speech he would give that year).24 Yet the work he did during the summer of 1962 served a different purpose. Teachers College was very much a professional school in those days, and the summers, when public school teachers were not working, served as a huge revenue period for the institution. Black teachers from the South (Virginia and beyond) were a major population that Teachers College served at the time. Many of the teachers had only two years of normal school training, if that, and they often lacked good writing skills. These teachers had limited  24 He received credit on one publication entitled “Teaching,” which was co-authored with Bellack and appeared in the Review of Educational Research (Huebner & Bellack, 1960). This piece was primarily written by Bellack and Bellack’s student, Herbert M. Kliebard. Bellack was on leave when the article went to press, and before it was over with, Huebner’s name was placed as co-author instead of Kliebard. The article was a robust literature review of all research done to understand the nature of teaching, no doubt a reflection of their course materials used at Teachers College. 96  advanced educational opportunity in the South. Teachers College desired to help improve the schooling systems in these Black communities. There were two summer sessions at Teachers College, and Huebner taught both sessions all summer long since he started in 1957. He persuaded Miel, department chair at the time, to allow him to take the first summer session off as a break to work on his writing skills after teaching there for five years. She granted his request.  He chose to visit Martha’s Vineyard for six weeks around the month of June. He did not own a car at the time, so he had his doctoral students, Greta and Hank Morine, drive him there and a professional colleague, Ed Henderson, from New York University, drive him back. He rented an apartment and rode a bicycle three miles each morning to the beach. He read a variety of texts on the beach including poetry, Shakespeare, and anything else he could obtain about language. In the early afternoons, he would return to his apartment, eat, take a nap, and spend the rest of the day writing to improve his skills. These writings eventually turned into lectures, which he used in his elementary curriculum class. Miel hoped that he would publish them, but he never did formally until the 1999 collection of his work (Huebner et al., 1999).  Huebner’s work in 1962 mirrored his own shifting interests. His first writings on power began in this year. His writing between 1959, when he finished his dissertation, and 1962, when he took this extended holiday, focused on creativity and aesthetic aspects of education and teaching. He was interested in the child’s capacity to encounter the world beyond scientific approaches. This is articulated in his 1961 speech, “The Art of Teaching” (Huebner, 97  1961c), in which he asserted that teaching is an art that must be developed by the teacher. In “Today’s Child Builds Self Worth in the World” Huebner (1961b) framed the teaching act as a means of forming a relationship with the child to construct new ways of being in the world. The relationship between teaching and students evolved in his work by focusing on the power dynamic that is present in classrooms. This was not his only concern, however.   He seemed more focused on knowledge and epistemological concerns at Martha’s Vineyard than on power. He composed an updated version of his 1961 speech, “The Art of Teaching” (1962/1999aa), but I believe his more original work during this vacation is more evident in his essays “Knowledge and the Curriculum” (1962/1999r) and “Knowledge: An Instrument of Man” (1962/1999q). The former essay is one of his first attempts at outlining different forms of knowledge (discussed further in chapter 10). “Classroom Action” (1962/1999g), a third essay he composed during this period, focuses on the concept of time quite a bit (something he devoted more energy exploring in the late 1960s through Heidegger). This trip overall, as well as the rest of his speeches from 1962, indicate Huebner’s expansive reading and thinking during the early 1960s.   The next major change for Huebner occurred in the autumn of 1963 when he became the principal at Agnes Russell School. The school was founded in 1948 and named in honour of the wife of a former dean. The school served the children of the faculty, staff, and students of Teachers College as well as the children with parents working for Columbia University, Union Theological Seminary, and Jewish Theological Seminary. The school closed in the Spring of 1974 under John H. Fischer’s presidency (Jenkins, 1973). Huebner greatly enjoyed being 98  principal of the school. He took the post because too many of his colleagues had criticized him for being too theoretical and not practical enough. The role was an effort to show people that he was just as much about everyday occurrences of the classroom as any theory of curriculum. He focused heavily on building relationships with the teachers. For example, at the start of the school year, he placed a flower on the desk of each teacher. He also helped with curricular issues such as asking a student in the Department of Geology at Columbia University to work with the teachers and students regarding crystallography. Additionally, he supported the elementary school librarian, having great respect for the role of libraries in elementary schools. He thoroughly enjoyed being principal, but it did come with challenges. For example, he dismissed an art teacher during the middle of the school year. While he believed that the teacher had to be let go, he admitted to me that he did err in the manner in which he did so. Further hardships occurred when President Kennedy was assassinated during Huebner’s first year as principal, on November 22, 1963. Classes were cancelled, and he worked closely with the teachers to help them process the tragedy with their students. He returned to full-time university teaching after two years as principal (until May 1965), but the memories remained a bright spot for him for the rest of his career. Moreover, his time as school principal provided a significant reference point in his scholarship for many years thereafter; it provided him a perspective for how his ideas might influence not only public school teachers but also the administration.   Huebner taught every term since he started in 1957, excluding the six weeks of 1962. He requested and was granted a yearlong sabbatical between the autumn of 1965 through 99  the autumn of 1966. He went to the University of Wisconsin with the expectation of working with James Macdonald on writing projects during that study leave.25 This collaboration never came to pass, but it did provide him time to study Heidegger’s (1962) Being and Time.26 Between 1962 and 1965, Huebner’s scholarship continued to focus on power, relationships, knowledge, and aesthetics.  He realized that the language of learning was extremely limiting and narrow as he explored these ideas. Eventually, he came to believe that the major category of education was not learning or the psychological but rather time. He noticed Heidegger’s (1962) Being and Time was constantly referenced in all of his reading. He tried to speedread the work but that seemed futile. Consequently, when he was granted the sabbatical, he knew he wanted to focus on studying Heidegger’s work. After his intense study, Heidegger became one of the most important figures in Huebner’s thinking.   When Huebner returned to New York City in the autumn of 1966, he did not realize that his personal life was about to dramatically change. He had lived in Fort Lee, New Jersey, when he arrived at Teachers College in 1957. Teachers College only had residences in New Jersey to offer him since they had numerous veterans to house at the time. He enjoyed this  25 Huebner participated in several of Macdonald’s seminar courses. He met Steve Mann during his stay, who later became a significant figure in the curriculum field.  26 Heidegger is currently a controversial figure due to his association with Nazi Germany. Many scholars resist the use of Heidegger on an ethical basis. Samuel Rocha wrote an excellent introduction to a special journal issue specifically devoted to Heidegger’s influence in education. Rocha’s honestly stated, “There is no question that Heidegger’s Nazism places him on the wrong side of history…however…Heidegger’s thought has infected such a large portion of intellectual territory…that it cannot be arbitrarily dismissed or ignored out of hand” (Rocha, 2016). Readers are encouraged to review this introduction further for a sincere, yet compassionate, approach to Heidegger.  100  location because it enabled him to retain his car, which he wanted to keep, since he was not sure if Teachers College would be short- or long-term employment. Eventually he got bored with the commute and desired to move closer to the campus. In 1960, he sold his car and moved into Morningside Gardens, located at 501 W. 123rd Street. The co-op was six buildings, each 21 stories high, built in 1957. While he was the only faculty member from Teachers College in his specific building, the other buildings housed numerous faculty members including Alice Miel, Margret Lindsey, Arno Bellack, and Dorothy McGeoch. This new residence allowed Huebner to be only three blocks away from his office. Little did he know at the time that one day he would need a larger apartment for a family.  In 1966 when he returned from his yearlong sabbatical, he was registering students when one particular young woman said to him, “I will see you around.” He responded, “No, you will see me in my class.” Jennifer was an elementary schoolteacher from Colorado and was enrolled at Teachers College. She graduated and eventually taught at the service school at Teachers College. Huebner began dating Jennifer shortly after she began teaching at Agnes Russell School, and after two years, they were married in the summer of 1968. Huebner intentionally spent the first part of his adulthood focused on his career. He knew first-hand the hardships that the Depression caused. He wanted to ensure more stability and security for himself and his possible family. Thus, by the time he married at the age of 44, he was professionally well established, which meant there was rarely a tension between his family life and his professional life. This remained true, at least, until his first retirement from Teachers College.  101  The newlywed Huebners welcomed Morley, their first daughter, in 1969. A few years later Morley became a big sister to Gillian in 1972. Huebner shifted from a novice professor at the start of the sixties at Teachers College to a family man in New York City by the end of the decade.   The sixties also marked a time when Huebner would work with several students who would become significant scholars within the curriculum field.27 Greta Morine graduated during the 1965–1966 academic year with her dissertation, A Model of Inductive Discovery for Instructional Theory (Morine, 1965). Michael Whitman Apple finished his program during the 1969–1970 academic year with his dissertation, Relevance and Curriculum: A Study in Phenomenological Sociology of Knowledge (Apple, 1970). Apple followed Huebner’s intellectual lead in focus, such as power and politics, and in breadth of reading, such as philosophy and political theory, within his own academic career.28 Many of Huebner’s students also were students at Union Theological Seminary in religious education and had prestigious careers in that field. As successful as his students became, Huebner was not known for having many advisees compared to his colleagues. Many students found him difficult because he had  27   William Pinar took a course with Huebner during the late 1960s (c.1969), but he never officially enrolled in the doctoral program at Teachers College. However, Huebner’s relationship to Pinar was significant for both men. Huebner contributed to Pinar’s 1975 collection, Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists (1975), and Pinar was behind the 1999 volume, The Lure of the Transcendent: Collected Essays by Dwayne E. Huebner (Huebner et al., 1999).  28  Apple eventually obtained a position at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. When he did, Huebner contacted Helen Herrick, Virgil Herrick’s wife, who had been at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and informed her about Apple. Helen ensured that Apple received Herrick’s professional desk for his own office. This is just one illustration of the close relationship Huebner had with Apple as his doctoral supervisor. 102  high expectations. For example, it was not unusual for him to recommend a series of 10 to 15 books for students to read as they began their studies.   The second half of the 1960s also saw a change in his writing.  When he came back from the sabbatical, he focused more on time and language. For example, he wrote “Curricular Language and Classroom Meanings” in 1966 (1999h) and “Language and Meanings in the Elementary School” (1967a), and “Curriculum as Concern for Man’s Temporality,” both in 1967 (1999i). Both these essays were heavily influenced by his reading of Heidegger. One of Huebner’s most cited quotes of Heidegger’s (1937) is “Language is man’s [sic] most dangerous weapon.” Huebner asserted many times that a fundamental issue that plagued the thinking in curriculum studies was the use and understanding of language.  He focused less on knowledge and epistemology and more on offering perimeters to the curriculum field (see “Curriculum as a Field of Study,” [1966b] and “Notes Toward a Redefinition of the Curriculum Field” [1966a] followed by “Some Words on the Future of Curriculum,” [1969f]).  His turn from epistemology also took the form of ontology in essays like “Shaping Curriculum: New Understandings about the Person” (1966e).  The second half also saw a change in who he was citing in his work. During the first half of the sixties, he cited intellectuals such as Schweitzer, Schachtel, Macmurray, Buber, Langer, Ortega y Gasset, Lasswell, and Tillich. He cited his colleagues Stratemeyer, Miel, Carroll, Lindsey, and Jacobs. In the second half, he cited scholars such as Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Polanyi, Kuhn, Bruner, and Tyler. Philosophy continued to shape and inform Huebner’s intellectual evolution into the 1970s over any other discipline.   103  At least two major shifts occurred during the 1970s in Huebner’s scholarship. First, Huebner was feeling more and more frustrated and isolated in the curriculum field as time went on. He found more acceptance and welcome in religious education circles in his connections with Union Theological Seminary. He served as a lecturer for Union Theological Seminary from 1970 to 1975. He delivered one of his first addresses to religious educators on October 20, 1971, at the Autumn Convocation of Andover Newton Seminary. The paper, “Education in the Church,” was later published in the Quarterly magazine (1971/1999m). He delivered several other addresses and wrote various pieces throughout the 1970s including the longest essay to appear in The Lure of the Transcendent: “An Educator’s Perspective on Language About God” (1977/1999a). Huebner continued to expand his connections in religious education into the 1980s. Auburn Seminary was housed on the campus of Union Theological Seminary. The staff at Auburn served as advisors to the Presbyterian students at Union. Auburn Seminary was originally founded in 1818 in Auburn, New York in connection to the Presbyterian Church (“Auburn’s History,” 2018). The Depression hit the institution extremely hard, forcing it to the verge of bankruptcy. In response, it moved its campus to Union Theological Seminary while it maintained its own Board of Trustees and endowment funds. The consequence of this move, however, meant that Auburn no longer granted any degrees. Huebner had strong ties to Auburn throughout his years due to Bob Lynn, who he met when he first started advising students in the joint program between Teachers College and Union. Lynn was Dean of Auburn (1960–1976). Barbara Wheeler followed him from in 1980 to 2009. Huebner also had a unique 104  connection to Wheeler, as Wheeler’s husband, Sam, had taken the TA course with Huebner while Sam earned his doctorate at Union. Sam told Barbara that the seminar was one of the best he had at Union. Barbara appointed Huebner as an adjunct faculty member with Auburn in 1981.  Huebner met with his colleagues at Auburn three times a year. This group of scholars included Parker Palmer, Walter Wink, James A. Forbes, Robert Reber, and Larry L. Rasmussen. The six of them would meet regularly talking about theological education. Wheeler recommended that Wink and Huebner teach a course together since, according to Wheeler, Wink did not know much about education and Huebner did not know much about biblical studies. They taught a one-week course together for several years on Wink’s book, Transforming Bible Study: A Leader’s Guide (Wink, 1980). Wink and Huebner remained close professional and personal friends until Wink’s death on May 10, 2012.   The second major shift in his scholarship was the continual evolution in his study on power. The United States was engaged in the controversial Vietnam War in the late sixties. Richard Nixon was elected president in 1969 and resigned in 1974. The country, it seemed, was chaotic, filled with turmoil, and at times in the greatest of despair. Locally, students began protesting at Columbia University in response to these challenging times. Huebner focused on student rights, labour issues, and Marxist thought. He attacked the textbook industry and those who restricted freedom and justice in the classroom. He delivered an address entitled, “Curriculum with Liberty and Justice for All” (1974a) at a conference in Tennessee, organized 105  by Steve Selden, a Teachers College alumnus and friend to Michael Apple.29 One of the administrators attending the conference told Huebner, “That was one of the most dangerous papers I have ever heard.” This would not be the only time Huebner challenged educators. Huebner did not have much faith in the intellectual vitality of the curriculum field in the 1970s. In 1975, he declared to the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) that the organization would die in his address “Poetry and Power: The Politics of Curricular Development” (1975/1999u). The following year he published “The Moribund Curriculum Field: Its Wake and Our Work,” in 1976 (1999ad). He offered critiques of the field as a whole, but he rarely focused his writing or speaking on any particular individual within the curriculum field. He was not necessarily reading within the field, but rather he spent his energy reading texts from other disciplines such as philosophy and theology. Few scholars in the field addressed his work, and he did not often address anyone in return. He reflected later in life that perhaps he should have engaged with curriculum literature and schooling more often. Yet he did participate in one of the field’s most important texts. William Pinar invited Huebner to publish four essays, including the “Poetry and Power” address, in Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists (Pinar, 1975). In his retirement years, Huebner critiqued the title of this book since it created a label of “reconceptualists” for the group of individuals included in the volume. He never saw himself trying to reconceptualize curriculum per se but rather was warning against the superficial scholarship that was being  29 Selden, along with another student, worked with Huebner on the Englewood, NJ report in August 1971 (Huebner, 1971). 106  published and discussed at that time. Nevertheless, he acknowledged the volume’s importance in creating new vitality that would feed the curriculum field for decades to come. He also had several side projects in association with Teachers College in the seventies. For example, Huebner led the initiative to review the Englewood, New Jersey school district in 1971 (the final report published August 1971) (Huebner, 1971). Teachers College has a long history of conducting school surveys from the 1930s. Huebner previously worked with Harry A. Passow, chair of that survey, to review schools in Washington, DC.30 Alice Miel was heavily involved in these surveys and recruited Huebner to help with them. Passow served on the board of education at Englewood and led the district to request the survey from The Institute of Field Studies at Teachers College. Passow personally asked Huebner to lead the team, which Huebner reluctantly agreed to. The school was unique since it was doing integrated classroom activities, which Huebner was impressed by. He urged them to extend and deepen their use (practice) and philosophy (theory) of integrated classroom activities; however, the school district was under pressure to do otherwise as the testing movement that was rising in popularity. As such, the district wanted hard data to evaluate their teaching practices, which the report did not address. In the end, Huebner’s approach was met with mixed feelings by the board.  Huebner was highly discouraged in his own field and found more intellectual inspiration in religious education. Also, he was able to fulfill his intentions of being professionally stable before raising a family. Now, with a wife and two young girls at home, he  30 Huebner wrote about this in his essay, “The Curriculum of Two Elementary Schools in Washington” (1966d). 107  was able to focus on them more without being too caught up in the dynamics of his professional life. His wife, Jennifer, was an excellent community networker, and, as the girls grew up, she organized a parent-centered playgroup with other mother friends in the neighborhood, which eventually became a nursery school.  Huebner knew a headmaster of a private school who completed his doctoral work at Teachers College.  When it came time for the girls to enter school, Huebner enrolled them in this private school. He ultimately served on the school’s board and helped hire the headmaster’s successor, a headmistress who was a progressive educator. Eventually, with raising inflation and living costs, the Huebners decided to home-school their girls during their last year in New York City in 1981; however, Huebner made arrangements for the girls to be able to attend certain school events to maintain contact with their friends. He was a very engaged father but tried to stay out of his daughter’s day-to-day schooling. Huebner also enjoyed his family life, especially on the weekends. When Huebner was single or casually dating someone, he occasionally visited Long Island or Fire Island for the day. When he first got married, he and his wife went to the beach, but that soon became a burden: too crowded for them. They decided to purchase an old house in Upstate New York near Chatham. The house was built around 1840 and needed work. When Huebner first went into the basement, a stream of water was running from one side to the other. He spoke about the stream to a local farmer, to which the farmer replied, “It’s been there for a hundred years. What are you worrying about?”  108  Light home repair became one of Huebner’s hobbies during his free time. His wife and girls lived in the old house every summer while he visited on the weekends. They spent their Christmas season there as well. They closed it after Christmas until Easter. Huebner became very handy, remodeling some of the interior of the house. They had to sell the house when they left New York City in 1982, and as they drove away one last time, all four of them were in tears. It had become their little family home in the country.  As the 1970s drew to a close, Huebner’s relationship with Teachers College was growing more and more strained. He was department chair the last three years that he was at Teachers College. He enjoyed the administrative work, as he had when he was principal of the Agnes Russell School. Concerns started to arise when the department lowered their admission requirements, which was one way the administration addressed their economic concerns. Huebner was dismayed at the quality of the newly admitted students. He told himself for years, “This is my institution. I’m going to see it through.” This motivated him to be involved with administrative matters. Towards the end, he regretfully admitted, “This is no longer my institution. I am going to get the hell out of here.” He no longer enjoyed working with the doctoral students based on their interests. When he first arrived at Teachers College, the department was very sociable. The tone within the department changed, and he no longer felt at home.  There were also increased tensions between Huebner and the higher administration.  The central administration, under Lawrence Cremin, president from 1974 to 1984, began offering (in the early 1980s) early retirement to professors with 25 years of experience. Huebner wrote to him asking if he was eligible for early retirement; Cremin confirmed he was. 109  Huebner did not know what he would do after taking early retirement, but he knew he wanted to leave. He no longer supported the direction the administration was taking the school, nor was he finding the doctoral students who animated his thinking. The religious education program at Union was also decreasing in size and energy. He started recycling old lectures from previous years and did not find the new scholarship engaging or interesting. It was time for him to leave. Huebner did not know what he was going to do, but he figured that he would move into the house in Upstate New York with his family. One possibility was to become an elementary school teacher again. He even joked that he would become a tofu master. Little did he know at the time that the house would soon be gone as well as any thoughts of mastering tofu. 110  2.5 CHAPTER 6: YALE DIVINITY (1982–1994) Huebner started teaching at Teachers College in 1957 in a department that was sociable, welcoming, and full of possibility. After 25 years, the department had undergone many transformations on several levels including faculty changes, student admission requirements, and intellectual interests. Huebner’s own intellectual interests had also changed. He knew it was time to leave when he had the ability to take early retirement, which was granted to him during the academic year 1981–1982. His disillusionment extended beyond Teachers College to the entire curriculum field. He did not believe that the field was attending to the intellectual concerns that were most important. Therefore, this was not a question of switching institutions to continue in curriculum. This was the end of his days identifying as a curriculum scholar, although, as Pinar (Huebner et al., 1999) has pointed out, he never really stopped thinking about education and how we understand curriculum. Huebner still was associated with Auburn Seminary and remained connected to the institution until 1995. His connections with the field of religious education were now greater than with the existing field of curriculum. Around that time, Yale Divinity School was looking for someone to replace Randolph Miller (1952–1982) (Brown, n.d.), who had held the religious education chair at Yale. Leander “Lee” Keck was dean at the time (1979–1989) and personally invited Huebner to interview for the position (Keck, 1950–2013).  There was some resistance within the faculty because Huebner lacked formal education in theology. However, Keck encouraged Huebner saying, “Don’t pay any attention to them, 111  Dwayne. They are not going to make the decision. All you have to do for religious education is to do what you have done for your own field: write one or two articles that make a big difference.” Huebner knew one of his weaknesses was the fact he had never published a book. His scholarship was all in the form of published articles and numerous presentations/speeches. This missing component did not affect his employment though. Instead, he successfully performed during several rounds of interviews showcasing his interest in religious education and his study of Heidegger and philosophy. He began his employment as a visiting professor in the autumn of 1982. He became a full professor at Yale Divinity by 1985.  While the change was exciting for Huebner, personally it was a sad time for the Huebner family with the prospect of leaving New York City. He and his family had built a life there. Phil Phenix had mixed feelings about Huebner’s move to Yale Divinity as well. Phenix believed that Huebner did not need to leave Teachers College to pursue his intellectual interests in religious education and may even be better off staying. In the end, Phenix supportively wished Huebner well, giving him a copy of a book by James Edwin Loder, Jr., professor at Princeton Theological Seminary at the time, and said, “Do not do what he has done.” Religious education, it seemed, had its own intellectual vitality concerns just as much as the curriculum field had.  Huebner’s move to the position in religious education at Yale Divinity can be understood, I suggest, based upon Huebner’s description, not as an intentional act to switch fields but rather an incidental one. Huebner’s own devotion to Christianity and his religious beliefs have continually remained liberal. He did attend church regularly during the 1970s, 112  once he got married and had children. When he was single, he attended irregularly the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, but when he married, he began to attend Riverside Church, where William Sloane Coffin was minister. However, he did not participate actively in the life of the church. In fact, when he was being considered at Yale Divinity, Ellis Nelson wrote to the hiring committee stating that Huebner was probably a nominal Christian. This loose affiliation with religion would not change for Huebner. He prefers to avoid any, what he terms God-language in his retirement years unless he is specifically addressing other Christians who expect that language. Huebner was never a theist nor an apologist for the faith. Rather, he appreciated the intellectual possibilities that theological language afforded people to understand the world in different ways. With that said, he came to appreciate the sense of community that a church could provide in the late 1980s. The move on the family was a difficult one, but eventually the girls settled into their new life.  He and his wife preferred the rural life similar to his house in Upstate New York. Therefore, the family moved to Cheshire, a thirty-minute drive north of New Haven. The girls schooling in public education was like that of many children in the United States. The family hosted a Scandinavian exchange student in 1984. Huebner and his family attended an Episcopalian church in Cheshire and eventually went to the Episcopal Church of St. Paul in New Haven.31 He found the sermons and community life much more engaging. Through it all, Huebner spent much of his time studying the literature in religious education more carefully.  31 The church was later renamed the Episcopal Church of St. Paul and St. James, which remains to the present day. 113  His initial hope was to be able to talk and write about education with deeper theological and philosophical insights. This hope would soon be challenged. In many ways his expectations never were realized at Yale Divinity. He hoped to be teaching students that were interested in the philosophical and theoretical realms of education and theology. Instead he had students that were interested in best practices for youth group and Sunday school. They wanted tools and techniques similar to those of their secular peers in teacher education programs. The students did not have a background in education or previous teaching experience, so they did not have the same language that Huebner had. At the beginning of his tenure, he started talking about Heidegger in a seminar course. The students gave each other glances as he spoke in their silence. He could tell by their faces that this was not what they were expecting or wanting from their studies. He had to shift his time from his theoretical interests to addressing the concerns the students were bringing into the classroom, much like his students at NIU. Huebner had limited the time he had to pursue his own research interests as a consequence of this shift. He was originally interested in moving to Yale because it would enable him to further his theological research in a climate where it was more accepted than at Teachers College. He wanted to continue to pursue the connection between religious/theological concepts and educational ones. Yet without student interest, this was hard for him to develop as he would have liked. There was no longer a PhD program in religious education at Yale Divinity when Huebner arrived, so he did not advise students as he had done at Teachers College. This also meant that he did not have students or a community 114  to help him study new material. Instead he spent his time working on different projects at Yale Divinity, but these also were disappointing. He worked with James S. Dittes, who occupied a neighbouring office to Huebner, and Robert C. Johnson, former dean of the school (1963–1969), to revise the field experience for the Master of Divinity students. The plan called for Johnson to attend to administrative duties regarding field education. Keck, the dean at the time, had reservations about placing Johnson in this leadership role, so the entire plan fell through. Huebner was discouraged by this and was less motivated to pursue any more endeavours with the school.  After a few years, Huebner tried to integrate religious education into other fields in the seminary. When he arrived, religious education was isolated to his courses, but he envisioned a new approach where religious education would be integrated into the core courses offered in the programs. He tried to work with faculty members of all disciplines to do this integration but ultimately did not have much success.  Indeed, he was ahead of his time in this interdisciplinary approach, which reflected his own scholarship in the curriculum field.  Huebner did not only face disappointment professionally. Sadly, the decade of the 1980s and his time at Yale would be tarnished by the disolution of his marriage. The marriage started to dissolve in 1985, and the divorce was finalized in the spring of 1988. Huebner not only had to deal with the devastation of the broken relationship, but he also became a single father of his two daughters, one of whom was entering high school and the other about to go off to college. This was an incredibly painful time for all of them and one that slowed much of his academic work. He thankfully found much support at Yale Divinity even though he had to 115  cancel professional engagements as he dealt with the pain. He also found great support in his local church, the Episcopal Church of St. Paul, which he regularly attended with his daughters. He even became a senior warden of the church.    There were some bright spots during the 1980s though. In the first part of the decade, Huebner was invited back to Teachers College occasionally at the request of his friends; including one invitation by Frances Schoonmaker to address supervisors of preservice teachers.32 He also occasionally stopped by Teachers College as he continued his teaching at Auburn Seminary. In 1988, Huebner received a Lifetime Achievement Award by the American Educational Research Association. Similar to his involvement with AERA and ASCD, he found much welcome in the professional religious education organizations: Religious Education Association (REA) and Professors of Religious Education (PRE).33 He even served as a consulting editor for the journal of REA for much of the 1980s–1990s. Additionally, he served on several of REA’s planning committees. The field responded well to his scholarship and intellectual pursuits, perhaps even more so than did the curriculum field.  Huebner’s scholarship during the Yale years can be summarized in three streams of focus: 1) he addressed the field of religious education as a guild, 2) he addressed education in seminaries and local congregations, and 3) he addressed theological and religious dimensions of education. Firstly, he encouraged the field of religious education to find alternatives to secular education discourse; specifically, to avoid focusing on the psychological dimensions of  32 Schoonmaker was one of Huebner’s last doctoral students who eventually was employed at Teachers College to work in the elementary education preservice teachers’ program. 33 Currently REA and PRE have merged into one organization to be REA. 116  education. Similar to his earlier work critiquing learning, he often cited the limitations of Jean Piaget and James Fowler.34 Secondly, his work addressed the role and impact of education in theological institutions.  He addressed the tension that seminaries face in teaching both theology and the practical skills of pastoring (preaching, pastoral care, faith formation, etc.). Thirdly, he addressed the question of if education could be understood religiously and, if so, the implications of it. He examined the influence of spirituality, religious traditions, and epistemology.  In many ways Huebner cited the same scholars who informed his curricular thought and brought them into conversation with the religious community. Many of the themes found in his earlier work were expanded upon and integrated into his work in religious education. He was not necessarily more personally religious as reflected in this work, but rather used religious language to convey many of the same ideas in his earlier work to address religious concerns. He still greatly valued time, power, and language in his work while addressing tradition, ministry, faith formation, and community.35 While Yale and his personal life were not necessarily living up to what he expected them to be, his scholarship continued to challenge the intellectual norms and offered a new way of understanding education in various contexts.  Huebner’s life began turning around as the 1990s approached. Professionally, he was ready for a change from teaching religious education courses. That change occurred when  34 Fowler, a religious educator at Emory University, wrote the very popular book, Stages of Faith (1981), based on a developmental/psychological understanding of faith development, which Huebner heavily critiqued in his essay “Christian Growth in Faith” (1985/1999f).  35 George Brown, Jr. offered more insight into Huebner’s specific contributions to religious education as part of the Christian Educators of the 20th Century project (Brown, n.d.).  117  Keck retired from deanship in 1989.  Thomas Ogletree was appointed dean in 1990 and served until 1996. Ogletree was in search of a new associate dean of academic affairs to serve under him. He spoke with several faculty members to obtain their input. Huebner seemed to be an ideal candidate because he was not too politically involved, and he had previous administrative experience from Teachers College as department chair. Thus, Huebner accepted the position and served as the associate dean from 1990 to 1993. His relationship with Ogletree was distant, as he remembered only having one private meeting with him in the three years he served as associate dean. Regardless, he enjoyed the administrative aspects to the job compared to teaching students who sought techniques and tools for Sunday school. He was also named the Horace Bushnell Professor of Christian Nurture in 1992.  In addition to his new post, Huebner’s personal life transformed. In the summer of 1992, he married Yale Divinity colleague Ellen Davis, renowned professor of Hebrew Bible. Huebner and Davis had known each other for many years. Davis graduated with distinction from Yale Divinity in 1987 (“Ellen F. Davis curriculum vitae,” 2019). She first met Huebner when he worked with doctoral students as teaching assistants; similar to his work at Union Theological Seminary. Davis taught at Union after graduating from 1987 to 1989. She returned to Yale in 1989 and became an associate professor of Old Testament in 1991. She held this post until 1996. Huebner and Davis grew closer during her time teaching at Yale. She even attended the same Episcopal church as he did. They remained in New Haven until she changed employment to Virginia Theological Seminary in 1996. In the meantime, Huebner was 118  feeling his own sense of change. It was time to leave Yale Divinity. Thus, he retired in 1994, becoming the Horace Bushnell Professor Emeritus of Christian Nurture.  119  2.6 CHAPTER 7: RETIREMENT (1994–PRESENT) In 1994, Huebner announced his retirement from Yale Divinity. One year later, 1995, he officially left Auburn Seminary, leaving all official academic posts for the rest of his life. This hardly marked the last time Huebner would speak in front of intellectuals however. William Pinar invited Huebner to speak at several conferences including at Bergamo and at Louisiana State University. Huebner often felt out of place, though, at these conferences because he was not necessarily addressing what others were wanting at the time. He also participated in a summer intensive program for advanced students and doctoral students in the curriculum field at the University of Victoria. Then, in 1999, Pinar, led the initiative to publish a collection of Huebner’s work for the first time in book format. The Lure of the Transcendent (Huebner et al., 1999) remains the most popular source for Huebner’s scholarship. Huebner reports that he has greatly enjoyed his retirement years. He spent the first few years visiting the library and picking up his old habit of scanning the shelves for interesting books. He also enjoyed reading popular magazines such as The New Yorker, New York Review of Books, The Nation, Foreign Affairs, Fortune, The American Prospect, In These Times, and Dollars and Sense. Then, when Davis received a job offer at Virginia Theological Seminary in 1996, the couple moved to Alexandria, Virginia. Huebner was able to continue his passion for photography and weaving. In 2001, Davis was invited to Duke Divinity. Huebner always swore he would not move any further south than Virginia, but Duke’s offer was too good to pass up. Thus, in 2001, they moved to Durham, North Carolina, where they have remained. 120   When they first arrived in the South, much of his time was devoted to landscaping their new home. He studied economics and the economy. If he were to start all over again, he believes that he would pursue that discourse of thinking instead of education. In the mid-2010s, he started to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically examining the history of Islam.  He stays very much involved in the intellectual community due to his marriage to Davis and her involvement in Duke Divinity School and the university. While he claims he does not keep up with the curriculum field, education is still on his mind. It is part of who he is and how he understands the world. He continues to be concerned with the state of education and dismayed that the curriculum field has been marginalized as much as it has within the general population.   Huebner’s professional career has enabled him to collaborate with and influence many of the most important scholars of curriculum in the United States. His intellectual life has always pushed the boundaries of the norm to conceive of new ways of understanding education. He concluded a speech given at his 90th birthday celebration by citing a poem, The Hound of Heaven (Thompson, 1893). This poem reflects the chasing that the Divine does for the human soul even as the soul runs away from the Divine. It is grace that drives this chase. Huebner has very much seen his life as one with much grace throughout his personal and professional pursuits. Through the highs and lows that experienced in life’s journey, it is the grace of the Divine that has kept Huebner passionate and curious in his studies. The next part of this dissertation examines his intellectual contributions to the curriculum field, but this part of his story ends as he wishes: with one of his photographs. May 121  it capture and reflect something of Huebner that my words cannot communicate. Perhaps it contains The Hound of Heaven (Thompson, 1893).                               122   PART 3: INTELLECTUAL NARRATIVE Huebner’s association with theology has been established already—both through the writings of other curriculum scholars as well as in his lived experience.36 This part of the dissertation attempts to contextualize Huebner’s engagement with theology by mapping the significant themes found within his scholarship. Just as the previous narrative took a macro-level approach in presenting who Huebner is, this part also contextualizes his engagement with theology by presenting a larger picture of his intellectual pursuits. My intention in doing so is for readers to discover, just I did while completing this study, that while theology is a major aspect of Huebner’s legacy in curriculum studies, he actually wrote on a vast number of themes and ideas beyond theology. I hope you, the reader, will be attentive to when religion and theology are mentioned, as I will return to this in Part 4 when I reframe his legacy with theology in curriculum studies based upon his intellectual contributions through his scholarship.  I would like to present a brief chronological narrative of how I understand Huebner’s intellectual progression, before mapping his ideas. The chapters that follow focus on the content of specific ideas rather than on contextualizing those within his lived experience, so  36 See pp. 5–6. 123  this brief narrative attempts to merge the two.37 This narrative draws upon the information presented in Part 2 but with a more focused orientation.     37 I also chose to not include this narrative within the chapters because I wanted to minimize my voice based upon the biographical methodology as described in Part 1 (see p. 23). This narrative of his work is my interpretation alone and should be treated as such. It is based upon my interviews with him as well as my interpretation of his writing. 124  3.1 A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF HUEBNER’S INTELLECTUAL LIFE Huebner’s first intellectual home was science, which was informed by his high school and junior college studies (Huebner, personal communication, January 2015). Scientific and mathematical thinking came easily for him, teaching himself calculus over the summer before junior college (Huebner, personal communication, January 2015). His studies at the University of Chicago prepared him to become an empirical researcher more than a classroom teacher. It focused heavily on psychology and its methods. While this content was new for him, I cannot help but assume that it was very basic for Huebner’s scientific mind. I am confident that he understood the intellectual methodologies and orientations quite easily even though he struggled at first with the classes that evaluated him on his written work. His master’s thesis, summarized in Part 2, tried to understand the child’s thinking better through statistical analysis.  It was not until Huebner attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison that he began to expand his intellectual horizon and awareness. His professors at the University of Wisconsin, including Gerth, Herrick, and Eberman, challenged him to explore different disciplines beyond the sciences. He also stopped by the University of Chicago’s bookstore on his way home from teaching at NIU to peruse its shelves and review the latest offerings (Huebner, personal communication, January 2015). His dissertation was not empirically based (like his master’s thesis) but rather conceptual and philosophical. It was during this time that he became 125  exposed to sociologists such as Marcuse, philosophers such as Langer, and theologians such as Tillich. His dissertation intended to provide a conceptual framework to connect classroom action to a child's change in behaviour. This framework was based upon his reading of the sociological literature, which resulted in him addressing questions about behaviour, motivation, and learning. After his dissertation, in the early 1960s, he continued pursuing a conceptual framework but this time it was reflected on his expansive reading in philosophy, social sciences (including sociology, political science, and anthropology), and religion. The six forms of knowledge that are addressed in Chapter 10 represent this search for a new conceptual framework. He wanted to develop a deep structure that would somehow unify and create boundaries for the curriculum field. In some ways this type of work mirrored what Virgil Herrick tried to do (Herrick, May, Macdonald, & Anderson, 1965). Additionally, he tried to challenge the popular trends at the time, including revising the four questions in what is popularly known as the Tyler Rationale.38 He drafted nine questions of his own (n.d.), which were later were reduced to four and listed in one of his essays (1974/1999ag).   Then a key movement in his scholarship occurred. After spending two years as principal at the Agnes Russell Elementary School, he took a sabbatical in 1965–1966. He had been reading philosophers; specifically, the existentialists, but kept noticed that Heidegger’s (1962) Being and Time was repeatedly referenced (Huebner, personal communication, January  38 Often this these four questions are attributed to Ralph Tyler, hence the name Tyler Rationale. Pinar, however, asserted more recently that these four questions actually were developed by many scholars and that Tyler as well as Hilda Taba took the most credit for them (Pinar, 2016, pp. 99–108). 126  2015). A major shift can be seen in his writing after he studied Heidegger. He no longer attempted to provide a conceptual framework as a whole for education but rather began developing specific conceptual aspects of it. For example, his lecture “Professional Knowledge and Personal Responsibility” (1964e) offered the categories of the technical, scientific, aesthetic, and moral; whereas, his essay “Language and Teaching: Reflections on Teaching in Light of Heidegger’s Writings about Language,” (1969/1999s) specifically looks at language alone. The essays’ form included fewer headings replaced by more prose. He also became more resolute in the limitations of the psychological discourse as well as (the outright rejection of) the Tyler Rationale, which contributed to the reconceptualization of curriculum studies.  Huebner spent a decade trying to rethink the field, but he mostly felt ignored, so he stopped producing so much written material in the 1970s, which resulted in a significant drop in the number of written pieces in the archival collection after 1970 (Huebner, personal communication, April 10, 2018). He attributed this decline to two facts. First, other scholars did not engage with his scholarship. Second, he became a father and was more motivated to tend to familial responsibilities than to focus on his scholarship (Huebner, personal communication, April 10, 2018). This does not mean, however, that he stopped growing intellectually. The 1970s represent another major shift in his work, including a focus on Marx. He began emphasizing social justice, freedom, liberation, and equality. In his later years he reflected that Steve Mann influenced this focus on Marx (Huebner, personal communication, April 17, 2018). 127  He also shifted to focus more on religious education during the 1970s. Since the 1960s, he had been serving as the advisor for students at Union Theological Seminary who were interested in religious education. He felt more accepted in religious education than he did in the curriculum field (Huebner, personal communication, April 17, 2018). Therefore, he started writing more for religious educators than for curriculum scholars. His 1977 essay, “An Educator’s Perspective on the Language of God” (1977/1999a), addressed language, one of his favorite themes, based upon a religious document. This essay showcased how he was able to incorporate what he was already studying for education (language) into the religious education field. It is the lengthiest publication in his career, which may suggest the importance of intersecting his interest in both education and religion.  When he moved to Yale Divinity, he was excited for the intellectual possibilities to study religion in relation to education. However, he found himself very limited in his ability to study new material, since his students were not interested in doing so and his marriage was experiencing great difficulty (Huebner, personal communication, April 10, 2018). He spent a lot of time studying the literature of religious education (such as James Fowler’s [1981] Stages of Faith). Yet ultimately, Huebner did not find the intellectual satisfaction he originally hoped for (Huebner, personal communication, April 10, 2018).  Much of his religious education scholarship incorporated the ideas developed earlier in his career. He gained a greater understanding of the language of the Christian tradition as well as the history of the church in relation to educational systems such as schooling and 128  Sunday school, but the significant ideas themselves remained constant.39 Consequently, there is no chapter that focuses specifically on his religious education scholarship since it can easily be incorporated into the themes discussed in this part. He may have been well received within religious education, but ultimately, he was not interested in what other religious educators focused upon in their research (Huebner, personal communication, April 10, 2018). Huebner continues to have a presence within religious education (as noted by being included in the 20th Century Religious Educators Project), but his legacy does not necessarily reflect what he originally intended to do when he entered into the field (Huebner, personal communication, April 10, 2018).   39 This claim is supported by my NVIVO coding of his religious education scholarship in comparison to his education scholarship. This claim is also substantiated by how often his religious education work is cited in the following chapters on his significant themes and ideas.  129  3.2 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS At first it was not clear how to begin to work through over 50 years of written scholarship. The task is complicated since the papers address such diverse topics when considered as a whole. Many of his writings were speeches, addresses, or lectures that he delivered at various conferences, public gatherings, or university courses. These writings often focused more on the theme of the event rather than a single intellectual agenda for his work; in many cases he was merging his own intellectual interests at any given time with these themes. One of his most distinctive characteristics is his incorporation of a vast number of disciplines and ideas into his scholarship. For example, one cannot say that he primarily focused on the theological aspects of education within all (or even most) of his speeches. There is no single discourse that grounds all of his research. His interests were wide ranging: from the theological to the political to the aesthetic to the temporal aspects of education. The only thread of continuity between all of these individual pieces, it seems, is his attempt, in some way, to reveal something insightful about education.  The chapters that follow include the themes and their supporting ideas that I believe are his most significant contribution to curriculum studies, which includes his interest in theology.40 I have attempted to systematize his thinking in these chapters, a complex task to be sure. The result, I hope, will be that readers will be able to see where theology is located within his thinking and where it fits in what he was trying to contribute to the curriculum field  40 These themes and ideas do not reflect his own thinking upon his work although I am confident that there would definitely be overlap between his and my categories. 130  as a whole. Thus, while theology is not the main focus with these themes and ideas, I have constructed his ideas to represent three domains of his thought: 1) his educational creed, 2) his ontology, and 3) his epistemology.   Chapter 8 is modeled after John Dewey’s (1897) “My Pedagogic Creed.” Dewey begins his creed with what education is and proceeds by describing the role of schools. I have mirrored this approach by discussing what education is for Huebner and how he understood schools. I continue the creed by examining Huebner’s thoughts on the concept of learning and the role psychology plays in educational scholarship. The creed concludes by articulating his understanding of the curriculum. This leads to the next chapter, where I survey different discourses and themes that emerged from Huebner’s own study of the curriculum. These discourses and themes lead me to present my interpretation of Huebner’s “weak” ontology in Chapter 9. Stephen White (2000) suggested the term “weak ontology” in contrast to a strong ontology in the wake of postmodernity (in my estimation). Instead of presenting an ontology that has all the answers and is grounded in a posture of certainty, a weak ontology recognizes that “all…conceptualizations of self, other, and world are contestable” and “that such conceptualizations are nevertheless necessary or unavoidable…” (White, 2000, p. 8). Huebner never presented his ontology explicitly, yet through his engagement with time, language, relationships, power, and notions of the world, readers are able to gather some sense of his worldview.  The last chapter in this part addresses his epistemology, which represents much of his thinking throughout the 1960s. He offered the same six categories (cumulatively) in quite a 131  number of his essays throughout the decade. In one of the earliest essays where these categories are used, he described three of them as “forms of knowledge” (1962/1999q). I build upon this phrasing to establish six forms in total: the scientific, the technical, the aesthetic, the philosophical/theological, the political, and the moral. The purpose of these chapters is to present to you, the reader, the full context of his intellectual contribution to the curriculum field. While the structure of the themes and ideas presented on these pages is mine, I have tried to stay as close to the actual text, to Huebner himself, as I could. Therefore, readers should assume Huebner is the author for all cited work in this part unless otherwise stated.   132  3.3 CHAPTER 8: HUEBNER’S EDUCATIONAL CREED Huebner never wrote an educational creed explicitly, but if readers examine his work carefully enough, they will discover that he offered glimpses into his understanding of education, schooling, learning, and the curriculum. I have organized specific passages found throughout his written work, but this is not inclusive of all he wrote on these themes. Instead, I selected the ideas that were cited most frequently within his work or have the most relevancy for my purpose in proposing an educational creed. This chapter begins to show readers Huebner’s intellectual contributions and a landscape where theology will eventually find its place. 3.3.1 ON EDUCATION Education is “a kind of institutional concern for one’s transcendence or if you wish as a concern for the unconditional movement here…as that unique social institution which has at its major concern the fact that [a person] exist as a historical being and that [he or she] live in time, not simply in space” (1968a, p. 3). This definition offered by Huebner after a decade as a curriculum scholar is the most inclusive one that I have found in his work. He is alluding to schools as the “social institution” that is concerned for the student who was birthed into an established world (“being”) to “live in time.” These elements of schools, world, and time will be examined further in chapters that follow. The first idea that I would like to engage with from this passage is the “…concern for one’s transcendence...” Huebner invoked the phrase “education is lure of the transcendent” 133  for the first time in 1982, when he was moving into religious education (1982/1999ae, p. 9). He is not using transcendent as a synonym for God or deity. He first used transcendence in the sense of Paul Tillich’s Protestant principle (1964d, p. 3). The principle is twofold: first, there is the protest against any final form, and second, there is affirmation of the possibility to transcend to new forms, even out of all forms.  Transcendence, therefore, points to the ability to change. What was in one moment is different in the next. In 1965 he defined transcendence as “a continual going beyond what is, the actualization of [one’s] potential, the emergence of newness, and the participation in the continual creation of the world” (1965, p. 12). People are transcendent beings because they have the capacity to transcend what they are to become something that they are not yet (1967/1999i, pp. 134–135). Thus, in 1982, when he defined education as the lure of the transcendent, education meant the opportunity to become something different from what one is today. Education is only possible due to transcendence (1985/1999y, p. 345), and it only occurs when people participate in this transcendence (1991/1999n, p. 396). Huebner often drew from Alfred North Whitehead throughout his career in his understanding of education. Throughout the 1960s, Huebner cited Whitehead’s definition of education as, “the art of the utilization of knowledge” (1962a, p. 7; 1962/1999q, p. 40; 1962/1999r, p. 45; 1964d, p. 11; 1967f, p. 1; 1969c, p. 18; 1980g, p. 15). Education hinges upon humanity’s ability to know (1962c, p. 3). Yet in somewhat of a paradox, he believed that education itself was an unknowable phenomenon (1965, p. 11). It is a purposeful activity that is 134  so complex that it can be overwhelming; filled with ambiguities and limitations that cannot be removed due to the world’s complexity (pp. 3, 26). He returned to Whitehead during his religious education career, when he cited, “The essence of education is that it be religious” (1982/1999ae, p. 3; 2000, p. 1). Education is not a human enterprise but rather God’s enterprise (1991/1999n, p. 396). Huebner wrote, in extreme language, “God educates. We don’t” (p. 400). This extreme language should be understood within his religious context, but it is stated nevertheless. Readers do not find this language anywhere else within his work, nor does he presently ascribe to such doctrine in his personal life. The second idea that I would like to engage with from the opening passage is his understanding of schools.  3.3.2 ON SCHOOLS Schools are social institutions. “The schools are the major social institutions for influencing the neophyte’s ways of perceiving, thinking and feeling, and thus, must be concerned with knowledge and its significant in the life of [humans]” (1962/1999q, p. 36). They are a complex system of students, teachers, and materials (1965, p. 4). They institutionally maintain society (p. 5). Yet this institution can easily become dated. Huebner grew increasingly concerned that more educationalists had not examined the fundamental questions regarding the function of schooling in society (1972/1999m, p. 175). He appreciated scholars such as Ivan Illich, famed for the deschooling movement, because they challenged scholars to reconsider many assumptions that are often made regarding the institution of schooling. 135  He did not agree, however, that schools should be eliminated from society. Schools are a necessary part of social construction (1974/1999ah, p. 184), but educators should dream about new possibilities for education beyond schooling (1975a, p. 28).41 In a cynical moment he suggested they exist to keep the young off the streets, or, less cynically, to enter into the workforce (1969a, p. 5–6). He once cited Bowles and Ginnis who defined schools as a social institution that reproduces economic class stratification (1980b, p. 33). In his religious education scholarship, Huebner continued discussing schools as social institutions. He wrote that schools are a socially constructed place where education may or may not occur (1985/1999l, p. 325). Schools are social institutions constructed with children in mind, but they are also isolated from the rest of the world (1972/1999m, p. 181; 1993/1999k, p. 407). Schools protect the adult community from influence of the young by keeping them isolated (1974/1999ai, p. 197). The socialization idea hides how schools function as a barrier between the youth and adults (1986a, p. 1). Interestingly, Huebner claimed that schools are the only institution in society made specifically with children in mind (1996/1999e, p. 443).   Beyond schools being a social institution, he also believed that schools are an institutionalized form of education (1969f, p. 5). Schools are often assumed to provide education without questioning the possibility of something else occurring (1975a, p. 28). The reason is that education has always been associated with schools (1980f, p. 16). Yet Huebner questioned if there is any inherent relationship between schools and education.  41  For more information on schools as an historic institution see: 1975/1999af, p. 221; 1993/1999d, p. 421. 136  In the early 1960s Huebner began doubting that education and schools are synoymous. He opened his essay “Classroom Action” with the statement, “Not all of the child's education in school stems from classroom activity” (1962/1999g, p. 66). Other activities that occur in schools such as interactions between the student and school personnel may be just as educative. This minor notion that education could occur outside of classroom activity was one of the first signs that Huebner thought that education may be something different from what is commonly conceived. In 1966, he wrote that the school could be considered “education as a system” (1966c, p. 13). In 1970 he explicitly stated that education and schooling are not the same (1970b, p. 171). The questions and problems of education and schooling do not always coincide (1974/1999ai, p. 192). Additionally, curriculum issues cannot be reduced to school issues (1980g, p. 17). The educational process can never be contained within schools or classrooms; it is an error to use these two terms synonymously (1985/1999l, p. 325–326).42   Too often the curriculum field has been limited to schools (1969a, p. 1).43 He sought to find new educational forms to supplement schools though he never did suggest specific forms per se (1969a, p. 5). He did, however, heavily critique one of the cornerstones of schooling and educational research: learning. He strongly felt that educators should move beyond this limiting concept in order for new forms to emerge and manifest themselves.   42 In this essay, he also recited the history of schooling in which educational thought increasingly became more associated with schools. 43 This does not mean that the curriculum field should ignore schools. Instead, he wanted greater intentionality behind the focus (1975b, p. 6). 137  3.3.3 ON LEARNING  Huebner was well familiar with the concept of learning as demonstrated in his dissertation. He had an entire chapter devoted to the concept (1959, pp. 128–153). He summarized his understanding in his conclusion:  1. In the learning situation there are certain conditions with potential recurringness, either within the individual or the environment. 2. The learner directs [one’s] attention to these conditions with the intent of controlling them either to reduce or increase their stimulus value. 3. The learners seek to discover interaction patterns with the environment which permit [the learner] to control these conditions. This discovery process may be by trial and error, insight, intimidation, or identification. 4. As a result of this discovery process, information is fed back to the learner which helps [the learner] identify and fixate the desirable interaction pattern. 5. In future situations where the learner perceives the same or similar conditions, [the learner] is able to use the established pattern for immediate control of those conditions. (1959, p. 196) Readers will note how technical and scientific this summary is. He understood learning as a means to explain the change in behaviour that occurred from one point in time to another point (1962c, p. 3; 1967/1999i, pp. 133, 135; 1968a, p. 11).44 His language changed as he became more exposed to the humanities. In 1975 he stated that learning cannot describe anything, but rather it is a postulated concept to explain the presumed relationship between two events at two different times (1975/1999af, p. 215–216).45 It is not possible to identify learning the moment it occurs, but people assume it happened based on changed behaviour.  44 Huebner emphasized that educators have focused more on learning than on time (1963/1991b, p. 153; 1966b, p. 99). The more appropriate issue is time. 45 He first suggested that it is a postulated concept in 1967 (1967/1999i, p. 133; 1967e, p. 16). 138  People use the word learning in order to explain, not describe, changed behaviour (1980g, p. 2).  Huebner’s dissertation also addressed learning theories. Learning theory links two events (1959, p. 5). They anticipate consequences of student behaviour (1963/1991b, p. 157). Moreover, they are a way of explaining socialization (1980g, p. 4). He wondered if learning theories might be more helpful in building the world by influencing technologies instead of shaping educational ideologies (1966e, p. 11). He cautioned that it is a false hope for learning theories to be able to solve all educational problems (1979/1999j, p. 304). Educators do not need learning theories to help them explain change (1993/1999k, p. 405). In fact, Huebner thought that psychology as an educational discipline needed to be reconsidered.   He noted in 1962 that psychological inquiry is the scientific quest to answer, “What does it means to be human?” (1962c, p. 5; 1966e, p. 7). Three years later he proposed that psychology was just one instrument out of many for the purpose of disclosure (1966e, p. 7). The methods used in psychology are mostly observations that lead to better generalizations, which in turn can be used to control children (1966/1967g, p. 10). He thought that psychology was about 200 years behind philosophy in its thinking (1968a, p. 7).  Too often, educators think psychology is the best, if not the only, way to understand children (1966/1967g, p. 10). Huebner began doubting if psychology actually could live up to the expectations educators and researchers had for it. Huebner first cited critiques against psychology in his dissertation, noting that B.O. Smith had cautioned his readers that there was 139  an overemphasis on psychology in educational research (1959, p. 11).46 He explicitly agreed with Smith’s idea in 1964 that educationalists were overdependent on learning and psychology (1964c, pp. 1–2). He believed this over-dependency occurred in the first place because education is a behavioural phenomenon, and it makes sense to assume that the behavioural sciences would reveal the necessary answers to solve education’s ills (1965, p. 2). However, according to Huebner, this was not the case, and psychology has served its purpose. It is now a major problem within the education field. He expanded his critique in 1968 by declaring an over-dependency upon all technical thinking, including psychological language, learning, goals, and objectives (1968a, p. 1). This over-dependency has several problems.  First, and most cited, is that psychology hides aspects of reality. It hides other discourses and imaginative possibilities, found in philosophy, art, and religion (1964c, p. 2; 1965, p. 2; 1993/1999k, p. 404).47 This has caused educators to ignore other forms of knowledge outside psychology (1967b, p. 17). Psychology’s key educational concept—learning—also hides the conservation of knowledge and its liberating power (1974a, p. 8). He suggested that learning hides conflicts, politics, power, freedom, and temporality (1974/1999ai, p. 185). For example, in relation to these, it can hide the notion of control or  46   Upon current reflection, Huebner did not believe that his critiques against psychology and learning originated with B.O. Smith (personal communication, April 10, 2018). Yet, Huebner used this passage in his dissertation. This quote was used to support his theoretical approach. It was not used to address psychology on its own terms, which is probably why he did not provide much commentary on it in his dissertation. It is incorrect, though, to believe Huebner rejected psychology altogether in his dissertation. It has many references to psychological literature to support his claims and ideas. His own critiques against psychology emerged after his dissertation without question. This reference needs to be acknowledged, though, because he had been aware of the critique of overdependence before he, himself, stated this. He never cited Smith again for this passage or idea.  47  He advocated for using other forms of knowledge in addition to psychology, in many essays (1966/1967g; 1968b, p. 29; 1969a, p. 27) 140  even justify control through power over the student, which prevents conflicts from arising and freedom to be limited (1975a, p. 29). Furthermore, learning has the potential of hiding the fact that each person is a historical agent (1976/1999ad, p. 252). It can hide the temporal nature of humanity (1977b, p. 12; 1980g, p. 10). Learning also hides social relationships (1979a, p. 10). For example, learning differentiates types of power. Both the teacher and the student have looked to the psychologist in order to determine what to do (1977b, p. 12). This division of labour creates a hierarchy where the researcher is at the top, followed by the teacher, which then gets relayed down to the student.  A by-product of this hierarchy is a disempowerment of the teacher. The teacher’s role observes the student and reports findings to the researcher. The researcher, in return, directs the teacher on what to do (1980e, p. 17). The teacher feels pressure to turn to the researcher, due to the ideologies that are being promoted by those in power of schooling (1979/1999j, p. 300). Consequently, teachers take psychology classes at university to study learning in order to know what to observe and what to report to researchers (1980e, p. 10). This focus on psychology as a specialization within education has helped lead to the professionalization of teachers (1985/1999l, p. 323). However, Huebner did not approve of psychology being the tool to lead to such professionalization (though he did support the professionalization of teachers overall).  Second, he wondered if learning was the best conceptualization to explain that movement of change in time (1962c, p. 3). He believed that the ontological state of a human being is to change, as can be demonstrated by the aging process, and as such, humans are 141  transient beings (1967/1999i, p. 134; 1980g, p. 6).48 If humans naturally change, Huebner thought it was more important to consider what fixates people’s behaviour rather than what changes it. The problem is not changing people (that is, inherently their nature) but rather, what allows people to stop changing.49   Learning is a leftover term from the past (1963c, p. 8). Learning was relevant when the world was not changing so quickly (p. 9). A person could be conditioned (fixed-state) and exist in society in the 1930s–1940s, but the 1960s were about change (1966b, p. 99). Researchers should focus on what fixates people, not what changes people (1967/1999i, p. 134; 1969a, p. 11; 1980g, pp. 5–6).  Moreover, the concept of learning to learn is problematic (1966b, p. 99; 1967/1999i, p. 134; 1967b, p. 27). Huebner’s argument against learning to learn is twofold. First, the cycle does not end. If one needs to learn how to learn, does one need to learn how to learn how to learn? How many opportunities to “learn how to learn” need to occur before a person has learned what they needed to learn? Second, do babies need to learn how to learn? No. Yet educators say that babies learn. How is it if infants are able to learn without learning how to learn? These questions led him to believe that learning should not be the primary curricular  48  Psychology tries to address the transcendent nature of people through the language of motivation, libido, and drive (1965, p. 13). 49  Huebner also challenges the question “How does one learn?” This question alludes to the very nature of humanity, which is the domain of metaphysics and theology. Metaphysics and theology also provide meaning. Meaning is tied to time and temporality as discussed in the next chapter. Thus, learning is not the best starting place (1967/1999i, p. 133–135). 142  event (1963/1991b, p. 150; 1966b, p. 99; 1974a, p. 8). The two myths of educational language are learning and purpose (1966/1999h, p. 102). Huebner advocated against the over-dependency on psychology, but he also believed it should not be ignored (1974/1999ai, p. 185; 1982a, p. 372; 1996b, p. 268). He wished psychological literature and language could be contained and used more appropriately without marginalizing the other forms of knowledge. The better concern that the curriculum worker needs to deal with is the relationship between psychology and the design of the environment (1966e, p. 2).  Huebner strongly cautioned against religious educators following the interests of secular education, given the dominance of psychology within the field (1985/1999l, p. 328). The original intent of the founders of the Religious Education Association, Harper and Coe, was to bring together psychology, education, and human development into religious institutions (1993/1999d, p. 421). He fundamentally believed that religious education should remain independent through incorporating other and specifically non-psychological forms of knowledge. 3.3.4 ON CURRICULUM Huebner addressed the curriculum on two levels. First, he examined the curriculum itself (what it is, how it is understood, and what it does). Second, he wrote about the work of 143  the curriculum person (the interests, priorities, and tasks).50 The curriculum itself will be examined first, followed by a discussion on the work of the curriculum person.  What did Huebner understand the curriculum to be? In 1966, he articulated one of his most repeated definitions: the curriculum is the design of the educational situation (1966a, p. 1). The curriculum field studies the knowledge, know-how, system, or rules that guide the construction and criticism of educational experiences (1967b, p. 1). Curriculum is concerned with what part of culture needs to be conserved (1974a, p. 6). After declaring the curriculum field moribund because the word curriculum lacked precision, he suggested that if curriculum had any meaning, it was to identify and make content present to today’s youth (1976/1999ad, pp. 244, 248). “Curriculum is the content made available to students. …the cultural wealth of knowledge and other forms” (1982a, p. 363). At the end of his career, he asserted that the study of curriculum should be limited to the study of content, the factors that influence its selection and structure (1996/1999e, p. 440). The “curricularist”51 is responsible for designing the environment, in which classroom activity occurs. Educational activity is the most central and significant part of the curriculum (1966b, p. 108). He even proposed the title of “curriculum designer” for those who work in the curriculum field (1966b, p. 108). Curriculum is a designing act because it requires many components and factors within the situation (1966a, p. 4). These factors must be placed in a  50 The phrase “curriculum person” is the specific language he used in many of the citations provided. Perhaps a synonymous term today would be “curriculum specialist.” Examples include: 1966h, p. 11; 1966d, p. 1; 1966e, p. 1; 1966/1999ac, p. 160; 1966i, p. 1; 1967/1999i, p. 132; 1968a, p. 10; 1976/1999ad, p. 247; 1977/1999a, p. 285. 51 See 1975/1999af, p. 213 144  pattern that reflects the values of the educator, does justice for the students, and uses appropriate language for the context. The curriculum problem is a design problem that occurs at different levels (1966d, p. 1). If curriculum is a discipline, it does not produce knowledge. It designs environments, which make it possible to harken the world and engage in conversation (1966e, pp. 1, 11; 1968b, p. 28).52 Huebner considered the curriculum as materials, human resources, and social relationships (1980b, p. 17). He noted that only when a brand-new educational environment is created from scratch can a “curriculum leader” begin anew, but otherwise, they must honour the historical situation that they find themselves in, including the materials available (1966/1999ac, pp. 163, 165). Materials play a crucial role in the curriculum endeavour. Huebner was greatly interested in the materials used in the curriculum.53 He wrote, “The construction of materials are a part of the educational process, for materials are an aspect of the communication process” (1966c, p. 13). He was aware of the limitations of textbooks. He stated, “Another level of sensitivity to educational phenomena is the materials that are available for educational purposes. … Today [textbooks] are no longer sufficient, for materials are changing fast…” (1966/1999o, p. 122). He suggested that there are three elements of support for education: the materials, the skills of the teacher, and the organizational patterns (1966d, pp. 4–5). He proposed the following year that the three  52 “Harken the world and engage in conversation” is a reference to Heidegger’s quote (see pp. 149–150).  53 For more references on materials see: 1966a, p. 4; 1968a, p. 5; 1968c, p. 10; 1969f, p. 4; 1970b, p. 173; 1974/1999ag, p. 203; 1975/1999u, p. 234; 1979/1999j, p. 305; 1982/1999ae, p. 8; 1987/1999z, p. 383; 1996b, p. 271; 1996/1999e, p. 432.  145  components were the materials, the people, and the language used (1967h, p. 4). Educators struggle to find and use the appropriate materials to create an environment to shape the child’s language (1968d, p. 15). Additionally, he was concerned that a student may respond poorly to the materials present. The teacher, in response, labels it misbehaviour and disciplines the child. The child is simply signalling that the materials are inadequate and does not deserve such punishment (1974a, p. 5). Materials consist of books, laboratory equipment, educational media, programs stored either in print or digitally, school buildings, and even the furniture (1975/1999af, p. 221). The starting point for the curriculum is not ideas but what materials are present and what can be done with them within the environment (1980a, p. 20; 1980e, p. 3). Additionally, just as materials contribute to the design of the environment, so does criticism.  Huebner first mentioned criticism when he declared that teaching is an art (1961c, p. 11). Criticism plays a role in one’s language. For example, curriculum scholars continually develop ideological language, and criticism is important in constructing those ideologies so that they can continually be improved (1963/1991b, p. 148). Additionally, criticism can be used when examining the design of the curriculum (1966d, p. 2). The technical form of criticism has been the most developed because it originates in psychology (p. 3). Huebner encouraged curriculum workers to develop their own form of criticism (1966e, p. 1; 1968b, p. 28). This is necessary, since too often those outside the field criticize the curriculum. He thought this could be limited by having more informed critics inside it (1967b, p. 32). Teachers should validate criticism while ignoring evaluative comments 146  that are distracting (1968a, p. 20). He believed in the dialectic between design and criticism. Educators design the environment and then students, parents, and administrators offer criticisms. The educator redesigns it in response. Thus, the curriculum is an ongoing process.   Lastly, “human resources”54 greatly influence the design of the environment: the teachers themselves.55 Teachers must have the skills necessary to educate students, just as they need the physical materials in the educational environment (1980a, p. 4). Huebner was also aware that it is important to consider who controls human resources, including support aids and office staff (p. 20). Lastly, the teacher needs proper skills to use the classroom materials (1980i, p. 8). This leads to the second major discourse within Huebner’s scholarship: focus upon the work of the curriculum worker.  First, he described what curriculum workers must address. Historically they have focused on the individual, the society, and the culture (1962/1999r, p. 45). In the “Tasks of the Curricular Theorist” (1975/1999af), Huebner proposed that the three main tasks include the practice of the educator, the research of the scholar, and the language used to discuss curriculum (p. 213). He later claimed that, “… the curriculum family has included those interested in content, method, teacher education, human development and freedom, social progressivism or conservatism, educational technology, evaluation, and educational objectives or purposes” (1976/1999ad, p. 244).  54 See 1964c, p. 4; 1966/1999h, p. 107; 1975/1999af, p. 222. 55 Perhaps this is covered most comprehensively in his 1979 essay “Developing Teacher Competencies” (1979/1999j). 147  Next, the curriculum worker needs to be responsive to the world in its intellectual, social, and educational developments (1964f, p. 462; 1966/1999ac, p. 169). The curriculum worker cannot depend solely on educational research, psychological research, or even philosophy (1962/1999w, p. 21). In order to respond properly, the curriculum worker must understand and influence curricular change and improvement (1964f, p. 462). Enacting changes requires curriculum workers to become policy-makers, which requires political skills (1966/1999ac, p. 164). The work before the curriculum person is not about finding a theory to guide decisions or locate new proposals to direct change in schools (1966h, pp. 1–2, 5).  Huebner lamented that the curriculum field has been built around schools. The field has often been asked to identify organizational structures, programs, or the content of schools (1969a, p. 1). Huebner resisted these requests. He wrote for example, “I am a curriculum person. I happen to be concerned with schools” (1970b, p. 169). Curriculum persons are asked too often by school people to not just describe what is happening in the classroom but to prescribe what to do (1975/1999af, p. 213). He wanted curriculum workers to expand beyond this, to not just look at schools in isolation but to look also at them in relationship to other educational experiences (1977a, p. 300). The task of the curriculum theorist is to free the educator so that alternatives can be realized and that they can be made aware of factors that influence the design of educational environments.   148  3.3.5 MOVING FORWARD This chapter attempted to examine Huebner’s significant ideas that comprise his unique educational creed. I ended this creed by exploring Huebner’s understanding of the curriculum. The next chapter engages more deeply with the themes and ideas that emerged through his study of the curriculum. I suggest, then, that Huebner’s study of the curriculum unintentionally offers his most serious students with an ontology for understanding a way of being-in-the-world as a curricularist.                  149  3.4 CHAPTER 9: HUEBNER’S ONTOLOGY  Most theologies ground themselves in some form of an ontology. In fact, theologies may even be evaluated based on ontological claims. Yet the ontology presented within the following pages is not meant to withstand such criticism. It is not constructed to be a universally accepted systematized approach or even present something that is philosophically groundbreaking. There is no certainty and perhaps not even truth (however you wish to define that). Instead, what is presented here is a conversation of sorts that discusses Huebner’s understanding of being-in-the-world in an educational way, an understanding that reflects the thinking of a curriculum scholar. The themes and ideas included here were selected due to their frequency found within his scholarship and therefore help to continue to contextualize his intellectual contribution in relation to theology.           150  3.4.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME Huebner suggested that the central category in education is time and humanity’s temporal nature (1980g, p. 9). While he never explicitly defined time in his scholarship, he believes it is the uppermost important characteristic to what it means to be human (Huebner, personal communication, April 17, 2018). Curriculum scholars should switch from focusing on learning (humanity’s changing nature) to time. For all of its importance, Huebner only wrote about this topic in a few key essays namely, “Curriculum as Concern for Man’s Temporality” (1967/1999i). He first mentioned time in his dissertation when describing how a child interacts with objects within time and space (1959, p. 84). The very act of understanding requires time and space (p. 1). In his other 1959 essay, “The Capacity of Wonder,” he asserted that educators walk with children through time.56  Huebner suggested that time is one of the most unrecognized problems in curriculum studies.57 In 1962, he addressed the time limitations teachers often experience in the classroom (1962/1999g, p. 69; 1966b, p. 99). Time is often too limited for the teacher’s needs, which places a limit on education and the teacher’s ability to perform his/her work (1966/1999o, p. 108; 1966b, p. 103; 1966/1999ac, p. 172; 1979/1999j, p. 303). Too often when the teacher does consider the dimension of time, it gets reduced to stages, which is one reason why psychological literature is so popular for the educationalist (1962/1999q, p. 39,  56 This is repeated in 1980 (1980g, p. 9). 57 He pointed out that curriculum scholars are concerned with knowledge. When they think of knowledge, they think of it according to space but not according to time (1962/1999q, p. 39).  151  1966b, p. 99). Instead, he urged educators to focus on educational activity, values, and the design of the environment. As the previous section on education explained, education is about the change(s) in a person from what he/she was in one moment and yet become in another. Thus, these constant changes mean a person is defined by his/her temporality (1967/1999i, p. 135). In 1977, he suggested that the ongoing search for humanity’s origins also point to our temporal nature, and as such, the search for any understanding of human life must be rooted in temporality (1977/1999a, pp. 260, 275).  Huebner articulated a relationship between time and language. He suggested in one essay that language could be a means to untie oneself temporally at first (1966b, p. 103), but a year later stated that language is a means to connect to the past (1967f, p. 14). In 1977 he wrote, “…language links the past with the present for the sake of the future…” (1977c, p. 10). Language is, perhaps, one of the most developed themes throughout Huebner’s scholarship. 3.4.2 THE SEARCH FOR LANGUAGE He first stated that language is related to time in 1962. Language is a creation that has a history and a future (1962/1999r, p. 53). He suggested that speech and conversation reveal who people are throughout time (1962c, p. 22). People receive their language for today from the past (1966e, p. 9; 1967f, p. 14; 1979b, p. 92). Language holds the possibility of transcending present-day norms when it is used in new ways or help build a new world (1967/1999i, p. 136). The teacher uses language in the present moment to connect the past 152  with the future, but in order to do this one needs to study the history of words so that he/she will know how to represent the past accurately (1968/1999s, pp. 150, 154; 1979b, p. 95). He heavily critiqued the curriculum field for being ahistorical. He asserted in 1975 that the language used by curriculum scholars is ahistorical (1975/1999af, p. 218).  Language can bring the past, present, and future together through historical awareness (1977c, p. 10). For example, by knowing where one’s language came from (the past), a person in the present can speak of new things for the future. This is one reason why he encouraged his students to know the source of their language (1980e, p. 16). This focus on language was a priority for Huebner.  Huebner focused on language because he believed that language experiences are the most important educational experience in schools (1962/1999r, p. 47). For example, language is significant for reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Language is the primary vehicle of expression and exchange in the classroom, as it can command, describe, tell stories, promote conversation, and express feelings (1962/1999aa, p. 34). It can be used to explain, predict, and identify ways to act and justify them (1963/1991b, p. 146). It can also be used to envision and control (1967b, p. 21). In his essay “The Tasks of the Curricular Theorist,” he proposed six types of languages: descriptive, explanatory, controlling, legitimizing, prescriptive, and affiliative (1975/1999af, p. 215). Language is not only about how a person talks but also how textbooks are used, how furniture is arranged, and how people interact with the environment (1968d, p. 13). Language can be created, be criticized, and be re-created (1963/1999t, p. 80; 153  1963/19991b, p. 146; 1985/1999c, p. 317). This tool is perhaps the greatest that humankind has ever created.    For Huebner, language is a powerful, beautiful, and practical invention of humankind (1961c, p. 10; 1975/1999af, p. 218). Language is a tool that people need to understand how to properly use, because it is the most important instrument for growth and possibility (1966/1999ac, p. 173; 1967e, p. 21). Language is also important because it helps form a child’s thoughts (1962/1999g, p. 72). Huebner cited Ernst Cassirer, neo-Kantian philosopher, to support this claim. Cassirer thought that language is the pathway to the realization of ourselves (1962/1999r, p. 47). Language shapes how we view the world and ourselves (1963c, p. 2). He cautioned, though, that language is limited inherently, since it is an invention of humankind (1975/1999af, p. 218). At the end of his career he suggested that educational language is limited since our awareness and imagination is limited (1996b, p. 268). This insight is also included in his challenges bequeathed to future generations (1996/1999e, p. 441). In an effort to rise against this limitation, Huebner commonly encouraged teachers to have more precise language when talking about education. For example, he suggested more precise language to move educators away from the scientific to another language form such as the aesthetic (1962/1999aa, p. 25). By 1963, Huebner had become “increasingly aware of the importance of language” and came to understand educational language as inadequate (1963c, pp. 1–2). It was too often blindly accepted (1966/1999h, p. 102), and it was also far too limited (1967a, p. 1). He believed that educators’ own inadequacies hindered the development of children’s language (1968d, p. 15).  154  He also called upon educators to find new language (1963a, p. 1, 1966h, p. 5). He advocated for teachers to step out of their current language in order to make it accessible, serviceable, and reliable (1969/1999s, pp. 150–151). In 1977, this critique changed from needing new language to needing historical awareness of language, as mentioned (1977/1999a, p. 281). In 1985, he continued to ask for new language in religious education (1985/1999c, p. 316). He furthermore suggested that scholars’ language needs to be more inclusive (1996/1999e, p. 434). His understanding of symbols in relation to language also supported this call of new language. Words can symbolize a near infinite number of conceptual possibilities such as new thoughts, new perceptions, and new visions (1962/1999r, p. 50). Susanne Langer’s (1951) Philosophy in a New Key had the greatest influence on Huebner when he was describing symbols. She is first cited in his dissertation regarding the need for symbols (1959, p. 54). He later cited her to describe how symbols transform experiences (1962c, p. 80). Language is just one form of symbols (1967b, p. 12). Other forms are dance, religious rituals, and drama (1967d, p. 9). Huebner suggested that a person’s imagination is determined by his/her control of symbols and symbol systems (1968c, p. 4). Language is connected explicitly with symbols in his essay “New Modes of Man’s Relationship to Man” (1963/1999t), since both give form to experience (p. 80).58   58 Huebner cited Langer in many of his course lectures (see, for example, 1967b, p. 12; 1967c, p. 4; 1967d, p. 9; 1969d, p. 1; 1969c, p. 38, 1980j, p. 2). Langer is mentioned for symbols again in 1979 (1979a, p. 15).  155  One of his earliest and most frequently mentioned ideas is that language has the ability to connect us to the world. Language enables teachers to convey pieces of the world to students (1961c, p. 9). The child is then able to form his or her own thoughts about the world based on the language used by the teacher (1962/1999g, p. 72). Huebner primarily drew from Heidegger when he articulated this connection between language and the world. In a speech given in 1963 he cited Heidegger when suggesting a person responds with language after listening to the world (1963b, p. 2). He continued citing Heidegger over many years (1964c, p. 12; 1966/1999h, p. 112; 1966e, p.9; 1967a, p. 1; 1968a, p. 7), specifically his description that language is the house in which humans dwell in (1966b, p. 103; 1967a, p. 1).   Huebner also commonly cited Merleau-Ponty who is quoted as writing, “to know the world is to sing of it in a melody of words” (1961a, p. 5; 1962a, p. 9; 1962/1999q, p. 37; 1967a, p. 2; 1967c, p. 19). Huebner appreciated that this passage connected language to an aesthetical form such as song and music. Merleau-Ponty provided an understanding of conversation, the enactment of language, in an artistic manner. Language may also enable people to create a different kind of world (1967b, p. 22). In an essay entitled “Language and Teaching,” Huebner suggested that language does not just reflect the relationship between two or more individuals but also reflects the state of the world (1969/1999s, p. 145; 1974/1999ai, p. 186; 1980e, pp. 16, 18). Language can additionally shape the world (1963c, p. 2). It is part of the world that the teacher creates for the child (1967a, p. 2). It signifies the relationship between a person and the larger world (1969/1999s, p. 145). A person uses language to act in the world (pp. 146, 151). Language informs people what to 156  think about the world (1974/1999ai, p. 186). Listening as well as speaking shapes the world (1993/1999k, p. 409). Huebner drew from Heidegger, who originally suggested that one responds to the world by listening to it (1964c, p. 12; 1966e, p. 9; 1967/1999i, p. 138; 1982b, p. 2).  3.4.3 THE VALUE OF THE WORLD Notions of the world played an important role in Huebner’s understanding of education. He often described the world as mysterious, especially in his early 1960s work. He believed humans create due to the existence of mystery in the world (1961a, p. 5). He found this mystery represented by the poets such as Santayana and Cummings (1962a, p. 7). A few years later he stated that the world is unknowable, just as we ourselves remain mysterious (1964d, p. 12). He was concerned that the mystery of the world had become hidden by ideologies, emotional blockages, and conceptual assumptions (1996a, p. 583).  Huebner offered other descriptive language—in addition to mystery—to depict his sense of “the world.” The world contains both tragedy and comedy (1961b, p. 4; 1964d, p. 10). It is not necessarily a rosy place (1961/1999p, p. 10). He once described the world as being in decay and in a stupor, which teachers had to become artists to improve (1963b, p. 5). On a more positive note, the world is a place filled with awe and wonder (1959/1999ab; 1961a, p. 5; 1961c, p. 12; 1961b, p. 4; 1962b, p. 7; 1962/1999aa, p. 24; 1964d, p. 10; 1968a, p. 16; 1986a, p. 4; 1996a, p. 583). One aspect that may bring awe and wonder is through the world’s conditioned and unconditioned state of being (1966i, p. 19; 1967a, p. 2). 157  The conditioned and unconditioned states of the world is important for Huebner. Educators teach children to live in the world in order to change it (1961/1999p, p. 10). The world is constantly being created, transcended, and remade (1961a, p. 4). The act of education is empowering the child to build the existing world to be something new (1961b, p. 1; 1966e, p. 16; 1966e, p. 37; 1968c, p. 13). He wanted the child to confront the world in order to change it (1962c, p. 10). Perhaps this idea was most influenced by Hannah Arendt, whom Huebner cited to support this claim. According to Huebner, Arendt suggested that people labour in the world in order to make the world what it is (p. 21).  He thought education should elicit the possibilities of what the world could be (1966/1967g, p. 2). Education helps create the world in which we dwell (1967a, p. 1). The world created in a classroom directly reflects how the teacher feels about it (1968a, pp. 5-6). Huebner began using the phrase “public world” in 1975 (1975/1999u, p. 232). He never explicitly addressed this change, but this is the period in which he focused on Marxism. Perhaps his studies encouraged him to differentiate between the public and private worlds. Regardless, education is caught in the tension between the student (individual) and the world (collective) (1980c, p. 12). The world continued to be a theme within his religious education scholarship. He believed God’s people are called to be in the world, and in fact, to be with God is to be in the world (1985/1999f, p. 376; 1987/1999z, p. 388). Huebner also suggested that the stranger has the potential to reveal contents of the world (1985/1999l, p. 328). This has the potential to lead people to understand the world in new ways (1996a, p. 584). This includes the spiritual 158  dimension of it (1985/1999y, p. 344). When the world does not seem strange, Huebner cautioned that education is over (1993/1999k, p. 408).  As stated, Hannah Arendt significantly influenced Huebner’s thinking of the world. He often cited her for the idea that educators are responsible for the world. This idea first appeared in 1961, but it is repeated throughout the 1980s. Huebner worried that educators do not take on nor pass on enough of a sense of responsibility to care for the world (1961/1999p, p. 11). Educators must love the world in order to become responsible for it (1961/1999p, p. 12; 1961c, p. 12; 1962/1999r, p. 63; 1965, p. 14; 1966/1999o, p. 121; 1996b, p. 269).  Political involvement is one way to love the world and to be responsible for it (1962a, p. 6). If teachers love children, then they are required to love the world, which means being responsible for it (1966/1967g, p. 15; 1968d, p. 6; 1980c, p. 13).  Huebner believed that responsibility for the world requires one to respond to it. Education, then, could be about students’ responses to the world based on the content and materials that they interact with (1964c, p. 12; 1966/1999h, pp. 112-113; 1968b, p. 33; 1968c, p. 11). Educators should design environments that respond to the world (1966e, p. 11). There is a tension between keeping children safe inside the classroom and yet forcing them to go out into the world to see it for what it is (1968d, p. 22). Students may struggle to find their place in this tension between themselves and the world. Often children believe that the world is already formed, that it does not or cannot change, and they are misfits (1974/1999ai, p. 195). If so, the child leaves the school feeling as a misfit and attempts to exist within society as a marginalized individual. Educators and the 159  systems of schooling do not empower the child to change the world where they are more accepted. In 1975 he began asking educators to seek justice in the world (1975/1999u, p. 235; 1975/1999af, p. 228). He continued this emphasis on justice into his religious education scholarship by declaring that society must construct the world for justice, equality, and peace (1985/1999c, p. 316). Furthermore, teachers need to seek truth, beauty, justice, compassion, love, and creation (1986a, p. 12). All of these suggest the need for power by teachers.  3.4.4 THE NEED FOR POWER Huebner began writing about power in 1962 on Martha’s Vineyard in his essay entitled “Politics and the Curriculum” (1962/1999w). He identified power as a central term in political science based on the scholarship of Casswell and Kaplan (1964/1999v, p. 95). Huebner frequently discussed the fact that educators have shied away from power. He wondered if educators had avoided power in their thinking due to the negative connotations of it as being selfish, immoral, or a wealthy parasite to non-politicians (1962/1999w, p. 16).59  In the late 1970s, when Huebner focused on Marxian thought, he emphasized that educators talk of students’ needs rather than about their power (1976/1999ah, p. 291). As such, the focus changed slightly from educators avoiding their own power to also include educators avoiding students’ power. This general avoidance led to teachers becoming disempowered and actually losing the power they deserve (1977b, p. 4; 1980a, p. 17). In a lecture given in 1980, Huebner pointed out that psychological literature often hid power  59 Huebner challenged the negative connotations of power in a few other essays as well (see, for example, 1966/1999h, p. 108; 1980f, p. 27). 160  dynamics in education (1980f, p. 24). Educators had become so focused on psychological research that they lost any awareness of or agency in the power that exists in teaching.  Power exists in teaching in different forms. For example, he suggested power takes the form of the political, the financial, the technical, and the artistic (1966/1999o, pp. 127–129). In 1970, these power forms became the intellectual, the economic, the political, and the artistic (1970b, p. 177). In his focus on Marx, he described power as personal, social, and collective (1977b, p. 7). Lastly, he described three more forms of power in a public lecture given in 1979, which included the interpersonal, the symbolic, and the institutional (1979a, p. 14).   Moreover, Huebner connected power to curriculum changes. He stated it takes power to bring an educational vision into reality (1966/1999o, p. 127). Power is necessary in order to transform institutions (1979a, p. 16). He told his students that one cannot talk about change without talking about the distribution of power (1980a, p. 16). Furthermore, power is required for shaping the environment (1996b, p. 274). Technology can increase our power. For example, telecommunication systems enable individuals from great distances to connect and form relationships (1966c, p. 16). Technology can also condition people to behave in certain ways (1968a, p. 15). Yet, Huebner cautioned against the dangers of technology (1974b, p. 394). Unfortunately, these dangers are never specified; however, it may be assumed that he worried that too much conditioning would lead to less freedom and, thereby, less humanity. He wrote in one of his final addresses that a focus on the technical shifts power, leading to an overreliance on textbooks, televisions, and computers (1996/1999e, p. 435). 161  Lastly, he explored power in connection to justice. He believed that as long as power was limited to a single person or a few people in the classroom, justice could not occur (1974a, p. 13). Instead power must be shared among all the people involved in education. He additionally advocated for students sharing power with the teacher (1974/1999ag, pp. 203, 206; 1979a, pp. 14, 18; 1993/1999k, pp. 410, 412). He sought a redistribution of power in the name of justice (1975a, p. 32). During his religious education years (1982–2000), he understood ministry as an act of seeking justice in the world, which requires a redistribution of power in religious communities (1986b, p. 4).  A major tool that gives people power is language. Language provides the child with an awareness of his/her power and freedom to act in the world so that he/she may create, control, and enjoy the world (1962/1999r, p. 47). Several years later (~1966) Huebner suggested that symbol systems, which are related to language, also increase power. For example, knowing mathematical symbols grant students power to operate in society (1966c, p. 17).60 In 1968, he stated that power can be seen in the language used in classrooms, both in the language that is used by students and by teachers as well as language that is dictated by those in power (1968d, p. 17). Too often those in power dictate the language of the teacher (1979/1999j, p. 302). He once again cautioned that psychological language hides all power dynamics (1980f, p. 24). This is one reason he turned to theological language, as it provided  60  Symbol systems also have the power to transform (see for example, 1979a, p. 15). People have the power to create and control symbol systems through the use of their imagination (1968c, p. 4). 162  him power that he could not receive from other language systems such as the scientific or technical (1969a, p. 14).  Furthermore, language has the power to hide or reveal the world. The language teachers use can hide or reveal the complexity of the teaching act (1968/1999s, p. 145; 1968d, p. 8). He cited Heidegger to point to the possibility that language covers and uncovers (1974/1999ag, p. 198; 1977a, p. 367; 1986b, p. 3). Beginning in 1969, Huebner frequently cited Heidegger’s claim that language is the most dangerous weapon a person possesses (1969/1999s, p. 145; 1977/1999a, p. 257; 1977a, p. 367; 1977c, p. 9).  Huebner recognized that this dangerous weapon is often in the hands of those in power. He wrote, “Symbol systems and languages are accepted in terms of their usefulness as witnessed by those who have power” (1968c, p. 23). Thus, language may be considered a political weapon (1968d, p. 19). Furthermore, language is often based on economic class (1969d, p. 19). He asserted later that language is determined by institutions (1977/1999a, p. 276). Whether based upon economic class, institutionalism, or other factors such as gender, race, or sexuality, the language that people in power use is an important aspect to education. 3.4.5 THE FOUNDATIONAL ROLE OF RELATIONSHIPS This power is used in the context of relationships. Power is present when people come together, Huebner noted, citing Charles Merriam, who claimed: “Power is first of all a phenomenon of group cohesion and aggregation” (1962b, p. 11). As teachers unite, they share their combined power to enact change. This shared power also can mean greater 163  exchange of ideas and more material resources for the classroom. In 1967, he urged his audiences to increase their own power through means of professional organizations (1967i, p. 12). He continued pushing for more collective power for educators, especially through unions, in the late 1970s and early 1980s (1979/1999j, p. 305; 1980a, p. 28; 1980b, pp. 26–27; 1980f, pp. 16–17). He understood the professionalization of teaching as a means to gain power in society. However, he did caution that no one group should have all of the power (1980b, p. 22).   Moreover, he drew upon Tillich’s understanding that power is present when two or more people interact (1962b, p. 10). He suggested that classroom action could be understood through power relationships (1963/1991b, p. 154). For example, Huebner cited Susanne Langer’s understanding of power through the symbol of dance (1969c, p. 41; 1980j, p. 6). Dance can be understood as a symbol of power in two ways: 1) when the dancer leaps, he/she overpowers gravity, and 2) when two or more people dance, they coordinate their movements to make a beautiful act. This coordination requires balancing the power between and among the dancers.  In a more cynical vein, he stated that the relationship between adults and children may be oppressive (1974/1999ag, p. 202). He suggested that adults fear the change that children may want to bring about, so adults dominate the child until the child is socialized into the existing norms. He also stated that the relationship between the child and the adult mirrors the relationship the child has with the larger world (1980h, p. 17). Lastly, the relationship between child and the adult is often mediated through the language of labs, researchers, and 164  therapy (1985/1999l, p. 327). He wished educators could speak directly with children without formal educational language getting in the way.   Huebner did not specifically focus on relationships within his writing, yet the concept plays a major role within his thinking as the previous paragraphs demonstrate. A focus on relationships first appeared in his master’s thesis when he attempted to determine the social relationships a child had (or did not have) with his/her peers, but Huebner questioned if the range of personal contacts in a child’s experience can be quantitatively captured (1949, p. 13). His dissertation addressed relationships briefly as well. For instance, the very act of understanding requires identifying relationships between two or more objects (1959, p. 1). He also stated that a child grows by making relationships with the larger world (p. 18). He later expanded upon this point by stating the child grows by making relationships with other people, nature, and even oneself (1961b, p. 12). The child explores the world, shapes it, and is responsible for it (1967h, p. 6).  Additionally, relational activity becomes important when the child meets the other as subject (1959, p. 58). This comment is first made in his dissertation, but he repeated it two years later when he referenced Martin Buber’s “I-Thou” concept. Buber suggested that an individual should meet the other as a fellow subject (Thou) instead of as an object (It). Huebner’s first mention of the I-Thou relationship occurred in 1959, and he later referenced the concept several times in his course lectures (1959/1999ab, p. 5; 1967c, p. 5; 1969b, p. 4; 1980f, p. 32). Buber’s understanding that life is filled with “meetings” between an individual and the world was cited often, especially when conversation occurs (1961b, p. 8). Huebner 165  also cited Albert Schweitzer, an Alsatian theologian and philosopher, who suggested people are never alone as individuals; people are always in relationship with others (1959/1999ab, p. 7; 1961b, p. 8; 1961/1999p, p. 13; 1963/1999t, p. 74).   Furthermore, these relationships give meaning to individuals. In 1961 Huebner stated in a speech that life has no significant meaning outside of the relationships one has with the world around them (1961b, p. 6). He again cited Buber in 1977 when he suggested that relationships help define one’s life (1977/1999a, p. 260). He maintained this importance of relationship in his religious education scholarship by asserting that we are our relationships with others (1985/1999f, p. 374; 1985/1999x, p. 390).   Implied here as well is the use of language in relationships. In 1963, he asserted that relationships are often shaped by language (1963c, p. 2). For example, language can express how one is related to others and the larger world (1969/1999s, p. 145). Interpretation of language is a social activity (1977/1999a, p. 265). It connects people (1977c, p. 10). A person’s relationships may grow as his/her language skills increase (1979a, p. 19). There cannot be community without language (1979/1999j, p. 301). It always manifests itself within relationships (1980f, p. 26). Symbols can be stories of relationships about struggle, control, forgiveness, and love (1985/1999y, p. 344). Language reflects the relationships that exist (1985/1999x, p. 390).  Huebner also emphasized that the first relationship an infant has in life is the relationship with the mother (1976/1999ah p. 294; 1977/1999a, p. 279). He attributed this fact to Piaget (1977b, p. 6), but then cited John Macmurray, who first proposed the primacy of the 166  mother-infant relationship in communication in his book Persons in Relations (1977/1999ah, p. 292).61 This infant-mother relationship signifies the importance of relationship in forming language (1979a, p. 6; 1985/1999f, p. 371; 1985/1999x, p. 390). 3.4.6 LANGUAGE AND CONVERSATION Another idea Huebner got from Macmurray is that language only exists due to communication (1977/1999a, p. 261; 1979a, p. 6; 1980f, p 26). Huebner used this idea as he questioned if language is for the sake of communication or if communication is for the sake of language. He concluded that communication is really the larger concept, which includes language. This explains why, for Huebner, symbols and symbols systems are synonymous with language since they, too, are used for the sake of communication. The main phenomenon, then, is not language but rather communication. One means for communicating with others is through conversation.  Conversation is one of the main ways that language structures the classroom. Throughout his career, from 1961 through the 1990s, Huebner considered conversation to be one of the most significant events in which an educator can participate with his/her students.62 In 1961 and 1962, he defined conversation as the act of listening to one another, and he encouraged educators to listen to their students (1961b, p. 8; 1962/1999r, p. 47). He strongly  61 Huebner was heavily influenced by Macmurray and is disappointed that Macmurray never became more important in philosophy. Macmurray is first cited in Huebner’s essays in 1961’s “Is the Elementary Curriculum Adequate?” (1961/1999p).  62 Perhaps this is related to Buber’s work. Huebner cited Buber’s quote, “dialogue [is] the most important dimension of all encounters” (1996a, p. 587).  167  supported teachers dialoguing with their students as a way of developing language through various forms such as plays, storytelling, and dramas (1962/1999g, p. 72; 1962/1999r, pp. 47-48; 1977/1999a, p. 274). A child uses conversation to communicate with adults even before a child can write (1962/1999r, p. 47). Language enables relationships between the child and the adult (1963/1999t, p. 80). Conversation may be limited if language skills have not been properly developed (1963/1999t, p. 89; 1996/1999e, p. 442), and so Huebner suggested that children should learn different types of language patterns. In the late 1970s (when he was concentrated on Marx), he cautioned that conversation stops when power relations are not equalized (1977/1999a, p. 265). In 1991, he stated that dialogue is the essence of language (1991a, p. 1). Educational conversations reflect the desire to dream of a future with new possibilities.  Thus, conversations remind educators that it is our temporality that is the uppermost characteristic of our being, especially in education. He proposed in 1996 that “education is the meeting of the historically determined self with the stranger in a spirit of longing and of thirst” (1996a, p. 585). This meeting touches upon the past, present, and future.  3.4.7 RETURNING TO TIME Education is the meeting…in the present moment. Education is about how we live in time with a focus on the future in the present moment with an awareness of the past (1986b, p. 1). The present is the moment of being (1967/1999i, p. 137). It holds the past and the future together in the classroom (p. 139; 1977/1999ah, p. 296). During his religious education years 168  he stated that the present is the place where God dwells and is the sum of all existence from the past and the future (1982/1999ae, p. 5). …of the historically determined self…one that reflects the past. He stated that humanity’s house is time (an Heideggerian idea), and as such history is foundational in life and in knowledge (1966b, p. 99). Classroom rituals are one means that the past becomes present for the student (1967a, p. 6). The past is also represented in the goals, objectives, and purposes in education. They reflect what has been in the present moment in order to create a predetermined future. The future, then, is based on a particular aspect of the past that the people in the present wish to conserve (1967/1999i, p. 132). Remembering the past may also free the student from repeating it (1980g, p. 15). Later in his career, he returned to the fact that we are historical beings, by cautioning that just as the past may shape people, it can also enslave them (1996a, pp. 584–585). Historical awareness can help scholars surpass technical thinking, which itself too often enslaves people (1996/1999e, p. 433). …with a spirit of longing and of thirst…for the future. After studying Heidegger’s Being and Time (1962), Huebner suggested that the future is about possibility (p. 137). Previously, he had warned against educators focusing solely on the future while ignoring the present, focusing on becoming rather than being (emphasis added, 1959/1999ab, p. 6). Education requires one to work in the present moment with a view for the future (1964f, p. 463; 1977b, p. 2; 1986b, p. 1).63 Education is about how we look to the future (1977b, p. 2).  63 Ontologically, this is a condition of humanity: existing in the present moment with the ability to dream of a different future (1967/1999h, p. 2). 169  People ought not forget the past, but they must not let the past dictate the future. Indeed, the future can be limited by one’s imagination and one’s ability to implement one’s visions (1996b, pp. 273–274). Any assumption for or about the future devised in the present moment is a by-product of technical thinking (1996/1999e, p. 436). Therefore, educators need to free themselves from their own preoccupations and allow students to take the time and the power to explore the world with all of its richness, including the many relationships to be nurtured and enjoyed through rich conversations and language systems.   170  3.5 CHAPTER 10: FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE  Thus far theology has not been the main focus in either Huebner’s educational creed nor in his ontology (though I hope readers have noticed its rare, and perhaps even underlining, presence throughout these two chapters). Theology takes a more active role in this chapter as I examine the six forms of knowledge that appear within Huebner’s work. The previous two chapters utilized a structure of my own to present his ideas. This chapter examines Huebner’s epistemology with a structure and language that is much more closely grounded in his scholarship, specifically from the early 1960s. In 1962, Huebner wrote that three forms of knowledge are science, art, and philosophy (1962/1999q, p. 37). He added religious and aesthetic as forms of knowledge that same year, in a different essay (1962c, p. 4). I have categorized the following six forms of knowledge for the discussion that follows: the scientific, the technical, the philosophical and theological, the aesthetic, the political, and the moral. I begin with an overview of his general understanding of knowledge.     171  3.5.1 KNOWLEDGE 3.5.1.1 WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?  One of the first definitions of knowledge that appears in Huebner’s work is found in his dissertation as he described knowledge as a type of relationship. He cited Paul Tillich, philosopher and Christian theologian, stating: knowledge is a form of union...In every act of knowledge the knower and that which is known are united; the gap between the subject and the object is overcome. The subject ‘grasps’ the object, adapts it to itself, and, at the same time, adapts itself to the object. (1959, p. 38)   Huebner used this definition as he described the interaction between a person and the environment. He suggested that this interaction between the individual and the environment is central to education. This act of knowledge (Tillich’s words) is one that occurs between two objects, which may be understood as a relationship between the self and the outer world.64  This understanding of knowledge as a relationship reappeared when he used Piaget’s discourse of genetic epistemology to describe the nature of knowledge (1972/1999m, p. 182; 1980i, p. 10; 1982/1999ae, p. 13; 1987/1999x, p. 390). Piaget emphasized knowledge as a system of interactions, which Huebner suggested also affirms his earlier idea that knowledge is something that links the individual to the environment.  Piaget has clearly pointed out that what he has identified is that there are indeed schemers that relate, unite if you wish, the young person with the environment. And knowledge is indeed an elaboration, an extension of that  64 This would align well with today’s discussions about the subjectivity of education and notions of Bildung, which focuses on a young person’s formation in constructing a worldview based on the internal-self encountering the external-world.   172  kind of psychomotor biological linkage between the child and his environment. (1979a, p. 9)  Perhaps a more concrete understanding of this linkage between the child and his or her environment came in essays in the early 1960s when Huebner referred to knowledge as a tool (1962/1999q; 1963/1999t, p. 83).    In “Knowledge: An Instrument of Man” (1962/1999q), he described knowledge as “A tool to enrich man’s existence… In the exploration of the world, knowledge is an instrument of great penetration. It helps make transparent that which seems opaque. It relates events and phenomena which seem unrelated to the unknowledgeable eye” (p. 36). This tool is dead because it has no motive power; although, it can increase one’s ability to do good or evil (1964d, p. 11).  Yet this “dead” instrument is also not static or fixed, but something that is always changing as new knowledge is produced by people (p. 13).  He connected his understanding of knowledge as both an instrument and a linkage with the environment, in a speech given to the Curriculum Theory Study Group in Minneapolis, Minnesota on March 2, 1970. He suggested: In a sense, then, knowledge as a codified system can be interpreted as a way to organize and use information. It can be an information processing system within an individual, but the tools and instruments used by men…are socially codified systems for processing information and acting upon the environment intentionally. (1970a, p. 6)  This is a more technological definition of knowledge, as he continued by referencing typewriters and computers as types of instruments people use to process information and act 173  in the environment.65  These definitions help shed some understanding of Huebner’s epistemology, yet he was more concerned with what knowledge does rather than what it is.  3.5.1.2 IMPLICATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE Overall, Huebner was more concerned with understanding what knowledge does for an individual rather than providing a conclusive definition of it. For example, in his dissertation he wrote, “knowledge and values may well serve to limit the experiences of a person, as well as expand them, if they are adhered to too rigidly” (1959, p. 51). The possibility of knowledge limiting a person’s experience became a crucial idea within his scholarship. In a speech given on April 7, 1961 to ACEI, he cautioned his listeners:  …knowledge is not a sufficient objective for education... Knowledge is inert, and can be enslaving. We can force the child into the mold of the knowledge of today—we can take away his freedom by demanding that he understand in one way—or know in one way. Knowledge and understanding makes sense only if they are within the bigger framework of wonder, and awe. (1961b, p. 7)  This passage demonstrated how Huebner understood the function of knowledge in society. For him, empowering an individual’s freedom is one of the highest aims of education. Yet too often the schools’ concern for the transmission of knowledge leads to a hidden form of enslavement into the existing norms.  Knowledge was not the key to unlock the shackles of the slave, but rather knowledge had become the shackles. Huebner tried to highlight this fact by examining the function of knowledge rather than seeking definitional answers.   65 Perhaps, then, his understanding of knowledge being an instrument or tool can be linked to his scientific background as a chemist and engineer during his undergraduate studies.  174   In the same speech, he cited John Macmurray, a Scottish philosopher whom Huebner often cited throughout his scholarship. Macmurray states that all knowledge is for the sake of action—for knowledge is at no value unless used—but he goes beyond this to, yes—knowledge is for the sake of action, and all action is for the sake of friendship. (1961b, p. 12)  This Macmurray quote supports Huebner’s continual concern for what knowledge does (and not what it is). One year later, he started referencing Whitehead’s definition of education “as the art of utilization of knowledge” (1962/1999q, p. 40; 1962a, 1964d, 1967e, 1980g, 1982/1999ae).  One of his main concerns about the use of knowledge centered on the paradox that knowledge can both free and enslave an individual. For example, he cautioned his readers, “Knowledge has within it the power to enslave, to make one less free, rather than freer, unless the user is fully aware of the disadvantages” (1962/1999q, p. 37). He continued by describing disadvantages such as knowledge being a form of prejudice that limits an individual from seeing the full possibilities of what could be. Yet, knowledge can also lead to freedom. Nonetheless, he granted that knowledge has several advantages, including its paradoxical capacity to free, which is more fully addressed two years later. In a Greenwood Lecture on February 27, 1964, he positioned himself as: not seek[ing] to grasp what knowledge is, but what man is and how knowledge operates in his life. … Rather we must ask how knowledge conditions a human life—how it provides power in the day by day task of living—but also how it fetters freedom. (1964d, p. 5)  175  This is one of the first times that Huebner used the language of conditioning, but it reappears in future essays (1967/1999i, 1968a, 1970a, 1972/1999m, 1975/1999af, 1977/1999a, 1996b). Not only does knowledge condition, but it is “the maker of man” as it conditions the world for an individual (1968a, p. 8). Huebner suggested a few ways in which knowledge can lead to freedom. For example, freedom may be had through the exposure and use of multiple forms of knowledge (p. 10). He also encouraged his listeners to approach knowledge with doubt, wonder, and awe (p. 10).66 He proposed that knowledge and freedom meet at responsibility (p. 17). It takes responsibility by the individual to use knowledge appropriately in order to free oneself. Knowledge also gives one a sense of control. Huebner sees this aspect in both positive and negative ways. He positively described this sense of control in his dissertation, as he wrote that organized bodies of knowledge help the individual “gain greater cognitive control of environmental situations” (1959, p. 182). Additionally, he wrote in 1962: Controlling knowledge about the child is necessary. The child study movement and the psychological insights, from G. S. Hall through Freud, Gesell, Lippitt and White, to Piaget and Bruner, have significantly increased the effectiveness of teaching. Teachers continue to need such knowledge, for it helps them compose the experiences for and with the children. (1962c, p. 1)  This passage endorsed controlling knowledge in some degree to support the educator in the classroom. He also commented on the negative aspects of control.   66 He encouraged doubt as a means to prevent knowledge becoming enslaving, in several essays (see: 1962a, p. 5; 1975a; 1982/1999ae). 176  For example, he wrote, “The approach to the world through the intellect, through knowledge and learning, makes us more powerful by providing more control and prediction. …Knowledge and learning alone lead to manipulation and control—wonder and knowledge and learning leads to the possibility of faith and love” (1959/1999ab, p. 8). Too often wonder (and awe) are the missing ingredients in the schooling enterprise, which leads to enslavement and lack of freedom.  This passage also highlights the dynamic of power. Huebner acknowledged that knowledge gives people power to control, predict, and manipulate (1959/1999ab, p. 8). He also understood this power as paradoxical:  Knowledge is paradoxical—it gives us power—great power—to control, to manipulate and to reveal what is in the world—but it also hides what is there—perhaps more than it reveals. At least one theologian has said that with every advance in knowledge we increase our possibilities for goodness—but we also increase our powers for evil—or if you wish it has spiritual possibilities… (1964d, p. 9)  One of the consequences of power mentioned here is the act of hiding and revealing the world. This was important to him. He was concerned that “any form of knowledge is essentially a prejudice—molding and forming the world beheld into the patterns and organizations of the knowledge system used. The prejudice cannot be avoided…” (1962/1999q, p. 38). This prejudice may limit one’s freedom by hiding the six forms of knowledge. For instance, once someone privileges the scientific form over all others, which is often the case in modern-day universities, then the other forms of knowledge become ignored and dismissed by educators, and thus hidden to 177  students. This hiding also may destroy our “capabilities for wonder, for awe, for beholding that which always escapes from the pinching and the poking, squeezing and buffeting of our searches and researches” (1964d, p. 9).  An overdependence on knowledge can also hide the mysteries of the world. Too often scholars think if they just had more knowledge, the mysteries of the universe would decrease, and humankind will have greater control over the universe (1964d, p. 9). Huebner correctly pointed out that knowledge has the possibility of being expansive. As humankind grows in its knowledge, it reveals more mysteries, more questions, and more new wonders beyond our grasp. Knowledge oftentimes leads to new knowledge (1966f, p. 2). Mystery, though, remains constant in the universe even as educators seek this new knowledge.67   In the 1970s, Huebner directed his concern about knowledge to the accessibility and distribution of it. This turn in his thinking was heavily influenced by his increased study of Marx and other curriculum scholars, including James Macdonald and Steve Mann. He stated, for example, “Knowledge available for use is a form of power. As educators concern themselves with the accessibility and distribution of knowledge, they also concern themselves with the accessibility and distribution of power” (1970a, p. 14). Huebner began having more of what is now termed a social justice stance in his writing as he considered matters of production, accessibility, and distribution of educational objects (such as knowledge). He urged his  67 Huebner speaks of mystery mostly in the 1960s; it may be considered part of his ontology, especially within the teaching act (see, for example, 1961b, 1962a, 1962/1999aa, 1962c, 1963b, 1964c). 178  listeners to consider who controls knowledge, and how those in control allow certain populations to receive it over other populations.   He was concerned that institutions, such as universities, must allow for just distribution of knowledge into society; including the right of the young to speak freely and participate in the production of knowledge (1975a, p. 34). In a similar vein, he advocated for teachers having the right to participate in knowledge production (1979/1999j, p. 305). He continually advocated for a sharing of power over knowledge as well as its accessibility for many populations of people and distributed with a sense of justice in mind.   The last implication of knowledge that I wish to mention is its influence on our language. He wrote, “Language is an intimate link between the various forms of knowing, and the child’s thinking, perceiving, and feeling” (1962/1999r, p. 47). He asserted that children often encounter the new knowledge through speech in conversation; especially in classroom activities. He suggested, “…knowledge [is] not, simply…an abstract thing, but as language in use. The language input and the language output and the way in which language is used are critical” (1970b, p. 176). He did not believe that enough people paid attention to the connection between knowledge and language. For example, he stated, “…our focus upon knowledge hides the speaking act and we end up with knowledge, language structures and language usages which is a kind of truncated interpretation which is supported then by text, by test and by authority” (1979a, p. 6). He feared that the language used by educators will be absolute and limit the child’s capacity and ability to participate in the mutual interpretive act to understand how the language structures the educator is using structures the knowledge 179  being shared. Huebner advocated for educators to examine their language use in order to understand the (often) hidden implications it has for the student.  3.5.1.3 SIX FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE Huebner advocated for the value for multiple forms of knowledge throughout his career, especially at the beginning.  For example, his dissertation challenged the scientific norms of educational dissertations at that time, by being theoretical in developing a conceptual framework.68 Huebner suggested that experiments and observations had failed to generate any new productive concepts for educationalists, and he sought to be more creative in using a theoretical approach, citing H. Cornelius Benjamin to support his stance (1959, p. 38).69 He also was aware of others using the language of “forms of knowledge.”70 While knowledge having several forms is not a new concept, the sections that follow examine the specific form(s) Huebner proposed, which is unique to him when presented as a whole. This is a significant contribution to the field that has not received enough attention. It also is the location in his thinking where theology played the biggest role.  In 1962, Huebner acknowledged that three forms of knowledge were science, art, and philosophy (1962/1999q, p. 37). He added religious and aesthetic forms to knowledge that same year, in a different essay (1962c, p. 4). Six forms of knowledge categorize the following  68  The phrase “scientific norms” suggest research based on an empirical study of experimentation and observation. 69 Additionally, he sought to merge, “…the theoretical and empirical literature concerned with teaching” in order to gain better understanding (1959, p. 168).  70 For example, in his dissertation, he referenced Croce’s distinction between intuitive and logical knowledge; “knowledge obtained through the imagination or knowledge obtained through the intellect…” (1959, p. 53). While these two particular categories of knowledge are never cited again, he acknowledged the idea of knowledge taking different forms. Another example is Kenneth B. Henderson, who is referenced a year later for having two basic forms of knowledge, “’know–how and ‘know–that...’” (Huebner & Bellack, 1960, p. 252). 180  discussion: the scientific, the technical, the philosophical and theological, the aesthetic, the political, and the moral.71     71 Huebner never identified these specific forms cumulatively in any one piece; rather, I have identified these forms based on my reading of his work. 181  3.5.2 SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE 3.5.2.1 WHAT IS SCIENCE? Huebner knew first-hand the value of scientific knowledge from his high school and undergraduate studies. He affirmed its necessity as a mode of inquiry in several places (see, for instance, 1966/1999h, p. 109; 1969a, p. 19). Even as a scholar who focused much of his time on other forms of knowledge outside of empirical data, he understood its value. He cited James Conant’s conception of science, e.g. as “new concepts [that] arise from experiment and observations, and the new concepts in turn lead to further experiments and observations” (1959, p. 32). This understanding suggests that the scientific process is a never-ending cycle. He later stated, “scientific activity is [a] progressive activity, in which the participants attempt the continual improvement and refinement of existing theories” (1966i, p. 13). This refining process, though, had some weaknesses that Huebner wanted to point out.    Huebner challenged three significant assumptions during the early sixties. The first is that science is only objective by describing scientists as “excited and not aloof” (1961/1999p, p. 11). He contrasts the scientist to the machine, which remains calm, organized, and always in control. The scientist, however, is a human who is rarely able to remain so consistent in orientation and behaviour.  Secondly, he reminded educators that scientific knowledge is not constant, but concepts change as theories evolve (1962a, p. 6). He was concerned that science was being taught as rote memory or as static and matter of fact. He wanted students to see that it is ever-changing, and they too could be part of the process of creating scientific knowledge. This leads to the third assumption: Science is merely a body of knowledge. 182  Although he stated this definition at least once in his later work (1979/1999j, p. 304), he preferred to focus on the complexities of science. For example, he challenged Dewey’s four-step scientific method as one of many of the methods available to a scientist to conduct their work (1959, p. 76; 1962/1999r, p. 54).   By the mid-sixties, Huebner tried reframing curriculum scholars’ understanding of science by citing Thomas Kuhn’s concepts of normal and revolutionary science (1966e, p. 13; 1967d, p. 2). In sum, Kuhn’s conception of normal science referenced any type of experimentation that builds upon current paradigms and well-accepted theories. In contrast, revolutionary science consisted of those experiments that completely altered one’s paradigm to understanding the world in new ways. For example, the scientific realization that the sun was not the centre of the universe or that the world is not flat constituted revolutionary science. Huebner was concerned that too often public schools conveyed scientific knowledge as merely normal science, which disempowered (and disinterested) too many students from seeing the empowering participation they could have in revolutionary science experiments—both in the lab and in their minds (1966i, p. 13; 1966e, p. 31).  3.5.2.2 IMPLICATIONS OF SCIENCE Huebner was more concerned with what science did for people than with the definition of science. In one sense, science is about control. He wrote, “The so-called scientific method or methods may be considered a pattern of behaviour which extends man’s control and interactions with environmental objects” (1959, p. 76). Science attempts to explain different phenomena, but Huebner also recognized that those explanations were used in an attempt to 183  predict what will happen and control the occurrence under a person’s will (1962/1999q, p. 37; 1963/1999t, pp. 84-88; 1964c, p. 6). This, in turn, helps create order in our world (1962/1999aa, p. 23). Just as knowledge in general may limit a person’s freedom, science has that potential as well (1966h, p. 1). In his later work, he discussed science as limiting one’s ability to criticize, to create, to imagine, and to recognize different dimensions of reality (1975a, p. 34; 1979b, p. 89; 1980a, pp. 18—35). One way this control manifests itself is through the language of science. Huebner emphasized that each branch of science has its own specialized vocabulary and symbol system (1962/1999r, p. 56). When students study any particular branch of science, they are not just memorizing new knowledge, but they are being conditioned to speak about the world in a particular manner. He cited Ernest Nagel’s three types of language used in science: the descriptive, the explanatory, and the natural. He also connected language and science through the form of poetry from Northrup, because both science and poetry try to describe the world (1963/1991b, p. 147; 1966/1999h, p. 105).  A fundamental purpose of seeking control through science is to connect the individual to the world. Science has the potential to have people fall even more deeply in love with the world (1961/1999p, p. 13). One premise of science is to see the world “as objects before [one] with noble and predictable qualities, yielding in a systematic fashion to [one’s] prodding, poking and questioning” (1963/1999t, p. 88). The world is already made, and the person must come to understand it as an object. This object in turn conditions the person’s behaviour based on its already formed existence (1964e, p. 8). Huebner drew upon Polanyi, asserting 184  that science provides humanity with a particular worldview and constructs paradigms (1967d, pp. 4-5). Thus, science becomes a way of responding to the world from these constructed viewpoints and paradigms (1966b, p. 105; 1967a, p. 6). The importance of science is about the questions it allows people to ask and the new possibilities for the natural world (1968c, p. 12; 1986a, p. 6).  Huebner cautions, however, in the attempt to reveal more about the world scientifically and control it in some manner: science does not resolve many mysteries of the universe but increases it (1961b, p. 7; 1962/1999aa, p. 23). Science unlocks an infinite number of doors leading to an endless quest of mysteries (1966f, pp. 1–2). This exploration into the great mysteries of the universe can lead scientists to use their imagination and creativity to create new knowledge (1964d, pp. 3–9) although he warned that science also has the capacity to limit one’s imagination because it prevents people from engaging with the other forms of knowledge and ways of being-in-the-world (1975a, p. 34; 1980a, pp. 18, 35).  Ultimately, the aim of science in our world is to produce knowledge. In fact, science, compared to other forms of knowledge, has the potential of maximizing knowledge production and attainment for the individual (1964c, p. 6; 1966d, p. 3). Huebner suggested that science is very much needed due to this potential of maximum production (1969a, pp. 19–20), and he was very aware that schools (specifically universities) were the primary place for this production (1987/1999z, p. 380). He supported universities conducting this scientific production, but he was wary of going too far with science in the field of education.  185   Huebner was more suspicious of science’s advantages for education but never doubted its substantial influence. Throughout his career he asserted that any advancement in science is not the answer for the field of education (1961c, p. 2; 1979/1999j, p. 299). He did not believe that science could account for the nuances characterizing the teaching act. He worried that scientific approaches attempted to standardize teaching too much (1961c, p. 4; 1962/1999aa, p. 25). Science can lead people to think that they are machines that simply follow orders dictated by the latest theories or principles instead of being humans with free will and agency (1962c, p. 1).  Later in his career, Huebner even went so far to say that there can never be a science of education (1979a, p. 3). He briefly cited Dilthey’s work from the latter part of the nineteenth century. Dilthey asserted that there cannot be a science of education because the teacher’s concern is primarily relational: “what the individual teacher is concerned with is indeed the concrete individual” student (1979a, p. 3). Huebner stated that due to time restrictions of his speech he could not expand this thought. He then moved onto Thorndike, who suggested psychology was the science of education. Huebner rejected this claim as well by suggesting that education’s problems are not due to an intellectual lack of knowledge but rather due to the complications of social relationships (p. 4).   Generally, Huebner was concerned that educators depended too much on science—both in its dominating language forms and its Messianic positionality in the field of education (1963/1999t, p. 87). In 1965, Huebner lamented education’s overdependency on the behavioural sciences—such as psychology—but acknowledged its priority among many in 186  educational circles in 1968 (1965, p. 2; 1968c, p. 15). This prioritizing of the sciences, including the behavioural sciences, only increased after Sputnik as the United States competed with other nations in a space race focused on which country would reach the moon first (1970a, pp. 2–3). The so-called hard sciences could transport people to the moon, and the behavioural sciences were the means to teach those hard sciences. It led public school curriculum programs to shift from a focus on wood shops (for the men at least) to science labs, as well as create an economic and political system intent on endorsing science (1975/1999af, p. 221). Additionally educators’ language became dominated by the sciences with a focus on learning, testing, and assessment (1977/1999a, p. 274).  3.5.2.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF SCIENCE Huebner wanted to acknowledge the benefits of scientific advancements and of scientific knowledge, but he wanted to caution against education scholars’ overdependence on this particular form of knowledge. In his dissertation in 1959, he began questioning research methodologies that centered upon empirical/quantitative and qualitative approaches. At the same time, he acknowledged that science is part of the schooling culture, and therefore, its environment, which was part of his conceptual framework in his dissertation (1959).  Huebner was concerned that the science curriculum took away awe and wonder from the child. He believed that the science curriculum should encourage the child to fall in love with the world, but he felt that the opposite was too often the case. Instead, children resented 187  the science curriculum since it lacked opportunities for creativity and play (1961/1999p; 1961b).   In 1962, Huebner asserted that science is but one form of knowledge, and he spent the rest of the decade using science to fit into a larger conceptual model of knowledge and values for educators (1962/1999q, 1962c, 1964c, 1964e, 1965). Science offered educators a specific language to talk about the human and the educational experience, he allowed, but he emphasized that it is one of many forms, such as the aesthetic, the religious, and the philosophical (1962/1999r; 1963/1999t, pp. 84–88). Scholars expect science to provide all of the necessary answers to resolve all educational concerns, but in truth, there are other forms of knowledge that can provide insight including the technical, the moral, and the political (1965; 1966e, p. 13; 1966h, p. 1; 1967d, pp. 1–5; 1968c, pp. 12, 15).  In the 1970s, he advocated curriculum scholars to redirect their attention from scientific knowledge to designing environments (1969a; 1970a; 1975/1999af). From the late 1970s to the end of his career, Huebner emphasized the utter dominance of scientific knowledge in the field of education, and the great damage this caused not only to educators but to society at large (1977/1999a, 1979b, 1979/1999j, 1985/1999y, 1986a, 1987/1999z). As a trained scientist from his high school and junior college days, science had a special place for Huebner. Yet he knew of its limitations and, ultimately, its failures to education. He spent his career trying to warn others of its lasting disadvantages. Too many have ignored his counsel.    188  3.5.3 TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE 3.5.3.1 WHAT IS THE TECHNICAL? Huebner discussed the technical throughout the 1960s. The technical is first mentioned in 1963 in reference to George Friedman’s “technical environment.” Friedman framed the technical as a series of techniques that have shaped the modern world (1963/1999t, p. 82). The technical also included any focus on skills, either on the part of the teacher or the student (1966/1999o, p. 127). Huebner believed that techniques related to controlling classroom behaviour plagued the education field and offered false promises similar to science (1963b, p. 3). He understood Tyler’s Rationale as a technical approach to designing the classroom environment (1965, p. 4).  In fact, all classroom design falls within the technical form of knowledge. This inherently is not harmful since teachers need the technical to help inform them on how to design the classroom environment and methods for teaching (1965, pp. 5, 20; 1966/1999o, p. 127). The key is not be limited by this form of knowledge.   His understanding of the technical became refined throughout the 1960s. In addition to techniques, he proposed that the technical is about efficiency and economics. Efficiency is related to the best practices to disseminate knowledge from the teacher to the student while using the fewest number of resources (physical, human, financial, etc.). Jacques Ellul’s (1967)  The Technological Society and Marshall McLuhan’s (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man played an important role in his understanding of the technical (1966b, pp. 94–95). Huebner focused on the economic as a means-end rationality (1966/1999h, p. 106). 189  Educators often have an end in mind (objectives, goals, outcomes, etc.) and economics serves as the means to which those ends are achieved.   The technical derives from the scientific but is its own category. Science produces knowledge, whereas the technical applies it (1964c, p. 4, 1966e, p. 4).  The biologist (science) explains the impact of a river on the ecosystems by its bed while the engineer (technical) reshapes the landscape so that the bridge can connect the landmasses above the running river (1964e, p. 8).  Recall that science was, for Huebner, about the external world shaping people. The technical is about people shaping the external world. The objects of the world, then, not only shape people but also take care of and serve them (1982/1999ae, p. 15). Huebner concluded that the modern world has become a technical world focused on humanity’s vision for what should be in appearance and functionality (1965, p. 3; 1966b, pp. 94–95). 3.5.3.2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL  The technical form has several consequences for human activity. It is used to manipulate resources. These resources include materials, people, time, and space (1964c, p. 4). Materials include textbooks, exams and other evaluative tools, as well as laboratory equipment, which  are often manipulated for the sake of efficiency and economic gain (1965, p. 20; 1966/1999h, p. 106; 1966d, p. 5; 1986a, p. 1). People may also be manipulated by educators being taught teaching skills/techniques that prescribe the educator’s actions in the classroom (1966/1999o, p. 129; 1975b, p. 4; 1985/1999l, p. 327). These skills and techniques too often limit an educator’s actions rather than encourage educators to act in a variety of ways through their free will. 190   Huebner suggested the technical form is commonly used in designing environments for the classroom (1965, p. 17; 1996/1999e, p. 434). Teachers often ask questions that are technically based (1966b, p. 97). Schools themselves serve the technical function to conserve knowledge and to develop and increase human resources that maintain society (1966/1999h, p. 107; 1974a, p. 1; 1985/1999y, p. 340).   Perhaps the number one reason why Huebner understood schools and teachers as functioning within the technical is that he characterized psychology and psychological language as technical knowledge. He declared that the words “learning” and “learner” are part of the technical language educators use because they are labels that hide the students’ humanity (1966/1999h, pp. 102–103; 1968a, p. 1; 1970b, p. 177; 1975b, p. 4; 1986a, p. 7; 1987/1999z, p. 383; 1993/1999k, p. 401; 1996b, p. 473). No longer do educators and researchers see the student as a fellow (and equal) human being but rather as something lesser than in the form of learners or someone that needs to learn something. The language creates a sense of hierarchy.   Just as Huebner believed education depended too much on science, he also believed that education overstressed the technical in educational literature (1966/1999o, p. 129). He even cited Herrick, his advisor, for being too technical in his approach to curriculum (1967b, p. 15). He ended his career by again cautioning people that the technical language must be overcome (1996/1999e, p. 433).  191  3.5.3.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TECHNICAL There are two main reasons why Huebner referenced the technical. First, he used it as a category (1964e, p. 8; 1965, pp. 3–20; 1966/1999o, pp. 127–129; 1966/1999h, pp. 102–107; 1966d, p. 5). For example, in 1963, he suggested that education should be about conversation, and the technical is a category of conversation that occurs within an educational setting (1963/1999t, p. 82). The following year he suggested that the technical should be only one domain of which educators should be aware: when it comes to thinking about guidance for students, it is really the moral that should be emphasized (1964c, p. 4). In the mid-1970s, he composed a working paper for his department that tried to outline the curriculum field based on each faculty member’s area of research. This included the technical as part of the means to manipulate resources (1975b, p. 4).  The second main reason Huebner used the technical was to caution his readers and audiences against depending on the technical too much. He never completely rejected the technical, similar to his assessment of the scientific, but, rather, he wanted other forms of knowledge to be acknowledged more than the technical or scientific. For example, he worried that the technical controls us too often because of its dominance in educational research and language. Educators should be like artists who use the technical but who are not controlled by it (1963b, p. 3). In 1966, again he repeats his judgement that the technical is too dominant, but this time he asked for educators to focus on their temporality for the sake of transcendence, their values, and designing a classroom environment (1966b, pp. 94–97).  192  By the 1970s, most references to the technical were given in a negative light (1970b, p. 177; 1974a, p. 1). In his religious education scholarship, the technical continued to be of concern due to its limiting function in thought. His religious education scholarship frequently discussed the role of the stranger as central to education. He cautioned that the stranger risked becoming limited based on the use of technical language (1982/1999ae, p. 15). He also strongly encouraged religious educators not to turn to secular education, due to its overdependence on the technical (1985/1999l, p. 327). He continued to cite the historical limitation of the technical in secular educational thought, and he encouraged other foci for religious scholars (1985/1999y, p. 340; 1986a, pp. 1, 7; 1987/1999z, p. 383; 1993/1999k, p. 401). His encouragement to surpass the technical language was one of the five challenges bequeathed to the curriculum field in 1996 (1996/1999e, pp. 433–434).    193  3.5.4 AESTHETIC KNOWLEDGE 3.5.4.1 WHAT IS AESTHETICS? Huebner focused a great deal of attention on aesthetics throughout the 1960s but reduced his emphasis in the 1970s and 1980s.72 It is infrequently mentioned in his religious education scholarship. Regardless, aesthetic knowledge is one of his essential forms of knowledge that he thought should be acknowledged more by educators. Huebner outlined two main aspects of aesthetics: expression and meaning-making. First, aesthetics is about expression. In his dissertation Huebner described different types of interactions an individual may have within a given environment, and one of those types is the expressive pattern. This expressive pattern is linked to the aesthetic form, which can often take the form of symbols (1959, p. 54). Art is a way of addressing the unknown, the difficult, the mysterious, the comedic, and the tragic (1961c, pp. 2–3). It captures the fullness, emptiness, beauty, and ugliness of life (1962/1999aa, p. 24). It is a welcome way of summarizing experiences, life, and feelings as well as holding the mysteries of life (1962/1999q, p. 37; 1962/1999aa, p. 24). It gives humanity answers in a different form that are personal and particular in contrast to being abstract or general (1962c, p. 8). For him, the artist is almost a prophet: describing what the world is and what it possibly can be (1963/1999t, p. 88). In this way, art has the ability to remake the world and to remake a person (1964e, p. 9). In the late 1960s, he again addressed art’s capability of addressing life’s fullness, emptiness,  72  For the sake of this section, I have combined his use of art and aesthetics, since they seem synonymous within his work. 194  beauty and ugliness, and its ability to confront a person with the world and with other people (1966/1967g, p. 23; 1969e, p. 4). He stated that art is not about logic but rather about emotion (1962c, p. 8). Since humans have emotions, the aesthetic form of knowledge reflects the complexities and uniqueness of life situations and the characteristics of the artist (1964e, p. 9; 1966g, p. 1; 1968a, p. 6). Huebner cited Susanne Langer, an American philosopher, whom he would later cite as having major intellectual influence over his own worldview (1975/1999b). Langer’s (1951) Philosophy in a New Key postulated that people have a need to create symbols to represent their world. Often these symbols take two forms: discursive and non-discursive. The discursive symbols are the ones found in science and language; non-discursive symbols are found in art, music, movement, novels, etc. Huebner then connected the discourse on symbols to education. Aesthetics was, therefore, not just about expression for Huebner. It was also about symbol making. Students are able to symbolize the world through aesthetics (1959/1999ab, p. 7). It becomes an act of exploring the world and encountering different people using these aesthetic symbols (1962/1999r, p. 58). In 1963, he suggested that this exploration of the world through symbols become a form of conversation between two people, which makes conversation an art (1963/1999t, p. 80).73  Later he suggested that educational environments could be interpreted as having aesthetic value because they symbolize feelings, meanings, and  73 As readers may recall, Huebner encouraged conversation to be a focus of education in lieu of knowledge being the primary focus.  Thus, if education is about conversation, and conversation is an art, then education becomes art as well. 195  values (1966/1999ac, p. 172; 1968c, p. 20). Symbols help us explore this world and create meaning through aesthetics. The second aspect of aesthetics becomes a way of discovering meaning in the world (1961c, p. 3). In 1963, he stated that art organized emotions, feelings, beliefs, and meanings (emphasis added, 1963/1991b, p. 157). This organization helps create meaning. He cited Archibald MacLeish’s Poetry and Experience to suggest how poetry is an aesthetic form that creates meaning (1964b, p. 7). In one of the rare mentions of aesthetics in the 1970s, he said that the focus on skills lacks the necessary attention on aesthetics (1977a, p. 300). In doing so, skill is robbed of all meaning for the student, which is highly problematic for Huebner. It is the meaning of the skill that is most important, not the accomplishment of the skill itself.  Huebner himself presented five aspects of the nature of art in the 1962 draft of “The Art of Teaching” (1962/1999aa, pp. 27–34): 1. The artist stands at the ‘hub of things,’ confronted by the wonder of the world. 2. [S/]He responds to or partakes sensitively [to] the world with strong, sincere and varied emotions—joy, sorrow, and chill. 3. [S/]He knows thoroughly and sensitively the great art created by others, not to imitate it, but to be inspired and to disclaim, croon, and praise it. 4. [S/]He turns solemnly inward and struggles to compose the meaningless silence of the world into meaningful form. 5. [S/]He pushes all else aside to trap ‘heaven and earth in the cage of form.’  He constructed these five aspects referencing Lu Ji and MacLeish’s thought on poetry. Poetry is one of Huebner’s favorite art forms, cited often within his work (compared to films, literature, or paintings).  196   These five aspects were revised in 1964 to three different dimensions of the aesthetic form (1964c, pp. 7–8): 1. An element of psychical distance (citing from Edward Bullough’s chapter entitled, “’Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and in Esthetic Principle” [1912]).74   2. Wholeness and Design 3. Symbolic Meaning  These three dimensions are described in other essays as well (1966/1999h, pp. 109–110; 1966b, p. 108).  3.5.4.2 IMPLICATIONS OF AESTHETICS One significant consequence of Huebner’s engagement with the aesthetic form is the notion of criticism.  Much of the conversation about criticism is in connection to his understanding that teaching is an art. As such, art requires criticism (1961c, p. 12; 1966c, p. 12; 1966a, p. 5). The artist often internalizes the role of the critic as she/he creates the work but depends on the outside critic for other views and reactions to the work (1962/1999r, p. 60). One must be sympathetic to an artist’s intent as a critic but also be supportively critical of the art’s forms and solutions (1964b, p. 7). This does not mean that everyone should serve as a critic. He asserted in 1966 that the critic must be knowledgeable and responsible (1966/1999h, p. 116). As noted, Huebner suggested that educational environments can be interpreted as having aesthetic value, and as such be open to criticism based on beauty, truth, and other compositional aspects (1966d, p. 3; 1975/1999af, p. 226).   74 Bullough’s psychical distance is also cited in Huebner’s dissertation (1959, p. 47). 197  Beauty is another aspect that is important to Huebner. Knowledge has the capability of being beautiful due to its aesthetic form (1962/1999q, p. 37; 1962/1999aa, p. 24; 1966/1999h, p. 116). As such, educational activities could contain beauty, but the real significance of art is evident when people come to see things differently (1966/1999h, p. 115; 1966b, p. 105). Often, truth and goodness were paired with beauty (1966/1999o, p.127; 1966d, p. 3; 1967c, p. 4; 1968a, p. 20). All of these aspects have direct bearing on education. One of Huebner’s early claims is that teaching is an art rather than a science. As an art form, teaching allows teachers to express their worldview, feelings, and meaning of life (1961a, p. 9; 1961c, p. 12; 1968d, p. 12). Teachers also create symbols they present to students that represent the world (1967e, p. 23). They serve as critics to their students (1962/1999r, p. 58; 1967e, pp. 20–21; 1994, p. 4). They also create beauty through designing the classroom environment (1964c, p. 7; 1966/1999h, p. 115, 1966/1999o, p. 127; 1966/1999ac, p. 172; 1966/1967g, p. 23; 1968a, p. 20). The role of the teacher, at least aesthetically, is to present the world in such a way that the child gains a greater appreciation for the ways the world can be understood. Then the child is encouraged to respond in kind with his/her own aesthetic form. This ties into Huebner’s suggestion that conversation, the act of mutually responding to one another, plays a key role in education—even when considered aesthetically.    He pointed out that while some may consider students as the medium for the teacher as an artist, he resisted this notion. He feared that by understanding the student as the medium, it objectifies the student to become an object instead of a human. Rather, he 198  advocated that the medium for educators include classroom materials, other resources, language, and the design of educational activities  (1961a, p. 9; 1966/1999ac, p. 167; 1968a, p. 12; 1968d, p. 13). He also emphasized that, like an artist, the educator needs to have skills in order to work with the medium (1962/1999r, pp. 58–60; 1962/1999aa, p. 33).  3.5.4.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF AESTHETICS  Huebner used aesthetics for three main reasons. First, it is about designing the educative environment. He described the aesthetic expression as a pattern of interaction the individual has with their environment (1959, p. 54). This emphasis upon the environment as having aesthetic aspects is mentioned again in 1966, when he discussed curriculum change requiring a focus on the environment because the curriculum leader has an aesthetic responsibility in that design (1966/1999ac, pp. 167–172; 1966b, pp. 105–108; 1966a, p. 5; 1968c; 1975/1999af, p. 226).   Second, it is a category that has value for educators. For example, in 1959, he proposed aesthetics overcomes the dominance of science within educational research (1959/1999ab, p. 7). In “Knowledge and the Curriculum,” Huebner encouraged his audience to explore the natural and cultural world through the six forms of knowledge, including the aesthetics, which has many advantages and disadvantages  (1962/1999r, pp. 58, 60; 1962/1999q, p. 37).  Two years later, he wrote that knowledge should not be categorized but rather our responses to the world should be, and aesthetics is one of those categories of responses (1964e, p. 9). In another essay from 1964, he offered five value categories (the technical, the political, the scientific, the aesthetic, and the moral) that should replace the 199  emphasis on learning (1964c, pp. 7–8). The category of aesthetics is one of the five rationalities for evaluating classroom activity (1966/1999h, pp. 109–116). In another essay, Huebner suggested that aesthetics is one value that can be used to evaluate technological media (1966c, p. 12). In his “Reflections on the Curriculum of Two Schools in Washington,” Huebner suggested that aesthetics could be used to evaluate four main components found in schools: the materials, the content, the skills/competencies/characteristics of the teacher, and organizational structures (1966d, p. 3).   Third, teaching is an art form. Perhaps his earliest significant intellectual contribution after his dissertation was his suggestion that teaching is an art. He stated that humans are naturally creative, and as such, the teacher can be understood as an artist and the classroom as art studio (1961a, p. 9). Teachers have the ability to create beauty and meaning, which is a consequence of the aesthetic act (1964b, p. 7). Teachers can also address feelings better by creating aesthetic opportunities since the arts look at the complexities of teaching (1966/1967g, p. 23). He encouraged his audience to use aesthetics as a value in critiquing the environmental design (1968d, pp. 12–13; 1994, p. 4).  200  3.5.5 PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE 3.5.5.1 WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY? In reading Huebner, one will note that philosophy is often mentioned alongside theology or religion. For example, in his dissertation, he referenced both philosophical and theological literature together to support his point (1959, p. 57). He repeatedly joined them together throughout his career.75 Ironically, though, philosophy and theology are defined the least within Huebner’s work even though they are the forms of knowledge that have informed his understanding of knowledge and its various forms the most. Perhaps, logos (the written word) is part of the reason philosophy and theology are related. While all knowledge forms, of course, utilize logos, philosophy and theology exist only through logos (specifically in written form).76 It is for this reason that philosophy and theology are engaged in this section as a unified whole.  Philosophers and theologians have been referenced in the previous sections, but he rarely used “philosophy” or “theology” as a category name in his conceptual frameworks (like he did with the other forms). Still, he did state that philosophy is a form of knowledge, in at least one essay (1962/1999q, p. 37). Thus, it deserves a place as such in this chapter.    75 See, for example, 1959/1999ab; 1963/1999t; 1965; 1966/1999h; 1967/1999i; 1968a; 1982/1999ae; 1985/1999y. 76 There are also many similarities between philosophy/theology and aesthetics for Huebner, which will be pointed out in the footnotes later.  201  3.5.5.2 IMPLICATIONS OF  PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY I contend that philosophical and theological knowledge had the most influence upon his intellectual thinking. The most influential scholars were either philosophers or theologians such as Heidegger, Langer, Merleau-Ponty, Macmurray, and Tillich. These scholars encouraged him to consider many ideas such as power, language, and temporality. In fact, many of the scholars who influenced Huebner, in addition to those listed, were associated in some manner to the Frankfurt School.77 The Frankfurt School attempted to reimagine Marxist thought for contemporary times.78  He valued philosophy and theology early in his career. He asserted that philosophers have been proving ideas long before empirical data became of great value in the scientific age (1959/1999ab, p. 2). He noted that myths could provide insight for thinking and action, including religious myths (1961a, p. 2). Thus, religious myths have value for educators. He believed that religion should be treated as legitimate since many people find answers in religion (1962c, p. 7). He knew that not everyone would feel the same since religion is contentious. He tried at one point to distinguish between religious beliefs/traditions and theology, so that audience(s) would not get too distracted with any negative connotations  77 Huebner did not realize until many years later the full impact the Frankfurt School had on his thinking (Huebner, personal communication, January 2015). He was influenced by the thinking of Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Paul Tillich. For more information on Horkheimer and Adorno’s relationship to the Frankfurt School, see Tarr (1985). Honneth (2013) describes Marcuse’s connection, and McLaughlin (1999) describes Fromm’s association. “Tillich and the Frankfurt School” (2011) examines his professorship at the University of Frankfurt. 78 He had first read Marx during his doctoral studies, but Marx re-emerged more strongly for Huebner during the 1970s through the early 1980s. He was implicitly drawn to these scholars’ work because he was interested in the social dynamics that are present within education (not because of any explicit connection to the Frankfurt School or any other organizing structure). 202  associated with a particular faith tradition that caused them to ignore conceptualizations of education in new ways outside of scientific and technical language using theological language (1969a, p. 14). He encouraged people to use philosophy and (especially) theology despite these concerns, in conversation with the other forms of knowledge, because they can help reveal aspects of reality (1985/1999f, p. 377).  For example, philosophy and theology can formulate knowledge about humankind (1959/1999ab, p. 2). Huebner is quick to remind his readers that educational philosophers too often will focus on epistemology and axiology and forget about ontology. He cited existentialists such as Marcel, Buber, Berdyaev, Kierkegaard, Jasper, and Heidegger for being very helpful to his thinking (p. 3). He emphasized a few years later that educationalists study the child as an object in order to understand education better, but when it comes to answering their own questions about who they are, they often personally turn to philosophy and religion for answers (1962c, p. 7; 1964d, pp. 1–2). He challenged his readers to ask why educationalists treat the child one way and themselves in another. He pointed out that philosophy and theology have long defined humanity, or at least have attempted to do so (1962c, p. 7; 1966/1967g, p. 11). This study of humanity leads to considering the meaning of life (1966/1967g, p. 11).79 In fact, in 1967, he described philosophy as a systematic construction of meaning (1967/1999i, p. 131).   79 This search for meaning is similar to aesthetics, and perhaps, this is because aesthetics is a branch of philosophy. Aesthetics for Huebner, however, may offer a wider variety of meaning (and through many different media) than do philosophy or theology. Huebner never explicitly addresses the relationship between aesthetics and philosophy but 203  Philosophy and religion also reveal aspects of people’s relationship with each other. Religion focuses on a person’s actions and her/his relationship with other people. He furthermore stated that the most optimistic philosophers are the existentialists who focus on the primacy of relationships between people (1963/1999t, p. 89). He cited Berdyaev’s call for communion among peoples, Buber’s notion of dialogue between people, and Jasper’s emphasis on communication used by people. He reaffirmed his commitment in 1966 that most philosophies explore the meaning of life and the necessity of relationships between people (1966/1967g, p. 12).  Furthermore, philosophy and theology shape what people think, feel, and do (1966/1967g, p. 2).80 As noted, he understood knowledge to condition individuals. After his yearlong sabbatical in 1966 (when he studied Heidegger’s [1962] Being and Time so carefully), the use of conditioned/unconditioned and necessity/freedom became frequently referenced through 1977 (1967/1999i; 1968a; 1968c; 1970a; 1972/1999m; 1975/1999af; 1977/1999a). He cited theological literature at first as the basis for understanding humans as being conditioned in 1967 (1967/1999i, p. 135). A year later, he stated that both philosophy and theology imply  as this chapter tries to demonstrate, Huebner used aesthetics more broadly beyond philosophy to inform classroom activity.  80 Again, similar to aesthetics, which deals with one’s emotions, philosophy and theology help influence our emotions and feelings, which in turn, affect our behaviours.  204  that humans are conditioned (1968a, p. 3).81 He obtained that very language from the philosophy and theology.82   Huebner was concerned that philosophy and theology were being ignored by educators. He recognized that too often we do not teach philosophy to our students—in our public schools nor to our university students in teacher education programs (1959/1999ab, p. 7). In the same essay, he advocated the need to expose children to religion (p. 8).83 He suggested that no study of humanity is complete without an awareness of religion and even went so far as to declare that educators must value religious language (1962c, p. 7; 1963/1999t, p. 88; 1975/1999af). Deleting religion from educational discourse is foolish (1966i, p. 22) although this does not mean that he did not have caveats to this suggestion. Huebner cautioned that philosophy may limit the language used by educators (1966h, p. 1). Too often educators use philosophy to justify their behaviour instead of being intentional about teaching from a particular philosophical position (1980f, p. 11). This reduces philosophy to a set of rationalizing beliefs. Huebner challenged this positioning by pointing out that philosophy is embedded in the very structure of those beliefs (1980e, p. 18). He wanted educators to use philosophy differently. Philosophy is not a means to derive a prescriptive protocol in their pedagogy. Philosophy is a source of criticism and imagination to improve and refine practices and perspectives (1979/1999j, p. 301). Philosophy and theology are always  81 Huebner cited, as an example, Buber as a philosopher (1959/1999ab, p. 3) and as a theologian (1962c, p. 7). Since he seemed to use both titles to describe the same person, it makes sense that he cited both philosophy and theology together for the language of conditioned/unconditioned and freedom/necessity.  82 Though he never did state specifically who he got this language from (see, for example, 1969a) 83 He advocated for art, literature, and music as well. 205  about expanding one’s thinking in new ways that otherwise would not be considered in a scientific, technical, or (more specifically) psychological paradigm. He was never drawn to preach from one particular school of thought or religious tradition. He was not an evangelist in this way. While no evangelist, he was described by Pinar (Huebner et al, 1999) as a prophet. Evangelists focus on the outcome (to convert people to a particular calling) whereas a prophet speaks truth to power. Prophets seek to awaken people, to open themselves up to different ways of being, and to consider the people’s actions more carefully. Huebner rarely, if ever, offered a universal solution or prescription. He did not wish for his audience to align with a particular school of thought, especially theologically, just because he endorsed it himself. Instead, he offered the opportunity for transcendence.  3.5.5.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY  As stated, Huebner was not interested in defining philosophy or theology. He rarely used them in any of his typologies. Rather, he was interested in using specific philosophical and theological concepts to reveal something distinctive about education (such as conditioned/unconditioned distinction). He valued their language, their importance as historic academic disciplines, and their ability to expand one’s thinking beyond the scientific and technical (specifically psychology and behavioural sciences). This is the gift they offer in seeking new resources in understanding what happens in education.   206  3.5.6 POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE Perhaps one of Huebner’s most lasting legacies is his study on politics and political science. Michael Apple, his former doctoral student, emphasized the political in his efforts to understand curriculum, an emphasis that remains very popular in curriculum studies. However, long before Apple entered the field, Huebner was studying the political dynamics within education. 3.5.6.1 WHAT IS THE POLITICAL? Politics, in short, is about the study of power for Huebner.84 He explicitly stated this in his introduction to “Politics and Education” in 1963 (1963a, p. 2), but he actually linked power and politics the year before in 1962 (1962a, p. 10; 1962b, p. 2; 1962/1999w; 1962c, p. 22). Huebner made this connection between politics and power through the work of Casswell and Kaplan. They defined political science as “the study of the shaping and sharing of power” (1964/1999v, p. 95). Huebner connected this study of power to education by asking who controlled the classroom (1963a, p. 7). Was it the teacher, the administrator, the legislator, or the parent? He knew that whoever actually held the power could control people (by dictating their behaviours), resources (educational materials, classroom supplies), and even the content of the curriculum itself.   84 Economics is a major theme that Huebner mentioned alongside politics. In fact, the words appear together in more than 29 essays, starting in 1966. Since economics refers to the financial, which is a different domain altogether, I will not address it here. Yet, it should be noted that Huebner understood these as highly related, and perhaps even overlapping: what drives economics is often political and what drives politics is often economic. Both of these domains and their impact on education should be better understood by educators. See, for example, 1966c, p. 23; 1966a, p. 10; 1966/1999ac, p. 171; 1970a, p. 12; 1974/1999ai, p. 193; 1977/1999ah, p. 286; 1985/1999y, p. 341; 1986a, p. 3. 207   Huebner made a distinction between politics and the government. “I do not mean political activity in the sense of political parties or war leaders and party leaders, but political in the sense of the manifestation of interest and power: whether financial, rhetorical or group pressures” (1967i, p. 10). He defined politics as the use and misuse of power (1968d, p. 18). He also described politics as “the use of power to intervene in the lives of others…” (1974a, p. 1). Further, it is concerned for how power is distributed and how it exists within relationships, which reflected his focus on Marxist thought (1980b, p. 9).   Another major aspect to politics is the ability to have influence over others (although that is very much related to power).85 Power is about agency of the self and making decisions that affect others, whereas the notion of influence is softer in tone (yet just as powerful, irony noted). He stated, “[If power] is too harsh in ears conditioned to the reverently intoned ‘democracy,’ [then perhaps a better term is] influence” (1963a, p. 2). He described the political process as one of trying to influence others with a willingness to be mutually influenced by the other (1962a, p. 10). Everyone participates in political activity because everyone has some amount of power and influence (1962c, p. 22). He described influence by stating, “Influence may take the form of respect, wealth, or even affection” (1965, p. 9). Power and influence  85 He acknowledged in 1963 that there are other domains that examine power and influence beyond the political sphere, by citing Tillich and Simon (1963/1991b, p. 155). Tillich’s (1954) Love, Power, and Justice  is referenced as well as Simon’s (1976) Administrative Behaviour. 208  were used jointly in several of his essays to describe political activity in educational settings (1966/1999o, p. 128; 1968a, p. 3).86 3.5.6.2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLITICAL  The political power to influence others has one major consequence: shaping the world in which we live (1962a, p. 11). Thus, loving the world requires being politically active (p. 6). Curriculum workers themselves are politicians due to this ability to shape the world (1966/1999ac, p. 171). Curriculum workers have the power to influence the young person’s understanding of the world, who in turn shape the future. Shaping the world requires imagination, power, resources, and openness to others (1974b, p. 395). When the curriculum worker does not utilize these, their own passivity in shaping the world is passed onto their students. This is when, Huebner cautions, some children begin to believe that they do not fit into the world (1974/1999ai, p. 195). People disengage from it, including from schools, since they do not participate politically. They see themselves as outsiders even though the world is constantly in the process of being shaped and formed. They do not claim the power they have in reshaping and reforming the world to include them. Educators need to understand that they are part of a struggle to maintain and yet change the world all at once (1975/1999u, p. 232). Participating in the political process to resolve conflicts prevents educators from responding with control and one-sided justifications (1975/1999u, p. 235; 1962a, p. 10). This notion of conflict is also a major element of the political process.  86 In another essay from that same year, he suggested that one must use their power to influence others (1966/1999ac, p. 171). 209  There is bound to be conflict and struggle over power and influence itself when one exerts one’s power and influence to shape the world by those who wish to resist certain ideological positions and political acts. Research itself may lead to conflict over control (1967i, p. 9). Invested parties in schooling—such as administrators and politicians—will cite research as justification for control and power instead of acknowledging that certain people have power over the classroom. Thus, the educator feels powerless due to “research” that has dictated certain aspects of classroom activity. The research, in truth, only has power since certain individuals promote its importance and dominance over the educator (p. 9).  Huebner thought too few educators engaged with the political (1962/1999w, p. 16; 1966/1999o, p. 127). He remained disappointed in the 1980s in the educators who did not take more responsibility for their power by engaging in political action (1986a, p. 10). Perhaps even worse from Huebner’s perspective, educators did not teach their students to be politically minded (1979a, p. 17). He strongly advocated that students be taught how to participate in the political process (1986a, p. 11). This does not equate necessarily to participating in governmental affairs although it certainly does include that. It is more about teaching students about the power they have to influence, shape, and form the world in which they live.  The most important thesis statement Huebner wrote about politics is that educators have political power and must use that power to influence others in positions of authority as well as other stakeholders such as parents, community leaders, and legislators. His most difficult challenge at the time was convincing others of this power. He emphasized the fact 210  that the educator lives in tension between what administrators and those in authority want to occur in classrooms and what the children themselves want. Educators can only address these types of conflicts when they use political power (1967i, p. 12). Even when educators sit passively by without invoking their power, they are political agents, Huebner insisted (1968d, p. 19). There is no such thing as being politically neutral or apolitical (1980b, p. 16). Huebner believed that schooling is inherently a political enterprise. He stated:  Schooling is inherently political. …”education” is intended to indicate a concern for the future of a person; a future necessarily influenced by others and their works, which make up the individuals present. “Schooling” is intended to indicate a concern for the intentional mobilization and organization of human and material resources to influence the direction and nature of that education. To intentionally mobilize and organize human and material resources for education implies that someone or some social group has used power and scarce resources to intervene in the lives of others. (1974a, p. 1)  As such, the power used to distribute and oversee resources becomes a major political component in schools.87 Huebner referenced Head Start, a pre-school program for children from disadvantaged circumstances, as an example of where political power can be focused.88 Political power is used to decide which communities are granted such programs and which ones are overlooked (1966/1967g, p. 28).  Other examples that make schooling political include teachers behaving in certain ways because they know the principal will approve, they suspect other teachers will envy them, or  87 This distribution of power is also referenced in 1970 (1970a, p. 14). 88 According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website, “Head Start programs promote school readiness of children ages birth to five from low-income families by supporting the development of the whole child. …Many Head Start and Early Head Start programs are based in centers and schools. Other programs are located in child care centers and family child care homes” (Head Start Programs, 2019). 211  they know parents will respect them, which may result in invitations to community groups and organizations (1964c, p. 5). Teaching itself can become political (1967b, p. 30; 1979b, p. 98; 1986a, p. 4). Another common example he used is pleasing the custodian of the school so that the classroom will be kept clean and tidy (1962b, p. 4; 1962/1999r, p. 64; 1964c, p. 5; 1966/1999h, p. 107). Other politically saturated educational activities include considerations for merit pay, promotions, positions of responsibility, informal leadership roles, and authority over certain staff (1966/1999h, p. 107).   In addition to what has been identified so far, the curriculum is a political project due to its social commitments. There is inherently a social dynamic in all politics since politics is about power and influence shared among people. If one understands curriculum as a social policy (that is, content which maintains, or at the very least, presents the current society as it is now, which could challenge the status quo), then one may see it as a political project (1963a, p. 4). A political analysis of the curriculum emphasizes who has control and power over classroom resources and activity (p. 7). The school itself becomes public policy due to its function in maintaining societal norms (1966c, p. 24).   Moreover, curriculum change has a political dimension. Power through political means is necessary if any change is to occur within the public policy of schools (1966c, p. 24; 1968d, p. 18). Many viewpoints must be taken under consideration when educators attempt political action (1969f, p. 7). Huebner endorsed the possibility that professional organizations may be best positioned to do this political work to change social policy (1962/1999w, p. 21; 1963/1999b, p. 159).  212  Huebner urged educators to participate in political processes for the sake of the creation of and maintenance for justice-oriented classroom environments.89 This was made explicit in 1965 when he defined justice by citing Tillich, who in turn, cited Plato, “Justice is the uniting function in the individual man in the social group” (1965, p. 18). He asserted in the same speech, “The educator must learn to participate in the political structures in order to seek justice in the schools: justice for the individual student and justice for the people outside of the school who are struggling to make this world last” (pp. 19–20). Justice is the political ideal for educators to strive for. He advocated for justice throughout his career (1966b, p. 111; 1966d, p. 2; 1974a, p. 13; 1986b, p. 4). 3.5.6.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POLITICAL  The first major reason Huebner used politics was to acknowledge the political dynamics found in the classroom. Educators are political, based upon how decisions are made, and classroom behaviour is justified through particular educational ideology (1962/1999w). Politics and money may also be determining factors in making instructional technology available to educators (1966c). The classroom often reflects the teacher’s worldview, and it is important for the teacher to consider the political forces behind that worldview (1967i). He connected art with politics by stating it is through art that the curriculum person designs the environment, and it is through politics that the curriculum person has the power to enact that design (1968d). The political process can also be present when we assess a vision for education  89 Huebner connected art and politics through the design of educational environments in his 1968 essay “Teaching as Art & Politics” (1968d). 213  (1969f). When schools are considered from a political perspective, the focus shifts from knowledge to liberty, justice, and freedom (1974a).   Second, he wanted educators to participate in political processes. The political process can create change. He understood that most significant changes that occur either in the curriculum and/or in classroom activity are a result of influencing others (1962b; 1966/1999ac; 1966b). Educators need power to make changes (1963a). Political acts are the means by which institutions transform and change (1979b). Loving the world, which education should do, requires one to participate politically to care for it (1962a). Similarly, knowledge should promote social action (1962/1999r). He wanted educators to use their political power to advocate for students’ rights (1975/1999u). This meant acknowledging failure in teaching students to be politically active (1979a). Teachers help create justice for their classroom by being politically active; this should be one of their aims (1986b).    Lastly, he used the political as one category alongside several others for understanding education. He used the political as a category between the years 1964 and 1966, often in conjunction with the other forms of knowledge. For example, he advocated that the political be one value by which educational activity is assessed (1964c). He advocated the following year that the political is one rationality to be used to justify educational activity (1965). He used the category three times in 1966: once as a type of power, once as a rationality to evaluate educational activity, and once as a value to assess classroom activity (1966/1999o; 1966/1999h; 1966d).  214  3.5.7 MORAL KNOWLEDGE 3.5.7.1 WHAT IS THE MORAL? Huebner discussed the moral form of knowledge less often than he discussed the other forms. Yet the moral is essential to his understanding of education, as demonstrated by its central place in several essays within his work (see, for example, 1964c; 1964e; 1965; 1996b). Ethics is not used as frequently as the word moral within his work, but they both seem to point to the same form of knowledge. As such, both of these terms are included in this section as synonymous. Huebner noted early in his career that the moral values in education point to a concern for existence, for the study of being (1959/1999ab, p. 7). The moral is about relationship at its heart although he did not refer to relationships explicitly until 1966 (1966c, p. 16). For example, in his 1964 speech given at the Elementary Guidance Workshop, he stated that the moral is viewed as an encounter between people (1964c, p. 8). This encounter is the meeting of two or more people. It becomes moral when an educator meets the other not as a student but as another human being (p. 9). He repeated this conception of the moral two years later, in 1966 (1966/1999h, p. 110). Even during the second half of his career, he maintained that the moral aspect focused on how one person chose to be with another and why the relationship took the form it did (1980f, p. 30; 1996b, p. 269). He also raised questions of how we live with one another in time—fully aware of the present moment while also respecting another’s past and shared concern for the future (1980g, p. 16).  215  The moral is specifically focused on the individual in contrast to other forms of knowledge (1965, p. 6; 1966/1999o, p. 126). It is always specific and unique to each individual engaged in the meeting of the other (1965, p. 6). The administration and school board’s primary focus is on the operations of systems, whereas the teacher is engaged with the student, making the individual the top priority. Perhaps it is possible to discuss the morality of systems, but that falls more into the domain of justice, which I will return to in a moment. The moral, in contrast, is about the treatment a person gives to another.  This treatment is grounded, Huebner suggested, in an act of influence. Whereas the political form of knowledge is about influence to have sway over another for the sake of one’s vision or agenda, the moral influence is about the mutual influence between two or more individuals (emphasis added, 1964c, p. 11). In fact, the mutuality of influence is the determining factor of whether an act is moral or not. Both parties have to be open to receiving each other’s thoughts without bias or discrimination. There is no end state, no completion, nor any wholeness that is to be desired when there is this mutual influence (1964e, pp. 9–10). This is also in contrast to the aesthetic, which is also about shaping people. Both the political and the aesthetic forms have an end and influence is simply the means to reach that end.90  There are no ends to the means with the moral. Interestingly, Huebner maintained the importance of  90 Huebner connected the moral with several forms of knowledge. For example, he referenced both moral and theological language as addressing similar matters in education (1959/1999ab, p. 7; 1964c, p. 8; 1966/1999h, p. 110; 1970b, p. 178). He discussed the need for the moral to be justice oriented, which is a shared value with the political (1965, p. 17; 1980f, p. 30; 1980g, p. 16). He contrasted the moral with the technical in “Moral Values and the Curriculum” (1965, p. 6). Lastly, he referenced the overlap between the moral and the aesthetic in at least two essays through notions of beauty, service, and vitality (1965, p. 21; 1967c, pp. 3–4). The only form of knowledge not explicitly discussed with morality is the scientific.  216  mutual influence in the moral act throughout the 1960s, but by the 1990s influence faded as an aspect to the moral (1965, p. 3; 1966/1999h, p. 112; 1966c, p. 16). For example, in his 1996 essay, “Teaching as Moral Activity,” influence is mentioned as a political act, not a moral one (1996b, p. 274).  Morality is not simply about influence, however. Huebner suggested throughout his work that morality includes promise, forgiveness, responsiveness, and conversation. There are many promises made in education.91 Teachers promise new knowledge that will enable students to “find new wonders in the world, find new people that interest you, and in doing so finding you can discover what you are and what you can become” (1964c, p. 14).92  There is also a promise that students will be able to transcend themselves to remake or renew who they are through being unconditioned and reconditioned (1965, p. 15). Other promises include the premise that reading will make a student a different person, and if students invest 10 years in school, they will become more powerful (1967a, p. 3).  Forgiveness is just as important as these promises. Huebner began referencing forgiveness when he focused on influence. He was aware that if a person was bold enough to attempt to influence another, the person must also be open to making mistakes in this influencing act (1964c, p. 12; 1966/1999h, p. 114). Both people involved in the act of mutual influencing must be able to forgive each other and be forgiven. Huebner also recognized that the student, just as the educator, may make mistakes in influencing the other. Educators must  91  Promises are also related to the aesthetic form of knowledge (see 1966/1999ac, p. 173). 92  This is repeated (1966/1999h, p. 113). 217  design classroom environments where it is acceptable for students to make mistakes and yet know they will be forgiven (1965, p. 15). He recognized that one natural consequence of being human is to make errors (1967a, p. 3).  Additionally, one of the fundamental acts the teacher does is to determine what response from students is appropriate or not appropriate (1962/1999g, p. 69). Huebner encouraged educators to allow students to respond freely (1964c, p. 12; 1966/1999h, p. 112). He cautioned that forcing particular responses upon the student inhibits their creation of and participation in the world. Morality also plays a role in conversation.93 He connected morality and conversation through the act of influence, since it is the mutual giving and receiving of messages (1964c, p. 11). The moral response recognizes the possibility of shaping each other through conversation (1964e, p. 10). Conversation is another way of participating in the conditioned and unconditioned state of humanity (1965, p. 14). He wrote:  As a moral agent…the teacher’s major activity is conversation: participating with the students in the meeting ground of the conditioned and the unconditioned. Conversation means listening to another, taking into one’s being what the other has said, and throwing something new out into the environment for the listener. (1965, pp. 15–16)  Perhaps conversation is the means that enables mutual influence to occur in the moral encounter. This passage also highlights his continual focus on the moral act not having a final end: it disrupts the unconditioned and the conditioned-state of the individual. This disruption  93 Conversation played an important role in Huebner’s thought early within his career (see, for example, 1961b, p. 8). Thus, by the time morality became a focus in 1964, the concept of conversation was well within his thinking. 218  creates the possibility for something new, something transcendent from the present moment, and that possibility is the promise of education. 3.5.7.2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE MORAL  All of these aspects of the moral—influence, promise, forgiveness, responsiveness, and conversation—make education moral (1964e, p. 4; 1965, p. 20). He encouraged all educationalists to recognize the moral aspect in their educational visions and assess those visions through a filter of morality (1966/1999o, p. 126). These educational visions should always be assessed through a filter of morality. He advocated that teaching itself ought to be understood as a moral activity because it is about teachers and students living together in relationship (1980f, p. 30; 1996b, p. 267).    Huebner worried that educators fail to address education’s moral aspects. Too often teachers run from the moral by hiding behind the textbook or by behaving in ways that have been dictated by someone else (1969b, p. 7). Perhaps even the language they use to describe educational activity, specifically psychological language, blind them from the moral aspect (1996b, p. 268). Even the curriculum scholars’ focus on the organization and structure of the curriculum may hide the moral aspects (1965, p. 24). Students too often serve the curriculum (that is, they must perform according to its standards) instead of the curriculum serving the students to empower them to participate and act within the world. Moreover, he was concerned about the use of educational materials, including technology, wondering if these served moral purposes. He noted that technology can be used both for moral and immoral 219  purposes (1966/1999o, p. 126). Technology, moreover, has the potential to hide moral questions (1996/1999e, p. 435).  During his tenure in religious education, Huebner became concerned about the trend of focusing on moral and spiritual education (1985/1999y, p. 341; 1987/1999z, p. 386; 1993/1999k, p. 414). His critique remained the same throughout these three essays cited: Society is worried about the moral fabric of its citizens, so stakeholders turn to teachers and educationalists to teach students certain behaviours they deem as moral. Thus, moral education becomes separated as its own unique content. The same occurs for the spiritual aspects of education. Huebner urged his audiences to consider that the moral is inherent to all education, that it is not its own separate content that then needs to be incorporated into the curriculum. It is already present and available for educators to acknowledge in all its guises and moments. 3.5.7.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MORAL Morality is fundamental to education, which Huebner continually emphasized. For example, he thought by focusing on the moral, educators would be able to return awe and wonder to the classroom (1959/1999ab). In 1969, he suggested that one of the primary responsibilities of the curriculum worker was to design the environment (1969b). This environment included the relationships experienced by all participants in said environment. The curriculum worker, then, is concerned with relationships, including those which fall into the moral domain. He also described how moral questions are raised when we consider schooling’s purpose for socialization (1980f). 220  Secondly, Huebner spoke of the moral form as a category to assess education. This primarily occurred between the years 1964 and 1966. He used the moral as the principle value to assess guidance counseling work in elementary education (1964c). He also used the moral as one category to understand how students may respond to curricular elements such as textbooks, worksheets, and classroom activities (1964e). He examined three rationalities that are often hidden in education due to the dominance of psychological language. These are the technical, the political, and the moral (1965). Huebner determined that it is the moral that is the most important rationality in education. He also used the moral to evaluate instructional technology (1966c), classroom activity (1966/1999h), and educational visions (1966/1999o) all within the same year. Lastly, he cautioned against the trend of moral education; specifically within his religious education work (1985/1999y; 1987/1999z). He believed that it is not possible to separate the moral from any aspect of classroom activity (1993/1999k, p. 414). He wondered if this focus on moral education is that it is easier to treat it as some object to be taught instead of looking into the mirror and addressing the moral aspects directly in the classroom. If educators want to address the moral, then they need to look deeper into themselves and their established behaviours. The problem is that “schools are not places where the moral…is lived with any kind of intentionality” (1993/1999k, p. 415).    221  3.5.7.4 SUMMARY This chapter has attempted to present to readers a system or structure of thinking that was used frequently within Huebner’s scholarship. I do not believe that enough attention has been given to these forms by curriculum scholars who are interested in Huebner, especially those who are interested in Huebner’s engagement with theology. The forms of knowledge ground Huebner’s understanding of theology within a larger system. Perhaps by doing this, theology may gain even greater creditability by the curriculum field at large. The last part of this dissertation explores this with more intentionality.  This chapter also concludes my examination of Huebner’s significant ideas. My hope as you read through these past few chapters, is that you have seen Huebner’s thinking presented in a new manner and possibly have experienced a renewed interest in his work (beyond the theological even). Huebner wrote on a multitude of themes, which mirror the large umbrella that the curriculum field represents. For now, though, I turn to focus on what I believe Huebner’s real legacy in understanding the curriculum theologically may be.     222   PART 4: UNDERSTANDING THE CURRICULUM THEOLOGICALLY  The aim of this study is to reframe Huebner’s legacy in understanding the curriculum theologically by contextualizing it through his lived experience and his significant ideas. Part 2 narrated his personal and professional relationship with theology throughout his lifetime, including his move from curriculum studies to religious education. Part 3 explained his significant ideas through the lens of his educational creed, his ontology, and his epistemology. This part attempts to bring all of the contextualization together to present to you, the readers, what I believe Huebner’s legacy actually is in understanding the curriculum theologically. Theology and curriculum have a long history of being integrated. Before focusing on Huebner specifically, allow me to contextualize him within this larger history of theology and curriculum (something I am confident Huebner would want in attempt to historicize this discussion). There are two primary synoptic texts that summarize this relationship well. First, Pinar et al.’s (1995) Understanding Curriculum includes an entire chapter devoted to this (see chapter 12).94 This chapter describes the theological dimension through a historical review of how the Christian church has influenced schooling (pp. 606–612). The authors then raised contemporary concerns such as praying in schools, issues about sex education, inclusion (and exclusion) of Christianity from textbooks, and the role religion plays in public and private schools (pp. 612–627). Additionally, they explored the moral and ethical aspect through the  94 This is perhaps the first synoptic text to offer a thorough examination of understanding curriculum theologically. 223  work of Huebner, Purpel, Oliver, and Gershman (pp. 627–637). They discussed the tradition of hermeneutics, which has roots within biblical studies (pp. 638–643). Liberation theology is moreover examined through the work of Kincheloe and Slattery (pp. 643–652). Lastly, the authors summarized the literature on eschatology, cosmology, and feminist theology through the work of Slattery, Mitrano, and Noddings. Possibly if updated today, the chapter would include sections on queer theology and black theology and a discussion on post-secularism. It may also include a conversation that is less Christian-centric and more inclusive of the impact and presence of other faith traditions such as the work of Alan Block and Joseph Schwab, both Jewish curriculum scholars.   The second synoptic text is the Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (Kridel, 2010). There are two entries in the encyclopedia that are worth noting here. First, Patrick Slattery wrote the entry for “Theology Research” (pp. 881–883). Slattery asserted that theology has a rich history as a method of curriculum research. He offered multiple definitions of theology including “a reflection on religious experience” (p. 882). He connected contemporary theological inquiry to the more philosophical framing of David Tracy’s foundational theology. Slattery continued by citing numerous scholars who have written about theology in curriculum studies including John Dewey, William Pinar, William Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, Peter Taubman, Madeleine Grumet, Philip Phenix, James Macdonald, Dwayne Huebner, Michael P. O’Malley, Kathleen Kesson, James Henderson, William E. Doll, and C.A. Bowers (p. 883). This list also contains those from Latin American Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology through the work of Paulo Freire, bell hooks, W.E.B. DuBois, and Cornel West (p. 224  883). Furthermore, critical race theorists and feminists such as William Watkins, Beverly Cross, James Kirylo, Lisa Delpit, Peter McLaren, Geneva Gay, Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Mary Daly used theology to inform their work (p. 883).  The second entry in this encyclopedia worth noting is “Curriculum as Spiritual Experience” by George Willis (Kridel, 2010, pp. 192–193). Willis defined this phrase, spiritual experience, as, “whatever brings an individual into heightened awareness of her or his relationship with the Infinite, the reality that lies beyond all thinking” (p. 192). He asserted that the connection between the spiritual and curriculum is found within the experience of life. This experience often includes profound mystery and wonder. The spiritual aspect includes “being in relationship, being aware of that relationship, and being open to change because of that relationship” (p. 192). Willis specifies Dwayne Huebner by name as one scholar who “profoundly described” this relational aspect tied to the spiritual realm. Yet, needless to say, many scholars have engaged with the theological dimension within curriculum studies.  225  4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS This part comprises three chapters that attempt to provide greater nuance and detail for Huebner’s engagement with theology. There is an intentional move among the chapters to progress from a close read of Huebner’s work to then move to offer broader implications for understanding the curriculum theologically to the contemporary moment. Chapter 11, for example, focuses on theology as a form of knowledge and reviews two specific ideas that Huebner discussed in his work that drew from theology. This is a very close read of his work. My hope is that this greater nuance will demonstrate with explicit citations what Huebner did with theology. Chapter 12 broadens the discussion to look in general at why Huebner may have engaged with theology. In essence, I believe the sources of theology provided Huebner with the insight and knowledge that he could not obtain from other discourses such as literature on spirituality.     226  4.2 CHAPTER 11: THEOLOGY IN HUEBNER’S SCHOLARSHIP Huebner refrained from making theological claims or doctrine except for a few essays written at Yale Divinity that were targeted to communities of faith. His interest in theology was intellectual, not personal or religious (Huebner, personal communication, January 2015). Part 2 noted that Huebner’s initial draw to theological literature was not a spiritual pursuit, but rather he stumbled upon theological texts (namely, Tillich) when he perused the University of Chicago’s bookstore. His interest in theology was not a search for God. It was a search for conceptualizing what it meant to be human outside of the psychological and technical domain.  Even his move to Yale Divinity School did not represent any explicit desire to focus on theology due to personal commitments. It was an opportunity that was available to him at the moment when he was looking for something beyond Teachers College and the curriculum field. In fact, currently in his retirement years, he prefers to avoid “God-talk” altogether since it carries with it so many negative connotations, and rarely does the listener truly understand what he means with such language; it is not precise enough for him (Huebner, personal communication, January 2015).  4.2.1 HUEBNER’S THEOLOGICAL IDEAS Nevertheless, Huebner’s legacy in curriculum studies most definitely includes his engagement with theology. One critique I have, however, is that rarely have scholars engaged with Huebner’s theological interest with great detail and within the context of his larger ideas (hence, this study). Scholars will make mention of his interest in theology as statements like 227  this, or they may cite one or two sentences that include the word “theology.” Yet it is rare to see a scholar truly engage with an idea that Huebner discussed when using theology.  After studying his work so thoroughly, I have two main ideas that I wish to share here as I attempt to provide greater nuance to Huebner’s engagement with theology.  First, is his use of the Christian Bible, a theological source, to discuss teaching creativity. Second, is the fact that theology enabled Huebner to use a different language system outside of the scientific. Two examples follow: 1) the language of the ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned,’ and 2) the language of transcendence.  Huebner did not seem afraid to reference the Bible throughout his scholarship (1967/1999i; 1969a; 1974/1999ah; 1977c; 1982/1999ae; 1985/1999c; 1993/1999k). One example of him doing this is the time he discussed teaching creativity in a lecture given on September 25, 1969: We talk about learning and we talk about helping kids how to learn, but then we are also stuck with, particularly in the elementary school, we are stuck with the problems of creativity and how we can become creative. We have talked for instance about helping kids learn how to be creative. The interesting thing about that is that we go back to saying an Old Testament text and in the beginning God created man in his own image. In other words, one way of defining man is in terms of his ability to create. The crucial thing here that is not necessarily teaching kids or helping them learn how to be creative, but rather can they somehow or another be men in the sense of man as a creator. But we are stuck with this in that in order to create, say in order to create a novel …, create a painting…, or in order to create a lecture, it is necessary that we have learned or become conditioned to the tools we use. So, we are stuck in a conflict situation here where we are stuck in a paradox. It is necessary to learn in order to be creative and yet simply learning something does not necessarily provide for but take care of the creation. (1969a, p. 15)  228  Huebner referenced this Hebrew Scripture passage to suggest that creativity is foundational in classroom activity, and teaching is art (1961a, p. 2). He is not trying to convert anyone to Judaism or Christianity. He used it as an illustration that other forms of knowledge can contain truth about reality. He is trying to claim an ontological truth, in this case, about the nature of human beings. He challenged scientific inquiry as the authoritative form of knowledge that alone validates which knowledge is truth. A claim is not invalid simply because it has not been scientifically proven or supported. Theological language, then, has the potential power to seek truths that would otherwise remain outside the scientific form of knowledge. Huebner greatly valued this power for truth through language.  One of the major reasons Huebner used theology was to access a language to conceptualize the human being outside of psychology. He explained his relationship with theology in this way: I happened to pick up just by chance one day while browsing through a bookstore, a book by Paul Tillich, one of the leading Protestant theologians a few years ago. I found myself very much intrigued by the theological conceptions that he was developing, had to, and found that this led me to a reasonable concern for theology as a conceptual tool for thinking about education. This concern, then, led directly to an interest in Martin Buber, and Jewish philosophical theology and from Buber, because, Buber and Tillich, in fact, because of his linkage with the existential movements, moving rather heavily into existential and to some extent, phenomenological thought. And the orientation that I bring to you, then, today throughout this course, is an attempt to deal with some kind of rational structure, some way of looking at the curriculum process, but recognizing that the conceptual orientation, or if you wish, the model Herrick uses and that indeed many of the curriculum people use today is simply too technological… (1967d, p. 11)  229  I have already examined his view of the technological through the form of the technical as well as his critiques against learning and psychology. This demonstrates what was discussed earlier when he thought language had the capacity to limit or free a person. In a sense, he used theological language to free himself from another language form (the technical).   One of the major ways he used theological language was to reframe educational questions.  …it becomes possible to frame certain kinds of educational questions in a language which draws upon theological idioms; in a way which at least gives me more power—whether it gives my students more power or not is something else. But [my] concern for the individual in education can be talked about in some theological language. (1969a, p. 14)  One of his main interests was seeking out intellectual resources that empowered scholars to see something new about education. He did not necessarily desire new language for the sake of having new language, but rather language that granted him greater clarity and insight into education.   One example of theological language enabling Huebner to engage with educational questions differently is the concept of the ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ self. He is recorded as saying in a class lecture: One of the terms we have used in education is the term ‘conditioning’ or ‘conditionedness’. We talked about this in terms of people becoming ‘conditioned’ to a given situation or to a certain context. For instance: in learning to type, we become conditioned to the typewriter in such a way that it becomes an extension of us—we also become an extension of it. And if we are an active agent, we take the machine into us and it becomes an extension of us. We become conditioned to the typewriter; we learn to use a typewriter. Much talk about learning can be dealt with in terms of a talk about conditioning. The reason that term ‘conditioning’ or ‘conditioned-ness’ perhaps is interesting is 230  that the theologians use it, but they use it in a pair and the other pair that they use, or the other term that they use here is the ‘unconditioned’ and that the nature of man is given by the paradoxical existence in both of these. That man is both a conditioned part of the world and an unconditioned part of the world. He participates in the realm of necessity, but he also participates or has freedom in some way. (1969a, pp. 14–15)  Huebner wanted to emphasize freedom, the unconditioned possibilities that are available for people. At heart, he really wanted to empower each person to be her or his own authentic self and contribute to the world. He believed education has the potential for a person to experience his or her full humanity and who he or she truly are without being conditioned, controlled, or oppressed by the schooling systems of society. He knew that the heart of education was about transcending a person’s current state to become something else.  People have the ability to transcend themselves with knowledge. Transcendence at times was associated with theological language within his scholarship. For example, in the Greenwood Lecture he gave on February 27, 1964, he credited a theologian for discussing transcendence:95 We are creatures capable of almost infinite creation. In our religious figures of speech we say that God, the creator, created [humans] in [God’s] own image—created [humans] as a creator. And the modern theologian says that [people have] the capacity for continued transcendence—[s]he may transcend that which is—that which [s]he has become. (1964d, p. 12).   He failed, however, to identify which modern theologian stated this idea. The idea that God created humanity in God’s own image is from a Judeo-Christian perspective (and as such it  95 This is the first time he used the word transcendence substantially.  231  could be assumed that the modern theologian came from these traditions), but no specifics are provided in this speech.  Huebner first used the phrase, “the lure of the transcendent,” in his 1982 essay, “Religious Metaphors in the Language of Education” (1982/1999ae, p. 360). Philip Phenix used a similar phrase much earlier in his essay in Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists (Pinar, 1975). The chapter is entitled “Transcendence and the Curriculum,” and he wrote, “The lure of transcendence is toward wholeness. It follows that the educator in responding to that incitement creates a curriculum that fosters comprehensiveness of experience” (Pinar, 1975, p. 333). While the connection between Phenix’s use and Huebner’s use of this phrase cannot be determined, it may be safe to assume that it supports just how intellectually close Huebner’s colleagues were to each other. Huebner continued to reference transcendence in connection to religion throughout the 1960s and 1970s (1966/1999h, p. 101; 1968a, p. 8; 1972/1999m, p. 179).  This section has offered specific passages where Huebner not only references the theological domain but used the theological to convey an idea, concept, or approach to engaging with education. Chapter 10 examined Huebner’s forms of knowledge, of which theology was a part. Therefore, the next section examines the implications for considering theology as a form of knowledge. 232  4.2.2 THEOLOGY AS A FORM OF KNOWLEDGE  Huebner was part of the first group of U.S. curriculum scholars in his generation to search for other forms of knowledge outside the sciences, specifically the behavioural sciences.96 While he never articulated the forms of knowledge as comprehensively as they are presented in Chapter 10, the value of these forms may be one of his most understated, yet significant, contributions to the field. Earlier I presented six forms of knowledge: scientific, technical, aesthetics, philosophical and theological, political, and moral. These six forms are not isolated from each other, nor is there a hierarchy to them. They complement and contrast each other based on the purposes of inquiry. They overlap and yet hold distinct characteristics all at the same time. The same is true with the relationship between philosophy and theology. There are similarities yet distinctions between philosophy and theology. Paul Tillich (1951) suggested that one cannot do philosophy without doing theology, nor can one do theology without philosophy. They both address similar metaphysical questions and answers in their pursuits. This is one reason philosophy and theology were examined together in Chapter 10. The major difference between the two, it seems to me, is theos, that is, God. Theology aims to explore the metaphysical with God language. This makes theology unique compared to the other forms of knowledge including philosophy.  Tillichian scholars may say that, similar to the German theologian, Friedrich Schleiermacher, he attempted in his Systematic Theology (1951) to address God by reframing  96 Two others who were interested in theology in the curriculum field at this time were his colleagues Philip Phenix (1966) and James Macdonald (1995).   233  God in more philosophical light to address religion in the age of Enlightenment and the reign of science. Tillich described God as the ground of being, which focuses on the ontological state of being as opposed to a superhuman deity. In doing so, Tillich was able to sidestep using the word God (theos) in his theology (instead focused on the ground of being) to not be too limiting to audiences. Perhaps, then, theology holds something else beyond God-talk (literally using the language of God). I wonder if that something else is faith.  Saint Anselm (1930) defined theology as faith seeking understanding. Philosophers have long debated what this motto of Saint Anselm’s meant (Williams, 2015). For instance, is Saint Anselm suggesting that understanding replaces faith as one develops theological awareness? Most Christian theologians and philosophers would state that this is a misinterpretation. Faith is not to be replaced by understanding, but rather there is a place for both faith and understanding together.  I personally have come to believe faith is more of a verb than a noun. Brené Brown (2010) stated, “Religion has gone from a belief in faith and mystery to certainty. ‘I’m right, you’re wrong. Shut up.’ That’s it. Just certain.” Too often faith morphs from believing a particular claim without support to knowing a particular claim without support. Personally, the more I lean into a life of faith, the less I actually believe (nevertheless know). I walk into a ‘cloud of unknowing’.97 The faithful act becomes taking a step forward even though it is  97 Huebner was heavily influenced by The Cloud of Unknowing (Progoff, 1957). I, too, have found it helpful in many respects.  234  completely uncertain if it will land on any ground. No other form of knowledge seems to encourage such an act.  Furthermore, but much more controversial to state (and support with any ironclad evidence), I wonder if, in addition to faith, theology offers more. The three theological virtues in the Christian tradition are faith, hope, and love. These three lead to wisdom. Perhaps it is unfair to state that theology holds claim to these, and yet I do believe that there is some truth in it. At least, theology offers a particular understanding of these three that is unlike their appearance in the other forms of knowledge.98 And while this emphasis of the three virtues and wisdom are rooted in Christianity, they also have a prominent role in all of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) as well as many of the religions found in the East. Before the story of Abraham, love, for example, still had a place among the gods. Aphrodite (Venus), goddess of love, beauty, and pleasure, had a significant role in Greek methodology. The same is true with Athena, goddess associated with wisdom. These concepts have long been identified in the realm existing beyond human origins. I cannot defend this assertion with absolute conviction nor to every reader’s satisfaction here in this section, yet I raise it as a point of intrigue for continued ponderance and contemplation.  Regardless, it seems to me that God-talk and faith are unique to theology as a form of knowledge. But there is a caution to this uniqueness. Theology is often grounded in a particular religion. While the definition of what constitutes a religion is complicated based on  98 For example, one could suggest that love is part of the moral form of knowledge. Yet, love from a moral perspective can be quite different from a theological one. It is possibly fairer to suggest that theology is the only form of knowledge where faith, love, hope, and wisdom are core concerns for inquiry.  235  one’s discipline99 usually a religion will be based upon a set of beliefs (doctrine) and practices related with those beliefs, which are normally informed through one’s theology. Tensions arise because the law has mandated that public schools separate themselves from any religious commitment in the name of secularism; however, this relationship between religion and schooling is complicated. For example, Canada has become increasingly aware of and engaged with acknowledging the harm done at residential schools for Indigenous peoples. Christian churches oversaw and ran many of these government-funded schools, which operated from the 1870s through the 1990s. Additionally, CBC digital archives display numerous news stories about the tensions around religion in the classroom (Religion in the Classroom, n.d.). Furthermore, Huebner (1985/1999y) even documented this complicated relationship, “For several decades educators in the United States have made efforts to distance their work from its origins in Christian, primarily Protestant, traditions” (p. 340). He noted that at the time Congress was considering “the place of silent and spoken prayer in schools” (p. 341). While the relationship is complicated, the growing response with time is for educators and scholars alike to distance themselves from religion and its intellectual enterprises, including theology.  This does not mean, though, that scholars should ignore theology. Huebner emphasized that schooling and education are two different phenomena. Legal separation from schools does not imply that theology and education could not intellectually inform each other. The law is to protect students from advert proselytizing and the indoctrination of a particular  99 See Eliade and Trask, 1959; Tillich, 1969; Paden, 1988; and James, 2008. 236  faith tradition. Schooling is not the space where adults should be practising their religion publicly or with students. No other form of knowledge, admittedly, is connected to something which has been limited by law.  It is important, though, for scholars to be open to theological thinking even with this legal separation. One reason is due to its historical influence and presence in Western thought (as well as having significant influence in Eastern cultures). Over 70% of the world holds some belief in a god or gods so to dismiss or ignore this form of knowledge is to dismiss and ignore a substantial part of the human experience. Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists continually examine the natural, and possibly primitive and instinctual, inclination towards a religious orientation within humans. The question that is very much alive is if this propensity for God(s) is inherent to human nature and human existence itself. There is no conclusive evidence one way or another, but it is possible that scholars may recognize what drives this openness to something beyond what humans can touch, feel, see, taste, and smell. Until there is scientific evidence that can dismantle religion’s grasp on people, curriculum scholars need to recognize its role in society (past, present, and future). Ignoring it because it is uncomfortable is not a reasonable solution.   It is also important to be explicit about what it means practically for scholars to engage with theology. First, this is not about studying the Church’s historical and contemporary role in schools. Nor am I suggesting that there should be any indoctrination or evangelism done in the classroom. In fact, it is best to forget schools altogether for a moment. Instead, educationalists ought to focus on education alone (verses schooling). If this is done, 237  engagement with theology becomes an intellectual enterprise focused upon the theological resources that are housed within the academic discipline of theology to reveal something insightful (and possibly new) about education. Huebner mainly used theological resources as a means of conceptualizing what it means to be a human being as a move away from psychology.   Theology as a form of knowledge has its advantages and its disadvantages, without question. In the academy, the study of the intersection between theology and education has been siloed off into schools of theology and other religious institutions in the field of religious education (the field Huebner officially entered at Yale Divinity School). Yet, I believe that curriculum scholars may find theological engagement beneficial, if not exciting and interesting. It is true that God-talk may turn some people away, but I believe it is valuable even compared to those discourses that attempt to address similar concerns but through the language of spirituality and mindfulness. Spirituality and mindfulness movements have attempted to speak of the inner life without the burden of God-talk and religion. So why is theology still alluring when these religious-neutral discourses exist? What is different about theology from these more palatable discourses in secular spaces? Why did Huebner encourage his readers to turn to theology and not more secularized forms of spirituality? These are the questions I move to next.    238  4.3 CHAPTER 12: WHY THEOLOGY, THEN? It has been established that educators have avoided theology due to its association with religion, and thereby, its connection with God-talk. Yet, theology is not just about the nature and existence of God. Recall that Neville’s (1991) definition of theology also included “…those things that are to be understood in relation to the divine” (p. 1). One of those “things” is the concept of spirit or soul. Yet, can spirit exist outside of theology and religion? Huebner (1985/1999y) himself asked this very question, “Are the words ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ restricted to the domains of religious language?” (p. 342). He acknowledged that these words have a long historical relationship in religious contexts, but they also hold the capacity to be defined more broadly. This possibility of having application outside of religious contexts has garnered growing attention by scholars over the past 40 years.  Spirituality has replaced religious interests in the hopes for secularization in a (post-) modern age. This is true for many scholars in education who have sought to answer questions that have historically been directed to religious intellectuals and the religious domain (Speck, 2005; Wexler, 2009; and Yob, 2011). For example, Robin Minney (1991) wrote: the term ‘spiritual’ could be one of the few terms left which someone who dislikes religion can use to describe that area of human experience traditionally called ‘religious’; or the spiritual dimension could denote an aspect of human life and thought which is meaningful for agnostics and atheists as well as for members of traditional religions. (p. 387)   Minney continued to distance spirituality from religion by citing Rudolf Otto (1917), who claimed that the keystone of religion is ‘holiness.’ The holy has two main components: The 239  rational and the non-rational. Philosophy and theology reside on the rational side of the holy. The non-rational side cannot be described or articulated in language but rather only experienced. Minney claimed that spirituality is located within this non-rational side of things. Spirituality has been a growing interest in academic scholarship of the past few decades, but the topic is under-researched (Fraser & Grootenboer, 2004; Geary, 2013; Poe, 2005; Rockenbach, Mayhew, Davidson, Ofstein, & Bush, 2015; Tisdell, 2008; Wexler, 2007). This scholarship is often characterized by the articulation of a general definition of spirituality (Speck, 2005). These definitions are usually based on personal experience.  For example, Bento (2000) asserted, “Spirituality is the experience of the transcendent…” (p. 653). Fried (2001) stated, “Spirituality can be understood as the ability to experience connections…” (p. 268). Lewis and Geroy (2000) proposed, “Spirituality is the inner experience of the individual…” (p. 684). Pava (2007) defined spirituality as “a quality of everyday experience, an experience of growth and oneness, a feeling of being at home everywhere in this vast universe” (p. 289). Pava went further to describe spirituality as “the planned experience” for pedagogical purposes. Thus, understood in this way, spirituality loses spontaneity and mysteriousness to become something tangible and controllable.  Not everyone, however, is a fan of these general definitions. Parker Palmer (2003) cautioned against such vagueness by stating, “’Spirituality’ is an elusive word with a variety of definitions—some compelling, some wifty, some downright dangerous” (p. 377). Adrian Thatcher (1999) also warned that “in the attempt to be relevant for all, regardless of culture, ethnicity, religion, moral or ethical beliefs, spirituality is at risk of trying to be everything to 240  everyone and, therefore, nothing much to anyone at all.” Spirituality, subsequently, may not replace theological engagement but rather may become peripheral in examining the deep metaphysical subject matter that it wishes to address.  Regardless of these critiques, there is a desire by scholars to examine this personal journey in community. One core feature of the academy is this sense of community among and between scholars. Disciplines, faculties, and governing bodies enable scholars to come together and provoke intellectual inquiry with one another with a unifying thread. This is true for both communities seeking to examine spirituality from a secular perspective as well as theological communities seeking to examine the world with the use of God-talk. Yet, it seems to me, that one profound difference between these two specific communities (spiritual vs. theological) is the shared commitments from their participants. One significant difference in commitments may be understood through the sources for theology. These sources (or rather the lack thereof) is one reason, I believe, that spirituality scholarship will never fully replace theological inquiry.  Scientific inquiry has long prided itself on the premise that truth is determined through empirical data, which can be validated publicly and repeatedly. There is a sense of superiority to religion, since religion cannot be assessed and evaluated using these same empirical data markers. Religion (and thereby theology) too often gets dismissed because it is perceived as unprovable and perhaps even at times individualistic. Perhaps it is unprovable based upon empirical data markers, but theology is not solely constructed based upon one individual. Rather, there are sources for theology. In Christianity, which is my own tradition and therefore 241  what I will speak from, there are at least three (if not four) sources of theology. Engaging with these sources comprise the theological method.100 The theological method is used when constructing theological arguments and doctrine.  Most Christian denominations (groups) will agree on three, if not four, sources (Neville, 1991). The three basic sources are: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Scripture is the holy text that is usually associated with divine origins or at least with divine inspiration. This is true with at least the Abrahamic faiths, if not others around the world. In Christianity, the Bible is often understood as the ultimate authority, yet this differs by denomination and faith community. Tradition encompasses the liturgy, rituals, and common beliefs that have been passed on for over 2,000 years. These traditions have been granted stature due to their practice through time. Time, then, serves as an evaluative tool to determine which deeds and beliefs have value and which should fall away. Reason is our capacity as humans to think through arguments and premises to determine their logical validity. The fourth source is experience, which is mainly emphasized through the Protestant tradition. However, it is worth noting that some faith communities do not recognize it as an official source. Experience can be equally as powerful as the other sources, and as such, it is understandable why experience is so important for spiritual scholarship. Engaging with all four sources is known as the theological method. The Christian theological method is built on the standard that theological claims should address each of these four sources. Some faith communities place higher emphasis on specific sources (such as scripture), while others see them as completely equal in evaluating claims. If a  100 This is in contrast to no specific method that unites spirituality scholarship.  242  theological claim contradicts one of these sources, a responsible theologian addresses why it still is valid even in the midst of the contradiction. A robust theology is rarely built upon just one or two of these sources but rather is substantiated with all three/four. Thus, these sources have authority in theology because it offers grounding to all claims.101 It is this grounding through a shared authority in the four sources that seems to be missing in the literature on spirituality. This shared authority also comes with shared accountability. Harry Lee Poe (2005) emphasized this through the difference between those who are religious and those who are spiritual:  They may not be ‘religious,’ but they are spiritual. They have beliefs and values as deeply held as religious beliefs and values, and these beliefs and values frame their intellectual work. The major difference is that religious beliefs and values are held in common by a community that holds itself accountable [emphasis added]. (p. 61)   One way theological communities engage with this accountability is through the study and use of the sources of theology. Hence, the sources of theology offer not only authority but also accountability for the community in examining truth claims.   I propose that this rigour of authority and accountability from each of the sources of theology led Huebner to be attracted to theology and may be why he used theological sources instead of a secularized version of spirituality. He models why a scholar would be  101 You, the reader, do not necessarily need to accept the authority and validity of these sources for my point to have merit. My point is simply to suggest that those in religious communities share and accept the authority and validity of these sources, which leads to a greater robustness in scholarship because the community as a whole evaluates and assesses theological claims.  243  interested in and find value in theological scholarship, based upon his own use of these sources of theology. What follows is a brief examination of these four sources, their association with spirituality scholarship (or lack thereof), and examples of Huebner’s use of them within his scholarship.  It seems to me that for those interested in spirituality, authority is mostly based upon experience alone, and too often, this experience is individualistic. For example, Tolliver and Tisdell (2006) wrote, “Spirituality is different from religion: it is about an individual’s journey toward wholeness, whereas religions are organized communities of faith that often provide meaningful community rituals that serve as a gateway to the sacred” (p. 38). This individual’s journey becomes central, and as such, spiritual claims are substantiated through the reader’s resonance with the claim based upon the reader’s own experience. Therefore, the validity of many claims made in spiritual literature seems to be determined solely upon the subjective experience. Subjective experience has value, of course, which is why theologians also use it as a source of theology.102  Huebner was also aware of the power of experience for both the spiritual domain as well as the religious. He wrote, “Talk of the ‘spirit’ and the ‘spiritual’ in education need not, then, be God talk... Rather the talk is about lived reality, about experience and the possibility of experiencing” (1985/1999y, p. 344). He acknowledged that many of the symbols found in  102 I am not suggesting that spirituality (and its related literature) lacks value because it is only based on experience. I believe Tolliver and Tisdell’s definition of spirituality being about an individual’s journey toward wholeness is essential to the human experience. There is great value in examining one’s inner experience and the complex intricacies that are present. But it does not replace, in full measure, theological inquiry, which is often shared, shaped, influenced, and held accountable in community with others based on multiple shared sources of theology.  244  religious traditions are “descriptions of how particular people have encountered or acknowledged the spiritual” through experience” (p. 345). He continued, “Everyone experiences, and continues to have the possibility of experiencing the transcending of present forms of life, of finding that life is more than is presently known or lived. This is what education is about” (p. 345). He seemed to always be interested in understanding the educational experience even from the very beginning. His dissertation was an attempt to map classroom activity with learning outcomes partly for the sake of understanding the student’s experience better (1959). He was influenced by Dewey’s focus on beginning with the student’s experience in progressive education (1962/1999r; 1980a, 1982a). His interest in experience can also be traced to his studies in phenomenology (1963/1999t; 1967/1999i). He valued the insights and knowledge that emerged through experiences and sought to construct his understanding of education from it. But he, like theologians, does not stop with experience. It is just one out of four sources to construct and assess a claim.  There is no equivalent text in spirituality communities that carries as much weight as scripture does for theological communities. For example, in Christianity the Bible is often a starting point for theological claims. In Judaism, the Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, and Tosefta all have sacred value.103 In Islam, the Quran and Tafsir hold great authority. For many scholars writing about spirituality, this is understood as an advantage in contrast to a limitation to their work. Spirituality scholars do not have to justify an interpretation of an ancient text that may or may not still have relevancy for the contemporary moment or topic. This freedom  103 See Alan Block’s writing as an exemplar for integrating these holy texts into the curriculum field. 245  allows spirituality scholarship to be fluid and flexible. The cost to this, however, means that spirituality does not have a text which holds common authority for the wider community. This may or may not be a significant disadvantage in and of itself, but it is a cost to not having any single text that has shared authority.104 Huebner never used the Bible (the holy text of his religious tradition) in the same manner that theologians use it; however, he did cite it in a variety of places for a few reasons as referenced in the last chapter. One of the first places he cited the Bible is in a 1963 speech entitled, “The Challenge to Learn in a Free World” (1963c). He used a passage from the New Testament in the opening of his speech to suggest that one’s language is a part of the person. Therefore, one’s integrity and character (or lack thereof) can be shown through the use of one’s language. In this way, the Bible is used to introduce what he really wanted to discuss.105  In the same year, he used the Bible to demonstrate the value of love found in cultures throughout time (1963/1999t). It was used as a historical document to ground his thinking across multiple generations and societies. He also cited the psalmists to suggest that the search for motivation in education is a longing of the heart (1966i). Huebner quickly addressed the idea that God not need be the ultimate aim for educators. Instead, he encouraged educators to focus on the sentiment of the passage. The Bible was used for poetic purposes to point to some truth, which he continued from in his discussion.  104 Even science has texts that function with shared authority. Published results of experiments conducted through the scientific method are revered by other scientists (the community) as having authority for truth claims.  105 He did the same thing with the story of Babel in his 1985 essay, “Babel: A Reflection on Confounded Speech” (1985/1999c). 246  In the last chapter I shared one of his most frequently cited passages in his writing regarding the account of the creation of humans in Genesis (1964d, 1967a, 1967b, 1967/1999i, 1969a). Recall his premise: God created humans to be in God’s image. The creator embedded creative abilities in humanity’s very being. Therefore, he raised the question: Do educators need to teach creativity or is it simply part of our being? He did not need the biblical passage to relay truth to his listeners, but rather, he wanted to invoke a pondering based upon it. He sought to disrupt the commonly taken-for-granted assumptions that educators rarely articulate in full measure. The illustrations in the Bible that have influenced the evolution of Western society can be used to bring this disruption to the surface. The Bible was not used to expel doctrine or to convert his listeners but be a shared source of authority that was intended to bring people into better understanding of his point.  The third source for theology is reason. Reason is the ability humans have to think through a claim to logically consider its merit. I dare not suggest that spirituality scholarship lacks reason; however, there does seem to be something fundamentally missing from secular spiritual approaches which theological communities do have: a shared ontological grounding. Ontology is commonly understood as the study of being, the study of existence. Theology offers an ontological grounding through its various conceptions of God(s) and its beliefs about the creation of the world (including living life). This is also true for communities outside of Christianity that include spirituality as a tenet for belonging to that community. While conceptions and beliefs may vary greatly depending on the community, this shared ontological grounding creates unity and a bond that seems to be lacking from independent 247  and secular scholars examining spirituality.106 This shared ontological grounding provides members of the community with means to evaluate and assess theological claims with a sense of authority and accountability (which is what I am suggesting is lacking in the spirituality literature).  Huebner did not offer a Christian ontology for his readers (as demonstrated in Chapter 9), but I think there are religious notions that can be found in his ontology.107 For example, in his 1972 essay, “Education in the Church,” he suggested that education may involve finite transcendence that is based upon participating in the infinite (1972/1999m, p. 178). He never attributed God as this infinite, yet it is logical to do so. The ontological claim, derived from his words, would be that humans only have the capacity to transcend in a finite number of ways unless they are participating with God (however God is defined, conceived, and/or understood). There is value in grounding education in something larger than oneself, and the language of the finite participating with the infinite is one way of understanding it. This is just one example of how reason in theological work influenced Huebner. Another example can be found in the written work of theologians. Reasoning is the ability to think through a claim logi