(23) ENTER: A Call for Pedagogical Method

Enter: A Call for Pedagogical Method

I have suggested that at least five problems hinder teachers and writers who recognize the uniqueness and importance of Lonergan’s work:

First, the long-standing state of fragmented affairs in all knowledge fields and in common discourse; second, the difficulty of communicating with fragmented fields, including in philosophy itself, coupled with the difficulty of categorizing a generalist’s writings for those fields; third, the difficulty of connecting Insight, A Study of Human Understanding with common discourse and experience, as well as with the philosophical experience and capacity of high school and many undergraduate students; fourth, Method in Theology’s hidden message and apparent limitation to an audience of Christian, and sometimes only Catholic, theologians; and fifth, the lack of a well-defined, secularly useful (empirically based), curriculum-development strategy based in a clear pedagogical method for teachers, for students of philosophy in all levels of study, for the renaissance reader, and for the open-minded specialist in any knowledge field and profession. Such a strategy is appropriate to both religious and secular education; and such a strategy can be found in the present work.

At this writing, however, I think it fair to assume that Lonergan’s contribution has not reached the K-12 setting in any systematic way; and I know of no integration of Lonergan’s work in formal K-12 curriculum theory, though I hope I am wrong in this. That being said, and besides fostering the art of self-appropriation, the work of a researcher-scholar familiar with transcendental method and surrounding literature is, in part, that of developing a dialectical analysis of present theory in different aspects of curriculum, much of which is good if not fully functional (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004).

It remains that such analysis and critique is slow-to-non-existent; and, at the present rate, many students will go through the academy without being introduced to the kind of self-knowledge that is now available to us through a full understanding and personal verification of transcendental method.

There exists, then, first, a clear need to distinguish in Lonergan’s work the philosophical from the theological-religious. Second, there exists a need to provide a clear pedagogical method that can be used directly in, or transposed into, other knowledge fields including secular education. Such pedagogy will show how the theory is related to our “sense experience.” Third, there exists a need to add to the increasing body of access-literature written for those who will benefit greatly from being exposed to Lonergan’s many contributions to philosophy, not to mention theology. Thus, the call for a pedagogical method concerning Lonergan’s contributions to philosophy and to education is apparent.

Furthermore, the theoretical work that the present pedagogy is drawn around is seminal, generic, complex, comprehensive, innovative and unique. Precisely because of its sweep, however, Lonergan’s contribution can benefit from the establishment of a clear pedagogical method--a set of stepping-stones--not towards “Lonergan’s theory,” but towards a critical-objective, but also quite personal self-understanding for each of us, including both the person of good commonsense and the scientist who fully embraces scientific method and all of its critical canons. Transcendental method is about, and continually points to, such self-understanding: “For self-appropriation of itself is a grasp of transcendental method . . . .” (1972, p. 83).

Further, transcendental method is a theory; however, the theory names and gives you reflective access to your own method of mind. In this way, and though a good grasp of the theory is not yet a good grasp of transcendental method, your application of the theory to your own mind gives you that access indeed.

Moreover, Lonergan identifies such self-appropriation with the primary function of philosophy: “Its primary function is to promote the self-appropriation that cuts to the root of philosophical differences and incomprehensions” (1972, p. 95).

And so, because we all have minds, the present work is also for those unaccustomed to philosophical or theological treatises; for established teachers of philosophy; for those new to Lonergan’s work; and especially for teachers interested in developing critical self-understanding for your own students at the beginning of their lifelong journey of self-other understanding in an increasingly complex world. It is also for scientists and professionals in any field who seek to expand their knowledge of the underlying unity and interrelationship between their sciences, fields and professions. For self-appropriation’s grasp “provides one with the tools not only for an analysis of common-sense procedures but also for the differentiation of the sciences and the construction of their methods” (1972, p. 83).

Finally, Lonergan recovers philosophy itself as having “further, secondary functions in distinguishing, relating, grounding the several realms of meaning and, no less, in grounding the methods of the sciences and so promoting their unification” (1972, p. 95).

The present work provides a pedagogical method to guide the reader towards that distinguishing, relating, grounding, and unification. I also wish to build a bridge to others who are attempting to connect Lonergan’s highly relevant contributions to a more general readership. The exercises are written so that any teacher with a four-year undergraduate degree can incorporate the exercises and insights herein into any 6-12 or college curriculum and classroom. And through further curriculum development, the exercises can be adjusted to a K-5 environment.