Following up Kim’s post on Friday about the History Summit, I did some research over the weekend and wrote a story for Crikey which they didn’t end up running as Guy Rundle had already written one on the same topic. So what I thought I’d do is post both Guy’s and my pieces (with permission) beneath the fold. I think there’s one theme common to both, which Kim also alluded to on Friday.
The campaign for “teaching traditional Australian history” doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and shouldn’t be judged as if it did. It’s an integral part of the Culture Wars, and those pushing for it are a very narrow (dare I say?) elite. There’s little discussion of the educational merits of either making history compulsory or of a “traditional narrative approach” (lots of historians would support narrative history, but it raises the question of which narrative/s?). Rather it’s a project to reclaim history for the Right (though it’s eminently arguable that it was never owned by the Left), which is largely driven by opinion columns and political moves rather than scholarship. Julie Bishop has now had to try to make something useful out of all the bluster, and although the spin, as both Guy and I note, is that her Summit is a gathering of the “moderate centre” (and tactically, it was wise of the Minister to leave the usual suspects such as Keith Windschuttle and Dr Donnelly without invitations), it’s nothing of the sort. But it’s also interesting how few actual historians Bishop has managed to round up, as opposed to pundits and journos such as Gerard Henderson and Paul Kelly.
One thing that will frustrate Howard’s revisionist project when it comes to its implementation, is how little support anywhere outside the opinion pages of newspapers there actually is for it. That’s not surprising, because as I’m arguing, it’s a political not a scholarly project. Even the composition and remit of Bishop’s summit, skewed as they are, demonstrate that it just isn’t possible in the real world to design one white armband view of Australian history, which can be rote learned by school students.
4. The history summit’s subtle stitch-upGuy Rundle writes:
Well, the team picked for the government’s one-day history teaching summit is out, and one can only applaud their subtlety. Earlier hopes/fears that the group would be a hardcore stack have not prevailed – no Windschuttle, no Bolt, no Akerman. But nor is it a full and balanced representation of the views of Australian history across the profession and its hinterlands.
A moment’s glance at the list of participants will show why (Note: the designation refers to people’s public positions – ie. I don’t know who Inga Clendinnen votes for, but her work doesn’t have a clear political orientation):
Left-activist: Jackie Huggins*
Left: Jenny Gregory*, Margo Neale*
Centre Conservative: Geoffrey Bolton*, Inga Clendinnen*, Kate Darian-Smith*, Tom Stannage* , Tony Taylor*, Mark Lopez*
Right-activist: John Gascoigne*, Gerard Henderson, Peter Stanley*, John Hirst*, Bob Carr, Paul Kelly, Gregory Melleuish*, Geoffrey Partington, Geoffrey Blainey*
Affiliation Unknown: Andrew Barnett, Nick Ewbank, Jennifer Lawless, Lise Paul (DEST rep)
*professional historians
Several things are immediately obvious: first, even if one or two people in the “centre” column shifted into the left, the damn thing would still be skewed right.
Secondly, there’s a clear absence of other big left names: no Henry Reynolds, Marilyn Lake, Humphrey McQueen, Patricia Grimshaw, Mary Kalantzsis, Don Watson, Lyndell Ryan. Stuart MacIntyre was invited, but was unavailable – in which case, if a genuinely pluralist approach was wanted, someone else of a pinkish hue should have been chosen. I can’t believe they were all unavailable. Gender and ethnicity-wise it’s skewed as well.
Thirdly, the right side is stacked with men on a mission, three of them non-professional ring-ins. Henderson, Hirst and Kelly (journo, not singer) need no explanation on this score. Melleuish writes for the CIS, Partington for the IPA. Blainey will either be serene conservative or penny-dreadful scrapper depending upon mood.
Fourthly, in a one-day conference, no-one is liable to get a word in edgewise apart from the right warriors, who are practised at this sort of thing, and would need balancing with equal and opposite broken-bottle wielders if it was to be a fair fight.
So it’s a stitch-up – but by leaving out the most high-profile nasties, the government will be able to present it as a process of consensus. New direction etc etc. Following the conference, one presumes the process of drafting a national narrative-based curriculum will begin – at which point the fun will really start.
Any of the above who don’t like the team they’re on see me at lunchtime.
Here’s my piece. It should be noted that it was written on Sunday night, and I’d tried to contact Mervyn Bendle by email to ask some questions about his motivations before the Crikey deadline. Understandably, he wasn’t checking his work email over the weekend (lucky bloke!)… But he’s since popped up on Kim’s thread to respond to some of the points made there, so people should have a read of his contribution.
The backlash against Keith Windschuttle’s appointment to the ABC Board appears to have provoked a change of tack in both the government and the journalistic home of the Culture Wars, Chris Mitchell’s Australian. In seeking to put some flesh on the bones of Howard’s traditional Australian history agenda, Education Minister Julie Bishop has convened a History Summit. The spin is that attendees will be from the “moderate centre�. Luminaries such as Gerard Henderson, Paul Kelly, Geoffrey Blainey and Howard hugger academic Gregory Melluish have been invited, but Windschuttle will be a mere ghost at the feast.
Similarly, The Australian published an op/ed on Friday on the summit but surprisingly, it wasn’t penned by Windschuttle or Kevin Donnelly, usually the flag carriers of choice for News Ltd’s History Wars. James Cook University academic Mervyn Bendle instead condemned “the sludge of self-imposed confusion, doubt, guilt and apologetics� and decried “the postmodernist fallacy that the time of grand narratives has passed�.
Bendle wasn’t entirely on message, though he criticised schools for moralising political correctness. He thought that history should encourage students to critically evaluate “the ideological claims that are made about Western civilisation�. Further investigation of Bendle’s background suggests this is not a surprise.
Bendle used to work as a Sociologist at JCU, and is now shown on the University webpages as affiliated with the discipline of English. While he has numerous degrees, like Keith Windschuttle, his study of history appears to have ended at Honours level. Yet The Australian described him as a “Senior lecturer in history and communication�, presumably implying a claim to expertise for his opinion.
More alarmingly for culture warriors, Bendle’s publications include papers with titles such as “Jouissance – ‘right off the scale’: Lacan, Sexual Difference and the Phallic Order�, “Foucault, Religion and Governmentality� and “Teleportation, Cyborgs and the Posthuman Ideology�, but seemingly nothing on the intrepid voyages of Captain Cook.
It’s possible to infer that Bendle is a postmodernist in sheep’s clothing. But more importantly, two lessons can be taught from his op/ed’s appearance. The first is that Ms Bishop may find it hard to round up enough genuinely conservative academics to implement Howard’s history dreaming in schools. The second is that Chris Mitchell might be better off sticking to the usual suspects when he lobs his next Culture Wars grenade. Though this might expose how limited the support for the white armband version of Australian history really is.
Update: There was a correction from Guy Rundle in today’s Crikey:
Crikey writes: In yesterday’s piece on the history summit by Guy Rundle (item 4), we mixed up the groups “centre,” “conservative” and “right-activist” – the error was made in editing. The list should have read:
Centre: Geoffrey Bolton*, Inga Clendinnen*, Kate Darian-Smith*, Tom Stannage* , Tony Taylor*, Mark Lopez*
Conservative: John Gascoigne*, Peter Stanley*, Bob Carr
Right-activist: Gerard Henderson, John Hirst*, Paul Kelly, Gregory Melleuish*, Geoffrey Partington, Geoffrey Blainey*
“Howard’s history dreaming”
Is that yours, Mark? Nice one, anyway.
Well, coming from a history teacher here, no matter how they modify the curriculum, because of the very questioning nature of history, they won’t be able to stop inquisitive students from asking the very questions that they should be asking in any study of history – provided they have a good teacher of course
. The syllabus here in NSW is quite liberal and progressive in the stage 5 area where students are required to study Australian History. Although alot of them find it quite dry, it does allow for some scope in terms of analysing the different periods of 20th Century Australian History from social history, feminist history, class history etc. perspectives. Besides, the topics covered such as “Australia in the Vietnam War Era” and “People Power and Politics in the Post War Period” simply can’t allow for a “one unified narrative” approach anyway. Furthermore, if we did have to teach topics in this way, I’d bring in pillows for the students to facilitate their comfort as they fell asleep in class.
I can’t really see this latest conservative harebrained scheme getting off the ground – it ain’t practical. We have a very good syllabus for stages 4 and 5 at the moment and an excellent syllabus for stage 6 modern history in NSW. I suspect that most history teachers would be against changing how it is taught – particularly when it allows for such a broad interpretation of each topic from ALL different perspectives… And that’s the way it should be.
Yes, that’s mine FDB.
Thanks, Naomi!
Naomi, I hadn’t seen Crikey’s email today until just then because I’ve had a really busy day but I’ve now updated the post with the correction that was published today.
I’m glad to see Bob Carr is not listed as ‘Right-activist’ any more. But what the hell is a ‘centre conservative’ anyway?
And why are we making ad hominem attacks on the people involved in this summit before it’s even happened? Why don’t we, um, actually wait for the summit to happen and then judge its outcome, rather than making a pre-emptive strike because it (arguably) doesn’t contain enough lefties? (And what, exactly, is the required quota of declared left-wing historians?)
Rundle’s sneers at Blainey are disgraceful — the guy is a far greater writer and researcher than Guy Rundle will ever be.
And what’s wrong with narrative history? You need it as a basis, a starting point, from which you can go on to examine critical or alternative perspectives. You can’t do much social or class history without knowing the major political and international events occurring in the period. And you best learn those events through that “traditional narrative approach” which Mark despises.
And why, finally, does everyone assume this is an evil social engineering project to brainwash students? Howard won’t be writing the textbooks. Howard won’t be standing by the shoulder of every teacher in the classroom. Given that most historians and teachers are left-wing or centrist, I don’t think Howard will be able to dictate what is taught. Howard and Bishop just want to give history a more prominent place in the curriculum. Which is fine by me.
Paulus, that would be fine by me, but if you go back and look at Howard’s remarks, he’s clearly about much more than giving history a more prominent place. It’s very much Culture Wars stuff – there should be dates, there should be celebration of progress, shouldn’t be themes, should be just one narrative and he explicitly called for teaching “traditional Australian history”, whatever that is.
I can’t speak for Rundle, but I’m not making any ad hominem attacks. What I’m pointing to is the fact that if – as is abundantly clear from Howard’s statements – the intention is to teach conservative history, the implementation is impossible.
I’m uninterested in how many “left wing historians” there are at the Summit. What would be normal procedure would be to pick the best historians and educationalists, not some select group of commentators, stirrers and pundits with a few historians – many of whom are clearly selected for their politics rather than their eminence.
Who is Guy Rundle and why would anybody publish such a sophomoric taxonomy as “right” (boo), “left” (hurrah), “centre” (under suspicion)? If this is what the CultiStudi “Left” has been reduced to, then let it R.I.P.
Paulus, here’s an article outlining Howard’s history agenda. If you’re really keen to find out more, I suggest you look at the link posted above to the History Summit and have a read of Julie Bishop’s relevant press releases.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19699577-601,00.html
Very right-wing of Rundle to post that factual correction update. The narrative was fine as it was.
You’re off message, C.L. Narratives are good now, provided there’s only one of them. And they’re meta-narratives.
Mark
I would argue from all my own readings that those who have tried to write histories incredulous towards metanarratives fail dismisally.
Whoops, sorry, I screwed up the formatting. Let me try again. Howard said:
Notice the word “include� in the last para — Howard is not saying that the list of things he mentions should be the totality of what is taught, but they should form part of the course.
I don’t find anything he said to be unreasonable. If someone like Beasley or Carr had made these comments, no one would be objecting. But of course with Howard, it’s all part of an evil secret agenda, isn’t it?
Paulus
Howard has got high hopes of students receiving such an education. The Dawkins Universities, which provide the bulk of school-teaching fodder, do not teach History, and a great deal of the G8 and 2nd tier universities teach mainly Foucualt/Edward Said gobbledegook and black armband ideology.
Just knowing the facts isn’t going to help much, and i think that’s whats howard’s promoting. What’s the point of knowing exactly when the Gold Rush was unless your going to appear on a quiz show? Wha’ts important is understanding the significance of the event. If you just learn the facts you get nowhere.
You’re the great generaliser, aren’t you, LQ. Why not send Chris Mitchell or Paddy McGuiness an email? They’re always looking for people other than Donnelly and Windschuttle to write articles decrying the alleged postmodernisation of education.
Here’s some course outlines in Australian history from the G8 Uni I’m most familiar with, UQ [links to pdfs]:
http://www.uq.edu.au/hprc/outlines/hist/hist2245.pdf
(Proceeds chronologically!)
http://www.uq.edu.au/hprc/outlines/hist/hist2605.pdf
I can’t find any Foucault or Said there.
I wish Australian history courses had been as interestingly structured when I was majoring in History at Uni in the early 90s.
supun
“Significance” is far too an amorphous concept to concern high schoot teachers. Before a teenager can start thinking intelligently about “significance” a whole lot of other facts, events, places, personalities, chains of causation, evidence, etc. must be mastered.
Oh dear, LQ, where and when did you go to high school?
When I was doing Senior Modern History we certainly looked at the historical and contemporary significance of historical events and trends as well as dates and personalities and places.
Have you talked to any bright 17 year olds recently?
Anyway, I’m off for the evening.
LQ
See also the Journal of the Australian History Association. Hardly very radical stuff….one might even say er, conservative….
http://publications.epress.monash.edu/loi/ha
Mark
As you are tired, I will let this one through to the keeper. but I did say “BEFORE.” And i studied HSC History very profitably in the tired old “modernist” curriculum.
LQ: on this point Mark’s right. When I did my history major at Adelaide Uni, I took a series of traditional-style political/military/diplomatic history courses, with ne’er a mention of Foucault.
In any event, I don’t mind po-mo in small doses — it can be stimulating and intellectually playful. But it should really not be included in a high school curriculum (unless one wanted to confuse the hell out of the students). Heck, I wouldn’t even try it out on first-year uni students.
Yeah, thats the problem with the modern currculum. Its too friggin interesting. Why cant they be bored into a catatonic stupor like I was studying ‘key dates’, and ‘explorers’ who couldnt have found their own arse with two hands and a flashlight, save for their unsung indigenous guides.
Joe King actually survived the Burke and Wills expedition, you know, but nobody cared, as he was WORKING CLASS and malodourous.
There’s some ‘istri for yz! Bloody peoples ‘istri!
*belch*
Singing: If blood should stain the wattle etc
Err… what exactly is wrong with mentioning Foucault anyway? Is what we want just “objective” “empirical” re-tellings of nationalist ideology and mythologies? In fact, most historians I know could do well with a little Foucult.
lq, have you read delanda’s “1000 years of non-linear history”? you might like his writings as he is explicitly anti-marxist.
I’ve been asked to do some professional development work for the state association of social studies teachers, on East Timor related aspects of their curriculum.
So, should I stick to ‘key dates’? Heroes of the independence movement? You see, that would tend to exclude the rather less commemmorated role of young people in the civil resistance, young people who feel excluded from post-independence political settlements – which tend to favour an older generation of nationalists, and their values and culture. This is all part of the background to recent unrest in Dili.
I think there’s some parallels with the issue at hand in this country – and perhaps even a moral or two. Frankly, the ’stew’ of themes and narratives I’ll employ will probably enlighten the teachers more about the actual society, and its conflicts – both overt and latent.
How about “Whitlam and Keating bad, Howard a hero”, Lefty E? Doesn’t that sum it up once you include some dates? It’s all about Australia, of course.
Trackback.
I’ll be examining some of the factors behind the dramatic break with long-standing bipartisan policy on ET, yes Mark. (I dont have a problem with the ‘Whitlam/ Keating bad’ bit, incidentally.)
Im just wondering, for the purposes of this thread, what sort of lame-arsed historical skills will students pick up? Isnt one of the great things about history the ability to learn, and then analyse, even predict things about a society? You aint gettin that from a key dates/ key historical figures approach. Plus its dull as batshit.
I’m once again surprised to find Foucault lumped into some big ‘po-mo’ bucket. The Foucault I read was a fairly simple philosopher of power with a heavy, unpayable debt to Marx.
It’s not that hard, by the way, to read theory that doesn’t have pictures and key dates. MH is right—any historian who’s that happy to write off Foucault doesn’t know their job.
What is this obsession with learning dates? I did a double major in History for my under-grad degree, came out with more than a few Distinctions and High Distinctions and I am CRAP at dates. Years are fuzzy, days/months, nup, you lost me. I am flat out remembering the important names. This is not to say the primary and secondary students shouldn’t be learning them per se, but if history is to have any relevance to anyone other than those that are going to be historians, shouldn’t it be about learning to accumulate and synthesise information? About interpretation? Or am I just mad?
1) It’s quite clear to me that Foucault and Said are the only two names of more or less contemporary theorists that LQ knows of, or he would never have shown his ignorance of the thing he’s trashing by invoking them in the same sentence. I don’t think anybody should be taking this seriously.
2) Thanks for the Crikey update, which I hadn’t caught up with. I am a fan of Guy Rundle and his brain, but the classification of Clendinnen and Darian-Smith as in any way conservative (I wouldn’t even have said ‘centre’) was making me do a radical reconsideration. Thank God that isn’t what he actually said.
hey I didn’t get any Ds or HDs at History but more than one woman said I was Crap at dates!
Foucault in an interview in 1981 (from memory) when asked if he was a postmodernist, replied:
It’s odd that the right take aim at Foucault so much. He was very briefly in the French CP, left, became more or less a Gaullist, had a brief detour through 68 radicalism, but from 76 onwards aligned himself with the (very non-radical) French Socialists and did consultancies for the Mitterand government.
That’s his personal politics.
The real irony comes from the fact that all his academic work was anti-Marxist, and he made the politics of this explicit in 1977.
Maybe it’s got something to do with the fact that the dude was gay?
Just speculatin…
Lefty E, I hope the sarcasm in my comment about Whitlam, Keating and Howard came across!
It did Mark. I just had a brief attack of seriousness, which was akin to thinking out loud about my work – unrelated to your quip!
Heh.
No probs, Lefty E. Blogs are good for thinking out loud actually!
Mark
Actually the irony is on YOU! I attack Foucault from the Left. And what is the significance of Foucault’s disinegenuous quote? Don’t tell me you still have not learnt how to deconstruct French postists when they start banging on about politics, life, and stuff?
For Foucault if it didn’t involve being fist-fucked in a dungeon and pissed on it wasn’t worth analysing. I bet they don’t teach you to read like THAT in your Sociology seminars.
Ew, Mark, you’ve got an irony on you!
You’ll have to come with some key dates and figures, LQ, then we’ll talk to the curriculum committee.
Leftist Queers, that’s hysterical nonsense.
And sorry, you haven’t made any sort of critique or scholarly attack on Foucault at all, just a heap of talking points and smears which appear indistinguishable from right wing polemics.
What is your “attack” on Foucault “from the Left”?
There are obviously serious critiques from post-Marxist scholars such as Poulantzas and Jessop on Foucault’s work on power. Your reference to “being fist-fucked in a dungeon” doesn’t constitute a scholarly riposte, I’m afraid.
If you intend to follow down the track of the tendentious “biography” of Foucault which ludicrously tries to relate his work to some alleged pseudo-Nietzschean will to death, then say so. But I’d point out two things.
The first is that particular work contains numerous allegations which are unsubstantiated, and more that are demonstrably false.
The second is that it’s the worst vulgar Marxist sociology of knowledge to evaluate and derive the work of a scholar only from his or her personal life.
It’s ironic that those who are allegedly anti-Marxist and anti-po/mo and argue that it’s illicit to read subtexts into texts have no problem doing so themselves in the most unethical and intellectually vile way when it comes to Foucault.
On these issues, and also on the homophobic motivations for dissing Foucalt, see David Halperin’s passionate work, Saint Foucault:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195111273/102-0903586-7621751?v=glance&n=283155
I’m not a Foucauldian myself, and I’m critical of much of his work. But I find the invocation of him as some sort of bogey that can be elided with po/mo, and the smears used to do so, deeply distasteful.
Leftist Queers, this is serious question: I need you to explain your name. Who are these leftist queers of whom you speak? How many of them are there? And how do you feel about them?
Just in case anyone missed the following day’s correction, Crikey mangled the copy for my article on the history summit, combining categories in a bizarre fashion. The actual classification was this:
Left-activist: Jackie Huggins*
Left: Jenny Gregory*, Margo Neale*
Centre: Geoffrey Bolton*, Inga Clendinnen*, Kate Darian-Smith*, Tom Stannage* , Tony Taylor*, Mark Lopez*
Conservative: John Gascoigne*, Peter Stanley*, Bob Carr
Right-activist: Gerard Henderson, John Hirst*, Paul Kelly, Gregory
Melleuish*, Geoffrey Partington, Geoffrey Blainey*
Affiliation Unknown: Andrew Barnett, Nick Ewbank, Jennifer Lawless, Lise Paul (DEST rep)
- with the proviso that a couple of the people in the centre could be seen as in the left – but that it still wouldnt alter the skewing
GR
Hi Guy
When you have finished with your edits and revisions perhaps you could commission the Evatt Foundation to build a model assigning a mark out of 100 to every historian and social studies scholar/commentator/intellectual for how “left-wing” they are. Then you could calculate a weighted mark for the History Summit. I predict a very solid case before HREOC, no? Surely, “Leftistphobia” is punishable by death?
Mark
David Halperin is a very meticulous classicist. His talents as an historian and sexologist are less impressive. He is no philosopher and has fallen into the uptight white-bread American upper middle class gay thing of “queer theory.” He is a male Judith Butler. Actually that is a bit unfiar. What a ghastly thing to say about somebody!
Read 100 Years of Homosexuality for an unpleasant submersion in PoMo stick-up-the- ass hagiography of Foucault. Quite ironic given that Foucault only ever felt alive with a gut full of LSD and a collelction of his favourite dildos at-the-ready as he luxuriated in his sling du jour.
mark says:
Pot meet kettle.
I have no doubt that the majority of specialists in Aboriginal history are “black armbanders” and will therefore unlikely to play ball with Howard’s call for historians to stick to the facts. After all, black armbanding has been where the money and academic status has been for the past generation.
However, this just proves that mainstream “black armbanding” historians have been politicised. So mainstream “white blindfolding” politics had to be “scholarised”.
In fact the true history of indigenous people since colonisation has not been all black or white. There have been polarising periods and some shades of grey.
Dduring the period of colonial settlement Aboriginals got the short end of the stick in terms of disease, disposession and defeats. But the Aboriginals have enjoyed steady, if intermittent, progress during the period of federal consolidation.
During the first two thirds of Australian history Aborigines have not had as fair a go as they should have had they enjoyed equal civil rights with Europeans. But they have been better off than they would have been had there been no Australian nation. Or had another, less Enlightened, coloniser been holding the whip hand.
Of course Aborigines have enjoyed much progress over the past generation. But not as much as they would have had if people like Pearson had more of a hearing from the Cultural Leftist agenda setters.
But slow and steady progress does not sell books or make headlines. Thus the success of books like Humphrey McQueens Social Sketches of Australia, which was shoved down my throat at Uni. This portrayed Australian history for the majority (workers, blacks, women, gays) tale of unrelieved horror and devastation. Somewhat alleviated by sporadic uprisings.
But no matter how you tell it Australian history must be, on the whole, a success story for most concerned. It is simply perverse and frivolous to see this nations past in anything other than a moderate Whig perspective.
No wonder Howard feels entitled to have a go at being an amateur historian. Almost any mug, as Stove remarks, could do better than the pros given the perverse reading of the facts that passes for Australian history:
You might want to join the 21st century, Jack. No one is setting Humphrey McQueen at Uni these days.
What happened to truth? You know, like Windschuttle calls for, and “facts”? Isn’t that just one huge value judgement, Jack?
A New Brittania’s a fantastic read for historians of the 1960s and 70s, Mark. As a primary source, mind.
Been a long long time since I’ve read it, Liam, but I take your point.
Liam on 27 July 2006 at 6:12 pm
A more virulent example of the hermeneutics of suspicion in history it would be hard to find.
Mark on 27 July 2006 at 6:02 pm
Yes, I know. And thank goodness that the Decline of the Wets is now taking place in contemporary Australian, as evinced by Howards foray into the field. Its nice of you to make a belated, if unwitting, concession of that point.
But this century is less than a decade old. And most people involved in these debates were educated in the last quarter of the 20th century. They are the ones who need to get their minds right.
Whatever, Jack. As Liam says, it’s a product of its times. Who reads it now? Is it in print?
Mark on 27 July 2006 at 6:02 pm
One can give a truthful account of Australian history and still return a balanced judgement that its progress has been benign, even for the disadvantaged like Aborigines. Certainly much progress has been made in the past hundred years, since Federation.
Much work needs to be done. And more needs to be done to bring Aboriginals fully into civil society. A good start would be for Wets to acknowledge the follies of the past generation and the need for rectification. But it is not engaging in hagiography to say that progress has occurred.
I suggest that Aborigines are now much healthier, wealthier and wiser than they were two hundred years ago. These are factual matters that can be measured empirically.
However these facts are also value-relevant, to normal people at least.
What Aboriginals are not now is the top-dogs in Australian society. This place is currently occupied by pale males. They need some healthy competition, not another dose of victimology for their rivals.
Mark
I think even Foucault would be giggling from his great sling in the sky at this howler:
1. The irony of a devotee elevating Foucault to the status of omniscient subject to reject (you know all that binary or “logocentric” rationality stuff?) a statement;
2. How can Foucault deny (which your quote does not establish by the way) being a “postmodernist” if he has “no idea what that word means.”
3. Now Mark, back to the books and come back to us with an essay on the origin of the word/s pomo and its evolution, including the period 1981 to 2006.
4. It is hard to comment on your accusations about the “right” and Foucault, but as Foucault was resolutely on the Left, I’d say that might provide some insight. Also you would do well to know, as I have TRIED to inform you that the most vociferous critics of Foucault come from the Left. To wit, I implore you to peruse the works of David Harvey, Habermas, and a mister Noam Chomsky.
5. You have raised some interesting issues that actually go right to the heart of the whole Parissiene (ergo Foucault) fraud when you outline the chronology of Foucault’s public political affiliations. There are a few more dots to join, however.
Good luck.
Jack, the point is that when you stray into value judgements, they ought to be open to debate. I would have no problem whatever with such debates being part of high school History. But you seem to want to impose just one value judgement on the “facts”.
LQ, I’m well aware of Habermas’ critique of Foucault. You obviously aren’t aware of Habermas’ later re-appraisal of Foucault, and indeed Foucault’s late work on the Frankfurt School which he sees as quite close to his own perspective. I’ve read a bit of David Harvey, but don’t recall anything about Foucault. I’m not interested in Chomsky’s work outside linguistics because I think it’s one sided polemics rather than scholarship.
Foucault’s most significant work cannot be described as either right or left.
As Mark points out, he was avowedly anti-Marxist. Jean-Paul Sartre dismissed him in these terms: “Merely the latest barrier that the bourgeousie has been able to raise against Marx.”
Mark
The irony of dismissing the thoughts of a linguist on somebody whose entire life was devoted to discourses in power. Harvey was one of the first Marxists to see Foucault (and Derrida, who of course is even more ghastly) for the fraud that he was.
Chapter 2 of “The Condition of Postmodernity” is very accesible.
Agreed, Rob.
And his personal politics weren’t always on the Left. He was basically a Gaullist for some time in the 50s and 60s and received significant patronage from de Gaulle’s administrations.
Indeed it is, LQ, but Harvey didn’t write it. Jameson did. Harvey is a (post)Marxist geographer.
Chomsky’s linguistics is basically formal linguistics combined with sociobiology. It couldn’t be more opposed to post-structuralist philosophy of language. I couldn’t care less if Chomsky criticises Foucalt “from the Left”.
I’ve already told you that I think that Poulantzas and Jessop make some telling points about Foucault’s theory of power.
But this really is pretty irrelevant to the thrust of the thread in any case, since as a number of people have pointed out, Foucault’s work simply is not particularly influential in Australian historiography.
Rob
Sartre as Marxist? ROFL. I can just hear Karl turning in his grave at the notion that Sartre’s obscene reification of the subject detached from the dialectic of his being the object of the production process and subject of revolution, makes Sartre a Marxist.
Besides, Foucault turned right back to the subject from the mid 1970s. Indeed, by the time he wrote “History of Sexuality” especially Vol.2 his whole shtick was subject-obssessed as he tried to understand Athenian ethics of the self/body.
He failed.
Mark
Those were not politics, they were postures. Not as bad as listieng to Derrida on aparthied and “foreign debt” though.
Whatever, LQ. I’m not interested in continuing this debate. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
Ay, why-a you all make-a such a fuss about this Foucault, this Habermas, this-a Chomsky? I make-a you some-a nice ravioli, with a nice riccota-broccolini filling, just like my Uncle Pino used to do, with some nice garlic and-a clams, so good. You sit down, you eat, relax, maybe you have a nice valpolicella with it. Maybe some nice espresso too. So nice, eh?
I remember this-a Sartre guy. Eh, (SPITTING NOISE)! He used to come to my father’s old-a restaurant, back when I live in the Paris, eh? This-a man, he come every day, he eat a full meal, but then he always leave without paying! He eat, but he no-a pay! What sort of a man is that, eh? I was ready to break his head, I tell-a you, but my nephew Sal, you know, the smart kid, the college kid, he tell-a me, “No! This man, he is a great man, you cannot bust-a his head! This is the ‘class struggle,’ the Marxism, very good, very smart! You let him eat, eh?” But what kind of ‘great man’ act like that?
My nephew Sal, that’s one smart-a kid! Always with-a the books! He tried to get me to read these-a books, this-a, ‘Les Mots et les choses,’ this-a ‘Discipline and-a Punish,’ but, me, I cannot understand these things. You want-a discipline and punish? I hit you –eh, bang!– with my wooden soup-spoon! How you like, ey?
You want a nice-a discourse on power? I give you a tip: Mario Puzo, eh? Now that guy, he knew how to tell a story.
Mark
I think it is quite clear that you are not up on marxism or Foucault. David Harvey did indeed write “The Condition of Postmodernity.” I have read it. You should too.
You should also consult Frederic Jameson’s “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.”
And to suggest that this debate is not relevant to the thread is truly bizarre.
You can think what you like, LQ, but yes, my mistake about Harvey and Jameson, whose book I’ve read but not recently.
As a relatively recent graduate of the monash masters of public history course, i am just glad that there is some focus on the teaching of history to students at all. The number of people who have looked at me like i have two heads my whole studying career because i told them i was majoring in aust history is amazing. Most peoples reaction was “how boring” or “convicts and bushrangers, that’s five minutes, what else is there to study?” or just “why would you do that, who cares?”. In year 12 my secondary school didn’t even bother to offer Aust history because of the eight students who were doing VCE history, i was the only one who wanted to do Aust History.
I hope the summit manages to put aside all the politics, all the grandstanding, all the ‘history wars’ rubbish, and actually manages to make a start in making Australians proud of their history and interested to know about their country. I agree with the comment earlier that a fundemental part of this is having passionate and knowledgable teachers, and clearly this has to happen at a university training level.
I don’t believe this is just a school classroom problem, it is a society problem, but starting in the classroom is one small step.
Camille:
“I hope the summit manages to put aside all the politics, all the grandstanding, all the ‘history wars’ rubbish, and actually manages to make a start in making Australians proud of their history and interested to know about their country.”
I don’t suppose you’re aware of the irony in this statement. “All the ‘History Wars’ rubbish” is precisely ABOUT whether the aim of teaching history should be “making Australians proud of their history”. Is that really the function of history? This is the debate. You seem to be saying that yes, that is the function of history.
Well then, we’d best not talk about anything, y’know, depressing…
The other side of the debate says that history is supposed to generate understanding. Celebrate the good, regret/mourn/learn from the bad. Compare the successes and follies of the past between eras, to get a picture of how we do or don’t learn from history as a society.
It seems like you’re just talking about cheerleading.
The Czech novelist, Milan Kundera, in his 1978 work, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, has a provoking description on the role of the past:
People are always shouting that they want to create a better future. It’s not true. The future is an apathetic void of no interest to anyone. The past is full of life, eager to irritate us, provoke and insult us, tempt us to destroy or repaint it. The only reason people want to be masters of the future is to change the past. They are fighting for access to the laboratories where photographs are retouched and biographies and histories re-written. (P22)
“The struggle between man and power�, he says, “is the struggle between memory and forgetfulness.�
Bartleby you are in moderation as Jason’s biog is of no relevance to this or any other post.
A general reminder to all commenters that we require a valid email address to be entered in the comments field so that we can correspond with you about moderation decisions. That would most preferably be an email address you regularly check. As this doesn’t appear to be the case with Bartleby, we are reposting the email sent to him to draw it to his attention.
Right wingers,
I’ll publish elsewhere as Bahnisch seems to deem it necessary.
I’ve let this comment through, as you don’t seem to read your email, Bartleby. Mark had nothing to do with this decision. Shaun and I take full responsibility for it.
If you read Mark’s latest post, you’d be able to see that he is not currently involved in moderation decisions on this blog.
I’ve made a genuine effort in good faith to engage with you via email. Obviously I was wasting my time.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/19/blog-semi-hiatus-and-bleg-on-spaces-of-utopia/
If you want to take any of these issues up, take them up with me or Shaun. If you check your hotmail, you have our addresses. This is the absolutely last time this will be discussed in public here. I’ve gone out of my way to try to dialogue with you to no avail. You obviously have no intention whatsoever of respecting the comments policy at this blog. Until and unless that changes, you’re wasting everyone’s time including your own in trying to comment. Email us if you wish to discuss the matter further.
If you are a right wing supporter of the three amigos then so be it, but do not come forth otherwise. I do not care if you allow comments through or if you wish to censor them. This is what right wing people usually do so I expect it.
You are as right wing as Bahnisch is and i have no need to discuss anything with you or him. I have no desire to be censored by anyone as I have made clear.
Ok, one last try.
If you click on my name under the authors listing here, you’ll find that I’m anything but right-wing. Out of the so-called three amigos, Bird is only allowed to comment here under strict limits. Jack Strocchi thinks I’m the feminist harriden from hell. Jason has been a long established blogger who comments in many places, and usually plays the ball not the person. You just don’t seem to understand the dynamics at all.
This site does not restrict itself to commenters of one persuasion. We have all sorts here – Greens, socialists, anarchists, Santamarians, libertarians, Liberals, social democrats, ALPers, ALP lefties, and many more. The point is that while the posts are written by left wing bloggers, the comments threads are meant to encourage debate.
But that debate is constrained by rules which are designed to facilitate civility and constructive debate. At every point at which you broke one of those rules, you were told what was wrong and what you needed to do. You don’t seem to have taken any of that on board. That’s not my choice, it’s yours.
You and the three amigos have broken every rule. Do you not read what these people write elsewhere. Do you give me permission to post them?
If you have no need to discuss anything with me, I can’t understand why you’ve spent most of your day posting comments here, or why you’re addressing me at all. It doesn’t make any sense.
To close this off, here’s Jason’s biog, which I’m sure he won’t mind my publishing, since we have no interest in “suppressing” it, but rather you were obviously wanting to pick a fight with him which arose from the stoush that you had with him at Birdy’s place.
http://www.crai.com.au/bio.asp?profid=10090
I’ve made my point.
If you have no desire to frequent what you characterise contrary apparently to everyone else’s understanding as a “right wing” blog, then stop trying to frequent it.
It’s really quite puzzling that you should claim that you have no desire to debate me then spend hours doing so.
I’d assumed that you were unfamiliar with the dynamics of blogs, and had a genuine desire to engage. I proceeded in good faith to try to engage with you. Obviously, that was a waste of my time.
Your refusal to abide by the comments policy at LP doesn’t constitute “censorship”. It means that you have refused to agree to the ground rules that apply to everyone who comments here. If you can’t do that, you won’t be commenting here, and it has nothing to do with your politics, about which I know nothing in any case.
I’ll do it for you.
Here’s the thread that Bird wrote about you:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/bartleby-the-holocaust-denier/
Now if you look at the rest of Bird’s site, you’ll find that most of it is sideswiping at a whole range of us here at LP.
For instance, today:
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/
All the posts on Bird’s site take aim at LP. He abuses Peter Kemp, he abuses Gummo Trotsky, he abuses weathergirl, and he abuses Mark.
And he’s always abusing us from a right wing position.
Whether or not he elides fascism and communism reflects on his lack of precision and nothing else.
For instance, he writes:
You asked in one of your deleted comments what my relationship with Bird was. The answer is that I have none. Jason appears to think that Bird is funny, and that he is some sort of autodidact who could gain from participating in blogs. That’s Jason’s opinion. I have a degree of respect for Jason, though his politics differ from mine, and that doesn’t mean I agree with him on everything. You might remember that I defended you on the thread which has apparently caused all this and suggested Jason cut out the abuse against you.
Why, in retrospect, I have no idea, given what I’m copping from you.
The simple story is that we don’t want this site to be filled with disputes and arguments that spill over from other blogs. That appeared to be what you were trying to do.
I have every sympathy with your being offended by Bird’s characterisation of you.
But if you go back far enough, you’ll find he’s also called Mark a “holocaust denier”.
And Mark was similarly offended.
As was weathergirl, and no doubt other Lefties who have been so branded.
But you need to pick your fights intelligently. It’s pretty clear from Birdy’s prolific writing that he’s not to be taken seriously – it’s over the top abuse and hyperbole.
That’s why we do our best to screen abusive comments he makes here.
That’s a good faith explanation of where I’m coming from. Your reaction doesn’t make sense to me. I suggest you just drop it and get on with whatever you do on Saturdays that would be more enjoyable than having this discussion.
So why do you publish him and censor my post which merely quoted his biography which you now publish? And you have only published a link. Publish the full thing here and now and show everyone what these people are up to.
I’m quoting Birdy to demonstrate that he takes aim at a range of us here at LP. The fact that he singled you out in the first place was probably fairly random. It’s not all about you, Bartleby.
The link has the same effect. If people are interested in it, they can click on it and read all of it. I can’t reproduce the whole thread for space and copyright reasons, and so if I quoted from it it would have to be selective. That way, if people are interested, and I suspect most are not, but if they are, they can read everything written there.
I just don’t get where you’re coming from. As I said I can see why you’d be offended by Bird. But the appropriate place to take it up with him is at his blog, or with Jason at his. It’s of marginal interest I would imagine to most people here and we have a policy that we try to apply as consistently as we can (no one is perfect) that we do not encourage disputes which originate elsewhere. The basis for Jason’s, Bird’s and Strocchi’s participation here I’ve already explained to you.
I have no idea what your politics are. But if you think that “this is a right wing blog” and you don’t like right wing blogs, I suggest you find one more congenial to you.
If your aim was to put on record your distaste at the way Birdy’s offensive and untrue comment made about you, I’ve facilitated that in my comment above. That’s going further than I would normally do, because it is an unjust accusation, and I also believe from all the evidence that you’re new to blogging. But that’s as far as I’m willing to go, because in the final analysis, responsibility for what Bird says lies with him. And you have other mechanisms of responding to it and defending yourself from his remark than re-debating it here. Such a remark by him would never have been allowed here, as we try to catch offensive comments and anything defamatory would be removed instantly it came to our attention.
I hope that clears it up.
It doesn’t seem to me that you have an interest in commenting on the substantive issues discussed here, but if that changes, please advise me via email.
I’m trying to be as fair as I can to all parties.
But I have other things I want to do now, and I’m going offline. I suggest that you do as well. Rehashing this over and over again won’t change anything for the better. If you want redress from Bird, then the appropriate person from whom to seek that redress is Bird, not me.
Do let us know, where you end up Bartleby. I’m always on the lookout for purer pastures. Better yet, why dont you get your own place. And by place I mean blog.
You’ve done way more than neccesary, Kim. i thinks it time to move to the ignoring phase.
Kim, what a shame you’ve had to waste your day explaining and explaining and explaining to someone who doesn’t seem to want to even try to understand.
If you’re still reading, Bartleby, it’s very simple.
Blogs have authors, who post articles.
Blogs also have commenters, who post comments to the discussion threads for those articles.
Commentors can be anyone, whether they agree with the author or not.
Moderation of comments by the blog authors can be strict, moderate, mild or lax depending on the mood they wish the blog to have – hivemind, general discussion, vigorous debate, or free-for-all.
You seem to assume that a blog where the authors provide left-wing commentary should also be a left-wing hivemind in the comments threads. You seem to have assumed this as such a matter-of-course that you are offended to find that we authors at LP don’t see it that way.
Nobody has misrepresented the nature of authors’ commentary on this blog, Bartleby. Nobody who has been reading blogs for any length of time would be surprised to find that the comments threads, in contrast, are populated by posters of varying political points of view.
Your assumptions show that you are very new to how blogs work, so it sure sucks that the way you’re having your errors demonstrated is very public and perhaps embarrassing. But if you go away and learn from it and come back with a different handle, nobody will know who you are and you can start joining discussions without this stoush as an albatross around your neck.
Have a nice weekend.
Ah, humanity! Ah, Bartleby!
Or did I write it the other way round?
Shit, I can’t even remember my own work any more…
What color was that whale again?
Jason and Mr Melville, enough.
I declare this war to be history.