Itinerant curriculum theory revisited on a non-theoricide towards the canonicide: addressing the "curriculum involution"

In Conflicts in Curriculum Theory (2011, 2014) and in Curriculum Epistemicides (2016a, 2016b and 2016c), I was able to argue in detail how particular radical and critical curriculum approaches have been under fire from some critical scholars frustrated with puzzling and unacceptable silences within the critical progressive curriculum river. In my view, critical pedagogical theories, despite their unquestionable merits, not only exhib- ited an explicit functionalist approach, ignoring vital empirical research (e.g., Liston, 1988; Paraskeva, 2011); they also showed a reactionary impulse—that is, particular concepts of critical pedagogy, such as empow- erment, student voice, dialogue, and even the term “critical,” are represen- tative myths that perpetuate relations of domination (see Ellsworth, 1989; Paraskeva, 2011, 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). Paradoxically, even though particular radical, critical, neo-Marxist approaches were criticizing func- tionalist dominant and counter-dominant traditions, the reality is that they relied precisely on a functionalist approach as well (Paraskeva, 2011, 2014, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c).