Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

II. Perspectives
or indpndnt shools oftn hav th
Privat
to hoos to us txtooks othr than
frdom
What ar th advantags and
1.
of this?
disadvantags
Hav you nountrd diffrnt aounts
2.
“your” history?
of
Hav you xprind or osrvd a
3.
twn th historial narrativs
lash
to your parnts or grandparnts’
known
vrsus th aounts taught
gnrations
you today in national or intrnational
to
duation systms? How hav
English
rspondd? Shar and ompar your
you
in your lass.
answrs
Chapter 7 we encounter Thomas Nagel’s
In
of objectivity as “the view from
description
To what extent is this the goal of
nowhere”.
education systems in general, and of
international
history textbooks in particular? To what extent
their
this goal possible and desirable?
is
has your acquisition of knowledge, in history
How
other AOKs, been shaped by the compromises
and
have been made to make knowledge objective
that
neutral? or
of th ontxtual fators to onsidr
Som
whthr ths projts ar ondutd in
ar
or ongoing onflit thatrs, and
post-onflit
thy spill ovr national oundaris.
whthr
an important fator is whthr
Additionally,
mrg within post-olonial or prsnt-day
thy
olonial stats, suh as India and Canada
sttlr
rsptivly.
used to think that the profession of history, unlike
I
of, say, nuclear physics, could at least do no
that
rvision projts rquir thos involvd
Txtook
agr not mrly on th fats of dats and
to
of vnts, ut on th auss, signifian
plas
impat of vnts, and how ths vnts
and
xampls rval a politial dimnsion
Ths
onsnsus and disagrmnt in history.
to
projts ar asd on th ida of tahing
Many
through multipl prsptivs, with
history
ojtiv ing to giv spa to diffrnt
th
inluding onfliting viws. This
vois,
gaind popularity in Wstrn and
approah
Europ in th 1970s, and movd th
Northrn
of historial knowldg from th ontnt
fous
txtooks—th “fats”—to th aility to
of
sours and prsptivs.
valuatmultipl
is this approah to history appropriat on a
But
xtnt to whih “th us of multipl
Th
and ontrovrsy" is univrsally
prsptivs
is an opn qustion. Lässig dsris this
usful
as nssarily a Wstrn onption of
approah
there situations in which dierent source
Are
and historiographical interpretations
statements
place too high demands on pupils and
simply
in which both rather require a ‘usable past’
teachers,
9
For reflection
Common textbooks and
Now I know it can. . . . We have a responsibility
harm.
historical facts in general, and for criticizing the
to
politico-ideological abuse of history in particular.
(Hobsbawm 1993)
“compromise narratives”
th approvd stat duational matrials.
onstrut th national narrativ.
gloal sal?
Making connections
History, objectivity and the knower
historial instrution, and asks th following.
with a master narrative that provides direction …?
(Lässig in Korostelina, Lässig 2013)
260