Do we teach our children 'bad history' in classrooms?
Do we teach our children 'bad history' in classrooms?
By Mochtar Buchori
JAKARTA (JP): "Good history is necessary, because bad history
brings disaster on those who peddle it and seek to impose their
distorted vision on whole societies." This is a statement made by
historians Lord Hugh Thomas and J. M. Roberts, as reported by Sir
Raymond Carr from Oxford University in The Economist (Nov. 16,
1996).
Influenced by the way this statement was formulated in this
report, I thought at first that good history is needed primarily
to prevent societies from becoming victims of peddlers of bad
history. Good history is thus perceived merely as a reaction to
bad history.
I feel very uncomfortable with this thought. Is it really so?
I don't know. We first need to decipher what is meant by "good
history" and "bad history" before we can make valid inference
concerning the meaning and connotations of this statement.
Good history, according to some historians, is analysis of
past conditions of society based on evidence, coherent argument
(logic), and common sense. Expressed differently, good history is
truthful re-creation of the past in which past human events are
comprehended "from the inside". In good history, past events are
conceived as "outcomes of personal existential decisions at
particular times". It should be obvious from this explanation
that in good history the acquisition of specific factual
knowledge is of paramount importance.
And what is bad history? Analysis by historians suggest three
kinds of bad history, that is "new historicism", myth-history,
and revisionist history.
The worst among the three is new historicism, which is history
without facts. This is "history" which is concentrated on
cultural motivations, and consists of judgments on past societies
which are not substantiated by sufficient detailed
characteristics acquired through traditional research. Believers
of history-without-facts think that, in general, the acquisition
of specific knowledge has become declasse.
These people believe the aim of education is to teach students
how to think, and therefore education should give more attention
to method and not content. To them the important thing is not the
acquisition of facts or evidence, but the ability to make
generalizations.
According to Mary Lefkowitz, professor of classics at
Wellesley College in Massachusetts, the inevitable result of this
kind of history is "a portrait of the past painted with broad
strokes and bright colors of our own choosing". History thus
becomes a projection of society's cultural values of the time in
which the writers of history live. History written in this way
does not give a true picture of past human processes that brought
us to our present situation. Through this kind of history there
can be no valid understanding of our strengths and weaknesses, or
of our true potentials. This kind of history misleads.
Myth-history, or "mythistory", is full of "myth-making, feeble
methodology and ungrounded psychologizing" is in part an effort
to influence the assessment of past conditions in society.
Revisionist history is the attempt to rewrite history for
purposes of glorifying an ideology, a generation, ethnicity, or
nationality. Revisionist history is thus "falsified" history,
which quite often leads to tendentious and bizarre accounts.
Underlying all practices of bad history is, according to many
social scientists, disrespect for facts and reason. In some
circles followers of bad history insist that the demand for hard
evidence and sound reasoning are just manifestations of
"cognitive imperialism". They insist that facts are meaningless,
because they can be reinterpreted and manipulated.
Christina Hoff Sommers, professor of philosophy at Clark
University in Massachusetts, looks upon bad history as
"pathological science" which occurs whenever researchers report
the existence of illusory effect. Thus bad history, as a part of
a pathological social science, constitutes an integral part of
the assault on truth, objectivity, and plain good sense. These
kind of practices have "corrosive effects of unreason in our
society and on several disciplines that study society".
Two lessons are firmly implanted in my mind after reading all
these explanations. One is that the danger of bad history and
pathological social sciences is real, and that in the long run
they are really harmful to society. The second is that bad
history and other forms of pathological social sciences are the
products of premeditated attempts to distort reality, or --
perceived from their point of view -- to adjust the perception of
reality to one's preferred ideological model. Bad history is thus
the product of conscious manipulation of facts and scientific
paradigms.
Do we have problems of bad history and pathological social
science in our society?
I don't have a clear answer to this question. What I have
noticed and experienced thus far is that finding teachers who
know and can teach good history is very hard. History has never
been considered an important subject in our schools, and history
as a subject has lately been considered an adjunct of "political
education", which in some cases degenerates into "political
indoctrination". Is this reason enough to say there are seeds of
bad history and pathological social science in our society?
Again, I don't know. But it would be wise, I think, to keep this
question in mind.
The second phenomenon that worries me is that I think I see
signs of "collusive collaborations" between intellectuals and
politicians. Unchecked, this can lead to the superimposition of
distorted views on our society in the future. Am I right? Do I
see things correctly? I would be happy to be wrong. But in case I
am right, it would be wise to take corrective steps from now on.
Two such steps are recommended by two professors. Mary
Lefkowitz reminded us that "the ultimate duty of the scholar is
to promote the untiring use of evidence, coherent argument, and
common sense in dealing with history". She warned against the
danger of "ambient epistemic relativism."
Ann Mary Roth from Howard University in Washington D.C.
advised professors, lecturers, and teachers to bring students to
a "sense of intellectual responsibility, to enable them to
internalize the canons of sound historical argument". According
to her, "the capacity to form reasoned judgments is a powerful
antidote to even the most seductive chauvinism."
Do these two recommendations sound realistic?
The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.