On the left wing, Marx and Engels' reading of history (and reinterpretation of Hegel) became indispensably important in providing the ideological basis for many of the revolutions of the 20th Century, while on the right-wing the neo-conservative author Francis Fukuyama has more recently argued that "the end of history" has arrived with "liberal democracy" being the unchallenged societal and government form. Setting aside the strengths and weaknesses of Marxism and Fukuyama's neo-conservative position, one can at least observe how incredibly dominant each is as a historical narrative.
Would you consciously teach from a specific historical narrative such as a particular nationalism, the story of progress or capitalist expansion, class conflict & power analysis, Calvinistic determinism, Social Darwinism or scientific determinism? If so, what narrative stance would you take and why? What would be the strengths and/or weaknesses of your approach? Be sure to comment on another post.
10 comments:
I'm not really sure what my answer is. I guess I wouldn't want to always teach from the same point of view, while it would be consistent it would also be very narrow. I think I would rather choose one dominent view point at the start of a unit and then pick one or two secondary view points that I would use to show how others might view the same set of events.
I think that it is quite probable that I will teach from a specific historical narrative. Before someone jumps up and grabs the pitchforks and torches hear me out. I would consciously teach from a specific narrative, but I would also consciously teach from other historical narratives. I don't want to just present my students with one view, one "set in stone" way of looking at things. They need to be able to decide things for themselves, not just be spoon-fed. In saying that, I realize that it's going to be extremely hard to represent every view that their is in my classroom due to the curriculum and state requirements. I think that Kim has it pegged down pretty well though: present a dominant view during the different units and include secondary stances in breakdown of the lessons throughout that unit.
The first thing I thought of concerning Professor Rust's Commie-Pinko remarks...JUST KIDDING!....I just thought it would make the Blog more interesting to say something inflammatory!! But seriously, the question made me think about what Singer said about "If teahcers want to leave it up to students to define Malcom X's role, which contemporary and secondary sources to they bring to class for students to examine?" That seems to cut to the heart of the matter. There is both the initial decision at which we try to present a neutral perspective "Decide for yourself about Malcom X" or some other potentially controversial aspect of history. But then there are also secondary, tertiary...(what comes after that?) considerations that we make - what do our sources say? How do we guide the classroom discussion? How do we grade essays with which we emphatically disagree?
(Hmmm, now that I'm blathering on, I kind of forget how the initial question was actually worded and I'm afraid if I back up I'll lose what I wrote!) Oh wait, I guess it led up to the question of which stance we would use, was that it?
I do think that it can be a helpful device to try as best as possible to give students materials that present two sides of an issue - perhaps inviting them to either role play a debate or even write out a dialogue between two substantially different idealogues. One could do something historical - imagine an argument between Hamilton and Jefferson over federalism - have the students research their two perspectives and find sources. Then you could possibly imagine Hamilton and Jefferson debating a present day issue. Or you could pick modern day characters instead. A debate between Hillary Clinton and Rush Limbaugh?
I think I might do my best (although I remain unconvinced that this could really work) to obscure my own opinion, possibly reserving it to the end "If you will thoroughly research both or all arguments on this issue and decide which one you agree with, at the end of the unit, I'll tell you my own opinion - something like that might make it fun for the students. Then play devil's advocate for both sides. I think I would try to use and encourage to adopt the analytic stance to help them to make well-formed opinions.
I don't mind tipping my cards to the group, you probably already know, that I am fairly liberal in my political/philosophical leanings, but the perspective I find most irritating is NOT extreme conservatism - it is EITHER side that is unwilling to recognize the complexity of the issue and to consider the validity of the opposite viewpoint of the one you yourself hold.
I saw a sarcastic bumper sticker once that I loved, it might possibly have been on Jesse's sister's car that said "I support Patrio-centric Groupthink"
I really want to reject all forms of groupthink, for myself and for my students.
OK, Seacrest Out, I'm taking up too much space on the blog, plus I haven't even read Barton and Levstik yet for tomorrow and it is 11:30 - too late for an old guy like me!
I think it is close to impossible to completely present an unbaised point of view of history. I just recently read an article in another class by R.M. Hartwell on the Industrial Revolution for another class. In it Hartwell states, "Most historical controversies are rooted in contemporary problems and debates...when feelings and beliefs are affected, then differences between historians tend to be lively and often, not resolvable." I think Hartwell is making an accurate point - how we view our contemporary world often influences how we see our past world. Of course, I don't believe this is an excuse to preach our personal beliefs to students, it just reminds us that no matter how hard we may try, few of us will be able to hide our opinions and view of history.
I think teachers should do their best to present multiple views. I agree with Kim's idea of using one main view and then supplementing it. I still like the idea we keep mentioning of presenting two (or more) points of view on the same topic. High school is a great time to encourage students to process information, and form conclusions of their own.
I know that i would be teaching from a narrative that is always changing and i would present the information from various perspectives. While i understand that my bias will make me teach to a specific narrative that i am comfortable with, but i will also present viewpoints to which i dont agree. The reason that this is important is obvious as students need to find out for themselves what they believe and what viewpoint they agree with. In saying that i believe that Melissa has it right when she says not to have a set way of teaching in stone but are able to adapt and feel comfortable presenting other ways of thinking.
Over the course of the last few years that I have done this I suppose that I have become more dogmatic in my approach to history. By no means rigid and deterministic but certainly more glued to a particular interpretation. Perhaps the most likely cause of this is the fact that much of my reading has been from a particular perspective. Having spent a lot of time studying the American left of the early 1900's I suppose it has left a mark on my interpretation of history and society; in particular the autobiographies of Emma Goldman and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. Something about their particular visions of a more just society in the face of seemingly insurmountable inequalities and savage oppression. Even though the 2000s aren't the 1910s & 20s, the critique seems relevant given the current state of affairs with the economy as well as foreign policy. Its hard for me not to mirror some of their critiques in my classroom, especially when it resonates with many of my students. Still, the general sentiment of the blog - that a varied approach is the best approach is always good advice.
I came to comment with my own ideas, only to find that Kaity had written them down already!
No matter how hard we try, our interpretations of history and how we teach history will always be influenced by our contemporary context. One can do well at removing himself or herself from the context, but i don't believe it can be done completely. What makes history particularly contextualized to where we are today is the need of students to see personal connections. Just like Tim mentioned, we look to connect the past with the future, Jefferson and Hamilton with maybe Limbaugh and Clinton. These connections do help students grasp an understanding of history and make it stick in their memory, but it sticks because of its tagging to their contemporary context.
I am not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, just that we need to realize that we are in fact presenting a biased message and should be aware of what it is we are presenting. I really liked the idea that Kim and Melissa suggested of one primary narrative perspective supplemented by secondary narrative approaches that allow students (and teacher) to gain a deeper, more rounded understanding of history
I agree with Kim and Melissa here that a varied approach using one dominant point of view at first seems like the way to go. Although my views tend to be very conservative, I am actually really enjoying the Zinn book that seems to present a more liberal view of history that I actually have never really been introduced to. (I guess my high school history classes were a bit more biased than i thought!) Since this book has sparked my interest recently, I'm looking forward to using different sources (like Zinn) that present a completely non-traditional approach which shows another side of history. I'm especially interested in the "behind the scenes" work that the government does and looking at history from more than just the side that the government wants us to look at. This idea just intrigues me. However, I do still want to present both sides of the matter and allow students to decide for themselves. If they ask, I plan to tastefully explain why I hold the beliefs about history that I do, but by presenting both sides-- it will be up to them to choose for themselves what they can relate with best.
I would tend to try and teach from one or two perspectives with several other sources interwoven depending on the topic. I initially thought that I would use many different perspectives for each class, but saw through practicum that that tends to confuse the students who require specific answers for the regents. I believe that class conflict and power analysis is the dominant perspective that I will use with capitalist expansion as a secondary perspective. I will also offer students other perspectives they may read on their own if they are more interested. A strength would be providing continuity for the students, while a weakness is that you might miss some of the nuisances of a particular topic without examinating it from every angle.
Re ashley: I agree with using multiple versions of history, I would just wonder how far you could take non-government versions before it simply becomes a conspiracy theory. I also want to challange my students to look at more conservative viewpoints as I will more than likely be teaching in a very liberal area.
Post a Comment