Musings on the nature and usefulness of history

Via Ralph Luker at Cliopatra, I came upon this column on history by David Gelernter.

Unlike Ralph, I'm not terribly impressed by Gelernter's claim that "Not knowing history is worse than ignorance of math, literature or almost anything else. Ignorance of history is undermining Western society's ability to talk straight and think straight." Obviously I think history's an important field and one that everyone should study in some way. But I don't view knowledge of history as a crucial underpinning of the "ability to talk straight and think straight," especially given Gelernter's view of what history should be. Studying history can indeed be a wonderful way of developing thinking and communication skills. But history's not the only way to do that. Practically any academic field can enhance those abilities if taught well. History's important, but it's not the linchpin of western civilization.

More troubling than Gelernter's misplaced privileging of history is his vision on what history should be and how it should be taught in schools and universities.

The anecdote that sparked Gelernter's musings is discouraging, perhaps, but not terribly surprising. His son told him of a girl in his school who proclaimed "If I'd lived at that time and been drafted, I would've gone to Canada too." Gelernter's shocked that high school students believe that the military draft during the Vietnam War applied to both men and women. The problem here is that military conscription drew only on men. So the student lacked some pretty basic knowledge about one of the major domestic issues related to the Vietnam War.

This sort of revelation is hardly novel. Critics have been bemoaning the paucity of high school students' knowledge of history for decades, if not longer. While it's disappointing that these knowledge gaps continue, it's not very surprising.

But what's remarkable here is that this has nothing to do with history's potential to enhance the "ability to talk straight and think straight". Knowledge of the facts of history in no way guarantees that students are capable of thinking critically about the past or develop nuanced positions. The facts do not speak for themselves.

And this is Gelernter's real problem. "Our schools teach history ideologically. They teach the message, not the truth." Outside of a bare chronology of facts and dates, there is no such thing as a message-free or non-ideological history. The American history that Gelernter wants taught is one that instills pride in its students based on a glorious story highlighted by the Pilgrims, the revoluntionary ideals of the founding fathers, the fight to end slavery, victory in the First and Second World War and the Cold War, and a continuing commitment to freedom in Iraq. In place of this story of progress, Gelernter sees schools as "teaching ideology instead of facts," completely missing the fact that his version of American history is inextricably linked to his own political ideology.

That's not to say that there's no place in history curricula for celebrations of American achievements. Far from it. History teachers should present the good along with the bad. Schools should be presenting an accurate picture of the past, not one designed to instill pride in America. If students are taught to think for themselves, they'll be perfectly capable of finding key figures in American history who deserve admiration. There's no reason for schools and teachers to force an exclusively patriotic history down the throats of their students.

Gelernter ends by calling upon parents to teach their children U.S. history. "They won't learn it in school," he writes. He's partially right. Students might not learn the version of U.S. history that Gelernter wants them to learn. But if Gelernter really embraces a view of American history that dismisses American failures and consists of a bland narrative of steadily progressing freedom, American students are better off without it. Like Ralph wrote, history should be "a critical engagement with facts at conflict." History's usefulness lies in examining, evaluating, and understanding the past, not solely in its ability to cement national identity.