Controversy:

How Ignoring or Avoiding The Present Denies The Needs of Students

Sean Johnston | Professor Paul Zanazanian | EDTL 633 - 001

Ostensibly, the purpose of instructing students in history and social studies is

not to function simply in the service of brain exercises: that notions and objects are
introduced for the limited purposes of heightening brain function through the
appreciation and understanding of indeterminate and abstract dynamics. The
common justification for social studies considerably differs from that which is often
offered when students encounter algebraic functions: that the purpose of their
activities is simply to boost cerebral horsepower. Instead, the common
justifications for social studies nobly ignores, or pretends to sidestep, such
mechanistic pragmatics, offering in its place a host of well-meaning platitudes
masquerading as authentic high ideals: that social studies is about developing a
students sense of citizenship, personal and political autonomy, critical thinking
skills and their place in their societys narrative and definition. Yet the means by
which these high ideals are supposedly implemented and put into practice readily
displays the lack of seriousness, if not apparent emptiness and meaninglessness, of
this often-sentimental rhetoric. Educators and educational institutions are guilty of
denying students their need for identity and knowledge of their position within
their own historical context by avoiding or ignoring the conditions of the present.

In historys first known work of literary theory, Aristotles twenty-three

hundred year old untitled writings commonly referred to as Poetics, it was clearly
established that all narratives necessarily require a beginning, a middle, and an end
- though not necessarily in that order (Aristotle, 1997). A sentence as simple as I
went to the store today implies a period before embarking to go to the store, the
process of getting to the store, and the arrival and time spent at the store. A
sentence that is either I went or the store is rightfully understood to be
incomplete, and therefore practically useless precisely because it lacks the
constituent parts to qualify as a narrative.
As has been repeated to the point of clich in historiographical theorizing,
the undertaking of history writing is always situated in a teleological present
(White, 1987). The historian ascertains the strands of influence that led to World
War II not only knowing the result of the war but also from the vantage of all the
history following World War II that has led to the conditions of the present moment.

The historian cannot avoid discovering, viewing, assessing and appraising the
influence of these strands without being both consciously and unconsciously
influenced by her present position, and condition, in the future of these events. The
historian, like the student, especially if all people are to be understood as their own
historians (Morton & Seixas, 2013), is always situated in or at the ongoing middle or
end to a given personal or historical narrative.

Yet social studies curricula that overemphasizes the past over the conditions

of the present, or, worse, excludes the present altogether, are guilty of constructing
incomplete narratives narratives that cannot then avoid being, in large part,
useless to the needs of the student in the present. A narrative that begins with The
Conquest and ends with The Quiet Revolution is one that inevitably, perhaps
unwittingly, pretends that the actual (ongoing) end point is not the present moment.
It, therefore, unavoidably becomes an incomplete narrative. It also denies the
student, subject to the conditions created by these events, from the sense of identity
that comes with the conscious knowledge of unavoidably being situated in a
narrative. As Morton & Seixas (2013) states, [h]istorical significance is constructed.
That is, events, people, and developments meet the criteria for historical
significance only when they are shown to occupy a meaningful place in a narrative.
Thus, students unavoidably derive less or even no meaning whatsoever from
incomplete narratives that deny or ignore the present, and, therefore, themselves -
as well as being denied the direct meaningful, contextual knowledge of the
significance of conditions and dynamics in the present.
Avoiding or ignoring a present that more apparently pertains to the lives of
students also is a sorely missed opportunity to demonstrate how certain present
conditions and dynamics both relate to themselves as active democratic citizens in
the present as well as to historical events and phenomena and to, in turn,
demonstrate how historical events relate to the present:
Students who see continuity and change in their own lives can be encouraged
to transfer that understanding to the past. By realizing that they are part of
history themselves, they can better see that the past operated the same way.
Understanding change as a process will help them leave behind the idea of
history as a mere series of events (Morton & Seixas, 2013).

Identifying changes and continuities - as well as discovering other social or

structural dynamics - in the present forms a dialectic with how events and
conditions happened in the past. Past history, as well as the present, naturally then
becomes less deterministic when dynamics and ambiguities are ascertained and,
hopefully, become more compelling and important to students as they begin to
understand the means by which the past played a major role in constructing a
narrative and the present socio-historical conditions they are unavoidably situated
within. Yet, this process cannot happen unless the present is afforded the
prominence in social studies classrooms that it not only requires to meet the needs
of students in the present but also for the past to be taught with the honesty and
justifiable profundity it deserves. History itself is greatly undermined when the
present is avoided or ignored.
As a broad phenomenon, however, avoiding or ignoring the present is
certainly not commonly an accident or an oversight. It is the culminating logic of
deeply controversy-adverse politicians, educational bureaucrats and, yes, social
studies teachers reified and put into practice. As Gaddis (1990) states, [t]he fear of
controversyis the single biggest reason why teachers of history and, far too
often, authors of textbooks teachers use shy away from the task of relating the
past to the present. History is controversial enough, goes the underlying logic, but
there is safety in the knowledge that the past is a foreign country (Morton & Seixas,
2013). Issues, events and figures that once stirred heated passions are known to be
cooled by the march of time because ideological stakeholders are either no longer
with us or have otherwise moved on (Gaddis, 1990).
Talking about issues and conditions in the present, however, is perceived
only to cause problems, awaken the sleeping dogs that cause headaches and
parental revolts. Yet, by avoiding the present and the controversy it inevitably
compels, teachers and administrators fail in upholding their oft-touted lofty ideals
that pertain to social studies. It is especially difficult to instill values of active
citizenship in the present when embracing controversy as a normal and regular

[part of] citizenry among diverse social institutions (Swanson, 2010) is tacitly

denied. Present issues and events, regularly mirroring or reflecting historical issues
and events, are compelling precisely because they are controversial: because the
answers are not always obvious or because it acknowledges that people have
divergent interests and ways of thinking (Gaddis, 1990). A social studies
classroom without controversy is one drained of the very material that compels
interest in topics and may also encourage students to attempt to have a voice. As
Osborne (2008) notes, [d]emocratic citizenship, however, does not mean
conformity or subordination, but informed and reflective participation in the affairs
of one's society, consistent with democratic principles and procedures. The
question then demands to be asked: how are students to implement these values in
their adult lives when they are disrespected and patronized in their teenaged
present - their need to develop the ability to exercise their voice denied or silenced
by faint-hearted institutions and individuals? The inevitable result is disengaged
classrooms, where students assume their role as passive, alienated clerks
transcribing a rote, incomplete and, thus, necessarily far less meaningful narrative,
instead of as individuals who come to enjoy the exertion and development of their
intellectual faculties and gain the knowledge of their identity and political autonomy
as democratic citizens.

From a more analytical or theoretical perspective of this phenomenon,

however, what is most compelling is not the aversion to present conditions and
topics because they can be considered controversial, but rather in how particular
topics are categorized as controversial while others are not and what this says
about the prevailing ideology, and the power structures it serves, of a particular
time and place (Camicia, 2008). The ongoing controversy about sex education in
Ontario created because the new curriculum dares to address the needs of LGBT
students in its normalization of queer sexuality and acknowledgement of the
existence of trans people, and inflamed by a cynical press hungry to monetize
controversy-mongering click-throughs and ratings in slow news cycles, unavoidably
indicates a challenge to the prevailing ideology and power relations in society.

However, what is not considered controversial is equally if not more telling, as

indicated in the following passage, one that demands to be quoted in length:

Hegemony makes it difficult for a dominant ideology to acknowledge

ideologies that challenge the "taken-for-granted" (Gramsci, 1971). This
influences what is and what is not categorized as controversial. For
example, ideologies of national exceptionality and capitalism reflect
powerful interests that have been reflected in U.S. history textbooks
(Anyon, 1979). Capitalism is presented as non-controversial in many
textbooks, although some would say that capitalism is very controversial.
Similarly, social studies curriculum developers such as Harold Rugg
experienced relentless attacks when they designed curriculum that
questioned these powerful ideologies (Evans, 2007; Zimmerman, 2002).
Ruggs textbook series was the target of multiple attacks because he opened
the possibility for capitalism to be taught as a controversial issue at a time
when his critics wanted it to be taught as non-controversial or conventional
wisdom (Camicia, 2008).
Not only do these dynamics reveal the often hidden or unannounced power
structures in society, as well as a familiar if not customary rank hypocrisy, but
they clearly demonstrate how concerns about controversy serves the desire for
teachers, politicians, educational bureaucrats and administrators to avoid criticism,
drama, professional fallout and maintain the institutional taken-for-granted status
quo, unavoidably to the strong and direct detriment of the needs of students.
Avoiding the present is not shrewd, smart, though cynical, pragmatism serving as
a means to an end to achieve higher ideals, it instead severely perverts those
higher ideals by undermining efforts to begin to fulfill the lofty principles that are
purported to serve as a bedrock to the discipline of social studies teaching and
learning.

Citations

Aristotle (1997). Poetics. London, UK: Penguin Classics.

Camicia, S. P. (2008). Deciding What is a Controversial Issue: A Case Study of Social

Studies Curriculum Controversy. Theory and Research in Social Education, 36

(4), 298-316.

Gaddis, J. L. (1990). The Nature of Contemporary History. National Council for

History Education, 3-6.

Morton, T., & Seixas, P. (2013). The Big Six: Historical Thinking Concepts.
Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.
Osborne, K. (2008). The Teaching of History and Democratic Citizenship. The

Anthology of Social Studies: Volume 2, Issues and Strategies for Secondary

Teachers. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press, 3-14.

Swanson, H. (2010). Teaching Darwin: Contemporary Social Studies through

Controversial Issues. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 34(2), 153-174.

White, Hayden (1987). The Value of Narratively in the Representation of Reality.

The Content of the Form. London, UK: John Hopkins University Press.