Via Tim Dunlop, Julie Bishop has announced the composition of a panel which will design a national history curriculum. Prominent among the members is Gerard Henderson. Given that there has been a degree of support from across the spectrum for reintroducing the teaching of history throughout secondary schooling, and reframing the way it’s taught in primary schools, Henderson is an odd choice. The history summit, of course, took on something of a life of its own, conceding that it was impossible to design a curriculum which would have taught Australian history as a unitary narrative, something that Howard had previously supported. I can’t tell from Henderson’s bio at the Sydney Institute what his PhD was in, but surely the fact that he’s a weekly columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald taking a very overt partisan view might raise a few eyebrows – given that the government has been suspected of wanting to impose its own ideological framework on school history?
I think a lot of what we’re seeing lately from the Howard government is legacy policy making. It could be argued that the Indigenous “state of emergency” is to some degree about a final swipe at Fraserism (since Fraser was responsible for the NT Land Rights Act, and arguably had more influence on the direction of Indigenous policy than Whitlam). It’s been suggested that Ruddock might push for the implementation of the HREOC report on same sex entitlements because he wants to salvage something of his small l liberal reputation. I suspect that there’s a similar dynamic at work in this announcement – which bears the fingerprints of a PM who knows his time in office is limited (whatever the result of the election) rather than his hapless minister.
Henderson himself has been one of the principle purveyors of the view that Australian institutions have been reshaped through their alleged co-optation by the liberal left. Of course, if you accepted this claim, which is really at the heart of the culture wars, you might form the logical conclusion that reversing this would be about restoring their independence from partisan politics. That appears beyond the partisan warriors of the right.
Update [by Kim]: It looks like there’s already a draft national history syllabus, which the government doesn’t like, and this panel is being called in to revise it.
There’s an informative piece from the President of the History Teachers’ Association on Crikey’s website today.
I believe Hendo’s PhD was on the subject of his “Mr Santamaria and the Bishops.” I think. Something to do with that whole split era/Santamaria bizzo anyway. IIRC, which I may not.
That makes sense, Amanda, it’s his first published book too according to the Sydney Institute bio.
Could be interesting time for policy making. I have often thought that when the Howard government is over alot of its more conservative members and probably Howard himself might regret that they spent so much time and energy on politics and so little on actually changing the nation to be more like what they want it to be. Of course this just reflects the reality that Howard never figured out how to get Australia on board with what he would really like to do and so was reduced to completely cynical politics and a relatively small number of medium sized stealth policies.
When they look back on their time I think that many will feel they fought an 11 year holding action against the forces of social liberalism that might be forgotten surprisingly quickly.
I think there’s a fair bit in that, swio, since social attitudes have continued to change and evolve despite all the bulwarks that Howard, Abbott, etc., have erected.
As a student of history I think it best that at high school level, history should follow the empiricist, positivist liberal historiographic methods. Structural approaches should wait until second year university and textual/discourse best left to the honours year, introduced in third year.
The Blainey appointment is ironic, to me, because it’s all about imposing a curriculum in which students will be required to learn an approved version of Australian history. When I studied history in HSC back in the 70s, we had a wonderful teacher who taught a killer unit on the first settlement. The central idea we were required to look at was the reason(s) for settlement – which, we’d been relentlessly taught down the years, had been purely to get rid of convicts sitting in hulks on the Thames. Geoffrey Blainey’s Tyranny of Distance posited the trade in flax, hemp and timbers as alternative reasons. The idea that research could uncover new slants on accepted narratives through primary sources inspired me no end and I ended up majoring in history for my (undergrad) degree. Now he’s sitting on Howard’s “approved White Arm Band” committee. There’s a lot of primary sources he’ll be required to ignore for that.
Swio – word up.
Helen, I was going to say something similar about the interestingness of the appointment of Geoffrey Blainey to a panel which on the face of it appears to have been created to do simple stooge duty for the government. I wonder if in selecting GB they might not be getting a whole lot more than they bargained for.
It has got a “last days” feel to it, hasn’t it? Mind you, if they’re this reckless now, imagine what they’ll be like if they squeeze back in for a fifth term. Andrew Bolt will be drawing up the cirricula and they’ll be locking up journalists. Err, hold on.
I think that pretty well nails it. Last days indeed.
But Blainey has been involved in culture wars talk with the best of ‘em for several decades now, albeit in a sober and reasonable way. Also, his historiographic positions are quite conservative: there are plenty of developments in historiography that aren’t going to be legitimate in his eyes, which excludes large areas of historical scholarship.
I’ve read Nicholas Brown’s book on Australia in the 50s (oh, the irony!) and he’s quite a good historian – middle of the road politically I’d suspect.
I agree. I’ve always been surprised that Gerard Henderson didn’t get more out of Howard, chair of the ABC board at least.
I disagree with Della Bosca suggesting that the Blainey appointment is undermining the process. In spite of what I said above, Blainey has every reason to be there. Henderson sticks out like a saw thumb.
or “sore” even…
I don’t have a problem with Blainey. He’s likely to take the job seriously at least.
Adam, what you say is true but I still think Helen and Laura have an excellent point. (Helen, I too was sufficiently inspired by The Tyranny of Distance to end up getting an entire PhD topic out of it — and in Aust lit rather than history). I was working at Melbourne U, two floors down from History in the English Dept, when Blainey was involved in the public kerfuffle about Asia that got him the particular public rep for conservatism that he has now. Of course he may have been tending that way before, but it was both less noticeable and less extreme, and he was much less of a recognisable name or influence in public life.
Some of it was to do with the way — and I’ve seen this happen to a number of people — he actually moved further and further in a conservative direction as he was attacked and pushed to defend his position. Being obliged to simplify his views for media consumption was partly responsible for this, IMO — he’d say something, it would be reported in a simplified way and a bit distorted, and then he’d find himself having to defend what he was reported to have said. And no, I don’t have hard evidence for any of this, just the memory of what I was thinking as I watched the drama unfold.
But I’m guessing that, now as then, he’s probably still far more interested in ideas about history than he is in identifying as Left or Right (which I think he would probably find kind of tedious), and I agree that in that particular company he may not be or look anywhere near as biddable as Howard assumes he will.
“he actually moved further and further in a conservative direction as he was attacked and pushed to defend his position.”
This is almost always a byproduct of some kinds of mediated ‘debate’, so I understand your point.
My main concern with the weighting towards the conservative end: where is the innovation, pushing at the limits of history writing by engaging new historiography? I don’t think it’s safe to assume that all of the epistemological questions about history have been answered, and I don’t see a problem in introducing some of the dynamism of historical thought into the perspectives presented in the curriculum.
Adam, what’s crucial is the staff work, and who’s chosen to do it. I doubt very much this panel will be personally sitting down to write curricula.
Yeah, sure, of course. But they are going to be guiding the process in some way? Or am I missing the point?
Yes, no doubt, but how hands-on they will be is another question.
Mr Denmore wrote:
Speaking of which .. how galling is it that these two get hauled in front of the courts for a fairly trivial leak (and Kessing gets a working over for exposing information which was in the public interest) and yet the leaking of a confidential report to Andrew Bolt goes unsolved.
When laws are selectively applied at the behest of Government whim we are on a slippery slide.
Mr Henderson said there were two major traditions in Australian political history; the conservative exemplified by Robert Menzies and the social democratic tradition espoused by John Curtin and Bob Hawke. “They’re both very valid traditions,” he said.
I think this says it all about the narrowness (and dullness) of Gerard Henderson’s thinking about history – and politics.
Couldn’t agree more.* I was specifically following up the question of Blainey, not generally defending the indefensible panel and/or its purpose.
*Meaning ‘It would not be possible to agree even more than I already do’. Question, at a completely OT tangent: now that the utterly nonsensical expression ‘Could care less’ used to mean ‘Couldn’t care less’ has started to waft across the Pacific, do I have to say ‘Could agree more’ instead of ‘Couldn’t agree more’ as well? Never mind the History curriculum, where’s the English Comprehension curriculum?
Of course, Pavlov’s Cat. I understand your point, and Mark’s also about the distinction between overseeing the process and creating the curriculum. I guess in a field with more variation, Blainey wouldn’t be a problem for me, is what I’d settle on. And Blainey certainly isn’t Henderson, just like Henderson isn’t Albrechtsen/Devine.
I agree with Gerard Henderson.
The Liberal Left has done a great job. The conservative Battle of the Bulge counterrrevolution is just about over. The Right is quite deeply divided between conservative and neoliberal. Only a faltering Howard holds this shotgun marriage together. Neoliberals are rightly outraged by Howard’s nanny state interventionism and cultural parochialism, as epitomised by Howard’s speculum-led Operation Desert Inspection.
The Liberal Left took some hits. But payback time is just around the corner.
Love your work katz. My sentiments exactly.
Katz, you’ve nailed it.
Tony YAAAABERT is living proof of the crazy world of a neo-lib head atop a neo-con heart.
If Henderson’s role goes to process, not content, then I think he would make a very worthwhile contribution.
If you take a look at how The Sydney Institute works, its track-record of speakers over many years, and how its publications are collated, you’ll see that Henderson has form in terms of establishing and overseeing a sound process that delivers consistent, high-quality outcomes.
OK, so Henderson’s resolutely tight-lipped about where the funding comes from, which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of transparency – nevertheless, that is not an issue for the history curriculum, since that process is, and will be, all a matter of public record.
If he sticks to process, I don’t see a problem here.
Question, at a completely OT tangent: now that the utterly nonsensical expression ‘Could care less’ used to mean ‘Couldn’t care less’ has started to waft across the Pacific, do I have to say ‘Could agree more’ instead of ‘Couldn’t agree more’ as well? Never mind the History curriculum, where’s the English Comprehension curriculum?
PC, couldn’t agree more about the Could Care Less thing. It’s irked me since the days of Usenet.
swio on 26 June 2007 at 1:30 pm
Of course this just reflects the reality that Howard never figured out how to get Australia on board with what he would really like to do and so was reduced to completely cynical politics and a relatively small number of medium sized stealth policies.
Balderdash. Howard has been moving in an illiberal direction with loads of popular support. Look at gun control, border protection, drug prohibition, law and order. All illiberal, all working, all popular.
Mark on 26 June 2007 at 1:31 pm
That gets the direction of causation completely backward. It is the poplus that is holding back the elites, not vice-versa.
Over the nineties and into the naughties it was the popularity of social conservatism among the AUstralian people that has controlled the elite-driven parties, rejecting elitist economic “rationalism” in 1993 and elitist cultural “liberalism” in 1996.
The ideological corollary of this conservatism has been a popular reversion to economic statism and cultural nationalism. Howard, Abbott et al have simply represented this in policy and benefitted from this in politics.
The one time Howard tried to put some radical economic elitism back into the program – with IR in Wharf wars and Work Choices – it failed. Exactly as my theory predicts. Normal people reject radical change, whether Left or Right.
Political culture is evolving in the direction of cultural integration, rather than differentiation. I predict that the major parties will soak up more of the primary vote at the next election. Families will stick together more rather than splitting up, particularly with the baby boom. And more people sympathise with centralised nationalism, with somewhat authoritarian overtones.
The recent bi-partisan support for an old-fashioned authoritarianism in remote aboriginal settlements is just the latest in a long series of popular moves to the cultural right. Left-liberalism is no longer as popular because it the public perceive it as best ineffective and at worst counter-productive.
National statism is popular in Australia. Thats why the ADF, CSIRO and ABC are much loved by the people. QANTAS and the Commonwealth Bank used to be in the same league until they were sold from under our feet. I miss them like a lost limb.
“I could care less” is not nonsensical (and even if it was … ). It is sarcastic. And … Yiddish or something. I’m keeping it.
“border protection, drug prohibition, law and order. All illiberal, all working, all popular.”
Jack, what planet do you live on? I mean shit border control, o.k I’ll give you that one, but drug prohibition, law and order, your taking the piss!
Drug control, Jesus wept Jack the shit you spruik you must be taking some yourself. J.H. the (in your estimation the great man himself) is about to call out the Police, Army, and possibly some surface to air missiles, and possibly if he can rent one, a nuclear powered air craft carrier to fight a few pedophiles. Yep law and order it’s working. Let go of it Jack, well atleast until the national crisis is over.
Katz wrote:
Katz,
How is the Liberal Left going to dish out any payback when there are hardly any of them left?
If the Liberal Party loses the election at the end of the year, as it’s looking likely, it will only heighten the tension between absolute spineless pragmatists and absolute nutcase ideologues.
The small L liberal is just about dead.
Although the Liberal Party has never had a consistent practice of politics, so the party’s progressive element may re-emerge in the not too distant future.
Enough!
Delrio,
We Left Liberals are modest folk.
We want government to be small, weak, and distant.
Nevertheless, we recognise that in the past harm has been done to powerless groups who deserve compensation of the kind that allows them to be autonomous and not forever dependent.
We want autonomy over our own lives.
We want a weak executive government.
We want maximum freedom of association. We do not want corporations and religious institutions to be privileged over all other forms of association.
We want a disinterested rule of law.
The role of the state in a wide range of economic activities has been rolled back since the Hawke era. Left liberals tend to approve of these developments.
The role of corporations has expanded. This is dangerous.
Howard’s parochial populism has caused damage, but its season is ending.
We want alliances with other nations who wish to foster the above.
Left liberals do not expect a millennium. Unfortunate ideologies and beliefs are too deeply ingrained in folk for them to disappear. The work of persuasion is gradual. There will be ups and downs.
But for left liberals, in the long run, the trend is up.
Adam
Indeed. It is a pity that the culture warriors who ruined Blainey’s career at Melbourne were not so sober and reasonable, let alone talented.
It looks like there’s already a draft national history syllabus, which the government doesn’t like, and this panel is being called in to revise it.
The ‘ruination’ of Blainey’s career has been greatly exaggerated. The man has gone from strength to strength.
Stuart Macintyre has expressed some regrets at the response to Blainey in 1984 in his book The History Wars, but does point out that Blainey’s decision not to stand for another term as Dean of Arts (remember when Faculty Deans were elected?) wasn’t made solely because of that kerfuffle.
There’s an informative piece from the President of the History Teachers’ Association on Crikey’s website today.
Yes, I read Macintyre’s account a while back. There was also a recent reading of the exaggerated rhetorical use of the Blainey controversy, including by the PM, but I can’t seem to remember the reference. If anybody knows which article – I’m pretty sure it was an article, but maybe a chapter – I’m referring to, please let me know. It may be in my notes somewhere… [looks with dismay at pile of notebooks and shelves of folders]
Fascinating spin on this story by the Volkischer Beobachter Kim:
History students may skip Gallipoli
Well, shock horror!
Ratty refused to swallow the homework of the first committee, so has sicced Hendo on to them.
Gregory Melleuish, fast becoming one of Howard’s usual suspects, asks why a whole lot of stuff has been left out:
Well, gee, there’s such a rich offering of potential topics, why not trust professional Heads of History Departments to decide from among a large list of topics?
Oh, hang on. I know the answer to that question.
Those commie, pinko, pomo, trendy luvvie latte slurpers aren’t professional educators at all!
Give ‘em an inch and it’ll be as if the Aussies never won the Battle of Gallipoli at all!
Hendo’ll make sure they’ll never get away with that caper, or my name isn’t The Little Digger.
From the Crikey article
This explains why history teaching is in such dire straits. History MUCH teach about the powerful and the great. Correct chronology must form the basis of all history curricula
Superseded ≠ repudiated.
In other words, in history, as in all branches of knowledge which attempt to explain complex change, chronologies are correctly to be seen as a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
Try to imagine chemistry taught as is the only facts worth knowing were the sequence of observable changes in the physical state of random stuff chucked into a test tube. It’s nonsense.
Katz
First of all remember we are talking about school children here, not tenured academics, post-doc fellows, or even humble undergraduates!
If high school History syllabuses placed the same emphasis on dates and chronology that is placed on knowing the periodic table by Chemistry teachers, the improvement in historical literacy among Australians would be astounding.
I do not know how old you are or when you were in high school, but my guess is it was before pomo hit the schools. I was in High School during the 1980s. I did not learn any History until Year 11. From Year 7 to 10, we had to choose between Geography and History. I chose Geography. In those days we were taught REWAL Geography. Why it rains, why clouds are like they are, soils, coastlines, rivers, agriculture, urban forms, etc. I would rather have eaten glass than study something so boring as History.
Fortunately, the HSC syllabus was varied. I took the standard 2 Unit course. In that two year course, we covered the following: The French Revolution, Napoleon, Metternich, the Industrial Revolution, British parliamentary democracy (Tolpuddle Martyrs, the rise of trade unionism, socialism, etc.), the 1848 Revolutions, the unifications of Germany and Italy, American Civil War, the causes and events of WW1, the Russian Revolution, the Treaty of Versailles, Weimar Germany, the rise of Nazi Germany. The course stopped before the outbreak of WW2.
The only assessment was a 3 hour exam at the end of the 2 years, which required 4 essays in 3 hours. I had so many dates swimming around in me, and thank god too. That list of topics I just wrote came from the top of my head, that is how effective the “rote learning” method was.
I recently took a general course in Roman History taught in the old-fashioned way. I had never studied any Ancient history before. While we had to write a 3,000 word essay, and had weekly short writing responses on ancient sources (Livy, Sallust, Cicero, Plautus, Augustus, Tacitus, Acts of the Apostles, Tertullian, Juvenal, Eusebius, Lactantius, Plutarch, Ammianus Marcellinus, Seutonius, etc.) at the end of the semester we had an exam (1 hour) that tested purely chronology, geography, identifying on a map where the Battle of Cannae took place, Hannibal’s route, the route taken by Visigoths and Vandals, etc.
When you have people leaving History courses who cannot immediately situate the world outside the Arabian peninsular when Muhammad was 40 years old, or what stage of development the US was at when the French Revolution broke out, or the time difference between the American Civil War and the forums to debate Australian federation, they do cannot develop the type of historiographic analytical skills that makes History so damn interesting.
School kids today need a LOT more drilling in foreign languages, science, history, and geography, including memorising parts of important poems and dramatic dialogues.
There is nothing more tedious, as an adult, than having to sit next to somebody at dinner whose historical chronology stops at the Recononciliation walk across the harbour Bridge.
Katz
Come on. That took me forever to type. Or perhaps, you have shut up, as you cannot put up?
Treasure this comment JG:
I endorse many of your sentiments, and am willing to indulge some of your overstatements.
1. Chemistry students learn the period table in the context of a discussion of different kinds of elements, mass, atomic weight, etc. In other words, the period table is used to vouchsafe a particular view of matter. It is not more important to know one element more than any other.
2. Chronology can and should bear the same relationship to particular views of historical change.
For example, the sequence of English monarchs between Henry VII and William and Mary is much more important than the sequence of monarchs between George I and Edward VII. Why? Because by George I the locus of power had moved away from the English monarch. To teach students that one sequence is equal in importance to another is simply incorrect.
3. One of the great themes in history is the geographic spread of ideas and processes over time. Cultures that are prone to being more strongly influenced by alien ideas and methods are quite readily distinguishable from those cultures that are not. One of the more important determinants of this is the chronology of their development up to the point of significant contact. Chronology sets the frame for discussing this theme, but chronology alone doesn’t explain outcomes of contact.
This is the theme that lurks behind your comment I quoted above.
And indeed chronology is a necessary component for understanding this theme. Some kids are happy to learn lists of facts for their own sake. They tend to be good B students.
But why should teachers of history pretend that all facts are created equal? They aren’t.
They tell their pupils that it is much more important to know the Tudor monarchs than the Hanoverian monarchs. It shouldn’t be beyond the wit of a good teacher to explain why.
So I merely counsel that you temper your enthusiasm for chronology.
I apologise for failing to recognise that you might be so eager for this minor snippet of advice.