JOURNEY COMPANIONS: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL IDEAS
3.8 Theoretical ideas and the teaching of controversial issues
3.8.2 Theory and teachers’ positions of teaching controversial issues
131
1994) and the Genocide in 1994, it is interesting to use this theoretical framework to analyse the Rwandan case. However, I do not affirm that all post-conflict societies are alike. The analysis will see if there are similarities or differences between the Rwandan case and those proposed by Stradling (1984) and other scholars.
132
In line with the teaching the Genocide against the Tutsi and its related controversial issues in history in Rwandan secondary schools, Stradling’s theoretical ideas in conjunction with other scholars’ positions (Kitson & McCully, 2005; Leib, 1998;
Lockwood, 1996) helped me to design a theoretical framework used to understand Rwandan teachers’ experiences of teaching the Genocide against the Tutsi and its related controversial issues.
In the literature, I have mentioned other approaches used to teach the Genocide against the Tutsi and controversial issues. Their analysis aimed at clarifying these approaches and strategies as concepts used in this study so that they can be understood wherever they are used in my research. However, the controversial issues theory is used as a theoretical framework for data analysis. It can help to understand what appears to be simple matters of empirical investigation, how it can be complex and subtle on a deeper level (Klette, 2011). The following paragraphs explain different positions teachers adopt while teaching controversial issues. Some of them focus on the search of a safe classroom others on teacher centredness or building a harmonious society.
The balanced approach
The balanced approach or neutral impartiality (Leib, 1998) implies that the teacher should offer learners a range of alternative viewpoints on each issue (Stradling, 1984). But, the concept balance raises a number of difficult questions. How is balance to be achieved? (Carrington & Troyna, 1988). For instance, is it necessary to have a balanced approach to every single lesson? Is balanced teaching more important than balanced learning? Learners are not unfamiliar with controversial issues. So, any analyst can wonder if teachers ignore all of this extra-mural learning from the different places including even media which can offer a balanced variety of views or if they play ‘devil’s advocate’. Do they seek to present to learners with an alternative viewpoint to their own at all times (even if the teachers themselves are not committed to that view)? (Stradling, 1984). But, it is important to take into account learners’ starting point. What do they bring from the community and the media (Kitson & McCully, 2005)?
133
This balanced approach may present teachers with problems if some learners (and their parents) assume that the views presented by the teacher as devil’s advocate are their own. In a balanced approach, it is important to carefully consider viewpoints which are generally accepted within the broad society. In some circumstances, by presenting all points of view, however it can attract negative feelings from parents if some presented views are divisive or extreme (Stradling, 1984). For instance, in some countries such as South Africa, teachers use their own testimonies due to lack of resources to create new ideas of democracy, non-racialism and tolerance, reflecting the background of the learners (Dryden-Peterson & Siebörger, 2006). This flexibility of filling the gaps found in the curriculum is good. However, teachers can hide themselves behind that autonomy to propagate their ideas. Learners should get an opportunity to question the narrative and the teachers have to address both sides in the same way. It is called by Murphy and Gallagher (2009), creating balance or teaching both sides. The balanced approach was considered by Oulton et al. (2007) as a reasonable stance to adopt.
The balanced approach has some aspects of comparison with two categories of teachers’ roles described by Lockwood (1996). The first one is the Socratic cross- examiner. During learners’ presentations or discussions, the Socratic cross-examiner challenges learners’ assumptions and requests more supporting arguments for her/his evidence and raises alternative interpretations. The teacher’s role is compared to “that played in the courtroom by prosecution and defense attorneys as they question witnesses” (Lockwood, 1996, p.30). Secondly, the freedom given to learners in the balanced approach is close to teachers considered as nurturant facilitators. But, the nurturant facilitator has in addition the idea of a safe classroom as with the presiding judge so that learners freely express their ideas but with little challenge from the teacher.
Educators and learners of traumatized, conflict-ridden communities have much to learn from juxtaposing different stories of loss and mourning, without, however, effacing the specificity of each loss or making losses equivalent. In some countries such as Cyprus, mourning narratives officially used to come from one side of parties involved in the conflict. Despite some limitations, counter-narratives may be used pedagogically to enact a different set of social and political relations with the ‘Other’,
134
envisioning an alternative basis for solidarity and empathy. The collective understanding of mourning is an extraordinary socio-political and pedagogical act, forging new connections between those who suffered the traumas of war and death (Zembylas, 2009). The balanced approach is sometimes unhelpful because the teacher in some cases needs to make subjective judgements about which information to use. In this regard, the teacher can make learners aware of the bias and engage them critically about the evidence presented (Oulton, 2004). Even if considered as a reasonable approach, it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased when presenting both sides on an issue.
Procedural neutrality
The procedural neutrality, also known as neutral impartiality (Leib, 1998), involves adopting a strategy in which the teacher’s role is that of an impartial chairman of discussion groups. The teacher allows all learners to explain their ideas, treats their opinions constantly, provides evidence when necessary, and avoids the assertion of her/his own allegiances (Stradling, 1984). Neutrality is available to teachers. In a weak sense, the teacher is neutral due to his refrain from revealing his indubitable true beliefs shared by most sensible and intelligent people. In a strong sense, the teacher is neutral if he refrains from giving his substantive truth at all on a topic under debate (Cain, 1999). One advantage of procedural neutrality is the freedom given to learners to discuss their own ideas on issues (Oulton et al., 2007). In this regard, as a presiding judge, the teacher puts rules into place to guide the discussion (Lockwood, 1996).
The teachers occupy a position of authority over the learners and therefore any views they express will carry extra weight and influence on the children. At the present, there is little research evidence either to support or invalidate this assumption. However, as chairperson, the teacher cannot maintain a neutral position. For instance, when the teacher faces the unquestioning consensus from the entire class, she/he may challenge the class by representing the neglected view (Stradling, 1984). Somehow this approach can be compared to the Socratic cross- examiner from Lockwood typology (Lockwood, 1996). The Socratic cross-examiner challenges learners’ assumptions. With procedural neutrality, the teacher should not forget her/his role of guiding because sometimes, learners do not have enough skills
135
to detect for instance the denial of the Genocide or Holocaust. Therefore, he has to guide learners to right conclusions.
Stated commitment
Another teaching strategy is the stated commitment approach not very distant to teacher centredness (Wasserman, 2011), exclusive partiality (Leib, 1998) or determined advocate (Lockwood, 1996). The stated commitment is the stance where it is legitimate for the teacher to reveal her/his own commitments in the classroom.
Some teachers reject the possibility of maintaining an impartial line on substantive values. Their assumption is guided by the fear of losing credibility with learners if they do not reveal their position, particularly when asked. There are some issues on which a teacher cannot be impartial. As earlier stated, this is due to the fact that education in general and the history role in particular, is viewed not only as a vehicle of learning about the social world but also helping learners to develop strategies and skills for influencing social change (McCully, 2012). This often applies to attitudes towards race, sexism and sexual minorities.
The stated commitment can be compared to the determined advocate in Lockwood’s (1995) categorisation of a teacher’s role in teaching controversial issues. The determined advocate urges learners to adopt solutions or reach an agreement when discussing controversial issues. This advocacy can lead the teacher to convincing learners to adopt one answer or value judgement. A careful analysis can find a link with indoctrination. There is a view that a committed approach inhibits learners’ own opinions. Moreover, it prevents them from being aware of the contradictions in their thinking and to sort out fact from value-judgment (Stradling, 1984). In the teaching of the Genocide and its related controversial issues, this position can also help while discussing some topics such as the denial of the Genocide against the Tutsi or the Holocaust, where the teacher has to give some guidelines to the learners to be aware of the revisionism (Buhigiro, 2011; Caplan, 2009). The main potential problem to teaching controversial issues is the risk of indoctrination.
Indoctrination
The original meaning of indoctrination is pedagogical and positive because it comes from a Latin word, doctrina, meaning education, science or doctrine. The former
136
meaning of doctrine was acquired knowledge while the former meaning of the verb to indoctrinate was to instruct or provide someone with knowledge. This pedagogical meaning shifted to the political ideology and indoctrination acquired a negative meaning without losing the pedagogical meaning and it is understood as “the attempt to make somebody adhere to a doctrine, an opinion, a point of view” (Momanu, 2012, p.89). The Hyperdictionary.com adds to the meaning proposed by Momanu the idea of accepting doctrines uncritically
(http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/indoctrination).
Alongside the ignorance of criticisms, Stradling (1984) mentions that indoctrination is usually associated with attempts to teach something contrary or in the absence of any evidence at all. As a method of teaching, the teacher may indoctrinate when she/he uses authoritarian methods without taking into consideration the contents type and the teacher’s intentions. Some scholars such as White (1972), consider that teaching becomes indoctrinating when there is an intention to prevent the learners from thinking for themselves. But, as Momanu (2012) argues, it is not always possible to identify intentions. For instance, teachers who teach false or dangerous doctrine they believe in cannot be considered as indoctrinating if intentions are used to identify indoctrination. Similarly, teachers who make learners adhere to a doctrine by using attractive styles cannot be considered as indoctrinating.
Other aspects of indoctrination include:
- to teach harmful doctrines, for instance by considering certain groups as evil;
- to use education to support a partisan doctrine;
- to teach only the positive aspects of a doctrine;
- to counterfeit the facts in order to emphasize a doctrine, for instance, by inventing the statistics or providing false evidence. In some countries such as Canada, indoctrination brought the tendency to demonise opponents in public debates instead of using alternative views (Sears & Hughes, 2006).
- to teach something as scientific when in reality it is not. This is the case of scientific racism (Momanu, 2012).
The above examples show that indoctrination involves authority relationships. The teacher who indoctrinates exercises a power over learners. In this regard, Brudeau
137
as quoted by Momanu (2012) identifies three kind of authority. First, there is an anonymous authority generated by the group pressures over the behaviour of individuals. The second one is the personal authority borne by a person who can influence others and thirdly the functional authority consisting in the power invested in certain persons due to the position they have in the institution. It is why due to her/his authority, the teacher instils in learners a set of habits and beliefs that align with an ideology or a political agenda. Thus, learners are required to interpret the information they receive through the lens of the promoted ideology. They are obliged to comply or to adhere to a system of values presented by the teacher. Thus, indoctrination narrows the lens through which learners can view the world in a democratic teaching. Here, democratic teaching is not the prerogative of democracies as explained in the following paragraph.
In general, indoctrination has been observed in totalitarian regimes which revised educational policies and curricula to reflect the party ideology because indoctrination helps the regime to achieve its goals by bringing a common understanding. For instance, this avoidance of criticism was observed in the case of Nazi Germany (1933-1945) or the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin (1922-1953) where teachers were obliged not to question the ruling party objectives but rather helped learners understand them as an ideal to follow (Soulet, 1996). The prevalence of one ideology in totalitarian regimes does not mean absence of indoctrination in democracies. For instance at Texas in the United States of America a school board decided to eliminate the study of historic figures who propounded ideas they disliked (http://democraticeducation.org/index.php/blog/article/education or indoctrination/).
The previous comments show that in general indoctrination is characterised by two main aspects namely encouraging people not to criticise and often accepting universal ideas and secondly avoiding the use of evidence.
Some teachers indoctrinate learners because they consider it as a way of transmitting some values and content deemed difficult without challenging them.
Thus, by indoctrinating teachers do not consider that conflictual ideas enhance knowledge build-up and also errors may have a positive place in the teaching and learning process. Sometimes, this category of teachers does not take into consideration the previous knowledge of learners for scaffolding.
138 Avoidance
Avoiders are teachers who are aware of the existence of controversial issues but do not teach them in their classrooms (McCully & Kitson, 2005). Avoiders are aware that history deals with difficult issues affecting persons and the whole society. They know that some topics deal with emotions and difficult relationships. Thus, avoiders fear to talk about these issues for various reasons. For instance, as Philips wrote (2009, p.120) “Teaching about Al Qaida is seen at one level as being unpatriotic but on another level …teachers are [considered as] left wing and probably subversive”.
For not being considered as unpatriotic teachers omit the topic related to Al Qaida.
This position of avoidance does not appear in the categorisation done by Stradling (1984).
In teaching history, avoiders are guided by the main purpose of the subject history which is to equip the learners with skills to ‘do history’ meaning that they have also to understand the past (Barton & McCully, 2007). Within this perspective, teachers prevent learners from acquiring not only knowledge about controversial issues, but also skills and values they can gain by tackling controversial issues. Avoiders need training to gain more confidence so that they can deal with controversial issues.
Containment
Even if the containing position is not also mentioned by Stradling (1984), containers teach controversial issues but the focus on historical process limits the analysis of the issues. Thus, learners are not invited to engage actively with controversial issues. Teachers who are containers prefer to choose topics which are similar, far from home or parallel (McCully & Kitson, 2005). Teachers are convinced that by analysing distant issues, learners can acquire skills which will allow them to analyse close issues (Barton & McCully, 2007).
This approach of using issues far from home was employed by Facing History and Ourselves in South Africa, Northern Ireland and in Rwanda. The German case under the failure of democracy during the Weimar Republic presents different particular aspects such as the rise of a totalitarian state; the role of propaganda, conformity and obedience in turning people against each other. On the other hand, this German case illustrates stories of courage, compassion, and resistance. Thus participants
139
dealing with the Weimar Republic help to understand other cases which are too frightening to tackle directly by making connections (Freedman et al., 2008). This distancing can also be achieved by the use of fictional stories (Brett, 2006) in which careful questions have to be planned in order to enlighten understanding of related concepts for instance on community cohesion, diversity, compassion and conflict transformation (Cavet, 2007).
The advocate of remote issues fears serious tension that may raise in the classroom.
But, if the learners are considered mature enough by the teacher so that they can talk about the topic in a critical way, then the teacher can tackle controversial issues but without allowing them to push the discussion too far (Leib, 1998). This attitude prevents learners from presenting their personal argument which may be different from their teacher’s. Learners do not analyse deeply contemporary controversial issues rather they have scattered knowledge on them.
Peace-makers
Peace-making teachers are inclined to appease tension in class in post-conflict societies. They focus mostly on forgiveness and do not help learners criticise the origin of conflicts to avoid tensions in class. Their aim is to build a better future based on democratic principles. This case was observed for instance in KwaZulu-Natal schools where a teacher pointed out that in the post-Apartheid era, the time is for forgiveness because Apartheid has passed and the population is now free (Wassermann, 2011). This means that the peace-making teacher avoids engaging critically with past atrocities and would rather help learners to forget them so that they do not use past mistakes as a way of revenging against the wrongdoers.
The peace-making teacher aims at building peaceful relationships and this
involves emotional literacy, skills for good communication, cooperation and problem-solving, and positive attitudes towards themselves and others (e.g.
getting on with each other, learning about each other, understanding and respecting other people, in particular, from different backgrounds, as well as recognising something common to everybody (Harber & Sakade, 2009, p.175).
The issue of avoiding injustice of the past for peaceful relationships is what Buckley- Zistel (2006, p.133) called “chosen amnesia” in the case of Rwanda. Due to diverse experiences, when Rwandans are talking about the Genocide some aspects such as
140
the relationship between Hutu and Tutsi are eclipsed from the discourse essentially for local coexistence. In a school context, this chosen amnesia does not allow learners to challenge the social divisions that rendered the Genocide against the Tutsi possible in the first place and secondly hinders their transformation in the future.
Risk-takers
According to Kitson and McCully (2005), risk-takers are those teachers who fully embrace the social utility of history teaching. They link past and present. In addition, they teach contemporary controversial issues and are not afraid of pushing boundaries by even dealing with popular interpretations. By pushing boundaries, risk-takers want to raise learners’ awareness of the contemporary controversial issues. In fact, some topics are difficult to teach because authorities or decision makers have not included them in the curriculum. When the censored topics are integrated in the curriculum, teachers are reluctant and do a kind of self-censorship.
But, the risk-takers frankly tackle controversial issues and raise popular interpretations. The risk-takers’ intention is not persuasion but to tell the truth they know to others what Foucault called the parrhesiastic (Peters, 2003). On methodological aspects, risk-takers employ strategies to which they are not accustomed. In this regard, they can use strategies that do not follow traditional class structures in order to promote student learning (http://msu.edu/~taprog/thoughts/tt2.doc).
The challenge with risk-taking is related to the position of challenging some narratives or talking about them when some authorities or the society as a whole consider them as taboo (Evans, Avery & Pederson, 1999). This can impact negatively on learners’ and teachers’ personal security. Regarding teaching methodology, improvising new teaching strategies can fail if the teacher does not make a good preparation of activities so that learners can be responsive.
Devil’s advocate
The devil’s advocate traces its origin in the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Sixtus V in 1587 when a person was proposed in the process of becoming a saint. In this regard, “a promoter of the faith critically examined the life and miracles attributed