“A second way of
reducing the constraints imposed by the nation’s master narrative is to involve
students in continual consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of
historical changes and events. Among the
most basic questions students should learn to ask about any topic in history
are, “Who benefited from this, and how?
Who suffered from it, and how? “ ….. Any historical event significant
enough to study in the first place invariably impacted diverse people – and diverse
groups of people – in different ways, and conclusions about the overall
desirability of any such event must take into account this range of
experiences.”
“If [students] are to
make reasoned judgments about the common good, they will have to consider a
wider range of evidence and interpretation than narrow stories of progress can
provide. Passionate conviction that the
nation will solve its problems cannot be accompanied by a mindless belief that
everything that happens is for the best; a better future depends on more
complex and nuanced understandings.”
Barton and Levstik’s Teaching
History for the Common Good (2004), p. 181-182
Barton and Levstik’s critique of the “national narrative of
freedom and progress” centers on how it limits students’ ability to understand
historical events, their causes, and their consequences. This national narrative superimposes one
dominant story onto past events, emphasizing the expansion of freedoms and the gradual
improvement of society. In doing so,
however, this dominant narrative leaves little room for alternate perspectives,
for the “losers” in the march of progress, and (my favorite), the unintended
negative consequences of complex events.
The authors suggest two approaches to mitigate the limitations
of narrative as a historical tool. The first
approach they suggest is to raise the curtain on the narrative itself; that is, to shine a light on the story being
told, who gets to tell it, and how those factors change over time. This first approach dovetails nicely with the
historical investigation methods in Bruce Lesh’s Why
won’t you just tell us the answers? Teaching historical thinking in grades 7-12.
(2011) Lesh involves his students in a
variety of historical investigations to raise the curtain on narrative, exploring
how cause-and-effect and chronology are used to construct narrative, how
multiple perspectives are condensed into the winning interpretation, and how
those interpretations can evolve over time.
As valuable as this approach is, however, I’m not convinced that it is
sufficient to mitigate the limiting power of the narrative on historical
understanding.
The second approach Barton and Levstik suggest is to take more
of a systems-theory approach to history, involving students in a more “complex
and nuanced” analysis of the diverse ripple effects of any historical change or
event. Students must look beyond the
simple cause-and-effect diagrams in the textbook to consider both intended and
unintended consequences of any historical event or decision. They must also get past the simplistic notion
that change equals progress (for all). In
addition to asking who benefitted or suffered
from a change or event, students must explore the how and why. Were there power differentials that
prioritized some needs over others? Did one group benefit at the expense of
another? Or were there simply blind
spots in the decision-making process? Which
is more comprehensible (or reprehensible?):
that the interests and well-being of an entire group of people could be intentionally
harmed, or that those interests were never even considered as part of the decision-making
process.
I spent time last week teaching about the Progressive Era in
AP US history. My classes explored the
reformers’ various efforts to right the wrongs they perceived in society,
economics and government. But when we
analyzed motives, it was hard for the students to consider multiple perspectives
simultaneously. They were uncomfortable
with the Progressives’ silence on lynching and Jim Crow in the south, with the concern
for immigrants’ well-being that went hand-in-hand with a belief in eugenics,
with Wlson’s support for Birth of a
Nation. While considering this complexity
of motives is an explicit part of the AP curriculum, it is nowhere to be found
in the VA SOLs that form the basis of my “regular” history classes. Surely, classrooms that are more likely to
represent the diversity of status and perspectives in America are capable of
considering those diverse ripple effects in history?
These questions resonate deeply with me, and are a big part
of the reason I’ve chosen to teach social studies. We can
only attempt to help our students understand the complexity of events and
decision-makers by considering them in their historical context and attempting
to consider the ripple effects that spread outward. Barton and Levstik’s thesis – that the
purpose of social studies education is to prepare students to make reasoned
judgments about the common good – requires that we at least attempt to scale some
of that “nuance and complexity”, even if we know we will just be able to
scratch the surface.
