View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by E-resource repository of the University of Latvia UNIVERSITY OF LATVIA FACULTY OF PEDAGOGY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND ART EFFECTS OF AUTHORITARIANISM ON THE TEACHING OF LATVIAN HISTORY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION Author: AIJA ABENS Advisor: Dr. paed. IVETA ĶESTERE RĪGA 2011 Acknowledgements I wish to express thanks to all the individuals for their cooperation and help in conducting this study. I also wish to thank my advisor, Iveta Ķestere, for her support and assistance in completing this dissertation. Special thanks go to my husband, Ēriks Mikelšteins, for his moral support. This dissertation received support from the European Social Fund Doctoral Study Support Program. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 1. THEORIES ON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY .............................................. 14 1.1. History Teaching and Politics ............................................................................. 14 1.2. History Didactics ................................................................................................. 23 2. HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF HISTORY TEACHING IN LATVIA ........... 27 2.1. Development of Historic Thinking in the Context of Education in Latvia ......... 27 2.2. Teacher Seminars in the Baltic Provinces and Development of History Teaching .................................................................................................................................... 28 3. HISTORY TEACHING IN INDEPENDENT LATVIA (1918-1940) ................. 38 3.1. History Teaching Under Parliamentary Rule (1918-1934) ................................. 38 3.2 History Teaching Under the Authoritarian Ulmanis Regime (1934-1940) ......... 52 4. HISTORY TEACHING UNDER THE SOVIET TOTALITARIAN REGIME (1940-1941; 1945-1991) ................................................................................................ 67 4.1. History Teaching in the Soviet Union ................................................................. 67 4.2. Theoretical Aspects of History Teaching in Soviet Latvia ................................. 73 4.3. Practice of History Teaching In Soviet Latvia .................................................. 107 4.3.1. Analysis of teacher interviews and responses ............................................. 109 4.3.2. Analysis of pupil interviews and responses ................................................ 148 5. HISTORY TEACHING IN INDEPENDENT DEMOCRATIC LATVIA (1991– 2008) ............................................................................................................................ 160 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 173 Outline of Outcomes .................................................................................................. 177 Suggestions for further research ............................................................................... 179 References ................................................................................................................... 182 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 200 1 INTRODUCTION School has traditionally been viewed as an instrument of socialization; part of the process is instilling a sense of belonging to society in general or a specific social group. Education has been at the centre of the process to ensure the development of a sense of belonging and understanding acceptable to the ruling order. One issue commonly agreed upon is the significance of the teaching of history, because it is inextricably tied not only to the past, but also gives understanding of the values of modern society and resulting assessment of those values. Knowledge of history gives understanding not only about the the development of society in general, but also about the status of each individual within society, which, in turn, facilitates the development of a sense of identy – an awareness of belonging to a social group and/or nation. Not only does teaching history help define national identity, but how history is taught can also determine how one observes events – does one pass judgment or search for explanations? Political agendas of the ruling elite have traditionally affected this subject. Political ideologies are the basis of government policy, and it is the ruling elite that determines how these policies are carried out. Political regimes have often rewritten history to validate their worldview, and how this is presented is a window revealing the belief system and ideals of the regime and what it expects its citizens should believe and accept. However, the ideology expounded in written text does not always correspond to reality experienced in society. Much has been written about Stalin and his total control of the educational system as a means of creating the Soviet citizen, and Nazi Germany and Hitler’s worldview is also well documented, but little has been written about the effect of these nationalistic dictatorships on those most affected by the education system – teachers and pupils. While authoritarian dictatorships took hold in almost every East European country during the interwar period, the focus of research has largely taken place on the political and ideological ties these right-wing movements had with Germany’s Nazism, and comparatively little is written about the nature of the dictatorships in the individual countries and their influence on education, local society, and life in general. This is in part due to the absorption into the USSR of several Eastern European countries and the sphere of influence by the Soviet Union and associated Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist philosophy exerted upon others that fell behind the Iron Curtain. Until 1991 documents and other primary sources relating to history teaching during the interwar years were difficult to access in Latvia and other countries behind 2 the Iron Curtain. Researchers in the West were also denied access to these documents. Many historians and teachers went into exile in 1944, and some continued to work as professional historians. The most notable of these exiles is Edgars Dunsdorfs (1904- 2002), but the work of Ādolfs Šilde (1907-1990) and other historians educated in the West, such as Andrievs Ezergailis, Andrejs Plakans, and Kārlis Kangeris, is important. The importance of their research is attested to by the creation of the Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies (AABS) that united exiled researchers from all three Baltic nations, as well as others interested in studying issues relating to the Baltic states. The inaccessibility of primary sources resulted in a lack of substantive critical research within exiled Latvian communities and Latvia about the education system during the interwar period. Thus, the effects of authoritarian regimes on the education system of nations such as Latvia that, although authoritarian in nature, were nevertheless national and independent, remained outside the realm of in-depth research. This holds true for members of other exiled Eastern European communities who also had severly limited access to materials before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and associated sphere of influence. Henry (1955) notes that the precise nature of citizenship as the dominating aim of education has been obscured by confusion over political ideals. The 20th century witnessed a struggle for political power first between varieties of autocratic-monarchic institutions, and later between fascistic and communistic, as well as between varieties of “democracy-laissez-faire individualism, benevolent paternal new-dealism, and a pragmatic liberalism” strongly supported by many professional leaders of teachers (p. 6). Citizenship education in democratic societies claims to prepare students for participation in the democratic process by learning about the process and participating in this process on a school level. However, patriotism, or nationalism, may be a better definer for history teaching in an authoritarian regime where saluting the flag, showing reverence to portraits of leaders, and other outward adulation replaces true citizenship practices. Nationalism is a term with a multitude of definitions, but is most commonly linked to modern history. For the purposes of my discussion I will cite Wiebe’s (2002) defintion: “Nationalism is the desire among people who believe that they share a common ancestry and a common destiny to live under their own government on land sacred to their history” (as cited in Agnew, 2004, p. 223). Gellner’s seminal work Nations and Nationalism (1983/2006) offers much discussion about the role of culture and education in nationalism and includes Wiebe’s territorial aspect along with 3 elements of cultural diversity, access to education, and power-holding. He highlights language as the medium of instruction and the cement of modern society in early stages of nationalism in education, but that it later became secondary to the role of the mass public education system in the creation of citizens (Smith, 1998, p. 35). It is precisely the combination