1

McGregor, S. L. T. (2015). Postmodernism and home Economics: Revitalizing the

conversation. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 19(1),

http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/19-1/mcgregor5.html

Abstract

After providing an overview of the Modern and Postmodern Eras, this paper shared select

aspects of postmodernism and discussed whether or how home economics has addressed them

over the years. Home economists (family and consumer science, human science, human ecology)

rejected the idea that society has no order, that ethics can be denied, and that there is no place for

communicative rationality. In varying degrees, we accepted relativism (unfortunately), pluralism,

and complexity. The discussion serves to place postmodernism back on the philosophical radar

of the profession, as it moves forward into the 21st century.

Introduction

The Modern era has shaped the world for more than two centuries. Postmodernism, an

intellectual movement that pushes back against modernism, has existed for about 30 years, since

the mid-1980s (Klages, 2001). Founded during the Modern era, the home economics profession

was influenced by both modernism and postmodernism, with the latter an under explored aspect

of practice. This lacuna should come as no surprise since “attempting to clarify meanings

inherent in postmodernism approaches what might be described as trying to pin water to a wall”

(MacCleave, 1995, p. 55). Nonetheless, several home economists dove into those waters, trying

to bring the idea of postmodernism to home economics. In that spirit, this paper strives to entice

home economists to re-engage with postmodernism by revitalizing the conversation. The basic

premise is that grappling with the fundamental nuances of postmodernism is an integral part of

philosophically growing the profession.

A review of the Western home economics literature failed to find anything more recent

than the scholarship noted below, as it pertains to postmodernism and home economics

(including the journals at the Cornell University Hearth Home Economics Archives, 1909-1997

http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/h/hearth/index.html). Brown (1993) wove a postmodern critique

into her analysis of how American home economists philosophically understand themselves.

MacCleave (1995) couched her response to The Concept of Theory in Home Economics (Brown

& Baldwin, 1995) in postmodernism. Richards (1998, 2000) analyzed postmodernism as she

thought it applied to home economics while it struggled to refocus in a postmodern environment.

Pendergast (2001) characterized home economics “as a modernist construct” (p. 69). As

did Brown (1993), Pendergast faulted home economics for relying too heavily on modernist tools

to shape the profession, and for continuing to do so. Baldwin (2002) made the case for home

economists to see “modernity as an unfinished project” (p. 1) instead of viewing it as dead,

replaced with postmodernism. McGregor (2006, Chapter 2) identified five strands of

postmodernism, arguing that practice cannot transform unless home economists examine,

critique, and confirm their notions of postmodernism.

Since we do live in a postmodern time (Hurd, 1998), it behoves the profession to continue

to engage with the notion of postmodernism. To that end, this paper shared select aspects of

postmodernism and discussed whether or how home economics has addressed them over the

2

years. It serves to place postmodernism back on the philosophical radar of the profession, as it

moves forward into the 21st century.

1 The paper begins with a short discussion of the Modern and

the Postmodern Eras, followed with a section on conceptual clarity and several caveats shaping

this paper, ending with an examination of postmodernism and home economics.

Overview of Modern and Postmodern Eras

A brief overview of the origins of the Modern and Postmodern Eras is provided to set the

scene for the rest of the paper; McGregor (2006) provided a more detailed account, which is

tailored to home economics. The word modern refers to contemporary, present or recent times,

marked in style or content by significant departure from traditions. Traditions are long

established customs, beliefs, styles or methods passed on from generation to generation, and

followed by others. Regarding the Modern Era (late 19th

- early 20th

centuries), the word modern

was chosen as it moniker because the intent was to challenge all things traditional and

conventional, especially those stemming from the Enlightenment Era. Succinctly, the

Enlightenment Era was itself a late 17th

century movement intent on breaking away from

religious traditions and faith, by emphasizing reason, rationality, and individualism. Its purpose

was to advance society and human progress through scientific thought, innovation,

experimentation, and logic (Kors, 2003; Rohmann, 1999).

“Modernism, in general, includes the activities and creations of those who felt the

traditional forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, philosophy, social organization,

and activities of daily life were becoming outdated in the new economic, social, and political

environment of an emerging fully industrialized world ” (Wikipedia Encyclopedia, 2014, p. 1),

when home economics emerged as a discipline. “Modernism encouraged the re-examination of

every aspect of existence [emphasis added], from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of

finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new ways of reaching the

same end” (Wikipedia Encyclopedia, 2014, p. 1).

Modernism held sway (some say it still does) until the mid-1900s (Klages, 2001), when a

back lash began to emerge against the fall out of the Modern Era, that being materialism,

consumerism, capitalism, corporate-led globalization, neoliberalism, political conservatism, and

religious fundamentalism. Other side effects of modernism include “a victory of reason over

inspiration, practicality over established custom, and, for some, alienation over human

community” (Rohmann, 1999, p. 265). The Postmodern Era emerged, based on “the conviction

that contemporary society is so hopelessly fractured... that no coherent understanding of it is

possible” (Rohmann, 1999, p. 310).

In more detail, modernism was perpetuated through a grand narrative, a set of modern

ideas that people tended to take for granted and not question: competition, win-lose mentality,

scarcity mentality, survival of the fittest, patriarchy, science, progress, success, and consumerism

(Gur-Zéev, 2010). Postmodernism eschews this metanarrative, claiming, instead, that there are a

variety of perspectives on the world (pluralism), none of which can be privileged.

Postmodernism believes that the grand narrative should be replaced with small, local narratives,

more modest in nature, serving to bring into focus contextual events and not the metaevents

shaping all of society (Lyotard, 1979). As well, postmodernism repudiates progress and cultural

cohesion, rejects intrinsic meaning and reality, and favours eclecticism, relativism, skepticism,

3

and, ironically, ambiguity (Rohmann, 1999). Its denial, and refusal to accept the truth, of many of

modernism’s tenets is its hallmark. Aspects of both eras will be picked up and discussed

throughout the paper, as needed to make salient points (so apologies for any redundancies).

Conceptual Clarity and Caveats

Before engaging with the idea of postmodernism and home economics, a brief overview

of the origins of the term is provided, as are several caveats shaping this paper. To begin, adding

the designation of post to the word modern signifies that things have moved beyond earlier

schools of thoughts and styles of thinking and practice employed during the Modern Era

(understood to be the 1800s to the mid-1900s) (Cherryholmes, 1994; Klages, 2001; McGregor,

2006; Pendergast, 2001).

Aylesworth (2013) explained that the term postmodernism first entered the philosophical

lexicon in 1979, with the publication of The Postmodern Condition by Jean-François Lyotard.

Klages (2001) agreed, suggesting that the complicated and hard to define set of ideas termed

postmodernism “only emerged as an area of academic study since the mid-1980s” (p.1). In the

scheme of things, postmodernism is a very recent phenomenon.

Irvine (2013) cautioned people to differentiate the terms and concepts of postmodernity (a

specific era), the postmodern (the conditions of a historical era), and postmodernism (reflected in

movements with varying levels of intention and self-awareness) (see also Grenz, 1996). While

the title of this paper employs the term postmodernism (intellectual movement), the discussion

also draws on the notions of an era and the conditions of that era, respectively, modernity/

postmodernity and modern/postmodern.

To complicate matters, “there is an enormous diversity among approaches considered to

be postmodern” (MacCleave, 1995, p. 56). Some presume society has made a clear break from

modernism while others think postmodernism is simply challenging modernism and seeking to

redefine it. Others query whether there is any such thing as postmodernism at all, whether we are

even experiencing a radical break from modernism (Baldwin, 2002; McGregor, 2006). These

views aside, MacCleave (1995) believed that “the issues raised by postmodern theorists should

be of concern to home economists” (p. 59). Benn (2009) concurred, arguing that postmodernism

has had a great impact on and significance for home economics. These sentiments informed this

short refresher on postmodernism and home economics.

For further clarification, this article mainly reflects deconstructive postmodernism,

recognizing there are other strands of postmodernism: popular culture, narrative, liberationist,

and constructive (revisionary) (see McGregor, 2006; Oord, 2001). Deconstructive

postmodernism began with attempts to mount a comprehensive critique of Western, modern

culture and to find a method of studying the products of that modern culture, especially texts,

discourse and media. This critique was intended to neutralize any authority claimed by

modernism. Power was distrusted; instead, a less hierarchal approach to power was assumed, in

which authority sources are more diffuse (Holland, 2008).

By delving below the surface of textual and media artifacts of modernism,

deconstructivism strives to expose deep-seated contradictions, biases and ideologies, and to

identify the underlying values shaping the discourse. Deconstructivism holds that texts and

discourse have multiple meanings, very much determined by the reader’s own values and

4

definitions, and not predetermined by the authors of the texts (Holland, 2008). Meaning does not

reside in humans or their consciousness; rather, meaning exists in texts, language and other

modes of representation, including media, which can be interpreted in many ways. Furthermore,

these meanings (intended and interpreted) are constantly changing (MacCleave, 1995).

Also, deconstruction does not mean to destroy; rather, it involves “simultaneous

affirmation and undoing” (Holland, 2008, p.1). Deconstructive postmodernism involves critically

taking something apart to see what it is made up of and assessing the implications of its

ambiguous meanings. Given that postmodernism is grounded in dualism (where one thing is

privileged over another), Hurd (1998) explained that deconstructionism is the practice of

identifying power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or

unprivileged can be consciously focused upon. This way, socially and politically loaded notions

are exposed (e.g., black/white, rich/poor, male/female) (see also MacCleave, 1995).

As a final caveat, “the term postmodernism has the potential to gloss over salient

historical developments” (MacCleave, 1995, p. 56). To address this issue, respecting space

limitations for this article, the reader is directed to McGregor’s (2006) discussion of the world’s

transition from premodern through modern to postmodern times (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Transition from Premodern through Modern to Postmodern Eras

Examining Select Aspects of Postmodernism and Home Economics

Over time, home economists embraced some tenets of deconstructive postmodernism and

rejected others. We rejected the idea that society has no order, that ethics can be denied, and that

5

there is no place for communicative rationality. In varying degrees, we accepted relativism

(unfortunately), pluralism, and complexity. Admittedly, other aspects of postmodernism could

have been selected for discussion in this paper, including its disdain for the metanarrative and its

antitheoretical stance (MacCleave, 1995). Still, the ideas developed in this paper do serve to

illustrate both the import of postmodernism on home economics philosophy and practice, and the

degrees to which the profession has engaged with this intellectual movement.

Social Order and Family Unit

Modernism holds that societies function best if they are ordered and based on universal

principles, including rationality; not surprisingly, postmodernism holds that society is not

coherent, is not ordered, and is not integrated, by any principles (Klages, 2001; Rohmann, 1999).

In fact, postmodernism does not accept that there are universal, unifying principles, favouring

instead concrete experiences, which are fallible and relative. Postmodernism posits that society

gains shape and meaning from more or less random, directionless flux across all sectors

(Baldwin, 2002; Kumar, 1995). Flux is Latin fluxus, to flow, referring to continuous change,

always moving and shifting direction. Postmodernism can assume the ontological stance of flux

because it eschews order and favours chaos and disorder (order emerging).

Home economics practitioners did not accept the postmodern notion that there is no

coherence in society; that there is nothing that holds things together. Instead, we fully believed

that individuals and families hold society together and vice-versa. Modernism privileged the idea

of the family as the central unit of social order, preferring the middle-class, nuclear family, and

heterosexual norms (Irvine, 2013). For many years now, home economics has embraced the

postmodern notion of family, including alternative family forms, alternatives to the middle class,

alternatives to marriage, diverse notions of sexuality, and an array of approaches to child rearing.

It goes without saying that, even though we may not have actually said it, home

economists have created our own postmodern take on the relationship between family and

society, a blend of emergent order and dynamic coherence. Daresay every home economist in the

world agrees that contemporary families have to learn to adapt to a changing society and the

circumstances around them (and our role as a profession is to help them in this process). Families

face diversity, changing gender roles, and changing relationships among family members.

Families are no longer clear entities because different people are included at different times, even

in different locales; witness the new trend of transnational families (Janhonen-Abruquah, 2012).

Contemporary families face different work and care giving arrangements in changing labour

markets. They live in a consumer, technological, globalized society, rife with disillusionment and

alienation. Family demographics are changing (more single parents, blended arrangements,

childless couples). The list of changes experienced by postmodern families goes on and on

(Stacey, 1996; Zeitlin et al., 1995), and home economists have had to keep up with this punishing

pace. We could not have done so had we acquiesced to the postmodern tenet that nothing is

holding society together.

Communal Ethics

Postmodernism excludes the possibility of a focus on ethics, arguing that if there is no

universal moral reality that pertains to everyone, why should we concern ourselves with ethical

issues (Rorty, 1999)? Postmodernism especially denies communal ethics (Baldwin, 2002),

6

assuming instead that community moral standards are not universal but believed to be

constructed within societies. It holds that every culture has its own set of moral standards arising

from the various influences within each particular group (coercion and consensus). Moreover,

community morality is presumed not to be stagnant; it changes, adapts, and is constantly

evolving according to the dictates of the group (Rorty, 1999).

Although postmodernism eschews communal ethics, they do exist. Communal ethics are

anchored in the interests of the community, and they value the group more so than individuals'

interests and values. Communal ethics are based on the assumption that individuals are members

of a social community; hence, they are best understood in relation to other community members.

Communal ethics puts the interests of the community before individuals because humans are by

nature personal and communal; therefore, ethics must deal with their communality (Brown,

1989; Loewy, 1993; Nagel, 2009; Nanley, 2011).

Home economics has long ignored the postmodern tenet of no focus on ethics. Even the

name chosen for the profession in 1908 was selected in “acknowledgement of the economic and

ethical” lines of thought informing the creation of the profession (Brown, 1985, p. 246). More

than 100 years later, community is now a focus of the profession (albeit not communal ethics, per

se). For example, the current Body of Knowledge of the American professional association

contains a “Focus on community: Even though global forces impact what happens with

individuals and families, communities foster a sense of belonging and provide ‘high touch’

environments that support well-being” (Baugher et al., 2003). This approach could be construed

as communal ethics, whereby the community is put before its members, for the good of the

members... something to ponder.

Indeed, Fusa (2004), the author of a Japanese philosophy of home economics, identified

community as central to the profession, conceiving community as a protective anchor for

individuals and families. She explained that community can supplement the protective nature of

the home, better ensuring the emergence of humanity in individuals, even a new type of human

being with autonomy, spontaneity, and solidarity. Could this be a form of communal ethics?

Granted, while no evidence of communal ethics in home economics was found in the home

economics literature, it would seem a natural next step, philosophically.

Communicative Rationality

Postmodernism excludes the possibility of a focus on communicative rationality

(Baldwin, 2002). Rationality means exercising reason before taking any concrete action.

Communicative rationality refers to using communication during the process of reasoning,

especially by clarifying the norms and procedures by which people can come to agreement on

something (Habermas, 1984). This process entails argumentation (providing and examining

reasons for and against particular claims), which ideally occurs in communities (Brown, 1993).

Excluding communicative rationality is one tenet of postmodernism that some home economic

practitioners have soundly rejected, the most vocal being Marjorie Brown (1993).

In her discussion of how American home economists philosophically understand

themselves, Brown (1993) drew heavily on Habermas’ (1984) concept of communicative

rationality. He believed that while knowledge of the external world is dependent upon a person’s

own concepts created/employed as she or he experiences the world, that same internal knowledge

7

must be submitted to validation by others, using appropriate standards of reason and evidence.

By extension, Brown believed “that home economists (by whatever name) are potentially capable

of using reason and evidence to validate beliefs, concepts, and values they hold about home

economics” (1993, p. 5).

Home economists Brown and Paolucci (1979) also drew heavily on Habermas’ (1984)

communicative rationality concept to create their idea of three systems of actions. The latter

approach helps home economists broach the normative, ethical and moral issue of “How should I

live? What is the good life?” The three actions (ways of thinking) in their system include:

technical (how to), interpretative (meaning and significance), and critical (power and agency). As

well, they used Habermas’ (1984) idea of moral-practical reason to conceptualize three additional

home economics concepts: practical reasoning, perennial problem solving, and values reasoning.

McGregor (2014a) provided a detailed account of their approach.

Relativism

Tied to the idea of communicative rationality is postmodernism’s penchant for relativism;

that is, one perspective of something is as good as anyone else’s (everything is relative). As well,

relativism holds that reality, knowledge, and values are constructed by discourse (i.e.,

conversations, discussions, communications); hence, they can vary with them as well. There is no

universal truth; that is, there is no one truth or point of view expressed in these discourses that

has greater purchase than any alternative perspective (Duignan, 2014). Instead, there are multiple

truths, with uncertain meanings of things, and these meanings are constantly changing. This loose

notion of truth is further compromised by postmodernism’s denial of the importance of guiding

principles; rather, the focus is on the local, the particular, the context, and the contingent

(everything is relative to the context; meanings only hold in the particular context) (MacCleave,

1995). “‘Anything goes’... since all views are placed beyond criticism” (Brown, 1993, p. 431).

Brown (1993, p. 437) argued that a “relativistic attitude in home economics can be

found.” As evidence, she cited the profession’s uncritical buy-in for such home economics' basics

as systems theory, the ecological model, consumerism, and the decision-making model. Falling

prey to relativism (i.e., being pushed and pulled by trends, fads and fashions in ideas and

theories) is evidence that home economists did not engage in critical reflection and did not sort

through or rationally examine the array of opinions and ideas often expressed by home

economists. Kline (1997, p. 251) characterized home economists as “agents of an inevitable

social force, modernity,” guilty of advocating technological advances without critically analyzing

alternatives. Brown (1993) especially faulted our unexamined use of family, well-being, and

quality of life, alleged anchors of the profession. “In the failure to agree rationally on such basic

[concepts], home economists’ claim to be concerned with the ‘quality’ of human life is empty of

meaning” (p. 436).

If we want to overcome this postmodernist trap, home economists must be willing to

comprehend, identify, and critically judge the merits or flaws in alternative views of any

phenomenon in question, be that concepts, principles, theories, or values. We can no longer

assume that one perspective is as good as another. In a harsh statement, Brown (1993) claimed

that “the blind or timid acceptance of one theory... as being as good as another earns the

accusation of [home economists] being both conceptually incompetent and politically naive and

8

indifferent to human welfare” (p. 438). Moving beyond taking things for granted means home

economists would no longer fall prey to relativism (one thing is just as good as another); instead,

we would critically examine all ideas for their merit in practice. Hultgren (1990), another home

economist, agreed, claiming that a critical stance can heighten awareness of ambiguities and

contradictions, and open the way for new insights (see also MacCleave, 1995).

Pluralism

Postmodernism endorses pluralism in the sense that reality is considered to be multiple

and dynamic rather than singular and static (Baldwin, 2002; MacCleave, 1995). Harken back to

the discussion of the changing nature of family, beyond the narrow definition tendered by

modernism. Pluralism is “a condition of society in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious or

cultural groups coexist within a nation. It also means that reality is made of many ultimate

substances. And, it is also the belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can

account for all the phenomenon of life" (Ali, 1998, p.2). By embracing pluralism, home

economists would attempt to resolve conflicting beliefs and values about the realities of everyday

life, and gain shared meanings, appreciating the diversity inherent in humanity (Brown, 1993).

Respecting the principle of pluralism (i.e., there are multiple realities, in constant flux),

McGregor (2006, 2011a,b) suggested that the profession should embrace transdisciplinarity as

espoused by Basarab Nicolescu (see 2002, 2011). Nicolescuian transdisciplinarity holds that

there are Multiple Levels of Reality (e.g., physical, social, political, economic, ecological,

spiritual, et cetera). Movement among these realities (i.e., people being able to talk with and

listen to each other) is lubricated or mediated by, what he calls, the Hidden Third. This mediator,

or hidden agent, manifests when diverse actors with divergent perspectives, yet keen interests in

addressing complex problems, come together. They use inclusive logic (the lubricant), which

assumes that things which are normally seen as antagonistic or contradictory can temporarily be

reconciled to create new insights and knowledge. This new knowledge reflects the pluralistic

integration of multiple world views.

Indeed, within the postmodern tenet of pluralism, eclectic thinking is encouraged,

thinking that draws on and synthesizes multiple cultural traditions, perspectives, theories and

accounts of phenomena; each is respected and needed to solve the complex problem (Rohmann,

1999; Wonacott, 2001). Smith and de Zwart (2010) asserted that the home economics profession

does acknowledge postmodern plurality, and rightly so, given the inequities in the world.

McGregor (2006, 2011a,b) tendered transdisciplinarity as a way to augment our existing respect

for plurality.

Complexity

Richards (1998), another home economist, posited that complexity thinking characterizes

postmodernism, and should be on our radar as we figure out how to move beyond modernism

and understand the import of postmodernism. Indeed, modernism is the antithesis of complexity;

that is, complicated and hard to understand because of interconnected systems of parts.

Modernism is couched in the scientific method, and privileges rigid control, clear beginnings and

predictable endings, and step-by-step or sequential problem solving. It depends on power, order,

stability, predictability, and linear causality. The penchant for organizing, categorizing and

specializing (reductionism) goes hand-in-hand with mastery, technological progress, and dualism

9

(binary cause and effect). Modernism is the genesis of materialism and consumerism, fuelled by

capitalism, neoliberalism, and corporate-led globalization (McGregor, 2006; Pendergast, 2001;

Richards, 1998, 2000).

Pendergast (2001, p. 70) referred to the world’s “increasing disenchantment with

modernity.” She linked this disenchantment to the increasing complexity of the world (e.g.,

alienation, decay, ecological consequences, global inequality, and war). Richards (2000) argued

that society’s problems have become so complex that modernist thinking should no longer serve

as the profession’s foundation. To that end, McGregor (2006, 2010, 2014b) appealed to the home

economics profession to consider the merit of drawing on complexity thinking and integral

thinking. Theses approaches respect chaos, webs of relationships, emergence, uncertainty and

tensions, patterns, embeddedness, and different kinds of order (especially implicate and explicate

order). They respect wholeness, embodiment, integration of a diversity of perspectives, and

inclusiveness.

Smith (1991) described postBrown home economics as being "built on a vision of

complexity, uncertainty, and value conflicts" (p. 14), rather than preBrown technocratic

rationality, control, and efficiency. Interestingly, while Nickols (2006) believed that home

economists’ ability to 'deal with complexity' is a strength that should be celebrated, McGregor

(2014a) suggested that home economics still remains integrated in its approach, but is in a

position to embrace integral thinking and complexity thinking. What she meant was that 'dealing

with complexity' and 'complexity thinking' are not the same thing; she urged us to deal with

complexity by using complexity thinking.

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper chose six tenets of postmodernism as a way to entice home economists to

continue to explore the power this intellectual movement has on our practice: social order,

communal ethics, communicative rationality, relativism, pluralism, and complexity. For indeed,

whether appreciated or not, the profession has been influenced by postmodernism. Pendergast

(2001) went so far as to call for a shift within home economics away from modernism toward

postmodernism. Her stance reflected her dissatisfaction with how modernist thinking has

sidelined, marginalized, and delegitimized the home economics profession. She argued that

postmodernism exhorts home economists to “look beyond the dominant assumptions of the

field” (p. 119), so we can uncover and reveal discontinuities in practice; that is, find interruptions

in our normal way of doing things.

The analysis shared in this paper has revealed that our normal way of doing things has

been influenced both by modernism and postmodernism. We value family as a social institution,

yet we embrace relativity, meaning we sometimes fail to critically evaluate the world within

which families live. We value plurality, but have yet to totally embrace complexity thinking

(which is not the same thing as dealing with complexity). Brown and Paolucci (1979) behooved

us to employ thethree systems of actions, values reasoning, and practical perennial problem

solving approaches, but these practices are not employed profession wide. McGregor (2006,

2011a,b) urged us to embrace transdisciplinarity; yet, we still proudly present ourselves as

interdisciplinary. We have yet to begin a discourse on communal ethics within the profession.

These are examples of discontinuities and contradictions in our practice, shaped by being mired

10

in modernism while climbing the steep learning curve of postmodernism (pinning water to the

wall).

MacCleave (1995) explained that rather than being something to avoid, home economists

should view ambiguities, discontinuities, and contradictions in practice as potential sources of

insight or knowledge, which can be used to philosophically grow the profession. Brown (1993)

concurred, offering this sentiment: “that which is rationally justifiable in home economics can be

preserved and that which is not can be rejected,” thereby better ensuring the “restructuring of

home economics” (p. 3). Grappling with the fundamental nuances of postmodernism is an

integral part of philosophically growing the profession. Respecting and augmenting the emergent

discourse in the home economics literature around the postmodern intellectual movement is a

necessary philosophical stance as we move forward into the 21st century.

References

Ali, S. H. (1998, April). Islam and pluralism. Seminar keynote delivered at the University of

Chicago. Retrieved from the International Strategy and Policy Institute website:

http://www.ispi-usa.org/islamnplu.htm

Aylesworth, G. (2013). Postmodernism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Baldwin, E. E. (2002). Modernity, postmodernity and family and consumer sciences. Kappa

Omicron Nu FORUM, 13(2),

http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/13-2/baldwin_print.html

Baugher, S., Anderson, C., Green, K., Shane, J., Jolly, L., Miles, J., & Nickols, S. Y. (2003). The

Body of Knowledge. Alexandria, VA: AAFCS. Retrieved from

http://www.aafcs.org/AboutUs/knowledge.asp

Benn, J. (2009). Practical wisdom, understanding of coherence and competencies for everyday

life. International Journal of Home Economics, 2(1), 2-14.

Brown, M. (1989). Ethics in organizations. Issues in Ethics, 2(1). Retrieved from

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1

Brown, M. M. (1985). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States: Our

practical-intellectual heritage, Volume 1. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Brown, M. M. (1993). Philosophical studies of home economics in the United States: Basic ideas

by which home economists understand themselves. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State

University.

Brown, M. M., & Baldwin, E. (1995). The concept of theory in home economics. East Lansing,

MI: Kappa Omicron Nu.

Brown, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1979). Home economics: A definition [mimeographed].

Alexandria, VA: American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

Cheeryholmes, C. H. (1994). Pragmatism, poststructuralism, and theorizing. Curriculum Inquiry,

24(2), 193-213.

Duignan, B. (2014). Postmodernism. In Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved from

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1077292/postmodernism

Grenz, S.(1995). A primer on postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

11

Gur-Zéev, H. (2010). Beyond peace education: Toward co-poiesis and enduring improvisation.

Policy Futures in Education, 8(3/4), 315-339.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (T. McCarthy, Trans). Boston, MA:

Beacon Press.

Holland, N. (2008). Deconstruction. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Martin, TN: University of Tennessee Martin. Retrieved from

http://www.iep.utm.edu/deconst

Hultgren, F. H. (1990). Phenomenology: The pursuit of meaning in everyday life. Kappa

Omicron Nu FORUM, 4(2), 14-17.

Hurd, R. W. (1998). Postmodernism. Retrieved from Gutenberg College, MacKenzie Study

Center website: http://msc.gutenberg.edu/2001/02/postmodernism/

Irvine, M. (2013). The postmodern, postmodernism, postmodernity: Approaches to Po-Mo.

Retrieved from Georgetown University website,

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/pomo.html

Janhonen-Abruquah, H. (2012). Everyday life of families in the global world. In Pendergast, D.,

McGregor, S. L. T., & Turkki, K. (Eds.), Creating Home Economics Futures: The Next

100 Years (pp. 132-142). Queensland, Australia: Australian Academic Press.

Klages, M. (2001). Postmodernism. Retrieved from University of Idaho website:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~sflores/KlagesPostmodernism.html

Kline, R. (1997). Agents of modernity: Home economists and rural electrification, 1925-1950. In

S. Stage & V. Vincenti (Eds.), Rethinking home economics (pp. 237-252). Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press.

Kors, A, C. (2003). Encyclopedia of the enlightenment. Oxford, England: Oxford University

Press.

Kumar, K. (1995). From post-industrial to post-modern society. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Loewy, E. (1993). Freedom and community. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Lyotard, J-F. (1979). The postmodern condition. Paris, France: Les Éditions de Minuit.

MacCleave, A. (1995). Voices from the opposite end of the theoretical spectrum: A response to

Brown & Baldwin’s paper, The concept of theory in home economics. In M. M. Brown &

E. Baldwin, The concept of theory in home economics (pp. 51-65). East Lansing, MI:

Kappa Omicron Nu.

McGregor, S. L. T. (2006). Transformative practice. East Lansing, MI: Kappa Omicron Nu.

McGregor, S. L. T. (2010). Integral leadership and practice: Beyond holistic integration in FCS.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 102(1), 49-57.

McGregor, S. L. T. (2011a). Knowledge generation in home economics using transdisciplinary

methodology. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 16(2),

http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/16-2/mcgregor2.html

McGregor, S. L. T. (2011b). Transdisciplinary methodology in home economics. International

Journal of Home Economics, 4(2), 104-122.

McGregor, S. L. T. (2014a). Marjorie Brown's philosophical legacy: Contemporary relevance.

Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 19(1)

http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/19-1/mcgregor3.html

12

McGregor, S. L. T. (2014b). The promise of integral-informed FCS practice. Journal of Family

& Consumer Sciences, 106(1), 8-14.

Nagel, T. (Ed.). (2009). John Rawls: A brief history into the meaning of sin and faith. Cambridge

MA: Harvard University Press.

Nanley, V. L. (2011). Keep it shushed. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity [K-C. Voss, Trans.]. New York, NY:

SUNY.

Nicolescu, B. (2011). Methodology of transdisciplinarity-Levels of reality, logic of the included

middle and complexity. In A. Ertas (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity: Bridging science, social

sciences, humanities and engineering (pp. 22-45). Austin, TX: TheAtlas Publishing.

Nickols, S. Y. (2006). Lessons for the future. In A-L, Rauma, S. Pöllänen & P.

Seitamaa-Hakkarainen (Eds.), Human perspectives on sustainable future (Research

Report No 99) (pp. 361-368). Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu, Faculty of

Education.

Oord, T. J. (2001). Postmodernism - What is it? Diadache: Faithful Teaching, 1(2). Retrieved

from http://didache.nazarene.org/index.php/volume-1-2/171-v1n2-opostmodernisms/file

Pendergast, D. (2001). Virginal mothers, groovy chicks & blokey blokes: Re-thinking home

economics (and) teaching bodies. Sydney, Australia: Australian Academic Press.

Richards, M. V. (1998). The evolution of the profession: From home economics to family and

consumer sciences (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina). Retrieved from

http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/ER/detail/hkul/2692988

Richards, M. V. (2000). The postmodern perspective on home economics history. Journal of

Family & Consumer Sciences, 92(1), 81-84.

Rohmann, V. (1999). A world of ideas: A dictionary of important theories, concepts, beliefs, and

thinkers. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. New York, NY: Penguin.

Smith, G. (1991). Home economics as a practical art. THESA Newsletter, 32(1), 13-15.

Smith, G., & de Zwart, M. (2010). Home economics: A contextual study of the subject and home

economics teacher education. Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Teacher Federation,

Teachers of Home Economics Specialist Association. Retrieved from

http://bctf.ca/thesa/pdf/inquiry_contextual.pdf

Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of family. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Vermeulen, T., & van den Akker, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics and

Culture, 2, 1-14.

Wikipedia Encyclopedia. (2014). Modernism. San Francisco, CA: Wikipedia Foundation.

Retrieved November 1, 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

Wonacott, M. E. (2001). Postmodernism: Yes, no or maybe? Myths and Realities,15. Retrieved

from http://www.calpro-online.org/eric/docs/mr00030.pdf

Zeitlin, M., Megawangi, R., Kramer, E., Colletta, N., Babatunde, E., & Garman, D. (1995).

Strengthening the family. New York, NY: United Nations University Press.

13

ENDNOTE

1. The author is only recently aware of post-postmodernism (aka metamodernism), a topic not

included in this paper. Vermeulen and van den Akker (2010) explained that metamodernism is

based on Plato’s metaxy, which denotes movement between opposite poles, in this case

modernism and postmodernism. They argued that such an approach is needed to respond to such

wicked problems as climate change, the global financial crisis, the digital revolution, global

political instability, and global health pandemics.