Social Reconstructionism: Where should we begin?

It seems easy to say why we sorely need an education that will enable us, in the long run, here in the Philippines, to reform our society into something it ought to be. But it's unwise to begin by looking for someone or some thinkers whose philosophy or philosophies shall be used as a guide in formulating a social reconstructionistic education in our country.

I believe that what we need to do is to examine or diagnose first our social and cultural situation before we reformulate the goals of education, think of what we ought to teach in order to accomplish such goals, and decide the manner by which we're going to deliver the agreed contents of reconstructionistic education. The social reconstructionist advises us to inspect the various areas of our social and cultural realities: politics, morality, arts, language, psychology, collective intelligence, worldview, and so on. What we ought to teach should be responsive to our own needs. But how could we tell whether there's anything wrong with our politics or the morals of our people, for instance? One way to diagnose our situation is to read our daily papers, both the broadsheets and the tabloids. They will not suffice as a strong basis for our diagnosis, but it's not bad to begin with them as they could show whether something is wrong with our politics or the morals of the people. How many people die everyday for no good reason? How much do corrupt government officials steal from the people? Does the public fall for commercial advertisements fallacious claims? How many people are ill and helpless? How many senior citizens and special children suffer from nightmarish neglect? How does the administration running our government survive condemnation? How many Filipinos want to leave this country? Suppose there are good reasons to believe that such and such are the problems of our people. Is there anything that education could do to effectively address our difficult situation?

Problem of Social Reconstructionism

Social Reconstructionism suggests that education should be an institution of change. Fine. But who will ever disagree with this very broad claim?

But this type of reconstructionistic change is said to go beyond the limits of space occupied by the school campuses. Isn't that good enough a reason to say that reconstructionism is good for us? Great! Great! But this is not clear enough about how things should be done. What exactly are or should be the objectives of formal education? What ought we to teach in school? How ought we to teach the supposed matter of education?

Social Reconstructionism implies that formal education is inadequate if it has no conscious effort to address the enduring problems of one's cultural and social context. This part needs clarification, too, as we do not know yet how far this context goes. Should it be responsive to the requirements of our immediate context alone?

A difficult problem remains unsolved even if we grant that there is no quarrel as regards the social reconstructionistic function of education, for this is still too abstract.

We must not lose sight of the fact that social reconstructionists do not share one and the same philosophy, ideology, and even psychology. In a way, Plato was also a social reconstructionist as evidenced by his desire to realize his vision of an ideal society. Karl Marx was also a social reconstructionist who thought that his communism was the solution to the problematic tension between the capitalist and the working class. Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio were neither platonists nor marxists, yet they also count as fine examples of social "educators" who desired systemic change in their society. How about Jesus Christ, St. Augustine, Gandhi, and many more? Even Hitler would count as a social reconstructionist.

So, while it's not difficult to agree with what Social Reconstructionism says in general, we can't help but quarrel when it comes to deciding whose framework ought we to use to guide the educator's attempt to partake in re-engineering or re-building our rickety (i.e., morally and legally corrupt) society.