A Change in Our Way of Thinking.
This article has three parts: a context for correc tional educational (CE) paradigm shift, a declaration of principles to articulate salient issues, and associ ated curricular impacts. Part One is about the stepped up pace of change in the CE field, one aspect of a worldwide shift from a mechanistic and competitive orientation to a wholistic and cooperative one. This development is consistent with advice from some of the world's great modern thinkers, and with our aspira tions for student learning. Our species is learning to change its way of thinking. The general trajectory of this change in CE paral lels humanities and social science course content. Any learning content can be used as a vehicle for a change when the learners are ready. Relevant CE changes also include professional and organizational improve ments. The humanities are closely linked to reflection about the human condition, and introspection for clarity and personal development. Humanities content is the subject of attention by correctional educators, and the contextfor the second part of the article: a CE/ humanities declaration of principles. Part Threefocuses on curricula consistent with the worldwide shift and identified learning needs. The scope of our change aspirations suggests that "we are all in this together." CE students and faculty are both changing their way of thinking. Part One: Three Arenas for Change After the first atomic bombs were dropped, Albert Einstein warned that it was time to change our way of thinking (Sagan, 1988, p. 6). If current thinking patterns were extended into the future, he said, life on the planet would end. Fritjof Capra studied the ways in which our thinking, as a species, is changing. He traced the development of a "mechanistic" world view during the last few centuries, with emphasis on scientific thinking and competition (milita rism, coercion, bureaucratic manipulation, exploitation). By contrast, he cited the emergence of a new "wholistic" world view, characterized by an emphasis on humanistic concerns and cooperation (peace, environment, health, social relationships). (Capra, 1983). Teilhard proposed a new model of our planet, in layers. He labeled the original rocky Earth the "geosphere," the layer of life the "biosphere," and the thinking skin of the planet—mankind—the "noosphere" (noos is Greek for wis dom). Teilhard cited vast, quickening changes in the noo sphere: "A new substance.. .of supreme importance.. .call it Homo progressivus...the man to who the...future matters more than the present...[They] are easily recognizable...—all those possessed by the demon (or the angel) of Research...some...attraction...causes them to unite...[If you] take two [of these] men, in any gathering, [they] will gravitate instinctively towards one another in the crowd...[and] recognize one another...this meeting...is not confined to individuals...[of] the same origins...[There is no] racial, social or religious barrier.. .against this force of attraction... [A] radical process of differentiation...is taking place within the human mass... the spontaneous... separation of that which moves and rises from that which remains immobile...over the whole extent of the globe...[This] grand phenomenon...represents a new and...final division of Mankind, based...on belief in progress...What finally divides the men of today into two camps is...an attitude of mind..." (Teilhard, 1964, pp. 142-144). This planetary shift is operationalized in each of what Teilhard called "compartments." In each nation, academic discipline, vocation, and social grouping, the planetary shift from the mechanistic and competitive world view to the wholistic and cooperative world view is being experienced. Our species is changing its attitude of mind, changing its way of thinking. In CE, the direction of this planetary shift is easily identified. CE past practice has focused on utilitarian, marketable knowledge for incarcerated students. The tradi tional "knowledge, skills, and attitudes" formula—in that priority order—has dominated, although it is clear that incarcerated students would be better served by a reverse order (attitudes, skills, and knowledge). The behaviorialism which dominates CE (tne diagnostic/prescriptive method) and corrections (the medical model) correspond with the old mechanistic world view. CE research is dominated by mechanistically oriented "number crunching methodolo gies," and a bias that supports past practice. The institu tions in which we work are managed by coercion and ma ipulation, and the role of education is tenuous, at best. Correctional educators are caught between institutional missions that do not prioritize education, notions of loyalty that support the status quo, and isolation (from the CE history/literature, and from colleagues at other locations). We frequently feel vulnerable and overwhelmed. This is natural for educators in anti-education institutions, with minimal support. Our current task is to improve opportuni ties for student learning, by improving CE. Many are working to reshape CE, consistent with the wholistic, cooperative global paradigm ("global perspec tives, local applications"). The CE trend that parallels the