Something depressing

Today's Age reports that a Coalition government would send drafters back to the drawing board on key aspects of the proposed national curriculum, particularly the history subjects, and speculates that the history wars of the period 1996-2007 might be reignited.

History is a messy stew of factors, given that it is ultimately the study of how people relate to each other and the world around them.  Why there should be an ideological objection to teaching about the role of trades unions and the Labour Party -- both of which were agents of social progress in Australian society -- when much school-level history is structured to analyse continuity and change?

There is a deeply unrealistic rhetoric going on here.  The reality is that no history syllabus will satisfy everyone, and the same goes for maths, English, literature, and art.  Perhaps it might be possible to find harmony over science curricula, but I wouldn't go holding my breath even then.  All teachers are different, each has a unique concept of their subject, and no two teachers can possibly be expected to approach every aspect of a subject in precisely the same way.  Politicians live under party discipline, which is why they expect everyone else to do likewise.  Thus began the history wars.

I think the biggest problem with the history curriculum in particular is that it tries to eradicate any sense of perspective in favor of the grand narrative.  Yes we need narrative, but we also need to learn how to think critically.  For this we need not only perspective, but the ability to think clearly about why particular points of view arise, and to be aware of our personal responses to them.  Otherwise we approach history like a certain type of Christian, believing quaintly that the Bible is all we need.  History is a communal thing, much like a balanced religious life -- but this involves confrontation with the messiness of human relationships, which by definition defy easy responses from ancient sources but become much easier to understand when we acknowledge differences of perspective.  What happens when the book is not enough?