Post-colonial

perspectives on the

historical narrative

Why we need a pedagogic

theory of historical

representation

Robert J. Parkes,

PhDUniversity of

Newcastle

Outl

ine:

Why

do w

e n

eed a

pedagogic

al

theory

of

His

tori

cal

repre

senta

tion?

What is the problem? How have we responded to

the problem? Why do we need to think

differently about the

problem?

What can we draw on that

will help us think differently?

What is the problem?

Navigating rival narratives

His

tory

Wars

Throughout the 1990s

Australia was in the grip of an academic,

political, cultural, and

curricular debate that

has become known as

the ‘history wars’. (Macintyre & Clark, 2003)

New

Vis

ions

of

the K

eati

ng

Era

The shift to a full-blown market economy

signified by the floating of the Australian

dollar;

The building of Republican momentum

towards the declaration of Australia as an

independent nation; The revisioning of Australia as part of Asia;

Calls for reconciliation with Australia’s

Indigenous inhabitants as a precursor to

moving forward as a nation. And increasing perceived

disenfranchisment of the White Anglo

male (partially related to the Recession we

had to have, and the feminism of the

1970s)

Revi

sions

and

React

ions

The central concern in

this debate centred on

representations of the

colonisation of Australia, and its interlocutors included

scholars, media commentators, and Prime Ministers on both sides of the political divide.

Dis

rupti

ng t

he G

reat

Aust

ralia

n S

ilence

Public awareness of a

distinctive Indigenous

perspective on Australian history appears to have arisen

partly as a result of a

series of grass roots protests that culminated

in a ‘day of mourning’

during the Bicentennial

celebrations of 1988.

(Reed, 2004)

Curr

iculu

m S

hift Invasion” as an

alternative to “peaceful settlement”

as a description of the

colonisation process.

(Land, 1994)

The A

ge o

f M

abo

The High Court’s Mabo

decision (and the Wik

decision that followed in

1996) forced the public to

confront the legal right of

Indigenous people to

dominion over their traditional lands (Ritter &

Flanagan, 2003). Resulted in political scaremongering by Howard

Government that suburbanites would have

their backyards re-possesed.

Att

wood (

1996)

Mabo and the new Australian history ends the

historical silence about the

Aboriginal pre-colonial and

colonial past upon which the

conservative invention of

Australia and Australianness

was founded, and since their

Australia was realised

through and rests upon that

conventional historical

narrative, the end of this

history constitutes for them

the end of Australia.” (p.

116)

The P

olit

ics

of

His

tory

Curr

iculiu

m

History curriculum is

perceived to act as an

apparatus for the social

re/production of national

identities, through linking

“the development of the

individual to the images and

narratives of nationhood.”

(Popkewitz, 2001) History education seen as

the vehicle for social

cohesion. (Howard, 2006)

How have we responded

to the problem?

Conti

nuin

g d

ebate

s ove

r cu

rric

ulu

m

conte

nt

Development of an Australian (national)

Curriculum

Howard’s (Sept 2012) Sir

Paul Hasluck Foundation

Inaugural Lecture call for “a

proper sense of history”. Not ‘black armband’ or

‘white blindfold’. (Gillard,

2010)

Why do we need to think

differently about the problem?

Conflict over rival narratives

reveals ‘representation’ as a

problem

His

tory

as

repre

senta

tion

historical discourse is in its

essence a form of ideological

elaboration” (Barthes,

1967/1997, p. 121) “the straightness of any story is a

rhetoric invention” (Kellner, 1989,

p. x)

historical narratives are artifacts

of an interpretive act constituted

in part by a historian’s aesthetic,

epistemological, and ethical

commitments, and in part by the

underlying tropic forms of

language itself. (H. White, 1973)

Anke

rsm

it (

2001)

Referential Statement vs Explanatory Narrative Histories are narratives that always

exceed the sum of their referential statements.

Revi

sion v

s D

enia

l

If you reject accepted

referential statements

then you are probably

engaging in historical

denial. (See Taylor, 2008 on

Windschuttle or Evans, 2002 on Irving) If you have accept

accepted referential

statements but generate

a different narrative, you

are probably engaging in

historical revision.

What can we draw on that

will help us think

differently?

Pedagogy as a process of

representation and reception

Why

a p

edagogic

al t

urn

is n

eeded in

His

tory

educa

tion

Pedagogy as a concept “draws

attention to the process

through which knowledge is

produced.” (Lusted, 1986) Shift from apprenticeship to

schooling created a problem of

representing knowledge and

practice. (Lundgren, 1991) Pedagogical Content

Knowledge is about having 150

ways of representing a

concept. (Wilson, Shulman, &

Richert, 1987).

Post

-colo

nia

l resi

stance

to

his

tori

cal

repre

senta

tion

InterpellationWe are acquiescent in the face of the grand

narrative of the nation.

Rejection / Interjection

We insert or juxtapose rival narratives of

the past.

InterpolationWe draw attention to the historical

narrative we are teaching as an artifice,

a representation (derived

from methodological, ethical and other

choices of the historian), a rhetorical

practice.

Ashcroft (2001)

Teach

er’

s M

eta

-Know

ledge:

Pedagogy

as

Repre

senta

tion

Collective Memory

(Reconstructionist)

THE story of the past

Interpellation Disciplinary

(Constructionist)

The BEST story of the past Postmodern

(Deconstructionist)

Only perspectives on the past

WHOSE story of the

past? Interjection

Seixas (1999)after Jenkins & Munslow (2004)

Why we need Historiography in Teacher Education (Parkes, 2011)

Metadisciplinary

(Deconstructionist)

How is the story being

constructed?

Interpolation

(Segall, 2006)

The E

nco

unte

r w

ith A

lteri

ty:

Pedagogy

as

Rece

pti

on

Ethnographic empathy

(Assimilation) Self-identification with a limited

conception of the other

(Romanticization / Fetishization)

Defensive skepticism

(Rejection / Demonization) Indifference, what does it have to do

with me?

(Disqualification) Be transformed by the stories of

others

(Transformation / Appropriation)

Simon (2005)Parkes (2004)

Cri

tica

l his

tory

pedagogy

Rival narratives necessary (and exciting) but insufficient.

Need to foreground the pedagogical processes of representation and

reception.

Refe

rence

s

Ankersmit, F. R. (2001). Historical representation. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Attwood, B. (Ed.). (1996). In the age of Mabo: History,

Aborigines and Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Ashcroft, B. (2001). Post-Colonial transformation. London:

Routledge.Barthes, R. (1967/1997). The discourse of history. In K. Jenkins

(Ed.), The postmodern history reader (pp. 120-123). London:

Routledge.Evans, R. J. (2002). Telling lies about Hitler: The Holocaust,

history and the David Irving trial. London: Verso.

Gillard, J. (2010). Students to learn 'balanced view of history'.

Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-01/students-to-learn-bala

nced-view-of-history/2569490

Howard, J. (2006, 26th January). Unity vital in battle against

terrorism, The Sydney Morning Herald, p. 11.

Kellner, H. (1989). Language and historical representation.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Jenkins, K., & Munslow, A. (Eds.). (2004). The nature of history

reader. London: Routledge.

Land, R. (1994). Invasion and after: A case study in curriculum

politics. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Centre.

Lundgren, U. P. (1991). Between education and schooling:

Outlines of a diachronic curriculum theory. Geelong, Victoria:

Deakin University.

Lusted, D. (1986). Why pedagogy? Screen, 27(5), 2-14.

Macintyre, S., & Clark, A. (2003). The history wars. Melbourne:

Melbourne University Press.

Parkes, R. J. (2011). Interrupting history: Rethinking history

curriculum after 'the end of history'. New York: Peter Lang.

Parkes, R. J. (2004). The zone of proximal development as a

strategically mediated encounter with alterity. Paper

presented at the annual conference of the Australian

Association of Research in Education (AARE), University of

Melbourne, 28 November - 2 December 2004.

Refe

rence

s (C

ont’

d)

Popkewitz, T. S. (2001). The production of reason and power:

Curriculum history and intellectual traditions. In T. S.

Popkewitz, B. M. Franklin & M. A. Pereyra (Eds.), Cultural

history and education: Critical essays on knowledge and

schooling (pp. 151-183). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Reed, L. (2004). Bigger than Gallipoli: War, history and

memory in Australia. Crawley: University of Western Australia

Press.Ritter, D., & Flanagan, F. N. A. (2003). Stunted growth: The

historiography of native title litigation in the decade since

Mabo. Public History Review, 10, 21-39.

Segall, A. (2006). What's the purpose of teaching a discipline,

anyway? In A. Segall, E. E. Heilman & C. H. Cherryholmes

(Eds.), Social studies - the next generation: Re-searching in

the postmodern (pp. 125-139). New York: Peter Lang.

Seixas, P. (1999). Beyond 'content' and 'pedagogy': In search

of a way to talk about history education. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 31(3), 317-337.

Simon, R. I. (2005). The touch of the past: Remembrance,

learning, and ethics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Taylor, T. (2008). Denial: History betrayed. Carlton, Victoria:

Melbourne University Press.

White, H. (1973). Metahistory. Baltimore: John Hopkins

University Press.

Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). "150

different ways" of knowing: Representations of knowledge in

teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking

(pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.