New Curriculum Histories

Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


While a curriculum history is usually understood as a thing – a narrative, an interpretation, evidence, and research questions – this chapter considers curriculum history as a doing. This approach to curriculum history is animated by three dissatisfactions: the tendencies of curriculum history to be written and read in ways that affirm representational logics, the passivity of nonhuman matter, and the elision of thinking-feeling dynamics. This chapter is interested in how curriculum history is read, responded to, and taken into our thoughts, judgments, and actions. Drawing on new materialism and affect theories, this chapter wonders if and how curriculum history might become something else in times of crisis. This chapter considers the affective and aesthetic ties that inhibit and support transitions to new ways of thinking and doing curriculum history.


History Non-representational Post-human Affect Intra-action 


  1. Ahmed S. The promise of happiness. Durham: Duke University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaimo S, Hekman S, editors. Material feminisms. Indiana: Indiana University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson JD. The education of blacks in the south, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson B, Harrison P. The promise of non-representational theories. Farnham: Ashgate; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Baker B. Borders, belonging, beyond: new curriculum history. In Baker B, editor. New curriculum history. Rotterdam: Sense Publishing; 2009. p. ix–xxxv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barad K. Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett J. Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berlant L. Thinking about feeling historical. In: Staiger J, Cvetkovich A, Reynolds A, editors. Political emotions: new agendas in communication. New York: Routledge; 2010. p. 229–45.Google Scholar
  9. Berlant L. Cruel optimism. Durham: Duke University Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berlant L. The commons: infrastructures for troubling times. Environ Plann D Soc Space. 2016;34(3):393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke C, Grosvenor I. School. London, UK: Reaktion Books; 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Cherryholmes CH. Reading research. J Curric Stud. 1993;25(1):1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coole D, Frost S. Introducing the new materialisms. In: Coole D, Frost S, editors. New materialisms: ontology, agency, and politics. Durham: Duke University Press; 2010. p. 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeLanda M. Assemblage theory, society, and Deleuze [web streaming video]. European Graduate School Video Lecture; 2011.
  15. Ellsworth E. Places of learning: media, architecture, pedagogy. New York: Routledge; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grosz E. The incorporeal: ontology, ethics, and the limits of materialism. New York: Columbia University Press; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halberstam J. The queer art of failure. Durham: Duke University Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haraway D. Simians, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge; 1991.Google Scholar
  19. Haraway D. Conversations with Donna Haraway. In: Schneider J, editor. Donna Haraway: live theory. New York: Bloomsbury; 2005. p. 98–130.Google Scholar
  20. Hendry PM. Engendering curriculum history. New York: Routledge; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoskins G. On arrival: memory and temporality at Ellis Island, New York. Environ Plann D Soc Space. 2012;30(6):1011–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaiser R. Reassembling the event: Estonia’s ‘Bronze Night’. Environ Plann D Soc Space. 2012;30(6):1046–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kliebard HM. The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–958. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1995.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1962/1996.Google Scholar
  25. Labaree DF. The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educ Res. 2003;32(4):13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  27. Leander KM, Phillips NC, Taylor KH. The changing social spaces of learning: mapping new mobilities. Rev Res Educ. 2010;34:329–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lesko N, Niccolini AD. Feeling Progressive: Historicizing Affect in Education. In: Popkewitz TA, Diaz J, Kirchgasler C, editors. A Political Sociology of Educational Knowledge. New York: Routledge; 2017. p. 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Love H. Feeling backward: loss and the politics of queer history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  30. MacLure M. Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytic practice in qualitative research. In: Coleman R, Ringrose J, editors. Deleuze and research methodologies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2013. p. 164–83.Google Scholar
  31. Manning E, Massumi B. Thought in the act: passages in the ecology of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marcus GE, Neuman WR, MacKuen M. Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  33. Massumi B. Ontopower: war, powers, and the state of perception. Durham: Duke University Press; 2015a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Massumi B. Malden, MA: Polity Press; 2015b.Google Scholar
  35. Mehta J. How paradigms create politics: the transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. Am Educ Res J. 2013;50(2):285–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patton P. The world seen from within: Deleuze and the philosophy of events. Theory Event [Internet]. 1997 Jan [cited 2019 Jan 5];1(1). Available from Project MUSE database.
  37. Rancière J. The politics of aesthetics: the distribution of the sensible. New York: Continuum; 2006.Google Scholar
  38. Rath CL. “Not a thing but a doing”: reconsidering teacher knowledge through diffractive storytelling. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oregon; 2015.Google Scholar
  39. Ringness TA. The affective domain in education. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; 1975.Google Scholar
  40. Rousmaniere K. City teachers: teaching and school reform in historical perspective. New York: Teachers College Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  41. Saldanha A. Psychedelic white: Goa trance and the viscosity of race. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  42. Sedgwick EK. Touching feeling: affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham: Duke University Press; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sheehy M. Between a thick and a thin place: changing literacy practices. In: Leander KM, Sheehy M, editors. Spatializing literacy research and practice. New York: Peter Lang; 2004. p. 101–20.Google Scholar
  44. Stern M. “We can’t build our dreams on suspicious minds”: neoliberalism, education policy, and the feelings left over. Cult Stud Crit Methodol. 2012;12(5):387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stewart K. Ordinary affects. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thrift N. Non-representational theory: space, politics, affect. New York: Routledge; 2008.Google Scholar
  47. Vannini P, editor. Non-representational methodologies: re-envisioning research. New York: Routledge; 2015.Google Scholar
  48. Weinstein G, Fantini MD. Toward humanistic education: a curriculum of affect. New York: Praeger Publishers; 1970.Google Scholar
  49. Wikipedia. Representation (arts). n.d.
  50. Williams R. Structures of feeling. Marx Lit. 1977;1:128–35.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations