It is not so easy to escape the effects of the binary view. Even approaches that depart sharply from elements of the view can, paradoxically, rely on some of its most problematic underlying assumptions and implications. Some believe that the binary view has been sunk by decades of criticism. This is, in general, untrue. But even in intellectual circles where the binary view seems to have vanished, the flotsam that has survived its wreckage proves durable. We will examine a few of these survivals here.

Before examining examples of flotsam within policy theory itself, I wish to take up an example of a broader cultural influence that has a powerful impact on education policy in particular. The example will help tease out an important distinction between a consistent rejection of the binary view and a widespread outlook that superficially resembles such rejection.

Many histories

There are various directions in which one may head after accepting that thought is inevitably value-aden. One might opt for ‘confessional statements of value preferences’, as Mary Hawkesworth termed them (1992, 325). As Hodgson and Irving argue, the ideal of value-neutrality ‘seems ever more untenable given the now widespread acceptance that all inquiry is value-aden. Here the job for researchers is to be able to recognise the values we bring to bear, and use these to work for explicit ends’ (2007, 201). But even if one succeeds in identifying one's operative values, the crucial question is what comes next. Philosopher Eric Voegelin observed in the 1950s that

This notion would seem quite close to the approach advocated in this book. But let us note where it can lead. Much controversy was sparked in Japan when the government approved a revisionist history text.