In recent years, a number of scholars (Granatstein, 1998; Osborne,
1996; Davis, 1995) have claimed that the 1990s were characterized
by the "disappearance" of history/social studies or more
generically citizenship education in Canadian schools. Some (Griffiths,
2000; Granatstein, 1998) have proposed to "resurrect" history
by focusing on the inculcation of a common national history (i.e.,
heritage) to favor Canadian nationalism, identity, and citizenship.
Influenced by a constructivist view of learning, others have instead
suggested to make school history/social studies more in tune with
the academic world. Peter Lee, for example, claimed in the winter,
1998 issue of this journal that we need to "free" history
education from its political and civic purposes by focusing on the
critical, disciplinary history that students usually encounter at
the university level.
"History education," he argues, "cannot guarantee
democrats, patriots, or even anti-racists, because the past is complex
and does not sanctify any particular social or personal position above
another" (p. 53). For him, the goal of "historical consciousness"
is to help teachers and students enhance their historical thinking
skills, that is, to think critically about the past or to be familiar
with the nature of history as an academic discipline, its methods
and findings. Such an approach to school history/social studies, proponents
of historical consciousness argue, is necessary in order for students
both to move away from passive rote learning and develop their own
social, political, and historical orientations (Seixas, 1997). In
other words, it is necessary to persuade students that they are not
only "free to read their history but to make it as well,"
to use Fernand Dumont's famous phrase.
I believe this latter approach has merits in Canadian citizenship
education. Peter Seixas has found that teachers not adequately trained
in their disciplines tend to teach history/social studies as "fixed
knowledge" not open to conflicting interpretations and analysis.
The result is that students are likely to receive it passively, often
through traditional lectures, and subsequently develop negative attitudes
toward history or social studies in general. More importantly, students
taught this way could withdraw from civil society convinced they do
not possess the necessary competencies to participate actively in
public matters.
Christian Laville and Robert Martineau (1998) have argued that historical
consciousness does contribute to no less than nine different civic
competencies for democracy which are not necessarily developed in
other disciplines. Among these is a sense of perspective. The analysis
of past accounts that helps students understand that democracy in
Canada is not a given but the result of a long, complex, and often
tumultuous history. Democracy can be taken for granted neither as
an ideal nor as a practical concept. Second, historical consciousness
favors empathy, that is, the capacity to comprehend the world from
a perspective not our own. Empathy encourages students to avoid the
errors of "presentism" and also to respect a wide range
of point of views as found in our multi- ethnic and multinational
society. In other words, by teaching students to distance themselves
from beliefs they take for granted, historical consciousness favors
open- mindedness and tolerance of others. Finally, the development
of individual autonomy and identity helps students to reflect on,
and potentially, revise their own conceptions of the good life, clarify
their multiple and complex sense of belonging, and specify the socio-
political space to which they belong. It also involves citizens' capacity
to be critical of the political authorities who govern in their names
and establish "official" accounts of the past.
If I am are correct, this approach will help students develop their
own historical consciousness. School history/social studies can potentially
contribute to the development of various civic competencies necessary
for a liberal democracy to flourish. Yet, this new disciplinary approach
to school history/social studies has not gone uncontested. Very few
Canadian teachers would actually embrace it. Part of the problem,
in my opinion, may come from the fact that proponents of historical
consciousness do not fully recognize (or take into consideration)
the civic justification of school disciplines in our public schools.
For André Chervel (1988), a school discipline is defined as
a cohesive set of goals, content, methods, and practices. It takes
into consideration four components: a shared/approved body of knowledge
(or a vulgate), prescribed exercises, motivational procedures, and
assessment devices. What this implies is that the gap between academic
and school disciplines cannot be reduced to the adaptation of the
former to a young, immature public that cannot fully understand all
the implications of academic disciplines
(as understood in history, geography, etc.). School disciplines emerge
from what parents, teachers, governments, and ultimately the society
want the schools to teach. They change over times depending of the
roles and influences of these actors, and the importance of certain
value systems and political ideologies. As Chervel (1988) rightfully
notes, school disciplines are periodically reformed to adapt new rationales
or new publics.
The disciplines we find in school hardly operate in the ways academic
disciples do. The programs selected and implemented by Ministries
of Education, the standard exercises practiced by students in class,
the motivation -- or lack of motivation -- of students to learn a
particular subject, and finally, the constant use of approved examinations
(such as Ministry examinations) all contribute to shape school disciplines
in particular ways. I think the best example of this understanding
of school discipline is the inherent implication of history in the
shaping of a collective memory. As part of its civic and political
goals to create citizens and favor social cohesion, school history
has always been involved in a nation-building process. In his analysis
of school history in Québec, Desmond Morton (2000), argues
that teachers, parents, governments, or the public in general do not
necessarily regard the influence of academic disciplines on school
as "good news" because this would imply a move away from
its civic and political purpose; something they legitimately reject.
Francois Audigier (1999) claims that instead of asking "what
schools ought to teach" we should ask ourselves "why schools
teach what they teach." This, he argues, would help us understand
that "the institution of the school, in order to fulfill the
missions assigned to it, shapes, that is, creates, the competencies
it teaches" (Audigier, 1999, p. 98). If we accept that public
education in democracy is a matter a public discussion, debate, and
governance, then, we have to recognize that public education is also
an education into what it means to belong to "a public."
As Benjamin Barber (1992) puts it, "schooling [is] our sole public
resource: the only place where, as a collective, self-conscious public
pursuing common goods, we try to shape our children to live in a democratic
world" (pp. 14-15). What this means is that school history and
social studies have not only intellectual and critical goals but also
civic and political ones. So far, proponents of historical consciousness
have not addressed these tensions adequately suggesting that the problem
resides with teachers who do not define themselves as true "historians."
I believe that we urgently need a better articulated vision between
those (divergent) educational goals if we want history and social
studies education to adequately prepare democratic citizens. Otherwise,
historical consciousness is likely to remain a discussion among scholars.
References
Audigier, F. "School disciplines, social representations, and
the construction of the didactics of history, geography, and civics."
Instructional Science, 27 (1999). 97-117.
Barber, B.R. An Aristocracy of Everyone: The Politics of Education
and the Future of America. New York: Ballantine Books, 1992.
Chervel, A. "L'histoire des disciplines scolaires: réflexions
sur un domaine de recherche." Histoire de l'éducation.
38 (1998, May). 59-119.
Davis, B. Whatever Happened to High School History? Toronto:
James Lorimer, 1995.
Granatstein, J. L. Who killed Canadian History? Toronto: HarperCollins
Publishers, 1998.
Griffiths, R. "Mistakes of the past." The Globe and
Mail.September 18, 2000.
Lee, P. "Making Sense of Historical Accounts." Canadian
Social Studies. 32, no. 2 (Winter, 1998). 52-54.
Martineau, R. and Laville, C. "Histoire: vole royale vets la
citoyenneté?" Vie pedagogique. 109 (1998, November-December).
35-38.
Morton, D. "Teaching and Learning History in Canada." In
Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History. P.N. Stearns, P. Seixas,
and S. Wineburg, Eds. New York: New York University Press, 2000. 51-62
Osborne, K. "Education is the Best National Insurance: Citizenship
Education in Canadian Schools, Past and Present." Canadian
and International Education. 25, no. 2 (1996). 31-58.
Seixas, P. "The Place of History within Social Studies."
In Trends and Issues in Canadian Social Studies. I. Wright
and A. Sears, Eds. Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press, 1997. 116-129.
Seixas, P. "Forces for Change in the Teaching and Learning of
History: Introduction to a Special Issue of Canadian Studies."
Canadian Social Studies. 32, no. 2 (Winter, 1998). 44, 68.