hankyoreh

US scholar argues that any government attempt to impose single view of history is misguided On Oct. 19, the Hankyoreh’s Washington correspondent conducted on interview with phone and email with William North, chair of the history department at Carleton University in Minnesota. The main topic of the discussion was the efforts of the administration of South Korean President Park Geun-hye to take over the production of history textbooks.　

Hankyoreh (Hani): Can you tell me whether the state control of history textbooks matches up global trends, especially in democratic countries?

William North (North): There are many kinds of state oversight, and many states develop curricular standards for different subjects, including history, civics, and similar topics. For instance, if the government of S. Korea required high school students to learn about the nature and function of the state’s institutions, key documents, legal system, etc., this would be entirely normal and, indeed, praiseworthy because it helps to ensure that the people understand their government and can participate in it. Likewise, many states mandate that all students must take a course in the history of their country at some point in their school years (and sometimes two courses, 1 in the kindergarten-middle school; 1 in high school). The content of these national history courses can be determined by a government panel (often including non-governmental experts), by committees at the state or local level, or not at all (with the decision left to schools and textbook writers). This approach-broad governmental framing of goals or minimum standards with the specifics of content and approach left to other entities-is the approach taken by many countries, especially those with democratically elected governments.

What is distinctive about the S. Korean government’s recent decision is that it aims to consolidate all elements of the teaching of history in its own hands: it will determine the content, the approach taken to that content, and the way that these are expressed in a history textbook. Other views and voices have no clear place in the process other than by government invitation.

Does this policy align with world trends? Yes and no. On the yes side, it aligns with a trend towards what might be called “historical protectionism” in certain countries around the globe, by which I mean seeking to limit or suppress discussion of certain moments, figures, and topics that might challenge certain ideas about the nation or aspects of the nation. On the no side, it runs counter to the development of a more robust, open, inquiry-rich, and multi-voice public sphere in many parts of the world. But I would note that South Korea clearly has both impulses-towards historical protectionism and towards historical openness and inquiry-active within it. My hope is that South Korea realizes that historical openness is actually a better way for the nation to achieve its full potential.

Hani: What do you think about the attempt by South Korea’s government to teach only a singular view of history to middle and high school students?

North: I think that any plan to impose a single view of history at any level of instruction is misguided for two critical reasons. First, I think that it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of history as a product rather than a process of inquiry. It is true that historians create narratives about what happened in the past and why. BUT they do so in an ongoing effort to understand societies and events the complexity of which far surpasses our ability to capture fully. Moreover, they do so on the basis of a body of evidence that they must identify and interpret and that is continually changing. Therefore, for any entity to claim that they have produced a “correct history” textbook either means that it contains facts so basic as to be uncontroversial (which is not really history) or that it is ignoring the masses of unresolved and complex questions presented by the evidence in favor of a narrative that is “correct” not because it addresses adequately and responsibly all of the evidence and questions but because it is the only view allowed (which is also not really history but a kind of ideology).

Such an approach to history also seems to be unfortunate because it implicitly declares that power has-and should have--the ability to determine historical truth. This will, almost inevitably, make history the servant of political power, constantly changing to serve the ruling group. But such a view-especially when disseminated among young people-either encourages them to do pursue a similar approach to truth or undermines their confidence in anything that is said officially. Imagine an executive in a business firm determining “the correct story” and suppressing accounts of poor decisions, mistakes, and reconsiderations. People and nations grow stronger and smarter by the ability to learn from their past successes and mistakes, not by ignoring or denying them.

Hani: Most Korean history teachers and professors, who oppose the government’s movement, argue that we should respect a diversity of views about history. Do you agree? If so, could you tell me the reasons why it is important to respect such diversity.

North: I do agree, and I agree because it is through vigorous and inclusive debate and through many different people looking at the evidence that one may gain the fullest perspective and greatest insights. Different people looking at the evidence will bring forward different perspectives and highlight different factors and developments, positive and negative. Just as doctors when faced with a difficult case consult with different people to gain the broadest possible understanding, so people should want to hear from a wide range of interpreters about the evidence: some will focus on political dimensions, others on economic, others on gender, others on cultural aspects, etc. Bringing such perspectives together, bringing different people who have such interests together, will ultimately strengthen not just historical understanding but will cultivate a more important idea: truth and the best answers are works in progress that emerge from evidence-based debate. For a healthy democracy, few ideas can be more important.

Hani: What problems can be caused when a government tries to monopolize the interpretation of contemporary history?

North: I think that an effort by the government to monopolize the right to interpret history for the nation (as opposed to encouraging the nation to study and interpret its own history) will raise a number of problems. First, it will reinforce the notion that power does and should determine truth, and that history not only is, but should be, written by the winners. Second, it will weaken the S. Korean people as interpreters of their own history because they will only be exposed to a particular range of acceptable evidence and interpretations rather than the complex fullness of the evidence. Third, it cultivates an idea that each nation should “guard its history” so as to protect the nation’s or group‘s reputation. Such an approach would undermine our ability to talk to one another as nations and groups because there would not be a basis for common understanding grounded in the evidence; there would be a group of nations protecting reputation and pride. I can think of few things more likely to ignite conflict that nations with only pride and not the circumspection and caution that serious historical study brings. Finally, I think that it risks signaling that the government is so frightened by debate and other viewpoints that historical study may raise that it must resort to a monologue to preserve unity and confidence. But are unity and respectability based on preventing others from voicing their opinions (again based on evidence) really a strong foundation? I don’t think so.

Hani: Could you tell me about the adoption system of school history textbooks in the US? I can guess it varies according to state, but I would appreciate hearing about this in more detail. In addition, I wonder when and why the US introduced that system.

North: K-12 education in the United States is highly local, and local and state school boards, which are democratically elected, have a great deal of power to determine which books are selected, and which curricula are approved. As a consequence, there is great diversity in the teaching of US history and many other subjects as one moves from state to state, region to region. These local decision-makers do not always decide in favor of curricula that contain multiple voices, critical perspectives, exposure to the full range of historical evidence, etc., and from this historian‘s viewpoint, they are making a mistake. But local school boards in the US can and do make decisions that restrict choice (though they do so without insisting on being the source of the history itself). But the diversity of localities means that, taken as a whole, there is a broad range of perspectives and approaches available within the country as a whole, and a broad range of textbook options that have different emphases and approaches.

The presence of demanding national and international programs like the Advanced Placement (AP) History and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs adds a further element to local decisions about history instruction because if area students are to be successful in these demanding programs and on the standard exams, they need to pursue a curriculum that exposes them not only to content but, more importantly, historical reasoning and debate. These exams, in other words, focus on history as a rigorous process of inquiry rather than a “correct history”.

As far as the process of textbook adoption, there are many factors that influence decisions and the process is often controversial. Textbook producers develop textbook options in a variety of different ways, and authors and publishers sometimes make choices in phrasing and content that may appeal to certain constituencies but do not reflect the state of the evidence and serious scholarship. For example, there was a recent controversy over the description of African slaves as “workers” in a high school history textbook, a word choice that could serve to lessen the negative image of US as a nation that profited from and perpetuated slavery. But because there is an open marketplace of criticism and ideas, the textbook producer was called upon to justify its position. It could not do so and is now modifying its text to better reflect the evidence. The larger point, however, is that in a marketplace with many different “sellers”, different “buyers” can find a textbook right for their locality’s needs/vision of history but also textbook producers can be called to account for errors, omissions, and inadequate treatments because people can buy a different textbook. In a monopoly system, that is not an option.

In terms of the development of the system, my sense is that public education began as a “grassroots” effort and only gradually became a subject of national policy making. In other words, significant local control of public education is a product of its historic development.

Hani: As you know, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has also tried to distort school textbooks. Could you compare it with South Korea government’s position to monopolize the textbook

North: In Japan, as I understand it, there has been since the late 1990s a group that seeks to craft a history of the history of modern Japan that is more favorable to the nation and treats controversial actions, particularly Japan’s imperial and military activity in East Asia in in the late nineteenth and twentieth century, in a “better” light. Prime Minister Abe is very sympathetic to these efforts and wants to end “self-torturing views of history” being part of the curriculum. The Nanjing massacre and the forcible conscription of Chinese and Korean women as “comfort women” are two such topics. Prime Minister Abe has also criticized US textbook producers for their portrayals of Japanese activities and the textbook manufacturers have been urged by Japanese officials to “correct” their portrayals. In both actions, there is sense that “history” must be controlled to protect “the nation”; that “history” might disrupt present unity and identity unless carefully managed; and that multiple interpretations leads to division and confusion.

Hani: What do you think are the most important and essential values in history education? For example, critical thinking or diversity, mutual understanding.

North: I think that history is best seen not as a particular narrative but as a method and a rigorous commitment to the search for and careful interpretation of historical evidence. It cultivates critical thinking, alerts people to the complex interconnections between people and areas of life, and can encourage empathy across times and cultures as one tries to understand a given time or development. History offers a laboratory of sorts in which the effects of different kinds of actions, choices, and forces can be critically assessed. And ultimately history‘s job is not to take sides but to determine, within the limits of the evidence, what happened, why, and with what consequences. It is up to each present generation, then, to make its own decisions about values and actions. But it will do so not on the basis of illusions and mythologies about its past but on an honest and full understanding of past actions and thoughts grounded in evidence that is available to all and subject to shared scrutiny. Such scrutiny will undoubtedly expose actions, attitudes, and decisions that we now look back on-with our present attitudes, values, and possibilities-with regret. Certainly, the United States has its full share in its history. But creating histories that seek to protect the present by creating happier versions of the past ultimately allows neither healing to occur nor learning to take place. 　

Hani: Do you have any advice for South Korea’s government and have a plan to issue a call (or letter) South Korea‘s government to stop the state control of textbooks?

North: If I were advising South Korea’s government, I would encourage them to set aside their current approach and consider the presence of diverse views of history not as a weakness but as a strength of the nation, something that is, in itself, a source of national pride. I would encourage them to make an investment in history but not to control or homogenize interpretation. Instead I would encourage them to invest in strengthening the historical culture of South Korea: teaching the methods of evidence-based interpretation, rigorous inquiry, fair assessment, and an openness to debate. As part of this effort, I would encourage them to support their archives and libraries and other repositories of evidence about the nations past and to support scholars going to other nations to locate and use historical resources to improve, expand, and challenge current understandings. Such an approach-which does not exclude the government establishing certain guidelines for historical instruction at different levels of instruction-will make clear that South Korea is unafraid of history and unafraid of debate and discussion. It will make clear that it seeks as a nation, and calls upon other nations to seek, a full and honest engagement with the past so that the present and future, both within the nation and between nations, may be discussed not based on partial, self-serving narratives but on the fullest and most inclusive accounts we can manage given the limits of our knowledge and evidence.

By Yi Yong-in, Washington correspondent

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]