PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...
PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ... PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...
A1.1.4 Terminology. The term history/culture wars, has been selected here for use over other terms also used to describe “...the battle of ideas between political conservatives and leftists about how the past and the present should be viewed...” (G. Henderson, 2006a, para. 1). A significant reason for this is because although ‘history wars’ and ‘culture wars’ are used separately and extensively, creating a combination of the two is relevant as they can be seen as intertwined in the Australian context. In particular, Australian cultural understandings including issues of national identity have heavily influenced perspectives on historical events and can be aligned with specific shifts in the history/culture wars debates. Less common terms also used by various commentators provide insight into what they feel the priorities of the debates are. For example, historian Neil Morpeth used the term “history quarrels” in his workshop, Thucydides and history of ideas: Numbers, war and understanding (History Teachers’ Association, 2007). This term is used to indicate the types of actions that have been undertaken by historians and media commentators and is perhaps a simplified (although not simplistic) way to understand and relate to those aspects of the history component of the history/culture wars that are more academically oriented and conducted between academics. The idea of the history/culture wars being described as a quarrel is one that Curthoys and Docker take up in Is history fiction?, where they assert that the general public want a truth in history, writing: Public audiences want what historians to say to be true, and do not like it when historians disagree among themselves or suggest that a true answer may never be found. If the question is important, there must be a correct answer; to say there are many truths sounds like obfuscation, fence-sitting, and avoiding one’s public responsibility. (2006, p.4) In a Canadian context, this issue has been raised by Osborne (2003), who in quoting the historian Foner, writes “historians view the constant search for new perspectives as the lifeblood of historical understanding. Outside the academy, however, the act of reinterpretation is often viewed with suspicion, and ‘revisionist’ is invoked as a term of abuse” (as cited in Osborne, 2003, p. 586). The cultural aspects of the history/culture wars when linked with education often see the English, rather than History, curriculum critiqued. This has attracted sustained interest since 448
the inclusion of critical literacy in the curriculum, with commentators arguing for a return to an often undefined ‘basics’. One such commentator, then-Archbishop (now Cardinal) George Pell claims critical literacy is causing dominant discourses to be “undermined by a...focus on ‘texts’ which normalise moral and social disorder” for school students (Rowbottom, n.d., p. 1). The word “normalise” as used by Pell is linked to the conservative, politically right values which, in his opinion, the community should hold and schools held responsible to instill in students. The influence commentators such as Pell try to exert on the curriculum is not limited to literacy, but often cross into other areas of schooling such as values education. This has led to a larger debate surrounding educational outcomes and testing at schools; perhaps influencing former Prime Minister John Howard’s wife, Janette Howard to call it a “Standards War” (Devine, 2007, para. 10). Adi Wimmer describes the history/culture wars as being a “paradigm wars” (2002, p, 2) providing an apt description of the two sides of the debate that have emerged as significant contributors to this ongoing conflict about national history and its impact on national identity and culture. The paradigms, either from a conservative modernist or from a postmodernist perspective have underpinned the major shifts in the debate, as is illustrated in Figure A1.2: Timeline of major shifts in the history/culture wars 1993-2008. A1.2 Transnational Contexts: History/Culture Wars Debates As in Australia, history/culture wars debates have emerged in other nations, along similar lines of a binary between politically left and politically right, debated within a Western, modernist, ‘progressive’ framework of neo-liberalism. So significant are these debates that they have entered both the general public discourses and academic fields of debate. This section will look through the lens of the academic debates of other nations. Whilst Australia too has academic debates on topics related to the impact of national history on contemporary culture (see, for example, Clendinnen, 2006; Curthoys and Docker, 2006; Carter, 2006; Teo & White, 2003; Curthoys, 2003; and Windschuttle, 1996), the focus on the Australian section will be on public discourses influencing the history/culture wars debates and the subsequent impact on schooling. The purpose of this section then is to provide an overview of the history/culture wars as played out in a variety of nations in the same or similar timeframe as the Australian history/culture wars, rather than a detailed, in-depth critique of the finer points of each of the featured nations’ specific debates. 449
- Page 412 and 413: explains the purpose of including T
- Page 414 and 415: Source 7.95. “Pupil information s
- Page 416 and 417: terminology of European is stated w
- Page 418 and 419: 7.23.6 Representations of British h
- Page 420 and 421: 406
- Page 422 and 423: findings of the analysis through ar
- Page 424 and 425: curriculum in such a way that the h
- Page 426 and 427: (and at times former dominant disco
- Page 428 and 429: natives and often gave them present
- Page 430 and 431: finite and ‘true’. In particula
- Page 432 and 433: understanding? This last point is o
- Page 434 and 435: 420
- Page 436 and 437: and functional perspectives on time
- Page 438 and 439: Collins, C., & Knight, S. (2006). E
- Page 440 and 441: Department of Public Instruction. (
- Page 442 and 443: Fiske, J., Hodge, B., & Turner, G.
- Page 444 and 445: Henderson, G. (2008b, August 12). N
- Page 446 and 447: Kitson, J. (Interviewer), & Malouf,
- Page 448 and 449: Melleuish, G. (1998). The packaging
- Page 450 and 451: Roberts, M. (2004). Postmodernism a
- Page 452 and 453: van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics a
- Page 454 and 455: 440
- Page 456 and 457: 442
- Page 458 and 459: particular, this includes taking on
- Page 460 and 461: The mapping of these debates conclu
- Page 464 and 465: The similarities of the debates acr
- Page 466 and 467: over...an overrun of divisive multi
- Page 468 and 469: political cartoon satirist, Peter N
- Page 470 and 471: A1.5.1 April 23, 1993: Geoffrey Bla
- Page 472 and 473: After an initial furor, this curric
- Page 474 and 475: A1.5.4 October and November 1996: J
- Page 476 and 477: I take a very different view. I bel
- Page 478 and 479: history/culture wars in the public
- Page 480 and 481: parallels between ideologies presen
- Page 482 and 483: into “politically correct new age
- Page 484 and 485: Root and branch renewal of history
- Page 486 and 487: Further in his lecture, Manne then
- Page 488 and 489: Throughout the years that the histo
- Page 490 and 491: A people with a sense of a fair go
- Page 492 and 493: "There's real anger about that," ag
- Page 494 and 495: Instead, from the nation's Parliame
- Page 496 and 497: asis for critical (and often deriso
- Page 498 and 499: valid reasons for living and hoping
- Page 500 and 501: “centrally prescribed curriculum
- Page 502 and 503: elativism in school curriculum, spe
- Page 504 and 505: supporting PM Howard’s call for a
- Page 506 and 507: The politicisation of the curriculu
- Page 508 and 509: Government in the rundown to the en
- Page 510 and 511: oversimplified and shallow analysis
A1.1.4 Terminology.<br />
The term history/culture wars, has been selected here for use over other terms also used to<br />
describe “...the battle <strong>of</strong> ideas between political conservatives and leftists about how the past<br />
and the present should be viewed...” (G. Henderson, 2006a, para. 1). A significant reason for<br />
this is because although ‘history wars’ and ‘culture wars’ are used separately and extensively,<br />
creating a combination <strong>of</strong> the two is relevant as they can be seen as intertwined in the<br />
Australian context. In particular, Australian cultural understandings including issues <strong>of</strong><br />
national identity have heavily influenced perspectives on historical events and can be aligned<br />
with specific shifts in the history/culture wars debates.<br />
Less common terms also used by various commentators provide insight into what they feel<br />
the priorities <strong>of</strong> the debates are. For example, historian Neil Morpeth used the term “history<br />
quarrels” in his workshop, Thucydides and history <strong>of</strong> ideas: Numbers, war and understanding<br />
(History Teachers’ Association, 2007). This term is used to indicate the types <strong>of</strong> actions that<br />
have been undertaken by historians and media commentators and is perhaps a simplified<br />
(although not simplistic) way to understand and relate to those aspects <strong>of</strong> the history<br />
component <strong>of</strong> the history/culture wars that are more academically oriented and conducted<br />
between academics. The idea <strong>of</strong> the history/culture wars being described as a quarrel is one<br />
that Curthoys and Docker take up in Is history fiction?, where they assert that the general<br />
public want a truth in history, writing:<br />
Public audiences want what historians to say to be true, and do not like it when<br />
historians disagree among themselves or suggest that a true answer may never be<br />
found. If the question is important, there must be a correct answer; to say there are<br />
many truths sounds like obfuscation, fence-sitting, and avoiding one’s public<br />
responsibility. (2006, p.4)<br />
In a Canadian context, this issue has been raised by Osborne (2003), who in quoting the<br />
historian Foner, writes “historians view the constant search for new perspectives as the<br />
lifeblood <strong>of</strong> historical understanding. Outside the academy, however, the act <strong>of</strong><br />
reinterpretation is <strong>of</strong>ten viewed with suspicion, and ‘revisionist’ is invoked as a term <strong>of</strong><br />
abuse” (as cited in Osborne, 2003, p. 586).<br />
The cultural aspects <strong>of</strong> the history/culture wars when linked with education <strong>of</strong>ten see the<br />
English, rather than History, curriculum critiqued. This has attracted sustained interest since<br />
448