A Second Reply to Lakomski

Abstract

This note serves to clarify my position on fundamental issues, both of which Lakomski has failed to notice. First, question I ask not what proof Lakomski has to declare demise of hidden curriculum. All proof, Martin Heidegger (1971, p. 222) points out, is always only a subsequent undertaking on basis of presuppositions. Anything at all can be proved, depending only on what presuppositions are made. What I seek rather an understanding of Lakomski's presuppositions that support scientific approach to comprehend hidden curriculum. comment Lakomski makes goes something like this: The scientific method valid because it scientific-it uses evidence and argument. I have no intention of advocating witchcraft as an alternative way to understanding hidden curriculum. It nonetheless an alternative. Further, magic and science, Claude Levi-Strauss (1966, p. 13) claims, are two parallel ways of acquiring knowledge and are two distinct modes of scientific thought. My question to Lakomski hence, I submit, remains unanswered. Second, problem of hidden curriculum does not lie with hidden curriculum itself but with discourse on it. performance of rain dance in primitive society, as anthropologists are aware of, does not rest on significance of rain but on ritual of dance instead. category of rain empty, dance luscious, even though dance can never be performed without reference to rain. relationship between the myths about origin of honey proper and the myths about origin of honey festival, Claude Levi-Strauss (1973, p. 47) observes, metaphorical in nature-the actual honey acquiring a significance it lacks as a natural product, when it gathered and consumed for social and