How should a national history
course, particularly one for secondary students, present the history
of the nation? Is the common way our history is taught today a
version or a narrative that uncritically views that history by
glorifying its people's accomplishments while ignoring or
rationalizing instances of injustice or other shortcomings? There is
an approach to history, the celebratory approach, that takes on this
positive posture. But, of course, the critique is that it presents
an unrealistic view of a national history or worse, it serves as a
form of indoctrination. A history that looks just at what is good
about our past deprives students of a means to learn from policies
and practices that led to unfortunate results and usually costly
consequences. That's not what we say we want history to be or, for
that matter, what the purpose of teaching social studies is and
having it as part of our required curriculum. As it pertains to
American history, such an approach will skimp in describing and
explaining such developments as slavery and dispossession of native
American lands. These less savory events are “covered” but in a
perfunctory manner without delving into the moral and vacuous
implications that such events, practices, and institutions caused in
the maturation of our nation.
There is what I deem to be an
overcompensation for celebratory tendencies in our curricular
choices, an approach to history known as the reconstructionist
history. It is supported by the critical theory mental construct. I
have become aware of a particular suggested strategy whose aim is to
address the above distorted view. This awareness is the result of
information contained in a book review1
which reviews a new book by Meira Levinson. My understanding is that
this author introduces an approach that presents to students
“counter narratives” of history in which particular versions of
our past are presented. These narratives are designed for different
ethnic and racial groups. Since I have not had the opportunity to
read the book, my comments here are a reaction not to the book, but
of an idea of how to present history to disadvantaged groups in our
student population. That is, a different story is designed for each
group with the purpose of offering students materials prepared to
address specific areas of exploitation or injustice that have been
visited upon the particular group in question. According to a review
of the book, Levinson is making the proposal in order to encourage a
particular racial or ethnic group consciousness and to promote civic
engagement within that group. After all, public schools are meant to
create an informed and active citizenry. But is this a good way to
do it?
I would judge, based on limited
knowledge, that Levinson is what is considered a critical theorist
educator. I have described critical theory in past postings. In
short, this construct views deep seated exploitative relations based
on class, race, gender, and age. Many of the scholars who ascribe to
this view engage in research that unearths evidence proving the
existence of these exploitative relations and how they are
manifested. My categorizing Levinson this way is a product of
reviewing her argument – as presented in the book review – and
looking over her curriculum vitae. In the case of the argument –
as I deem it to be – by presenting these histories, as I just
described, members of racial and ethnic groups can critically study
the evidence of exploitative polices and practices and appreciate
their victimization.
I find this suggested strategy as
not only novel, but also dangerous. If this summarizes the argument
correctly, I don't question the motivation; I'm sure that only the
best interests of these students are what is on Levinson's mind. But
the notion of setting out our mutual history by drawing up tailor
made narratives that are meant to highlight those incidents of
injustice in lieu of an overall narrative that visits these same
developments is unnecessarily divisive and counter to promoting an
appreciation of our compacted unity. Yes; cover these instances of
injustice in our history courses but among the cases of rectifying
injustice and the accompanying courage and sacrifice that many
Americans endured. Cover them in the context of our overall history
and highlight those cases of righting the wrongs as well and
understand that they originate from all the varied groups that make
up our nation.
Let me offer another approach.
The injustices that occurred in the US – and in some cases continue
to occur – are not unique to our nation. I am in no way
diminishing the hideousness of their occurrences here or in any other
place. For example, I have heard the argument that our form of
slavery was one of the more, if not the most, egregious example in
all of history. Our slavery continuously degraded its victims; it
regularly split families; it administered brutal physical punishment,
sometimes gratuitously so, and set the stage for generations of
African-Americans dealing with the legacy of its deleterious effects.
It was cruel, unusual, at times fatal, and long lasting. Any
responsible rendering of our past must convey these facts. But it
also must convey the heroism of those who sacrificed a great deal,
even their lives, to bring this institution and other injustices to
an end. Some of these heroes were African-American; some were not.
But all of this needs to be put within the context that any of these
distasteful activities are examples of human behavior motivated by
human aims and goals and that all of this is the product of culture,
past experiences, and physiological “wiring” of those involved.
Our sense of justice and the actions of some to promote it is not the
product of natural tendencies.
Actually, a lot of it is
counter-intuitive. It is more a product of well thought out thinking
and reflection to combat tribal biases – that I feel are inherent
in our physiological make-up – and bolstered by traditional
customs. Our national compact – the US Constitution – is
the product of reflection over what had been learned from the
experiences of past societies. It laid the theoretical foundation
that we have had through our history. It is a plan of governance
based on our cherished beliefs wrenched from the lessons of immoral
practices. Our history is one of striving to fulfill that
agreement's promise. This is mutual; it is holistic of all of our
experience. It is not the product of “counter narratives.” Let
us be true to this foundation and not succumb to the temptations of
going down the path of separate languages and stories that might
offer short term and limited advantages in summoning divisive
motivations. Hopefully, I am overstating Levinson's argument, but
given my experience with critical theory and its adherents, I fear
that I am not.
1Marri,
A. R. (2013-14). No child left behind by Meira Levinson.
Political Science Quarterly,
Book Review section, 128 (4), pp. 776-777.
No comments:
Post a Comment